Reviewed by: Bolen, Wayne A. Permit #: C14-1704
Phone: 343-8072 Date: 10/29/2014
Fax: 249-7393
Email: BolenWA@muni.org
Permit Manager: Tony Barganier
Phone: 343-8339
Email: BarganierTA@muni.org
Project: West High School Addition/Renovations
Review Number: 341894
____________________________________________________________________________________
PERMIT STATUS
9/8/2014 – F&F review complete. Comments issued.
10/29/2014 – Full review complete. 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. DESIGN OF ANCHORS
Reference page 243 of the calculations. Where punching shear is checked, the capacity appears to be 196304 lbs of capacity with a Vu = 663696 lbs, but the design indicates “OK.” Please clarify. Please note that f’c on this design appears to be 3000 psi where elsewhere the strength has been taken as 4000 psi. It may be beneficial to be consistent with the concrete strengths.
Resolved at F&F. WAB - 10/29/2014
2. DESIGN OF SHEAR FRICTION AT BASE OF PEDASTAL
Reference page 244 of the calculations. Shear friction requires the rebar being used to transfer the shear to be fully developed above and below the shear plane. It does not appear as if the #8 bars can be developed above the shear plane here since the pedastals appear to only be 2’-0” tall for the interior braced framed footings (T.O.F is -3’-0” and T.O.P. is -1’-0” for the interior condition). Please verify. It appears the development length for a #8 bar in this condition as around 29”. Reference ACI 318-08 sections 11.6.8 and 12.2.3. Please note that the load that these elements need to be designed for would be just the normal load combinations. Based on the applied load used in the calculation it appears the load needed to yield the brace was used. Once the column has been anchored to yield the brace the rest of the elements of the load path only need to be designed for the regular load combinations. Since the tension load is being developed in punching shear the verticals are not needed for tension loads (although depending on the response to comment 1 this may change).
3. LATERAL AT FOUNDATION
It appears the intent from the design is to transfer the shear loads into the combined footings. Please provide substantiating data showing the footings have enough combined friction and passive pressure on them to resist the lateral loads or clarify the load path for the lateral loads into the soil. Reference ASCE -05 section 12.1.3.
4. SUMP PUMP AT ELEVATOR
Reference note 4 on sheet WS201 of the drawings. MOA elevator policy L02 requires sump pits to be 24”X24”X24”. Please revise note 4 on sheet WS201 of the drawings to reflect this.
5. DRIFT AND SEISMIC JOINT
Reference the structural drawings and calculations. Please clarify where in the calculations drift have been checked. Please keep in mind that where the structure has a type 1a or type 1b horizontal irregularity that ASCE 7-05 section 12.12.1 must be met for drift. Please clarify where in the drawings the seismic joint information can be located and provide substantiating data showing the joint provided is sufficient (or indicate where in the current analysis this calculation was provided). Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.12.3.
6. BEAMS IN V AND INVERTED V BRACE CONDITIONS
Beams that are part of a V/inverted V configuration must be meet AISC 341-05 section 13.4a(1). Please provide substantiating data showing the requirements of this section are met. This applies to the 2-story X configuration because this configuration includes both a V and an inverted V. Where the installation angles and sizes of the braces are the same there is no net force so this condition does not need to be verified. It does not appear as if Ram Structural Analysis provides this check as the beams all indicate no special seismic design is required.
7. DRAWING CLARIFICATIONS
Reference the structural drawings and calculations. Please provide the following:
A. Reference sheet WS202. There appears to be a small low roof area adjacent to stairs between grids C-1 and C-1.8 and to the left of C-A. Please clarify the top of steel for this area. Detail 222 indicates the elevation change varies and to see the plan. Reference AISC 303-05 section 3.1.
B. Reference detail 222. This detail does not appear to accurately reflect where it is cut. The deck in low roof area appears to run parallel to the framing shown in the detail, and there should be beams running perpendicular to the beam on the left. This detail also needs to be revised to show the beam to beam connection as the beams have different top of steel elevations. Please clarify. Reference AISC 303-05 section 3.1.
C. Reference sheet WS202. There is a detail cut on grid C-9 that reference detail 217 sim. Please clarify the sim condition in the detail. It appears the sim condition is that there is a beam at the upper end of the angle brace instead of a joist. Reference AISC 303-05 section 3.1.
D. Reference sheet WS203. Detail 212 has been cut along grid C-A between grids C-3 and C-4. This detail does not appear to show this condition accurately. The detail shows a steel beam and steel joist framing into a column and where the detail is cut appears to have two steel beams. Please clarify. Reference AISC 303-05 section 3.1.
E. Reference sheet WS203. It appears that a collector is missing at the intersections of grids C-A and C-3. Please verify that no collector is required to tie the roof on the left of C-A to the brace line on C-3 on the right of C-A. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.10.
F. Reference section C in detail 208 on sheet WS401. This detail appears to call for the tube to be welded down with fillet welds. It appears these should be flare bevel welds. Please clarify.
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.
All submittals should be sent to the permit manager.
