WV Response to Beck.pdf
September 29, 2017
Douglas Beck
Beck & Associates, PLLC
16425 SE 66th Street
Bellevue, WA 98006
Subject: Permit: 2017-01538 – Westgate Village
Quantum Project #16369.01
Dear Mr. Beck:
We have received the correction notice on the above-referenced project dated July 30, 2017. Below are
the responses to the structural comments. All changes to the drawings due to a plan check comment have
been clouded on the drawings and marked with a Delta 2.
* * * * *
GENERAL
Geotechnical
1. This item remains to be addressed. PanGEO is required to review the plans to confirm their
recommendations prior to our approval.
The geotechnical engineer, PanGEO is required to review the plans to confirm that their
recommendations are properly incorporated into the design and construction drawings (p. 12).
The review, along with any additional recommendations, shall be summarized in letter format.
Response:
It is our understanding that PanGEO will review the design drawings and provide a letter to
confirm that the recommendations of the geotechnical report agree with what is shown on the
structural drawings.
LATERAL
General
5. Calculations were provided for shear transfer to the concrete shear walls. However, design is
based on phi = 0.75. ACI 318-14 requires phi = 0.60 (for any member designed to resist E and
for diaphragms). Revise the design accordingly (it appears that the shear transfer to Wall #1 is
the only wall that will be affected). ACI 318-14, 12.2.4.1, 21.2.4.2
Permit: 2017-01538 – Westgate Village
September 29, 2017
Page 2
Provide calculations to demonstrate that the Level 2 PT deck and connections have adequate
strength to transfer forces to the concrete shear walls. Are collectors required at any locations?
ASCE 7-10, 12.10
Response:
Refer to the attached calculation pages for the shear transfer check between the concrete slab
and shear walls using phi = 0.60 per ACI 318-14. A note has been added to framing plan
S202A at Wall #1 location to indicate the required slab dowel spacing that matches the
calculations. All other concrete shear walls were checked and the slab dowel connections are
adequate for the lateral shear transfer forces.
DRAWING SHEETS
S201A – Level 1 Framing / Mild Reinforcing Plan
13. Although the shear wall located along grid C3 between grids CD & CE is no longer considered in
the updated analysis, the drawings still show that it is integrally connected to the concrete framing
levels. It will by default function as a shear wall. The shear wall needs to be detailed so that it is
disconnected from the diaphragm so it does not resist lateral loads. Please revise the drawings
accordingly. ACI 318-14, 18.14
A discontinuous shear wall occurs at the shear wall located along grid C3 between grids CD &
CE. Also reference 6/S303. This is considered to be an In-Plane Discontinuity in the Lateral
Force resisting System. Please address this condition and demonstrate compliance in accordance
with ASCE 7-10. ASCE 7-10, Table 12.3-2
Response:
The framing plans (S201 & S202) have been revised to indicate the non-bearing, masonry
partition wall between the stairs and parking garage along Grid C3.
S202A – Level 2 Framing / Mild Reinforcing Plan
15. Calculations and plans remain to be coordinated for several items. Please reference the attached
11x17 plan with redlined mark-ups with corresponding calculation references. The ‘clouded’
items remain to be coordinated/addressed.
Reference the attached 11x17 plan with redlined mark-ups. There are numerous differences
between the plans and the analysis. Provide coordination and address each item. I have provided
references on the marked-up plan to corresponding calculation pages.
Response:
The level 2 framing plan (S202A) and corresponding details 18/S302 and 16/S303 have been
revised to coordinate with the slab reinforcing layout shown on the attached calculations. Note
that the concrete beams have been removed above the Lobby area in order to accommodate the
architectural design. Refer to the additional calculation pages for the level 2 PT slab design.
Permit: 2017-01538 – Westgate Village
September 29, 2017
Page 3
S204 – Level 4 Framing Plan
20. The exterior deck portion of the common space needs to be hatched to indicate that it has been
designed for a 100psf live load.
Please address the locations indicated where joists are required to support a 100 psf live load.
Response:
The hatched area has been revised on the framing plan (S204) to indicate where the 100psf live
load occurs. The floor framing has been designed for the correct loads.
* * * * *
Please feel free to call me at 206-957-3900 if you have any questions regarding our responses.
Sincerely,
Quantum Consulting Engineers, LLC
Sandro Kodama, P.E., S.E.
Principal