HomeMy WebLinkAboutALL DOCS - 08-00397 - Heritage Manor - Roof RepairZ
O
m
o��
0 0 0-�p 30
c' CD 0 3
a m M 3 m o
a o Q. - 3
��_ *'W
- CA c m o
�yc
m
m c S C . I .
CD m a n
CL 2
< a
� 3 m
O CD O
� m
Q CD
o (
o m o
m m CL
3
CD m 3
CD
o �►
3
o CD
CD 3 m
II
a CD
_ r, o
CD Q 00 � o
D m N a is
63 Zs s
a N cr
Q_ C N p CD
* a m E- o
o
D d 0
C7 m =
ga d
°< � c"i
0
m n -�
CL
.
ic
C
CA
m
X
ic
Z
r
v_
r
m
a
F
Z
G)
U)
m
W
C
CL
3
7
y
CD
rt
O
0 v
N
0
N
O
O -a
OD
cD
sZ
O O - M Z ys , . cl
- O 0 - M
� „cz �
z m
m m CO)
K
W ID -h
o
•° ;u _ C o ro
_ lD
X 3 0 n
0 U (a Z Z
3 M m 0
a -• CC `<
CL 0
rt ? • • Z CD 4' p �
o
177 c o
q 0 CA
to = � ()
"0 a. C � O �
0 N -, tD = ;
O 0 CQ . c N
C
CD 3 0 d 2 c
C1 !D CL 0
CA H
=v rt n C:
CD CD S 3 X
W y O
as - m
3g3a m
to p) = 3 N
O CL W
1 0 O .� _
ID < N Q, C'
O0 C • tQ •
a 0 D
CD a O G
C v C:)
3 m
� CL N
0 o6
n oto co �
=M
X tom+
CL �° •
1C � � (/3 CD
i 0 7
3 O N
CL �
3 y m
m n o
Cl)
w
N
V
mm- �a
m
-1
o
cQ
0
;Q m y c'n 3 0
z
W o O
C7
-�i O
00 � �
71 � p Z
z v
�Z� o o ;
�g N p
v G
��
° .�
CD
O m �.
zng a n
o
X
Z N
CD
C2
From:KPM 6218680 08/18/2008 14:46
Aug, 18. 2008 3:02PM I* No, 6842
ap
1#250 P. 002/002-;_' •'1 -1
P. 2
CITY OF .
J o
1�.�'i���7 Please Cnfnt,lP +p �t.e tr..a__ ���,�
If t
0800397
Anteluas fR►nflyrgmmtcnfty
COMMERCIAL & MULTI FAMILY SLTILDING PERMIT Heritage Manor Roof Repair
19 E MAIN, REXSURG, ID 83440
208 -359 - 3020 X326
PARCEL NUMBER: UV- OXD� -_ b� -3 W �` � (We mill provide this for you)
SUBDIVISION: LiNI1`�# BLOCK# I.O T#
(Addressim is based oa the information - must be accurate)
rV%
ACT PHONE #,
xu, Sp
PHONE #: Home ( ) Work ( ) 60-7.( — W 1) cell(
a
OWNER MAILING NG ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: :ZIP: 0 3
R.MATT. I'd Y,
A1,PPl.2'GM0. (If other than oavfler)
(Applicant if other than ow=, a statu=nt authorizing appli=t to act as agent for owner must aeot)tnpany tbis applicatiam)
APPLICANT INFORMATION: ADDRESS CITY:
STATE ; Z IP EMAIL FAX
PHONE #: Home ( ) I Work ( ) Cell ( )
_c_Orrr CTOA 1� I C- T L O N 5 r 1.L mon, J - -T
MAILING ADDRESS: _3 7 !b iawo CITY narl STATE-LLk- ZIP
PHONE: Cell# 1 - y'7 _ Work # _ Ste! M --) - N k Fax # 'E4 L _ 62-:) - 33 (w -5
EMAI 8EX t- IDAHO REGISTRATION # & EXP. DATE C—F..3ri33 d) 6, 1C
How many buildings are located on this pmperty? _
Did you recently purchase this property? Yes (If yes, list previous owner's name)
Is this a lot split? !R YES (Please bring copy of new legal descdprion of property)
PROPOSED USE:
(i.m. Sin& Family Residence, Multi Family t Remodel, Citur. Commercial Addition, Etc.) — CIRCLE ONE
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE, CERTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION: L'nda x
have read this appficAt m and 9= that the 6fomatim hem a is comet snd I swear dut any h&wudon which may h
Yhaning and Zoning Caanz>iasion or the Cary ComwR for the City of Reabmg shall be trudtful and comm I agree w f
to the subject matter of oxis application acid hachy auihaazcd zepnrcatadvea of the My to enter upon the above menrioned mapcctiana puapoaea. NOT@L
The building official may n;vake a pa= on appraval issued under the pr% lions of the 2003 IwftrAEwW Code in cases of or daa of
in the application at as the pima on hich the cam of val was based Permit void if not stated within 1110 drys. P wack�tppsfm�t�da�o
raise of plicant
D O you of O b e con Ct C ITY D
C W f�NG BAG phone POSe ON Ct�lVS UCTIOly ! ®� � '�
