StructuralPeerReviewReport

For
AkronPK12School
December13,2011

ExecutiveSummary
JirsaHedrickStructuralEngineers,Inc.providedanindependentpeerreviewofthestructuraldesignfor
AkronPK12School.MarkSorensenisthestructuralEngineerofRecord.
Theresultsofthereviewcanbesummarizedinthreecategories:

Nosignificantstructuralissuesthatwouldresultinunsafeconditionsorfailureofthestructural
system
Twomoderatestructuralissues:
o Foundationmodificationsattworestroomcorestopreventsettlement
o Additionofcolumnbracingatthe2ndfloorandrooftoenhanceperformanceofthe
structure
Minormodificationstooriginaldetailsforclarityandconsistencywiththestructuralsteelshop
drawings

Whenconstructioniscomplete,priortooccupancybytheSchoolDistrict,theEngineerofRecordwill
confirmtheresultsofthepeerreviewreportwereincorporatedintotheconstructionoftheproject.

TableofContents

Section1

Section2

Section3

Section4

Section5

PeerReviewReportCoverLetter

IndependentPeerReviewProcessSummary

MemorandumofAction

LetterofAgreementfromJirsaHedrickStructuralEngineers

ResponsefromEngineerofRecordtoPreliminaryPeerReviewComments

Section6

Section7

PreliminaryPeerReviewCommentsfromJirsaHedrick

SupplementalInformation

Section2

IndependentPeerReviewProcessSummary

1. The3rdpartyreviewfirmisselectedonqualificationsandcapacity.
2. Existingrecorddrawings,shopsdrawings,soilsreport,calculations,peerreviewprocessflow
map,andscopeofworkaregiventothe3rdpartyreviewfirm.Additionalinformationsuchas
caissiondrillinglogs,etc.,arealsoprovidedasneededandrequested.
3. 3rdpartyreviewfirmmakesafeeproposal(typicallyhourlyrateswithanestimateoftotalcost
tocompletethereviewprocess).
4. Contractisputinplacewiththe3rdpartyreviewfirm.
5. 3rdpartyreviewfirmconductsreviewandcreatespreliminarylistofquestionsandpossible
concerns.ThereviewfirmalsosubmitsinquiriestoEngineerofRecord/ResponsibleEngineerin
Chargeasneededduringthistime.
6. 3rdpartyreviewfirmandEngineerofRecord/ResponsibleEngineerinChargemeettoreview
preliminarylistofquestionsandpossibleconcerns.Thetwopartiesagreeuponnextsteps.
7. EngineerofRecord/ResponsibleEngineerinChargecompleteswork(i.e.calculations,details,
researchordrawings)neededtorespondinwritingtothepreliminarylistofquestions.
8. 3rdpartyreviewfirm,EngineerofRecord/ResponsibleEngineerinCharge,andNeenanstaff
worktogethertoalignonanyneededactions.
9. EngineerofRecord/ResponsibleEngineerinChargecreateswrittenresponsewithproposed
modifications(asneeded)to3rdpartyreviewfirmscommentsandquestions.
10. 3rdpartyreviewfirmsubmitsletterofagreementregardingtheEngineerofRecord/Responsible
EngineerinChargesresponsesandproposedmodifications.
11. EngineerofRecord/ResponsibleEngineerinChargewritesandstampsaMemorandumofAction
(MOA)thatprovidesdirectiononstructuralmodificationsofthebuilding(ifneeded),or
confirmationoftheadequacyofthestructuraldesign.
12. TheMOA,letterofagreement,andotherdocumentationarepresentedtotheclientinafinal
report.

Ifmodificationstothebuildingarerequired,Neenanschedulesnecessaryworkwiththeclient.

SECTION3

MemorandumofAction

AsEngineerofRecord,Mr.SorensonissuedaMemorandumofAction(MOA)toformalizetherequired
modificationsforAkronPK12SchoolaftertheindependentstructuralpeerreviewbyJirsaHedrick
StructuralEngineers.

TheMOAoutlineschangesthathavebeenincorporatedinthesubmittalreviewprocessanditemsthat
needtobeimplementedinthefield.

Thefinalcommentsthatrequiredactioncanbesummarizedinthreecategories:

Nosignificantstructuralissuesthatwouldresultinunsafeconditionsorfailureofthe
structuralsystem
Twomoderatestructuralissues:
o Foundationmodificationsattworestroomcorestopreventsettlement
o Additionofcolumnbracingatthe2ndfloorandrooftoenhanceperformanceofthe
structure
Minormodificationstooriginaldetailsforclarityandconsistencywiththestructuralsteel
shopdrawings

Comments17and20havebeenaddressedwithVulcraft.Formoredetails,pleaserefertoattachments
inSection7.

