Gate Rehab PDF

o' 1^-0u
g
92101465c
Non Record
<
I S Army Corps
I 1Engineers »
irtland District
Value Engineering Study Report
ARIMS 800C
Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District
Lowell, Oregon
Document Reviewed: Draft 60% DDR
P2 No.: 400906
NWP VE Study No: FY14-01
Workshop Dates: 2-6 Dec 2013
Jf84 ft Date: 30 June 2014
-V215
L66
2014 -----------------------------------------------------------------
C. 1
LIB R A R Y
NOV 1 4 2014
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, CO
CENWP-VE FY14-01 Value Engineering Study Report
Forward
The US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District (CENWP), sponsored this Value
lo 201*4
Engineering (VE) Study to assist the CENWP Project Manager and Project Development Team
by providing them with Alternatives and Design Suggestions to identify and/or address the risks,
performance, schedule and costs issues related to the functional needs of the project. The
^ workshop was held in the Portland District office from 2-6 December 2013 (40 hours).
This report is presented in a rolling narrative format to illustrate the sequence of activities that
took place during the VE workshop. The workshop was facilitated in accordance with the SAVE
c>, (Society of American Value Engineers) International VE methodology standards and the U.S.
:> Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) VE Regulation, ER 11-1-321, Change 1, dated 1 January
1-2011, and facilitated by a Certified Value Specialist (CVS).
The VE team was comprised of USACE staff from the Portland District and technical experts
from the Bureau of Reclamation and Tetra Tech, representing the disciplines of: Mechanical
^ Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Construction Management, Cost
I Engineering, and Facility Operations.
Jeff Morris, CVS

Bureau of Reclamation
92101465
June 2014
VO' \ ÍM Í * ' ,/ > t M l / u , VI ^ o •-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Value Engineering Study Data
Project: Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation
Project Location: L ookout P oint VE Study #: FY 14-01
P2#: 400906 Division/District: N W D /N W P
Product Status: D raft 60% D D R VEO: Jason W eber
Workshop
Workshop Dates: D ecem ber 2 - 6, 2013 40
Duration (hrs.):
Estimated Total
$6,700,000 Study Cost **: $59,000***
Project Cost (PA)*:
* Includes all project costs: PDT Labor & Materials, A/E Services, Studies, Investigations, Construction, etc.
** Includes cost for VEO + VE Team + Contract action. Does not include PDT cost labor.
*** This does not include the VEO.
Reporting Results
Total Number of Alternatives and Design Suggestion/ DEVELO PED 19
Comments ACCEPTED TBD
DEVELOPED 5
Total Number of Alternatives (Quantitative)
ACCEPTED TB D
Total Number of Design Suggestion/Comments DEVELO PED 14
(Qualitative) ACCEPTED TB D
Maximum Credible Potential Cost Avoidance P R O PO S E D $0*

( S u m o f e x c l u s iv e A lte r n a tiv e s ; F irs t C o s t, n o t L ife C y c le ; E x c lu d e s C o s t A d d in g A lte r n a tiv e s ) ACCEPTED TB D
Return on Investment (ROI) : ( A c c e p te d C o s t A v o id a n c e /S tu d y C o s t) TB D
* Alternative 2 cost avoidance could not be quantified during the study; however, acceptance and implementation
of this alternative may yield significant savings.
Additional Results
D E V E L O PE D : 4
Number of Alternatives that Add First Costs
ACCEPTED: TB D
$5.5M -
Maximum Credible Potential Added Cost P R O PO SE D :
$5.7M **
( S u m o f e x c l u s iv e A lte r n a tiv e s ; F ir s t C o s t, n o t N e t L ife C y c le )
ACCEPTED : TB D
D E V E L O PE D : 0
Number of Alternatives that Developed Life Cycle Costs
ACCEPTED : TB D
Maximum Credible Potential Net Life Cycle Savings PR O PO SE D : 0

( S u m o f e x c lu s iv e A lte rn a tiv e s )
ACCEPTED : TB D
**Assumes performing work on Gates 2, 3, and 4. There is a range because Alternative 3 proposes a conventional
coating system and a metallized coating system.
June 2014 Page i

Product Description
The tainter gates at Lookout Point were designed and constructed in the 1950’s. In 2010, the
District performed a comprehensive assessment of the tainter gates in the Willamette Valley and
Rogue Basin projects. Current structural analysis of the Lookout Point gates indicate that the
gates are overstressed when operated, even under normal pool levels. Other gates in the
Willamette Valley designed with the same criteria have shown bent or failed members. In
addition, the mechanical and electrical systems that operate the gates are unreliable and have
shown significant degradation and need to be rehabilitated or replaced.
Due to these findings, a year round gate operating restriction was implemented as an Interim
Risk Reduction Measure (IRRM). The structural analysis indicates the gates may be operated
safely at any time the pool is at or below elevation 915 (upper strut of the gate). As the pool
rises, the spillway gates may be raised in order to track with the pool elevation, keeping the
upper strut above the water surface.
The baseline concept project scope presented to the Team during the VE Study is to rehabilitate
Gates 2 and 3 and include an option to rehabilitate Gate 4 if funding is available. Gates 1 and 5
will be rehabilitated at a later time. The scope of work for each gate is:
• Structural - Strengthen the strut arms and the middle portion of the gate with bracing;
and remove (chemical stripping) the coating and re-coat only the areas disturbed by the
construction (-20% of the cost estimate; $1.3 million).
• Mechanical - Replace all components of the hoist system (-40% of the cost estimate;
$2.7 million).
• Mechanical - Replace the trunnion/pin bushing assemblies (-20% of the cost estimate;
$1.3 million).
• Electrical - Replace all electrical components including the feeder cables and installing a
load-limiting device (-15% of the cost estimate; $1 million).
• Miscellaneous materials, equipment, spares, and skilled craftsmen (-1% of the cost
estimate; $0.1 million).
• Mobilization (-4% of the cost estimate; $0.3 million).
The 30 percent design estimate for this scope of work is $6.7 million, including construction
contingencies in December 2013 dollars.
Portions of this section consist of excerpts from the Draft Design Documentation Report 60%
DDR Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation, USACE, January 2014, and Lookout Point
Dam Tainter Gate Rehabilitation Charter, Charter Number 2012-35, USACE.
VE Workshop Highlights
The VE Team met at Lookout Point Dam to learn about the project. Ms. Laurie Ebner,
representing the PDT for USACE, gave a briefing to the Team describing the scope of the
June 2014 Page ii

project, risks associated with the project, funding and schedule constraints. The Team then went
out to the dam to see the tainter gates and the associated mechanical and electrical components.
During the study, the Team recognized that there were inconsistencies in the scope of work that
was documented in the Draft 60% DDR and what was presented to the Team during the Value
Study. The Team understands that the PDT is under pressure to quickly develop a design, and
that there are many moving parts working to create a quality design.
The Team focused on improving value to the project by focusing on eliminating the IRRMs,
improving reliability, improving functionality, prolonging life, and minimizing friction. Several
of the alternatives highlight this:
Alternative 2 consists of investigating the potential to re-use and/or refurbish all the components
of the hoist system for all five gates. The impetus for this idea stemmed from two items; seeing
the cost model that showed replacing the entire hoist system was the largest cost (40% of the
costs: $0.9 Million/per gate) and that several components (large parallel gearboxes, small high
speed gearboxes, wire ropes, and motors) have been recently replaced.
Alternative 3 consists of recoating the entire tainter gates including the upstream skinplate. The
driver for this idea was based on two items: the Project Manager stating that a goal or objective
of the project is to ensure another 50-year life cycle out of the gates, and that a recent draft report
indicates that there is pitting on the upstream skinplate. The Team understands that the coating -
system will not last 50 years, however, it is advantageous to recoat the entire gate while a
contractor is out at the site and has installed access platforms and containment to perform the
structural portion of the work.
Alternative 4 consists of building stoplogs. The main reason this was developed as an alternative
is that the PDT was very concerned that there are no stoplogs or guides at Lookout Point as has
been the case on previous USACE gate projects. Another reason this was put forth is because
the construction window is from July 15 through November 15 and stoplogs could lengthen the
construction window and give operators more capacity / flexibility during gate construction.
The Team also developed design comments that proposed alternative means to accomplish the
same function, prolonging the life of the tainter gates, addressing operation and maintenance
issues, enabling remote operation of the gates, re-evaluating design assumptions, and addressing
constructability and construction schedule issues. One design comment is to consider revising
the Engineering Manual to allow a lower friction factor to be used on low friction bushings. The
Bureau of Reclamation sometimes uses a design coefficient of friction less than 0.3 for low
friction bushings whose testing indicates a friction coefficient much less than 0.3.
It is the expectation of the VE Team that this report and the ideas contained within, adds value to
the project, and inspires the PDT to come up with additional and/or better ideas to rehabilitate
the tainter gates at Lookout Point.
June 2014 Page iii

CENWP-VE F Y 14-01 Value Engineering Study Report
Value Added Alternatives*

First Cost Present Net Life
ID Alternative Title (*+’ = Save; Worth Cycle Cost
= Add Savings Savings
Furnish and Install Mechanical Hoist
1 System and Electrical Equipment for All -$3,300,000 N/A N/A
Gates
Investigate Re-Use/Refurbishment of
2 -$200,000 N/A N/A
Hoist System for All Five Gates
-$705,000 up
3 Recoating Tainter Gates N/A N/A
to -$960,000
4 Build Stoplogs -$1,250,000 N/A N/A
5 NEMA B Motor $0 N/A N/A
*All costs assume that acceptance of these alternatives is for Gates 2, 3, and 4. Li:?e cycle costs
were not performed during the study.
Accepted Design Suggestions/Comments

ID Design Suggestion/Comment Title
Structural 1 Cross Bracing for Strut Arm Support
Structural 2 Improve Drainage on Structural Gates
Structural 3 Bolts in Lieu o f Welding
Structural 4 Address Upstream Skinplate Corrosion Pitting
Structural 5 Attach Counterweight to Tainter Gate
Mechanical 1 Use Lower Friction Replacement Side Seals
Mechanical 2 Seal Gate Hoist Gearboxes
Mechanical 3 Provide Means o f Containing Grease Leaking from Hoist Gearboxes
Mechanical 4 Contain Trunnion Bushing Grease
Electrical 1 Add SCADA Capability
Design Comment 1 Trunnion Design Friction Factor
Structural 1 Construct Electrical and Mechanical Components Before July 15th
Structural 2 Raise Reservoir Level for Power Generation and Recreation
Structural 3 US ACE Design o f Construction Platform
Project Team Roster

Team Member Name Company Role
Team Member / Mechanical
James Schroeder USACE
Engineer
Part-Time Team Member /
Kristy Fortuny USACE
Technical Team Leader
Team Member / Construction /
Joe Russell, A VS USACE
Cost Estimator
Anil Naidu USACE Team Member / Operations
June 2014 Page iv

Team Member / Electrical

Dave Stewart Tetra Tech
Engineer
Team Member / Engineer-In-
Nick Hanson USACE
Training
Team Member / Construction,
Jamie Macartney, PE Bureau of Reclamation
Contracting, Civil Engineer
Team Member / Mechanical
Kent Schlundt, PE Bureau of Reclamation
Engineer
Jeff Morris, PE, CVS Bureau of Reclamation Team Facilitator / Civil Engineer
Function Analysis/FAST Diagram

The heart of the Value Method process is Function Analysis in which the Team listed functions
(active verb and measurable noun) for the components (overall project, structural deficiencies,
mechanical-bearings/hub, mechanical-hoist, electrical) of the project, determined which
functions were basic and secondary, and developing a Functional Analysis System Technique
(FAST) diagram.
Half way through the study, the Project Manager told the Team that one of the main purposes of
the project was to ensure another 50-year life cycle for the gates. This reiterated to the Team the
importance of improving reliability of the gates and to prolong the life of the gates.
The Team took some of the functions from the FAST diagram (Figure 1) and brainstormed ideas
to accomplish those functions. The functions used for this exercise were:
o improve functionality (gate-structural)

o improve functionality (mechanical/electrical)
o improve reliability / prolong life
o minimize friction
June 2014 Page v

