HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPLICATIONS, CO, MULT DOCS - 05-00470 - Walgreens Z
~
O _
~ _
~
•~ m
W m
~
~ ~
rn z .,
v ~ , ~
f z~ ~o ~
~ D
• o ~ s ~
5 n C
. ~. (D fD S O
~D a -o -~
v a O
~ .
O
3 N.~. N~ N
~.
v
'`~ m m
T
ay m
co m . p_ ~ O
c 3 ~ v n
w ~ ~ o C O
m ~ ~ n m
~ ~ = a p
a ~ ~ '
° ~ Z
o
i
. ~
~ n ~~ C
~ o ~ v
v 3 o y
m
o ~
~ ~ -~
(D .~. S
~
v
o W
.
~ ~
3 ~ D cc
, y
~
'~
~
~ ~ m y
~ ~ ~ W "O ~
Q ~ ~ ~ n o
Z
..~
~ ~
sz
~~ a _
~o
=o
m
m
af
< _. o
~ Z (~ co 7 T1
c ~ m ~ ~ n
~
F o ~ a o. R1 .
o~ _
~ ~ ~
v m ~ o.
m ~
a °'
° F
n ' ""~ c
•
o
~xs~,~ 0
~ m
o~~
°
'
'
a C
1
~ 0
~ ..•o n~ Z
~ ,.: s ~
m W ~
$ ~~
a~~~ ~
~
m
_
~'~ ~
a r: C7 ~
o ~
c y O
< ~
~
Z Z
y
3xr-y
~ y
~
~
N
~
'~ j y
~ c~ y ~. n C
~
O ~
h Z
. c
i
3 ~ ~ ~
TI
vi; ~ ~ Z
~; O a `° ~
.a y ~ ~D ~
~ y y ~ ~
A 7 0 01 ~
~
~ y S N
S'yp'~ n
<D fD = C
. 7
Q`
W~~~,
• Q
3
Q at ~ tD
Q
~~
~
~, ..:
'~o~
~_
D ~ y
a
~
~ Q. rt ~•.
W
a ~
~
0
o
~~~ g
v
n>; m
~~a
~~
~ ~
o
~.
;
~
~
s
~..~
~ ~ ~ ~
Q. r* ~
S Q
~, ,~ m
~ o
~
7 C y
p,~-~i~
• ,.'
3 N
z
O
0
N
fD
~_
CD
-°a m
~ ~
rn
v
O
10
O
O
O
b
N
~,
~` o~~
o [
:J ~
Ot~~6~
W~
c I" '
`~'
h
H
~C
O
Rf
~.
~'G
a
~
m n
m ~ N
o
Si°CT
m ~ N n
~ ° n
o'
~~ ~ ~
3 N ~
~ 0
0
o O O °
~oc~i ca ~ 3 ~
y T C ~ N ~
Z
m~D~D
C1 wo
N -° t
~• N O
Z
O ~ '< ~ ~ ~'
~
~ ~ y
n Z N
O
Ul ? W N ~
~ o ~ m
O O
7
a
~
~
~ C
co
?
g N
CD
~
~.
m ~
CD
[n
m
2
m
~ 0
~
T 0
O
~
~'I
W
m
v
~
C
3 ~
~
T
7
°'
~
~
=
m
~
~ ~ o
9 ~
3
C ~
9 ~p
s a
CO OD V ~. U1 P W N -~
~
S
v
~
~ ~
O ~
N
~
v
'~ 'S7~
2
v
= N
C
m
o
~ ~
~
~ O
7
a
v
o O
O
~
~ N
O
c
W
C
Z
7 fib
9
7
7
C
D
i
z
m
n
-I
Z
n
o~ ~exepx~
:~ !~''
~ a
~~~ ~
CITY O F
REXBURG
America3 Family Community
Certificate of Occupancy
City of Rexburg
Department of Community Development
19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440
3
Building Permit No:
Applicable Edition of Code:
Site Address:
Use and Occupancy:
Type of Construction:
Design Occupant Load:
Sprinkler System Required:
Name and Address of Owner:
Contractor:
05 00470
International Building Code 2003
24S2ndE
Walgreens Retail Store
Type II-N, Unprotected, non-combustible
441
No
Stations West Developments li
175E 400 S Suite #402
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Rimrock Construction
Special Conditions: Walkways from street to building will be removed and replaced with
stamped concrete prior to October 1, 2006. Replacement of
portions of sewer line will be completed by November 1, 2006.
Occupancy: Mercantile, display and sale of merchandise
This Certificate, issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 109 of the /nternational Building
Code, certifies that, at the time time of issuance, this building or that portion of the building that
vies inspected on the date listed vies found to be in compliance vtith the requirements of the code
for the group and division of occupancy and the use for v~hich the proposed occupancy vies
classified.
Date C.O. Issued: September 116 (03:36PM)
C.O Issued by:
mac'
Buil mu Official
There shall be no further change in the e~asting occupancy classification of the building nor shall any structural changes,
modifications or additions be made to the building or any portion thereof until the Building Official has reviewed and approved
said future changes.
Water Department• 6 Fire
1
State of Idaho Electrical Department (208-356-48301:
J
Q~REXKUkc,~ ~, T Y o F Certificate of Occupancy
° ~~~~ City of Rexburg
`~' De artment of Community Development
'<,, N America'sFnmilyCommttniiy p
19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440
Phone (208) 359-3020 /Fax (208) 359-3022
Building Permit No: 05 00470
Applicable Edition of Code: International Building Code 2003
Site Address: 24 S 2nd E
Use and Occupancy: Walgreens Retail Store
Type of Construction: Type II-N, Unprotected, non-combustible
Design Occupant Load: 441
Sprinkler System Required: No
Name and Address of Owner: Stations West Developments li
175E 400 S Suite #402
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Contractor: Rimrock Construction
Special Conditions:
Occupancy: Mercantile, displayand sale of merchandise
This Certificate, issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 909 of the International Building
Code, certifies that, at the time time of issuance, this building or that portion of the building that
sties inspected on the date listed -ties found to be in compliance v~ith the requirements of the code
for the group and division of occupancy and the use for v~hich the proposed occupancy sties
classified.
Date C.O. Issued: December 14 200 (11 ~03AM)
C.O Issued by:
Building Official
There shall be no further change in the e~asting occupancy classification of the building nor shall any structural changes,
modifications or additions be made to the building or any portion thereof until the Building Official has reviewed and approved
said future changes.
Water Department: ire D
State of Idaho Electrical Department
CITY OF REXB URG
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Please ~ 00470
19 E MAIN, REXBURG, ID. 83440 If the que Walgreens
208-359-3020 X322
PARCEL NUMBER:~~~~ ~~j~ ~i I (We will provide this for you)
SUBDIVISION: UNIT# BLOCK# LOT#
(Addressing is based on the information -must be accurate)
OWNER ~~ .~ A^t ~y` ~- KP ..s' ~.~ CONTACT PHONE # `t~uj '~ ~-- C~ j~
PROPERTY ADDRESS:- ~ ~- ~ 2tt- t`~j2,ir,
PHONE #: Home ( ) Work ~ ~ - " ? ~x
( ) ~Y3 ~"3i, Cell ( ) .~~° ~~~''/
OWNER MAILING ADDRESS:1 ?S ~ L,,~' S"°`~CITY: 5~.- STATE: (..~ ZIP: ~`~~ i
-~~t:~ ,
EMAIL~~~~,r~ C~ FAX ~~7E - S ~i- ~c,`si~
t L,t:C-, ,u;,,,,,
APPLICANT: (If other than owner) 5~~~
(Applicant if other than owner, a statement authoriztng applicant to act as agent for owner must accompany this application.)
APPLICANT INFORMATION: ADDRESS
STATE:
ZIP EMAIL
PHONE #: Home ( )
Work ( )
CONTRACTOR:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE: Home#
EMAIL
FAX
CITY:
FAX
Cell ( )
-CITY STATE ZIP
Cell#
~~~~~[l~~]~
How many buildings are located on this property? trS
Did you recently purchase this property? No Ye (If yes give owner's name)
Is this a lot split?~ YES Please brin co y_
( g py of new legal description of property
PROPOSED USE: ~~~6 ~;~-~ ~ `
(i.e., Single Family Residence, Multi Family, Apartments, Remodel, Garage, Commercial, Addition, Etc.)
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE, CERTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION: Under penalty of perjury, I hereby certify that I
have read this application and state that the information herein is correct and I swear that any information which may hereafter be given by me in hearings before the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council for the City of Rexburg shall be truthful and correct. I agree to comply with all City regulations and State laws
relating to the subject matter of this application and hereby authorized representatives of the City to enter upon the above-mentioned property for inspections purposes.
NOTE: The building official may revoke a permit on approval issued under the provisions of the 2000 International Code in cases of any false statement or
misrepresentation of fa i tie application orr on~plans on which the permit or approval was based. Permit void if not started within 180 days. Permit void if work
stops for 180 days. r
~~~'~' / ~1 / ~u /
Signature of Owner/Applicant DATE
Do you prefer to be contacted by fax, email or phone? Circle One
WARNING -BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON CONSTRUCTION SITE!
Plan fees are non-refundable and are paid in full at the time of application beginning January 1.2005.
City of Rexburg's Acceptance of the plan review fee does not constitute plan approval
Work#
3
~,,pcee~ C1TY ~_ _ _ _ _.
REXBLIR~
~. _
.~ + AMERICA'S FAMILY G~MMUNfIY 19 E Main PO Box 280 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - '
~ ) Phone: 208 359-3020 x326 J
Rexburg,ldaho 83440 Fax:208-359-3024
www rexbura orq comdevCcDrexburg orq
Affidavit of Legal Interest
State of Idaho
County of Majdison
I,
Name ~ Address
City ~ State
Being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and say:
(If Applicant is also Owner of Record, skip to B)
A. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my
permission to:
Name
Address
to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property.
B. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold Rexburg City and its employees harmless from any
claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained herin or as to
the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application.
Dated this
day of
20
Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me the day and year first above written.
Notary Public of Idaho
Residing at:
My commission expires:
2
**Building Permit Fees are d • t time of application** **Building Permits are if you check does not clear**
Please complete the e~ire Application!
If the uestion doe not apply fill in NA for non applicable
NAME ~;,~, l~t~ - ~~ C
PROPERTY ADDRESS ~~~- `~ , ~~:~~ Permit#
SUBDIVISION
Dwelling Units: Parcel Acres:
SETBACKS
FRONT SIDE SIDE BACK
Remodeling Your Building/Home (need Estimate) $
SURFACE SQUARE FOOTAGi~Er (Shall include the exterior wall measurements of the building)
First Floor Area l~-,~`Lt~ U ~•
Second floor/loft area
Third floor/loft area
Shed or Barn
Water Meter Count: 4
(30" above grade
Water Meter Size: ~ ~1
Required!!!
PLUMBING
Plumbing Contractor's Name:
Address
Contact Phone: ( )
Email
FIXTURE COUNT (including roughed Fixtures)
Clothes Washing Machine
Dishwasher
Floor Drain
Garbage Disposal
Hot Tub/Spa
Sinks
(Lavatories, kitchens, bar, mop)
Plumbing Estimate $_ ~, ~ (Commercial Only)
Sprinklers
Tub/Showers
Toilet/Urinal
Water Heater
Water Softener
Kequired! Signature of Licensed Contractor License number
The City of Rexburg's permit fee schedule is the same as
Date
the State of Idaho
n unshed Basement area
Finished basement area
Garage area
Business Name:
City
Business Phone:
Fax
State Zip
4
i -- ---
~~"°"RQ C[TY OF
`~ ~ REXBL.~R~ ~ _ __ _i
-:
~ AMERICA'S FAMILY CQMMUNITY 19 E. Main St. Phone 208-359-3020 x326
Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Fax: 208-359-3024
www.rexburo org cdd@rexburg.org
APPLICATION: "CONSTRUCTION PERMIT"
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT #:_
PERMIT APPROVED: YES/ NO
-APPLICANT INFORMATION:
BUSINESS NAME:
OFFICE ADDRESS:
city
OFFICE PHONE NUMBER: (_
CONTACT PERSON:
APPROVED BY:
State
Zip
CELL PHONE # ( )
-LOCATION OF WORK TO BE DONE:
STREET ADDRESS WHERE WORK WILL BE DONE:
BUSINESS NAME WHERE WORK WILL BE DONE: _
DATES FOR WORK TO BE DONE:
CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE NUMBER: ( )
TO
CELL # ( )
PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF PERMIT(S) YOU ARE APPLYING FOR:
^ AUTOMATIC FIRE-EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS
^ COMPRESSED GASES
^ FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEMS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
^ FIRE PUMPS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
^ FLAMMABLE AND COMMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS
^ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
^ INDUSTRIAL OVENS
^ LP-GAS
^ PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS
^ SPRAYING OR DIPPING
^ STANDPIPE SYSTEMS
^ TEMPORARY MEMBRANE STRUCTURES, TENTS, AND CANOPIES
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
$50.00 FEE PAID: YES/NO
6
• f
SUBCONTRACTOR LIST
Excavation & Earthwork:
Concrete:
Masonry:~
Roofing:_
Insulation:
Drywall:
Painting:-
Floor
Coverings:
Plumbing:_
Heating:-
Electrical:
Special Construction
(Manufacturer or Supplier)
Roof Trusses:
Floor/Ceiling Joists:
Siding/Exterior Trim:
Other:
7
Jun. 21. 2006 ~ ; i~OFM
Please complete the enti~~pplicatian!
appllcab!e
NAME ~
PROPERTY ADD S
SUBDIVISION
No, 2323 F.
If the question doe ply S1I in NA for son
Permit# ~ .d~~
Required!!!
MEC~~4IVICAL
Mechanical Contractor's Name: ~~ ~ Business Name: ~t~~r
Address ~ ~ ~~ G,~ ~-(~ ~ City c{.t. State l~T Zip ~"~
Contact Phone: (~O~) 2q'?, -gj~~°~ Business Phone: (~ )
Em~il_c qr1~ ar r~ i-~~- hyCtc . ~e+- Fax_ ~~ 1-Z93-- 4~~`,l-
~ ~' ~rehni e~ ham-. ~ne~
Mechanical Estimate $ ~A(i'SrJ (Commereial/Multi Family Onl~-)
FIXT7lRES & APPLIElNCES COUNT (Single FamityDwelli~g Only)
Air Conditioner Space Heater
Bath Fan Vents
Range Hood Vents
Boiler
Cook Stove Vents
Decorative Gas Fireplaces
Dryer Vents
Evaporative Cooler
Exhaust or vent ducts
>~ue[ (gas) piping fixtures or appliance outlets
Furnace
FurnacelAir Conditioner Combo
Heat Pump
Incinerator
Pool Heater
Heat (Circle all that apply) Gas Oil Cos]. Fireplace EEectric
Unit Heater
(~f~I~L~UUI~I~j
1 JUN 2 3 2006 L
CITY OF REXBURG
Mechanical Sizing Calcuistions must be submitted with Pisns & Application
Foint of Delivery must be shown on plans.
Signature ofl.icenscd Contractor License number Dete
Regaired!
T7re City of Resburg's permit fee scher}~Ie is the some es required by the Stme oJfdaho
S
Z~d ~L8086Z608 NOO 2ilb' '8 JNllb'~H 2i~
' Please complete the ent~ Application! If the question aoea apply fill in NA for non
applicable ,
NAME
~_
PROPERTY ADD S Permit# (~~ ~~t-l
SUBDIVISION
Required!!!
Mechanical Contractor's Name:
Address
Contact Phone: ( )
Email
Business Name:
_City State
Business Phone:
Fax
Mechanical Estimate $ ~l~hiX~ (Commercial/Multi Family Only)
FIXTURES & APPLIANCES COUNT (Single Family Dwelling Only)
Air Conditioner
Bath Fan Vents
Range Hood Vents
Boiler
Cook Stove Vents
Decorative Gas Fireplaces
Dryer Vents
Evaporative Cooler
Exhaust or vent ducts
Fuel (gas) piping fixtures or appliance outlets
Furnace
Furnace/Air Conditioner Combo
Heat Pump
Incinerator
Pool Heater
Heat (Circle all that apply) Gas Oil Coal Fireplace Electric
Zip
1
Space Heater
Unit Heater
Mechanical Sizing Calculations must be submitted with Plans & Application
Point of Delivery must be shown on plans.
Signature of Licensed Contractor
Required!
The City
License number
's permit fee schedule is the same as
Date
by the State of Idaho
MECHANICAL
5
dl~
~ - r
• n
CITY OF
RExBUR~
AMERICA'S FAMILY COMMUNf(Y 19 E. Main (PO Box 280) Phone: 208-359-3020 x326
Rexburg,ldaho 83440 Fax:208-359-3024
www.rexbura.org comdev@rexburg.org
Findings of Fact
Design Review Standards
Walgreen's
1. On April 14, 2005, Bob Sherry with Walgreen's presented a Design Review Application for
review of the staff and Planning & Zoning Commission. The requested location for building is
164 E Main St. (on the corner of E Main St. and S 2nd E).
2. On March 30, 2005, Bob Sherry met with City Council and Commissioners to explain the design
plan for Walgreen's. The Council and Commissioners expressed some concerns and some
changes that would need to take place to comply with the City's design standards.
3. On April 13, 2005, Bob Sherry met with Mayor Larsen, City staff members, and the Design
Review Committee to review the design of the building.
4. On Apri121, 2005, Bob Sherry presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission a new
design for Walgreen's that implements the design and structure of other Rexburg buildings.
Some additions to the design were niches along the sidewalk of E Main Street where benches,
tables and chairs will be placed.
Mary Haley motioned to recommend that the commissioners send to the City Council the
document that was written as minutes of the Design Review meeting considering the proposed
Walgreen's development with the understanding to the Council that the Commissioners
considered the Walgreen's development aone-time application for development; that there are
some things that would be considered by everything uptown, but understanding that this
development is on a particular piece of property that does not coincide with many other properties
in Rexburg's Downtown Business District; that they understand that the work that was done on
this was done as part of a subcommittee of the Planning & Zoning committee; that the
subcommittee brought their concerns and resolutions to their concerns to the Commission who
felt very good about what was brought to them. The Design Review board recommends to the
full Planning and Zoning Commission that the Commissioners now send the subject proposal to
the City Council for consideration for approval with conditions. The conditions are listed on page
5 of the Planning & Zoning Design Review Board Report. Mike Ricks seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
5. On May 4, 2005, Bob Sherry presented to the Rexburg City Council the new design for
Walgreen's.
Council Member Pugmire moved that we approve the site plan for Walgreens development at
Main Street and 2nd East contingent upon the subsequent approval of the open questions relative
to trees, bike racks, fences, lights, signage, and other street amenities brought to us by the
Planning and Zoning that I failed to mention; Council Member Young seconded the motion; all
vote aye, none opposed.
The motion carried.
r T'f
~c~~"s"RO ~ CITY OF
REXBt.~R~ CITY COUNCTL MINUTES
9~e~s~+~° nrv~e~ic~'s i~i~Y coMnaun~irY March 30, 2005
4:00 P.M. City Council
JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
STATE OF IDAHO )
ss
County of Madison )
Present were the following:
Mayor:
Council Members:
Financial Officer
P&Z Administrator:
City Clerk:
PFC:
City Attorney:
Mayor Shawn Larsen
Paul Pugmire
Donna Benfield
Nyle Fullmer
Rex Erickson
G. Farrell Young
Irma Anderson
Richard Horner
Kurt Hibbert
Blair D. Kay
John Millar
Stephen Zollinger
ROLL CALL:
All Council Members were present except Council Member Fullmer.
Planning and Zoning Members present were the following:
1. Winston Dyer (Chairman)
2. Joseph Laird
3. Randall Porter
4. Thaine Robinson
5. Ted Hill
6. Michael Ricks
7. David Stein
Mayor Larsen introduced Roy D. Williams from Phillips Edison & Company and he
asked Mr. Williams to present the proposed site plan for Walgreen in Rexburg.
