![]() Over and over Millennium Partners, DeSimone & Webcor AND later SG&H & the city's own 2017 301 Mission Seismic Safety Review Peer Review panel have described the tower as Prescriptive-Based (Code) Design. Jack Moehle subsequently wrote a Peer Review letter of acceptance of Baugrid based on Performance-Based Design. explains that the results of testing of Baugrid showed that it would not be equal to a 1:1 replacement. It is from the Peer Review done by Hardip Pannu during the construction of the tower and the subsequent testing of Baugrid. I suppose I could have elaborated more on the document link I posted. RE: SF Tower settlement Part II hokie66 (Structural) 12 Aug 21 22:33 Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. I'm not sure of what happens in an earthquake if the North and West sides of the building are on bedrock? I would think this would introduce a massive eccentricity. I don't know the reference of the 1175K and 1227K loads on page 26 and what the actual design load is. I'm not sure what the references to the pile loads are. I understand that ARUP looked at this a while back during construction of the Transbay Terminal and that most of the settlement had already occured. It's nice to see the causes shown on page 10. it would be nice to see Other SF Buildings with that type of Foundation be shown on p9 showing their width and height to compare. Thanks Epoxybot for the update on this project. RE: SF Tower settlement Part II epoxybot (Structural) 17 Feb 21 23:37 It is the short cut piles that will prove the most resistant to the scheme proposed by SG&H. There are more (re-strike) piles on my map than listed by Treadwell & Rollo, as I added all piles with less than a hundred blows in the last 5 feet and then went through the list and added some piles with descinding blow counts which appeared to have blown through the crust layer between Colma/Marine sand layer & a Marine Mud layer. The white piles are cut short, the blue piles are Re-strike quality piles. Mission Bay is the one of the newest development ares in SF and they have a huge problem with ground settlement.Īttached is a pile map showing the depth of piles driven. When you see a blue topped fire hydrant, it is part of the emergency/cistern based fire fighting system established after the 1906 earthquake. San Francisco has some of its utilities resting on piles to prevent them from settling with the fill. RE: SF Tower settlement Part II epoxybot (Structural) 10 Dec 20 19:51 SF Govt's contribution to settling the Millennium Tower litigation was waiving the $3.10/sf/yr sub-sidewalk rental fee for the long-term right of the Millennium HOA to make incursions into the public right of way (Below Sidewalk). The people of SF & SF Government are let off the hook quite nicely. The headline of the SFist article, posted by Jay, is misleading, as most of the $30 million, ascribed to SF Taxpayers will be borne by US, State and Bay Area Taxpayers, including $1 dollar from every vehicle that crosses the SF-Oak Bay Bridge, ticket fares from CalTrain riders & Alameda-Contra Costa bus riders. I think the fun really begins when they remove the CDSM shoring wall on Fremont & Mission St and the Play-Doh starts production. It would require a sustained, high magnitude earthquake to mobilize the QYBM. The mat foundation sits on young bay mud, below the non-engineered fill layer, which is from 17 to 42 feet thick, across the whole of the site. until it does, is there a chance for a seismic event to liquefy the soil beneath the building? RE: SF Tower settlement Part II hokie66 (Structural) 1 Dec 20 22:05 ![]() Of course the SF Dept of Building Inspection has been very vigilant of this process, not wanting to be found lacking, as they were from the start. These last three have been a bit of a terror for the HOA & Millennium Partners, as they must be Handicap Accessible. So the patio, the indoor pool level and basement/garage access. (photo) and the access points on 3 levels between the tower and the podium structure. The only entry/exit points affected are the lobby entrance on Mission St. Serendipitously, the mat foundation extends beyond the only entry/exit affected by the sinking.Ĭorrection: The sinking of 18" & tilting of 14" are from 2018, which according to another article from July 2020, was the last time these factors were made public. The powers that be, likened the slowing of the sinking to the secession of work on the White Elephant (TJPA) next door. So about 2 inches since the fall of 2016, if I recall correctly. In July the press reported the tower had sunk a total of 18 inches and was tilting 14 inches.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |