20060717160104.pdf017 ED
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: July 17, 2006
TO: Pat Archer
FAX: 206-368-0316
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Exatjne"�
RE: Plan Check #: 06-043
Project: 2 Triplexes (6 uirilit's)
Project Address: 23707 and 23709 84b Ave W
During re -review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please provide written responses to the comments below
and resubmit 3 sets of revised plans/documents to Manie Harrison, Permit Coordinator.
This application was reviewed under the 2003 International Residential Code (IRC). Structual.
design that does not meet the conventional provisions of the IRC was reviewed under the 2003
International Building Code.
1) ok
2) ok
3) ok
4) ok
5) ok
6) ok
7) ok
8) ok
9) ok
10)ok
II)pk
12) ok
13) ok
14) ok
15) It was noted that a common 2-hr wall option was chosen which per R31 7.2.1 continuity the
entire wall must be continuousfrom thefoundation through the roof. This continuity is not
being maintained at the catnilevered secondfloorlsteel beam area. I would be happy to meet
with you at the counter to go over the different options. Ifyou would like to do this please
call to set up a time that is convienitfor both of us. Detail 1/11 "steel beam at party wall" —
R317.2.4 requires these walls to be structurally independent. There can not be a common beam.
Also change 8x8 posts shown to make the walls structurally independent. If you do not want the
walls to be structurally independent then it needs to be a common 2 hour firewall. as allowed per
R317.2 (exception) but then the wall can not contain mechanical quipment, duct work,
plumbing, etc. lf you chose this option show how all mechanical and plumbing will be ran
within each unit so that it does not penetrate the 2 hour wall and the wall must be continuous to
the underside of the roof sheathing.
16) New: Clarify if new 2 d wall for plumbing and mechanical is only at the garage level or if it
continues through the other two levels.
17) New: Specify how the B-vent for the gas water heater under the stairs will be vented to the
exterior.
18) Still need. Provide letter from Geotechnical Engineer of Record stating that they have reviewed
the plans and that they are consistent with the report recommendations.
19) Receivedform for Geotechnical Special Inspector. Still need on for field welding. Sp ecial
inspections are required for the following. Complete the enclosed special inspection agreement
signed by the owner, the general contractor and the special inspector and submit to the City for
approval prior to issuance. A separate agreement form is required for each separate special
inspector.
• Field Welding
• Placement of fill and compaction
Soil beating verification
Proof rolling
Footmig drain installation
See attached additional structural comments from the City's consultant. Respond to each item
in writin.
Page 2 of 2
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
01alla, WA 98359
hoAeter@centurytel.net
2538574151
Fax 253 857 5759
To: Marie Harrison
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Archer Triplex Buildings I and 2
23707 84th Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review # 06-643 EECE # EDM 06-09 (2)
Second Comment Letter
Building I
Structure
Area S.F.
Lower Floor
566
Main floor
1941
Upper floor
1940
Total
4447
Garage
1208
Grand total
5655
Building 2
Structure
Area S.F.
Lower Floor
566
Main floor
1941
Upper floor
1940
Total
4447
Garage
1208
Grand total
5655
The above referenced project is in the process of plan review for compliance with
Edmonds ordinances and applicable codes. The following comments,
deficiencies/corrections must be addressed prior to completion of plans review and
subsequent issuance of permits.
Provide revised plans and calculations along with a written response to each of the items
listed below to facilitate a shorter back -check time.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The scope of this review isfor the structural only requirements of this project.
Page 2 of 5
All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All
portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements,
conditions and concerns before permit approval.
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
5. It appears the dead load of thefloors has not been included in the analysis of
the steel beams. The analysis is not clear. Please clarify how the gravity loads
were determined In addition, for beams that are not simply supported but
cantilever have multiple spans, thefloor loading shall be placed in order to
produce the greatest effect on the member. Please resubmit an analysis to account
for the code required distributive floor load to produce the greatest effect on the
member. IBC 1607. 10 The new analysis for the steel beam states the moment is
39200 pound feet. It appears this was calculated byjust multiplying 9800 pounds
by 4 feet. But the unliforin loads must also be considered. Please resubmit design
of the members including all forces as required per code.
2. 6. Please submit an analysisfor thepost to support the design loads. This was not
included in the analysis submitted. How were the sizes determined? An analysis is
requiredfor the posts that are supporting the beams. This appears not to be
addressed in the response
Sheet 10 FOUNDATION PLAN (BLDG 1)
3. 12 Detail cut AIS-2 does not appear to be correct. This isfor walls and there is a
6X12 beam. Please clarify section cut as shown on this sheet. Drawings have not
been modified as stated in the response. Response states "detail says wall or beam
per plan". But the submitted drawing set does not specify this. Detail should be
drawn clearly to show how it should build. The design professional should clearly
show how this is to be constructed.
4. 14. Please specify the required connection of thejoist to the steel beam. A positive
connection is required at this location. Based off the drawings I was unable to
determine what the required connection is going to be at this location. Response
state thejoist our on top of the beam. This is fine but the code required the joist to
be positively connected to the nailer on top of the beam. This is very important.
One reason for this to be specified is the joists are bracing the compression flange
of the beam. If there is not a connection specified the contractor may not attach the
members. Also this member is a collector element for the shear walls. Please show
the required connection of the joist to the steel beam.
