Harding Lawson Associates Dames & Moore Kennedy/Jenks/Chitton EQE Engineering January 1992 = - PROGRESSIVE. SHORELINE "From onicinne cmon Final Report Liquefaction Study North Beach, Embarcadero Waterfront, South Beach, and Upper Mission Creek Area San Francisco, California Prepared for: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: CITY HALL, ROOM 260 ‘SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102January 10, 192 17952,041.04 City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Works City Hall, Room 260 ‘San Francisco, California 94102 Attention: Mr. Richard Evans Director of Public Works Gentlemen: Final Report Liquefaction Study North Beach, Embarcadero Waterfront, South Beach, and Upper Mission Creek Area San Francisco, California We are pleased to submit herewith 12 copies of our final report entitled "Liquefaction Study, North Beach, Embarcadero Waterfront, South Beach, and Upper Mission Creek Area, San Francisco, California’. If you have any questions, please call ‘Yours very truly, On Behalf of Harding Lawson Associates, Dames & Moore, Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton, and EQE Engineering Kear Fi Faye Henry T. Taylor “*Y Geotechnical Engineer HTT /dm/B13085-CT73‘A Report Prepared for City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Works City Hall, Room 260 San Francisco, California 94102 FINAL REPORT LIQUEFACTION STUDY NORTH BEACH, EMBARCADERO WATERFRONT, SOUTH BEACH, AND UPPER MISSION CREEK AREA SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Harding Lawson Associates Dames & Moore ‘Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton EQE Engineering January 10, 1992 HLA Job No. 17952,041.04TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, 1.0 INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Scope of Services... on 1.1.1 Collection and of Geotechnical Data Inventory of Underground Utilities o Earthquake Engineering Analysis Estimation of Damage to Underground Uti Evaluation of Feasible Mitigation Option: Recommendations for Mitigation Measure Project Management and Coordination. Reports 2.0 FILL HISTORY, SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS, AND SEAWALLS. 2.1 Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach. 2.1 Fill History. 2.1.2 Subsurface Conditions 2.2 North Beach... 22.1 History of Development. 22.2 Subsurface Conditions. 2.3. Upper Mission Creek Area.. 2.3.1 History of Development.. 2.3.2 Subsurface Conditions 2.4 — Seawalls 2.4.1 Old Seawall 2.4.2 New Seawall 3.0 UTILITY INFORMATION. 31 32 ‘AWS Description... 3.2.2 Available Data 32.3) Mater 32.4 PWSS.. 33 MWSS.. 331 3.3.2. Available Data 3.3.3. Materials and Installation. 334 Inventory non 3.4 Sewers pass Sitmuaty 1, 1962 ES-1‘TABLE OF CONTENTS 40 5.0 6.0 GROUND MOVEMENTS AND UTILITY BREAKS CAUSED BY 1906 AND 1989 EARTHQUAKES. 4.1 Ground Movements.. 4. 412 413 42 Utility Breaks... 420 422 423 Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beacl 4.1.1.1 Ground Movements Caused by 1906 Earthquake... 4.1.1.2 Ground Movements Caused by 1989 Earthquake.. North Beach 1 Ground Movements Caused by 1906 Earthquake... 1.2.2 Ground Movements Caused by 1989 Earthquake Upper Mission Creek Ares seven 4.13.1 Ground Movement yy 1906 Earthquake. 41.32 Ground Movements Caused by 1989 Eartnquat.. AWSS Mwss, 4.2.2.1 1906 MWSS Damage. 4.2.2.2 1989 MWSS Damage. Sewers 423.1 Upper Mission Creek Area, 42.3.2 North Beach, Embarcadero Waterfront, and South Beach. . STABILITY OF SEAWALLS AND GROUND MOVEMENTS........ 5.1 Stability of Seawalls.... 5.2 Evaluation of Ground Movements... 52.1 52.2 $23 EVALUATION OF UTILITY DAMAGE. 6.1 Methods for Evaluating Damage. 6.1 Anes ‘Sesser 10, 1982 Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach.. 5.2.1.1 Settlements 5.2.1.2 Lateral Displacements. North Beach. 5.2.2.1 Settlements... 5.222 Lateral Displacements. Upper Mission Creek Area. 5.2.3.1 Settlements 5.2.3.2 Lateral Displacement General 6.1.1.1 Background. 6.1.1.2 Pipeline Damage Mechanisms 6.1.1.3 Damage Algorithm Curve Development.. oy 68 70 nTABLE OF CONTENTS. SSS 6.1.2 Water Systems 6.1.2.1 General... 6.1.2.2 Pipe Break Rates 6.1.3 Sewer Systems. 6.1.3.1 Pipe Damage Algorithms . 6.1.3.2 Damage Estimates .. 6.13.3 Replacement Costs . 6.1.3.4 Transport System. 6.2 Estimates of Breaks and Repair Costs. 62.1 AWSS 7 6.2.2 MWSS. 6.2.3 Sewers. 7.0 MITIGATION OPTIONS AND COST ESTIMATE... 4 7.2 Ground Improvement. 7.2.1 Methods of Ground improvement 7.2.1.1 Densification by Vibration. . 7.2.1.2 Vibroflotation and Stone Columns. 7.2.1.3 Grouting. 7.2.1.4 Deep Soil Mion 7.2.2 Cost Estimate... 7.2.2.1 Stone Columns. 7.2.2.2 Compaction Gi 7.2.2.3 Deep Soil Mixin 1.2.2.4 Chemical Grouting... 7.2.2.5 Jet Groutin 7.2.2.6 Summary 7.3 AWSS. 74 MWS... 75 Sewers... 7.5.1, Operational Procedures 7.5.2. Structural Modi 7.5.3 Rerouting 8.0 — CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. $1 Introduction 82 Ground Movements and Ground improvement. 82.1 Embarcadero Waterfront and South Bea: 822. North Beach 8.2.3 Upper Mission Creek Area anys ‘Sawery 20, 1082 18 9TABLE OF CONTENTS 8.3 AWS. 84 MWSS 8.5 Sewers 9.0 REFERENCES.. 10.0 ILLUSTRATIONS... DISTRIBUTION uss ‘Seaway 10, 1982 122 124 125 127 135LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate ES-1 Plate ES-2 Plate ES-3 Plate ES-4 Plate ES-5 Plate ES-6 Plate ES-7 Plate ES-8 Plate 1-1 Plate 1-2 Plate 1-3 Plate 2-1 Plate 2-2 Plate 2-3 Plate 2-4 Plate 2-5 Plate 2-6 Plate 2-7 Plate 2-8 Anzs73 Map of Study Areas Location of New Seawall Relative to Old Shoreline and Old Seawall Estimated Settlements due to Liquefaction, Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach Estimated Lateral Displacements due to Liquefaction, Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach Estimated Settlements due to Liquefaction, North Beach Estimated Lateral Displacements due to Liquefaction, North Beach Estimated Settlements due to Liquefaction, Upper Mission Creek Area Estimated Lateral Displacements due to Liquefaction, Upper Mission Creek Area Map of Original Shoreline and Marsh Outline; U.S Coast Survey Map, 1856 . Approximate Limits of Reclaimed Areas Along San Francisco Shoreline Map of Study Areas Ground Surface Elevations, Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach Subsurface Profile Along Filbert Street Subsurface Profile Along Market Street Subsurface Profile Along Brannan Street State Harbor Commission Map of 1877; North Beach Area Construction of Section *A* of the Rock Seawall as it Approaches Meiggs Wharf; 1881. Completed Section “A* of the Rock Seawall and Partial Filling behind the seawall; 1885, North Beach Area; 1906 Waterfront. “LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 2-9 Plate 2-10 Plate 2-11 Plate 2-12 Plate 2-13 Plate 2-14 Plate 2-15 Plate 2-16 Plate 2-17 Plate 2-18 Plate 2-19 Plate 2-20 Plate 2-21 Plate 2-22 Plate 2-23 Plate 2-24 Plate 2-25 Plate 2-26 Anse Geologic Map Showing Development in the Northeast Part of the City Prior to 1906. Limits of Study Area and Locations of Available Subsurface Data; North Beach. Ground Surface Elevations; North Beach. Bedrock Contours; North Beach. Generalized Subsurface Profile Along North Point Street; North Beach Area, US. Coast Survey Map of 1853; Upper Mission Creek Area, Board of Tideland Commissions Map No. 3; Mission Bay Area. USS. Coast Survey Map of 1884; Mission Bay Area. Surface Elevation Contours for the Mission Creek Area; 1853 and Current Elevations (1991). Limits of Study Area and Locations of Available Subsurface Data; Upper Mission Creek. . Outline of Mission Creek, Adjacent Tidelands and the Limits of Study Area; Upper Mission Creek Area. Ground Surface Elevations; Upper Mission Creek. Bedrock Contours; Upper Mission Creek. Generalized Subsurface Profile along Mission Street (A-A"); Upper Mission Creek. Generalized Subsurface Profile Between Folsom and Harrison (B-B"); Upper Mission Creek. Generalized Subsurface Profile Along the Extension of Division Street (C-C'}; Upper Mission Creek. San Francisco Waterfront; Eddy Survey and Intended Alignment of Old Seawall. (Old Seawall Section in Front of YMCA Building,LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 2-27 Plate 2-28 Plate 2-29 Plate 2-30 Plate 2-31 Plate 3-1 Plate 3-2 Plate 3-3 Plate 3-4 Plate 4-1 Plate 4-2 Plate 4-3 Plate 4-4 Plate 4-5 Plate 5-1 Plate 5-2 Plate 5-3 Plate 5-4 Plate 5-5 Plate 5-6 aazsrs Location of New Seawall Relative to Old Shoreline and Old Seawall Typical Section of the New Seawall, Embarcadero Waterfront. Cross-Section of the New Seawall Along Sections 98 and 9b. Cross-Section of the New Seawall Along Sections 8, 9, and 10. Cross-Section of the New Seawall Along Section 8a. San Francisco AWSS WSS Infirm Areas MWSS University Mound Pressure District MWSS College Hill Pressure District Ground Movements due to 1906 Earthquake in Foot of Market Area Evidence of Liquefaction due to 1989 Earthquake in Embarcadero and (Old Mission Bay Regions Ground Movements Resulting From the 1906 Earthquake; Upper Mission Creek. 1906 MWSS Damage Water Supply Pipeline Breaks Caused by 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake Conditions Along the Northeast Portion of the Waterfront in 1906. Subsidence and Lateral Movements of Sections 9a and 9b of the Seawall (between Mission and Harrison streets). Estimated Lateral Movements of the New Seawall Versus Yield Acceleration (Loma Prieta Earthquake). Variation in Lateral Displacements of the Seawall with Yield Acceleration. Correlation between Lateral Spreading and Ground Slope. Variation of Yield Acceleration with Residual Shear Strength and Ground Slope.LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Se Plate 5-7 Variation in Lateral Displacements with Residual Shear Strength and Ground Slope. Plate 5-8 Estimated Lateral Displacements as 2 Function of Initial Ground Slope, Residual Shear Strength and Fill Thickness, Plate 5-9 Boring and Cone Penetration Test Locations, Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach Plate 5-10 Computed Ground Settlements due to Liquefaction, Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach Plate 5-11 Estimated Settlements due to Liquefaction, Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach Plate 5-12 Estimated Lateral Displacements due to Liquefaction, Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach Plate 5-13 Estimated Ground Settlements Due to Post-Liquefaction Consolidation of Fills, North Beach. Plate $-14 Estimated Sertlements Due to Liquefaction; North Beach. x: North Beach, Plate 5-15 Estimated Lateral Displacements Due to Liquefacti Plate 5-16 Estimated Ground Sertlements Due to Post-Liquefaction Consolidation of the Fill; Upper Mission Creek. Plate 5-17 Estimated Settlements Due to Liquefaction; Upper Mission Creek. Plate 5-18 Estimated Lateral Displacements Due to Liquefaction; Upper Mission Creek. Plate 6-1 Eguchi Pipeline Loss Data Plate 6-2 Estimated Water Supply Pipe Damage Plate 6-3 Damage Algorithm and Experienced Sewer Damage Plate 6-4 Channel Outfall Consolidation Perspective Plate 6-5 Estimated AWSS Damage, North Beach Plate 6-6 Estimated AWSS Damage, Embarcadero/South BeachLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 6-7 Plate 6-8 Plate 6-9 Plate 6-10 Plate 7-1 Plate 7-2 Aussi Estimated AWSS Damage, Upper Mission Creek Estimated MWSS Damage, North Beach Estimated MWSS Damage, Embarcadero/South Beach Estimated MWSS Damage, Upper Mission Creek Range of Particle Size Distributions Suitable for Densification by VibrocompactionEXECUTIVE SUMMARY LIQUEFACTION STUDY NORTH BEACH, EMBARCADERO WATERFRONT, SOUTH BEACH AND UPPER MISSION CREEK AREA SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE ‘The magnitude 8.3 1906 earthquake and the magnitude 7.1 1989 earthquake caused strong ground shaking, ground movements, and damage to buildings and tifeline facilities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Within the City of San Francisco ‘heavy damage occurred in several areas along the shoreline that had been reclaimed by filling over the soft sediments in the bay and by filling old creeks and marshes. Much of the fill material consisted of sandy soils excavated from sand dunes which covered large areas of the City. The reclaimed or “infirm” areas suffered strong shaking, soil liquefaction,* and ground movements which damaged buildings and utilities, during the 1906 and 1989 earthquakes. The reoccurrence of damage reinforces the conclusion that future earthquakes could cause severe damage to buildings and util reclaimed areas. ‘The purpose of this study is to evaluate potential ground movements and utility damage caused by a future magnitude 8.3 earthquake in the study areas, to evaluate mitigation options, and to provide recommendations to minimize the potential damage. This study was conducted by @ team which consists of the firms of Harding Lawson ‘Associates, Dames & Moore, Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton, and EQE Engineering, Inc. Professor Thomas D. O'Rourke of Cornel! University was consultant to this team, ‘* This and other selected technical terms are described in the Glossary at the end of this Executive Summary.