5900 36TH AVE W 2025-01-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Drew Martin From: Drew Martin Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 1:38 PM To: Thad Newport Subject: PW1612-024 - Second Building Review Hello,Thad. I've reviewed the documents for this project. Based on the information provided, a comprehensive review cannot be performed at this time. I have the following preliminary comments: 1. The response appears to be incomplete and only addresses the design of the soil nail walls. In addition,the responses generally appear to be stating that the design does not need to comply with the criteria specified in the comments. This should be discussed with the design team further, and revised responses and documents submitted as appropriate. 2. The soil nail wall design has been performed to the AASHTO LRFD standards and FHWA-NHI-14-007. This is acceptable as an alternative design approach per IBC Section 104.11. The design standards should be specified in the construction drawings, including the IBC. The drawings should include a design statement referencing design by the AASHTO LRFD standards per IBC Section 104.11. 3. Continuing with the previous comment,the design is large and complex and utilizes non-IBC criteria (i.e., roadway design criteria in lieu of building design criteria)for the design of the walls. As such, it is recommended that the City of Everett require the design team to obtain the services of a third-party reviewer to perform an in- depth review of the design. The third-party review should be a professional engineering firm licensed in the state of Washington and proficient in the proposed design standards. A report should be prepared by the third- party reviewer and submitted to the City of Everett. The report should be signed and sealed, and document the review and verifying the design complies with the proposed standards. The standards and all applicable design criteria and assumptions should be documented in the report. 4. Review Comment 2 stated that special inspection should be performed per IBC Chapter 17. The response stated that this is not required as the requirements of the referenced standard are sufficient f or construction. This response is not sufficient. While the alternative criteria may be used per IBC Section 104.11,the IBC is still the governing design standard for use in the project. As such,the requirements of Chapter 17 still apply. The alternative criteria may be used to establish the required list of inspections and to specify the required testing protocols, but it does not supersede the special inspection requirements. The drawings should include a list of special inspection requirements. The list should specify the type and frequency of each inspection required. The list should include but is not limited to: excavation, verification of bearing soils,verification and compaction of structural fill below the wall,verification of fill soils behind the wall, placement and compaction of the fill soils behind the wall, placement of geofabric reinforcement, placement of concrete blocks. 5. Review Comment 3 states that the walls should include seismic surcharge loads. The response states that the seismic surcharge loading is not applicable. This statement should be evaluated further by both the geotechnical engineer-of-record (GOR) and the third-party reviewer. A report should be prepared by both the GOR and the third-party reviewer and submitted to the City of Everett. The report should be signed and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington. A copy of this email has been saved in our system. Please let me know if you have questions. 1