Roy Williams reviewed the plans to bring a Walgreen development to Rexburg. He
introduced the following:
1. Bob Sherry -Director for Construction for Phillips Edison & Company
2. Nancy Ricchio -Real Estate Manager for Walgreen from Chicago
3. Mark Curtis -Boise District Manager for Walgreen
Roy Williams indicated that Phillips Edison & Company is a National Real Estate
developer with eighty shopping centers totaling over 9.5 million square feet of retail
space. He explained that his company has had significant experience developing
Walgreen stores. On January 24, 2005, Walgreen approved a site plan for Rexburg at
the SW corner of Main Street and 2"a East. He explained that the development of
Walgreen on Main Street in the Central Business District is a tremendous opportunity
to begin the restoration of the heart of "America's Family Community".
1
.. ~.,
Council Member Pugmire asked about the Pocatello store on Alameda and
Yellowstone. It is on a very tight corner with limited parking.
Council Member ]Erickson thanked them for a good presentation. "We are looking
forward to Walgreen being located in Rexburg".
Mayor Larsen asked the presenters if the store would be a twenty four hour store.
"Not initially."
Council Member Beufield thanked the presenters for the presentation. She lamented
the fact that they did not come to town earlier when her family business was one of
the largest business on Main Street for twenty-three years. This business is what
Main Street needs to turn around the businesses that have been leaving Main Street.
Although we have watched businesses exit the downtown area for the last fifteen
years, this development will be the start of aturn-around for downtown Rexburg.
Mark Curtis, Boise District Manager for Walgreen mentioned that they are
committed to the Community. "We don't go away;" Walgreen leases are twenty-five
to seventy-five year long. Walgreen looks forward to coming to Rexburg.
Nancy Ricchio indicated that it has taken a year of preparation work to get to this
point. She visited Rexburg last year to see if it was a viable location to build a store
for the next twenty five to seventy five years. "We intend to be here a long time."
There was discussion conceniing the Zoning Codes and how Walgreen will approach
the Zoning issues. Nancy Ricchio indicated that Walgreen works within the existing
code as much as possible before seeking a variance. She indicated that from a
business prospective, there are some things that are very important to Walgreen;
namely parking and. building design. They use landscaping, building design,
elevations, and green space to soften the look of the building.
David Stein asked Nancy if Walgreen had used one row of parking instead of two
rows between the building and the street. Nancy indicated that they had done one
row of parking; however, they work within the zoning (parking) requirements in
conjunction with the parking requirements of the store to make the final design. One
row of parking is usually dictated by the restrictions of the site more than anything
else in the project. One row of parking is not ideal for Walgreen.
The question was asked about store staffing. Walgreen tries to staff locally as much
as possible. Because of availability of pharmacists, they will probably be moved into
Rexburg. If they can hire people locally, they will do that first before they go internal
and ask existing employees if they will move to Rexburg.
Mayor Larsen asked the Walgreen team, what brought them to Rexburg. Nancy
indicated that demographics, age of citizenry, projected growth of the City, potential
number of prescriptions, etc., are put into a database for analysis. If the analysis is
positive, they move forward with plans to start the development phase of the project.
Council Member Pugmire expressed gratitude for Walgreen willingness to locate in
Rexburg. He requested a reason why the City should set aside three to five years of
plamling for the downtown area to accommodate this project design.
Nancy Ricchio indicated that the City and Walgreen has certain objective that each
organization is trying to reach. These objectives are not meshing at a 100%.
Walgreen is trying to accommodate the objectives of the City as much as they
possible can accommodate. In order for Walgreen to be successful in Rexburg, they
need a specific design. She mentioned other localities that under perform twenty to
3
City of Rexburg
Planning and Zoning Commission
Design Review Boardi
Proposed Walgreen's Development
Minutes of Design Review Meeting
April 13, 2005
In accordance with the City of Rexburg Development Code, Ordinance No. 926, a four
hour meeting of the Design Review Board was held on this date to review the subject
development. Present were Bob Sherry representing the developer, Judy Hobbs their
real estate agent, Mayor Larsen, city staff members, Randall Porter of the Planning and
Zoning Commission (as an interested party), and the following duly appointed Design
Review Board members:
Winston Dyer Joseph Laird
David Stein Stuart Wells
~~
City staff began by reviewing parking issues on the entire block on which the proposed
development is located. A prevailing problem is a lack of accessible parking for the
cluster of businesses on the northwest side of the block (along Main Street). The
proposed development will provide for its own appropriate parking, but will relocate
some parking from an adjacent County parking lot to a new lot across Main Street to the
north.
While the proposed development will meet parking requirements, there will be a net loss
of 21 spaces in the block, predominately from the "overflow" public parking use of the
County's lot. This should be addressed in the future by looking at ways to facilitate
those businesses creating functional public parking in a more accessible location.
The Developers then presented the proposed development, incorporating changes that
had been discussed after a public presentation and feedback several days previous.
Focus was on architectural elements, colors, and landscaping. The Developers had
closely studied buildings and historical documents for Rexburg and had tried to
incorporate elements that would help the structure blend in better with its surroundings.
Examples include-using brick matching the Courthouse Annex (which is used in several
other buildings downtown), arched brickwork, corner treatments like the Courthouse
Annex, changing the green color on the awning to tone it down and better match similar
colors already used on Main Street, etc.
A brief field trip was taken down Main Street to observe some of these elements in
existing buildings, such as the brick use and color, shades of green the awning could
use, and architectural features of historic buildings.
After the Board asked clarifying questions of the Developers, the Staff then reviewed
with the Board how well (or not) the proposal matched up with the architectural design
standards now required in the Central Business District zone by Ordinance No. 926
(pages 75-89 of the Code). Overall, the proposed development had done very well in
matching up with nearly all the goals and objectives enumerated in the Code.
Specific deficiencies pointed out by Staff include:
Section IV Architectural Design Standards
• Article 1 Block Layout and Building Orientation -- the building is not located close
to the street as recommended.
• Article 1.D.3 Building Orientation Standard --the proposal has off street parking
and a driveway between the street and the building, contrary to the
recommendations.
Section V Downtown Lighting Standards
Article 5 General Standards and Criteria, Roadways/Street Lights, Section G
Photometric Layout -- a detailed lighting plan had not been submitted, but Staff
felt that a deferred submittal would be acceptable in view of the present focus on
other more prominent issues.
The Board then deliberated the strengths and challenges of the proposal with respect to
the Code. Chairman Dyer began with a philosophical discussion that the new design
standards should be treated similar to engineering specifications which are intended to
produce a certain end result, performance, or quality. Therefore they. should be taken
as a means to an end rather than as absolute rigid requirements.
In that sense, and with the complexity and interaction of all the various design standard
elements for this particular proposal, it wouldn't be practical or advisable to take
everything as a strict absolute -- there could be some flexibility where justified as long
as the end result was substantially consistent with the intended outcome and negative
elements were properly mitigated by other advantages to be created or provided.
Commissioner Wells indicated this proposal was analogous to a farmer leasing out a
portion of his land to another. In such a case there would certainly be a discussion
about the intended outcome and the general conditions in the operation of the lease, but
the landowner would not be expected to provide his equipment and resources to the
lessee or to otherwise guarantee his success. It would be up to the lessee to achieve
the desired outcome under the general terms and conditions.
Discussion then focused on the main concern, the building being set back off the street
contrary to the design standard recommendations. Various rationales were discussed
for being able to do so at this particular location and in this particular circumstance,
particularly if other mitigation could be achieved to offset this concern.
2
'~
Randall Porter then further discussed further possible architectural treatments with the
Developer including using brick arches in the side and back walls, rounding windows in
the "tower" portion of the structure (above the entrance), using cornices to break up
square edges on the roofline, etc. Such treatments cou"Id be used to help the building
further blend into its surroundings and diminish the effect of being set back from the
street.
Other discussion touched on the brick pedestrian walkway, the jog in the proposed alley
alignment, landscaping elements, signage, and creating a "sense of place".
Concerns
This was a particularly challenging review both for its complexity and being the first of its
kind under the new Central Business District Design Standards. It also is the center of
significant political discussion with some factions of the community favoring the
advantage of economic development it represents with" less emphasis on design
standards, while others are more concerned about precedent and potential future
impact on the look and feel of the rest of downtown Rexburg.
The primary concerns identified and discussed by the Design Review Board include:
• The proposed structure being set back away from the street. This is in conflict
with the recommended design standards, but the Board felt that it could be
mitigated under the right circumstances and conditions (discussed hereafter).
Precedent. There was a deep concern that if this structure were allowed to be
set back from the street, then other franchise or prototypical stores attempting to
locate elsewhere on Main Street in the future would desire or demand similar
treatment. Such developments would be significantly out of place in other areas
where all the buildings were up on the street. For this reason, the setback should
not be considered short of strong justification and appropriate rationale that
would apply uniquely to this specific location and circumstance and nowhere else
(discussed hereafter).
• Alley alignment. The proposed jog in the realigned alley is not conducive to its
function and facilitating access to other businesses and establishments in this
commercial block. Possibilities exist for realigning the alley further to the west,
but are outside the realm and power of the Developer.
. Buffering. It was noted the areas to the east and south are residential and
appropriate buffering should be provided to separate the commercial use (with its
traffic, noise, lighting, etc.) from the adjacent residential properties to avoid
potential nuisance and diminution of value.
Rationale
Discussion then turned to how these concerns could be addressed or mitigated
sufficiently to consider the proposed development. Goals and objectives as stated in
3
the new Code were carefully studied in this regard. The following rationale and
justifications resulted from this investigation and discussion:
Transitional location. This particular property sits at the East end of Main Street
and is quite literally the transitional piece of property between three different
zones -- the single-family residential areas to the east and south, the highway
business district to the north along 2"d East, and the central business district to
the west along Main Street.
As such, this particular piece of property is truly unique -- the zones on three
sides (the north, east, and south) actually require a setback of buildings off the
street for the aesthetics and appearance of the zone. Only to the west are
buildings required to be set up on the street.
A setback from the street can justifiably be considered at this unique location
because of its transitional setting. Precedent can be avoided because of the
uniqueness of this location; anywhere else in the central business district on
Main Street (except perhaps at the far west end) all the surrounding setbacks will
be zero and there would be no justification for allowing a setback of a proposed
new development.
Design Standards. There are quite a number of recommended design standards
in the Code and this proposed development meets all of them except the setback
from the street issue end accompanying parking in the front. It was felt that with
the use of the architectural elements discussed with the Developer, the setback
could be mitigated by constructing a building that would better blend in with
surrounding buildings in terms of architectural treatment and colors, and thus
would also help preserve historical context.
Streetscape. The Hudson Report identified the lack of streetscapes in the
downtown area as a weakness. The proposed development with its landscaping
screening the parking area in front of the building, lighting, and signage would
present an attractive streetscape and "sense of place". Further, the pedestrian
and transit amenities to be provided (e.g., pedestrian benches and alcoves, bike
racks, pedestrian pathways, future transit shelter, etc.) meet or exceed all of
those stated in the Code. All of these elements are considered beneficial and
are far beyond any required in the past, prior to the implementation of design
standards.
Downtown Development Framework. An outgrowth of the Hudson Report was
the identification of a development framework to be pursued as a revitalization
blueprint for the Downtown area. Significant elements of this have been taken
directly into the new Code on page 72. Several of the eleven desired elements
(as applicable) will be provided by the proposed development as follows:
- Define and focus development on target markets -- the proposed
development specifically targets an enhancement to the downtown
business district.
4
r
- Build a sound parking system for employees, customers, and visitors --
the proposed development not only provides all its own required parking
but also offers an improvement for adjacent parking by constructing a new
parking lot north across the street from the Courthouse Annex serving the
government offices and adjacent businesses.
Build a pedestrian and cycling pathway network linking key downtown
nodes -- the proposed development becomes a node by virtue of its
location at the end of Main Street and provision for benches, bike racks,
and pedestrian ingress/egress.
Undertake infill, adaptive reuse, historic preservation, and urban renewal -
- the proposed building will replace an aging structure with a new one
(renewing the property), increase the use of the downtown area, and (with
the negotiations now afforded by design review) reflect historical
preservation through architecture styles, materials, and colors to better
blend in with the historical context of the downtown area.
- Design the place of downtown for America's families -- the proposed
development will be a strong anchor at one end of Main Street creating a
sense of place, providing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle
gathering, and providing an attractive landscape and presentation adding
to the community appeal.
- Emphasize Rexburg's rich heritage -- the proposed development will
reflect the historical look, color, and presentation of the downtown area,
the place where it all started.
Recommendation
In consideration of the willingness of the Developer to accept proposed mitigation, the
meeting of the vast majority of the goals and objectives for design standards as set forth
in the new Code, the thorough study and deliberation of the Design Review Board and
City staff, and the findings of fact as set forth above, the Design Review Board
recommends the full Planning and Zoning Commission send the subject proposal to the
City Council for "consideration for approval with conditions".
The conditions for approval should consist of the following elements as a minimum
(subject to further staff review and acceptance):
Architectural elements including the following:
- use of brick matching the style and color used on the Courthouse Annex
- brick archways in the side and back walls of the structure
- corner treatments similar to those used on the Courthouse Annex
- matching the color of the awning to other colors used on Main Street
- arching or rounding of windows and consideration of cornices in the
"tower" area above the main entrance (and elsewhere as appropriate)
5
- use of limestone (similar in appearance to rhyolite used in early buildings)
in the lower masonry areas of walls facing the streets
Landscaping plan as presently shown including the following important elements:
- screening the parking area from the adjacent streets
- providing alcoves, benches, bike racks, future transit shelter area, and
pedestrian access
- providing trees and vegetation as shown in the renderings
- providing a monument style sign on the corner denoting entrance to "the.
downtown area of America's Family Community"
- reconstruction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks
- moving the northerly pedestrian brick walkway back to the original location
near the store entrance (for improved safety)
Lighting plan as required by the Code; demonstrating conforming elements,
features, and lighting levels
Buffering the south side of the property with a brick wall (or other approved
means) of sufficient height and construction to provide an effective buffer
between the commercial and residential land uses
.. Store signage consistent with the existing sign ordinance (no freestanding signs
in downtown area)
Conclusion
The new Code's design standards have provided a marvelous mechanism for being
able to sit down with the Developer and negotiate additional features and mitigation that
will enhance the development and provide greater compliance with Rexburg's gods and
objectives far beyond anything possible under the earlier ordinance.
The Developer is to be complimented for their efforts to meet these goals and objectives
by studying historical Rexburg, the downtown area, and the new Code -- and being
willing to negotiate mitigation and desirable enhancements with the Design Review
Board.
The foregoing information, developed consistent with the new Code requirements and
recommended processes, will provide a sound basis for a reasoned and justifiable
decision concerning the proposed development.
Appreciation is expressed to all participants for their willingness and efforts to make the
process meaningful and very successful!
6
Public input portion closed.
Chairman Dyer declared a direct conflict of interest and asked Mr. Porter to assume the
chairmanship to finish the discussion.
Mike Ricks commented that since it is contiguous to the city property then there request for
annexation is in accordance with annexation he suggested that request is granted.
Mike Ricks moved that the request for this parcel to be annexed into the city with zoning of
Community Business Center be moved forward up to City Council for approval. Ted Hill
Seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carries.
Chairman Dyer regained the chair.
3. Unfinished/Old Business:
A. Walgreen's Design Review Report
Chairman Dyer went through the report of the Design Review that was held April 13th, 2005.
(Minutes attached at the end of this document).
Bob Sherry summarized things that were covered on March 30th. The Site Plan is the same as
from the Meeting on the 30th. There are two accesses, 57 parking stalls, 4 handicap at the door.
There are niches on the sidewalk along Main Street that allow for benches and tables and chairs
to be placed, surrounded by landscaping. There will be a bike rack located on S 2"d E.
Changes that have been made to implement Rexburg design standards:
- Paid better attention to what is surrounding the building -the courthouse, the annex
building, and the house to the east and implemented the stones used in those buildings.
(He brought examples of some of the brick they will be using).
- The green color has been changed to match the green throughout Rexburg.
- Implemented some of the style and detail of the rooftops of buildings along Main Street
for Walgreen's roof.
Comments (2)
Richard Western -representing Redding Company - 149E 3`a S. He was concerned with
having enough parking. They have about five lots in the back of their building and the County
allowed them to use some of theirs.
Darrel Olson - 370 Rosewood Dr. -representing Alliance Title. He had the same concern as
Richard Western. Mimic the same.
Chairman Dyer commented that there were two issues that needed to be addressed.
1St -issue of signing
Kurt Hibbert explained that the current Sign Ordinance says pole signs are allowed, but in the
new Development Ordinance, they can only be on the building. As part of Walgreen's usual
proposal, they have a standard free standing pole sign they usually install. There has been no
specific decision on that. The commissioners need to make a specific decision on how to
accommodate what the City was asking and balancing that with what the developer would like to
do.
Bob Sherrv explained that he is not prepared to speak on signing tonight and would like to have a
week to be as prepared as he was for the appearance of the building.
Chairman Dyer asked the commissioners if they would feel comfortable having the design
review board reviewing that. (Commissioners agreed).
2°d -what type of trees, bushes, etc. and what are the benches going to look like.
Chairman Dyer commented that those are new things and the code does not have any language
on that. There needs to be a discussion on how those mechanisms will be done.
David Stein commented that he does not think the trees and the benches will be terribly
controversial so if the design review looked at that and then made a recommendation to Planning
& Zoning.
Steven Zollinger explained that the City recently applied and became a tree city USA. Part of
that process was to determine what trees will be appropriate where and they have already
decided what would be appropriate for that area. Steven Zollinger recommended Mr. Kayola to
contact regarding the landscaping.
In regards to what to send up to City Council for consideration, Thaine Robinson suggested that
the same conditions from the design review meeting be included in the motion.
Mary Haley motioned to recommend that the commissioners send to the City Council the
document that was written as minutes of the Design Review meeting considering the proposed
Walgreen's development with the understanding to the Council that the Commissioners
considered the Walgreen's development aone-time application for development; that there are
some things that would be considered by everything uptown, but understanding that this
development is on a particular piece of property that does not coincide with many other
properties in Rexburg's Downtown Business District; that they understand that the work that was
done on this was done as part of a subcommittee of the Planning & Zoning committee; that the
subcommittee brought their concerns and resolutions to their concerns to the Commission who
felt very good about what was brought to them. The Design Review board recommends to the
full Planning and Zoning Commission that the Commissioners now send the subject proposal to
the City Council for consideration for approval with conditions. The conditions are listed on
page 5 of the Planning & Zoning Design Review Board Report. Mike Ricks seconded the
motion. None opposed. Motion carried.
9
~'~ ~.1, ~2G~~`
~~
Report on Proiects:
John Millar reviewed the following projects:
1. Walker Subdivision Road will be bid in a week.
2. 12th West water and sewer line is being bid
3. Porter Park pathway is ready to start. The sod will be for sale at a reduced cost.
We will cut the sod and sell for a very good price.
4. Evergreen Kiwanis Park playground equipment has been installed with wood
chips for added safety.
5. The Mayor and his family spent some time at Sinith Park helping to clean up a
bit and add wood chips to the new playground equipment. The playgrounds in
Smith Park are now safer with 120+ cubic yards of wood chips installed.
6. The Council discussed some touching up that needs to be done at the City Parks;
especially Smith Park and Porter Park. The Council would like some areas of Smith
Park finished with extra sod from Porter Park.
7. The water pipe that is sticking out needs to be addressed at Smith Park.
8. Smith Park repairs at this time are a high priority.
9. Police and Four Paws Pet Adoption are working on animal shelter floor plans.
10. Evergreen Kiwanis Park has a sprinkler system around the play ground equipment
and the sod will be laid around the play ground equipment with sod from Porter Park.
