Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FIN 2022-07-25 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk ’s Office at 206-433-1800 (Tukwi laCityClerk@TukwilaWA.gov ) for assistance. City of Tukwila Finance and Governance Committee De’Sean Quinn, Chair Kate Kruller Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson Distribution: D. Quinn K. Kruller C. Delostrinos Johnson T. McLeod K. Hougardy M. Abdi T. Sharp Mayor Ekberg D. Cline R. Bianchi C. O’Flaherty A. Youn L. Humphrey AGENDA MONDAY, JULY 25, 2022 – 5:30 PM THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED BOTH ON-SITE AT TUKWILA CITY HALL AND ALSO VIRTUALLY. ON-SITE PRESENCE WILL BE IN THE DUWAMISH CONFERENCE ROOM (2ND FLOOR, 6300 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD) THE PHONE NUMBER FOR THE PU BL IC TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING IS: 1-253-292-9750, Access Code 49933731# Click here to: Join Microsoft Teams Meeting For Technical Support during the meeting call: 1 -206-433 -7 155. Item Recommended Action 1. BUSINESS AGENDA Citywide facilities overview and seismic update. David Cline, City Administrator 2. MISCELLANEOUS Discussion only. Pg.1 Next Scheduled Meeting: August 8, 2022 Fleet & Facility Services – 14000 Interurban Avenue, Tukwila, WA 98168 – 206-431-0166 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Finance and Governance Committee FROM: David Cline, City Administrator BY: Hari Ponnekanti, Public Works Director/ City Engineer Rachel Bianchi, Deputy City Administrator CC: Mayor Allan Ekberg DATE: July 22, 2022 SUBJECT: City Facilities Overview and Seismic Update for City Hall, 6300 building and TCC ISSUE The City’s adopted Strategic Plan Goal #4, High Performing Organization , includes a strategy to “Ensure City facilities are safe, efficient, and inviting to the public.” As part of this strategy the City has invested in its facilities over several decades, most recently completing the Council-adopted and community-supported Public Safety Plan. This investment included the opening of the new Justice Center, two new Fire Stations (51 and 52), and completing Phase 1 of the Public Works Conso lidated Operations Center (Fleet and Facility Building). These buildings provide safe, efficient, and inviting facilities for our first responders for the next several decades. Staff is seeking Council review, input, and recommendation on the next phase of facility planning and investments for the six-year Council Adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This memo will outline the history and current state of recent facility investments, provide an updated seismic study of three key facilities (City Hall, 6300 Building, and the Tukwila Community Center), and provide options for the next phase of facility planning. BACKGROUND Historically, the City has managed its facility investments in three main areas: 1. Facilities Maintenance – including landscaping, minor improvements, and custodial services. The city added three new buildings to the facilities without adding additional staffing to Parks or Public Works, who maintain the outside and inside of the buildings, respec tively. 2. Major Maintenance – including painting, roof and siding repairs, HVAC. In the 2021-2022 Adopted CIP this included new siding and painting of the Tukwila Community Center, painting of Fire Station 53, and a planned investment in siding and painting of City Hall 3. New Facilities – most recently planned for and budgeted through specific funding sources such as the Public Safety Bond approved by the public in 2016 and Councilmanic financing. Overview of Past Facility Planning – 2008 – 2022 In 2008, Reid Middleton conducted an in-depth seismic evaluation which was presented to City Council in September 2008. Based on the information received at that time, Council requested that staff return to the Finance & Safety Committee with a recommendation on a program that would entail all costs associated with the project including timelines and funding options. The Great Recession of 2009-2010 delayed action on this plan. However, it was picked up again in 2013 and resulted in the Essential Government Services Facilities Plan adopted by the Council in 2015, which culminated in the City’s 2016 Public Safety Plan. 1 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 2008 Seismic Study The Reid Middleton seismic evaluation revealed that 10 of 11 essential post-earthquake City facilities failed seismic evaluation for immediate occupancy. This does not make the City’s buildings or its current seismic situation an outlier from other employers or governments that have facilities of the same age. This means that these 10 facilities would not be habitable, for customers or employees, after a substantial earthquake. (Some of this was addressed during the City’s 2016 Public Safet y Plan, which added four new facilities and took three seismically deficient ones offline.) It is likely that essential services performed in these buildings would not be provided during an incident or the recovery period following a major seismic event. NOTE: The Golf/Parks Maintenance Building, Foster Clubhouse, and Fire Station 53 were not included in the 2008 Seismic Program because they were constructed under more recent seismic code. Essential Government Facilities Plan – 2013-2015 Recognizing the need for a comprehensive study and plan, in 2013 the Council approved funding and contract for a Facilities Master Plan. The City Council adopted this plan in 2015, which outlined the current conditions of the facilities, the future needs of facilities and estimated costs for implementation. In 2016, the City Council prioritized the needs of First Responders and created the Public Safety Plan , which included a Public Safety Bond approved by voters in November 2016. Since then, the City has opened a new Justice Center, two new fire stations, and completed Phase 1 of the Public Works Shops Consolidated Facility, the Fleet and Facility Building. This added four new seismically safe buildings to the City’s inventory and removed three seismically -deficient buildings from significant use. Police and Court employees are currently housed in a safe facility at the Justice Center. The City also included in that facility an emergency operations center, which is vital to recovery in an emergency. The City’s fire stations 51 & 52 are new and are built seismically safe. The new Fleet and Facility Building, through Council direction and additional funding, is built to a higher seismic standard as well . Public Works Shops Consolidated Facility – Phase 1 and Phase 2 As part of the Council adopted Public Safety Plan, the City purchased properties in 2018 for a Consolidated Public Works Maintenance and Administration facilities. The new Fleet and Facility tenant improvements, the first part of the planned multi-phase Consolidated Public works campus, were completed in June 2022. In May 2022, the Council directed staff to put forth a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a consultant to design Phase 2 of the Public Works Operations Campus (Streets and Utilities). This process will be brought back to Council in August 2022. The 2015 Facility Study envisioned a combined City Shops facility (currently Minkler and George Long Shops located in separate locations) that will improve safety and efficiency. Other partnerships with agencies have been identified to provide efficiencies and potential revenues. These partnerships include a new decant facility, which will also allow for storage and handling of vactor waste, potential new customers for Fleet services, and Police vehicle evidence storage. The sale of the Minkler and George Long Shops may be used to help offset the cost of the new facility. Additionally, it is anticipated that the City’s utility enterprise funds will pay for half of the construction associated with Phase 2. 2 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 2022 Seismic Study Update As part of the Facilities Maintenance Plan, the City contracted with Reid Middleton in early 2022 to update the seismic studies for three city facilities (City Hall, 6300 Building, and Tukwila Community Center). As part of the update Reid Middleton has also updated the cost estimates. The multi-building seismic update report indicates that City Hall, 6300 Building, and TCC are inadequate to resist design -level earthquake forces and do not meet the ASCE 41 -17 performance objectives, including the Collapse Prevention (CP) performance objective. This does not mean that the buildings are unsafe, but it indicates that upgrades are required for the buildings to perform better in an earthquake scenario. While the three buildings do not meet ASCE 41-17 performance objectives, this does not make them outliers from buildings of similar age and construction. Buildings designed prior to the current building code often include structural configurations and connections detailing that, based on post-earthquake evaluations of damaged buildings, have historically contributed to poor seismic performance in structures. Current List of City Facilities and Conditions City Hall – 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Date Constructed 1977 Total Square Feet 25,075 Current Use Mayor’s Office, Finance, Clerk’s Office, Legislative Analyst, Council Chambers, Records Center Historical Modifications or changes: None Seismic Status: Does not meet Life Safety or Collapse Prevention criteria (2022 Seismic Study Update) Known Needed Upgrades: Seismic bracing, HVAC and other Mechanical Electronical Plumbing (MEP) modifications, lighting upgrades to meet efficiency standards, ADA restrooms; reconfiguration to maximize use.* Cost Information 2022 seismic estimates to increase to Life Safety status is $4.57M and $4.46M for Collapse Prevention. Expect costs to increa se in five years to $6.1 and $6M, respectively. Prior Council Direction Council approved 2015 Facilities Needs Assessment that contemplated completely renovating City Hall by moving staff into the 6300 Building on a temporary basis, gutting, renovating an d enlarging the building. Council allocated $100K in 2022 City Hall painting and siding repairs; City staff expects that the bids will come in higher than what was budgeted. * Note: Some upgrades could trigger required additional upgrades per the State Building Code. 6300 Building – 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Date Constructed 1978 Total Square Feet 32,950 3 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 4 Current Use Community Development, Public Works Engineering, Human Resources, Community Services & Engagement, Technology & Innovation Services, Fire Marshal’s Office, Sound Cities Association (tenant). Historical Modifications or changes: Nothing structural, internal suite modifications over the years. Seismic Status: Does not meet Life Safety or Collapse Prevention criteria (2022 Seismic Study Update). Known Needed Upgrades: Seismic bracing, HVAC and other Mechanical Electronical Plumbing (MEP) modifications, roof replacement, lighting upgrades to meet efficiency standards; reconfiguration to maximize use. 2015 Facilities Needs Assessment indicated that lifecycle costs should be compared against building replacement costs – in other words, it may be more efficient to demolish and build new than renovate this specific building.* Cost Information 2022 seismic estimates to increase to Life Safety status is $3.1M and $13.6M for Collapse Prevention. Expect costs to increase in five years to $4.1 and $18.2M, respectively. Prior Council Direction Council approved 2015 Facilities Needs Assessment that contemplated demolishing the 6300 building after serving as an interim City Hall while upgrades are made to the 6200 Building. * Note: Some upgrades could trigger required additional upgrades per the State Building Code. Tukwila Community Center Date Constructed 1995 Total Square Feet 55,000 Current Use Parks and Recreation Administration, Recreation Programming and Classes, Workout and Gym, Rentals and Community Events. Designated as City’s official Emergency Shelter. Historical Modifications or changes: None Seismic Status: Does not meet Life Safety or Collapse Prevention criteria (2022 Seismic Study Update); likely in liquefaction zone due to adjacency to Duwamish River. Known Needed Upgrades: Seismic bracing, new HVAC system and other Mechanical Electronical Plumbing (MEP) modifications, exterior improvements and backup generator needed. 4 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 5 Cost Information To bring the building to seismic Immediate Occupancy level (necessary for it to be an Emergency Shelter), cost would be $13.7, with five-year escalation going to $18.7. Seismic upgrade costs would be lower if retrofitted to a Life Safety or Collapse Prevention standard, but new location for emergency shelter would need to be identified. HVAC replacement in the $3M range; current ask of $1.8M to Senator Patty Murray for a member-directed request. Prior Council Direction Council allocated $150K in 2020 for TCC siding repairs, $10K for HVAC repairs in 2021 and $140K for TCC painting and staining in 2021 as a part of the 303 fund. Minkler Shops Date Constructed 1972 Total Square Feet 4,700 sq ft workroom and storage building; 7,200 sq ft office and garage building; 8,850 sq ft covered parking structure; and 300 sq ft restroom and shower modular building. Current Use Streets, Sewer/Surface Water, Water maintenance and operations; traffic operations; material storage; sign shop; offices; vehicle washing bay Historical Modifications or changes: Renovations to former bays to turn them into offices and other cosmetic alterations; no structural improvements. Seismic Status: 2008 study found the buildings do not meet Immediate Occupancy levels. Site susceptible to liquefaction given adjacency to Green River. Unknown whether the buildings meet Life Safety or Collapse Prevention levels. Known Needed Upgrades: New facilities. Cost Information Updated costs to be developed during schematic design of next phase of consolidated shops facilities; previous cost estimates too out of date to be useful. Prior Council Direction Council approved 2015 Facilities Needs Assessment that included moving Minkler operations to the consolidated Public Works facility on land acquired in 2018 as a part of the Public Safety Plan and sell the Minkler to help finance the Public Safety Plan. Council allocated $500K for improvements to facility, including $280K for modular restroom/shower facilities that were installed in 2021. Additional near- future improvements include security fencing and lighting 5 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 6 Parks & Golf Maintenance Date Constructed 1998 Total Square Feet 8,890 Current Use Parks and golf maintenance; material and equipment storage . Historical Modifications or changes: None Seismic Status: Not included in 2008 or 2022 study, so unknown. Known Needed Upgrades: Exterior maintenance Cost Information Unknown Prior Council Direction None Fire Station 53 Date Constructed 1995 Total Square Feet 7,392 Current Use Fire Station Historical Modifications or changes: None Seismic Status: 2008 study indicated no retrofit required; updated study needed to know whether this is still accurate. Known Needed Upgrades: No known seismic upgrades needed; confirmed same in 2022 Cost Information Unknown Prior Council Direction Council allocated $50K to paint the exterior of the building this year; project complete. Fire Station 53 was not included in the Public Safety Plan. Fire Station 54 Date Constructed 1961 Total Square Feet 5,398 Current Use Fire Station Historical Modifications or changes: Remodeled and expanded on the east side in 1990. Seismic Status: 2008 study found the buildings do not meet Immediate Occupancy levels. Unknown whether the buildings meet Life Safety or Collapse Prevention levels. Known Needed Upgrades: New facility Cost Information Would need to be determined during schematic design. Prior Council Direction Council removed Fire Station 54 from the Public Safety Plan due to construction escalation associated with the overall Program. 6 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 7 Other City Owned Facilities Former Fire Station 51 Andover Park East Fire Department use ended in 2020. Currently part of the budling being used for vehicle evidence storage for the Police Department. Previous Council direction was to sell to help finance the Public Safety Plan. Former Fire Station 52 Top of Tukwila Hill Fire Department use ended in 2020. Previous Council direction was to sell to identify community input on what to do with the site. Community event was held in 2020, general community interest in having a facility there/expanding the park but understanding that the current building may cost more to retrofit than to demolish and rebuild, particularly given the architectural and structural deficiencies. Former Fire Station 52 site, park and former City Hall/Library building are all one parcel an d deed restricted for community use as the land was donated to the City by the School District in 1946. Former Allentown Fire Station 42nd Ave. S., across from river Previous Council direction was to sell to help finance the Public Safety Plan. George Long Shops Interurban Ave. Previous Council Direction was to sell to help finance the Public Safety Plan. Sale in progress Newporter Site (vacant land) TIB & 148th Previous Council Direction was to sell to help finance the Public Safety Plan. Longacres Site (vacant land) Near Train Stop/RR tracks Previous Council Direction was to sell to help finance the Public Safety Plan. Facility Planning for 2023-2024 Recognizing facility planning history and current needs, it would be helpful to create a n updated plan to help prioritize the next investments in City facilities. This could include a review of all of remaining facilities or provide a more limited scope such as a focus on key facilities like City Hall/6300. The last direction provided by City Council in the 2015 Facilities N eeds Assessment assumed that City Hall should be renovated and the 6300 building should be demolished. COVID has upended many organizations’ actual needs for facilities, and this should be taken into account as well. For example, some organizations – including neighboring local governments – have decreased the space needs for individual employees due to hybrid/remote work possibilities like shared workspaces or hoteling. Some organizations have gone completely remote and eliminated needs for facilities. Current plans o Public Works Phase 2 – planned to return to Council in August 2022 for direction on design o Teen and Senior Center – pending direction from City Council o City Hall/6300 Building – Siding/Painting planned in 2022 for City Hall o TCC – Currently seeking federal grants to upgrade HVAC systems. 7 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 8 In the past, City funding has been allocated using a variety of funding options. Most re cently, the adopted and updated Public Safety Plan included voter approved funds, councilmanic debt obligations, utility funds, sale of facilities, and other sources. Future facility plans will also need a diverse set of funding options as the General Fund alone will not be adequate to address these needs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends keeping current planning efforts on track, including moving forward with the design of Phase 2 of the Public Works Operations Campus, Streets and Utilities. Further, Staff recommends including funding for an updated facilities plan in the upcoming biennial budget to specifically focus on next steps for the City Hall Campus – City Hall and the 6300 Building – as well as necessary upgrades to the Tukwila Community Center’s HVAC and other MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing) needs. The recommended updated facilities plan would allow the City to better understand the need for space at the City Hall campus in light of the new realities of remote work. The plan would provide proposed funding, phasing and timelines that would allow the Council to make informed decisions on the next steps regarding investing in the City Hall campus and TCC. Staff estimates the proposed study to cost between $250,000 and $350,000. Staff recommends holding on additional significant investments in Fire Stations 53 and 54 – while recognizing the current state of Fire Station 54 – until the City better understands the long-term relationship with the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA). Currently the City is working to engage in a short-term contract with PSRFA with a goal of annexation within two years. If annexation is successful, the PSRFA would take over City fire stations in one capacity or another, and it makes sense for that effort to work itself out before determining next steps in investing in those two bui ldings. Staff recognizes the Council also has deep interest in the proposed Teen and Senior Center project initiated by the Council in the fall of 2019. However, this has been on hold as the City determines next steps with current budget realities and the Council was provided this overview on existing City facility obligations. Staff is hoping that the Council’s overall facilities discussion can provide some direction on whether this project should move forward at this time to Schematic Design or potenti ally hold until annexation into the PSRFA, which could provide additional opportunities for the project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Multi building Seismic upgrade Report by Reid Middleton, June 2022 (with appendices) The following documents were referenced in the memo, and can be made available upon request: • 2008 Seismic Study Tukwila Seismic Report & Appendices 8.13.08.pdf • 2015 Facilities Needs Assessment (with appendices) http://www.tukwilawa.gov/wp-content/uploads/PW-Project-FS-Facilities-Study-12-14-15-Report- DRAFT.pdf 8 CITY OF TUKWILA MULTI-BUILDING SEISMIC ASSESSMENTS UPDATE Final Submittal June 2022 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY 9 Copyright© 2022 by Reid Middleton, Inc. All rights reserved. CITY OF TUKWILA MULTI-BUILDING SEISMIC ASSESSMENTS UPDATE ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Seismic Evaluations Updates of City Hall, 6300 Building, and the Tukwila Community Center June 2022 Prepared by: Katherine R. Brawner, P.E., S.E. Associate Jennifer D. Johnson, P.E. Senior Engineer Michael L. Orloff Designer 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 File No. 262022.017 6/20/2022 10 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - i - Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SEISMIC EVALUATION CRITERIA .................................................................................. 5 2.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Seismic Hazard Levels ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Building Performance Levels and Seismic Retrofit Objectives .......................................................................... 8 2.4 Seismic Performance, Safety, Reliability, and Construction Cost ................................................................... 13 2.5 Seismic Performance of Nonstructural Components ....................................................................................... 15 2.6 Seismic Evaluation Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.7 Seismic Retrofit/Upgrades Procedure ............................................................................................................. 17 Limitations .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 3.0 SEISMIC EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 City Hall ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 6300 Building .................................................................................................................................................. 32 3.3 Tukwila Community Center ............................................................................................................................. 45 Figures Figure 2-1. Building Performance Levels. ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-2. Estimated Performance-Related Consequences at Different Structural Performance Levels. ................................... 14 Figure 2-3. Surface Matrix of ASCE 41 Building Performance Levels Compared with Construction Cost. ................................... 14 Figure 2-4. Typical Construction Costs for Different Building Components. .................................................................................. 15 Figure 2-5. Flow Chart and Description of ASCE 41-17 Seismic Evaluation Procedure. .............................................................. 16 Figure 2-6. Seismic Rehabilitation Flow Diagram. ......................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3.1-1. City Hall, Northwest Corner. ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3.1-2. City Hall, West End (looking south). ......................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3.1-3. City Hall - Existing Lateral System – Foundation & First Floor. ................................................................................ 22 Figure 3.1-4. City Hall - Existing Lateral System – Second Floor. ................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3.1-5. City Hall - Existing Lateral System – Roof. ............................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.1-6. City Hall – Foundation Retrofit Concept. .................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 3.1-7. City Hall – First Floor Retrofit Concept. .................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3.1-8. City Hall – Roof Retrofit Concept. ............................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 3.2-1. 6300 Building, West Exterior. ................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.2-2. 6300 Building, Parking Level. ................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3.2-3. 6300 Building - Existing Lateral System – Foundation. ............................................................................................ 35 Figure 3.2-4. 6300 Building - Existing Lateral System – First Floor. .............................................................................................. 36 Figure 3.2-5. 6300 Building - Existing Lateral System – Second Floor. ......................................................................................... 37 Figure 3.2-6. 6300 Building – Foundation Retrofit Concept. .......................................................................................................... 41 Figure 3.2-7. 6300 Building – First Floor Retrofit Concept. ............................................................................................................ 42 Figure 3.2-8. 6300 Building - Second Floor Retrofit Concept. ....................................................................................................... 43 Figure 3.2-9. 6300 Building - Roof Retrofit Concept. ..................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 3.3-1. Community Center, Southeast Exterior. ................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 3.3-2. Community Center, West Exterior. ........................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 3.3-3. Community Center – First Floor West Wing Existing. .............................................................................................. 48 Figure 3.3-4. Community Center – First Floor East Wing Existing. ............................................................................................... 49 11 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - ii - Figure 3.3-5. Community Center – Roof West Wing Existing. ....................................................................................................... 50 Figure 3.3-6. Community Center – Roof East Wing Existing. ........................................................................................................ 51 Figure 3.3-7. Community Center – Site Plan Retrofit Concept. ..................................................................................................... 56 Figure 3.3-8. Community Center - First Floor West Wing Retrofit Concept. .................................................................................. 57 Figure 3.3-9. Community Center - First Floor East Wing Retrofit Concept. ................................................................................... 58 Figure 3.3-10. Community Center - Roof West Wing Retrofit Concept. ........................................................................................ 59 Figure 3.3-11. Community Center - Roof East Wing Retrofit Concept. ......................................................................................... 60 Tables Table 2-1. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Levels and Mean Return Period. ...................................................................................... 7 Table 2-2. Identified Structural Performance Levels. ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2-3. Identified Nonstructural Performance Levels. ................................................................................................................. 9 Table 2-4. Specific Common Building Performance Levels. ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 2-5. Approximate Expected Damage for Different Building Performance Levels. ............................................................... 12 Table 3.1-1. Structural System Description of City Hall. ................................................................................................................ 21 Table 3.1-2. Identified Seismic Deficiencies for City Hall. .............................................................................................................. 25 Table 3.1-3. Tier 2 Analysis, Non-Compliant Item Demand-to-Capacity Ratios. ........................................................................... 26 Table 3.2-1. Structural System Description of 6300 Building. ........................................................................................................ 33 Table 3.2-2. Identified Seismic Deficiencies for 6300 Building. ..................................................................................................... 38 Table 3.2-3. Tier 2 Analysis, Non-Compliant Item Demand-to-Capacity Ratios. ........................................................................... 39 Table 3.3-1. Structural System Description of Tukwila Community Center. .................................................................................. 47 Table 3.3-2. Identified Seismic Deficiencies for Tukwila Community Center. ................................................................................ 52 Table 3.3-3. Tier 2 Analysis, Wood Shear Wall Demand-to-Capacity Ratios. ............................................................................... 53 Table 3.3-4. Tier 2 Analysis, CMU Shear Wall Demand-to-Capacity Ratios. ................................................................................ 53 Appendix Appendix A – Seismic Screening Checklists and Calculations Appendix B – Cost Estimates 12 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 3 - 1.0 Executive Summary In 2008, Reid Middleton completed a seismic assessment of several City of Tukwila buildings. These evaluations were completed using ASCE 41-06 Tier 1, 2, and 3 procedures. For this report, the City of Tukwila desired an update to the study previously prepared by Reid Middleton, Inc., and submitted by Rice Fergus Miller Architecture & Planning PLLC, titled “City of Tukwila Architectural Assessment for Seismic Program,” dated July 25, 2008. This assessment consists of updating the seismic study and concepts for Tukwila City Hall, the 6300 Building, and the Tukwila Community Center. This report provides the results of a Tier 1 and Tier 2 deficiency-based seismic evaluation, conducted in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Standard 41-17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE 41-17), and preliminary recommendations for the seismic upgrades required for the three buildings to meet the designated performance level. A Tier 3 evaluation was not completed for this update. Reid Middleton used information from the field investigation and building record drawings to update the seismic evaluations of the three buildings to the current code, ASCE 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. The three buildings were previously evaluated to the Immediate Occupancy (IO) performance level. For the seismic update, City Hall and the 6300 Building have been revised to the Life Safety (LS) performance level, as they do not house emergency services and are not required to be operational after a seismic event. The Tukwila Community Center evaluation remained at the IO objective level, since it is an emergency shelter for the city. The results of the seismic evaluation indicate that all three buildings are inadequate to resist design-level earthquake forces and do not meet the ASCE 41-17 performance objectives, including the Collapse Prevention (CP) performance objective. This does not mean that the buildings are unsafe, but it indicates that upgrades are required for the buildings to perform better in an earthquake scenario. Buildings that do not meet the CP performance level do not meet modern seismic code requirements for typical buildings. Buildings are evaluated for very large earthquakes that occur infrequently but are still possible. The chance of this large earthquake occurring in a given year is approximately 0.1%, meaning that it is 999 times as likely not to happen as it is to happen. The building is at an elevated risk of damage in a large earthquake, but the chances of a large earthquake occurring in a given year are relatively small. While the 6300 Building, City Hall, and the Community Center do not meet ASCE 41-17 performance objectives, this does not make them outliers from buildings of similar age and construction. Buildings designed prior to the current building code often include structural configurations and connections detailing that, based on post-earthquake evaluations of damaged buildings, have historically contributed to poor seismic performance in structures. Additionally, recent research and studies of regional seismicity have shown that the expected seismic ground motions are higher than was expected in the past. Higher ground motions, structural configurations, and poor connection detailing may result in seismic evaluation deficiencies among buildings constructed to previous building code requirements. 13 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 4 - This report includes a description of each building, the identified seismic deficiencies, seismic upgrade concept designs, and recommendations for upgrades. All three buildings were found to have seismic deficiencies, and none of the buildings meet the required performance objective. Concept-level seismic upgrade designs were completed for the three facilities, and concept plans are provided describing options for mitigation of seismic deficiencies. Recommendations consist of strengthening and supplementing the existing lateral systems, improving lateral load paths, and improving connections. An opinion of probable construction costs for the recommended structural upgrades is provided for each building. 14 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 5 - 2.0 Introduction and Seismic Evaluation Criteria The seismic evaluations for the City of Tukwila buildings are based on the performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) guidelines presented in ASCE 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017). This section includes a general background of PBEE and an overview of seismic retrofit objectives, seismic hazard levels, seismic performance levels, and seismic evaluation and retrofit procedures. The seismic evaluations do not consider compliance with the seismic requirements of the current building code for new construction. Buildings designed prior to the current building code often include structural configurations and connections detailing that have historically contributed to poor seismic performance in structures, based on post-earthquake evaluations of damaged buildings. Additionally, recent research and studies of regional seismicity have shown that the expected seismic ground motions are higher than was expected in the past. Higher ground motions, structural configurations, and poor connection detailing may result in seismic evaluation deficiencies among buildings constructed to previous building code requirements. Buildings designed to older building code standards are evaluated using evaluation and design guidelines specifically developed for existing structures by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The structural findings and recommendations presented in this report are based on visual observations of the buildings and a review of the record drawings. The available record documents do not contain all of the information necessary to confirm the structural configuration of some portions of the buildings, which is typical for older structures. Reid Middleton participated in a walk-through of City Hall, the 6300 Building, and the Tukwila Community Center on March 10, 2022. Visual observations of existing conditions were performed, which did not include destructive or nondestructive testing to confirm or supplement information shown in the record drawings. The seismic evaluation of the buildings is based on the PBEE guidelines presented in ASCE 41-17. The ASCE 41 Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations of the buildings were completed using the Life Safety (LS) or Immediate Occupancy (IO) performance objective, depending on the building use. Buildings that meet the IO performance objective will have similar seismic performance to new buildings that are designed as essential facilities, while buildings that meet the LS performance objective will require repairs after a design-level seismic event. 