78,062 sq ft (4) story mixed occupancy hotel OK TO ISSUE GRADING/EXCAVATION WITHOUT FEES PAID PER GRETCHEN 9/1/2017 PLAN REVIEW FEES PAID IN FULL, X17-1099 PAID IN FULL 6/6/18 ***10/9/18 OKAY FOR GENERAL TO P/U FOR JM MECH... SLO
***OK FOR F&F AND CORE/SHELL ONLY! - CHANGE ORDER REQUIRED FOR UPDATED CIVIL PLANS TO INLCUDE SHARED ACCESS (REF PERMIT #C21-1153) PRIOR TO ISSUING FULL PERMIT - RDO / G.SOULE 03/18/24***
*** ORIGINAL FEES WERE PAID BY CHECK WRITTEN BY PROPERTY OWNERS (ANCHORAGE MC HOLDING LLC). WRITTEN LETTER BY OWNER REQUIRED FOR EACH CONTRACTOR TRASNFER (ALL DISCIPLINES AS NECESSARY) - RED 6/26/24
MOA & MC HOLDING LLC AGREEMENT OF REINSPECTION FEES DUE (169 INSPECTIONS @$175/EA LOADED IN INFOR 7/2/24) TO PROCEED WITH PROJECT (EMAIL ATTACHED FOR RECORDS ALONG WITH TRANSFER OF CONTRACTORS TO JANSEN AS GENERAL AND SAMSON FOR ELECTRICAL)- RED 7/2/24
FULL PERMIT ISSUED - 9/3/24 - RED
Reviewed by: Bolen, Wayne A. Permit #: C15-1806
Phone: 343-8072 Date: 3/31/2015
Fax: 249-7393
Email: BolenWA@muni.org
Permit Manager: Tony Barganier
Phone: 343-8339
Email: BarganierTA@muni.org
Project: Courtyard at Marriott
Review Number: 366901
____________________________________________________________________________________
PERMIT STATUS
10/28/2015 – Review complete. Comments issued.
3/31/2016 – 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. SITE CLASS
Reference the geotechnical report and the seismic calculations. It appears that the geotechnical report at the seismic design has been based on Site Class E. Please justify this classification. ASCE 7-0 5 section 20.3.3 requires Site Class E to be based on the properties of the top 100 feet of soil on the site. It appears the soil logs only go to 31.5'. There does not appear to be enough data to justify the Site Class E designation. While this assumption is fine for footing connectivity requirements and other prescriptive foundation requirements is not fine when determining the loads because it leads to a decrease in the required seismic design forces that can not be justified with the given data. Please revise and resubmit. A limited seismic review has been performed since the loading will be off by 11%. Please note that the Site Class has been indicated as Site Class D on sheet S001 of the drawings.
Comment resolved. The design has been revised to Site Class D. WAB – 3/29/2016
2. OPEN FRONT DIAPHRAGMS
Reference pages L-3, L-10, L-17 and L-24 of the calculations. It appears that the intent of the design in the longitudinal direction is to design the structure as a series of open front diaphragms. It appears that most of the open front diaphragms are not permitted. The Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic (SDPWS) section 4.2.5.1.1 limits the length of open front diaphragms to 25', and the aspect ratio of such diaphragms to 0.67:1. It appears that most of the open front diaphragms provided for lateral loads in the longitudinal direction exceed one of these two limitations. Please clarify or revise and resubmit. Please also keep in mind that open front diaphragms are rigid diaphragms and must be design accordingly. The lateral review in the longitudinal direction is even more limited than the rest of the structure as this comment will likely affect the load distribution substantially in this direction.
Comment resolved; however additional comments have been generated by the response to this comment. Please provide the following:
A. The center of mass calculations could not be located. Please clarify where in the submittal the center of mass at each level was determined. This is required to verify the torsional load generated by the seismic load. The values of the center of mass have been indicated on sheet L-6, but the determination of these values could not be located.
B. It appears that the spreadsheet that the area of the end posts in the walls is a minimum of 33 sq. inches. This does not appear to match the drawings. Please clarify. Where different size posts are used at each wall end please use the minimum post area.