SECTION4

LetterofAgreementfromJirsaHedrickStructuralEngineers

TheLetterofAgreementissuedbytheindependentstructuralpeerreviewfirm,JirsaHedrickStructural
Engineers,acknowledgestheiragreementwiththeresponsesandproposedactionsfromMark
Sorensen,EngineerofRecord.Theletterlistsfiveexceptions,whichwereresolvedpriortotheissuance
oftheMemorandumofAction(seesection3).

JtRSAI
7000 E BelleviewAve, Suite250
GreenrvoodVillage.CO tlOtI I
3 0 3 . 8 3 9| .9 6 3

November
16,2011

MarkE.Sorenson,
P.E.
THENEENAN
COMPANY
2620E.Prospect
Road,Suite100
FortCollins,
CO80545
RE:

AkronSchoolPeerReview
JHProjectNo.: 20110903

DearMark:
We havereviewedyourresponse
to our PeerReviewComments
dated13 October2011whichincludes
updateddrawings,
updatedcalculations
andyourletterof November
7,zOL', Wetakeno exceptlons
to
yourresponses
andnotedcorrected
actionswithinthesedocuments
exceptasoutlinedbelow:
comment1

Theactualbaseshearin kipsshouldbe notedon sheets0.02

Comment3
The specialtyengineerdesignof the helicalpiersshallbe reviewedand acceptedthe
Engineer
of Recordprior to installation.Notethe difficultyof transferring
50 kip loadsbetweenthe
screwpilesandthe existingshallowfootingandCMUwall.
C,omment
8
Clarifythe type and amountof weldingbetweenthe anglesand the metal deckto
transferthe braceforcesto the diaphragm.
Comment20 Vulcraftshouldalsoreviewthe imposeduplifton the back-span
of thesejoistsdue to
thisnewbracingandverifono repairsarerequired.
Comments
35 and45 Thesedetailsshouldalsobecloudedto highlightthe notedchanges.
Sincerely,
JIRSA
HEDRICK

J.TimothyHickisch,
P.E.

SECTION5

ResponsefromEngineerofRecordtoPreliminaryPeerReviewComments

MarkSorensen,EngineerofRecord,issuedaresponsetothepreliminarypeerreviewcommentsfrom
JirsaHedrickStructuralEngineers.OnOctober17,2011,priortoissuingthisresponse,Mr.Sorensenmet
withEdButeynofJirsaHedricktoreviewanddiscussJirsaHedrickscommentsandconcerns,andreview
structuraldrawingandcalculations.Asaresultofthatmeeting,bothpartiesagreedthatasignificant
amountofthepreliminarycommentsrequirednofurtheraction,asnotedintheresponseletter.

November 7, 2011

To:

Ed Buteyn, P.E., S.E.

JIRSA|HEDRICK
& ASSOCIATES

Structural Engineers
Mark E. Sorenson, PE

From:

Structural Engineer
THE NEENAN COMPANY
2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80525

Re:

Response to: Akron School Peer Review Comments dated 13 October 2011

Ed:
As I am sure that you are aware, the Design Build delivery method is one in which numerous
items are coordinated and checked during the submittal review process. This is due to the fact
that the designer does not have all of the required information at the time of the initial design. I
appreciate your review of this project. Below are my responses to all of your comments.

Response to: Akron School Peer Review Comments dated 10-13-2011

Sheet
Response to Comment

Comment
Number
1

Number
S0.02

S0.02

S1.22

S1.22

CDN#2409A-089

The seismic section of the general notes has been updated to

indicate the correct values of SS, S1, SDS, SD1 and CS. The change
in values does not change the original design; they have been
revised to reflect the correct values. See revised sheet S0.02.
No further action is required for this item.
The seismic over strength factor has been changed to 3.0. It
should be noted that a value of 2.5 is allowed to be used for
the flexible roof diaphragm (see footnote g on page 122 of
ASCE 7-05). This change does not affect the original design.
See revised Sheet S0.02. No further action is required.
The 2-0 wide footing (WF20) for the East and West CMU
restroom cores are undersized. A place holder footing was
inserted into the Revit model and the footing was never sized
appropriately. Thank you for pointing out this error. In order
to transfer the gravity and lateral loads of the CMU cores,
helical piers will be added to support the restroom cores. All of
the load will be resisted by the new helicals. See the new
enlarged foundation plans on sheet S4.11 for locations and
required service loads of the helical piers. The piers will be
supplied, installed, and engineered by a single source. The
required connections to the existing footings will be
determined by supplier. See pages 1-7 of attached Calcs.
The west wall of the east CMU restroom core has been
checked and is sufficient to resist the loads. As a result of the
1

