PERMIT STATUS

4/13/2015 – Review complete. Comments issued.

7/20/2015 - Responses to tank comments provided and reviewed (comments 1-3). Comments issued. Approved for tank foundation only.

8/18/2015 - Responses reviewed. Comments issued.

9/24/2015 - Responses reviewed. Comments issued.

10/23/2015 - Control building 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. TANK DESIGN

Reference the calculations. Please provide design of the tank for review. Reference AMC section 23.10.104.8. Please provide tank drawings for review.

Comment remains. Please note that no design was provided; however the reviewer was able to verify the design based on the drawings provided. Please provide drawings that are stamped and signed by an engineer licensed in Alaska, and provide a statement of special inspections as required by IBC section 1705. Reference the Alaska State Statutes section 08.48.221. WAB - 7/20/2015

Comment resolved. This has been provided and approved. WAB - 8/18/2015

2. TANK FOUNDATION DESIGN

Reference the tank foundation design. The design of the tank foundation does not appear to consider any lateral loads. Please provide a foundation design considering these loads. Reference ASCE 7-05 Chapter 15.

Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 7/20/2015

3. TANK ANCHORAGE DESIGN

Reference the calculations. No design for the anchorage of the tank could be located. Please provide design of the anchorage of the tank or indicate where in the submittal this design has been provided. Reference ASCE 7-05 Chapter 15.

Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 7/20/2015

4. WIND EXPOSURE

Reference the calculations. It appears that the site has been assumed to be in wind exposure category C. This does not appear to be correct. It appears the site should be assumed to be in exposure category D. Per ASCE 7-05 section exposure category D is where Surface Roughness D is prevalent for a distance of 5000 feet. Suface Roughness D's definition indicates areas that are flat, unobstructed areas and water surfaces outside hurricane prone regions. This site is adjacent to Cook Inlet which would meet this Surface Roughness. Please revise all design calculations and resubmit or justify the exposure C classification.

Comment remains. It appears this has been resolved for some portions of the work, but it has not been resolved for the metal building, and it is not clear if it was resolved for the truck rack canopy and pipe supports. WAB - 8/18/2015

Comment resolved. The exposure has been changed to D everywhere although the control building has not been submitted yet so it has not been verified there. That building is deferred. WAB - 9/24/2015

5. METAL BUILDING DRAWINGS AND DESIGN

Reference the drawings. It appears the control building is a premanufactured metal building. Please provide design and drawings for this building for review. Please ensure that exposure category D is used I the design. It appears that at the end of the calculations submitted that some reactions are given for a warehouse structure, but there doesn't appear to be a warehouse structure in the drawings. Do these apply to the control building? Why was no input for this model provided? It dose not appear as if any foundation design for the control building was provided. The bulk of the calculations provided appear to be for the truck rack canopy. Reference AMC section 23.10.104.8.

Comment remains. The response indicates this will be submitted at a later date. WAB - 8/18/2015

Comment resolved. This item is deferred. WAB - 9/24/2015

6. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR

Reference sheet C-14 of the drawings and the calculations. Please clarify where the design of the lid for the oil/water separator shown on sheet C-14 has been provided or provide the design for review. Reference AMC section 23.10.104.8.

Comment resolved. This lid is actually just a slab on grade. The reviewer originally believed this to be a structural lid which really isn't the case. WAB - 8/18/2015

7. PIPE SUPPORTS

Reference sheets P-08 through P-16 of the drawings. There appears to be some frames for pipes. Please provide design of these frames and their anchorage for review. Reference AMC section 23.10.104.8.

Comment remains. It appears that design of the framing has been provided, but no anchor design has been provided. It appears there are several anchoring conditions. Please provide design of the following conditions: anchoring shown in details 1 on sheet P-08, 1 on sheet P-09, 1 and A on sheet P-10, 3 on sheet P-10, and A and B on sheet P-16.