FAST DIAGRAM
HOW
------->
(Methods)
Reduce
Flood Damage
Control
Temperature
June 2014 Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. i
Value Engineering Study D ata.................................................................................................... i
Reporting Results......................................................................................................................... i
Additional Results........................................................................................................................ i
Product Description.................................................................................................................... ii
VE Workshop Highlights............................................................................................................ ii
Value Added Alternatives*........................................................................................................ iv
Accepted Design Suggestions/Comments................................................................................. iv
Project Team Roster................................................................................................................... iv
Function Analysis/FAST Diagram............................................................................................. v
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................. 1
Lookout Point Project Description:.............................................................................................1
Lookout Point Tainter Gate Problem Description:..................................................................... 2
Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation Baseline Concept:..................................................3
Information Provided to the VE Team:...................................................................................... 5
WORKSHOP RESULTS................................................................................................................ 6
Value Methodology.................................................................................................................... 6
Information Phase.................................... 6
Function Analysis Phase............................................................................................................. 7
Creativity/Brainstorming Phase.................................................................................................. 8
Evaluation Phase......................................................................................................................... 8
Development Phase..................................................................................................................... 8
Presentation Phase...................................................................................................................... 8
IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................................................... 8
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................A-l
Developed Alternatives........................................................................................................... A-l
June 2014 Page vii

Alternative 1: Furnish and Install Mechanical Hoist System and Electrical Equipment for
All Gates................................................................................................ A-2
Alternative 2: Investigate Reuse / Refurbishment of Hoist System for all Five Gates. A-3
Alternative 3: Recoating Tainter Gates......................................................................... A-5
Alternative 4: Build Stoplogs........................................................................................ A-7
Alternative 5: National Electric Manufacturers Association (NEMA) B Motor........ A-l 1
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. B-l
Design Suggestions................................................................................................................. B-l
Structural Design Comment 1: Cross Bracing for Strut Arm Support.......................... B-2
Structural Design Comment 2: Improve Drainage on Structural Gates........................ B-3
Structural Design Comment 3: Bolts in lieu of Welding............................................... B-4
Structural Design Comment 4: Address Upstream Skinplate Corrosion Pitting.......... B-5
Structural Design Comment 5: Attach Counterweight to Tainter Gate......................... B-6
Mechanical Design Comment 1: Use Lower Friction Replacement Side Seals...........B-8
Mechanical Design Comment 2: Seal Gate Hoist Gearboxes...................................... B-8
Mechanical Design Comment 3: Provide Means of Containing Grease Leaking from
Hoist Gearboxes...................................................................................... B-9
Mechanical Design Comment 4: Contain Trunnion Bushing Grease......................... B-l 1
Electrical Design Comment 1: Add SCADA Capability............................................ B-l 2
Design Assumptions Design Comment 1: Trunnion Design Friction Factor.............. B -l3
Construction Comment 1: Construct Electrical and Mechanical Components Prior to July
15th........................................................ B-13
Construction Comment 2: Raise Reservoir Level for Power Generation and Recreation
............................................................................................................ B-14
Construction Comment 3: US ACE Design of Construction Platform....................... B-l 5
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................. C-l
Information Phase................................................................................................................... C-l
Owner, User, and Stakeholder Issues of Concern.......................................................... C-2
Value Study Objectives.................................................................................................. C-3
Core problems the project is trying to solve................................................................... C-3
Impacts of not doing the project..................................................................................... C-3
Big risks associated with the project............................................................................... C-3
June 2014 Page viii

Constraints on the project............................................................................................... C-3

Design constraints........................................................................................................... C-4
Significant concerns about the project............................................................................ C-4
Assumptions made about the project.............................................................................. C-4
COST MODEL............................................................................................................... C-5
APPENDIX D .............................................................................................................................D-l
Function Analysis...................................................................................................................D-l
List of Basic and Secondary Functions........................................................................... D-2
FAST Diagram................................................................................................................D-4
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................. E-l
Creativity/Brainstorming/Evaluation...................................................................................... E-l
Disposition of Ideas Table.............................................................................. E-2
APPENDIX F.............................................................................................................................. F-l
Presentation..............................................................................................................................F-l
Presentation Out-Briefing Attendance List......................................................................F-2
PowerPoint Presentation..................................... :.......................................................... F-3
APPENDIX G .............................................................................................................................G-l
Value Engineering Team Roster............................................................................................. G-l
June 2014 Page ix

INTRODUCTION
The Value Engineering (VE) Study was sponsored by the USACE Portland District Office and
conducted for the Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation Project from December 2 through 6,
2013, at the Portland District office in Portland, Oregon. The Team was comprised of members
of the Portland District Office, Lookout Point Dam, Tetra Tech, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
This report provides a description of the tainter gate problem at Lookout Point, the baseline
concept to solve the problem, and the results of the value study.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lookout Point Project Description:
Lookout Point, located on the Middle Fork Willamette River, is a multi-purpose storage project
that operates to meet the authorized purposes of flood damage reduction, irrigation, power
generation, recreation, navigation, and downstream water quality improvement. The dam is an
earth and gravel-fill structure with a concrete gated spillway. The spillway has five spillbays
controlled by tainter gates. The project has four regulating outlets.
The spillway crest is at elevation 887.5 feet and the elevation of the top of spillway gates (when
closed) is 929 feet. Table 1 lists relevant project elevations and corresponding flows through the
spillway.
June 2014 Page 1

Table 1 - Lookout Point elevations and corresponding spillway releases through one spillbay.
Elevation1 Single Spillbay Free

(feet) Flow (cfs)
T o p of D am 941.0
M axim u m Pool 934.0 45,500
M axim u m C onservation Pool [top of closed spillway gate] 926.0 38,800
IR R M initial elevation [top strut] 915.0 22,300
Spillw ay C rest 887.5 -
M inim um C onservation Pool & W in te r Flood Control Pool 825.0 -
M inim um P o w er Pool 819.0 -
R egulating O utlet Invert 724.0 -
1All elevations reference the Lookout Point project datum (approximately NGVD29).
The project has three hydropower units capable of producing 50 MW (each), and a hydraulic
capacity of 2,400 cfs to 2,700 cfs each, depending on pool elevation. Minimum power pool is
819 feet, and minimum conservation pool is 825 feet. The capacity of the four regulating gates
ranges from 4,000 cfs to 6,100 cfs for each outlet, depending on pool elevation. The invert
elevation of the outlets is 724 feet.
This section of the report consists of excerpts from the Draft Lookout Point Spillway Gate
Repair Schedule Issue Paper, USACE, October 2013.
Lookout Point Tainter Gate Problem Description:

The tainter gates at Lookout Point were designed and constructed in the 1950’s. Since their
inception, design criteria has necessarily become more rigorous as a result of research and
development, especially with regard to fatigue and fracture provisions of American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC), American Welding Society (AWS), and American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
In 2010, the District performed a comprehensive assessment of the tainter gates in the
Willamette Valley and Rogue Basin projects. The comprehensive assessment included a gates
specific potential failure modes analysis (PFMA), structural, mechanical and electrical
assessments, identification of interim reduction measures, and analysis of impacts of the interim
reduction measures. Current structural analysis of the Lookout Point gates indicates that the
gates are overstressed when operated, even under normal pool levels. Other gates in the
Willamette Valley designed with the same criteria have shown bent or failed members. In
addition, the mechanical and electrical systems that operate the gates are unreliable and have
shown significant degradation and need to be rehabilitated or replaced.
June 2014 Page 2

Due to these findings, a gate operating restriction was put into effect as an Interim Risk
Reduction Measure (IRRM). The structural analysis indicates that the gates may be operated
safely at any time the pool is at or below elevation 915 (upper strut of the gate). As the pool
rises, the spillway gates may be raised in order to track with the pool elevation, keeping the
upper strut above the water surface. The IRRM gate restrictions are year round.
This section of the report consist of excerpts from the Draft Design Documentation Report 60%
DDR Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation, USACE, January 2014, and Lookout Point
Dam Tainter Gate Rehabilitation Charter, Charter Number 2012-35, USACE.
Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation Baseline Concept:

The baseline concept presented in the documentation provided to the Team was not consistent
with the scope presented to the Team during the VE Study. The Team proceeded with the
project scope presented to the Team during the VE Study. The Team’s understanding of the
baseline concept is to rehabilitate Gates 2 and 3 and include an option to rehabilitate Gate 4 if
funding is available. Gates 1 and 5 will be rehabilitated at a later time. The scope of work for
each gate is:
• Structural - Strengthen the strut arms and the middle portion of the gate with bracing
(Figure 1); and remove (chemical stripping) the coating and re-coat only the areas
disturbed by the construction (~20% of the cost estimate; $1.3M).
• Mechanical - Replace all components of the hoist system (Figure 2) (~40% of the cost
• Mechanical —Replace the trunnion/pin bushing assemblies (Figure 1; ~20% of the cost
• Electrical - Replace all electrical components (Figure 3) including the feeder cables and
installing a load-limiting device (~15% of the cost estimate; $1 million).
• Miscellaneous materials, equipment, spares, and skilled craftsmen (~1% of the cost
• Mobilization (~4% of the cost estimate; $0.3 million).
The 30% design estimate for this scope of work is $6.7 million, including construction
contingencies with December 2013 dollars. This estimate was developed by the cost engineer
during the VE Study and the cost model is shown at the end of Appendix C.
June 2014 Page 3

Figure 1. Proposed Structural Improvements to Gates 2 and 3 (Gate 4 optional). The yellow
lines in the left figure represent a majority of the proposal bracing for the struts and the middle
portion of the gate. The right figure shows the proposed steel plates added to the strut arms.
Figure 2. Photograph of a Portion of the Existing Eloist System.
June 2014 Page 4

Figure 3. Photograph of the Existing Hoist System and Motor.
Based on USACE’s analysis in the Draft Lookout Point Spillway Gate Repair Schedule Issue
Paper, October 2013, the recommended construction window appears to be from July 15 to
November 15, 2015. If a third gate is repaired, the construction window would most likely be
performed between July 15 and November 15, 2016. The construction season is controlled by
the operating project Rule Curve, which incorporates a low pool elevation during the rainy
season for flood control, and an IRRM restricted full pool elevation for the summer recreation
season. The gate will be on seal during the majority of the construction activity. To complete
the construction on the Lookout Point Tainter Gate, the pool has to be below the spillway crest to
allow for structural repairs, replacement of the pin bushings, seals and exercising of the gate
once wire ropes are re-tensioned. The pool is typically below spillway crest during the flood
season when the project is drafted to capture flood events and reduce downstream flows. This is
a flood control project and if a significant flood event occurs, the pool will rise above the
spillway crest. A majority of this paragraph is an excerpt from the Draft Design Documentation
Report 60% DDR Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation, USACE, January 2014.
Information Provided to the VE Team:

• Draft Design Documentation Report 60% DDR Lookout Point Tainter Gate
Rehabilitation, USACE, January 2014. The Team found out that a majority of this
document contained sections from the Fall Creek 99%> DDR and had not been updated
for Lookout Point.
• Lookout Point Dam Tainter Gate Rehabilitation Charter, Charter Number 2012-35,
USACE.
June 2014 Page 5