S1.24

S1.24

S1.24

S1.24

S1.24

10

S1.24

11

S1.24

12

S1.24

CDN#2409A-089

rigid diaphragm analysis, the 2nd floor lateral load decreased as

a result of the decreased stiffness of this wall with the opening.
No additional reinforcement is required for this wall see
pages 8-9 of the attached calculations. No action is required
for this item.
The connection of the C15x33.9 to the HSS columns is
adequate for the load. The details incorrectly show the
channel to column as a (3) bolt connection. The connection is
actually a (4) bolt connection that has an allowable capacity of
27.9 kips see pages 10-11 of calcs. The maximum reaction is
17.92 kips (64% of allowable). A typical column showing the (4)
bolt connection is included in the calcs. All channel to column
details (10-12 & 14-23 on sheet S5.12) have been modified to
indicate the correct (4) Bolt connection. No action is required
for this item.
During the shop drawing phase of the project TNC worked with
the detailer to create a corner saddle to allow for the
connection of the beams at adjacent walls. The corner saddle
will be modified with drilled and epoxied threaded rod to
increase the capacity of the saddle and eliminate the potential
for possible bearing failure on the face shell of the CMU.
TNC believes that no additional sliding load needs to be
considered in this low roof area. The reason is that both the
high and low roofs have the same metal roof and both are
sloped roofs that would allow for sliding. In the event that
snow slides from the high roof, the snow on the low roof would
also slide, thus the net increase in snow low on the low roof is
essentially zero. In addition, snow guards are indicated on
sheet A1.33 to prevent the sliding of snow from the high roof
to the low roof. No action is required for this item.
Angle bracing members have been added at all column
locations that were not braced in both directions. See new
details 11, 12, 16, & 20 on sheet S5.17.
The W16x26 steel beams at the low roof north of F.3 between
grids 8.7-9.8 have sufficient capacity for the 25 psf of sliding
snow from the high roof above. No action is required for this
item.
The W18x35 beams have sufficient capacity for the floor loads.
The beams had already been fabricated the beam sizes will
not be reduced. No action is required for this item.
During the shop drawing review, girders that were smaller than
the floor beam were upsized to deeper members. The
fabricator did not have a problem with coping both the top and
the bottom flange of the beams. No action is required for this
item.
The columns are connected to the C15 edge beams at the
locations indicated. No action is required for this item.

13

S1.24

14

S1.31

15

S1.31

16

S1.31

17

S1.31

18

S1.31

19

S1.31

20

S1.31

21

S1.31

22

S1.32

CDN#2409A-089

During the shop drawing review. The two C4 columns

(HSS5x5x1/4) were increased to C7 columns (HSS5x5x1/2)
see revised sheet S1.22. The C7 columns have sufficient
capacity to resist the moment; the unity check for the larger
column is 0.82 see page 12 of calcs. No action is required
for this item.
The corridor and lobby north of Grid J will be tied to the
existing metal building in order to resist the lateral forces. This
will not result in any increased load to the metal building
because it already has wind exposure in this area. The
connection detail for this condition will be worked out at a
later time due to the fact that this corridor will not be built
until the summer of 2012.
The minimum roof slope of per foot (in the valley) will be
achieved through the addition of tapered insulation on the
warped roof. A note has been added to Sheets S1.31 and
A1.32 to indicate the addition of tapered insulation. No
further action is required for this item.
As discussed in the meeting on 10-17-11, the low roof has
lateral resisting elements in three directions: 1) CMU shear
wall along grid H.2, 2) CMU shear wall east of grid 10.5, and 3)
X-brace 7/S2.12 along grid 11. No action is required for this
item.
Additional drift loads have been added to the drawings and
loads have been provided to Vulcraft. Vulcraft will determine if
joists are sufficient or if modifications need to be made.
There is a minimum of a 2 expansion joint between the
existing metal building and the new structure (except at the
corridor noted in item 14). Detail 9/S5.14 has been modified to
indicate the minimum expansion. No further action is
required for this item.
TNC agrees that this area is congested. The shop drawings
have been reviewed and this area has been detailed correctly.
No action is required for this item.
The original design of the low roof did not take into account
the drifting load since the low roof is sloped. Upon further
review of the ASCE 7-05, there is no indication that the drift
can be ignored due to this condition. The joist tails will be
reinforced to resist the drift load. The girders along grid C.4
were increased in size prior to fabrication to account for the
additional drift load on the beam. See revised detail 9/S5.14
and pages 13-22 of the calcs for the joist tail reinforcement.
The RTU loads were coordinated with Vulcraft during the shop
drawing review. No action is required for this item.
Angle bracing members have been added at all column
locations that are not braced in both directions. See new
details 13-15 & 17-21 on sheet S5.17. See revised sheet S1.32

