DESIGN REPORT

PSU WATER RESILIENCY CAPSTONE PROJECT

(Resilio)

3/12/2019

Prepared by: Resilio (#4)

Jules Gabbard
Alex Haupt
Jeremy Bartleson
Carla Isiordia
Lesli Rodriguez
Manal Saeed

Client: Portland State University

Civil & Environmental Engineering Capstone

 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

PROJECT DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as part of a class project for the Civil and Environmental Engineering
Project Management and Design course at Portland State University. The contents of this report
were developed by the student authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Portland State
University. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the report should not be
construed as an engineering report or used as a substitute for professional engineering services.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Patrick McLaughlin, Cary Morris, Emma Stocker, Jenny McNamara, and
Eduardo Ruiz Lamas for their guidance, support, and encouragement throughout the design
process to date.
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1
1.0 Project Background 2
1.1 Project Objectives 2
1.2 Existing Site Conditions 2
1.3 Stakeholders 5
2.0 Alternatives Analysis 5
2.1 Description of Alternatives 6
2.2 Description of Selection Criteria 10
2.3 Selection 10
3.0 Design Development 11
3.1 Well Usability 11
3.2 Water Treatment 12
3.3 Water Storage 13
References 13
Cost Estimate Sources 14

APPENDICES

A. Construction cost estimate

B. Construction schedule
C. Drawings
D. Calculations
E. Specifications
F. QC checklist
G. Site photos
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

[To be drafted upon completion of other sections.]

1
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The aim of this project is to determine the best practical solution for providing drinking water to
Portland State University (PSU) students, employees, and local community after a disaster event
like an earthquake. This includes evaluating the seismic resilience of water resources that PSU
has, and providing recommendations on systems that will provide potable water from these
resources.

Recommendations for daily water consumption in an emergency vary. The World Health
Organization (WHO) recommends approximately 0.7-0.8 gallons of water per person per day for
drinking, and additional water for basic cooking and hygiene (Reed and Reed, 2011). The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recommends storing a minimum of 1 gallon per person
per day for household use for drinking and basic sanitation. Based on these recommendations, the
constraints of this project, and the number of people who may need to use the emergency water
supply (see 1.3, “Stakeholders”), we have chosen a design target of 25,000-30,000 gallons per day
(gpd).

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

After a major emergency such as a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, critical infrastructure
including drinking water supplies may be affected. Portland State University resident students,
critical staff, and local community members would significantly benefit from emergency access to
potable water after such an event. The design and implementation of a full cohesive system is too
broad for all aspects to be addressed in detail during this project, so we will focus on a subset of
the required design work.

Our scope includes research and recommendations on the following items: (1) water treatment
methods that can be adapted depending on post-disaster conditions; (2) structural resiliency of
wells, well heads, buildings, and other infrastructure involved in the project; (3) temporary storage
of water during an event; and (4) other potential sources of water.

Item (1) is our primary design focus and the intended subject of our formal alternatives analysis.
Power delivery has been addressed at least in part by the previous Capstone team. Other aspects of
the system could form the basis of future Capstone projects.

1.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

Wells are located on the Portland State University campus in/near the Science Research and
Teaching Center (SRTC), Cramer Hall (CH north and south), Lincoln Hall (LH), Academic and
Student Recreation Center (ASRC) and the Fourth Avenue Building (FAB 1, 2 and 3) as marked
in Figure 1. All wells but south CH have access from an outdoor manhole that is 3-15 ft away
from their corresponding building. All wells but SRTC, FAB 1 and FAB 2 have indoor access
below ground level. SRTC is the only well that is more than 6′ outside of a building footprint and
2
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

is the closest to the Viking Pavilion, which is a designated Mass Care and Shelter location for
emergencies. All wells are located near sewage pipes. Well integrity was not determined, but there
are external fracture lines visible on the FAB 1 well head. Details about well depth, use and pump
type are listed in Table 1. Preliminary well data was gathered during a site visit guided by Eduardo
Ruiz Lamas. Pictures of well heads are available in Appendix G.

Figure 1. Map of campus and well sites

The well water is used in several buildings’ heating and cooling systems. Water is pumped out of
the extraction wells, run through the HVAC system, and pumped back into the injection wells.
The extraction wells penetrate the Troutdale gravel aquifer 100-300 ft below the ground surface,
while the injection wells are much deeper and reach into the semi-confined Columbia River
Basalts (CRB) aquifer (Swanson et al., 1993; Trotman and Koehlbecker, 2011.)

