| Date |
Text |
| 2008-10-11 13:58:13 | REVIEW #: 4TH |
| | ACTION: DENIED |
| | |
| | FBC 2004 CODE FAMILY W/ 2007 SUPPLEMENTS |
| | FBC CH.1 AS AMENDED BY THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | |
| | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE NUMBERED TO CORRESPOND WITH |
| | PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUITY. |
| | NO WRITTEN RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS MECHANICAL REVIEW |
| | COMMENTS WERE PROVIDED. WHILE THIS IS NOT A CODE |
| | REQUIREMENT, IT DOES ASSIST THE REVIEWER IN |
| | UNDERSTANDING HOW THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, |
| | SAVES UNNECCESARY REVIEW TIME AND AVOIDS DELAYS. |
| | |
| | 1. OK |
| | |
| | 2 AND 12: COMMENT #2 AND #12 ARE BEING COMBINED IN THIS |
| | REVIEW AS THEY DEAL WITH THE SAME SUBJECT. THERE |
| | CONTINUES TO BE COORDINATION PROBLEMS BETWEEN |
| | ARCHITECTURAL, LIFE SAFETY AND MECHANICAL PLANS RELATED |
| | TO WALL TYPES, RATINGS AND DUCT PENETRATIONS OF WALLS: |
| | |
| | A) THE LOCATION OF RATED WALL ASSEMBLIES ON LS-1.0 AND |
| | A-102 DO NOT CORRESPOND. EXAMPLE: THE WALLS ON THE EAST |
| | AND WEST SIDE OF CLASSROOM 160 ARE SHOWN TO BE 1-HOUR |
| | RATED (WALL TAG 1A) ON PAGE A-102 BUT NO RATING IS |
| | SHOWN OB PAGE LS 1.0. THERE ARE MULTIPLE DUCT |
| | PENETRATIONS OF THESE WALLS SHOWN ON PAGE M-2 WITH NO |
| | PROTECTION. IT WILL NOT BE CLEAR ON PLANS IF ALL DUCT |
| | PENETRATIONS WHICH REQUIRE PROTECTION ARE PROTECTED IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH FBCM 607.5 UNTIL ALL PLANS ARE |
| | COORDINATED. |
| | |
| | B) THE 30X14 SUPPLY DUCT FROM AHU-3 IS PENETRATING A |
| | 1-HOUR CORRIDOR WALL AS IT ENTERS CLASSROOM 160 WITH NO |
| | PROTECTION OF THIS PENETRATION SHOWN ON FLOOR PLAN. |
| | SHOW HOW THIS OPENING IS TO BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH FBCM 607.5. |
| | |
| | C) THE 14X10 SUPPLY DUCT BRANCH COMING FROM AHU-3 IS |
| | SHOWN ON FLOOR PLAN WITH A FIRE DAMPER WHERE THERE IS |
| | NO WALL ASSEMBLY. FIRE DAMPERS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT |
| | RATED WALL ASSEMBLIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH FBCM 607.2. |
| | |
| | D) MECHANICAL SPECIFICATIONS NOTE #10 ON PAGE M-1 |
| | INDICATES ALL FIRE DAMPERS ARE TO BE CORRIDOR |
| | COMBINATION FIRE/SMOKE DAMPERS. FLOOR PLAN ONLY HAS ONE |
| | SYMBOL USED FOR FIRE DAMPERS AT ALL LOCATIONS. IS THE |
| | DESIGN INTENT THAT ALL FIRE DAMPERS REGARDLESS OF |
| | LOCATION BE COMBINATION FIRE/SMOKE DAMPERS? NOT ALL |
| | FIRE DAMPERS ON PLANS ARE LOCATED AT A CORRIDOR WALL |
| | PENETRATION AND THERE IS NO MEANS ON PLANS TO |
| | DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CORRIDOR TYPE COMBINATION DAMPERS |
| | AND STANDARD FIRE DAMPERS. PLEASE CLARIFY, SHOWING |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH FBCM 607.5.3 AND 607.5.4. |
| | |
| | 3 THROUGH 7: OK |
| | |
| | 8. NOTE 13 ON PAGE M-2 HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO SHOW TWO |
| | LINE SETS PER CONDENSING UNIT FOR AHU-1 AND AHU-2. DOES |
| | THIS MEAN THERE ARE TWO CONDENSING UNITS PER AHU? THERE |
| | IS ONLY ONE CONDENSING UNIT PER AHU SHOWN ON PLANS. |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY PER FBCM 304.1 AND FBCB 106.1.1. |
| | |
| | 9. NEW COOLING LOAD CALCULATIONS HAVE STILL NOT BEEN |
| | PROVIDED WITH ENERGY CALCULATIONS AS REQUIRED BY FBCB |
| | 13-407.1.ABC.1. ALSO, PLEASE SEE BUILDING PLAN REVIEW |
| | COMMENTS RELATED TO DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN BUILDING |
| | PLANS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOWN ON ENERGY CALCULATIONS. |
| | PLANS AND CALCULATIONS SHALL CORRESPOND IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH FBCB 13-103.2. |
| | |
| | 10. OK |
| | |
| | 11. THIS COMMENT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. THERE IS NO |
| | INSTALLATION ATTACHMENT DETAIL FOR WIND RESISTANCE FOR |
| | THE OUTDOOR INSTALLED ERV AND NO INFORMATION ON THE |
| | CONSTRUCTION OF THE ERV SHOWING IT IS DESIGNED TO |
| | RESIST WIND PRESSURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH FBCM 301.13. |
| | |
| | 12. SEE COMMENT #2 ABOVE. |
| | |
| | PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH COMMENT IN WRITING WITH A |
| | DESCRIPTION OF HOW EACH COMMENT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AS |
| | WELL AS WHERE THE PROVIDED INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND. |
| | THIS WILL ASSIST IN PROVIDING A TIMELY REVIEW WITH AS |
| | FEW DELAYS AS POSSIBLE. |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT: |
| | RONALD J. REGUEIRO |
| | 561.805.6719 |
| | [email protected] |
