Structural Comments

Reviewed by: Hellman, Becky A.                                   Permit #: X16-1931
for C15-1346

Phone: 343-8237                                                                      
  Second Review

Fax: 249-7400                                                                
   Date: 11-14-16

Email: hellmanba@muni.org

Permit Manager: Cervenka,
Alec

Phone: 343-8034

Email: cervenkaaj@muni.org

Project: Dimond
Industrial Lot 5A BLK 2 – Round Table – Equipment attachments

____________________________________________________________________________________

Plan review
comments:

1.  This review is a
code compliance review based on the requirements of the 2012 International
Building Code (IBC) and all adopted references thereto as amended by the
Municipality of Anchorage in the Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) Title 23.  This review does not permit the violation of
the building codes, nor any federal, state, or municipal regulation.

2.  See SK-1 - SK-2 and the calculations for the
gravity support of this MAU unit.  Page
A-2 – A-3 indicates that the unit is 720 pounds with the curb at 150 pounds; a
total of 870 pounds.  The unit size per
the calculations shows a 9.89’ x 2.28’; 22.6 sqft.  The distribution load is 38.5 psf as shown on
sheet A-11.  On the design check of the
rafters A-11 – A-15, it appears that not enough load is being accounted
for.  One rafter check is for 3’-1” and
the other is for 2’-4” with a uniform load of 38.5 psf; so 5’-5” x38.5 plf (2
feet between rafters) = 209 pounds, times two rafters is 418 pounds total,
there should be 870 pounds distributed between the two rafters as shown in the
sketches 1 and 2.

These rafters are
close, please clarify the discrepancy of load, size and distribution to allow
for verification that the rafters are still adequate.

11-14-16   In
SK-1, the MAU unit is not shown to overhang the curb as is assumed in the calculations.
If the unit that is 9.886’ (loading curb 44 plf based on this length) and the
curb is 5.67’, that means that there is more load on the rafter then on a
glulam as there is an overhang over the rafter; see SK-1.  I don’t understand the calculation of the
point load (by saying the load missing, from the above question, is a point
load at the glulam) and applying the missing185 pounds x 2 to the glulam to get
all the 870 pounds accounted for; please justify this type of loading.  It would seem to me, that the 870 pounds
would distribute more load to the two ends of the curb on each side of the unit
and then uniformly for the curb length of 5.67’, so that would put a point load
on the rafter, not GLB.  SK-1 needs to
reflect the overhang to show how much on each side of the curb is designed to
overhang. 

Address all comments above to complete the permit process.  Please provide corresponding letter that
describes how comments have been addressed and where on the plans the changes
have occurred.  Any additional
information that is provided to address the above comments could result in
additional comments based on the new information provided for review.   All
submittals should be sent or given to the permit manager of this project.