New Business:
C. Site Plan for Walgreen's Development off South 2na East
---~ Bob Sherry and Roy Williams from Phillips Edison & Company presented an overhead
presentation of the proposed site plan that was recommended by the Design Review
Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member Anderson commented on the process and that it had been excellent.
There was give and. take and listening in the whole process.
Council Member Pugmire echoed Council Member Anderson's comments. It leas been
difficult on the developers, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Planning
Staff. He congratulated everyone involved in the process to evolve the project into the
current presentation. He thanked the developers for what they have done.
Council Member Benfield thanked them for an outstanding presentation by going the
extra mile and revitalizing the corner.
Mayoc• Larsen referred to the report from the Design Review Board. All of the
recommendations have been met. Lighting will come back to the Design Review Board
and the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The developer will install a board
onboard cedar fence to buffer the property to the south. Signage will be reviewed
similar to lighting.
Mayor Larsen echoed the process concerning the City review of the site plan. He
commented on the need to change the square foot limit from 10,000 square foot and
larger buildings to include all buildings for building design review in the Downtown area.
Council Member Erickson thanked Bob Sherry and Roy Williams for their efforts and
he commended the Design Review Board for doing a-good job in making the plan. happen
the way it did.
Bob Sherry commented that standards should be implemented for every building. He
commented on the quality of the Design Review Board as being a good group of guys.
They know what they are doing.
Council Member Pugmire moved that the Council find that the proposed land trade
with Phillips Edison & Company for the alley way off 2"d East is value for value and to
hold the citizens harmless; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Discussion:
Mayor Larsen asked Council Member Pugmire to amend his motion to say include
Phillips Edison & Company and the County. Council Member Pugmire amended his
motion to say Phillips Edison & Company and the County; Council Member Erickson
seconded the amendment; all voted aye, none opposed.
The motion carried.
Council Member Pugmire indicated that pursuant to the Councils finding of fact that
the land exchange was value for value with Phillips Edison & Company and the County;
He moved that we accept and authorize Mayor Larsen to execute the proposed land trade;
Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; Discussion: City Attorney Zollinger
reviewed the land swap between the affected parties for the Council indicating that the
value for value portion of the alley swap is the same square footage; however, there will
be an easement provided by Phillips Edison & Company to widen the alley area to forty
feet behind the Walgreens store. Council Member Young asked who would be
responsible for paving and maintenance of that area.
City Attorney Zollinger indicated that Phillips Edison and Company will pave the new
alley and the City will maintain the 20 foot alley after it has been constructed. Phillips
Edison & Company will maintain the balance of the alley that is wider than twenty feet
wide. The amount of property that is exchanged in the fee simple agreement will be the
Cities. T'he snow removal will need an agreement of understanding as it may be cheaper
to clean, some of alley while cleaning the parking lot or vise versa when the City cleans
the snow out of the alley. The legal ramification will be that the City will be maintaining
the alley for one-way traffic. In order to get their trucks in the alley, Walgreens will have
to clean the remainder of the alley. Council Member Fullmer was concerned with the
long term maintenance of the new alley. City Attorney Zollinger responded that the City
would only be responsible for the alley way that was in the fee simple land exchange
agreement. Mayor Larsen called for a vote on the motion to do a fee simple land
exchange; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
Public Hearin s: -None
Calendared Bills and Tabled Items:
A. First Reading: Those items which are being introduced for first reading. -NONE
B. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read -NONE
C. Third Reading: Those items which have been second read.
1. BILL 935 -Non-traditional water customers
John Millar indicated that there were no changes to the BILL since the 2"a reading.
There was no additional discussion.
Council Member Young moved to consider BILL 935 as 3r`~ read and approved; Council
Member Fullmer seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Benfield applauded
John. Millar for bringing the BILL to the Council. It was a long time in coming.
Those iu Favor Those Opposed
Paul Pugmire None
Donna Benfield
Nyle Fullmer
Rex Erickson
G. Farrell Young
Irma Anderson
The motion carried.
Edstrom Construction, Inc.
2880 West 3200 South
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
Phone: (208) 356-3577
Fax: (208) 356-3639
December i 1, 2006
City of Rexburg
Attemion John Millar
P.O. Box 280
Rexburg, ID 83440
RE: Rexburg Walgreen's
Dear John:
As per your request, please find the enclosed performance bond in the amount of
$20,000 for sewer line to be repaired at the Rexburg Walgreen's in the spring of
2007.
Sincerely,
Lisa Coles
Office Manager
Enclosure
- .+-.
~~IV
BOND # 929392827
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, Edstrom Construction. Inc.. 2880 bi 3200 S.
Rexburg., ID 83440 , as Principal, and bJe~tern it ty Comply
a Corporation of the State of South Dakota _, as Surety, are jointly and severally
held and firmly bound unto City of Rexburg , as Obligee, in the sum of
TWENTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS (_ 20,000.00) lawful money of the United States of
America, for which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our executors, administrators, heirs, successors
and assigns, jointly and severally by these presents.
WHEREAS, the Principal has been requested to replace approximately 80 feet sanitary sewer line and related work at the
Rexburg Walgreen's store as described in the letter from the City of Rexburg dated December 5, 2006. In no event, shall
the obligation under this bond exceed the penal sum of the bond.
NOW, THEREFORE, if the said Principal shall satisfactorily complete the required replacement by June 1, 2007, then this
obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect.
The Surety may at any time terminate its liability by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the Obligee, and the Surety shall
not be liable for any default after such thirty day notice period, except for defaults occurring prior thereto.
Signed, sealed and dated this 7th day of December 2006
Ed
"~ Pr incipai
,~_
Bye ~..~..~ v
inda Edstrom, President
Western Surety Company
Surety
By;~ ,
Bradley Nielson ,Attorney-In-Fact
DS#3632440
"~ ~ ` Western Surety Company
POWER OF ATTORNEY APPOINTING INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
Know All Men By These Presents, That WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, a South Dakota corporation, is a duly organized and existing corporation
having its principal office in the City of Sioux Falls, and State of South Dakota, and that it does by virtue of the signature and seal herein affixed hereby
make, constitute and appoint
Carolyn L Garretson, Bradley K Nielson, Peggy D Lowe, Charles E Thomas, Individually
of Idaho Falls, ID, its true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact with full power and authority hereby conferred to sign, seal and execute for and on its behalf
bonds, undertakings and other obligatory instruments of similaz nature
- In Unlimited Amounts -
and to bind it thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such instruments were signed by a duly authorized officer of the corporation and all the acts of said
Attorney, pursuant to the authority hereby given, are hereby ratified and confirmed.
This Power of Attorney is made and executed pursuant to and by authority of the By-Law printed on the reverse hereof, duly adopted, as indicated, by
the shazeholders of the corporation.
In Witness Whereof, WESTERN SURETY COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its Senior Vice President and its corporate seal to
be hereto affixed on this 2nd day of November, 2006.
?~E~ WESTERN SURETY COMPANY
WP voq `+°s
- t ~_
~al,`tf AV : v
~~°~ Paul . Bruflat, Senior Vice President
State of South Dakota 1
Jl ss
County of Minnehaha
On this 2nd day ofNovember, 2006, before me personally came Paul T. Bruflat, to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that
he resides in the City of Sioux Fa!Is, State of South Dakota; that he is the Senior Vice President of WESTERN SURETY COMPAI~IY described ie and
which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed [o the said instmment is such corporate seal; that it was
so affixed pursuant to authority given by the Board of Directors of said corporation and that he signed his name thereto pursuant to like authority, and
acknowledges same to be the act and deed of said corporation.
My commission expires }44 4 4 44444 444444'+44444444 }
f D. KRELL ;
November 30, 2012 i ~~ NOTARY PUBLIC SEAL
a SOUTH DAKOTA i
}44444444444444444444444 }
D. Krell, No ary Public
CERTIFICATE
[, L. Nelson, Assistant Secretary of WESTERN SURETY COMPANY do hereby certify that the Power of Attomey hereinabove set forth is still in
force, and further certify that the By-Law of the corporation printed on the reverse hereof is still in force. In testimony whereof [have hereunto subscribed
my name and affixed the seal of the said corporation this ~t h day of p2 CEIllb21" , 206
~S,tREr,. WESTERN SURETY COMPANY
r
~ap~R'4j~"~;D$
z
~f\SEA~.,~a<x~
4ijM ~µ0~
L. Nelson, Assistant Secretary
Form F4280-09-06
~ ,Y • •
DUNN
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC
Consulting Structural Engineers
January 22, 2006
Phillips Edison & Company
Bob Sherry
175 East 400 South, Suite 402
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
RE: Walgreen's -Rexburg, ID
Dear Bob:
On January 18, 2006, we received plan review comments regarding the Walgreen's in Rexburg, Idaho,
and have reviewed the comments. Attached with the Plan review are the itemized responses for the
structural section.
Item Comment/Response
Comment: The structural calculations do not contain the correct importance factors
as er Table 1604.5 of the IBC.
1 Response: The building qualifies as a Category II Structure per Table 1604.5 of the
IBC 2003. A Category II Structure has a seismic factor (IE) of 1, a snow factor (Is) of
1, and a wind factor (Iw) of 1. These factors correspond to the design calculations
and the General Structural Notes, sheet (S101), under the section, Basis of Desi n.
Comment: The snow load is identified as 30 psf and should be changed to 35 psf.
Response: The roof snow load is identified as 35 psf on the Basis of Design section
2• of the general structural notes, the Cold Formed Steel section of the general
structural notes, the Roof Framing Design Loads on sheet (S202), and the design
calculations.
- - Comment: HVAC roof top units must be fastened to structure as per IBC Section
1621.
3. Response: The structural drawings depict the requirements and details for support
of the mechanical units by the structure. All attachment of the mechanical units to
the structural su ort shall be er the re uirements of the mechanical en ineer.
Comment: Special inspections are required for the foundation of the building and
4 also the high stren th boltin .
Response: Sheet (S101) and (S102) have been modified to reflect special
ins ection of the foundation and hi h stren th boltin .
Comment: Please provide a letter from the special inspection firm that identifies all
of the s ecial ins ection to be erformed and the frequenc .
5. Response: The structural drawings show the requirements for the special
inspections. The owner is required to supply the required letter from the special
ins ector detailin the re wired information.
Comment: Provide information that identifies that the necessary (geotechnical)
investi ations and safe wards have been erFormed.
6. Response: The structure has been designed per the recommendations of the
project soils report. The geotechnical engineer shall be responsible to supply any
additional information.
380 West 800 South, Suite 100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 phone: 801-575-8877 tax: 801-575-8875 www.dunn-se.com
~ .
' • • Page 2
DUNN July 20, 2005
Bob Sherry
Walgreen's -Springville, UT
Comment: All footin s must be a minimum of 36" below rade.
7. Response: The foundation section of the general structural notes requires a frost
rotection of 36" minimum.
The requested clarifications and corrections have been addressed and revised. Please call if you have
any further questions or comments.
Respectfully yours
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC.
~~~ti~ ~~ V
Jonathan Frazier
SEP-08-2006 FRI 10 37 AM KLEINFELDER
.~~ ~.,
~°` 1~: I. f: I ~~l ~ is i.. ~_.~ t: 1~~.
~~~:~~ylcrYtl~c3r ~, ~'fft~
FAX N0. 208 893 9703 P. 02
~~17~
1, A E ~ i I C:1 i ~ 11;~ I ~"1 w:y ~;, E '~i.~J f'
laity ~.a9~ ~~~~:~i~~ar~f~rai1~91r~~f o~~~~~n~
1 1~r~st i~lr~it~~ t~t.r'~ur;:k
ftc:)~i:~crr~~, l~i~~#l~rt~ i;~~t~~-a1
U SEP - 8 2006
CITY OF REXBURG
s~r~l:~cck~ f"Ii~~a1 ts~~:~i~i i~~p~c:ti~rr i~~~cawt
t~if ~.~~' ~=w~wa~ i~raaiic~ir~~ F~~wtnit Nrarv~b~w ~Qq~'~~1
i~~i'~.~r~'~ ~~ 1
_ ~~~f ~"t ~~itY S~r~#
_- tc~t~r$r'~1a i~~~i~~~ ~~6~~ _ _
i:ic~~;~r ilrtr. f':t~::rr~:
~~.1r~rir'1~ tF~a c~c~l~~~i:ri.br;kion c~F ti1~ V1l~ic~r~an's #~~11 lo~°nt~tt ~t 164 ~~st PJl~ain ;troe;Ft in
f=~~:;~,~;1;-19r~;;t, i4~~i~~a, ~+~~r~r:r°o.r'~c~l frprll Kl~;irlf~;lder, Inc. (Ki~ir~f~ld~r) ~rcavict~d :~~c~c~i~i
ir~~=f~c~t;tii'w~r1 ~,~:rvi+;.,r~ ~ two t~~~r1~r~! conform~lnc~ with Section 17q~ (Spacial Ir~~~~ction) of
tPra'r irlk~rb~~~tie,sr~~~i 1~~aiir_lirbtl ~;~s~1e (iSC) and the approved construction dccurl~tenfis. "1"I'ie
~~t;;cri;)~3 cif ~,(.~r inv~a{;~rrs~i~~r~rt incir.adetl th1~: ft~lic~wing services:
'~ t.~1~~rM rvratacarl cif pl.rtlc~rr~rwrtt of rr~;infc~rcin~ steel and concrete for cast-in-fzl~r;o
~~krc.lr:;•t€br~~t r:,±:~r~br~~`~ritr:~, ir•1c~ludinr~: t`r~urldatic~n structures, cast-in~plslre wall ~:tr'u~ture~,
sl~~t~rt;.,~ir•t-a~r~r.(,~f~ r~r1(~ r~rl~~ch~'lrlic,al /utility pads.
~:;9k~~~a:,~r~~~;tior~ c~~f I,I~c~~:~at~11Wt1fi of c~b~~icrote masonry unit,, (CMU), n•ic~rtar, c~rraut,
reir~fc:~rc~irl~~ ~.t~~(~~l ~~r~tci ~~r11bE=~+~dod it~n~s in struc:tur~i m~scnry constructi~an once site
~ft~rrlpiirac~ r~rr~9 tr.~k7tir~~ cif c(~6lstruction rrbs(~kerials (sails, rancreEe, asphlalk,
rrrt~,~a°~r•rry),
~ ~?t_, ,~~rv.~t;ie,}r1 c.~f rr+w~r~i(^~ifi~c~ con~~ectiob~ls of wtructural stoat rrlerl~k~ers, m~at,erial
i~~;-~r~ti~t~~~~~tit)s~, i~c1 iiritr strenc~tl~ f~ral~kin~.
~aTta;iC~ft~CaEt°,IQ'~3 f'ac)s 1 trf 2
t (: ctftyrs(;il:t ::'~~()~i ryls:i¢;f~l~~s:,~, ;.u;.
,~ b d I`•:i i t (?I b: ' t: i !S ; c =d;.iL I•~tint 11.'a~~, IE1~~iltli.ut, 117 ti'ifa )Z (20ti) ti')3•'.)700 (",.'.OF'si tt{) 1••t)70 i I',t>,
Sept~rnb~r J, 2()pF
SEP-08-2006 FRI 10;38 AM KLEINFELDER FAX N0. 208 893 9703 P. 03
I:~e;~;~~~d er~# tFt<;. M=~~r°rslr°r.r~iicsr7 c~l~aaervetians ar~d testinc~ of Kleinfelder representatives, it is
~z~r. ~~t7ir°ricar~ ttt~~t t!°~~; avr~r-1~ r.~iasc,rved rerar,rir`in~ special inspection and/er testing was, tta
tl~r~~ Ia~~~Ft i:)f ~~Lrr tr-~„(a~'c.i:r:~r:3' {~r~cwl~dgrzJ, in general conterrnance with the aX7~~r~~ved tarns
~(r~r:l E}tas~rarflce.~tlcar~s.
~'~~a 1~1~:~va p~ri'~'rr~r~~a~~ci ~;r.~r s~rrrireA:s:~ in r~ m~ar~r~~r car~sistent with the Ir.vcl r~1' c~.~rwv end ~ykill
c~r(~lir~rnr~ily e?arsrc,i~~~,~{,! gay ir~~t~~=~c~tinn tir~rn~ pr~icticir-g at the s~mc time, irr thr~: a~lr~~ir: {cac~~lity
r.~r~3t'Ier ~ii'r~ii~,r r~r~r'l~~iti~~lts. Na ether repres~-=ntatian, expressed ar in7pliec~, and na
~^~~~r~l'&~r~ty i~ ir>Irnlsx~:l~r~t ~tr~ ir~(~;r~~d~yd. fur services heve been car~(alet.ed withir( the
r~~.starar~<>ihititi~ ~ rrr~c{ {r:~.s~1~~1 (art~tectir~rt of an agency deputy irrspectc~r (1~3C`, Sec:tic~n 1()~).
!f yt~rr f~r~;v~;. K.~rmy et~.r~a;~tic~nM, car f~arr~r~riants cencernir9~ this letter, pl~•;as~~ cc~nfart tlae
rrnr.Ier,~i~ra~~~.l tit yr.~r.~r c~~~rli€:a~~t ccar~v~:nien~;e at 2g8.8g3.9700.
k~s~;~t~€=:;fitcdl3~ ,~~rt,rr~iti.~~.c1,
,. p -
i`~rbl:a(krr~,E~n~.lePr~r~.:~r~rn Paul ..~Was.~er, F~.EM.
t:.~~M~~:~r<~~ti~r'n~;~ M rr;:~gr<~r Area Manager
c(r: 1:3rala 4~laerry~ ~... tai}iilip;a ~,tiit;,rar~ ~~nd Caar~rparry
Inc°=b I.,~~r'~t# .,_., I~~.ir~`rrc-c!c ~~r>ra~~trtactic~n
:wt+~;v~ L;Iri~~~r ~,., ~~.leii°rt~alrf~4 r, Iris.
fi7;i;tc:)~f?C~1GI~jr'~9 F'aye3 ~ of?. 5e n#~mber 9, 2GClt?
f.r7r~ys'u~l~+t?i)l?~a #~Iti;ir,fGl:~wor, Iru..
'ctil I ?~wi l ; 17! ~i ! S !'~ ~,. i ~7=,,~1< !''a1i!il 4'~'.w, A~1c'ritli,t~t, ((_) Fi,lb1? (111;4} (3r).3-')%O0 (JI)£3~ Y') 1-~)?0 3 I~~s
SEP-08-2006 FRI 10 36 AM KLEINFELDER FAX N0. 208 893 9703 P, 01
V` ~p
;~l~ rira%~.~~r~y'~:-<~ fri~t'~~4'c1 ['Urft/1flrly _
. .~...... a...- t;~'y....... -... i. rr .. ..w...~iv...:~.~...s..: t+.,p n~i~.... a. ~..:s....~y
nnri~.. .... -.. ~.-+...'...n.~-... -
p :.l M i +.IS'i .h.. , :~:: ~.. t.`Y^: _ _°'(Y,y...Y.... •tiYi. :..}~: ^.^m`,r9 ~_
~:r
.~ ~. :... ... r•
..r:.: t'.~ '~~ '
' i'G..
rc~ fi•
„-t;.+ +. ~ ..~ :. ::. ''.tiro..: .b.' ..,.......... ~ ~ ... .~ ..::::.;:;:
ui't:.tirt'i .~ - - ::J~ ~' - - .