The ASRC well was identified in the past as the preferred option for development as an
emergency backup well (Goins et al., 2018), but further investigation revealed a crack in the well
casing. In an earthquake, this could be a weak point making the well shaft more susceptible to
collapse. Despite this drawback, our design process will continue to consider the ASRC well as a
potential water source, as our design must account for the significant uncertainty associated with
the area’s seismic response.

3
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

Table 1. Well locations

Depth Depth to Year Well Year Building
Location Use Pump type Well ID (ft) water (ft) Built Constructed
Field of SRTC MULT
SRTC building Injection Submerged 106000 1044 131 * 2011 1971

North North of Cramer

CH Hall building Extraction External MULT 2740 210 144 1965 1970

South South of Cramer

CH Hall building Extraction External MULT 2749 170 137 1968 1970
East of Lincoln Hall
LH Building Injection External MULT 2750 232 135.3 1968 1911
South of ASRC
ASRC building Extraction Submerged MULT 2752 207 138 1962 2009
SW 4th ave, MULT7528
FAB1 outside FAB Extraction Submerged 6 240 126.8 2004 1962
SW 4th ave, MULT
FAB2 outside FAB Injection Submerged 75285 667 133 * 2004 1962
North of FAB
building on SW
FAB3 Harrison Extraction Submerged MULT 2743 240 120 1962 1962
* Although each of the injection wells is sealed off from the upper aquifer to a depth of 250 ft below ground surface,
the water pressure in the semi-confined lower aquifer results in a static water level close to 130 ft.

Two of the wells (ASRC and CH South) are connected to large settling tanks, which we
considered for water storage between pumping and distribution. In addition, the ASRC building
houses a swimming pool and a number of surge tanks (Marcos Ordaz, personal communication,
Feb 21, 2019). On further investigation of the seismic requirements in even the most up-to-date
building codes, however, we cannot in good conscience recommend the use of indoor storage.
Instead, we have chosen to provide recommendations for portable water storage. This decision is
addressed in more detail in section 3.3: Water Storage.

Cramer Hall has not been subjected to a seismic vulnerability assessment (PSU). However, it was
constructed in 1957-1970, before Oregon’s first adoption of a statewide building code in 1974
(Judson, 2012), which casts doubt on its seismic performance. Lincoln Hall, though originally
built in 1911, underwent a major seismic retrofit in 2011. A seismic evaluation performed on the
FAB (no source or date listed) indicates that it capable of resisting seismic forces specified in the
1994 Universal Building Code (UBC). The ASRC was constructed in 2009 under the 2007 Oregon
Structural Specialty Code (OSSC).

4
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

1.3 STAKEHOLDERS
The first and most important party to consider for this project is the people that it will serve. This
will be the students and employees of PSU and the surrounding community. The ideal is to have
drinking water available as soon as possible after a major disaster for the approximately 2,000
students living on campus and 500-1,000 staff who are critical to initial emergency response and
recovery operations (Emma Stocker, personal communication, Feb. 11, 2019), as well as some of
the 25,000+ non-resident students and 7,000 employees who may be on campus and unable to
leave immediately after a disaster. Another 29,000 people live within one mile of campus (Goins
et al., 2018) and may not have access to other sources of potable water in the design scenario. .
However, soliciting opinions on such a large scale is not practical, and the project is both outside
of most of these stakeholders’ scope of expertise and will have a negligible effect on day-to-day
life.

PSU’s Emergency Management department, represented by director Emma Stocker, has a large
stake in this project: a lack of safe water for drinking and basic sanitation is a primary cause of
illness in disaster situations (Reed and Reed, 2011). The Facilities and Property Management
(FPM) department, represented by Director of Operations and Maintenance Cary Morris, will need
to manage the required equipment and resources to be used in the design. Ongoing dialogue
between these parties and the project team is critical to ensure that the design meets client
requirements. This project is also a component of PSU’s Living Lab program and therefore
involves some consultation with the program’s administrator, Jenny McNamara (Campus
Sustainability Director). Finally, this project design will affect the PSU staff that manage the
budget, and those responsible for grant writing that will ensue once it has been approved and ready
to implement.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Due to the broad scope of the project, it would be impractical to provide alternatives analyses for
all design details. For this section, we have chosen to focus on the water treatment design. Manual
pumping was briefly considered to reduce power requirements, but discarded as an infeasible
option given the magnitude of our design target. Currently all cost estimates are based on diesel
generators as the project team was advised by the client not to prioritize power generation
logistics. PSU also stores several thousand gallons of diesel fuel on campus in three separate
underground tanks (Cary Morris, personal communication, Jan. 29, 2019), so it may be a readily
available resource. However, seismic assessment of the tanks and their access points is beyond the
scope of this project. We have not ruled out other options such as utilizing a similar solar-powered
battery system such as the one proposed by Goins et al., however. PSU also stores several
thousand gallons of diesel fuel on campus in three separate underground tanks, so it may be a
readily available resource. However, seismic assessment of the tanks and their access points is
beyond the scope of this project.

