CODES

ADOPTS WITH AMENDMENTS:

International Building Code 2018 (IBC 2018)

Heads up: There are no suggested sections in this chapter.
Heads up: There are no amended sections in this chapter.

Chapter 31F [SLC] Marine Oil Terminals

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE — MATRIX ADOPTION TABLE
CHAPTER 31F — MARINE OIL TERMINALS

(Matrix Adoption Tables are nonregulatory, intended only as an aid to the code user.
See Chapter 1 for state agency authority and building applications.)
Adopting agency BSC BSC-CG SFM HCD DSA OSHPD BSCC DPH AGR DWR CEC CA SL SLC
1 2 1/AC AC SS SS/CC 1 1R 2 3 4 5
Adopt entire chapter X
Adopt entire chapter as
amended (amended
sections listed below)
Adopt only those sections
that are listed below
Chapter / Section
The state agency does not adopt sections identified with the following symbol:
The Office of the State Fire Marshal's adoption of this chapter or individual sections is applicable to structures regulated by other state agencies pursuant to Section 1.11.

Division 1

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

Section 3101F [SLC] Introduction

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3101F.1 Authority

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand oil spill prevention and response act of 1990 (act), as amended, authorizes the California State Lands Commission (SLC) to regulate marine terminals, herein referred to as marine oil terminals (MOTs), in order to protect public health, safety and the environment. The authority for this regulation is contained in Sections 8750 through 8760 of the California Public Resources Code. This act defines "oil" as any kind of petroleum, liquid hydrocarbons, or petroleum products or any fraction or residues thereof, including but not limited to, crude oil, bunker fuel, gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, oil sludge, oil refuse, oil mixed with waste, and liquid distillates from unprocessed natural gas. The provisions of this chapter regulate onshore and offshore MOTs as defined under this act, including marine terminals that transfer liquefied natural gas (LNG).

     The Marine Environmental Protection Division (Division) administers this code on behalf of the SLC.

3101F.2 Purpose

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The purpose of this code is to establish minimum engineering, inspection and maintenance criteria for MOTs in order to prevent oil spills and to protect public health, safety and the environment. This code does not specifically address terminal siting, systems onboard vessels, processing facilities, or operational requirements. Relevant provisions from existing codes, industry standards, recommended practices, regulations and guidelines have been incorporated directly or through reference, as part of this code.

     Where there are differing requirements between this code and/or references cited herein, the choice of application shall be subject to Division approval.

     In circumstances where technologies proposed for use are not covered by this code and/or references cited herein, prevention of oil spills and equivalent or better protection of the public health, safety and the environment must be demonstrated, and the choice of application shall be subject to Division approval.

3101F.3 Applicability

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The provisions of this chapter are applicable to the evaluation of existing MOTs and design of new MOTs in California. Each provision is classified as New (N), Existing (E), or Both (N/E) and shall be applied accordingly. If no classification is indicated, the classification shall be considered to be (N/E).

     Existing (E) requirements apply to MOTs that were in operation on the date this code became effective (February 6, 2006). For these MOTs, equivalent or in-kind replacement of existing equipment, short pipeline sections, or minor modification of existing components shall also be subject to the existing (E) requirements.

     New (N) requirements apply to:
  1. A MOT or berthing system (Subsection 3102F.1.3) that commences or recommences operation with a new or modified operations manual after adoption of this code.
  2. Addition of new structural components or systems at an existing MOT that are structurally independent of existing components or systems.
  3. Addition of new (nonreplacement) equipment, piping, pipelines, components or systems to an existing MOT.
  4. Major repairs or substantially modified in-place systems.
  5. Any associated major installations or modifications.

3101F.4 Overview

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This Code ensures that a MOT can be safely operated within its inherent structural and equipment-related constraints.

     Section 3102F defines minimum requirements for audit, inspection and evaluation of the structural, electrical and mechanical systems on a prescribed periodic basis, or following a significant, potentially damage-causing event.

     Section 3103F, 3104F and 3107F provide criteria for structural loading, deformation and performance-based evaluation considering earthquake, wind, wave, current, seiche and tsunami effects.

     Section 3105F provides requirements for the safe mooring and berthing of tank vessels and barges.

     Section 3106F describes requirements for geotechnical hazards and foundation analyses, including consideration of slope stability and soil failure.

     Section 3108F provides requirements for fire prevention, detection and suppression including appropriate water and foam volumes.

     Sections 3109F through 3111F provide requirements for piping/ pipelines, mechanical and electrical equipment and electrical systems.

     Section 3112F provides requirements specific to marine terminals that transfer LNG.

     Generally, English units are typically prescribed herein; however, System International (SI) units are utilized in Section 3112F and in many of the references.

3101F.5 Spill Prevention

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Each MOT shall utilize up-to-date Risk and Hazards Analysis results developed per CCPS "Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures" [1.1] and [1.2], to identify the hazards associated with operations at the MOT, including operator error, the use of the facility by various types of vessels (e.g. multi-use transfer operations), equipment failure, and external events likely to cause an oil spill.

     If there are changes made to the built MOT or subsequently any new hazard is identified with significant impact, the updated Risk and Hazards Analysis shall be used.

     Assessed magnitude of potential oil spill releases and consequences shall be mitigated by implementing appropriate designs using best achievable technologies, subject to Division approval. The residual risks are addressed by operational and administrative means via 2 CCR 2385 [1.3].

     Risk and Hazards Analysis requirements specific to marine terminals that transfer LNG are discussed in Section 3112F.2.

3101F.6 Oil Spill Exposure Classification

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Each MOT shall be categorized into one of three oil spill exposure classifications (high, medium or low) as shown in Table 31F-1-1, based on all of the following:
  1. Exposed total volume of oil (VT) during transfer.
  2. Maximum number of oil transfer operations per berthing system (defined in Section 3102F.1.3) per year.
  3. Maximum vessel size (DWT capacity) that may call at the MOT.
     During a pipeline leak, a quantity of oil is assumed to spill at the maximum cargo flow rate until the ESD is fully effective. The total volume (VT) of potential exposed oil is equal to the sum of the stored and flowing volumes (Vs + VF) at the MOT, prior to the emergency shutdown (ESD) system(s) stopping the flow of oil. All potential spill scenarios shall be evaluated and the governing scenario clearly identified. The stored volume (Vs) is the non-flowing oil. The flowing volume (VF) shall be calculated as follows:

VF = QC × Δt × (1/3,600) (1-1)

where:

VF = Flowing volume of potential exposed oil [bbl]
QC = Maximum cargo transfer rate [bbl/hr]
Δt = For MOTs that first transferred oil on or before January 1, 2017, Δt may be taken as (ESD time, 30 or 60 seconds). For MOTs that first transfer oil after January 1, 2017, Δt shall be taken as ((ESD closure time) + (time required to activate ESD)) [seconds].


     If spill reduction strategies, (e.g. pipeline segmentation devices, system flexibility and spill containment devices) are adopted, such that the maximum volume of exposed oil during transfer is less than 1,200 barrels, the spill classification of the facility may be lowered.

     This classification does not apply to marine terminals that transfer LNG.

TABLE 31F-1-1
MOT OIL SPILL EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION
SPILL CLASSIFICATION EXPOSED TOTAL VOLUME OF OIL (VT) (bbls) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TRANSFERS PER BERTHING SYSTEM PER YEAR MAXIMUM VESSEL SIZE (DWT×1,000)
High ≥ 1200 N.A. N.A.
Moderate < 1200 ≥ 90 ≥ 30
Low < 1200 < 90 < 30

3101F.7 Management of Change

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Whenever physical changes are made to the built MOT that significantly impact operations, a Management of Change (MOC) process shall be followed per Section 6.6 of API Standard 2610 [1.4].

3101F.8 Review Requirements

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3101F.8.1 Quality Assurance

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
All audits, inspections, engineering analyses or design shall be reviewed by a professional having similar or higher qualifications as the person who performed the work, to ensure quality assurance. This review may be performed in-house, and shall include a concluding statement of compliance with this code.

3101F.8.2 Peer Review

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The Division may require peer review of advanced engineering analyses and designs, including, but not limited to, nonlinear dynamic structural analyses, alternative lateral force procedures, complex geotechnical evaluations, subsea pipeline analyses and designs, and fatigue analyses. Peer review shall be performed by an external independent source to maintain the integrity of the process.

     The peer reviewer(s) and their affiliated organization shall have no other involvement in the project, except in a review capacity. The peer reviewer(s) shall be a California registered engineer(s) familiar with regulations governing the work and have technical expertise in the subject matter to a degree of at least that needed for the original work. The peer reviewer(s)' credentials shall be presented to the Division for approval prior to commencement of the review.

     Upon completion of the review process, the peer reviewer(s) shall submit a written report directly to the Division that covers all aspects of the review process, including, but not limited to:
  1. Scope, extent and limitations of the review.
  2. Status of the documents reviewed at each stage (i.e. revision number and date).
  3. Findings.
  4. Recommended corrective actions and resolutions, if necessary.
  5. Conclusions.
  6. Certification by the peer reviewer(s), including whether or not the final reviewed work meets the requirements of this code.
  7. Formal documentation of important peer review correspondence, including requests for information and written responses.
     The owner and operator shall cooperate in the review process, but shall not influence the peer review. If the original work requires modification after completion of the peer review, the final analyses and designs shall be submitted to the Division.

3101F.8.3 Division Review

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The following will be subject to review for compliance with this code by the Division or its authorized representative(s):
  1. Any audit, inspection, analysis or evaluation of MOTs.
  2. Any significant change, modification or re-design of a structural, mooring, fire, piping/pipelines, mechanical or electrical system at an MOT, prior to use or reuse.
  3. Engineering analysis and design for any new MOT prior to construction. Also see Section 3102F.3.3.1.
  4. Construction inspection team and the construction inspection report(s).

3101F.9 Alternatives

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
In special circumstances where certain requirements of these standards cannot be met, alternatives that provide an equal or better protection of the public health, safety and the environment shall be subject to Division Chief approval with concurrence of the Division's lead engineer in responsible charge.

3101F.10 Symbols

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
DWT = Dead weight tonnage
QC = Maximum cargo transfer rate [bbl/hr]
VF = Flowing volume of potential exposed oil [bbl]
VS = Stored volume of potential exposed oil [bbl]
VT = Total volume of potential exposed oil [bbl]
Δt = ESD closure and activation time (if applicable) [sec]

3101F.11 References

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
[1.1]Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 2008, "Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures", 3rd ed., New York.

[1.2]California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 1, Chapter 3, Oil Spill Contingency Plans (14 CCR 815.01 through 818.03), Section 817.02(c)(1) — Risk and Hazard Analysis.

[1.3]California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 5 — Marine Terminals Inspection and Monitoring (2 CCR 2300 et seq.)

[1.4]American Petroleum Institute (API), 2005, API Standard 2610 (R2010), "Design, Construction, Operation, Maintenance, and Inspection of Terminal and Tank Facilities," 2nd ed., Washington, D.C.

Authority: Sections 8750 through 8760, Public Resources Code.

Reference: Sections 8750, 8751, 8755 and 8757, Public Resources Code. Section 8670.28(a)(7), Government Code.

Division 2

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

Section 3102F Audit and Inspection

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3102F.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3102F.1.1 Purpose

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Section 3102F defines minimum requirements for audit, inspection, and evaluation of the structural, mechanical and electrical components and systems.

3102F.1.2 Audit and Inspections Types

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The audit and inspections described in this Chapter (31F) are:
  1. Annual compliance inspection
  2. Audits
  3. Post-event inspection
     Each has a distinct purpose and is conducted either at a defined interval (see Table 31F-2-1 and Section 3102F.3.3), for a significant change in operations, or as a result of a significant, potentially damage-causing event. In the time between audits and inspections, operators are expected to conduct periodic walk-down examinations of the MOT to detect potentially unsafe conditions.

TABLE 31F-2-1
MAXIMUM INTERVAL BETWEEN UNDERWATER INSPECTIONS (YEARS)1
INSPECTION CONDITION ASSESSMENT RATING (ICAR)6 CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL CHANNEL BOTTOM OR MUDLINE—SCOUR4
Unwrapped Timber or Unprotected Steel (no coating or cathodic protection)4 Concrete, Wrapped Timber, Protected Steel or Composite Materials (FRP, plastic, etc.)4
Benign2 Environment Aggressive3 Environment Benign2 Environment Aggressive3 Environment Benign2 Environment Aggressive3 Environment
6 (Good) 6 4 6 5 6 5
5 (Satisfactory) 6 4 6 5 6 5
4 (Fair) 5 3 5 4 6 5
3 (Poor) 4 3 5 4 6 5
2 (Serious) 2 1 2 2 2 2
1 (Critical) N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5
  1. The maximum interval between Underwater Inspections shall be changed as appropriate, with the approval of the Division, based on the extent of deterioration observed on a structure, the rate of further anticipated deterioration or other factors.
  2. Benign environments include fresh water and maximum current velocities less than 1.5 knots for the majority of the days in a calendar year.
  3. Aggressive environments include brackish or salt water, polluted water, or waters with current velocities greater than 1.5 knots for the majority of the days in the calendar year.
  4. For most structures, two maximum intervals will be shown in this table, one for the assessment of construction material (timber, concrete, steel, etc.) and one for scour (last 2 columns). The shorter interval of the two should dictate the maximum interval used.
  5. MOTs rated "Critical" will not be operational; and Emergency Action shall be required in accordance with Table 31F-2-6.
  6. ICARs shall be assigned in accordance with Table 31F-2-4.


TABLE 31F-2-4
ASSESSMENT RATINGS
RATING DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE(S) AND/OR SYSTEMS4
OSAR1 and SSAR2 ICAR3
6 Good The capacity of the structure or system meets the requirements of this standard.

The structure or system should be considered fit-for-purpose. No repairs or upgrades are required.
No problems or only minor problems noted. Structural elements may show very minor deterioration, but no overstressing observed.

No repairs or upgrades are required.
5 Satisfactory The capacity of the structure or system meets the requirements of this standard.

The structure or system should be considered fit-for-purpose. No repairs or upgrades are required.
Limited minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed, but no overstressing observed.

No repairs or upgrades are required.
4 Fair The capacity of the structure or system is no more than 15 percent below the requirements of this standard, as determined from an engineering evaluation.

The structure or system should be considered as marginal. Repair and/or upgrade measures may be required to remain operational. Facility may remain operational, provided a plan and schedule for remedial action is presented to and accepted by the Division.
All primary structural elements are sound, but minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed. Localized areas of moderate to advanced deterioration may be present, but do not significantly reduce the load bearing capacity of the structure.

Repair and/or upgrade measures may be required to remain operational. Facility may remain operational, provided a plan and schedule for remedial action is presented to and accepted by the Division.
3 Poor The capacity of the structure or system is no more than 25 percent below the requirements of this standard, as determined from an engineering evaluation.

The structure or system is not fit-for-purpose. Repair and/or upgrade measures may be required to remain operational. The facility may be allowed to remain operational on a restricted or contingency basis until the deficiencies are corrected, provided a plan and schedule for such work is presented to and accepted by the Division.
Advanced deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the structure, but does not significantly reduce the load bearing capacity of the structure.

Repair and/or upgrade measures may be required to remain operational. The facility may be allowed to remain operational on a restricted or contingency basis until the deficiencies are corrected, provided a plan and schedule for such work is presented to and accepted by the Division.
2 Serious The capacity of the structure or system is more than 25 percent below the requirements of this standard, as determined from an engineering evaluation.

The structure or system is not fit-for-purpose. Repairs and/or upgrade measures may be required to remain operational. The facility may be allowed to remain operational on a restricted basis until the deficiencies are corrected, provided a plan and schedule for such work is presented to and accepted by the Division.
Advanced deterioration, overstressing or breakage may have significantly affected the load bearing capacity of primary structural components. Local failures are possible and loading restrictions may be necessary.

Repairs and/or upgrade measures may be required to remain operational. The facility may be allowed to remain operational on a restricted basis until the deficiencies are corrected, provided a plan and schedule for such work is presented to and accepted by the Division.
1 Critical The capacity of the structure or system is critically deficient relative to the requirements of this standard.

The structure or system is not fit-for-purpose. The facility shall cease operations until deficiencies are corrected and accepted by the Division.
Very advanced deterioration, overstressing or breakage has resulted in localized failure(s) of primary structural components. More widespread failures are possible or likely to occur and load restrictions should be implemented as necessary.

The facility shall cease operations until deficiencies are corrected and accepted by the Division.
  1. OSAR = Operational Structural Assessment Ratings
  2. SSAR = Seismic Structural Assessment Ratings
  3. ICAR = Inspection Condition Assessment Ratings [2.2]; Ratings shall be assigned comparing the observed condition to the as-built condition.
  4. Structural, mooring or berthing systems


TABLE 31F-2-6
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS [2.2]
FOLLOW-UP ACTION DESCRIPTION
Emergency Action Specified whenever a condition which poses an immediate threat to public health, safety or the environment is observed. Emergency Actions may consist of barricading or closing all or portions of the berthing system, limiting vessel size, placing load restrictions, evacuating product lines, ceasing transfer operations, etc.
Engineering Evaluation Specified whenever damage or deficiencies are observed which require further investigation or evaluation to determine appropriate follow-up actions.
Repair Design Inspection Specified whenever damage or defects requiring repair are observed. The repair design inspection is performed to the level of detail necessary to prepare appropriate repair plans, specifications and estimates.
Upgrade Design and Implementation Specified whenever the system requires upgrading in order to comply with the requirements of these standards and current applicable codes.
Special Inspection Typically specified to determine the cause or significance of nontypical deterioration, usually prior to designing repairs. Special testing, laboratory analysis, monitoring or investigation using nonstandard equipment or techniques are typically required.
Develop and Implement Repair Plans Specified when the Repair Design Inspection and required Special Inspections have been completed. Indicates that the structure is ready to have repair plans prepared and implemented.
No Action Specified when no further action is necessary until the next scheduled audit or inspection.

3102F.1.3 Berthing Systems

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For the purpose of assigning structural ratings and documenting the condition of mechanical and electrical systems, an MOT shall be divided into independent "berthing systems." A berthing system consists of the wharf and supporting structure, mechanical and electrical components that serve the berth and pipeline systems.

     For example, a MOT consisting of wharves with three berths adjacent to the shoreline could contain three independent "berthing systems" if the piping does not route through adjacent berths. Therefore, a significant defect that would restrict the operation of one berth would have no impact on the other two berths. Conversely, if a T-head Pier, with multiple berths sharing a trestle that supports all piping to the shoreline, had a significant deficiency on the common trestle, the operation of all berths could be adversely impacted. This configuration is classified as a single berthing system.

     The physical boundaries of a berthing system may exclude unused sections of a structure. Excluded sections must be physically isolated from the berthing system. Expansion joints may provide this isolation.

3102F.1.4 Records

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
All MOTs shall have records reflecting current, "as-built" conditions for all berthing systems. Records shall include, but not be limited to modifications and/or replacement of structural components, electrical or mechanical equipment or relevant operational changes, new construction including design drawings, calculations, engineering analyses, soil borings, equipment manuals, specifications, shop drawings, technical and maintenance manuals and documents.

     Chronological records and reports of annual inspections, audits and post-event inspections and documentation of equipment or structural changes shall be maintained.

     Records shall be indexed and be readily accessible to the Division (see 2 CCR Section 2320 (c) (2)) [2.1].

3102F.1.5 Baseline Assessment

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
If "as-built" or subsequent modification drawings are not available, incomplete or inaccurate, a baseline inspection is required to gather data in sufficient detail for adequate evaluation.

     The level of detail required shall be such that structural member sizes, connection and reinforcing details are documented, if required in the structural analysis. In addition, the strength and/or ductility characteristics of construction materials shall be determined, as appropriate. Nondestructive testing, partially destructive testing and/or laboratory testing methods may be used.

     All fire, piping, mechanical and electrical systems shall be documented as to location, capacity, operating limits and physical conditions in the equipment layout diagram(s).

3102F.2 Annual Compliance Inspection

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The Division may carry out annual inspections to determine the compliance status of the MOT with this code, based on the terminal's audit and inspection findings and action plan implementation (see Section 3102F.3.9).

     These inspections may include a visual and tactile assessment of structural, mechanical and electrical systems of the topside and underside areas of the dock, including the splash zone. Subject to operating procedures, a boat shall be provided to facilitate the inspection of the dock undersides and piles down to the splash zone.

3102F.3 Audits

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3102F.3.1 Objective

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The objective of the audit is to review structural, mechanical and electrical systems on a prescribed periodic basis to verify that each berthing system is fit for its specific defined purpose. The audit includes above water and underwater inspections, engineering evaluation, documentation and recommended follow- up actions.

3102F.3.2 Overview

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The audit shall include above water and underwater inspections, and structural, electrical and mechanical systems evaluations, with supporting documentation, drawings and follow-up actions. Structural systems shall include seismic, operational, mooring, berthing and geotechnical considerations. Mechanical systems shall include fire, piping/pipelines and mechanical equipment considerations. The audit is performed by a multidisciplinary team of engineers, qualified inspectors and may include Division representatives.

     The above water inspection involves an examination of all structural, mechanical and electrical components above the waterline. Structural defects and their severity shall be documented, but the exact size and location of each deficiency is typically not required.

     The underwater inspection involves an examination of all structural, mechanical and electrical components below the waterline. A rational and representative underwater sampling of piles may be acceptable with Division approval, for cases of limited visibility, heavy marine growth, restricted inspection times because of environmental factors (currents, water temperatures, etc.) or a very large number of piles.

     Global operational structural assessment rating(s) (OSAR), global seismic structural assessment rating(s) (SSAR) and global inspection condition assessment rating(s) (ICAR) shall be assigned to each structure and overall berthing system, where appropriate (Table 31F-2-4).

     Remedial action priorities (RAP) shall be assigned for component deficiencies (Table 31F-2-5). Recommendations for remediation and/or upgrading shall be prescribed as necessary.

     An audit is not considered complete until the audit report is received (in electronic and hard copy formats) by the Division.

TABLE 31F-2-5
COMPONENT DEFICIENCY REMEDIAL ACTION PRIORITIES (RAP)
REMEDIAL PRIORITIES DESCRIPTION AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
P1 Specified whenever a condition that poses an immediate threat to public health, safety or the environment is observed. Emergency Actions may consist of barricading or closing all or portions of the berthing system, evacuating product lines and ceasing transfer operations.

The berthing system is not fit-for-purpose. Immediate remedial actions are required prior to the continuance of normal operations.
P2 Specified whenever defects or deficiencies pose a potential threat to public health, safety and the environment. Actions may consist of limiting or restricting operations until remedial measures have been completed.

The berthing system is not fit-for-purpose. This priority requires investigation, evaluation and urgent action.
P3 Specified whenever systems require upgrading in order to comply with the requirement of these standards or current applicable codes. These deficiencies do not require emergency or urgent actions.

The MOT may have limitations placed on its operational status.
P4 Specified whenever damage or defects requiring repair are observed.

The berthing system is fit-for-purpose. Repair can be performed during normal maintenance cycles, but not to exceed one year.
R Recommended action is a good engineering/maintenance practice, but not required by these standards.

The berthing system is fit-for-purpose.

3102F.3.3 Schedule

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3102F.3.3.1 Initial Audit

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For a new MOT or new berthing system(s), the initial audit of the "as-built" systems(s) shall be performed prior to commencement of operations.

3102F.3.3.2 Subsequent Audits

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A subsequent audit of each terminal shall be completed concurrently with the inspections (see Section 3102F.3.5). The audit team leader shall recommend either: (1) a default subsequent audit interval of 4 years, or (2) an alternate interval, based on assessments of the structural, mechanical and electrical systems, and consideration of:
  1. The extent of the latest deterioration and/or disrepair,
  2. The rate of future anticipated deterioration and/or disrepair,
  3. The underwater inspection guidance provided in Table 31F-2-1, and
  4. Other specified factors.
     Based on independent assessment of these factors, the Division may accept the audit team leader's recommendation or require a different subsequent audit interval.

     If there are no changes in the defined purpose (see Section 3102F.3.6.1) of the berthing system(s), relevant prior analyses may be referenced. However, if there is a significant change in the operations or condition of berthing system(s), a new analysis may be required.

     The Division may require an audit, inspection or supplemental evaluations to justify changes in the use of the berthing system(s).

