10721 19TH AVE SE 2023-04-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Drew Martin,Commercial Plans Examiner—Public Services Department RE:Plan Check#C1802-019— 10725 19th Avenue SE—Correction Notice#2 October 18,2018 'age 3/ g. The original comment recommended providing reinforcement per ACI 318-14 Section 10.7.6.1.6. The response appears to indicate that the reinforcement is not needed due to the anchor bolts extending to the footing. The intent of the reinforcement is to provide confinement at the point of load transfer and prevent localized failure of the concrete. Detail 12/S4.2 does not clearly indicate if additional shear anchorage will be provided, or if the tension anchors will also provide the shear load path into the walls. The load path should be clarified. The minimum number of supplemental anchors should be specified. The needed for confinement reinforcement should be reviewed. Reinforcement is called out on detail 12/S4.2 for the raised stemwall.It requires#4 at 10"o.c. each way. The detail has been updated to visually show this. 18. This comment has not been completely addressed. The manufacturer's literature indicates that a minimum of(26) 8d nails are required for each end length for Hem-Fir framing. Detail 10/S4.0 only specifies(15) 8d nails. Verify the required nailing for the straps. See IBC Section 107.2.1. The 26(8d) nails are required for the entire strap and only 13(8d) nails are required for each end per note 2 below the table on page 305 of the Simpson catalogue. So the 15(8d) nails shown on our drawings are adequate. 19. This comment has not been completely addressed. The original comment stated that additional holdowns are required. The response states that additional holdowns are not required straps providing shear transfer around the wall openings. It appears that the walls may be designed by the Force Transfer method per SDPWS-15 Section 4.3.5.2. Calculations substantiating the design should be submitted for review. See IBC Sections 1604.4 and 2306.1. See attached force transfer method calculation for these shear walls on sheet S-10. 21. This comment has not been completely addressed. The tension forces used in the holdown design on pages C-31 through C-42 are not consistent with the forces determined on pages C-17 and C- 27. Calculations clarifying the design values should be submitted for review. The calculations should address the following: a. The shear wall calculations on pages C-9 through C-17 and C-19 through C-27 appear to evaluate the walls using wind loads. The calculations appear to reference seismic criteria, though it is unclear if the seismic loads are also being evaluated. Note that it appears from other portions of the calculations that the seismic loads partially control the design. Verify that both wind and seismic loads are considered in the shear wall calculations. b. The holdown tables are noted as providing ASD-values. However,the tables appear to reference factored load combinations from IBC Section 1605.2. Verify that factored combinations have been used, and that the load combinations are not factoring load components that have been previously reduced for use in ASD load combinations(i.e.,all unfactored load components should be nomimal values). c. The load combinations shall include vertical seismic effects and overstrength per ASCE 7-10 Sections 12.4.2.2 and 12.4.3.2 Equation 7. Overstrength is required per ACI 318-14 Section 17.2.3.4.3. The overstrength factor shall be applied to the earthquake component only, not the net uplift force after removing resistance due to gravity loading.