23

S2.11

24

S2.11 &
S2.12

25

26

S2.14
(Should
be S4.11)
S5.11

27

S5.11

28

S5.11

29

S5.12

30

S5.12

31

S5.12

32

S5.12

33

S5.13

CDN#2409A-089

for the locations of the added bracing. This bracing will be

added once the material is fabricated and delivered.
The lateral forces will be transferred through the beam to
beam connection. The shear tabs of the W16x31 members will
be welded to drag the forces through the W18x35 valley beam.
HSS tubes will also be added to the top of the W16 beams to
transfer the roof diaphragm into the braced frame members.
See revised detail 7/S2.11 and new detail 22/S5.17. No further
action is required for this item.
All of the brace beams are adequate for the moment induced
by the connection of the work point not at the centerline of the
members. This condition is one of the special cases in the
unified force method. No action is required for this item.
The lateral forces, at the vertical discontinuity, are transferred
through the rigid floor diaphragm. No action is required for
this item.
The details have been revised to utilize powder actuated
fasteners (PAF) in lieu of the Titen bolts specified. We have
confirmed with the field that the PAF will be a quicker and
easier to install. See pages 23-32 of calcs. No further action is
required for this item.
Heavier veneer ties will be added at the floor and roof level.
See revised sheet S2.14 and page 33 of calcs. No further
action is required for this item.
The footings are sized for the light loads at this portion of the
structure. It would not have been possible to tie into the
existing footings because they are bell pier footings that do
not coincide with the layout of the new structure. No action is
required for this item.
All columns have been sized for required axial load and any
moment forces. No action is required for this item.
Detail 9/S5.12 has been modified to add re-bar field welded to
the edge angle to provide a solid guard rail connection. No
further action is required for this item.
The design intent was to connect the roof diaphragm to the
bent plate, thus eliminating any roll over from being induced
into the joist seats. Detail 12/S5.12 has been modified to add a
note that the roof deck is to be welded to the bent plate. The
weld of the bent plate to the channel has also been modified to
indicate a stitch weld (which is consistent with the approved
shop drawings). No further action is required for this item.
Detail 13/S5.12 does not exist in the project. Sheet S5.12 has
been revised to indicate that this detail does not occur in the
project. No further action is required for this item.
Details 1, 2, & 3 on sheet S5.13 have been modified to add field
welded re-bar to the edge angle to transfer the diaphragm load
to the CMU walls. Detail 2 did not show the screw anchors
4

34

S5.13

35

S5.13

36

S5.13

37

S5.13

38

S5.14

39

S5.14

40

S5.14

CDN#2409A-089

because it was specifically showing the connection at the

embed. A note has been added to the details to reference the
connection of the edge angle to the CMU beyond. No further
action is required for this item.
The saddle will be modified with drilled thru-threaded rod to
increase the capacity of the saddle and eliminate the potential
for possible failure of the face shell of the CMU. In sizing the
thru-bolts, TNC considered the strength of the bolt failure and
the allowable bearing of the full horizontal leg of the CMU
saddle. Bolt bearing on the CMU was not considered in the
control of this connection, because the added bolts are being
considered to confine the CMU such that failure of the face
shell cannot occur. This design limits the capacity of the
connection to 31 kips. The typical reaction for this connection
is approximately 15 kips. Details 1 & 2 on sheet S5.13 have
been modified to include the new thru-bolts. Please see page
34 of the calcs.
Detail 7 has been modified to replace the 3/16 fillet weld at the
top and bottom of the angle. The angle will be welded (full
length) to the back side of the stud with a flair bevel weld. This
connection has been checked and has adequate capacity. See
pages 35-36 of the calcs. No further action is required for this
item.
Details 14 & 18 on S5.13 have been modified to add an angle
under the bent plate between the channels. This will
adequately support the bent plate and the brick above. No
further action is required for this item.
Detail 19/S5.13 has been modified to indicate spacer bars at
the deck flutes and an angle over the top of the spacers. This
will transfer the load directly to the beam below and not
impact the deck. No further action is required for this item.
The recommended bracing is not possible. At grid E.6 there is a
high and low girder truss. The required loads were provided to
Vulcraft. This detail was coordinated with Vulcraft and girder
deflections have been limited to a total load deflection of 1.
The gypsum board shear wall has been designed to transfer the
lateral forces at the roof step. No action is required for this
item.
Detail 12/S5.14 has been modified to add fitted web stiffeners
in the beam. No further action is required for this item.
The high roof has a 3 7/16 in 12 pitch on the north side of the
roof and a 4 in 12 pitch on the south side of the roof. The
difference in pitch is a forced geometric constraint set by
keeping the roof bearing elevation constant (the run is slightly
longer for one portion of the north side of the building). The
architectural roof plan has added the 3 7/16 in 12 pitch for
clarity. No action is required for this item.

