seismic assessment of freeborn hall

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF FREEBORN HALL UC DAVIS CAMPUS Davis, California 18 May 2011 SGH Project 097031.08

Boston Los Angeles New York San Francisco Washington, DC www.sgh.com

Design, Investigate, and Rehabilitate

PREPARED FOR:

University of California, Davis 255 Cousteau Place Davis, CA 95616

PREPARED BY:

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. The Landmark @ One Market Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415.495.3700 Fax: 415.495.3550

18 May 2011

Mr. Sanford BennettDesign and Construction ManagementUniversity of California Davis255 Cousteau PlaceDavis, CA 95618-5412

Project 097031.08 – Seismic Assessment of Freeborn Hall at UC Davis

Subject: Transmittal of Seismic Assessment Report

Dear Mr. Bennett:

Please find attached our report describing the results of our seismic assessment of FreebornHall. On the basis of the evaluations described in this report, we recommend assignment of aseismic risk rating of “VERY POOR”. The attached report describes our conceptual seismicupgrade recommendations to improve the building to a “GOOD” rating and an estimated roughorder of magnitude construction cost. It has been a pleasure working with you on this importantproject.

Sincerely yours,

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER INC.

Ronald O. Hamburger, SE (CA) Craig B. Goings, SE (CA)Senior Principal Staff ConsultantCA License 2951 S.E. CA License 4015 S.E.

Anindya Dutta, SE (CA)Senior Project ManagerCA License 4905 S.E.

I:\SF\Projects\2009\097031.08-T2B1\WP\001-CBGoings-R-097031.08.aeh_ Transmittal Letter.doc

Encl.

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Letter of Transmittal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 OBJECTIVE 1 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK 1 1.4 BUILDING DESCRIPTION 2

2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 5

2.1 STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS 5 2.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS 5

3. FIELD OBSERVATIONS 6

4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSES 7

4.1 ASCE-31 TIER 1 ANALYSIS 7 4.2 LIMITED ASCE-31 TIER 2 ANALYSIS 8

5. DISCUSSION 13

6. CONCLUSIONS 14

7. RECOMENDATIONS 15

7.1 SEISMIC UPGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS 15 7.2 ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST 15

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A ASCE-31 Checklists APPENDIX B Conceptual Seismic Retrofit Sketches APPENDIX C Cost Estimate

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger performed a seismic assessment of Freeborn Hall located on the

UC Davis campus.

We performed our seismic assessment following the procedures for Tier 1 and 2 assessments

in accordance with the ASCE-31 Standard, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings. We also

considered criteria contained in the ASCE-41 Standard, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing

Buildings.

Based on our analyses we conclude that the building’s lateral force resisting system does not

comply with the life safety requirements of ASCE-31 and ASCE-41. In particular, the roof

diaphragm, the longitudinal shear walls and collectors, the pile foundations and the out-of-plane

wall anchorage are inadequate.

We recommend assignment of a “VERY POOR” seismic risk rating for Freeborn Hall. Our

recommended retrofit strategy consists of adding steel collector elements and connecting them

to the roof diaphragm, strengthening the roof diaphragm, and adding new concrete shear walls.

We also recommend retrofitting the foundations below the existing precast-concrete columns

and providing out-of-plane wall anchorage at the east and west walls. In our opinion, these

retrofit elements can be constructed for approximately $3 million. Excluded from this cost are

design fees, costs associated with construction management, replacement of landscaping, or

relocation of utilities and mechanical equipment that may be required. We recommend the

University provide a suitable contingency allowance to cover such costs.

- 1 -

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE FREEBORN HALL AT THE UC DAVIS CAMPUS 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The University of California at Davis (UCD) retained Simpson Gumpertz & Heger (SGH) to

perform a detailed seismic assessment of Freeborn Hall located on the UCD campus. In the

summer of 2010, SGH conducted a FEMA 154 seismic screening assessment of Freeborn Hall

and assigned it a seismic rating of “VERY POOR” in accordance with the University of

California’s Seismic Safety Policy. Buildings rated as “VERY POOR” are expected to sustain

extensive structural and nonstructural damage and/or result in falling hazards if subjected to

intense ground shaking, representing high life hazards. Buildings rated as “VERY POOR” will

likely be unsafe for occupancy following such earthquakes, and may be closed for an extended

period of time for repair or be deemed impractical to repair. UCD desires confirmation of this

building’s seismic risk, and definition of potential seismic upgrade measures to reclassify the

building as “GOOD”.

1.2 Objective

The purpose of this assessment is to assign an updated seismic risk rating on the basis of more

detailed evaluation, using the UC Seismic Rating system. In addition, if the risk is confirmed to

be “POOR” or “VERY POOR“, develop conceptual recommendations for seismic upgrade to

produce a “GOOD” rating together with a rough order of magnitude estimate of the probable

upgrade cost.

1.3 Scope of Work

As discussed earlier, Freeborn Hall was assigned a “VERY POOR” rating as part of an earlier

screening evaluation. Our scope of work for the current phase included the following:

Review the available structural and architectural drawings.

- 2 -

Perform a seismic assessment in accordance with the Tier 1 procedures of ASCE-31, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, to identify potential seismic deficiencies.

Perform a limited scope, Tier 2 evaluation to better assess those deficiencies identified in our Tier 1 evaluation. This included a linear, two-dimensional, static analysis.

Assign a seismic risk rating based on these detailed evaluations.

Develop seismic retrofit concepts to achieve a “GOOD” seismic risk rating.

Develop a rough order of magnitude estimate of probable construction cost for the seismic retrofit recommendations.

1.4 Building Description

Freeborn Hall is a single story auditorium building with one level of basement constructed circa

1960. The building is roughly rectangular in plan with major plan dimensions of 199 ft X 125 ft.

The first floor is a 9 in. thick reinforced concrete flat slab that also serves as the basement

ceiling. In addition to the first floor and basement, the building has two mezzanine levels

located at the northeast and southeast corners adjacent to the main entrance.

