1321 COLBY AVE 2ND FLOOR 2021-02-17

• zG, F 925 Fourth Avenue Suite 2400 Memo Seattle,WA 98104 72066239414 F 206 623 7868 Date August 14,2019 Project No. S23240 ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA ARCHITECTS LLP Project Name PRMCE—Colby Campus Pharmacy Replacement age No. 5 of b. Infill detail SSK-001 is designed for maximum opening size of 3'-9"x 3'-8"and would be acceptable for use in any infills smaller in size. Infills shown are for an existing dumbwaiter shaft.There are no above infills as part of this project. c. Calculations for the design of the infill are included in MKA's supplemental package. This calculation shows the design dead and live floor loads. The code concentrated live load of 1,000 lbs applied over a 2.5'x2.5'area would not govern the design. Using 80 psf over the full panel size results in a greater cumulative load. See sheets S1.01 and S1.02 for loading information d. The structural bays that would receive the infills are framed and reinforced identically to bays without the openings and would not have any greatly diminished strength as a result. The infill is thinner than the original slab and therefore lighter overall. e. See sheet A0.02 for required Special Inspections—Moved to sheet S1.01 in follow-up comment. The following represents a statement of special inspections relevant to the scope of work: a. IBC Table 1705.3—Items 1 (reinforcement), 5 (design mix), 8 (concrete curing),and 12(formwork) — periodic b. IBC Table 1705.3—Items 4b (mechanical anchors),6 (concrete tests),and 7 (concrete placement) — continuous c. AISC Table N6.1 —steel deck—continuous d. AISC Table N6.1 —steel elements—continuous (Comment#1 -07/17/2019) la.The detail should be revised as follows: i. Infills are required at three locations per Sheet A1.01. I recommend showing the third locate non the partial floor plan on Sheet S1.02 for consistency. ii. The direction of the deck span should be specified (e.g.,parallel to shortest dimension of opening). iii. The depth of the WWF reinforcement should be specified (e.g.,center of slab). iv. The minimum concrete strength should be specified. v. The L4 steel grade should be specified(presumed to be A36). vi. The detail appears to specify (3) anchors for each angle. Recommend providing a maximum anchor spacing in the event that the actual openings are larger. vii. The anchors appear to require a minimum 4" edge distance from the bottom of the concrete slab per the structural calculations. This minimum distance shall be specified in the detail. viii. Due to the proximity of the anchor to the bottom of the slab and the likely lack of confining reinforcement, the use of an adhesive anchor in lieu of the specified expansion anchor is recommended. ix. Note 5 directs the contractor to verify use of existing materials in place of new materials. This should be the responsibility of the engineer-of-record,not the contractor. 1c.Remove structural calculations from the plan set and submit a package (1 copy is sufficient)with the revised drawings. le. (Response not provided) State the design live loads for the infill design in the notes for the infill section on Sheet S1.02. 1f. (Response labeled as "le"in the letter) State the special inspection requirements on Sheet S1.02. The reference to Table 1705.3 Item 4a should be changed to Item 4b for mechanical anchors (not adhesive anchors). The narrative as stated in the response letter is sufficient as-is for this project for the following edits: i. "...Items 1 (reinforcement),5 (design mix), 8 (concrete curing),and 12 (formwork)..." ii. "...Items 4b (mechanical anchors), 6 (concrete tests), and 7 (concrete placement)..." Response: 1a. i. All three infills are now shown on SSK-001. See sheet S1.01.