Reviewed by: Bolen, Wayne A. Permit #: C12-1227
Phone: 343-8072 Date: 1/23/2013
Fax: 249-7393
Email: BolenWA@muni.org
Permit Manager: Jinny Day
Phone: 343-8338
Email: DayJR@muni.org
Project: UAA Sports Arena Metal Stud Submittal
Review Number: 308393
____________________________________________________________________________________
PERMIT STATUS (no response required) 12/21/2012: Review completed. Comments issued.
1/23/2013 – Responses 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. PARAPET LOAD
Reference pages AE-2, B-2, F-2 and CAN-4 of the calculations. It appears that the Case A parapet has been determined incorrectly. Case A requires that the positive wall coefficient to be applied to the front side of the parapet and the negative roof coefficient to be applied to the back side of the parapet. The negative roof coefficients for zones 2 and 3 is -2.3 and -3.2 respectively. This would lead to a combined coefficient of 3.2 to 4.1 applied at the parapet (2.3+0.9, and 3.2+0.9) or 27.7*3.2 = 88.64 psf for edges, and 27.7*4.1 = 113.57 psf for corner zones. These pressures are significantly higher than what was used. Please clarify. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 6.5.12.4.4.
Comment remains. Please clarify why AE-2 was not redone with the update parapet loads. WAB – 1/23/2013
2. STUD DESIGN
Reference the design of the studs. Please clarify why the design loads are multiplied by 0.75 for strength checks. This factor only applies for the multiple transient load cases. Please update all calculations to the current AISI standard which is the 2007 version.
Comment remains. It appears that only a partial submittal was provided. Please provide a full resubmittal of all calculations without the 0.75 factor, and updated to the most current code cycle. WAB – 1/23/2013
3. CLIP DESIGN
Reference the design of the fixed and deflection clips. The manufacturer has stipulated that the designer must check bending in the short leg of the clip. This does not appear to have been done. Please clarify.
Comment resolved. Response accepted. Please note that it may be worth designing the clip bending for the wind load in the other direction as the clip will not be in bending in the direction considered; however the loading the direction used is conservative. WAB – 1/23/2013
4. JAM DESIGN
Reference sheet WD-7 of the calculations. It appears the jam is a built up 3 stud member. Please clarify the interconnection between these members to ensure they act compositely. Is this what is shown on sheet WD-8? If so, this calculation does not appear to be correct. Shear flow should be used to determine the required forces, and this calculation does not appear to consider the fact that the applied load is not concentric to the shear center of the combined section. Please clarify.
Comment remains. Reference page XWD-2 of the updated calculations. The procedure used on the design of the connection between jam members is not shear flow. Shear flow is V*Q/I. Please clarify the design of this connection. WAB – 1/23/2013
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.
