2713 MAPLE ST A & B 2024-01-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

LakeviewSE@Outlook.com From: Drew Martin <dmartin@everettwa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 2:14 PM To:Jon Conner<LakeviewSE@outlook.com> Cc: Ismail Mohammad <ismail.seattle@gmail.com>; Rakeeb Khan <RKhan@everettwa.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Maple Duplex- Ismail Hello,Jon. I've reviewed the information. There were multiple issues occurring on-site that deviate from the approved construction drawings. Complete documentation is required to address all issues. I am providing a list, but understand this does not provide you with detailed instruction on how to revise the design. You'll need to submit documentation (details and calculations) to substantiate the modified load paths that are not consistent with the approved construction drawings. Note that instead of resending the entire calculation package with edits, excerpts addressing the specific design changes would be clearer. For the following comments,the calculations and details need to address the issues; narrative explaining why the design is okay are not an adequate substitute. The details and calculations should speak for themselves to demonstrate code compliance. The following needs to be addressed: 1. The submitted detail appears incomplete, including but not limited to: a. The length of the sistered member is not specified. This member should have sufficiently length and fasteners to develop, at a minimum the flexural strength of the spliced existing stud. Note that it is understood that the spliced studs are only every other stud, and so they must take both the flexural out- of-plane load and also the buckling resistance for supporting axial loads equivalent to two studs. The proposed splicing of every other stud is strongly not recommended. b. The removal of the blocking has unclear impacts on the shear load path in the wall sheathing. It is presumed that the sheathing transfers loads to the blocking. Removing this blocking potentially removes the load path as well as eliminates the integrity of the panel itself. The detail needs to show that the integrity of the load path is maintained or replaced in a code-compliant manner. 2. The submitted detail does not address connection of the floor framing to the north wall framing. There is a triaxial loading condition (i.e., vertical shear for gravity, transverse shear for diaphragm forces, and tension due to out-of-plane loading on the wall). This issue was raised in the review comments, but was not adequately addressed. As such, redlines were provided to fill in the gaps; this was a last resort to allow the project to proceed to construction. At this point, we need a detail substantiated by analysis that create a code compliant connection; we will not perform redlines this time to expedite approval. The connection must be designed for concurrent loading as outlined above. In response to the comments below regarding load transfer to the studs, this does not provide a complete load path. The studs require blocking for rotational stability and load transfer to the wall sheathing to complete the load path. 3. Continuing with the previous comment,the floor connection on the south wall has the same triaxial loading condition and similar load path issues. It too must be designed and properly detailed to transfer concurrent loading through a valid load path. 4. The windows in the upper floor should have at least one king and one jamb stud; this may occur— I don't recall the construction at this point. Note that the king studs are effectively supporting loads for an 8-foot opening, not 4-foot, as continuous studs are missing on both sides. The use of a single king stud on each side of a 4-foot opening is based on only a 2-foot tributary width (i.e., one-half of the window width)going to each king stud. These king studs will received at least 2-tributary feet from both sides. It is recommended that solid framing be installed as redlined in the drawings. 5. Continuing with the previous comment,the sheathing on the outside of the south wall appeared very patchwork and dubious as far as being able to perform as required. It was also noted that the sheathing was a combination 3/� /