41

S5.14

42

S5.14

43

S5.15

44

S5.15

45

S5.15

46

S5.15

47

S5.15

48

Calcs

CDN#2409A-089

Diagonal bracing has been added to details 18 & 19 on sheet

S5.14. No further action is required for this item.
Detail 20 is specific to the visitors locker room and has been
modified to reflect the correct as built condition. All roof deck,
to top of CMU shear wall, connections were coordinated
during the shop drawing review process. No action is required
for this item.
The force from the roof screen to the joist was coordinated
with Vulcraft during the shop drawing review process. Vulcraft
has designed the joists for the required forces. No action is
required for this item.
The gravity load from the roof screen to the joist was
coordinated with Vulcraft during the shop drawing review
process. The details have been modified to include the gravity
load for clarity. No action is required for this item.
Detail 10/S5.15 incorrectly noted the brick support angle as a
loose lintel. The detail has been modified to indicate that
this is a bent plate that is welded to the back side of the 16 ga
studs (@ 8 o.c. for this condition). Please see the revised
detail and pages 35-36 of the calcs. The correct condition was
coordinated with the steel fabricator during the shop drawing
review process. No action is required for this item.
The design intent was to connect the roof diaphragm to the
bent plate, thus eliminating any roll over from being induced
into the joist seats. Detail 15/S5.15 has been modified to add a
note that the roof deck is to be welded to the bent plate. The
weld of the bent plate to the channel has also been modified to
indicate a stitch weld (which is consistent with the approved
shop drawings). No further action is required for this item.
The original assumption for this project was that shelf angles
would be required; however, the height of brick is within the
range that can be supported without the use of shelf angles.
The brick is supported by the foundation wall. This detail does
not occur in the project. Sheet S5.15 has been modified to
indicate that this detail does not occur. No action is required
for this item.
The original analysis of the 2nd floor did use a distribution of the
forces as if the diaphragm were flexible. It is correct that this
concrete floor should be considered a rigid diaphragm. The
floor has been re-analyzed as a rigid diaphragm. The result of
this analysis indicated that some of the loads to the CMU walls
increased and all of the loads to the Braces decreased. The
CMU walls have been checked for the increased loads. All of
the CMU walls can resist the increased loading see pages 3769 of the attached calculations. No further action is required
for this item.

49

Calcs

CDN#2409A-089

The exterior columns are all adequate for the bending induced
by the offset connections. RISA calculates the actual Cb. Your
comment indicates that Cb values of 2.7 and 1.75 were used
for the two column segments. The RISA output indicates that
Cb values of 2.3 (not 2.7 as indicated) and 1.75 were used. The
code puts an upper bound of 2.3 on Cb. While it is
conservative to use a value of Cb = 1.0, the code does allow for
the actual value of Cb to be computed. The RISA output is
correct and the columns are adequate for the design loads. As
indicated previously, all columns will be braced at the roof and
the floor level so the wind load will transfer directly into the
diaphragm, and not have to be resisted by the column. No
action is required for this item.

SECTION6

PreliminaryPeerReviewCommentsfromJirsaHedrick

JirsaHedrickissuedtheirpreliminarycommentsafterreviewingthedrawingsandcalculationsprovided
byTheNeenanCompany.Thiswastheinitialstepintheindependentpeerreviewprocess,whichalso
includedtheresponsefromtheEngineerofRecord,letterofagreementfromJirsaHedrick,and
MemorandumofAction.

CDN#2409A-089

Akron School - Peer Review Comments

13 October 2011

Comment
Number

Sheet
Number

Comment

S0.02

The earthquake design parameters appear to be incorrect for this

site. The calculations include the parameters for zip code 80550,
but Akron is in zip code 80720. Based on this SS=0.113, S1=0.041,
SDS=0.120 and SD1=0.065. Using these parameters CS=0.050. A CS
of 0.102 was used for design, which is conservative since it is
approximately double what is required. The seismic loads may not
have controlled the design, so this would not change the controlling
lateral design forces.

S0.02

The seismic overstrength factor is 3.0, not 2.5, for systems not
specifically detailed for seismic resistance as defined in the code.

S1.22

Confirm the 2-0 wide footing (WF20) for the interior CMU walls is
adequate for gravity loads and overturning forces due to lateral
loads. The footing capacity at 1500 psf is 3000 plf. The gravity
loads for some walls exceed 5000 plf. It appears that this footing is
significantly undersized.

S1.22

Confirm that the west wall of the eastern CMU core is adequate to
resist lateral forces. Page 41 of the calculations indicates this wall is
to resist 33 kips of wind load laterally. This wall has two door
openings in it, leaving only 10-0 of CMU. Is additional reinforcing
required?