Six interior three hinged, lightweight precast concrete moment frames and exterior reinforced

concrete walls provide lateral resistance in the North-South (transverse). The frames are

gabled resulting in an east-west running ridge along the roof centerline. These frames also

support gravity roof loading delivered through a series of W14 purlins. The purlins in turn

support 1-1/2 in. thick bare metal decking overlaid with standing seam copper roofing. Frames

are supported on pile caps and a combination of vertical and battered cast in place concrete

piers.

Longitudinal (east-west) lateral resistance is provided by four, 9-1/2 in. thick, reinforced concrete

shear walls located at the building’s four corners adjacent to the stairs. The shear walls are

supported on 24 in. dia. concrete piers.

Figure 1 shows the basement plan. Figures 2 through 4 show various building exterior views.

- 3 -

199 f t.

125

ft.

Three hinged transverse portal f rames, Typ.

Shear Walls, Typ.

N

Figure 1 Plan view - Freeborn Hall.

Figure 2 Freeborn Hall - West Elevation

- 4 -

Figure 3 Freeborn Hall - East Elevation

Figure 4 Freeborn Hall - South Elevation

- 5 -

2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION

2.1 Structural and Architectural Drawings

We reviewed the available original architectural and structural building drawings. Specifically

we reviewed:

Architectural drawings prepared by Confer, Willis & Anderson Architects; Sheets 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 dated April 25, 1960.

Structural drawings prepared by Isadore Thompson Structural Engineers; Sheets S1 through S19 dated April 25, 1960.

2.2 Seismic Hazards

We obtained information on the likely intensity of future earthquake shaking at the site from the

United States Geologic Survey’s national seismic hazard maps, as maintained on the USGS

web site at www.USGS.gov. Specifically, we used the gridded national seismic data associated

with the ASCE Standard 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

provisions.

- 6 -

3. FIELD OBSERVATIONS

Craig Goings of Simpson Gumpertz & Heger conducted visual inspections of the building on

4 May 2010 and 12 April 2011. The building structure is generally in good condition with no

observed structural distress, abnormal cracking or indications of foundation settlement. The

visible building construction conforms to the information provided on the structural drawings we

reviewed.

- 7 -

4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSES

4.1 ASCE-31 Tier 1 Analysis

We performed a standardized seismic evaluation of the structure following the Tier 1 procedures

of the ASCE 31, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings. The Tier 1 procedures entail a

systematic review of a structure’s primary lateral force resisting elements using a series of

check list questionnaires keyed deficiencies common to specific model building types. The

checklists were developed to standardize the assessment of existing buildings for their ability to

adequately resist seismic shaking. The checklists can be used to evaluate a building’s ability to

protect life safety in future earthquakes, or its ability to sustain such little damage that the

building would be suitable for post-earthquake occupancy and use. The checklists include a

series of evaluation statements that determine the presence of geometric configurations and

structural detailing identified in the past as common sources of significant earthquake damage.

In addition, the checklists require simplified calculations to determine the building’s lateral

strength.

The Tier 1 procedure is intended to be used as a screening tool to identify buildings that do not

have obvious seismic deficiencies and which are unlikely to provide unacceptable seismic

performance. Buildings that fail the Tier 1 procedures are not necessarily incapable of

adequate seismic performance; however, more detailed evaluation is required to determine this.

The ASCE 31 standard provides two more detailed levels of evaluation that can be used to

explore the severity of conditions identified as potential deficiencies in Tier 1 evaluations. Tier 2

procedures use linear methods of analysis. Tier 3 procedures use nonlinear analysis methods.

We completed the ASCE-31 checklists applicable to Freeborn Hall for life safety performance.

Appendix A contains a copy of the completed evaluation forms. Our Tier 1 evaluation identified

the following deficiencies:

Incomplete load path: partial length collectors in the longitudinal direction and questionable capacity of battered piles supporting the precast portal frames in the transverse direction.

Inadequate shear transfer capability of spandrels over door openings in longitudinal shear walls.

Inadequate boundary elements in longitudinal direction shear walls.

- 8 -

Inadequate shear force transfer between the roof deck and collectors in the longitudinal direction.

Inadequate roof diaphragm shear capacity for longitudinal direction shaking.

Inadequate out-of-plane anchorage of exterior concrete walls to the flexible roof diaphragm.

Inadequate transverse shear capacity of precast concrete frame columns.

Inadequate joint shear reinforcing for the precast beam columns.

In our judgment the nature of the identified deficiencies in the longitudinal (east-west) direction

were such that additional Tier 2 evaluation would be unlikely to demonstrate acceptable

behavior. Consequently, we proceeded directly to the development of retrofit concepts for this

load path. However, we did conduct a limited Tier 2 analysis of deficiencies in the transverse

(north-south) direction, as discussed below.

4.2 Limited ASCE-31 Tier 2 Analysis

Tier 2 analysis includes development of a linear analytical model to more accurately assess the

adequacy of critical structural elements. Predicted demands are compared to acceptance

criteria (capacities) that are tied to the desired performance (life safety or immediate

occupancy).

We performed a two-dimensional linear static structural analysis utilizing the commercially

available SAP 2000 version 14.2.4 software. The model included representation of a single

transverse precast three hinged frame with appropriate tributary gravity and seismic loading.

Figure 5 shows the two dimensional frame model.

Figure 5 Two dimensional SAP 2000 model of transverse portal frame.

- 9 -

We applied static lateral seismic forces to this frame model using the acceleration response

spectrum specified in ASCE-31. This acceleration response spectrum is taken as 2/3 of the

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) response spectrum obtained from ASCE 7-05,

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. We obtained the MCE ground

motion data utilizing a web-based applet published by the USGS version 5.1.0 and dated 10

February 2011. We assumed a site class D for the UCD campus as input to this applet. Error!

Reference source not found. presents the key spectral response acceleration parameters we

calculated for the site.