~~.; ~. i'3:•i.f. '_L'li\ .. ~wv. M%uiw:•~ w --- - _ u...+~va.Y. ... w . w ..
p}} :y-;. :.«~.a.~ .. ~.~o:.r ''~~.tirS:i"+.:S;':i:.', :~'::i>1%7Te;;:::; w. _ _:.+.` ... ,w«~:3.".~».'':~
~kc'`4. .w ~+.~: ;,,zws . K ... ....Y w.. +S'i:.L~'4a. w.«a...w. .... tsw'~~: s.c~ur
,~~ ..,, .,.~~..°1~n ~rry.,.~.~.~,._~._.,. M_..... Bob ~r~g~lm~nn & P~°~c~l W~.~s,~r
"fir;=s;~xr~;I„~., ...::.,.,~... ,.: ~.~ t~~~rs~n .....~......_..,~,w.~..,...~...~........_,._uw.,.,~R~.
'~ ~~,(t rrf.F~1r~_:~.~•~at>.r~'~ ,4~~ailr:lir~t C~~7.at
. ~,r, .~''.......,.., .. ..~... ~,~ ~.~ ..n_.~ ....,_f.~._._._.w,~.......
~ ~ .~;~~ ~ ,5'. C, f~,(.r<r1 t .~r,~.i.~~ t w~-f~rr ~
~'~r~''J~~rs~~ntfrt~~xj`~,..,.,~..~~.~_.~._...~......_..~.~.~...~..... Mc:~rir~i..r.~i,.IU ~:3(~2
.:sat.e ~.<~ yw..AO.....,,..s;,n,..vMuw._ . ,~ _ .,.~ .u~cn.... ~.--w+r.i....+.,.-r-wrs...~,. ' i
{P'~i,~' titer#3~'r~:!a') ~''<7yfC, (.~~~) ~?'.r~.~~~,~G'.~
~~~~~: c~$a~r~~,r~~~ h#tp;//~r~w,kl~°in#eld~~°~~o~
.. _ ...~. , ."., .,.~.. ,,.,. n.......... ~,..,...w.p..a..~~....~.____..~~.,,~
.....,...:...~ . ........ .........w..:....... r. ~,.~..~.._~. ~.n.,....~..~.w......~.,,
1Pi~a:.p°d-Pi~i,°'atf F:Ca'S~~,'Y wsi7tlyr,?t~~. ,,,,,,.,.... _ .. ..-....,.d _ .._~_ ..,~..._..._..M...,w....,.,...--W...,,.~,.,..._,.,....
rF~a!v~9'E.fr`;`Y'~i'rf~:Ev~i't~E`~J'9'1a:F.t~iF':
._.,: ,~. ........:.......:.................,..:....,....,,,.x,.,<..,.: ,.,.....<....... ,......•_.,..._.-,.......~~.,..,...~..-..-.............,_.....w.<.~.......,....,.,.,-,..,....-.tee...-,...... - --- -- ._,......~..,..._..-•~-_•<..............~,...,.,.,_...,......,
t . ~ ._t ., .~.. ,....._.... ,:...,..,.a.,....,..~....r..:~......,•.n.....«~T..,M.~.,.,,a,.~,..,,,..w..»._»..._.._..W....,..,.~,-..,,,......,~..~r.~._.-.e...m_,.~.~...._......._...........w..~....M.........,...<_.,,..,..,...,,,_,..........,.....N"r...,
•.,..v...:,.:n~...... n~;..•...or.~.....~...F.....,.~h.....r.wr~q.....i:.....~.~. ~..~. M.: i. »n.....w..rv~.....:....w-.-.w+i+n.n.s.-M+.e+..~.a.....e...`..._w,+.'..rv....r+•r..w~weu+~..+....~.w~-..•.w..e-.M•i.ww..+w..wr.r+«.+..R....-r..~...w.a..w.._.aw.-..~..+...wr.
.r , . i .. _nw . w ....a . ~...~ , .a. r.t. . r .. , n~.,. u ..~.. r. v-r..~n_._.., s ...a, wN./~~..+w .yn i ...sv.wno..e+.w..nr+YV.~a..nw.r...,~.wunr~.~+w....~r~..'u..r.r....eN.r'..~r-.~.rw.r~+.uP.~s_n~+..wr•.-u.r.e_ «.rv++Ri_n 1.~.~..-,~.r.+w.++l
~~?ir'1~"l~'lt,"i5f%i. lli;tri'lri3tlr~kl'-~•;r/,~b,lcai'!C tt'1,1 Ala:?t c?'11C, , t3 G _wn_yl ._..~ ~.._,.....,.. f, Tr , CI c~~l c~ fig, w.7~r1(.~ ._.,,a.........,.~M._.~...
s !. ~ ; ~. J rT fl'~ i.,~ n t t'u~~rantcarl ~~~r~irlst c c foc. s in u Ircl tr n...r~fis7r Ga
ft";:.Tt.'M~l'i3f5~5"tfil i'rr'r7rv. !l7 %3t%%:11~±i?Ird ~i)la Fsr'!?C~tYS)1-itC C'15r1'in)llrlitlzitit5rl c"1r7L/ It; c"~tlaC/"rrnlwnfS E3PC rrJl'Wr~l(~o(~ tt:! y~U 6'V•'1/1tJL/t
Aiy:ltr:1;,N~j r/71`::+Illjt7 Ut.l!' :,,~3(~I iFl,:`~P'i"~ C~'1~tt~l~~lt~rc.?~"•C.?,SY. (,~is~;j~r+ C71~.71c"i ~~J1i.+ rCCc7f~nrYl~ndr:TtlRf]a R7CtUd?Ur hCP(:Ir7 ,ShUGrIc~ 17C~t ~3C3
,i;/,S:E,'as;i try~~ tiri~~t ttr.~ ~;~rr f( tlit;3 ; r•,~.,tf"G?., r:~ rrvl ti:~~~ int~nc~c~tJ rw,cij~ie~l~t, ycarr a1r4 he?rc~r>y nt~ti(iuc! tFr,~i .any diW;sc?rrrin.-rfiGn,
;.~ r'97~-:tr`~~ ~iJtx?r7 c..>r ~,a~ ~ylr..~~,1 et Efr~~ c'r:r'iln•rr,Jr~re*~atit;+ti is slri~:tly~~rcahihitrc4, 11 yc;,u have re<>civc~ (fii.r infc?rmat,'r~n inrrrvr,
iii}t?'~~~F:i:+!"ic:)til~~/1t1~7 ;t;ir;i:~.'-)r!£~Tt'n:`;l'leatli?./y.
fi r1ra~+r~ ~~ad? 1ra~~:~~~~Yrt~~ r~~~~~°~irr,~ fhia t~l~c~s1~.Y~ 1~1~~~~! cell (~'OS) 893-,~~l~l).
Structural Calculations
Project #25142
Bob Sherry
Phillips Edison & Company
INDEX
General Design Criteria ..................................... GD-1 to GD-2
Roof Framing Analysis .....................................RF-1 to RF-22
Masonry Wall Analysis .................................. MW-1 to MW-17
Column Analysis .............................................. SC-1 to SC-19
Foundation Analysis ...........................................FN-1 to FN-5
Lateral Analysis ...................................................LA-1 to LA-8
'~ ~
DUNN
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC
Consulting Structural Engineers
380 West 800 South, Suite 100 Sah Lake City, Utah 04101 phone: 801-575-8877 faz:001-575-8075 www.dunn-se.com
DL:"`ti~N Dissociates, Ine.
Consulting Structurat_En~ineers
380 West 800 South, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Ph: 575-8877 Fax: 575-8875
Sheet Number: GD ~ Z
.lobNumber
Date i
I3v:
DESIGN L0.4llS
ROOF LOADS - Dri~~e Thru
Roof slope: 4.5:12
Slope factor sf := 1.068
LIVE LOAD:
SNOW load: 30
Reducible? yes _ X _ n o
DF,~~D I,0:1DS:
Roofing---------- R ;= 2.0 Standing seam roofing
crP:,,~h;.,~ ______- S ;= 2.p 7/16" roof sheathing
Insulation------- I:= 1.0
Sprinklers------- W := 0.0
Mech. & Elec.---- E :- 1.0
Cei I ing---------- C := 2.0
Misc.------------ M := 1.0
Framing
Sub purlins------ SP : = 3.0 pre-fabricated roof trusses at 2'-0" cc
Purlins---------- P := 0.0
Girders---------- G := 0.0
Additional loads- A := 0.0
TL:=R+S+I+W+E+C+M+SP+P+G+A
TOTAL DEAD LOADS= TL = 12 PSF
TOTAL LOAD WITH SLOPE, FACTOR TLSL := TL•sf TLSL = 12.816 PSF
SUMMARY:
DEAD LOAD = 15 psf (roof design)
DEAD LOAD = 27 psf (seismic, inc. snow contrib. if req.)
LIVE LOAD = 35 psf
7/2?/2nn~ Page 1 Loadsrf.mcd
Snow Drift on Low Roofs R~-Z
' DUNN ASSOCIATES
Low Roof Snow Load per ASCE 7-02 (Section 7.7 Page 79)
Leeward and Windward Snow Drift 7121/2005
'TO Run, Push "CTRL C") by P. Nelson (2/27/2004)
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg
Description: D-1
GENERAL INPUT AND OUTPUT:
"Leeward" or "Windward": 0.75
Roof Slope: 0.00 °
Pg (Ground Snow): 50.00 psf
Pf (Roof Snow): 35.00 psf
Ce (Exposure Factor): 1.0
Ct (Thermal Factor): 1.0
Is (Importance Factor): 1.0
lu (Length of Roof): 114.00 feet
Maximum Drift Weight: 42.90 psf
Drift Width: 16.74 feet
' Joist Calculation
Dead Lcad: 20.00 psf
' Drift Width
cu low ~ Span w high r
w low ~ I
~
' __ Y L<
Diagram A
Loads
Joist Span Diagram c~ Low End w High End Low Reactions
End High End
1
1
1
' Page 1
Engineer: JSF
Elevation Difference: 3.80 feet
Snow Load Density: 20.50 pcf
hb (Snow Depth): 1.71 feet
hd (potential drift height): 3.23 feet
he (Roof to Snow): 2.09 feet
Maximum Drift Height: 2.09 feet
Drift Width: 16.74 feet
Maximum Snow Load: 77.90 psf
75.9667936
Joist Spaci~~g: 0.00 feet
cu high
Equivalent Loads
Shear Moment
Moment
x Moment
' Snow Drift on Low Roofs ~~- y
DUNN ASSOCIATES
Low Roof Snow Load per ASCE 7-02 (Section 7.7 Page 79)
' Leeward and Windward Snow Drift 7121!2005
~To Run, Push "CTRL C") by P. Nelson (2/27/2004)
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg
Description: D-3
GENERAL INPUT AND OUTPUT:
"Leeward" or "Windward": 0.75
Roof Slope: 0.00 °
Pa (Ground Snow): 50.00 psf
' Pf (Roof Snow): 35.00 psf
Ce (Exposure Factor): 1.0
Ct (Thermal Factor): 1.0
Is (Importance Factor): 1.0
lu (Length of Roof): 130.00 feet
'
Maximum Drift Weight: 11.13 psf
Drift Width: 4.34 feet
' Joist Calculation
Dead Load: 20.00 psf
' Drift Width
w low ~ Span cu high r
w low ~ I
~
' Y L
Diagram A
Loads Reactions
Joist Span Diagram w Low End cu High End Low End High End
' Page 1
Engineer: JSF
Elevation Difference: 2.25 feet
Snow Load Density: 20.50 pcf
hb (Snow Depth): 1.71 feet
hd (potential drift height): 3.42 feet
he (Roof to Snow): 0.54 feet
Maximum Drift Height: 0.54 feet
Drift Width: 4.34 feet
Maximum Snow Load
75.9667936
Joist Spacing: 0.00 feet
46.13 psf
cu high
Equivalent Loads
Shear Moment
Moment
x Moment
Snow Drift on Low Roofs
DUNN ASSOCIATES
Low Roof Snow Load per ASCE 7-02 (Section 7.7 Page 79)
Leeward and Windward Snow Drift
~To Run, Push "CTRL C") by P. Nelson (2/27/2004)
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg
Description: D-5
~fi-~C,
7121 /2005
Engineer: JSF
GENERAL INPUT AND OUTPUT:
' "Leeward" or "Windward": 0.75 Elevation Difference: 4.50 feet
Roof Slope: 0.00 ° Snow Load Density: 20.50 pcf
Pg (Ground Snow): 50.00 psf hb (Sno~nr Depth): 1.71 feet
' Pf (Roof Snow): 35.00 psf hd (potential drift height): 3.42 feet
Ce (Exposure Factor): 1.0 he (Roof to Snow): 2.79 feet
Ct (Thermal Factor): 1.0 Maximum Drift Height: 2.79 feet
' Is (Importance Factor): 1.0 Drift Width: 16.77 feet
lu (Length of Roof): 130.00 feet
Maximum Drift Weight: 57.25 psf
Drift Width: 16.77 feet
Joist Calculation
Dead Load: 20.00 psf
Drift Width
~ high
w low ~ Span
Diagram A
Maximum Snow Load: 92.25 psf
75.9667936
Joist Spacing: 0.00 feet
w high
w low ~ Span
Diagram B
Loads Reactions Moment Equivalent Loads
Joist Span Diagram w Low End ~ High End Low End High End x Moment Shear Moment
Page 1
Sheet Number: ^~.-_
Job Number:
DUNN
Title ( Date: _ _.
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC ~~ lrn(e ,ice= - ~~ r ~r 1in4~ ~ BY~
Consulting Structural Engineers
Ta UJC.r' ~~a.YYli fl _ -
TVl ~Cf YY'1 f G~ l ~..'i C ~1Edl~ ~fGIVYIE
R- yt~Z ~'Lo = ~ , ~{ - ~~ ~ b_~17`=~ (;s ~ O. IbC~ ~t~.i-kimu~~~:
N.~/o .-
~irec-~iavt ~.
~,~~~,~~,~~,c. !/_ O-x%76 ~ Ir~~f (17F~-~~~'t~~ + 'Z (~b~~~~3~y.2~~}-~$~}~~ v'- ~b 1~ I
~ ~ ` ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~tL ~I~j
, _
S~Ib
~~reG'I~to~n Z,'~
--' -
<,~i~artt~,
V= O.b7~
/
U.-!1F/f (i7;~ia~~j~'+~ k '_
` ,r
2~Jn~~}/7,2~k{jL17~-}~~ if -
= ~~?`~2r'b
t,z V = ~ y 7v ~ l 1~ V _ _ ~~ ~ C~ = .l. Zy k,~~
z ~ __
_!~. TS ~1 xy X ~/~b Calurnn~5.
. - __ --
~: ---
_.
