Loading...
20070122094508.pdfOV. EDS City of Edmonds un PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION gsr. I $go (425) 771-0220 . DATE: January 22, 2007 TO. Valerie Sargent FAX: 206-749-5005 FROM: Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official RE: Plan Check # 2006-1344 Project: Point Edwards Building 9 Foundation Only Project Address: 45 Pine Street Below are combined review comments from myself and the City's Consultant. Please respond in writing to each item and include the location(s) of the changes to expedite the re -review. Please resubmit 3 sets of plans/documents and written comments to Marie Harrison, Senior Permit Coordinator. 1. See attached Comments from the City's Consultant. 2. The parking garage exiting does not meet the 75 foot maximum common path of egress travel per TBC 1013.3. Revised exiting will be required which will likely require additional opening(s) in the foundation wall. I. As with past foundation -only permits, provide a written scope of work on Sheet 1.1 specific to this permit. 4. Provide architectural plans addressing damp-proof coating at the foundation walls of the basement. IBC 1807.2 5. As with past foundation plans, page 9 of the November 21, 2001 soils report requires prefabricated wall drainage system as well as foundation drains which need to be shown/addressed on the plans. IBC 1807.2 6. Special Inspection Agreement noted in the Shoring/Grading plan review comments must be submitted. 7. Provide a written general contractor acknowledgement statement for these buildings per IBC 1705.3. January 20, 2007 Ann Bullis, Plan Reviewer and Assistant Code Official Development Services Department 121 5t" Avenue North, Second Floor Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Ann Bullis: This is a plan review on the Foundation Systems and Concrete Portions of the: Project Name: Port Edwards Condominium Building 49 Plan Review Ns: 1111-107F (Your Plan Check Number is 2006-1344) I have calculated that the following general criteria apply for this project and it complies: NON-STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA: Occupancies: Group R, Division 2, Condominiums; Group S, Division 2, Enclosed Parking Garage Construction: Type V-A with Sprinklers Throughout Floor Area: Separated Uses Case: S-2, Garage-> 18,700 sf; R-2 Condos-> 58,000 sf Ne of Stories: Three + basement; Height is 31'; Max. Allowable Height: 70' (IBC Definition) Codes Used. 2003 Editions of International Building®, Fire°, Mechanical' & Gas Codes© and 2003 Uniform Plumbing Codee plus State Codes and amendments Valuation: $1,014,820.00 Ns Occupants: S-2: Basement - 95; R-2: 111 Floor - 85; 2nd Floor - 105; 3=d Floor -100 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA: Wind: 85 mph (3sg), Exp. C; Seismic: SDC D, L, = IE = 1.0; Snow: 25 psf; 18" Frost Depth. Soils Report: Terra Associates, Inc. N s T-4893: (1) dated 1.1 /21 /01 original overall report, (2) dated 11/29/06 for fine grading and excavation; and (3) 12/12/06 on foundation studies for the bearing capacity at certain elevations, slab on grade details and drainage. Allowable Soil Pressure - 3,000 psf to 5000 psf on native & recompacted soil This letter -report contains various comments on the submitted plans for potential changes to the design Standards in the Codes indicated above. I have specified a general area of concern In each comment, along with a specific location on a plans and a Code -specific Section in which the provision is found. I assume that the designers will to read entire Code provisions rather than my having to duplicate it in the letter. Unless specified otherwise, references are to the 2003 International Building Code. The others are specifically identified other 2003 International Codes. Even though this letter -report is addressed to you as advisory recommendations in case you have alternate provisions, the designers of record need to directly address and resolve the issues. Generally, changes will be required to plans and/or specifications. If, after the architects or engineers dispute my point or have an alternate way of complying with it; they should provide both of us written responses addressing each disputed comment. They should indicate what they intend to do about potential discrepancies and where solutions are found on revised specifications, plans, change orders, et Cetera. They should also provide a cloud around changes. That way, you and I will be able do a final review in an efficient, expedient manner. Ann Bullis, City of Edmonds Foundation and Concrete -Bldg 9 Plan Review Number 1111-107F January 20, 2007 Page 2 of 4 FOOTINGS, SLABS, AND CONCRETE WORK (Unspecified section references are to the `03 IBC & specifically identified ones from ASCE 7-02) General and Site Comments 1. The design and construction details for the "Lock -and -Load" retaining walls should be provided for review. Sections 1605.3.1.2, 1622.1.2 (especially the end of the second paragraph), Item # 1 to 1802.2.7, and 1806.1 2. The deferred submittal list on Sheet A0.0 should reference Sheet S1.1 for additional submittal requirements 3.. The Wind Exposure should be C instead of B on Sheet S1.1 for Design Loads. This is because the building is facing out to the Puget Sound, but the roughness characteristics are neither indicative of wooded areas nor having a terrain with closely -spaced obstructions extending out more than 2,500 ft as defined as Exposure B. It isn't Exposure D either, so the default is C. See ASCE 7 Section 6.5.6.3 4. The 15 psf ground Snow Load shown on Sheet S1.1 is not correct for the Puget Sound and should be changed to 25 psf. See SEAW Snow Load Manual. 