3102F.3.4 Audit Team

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3102F.3.4.1 Project Manager

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The audit shall be conducted by a multidisciplinary team under the direction of a project manager representing the MOT. The project manager shall have specific knowledge of the MOT and may serve other roles on the audit team.

3102F.3.4.2 Audit Team Leader

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The audit team leader shall lead the on-site audit team and shall be responsible for directing field activities, including the inspection of all structural, mechanical and electrical systems. The team leader shall be a California registered civil or structural engineer and may serve other roles on the audit team.

3102F.3.4.3 Structural Inspection Team

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The structural inspection shall be conducted under the direction of a registered civil or structural engineer.

     All members of the structural inspection team shall be graduates of a 4-year civil/structural engineering, or closely related (ocean/coastal) engineering curriculum, and shall have been certified as an Engineer-in-Training; or shall be technicians who have completed a course of study in structural inspections. The minimum acceptable course in structural inspections shall include 80 hours of instruction specifically related to structural inspection, followed by successful completion of a comprehensive examination. An example of an acceptable course is the U.S. Department of Transportation's "Safety Inspection of In- Service Bridges." Certification as a Level IV Bridge Inspector by the National Institute of Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) shall also be acceptable [2.2].

     For underwater inspections, the registered civil or structural engineer directing the underwater structural inspection shall also be a commercially trained diver or equivalent and shall actively participate in the inspection, by personally conducting a minimum of 25 percent of the underwater examination [2.2].

     Each underwater team member shall also be a commercially trained diver, or equivalent. Divers performing manual tasks such as cleaning or supporting the diving operation, but not conducting or reporting on inspections, may have lesser technical qualifications [2.2].

3102F.3.4.4 Structural Analyst

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A California registered civil or structural engineer shall be in responsible charge of the structural evaluations.

3102F.3.4.5 Electrical Inspection Team

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A registered electrical engineer shall direct the on-site team performing the inspection and evaluation of electrical components and systems.

3102F.3.4.6 Mechanical Inspection Team

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A registered engineer shall direct the on-site team performing the inspection and evaluation of piping/pipeline, mechanical and fire components and systems, except the Fire Protection Assessment in accordance with Section 3108F.2.2.

3102F.3.4.7 Corrosion Specialist

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The corrosion specialist shall be a chemical engineer, corrosion engineer, chemist or other professional with expertise in the types and causes of corrosion, and available means to prevent, monitor and mitigate associated damage. The specialist shall perform the corrosion assessment (Section 3102F.3.6.5) and may be directly involved in corrosion inspection (Section 3102F.3.5.4).

3102F.3.4.8 Geotechnical Analyst

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A California registered civil engineer with a California authorization as a geotechnical engineer shall perform the geotechnical evaluation required for the audit and all other geotechnical evaluations.

3102F.3.4.9 Division Representation

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The Division representative(s) may participate in any audit or inspection as observer(s). The Division shall be notified in advance of audit-related inspections.

3102F.3.5 Scope of Inspections

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3102F.3.5.1 Structural Inspections

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3102F.3.5.1.1 Above Water Structural Inspection

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The above water inspection shall include all accessible components above and below deck that are reachable without the need for excavation or extensive removal of materials that may impair visual inspection. The above water inspection shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
  1. Piles
  2. Pile caps
  3. Beams
  4. Deck soffit
  5. Bracing
  6. Retaining walls and bulkheads
  7. Connections
  8. Seawalls
  9. Slope protection
  10. Deck topsides and curbing
  11. Expansion joints
  12. Fender system components
  13. Dolphins and deadmen
  14. Mooring points and hardware
  15. Navigation aids
  16. Platforms, ladders, stairs, handrails and gangways
  17. Backfill (sinkholes/differential settlement)

3102F.3.5.1.2 Underwater Structural Inspection

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The underwater inspection shall include all components below deck to the mudline, including the slope and slope protection, in areas immediately surrounding the MOT. The water depth at the berth(s) shall be evaluated, verifying the maximum or loaded draft specified in the MOT's Operations Manual (2 CCR 2385) [2.1].

The underwater structural inspection shall include the Level I, II and III inspection efforts, as shown in Tables 31F-2-2 and 31F-2-3. The underwater inspection levels of effort are described below, per [2.2]:

     Level I—Includes a close visual examination, or a tactile examination using large sweeping motions of the hands where visibility is limited. Although the Level I effort is often referred to as a "swim-by" inspection, it must be detailed enough to detect obvious major damage or deterioration due to overstress or other severe deterioration. It should confirm the continuity of the full length of all members and detect undermining or exposure of normally buried elements. A Level I effort may also include limited probing of the substructure and adjacent channel bottom.

     Level II—A detailed inspection which requires marine growth removal from a representative sampling of components within the structure. For piles, a 12-inch high band shall be cleaned at designated locations, generally near the low waterline, at the mudline, and midway between the low waterline and the mudline. On a rectangular pile, the marine growth removal should include at least three sides; on an octagon pile, at least six sides; on a round pile, at least three-fourths of the perimeter. On large diameter piles, 3 ft or greater, marine growth removal should be effected on 1 ft by 1 ft areas at four locations approximately equally spaced around the perimeter, at each elevation. On large solid faced elements such as retaining structures, marine growth removal should be effected on 1 ft by 1 ft areas at the three specified elevations. The inspection should also focus on typical areas of weakness, such as attachment points and welds. The Level II effort is intended to detect and identify damaged and deteriorated areas that may be hidden by surface biofouling. The thoroughness of marine growth removal should be governed by what is necessary to discern the condition of the underlying structural material. Removal of all biofouling staining is generally not required.

     Level III—A detailed inspection typically involving nondestructive or partially-destructive testing, conducted to detect hidden or interior damage, or to evaluate material homogeneity. Level III testing is generally limited to key structural areas, areas which are suspect or areas which may be representative of the underwater structure.

TABLE 31F-2-2
UNDERWATER INSPECTION LEVELS OF EFFORT [2.2]
LEVEL PURPOSE DETECTABLE DEFECTS
Steel Concrete Timber Composite
I General visual/tactile inspection to confirm asbuilt condition and detect severe damage Extensive corrosion, holes

Severe mechanical damage
Major spalling and cracking

Severe reinforcement corrosion Broken piles
Major loss of section

Broken piles and bracings

Severe abrasion or marine borer attack
Permanent deformation

Broken piles

Major cracking or mechanical damage
II To detect surface defects normally obscured by marine growth Moderate mechanical damage

Corrosion pitting and loss of section
Surface cracking and spalling
Rust staining

Exposed reinforcing steel and/or prestressing strands
External pile damage due to
marine borers

Splintered piles

Loss of bolts and fasteners
Rot or insect infestation
Cracking

Delamination

Material degradation
III To detect hidden or interior damage, evaluate
loss of cross-sectional area, or evaluate material homogeneity
Thickness of material

Electrical potentials for cathodic protection
Location of reinforcing steel

Beginning of corrosion of
reinforcing steel

Internal voids

Change in material strength
Internal damage due to marine borers (internal voids)

Decrease in material strength
N/A


TABLE 31F-2-3
SCOPE OF UNDERWATER INSPECTION [2.2]
LEVEL SAMPLE SIZE AND METHODOLOGY1
Steel Concrete Timber Composite Slope Protection, Channel Bottom or Mudline-Scour
Piles Bulkheads/
Retaining Walls
Piles Bulkheads/
Retaining Walls
Piles Bulkheads/
Retaining Walls
Piles
I Sample Size: Method: 100%
Visual/Tactile
100%
Visual/Tactile
100%
Visual/Tactile
100%
Visual/Tactile
100%
Visual/Tactile
100%
Visual/Tactile
100%
Visual/Tactile
100%
Visual/Tactile
II Sample Size:
Method:
10%

Visual: Removal of marine growth in 3 bands
Every 100 LF

Visual: Removal of marine growth in 1 SF areas
10%

Visual: Removal of marine growth in 3 bands
Every 100 LF

Visual: Removal of marine growth in 1 SF areas
10%

Visual:
Removal of
marine growth
on 3 bands

Measurement:
Remaining
diameter
Every 50 LF

Visual:
Removal of
marine growth
in 1 SF areas
10%
Visual:
Removal of
marine growth
in 3 bands
As necessary
III Sample Size:
Method:
5%

Remaining thickness
measurement;
electrical potential
measurement;
corrosion profiling as necessary
Every 200 LF

Remaining thickness
measurement;
electrical potential
measurement;
corrosion profiling as necessary
0%

N/A
0%

N/A
5%

Internal marine borer infestation
evaluation
Every 100 LF

Internal marine
borer infestation
evaluation
0% Sonar imaging as necessary
  1. The minimum inspection sampling size for small structures shall include at least two components.
LF = Linear Feet; SF = Square Feet; N/A = Not Applicable

3102F.3.5.2 Special Inspection Considerations

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3102F.3.5.2.1 Coated Components

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For coated steel components, Level I and Level II efforts should focus on the evaluation of the integrity and effectiveness of the coating. The piles should be inspected without damaging the coating. Level III efforts should include ultrasonic thickness measurements without removal of the coating, where feasible.

3102F.3.5.2.2 Encased Components

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For steel, concrete or timber components that have been encased, the Level I and II efforts should focus on the evaluation of the integrity of the encasement. If evidence of significant damage to the encasement is present, or if evidence of significant deterioration of the underlying component is present, then the damage evaluation should consider whether the encasement was provided for protection and/or structural capacity. Encasements should not typically be removed for an audit.

     For encasements on which the formwork has been left in place, the inspection should focus on the integrity of the encasement, not the formwork. Level I and Level II efforts in such cases should concentrate on the top and bottom of the encasement. For concrete components, if deterioration, loss of bonding, or other significant problems with the encasement are suspected, it may be necessary to conduct a special inspection, including coring of the encasement and laboratory evaluation of the materials.

3102F.3.5.2.3 Wrapped Components

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For steel, concrete or timber components that have been wrapped, the Level I and II efforts should focus on the evaluation of the integrity of the wrap. Since the effectiveness of a wrap may be compromised by removal, and since the removal and re-installation of wraps is time-consuming, it should not be routinely done. However, if evidence of significant damage exists, or if the effectiveness of the wraps is in question, then samples should be removed to facilitate the inspection and evaluation. The samples may be limited to particular zones or portions of members if damage is suspected, based on the physical evidence of potential problems. A minimum sample size of three members should be used. A five-percent sample size, up to 30 total members, may be adequate as an upper limit.

     For wrapped timber components, Level III efforts should consist of removal of the wraps from a representative sample of components in order to evaluate the condition of the timber beneath the wrap. The sample may be limited to particular zones or portions of the members if damage is suspected (e.g., at the mudline/ bottom of wrap or in the tidal zone). The sample size should be determined based on the physical evidence of potential problems and the aggressiveness of the environment. A minimum sample size of three members should be used. A five-percent sample size, up to 30 total members, may be adequate as an upper limit.

3102F.3.5.3 Mechanical and Electrical Inspections

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The mechanical and electrical inspections shall include but not be limited to the following:
  1. Loading arms
  2. Cranes and lifting equipment, including cables
  3. Piping/manifolds and supports
  4. Oil transfer hoses
  5. Fire detection and suppression systems
  6. Vapor control system
  7. Sumps/sump tanks
  8. Vent systems
  9. Pumps and pump systems
  10. Lighting
  11. Communications equipment
  12. Gangways
  13. Electrical switches and junction boxes
  14. Emergency power equipment
  15. Air compressors
  16. Meters
  17. Cathodic protection systems
  18. Winches
  19. ESD and other control systems
  20. Ladders
     All alarms, limit switches, load cells, current meters, anemometers, leak detection equipment, etc., shall be operated and/or tested to the extent feasible, to ensure proper function.

     Utility, auxiliary and fire protection piping shall have external visual inspections, similar to that defined in Section 10.1 of API RP 574 [2.3] (N/E).

3102F.3.5.4 Corrosion Inspection

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
During each audit, a comprehensive corrosion inspection shall be performed by a qualified engineer or technician. This inspection shall include all steel and metallic components, and any installed cathodic protection system (CPS). CPS inspection during the audit is not intended to substitute for required testing and maintenance performed on a more frequent schedule per Section 3111F.10. All inspection results shall be documented, and shall be used in the corrosion assessment (Section 3102F.3.6.5).

     Submerged wharf structures and associated cathodic protection equipment (if installed) shall be inspected per [2.2]. Above water structures, ancillary equipment, supports, and hardware shall be visually inspected. Corrosion inspection of utility, auxiliary and fire pipelines shall be done per Section 3102F.3.5.3.

     For oil pipelines in an API 570 [2.4] inspection program, a corrosion inspection is not required as part of the audit; however, the latest inspection results, calculations, and conclusions shall be reviewed, and any significant results shall be included in the corrosion assessment.

3102F.3.6 Evaluation and Assessment

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3102F.3.6.1 Terminal Operating Limits

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The physical boundaries of the facility shall be defined by the berthing system operating limits, along with the vessel size limits and environmental conditions.

     The audit shall include "Terminal Operating Limits" (TOLs) diagrams, which provide a concise statement of the purpose of each berthing system in terms of operating limits for representative vessel size ranges and mooring configurations approved to call and/or conduct transfer operations at the MOT. This description shall include, the minimum and maximum vessel sizes, including Length Overall (LOA), beam, and maximum draft with associated displacement (see Figure 31F-2-1).

     In establishing limits for both the minimum and maximum vessel sizes, due consideration shall be given to water depths, dolphin spacing, fender system limitations, manifold height and hose/loading arm reach, with allowances for tidal fluctuations, surge and drift.

     Maximum wind, current or wave conditions, or combinations thereof, shall be clearly defined as limiting conditions for vessels at each berth, both with and without active product transfer.

     The TOLs shall be explicitly presented to facilitate implementation by the MOT operator, such as through incorporation in the MOT's Operations Manual (2 CCR 2385 [2.1]). The TOLs shall allow for direct comparison of operating limits and output from monitoring systems and instrumentation (i.e., anemometers, current meters, tension monitoring systems, velocity monitoring systems). Design and implementation considerations shall include, but not be limited to:
  1. Units of measurement (i.e., English vs. System International units)
  2. Directionality (i.e., current restrictions "to", wind restrictions "from", true or magnetic north)
  3. Parameters of monitoring systems and instrumentation (i.e., duration/averaging of readings, elevation/depth of readings, distance/location of readings)

FIGURE 31F-2-1

3102F.3.6.2 Mooring and Berthing

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Mooring and berthing analyses shall be performed in accordance with Section 3105F. The analyses shall be consistent with the terminal operating limits and the structural configuration of the wharf and/or dolphins and associated hardware.

     Based on inspection results, analyses and engineering judgment, mooring and berthing OSARs shall be assigned on a global basis, independently for each structure and overall berthing system. The OSARs defined in Table 31F-2-4 shall be used for this purpose. The mooring and berthing OSARs document the berthing system(s) fitness-for-purpose.

3102F.3.6.3 Structure

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A structural evaluation, including a seismic analysis, shall be performed in accordance with Sections 3103F through 3107F. Such evaluation shall consider local or global reduction in capacity, as determined from the inspection.

     Based on inspection results, structural analyses and engineering judgment, OSARs (for operational loading) and SSARs shall be assigned on a global basis, independently for each structure, structural system(s) and berthing system(s), as appropriate. The OSARs and SSARs defined in Table 31F-2-4 shall be used for this purpose and document the structural and/or berthing system(s) fitness-for-purpose.

     Based on inspection results and engineering judgment, ICARs shall be assigned on a global basis, independently for each above and underwater structure, structural system and berthing system, as appropriate. The ICARs defined in Table 31F-2-4 shall be used for this purpose.

     Structural component deficiencies assigned RAPs as per Table 31F-2-5 shall be considered in the OSARs, SSARs and ICARs. The assigned ratings shall remain in effect until all the significant corrective action has been completed to the satisfaction of the Division, or until completion of the next audit.

3102F.3.6.4 Mechanical and Electrical Systems

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
An evaluation of all mechanical and electrical systems and components shall be performed in accordance with Sections 3108F through 3111F of these standards. Forces and imposed seismic displacements resulting from the structural analysis shall be considered in the pipeline stress analyses (Section 3109F.3), and the piping/pipelines shall be assigned SSARs in Table 31F-2-7B. Mechanical and electrical component deficiencies shall be assigned ratings from Table 31F-2-5.

TABLE 31F-2-7B
EXAMPLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE (ES-1B)
GLOBAL SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS (SSAR)
REV. #
MM/YYYY
Berthing
system
Berth(s)1 Structure(s)1 SSAR
rating4
Last
audit date
(MM/YYYY)
Next
audit due date
(MM/YYYY)
Last
analysis date
(MM/YYYY)5
Repair/
replacement
due date
(MM/YYYY)6
Fit-for-purpose
(Y/N)
Description
or comments7
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Wharfhead 2 08/2008 08/2011 05/2008 02/2010 N Level 1 — OK; SAP2000 Pushover Analysis

Level 2 — NG; SAP2000 Pushover Analysis

displacements too large and liquefation
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Trestle 5 08/2008 08/2011 05/2008 N/A Y Level 1 — OK; SAP2000 Linear Analysis

Level 2 — OK; SAP2000 Linear Analysis
North
Wharf
Berth 1 30" Crude line 5 08/2008 08/2011 05/2008 N/A Y Level 1 — N/A

Level 2 — OK; CAESAR Analysis
North
Wharf
Overall Overall
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Dolphins,
Pipeline,
Trestles,
Bulkhead
walls, etc.
South
Wharf
Berth 2

3102F.3.6.5 Corrosion Assessment (N/E)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A comprehensive assessment shall be performed by the corrosion specialist (Section 3102F.3.4.7), to determine the existing and potential corrosion using "as-built" drawings and specifications. This assessment shall comprise all steel and metallic components, including the structure, pipelines, supports and other MOT ancillary equipment. This assessment shall also include prestressed and reinforced concrete structures.

     If cathodic protection is installed to protect wharf structures and/or pipelines, the following records shall be evaluated for each system:
  1. CPS equipment condition and maintenance
  2. Impressed current readings (as applicable)
  3. Potential survey results

3102F.3.7 Follow-Up Actions

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Follow-up actions per Table 31F-2-6 shall be prescribed by the audit team. Multiple follow-up actions may be assigned; however, guidance shall be provided as to the order in which the followup actions should be carried out.

     If an assessment rating of "1", "2" or "3" (Table 31F-2-4) or a RAP of "P1" or "P2" (Table 31F-2-5) or "Emergency Action" using Table 31F-2-6, is assigned to a structure, berthing system or critical component, the Division shall be notified immediately. The Executive Summary Table ES-2 (see Example Table 31F-2-8) shall include implementation schedules for all follow-up and remedial actions. Follow-up and remedial actions and implementation schedules are subject to Division approval.

     For action plan implementation between audits, see Section 3102F.3.9.

TABLE 31F-2-8
EXAMPLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE (ES-2)
COMPONENT DEFICIENCY REMEDIAL ACTION PRIORITIES (RAP)1
REV. #
MM/YYYY
Berthing
system
Berth(s) Structure(s)
or
location(s)
Deficiency
item label2
Component:
deficiency
description
Remedial
action
priority
(RAP)3
CBC
section
reference
Audit
checklist
reference
(optional)
Description
of planned
remedial
action
P.E.
review
required?
(Y/N)4
Repair/
replacement
due date
(MM/YYYY)
Completion
date
(MM/YYYY)
Description
of completed
actions
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Wharfhead 02.0001.001 Piles: 10 piles have severe damage; 15 piles have minor damage. P2 3102F.3.5.2 Replace 10 severe piles. Monitor 15 minor piles. Y 05/2008 04/2008 10 piles replaced
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Mooring
Dolphin
MD-1
02.0001.002 Curb: Spalling of concrete curb w/o exposed reinforcement. R 3102F.3.5.2 Repair
concrete
curbs.
N 02/2009
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Wharfhead 08.0001.002 International Shore Fire Connection:
Connections available, but not connected.
P3 3108F.6.3.4 8.6.22 Install
International
Shore Fire
Connections.
N 10/2008
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Wharfhead 11.0001.001 Conduit Seals near Manifold: Conduit seals inadequate for Class 1, Division 1 location. P1 3111F.2 Replace conduit seals with seals adequate for Class 1. Division 1 location within 30 days. Y 04/2008 04/2008 Seals replaced
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Wharfhead 11.0001.001 Pressurized
Instrumentation Panel near Shelter:
Pressure gauge reads "low" and will not hold pressure in Class 1, Division 2 location.
P2 3111F.2 3111F.4.5 Repair pressurized
instrumentation panel in Class 1, Division 2 location within 60 days.
Y 05/2008 05/2008 Pressurized
instrumentation
panel could not be repaired and was replaced.
These notes apply to Table 31F-2-8:
  1. After a deficiency is corrected/completed, the row of text corresponding to that deficiency may be grayed out in subsequent ES-2 tables, and removed entirely in the subsequent audit.
  2. The "Deficiency Item Labels" shall be assigned in the format shown above with the first series of numbers representing the Code Division/Section number ("XX"), a period (".") for separation, the second series of numbers representing the deficiency item number ("XXXX"), a period (".") for separation, and the third series of numbers representing the ES-2 table revision number ("XXX") in which the deficiency was first reported. Note that the deficiency item numbering will start from "0001" for the first deficiency in each section of the audit, and will increase consecutively in all future ES-2 tables.
  3. RAPs shall be assigned in accordance with Table 31F-2-5.
  4. Professional engineering review required in accordance with Section 3102F.3.8 under "Follow-up Actions."

3102F.3.8 Documentation and Reporting

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The audit reports shall be signed and stamped by the audit team leader. The inspection and other reports and drawings shall be signed and stamped by the engineers in responsible charge.

     Each audit and inspection, whether partial or complete, shall be adequately documented. Partial inspections cover only specific systems or equipment examined. The resulting reports shall summarize and reference relevant previous ratings and deficiencies. Inspection reports shall be included in subsequent audits.

     The contents of the audit and inspection reports for each berthing system shall, at a minimum, include the following as appropriate:

Executive summary—a concise narrative of the audit or inspection results and analyses conclusions. It shall include summary information for each berthing system, including an overview of the assigned follow-up actions. The Executive Summary Tables shall also be included (see Example Tables 31F-2-7A through 31F-2-7C and 31F-2-8).

Table of contents

Introduction—a brief description of the purpose and scope of the audit or inspection, as well as a description of the inspection/evaluation methodology used.

Existing conditions—a description, along with a summary, of the observed conditions. Subsections shall be used to describe the above water structure, underwater structure, fire, piping/pipeline, mechanical and electrical systems, to the extent each are included in the scope of the audit. Photos, plan views and sketches shall be utilized as appropriate to describe the structure and the observed conditions. Details of the inspection results such as test data, measurements data, etc., shall be documented in an appendix.

Evaluation and assessment—assessment ratings shall be assigned to all structures and/or berthing systems. Also, see Section 3102F.3.6. All supporting calculations, as-built drawings and documentation shall be included in appendices as appropriate to substantiate the ratings. However, the results and recommendations of the engineering analyses shall be included in this section. Component deficiencies shall be described and a corresponding RAP assigned.

Follow-up actions—Specific follow-up actions (Table 31F-2-6) shall be documented (Table 31F-2-8), and remedial schedules included, for each audited system. Audit team leaders shall specify which follow-up actions require a California registered engineer to certify that the completion is acceptable.

Appendices—When appropriate, the following appendices shall be included:
  1. Background data on the terminal - description of the service environment (wind/waves/currents), extent and type of marine growth, unusual environmental conditions, etc.
  2. Inspection/testing data
  3. Mooring and berthing analyses
  4. Structural and seismic analyses and calculations
  5. Geotechnical report
  6. MOT Fire Protection Assessment
  7. Pipeline stress and displacement analyses
  8. Mechanical and electrical system documentation
  9. Corrosion assessment
  10. Photographs, sketches and supporting data shall be included to document typical conditions and referenced deficiencies, and to justify the assessment ratings and the remedial action priorities RAPs assigned.

