3315 SEAWAY BLVD 2020-06-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Drew Martin From: Drew Martin Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 3:06 PM To: 'Nadia Azarova' Subject: RE: City of Everett Public Works: 3315 Seaway Blvd (B1808-012) Nadia, Here are my final comments for my review of the resubmittal documents. Regarding loading of the TAT area, in addition to comments for the future use of this area,we will require the drawings to identify this area as not usable for occupied or storage space under this permit. We can redline or let you revise the drawings. If the latter, I will specify the locations where this note needs to occur. Please have the structural engineer address the following comments regarding the TAT design (reference original Structural Comment 1). Based on the number of issues discussed below, please have the EOR provide an itemized response to each part clearly indicating how the comment has been addressed. This should also be done for comments forward in the previous emails (attached below). 1. The following comments should be addressed: a. Documentation substantiating the 18 psf dead load should be submitted for review. Note that this value is less than used for the other mezzanines(i.e., 18 psf per page 1 of the calculations dated 07/18/18) supporting equal or lesser live loads. b. Continuing with the previous comment,the dead load should include a 4 psf HVAC load per ASCE 7-10 Table C3-1. Note that this comment is presuming the HEPA filter system is separate from the HVAC system. c. The seismic mass includes only 25%of the mechanical system weight. The full weight of the mechanical systems shall be included. See ASCE 7-10 Section 12.7.2 Item 3. Note that it is not clear if the weight is equipment or storage, or both. If both, separate weight components shall be specified. A drawing depicting the weight equipment, including component weights, sizes, and locations, shall be submitted for review. d. Continuing with the previous comment,the design loads on Sheet S1.0 shall clearly distinguish the design loads for storage and permanent equipment. e. The tributary wall mass to the structural lid only include the longitudinal walls. The mass should be increased to include the transverse walls. Note that a weight estimate of wall Types 2 and 12 per Sheet A8 appears to exceed 10 psf. Architect to verify that Wall Type 12 should include GWB on both sides similar to other wall types. f. It is not clear if the 125 psf load represents both permanent equipment and storage loads. Where either load is not equally distributed across the structural lid,the weights shall be effectively loaded to the wall lines support the associated lateral seismic load. Non-uniformly distributed loads shall not be uniformly distributed to all wall lines. g. The limited wall length on Grid 4.4 is only 7 feet long, not 9'-10" per page T-6. h. Page T-6 includes a 4' tributary roof width resisting overturning for the walls on Grids 4.4 and 3. Based on the joist spacing of 16" per Sheet 52.1,the tributary width is only 8". The resisting weight shall be reduced. i. The shear wall holdown design shall be revised. The earthquake component shall be increased per the provisions of ACI 318-14 Section 17.2.3.4.3. The design load shall be calculated per ASCE 7-10 Section 12.4.3.2 Equation 7: a)the overstrenght factor shall apply to the earthquake component, not the net uplift force after reduction by gravity loads; and b)the vertical seismic load effect per Section 12.4.2.2 shall be included in the design load. Note tha_Ltke uplift forces have been calculated using ASD load 09,