Reviewed by: Bolen, Wayne A. Permit #: C12-1324
Phone: 343-8072 Date: 4/11/2012
Fax: 249-7393
Email: BolenWA@muni.org
Permit Manager: Tony Barganier
Phone: 343-8339
Email: BarganierTA@muni.org
Project: Sam’s Club
Review Number: 289815
____________________________________________________________________________________
PERMIT STATUS
4/11/2012 – Permit reviewed. Comments issued.
Advisory Comment (no response required): This review is based on the requirements of the Anchorage Administrative Code (AAC), 2009 International Building Code (IBC), 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) and all adopted references thereto as amended by MOA. The following comments must be addressed before a permit can be issued. The approval of plans and specifications does not permit the violation of the codes, or any federal, state or local regulations.
1. LATERAL ANALYSIS – SEISMIC
Reference page 3-2 of the calculations. Please provide the following:
A) Please clarify how the wall tributary height was determined. Per the cell at the top of the column the equation appears to be TOM^2/2*l, but this does not equate to the values shown.
B) It does not appear as if the “Seismic Diaph Force From Walls” column includes the weight of the stud furred out walls or the built-up exterior wall sections. Please clarify.
C) The “Seismic Out Of Plane Anchorage Force” column has been determined incorrectly as 0.7*0.4*SDS*I*Wp. This should be 0.8*SDS*I*Wp as required by ASCE 7-05 section 12.11.2.1. Where allowable stress is used this value can be reduced based on the load combinations except for where for where the steel elements are design this value must be multiplied by 1.4.
D) Please provide a break down of the design dead load of the roof. Generally this type of roof weighs a minimum of 12 psf excluding the sprinklers.
E) The weight of the CMU has been taken as 55 psf. Please also note based on all the additional grouting required in the details, it’s likely the weight will be higher than CMU grouted at 24” O.C. Please verify CMU weight. There are also many locations where the CMU is doubled for much of the wall height.
F) Please clarify why there is a significant difference between the seismic loads in the up and down directions and the loads in the left and right direction. The sum of the loads should be virtually equal in each direction, but is appears the base shear is approximately 631 kips in the left and right direction and 731 kips in the up and down direction.
G) Please clarify where the 12” CMU block is located. This is not clear from the drawings or calculations.
2. OUT-OF-PLANE OF CMU WALLS
Please clarify where the design of the out-of-plane restraint of the CMU walls has been designed. Please note there are locations where there is partial height CMU where the top of wall appears to be unbraced or appears to be braced back to other CMU walls. Walls should be connected to the roof diaphragm or the girts for the force required by ASCE 7-05 section 12.11.2.1. Here are some examples of unbraced top of CMU: detail 1 on sheet A3.1, and detail 2 on sheet A3.5. There are several other details where the second CMU wall is braced back to the inner CMU wall. The girts and columns must be designed to support the out-of-plane load from both of these walls. At the diaphragm, continuous ties must be provided from diaphragm chord to diaphragm chord. Please clarify these ties on the roof framing plan. If the metal deck is to be used as a tie it must be design to support the loads in section 12.11.2.1 of ASCE 7-05. Please also provide design of the CMU walls for the out-of-plane loads from the parapet to the girt. While these spans are not as great as the spans below the girt the out-of-plane wind loads on parapets are extremely high. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 6.5.12.4.4. The tributary area should be taken as the vertical spacing of the rebar since that is the component that is being checked in this condition.
3. DESIGN OF GIRTS AND COLUMNS
Please clarify where in the design of the design of the girts and columns for the out-of-plane support of the CMU has been provided. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.11.1.
4. DESIGN OF LINTELS AND JAMS
Reference pages 4-41 through 4-62 of the calculations and the architectural drawings. Please provide the following:
A) Reference detail 1 sheet A5 of the drawings, and pages 4-49 and 4-50 of the calculations. Page 4-50 of the calculations appears to require a 32” jam adjacent to the 8’-0” opening on grid 1 (door 800C), but there appears to only be a 2’-0” piers adjacent to the south side of this opening. Please clarify.
B) Reference detail 1 on sheet A5 of the drawings and pages 4-55 and 4-56 of the calculations. Page 4-56 of the calculations appears to require a 48” wide jam adjacent to each of the openings on grid A.2 (doors 102B, and 102C); however the shared jam between the two doors is only 4’-8”. Since this is a shared jam it would need to be 8’-0” wide. Please clarify.