TABLE 31F-2-7A
EXAMPLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE (ES-1A)
GLOBAL OPERATIONAL STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS (OSAR)
REV. # MM/YYYY
Berthing system Berth(s)1 Structure(s)1 Type of analysis2 OSAR rating4 Last audit date (MM/YYYY) Next audit due date (MM/YYYY) Last analysis date (MM/YYYY)5 Repair/
replacement due date (MM/YYYY)6
Fit-for-purpose (Y/N) Description or comments7
North Wharf Berth 1 Wharfhead O 5 08/2008 08/2011 02/2008 N/A Y None
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Mooring
Dolphin
M 3 08/2008 08/2011 05/2008 12/2008 N Hook capacity inadequate
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Breasting
Dolphin
B 2 08/2008 08/2011 06/2008 02/2010 N Berthing velocity restrictions required. Velocity monitoring system operational. Fender system to be upgraded.

See Terminal Operating Limits.
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Overall O 4 08/2008 08/2011 02/2008 N/A Y None
North
Wharf
Berth 1 Dolphins,
Trestles,
Catwalks,
Bulkhead
walls, etc.
08/2008 08/2011
South
Wharf
Berth 2 08/2008 08/2011


TABLE 31F-2-7C
EXAMPLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE (ES-1C)
GLOBAL INSPECTION CONDITION ASSESSMENT RATINGS (ICAR)8
REV. #
MM/YYYY
Berthing
system
Berth(s)1 Structure(s)1 Type of
inspection3
ICAR
rating4,9
Last
inspection date
(MM/YYYY)10
Inspection
interval
(YRS.)
Next inspection
due date
(MM/YYYY)10
Description
or comments7
North Wharf Berth 1 Wharfhead AW 5 02/2008 3 02/2011 General satisfactory condition.
See RAPs in Table ES-2 for details.
North Wharf Berth 1 Wharfhead UW 4 02/2008 5 02/2013 Pile damage; 10 serve, 15 minor
See RAPs in Table ES-2 for details.
North Wharf Berth 1 Breasting
Dolphin BD-1
AW 6 02/2008 3 02/2011 See RAPs in Table ES-2
North Wharf Berth 1 Breasting
Dolphin BD-1
UW 5 02/2008 5 02/2013 See RAPs in Table ES-2
North Wharf Berth 1 Dolphins,
Trestle,
Catwalks,
Bulkhead walls,
etc.
South Wharf Berth 2
These notes apply to Tables 31F-2-7A through 7C:
  1. The term "Overall" shall be input in this field when the assessment ratings are summarized for a berth.
  2. "Types of Analyses": "O" = Operational Loading Analysis, "M" = Mooring Analysis, "B" = Berthing Analysis
  3. "Types of Inspections": "AW" = Above Water Inspection, "UW" = Underwater Inspection
  4. All assessment ratings shall be assigned in accordance with Table 31F-2-4.
  5. The "Analysis Dates" are defined by the month and year in which the final design package is submitted to the Division.
  6. The "Repair/Replacement Dates" are defined by the month and year in which the repair/replacement is to be completed and operational.
  7. The "Description or Comments" shall reference all MOT operating limits. For OSARs, this includes berthing velocity restrictions, load limits, etc. For SSARs, this includes a brief list of the findings for each Seismic Performance Level.
  8. Inspection findings may trigger a structural reassessment (see Tables 31F-2-7A and 31F-2-7B).
  9. Ratings shall be assigned comparing the observed condition to the as-built condition.
  10. The "Inspection Dates" are defined by the month and year in which the last day of formal field inspection is conducted.

3102F.3.9 Action Plan Implementation Between Audits

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The operator is responsible for correction of deficiencies between audits. Prior to implementation, projects shall be submitted for Division review in accordance with Section 3101F.8.3. During project implementation, the Division shall be informed of any significant changes. After project completion, "as-built" documentation, including drawings, calculations and analyses, shall be submitted to the Division.

     Executive Summary Tables shall be updated by the operator and submitted to the Division at least annually.

3102F.4 Post-Event Notification and Inspection

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A post-event inspection is a focused inspection following a significant, potentially damage-causing event such as an earthquake, storm, vessel impact, fire, explosion, construction incident, or tsunami. The primary purpose is to assess the integrity of structural, mechanical and electrical systems. This assessment will determine the operational status and/or any remedial measures required.

3102F.4.1 Notification and Action Plan

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Notification as per 2 CCR 2325(e) [2.1] shall be provided to the local area Division field office. The notification shall include, as a minimum:
  1. Brief description of the event
  2. Brief description of the nature, extent and significance of any damage observed as a result of the event
  3. Operational status and any required restrictions
  4. Statement as to whether a Post-Event inspection will be carried out
     The Division may carry out or cause to be carried out, a post-event inspection. In the interim, the Division may direct a change in the operations manual, per 2 CCR 2385 (f)(3) [2.1].

     If a post-event inspection is required, an action plan shall be submitted to the Division within five (5) days after the event. This deadline may be extended in special circumstances. The action plan shall include the scope of the inspection (above water, underwater, electrical, mechanical systems, physical limits, applicable berthing systems, etc.) and submission date of the final report. The action plan is subject to Division approval.

3102F.4.2 Inspection Team

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The qualifications of the inspection team shall be the same as those prescribed in Section 3102F.3.4. Division representatives may participate in any post-event inspection, as observers, and may provide guidance.

3102F.4.3 Scope

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The post-event inspection shall focus on the possible damage caused by the event. General observations of long-term or preexisting deterioration such as significant corrosion-related damage or other deterioration should be made as appropriate, but should not be the focus of the inspection. The inspection shall always include an above-water assessment of structural, mechanical and electrical components.

     The inspection team leader shall determine the need for, and methodology of, an underwater structural assessment, in consultation with the Division. Above water observations, such as shifting or differential settlement, misalignments, significant cracking or spalling, bulging, etc., shall be used to determine whether or not an underwater assessment is required. Similarly, the inspection team leader shall determine, in consultation with the Division, the need for, and methodology of any supplemental inspections (e.g., special inspections (see Section 3102F.3.5.3).

     The following information may be important in determining the need for, and methodology of, the post-event inspection:
  1. Earthquakes or vessel or debris impact typically cause damage both above and below the waterline. Following a major earthquake, the inspection should focus on components likely to attract highest lateral loads (batter or shorter piles in the rear of the structure, etc.). In case of vessel or debris impact, the inspection effort should focus on components in the path of the impact mass.
  2. Major floods or tsunamis may cause undermining of the structure, and/or scouring at the mudline.
  3. Fire damage varies significantly with the type of construction materials but all types may be adversely affected. Special inspections (sampling and laboratory testing) shall be conducted, as determined by the inspection team leader, in order to determine the nature and extent of damage.
  4. High wind or wave events often cause damage both above and below the waterline. An underwater inspection may be required if damage is visible above the waterline. Structural damage may be potentially increased if a vessel was at the berth during the event. The effects of high wind may be most prevalent on equipment and connections of such equipment to the structure.
     The methodology of conducting an underwater post-event inspection should be established with due consideration of the structure type and type of damage anticipated. Whereas slope failures or scour may be readily apparent in waters of adequate visibility, overstressing cracks on piles covered with marine growth will not be readily apparent. Where such hidden damage is suspected, marine growth removal should be performed on a representative sampling of components in accordance with the Level II effort requirements described in Section 3102F.3.5.2. The cause of the event will determine the appropriate sample size and locations.

3102F.4.4 Post-Event Ratings

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A post-event rating [2.2] shall be assigned to each berthing system upon completion of the inspection (see Table 31F-2-9). All observations of the above and under water structure, mechanical and electrical components and systems shall be considered in assigning a post-event rating.

     Ratings should consider only damage that was likely caused by the event. Pre-existing deterioration such as corrosion damage should not be considered unless the structural integrity is immediately threatened or safety systems or protection of the environment may be compromised.

     Assignment of ratings should reflect an overall characterization of the berthing system being rated. The rating shall consider both the severity of the deterioration and the extent to which it is widespread throughout the facility. The fact that the facility was designed for loads that are lower than the current standards for design should have no influence upon the ratings.

TABLE 31F-2-9
POST-EVENT RATINGS AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS [2.2]
RATING SUMMARY OF DAMAGE REMEDIAL ACTIONS
A No significant event-induced damage observed. No further action required. The berthing system may continue operations.
B Minor to moderate event-induced damage observed but all primary structural elements and electrical/mechanical systems are sound. Repairs or mitigation may be required to remain operational. The berthing system may continue operations.
C Moderate to major event-induced damage observed which may have significantly affected the load bearing capacity of primary structural elements or the functionality of key electrical/mechanical systems. Repairs or mitigation may be necessary to resume or remain operational. The berthing system may be allowed to resume limited operations.
D Major event-induced damage has resulted in localized or widespread failure of primary structural components; or the functionality of key electrical/mechanical systems has been significantly affected. Additional failures are possible or likely to occur. The berthing system may not resume operations until the deficiencies are corrected.

3102F.4.5 Follow-Up Actions

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Follow-up actions shall be assigned upon completion of the post-event inspection of each berthing system. Table 31F-2-5 specifies remedial action priorities for deficiencies. Table 31F-2-6 specifies various follow-up actions. Multiple follow-up actions may be assigned; however, guidance should be provided as to the order in which the follow-up actions should be carried-out. Follow-up actions shall be subject to Division approval.

3102F.4.6 Documentation and Reporting

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Documentation of the specific attributes of each defect shall not be required during a post-event inspection. However, a narrative description of significant damage shall be used. The description shall be consistent with and shall justify the post-event rating assigned.

     A report shall be prepared and submitted to the Division upon completion of the post-event inspection and shall, at a minimum, include:
  1. Brief description of the facility including the physical limits of the structure, type of construction material(s), and the mechanical and electrical systems present
  2. Brief description of the event triggering the inspection
  3. Scope of the inspection (above water, underwater, electrical or mechanical)
  4. Date of the inspection
  5. Names and affiliations of inspection team
  6. Description of the nature, extent and significance of any observed damage resulting from the event
  7. Photographs should be provided to substantiate the descriptions and justify the condition rating
  8. Assignment of a post-event rating
  9. Statement regarding whether the facility is fit to resume operations and, if so, under what conditions
  10. Assignment of follow-up action(s)
  11. Inspection data, drawings, calculations and other relevant engineering materials
  12. Signature and stamp of team leader(s)

3102F.4.7 Action Plan Report

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Upon completion of all actions delineated in the action plan, a final report shall be submitted to the Division to document the work completed. Supporting documentation such as calculations or other relevant data shall be provided in appendices.

3102F.5 References

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
[2.1]California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 5 — Marine Terminals Inspection and Monitoring (2 CCR 2300 et seq.)

[2.2]Childs, K.M., editor, 2001, "Underwater Investigations - Standard Practice Manual," American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.

[2.3]American Petroleum Institute (API), 2009, API Recommended Practice 574 (API RP 574), "Inspection Practices for Piping System Components," 3rd ed., Washington, D.C.

[2.4]American Petroleum Institute (API), 2009, API 570, "Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems," 3rd ed., Washington, D.C.

Authority: Sections 8750 through 8760, Public Resources Code

Reference: Sections 8750, 8751, 8755 and 8757, Public Resources Code.

Division 3

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

Section 3103F Structural Loading Criteria

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3103F.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Section 3103F establishes the environmental and operating loads acting on the marine oil terminal (MOT) structures and on moored vessel(s). The analysis procedures are presented in Sections 3104F — 3107F.

3103F.2 Dead Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3103F.2.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Dead loads shall include the weight of the entire structure, including permanent attachments such as loading arms, pipelines, deck crane, fire monitor tower, gangway structure, vapor control equipment and mooring hardware. Unit weights specified in Section 3103F.2.2 may be used for MOT structures if actual weights are not available.

3103F.2.2 Unit Weights

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The unit weights in Table 31F-3-1 may be used for both existing and new MOTs.

TABLE 31F-3-1
UNIT WEIGHTS
MATERIAL UNIT WEIGHT (pcf)*
Steel or cast steel 490
Cast iron 450
Aluminum alloys 175
Timber (untreated) 40-50
Timber (treated) 45-60
Concrete, reinforced (normal weight) 145-160
Concrete, reinforced (lightweight) 90-120
Asphalt paving 150
* pounds per cubic foot

3103F.2.3 Equipment and Piping Area Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The equipment and piping area loads in Table 31F-3-2 may be used, as a minimum, in lieu of detailed as-built data.

TABLE 31F-3-2
EQUIPMENT AND PIPING AREA LOADS
LOCATION AREA LOADS (psf)***
Open areas 20*
Areas containing equipment and piping 35**
Trestle roadway 20*
*   Allowance for incidental items such as railings, lighting, miscellaneous equipment, etc.

** 35 psf is for miscellaneous general items such as walkways, pipe supports, lighting and instrumentation. Major equipment weight shall be established and added into this weight for piping manifold, valves, deck crane, fire monitor tower, gangway structure and similar ma/or equipment.

*** pounds per square foot

3103F.3 Live Loads and Buoyancy

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The following vertical live loading shall be considered, where appropriate: uniform loading, truck loading, crane loading and buoyancy. Additionally, MOT specific, nonpermanent equipment shall be identified and used in loading computations.

3103F.4 Earthquake Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3103F.4.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Earthquake loads are described in terms of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), spectral acceleration and earthquake magnitude. The required seismic analysis procedures (Tables 31F-4-1 and 31F-4-2) are dependent on the spill classification obtained from Table 31F-1-1.

3103F.4.2 Design Earthquake Motion Parameters

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The earthquake ground motion parameters of peak ground acceleration, spectral acceleration and earthquake magnitude are modified for site amplification and near fault directivity effects. The resulting values are the Design Peak Ground Acceleration (DPGA), Design Spectral Acceleration (DSA) and Design Earthquake Magnitude (DEM).

     For Site Classes A through E (Section 3103F.4.2.1), peak ground and design spectral accelerations shall be obtained from:
  1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published data as discussed in Section 3103F.4.2.2, or
  2. A site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) as discussed in Section 3103F.4.2.3.
     Site-specific PSHA is required for Site Class F.

     Unless stated otherwise, the DSA values are for 5 percent damping; values at other levels may be obtained as per Section 3103F.4.2.9.

     The appropriate probability levels associated with DPGA and DSA for different seismic performance levels are provided in Table 31F-4-1. Deterministic earthquake motions, which are used only for comparison to the probabilistic results, are addressed in Section 3103F.4.2.7.

     The evaluation of Design Earthquake Magnitude (DEM), is discussed in Section 3103F.4.2.8. This parameter is required when acceleration time histories (Section 3103F.4.2.10) are addressed or if liquefaction potential (Section 3106F.4) is being evaluated.

TABLE 31F-4-1
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE CRITERIA1, 2
SPILL CLASSIFICATION3 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE RETURN PERIOD
High Level 1 50% in 50 years 72 years
Level 2 10% in 50 years 475 years
Medium Level 1 65% in 50 years 48 years
Level 2 15% in 50 years 308 years
Low Level 1 75% in 50 years 36 years
Level 2 20% in 50 years 224 years
  1. For new MOTs, see Section 3104F.3.
  2. For marine terminals transferring LNG, return periods of 72 and 475 years shall be used for Levels 1 and 2, respectively.
  3. See Section 3101F.6 for spill classification.

3103F.4.2.1 Site Classes

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The following Site Classes, defined in Section 3106F.2.1, shall be used in developing values of DSA and DPGA:

     A, B, C, D, E and F

     For Site Class F, a site-specific response analysis is required per Section 3103F.4.2.5.

3103F.4.2.2 Earthquake Motions From USGS Maps

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Earthquake ground motion parameters can be obtained directly from the US Seismic Design Maps tool available at the USGS website (http://earthquake.usgs.gov) for the site condition(s) appropriate for the MOT site and the selected probability of exceedance. For this purpose, select the ASCE/SEI 41 [3.1] as the design code reference document, and specify the appropriate custom parameters, including but not limited to, location, required Probability of Exceedance (in 50 years), and appropriate Site Soil Classification(s) for the MOT site. The USGS tool directly provides the peak ground and spectral accelerations for the selected hazard level and site condition(s).

     The alternative method of obtaining earthquake ground motion parameters, from the most current USGS data for selected hazard level and site condition( s), is permitted. If needed, the data for appropriate probability of exceedance may be obtained using the procedure described in Chapter 1 of FEMA 356 [3.2], and corrected for the MOT site as discussed in Section 3103F.4.2.4 or Section 3103F.4.2.5.

3103F.4.2.3 Earthquake Motions From Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Site-specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) shall use appropriate seismic sources and their characterization, attenuation relationships, probability of exceedance, and site soil conditions. Site-specific PSHA shall be conducted by a qualified California registered civil engineer with a California authorization as a geotechnical engineer per Section 3102F.3.4.8.

     If site-specific PSHA is used for Site Classes A, B, C, D or E, results from the site-specific PSHA shall be compared with those from the USGS published data as described in Section 3103F.4.2.2. If the two sets of values differ significantly, a justification for using the characterization chosen shall be provided. If DPGA and DSA from site-specific PSHA are less than 80 percent of the values from USGS data, a peer review may be required.

3103F.4.2.4 Simplified Evaluation of Site Amplification Effects

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
When the MOT site class is different from the Site Classes B to C boundary, site amplification effects shall be incorporated in peak ground accelerations and spectral accelerations. This may be accomplished using a simplified method or a site-specific evaluation (Section 3103F.4.2.5).

     For a given site class, the following procedure from Chapter 1 of FEMA 356 [3.2] presents a simplified method that may be used to incorporate the site amplification effects for peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration computed for the Site Classes B and C boundary.

  1. Calculate the spectral acceleration values at 0.20 and 1.0 second period:

    SXS = Fa SS (3-1)

    SX1 = Fv S1 (3-2)

    where:

    Fa = site coefficient obtained from Table 31F-3-3
    Fv = site coefficient obtained from Table 31F-3-4
    SS = short period (usually at 0.20 seconds) spectral acceleration value (for the boundary of Site Classes B and C) obtained using Section 3103F.4.2.2, or at the period corresponding to the peak in spectral acceleration values when obtained from Section 3103F.4.2.3
    S1 = spectral acceleration value (for the boundary of Site Classes B and C) at 1.0 second period
    SXS = spectral acceleration value obtained using the short period Ss and factored by Table 31F-3-3 for the site class under consideration.
    SX1 = spectral acceleration value obtained using the 1.0 second period S1 and factored by Table 31F-3-4 for the site class under consideration.
  2.  Set PGAX = 0.4SXS (3-3)

    where:

    PGAX = peak ground acceleration corresponding to the site class under consideration.


         When the value of PGAX is less than the peak ground acceleration obtained following Section 3103F.4.2.2 or Section 3103F.4.2.3, an explanation of the results shall be provided.
  3. PGAX, SXS, and SX1 constitute three spectral acceleration values for the site class under consideration corresponding to periods of 0, SS (usually 0.2 seconds), and 1.0 second, respectively.
  4. The final response spectra, without consideration for near-fault directivity effects, values of Sa for the site class under consideration may be obtained using the following equations (for 5 percent critical damping):

    For 0 < T < 0.2T0
    Sa = (SXS)(0.4 + 3T/T0)
    (3-4)

    where:

    T = Period corresponding to calculated Sa
    T0 = Period at which the constant acceleration and constant velocity regions of the design spectrum intersect


    For 0.2T0 < T < T0
    Sa = SXS
    (3-5)

    For T > T0
    Sa = SX1/T
    (3-6)

    where:

    T0 = SX1/SXS (3-7)

         The resulting PGAX is the DPGA. However, the Sa shall be modified for near-fault directivity effects, per Section 3103F.4.2.6 to obtain the final DSAs.

TABLE 31F-3-3
VALUES OF Fa
SITE CLASS SS
< 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 > 1.25
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F * * * * *
Note: Linear interpolation can he used to estimate values of Fa for intermediate values of SS.
* Site-specific dynamic site response analysis shall be performed.


TABLE 31F-3-4
VALUES OF Fv
SITE CLASS S1
< 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 > 0.5
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5
E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4
F * * * * *
Note: Linear interpolation can he used to estimate values of Fv for intermediate values of S1.
* Site-specific dynamic site response analysis shall be performed.

3103F.4.2.5 Site-Specific Evaluation of Amplification Effects

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
As an alternative to the procedure presented in Section 3103F.4.2.4, a site-specific response analysis may be performed. For Site Class F a site-specific response analysis is required. The analysis shall be either an equivalent linear or nonlinear analysis. Appropriate acceleration time histories as discussed in Section 3103F.4.2.10 shall be used.

     In general, an equivalent linear analysis using, for example, SHAKE91 [3.3] is acceptable when the strength and stiffness of soils are unlikely to change significantly during the seismic shaking, and the level of shaking is not large. A nonlinear analysis should be used when the strength and/or stiffness of soils could significantly change during the seismic shaking or significant nonlinearity of soils is expected because of high seismic shaking levels.

     The choice of the method used in site response analysis shall be justified considering the expected stress-strain behavior of soils under the shaking level considered in the analysis.

     Site-specific site response analysis may be performed using one-dimensional analysis. However, to the extent that MOTs often involve slopes or earth retaining structures, the one-dimensional analysis should be used judiciously. When one-dimensional analysis cannot be justified or is not adequate, two-dimensional equivalent linear or nonlinear response analysis shall be performed. Site-specific response analysis results shall be compared to those based on the simplified method of Section 3103F.4.2.4 for reasonableness.

     The peak ground accelerations obtained from this site-specific evaluation are DPGAs and the spectral accelerations are DSAs as long as the near-fault directivity effects addressed in Section 3103F.4.2.6 are appropriately incorporated into the time histories (Section 3103F.4.2.10).

3103F.4.2.6 Directivity Effects

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
When the site is 15 km (9.3 miles) or closer to a seismic source that can significantly affect the site, near-fault directivity effects shall be reflected in the spectral acceleration values and in the deterministic spectral acceleration values of Section 3103F.4.2.7.

     Two methods are available for incorporating directivity effects:
  1. Directivity effects may be reflected in the spectral acceleration values in a deterministic manner by using well established procedures such as that described in Somerville, et al. [3.4]. The critical seismic sources and their characterization developed as part of the deterministic ground motion parameters (Section 3103F.4.2.7) should be used to evaluate the directivity effects. The resulting adjustments in spectral acceleration values may be applied in the probabilistic spectral acceleration values developed per Section 3103F.4.2.4 or 3103F.4.2.5. Such adjustment can be independent of the probability levels of spectral accelerations.
  2. Directivity effects may be incorporated in the results of site specific PSHA per Section 3103F.4.2.3. In this case, the directivity effects will also depend on the probability level of spectral accelerations.
     If spectral accelerations are obtained in this manner, the effects of site amplification using either Section 3103F.4.2.4, 3103F.4.2.5 or an equivalent method (if justified) shall be incorporated.

3103F.4.2.7 Deterministic Earthquake Motions

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Deterministic ground motions from "scenario" earthquakes may be used for comparison purposes. Deterministic peak ground accelerations and spectral accelerations may be obtained using the "Critical Seismic Source" with maximum earthquake magnitude and its closest appropriate distance to the MOT. "Critical Seismic Source" is that which results in the largest computed median peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration values when appropriate attenuation relationships are used. The values obtained from multiple attenuation relationships should be used to calculate the median peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration values.

     For comparison, the values of peak ground accelerations and spectral accelerations may be obtained from the USGS maps, corresponding to the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). In this case, the median values of peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration values shall be 2/3 (see Section 1.6 of FEMA 356 [3.2]) of the values shown on the USGS maps.

3103F.4.2.8 Design Earthquake Magnitude

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The Design Earthquake Magnitude used in developing site-specific acceleration time histories (Section 3103F.4.2.10) or liquefaction assessment (Section 3106F.4) is obtained using either of the following two methods:
  1. The design earthquake may be selected as the largest earthquake magnitude associated with the critical seismic source. The distance shall be taken as the closest distance from the source to the site. The resulting design earthquake shall be associated with all DPGA values for the site, irrespective of probability levels.
  2. The design earthquake (DEQ) may be obtained for each DPGA or DSA value and associated probability level by determining the corresponding dominant distance and magnitude. These are the values of the distance and magnitude that contribute the most to the mean seismic hazards estimates for the probability of interest. They are usually determined by locating the summits of the 3-D surface of contribution of each small interval of magnitude and distance to the total mean hazards estimate. If this 3-D surface shows several modes with approximate weight of more than 20 percent of the total, several DEQs may be considered, and the DEQ leading to the most conservative design parameters shall be used.

3103F.4.2.9 Design Spectral Acceleration for Various Damping Values

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Design Spectral Acceleration (DSA) values at damping other than 5 percent shall be obtained by using a procedure given in Chapter 1 of FEMA 356 [3.2], and is denoted as DSAd. The following procedure does not include near-fault directivity effects.