Table 1 Earthquake ground motion data obtained from USGS software

Parameter Value

Ss 0.92 g

S1 0.33 g

Site Class D

Fa 1.13

Fv 1.74

SMS = SSFa 1.04 g

SM1 = S1Fv 0.58 g

SDS=2/3SMS 0.70g

SD1=2/3SM1 0.38g

Figure 6 is a plot of this design response spectrum.

We calculated the lateral seismic forces using the response spectrum shown in Figure 6 and the

building’s fundamental period of vibration. We computed a fundamental period of 0.94 seconds.

Based on this period, we calculated a static base shear based on the mass tributary to the two

dimensional frame.

- 10 -

Figure 6 Response spectrum used to calculate lateral forces used in the analysis.

We calculated static seismic forces to apply to the structure using the formula:

WTSCCCV am )(21

as specified by ASCE-41. Table 2 summarizes the values of these various parameters used in

our analyses.

Table 2 Seismic Loads Applied to 2D Frame

Parameter Description Value

C1 Elastic to Inelastic Adjustment 1.04

C2 Factor to account for hysteretic pinching 1.00

Cm Factor to account for higher modes 1.00

T Building fundamental period, seconds 0.94

Sa(T) Spectral response acceleration at period T 0.40

W Effective seismic weight, kips 275

V Psuedo lateral seismic force, kips 114

- 11 -

We applied the static forces to the SAP frame model and calculated the bending moments,

shear and the axial forces in the various members. We compared these strength demands

against “life safety” acceptance criteria contained in ASCE-31. The ASCE-31 Standard is now

several years old and has not been updated to reflect recent research on the available capacity

of existing structural elements. In order to account for this, we also checked the critical lateral

force resisting system elements against updated capacities provided in ASCE-41-Chapter 6

Supplement 1. We did this to avoid the potential discovery of additional vulnerabilities in the

event that a more detailed analysis was to be performed as part of a retrofit design, using the

ASCE-41 Standard. Table 3 presents a summary of key findings from our analyses.

The findings reported in Table 3 indicate potential for unacceptable performance of the battered

piles in the foundations supporting the precast concrete frames. This is because the inclination

of the battered piles is fairly steep (about 20° to the vertical). As a result these piles are loaded

heavily in compression to generate the horizontal direction thrust associated with the horizontal

shear from the seismic motions. This in turn results in significant tension forces in the vertical

piles which are inadequately reinforced to withstand these forces. Figure 7 shows a typical

detail of the existing pile cap and battered piles.

Table 3 also indicates that beam column joint shear stress is marginally over the allowable

limits. This evaluation is based on criteria in ASCE 41 Chapter 6 Supplement 1. In this

supplement, the joint shear capacity is proportional to the square root of the unconfined

compressive strength of the concrete column. Although ASCE 41 requires use of lower bound

compressive strengths (nominal strength as noted in the drawings) for this calculation, we have

taken the liberty to use an aged strength that is 18% higher than the nominal strength. This

assumption should be verified in the detailed design phase through core testing of concrete

specimens. In the event the core strengths are not commensurate with the assumed values, it

will be necessary to address this deficiency through fiber reinforced polymer wrapping of the

joint area.

- 12 -

Table 3 Summary of findings from transverse direction linear static Tier 2 analyses

Critical Lateral Force Resisting Element Status

Flexure and shear in frame beams Acceptable

Flexure and shear in frame columns Acceptable

Beam column joint shear stress Marginally Unacceptable

Development of tension piles into pile cap Unacceptable

Inadequate tension capacity of the piles

Figure 7 Typical details of the battered pile foundation.

- 13 -

5. DISCUSSION

Based on our Tier 1 analysis it is our opinion that the building’s longitudinal lateral force

resistance is inadequate. This is due to the absence of a proper load transfer mechanism to the

existing shear walls. The collectors that are present are not continuous and the roof diaphragm

that transfers the shear generated in the roof is not adequate. Even if the collectors and

diaphragm were to be upgraded, some walls have door openings immediately adjacent to their

ends forcing the spandrel above the opening to transfer the overturning forces. These

spandrels have inadequate shear strength.

In addition to the inadequate lateral strength in the longitudinal direction, the perimeter concrete

walls in the east and west elevations lack adequate out-of-plane anchorage to the roof

diaphragm. It is possible that sections of these walls may detach from the purlins and fall

outward (or inward) causing a local collapse.

Our limited transverse direction Tier 2 analysis indicates that beam column joints are marginal.

The detailing of these joints, which includes hoop reinforcing is such that we believe the

marginal strength of these joints is acceptable. However, if the University elects to undertake

building retrofit, we recommend obtaining core samples of the panel zones and performing

compression tests to determine the actual strength to permit verification of adequacy.

The pier foundations under the transverse frames have inadequate uplift capacity. The vertical

piers are subjected to high tensile forces to equilibrate the compression in the battered piles.

The vertical piers have inadequate anchorage into the pier caps and inadequate reinforcing

along their length. This will result in possible pull out of the piers following which the battered

piles will continue to bend and potentially fail.

- 14 -

6. CONCLUSIONS

Freeborn Hall lacks a proper load path to transfer the seismic forces from the roof into the shear

walls for longitudinal direction motion. The existing shear walls have door openings immediately

adjacent to their ends. The seismic shear demands in the spandrels above these openings are

subject to shear demands beyond their capacities. It is our opinion that the lateral force

resisting system in the longitudinal direction is deficient and will result in significant damage to

the building in the event of a strong shaking.

The transverse lateral load resisting system is relatively better due to the presence of a

significant number of lateral force resisting frames at close and regular intervals. However, the

foundation for these frames will be subjected to significant damage due to pull out of some of

the tension piers. This will result in destabilizing the precast concrete frames and may cause

them to collapse. Based on these findings we conclude that our previous rating for Freeborn

Hall of “VERY POOR” is appropriate.