S1.24

Confirm the connection of the C15x33.9 to the HSS columns is

adequate in all locations. For example, at grid A-2.5, the end
reaction (service) is 15.6 kips. At A.2 and 8.5, the reaction is 15.9
kips. The capacity of the connection is only 14.9 kips using a 4
offset of the bolts per details 14 and 15/S5.12. While only slightly
overstressed, it is standard practice to include some amount of
additional capacity, usually 15%.

S1.24

There are two beams framing into the southeast corner of the CMU
elevator shaft. The saddle detail (4/S5.13) does not work at this
location.

S1.24

There should be additional snow load due to sliding from the high
roof to the low roof between grids 5 and 7 north of grid E.4.

CDN#2409A-089

Comment
Number

Sheet
Number

Comment

S1.24

Confirm that all columns are adequately braced in both directions at

this level. Typically, steel girders frame into opposite sides of a HSS
column but beams do not frame into the other sides of the column.
This creates a situation where the columns may not be adequately
braced in one direction. Also, exterior columns have induced
moments due to the 4 offset connection of the C15. In addition to
being designed for the combined axial and flexural loads, the column
must be horizontally braced at the floor and the roof. These
columns are not directly braced back to the floor or roof diaphragm
so the horizontal force must be resisted by bending the channel
about its weak axis. Additional bracing of the column may be
required.

S1.24

Confirm that the snow drift on the low roof is 25 psf over the entire
low roof north of grid F.3 between grids 8.7 and 9.8 due to sliding
snow off the adjacent high roof.

10

S1.24

W18x35 beams are being used for beams less than 22-0 in many
locations. Typical beams of 22-0 or less only require a W14x22 or
smaller.

11

S1.24

There are many locations where the beams are the same depth or
deeper than the girders. This requires double coping of the beam,
which is not very desirable. It would be better if the girders were
deeper than the beams.

12

S1.24

Confirm the following columns are connected to the C15 edge beam:
B.1 @ 8 & 10 and A.2 @ 8.8 & 9.2. Graphically, it appears they are
not.

13

S1.24

The two C4 columns along grid 7 at grid C and C.1 are overstressed
with a unity check of about 3.0 because the girders frame into the
side of the column with no balancing load on the opposite side. A
solution may be to extend the girders over top of the columns. As
mentioned elsewhere in these comments, all columns must be
designed for combined axial and flexural loads.

14

S1.31

The corridor and lobby north of grid J doesnt appear to have a

lateral system in either direction.

15

S1.31

The bottom of deck over the cafetorium doesnt match the

architectural drawings. The roof slope is less than per foot,
which may violate the building code.

CDN#2409A-089

Comment
Number

Sheet
Number

Comment

16

S1.31

The brace along grid 9.8 (6/S2.12) transfers load from the high roof
only. Confirm that loads parallel to this brace from the low roof north
of grid H can be transferred by the HSS columns or provide another
level of bracing similar to 7/S2.12.

17

S1.31

Confirm windward snow drift of 36 psf for 5-0 perpendicular to the

parapet along grid E.6 and along grid H.

18

S1.31

Confirm there is an expansion joint between the existing building

along grid 12 and along grid D and the new construction. This joint
must be wide enough to accommodate the lateral drift of the existing
metal frame building and the new building.

19

S1.31

The graphics for the framing between grids 10.8 and 12 and
between A.7 and C are so dense that it is difficult to determine the
actual framing. Our recommendation is to provide an enlarged plan
for this area.

20

S1.31

Confirm the snow drift on the cantilevered ends of the joist between
grids C.4 and D. The step between these two roofs varies. When
the roof step is greater than 7.5, the maximum drift is 133 psf.
Where the step is less than 7.5, the maximum drift is 62 psf.
Confirm the nearly 7-0 cantilevered ends of the joist are adequate
for strength and deflection.

21

S1.31

Clarify how the loads from the roof top units are to be supported by
the open web roof joists. For instance, the 28K10 joists over the
cafetorium are just adequate for standard roof loads. The HRV
weight is only 3480 lb., not 6000 lbs while the EC4 is 1360 lbs. The
point loads to the joists need to be defined. It is common practice to
increase the point loads somewhat since the load is not uniformly
distributed.

22

S1.32

The tops of the columns must be braced. Many of the columns are
positively braced by perpendicular framing in one direction only.

23

S2.11

Elevation 7 The top beam of the braced frame is interrupted by the

W18x35 valley beam. Confirm the roof loads can be adequately
dragged into the roof beam and that deflection of the valley beam
does not adversely affect the performance of the braced frame.
Suggested solution is to add a column beneath the valley beam and
place the upper braces between it and the column at grid 8.8

CDN#2409A-089

Comment
Number

Sheet
Number

Comment

24

S2.11 &
S2.12

The centerline of the braces does not align with mid-height of the
beams but instead aligns with either the top or bottom flange. This
connection geometry creates bending in the beams due to lateral
forces. Confirm that all members are still adequate based on the
actual eccentricities of these connections.

