4800 DOGWOOD DR 2022-02-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

View Ridge Community Church Plan Check Number: B1803-040, First Review May 25, 2018 that the cuts are acceptable for the beam performance. In addition, an evaluation of the stresses in the continuous portion of the beams should be submitted for review. See IBC Sections 104.11.1 and 1604.1. 19.The area north of Wall Line A/3-4 on Sheet S-4 appears to be framed with TJI 210. The framing does not specify a connection for the joists at the existing concrete wall. A connection should be specified. Calculations substantiating the connection should be submitted for review. It appears based on Sheet S-5 and the North Elevation on Sheet 1-of-9 that the east wall is supported on the joists instead of the existing wall. The design should include the structure and superimposed loads above as needed. See IBC Sections 107.2.1 and 1604.1. Lateral System: 20.The calculations in the`Lateral Analysis"section for the seismic lateral forces are not clear. See IBC Sections 1613.1 and ASCE 7-10 Section 12.7.2. Additional documentation substantiating the forces should be submitted as follows: a. The diaphragm areas do not appear to correspond to the building. The areas are not consistent with the areas shown on Sheet 4-of-9. While it is understood that the architectural and structural areas may differ, it is expected that the"Main Floor"areas should approximately correspond to the roof areas, which they do not. Diagrams clarifying how the areas were determined should be submitted for review. b. Documentation substantiating the unit weights for the diaphragms and walls should be submitted for review. The documentation should include diagrams clarifying the diaphragms and walls to which each value applies. c. Continuing with the previous comment, the wall weights appear to be a combination of the 10 psf-value per ASCE 7-10 Section 12.7.2 Item 2, 15 psf-value per ASCE 7-10 Section 4.3.2, and user-estimated weights. In addition, it appears the calculations include areas without and without uniform superimposed wall weights, and line loads that are only applied in one direction. The calculations should be clarified. d. The summation of the longitudinal and transverse seismic weights is not clear. e. The summed effective seismic weights of 345k and 314 kips are not used to calculate the story forces and base shears. The values used are less than the summed values. Clarification should be provided on the appropriate values. 21.The lateral load path for the addition in the east-west direction appears to require tying the addition to the existing diaphragm. Documentation shall be submitted for review substantiating the design forces per ASCE 7-10 Section 12.10.1.1. See also comments below regarding additional loads on the Main Floor diaphragm from the east retaining wall. See IBC Section 1613.1. 22. Calculations for the capacities of the diaphragms shall be submitted for review. See IBC Section 1604.2. The calculations should address the following: a. The diaphragm capacities, including the existing diaphragm areas. Where existing diaphragms are connection to shear walls and collectors, the existing capacities shall control the design. b. The capacity of diaphragm-to-foundation wall connections, particularly in the east-west direction. The connection forces shall be increased as required by ACI 318-14 Section 17.2.3.5.3. See IBC Section 1901.2. "Page 10 of 12_,._.\ CITY OF EVERETT • 3200 Cedar Street • Everett,WA 98201 • (425) 257-8810 • Fax(425) 257=8857