- 15 -

7. RECOMENDATIONS

7.1 Seismic Upgrade Recommendations

Our scope of work includes development of conceptual seismic upgrade recommendations to

improve the building’s seismic performance rating to “Good.” Our proposed seismic upgrade

concepts includes the following:

Provide a new lateral force resisting system in the building’s longitudinal direction in the form of reinforced concrete shear walls. Provide new roof collectors to “collect” forces in to these new walls.

Upgrade the shear capacity of portions of the roof diaphragm by augmenting the connection between adjacent panels at the side laps.

Provide out of plane restraint to the walls at the east and west elevations in the form of steel angles, welded to the underside of the steel beams that span over them.

Provide two micropiles with a capacity of 100 kips at each of the 12 pier caps that support the transverse three hinged portal frames. Provide additional top reinforcement and strengthen the existing pier cap.

Appendix B contains a series of sketches that present conceptual-level details illustrating these

seismic upgrade measures.

7.2 Rough Order of Magnitude Cost

We developed a rough order of magnitude (ROM) opinion of probable construction cost for the

conceptual seismic retrofit elements described above and shown in Appendix B. Appendix C

includes a detailed breakdown of the construction cost estimate utilizing the spreadsheet

template UCD provided to SGH. The following assumptions and limitations apply to the

development of this opinion of probable cost:

Construction work is assumed to occur in the summer of 2012.

Construction work will be performed during normal business hours.

The contractor need not take any special precautions to minimize noise.

Costs associated with moving furniture, personnel items, equipment etc. at the building interior at the locations with proposed work is excluded.

Any costs associated with relocation of fire sprinkler lines where they interfere with the proposed work are excluded.

- 16 -

Replacement of existing landscaping that must be removed is excluded.

Costs associated with relocation of below grade utilities that may be in the way of work is excluded.

Costs for asbestos or lead paint abatement are not included.

Design, permit and construction management fees are not included.

Our opinion of the probable construction cost of recommended retrofit work is approximately $3

Million, including a contingency allowance of 15% to cover design development. The University

may wish to increase this cost with additional factors to account for exclusions described above.

The actual cost of performing this work could vary from this amount depending on the details of

the final design, the general conditions and schedule imposed on the contractor and change in

market conditions at the time the work is actually performed.

I:\SF\Projects\2009\097031.08-T2B1\WP\001-ADFreeborn-R-097031.08.aeh_Report.doc

APPENDIX A

ASCE-31 Checklists

Building ID: 3773 By/Firm: SGH Date: 5/12/11

Bldg. Name: Freeborn Hall Page: 1 of 3

3.7.9A BASIC STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING TYPE C2A: CONCRETE SHEAR WALL BUILDINGS WITH FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS

3773 - 1

This Basic Structural Checklist shall be completed when required by Table 3-2.

Each of the evaluation statements on this checklist shall be marked compliant (C), non-compliant (NC), or not applicable (N/A) for a Tier 1 Evaluation. Compliant statements identify issues that are acceptable according to the criteria of this standard, while non-compliant statements identify issues that require further investigation. Certain statements may not apply to the buildings being evaluated. For non-compliant evaluation statements, the design professional may choose to conduct further investigation using the corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure; the section numbers in parentheses following each evaluation statement correspond to Tier 2 evaluation procedures.

C NC N/A COMMENT

BUILDING SYSTEM

LOAD PATH: The structure shall contain a minimum of one complete load path for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy for seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves to transfer the inertial forces from the mass to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.1.1)

ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building shall be greater than 4% of the height of the shorter building for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.1.2)

MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels shall be braced independently from the main structure, or shall be anchored to the lateral-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.1.3)

WEAK STORY: The strength of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be less than 80% of the strength in an adjacent story, above or below, for Life-Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.1)

SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be less than 70% of the lateral-force-resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or below, or less than 80% of the average lateral-force-resisting system stiffness off the three stories above or below for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.2)

C3.7.9A Basic Structural Checklist for Building Type C2A

These buildings have floor and roof framing that consists of wood sheathing on wood framing and concrete beams. Floors are supported on concrete columns or bearing walls. Lateral forces are resisted by cast-in-place concrete shear walls. In older construction, shear walls are lightly reinforced, but often extend throughout the building. In more recent construction, shear walls occur in isolated locations and are more heavily reinforced with boundary elements and closely spaced ties to provide ductile performance. The diaphragms consist of wood sheathing or have large aspect ratios and are flexible relative to the walls. Foundations consist of concrete spread footings or deep pile foundations.




3773 - 2

C NC N/A COMMENT

GEOMETRY: There shall be no changes in horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.3)

VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: All vertical elements in the lateral-force-resisting system shall be continuous to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.4)

Wall along line B offset in the east west direction between grids 12 and 13.

MASS: There shall be no change in effective mass more than 50% from one story to the next for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. Light roofs, penthouses and mezzanines need not be considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.5)

DETERIORATION OF WOOD: There shall be no signs of decay, shrinkage, splitting, fire damage, or sagging in any of the wood members and none of the metal connection hardware shall be deteriorated, broken, or loose. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.3.1)

DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE: There shall be no visible deterioration of concrete or reinforcing steel in any of the vertical- or lateral-force-resisting elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.3.4)

POST-TENSIONING ANCHORS: There shall be no evidence of corrosion or spalling in the vicinity of post-tensioning or end fittings. Coil anchors shall not have been used. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.3.5)

CONCRETE WALL CRACKS: All existing diagonal cracks in wall elements shall be less than 1/8" for Life Safety and 1/16" for Immediate Occupancy, shall not be concentrated in one location, and shall not form an X pattern. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.3.9)

LATERAL FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM

REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction shall be greater than or equal to 2 for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.1.1)

SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 3.5.3.3, shall be less than

the greater of 100 psi or cf'2 for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.1)




3773 - 3

C NC N/A COMMENT

REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing steel area to gross concrete area shall be not less than 0.0015 in the vertical direction and 0.0025 in the horizontal direction for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. The spacing of reinforcing steel shall be equal to or less than 18” for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.2)

CONNECTIONS

WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior concrete or masonry walls, that are dependent on the diaphragm for lateral support, shall be anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm. Connections shall have adequate strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check Procedure of Section 3.5.3.7. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.1.1)

Inadequate anchorage of east and west walls to steel beams

TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms shall be connected for transfer of loads to the shear walls for Life Safety and the connections shall be able to develop the lesser of the shear strength of the walls for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.2.1)

FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement shall be doweled into the foundation for Life Safety and the dowels shall be able to develop the lesser of the strength of the walls or the uplift capacity of the foundation for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.3.5)



3.7.9AS SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING TYPE C2A: CONCRETE SHEAR WALL BUILDINGS WITH FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS

3773 - 1

This Supplemental Structural Checklist shall be completed when required by Table 3-2. The Basic Structural Checklist shall be completed prior to completing this Supplemental Structural Checklist.

