3810 RIVERFRONT BLVD BLDG B 2025-07-07

Mr. Eric Evans Shelter Holdings Plan Check Number: B1912-032, First Structural Review January 3, 2020 b. The moments used in the design are not clear. The calculations appear to consider the "cracking moments" instead of the maximum factored moments FEM analysis. See "Appendix A — Pile Forces Summary" from the structural calculations. Note that the FEM results exceed the apparent design moments by an approximate factor of 10. The results of the FEM should be used in the design. c. Continuing with the previous comment, the design moments appear to be based on FEA of the piles performed by the geotechnical engineer. The analyses have been performed for piles with pinned tops and are not consistent with the proposed conditions. If used, analyses with the correct head fixity shall be submitted. Additional documentation shall be submitted explaining how the design moments were derived from these charts. The documentation shall clarify how the moments effectively represent the maximum factored (i.e., LRFD) loads for use with the factored column axial loads. Lastly, the documentation shall clarify why the results of the FEM have been superseded by the lesser values. d. The pile design appears to only consider bending moments in one direction. The piles provide lateral resistance in two orthogonal directions and are therefore subject to concurrent biaxial bending. The pile design shall be revised to consider biaxial bending. Alternatively, a single maximum bending moment may be determined based on the orthogonal bending moments in each direction. See ASCE 7-10 Section 12.5.4. e. The piles have been designed to resist bending using the steel casing. As noted in comments above, it is understood that the casing is not part of the permanent foundation system. Furthermore, the CIP piles have generally been designed considering only the axial loading. The CIP piles should be revised considering concurrent axial and flexural loads in the piles. At a minimum, the top of the piles shall satisfy concurrent loading because the casings have no direct transfer mechanism for either axial or flexural loads. f. Continuing with the comment above, some of the P-M interaction diagrams consider both axial and flexural loads, and appear to indicate results that occur outside the capacity envelope (i.e., DCR > 1.0). Note that only a single load coordinate is shown in each diagram even though multiple load combinations are listed in the analyses. The pile design shall be revised to limit the pile DCRs to 1.0. All significant coordinates shall be verified. g. The longitudinal reinforcement has been designed considering only compression and combined flexural -compression loading. The reinforcement shall also be evaluated for combined flexural -tension loading. The reinforcement shall be anchored per IBC Section 1810.3.11.2. See also IBC Section 1613.1 and ASCE 7-10 Section 12.13.6.5. h. Calculations for the shear design of the piles shall be submitted for review. See IBC Sections 1810.3.9.4.2, 1810.3.9.4.2.1, and 1901.2, and ACI 318-14 Sections 22.5 and 25.7.3 11. The Foundation Plans on Sheets S2.1113 and S2.1213 appear intended to provide Type GBA grade beams around the perimeter, supported by Type GB1 cantilever grade beams. The framing specifications along Grids 1, 17, and 23 appear to be switched or missing. The plans should be reviewed and revised as needed. See IBC Section 1603.1. 03200 dar Everett WAStreet98201 O 425.257.88577 fax O everett asgov/permitgov s Page 4 of 7