5
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Three alternatives were chosen to analyze for this aspect of the project: a filtration/UV system, a
reverse osmosis system, and a system using flocculator tubes and dissolved air flotation.

Alternative 1
The Transportable Water Treatment (TWT) system with micro-filtration, deposit control, and UV
disinfection shown in Figure 2 comes in three sizes and has the capacity to completely disinfect
20, 40, or 60 gallons per minute (gpm). It draws water using a pump through a prefiltering
sediment strainer (#24 mesh/730 microns) to remove all large particulate matter down to 25
microns in size. The water then goes through a multiple stage filter which removes particles and
chemicals down to 10, then 5, then 1 micron. Third, it goes through deposit control system to
remove scale deposits, biofilm, corrosion, algae and colloids. Finally, the water is disinfected by
the UV system: the conditioned water passes through 3 chambers using 253 nanometer
wavelength ultraviolet light to completely destroy the DNA in any microbial organism. The TWT-
UV is equipped with a failsafe sensing monitor to ensure output water is fully treated. The monitor
automatically sounds an alarm and flashes a warning light if it detects insufficient UV energy
irradiating the water as it passes through the UV chamber. This system can be connected either by
hooking directly to a water supply output line or by submerging the water intake line directly into
the source water. It is easily adapted to the voltage, phase and frequency characteristics of the
local environment.

Figure 2: Portable water treatment system with filtration, deposit control, and UV disinfection (courtesy of
Triangular Wave Technologies).

The Triangular Wave Technologies portable water treatment system destroys disease causing
bacteria and viruses with a 99.9% kill rate. The sample unit shown has a flow rate of up to 60
gpm, which fills a 50,000-gallon storage bladder in just 14 hours. It discharges only a bare
minimum of waste, usually 4% or less. Total power requirement is 8.5 kW, which can be met with
6
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

a diesel generator such as the Perkins 403D-11. This system’s dry weight is 3,300 lb, dimensions
of 48″×66″×62″. The minimum interior dimensions of the vehicle would be L9′×W6′×H6.5′ (see
Appendix D for supporting calculations).

The cost of the treatment system is $15,000 not including plumbing, pump, or generator. The
Perkins generator can be purchased for approximately $7,000. Based on initial market research, an
appropriate pump may be found for approximately $1,000, for a total system cost of $23,000.

Alternative 2
The Reverse Osmosis (RO) system shown in Figure 3 uses a multi-media filter and then a reverse
osmosis membrane to treat the water. It treats up to 150 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU)
turbidity. Turbidity indirectly indicates of the amount of particulate solids by measuring the
amount of light that can be seen through the water; for reference, at a turbidity or 30 NTU, an
observer can usually see about a foot into the water. The system has a programmable logic
controller (PLC) automatic flushing cycle. A conservative flux rate (that is, a ratio of flow to
membrane area that is below the theoretical maximum capacity) yields high membrane lifetimes.
The OCPuritech model RO-5000L/H produces 31700 gallons of water per day. It has a duplex
high-pressure stainless-steel pump. The system requires minimal maintenance and operator
involvement. A back-washable multi-media filter membrane removes suspended solids and
bacteria before they can foul the RO membrane. This means the RO membrane requires infrequent
cleaning, which increases online availability and reduces costs for cleaning chemicals and
membrane replacement without adding the cost and time of replacing inline cartridge filters. With
reliability and minimal maintenance, a filtration/RO enhanced membrane system delivers
significantly better performance than conventional RO systems.