‘The study areas, with the exception of the Marina District, are shown on Plate ES-1. The scope of the study was limited to utilizing existing geotechnical data and considered only underground water supply and sewer systems, Emphasis was on the effects of liquefaction of the sandy soils, since this appeared to be the cause of the ‘major damage in these areas. The study considered the maximum credible earthquake expected in the area, which is similar to that which occurred in 1906. Evaluation of the existing seawalls was included since they would affect ground movements. ‘The study was divided into two phases. In the initial phase we studied the Marina District and the Sullivan Marsh area; the results were presented in reports dated July 18 and August 20, 1991. This report presents the results of our Phase II study which covers the areas in the North Beach, Embarcadero waterfront, South Beach, and Upper Mission Creek. Our tasks are briefly described as follows © We collected existing information on the subsurface conditions, seawall construction, and ground movements and utility damage in 1906 and 1989 earthquakes. We reviewed the geotechnical data and evaluated iiquefaction potential of sandy soils. We evaluated seawall stability and Potential movements. We estimated potential ground movements. © We inventoried the water mains and sewers, We developed criteria for estimating damage. We estimated the potential damage and repair costs. © We evaluated feasible mitigation options and estimated the costs. We recommended mitigation measures. To provide an independent review of the study the City commissioned a “biue ribbon” panel of experts headed by Professor James Mitchell of the University of California, Berkeley, who also directed the 1990 study of the Marina District. The findings of our study are described below. auasrsSITE CONDITIONS Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach Filling in the Embarcadero Waterfront began in the late 1840s and in the South Beach in 1860s. The fill materials underlying the areas vary in thickness, composition, and engineering characteristics. The fills consist of clay- to cobble-sized materials and contain debris (concrete, brick, and wood). Most of the fills were end dumped with little or no compactive effort. The fill is generally less than 30 feet thick, except for the seawall fills, and the areas adjacent to the seawalls, which are up to about 45 feet Underlying the fill is soft to medium stiff silty clay known as bay mud, which ranges from several feet to 100 feet thick. The bay mud is underlain by layers of dense sands and stiff clays. The thickness of these strong layers varies between 0 feet and about 200 feet. Weathered sandstone and shale bedrock underlie the study areas at depths ranging between 10 feet and about 250 feet. Groundwater is between 7 and 10 feet below existing grade, corresponding to approximately the Mean Sea Level. ‘North Beach ‘Major development in the North Beach area took place after the construction of the seawall (discussed below) between 1878 and 1893, The fill materials in North Beach are heterogeneous and consist of bay mud, sands, and debris from the 1906 earthquake. ‘The fill layers generally range from 5 to 25 feet thick. Underlying the fill are heterogeneous and discontinuous layers of recent marine sediments consisting of sands, silts, and clays. The-thicknesses of the marine sediments vary from 0 feet at the southern boundary to more than $0 feet near the waterfront. Below the marine sediments are firm deposits consisting of dense sands and stiff clays. Bedrock depths Aaay7s ES.vary from 0 feet at the southern boundary to more than 100 feet near the waterfront. Groundwater levels generally range from 5 to 15 feet deep, ‘Unper Mission Creek Filling of this area took place between 1870 and 1880. The fill materials consist of clean sands to silty and clayey sands with occasional gravels. The fills are from loose to medium dense and range from 10 to 30 feet thick. Within the area of the old water course, the fill was underlain by soft bay mud. Outside the area of the old water course, the fill is underlain by sediments consisting of nonliquefiable loose to dense clayey sands, dense sands, and dense silty sands. Below the bay mud are alluvial sediments and old bay deposits. Bedrock depths vary between several feet and more ‘than 100 feet. Groundwater levels are between 6 and 12 feet below the ground surface. SEAWALLS ALONG EMBARCADERO WATERFRONT, SOUTH BEACH, AND NORTH BEACH Old Seawall The old seawall was constructed berween 1867 and 1869. One section ran along Front Street between Union and Vallejo streets. The other sections ran between Pacific ‘Street to within 50 feet of the north side of Howard Street along the Embarcadero, and ion streets as stated by Dow (1973). not between Pacific and Mi The seawall was constructed by excavating an approximately 100-foot-wide trench to a depth of about 20 to 25 feet into the soft bay mud. Rock fill was placed in ‘and above the trench to form an embankment. The outboard face of the seawall was built on a slope of about 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). Large settlements of the wall ‘occurred because of consolidation and displacement of the underlying bay mud. Because Ans73 Bs-4of the settlement and extension of the shoreline to its present location, the old seawall was buried by additional fill ‘New Seawall ‘The new seawall line extends from Taylor Street to Channel Street along the Embarcadero, as shown on Plate ES-2, with a total length of over 2-1/3 miles. The seawall was constructed in 21 sections between 1878 and 1924. The sections from Taylor to Mission streets and from King to Berry streets were completed before 1906. when the big earthquake hit. All the other sections were completed between 1906 and 1914, except section 134, which was completed in 1924 Construction techniques used in building the new seawall were similar to those and allowed to used for the old. A trench was dredged, large rocks were dumped into settle, followed by the building up of the wall with more rock to the low water level From this point, the rock was hand-placed at a 4:1 slope. ‘The original seawall design permitted flow of the tide which could carry away the fill behind the wall. Hence, modifications of the original design were adopted in Sections 8 to 10; the new structure consists of a pile-supported concrete wall within a tock embankment. Along Section 8A, a trench was excavated at the bulkhead line and filled with sand. A concrete wall supported on piles was constructed after the trench hhad been partially filled. Riprap was placed over the sand fill at the bayside of the concrete wall. Beyond the concrete wall, a relieving platform was built at the low water level, supported on piles. After the 1906 earthquake, new sections of seawall were constructed west of Taylor Street as part of the construction of Fisherman's Wharf, Pier 45, and the breakwater near the foot of the Hyde Street.‘Seawall Stability ‘As mentioned previously, the new seawall sections from Taylor and Mission streets and from King to Berry streets had been completed when the 1906 earthquake hit San Francisco. Because there were no reports of movements of the seawall, we conclude that the wall performed well in the 1906 earthquake. The sections of the seawall built after the earthquake presumably were constructed following the same methods as the sections that were completed pricr to 1906. On this basis and our analyses, we conclude that the seawall will be stable in a future magnitude 8.3 earthquake, although some settlements and lateral deformations may occur. GROUND MOVEMENTS, ‘As both the 1906 and the 1989 earthquakes demonstrated, the major cause of Sround movements in the reclaimed areas was liquefaction of the loose, sandy fills below ‘the groundwater table. The shear waves generated by the earthquake created excess pore water pressure in the loose sand, causing the sand to lose strength and then to Consolidate as the pore pressures dissipated following the earthquake, Some of the sand spouted to the surface, forming sand boils. The subsequent consolidation of the loose sand caused ground settlements. In areas where the ground slopes exceed 0.5 percent, the loss of strength causes lateral spreading, resulting in lateral movements and settlement. Formation of sand boils also causes vertical and lateral movements, Available methods cannot accurately estimate the magnitude of ground ‘movements; therefore, we have used the knowledge of the effects of previous ‘earthquakes to estimate potential ground movements. Considering the subsurface conditions, ground slopes and the ground movements in the previous earthquakes, we hhave estimated the amount of vertical and lateral movements caused by ost-liquefaction consolidation and lateral spreading. The results are shown on Plates AnstsES-3 and ES-4 for the Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach, Plates ES-S and ES-6 for the North Beach, and Plates ES-7 and ES-8 for the Upper Mission Creek. Variation in thicknesses of liquefiable material and loss of ground due to sand boils can cause significant deviations from these estimated amounts. Major development in the Market Street area of buildings supported on piles and deep mat, the BART station, and the construction of MUNI turnaround facility will reduce the ground movements locally, less than those predicted, the Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach are up to 2 feet, and the estimated lateral displacements are up to ! foot, We expect that the largest ground movements would occur in the area behind the seawall, where the fill is relatively thick. The estimated ground movements in North Beach are up to | foot; the larger ground movements are also expected to occur in the area behind the seawall. The estimated ground movements in the Upper Mission Creek are generally up to 1-1/2 feet; however, in the area around Dore Street and in the area west of Shotwell ‘Street, the estimated ground movements are up to 7 feet. This estimate is consistent with the observed movements in the 1906 earthquake, POTENTIAL UTILITY DAMAGE Water Supply Systems ‘The Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) operated by the San Francisco Fire Department is used exclusively for fire fighting purposes. The Municipal Water Supply ‘System (MWSS) operated by the San Francisco Water Department is used to supply both fire fighting water and drinking water. The AWSS and MWSS within the study areas, were inventoried and analyzed for the effects of liquefaction resulting from a magnitude 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Within the North Beach area, 7 AWSS main Austsbreaks and 50 MWSS main breaks are estimated to occur. Within the Embarcadero Waterfront/South Beach area, 50 AWSS main breaks and 106 MWSS main breaks are estimated to occur. Within the Upper Mission Creek area, 25 AWSS main breaks and 181 MWSS main breaks are estimated to occur. This damage would likely render both systems temporarily inoperable following the earthquake, and result in repair costs of approximately $0.7 million for the AWSS and $2.3 million for the MWSS for the North Beach area, $5.0 million for the AWSS and $0.6 million for the MWSS in Embarcadero Waterfront/South Beach area, and $2.4 million for the AWSS and $17.5 million for the MWSS for the Upper Mission Creek area (see Table ES-1). These estimates do not include the cost of restoring individual service connections from the mains. The ble for implications for life safety are that neither system will have water pressure av: fire fighting immediately following the earthquake, Unless other mitigation measures are adopted, SFFD will have to rely on the portable water supply system (PWSS), buried cisterns, and AWSS outside of the areas to fight fires immediately after the earthquake. ‘The implications for health are that drinking water will not be available within these study areas immediately following the earthquake, Sewer Svstem North Beach Area We conclude that vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and large brick sewers will sustain major damage due to earthquake induced soil displacements. Overall, we estimate that approximately 31 percent of the pipes will be broken, with an estimated repair cost of $4 million, An estimated 44 percent of this damage will occur in the VCP with rigid Joints. Cracking at joints and at sewer connections can be expected. Breaks in service connections to street sewers are also expected to increase with increased soit movement, especially where the services are VCP with mortared joints. anas73 Bs-8Embarcadero Waterfront/South Beach Area We estimate that 55 percent of vitrified clay pipe will be damaged due to the expected ground movements. Overall, we estimate that 41 percent of the pipes will be broken, with an estimated repair cost of $14 million, Upper Mission Creek Area We estimate that about 59 percent of brick sewers and about 93 percent of VCP sewers will break due to the expected ground movements. Overall, we estimate that 64 percent of pipes will be broken, with an estimated repair cost of $14 million, Tables ES-1 through ES-4 summarize the information about the estimated breaks and repair costs for water pipes and sewers. Table 5-1. Estimated Repair Costs of Denage to Water Systeme Caused by a Ma aus mass. Tatieates Total Estimated Totat epair Length Estimated Repuir Cost Length xtinoted ” "Cost Study Aree (feet) Breaks (ait liona) (feet) Breaks (il ions) ————— Worth Beach 9,700 , 0.7 30,400 sos Enbareaders Uatertront/ 37,500 so 5.0 80,500 18 ‘South Beach Upper Mission Creek 15.309 a ae sno Tora, 62,500 w set 169,100 87 820.4 “8 auns7sTable ES-2. Estimated Repair Costs of Damage to Sewers in the North Beach Area Caused by 2 Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake — Settlement Total Sewer Sewer Length Estimated 1991 Zone Length Broken Percentage Repair Cost (inches) (feet) (feet) Broken (millions) 100 14 $0. 