C. Please clarify where the hold down deflections have been calculated, and verify the rigidities determined for the walls include consideration of the hold down deflection. The deflection equation in SDPWS section 4.3.2 includes a hold down component of the displacement. Given the story to story heights the hold down deflections could be significant
WAB – 3/29/2016
3. SEISMIC LOAD DISTRIBUTION
Reference pages L-3 through L-28 of the calculations. It doesn't appear as if the seismic distribution in the "Y" direction has been done correctly. It appears that instead of calculating loads tributary to a resisting line that where there are two walls on a line that the building was divided in half, and the loads were based on the tributary area to the wall assuming the upper wall supports the upper half while the lower wall supports the lower half of the building. For example on line 3, instead of a single resisting line with a tributary width of 20.4 feet, the upper wall has been designed with a tributary width of 20.4 feet and the lower wall has been designed with a tributary width of 27.1 feet because the next wall over at the top is closer than the one at the bottom. This is not correct. The tributary width to both walls is the same. It should be apparent that the method used is incorrect because the uniform line load to each wall is different which would mean the deflection is each wall is different which is not possible since they are on the same line. Please revise the load distribution and resubmit. The lateral review is once again limited because of the distribution issue. Reference the SDPWS section 4.2.5.
In the "X" direction it is likely the distribution will significantly change due to comment 2; however if there is a way to justify the open front diaphragms then the loads must be distributed based on stiffness of each wall and the diaphragms which means the deflections of the walls and diaphragms must be determine and the loads distributed based on relative stiffness. Reference SDPWS section 4.2.5.1.1 and ASCE 7-05 section 12.8.4. If the open front diaphragms remain it must also be shown that no torsional irregularities are present. If a torsional irregularity is present, the equivalent lateral force procedure of ASCE 7-05 section 12.8 would not be permitted per ASCE 7-05 table 12.6-1 and the modal response spectrum analysis or seismic response history procedure will be required to analyze the structure for seismic forces.
Comment resolved; however see comment 2. WAB – 3/29/2016
4. DESIGN OF CHORDS, COLLECTORS, AND DRAG STRUTS
Reference pages L-40 and L-41 of the calculations and the drawings. Please provide design of chords, collectors and drag struts for the diaphragms as required by ASCE 7-05 section 12.10. Please provide detailing around openings in the diaphragms as required by ASCE 7-05 section 12.10.1 and IBC section 2305.1.1. Additional comments may be generated from the response to this comment.
Comment remains. The collector/drag strut design appears to be incorrect. Collector/drag strut forces are determined by producing strut diagrams along each resisting line. The strut diagrams are produced by net forces that are produce based on the loads in the diaphragms and shear walls. For areas above the shear walls, the force is (Vwall-Vdiaphragm)*Length of wall. For other areas the force is Viaphragm*Length between adjacent shear walls. As an example if you have a single shear wall in a line that is 10’ long and the diaphragm is 20’ long and the load is 1000 lbs, Vwall is 100 lbs/ft, and Vdiaphragm is 50 lbs/ft. Over the wall the net shear is 100-50 = 50 lbs/ft so the load at the end of the wall would be 50*10 = 500 lbs. The strut diaphragm should start at zero and end at zero so the load from the other direction should be the same which it would be as Vdiaphragm is 50 lbs/ft and 50*10 = 500 lbs, and 500 – 500 is 0. Please clarify the collector/strut forces.
The collector straps also need to overlap the walls far enough to develop enough blocking to get the strut load from the diaphragm to the top of the wall (through the A34 or A35 per the schedule). No design of this load path could be located. Please provide this design.
It also appears that some collectors/drag or missing or incomplete. For example, on the shear wall line between grids D and E, the collector to grid 3.3 needs to extend all the wall to grid 1. Plywood cannot be used to collect loads. There also appears to be missing drags C.5/15 and D.5/21 (there is where there is an offset between the bathroom walls that are also shear walls.
There are also design considerations that must be made for the sub-diaphragms (transfer diaphragm) that must be used to transfer the drag loads to adjacent shear walls. For example, at the roof diaphragm there is a sub-diaphragm created between grids 6.7 and 8 and C and C.6 to transfer a portion of the shear load into the shear wall on grid C.6 in this area. Please see “The Analysis of Irregular Shaped Structures” by R. Terry Malone and Robert W. Rice for good examples on the creation of transfer diaphragms in irregular structures.
