Review Comments

Click Here To Go Back To Permit Information

Permit Number:	06 5111
Permit Type:	Commercial Building Permit - None BldgAlter
Address:	W 330 DIMOND BLVD Anchorage
Location:
Work Description:	Work Descr: Refrigeration remodel-upgrade, Remarks: gjs *deferred submittal on this permit per SLO from 06 5990*
Status:	Issued
Project Name:	COSTCO
Review Type:	Structural
Result:	Approved
Result Date:	1/22/2007 12:00:00 AM

Comments:

	Code Section	Review Comment	Status

Advisory Information:
. C(1): Still needs full review. 12/5/06 12/29/2006 - Responses reviewed. Additional comments issued. MMP 1/22/2007 - Responses reviewed. Approval. MMP C(2): The calculation of load does not appear to represent the 1997 RMI design specifications as referenced and modifiied by the 2003 IBC/ASCE 7-02. Comment has been resolved. MMP 12/29/2006 C(3): The longitudinal seismic force is lower than the minimum required by section 9.14.6.3 of ASCE 7-02. Several items need to be resolved regarding application of seismic loads to the rack structure: 1. It appears that a lower Ss (1.25g) was used for determining Cs. Ss for Anchorage is typically taken as 1.50g. Please revise calculations using the higher Ss. Reference: ASCE 7-02 9.5.5.2.1. 2. It is unclear how the fundamental period was calculated using the derived formula. Direct substitution into the period equation does not yield the calculated T (see Calculations Sec. 2.4.1, Sec. 3.4.1). It also seem unreasonable for the 3-level rack to have a shorter period (1.9 seconds) than the 2-level rack (2.4 seconds), as both appear to have the same loading, column length, and rotational stiffness in the connectors. Please provide justification of the calculated periods. Reference: ASCE 7.02 9.5.5.3. 3. It appears the seismic weights used for calculating the base shear for the full C(4): The R value reported of 4.4 does not reflect the Rvalue of 4.0 reported in the 1997 RMI specification section 2.7.3 Comment has been resolved. MMP 12/29/2006 C(5): Concrete anchors under seismic loads must comply with Appendix D of ACI 318-02 or be approved by ICC for the specific loading )ICC Evaluation Services report citing the 2003IBC is required. None of the specified anchors per US-2 have current ICC evaluation reports referencing IBC 2003. Please specify anchors that have current ICC-ESreports referencing IBC 2003. MMP 12/29/2006 Comment has been resolved. 1/22/07 MMP. C(6): Member and connection allowable force computation methods cannot be confirmed. Member and connection strength must conform to the 2001 AISI North American Specification for the Design of Coldformed Steel Structural Members as referenced by the 2003 IBC/ASCE 7-02. Many of the member forces under static loads do not appear to be calculated using prescribed loads. Example: Calculations Sec. 1.2.2, Sec. 2.3.1. The calculation for the axial load P on the the post appears to be two times the prescribed load. L = load carried by beam = 1/2 (2 * Pallet load) = 2.5 kips. For the down-aisle frame, the load to the post base should be 2.5 kips * 3 levels/2 = 3.75 kips. While this is conservative for determining axial load capacity, it is non-conservative for determining the resisting overturning force. See also Comment 3 for forces related to seismic loads, as it appears that the increased seismic loads will overstress many of the members and connections. Reference IBC 1604.4. MMP 12/29 C(7): No evaluations of forces using 100% of the rated storage capacity at the highest storage level are apparent in accordance with sectioin 2.7.6 of the RMI specifications. Comment has been resolved. MMP 12/29/2006 C(8): No evaluation of rack deflection are apparent in the submitted calculations in accordance with section 2.5 of the RMI specification. Please provide a note on the construction documents, or a detail showing, the rack offset dimensions from the walls and adjacent racks accommodating the 5% assumed relative lateral displacement. In lieu of using the 5% displacement, provide calculations or substantiated/published test data showing rack deflections. Reference: ASCE 7-02 9.14.6.3.4. MMP 12/29/2006 Comment has been resolved. 1/22/07 MMP. C(9): Vertical distribution of forces in accordance with section 2.7.4 of the RMI specifications is not apparent. Please provide detail of the distribution of lateral forces in the calculation of member forces. Comment has been resolved. MMP 12/29/2006