Some items also need to be clarified in the details. For example in detail 1 on sheet P-08 it calls for Hilti anchors, but doesn't specify the type of Hilti anchor. Please clarify the types of post installed anchors. This is probably resolved easiest by providing something in the general notes. WAB - 8/18/2015

Comment resolved. This has been resolved via a general note. WAB - 9/24/2015

8. TRUCK RACK CANOPY

Reference page LR-03 of the drawings and the calculations. Please clarify the seismic system for the truck rack canopy. Is this a cantilever column system or an ordinary moment frame system? In either case, please provide design of all connections or indicate where in the design this has been provided.

Comment remains. Based on the response this is an ordinary moment frame structure. Single sided fillet and single sided partial penetrations welds are not permitted to transfer tension forces in ordinary moment frames per AISC 341-05 section 11.2a(3). Please revise the details and resubmit. WAB - 8/18/2015

Comment resolved. This has been changed to a premanufactured metal building; however see additional comments generated for metal building in comment 16 below. WAB - 9/24/2015

9. VAPOR COMBUSTION UNIT

Reference sheet LR-6 of the drawings and the calculations. Please clarify where the design of the structural elements shown on the referenced sheet has been provided. Reference AMC section 23.10.104.8.

Comment remains. It doesn't appear as if a response to this comment has been provided. It appears the last thing provided in the response was information on the truck rack canopy. WAB - 8/18/2015

Comment resolved. This has been provided. WAB - 9/24/2015

10. OTHER STRUCTURAL SCOPE

Reference sheets LR-07 and LR-08 of the drawings and the calculations. It is not clear what the foundations shown on the referenced drawings are for. Please clarify. If design of these elements have not been provided please provide (it does not appear as if design for these have been provided). Reference AMC section 23.10.104.8.

Comment remains. It does not appear as if a response has been provided to this comment. WAB - 8/18/2015

Comment resolved. This has been clarified. WAB - 9/24/2015

11. SITE CLASS

Reference sheet SG-01 of the drawings and the geotechnical report. The site class has been indicated as site class B on sheet SG-01 of the drawings; however the geotechnical report indicates site class D. Please revise the drawings to match the geotechnical report.

Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 8/18/2015

12. GENERAL INFORMATION ON DRAWINGS

For each of the structures, please provide all general design information required by IBC section 1603.

Comment remains. No response provided, and the requested information has not been provided for on sheet SG-01 as requested. WAB - 8/18/2015

Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 9/24/2015

13. STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

Please provide a statement of special inspections as required by IBC section 1705. The statement of special inspections must include both the type and frequency of inspection.

Comment remains. No response provided. WAB - 8/18/2015

Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 9/24/2015

14. SPECIAL INSPECTOR LETTER

Please provide a letter from the Owner indicating who they will be hiring to provide the special inspections on this project. The special inspectors must be approved by MOA in the types of inspections to be performed. Reference IBC section 1703.1.

Comment resolved. This has been provided. WAB - 8/18/2015

15. DRAWINGS

Drawings provided must have text that is at 3/32" tall. Please provide drawings meeting this requirement. Reference MOA Policy AG.39.

Comment resolved. The field set is full size. WAB - 8/18/2015

16. METAL BUILDING COMMENTS

Reference the metal building drawings. Please provide the following:

A. Please provide detail showing the clevis and clip connection. The detail needs to contain all information required to fabricate and erect the connection including clip size (length, width, thickness), connection of clip to frame, and connection of brace to clip. The fastener for this will need to be installed fully pretensioned with faying surfaces prepared as class A slip critical or better as required by AISC 341-05 section 7.2.

B. Please provide full size metal building drawings for the field.

WAB - 9/24/2015

Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 10/22/2015

17. DRAWINGS

Please provide full size copies of the revised drawings for the field as required by MOA Policy AG.39. WAB - 9/24/2015

18. CONTROL BUILDING COMMENTS

Reference the control building drawings and calculations. Please provide the following:

A. Reference sheets 21 and 23 of the control building drawings and the general notes. It appears that the general notes calls the lateral force resisting system in the longitudinal direction Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames. Per the elevations on sheets 21 and 23 this does not appear to be the case. AISC 341-05 defines an ordinary concentrically braced frame as a frame braced frame system where all members of the bracing system are subjected to primarily axial forces. This is not the case for the beams at the roof and mezzanine level as the braces will load these beams with both axial and bending forces. This is an eccentrically braced frame system which has far stricter design requirements. Please revise the elevations to show concentric braced frames or revise the design and details to meet the requirements of an eccentric braced frame.

