20061103084139.pdfo EDS City of Edmonds
0
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
- BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: November 3, 2006
TO: Ryan Alexander
17518 52nd Ave W #8
Lynnwood, WA 98037
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Pians Exam er
RE: Plan Check # 2006-1010
Project: Alexander Bay Construction SFR
Project Address: 1405 8' Ave S.
During re -review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please redline plans or submit two (2) sets of revised
plans/documents (affected sheets only) with a written response to each of the items below to a
Permit Coordinator.
1) ok
2) ok
3) ok
4) ok
5) ok
6) ok
7) ok.
8) ok
9) ok
10) Still Need. Special inspections are required for the following. Complete the enclosed special
inspection agreement signed by the owner, the general contractor and the special inspector and
submit to the City for approval prior to issuance.
• Kwik Bolts
11) See attached additional comments from City consultant. See attached structural comments
from city consultant. Respond to each item in writing.
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
h oytjeter@centu rytel . net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: JoAnne Zulauf
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: . Alexander Bay Construction
1405 8th Ave South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Date: Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Plan Review # 2006-1010 EECE # EDM 06-52 (2)
Second Comment letter
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
The scope of this review is for the Structural requirements 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.
-
First floor
1675
Second floor
1800
Total
3475
Garage
664
Total
4139
Deck Second floor
88
Grand total
4227
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
The scope of this review is for the Structural requirements 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 5
EECE#: EDM 06-52 (2) Second comment letter
Alexander Bay Construction
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
1. 1. The design analysis used a story height of 8 feet but the story height should be
measured from horizontal diaphragm to horizontal diaphragm and not clear
height between floors as done in the analysis. The lateral forces are being resisted
at the horizontal diaphragm location and must be designed this way. Resubmit an
analysis to use the proper height to determine the seismic lateral load transfer.
IBC 1620.4.3 and IBC 1617.5.2 The response state they have revised accordingly
but the analysis submitted still have heights smaller then what the drawings
specifies. The analysis is not conservative based off what the drawings show.
Modify drawings accordingly and/or the analysis.
2. 2. The lateral load transfer for the wind load must also use story height for wind
forces applied to the diaphragm. It is fine to design the out of plane force for the
wood studs with clear height but not the diaphragm shear farces. Please resubmit
analysis to account far the proper height used. IBC 1609.6 This still has not been
modified accordingly. Please modify analysis to match what is specified on the
drawings.
3. New design analysis has used Fa of 1. Based of the mapped spectrum requirements
this S1 not correct. SS are greater then 1.25 then 1 is correct but Ss are equal to 1.19.
Straight line interpolations for intermediate values are fine but the use of 1 is not
correct as used in the analysis. Please modify analysis accordingly for the
earthquake lateral design. IBC 1615.1.2
Sheet I GENERAL NOTES:
4. 3. Please note the reinforcement shall be grade 60 steel unless an analysis is
submitted to justify grade 40. R402.2 Response states to see revised sheet but the
revised sheet still specifies grade 40 to use for the steel. Please modify as required.
Sheet 3 FOUNDATION PLAN:
5. 4. Please note the vertical reinforcement in the wall shall have a 90 degree hook
into the footing. R403.1.3 This still has not been modified as noted in the response
(The Enercalc cal cautions that state stem is free to rotate at top of footing has
nothing to do with the hooks required or not. The reinforcement steel must resist
the ACI shear forces and develop the bar) so 90 degree hook is required or submit
analysis to justify not required.
Page 3 of 5
EECE#: EDM 06-52 (2) Second comment letter
Alexander Bay Construction
Sheet 5 SECOND FLOOR FRAMING:
6. 17. Please provide a guard rail detail for the upper floor deck. This is required to
resist a force of 200 pounds applied in any direction along the top rails and 50 psf
on the in -fills. Please add details in order to check the upper deck requirements.
The response state added notes to detail on sheet 12 but there was not a sheet 12 in
the resubmitted set. Please modify accordingly and resubmit with the required
information's.
Sheet 7 ROOF FRAMING:
7. 18. Please specify the required connection of the Glu -lam beams to the structures.
Currently nothing is specified on the drawings. IBC 2304.9.6 Drawings state see
detail 2 on sheet 12 but there is not a sheet 12.
