Loading...
Bldg Comments 3.doc 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 121 5th Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Holt Residence 1141 Sea Vista Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Plan Review # 2007-1100 EECE # EDM 07-59 (3) Third Comment Letter Structure Area S.F. Lower floor Finished 1346 Lower Floor Unfinished 874 Main Floor 3934 Total 6154 Garage/storage 1556 Total7707 Covered porch 919 Deck 761 Grand total 9387 Sprinklers 7707 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 . A written response was not received so I did my best to see how each item was addressed based off the submitted documents. Please submit a written response on the next cycle of review. SCOPE OF REVIEW Structural Code requirements The scope of this review is for the only of this project. The project was reviewed under guidelines and regulations for residential facilities of the State of Washington Building Code Page 2 of 6 EECE#: EDM 07-59 (3) Edmonds #: BLD2007-1100 Holt Residence Third Comment Letter 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. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS General 1.3. The design analysis for the studs used a height of 8’ but the sections show the wall will be 9 feet (Page 10). Resubmit stud analysis for the correct height of 9 feet and not 8’. With a height of 9 feet the combined stresses exceed unity. Also on the next page please clarify how the number 69 was determining to divided twice in the analysis for the 9 foot wall. Please modify accordingly. The response state this is the width of the building, but this is not correct. The width ranges from 69 on one side and 46 on the other. Since the division is in the denominator, the smallest width shall be used. Please modify the analysis accordingly. Sheet 5 ELEVATIONS: 2.4. 17. Please specify the required connection of the tile roof on the drawings. Nothing is shown at this time. R905.3 This still has not been submitted as required. This still has not been provide as required. In addition, the engineer did not design for the tile roof. I assume tile was not going to be used but it appears after two reviews this is going to be. Submit analysis for the tile roof. Sheet 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN: 3.7. 20.EOR, please specify the required spacing of the vertical post and attachment for the glass guard rail support. Nothing is shown to show how the code required design forces will be resisted. Please add this information. This still has not been addressed. Please submit this upon the response. This still has not been addressed at this time. The response stated by other. Please add this to the drawings. Sheet 2 BASEMENT & FOUNDATION PLAN: 4.9. Detail B and Detail C: Submit analysis for the reinforcement steel placed at 2.5” clear. This was not in the submitted analysis for these walls. The response states the new analysis was submitted for a clear of 2.5”, but the analysis states the d is 7.5”. The wall is noted to be 8” thick. There, the best case scenario would be a d=5.75” (8”-2.5”-#4 bar/2). Resubmit analysis for the correct distance to the tension steel as required for concrete design. Page 3 of 6 EECE#: EDM 07-59 (3) Edmonds #: BLD2007-1100 Holt Residence Third Comment Letter 5.22.Please specify the number of studs required to support each side of beam #15. It is not clear at this time. This still has not been addressed at this time. Please modify accordingly (Beam 51). 6.EOR please provide a detail at the angle beams 52 and 54. The joist bear on the PSL but the 5-1/4 appear to be flush. The analysis for the beam has the top being continuous nail for bracing. But based off the drawings it is not clear how this is going to be built. A detail still has not been provided. Please provide a detail at these locations to show how the forces will be transferred. This still has not been provided at this time. 7.13. 23.EOR, please specify the required connection of the 5-1.8x13-1/2 at the beam pocket. Nothing is specified at this time. This still has not been addresses. The response state make connections with HGLBA3-1/4 but the drawings do not reflect this. Please modify accordingly. 8.14. 24.Please specify the required connection of the cantilever beam to the supporting member. Nothing is specified at this time. This still has not been addressed at this time. The response state use A34 each side but this is not reflected on the drawings. Please modify the drawings accordingly. 9.9. 25.EOR, please provide an analysis for the 2x8 ledger supporting the deck loads. This still has not been addresses, please submit analysis as requested. The submitted analysis state per UBC but this is not the adopted code. Submit analysis per the IBC. 10.16. 26.All beams that are supported by posts, including built-up posts and in-wall posts, shall clearly note the required connections on the drawings. Currently this is not clearly noted on the drawings. Please note all required post to beam connections on the drawings. This still has not been completely addressed. For example the 3-1/2X11-7/8 PSL at the media room. All beam supports shall be specified and the required connections. Please modify accordingly. The response states double studs shall be used but the connections is not specified for these conditions. Modify the drawings to show how the code required forces will be resisted. 11.17. 27.EOR, the analysis for the Glu-lam beams in the garage appear not to include the point loads from the Glu-lam beams. For example, Glu-lam beam mark 19 is supporting beams marks 10, 11, and 14. Please modify accordingly. The new analysis has not included all point loads. For example, beam mark 41 has three point loads but the analysis for this beam has only two specified. Please re- verify all beam analysis on this level. The response state the point load is smaller. Page 4 of 6 EECE#: EDM 07-59 (3) Edmonds #: BLD2007-1100 Holt Residence Third Comment Letter When looking at the analysis for the joist the point loads do not appear to match what was used. Please modify accoridnly. 