For 0 < T < 0.2 T0
    DSAd = SXS [(5/BS -2) T/T0 + 0.4]
(3-8)

For 0.2 T0 < T < T0
    DSAd = DSA/BS
(3-9)

For T > T0
    DSAd = S1 /(B1 T)
(3-10)

where:
T = period
T0 = SX1 /SXS
BS = Coefficient used to adjust the short period spectral response, for the effect of viscous damping.
B1 = Coefficient used to adjust one-second period spectral response, for the effect of viscous damping


     Values of BS and B1 are obtained from Table 31F-3-5.

     Such a procedure shall incorporate the near-fault directivity effects when the MOT is 15 km (9.3 miles) or closer to a significant seismic source.

TABLE 31F-3-5
VALUES OF BS AND B1 [3.2]
DAMPING (%) BS B1
< 2 0.8 0.8
5 1.0 1.0
10 1.3 1.2
20 1.8 1.5
30 2.3 1.7
40 2.7 1.9
> 50 3.0 2.0
Note: Linear interpolation should be used for damping values not specifically listed.

3103F.4.2.10 Development of Acceleration Time Histories

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
When acceleration time histories are utilized, target spectral acceleration values shall be initially selected corresponding to the DSA values at appropriate probability levels. For each set of target spectral acceleration values corresponding to one probability level, at least three sets of horizontal time histories (one or two horizontal acceleration time histories per set) shall be developed.

     Initial time histories shall consider magnitude, distance and the type of fault that are reasonably similar to those associated with the conditions contributing most to the probabilistic DSA values. Preferred initial time histories should have their earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismic source similar to the mode-magnitude and mode-distance derived from the PSHA or from appropriate maps. When an adequate number of recorded time histories are not available, acceleration time histories from simulations may be used as supplements.

     Scaling or adjustments, either in the frequency domain or in the time domain (preferably), prior to generating acceleration time histories should be kept to a minimum. When the target spectral accelerations include near-fault directivity effects (Section 3103F.4.2.6), the initial time histories should exhibit directivity effects.

     When three sets of time histories are used in the analysis, the envelope of the spectral acceleration values from each time history shall be equal to or higher than the target spectral accelerations. If the envelope values fall below the target values, adjustments shall be made to ensure that the spectral acceleration envelope is higher than target spectral accelerations. If the envelope is not higher, then a justification shall be provided.

     When seven or more sets of time histories are used, the average of the spectral acceleration values from the set of time histories shall be equal or higher than the target spectral acceleration values. If the average values fall below the target values, adjustments shall be made to ensure that average values are higher than the target spectral accelerations. If this is not the case, then an explanation for the use of these particular spectral acceleration values shall be provided.

     When three sets of time histories are used in the analysis, the maximum value of each response parameter shall be used in the design, evaluation and rehabilitation. When seven or more sets of time histories are used in the analysis, the average value of each response parameter may be used.

3103F.5 Mooring Loads on Vessels

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3103F.5.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Forces acting on a moored vessel may be generated by wind, waves, current, tidal variations, tsunamis, seiches and hydrodynamic effects of passing vessels. Forces from wind and current acting directly on the MOT structure (not through the vessel in the form of mooring and/ or breasting loads) shall be determined in Section 3103F.7.

     The vessel's moorings shall be strong enough to hold during all expected environmental and passing vessel conditions (see Section 3105F), while adequately accommodating changes in draft, surge, sway, yaw and tide.

3103F.5.2 Wind Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Wind loads on a vessel, moored at a MOT, shall be determined using procedures described in this section. Wind speed measured at an elevation of 33 feet (10 meters) above the water surface, with duration of 30 seconds shall be used to determine the design wind speed and wind limits for moored vessels. If these conditions are not met, adjustment factors shall be applied per Sections 3103F.5.2.2.

3103F.5.2.1 Design Wind Speed

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For new MOTs, the 25-year return period shall be used to establish the design wind speed for each direction. The design wind speed is the maximum wind speed of 30-second duration used in the mooring analysis (see Section 3105F). The 30-second duration wind speed shall be determined from the annual maximum wind data. Average annual summaries cannot be used. Maximum wind speed data for a minimum of eight directions (45-degree increments) shall be obtained. If other duration wind data is available, it shall be adjusted to a 30-second duration, in accordance with Equation (3-12).

3103F.5.2.2 Wind Limits for Moored Vessels

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Wind loads shall be calculated for each of the load cases identified in Section 3105F.2. Wind velocity limits for moored vessels shall be presented in the Terminal Operating Limits (see Section 3102F.3.6.1 and Figure 31F-2-1) for each of the conditions given below.

3103F.5.2.2.1 Operational Condition

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The operational condition is defined as the wind envelope in which a vessel may conduct transfer operations, as determined from the mooring analysis (Section 3105F). Transfer operations shall cease when the wind exceeds the maximum velocity of the envelope.

3103F.5.2.2.2 Survival Condition

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The survival condition is defined as the state wherein a vessel can remain safely moored at the berth during severe winds; however, loading arms and hoses shall be disconnected (see Sections 3110F.2 and 3110F.3 regarding movement limits of loading arms and hoses, respectfully). The survival condition is the wind zone between the operational condition and the departure condition (defined in Section 3103F.5.2.2). In this wind zone, the vessel must prepare to depart the berth.

3103F.5.2.2.3 Departure Condition

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The departure condition is defined as the wind state above which a vessel can no longer remain safely moored at the berth during severe winds, as determined from the mooring analysis (Section 3105F). For a new MOT, the departure condition threshold is the maximum wind velocity, for a 30-second gust and a 25-year return period, obtained from historical data. If the wind rises above these levels, the vessel must depart the berth.

3103F.5.2.3 Wind Speed Corrections

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Wind speed measured at an elevation of 33 feet (10 meters) above the water surface, with duration of 30 seconds shall be used to determine the design wind speed. If these conditions are not met, the following corrections shall be applied.

     The correction for elevation is obtained from the equation:

(3-11)

where:
Vw = wind speed at elevation 33 ft. (10 m.)
Vh = wind speed at elevation h
h = elevation above water surface of wind data [feet]


     The available wind duration shall be adjusted to a 30-second value, using the following formula:

(3-12)

where:
Vt = 30 sec = wind speed for a 30-second duration
Vt = wind speed over a given duration
ct = conversion factor from Figure 31F-3-1


     If wind data is available over land only, the following equation shall be used to convert the wind speed from over-land to over-water conditions [3.5]:

Vw = 1.10 VL (3-13)

where:
Vw = over water wind speed
VL = over land wind speed


FIGURE 31F-3-1 WIND SPEED CONVERSION FACTOR [3.5]

3103F.5.2.4 Static Wind Loads on Vessels

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The OCIMF MEG3 [3.6] shall be used to determine the wind loads for all tank vessels.

     Alternatively, wind loads for any type of vessel may be calculated using the guidelines in Ferritto et al. [3.7].

3103F.5.3 Current Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3103F.5.3.1 Design Current Velocity

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Maximum ebb and flood currents, annual river runoffs and controlled releases shall be considered when establishing the design current velocities for both existing and new MOTs.

     Local current velocities may be obtained from NOAA [3.8] or other sources, but must be supplemented by site-specific data, if the current velocity is higher than 1.5 knots.

     Site-specific data shall be obtained by real time measurements over a one-year period. If this information is not available, a safety factor of 1.25 shall be applied to the best available data until real time measurements are obtained.

     If the facility is not in operation during annual river runoffs and controlled releases, the current loads may be adjusted.

     Operational dates need to be clearly stated in the definition of the Terminal Operating Limits (see Section 3102F.3.6.1 and Figure 31F-2-1).

3103F.5.3.2 Current Velocity Adjustment Factors

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
An average current velocity (Vc) shall be used to compute forces and moments. If the current velocity profile is known, the average current velocity can be obtained from the following equation:

(3-14)

where:
Vc = average current velocity (knots)
T = draft of vessel
vc = current velocity as a function of depth (knots)
s = water depth measured from the surface


     If the velocity profile is not known, the velocity at a known water depth shall be adjusted by the factors provided in Figure 31F-3-2 to obtain the equivalent average velocity over the draft of the vessel.

FIGURE 31F-3-2 CURRENT VELOCITY CORRECTION FACTOR (p. 23 [3.6])

3103F.5.3.3 Static Current Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The OCIMF MEG3 [3.6] or the UFC 4-159-03 [3.9] procedures shall be used to determine current loads for moored tank vessels.

3103F.5.3.4 Sea Level Rise (SLR)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
All MOTs shall consider the predicted SLR over the remaining life of the terminal, due to subsidence or climate change combined with maximum high tide and storm surge. Consideration shall include but not be limited to variation in fender locations, additional berthing loads (deeper draft vessels) and any components near the splash zone.

3103F.5.4 Wave Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
When the significant wave period, Ts, is greater than 4 seconds (see Section 3105F.3.1), the transverse wave induced vessel reactions shall be calculated using a simplified dynamic mooring analysis described below.

     The horizontal water particle accelerations shall be calculated for the various wave conditions, taken at the mid-depth of the loaded vessel draft. The water particle accelerations shall then be used to calculate the wave excitation forces to determine the static displacement of the vessel. The Froude-Krylov method discussed in Chakrabarti's Chapter 7 [3.10] may be used to calculate the wave excitation forces, by conservatively approximating the vessel as a rectangular box with dimensions similar to the actual dimensions of the vessel. The horizontal water particle accelerations shall be calculated for the various wave conditions, taken at the mid-depth of the loaded vessel draft. The computed excitation force assumes a 90-degree incidence angle with the longitudinal axis of the vessel, which will result in forces that are significantly greater than the forces that will actually act upon the vessel from quartering seas. A load reduction factor may be used to account for the design wave incidence angle from the longitudinal axis of the ship. The overall excursion of the vessel shall be determined for each of the wave conditions by calculating the dynamic response of the linear spring mass system.

3103F.5.5 Passing Vessels

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
When required in Section 3105F.3, the sway and surge forces, as well as yaw moment, on a moored vessel, due to passing vessels, shall be established considering the following:
  1. Ratio of length of moored vessel to length of passing vessel.
  2. Distance from moored vessel to passing vessel.
  3. Ratio of midship section areas of the moored and passing vessels.
  4. Underkeel clearances of the moored and passing vessels.
  5. Draft and trim of the moored vessel and draft of the passing vessel.
  6. Mooring line tensions.
     The passing vessel's speed should take into consideration the ebb or flood current. Normal operating wind and current conditions can be assumed when calculating forces due to a passing vessel. Either method of Kriebel [3.11] or Wang [3.12] may be used to determine forces on a moored vessel. Kriebel's recent wave tank study improves on an earlier work of Seelig [3.13].

3103F.5.6 Seiche

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The penetration of long period low amplitude waves into a harbor can result in resonant standing wave systems, when the wave forcing frequency coincides with a natural frequency of the harbor. The resonant standing waves can result in large surge motions if this frequency is close to the natural frequency of the mooring system. Section 3105F.3.3 prescribes the procedure for the evaluation of these effects.

3103F.5.7 Tsunamis

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A tsunami may be generated by an earthquake or a subsea or coastal landslide, which may induce large wave heights and excessive currents. The large wave or surge and the excessive currents are potentially damaging, especially if there is a tank vessel moored alongside the MOT wharf.

     Tsunamis can be generated either by a distant or near source. A tsunami generated by a distant source (far field event) may allow operators to have an adequate warning for mitigating the risk by allowing the vessels to depart the MOT and go into deep water. For near-field events, with sources less than 500 miles away, the vessel may not have adequate time to depart. Each MOT shall have a "tsunami plan" describing what actions will be performed, in the event of a distant tsunami.

     Recent tsunami studies have been completed for both Southern and Northern California. For the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, one of these recent studies focused on near field tsunamis with predicted return periods of 5,000 to 10,000 years [3.14]. These maximum water levels (run-up) would not normally be used for MOT design. However, because the study also provides actual tidal records from recent distant tsunamis, it should be used for design.

     The run-up value for Port Hueneme was obtained from an earlier study by Synolakis et al. [3.15].

Run up-values: Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach = 8 ft.

Port Hueneme = 11 ft.

     For the San Francisco Bay, a recent study provides the maximum credible tsunami water levels and current speeds. These results are deterministic and are based on the most severe seismic sources that could reasonably impact MOTs in the San Francisco Bay [3.16]. Table 31F-3-6 provides values for the marine oil terminal locations within San Francisco Bay. Water levels could be positive or negative and current velocities may vary in direction. In order to determine the maximum run-up at a MOT, the largest values should be added to the mean high tide. Further details are available in [3.16].

     Loads from tsunami-induced waves can be calculated for various structural configurations [3.17]. Tsunami wave heights in shallow water and particle kinematics can also be obtained. Other structural considerations include uplift and debris impact.

TABLE 31F-3-6
TSUNAMI RUN-UP VALUES (ft) AND CURRENT SPEEDS (ft/sec)
IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (AFTER [3.16])
S.F. BAY LOCALE MAXIMUM WATER LEVELS (ft.) CURRENT
VELOCITY (ft/sec)
Richmond, outer 7.5 4.9
Richmond, inner 7.9 8.9
Martinez 2.3 1.3
Selby 2.6 1.6
Rodeo 2.6 2.0
Benicia 2.0 1.0

3103F.6 Berthing Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3103F.6.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Berthing loads are quantified in terms of transfer of kinetic energy of the vessel into potential energy dissipated by the fender(s). The terms and equations below are based on those in UFC 4-152-01 [3.18] and PIANC [3.19].

     Kinetic energy shall be calculated from the following equation:

     (3-15)

where:
Evessel = Berthing energy of vessel [ft-lbs]
W = Total weight of vessel and cargo in pounds [long tons × 2240]
g = Acceleration due to gravity [32.2 ft/sec2]
Vn = Berthing velocity normal to the berth [ft/sec]


     The following correction factors shall be used to modify the actual energy to be absorbed by the fender system for berthing operations:

    Efender = FA • Cb • Cm • Evessel (3-16)

where:
Efender = Energy to be absorbed by the fender system
FA = Accidental factor accounting for abnormal conditions such as human error, malfunction, adverse environmental conditions or a combination of these factors. For existing berthing systems, FA may be taken as 1.0. For new berthing systems, FA shall be determined in accordance with Section 5-1.5.3 of UFC 4-152-01 [3.18] or PIANC Section 4.2.8 [3.19].
Cb = Berthing Coefficient
Cm = Effective mass or virtual mass coefficient (see Section 3103F.6.6)


     The berthing coefficient, Cb, is given by:

    Cb = Ce • Cg • Cd • Cc (3-17)

where:
Ce = Eccentricity Coefficient
Cc = Configuration Coefficient
Cg = Geometric Coefficient
Cd = Deformation Coefficient


     These coefficients are defined in Sections 3103F.6.2 through 3103F.6.5.

     The approximate displacement of the vessel (when only partially loaded) at impact, DT, can be determined from an extension of an equation from Gaythwaite [3.20]:

    DT = 1.25 DWT(dactual /dmax) (3-18)

where:
DWT = Dead Weight Tonnage (in long tons)
dactual = Actual arrival draft of the vessel
dmax = Maximum loaded vessel draft


     The berthing load shall be based on the fender reaction due to the kinetic berthing energy. The structural capacity shall be established based on allowable concrete, steel or timber properties in the structural components, as defined in Section 3107F.

     For fender system selection, Section 3105F.4.5 shall be followed.

3103F.6.2 Eccentricity coefficient (Ce)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
During the berthing maneuver, when the vessel is not parallel to the berthing line (usually the wharf face), not all the kinetic energy of the vessel will be transmitted to the fenders. Due to the reaction from the fender(s), the vessel will start to rotate around the contact point, thus dissipating part of its energy. Treating the vessel as a rigid rod of negligible width in the analysis of the energy impact on the fenders leads to the equation:

     (3-19)

where:
k = Longitudinal radius of gyration of the vessel [ft]
a = Distance between the vessel's center of gravity and the point of contact on the vessel's side, projected onto the vessel's longitudinal axis [ft]

3103F.6.3 Geometric coefficient (Cg)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The geometric coefficient, Cg, depends upon the geometric configuration of the ship at the point of impact. It varies from 0.85 for an increasing convex curvature to 1.25 for concave curvature. Generally, 0.95 is recommended for the impact point at or beyond the quarter points of the ship, and 1.0 for broadside berthing in which contact is made along the straight side [3.18].

3103F.6.4 Deformation coefficient (Cd)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This accounts for the energy reduction effects due to local deformation of the ships hull and deflection of the whole ship along its longitudinal axis. The energy absorbed by the ship depends on the relative stiffness of the ship and the obstruction. The deformation coefficient varies from 0.9 for a nonresilient fender to nearly 1.0 for a flexible fender. For larger ships on energy-absorbing fender systems, little or no deformation of the ship takes place; therefore, a coefficient of 1.0 is recommended.

3103F.6.5 Configuration coefficient (Cc)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This factor accounts for the difference between an open pier or wharf and a solid pier or wharf. In the first case, the movements of the water surrounding the berthing vessel is not (or is hardly) affected by the berth. In the second case, the water between the berthing vessel and the structure introduces a cushion effect that represents an extra force on the vessel away from the berth and reduces the energy to be absorbed by the fender system.

     For open berth and corners of solid piers, Cc = 1.0

     For solid piers with parallel approach, Cc = 0.8

     For berths with different conditions, Cc may be interpolated between these values [3.18].

3103F.6.6 Effective mass or virtual mass coefficient (Cm)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
In determining the kinetic energy of a berthing vessel, the effective or the virtual mass is the sum of vessel mass and hydrodynamic mass. The hydrodynamic mass does not necessarily vary with the mass of the vessel, but is closely related to the projected area of the vessel at right angles to the direction of motion.

     Other factors, such as the form of vessel, water depth, berthing velocity, and acceleration or deceleration of the vessel, will have some effect on the hydrodynamic mass. Taking into account both model and prototype experiments, the effective or virtual mass coefficient can be estimated as:

     (3-20)

where:
dactual = Actual arrival draft of the vessel
B = Beam of vessel


     The value of Cm for use in design should be a minimum of 1.5 and need not exceed 2.0 [3.18].

3103F.6.7 Berthing Velocity and Angle

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The berthing velocity, Vn, is influenced by a large number of factors such as environmental conditions of the site (wind, current and wave), method of berthing (with or without tugboat assistance), condition of the vessel during berthing (ballast or fully laden) and human factors (experience of the tugboat captain).

     The berthing velocity, normal to berth, shall be in accordance with Table 31F-3-7. Site condition is determined from Table 31F-3-8.

     Subject to Division approval, if an existing MOT can demonstrate lower velocities by utilizing velocity monitoring equipment, then such a velocity may be used temporarily until the berthing system is compliant with this Code.

     In order to obtain the normal berthing velocity, Vn, an approach angle, defined as the angle formed by the fender line and the longitudinal axis of the vessel must be determined. The berthing angles, used to compute the normal berthing velocity, for various vessel sizes are shown in Table 31F-3-9.

TABLE 31F-3-7
BERTHING VELOCITY Vn (NORMAL TO BERTH)1
VESSEL SIZE (DWT) TUG BOAT ASSISTANCE SITE CONDITIONS
Unfavorable Moderate Favorable
≤ 10,000 No 1.31 ft/sec
0.98 ft/sec 0.53 ft/sec
≤ 10,000 Yes 0.78 ft/sec 0.66 ft/sec 0.33 ft/sec
50,000 Yes 0.53 ft/sec 0.39 ft/sec 0.26 ft/sec
≥ 100,000 Yes 0.39 ft/sec 0.33 ft/sec 0.26 ft/sec
  1. For vessel sizes not shown, interpolation between velocities may be used.


TABLE 31F-3-8
SITE CONDITIONS
SITE CONDITIONS DESCRIPTION WIND SPEED1 SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT CURRENT SPEED2
Unfavorable Strong Wind
Strong Currents
High Waves
> 38 knots > 6.5 ft > 2 knots
Moderate Strong Wind
Moderate Current
Moderate Waves
≥ 38 knots ≤ 6.5 ft ≤ 2 knots
Favorable Moderate Wind
Moderate Current
Moderate Waves
< 38 knots < 6.5 ft < 2 knots
  1. A 30-second duration measured at a height of 33 ft.
  2. Taken at 0.5 x water depth


TABLE 31F-3-9
BERTHING ANGLE
VESSEL SIZE (DWT) ANGLE (degrees)
Barge 15
< 10,000 10
10,000-50,000 8
> 50,000 6

3103F.7 Wind and Current Loads on Structures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3103F.7.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This section provides methods to determine the wind and current loads acting on the structure directly, as opposed to wind and current forces acting on the structure from a moored vessel.

3103F.7.2 Wind Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Chapter 29 of ASCE/SEI 7 [3.21] shall be used to establish minimum wind loads on the structure. Additional information about wind loads may be obtained from Simiu and Scanlan [3.22].

3103F.7.3 Current Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The current forces acting on the structure may be established using the current velocities, per Section 3103F.5.3.

3103F.8 Load Combinations

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
As a minimum, each component of the structure shall be analyzed for all applicable load combinations given in Table 31F-3-10 or Table 31F-3-11, depending on component type. For additional load combinations, see UFC 4-152-01 [3.18].

     The "vacant condition" is the case wherein there is no vessel at the berth. The "mooring and breasting condition" exists after the vessel is securely tied to the wharf. The "berthing condition" occurs as the vessel impacts the wharf, and the "earthquake condition" assumes no vessel is at the berth, and there is no wind or current forces on the structure.

     The use of various load types is discussed below:

TABLE 31F-3-10
LRFD LOAD FACTORS FOR LOAD COMBINATIONS [3.18]
LOAD TYPE VACANT CONDITION MOORING & BREASTING CONDITION BERTHING CONDITION EARTHQUAKE CONDITION3
Dead Load (D) 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 + k1 0.9-k1
Live Load (L) 1.6 1.62 1.0 1.0
Buoyancy (B) 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.21 0.91
Wind on Structure (W) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Current on Structure (C) 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9
Earth Pressure on the Structure (H) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.64 1.64
Mooring/Breasting Load (M) 1.6
Berthing Load (Be) 1.6
Earthquake Load (E) 1.0 1.0
  1. k = 0.50 (PGA) The k factor (k=0.5(PGA)) and buoyancy (B) shall be applied to the vertical dead load (D) only, and not to the inertial mass of the structure.
  2. The load factor for live load (L) may be reduced to 1.3 for the maximum outrigger float load from a truck crane.
  3. For Level 1 and 2 earthquake conditions with strain levels defined in Division 7, the current on structure (C) may not be required.
  4. An earth pressure on the Structure factor (H) of 1.0 may be used for pile or bulkhead structures.


TABLE 31F-3-11
SERVICE OR ASD LOAD FACTORS FOR LOAD COMBINATIONS [3.18]
LOAD TYPE VACANT CONDITION MOORING & BREASTING CONDITION BERTHING CONDITION EARTHQUAKE CONDITION
Dead Load (D) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.7k1 1 - 0.7k1
Live Load (L) 1.0 1.0 0.75 0.75
Buoyancy (B) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6
Wind on Structure (W) 1.0 1.0 0.75
Current on Structure (C) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Earth Pressure on the Structure (H) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Mooring/Breasting Load (M) 1.0
Berthing Load (Be) 1.0
Earthquake Load (E) 0.7 0.7
% Allowable Stress 100 100 100 1002
  1. k = 0.5 (PGA)
  2. Increase in allowable stress shall not be used with these load combinations unless it can be demonstrated that such increase is justified by structural behavior caused by rate or duration of load. See ASCE/SEI 7 [3.21]

3103F.8.1 Dead Load (D)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Upper and lower bound values of dead load are applied for the vacant condition to check the maximum moment and shear with minimum axial load.

3103F.8.2 Live Load (L)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Typically, the live load on MOTs is small and may be neglected for combinations including earthquake loads. However, in some cases, a higher value of live load may be warranted depending on MOT use, and an appropriate value of live load shall be considered for combinations including earthquake loads.

3103F.8.3 Buoyancy Load (B)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Buoyancy forces shall be considered for any submerged or immersed substructures (including pipelines, sumps and structural components).