5,400 30 25 1.300 36 Ls 21,900 6,800 31 S41 : Table ES-3. Estimated Repair Cost of Damage to Sewers In the Embarcadero Waterfront/South Beach Area Caused by a Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake — Settlement Total Sewer Sewer Length Estimated 1991 Zone Length Broken Percentage Repair Cost (inches) (feet) (feet) Broken (millions) — <6 24,300 5,300 2 323 3.12 11,800 6,400 34 24 3-24 21.100 412.000 37 26 TOTAL $7,200 23,700 a $14.3 AnsTs Es -10Table ES-4. Estimated Repair Cost of Damage to Sewers in the Upper Mission Creek Area Caused by a Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake Se Settlement Total Sewer Sewer Length Estimated 1991 Zone Length Broken Percentage Repair Cost (feet) (feet) (feet) Broken (millions) eke 0.5-1.0 14,900 8,200 55 s40 0.5-1.5 16,900 10,100 60 69 10-50 3,300 3,300 100 22 1.0-5.0 1,200 1,200 100 12 2.0-6.0 L100 L100 100 oe TOTAL 37,400 23,900 64 $14.2 TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE MITIGATION OPTIONS Given fimited financial resources, utility mitigation has been prioritized between systems. Life safety is the highest priority (fire protection), followed by public health (drinking water and sewage disposal). Typically gravity sewer failures do not result in immediate dysfunction of the pipeline, allowing sewage to continue flowing. Therefore, the Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) has been given the highest priority, followed by the Municipal Water Supply System (MWSS) and then the sewer system. ‘Ground Improvement ‘The potential for liquefaction can be reduced by a variety of specialized techniques for ground improvement. Because of the extensive urban development of ‘most areas studied we do not believe it is practical or economically feasible to improve large areas susceptible to liquefaction. Ground improvement within selected strategic areas may significantly reduce the impacts of utility system failures on service by forming a ground stabilized utility corridor along one or more streets that would otherwise experience very large ground movements during the postulated earthquak Aas7s BS.Selection of stabilized utility corridors would be based on criteria such as the importance of the buried utilities to system integrity, the cost of stabilization, and an evaluation of the potential for utility damage due to differential settlement of stabilized and unstabilized areas, Compaction grouting, stone columns, and deep soil mixing are believed to be the ‘most effective ground improvement techniques. Stone columns and deep soil mixing methods would require removing and replacing of utilities. Compaction grouting would Rot require removing utilities but could damage utilities. To treat an area 40 feet wide, 1000 feet long, and 30 feet deep would cost between $500,000 and $800,000 for stone columns, $1.2 to 2.8 million for compaction grouting, and about $2.5 million for deep soil mixing. These costs are estimates and do not include replacing utilities and Pavements, engineering, inspection, etc. Further studies would be required 10 evaluate” the feasibility, the cost, and the effectiveness of these methods. The expected ground movements in the North Beach, Embarcadero Waterfront. ‘and South Beach areas are relatively small; therefore, ground improvement may not have significant benefit in these areas. However, in the Upper Mission Creek area, the expected ground movements in some areas are large, and ground improvement may be beneficial. The areas that should be considered for ground improvement are: © Any of the north-south streets wést of Shotwell Street. Typically in this ‘area the maximum depth of the fill is less than 20 feet and is underlain by stable ground, * Along Bryant Street where it crosses the old marsh, west of Florida Street, The fill in this area is relatively shallow, but it is underlain by a thick deposit of bay mud, and is vulnerable to ground movements simply due to earthquake shaking. aazss Es-12* Along Brannan Street where it crosses the old marsh. This is by far the longest corridor, but it could have a significant stabilizing effect on the area north and west of it, which appears to be so vulnerable to earthquakes. The fill in this area is typically less than 20 feet thick, but is underlain by a thick deposit of bay mud and is therefore still somewhat vulnerable to ground shaking. + Where 15th and 16th streets cross the old marsh, The crossing are less than 1,000 feet long; the thickness of the fill is typically less than 20 feet, and is underlain by a relatively thin layer of bay mud over stronger deposits at depth. Water Supply Svstems and Sewers ‘A complete hazard mitigation program for underground utilities includes three phases of risk management measures: pre-emergency measures, emergency operational plans, and post-earthquake recovery plans. Pre-emergency measures can include wide-scale structural modifications to reduce potential damage, a8 well as strategic systemic modifications to limit the effects of damage. Possible structural modifications include strengthening of pipe or joints, introduction of special flexible connections, and avoidance of physical contact with neighboring utilities. Systemic modifications do not seek to reduce damage, but rather to alter the pipe network layout to reduce the impact of damage. Possible systemic ‘measures include enhancement of system redundancy with additional piping, or prov of new pipe routes which avoid poor soil areas. ‘Emergency and post-earthquake recovery planning includes operational measures to enhance water service during the emergency, and to facilitate system recovery after the earthquake. Operational plans address potential damage and service interruption not ited by structural modifications and systemic alterations, with procedures to mobilize and command emergency equipment and response personnel, and to locate, isolate, and repair damai Aner BS +13‘Water Supply Systems To enhance post-earthquake serviceability, we recommend subdividing the AWSS upper and lower zones into north/south halves; replacing corroded tie-rods; increasing the size of the Portable Water Supply System (PWSS); adopting a standing order to start AWSS pumps at pump stations No. } and No. 2 following an earthquake; designating @ SFFD water supply officer for earthquake response; arranging a volunteer marine crew to man the second fireboat in the event of an earthquake; adding flexible joints at water main pile-supported sewer crossings; improving AWSS fire hydrant foundations and connections; developing an automated AWSS leak detection and isolation system; and reviewing current infirm area boundaries. Total cost for these options is approximately $13.5 million, not including tie-rod replacement. In addition, we recommend that the City consider hardening corridors for AWSS mains at fireboat manifolds by installing new pipes on piles. Total cost for these additional options is approximately $5 million. To improve post earthquake serviceability for the MWSS, we recommend that the City develop procedures to supply water to University Mound services from adjacent Pressure districts, route a new University Mound feeder main around regions of high liquefaction potential, install flexible joints at mains crossing over pile-supported sewers, provide a planned System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system with earthquake hazard mitigation measures, and develop mutual aid agreement with other water districts. Total cost for the recommended measures is approximately $7.5 million. Sewers Recommended mitigation measures for sewers include 1) training sewer repair crews in emergency response to earthquakes, 2) maintaining an inventory of or access to large capacity sewage pumps, 3) maintaining an emergency supply of construction and Sewer repair materials, 4) requiring seismic resistant material and construction for all auss‘new installations and 5) replacing structurally weak sewers using improved materials and construction methods in areas subject to liquefaction as part of the long range, city-wide replacement program ‘The most easily implemented and least costly measures are the operational Procedures which involve improved training and accumulating an inventory of materials, ‘A one time cost of approximately $500,000 would provide an initial inventory of construction and sewer repair materials that could be renewed through constant use and replacement. Replacement of seismically vulnerable old style VCP with modern ‘materials appears to be the most cost-effective pre-earthquake sewer improvement Program in areas where the expected settlement is relatively small (4 inches or less). In our opinion, it is not technically feasible or economically justifiable to replace all sewer ines in the study areas. Where sewer replacement is planned because of deteriorated Js and construction should condition or new construction, more seismic resistant mater be used to improve performance during earthquakes. GLOSSARY ‘Compaction Grouting -- a soil improvement method that involves pumping a stiff mix of soil, cement, and water into the ground under high pressure. The bulb of expanding material compresses and densifies the surrounding soil, thus reducing, its liquefaction potential, while the grout bulb itself can serve as a reinforcement. Deep Soil Mixing -- a soil improvement method that involves advancing hollow stem, large diameter, overlapping augers, and pumping a cement slurry through the tips of the auger during auger penetration and removal. The soil is mixed with the cement slurry to form continuous soil-cement columns, Dynamic Compaction -- a soil improvement method that involves dropping heavy ‘weights on the ground surface to densify the soil below. Weights in the range of 10 to 40 tons and drop heights of 50 to 100 feet are typical Hydraulic Fill -- a fill that is placed by pumping the material, which primarily consists of sands, in fluid suspension through pipes to settle in standing water. aussrs Bs-8* Infirm Areas -- areas along the shoreline that had been reclaimed by filling over the soft sediments in the bay and old creeks and marshes; these areas experienced strong shaking, soil liquefaction, and large ground movements during the 1906 and 1989 earthquakes, Jet Grouting -- a soil improvement method that uses high velocity jets to cut and mix the in-situ soil materials with a stabilizing agent such as cement. Lateral Spreading -- a lateral displacement of soil mass that liquefies during earthquakes. Liquefaction -- a phenomenon in which saturated (submerged), cohesioniess soils are ‘Subject to a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excess pore water pressure, especially during cyclic loadings such as those induced by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands. ‘Seawall -~ a rock, concrete or pile structure to retain the earth mass along a shore line. ‘Shear Wave -- specific pattern of soil movement through which most of energy of an earthquake is transmitted from the source of energy release 10 a site. It involves vibration of soil particles perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation and induces shear deformation in soil. ‘Stone Columns -- a soil improvement method that involves the formation of vertical holes in the ground by jetting and vibration and filling the holes with gravel or ‘crushed stone. Tie-rod ~- a steel rod used to tie the AWSS pipes at thi joints. VCP -- vitrified clay pipe, iron or salt glazed pipe with rigid (mortared) joints auss7s Es -161.0 INTRODUCTION ‘The magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake, which occurred on October 17, 1989, caused strong shaking, ground movements, and damage to buildings and lifeline facilities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Within the City of San Francisco, heavy damage occurred in several areas along the shoreline that were reclaimed by filling over the soft sediments in the bay or by filling old creeks and marshes inboard of the pre- 1849 shoreline. Plate-I-1 shows the northeast section of the City as it existed in 1856, at which time the only area reclaimed was at the foot of Market Street. Plate 1-2 delineates the reclaimed areas relative to the city shoreline. Except for the Marina District and portions of the North Beach and South Beach areas, the remaining areas had been filled by 1906, when the magnitude 8.3 earthquake devastated the City. The reclaimed areas suffered strong shaking, soil liquefaction, ground failures ‘and damage to buildings and utilities both during the 1906 and 1989 earthquakes. The recurrence of damage indicates that future earthquakes could cause severe damage to buildings and utilities, particularly within and adjacent to the reciaimed areas as shown esignated these areas as "infirm" since serious damage could on Plate 1-2. The occur in these areas during future earthquakes, After the 1989 earthquake, the City requested the University of California, Berkeley to study the conditions in the Marina District that caused the heavy damage, imize damage from and to recommend action that would’protect public safety and mi future earthquakes. The report prepared by the University of California, Berkeley (Mitchell et al., 1990) pointed out that the Marina District and several other areas in the City were at risk in future earthquakes owing to the presence of deep soil deposits and AnsTs of 138liquefiable sands. To plan for mitigating the potential catastrophic effects of future earthquakes, the report recommended that the City perform further studies, As a follow up to the recommendations of the University of California, Berkeley report, the City commissioned the present project to “provide evaluations and recommendations as to what actions the City can take to minimize damage to public underground facilities in a future 8.3 Richter Scale earthquake.” The study was undertaken pursuant to our proposal to the City dated September 7, 1990 and in accordance with our contract with the City dated January 15, 1991 ‘The study was conducted by a team consisting of the firms of Harding Lawson Associates, Dames & Moore, EQE Engineering, Inc., and Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton. Professor Thomas D. O'Rourke of Cornell University was a consultant to this team, The City appointed a "blue ribbon” committee to provide an independent review of the study, consisting of Professor James K. Mitchell of University of California, Berkeley, Professor 1. M. Idriss of University of California, Davis, Mr. Frank Rollo of Treadwell Rollo and Associates, Mr. Maurice Power of Geomatrix Consultants, and Mr. Daniel Shapiro of SOHA. 1.1 Scope of Services In accordance with our contract with the City, the study involves evaluating the potential impacts of a magnitude 8.3 earthquake on underground public utilities within six areas selected by the City, as follows: © Marina District © North Beach Area © Embarcadero Waterfront © South Beach Area Anaers 2 of 396Sullivan Marsh Area © Upper Mission Creek Area Plate 1-3 shows the study areas with the exception of Marina District. ‘The study also includes an evaluation of the stability of the existing seawalls along the City’s waterfront, at the following locations: © Fair's Seawall in the Marina District ‘+ The seawall along the Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach Failure of seawalls during the postulated earthquake could initiate flow slides of Fiquefied soils behind the seawalls. Such flow slides, if they occur, may cause substantial damage to buildings and utilities in the affected areas. . To accomplish the objectives of the study, the following tasks were undertaken: 1.11 Collection and Evaluation of Geotechnical Data Under this task, we collected the following readily available data: © Data available from projects completed within the study areas by the project team . Data from the files of the Public Works Department ‘© Data recently developed by various investigators working on research projects to study various aspects of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake This task included identification of type, location, construction material, type of support, type of connection, condition and other relevant information for the Auxiliary ‘and Municipal Water Supply Systems (AWSS and MWSS), and sewers in the study areas 1.1.3 Earthouake Engineering Analyses Earthquake engineering analyses were performed to evaluate the liquefaction potential of fill soils (and suspect natural sandy soils) and associated ground movements Aass73 Sof 338caused by a magnitude 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas fault. The stability and Potential movements of the seawall were also evaluated, 1.1.4 Estimation of Damage to Underground Utilities ‘The utilities considered included all AWSS and MWSS mains, and sewers 12 inches in diameter or larger. Criteria for damage were developed based on available historical data from the performance of similar systems during earthquakes. Based on this criteria the extent of damage and the cost of associated repairs were estimated. 