There are also collector missing in the north/south direction on each resisting line. Please provide or clarify. WAB – 3/29/2016
5. LATERAL AT ROOF
Reference sheets S141a and S141b and the details on sheets S521 through S523 of the drawings. Please provide the following:
A. Reference sheet S141a. Please provide detailing around the opening at the elevator as required by IBC section 2305.1.1 and ASCE 7-05 section 12.10.1. This also applies to the stair opening on sheet S141b.
Item remains. The response indicates that detailing has been provided around the elevator opening, but this does not appear to be the case. Please clarify. On the stair opening it does not matter if the stairs are surrounded by shear wall as there is still loads that must be transferred around the opening. The comment may get resolved by the response to comment 4. WAB – 3/29/2016
B. Please provide chords, collectors and drag struts at each resisting line as required. Chords are required at the front and back of diaphragms to transfer the tension and compression loads generated from bending in the drawings. Collectors are required to transfer loads that are generated in one portion of the structure to another point in the structure. Drag struts are require where shear loads are required to be transferred from one point in the structure into the diaphragm of another part of the structure. For a great reference on these elements see "The Analysis of Irregular Shaped Structures" by R. Terry Malone and Robert W. Rice. Please note that additional comments may be generated from the response to this comment. Detail 7 on sheet S522 appears to show a condition that may apply at the beams on each side of the corridor, but there doesn't appear to be a reference on the roof framing plan calling out this detail. The intent may be to apply it at all header location, but this is not clear. Response to comment 2 may affect the collector/chord/drag strut requirements.
Comment resolved; however see comment 4. WAB – 3/29/2016
C. Reference detail 13 on sheet S512. Please provide a lateral load path from the diaphragm to the shear walls below. Neither the detail nor the schedule appears to call out a connection of the blocking to the top plate below. There does appear to be an attachment of the rim to top plate, and it is possible that the intent is to use this connection at blocking as well.
Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB – 3/29/2016
D. Reference page L-2 of the calculations. While seismic controls the over all forces at most levels and overall it appears that seismic controls overturning and shear, at the roof level it's possible that wind controls the overturning because of wind uplift on the roof counteracting the roof dead load. Please verify that wind does not control the roof level for overturning. It is also not clear how the wind load at the roof level was determined. Please verify that when the wind load at the roof was determined that the pressure on the parapet was taken as required by ASCE 7-05 section 6.5.12.2.4.
Comment resolved. It appears the analysis has been done with consideration of both wind and seismic forces. WAB – 3/29/2016
E. Reference details 1 and 2 on sheet S523. Please indicate edge nailing and boundary nailing for the connection of the shear wall sheathing and diaphragm sheathing to the blocking respectively. This provides the lateral load path from the roof diaphragm to the shear wall sheathing. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8 and ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3.
Comment resolved. This information has been provided in the referenced details. WAB – 3/29/2016
F. Reference sheet S141a of the drawings and page L-9 of the calculations. There are shear walls shown starting at grids C/10.3 and D/10.3 in the drawings; however these are not included in the shear wall design shown on page L-9 of the calculations. Please clarify. Please note that while including this wall in the drawings and not including in the calculations may be conservative for the shear wall design, it may affect collector designs. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.8.4.
Comment remains. Please note that while this comment doesn’t apply anymore there appears to be cases where there are shear walls shown on the drawings that were not included in the analysis. These walls are C.5/5.3 and D.5/12.3. While this is conservative for the shear wall design, this could drastically affect the collector/drag design (it may actually be beneficial to the collector/drag design). Please clarify this. WAB – 3/29/2016
G. Reference detail 10 on sheet S522. This detail references the plan for the shear wall from the high to low roof; however this information does not appear to be on the plan. Please clarify. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3.
Item resolved. This detail has been revised. WAB – 3/29/2016
H. Reference details 1 and 2 on sheet S523. Please indicate edge nailing for the sheathing to 2X6 blocking connection as the blocking acts as the shear wall edge. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3.