Function of each part of the water treatment plant:

1. A booster pump provides pressure to the quartz sand filter/active carbon filter
2. A multi-media filter removes turbidity, suspended matter, organic matter, colloid, etc.
3. An active carbon filter--Remove the color, free chloride, organic matter, harmful matter, etc.
4. An ion exchanger softens the water by exchanging calcium and magnesium ions for sodium.
5. A security filter prevents particles larger than 5 microns from entering the RO membrane.
6. A High Pressure Pump provides the required pressure to RO membrane.
7. The RO system itself is the main part of the plant. The RO membrane removes nearly all ions,
bacteria, and viruses.
8. A UV sterilizer or ozone generator kills any remaining microorganisms.

A 6.5 kW electrical generator with dimensions 2.33′×1.83′×1.91′ can power this system. The
water treatment system itself has dimensions 26.5′×3.26′×/8.0′. A vehicle with minimum interior
dimensions of L27′×W6′×H8.5′ would be adequate to hold both components (Appendix D). The
generator is diesel and will give enough amps to power the pump and the treatment system. The
listed price for this treatment system is $20,000 and the generator can be purchased for
approximately $4,000, for a combined cost of $24,000 before the vehicle purchase.

7
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

Figure 4.
Gillette GPED-
65EK Diesel 1-phase 6500 Watt
Portable Generator
Figure 3. OCPuritech Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis water
treatment system

Alternative 3
Another possible system starts with a flocculation tube system (floc tube). Floc tubes mix water to
be treated with chemicals that encourage suspended solids to form clumps and flakes, which can
be removed more easily than single particles. A typical tube system uses long straight pipes of a
larger diameter alternating with smaller-diameter elbows to create turbulence for more thorough
mixing and flocculation. The model chosen for comparison is Evoqua FT-21, which has a flow
rate of 20-50 gpm, dimensions L90″×W24″×H23″, and Schedule-80 PVC pipe segments.

Floc tubes are commonly used prior to Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) systems. DAFs are
designed to remove total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and oil and
grease from a wastewater stream by injecting air under high pressure. The air forms micron-sized
bubbles, which attach to contaminants and rise to the surface. A surface skimmer removes the
floating material. Evoqua model RT-050A has dimensions L14′-11″×W6′-4″×H7′-2″ and can
process influent at the rate of 21 gpm. The system requires a specialized pump for air injection,
such as the Hellbender line of DAF pumps. After that, the water must also go through a
disinfection process, for example using a chlorine dioxide generator; the model used for price
estimation produces 1 kg/h chlorine dioxide and has dimensions L4.5′×W2.6′×H6.2′. This system
costs upwards of $100,000 and would require a vehicle with minimum interior dimensions of
L30′×W8.5′×H8′ (Appendix D).

8
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

Figure 5. (a) Schematic, (b)

photograph, and (c) drawing
of a water treatment system
including flocculation tubes
and a DAF

(a)

(b)
Source: JWC Environmental
(jwce.org)

(c)
Source: K-Pack Systems Ltd.

9
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTION CRITERIA

Treatment Capacity: This criterion measures the amount of water that the treatment works can
handle. This is measured on a flow rate basis.
Ease of Transport: This criterion measures how easy the system is to move, the mobility of the
unit to be transported to different water sources. The more difficult the unit is to move the
lower the score it will receive. The scores for this criterion are mostly based on the size of the
system, since that will dictate the size of vehicle needed to transport it.
Contaminant limits: Different systems can clean different contaminants in the water, and
limitations are part of the specifications of the system.
Maintenance: This criterion is the measurement of how much time and labor is needed to keep
the system running. The more labor needed the lower the score it will receive.
Parts and Chemicals: All the systems will need spare parts and chemicals. Filters will need to be
replaced and chemicals added. The more input of chemicals and parts needed by the system
during operation, the lower the score.
Price of the system: This criterion measures the price of the treatment works, the higher the price
the lower the score it will have.
Aesthetics: Simply put, is the system presentable, well designed, compact, and easy to operate?
These aspects will receive the higher score.