• Draft Lookout Point Spillway Gate Repair Schedule Issue Paper, USACE, October 2013.
• Portland District Spillway Tainter Gates, Comprehensive Assessment Final Report,
December 2011.
• Draft Site Specific Paint & Corrosion Inspection o f Spillway Gates and Ancillary
Outdoor Equipment Report, USACE, August 2013.
WORKSHOP RESULTS
Value Methodology
The Value Method is a decision making process, originally developed by Larry Miles in the
1940’s, to creatively develop alternatives that satisfy essential functions at the highest value.
The study process follows a job plan that provides a reliable, structured approach to the
conclusion. The purpose of the study is to make good projects better by focusing on improving
value and striving to achieve a high return on investment. It is through the effort of a diverse,
high-performing team that this can be achieved.
This report is the result of a formal Value Study by a team comprised of people with the
diversity, expertise, and independence needed to creatively attack the issues. The team members
brought a depth of experience and understanding of the discipline they represent and an open and
independent inquiry of the issues under study, to solve the problems at hand. The team applied
the Value Method to the issues and supporting information and took a “fresh look” at the
problems to create alternatives that fulfill the client’s needs at the greatest value.
The Value Study Team is a diverse group of professionals from Reclamation, the USACE, and
Tetra Tech. The Design Team members were USACE and Tetra Tech. Further policy and / or
design evaluations will be required prior to acceptance of any alternatives developed during this
study. Alternatives from this study, in and of themselves, do not indicate the technological,
administrative, or policy approval of the agencies represented by the Team. The decision to
accept or reject individual alternatives will be made through a combined effort between the
USACE designers and managers.
The Value Method job plan followed for this study consists of the following phases:
Information Phase
The Team met at Lookout Point Dam to learn about the project. Ms. Laurie Ebner, representing
the PDT for USACE, gave a briefing to the Team describing the scope of the project, risks
associated with the project, funding, and schedule constraints. The Team then went out to the
dam to see the tainter gates and the associated mechanical and electrical components.
June 2014 Page 6

The Team listed the following (details in Appendix C):
• Owners, users, and stakeholders associated or affected by the project and their particular
needs and concerns
• Value Study objectives
• Core problems the project is trying to solve
• Impacts of not doing the project
• Big risks associated with the project
• Constraints on the project
• Design constraints
• Significant concerns about the project
• Assumptions made about the project
The Team also reviewed the cost model (Appendix C) developed by the Design and Estimating
team. The cost model was used to determine:
• the cost drivers to see if there were other ways to design those features
• the minor costs to see if those features are necessary
Function Analysis Phase

The heart of the Value Method process is Function Analysis in which the team listed functions
(active verb/measurable noun) for the components (overall project, structural deficiencies,
mechanical-bearings/hub, mechanical-hoist, electrical) of the project, determined which
functions were basic and secondary, and developing a Functional Analysis System Technique
(FAST) diagram.
The Team determined that the basic functions were:
Project - Eliminate IRRMs and Improve Reliability

Structural Deficiencies of the Gates - Increase Strength and Resist Forces
Mechanical Hubs/Bearings - Minimize Friction
Mechanical Hoist System - Regulate Load
Electrical System - Run Equipment
The FAST diagram developed by the Team is a logic diagram that shows the inter-relationships
of the functions and describes the baseline concept from a function point of view. The FAST
diagram developed a common and deeper understanding of how project objectives are met by the
baseline concept.
The list of functions and the FAST diagram are shown in Appendix D. After this phase of the
study, the project manager told the Team that one of the main purposes of the project was to
ensure another 50-year life cycle for the gates. This reiterated to the Team the importanqe of
improving reliability of the gates and to prolong the life of the gates. i ~ : *
June 2014 ^^^> ag e7

Creativity/Brainstorming Phase
During this phase of the study, the Team was encouraged to offer any and all ideas, including
“wild” ideas, to solve the identified problems and perform the intended functions. Criticism was
prohibited during this phase so that all Team members would be comfortable offering thoughts
and ideas. It has been demonstrated that one person’s extreme idea can often be the spark for
someone else's ‘brilliant’ idea. Ideas were not evaluated during this phase of the study.
The Team took some of the functions from the FAST diagram and brainstormed ideas to
accomplish those functions. The functions used for this exercise were:
o improve functionality (gate-structural)

o improve functionality (mechanical / electrical)
o improve reliability / prolong life
o minimize friction
The Team also listed miscellaneous ideas to improve the project and address constructability
issues. The Team came up with 58 ideas, which are listed in the Disposition of Ideas table in
Appendix E.
Evaluation Phase
The ideas were evaluated, analyzed, and prioritized, and the best ideas were developed to a level
suitable for comparison, decision making, and adoption. The Team members were instructed to
vote on the ideas (developed during the Creativity / Brainstorming Phase) that the Team should
consider and discuss. The Team members were not restricted to a certain number of votes. A
record of the number of votes for each idea is included in the Disposition of Ideas table in
Appendix E.
Development Phase
The Team determined that five of the ideas should be developed as alternatives (Appendix A),
and fourteen ideas should be developed as Design Suggestions (Appendix B). The rest of the
ideas are listed in the Disposition of Ideas Table in Appendix E.
Presentation Phase
The Team developed and presented a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the results of the
study. The list of attendees and a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is in Appendix F.
IMPLEMENTATION
This report presents a summary of the activities performed during the VE Study and the results
of the VE Study that consists of five alternatives and fourteen design comments. The Product
Development Team and Portland District VE Officer will review the report and develop an
implementation plan that includes a disposition (accept, reject, partial acceptance, etc.) of the
alternatives, the rationale for the dispositions, and a plan of action to incorporate the accepted
June 2014 Page 8

alternatives into the design process. A Final VE Study Report will be prepared when the
implementation results are finalized.
CONCLUSION
The VE Team recognized that there were inconsistencies in the scope of work that was
documented and what was presented to the Team during the Value Study. The Team
understands that the PDT is under pressure to quickly develop a design and that there are many
moving parts working to create a quality design.
The VE Team developed five alternatives and fourteen design comments for the PDT to
consider. The five alternatives strived to add value to the project by:
• improving reliability of the gate system and ensuring consistent components

(Alternatives 1, 2, and 5)
• reducing risk of flooding during construction of the project (Alternative 4)
• prolonging the life of the tainter gates (Alternative 3)
The fourteen design comments strived to add value by:
• alternative means to accomplish the same function (Structural 1,3, 5; Mechanical 1)

• prolong the life of the tainter gates (Structural 2,4)
• addressing operation and maintenance issues (Mechanical 2, 3, 4)
• enabling remote operation of the gates (Electrical 1)
• re-evaluating design assumptions (Design 1)
• addressing constructability and construction schedule issues (Construction 1, 2, 3)
It is the hope of the VE Team that this report and the ideas contained in this report, adds value to
the project, and inspires the PDT to come up with additional and/or better ideas to rehabilitate
the tainter gates at Lookout Point.
June 2014 Page 9

A P P E N D IX A
Developed Alternatives
June 2014 Page A-l

CEN WP-VE F Y 14-01 Value Engineering Study Report
The Team developed five Alternatives with Performance Metrics as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Performance Metrics Associated with each Alternative
P e r fo r m a n c e M e tric A lt 1 : ■¡QQEj A lt 3: A lt 4: A lt 5:
R e p la c e R e- S to p lo g s B M o to r
A ll M & E S tu d y C o a tin g
P roject Im provem ents X X X X X

A dded S u sta in a b ility X
S ch e d u le Im provem ents X X X
Q uality Im provem ents X X X
Functional X X X X X
Im provem ents
A dvanced C onstruction X X X
Item
Plan Validation X X X X
Alternative 1: Furnish and Install Mechanical Hoist System and

Electrical Equipment for All Gates
Alternative Description:
The VE Study Team proposes to furnish and install the mechanical hoist system and electrical
equipment for all five spillway gates as part of this contract. We assumed the baseline concept
includes two motors (10 motors total) to power the hoist per each tainter gate rather than the six
existing motors currently at Lookout Point.
Critical Items to Consider:

By furnishing and installing the mechanical and electrical equipment up front, this will increase
the initial or contract cost. However, this work will not be required when Gates 1 and 5 are
rehabilitated in the future. The funding is fixed for this project; therefore, it may be possible to
replace all the mechanical and electrical equipment instead of rehabilitating Gate 4. It is the
Teams understanding that two operational gates have enough capacity to pass the largest flood of
record at the project and / or the 1996 flood event.
This proposal works well in combination with Alternative 2.

Ways to Implement:
Add to the baseline concept scope of work, replacing all the mechanical and electrical equipment
for all five gates.
June 2014 Page A-2

Advantages (compared to the baseline concept):

• Consistent equipment among the spillway gates.
• Simplified maintenance from one gate to another.
• Hoist system and electrical components for all gates meet USACE design standards and
current codes.
Disadvantages (compared to the baseline concept):
• If new hoists are required, substantially increases the cost if Gates 2, 3, and 4 are
rehabilitated.
• If this is performed instead of rehabilitating a third gate, then there is less capacity to pass
flows and not as much gate redundancy.
Potential Risks:
• None identified.
Costs (Includes Rehabilitating Gates 2, 3, and 4)

B a s e lin e C o n c e p t $ 6,700,000
A lte rn a tiv e 1 C o n c e p t $10,000,000
Additions $ 3,300,000
Costs (Includes Rehabilitating Gates 2 and 3)

B a s e lin e C o n c e p t $ 4,500,000
A lte rn a tiv e 1 C o n c e p t $ 9,400,000
Additions $ 4,900,000
Alternative 2: Investigate Reuse / Refurbishment o f Hoist System for all

Five Gates
The PDT would investigate the existing hoist systems for all five gates and determine what could
be reused or refurbished, and what has to be upgraded to meet the appropriate load cases. This
alternative is proposed because approximately 40 percent of the project cost ($0.9 million per
gate) is to completely replace the hoist system and work on the hoist systems was performed
recently.
The results of an investigation may determine the following:

• recently rehabilitated (2010) large parallel gearboxes, small high-speed gearboxes,
bearings and seals may be able to be re-used rather than replaced.
• refurbishment of the gearboxes may only require recoating.
• recently replaced (2010) wire ropes may be able to be re-used rather than replaced.
• motors for the hoist system were manufactured in 2002 and 2003 and may be re-used
with acceptable service life.
At a minimum, a preliminary investigation should be performed that lists all the components of
the hoist system, the cost to replace those components, and the likelihood that they may be re
used or re-furbished.
June 2014 Page A-3


The hoist system must meet current codes, Engineer Manuals (EMs) and Engineering
Regulations (ERs).
The Team understands that this contract has to be awarded in FY14 and rehabilitation of the
gates occurs in FY15 (Gates 2 and 3) and FY16 (Gate 4). If this investigation cannot be
completed in time to award the contract in FY14, and it is believed there could be significant
savings, then the PDT may want to consider postponing the project a year. If there are
significant savings as a result of an investigation, this ensures that Gate 4 can be rehabilitated in
this contract and gives USACE flexibility to consider one or more of the following:
• replace the mechanical hoist systems for all five gates (Alternative 1).
• recoat the entire gate, including the skin plates (Alternative 3).
• purchase stoplogs (Alternative 4).
Ways to Implement:
Perform a thorough examination of the hoist system and document the findings. Incorporate into
the plans and specifications, which hoist components are to be reused and what work is required
to refurbish and upgrade hoists.
Changes from the Baseline:

The baseline concept calls for new hoist systems for all gates. This proposal would determine
whether existing hoist systems could be reused, refurbished, or upgraded to current codes.

• Potential costs savings over baseline of replacing entire hoist systems.
• Makes use of the recent rehabilitation and replacement of portions of the hoist system
• Equipment is in place.
• Refurbishment of equipment could take place off site.