25

S2.14

The east wall of the east CMU core jogs at 2nd floor from about grid
9.7 to about grid 9.5. Confirm lateral forces in this wall can transfer
with this jog.

26

S5.11

Details 11, 12 and 13 if the concrete screws are spaced at 48 on

center the bottom track must be able to span that distance under
wind load. The flexural capacity of the track should be checked.
The screw anchors are very close to the edge of concrete and the
diameter is much larger than can be developed in this connection. A
smaller diameter screw anchor or power actuated fasteners may be
better suited to this connection.

27

S5.11

Detail 13 the two tall sections of wall on the south side of the
building, shown in elevation 3/S2.14, seem to have a combination of
systems that are not very compatible. The 8 cmu is identified as a
veneer, which implies ties back to the metal stud and steel girt and
column backup. In this assembly it would be expected that the
backup system would take the wind loads, but the masonry is likely
much stiffer than the backup. This will concentrate load transfer at
the stiffest point between the two systems and potentially fail the
veneer ties.

28

S5.11

Detail 17 these footings are smaller than the minimum

recommended in the geotechnical report for an isolated footing.
Also, it may be a good idea to tie this into the existing footings to
avoid differential settlement issues.

29

S5.12

Details 4 and 5 these connections create bending stresses in the

columns in addition to the axial loads. The calculations did not
include column designs, but the design must include axial and
flexural loads.

30

S5.12

Detail 9 the edge angle should probably have deformed anchor

studs welded to the vertical leg and embedded in the slab to provide
a solid guardrail connection.

CDN#2409A-089

Comment
Number

Sheet
Number

Comment

31

S5.12

Detail 12 there is a bent plate from the channel to the roof deck. If
this is a diaphragm connection it should be specified that the deck is
welded to this plate. Continuous weld is shown from the bent plate
to the channel. An intermittent weld should be sufficient.

32

S5.12

Detail 13 we could not find where this condition might exist. If it

does exist, it should be clear that the lightly loaded spandrel channel
should be coped. The capacity of the coped section should be
checked.

33

S5.13

Details 1, 2 and 3 these connections dont have any direct

connection from the concrete slab floor diaphragm to the shear wall.
The connection controlling the capacity in these details is the spot
welding of the deck to the angle, which is not very strong. Unless
the forces are very small there should be dowel bars or some direct
connection. Note that detail 2 does not show any screw anchors
connecting the angle to the wall.

34

S5.13

Detail 4 we have a number of concerns regarding the ability of

these hangers to transfer the loads to the masonry walls. These
include bending of the hanger, difficult installation to provide good
bearing, and unequal bearing pressures that may cause a bearing
failure at the face of the wall.

35

S5.13

Detail 7 the weld of the brick support angle to the stud is shown as
a 3/16 fillet weld top and bottom of the angle. This size weld cannot
be achieved with a 16 gage stud, and the capacity of this connection
is pretty limited. It appears that about 10 to 12 feet of brick is
supported on this angle. Perhaps HSS or channel sections should
be used in the stud space for brick support. The capacity of this
connection should be carefully reviewed.

36

S5.13

Details 14 and 18 is the bent plate stiff enough to support the

brick? The brick is quite a ways away from the vertical part of the
plate. It may be necessary to add something to stiffen the plate at
the brick location.

37

S5.13

Detail 19 does the deck have the capacity to support the brick? If
not spacer bars should be added in the flutes with a plate or angle
over top of the spacers to support the brick directly to the beam
below.

38

S5.14

Details 1 and 3 we recommend that bracing similar to what is

shown in brace elevation 7/S212 be used between the low and high
roofs be used instead of gypsum board shear walls.

CDN#2409A-089

Comment
Number

Sheet
Number

Comment

39

S5.14

Detail 12 the tube cantilevered off the top of the beam will
potentially twist the top flange and bend the web of the beam.
Stiffeners should be added in the beam.

40

S5.14

Various details show a roof slope of 3 7/16 in 12. The architectural

roof plan indicates the slope to be 4 in 12.

41

S5.14

Details 18 and 19 bracing of the bottom chords of the joists should

be provided unless the design is relying on the joist bridging to
provide this.

42

S5.14

Detail 20 the welding of the deck to the channel is not specified

and the channel is not wide enough to assure that the bottom flute of
the deck will bear on the channel. This is a typical comment for
diaphragm connection to lateral resisting elements.

43

S5.15

Detail 6 design forces for the joists due to the roof screen are not
listed. A horizontal member across the top chords of the joists is
probably required to resolve the forces.

