8102 EVERGREEN WAY 4 CORNERS - TRASH ENCLOSURES 2025-08-25

From: Matt Schmitter <matt@dcgengr.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 20214:26 PM To: Drew Martin <dmartin@everettwa.gov> Cc: Eric Maunder <ericm@dcgengr.com> Subject: RE: Intro Drew, I'll have Eric look into these. But you said it yourself, these are just trash enclosures. I believe Eric showed that we had capacity to spare. Thanks Matthew C. Schmitter, PE, SE Vice President I Principal of Structural Engineering Davido Consulting Group, Inc. T 206.523.0024 x 102 Seattle I Mount Vernon I Whidbey Island I Federal Way From: Drew Martin <dmartin@everettwa.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 11:03 AM To: Matt Schmitter <matt@dcgengr.com> Cc: Eric Maunder <ericm@dcgengr.com> Subject: RE: Intro Matt, I have several questions regarding the calculations. I'll preface this by noting that both ASCE 7-10 Chapters 12 or 15 could be used for the design (not sure what was used). Either should produced the same result. My comments are based on Chapter 12. 1. The response modification factor (R) is not clear. Calculation page SE-AD-2 appears to indicate the loads are from the original calculations, which I anticipate used a factor corresponding to the CMU walls (i.e., R=2). My understanding is that the roof structure is an ordinary cantilever steel column system (R=1.25). ASCE 7-10 Section 12.2.3.1 would apply. 2. Verify that a redundancy factor of r=1.3 has been used in the design. See ASCE 7-10 Section 12.3.4.2. 3. The design loads consider only seismic values. It is my understanding that wind controlled the design. Please clarify. The maximum load condition should be considered. However, the design is still subject to seismic requirements and detailing even if wind controls. See IBC Section 1604.10. 4. The input loads appear to be shear values at the connection height only. It is not clear how moments have been input. Please clarify. Note that both a lateral shear and moment should be input. 2