3103F.8.4 Wind (W) and Current (C) on the Structure

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Wind and currents on the vessel are included in the mooring and breasting condition. The wind and current loads acting on the structure are therefore additional loads that can act simultaneously with the mooring, breasting and/or berthing loads.

3103F.8.5 Earth Pressure on the Structure (H)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The soil pressure on end walls, typically concrete cut-off walls, steel sheet pile walls on wharf type structures and/or piles shall be considered.

3103F.8.6 Mooring Line/Breasting Loads (M)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Mooring line and breasting loads can occur simultaneously or individually, depending on the combination of wind and current. Multiple load cases for operating and survival conditions may be required (see Sections 3103F.5.2 and 3105F.2). In addition, loads caused by passing vessels shall be considered for the "mooring and breasting condition." Refer to Sections 3105F.2 and 3105F.3 for the determination of mooring line and breasting loads.

3103F.8.7 Berthing load (Be)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Berthing is a frequent occurrence, and shall be considered as a normal operating load. No increase in allowable stresses shall be applied for ASD.

3103F.8.8 Earthquake Loads (E)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Performance based seismic analysis methodology requires that the actual displacement demand be limited to defined strains in concrete, steel and timber. For the deck and pile evaluation, two cases of dead load (upper and lower bound) shall be considered in combination with the seismic load.

3103F.9 Miscellaneous Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Handrails and guardrails shall be designed for 25 plf with a 200-pound minimum concentrated load in any location or direction.

3103F.10 Symbols

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
a = Distance between the vessel's center of gravity and the point of contact on the vessel's side, projected onto the vessel's longitudinal axis [ft]
A = Site Class A as defined in Table 31F-6-1
B = Beam of vessel
B = Site Class B as defined in Table 31F-6-1
B1 = Coefficient used to adjust one-second period spectral response, for the effect of viscous damping
Bs = Coefficient used to adjust the short period spectral response, for the effect of visous damping.
C = Site Class C as defined in Table 31F-6-1
Cb = Berthing Coefficient
Cc = Configuration Coefficient
Cg = Geometric Coefficient
Cd = Deformation Coefficient
Ce = Eccentricity Coefficient
Cm = Effective mass or virtual mass coefficient
Ct = Windspeed conversion factor
D = Site Class D as defined in Table 31F-6-1
DSA = Design Spectral Acceleration
DSAd = DSA values at damping other than 5 percent
DT = Displacement of vessel
DWT = Dead weight tons
dactual = Arrival maximum draft of vessel at berth
dmax = Maximum vessel draft (in open seas)
E = Site Class E as defined in Table 31F-6-1
Efender = Energy to be absorbed by the fender system
Evessel = Berthing energy of vessel [ft-lbs]
F = Site Class F as defined in Table 31F-6-1
Fa, Fv = Site coefficients from Tables 31F-3-3 and 31F-3-4, respectively
FA = Accidental factor accounting for abnormal conditions
g = Acceleration due to gravity [32.2 ft/sec2]
h = Elevation above water surface [feet]
k = Radius of longitudinal gyration of the vessel [ft]
K = Current velocity correction factor (Fig 31F-3-2)
PGAX = Peak ground acceleration corresponding to the site class under consideration.
s = Water depth measured from the surface
Sa = Spectral acceleration
S1 = Spectral acceleration value (for the boundary of Site Classes B and C) at 1.0 second
SS = Spectral acceleration value (for the boundary of Site Classes B and C) at 0.2 seconds
SX1 = Spectral acceleration value at 1.0 second corresponding to the period of S1 and the site class under consideration
SXS = Spectral acceleration value at 0.2 seconds corresponding to the period of SS and the site class under consideration
T = Draft of vessel (see Figure 31F-3-2)
T = Period [sec]
T0 = Period at which the constant acceleration and constant velocity regions of the design spectrum intersect
Vc = Average current velocity [knots]
vc = Current velocity as a function of depth [knots]
Vh = Wind speed (knots) at elevation h
VL = Over land wind speed
Vn = Berthing velocity normal to the berth [ft/sec]
vt = Velocity over a given time period
Vt=30sec = Wind speed for a 30 second interval
Vw = Wind speed at 33-foot (10 m) elevation [knots]
W = Total weight of vessel and cargo inpounds [displacement tonnage × 2240]
WD = Water Depth (Figure 31F-3-2)

TABLE 31F-6-1
SITE CLASSES
SITE CLASS SOIL PROFILE AVERAGE VALUES FOR TOP 100 FEET OF SOIL PROFILE3
Shear Wave Velocity,
VS [ft/sec]
Standard Penetration Test,
SPT [blows/ft]
Undrained Shear Strength,
SU [psf]
A Hard Rock > 5,000
B Rock 2,500 to 5,000
C Very Stiff/Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock 1,200 to 2,500 > 50 > 2,000
D Soft/Dense Soil Profile 600 to 1,200 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000
E1, 2 Soft/Loose Soil Profile < 600 < 15 < 1,000
F Defined in Section 3106F.2.1
  1. Site Class E also includes any soil profile with more than 10 feet of soft clay (defined as a soil with a plasticity index, PI > 20, water content > 40 percent and Su < 500 psf).
  2. The plasticity index, P1, and the moisture content shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D4318 [6.1] and ASTM D2216 [6.2], respectively.
  3. Conversion of CPT data to estimate equivalent Vs, SPT blow count, or Su is allowed.

3103F.11 References

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
[3.1] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, ASCE/SEI 41-17 (ASCE/SEI 41), "Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings," Reston, VA.
[3.2] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Nov. 2000, FEMA 356, "Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings," Washington, D.C.
[3.3] Idriss, I.M. and Sun, J.I., 1992, "User's Manual for SHAKE91, A Computer Program for Conducting Equivalent Linear Seismic Response Analyses of Horizontally Layered Soil Deposits," Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA.
[3.4] Somerville, Paul G., Smith, Nancy F., Graves, Robert W., and Abrahamson, Norman A., 1997, "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, pp.199-222.
[3.5] Pile Buck Inc., 1992, "Mooring Systems, A Pile Buck Production," Jupiter, FL.
[3.6] Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF), 2008, "Mooring Equipment Guidelines (MEG3)," 3rd ed., London, England.
[3.7] Ferritto, J., Dickenson, S., Priestley N., Werner, S., Taylor, C., Burke, D., Seelig, W., and Kelly, S., 1999, "Seismic Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminals," Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, Technical Report TR-2103-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA.
[3.8] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Contact: National PORTS Program Manager, Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, 1305 EW Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
[3.9] Department of Defense, 3 October 2005 (Change 2, 23 June 2016), Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4- 159-03, "Design: Moorings," Washington, D.C.
[3.10] Chakrabarti, S. K., 1987, "Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures," Computational Mechanics.
[3.11] Kriebel, David, "Mooring Loads Due to Parallel Passing Ships," Technical Report TR-6056-OCN, US Naval Academy, 30 September 2005.
[3.12] Wang, Shen, August 1975, "Dynamic Effects of Ship Passage on Moored Vessels," Journal of the Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 101, WW3, Reston, VA.
[3.13] Seelig, William N., 20 November 2001, "Passing Ship Effects on Moored Ships," Technical Report TR-6027-OCN, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Washington, D.C.
[3.14] Moffatt & Nichol, April 2007, "Tsunami Hazard Assessment for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles — FINAL REPORT," prepared for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
[3.15] Synolakis, C., "Tsunami and Seiche," Chapter 9 in Earthquake Engineering Handbook, Chen, W., Scawthorn, C. S. and Arros, J. K., editors, 2002, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
[3.16] Borrero, Jose, Dengler, Lori, Uslu, Burak and Synolakis, Costas, June 2006, "Numerical Modeling of Tsunami Effects at Marine Oil Terminals in San Francisco Bay," Report for the Marine Facilities Division of the California State Lands Commission.
[3.17] Camfield, Frederick E., February 1980, "Tsunami Engineering," U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Research Center, Special Report No. 6.
[3.18] Department of Defense, 24 January 2017, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-152-01, "Design: Piers and Wharves," Washington, D.C
[3.19] Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC), 2002, "Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems: 2002," Brussels.
[3.20] Gaythwaite, John, 2004, "Design of Marine Facilities for the Berthing, Mooring and Repair of Vessels," American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
[3.21] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, ASCE/SEI 7-16 (ASCE/SEI 7), "Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures," Reston, VA.
[3.22] Simiu, E. and Scanlan, R., 1978, "Wind Effects on Structures: An Introduction to Wind Engineering," Wiley-Interscience Publications, New York.

Authority: Sections 8750 through 8760, Public Resources Code.

Reference: Sections 8750, 8751, 8755 and 8757, Public Resources Code.

Division 4

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

Section 3104F Seismic Analysis and Structural Performance

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3104F.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3104F.1.1 Purpose

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The purpose of this section is to establish minimum standards for seismic analysis and structural performance. Seismic performance is evaluated at two criteria levels. Level 1 requirements define a performance criterion to ensure MOT functionality. Level 2 requirements safeguard against major damage, collapse or major oil spill.

3104F.1.2 Applicability

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Section 3104F applies to all new and existing MOTs. Structures supporting loading arms, pipelines, oil transfer and storage equipment, critical systems and vessel mooring structures, such as mooring and breasting dolphins are included. Catwalks and similar components that are not part of the lateral load carrying system and do not support oil transfer equipment may be excluded.

3104F.1.3 Configuration Classification of MOT Structure

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Each MOT structure shall be designated as regular or irregular based on torsional irregularity criteria presented in ASCE/SEI 7 [4.1]. An MOT structure is defined to be irregular when maximum displacement at one end of the MOT structure transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times the average of the displacement at the two ends of the MOT structure, as described in Figure 31F-4-1. For MOTs with multiple segments separated by expansion joints, each segment shall be designated as regular or irregular using criteria in this section. Expansion joints in this context are defined as joints that separate each structural segment in such a manner that each segment will move independently during an earthquake.

FIGURE 31F-4-1
DEFINITION OF IRREGULAR MOT

3104F.2 Existing MOTs

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3104F.2.1 Seismic Performance Criteria

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Two levels of seismic performance shall be considered, except for critical systems (Section 3104F.5.1). These levels are defined as follows:

Level 1 Seismic Performance:

  • Minor or no structural damage
  • Temporary or no interruption in operations
Level 2 Seismic Performance:

  • Controlled inelastic behavior with repairable damage
  • Prevention of collapse
  • Temporary loss of operations, restorable within months
  • Prevention of major spill (≥ 1200 bbls)

     The Level 1 and Level 2 seismic performance criteria are defined in Table 31F-4-1.

3104F.2.2 Basis for Evaluation

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Component capacities shall be based on existing conditions, calculated as "best estimates," taking into account the mean material strengths, strain hardening and degradation overtime. The capacity of components with little or no ductility, which may lead to brittle failure scenarios, shall be calculated based on lower bound material strengths. Methods to establish component strength and deformation capacities for typical structural materials and components are provided in Section 3107F. Geotechnical considerations are discussed in Section 3106F.

3104F.2.3 Analytical Procedures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The objective of the seismic analysis is to verify that the displacement capacity of the structure is greater than the displacement demand, for each performance level defined in Table 31F-4-1. For this purpose, the displacement capacity of each element of the structure shall be checked against its displacement demand including the orthogonal effects of Section 3104F.4.2. The required analytical procedures are summarized in Table 31F-4-2.

     The displacement capacity of the structure shall be calculated using the nonlinear static (pushover) procedure. For the nonlinear static (pushover) procedure, the pushover load shall be applied at the target node defined as the center of mass (CM) of the MOT structure. It is also acceptable to use a nonlinear dynamic procedure for capacity evaluation, subject to peer review in accordance with Section 3101F.8.2.

     Methods used to calculate the displacement demand are linear modal, nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic.

     Mass to be included in the displacement demand calculation shall include mass from self-weight of the structure, weight of the permanent equipment, and portion of the live load that may contribute to inertial mass during earthquake loading, such as a minimum of 25% of the floor live load in areas used for storage.

     Any rational method, subject to the Division's approval, can be used in lieu of the required analytical procedures shown in Table 31F-4-2.

TABLE 31F-4-2
MINIMUM REQUIRED ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
SPILL CLASSIFICATION1 CONFIGURATION SUBSTRUCTURE MATERIAL DISPLACEMENT DEMAND PROCEDURE DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY PROCEDURE
High/Medium Irregular Concrete/Steel Linear Modal Nonlinear Static
High/Medium Regular Concrete/Steel Nonlinear Static2 Nonlinear Static
Low Regular/Irregular Concrete/Steel Nonlinear Static Nonlinear Static
High/Medium/Low Regular/Irregular Timber Nonlinear Static Nonlinear Static
  1. See Section 3101F.6 for spill classification.
  2. Linear modal demand procedure may be required for cases where more than one mode is expected to contribute to the displacement demand.

3104F.2.3.1 Nonlinear Static Capacity Procedure (Pushover)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
To assess displacement capacity, two-dimensional nonlinear static (pushover) analyses shall be performed; three-dimensional analyses are optional. A model that incorporates the nonlinear load deformation characteristics of all components for the lateral force-resisting system shall be used in the pushover analysis.

     Alternatively, displacement capacity of a pile in the MOT structure may be estimated from pushover analysis of an individual pile with appropriate axial load and pile-to-deck connection.

     The displacement capacity of a pile from the pushover analysis shall be defined as the displacement that can occur at the top of the pile without exceeding plastic rotation (or material strain) limits, either at the pile-deck hinge or in-ground hinge, as defined in Section 3107F. If pile displacement has components along two axes, as may be the case for irregular MOTs, the pile displacement capacity shall be defined as the resultant of its displacement components along the two axes.

3104F.2.3.1.1 Modeling

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A series of nonlinear pushover analyses may be required depending on the complexity of the MOT structure. At a minimum, pushover analysis of a two-dimensional model shall be conducted in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. The piles shall be represented by nonlinear elements that capture the moment-curvature/rotation relationships for components with expected inelastic behavior in accordance with Section 3107F. The effects of connection flexibility shall be considered in pile-to-deck connection modeling. For prestressed concrete piles, Figure 31F-4-2 may be used. A nonlinear element is not required to represent each pile location. Piles with similar lateral force-deflection behavior may be lumped in fewer larger springs, provided that the overall torsional effects are captured.

     Linear material component behavior is acceptable where nonlinear response will not occur. All components shall be based on effective moment of inertia calculated in accordance with Section 3107F. Specific requirements for timber pile structures are discussed in the next section.

FIGURE 31F-4-2
PILE-DECK CONNECTION MODELING FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILE (ADAPTED FROM [4.2])

3104F.2.3.1.2 Timber Pile Supported Structures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For all timber pile supported structures, linear elastic procedures may be used. Alternatively, the nonlinear static procedure may be used to estimate the target displacement demand, Δd.

     A simplified single pile model for a typical timber pile supported structure is shown in Figure 31F-4-3. The pile-deck connections may be assumed to be "pinned." The lateral bracing can often be ignored if it is in poor condition. These assumptions shall be used for the analysis, unless a detailed condition assessment and lateral analysis indicate that the existing bracing and connections may provide reliable lateral resistance.

     A series of single pile analyses may be sufficient to establish the nonlinear springs required for the pushover analysis.

FIGURE 31F-4-3
SIMPLIFIED SINGLE PILE MODEL OF A TIMBER PILE SUPPORTED STRUCTURE

3104F.2.3.2 Nonlinear Static Demand Procedure

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A nonlinear static procedure shall be used to determine the displacement demand for all concrete and steel structures, with the exception of irregular configurations with high or moderate spill classifications. A linear modal procedure is required for irregular structures with high or moderate spill classifications, and may be used for all other classifications in lieu of the nonlinear static procedure.

     In the nonlinear static demand procedure, deformation demand in each element shall be computed at the target node displacement demand. The analysis shall be conducted in each of the two orthogonal directions and results combined as described in Section 3104F.4.2.

     The target displacement demand of the structure, Δd, shall be calculated from:

Δd = SA(Te2/4π2) (4-1)

where:
Te = effective elastic structural period defined in Equation (4-3) or Equation (4-9)
SA = spectral response acceleration corresponding to Te


     If Te < T0, where T0 is the period corresponding to the peak of the acceleration response spectrum, a refined analysis (see Section 3104F.2.3.2.1 or 3104F.2.3.2.2) shall be used to calculate the displacement demand. In the refined analysis, the target node displacement demand may be computed from the Coefficient Method (Section 3104F.2.3.2.1) or the Substitute Structure Method (Section 3104F.2.3.2.2). Both of these methods utilize the pushover curve developed in Section 3104F.2.3.1.

3104F.2.3.2.1 Coefficient Method

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The Coefficient Method is based on the procedures presented in ASCE/SEI 41 [4.3] and FEMA 440 [4.4].

     The first step in the Coefficient Method requires idealization of the pushover curve to calculate the effective elastic lateral stiffness, ke, and effective yield strength, Fy, of the structure as shown in Figure 31F-4-4.

     The first line segment of the idealized pushover curve shall begin at the origin and have a slope equal to the effective elastic lateral stiffness, ke. The effective elastic lateral stiffness, ke, shall be taken as the secant stiffness calculated at the lateral force equal to 60 percent of the effective yield strength, Fy, of the structure. The effective yield strength, Fy, shall not be taken as greater than the maximum lateral force at any point along the pushover curve.

     The second line segment shall represent the positive post-yield slope (α1ke) determined by a point (Fd, Δd) and a point at the intersection with the first line segment such that the area above and below the actual curve area approximately balanced. (Fd, Δd) shall be a point on the actual pushover curve at the calculated target displacement, or at the displacement corresponding to the maximum lateral force, whichever is smaller.

     The third line segment shall represent the negative post-yield slope (α2ke), determined by the point at the end of the positive post-yield slope (Fd, Δd) and the point at which the lateral force degrades to 60 percent of the effective yield strength.

     The target displacement shall be calculated from:

(4-2)

where:
SA = spectral acceleration of the linear-elastic system at vibration period, which is computed from:


(4-3)

where:
m = seismic mass as defined in Section 3104F.2.3
ke = effective elastic lateral stiffness from idealized pushover
C1 = modification factor to relate maximum inelastic displacement to displacement calculated for linear elastic response. For period less than 0.2 s, C1 need not be taken greater than the value at Te = 0.2 s. For period greater than 1.0 s, C1 = 1.0. For all other periods:


(4-4)


where:
a = Site class factor
= 130 for Site Class A or B,
= 90 for Site Class C, and
= 60 for Site Class D, E, or F.
μstrength = ratio of elastic strength demand to yield strength coefficient calculated in accordance with Equation (4-6). The Coefficient Method is not applicable where μstrength exceeds μmax computed from Equation (4-7). μstrength shall not be taken as less than 1.0.
C2 = modification factor to represent the effects of pinched hysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness degradation, and strength deterioration on the maximum displacement response. For periods greater than 0.7s, C2 = 1.0. For all other periods:

(4-5)


     The strength ratio μstrength shall be computed from:

(4-6)

where:
Fy = effective yield strength of the structure in the direction under consideration from the idealized pushover curve.


     For structures with negative post-yield stiffness, the maximum strength ratio μmax shall be computed from:

(4-7)

where:
Δd = larger of target displacement or displacement corresponding to the maximum pushover force,
Δy = displacement at effective yield strength


h = 1 + 0.15lnTe (4-8)


αe = effective negative post-yield slope ratio which shall be computed from:


αe = αP-Δ + λ( α2 - αP-Δ) (4-9)

where:

αP-Δ, and the maximum negative post-elastic stiffness ratio, α2, are estimated from the idealized force-deformation curve, and λ is a near-field effect factor equal to 0.8 for sites with 1 second spectral value, S1 greater than or equal to 0.6g and equal to 0.2 for sites with 1 second spectral value, S1 less than 0.6g.

FIGURE 31F-4-4
IDEALIZATION OF PUSHOVER CURVE (ADAPTED FROM [4.3])

3104F.2.3.2.2 Substitute Structure Method

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The Substitute Structure Method is based on the procedure presented in Priestley et al. [4.5] and ASCE/COPRI 61 [4.2]. This method is summarized below.
  1. Idealize the pushover curve from nonlinear pushover analysis, as described in Section 3104F.2.3.2.1, and estimate the effective yield strength, Fy, and yield displacement, Δy.
  2. Compute the effective elastic lateral stiffness, ke, as the effective yield strength, Fy, divided by the yield displacement, Δy.
  3. Compute the structural period in the direction under consideration from:

    (4-10)

    where:
    m = seismic mass as defined in Section 3104F.2.3
    ke = effective elastic lateral stiffness in direction under consideration
  4. Determine target displacement, Δd, of the effective linear elastic system from:

    (4-11)

    SA = the 5 percent damped spectral displacement corresponding to the linear elastic structural period, Te


         Select the initial estimate of the displacement demand as Δd, i = Δd.
  5. The ductility level, μΔ,i , is found from Δd,iy. Use the appropriate relationship between ductility and damping, for the component undergoing inelastic deformation, to estimate the effective structural damping, ξeff,i. In lieu of more detailed analysis, Equation (4-12) may be used for concrete and steel piles connected to the deck through dowels embedded in the concrete. Note that the idealized pushover curves in Figure 31F-4-4 shall be utilized in Figure 31F-4-5, which illustrates the iterative procedure.

    (4-12)

    where:
    α1 = ratio of second slope over elastic slope (see Figures 31F-4-4 and 31F-4-5)


         Equation (4-12) for effective damping was developed by Kowalsky et al. [4.6] for the Takeda hysteresis model of system's force-displacement relationship.
  6. Compute the force, Fd,i, on the force-deformation relationship associated with the estimated displacement, Δd,i (see Figure 31F-4-5).
  7. Compute the effective stiffness, keff,i, as the secant stiffness from:
    (4-13)
  8. Compute the effective period, Teff,i, from:

    (4-14)

    where:
    m = seismic mass as defined in Section 3104F.2.3
  9. For the effective structural period, Teff,i, and the effective structural damping, ξeff,i, compute the spectral acceleration SA(Teff,i, ξeff,i) from an appropriately damped design acceleration response spectrum.
  10. Compute the new estimate of the displacement, Δd, j, from:

    (4-15)
  11. Repeat steps 5 to 10 with Δd, i = Δd, j until displacement, Δd, j, computed in step 10 is sufficiently close to the starting displacement, Δd, i, in step 5 (Figure 31F-4-5).

FIGURE 31F-4-5
EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS FOR SUBSTITUTE STRUCTURE METHOD

3104F.2.3.3 Linear Modal Demand Procedure

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For irregular concrete/steel structures with moderate or high spill classifications, a linear modal analysis is required to predict the global displacement demands. A 3-D linear elastic response analysis shall be used, with effective moment of inertia applied to components to establish lateral displacement demands, to compute displacement components of an element along each axis of the system.

     Sufficient modes shall be included in the analysis such that 90 percent of the participating mass is captured in each of the principal horizontal directions for the structure. For modal combinations, the Complete Quadratic Combination rule shall be used. Multidirectional excitation shall be accounted for in accordance with Section 3104F.4.2.

     The lateral stiffness of the linear elastic response model shall be based on the initial stiffness of the non-linear pushover curve as shown in Figure 31F-4-6 (also see Section 3106F.9). The p-y springs shall be adjusted based on the secant method approach. Most of the p-y springs will typically be based on their initial stiffness; no iteration is required.

     If the fundamental period is T < T0, where T0 is the period corresponding to the peak of the acceleration response spectrum, the displacement demand from the linear modal analysis shall be amplified to account for nonlinear system behavior by an amplification factor. The amplification factor shall be equal to either C1 × C2 per Section 3104F.2.3.2.1, or the ratio of the final target displacement and the initial elastic displacement of Equation (4-11) per Section 3104F.2.3.2.2.

FIGURE 31F-4-6
STIFFNESS FOR LINEAR MODAL ANALYSIS

3104F.2.3.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Nonlinear dynamic time history analysis is optional, and if performed, a peer review is required (see Section 3101F.8.2). Multiple acceleration records shall be used, as explained in Section 3103F.4.2.10. The following assumptions may be made:
  1. Equivalent "super piles" can represent groups of piles.
  2. If the deck has sufficient rigidity (both in-plane and out-of plane) to justify its approximation as a rigid element, a 2-D plan simulation may be adequate.
     A time-history analysis should always be compared with a simplified approach to ensure that results are reasonable. Displacements calculated from the nonlinear time history analyses may be used directly in design, but shall not be less than 80 percent of the values obtained from Section 3104F.2.3.2.