C NC N/A COMMENT


COUPLING BEAMS: The stirrups in coupling beams over means of egress shall be spaced at or less than d/2 and shall be anchored into the confined core of the beam with hooks of 135º or more for Life Safety. All coupling beams shall comply with the requirements above and shall have the capacity in shear to develop the uplift capacity of the adjacent wall for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.3)

OVERTURNING: All shear walls shall have aspect ratios less than 4 to 1. Wall piers need not be considered. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.4)

CONFINEMENT REINFORCING: For shear walls with aspect ratios greater than 2 to 1, the boundary elements shall be confined with spirals or ties with spacing less than 8db. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.5)

REINFORCING AT OPENINGS: There shall be added trim reinforcement around all wall openings with a dimension greater than three times the thickness of the wall. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.6)

WALL THICKNESS: Thickness of bearing walls shall not be less than 1/25 the unsupported height or length, whichever is shorter, nor less than 4”. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.7)

DIAPHRAGMS

DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragm shall not be composed of split-level floors and shall not have expansion joints. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.1.1)

CROSS TIES: There shall be continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.1.2)




3773 - 2

C NC N/A COMMENT

OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls shall be less than 25% of the wall length for Life Safety and 15% of the wall length for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.1.4)

Mezzanine between G and K

PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There shall be tensile capacity to develop the strength of the diaphragm at re-entrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.1.7)

DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There shall be reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.1.8)

STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight sheathed diaphragms shall have aspect ratios less than 2 to 1 for Life Safety and 1 to 1 for Immediate Occupancy in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.2.1)

SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft. for Life Safety and 12 ft. for Immediate Occupancy shall consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.2.2)

UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms shall have horizontal spans less than 40 ft. for Life Safety and 30 ft. for Immediate Occupancy and shall have aspect ratios less than or equal to 4 to 1 for Life Safety and 3 to 1 for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.2.3)

NON-CONCRETE FILLED DIAPHRAGMS: Untopped metal deck diaphragms or metal deck diaphragms with fill other than concrete shall consist of horizontal spans of less than 40 ft. and shall have span/depth ratios less than 4 to 1. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.3.1)

OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragm shall not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.7.1)




3773 - 3

C NC N/A COMMENT

CONNECTIONS

UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps shall have top reinforcement and piles shall be anchored to the pile caps for Life Safety, and the pile cap reinforcement and pile anchorage shall be able to develop the tensile capacity of the piles for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.3.10)



3.7.12A BASIC STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING TYPE PC2A: PRECAST CONCRETE FRAMES WITHOUT SHEAR WALLS

3773 - 1

This Basic Structural Checklist shall be completed where required by Table 3-2.

Each of the evaluation statements on this checklist shall be marked compliant (C), non-compliant (NC), or not applicable (N/A) for a Tier 1 Evaluation. Compliant statements identify issues that are acceptable according to the criteria of this standard, while non-compliant statements identify issues that require further investigation. Certain statements may not apply to the buildings being evaluated. For non-compliant evaluation statements, the design professional may choose to conduct further investigation using the corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure; the section numbers in parentheses following each evaluation statement correspond to Tier 2 evaluation procedures.

C NC N/A COMMENT

BUILDING SYSTEM

LOAD PATH: The structure shall contain a minimum of one complete load path for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy for seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves to transfer the inertial forces from the mass to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.1.1)

ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building shall be greater than 4% of the height of the shorter building for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.1.2)

MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels shall be braced independently from the main structure, or shall be anchored to the lateral-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.1.3)

WEAK STORY: The strength of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be less than 80% of the strength in an adjacent story, above or below, for Life-Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.1)

SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be less than 70% of the lateral-force-resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or below, or less than 80% of the average lateral-force-resisting system stiffness off the three stories above or below for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.2)

GEOMETRY: There shall be no changes in horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories for Life Safety and Immediate

C3.7.12A Basic Structural Checklist for Building Type PC2A

These buildings are similar to PC2 buildings, except that concrete shear walls are not present. Lateral forces are resisted by precast concrete moment frames that develop their stiffness through beams-columns joints rigidly connected by welded insets or cast-in-place concrete closures. Diaphragms consist of precast elements interconnected with welded inserts, cast-in-place closure strips, or reinforced concrete topping slabs.




3773 - 2

C NC N/A COMMENT

Occupancy, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.3)

VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: All vertical elements in the lateral-force-resisting system shall be continuous to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.4)

MASS: There shall be no change in effective mass more than 50% from one story to the next for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. Light roofs, penthouses and mezzanines need not be considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.5)

TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity shall be less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.6)

DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE: There shall be no visible deterioration of concrete or reinforcing steel in any of the vertical- or lateral-force-resisting elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.3.4)

POST-TENSIONING ANCHORS: There shall be no evidence of corrosion or spalling in the vicinity of post-tensioning or end fittings. Coil anchors shall not have been used. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.3.5)


REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of moment frames in each principal direction shall be greater than or equal to 2 for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. The number of bays of moment frames in each line shall be greater than or equal to 2 for Life Safety and 3 for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.1.1.1)

SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in concrete columns, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 3.5.3.2, shall be less than the

greater of 100 psi or cf'2 for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.1.4.1)

