Date |
Text |
2019-10-16 08:34:55 | PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS |
| |
| 4TH REVIEW: FBC FIFTH EDITION (2014) |
| ROBERT MCDOUGAL, CBO |
| COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| (561) 805-6714 |
| [email protected] |
| |
| THE SUBMITTALS HAVE BEEN DENIED BY BUILDING |
| PLEASE ADDRESS THE ITEMS NOTED BELOW: |
| |
| 1) ALL OF THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED |
| WITH ONE EXCEPTION. THE RATIONAL ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS |
| THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE 24" X 24" ES 1500 FIXED |
| WINDOWS IN ZONE 5 ARE INCORRECT. RATIONAL ANALYSIS CAN |
| NOT BE USED TO INCREASE THE WIND LOAD PRESSURES FOR A |
| TESTED ASSEMBLY. THE NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE PRESSURES OF |
| +70, -90 PSF LISTED IN PRODUCT APPROVAL ARE BASED ON |
| THE TESTING AND SAFETY FACTORS AS REQUIRED BY THE 2014 |
| FBC SECTION 1710.5. |
| |
| A) THE ENGINEERING THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE 2' X 2' |
| WINDOW LOCATED IN WALL ZONE 4, DOES NOT RESOLVE THE |
| ISSUE OF THE DESIGN PRESSURES FOR THE WINDOW BEING LESS |
| THAN REQUIRED. NOA NO.17-1114.10 FOR THE ES 1500 |
| WINDOWS LISTS THE MAXIMUM DESIGN LOAD CAPACITY AS +70, |
| -90 PSF. THE ENGINEER'S CALCULATIONS APPEAR TO SHOW THE |
| REQUIRED PRESSURES AS +90.5 PSF, -150.82 PSF, WHICH |
| APPEAR TO BE VULT PRESSURES. HE THEN STATES THE WINDOW |
| PRESSURE ALLOWABLE AS 160 PSF IS GREATER THAN 150.82 |
| PSF. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE 160 PSF WAS DETERMINED. |
| |
| B) THE ENGINEER'S REPORT HAS A SIGNED AND SEALED COVER |
| SHEET, HOWEVER, THE ATTACHED PAGES ARE NOT SIGNED AND |
| SEALED. THE PAGES ARE NOT NUMBERED AND IDENTIFIED ON |
| THE COVER SHEET OR INDEX SHEET AS REQUIRED BY FAC |
| 61G15-23.002. |
| |
| C) THE WALL EXTERNAL PRESSURES ARE LOWER THAN THE ONES |
| IN THE COMPONENTS AND CLADDING EXTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS |
| IN THE CHART ON PLAN SHEET S0.4. THE PLANS OR THE |
| CALCULATIONS WILL NEED TO BE REVISED SO THAT THE |
| PRESSURES ARE THE SAME. FBC 107.2.1 |
| |
| 3) WHEN RESUBMITTING, IT IS HELPFUL TO PROVIDE A |
| RESPONSE LETTER ADDRESSING EACH ITEM ALONG WITH THE |
| CITY RE-SUBMITTAL FORM. |