| Date |
Text |
| 2006-06-17 00:00:00 | BUILDING PLAN REVIEW |
| | *******DENIED******* |
| | ROBERT BROWN(561) 805 6652 |
| | E-MAIL: [email protected] |
| | |
| | REVISION FOR BELL CHAMBER UPLIFT TEST TO |
| | JUSTIFY A BASE SHEET FASTENER PATTERN |
| | DIFFERENT TO THE SUBMITTED PRODUCT |
| | APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | FBC = FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| | FBC*= FLORIDA BUILD'G CODE (CITY AMEND) |
| | F.S.= FLORIDA (STATE) STATUTE |
| | |
| | 1) FBC 1609.1WIND LOADS.THE HERNACKI |
| | ENGINEERING TEST REPORT LETTER DATED |
| | 5/31/06 STATES THAT THE CALCULATED |
| | UPLIFT PRESSURES, WHICH MUST BE RESISTED |
| | BY THE ROOF COVERING APPLIED TO THIS |
| | BUILDING, ARE: |
| | ZONE 1 (FIELD) UPLIFT= 61.3 PSF |
| | ZONE 2 (EDGE) UPLIFT = 75.4 PSF |
| | ZONE 3 (CORNERS) UPLIFT = 75.4 PSF |
| | |
| | NO CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO |
| | JUSTIFY THOSE PRESSURES AND THEY ARE |
| | SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE PRESSURES |
| | CALCULATED BY CSM ENGINEERS AND |
| | SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AT THE TIME OF |
| | PERMIT ISSUANCE.SEE COMMENT 2, BELOW. |
| | |
| | 2) FBC* 106.1WHO IS THE ENGINEER OF |
| | RECORD FOR THIS PROJECT?THERE ARE NOW |
| | TWO ENGINEERS STATING DIFFERENT REQUIRED |
| | UPLIFT PRESSURES FOR THE ROOF.CSM |
| | ENGINEERS, LLC WERE THE ENGINEERING FIRM |
| | THAT ORIGINALLY PROVIDED THE PRESSURES |
| | FOR PERMIT REVIEW.WE WILL CONTINUE TO |
| | REVIEW ALL SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS ON THE |
| | BASIS THAT CSM ENGINEERS IS THE ENGINEER |
| | OF RECORD AND THE ROOF PRESSURE |
| | CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED BY THAT ENGINEER |
| | ARE THE DESIGN CRITERIA THAT THE |
| | PRODUCT/INSTALLATION MUST MEET. |
| | HERNACKI ENGINEERING CAN REPORT ON THE |
| | THE UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF THE |
| | INSTALLATION BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE |
| | UPLIFT TESTS BUT ANY |
| | STATEMENTS/CALCULATIONS THAT THEY HAVE |
| | FOR THE REQUIRED UPLIFT PRESSURES FOR |
| | THE BUILDING CANNOT BE CONSIDERED.IF |
| | THE APPLICANT, WEBSTER CONTRACTING, |
| | WANTS THIS OFFICE TO REVIEW BASED ON THE |
| | CALCULATIONS OF HERNACKI ENGINEERING, |
| | THEY BEING THE PERMIT APPLICANT MUST |
| | SUBMIT A NOTARIZED LETTER TO THAT |
| | EFFECT.THE LETTER WOULD HAVE TO STATE |
| | THAT CSM ENGINEERS ARE NO LONGER THE |
| | ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THAT |
| | RESPONSIBILITY NOW GOES TO HERNACKI |
| | ENGINEERING. |
| | |
| | 3) FBC 1609.1WIND LOADS.THE HERNACKI |
| | ENGINEERING TEST REPORT LETTER DATED |
| | 5/31/06 STATES THAT THE UPLIFT TESTS |
| | SHOW THAT THE INSTALLATION WITHSTANDS |
| | THE REQUIRED UPLIFT PRESSURES.PLEASE |
| | NOTE, THAT STATEMENT IS BASED ON |
| | 'REQUIRED' UPLIFT PRESSURES THAT ARE |
| | SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE |
| | CALCULATED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND |
| | THOSE THAT CAN BE DETERMINED FROM THE |
| | SIMPLIFIED METHOD IN FBC 1609.6.SEE |
| | COMMENT 2, ABOVE.DEVIATION FROM THE |
| | FASTENER REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRODUCT |
| | APPROVAL AND ENGINEER OF RECORD |
| | CALCLUATIONS HAS NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED. |
| | THE BASE SHEET FASTENING FOR ZONE 1 |
| | SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE |
| | FIRESTONE PRODUCT APPROVAL NOA# |
| | 05-0830.10 SHEET 33 AND FASTENING FOR |
| | ZONES 2 AND 3 SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH CSM ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET 2. |
| | |
| | **QUOTE PERMIT# ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE** |
| | |
| | END OF REVIEW COMMENTS |
| | THE CODE REFERENCES GIVE ADDITIONAL INFO |
| | TELEPHONE: (561) 805 6652ROBERT BROWN |
| | E-MAIL: [email protected] |