2.3 SELECTION
Each of the water treatment designs was scored on a scale of 1-5 per criterion. The criteria were
also weighted on a 1-5 scale so that points for more important criteria would give higher total
scores. The sum of the final weighted score for each category was used to determine which water
treatment system best met the project needs based on the information we had available. We chose
to give treatment capacity and ease of transport the highest weights in order to meet the
fundamentals of our design intentions. The second most heavily weighted criteria were
contaminant limits and maintenance. Next highest were parts and chemicals with a weight of 3,
price of the system the fourth, and aesthetics the lowest. The most weighted, treatment capacity,
was given a score of 1 if it did not meet the minimum design target of 25,000 gpd, a 3 if it could
process at least 28,000 gpd, and a 4 or higher if it was above the 30,000 gpd. Ease of transport
was based on the size of the treatment system which related to what type of vehicle it could be
installed on: a large semi-truck would result in a 1, a smaller box truck could be a three and if the
system could be fitted to an all-terrain vehicle it would receive a 5. Maintenance is be scored
based on how the system will perform without much labor input. If a certified water operator
needs to perform these tasks it would be given a 1, while if the system could last a month without
any maintenance it would receive a 5. Scoring for parts and chemicals is based on how often and
the amount of chemicals a system would use in a given amount of time. Many manufacturers do
not give an exact amount of chemical per gallon that will be used but the system themselves
needing chemicals could be rated on this. If a system is highly dependent on chemical addition it
will receive a 1, while if filters are the only thing that needs to be replaced to would receive a 3,
and if it is able to run for long periods of time with minimal maintenance and back flushing, it
10
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

would receive a 5. We still ranked each design for build cost because there are some significant
number differences between various price design alternatives. Aesthetic was voted on as an
individual choice on the look of the system. The stakeholders, especially the ones drinking the
water, will need to feel confident that the system they are looking at is producing healthy drinking
water. The scores are shown in Table 2 below.

Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Reverse Alternative 3: Floc

Table 2. Selection matrix UV/Filtration Osmosis tubes+DAF
Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted
Criterion Weight Score Score Score Score Score Score
Treatment Capacity 5 5 25 5 25 4 20
Ease of Transport 5 4 20 2 10 2 10
Contaminant Limits 4 4 16 4 18 4 17
Maintenance 4 4 16 3 12 2 8

Parts and Chemicals 3 3 9 4 12 2 7

Price of the system 2 4 8 4 8 1 2
Aesthetics 1 4 4 4 4 3 3
Total: 98 Total: 89 Total: 66

The filtration/UV and filtration/RO systems share the drawback of not removing oil & grease
products from the water stream, which could pose challenges if a petroleum or natural gas line
ruptured and leached into the aquifer. However, they both require significantly less financial
investment, maintenance, spare part storage, and chemical input than the DAF-based system.
Overall, the first two alternatives score very similarly in most categories. The greatest difference is
in portability, as the UV system has a much smaller footprint than either of the others. Based on
these factors, we will be moving forward with a filtration/UV design.

3.0 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

This section describes the current design recommendations for the project. The areas of design
covered are the usability of campus wells, mobile water treatment system (based on our
alternatives analysis above), and transient water storage requirements.

3.1 WELL USABILITY

Several factors influence the likelihood of a groundwater well being usable after a seismic event:
● Sediment may be shaken loose within an aquifer, which can damage pumping equipment
and cause turbidity in the water; this can be addressed by connecting the pump for the
mobile treatment system downstream of sediment filters.

11
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

● The structural integrity of the well itself can be compromised by ground shaking, though as
they are coupled with the ground, wells are among the least likely components of a water
system to be affected by seismic events. Ground settlement and liquefaction are the
primary hazards of concern (Troost, K.G. et al., 2010). A hazard map published by the
Oregon Department of Mineral and Geologic Industries (DOGAMI) indicates that the soil
around PSU is not prone to liquefaction, but the likelihood of settling requires further
investigation. A well with prior damage may be more vulnerable to collapse than one that
is in good condition before an earthquake.
● We speculate that the connection between the wellhead and well shaft may be vulnerable
to shearing, as the majority of the wells in consideration are attached to buildings which
move differentially from the ground. Results of further investigation will be included in
future drafts.
● Debris from buildings may fall into roadways, obstructing the path of a vehicle.
● Even away from the subduction zone, roadway surfaces may be ruptured, posing access
problems. A mobile treatment system should be mounted on a vehicle capable of
traversing rough terrain, and components should be robust enough to withstand the terrain
or somehow insulated against shocks.
● Access hatches may be warped and stuck shut. Hatches to wells should be checked before
mobilizing the treatment system.
● The groundwater table can change in an earthquake, potentially dropping or rising by a few
inches up to dozens of feet. Recovery can occur within seconds, days, or months, or
changes can be permanent. Most wells do not exhibit any offset, and of those that do, the
majority recover in minutes or tens of minutes (Roeloff, undated).
● Pipelines in the area may rupture and spill contaminants into the groundwater, such as
sewage or oil/gas. This will be addressed by treating the water.

