Shaheen Reid Mid Comments 1.pdf[ReidMiddleton
July 18, 2006
File No. 212001.013.04501
Mr. Lyle Chrisman
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RECEIVED
JUL 19 2005
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Subject: Building Permit Plan Review - First Submittal
Sheehan Residence -- Retaining Walls (Task Order No. 06-03)
Dear Mr. Chrisman:
We reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the structural provisions of the
2003 International Building Code (IBC) as amended and adopted by the state of
Washington and the city of Edmonds. The permit applicant should address the
comments below.
Geotechnical
We are requesting a letter from the geotechnical engineer recommending lateral
earth pressures on retention structures due to earthquake motions. The structural
calculations for the lateral earth pressures due to earthquake motions appear to
consider a value of 10 psf This value is also specified in the General Structural
Notes on Sheet S 1. We are unable to locate recommendations for these design
parameters in the geotechnical report. This may affect the structural design of
the retaining walls. Please verify. See IBC Section 1802.2.7(1) and ASCE 7-02
Sections 9.14.7.2.1 and 9.7.5.1.
Engineers
Planners
surveyors
2. The site plan shows limited clearance between the new retaining wall and the
pool wall, including overlaps between the new wall and the southeast and
southwest corners of the pool. The bottom elevations of the pool wall
foundation along the west and south faces are not clear. In addition, Washington
recommendations for the minimum clearance and cut slope for excavations were Oregon
not provided in the geotechnical report. Excavation for the new retaining wall Alaska
may undermine the pool foundation. The geotechnical engineer should provide
a letter verifying that excavation for the new wall will not undermine the
existing pool foundation.
Reid Middleton, Inc.
3. Sections A/S 1 and B/S1 state that granular backfill shall be provided per the 728134th Street SW
requirements of the geotechnical report. Per page 10 of the geotechnical report Suite 200
by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated July 27, 2005, an 18 -inch wide Everett, WA 98204
Ph: 425 741-3800
Fax: 425 741-3900
Mr. Lyle Chrisman
City of Edmonds
July 18, 2001
File No. 212001.013.04501
Page 2
zone of clean granular material wrapped in filter fabric is recommended behind
the retaining wall. This information should be included on Sheet S 1.
4. Pages 3 and 4 of the structural calculations indicate that the retaining wall shown
in Section BIS 1 is restrained against sliding. However, Section B/S 1 and the
Site Plan on Sheet SI appear to show that the wall along the west side of the
property is restrained by soil only. Calculations should be provided
substantiating that the wall has sufficient resistance to sliding. See IBC Section
1806.1.
5. Pages 5 and 6 of the structural calculations indicate that the retaining wall shown
in Section A/S 1 is restrained against sliding. The Site Plan on Sheet S 1 appears
to show that the wall will be constructed adjacent to a driveway, however the
materials and construction of the driveway are not clear. Documentation should
be provided to substantiate that the driveway can provide the assumed restraint
against sliding for the wall. As an alternative, calculations should be provided
substantiating that the wall has sufficient resistance to sliding. See IBC Section
1806.1.
Structural
6. The general notes for the retaining walls on Sheet S 1 indicate a minimum
concrete strength of 2,500 psi. Pages 3 through 6 of the structural calculations
do not state the concrete strength used in the analysis. Output from the analysis
program should be provided that verifies the concrete strength used in the
structural design of the retaining walls.
7. Page 3 of the structural calculations appears to indicate that #5 bars at 10 inches
O.C. are required to reinforce the footing heel. Section B/S1 specifies #5
longitudinal bars at 16 inches O.C. Section B/S 1 should be revised to provide
the area of reinforcement required by the structural calculations. As an
alternative, documentation substantiating the use of #5 bars at 16 inches O.C.
should be provided for review.
Corrections and comments made during the review process do not relieve the project
applicant or designer from compliance with code requirements, conditions of approval,
and permit requirements; nor is the designer relieved of responsibility for a complete
design in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. This plan review check
is for general compliance with the International Building Code as it relates to the
project.
Reid iddleton
Mr. Lyle Chrisman
City of Edmonds
July 18, 2001
File No. 212001.013.04501
Page 3
Enclosed are the drawings, structural calculations, geotechnical report, and any
correspondence from the engineer for your records. If you have any questions or require
any additional clarification, please call.
Sincerely,
Reid Middleton, Inc.
Drew Martin, P.E.
Design Engineer
Enclosures
dls121 Cp1011013_Edmonds1e045r1.doclbam
Reid iddletan