C) Reference detail 1 on sheet A5 of the drawings, and pages 4-59 and 4-60 of the calculations. Per page 4-59 of the drawings, as 96” lintel is required at a 16’-0” opening. The max height of the lintel per page 4-59 is 4.67 feet. Please clarify.
D) Reference detail 1 on sheet A5 of the drawings, and the lintel/jam designs. The jams in around the vestibule area are not supported at the top. Please clarify the load path for the out-of-plane forces at the top of the wall.
E) Reference detail 2 on sheet A5 of the drawings and pages 4-47 and 4-48 of the calculations. Page 4-48 requires 48” jams adjacent to the 8’-0”X9’-8” openings. The overhead doors on grid G do not appear to have sufficient jam widths on the shared jams. These jams would need to be 8’-0”, and are only 4’-0”. Please clarify.
F) Reference detail 1 on sheet TCB1 of the drawings and pages 4-55 and 4-56 of the drawings. The overhead doors in the tire and battery center appear to require 4’-0” jams per page 4-56 of the calculations. This would require the shared piers between doors to be at least 8’-0” wide. They are only 4’-0” wide. Please clarify.
5. Please clarify where in the calculations the in-plane design of the CMU has been provided. The CMU must be able to transfer the required seismic forces in-plane. Reference ACI530-08 section 2.3.5.
6. OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Reference the drawings and the calculations. Please provide the following:
A) Reference detail 7 on sheet S2 of the drawings. Please provide design and details for the bollards installed within the building. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8.
B) Reference detail 14 on sheet S2 of the drawings. Please provide design of the anchors for the EDC. Reference IBC section 1912.1.
C) Reference pages 4-2, 4-17, 4-34, and 4-35 of the calculation. Please clarify the calculation. There is no inputted wall height or parapet height.
D) Reference pages 4-32, 4-33, 4-36 and 4-37 of the calculations. The height of these walls has been inputted as around 110’. Please clarify.
E) Reference the embed schedule on sheet S4 of the drawings and pages 3-18 through 3-23 of the calculations. Please provide calculations showing how the design loads for the embeds were determined. Please keep in mind that while there is a uniform shear load in the diaphragm, there is not a uniform shear load in the shear walls as distribution to the CMU walls on the same resisting line needs to be done based on stiffness of the wall. It also appears that the 1997 UBC was used in the design of the anchors. The current design code for CMU is the 2008 ACI 530. Please clarify. Reference ASCE 7-05 sections 12.1.3, 12.10, and 12.11.2.1.
F) Reference detail 6 on sheet S5 of the drawings. Please provide substantiating data showing the brace for the top of the column has sufficient capacity and stiffness per AISC 360-05 section 6.2.
G) Reference sheet S6.2 of the drawings. There is a substantial amount of metal stud detailing provided on sheet S6.2, but no design for these elements could be located in the calculations. Please provide design of the members and connections in these details or indicate where in the calculations this information has been provided. If the intent is to defer this design, the information provided in the details dealing with the stud framing must be removed. Design must be provided for stud framing as well as parapet and cornice framing.
H) Reference sheets S6 through S6.3 of the drawings and section 5 of the calculations. Please clarify where the lateral design of the canopies has been provided. It is not clear from the drawings or the calculations how the lateral loads are resisted. It appears that knee type bracing has been provide at columns which make them appear to be lateral resisting elements, but without the design this can not be known. Please provide. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3.
I) The interior furring studs on the exterior walls are not continuously supported on both sides. Please provide design of these studs at the tables in the stud catalog assumes both flanges are continuously braced.
7. DRAWING COMMENTS – FOUNDATION
Reference sheets S1, S1.1, S2, S2.1, S4, S6, S6.1, S6.3, and S8. Please provide the following:
A) Reference sheet S1 of the drawings. There are several locations where the footing step detail 11/S2 and 11A/S2 have been referenced yet no change in elevation is indicated on the foundation plan. Please clarify. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8.
B) Reference sheet S1 of the drawings. Note 6 on this sheet indicates to see the Architectural drawings from location and sizes of all exterior pads and stoops yet this information does not appear to have been provided on the Architectural drawings. Please clarify. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8.
C) Reference sheet S1.1 of the drawings. In the contractor’s option slab reinforcing section, the reinforcement for one of the types of slabs is indicated as #3 bars at 36” O.C. The maximum spacing of reinforcing is 18” O.C. Please clarify. Reference ACI 318-08 section 7.12.2.2.