2.1 Background ASCE 41-17 employs a Performance-Based Design methodology that allows building owners, design professionals, and the local building authorities to establish seismic hazard levels and performance goals for individual buildings. PBEE is the engineering of a structure to resist earthquake demands while also meeting the needs and objectives of building owners and other stakeholders. PBEE allows for the design and analysis of structures for different levels of 15 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 6 - seismic performance and allows the levels of seismic performance to be related to the relative seismic hazard. Seismic analysis and design of structures traditionally focused on one performance level – reducing the risk to loss of life in a design earthquake. The concept of designing essential facilities, which are needed immediately after an earthquake, to a higher performance standard evolved after hospitals and other critical facilities were damaged in the 1971 San Fernando, California, earthquake. That concept is balanced by the recognition that the cost of retrofitting existing buildings to higher levels of seismic performance may be onerous to both stakeholders and policy makers. A comprehensive program was started in 1991, in cooperation with FEMA, to develop guidelines tailored to address this variation of performance levels. The first formal applications of performance-based evaluation and design guidelines were FEMA 310 Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings – A Prestandard (1998) and FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (1997). After the release of these documents in the 1990s, three additional documents were released in the following years. Another prestandard document, FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, was released in the year 2000. Then, the first national standard seismic evaluation document, ASCE 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, was released in the year 2003. Following the release of ASCE 31-03, the first national standard seismic rehabilitation document, ASCE 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, was released in the year 2007. ASCE 31-03 and ASCE 41-06 superseded the PBEE documents produced in the previous decade. ASCE 31-03 and ASCE 41-06 used the general framework outlined by previous documents but were updated to incorporate the latest standard of PBEE for the time. ASCE 31-03 and ASCE 41-06 still had flaws, and soon after the release of ASCE 41-13, there was an effort undertaken to combine ASCE 31-03 and ASCE 41-06 into a single national standard in an attempt to streamline the documents and eliminate discrepancies. The newest PBEE document, ASCE 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, combines information from all of the previous documents, reflects advancements in technology and analysis techniques, and incorporates case studies and lessons learned from recent earthquakes. ASCE 41-17 provides criteria by which existing structures can be seismically evaluated and retrofitted to attain a wide range of different performance levels when subjected to earthquakes of varying severity. 2.2 Seismic Hazard Levels Earthquake ground motions are variable and complicated, and every earthquake is different. In addition, an earthquake’s intensity and energy magnitude depend on fault type, fault movement, depth to epicenter, and soil strata. In earthquake-prone areas, often very small and frequent earthquakes occur every few days or weeks without being noticed by humans, but large earthquakes that occur much less frequently can have a devastating effect on infrastructure and can result in the temporary displacement of a large number of people. Earthquakes are also unpredictable, and the precise location, intensity, and start time of an earthquake cannot be 16 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 7 - predicted before an event occurs. However, earthquake hazards for certain geographic areas are well understood based on historical patterns of earthquakes from the geologic record, measured earthquake ground motions, understanding of plate tectonics, and seismological studies. Geologists, seismologists, and geotechnical engineers have categorized the seismic hazard for particular locations using probabilistic seismic hazard levels. Each seismic hazard level describes a different probabilistic earthquake magnitude based on the probability of a certain magnitude earthquake occurring in a given time period. Table 2-1 shows commonly used seismic hazard levels, their corresponding probabilities of exceedance, and mean return periods. Table 2-1. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Levels and Mean Return Period. Seismic Hazard Level Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Mean Return Period (Years) 50%/50-year 50% 72 20%/50-year (BSE-1E) 20% 225 10%/50-year 10% 475 5%/50-year (BSE-2E) 5% 975 2%/50-year 2% 2,475 Seismic events with longer mean return periods and smaller probabilities of exceedance are seismic events that are associated with stronger seismic motions, larger ground accelerations, and more potential to damage facilities. Consequently, structures designed or retrofit to a seismic hazard level with a longer return period will generally experience better performance in an earthquake than a structure designed or retrofit to a lower seismic hazard level. ASCE 41-17 codifies four different Seismic Hazard Levels at which to evaluate or retrofit structures. For voluntary seismic evaluations and voluntary seismic upgrades, the owner of a structure and the structural engineer can decide the Seismic Hazard Level at which it is appropriate to evaluate or retrofit a structure. The codified Seismic Hazard Levels are grouped into two categories: two Seismic Hazard Levels (BSE-1E and BSE-2E) associated with the Basic Performance Objectives for Existing Buildings (BPOE), and two Seismic Hazard Levels (BSE-1N and BSE-2N) associated with the Basic Performance Objectives Equivalent to New Building Standards (BPON). Please note that the ASCE 41-17 defined Seismic Hazard Levels for existing buildings are shown in Table 2-1, along with their respective probabilities of exceedance and mean return period; however, the BSE-1N and BSE-2N Seismic Hazard Levels are not shown in Table 2-1 because they cannot be directly related to a probability of exceedance or mean return period. Instead, the BSE-2N Seismic Hazard Level is determined by a target risk of 1% chance of structural collapse in 50 years, and the BSE-1N is taken as two-thirds of the BSE-2N. The 1% risk of collapse does not correspond to actual expected collapse rates1, but it is a theoretical risk target used to compare various regions across the United States with different seismic hazards. Structures designed for heightened performance objectives (Immediate Occupancy, Damage Control) will 1 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-1050 (2015) “NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures.” 17 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 8 - have a lower risk of collapse. Historically (and in previous standards), the BSE-2N Seismic Hazard Level was taken as the 2%/50-year earthquake, and the BSE-1N was taken as the 10%/50-year earthquake. Historically, existing buildings have been seismically evaluated and retrofitted to a lower Seismic Hazard Level than would be typical in new building design. This approach has been historically justified for three primary reasons: 1. It ensures recently constructed structures are not immediately rendered seismically deficient due to minor building code changes. 2. Existing buildings often have a shorter remaining life than a new building would; therefore, lower structural resiliency is tempered by a decreased probability of a major seismic event. 3. Often the burdensome cost of retrofitting historic structures to a “new building equivalence” performance level is disproportionate to the incremental benefit. 2.3 Building Performance Levels and Seismic Retrofit Objectives A target building performance level must be selected for the design or retrofit of a structure. The target performance levels are discrete damage states selected from among the infinite spectrum of possible damage states that a building could experience during an earthquake. The terminology used for target building performance levels is intended to represent goals for design but not necessarily predict building performance during an earthquake. Since actual ground motions during an earthquake are seldom comparable to those used for design, the target building performance level may only determine relative performance during most events but not predict the actual level of damage following an event. Even given a ground motion similar to that used in design, variations from stated performance objectives should be expected. Variations in actual performance could be associated with differences in the level of workmanship, variations in actual material strengths, deterioration of materials, unknown geometry and sizes of existing members, differences in assumed and actual live loads in the building at the time of the earthquake, influence of nonstructural components, and variations in response of soils beneath the building. ASCE 41-17 describes performance levels for structural components and nonstructural components of a structure. Historically, much attention was provided to the seismic performance of structural components. However, in recent years, it has been realized that attention to the seismic performance of nonstructural components can be just as important as or more important than the seismic performance of structural components. The ASCE 41-17 identified Structural Performance Levels are shown in Table 2-2, and the ASCE 41-17 identified Nonstructural Performance Levels are shown in Table 2-3. 18 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 9 - Table 2-2. Identified Structural Performance Levels. Performance Level Abbreviation Performance Level Name S-1 Immediate Occupancy S-2 Damage Control S-3 Life Safety S-4 Limited Safety S-5 Collapse Prevention S-6 Structural Performance Not Considered Table 2-3. Identified Nonstructural Performance Levels. Performance Level Abbreviation Performance Level Name N-A Operational N-B Position Retention N-C Life Safety N-D Hazards Reduced N-E Nonstructural Performance Not Considered Individual Structural Performance Levels and Nonstructural Performance Levels can be aggregated to form a combined Building Performance Level. Structural performance during an earthquake is related to the amount of lateral deformation or drift of the structure and the capacity or ability of the structure to deform. Any Structural Performance Level can be combined with any Nonstructural Performance Level, although it is not recommended to combine high levels of structural performance with low levels of nonstructural performance and vise-versa. Theoretically, there are 23 different Building Performance Levels that are combinations of different Structural Performance Levels and Nonstructural Performance Levels. However, ASCE 41-17 recommends that only 15 Building Performance Levels be used in practice due to their recommendation of avoiding mismatching high and low levels of nonstructural and structural performance. ASCE 41-17 defines four specific common Building Performance Levels, as shown in Table 2-4. Figure 2-1 shows a visual representation of these common Building Performance Levels plotted against lateral deformation. Table 2-4. Specific Common Building Performance Levels. Performance Level Abbreviation Performance Level Name Structural & Nonstructural Performance Level Combination 1-A Operational S-1 & N-A 1-B Immediate Occupancy S-1 & N-B 3-C Life Safety S-3 & N-C 5-D Collapse Prevention S-5 & N-D 19 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 10 - Figure 2-1. Building Performance Levels. A decision must be made for each structure as to the acceptable behavior for different levels of seismic hazard, balanced with the construction cost of retrofitting a structure to obtain that behavior. ASCE 41-17 defines “baseline” basic performance objectives for structures based on their defined Risk Category. The Risk Category is the same that is defined in the International Building Code and ASCE 7. For example, for a Risk Category II structure retrofitted to the BPON standards, the structure would need to be retrofitted for the 3-B Building Performance Level at the BSE-1N Seismic Hazard Level and the 5-D Building Performance Level at the BSE-2N Seismic Hazard Level. ASCE 41-17 allows for higher (enhanced) or lower (limited) objectives to be selected based on the essential nature of the facility, the expected remaining life of the building, and the associated cost and feasibility. For example, it may not be economically feasible to retrofit historic structures to the BPON standards, and ASCE 41 allows for selection of a limited objective for such situations. A building meeting the Immediate Occupancy performance level may sustain very minor damage but remains safe to occupy and retains its pre-earthquake strength and stiffness. Nonstructural components may sustain damage but are still securely anchored to the building structure to prevent falling or breaking of utility connections. Building access and life safety equipment, such as doors, stairways, elevators, emergency lighting, and fire suppression systems, remain operational. A building meeting the Life Safety performance level may sustain damage while still protecting occupants from life-threatening injuries and allowing occupants to exit the building. Structural and nonstructural components may be extensively damaged, but some margin against the onset of partial or total collapse remains. Injuries to occupants or persons in the immediate vicinity 20 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 11 - may occur during an earthquake; however, the overall risk of life-threatening injuries as a result of structural damage is anticipated to be low. Repairs may be required before reoccupying the building, and in some cases, repairs may be economically unfeasible. A building meeting the Collapse Prevention performance level is expected to sustain significant structural and nonstructural damage. This is the lowest performance level considered for building structures. At the Collapse Prevention level, the risk of injury to occupants is moderate and the structure is not likely repairable after an earthquake. Table 2-5 summarizes the approximate levels of structural and nonstructural damage that may be expected at the damage states that define the structural performance levels. 21 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 12 - Table 2-5. Approximate Expected Damage for Different Building Performance Levels2. Building Performance Levels Collapse Prevention Life Safety Immediate Occupancy Operational Overall Damage Severe Moderate Light Very Light Permanent Drift Large. 1% to 5%. Some. 0.3% to 1%. Negligible. Same as Immediate Occupancy. Remaining Strength and Stiffness after Earthquake Little. Gravity system (columns and walls) functions, but building is near collapse. Some. Gravity system functions, but building may be beyond economical repair. Significant strength remaining. Minor cracking of structural elements. Same as Immediate Occupancy. Examples of Damage to Reinforced Masonry Buildings Extensive cracking and crushing. Damage around openings at corners. Some fallen units. Transient drift to cause extensive nonstructural damage. Extensive permanent drift. Major cracking distributed throughout wall. Some isolated crushing. Transient drift to cause nonstructural damage. Noticeable permanent drift. Minor cracking. No out-of-plane offsets. Transient drift that causes minor or no nonstructural damage. Negligible permanent drift. Same as Immediate Occupancy. Examples of Damage to Steel Framing Extensive yielding and buckling of steel bracing members. Significant connection failures. Many braces and beams yield or buckle but do not fail totally. Moderate amount of connection failures. Minor deformation of steel members, no connection failures. Same as Immediate Occupancy. Other General Description Structure likely not repairable and not safe for reoccupancy due to potential collapse in aftershock. Repair may be possible, but may not be economically feasible. Repairs may be required prior to reoccupancy. Minor repairs may be required, but building is safe to occupy. Same as Immediate Occupancy. Nonstructural Components Extensive damage. Some exits blocked. Infills and unbraced parapets failed or at incipient failure. Falling hazards mitigated, but many architectural, mechanical, and electrical systems are damaged. Minor cracking of facades, partitions, and ceilings. Equipment and contents are generally secure, but may not operate due to lack of utilities. Negligible damage. All systems important to normal operation are functional. Power and other utilities are available, possibly from standby sources. Comparison with New Building Design Significantly more damage and greater risk. Somewhat more damage and slightly higher risk. Much less damage and lower risk. Much less damage and lower risk. 2 Adapted from American Society of Civil Engineers, “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., November 2000. 22 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 13 - 2.4 Seismic Performance, Safety, Reliability, and Construction Cost The seismic performance, safety, and reliability of a facility must be weighed against the relative importance and construction costs associated with a facility. It is impractical for the average building to be seismically designed or retrofitted to experience no damage following a major earthquake. However, steps can be taken to mitigate seismic hazards for new and existing structures. Some facilities have more community importance or pose special risks to a community following an earthquake, such as hospitals, fire stations, community shelters, or facilities housing highly toxic substances. It is reasonable that important facilities be designed or retrofitted to a higher performance standard than the average structure. The relative importance of a facility must be weighed against the relative construction costs associated with facility construction. There are two types of construction costs associated with seismic hazards: the cost of initial construction or seismic retrofit construction and the costs to repair or replace a facility following an earthquake. The better a structure performs during an earthquake, the faster a structure can be returned to service and the lower the repair costs will be for a structure following an earthquake. So, building expected damage states during a seismic event can be directly linked to: Repair/Replacement Costs – Cost of restoring the facility to pre-earthquake condition. Public Safety – Number of critical injuries and casualties to building occupants. Downtime – Length of time taken to make repairs to return a structure to service. Figure 2-2 shows estimated performance-related consequences compared with different increasing post-earthquake structural damage states (which correspond to the design Structural Performance Levels for a given seismic hazard). 23 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 14 - Figure 2-2. Estimated Performance-Related Consequences at Different Structural Performance Levels3. Figure 2-3 presents the schematic relationship between different retrofit building performance objectives and probable retrofit program cost. Figure 2-3. Surface Matrix of ASCE 41 Building Performance Levels Compared with Construction Cost4. 3 J. Moehle, “A Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering,” Proceedings from ATC 15-9, 10th US-Japan Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Design and Construction Practices, Applied Technology Council, Makena, Hawaii, 2003. 4 Adapted from Applied Technology Council, “NEHRP Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” FEMA-274, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1997. 24 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 15 - 2.5 Seismic Performance of Nonstructural Components Mitigation of nonstructural seismic hazards is a complex issue that is addressed independently in the evaluation and retrofit guidelines. For much of the 20th Century, little attention was given to designing nonstructural components and their anchorage for forces induced by earthquakes. Nonstructural component damage witnessed during earthquakes in recent years has demonstrated the importance of nonstructural component performance during earthquakes for life safety and post-earthquake safety and building function. In addition to the life safety hazards posed by nonstructural components, the cost to repair nonstructural components following an earthquake can be high. In many cases, the cost to repair or replace nonstructural components can be higher than the cost of repairing structural components following an earthquake. The relative monetary importance of nonstructural components can be seen in Figure 2-4, comparing the relative construction costs of the contents, nonstructural components, and the structural components of three types of typical new buildings. In offices and hotels, the building nonstructural components cost the most to construct, by a significant margin. In hospitals, the costs of constructing the building contents and nonstructural components are similar, but still far exceed the cost of the building structural systems. Figure 2-4. Typical Construction Costs for Different Building Components.5 Many nonstructural components, if adequately secured to the structure, are seismically rugged. However, mitigation of some nonstructural hazards (such as bracing for mechanical and 5 Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage – A Practical Guide," FEMA E-74, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., December 2012. 25 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 16 - electrical components within suspended ceiling systems or the improvement of ceiling systems themselves) can result in extensive disruption of occupancy. Repairing or replacing these components following an earthquake can also be very costly. These costs and benefits need to be taken into consideration when determining desired nonstructural performance levels and the goals of any seismic evaluation or retrofit. Finally, the use of the structure and the required level of building performance needs to be taken into consideration. For example, essential facilities that are expected to have minimal structural damage following the design earthquake must have nonstructural components that are designed to match the seismic performance level of the facility. 2.6 Seismic Evaluation Procedure ASCE 41-17 provides a three-tiered evaluation procedure using performance-based criteria. The process for seismic evaluation is depicted in Figure 2-5. The evaluation process consists of the following three tiers: Screening Phase (Tier 1), Evaluation Phase (Tier 2), and Detailed Evaluation Phase (Tier 3). A summary of each phase follows. Figure 2-5. Flow Chart and Description of ASCE 41-17 Seismic Evaluation Procedure. 26 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 17 - The Tier 1 checklists in ASCE 41-17 are specific to each common building type and contain seismic evaluation statements based on observed structural damage in past earthquakes. These checklists screen for potential seismic deficiencies by examining the lateral-force-resisting systems (LFRS) and details of construction that have historically caused poor seismic performance in similar buildings. Tier 1 screenings include basic “Quick Check” analyses for primary components of the lateral system. They also include prescriptive checks for proper seismic detailing of connections, diaphragm spans and continuity, and overall system configuration. Tier 2 evaluations then follow with additional calculations and assessments to either confirm the potential deficiencies identified in the Tier 1 review or demonstrate their adequacy. A Tier 3 evaluation involves an even more detailed analysis and advanced computations to review each structural component’s seismic demand and capacity. A Tier 3 evaluation is similar in scope and complexity to the types of analyses often required to design a new building in accordance with the IBC, with a comprehensive analysis aimed at evaluating each component’s seismic performance. As indicated in the Scope of Services, these evaluations include a Tier 1 and 2 screening. 2.7 Seismic Retrofit/Upgrades Procedure If seismic deficiencies are identified in the evaluation process, the owner and design team should review all initial conditions before proceeding with the hazard mitigation. Many conditions may affect the retrofit design significantly, such as results of the seismic evaluation and seismic hazard study, building use and occupancy requirements, presence of hazardous materials, and other anticipated building remodeling. The basic process for performance-based retrofit design is illustrated in Figure 2-6. 27 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 18 - Figure 2-6. Seismic Rehabilitation Flow Diagram. Following the review of initial conditions, concept designs may be performed in order to develop rough opinions of probable construction costs for one or more performance objectives. The owner and design team can then develop a rehabilitation strategy considering the associated costs and feasibility. Schematic and final design can then proceed through an iterative process until verification of acceptable building performance is obtained. LIMITATIONS The professional services described in this report were performed based on available as-built information and limited observation of the structure. No destructive testing was performed to qualify as-built conditions or verify the quality of materials and workmanship. No other warranty is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report provides an overview of the seismic evaluation results and proposed upgrades and does not address programming and planning issues. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The City of Tukwila. It is not intended for use by other parties, nor may it contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or their uses. This report does not address any portion of the structure other than those areas mentioned, nor does it provide any warranty, either expressed or implied, for any portion of the existing structure. 28 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 19 - 3.0 Seismic Evaluation 3.1 City Hall 3.1.1 Building Description Year Built: 1977 Number of Stories: 2 Floor Area: 27,000 SF The City Hall is a two-story, concrete- and wood-framed structure located in the central area of Tukwila. The building is approximately 195 feet by 128 feet in plan, 37 feet tall, and has an L-shaped footprint with distinctive saw-tooth wall lines on the southeastern elevations of the structure. The main roof is stepped in 24-foot-wide sections that align with the saw-tooth wall lines and slope monolithically from northwest to southeast. The upper story is wood-framed construction with structural-panel walls and long-span timber roof trusses. The lower story construction consists of concrete walls and columns, steel posts, and wood-framed walls supporting the level above. The building is located on a site that slopes downhill from north to south. The first story is below grade on the north side and portions of the east and west sides. A partial basement level is located below the first story in the southwest corner. 29 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 20 - Figure 3.1-1. City Hall, Northwest Corner. Figure 3.1-2. City Hall, West End (looking south). 3.1.2 Structural System The City Hall building houses administrative departments. The partial basement level is vacant and used for storage. The building’s gravity and lateral systems are summarized in Table 3.1-1 and shown graphically in Figures 3.1-3 through 3.1-5. 30 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 21 - Table 3.1-1. Structural System Description of City Hall. Structural System Description Roof Glulam beams support plywood sheathing on 2x wood roof joists. Long-span timber trusses and wood stud walls support the roof framing. Floor Tongue-and-groove plywood sheathing with 1½-inch concrete topping over wood joists supported by a combination of glulam beams, concrete walls, wood stud walls, and steel wide-flange beams. Foundations Concrete walls on continuous concrete footings. Concrete retaining walls are present at the first story along the north and west sides of the building. Steel posts and concrete columns bear on concrete spread footings. First-floor construction is a 3½-inch concrete slab-on-grade lightly reinforced with 6x6 welded-wire fabric, except at the south corner of the building, which is a wood floor system similar to the second floor. A partial basement level is located in the south corner below the first floor; construction consists of concrete walls and slab-on-grade. Gravity System The second story generally consists of roof framing spanning to the exterior walls via wood trusses. Roof diaphragm and trusses are supported by wood stud walls on concrete foundation walls and glulam beams in the second-floor framing. The second floor is supported on perimeter and interior concrete walls, wood stud walls, steel posts, and concrete posts on concrete spread and continuous foundations. Lateral, 2nd Story Wood structural-panel shear walls resist lateral loads at the second story. The distribution of the shear walls is non-symmetrical and unbalanced. The building has a single 34-foot-long shear wall parallel to each orthogonal building dimension in the northwest corner of the building. Additional 18-foot-long shear walls are located between and oriented with the sloped sections of the stepped main roof. Lateral, 1st Story Reinforced concrete shear walls resist the lateral loads at the first story. The concrete shear walls are primarily oriented in the orthogonal building directions, with some walls, mostly at the south end of the building, oriented at a 45-degree angle to the principal building directions. 3.1.2.1 ASCE 41 Classified Building Type Use of ASCE 41 for seismic evaluations requires buildings to be classified from a group of common building types historically defined in previous seismic evaluation standards (ATC-14, FEMA 310, and ASCE 31-03). The building is classified in ASCE 41, Table 3-1, as two building types: a Wood Light Frame structure, W2, and a Concrete Shear Wall Building with Flexible Diaphragms, C2a. These building types include those buildings that have bearing walls constructed of reinforced concrete and wood, with elevated floor and roof framing structural systems consisting of wood or other flexible diaphragms. 31 32 LEGEND Concrete Shear Wall Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.1-3 N City Hall — Existing Lateral System - Foundation & First Floor City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 3 3 LEGEND Wood Shear Wall Wood Diaphragm Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.1-4 N City Hall — Existing Lateral System - Second Floor City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 3 4 LEGEND STEP IN ROOF: Windows Extending From Roof Eave to Main Roof Diaphragm STEP IN ROOF: Existing Wood Paneling Extending from Roof Eave to Main Roof Diaphragm Wood Diaphragm Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.1-5 N City Hall — Existing Lateral System - Roof City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 3 5 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 25 - 3.1.3 Seismic Evaluation and Findings 3.1.3.1 Seismic Deficiencies This section of the report describes the results of the ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 and Tier 2 deficiency-based evaluations. Deficiencies identified by the Tier 1 checklist are further evaluated by the Tier 2 evaluation procedure, and preliminary structural upgrade recommendations are provided. Based on the results of the Tier 1 checklist and Tier 2 analysis, the City Hall Building in its current condition does not meet the Life Safety and Collapse Prevention performance objectives for the design-level earthquake. This is not unusual for buildings of similar construction type and vintage. However, the building is in good condition overall. Table 3.1-2 summarizes the seismic deficiencies in the structural systems identified by the Tier 1 Structural Checklist. The full Tier 1 screening checklists and supporting calculations are provided in Appendix A. Table 3.1-2. Identified Seismic Deficiencies for City Hall. Deficiency Description Vertical Irregularities The LFRS is largely non-symmetrical between Grids E and I. The building lacks walls between Grids G and I, causing a vertically discontinuous load path between the second-story LFRS walls and the foundation. Geometry The second-story LFRS does not include a complete orthogonal shear wall system in both principal directions. The northern portion of the building between Grids 9 and 27 lacks shear walls oriented in the north-south direction. The western portion of the building between Grids G and Q lacks shear walls oriented in the east-west direction. Lateral forces are primarily resisted in both cases by the diagonal walls. The resistance of lateral loading by the diagonal walls results in amplified forces. Walls Connected Through Floors The building lacks adequate seismic straps between the wood framing in the second-story floor diaphragm. The wood framing acts as seismic drag struts to transfer lateral forces from the diaphragm to the first-story concrete shear walls. Concrete Walls Shear Stress Check The shear stress calculated using all concrete shear walls exceeds the 100-psi quick check value. Slope Failure The building is located on a sloped site. Earthquake induced slope failures could cause instabilities in the building foundation, which would cause structural failures across the entire building. Ties Between Foundation Elements Foundation consists of isolated spread footings with no ties between them. Site soils are unknown but are typically identified as Site Class D soils, which do not meet performance objective requirements. Wall Anchorage The concrete shear walls have a wood ledger anchored on top of the wall, but the building lacks adequate connections from the diaphragm above to provide out-of-plane-support. Transfer to Shear Walls The building lacks adequate connections to transfer lateral forces between the second-story floor diaphragm and the first-story concrete shear walls. 36 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 26 - The Tier 1 checklist is used to identify common deficiencies for a given building framing type. However, the checklist is only a rough evaluation technique, and a more-in-depth Tier 2 analysis is required to confirm if deficiencies require structural upgrades. Detailed information on the Tier 2 analysis and calculations is provided in Appendix A. 3.1.3.2 Demand-Capacity Ratios Table 3.1-3 summarizes the results of the Tier 2 analysis in terms of Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCRs). The DCR is determined by the load on the structural member divided by the member capacity. A DCR value greater than 1.0 indicates that the member is inadequate. The maximum DCR is an envelope value considering all the shear wall segments within a shear wall at that given level. The maximum DCR is provided for both evaluation criteria: BSE-1E LS and BSE-2E CP. Appendix A provides a breakdown of the results for each evaluation criteria. Table 3.1-3. Tier 2 Analysis, Non-Compliant Item Demand-to-Capacity Ratios. Component BSE-2E, LS Max DCR BSE-2E, CP Max DCR Concrete Shear Walls 0.343 0.971 Legend: DCR Less Than 1.0, Adequate DCR Greater Than 1.0, Inadequate Based on the results shown in Table 3.1-3, components of the lateral system have adequate DCRs. However, due to the deficiencies associated with a lack of connection and complete load path, the City Hall Building does not meet the Life Safety performance objective. This analysis also confirms that the City Hall Building does not meet the Collapse Prevention performance objective. 