1.4.8 Evaluation of Feasible Mitigation Options This task included evaluation of the following options: * Reduction of the potential for liquefaction and ground failure by ground improvement techniques; © Provision of alternative methods to fulfill facility function; Improvements to system operations to minimize the impacts on the system and/or make provisions to cope with projected failures; © "Increase of the structural capacity of key components of the system to withstand earthquake ground movements as well as earthquake loading: and * Rerouting of portions of utility systems to minimize the impact to the rest of the City of failures in the study areas, 1.1.6 Recommendations For Mitigation Measures Based on the review and evaluation of the feasible mitigation measures, as well ‘as comparison of costs, recommendations for implementing mitigation measures were developed. 1.1.7 Prolect Management and Coordination This task included cost control, coordination of the activities of the various specialist firms participating in the study and communications and coordination with the aus dotassCity's project management, This task also included meetings among the participants to coordinate and monitor the progress of the work and presentations to a Blue Ribbon Committee appointed by the City. 1.4.8 Reports The study was divided into two phases. During the first phase, the Marina District and the Sullivan Marsh area were investigated; the results were submitted ina Feport dated July 18,°1991 for the Marina District and August 20, 1991 for the Marina District and Sullivan March Area. The results of our study for the remaining four areas, North Beach, Embarcadero Waterfront, South Beach, and Upper Mission Creek, are resented in this report. aazs7 Sof 1382.0 FILL HISTORY, SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS, AND SEAWALLS ‘The regional geology and seismicity of San Francisco are described in our report dated August 20, 1991, and are not repeated here. 2.1 Embarcadero Waterfront and South Beach 2.1.1 Bill History Filling of the old Yerba Buena Covet was begun in the late 1840s. Long wharfs, were built into the deeper water to accommodate ocean-going ships at Market, California, Washington, Jackson, Pacific, and Broadway streets. Crosswalks were built perpendicularly to connect the wharfs. Later, these crosswalks became Sansome, Battery, and Drumm streets. A program of cut and fill was initiated in which the sand dunes to the west were systematically excavated and the material was loose-dumped between the wharfs and crosswalks. When the old seawall was constructed, beginning in 1867. the bay mud dredged for its foundations also was used for fill (Roth and Kavazanjian, 1984). Refuse from the city and from several industries also was dumped into the water lot areas (Olmsted, et al, 1977). Filling operations in the previous cove were completed by 1900 (Roth and Kavazanjian, 1984). Filling of the South Beach area first took place in connection with the 1864 construction of the Citizens’ Gas Company (Dow, 1973), which began to fill the dock bounded by Townsend, King, Second, and Third streets. In 1867, the Union Lumber Association, a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, began to fill its property, which is a block of tideland bounded by First, Second, Townsend, and Brannan streets. The material for this fill came from a hill, which was probably a high sand dune, located in an area bounded by Second and Third streets between Brannan * The Old Yerba Buena Cove was located in the area of the foot of the present Market Street. oot 138Street and the bay. The extension of the seawall from the Yerba Buena Cove to the ‘South Beach was constructed at various times between 1903 and 1924. Ten acres of reclaimed land was gained as a result of extending the seawall. There was no record of ‘the source of the fill used to reclaim the property; however, Dow (1973) suspected that the ruins from the 1906 earthquake and fire probably composed a large part of the material, and the mud dredged from the bay was probably another source of fill 2.1.2 Subsurface Conditions Plate 2-1 shows the ground surface elevation* contours, which we developed ‘based on the survey data provided by the City. The area to the east of the Elevation 0-foot contour is level; the ground surface gradually sloping upward to the west from the Elevation 0-foot contour up to approximately a 3-percent grade at the study area boundary. To evaluate the subsurface conditions in the study areas, we reviewed the boring Jogs from both private and public agency investigations. Plate 5-9 shows the location of borings and cone penetration tests. Three generalized subsurface profiles were ‘constructed using representative boring logs. Plates 2-2 through 2-4 shows the locations and the subsurface profiles. The boring logs and historical data indicate that the study areas are underlain by il and rock units: fill materials (including seawalls), recent bay mud, four primary s older firm soils, and bedrock. Plates 2-2 through 2-4 depict the stratigraphic relationships of these units as interpreted from the boring logs. In addition, recorded groundwater levels and approximate locations of some existing structures are also ‘* Datum: City and County of San Francisco. The City base is 8.6 feet above the Mean Sea Level (MSL). 7 138included on the profiles. The following sections describe the pertinent characteristics and engineering properties of each unit. Eu Materials ‘The fill materials underlying the study areas vary in thickness, composition, and engineering characteristics. The fill consists of clays, sands, and rock fragments and contain various debris (concrete, brick, wood). The clays are silty, sandy, or gravelly and are typically soft to medium stiff. The sands are loose to medium dense, fine-grained, and contain varying amounts of silts and gravels. Historical data indicate that most of the fills were end dumped with little or no compactive effort. ‘The fill is generally less then 30 feet thick, except for the new seawall fills and the area adjacent to the seawalls, which are up to about 45 feet thick ‘The eastward advancement of the man-made shoreline was achieved by several episodes of filling behind rocky seawalls. Two main seawalls are present within the study areas and are referred to herein as the “old seawall" and the “new seawall", Section 2-4 describes the construction of the seawalls. Groundwater is between 7 and 10 feet below existing grade (corresponding roughly to mean sea level). Bay Mud ‘Underlying the fill is weak, compressible silty clay known as bay mud, which ranges from several feet to 100 feet thick. The bay mud contains occasional shell ind intermittent sandy layers and sand lenses. The sandy layers are fragments, pes generally medium dense silty and clayey sands and are contained within the upper 50 feet of the bay mud. bet‘Dense Sands and Stiff Clays Within most of the study areas, the bay mud is underlain by a deposit of primarily dense sand. It contains occasional layers of firm clay. The thickness varies from 0 to 30 feet within the study areas, but it is typically about 20 feet thick. The gradation of the sand is variable, ranging from a clean and poorly graded sand to @ clayey fine sand Beneath the dense sand is older bay clay, which in turn is underlain by interbeddes sands and clays. The older bay clay is typically firm to stiff and of moderate strength. The interbedded sands and clays have low compressibility and high strength. Bedrock Weathered sandstone and shale bedrock underlies the study area at depths ranging between 10 feet and about 250 feet. 2.2 North Beach 2.2.1 History of the Development ‘As shown on the map on Plate 2-5, the study area essentially coincides with the area filled north of the old shoreline along the northeast part of the'city between Black Point (formerly Point San Jose) and North Point, Before development began, the North Beach area was just a narrow strip of sandy beach which stretched from North Point at the foot of Telegraph Hill to Black Point. ‘The beginning of development along North Beach was marked by the sale of water lots in public auction in 1852. Shortly thereafter, construction of Meiggs’ Wharf (see Plate 2-5) began between the foot of Mason and Powell streets, extending about 2,000 feet into the bay. The State Harbor Commission Map of 1853 shows Meiggs’ aust 9 of 136Wharf partially completed, while tater photographs in 1856 show the wharf already completed. Access to Meiggs' Wharf was provided by a road at the base of Telegraph Hill constructed partly of fill Major development of the North Beach area did not start in earnest until construction of the rock seawall between 1878 and 1893. Sections 1 and A of the seawall (see Plate 2-27 for locations) were completed by 1881, enclosing the area between North Point and Meiggs’ Wharf. Plates 2-6 and 2-7 show photographs of construction progress on the rock seawall. The photograph in Plate 2-6, taken in 1881, shows the construction of the seawall as it approaches Meigs’ Wharf. Apparently, a pile-supported wharf was initially constructed along the alignment of the seawall, rail tracks laid on top of it, and rock was transported by rail to the advancing front of the wall to construct the seawall. According to Dow (1973) most of the rock for construction of Sections | and A was obtained from the Telegraph Hill quarry. The photograph in Plate 2-7 was taken in 1885 and shows the completed Section ‘A of the seawall as it ties into Meiggs’ Wharf. Construction of a grain warehouse over the seawall and the partially filled area behind the seawall are also shown. ‘The USS. Coast Survey Map of 1884 shows Section A of the rock seawall completed, but shows very little development north of Francisco Street. It also shows most of the area North of Bay Street, between Stockton and Powell streets, still under water. Fill materials were brought from a variety of sources, including material obtained from the excavation for the construction of the seawall and from dredging along the piers. According to Dow (1973) about 80,000 cubic yards of dredged mud were placed Aazs7s oot 138behind Section 1 of the seawall. Apparently, scows loaded with the excavated materials navigated around the advancing front of the seawall and dumped the excavated materials, into the waters behind the seawall. Details of other sources of fill materials are lacking, but presumably some materials must have come from cuts and excavations from the ‘adjacent hills. According to Roth and Kavazanjian (1984) some of the fill came from a deposit of Colma sand and slope debris near the old shoreline between Jones and ‘Stockton streets. A dune sand deposit originally located at the base of Russian Hill was the likely source of some of the fill used to reclaim the North Beach area ‘The maps shown in Plates 2-8 and 2-9 show that only part of the North Beach area had been filled by 1906, the time of the great San Francisco Earthquake. However, Section B (see Plate 2-27) of the seawall had been completed by 1893, extending the seawall all the way to Pier 45 at the foot of Taylor Street. Development of the area west of Mason and Taylor streets after 1906 must have received some of the rubble from the ruins of the -1906 earthquake. According to newspaper accounts (Dow 1973), 15,000 truck-loads of red brick from the ruins of the Palace Hotel (on Market Street) were dumped into Aquatic Park, ruining the natural sandy beaches in this area. Most of the area west of Taylor Street had been completely filled between 1906 and 1915. Development of the Fisherman's Wharf area was accomplished by extending Section B of the rock seawall westerly by 481 feet to act as a breakwater. Another breakwater 304 feet long was constructed starting at the foot of Jones Street to complete the project. This work was initiated in 1900. Construction drawings from the Port of San Francisco show further extension of the rock seawall in 1916, along the Embarcadero west of Jones Street reaching midway anny nef 13sbetween Leavenworth and Hyde streets. Another breakwater was constructed at the same time which extended outward from the foot of Hyde Street, creating a new cove west of Pier 45. 