D) The contractor’s option is to install load plate baskets with much of the slab unreinforced. Please verify the slab doesn’t need to be reinforced for the rack forces, and for resisting the lateral sliding forces. Since the walls are not bearing it is unlikely that friction between the footing at the base of the wall and the soil will be sufficient to transfer these forces.
E) Reference detail 10 on sheet S2 of the drawings. This detail references the Architectural drawings for the width of the stoop. It doesn’t appear as if this information has been provided on the Architectural drawings. Please clarify. Please do not dowel the slab of the stoop into the building foundation where frost heaving can occur in the stoop. This could cause damages to the building foundation. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8 and IBC section 1809.5.
F) Reference detail 14 on sheet S2 of the drawings. Please indicate Simpson SET XP as the epoxy and not Simpson SET. Simpson SET is no longer an approved epoxy.
G) Reference the “Vestibule Foundation Plan” on sheet S6 of the drawings. There is a detail cut on the footing nears grids A.3 and 5 that references detail 3 on sheet S2.1.
H) Reference detail 4 on sheet S6.1 of the drawings. Please do not tie the stoop slab to the building foundation wall unless the stoop slab is frost protected. Heaving in an unprotected stoop slab tied to the building foundation could cause damage to the building foundation. Please also provide stoop dimensions. The detail indicates to reference the architectural drawings, but this information does not appear to be on the architectural drawings.
I) Reference the “Vestibule Foundation Plan” on sheet S6 of the drawings. On grids A.3/3.6 there is a condition where it appears that CMU walls overlap each other by a small distance. Please provide a detail showing this condition.
J) Reference detail 6 on sheet S6.1 of the drawings. As with the stoop, please do not tie exterior slabs on grade to the building foundation unless the slab on grade is frost protected. If the exterior slab no grade heaves it could cause damage to the building foundation.
K) Reference detail 2 on sheet S8 of the drawings. As with the stoops, and exterior slabs on grade, please do not tie paved sections to the building foundation as heaving the paved section could cause damage to the building foundation.
Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8.
8. DRAWING COMMENTS – FRAMING
Reference sheets S3, of the drawings. Please provide the following:
A) Reference the “Roof Framing Plan” on sheet S3 of the drawings. There is a detail cut on grid 12 between grids E.2 and E.5 that references detail 10 on sheet S5.1. This detail is supposed to show the roof chord at grid 12 between grids E.2 and F.2, but doesn’t appear to. Please clarify.
B) Reference the “Roof Framing Plan” on sheet S3 of the drawings. There is a detail cut on grids E.2 and 12.2 that references detail 9 on sheet S5.1. This detail does not appear to apply in the direction that it is cut. This detail should probably cut perpendicular to grid E.2 instead of parallel. Please clarify.
C) Reference the “Roof Framing Plan” on sheet S3 of the drawings. There is a detail cut on grids G/13 that references detail 2 on sheet S5 of the drawings. This detail conflicts with detail 9 on sheet S5.1 which is also cut on grid G. The intent for grid G appears to be to provide a slip joint for seismic forces parallel to this grid. Please clarify.
D) Reference the “Roof Framing Plan” on sheet S3 of the drawings. Please clarify why the collector along grid H does not extend the full length of this grid. It appears extends from grid 9 to grid 14. All the joists running along grid H are collectors. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.10.2.
E) Reference detail 5 on sheet S4 of the drawings. Please indicate the development length for bars with standard hooks, and indicate the standard hook dimensions. Please also indicate the development length for bars without hooks. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8.
F) Reference detail 10 on sheet S5.1 of the drawings. Please clarify this detail title. It indicates that it is “Section At Interior Wall,” but this does not appear to be the case.
G) Reference the “Vestibule Framing Plan” on sheet S6 of the drawings. This plan indicates in several places to provide a standard AISC double angle connection at the ends of beams. This is not sufficient information for review. Please provide the connection requirements on the drawings for review and inspection services. If the intend is to defer these connections please respond as such, and they will be added to the deferred submittal list.
H) Reference the “Vestibule Framing Plan” on sheet S6 and the vestibule framing details on sheet S6.1 through S6.3 of the drawings. Please clarify the lateral load path from the roof diaphragm into the lateral resisting elements of the canopies surrounding the vestibule.
I) There is a detail cut on grid B near grid 0.8 that doesn’t appear to quite apply. This detail shows the truss framing being in the same direction on either side of grid B when in fact the framing changes direction. Please clarify.