3.1.3.3 Recommendations The City Hall has multiple structural deficiencies in the LFRS, primarily associated with incomplete load paths. Diaphragm anchors to concrete shear walls are inadequate for the LS and CP performance levels. The building is susceptible to unacceptable levels of damage and poor performance of the LFRS during a design-level earthquake. Poor performance of the building increases the risk to the building’s occupants and limits the building’s ability to remain operational following a seismic event. However, the structural condition of the building is generally satisfactory and is adequate to facilitate functions performed in the building. The building includes an adequate gravity system, and portions of the LFRS satisfy the target seismic performance criteria. Most deficiencies identified in the Tier 2 evaluation may be mitigated by strengthening and adding additional elements to the existing LFRS and providing positive connections between elements of the LFRS to complete seismic load paths. Consequently, a structural retrofit is recommended to address structural deficiencies and improve the seismic performance of the City Hall to achieve the desired performance levels and post-earthquake operational objectives. 37 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 27 - 3.1.3.4 Structural Retrofit Concept Design Figures 3.1-6 through 3.1-8 display schematic-level retrofit concepts to improve the LFRS and meet the LS performance objective. This concept-level seismic upgrade discussion represents just one of several alternative seismic upgrade design solutions and is based on preliminary seismic evaluation and analysis results. Final analysis and design for seismic upgrades must include an architectural layout, defined occupancy class, and consideration for upgraded mechanical and electrical systems. The retrofit approach at the second story involves strengthening existing wood shear walls by adding structural panels and improving nailing to increase wall capacities. New shear walls are also needed to increase the overall capacity and improve the symmetry of the LFRS. Hold-downs should be installed to provide resistance to wall overturning forces. Steel bracing or other similar elements are recommended on the north and west walls to transfer forces from the high roof to the low roof and shear walls. The vertical elements and foundations at the first story below the diagonal shear walls may require retrofit. Strengthening the posts and columns may be necessary to resist overturning forces from the shear walls above. Steel braces should be installed below the second floor along the saw-tooth wall lines to support overturning loads from the discontinuous shear walls at the second story. Foundation modifications involve expanding the spread footings to reduce bearing pressures and resist uplift forces. The first-story LFRS retrofits include adding new wood shear walls in the northeast direction at the northwest corner of the building and modifying the north-south shear walls along Grid B to improve the load-resisting capacity of the system. Modifications to the foundation systems may be required for both the new and existing walls. Seismic straps should be installed between the second-floor wood framing members acting as seismic collectors to transfer loads to the shear walls. Connections between the wood framing and shear walls must also be improved using post-installed anchorages or other techniques. The addition of seismic straps and framing-to-wall connections is required for both new and existing walls. A reduced structural retrofit can be performed to meet the lower CP performance objective. However, since the majority of the deficiencies associated with the building are a lack of connections and complete load path, most upgrade requirements in the LS performance objective schematic-level retrofit concepts are still required. Reduced retrofit concepts include reductions to the amount of new wood shear walls at the first floor and reduction of bracing and wall upgrades at the partial basement level, directly below the first-floor walls. 3.1.3.5 Probable Construction Costs and Other Considerations The probable construction cost to perform the recommended structural seismic upgrades to meet the Life Safety and Collapse Prevention performance objectives is $4.57M and $4.46M, respectively. The estimates provided in Appendix B include an escalation table showing escalation for 1 year, 2 years, and out to 5 years. The costs include labor, materials, equipment, and general contractor general conditions (mobilization), overhead, and profit. Additional geotechnical study and evaluation of the building subgrade are excluded from the construction 38 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 28 - probable cost estimates. The estimates assume the building is unoccupied and phasing is not required. These estimates are based on the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection (M/E/P/FP) systems being modified to accommodate seismic work, but M/E/P/FP systems are not upgraded to the latest building codes for these systems. According to the International Existing Building Code (IEBC), a voluntary seismic upgrade is considered a Level 2 alteration. A Level 2 alteration does not require upgrades to all building components. However, a Level 3 alteration, which requires the building to be brought up to full compliance with current codes, can be triggered if the work area exceeds 50 percent of the total floor area. To avoid placing the voluntary seismic upgrade work into a Level 3 alteration, care would need to be taken to define the work area to only the actual floor areas occupied by the upgraded components. It is recommended that operational limitations, historical or architectural factors, nonstructural components, and key systems in the building also be evaluated for their useful life or use issues. These include but are not limited to accessibility, emergency power, fire alarm and sprinklers, energy-efficient lighting, energy-efficient plumbing fixtures, HVAC modifications, exterior soffits/siding/windows, foundation drainage, intercom/paging/security cameras, and interior finishes/systems furniture. 39 LEGEND New Wood Shear Walls & Footings For Continuity of Walls Above Strengthen Support Beam For Shear Wall Above Enlarge Footings Beneath New Braces New Steel Braces For Continuous Load Path For Shear Walls Above Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.1-6 City Hall — Foundation Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 4 0 LEGEND New Wood Shear Walls Retrofit Connection Between Concrete Walls & Wood Framing Seismic Strap, Wood- To-Wood or Wood/Steel Beam To Concrete Wall New Steel Braces Below Connected to Level 2 Diaphragm New Shear Walls at Exterior Windows, Typ. Provide A35 Connector At 4’-0” Oc Between Diaphragm Blocking & Sill Plate (Not Shown on Plan) DIAPHRAGM OUT-OF-PLANE CONNECTION Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.1-7 N City Hall — First Floor Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 4 1 LEGEND Steel Bracing Connecting Upper Roof to Lower Roof, Typ (6) Plcs Seismic Strap Between Roof Beams New Drag Strut Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.1-8 N City Hall — Roof Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 4 2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 32 - 3.2 6300 Building 3.2.1 Building Description Year Built: 1978 Number of Stories: 3 Floor Area: 33,600 SF The 6300 Building is a three-story concrete- and wood-framed structure located in the central area of Tukwila, adjacent to City Hall. The rectangular building is 80 feet by 210 feet in plan and 43 feet tall. The first and second stories are primarily wood-framed construction with structural-panel walls and diaphragms. The building has a parking level below the first story. Construction of the parking level consists of concrete walls and columns supporting the levels above. The building is located on a site that slopes downhill from north to south. The north end of the parking level is below grade. Concrete walls in the northern half of the building also act as retaining walls. Figure 3.2-1. 6300 Building, West Exterior. 43 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 33 - Figure 3.2-2. 6300 Building, Parking Level. 3.2.2 Structural System The 6300 Building houses a variety of city departments, including but not limited to community development, human services, human resources, permitting, and technology. The building’s gravity and lateral systems are summarized in Table 3.2-1 and shown graphically in Figures 3.2-3 through 3.2-5. Table 3.2-1. Structural System Description of 6300 Building. Structural System Description Roof Glulam beams support the plywood roof sheathing on roof open-web truss joists. Wood beams, stud walls, steel columns provide gravity support for the roof. Floor Glulam beams support the 1½-inch lightweight concrete-topped plywood floor sheathing on TJL floor joists on both the first and second floor. The floor system on the north side of the building consists of precast concrete span deck with 2-inch lightweight concrete topping. Foundations Concrete bearing walls are supported by continuous concrete footings. Concrete columns located within the interior of the building have isolated spread footings. Lateral System Concrete and wood shear walls resist lateral loads in both the transverse and longitudinal directions 3.2.2.1 ASCE 41 Classified Building Type Use of ASCE 41 for seismic evaluations requires buildings to be classified from a group of common building types historically defined in previous seismic evaluation standards (ATC-14, 44 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 34 - FEMA 310, and ASCE 31-03). The building is classified in ASCE 41, Table 3-1, as several different building types: a Wood Light Frame structure, W2; a Concrete Shear Wall Building with Flexible Diaphragms, C2a; and a Steel Moment Frame Building with Flexible Diaphragms, S1a. These building types include those buildings that have bearing walls constructed of reinforced concrete and wood, elevated floor and roof framing structural systems consisting of wood or other flexible diaphragms, and steel moment frames. 45 LEGEND Concrete Shear Wall Concrete Retaining Wall Concrete Moment Frame Column & Footing Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.2-3 6300 Building — Existing Lateral System - Foundation City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 4 6 LEGEND Wood Shear Wall 8” Concrete Shear Wall Steel Moment Frame Concrete Panel Diaphragm Wood Diaphragm Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.2-4 6300 Building — Existing Lateral System - First Floor City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 4 7 LEGEND Wood Shear Wall 8” Concrete Shear Wall Steel Moment Frame Concrete Panel Diaphragm Wood Diaphragm Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.2-5 6300 Building — Existing Lateral System - Second Floor City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 4 8 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 38 - 3.2.3 Seismic Evaluation Findings 3.2.3.1 Seismic Deficiencies The seismic deficiencies identified during the Tier 2 detailed evaluation phase are summarized below. Commentary for each deficiency is provided based on the detailed seismic evaluation. Table 3.2-2. Identified Seismic Deficiencies for 6300 Building. Deficiency Description Slope Failure The building is located on a sloped site. Earthquake-induced slope failures could cause instabilities in the building foundation, which would cause structural failures across the entire building. Overstressed Wood Shear Walls The wood shear walls located in both the transverse and longitudinal directions in the upper floors have shear DCRs > 2 and do not have adequate hold-downs. The lack of adequate hold-downs may lead to rocking of the wall, allowing excessive deflections. Foundation Dowels Foundation dowels do not match size or spacing of wall reinforcing. Inadequate reinforcing between the main LFRS and the foundations could cause structural failures or poor performance of the foundation and thus the entire building. Deflection Compatibility Columns, which act as secondary LFRS components to the concrete shear walls, do not have the shear capacity to develop their flexural capacity. Redundancy There is only a single line of a 2-bay moment frame in the north/south direction of the building. However, there is a single 8-inch concrete shear wall (inset from eastern interior near GL 3). Column Axial Stress The moment frame columns do not have adequate capacity to resist seismic forces in conjunction with gravity loads. Frame Flexural Stress The moment frame elements do not have adequate capacity to resist seismic forces. Strong Column Weak Beam The moment frame beams and columns are the same size, and as such do not satisfy strong column weak beam requirements. 3.2.3.2 Demand-Capacity Ratios Table 3.2-3 summarizes the results of the Tier 2 analysis in terms of Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCRs). The DCR is determined by the load on the structural member divided by the member capacity. A DCR value greater than 1.0 indicates that the member is inadequate. The maximum DCR is an envelope value considering all the shear wall segments within a shear wall at that given level. The maximum DCR is provided for both evaluation criteria: BSE-1E LS and BSE-2E CP. Appendix A provides a breakdown of the results for each evaluation criteria. 49 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 39 - Table 3.2-3. Tier 2 Analysis, Non-Compliant Item Demand-to-Capacity Ratios. Component BSE-2E, LS Max DCR BSE-2E, CP Max DCR Overturning 0.457 0.457 Foundation Dowels 1.954 3.178 Deflection Compatibility 0.007 0.007 Wood Shear Walls 3.65 3.08 Column Axial Stress 12.54 12.54 Moment Frame Flexural Stress, Redundancy, Strong Column- Weak Beam 11.38 11.38 Legend: DCR Less Than 1.0, Adequate DCR Greater Than 1.0, Inadequate Based on the results shown in Table 3.2-3, the 6300 Building does not meet the Life Safety performance objective. This analysis also confirms that the 6300 Building does not meet the Collapse Prevention performance objective. 3.2.3.3 Recommendations The 6300 Building has multiple structural deficiencies in the LFRS, including overstressed shear walls, inadequate foundation dowels, a lack of redundancy in the structural system, and moment frame stresses. The 6300 Building does not currently meet the LS or CP performance objectives. The building is susceptible to unacceptable levels of damage and poor performance of the LFRS during a design-level earthquake. Poor performance of the building increases the risk to the building’s occupants and limits the building’s ability to remain operational following a seismic event. However, the structural condition of the building is generally satisfactory and is adequate to facilitate functions performed in the building. The building includes an adequate gravity system and portions of the LFRS satisfy the target seismic performance criteria. Many of the deficiencies identified in the Tier 2 evaluation may be mitigated by adding more wood shear walls and steel moment frames. Consequently, a structural retrofit is recommended to address structural deficiencies and improve the seismic performance of the 6300 Building to achieve the desired performance levels and post-earthquake operational objectives. 3.2.3.4 Structural Retrofit Concept Design Figures 3.2-6 through 3.2-9 display schematic-level retrofit concepts to improve the LFRS and meet the LS and CP performance objectives. This concept-level seismic upgrade discussion represents just one of several alternative seismic upgrade design solutions and is based on preliminary seismic evaluation and analysis results. Final analysis and design for seismic upgrades must include an architectural layout, defined occupancy class, and consideration for upgraded mechanical and electrical systems. 50 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 40 - In both the longitudinal and transverse directions of the building, new lateral-force-resisting elements are being added to strengthen the building. The added elements also act to reduce the diaphragm demands by shortening the diaphragm spans. To limit disruption to the parking area at the ground level, steel moment frames are placed in the longitudinal direction of the building and concrete shear walls are used in the transverse direction along existing column lines for durability of the seismic-force-resisting system. Due to the high DCR values for both the LS and CP performance objectives, a reduced structural retrofit cannot be performed to meet a lower CP performance objective versus the LS performance objective. Similar retrofits are required for both performance objectives. 3.2.3.5 Probable Construction Costs and Other Considerations The probable construction cost to perform the recommended structural seismic upgrades to meet the Life Safety or Collapse Prevention performance objectives is $3.08M. The estimate provided in Appendix B includes an escalation table showing escalation for 1 year, 2 years, and out to 5 years. This cost includes labor, materials, equipment, and general contractor general conditions (mobilization), overhead, and profit. Additional geotechnical study and evaluation of the building subgrade are excluded from the construction probable cost estimate. The estimate assumes the building is unoccupied and phasing is not required. The estimate is based on the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection (M/E/P/FP) systems being modified to accommodate seismic work, but M/E/P/FP systems are not upgraded to the latest building codes for these systems. According to the International Existing Building Code (IEBC), a voluntary seismic upgrade is considered a Level 2 alteration. A Level 2 alteration does not require upgrades to all building components. However, a Level 3 alteration, which requires the building to be brought up to full compliance with current codes, can be triggered if the work area exceeds 50 percent of the total floor area. To avoid placing the voluntary seismic upgrade work into a Level 3 alteration, care would need to be taken to define the work area to only the actual floor areas occupied by the upgraded components. It is recommended that operational limitations, historical or architectural factors, nonstructural components, and key systems in the building also be evaluated for their useful life or use issues. These include but are not limited to the electrical power distribution system, fire alarm system, HVAC equipment, exterior roof/windows, foundation drainage, and interior finishes. 51 LEGEND New Concrete Shear Walls Expanded or New Footing Provide Foundation Upgrade Per Detail W14 Wide Flange Moment Frame Column, Typ. Provide New Steel Angle Shear Connector with Adhesive Anchors Demo & Replace Existing Slab to Install Steel Angle & Anchors FOUNDATION DOWEL UPGRADE Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.2-6 6300 Building — Foundation Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 5 2 LEGEND New Wood Shear Walls. Provide Connections To Concrete Walls Below Cross Tie New Steel Moment Frame Beams & Columns Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.2-7 6300 Building — First Floor Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 5 3 LEGEND New Wood Shear Walls. Provide Connections To Concrete Walls Below Cross Tie New Steel Moment Frame Beams & Columns Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.2-8 6300 Building — Second Floor Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 5 4 LEGEND New Wood Shear Walls Cross Tie New Steel Moment Frame Beams & Columns Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.2-9 6300 Building — Roof Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 5 5 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 45 - 3.3 Tukwila Community Center 3.3.1 Building Description Year Built: 1995 Number of Stories: 1 Floor Area: 55,000 SF The Tukwila Community Center is a one-story building located in the northern end of Tukwila, along the Green River. The building consists of two low-rise, rectangular wing sections and a 38-foot-tall circular high-roof rotunda between the wings. The east wing also includes a 38-foot-tall high-roof gymnasium. The rotunda construction consists of a wood- and steel- framed roof with a wood structural-panel diaphragm supported by steel, masonry-clad columns. The east and west wings are generally wood- and steel-framed roofs with wood structural-panel diaphragms supported by wood and light-gage steel stud walls with a masonry façade. The gymnasium is constructed of steel roof trusses and metal roof deck supported by concrete masonry unit (CMU) perimeter walls. 56 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 46 - Figure 3.3-1. Community Center, Southeast Exterior. Figure 3.3-2. Community Center, West Exterior. 3.3.2 Structural System The Community Center functions as a place for the City’s residents to participate in a wide range of activities, from exercising to art classes. The building also houses the Parks and Recreation administration and serves as an emergency shelter for the City. The building’s gravity and lateral systems are summarized in Table 3.3-1 and shown graphically in Figures 3.3-3 through 3.3-6. 57 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 47 - Table 3.3-1. Structural System Description of Tukwila Community Center. Structural System Description Roof At the west and east wings, wood and steel beams support plywood roof sheathing. Wood walls, built-up wood columns, and hollow steel section (HSS) columns provide gravity support for the roof framing. At the rotunda, wood joists and steel beams support plywood roof sheathing. Steel channels and beams support the center skylight. Wide-flange steel columns provide gravity support to the roof system. At the gym area, steel trusses support the 18-gauge metal roof deck. CMU walls provide gravity support to the gym roof framing. Glulam beams provide support for the plywood roof sheathing on prefabricated wood I-joists. Light gauge steel walls provide gravity support for the roof framing. Floor The floor is a 4-inch slab on grade. Foundations At the west and east wings, perimeter wood walls are supported on continuous concrete footings. Interior columns are supported on concrete spread footings. At the rotunda, wide-flange steel columns are supported on a continuous circular footing. The gym area CMU walls are supported on continuous concrete footings. The racquetball court light gauge steel walls are supported on continuous concrete footings. Lateral The west and east wing wood shear walls resist lateral loads in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. On the east wing and gym area, partially grouted CMU walls provide lateral support in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. At the rotunda, wide-flange steel columns acting as inverted pendulums resist lateral loads. Light gauge steel shear walls at the racquetball court area provide lateral support in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. 3.3.2.1 ASCE 41 Classified Building Type Use of ASCE 41 for seismic evaluations requires buildings to be classified from a group of common building types historically defined in previous seismic evaluation standards (ATC-14, FEMA 310, and ASCE 31-03). The building is classified in ASCE 41, Table 3-1, as two different building types: a Wood Light Frame structure, W2, and a CMU Shear Wall Building with Flexible Diaphragms, RM1. These building types include those buildings that have bearing walls constructed of reinforced concrete, CMU block, and wood; and elevated floor and roof framing structural systems consisting of wood or other flexible diaphragms. 58 LEGEND Wood Shear Wall Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.3-3 N Community Center — First Floor West Wing Existing City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 5 9 LEGEND Wood Shear Wall Gypsum Shear Wall CMU Shear Wall Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.3-4 Community Center — First Floor East Wing Existing City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 6 0 LEGEND Wood Diaphragm Blocked Wood Diaphragm Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.3-5 Community Center — Roof West Wing Existing City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 6 1 LEGEND Wood Diaphragm Steel Deck Diaphragm Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.3-6 Community Center — Roof East Wing Existing City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 6 2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 52 - 3.3.3 Seismic Evaluation Findings 3.3.3.1 Seismic Deficiencies The seismic deficiencies identified during the Tier 1 and Tier 2 detailed evaluation phases are summarized below. Commentary for each deficiency is provided based on the detailed seismic evaluation. Table 3.3-2. Identified Seismic Deficiencies for Tukwila Community Center. Deficiency Description Wood Shear Walls The wood shear walls located in both the transverse and longitudinal directions have shear DCRs > 2 and do not have adequate hold-downs. The lack of adequate hold-downs may lead to rocking of the wall, allowing excessive deflections, and may lead to the walls’ failure well before reaching the walls’ full shear strength. Masonry Shear Walls The masonry shear walls are limited to the gymnasium area, which is one of the areas designated for a community shelter in the case of an emergency. Some of the masonry shear walls located around the perimeter of the gymnasium are significantly overstressed, while many of the others are very close to their design strength. Racquetball Court Walls These walls rely on gypsum wall board to resist lateral loads and are overstressed. Gymnasium Roof Diaphragm The light gauge metal roof located above the gymnasium lacks sufficient shear capacity to transfer the required lateral loads. Wood Diaphragms The horizontal roof diaphragm lacks ties and struts in several key locations. This will limit the diaphragm’s ability to transfer forces into the shear walls below. Foundations/ Liquefaction The building is currently founded on traditional spread foundations. The site has potentially liquefiable soils and may experience differential settlement and lateral spreading during an earthquake. This will limit the building’s ability to remain functional after an earthquake. Typically, buildings with similar site soil conditions are founded on piles and pile caps rather than spread footings. Overstressed Steel Column Base Connections The steel connection between the steel columns and the base plates at the rotunda are overstressed. Additionally, the connections between the base plate and foundation lack adequate concrete anchors to resist the applied loads. 3.3.3.2 Demand-Capacity Ratios Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 summarize the results of the Tier 2 analysis in terms of Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCRs). The DCR is determined by the load on the structural member divided by the member capacity. A DCR value greater than 1.0 indicates that the member is inadequate. The maximum DCR is an envelope value considering all the shear wall segments within a shear wall at that given level. The maximum DCR is provided for both evaluation criteria: BSE-1E IO and BSE-2E LS. Appendix A provides a breakdown of the results for each evaluation criteria. 63 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 53 - Table 3.3-3. Tier 2 Analysis, Wood Shear Wall Demand-to-Capacity Ratios. Shear Wall Type and Direction BSE-1E, IO Max DCR BSE-2E, LS Max DCR BSE-2E, CP Max DCR SW1, X-Direction 3.49 3.71 3.14 SW2, X-Direction 2.39 2.55 2.15 SW3, X-Direction 1.86 1.98 1.67 SW1, Y-Direction 3.46 3.69 3.11 SW2, Y-Direction 2.37 2.53 2.13 SW3, Y-Direction 1.85 1.97 1.66 Table 3.3-4. Tier 2 Analysis, CMU Shear Wall Demand-to-Capacity Ratios. Shear Wall Type BSE-1E, IO Max DCR BSE-2E, LS Max DCR BSE-2E, CP Max DCR 8-inch CMU 4.26 4.39 2.50 12-inch CMU 3.23 3.33 3.29 Legend: DCR Less Than 1.0, Adequate DCR Greater Than 1.0, Inadequate Based on the results shown in Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, the Community Center does not meet the Immediate Occupancy objective. This analysis also confirms that the Community Center does not meet the Life Safety or Collapse Prevention performance objectives. 3.3.3.3 Recommendations Currently, the Community Center does not meet the IO, LS, or CP performance levels. During a design-level earthquake, extensive damage of the lateral-force-resisting elements may occur, posing a risk to building occupants. The building’s ability to remain functional and act as an emergency shelter following a seismic event could be severely limited. Based on the performance objectives, it is recommended the Community Center be seismically retrofitted. This is one of several potential shelter locations within the city, but because the proposed retrofit to meet IO performance would be intrusive to the building occupants, another option would be to lower the performance objective to a LS level. Limited structural retrofit may be required to meet the lower performance objective. 3.3.3.4 Structural Retrofit Concept Design Figures 3.3-7 through 3.3-11 display schematic-level retrofit concepts to improve the LFRS and meet the IO performance objectives. This concept-level seismic upgrade discussion represents just one of several alternative seismic upgrade design solutions and is based on preliminary seismic evaluation and analysis results. Final analysis and design for seismic upgrades must 64 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 54 - include an architectural layout, defined occupancy class, and consideration for upgraded mechanical and electrical systems. In both the longitudinal and transverse directions of the building, lateral-force-resisting elements are being added and strengthened. A major component to the retrofit would be to add sheathing and hold-downs to the existing wood shear walls. Additionally, new wood shear walls would be added at the corridor to minimize the stress to the small exterior walls that have overstressed stepped-blocked diaphragms. The masonry walls in the gymnasium would also require strengthening by adding grout to vertical cells and adding concrete walls in two locations. Strengthening is required in both the roof over the main building and in the gymnasium. The gymnasium roof requires adding rigid diaphragm bracing, while straps, blocking, and drag struts are being added to the wood roofs. The steel columns in the rotunda require modifications to their base connections that include adding steel plates, anchor bolts, and welds. Because the site may be prone to liquefaction and lateral spreading, compaction grouting is recommended for inside the building and 10 feet outside the building’s perimeter. A reduced structural retrofit can be performed to meet the lower CP performance objective. However, since the majority of the deficiencies associated with the building are related to the site soils, a lack of connections, and a complete load path, most upgrade requirements in the IO performance objective schematic-level retrofit concepts are still required. Reduced retrofit concepts include reductions to the amount of new wood shear walls at the first floor and reduction of bracing and wall upgrades at the first-floor walls. 3.3.3.5 Probable Construction Costs and Other Considerations The probable construction costs to perform the recommended structural seismic upgrades to meet the Immediate Occupancy and Collapse Prevention performance objectives are $13.71M and $13.59M, respectively. The estimates provided in Appendix B include an escalation table showing escalation for 1 year, 2 years, and out to 5 years. The costs include labor, materials, equipment, and general contractor general conditions (mobilization), overhead, and profit. Additional geotechnical study and evaluation of the building subgrade are excluded from the construction probable cost estimates. The estimates assume the building is unoccupied and phasing is not required. These estimates are based on the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection (M/E/P/FP) systems being modified to accommodate seismic work, but M/E/P/FP systems are not upgraded to the latest building codes for these systems. Upgrades to the lateral systems and affected M/E/P/EP systems may trigger additional upgrades. According to the International Existing Building Code (IEBC), a voluntary seismic upgrade is considered a Level 2 alteration. A Level 2 alteration does not require upgrades to all building components. However, a Level 3 alteration, which requires the building to be brought up to full compliance with current codes, can be triggered if the work area exceeds 50 percent of the total floor area. To avoid placing the voluntary seismic upgrade work into a Level 3 alteration, care would need to be taken to define the work area to only the actual floor areas occupied by the upgraded components. It is recommended that operational limitations, historical or architectural factors, nonstructural components, and key systems in the building also be evaluated for their useful life or use issues. 65 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - 55 - These include but are not limited to HVAC, exterior lighting, access control, and interior/exterior finishes. In addition, the cost of seismic upgrades to this building to improve its ability to remain in continuous operation after a seismic event may be disproportional to the value of the building. 66 Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.3-7 Community Center — Site Plan Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 10’ TYP ZONE OF COMPACTION GROUTING N 6 7 LEGEND Wood Shear Wall Add Interior Plywood Sheathing & Hold-Downs. Increase Nailing And Anchor Bolts Provide New Foundations At New Shear Walls, 8” Concrete Stem Wall & 24” Wide X 12” Deep Footing Add 16 Ga Strapping Around Openings In Shear Walls Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.3-8 Community Center — First Floor West Wing Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 Strengthen Column Base Plate Connection at Rotunda Columns, Typ. N 6 8 LEGEND Wood Shear Wall Add Hold Downs & Plywood Sheathing Provide New Foundation at New Concrete Shear Walls, 48” Wide X 24” Deep Footing Add 16 Ga Strapping Around Openings In Shear Walls Solid Grout CMU Wall 8” Concrete Wall Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.3-9 Community Center — First Floor East Wing Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 N 6 9 LEGEND Reinforce Drag Member Add Blocking & 12GA Coil Strap Along Corridor Walls Block Existing Diaphragm, Increase Nailing Add Blocking & 12GA Coil Strap 12GA Coil Strap Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.3-10 Community Center — Roof West Wing Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 Add Drag Member Strengthen Connection N 7 0 LEGEND Reinforce Drag Member Add Blocking & 12GA Coil Strap Along Corridor Walls Add Blocking & Connections at Top of New Concrete Shear Walls Add Rigid Diaphragm Bracing Central Kitsap School District - August 2018 Building 900 Upgrade Concepts Figure 3.3-11 Community Center — Roof East Wing Retrofit Concept City of Tukwila Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update - June 2022 Add Drag Member Add Chord Member, Typical 3 Location at Racketball Court Add Chord Member, Typical 4 Location at Basketball CourtN 7 1 7 2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Appendix A Seismic Screening Checklists and Calculations 73 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update City Hall 74 17-2 Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low Seismicity Building System—General C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.10) X ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.25% of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 0.5% in moderate seismicity, and 1.5% in high seismicity. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.2) X MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.3) Building System—Building Configuration C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of the seismic - force-resisting system in any story in each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in the adjacent story above. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.1; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.2) X SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force- resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or less than 80% of the average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.2; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.3) X VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic-force-resisting system are continuous to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.3; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.4) Wood shear walls are not continuous to the foundation. X GEOMETRY: There are no changes in the net horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.4; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.5) The Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS) in the south wing of the building exists only on the east face which does not extend 30% of the LFRS dimension of the floor below. X MASS: There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.5; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.6) X TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.6; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.7) Building has a flexible diaphragm 75 17-2 Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Moderate Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Geologic Site Hazards C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building’s seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.1; Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.1) Not a Site Class F site per 2008 Geotechncial report completed as part of original report. X SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away from potential earthquake-induced slope failures or rockfalls so that it is unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.1; Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.2) Building is located on a hillside site. Stability of the slope is unknown. X SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.1; Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.3) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Foundation Configuration C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X OVERTURNING: The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system at the foundation level to the building height (base/height) is greater than 0.6Sa. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.1) 127’/195’ = 0.651 0.6Sa = 0.6(0.701) = 0.421 X TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS: The foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.4; Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.2) No beams/slabs/soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C between shallow foundation elements. Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 76 17-6. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low and Moderate Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1) X SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values: Structural panel sheathing, 1,000 lb/ft (14.6 kN/m); Diagonal sheathing, 700 lb/ft (10.2 kN/m); Straight sheathing, 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m); All other conditions, 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m). (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1 ; Commentary: Sec.A.3.2.7.1) X STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi- story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.2) X GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.3) X NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.4) X WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.5) X HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.6) Wood shearwalls only exist above grade. X CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.4; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.7) X OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1 or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of transferring the seismic forces. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.8) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.3) 77 17-6. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update X WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.4) X GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.4.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.4.1) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 6 ft or less with acceptable edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.7) Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.1) X ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.3) X DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.8) X STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 1-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1) Diaphragm consists of plywood sheathing X SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2) X DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 30 ft (9.1 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 3-to-1. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3) Diaphragm is blocked plywood sheathing. X OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1) Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 78 17-24 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types C2 and C2a City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low and Moderate Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X COMPLETE FRAMES: Steel or concrete frames classified as secondary components form a complete vertical-load-carrying system. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.5.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.6.1) X REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1) X SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the greater of 100 lb/in.2 (0.69 MPa) or 2√f′c. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.3.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.2.1) Walls are overstressed for LS X REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing steel area to gross concrete area is not less than 0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the horizontal direction. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.3.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.2.2) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WALL ANCHORAGE AT FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependent on flexible diaphragms for lateral support are anchored for out -of- plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm. Connections have strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7. (Tier 2: Sec.5.7.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.1) Concrete walls are not anchored to the diaphragm for out of plane forces. X TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of seismic forces to the shear walls. (Tier 2: Sec.5.7.2; Commentary: Sec. A.5.2.1) X FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is doweled into the foundation with vertical bars equal in size and spacing to the vertical wall reinforcing directly above the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.4; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.5) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY: Secondary components have the shear capacity to develop the flexural strength of the components. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.2.5.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.6.2) No secondary concrete components X FLAT SLABS: Flat slabs or plates not part of the seismic-force- resisting system have continuous bottom steel through the column joints. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.2.5.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.6.3) No concrete columns 79 17-24 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types C2 and C2a City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X COUPLING BEAMS: The ends of both walls to which the coupling beam is attached are supported at each end to resist vertical loads caused by overturning. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.3.2.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.2.3) Diaphragms (Stiff or Flexible) C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.1) X OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls are less than 25% of the wall length. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.4) Flexible Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.2) X STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1) All wood sheathing is plywood X SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft (7.3 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2) X DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3) All wood sheathing is plywood X OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps have top reinforcement, and piles are anchored to the pile caps. (Tier 2: Sec.5.7.3.5; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.8) Foundation does not utilize piles. Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unkno wn. 80 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation City of Tukwila Design Criteria 728 134th St. SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 www.reidmiddleton.com 81 Client City of Tukwila Sheet of Project City Hall Seismic Evaluation Design by MLO 728 134th Street SW · Suite 200 Everett, Washington 98204 Ph: 425 741-3800 Fax: 425 741-3900 Structural Design Criteria Date 4/22/22 Checked by Project No. 262021.035 Date DESIGN SUMMARY The City Hall building is 2 stories on a sloped grade sloping from the second floor on the north side down to the first floor on the south side. At the first floor the building is made of concrete retaining and shear walls. Starting at the second floor and going up the building is wood framed. Large glulam trusses support the roof. The lateral force resisting system at the second floor is comprised of wood shear walls. CODES AND REFERENCES General ASCE 41-17 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures Concrete ACI 318-14 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete Wood ANSI/AF&PA-2015 National Design Specification for Wood Construction AITC Timber Construction Manual, Sixth Edition Catalogs and Miscellaneous Trus-Joist MacMillan Catalog Hilti Catalog Simpson Strong-Tie Catalog Red-Built Open-Web Truss Catalog Red-Built Red-I Joist Catalog 82 3/29/22, 10:02 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 1/2 Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, WA 98188, USA Latitude, Longitude: 47.463224, -122.2555133 Date 3/29/2022, 10:02:06 AM Design Code Reference Document ASCE41-17 Custom Probability Site Class D - Default (See Section 11.4.3) Type Description Value Hazard Level BSE-2N SS spectral response (0.2 s)1.466 S1 spectral response (1.0 s)0.499 SXS site-modified spectral response (0.2 s)1.76 SX1 site-modified spectral response (1.0 s)0.898 Fa site amplification factor (0.2 s)1.2 Fv site amplification factor (1.0 s)1.801 ssuh max direction uniform hazard (0.2 s)1.629 crs coefficient of risk (0.2 s)0.9 ssrt risk-targeted hazard (0.2 s)1.466 ssd deterministic hazard (0.2 s)4.288 s1uh max direction uniform hazard (1.0 s)0.557 cr1 coefficient of risk (1.0 s)0.896 s1rt risk-targeted hazard (1.0 s)0.499 s1d deterministic hazard (1.0 s)1.501 Type Description Value Hazard Level BSE-1N SXS site-modified spectral response (0.2 s)1.173 SX1 site-modified spectral response (1.0 s)0.599 83 3/29/22, 10:02 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 2/2 Type Description Value Hazard Level BSE-2E SS spectral response (0.2 s)1.081 S1 spectral response (1.0 s)0.362 SXS site-modified spectral response (0.2 s)1.297 SX1 site-modified spectral response (1.0 s)0.701 fa site amplification factor (0.2 s)1.2 fv site amplification factor (1.0 s)1.938 Type Description Value Hazard Level BSE-1E SS spectral response (0.2 s)0.501 S1 spectral response (1.0 s)0.155 SXS site-modified spectral response (0.2 s)0.701 SX1 site-modified spectral response (1.0 s)0.355 Fa site amplification factor (0.2 s)1.399 Fv site amplification factor (1.0 s)2.29 Type Description Value Hazard Level TL Data T-Sub-L Long-period transition period in seconds 6 DISCLAIMER While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. 84 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation City of Tukwila City Hall Tier 1 Evaluation Life Safety 728 134th St. SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 www.reidmiddleton.com 85 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 City Hall Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: Building Properties Building Type:C2a/W2 Concrete & Wood Shear Walls w/ Flexible Diaphragms Area:14,030 ft2 Latitude:47.463 Longitude:-122.256 Site Class:D (Default) No. Stories:2 Building Height:25.00 ft (Approximate) Height of Sloped Roof Risk Category:II Level of Performance:LS Life Safety Seismic Properties, BSE-2E Mapped Short Period Accel.:SS =1.081 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Mapped One-Sec. Accel.:S1 =0.362 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Accel. Site Coefficient:Fa =1.200 OSHPD Seismic Maps Velocity Site Coefficient:Fv =1.938 OSHPD Seismic Maps Design Short Period Accel.:SDS = (2/3)*Ss*Fa =0.865 g ASCE 41-17 Eq. 2-4 Design 1-Sec. Period Accel.:SD1 = (2/3)*S1*Fv =0.468 g ASCE 41-17 Eq. 2-5 Level of Seismicity:High Seismic Hazard Level:2E BSE 2E Design Short Period Accel.:SXS = 1.297 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE 2E 1-Sec. Design Short Period Accel.:SX1 =0.701 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Design Spectral Acceleration, BSE-2E Period Coefficient:Ct =0.020 For All Other Framing System ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.4 Period Coefficient:β = 0.75 For All Other Framing System ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.4 Fundamental Period:T = Ct*hn β =0.22 s ASCE 41-17 Eq.4-4 Spectral Acc.:Sa = SX1/T =1.297 g but S a shall not exceed SXS ASCE 41-17 Eq.4-3 ASCE 41-17 Table 2.2 Code Ref. 5% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years for an Existing Building Code Ref. 262022.017 Code Ref. City Hall Tier 1 Calculations - Life Safety of 86 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 City Hall Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 City Hall Tier 1 Calculations - Life Safety of Weight Take-Off Figure 1: City Hall Foundation Plan Ground Floor 8" Conc 228.6 kip First Floor 2x14 @ 16" oc 2.8 psf 3/4" Plywood Shthg 3 psf 1.5" Conc topping 19 psf Misc 5 psf 414.2 kip Roof 2x8 @ 24" oc 1.3 psf GL 5.125x15 @ 12' oc 1.6 psf 1/2" plywd 2.0 psf Misc 5.0 psf 138.9 kip Figure 1: City Hall Foundation Plan 139 kip 643 kip 782 kip Vertical Distribution of Psuedo-Seismic Base Shear Coefficient Exponent:k =1.0 ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.2 Effective Seismic Building Weight:W= 782 kips Modification Factor:C = 1.2 for CMU Buildings ASCE 41-17 Tbl. 4-7 Psuedo Seismic Base Shear, BSE-2E:Vpseudo = C*Sa*W = 1,217 kips 25.0 0.31 378 378 12.0 0.69 839 839 1.0 1,217 *Story shear will be used to check the SFRS in the structure at each respective level. Σ 11,187 Level 2 643 7,714 Lateral Force [kip] Level 1 Story Shear* [kip] Roof 139 3,473 Floor Level [from base] Height, hx [ft] Story Weight, wx [kip] wxhx k [kip*ft] Dist. Factor Cvx Code Ref. Roof Σ Code Ref. Story Shear Forces: Vertical Distribution of Pseudo Shear Forces Building Weight Summary 87 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 City Hall Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 City Hall Tier 1 Calculations - Life Safety of Shear Stress Check - Concrete Aw,x =3363 in2 Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction x Aw,y =2784 in2 Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction y VBase =1,217 kip Max Story Shear Ms =3 Modification Factor for Shear Walls vx =120.6 psi Shear Stress in Walls, x-dir vy =145.7 psi Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir vmax =145.7 psi Shear Stress in Walls vallowable =100 psi Allowable Shear Stress in Walls DCR =1.457 NC Demand Capacity Ratio Reinforcing Steel in Shear Walls City Hall Reinforcing ratio, ρ ρprovided ρrequired Vertical #4 @ 16" oc 0.00156 0.0012 Horizontal #4 @ 10" oc 0.0025 0.002 Total 0.00406 0.002 Shear Stress Check - Wood Aw,NW =339 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction x Aw,NE =139 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction y VBase =377,728 lb Max Story Shear Ms =3 Modification Factor for Shear Walls vx =371.8 plf Shear Stress in Walls, x-dir vy =903.2 plf Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir vmax =903.2 plf Shear Stress in Walls vallowable =1000 plf Allowable Shear Stress in Walls DCR =0.903 C Demand Capacity Ratio Code Ref. Code Ref. Code Ref. 88 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation City of Tukwila City Hall Tier 1 Evaluation Life Safety 728 134th St. SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 www.reidmiddleton.com 2 89 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: Project:City of Tukwila Sheet: Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO City Hall Date: Project No.:Date: Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration BSE-2E accel. @ short periods:SS2E =1.081 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-2E accel. @ a 1-sec. period:S12E =0.362 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-1E accel. @ short periods:SS1E =0.501 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-1E accel. @ a 1-sec. period:S11E =0.155 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-2N accel. @ short periods:SS2N =1.466 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-2N accel. @ a 1-sec. period:S12N =0.499 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Site class:D Long period transition parameter TL =6 sec BSE-2E short period site coefficient:Fa2E =1.20 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-1 BSE-2E long period site coefficient:Fv2E =1.94 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 BSE-1E short period site coefficient:Fa1E =1.40 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-1 BSE-1E long period site coefficient:Fv1E =2.29 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 BSE-2N short period site coefficient:Fa2N =1.20 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-1 BSE-2N long period site coefficient: Fv2N =1.80 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 Design Spectral Response Parameters (Sec. 2.4.1.6) BSE-2E controlling short period accel.:SS2E = MIN(SS2E,SS2N) =1.081 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-2E controlling accel. @ T=1 s:S12E = MIN(S12E,S12N) =0.362 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-1E controlling short period accel.:SS1E = MIN(SS1E,2/3*SS2N) =0.501 g 2.4.1.4 BSE-1E controlling accel. @ T=1 s:S11E = MIN(S11E,2/3*S12N) =0.155 g 2.4.1.4 BSE-2E design short period accel:SXS2E = Fa2E*SS2E =1.297 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-2E design 1 sec. period accel.:SX12E = Fv2E*S12E =0.702 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-1E design short period accel.:SXS1E = Fa1E*SS1E =0.701 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-1E design 1 sec. period accel.:SX11E = Fv1E*S11E =0.355 g 2.4.1.6 Level of Seismicity (Sec. 2.5) BSE-2N design short period accel:SDS = 2/3*Fa2N*SS2N =1.17 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-2N design 1 sec. period accel.:SD1 = 2/3*Fv2N*S12N =0.60 g 2.4.1.6 Level of Seismicity:Table 2-4 LSP Structure Properties Building height:hn =25.0 ft Effective damping ratio:b =5.00%7.2.3.6 Lateral system:7.4.1.2.2 Period coefficient:Ct =0.035 7.4.1.2.2 Period exponent:b =0.8 7.4.1.2.2 Empirical period:T =0.460 sec 7.4.1.2.2 Response Spectra Characteristic Periods BSE-2E spectra:TS2 = SX12E/SXS2E =0.54 sec ASCE 7-16 Sec. 11.4.6 T02 = 0.2*(SX12E/SXS2E) = 0.11 sec ASCE 7-16 Sec. 11.4.6 BSE-1E spectra:TS1 = SX11E/SXS1E =0.51 sec ASCE 7-16 Sec. 11.4.6 T01 = 0.2*(SX11E/SXS1E) = 0.10 sec ASCE 7-16 Sec. 11.4.6 13220 Evening Creek Dr S, Suite 112 San Diego, CA 92128 Ph: 858-668-0707 www.reidmiddleton.com ASCE 41-17 Linear Static Procedure (Sec. 7.4.1) - City Hall Code Ref. Code Ref. Code Ref. HIGH Code Ref. Code Ref. Steel Moment Frame 262022.017 of ofof 90 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: Project:City of Tukwila Sheet: Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO City Hall Date: Project No.:Date: 13220 Evening Creek Dr S, Suite 112 San Diego, CA 92128 Ph: 858-668-0707 www.reidmiddleton.com ASCE 41-17 Linear Static Procedure (Sec. 7.4.1) - City Hall 262022.017 of ofof Pseudo Seismic Force Building seismic weight:W = 782 kip 7.4.1.3.1 Number of stories:n = 2 mmax @ BSE-2E:mmax2 =3.5 7.4.1.3.1 mmax @ BSE-1E:mmax1 =2.5 7.4.1.3.1 Damping coefficient:B1 =1.00 2.4.1.7.1 BSE-2E mod. factors product:C12C22 =1.1 Table 7-3 BSE-1E mod. factors product:C11C21 =1.1 Table 7-3 Effective mass factor:Cm =1 Table 7-4 BSE-2E spectral acceleration:Sa2 =1.29 g 2.4.3 BSE-1E spectral acceleration:Sa1 =0.70 g 2.4.3 BSE-2E pseudo lateral load:V2E = C12C22CmSa2W =1113.2 kip 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-1E pseudo lateral load:V1E = C11C21CmSa1W =601.5 kip 7.4.1.3.1 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces (Sec. 7.4.1.3.2) Story force:Fx =wxhx k/(Swxhx k)*V =See Table Below Eq. 7-24 Story heihgt exponent factor:k =1.00 7.4.1.3.2 Diaphragm force:Fpx = Vx*wx/W x =See Table Below Eq. 7-26 BSE-2E BSE-1E BSE-2E BSE-1E Total BSE-2E BSE-1E Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Weight Diaph. Diaph. Name Weight Height Force Force Shear Shear Above Force Force wx hx wx*hx k Fx2 Fx1 Vx2 Vx1 W x Fpx2 Fpx1 (k) (ft)(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) Roof 139 25.0 3475 281.1 151.9 281.1 151.9 139.0 281.1 151.9 Level 2 643 16 10288 832.1 449.6 1113.2 601.5 782.0 915.3 494.6 SUM = 782 13763 Code Ref. Code Ref. 91 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: Project:City of Tukwila Sheet: Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO City Hall Date: Project No.:Date: 13220 Evening Creek Dr S, Suite 112 San Diego, CA 92128 Ph: 858-668-0707 www.reidmiddleton.com ASCE 41-17 Linear Static Procedure (Sec. 7.4.1) - City Hall 262022.017 of ofof Acceleration Response Spectra CEQ = C1C2CMSXS[(5/B1-2)T/Ts+0.4]-{ @ T < T0 } T (sec)CEQ T (sec)CEQ CEQ = C1C2CMSXS/B1 -{ @ T0 ≤ T ≤ TS } 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.28 CEQ = C1C2CMSX1/(B1*T)-{ @ Ts < T ≤ TL } T0 =0.11 1.29 0.10 0.70 CEQ =C1C2CMTLSX1/(B1*T2)-{ @ TL < T } Ts =0.54 1.29 0.51 0.70 0.59 1.19 0.56 0.64 0.63 1.11 0.61 0.59 0.68 1.03 0.65 0.54 0.72 0.97 0.70 0.50 0.77 0.91 0.75 0.47 0.82 0.86 0.80 0.44 0.86 0.81 0.85 0.42 0.91 0.77 0.90 0.39 0.95 0.73 0.95 0.37 T1 =1 0.70 1 0.35 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 TL =6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 BSE-2E BSE-1E 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 Re s p o n s e C o e f f i c i e n t , C EQ Period, T (s) BSE-2E General Response Spectrum 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 Re s p o n s e C o e f f i c i e n t , C EQ Period, T (s) BSE-1E General Response Spectrum 92 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 13220 Evening Creek S. Suite 112 Project:City of Tukwila Sheet: San Diego, CA 92128 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Ph: 858-668-0707 City Hall Date: www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: Shear Stress Check - Concrete VBase =1113.2 k Max Story Shear ATrib =1150 ft2 Tributary are to greatest stressed wall, x-direction (GL E, East wing) ATrib =870 ft2 Tributary are to greatest stressed wall, y-direction (GL 17, East wing) ATot =14030 ft2 Total Floor Area QUD,x = VWall =91.2 k Tributary force to greatest stressed wall, x-direction QUD,y = VWall =69.0 k Tributary force to greatest stressed wall, x-direction Lwall,x =11.0 ft Wall Length, x-direction Lwall,y =8.5 ft Wall Length, y-direction tWall,x =8 in Wall Thickness, x-direction tWall,y =8 in Wall Thickness, y-direction QCE,x = Vn,Wall,x =141.7 k Wall Shear Capacity, x-direction QCE,y = Vn,Wall,y =109.5 k Wall Thickness, y-direction m = 2.5 m-factor ASCE 41-17 Table 10-22 k = 0.8 knowledge factor ASCE 41-17 Table 6-1 mkQCE,x =265.6 mkQCE,y =205.3 DCR =0.343 C Demand Capacity Ratio 262022.017 City Hall Tier 2 Life Safety Calculations Code Ref. ofof ofof 93 94 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation City of Tukwila City Hall Tier 1 Evaluation Collapse Prevention 728 134th St. SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 www.reidmiddleton.com 95 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 City Hall Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: Building Properties Building Type:C2a/W2 Concrete & Wood Shear Walls w/ Flexible Diaphragms Area:14,030 ft2 Latitude:47.463 Longitude:-122.256 Site Class:D (Default) No. Stories:2 Building Height:25.00 ft (Approximate) Height of Sloped Roof Risk Category:II Level of Performance:CP Collapse Prevention Seismic Properties, BSE-2E Mapped Short Period Accel.:SS =1.081 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Mapped One-Sec. Accel.:S1 =0.362 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Accel. Site Coefficient:Fa =1.200 OSHPD Seismic Maps Velocity Site Coefficient:Fv =1.938 OSHPD Seismic Maps Design Short Period Accel.:SDS = (2/3)*Ss*Fa =0.865 g ASCE 41-17 Eq. 2-4 Design 1-Sec. Period Accel.:SD1 = (2/3)*S1*Fv =0.468 g ASCE 41-17 Eq. 2-5 Level of Seismicity:High Seismic Hazard Level:2E BSE 1E Design Short Period Accel.:SXS = 1.297 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE 1E 1-Sec. Design Short Period Accel.:SX1 =0.701 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Design Spectral Acceleration, BSE-2E Period Coefficient:Ct =0.020 For All Other Framing System ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.4 Period Coefficient:β = 0.75 For All Other Framing System ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.4 Fundamental Period:T = Ct*hn β =0.22 s ASCE 41-17 Eq.4-4 Spectral Acc.:Sa = SX1/T =1.297 g but S a shall not exceed SXS ASCE 41-17 Eq.4-3 UFC 3-301-01 Section 4- 2.1.1 Code Ref. 5% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years for an Existing Building Code Ref. 262022.017 Code Ref. City Hall Tier 1 Calculations - Collapse Prevention ofof ASCE 41-17 Table 2.2 96 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 City Hall Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 City Hall Tier 1 Calculations - Collapse Prevention ofof Weight Take-Off Figure 1: City Hall Foundation Plan 139 kip 643 kip 782 kip Building Weight Summary Roof Level 1 Code Ref. Σ 97 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 City Hall Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 City Hall Tier 1 Calculations - Collapse Prevention ofof Vertical Distribution of Psuedo-Seismic Base Shear Coefficient Exponent:k =1.0 ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.2 Effective Seismic Building Weight:W= 782 kips Modification Factor:C = 1.2 for CMU Buildings ASCE 41-17 Tbl. 4-7 Psuedo Seismic Base Shear, BSE-1E:Vpseudo = C*Sa*W = 1,217 kips 22.0 0.28 345 345 12.0 0.72 871 871 1.0 1,217 *Story shear will be used to check the SFRS in the structure at each respective level. Shear Stress Check - Concrete Aw,x =3363 in2 Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction Aw,y =2784 in2 Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction Vroof =1,217 kip Max Story Shear Ms =4.5 Modification Factor for Shear Walls vx =80.4 psi Shear Stress in Walls, x-dir vy =97.1 psi Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir vmax =97.1 psi Shear Stress in Walls vallowable =100 psi Allowable Shear Stress in Walls DCR =0.971 C Demand Capacity Ratio Shear Stress Check - Wood Aw,NW =339 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction x Aw,NE =139 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction y VBase =345,263 lb Max Story Shear Ms =3 Modification Factor for Shear Walls vx =339.8 plf Shear Stress in Walls, x-dir vy =825.6 plf Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir vmax =825.6 plf Shear Stress in Walls vallowable =1000 plf Allowable Shear Stress in Walls DCR =0.826 C Demand Capacity Ratio Code Ref. Code Ref. Code Ref. Roof 139 3,056 Σ 10,770 Level 2 643 7,714 Lateral Force [kip] Story Shear* [kip] Story Shear Forces: Vertical Distribution of Pseudo Shear Forces Floor Level [from base] Height, hx [ft] Story Weight, wx [kip] wxhx k [kip*ft] Dist. Factor Cvx 98 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update 6300 Building 99 17-2 Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low Seismicity Building System—General C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.10) X ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.25% of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 0.5% in moderate seismicity, and 1.5% in high seismicity. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.2) X MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.3) Building System—Building Configuration C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of the seismic - force-resisting system in any story in each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in the adjacent story above. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.1; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.2) X SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force- resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or less than 80% of the average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.2; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.3) X VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic-force-resisting system are continuous to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.3; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.4) Wood shear walls on the upper floors are not continuous to the concrete foundation. X GEOMETRY: There are no changes in the net horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.4; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.5) X MASS: There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.5; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.6) X TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.6; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.7) Building has a flexible diaphragm and is rectangular. 100 17-2 Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Moderate Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Geologic Site Hazards C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building ’s seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.1; Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.1) Not a Site Class F site per 2008 Geotechncial report completed as part of original report. X SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away from potential earthquake-induced slope failures or rockfalls so that it is unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.1; Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.2) Building is located on a hillside site. Stability of the slope is unknown. X SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.1; Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.3) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Foundation Configuration C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X OVERTURNING: The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system at the foundation level to the building height (base/height) is greater than 0.6Sa. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.1) 80’/210’ = 0.381 0.6Sa = 0.6(.701) = 0.421 X TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS: The foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.4; Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.2) Central columns not tied together are not part of the seismic force resisting system. Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 101 17-6. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low and Moderate Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1) No shear walls in E/W direction but steel moment frames present. X SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values: Structural panel sheathing, 1,000 lb/ft (14.6 kN/m); Diagonal sheathing, 700 lb/ft (10.2 kN/m); Straight sheathing, 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m); All other conditions, 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m). (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1 ; Commentary: Sec.A.3.2.7.1) Shear stress check exceeds 1000 plf X STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi- story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.2) X GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.3) X NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.4) X WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.5) X HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.6) Wood shearwalls only exist above grade. X CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.4; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.7) Wood shear walls only exist above level 2 X OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1 or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of transferring the seismic forces. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.8) No openings in shear walls greater than 80% Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.3) Columns are 6” steel pipes X WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.4) 102 17-6. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update X GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.4.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.4.1) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 6 ft or less with acceptable edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.7) Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.1) X ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.3) X DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.8) No diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width. X STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 1-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1) Diaphragm consists of plywood sheathing X SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2) X DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 30 ft (9.1 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 3-to-1. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3) Diaphragm is blocked plywood sheathing. X OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1) Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 103 17-8 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types S1 and S1a City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of moment frames in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.1.1) E/W direction utilized wood shear walls. N/S direction only has a single line of moment frames. X DRIFT CHECK: The drift ratio of the steel moment frames, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.1, is less than 0.030. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.3.1) Drift check exceeds 0.03 X COLUMN AXIAL STRESS CHECK: The axial stress caused by gravity loads in columns subjected to overturning forces is less than 0.10Fy. Alternatively, the axial stress caused by overturning forces alone, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.6, is less than 0.30Fy. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.3.2) Column Axial stress exceeds 0.1Fy. X FLEXURAL STRESS CHECK: The average flexural stress in the moment frame columns and beams, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.9, is less than Fy. Columns need not be checked if the strong column– weak beam checklist item is compliant. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.3.3) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X TRANSFER TO STEEL FRAMES: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of seismic forces to the steel frames. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.2; Commentary: Sec. A.5.2.2) X STEEL COLUMNS: The columns in seismic-force-resisting frames are anchored to the building foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.1) Moderate Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X REDUNDANCY: The number of bays of moment frames in each line is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.1.1) Only a single 2-bay frame in the x direction X INTERFERING WALLS: All concrete and masonry infill walls placed in moment frames are isolated from structural elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.2.1) X MOMENT-RESISTING CONNECTIONS: All moment connections can develop the strength of the adjoining members based on the specified minimum yield stress of steel. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.2.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.3.4) 104 17-8 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types S1 and S1a City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X MOMENT-RESISTING CONNECTIONS: All moment connections are able to develop the strength of the adjoining members or panel zones based on 110% of the expected yield stress of the steel in accordance with AISC 341, Section A3.2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.2.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.3.4) X PANEL ZONES: All panel zones have the shear capacity to resist the shear demand required to develop 0.8 times the sum of the flexural strengths of the girders framing in at the face of the column. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.2.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.3.5) X COLUMN SPLICES: All column splice details located in moment-resisting frames include connection of both flanges and the web. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.2.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.3.6) X STRONG COLUMN—WEAK BEAM: The percentage of strong column–weak beam joints in each story of each line of moment frames is greater than 50%. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.1.5; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.3.7) X COMPACT MEMBERS: All frame elements meet section requirements in accordance with AISC 341, Table D1.1, for moderately ductile members. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.2.4; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.3.8) Diaphragms (Stiff or Flexible) C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X OPENINGS AT FRAMES: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the moment frames extend less than 25% of the total frame length. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.5) Flexible Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.2) X STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1) All diaphragms are panel sheathing X SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft (7.3 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2) X DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3) 105 17-8 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types S1 and S1a City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1) Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 106 17-24 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types C2 and C2a City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low and Moderate Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X COMPLETE FRAMES: Steel or concrete frames classified as secondary components form a complete vertical-load-carrying system. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.2.5.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.6.1) X REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1) X SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the greater of 100 lb/in.2 (0.69 MPa) or 2√f′c. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.3.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.2.1) X REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing steel area to gross concrete area is not less than 0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the horizontal direction. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.3.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.2.2) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WALL ANCHORAGE AT FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependent on flexible diaphragms for lateral support are anchored for out -of- plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm. Connections have strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7. (Tier 2: Sec.5.7.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.1) X TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of seismic forces to the shear walls. (Tier 2: Sec.5.7.2; Commentary: Sec. A.5.2.1) X FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is doweled into the foundation with vertical bars equal in size and spacing to the vertical wall reinforcing directly above the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.4; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.5) Section A-6 on sheet S6 shows wall reinforcing shown as #6 @ unknown spacing with #3 @ 18” oc dowels. High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY: Secondary components have the shear capacity to develop the flexural strength of the components. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.2.5.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.6.2) Columns do not have the shear capacity to develop their flexural strength. X FLAT SLABS: Flat slabs or plates not part of the seismic-force- resisting system have continuous bottom steel through the column joints. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.2.5.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.1.6.3) No flat slabs 107 17-24 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types C2 and C2a City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X COUPLING BEAMS: The ends of both walls to which the coupling beam is attached are supported at each end to resist vertical loads caused by overturning. (Tier 2: Sec.5.5.3.2.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.2.3) No coupling beams Diaphragms (Stiff or Flexible) C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.1) X OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls are less than 25% of the wall length. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.4) No diaphragm openings Flexible Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.2) X STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1) Diaphragm is structural panel sheathing X SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft (7.3 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2) X DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3) Diaphragm is structural panel sheathing X OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec.5.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps have top reinforcement, and piles are anchored to the pile caps. (Tier 2: Sec.5.7.3.5; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.8) Building foundation does not utilize pile caps Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 108 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation City of Tukwila Design Criteria 728 134th St. SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 www.reidmiddleton.com 109 Client City of Tukwila Sheet of Project City Hall Seismic Evaluation Design by MLO 728 134th Street SW · Suite 200 Everett, Washington 98204 Ph: 425 741-3800 Fax: 425 741-3900 Structural Design Criteria Date 4/22/22 Checked by Project No. 262021.035 Date DESIGN SUMMARY The 6300 building is 3 stories on a sloped grade sloping from the second floor on the north side down to the first floor on the south side. At the first floor the building is a concrete parking garage with concrete columns and retaining and shear walls. Starting at the second floor and going up the building is wood framed. The floor is constructed of plywood supported by open web joists spanning between glulam beams running east to west. The slab between grids 1 and 2 at the north end of the building are concrete topping over hollow concrete planks. The lateral system of the building is comprised of wood shear walls in the transverse direction of the building and a 2-bay steel moment frame in the longitudinal direction. A single concrete shear wall extends up the entire height of the elevator shaft and provides lateral resistance as well. CODES AND REFERENCES General ASCE 41-17 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures Concrete ACI 318-14 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete Wood ANSI/AF&PA-2015 National Design Specification for Wood Construction AITC Timber Construction Manual, Sixth Edition Steel AISC 325-11 Steel Construction Manual, 14th Edition (2011) Catalogs and Miscellaneous Trus-Joist MacMillan Catalog Hilti Catalog Simpson Strong-Tie Catalog Red-Built Open-Web Truss Catalog Red-Built Red-I Joist Catalog 110 3/29/22, 10:02 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 1/2 Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, WA 98188, USA Latitude, Longitude: 47.463224, -122.2555133 Date 3/29/2022, 10:02:06 AM Design Code Reference Document ASCE41-17 Custom Probability Site Class D - Default (See Section 11.4.3) Type Description Value Hazard Level BSE-2N SS spectral response (0.2 s)1.466 S1 spectral response (1.0 s)0.499 SXS site-modified spectral response (0.2 s)1.76 SX1 site-modified spectral response (1.0 s)0.898 Fa site amplification factor (0.2 s)1.2 Fv site amplification factor (1.0 s)1.801 ssuh max direction uniform hazard (0.2 s)1.629 crs coefficient of risk (0.2 s)0.9 ssrt risk-targeted hazard (0.2 s)1.466 ssd deterministic hazard (0.2 s)4.288 s1uh max direction uniform hazard (1.0 s)0.557 cr1 coefficient of risk (1.0 s)0.896 s1rt risk-targeted hazard (1.0 s)0.499 s1d deterministic hazard (1.0 s)1.501 Type Description Value Hazard Level BSE-1N SXS site-modified spectral response (0.2 s)1.173 SX1 site-modified spectral response (1.0 s)0.599 111 3/29/22, 10:02 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 2/2 Type Description Value Hazard Level BSE-2E SS spectral response (0.2 s)1.081 S1 spectral response (1.0 s)0.362 SXS site-modified spectral response (0.2 s)1.297 SX1 site-modified spectral response (1.0 s)0.701 fa site amplification factor (0.2 s)1.2 fv site amplification factor (1.0 s)1.938 Type Description Value Hazard Level BSE-1E SS spectral response (0.2 s)0.501 S1 spectral response (1.0 s)0.155 SXS site-modified spectral response (0.2 s)0.701 SX1 site-modified spectral response (1.0 s)0.355 Fa site amplification factor (0.2 s)1.399 Fv site amplification factor (1.0 s)2.29 Type Description Value Hazard Level TL Data T-Sub-L Long-period transition period in seconds 6 DISCLAIMER While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. 112 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation City of Tukwila 6300 Building Tier 1 Evaluation Life Safety 728 134th St. SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 www.reidmiddleton.com 113 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 6300 Building Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: Building Properties Building Type:C2a/W2 Concrete & Wood Shear Walls w/ Flexible Diaphragms Area:16,800 ft2 Latitude:47.463 Longitude:-122.256 Site Class:D (Default) No. Stories:3 Building Height:41.50 ft (Approximate) Height of Sloped Roof Risk Category:II Level of Performance:LS Life Safety Seismic Properties, BSE-1E Mapped Short Period Accel.:SS =0.501 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Mapped One-Sec. Accel.:S1 =0.155 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Accel. Site Coefficient:Fa =1.399 OSHPD Seismic Maps Velocity Site Coefficient:Fv =2.290 OSHPD Seismic Maps Design Short Period Accel.:SDS = (2/3)*Ss*Fa =0.467 g ASCE 41-17 Eq. 2-4 Design 1-Sec. Period Accel.:SD1 = (2/3)*S1*Fv =0.237 g ASCE 41-17 Eq. 2-5 Level of Seismicity:High Seismic Hazard Level:1E BSE 2E Design Short Period Accel.:SXS = 0.701 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE 2E 1-Sec. Design Short Period Accel.:SX1 =0.355 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Design Spectral Acceleration, BSE-1E Period Coefficient:Ct =0.020 For All Other Framing System ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.4 Period Coefficient:β = 0.75 For All Other Framing System ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.4 Fundamental Period:T = Ct*hn β =0.33 s ASCE 41-17 Eq.4-4 Spectral Acc.:Sa = SX1/T =0.701 g but S a shall not exceed SXS ASCE 41-17 Eq.4-3 262022.017 Code Ref. 6300 Tier 1 Calculations - Life Safety UFC 3-301-01 Section 4- 2.1.1 Code Ref. 20% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years for an Existing Building Code Ref. of 114 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 6300 Building Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 6300 Tier 1 Calculations - Life Safety of Weight Take-Off Figure 1: Building 6300 Foundation Plan Ground Floor 8" Conc Wall 330.1 kip 12" Conc Col 12.2 kip First Floor 32" TJI 50 @ 2' oc 9.0 psf 14400 sf 129.6 kip 3/4" Plywd 3 psf 14400 sf 43.2 kip 1.5" Lt Wt Conc topping 13 psf 14400 sf 180 kip 12" spandeck 124 psf 2400 sf 297 kip 2" topping 25 psf 2400 sf 60 kip Misc 5 psf 16800 sf 84 kip 793.8 kip Second Floor 32" TJI 50 @ 2' oc 9.0 psf 14400 sf 129.6 kip 3/4" Plywd 3 psf 14400 sf 43.2 kip 1.5" Lt Wt Conc topping 13 psf 14400 sf 180 kip 8" spandeck 83 psf 2400 sf 198 kip 2" topping 25 psf 2400 sf 60 kip Misc 5 psf 16800 sf 84 kip 694.8 kip Roof 28" TJL @ 48" oc 3 psf 3/4" Plywd 3 psf GL 6.75x25.5 1.4 psf Misc 5.0 psf 208.9 kip 209 kip 695 kip 1,136 kip 2,040 kip Vertical Distribution of Psuedo-Seismic Base Shear Coefficient Exponent:k =1.0 ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.2 Effective Seismic Building Weight:W= 2,040 kips Modification Factor:C = 1.1 for Shear walls ASCE 41-17 Tbl. 4-7 Psuedo Seismic Base Shear, BSE-2E:Vpseudo = C*Sa*W =1,573 kips Roof Σ Code Ref. Story Shear Forces: Vertical Distribution of Pseudo Shear Forces Building Weight Summary Level 2 Code Ref. Level 1 115 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 6300 Building Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 6300 Tier 1 Calculations - Life Safety of 41.5 0.21 334 334 27.5 0.47 736 736 11.5 0.32 503 503 1.0 1,573 *Story shear will be used to check the SFRS in the structure at each respective level. Lateral Force [kip] Story Shear* [kip] Roof 209 8,669 Floor Level [from base] Height, hx [ft] Story Weight, wx [kip] wxhx k [kip*ft] Dist. Factor Cvx Σ 40,841 Level 2 695 19,107 Level 1 1,136 13,064 2,040 116 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 6300 Building Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 6300 Tier 1 Calculations - Life Safety of Shear Stress Check - Concrete Aw,x =34560 in2 Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction x Aw,y =16672 in2 Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction y VBase =1,573 kip Max Story Shear Ms =3 Modification Factor for Shear Walls vx =15.2 psi Shear Stress in Walls, x-dir vy =31.4 psi Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir vmax =31.4 psi Shear Stress in Walls vallowable =100 psi Allowable Shear Stress in Walls DCR =0.314 C Demand Capacity Ratio Reinforcing Steel in Shear Walls City Hall Reinforcing ratio, ρ ρprovided ρrequired Vertical #5 @ 12" oc 0.00323 0.0012 Horizontal #4 @ 12" oc 0.00208 0.002 Total 0.00531 0.002 Wall Anchorage Check ψ = 1.3 CP = 1.0; LS = 1.3; IO = 1.8 SXS =0.701 g Spectral Response Acceleration wp =100 psf Unit Weight of Wall Ap =24 ft2 Area of Wall Tributary to Connection Tc =2187 lb Connection Demand Tn =12000 lb Connection Capacity (#4 @ 12" oc) DCR =0.182 C Shear Stress Check - Wood Aw,y =124 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction y VFloor =333,867 lb Max Story Shear Ms =3 Modification Factor for Shear Walls vy =639.8 plf Service Level Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir vmax =639.8 plf Service Level Shear Stress in Walls vallowable =1000 plf Allowable Shear Stress in Walls DCR =0.640 C Demand Capacity Ratio Drift Check Dr =0.07255 Drift ratio kb =1.08611 I/L for the representative beam kc =2.32738 I/h for the representative column Code Ref. Code Ref. Code Ref. Code Ref. Code Ref. 117 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 6300 Building Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 6300 Tier 1 Calculations - Life Safety of I = 391 in4 W12x50 Column moment of Inertia (in^4) I = 391 in4 W12x50 Beam moment of Inertia (in^4) L = 360 in Beam length h = 168 in Story Height E = 29000 ksi Modulus of elasticity (ksi) Vc =111.289 kip Shear in the column Dr, Allowable =0.03 DCRDrift 2.41834 Column Axial Stress Check Ms =1.5 System modification factor (CP = 2.5, LS = 1.5, IO = 1.0) V =334 kip Pseudo seismic force hn =30 ft Height above the base to roof L =60 ft Total Length of the frame Nf =1 Number of frames in the direction of loading Acol =14.6 in2 Area of end column of the frame pot =5.08169 Axial stress of columns 0.1Fy =3.6 ksi DCR =1.41 Frame Flexural Stress Vj =334 kip Story Shear Ms =6 System modification factor (CP = 9, LS = 6, IO = 2.5) nc =30 Number of frame Columns nf =1 Number of frames h =168 in Story Height Z =71.9 in3 Plastic Section of Beams fj avg =67.3 ksi Axial stress of columns Fy =36 ksi Beam Yield Stress DCR =1.87 Code Ref. Code Ref. 118 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation City of Tukwila 6300 Building Tier 1 Evaluation Collapse Prevention 728 134th St. SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 www.reidmiddleton.com 119 120 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation City of Tukwila 6300 Building Tier 2 Evaluation Life Safety 728 134th St. SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 www.reidmiddleton.com 121 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 6300 Building Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: Building Properties Building Type:C2a/W2 Concrete & Wood Shear Walls w/ Flexible Diaphragms Area:14,030 ft2 Latitude:47.463 Longitude:-122.256 Site Class:D (Default) No. Stories:2 Building Height:25.00 ft (Approximate) Height of Sloped Roof Risk Category:II Level of Performance:CP Collapse Prevention Seismic Properties, BSE-2E Mapped Short Period Accel.:SS =1.081 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Mapped One-Sec. Accel.:S1 =0.362 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Accel. Site Coefficient:Fa =1.200 OSHPD Seismic Maps Velocity Site Coefficient:Fv =1.938 OSHPD Seismic Maps Design Short Period Accel.:SDS = (2/3)*Ss*Fa =0.865 g ASCE 41-17 Eq. 2-4 Design 1-Sec. Period Accel.:SD1 = (2/3)*S1*Fv =0.468 g ASCE 41-17 Eq. 2-5 Level of Seismicity:High Seismic Hazard Level:2E BSE 1E Design Short Period Accel.:SXS = 1.297 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE 1E 1-Sec. Design Short Period Accel.:SX1 =0.701 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Design Spectral Acceleration, BSE-2E Period Coefficient:Ct =0.020 For All Other Framing System ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.4 Period Coefficient:β = 0.75 For All Other Framing System ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.4 Fundamental Period:T = Ct*hn β =0.22 s ASCE 41-17 Eq.4-4 Spectral Acc.:Sa = SX1/T =1.297 g but S a shall not exceed SXS ASCE 41-17 Eq.4-3 262022.017 Code Ref. 6300 Building Tier 1 Calculations - Collapse Prevention UFC 3-301-01 Section 4- 2.1.1 Code Ref. 5% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years for an Existing Building Code Ref. ofof 122 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 6300 Building Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 6300 Building Tier 1 Calculations - Collapse Prevention ofof Weight Take-Off Figure 1: 6300 Building Foundation Plan 209 kip 695 kip 1,136 kip 2,040 kip Code Ref. Level 2 Building Weight Summary Roof Level 1 Σ 123 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 6300 Building Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 6300 Building Tier 1 Calculations - Collapse Prevention ofof Vertical Distribution of Psuedo-Seismic Base Shear Coefficient Exponent:k =1.0 ASCE 41-17 S. 4.4.2.2 Effective Seismic Building Weight:W= 2,040 kips Modification Factor:C = 1.1 for Shear walls ASCE 41-17 Tbl. 4-7 Psuedo Seismic Base Shear, BSE-1E:Vpseudo = C*Sa*W = 2,910 kips 41.5 0.21 618 618 27.5 0.47 1,361 1,361 11.5 0.32 931 931 1.0 2,910 *Story shear will be used to check the SFRS in the structure at each respective level. Shear Stress Check - Concrete Aw,x =34560 in2 Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction Aw,y =16672 in2 Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction VBase =2,910 kip Max Story Shear Ms =4.5 Modification Factor for Shear Walls vx =18.7 psi Shear Stress in Walls, x-dir vy =38.8 psi Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir vmax =38.8 Shear Stress in Walls vallowable =100 Allowable Shear Stress in Walls DCR =0.388 C Demand Capacity Ratio Lateral Force [kip] Story Shear* [kip] 8,669 Level 2 695 19,107 Story Shear Forces: Vertical Distribution of Pseudo Shear Forces Floor Level [from base] Height, hx [ft] Story Weight, wx [kip] wxhx k [kip*ft] Dist. Factor Cvx Code Ref. Σ 40,841 Level 1 Code Ref. Roof 1,136 13,064 209 124 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Project:Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Everett, WA 98024 6300 Building Date: Ph: 425-741-3800 Checked By:KRB www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date:262022.017 6300 Building Tier 1 Calculations - Collapse Prevention ofof Wall Anchorage Check ψ = 1 CP = 1.0; LS = 1.3; IO = 1.8 SXS =1.297 g Spectral Response Acceleration wp =100 psf Unit Weight of Wall Ap =24 ft2 Area of Wall Tributary to Connection Tc =3113 lb Connection Demand Tn =12000 lb Connection Capacity (#4 @ 12" oc) DCR =0.259 C Shear Stress Check - Wood Aw,y =124 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction y VFloor =617,725 lb Max Story Shear Ms =3 Modification Factor for Shear Walls vy =1183.7 plf Service Level Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir vmax =1183.7 plf Service Level Shear Stress in Walls vallowable =1000 plf Allowable Shear Stress in Walls DCR =1.184 NC Demand Capacity Ratio Drift Check Code Ref. Code Ref. Code Ref. 125 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 13220 Evening Creek S. Suite 112 Project:City of Tukwila Sheet: San Diego, CA 92128 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Ph: 858-668-0707 6300 Building Date: www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration BSE-2E accel. @ short periods:SS2E =1.081 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-2E accel. @ a 1-sec. period:S12E =0.362 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-1E accel. @ short periods:SS1E =0.501 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-1E accel. @ a 1-sec. period:S11E =0.155 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-2N accel. @ short periods:SS2N =1.466 g OSHPD Seismic Maps BSE-2N accel. @ a 1-sec. period:S12N =0.499 g OSHPD Seismic Maps Site class:D Long period transition parameter TL =6 sec BSE-2E short period site coefficient:Fa2E =1.20 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-1 BSE-2E long period site coefficient:Fv2E =1.94 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 BSE-1E short period site coefficient:Fa1E =1.40 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-1 BSE-1E long period site coefficient:Fv1E =2.29 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 BSE-2N short period site coefficient:Fa2N =1.20 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-1 BSE-2N long period site coefficient: Fv2N =1.80 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 Design Spectral Response Parameters (Sec. 2.4.1.6) BSE-2E controlling short period accel.:SS2E = MIN(SS2E,SS2N) =1.081 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-2E controlling accel. @ T=1 s:S12E = MIN(S12E,S12N) =0.362 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-1E controlling short period accel.:SS1E = MIN(SS1E,2/3*SS2N) =0.501 g 2.4.1.4 BSE-1E controlling accel. @ T=1 s:S11E = MIN(S11E,2/3*S12N) =0.155 g 2.4.1.4 BSE-2E design short period accel:SXS2E = Fa2E*SS2E =1.297 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-2E design 1 sec. period accel.:SX12E = Fv2E*S12E =0.702 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-1E design short period accel.:SXS1E = Fa1E*SS1E =0.701 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-1E design 1 sec. period accel.:SX11E = Fv1E*S11E =0.355 g 2.4.1.6 Level of Seismicity (Sec. 2.5) BSE-2N design short period accel:SDS = 2/3*Fa2N*SS2N =1.17 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-2N design 1 sec. period accel.:SD1 = 2/3*Fv2N*S12N =0.60 g 2.4.1.6 Level of Seismicity:Table 2-4 LSP Structure Properties Building height:hn =25.0 ft Effective damping ratio:b =5.00%7.2.3.6 Lateral system:7.4.1.2.2 Period coefficient:Ct =0.02 7.4.1.2.2 Period exponent:b =0.75 7.4.1.2.2 Empirical period:T =0.224 sec 7.4.1.2.2 Response Spectra Characteristic Periods BSE-2E spectra:TS2 = SX12E/SXS2E =0.54 sec ASCE 7-16 Sec. 11.4.6 T02 = 0.2*(SX12E/SXS2E) = 0.11 sec ASCE 7-16 Sec. 11.4.6 BSE-1E spectra:TS1 = SX11E/SXS1E =0.51 sec ASCE 7-16 Sec. 11.4.6 T01 = 0.2*(SX11E/SXS1E) = 0.10 sec ASCE 7-16 Sec. 11.4.6 ASCE 41-17 Linear Static Procedure (Sec. 7.4.1) - 6300 Building Code Ref. Code Ref. Code Ref. HIGH Code Ref. Code Ref. Concrete Shear Wall 262022.017 of ofof 126 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 13220 Evening Creek S. Suite 112 Project:City of Tukwila Sheet: San Diego, CA 92128 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Ph: 858-668-0707 6300 Building Date: www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: ASCE 41-17 Linear Static Procedure (Sec. 7.4.1) - 6300 Building 262022.017 of ofof Pseudo Seismic Force Building seismic weight:W = 2,040 kip 7.4.1.3.1 Number of stories:n = 3 mmax @ BSE-2E:mmax2 =3.5 7.4.1.3.1 mmax @ BSE-1E:mmax1 =2.5 7.4.1.3.1 Damping coefficient:B1 =1.00 2.4.1.7.1 BSE-2E mod. factors product:C12C22 =1.4 Table 7-3 BSE-1E mod. factors product:C11C21 =1.4 Table 7-3 Effective mass factor:Cm =0.8 Table 7-4 BSE-2E spectral acceleration:Sa2 =1.29 g 2.4.3 BSE-1E spectral acceleration:Sa1 =0.70 g 2.4.3 BSE-2E pseudo lateral load:V2E = C12C22CmSa2W =2956.8 kip 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-1E pseudo lateral load:V1E = C11C21CmSa1W =1597.6 kip 7.4.1.3.1 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces (Sec. 7.4.1.3.2) Story force:Fx =wxhx k/(Swxhx k)*V =See Table Below Eq. 7-24 Story heihgt exponent factor:k =1.00 7.4.1.3.2 Diaphragm force:Fpx = Vx*wx/W x =See Table Below Eq. 7-26 BSE-2E BSE-1E BSE-2E BSE-1E Total BSE-2E BSE-1E Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Weight Diaph. Diaph. Name Weight Height Force Force Shear Shear Above Force Force wx hx wx*hx k Fx2 Fx1 Vx2 Vx1 W x Fpx2 Fpx1 (k) (ft)(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) Roof 209 41.5 8673.5 627.8 339.2 627.8 339.2 209.0 627.8 339.2 14.0 Level 2 695 27.5 19113 1383.4 747.5 2011.2 1086.7 904.0 1546.2 835.5 16.0 Level 1 1136 11.5 13064 945.6 510.9 2956.8 1597.6 2040.0 1646.6 889.7 SUM = 2040 40850 Code Ref. Code Ref. 127 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 13220 Evening Creek S. Suite 112 Project:City of Tukwila Sheet: San Diego, CA 92128 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Ph: 858-668-0707 6300 Building Date: www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: ASCE 41-17 Linear Static Procedure (Sec. 7.4.1) - 6300 Building 262022.017 of ofof Acceleration Response Spectra CEQ = C1C2CMSXS[(5/B1-2)T/Ts+0.4]-{ @ T < T0 } T (sec)CEQ T (sec)CEQ CEQ = C1C2CMSXS/B1 -{ @ T0 ≤ T ≤ TS } 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.28 CEQ = C1C2CMSX1/(B1*T)-{ @ Ts < T ≤ TL } T0 =0.11 1.29 0.10 0.70 CEQ =C1C2CMTLSX1/(B1*T2)-{ @ TL < T } Ts =0.54 1.29 0.51 0.70 0.59 1.19 0.56 0.64 0.63 1.11 0.61 0.59 0.68 1.03 0.65 0.54 0.72 0.97 0.70 0.50 0.77 0.91 0.75 0.47 0.82 0.86 0.80 0.44 0.86 0.81 0.85 0.42 0.91 0.77 0.90 0.39 0.95 0.73 0.95 0.37 T1 =1 0.70 1 0.35 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 TL =6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 BSE-2E BSE-1E 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 Re s p o n s e C o e f f i c i e n t , C EQ Period, T (s) BSE-2E General Response Spectrum 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 Re s p o n s e C o e f f i c i e n t , C EQ Period, T (s) BSE-1E General Response Spectrum 128 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 13220 Evening Creek S. Suite 112 Project:City of Tukwila Sheet: San Diego, CA 92128 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Ph: 858-668-0707 6300 Building Date: www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: Overturning Vroof =339.2 kip Roof story force Vlevel 2 =747.5 kip Level 2 story force Vlevel 1 =510.9 kip Level 1 story force hroof =42 ft Roof Height hlevel 2 =28 ft Level 2 height hlevel 1 =12 ft Level 1 height QUD = MOT =40509 k-ft Overturning moment due to seismic qbearing =4000 psf Allowable soil bearing pressure Afootings =569 sf Total area of footings along East edge POT =2277 kip Allowable bearing resistance Building width =80 ft Bearing moment arm QCE = MR =182131 k-ft Overturning resistance m =1 m-factor k = 0.90 Knowledge factor mkQCE =163918 k-ft Overturning resistance DCR =0.247 C Foundation Dowels Wall Demands Lw,x =360 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction X Lw,y =174 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction Y VBase =1,598 kip Max Story Shear QUD = vx =4.4 kip/ft Shear Stress in Walls, x-dir QUD = vy =9.2 kip/ft Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir Dowel Shear Capacity (#3 @ 18" oc) As =0.11 in2 Shear reinforcing at footing interface fy =60 ksi Reinforcing yield strength s =18 in Reinforcing spacing QCE = Vs =4.4 kip/ft Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir Te =0.34 Effective fundamental period of the building C1C2 =1.1 Modification factors for force controlled J =2 Force delivery reduction factor k =0.9 Knowledge factor (C1C2J)kQCE =8.7 Psuedo capacity for dowel reinforcing DCR =1.056 NC Code Ref. Code Ref. 262022.017 Tukwila 6300 Building Tier 2 Life Safety Calculations ofof ofof 129 Deflection Compatibility Level 1 Drift V = 1597.6 kip Building Seismic Force F = 426.0 kip Seismic Force tributary to wall @ GL 6 Building is more flexible in the E/W direction. Wall @ GL 6 was chosen b/c it is in-line with columns and is the shortest wall E = 3605 ksi Modulus of elasticity for concrete t =8 in Wall thickness h = 11.5 ft Wall height l = 11.8 ft Wall length k = 7445 k/in Wall stiffness ∆ = 0.057 in Wall deflection Shear Demand kColumn =4.211 k/in Column stiffness QUD = FColumn =0.241 kip Column Force Shear Strength of Columns As =0.4 in2 Column reinforcing (4 #9 Vert) fy =60 ksi Steel yield Stress d =10 in Column depth b =12 in Column width s =12 in Reinforcing spacing f'c =4000 psi Concrete compressive strength Vs =20.0 kip Steel shear strength Vc =15.2 kip Concrete shear strength QCE = Vn =35.2 kip Column shear strength m =2.1 m-factor (LS = 2.1, CP = 2.5) k =0.9 Knowledge Factor mkQCE =66.5 kip Column psuedo shear capacity DCR =0.004 C Shear Stress Check - Wood Vroof =339.2 kip Location Length Trib. Area (sf) Trib. Force (k) Force/Length (plf) DCR GL 2 30 3380 68.6 2286 0.98 C GL 2.8 21.5 1920 39.0 1812 0.78 C GL 3.5 20.75 4680 94.9 4576 1.97 NC GL 6.8 20 4040 82.0 4098 1.77 NC GL 7 23 2700 54.8 2382 1.03 NC 16720 339.219 Nominal Shear Capacity =950 plf m =3.8 m-factor k =0.9 knowledge factor Shear Strength Capacity = 2320.714286 plf Nominal capacity converted to allowable capacity by dividing by 2 per Sec. 4.3.3 of 2015 SDPWS Allowable capacity converted to strength capacity by divded by 0.7 Code Ref. Code Ref. 130 Axial/Flexural Stress/Redundancy/Compact Members/Strong Column-Weak Beam (SC-WB) (Cont.) W12x50 Column Column Dimensions dd =12.2 in Column Depth bf =8.08 in Flange Width tf =0.64 in Flange Thickness tw =0.37 in Web Thickness Material Properties E =29000 ksi Modulus of Elasticity Fy =36 ksi Yield Strength Fye =39.6 ksi Expected Yield Strength. F ye = 1.1F y ASCE 41-17 T. 9-3 Demands from RISA 3D using BSE-1E and 2E Seismic Loads Pu,dead =0.0 kip Pu,live =0.0 kip RISA Output Vu,dead =0.0 kip Vu,live =0.0 kip RISA Output Mu,dead =0.0 k*ft Mu,live =0.0 k*ft RISA Output Framing spans parallel to moment frames. Negligible loads would be applied to frame members. Pu,EQ,1E =355.4 kip Pu,EQ,2E =657.8 kip RISA Output Vu,EQ,1E =281.3 kip Vu,EQ,2E =520.6 kip RISA Output Mu,EQ,1E =4500.3 k*ft Mu,EQ,2E =8329.0 k*ft RISA Output Use if gravity and seismic loads are counteracting ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-1,2 QG,P =0.0 kip Force Due to Gravity Loads ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-1,2 QG,M =0.0 k*ft Moment Due to Gravity Loads ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-1,2 QG,V =0.0 kip Shear Due to Gravity Loads ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-1,2 Force Controlled Demands ASCE 41-17 7.5.2.1.2.2 Χ1E =1.0 Adjustment Factor for Collapse Prevention ASCE 41-17 7.5.2.1.2.2 Χ2E =1.3 Adjustment Factor for Life Safety J =2.0 Reduction Factor for High Level of Seismicity ASCE 41-17 7.5.2.1.2.2 C1C2,1E =1.4 1E Alternative Modification Factor ASCE 41-17 Tier 2 LSP C1C2,2E =1.4 2E Alternative Modification Factor ASCE 41-17 Tier 2 LSP QUF,P,1E = PUF,1E =126.9 kip 1E Force Controlled Axial Force ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-35 QUF,P,2E = PUF,2E =305.4 kip 2E Force Controlled Axial Force ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-35 Deformation Controlled Demands ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 QUD,M,1E = MUD,1E =4500 k*ft 1E Deformation Controlled Moment ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 QUD,V,1E = VUD,1E =281 kip 1E Deformation Controlled Shear ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 QUD,M,2E = MUD,2E =8329 k*ft 2E Deformation Controlled Moment ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 QUD,V,2E = VUD,2E =521 kip 2E Deformation Controlled Shear ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 Code Ref. 131 Axial/Flexural Stress/Redundancy/Compact Members/Strong Column-Weak Beam (SC-WB) (Cont.) Member Capacity Capacities were calculated using Enercalc using Fy and Fye 0.9 Pn,Fy =285 kip 0.9 Pn,Fye =299 kip Axial Capacity Enercalc Output Vn,Fy =108 kip Vn,Fye =119 kip Shear Capacity Enercalc Output 0.9 Mnx,Fy =194 k*ft 0.9 Mnx,Fye =214 k*ft Moment Capacity Enercalc Output PCL = Pn =317 kip Pye = Pn =332 kip Adjusted Axial Capacity VCL = Vn =108 kip VCE = Vn =119 kip Adjusted Shear Capacity MCL = Mnx =216 k*ft MCE = Mnx =237 k*ft Adjusted Moment Capacity m-Factor L.S. 1E m-factor PUF,1E/Pye =0.38 < 0.1 ?False. Force Controlled! ASCE 41-17 T. 9-6 C.P. 2E m-factor PUF,2E/PCL =0.92 < 0.1 ?False. Force Controlled! ASCE 41-17 T. 9-6 Acceptance Criteria Flexure is the controlling demand since the column is treated as a beam-column. L.S. 1E DCR's Flexural DCR ASCE 41-17 Eq.7-36 DCR =6.78 C.P. 2E DCR's DCR =12.54 ASCE 41-17 Eq.7-36 Axial/Flexural Stress/Redundancy/Compact Members/Strong Column-Weak Beam (SC-WB) (Cont.) W12x50 Beam Column Dimensions dd =12.2 in Column Depth bf =8.08 in Flange Width tf =0.64 in Flange Thickness tw =0.37 in Web Thickness Material Properties E =29000 ksi Modulus of Elasticity Fy =36 ksi Yield Strength ASCE 41-17 T. 9-1 Fye =39.6 ksi Expected Yield Strength. F ye = 1.1F y ASCE 41-17 T. 9-3 Demands from RISA 3D using BSE-1E and 2E Seismic Loads Pu,dead =0.0 kip Pu,live =0.0 kip RISA Output Vu,dead =0.0 kip Vu,live =0.0 kip RISA Output Mu,dead =0.0 k*ft Mu,live =0.0 k*ft RISA Output Framing spans parallel to moment frames. Negligible loads would be applied to frame members. Pu,EQ,1E =365.7 kip Pu,EQ,2E =676.8 kip RISA Output Vu,EQ,1E =270.6 kip Vu,EQ,2E =500.8 kip RISA Output Mu,EQ,1E =4085.4 k*ft Mu,EQ,2E =7561.1 k*ft RISA Output Use if gravity and seismic loads are counteracting ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-1,2 QG,P =0.0 kip Force Due to Gravity Loads ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-1,2 QG,M =0.0 k*ft Moment Due to Gravity Loads ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-1,2 QG,V =0.0 kip Shear Due to Gravity Loads ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-1,2 Force Controlled Demands ASCE 41-17 7.5.2.1.2.2 Χ1E =1.0 Adjustment Factor for Collapse Prevention ASCE 41-17 7.5.2.1.2.2 Χ2E =1.3 Adjustment Factor for Life Safety J =2.0 Reduction Factor for High Level of Seismicity ASCE 41-17 7.5.2.1.2.2 C1C2,1E =1.4 1E Alternative Modification Factor ASCE 41-17 Tier 2 LSP C1C2,2E =1.4 2E Alternative Modification Factor ASCE 41-17 Tier 2 LSP QUF,P,1E = PUF,1E =130.6 kip 1E Force Controlled Axial Force ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-35 QUF,P,2E = PUF,2E =314.2 kip 2E Force Controlled Axial Force ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-35 Deformation Controlled Demands ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 QUD,M,1E = MUD,1E =4085 k*ft 1E Deformation Controlled Moment ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 QUD,V,1E = VUD,1E =271 kip 1E Deformation Controlled Shear ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 QUD,M,2E = MUD,2E =7561 k*ft 2E Deformation Controlled Moment ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 QUD,V,2E = VUD,2E =501 kip 2E Deformation Controlled Shear ASCE 41-17 Eq. 7-34 NC NC Code Ref. Code Ref. ≤ ≤≤ ≤≤ ≤≤≤≤≤≤ ≤ , , , , 132 Axial/Flexural Stress/Redundancy/Compact Members/Strong Column-Weak Beam (SC-WB) (Cont.) Member Capacity Capacities were calculated using Enercalc using Fy and Fye 0.9 Pn,Fy =285 kip 0.9 Pn,Fye =299 kip Axial Capacity Enercalc Output Vn,Fy =108 kip Vn,Fye =119 kip Shear Capacity Enercalc Output 0.9 Mnx,Fy =194 k*ft 0.9 Mnx,Fye =214 k*ft Moment Capacity Enercalc Output PCL = Pn =317 kip Pye = Pn =332 kip Adjusted Axial Capacity VCL = Vn =108 kip VCE = Vn =119 kip Adjusted Shear Capacity MCL = Mnx =216 k*ft MCE = Mnx =237 k*ft Adjusted Moment Capacity m-Factor L.S. 1E m-factor PUF,1E/Pye =0.394 < 0.1 ?False. Force Controlled!ASCE 41-17 T. 9-6 C.P. 2E m-factor PUF,2E/PCL =0.947 < 0.1 ?False. Force Controlled!ASCE 41-17 T. 9-6 Acceptance Criteria L.S. 1E DCR's Flexural DCR ASCE 41-17 Eq.7-36 DCR =6.15 C.P. 2E DCR's DCR =11.38 ASCE 41-17 Eq.7-36NC NC Code Ref. ≤ ≤ ≤≤ ≤≤ ≤≤≤≤≤≤ ≤≤ , , , , 133 Client:City of Tukwila Sheet: 13220 Evening Creek S. Suite 112 Project:City of Tukwila Sheet: San Diego, CA 92128 Tukwila Seismic Evaluation Design By:MLO Ph: 858-668-0707 6300 Building Date: www.reidmiddleton.com Project No.:Date: Overturning Vroof =627.8 kip Roof story force Vlevel 2 =1383.4 kip Level 2 story force Vlevel 1 =945.6 kip Level 1 story force hroof =42 ft Roof Height hlevel 2 =28 ft Level 2 height hlevel 1 =12 ft Level 1 height QUD = MOT =74973 k-ft Overturning moment due to seismic qbearing =4000 psf Allowable soil bearing pressure Afootings =569 sf Total area of footings along East edge POT =2277 kip Allowable bearing resistance Building width = 80 ft Bearing moment arm QCE = MR =182131 k-ft Overturning resistance m = 1 m-factor k = 0.90 Knowledge factor mkQCE =163918 k-ft Overturning resistance DCR =0.457 C Foundation Dowels Wall Demands Lw,x =360 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction X Lw,y =174 ft Horizontal cross-sectional area of all shear walls in direction Y VBase =2,957 kip Max Story Shear QUD = vx =8.2 kip/ft Shear Stress in Walls, x-dir QUD = vy =17.0 kip/ft Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir Wall Shear Capacity (#3 @ 18" oc) b = 8 in Concrete wall width f'c =4000 psi Concrete compressive strength Vc =1.0 kip/ft Concrete shear capacity As =0.11 in2 Shear reinforcing at footing interface fy =60 ksi Reinforcing yield strength s = 18 in Reinforcing spacing Vs =4.4 kip/ft Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir QCE = Vn =5.4 kip/ft Shear Stress in Walls, y-dir Te =0.34 Effective fundamental period of the building C1C2 =1.1 Modification factors for force controlled J =1 Force delivery reduction factor k = 0.9 Knowledge factor (C1C2J)kQCE =5.4 Psuedo capacity for dowel reinforcing DCR =3.178 NC 10.6 kip/ft Additional shear required 262022.017 Tukwila 6300 Building Tier 2 Collapse Prevention Calculations Code Ref. Code Ref. ofof ofof 134 Deflection Compatibility Level 1 Drift V = 2956.8 kip Building Seismic Force F = 788.5 kip Seismic Force tributary to wall @ GL 6 Building is more flexible in the E/W direction. Wall @ GL 6 was chosen b/c it is in-line with columns and is the shortest wall E = 3605 ksi Modulus of elasticity for concrete t = 8 in Wall thickness h = 11.5 ft Wall height l = 11.8 ft Wall length k = 7445 k/in Wall stiffness ∆ = 0.106 in Wall deflection Shear Demand kColumn =4.211 k/in Column stiffness QUD = FColumn =0.446 kip Column Force Shear Strength of Columns As =0.4 in2 Column reinforcing (4 #9 Vert) fy =60 ksi Steel yield Stress d = 10 in Column depth b = 12 in Column width s = 12 in Reinforcing spacing f'c =4000 psi Concrete compressive strength Vs =20.0 kip Steel shear strength Vc =15.2 kip Concrete shear strength QCE = Vn =35.2 kip Column shear strength m = 2.1 m-factor (LS = 2.1, CP = 2.5) k = 0.9 Knowledge Factor mkQCE =66.5 kip Column psuedo shear capacity DCR =0.007 C Shear Stress Check - Wood Vroof =627.8 kip Location Length Trib. Area (sf)Trib. Force (k)Force/Length (plf) DCR GL 2 30 3380 126.9 4230 1.54 NC GL 2.8 21.5 1920 72.1 3353 1.22 NC GL 3.5 20.75 4680 175.7 8469 3.08 NC GL 6.8 20 4040 151.7 7585 2.76 NC GL 7 23 2700 101.4 4408 1.60 NC 16720 627.815 Nominal Shear Capacity = 950 plf m = 4.5 m-factor k = 0.9 knowledge factor Shear Strength Capacity = 2748.214 plf Nominal capacity converted to allowable capacity by dividing by 2 per Sec. 4.3.3 of 2015 SDPWS Allowable capacity converted to strength capacity by divded by 0.7 Code Ref. Code Ref. 135 Panel Zone Shear Assumptions: 1. The effect of inelastic panel-zone deformation on the local frame stability is not accounted for in the Tier 1 analysis. 