Report (17) )427-0
Sec..) ecboit.-c_
ROGERS
ENGINEERING
Structural Engineering■Building Design■Code Consulting■Inspection Services
558 S.E.Jackson St.
Roseburg,Oregon 97470
Ph: (541)672-0315
Fax: (541)672-1787
November 11,2016 roxerst(a)rosenetnet
Magellan Architects
Attn: Dirk McCulloch
8383 158th Avenue NE, #280
Redmond, WA, 98052
RE: Storequest Self Storage,Tigard, OR
Dear Mr. McCulloch,
Rogers Engineering is providing structural plan review services for the City of Tigard. A
preliminary review of the drawings for the above noted project has been completed. Additional
information or clarification is needed for the following items in order to complete the review.
KIWI II Construction
1. Sheet KS-1 and calculation page 1 indicates 110 mph wind speed. Wind design speed is
120 mph per OSSC Figure 1609A. Provide revised calculations.
Response: Calculations revised for 120 mph wind.
The horizontal transverse force on calculation page 36 does not match page 1.
Provide clarification.
2. Resolved.
3. The seismic coefficients on calculation page 1 do not match the parameters in the
geotechnical report. Provide clarification. OSSC Sec. 1613.3
Response:Parameters revised.
The geotechnical report dated August 1,2016 specifies SDS as 0.736. This does not
match the revised calculations.
4-8 Resolved.
9. Clarify the locations of the shear walls evaluated on calculation pages 36 and 37. The
calculations appear to be for a 140 ft. building depth and 10 ft. o.c. walls. Portions of the
building exceed 140 ft. and wall spacing is over 10 ft. OSSC Sec. 1604.4
Response:Rigid analysis added for the 2"d levelframing. See new pages 103-117 at the
end of the calculation package.
How was the applied lateral force used in the calculation determined? Where are
calculations for overturning forces?
10. Calculation page 37 specifies %2"KBTZ anchors. ICC-ES Report ESR-1917 indicates a
minimum concrete thickness above the flutes of 3-1/4 inches. Provide revised
calculations. OSSC Sec. 1604.9
Storequest
November 11,2016
Page 2
Response: Bottom tracks are prepunched withled at 6"o.c. so anchors can be put
over low ribs thus allowing for full embedment. ote ICC report references small low
ribs, 1.5"min. dimension and we are using the 2 deck which has 7"wide ribs at the
high side.
This item is still under review. ICC Evaluation Service was contacted regarding
criteria in the report,however the engineer for this report was not available. An
update of the status will be provided after consultation the with ICC staff engineer.
Note that the Hilti analysis for the anchor shown an infinite distance on each side of
the anchor,which does not represent the actual construction.
11-15Resolved.
16. Calculation pages 88—91 appear to be indicating wall panel shear capacity. ICC-ES
Report ESR-2409 indicates AEP Span Steel Roof Deck Panels are used as roof decks and
horizontal diaphragms. Provide clarification. OSSC Sec. 1604.9
Response: The shear capacity of the U-panels per the ICC report is for the metal panels
being screwed to framing per the schedule in the tables. These panels have shear
capacities that are per the Steel Deck Institutes Diaphragm Design Manual. Per section 2
of the manual the testing used to determine strength was in a cantilevered assembly,
analogous to a shear wall assembly. Additionally AISI has published document S-310 to
address the use offluted panels as shear walls. This is a free publication and is available
online. Of particular interest for our purposes are section C of both the specification and
the commentary at the end
ICC staff indicates that report ESR-2409 has been canceled. AISI 5310 appears to
provide methodology for determining shear capacity, but does not provide capacity
for certain walls. Provide specific information demonstrating capacity of the
proposed shear walls.
17. Provide structural calculations for all steel connections,including bolting and welds.
OSSC Sec. 1604.4
Response: Sample calculation has been provided at end of calculation package, see
pages 118-119. Heavy steel fabrication drawings will be provided by approved shop and
will be submitted for engineer and city approval prior to installation. Deferred submittal
note added to KS1.
Provide structural calculations with the deferred submittal.
18. Provide structural calculations for all steel columns and baseplates. OSSC Sec. 1604.4
Response: This will be a deferred submittal item.
Provide structural calculations with the deferred submittal.
19. Provide calculations for support of the channel shown in detail 17/D4. OSSC Sec.
1604.4
Response: See new calculation page 120-121 at the end of the package and revised
detail.
Calculation page 120 shows a single point load on the channel. Sheet KS-3 appears
to show two W24x68 beams supported by the channel. Also note that calculation
page 30 specifies(8) bolts.
Storequest
November 11, 2016
Page 3
20. Resolved.
21. Provide calculations for support of the canopies. OSSC Sec. 1604.4
Response: These are also to be a deferred submittal.
Provide structural calculations with the deferred submittal.
22-25 Resolved.
SSF Structural Engineering
26-27Resolved.