5. The Geotechnical Reports note under Soils and Foundations on Sheet S1.1 should also include the December 12, 2006 Addendum soils report. Foundation and Lower Level Concrete Framework Comments 1. Soils Report Related Items: a. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Reports complies with the minimum requirements of Section 1804.2 and 1804.3 except for seismic loading affecting the "Lock and Load" walls that are free to move at the top. Section 1610 b. As mentioned in the shoring review, Section 1802.2.7 requires the report to give the amount of lateral pressure on the retaining walls due to seismic movement for SDC D sites to be determined. Section 1802.2.7.1. Design calculation sheet C-5 shows an earthquake surcharge of 17H and it needs to be justified. 2. Basement walls shown in Section View 2/A4.0 1 seem to have surcharges from upper floor footings.— a North-South view drawn to show how the footings work to the East of and parallel with grid Line D would show them. Also Sheets S2.3, S2.3A, and S2.6 imply there are footings. But they don't seem to be accounted for in the lateral design of that wall and need to be so. 3. In fact, I would consider those footings to be a part of this foundation -only permit and they should be detailed in a corrected plan set submitted for a recheck. 4. There are live and dead loads on the slabs in Section 2/A4.0. Basement walls also need to be justified for such extra horizontal surcharge from them. 5. 1 wasn't able to find the slab on grade reinforcement on any of the relevant structural sheets and it should be specified. 6. The L -footings in Cross Sections 9 & 12/S4.3 and 9154.4 were not designed and seem to be critical for the design eccentric loading which is not in equilibrium. The potential for horizontal friction under the footing could be offset by ties between the slab and the wall. Ann Bullis, City of Edmonds Foundation and Concrete -Bldg 9 Plan Review Number 1911-107F January 20, 2007 Page 3 of 4 The slab should be studied for extra reinforcement than normal to resist the tension stress from the resisting moment couple depending on the spacing of such ties. 7. The other two L -footings on Sheet S4.3 may need similar ties in order to reduce the actual soil bearing below the allowable due to the nearly nonexistent eccentricity between the force and the resistance vectors. 8. How will uplift from the hold down on Detail 61S4.2 be resisted with a cold joint between the wall and the slab? 9. Column details: a. The offset column bars shown in Detail 6/S3.1 don't seem to comply with ACE 318-02 Section 7.8. Specifically: It isn't clear how the ties resist 1-1/2 times the horizontal component of the force in the inclined portion; ii. The ties don't seem to even be confining the offset bar itself; iii. The spacing of the ties should be given to make it clear what they are; and iv. How will the outer concrete edges of the column protected against spalling in a fire or in an earthquake? b. The column "tie" detail on 4/S4.1 (the one with a 90° bend on the details' right side) is not correct and will conflict with the correct ones on S3.1. It should be modified. c. The ties in Details 7 & 8/S3.1 should show the crossties as having the hook in alternate layers on the alternate side. ACE Section 21.8 Lateral Load Comments The engineer calculated wind speed-up effects for this Building 9 but did it only locally. He needs to take the general shape and slopes of the hillside all the way down to the water as that will be the more relevant wind speed up effects. DCI Engineers have a copy of the 2004 First Edition of the SEAW Commentary on Wind Code Provisions in their office and can see on pages 64 to 71 therein what I am referring so that a realistic wind loading is calculated. A redesign appears to be needed. 2. "Chord" reinforcement "drag struts" are shown on Sheets S.3 and S2.4 over the interior concrete shear walls on Lines 13.5 and 5. 3. How are these bars laid out especially near the light well and stair openings? 4. It would seem that they need to be much longer than 12' in order to transfer the loads to all the slab ties shown in Detail 81S4.4. The engineer should justify the stresses between all the connected parts in that system. ASCE 7 Section 9.5.2.6.4.1 5. Also, the stresses around the light well and stair openings are quite large and need to be studied for extra reinforcement beyond that shown on 111S5.2. Ann Bullis, City of Edmonds Foundation and Concrete -Bldg 9 Plan Review Number 1919-107F January 20, 2007 Page 4 of 4 4. Similarly, the plans need to show clearly how the diaphragms drag the lateral loads around the elevator and light court openings along approximately Line 12 in both directions. Section 9.5.2.2.7 5. How are lateral loads dragged through the skewed diaphragm that forms a non -parallel system at lines H & D on Sheet S2.4 at the apex near Line 7? ASCE 7 Section 9.5.2.6.3.1, Table 9.5.2.3.2, " 5, and Section 9.5.2.6.4.1 CLOSING As stated in the beginning of this letter, the designers should revise the plans and specifications and resubmit them with a letter explaining their rebuttal and indicating on which sheet or detail the correction may be found. Thank you for the opportunity to be once more of service. The invoice for this review and the one will follow under separate cover. Sincerely, FaZ64na- Jerry J. Barbera, MSCE and P.E. Construction Codes Consultant The Codes -Knowledge Companyrm