Review Comments

Click Here To Go Back To Permit Information

Permit Number:	04 6272
Permit Type:	Commercial Building Permit - None BldgNew
Address:	301 Gull AVE Anchorage
Location:
Work Description:	Work Descr: 8640 sqft fabric structure, Remarks: gjs
Status:	Closed
Project Name:	BLDG #1
Review Type:	Structural
Result:	Approved
Result Date:	9/5/2006 12:00:00 AM

Comments:

	Code Section	Review Comment	Status

Advisory Information:
. C(1): The following is a partial review focusing mainly on foundation related issues. C(2): ENGINEER'S STAMP The structural design appears to have been done by someone other than an Alaskan-registered engineer. A note on the calculationsby an Alaskan registered engineer states that he has reviewed the calculations and has found them to be code compliant. It does not appear, however, that the engineering was done under the responsible charge and direct supervisory control of the Alaskan-registered engineer as required by AAC 36.185. This project appears to be a Site Adaptation, but does not comply with 12 ACC 36.195 for site adaptation. Please resubmit in accordance with 12 AAC 36.195 or provide verification from the licensing board that what was submitted conforms to state requirements. For further information, contact John Clark, licensing board investigator, at 269-8188. This item has been cleared with Scott Haan. WAB - 1/20/2005 C(3): TEMPORARY STRUCTURE This structure does not qualify as a temporary structure per Anchorage Administrative Code amendment 23.10.102.7. S2 occupancies do not qualify; neither do structures greater than 1000 square feet in area. I believe this item has been cleared with Scott Haan. WAB - 1/20/2005 C(4): ASPHALT PAVING - EXTENT The foundation detail shows footings attached directly to asphalt paving. The civil drawings do not show existing asphaltpaving beneath the building footprint. Please clarify. This item has been cleared with Scott Haan. WAB - 1/20/2005 C(5): SOILS INVESTIGATION A soils investigation is required by Administrative Code amendment 23.10.302.6. Please provide. This item has been cleared with Scoot Haan. WAB - 1/20/2005 C(6): FOUNDATION - FROST PROTECTION The drawings show the footings to be 2-foot lengths of 10-inch steel channel placed flat directly on asphalt pavement. IBC 1805 requires the foundations of permanent structures to be frost protected. This structure does not qualify as a temporary structure. Please provide frost protected foundations in accordance with IBC 1805 and local amendments. This item has been cleared with Scott Haan. WAB - 1/20/2004 C(7): FOUNDATION - MINIMUM DEPTH The minimum depth of footings below adjacent ground surface is 12 inches as required by IBC 1805.2. This item has been cleared with Scott Haan. WAB - 1/20/2005 C(8): FOUNDATION - MISSING INFORMATION No soils information or foundation calculations were submitted. The drawings show the foundations to be two-footlengths of channel laid flat on top of asphalt of undetermined depth, anchored by Manta Ray earth anchors MR-88. Please provide soils information and foundation calculations showing code-compliant, complete load paths for force transfer from the structure into the foundation soils. This should include earth anchor information, including installation requirements to meet design loads. Pleasenote that asphalt is not normally considered to be a structural material. This item has been cleared with Scott Haan. WAB - 1/20/2005 C(9): STEEL PROPERTIES Please show on the drawings the ASTM number for steel used in the truss-frame tubes. These tubes appear to be cold formed. If the tubes are cold formed the design needs to comply with AISI specifications instead of AISC specifications. C(10): GENERAL NOTE - WELDING - AWS 1.3 There does not appear to be a welding general note. Please add a welding note specifying that welding of thin steel will be done in accordance with AWS D1.3, Structural Welding Code - Sheet Steel. Please note that according to AWS D1.1, section 1.1.1, item (2), AWS D1.1 does not apply to steels less than 1/8 inch thick. It appears that all truss-frame members are less than 1/8 inch thick. The welds have not been designed to meet AWS D1.3. When AWS D1.3 is used, many of the welds appear to be insufficient to support the loads required. Please provide a design that meets the requirements of AWS D1.3. Please update note on drawings to indicate AWS D1.3 is the standard for welding light gage steel. Please note that any weld connecting light gage steel needs to be redesigned under AISI Specifications for Light Gage Framing or AWS D1.3. WAB - 11/9/2205 