2011-0815 Premier Structural.pdf
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
206 356-7790
Fax 206 316- 2287
To: CT Engineering
180 Nickerson St. Suite 302
Seattle, WA
Re: Premier Orthopedics
nd
21401 72 Ave West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Plan Review #BLD 2011-0815 EECE # EDM11-05
Plan review number 01
Task Number 11-05
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 9
Plan Review Number 01
EECE#: EDM 11-05
Premier Orthopedics
2011-0815
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
1.Please correct the table of contents to reflect the organization of the analysis
submitted. The analysis submitted has the sheets different than the layout of the
table of contents and it was not clear where items required to be designed were
done. Please modify accordingly.
2.All that was in the analysis submitted for the PT slab was the output and not the
input. Please resubmit the complete input and output for the PT slab analysis in
order to complete the review.
3.The design submitted appears not to account for the live load of the lobbies of
100 psf but used a live load of 40 psf. Please clarify upon response. ASCE table
4-1
4.The geotechnical report did not have recommendations for the coefficient of
friction and passive earth pressure as noted in the general notes. Please have the
geotechnical engineer justify the use of a coefficient of friction of .4 and passive
earth pressure of 225 PCF used in the analysis.
5.The analysis for the vault lid appears not to address any live load for the design
(Sheet M1). Please clarify upon the response.
6.The design analysis sheet M5 is for a concrete beam but it is not clear which
concrete beam this is for. Please clarify upon the response. Please provide a key
for the analysis to cross reference to the drawings.
7.Please add the Wobble coefficient (K) and Curvature coefficient (u) on the
p
drawings. ACI 18.6.2.3
8.Please specify the stressing sequence on the drawings. ACI 18.13.5.3
9.Engineer of Record (EOR), please provide an analysis for the stud rail used for
this project. ESR 2494
10.Please list that the stud rails shall be a special inspection item. ESR 2494
Sheet A-111
11.Architect of Record (AOR), please provide sheet A-403
Sheet S1.0 Structural Notes
Page 3 of 9
Plan Review Number 01
EECE#: EDM 11-05
Premier Orthopedics
2011-0815
12.Please list the Dycore planks used for the vault lid under deferred submittal. The
8 hollow core planks are noted to be designed by other. All that was submitted
in the analysis was a sheet pulled out of Concrete Technology Corporation
catalog but the Dycore panel design shall be submitted as shop drawings as
required per 107.3.4.2
Sheet S1.01 Structural Notes
No comment for this sheet at this time.
Sheet S1.02 Concrete Details
No comments for this sheet at this time.
Sheet S2.00 Pile Plan Foundations Plan
13.EOR, the PC2 along grid 8 has the column not centered on the pile cap. Please
provide an analysis for the pile cap with moment induced by the eccentricity
based off center of mass.
14.EOR, please clarify if there is a steel post bearing on the slab west of grid E on
grid line 8.
15.I was unable to find in the analysis the pile cap design shown on this sheet.
Please clarify upon the response.
16.EOR, please modify the foundation notes to show where the sheet SXX and
detail X is located in order to complete the review.
17.EOR, please provide information for the 8 bridge slab noted west of grid A
between grids 3 and 4:
Sheet S2.01 Vault Plans and Sections
18. Sections 17: The design analysis submitted states dowels shall be #5 at 24 O/C
but the details state #4 at 24 O/C. Please clarify why the analysis states larger
diameter bars dowels size than noted on the drawings.
19.Details 1: EOR, please provide an analysis for the wall pier. I was unable to find
this in the submitted analysis. Based off the drawings, it appears this would be
classified as a column based of horizontal length to thickness is less than 2.5. If
this is the case, the ties are required to go full height for column requirement of
ACI. IBC 1908.1.4
Page 4 of 9
Plan Review Number 01
EECE#: EDM 11-05
Premier Orthopedics
2011-0815
20.Sections 16 and 17: EOR, please clarify where the vertical reinforcement for the
vault wall is specified. The horizontal is called out and the dowels but I was
unable to determine the typical vertical steel shown in order to check capacity.
Please clarify upon the response.
21.EOR, the lobby area shall be designed for a live load of 100 psf but based off
the submitted analysis the live load used was 40 psf.
