20061031100953.pdfPlan Check #: 200600854 Date: October 31, 2006
Project Name/Address: Harbor Square Athletic Club @ 160 West Dayton
Contact Person/Address/Fax: Warren LaFon
Permit Coordinator: Marie Harrison 425.771.0220 x 1389 Department: Building
The following City of Edmonds departments have reviewed your application:
Building Department [ ] Recycling
[ ] Planning DepartmentPretreatment
[ ] Engineering Department [ ] Water Quality
[ ] Fire Department
Attached are comments and corrections from the appropriate departments. Please respond to
all comments and corrections and resubmit your corrections to all departments
at one time. Please bubble your corrections and submit three sets of
corrected sheets. No partial resubmittals will be accepted.
Thank you,
Senior Permit Coordinator
425.771.0220 x 1389
harrisonCaD-ci.edmonds.wa.uls
DATE F D (Attach fax transmittal
L/Temp/DST/Forms/plan-review9/01
Page —4 of
M E M O R A N D U M
Project: Dome Replacement (Resubmittal)
To: Theresa Umbaugh
COMPANY: City of Edmonds
FROM: Doug Heit PE
SUBJECT. Structural Review comments
PROJECT NO. 0601-E
DATE: 27 Oct 2006
TOTAL 1 of 2
PAGES:
CIV
REVIEW COMMENTS:
The following outstanding review comments are listed, along with new review comments in
bold:
1) The Construction Documents shall show the following information in accordance with
IBC 2003 Section 1603:
a) Ground snow load
b) Flat roof snow load
c) 'Snow exposure factor
d} Snow load importance factor
e) Thermal factor
f) Wind importance factor.and building category .
.g).. Seismic importance. factor
h} . Ss and S1
i) , _ Site class
j) Sds and Sd1
k) Seismic design category
1) Basic seismic force resisting system(s)
m) Design base shear
n) Seismic response coefficient Cs
o) Analysis procedure used
2) Addressed by architect
3) Addressed by architect
4) Roof/wall system component structural calculations, drawings, and specifications shall
bear the stamp of a qualified Washington state professional structural engineer. We
have received stamped calculations for analysis of grade beam uplift, and
anchorage of angle to grade beam, but not the roof and wall system engineered
component. Grade beam uplift calculations do not show conformance with IBC
2003, and indicate that further evaluation is necessary by a geotechnical
engineer.
5) Roof/wall system component engineering shall include consideration of new double
service door at the north end. We assume that this has been addressed -roof wall
system component engineer to verify.
COPY:
0
WJA DEM.N 001-LAEORATIVE 1736 FouRTH AVE. S, SurrE A SEATTLE, WA 98134 T 206.254.2570 F 206.254.2571
WJADC.COM
M E M O R A N D U M
Project: Dome Replacement (Resubmittal)
To: Theresa Umbaugh
COMPANY: City of Edmonds
FROM: Doug Heit PE
SUBJECT: Structural Review comments
PROJECT NO
DATE:
TOTAL
PAGES:
0601-E
27 Oct 2006
2of2
Old
REVIEW COMMENTS: (Cont'd)
6) The Farley Group calculations indicate 1643 pif maximum design vertical uplift load per side.
The existing 4'-6" x 1'-6" grade beam, however, weighs about 980 plf. Please clarify uplift load
resistance, and verify conformance with IBC 2003.
The governing uplift load combination calculated by the Farley Group, which
appears to be an allowable stress design load combination (.9131- + 1.0 Wind Uplift
+ 1.0 Inflation Pressure), results in 1520 pif.uplift. .at the top of the grade beam.
According to the Burnside Engineer calculations, the grade beam needs to
develop 700 plf uplift friction resistance with the soil to provide adequate overall
uplift resistance to this design load. The Burnside engineer assumes 150 pcf
concrete grade beam density,. and a factor of safety of 1.0 to attain this
conclusion.
If one assumes 145 pcf concrete density at the grade beam (150 may not be a
conservative assumption), and an uplift factor of safety of 1.5 (which we believe
is the Building Code requirement for an ASD load combination), the minimum
additional required soil uplift resistance is = (1.5 x 1520) — 980 = 1300 plf, not 700.
It appears that a substantial resistance force beyond the grade beam dead load
must be relied upon to resist uplift. We concur with the Burnside engineer that a
geotechnical consultant should evaluate the available frictional soil uplift
resistance at the perimeter grade beams. It may be necessary to increase the
grade beam uplift resistance by adding dead load or uplift piles in order to resist
the design loads provided by the Farley Group.
7) If the existing restraint cables are being reused, confirm that the cables and connections
are suitable for re -use from a loading and corrosion standpoint.
8) Addressed by HV Engineering Inc.
End of Review.
COPY:
WJA DESIGN OOLLA60RATIVE 1736 FOURTH AVE. S., SUITE A SEATTLE, WA 98134 T 206.254.2570 F 206.254.2571
WJADC.COM