J) Reference detail 1 on sheet S6.3 of the drawings. This detail appears to show the anchoring requirements for the veneer attached to the CMU walls. Where the veneer is not self supporting for out-of-plane loads the anchor spacing must meet ACI 530-08 sections 6.2.2.5.6.2, 6.2.2.5.6.3 and 6.2.2.5.6.4. There are sections of walls that will not meet these requirements.
K) Reference detail 7 on sheet S6.3 of the drawings. Please indicate the drift load requirements for the light gage steel trusses or clarify where this information has been provided.
L) Reference detail 9 on sheet S6.3 of the drawings. This detail indicates blocking, but does not indicate what the blocking is. Please clarify. This detail also needs to indicate the connection of this blocking to the light gage steel trusses.
M) Reference detail 4 on sheet S6.3 of the drawings. It must be made clear on these double wall sections that the lintel requirements applies to both wall sections. It didn’t appear in the calculations that any of the lintels were designed to support two layers of CMU.
N) Reference sheet S7 and pages 5-75 and 5-76 of the calculations. For lateral loads in the mezzanine shown in detail 1 on sheet S7 in the up and down direction, there is a torsional moment that must be resolved since all the shear load is being transferred into the CMU wall on grid 2. Please clarify how this moment is resolved. Please provide an in-plane check of the CMU including the 88 kips of shear added to this wall line. Distribution of this load must be done based on the stiffness of the walls.
O) Reference detail 2 on sheet S7 and the calculations. Please clarify where the design of the mezzanine shown in detail 2 on sheet S7 has been provided. If it has not been provided please provide.
P) Reference sheet S7 of the drawings. Please clarify where the attachments of the diaphragms for the mezzanines have been provided.
Q) Reference sheet 7 of the drawings. Please clarify where the beam to column and the beam to beam connections have been indicated. If these connections are to be deferred please respond as such and they will be added to the deferred submittal list.
R) Reference details 2 and 3 on sheet S8.1. Please indicate the epoxy type in these details. Please note that the embedment requirements conflict as detail 2 indicates 6” embedment and detail 3 indicates 5” embedment.
9. POST INSTALLED ANCHORS
Reference the drawings. There are post installed anchors indicated throughout the drawings. Nearly all post installed anchors into CMU requires the cells to be fully grouted. This does not just apply to the cell with the anchor. It applies to all cells. For example, for Hilti Kwik Bolt 3 ES report ESR-1385 section 3.2.2 requires masonry units to be fully grouted. Hilti Hit-HY 20 does not require fully grouted cells; however the capacities are extremely limited. At a minimum enough cells must be grouted such that values determined from ACI 530-08 for cast-in-place anchors are greater than or equal to the values in the ES report. There are also conditions where epoxy adhesives are indicated. Light weight concrete units are not permitted to be used with certain epoxy adhesives. For example ES report ESR-1967, which is the report for Hilti Hit-Hy 150, section 3.2.3.1 requires normal weight concrete.
10. STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
Please provide a statement of special inspections with all of the information required by IBC chapter 17. The statement of special inspections must include both the type and frequency of inspection. This can be provided as a separate 8 1/2X11 document, but we must be able to attach it to the drawings.
11. SPECIAL INSPECTOR
Please provide a letter from the Owner indicating who they will be hiring to provide the special inspections on this project. The special inspector(s) must be licensed by the MOA in the type of inspection(s) they will be performing.
12. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS
Please provide a list of deferred submittals on the drawings. Deferred submittals are portions of the design that are shown on the drawings, but have not been fully designed or detailed such as joists, joist girders, stairs, light gage steel framing, roofing attachment, etc.
13. RACKS
Reference the drawings and the rack calculations. Please provide the following:
A) Please provide a layout plan showing where each rack type designed in the calculations is located. Please provide details showing the anchorage of each rack type, and the signage requirements for each rack type.
B) Please separate the calculations into racks where merchandise is stored at higher than 8’, and where it is stored at lower than 8’. MOA only requires structural design where the storage height exceeds 8’ (up to 12 feet where the load per shelf is 50 lbs or less). Racks over 6’ are required to be permitted.
This item can be deferred as permitted by comment 12.
Please provide a written response to the comments and include one copy of additional or revise calculations, and two copies of additional or revise drawings. While not required it is extremely helpful to the reviewer if the response indicates where in the submittal each comments has been addressed.
All submittals should be sent to the permit manager.