Item resolved. These details have been revised. WAB – 3/29/2016
6. LATERAL AT 4TH FLOOR
Reference sheets 131a and 131b and the details on sheets S511 through S513 of the drawings. Please provide the following:
A. Reference sheet S131b. There are two shear walls shown between grids D and E in the left/right direction shown on the drawings that were not considered shear walls in the calculations. Please clarify. Please note that having those two walls as shear walls drastically affects the lateral distribution of loads and the lateral design would have to be redone. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
B. Please provide chords, collectors and drag struts at each resisting line as required. Chords are required at the front and back of diaphragms to transfer the tension and compression loads generated from bending in the drawings. Collectors are required to transfer loads that are generated in one portion of the structure to another point in the structure. Drag struts are require where shear loads are required to be transferred from one point in the structure into the diaphragm of another part of the structure. For a great reference on these elements see "The Analysis of Irregular Shaped Structures" by R. Terry Malone and Robert W. Rice. Please note that additional comments may be generated from the response to this comment. Detail 7 on sheet S522 appears to show a condition that may apply at the beams on each side of the corridor, but there doesn't appear to be a reference on the roof framing plan calling out this detail. The intent may be to apply it at all header location, but this is not clear. Response to comment 2 may affect the collector/chord/drag strut requirements. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
Item solved; however see comment 4. WAB – 3/29/2016
C. Reference sheet S131b. Please provide dimensions to hold downs that do not occur at the ends of a wall. These must be dimensioned so they can be located correctly. Reference AAC section 23.10.104.8. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
Item remains. The detail referenced by the response works for hold downs that occur at the ends of shear walls, but there are instances where the hold down does not occur at the end. These instances need to be dimensioned. As an example, on grid 16 near grid C on sheet S131a there is an ATS-1 that is offset significantly from the wall end. The referenced detail does not provide a way to locate this hold down. WAB – 3/29/2016
D. Reference sheet S131b. There is a hold down at the intersections of grids D and 24. This appears to be a shared hold down (this hold down appears to transfer overturning forces in both orthogonal directions). Please provide a detail showing how this hold down is framed to be able to transfer loads in from both directions. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3 and SDPWS sections 4.3.6.4.2 and 4.3.6.4.4. There could be other locations where a shared hold down is used. This comment applies to those location as well. This comment also applies to the lower levels.
Item no longer applicable. An additional hold has been provide at this intersection so that the comment no longer applies. WAB – 3/29/2016
E. Reference sheet S131a. Where shear walls extend from the interior of the building to the exterior of the building please provide a detail at the transition between the interior and exterior show the lateral load path for shear and overturning forces. Typically the exterior walls of the building are constructed first with the interior walls to follow. This means there will likely be a joint at the transition that needs to be detailed. This occurs at several locations. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
Item resolved. The response accepted. Shear wall call out has been indicated on side that is intended to be sheathed as now noted in the shear wall schedule. WAB – 3/29/2016
F. Reference sheet S131a. There are shear walls shown below grid D at grids 11 and 12 on the drawings; however these walls are not shear walls in the calculations. Please clarify. This also applies to the shear wall shown on sheet S131a above grid C at grid 11. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB – 3/29/2016
G. Reference sheet S131a. There are shear walls shown on grids C and D starting at grid 10.3 on the drawings; however these walls are not shear walls in the calculations. Please clarify. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
H. Reference sheet S131a. There is a shear wall above grid C at grid 8 shown on the drawings that is not designed as a shear wall in the calculations. Please clarify. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
I. Reference sheet S131a. There is a shear wall above grid C at grid 6 shown on the drawings that is not designed as a shear wall in the calculations. Please clarify. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
J. Reference sheet S131a. There is a double hold down shown for the shear wall below grid D and on grid 3 near grid D. Please verify this is the intent. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
K. Reference sheet S131a. There is a hold down on grid C near grid 1.5 that appears to be shown in the opening adjacent to the shear wall it is intended to be in. Please revise to show in the shear wall. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
Item resolved. This has been revised. WAB – 3/29/2016
L. Reference sheet S131a. There are several instances of interior hold downs being indicated as straps. Please verify this is the intent and that it is not intended for these to be ATS hold downs. Installing interior strap hold downs required slotting of the diaphragm and are generally more problematic to install. This comment applies to the lower levels as well.
Item resolved. These has been revised to ATS hold downs. WAB – 3/29/2016
M. Reference detail 6 on sheet S511. Please indicate diaphragm boundary nailing at the interior shear wall details. Diaphragm boundaries occur at the vertical resisting elements, and if it is not clarified that boundary nailing is required at the shear wall lines it is possible that field nailing will be provided.