All of these factors are subject to some uncertainty, and some are beyond our ability to predict at
all. The ways infrastructure may respond to seismic events are extremely site-specific and
dependent on a multitude of variables. Some will affect all the wells if they occur. That being said,
it is possible to make some educated guesses as to which wells are subject to fewer hazards, and
develop a procedure for selecting one in post-seismic conditions. Future drafts will address these
concerns in more detail.

3.2 WATER TREATMENT

Based on our alternatives analysis, we have selected Alternative 1 as our recommendation. As
discussed in Section 2, the primary systems are filters to remove physical contaminants down to 1
micron and a UV chamber to control biological contaminants. The filter/UV system allows for a
high flow rate of 20 to 60 GPM, equivalent to 28,800 to 86,400 gallons treated in a 24-hour
period, or 30,000 gallons treated in 8 to 25 hours. This means the system would not have to rely
on continuous operation to meet the design target, allowing for some system downtime for
technical difficulties.

12
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

3.3 WATER STORAGE

Another consideration is temporary storage of water between treatment and distribution. In order
to meet the capacity goals of the project, the pumps are expected to be running at least 12, and
likely 24 hours per day. Since it is unrealistic to expect that distribution will be in process over
these lengths of time, some transient storage will be necessary. The volume required is relatively
small, with the minimum comparable to the daily demand target.

We have considered adapting existing on-campus water storage to this purpose, particularly the
swimming pool and settling tanks at the Academic and Student Recreation Center (ASRC). These
facilities are desirable for the project because they would provide significant storage already on
campus, adjacent to one potential distribution site (the Urban Plaza) and relatively close to the
Peter W. Stott Center/Viking Pavilion.

However, even recently constructed or upgraded buildings such as the ASRC are generally
designed to be allow time to escape for any personnel in the building at the time of a major
earthquake, not to be safe to occupy after such an event (Satter et. al. 2018). Using these facilities
for storage would therefore require exposure of PSU essential personnel to risk of serious harm by
entering the building to set up equipment.

We recommend that this risk be considered unacceptable, and that water storage be acquired to
operate alongside the mobile treatment unit proposed above. This solution would reduce the risk to
personnel as well as allowing for the same flexibility as the treatment system. Flexible bladder
tanks (also called pillow tanks) or a large-capacity water supply vehicle are two options among a
multitude. Mobile storage could be used as part of a distribution system—especially if the chosen
distribution point or points are a significant distance from the selected well—while bladder tanks
have the advantages of being comparatively inexpensive and folding for more compact storage
when not in use.

4.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PERMITTING

To date, we have not learned of any regulations that specifically apply to water usage in
emergencies, or to testing of the system ahead of time. However, some state and/or municipal
permits may be required if a public demonstration takes place before a disaster event.

5.0 CONCLUSION
[placeholder for future drafts]

REFERENCES
Goins, M., Alwazzan, A., and Dawson, M. (2018). Design report: PSU emergency well.
(Unpublished—Courtesy of P. M. McLaughlin.)

13
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

Judson, S. (2012). Earthquake design history: a summary of requirements in the State of Oregon.
State of Oregon Building Codes Division. <https://www. oregon.gov> (Feb 22, 2019).
Portland State University. “Floorplans.” <http://www.pdx.edu> (Feb. 22, 2019).
Roeloff, E. (undated). “Groundwater effects from earthquakes.” USGS Earthquake Hazard
Program. <https://earthquake.usgs.gov> (Mar. 17, 2019).
Reed, B. and Reed, B. (2011). “How much water is needed in emergencies.” Water Sanitation
Hygiene. Water, Engineering & Development Centre, Leicestershire, UK.
<https://www.who.int> (Feb 22, 2019).
Sattar, S., Mcallister, T., Johnson, K., et al. (2018). “Research needs to support immediate
occupancy building performance objective following natural hazard events.” National Institute
of Science and Technology Special Publications.
Swanson, R.D. , McFarland, W.D., Gonthier, J.B., and Wilkinson, J.M. (1993). A description of
hydrogeologic units in the Portland Basin, Oregon and Washington. U.S. Geological Survey.
<https://pubs.er.usgs.gov> (Feb. 22, 2019).
Troost, K., Clothier, B., and Hill, G. (2010). “Draft memo re: seismic stability/vulnerability of
new groundwater well, Mercer Island.” <https://www.mercergov.org/> (Jan. 17, 2019).
Trotman, K. and Koehlbecker, M. (2011). “Technical memorandum re: draft Portland State
University Science Building 2 injection well construction and baseline well performance.”
(Unpublished—Courtesy of PSU Facilities and Property Management.)
date unknown

COST ESTIMATE SOURCES

WWW.TRIANGULARWAVE.COM
WWW.PLASTIC-MART.COM
WWW.COMMERCIALTRUCKTRADER.COM
WWW.OCPURITECH.COM
WWW.ALIBABA.COM

14
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

APPENDICES

The following appendices are attached.