28. Calculation pages 30 and 33 show footing heel and toe pressure as 2248 psf for the
eccentrically loaded footing. Calculation pages 31 and 34 show the factored heel
pressure over 12 ksf and no toe pressure. Clarify the significant difference between the
factored and unfactored pressures. OSSC Sec. 1604.4
•Page 7 of the geotechnical report by Geodesign provided an allowable bearing
pressure of 2500 psf which is greater than the 2248 psf pressure from the design output.
Typical basement walls are designed with restraint from the slab-on-grade and elevated
composite floor deck and are therefore considered simply supported(pinned pinned)
walls. Therefore no moment is required to be transferred through the footing and force
distribution may be considered uniform. A 12 ksf factored pressure would be required
for the footing design if fixity had been provided.
The factored pressures are application of ACI factors for design of the footings.
Other retaining wall calculations provided do not have such a dramatic change from
unfactored to factored pressures. RetainPro was contacted for clarification, but
would not comment since your office is the licensed user.
29-35Resolved.
36. Calculation page 54 specifies(8)#bars at 2"o.c. Where is this specified in the plans?
OSSC Sec. 107.1
• See revised calculation 54(S) as well as supplemental calculations S-1 through S-3.
The design utilizes base fixity to resolve a portion of the load at the stair locations into
the footing as well as well as horizontal reinforcing at the inside face of the wall for the
horizontal span support of the balance of the load.
Where are results of the analysis shown on the plans? Provide deflection
calculations for the horizontal span for evaluation of compatibility with the
cantilever wall design.
37. Provide calculations showing how the lateral load at each end of the horizontal beam
evaluated on calculation page 54 will be resisted. OSSC Sec. 1604.9
• See previous response and supplemental calculations S-4 and S-5. The foundation plan
S2.1 has been updated accordingly to correspond to the revised calculations.
Calculation page S-4 shows#7 vertical wall reinforcing. Where is this shown on the
plans?
38. Resolved.
39. Provide calculations for the retaining wall at grid D, 18—20 with beam reactions. OSSC
Sec. 1604.4
Storequest
November 11,2016
Page 4
•See supplemental calculations S-6 through S-11. We have updated our plans to
increase the footing size as well as increasing the vertical bars in the tied concrete
column per detail 5/53.2.
Calculation page S-6 shows#7 vertical bars. Where is this shown on the plans?
40-41 Resolved.
42. Provide calculations for the wall to deck connection as shown in detail 12/S3.2. ASCE 7-
10 Sec. 12.11.2
• See supplemental calculation 30(S)for shear friction justification of the #5 dowel @
12"oc at the wall to deck connection. Detail 12/S3.2 has been updated to identify a
minimum #5 continuous horizontal distribution reinforcement in the slab.
Is a#5 horizontal bar required at level 2 (detail 12/S3.2)?
43-44Resolved.
45. Provide lateral load calculations for the masonry elevator shafts. OSSC Sec. 1604.9
• Since masonry elevator shafts walls provide minimal lateral resistance due to their
relative stiffness, shear loads to these walls were omitted from the rigid diaphragm
analysis by KIWI II. The original calculations provided a design for the most heavily
stressed masonry shearwall and set this reinforcing as the typical masonry wall
reinforcing. Therefore, the design of the elevator shaft walls is acceptable by inspection.
Clarify construction of the elevator shafts. Sheet D5 appears to show full height
masonry construction. Details 1/A4.40 and 2/A4.40 show the masonry terminating
at the second floor and first floor respectively.
SSF Structural Engineering—Site Structures
46. Calculation pages 2 and 4 appear to specify toe and key reinforcing. Clarify how this
corresponds to 4/S2.1. OSSC Sec. 107.1
• Detail 4/S2.1 has been revised to include #4 @ 12"oc key reinforcing at the 4'-0"tall
wall as required per calculation pages 2 and 4.
The calculations show acceptable toe reinforcing as#4 @ 11.11 inch spacing.
47. Resolved.
48. Calculation pages 10 and 12 appear to specify toe reinforcing and key reinforcing does
not appear to match the schedule. Provide clarification. OSSC Sec. 107.1
• Toe reinforcing is provided to meet the requirements of pages 10 and 12. See other
acceptable reinforcing sizes listed. #5 @ 12"oc toe reinforcing is an acceptable size
and spacing. Detail 4/S2.1 was revised to note #5 @ 12"oc key reinforcing.
Calculation page 12 shows acceptable toe reinforcing as#5 @ 9.57 inch spacing.
49-50 Resolved.
OSSC Oregon Structural Specialty Code 2014 Edition
In order to expedite the review,provide a written response indicating how each item is resolved
and which drawing, detail or calculation contains the supplemental information as applicable.
Storequest
November 11,2016
Page 5
Should you have questions or need additional information,please contact me at your
convenience.
Respectfully,
/*//41
Tom Rogers, P.E.
C: Dan Nelson