44

S5.15

Details 6 and 7 the vertical load from the roof screen should be
provided as a joist design load

45

S5.15

Detail 10 this detail refers to loose lintels but both the structural
and architectural sections show the roof interrupting the veneer.
The brick above the roof, which is quite tall, must have structural
support.

46

S5.15

Detail 15 see comment number 5 for sheet S5.14 regarding detail

20/S5.14

47

S5.15

Detail 16 brick support is called out as typical for the perimeter of

the building. We dont understand why this occurs. Can the brick be
load bearing full height and rest on the foundation?

CDN#2409A-089

Comment
Number

Sheet
Number

Comment

48

Calcs

Page 41 shows a map of the roof that includes brace loads. Confirm
the lateral load distribution is consistent with diaphragm stiffness.
Our copy is only in black and white so the notes on the top of the
page indicating that red loads are from the roof while green loads
are from 2nd floor are difficult to discern. It appears that wind loads
were distributed based on a flexible diaphragm which is appropriate
for the roof only. The second floor should be considered a rigid
diaphragm and the lateral loads should be distributed based on
stiffness. The CMU cores will be significantly stiffer than the steel
bracing. This will result in these CMU walls resisting a greater
amount of lateral load and could result in some of the braced frames
dumping load into the 2nd floor diaphragm.

49

Calcs

Confirm exterior columns are adequate with bending induced by

offset connections. Pages 17 through 19 outline the design of the
exterior columns. Page 18 has a RISA-2d output which indicates
the Cb values of 2.7 and 1.75 for the two segments of column. The
correct Cb is 1.0 which will affect the overall design. The design fails
to show the horizontal loads at the roof and 2nd floor diaphragms
which we estimate at 1.23 kips and 0.92 kips, respectively.

SECTION7

SupplementalInformation

TheMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOA),asprovidedinSection3,includesreferencestocomment
#17andcomment#20thatweretobeaddressedwithVulcraft.Thissectionincludesdocumentationto
confirmthattheseitemswereresolvedwithVulcraft.

Date: December 9, 2011

Joe Glaze
Neenan
2026 East Prospect Road, #100
Fort Collin, CO 80525
Subject: Closure of Vulcraft structural items, #17 and #20
Joe,
This letter is to serve as documentation that items #17 (additional drift load at grid E.6
and H) and #20 (snow drift load at grid D) have been addressed and closed as part of
coordination with Maryann Davis with Vulcraft and Kregg Wist with Rocky Mountain
Steel.
Attached to the letter are emails from Maryann Davis with Vulcraft and Kregg Wist with
Rocky Mountain Steel, addressing these items and what is being done to address the
concerns.
Sincerely,

James Ohlson
Job Captain
Enc.

Emails from Maryann Davis and Kregg Wist

Structural calculations for item #20
Vulcraft roof framing drawing

James Ohlson
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Maryann Davis [MDavis@vulcraft ne.com]

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 9:51 AM
James Ohlson; Randy Stiegmann; Joe Glaze; Mike Mesa
Kregg Wist; Dave Henley; Anthony Shearer
FW: Akron Structural Review item #20. 055 11 0337

James,
The top chord extensions are acceptable with the support provided by the revised detail. That should close item #20.
The additional joist that is required due to the new drift load (item #17) is in process. We will notify you when it is to be
delivered. That will close item #17.
If you have any additional items, please let us know.
Thanks,
Maryann

From: Doug Dominisse

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 9:08 AM
To: Maryann Davis; Dave Henley
Subject: RE: Akron#Structural Review item #20. 055#11#0337

With the TCX being considered supported, those joists can support the added drift loads.
Doug Dominisse
From: Maryann Davis
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 5:24 PM
To: Doug Dominisse; Dave Henley
Subject: FW: Akron#Structural Review item #20. 055#11#0337

As promised.
Maryann

From: James Ohlson [mailto:james.ohlson@neenan.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Maryann Davis
Cc: Kregg Wist; Randy Stiegmann; Tom Landsberger; Joe Glaze; Mike Mesa
Subject: Akron#Structural Review item #20.

Maryann,
Attached you will find the structural calculations for the snow drift at grid line D. If you need any additional information
please feel free to give me a call.
1

Best regards,
JAMES ohlson, Assoc. AIA
Design
THE NEENAN COMPANY
2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 100 | Fort Collins, CO 80525
P: 970.416.7277 | C: 303.990.4631 | james.ohlson@neenan.com
Visit us on the web:
www.neenan.com | Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Flickr | YouTube

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information which is the
property of Nucor, intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).
Unauthorized use or disclosure of this information is prohibited. If you
are not an intended recipient, please immediately notify Nucor and destroy
any copies of this email. Receipt of this e-mail shall not be deemed a
waiver by Nucor of any privilege or the confidential nature of the information.