Sheet S2.02 L1 Slab Reinforcement
22.Please add section cuts to show which sections shall be used where. Nothing is
called out at this time.
23.The design output requires #6 top bars at the perimeter but the drawings do not
reflect this. Please modify accordingly. For example, grid lines D and 1 state
15#6 top but this is not reflected on the drawings.
24.The design analysis output states 20 #6 bats top each way at column locations
C3 between grid 1 and 2 and grid B. However, the drawing states 18 #6 bars.
Please submit an analysis to justify the smaller amount of steel than required by
analysis.
25.The design analysis plan states 20 #6 bars top required each way at grid 2 G but
the drawings state 18. Please submit an analysis for the smaller amount of
reinforcement bars specified than required by analysis.
26.The design analysis at the stair framing wall state 20 #6 but the drawings do not
reflect this. Please clarify upon the response.
27.Grid 4G requires 24 #6 but the drawings state 20 #6. Please modify accordingly
or justify smaller amount of steel provide than the output shows.
28.The design analysis output shows additional bottom reinforcement required but
the drawings do not reflect this. All that is noted is #6 B at 18 O/C with the
additional bottom noted as shown in output. Please clarify upon the response.
Sheet S2.11 L2 PT Slab Plan (This level could not be completely checked based off the
analysis submitted)
29.EOR, all that was in the analysis was the output for this level. Please submit the
input data in order to complete the review of level two.
Page 5 of 9
Plan Review Number 01
EECE#: EDM 11-05
Premier Orthopedics
2011-0815
30.EOR, the output was unreadable in order to check the CGS and the number of
banded and distributive tendons shown on this sheet. Please submit this upon
the response.
31.EOR, it appears, based off places where I am able to read analysis, that there are
less banded tendons than required by the analysis submitted. For example, 20
strands are required along grid line B but the drawings state 17 to be used. There
are other locations so please resubmit an analysis and modify drawings
accordingly.
32.EOR, the slab thickness varies and it appears the minimum average pre-stress of
125 psi is not met based off the information submitted. Please clarify upon the
response. ACI 18.12.4
33.EOR, the analysis submitted states 26 strands along grid C South of grid 7 but
the drawings state 17. Please clarify upon the response.
34.A minimum of 2 tendons shall pass though each direction at the columns but the
drawings do not reflect this. Please modify accordingly or show how ACI
18.12.7 is met. ACI 18.12.6
35.Please clarify the tendon profile at the opening in the slab for the distributive
directions. The tendons are required to be distributive around the opening and it
is not clear how this will be done based off the submitted documents
36.Along grid line B between grid 5 and grid 6 states 22 tendons but analysis
output states 24 strands required. Please clarify upon response.
37.Please add section cuts to show which sections shall be used where. Nothing is
called out at this time.
Sheet S2.12 L2 Mild Reinforcement Plan
38.EOR, please specify the reinforcement at the corner shown on this sheet.
39.EOR, please add the mild steel requirements around the perimeter and opening
in the middle. Mild steel is required at these locations.
40.Please add section cuts to show which sections shall be used where. Nothing is
called out at this time.
Sheet S2.13 Ramp Plans and Sections
Page 6 of 9
Plan Review Number 01
EECE#: EDM 11-05
Premier Orthopedics
2011-0815
41.Detail 10: EOR: please provide an analysis for the connection of the ramp
connection to the PT slab.
42.The ramp reinforcement plan has detail 7/S2.13 but there is not a detail 7 on this
sheet. Please clarify upon the response.
43.Section 3: EOR, please provide an analysis for the concrete dowel in to full
height wall to support the design loads.
Sheet S2.21 L3 PT Slab Plan
44.I was unable to read the analysis output for this level. Please resubmit this in
order complete the PT tendon profile.
Sheet S2.22 L3 Mild Reinforcement Plan
45.I was unable to read the analysis output for this level. Please resubmit this in
order complete the PT tendon profile.
Sheet S3.00 L3 Column Plan
No comment for this sheet at this time.
Sheet S4.00 Roof Framing Plan
46.EOR, please clarify where the uplift plan is located in the set as noted under
roof framing notes item 4.