A. Construction cost estimate

B. Construction schedule

C. Drawings
Title sheet

D. Calculations
Calculation list

E. Specifications
Placeholder cover sheet

F. QA/QC checklist

G. Site photos
Reproduced from Project Delivery Plan
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

APPENDIX A
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix A 2019

Bid
Item quantity quantity (w/ Cost (w/ backup
No. Item base price (initial) backup) Cost (initial) supplies) Notes
1 Deep-well jet pump 1 2 Need to provide min. 150' lift, challenging to find
2 UV/filtration water treatment system $15,000.00 1 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
2 Setup (labor)
2 Spare parts
3 Generator $7,000.00 1 2 $7,000.00 $14,000.00
4 Vehicle
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

APPENDIX B
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
PSU Water Resiliency: Sample Construction Schedule
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

APPENDIX C
DRAWINGS
 (3)4"
PVC
86'
5' (1)4" EMT THRU
HALL WAY

WATER RESILIENCY
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

APPENDIX D
CALCULATIONS
Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix D: Calculations

CALCULATIONS LIST
Space requirements for each water treatment alternative D-1
Power requirements for Alternative 3 DAF D-3

Alternative footprints (sq. ft) and heights

Alternative 1: Filtration/UV
Component: Treatment Generator
Length 5.5 ft 4.75 ft

Width × 4 ft × 2.75 ft
Area 22 ft² 13.1 ft²

Height 5.2 ft 3.3 ft

Minimum vehicle interior dimensions (w/ 2-ft service aisle)

Length 9 ft

Width × 6 ft
Area 52.5 ft²
Height 6.5 ft

Alternative 2: Reverse Osmosis

Component: Treatment Generator
Length 26.5 ft 2.33 ft

Width × 3.26 ft × 1.83 ft

Area 86.4 ft² 4.26 ft²

Height 8 ft

Minimum vehicle interior dimensions (w/ 2-ft service aisle)

Length 27 ft

Width × 6 ft
Area 162 ft²
Height 8.5 ft

D-1
Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix D: Calculations

Alternative 3: Floc tubes + DAF

ClO₂
Component: Floc tubes DAF generator Diesel generator
Length 7.5 ft 14.9 ft 2.6 ft 7.55 ft

Width × 2 ft × 6.33 ft × 4.5 ft × 3.7 ft

Area 15.0 ft² 94.4 ft² 11.7 ft² 28 ft²

Height 2 ft 7.2 ft 6.2 ft 5.0 ft

Minimum vehicle interior dimensions (w/ 2-ft service aisle)

Length 29.2 ft

Width × 8.33 ft
Area 243 ft²
Height 7.7 ft

D-2
Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix D: Calculations

Alternative 3 power requirements

Max
Power Voltage Frequency Capacity Costs
Component Model (amp) (V) (Hz) (gpd) (US$)
Suction pump ANSI DGFU 9.01 460 60 115200 $10,000

Coagulation floculation pipe System FT-21 1 460 60 72000 $4,790

DAF system (Bubbler + discharge pump
included + Float Hopper) RT-050A 23.5 460 60 30240 $90,000
DIOX-A
Chlorine Dioxide generation system 1000 5.91 400 50 60000 $3,500
Recycle pump DWXU 2.7 460 60 115200 $2,000
Generator GEP50-7 - 480 60 40 kw/h $10,500
Total Installed $120,79
current 42.12 capacity 30240 0
Min demand
(gpd) 25,000

27.57
Total power required in kW kW

Generator Model GEP50-7 (diesel) 42 kW

280.8
Consumption of fuel ( 11.7 l/hr) = l/day

D-3
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

APPENDIX E
SPECIFICATIONS
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

APPENDIX F
QC CHECKLIST
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix F 2019

Group Resilio (#4)