2. Column demand is 20% of the compression capacity. 3. A representative frame on the second story with a W12x96 shall be analyzed. Panel Zone Shear Strength Fy =36 ksi dc = 12.2 in tw = 0.37 in Rn =97.5 kip Column Shear Capacity h/tw =26.8 <2.24*(E/Fy)0.5 =63.6 φv =1.00 Cv =1.00 Aw =4.514 in2 Vcol =97.5 kip Zb_left =71.9 in3 Left Beam Plastic Modulus Zb_right =71.9 in3 Right Beam Plastic Modulus Fy =36 ksi Yield Stress Mbr_left =2588 k-in Default Lower-Bound Material Yield Strength Mbr_right =2588.4 k-in Default Lower-Bound Material Yield Strength db_left =12.2 in Left Beam Depth db_right =12.2 in Right Beam Depth NEHRP NIST GCR 09-917-3 Section 5.4.3 Vpz =242 kip Panel Zone Demand m = 11 m-factor (LS = 8, CP = 11)ASCE 41 -17, Table 9-6 k = 0.9 mk(φRn) =965 kip 0.25 Available Panel Zone Shear Strength DCR =0.251 C {Note: 80% of the Panel Zone Strength defined in NEHRP NIST GCR 09-917-3 Section 5.4.3 is defined in ASCE 41-17 Section A.3.1.3.5} Code Ref. 0.8 Σ 136 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Community Center 137 17-3 Immediate Occupancy Basic Configuration Checklist City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Very Low Seismicity Building System - General C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.1) X ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.5% of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 1.0% in moderate seismici ty, and 3.0% in high seismicity. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.2) X MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.3) Building System – Building Configuration C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of the seismic - force-resisting system in any story in each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in the adjacent story above. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.1; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.2) X SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force- resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or less than 80% of the average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.2; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.3) X VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic-force- resisting system are continuous to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.3; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.4) X GEOMETRY: There are no changes in the net horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.4; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.5) X MASS: There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.5; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.6) X TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.6; Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.7) 138 17-3 Immediate Occupancy Basic Configuration Checklist City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low Seismicity) Geologic Site Hazards C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building’s seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.1; Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.1) Soils around Green River in Tukwila tend to be liquefiable. Site Class F site per 2008 Geotechncial report completed as part of original report. X SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away from potential earthquake-induced slope failures or rockfalls so that it is unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.1; Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.2) X SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.1 ; Commentary: Sec.A.6.1.3) Moderate and High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Foundation Configuration C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X OVERTURNING: The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic-force- resisting system at the foundation level to the building height (base/height) is greater than 0.6Sa. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.1) X TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS: The foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.4; Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.2) No beams/slabs/soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C between shallow foundation elements. Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 139 17-6. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low and Moderate Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1) X SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values: Structural panel sheathing, 1,000 lb/ft (14.6 kN/m); Diagonal sheathing, 700 lb/ft (10.2 kN/m); Straight sheathing, 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m); All other conditions, 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m). (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1 ; Commentary: Sec.A.3.2.7.1) Shear stress check exceeds 1000 plf X STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi- story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.2) X GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.3) Interior walls have gypsum wallboard, but the structure is only one story. X NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.4) Several of the walls have an aspect ratio above 2-1. X WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.5) X HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.6) Wood shearwalls only exist above grade. X CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.4; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.7) X OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1 or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of transferring the seismic forces. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.8) Various locations have shear walls with larger aspect ratios. Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.3) 140 17-6. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update X WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.4) X GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.4.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.4.1) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 6 ft or less with acceptable edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.7) Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.1) X ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.3) X DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.8) No diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width. X STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 1-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1) Diaphragm consists of plywood sheathing X SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2) X DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 30 ft (9.1 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 3-to-1. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3) Diaphragm is blocked plywood sheathing. X OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1) Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 141 17-7. Immediate Occupancy Checklist for Building Type W2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Very Low Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1) X SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values: Structural panel sheathing, 1,000 lb/ft (14.6 kN/m); Diagonal sheathing, 700 lb/ft (10.2 kN/m); Straight sheathing, 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m); All other conditions, 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m). (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1 ; Commentary: Sec.A.3.2.7.1) Shear stress check exceeds 1000 plf X STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi- story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.2) X GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.3) Interior walls have gypsum wallboard, but the structure is only one story. X NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.4) Several of the walls have an aspect ratio above 2-1. X WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.5) X HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.6) Wood shearwalls only exist above grade. X CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.4; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.7) X OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1 or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of transferring the seismic forces. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.8) Various locations have shear walls with larger aspect ratios. X HOLD-DOWN ANCHORS: All shear walls have hold-down anchors attached to the end studs constructed in accordance with acceptable construction practices. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.6; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.9) Not compliant at all shear wall locations. 142 17-7. Immediate Occupancy Checklist for Building Type W2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.3) X WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.4) X GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.4.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.4.1) Foundation System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DEEP FOUNDATIONS: Piles and piers are capable of transferring the lateral forces between the structure and the soil. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.3) Foundations are speard footings, not pile and piers. X SLOPING SITES: The difference in foundation embedment depth from one side of the building to another does not exceed one story. (Commentary: A.6.2.4) Low, Moderate, and High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 1.5-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.4) Various locations have shear walls with larger aspect ratios. Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.1) X ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.3) X DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.8) No diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width. X STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 1-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1) Diaphragm consists of plywood sheathing 143 17-7. Immediate Occupancy Checklist for Building Type W2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2) X DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 30 ft (9.1 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 3-to-1. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3) Diaphragm is blocked plywood sheathing. X OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 4 ft or less with acceptable edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.7) Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 144 17-34 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types RM1 and RM2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Low and Moderate Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1) X SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the reinforced masonry shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than 70 lb/in.2 (0.48 MPa). (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.4.1) Shear stress is 222psi for masonry shear walls. Interaction with the wood shear wall portion of the building not considered. X REINFORCING STEEL: The total vertical and horizontal reinforcing steel ratio in reinforced masonry walls is greater than 0.002 of the wall with the minimum of 0.0007 in either of the two directions; the spacing of reinforcing steel is less than 48 in. (1220 mm), and all vertical bars extend to the top of the walls. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.4.2) Stiff Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X TOPPING SLAB: Precast concrete diaphragm elements are interconnected by a continuous reinforced concrete topping slab. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.4; Commentary: Sec. A.4.5.1) This is a flexible diapharagm. Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependent on the diaphragm for lateral support are anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm. Connections have strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.1) Detail 9/S3.3 shows for wall out of plane bracing. Connection is not adequate. X WOOD LEDGERS: The connection between the wall panels and the diaphragm does not induce cross-grain bending or tension in the wood ledgers. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.2) X TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of seismic forces to the shear walls. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.2; Commentary: Sec. A.5.2.1) X TOPPING SLAB TO WALLS OR FRAMES: Reinforced concrete topping slabs that interconnect the precast concrete diaphragm elements are doweled for transfer of forces into the shear wall or frame elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.2; Commentary: Sec. A.5.2.) X FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is doweled into the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.4; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.5) 145 17-34 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types RM1 and RM2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.4.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.4.1) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Stiff Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls are less than 25% of the wall length. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.4) X OPENINGS AT EXTERIOR MASONRY SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to exterior masonry shear walls are not greater than 8 ft (2.4 m) long. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.6) Flexible Diaphragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.2) X OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls are less than 25% of the wall length. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.4) X OPENINGS AT EXTERIOR MASONRY SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to exterior masonry shear walls are not greater than 8 ft (2.4 m) long. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.6) X STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1) X SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft (7.3 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2) X DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3) X OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1) 146 17-34 Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types RM1 and RM2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X STIFFNESS OF WALL ANCHORS: Anchors of concrete or masonry walls to wood structural elements are installed taut and are stiff enough to limit the relative movement between the wall and the diaphragm to no greater than 1/8 in. (3 mm) before engagement of the anchors. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.4) Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 147 17-35. Immediate Occupancy Structural Checklist for Building Types RM1 and RM2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Very Low Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1) X SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the reinforced masonry shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than 70 lb/in2. (4.83 MPa). (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.4.1) Shear stress is 222psi for masonry shear walls. Interaction with the wood shear wall portion of the building not considered. X REINFORCING STEEL: The total vertical and horizontal reinforcing steel ratio in reinforced masonry walls is greater than 0.002 of the wall with the minimum of 0.0007 in either of the two directions; the spacing of reinforcing steel is less than 48 in., and all vertical bars extend to the top of the walls. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.4.2) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependent on the diaphragm for lateral support are anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm. Connections have strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.1.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.1) Detail 9/S3.3 shows for wall out of plane bracing. Connection is not adequate. X WOOD LEDGERS: The connection between the wall panels and the diaphragm does not induce cross-grain bending or tension in the wood ledgers. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.2) X TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of seismic forces to the shear walls, and the connections are able to develop the lesser of the shear strength of the walls or diaphragms. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.2; Commentary: Sec. A.5.2.1) X FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is doweled into the foundation, and the dowels are able to develop the lesser of the strength of the walls or the uplift capacity of the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.4; Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.5) X GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.4.1; Commentary: Sec. A.5.4.1) 148 17-35. Immediate Occupancy Structural Checklist for Building Types RM1 and RM2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Stiff Diapghragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X TOPPING SLAB: Precast concrete diaphragm elements are interconnected by a continuous reinforced concrete topping slab. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.4; Commentary: Sec. A.4.5.1) X TOPPING SLAB TO WALLS OR FRAMES: Reinforced concrete topping slabs that interconnect the precast concrete diaphragm elements are doweled for transfer of forces into the shear wall or frame elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.2; Commentary: Sec. A.5.2.3) Foundation System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DEEP FOUNDATIONS: Piles and piers are capable of transferring the lateral forces between the structure and the soil. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.3) Foundations are speard footings, not pile and piers. X SLOPING SITES: The difference in foundation embedment depth from one side of the building to another does not exceed one story. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.4) Low, Moderate, and High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X REINFORCING AT WALL OPENINGS: All wall openings that interrupt rebar have trim reinforcing on all sides. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.5; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.4.3) X PROPORTIONS: The height-to-thickness ratio of the shear walls at each story is less than 30. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.4.4) Diapghragms (Stiff or Flexible) C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls are less than 15% of the wall length. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.4) X OPENINGS AT EXTERIOR MASONRY SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to exterior masonry shear walls are not greater than 4 ft (1.2 m) long. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.6) X PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There is tensile capacity to develop the strength of the diaphragm at reentrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.4; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.7) 149 17-35. Immediate Occupancy Structural Checklist for Building Types RM1 and RM2 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.8) This could not be observed, and is not detailed in the existing drawings. Flexible Diapghragms C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.2) X STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 1-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1) X SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2) X DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 30 ft (9.2 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 3 -to-1. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2; Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3) X NONCONCRETE FILLED DIAPHRAGMS: Untopped metal deck diaphragms or metal deck diaphragms with fill other than concrete consist of horizontal spans of less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and have aspect ratios less than 4-to-1. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.3; Commentary: Sec. A.4.3.1) Spans greater than 40 ft. X OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5; Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1) Connections C NC N/A U EVALUATION STATEMENT COMMENT X STIFFNESS OF WALL ANCHORS: Anchors of concrete or masonry walls to wood structural elements are installed taut and are stiff enough to limit the relative movement between the wall and the diaphragm to no greater than 1/8 in. before engagement of the anchors. (Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.1.2; Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.4) Detail 9/S3.3 shows for wall out of plane bracing. Connection is not adequate. Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 City of Tukwila 728 134th Street SW Community Center - Wood Portion JDJ Suite 200, Everett, WA 4/5/2022 Phone: 425-741-3800 I.D.: MAPPED SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION:Ref: BSE-2E mapped short period accel.:E SS2M =1.10 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-2E mapped accel. @ T=1 s:S12M =0.37 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-1E mapped short period accel.:SS1M =0.51 g 2.4.1.4 BSE-1E mapped accel. @ T=1 s:S11M =0.16 g 2.4.1..4 BSE-2N mapped short period accel.:SS2NM =1.51 g 2.4.1.1 BSE-2N mapped accel. @ T=1 s:S12NM =0.51 g 2.4.1.1 BSE-2E controlling short period accel.:SS2 = MIN(SS2M,SS2NM) =1.1 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-2E controlling accel. @ T=1 s:S12 = MIN(S12M,S12NM) =0.37 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-1E controlling short period accel.:SS1 = MIN(SS1M,2/3*SS2NM) =0.506 g 2.4.1.4 BSE-1E controlling accel. @ T=1 s:S11 = MIN(S11M,2/3*S12NM) =0.157 g 2.4.1.4 MODIFIED SPECTRAL RESPONSE PARAMETERS:Ref: Site class:2.4.1.6 BSE-2E acceleration site coefficient:Fa2 =1.20 Table 2-3 BSE-2E velocity site coefficient:Fv2 =1.93 Table 2-4 BSE-1E acceleration site coefficient:Fa1 =1.40 Table 2-3 BSE-1E velocity site coefficient:Fv1 =2.29 Table 2-4 BSE-2N acceleration site coefficient:Fa2N =1.00 2.5/2.4.1.6 BSE-2N velocity site coefficient:Fv2N =1.50 2.5/2.4.1.6 BSE-2E design short period accel.:SXS2 = Fa2*SS2 =1.32 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-2E design 1 sec. period accel.:SX12 = Fv2*S12 =0.71 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-1E design short period accel.:SXS1 = Fa1*SS1 =0.71 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-1E design 1 sec. period accel.:SX11 = Fv1*S11 =0.36 g 2.4.1.6 ASCE 7 design short period accel:SDS = 2/3*Fa2N*SS2NM =1.01 g 2.5 ASCE 7 design 1 sec. period accel:SD1 = 2/3*Fv1N*S12NM =0.51 g 2.5 Seismicity zone:Zone of seismicity is HIGH 2.5 RESPONSE SPECTRA CHARACTERISTIC PERIODS:Ref: BSE-2E spectra:TS2 = SX12/(SXS2) =0.54 s 2.4.1.7.1 T02 = 0.2*TS2 = 0.11 s 2.4.1.7.1 BSE-1E spectra:TS1 = SX11/(SXS1) =0.51 s 2.4.1.7.1 T01 = 0.2*TS1 = 0.10 s 2.4.1.7.1 STRUCTURE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES:Ref: Building seismic weight:W = 1,314 k 7.4.1.3 Number of stories:n = 1 7.4.1.3 Effective damping ratio:b =5 % 7.2.3.6 Damping coefficients:B1 =1.0 2.4.1.7.1 Lateral system:7.4.1.2.2 Period coefficient:Ct =0.020 7.4.1.2.2 Period exponent:b =0.75 7.4.1.2.2 Building height:hn =14.5 ft 7.4.1.2.2 Calculated period Tc =s 7.4.1.2.1 Empirical period:Te =Ct*hn b =0.15 s 7.4.1.2.2 Fundamental period:T = 0.15 s 7.4.1.2.2 mmax @ BSE-2E:mmax2 3.8 7.4.1.3.1 mmax @ BSE-1E:mmax1 1.7 7.4.1.3.1 PSEUDO-LATERAL LOAD:Ref: BSE-2E spectral acceleration:Sa2 =1.317 g 2.4.1.7.1 BSE-1E spectral acceleration:Sa1 =0.704 g 2.4.1.7.1 Effective mass factor:Cm =1.0 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-2E mod. factors product C12*C22 =1.40 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-1E mod. factors product C11*C21 =1.10 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-2E pseudo lateral load:V2 =C12C22CmSa2W =1.8436 W = 2423 k 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-1E pseudo lateral load:V1 =C11C21CmSa1W =0.7746 W = 1018 k 7.4.1.3.1 ASCE 41-17: LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE (SEC. 7.4.1) 262022.017 Client Project Project No. Sheet of Design by Date Checked Date 159 City of Tukwila 728 134th Street SW Community Center - Wood Portion JDJ Suite 200, Everett, WA 4/5/2022 Phone: 425-741-3800 I.D.: ASCE 41-17: LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE (SEC. 7.4.1) 262022.017 Client Project Project No. Sheet of Design by Date Checked Date FORCE DISTRIBUTION CALCULATIONS:Ref: Story force:Fx =wx*hx k/(Swx*hx k)*V =see table 7.4.1.3.2 k = IF(T<=0.5,1,IF(T>=2.5,2,1+(T-0.5)/2)) = 1.000 7.4.1.3.2 Swx*hx k =7.4.1.3.2 Diaphragm force:Fpx = Vx*wx/W x =see table 7.4.1.3.4 BSE-2E BSE-1E BSE-2E BSE-1E Total BSE-2E BSE-1E Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Weight Diaph. Diaph. Name Weight Height Force Force Shear Shear Above Force Force wx hx wx*hx k Fx2 Fx1 Vx2 Vx1 W x Fpx2 Fpx1 (k) (ft)(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) Roof 1,314 14.5 19053 2423 1018 2423 1018 1314 2423 1018 19053 160 City of Tukwila 728 134th Street SW Community Center - Wood Portion JDJ Suite 200, Everett, WA 4/5/2022 Phone: 425-741-3800 I.D.: ASCE 41-17: LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE (SEC. 7.4.1) 262022.017 Client Project Project No. Sheet of Design by Date Checked Date ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA: CEQ = C1C2CMSXS[(5/B1-2)*T/TS+0.4]@ T<= T0 T CEQ T CEQ CEQ = C1C2CMSXS/B1 @ T0<T<= TS (s) (g)(s) (g) CEQ = C1C2CMSX1/(B1*T)@ T>TS 0.01 0.61 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.69 0.02 0.37 0.03 0.76 0.03 0.41 0.04 0.84 0.04 0.45 0.05 0.92 0.05 0.49 0.06 1.00 0.06 0.54 0.08 1.08 0.07 0.58 0.09 1.16 0.08 0.62 0.10 1.24 0.09 0.66 T0 =0.11 1.32 0.10 0.70 0.16 1.32 0.15 0.70 0.22 1.32 0.20 0.70 0.27 1.32 0.25 0.70 0.32 1.32 0.31 0.70 0.38 1.32 0.36 0.70 0.43 1.32 0.41 0.70 0.49 1.32 0.46 0.70 TS =0.54 1.32 0.51 0.70 0.587 1.21 0.56 0.64 0.633 1.13 0.61 0.59 0.679 1.05 0.66 0.55 0.725 0.98 0.71 0.51 0.770 0.92 0.75 0.47 0.816 0.87 0.80 0.45 0.862 0.83 0.85 0.42 0.908 0.78 0.90 0.40 0.954 0.75 0.95 0.38 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.36 1.01 0.71 1.01 0.35 1.25 0.57 1.25 0.29 1.50 0.47 1.50 0.24 1.75 0.41 1.75 0.20 2.00 0.36 2.00 0.18 3.00 0.24 3.00 0.12 4.00 0.18 4.00 0.09 BSE-2E BSE-1E 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50Re s p o n s e C o e f f i c i e n t C E Q ( g ) Period, T (s) BSE-2E General Response Spectrum 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50Re s p o n s e C o e f f i c i e n t C E Q ( g ) Period, T (s) BSE-1E General Response Spectrum 161 City of Tukwila 728 134th Street SW Community Center - Masonry Portion JDJ Suite 200, Everett, WA 4/5/2022 Phone: 425-741-3800 I.D.: MAPPED SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION:Ref: BSE-2E mapped short period accel.:E SS2M =1.10 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-2E mapped accel. @ T=1 s:S12M =0.37 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-1E mapped short period accel.:SS1M =0.51 g 2.4.1.4 BSE-1E mapped accel. @ T=1 s:S11M =0.16 g 2.4.1..4 BSE-2N mapped short period accel.:SS2NM =1.51 g 2.4.1.1 BSE-2N mapped accel. @ T=1 s:S12NM =0.51 g 2.4.1.1 BSE-2E controlling short period accel.:SS2 = MIN(SS2M,SS2NM) =1.1 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-2E controlling accel. @ T=1 s:S12 = MIN(S12M,S12NM) =0.37 g 2.4.1.3 BSE-1E controlling short period accel.:SS1 = MIN(SS1M,2/3*SS2NM) =0.506 g 2.4.1.4 BSE-1E controlling accel. @ T=1 s:S11 = MIN(S11M,2/3*S12NM) =0.157 g 2.4.1.4 MODIFIED SPECTRAL RESPONSE PARAMETERS:Ref: Site class:2.4.1.6 BSE-2E acceleration site coefficient:Fa2 =1.20 Table 2-3 BSE-2E velocity site coefficient:Fv2 =1.93 Table 2-4 BSE-1E acceleration site coefficient:Fa1 =1.40 Table 2-3 BSE-1E velocity site coefficient:Fv1 =2.29 Table 2-4 BSE-2N acceleration site coefficient:Fa2N =1.00 2.5/2.4.1.6 BSE-2N velocity site coefficient:Fv2N =1.50 2.5/2.4.1.6 BSE-2E design short period accel.:SXS2 = Fa2*SS2 =1.32 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-2E design 1 sec. period accel.:SX12 = Fv2*S12 =0.71 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-1E design short period accel.:SXS1 = Fa1*SS1 =0.71 g 2.4.1.6 BSE-1E design 1 sec. period accel.:SX11 = Fv1*S11 =0.36 g 2.4.1.6 ASCE 7 design short period accel:SDS = 2/3*Fa2N*SS2NM =1.01 g 2.5 ASCE 7 design 1 sec. period accel:SD1 = 2/3*Fv1N*S12NM =0.51 g 2.5 Seismicity zone:Zone of seismicity is HIGH 2.5 RESPONSE SPECTRA CHARACTERISTIC PERIODS:Ref: BSE-2E spectra:TS2 = SX12/(SXS2) =0.54 s 2.4.1.7.1 T02 = 0.2*TS2 = 0.11 s 2.4.1.7.1 BSE-1E spectra:TS1 = SX11/(SXS1) =0.51 s 2.4.1.7.1 T01 = 0.2*TS1 = 0.10 s 2.4.1.7.1 STRUCTURE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES:Ref: Building seismic weight:W = 990 k 7.4.1.3 Number of stories:n = 1 7.4.1.3 Effective damping ratio:b =5 % 7.2.3.6 Damping coefficients:B1 =1.0 2.4.1.7.1 Lateral system:7.4.1.2.2 Period coefficient:Ct =0.020 7.4.1.2.2 Period exponent:b =0.75 7.4.1.2.2 Building height:hn =38 ft 7.4.1.2.2 Calculated period Tc =s 7.4.1.2.1 Empirical period:Te =Ct*hn b =0.31 s 7.4.1.2.2 Fundamental period:T = 0.31 s 7.4.1.2.2 mmax @ BSE-2E:mmax2 3.0 7.4.1.3.1 mmax @ BSE-1E:mmax1 1.5 7.4.1.3.1 PSEUDO-LATERAL LOAD:Ref: BSE-2E spectral acceleration:Sa2 =1.317 g 2.4.1.7.1 BSE-1E spectral acceleration:Sa1 =0.704 g 2.4.1.7.1 Effective mass factor:Cm =1.0 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-2E mod. factors product C12*C22 =1.10 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-1E mod. factors product C11*C21 =1.00 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-2E pseudo lateral load:V2 =C12C22CmSa2W =1.4486 W = 1434 k 7.4.1.3.1 BSE-1E pseudo lateral load:V1 =C11C21CmSa1W =0.7042 W = 697 k 7.4.1.3.1 ASCE 41-17: LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE (SEC. 7.4.1) 262022.017 Client Project Project No. Sheet of Design by Date Checked Date 162 City of Tukwila 728 134th Street SW Community Center - Masonry Portion JDJ Suite 200, Everett, WA 4/5/2022 Phone: 425-741-3800 I.D.: ASCE 41-17: LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE (SEC. 7.4.1) 262022.017 Client Project Project No. Sheet of Design by Date Checked Date FORCE DISTRIBUTION CALCULATIONS:Ref: Story force:Fx =wx*hx k/(Swx*hx k)*V =see table 7.4.1.3.2 k = IF(T<=0.5,1,IF(T>=2.5,2,1+(T-0.5)/2)) = 1.000 7.4.1.3.2 Swx*hx k =7.4.1.3.2 Diaphragm force:Fpx = Vx*wx/W x =see table 7.4.1.3.4 BSE-2E BSE-1E BSE-2E BSE-1E Total BSE-2E BSE-1E Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Weight Diaph. Diaph. Name Weight Height Force Force Shear Shear Above Force Force wx hx wx*hx k Fx2 Fx1 Vx2 Vx1 W x Fpx2 Fpx1 (k) (ft)(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) Roof 990 38 37620 1434 697 1434 697 990 1434 697 37620 163 City of Tukwila 728 134th Street SW Community Center - Masonry Portion JDJ Suite 200, Everett, WA 4/5/2022 Phone: 425-741-3800 I.D.: ASCE 41-17: LINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE (SEC. 7.4.1) 262022.017 Client Project Project No. Sheet of Design by Date Checked Date ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA: CEQ = C1C2CMSXS[(5/B1-2)*T/TS+0.4]@ T<= T0 T CEQ T CEQ CEQ = C1C2CMSXS/B1 @ T0<T<= TS (s) (g)(s) (g) CEQ = C1C2CMSX1/(B1*T)@ T>TS 0.01 0.61 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.69 0.02 0.37 0.03 0.76 0.03 0.41 0.04 0.84 0.04 0.45 0.05 0.92 0.05 0.49 0.06 1.00 0.06 0.54 0.08 1.08 0.07 0.58 0.09 1.16 0.08 0.62 0.10 1.24 0.09 0.66 T0 =0.11 1.32 0.10 0.70 0.16 1.32 0.15 0.70 0.22 1.32 0.20 0.70 0.27 1.32 0.25 0.70 0.32 1.32 0.31 0.70 0.38 1.32 0.36 0.70 0.43 1.32 0.41 0.70 0.49 1.32 0.46 0.70 TS =0.54 1.32 0.51 0.70 0.587 1.21 0.56 0.64 0.633 1.13 0.61 0.59 0.679 1.05 0.66 0.55 0.725 0.98 0.71 0.51 0.770 0.92 0.75 0.47 0.816 0.87 0.80 0.45 0.862 0.83 0.85 0.42 0.908 0.78 0.90 0.40 0.954 0.75 0.95 0.38 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.36 1.01 0.71 1.01 0.35 1.25 0.57 1.25 0.29 1.50 0.47 1.50 0.24 1.75 0.41 1.75 0.20 2.00 0.36 2.00 0.18 3.00 0.24 3.00 0.12 4.00 0.18 4.00 0.09 BSE-2E BSE-1E 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50Re s p o n s e C o e f f i c i e n t C E Q ( g ) Period, T (s) BSE-2E General Response Spectrum 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50Re s p o n s e C o e f f i c i e n t C E Q ( g ) Period, T (s) BSE-1E General Response Spectrum 164 City of Tukwila June 2022 Multi-Building Seismic Assessments Update Appendix B Cost Estimate 165 166 City Hall Collapse Prevention Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Tukwila, WA Conceptual Cost Estimate June 20, 2022 Prepared for: Reid Middleton 728 134th Street SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Kirkland, WA 98033 tel: (425) 828‐0500 fax: (425) 828‐0700 www.prodims.com 167 Es t i m a t e S u m m a r y 168 Name:City Hall - Collapse Prevention Second Name:Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Location:Tukwila, WA 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Design Phase:Concept Cost Estimate Kirkland, WA 98033 Date of Estimate:June 20, 2022 tel: (425) 828‐0500 Date of Revision: fax: (425) 828‐0700 Month of Cost Basis:April, 2022 www.prodims.com Subtotal Direct Cost 2,976,204$ Percentage of Previous Subtotal Amount Subtotal 2,976,204$ Scope Contingency 15.0%446,431$ Subtotal 3,422,635$ General Conditions 16.0%547,622$ Subtotal 3,970,257$ Home Office Overhead 6.0%238,215$ Subtotal 4,208,472$ Profit 6.0%252,508$ Subtotal 4,460,980$ Escalation - Not Included - See Escalation in Table Below 0.00%-$ Subtotal 4,460,980$ 4,460,980$ Cost Estimate in April, 2022 Dollars from Above ->4,460,980$ Escalation to: Out How Many Years Rate at 6% per year Escalation Total: Mid-point of Construction Allowance:Escalated Total:Date: April, 2023 1 year 6.00% 267,659$ April, 2023 4,728,639$ April, 2023 April, 2024 2 years 12.36% 551,377$ April, 2024 5,012,358$ April, 2024 April, 2025 3 years 19.10% 852,119$ April, 2025 5,313,099$ April, 2025 April, 2026 4 years 26.25% 1,170,905$ April, 2026 5,631,885$ April, 2026 April, 2027 5 years 33.82% 1,508,818$ April, 2027 5,969,798$ April, 2027 Estimate Assumptions: This estimate is based on the As Built Markups and narrative information received by 6-10-22 This estimate is based on the working in an unoccupied building with no phasing or 2nd, 3rd shift work. This estimate is based on the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection (M/E/P/FP) systems being modified to accommodate seismic work but M/E/P/FP systems are Not upgraded to latest building codes for these systems. This estimate does not include any Hazardous Material Abatement Costs as it is not defined. All soft costs are the owner's responsibility to determine and verify. The Soft costs estimate has been excluded from the construction cost estimate. Escalation is allowed in the above table for 1 to 5 years out to the mid-point of construction as the construction schedule is still to be determined. Estimate Qualifications: The estimate is not be relied on solely for proforma development and financial decisions. Additional Studies of additional systems impacted by the seismic scope of work should be performed before setting construction and project budgets. Summary sheet markups are cumulative, not additive. Percentages are added to the previous subtotal rather than the direct cost subtotal. Estimated labor is based on an 8 hour per day shift 5 days a week. Accelerated schedule work of overtime has not been included. Estimated construction cost is for the entire project. This estimate is not intended to be used for other projects. Division 0/ Division 1 specifications are presumed to have normal ranges for liquidated damages, construction schedule and terms & conditions. These divisions are typically written after the final estimate. Please contact the cost estimator for a review, if desired. Please consult the cost estimator for any modifications to this estimate. Unilaterally adding and deleting markups, scope of work, schedule, specifications, plans and bid forms could incorrectly restate the project construction cost. The construction cost estimate does not include an estimate of owner soft costs such as taxes, A/E fees, owner contingencies and permit fees. Construction reserve contingency for change orders is not included in the estimate. Any modifications to the plans via addendums and code review for permits will cause cost increases and are not included in this estimate. Sole source supply of materials and/ or installers typically results in a 40% to 100% premium on costs over open specifications. Imposition of tariffs and market instability of resources such as fuel, insurance and labor occurring after estimate date are not included. Contractors imposing different bidding conditions from plans and specifications on subcontractors are not bidding from the plans and specifications. Modifications to the proposed construction schedule and modifying the phasing plans after this estimate will affect construction cost and are not included. The estimate includes a reasonable construction escalation that can be determined based on market conditions for up to the next 6 months. Since this project has a midpoint of construction further than 6 months, increases in escalation are not included beyond the rate shown in the estimate. Estimate Summary TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST in April, 2022 Dollars Escalation Table Page 1 of 1 169 E s t i m a t e D e t a i l 170 Na m e : Ar e a sq f t Se c o n d N a m e : 1s t F l o o r 1 2 , 0 0 0 Lo c a t i o n : Tu k w i l a , W A 2n d F l o o r 1 4 , 0 0 0 52 0 K i r k l a n d W a y , S u i t e 3 0 1 De s i g n P h a s e : Co n c e p t C o s t E s t i m a t e Ki r k l a n d , W A 9 8 0 3 3 Da t e o f E s t i m a t e : Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 Ph o n e : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 5 0 0 F a x : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 7 0 0 Da t e o f R e v i s i o n : ww w . p r o d i m s . c o m Mo n t h o f C o s t B a s i s : Ap r i l , 20 2 2 To t a l A r e a 26 , 0 0 0 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T A- S u b s t r u c t u r e 0. 