7. LATERAL AT 3RD FLOOR
Reference sheets S121a and S121b and the details on sheets S511 through S513 of the drawings. Please provide the following:
A. Reference sheet S121b. The two shear walls on grids C and D that start at grid 14.3 are discontinuous. Elements that support discontinuous shear walls must be designed to the load combinations including the overstrength factor. Please provide this check or indicate where in the calculations this check has been provided. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.3.3.3.
Comment will be dealt with under comment 8A. WAB – 3/29/2016
8. LATERAL AT 2ND FLOOR
Reference sheets S111a and S111b and the details on sheets S511 through S513 of the drawings. Please provide the following:
A. Reference sheet S111b. The shear wall above the 2nd floor on grid D starting at grid 22.3 is discontinuous as the shear wall below is shorter by several feet. Element supporting discontinuous shear walls must be designed to the load combinations including overstrength. Please provide this check or indicate where in the calculations the check has been provided. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.3.3.3.
Item remains. The response indicates that this has been done, but this is not clear. For example SB-5 appears to support discontinuous walls on grid lines C and D. Just based on the story height and shear loads in the walls from the spread sheets provided (using grid D14.3 as an example which has Vr = 3.53k, v4th = 3.42k, and v3rd = 2.51k) the overturning moment is 3.53*(9+10.167+9.5)+3.42*(10.167+9.5)+2.51*9.5 = 192.3 k-ft and T=C=192.3/18.5 = 10.39 kips. This is without the overstrength factor. When the overstrength factor is included this jumps to 10.39*3 = 31.184 kips. The value inputted is 21.71 kips. It does not appear as if Enercalc includes the load combinations with overstrength as on page SB-3 the controlling load combination for SB-5 is D+0.75*L+0.75*S+0.525*E+H. Please clarify how the value inputted for the Earthquake load was determined for all beams supporting discontinuous shear walls. WAB – 3/30/2016
B. Reference sheet S111a. Please clarify the lateral support for the canopy/trellis at the plan south end of the building. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3.
Item resolved. Detail 4 on sheet S513 has been revised to show tension ties at 48” O.C. WAB – 3/30/2016
C. Reference sheet S111a. Please clarify the lateral support for the low roof and trellis at the plan north end of the structure (Media Pod room and trellis to the east of it). Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.1.3.
Item remains. Please verify that detail 6 on sheet S514 applies to all beams at the trellis. It is also not clear what happens at the wood joists in the roof area over the Media Pod Room. WAB – 3/30/2016
D. Reference sheet S111a and pages SB-1 through SB-19 of the calculations. The steel beam on grid 14 below grid D is supporting a discontinuous shear wall. Elements supporting discontinuous shear walls must be designed to the load combinations including the overstrength factor. Please provide this check or indicate where in the calculations this check has been provided. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.3.3.3.
Item will be considered under item 8A. WAB – 3/30/2016
E. Reference sheet S111a and pages SB-1 through SB-19 of the calculations. Many of the steel beams in along each side of the corridor appear to support discontinuous shear walls. Element supporting discontinuous shear walls must be design to the load combinations including the overstrength factor. Please provide this check on the beams that support discontinuous shear wall or indicate where in the calculations this check has been provided.
F. Reference sheet S111a and pages SB-1 through SB-19 of the calculations. The steel beam on grid 13 above grid C is supporting a discontinuous shear wall. Elements supporting discontinuous shear walls must be designed to the load combinations including the overstrength factor. Please provide this check or indicate where in the calculations this check has been provided. Reference ASCE 7-05 section 12.3.3.3.
G. Reference sheet S111a and page L-32 of the calculations. There should be a shear wall on grid C starting at grid 5 per the calculations, but it does not appear as if this has been indicate as a shear wall on the drawings. Please clarify.
Item resolved. This shear wall has been indicated. WAB – 3/30/2016
H. Reference sheet S111a. There is a CMSTC call out near grid 2 on grid C. This strap is not shown in the correct location. It should be located on the grid 2 shear wall. Please revise.
Item resolved. It appears this has been removed. WAB – 3/30/2016
I. Reference sheet S111a and pages SB-1 through SB-19 of the calculations. There is a steel beam on grid 13 below grid D (W14X34) that appears to be supporting a discontinuous shear wall. Element supporting discontinuous shear walls must be design to the load combinations including the overstrength factor. Please provide this check on the beams that support discontinuous shear wall or indicate where in the calculations this check has been provided.