B. Reference sheet 14 of the drawings. Please clarify where the clevis and clip brace connection, and where the hillside washer connection applies. Where the hillside washer connection applies please provide design of this connection including checking the yielding limit state of bending in the web. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8 and AISC 360-05 Chapter F.

C. Reference sheet 13 of the drawings. Where beams at the mezzanine level are on main frame or braced frame lines the connections of these beams must be fully pretensioned and the faying surfaces must be prepared as class A slip critical or better as require by AISC 341-05 section 7.2. Please indicate this requirement. This applies to the brace clevis and clip connection as well as the brace strut connection shown on sheet 14 of the drawings.

D. Reference sheet 14 of the drawings and pages H44 and H45 of the calculations. The clevis and clip details appear to be extremely detailed in the calculations, but not in the drawings. Please provide the details shown on sheet H44 and H45 for the clevis and clip connections on the drawings. Per the details in the calculations the connections do appear concentric which would make item 18A no applicable.

E. Reference the drawings. It appears that intermediate moment frames are being used. Please clarify how AISC 341-05 section 10.8 is met. It appears that in the calculations the max beam flange unbraced length is 188" or around 15.5'. Please verify this value as well. Per reviewer check the max unbraced length seems to be around 12'. This is based on an Iy=64.4 in^4, and an A=23.6 in^2.

F. Reference the frame elevations. AISC 358-05 table 6.1 requires moment frame beams to have a minimum depth of 25". It appears the moment frame beams are only 20". Please clarify.

G. Reference sheet 15 of the drawings and page H49 of the calculations. The calculations appear to require a complete joint penetration weld at the beam flange to end plate. This does not appear to be reflected in the drawings. The drawings appear to indicate a double fillet weld or complete joint penetration weld. Please note that it is not possible to develop Cpr*Ry*Mp with just a complete joint penetration weld (a CJP weld can only develop 0.9*strength of base metal which will always be less than the force determined using Cpr*Ry*Mp…please also note that the moment used to determine the force in the flange also includes a component from shear at the plastic hinge which will increase the force even more). It also appears the calculations require a complete joint penetration weld of the web to the end plate. This does not appear to be reflected in the drawings. Please clarify.

H. Reference sheet 15 of the drawings. Please provide details that are specific for this project. AISC 358-05 table 6.1 has specific end plate widths, and gage of bolt spacing requirements that can not be verified as this information is not shown in the details (this information appears to be shown in the calculations). AISC 358-05 section 6.5 requires that the end plate be connected to the column flange. Sheet 15 of the drawings shows a condition where this is not the case. AISC 358-05 section 6.4(1) has special requirements that must be met for the built up members that also needs to be shown in the drawings. There is a detail in the calculations on page H50 that appears to show this information, but this is not in the construction drawings. It does appear that the weld size shown on page H50 is not correct though as it indicates a 1/4" double sided fillet. The referenced section of AISC requires the thickness of the double sided fillet to be at least 3/4 of the beam web thickness or around 1/2" in this case. AISC 341-05 requires that the flanges be continuously connected to the webs of members that are part of the seismic load resisting system. It is common for built up members in premanufactured metal buildings for this connection to be skip-welded. This would not be permitted in this case. Please verify that the flanges will be continuously attached to the webs. It appears this is the case as no spacing is given in the table on sheet 15 of the drawings, but please verify.

I. The IAS certification does not appear to cover non destructive testing. Please clarify how the moment frame connections will be tested. The special inspector that observes and verifies the testing will need to be hired by the Owner and they will need to be MOA certified.

 J. Reference details A and B on sheet S-02. Please indicate (2) #4 bars within the top 5” of the pedestal as required by ACI 318-08 section 7.10.5.6.

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.