360 West 800 South, Suite 100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 phone: 601-575-8877 fax: 801-575-8675 www.dunn-se.com
~~~~
ou~~
~~tat~ASS~cI~~~s' I"~ RAM Advanse
A , i.=~~~; s~,. • :~,~~ i~~,F
File K:\2005\25142\Ram Advanse\25142 tower 2005-0721.AVW
Units system English
Date 7/27/2005 3:42:41 PM
Analysis Results
Nodal displacements envelope
Note.- Ic is the controlling load condition
Nodal displacements envelope for
C1=0.6d1+0.7eg1
C2=0.6d1+0.7eg2
C3=0.6d1+w11
C4=0.6d1+w12
C5=0.6d1-0.7eg1
C6=0.6d1-0.7eg2
C7=0.6d1-w11
C8=0.6d1-w12
C9=dl
C10=dl+Il
Traslation Rotation
Node X Ic Y Ic Z Ic Rx Ic Ry Ic Rz Ic
[in] [in] [inJ [Rad]
--
--------
--------- [Rad]
------------------
---------- [Rad]
-----------------
---------
----------
1 ---------------------------
Max 0.000 ----------
C1 ----------------
0.000 ------------
C1 ---------------
0.000 ---------
C1 -------
-
0.01247 C8 0.00001 C3 0.00633 C7
Min 0.000 C1 0.000 C1 0.000 C1 -0.01256 C4 -0.00001 C7 -0.00610
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C3
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Max 0.449 - - - - - - - - - -
C3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.001 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.880 - - - - - - - - -
G8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.00089 - - - - - - - - -
C8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.00001 - - - - - - - - - -
C3 - -
0.00050 C7
Min -0.449 C7 -0.001 C10 -0.879 C4 -0.00068 C4 -0.00001 C7 -0.00133
------------ C10
--------
----------
3 ---------------------------
Max 0.000 ----------
C1 ----------------
0.000 -------------
C1 ---------------
0.000 ---------
C1 ------------------
0.01247 ---------
C8 ------------------
0.00003 ----------
C3 -----
0.00609 C7
Min 0.000 C1 0.000 C1 0.000 C1 -0.01256 C4 -0.00003 C7 -0.00633
- - - - C3
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Max 0.448 - - - - - - - - - -
C3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.001 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.880 - - - - - - - - -
C8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.00089 - - - - - - - - -
C8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.00003 - - - - - - - - -
C3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.00133 C10
Min -0.448 C7 -0.001 C10 -0.879 C4 -0.00068 C4 -0.00003 C7 -0.00050
------ C3
---------
----------
5 ---------------------------
Max 0.000 ----------
C1 ----------------
0.000. -------------
C1 --------------
0.000 ---------
C1 ------------------
0.01258 ---------
C8 ------------------
0.00003 ---------
C3 ------------
0.00696 C7
Min 0.000 C1 0.000 C1 0.000 C1 -0.01246 C4 -0.00002 C7 -0.00554
--------- C3
---------
----------
6 ---------------------------
Max 0.000 ----------
C1 ----------------
0.000 -------------
C1 ---------------
0.000 ---------
C1 ------------------
0.01258 ---------
C8 ------------------
0.00001 ---------
C3 ---------
0.00554 C7
Min 0.000 C1 0.000 C1 0.000 C1 -0.01246 C4 -0.00002 C7 -0.00696
---------
----- C3
---------
----------
7 ---------------------------
Max 0.451 ----------
C3 ----------------
0.000 ------------
C4 --------------
0.880 ----------
C8 ------------------
0.00070 ---------
C8 ------------------
0.00003 ---------
C3 ---
-
-0.00069 C7
Min -0.451 C7 -0.002 C10 -0.879 C4 -0.00088 C4 -0.00002 C7 -0.00331 C10
8 Max 0.451 C3 0.000 C4 0.880 CS 0.00070 C8 0.00001 C3 0.00331 C10
Min -0.451 C7 -0.002 C10 -0.879 C4 -0.00088 C4 -0.00002 C7 0.00069 C3
9 Max 0.450 C3 -0.004 C3 0.880 C8 0.00032 C4 0.00003 C3 -0.00010 C7
Min -0.450 C7 -0.022 C10 -0.879 C4 -0.00031 C8 -0.00003 C7 -0.00232 C10
10 Max 0.450 C3 -0.004 C7 0.880 C8 0.00032 C4 0.00003 C3 0.00232 C10
Min -0.450 C7 -0.022 C10 -0.879 C4 -0.00031 C8 -0.00003 C7 0.00010 C3
Pagel
'
MEMBE R 1
Bendinq
Station Axial Ic Shear V2 Ic Shear V3 Ic 2-Pos Ic 2-Neg Ic 3-Pos Ic 3-Neg Ic
' [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2]
0% Max 0.23 C8 0.16 C7 0.33 C8 0.00 C7 0.00 C5 0.00 C8 0.00 C4
Min -0.39 C10 0.01 C8 0.00 C3 0.00 C5 0.00 C7 0.00 C4 0.00 C8
' 25% Max 0.23 C8 0.16 C7 0.33 C8 1.66 C7 1.46 C3 3.38 C4 3.29 C8
Min -0.39 C10 0.01 C8 0.00 C3 -1.46 C3 -1.66 C7 -3.29 C8 -3.38 C4
50% Max 0.23 C8 0.16 C7 0.33 C8 3.32 C7 2.91 C3 6.75 C4 6.58 C8
Min -0.39 C10 0.01 C8 0.00 C3 -2.91 C3 -3.32 C7 -6.58 C8 -6.75 C4
75% Max 0.23 C8 0.16 C7 0.33 C8 4.98 C7 4.37 C3 10.13 C4 9.88 C8
Min -0.39 C10 0.01 C8 0.00 C3 -4.37 C3 -4.98 C7 -9.88 C8 -10.13 C4
' 100% Max
Min 0.23
-0.39 C8
C10 0.16
0.01 C7
C8 0.33
0.00 C8
C3 6.64
-5.82 C7
C3 5.82
-6.64 C3
C7 13.50
-13.17 C4
C8 13.17
-13.50 C8
C4
-
MEMBER 2
Be
ndinq
Station Axial Ic Shear V2 Ic Shear V3 Ic 2-Pos Ic 2-Neg Ic 3-Pos Ic 3-Neg Ic
[Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2J
'
0% - -
Max ---------------
0.06 --------
C4 ----------------
0.21 -------
C7 ----------------
0.33 ---------
C4 ---------------
0.00 ---------
C10 ---------------
0.00 ---------
C7 ---------------
0.00 --------
C4 ----------------
0.00 ---------
C8
Min -0.68 C10 0.00 C1 0.00 C7 0.00 C7 0.00 C10 0.00 C8 0.00 C4
25% Max 0.06 C4 0.21 C7 0.33 C4 2.18 C7 0.96 C3 3.29 C4 3.38 C8
Min -0.68 C10 0.00 C1 0.00 C7 -0.96 C3 -2.18 C7 -3.38 C8 -3.29 C4
' 50% Max 0.06 C4 0.21 C7 0.33 C4 4.35 C7 1.91 C3 6.59 C4 6.75 C8
nnin -0.68 C10 0.00 C1 0.0~ G? -1.91 C3 -4.35 C7 -6.75 C8 -6.59 C4
75% Max 0.06 C4 0.21 C7 0.33 C4 6.53 C7 2.87 C3 9.88 C4 10.13 C8
Min -0.68 C10 0.00 C1 0.00 C7 -2.87 C3 -6.53 C7 -10.13 C8 -9.88 C4
100% Max 0.06 C4 0.21 C7 0.33 C4 8.70 C7 3.83 C3 13.17 C4 13.51 C8
Min -0.68 C10 0.00 C1 0.00 C7 -3.83 C3 -8.70 C7 -13.51 C8 -13.17 C4
'
MEMBE R 4
Bendinq
' Station
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - Axial
(Kip/in2]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ic
- - - - - - - - Shear V2
[Kip/in2]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ic
- - - - -
- Shear V3
[Kip/in2] Ic 2-Pos
[Kip/in2] Ic 2-Neg
[Kip/in2] Ic 3-Pos
[Kip/in2] Ic 3-Neg
[Kip/in2] Ic
0%
Max
0.04
C7
1.07 -
C10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.00 - - - - - - - -
C3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3.52 - - - - - - - - -
C7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.55 - - - - - - - - - -
C3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.03 - - - - - - - - -
C3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.03 - - - - - - - -
C7
Min -0.09 C3 0.31 C3 0.00 C9 -1.55 C3 -3.52 C7 -0.03 C7 -0.03 C3
' 25% Max 0.04 C7 0.53 C10 0.00 C3 -0.71 C7 4.58 C10 0.02 C3 0.01 C7
Min -0.09 C3 0.08 C3 0.00 C9 -4.58 C10 0.71 C7 -0.01 C7 -0.02 C3
50% Max 0.04 C7 0.15 C3 0.00 C3 -2.97 C7 6.87 C10 0.00 C3 0.00 C7
Min -0.09 C3 0.00 C2 0.00 C9 -6.87 C10 2.97 C7 0.00 C7 0.00 C3
75% Max 0.04 C7 0.53 C10 0.00 C3 -0.71 C3 4.58 C10 0.01 C7 0.01 C3
Min -0.09 C3 0.08 C7 0.00 C9 -4.58 C10 0.71 C3 -0.01 C3 -0.01 C7
100% Max 0.04 C7 1.07 C10 0.00 C3 3.52 C3 1.54 C7 0.02 C7 0.02 C3
' -Min
- --- -0.09
-------------- C3
-------- 0.31
---------------- C7
-------- 0.00
--------------- C9
--------- -1.54
--------------- C7
--------- -3.52
--------------- C3
--------- -0.02
--------------- C3
-------- -0.02
--------------- C7
--------
MEMBER 5
' Bendinq
Station Axial Ic Shear V2 Ic Shear V3 Ic 2-Pos Ic 2-Neg Ic 3-Pos Ic 3-Neg Ic
[Kip/in2] [Kiplin2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2]
'' 0% Max 0.06 C7 0.43 C10 0.00 C3 2.68 C7 2.36 C3 0.02 C3 0.02 C7
Min -0.07 C3 0.02 C1 0.00 C9 -2.36 C3 -2.68 C7 0.02 C7 -0.02 C3
25% Max 0.06 C7 0.21 C10 0.00 C3 0.93 C7 1.84 C10 0.01 C3 0.01 C7
50% Min
Max -0.07
0.06 C3
C7 0.01
0.15 C1
C7 0.00
0.00 C9
C3 -1.84
-0.49 C10
C7 -0.93
2.75 C7
C10 -0.01
0.00 C7
C7 -0.01
0.00 C3
C3
Min -0.07 C3 0.00 C9 0.00 C9 -2.75 C10 0.49 C7 0.00 C3 0.00 C7
75% Max 0.06 C7 0.21 C10 0.00 C3 0.93 C3 1.84 C10 0.02 C7 0.02 C3
' Page3
K~-CL
~~ - ~°`~
~ MEMBERS
Bending
Station Axial Ic Shear V2 Ic Shear V3 Ic 2-Pos Ic 2-Neg Ic 3-Pos Ic 3-Neg Ic
[Kip/in2] [Kiplin2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2]
-------
-------- [Kip/in2]
----------------
---------
0% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 ----
C8 ----------------
0.08 ----------
C10 --------------
5.46 ---------
C8 ---------------
5.33 ---------
C4 --------
0.03 C7 0.03 C3
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C7 0.05 C4 -5.33 C4 -5.46 C8 -0.03. C3 -0.03 C7
' 25% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C8 0.08 C10 3.96 C8 4.13 C4 0.02 C7 0.02 C3
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C7 0.05 C4 -4.13 C4 -3.96 C8 -0.02 C3 -0.02 C7
50% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C8 0.08 C10 2.46 C8 2.94 C4 0.01 C7 0.00 C3
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C7 0.05 C4 -2.94 C4 -2.46 C8 0.00 C3 -0.01 C7
' 75% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C8 0.08 C10 0.95 C8 2.21 C10 0.01 C3 0.00 C7
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C7 0.05 C4 -2.21 C10 -0.95 C8 0.00 C7 -0.01 C3
100% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C8 0.08 C10 -0.55 C8 3.07 C10 0.02 C3 0.01 C7
' ivlin -0.14 C4 6.13 C7 0.05 C4 -3.07 C10 0.55 C8 -0.01 C7 -0.02 C3
' MEMBER 10
Bending
Station Axial Ic Shear V2 Ic Shear V3 Ic 2-Pos Ic 2-Neg Ic 3-Pos Ic 3-Neg Ic
(Kip/in2J [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2]
0% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C4 0.08 C10 5.46 C4 5.32 C8 0.03 C7 0.03 C3
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C7 0.05 C4 -5.32 C8 -5.46 C4 -0.03 C3 -0.03 C7
25% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C4 0.08 C10 3.96 C4 4.13 C8 0.02 C7 0.02 C3
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C7 0.05 C4 -4.13 C8 -3.96 C4 -0.02 C3 -0.02 C7
' 50% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C4 0.08 C10 2.45 C4 2.94 C8 0.01 C7 0.00 C3
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C7 0.05 C4 -2.94 C$ -2.45 C4 O.OC C3 -v^.01 C7
75% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C4 0.08 C10 0.95 C4 2.21 C10 0.01 C3 0.00 C7
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C7 0.05 C4 -2.21 C10 -0.95 C4 0.00 C7 -0.01 C3
' 100% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C4 0.08 C10 -0.55 C8 3.07 C10 0.02 C3 0.01 C7
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C7 0.05 C4 -3.07 C10 0.55 C8 -0.01 C7 -0.02 C3
' ---------------------
MEMBER 11 --------------- ------- ----------------- ------- ----------------- --------- -------------- ---------- -------------- ---------- -------------- --------- --------------- ---------
Bending
Station Axial Ic Shear V2 Ic Shear V3 Ic 2-Pos Ic 2-Neg Ic 3-Pos Ic 3-Neg Ic
'
------------
--------- [Kip/in2]
- [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2j [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2]
-
-
0% Max -
0.14 C8 0.80 C8 --- -----------
0.08 ---------
C10 --- -----------
5.46 ---------
C8 --- ---------
5.33 ----------
C4 --- ----------
0.02 ---------
C7 ---------------
0.02 -----
--
C3
'
25% Min
Max -0.14
0.14 C4
C8 0.13
0.80 C3
C8 0.05
0.08 C3
C10 -5.33
3.96 C4
C8 -5.46
4.13 C8
C4 -0.02
0.02 C3
C7 -0.02
0.02 C7
C3
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C3 0.05 C3 -4.13 C4 -3.96 C8 -0.02 C3 -0.02 C7
50% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C8 0.08 C10 2.46 C8 2.94 C4 0.02 C7 0.02 C3
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C3 0.05 C3 -2.94 C4 -2.46 C8 -0.02 C3 -0.02 C7
' 75% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C8 0.08 C10 0.95 C8 2.21 C10 0.02 C7 0.02 C3
Min -0.14 C4 0.13 C3 0.05 C3 -2.21 C10 -0.95 C8 -0.02 C3 -0.02 C7
100% Max 0.14 C8 0.80 C8 0.08 C10 -0.55 C8 3.07 C10 0.01 C7 0.02 C3
' -Min
- --- -0.14
-------------- C4
------- 0.13
----------------- C3
------- 0.05
----------------- C3
--------- -3.07
--------------- C10
--------- 0.55
--------------- C8
--------- -0.02
-------------- C3
--------- -0.01
--------------- C7
--------
MEMBER 12
Bending
' Station Axial Ic Shear V2 Ic Shear V3 Ic 2-Pos Ic 2-Neg Ic 3-Pos Ic 3-Neg Ic
[Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2j [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2] [Kip/in2j .[Kip/in2]
' ------------
0% ----------
Max --------------
0.00 -------
C7 -----------------
0.86 -------
C10 -----------------
0.00 ---------
C3 ---------------
0.00 ---------
C5 ---------------
0.00 ---------
C1 --------------
0.00 ---------
C7 ---------------
0.00 --------
C3
Min 0.00 C3 0.15 C2 0.00 C9 0.00 C1 0.00 C5 0.00 C3 0.00 C7
25% Max 0.00 C7 0.43 C10 0.00 C3 -0.99 C1 5.49 C10 0.00 C7 0.00 C3
'
50% Min
Max 0.00
0.00 C3
C7 0.08
0.00 C2
C3 0.00
0.00 C9
C3 -5.49
-1.32 C10
C5 0.99
7.32 C1
C10 0.00
0.00 C3
C7 0.00
0.00 C7
C3
Min 0.00 C3 0.00 C9 0.00 C9 -7.32 C10 1.32 C5 0.00 C3 0.00 C7
75% Max 0.00 C7 0.43 C10 0.00 C3 -0.99 C1 5.49 C10 0.00 C7 0.00 C3
I , Pages
Sheet Number: ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~
DUNN Job Number:
Title Date: __
_.
~ ,....m. _ gY, _ ~
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC ~r.~~~ 4-;~~ ~,~ ~ ~ - ;,~; , . ~ ~~~a~1I~~~
Consulting Structural Engineers ~--' ~ ~1
.
Tar,,~er rrGt;~;i rE~ ~,,,~ ~ (~ ~
~
~
.
_.._ _ {J - ---
--
--
~~~ __
o~ ~~ s ~
. ~ - '.
•
.
\\` o~
i
i
V l.~ ., -
I
~ ~ ~i
_
- ~- -
.
- ~ _
_
~ ~ _ l
(~« I {-~ ~:a5~~~ J GJu = 35p1~ G~J-r~ = b~A,pl~ 1~ 2.5Z k;
P
M ° ~, ~4 k. ~~-
_.
rc ~
_
,`
(,u~G ~~IG~IZ
,_
'U µ't b~`_._
5pa.rt ~ ~3 -b"
nL - ~O ~ 17 ~~- l
~-~ ; ~ ( ~ Z 1.~ i~
~ _ Zo ~tF
~
r ~ _.__ .~
-,--
. tau. ~ _ ~~~ ~ 6~~+'7/z G.~,u.E = 2-~ P~~ r,.:~«. = 613; P I.~
~wn1i .f IS~psf ~F3.5Ffi~ r~wti11 Igo p ~ i?4 u ~ ~z
a
7
6 •
1
~i
_ 1,~5e_6J24X~Z _~ Sul ~ .IyS,Z'k•~}-
' 380 West B00 South, Suite 100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 phone: 801-575-8877 fax: 801-575-8875 www.dunn-se.com
Sheet Number: ~~_ ~~
DUNN _- -
Job Number.. I
Title Date: ' ~
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC `'.f l;~_%c,r ~ '~ ~ ! ~'i ~ #-1i ~eccta;~ Bv_
Consulting Structural Engineers `,
~ 8M-1~ ~ Bp1-IO C7 r3M-P+I _ a r3K_'R
~jf'l - 11-1 -.
~~ti 4~ ~ `~ -L~ -
-(na~L ~ ~~~~~~y~`~ CJv~ ~ ~O~pl~ _ _
- la'.~ I~ _ la _ ~
(,J~~.II = `~~+ (7~p`~rE~ + ~~1-(UC~~F~j ~wn,ll = (d3~ ~I~ i {~: Il,~l 1~~~
(,}r~ : I Z a0 P~ F't = 5`i - Z lc ~ -F
' ,~.~e W 16 x 31
_._. __ -_- '- i
~,
~-~c~, r-~, - E7 `~ p
-
~- , = ._ ~+
_~
_ ~Lti~~~. _ :~ ~+~ (35y-:,=~ ~~.c. ~ ID~w-~ t'
'~ ~z~- o` -_;~,' o'er
~, -
r ~
~n)r~al~ _ `~i-k~75~~-,r
~. f' ~~•'~~(rJ~,~~ wall =_' ~t.7~`~ ~I~
l
.. R, ` I°J,`iZ k~P
I
WTL ?_ IZCrc?~1~
i t~ = Ill . J I+. ~ ~ ~ ~'~ D il~`-:i I~ 4v X J~
__
- ~
L.wc. = .3~+ ~2Or~f ~ W~~ =, i~~l f
,
L~-J~,~, ~_ 3~-, (35~: f ~j ; f.~~~.~ °_ t c;5p if
, _ t -
6~
/~
lN6tkL1
RF+(7Spsf~ + ~~f'~yo~~~~ Ww.~lt = (~3S,~1-{ -
! 3.9 kip
R = I_
~ar=; EZ~pI~
(F!X 4J ~oX I'Z _
380 West 800 South, Suite 100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 phone: 801-575-8877 fax: 801-575-8675 www.dunn-se.com
Sheet Number: R ~ _ 2U _-.
Job Number:
DUNN
i itle Date:
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC ~~c~~G,~e.~i`>~ti; _ ~ x~; ~~~ '-~ ~-- -~ ~r~ ~ ~y:
Consulting Structural Engineers
_ ~ _
(~ r i d ~1 - ~~ il~uxrt ~ - M
,, .
- -
~ ~tti is b ~~-ta ~ Bw1-l~ ~ Bti-Iq' p~w1- 5
,.
380 West 800 South, Suite 100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 phone: 801-575-8877 fax: 801-575-8875 www.dunn-se.com
Mtnl-Z
DUNN ASSOCIATES
INTERACTION RATIOS FOR MASONRY WALLS/PILASTERS USING THE 2000 IBC
ALLOWABLE WORKING STRESSES - (fa/Fa + fb/Fb) SEISMIC INPUT AS AN ULTIMATE LOAD
Dead Loads are Increased per Code for Seismic Load Cases
(Version of this program is specifically for one story structures.)
(To Run, Push "F9") By W.C. Barker (10/23/01) Date: 7/28/2005
PROJECT: Walgreen's -Rexburg ENGINEER: JSF
DESCRIPTION: Bearing Wall -Grid 1
INPUT:
fm (psi): 2000.0 Fs (ksi): 24.00
Actual Wall Thickness (in): 7.625 Effective Wall Thickness (in): 4.900
Wall Height (ft): 17.88 Effective Wall Height (ft): 17.88
Distance "d" (gin): '~.8~3 Vertical Bar Spacing (in): 32.nn
Size of Bar (#): 5 Wall Weight (psf): 52.00
Opening Width (ft): 0.00 Wall/Pilaster Length (inches): 12.00
Opening Height (ft): 0.00 Tributary Length to Wall (ft): 21.00
Parapet Height (ft): 3.75 Solid Grouted?(1 =Yes, 2 = No) 2
Ratio of Vertical Steel Provided: 0.00127 Light = 1, Med = 2, 1
Normal = 3, Brick = 4
Unfactored Gravity Loads Applied at the Top of the Effective Wall/Pilaster:
Eccentric Loads ( psf): Concentric Loads (psfl:
Snow Load: 35.00 Snow Load: 0.00
Live Load: 0.00 Live Load: 0.00
Dead Load: 20.00 Dead Load: 0.00
Eccentricity (inches): 2.15
Unfactored Lateral Loads Applied Perpendicular fo the Effective Wall/Pilaster
Wind-In (psf): 17.00 Wind-Out (plf): 17.00
Wind Code - w: 1.30
Earthquake (psf) : 9.86 % Snow Load w/EO : 20.00%
Sds (Eq. 16-18): 0.474 Amount Dead Loads are Increased for Seismic: 6.77%
Gravity Loads over the Wall/Colu mn Length:
Eccentric Loads: Concentric Loads :
Snow Load (pounds): 735.0 Snow Load (pounds): 0.0
Live Load (pounds) : 0.0 Live Load (pounds): 0.0
Dead Load (pounds): 420.0 Dead Load (pounds): 195.0
Lateral Loads over the Wall/Column Len th ultimate earth uake loads have been divided b 1.4 to convert):
Wind-In (plf): 17.0 Wind-Out (plf): 17.0
Earthquake (plf) : 7.0
OUTPUT:
Fa (psi -inspected): 325.03
Fb (psi -inspected): 666.67
LOAD CASES: fa si fb si
Gravity Load Case:
DL+LL+SL (Eq. 16-13) 30.86 62.55
With Wind Forces:
DL+LL+WL(OUT) (Eq. 16-14) 18.36 556.38
DL+LL+WL(IN) (Eq. 16-14) 18.36 510.88
DL+LL+WL(OUT)+SL/2 (Eq. 16-15) 24.61 576.28
DL+LL+WL(IN) +SL/2 (Eq. 16-15) 24.61 490.98
DL+LL+WL(OUT)/2+SL (Eq. 16-16) 30.86 329.37
DL+LL+WL(IN)/2 +SL (Eq. 16-16) 30.86 204.26
With Earthquake Forces:
DL+LL+EO/1.4(OUT) (Eq. 16-'17) 19.61 194.33
DL+LL+EO/1.4(IN) (Eq. 16-17) 19.61 145.76
DL+LL+EO/1.4(OUT)+SL (Eq. 16-17) 22.11 202.29
DL+LL+EO/1.4(IN) +SL (Eq. 16-17) 22.11 137.80
.9DL + EO/1.4(OUT) (Eq. 16-18) 17.65 191.90
.9DL + EO/1.4(IN) (Eq. 16-18) 17.65 148.19
Warning! For the uninspected condition, one or more stress ratios are high.
fs si
3,054
27,164
24,943
28,136
23,971
16,081
9,973
9,488
7,116
9,877
6,728
9,369
7,235
Stress Ratios:
Wall Inspection
Inspection Not
Provided Provided
0.19 0.38
0.89 1.78
0.82 1.65
0.94 1.88
0.81 1.62
0.59 1.18
0.40 0.80
0.35 0.70
0.28 0.56
0.37 0.74
0.27 0.55
0.34 0.68
0.28 0.55
Note: For temporary loading conditions, the stress ratio may be as high as 1.33 for the unity equation and for steel stress.