3104F.2.3.5 Alternative Procedures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Alternative lateral-force procedures using rational analyses based on well-established principles of mechanics may be used in lieu of those prescribed in these provisions. As per Section 3101F.8.2, peer review is required.

3104F.3 New MOTs

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The analysis and design requirements described in Section 3104F.2 shall also apply to new MOTs. However, new MOTs shall comply with the seismic performance criteria for high spill classification, as defined in Table 31F-4-1. Additional requirements are as follows:
  1. Site-specific response spectra analysis (see Section 3103F.4.2.3).
  2. Soil parameters based on site-specific and new borings (see Section 3106F.2.2).

3104F.4 General Analysis and Design Requirements

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3104F.4.1 Load Combinations

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Earthquake loads shall be used in the load combinations described in Section 3103F.8.

3104F.4.2 Combination of Orthogonal Seismic Effects

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The design displacement demand at an element, δd, shall be calculated by combining the longitudinal, δx, and transverse, δy, displacements in the horizontal plane (Figure 31F-4-7):

(4-16)

where:

δx = δxy + 0.3δxx (4-17)

and

δy = 0.3δyx + δyy (4-18)

OR

δy = δyx + 0.3δyy (4-19)

and

δx = 0.3δxy + δxx (4-20)

     whichever results in the greater design displacement demand.

FIGURE 31F-4-7
PLAN VIEW OF WHARF SEGMENT UNDER X AND Y SEISMIC EXCITATIONS

3104F.4.3 P-δ Effects

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The P-Δ effect (i.e., the additional moment induced by the total vertical load multiplied by the lateral deck deflection) shall be considered unless the following relationship is satisfied (see Figure 31F-4-8):

(4-21)

where:
V = base shear strength of the structure obtained from a plastic analysis
W = dead load of the frame
Δd = displacement demand
H = distance from the location of maximum in-ground moment to center of gravity of the deck


     For wharf structures where the lateral displacement is limited by almost fully embedded piles, P-Δ effects may be ignored; however, the individual stability of the piles shall be checked in accordance with Section 3107F.2.5.2.

     If the landside batter piles are allowed to fail in a Level 2 evaluation, the remaining portion of the wharf shall be checked for P-Δ effects.

FIGURE 31F-4-8
P-Δ EFFECT

3104F.4.4 Expansion Joints

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The effect of expansion joints shall be considered in the seismic analysis.

3104F.4.5 Shear Key Forces

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Shear force across shear keys connecting adjacent wharf segments, Vsk, (approximate upper bound to the shear key force [4.7]) shall be calculated as follows:

Vsk = 1.5(e/Ll)VΔT (4-22)

where:
VΔT = total segment lateral force found from a pushover analysis
Ll = segment length
e = eccentricity between the center of rigidity and the center of mass

3104F.4.6 Connections

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For an existing wharf, the deteriorated conditions at the junction between the pile top and pile cap shall be considered in evaluating the moment capacity. Connection detail between the vertical pile and pile cap shall be evaluated to determine whether full or partial moment capacity can be developed under seismic action.

     For new MOTs, the connection details shall develop the full moment capacities.

     The modeling shall simulate the actual moment capacity (full or partial) of the joint in accordance with Section 3107F.2.7.

3104F.4.7 Batter Piles

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Batter piles primarily respond to earthquakes by developing large axial compression or tension forces. Bending moments are generally of secondary importance. Failure in compression may be dictated by the deck-pile connection (most common type), material compression, buckling, or by excessive local shear in deck members adjacent to the batter pile. Failure in tension may be dictated by connection strength or by pile pull out (p. 3-83 of Ferritto et al. [4.7]).

     When the controlling failure scenario is reached and the batter pile fails, the computer model shall be adjusted to consist of only the vertical pile acting either as a full or partial moment frame based on the connection details between the pile top and pile cap. The remaining displacement capacity, involving vertical piles, before the secondary failure stage develops, shall then be established (see Section 3107F.2.8).

     Axial p-z curves shall be modeled. In compression, displacement capacity should consider the effect of the reduction in pile modulus of elasticity at high loads and the increase in effective length for friction piles. This procedure allows the pile to deform axially before reaching ultimate loads, thereby increasing the displacement ductility [4.7].

     Horizontal nonlinear p-y springs are only applied to batter piles with significant embedment, such as for landside batter piles in a wharf structure. Moment fixity can be assumed for batter piles that extend well above the ground such as waterside batter piles in a wharf structure or batter piles in a pier type structure.

3104F.5 Nonstructural Components, Nonbuilding Structures and Building Structures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Nonstructural components, nonbuilding structures and building structures at MOTs shall be assessed for Level 2 seismic performance (see Section 3104F.2.1). Consideration shall be given to the adequacy and condition of supports and attachments (or anchorage), strength, flexibility, relative displacement, P-delta effects, and seismically-induced interaction with other components and structures.

3104F.5.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Nonstructural components are mechanical, electrical and architectural components (such as piping/pipelines, loading arms, lifting equipment (winches and cranes), spill prevention equipment, pumps, instrumentation and storage cabinets, and lighting fixtures) that may be required to resist the effects of earthquake.

     Nonbuilding structures (such as gangways, hose towers and racks) are self-supporting structures that carry gravity loads and may be required to resist the effects of earthquake, but are not building structures (such as control rooms). For building structures, see Section 3104F.5.6.

     Critical systems are nonstructural components, nonbuilding structures or building structures that shall remain operational or those whose failure could impair emergency operations following an earthquake, to prevent major oil spills and to protect public health, safety and the environment. A seismic assessment of the survivability and continued operation (related to personnel safety, oil spill prevention or response) during a Level 2 earthquake (see Table 31F-4-1) shall be performed for critical systems, including but not limited to, fire protection, emergency shutdown and electrical power systems.

3104F.5.2 Seismic Assessment

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For existing (E) nonstructural components, nonbuilding structures and building structures and their supports and attachments, seismic assessment shall be performed in accordance with CalARP [4.8] or ASCE Guidelines [4.9], except for piping/pipelines which shall be evaluated per Section 3109F. If seismic evaluation and/or strengthening are required, it shall be performed in accordance with Section 3104F.5.2.1.

     For new (N) nonstructural components, nonbuilding structures and building structures and their supports and attachments, seismic evaluation and design shall be performed in accordance with Section 3104F.5.2.1, except for piping/pipelines which shall be evaluated per Section 3109F.

3104F.5.2.1 Seismic Evaluation, Strengthening and Design

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For evaluation, strengthening and design of nonstructural components, nonbuilding structures and building structures, seismic forces (demands) shall be obtained from Section 3104F.5. The seismic adequacy of nonstructural components shall be demonstrated as specified in ASCE/SEI 7 [4.1]. Structures shall be analyzed in accordance with Section 3107F.5. Supports and attachments shall be assessed in accordance with Sections 3107F.7.

3104F.5.3 Contribution to Global Response of MOT Structures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Nonstructural components, nonbuilding structures and building structures permanently attached to MOT structures, including, but not limited to, pipelines, loading arms, hose towers/racks, raised platforms, control rooms and vapor control equipment, may affect the global structural response. In such cases, the seismic characteristics (mass and/or stiffness) of the nonstructural components, nonbuilding structures and building structures shall be considered in computing global seismic response of the MOT structures. If the seismic response of nonstructural components is determined to be out of phase (e.g. pipelines) with the global structural response, then the mass contribution can be neglected in the seismic structural analysis.

3104F.5.4 Nonstructural Components and Nonbuilding Structures Permanently Attached to MOT Structures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This section covers nonstructural components and nonbuilding structures having a significant mass and/or importance to the operability and safety of the MOT, and that are permanently attached to MOT structures (e.g., wharves, trestles, dolphins). The weight of nonstructural components and nonbuilding structures shall be included in the dead load of the structure per Section 3103F.2.

     Computation of seismic effects shall consider:
  1. Amplification of acceleration from ground to location of attachment of the nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure to the deck due to flexibility of the MOT structure, and
  2. Amplification of acceleration due to flexibility of the nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure.
     The following are not covered in this section and shall be assessed using rational approach that includes consideration of strength, stiffness, ductility, and seismic interaction with all other connected components and with the supporting structures or systems, subject to Division approval:
  1. Nonstructural component supported by other nonstructural system permanently attached to MOT structure;
  2. Nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure supported by other structure permanently attached to MOT structure;
  3. Nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure attached to multiple MOT structures;
  4. Nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure attached to structure and ground.

3104F.5.4.1 Seismic Loads

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This section specifies the procedure to compute seismic loads on nonstructural components and nonbuilding structures permanently attached to a MOT structure.

     The following nonstructural components are exempt from the requirements of this section:
  1. Temporary or movable equipment unless part of a critical system (Section 3104F.5.1);
  2. Mechanical and electrical components that are attached to the MOT structure and have flexible connections to associated piping and conduit; and either:
    1. The component weighs 400 lb or less, the center of mass is located 4 ft or less above the MOT deck, and the component Importance Factor, Ip is equal to 1.0; or
    2. The component weighs 20 lb or less, or in the case of a distributed system, 5 lb/ft or less.

3104F.5.4.1.1 Simplified Procedure

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The Simplified Procedure may be used to estimate seismic loads on nonstructural components and nonbuilding structures permanently attached to a MOT structure. The Simplified Procedure shall not be used if any of the following apply:
  1. Mass of the nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure exceeds 25 percent of the combined mass of the MOT structure plus nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure;
  2. Multiple nonstructural components or nonbuilding structures of similar type (or natural period) when their combined mass exceeds 25 percent of the total mass of the MOT structure plus nonstructural components or nonbuilding structures;
  3. Concrete/Steel MOT structure with irregular configuration (Section 3104F.1.3 and Table 31F-4-2) and high or medium spill exposure classification.
     The horizontal seismic force, Fp, shall be computed as follows [4.10]:

(4-23)

0.3SxsIpWp ≤ Fp1.6SxsIpWp

where:
Sxs = spectral acceleration in Section 3103F.4.2.4 or Section 3103F.4.2.5
ap = amplification factor for nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure (Table 31F-4-3)
Ip = importance factor for nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure (Table 31F-4-4)
Wp = weight of the nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure
Rp = response modification factor for nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure (Table 31F-4-5)


     Alternatively, when dynamic properties of the MOT structure are available, the horizontal seismic force, Fp, may be computed from [4.10]:

(4-24)

0.3SxsIpWp ≤ Fp1.6SxsIpWp

where:
SA = spectral acceleration in Section 3103F.4.2.4 or Section 3103F.4.2.5, at the period equal to the elastic fundamental period of the MOT structure, T, in direction under consideration
Ax = torsional amplification factor given by:

(4-25)

1 ≤ Ax ≤ 3

where:
Δm = maximum displacement at one end of the MOT structure transverse to an axis
Δavg = average of the displacements at the extreme points of the MOT structure (see Figure 31F-4-1)


     The horizontal seismic force, Fp, in the direction under consideration shall be applied at the center of gravity and distributed relative to the mass distribution of the nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure.

     The horizontal seismic force, Fp, shall be applied independently in at least two orthogonal horizontal directions in combination with service or operating loads associated with the nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure, as appropriate. For vertically cantilevered systems, however, Fp shall be assumed to act in any horizontal direction.

     The concurrent vertical seismic force, Fv, shall be applied at the center of gravity and distributed relative to the mass distribution of the nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure, as follows:

Fv = ±0.2SxsWp (4-26)

FIGURE 31F-4-9
AMPLIFICATION FACTOR, ap [4.10]



TABLE 31F-4-3
AMPLIFICATION FACTORS FOR NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND NONBUILDING STRUCTURES
COMPONENT OR STRUCTURE ap1, 2
Rigid components or structures (period less than 0.06 seconds) 1.0
Rigidly attached components or structures 1.0
Flexible components or structures (period longer than 0.06 seconds) 2.5
Flexibly attached components or structures 2.5
  1. A lower value shall not be used unless justified by detailed dynamic analysis, and shall in no case be less than 1.0.
  2. If the fundamental period of the MOT structure, T, and the period of the flexible nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure, Tp, is known, ap may be estimated from Figure 31F-4-9.


TABLE 31F-4-4
IMPORTANCE FACTORS FOR NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND NONBUILDING STRUCTURES
COMPONENT OR STRUCTURE lp
Critical1, 2 1.5
Other 1.0
  1. See Section 3104F.5.1 for definition of critical system.
  2. A lower value may be utilized, subject to Division approval.


TABLE 31F-4-5
RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTORS FOR NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND NONBUILDING STRUCTURES
COMPONENT OR STRUCTURE Rp1
Loading arms 3.0
Piping/pipelines (welded) 12.0
Pining/pipelines (threaded or flanged) 6.0
Pumps 2.5
Skids 2.5
Tanks and totes 2.5
Light fixtures (or luminaries) 1.5
Electrical conduits and cable trays 6.0
Mooring hardware 2.5
Velocity monitoring equipment 2.5
Instrumentation or storage cabinets 6.0
Cranes 2.5
Gangway (column systems) 3.0
Gangways (truss systems) Use Rp from frame systems
Hose towers and racks Use Rp from frame systems
Frame systems:
Steel special concentrically braced frames
Steel ordinary concentrically braced frames
Steel special moment frames
Steel intermediate moment frames
Steel ordinary moment frames
Lightframe wood sheathed with wood structural panels
Lightframe cold-formed steel sheathed with wood structural panels
Lightframe walls with shear panels of other materials

6.0
3.5
8.0
4.5
3.5
6.5
6.5
2.0
Other Subject to Division approval
  1. A higher value may be utilized, subject to Division approval.

3104F.5.4.1.2 Linear Modal Demand Procedure

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The linear modal demand procedure (Section 3104F.2.3.3) may always be used and shall be used to estimate seismic forces when the Simplified Procedure (Section 3104F.5.4.1.1) is not permitted. The MOT structure and nonstructural components and/or nonbuilding structures shall be modeled explicitly. The seismic forces obtained from the linear modal demand procedure shall be adjusted for appropriate importance factors and response modification factors as specified in Table 31F-4-4 and Table 31F-4-5.

3104F.5.5 Nonstructural Components and Nonbuilding Structures Permanently Attached to the Ground

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The seismic load shall be computed using the procedures in ASCE/SEI 7 [4.1], except that Level 2 design earthquake motion parameters defined in Section 3103F.4 shall be used in lieu of those specified in ASCE/SEI 7 [4.1].

3104F.5.6 Building Structures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For buildings permanently attached to MOT structure, Section 3104F.5.4.1 shall be used to compute seismic loads. Computation of seismic effects shall consider:
  1. Amplification of acceleration from ground to location of attachment of the building to the deck due to flexibility of the MOT structure, and
  2. Amplification of acceleration due to flexibility of the building.
     For buildings permanently attached to the ground, seismic loads shall be computed using the procedures in ASCE/SEI 7 [4.1], as amended by the local enforcing agency requirements, subject to Division approval.

3104F.6 Symbols

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
a = Site class factor
ap = Amplification factor for nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure
Ax = Torsional amplification factor
C1 = Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacement to displacement calculated for linear elastic response
C2 = Modification factor to represent the effects of pinched hysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness degradation and strength deterioration on the maximum displacement response
e = Eccentricity between center of mass and center of rigidity
Fd, i = Force at step i of iteration
Fd, j = Force at step j of iteration
Fp = Horizontal seismic force on nonstructural component, nonbuilding structure or building structure supported on MOT
Fv = Vertical seismic force on nonstructural component, nonbuilding structure or building structure supported on MOT
Fy = Effective yield strength
H = Distance from maximum in-ground moment to center of gravity of the deck
Ip = Importance factor for nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure
ke = Effective elastic lateral stiffness
keff, i = Effective secant lateral stiffness at step i of iteration
keff, j = Effective secant lateral stiffness at step j of iteration
Ll = Longitudinal length between wharf expansion joints
m = Seismic mass
Rp = Response modification factor for nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure
SA = Spectral response acceleration at T
Sxs = Spectral acceleration in Section 3103F.4.2.4 or Section 3103F.4.2.5
S1 = 1-second spectral response acceleration
T = Fundamental period of the elastic structure
Te = Effective elastic structural period
Teff, i = Effective structural period at step i of iteration
Tp = Period of flexible nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure
T0 = Period at peak of the acceleration response spectrum
V = Base shear strength of the structure obtained from a plastic analysis
Vsk = Shear force across shear keys
VΔT = Total segment lateral force
W = Dead load of the frame
Wp = Weight of the nonstructural component or nonbuilding structure
Δd = Target displacement demand
Δd, i = Target displacement demand at step i of iteration
Δd, j = Target displacement demand at step j of iteration
α1 = Positive post-yield slope ratio equal to positive post-yield stiffness divided by the effective stiffness
α2 = Negative post-yield slope ratio equal to negative post-yield stiffness divided by the effective stiffness
αe = Effective negative post-yield slope ratio equal to effective post-yield negative stiffness divided by the effective stiffness
αP-Δ = Negative slope ratio caused by P-Δ effects
Δavg = Average of displacements, Δ1 and Δ2, at ends of the MOT transverse to an axis
Δd = Target displacement
Δm = Maximum of displacements, Δ1 and Δ2, at ends of the MOT transverse to an axis
Δy = Displacement at yield strength
Δ1, Δ2 = Displacement at ends of the MOT transverse to an axis
δd = Design displacement demand at an element
δx = Displacement of an element in X direction
δy = Displacement of an element in Y direction
δxx = X displacement under X direction excitation
δxy = X displacement under Y direction excitation
δyx = Y displacement under X direction excitation
δyy = Y displacement under Y direction excitation
λ = Near-field effect factor
μmax = Maximum strength ratio
μstrength = Ratio of elastic strength demand to yield strength
μΔ,ι = Initial ductility level
ξeff,i = Effective structural damping at step i of iteration

3104F.7 References

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
[4.1] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, ASCE/SEI 7-16 (ASCE/SEI 7), "Minimum Design Loads and Associates Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures," Reston, VA.
[4.2] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2014, ASCE/COPRI 61-14 (ASCE/COPRI 61), "Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves," Reston, VA.
[4.3] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, ASCE/SEI 41-17 (ASCE/SEI 41), "Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings," Reston, VA.
[4.4] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), June 2005, FEMA 440, "Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures," Redwood City, CA.
[4.5] Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M., 1996, "Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges," John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
[4.6] Kowalsky, M.J., Priestley, M.J.N, MacRae, G.A., 1994, "Displacement-Based Design — A Methodology for Seismic Design Applied to Single Degree of Freedom Reinforced Concrete Structures," Report No. SSRP — 94/16, University of California, San Diego.
[4.7] Ferritto, J., Dickenson, S., Priestley N., Werner, S., Taylor, C., Burke, D., Seelig, W., and Kelly, S., 1999, "Seismic Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminals," Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, Technical Report TR-2103-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA.
[4.8] CalARP Program Seismic Guidance Committee, December 2013, "Guidance for California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program Seismic Assessments," Sacramento, CA.
[4.9] American Society of Civil Engineers, 2011, "Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical Facilities," 2nd ed., New York.
[4.10] Goel, R. K., 2017, "Estimating Seismic Forces in Ancillary Components and Nonbuilding Structures Supported on Piers, Wharves, and Marine Oil Terminals," Earthquake Spectra, https://doi.org/10.1193/041017EQS068M.


Authority: Sections 8750 through 8760, Public Resources Code.

Reference: Sections 8750, 8751, 8755 and 8757, Public Resources Code.

Division 5

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

Section 3105F Mooring and Berthing Analysis and Design

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3105F.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3105F.1.1 Purpose

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This section establishes minimum standards for safe mooring and berthing of vessels at MOTs.

3105F.1.2 Applicability

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This section applies to onshore MOTs; Figure 31F-5-1 shows typical pier and wharf configurations.

FIGURE 31F-5-1
TYPICAL PIER AND WHARF CONFIGURATIONS

3105F.1.3 Mooring/Berthing Requirements

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Multiple berth MOTs shall use the same environmental input conditions for each berth unless it can be demonstrated that there are significant differences.

     MOTs shall have the following equipment in operation:
  1. An anemometer (N/E).
  2. A current meter in high velocity current (>1.5 knots) areas (N/E).
  3. Remote reading tension load devices in high velocity current (>1.5 knots) areas and/or with passing vessel effects for new MOTs.
  4. Mooring hardware in accordance with Section 3105F.8 (N/E).
     Berthing systems shall be in accordance with Section 3105F.4 (N/E).

     Monitoring systems and instrumentation shall be implemented considering the parameters in Section 3102F.3.6.1, and shall be installed, maintained and calibrated in accordance with Section 3111F.9.3.

3105F.1.4 New MOTs

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Quick release hooks are required at all new MOTs, except for spring line fittings. Quick release hooks shall be sized in accordance with Section 3105F.8 To avoid accidental release, the freeing mechanism shall be activated by a two-step process. Quick release hooks shall be insulated electrically from the mooring structure, and shall be supported so as not to contact the deck.

     Section 3105F.5 and the OCIMF guidelines [5.4] shall be used in designing the mooring layout.

3105F.1.5 Analysis and Design of Mooring Components

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The existing condition of the MOT shall be used in the mooring analysis (see Section 3102F). Structural characteristics of the MOT, including type and configuration of mooring fittings such as bollards, bitts, hooks and capstans and material properties and condition, shall be determined in accordance with Sections 3107F.7 and 3105F.8.

     The analysis and design of mooring components shall be based on the loading combinations and safety factors defined in Sections 3103F.8, 3105F.7 and 3105F.8, and in accordance with ACI 318 [5.1], AISC 325 [5.2] and ANSI/AWC NDS [5.3], as applicable.

3105F.2 Mooring Analyses

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A mooring analysis shall be performed for each berthing system, to justify the safe mooring of the various vessels at the MOT. Review of vessels calling at the MOT shall be performed to identify representative vessel size ranges and mooring configurations. Vessels analyzed shall be representative of the upper bound of each vessel size range defined by DWT capacity (see Section 3101F.6). The Terminal Operating Limits (TOLs) shall be generated based on the mooring analyses (see Section 3102F.3.6.1 and Figure 31F-2-1).

     The forces acting on a moored vessel shall be determined in accordance with Section 3103F.5. Mooring line and breasting load combinations shall be in accordance with Section 3103F.8.

     Two procedures, manual and numerical, are available for performing mooring analyses. These procedures shall conform to either the OCIMF (MEG 3) [5.4] or UFC 4-159-03 [5.5]. The manual procedure (Section 3105F.2.1) may be used for barges. In order to simplify the analysis for barges (or other small vessels), they may be considered to be solid free-standing walls (Chapter 29 of ASCE/SEI 7 [5.6]). This will eliminate the need to perform a computer assisted mooring analysis.

     A new mooring assessment shall be performed when conditions change, such as any modification in the mooring configuration, vessel size or new information indicating greater wind, current or other environmental loads.

     The most severe combination of the environmental loads and limiting conditions shall be justified based on site-specific evaluation, and considered in the mooring analyses. At a minimum, the following shall be considered and documented:
  1. Two current directions (maximum ebb and flood; See Section 3103F.5.3)
  2. Two tide levels (highest high and lowest low)
  3. Two vessel loading conditions (ballast and maximum draft at the terminal)
  4. Eight wind directions (45 degree increments)
  5. Vessel motion limits (as applicable)
  6. Fender properties
  7. Mooring hardware capacities
  8. Minimum mooring line properties (such as MBL of the weakest line permitted for vessel size range)
  9. Passing vessel forces
     In general, vessels shall remain in contact with the breasting or fendering system. Vessel motion (sway) of up to 2 feet off the breasting structure may be allowed under the most severe environmental loads, unless greater movement can be justified by an appropriate mooring analysis that accounts for potential dynamic effects. The allowable movement shall be consistent with mooring analysis results, indicating that forces in the mooring lines and their supports are within the allowable safety factors. Also, a check shall be made as to whether the movement is within the limitations of the cargo transfer equipment.

     The mooring analyses outputs define the wind load and other limitations.

     Upon completion of the mooring analyses, the following shall be checked, as applicable:
  1. The fender system compression/deflection performance.
  2. Anchorage capacity of each mooring hardware component.
  3. Capacity of supporting structure(s) exceed each mooring line demand.
  4. Maximum allowable capacities for mooring lines.
  5. Vessel motion does not exceed the maximum allowable extension limits of the loading arms and/or hoses.