J. Reference detail 3 on sheet S603. Where bolted connections transfer seismic forces they must be installed as fully pretensioned with their faying surface prepared as Class A slip critical or better as required by AISC 360-05 section 7.2. Please indicate this requirement on the drawings. Where ever the steel beams act as a collector the bolts will transfer seismic forces.
Item resolved. The connections transferring seismic loads are being welded. WAB – 3/30/2016
9. LATERAL AT FOUNDATION
Reference sheets S101a and S101b and the details on sheets S501 through S502 of the drawings. Please provide the following:
A. Reference the foundation plans and pages FN-1 through FN-10 of the calculations. It is not clear how the uplift from the hold downs are resisted at the foundation level. Is grade beam action being used or is concrete mass being used. Please clarify. In either case, please provide calculations showing the uplift can be resisted at the foundation level or indicate where in the calculations this design has been provided (where grade beam action is used provide design of grade beams and where mass is used show there is sufficient mass). Reference IBC section 1808.3.
Item remains. It appears that calculations have been provided for the grade beams under the shear walls, but it does not appear as if the footings have been load with any gravity load. There is a concern that the allowable bearing pressures will be exceeded when they are considered. Please consider all load sources in the design of the footings. Reference IBC section 1808.3
B. Reference the foundation plans and pages FN-1 through FN-10. Please clarify how the lateral shear forces are resisted at the foundation level. If the slab on grade it to be used to resist lateral forces from seismic it must be designed to meet the requirements of ACI 318-08 section 21.12.3.4.
Item resolved. Please note that the response did not actually respond to this comment, but the calculation check this item was found on page L89. WAB – 3/30/2016
C. Reference sheet S101b. On grid 22 near grid E, it appears that the ATS hold down is not continuous to the foundation. Is there some sort of load path from the ATS system to the steel column? Please clarify. Please also provide a detail showing how overturning forces from the shear walls above the 1st floor are transferred into the steel column. It does appear there is a calculation for anchors of steel columns that appear to include uplift forces on page L-42 through L-53; however these calculation do not appear to consider the non ductile yielding factor of ACI 318-08 section D.3.3.6. Please clarify. If there is a load path from the ATS system to the steel column please provide a detail showing this load path. This issue appears to occur on multiple ATS rods that appear to stop at the 2nd floor level.
Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB – 3/31/2016
D. Reference sheet S101a. The shear wall on grid C starting at grid 14 requires an HDU11 hold down per the calculations. It appears that an HDU 8 has been provided at one end and nothing except a steel column has been provided at the other. Please clarify.
E. Reference sheet S101a. There is a shear wall on grid D starting at grid 5 that does not appear to have hold down indicated. Per the calculations this wall requires HDU5 hold downs. Please clarify.
F. Reference sheet S101a. It appears there are several conditions where steel columns are being using as hold downs. Please provide details showing how lateral loads are transferred to these steel columns. Details must be provided for overturning from walls as well as overturning from walls above.
G. Reference sheet S101a. On grid 5 near grid C, please ensure the ATS-1 hold down is indicate in the correct location. It appears to be located outside of the wall.
Item resolved. This has been revised. WAB – 3/31/2016
H. Reference sheets S602 and S603. Please provide design of all hold down anchors per ACI 318-08 Appendix D. Please ensure the ductile or non ductile yielding requirements of sections D.3.3.4 through D.3.3.6 is met. Please note that since post installed and cast in place options have been indicated that designs for both options must be provided.
Item remains. The response references a Simpson table in the calculations yet no Simpson anchors are indicated on the drawings. It appears that standard anchor bolts are being used to attach the hold downs to the foundation. Please clarify. Please also note that manufacturer’s tables are not accepted as justification for capacities (ICC ES reports are acceptable). Please provide design of the anchors as requested in the original comment. If the anchors provided match the PAB’s exactly (with double not and plate washer) the tabulated values would be acceptable as long as a footing with the dimensions required by that table is provided at each hold down. Post installed anchors have been removed from the drawings. WAB – 3/30/2016
I. Reference detail 1 on sheet S603. The embedment for two of the ATS systems appears to indicate 19'. This is likely supposed to be 19". Please revise. Please provide design of these anchors as requested in 9H.
Item resolved. This has been revised. WAB – 3/30/2016
10. GRAVITY AND WIND DESIGN
Reference the drawings and the calculations. Please provide the following:
A. Reference the calculations. It does not appear as if any design for uplift on the roofs has been provided. Please provide design of all roof framing elements for wind uplift. Please show that all hurricane ties, hangers and other fastening of roof framing members have sufficient capacity to transfer the required uplift forces. Please ensure there is a sufficient load path for the uplift forces to a point in the structure where there is sufficient dead load to resisting the uplift forces. Reference IBC sections 1604.9 and 1605 and the SDPWS section 4.3.6.4.4.
Item remains. The response is not accepted. Currently the details show the sheathing on the opposite side of the hold downs. This caused cross grain tension the top plate to transfer the uplift loads from the hold down to the sheath side. This is not permitted without mechanical reinforcement per NDS section 3.8.2. Please show the tie down on the sheathed side or provide a stud to top plate tie such as the SP-2 to transfer the uplift loads into the studs which can then transfer the loads to the sheathing. It would also be acceptable to provide a tie down that provide a direct load path to the stud. WAB – 3/31/2016
B. Reference details 1, 2 and 12 on sheet S511, and details 9 and 11 on sheet S512. Please provide substantiating data showing the connections shown in the referenced detail have sufficient capacity the transfer the required out-of-plane wind loads or indicate where in the calculations this design has been provided. Reference IBC section 1605.
Item resolved. Please note that it appears that only one of the conditions one of the conditions was checked so the reviewer verified the other conditions. WAB – 3/31/2016
C. Reference the calculations. It doesn't appear as if the design of the headers in the header schedule has been provided. Please provide. Design must include consideration of both gravity and uplift forces, and the headers must be designed as fully unbraced.
Item remains. The design of the headers has been revised. WAB – 3/31/2016
11. OTHER DESIGN ITEMS
Reference the drawings and calculations. Please provide the following:
A. Reference details 2 through 5 on sheet S522 and details 1 though 4 on sheet S523. Please provide design of the parapets and their connections. Parapets must be designed for the loads require by ASCE 7-05 section 6.5.12.4.4.
Item remains. Please provide design of the members in the parapet. WAB – 3/31/2016
B. Reference page L-34 of the calculations. Please clarify what is being designed on page L-34 of the calculations. It appears to be drag/collectors on specific grids, but these elements are not clear on the drawings, and it's not even clear what level this calculation applies to.
Item is being considered under comment 4. WAB – 3/31/2016
C. Reference sheet S602. Please provide substantiating data showing the 1/2" plywood used on the roof has sufficient capacity to transfer the required loads in areas of drift.
Item resolved. Plywood thickness changed to 19/32”. WAB – 3/31/2016
D. Reference detail 6 on sheet S512. Please provide design of the splice shown in the referenced detail.
Item remains. It appears that only the tension side of this splice has been checked. No check of the compression side has been provided. Please also note that due to nail slip the connection will allow some rotation to occur which likely means the compression side is being supported just by the end of the stud. This will likely lead to crushing of the LVL. Please clarify. WAB – 3/31/2016
E. Reference detail 9 on sheet S513. Please provide design of the canopies over the doors at the ends of the corridor for the load combinations including wind uplift as required by IBC sections 1604.9 and 1605.
12. DRAWINGS
Reference the drawings. Please provide the following:
A. Reference sheets S101a and S101b. In several of the grade beam call out it indicates to slope the grade beam. Please indicate the maximum slope of the bottom of the grade beams to be 1:10 as permitted by IBC section 1809.3. Where the slope exceeds this stepped footings are required. Where step footings must be provided it is likely that grade beam action would not be permitted to be used in resisting the overturning forces from the shear walls above.
Item resolved. It appears that none of the grade beams slope anymore. WAB – 3/31/2016
B. Reference sheet S101a. There is a footing on grid 8 between grids B and C that indicates a top of footing of 99'-4" however it has a pedestal shown on top of it like the footings that have a lower top of footing. Please verify that this footing is intended to have a pedestal.
Item resolved. The top of footing elevation has been revised. WAB – 3/31/2016
C. Reference sheets S101a and S101b. Under "Marks and Symbols Legend" please define CP-x.
Item resolved. This information has been added. WAB – 3/31/2016
D. Reference sheet S101a. On a couple of grid lines (line 9.5 for example) it appears that there is a transition between a thickened slab to a foundation wall condition. Please provide a detail showing how this transition is to be constructed (it's not clear where the transition occurs but the footing just above grid A has a top of footing elevation of 99'-4" while the footing below the foundation wall just below grid B has a top of footing elevation of 96'-0").