Project PSU Water Resiliency

Met? Checklist Item

General
x - Proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.
x - Template followed
x - Consistent formatting
x - CEE Writing Style Guide followed
x - Technical writing style used (clear, concise, and easy to understand)
x - Work submitted in proper format
x - Descriptive file name
x Cover Page & Following Page
x - Project Title
x - Team # and Name
x - Team Member Names
x - Client Name
x - Relevant figure
x - PSU logo
x - Disclaimer reproduced verbatim (page following cover page)
x - Acknowledgements: professional, concise
x Table of Contents
x - All sections, subsections listed, with correct page numbers
x - Appendices listed in order (no page numbers)
x Executive summary (title and placeholder)
x 1.0 Project Background
x Short description of project history, location, need/purpose, and work completed to date
x Annotated figure of project location
x 1.1 Project Objectives
x - Objectives for overall project and specific elements
x - Objectives are measurable
x 1.2 Existing Conditions
x Describe the project site in detail.
x - Current uses
x - Subsurface hydrology and geology
x - Seismic vulnerability

F-1
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix F 2019

x - Other details relevant to project

x Site photos in section or in appendix
x 1.3 Stakeholders
x - Client information
x - Identify other interested parties
x - Explain each party’s stake/interest
x 2.0 Alternatives Analysis
x Provide an introductory paragraph to describe the sections and subsections.
x 2.1 Description of alternatives
x - Detailed description of the alternatives considered
x - Include figure for each alternative
x 2.2 Selection criteria
x - Clear description of each criterion
x - Explain why each criterion is relevant
x - Description of scoring scheme
x 2.3 Selection process
x - Completed Pugh matrix with alternatives and criteria listed
x - Narrative describing how each criterion scored for each alternative
x - Clear indication of preferred alternative
x 3.0 Design Development
x Provide an introductory paragraph to describe the sections and subsections.
x 3.1 Well Usability
x - Describe potential earthquake impacts to the wells
x - Outline a procedure for determining which well to use post-event
x 3.2 Water Treatment
x - Summarize the chosen alternative
x 3.3 Water storage
x - Explain concerns regarding indoor storage
x - Give alternative options
- Make recommendation
x 4.0 Regulatory Compliance and Permitting
x - Begin describing regulatory permits/approvals required
x 5.0 Conclusion
x - Provide a placeholder heading
x References
x - Formatted according to CEE style guide

F-2
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix F 2019

x A. Construction cost estimate

x - Include all known costs at time of draft submittal
x - Support with quantity calculations if appropriate
x B. Construction schedule
x - Use Excel or MS Project
x - Include predecessor/successor links
x C. Drawings/plan set
x - Include title sheet with area view
x - Title block on each page
x D. Calculations
x - Calculation list at beginning of section
x - Present in a neat, professional, and easy-to-follow format
x E. Specifications
x - Placeholder appendix
x F. QA/QC Checklist
x - Update QA/QC checklist
x - One group member must sign and date the checklist
x G. Site photos
x - Clear and accurate captions

Checker Name Jules Gabbard Signature Jules Gabbard (electronically signed)

F-3
 Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency
f

APPENDIX G
SITE PHOTOS
Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix G: Site Photos

Figure G-2. North Cramer Hall access from below

Figure G-1. SRTC injection well with submerged

pump, about 15 feet south of SRTC building and the
closest well to the Pavilion.

Figure G-3. North Cramer Hall outdoor access on

Figure G-4. North Cramer Hall extraction well with
north side of Cramer Hall building about 6 feet away.
external pump, long path to get to from inside. Well
is 210ft deep, built in 1965.
Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix G: Site Photos

Figure G-5. South Cramer Hall extraction well with Figure G-6. Lincoln Hall well access about 6 feet
external pump and sediment tank, no outdoor access. from east side of building
A lot of heavy machinery surrounding the well. Well
is 170ft deep, built in 1968.​

Figure G-7. Lincoln injection well with external Figure G-8. South ASRC extraction well with
pump. Well is 232 ft deep, built in 1968. submerged pump. Well is 207 ft deep, built in 1962.
This well has cracks in casing.
Resilio Design Report (Second Draft) 2019
PSU Water Resiliency Appendix G: Site Photos

Figure G-9. Settling tank for south ASRC well. Figure G-11. Fracture lines visible on FAB 3 well

Figure G-10. FAB 3 well extraction well with Figure G-12. Outdoor access to FAB 3 well about 3
submerged pump. Well is 207ft deep, built in 1962. feet north of FAB building.
Well can be accessed from indoors by climbing down
a ladder and walking about 30ft through a tunnel.