• Hazardous materials in the coatings need to be mitigated.
• Requires extra time and funds for the PDT to perform the investigation.
Potential Risks:
• May not be sufficient information available from the original manufacturer to determine
if current EM’s and ER’s are met.
• Refurbished hoists may have shorter life span than new hoist systems.
• There may be hazardous materials in the coatings that need to be mitigated.
Costs
Baseline Concept $6,700,000
Alternative 2 Concept $6,700,000
Savings $ 0*
Implementation Costs $ 200,000
Net Additions $ 200,000
* Savings could be extensive since 40% ($0.9M/gate) of the project cost is for full replacement of the hoist
system.
June 2014 Page A-4

Alternative 3: Recoating Tainter Gates

Recoat entire tainter gate including upstream skinplate. Recent inspection report states that there
is pitting on the upstream skinplate and recommends recoating. This Alternative was primarily
put forth to ensure a longer life of the coating system since the gates may not have been recoated
since the original installation in the 1950’s. Partial coating of the gate arms at only the locations
of additional reinforcement will create a vulnerable coating location where the new and old come
together.
3A: Recoat entire tainter gate including upstream skinplate with a conventional coating system.
3B: Recoat entire tainter gate including upstream skinplate with metalized zinc, 14-16 mils
thick, instead of a conventional coating system.
3A and 3B: The existing coatings are hazardous and must be properly contained when removed.
3B: A specialized application contractor is required to apply metalizing. The contractor’s

QA/QC is critical when metalizing in order to produce a defect free and long lasting system.
PDT needs to obtain and review water quality data to determine if this coating system can be
used.
Ways to Implement:
3A and 3B: Test the existing coatings for heavy metals. Incorporate recoating the entire gate
into the plans and specifications.
3B: Hire a third party contractor to inspect recoating of the gate.

Changes from the Baseline:
This proposal recoats the complete gate including the upstream skinplate whereas the baseline
concept requires only coating areas of added steel and areas disturbed by and / or during
construction.
3A and 3B:
• Original coatings are removed and replaced with a new coating system that has a full
service life (metallized coatings may have a service life up to 40 years).
• Reduces maintenance of existing coatings.
• Eliminates boundary between new and existing coatings where new and existing coatings
may not adhere properly.
• After abrasive-blasting, the entire gate can be readily examined for areas of corrosion and
failed welds.
• Takes advantage of a contractor being on-site to perform the baseline coatings scope of
work (pay for mobilization/de-mobilization in one contract).
• Takes advantage of the costly and extensive access platforms and containment required to
perform the baseline concept.
June 2014 Page A-5
3B:
• Application is possible in colder weather.
• Easily repairable.
• Color does not fade or chalk.
• Shorter curing time.
• One coat process.
3A and 3B:
• Higher costs (materials and application).
• Longer construction duration.
3B:
• Specialized coatings contractor and equipment needed to apply metalizing.
• More stringent inspection is required.
• Abrasive-blasted surfaces must be coated that day.
• Surfaces must be very clean.
• One color - light grey.
Potential Risks:
May negatively impact construction schedule or require an additional construction season.
3A Costs
B a se lin e C o n c e p t $2,250,000 / gate
A lte rn a tiv e 3 A C o n c e p t $2,485,000 / gate
A d d itio n s $ 235,000/g a te
3B Costs
B a se lin e C o n c e p t $2,250,000 / gate
A lte rn a tiv e 3 B C o n c e p t $2,570,000 / gate
A d d itio n s $ 32 0 ,0 0 0/g a te
June 2014 Page A-6

Alternative 4: Build Stoplogs

There are no stoplogs available for routine maintenance and repairs for the tainter gates at
Lookout Point (LOP) Dam. Therefore, there are no stoplogs available for this construction
contract. This alternative proposes a means to implement a stoplog system similar to the system
installed at the John Day North Fish Ladder (JDNFL) on the Columbia River (see Figure 4).
If designed and procured, the stoplog system could be employed to provide added flexibility in
scheduling the rehabilitation of the Tainter Gates at LOP. Once procured, the stoplog system
would be available for future O&M and capital works projects at LOP Dam.
Further consideration could be given to size the stoplogs so that they could be used at other
locations in the area other than LOP.
This alternative is proposed because members of the PDT stated that the lack of stoplogs was a
big concern.

Surface irregularity should be checked along the pier noses and along the spillway crest to
account for seal conditions and requirements. This requires a guide rail system (stoplog guides)
to be installed on pier faces.
The Team assumes that a typical stoplog would be constructed with approximately the same
weight (amount of steel) and be placed in easily accessible support slots mounted on the face of
the piers. The typical unit stoplog weight is approximately 13,000 lbs. and the lifting beam is
approximately 2,000 lbs. The combined lifting beam and stoplog weight appears to be within the
LOP crane lifting limit.
It is assumed that the Tainter Gate spillway bays throughout the Willamette Valley range in
width from 35 feet to about 50 feet. An assessment should be made of the spillway bays that do
not presently have stoplog guides or stoplog capability to assess the potential for greater use of
the proposed stoplogs.
This is not included in the project scope of work, but it provides protection in the event there is a
flood and/or it allows the reservoir to store additional water during the 15 July to 15 November
construction window.
Ways to Implement:
Installation work may require divers for portions of the guides that may be below the water
surface. The anchorage system will require minimal dive time.
June 2014 Page A-7

Advantages:
• Provides additional flood protection for tainter gate rehabilitation (especially when the gates
are off the trunnion pins) during construction window.
• Adds flexibility to construction window.
• Re-use stoplogs for other LOP maintenance projects.
• May be able to design such that the stoplogs can be used at other facilities.
• Ease of installation.
• Minimal lift load.
• Available for use on this construction contract.
Disadvantages:
• Height of protection is fixed based on number of stoplogs procured (assumed five units each
approximately 3-feet high, total height approximately 15 feet).
• Additional cost to the project that is currently not in the agreed upon scope of work.
Potential Risks:
• Unknown availability of rental cranes in area for placement.
Costs (Assuming Gates 2 , 3 , 4 rehabilitated)

Additions $1,000,000
Implementation Costs* $ 250,000
Net Additions $1,250,000
Costs (Assuming Gates 2 and 3 Rehabilitated)

Additions $1,000,000
Implementation Costs* $ 250,000
Net Additions $1,250,000
*Implementation cost assumes 10% $&A [MJl]and 16% Design Costs.
June 2014 Page A-8

DETAIL 1
STEEL BEAM
VERTIOLE
SPILLWAY UPSTREAM ISOMETRIC
IG-02 STEEL BEAM GUIDES WITH FULL SPAN STOPLOGS
Figure 4. Stoplog System Installed at John Day North Fish Ladder.
June 2014 Page A-9

Stoplog Cost Estimate
IT E M U N IT S Q U A N T IT Y U N IT C O S T TO TAL
2 - H P 14x7 3 @ 4 8 ' lb 1 0 ,0 0 0 $ 6 .7 8 $ 6 7 ,8 0 0
Sill angle 4 x 4 x 1 /2 @ 1 2 .8 lb 1,0 0 0 $7 $ 6 ,7 8 0
12" std pipe 1/2 round @ 4 9 .6 lb 1,2 0 0 $ 6 .7 8 $ 8 ,1 3 6
G uide angles 2 .5 x 2 .5 x 0 .2 5 lb 100 $ 6 .7 8 $678
5 stoplogs @ 1 3 ,0 0 0 lb e a lb 6 5 ,0 0 0 $ 6 .7 8 $ 4 4 0 ,7 0 0
Lifting Beam @ 2 0 0 0 lb lb 2 ,0 0 0 $ 6 .7 8 $ 1 3 ,5 6 0
75 anchors, nut, w asher, epoxy ea 75 $ 1 3 1 .0 0 $ 9 ,8 2 5
C oncrete and Grout cy 3 $ 5 0 0 .0 0 $ 1 ,5 0 0
Dive team installation da 1 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0
Shipping 100w 773 $ 6 .8 0 $ 5 ,2 5 6
G uide and Sill system install da 5 $ 6 ,7 5 0 .0 0 $ 3 3 ,7 5 0
Blast and Paint sf 6 ,5 0 0 $ 8 .0 0 $ 5 2 ,0 0 0
P E R Bay T o ta l A d d itio n s $ 6 4 9 ,9 8 5
C o n tin g e n c y 2 5 .0 0 % $ 1 6 2 ,4 9 6
M a rk -u p s 2 0 .0 0 % $ 1 2 9 ,9 9 7
T o ta l C o s t D e c re a s e /ln c re a s e $ 9 4 2 ,4 7 8
P er Bay Cost Differential R ounded: $ 9 5 0 ,0 0 0
Cost Estimate Assumptions:

Fabricated steel cost based on recent NWP historical contract pricing of $6.78/lb.
Blast and paint cost of $8.00 per square foot surface area.
Cast in place concrete cost of $500 per cubic yard.
Dive Team cost of $10,000 per day. Most drill work performed out of water.
Miscellaneous small tools at 5 percent labor.
Shipping Cost FOB is $6.80 per 100 wgt.
EOAE schedule for Region 8.
Prevailing wage rates.
June 2014 Page A -10

Alternative 5: National Electric Manufacturers Association (NEMA) B

Motor
USACE requirements state that a load-limiting device is provided to limit the torque (load)
applied to the structure. According to the Draft 60% DDR and USACE requirements, a NEMA
design D motor is required. A NEMA design D motor delivers very high locked rotor torque.
This Team proposes using a NEMA design B motor controlled with a variable frequency drive
(VFD). The original Lookout Point drawings show a NEMA design D motor. These motors
were later replaced with NEMA design B motors that have performed very well. The NEMA
design B motor has much less locked rotor torque than the design D motor and the VFD is, by
design, a load-limiting device. As such, the load on the structure can be restricted and eliminate
the need for a separate load-limiting device.
The motor has to be adequately sized so that the gate can be opened in the more demanding load
case of single sided lifting. If this is not accomplished, the motor may fail to open the gate.
Ways to Implement:
Incorporate in the design a NEMA B motor and VFD.
• The NEMA design D motor is difficult to obtain and is not available from any normal
motor manufacturer as “standard.” The NEMA design B motor is a standard motor and is
readily available from most, if not all, manufacturers.
• The VFD provides many advantages, including reduced mechanical stresses on the
components due to the “soft start” and “soft stop” capability. In addition, the VFD
provides current limiting which equates to limited torque (load).
• NEMA design B motors have a lower start up torque than a design D motor. The VFD
would need to be programmed to overcome inertia loads.
Potential Risks:
None identified.
Costs
Savings $ 0*
*The Team presented that there would be a $180,000 savings by switching from D motors to B motors. The Team
found out during the presentation that Design B motors were installed on Fall Creek, which was the primary basis
for the Lookout Point 30% design cost estimate. Therefore, there is no reportable savings because a B motor is
included in the cost estimate.
June 2014 Page A -11

A P P E N D IX B
Design Suggestions
June 2014 Page B-l

Structural D esign Comment 1: Cross Bracing for Strut Arm Support

Design Comment Description:
It is suggested that the Design Team implement a cross bracing system to support the critical
strut arms for buckling. This would be done in place of welding cover plates to increase the
structural capacity of the critical strut arms (Figure 5).
The addition of this cross bracing system would increase the amount of steel needed to diminish
the un-braced length of the strong axis. This added steel would increase the overall weight of the
structure that may affect the mechanical hoist systems.
Special consideration would also be needed to connect the larger cross bracing members to the
strut arms.
This design has been analyzed using STAAD V8i structural software. The cross brace system
cuts down the un-braced length of the strong axis of the critical members, but does not increase
the flexural strength of the sections near the trunnion. Therefore, the interaction ratio for the
strut arms near the trunnion will be insufficient according to Engineering Manual 1110-2-2702.
Advantages:
• Minimize on-site welding within the spillway.
Disadvantages:
• Increase in material cost.
• Possible increase in structure weight affecting the mechanical systems.
• Increase in design work.
• Does not increase flexural strength.
• Will need to add steel in addition to cross bracing to get required strength.
Potential Risks:
May not provide an adequate interaction ratio for the strut arms.
Cost Impacts:
Increase in cost because of the additional steel.
June 2014 Page B-2

Figure 5. Proposed Cross Bracing System
Structural Design Comment 2: Improve Drainage on Structural Gates

The existing gates show areas with standing water in between the structural frame members. It is
recommended that the existing drain holes be cleaned and/or enlarged. Consideration should be
given to adding additional drain holes in selected areas that tend to pond at fully closed locations.