Mw-~
DUNN ASSOCIATES
INTERACTION RATIOS FOR MASONRY WALLS/PILASTERS USING THE 2000 IBC
ALLOW ABLE WORKING STRESSES - (falFa + fb/Fb) SEISMIC INPUT AS AN ULTIMATE LOAD
Dead Loads are Increased per Code for Seismic Load Cases
(Version of this program is specifically for one story structures.)
(To Run, Push "F9") By W.C. Barker (10/23/01) Date: 7/28/2005
PROJECT: Walgreen's -Rexburg ENGINEER: JSF
DESCRIPTION: 1 2'-0"x8'-0" Grid 1
INPUT:
fm (psi): 2000.0 Fs (ksi): 24.00
Actual Wall Thickness (in): 7.625 Effective Wall Thickness (in): 7.625
Wall Height (ft): 17.88 Effective Wall Height (ft): 17.88
Cistance "d" (in): 5.125 `Jert;cal Bar Spacing (in): 8.00
Size of Bar (#): 5 Wall Weight (psf): 75.00
Opening Width (ft): 12.00 Wall/Pilaster Length (inches): 32.00
Opening Height (ft): 8.00 Tributary Length to Wall (ft): 21.00
Parapet Height (ft): 3.75 Solid Grouted?(1 =Yes, 2 = No) 1
Ratio of Vertical Steel Provided: 0.00508 Light = 1, Med = 2, 1
Normal = 3, Brick = 4
Unfactored Gravity Loads Applied at the Top of the Effecti ve Wall/Pilaster:
Eccentric Loads ( psf): Concentric Loads (psf):
Snow Load: 35.00 Snow Load: 0.00
Live Load: 0.00 Live Load: 0.00
Dead Load: 20.00 Dead Load: 0.00
Eccentricity (inches): 2.15
I Infactored Lateral Loads Applied Perpendicular to the Effective ~Na!!/Pi!aster
Wind-In (psf): 17.00 Wind-Out (plf): 17.00
Wind Code - w: 1.30
Earthquake (psf) : 14.22 % Snow Load w/EO : 20.00%
Sds (Eq. 16-18): 0.474 Amount Dead Loads are Increased for Seismic: 6.77%
Gravity Loads over the Wall/Column Length:
Eccentric Loads: Concentric Loads :
Snow Load (pounds): 6370.0 Snow Load (pounds): 0.0
Live Load (pounds): 0.0 Live Load (pounds): 0.0
Dead Load (pounds): 3640.0 Dead Load (pounds): 6881.3
Lateral Loads over the Wall/Column Length (ultimate earthquake loads have been divided by 1.4 to convert):
Wind-In (plf): 147.3 Wind-Out (plf): 147.3
Earthquake (plf) : 60.8
OUTPUT:
Fa (psi -inspected): 255.27
Fb (psi -inspected): 666.67
LOAD CASES: fa si fb si
Gravity Load Case:
DL+LL+SL (Eq. 16-13) 76.55 76.03
With Wind Forces:
DL+LL+WL(OUT) (Eq. 16-14) 50.45 676.27
DL+LL+WL(IN) (Eq. 16-14) 50.45 620.97
DL+LL+WL(OUT)+SL/2 (Eq. 16-15) 63.50 700.46
DL+LL+WL(IN) +SL/2 (Eq. 16-15) 63.50 596.78
DL+LL+WL(OUT)/2+SL (Eq. 16-16) 76.55 400.34
DL+LL+WL(IN)/2 +SL (Eq. 16-16) 76.55 248.28
With Earthquake Forces:
DL+LL+EQ/1.4(OUT) (Eq. 16-17) 53.86 235.26
DL+LL+EO/1.4(IN) (Eq. 16-17) 53.86 176.22
DL+LL+EO/1.4(OUT)+SL (Eq. 16-17) 59.08 244.94
DL+LL+EO/1.4(IN) +SL (Eq. 16-17) 59.08 166.54
.9DL + EO/1.4(OUT) (Eq. 16-18) 48.48 232.31
.9DL + EO/1.4(IN) (Eq. 16-18) 48.48 179.17
Warning! For the uninspected condition, one or more stress ratios are high.
fs si
1,944
17,288
15,875
17,907
15,256
10,235
6,347
6,014
4,505
6,262
4,258
5,939
4,580
Stress Ratios:
Wall Inspection
Inspection Not
Provided Provided
0.41 0.83
121 2.42
1.13 2.26
1.30 2.60
1.14 2.29
0.90 1.80
0.67 1.34
0.56 1.13
0.48 0.95
0.60 1.20
0.48 0.96
0.54 1.08
0.46 0.92
Note: For temporary loading conditions, the stress ratio may be as high as 1.33 for the unity equation and for steel stress.
' DUNN ASSOCIATES
MASONRY SLENDERWALL PROGRAM PER THE 2000 IBC
(To Run, Push "Ctrl C") by W. C. Barker (04/23/2005)
i Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg Date:
Description: Bearing Wall Grid 4 gy.
INPUT:
Masonry Strength - fm (psi <=6,000) 2,000
fy (ksi): 60
00 Wei
ht (
sf):
.
g
p
Wall Height (feet): 20.21 ctual Thickness (in): 7.625 Effective t (in):
Pier Length (in): 12.00
' Opening Width (ft): 0.00 Parapet Height (ft):
Opening Height (ft): 0.00 Tributary Length to Wall for Eccentric Loads (ft):
_. Tributary Length to Wall for Concentric Loads (ft):
MW-b
7/28/2005
JSF
52.00
4.900
1.42
18.00
0.00
5oiio vrouted"!(1 =Yes, 2 = No)
Light = 1, Med = 2, Normal = 3
_ _ _Hollow Clay = 4, 2 Wythe Brick - 5
Bar Size:
i~
Bar
2 Face Shell Thickness (in): 1.25
1 Additional Roof Deflection Desired (in): 0.00
5
32
Unfactored Eccentric Gravity Loads
Ledger Snow Loads (psf): 35.00
Ledger Live Loads (psf): 0.00
Ledger Dead Loads (psf): 20.00
1: 2.150
"d"' distance to tension steel (in): 3.813
Layers of Steel : 1
Unfactored Concentric Gravity Loads
Snow Loads (psf): 0.00
Live Loads (psf): 0.00
Dead Loads (psf): 0.00
Load Factors
f1: 0.50
f2: 0.70
Percent for eFLL: 0.00%
Percent for cFLL: 0.00%
- ---
ateral Loads ("Wind In" is towards the wall, "Wind Out" is away from the wall, wind is "working", seismic is "ultimate"):
Wind In (psf): 17.00 Wind Out (psf): 17.00
Seismic (psf): 9.86 Sds (Eq. 16-18): 0.474 DL Increase: 9.48%
OUTPUT:
' Accumulated Eccentric Loads (Midheight): Accumulated Concentric Loads (Midheight):
Snow Load (Ibs/pier): 630 Snow Load (Ibs/pier): 0
Ledger Live Load (Ibs/pier): 0 Live Load (Ibs/pier): 0
' Ledger Dead Load (Ibs/pier): 360
Accumulated Lateral Loads Dead Load (Ibs/pier): 599
Wind In (plf/pier): 17.00 Wind Out (plf/pier): 17.00
__ Seismic (plf/pier): 9.86
Miscellaneous Design Constants: Gross Steel P arameters Tension Steel Parameters
Mcr (Ib-in): 13,000.64 "Rho" Max: 0.0040 "Rho" Max : 0.0071
ximum Vertical Load - Unfactored(Ibs): 2,114.76 "Rho" Prov.: 0.0013 "Rho" Prov.: 0.0025
Max Allowable Load (Ibs): 7,320.00 As Prov.(in^2/pier): 0.1163 As Max(in^2/pier}: 0.3249
' Gravity Load Cases (Top and Midheight): As Min(in^2/pier): 0.0641 As Prov.(in^2/pier): 0.1163
Load Case: Pu (Ibs) Mu (Ib-in) Mu/f11Mn Asr (in2)
.9DL+1.7LL+1.7SL( At top of wall): 1,461 2,999.25 0.12 0.00
1.4DL+1.7LL+1.7SL(At midheight of wall): 2,414 10,177.52 0.38 0.02
Lateral Loads Acting Towards Wall - DL's Increased by "DL Increase" for Seismic Cases (Stresses at Wall Mid-hei ght):
1.2DL+f1 LL+SLl2+1.6WL: 1,466 20,531.32 0.84 0.09
1.2DL+1.OE+(f1LL+f2SL): 1,701 10,590.28 0.42 0.03
' .9DL+1.6WL: 863 18,824.88 0.83 0.09
.9DL+1.OEQ: 945 8,410.76 0.37 0.03
Lateral Loads Acting Away from Wall - DL's Increased by "DL Increase" for Seismic Cases (Stresses at Wall Mid-height):
' 1.2DL+f1 LL+SL/2+1.6WL: 1,466 22,137.37 0.91 0.10
1.2DL+1.OE+(f1LL+f2SL): 1,701 12,555.28 0.50 0.04
.9DL+1.6WL: 863 19,521.48 0.86 0.10
' .9DL+I.OEQ:
Service Loads - DL's Not Increased by "DL Increase" fo 945 9,173.40 0.40
r S
i
i
C
D
fl
i 0.04
e
sm
c
ases (
e ect
ons Evalu ated at Wall Mid-height) :
Ps (Ibs) Ms (Ib-in) Delta (in) h/t
DL+LL+SL/2+WL (Inward): 1,274 9,765.54 0.07 31.81
' DL+f1 LL+f2SL+EQ/1.4 (Inward): 1,400 3,484.00 0.03 Delta Allow (h/36)
DL+LL+SL/2+WL (Outward): 1,274 11,228.15 0.09 1.70 in
DL+f1 LL+f2SL+EQ/1.4 (Outward): 1,400 5,221.37 0.04 As Provided
'' Messa ges Occur in Area Below
"Delta" of wa
ll as Mason
Cracks 0.12 in"2
10 i
0
h
ry
: .
nc
es
Wall design is okay!!
' DUNN ASSOCIATES M~ ~8
MASONRY SLENDERWALL PROGRAM PER THE 2000 IBC
(To Run, Push "Ctrl C") by W. C. Barker (04/23/2005)
' Project: Wal
'
green
s - Rexburg Date: 7/28/2005
Description: Non Bearing Wall Grid A
'
INPUT:
Masonry Strength - fm (psi <=6
000)
2
000 By: JSF
, , fy (ksi): 60.00 Wei ht
g (psf):
52
00
__ Wall Height (feet): 20.21 ctual Thickness (in): 7.625 Effective t (in): .
4
900
Pier Length (m): 12.00 ------- .
' Opening Width (ft): 0.00 Parapet Height (ft): 1
42
Opening Height (ft): 0.00 Tributary Length to Wall for Eccentric Loads (ft): .
3.00
----- Tributary Length to Wall for Concentric Loads (ft): 0
00
Solid Grouted?(1 =Yes, 2 = No) 2 F .
Light = 1, Med = 2
Normal = 3
1 ace She!! Thickness (in): 1.25
,
_Hollow Clay = 4, 2 Wythe Brick = 5
_ Additional Roof Deflection Desired (in): 0.00
Bar Size:
Bar Spacing (in): 5
32 "d"' distance to tension steel (in): 3.813
Unfactored Eccen _ _ ___ Layers of Steel : 1 _
tric Gravity Loads ~ Unfactored Concentric Gravity Loads ~ -Load Factors
Ledger Snow Loads (psf): 35.00 Snow Loads (psf): 0.00 ~ f1: 0
50
Ledger Live Loads (psf): 0.00 Live Loads ~
(psf): 0.00 i f2: .
0
70
Ledger Dead Loads (psf): 20.00 Dead Loads (pst7: 0.00 ~ Percent for eFLL: .
0
00%
'
Eccentricity (in):
-------
ateral Loads ("Wind In" is towards the
Wind In (psf):
3.813 Percent for cFLL:
-------
wall, "Wind Out" is away from the wall, wind is "working", seismic is "ultimate"):
17.00 Wind Out (
sf): 17 .
0.00% _
p
.00
_ Seismic (psf):
OUTPUT: 9.86 Sds (Eq. 16-18): 0.474 DL !ncrease: 9.48°%
' Accumulated Eccentric Loads (Midheight): Accumulated Concentric Loads (Midheight):
Snow Load (Ibs/pier): 105 Snow Load (Ibs/pier): 0
Ledger Live Load (Ibs/pier): 0
Ledger Dead Load (Ibs/pier):
60 Live Load (Ibs/pier): 0
Accumulated Latera
l Loads Dead Load (Ibs/pier): 599
_ Wind In (plf/pier):
_._ ___ __ Seismic (plf/pier): 17.00
g.g6 Wind Out (plf/pier}: 17.00
' Miscellaneous Design Constants: Gross Steel Parameters Tension Steel Parameters
Mcr (Ib-in): 13,000.64 "Rho" Max: 0.0040 'Rho" Max : 0
0071
ximum Vertical Load - Unfactored(Ibs): 1,289.76 "Rho" Prov.: 0.0013 "Rho" Prov
: .
0
0025
Max Allowable Load (Ibs): 7,320.00
Gravity Load Cases (Top and Midheight): As Prov.(in^2/pier):
A
^ 0.1163 .
As Max(in^2/pier): .
0.3249
Load Case: s Min(in
2/pier): 0.0641 As Prov.(in^2/pier): 0.1163
.9DL+1.7LL+1.7SL( At top of wall): Pu (Ibs)
299 Mu (Ib-in)
886
41 Mu/f1~Mn Asr (in2)
1.4DL+1.7LL+1.7SL(At midheight of wall):
1,102 .
3
452
56 0.04
0
15 0.00
,
.
Lateral Loads Acting Towards Wall - DL's Increased by "DL Increase" for Seismic Cases (S .
0.00
tresses at Wall Mid-height):
1.2DL+f1 LL+SL/2+1.6WL: $44 18,540.62 0.82 0
09
' 1.2DL+1.OE+(f1LL+f2SL): 940 8,133.18 0.35 .
0.03
.9DL+1.6WL: 593 17,980.91 0.82 0.09
.9DL+1.OEQ: 650 7,483.61 0.34 0.03
Lateral Loads Acting Away from Wall - DL's Increased by "DL Increase" for Seismic Cases (Stresse
t W
ll Mid
1
2DL+f1 LL+SL s a
a
-hei ght):
' .
/2+1.6WL: 844 19
015
27 0
84
1.2DL+1.OE+(f1LL+f2SL):
940 ,
.
8,713.92 .
0.38 0.10
0.03
.9DL+1.6WL: 593 18,186.78 0.83 0.09
, .9DL+1.OEQ:
Service Loads - DL's Not Increased by "DL Increa
" f 650
S 7 ,709,00 0.35 0.03
se
o r
eismic Cases (Defl ections Evalua ted at Wall Mid heiahtl~
DL+LL+SL/2+WL (Inward):
DL+f1LL+f2SL+EQ/1.4 (Inward):
DL+LL+SL/2+V\/L (Outward):
DL+f1 LL+f2SL+EO/1.4 (Outward):
Messag Ps (Ibs)
712
733
712
733
es Occur in Area Ms (Ib-in)
10,236.16
4,074.78
10,666.56
4,585.61
Below Delta (in)
0.08
0.03
0.08
0.04
'
"Delta" of wall as Masonry Cracks
h/t
31.81
Delta Allow (h/36l
1.70 in
As Provided
0.12 in^2
0.10 inches
Wall design is okay!!
MW-1b
DUNN ASSOCIATES
INTERACTION RATIOS FOR MASONRY WALLS/PILASTERS USING THE 2000 IBC
ALLOWABLE WORKING STRESSES - (fa/Fa + fb/Fb) SEISMIC INPUT AS AN ULTIMATE LOAD
Dead Loads are Increased ber Code for Seismic Load Cases
(Version of this program is specifically for one story structures.)
(To Run, Push "F9") By W.C. Barker (10/23/01) Date: 7/28/2005
PROJECT: Walgreen's -Rexburg ENGINEER: JSF
DESCRIPTION: 5'-0"x7'-0" Grid
INPUT:
fm (psi): 2000.0
Actual Wall Thickness (in): 7.625
Wall Height (ft): 18.71
Distance "d" (in): 5.125
Size of Bar (#): 5
Opening Width (ft): 5.00
Opening Height (ft): 7.00
Parapet Height (ft): 2.92.
Ratio of Vertical Steel Provided: 0.00508
Unfactored Gravity Loads Applied at the Top of the Effective Wall/Pilaster
24.00
7.625
18.71
8.00
75.00
16.00
3.00
1
1
Eccentric Loads (psf): Concentric Loads (psf):
Snow Load : 35.00 Snow Load: 0.00
Live Load : 0.00 Live Load: 0.00
Dead Load: 20.00 Dead Load: 0.00
Eccentricity (inches) : 2.15
Unfactored Lateral Loads Aoplied Perpendicular Yo ±he Effective Wall/Pilaster:
Wind-In (psf): 17.00 Wind-Out (plf): 17.00
Wind Code - w: 1.30
Earthquake (psf) : 14.22 % Snow Load w/EO : 20.00%
Sds (Eq. 16-18): 0.474 Amount Dead Loads are Increased for Seismic: 6.77%
Gravity Loads over the Wall/Colu mn Lenath:
Eccentric Loads: Concentric Loads:
Snow Load (pounds): 402.5 Snow Load (pounds): 0.0
Live Load (pounds): 0.0 Live Load (pounds): 0.0
Dead Load (pounds): 230.0 Dead Load (pounds): 3035.1
Lateral Loads over the Wall/Column Length (ultimate earthquake loads have been divided by 1 4 to convert):
Wind-In (plf): 65.2 Wind-Out (plf): 65.2
Earthquake (plf) : 29.4
OUTPUT:
Fa (psi -inspected): 233.10
Fb (psi -inspected): 666.67
LOAD CASES: fa si fb si
Gravity Load Case:
DL+LL+SL (Eq. 16-13) 37.73 9.61
With Wind Forces:
DL+LL+WL(OUT) (Eq. 16-14) 34.43 632.13
DL+LL+WL(IN) (Eq. 16-14) 34.43 625.14
DL+LL+WL(OUT)+SL/2 (Eq. 16-15) 36.08 635.19
DL+LL+WL(IN) +S U2 (Eq. 16-15) 36.08 622.08
DL+LL+~/~IL(OUT)/2+SL (Eq. 16-16) 37.73 323.93
DL+LL+WL(IN)/2 +SL (Eq. 16-16) 37.73 304.71
With Earthquake Forces:
DL+LL+EO/1.4(OUT) (Eq. 16-17) 36.76 222.15
DL+LL+EO/1.4(IN) (Eq. 16-17) 36.76 214.69
DL+LL+EO/1.4(OUT)+SL (Eq. 16-17) 37.42 223.38
DL+LL+EO/1.4(IN) +SL (Eq. 16-17) 37.42 213.47
.9DL + EO/1.4(OUT) (Eq. 16-18) 33.09 221.78
.9DL + EQ/1.4(IN) (Eq. 16-18) 33.09 215.07
Warning! For the uninspected condition, one or more stress ratios are high.