47.EOR, please complete the references noted X/S8.0x noted between grid 5 and
grid 6 and between grid E and D.
48.EOR, please complete the references noted X/S8.0x noted between grid 6 and
grid 7 and between grid B and A1.
49.EOR, please complete the references noted X/S8.0x noted between grid 5 and
grid 6 and between grid B and A1.
50.EOR, please complete the references noted X/S8.0x noted between grid 8 and
grid 9.
51.EOR, please complete the chiller weight for chiller number 1 and 2 between
grid D and E. There was not mechanical plan to check this.
52.EOR, please specify the angle frames supports at the mechanical units.
Page 7 of 9
Plan Review Number 01
EECE#: EDM 11-05
Premier Orthopedics
2011-0815
53.EOR, please complete the required RTU unit weights noted as XXX# on the
roof plan.
Sheet S4.01 High Roof Framing Plan
54.EOR, please clarify where the uplift plan is located as noted under roof framing
notes 4.
55.EOR, please provide analysis for the high roof framing. I was unable to find this
in the submitted packages in order to complete the review.
56.EOR, details 20/S801 shows a tube steel column but this tube steel column size
is not noted on the drawings. This also is not specified on the foundations sheet.
Please provide the size and analysis for the column supporting the C10X15.3.
57.EOR, there appears to be no support for the 1-1/2 22 gage B deck. There is a
noted C8 frame at MRI Re : 18/S8.01 but this does not show how this is
supported. Please clarify upon the response in order to complete the review.
58.EOR, please complete the reference cuts noted as X/S8.X in order to complete
the review.
59.EOR, please submit a lateral analysis for the high roof framing. This was not in
the submitted analysis or I was unable to find where this was clearly noted.
60.EOR, please provide an analysis for the out of plane forces for the concrete wall
shown on this sheet. This should include the connections to the wall.
61.EOR, there appears not to be any LH joists on this sheet but there is a diagram
that states special loading for LH joist. Please clarify where the LH joist are
located.
Sheet S6.00 Concrete Details
62.Detail 16: This detail has a reference 17/S6.0 but there is not a detail 17 on this
sheet. Please clarify upon the response. I assumed the section should state 19
since this states concrete header but please verify.
Sheet S6.01 Concrete Details
63.20 Concrete shear wall: Base off the horizontal length to thickness, the jamb
appears to be classified as a column and not wall pier. For example, columns are
required to have closed ties but the elevations do not specify closed ties. Please
modify accordingly and submit an analysis to justify reinforcement or submit an
Page 8 of 9
Plan Review Number 01
EECE#: EDM 11-05
Premier Orthopedics
2011-0815
analysis in compliance with wall piers. Note, if classified as wall piers, transfer
reinforcement shall not exceed 6. IBC 1908.1.3
64.Wall sections 10: EOR, please complete the reference noted as X/S noted at the
roof level.
Sheet S6.02 Concrete Details
65.Section 9: EOR, please provide an analysis and specify the required connections
of the Precast element to the edge beam.
66. Sections 9: EOR, please provide an analysis for the edge beam shown on this
sheet.
Sheet S7.00 PT Details
No comment for this sheet at this time.
Sheet S7.01 PT Details
No comment for this sheet at this time.
Sheet S7.02 PT Details
67.EOR, please provide an analysis for each of stud rails details on this sheet.
Sheet S8.0 Steel Details
68.Detail 12: EOR, please clarify where this detail is to be used on the plan in order
to check the connections. I could not find where this was specified.
69.Section 3: EOR, please provide an analysis for the connection of the concrete
wall panel to the structure.
70.EOR, please list the concrete panels as a deferred submittal. This was not in the
analysis nor were any of these panels detailed on the drawings. Also, these were
not list under shop drawings on sheet S1.00.
Sheet S8.01 Steel Details
71.Section 8: EOR, please provide an analysis for the 400S162-33 mil flat at 48
O/C to support the design loads.
Page 9 of 9
Plan Review Number 01
EECE#: EDM 11-05
Premier Orthopedics
2011-0815
72.Sections 8: EOR, please provide a torsion analysis for the W12 beams due to the
loads induced at the bottom flange.
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
(206) 356-7790 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President