AXIAL STRESS CHECK: The axial stress due to gravity loads in columns subjected to overturning forces shall be less than 0.10f’c for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. Alternatively, the axial stresses due to overturning forces alone, calculated using the Quick Check Procedure of Section 3.5.3.6, shall be less than 0.30 f’c for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.1.4.2)




3773 - 3

C NC N/A COMMENT

PRECAST CONNECTION CHECK: The precast connections at frame joints shall have the capacity to resist the shear and moment demands calculated using the Quick Procedure of Section 3.5.3.5 (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.1.5.1)

DIAPHRAGMS

TOPPING SLAB: Precast concrete diaphragm elements shall be interconnected by a continuous reinforced concrete topping slab. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.5.1)

CONNECTIONS

TOPPING SLAB TO WALLS OR FRAMES: Reinforced concrete topping slabs that interconnect the precast concrete diaphragm elements shall be doweled for transfer of forces into the shear wall or frame elements for Life Safety and the dowels shall be able to develop the lesser of the shear strength of the walls, frames, or slabs for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.2.3)

GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: There shall be a positive connection between the girder and the column support.



3.7.12AS SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING TYPE PC2A: PRECAST CONCRETE FRAMES WITHOUT SHEAR WALLS

3773 - 1

This Supplemental Structural Checklist shall be completed when required by Table 3-2. The Basic Structural Checklist shall be completed prior to completing this Supplemental Structural Checklist.

C NC N/A COMMENT


PRESTRESSED FRAME ELEMENTS: The lateral-force-resisting frames shall not include any prestressed or post-tensioned elements where the average prestress exceeds the lesser of 700 psi or f’c/6 at potential hinge locations. The average prestress shall be calculated in accordance with the Quick Check Procedure of Section 3.5.3.8. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.1.4.4)

CAPTIVE COLUMNS: There shall be no columns at a level with height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio of the typical columns at that level for Life Safety and 75% for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.1.4.5)

JOINT REINFORCING: Beam-column joints shall have ties spaced at or less than 8db for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.1.4.13)

DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY: Secondary components shall have the shear capacity to develop the flexural strength of the components for Life Safety and shall meet the requirements of 4.4.1.4.9, 4.4.1.4.10, 4.4.1.4.11, 4.4.1.4.12, and 4.4.1.4.15 for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.1.6.2)

DIAPHRAGMS

PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There shall be tensile capacity to develop the strength of the diaphragm at re-entrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.1.7)

DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There shall be reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.1.8)



3.7.12AS SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING TYPE PC2A: PRECAST CONCRETE FRAMES WITHOUT SHEAR WALLS

3773 - 2

C NC N/A COMMENT

CONNECTIONS

UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps shall have top reinforcement and piles shall be anchored to the pile caps for Life Safety, and the pile cap reinforcement and pile anchorage shall be able to develop the tensile capacity of the piles for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.3.10)

GIRDERS: Girders supported by walls or pilasters shall have at least two additional ties securing the anchor bolts for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.4.2)

CORBEL BEARING: If the frame girders bear on column corbels, the length of bearing shall be greater than 3” for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.4.3)

CORBEL CONNECTIONS: The frame girders shall not be connected to corbels with welded elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.4.4)

APPENDIX B

Conceptual Seismic Retrofit Sketches

APPENDIX C

Cost Estimate

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVISFreeborn HallExisting Concrete and Precast Concrete / Single Story

DATE: 11-May-11

COST/

DESCRIPTION GSF COST GSF

Freeborn Hall 25,000 $3,153,247 $126.13

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ON BID DAY 25,000 $3,153,247 $126.13

COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

CONCEPTUAL

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS

Freeborn HallExisting Concrete and Precast Concrete / Single Story

GROSS SF: 25,000DATE: 11-May-11

CCCI:

COST W/O COST W/ SYSTEM MARK UP $/GSF MARK UP $/GSF

1.0 FOUNDATION $232,716 $9.31 $309,105 $12.362.0 VERTICAL STRUCTURE3.0 FLOOR & ROOF STRUCTURE $773,070 $30.92 $1,026,830 $41.074.0 EXTERIOR CLADDING $9,750 $0.39 $12,950 $0.525.0 ROOFING $3,400 $0.14 $4,516 $0.18

SHELL $1,018,936 $40.76 $1,353,402 $54.146.0 INTERIOR PARTITION $639,800 $25.59 $849,814 $33.997.0 INTERIOR FINISHES $75,000 $3.00 $99,619 $3.98

INTERIORS $714,800 $28.59 $949,433 $37.988.0 MISC. EQUIPMENT9.0 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION

FUNC. EQUIPMENT / VERT. TRANSPORTATION10.0 PLUMBING $25,000 $1.00 $33,206 $1.3311.0 HVAC $129,500 $5.18 $172,008 $6.8812.0 ELECTRICAL $250,000 $10.00 $332,063 $13.2813.0 FIRE PROTECTION $31,250 $1.25 $41,508 $1.66

MECHANICAL / ELECTRICAL $435,750 $17.43 $578,785 $23.15

TOTAL BUILDING $2,169,486 $86.78 $2,881,620 $115.26

14.0 SITE CLEARING $204,500 $8.18 $271,627 $10.8715.0 SITE UTILITIES16.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT

TOTAL SITE WORK $204,500 $8.18 $271,627 $10.87

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,373,986 $94.9619.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS 10.0% $237,399 $9.5019.0 OVERHEAD & PROFIT 5.0% $130,569 $5.2220.0 CONTINGENCY 15.0% $411,293 $16.45

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION - TODAY'S DOLLARS $3,153,247 $126.13Years Annual Inflation

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,153,247 $126.13 $3,153,247 $126.13

Anticipated Difference Between C Appropriation and Bid Date

Anticipated Difference Between CCCI Adjustments & Inflation

COMPONENT COST SUMMARY

Escalation From Estimate Date to July 1 of Budget Year

Anticipated CCCI Escalation From July 1 of Budget Year to July 1 of "C" Appropriation Year