Fs (ksi):
Effective Wall Thickness (in):
Effective Wall Height (ft):
'vertical Bar Spacing (in):
Wall Weight (psf):
Wall/Pilaster Length (inches):
Tributary Length to Wall (ft):
Solid Grouted?(1 =Yes, 2 = No)
Light = 1, Med = 2,
Normal = 3, Brick = 4
fs si
246
16,160
15,981
16,238
15,903
8,281
7.790
5,679
5,489
5,711
5,457
5,670
5,498
Stress Ratios:
Wall Inspection
Inspection Not
Provided Provided
0.18 0.35
1.10 2.19
1.09 2.17
1.11 2.22
1.09 2.18
0.65 1.30
0.62 1.24
0.49 0.98
0.48 0.96
0.50 0.99
0.48 0.96
0.47 0.95
0.46 0.93
Note: For temporary loading conditions, the stress ratio may be as high as 1.33 for the unity equation and for steel stress.
DUNN ASSOCIATES
MOMENT (KIP-FT) AND SHEAR (KIPS) CAPACITY BASED ON ALLOWABLE STRESSES
FOR MASONRY LINTELS PER THE 20 03 IBC (SINGLE BAR PE R COURSE OR TWO B
(To Run, Push "F9")
by W. C. Barker (04
/23/2005) ARS PER COU
D
t RSE)
Project: Walgreen's -
Rexburg a
e:
Engineer: 7/28/2005
WCB
Description: 8" Lintel
fm (psi): 2,000.00 # of Bot Bars: 1 # of Top Bars: 0
Width (in): 7.625 Bot Bar Size: 7 Top Bar Size: 7
Depth (in): 8.00
Course (in): 0
00 As Bot (in2): 0.60 As Top (in2): 0.00
.
Fs (psi):
Wall Type: 1 (1=CMU
2=Other) 24,000 Bars per Course: 1
, (1=1 bar, 2=2 bars)
Fb (inspected -psi): 666.67 Fb (uninspected -psi): 333
33
No Shear Reinforcement: With Shear Reinforcement: .
Fv (inspected -psi): 44.72 Fv (inspected -psi): 134
16
Fv (uninspected -psi): 22 36
INSPECTED Fv (uninspected psi) .
67 08
Moment Capacity of Masonry Lintels (k-ft):
thickness depth d d' M (k-ft) M (k-ft)
inches inches inches inches T.B.ALSO B
B
ONLY
7.625 8 5.00 0.00 2.21 .
.
2
21
7.625 8 5.00 0.00 2.21 .
2
21
7.625 8 5.00
7
625 8 0.00 2.21 .
2.21
.
5.00
7.625 8 5.00 0.00
0
00 2.21 2.21
7.625 8 5.00 .
0.00 2.21
2.21 2.21
2
21
Shear Capacity of Masonry Lintels (kips): .
thickness depth d V (kips) V (kips) V (kips) V (kips)
inches inches inches
7
625 No Bars #3 (c~ 8" #4 a 8" #5 8"
.
8 5.00
7.625 8 5
00 1.42
1
42 1.37 2.50 3.87
.
7.625 8 5.00 .
1.42 1.37
1.37 2.50
2.50 3.87
3
87
7.625 8 5.00
7
625 8 1.42 1.37 2.50 .
3.87
.
5.00
7.625 8 5.00 1.42
1.42 1.37
1
37 2 50
2
50
3.87
UNINSPECTED: . . 3.87
Moment Capacity of Masonry Lintels (k-ft):
thickness depth d d' M (k-ft) M (k-ft)
inches inches inches inches T.B.ALSO B
B
ONLY
7.625 8 5.00 0.00 1.11 .
.
1
11
7.625 8 5.00 0.00 1.11 .
1
11
7.625 8 5.00 0.00 1.11 .
1
11
7.625 8 5.00
7
625 8 0.00 1.11 .
1.11
.
5.00
7.625 8 5.00 0.00
0
00 1.11 1.11
Shear Capacity of Masonry Lintels (kips): . 1.11 1.11
thickness depth d V (kips) V (kips) V (kips) V (kips)
inches inches inches No Bars #3 (a~ 8" #4 (c~ 8" #5 8"
7.625 8 5.00 0.71 1.37 2.13 2
13
7.625 8 5.00
7
625 8 0.71 1.37 2.13 .
2.13
.
5.00
7.625 8 5
00 0.71
0
71 1.37 2.13 2.13
.
7.625 8 5.00 .
0.71 1.37
1.37 2.13
2,13 2.13
2
13
7.625 8 5.00 0.71 1.37 2.13 .
2.13
I~W-t2
IMarJ -- ly
DUNN ASSOCIATES
INTERACTION RATIOS FOR MASONRY WALLS/PILASTERS USING THE 2000 IBC
ALLOWABLE WORKING STRESSES - (fa/Fa + fb/Fb) SEISMIC INPUT AS AN ULTIMATE LOAD
Dead Loads are Increased per Code for Seismic Load Cases
(Version of this program is specifically for one story structures.)
(To Run, Push "F9") By W.C. Barker (10/23/01) Date: 7/28/2005
PROJECT: Walgreen's -Rexburg ENGINEER: JSF
DESCRIPTION: Non Bearing Wall Grid E
INPUT:
fm (psi): 2000.0
Actual Wall Thickness (in): 7.625
Wall Height (ft): 18.71
Distance "d" (in): 3.813
Size of Bar (#): 5
Opening Width (ft): 0.00
Opening Height (ft): 0.00
Parapet Height (ft): 2.92
Ratio of Vertical Steel Provided: 0.00127
Unfactored Gravity Loads Applied at the Top of the Effective Wall/Pilaster
24.00
4.900
18.71
32.uG
52.00
12.00
3.00
2
1
Eccentric Loads (psf): Concentric Loads (psf):
Snow Load : 35.00 Snow Load: 0.00
Live Load : 0.00 Live Load: 0.00
Dead Load: 20.00 Dead Load: 0.00
Eccentricity (inches) : 2.15
Unfactored Lateral Loads Applied Perpendicular to the Effective yVal!/Pilaster:
Wind-In (psf): 17.00 Wind-Out (plf): 17.00
Wind Code - w: 1.30
Earthquake (psf) : 9.86 % Snow Load w/EQ : 20.00%
Sds (Eq. 16-18): 0.474 Amount Dead Loads are Increased for Seismic: 6.77%
Gravity Loads over the Wall/Column Lenoth:
Eccentric Loads: Concentric Loads:
Snow Load (pounds): 105.0 Snow Load (pounds): 0.0
Live Load (pounds): 0.0 Live Load (pounds): 0.0
Dead Load (pounds): 60.0 Dead Load (pounds): 151.8
Lateral Loads over the Wall/Column Length (ultimate earthquake loads have been divided by 1 4 to convert):
Wind-In (plf): 17.0 Wind-Out (plf): 17.0
Earthquake (plf) : 7.0
OUTPUT:
' Fa (psi -inspected): 308.30
Fb (psi -inspected): 666.67
LOAD CASES: fa si fb si
Gravity Load Case:
DL+LL+SL (Eq. 16-13) 13.66 8
94
With Wind Forces: .
' DL+LL+WL(OUT) (Eq. 16-14) 11.88 587.90
DL+LL+WL(IN) (Eq. 16-14) 11.88 581.40
DL+LL+WL(OUT)+SL/2 (Eq. 16-15) 12.77 590.74
DL+LL+WL(IN} +SL/2 (Eq. 16-15) 12.77 578.56
DL+LL+WL(OUT)/2+SL (Eq. 16-16) 13.66 301.26
DL+LL+WL(IN)/2 +SL (Eq. 16-16) 13.66 283.39
With Earthquake Forces:
DL+LL+EC!/1.4(OUT) (Eq. 16-17) 12.68 189.77
DL+LL+EQ/1.4(IN) (Eq. 16-17) 12.68 182.83
DL+LL+EO/1.4(OUT)+SL (Eq. 16-17) 13.04 190.91
DL+LL+EQl1.4(IN) +SL (Eq. 16-17) 13.04 181.70
.9DL + EQ/1.4(OUT) (Eq. 16-18) 11.41 189.43
' .9DL + EQ/1.4(IN) (Eq. 16-18) 11.41 183.18
Warning! For the uninspected condition, one or more stress ratios are high.
fs si
436
28, 703
28,386
28,842
28,247
14,708
13,836
9,265
8,926
9,321
8,871
9,248
8,943
Stress Ratios:
Wall Inspection
Inspection Not
Provided Provided
0.06 0.12
0.92 1.84
0.91 1.82
0.93 1.86
0.91 1.82
0.50 0.99
0.47 0.94
0.33 0.65
0.32 0.63
0.33 0.66
0.31 0.63
0.32 0.64
0.31 0.62
Note: For temporary loading conditions, the stress ratio may be as high as 1.33 for the unity equation and for steel stress.
Fs (ksi):
Effective Wall Thickness (in):
Effective Wall Height (ft):
Vertical Bar Spacing (in):
Wall Weight (psf):
Wall/Pilaster Length (inches):
Tributary Length to Wall (ft):
Solid Grouted?(1 =Yes, 2 = No)
Light = 1, Med = 2,
Normal = 3, Brick = 4
~w-i~
DUNN ASSOCIATES
MASONRY COLUMN DESIGN USING ALLOWABLE WORKING STRESSES
BASED ON PROVISIONS OF THE 2000 IBC
(To Run, Push "F9") By W. C. Barker (11/21/01) Date:
PROJECT: Wafgreen's -Rexburg ENGINEER:
DESCRIPTION : Drive Thru Canopy Column
GENERAL INPUT:
fm (psi: 2,200.00
fy (ksi): 60.00
# of Vertical Bars: 6
Bar Size (#): 5
A gross (in^2): 183.00
As Prov. (in^2): 1.86
Wall Type: 1
WORKING LOAD INPUT:
M (x or y) (k-ft): 0.75
Axial Load (kips): 4.10
Shear (xory) (kips): 0.00
OUTPUT:
7/28/2005
JSF
Width - X (in): 24.000 Thickness-Y (in): 7.625
h - X (ft): 17.71 h - Y (ft): 17.71
Eff. h - X (ft): 17.71 Eff. h - Y (ft): 17.71
d' - X (in): 2.50 d' - Y (in): 2.50
' d - X (in): 5.125 in d - Y (in): 21.500
I - X (in^4): 886.64 I - Y (in^4): 8,784.00
(iiA}^.5 - X (in): 2.20 = (I/A)^.5 - X (in): 6.93
Reduction - Rx: 0.524 Reduction - Ry: 0.952
Asmin-.5%(in^2): 0.92
(1=CMU, 2=Other)
SEISMIC ZONE:
Seismic Zone: 3
Load Code: 1
Asmax-4% (in^2): 7.32
(1 =Gravity, 2 =Temporary)
ABOUT THE X-AXIS ABOUT THE Y-AXIS
P masonry (kips): 13.70 6.85 90.29 45.15 Analyzed as a
P steel (kips): 7.61 7.61 27.62 27.62 pure column
P allow (kips): 21.31 14.46 117.91 72.77 section w/o M
Fa (psi):
144.21
72.10
.523.60
261.80 .
Analyzed as a
fa (psi): 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 wall section
The
Fb (psi): 733.33 366.67 733.33 366.67 .
unity equation
fb (psi): 100.30 100.30 17.94 17.94 must be equal to
Unity Equation: 0.29 0.58 0.07 0.13 or less than 1.00.
' Sheet Number: ~C,- 1
_. _ _ ___
_. __
D~NN Job Number
' Title Date:
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC ~' .~a-`~ cz ~~- ~ ~~ `-~- ~ ~~ 4~ ,~ ~~'<~. By:
Consulting Structural Engineers ~r
II ~
380 Wesi 800 South, Suite 100 Salt Lake Ciry, Utah 64101 phone: 801-575-8877 fax: 801-575-8875 www.dunn-se.oom
~-_ 5
DUNN ASSOCIATES
STEEL BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN FOR COLUMNS WITH
COMBINATIONS OF AXIAL AND MOMENT LOADS
(To Run, Push "CTRL C") by W. C. Barker (4/14/00) 11/7/2005
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg Engineer: JSF
Description: Drive Thru Canopy Columns
LOAD INPUT:
Column Selection (ID #): 283
Total # of Bolts for Mx: 2
Total # of Bolts for My: 2
Bolt Diameter (in): 1.00
Bolt Tension - Ft (ksi): 20.00
Axial Load P Moment Moment Dir Load Code
(kips) (k-ft) 1=Mx,2=My 1=Short Term
Case #1: 11.0 20.4 1 1
Case #2: 11.0 1.0 1 2
Case #3: 0.0 0.0 1 2
Note: Half of the bolts will be used to resist the moment.
Note: Ft = 44.0 ksi for A325, 19.0 ksi for A36, 20.0 ksi for A307 bolts-
NOte: Loads are mi iltiplieri by prQgrarp by ,75 if they are ghQrt tarm,
BASE PLATE INPUT:
Height (in): 16.00 Length (in): 16.00 Fy (ksi): 36
Plate Edge to Bolt CL (in): 2 Convergence: 0.01
CONCRETE INPUT:
fc, 28 days(ksi): 3.00 Concrete Bearing Area, A2 (in2): 850
OUTPUT:
Column Chosen: TS8X8X1/4
Y (plate height - in): 16.00 X (plate length - in): 16.00
Member Height (in): 8.00 Member Length (in): 8.00
y (column height - in): 7.75 x (column length - in): 7.75
m (edge distance - in): 4.13 n (edge distance - in): 4.13
Allow Concrete Fp(ksi): 1.91
Allow Bolt Actual Bolt Concrete Plate
Tension Tension Stress Thickness
e (in): Cycles Convergence (kips) (kips) (ksi) (inches)
Case #1: 22.25 4 100% 15.71 10.18 0.57 0.84
Case #2: 1.09 0 100% 15.71 0.00 0.06 0.33
Case #3: 1.20 0 100% 15.71 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sheet Number: '' r~~ _ G/
Job Number:
DUNN -
Title Date:
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC ' - - ` o gy:
Consulting Structural Engineers
~jc~e~laG ~oluvrrr~~~, -
~/ 2
"; ~ ' ~vL z 2a~~4 (7zz fitZ~ r
~~ : Iy-~t~I l~f~ ,
'- {~
I
~}aw = 5,q, kin -. -_
- c~s~ TS~,xbx '/y
CJ~ I" ~c ~{arc,
-
_~ ~„
c ~u~
-
- -
E 2, ~
kip,, : ~ ~ --
N _ `~~~ _ ~J 5X5x ~/r` ~ T~ 5x5x'~y
W~ ~~, ~jcsE j~la~~C f, ~~t~ 3/ti~~_~B•
- ~=----_
~{a,F ~'vt/ ; _ ~a~~ ~ 132a ~~Z ~? '. .: Nvi -. 26. y k i
- Puy ~5 (1~2~ ~L~ ` ~~,c. ~ y6-Z k`P
,~~ Y_ S.gk~p k ?,~kr~l ~T~ - IiZ.gz(~~p u~~ ll5k;
~ ` I~i.6z ~ ~~, ;, IJ 6x6 x'/c,~
•` "
~iL ' ,~,6 kip tl.x ~d,,kip;
~X~x'iy
(~ I ~" LSc~C. 'PIA.~t ~ Cud s~f (~J_~,~.
380 West 600 South, Suite 100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 phone: 801-575-8877 fax: 801-575-8875 www.dunn-se.com
~~~~
DUNN ASSOCIATES
STEEL BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN tOR COLUMNS. WITH
COMBINATIONS OF AXIAL AND MOMENT LOADS
(To Run, Push "CTRL C") by W. C. Barker (4/14/00) 7/28/2005
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg Engineer: JSF
Description: Column E/2
LOAD INPUT•
Column Selection (ID #): 242
Total # of Bolts for Mx: 2
Total # of Bolts for My: 2
Bolt Diameter (in): 0.75
Bolt Tension - Ft (ksi): 20.00
Axial Load P Moment Moment Dir Load Code
(kips) (k-ft) 1=Mx,2=My 1=Short Term
Case #1: 60.0 1.0 2 1
Case #2: 60.0 0.1 1 0
Case #3: 0.0 0.0 1 _ 2
Note: Half of the bolts will be used to resist the moment.
Note: Ft = 44.0 ksi for A325, 19.0 ksi for A36, 20.0 ksi for A307 bolts.
Note: Loads are multiplied by program by .75 if they are short term.
BASE PLATE INPUT:
Height (in): 12.00 Length (in): 7.00 Fy (ksi): 36
Plate Edge to Bolt CL (in): 1.5 Convergence: 0.01
CONCRETE INPUT:
fc, 28 days(ksi): 3.00 Concrete Bearing Area, A2 (in2): 432
OUTPUT:
Column Chosen: TS6X6X114
Y (plate height - in): 12.00 X (plate length - in): 7.00
Member Height (in): 6.00 Member Length (in): 6.00
y (column height - in): 5.75 x (column length - in): 5.75
m (edge distance - in): 3.13 n (edge distance - in): 0.63
Allow Concrete Fp(ksi): 2.10
Allow Bolt Actual Bolt Concrete Plate
Tension Tension Stress Thickness
e (in): Cycles Convergence (ki s) (kips) (ksi) (inches)
Case #1: 0.20 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.63 0.82
Case #2: 0.02 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.72 0.88
Case #3: 1.20 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
5e- -1
DUNN ASSOCIATES
STEEL BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN FOR COLUMNS WITH
COMBINATIONS OF AXIAL AND MOMENT LOADS
(To Run, Push "CTRL C") by W. C. Barker (4/14/00) 7/28/2005
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg Engineer: JSF
Description: Column E/2.5
LOAD INPUT:
Column Selection (ID #): 224
Total # of Bolts for Mx: 2
Total # of Bolts for My: 2
Bolt Diameter (in): 0.75
Bolt Tension _ Ft (ksi): 20.00
Nt•Hlff
Axial Load P Moment Moment Dir Load Code
(kips) (k-ft) 1=Mx,2=My 1=Short Term
Case #1: 35.0 1.0 2 1
Case #2: 35.0 0.1 1 0
Case #3: C.0 0.0 i 2 ~
o e. a o the bolts will be usea to resist ine moment.
Note: Ft = 44.0 ksi for A325, 19.0 ksi for A36, 20.0 ksi for A307 bolts.
Note: Loads are multiplied by program by .75 if they are short term.
BASE PLATE INPUT:
Height (in): 11.00 Length (in): 6.00 Fy (ksi): 36
Plate Edge to Bolt CL (in): 1.5 Convergence: 0.01
CONCRETE INPUT:
fc, 28 days(ksi): 3.00 Concrete Bearing Area, A2 (in2): 432
OUTPUT:
Column Chosen: TS5X5X1/4
Y (plate height - in): 11.00 X (plate length - in): 6.00
Member Height (in): 5.00 Member Length (in): 5.00
y (column height - in): 4.75 x (column length - in): 4.75
m (edge distance - in): 3.13 n (edge distance - in): 0.63
Allow Concrete Fp(ksi): 2.10
Allow Bolt Actual Bolt Concrete Plate
Tension Tension Stress Thickness
e (in): C cles Convergence (kips) (kips) (ksi) (inches)
Case #1: 0.34 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.53 0.75
Case #2: 0.03 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.54 0.76
Case #3: 1.20 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
dc. ~ ~ t
DUNN.ASSOCIATES
STEEL BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN FOR COLUMNS WITH
COMBINATIONS OF AXIAL AND MOMENT LOADS
(To Run, Push "CTRL C") by W. C. Barker (4/14/00) 7/28/2005
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg Engineer: JSF
Description: Column E/3
LOAD INPUT:
Column Selection (ID #): 283
Total # of Bolts for Mx: 2
Total # of Bolts for My: 2
Bolt Diameter (in): 0.75
Bolt Tension - Ft (ksi): 20.00
Axial Load P Moment Moment Dir Load Code
(kips) (k-ft) 1=Mx,2=M 1=Short Term
Case #1: 115.0 1.0 2 1
Case #2: 115.0 0.1 1 0
~ Case #3: 0.0 0.0 1 2 ~
Note: Half of the bolts will be used to resist the moment.