3105F.2.1 Manual Procedure

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Simplified calculations may be used to determine the mooring forces for barges with Favorable Site Conditions (see Table 31F-3-8) and no passing vessel effects (see Section 3105F.3.2), except if any of the following conditions exist (Figures 31F-5-2 and 31F-5-3).
  1. Mooring layout is significantly asymmetrical
  2. Horizontal mooring line angles (α) on bow and stern exceed 45 degrees
  3. Horizontal breast mooring line angles exceed 15 normal to the hull
  4. Horizontal spring mooring line angles exceed 10 degrees from a line parallel to the hull
  5. Vertical mooring line angles (θ) exceed 25 degrees
  6. Mooring lines for lateral loads not grouped at bow and stern
     When the forces have been determined and the distance between the bow and stern mooring points is known, the yaw moment can be resolved into lateral loads at the bow and stern. The total environmental loads on a moored vessel are comprised of the lateral load at the vessel bow, the lateral load at the vessel stern and the longitudinal load. Line pretension loads must be added.

     Four load cases shall be considered:
  1. Entire load is taken by mooring lines
  2. Entire load is taken by breasting structures
  3. Load is taken by combination of mooring lines and breasting structures
  4. Longitudinal load is taken only by spring lines
FIGURE 31F-5-2
HORIZONTAL LINE ANGLES [5.4]


FIGURE 31F-5-3
VERTICAL LINE ANGLES [5.4]

3105F.2.2 Numerical Procedure

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A numerical procedure is required to obtain mooring forces for MOTs that cannot use manual procedure. Computer program(s) shall be based on mooring analysis procedures that consider the characteristics of the mooring system, calculate the environmental loads and provide resulting mooring line forces and vessel motions (surge and sway).

3105F.3 Wave, Passing Vessel, Seiche and Tsunami

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3105F.3.1 Wind Waves

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
MOTs are generally located in sheltered waters such that typical wind waves can be assumed not to affect the moored vessel if the significant wave period, Ts, is less than 4 seconds. However, if the period is equal to or greater than 4 seconds, then a simplified dynamic analysis (See Section 3103F.5.4) is required. The wave period shall be established based on a 1-year significant wave height, Hs. For MOTs within a harbor basin, the wave period shall be based on the locally generated waves with relatively short fetch.

3105F.3.2 Passing Vessels

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
These forces generated by passing vessels are due to pressure gradients associated with the flow pattern. These pressure gradients cause the moored vessel to sway, surge, and yaw, thus imposing forces on the mooring lines.

     Passing vessel analysis shall be conducted when all of the following conditions exist (See Figure 31F-5-4):
  1. Passing vessel size is greater than 25,000 DWT.
  2. Distance L is 500 feet or less
  3. Vessel speed V is greater than Vcrit
where:

(5-1)

Exception: If L ≤ 2B, passing vessel loads shall be considered.

     L and B are shown in Figure 31F-5-4, in units of feet. V is defined as the speed of vessel over land minus the current velocity, when traveling with the current, or the speed of vessel over land plus the current velocity, when traveling against the current.

FIGURE 31F-5-4
PASSING VESSEL


     When such conditions (1, 2 and 3 above) exist, the surge and sway forces and the yaw moment acting on the moored vessel shall, as a minimum, be established in accordance with Section 3103F.5.5 or by dynamic analysis.

     For MOTs located in ports, the passing distance, L, may be established based on channel width and vessel traffic patterns. The guidelines established in Figure 5-17 of UFC 4-150-06 [5.7] for interior channels may be used. The "vertical bank" in Figure 5-17 of UFC 4-150-06 [5.7] shall be replaced by the side of the moored vessel when establishing the distance, "L."

     For MOTs, not located within a port, the distance, "L," must be determined from observed traffic patterns.

     The following passing vessel positions shall be investigated:
  1. Passing vessel is centered on the moored ship. This position produces maximum sway force.
  2. The midship of the passing vessel is fore or aft of the centerline of the moored ship by a distance of 0.40 times the length of the moored ship. This position is assumed to produce maximum surge force and yaw moment at the same time.
     The mooring loads due to a passing vessel shall be added to the mooring loads due to wind and current.

3105F.3.3 Seiche

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A seiche analysis is required for existing MOTs located within a harbor basin and which have historically experienced seiche. A seiche analysis is required for new MOTs inside a harbor basin prone to penetration of ocean waves.

     The standing wave system or seiche is characterized by a series of "nodes" and "antinodes." Seiche typically has wave periods ranging from 20 seconds up to several hours, with wave heights in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 ft [5.7].

     The following procedure may be used, as a minimum, in evaluating the effects of seiche within a harbor basin. In more complex cases where the assumptions below are not applicable, dynamic methods are required.
  1. Calculate the natural period of oscillation of the basin. The basin may be idealized as rectangular, closed or open at the seaward end. Use Chapter 2 of UFC 4-150-06 [5.7] to calculate the wave period and length for different modes. The first three modes shall be considered in the analysis.
  2. Determine the location of the moored ship with respect to the antinode and node of the first three modes to determine the possibility of resonance.
  3. Determine the natural period of the vessel and mooring system. The calculation shall be based on the total mass of the system and the stiffness of the mooring lines in surge. The surge motion of the moored vessel is estimated by analyzing the vessel motion as a harmonically forced linear single degree of freedom spring mass system. Methods outlined in a paper by F.A. Kilner [5.8] can be used to calculate the vessel motion.
  4. Vessels are generally berthed parallel to the channel; therefore, only longitudinal (surge) motions shall be considered, with the associated mooring loads in the spring lines. The loads on the mooring lines (spring lines) are then determined from the computed vessel motion and the stiffness of those mooring lines.

3105F.3.4 Tsunami

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Run-up and current velocity shall be considered in the tsunami assessment. Section 3103F.5.7 and Table 31F-3-6 provides run-up values for the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors and Port Hueneme.

3105F.4 Berthing Analysis and Design

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The analysis and design of berthing components shall be based on the loading combinations and safety factors defined in Sections 3103F.8 and 3105F.7, and in accordance with ACI 318 [5.1], AISC 325 [5.2], and ANSI/AWC NDS [5.3], as applicable.

3105F.4.1 Berthing Energy Demand

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The kinetic berthing energy demand shall be determined in accordance with Section 3103F.6.

3105F.4.2 Berthing Energy Capacity

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For existing MOTs, the berthing energy capacity shall be calculated as the area under the force-deflection curve for the combined structure and fender system as indicated in Figure 31F-5-5. Fender piles may be included in the lateral analysis to establish the total force-deflection curve for the berthing system. Load-deflection curves for other fender types shall be obtained from manufacturer's data. The condition of fenders shall be taken into account when performing the analysis.

     When batter piles are present, the fender system typically absorbs most of the berthing energy. This can be established by comparing the force-deflection curves for the fender system and batter piles. In this case only the fender system energy absorption shall be considered.

FIGURE 31F-5-5
BERTHING ENERGY CAPACITY

3105F.4.3 Tanker Contact Length

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3105F.4.3.1 Continuous Fender System

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A continuous fender system consists of fender piles, chocks, wales, and rubber or spring fender units.

     The contact length of a ship during berthing depends on the spacing of the fender piles and fender units, and the connection details of the chocks and wales to the fender piles.

     The contact length, Lc, can be calculated using rational analysis considering curvature of the bow and berthing angle.

     In lieu of detailed analysis to determine the contact length, Table 31F-5-1 may be used. The contact length for a vessel within the range listed in the table can be obtained by interpolation.

TABLE 31F-5-1
CONTACT LENGTH
VESSEL SIZE (DWT) CONTACT LENGTH
330 25 ft
1,000 to 2,500 35 ft
5,000 to 26,000 40 ft
35,000 to 50,000 50 ft
65,000 60 ft
100,000 to 125,000 70 ft

3105F.4.3.2 Discrete Fender System

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For discrete fender systems (i.e., not continuous), one fender unit or breasting dolphin shall be able to absorb the entire berthing energy.

3105F.4.4 Longitudinal and Vertical Berthing Forces

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The longitudinal and vertical components of the horizontal berthing force shall be calculated using appropriate coefficients of friction between the vessel and the fender. In lieu of as-built data, the values in Table 31F-5-2 may be used for typical fender/vessel materials:

     Longitudinal and vertical forces shall be determined by:

     F = μN (5-3)

where:
F = longitudinal or vertical component of horizontal berthing force
μ = coefficient of friction of contact materials
N = maximum horizontal berthing force (normal to fender)

TABLE 31F-5-2
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
CONTACT MATERIALS FRICTION COEFFICIENT
Timber to Steel 0.4 to 0.6
Urethane to Steel 0.4 to 0.6
Steel to Steel 0.25
Rubber to Steel 0.6 to 0.7
UHMW* to Steel 0.1 to 0.2
*Ultra-high molecular weight plastic rubbing strips.

3105F.4.5 Design and Selection of New Fender Systems

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For guidelines on new fender designs, refer to UFC 4-152-01 [5.9] and PIANC [5.10]. Velocity and temperature factors, contact angle effects and manufacturing tolerances shall be considered (see Appendices A and B of PIANC [5.10]). Also, see Section 3103F.6.

3105F.5 Layout of New MOTs

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Guidelines for layout of new MOTs are provided in OCIMF MEG3 [5.4]. The final layout of the mooring and breasting dolphins shall be determined based on the results of the mooring analysis that provides optimal mooring line and breasting forces for the range of vessels to be accommodated.

3105F.6 Offshore Moorings

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Offshore MOT moorings shall be designed and analyzed considering the site water depth, metocean environment and class of vessels calling per OCIMF MEG3 [5.4] or UFC 4-159-03 [5.5].

3105F.6.1 Mooring Analyses

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Analysis procedures shall conform to the OCIMF MEG3 [5.4] or UFC 4-159-03 [5.5], and the following:
  1. A mooring analysis shall be performed for the range of tanker classes and barges calling at each offshore berth.
  2. Forces acting on moored vessels shall be determined according to Section 3103F.5 and analysis shall consider all possible vessel movements, contribution of buoys, sinkers, catenaries affecting mooring line stiffness and anchorages.
  3. Correlation of winds, waves and currents shall be considered. The correlation may be estimated by probabilistic analysis of metocean data.
  4. The actual expected displacement of the vessels shall be used in the analysis.
  5. Underwater inspections and bathymetry shall be considered.
  6. Both fully laden and ballast conditions shall be considered.
  7. Dynamic analysis shall be used to evaluate moorings performance.

3105F.6.2 Design of Mooring Components

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Design of mooring components shall be based on loading combinations and safety factors defined in Sections 3103F.8, 3105F.7 and 3105F.8 and follow the guidelines provided in either the OCIMF MEG3 [5.4] or UFC 4-159-03 [5.5].

3105F.7 Safety Factors for Mooring Lines

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Safety factors for different material types of mooring lines are given in Table 31F-5-3. The safety factors should be applied to the minimum number of lines specified by the mooring analysis, using the highest loads calculated for the environmental conditions. The minimum breaking load (MBL) of new ropes is obtained from the certificate issued by the manufacturer. If polyamide tails are used in combination with wire mooring lines, the safety factor shall be based on the weaker of the two ropes.

TABLE 31F-5-3
SAFETY FACTORS FOR ROPES [5.4]
Steel Wire Rope 1.82
Polyamide 2.22
Other Sythetic 2.00
Polyamide Tail for Wire Mooring Lines 2.50
Other Synthetic Tail for Wire Mooring Lines 2.28
Polyamide Tail for Synthetic Mooring Lines 2.75
Other Synthetic Tail for Synthetic Mooring Lines 2.50
Joining Shackles 2.00

3105F.8 Mooring Hardware (N/E)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Mooring hardware shall include, but not be limited to, bollards, quick release hooks, other mooring fittings and base bolts. All mooring hardware shall be clearly marked with their safe working loads (or allowable working loads) [5.4]. The certificate issued by the manufacturer normally defines the safe working loads of this hardware.

3105F.8.1 Quick Release Hooks

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For new MOTs or berthing systems, a minimum of three quick release hooks are required for each breasting line location for tankers greater than or equal to 50,000 DWT. At least two hooks at each location shall be provided for breasting lines for tankers less than 50,000 DWT. Remote release may be considered for emergency situations.

     All hooks and supporting structures shall withstand the minimum breaking load (MBL) of the strongest line with a safety factor of 1.2 or greater. Only one mooring line shall be placed on each quick release hook (N/E).

     For multiple quick release hooks, the minimum horizontal load for the design of the tie-down shall be:

     Fd = 1.2 × MBL × [1 + 0.75 (n-1)] (5-4)

where:
Fd = Minimum factored demand for assembly tie-down.
n = Number of hooks on the assembly.

     The capacity of the supporting structures must be larger than Fd (See Section 3107F.6).

3105F.8.2 Other Fittings

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Other fittings include cleats, bitts and bollards.

     If the allowable working loads for existing fittings are not available, the values listed in Table 31F-5-4 may be used for typical sizes, bolt patterns and layout. The allowable working loads are defined for mooring line angles up to 60 degrees from the horizontal. The combination of vertical and horizontal loads shall be considered.

TABLE 31F-5-4
ALLOWABLE WORKING LOADS
TYPE OF FITTINGS NO. OF BOLTS BOLT SIZE
(in)
WORKING LOAD
(kips)
30 inch Cleat 4 11/8 20
42 inch Cleat 6 11/8 40
Low Bitt 10 15/8 60 per column
High Bitt 10 13/4 75 per column
441/2 inch Fit. Bollard 4 13/4 70
441/2 inch Fit. Bollard 8 21/4 200
48 inch Fit. Bollard 12 23/4 450
Note: This table is modified from Table 6-11 of UFC 4-159-03 [5.5]

3105F.8.3 Base Bolts

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Base bolts are subjected to both shear and uplift. Forces on bolts shall be determined using the following factors:
  1. Height of load application on bitts or bollards.
  2. Actual vertical angles of mooring lines for the highest and lowest tide and vessel draft conditions, for all sizes of vessels at each particular berth.
  3. Actual horizontal angles from the mooring line configurations, for all vessel sizes and positions at each particular berth.
  4. Simultaneous loads from more than one vessel.
     For existing MOTs, the deteriorated condition of the base bolts and supporting members shall be considered in determining the capacity of the fitting.

3105F.9 Symbols

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
α = Horizontal mooring line angles
Δ = Deflection
θ = Vertical mooring line angles
B = Beam of vessel
DWT = Dead Weight Tonnage
F = Longitudinal or vertical component of horizontal normal berthing force
Fd = Minimum factored demand for assembly tie-down
L = Distance between passing and moored vessels
MBL = Minimum breaking load
n = Number of hooks on the assembly
N = Maximum horizontal berthing force
μ = Coefficient of friction of contact materials
V = Ground speed (knots)
Vc = Maximum current (knots).
Vcrit = Ground speed (knots) above which passing loads must be considered

3105F.10 References

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
[5.1] American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, ACI 318-14 (ACI 318), "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14)," Farmington Hills, MI.
[5.2] American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (AISC), 2017, AISC 325-17 (AISC 325), "Steel Construction Manual," 15th ed., Chicago, IL.
[5.3] American Wood Council (AWC), 2017, ANSI/AWC NDS-2018 (ANSI/AWC NDS), "National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction," Washington, D.C.
[5.4] Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF), 2008, "Mooring Equipment Guidelines (MEG3)," 3rd Ed., London, England.
[5.5] Department of Defense, 3 October 2005 (Change 2, 23 June 2016), Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-159-03, "Design: Moorings," Washington D.C.
[5.6] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, ASCE/SEI 7-16 (ASCE/SEI 7), "Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures," Reston, VA.
[5.7] Department of Defense, 12 December 2001 (Change 1, 19 October 2010), Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-150-06, "Military Harbors and Coastal Facilities," Washington D.C
[5.8] Kilner F.A., 1961, "Model Tests on the Motion of Moored Ships Placed on Long Waves." Proceedings of 7th Conference on Coastal Engineering, August 1960, The Hague, Netherlands, published by the Council on Wave Research - The Engineering Foundation.
[5.9] Department of Defense, 24 January 2017, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-152-01, "Design: Piers and Wharves," Washington D.C.
[5.10] Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC), 2002, "Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems: 2002," Brussels.


Authority: Sections 8750 through 8760, Public Resources Code.

Reference: Sections 8750, 8751, 8755 and 8757, Public Resources Code.

Division 6

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

Section 3106F Geotechnical Hazards and Foundations

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3106F.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3106F.1.1 Purpose

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This section provides minimum standards for analyses and evaluation of geotechnical hazards and foundations under static and seismic conditions.

3106F.1.2 Applicability

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The requirements provided herein apply to all new and existing MOTs.

3106F.1.3 Loading

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The loading for geotechnical hazard assessment and foundation analyses under static and seismic conditions is provided in Sections 3103F and 3104F.

3106F.2 Site Characterization

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Site characterization shall be based on site-specific geotechnical information. If existing information is used, the geotechnical engineer of record shall provide adequate justification.

3106F.2.1 Site Classes

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Each MOT shall be assigned at least one site class. Site Classes A, B, C, D, and E are defined in Table 31F-6-1, and Site Class F is defined by any of the following:
  1. Soils vulnerable to significant potential loss of stiffness, strength, and/or volume under seismic loading due to liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, and/or collapsible weakly cemented soils.
  2. Peats and/or highly organic clays, where the thickness of peat or highly organic clay exceeds 10 feet.
  3. Very high plasticity clays with a plasticity index (PI) greater than 75, where the thickness of clay exceeds 25 feet.
  4. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays with undrained shear strength less than 1,000 psf, where the thickness of clay exceeds 120 feet.

3106F.2.2 Site-Specific Information

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
  1. Site-specific investigations shall include adequate borings and/or cone penetration tests (CPTs) and other appropriate field methods, to enable the determination of geotechnical parameters.
  2. Adequate coverage of subsurface data, both horizontally and vertically, shall be obtained to develop geotechnical parameters.
  3. Exploration shall be deep enough to characterize subsurface materials that are affected by embankment behavior and shall extend to depth of at least 20 feet below the deepest foundation depth.
  4. During field exploration, particular attention shall be given to the presence of continuous low-strength layers or thin soil layers that could liquefy or weaken during the design earthquake shaking.
  5. CPTs provide continuous subsurface profile and shall be used to complement exploratory borings. When CPTs are performed, at least one boring shall be performed next to one of the CPT soundings to check that the CPT-soil behavior type interpretations are reasonable for the site. Any difference between CPT interpretation and subsurface condition obtained from borings shall be reconciled.
  6. Quantitative site soil stratigraphy is required to a depth of 100 feet for assigning a site class (see Table 31F-6-1).
  7. Laboratory tests may be necessary to supplement the borings and insitu field tests.

3106F.3 Seismic Loads for Geotechnical Evaluations

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Section 3103F.4 defines the earthquake loads to be used for structural and geotechnical evaluations in terms of design Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA), spectral accelerations and design earthquake magnitude. Values used for analyses are based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses (PSHA) using two levels of seismic performance criteria (Section 3104F.2.1 and Table 31F-4-1).

3106F.4 Liquefaction Potential

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The liquefaction potential of the soils in the immediate vicinity of or beneath each MOT, and associated slopes, embankments or rock dikes shall be evaluated for the PGAs associated with seismic performance Levels 1 and 2. Liquefaction potential evaluation should follow the procedures outlined in NCEER report [6.3], SCEC [6.4] and CGS Special Publication 117A [6.5].

     If liquefaction is shown to be initiated in the above evaluations, the particular liquefiable strata and their thicknesses shall be clearly shown on site profiles. Resulting hazards associated with liquefaction shall be addressed including translational or rotational deformations of slopes or embankment systems and post liquefaction settlement of slopes or embankment systems and underlying foundation soils, as noted below. If such analyses indicate the potential for partial or gross (flow) failure of a slope or embankment, adequate evaluations shall be performed to confirm such a condition exists, together with analyses to evaluate potential slope displacements (lateral spreads). In these situations and for projects where more detailed numerical analyses are performed, a peer review (see Section 3101F.8.2) may be required.

3106F.5 Slope or Embankment Stability and Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Slope or embankment stability related to the MOT facility, shall be evaluated for static and seismic loading conditions.

3106F.5.1 Static Slope Stability

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Static stability analysis using conventional limit equilibrium methods shall be performed for site related slope or embankment systems. Live load surcharge shall be considered in analyses based on project-specific information. The long-term static factor of safety of the slope or embankment shall not be less than 1.5.

3106F.5.2 Pseudo-Static Seismic Slope Stability

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Pseudo-static seismic slope or embankment stability analyses shall be performed to estimate the horizontal yield acceleration for the slope for the Level 1 and Level 2 earthquakes. During the seismic event, appropriate live load surcharge shall be considered.

     If liquefaction and/or strength loss of the site soils is likely, the following shall be used in the analyses, as appropriate:
  1. Residual strength of liquefied soils
  2. Strengths compatible with the pore-pressure generation of potentially liquefiable soils
  3. Potential strength reduction of clays
     The residual strength of liquefied soils shall be estimated using guidelines outlined in SCEC [6.4] or other appropriate documents as noted in CGS Special Publication 117A [6.5].

     Pseudo-static analysis shall be performed without considering the presence of the foundation system. Using a horizontal seismic coefficient of one-half of the PGA, if the estimated factor of safety is greater than or equal to 1.1, then no further evaluation of lateral spreading or kinematic loading from lateral spreading is required.

3106F.5.3 Post-Earthquake Static Slope Stability

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The static factor of safety immediately following a design earthquake event shall not be less than 1.1 when any of the following are used in static stability analysis:
  1. Post-earthquake residual strength of liquefied soils
  2. Strengths compatible with the pore-pressure generation of potentially liquefiable soils
  3. Potential strength reduction of clays

3106F.5.4 Lateral Spreading — Free Field

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The earthquake— induced lateral deformations of the slope or embankment and associated foundations soils shall be determined for the Level 1 and Level 2 earthquakes using the associated PGA at the ground surface (not modified for liquefaction). If liquefaction and/or strength loss of the site soils is likely, the following shall be used in the analyses, as appropriate:
  1. Residual strength of liquefied soils
  2. Strengths compatible with the pore-pressure generation of potentially liquefiable soils
  3. Potential strength reduction of clays
     The presence of the foundation system shall not be included in the "free field" evaluations.

     Initial lateral spread estimates shall be made using the Newmark displacement approach documented in NCHRP Report 611 [6.6] or other appropriate but similar procedures.

3106F.6 Seismically Induced Settlement

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Seismically induced settlement shall be evaluated. Based on guidelines outlined in SCEC [6.4] or other appropriate documents such as CGS Special Publication 117A [6.5]. If seismically induced settlement is anticipated, the resulting design impacts shall be considered, including the potential development of downdrag loads on piles.

3106F.7 Earth Pressures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Both static and seismic earth pressures acting on MOT structures shall be evaluated.

3106F.7.1 Earth Pressures Under Static Loading

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The effect of static active earth pressures on structures resulting from static loading of backfill soils shall be considered where appropriate. Backfill sloping configuration, if applicable, and backland loading conditions shall be considered in the evaluations. The loading considerations shall be based on project-specific information. The earth pressures under static loading should be based on guidelines outlined in NAVFAC DM7-02 [6.7] or other appropriate documents.

3106F.7.2 Earth Pressures Under Seismic Loading

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The effect of earth pressures on structures resulting from seismic loading of backfill soils, including the effect of porewater pressure build-up in the backfill, shall be considered. The seismic coefficients used for this analysis shall be based on the Level 1 and Level 2 earthquake PGA values.

     Evaluation of earth pressures under seismic loading, should be based on NCHRP Report 611 [6.6] or other appropriate methods.

3106F.8 Pile Axial Behavior

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3106F.8.1 Axial Pile Capacity

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Axial geotechnical capacity of piles under static loading shall be evaluated using guidelines for estimating axial pile capacities provided in POLB WDC [6.8] or other appropriate documents. A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 shall be achieved on the ultimate capacity of the pile using appropriate MOT loading.

     If liquefaction or seismically-induced settlement is anticipated, the ultimate axial geotechnical capacity of piles under seismic conditions shall be evaluated for the effects of liquefaction and/or downdrag forces on the pile. The ultimate geotechnical capacity of the pile during liquefaction shall be determined on the basis of the residual strength of the soil for those layers where the factor of safety for liquefaction is determined to be less than 1.0.