2.2.2 Subsurface Conditions Subsurface data were collected from available reports and publications for review and evaluation, The available data were divided into 9 groups at shown on Plate 2-10. Each location identified in Plate 2-10 represents a particular project for which several borings may be available. Different symbols are used to identify the source of the data. ‘The existing surface topography within and adjacent to the study area is iustrated in Plate 2-11, based on street survey data provided to us by the Public Works Department, Ground Ievels within most of the study area range from 0 10 +10 feet, City and County of San Francisco Datum (C.CS-F.). Within a narrow strip along the southern boundary of the study area, the ground rises relatively steeply, marking the transition from filled land to natural ground at the foothills south of North Beach Bedrock levels vary within the study area from Elevation 0 at the southern boundary to more than -100 feet near the waterfront (see Plate 2-12). These contours are based on data presented by Schlocker (1974), and from borings that were drilled to bedrock within the study area. ‘A generalized subsurface section along Leavenworth, North Point and Kearny streets is shown on Plate 2-13. The subsurface conditions are characterized by: © A surficial fill layer of highly variable composition ranging from bay mud to sandy materials and debris from the 1906 earthquake. The fill layer ranges in thickness from 5 feet to 25 feet. Logs of borings drilled in this area show fills consisting predominantly of loose, silty or clayey sands with rock and rubble fragments, and loose clayey or silty gravels, The fill is very heterogeneous and contains large concentrations of rubble ‘at some locations. As expected, the standard penetration resistances are anzsts rot 138highly variable, ranging from as little as 2 blows per foot to as much as 30 or more. Some of the high-penetration resistance values may be affected by the presence of rubble, gravel and other obstructions in the fill © Below the fill is a rather heterogeneous series of recent marine sediments forming distinct but discontinuous layers of: medium to fine sand, silty sands, sandy and clayey silts; and clays of variable plasticity ranging from Jean to fat clays, including the recent San Francisco bay mud. The thickness of the recent marine sediments varies widely from being absent near the old shoreline (1849) to more than 50 feet towards the waterfront, where the bay mud becomes more prevalent, and is generally thicker. ‘© Below the recent deposits are dense/firm deposits consisting of interbedded layers of dense fine sands and stiff old bay clays and other stiff to very stiff clay strata at greater depth. Groundwater levels are variable but generally range from 5 to 15 feet deep. Near the shoreline, the groundwater levels are affected by tidal fluctuations: because of the high porosity of the rock seawall, Based on our experience along the waterfront, we estimate that the tidal effects dissipate with distance away from the waterfront and become insignificant at distances greater then 150 feet from the waterfront. 2.3 Upper Mission Creek Area 2.3.1 History of Development Early development in Upper Mission Creek was established by the Spanish Missionaries in 1776, at the site of Mission Dolores at present-day 16th and Dolores streets. The U.S. Coast Survey Map of 1853, Plate 2-14, shows the early developments around Upper Mission Creek, just beyond the marsh lands, indicating no significant further development in this area between 1776 and 1853. According to Olmsted (1986), during the Gold Rush, this area was used primarily for agricultural purposes, supplying produce to the City of San Francisco. In the 1850s the Upper Mission Creek area developed as a resort with public houses, gambling saloons, dancing establishments and 2 race course. The area between 17th and 19th streets and Valencia and Mission was aust of 138known as the Willows, a small meadow watered by a stream lined with willow trees (One of the resorts built in this area known as the "Willows" was flooded in 1861 and closed permanently. Filling of this area apparently took place between 1870 and 1880, after passage of the Tidelands Act of 1868, The Tidelands Auction Map of 1869 for the Mission Bay area (reproduced from Olmsted (1986), Plate 2-15) shows very little development in Mission Bay, although the Long Bridge (presently Third Street) connecting the north and south points at the mouth of the bay had been completed. In addition, a wharf extended deeper into San Francisco Bay perpendicular to the Long Bridge. Shortly after the sale of tidelands, rapid development of the Mission Bay and Upper Mission Creek took place. ‘The US. Coast Survey Map of 1884, shown in Plate 2-16, shows that all of Mission Creek except a small inlet near 7th Street had been filled, as well as the northwesterly portion of Mission Bay extending to Channel Street. ‘According to Olmsted (1986), an informal garbage dump developed and operated south of Berry Street between 6th and 7th streets, from 1878 10 1895, Garbage was hauled from the densely populated Market Street at the rate of 300 wagons a day. Hardly any information is available on the filling of Upper Mission Creek. It is reasonable to assume however that most of the fill must have come from nearby sand dunes and from cuts in the surrounding hills. Plate 2-17, reproduced from O'Rourke, ‘et al, (1991) shows the present topography as compared to the topography existing in 1853. It is evident that the high ground around the marsh has been cut down, and it would be logical to assume that the materials cut from the surrounding high ground were ‘used to fill the marshes in the Upper Mission Creek area. aot 186Portions of Mission Bay to the south and east of Channel Street were filled at the turn of the century (1901) using fill excavated from Potrero Hill. According to Dow (1973) approximately 2.8 million cubic yards of earthfill came from Potrero Hill to fill China Basin, After the 1906 earthquake, large amounts of rubble from the earthquake ruins were transported to Mission Bay and dumped to fill the remaining unreclaimed area. It is quite likely that some of the fill that came from Potrero Hill might have been used to fill the portion of the study area at the mouth of the Old Creek, between Brannan and Channel streets. 2.3.2 Subsurface Conditions Subsurface data were collected from available reports and publications for review and evaluation. The available data have been divided into 13 groups as shown on Plate 2-18. Each location identified in Plate 2-18 represents a particular project for which several boreholes may be available. Different symbols are used to identify the sources of the data, The study area envelops the Mission Creek water course and adjacent yns of the southwestern part of Mission Bay, as shown in marshlands, as well as po! Plate 2-19. The existing surface topography within and adjacent to the study area is illustrated in Plate 2-20, based on street survey data provided to us by the Public Works Department of the City of San Francisco. There is a 15-foot drop in elevation in the southeastern portion of the study area, between Valencia and Shotwell streets. Change in ground levels along the outline of the former Creek is relatively mild, with ground levels ranging from +5 feet to +15 feet, C.C.S.F. Datum. To the south of Mission Bay and east of the study area, Potrero Hill rises steeply up to +180 feet. The average Anas sot 138ground slope between Valencia and Capp streets is about 1.3%. Between Capp and Folsom streets the average ground slope is about 0.9%. Bedrock levels vary within the study area, from Elevation 0 at the foot of Potrero Hill, near 14th Street and Bryant, to -100 feet between 17th and 18th streets ‘The bedrock levels shown in Plate 2-21 are based on information presented by ‘Schlocker (1974) and from borings that were drilled to bedrock within and adjacent to the study area Generalized subsurface sections are shown on Plates 2-22 to 2-24, representing conditions along Mission Street, along a north-south trending section between Harrison and Folsom, and at the mouth of the old creek, along the extension of Division Street ‘The subsurface conditions are characterized by: 1 loose to very loose sandy fill layer of variable thickness and ion. Along Mission Street between 17th and 18th streets the fill thickness from 24 to 28 feet, with standard penetration resistances as low as 2 blows per foot. Elsewhere, the fill thickness ranges typically between 10 feet and 20 feet, At site No. 6, just north of Central Skyway, fairly clean sand, apparently natural dune sands, up to 25 feet thick were encountered; with Standard Penetration resistances in the range of 5 to 20 blows per foot. As can be seen from Plate 2-19, this site is apparently outside the old marsh area, AS expected, the composition of the fill is quite variable, ranging from fairly clean, medium to fine sands, to silty and clayey sands and occasional areas of gravel. As an example of fill variability, within Site No, 10, fill at location No. 32 was slightly silty sand, 31 feet thick; while at location No. 3, less than 200 feet away, the fill was clayey sand about 16 feet thick. Construction of the BART Subway tunnels along Mission Street, between 6th and 24th streets, was completed in late 1969. The Subway consists of two 18-feet-in-diameter tunnels, spaced 32 feet apart, centerline to centerline. Between 17th and 18th streets, the portion of the tunnel within the study area, the tunnel invert is about 45 feet below ground level. Available construction drawings (Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor- Bechtel, 1970) and subsurface data clearly show that the crown of the tunnel is below the fill, The tunnels were constructed using a tunneling Aaasrs 16 of 138machine and compressed air, and no de-watering was performed as part of the tunneling, We do not consider that either the construction or the presence of the tunnel within this part of the study area would have any influence in terms of the performance of the fills during future earthquakes. The tunnel is simply too deep to have an effect on restraining the lateral movements or settlements of the fill. ‘+ Within the area of the old water course, the fill is underlain by soft bay ‘mud, organic silt, and in some areas by peat, although peat was found only at Site No. 2 near the southern limit of the creek. Presumably, peat may be prevalent within the limits of the old marshes, although the available data within this part of the study area are quite limited, ‘Outside the limits of the old water course, and particularly west of Shotwell Street, the fill is underlain by a variety of recent sediments ranging from loose to dense clayey sands, dense fine to medium sands and dense silty sands. These deposits are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. * Below the bay mud there is a series of alluvial sediments in the upper reaches of the old creek, while at the mouth of the creek, both alluvial and old bay deposits are encountered. These sediments are typically very dense/stiff to very stiff and are of variable thickness, reflecting the significant variability of the depth to bedrock. * As indicated earlier, the depth to bedrock is quite variable. In some reas, bedrock is encountered immediately below the bay mud, while elsewhere, thick sediments of as much as 100 feet or more are found between the bay mud and bedrock. Groundwater levels vary between 6 feet and 12 feet below existing ground levels. In the area adjacent to the channel, the groundwater levels may fluctuate in response 10 tidal fluctuations in the bay. 24 Seawalls As filling of Yerba Buena Cove progressed into deeper water, it became clear, ‘according to Dow (1973), “that buildings constructed on filled land tended to sink, crack, tilt and break up." It was realized according to Dow (1943) that the problem was related n of to settlement of the filled land caused by compression of the fill itself, cons aust 17 of 188the bay mud, and loss of ground due to wave erosion of the loose sand fills. The solution was to stabilize the waterfront by constructing a seawall along portions of San Francisco's waterfront, The City Surveyor, in his April 1856 report stated: “Any improvement in the lower wharf portion of the city is materially affected by the insecurity of the foundations, which can only be remedied by filling in with earth secure in its place, and the harbor protected from invasion by a bulkhead oF seawall, constructed for present purposes from Rincon Point to the eastern base of Telegraph Hill. The necessity for such a work immediately should be paramount to every other consideration." Soon after their appointment, the State Board of Harbor Commissioners undertook the task of constructing the seawall. In 1866, the Board advertised a prize of 51,000 for the best design of the seawall. It was to be constructed along the bulkhead line, known as the “red line" or the “Eddy Survey,” from Chestnut to Harrison streets, as shown on Plate 2-25. Because of the irregular shape of the bulkhead line, soon after construction of the seawall began, it was realized according to Dow (1973) that the location of the seawall was not advantageous, “as the wall set up a series of traps which caught sediments from the bay, causing shoaling along the piers to the point where a ship with normal draft would go aground". Therefore, construction of the seawall was abandoned and a new seawall outward from the old seawall was constructed to conform more readily to the flow of the currents, and avoid the problem of siltation. A brief description of the construction of the old and new seawalls is presented below. Old Seawall Construction of the old seawall began in September of 1867. The first section 2d ran along Front Street between Union and Vallejo streets; a distance of 650 feet. The ‘second section ran 740 feet from Pacific to Washington streets along East Street Aust tof 136(Embarcadero). The third section extended from Washington to Market Street along the Embarcadero and was 7294 feet long. The fourth section, according to Dow (1973) extended from the foot of Market Street to the foot of Mission Street along the Embarcadero; a distance of 632 feet. This portion of the seawall was completed by 1869, ‘The old seawall was constructed by first excavating a trench 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide (but 60 feet at the base) along the bulkhead line. The trench extended 25 feet bayward from the bulkhead line and 75 feet from the bulkhead line toward shore. Stones were “thrown pell mell” into the trench and allowed to settle to a firm foundation. Then more rocks were dumped to raise the seawall to the level of mean tide; the seawall was 13 feet wide at