Item no longer applicable. It does not appear as if this condition exists on the updated drawings. WAB – 3/31/2016
E. Reference sheet S111a. On grid 6 near grid F there is a detail cut that references detail 2 on sheet S512. Please verify that this detail cut is correct.
F. Reference sheet S111a. There are several conditions where it appears that an HSS beam is being connected to the side of a column. It does not appear as if a detail has been provided showing this condition. It's possible the details just has not been cut on the plans, but it didn't appear as if a details was provided on sheets S521 through S523. There does appear to be a detail showing tube steel beams framing over the top of columns. Please provide.
Item resolved. A detail has been added showing this condition. WAB – 3/31/2016
G. Reference sheet S111a. Please provide top of steel elevations for all steel framing.
Item remains. Response not accepted. Inspections do not occur off of shop drawings and the inspectors are not expected to perform calculations in the field to determine top of steel elevations. Please provide the information as requested. WAB – 3/31/2016.
H. Reference sheets S111a. At the Porte-cochere on the plan north side of the building there are two detail cuts that reference detail 10 on sheet S522. Detail 10 on sheet S522 appears to show a roof pop up on the Porte-cochere that does not appear to be shown on the plan. Please clarify.
I. Reference sheet S121a. There is a detail cut on grid 6 near grid B that references detail 5 on sheet S511. It appears this should be 7 on sheet S511. Please revise.
Item remains. The response indicates that this was revised, but it does not appear to have been revised. WAB – 3/31/2016
J. Reference detail 8 on sheet S502. Please indicate the reinforcement requirements for the house keeping pads.
K. Reference sheets S111a and S111b. There are two canopies over the doors at the ends of the corridors. The detail references the Architectural drawings for dimensions. This information does not appear to be on the Architectural drawings. Please clarify.
Item remains. The response indicates that this information has been provided on the Architectural drawings, but this does not appear to be the case. Please clarify. WAB – 3/31/2016
L. Reference detail 7 on sheet S521. Please provide rotational restraint of the steel beam at the point of support as required by AISC 360-05 section 6.3.
Item remains. The response indicates that rotational restraint has been added, but it’s not clear from the detail how this is being accomplished. Please clarify. WAB – 3/31/2016
M. Reference the roof framing details. Please clarify what type of hanger applies where. The hangers indicated in the schedule have different uplift capacities and it is possible that only a specific hanger will have sufficient capacity to transfer the required uplift forces. See comment 10A.
N. Reference details 3 and 4 on sheet S522. The Simpson A34 clip indicated on the end o the brace back does not have a rated capacity to transfer upward forces. Please revise the details to include a connection that can transfer the required upward force from the brace back. Reference the 2015-2016 Simpson catalog. This also applies to detail 3 on sheet S513.
Item remains. The SDS screw added only transfer the loads from the plate to the roof. How does the load get to the plate? Please note that the plywood cannot be used as this would cause cross grain tension in the bottom plate to transfer the load to the screw. WAB – 3/31/2016
O. Reference detail 3 on sheet S601 of the drawings. Please revise note 1 of the schedule to indicate (3) #3 or (2) #4 ties in the top 5" of all pedestals as required by ACI 318-08 section 7.10.5.6.
Comment remains. The note provided does not require (3) #3 ties in the top 5”. It requires (3) #3 ties at 3” O.C. which does not work. Please note that it has been MOA’s experience that (3) #3 ties is very difficult to construct compared to (2) #4 ties. WAB – 3/31/2016
P. Reference detail 4 on sheet S601. Please provide required development lengths for hooked reinforcement as well as a typical detail showing the required dimensions of hooks (radius, extension, etc). Reference IBC section 1901.4.
Item resolved. The information has been provided. WAB – 3/31/2016
Q. Reference detail 6 on sheet S602. Please indicate the end length requirements for all strap hold downs.
Item no longer applicable. No strap hold downs are being used. WAB – 3/31/2016
13. SPECIAL INSPECTORS
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 licensed by MOA in the types of inspections to be performed. Reference IBC section 1703.1.
Comment resolved. This information has been provided. WAB – 3/31/2016
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.