     When seismically-induced settlements are predicted to occur during design earthquakes, the downdrag loads shall be computed, and the combination of downdrag load and static load determined. Only the tip resistance of the pile and the side friction resistance below the lowest layer contributing to the downdrag shall be used in the capacity evaluation. The ultimate axial geotechnical capacity of the pile shall not be less than the combination of the seismically induced downdrag force and the maximum static load.

3106F.8.2 Axial Springs for Piles

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The geotechnical analyst (see Section 3102F.3.4.8) shall coordinate with the structural analyst (see Section 3102F.3.4.4) and develop axial springs (T-z) for piles. The T-z springs may be developed either at the top or at the tip of the pile (see Figure 31F-6-1). If the springs are developed at the pile tip, the tip shall include both the friction resistance along the pile (i.e., side springs [t-z]) and tip resistance at the pile tip (i.e. tip springs [q-w]), as illustrated in Figure 31F-6-1. If T-z springs are developed at the pile top, the appropriate elastic shortening of the pile shall be included in the springs. Linear or nonlinear springs may be developed if requested by the structural analyst.

     Due to the uncertainties associated with the development of axial springs, such as the axial soil capacities, load distributions along the piles and simplified spring stiffnesses, both upper-bound and lower-bound limits shall be estimated and utilized in the analyses.

FIGURE 31F-6-1
AXIAL SOIL SPRINGS [6.8]

3106F.9 Soil Springs for Lateral Pile Loading

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For design of piles under loading associated with the inertial response of the superstructure, level-ground inelastic lateral springs (p-y) shall be developed. The lateral springs within the shallow portion of the piles (generally within 10 pile diameters below the ground surface) tend to dominate the inertial behavior. Geotechnical parameters for developing lateral soil springs shall follow guidelines provided in API RP 2A-WSD [6.9] or other appropriate documents.

     Due to uncertainties associated with the development of p-y curves for dike structures, upper-bound and lower-bound p-y springs shall be developed for use in superstructure inertial response analyses.

3106F.10 Soil-Pile Interaction

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Two separate loading conditions for the piles shall be considered:
  1. Inertial loading under seismic conditions
  2. Kinematic loading from lateral ground spreading
     Inertial loading is associated with earthquake-induced lateral loading on a structure, while kinematic loading refers to loading on foundation piles from earthquake induced lateral deformations of the slope/embankment/dike system. Simultaneous application of these loading conditions shall be evaluated with due consideration of the phasing and locations of these loads on foundation elements. The foundation shall be designed such that the structural performance is acceptable when subjected to both inertial and kinematic loadings.

3106F.10.1 Inertial Loading Under Seismic Conditions

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The lateral soil springs shall be used in inertial loading response analyses. The evaluation of inertial loading can be performed by ignoring potential slope/embankment/dike system deformations (i.e., one end of the lateral soil spring at a given depth is attached to the corresponding pile node and the other end is assumed fixed).

3106F.10.2 Kinematic Loading From Lateral Spreading

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Kinematic pile loading from permanent lateral spread ground deformation in deep seated levels of slope/embankment/dike foundation soils shall be evaluated. The lateral deformations shall be restricted such that the structural performance of foundation piles is not compromised.

     The lateral deformation of the embankment or dike and associated piles and foundation soils shall be determined using analytical methods as follows:
  1. Initial estimates of free field lateral spread deformations (in the absence of piles) may be determined using the simplified Newmark sliding block method as described in Section 3106F.5.4. The geotechnical analyst shall provide the structural analyst with level-ground p-y curves for the weak soil layer controlling the lateral spread and soil layers above and below the weak layer. Appropriate overburden pressures shall be used in simplified pushover analyses, to estimate the pile displacement capacities and corresponding pile shear within the weak soil zone.
  2. For the pushover analysis, the estimated displacements may be uniformly distributed within the thickness of the weak soil layer (i.e., zero at and below the bottom of the layer to the maximum value at and above the top of the weak layer). The thickness of the weak soil layer used in the analysis (failure zone) shall not be more than five times the pile diameter or 10 feet, whichever is smaller.
  3. For a simplified analysis (see Figure 31F-6-2), the pile shall be fixed against rotation and translation relative to the soil displacement at some distance above and below the weak soil layer. Between these two points, lateral soil springs are provided, which allow deformation of the pile relative to the deformed soil profile.
FIGURE 31F-6-2
SLIDING LAYER MODEL [6.8]

3106F.11 Soil-Structure Interaction — Shallow Foundations and Underground Structures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3106F.11.1 Shallow Foundations

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Shallow foundations shall be assumed to move with the ground. Springs and dashpots may be evaluated as per Gazetas [6.10].

3106F.11.2 Underground Structures

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Buried flexible structures or buried portions of flexible structures including piles and pipelines shall be assumed to deform with estimated ground movement at depth.

     As the soil settles, it shall be assumed to apply shear forces to buried structures or buried portions of structures including deep foundations.

3106F.12 Underwater Seafloor Pipelines

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Geotechnical evaluations of underwater pipelines shall include static stability of the seafloor ground supporting the pipeline and settlement and lateral deformation of the ground under earthquakes. If the pipeline is buried, the potential for uplift of the pipeline under earthquakes shall also be evaluated.

3106F.13 Symbols

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
A = Site Class A as defined in Table 31F-6-1
B = Site Class B as defined in Table 31F-6-1
C = Site Class C as defined in Table 31F-6-1
CPT = Cone Penetration Test
D = Site Class D as defined in Table 31F-6-1
Dp = Pile diameter
E = Site Class E as defined in Table 31F-6-1
F = Site Class F as defined in Table 31F-6-1
P = Applied load
PI = Plasticity index
p-y = Lateral soil spring
SU = Undrained shear strength
SPT = Standard Penetration Test
t-z = Axial soil spring along the side of pile
T-z = Composite axial soil spring at pile tip
q-w = Axial soil spring at pile tip
VS = Shear wave velocity

3106F.14 References

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
[6.1] American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), 2014, ASTM D4318-10 (ASTM D4318),
"Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic
Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils," West Conshohocken, PA.
[6.2] American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), 2014, ASTM D2216-10 (ASTM D2216),
"Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination
of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock
by Mass," West Conshohocken, PA.
[6.3] Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I.,
Castro, G. Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L.,
Harder, L.F. Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester,
J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., III, Martin, G.R.,
Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson,
P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II, 2001,
"Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance
of Soils," Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Volume 127, No.
10, p. 817-833.
[6.4] Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC),
March 1999, "Recommended Procedures for Implementation
of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines
for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in
California," University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
[6.5] California Department of Conservation, California
Geological Survey (CGS), 11 September 2008,
"Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California," Special Publication 117A,
Revised Release.
[6.6] National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP), 2008, "NCHRP Report 611: Seismic
Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried
Structures, Slopes, and Embankments," Washington,
D.C.
[6.7] Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC),
1986, NAVFAC DM7-02, "Foundation and Earth
Structures," Alexandria, VA.
[6.8] Port of Long Beach (POLB), 2012 February 29,
"Wharf Design Criteria (WDC)," Version 3.0, Long
Beach, CA.
[6.9] American Petroleum Institute (API), November
2014, API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (API RP
2A-WSD), "Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
— Working Stress Design," 22nd ed., Washington,
D.C.
[6.10] Gazetas, G., September 1991, "Formulas and Charts
for Impedances of Surface and Embedded Foundations,"
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 117, No. 9.


Authority: Sections 8750 through 8760, Public Resources Code.

Reference: Sections 8750, 8751, 8755 and 8757, Public Resources Code.

Division 7

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

Section 3107F Structural Analysis and Design of Components

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3107F.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3107F.1.1 Purpose

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This section establishes the minimum performance standards for structural and nonstructural components. Evaluation procedures for seismic performance, strength and deformation characteristics of concrete, steel and timber components are prescribed herein. Analytical procedures for seismic assessment are presented in Section 3104F.

3107F.1.2 Applicability

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
This section addresses MOT structures constructed using the following structural components:
  1. Reinforced concrete decks supported by batter and/or vertical concrete piles
  2. Reinforced concrete decks supported by batter and/or vertical steel piles, including pipe piles filled with concrete
  3. Reinforced concrete decks supported by batter and/or vertical timber piles
  4. Timber decks supported by batter or vertical timber, concrete or steel pipe piles
  5. Retaining structures constructed of steel, concrete sheet piles or reinforced concrete
     Additionally, this section addresses structural and nonstructural components, nonbuilding structures and building structures comprised of steel, concrete or timber.

3107F.2 Concrete Deck With Concrete or Steel Piles

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3107F.2.1 Component Strength

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The following parameters shall be established in order to compute the component strength:
  1. Specified concrete compressive strengths
  2. Concrete and steel modulus of elasticity
  3. Yield and tensile strength of mild reinforcing and prestressed steel and corresponding strains
  4. Confinement steel strength and corresponding strains
  5. Embedment length
  6. Concrete cover
  7. Yield and tensile strength of structural steel
  8. Ductility
  9.      In addition, for "existing" components, the following conditions shall be considered:

  10. Environmental effects, such as reinforcing steel corrosion, concrete spalling, cracking and chemical attack
  11. Fire damage
  12. Past and current loading effects, including overload, fatigue or fracture
  13. Earthquake damage
  14. Discontinuous components
  15. Construction deficiencies

3107F.2.1.1 Material Properties

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Material properties of existing components, not determined from testing procedures, and of new components, shall be established using the following methodology.

     The strength of structural components shall be evaluated based on the following values (Section 5.3 of [7.1] and pp. 3-73 and 3-74 of [7.2]):

     Specified material strength shall be used for nonductile components (shear controlled), all mechanical, electrical and mooring equipment (attachments to the deck) and for all non seismic load combinations:

f'c = 1.0 f'c (7-1a)
fy = 1.0 fy (7-1b)
fp = 1.0 fp (7-1c)

     In addition, these values (7-1a, 7-1b and 7-1c) may be used conservatively as alternatives to determine the nominal strength of ductile components (N).

     Expected lower bound estimates of material strength shall be used for determination of moment-curvature relations and nominal strength of all ductile components:

f'c = 1.3 f'c (7-2a)
fy = 1.1 fy (7-2b)
fp = 1.0 fp (7-2c)


     Upper bound estimates of material strength shall be used for the determination of moment-curvature relations, to obtain the feasible maximum demand on capacity protected members:

f'c = 1.7 f'c (7-3a)
fy = 1.3 fy (7-3b)
fp = 1.1 fp (7-3c)


where:
f'c = Specified compressive strength of concrete
fy = Specified yield strength of reinforcement or
specified minimum yield stress steel
fp = Specified yield strength of prestress strands


     "Capacity Design" (Section 5.3 of [7.1]) ensures that the strength at protected components (such as pile caps and decks), joints and actions (such as shear), is greater than the maximum feasible demand (over strength), based on realistic upper bound estimates of plastic hinge flexural strength. An additional series of nonlinear analyses using moment curvature characteristics of pile hinges may be required.

     Alternatively, if a moment-curvature analysis is performed that takes into account the strain hardening of the steel, the demands used to evaluate the capacity protected components may be estimated by multiplying the moment-curvature values by 1.25.

     Based on a historical review of the building materials used in the twentieth century, guidelines for tensile and yield properties of concrete reinforcing bars and the compressive strength of structural concrete have been established (see Tables 10-2 to 10-4 of ASCE/SEI 41 [7.3]). The values shown in these tables can be used as default properties, only if as-built information is not available and testing is not performed. The values in Tables 31F-7-1 and 31F-7-2, are adjusted according to Equations (7-1) through (7-3).

TABLE 31F-7-1
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (psi)1
TIME FRAME PILING BEAMS SLABS
1900-1919 2,500-3,000 2,000-3,000 1,500-3,000
1920-1949 3,000-4,000 2,000-3,000 2,000-3,000
1950-1965 4,000-5,000 3,000-4,000 3,000-4,000
1966-present 5,000-6,000 3,000-5,000 3,000-5,000
  1. Concrete strengths are likely to be highly variable for an older structure.
TABLE 31F-7-2
TENSILE AND YIELD PROPERTIES OF REINFORCING BARS FOR VARIOUS ASTM SPECIFICATIONS AND PERIODS
(after Table 6-2 of [7.3])
ASTM STEEL
TYPE
YEAR RANGE3 GRADE STRUCTURAL1 INTERMEDIATE1 HARD1
33 40 50 60 70 75
Minimum Yield2 (psi) 33,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 75,000
Minimum Tensile2 (psi) 55,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 95,000 100,000
A15 Billet 1911-1966 X X X
A16 Rail4 1913-1966 X
A61 Rail4 1963-1966 X
A160 Axle 1936-1964 X X X
A160 Axle 1965-1966 X X X X
A408 Billet 1957-1966 X X X
A431 Billet 1959-1966 X
A432 Billet 1959-1966 X
A615 Billet 1968-1972 X X X
A615 Billet 1974-1986 X X
A615 Billet 1987-1997 X X X
A616 Rail4 1968-1997 X
A617 Axle 1968-1997 X X
A706 Low-Alloy5 1974-1997 X
A955 Stainless 1996-1997 X X X
General Note: An entry "X" indicates that grade was available in those years.
  1. The terms structural, intermediate and hard became obsolete in 1968.
  2. Actual yield and tensile strengths may exceed minimum values.
  3. Untilabout 1920, a variety of proprietary reinforcing steels were used. Yield strengths are likely to be in the range from 33,000 psi to 55,000 psi, but higher values are possible. Plain and twisted square bars were sometimes used between 1900 and 1949.
  4. Rail bars should be marked with the letter "R."
  5. ASTM steel is marked with the letter "W."

3107F.2.1.2 Knowledge Factor (K)

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Knowledge factor, k, shall be applied on a component basis.

     The following information is required, at a minimum, for a component strength assessment:
  1. Original construction records, including drawings and specifications.
  2. A set of "as-built" drawings and/or sketches, documenting both gravity and lateral systems (Section 3102F.1.5) and any postconstruction modification data.
  3. A visual condition survey, for structural components including identification of the size, location and connections of these components.
  4. In the absence of material properties, values from limited in-situ testing or conservative estimates of material properties (Tables 31F-7-1 and 31F-7-2).
  5. Assessment of component conditions, from an in-situ evaluation, including any observable deterioration.
  6. Detailed geotechnical information, based on recent test data, including risk of liquefaction, lateral spreading and slope stability.
     The knowledge factor, k, is 1.0 when comprehensive knowledge as specified above is utilized. Otherwise, the knowledge factor shall be 0.75 (see Section 5.2.6 of ASCE/SEI 41 [7.3]).

3107F.2.2 Component Stiffness

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Stiffness that takes into account the stress and deformation levels experienced by the component shall be used. Nonlinear load-deformation relations shall be used to represent the component load-deformation response. However, in lieu of using nonlinear methods to establish the stiffness and moment curvature relation of structural components, the equations of Table 31F-7-3 may be used to approximate the effective elastic stiffness, EIe, for lateral analyses (see Section 3107F.8 for definition of symbols).

TABLE 31F-7-3
EFFECTIVE ELASTIC STIFFNESS
CONCRETE COMPONENT EIe /EIg
Reinforced Pile 0.3 + N/(f 'c Ag)
Pile/Deck Dowel Connection1 0.3 + N/(f 'c Ag)
Prestressed Pile1 0.6 < EIe /EIg < 0.75
Steel Pile 1.0
Concrete w/Steel Casing
Deck 0.5
  1. The pile/deck connection and prestressed pile may also be approximated as one member with an average stiffness of 0.42 EIe/EIg (Ferritto et al, 1999 [7.2])

    N = is the axial load level.
    Es = Young's modulus for steel
    Is = Moment of inertia for steel section
    Ec = Young's modulus for concrete
    Ic = Moment of inertia for uncracked concrete section

3107F.2.3 Deformation Capacity of Flexural Members

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Stress-strain models for confined and unconfined concrete, mild and prestressed steel presented in Section 3107F.2.4 shall be used to perform the moment-curvature analysis.

     The stress-strain characteristics of steel piles shall be based on the actual steel properties. If as-built information is not available, the stress-strain relationship may be obtained per Section 3107F.2.4.2.

     For concrete in-filled steel piles, the stress-strain model for confined concrete shall be in accordance with Section 3107F.2.4.1.

     Each structural component expected to undergo inelastic deformation shall be defined by its moment-curvature relation. The displacement demand and capacity shall be calculated per Sections 3104F.2 and 3104F.3, as appropriate.

     The moment-rotation relationship for concrete components shall be derived from the moment-curvature analysis per Section 3107F.2.5.4 and shall be used to determine lateral displacement limitations of the design. Connection details shall be examined per Section 3107F.2.7.

3107F.2.4 Stress-Strain Models

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3107F.2.4.1 Concrete

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The stress-strain model and terms for confined and unconfined concrete are shown in Figure 31F-7-1.

FIGURE 31F-7-1
STRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR CONFINED AND UNCONFINED CONCRETE [7.1]

3107F.2.4.2 Reinforcement Steel and Structural Steel

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The stress-strain model and terms for reinforcing and structural steel are shown in Figure 31F-7-2.

FIGURE 31F-7-2
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR MILD REINFORCING STEEL OR STRUCTURAL STEEL [7.1]

3107F.2.4.3 Prestressed Steel

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The stress-strain model of Blakeley and Park [7.4] may be used for prestressed steel. The model and terms are illustrated in Figure 31F-7-3.

FIGURE 31F-7-3
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR PRESTRESSED STEEL [7.4]

3107F.2.4.4 Alternative Stress-Strain Models

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Alternative stress-strain models are acceptable if adequately documented and supported by test results, subject to Division approval.

3107F.2.5 Concrete Piles

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.

3107F.2.5.1 General

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The capacity of concrete piles is based on permissible concrete and steel strains corresponding to the desired performance criteria.

Different values may apply for plastic hinges forming at in-ground and pile-top locations. These procedures are applicable to circular, octagonal, rectangular and square pile cross sections.

3107F.2.5.2 Stability

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Stability considerations are important to pier-type structures. The moment-axial load interaction shall consider effects of high slenderness ratios (kl/r). An additional bending moment due to axial load eccentricity shall be incorporated unless:

e/h ≤ 0.10 (7-4)
where:
e = eccentricity of axial load
h = width of pile in considered direction

3107F.2.5.3 Plastic Hinge Length

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The plastic hinge length is required to convert the moment-curvature relationship into a moment-plastic rotation relationship for the nonlinear pushover analysis.

     The pile's plastic hinge length, Lp (above ground) for reinforced concrete piles, when the plastic hinge forms against a supporting member is:


Lp = 0.08L + 0.15 fye db ≥ 0.3 fye db (7-5)
where:
L = distance from the critical section of the plastic
hinge to the point of contraflexure
db = diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement or
dowel, whichever is used to develop the
connection
fye = design yield strength of longitudinal
reinforcement or dowel, whichever is used to
develop the connection (ksi)


     If a large reduction in moment capacity occurs due to spalling, then the plastic hinge length shall be:

Lp = 0.3 fye db (7-6)


     The plastic hinge length, Lp (above ground), for prestressed concrete piles may also be computed from Table 31F-7-4 for permitted pile-to-deck connections as described in ASCE/COPRI 61 [7.5].

     When the plastic hinge forms in-ground, the plastic hinge length may be determined using Equation (7-7) [7.5]:

Lp = 2D (7-7)
where:
D = pile diameter or least cross-sectional dimension


TABLE 31F-7-4
PLASTIC HINGE LENGTH FOR
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILES [7.5]
CONNECTION TYPE Lp AT DECK (in.)
Pile Buildup 0.15fyedb ≤ Lp ≤ 0.30fyedb
Extended Strand 0.20fpyedst
Embedded Pile 0.5D
Dowelled 0.25fyedb
Hollow Dowelled 0.20fyedb
External Confinement 0.30fyedb
Isolated Interface 0.25fyedb
db = diameter of the prestressing strand or dowel, whichever is used to
develop the connection (in.)
fye = design yield strength of prestressing strand or dowel, as appropriate
(ksi)
D = pile diameter or least cross-sectional dimension
dst = diameter of the prestressing strand (in.)
fpye = design yield strength of prestressing strand (ksi)

3107F.2.5.4 Plastic Rotation

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The plastic rotation is:

θp = Lp ϕp = Lpm - ϕy) (7-8)
where:
Lp = plastic hinge length
ϕp = plastic curvature
ϕm = maximum curvature
ϕy = yield curvature


     The maximum curvature, ϕm shall be determined by the concrete or steel strain limit state at the prescribed performance level, whichever comes first.

     Alternatively, the maximum curvature,
ϕm may be calculated as:

(7-9)
where:
εcm = maximum limiting compression strain for the
prescribed performance level (Table 31F-7-5)
Cu = neutral-axis depth, at ultimate strength of
section


     Either Method A or B may be used for idealization of the moment-curvature curve.

TABLE 31F-7-5
LIMITS OF STRAIN
COMPONENT STRAIN LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
MCCS
Pile/deck hinge
εc ≤ 0.004 εc ≤ 0.025
MCCS
In-ground hinge
εc ≤ 0.004 εc ≤ 0.008
MRSTS
Pile/deck hinge
εs ≤ 0.01 εs ≤ 0.05
MRSTS
In-ground hinge
εs ≤ 0.01 εs ≤ 0.025
MPSTS
In-ground hinge
εp ≤ 0.005
(incremental)
εp ≤ 0.025
(total strain)
MCCS = Maximum Concrete Compression Strain, εc
MRSTS = Maximum Reinforcing Steel Tension Strain, εs
MPSTS = Maximum Prestressing Steel Tension Strain, εp

3107F.2.5.4.1 Method A

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For Method A, the yield curvature, ϕy is the curvature at the intersection of the secant stiffness, EIc, through first yield and the nominal strength, (εc = 0.004).

(7-10)

3107F.2.5.4.2 Method B

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
For Method B, the elastic portion of the idealized moment-curvature curve is the same as in Method A (see Section 3107F.2.5.4.1). However, the idealized plastic moment capacity, Mp, and the yield curvature, ϕy, is obtained by balancing the areas between the actual and the idealized moment-curvature curves beyond the first yield point (see Figure 31F-7-5). Method B applies to moment-curvature curves that do not experience reduction in section moment capacity.

FIGURE 31F-7-5
METHOD B — MOMENT CURVATURE ANALYSIS [7.6]

3107F.2.5.5 Ultimate Concrete and Steel Flexural Strains

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Strain values computed in the nonlinear pushover analysis shall be compared to the following limits.

3107F.2.5.5.1 Unconfined Concrete Piles:

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
An unconfined concrete pile is defined as a pile having no confinement steel or one in which the spacing of the confinement steel exceeds 12 inches.

Ultimate concrete compressive strain:

εcu = 0.005 (7-11)

3107F.2.5.5.2 Confined Concrete Piles:

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
Ultimate concrete compressive strain [7.1]:

εcu = 0.004 + (1.4 ρsfyhεsm)/f'cc ≥ 0.005 (7-12)
εcu ≤ 0.025

where:
ρs = effective volume ratio of confining steel
fyh = yield stress of confining steel
εsm = strain at peak stress of confining
reinforcement, 0.15 for grade 40, 0.10 for
grade 60
f 'cc = confined strength of concrete approximated
by 1.5 f 'c

3107F.2.5.6 Component Acceptance/Damage Criteria

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
The maximum allowable concrete strains may not exceed the ultimate values defined in Section 3107F.2.5.5. The limiting values (Table 31F-7-5) apply for each performance level for both existing and new structures. The "Level 1 or 2" refer to the seismic performance criteria (see Section 3104F.2.1).

     For all non-seismic loading combinations, concrete components shall be designed in accordance with the ACI 318 [7.7] requirements.

     Note that for existing facilities, the pile/deck hinge may be controlled by the capacity of the dowel reinforcement in accordance with Section 3107F.2.7.

3107F.2.5.7 Shear Design

AMENDMENT
This section has been amended at the state or city level.
If expected lower bound of material strength Section 3107F.2.1.1 Equations (7-2a, 7-2b, 7-2c) are used in obtaining the nominal shear strength, a new nonlinear analysis utilizing the upper bound estimate of material strength Section 3107F.2.1.1 Equations (7-3a, 7-3b, 7-3c) shall be used to obtain the plastic hinge shear demand. An alternative conservative approach is to multiply the maximum shear demand, Vmax from the original analysis by 1.4 (Section 8.16.4.4.2 o