Date |
Text |
2018-12-20 12:39:41 | PLAN |
| REVIEW COMMENTS |
| 4TH REVIEW: FBC FIFTH EDITION (2014) |
| ROBERT MCDOUGAL, CBO |
| COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| (561) 805-6714 |
| [email protected] |
| |
| COMMENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS REVIEW HAVE NOT BEEN |
| ADDRESSED COMPLETELY. DETAILED SHOP DRAWINGS OF THE |
| DOOR AND SIDE PANEL ASSEMBLY FROM THE ENGINEER IS |
| REQUIRED. FBC 107.2.1 SEE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION |
| FROM THE LAST REVIEW LISED BELOW. |
| |
| I HAVE REVIEWED THE LETTER FROM WARREN W. SCHAEFER, |
| P.E. #44135, AND HAVE FOUND IT TO BE DEFICIENT AS |
| FOLLOWS: |
| DOOR SIZE: THE OXO DOOR DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE |
| ENTRY DOOR AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLANS |
| DOOR CONSTRUCTION: NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION IS PROVIDED, |
| SUCH AS, THE TYPE OF WOOD FOR THE FRAME AND MULLIONS, |
| HOW THE PLYWOOD LAYERS ARE ATTACHED TOGETHER AND HOW |
| THE MULLIONS ARE ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURAL SUBSTRATE. |
| A DETAILED DRAWING IS REQUIRED. |
| HINGES: WHAT SIZE, WHAT MANUFACTURER AND MODEL, WHAT |
| SIZE SCREWS, WHAT SPACING |
| LOCKS: WHAT MODEL |
| INSTALLATION: DOES THIS OPENING HAVE BUCKS, ARE SCREWS |
| INSTALLED IN PAIRS TO PREVENT TWISTING OF THE 2 X 6 |
| JAMBS |
| FIXED PANEL TO FRAME INSTALLATION: ARE THE SCREWS LESS |
| THAN 12" FROM THE PANEL CORNERS, ARE THE PLYWOOD PANEL |
| EDGES EXPOSED IF FACED MOUNTED TO THE FRAME, A DETAIL |
| IS REQUIRED TO SHOW HOW THE PANELS ARE FACED MOUNTED TO |
| THE FRAME |
| WEATHER SEALS: HOW IS THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR SEALED |
| DOOR RATING: HOW WAS THE +/- 55 PSF RATING FOR THE DOOR |
| DETERMINED, SHUTTERS ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE |
| IMPACT PROTECTION FOR GLAZED AREAS THE DESCRIPTION OF |
| THIS DOOR ASSEMBLY DOES NOT MENTION ANY GLAZING THAT |
| WOULD REQUIRE IMPACT PROTECTION, THIS STRUCTURE HAS A |
| 27' MEAN ROOF HEIGHT AND IS LOCATED IN EXPOSURE D WITH |
| A 170 MPH VULT WIND SPEED VERIFY THE REQUIRED WINDLOAD |
| PRESSURES. |
| |
| FBC 107.3.4.1 REQUIRES THE DESIGNER OF RECORD FOR THE |
| PROJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PRODUCT APPROVAL |
| SUBMITTALS IN WRITING. |
| |
| 1) PREVIOUS COMMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY |
| ADDRESSED. THE ENTRY DOOR FOR THIS PROJECT IS A CUSTOM |
| DOOR AND APPARENTLY DOES NOT HAVE A PRODUCT APPROVAL AS |
| REQUIRED BY FAC RULE 61G20-3. THEREFORE, YOU ARE |
| REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING. |
| FBC-R612.2 PERFORMANCE. |
| EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND DOORS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RESIST |
| THE DESIGN WIND LOADS SPECIFIED IN TABLE R301.2(2) |
| ADJUSTED FOR HEIGHT AND EXPOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH |
| TABLE FBC-R301.2(3). FOR TESTING REQUIRED IN SECTIONS |
| R612.3 AND R612.5, DESIGN PRESSURES DETERMINED FROM |
| TABLE R301.2(2) OR ASCE 7 ARE PERMITTED TO BE |
| MULTIPLIED BY 0.6. |
| |
| FBC-R612.2.1 CUSTOM DOORS. |
| CUSTOM (ONE-OF-A-KIND) EXTERIOR DOOR ASSEMBLIES SHALL |
| BE TESTED BY AN APPROVED TESTING LABORATORY OR BE |
| ENGINEERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED ENGINEERING |
| PRACTICES. |
| |
| FBC-R612.3.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. |
| STRUCTURAL WIND LOAD DESIGN PRESSURES FOR WINDOW AND |
| DOOR UNITS OTHER THAN THE SIZE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE |
| WITH SECTION R612.3 SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE DIFFERENT |
| THAN THE DESIGN VALUE OF THE TESTED UNIT PROVIDED SUCH |
| DIFFERENT PRESSURES ARE DETERMINED BY ACCEPTED |
| ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OR VALIDATED BY AN ADDITIONAL TEST |
| OF THE WINDOW OR DOOR UNIT TO THE DIFFERENT DESIGN |
| PRESSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R612.3. ALL |
| COMPONENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SIZE UNIT SHALL BE THE |
| SAME AS THOSE OF THE TESTED OR LABELED UNIT. |
| |
| 2) NEW COMMENTS. I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM WARREN |
| W. SCHAEFER, P.E. #44135, WHICH STATES THAT HE HAS |
| INSPECTED A 3 PANEL DOOR UNIT INSTALLED AT 2900 N. |
| FLAGLER DRIVE AND FOUND IT ACCEPTABLE AS A NON-IMPACT |
| RATED ENTRY DOOR WHICH WILL SUPPORT THE DESIGN |
| PRESSURES OF + / - 55 PSF. FROM THE DESCRIPTION AND THE |
| PLANS THAT ARE ON FILE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ENTRY DOOR |
| MUST HAVE BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ONE THAT IS SHOWN ON |
| THE PLANS. PROVIDE DRAWINGS OF THE DOOR AND CLARIFY |
| WHICH DOOR THIS IS FOR. I ALSO HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE |
| REQUIRED TESTING FROM AN APPROVED TESTING LABORATORY OR |
| ENGINEERING REQUIRED BY FBC-R612.2.1 FOR THIS DOOR |
| ASSEMBLY. PROVIDE TWO SETS OF AN EVALUATION REPORT FOR |
| THE DOOR ASSEMBLY AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE |
| CODE CHAPTER 61G20-3 AND FLORIDA STATUTES 553.842(1) |
| AND 553.842(5). SEE THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS. THE |
| EVALUATION WILL NEED TO INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE DOOR |
| ASSEMBLY INCLUDING, HINGES, LATCHES, LOCKS, DEAD BOLTS, |
| ETC. PROVIDE DRAWINGS WITH SECTIONS AND DIMENSIONS THAT |
| SHOW THE DOOR AND FRAME CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING RAILS, |
| STILES, PANELS, DOOR FRAME STOP, WEATHER STRIPPING, |
| LOCATIONS OF THE HINGES, LATCHES, LOCKS, DEAD BOLTS, |
| STRUCTURAL MULLIONS, THRESHOLD, SIZE, TYPE AND |
| LOCATIONS OF ALL FASTENERS USED TO ATTACH THE ASSEMBLY |
| TO THE STRUCTURE. SPECIFY THE MANUFACTURER, TYPE AND |
| SIZE OF THE HINGES, LATCHES, LOCKS AND DEAD BOLTS. ALL |
| OF THE COMPONENTS THAT MAKE UP THE DOOR ASSEMBLY ARE |
| REQUIRED TO BE EVALUATED FOR WINDLOADS. |
| |
| FAC RULE: 61G20-3.002 |
| 61G20-3.002 DEFINITIONS. |
| (16) EVALUATION MEANS AN ASSESSMENT OF PRODUCT |
| CONFORMANCE TO THE CODE BY COMPARING AGAINST STANDARDS |
| OR INTENT OF THE CODE USING TESTING OR COMPARATIVE |
| ANALYSIS OR RATIONAL ANALYSIS OR A COMBINATION THEREOF. |
| (17)(A) EVALUATION REPORT MEANS A REPORT BASED UPON |
| TESTING OR COMPARATIVE OR RATIONAL ANALYSIS, OR A |
| COMBINATION THEREOF, FROM AN APPROVED PRODUCT |
| EVALUATION ENTITY OR A LICENSED FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL |
| ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT INDICATING THAT THE PRODUCT WAS |
| EVALUATED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OR THE |
| INTENT OF THE CODE AND THAT THE PRODUCT COMPLIES WITH |
| THE CODE OR IS, FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED, AT LEAST |
| EQUIVALENT TO THAT REQUIRED BY THE CODE. |
| |
| 3) TO ADDRESS WATER INFILTRATION FBC-R612.3 HAS SOME |
| EXCEPTIONS WHICH ARE LISTED BELOW. EXCEPTION #2 MAY BE |
| APPLICABLE TO YOUR CUSTOM DOOR. |
| |
| EXCEPTIONS: |
| |
| 1. DOOR ASSEMBLIES INSTALLED IN NONHABITABLE AREAS |
| WHERE THE DOOR ASSEMBLY AND AREA ARE DESIGNED TO ACCEPT |
| WATER INFILTRATION NEED NOT BE TESTED FOR WATER |
| INFILTRATION. |
| |
| 2. DOOR ASSEMBLIES INSTALLED WHERE THE OVERHANG (OH) |
| RATIO IS EQUAL TO OR MORE THAN 1 NEED NOT BE TESTED FOR |
| WATER INFILTRATION. THE OVERHANG RATIO SHALL BE |
| CALCULATED BY THE FOLLOWING EQUATION: |
| |
| OH RATIO = OH LENGTH/OH HEIGHT |
| |
| WHERE: |
| |
| OH LENGTH = THE HORIZONTAL MEASURE OF HOW FAR AN |
| OVERHANG OVER A DOOR PROJECTS OUT FROM THE DOOR |
| SURFACE. |
| |
| OH HEIGHT = THE VERTICAL MEASURE OF THE DISTANCE FROM |
| THE DOOR SILL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE OVERHANG OVER A |
| DOOR. |
| |
| 3. PASS-THROUGH WINDOWS FOR SERVING FROM A |
| SINGLE-FAMILY KITCHEN, WHERE PROTECTED BY A ROOF |
| OVERHANG OF 5 FEET (1.5 M) OR MORE SHALL BE EXEMPTED |
| FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER INFILTRATION TEST. |
| |
| 4. DECORATIVE GLAZED OPENINGS. |
| |
| |
| |