Access to the various areas will be difficult to reach. A Job Safety Hazard Analysis must be
completed and followed during the work performance. If enlarging and / or adding drain holes,
consideration must be given to keep intact the structural integrity of the members.
Advantages:
• Minimize factors that can lead to accelerated degradation of coatings.
• Increase aesthetics.
• Improves life of structural coating.
Disadvantages:
None Identified.
Potential Risks:
None Identified.
Cost Impacts:
This is an increase to the scope of work and will add minimal costs.
June 2014 Page B-3

Structural Design Comment 3: Bolts in lieu o f Welding

The baseline concept includes surface preparation (with containment) prior to welding and
coating requirements after welding. In an attempt to minimize the extent of preparation and
coating requirements, the Team recommends that the designers consider bolting the structural
steel to the existing members in lieu of welding (Figure 6).
This design consideration also suggests designers look at:

• Providing 1-inch steel plate stiffeners with bolts
• Providing V2 -inch steel plate to one side of the strut arm and '/2-inch plates to the
underside of the strut arms.

The Team does not know the number of bolt holes that would be required to make bolting
equivalent to welding. The Team understands that evaluation of this design consideration will
require identifying tradeoffs such as drilling costs verses welding costs and just how much
coating costs could be eliminated.
Advantages:
• The main advantage would be the reduction of containment requirements and the
reduction of coating area.
Disadvantages:
• The bolted steel plates may allow small openings where moisture could penetrate and
initiate corrosion.
June 2014 Page B-4

Potential Risks:
• The tradeoffs between this suggestion and the baseline may be difficult to quantify.
Cost Impacts:
• The Team is unsure of the cost impacts.
Figure 6. Sketch of Bolted Plates
Structural Design Comment 4: Address Upstream Skinplate Corrosion

Pitting
Perform weld repairs as necessary in areas of pitting and repair the coating on the upstream
skinplate. If Alternative 3, Recoating the Entire Gate, is not accepted, then the Team
recommends performing this work.

Areas of repair will require lead paint abatement.
Painting typically must be performed within temperature and moisture limitations. This work
should be performed during summer months, if possible.
This work must be performed when risk of reservoir elevation exceeding spillway crest is small.
Advantages:
• Extend life of upstream skin plate by repairing corrosion damage.
Disadvantages:
• Requires access to entire upstream face of gate, which would not be required in baseline
scope of work.
June 2014 Page B-5

CEN WP-VE FY14-01 Value Engineering Study Report
Potential Risks:
• Excavation of cracks in welds could lead to significant scope growth, which could exceed
budget for repairs.
Cost Impacts:
This is an increase in scope and therefore will add cost to the baseline concept.
Structural D esign Comment 5: Attach Counterweight to Tainter Gate

By attaching a counter weight (Figures 7 and 8) to the strut arms, the force required to open the
gate would be reduced.
This would require extensive structural design, much more than the proposed baseline concept of
attaching cover plates. Forces would have to be analyzed to determine the correct weight to add
to avoid adverse scenarios. If a larger than necessary weight is added to the gate, it could
become unbalanced and lift under small forces. If a smaller than necessary weight is installed,
the force applied by the wire ropes will be excessive.
Advantages:
The tensional force on the wire ropes will be decreased. This decreases the demand on the
mechanical hoist system. The force from the hoist on the structure will also be decreased.
Disadvantages:
A large engineering effort will be required to design the counterweights and determine how to
attach it to the existing structure.
A greater force would be exerted on the trunnion pin and bushing. This would increase the
frictional force and the demand on the mechanical hoist system. This could possibly negate any
reduction in force achieved by installing the counterweight.
Potential Risks:
Structural analysis of this may prove that the negatives outweigh the positives.
Cost Impacts:
The Team is unsure of the cost impacts.
June 2014 Page B-6

Figure 7. Side View of Counterweighted Tainter Gate.
Figure 8. Rear View of Counterweighted Tainter Gate.
June 2014 Page B-7

Mechanical Design Comment 1: Use Lower Friction Replacement Side

Seals
Use of lower friction, fluorocarbon clad, and replacement side seals will reduce seal drag and
wear. The seals would have full-length polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) pieces embedded in
them where the seals contact the side rubbing plates. PTFE has a lower coefficient of friction
than rubber or neoprene.
Critical items to Consider:

None identified.
Advantages:
• Reduced side seal friction reduces the lift load, which increases the safety factor on the
hoist capacity.
• Reduces wear on seals for gates with frequent operation.
• Potentially allows use of less costly hoist components.
Disadvantages:
• PTFE clad seals may not seal as well.
• More costly.
Potential Risks:
None identified.
Cost Impacts:
This will add minimal costs to the baseline concept.
Mechanical Design Comment 2: Seal Gate Hoist Gearboxes

The existing gate hoist gearboxes have evidence of internal corrosion due to condensation. This
comment is to consider sealing all openings in the spillway gate gearboxes to exclude moisture.
To manage excess pressure in the gearbox, consider a design, which provides adequate dead
space above the oil in the gearbox or incorporating a pressurized bladder accumulator.

Solution must consider significant changes in ambient temperature. Internal pressures in
gearboxes must be maintained below a level that causes seal damage and/or oil leakage.
Advantages:
• Eliminates need for desiccant breather or gearbox oil heater to address internal gearbox
condensation.
• Reduces long-term maintenance costs.
• Installation of accumulator would be a minimal change to baseline concept
June 2014 Page B-8

Disadvantages:
• Increasing internal dead space over oil in gearbox may require custom design, which will
increase cost and may require additional lead-time.
Potential Risks:
None identified.
Cost Impacts:
Mechanical Design Comment 3: Provide Means o f Containing Grease

Leaking from Hoist Gearboxes
Provide a catch pan beneath the gearboxes with a drain that empties into an oil / water separator
(Figure 9).
None identified.
Advantages:
• Grease would not enter the river thus reducing the number of spills that have to be
reported to the various concerned agencies. .
• Oil / water separators are available that do not require electric power.
Disadvantages:
• Increases costs and maintenance.
Potential Risks:
None noted.
Cost Impacts:
June 2014 Page B-9

MECHANICAL MOIST
EQUIPMENT
MACHINERY
PLATFORM
DRAIN
OIL WATER
SEPARATOR
Figure 9. Drain and Oil / Water Separator.
Figure 10. Oil / Water Separator.
June 2014 Page B-10

M echanical D esign Comment 4: Contain Trunnion Bushing Grease

This proposal consists of sealing the spillway-gate trunnion bearings to prevent excessive grease
application during lubrication of bearings from dripping into the waterway below (Figure 11). A
relief port would be added to provide indication that an adequate amount of grease has been
injected into the bearing. This proposal would reduce the environmental risk of grease from
reaching the water.
Mechanical seals would be installed after installation of new composite bushing. The bushing
length would be reduced to allow room for the seals. Epoxy could be used to hold the seals in
place. Relief port would be installed in a tapped port on the pier end of the trunnion pin to
accept spring loaded grease relief fitting. The opposite end of the pin would have the grease fill
port. The grease line/tubing would be extended to reach the new fill port location. Grease would
fill passage in pin to passages in bushing and then out relief at end of pin. Maintenance
personnel would see grease exiting relief port and have access to collect this small amount of
grease.

The spillway gate trunnion bearings are located directly above the downstream concrete
spillway. Any grease that drips off the bearing assembly lands on the spillway and subsequently
is washed into the river with rain runoff or when the spillway gate is opened. Any sheen caused
by grease in the water is reportable as a Project spill.
A potential risk or downside to this proposal is reduced ability to flush old grease from the
bushing. This proposal should be considered in conjunction with replacing existing bronze
bushings with self-lubricating composite bushings since the necessity to periodically flush old
grease out of bearing should be reduced.
Advantages:
• Eliminate excessive grease dripping into waterway.
• Clear indication to maintenance personnel that bushing has adequate grease.
• Relatively easy to install.
• Minimal modification to current baseline trunnion pins.
• Reduced long-term O&M costs for grease clean-up.
Disadvantages:
• Slight reduction in length of new bushing to leave space for seals reduces capacity.
• New mechanical seals likely custom design and manufacture due to large size.
Potential Risks:
• More difficult to flush all grease from bushing if this becomes necessary.
Cost Impacts:
This will add costs to the baseline concept.
June 2014 Page B - l l

V jl
t
Figure 11. Trunnion Grease Containment Plan.
Electrical Design Comment 1: Add SCADA Capability

The baseline concept is to replace all electrical components.
This proposal is to add to the baseline concept those features necessary for full SCADA
operation with the exception of the communication card, which permits the connection with the
outside world. This is an opportune time for including these features. The electrical contractor
would perform the installation.
Advantages:
Easily incorporate SCADA capability in the future at a minimal cost.
Disadvantages:
Additional components during this phase or work.
Potential Risks:
None identified.
Cost Impacts:
June 2014 Page B-12

Design Assumptions Design Comment 1 : Trunnion Design Friction

Factor
The design for the Lookout Point Tainter Gates uses a coefficient of friction of 0.3 for
calculation per EM 1110-2-2702. This factor represents the friction that exists between the pin
and the bushing, and the pin and the end of the yoke plate at the trunnion pin assembly. This
conservative value incorporates uncertainties that exist with irregular maintenance and uncertain
condition of components. The Team recommends that a lower friction factor be considered
when low friction bushings are used, in the next revision to EM 1110-2-2702. Reclamation
sometimes uses a design coefficient of friction less than 0.3 for low friction bushings whose
testing indicates a friction coefficient much less than 0.3.

The Team believes that the 0.3 friction factor is appropriate for estimating the friction of existing
“old technology” trunnion pin assemblies. While conservatism in design is desired, the use of
new low friction materials in the construction of trunnion bushings / bearings makes this friction
factor very conservative for rehabilitated trunnion pin assemblies.
Advantages:
Use of a lower friction factor for instances where low friction composite materials are used in the
trunnion pin assemblies would result in more efficient designs allowing funding to be available
for other required modifications.
Disadvantages:
There are no perceived disadvantages to re-evaluation of the friction factor.
Potential Risks:
The history of the use of composite materials in trunnion bushings is limited.
Cost Impacts:
Specific cost impacts are not quantified for this recommendation. Implementation of a lower
friction factor for instances where low friction composite materials are used in the trunnion pin
assemblies would result in positive project cost impacts.
Construction Comment 1: Construct Electrical and Mechanical

Components Prior to July 15th
This Construction Comment is to propose installing all the mechanical and electrical work for
the gate operation of all five gates ahead of the scheduled structural and trunnions/pin bushing
construction. Have all the motor and hoist components replaced and operating prior to July 15 of
the construction year.
All long lead items would need to be ordered well in advance.
June 2014 Page B-13

Advantages:
By doing the mechanical and electrical work ahead of the remaining construction, this reduces
(eliminates) coordination efforts between different crafts.
The mechanical and electrical work would be complete and available during the balance of the
work as required.
Disadvantages
The long lead items must be considered and the mechanical and electrical contracts must be
awarded well in advance of the scheduled construction season.
Scheduling will be critical to maintain availability of gate operation at all times. All gate outages
for this effort will need to be coordinated with operations.
Potential Risks:
Operations may require a gate that is not available.
Cost Impacts:
There are no additional costs involved with this effort.
Construction Comment 2: Raise Reservoir Level for Power Generation

and Recreation
The Team had the understanding that the reservoir would be held low during construction.
Holding the reservoir at Minimum Conservation Pool, elevation 825, will have adverse power
and recreation impacts. The optimum power generation elevation is at or near reservoir
elevation 882. Only one boat ramp will be operational during the construction period of Jul 15 to
Nov 15. However, higher reservoir elevations would enhance recreation benefits.
The Team recommends that the reservoir be maintained at a higher elevation than minimum pool
to reduce the impacts to power generation and recreation. Another way of addressing this would
be to allow higher reservoir levels during certain parts of the day when peaking power is desired
and lowering the reservoir during the non-peaking events.
The Design Team would need to understand the risk of relatively sudden raises in reservoir
elevation during the Jul 15 to Nov 15 timeframe and what amount of warning time is afforded in
these reservoir rises.
Advantages:
With a higher reservoir, the power revenue impacts can be reduced and more recreational
benefits realized.
Disadvantages:
The only disadvantage is the increased risk of flooding the spillway.
June 2014 Page B-14