this level. Accoridng to the design drawings, a 2-foot-thick concrete pad was to be laid on top of the seawall and a masonry wall about 10 feet high Was constructed on top of the concrete base, from which the wharves would be built Plate 2-26 shows the cross-section of the old seawall as determined from probes and boreholes drilled by Dames & Moore, as part of the MUNI Turnaround Project for the City. From the information available to date, including drawings obtained from the Port of San Francisco, it appears that the masonry wall was not constructed, apparently a a result of field modifications to the original design of the seawall The outer, or bay side of the seawall had a steep slope, a little more than 45 degrees. Large rocks were specified as riprap, with no rock weighing less than 500 pounds (approximately equivalent to 1.5-foot cube). Almost all of the rock for the construction of the old seawall came from the quarry on Telegraph Hill, Available drawings from the Port of San Francisco indicate that the old seawall was extended south of Mission Street to within 50 feet from the north side of Howard usr 19 of 136Street, The Dames & Moore explorations for the old seawall confirmed that the seawall does extend to within 50 feet of Howard Street Port of San Francisco drawing No. 1345-378-3 shows a cross-connection between the old and the new seawalls, made of rockfill, approximately 110 feet south of the south side of Mission Street, 11 is unlikely that the old seawall, as initially planned, could have been built along the full length of the bulkhead line within 4 years (from 1867 to 1871), at which time plans for the construction of the new seawall were prepared. For the purposes of ‘assume that the only portion of the old seawall completed is the this report, we section from Pacific Street to within $0 feet from the north side of Howard Street along, the Embarcadero; and the section from Union to Vallejo along Front Street ‘Apparently, the old seawall continued to settle after construction due to consolidation of the soft bay mud. Plate 2-26 shows the old seawall buried by as much 5 10 feet of fill, presumably reflecting the amount of settlement after construction. New Seawal Plate 2-27 shows the location of the new seawall relative to the old shoreline 2 ‘and the planned location of the old seawall. The new seawall extends from the foot of Taylor (near Pier 45) at the north end to Channel Street at the south end. It is about 200 feet bayward from the old bulkhead line Financing for the construction of the new seawall was provided by surplus income from the port's operation over and above the expenditures, exclusive of the ‘Seawall construction, When sufficient funds had been accumulated ($25,000), bids were let for the construction of a new section of the seawall, Azar 200136‘The new seawall was constructed in 21 sections between September 1878 when construction of Section 1 began, and January 1924, when the last Section, 13a, was completed. Table 2-1 presents relevant data on the construction of the new seawall ‘The configuration of the new seawall was varied somewhat depending on the subsurface conditions and obstructions encountered along the alignment. According to Whitworth (1932), the basic configuration of the seawall is shown in Plate 2-28, It was constructed by excavating a trench 30 feet wide at the bottom, by dredging the soft mud to a depth varying from 20 to 35 feet below low water. This trench was filled with rock forming the toe of the seawall. Additional rock was placed forming a wide base, so that the wall was 100 feet wide at a point of 20 feet below low tide. The outer toe of the ‘wall was constructed to lie directly under the outer line of the water front. ‘The rock was dumped to assume its natural slope under water (shown on the Port of San Francisco drawings as | horizontal to 1 vertical) and the wall was raised at this configuration to reach city base at the land side and low water mark on the water side. ‘Large rock was placed by hand on the bayside to form riprap at a slope of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical, ending in most cases approximately 50 feet from the water front line. Rock for the early construction was quarried on the north and east faces of ‘Telegraph Hill because it was easily obtained. Subsequently, rock was obtained from Sheep Island, a privately-owned, 52-acre island located near Point Richmond, across the bay from San Francisco. According to Whitworth (1932), “over one million tons of rock ~» was planted in apparently bottomless mud in this region from Mission Street south to ‘a point beyond Brannan.” Anas 2 of 138Table 2-1, Tabulation of Data on Semuatt Section "Started Completes (feet) . foot of Powel Foot of Taylor 2 est Cine of Section 1 est Line ot Powel ; 1,000 feer vest 2 3/000 feet East 3 ¢ 5 Bet. Front and Oavie 3 Drum ; Pacific o 5 Center Line of Clay South Ene of Section Be Foot of Wistion Foot of Mission Bet. Mistion arc Honerd End of Sec. 8 Foot of Mission Foot of Foleon Foot of narrigon Foot of Foinon Foot of Karrisen Point Bet. aryant & Brennan Foot of Kain Foot of Beste Bet. Brannan & Townsend Foot of King Including wiaening 4 + arougnt’te grace Whitworth, Gf. (Editors, 1982, "Subaldence and the Foundation Problem in ‘San FranciscoM, » report’of the subsoil Comittee of the San Francises Scetion, ‘american Society of Civil Engineers. aur 2206 196The filling behind the wall consisted of defective or soft stones from the quarry, Quarry scrapings, sand from the dunes of the city, and subsequent to 1877, of mud dredged up from the water front. The embankment behind the seawall was surfaced with macadam or paving after it had settied sufficiently. ‘Several modifications to the original design were made because it was found that the seawall was too porous and allowed free flow of the tides, washing away the sand Fill behind the wall, Plate 2-29 shows the cross-section used at Sections 9a and 9b. Plate 2-30 shows a typical section used for the seawall Sections 8, 9, and 10, Slight variations are indicated in the drawings, particularly the height of the concrete retaining wall, but the basic configuration is the same for the three sections. Both of these alternative designs incorporate a retaining wall 13 feet high at Sections 92 and 9b and up to 30 feet deep at the other locations, Plate 2-31 shows a completely different design for Section 8a of the seawall, extending from the centerline of Clay Street to the south side of Market Street. A trench was excavated at the bulkhead line and filled with sand rather than rockfill. A concrete wall supported on piles was constructed after partial filling of the trench. Riprap was placed over the sand fill at the toe of the concrete wall for protection against erosion. Behind the concrete wall a relieving platform was constructed at the level of low water, supported on piles. The area behind the newly illed with sand, constructed concrete wall was By the time of the great San Francisco Earthquake in 1906, Sections | to 8b and Sections A, B, and 13 had been completed. The portion of the city from the foot of Taylor Street to the foot of Mission Street and a short section between King and Berry streets enjoyed the protection of the new seawall at the time of the 1906 earthquake. ‘However, between Mission and Howard, the fill was still protected by the old seawall Aus 25 of 136‘After the earthquake, new sections of the seawall were also constructed west of Taylor Street as part of the construction for Fisherman's Wharf, Pier 45 and the breakwater near the foot of Hyde Street. In addition, a secondary seawall was constructed (according to Dow, 1973) at the end of Section 13a, along the north side of Channel Street, as part of the construction of Pier 46, The existing Third Street Wharf was torn down and replaced by the seawall extension along Channel Street. This section of the seawall was constructed using recast, reinforced concrete caissons spaced 15 feet apart. The space between the caissons was closed using precast concrete curved retaining walls. ‘The designs for Sections 9 and 10 are of particular interest because these walls hhave not been tested by a magnitude 8.3 earthquake. Our stability analyses for the ‘seawall focus on evaluating the performance of these sections. ‘Soon after construction, Sections 9 and 9b of the seawall locaied between Howard and Harrison streets suffered significant settlements and tateral displacements, with serious surface cracks appearing behind the wall between Folsom and Harrison streets. Settlements as large as 44 feet were recorded at the curb line, with lateral movements as large as 1.8 feet. These movements required repairs to raise the deck of the wharf to the original grade (see Port of San Francisco drawing No, 2934-39) in late 1916, only a year after construction had been completed. Auasrs 24 of 1383.0 © UTILITY INFORMATION 3.1 General This study examined three major buried utilities owned by the City and County of San Francisco: the Auxiliary Water Supply System, the Municipal Water Supply ‘System, and the sewer system. Other utilities owned by San Francisco, such as police telephone and fire alarms, and privately owned utilities are not included in the scope of work. San Francisco possesses three water supply systems: two specifically for fire fighting-only and one for both fire fighting use and municipal use (potable water). The ‘two fire fighting-only systems are the underground Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) and the truck-borne Portable Water Supply System (PWSS), both owned and operated by the San Francisco Fire Department (SPFD). The above-ground PWSS is not Of direct relevance to this study. The Municipal Water Supply System (MWSS) is owned ‘and operated by the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). ‘The City and County's sewage collection system is operated by the Clean Water Program. The sewers are combined sewers that collect: both sewage and stormwater runoff. Originally the stormwater discharged directly to the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay through outfalls. In the late 1970s a series of box sewers and tunnels ‘were constructed around the perimeter of the bay to intercept wet weather discharges to the bay for storage and conveyance to the Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant. 3.2, AWSS (AND PWSS) 3.2.1 AWSS Description ‘The San Francisco Auxili ry Water Supply System (AWSS) is a water supply system intended solely for the purpose of assuring adequate water supply for fire anaes 28 of 135fighting purposes. It is separate and redundant from the domestic water supply system of San Francisco (i.e., the MWSS), and is owned and operated by the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD). It was built in the decade following the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and fire, primarily in the north-east quadrant of the City (Plate 3-1, the urbanized portion of San Francisco in 1906 and still the Central Business District), and hhas been gradually extended into other parts of the City, although the original portion Still constitutes the majority of the system. The AWSS consists of several major components: * Static Supplies: The main source of water under ordinary conditions is a 10 million gallon reservoir centratly located on Twin Peaks. the highest point within San Francisco. Water from this source supplies three zones including the Twin Peaks zone, the Upper Zone (pressure reduced at the 0.5 million gallon Ashbury Tank) and the Lower Zone (pressure reduced 3t the 0.75 million gallon Jones St. Tank, elevation approximately 350 ft.) The study areas are located within the lower zone. ‘* Pump Stations: Because the Twin Peaks supply may not be adequate under emergency conditions, two pump stations exist to supply water from San Francisco Bay. Pump Station No, | is iocated at 2nd and Townsend streets, while Pump Station No. 2 is located at Aquatic Park = each has 10,000 gpm at 300 psi capacity. Both pumps were originally steam powered but were converted to diesel power in the 1970s * Pipe Network: The AWSS supplies water by a special pipe network with 4 total length of approximately 129 miles of cast iron and ductile iron pipe serving approximately 1,500 dedicated street large capacity hydrants. The pipe is bell and spigot, originally extra heavy cast iron (e.g., |" wall thickness for 12° diameter), and extensions are now Schedule 56 ductile iron (e.g., .625" wall thickness for 12" diameter). Within areas of poor soil, pipe is double spigot, with cast iron or cast steel sleeves caulked with lead and oakum. Restraining rods connect pipe lengths across joints at all turns, tee joints, hills and other points of likely stress. The network as originally designed and constructed was divided into two independent sections, north and south of Market Street, increasing reliability should ‘one section fail. This division extended into the Twin Peaks reservoir, which is divided into two forebays. Each half could supply the other half, through cross-connections. In 1964 it was decided that the cross- Connections should be routinely in the open position, resulting in the two sections becoming one. In the 1906 earthquake, San Francisco had sustained major ground failures (leading to water main breaks) in zones usr 26 of 135generally corresponding to filled-in land and thus fairly well defined, Because it was anticipated these ground failures could occur again, these Zones (termed “infirm areas") were mapped and the pipe network was specially valved where it entered these infirm areas. Under ordinary Conditions, all of the gate valves isolating the infirm areas are closed, except one, So that should water main breaks occur in these infirm areas, they can be quickly isolated. On the other hand, should major fire flows be required in these areas, closed gate valves can be quickly opened (at least one closed gate valve to each infirm area can be remotely actuated, from Jones St. Tank), increasing the water supply significantly. + Flreboats: The pipe network has manifold connections located at five oints along the City's waterfront (all in or very near infirm areas). to ermit the fireboat to act as an additional "pump station", drafting from San Francisco Bay and supplying the AWSS. The AWSS was originally designed to be augmented by two fireboats. For some time prior to the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, San Francisco possessed only ‘one fireboat, the Phoenix, whose pump capacity is 9,600 gpm at 150 psi, . about the same as Pump Station No. 2. Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake, SFFD acquired a second fireboat, the Guardian, which ossesses the largest fireboat pumping capacity in North America (in excess of 20,000 gpm, equivalent to Pump Station No. | and No. 2 combined). + Cisterns: In addition to the above components, San Francisco has 151 underground cisterns, again largely. in the northeast quadrant of the City. These cisterns are typically of concrete construction (a few are brick and Dredate the 1906 earthquake) 75,000 gallons capacity (about one hour supply for a typical fire department pumper) and are located at street intersections, accessible by a manhole. They are highly reliable and extremely low maintenance. The cisterns are completely independent of all piping and are filled by hose from fire department pumpers supplied from hydrants. In the event of water main failure, water may be drafted from these cisterns via the manhole. In 1986, due to a recognition that these cisterns are largely in the northeast quadrant of the City, a bond issue was passed for construction of an additional 95 cisterns, in outlying portions of the City. * Saltwater Connections: SFFD is currently installing numerous suction hydrants along the waterfront, through which fire engines will be able to draw bay water to provide AWSS with a fifth independent source of fire water. Control of the AWSS is centered at Jones Street tank house, where gauges provide pressure readings at a limited number of locations in the network. A limited ‘number of gate valves can be remotely operated from Jones Street tank house via land Aas 27 of 138lines, the Lower Zone pressure can be increased by opening valves at the tank house, and the Twin Peaks pressure zone can be “cut-in” by remotely operating valves located at Ashbury tank. However, many other gate valves in the system must be operated manually, ‘The AWSS is a system remarkably well designed to furnish large amounts of water for fire fighting purposes under normal conditions. A number of U.S. cities, including New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, constructed “high-pressure” systems in the early years of this century, due to major conflagrations and inadequate water Supplies. San Francisco's AWSS is unique however, since it contains many special features to increase reliability in the event of an earthquake, and it has been extremely: well maintained and even expanded, while other cities have generally abandoned their high pressure systems, That the AWSS has been well-maintained is due to the recognition that San Francisco is likely to sustain major earthquakes, resulting in loss of function of its MWS. ‘The AWSS was designed to be an extremely durable, reliable system, In its first 80 years of operation, only one of its many hundreds of hydrants ever failed, and that failure was due to repeated vehicle impact. According to SFDPW personnel, the most significant corrosion problems noted to date were two corroded gaskets at flanged valve/pipe joints in pipe on Kearny near Jackson. However, a recent study (SFDPW, 1989) identified 141 locations where AWSS pipe passes inside of sewers creating a Potential for excessive corrosion, and 24.5 miles where pipe is in corrosive or very corrosive soil. Observations have not confirmed that the presence of corrosive soil has caused substantial pipe deterioration. So, while the potential exists that all pipe in corrosive soil may have deteriorated to an unacceptable degree, probably only a portion ‘Ausra ab of 138of this pipe has corroded significantly, most likely near MUNI traction systems, where Stray electrical currents may accelerate galvanic corrosion of metal pipe. The study also identified 9 miles of pipe at the edge of infirm areas with excessive differential settlement, where bending stresses within the pipe could significantly increase its vulnerability to breakage. In total, these problem locations represent approximately 20% of AWSS pipe. ‘The scope of the present study is confined to the AWSS pipe network - that is, the cisterns, static supplies, pump stations etc are not considered in this study except to the extent that their improvement can affect the performance of the pipe network ‘As shown in Plate 3-2, the Marina study area corresponds to SFFD's Infirm Area ‘No. 9, though the latter is somewhat smaller by about seven square blocks at its Southwest corner. The North Beach study area approximately corresponds to Infirm ‘Area No. 10, although Infirm Area No. 10 extends only to Hyde Street, The Embarcadero/South Beach study area approximately corresponds to SFFD's Infirm Areas Nos. | and 2. The study areas south of Market Street, in Sullivan Marsh and Upper Mission Creek, approximately correspond to SFFD's Infirm Areas Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6, though Infirm Area No. 6 extends as far as Guerrero from Market Street to 20th Street, whereas the Upper Mission Creek study area stops northwest of Shotwell and 17th streets. Infirm Area No. 7 coincides with a portion of the former mud flats at Islais Creek, and the approximately 9 square block Infirm Area No. 8 represents an old stream channel at the site of the present Civic Center. These last two areas are not part of this study. As detailed in Table 3-1, the North Beach study area contains approximately 9,700 feet (1.8 miles) of cast iron mains and 25 high pressure hydrants, Fireboat Austs 29.06 136,‘manifolds are located on Fisherman's Harbor and a1 Pier 33/35. The Embarcadero/South Beach study area contains approximately 37,500 feet (7.1 miles) of cast iron AWSS mains and 105 high pressure hydrants. The Pier 22/24 fire boat manifold is within the Embarcadero study area. The Upper Mission Creek study ares contains approximately 15,300 feet (2.9 miles) of AWSS mains, and 41 high pressure hydrants Table 3-1. Approximate Inventory of Water Systems Mwss Area, City of San Francisco 44.75 square mites Grand Total, 1"-60" Diameter Pipe 6,322,100 feet Total, Cast and Ductile Iron Mains 3,606,260 feet Cast and Ductile Iron 4°-16" diameter 5,454,000 feet Wrought Iron and Steel Mains 385,330 feet * Gate Valves 15,160 ee Upper Embarcadero/ Mission North Beach South Beach Creek oe ‘Area, square miles 0.221 0.619 0.433 MWSS Mains Cast Iron Mains, Lead/Oakum Joints (feet) 17,800 32,300 45,000 Cast Iron Mains, Cement Joints (feet) 7,600 1,300 1.100 Ductile iron Mains, Cement Joints (feet) 3,500 39.500 73300 Ductile Iron Mains, Field Lok Gasket (feet) 0 1,200 200 iveted and Gas-Welded Steel Mains (feet) 1,500 4,200 2,700 ‘Arc-Welded Steel Mains (feet) 0 2,000 1,900 TOTAL MWSS Mains (feet) 30,400 80,500 58,200 WSS Mains (feet) 9,700 37,500 15,300 3.2.2 Available Data San Francisco Fire Department personnel provided AWSS system drawings, detailed system maps, and standards and details. ‘aizs73 Sof 138‘System drawings on an approximately 1 inch = 400 feet scale show schematically the system plan overlain on a street map of San Francisco. Pipe diameter, valve, and ‘hydrant locations are shown, Also indicated are boundaries between major system divisions and boundaries of the Fire Department's Infirm Areas. Valves at major system boundaries and at Infirm Area boundaries are indicated and identified as either normally ‘open or normally closed. Detailed system mans depict plan and elevation locations of AWSS underground facilities on a street-by-street basis, at approximately 1 inch = 60 feet scale, Exact locations of pipe joints, valves, and so on are indicated relative to property lines and Brade existing at the time of installation. Fire department officials indicate that discrepancies exist between system maps and current conditions, partially because of subsequent building-up of streets (which can increase depth of burial as much as séveral feet), and partially because as-built drawings were not adequately maintained. ‘Svitem standards in tables and derail drawings describe geometry and weight +. valves, hydrants, connections, fittings, and installation procedures. particulars of i Standards for cast iron, ductile iron, and steel elements were provided. 3.2.3 Materials ‘The AWSS within the study areas comprises primarily extra strong (schedule G or H) cast iron, segmented pipe, in 12 foot lengths. The joints are double spigot-type with ed cast iron or cast steel sleeves packed with lead and oakum. AWSS joints are restr (ie., bolted together with rods) at bends, valves, tees, changes in direction, etc. Depending on conditions, as many as ten segments may be bolted together in this fashion, ‘The smallest pipe diameter is 8 inch, used exclusively for hydrant branches off mains. The smallest main is 10 inch diameter; the largest, 20 inch diameter. aus 31 of 338The cast iron pipe of the original construction was pit cast, and lugged pipe had its lugs cast on pipe ends. Ductile iron pipe was later installed in 18-foot segments for system extensions and repairs; this pipe was centrifugally cast and screened for trueness. Lugged ductile iron pipe had small welded-on lugs which restrained a slip-on collar, to which, in turn, restraining bolts could be attached. 3.2.4 BWSS Though the above-ground PWSS is not a subject of analysis in 1 is study, a brief description is valuable. While the AWSS (described above) provides high assurance of {fire fighting water supply in the northeast quadrant of San Francisco, major fires can and do occur at large distances from the AWSS pipe network. In recognition of this, ‘and to provide additional flexibility in deployment and to further extend the “reach” of the AWSS, SFFD has developed in recent years the PWSS. Its basic components are: © Hose tenders, trucks capable of carrying 5,000 ft of large diameter (5 inch) hose, and a high pressure monitor for a master stream + Hose ramps, which allow vehicles to cross the hose when it is charged * Gated Inlet Wye, allowing water supply into large diameter from standard fire hose © Gleeson vaive, 2 pressure reducing valve * Portable Hydrants, that allow water to be distributed from large diameter hose. ‘The large diameter (5 inch) hose is carried on the hase tenders, together with portable hydrants, pressure reducing Gleeson valves, and other fittings. Each hose tender carries almost one mile of hose, and is capable of laying this in about 20 minutes. Hose lengths are intermittently fitted with the portable hydrants, permitting water supply at many locations along the hose, which can be gridded and in effect provides an 32 of 38above-ground water main. At the time of the Loma Prieta Earthquake, SFFD had four PWSS hose tenders, and has since requested an additional 11. 3.3. MWSS 3.3.1 MWSS Description The San Francisco Water District provides domestic water to the City of San Francisco. San Francisco's water flows from Heich Hetchy and Crystal Springs Reservoirs through a system of closed conduits, tunnels, and pipelines. The fresh water is stored in 16 buried reinforced concrete reservoirs and 2 elevated steel reservoirs built in the 1930s and located throughout San Francisco. The reservoirs serve 23 distinct zones, called pressure districts. Only the University Mound District (Plate 3-3) and College Hill District (Plate 3-4) intersect the study areas. Water service in the study areas is provided entirely by gravity, as a result of reservoir elevation. 3.3.2 Available Data San Francisco Water Department personnel provided feeder main system plans, pipe standards and details, distribution system plans, and main failure reports. ‘Drawings of the pressure district feeder mains serving the studv areas. These drawings are last dated March 1989. They show plan location and diameter of pipe 12 inches and larger, valve location, and reservoir location. They do not show depth of embedment, pipe age, or any other details of construction, ‘Svstem standards in tables and detail drawings describe particulars of pipe, valves, hydrants, connections, fittings, and installation procedures. Standards for cast iron, ductile iron, and steel elements were provided. Distribution system plans show the location of all mains in the study areas, overlain on a San Francisco street map on an approximately 1 inch = 200 feet scale. aus $800 185‘These drawings show valve locations, pipe diameter, year of installation, and reference to the text record of pipe installation, which appears in SFWD's Pipe and Gate Books. Pipe installed as early as 1859 appear on these drawings. ‘Water main failure reports dating from September 1988 to January 1991. Each report describes repairs made at a single location. From these reports one can gather an impression of general pipe condition and break rate before and after the 1989 earthquake. Each report includes fields for pipe break location; pipe material, construction, installation, and condition; break and repair description; and a space for particulars of previous breaks and other comments. 