Anticipated Actual Inflation From July 1of Budget Year to July 1 of "C" Appropriation Year


TRADE SYSTEM SUMMARY GROSS SF: 25,000

DATE: 11-May-11

CCCI:

TRADE COST PER SYSTEM COST PER SYSTEM/

TRADE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION COST BLDGSF QUANTITY UNIT SYSTEM BLDGSF

240.0 14.0 SUBTOTAL-DEMOLITION $204,500 $8.18 25,000 BLDGSF $8.18 1.000DIVISION 2 TOTAL $204,500 $8.18

331.0 1.0 SUBTOTAL-FOUNDATION CONCRETE $232,716 $9.31 96 CY $2,424.13 0.004331.0 3.0 SUBTOTAL-SLAB ON GRADE $28,800 $1.15 FLSF #DIV/0!331.0 3.0 SUBTOTAL- MISC. CONCRETE $400,000 $16.00 1,000 BLDGSF $400.00 0.040345.0 4.0 SUBTOTAL- PRECAST CONCRETE WLSF #DIV/0!

DIVISION 3 TOTAL $661,516 $26.46 512.0 2.0 SUBTOTAL-STRUCTURAL STEEL, VERT. BLDGSF #DIV/0!512.0 3.0 SUBTOTAL-STRUCTURAL STEEL, HORZ. $206,770 $8.27 40,020 LBS $5.17 1.601530.0 3.0 SUBTOTAL-METAL DECKING $137,500 $5.50 BLDGSF #DIV/0!550.0 2.0 SUBTOTAL-MISC. METALS 25,000 BLDGSF 1.000550.0 4.0 SUBTOTAL-METAL SCREENS 25,000 BLDGSF 1.000

DIVISION 5 TOTAL $344,270 $13.77 610.0 4.0 SUBTOTAL-ROUGH CARPENTRY 3,000 BLDGSF 0.120620.0 7.0 SUBTOTAL-FINISH CARPENTRY SF #DIV/0!

DIVISION 6 TOTAL 720.0 4.0 SUBTOTAL-INSULATION, EXT. WALL SF #DIV/0!720.0 6.0 SUBTOTAL-INSULATION, INT. WALL $23,750 $0.95 25,000 SF $0.95 1.000750.0 5.0 SUBTOTAL-MEMBRANE ROOFING RFSF #DIV/0!760.0 5.0 SUBTOTAL-SHEET METAL FLASHING $2,500 $0.10 BLDGSF #DIV/0!790.0 5.0 SUBTOTAL-CAULK & SEALANTS $900 $0.04 2,000 SF $0.45 0.080

DIVISION 7 TOTAL $27,150 $1.09 810.0 4.0 SUBTOTAL-DOORS/FRAMES/HDWR - EXT. DRS #DIV/0!810.0 6.0 SUBTOTAL-DOORS/FRAMES/HDWR - INT. DRS #DIV/0!840.0 4.0 SUBTOTAL-ALUMINUM DOORS - EXT. DRS #DIV/0!850.0 4.0 SUBTOTAL-ALUMINUM WINDOWS - EXT. SF #DIV/0!

DIVISION 8 TOTAL 920.0 4.0 SUBTOTAL-DRYWALL,PLASTER - EXT. WALL $9,750 $0.39 3,000 WLSF $3.25 0.120920.0 6.0 SUBTOTAL-DRYWALL,PLASTER - INT. WALL $9,750 $0.39 3,000 WLSF $3.25 0.120920.0 6.0 SUBTOTAL-DRYWALL,PLASTER - CEILING $570,000 $22.80 26,000 WLSF $21.92 1.040930.0 7.0 SUBTOTAL-CERAMIC TILE SF #DIV/0!951.0 7.0 SUBTOTAL-ACOUSTICAL TILE $75,000 $3.00 25,000 SF $3.00 1.000965.0 7.0 SUBTOTAL-RESILIENT FLOORING FLSF #DIV/0!970.0 6.0 SUBTOTAL-PAINT $36,300 $1.45 31,010 BLDGSF $1.17 1.240

DIVISION 9 TOTAL $700,800 $28.03 1010.0 8.0 SUBTOTAL-MISCELLANEOUS SPECIALTIES BLDGSF #DIV/0!1028.0 8.0 SUBTOTAL-TOILET ACCESSORIES BLDGSF #DIV/0!

DIVISION 10 TOTAL 2110.0 13.0 SUBTOTAL-FIRE PROTECTION $31,250 $1.25 25,000 BLDGSF $1.25 1.0002240.0 10.0 SUBTOTAL-PLUMBING $25,000 $1.00 25,000 FIXT $1.00 1.0002330.0 11.0 SUBTOTAL-HVAC SYSTEM $129,500 $5.18 25,000 BLDGSF $5.18 1.0002610.0 12.0 SUBTOTAL-ELECTRICALSYSTEM $250,000 $10.00 25,000 BLDGSF $10.00 1.000

DIVISION 20 TOTAL $435,750 $17.43 TOTAL SUBCONTRACT COST $2,373,986 $94.96

Page 3


GROSS SF: 25,000

DATE: 11-May-11

ARCHITECT: A&E DESIGN GROUP BY: D.BERN

TRADE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST/GSF

EXCAVATION CY $30.00

BACKFILL & COMPACTION CY $25.00

WALKWAY PAVING DEMO 4,800 SF $2.50 $12,000 $0.48

GLASS WALL DEMO 2,000 SF $2.50 $5,000 $0.20

CEILINGS DEMO 25,000 SF $5.00 $125,000 $5.00

ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL DEMO 25,000 SF $2.50 $62,500 $2.50