Potential Risks:
The risk of a river event being encountered that causes an unexpected and uncontrolled rise in
reservoir level must be addressed. If the reservoir operation during this time of year (Jul 15 to
Nov 15) were less erratic and more predictable, then this risk would be more acceptable.
Cost Impacts:
The cost impacts of a higher reservoir level would be increased power revenue.
Construction Comment 3: US ACE D esign o f Construction Platform

This proposal consists of including the design of a re-usable construction platform within the
scope of the Design Team. This platform will span the 42.5-foot spillway and give support to
workers and equipment as work is completed on the trunnion systems, hoist systems, and strut
arms above the spillway and be re-used for rehabilitation of the other Lookout Point gates.
The proposal is necessary to minimize time needed to tear down and rebuild the platform, as well
as eliminate uncertainty associated with contractor design in regards to unforeseen cost and
unsatisfactory design.
The platform will need to be easily removed and placed in a manner that complies with safety
requirements. The structure will also have to withstand forces from movement/placement using
a crane system. Will need to be possible for structure to sit for extended period and then be used
at a later time.
Advantages:
• Eliminates need for USACE to approve a contractor’s design.
• Cut construction labor costs.
• Minimize construction window.
• Make construction easier.
• Platform will be used for multiple gates.
Disadvantages:
• Increase design effort in a compressed design schedule.
• Design may not meet the specific needs of the contractor.
• USACE assumes majority of risk associated with dictating what contractor must do.
Potential Risks:
If design does not meet needs of contractor safety, then the ability to perform work will be
greatly diminished and may increase cost.
June 2014 Page B-15

APPENDIX C
Information Phase
June 2014 Page C-l

Owner, User, and Stakeholder Issues o f Concern
Owner Owner Issues
United S tates A rm y C orps o f Engineers R estore full flood control to Lookout Point Lake
Elim inate the Interim Risk Reduction M ea su res
M inim ize flood d am a g e
Ensure a reliable and functional facility
A w ard contract in F Y 1 4
Costs less than the su b -ag re em en t with B PA
Design, construct, o perate and m aintain a safe
project
O ptim ize capital and O & M costs
Ensure no injury and loss of life
User User Issues
City of Lowell R eliable w a te r supply
R ecreational U sers Ability to recreate (boat, fish, picnic, etc.)

C onsistent w a te r levels throughout the y ear
Availability of boat ram ps
Stakeholder Stakeholder Issues
N ative A m erican Nations M aintain cultural traditions

A bundant wildlife resources
Bonneville P ow er Administration G e n era te pow er

Full pool
O ptim ize capital costs
D ow nstream R esidents Control floods

Elim inate spills
National M arine and Fisheries Service Good w a te r quality upstream and dow nstream of
Lookout Point D am for fish habitat
G en eral Public Control floods

Ability to recreate
O regon D ep a rtm en t of Fish and W ildlife G ood w a te r quality upstream and dow nstream of
United S tates Fish and W ildlife Good w a te r quality upstream and dow nstream of
United S tates Environm ental Protection A gency G ood w a te r quality
O regon W a te r R esources D ep artm en t W a te r rights
June 2014 Page C-2

Value Study Objectives

• Ensure Functional Design
• Ensure Product Quality
• Minimal Maintenance
• Easy to Operate
• Find Missing Items
• Minimal Construction Duration
• Ensure Long Term Reliability
• Minimal IRRM duration
• Improve Safety
• Satisfy / Maintain Water Quality Requirements
• Do Not Hinder or Interfere with Operations
Core problems the project is trying to solve

• Outdated design
o Structural Deficiencies
o Upgrade Mechanical components - trunnion / hub, bearings, hoists, etc.
o Upgrade Electrical components - motor, feeder cable, etc.
• Ensure a 50-Year life cycle
Impacts o f not doing the project

• Outdated technology (increase downtime, increases risk, decreases reliability)
• Increase risk of gates seizing (decreases reliability, increases risk of damage)
• Keep IRRM’s in place (increase flood risk, decrease pool, decrease response time)
• Gates and associated equipment do not meet current design standards
• Increase risk of structural damage to the gates
Big risks associated with the project

• Floods during construction
• Damage gate during construction
• Inadequate resources to address multiple problems at various locations in the watershed
• Unforeseen conditions that increases the scope of work
• The project doesn’t address all the problems either due to color of money, unforeseen
conditions, or expertise/knowledge not included in the design process
• Compressed design schedule
• Inexperienced contractor performing the work
Constraints on the project

• Funding timeframe for construction
June 2014 Page C-3

• Construction window
• Time to design and award the project
• Costs must be less than the sub-agreement with BPA
D esign constraints
• Meet E’s (Engineering Manuals), ERs (Engineering Regulations), Codes, Schedule, and
Operational requirements
• Project Schedule must incorporate long lead items
Significant concerns about the project

• Obligate funds by end of fiscal year 2014
• No stoplogs
• Compressed design schedule
Assumptions made about the project

• Funding will be available
• Deck can handle a crane and lifting loads
• Existing steel is sound and the thickness is the same as specified in the original design
• The bearing plate has to be disassembled to rotate the gate
• During construction, water can impound on the gate while being upgraded other than
when work is being performed on the pin/bushing. Work on the pin would be completed
when the pool is below the spillway crest
• Load limiting device will be a variable frequency drive
June 2014 Page C-4

June 2014
CENWP-VE FY14-01
COST MODEL
Optional -Skilled Craftsman Optional - Miscellaneous
Labor, $20,000, 0% materials, equipment,
Mobilization/Demobilization
Optional - Electrical Controls , $290,000, 4%
for Gate 4, $290,000, 4%
.Electrical Feeders for Gates
Optional - Mechanical for. 3 & 2, $130,000, 2%
Gate 4 - Trunnion
Pin/Bushing, $440,000, 7% Electrical Controls for Gates
3 & 2, $580,000, 9%
Optional - Mechanical for.

Gate 4 - Hoist System,
$910,000, 14%
Structural Repairs for Gates
3 & 2, $1,000,000, 15%
Optional - Structural Repairs

for Gate 4, $415,000, 6%

Mechanical for Gates 3 & 2 -
Hoist System, $1,700,000,
25%
Mechanical for Gates 3 & 2 -
Trunnion/Pin Bushing,
$890,000, 13% Cost (30% Design Estimate)= $6,700,000.
Costs are in Dec 2013 dollars
(includes construction contingencies).
Page C-5
APPENDIX D
Function Analysis
June 2014 Page D-l

List of Basic and Secondary Functions

Component Active Verb Measurable Noun
P ro je c t R e g u la te R iv e r
Reduce F lo o d D a m a g e
U p g ra d e E q u ip m e n t
E lim in a te IR R M ’s (B a s ic )
Im p ro v e R e lia b ility (B a s ic )
R e s to re F u n ctio n
S to re W a te r
R e le a s e W a te r
Im p ro v e S a fe ty
Spend M oney
O p tim iz e C o s ts
G e n e r a te Pow er
C o n tro l W a t e r T e m p e ra tu re
S tru c tu ra l D e fic ie n c ie s o f th e In c re a s e S tre n g th (B a s ic )

G a te
R educe Friction
R e s is t H y d ro s ta tic F o rc e s
R e s is t F o rc e s (B a s ic )
R e s is t S e is m ic F o rc e s
R e s is t G ra v ita tio n a l F o rc e s
R e s is t T o rs io n F o rc e s
R educe S tre s s
In c re a s e S tiffn e s s
M e c h a n ic a l - B e a rin g s / H u b M in im iz e Friction (B a s ic )
R educe O&M
P ro lo n g Life
R o ta te G a te
S u p p o rt G a te
M e c h a n ic a l - H o ists Lift L o ad
Suspend L o ad
S to re Rope
June 2014 Page D-2

Lower Load
Regulate Load (Basic)
Electrical Operate Equipment (Basic)

Transmit Power
Apply Torque
Control Position
Limits Torque
Improve Safety
Improve Reliability
Indicate Position
Simplify Operation
June 2014 Page D-3

June 2014
CENWP-VE FY14-01
FAST Diagram
HOW
------>
(Methods)
Reduce
Flood Damage
Control
Temperature

Page D-4
A P P E N D IX E
Creativity/Brainstorming/Evaluation
June 2014 Page E -l

Disposition of Ideas Table

Id e a D is p o s it io n # o f V o te s
( m a x is 7 )
F u n c t io n - Im p r o v e R e lia b ility / P r o lo n g L ife
1. R e c o a t th e e n tire g a te w ith a D e v e lo p e d a s A lte rn a tiv e 3. 2

m e ta lliz e d c o a tin g s y s te m
2. R e p la c e th e ste e l g a te w ith an T e a m d e te rm in e d th is w a s n o t a p ra c tic a l 0

a lu m in u m g a te s o lu tio n to th e p ro b le m .
3. E n c lo s e th e m e c h a n ic a l / T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t a s tru c tu re o v e r a n d 5
e le c tric a l e q u ip m e n t a ro u n d th e e le c tric a l a n d m e c h a n ic a l w o u ld
re q u ire to o m u c h m a in te n a n c e a n d w o u ld
in tro d u c e w in d lo a d in g to th e d eck.
4. P la ce s te e l on th e w e b in s te a d T e a m d e te rm in e d th is w o u ld n o t w o rk , a s it 0
o f th e fla n g e w o u ld n o t a d d re s s th e to rs io n a l fa ilu re m ode.
5. P u t in a la rg e r b e a m in s te a d o f T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th is m o s t lik e ly w o u ld be 0
ste e l w e ld in g p la te s m o re e x p e n s iv e th a n th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t a nd
d id n o t a d d va lu e .
6. U se tu b e s te e l to b ra c e th e s tru t T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th is m o s t lik e ly w o u ld be 0
a rm s in s te a d o f th e p la te s m o re e x p e n s iv e th a n th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t a nd
did n o t a d d va lu e .
7. U se c ro s s b ra c e s to b ra c e th e D e v e lo p e d a s S tru c tu ra l D e s ig n C o m m e n t 1. 1
s tru t a rm s in s te a d o f ste e l p la te s
8. Im p ro v e d ra in a g e on th e D e v e lo p e d a s S tru c tu ra l D e s ig n C o m m e n t 2. 6
s tru c tu ra l g a te s
9. T h in n e r p la te s s a n d w ic h in g th e In c o rp o ra te d in S tru c tu ra l D e s ig n C o m m e n t 3. 0
fla n g e o f th e s tru t a rm s
10. B o lt th in n e r p la te s s a n d w ic h in g D e v e lo p e d a s S tru c tu ra l D e s ig n C o m m e n t 3. 1
th e fla n g e o f th e s tru t a rm s
11. R e c o a t th e e n tire g a te D e v e lo p e d a s A lte rn a tiv e 3. 6
12. A d d re s s p ittin g on th e u p s tre a m D e v e lo p e d a s S tru c tu ra l D e sig n C o m m e n t 4. 4

skin p la te a s an o p tio n in th e
c o n tra c t
13. P u t m e ta l s p ik e s on g a te to R e fe r to th e P D T to c o n s id e r. 2
c o n tro l th e b ird s
14. H e a t th e g e a r b o x e s M a y a lre a d y be in th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t a n d if 5

not, in c o rp o ra te d in to M e c h a n ic a l D e sig n
C o m m e n t 2.
15. S e a l th e g e a r b o x e s D e v e lo p e d a s M e c h a n ic a l D e s ig n C o m m e n t 2. 6
F u n c tio n - Im p r o v e F u n c t io n a lity o f th e G a te ( S t r u c t u r a l)
1. P u t fiv e c o n c re te w e irs in T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t tw o g a te s w e re re q u ire d 0

s p illw a y b a y s to p a s s n o rm a l flo w s a n d th a t th e e n tire
s p illw a y w ith 5 o p e n g a te s is re q u ire d to p a ss
th e la rg e s t flo o d s .
June 2014 Page E-2

Idea D is p o s itio n # o f V o te s
(m a x is 7)
2. U se a lig h te r/s tro n g e r m e ta l T e a m c o u ld n o t d e te rm in e a s u ita b le lig h te r 0

o th e r th a n s te e l a n d s tro n g e r m e ta l th a t w a s c o s t e ffe c tiv e .
3. R e v is e th e g a te s to h a ve a D e v e lo p e d a s S tru c tu ra l D e sig n C o m m e n t 5. 1
c o u n te rw e ig h t
4. In sta ll n e w g a te s T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t re h a b ilita tio n w a s a 0

m o re c o s t e ffe c tiv e s o lu tio n .
5. In sta ll o n e n e w g a te a nd T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th is did n o t s u b s ta n tia lly 0

re fu rb is h th e re m a in in g g a te s re d u c e th e c o n s tru c tio n d u ra tio n a n d
re h a b ilita tio n w a s a m o re c o s t e ffe c tiv e
so lu tio n .
6. R e m o v e th e ta in te r g a te s a n d T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t O b e rm e y e r g a te s o f th is 1
p u t in O b e rm e y e r g a te s s iz e h a ve n o t bee n u se d a n d th e m a te ria l o f
O b e rm e y e r g a te s w o u ld p re s e n t a d d itio n a l
p ro b le m s .
7. U se a ir b la d d e rs fo r th e g a te s T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th is is n o t an e ffe c tiv e 0
so lu tio n .
8. C o u n te r b a la n c e th e ta in te r T e a m d e te rm in e d th is w o u ld be d iffic u lt to 0
g a te s w ith w a te r d e s ig n a n d n o t as e ffe c tiv e as Id ea 3 th a t
in c o rp o ra te s a c o u n te rw e ig h t.
9. B o lt ste e l p la te s to th e s tru t a rm s D e v e lo p e d a s S tru c tu ra l D e sig n C o m m e n t 3. 1
10. U se fla p g a te s T e a m d e te rm in e d th is w a s n o t an e ffe c tiv e 0

s o lu tio n fo r re g u la tin g th e w a te r flo w .
F u n c tio n - Im p ro v e F u n c tio n a lity o f M e c h a n ic a l / E le c tric a l
1. U se ro lle r b e a rin g s T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t 0

s e lf-lu b ric a te d b e a rin g s a re a p re fe rre d
so lu tio n .
2. U se c o m p o s ite (C IP ) b e a rin g s T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th is is in c o rp o ra te d into 5

th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t.
3. O n ly re p la c e th e tru n n io n s p in s T e a m d e te rm in e d th is d id n o t a d d re s s th e 0
a nd b e a rin g s s tru c tu ra l p ro b le m s w ith th e g ate s.
4. In c re a s e s tru c tu ra l s te e l on th e T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th e re w e re b e tte r 2
s tru t a rm s a n d in c re a s e th e m e th o d s fo r e lim in a tin g th e n e e d o f a lo a d -
c a p a c ity o f th e h o is ts a nd lim itin g d e v ic e th a t a re in c o rp o ra te d into
m o to rs a n d e lim in a te th e load A lte rn a tiv e 5.
lim itin g d e v ic e
5. R e fu rb is h g e a r b o x e s a nd T e a m p re fe rre d th e id e a s in A lte rn a tiv e 1 a nd 1

p e rfo rm u p g ra d e s to th e re s t o f 2.
th e h o is t s y s te m
6. U se a d e s ig n B m o to r in s te a d o f D e v e lo p e d a s A lte rn a tiv e 3. 6
a d e s ig n D
7. R e p la c e th e h o is t s y s te m w ith T e a m d e te rm in e d th e h y d ra u lic h o is ts w o u ld 1
h y d ra u lic a c tu a to rs be v e ry large, in te rfe re w ith th e w a te r flo w a nd
p re s e n t p o te n tia l le a k s o f oil to th e river.
June 2014 Page E-3

Idea D isposition # o f V otes

(m ax is 7)
8. A ir b ag flo a t on th e g a te T e a m d e te rm in e d th is w a s an im p ra c tic a l 0
s o lu tio n .
9. W o rm g e a r d riv e n h o is ts T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t in -k in d re p la c e m e n t o f 0
th e e x is tin g g e a rs w a s a p re fe rre d s o lu tio n .
10. B e tte r lu b ric a tio n T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t 0

h a s a d e q u a te lu b ric a tio n .
11. S p h e ric a l b e a rin g s T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t 0

s e lf-lu b ric a te d b e a rin g s a re a p re fe rre d
s o lu tio n .
12. E n c lo s u re fo r th e oil D e v e lo p e d a s M e c h a n ic a l D e sig n C o m m e n t 3. 2
13. B io d e g ra d a b le oil T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t b io d e g ra d a b le o il m u s t 2
be re p o rte d a s a s p ill; th e re fo re , th e re is no
a d v a n ta g e o v e r th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t.
14. D e v e lo p a w a y to c o n ta in th e D e v e lo p e d a s M e c h a n ic a l D e sig n C o m m e n t 4. 6
g re a s e in th e tru n n io n s
15. R e p la c e b e a rin g s / b u s h in g in T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t re fu rb is h m e n t o f th e N o t v o te d
th e m e c h a n ic a l d riv e tra in w ith e x is tin g d riv e tra in w a s a p re fe rre d s o lu tio n on; a d d e d
s e lf-lu b ric a tin g o n e s (s e e A lte rn a tiv e 2). to th e list
a fte r v o tin g
Function - M inim ize Friction
1. N e w c o m p o s ite b u s h in g T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th is is in c o rp o ra te d in 4
th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t.
2. R e d u c e loa d on th e tru n n io n s T e a m d e te rm in e d th is w a s n o t p ra c tic a l. 0
3. O b ta in a w a iv e r on th e 0.3 D e v e lo p e d a s D e sig n A s s u m p tio n s D e sig n 1

fric tio n fa c to r C o m m e n t 1.
4. R e -u s e th e pin, c le a n o u t th e T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t re p la c e m e n t w ith a 3
g re a s e /b u s h in g a n d re -g re a s e c o m p o s ite b u s h in g s y s te m w o u ld be a b e tte r
fric tio n re d u c in g s y s te m a n d re d u c e s o r
e lim in a te s g re a s e s p ills.
5. L o w e r th e fric tio n s id e s e a ls D e v e lo p e d a s M e c h a n ic a l D e sig n C o m m e n t 1. 5
C onstruction Item s
1. P e rfo rm e le c tric a l a nd D e v e lo p e d a s C o n s tru c tio n C o m m e n t 1. 6

m e c h a n ic a l w o rk b e fo re J u ly 15th
2. L et th e la ke rise to th e o p tim u m D e v e lo p e d a s C o n s tru c tio n C o m m e n t 2. 1

p o w e r g e n e ra tio n e le v a tio n
d u rin g th e c o n s tru c tio n w in d o w
3. B u ild s to p lo g s D e v e lo p e d a s A lte rn a tiv e 4. 4
4. In v e s tig a te th e w a lk e r v a lv e T e a m d e te rm in e d th is w a s b e y o n d th e s c o p e 4
is s u e s a t th e R O ’s o f th e V E S tud y.
5. U p g ra d e h o is ts a n d e le c tric a l fo r D e v e lo p e d a s A lte rn a tiv e 1. 6

all 5 g a te s ra th e r th a n ju s t fo r
th e 2 / 3 g a te s
June 2014 Page E-4

Id e a D is p o s itio n # o f V o te s
( m a x is 7 )
6. A d d S C A D A c a p a b ility D e v e lo p e d a s E le c tric a l D e sig n C o m m e n t 1. 1
7. D e sig n p la tfo rm s to be u se d fo r D e v e lo p e d a s C o n s tru c tio n C o m m e n t 3. 6

all th e g a te s
8. R e q u ire th e c o n tra c to r to d e sig n T e a m p re fe rre d C o n s tru c tio n C o m m e n t 3 o v e r 2

p la tfo rm fo r o n e b a y th a t ca n be th is idea.
re -u s e d fo r th e o th e r b a ys a nd
lea ve it a t L o o k o u t P o in t fo r
U S A C E to u se fo r G a te s 1 a n d 5
in th e fu tu re
9. In v e s tig a te th e c a p a c ity o f th e T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th e P D T w o u ld p e rfo rm 5

d e c k a n d p ie rs a n d p ro v id e th a t th is ta s k d u rin g th e d e s ig n p ro ce ss.
in fo rm a tio n to th e c o n tra c to r
M is c e lla n e o u s Ite m s
1. E lim in a te th e g a te s T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t th e g a te s a re re q u ire d 0
to re g u la te flo w s .
2. F ix 'A g a te s , p u t w e irs in th e T e a m d e te rm in e d th a t all fiv e g a te s a re 0

re m a in d e r re q u ire d to p a s s th e la rg e r flo o d s.
3. M a k e m in o r re p a irs to th e T e a m d e te rm in e d th is n o t n e e d e d a t th is point. 0
s p illw a y b rid g e
4. In sta ll 10 m o to rs / 2 p e r g a te In c o rp o ra te d in to A lte rn a tiv e 1 a n d a p a rt o f N o t v o te d

in s te a d o f 6 m o to rs fo r all 5 th e b a s e lin e c o n c e p t. on; a d d e d
g a te s to th e list
a fte r v o tin g
June 2014 Page E-5

A P P E N D IX F
Presentation
June 2014 Page F-l

Presentation Out-Briefing Attendance List

T eam M em b er N am e C om pan y R ole
Jam es S chroeder U SA C E T eam M em ber /
M echanical E ngineer
K risty F ortuny U SA C E P art-T im e T eam
M em ber / T echnical
T eam L eader
Joe R ussell U SA C E T eam M em ber /
C onstruction
A nil N aidu U SA C E T eam M em ber /
O perations
D ave S tew art T etra T ech T eam M em b er /
E lectrical E ngineer
N ick H anson U SA C E T eam M em ber /
E ngineer-In-T raining
Jam ie M acartney B ureau o f R eclam ation T eam M em ber /
C onstruction and
C ontracting
K ent S chlundt B ureau o f R eclam ation T eam M e m b e r/
M echanical E ngineer
J e ff M orris B ureau o f R eclam ation Team F acilitator / C ivil
E ngineer
D aryl M elton U SA C E P roject M anager
Jam es B oag U SA C E C hief, M echanical
E ngineering Section
R ick R ussell U SA CE C hief, C ost E ngineering
& C onstruction Services
Section
Jason W eber U SA C E V alue E ngineering
O fficer
June 2014 Page F-2

PowerPoint Presentation
Lookout Point Tainter Gate
Rehabilitation VE Study Out-Brief
VE Team
Dave Stewart. Jamie Macartney, Nick Hanson. Kent
Schlundt. Joe Russell, James Schroeder. Anil Naidu,
Kristy Fortuny. Jeff Morris
6 December 2013
US Army C o rp i of E n g in eers
BUILDING STRONG,
Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehab

VE Team
* Jeff Morris Facilitator Reclamation
• Dave Stewart Electrical Tetra Tech
■ Jamie Macartney Construction Reclamation
• Nick Hanson Structural NWP
■ Kent Schlundt Mechanical Reclamation
• Joe Russell Cost Engineer NWP
* James Schroeder Mechanical NWP
• Anil Naidu Mechanical WV-LOP
■ Kristy Fortuny Structural NWP
ED
PORTLAND DISTRICT 2 BUILDING STRONG
Lookout Point Tainter Gate

Rehabilitation Project
Value Engineering (VE)
December 2 - 6, 2013
PORTLAND DISTRICT 3 BUILDING STRONG,*
June 2014 Page F-3


Value Methodology
• 6 Step Process
►Information Phase
►Function Analysis
►Creativity Phase
►Evaluation Phase
►Development Phase
►Presentation Phase
■ Intensive Time
■ Team Consensus
■ Implementation Phase
PORTLAND DISTRICT BUILDING STRONG.