C(11): SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM Please provide a special inspection program in accordance with IBC 1704.1 and 1704.1.1. This needs to include the qualification of special inspectors demonstrating their competence in the area they will inspect. If the fabricator wants approval under IBC 1704.2.2, please provide the fabricator's written procedural and quality control manuals for review as per IBC 1704.2.2. Further, provide a current certification by the third party special inspection agency doing the auditing. Information provided must clearly show that welders are certified under, and procedures are in accordance with, AWS 1.3 for welding of light gage sheet steel. Please note that a general note on sheet 1 of 13 indicates that welding in the shop is per, AWS 1.1, not AWS 1.3. C(12): SNOW LOAD Reference "Snow Loading Diagram" and "Unbalanced Snow Loading Diagram." This loading doesn't appear to follow ASCE 7-98 as noted. ASCE 7-98 Figure 7-3, case 3 shows only three different loads; where Cs=1, using Cs for 30 degrees, and using Cs at 70 degrees. It is not a step loading as shown on the referenced calculation sheets. Please clarify. Snow loading has been clarified and approved. WAB - 1/20/2005 C(13): WIND LOAD Wind loads appear to be incorrect. Kd for the basic wind speed has been determined using a building height of 23' and the actual building height is approximately 29.5'. This will increase the basic wind force. The pressures determined also appear incorrect. It appears the arch used falls under the "Roof Springing from Ground Level" condition with r = 29.5/72.42 = 0.407. Using this number and EQ 6-17 of ASCE 7, the wind pressures should be q*[1.4*0.407*0.85+0.18] = 0.66*q for the windward quarter, q*[(-0.7-0.407)*0.85-0.18]= -1.12*q for the middle half, and (-0.5-0.18)*0.85-0.18 = -0.61*q. If the wind loads shown are incorrect, please revise and resubmit all calculations effected by the change in wind load. Please note that new wind load calculations should be submitted for this building. WAB - 11/9/2005 C(14): FABRIC ATTACHMENT Reference calculations. Please provide details and calculations showing how the fabricis attached to the framing. C(15): QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN Reference Policy 63 (http://www.muni.org/iceimages/bsd/p063.pdf).It doesn't appear as if the metal building manufacturer is ICBO or AISC certified. Please provide quality assurance/quality control plan per Policy 63. C(16): SEISMIC CALCULATIONS Reference calculations. It doesn't appear as if seismic loads have been considered atall. Normally for a building this light, seismic would not control, but since ordinary tension-only concentrically braced frames are being used in the longitudinal direction to transfer lateral forces, all structural members and their connections must be designed to resist the forces calculated using the special load combinations in AISC-Seismic section 4.1 per AISC-Seismic section 14.5. The special load combinations include the overstrength factor which could increase the seismic force enough to make it the controlling lateral force for design in this direction. Please provide calculation verifying the wind load is actually the controlling lateral force. Please note that seismic load calculations should be provided for this structure. It needs to be shown that the wind load controls the lateral design. Please note special conditions in the original comment. WAB - 11/9/2005 C(17): UTILITY EASEMENT Reference letters from GCI, ENSTAR, ACS, CHUGACH, and AWWU. All of these letters refer to the building as temporary, but the building will be permanent. Please provide new letters stating that each unit has no objection to placing a permanent building on the site that encroaches into the utility easement. I believe this item has been cleared with Scott Haan. WAB - 1/20/2005 C(18): CABLES Please provide calculations showing the cables have been designed per ASCE 19. Reference IBC section 2207.2. Cable design should be provided for this project as well. WAB - 11/9/2005 C(19): PAGE 14 - "TRUSS CHORD COUPLER" It appears the area of pipe has been calculated incorrectly. It should be Pi*(do^2-di^2)/4. This will greatly reduce the area and dramatically increase the stress in the pipe. Please revise and resubmit. This comment may be satisfied with the testing of the coupler connections. WAB - 11/9/2005 C(20): STRESS INCREASE There appears to be a stress increase in the pipe members that is unaccounted for. Please clarify this stress increase. C(21): Provide information required by Structural Committee. WAB - 6/19/2006