8. 19. Please provide a detail of the connection of the glu-lam beam 3-1/2X16-112
and the girder truss intersection at the wall line. IBC 2304.9.6 Drawing states see
detail 2 on sheet 12 but there is not a sheet 12 in the set.
9. 20. ADR, please provide calculation that a footing is not required under the post
supporting both the girder truss and Glu -lam beam. It appears the complete load
path is not specified on the drawings in order to support the design loads. IBC
2304.9.6 The analysis submit is not correct. The response state the load will
spread over 26" each side of the post and have 8" bearing width. First the sill plate
can not support a force of 10, 720 pound force. The sill plate will crush under this
load. In addition assuming an 18" depth footing measure to the bottom of the
spread footing as shown the width would not 26" + 26" + width of bearing. But
assume the concrete will distribute the forces in a 45 degree plane the width would
be 18" plus 18" plus the bearing width. Based off you response the actual width
should be (6" post used) 5.5 +1.5+1.5 = 8". Therefore the width is 18+18+8=41.5
inches and not 5 feet. Modify analysis and drawings accordingly. (Assuming HF
sill plate and (3) 2x6 HF the maximum force that can be supported is 10,023
pounds and the analysis state 10,720 pounds. This will not support the design
loads. Modify accordingly.
Page 4 of 5
EECE#: EDM 06-52 (2) Second comment letter
Alexander Bay Construction
Sheet 10 SW LAYOUT/SCHEDULE:
10. 21. Shear wall schedule: Please modify footnote 3 to state single 3X member is
required. IBC 2305.3. 10 The response that state the city of Edmonds accepts this
is not valid. It is fine to use the double 2x member if double the amount of anchor
are provided, but based off the shear wall schedule this appear not to be the case.
The building is very clear that states a single 3x is required. Modify drawings
accordingly.
11. 22. Shear wall schedule: Please modify footnote 7 to state single 3X member is
required IBC table 2306.4.1 footnote I The response that states the city of
Edmonds allows this is not correct. The code specifically state where nailing is
spaced @ 2" OIC that the framing member shall be a 3" nominal or thicker and the
nails shall be staggered. Typical framing today is with a nail gun and when
framing that used 2" saw the design force a zipper like failure occurred. This is
one reason why the nails have to be staggered and the member increased in size.
Please modify drawings accordingly. IBC table 2306.4.1.
12. 23. Detail 1: Please modify shear wall ends to state single 3X shall be used and
not (2) 2X. The code requires a single nominal member to be 3X and not (2) 2X.
IBC table 2306.4.1 footnote e. This still needs to be a single 3X and not (2) 2X as
response state is OK. Modify drawings as required per the building code.
13. 24. Please add a strap at top of the garage portal frame to transfer the required
forces. The height to width ratio does not meet the minimum as required per code.
APA report TT -073B and IBC table 2305.2.3. The response that the continuous
beam acts as drag strut has nothing to do with the strapping. The strapping is used
as a couple to transfer the forces into the shear wall. There are two different forces
that need to be transferred to use the portal frame method. One is the shear forces
and the other is the couple force induced on each portal frame. Modify drawings to
clearly specify the required strap.
14. 26. AOR, please provide calculations to justify the 5/8 " diameter @ 48 " O/C for
shear wall mark SW3. The response used seismic shear force of 31 S for the fist
floor but this sheet specify the maximum shear transfer to be 552 plf not 318.
Modify accordingly.
Page 5 of 5
EECE#: EDM 06-52 (2) Second comment letter
Alexander Bay Construction
Sheet 12 TYPICAL SECTIONS/DETAILS: (Changed sheet number to sheet 11)
15. 28. Waterproof deck.- ADR, please specify the required hanger to support the 2x10
deck. All that is noted is hanger 2x10 DF#2. IBC 2304.10.2 Drawing still does not
specify a hanger at the wall. All that is noted now is the JB2 10 but the other side is
also required to specify the required connections.
16. 29. Please note the vertical bars shall have a standard 90 degree hook into the
footing. R403.1.3 The response state see enclosed foundation design. But the
vertical bars in the footing are required to have a 90 degree hook. Please modify
accordingly.
Additional corrections may be required following receipt of corrections and
additional information as requested.
Your pians 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 ,Teter at
(360) 871-0562 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President