Baseline Design
■ Repair Gate 3, Gate 2, and an option for Gate 4

■ Gates 1 and 5 are not included in this project
PORTLAND DISTRICT 5 BUILDING STRONG,

Baseline Design - Structural Work
Structural - Strengthen strut arms and the center of
the gate with additional steel
June 2014 Page F-4


Baseline Design - Mech and Elec Work
Mechanical - Replace
the entire hoist system
and the trunnion
Electrical - Replace all

electrical components
including the feeder
cables__
PORTLAND DISTRICT BUILDING STRONG

Cost Model

Key Functions
Component Function
Project Restore Functionality
Structural Deficiencies Resist Loads
Mechanical
-Bearing/Hub Minimize Friction
-Hoists Improve Functionality
Electrical Run Equipment
PORTLAND DISTRICT BUILDING STRONG
June 2014 Page F-5

Key Problems
* Original design (existing gate system) does not

meet current EMs and ERs
■ Ensure another 50-Year life cycle
■ IRRMs currently in place
■ Optimize value with available funding
PORTLAND DISTRICT 10 BUILDING STRONC.
Impacts if Rehab is Not Performed

■ Increases risk of flood damage
■ Increases risk of damage to equipment
■ Existing equipment does not meet current
design standards
■ Lookout Point must operate with restrictions
* Decreases reliability
Big Risks
■ Inadequate resources to address multiple
simultaneous problems in the basin
■ Compressed design schedule
■ Unforeseen conditions that can increase the
scope of work
■ Inexperienced contractor performing the work
* Floods during construction
■ Damage gate during construction
PORTLAND DISTRICT 1?
m
BUILDING STRONG,
June 2014 Page F-6

Project and Design Constraints

■ Project Constraints
►Funding timeframe for construction
►Construction window, July 15 - November 15
►Time to design and award the project
►Costs must be within the agreement with BPA
■ Design Constraints
►Meet EMs, ERs and operational requirements
►Schedule must incorporate long lead items
PORTIAMO DISTRICT « BUILDING STRONC,

Value Study Objectives
• Maximize Project Value
■ Ensure a Functional Design
■ Ensure a Quality Product
■ Minimal Maintenance
• Easy to Operate
■ Identify Potential Missing Elements of Design
• Minimal Construction Duration
■ Ensure Long Term Reliability
■ Minimal IRRM Duration
■ Improve Safety
■ Satisfy/Maintain Water Quality Requirements
■ Minimize Interference with Operations
PO R T L A N D D IS T R IC T B U ILDING STR O N G

VE Workshop Statistics
■ 58 Ideas Generated
■ 5 Alternatives
■ 14 Design Suggestions
PORTLAMO DISTRICT « BUILDING STRONG.
June 2014 Page F-7

CEN WP-VE F Y 14-01 Value Engineering Study Report

Alternative 1
■ Install all mechanical and electrical equipment for
all five gates - (baseline is for Gates 2 and 3 with
an option for Gate 4)
► Commonality of Components
► Reduced O&M Cost
* Reduced inventory of replacement parts
• Uniform maintenance procedure
■ $3.3 million above baseline

► Money which would be spent on later gate rehab
PORTLAND DISTRICT *6 BUILDING STRONG,

Alternative 2
■ Investigate re-use/refurbishment of hoist system
for all five gates
► Potential for substantial cost savings

► Hoist gearboxes recently refurbished and wire ropes
replaced (2010)
► Refurbishment could take place off site
► Current Codes, EMs and ERs must be met
► Cost of study would be approx. $200k
________
PORTLAND DISTRICT
_______________________
17
m
BUILDING STRONG,

Alternative 3
* Re-coat gates 2 and 3 with option to re-coat gate
4 (upstream skin plate & downstream members)
PORTLAND DISTRICT 1«
m
BUILDING STRONG,
June 2014 Page F-8


Alternative 3
►Tainter gates have original coatings which are
deteriorating
►Lead paint would be permanently removed eliminating
an ongoing environmental concern
►Recent inspection report recommends re-coating
skinplate
►Eliminates boundary between new and existing
coatings where new and existing coatings may not
adhere properly
►Re-coating gates would take longer to complete than
Baseline and could negatively impact construction
schedule
►$235k per gate -Vinyl; $320k per gate -Metallized
PORTLANO DISTRICT BUILDING STRONG.

Alternative 4
■ Stoplogs for
Lookout Point
and future use
at other
Willamette
Basin facilities
■ 5 stacking
Stoplogs
■ Install guides
on piers

Alternative 4
■ $1,000,000 to Procure Stoplogs and Install Guides

►Use on Lookout Point for Construction (including Gates
1 and 5 in the future) adding flexibility to construction
window
►Use at Lookout Point for Future O&M
►Use at Other Similar Sized Willamette Basin Spillways
PORTLAND DISTRICT ?! BUILDING STRONG,
June 2014 Page F-9


Alternative 5
■ Existing DDR states design D motors

• Design B motors in lieu of Design D motors
■ Torque Curve Distinguishes Design B from D
►Torque Curve of Design D can be Achieved with a VFD
■ Existing Motors are Design B
* $180,000 savings
►Design D is custom, estimated at $20,000 each
►Design B is off the shelf, estimated at S1,200 each
PORTLAND DISTRICT 2? BUILDING STRONG,

Proposed Alternatives
I A lt e r n a t iv e I Cost 1
A lte r n a tiv e 1
- M e c h a n ic a l/E le c tr ic a l fo r AH G a te s $ 3 .3 M illio n In c re a s e
A lte r n a tiv e 2
- R e - U s e /R e fu r b is h H o is t S y s te m S 2 0 0 .0 0 0 In c re a s e ( fo r s tu d y : c o u ld
y ie ld h ig h c o n tra c t c o s t s a v in g s )
A lte r n a tiv e 3
- R e - C o a t E n tir e G a te S 2 3 5 .0 0 0 p e r g a te In c re a s e (v in y l)
S 3 2 0 ,0 0 0 p e r g a te In c re a s e (m e ta liz e d )
A lte r n a tiv e 4
- P r o c u r e m e n t o t S to p lo g s S 1 M illio n In c re a s e
A lte r n a tiv e 5
- D e s ig n B E le c tric M o to rs S 1 8 0 .0 0 0 D e c re a s e
m i

Proposed Alternatives
P e r f o r m a n c e M e tr ic A lti: A lt 2: A lt 3: A lt 4: A l t 5:
A ll M & E H o is t R e- S to p lo g s B M o to r
S tu d y C o a tin g
_____ _____
P ro je c t Im p r o v e m e n ts X X X X X
A d d e d S u s t a in a b ility X
S c h e d u le Im p r o v e m e n ts X X X
Q u a lit y I m p ro v e m e n ts X X X
F u n c t io n a l X X X X X
Im p r o v e m e n ts
A d v a n c e d C o n s tr u c tio n X X X
Ite m
P la n V a lid a tio n X X X X
H -JL-JI
PORTLAND DISTRICT ?4 BUILDING STRONC,
June 2014 Page F-10


Design Comments
■ Structural 1 - Install cross bracing between strut

arm assemblies
■ Structural 2- Improve drainage on gates
■ Structural 3- Bolt steel instead of weld
■ Structural 4- Address pitting on the skin plate
• Structural 5- Counterweight the existing gate
PORTLAND DISTRICT » BUILDING STRONG.

Design Comments
■ Mechanical 1 - Install lower friction side seals
■ Mechanical 2 - Seal the hoist gearboxes
■ Mechanical 3 - Design a capture method for
spilled gearbox oil
* Mechanical 4 - Build a container for excess
grease (trunnion pin)
■ Electrical 1 - Incorporate SCADA capability
PORTLAND DISTRICT X BUILDING STRONG,

Design Comments
■ Design 1 - Consider revising the EM regarding
the trunnion pin friction factor
■ Construction 1 - Perform electrical and

mechanical work before July 15th
■ Construction 2 - Allow reservoir level to rise
above minimum pool for power generation and
recreation
■ Construction 3 - USACE to design access
platforms
PORTLAND DISTRICT 71 BUILDING STRONG.
June 2014 Page F -l1

Questions?
Thank You!
PORTLAND DISTRICT 28 BUILDING STRONG.
June 2014 Page F-12

CENWP-VE F Y14-01 Value Engineering Study Report
APPENDIX G
Value Engineering Team Roster
Team Member Name Company Role
J a m e s S c h ro e d e r U SACE T e a m M e m b e r / M e c h a n ic a l
E n g in e e r
K risty F o rtu n y U SACE P a rt-T im e T e a m M e m b e r /
T e c h n ic a l T e a m L e a d e r
Jo e R u sse ll, A V S T e a m M e m b e r / C o n s tru c tio n /
U SACE
C o s t E s tim a to r
A n il N a id u U SACE T e a m M e m b e r / O p e ra tio n s
D a v e S te w a rt T e tra T e c h T e a m M e m b e r / E le c tric a l
E n g in e e r
N ic k H a n so n T e a m M e m b e r / E n g in e e r-In -
USACE
T ra in in g
J a m ie M a c a rtn e y , P E T e a m M e m b e r / C o n stru c tio n ,
B u re a u o f R e c la m a tio n
C o n tra c tin g , C iv il E n g in e e r
K e n t S c h lu n d t, P E T e a m M e m b e r / M e c h a n ic a l
B u re a u o f R e c la m a tio n
E n g in e e r
J e f f M o rris, P E , C V S B u re a u o f R e c la m a tio n T e a m F a c ilita to r / C iv il E n g in e e r
June 2014 Page G-1

Gate Rehab PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gate Rehab PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gate Rehab PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

o' 1^-0u

Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation

Document Reviewed: Draft 60% DDR

Jeff Morris, CVS

VO' \ ÍM Í * ' ,/ > t M l / u , VI ^ o •-

Maximum Credible Potential Cost Avoidance P R O PO S E D $0*

Maximum Credible Potential Net Life Cycle Savings PR O PO SE D : 0

June 2014 Page i

June 2014 Page ii

June 2014 Page iii

Value Added Alternatives*

Accepted Design Suggestions/Comments

Project Team Roster

June 2014 Page iv

Team Member / Electrical

Function Analysis/FAST Diagram

o improve functionality (gate-structural)

June 2014 Page v

June 2014 Page vi

June 2014 Page vii

June 2014 Page viii

Constraints on the project............................................................................................... C-3

June 2014 Page ix

June 2014 Page 1

Elevation1 Single Spillbay Free

M axim u m Pool 934.0 45,500

M axim u m C onservation Pool [top of closed spillway gate] 926.0 38,800

IR R M initial elevation [top strut] 915.0 22,300

Spillw ay C rest 887.5 -

M inim um C onservation Pool & W in te r Flood Control Pool 825.0 -

M inim um P o w er Pool 819.0 -

R egulating O utlet Invert 724.0 -

Lookout Point Tainter Gate Problem Description:

June 2014 Page 2

Lookout Point Tainter Gate Rehabilitation Baseline Concept:

June 2014 Page 3

Figure 2. Photograph of a Portion of the Existing Eloist System.

June 2014 Page 4

Figure 3. Photograph of the Existing Hoist System and Motor.

Information Provided to the VE Team:

June 2014 Page 5

June 2014 Page 6

The Team listed the following (details in Appendix C):

Function Analysis Phase

The Team determined that the basic functions were:

Project - Eliminate IRRMs and Improve Reliability

June 2014 ^^^> ag e7

o improve functionality (gate-structural)

June 2014 Page 8

• improving reliability of the gate system and ensuring consistent components

The fourteen design comments strived to add value by:

• alternative means to accomplish the same function (Structural 1,3, 5; Mechanical 1)

June 2014 Page 9

June 2014 Page A-l

Table 2 - Performance Metrics Associated with each Alternative

P roject Im provem ents X X X X X

Alternative 1: Furnish and Install Mechanical Hoist System and

Critical Items to Consider:

This proposal works well in combination with Alternative 2.