12.18. New analysis for the cantilever beam has not applied alternate live loads as required per code. The cantilever section will have uplift loads and a connection is required to resist this force. Please clearly add this information to the drawings. Not only the joist but also the supporting member should be designed with the loads applied not on the cantilever portions. Submit analyses for these conditions. 13.19. 28.The analysis shows there will be an uplift force required to be resisted on the back span. Currently there aren’t any connections specified to resist this loads -Beam 9 is an example. Please clearly specify the required connections to resist the code prescribed forces. The beams number has changed and the old plan was not submitted. Please specify the required connection of the cantilever joist on the drawings. The response states the uplift even though small, may be neglected. Please clarify where in the code that this can be neglected. How small is the limit? If uplift loads are present a connections must be provide to resist this force. Please modify the drawings accordingly. 14.20. 33.Please specify the required connection for the (3) 2x12’s to the post. This still has not been addressed at this time. The response state there are no (3) 2x12 but at the winder stairs this is specified on the drawings. Please modify the drawings accordingly to support the (3) 2x12. Sheet 3 Foundations Plan (original was the ROOF FRAMING PLAN): 15.21. EOR, please provide a detail for where the 24” diameter footing overlaps the 36X36 footing. A detail is required to show how this will be built. The drawings has been modify to show 24”X60”X12” footing. Please submit analysis for this footing. 16.23. The code required the vertical reinforcement to have a 90 degree hook into the footing. Please modify detail 1 to reflect this. This has not been modified as required per the building code. Either submits analysis for straight bar embedment or show the vertical reinforcement into the footing to have the 90-degree hook. 17.24. Please add detail sections cut to show what detail shall be used for the foundations system. It is required to show the contractor which detail to use where. The drawings do not reflect any details or how the interior of the structure shall be constructed. Please add details to the drawings to show how this will be constructed. This should not be left up to the contractor. 18.25. The city of Edmonds fall under moderate weather potential and the concrete strength shall be 3000 psi and not 2500 psi. Please modify accordingly. Table Page 5 of 6 EECE#: EDM 07-59 (3) Edmonds #: BLD2007-1100 Holt Residence Third Comment Letter R402.2 This still has not been modified as required. Modify the drawings to meet the city of Edmonds requirements. Sheet 4 ROOF FRAMING PLAN: (Original plan it was sheet 3) 19.26. 34.EOR, please provide calculations for the exterior studs to support the truss spanning 64 feet. All load combinations shall be included when analyzing the exterior stud wall. The engineer has only done the shear wall design in plane but out of plane forces must also be checked to support the roof framing members and all load combinations. The analysis used 16” for the tributary width on the trusses but the trusses are spaced at 24” O/C and this must be used to determine the reactions on the studs. With the studs spaced @ 16” the truss will land directly on the stud and full reaction on the studs must be checked. Please resubmit the analysis with the correct static loading on the studs. And also the double top plate must be checked for the reactions between the studs. The engineer’s requirement per his response is not incorporated into the drawings. It appears the engineer reviewed some sheets but others were not. Please resubmit with the engineers requirements. Sheet 5 Details: (Original plan it was sheet 4) 20.27. 35. EOR, please provide an analysis of the deck details shown on this sheet. The notes are per the old UBC and not the adopted code at this time. This still has not been addressed correctly. For example 20 plf is not the correct loading the guard are required to resist. This is still the UBC requirements. Also how is the lateral bracing being connected? More information is required with analysis to justify the deck detail to meet the current adopted code. For some reason the deck detail was deleted from the set. The drawings still show a deck going to be built. Please add pertinent details on how this will be constructed and resubmit accordingly. 21.28. 36.Deck detail: Please provide an analysis for the ½” diameter lag bolts at 16” o.c. Also, it is not clear what the lag bolts are connecting to in order to support the design loads. This still has not been complete. The lag are noted at 6” but it is still not clear what the lag will be connected to support the forces. Please add this information to the detail. (this was deleted from the set with out adding appropriate detail to support the deck framing) Sheet S: LATERAL ANALYSIS/TYPICAL DETAILS: 22.30. 38.EOR, please submit a design analysis for the full-height cantilevered retaining wall. IBC 1806.5 The analysis requires the vertical steel to be placed 1- 1/2 from the earth face but the detail state 2” clear. The “d” used for the design was 6.25” With a 2” clear the d would be (8”-2-#4 bar diameter/2 =5.75). Please modify Page 6 of 6 EECE#: EDM 07-59 (3) Edmonds #: BLD2007-1100 Holt Residence Third Comment Letter accordingly and resubmit analysis. The response state this has been modified but the drawings have not been. The drawings show 8” wall with a 2”clear, but the analysis sued a d of 6.5. Please coordinated and resubmit. 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