0 6 A1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s % i n F d n s A1 0 1 0 - S t a n d a r d F o u n d a t i o n s En l a r g e C o l u m n F o o t i n g s w i t h C o n c r e t e , D r i l l e d in R e b a r D o w e l s , F o r m w o r k , E x c a v a t i o n an d Ba c k f i l l . R e m o v e R e s t o r e S u r f a c e T r e a t m e n t 9 e a c h 1 , 7 7 5 . 0 0 $ 1 5 , 97 5 . 0 0 $ 72 5 . 0 0 $ 6 , 52 5 . 0 0 $ 1 5 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 $ 2 , 65 0 . 0 0 $ 2 3 , 85 0 . 0 0 $ A1 0 2 0 - S p e c i a l F o u n d a t i o n s Co m p a c t i o n G r o u t i n g f o r G r o u n d I m p r o v e m e n t fo r S e i s m i c M i t i g a t i o n - W o r k i s p e r f o r m e d u n d e r an d o u t s i d e o f b u i l d i n g a n d i n c l u d e s r e s t o r a t i o n of a l l b u i l d i n g a n d s i t e e l e m e n t s r e m o v e d t o pe r f o r m t h e w o r k . 26 , 2 5 0 s q f t 2 0 . 4 8 $ 53 7 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 1 . 5 2 $ 3 0 2 , 40 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 9 2 $ 5 0 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 3 . 9 2 $ 8 9 0 , 40 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s A 1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s 91 4 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $ 3 5 . 1 6 $ B- S h e l l B1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e B1 0 1 0 - U p p e r F l o o r St e e l - B r a c e s f o r C o n t i n u o u s L o a d P a t h f o r Sh e a r W a l l s A b o v e 52 0 l n f t 8 5 . 0 0 $ 4 4 , 20 0 . 0 0 $ 4 0 . 0 0 $ 2 0 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ 7 . 5 0 $ 3 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $ 13 2 . 5 0 $ 6 8 , 90 0 . 0 0 $ Up g r a d e B e a m f o r S h e a r w a l l A b o v e 1 e a c h 1 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 $ 1 , 27 5 . 0 0 $ 22 5 . 0 0 $ 22 5 . 0 0 $ 9 0 . 0 0 $ 9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 59 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 59 0 . 0 0 $ Sh e a r W a l l s - N e w a n d R e t r o f i t E x i s t i n g W a l l s - 2x W o o d F r a m i n g , S h e a t h i n g E a c h S i d e 3, 1 0 5 s q f t 7 . 8 0 $ 2 4 , 21 9 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 0 $ 1 3 , 04 1 . 0 0 $ 0 . 7 2 $ 2 , 2 3 5 . 6 0 $ 1 2 . 7 2 $ 3 9 , 49 5 . 6 0 $ Se i s m i c S t r a p s A c r o s s B e a m L i n e a t F l o o r J o i s t s at 4 ' o . c . 68 e a c h 1 0 1 . 4 0 $ 6 , 89 5 . 2 0 $ 2 8 . 6 0 $ 1 , 94 4 . 8 0 $ 7 . 8 0 $ 5 3 0 . 4 0 $ 13 7 . 8 0 $ 9 , 37 0 . 4 0 $ A3 5 C l i p - I n s t a l l f r o m 2 X R i m t o 2 X P l a t e 30 e a c h 2 4 . 7 0 $ 74 1 . 0 0 $ 1 3 . 3 0 $ 39 9 . 0 0 $ 2 . 2 8 $ 6 8 . 4 0 $ 4 0 . 2 8 $ 1 , 20 8 . 4 0 $ B1 0 2 0 - R o o f Se i s m i c S t r a p s B e t w e e n R o o f B e a m s 90 l n f t 1 6 . 3 8 $ 1 , 47 4 . 2 0 $ 4 . 6 2 $ 41 5 . 8 0 $ 1 . 2 6 $ 1 1 3 . 4 0 $ 2 2 . 2 6 $ 2 , 00 3 . 4 0 $ St e e l B r a c i n g a t W i n d o w s - X - B r a c e s 14 6 l n f t 6 8 . 2 5 $ 9 , 96 4 . 5 0 $ 3 6 . 7 5 $ 5 , 36 5 . 5 0 $ 6 . 3 0 $ 9 1 9 . 8 0 $ 11 1 . 3 0 $ 1 6 , 24 9 . 8 0 $ S te e l D r a g S t r u t 24 l n f t 14 6 . 2 5 $ 3, 51 0 . 0 0 $ 78 . 7 5 $ 1, 89 0 . 0 0 $ 13 . 5 0 $ 32 4 . 0 0 $ 23 8 . 5 0 $ 5, 72 4 . 0 0 $ To t a l s B 1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e 14 4 , 5 4 1 . 6 0 $ 5 . 5 6 $ Ci t y H a l l - C o l l a p s e P r ev e n t i o n Tu k w i l a S e i s m i c I m p r o v e m e n t Pr o g r a m Pa g e 1 o f 3 171 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T B2 0 - E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e 6. 0 0 % B2 0 1 0 - E x t e r i o r W a l l s Re m o v e a n d R e p l a c e E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e S y s t e m to I n s t a l l N e w S h e a r W a l l S y s t e m - A l l o w a n c e 3, 0 4 4 s q f t 1 3 . 2 0 $ 4 0 , 18 0 . 8 0 $ 1 0 . 8 0 $ 3 2 , 87 5 . 2 0 $ 1 . 4 4 $ 4 , 3 8 3 . 3 6 $ 2 5 . 4 4 $ 7 7 , 43 9 . 3 6 $ B2 0 2 0 - E x t e r i o r W i n d o w s In s u l a t e d G l a z i n g " S t o r e f r o n t " W i n d o w S y s t e m Re m o v e a n d R e p l a c e t o I n s t a l l N e w S t e e l Br a c i n g 1, 1 6 8 s q f t 3 5 . 6 7 $ 4 1 , 66 2 . 5 6 $ 5 1 . 3 3 $ 5 9 , 95 3 . 4 4 $ 5 . 2 2 $ 6 , 0 9 6 . 9 6 $ 9 2 . 2 2 $ 1 0 7 , 71 2 . 9 6 $ To t a l s B 2 0 - E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e 18 5 , 1 5 2 . 3 2 $ 7 . 1 2 $ B3 0 - R o o f i n g B3 0 1 0 - R o o f C o v e r in g s Ne w R o o f i n g S y s t e m - A s p h a l t C o m p o s i t i o n Ro o f i n g S y s t e m , U n d e r l a y m e n t, B a t t I n s u l a t i o n , Sh e e t M e t a l F l a s h i n g a n d T r i m . D e m o E x i s t i n g Ro o f i n g S y s t e m . 14 , 8 4 0 s q f t 1 3 . 3 4 $ 19 7 , 9 6 5 . 6 0 $ 9 . 6 6 $ 1 4 3 , 35 4 . 4 0 $ 1 . 3 8 $ 2 0 , 4 7 9 . 2 0 $ 2 4 . 3 8 $ 3 6 1 , 79 9 . 2 0 $ B3 0 2 0 - R o o f O p e ni n g s In s t a l l N e w S k y l i g h t S y s t e m a n d C u r b - 3 ' - 4 " x 7 ' - 3" a n d R e m o v e E x i s t i n g S k y l i g h t s 4 e a c h 9 3 3 . 6 8 $ 3 , 73 4 . 7 2 $ 1 , 18 8 . 3 2 $ 4 , 75 3 . 2 8 $ 1 2 7 . 3 2 $ 5 0 9 . 2 8 $ 2 , 24 9 . 3 2 $ 8 , 99 7 . 2 8 $ To t a l s B 3 0 - R o o f i n g 37 0 , 7 9 6 . 4 8 $ 1 4 . 2 6 $ C- I n t e r i o r s C1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n C1 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r P a r t i t i o n s Re m o v e a n d R e i n s t a l l W a l l s , D o o r s , S p e c i a l t i e s an d C a s e w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l Se i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 3 . 4 8 $ 9 0 , 40 2 . 0 0 $ 2 . 2 2 $ 5 7 , 79 8 . 0 0 $ 0 . 3 4 $ 8 , 8 9 2 . 0 0 $ 6 . 0 4 $ 1 5 7 , 09 2 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n 15 7 , 0 9 2 . 0 0 $ 6 . 0 4 $ C3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s C3 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r W a l l F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e W a l l F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g P a i n t i n g , T i l e , Ba s e s a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r Ne w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 2 . 4 1 $ 6 2 , 64 7 . 0 0 $ 1 . 5 4 $ 4 0 , 05 3 . 0 0 $ 0 . 2 4 $ 6 , 1 6 2 . 0 0 $ 4 . 1 9 $ 1 0 8 , 86 2 . 0 0 $ C3 0 2 0 - I n t e r i o r F l o o r F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e F l o o r F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g C a r p e t , T i l e , LV T a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 8 0 $ 4 6 , 78 7 . 0 0 $ 1 . 1 5 $ 2 9 , 91 3 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 8 $ 4 , 6 0 2 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 3 $ 8 1 , 30 2 . 0 0 $ C3 0 3 0 - I n t e r i o r C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g A C T , G W B an d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 3 . 0 2 $ 7 8 , 44 4 . 6 0 $ 1 . 4 3 $ 3 7 , 25 5 . 4 0 $ 0 . 2 7 $ 6 , 9 4 2 . 0 0 $ 4 . 7 2 $ 1 2 2 , 64 2 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s 31 2 , 8 0 6 . 0 0 $ 1 2 . 0 3 $ Pa g e 2 o f 3 172 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T D- S e r v i c e s D2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s D2 0 1 0 - P l u m bi n g S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e F o r M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o P l u m b i n g Sy s t e m s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c Wo r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 8 0 $ 4 6 , 78 7 . 0 0 $ 1 . 1 5 $ 2 9 , 91 3 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 8 $ 4 , 6 0 2 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 3 $ 8 1 , 30 2 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s 81 , 3 0 2 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 3 $ D3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s D3 0 2 0 - H V A C S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r H V A C w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 0 . 8 9 $ 28 3 , 1 0 1 . 0 0 $ 6 . 9 6 $ 1 8 0 , 99 9 . 0 0 $ 1 . 0 7 $ 2 7 , 8 4 6 . 0 0 $ 1 8 . 9 2 $ 4 9 1 , 94 6 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s 49 1 , 9 4 6 . 0 0 $ 1 8 . 9 2 $ D4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s D4 0 1 0 - F i r e S p r i n k l e r S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r F i r e P r o t e c t i o n w o r k a s r e q u i r e d fo r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 2 8 $ 3 3 , 30 6 . 0 0 $ 0 . 8 2 $ 2 1 , 29 4 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 3 $ 3 , 2 7 6 . 0 0 $ 2 . 2 3 $ 5 7 , 87 6 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s 57 , 8 7 6 . 0 0 $ 2 . 2 3 $ D5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s D5 0 2 0 - L i g h t i n g a n d B r a n c h W i r i n g Al l o w a n c e f o r E l e c t r i c a l P o w e r a n d L i g h t i n g w o r k as r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 6 . 1 4 $ 15 9 , 7 0 5 . 0 0 $ 3 . 3 1 $ 8 5 , 99 5 . 0 0 $ 0 . 5 7 $ 1 4 , 7 4 2 . 0 0 $ 1 0 . 0 2 $ 2 6 0 , 44 2 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s 26 0 , 4 4 2 . 0 0 $ 1 0 . 0 2 $ To t a l D i r e c t C o s t s - > 2, 9 7 6 , 2 0 4 $ 11 4 . 4 7 $ Pa g e 3 o f 3 173 174 City Hall Life Safety Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Tukwila, WA Conceptual Cost Estimate April 22, 2022 Revised June 20, 2022 Prepared for: Reid Middleton 728 134th Street SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Kirkland, WA 98033 tel: (425) 828‐0500 fax: (425) 828‐0700 www.prodims.com 175 Es t i m a t e S u m m a r y 176 Name:City Hall - Life Safety Second Name:Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Location:Tukwila, WA 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Design Phase:Concept Cost Estimate Kirkland, WA 98033 Date of Estimate:April 22, 2022 tel: (425) 828‐0500 Date of Revision:June 20, 2022 fax: (425) 828‐0700 Month of Cost Basis:April, 2022 www.prodims.com Subtotal Direct Cost 3,053,122$ Percentage of Previous Subtotal Amount Subtotal 3,053,122$ Scope Contingency 15.0%457,968$ Subtotal 3,511,091$ General Conditions 16.0%561,774$ Subtotal 4,072,865$ Home Office Overhead 6.0%244,372$ Subtotal 4,317,237$ Profit 6.0%259,034$ Subtotal 4,576,271$ Escalation - Not Included - See Escalation in Table Below 0.00%-$ Subtotal 4,576,271$ 4,576,271$ Cost Estimate in April, 2022 Dollars from Above ->4,576,271$ Escalation to: Out How Many Years Rate at 6% per year Escalation Total: Mid-point of Construction Allowance:Escalated Total:Date: April, 2023 1 year 6.00% 274,576$ April, 2023 4,850,847$ April, 2023 April, 2024 2 years 12.36% 565,627$ April, 2024 5,141,898$ April, 2024 April, 2025 3 years 19.10% 874,141$ April, 2025 5,450,412$ April, 2025 April, 2026 4 years 26.25% 1,201,166$ April, 2026 5,777,437$ April, 2026 April, 2027 5 years 33.82% 1,547,812$ April, 2027 6,124,083$ April, 2027 Estimate Assumptions: This estimate is based on the As Built Markups and narrative information received by 4-8-22 and Revisions by 6-10-22 This estimate is based on the working in an unoccupied building with no phasing or 2nd, 3rd shift work. This estimate is based on the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection (M/E/P/FP) systems being modified to accommodate seismic work but M/E/P/FP systems are Not upgraded to latest building codes for these systems. This estimate does not include any Hazardous Material Abatement Costs as it is not defined. All soft costs are the owner's responsibility to determine and verify. The Soft costs estimate has been excluded from the construction cost estimate. Escalation is allowed in the above table for 1 to 5 years out to the mid-point of construction as the construction schedule is still to be determined. Estimate Qualifications: The estimate is not be relied on solely for proforma development and financial decisions. Additional Studies of additional systems impacted by the seismic scope of work should be performed before setting construction and project budgets. Summary sheet markups are cumulative, not additive. Percentages are added to the previous subtotal rather than the direct cost subtotal. Estimated labor is based on an 8 hour per day shift 5 days a week. Accelerated schedule work of overtime has not been included. Estimated construction cost is for the entire project. This estimate is not intended to be used for other projects. Division 0/ Division 1 specifications are presumed to have normal ranges for liquidated damages, construction schedule and terms & conditions. These divisions are typically written after the final estimate. Please contact the cost estimator for a review, if desired. Please consult the cost estimator for any modifications to this estimate. Unilaterally adding and deleting markups, scope of work, schedule, specifications, plans and bid forms could incorrectly restate the project construction cost. The construction cost estimate does not include an estimate of owner soft costs such as taxes, A/E fees, owner contingencies and permit fees. Construction reserve contingency for change orders is not included in the estimate. Any modifications to the plans via addendums and code review for permits will cause cost increases and are not included in this estimate. Sole source supply of materials and/ or installers typically results in a 40% to 100% premium on costs over open specifications. Imposition of tariffs and market instability of resources such as fuel, insurance and labor occurring after estimate date are not included. Contractors imposing different bidding conditions from plans and specifications on subcontractors are not bidding from the plans and specifications. Modifications to the proposed construction schedule and modifying the phasing plans after this estimate will affect construction cost and are not included. The estimate includes a reasonable construction escalation that can be determined based on market conditions for up to the next 6 months. Since this project has a midpoint of construction further than 6 months, increases in escalation are not included beyond the rate shown in the estimate. Escalation Table Estimate Summary TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST in April, 2022 Dollars Page 1 of 1 177 E s t i m a t e D e t a i l 178 Na m e : Ar e a sq f t Se c o n d N a m e : 1s t F l o o r 1 2 , 0 0 0 Lo c a t i o n : Tu k w i l a , W A 2n d F l o o r 1 4 , 0 0 0 52 0 K i r k l a n d W a y , S u i t e 3 0 1 De s i g n P h a s e : Co n c e p t C o s t E s t i m a t e Ki r k l a n d , W A 9 8 0 3 3 Da t e o f E s t i m a t e : Ap r i l 2 2 , 20 2 2 Ph o n e : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 5 0 0 F a x : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 7 0 0 Da t e o f R e v i s i o n : Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 ww w . p r o d i m s . c o m Mo n t h o f C o s t B a s i s : Ap r i l , 20 2 2 To t a l A r e a 26 , 0 0 0 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T A- S u b s t r u c t u r e 0. 0 6 A1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s % i n F d n s A1 0 1 0 - S t a n d a r d F o u n d a t i o n s En l a r g e C o l u m n F o o t i n g s w i t h C o n c r e t e , D r i l l e d in R e b a r D o w e l s , F o r m w o r k , E x c a v a t i o n an d Ba c k f i l l . R e m o v e R e s t o r e S u r f a c e T r e a t m e n t 11 e a c h 1 , 7 7 5 . 0 0 $ 1 9 , 52 5 . 0 0 $ 72 5 . 0 0 $ 7 , 97 5 . 0 0 $ 1 5 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 6 5 0 . 0 0 $ 2 , 65 0 . 0 0 $ 2 9 , 15 0 . 0 0 $ Ne w C o l u m n F o o t i n g a t S h e a r W a l l w i t h Co n c r e t e , R e b a r D o w e l s , F o r m w o r k , E x c a v a t i o n an d B a c k f il l . R e m o v e R e s t o r e C o n c r e t e S l a b 1 e a c h 1 , 4 3 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 43 0 . 0 0 $ 77 0 . 0 0 $ 77 0 . 0 0 $ 1 3 2 . 0 0 $ 1 3 2 . 0 0 $ 2 , 33 2 . 0 0 $ 2 , 33 2 . 0 0 $ A1 0 2 0 - S p e c i a l F o u n d a t i o n s Co m p a c t i o n G r o u t i n g f o r G r o u n d I m p r o v e m e n t fo r S e i s m i c M i t i g a t i o n - W o r k i s p e r f o r m e d u n d e r an d o u t s i d e o f b u i l d i n g a n d i n c l u d e s r e s t o r a t i o n of a l l b u i l d i n g a n d s i t e e l e m e n t s r e m o v e d t o pe r f o r m t h e w o r k . 26 , 2 5 0 s q f t 2 0 . 4 8 $ 53 7 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 1 . 5 2 $ 3 0 2 , 40 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 9 2 $ 5 0 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 3 . 9 2 $ 8 9 0 , 40 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s A 1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s 92 1 , 8 8 2 . 0 0 $ 3 5 . 4 6 $ B- S h e l l B1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e B1 0 1 0 - U p p e r F l o o r St e e l - B r a c e s f o r C o n t i n u o u s L o a d P a t h f o r Sh e a r W a l l s A b o v e 52 0 l n f t 8 5 . 0 0 $ 4 4 , 20 0 . 0 0 $ 4 0 . 0 0 $ 2 0 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ 7 . 5 0 $ 3 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $ 13 2 . 5 0 $ 6 8 , 90 0 . 0 0 $ Up g r a d e B e a m f o r S h e a r w a l l A b o v e 1 e a c h 1 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 $ 1 , 27 5 . 0 0 $ 22 5 . 0 0 $ 22 5 . 0 0 $ 9 0 . 0 0 $ 9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 59 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 59 0 . 0 0 $ Sh e a r W a l l s - N e w a n d R e t r o f i t E x i s t i n g W a l l s - 2x W o o d F r a m i n g , S h e a t h i n g E a c h S i d e 4, 5 5 0 s q f t 7 . 8 0 $ 3 5 , 49 0 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 0 $ 1 9 , 11 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 7 2 $ 3 , 2 7 6 . 0 0 $ 1 2 . 7 2 $ 5 7 , 87 6 . 0 0 $ Se i s m i c S t r a p s A c r o s s B e a m L i n e a t F l o o r J o i s t s at 4 ' o . c . 74 e a c h 1 0 1 . 4 0 $ 7 , 50 3 . 6 0 $ 2 8 . 6 0 $ 2 , 11 6 . 4 0 $ 7 . 8 0 $ 5 7 7 . 2 0 $ 13 7 . 8 0 $ 1 0 , 19 7 . 2 0 $ A3 5 C l i p - I n s t a l l f r o m 2 X R i m t o 2 X P l a t e 30 e a c h 2 4 . 7 0 $ 74 1 . 0 0 $ 1 3 . 3 0 $ 39 9 . 0 0 $ 2 . 2 8 $ 6 8 . 4 0 $ 4 0 . 2 8 $ 1 , 20 8 . 4 0 $ B1 0 2 0 - R o o f Se i s m i c S t r a p s B e t w e e n R o o f B e a m s 90 l n f t 1 6 . 3 8 $ 1 , 47 4 . 2 0 $ 4 . 6 2 $ 41 5 . 8 0 $ 1 . 2 6 $ 1 1 3 . 4 0 $ 2 2 . 2 6 $ 2 , 00 3 . 4 0 $ St e e l B r a c i n g a t W i n d o w s - X - B r a c e s 14 6 l n f t 6 8 . 2 5 $ 9 , 96 4 . 5 0 $ 3 6 . 7 5 $ 5 , 36 5 . 5 0 $ 6 . 3 0 $ 9 1 9 . 8 0 $ 11 1 . 3 0 $ 1 6 , 24 9 . 8 0 $ S te e l D r a g S t r u t 24 l n f t 14 6 . 2 5 $ 3, 51 0 . 0 0 $ 78 . 7 5 $ 1, 89 0 . 0 0 $ 13 . 5 0 $ 32 4 . 0 0 $ 23 8 . 5 0 $ 5, 72 4 . 0 0 $ To t a l s B 1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e 16 3 , 7 4 8 . 8 0 $ 6 . 3 0 $ Ci t y H a l l - L i f e S a f e t y Tu k w i l a S e i s m i c I m p r o v e m e n t Pr o g r a m Pa g e 1 o f 3 179 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T B2 0 - E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e 6. 0 0 % B2 0 1 0 - E x t e r i o r W a l l s Re m o v e a n d R e p l a c e E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e S y s t e m to I n s t a l l N e w S h e a r W a l l S y s t e m - A l l o w a n c e 4, 2 0 0 s q f t 1 3 . 2 0 $ 5 5 , 44 0 . 0 0 $ 1 0 . 8 0 $ 4 5 , 36 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 4 4 $ 6 , 0 4 8 . 0 0 $ 2 5 . 4 4 $ 1 0 6 , 84 8 . 0 0 $ B2 0 2 0 - E x t e r i o r W i n d o w s In s u l a t e d G l a z i n g " S t o r e f r o n t " W i n d o w S y s t e m Re m o v e a n d R e p l a c e t o I n s t a l l N e w S t e e l Br a c i n g 1, 1 6 8 s q f t 3 5 . 6 7 $ 4 1 , 66 2 . 5 6 $ 5 1 . 3 3 $ 5 9 , 95 3 . 4 4 $ 5 . 2 2 $ 6 , 0 9 6 . 9 6 $ 9 2 . 2 2 $ 1 0 7 , 71 2 . 9 6 $ To t a l s B 2 0 - E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e 21 4 , 5 6 0 . 9 6 $ 8 . 2 5 $ B3 0 - R o o f i n g B3 0 1 0 - R o o f C o v e r in g s Ne w R o o f i n g S y s t e m - A s p h a l t C o m p o s i t i o n Ro o f i n g S y s t e m , U n d e r l a y m e n t, B a t t I n s u l a t i o n , Sh e e t M e t a l F l a s h i n g a n d T r i m . D e m o E x i s t i n g Ro o f i n g S y s t e m . 14 , 8 4 0 s q f t 1 3 . 3 4 $ 19 7 , 9 6 5 . 6 0 $ 9 . 6 6 $ 1 4 3 , 35 4 . 4 0 $ 1 . 3 8 $ 2 0 , 4 7 9 . 2 0 $ 2 4 . 3 8 $ 3 6 1 , 79 9 . 2 0 $ B3 0 2 0 - R o o f O p e ni n g s In s t a l l N e w S k y l i g h t S y s t e m a n d C u r b - 3 ' - 4 " x 7 ' - 3" a n d R e m o v e E x i s t i n g S k y l i g h t s 4 e a c h 9 3 3 . 6 8 $ 3 , 73 4 . 7 2 $ 1 , 18 8 . 3 2 $ 4 , 75 3 . 2 8 $ 1 2 7 . 3 2 $ 5 0 9 . 2 8 $ 2 , 24 9 . 3 2 $ 8 , 99 7 . 2 8 $ To t a l s B 3 0 - R o o f i n g 37 0 , 7 9 6 . 4 8 $ 1 4 . 2 6 $ C- I n t e r i o r s C1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n C1 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r P a r t i t i o n s Re m o v e a n d R e i n s t a l l W a l l s , D o o r s , S p e c i a l t i e s an d C a s e w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l Se i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 3 . 6 6 $ 9 5 , 16 0 . 0 0 $ 2 . 3 4 $ 6 0 , 84 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 3 6 $ 9 , 3 6 0 . 0 0 $ 6 . 3 6 $ 1 6 5 , 36 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n 16 5 , 3 6 0 . 0 0 $ 6 . 3 6 $ C3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s C3 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r W a l l F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e W a l l F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g P a i n t i n g , T i l e , Ba s e s a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r Ne w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 2 . 4 4 $ 6 3 , 44 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 5 6 $ 4 0 , 56 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 2 4 $ 6 , 2 4 0 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 4 $ 1 1 0 , 24 0 . 0 0 $ C3 0 2 0 - I n t e r i o r F l o o r F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e F l o o r F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g C a r p e t , T i l e , LV T a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 8 3 $ 4 7 , 58 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 1 7 $ 3 0 , 42 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 8 $ 4 , 6 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 8 $ 8 2 , 68 0 . 0 0 $ C3 0 3 0 - I n t e r i o r C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g A C T , G W B an d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 3 . 0 5 $ 7 9 , 32 6 . 0 0 $ 1 . 4 5 $ 3 7 , 67 4 . 0 0 $ 0 . 2 7 $ 7 , 0 2 0 . 0 0 $ 4 . 7 7 $ 1 2 4 , 02 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s 31 6 , 9 4 0 . 0 0 $ 1 2 . 1 9 $ Pa g e 2 o f 3 180 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T D- S e r v i c e s D2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s D2 0 1 0 - P l u m bi n g S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e F o r M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o P l u m b i n g Sy s t e m s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c Wo r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 8 3 $ 4 7 , 58 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 1 7 $ 3 0 , 42 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 8 $ 4 , 6 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 8 $ 8 2 , 68 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s 82 , 6 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 8 $ D3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s D3 0 2 0 - H V A C S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r H V A C w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 0 . 9 8 $ 28 5 , 4 8 0 . 0 0 $ 7 . 0 2 $ 1 8 2 , 52 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 0 8 $ 2 8 , 0 8 0 . 0 0 $ 1 9 . 0 8 $ 4 9 6 , 08 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s 49 6 , 0 8 0 . 0 0 $ 1 9 . 0 8 $ D4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s D4 0 1 0 - F i r e S p r i n k l e r S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r F i r e P r o t e c t i o n w o r k a s r e q u i r e d fo r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 3 1 $ 3 4 , 09 9 . 0 0 $ 0 . 8 4 $ 2 1 , 80 1 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 3 $ 3 , 3 5 4 . 0 0 $ 2 . 2 8 $ 5 9 , 25 4 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s 59 , 2 5 4 . 0 0 $ 2 . 2 8 $ D5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s D5 0 2 0 - L i g h t i n g a n d B r a n c h W i r i n g Al l o w a n c e f o r E l e c t r i c a l P o w e r a n d L i g h t i n g w o r k as r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 26 , 0 0 0 s q f t 6 . 1 8 $ 16 0 , 5 5 0 . 0 0 $ 3 . 3 3 $ 8 6 , 45 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 5 7 $ 1 4 , 8 2 0 . 0 0 $ 1 0 . 0 7 $ 2 6 1 , 82 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s 26 1 , 8 2 0 . 0 0 $ 1 0 . 0 7 $ To t a l D i r e c t C o s t s - > 3, 0 5 3 , 1 2 2 $ 11 7 . 4 3 $ Pa g e 3 o f 3 181 182 6300 Building Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Tukwila, WA Conceptual Cost Estimate April 22, 2022 Revised June 20, 2022 Prepared for: Reid Middleton 728 134th Street SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Kirkland, WA 98033 tel: (425) 828‐0500 fax: (425) 828‐0700 www.prodims.com 183 Es t i m a t e S u m m a r y 184 Name:6300 Building - Life Safety Second Name:Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Location:Tukwila, WA 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Design Phase:Concept Cost Estimate Kirkland, WA 98033 Date of Estimate:April 22, 2022 tel: (425) 828‐0500 Date of Revision:June 20, 2022 fax: (425) 828‐0700 Month of Cost Basis:April, 2022 www.prodims.com Subtotal Direct Cost 2,057,461$ Percentage of Previous Subtotal Amount Subtotal 2,057,461$ Scope Contingency 15.0%308,619$ Subtotal 2,366,080$ General Conditions 16.0%378,573$ Subtotal 2,744,653$ Home Office Overhead 6.0%164,679$ Subtotal 2,909,332$ Profit 6.0%174,560$ Subtotal 3,083,892$ Escalation - Not Included - See Escalation in Table Below 0.00%-$ Subtotal 3,083,892$ 3,083,892$ Cost Estimate in April, 2022 Dollars from Above ->3,083,892$ Escalation to: Out How Many Years Rate at 6% per year Escalation Total: Mid-point of Construction Allowance:Escalated Total:Date: April, 2023 1 year 6.00% 185,034$ April, 2023 3,268,926$ April, 2023 April, 2024 2 years 12.36% 381,169$ April, 2024 3,465,061$ April, 2024 April, 2025 3 years 19.10% 589,073$ April, 2025 3,672,965$ April, 2025 April, 2026 4 years 26.25% 809,451$ April, 2026 3,893,343$ April, 2026 April, 2027 5 years 33.82% 1,043,051$ April, 2027 4,126,944$ April, 2027 Estimate Assumptions: This estimate is based on the As Built Markups and narrative information received by 4-8-22 and Revisions by 6-10-22 This estimate is based on the working in an unoccupied building with no phasing or 2nd, 3rd shift work. This estimate is based on the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection (M/E/P/FP) systems being modified to accommodate seismic work but M/E/P/FP systems are Not upgraded to latest building codes for these systems. This estimate does not include any Hazardous Material Abatement Costs as it is not defined. All soft costs are the owner's responsibility to determine and verify. The Soft costs estimate has been excluded from the construction cost estimate. Escalation is allowed in the above table for 1 to 5 years out to the mid-point of construction as the construction schedule is still to be determined. Estimate Qualifications: The estimate is not be relied on solely for proforma development and financial decisions. Additional Studies of additional systems impacted by the seismic scope of work should be performed before setting construction and project budgets. Summary sheet markups are cumulative, not additive. Percentages are added to the previous subtotal rather than the direct cost subtotal. Estimated labor is based on an 8 hour per day shift 5 days a week. Accelerated schedule work of overtime has not been included. Estimated construction cost is for the entire project. This estimate is not intended to be used for other projects. Division 0/ Division 1 specifications are presumed to have normal ranges for liquidated damages, construction schedule and terms & conditions. These divisions are typically written after the final estimate. Please contact the cost estimator for a review, if desired. Please consult the cost estimator for any modifications to this estimate. Unilaterally adding and deleting markups, scope of work, schedule, specifications, plans and bid forms could incorrectly restate the project construction cost. The construction cost estimate does not include an estimate of owner soft costs such as taxes, A/E fees, owner contingencies and permit fees. Construction reserve contingency for change orders is not included in the estimate. Any modifications to the plans via addendums and code review for permits will cause cost increases and are not included in this estimate. Sole source supply of materials and/ or installers typically results in a 40% to 100% premium on costs over open specifications. Imposition of tariffs and market instability of resources such as fuel, insurance and labor occurring after estimate date are not included. Contractors imposing different bidding conditions from plans and specifications on subcontractors are not bidding from the plans and specifications. Modifications to the proposed construction schedule and modifying the phasing plans after this estimate will affect construction cost and are not included. The estimate includes a reasonable construction escalation that can be determined based on market conditions for up to the next 6 months. Since this project has a midpoint of construction further than 6 months, increases in escalation are not included beyond the rate shown in the estimate. Escalation Table Estimate Summary TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST in April, 2022 Dollars Page 1 of 1 185 E s t i m a t e D e t a i l 186 Na m e : Ar e a sq f t Se c o n d N a m e : 1s t F l o o r 1 6 , 8 0 0 Lo c a t i o n : Tu k w i l a , W A 2n d F l o o r 1 6 , 8 0 0 52 0 K i r k l a n d W a y , S u i t e 3 0 1 De s i g n P h a s e : Co n c e p t C o s t E s t i m a t e Ki r k l a n d , W A 9 8 0 3 3 Da t e o f E s t i m a t e : Ap r i l 2 2 , 20 2 2 Ph o n e : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 5 0 0 F a x : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 7 0 0 Da t e o f R e v i s i o n : Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 ww w . p r o d i m s . c o m Mo n t h o f C o s t B a s i s : Ap r i l , 20 2 2 To t a l A r e a 33 , 6 0 0 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T A- S u b s t r u c t u r e 0. 0 6 A1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s % i n F d n s A1 0 1 0 - S t a n d a r d F o u n d a t i o n s Sp r e a d F o o t i n g s F o u n d a t i o n S y s t e m - C o n c r e t e , in c l u d e s e x c a v a t i o n , b a c k f il l i n g , e r e c t an d s t r i p wo o d f o r m s , r e - s t e e l 16 . 5 c u y d 3 7 7 . 0 0 $ 6 , 23 0 . 9 7 $ 27 3 . 0 0 $ 4 , 51 2 . 0 8 $ 3 9 . 0 0 $ 6 4 4 . 5 8 $ 68 9 . 0 0 $ 1 1 , 38 7 . 6 4 $ En l a r g e C o l u m n F o o t i n g s w i t h C o n c r e t e , D r i l l e d in R e b a r D o w e l s , F o r m w o r k , E x c a v a t i o n an d Ba c k f i l l . R e m o v e R e s t o r e S u r f a c e T r e a t m e n t 5 e a c h 2, 5 5 6 . 0 0 $ 12 , 78 0 . 0 0 $ 1, 04 4 . 0 0 $ 5, 22 0 . 0 0 $ 21 6 . 0 0 $ 1, 0 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3, 81 6 . 0 0 $ 19 , 08 0 . 0 0 $ In s t a l l A n g l e w i t h E p o x y D r i l l e d i n B o l t s w i t h N u t an d W a s h e r A n c h o r s - R e m o v e a n d R e p l a c e 2 ' of S l a b o n G r a d e 80 l n f t 10 8 . 1 2 $ 8, 64 9 . 6 0 $ 50 . 8 8 $ 4, 07 0 . 4 0 $ 9. 5 4 $ 76 3 . 2 0 $ 16 8 . 5 4 $ 13 , 48 3 . 2 0 $ A1 0 3 0 - S l a b o n G r a d e Re m o v e E x i s t i n g S O G w i t h S a w c u t t i n g a n d Re i n s t a l l N e w S O G , a t n e w S h a l l o w F o o t i n g s 52 5 s q f t 18 . 4 6 $ 9, 69 1 . 5 0 $ 7. 5 4 $ 3, 95 8 . 5 0 $ 1. 5 6 $ 81 9 . 0 0 $ 27 . 5 6 $ 14 , 46 9 . 0 0 $ To t a l s A 1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s 58 , 4 1 9 . 8 4 $ 1 . 7 4 $ B- S h e l l B1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e B1 0 1 0 - U p p e r F l o o r St e e l - M o m e n t F r a m e - 2 C o l u m n s , 3 B e a m s pe r F r a m e - R e p l a c e S t e e l C o l u m n s - R e a t t a c h Ex i s t i n g S u p p o r t e d S t r u c t u r e - T e m p o r a r y Sh o r i n g - A t t h e F l o o r a n d R o o f 4 e a c h 1 6 , 7 0 4 . 0 0 $ 6 6 , 81 6 . 0 0 $ 1 2 , 09 6 . 0 0 $ 4 8 , 38 4 . 0 0 $ 1 , 7 2 8 . 0 0 $ 6 , 9 1 2 . 0 0 $ 3 0 , 52 8 . 0 0 $ 1 2 2 , 11 2 . 0 0 $ Sh e a r W a l l s - N e w a n d R e t r o f i t E x i s t i n g W a l l s - 2x W o o d F r a m i n g , S h e a t h i n g E a c h S i d e 1, 2 6 0 s q f t 7 . 8 0 $ 9 , 82 8 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 0 $ 5 , 29 2 . 0 0 $ 0 . 7 2 $ 9 0 7 . 2 0 $ 1 2 . 7 2 $ 1 6 , 02 7 . 2 0 $ Cr o s s T i e A c r o s s B e a m L i n e a t F l o o r J o i s t s 8 e a c h 1 0 1 . 4 0 $ 81 1 . 2 0 $ 2 8 . 6 0 $ 22 8 . 8 0 $ 7 . 8 0 $ 6 2 . 4 0 $ 13 7 . 8 0 $ 1 , 10 2 . 4 0 $ 63 0 0 B ui l d i n g - L i f e S a f e t y Tu k w i l a S e i s m i c I m p r o v e m e n t Pr o g r a m Pa g e 1 o f 3 187 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T B1 0 2 0 - R o o f Sh e a r W a l l s - N e w a n d R e t r o f i t E x i s t i n g W a l l s - 2x W o o d F r a m i n g , S h e a t h i n g E a c h S i d e 1, 2 6 0 s q f t 7 . 8 0 $ 9 , 82 8 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 0 $ 5 , 29 2 . 0 0 $ 0 . 7 2 $ 9 0 7 . 2 0 $ 1 2 . 7 2 $ 1 6 , 02 7 . 2 0 $ Cr o s s T i e A c r o s s B e a m L i n e a t F l o o r J o i s t s 4 e a c h 1 0 1 . 4 0 $ 40 5 . 6 0 $ 2 8 . 6 0 $ 11 4 . 4 0 $ 7 . 8 0 $ 3 1 . 2 0 $ 13 7 . 8 0 $ 55 1 . 2 0 $ To t a l s B 1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e 15 5 , 8 2 0 . 0 0 $ 4 . 6 4 $ B2 0 - E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e - N o E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e W o r k 6. 0 0 % B3 0 - R o o f i n g B3 0 1 0 - R o o f C o v e r in g s Ne w R o o f i n g S y s t e m - M o d i f i e d B i t u m e n R o o f i n g Sy s t e m w i t h n e w R - 3 0 R i g i d I n s u l a t i o n , Co v e r b o a r d , V a p o r R e t a r d e r , S u b s t r a t e B o a r d , Wa l k p a d a c c e s s o r i e s , M e t a l F l a s h i n g a n d T r i m - De m o E x i s t i n g R o o f i n g S y s t e m 16 , 8 0 0 s q f t 1 0 . 4 5 $ 17 5 , 5 6 0 . 0 0 $ 8 . 5 5 $ 1 4 3 , 64 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 1 4 $ 1 9 , 1 5 2 . 0 0 $ 2 0 . 1 4 $ 3 3 8 , 35 2 . 0 0 $ B3 0 2 0 - R o o f O p e ni n g s In s t a l l N e w S k y l i g h t S y s t e m a n d C u r b - 3 ' - 4 " x 7 ' - 3" a n d R e m o v e E x i s t i n g S k y l i g h t s 4 e a c h 9 3 3 . 