ENG RESPONSE - BLDG.pdfConsulting Structural Engineering Services, Inc.
6311 17th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98115
Phone (206) 527-1288 email john(J)cses-engineering.corn
Owner / Project Address:
Tyler Kimbrough
1140 7tI' Ave South, Edmonds, WA98020
Date: Mav 24. 2017
,
City of Edmonds Plan Check: BLD2017-0550 CSES Job 2016.12L,;
We are the structural engineers of record for this project, and performed the structural design for permit
submittal. This letter is in response to your Plan. RevieNV Comments, dated May 8m 2017. i,'v'e have addressed
the structural corrections only.
Sheet S-2:
3. The 35'x 9.5" PSL beam carrying the boor joists for the dining room appears to exceed the maximum
deflection limits 3 f240, per 1RC 1604.3 with the anticipated loads. Please advise and change on the plans.
The beam has been changed to a 2.2F PSL, to mare up for the 1% deficiency in stiffness to meet the
360/240 deflection limits. See the revised calculation page U8.
1 The 4"x8" post indicated on gridline 5 between B and D appears to be undersized for
anticipated loads above. Please advise and change on the plans.
I assume you are referring to the past at gridlines 4 and D, which is the only past in the vicinity with a
high load. Per calculations page U15, the 4x8 specified is acceptable. However, the post has been
increased to a 4x1Q on the playas.
5. Lateral tension ties are required on the proposed decks. Page S4 has details for such devices. Indicate on the
plans where these tension devices will be installed as well as reference to the applicable detail.
The lateral ties have been added to the plans, with a reference to the appropriate detail.
6. The 6"x12" P.T. Doug Fir #2 beam, located on line 1 between B and D appears to be over spanned for the
anticipated load of 12#°s per square foot of "dead load" and 60#'s per square foot of "live load". Please advise
and change on the plans.
The beams in question is acceptable per calculation page U . I've added a calculation to page U3,
demonstrating that the spars length used for the calculation is acceptable,
Sheet S-3:
6. The footing on line D bemeen lines 4 and 5 appears to be undersized for the anticipated point loads above.
Please advise and change on the plans.
A new underpinning footing has been added to the plants at the noted location. See calculation page 115.
With these corrections, the drawings conform to the intent of the structural design and the applicable
structural codes.
;sincerely,
Jo" �rr e �-
John S. Apolis, P.E., S.E.
Principal Engineer, CSES inc.
asa�a iir�'��