2009-0530 Harbor Square Structural.doc.pdf
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: Theresa Umbaugh
City of Edmonds Building Dept.
th
121 5 Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Harbor Square Additions
160 W. Dayton Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review #2009-0530 EECE # EDM 09-13 (2)
Plan review number 2
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
Structural
The scope of this review is for therequirements of this project.
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.
Page 2 of 4
Plan Review Number 2
EECE#: EDM 09-13 (2)
Harbor Square Additions
2009-0530
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
1.1. Engineer of Record (EOR), please submit the original geotechnical report for
this remodel. The memoranda states to follow this report but it was not in the
submitted package. Also, the general notes state site class E: IBC 104.11.1. The
response states this will be provided by the architect. This was not submitted by
the architect as per the response. Please submit this with the response.
2.3. Design analysis pipe piles from DCLU director rule. Since DCLU (now referred
as DPD) is not the jurisdiction for this structure, please submit the director rule in
order to complete the review. IBC 104.11. The response states there is a soil report
but this was not submitted with the response. Please submit this.
3.4. EOR, the design analysis states concrete on metal deck is fine to transfer the
horizontal shear. How was this determined? Please submit the ICC report for the
deck with concrete to transfer the required design force. IBC 1604.4. Calculations
were not submitted to justify the deck would be able to transfer the lateral loads.
Please submit an analysis to justify.
Sheet S1.0 Structural Notes
4.8. EOR, please provide sections 01330 as noted under the steel joist sections 5200.
IBC 106.1.1 The response states this has been changed to 1005 but the drawings do
not reflect this. Please modify as per the response.
5.9. EOR, the ICC report for the steel decking is not per the IBC 2006 but the IBC
2000. Please provide current report for the current code. The ICC report is not per
the adopted code. IBC 2000 is not the adopted code. Please provide an ICC report
to the state adopted code (IBC 2006).
Sheet S2.0 Foundation Plan
6.11. EOR, please provide an analysis for the new 6x6 post being added to the
existing footing at enlarged plan 3. With the additional force being added to the
existing footing, an analysis is required. IBC 106.1.1 IBC 108.1.2 This has not
been addressed at this time. Please provide an analysis for the 6x6 post being
added off center of the footing.
7.The architectural drawings show a 30 step. There are clearstory windows shown
on architectural sheet A-4. This step in the roof and the opening is required also to
be rated as per the ordinance comments for sheet A2. EOR, please revise
accordingly.
Page 3 of 4
Plan Review Number 2
EECE#: EDM 09-13 (2)
Harbor Square Additions
2009-0530
Sheet S4 Roof Framing Plan
8.EOR, the architect shows clearstory window without structural support. Please
provide details and analysis for the support of these windows. See west elevations
on sheet A4.
Sheet S6.0 Foundations Details
9.26. Detail 5: EOR, this detail is cut on sheet S5.0: Submit an analysis for the
lateral loads to transfer for this connection. The X bracing at mid span would
cause horizontal forces to be applied to be transferred to the base. Please clarify
with an analysis how this transfer of force will be done. This was not in the
submitted documents. The response states the members are well above the
required. Please submit an analysis to justify.
10.29. Detail 8: EOR, please provide an analysis for the vertical load of the plinth
being applied off center of the footing. This was not in the submitted package. IBC
1604.4. The response states the plinth is not drawn correctly and is only 2 feet tall.
Modify the drawings to reflect this or note maximum height shall not exceed 2
feet.
Sheet S7.0 Roof Framing Details
11.31. Detail 1,2,5,6,7,9,and 10; EOR please specify the required epoxy to be used for
the connections of the bolt to the wall. I was unable to find where this was
specified in order to check capacity. Also, submit an analysis to justify this epoxy
will support the design loads. Also note if the fire rating {IIIA} of this building will
not affect the epoxy used. Not all epoxies may be used in rated constructions. The
response states all anchors are within the fire rated assembly but the architectural
drawings do not reflect this. Please modify accordingly.
Sheet S8.0 Roof Framing Details
12.35. Detail 6: EOR, please provide an analysis for the existing ledger to support the
design loads. All that is noted is existing ledger without the size, bolts used, etc .
Sheet S4.0 has this section cut on the Enlarged Roof Framing Plan but all that is
stated is (E) 4X ledger. More information is required in order to verify this will
support the design loads. EOR, this area is required to be 1-hour rated construction
but the details do not reflect this. Please modify accordingly. See ordinance
comment for the City of Edmonds.
13.38. Detail 12: EOR please provide torsion analysis for the curved beam shown in
this detail.The response states torsion does not need to be addressed since it is not
Page 4 of 4
Plan Review Number 2
EECE#: EDM 09-13 (2)
Harbor Square Additions
2009-0530
large. Please submit an analysis with the torsion forces as required per code to
show the member will be able to support the required design force.
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 (360) 874-
0562 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President