Reviewed by: Bolen, Wayne A.                                                  Permit #: C13-1360

Phone: 343-8072                                                                        Date: 7/17/2013

Fax: 249-7393

Email: BolenWA@muni.org

Permit Manager: Tony Barganier

Phone: 343-8339

Email: BarganierTA@muni.org

Project: Dimond Costco Tire Addition

Review Number: 315738

____________________________________________________________________________________

PERMIT STATUS

6/4/2013 – Review complete. Comments issued.

7/17/2013 – 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. LATERAL DESIGN

Reference the calculations and drawings. Please provide the following:

A. Reference the braced frame design in the N-S direction in the calculations. Please clarify why no wall weight has been included in the determining the seismic load. At a minimum, it appears there is a double CMU wall on grid 10.9, and a portion of that load would need to be transferred into the braced frame near grid L.

Item remains. It appears that one of the walls on grid 10.9 has been included in the design of this brace, but not the other. Per detail 3 on sheet S4.1 the new wall is connected to the existing wall with dowels and epoxy. This will not permit the assumption that all of the existing wall load goes into the existing building. Structures must be designed as an integral unit or be seismically separated per ASCE 7-05 section 12.12.3. WAB – 7/17/2013

B. Reference the braced frame design in the N-S and E-W directions in the calculations. Please clarify where the brace connection design has been provided. Connection design must include checks of all limit states including, but not limited to bolt shear, shear in the gusset, shear in the angle, tensile rupture, block shear rupture, bearing on the bolt hole, etc.

Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB – 7/17/2013

C. Reference the braced frame design in the N-S and E-W directions in the calculations. Please provide the design of the column base and the anchorage to the foundation per AISC 341-05 section 8.5. Anchorage to concrete must be designed per ACI 318-08 Appendix D, and must also meet the ductile or non ductile limit state requirements of D.3.3.

Item remains. The response indicates that the anchorage has been changed to an embedded plate which appears to be the case; however it does not appear as if this condition has been detailed sufficiently. Please indicate the rebar as A706 since it appears that the bars will be welded to the plate, and please indicate the connection of the bars to the plate as well as the embedment requirements for the bars. The response indicates that the column is welded to the plate, but the detail appears to show the column welded to a separate plate and bolted to the embedded plate. Please clarify. WAB – 7/16/2013

D. Reference the calculations and detail 5 on sheet S4.1. All of the beams along the braced frame line near grid L collectors and/or chords, and the connections and beams must be designed for the load combinations including the overstrength factor. Please indicate where the design of these beams and connections has been provided for those load combinations or provide.

Item resolved. Response accepted. WAB – 7/17/2013

E. Reference sheet S1.1 and detail 1 on sheet S4.1 of the drawings. It appears the roof joists are being used as the continuous ties from diaphragm chord to diaphragm chord. Please indicate the design axial force to these joists from the out-of-plane support of the CMU wall.

Item resolved. This information has been added to detail 1 on sheet S4.1 of the drawings. WAB – 7/16/2013

F. Reference the calculations and drawings. The footings appear to have been indicated with bottom reinforcement only. Please provide substantiating data showing the footings have sufficient capacity to transfer the requirement uplift forces. Generally top reinforcement is required under those load combinations. This applies to both the footings at the braced frames, and the gravity only footings (gravity only footings have to resist the load combinations including wind uplift). Reference IBC section 1605.

Item resolved. Detail 3 on sheet S3.1 has been modified to indicate #5 @ 12” O.C. each way on the top of the footing. WAB – 7/16/2013

2. DRAWING CLARIFICATIONS

Reference the drawings. Please provide the following:

A. Reference details 4, 5, 7 and 8 on sheet S3.1 and 5, 7 and 8 on sheet S4.1. Bolts in connections resisting seismic forces must be fully pretensioned with faying surfaces applied as class A slip critical per AISC 341-05 section 7.2. Please indicate this requirement for the bolted brace connections shown in the referenced details.

Item resolved. These details have been revised as requested. WAB – 7/16/2013

B. The roof joists are indicated as 28LH07. Please note that it appears there could be significant drift loads on the west wall, and a potential drift on the east wall. It is not clear from the drawings if there is potential drift on the plan north and south walls. Please clarify. Please note that drifts can not be converted to equivalent uniform loads because the shear diagram for the equivalent uniform load will not always be higher than the shear diaphragm for the joist with drift.

Item remains. Unfortunately specifying based on maximum shear and maximum moment does not ensure the joist will be design correctly. It must be shown that the moment and shear diagram for the indicated loads is always above the moment and shear diagram for the actual loading. This will never occur for shear since the point of zero shear will be moved from the middle of the joist, making the shear on either side of the middle always higher for the drift case. WAB – 7/16/2013

C. Reference detail 4 on sheet S4.1 of the drawings. The fillet weld connecting the tube to the wide flange beam needs to be indicated as a flare bevel weld and not a fillet weld. Please revise and resubmit.

Item remains. A throat thickness has been indicated for the flare bevel. Throat sizes are not applicable to flare bevel welds. Please remove the throat thickness. WAB – 7/16/2013

3. STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

Reference sheet 0.1 of the drawings. Please provide a statement of special inspections that includes all the information required by IBC section 1705.2. The statement of special inspections must include both the type and frequency of inspections. Please also include all inspection requirements of AISC 341-05 Appendix Q. Reference AISC 341-05 section 18.1.

Comment remains. Please include the inspection requirements of AISC 341-05 appendix Q. WAB – 7/16/2013

4. SPECIAL INSPECTOR

Please provide a letter from the Owner indicating who they will be hiring to provide the special inspections on this project. The special inspector(s) must be licensed by MOA in the type(s) of inspection(s) to be performed. Where the steel is not fabricated by an AISC or IAS certified fabricator special inspections must be provided during the fabrication of the steel.

Comment remains. It doesn’t appear as if this information has been provided. WAB – 7/16/2013

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. While not required it is extremely helpful to the reviewer if the response indicates where in the submittal each comments has been addressed.

All submittals should be sent to the permit manager.