3.3.3 Materials & Installation ‘The piping which transports water throughout the City between storage reservoirs and service areas is diverse, the newest being welded steel pipe; the oldest, cast iron pipe dating back to the late 1850s. The majority of mains in the study areas are of cast iron segmented bell and spigot lead/oakum-jointed construction, installed between 1870 and 1930. From the time of their ownership by Spring Valley Water Company, MWSS works were designed to higher standards than was customary in American city water systems, Prior to about 1960, all mains of 24 inch or smaller diameter were of cast iron, bell and spigot construction, with pipe material quality, wall thickness, and bell depth and weight reportedly greater than standard for other American water works (Schussler, 1906). This size and age group represents the majority of all MWSS pipe. Quality of this pipe is variable. Older east iron pipe has occasional casting flaws. After about 1960, ductile iron was used for pipe of 16 inch or smaller diameter, with geometry and construction similar to the cast iron it replaced, but cast centrifugally, with fewer casting less of the introduction of ductile iron pipe, and the general size limits, Auzs7s Moc aasome cast iron pipe was still being installed in the MWSS system at least as late as 1970, and some locations (such as Guerrero Street) have cast iron pipe as large as 30 inch diameter, When installed, mains of & inch diameter and smaller are installed in 36 inch deep trenches, with larger pipe buried deeper. At intersections, because of the congestion of other utilities such as sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable, cover can reach 6 to & feet Segmented pipe is assembled as follows: spigots are stabbed all the way in to the bell, and until around 1940, joims were sealed with lead and oakum, Between that time ‘and about 1989, 3/4 inch thick rubber gaskets were used, and the bell was packed with very dry pack mortar grout. Since 1989 SFWD has used a proprietary gasket system of US. Pipe, called a Field Lok Gasket, which is an elastomeric gasket approximately 3/4 inch thick, fitted with mechanical teeth. The gasket is inserted into the bell, the spigot stabbed in all the way, and then drawn slightly back until the teeth grip the spigot. No packing is needed, The teeth prevent withdrawal of the spigot from the bell, while the gasket allows a degree of rotational flexibility. Larger, older pipe is of steel. Pre-1930 pipe larger than 24 inch diameter is of riveted steel construction, Longitudinal joints were shop riveted; circumferential joins were riveted in the field, Between about 1930 and 1960, pipe larger than 24 inch diameter was of welded steel construction. Gas welding was used until about 1940, after which are welding became common. After about 1960, welded steel construction was also used for pipe as small as 20 inch diameter. Joints were bell and spigot, welded outside for 20 inch to 24 inch diameter, and welded inside and outside for 36 inch and Anas 36 of 138larger diameters. Welding for 30 inch diameter mains varied -- sometimes inside and ‘out, sometimes only outside. The size and material of pipe used to transport domestic water from mains to water meters varies. Of the approximately 60,000 services within the City, the plurality are of galvanized steel, with lesser numbers of plastic, copper, cast iron, and wrought iron. Historically, the galvanized steel and copper were typically used. Plastic services have been installed more recently, although SFWD is currently phasing out the use of plastic, because of concerns that petroleum products can permeate from the ground, through the plastic, and into drinking water. According to SFWD personnel, SFWD es in the future. Services to houses are typically about plans to install only copper ser 1 inch diameter. Large office buildings may be served by cast or ductile iron pipe as large as 8 inch diameter, 3.3.4 Inventory ‘San Francisco Water Department maintains over 6.3 million feet of water pipe between | inch and 60 inches in diameter, equivalent to 26.2 miles of domestic water pipe per square mile. Most of this pipe (89%) is of segmented, bell-and-spigot cast or ductile iron. Most of the cast and ductile iron (97%) is in the 4 inch to 16 inch diameter range. Hence, approximately 86% of pipe in San Francisco is 4 inch to 16 inch segmented cast iron or ductile iron pipe. The system also includes over 15,000 gate valves, 84% of which are in the 6 inch to 12 inch range. There are several thousand tes, blow offs, air valves, and stop cocks. ich of service AS detailed in Table 3-1, the North Beach study area is estimated to contain approximately 30,400 feet of MWSS mains. Of these mains, 58% are pre-1940 cast iron, Aus7s 3 of 19625% are post-1941 cast iron, 12% are of pre-1989 ductile iron, and the remaining 5% are of pre-1940 steel. ‘The Embarcadero/South Beach study area is estimated to contain approximately 80,500 feet of pipe, of which approximately half is cast iron and half is ductile iron The 58,200 feet of MWSS pipe in the Upper Mission Creek study area is 79% cast iron, 13% ductile iron, and 8% steet. Sewers City records indicate that all sewers in the study area were constructed prior to 1925, and most were constructed prior to 1906. In the Mission Creek area many of the sewers were constructed in the ten-year period following the 1906 earthquake. Based on discussions with Clean Water Program (CWP) personnel and a review of City records, it was concluded that City sewers can be divided into the following seven categori 1, Vitrified Clay Pipe, Old Style VCP - iron or salt glazed pipe with rigid (mortared) joints. ‘This pipe was used throughout the City until about 1945. It is generally very weak structurally. 2. Vitrified Clay Pipe, Modern Style VCP - Installed since 1960. This pipe thas good structural integrity and has polyethylene gaskets giving it flexibility. This is the current standard materi 3. Brick - This pipe is egg shaped, with the egg standing on the small end. The predominant size is 3 feet wide by 5 feet high, with a 9-inch wall consisting of two courses of brick with mortared joints. Somevare pile supported. 4, Precast Concrete Pipe, Old Style - Instalied between 1900 and 1920 with mortared rigid joints. It is usually less than 24-inches in diameter. This pipe apparently has a low cement content and is not very structurally sound. There is not a significant amount of this type of pipe in the study area, 5. Precast Concrete Pipe, New Style - Installed since 1960 with elastomeric Joints. There is very little of this pipe in the study 6. Cast-In-Place Concrete Sewers, Non-Pile-Supported - Includes both, modern (excluding the transport system) and old installations. uses srot 1367. Cast-In-Place Concrete Sewers, Pile Supported - Includes both modern (excluding the transport system) and old installations. The City records consist of sewer maps showing the size and direction of flow of sewers. On some streets the material of construction and location of manholes are also indicated. In addition, the Clean Water Program maintains a street by street card file identifying relevant drawings and in some cases the year of construction of the sewer, ‘material of construction, and support. The card file is the definitive source of data, ‘The City records were reviewed with the assistance of Clean Water Program (CWP) personnel to inventory sewers 12 inches and larger by category in the study areas. Table 3-2 shows a breakdown of the type and footage of pipe in each study area. Because of the small quantity of type 4 and 5 precast concrete pipe, it is included in the type 6 category. There is a negligible amount of Type 2 VCP installed, so all VCP is listed as Type 1. Table 3-2. Inventory of Sewers 12" Diameter and Over Embarcadero Waterfront/ Upper Mission. Creek North Beach South Beach ‘Area Pipe type (feet) (feet) (feet) VCP - Rigid Joints 8,200 24,950 14,140 (Type 1) Brick (Type 3) 2,930 8,040 4,780 Concrete - No Pile 10,700 20,920 18,450 ‘Supports (Type 6) Concrete - Pile ° 3,320 ° Supported (Type 7) — — — TOTAL 21,830 57,230 37,370 38 of 1384.0 GROUND MOVEMENTS AND UTILITY BREAKS CAUSED BY 1906 AND 1989 EARTHQUAKES, 4.1 Ground Movemenss aaa Water! B 4.1.1.1 Ground Movements Caused by 1906 Earthavake Considerable insight into potential earthquake effects on the study areas can be sained by review of the behavior of the study areas during historic earthquakes. OF particular interest isthe great 1906 San Francisco earthquake because itis the largest earthquake to have affected the area in the past and also represents the governing maximum credible earthquake in the'future {As noted in Section 2.4.2, at the time of the April 18, 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the new seawall had been constructed along the Embarcadero north of Mission Street, South of Mission, the new seawall was apparently not constructed (except Section 13) until after the earthquake, and, the pre-existing, old seawall bordered portions of the area north of Howard Street inboard of the Embarcadero. Three types of ground disturbance were observed along the Embarcadero: settlement, lateral spreading, and ground "waviness" (Plate 4-1). Ground settlements appear to have been as large as 3 feet maximum, and, more generally, about 2 feet or less, Differential settlements were manifested by cracking, unevenness in streets, and settlements of ground abutting structures that were supported on pile foundations extending below the fill. Fissures in the pavement along the Embarcadero about two to three blocks south of Market Street indicate settlements of up to about 2 feet. An 80-foot frontage area adjacent to the Ferry Building was reported to have settled ‘generally up to about 18 inches and locally up to 3 feet at the northwest corner of the building. Along Davis Street between Vallejo and California streets, settlement of | to Auaa7s 39 0f 1353 feet was observed at every street crossing, Sertlements of 2 feet occurred along Spear Street at Howard and Market Street, Pile-supported buildings, such as the Ferry Building and Folgers Coffee Building, and other pile-supported structures, such as trolley car tracks, were reported to have experienced little differential settlement distress due to the earthquake. Features indicating some degree of bayward lateral spreading were also observed ‘These were in the form of cracking in streets, pulling apart of trolley car iracks, and ‘compression of the ground against pile-supported wharfs, piers, and other waterfront structures. The Embarcadero about 2 to 3 blocks south of Market Street moved laterally ‘as much as 2 feet. There are no reports of major seawall failures or landsliding into the bay along the waterfront. Also, there are no reports of pile-supported structures along the waterfront, such as the Ferry Building, having been noticeably shifted out of position during the earthquake ‘A waveclike ground surface feature was observed in the streets along the Market Street following the earthquake. The resulting height between wave-like depressions and crests was up to 5 feet (Youd and Hoose, 1976). These features may be due in part to differential settlements and lateral spreading. The features may also be attributable to horizontally out-of-phase movements occurring in the ground during the earthquake, with resulting compressional failures forming at the ground surface and manifesting 4.1.1.2 Ground Movements Caused by 1989 Earthquake Ground disturbance effects in the Embarcadero area associated with the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake were less severe than those due to the 1906 earthquake, which ‘was primarily due to the lower intensity and duration of shaking during the 1989 Ausrs e006 138earthquake. Other factors include the heavy development in the area with buildings Supported on pile foundations or deep mats, and possibly a somewhat denser condition of the subsoils due to the settlements that occurred during the 1906 earthquake. Evidence of liquefaction consisted of settlement and/or cracking of pavements, and sand boils which occurred at several locations including three sites on the west side Of the Embarcadero: (a) across from the Ferry Building at the foot of Market Street (b) beneath the elevated highway offramp between Washington and Clay streets, and (c) between Broadway and Vallejo streets (see Plate 4-2). Differential settlements and lateral displacements were observed along the Embarcadero from Howard Street to just north of the Ferry Building, Subsidence of approximately | foot was observed immediately north of the intersection of Market Street and the Embarcadero. A prominent crack with as much as 4 inches of vertical offset occurred immediately north of the intersection of Market Street and Embarcadero. ‘The crack extended roughly 200 feet in a northeasterly direction from the intersection, ‘A prominent I-inch-wide crack opened beneath the Embarcadero Freeway, running parallel to the seawall for the full distance between Howard and Mission streets. Other similar cracks running parallel to this main crack were also observed slong the Embarcadero. Based on these observations, it appears that the Embarcadero waterfront moved laterally on the order of 3 inches. Differential settlements of | t0 4 inches were observed adjacent to the pile-supported columns of the Embarcadero Freeway near Mission Street. ‘usr arot 3s4.1.2 North Beach 4.1.2.1 Ground Movements Caused by 1906 Earthquake As shown on Plate 2-8, North Beach was only partially developed at the time of ‘the 1906 earthquake. The area developed prior to 1906 was subjected to strong shaking. O'Rourke and Lane (1989) interpreted the earthquake intensity in this area, based on the earthquake intensity maps in Lawson's report (1906), as being in the range of Modified Mercalli Intensity of IX to X. According to O'Rourke (1991), however, this rating of intensity is too high, considering the ground deformations and damage of underground utilities that were observed. An intensity level of VIII is considered more likely However, there are no records of serious damage in the North Point area. Schussler's report (1906) shows street settlements principally along a three-block area: (1) along Bay ‘Street between Taylor and Mason streets, (2) along Mason Street between Bay and North Point streets, and (3) along North Point Street between Mason and Powell streets, It also shows settlements along Stockton and Grant streets, between North Point and Beach streets. The records do not indicate the magnitude of the settlements According to Lawson’s report (1906), the entire area east of Taylor Street burned down in the fire that followed the 1906 earthquake. There is no indication of pipe breaks in Schussler's report (1906), which is another indication that ground movements in the North Beach area were probably very smail. 4.1.2.2 Ground Movements Caused by 1989 Earthauake ‘During the 1989 earthquake, movements within the North Beach area were generally small except for the liquefaction and lateral movements of Pier 45, which is outside the scope of this report. However, according to Seed, et al. (1990), settlements ‘were observed along the Embarcadero roadway, but no sand boils had been observed aus7s a2 of 135