4201 RUCKER AVE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER 2019-04-10

Structural 5. It appears that the proposed upgrade is done to the level of providing IBC 2015 code-level forces based on the Note 1 of S1.1. Please confirm this is case and provide a narrative indicating with references to the applicable code sections in the IEBC 2015 and the IBC 2015. 6. On permit calculation page 9 indicated the redundancy factor, p, is 1.0. Please provide justification for p = 1.0 per ASCE 7-10 Sec 12.3.2.4. 7. On the provided ETABS output, it appears that model includes the existing building wall piers (consisting of masonry or concrete, it is unclear what material was modeled) the proposed braced frames, and the existing moment frames. Per the ETABS modeling approach and the apparent design objective sought for the voluntary upgrade, it appears that brick masonry or concrete would still experience load effects due to seismic events, but their detailing has not been addressed as part of the upgrade. It is also unclear if the brick masonry is decoupled from contributing to lateral force resistance to the system. Please clarify. Otherwise, please show that upgrades have limited the demands on existing masonry and concrete members to an acceptable level per ASCE 7-10 and the applicable material standards. 8. It does not appear that masonry strong-backing and anchorage to existing diaphragms is being provided on the drawings. If anchorage and the existing brick spanning floor to floor is adequate, please provide a calculation checking these existing conditions. Otherwise, please provide a narrative addressing how out-of-plane anchorage and strong-backing is not being provided as part of the upgrade. 9. On Sheet S2.1, it appears that there is a braced frame column being shared between to braced frames in orthogonal directions. Please provide calculations and details including base plates and columns satisfy conditions per ASCE 7-10 Sec 12.5.4 or per the design criteria per AISC 341-10 Sec D4, whichever governs the design. 10. Please identify on the drawings, the protected zones in the braced frames in the drawings per AISC 341-10 Sec F2.5c such that it communicates to other trades and design disciplines that these zones are areas that are restricted from holes or welds made to these areas. 11. On detail 6/S3.1, a kerf plate is being provided to connect between individual braces. However, the other brace that is being kerfed through to accommodate the plate does not meet the gross area and strength requirements per AISC 341-10 Sec F2.5b. Please verify that the reinforcing plate is provided for the full length of the kerf region and satisfies strength and development requirements. 12. On S1.1 Note 14 and S1.2 Note 44, demand critical welds and their locations are not addressed per AISC 341-10 Sec F2.6. Please add these locations to the notes or depict these conditions on the drawings. 13. Please verify that all reinforcing plates for braces meet the requirements of AISC 341-10 Sec F2.6 for strength and development. Please provide calculations and drawing updates as required. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF EVERETT• 3200 Cedar Street • Everett,WA 98201 • (425) 257-8810 • Fax(425) 257-885