Note: Ft = 44.0 ksi for A325, 19.0 ksi for A36, 20.0 ksi for A307 bolts.
Note: Loads are multiplied by program by .75 if they are short term.
BASE PLATE INPUT:
Height (in): 14.00 Length (in): 9.00 Fy (ksi): 36
Plate Edge to Bolt CL (in): 1.5 Convergence: 0.01
CONCRETE INPUT:
fc, 28 days(ksi): 3.00 Concrete Bearing Area, A2 (in2): 432
OUTPUT:
Column Chosen: TS8X8X1/4
Y (plate height - in): 14.00 X (plate length - in}: 9.00
Member Height (in): 8.00 Member Length (in): 8.00
y (column height - in): 7.75 x (column length - in): 7.75
m (edge distance - in): 3.13 n (edge distance - in): 0.63
Allow Concrete Fp(ksi): 1.94
Allow Bolt Actual Bolt Concrete Plate
Tension Tension Stress Thickness
e (in): C cles Convergence (kips) (kips) (ksi) (inches)
Case #1: 0.10 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.73 0.89
Case #2: 0.01 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.92 1.00
Case #3: 1.20 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
5~- -~
DUNN ASSOCIATES
STEEL BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN FOR COLUMNS WITH
COMBINATIONS OF AXIAL AND MOMENT LOADS
(To Run, Push "CTRL C") by W. C. Barker (4/14/00) 7!28/2005
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg Engineer: JSF
Description: Column E/3.5
LOAD INPUT:
Column Selection (ID #): 224
Total # of Bolts for Mx: 2
Total # of Bolts for My: 2
Bolt Diameter (in): 0.75
Bolt Tension - Ft (ksi): 20.00
Axial Load P Moment Moment Dir Load Code
(kips) (k-ft) 1=Mx,2=My 1=Short Term
Case #1: 40.0 1.0 2 1
Case #2: 40.0 0.1 1 0
Cass #3: 0.0 0.0 1 2
Note: Half of the bolts will be used to resist the moment.
Note: Ft = 44.0 ksi for A325, 19.0 ksi for A36, 20.0 ksi for A307 bolts.
Note: Loads are multiplied by program by .75 if they are short term.
BASE PLATE INPUT:
Height (in): 11.00 Length (in): 6.00 Fy (ksi): 36
Plate Edge to Bolt CL (in): 1.5 Convergence: 0.01
CONCRETE INPUT:
fc, 28 days(ksi): 3.00 Concrete Bearing Area, A2 (in2): 432
OUTPUT:
Column Chosen: TS5X5X1/4
Y (plate height - in): 11.00 X (plate length - in): 6.00
Member Height (in): 5.00 Member Length (in): 5.00
y (column height - in): 4.75 x (column length - in): 4.75
m (edge distance - in): 3.13 n (edge distance - in): 0.63
Allow Concrete Fp(ksi): 2.10
Allow Bolo Actual Bolt Concrete Plate
Tension Tension Stress Thickness
e (in): C cles Convergence (kips) (kips) (ksi) (inches)
Case #1: 0.30 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.59 0.79
Case #2: 0.03 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.62 0.82
Case #3: 1.20 0 100% 8.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
SC,N i5
DUNN ASSOCIATES
SELECTION OF BEAM-COLUMN MEMBERS BASED UPON THE 9TH EDITION OF THE AISC
(To Run, Push "CTRL C") by W. C. Barker (4/ 14/00) 7/28/2005
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg Engineer: JSF
Col umn Description: Columns Grid Line 4
GENERAL INPUT:
Lateral Load Code: 1 (1=Gravity, 2=Temporary)
Yield Stress (ksi): 46.00
Beam/Column Number: 224 (t to 365)
Iterate? 1 (1=Yes, 2=No)
LOADING CRITERIA:
P (kips} iJx (k-ft} ivty (k-ft)
60.00 0.00 0.00
COLUMN CRITERIA:
Kx Lbx (ft) Cmx Ky Lby (ft) Cmy
1.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 1.00
BEAM CRITERIA:
Ib (ft) Cbx
15.00 1.00
OUTPUT:
Beam/Column: NAME Lc (ft) Lu (ft)
224 TS5X5X1/4 10.87 400.00
Cc KxLx/rx KyLy/ry
111.55 93.75 93.75
Pax (k,ps) Pay (k;ps) Pa (kips) Fa (ks,) fa (ks,) fa/Fa
71.60 71.60 71.60 15.60 13.07 0.84
Fbx (ksi) F'ex (ksi) fbx (ksi) Fby (ksi) F'ey (ksi) fby (ksi)
27.60 16.99 0.00 27.60 16.99 0.00
AISC BEAM-COLUMN COMBINED STRESS EQUATIONS:
AISC EQ. 1.6-1a= 0.84
AISC EQ. 1.6-1 b= 0.47
Column is acceptable per AISC H1-1 and H1-2.
Sheet Number:
DUHN _ _ _ ._°~___
Job Number:
Title Date: __
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC \~1~\ .~~ ~'< _ -~,.~ ay:
Consulting Structural Engineers ~J
_
,~ ] ,. -
~,~~ ~ : icJ ~~~1~_~a ~ S~.-Y11 ~'1 ~ __ _ :_ I ,
_ ~r _ . ..2.52 kr~ _
_. p.,aSE. _. 7.3k~ ~ b,7Z kid!
i~}, ~ ~ = 3.9 k, i r.
~>~ luin~,-~ ~~c~cir~h = IZ,} ~1'~f~, lb~~ 26-C-~, 28£~
I
i
,
i _,
_I
J I
i
,
i
i - _
I_
l
I-
_ i ' i
380 West 800 South, Suite 100 Salt Lake Ciry, Utah 64101 phone: B01-575-8877 fax: 801-575-8875 www.dunn-se.com
~~~
DUNN ASSOCIATES
SELECTION OF BEAM-COLUMN MEMBERS BASED UPON THE 9TH EDITION OF THE AISC
(To Run, Push "CTRL C") by W. C. Barker (4/14/00) 7/28/2005
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg Engineer: JSF
Col umn Description: Vestibule Columns
GENERAL INPUT:
Lateral Load Code: 1 (1=Gravity, 2=Temporary)
Yield Stress (ksi): 46.00
Beam/Column Number: 242 (1 to 365)
Iterate? 1 (1=Yes, 2=No)
LOADING CRITERIA:
P (kips) Mx (k-ft) My (k-ft)
20.00 0.00 0.00
COLUMN CRITERIA:
Kx Lbx (ft) Cmx Ky Lby (ft) Cmy
1.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 1.00
BEAM CRITERIA:
Ib (ft) Cbx
15.00 1.00
OUTPUT:
Beam/Column: NAME Lc (ft) Lu (ft)
242 TS6X6X1/4 13.04 400.00
Cc KxLx/nc KyLy/ry
111.55 77.25 77.25
Pax (kips) Pay (kips) Pa (kips) Fa (ksi) fa (ksi} fa/Fa
103.71 103.71 103.71 18.55 3.58 0.19
Fbx (ksi) F'ex (ksi) fbx (ksi) Fby (ksi) F'ey (ksi) fby (ksi)
27.60 25.02 0.00 27.60 25.02 0.00
AISC BEAM-COLUMN COMBINED STRESS EQUATIONS:
AISC EQ. 1.6-1a= 0.19
AISC EQ. 1.6-1 b= 0.13
Column is acceptable per AISC H1-1 and H1-2.
DUNN ASSOCIATES '~, Sheet
FN -
COLUMN & FOOTING LOADS AND FOOTING SIZES j
PROJECT: Walgreen's -Rexburg DATE: July 28, 2005 ~
Allowable Soil Brearing Des. Pres. = 800 PSF for Continuous, 1000 PSF for Spot BY: C. BARKER
LOADS: Roof; DL= 20 psf, SL= 35 psf, TL= 55 psf;
TYPICAL NON BEARING WALL GRID E
Roof Area: _ _
3 feet
2,661 plf
3.33 wide @ 0.80 ksf
Floor Area: 0 feet 2.66 wide @ 1.0 ksf
Wall Height: _
24 feet _ 1.77 wide @ 1.5 ksf
Wall Weight: _
104 psf 1.33 wide @ 2.0 ksf
__
Roof Snow Load: ___
35 psf 1.06 wide @ 2.5 ksf
____
Roof Dead Load: _
20 psf 0.89 wide @ 3.0 ksf
Floor Live Load: _
_
0 psf
Floor Dead Load: ___
0 psf CAPACITIES WITH 18" EMBEDMENT
Roof Snow Load: 105 plf 2.00 feet 2,573 psf
Roof Dead Load: 60 plf 2.50 feet 2,813 psf
Floor Live Load: 0 plf 3.00 feet 3,053 psf
__
Floor Dead Load: 0 plf 3.50 feet 3,293 psf
Wall Dead Load: 2,496 plf 4.00 feet 3,533 psf
Total Load on Footing: 2,661 plf 4.50 feet 3,773 sf
PICAL BEARING WALL GRID 4
TY
_
Roof Area: _
18 feet
3,486 plf
4.36 wide @ 0.80 ksf
_
Floor Area: __
0 feet -3.49 wide @ 1.0 ksf
Wall Height: ____
24 feet 2.32 wide @ 1.5 ksf
Wall Weight: _
104 psf 1.74 wide @ 2.0 ksf
Roof Snow Load: 35 psf 1.39 wide @ 2.5 ksf
Roof Dead Load: 20 psf 1.16 wide @ 3.0 ksf
Floor Live Load: 0 psf
Floor Dead Load: 0 psf CAPACITIES WITH 18" EMBEDMENT
Roof Snow Load: 630 plf __ 2.00 feet 2,573 psf
Roof Dead Load: 360 plf 2.50 feet 2,813 psf
Floor Live Load: ___
0 plf 3.00 feet 3,053 psf
Floor Dead Load: ______
0 plf 3.50 feet 3,293 psf
Wall Dead Load: __
2,496 plf 4.00 feet 3,533 psf
Total Load on Footin 3,486 If __
4.50 feet 3,773 sf
y
DUNN
~'~' DUNN ASSOCIATES INC
Consulting Structural Engineers
~i 1
Ex~e n by C.o f ~ vn n ~ - ___
_ -- _ _ ---
- _._-_ _
1Zao~ ~ tae-~+~1 ~
~= SC "`r
1,,,)r.i1 L. ir~L
~,
G~_.~.. ~
~ ~,
,iJall'• ~~-C9c;~~f~~2Z~~~ tom., IZ•5ki~. T'Tt'= 4Z-5k~~_ u~~ ~?-_~„x~'-p~_-~-- _..
-.
Jr~v~ ~hr~'~, Car~vpN,~ ,
__ -
-- _
_ _-_~C}
,`~e[~ ~, ~r+ (~z~~~>(u+t j r= IQ.tZ:k;P rn= f5k~p use ti'a''xy'-o"` ~a-~-_
~ _.
=~nt~ ~c,~e ~ec~ ~r~.v~ ~ rat Cclur~~n5•~ -- __
- _ - __~
~~
~u = I o, Z i<< P
1
380 West 800 South, Suite 100 Sali Lake City, Utah 84101 phone: 601-575-8877 fax: 801-575-8875 www.dunn-se.com
~-t
WINDO2 v1-03
Simplified Wind Load Design (Method 1) per ASCE 7-02
Description: Walgreen's -Rexburg
Analysis by: JSF
V Basic Wind Speed 90 mph
Cat Structural Category (I, II, III, and IV) II
Exp Exposure Category (B, C, or D) C
RHt Ridge Height 23 ft
Eht Eave Height 23 ft
Ht Mean Roof Height of Building 23.00 ft
Theta Roof Angle 0.00 Deg
L Length of Building (If Gabled roof, along Ridge) 150 ft
B Width of Building (Perpendicular to Ridge) 97 ft
Lambda Adjustment Factor for Building Height and Exposure 1.33
I Importance Factor 1.00
a 10% of Least Horiz Dim or 0.4h, whichever is less 9.20 ft
2a Length over which Zone A acts on Each Corner 18.40 ft
~~ i
.} } 3
(; s~, ~,~
` .' r
~ r ~ i ~ i
d is +;s~~ ~'i~ ~ ~ i ' ~ i ~ I
L J ~ ~ l~^ 1 ~ I ~ ~.: _ l ~
~ ,.... ;
3'sa;~L~.^>:; ,.:mot :... ;~ . ~; ~~ ~.
.~~ ~ y: `,
,,, ,,,~
.a~', ,Otttu~~itt~l
Wind Pressure ps (psf) on Main. Wind Force Resisting System (MVtIFRS)
Zones
Load Horizontal Pressures Vertical Pressures Overhangs
Case A B C D E F G H EOH GOH
1 16.97 -8.88 11.27 -5.30 -20.42 -11.67 -14.19 -9.02 -28.64 -22.41
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Notes:
* ps =Lambda * I * ps30
www.mecaconsulting.com Page 1 of 2
Walgreen's -Rexburg
MCE Parameters -Conterminous 48 States
Latitude = 43.8260, Longitude = -111.7840
Data are based on the 0.10 deg grid set
Period SA
(sec) (%g)
0.2 5~ ~ 051.1 Map Value, Soil Factor of 1.0
1.0 5, = 016.6 Map Value, Soil Factor of 1.0
MCE Parameters x Specified Soil Factors
0.2 5~ = 071.0 Soil Factor of 1.39
1.0 sM, • 035.5 Soil Factor of 2.14
sD, ~"~3 (sM,~ ~ Zf3 ~ e•~a5~ SD, ° D, 237
5peclal T~;~~n~=a2e~ V~asar-~r~ ~l~ea~G~6l~
R = 5 SLo = 2'~Z Gd = 3'~z
0 75
~s
c~ = ._--
.-Z~L 5,t~~i.p
s„ v . 23~
-r(~~z~ o.~a(5/~.~~j
~/ ~ p, 0`~5 W ~Stren~~~
y = y. ab8 W C,~~n~
T= a. ~q
C~ = a. 0~5
~io~nux O. 250
Gsm; ~, ~ (~ . b 21
~~~
~. C~ = 0.095
DUNN ASSOCIATES, INC. sheet
LA - 5
(IBC2003) LATERAL ANALYSIS BY: Joseph H. Walton
PROJECT: Walgreen's Rexburg NUMBER: 25142
Project Engineer: Jonathan Frazier DATE: July 28, 2005
`Sms= 0.71 Wind Pressure= 18.0 psf R= 5.0
`Sm~= 0.355 Cd= 3.5
IE= 1.0
Sps= 0.473 Lateral Force Resisting System: Special Reinforced Masonry Shearwalls
Soy= 0.237
Cs= 0.095 V= 0.095 W (Strength)
V= 0.068 W (ASD)
Wall Weight: 92.0 psf Parapet Height: 3.0 ft
Roof ~JVeight: ~ 20.0 psf ~ Wa!! Height: 19.0 ft ~
Seismic Weight= 4,623.6 plf
Wall Solidity= 100.0
Seismic Base Shear= 312.6 plf
Wind Base Shear= 225.0 plf
Governing Base Shear= 312.6 plf
Max Base Shear= 40.6 kips
Base Shear/Wall= 20.3 kips/wall
Additional Force to Diaphragm= 0.0 plf
Chord D= 114 ft
Seismic Weight= 4,943.6 plf
Wall Solidity= 100.0
Seismic Base Shear= 334.3 plf
Wind Base Shear= 225.0 plf
Governing Base Shear= 334.3 plf
Max Base Shear= 38.1 kips
Base Shear/Wall= 19.1 kips/wall
Additional Force to Diaphragm= 0.0 plf
tsuilaing Length 1= 114 tt
Deck Shear= 178.26 plf
Wall Shear= 1'93.54 plf
Chord D= 130 ft
Building Length=
1= 130 ft
I Deck Shear=
Chord Force= 146.57 plf
5.79 Kips Wall Shear=
170.12 plf
Chord Force= 4.18 Kips -~
Wall Section Length=
1= 112 ft
Wall Section Length 1= 105 ft
Output values are given as ASD
Updated: March 2005
i~ ~-
i~
DUNN ASSOCIATES
ALLOWABLE SHEAR FORCES FOR CMU SHEAR WALLS BASED ON THE PROVISIONS
' OF THE 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (1997 UBC EQUATIONS ALLOWED)
(To Run, Push "F9") by W. C. Barker (04/23/2005) Date: 7/28/2005
Project: Walgreen's -Rexburg Engineer: JSF
Description: 8" Wall Capacity
INPUT:
' fm prism (psi): 2,000 Fs (psi): 24,000
Wall Width (inches): 7.625 j: 0.900
Horizontal Bar Spacing (in): 48.00 Bars per Space: 1
CMU or HMU: 1
OUTPUT:
SPECIAL INSPECTION PROVIDED, ALLOWABLE SHEAR (PLF):
GROUT EQUIV WITH IN-PLANE REINF
CORES SOLID WALL TO RESIST SHEAR
' AT: THCKNSS: MNd=1 MNd=O
SOLID 7.63 2,882 4,910
16" 5.80 2,192 3,735
24" 5.20 1,966 3,349
' 32" 4.90 1,852 3,156
40" 4.70 1,777 3,027
48" 4.60 1,739 2,962
' GROUT EQUIV REINF TAKES SHEAR
CORES SOLID 1-#5 1-#5
AT: THCKNSS: MNd=1 MNd=O
SOLID 7.63 1,860 1,860
t 16" 5.80 1,860 1,860
24" 5.20 1,860 1,860
32" 4.90 1,860 1,860
40" 4.70 1,860 1,860
t 48" 4.60 1,860 1,860
NO SPECIAL INSPECTION PROVIDE D, ALLOWABLE SHEAR (PLF):
GROUT EQUIV WITH IN-PLANE REINF
' CORES SOLID WALL TO RESIST SHEAR
AT: THCKNSS: MNd=1 MNd=O
SOLID 7.63 1,441 2,455
16" 5.80 1,096 1,868
24" 5.20 983 1,674
32" 4.90 926 1,578
40" 4.70 888 1,513
~ 48" 4.60 869 1,481
(1 = 1 Bar, 2 = 2 Bars)
(1 =CMU, 2 =HMU)
REINF TAKES SHEAR
1-#6 1-#6
MNd=1 MNd=O
2,640 2,640
2,640 2,640
2,640 2,640
2,640 2,640
2,640 2,640
2,640 ~ 2,640
REINF TAKES SHEAR
1-#4 1-#4
MNd=1 MNd=O
1,200 1,200
1,200 1,200
1,200 1,200
1,200 1,200
1,200 1,200
1,200 1,200
REINF TAKES SHEAR
1-#6
MNd=1 1-#6
MNd=O
2,640 2,640
2,101 2, 640
1,884 2,512
1,775 2,367
1,703 2,270
1,666 2,222
GROUT EQUIV REINF TAKES SHEAR REINF TAKES SHEAR
CORES SOLID 1-#5 1-#5 1-#4 1-#4
AT: THCKNSS: MNd=1 MNd=O MNd=1 MNd=O
SOLID 7.63 1,860 1,860 1,200 1,200
16" 5.80 1,860 1,860 1,200 1,200
24" 5.20 1,860 1,860 1,200 1,200
32" 4.90 1,775 1,860 1,200 1,200
40" 4.70 1,703 1,860 1,200 1,200
48" 4.60 1,666 1,860 1,200 1,200
Notes: 1. DESIGNER TO MULTIPLY SEISMIC FORCES BY 1.5 I N ZONES 3 & 4.
2. ALLOWABLE LOADS MAY BE MUL TIPLIED BY 1.33 F OR SHORT TERM LOADS