REINFORCING STEEL LBS $1.15

CONCRETE FOOTING - CONTINUOUS CY $300.00

240.0 14.0 SUBTOTAL-DEMOLITION 25,000 BLDGSF $204,500 $8.18

EXCAVATION 504 CY $30.00 $15,120 $0.60

BACKFILL & COMPACTION 504 CY $25.00 $12,600 $0.50

TIE BACK REINFORCING 24 FT LONG 576 LF $250.00 $144,000 $5.76

HAUL SPOIL TO WASTE 101 CY $20.00 $2,016 $0.08

REINFORCING STEEL 1,200 LBS $1.15 $1,380 $0.06

CONCRETE FOOTING - CONTINUOUS 96 CY $600.00 $57,600 $2.30

331.0 1.0 SUBTOTAL-FOUNDATION CONCRETE 96 CY $232,716 $9.31

SLAB ON GRADE, 4" AB, 2" SAND, VB. SF $8.00

WALKWAY PAVING 96 CY $300.00 $28,800 $1.15

331.0 3.0 SUBTOTAL-SLAB ON GRADE FLSF $28,800 $1.15

CIP WALL/PILASTER/BEAM 1,000 CY $400.00 $400,000 $16.00

331.0 3.0 SUBTOTAL- MISC. CONCRETE 1,000 BLDGSF $400,000 $16.00

STRUCTURAL STEEL ROOF FRAMING 33,350 LBS $5.00 $166,750 $6.67

MISC. SHAPES & PLATES 6,670 LBS $6.00 $40,020 $1.60

512.0 3.0 SUBTOTAL-STRUCTURAL STEEL, HORZ. 40,020 LBS $206,770 $8.27

METAL ROOF DECKING LAP JOINT STRAPS 25,000 SF $5.50 $137,500 $5.50

530.0 3.0 SUBTOTAL-METAL DECKING BLDGSF $137,500 $5.50

R-19 WALL INSULATION @ INT. WALL/CEILIN 25,000 SF $0.95 $23,750 $0.95

720.0 6.0 SUBTOTAL-INSULATION, INT. WALL 25,000 SF $23,750 $0.95

CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE

CURRENT

Page 2


GROSS SF: 25,000

DATE: 11-May-11




CURRENT

SHEET METAL FLASHING 2,000 SF $1.25 $2,500 $0.10

760.0 5.0 SUBTOTAL-SHEET METAL FLASHING BLDGSF $2,500 $0.10

CAULKING & SEALANT 2,000 SF $0.45 $900 $0.04

790.0 5.0 SUBTOTAL-CAULK & SEALANTS 2,000 SF $900 $0.04

6" METAL STUD FRAMING SF $6.00

5/8" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHING 3,000 SF $3.25 $9,750 $0.39

920.0 4.0 SUBTOTAL-DRYWALL,PLASTER - EXT. WAL 3,000 WLSF $9,750 $0.39

6" METAL STUD FRAMING SF $6.00

3 5/8" METAL STUD FRAMING SF $5.50

5/8" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHING 3,000 SF $3.25 $9,750 $0.39

COLUMN COVER ALLOWANCE SF $1.50

920.0 6.0 SUBTOTAL-DRYWALL,PLASTER - INT. WALL 3,000 WLSF $9,750 $0.39

PATCH EXT. SOFFIT PLASTER 1,000 SF $20.00 $20,000 $0.80

NEW PLASTER ASSEMBLY CEILING 25,000 SF $22.00 $550,000 $22.00

920.0 6.0 SUBTOTAL-DRYWALL,PLASTER - CEILING 26,000 WLSF $570,000 $22.80

GLUE ON ACOUSTICAL TILE CEILING 25,000 SF $3.00 $75,000 $3.00

951.0 7.0 SUBTOTAL-ACOUSTICAL TILE 25,000 SF $75,000 $3.00

PAINT EXT. SIDING SF $0.75

PAINT INT. WALLS 5,000 SF $0.70 $3,500 $0.14

PAINT CEILINGS 25,000 SF $1.25 $31,250 $1.25

PAINT DOORS 10 SF $105.00 $1,050 $0.04

PAINT MISC. TRIM 1,000 SF $0.50 $500 $0.02

970.0 6.0 SUBTOTAL-PAINT 31,010 BLDGSF $36,300 $1.45

FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTION SYSTEM 25,000 SF $1.25 $31,250 $1.25

2110.0 13.0 SUBTOTAL-FIRE PROTECTION 25,000 BLDGSF $31,250 $1.25

WATER CLOSET EA $950.00

LAVATORY EA $450.00

Page 3


GROSS SF: 25,000

DATE: 11-May-11




CURRENT

SERVICE SINK EA $550.00

MOP SINK EA $850.00

DRINKING FOUNTAIN EA $1,400.00

WATER HEATER EA $3,500.00

FIXTURE ROUGH-IN EA $1,500.00

MISC. SUPPLY & WASTE PIPING 25,000 SF $1.00 $25,000 $1.00

ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM SF $1.25

2240.0 10.0 SUBTOTAL-PLUMBING 25,000 FIXT $25,000 $1.00

AIR HANDLER EQUIPMENT CFM $5.50

EXHAUST FANS EA $750.00

MECH. PIPING SF $7.00

VAV BOXES SF $1.75

MISC REPAIRS TO DUCTWORK/REGISTERS 25,000 SF $5.00 $125,000 $5.00

TEMPERATURE CONTROLS SF $6.50

TEST & BALANCE 3,000 SF $1.50 $4,500 $0.18

2330.0 11.0 SUBTOTAL-HVAC SYSTEM 25,000 BLDGSF $129,500 $5.18

POWER & SERVICE EQUIPMENT SF $9.00

MISC. REPAIRS TO CODUIT AND WIRING/ FIXTURES 25,000 SF $7.50 $187,500 $7.50

REPLACEMENT FIXTURES 25,000 SF $2.50 $62,500 $2.50

USER POWER & DEVICES SF $6.00

TELECOM & DATA SF $6.50

FIRE ALARM SF $3.50

CCTV SF $0.50

SECURITY SF $0.75

2610.0 12.0 SUBTOTAL-ELECTRICALSYSTEM 25,000 BLDGSF $250,000 $10.00

Page 4

seismic assessment of freeborn hall

Documents