Sheet 11 MAIN FLOOR FRAMING (BLDG 1):
Page 3 of 5
5. 16 Detail 1: Please specify the thickness of the stiffenerplate at the wideflange
column. I was unable tofind where this was called out. All that is states is 'Web
stiffener'. The thickness should be speci/1'ed including an analysisfor how this was
determined. The stiffener plate is specified but not the required weld. I assumed
this might be field installed so please add to the drawing the required weld size.
6. 17. The drawing states to weld the bracket (ECCOQ5-6 SDA 2.5 col. Cap bracket
for 5-118X21 G.L. weld to steel beam) to the steel beam. More information is
required to show what the required weld is, including an analysis. nat is the
thickness requiredfor the weld? Please submit an analysisfor this connection.
Analysis was not submitted to justify the connections. Please submit analysis for
this connection using welds.
7. 18. It is not clear what supports the 24 " cantilevered section after grid G2 and
grid Ga. Please provide a detail and method to carry the vertical loads at this
location. Drawings are still not clear how this is to be built. Submit detail at this
location to show the complete load path. Provide detail cut at this location to show
complete load path.
8. 19. Submit an analysisfor the 5-118X21 Glu-lam beams. The analysis submitted
just states to use this beam with out any documentation showing this member will
support the required design loading. NDS 5.3. The response state it is third beam
down fon-n page 2 but I still was unable to find this from the documents submitted.
Please submit analysis for this beam.
9. 20. Detail cut AIS2 as cut will not workfor the glu-1am beam. Please modf� the
detail to show how this will beframed. (Detail AIS2 is onlyfor 2xjoist attaching to
shear wall below) Please provide detail on the drawingfor the shearflow of the
shear wall mark A hearing on the steel beam. The drawings are still not clear.
Details should be added to the drawing to show complete load path. Please add
detail to show how this is to be built in the field.
Sheet 12 UPPER FLOOR FRAMING (BLDG 1):
10. 22. This sheet is showing Gypsum shear walls used to transfer the shearfrom the
diaphragm. The code requires the R value of 2 to be used. Please modify design
to use the R of 2 and not 6.5. IBC table 1617.6.2 1 was unable to determine how
this was addressed. Please submit analysis with an R of 2 as required per code.
Sheet 17 SECTION DETAILS:
11. 25. Detail I and Detail 2: Please note that the vertical steel shall be have a 90
degree hook into thefooting orprovide an analysisfor the steel to develop in a 8
Page 4 of 5
footing. A CI 12.5 Code requires the vertical steel to have a 90 degree hook.
Drawing still does not specify a 90 degree hook. Please modify accordingly
Sheet S-1 SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS:
12. 2 7. Provide an analysis tojustify diaphragm nailing specified on this Sheet. I was
unable tofind where this was done in the analysis submitted. IBC 1620.2.5 This
still has not been submitted in the package. It is import that the horizontal
diaphragm is able to transfer the shear force to the vertical resisting elements.
Submit design for the horizontal elements. Also the proper R value shall be used
based off the revisiting elements. Please resubmit analysis to verify the diaphragm
requirements.
13. 29. Shear wall capacity exceeds the values per table 23064.1. For example, shear
wall C: 318 " plywood with studs @ 16 " 01C with 8d@ 3 " 01C HF. the allowable
is 456 and not 512 PLF. Also shear wall D allowable is 595 and not 679 PLF.
Submit an analysis tojustify capacity. This still has not been addressed or modified
accordingly. Response state structural I is called out but analysis was not
submitted to justify capacity shown. Submitted analysis to justify.
14. 32. Shear transfer detail: Provide an analysisfor how the spacing of the A35 @ 24
inches 01C. How was this determinedfor the shear wall connection? The capacity
is only goodfor 450 PLFper clip. Therefore spaced at 2foot 01C, the capacity is
225 PLF. Based off the shearforces it appears this will be exceeded. See Simpson
catalog C-2006 page 169. It still is not clear how this was addressed.
Sheet S-2 MISC. SECTIONS AND DETAELS:
15. 33. Detail 1: The width shownfor the concrete shear wall does not match thefloor
framing. For example, I V 0 " is 21 inches, 25 is 29 ". See sheet 10 of 18: Please
modify detail to match the plans. The drawings still show conflicts. Please modify
accordingly
16. 34. Pleaseprovide an analysisfor the wallpiers requirementsper IBC 1908. The
analysis submitted has not dealt with this requirement. Please note wall segments
with a horizontal length to thickness ratio less than 2.5 shall be designed and
detailed as a column, but between 2.5 and 6 awall pier may be used. Above 6 then
the wall must be detailed per ACI 21. 7. Currently the details do not meet this
requirement. Please submit an analysis tojustify the concrete detail as shown.
IBC 1908, New analysis submitted meets the thickness to width ratio for the
columns. The code requires for columns every other vertical bars must be enclosed.
Please add an addition tie as required per code for the vertical bars. ACI 7.10.5.3
Page 5 of 5
17. 35. Detail A and Detail B: Provide an analysisfor these details to tran fer the
shearforces between thefloors. Analysis submitted has not modified capacity
based off edge distance. Submit analysis including this reduction in capacity. NDS
11.5
Additional corrections may be required following receipt of corrections and
additional information as requested.
Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire
Department, Zoning Department and Public Works Engineering. Changes,
clarifications or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building
Department plan review when comments are received from the other concerned
departments.
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please contact Hoyt Jeter at
(253) 857-4151 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President