Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Ms. Melinda VerMeer <br /> Baysinger Partners truc ural ngineers <br /> June 29, 2022 <br /> Page 2 <br /> the full span of the existing joist and new beam,instead of only at the damaged portion.This is because <br /> the original joist will not perform as originally intended,and the continuously spaced ledgers will transfer <br /> the full original loading to the new beam instead. <br /> 3. 3rd checksheet comment: <br /> Detail 1/S-2 will induce a significant torsional moment in the exiting moment frame beam. Calculations <br /> substantiating the concurrent loading with in plane flexural loading should be submitted for review. In <br /> addition,please not the following: <br /> a. The L6 added to the bottom flange appears intended to control torsion. A top brace would be <br /> required to resolve the moment couple. <br /> b. The L6 appears likely to prevent flexural deformations of the moment frame. The purpose of this <br /> connection, and its impact on the moment frame's performance should be clarified and <br /> evaluated. Alternatively, this connection should be removed from the design. <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> Please refer to the attached supplemental calculations, showing the in-plane flexural loading on the <br /> existing frame.The new loading that acts on the frame is 3.7%larger with respect to gravity design,and <br /> 9.8% larger with respect to lateral design. As a result of satisfying IEBC 1103.1 and IEBC 1103.2 <br /> requirements,it can be concluded that this loading will not induce a significant torsional moment on the <br /> existing frame,as long as the L6 member is removed in order to allow for the flexural deformations that <br /> the moment frame were initially intended for. <br /> 4. 4th checksheet comment: <br /> Detail 1/S-3 includes a large cope and field welding resulting in a relatively long and shallow built-up <br /> flexural member to provide shear support. It is understood that the cope may partially be intended to <br /> allow installation. It is recommended that the proposed connection be reviewed and revised. For <br /> example, the same fit-up seems feasible if the cope is slanted such that the%"gap is provided at the <br /> top and widens to 6"at the bottom. This will eliminate the flexural forces over the 6-inch gap and may <br /> also eliminate the need to field welding of the L6 members. <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> Please refer to the updated Detail 1/S-3, indicating that the cope is to be slanted as noted in the <br /> response comment #4 above. The cope is intended to allow for installation, with the plate and L6 <br /> members being used to transfer the load to the full depth beam. The revised detail includes a slanted <br /> coping that provides a'/z"gap at the top to the beam,and a 6"gap at the bottom of the beam to prevent <br /> flexural forces over the 6-inch gap that was previously at the top of the beam.The L6 members are still <br /> to be used for redundancy. <br /> I trust the above information is satisfactory for your needs. If you have any questions,please call our office. <br /> Sincerely, Reviewed by, <br /> Ko n ar Pam v ID <br /> 0404. <br /> Konnor Parrish,EIT David M.Aronson,P.E.,S.E. <br /> Kramer Gehlen&Associates,Inc. Kramer Gehlen&Associates,Inc. <br /> as <br /> Enclosures: <br /> End. 1—HomeGoods Everett Beam Replacement Supplemental Calculations <br />