6 8 $ 3 , 73 4 . 7 2 $ 1 , 18 8 . 3 2 $ 4 , 75 3 . 2 8 $ 1 2 7 . 3 2 $ 5 0 9 . 2 8 $ 2 , 24 9 . 3 2 $ 8 , 99 7 . 2 8 $ To t a l s B 3 0 - R o o f i n g 34 7 , 3 4 9 . 2 8 $ 1 0 . 3 4 $ C- I n t e r i o r s C1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n C1 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r P a r t i t i o n s Re m o v e a n d R e i n s t a l l W a l l s , D o o r s , S p e c i a l t i e s an d C a s e w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l Se i s m i c W o r k 33 , 6 0 0 s q f t 2 . 4 4 $ 8 1 , 98 4 . 0 0 $ 1 . 5 6 $ 5 2 , 41 6 . 0 0 $ 0 . 2 4 $ 8 , 0 6 4 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 4 $ 1 4 2 , 46 4 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n 14 2 , 4 6 4 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 4 $ C3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s C3 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r W a l l F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e W a l l F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g P a i n t i n g , T i l e , Ba s e s a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r Ne w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 33 , 6 0 0 s q f t 2 . 2 9 $ 7 6 , 86 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 4 6 $ 4 9 , 14 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 2 3 $ 7 , 5 6 0 . 0 0 $ 3 . 9 8 $ 1 3 3 , 56 0 . 0 0 $ C3 0 2 0 - I n t e r i o r F l o o r F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e F l o o r F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g C a r p e t , T i l e , LV T a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 33 , 6 0 0 s q f t 1 . 6 8 $ 5 6 , 36 4 . 0 0 $ 1 . 0 7 $ 3 6 , 03 6 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 7 $ 5 , 5 4 4 . 0 0 $ 2 . 9 2 $ 9 7 , 94 4 . 0 0 $ C3 0 3 0 - I n t e r i o r C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g A C T , G W B an d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 33 , 6 0 0 s q f t 2 . 7 1 $ 9 1 , 12 3 . 2 0 $ 1 . 2 9 $ 4 3 , 27 6 . 8 0 $ 0 . 2 4 $ 8 , 0 6 4 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 4 $ 1 4 2 , 46 4 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s 37 3 , 9 6 8 . 0 0 $ 1 1 . 1 3 $ Pa g e 2 o f 3 188 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T D- S e r v i c e s D2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s D2 0 1 0 - P l u m bi n g S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e F o r M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o P l u m b i n g Sy s t e m s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c Wo r k 33 , 6 0 0 s q f t 1 . 0 7 $ 3 5 , 86 8 . 0 0 $ 0 . 6 8 $ 2 2 , 93 2 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 1 $ 3 , 5 2 8 . 0 0 $ 1 . 8 6 $ 6 2 , 32 8 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s 62 , 3 2 8 . 0 0 $ 1 . 8 6 $ D3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s D3 0 2 0 - H V A C S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r H V A C w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 33 , 6 0 0 s q f t 9 . 7 6 $ 32 7 , 9 3 6 . 0 0 $ 6 . 2 4 $ 2 0 9 , 66 4 . 0 0 $ 0 . 9 6 $ 3 2 , 2 5 6 . 0 0 $ 1 6 . 9 6 $ 5 6 9 , 85 6 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s 56 9 , 8 5 6 . 0 0 $ 1 6 . 9 6 $ D4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s D4 0 1 0 - F i r e S p r i n k l e r S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r F i r e P r o t e c t i o n w o r k a s r e q u i r e d fo r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 33 , 6 0 0 s q f t 1 . 0 7 $ 3 5 , 86 8 . 0 0 $ 0 . 6 8 $ 2 2 , 93 2 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 1 $ 3 , 5 2 8 . 0 0 $ 1 . 8 6 $ 6 2 , 32 8 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s 62 , 3 2 8 . 0 0 $ 1 . 8 6 $ D5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s D5 0 2 0 - L i g h t i n g a n d B r a n c h W i r i n g Al l o w a n c e f o r E l e c t r i c a l P o w e r a n d L i g h t i n g w o r k as r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 33 , 6 0 0 s q f t 5 . 2 0 $ 17 4 , 7 2 0 . 0 0 $ 2 . 8 0 $ 9 4 , 08 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 4 8 $ 1 6 , 1 2 8 . 0 0 $ 8 . 4 8 $ 2 8 4 , 92 8 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s 28 4 , 9 2 8 . 0 0 $ 8 . 4 8 $ To t a l D i r e c t C o s t s - > 2, 0 5 7 , 4 6 1 $ 61 . 2 3 $ Pa g e 3 o f 3 189 190 Community Center Collapse Prevention Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Tukwila, WA Conceptual Cost Estimate June 20, 2022 Prepared for: Reid Middleton 728 134th Street SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Kirkland, WA 98033 tel: (425) 828‐0500 fax: (425) 828‐0700 www.prodims.com 191 Es t i m a t e S u m m a r y 192 Name:Community Center - Collapse Prevention Second Name:Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Location:Tukwila, WA 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Design Phase:Concept Cost Estimate Kirkland, WA 98033 Date of Estimate:April 22, 2022 tel: (425) 828‐0500 Date of Revision:June 20, 2022 fax: (425) 828‐0700 Month of Cost Basis:April, 2022 www.prodims.com Subtotal Direct Cost 9,069,113$ Percentage of Previous Subtotal Amount Subtotal 9,069,113$ Scope Contingency 15.0%1,360,367$ Subtotal 10,429,480$ General Conditions 16.0%1,668,717$ Subtotal 12,098,197$ Home Office Overhead 6.0%725,892$ Subtotal 12,824,089$ Profit 6.0%769,445$ Subtotal 13,593,534$ Escalation - Not Included - See Escalation in Table Below 0.00%-$ Subtotal 13,593,534$ 13,593,534$ Cost Estimate in April, 2022 Dollars from Above ->13,593,534$ Escalation to: Out How Many Years Rate at 6% per year Escalation Total: Mid-point of Construction Allowance:Escalated Total:Date: April, 2023 1 year 6.00% 815,612$ April, 2023 14,409,146$ April, 2023 April, 2024 2 years 12.36% 1,680,161$ April, 2024 15,273,695$ April, 2024 April, 2025 3 years 19.10% 2,596,583$ April, 2025 16,190,117$ April, 2025 April, 2026 4 years 26.25% 3,567,990$ April, 2026 17,161,524$ April, 2026 April, 2027 5 years 33.82% 4,597,681$ April, 2027 18,191,215$ April, 2027 Estimate Assumptions: This estimate is based on the As Built Markups and narrative information received by 6-10-22 This estimate is based on the working in an unoccupied building with no phasing or 2nd, 3rd shift work. This estimate is based on the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection (M/E/P/FP) systems being modified to accommodate seismic work but M/E/P/FP systems are Not upgraded to latest building codes for these systems. This estimate does not include any Hazardous Material Abatement Costs as it is not defined. All soft costs are the owner's responsibility to determine and verify. The Soft costs estimate has been excluded from the construction cost estimate. Escalation is allowed in the above table for 1 to 5 years out to the mid-point of construction as the construction schedule is still to be determined. Estimate Qualifications: The estimate is not be relied on solely for proforma development and financial decisions. Additional Studies of additional systems impacted by the seismic scope of work should be performed before setting construction and project budgets. Summary sheet markups are cumulative, not additive. Percentages are added to the previous subtotal rather than the direct cost subtotal. Estimated labor is based on an 8 hour per day shift 5 days a week. Accelerated schedule work of overtime has not been included. Estimated construction cost is for the entire project. This estimate is not intended to be used for other projects. Division 0/ Division 1 specifications are presumed to have normal ranges for liquidated damages, construction schedule and terms & conditions. These divisions are typically written after the final estimate. Please contact the cost estimator for a review, if desired. Please consult the cost estimator for any modifications to this estimate. Unilaterally adding and deleting markups, scope of work, schedule, specifications, plans and bid forms could incorrectly restate the project construction cost. The construction cost estimate does not include an estimate of owner soft costs such as taxes, A/E fees, owner contingencies and permit fees. Construction reserve contingency for change orders is not included in the estimate. Any modifications to the plans via addendums and code review for permits will cause cost increases and are not included in this estimate. Sole source supply of materials and/ or installers typically results in a 40% to 100% premium on costs over open specifications. Imposition of tariffs and market instability of resources such as fuel, insurance and labor occurring after estimate date are not included. Contractors imposing different bidding conditions from plans and specifications on subcontractors are not bidding from the plans and specifications. Modifications to the proposed construction schedule and modifying the phasing plans after this estimate will affect construction cost and are not included. The estimate includes a reasonable construction escalation that can be determined based on market conditions for up to the next 6 months. Since this project has a midpoint of construction further than 6 months, increases in escalation are not included beyond the rate shown in the estimate. Estimate Summary TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST in April, 2022 Dollars Escalation Table Page 1 of 1 193 E s t i m a t e D e t a i l 194 Na m e : Ar e a sq f t Se c o n d N a m e : 1s t F l o o r 5 5 , 0 0 0 Lo c a t i o n : Tu k w i l a , W A 52 0 K i r k l a n d W a y , S u i t e 3 0 1 De s i g n P h a s e : Co n c e p t C o s t E s t i m a t e Ki r k l a n d , W A 9 8 0 3 3 Da t e o f E s t i m a t e : Ap r i l 2 2 , 20 2 2 Ph o n e : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 5 0 0 F a x : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 7 0 0 Da t e o f R e v i s i o n : Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 ww w . p r o d i m s . c o m Mo n t h o f C o s t B a s i s : Ap r i l , 20 2 2 To t a l A r e a 55 , 0 0 0 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T A- S u b s t r u c t u r e 0. 0 6 A1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s % i n F d n s A1 0 1 0 - S t a n d a r d F o u n d a t i o n s Sp r e a d F o o t i n g s F o u n d a t i o n S y s t e m - C o n c r e t e , in c l u d e s e x c a v a t i o n , b a c k f il l i n g , e r e c t an d s t r i p wo o d f o r m s , r e - s t e e l 43 . 3 c u y d 3 7 7 . 0 0 $ 1 6 , 32 2 . 7 0 $ 27 3 . 0 0 $ 1 1 , 81 9 . 8 9 $ 3 9 . 0 0 $ 1 , 6 8 8 . 5 6 $ 68 9 . 0 0 $ 2 9 , 83 1 . 1 5 $ St r e n g t h e n C o l u m n B a s e P l a t e C o n n e c t i o n a t th e R o t u n d a C o l u m n s 16 e a c h 3 , 7 4 0 . 0 0 $ 5 9 , 84 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 76 0 . 0 0 $ 2 8 , 16 0 . 0 0 $ 3 3 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 2 8 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 83 0 . 0 0 $ 9 3 , 28 0 . 0 0 $ A1 0 2 0 - S p e c i a l F o u n d a t i o n s Co m p a c t i o n G r o u t i n g f o r G r o u n d I m p r o v e m e n t fo r S e i s m i c M i t i g a t i o n - W o r k i s p e r f o r m e d u n d e r an d o u t s i d e o f b u i l d i n g a n d i n c l u d e s r e s t o r a t i o n of a l l b u i l d i n g a n d s i t e e l e m e n t s r e m o v e d t o pe r f o r m t h e w o r k . 86 , 7 0 0 s q f t 2 0 . 4 8 $ 1 , 77 5 , 6 1 6 . 0 0 $ 1 1 . 5 2 $ 9 9 8 , 78 4 . 0 0 $ 1 . 9 2 $ 16 6 , 4 6 4 . 0 0 $ 3 3 . 9 2 $ 2 , 9 4 0 , 86 4 . 0 0 $ A1 0 3 0 - S l a b o n G r a d e Re m o v e E x i s t i n g S O G w i t h S a w c u t t i n g a n d Re i n s t a l l N e w S O G , a t n e w S h a l l o w F o o t i n g s 66 7 s q f t 1 8 . 4 6 $ 1 2 , 31 2 . 8 2 $ 7 . 5 4 $ 5 , 02 9 . 1 8 $ 1 . 5 6 $ 1 , 0 4 0 . 5 2 $ 2 7 . 5 6 $ 1 8 , 38 2 . 5 2 $ To t a l s A 1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s 3, 0 8 2 , 3 5 7 . 6 7 $ 5 6 . 0 4 $ B- S h e l l B1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e B1 0 2 0 - R o o f Sh e a r W a l l s - R e t r o f i t E x i s t i n g W a l l s - 2 x Bl o c k i n g , S h e a t h i n g , H o l d D o w n s , A n c h o r B o l t s , Cl i p s t o R o o f F r a m i n g an d A n c h o r B o l t s 15 , 8 8 5 s q f t 9 . 9 6 $ 15 8 , 2 8 6 . 0 8 $ 5 . 3 7 $ 8 5 , 23 0 . 9 7 $ 0 . 9 2 $ 1 4 , 6 1 1 . 0 2 $ 1 6 . 2 5 $ 2 5 8 , 12 8 . 0 7 $ 16 G A M e t a l S t r a p a t W i n d o w H e a d e r s a t Mo d i f i e d W a l l s 21 2 e a c h 1 3 . 8 6 $ 2 , 93 8 . 3 2 $ 8 . 1 4 $ 1 , 72 5 . 6 8 $ 1 . 3 2 $ 2 7 9 . 8 4 $ 2 3 . 3 2 $ 4 , 94 3 . 8 4 $ St r e n g th e n B e a m t o C o l u m n C o n n e c t i o n o f S t e e l Me m b e r s 2 e a c h 2 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ 60 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 20 0 . 0 0 $ 1 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3 6 0 . 0 0 $ 3 , 18 0 . 0 0 $ 6 , 36 0 . 0 0 $ Gr o u t E x i s t i n g 8 " C M U W a l l s 4, 9 5 0 s q f t 2 . 9 3 $ 1 4 , 47 8 . 7 5 $ 3 . 5 8 $ 1 7 , 69 6 . 2 5 $ 0 . 3 9 $ 1 , 9 3 0 . 5 0 $ 6 . 8 9 $ 3 4 , 10 5 . 5 0 $ 8" t h i c k W a l l s a d d e d t o t h e E x i s t i n g W a l l s - Sh o t c r e t e , E p o x i e d D r i l l e d i n B a r s t o F a c e o f CM U W a l l a n d R e b a r R e i n f o r c i n g E W / E F . Ro u g h e n F a c e / A p p l y C o n c r e t e A d h e s i v e , Bl o c k o u t F o r m w o r k . F o r m w o r k a t W a l l E dg e s . 17 . 0 c u y d 1 , 1 4 7 . 0 0 $ 1 9 , 49 6 . 8 8 $ 70 3 . 0 0 $ 1 1 , 94 9 . 7 0 $ 1 1 1 . 0 0 $ 1 , 8 8 6 . 7 9 $ 1 , 96 1 . 0 0 $ 3 3 , 33 3 . 3 7 $ Ad d B l o c k i n g a t t o p o f C o n c r e t e S h e a r W a l l t o Ro o f D i a p h r a g m 64 l n f t 5 2 . 0 0 $ 3 , 32 8 . 0 0 $ 2 8 . 0 0 $ 1 , 79 2 . 0 0 $ 4 . 8 0 $ 3 0 7 . 2 0 $ 8 4 . 8 0 $ 5 , 42 7 . 2 0 $ Ri g i d D i a p h r a g m B r a c i n g a t R o o f L e v e l 12 , 5 0 0 s q f t 9 . 7 5 $ 12 1 , 8 7 5 . 0 0 $ 5 . 2 5 $ 6 5 , 62 5 . 0 0 $ 0 . 9 0 $ 1 1 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 . 9 0 $ 1 9 8 , 75 0 . 0 0 $ Co m m u n i t y C e n t e r - C o l l a p s e Pr e v e n t i o n Tu k w i l a S e i s m i c I m p r o v e m e n t Pr o g r a m Pa g e 1 o f 3 195 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T Di a p h r a g m C o n n e c t i o n - W a l l t o R o o f C h o r d Co n n e c t i o n 59 7 l n f t 3 9 . 0 0 $ 2 3 , 28 3 . 0 0 $ 2 1 . 0 0 $ 1 2 , 53 7 . 0 0 $ 3 . 6 0 $ 2 , 1 4 9 . 2 0 $ 6 3 . 6 0 $ 3 7 , 96 9 . 2 0 $ Re i n f o r c e D r a g S t r u t 27 0 l n f t 1 2 9 . 6 0 $ 3 4 , 99 2 . 0 0 $ 5 0 . 4 0 $ 1 3 , 60 8 . 0 0 $ 1 0 . 8 0 $ 2 , 9 1 6 . 0 0 $ 19 0 . 8 0 $ 5 1 , 51 6 . 0 0 $ Ne w D r a g S t r u t 11 7 l n f t 1 4 6 . 2 5 $ 1 7 , 11 1 . 2 5 $ 7 8 . 7 5 $ 9 , 21 3 . 7 5 $ 1 3 . 5 0 $ 1 , 5 7 9 . 5 0 $ 23 8 . 5 0 $ 2 7 , 90 4 . 5 0 $ Bl o c k a n d a d d N a i l i n g t o t h e E x i s t i n g D i a p h r a g m 1, 1 2 0 s q f t 3 . 0 6 $ 3 , 42 7 . 2 0 $ 1 . 4 4 $ 1 , 61 2 . 8 0 $ 0 . 2 7 $ 3 0 2 . 4 0 $ 4 . 7 7 $ 5 , 34 2 . 4 0 $ Ne w 1 2 G a S t r a p - N a i l e d 22 5 l n f t 1 3 . 6 5 $ 3 , 07 1 . 2 5 $ 7 . 3 5 $ 1 , 65 3 . 7 5 $ 1 . 2 6 $ 2 8 3 . 5 0 $ 2 2 . 2 6 $ 5 , 00 8 . 5 0 $ Ne w 1 2 G a S t r a p w i t h B l o c k i n g - N a i l e d 25 8 l n f t 1 6 . 2 5 $ 4 , 19 2 . 5 0 $ 8 . 7 5 $ 2 , 25 7 . 5 0 $ 1 . 5 0 $ 3 8 7 . 0 0 $ 2 6 . 5 0 $ 6 , 83 7 . 0 0 $ To t a l s B 1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e 67 5 , 6 2 5 . 5 8 $ 1 2 . 2 8 $ B2 0 - E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e - N o E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e W o r k 6. 0 0 % B3 0 - R o o f i n g B3 0 1 0 - R o o f C o v e r in g s Ne w R o o f i n g S y s t e m - M e t a l R o o f i n g S y s t e m wi t h n e w R - 3 0 R i g i d I n s u l a t i o n , C o v e r b o a r d , Va p o r R e t a r d e r a n d S u b s t r a t e B o a r d a n d Fl a s h i n g a n d S i d i n g - D e m o E x i s t i n g R o o f i n g Sy s t e m 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 4 . 0 4 $ 77 2 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 1 . 9 6 $ 6 5 7 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 5 6 $ 8 5 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 7 . 5 6 $ 1 , 5 1 5 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s B 3 0 - R o o f i n g 1, 5 1 5 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 7 . 5 6 $ C- I n t e r i o r s C1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n C1 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r P a r t i t i o n s Re m o v e a n d R e i n s t a l l W a l l s , D o o r s , S p e c i a l t i e s an d C a s e w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l Se i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 3 . 6 3 $ 19 9 , 6 2 2 . 5 0 $ 2 . 3 2 $ 1 2 7 , 62 7 . 5 0 $ 0 . 3 6 $ 1 9 , 6 3 5 . 0 0 $ 6 . 3 1 $ 3 4 6 , 88 5 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n 34 6 , 8 8 5 . 0 0 $ 6 . 3 1 $ C3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s C3 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r W a l l F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e W a l l F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g P a i n t i n g , T i l e , Ba s e s a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r Ne w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 2 . 4 1 $ 13 2 , 5 2 2 . 5 0 $ 1 . 5 4 $ 8 4 , 72 7 . 5 0 $ 0 . 2 4 $ 1 3 , 0 3 5 . 0 0 $ 4 . 1 9 $ 2 3 0 , 28 5 . 0 0 $ C3 0 2 0 - I n t e r i o r F l o o r F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e F l o o r F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g C a r p e t , T i l e , LV T a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 4 . 8 5 $ 26 6 , 7 2 2 . 5 0 $ 3 . 1 0 $ 1 7 0 , 52 7 . 5 0 $ 0 . 4 8 $ 2 6 , 2 3 5 . 0 0 $ 8 . 4 3 $ 4 6 3 , 48 5 . 0 0 $ C3 0 3 0 - I n t e r i o r C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g A C T , G W B an d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 4 . 0 3 $ 22 1 , 8 7 5 . 5 0 $ 1 . 9 2 $ 1 0 5 , 37 4 . 5 0 $ 0 . 3 6 $ 1 9 , 6 3 5 . 0 0 $ 6 . 3 1 $ 3 4 6 , 88 5 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s 1, 0 4 0 , 6 5 5 . 0 0 $ 1 8 . 9 2 $ Pa g e 2 o f 3 196 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T D- S e r v i c e s D2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s D2 0 1 0 - P l u m bi n g S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e F o r M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o P l u m b i n g Sy s t e m s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c Wo r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 8 0 $ 9 8 , 97 2 . 5 0 $ 1 . 1 5 $ 6 3 , 27 7 . 5 0 $ 0 . 1 8 $ 9 , 7 3 5 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 3 $ 1 7 1 , 98 5 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s 17 1 , 9 8 5 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 3 $ D3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s D3 0 2 0 - H V A C S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r H V A C w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 2 . 1 4 $ 66 7 , 6 4 5 . 0 0 $ 7 . 7 6 $ 4 2 6 , 85 5 . 0 0 $ 1 . 1 9 $ 6 5 , 6 7 0 . 0 0 $ 2 1 . 0 9 $ 1 , 1 6 0 , 17 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s 1, 1 6 0 , 1 7 0 . 0 0 $ 2 1 . 0 9 $ D4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s D4 0 1 0 - F i r e S p r i n k l e r S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r F i r e P r o t e c t i o n w o r k a s r e q u i r e d fo r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 6 5 $ 9 0 , 58 5 . 0 0 $ 1 . 0 5 $ 5 7 , 91 5 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 6 $ 8 , 9 1 0 . 0 0 $ 2 . 8 6 $ 1 5 7 , 41 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s 15 7 , 4 1 0 . 0 0 $ 2 . 8 6 $ D5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s D5 0 2 0 - L i g h t i n g a n d B r a n c h W i r i n g Al l o w a n c e f o r E l e c t r i c a l P o w e r a n d L i g h t i n g w o r k as r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 0 . 2 4 $ 56 3 , 0 6 2 . 5 0 $ 5 . 5 1 $ 3 0 3 , 18 7 . 5 0 $ 0 . 9 5 $ 5 1 , 9 7 5 . 0 0 $ 1 6 . 7 0 $ 9 1 8 , 22 5 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s 91 8 , 2 2 5 . 0 0 $ 1 6 . 7 0 $ To t a l D i r e c t C o s t s - > 9, 0 6 9 , 1 1 3 $ 16 4 . 8 9 $ Pa g e 3 o f 3 197 198 Community Center Immediate Occupancy Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Tukwila, WA Conceptual Cost Estimate April 22, 2022 Prepared for: Reid Middleton 728 134th Street SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Kirkland, WA 98033 tel: (425) 828‐0500 fax: (425) 828‐0700 www.prodims.com 199 Es t i m a t e S u m m a r y 200 Name:Community Center - Immediate Occupancy Second Name:Tukwila Seismic Improvement Program Location:Tukwila, WA 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 301 Design Phase:Concept Cost Estimate Kirkland, WA 98033 Date of Estimate:April 22, 2022 tel: (425) 828‐0500 Date of Revision:June 20, 2022 fax: (425) 828‐0700 Month of Cost Basis:April, 2022 www.prodims.com Subtotal Direct Cost 9,150,166$ Percentage of Previous Subtotal Amount Subtotal 9,150,166$ Scope Contingency 15.0%1,372,525$ Subtotal 10,522,691$ General Conditions 16.0%1,683,631$ Subtotal 12,206,321$ Home Office Overhead 6.0%732,379$ Subtotal 12,938,701$ Profit 6.0%776,322$ Subtotal 13,715,023$ Escalation - Not Included - See Escalation in Table Below 0.00%-$ Subtotal 13,715,023$ 13,715,023$ Cost Estimate in April, 2022 Dollars from Above ->13,715,023$ Escalation to: Out How Many Years Rate at 6% per year Escalation Total: Mid-point of Construction Allowance:Escalated Total:Date: April, 2023 1 year 6.00% 822,901$ April, 2023 14,537,924$ April, 2023 April, 2024 2 years 12.36% 1,695,177$ April, 2024 15,410,200$ April, 2024 April, 2025 3 years 19.10% 2,619,789$ April, 2025 16,334,812$ April, 2025 April, 2026 4 years 26.25% 3,599,877$ April, 2026 17,314,900$ April, 2026 April, 2027 5 years 33.82% 4,638,771$ April, 2027 18,353,794$ April, 2027 Estimate Assumptions: This estimate is based on the As Built Markups and narrative information received by 4-8-22 and Revisions by 6-10-22 This estimate is based on the working in an unoccupied building with no phasing or 2nd, 3rd shift work. This estimate is based on the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection (M/E/P/FP) systems being modified to accommodate seismic work but M/E/P/FP systems are Not upgraded to latest building codes for these systems. This estimate does not include any Hazardous Material Abatement Costs as it is not defined. All soft costs are the owner's responsibility to determine and verify. The Soft costs estimate has been excluded from the construction cost estimate. Escalation is allowed in the above table for 1 to 5 years out to the mid-point of construction as the construction schedule is still to be determined. Estimate Qualifications: The estimate is not be relied on solely for proforma development and financial decisions. Additional Studies of additional systems impacted by the seismic scope of work should be performed before setting construction and project budgets. Summary sheet markups are cumulative, not additive. Percentages are added to the previous subtotal rather than the direct cost subtotal. Estimated labor is based on an 8 hour per day shift 5 days a week. Accelerated schedule work of overtime has not been included. Estimated construction cost is for the entire project. This estimate is not intended to be used for other projects. Division 0/ Division 1 specifications are presumed to have normal ranges for liquidated damages, construction schedule and terms & conditions. These divisions are typically written after the final estimate. Please contact the cost estimator for a review, if desired. Please consult the cost estimator for any modifications to this estimate. Unilaterally adding and deleting markups, scope of work, schedule, specifications, plans and bid forms could incorrectly restate the project construction cost. The construction cost estimate does not include an estimate of owner soft costs such as taxes, A/E fees, owner contingencies and permit fees. Construction reserve contingency for change orders is not included in the estimate. Any modifications to the plans via addendums and code review for permits will cause cost increases and are not included in this estimate. Sole source supply of materials and/ or installers typically results in a 40% to 100% premium on costs over open specifications. Imposition of tariffs and market instability of resources such as fuel, insurance and labor occurring after estimate date are not included. Contractors imposing different bidding conditions from plans and specifications on subcontractors are not bidding from the plans and specifications. Modifications to the proposed construction schedule and modifying the phasing plans after this estimate will affect construction cost and are not included. The estimate includes a reasonable construction escalation that can be determined based on market conditions for up to the next 6 months. Since this project has a midpoint of construction further than 6 months, increases in escalation are not included beyond the rate shown in the estimate. Escalation Table Estimate Summary TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST in April, 2022 Dollars Page 1 of 1 201 E s t i m a t e D e t a i l 202 Na m e : Ar e a sq f t Se c o n d N a m e : 1s t F l o o r 5 5 , 0 0 0 Lo c a t i o n : Tu k w i l a , W A 52 0 K i r k l a n d W a y , S u i t e 3 0 1 De s i g n P h a s e : Co n c e p t C o s t E s t i m a t e Ki r k l a n d , W A 9 8 0 3 3 Da t e o f E s t i m a t e : Ap r i l 2 2 , 20 2 2 Ph o n e : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 5 0 0 F a x : 4 2 5 ‐ 8 2 8 ‐ 0 7 0 0 Da t e o f R e v i s i o n : Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 ww w . p r o d i m s . c o m Mo n t h o f C o s t B a s i s : Ap r i l , 20 2 2 To t a l A r e a 55 , 0 0 0 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T A- S u b s t r u c t u r e 0. 0 6 A1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s % i n F d n s A1 0 1 0 - S t a n d a r d F o u n d a t i o n s Sp r e a d F o o t i n g s F o u n d a t i o n S y s t e m - C o n c r e t e , in c l u d e s e x c a v a t i o n , b a c k f il l i n g , e r e c t an d s t r i p wo o d f o r m s , r e - s t e e l 43 . 3 c u y d 3 7 7 . 0 0 $ 1 6 , 32 2 . 7 0 $ 27 3 . 0 0 $ 1 1 , 81 9 . 8 9 $ 3 9 . 0 0 $ 1 , 6 8 8 . 5 6 $ 68 9 . 0 0 $ 2 9 , 83 1 . 1 5 $ St r e n g t h e n C o l u m n B a s e P l a t e C o n n e c t i o n a t th e R o t u n d a C o l u m n s 16 e a c h 3 , 7 4 0 . 0 0 $ 5 9 , 84 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 76 0 . 0 0 $ 2 8 , 16 0 . 0 0 $ 3 3 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 2 8 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 83 0 . 0 0 $ 9 3 , 28 0 . 0 0 $ A1 0 2 0 - S p e c i a l F o u n d a t i o n s Co m p a c t i o n G r o u t i n g f o r G r o u n d I m p r o v e m e n t fo r S e i s m i c M i t i g a t i o n - W o r k i s p e r f o r m e d u n d e r an d o u t s i d e o f b u i l d i n g a n d i n c l u d e s r e s t o r a t i o n of a l l b u i l d i n g a n d s i t e e l e m e n t s r e m o v e d t o pe r f o r m t h e w o r k . 86 , 7 0 0 s q f t 2 0 . 4 8 $ 1 , 77 5 , 6 1 6 . 0 0 $ 1 1 . 5 2 $ 9 9 8 , 78 4 . 0 0 $ 1 . 9 2 $ 16 6 , 4 6 4 . 0 0 $ 3 3 . 9 2 $ 2 , 9 4 0 , 86 4 . 0 0 $ A1 0 3 0 - S l a b o n G r a d e Re m o v e E x i s t i n g S O G w i t h S a w c u t t i n g a n d Re i n s t a l l N e w S O G , a t n e w S h a l l o w F o o t i n g s 66 7 s q f t 1 8 . 4 6 $ 1 2 , 31 2 . 8 2 $ 7 . 5 4 $ 5 , 02 9 . 1 8 $ 1 . 5 6 $ 1 , 0 4 0 . 5 2 $ 2 7 . 5 6 $ 1 8 , 38 2 . 5 2 $ To t a l s A 1 0 - F o u n d a t i o n s 3, 0 8 2 , 3 5 7 . 6 7 $ 5 6 . 0 4 $ B- S h e l l B1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e B1 0 2 0 - R o o f Sh e a r W a l l s - R e t r o f i t E x i s t i n g W a l l s - 2 x Bl o c k i n g , S h e a t h i n g , H o l d D o w n s , A n c h o r B o l t s , Cl i p s t o R o o f F r a m i n g an d A n c h o r B o l t s 18 , 4 3 0 s q f t 9 . 9 6 $ 18 3 , 6 4 5 . 7 4 $ 5 . 3 7 $ 9 8 , 88 6 . 1 7 $ 0 . 9 2 $ 1 6 , 9 5 1 . 9 1 $ 1 6 . 2 5 $ 2 9 9 , 48 3 . 8 1 $ 16 G A M e t a l S t r a p a t W i n d o w H e a d e r s a t Mo d i f i e d W a l l s 21 2 e a c h 1 3 . 8 6 $ 2 , 93 8 . 3 2 $ 8 . 1 4 $ 1 , 72 5 . 6 8 $ 1 . 3 2 $ 2 7 9 . 8 4 $ 2 3 . 3 2 $ 4 , 94 3 . 8 4 $ St r e n g th e n B e a m t o C o l u m n C o n n e c t i o n o f S t e e l Me m b e r s 2 e a c h 2 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ 60 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 20 0 . 0 0 $ 1 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3 6 0 . 0 0 $ 3 , 18 0 . 0 0 $ 6 , 36 0 . 0 0 $ Gr o u t E x i s t i n g 8 " C M U W a l l s 4, 9 5 0 s q f t 2 . 9 3 $ 1 4 , 47 8 . 7 5 $ 3 . 5 8 $ 1 7 , 69 6 . 2 5 $ 0 . 3 9 $ 1 , 9 3 0 . 5 0 $ 6 . 8 9 $ 3 4 , 10 5 . 5 0 $ 8" t h i c k W a l l s a d d e d t o t h e E x i s t i n g W a l l s - Sh o t c r e t e , E p o x i e d D r i l l e d i n B a r s t o F a c e o f CM U W a l l a n d R e b a r R e i n f o r c i n g E W / E F . Ro u g h e n F a c e / A p p l y C o n c r e t e A d h e s i v e , Bl o c k o u t F o r m w o r k . F o r m w o r k a t W a l l E dg e s . 17 . 0 c u y d 1 , 1 4 7 . 0 0 $ 1 9 , 49 6 . 8 8 $ 70 3 . 0 0 $ 1 1 , 94 9 . 7 0 $ 1 1 1 . 0 0 $ 1 , 8 8 6 . 7 9 $ 1 , 96 1 . 0 0 $ 3 3 , 33 3 . 3 7 $ Ad d B l o c k i n g a t t o p o f C o n c r e t e S h e a r W a l l t o Ro o f D i a p h r a g m 64 l n f t 5 2 . 0 0 $ 3 , 32 8 . 0 0 $ 2 8 . 0 0 $ 1 , 79 2 . 0 0 $ 4 . 8 0 $ 3 0 7 . 2 0 $ 8 4 . 8 0 $ 5 , 42 7 . 2 0 $ Ri g i d D i a p h r a g m B r a c i n g a t R o o f L e v e l 12 , 5 0 0 s q f t 9 . 7 5 $ 12 1 , 8 7 5 . 0 0 $ 5 . 2 5 $ 6 5 , 62 5 . 0 0 $ 0 . 9 0 $ 1 1 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 . 9 0 $ 1 9 8 , 75 0 . 0 0 $ Co m m u n i t y C e n t e r - I mm e d i a t e Oc c u p a n c y Tu k w i l a S e i s m i c I m p r o v e m e n t Pr o g r a m Pa g e 1 o f 3 203 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T Di a p h r a g m C o n n e c t i o n - W a l l t o R o o f C h o r d Co n n e c t i o n 59 7 l n f t 3 9 . 0 0 $ 2 3 , 28 3 . 0 0 $ 2 1 . 0 0 $ 1 2 , 53 7 . 0 0 $ 3 . 6 0 $ 2 , 1 4 9 . 2 0 $ 6 3 . 6 0 $ 3 7 , 96 9 . 2 0 $ Re i n f o r c e D r a g S t r u t 27 0 l n f t 1 2 9 . 6 0 $ 3 4 , 99 2 . 0 0 $ 5 0 . 4 0 $ 1 3 , 60 8 . 0 0 $ 1 0 . 8 0 $ 2 , 9 1 6 . 0 0 $ 19 0 . 8 0 $ 5 1 , 51 6 . 0 0 $ Ne w D r a g S t r u t 11 7 l n f t 1 4 6 . 2 5 $ 1 7 , 11 1 . 2 5 $ 7 8 . 7 5 $ 9 , 21 3 . 7 5 $ 1 3 . 5 0 $ 1 , 5 7 9 . 5 0 $ 23 8 . 5 0 $ 2 7 , 90 4 . 5 0 $ Bl o c k a n d a d d N a i l i n g t o t h e E x i s t i n g D i a p h r a g m 1, 1 2 0 s q f t 3 . 0 6 $ 3 , 42 7 . 2 0 $ 1 . 4 4 $ 1 , 61 2 . 8 0 $ 0 . 2 7 $ 3 0 2 . 4 0 $ 4 . 7 7 $ 5 , 34 2 . 4 0 $ Ne w 1 2 G a S t r a p - N a i l e d 22 5 l n f t 1 3 . 6 5 $ 3 , 07 1 . 2 5 $ 7 . 3 5 $ 1 , 65 3 . 7 5 $ 1 . 2 6 $ 2 8 3 . 5 0 $ 2 2 . 2 6 $ 5 , 00 8 . 5 0 $ Ne w 1 2 G a S t r a p w i t h B l o c k i n g - N a i l e d 32 6 l n f t 1 6 . 2 5 $ 5 , 29 7 . 5 0 $ 8 . 7 5 $ 2 , 85 2 . 5 0 $ 1 . 5 0 $ 4 8 9 . 0 0 $ 2 6 . 5 0 $ 8 , 63 9 . 0 0 $ To t a l s B 1 0 - S u p e r s t r u c t u r e 71 8 , 7 8 3 . 3 2 $ 1 3 . 0 7 $ B2 0 - E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e - N o E x t e r i o r C l o s u r e W o r k 6. 0 0 % B3 0 - R o o f i n g B3 0 1 0 - R o o f C o v e r in g s Ne w R o o f i n g S y s t e m - M e t a l R o o f i n g S y s t e m wi t h n e w R - 3 0 R i g i d I n s u l a t i o n , C o v e r b o a r d , Va p o r R e t a r d e r a n d S u b s t r a t e B o a r d a n d Fl a s h i n g a n d S i d i n g - D e m o E x i s t i n g R o o f i n g Sy s t e m 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 4 . 0 4 $ 77 2 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 1 . 9 6 $ 6 5 7 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 5 6 $ 8 5 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 7 . 5 6 $ 1 , 5 1 5 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s B 3 0 - R o o f i n g 1, 5 1 5 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 7 . 5 6 $ C- I n t e r i o r s C1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n C1 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r P a r t i t i o n s Re m o v e a n d R e i n s t a l l W a l l s , D o o r s , S p e c i a l t i e s an d C a s e w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l Se i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 3 . 6 6 $ 20 1 , 3 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 . 3 4 $ 1 2 8 , 70 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 3 6 $ 1 9 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 6 . 3 6 $ 3 4 9 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 1 0 - I n t e r i o r C o n s t r u c t i o n 34 9 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 6 . 3 6 $ C3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s C3 0 1 0 - I n t e r i o r W a l l F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e W a l l F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g P a i n t i n g , T i l e , Ba s e s a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r Ne w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 2 . 4 4 $ 13 4 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 5 6 $ 8 5 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 2 4 $ 1 3 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 4 $ 2 3 3 , 20 0 . 0 0 $ C3 0 2 0 - I n t e r i o r F l o o r F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e F l o o r F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g C a r p e t , T i l e , LV T a n d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 4 . 8 8 $ 26 8 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 2 $ 1 7 1 , 60 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 4 8 $ 2 6 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ 8 . 4 8 $ 4 6 6 , 40 0 . 0 0 $ C3 0 3 0 - I n t e r i o r C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s Re s t o r e C e i l i n g F i n i s h e s - I n c l u d i n g A C T , G W B an d S p e c i a l t y F i n i s h e s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 4 . 0 7 $ 22 3 , 7 4 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 9 3 $ 1 0 6 , 26 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 3 6 $ 1 9 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 6 . 3 6 $ 3 4 9 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s C 3 0 - I n t e r i o r F i n i s h e s 1, 0 4 9 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 9 . 0 8 $ Pa g e 2 o f 3 204 WB S De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y U o f M L a b o r L a b o r T o t a l M a t e r i a l M a t e r i a l T o ta l E q u i p m e n t E q u i p m e n t T o t a l T o t a l $ / U o f M Di r e c t C o s t D i r e c t $ / S Q F T D- S e r v i c e s D2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s D2 0 1 0 - P l u m bi n g S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e F o r M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o P l u m b i n g Sy s t e m s a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c Wo r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 8 3 $ 10 0 , 6 5 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 1 7 $ 6 4 , 35 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 1 8 $ 9 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 8 $ 1 7 4 , 90 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 2 0 - P l u m b i n g S y s t e m s 17 4 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 . 1 8 $ D3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s D3 0 2 0 - H V A C S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r H V A C w o r k a s r e q u i r e d f o r N e w St r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 2 . 2 0 $ 67 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 . 8 0 $ 4 2 9 , 00 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 2 0 $ 6 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 1 . 2 0 $ 1 , 1 6 6 , 00 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 3 0 - H V A C S y s t e m s 1, 1 6 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 1 . 2 0 $ D4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s D4 0 1 0 - F i r e S p r i n k l e r S y s t e m Al l o w a n c e f o r F i r e P r o t e c t i o n w o r k a s r e q u i r e d fo r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 . 6 8 $ 9 2 , 26 2 . 5 0 $ 1 . 0 7 $ 5 8 , 98 7 . 5 0 $ 0 . 1 7 $ 9 , 0 7 5 . 0 0 $ 2 . 9 2 $ 1 6 0 , 32 5 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 4 0 - F i r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m s 16 0 , 3 2 5 . 0 0 $ 2 . 9 2 $ D5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s D5 0 2 0 - L i g h t i n g a n d B r a n c h W i r i n g Al l o w a n c e f o r E l e c t r i c a l P o w e r a n d L i g h t i n g w o r k as r e q u i r e d f o r N e w S t r u c t u r a l S e i s m i c W o r k 55 , 0 0 0 s q f t 1 0 . 4 0 $ 57 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 . 6 0 $ 3 0 8 , 00 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 9 6 $ 5 2 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 . 9 6 $ 9 3 2 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ To t a l s D 5 0 - E l e c t r i c a l S y s t e m s 93 2 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 . 9 6 $ To t a l D i r e c t C o s t s - > 9, 1 5 0 , 1 6 6 $ 16 6 . 3 7 $ Pa g e 3 o f 3 205 728 134th St SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 Tel 425-741-3800 Fax 425-741-3900 www.reidmiddleton.com File No. 262022.017 206