Review Comments

Click Here To Go Back To Permit Information

Permit Number:	02 5465
Permit Type:	Commercial Building Permit - None BldgAlter
Address:	1076 OCEAN DOCK RD Anchorage
Location:
Work Description:	Work Descr: building pump pit, Remarks: cs note Storm Water still needs to be paid $300.00 10/02/02.
Status:	Expired
Project Name:
Review Type:	Structural
Result:	Approved
Result Date:	9/5/2002 12:00:00 AM

Comments:

	Code Section	Review Comment	Status

Advisory Information:
. C(1): Approved for concrete work only, 5-30-02. Excavation was approved on 5-22-02. The steel structure still needs to be reviewed and approved. RGW July 29, 2002. The submitted information for the steel design was reviewed with the following comments. RGW August 29, 2002. The resubmitted information for the steel design was reviewed with the following comments. C(2): COMPLEXITY OF THE STRUCTURE Please note that this proposed structure represents a very non-standard use of steel framing. By using TS sections, and by tying the two roofs of this structure together, it has been made quite complex. If each roof were independent of the other, the complexity would go way down, and the need for evaluation by a complex computer model would be reduced. I suggest that before doing any more work on this project, that we meet to discuss this and the following other comments. You can contact me, Ron Wilde, at 907-343-8371. My office at BuildingSafety in Anchorage. C(3): MISSING CALCULATIONS The submitted calculations are incomplete. Only the computer input and output files have been submitted. No information has been submitted to show that proper design loads were used or that they were properly applied to the structure. Further no information was submitted showing that the members used, or their interconnections meet the code. It is not sufficient for an engineer to merely state that he has followed the code. Calculations must be submitted that clearly show that the codes have been followed, and that all members and connections in the proposed structure meet required code sections. Please submit the missing calculations. Calculations must address all wind, seismic, gravity and snow loads, including drift snow loads. C(4): MOMENT CONNECTIONS ? NORTH-SOUTH LOADS The intent seems for this structure to have moment connections between beams and columns in the plane of thetrusses. If so, these must meet all the code requirements for "ordinary" moment frame connections. Further, these connections appear to be TS to TS. It is virtually impossible to create a code-complying moment connection between TS sections. Please provide calculations to show code compliance of moment connections. There do not appear to be any code-complying moment connections in the upper roof. C(5): EAST-WEST LATERAL LOADS The lateral loads in the east west direction do not appear to have any beam/column moment connection It appears that the load may be resisted by cantilever action, but then the column to foundation appears to be pin-connected. The load transfer from the roof to the column would then be through rotation of the ends of the trusses. This is very non-typical of steel construction. Please provide calculations. Further the seismic R value for cantilevers is much different that for moment frames. C(6): PURLINS APPEAR ? CANAM C8x6.1 Please provide section properties for these and any other non-US steel shapes. C(7): 24 GAGE ROOF DECKING ? ROOF DIAPHRAGM? The lower roof decking appears to resist lateral forces from diaphragm action. I have never seen a 24 gage structural deck diaphragm. Please provide manufacturer's information and engineering calculations showing adequacy. C(8): COLUMN CONNECTION DETAILS A AND B ON SHEET D-30-C0018 These details appears to show a cantilever TS section framing into a perpendicular TS section. These connections will not transfer moment unless the supporting TS has a very thick wall. The bottom flange of the cantilever will not normally be resisted by plate action of the supporting perpendicular TS beam. C(9): ATTACHMENT OF STAIRS TO THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE Provide calculations showing adequate attachment of the stairs to the structure for both gravity andseismic. C(10): WALL CROSS-BRACES Cross-brace angles cannot butt into the face of a TS member unless you provide a plate analysis showing that the loads can adequately transfer through plate bending. See sections 3 and 4 on Sheet C0018. Show how cross-braces intersect. C(11): PERIMETER BEAMS Show perimeter beams on Roof Framing Plan. Beams need to be deeper so that they do not terminate at the face of a tube section. See Sections 2 and 4 on Sheet C0018. C(12): MISSING ROOF BRACING Roof Framing Plan does not show roof bracing to carry roof loads to the end wall braces. Please provide additional cross bracing. Show how the cross braces intersect? Bracing cannot connect at the face of TS members unless you provide a plate analysis showing that the loads can adequately transfer through plate bending. C(13): PURLIN ROLL Purlin roll does not appear to have been addressed. What prevents the purlins from rolling over? Purlin rotation needs to be addressed, at least where purlins are supported at the truss and at the purlin midspan. Sag rods are shown on the drawings, but the connections have not been detailed, nor is it clear how they are supported. Provide details and calculations. C(14): SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM Provide special inspection program including for welding and epoxy anchors. See UBC Chapter 17.