Laserfiche WebLink
! f <br /> 8/1/17 <br /> USTATE <br /> r ,Cnglneerin <br /> PO BOX 952 LYNNWOOD, WA 98046 <br /> T. (206) 280-4715 F. (206) 834-6261 <br /> SERVICES@UPST8.COM <br /> August 1, 2017 <br /> City of Everett <br /> Attn: Jeff Heilman <br /> 3200 Cedar Street <br /> Everett, WA 98201 <br /> Re: Upstate Job#0748 <br /> McNeill —3410 Oakes Ave. <br /> Plan Review Response <br /> Plan Check Number: C1705-009 <br /> To Whom It May Concern: <br /> The following is in response to the above-referenced plan review letter dated July 26, 2017: <br /> Structural <br /> 1. From Page 5.1, the unit shear for the upper floor shear walls at wall line A = 59 PLF <br /> (seismic), which is well below the allowable unit shear for 23/32" sheeting (as specified in <br /> the structural notes) per the 2015 SDPWS Table 4.2C showing VALLow=380 PLF (worst <br /> case), adjusted for ASD (x 0.5) = 190, adjusted for Hem Fir(x 0.93) = 176.7 PLF for <br /> unblocked floor diaphragms. As such, the floor diaphragm is structurally adequate to <br /> transfer the required lateral loads with the use of Detail 2/A4. <br /> The overturning loads at the wall line in question were calculated to be a negative number, <br /> signifying that the dead load of the roof is in excess of the overturning load generated by a <br /> wind or seismic event. It is our opinion that a concentrated load from overturning at the <br /> cantilevered end of the subject joists need not be considered further. <br /> 2. There should be no shear wall edge nailing further apart than 6" OC per the shear wall <br /> schedule provided on Sheet A5. Any reference to shear wall nailing greater than 6" apart <br /> should be removed. <br /> 3. The wall in question should be balloon framedas required. The attached calculations show <br /> that 2x6 studs @ 16" OC are structurally adequate in this area. <br />