Plan has arc eon- Waabble and are paid is 114 at the time of application beginning
City of Rexbutg'a Aaecptaaae of thn phw ndow be dons not caneritnse plan approval
e►Haldiog Pcxmk Fees ace doe at time of apprmdon"a "'maiming Permits are void if Jour chock dons not decree
2
gF.XB pk
Rio Ja
7 CITY OFA RE1
� V 1 \V
Please Conrete the Entire Application!
If the question does not apply fill in N,k for non applicable
Amenw5 Family Community
COMMERCIAL & MULTI FAMILY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
19 E MAIN, REXBURG, ID 83440
208 - 359 -3020 X326
PARCEL NUMBER: (We will provide this for you)
SUBDIVISION: UNIT# BLOCK# LOT#
(Addressing is ba sed on the information - must be accurate)
OWNER NAME: CONTACT PHONE #
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PHONE #: Home ( ) Work (
Cell (
OWNER MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP:
EMAIL F
APPLICANT (If other than owner)
(Applicant if other than owner, a statement authorizing applicant to act as agent for owner must accompany this application.)
APPLICANT INFORMATION: ADDRESS CITY:
STATE; ZIP EMAIL FAX
PHONE #: Home ( ) Work ( ) Cell ( )
CONTRACTOR-
0
MAILING ADDRESS: -3 w CITY STATE ZIP lial
PHONE: Cell# I - 4 1 2 Work # _$i� I -7 - I Li k 1 4 Fax# QO L -- 33 w 3
EMAIL - Sr � IDAHO REGISTRATION # & EXP. DATE P, C--
How manv buildin are located nn tbic nrnr,vrty?
.
Did you recently purchase this property ?(� Yes (If yes, list previous owner's name) .
Is this a lot split ?� YES (Please bring copy of new legal description of property)
PROPOSED USE:
(i.e., Single Family Residence, Multi Family partmen), Remodel, Garage, Commercial, Addition, Etc.) — CIRCLE ONE
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE, CERTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION: Under penalt of certify that I
have read this application and state that the information herein is correct and I swear that any information which may he reaftt n y to ri re the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council for the City of Rexburg shall be truthful and correct. I tt� p i 1 C re lan S laws relating
to the subject matter of this application and hereby authorized representatives of the City to enter upon the a ie spections o NOTE:
The building official may revoke a permit on approval issued under the provisions of the 2003 Intemational C i any false statement or mis s lion of fact
in the application or on the plans on which the permit or approval was based. Permit void if not started within Pemvt void if Irk for s
pUG 1 /
Signature of Owner /Applicant D ��
Do you prefer to be contacted by fax, email or phone? Circle One [ ?
WARNING — BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON CONSTEl� T
Plan fees are non - refundable and are paid in full at the time of application b in 5.
City of Rexburg's Acceptance of the plan review fee does not constitute n approval
'*Building Permit Fees are due at time of application ** **Building Permits are void if your check does not clear**
2
Building Safety Department
City of Rexburg
19 E. Main joneiih @rexburg.org Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3024
city
C I T Y OF
REXBURG
America's Family Community
APPLICATION: "CONSTRUCTION PERMIT"
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT #:
PERMIT APPROVED: YES/ NO $50.00 FEE PAID: YES /NO
APPROVED BY:
Business Name: 'rt--
Office Address: l
Office Phone Number:
Contractor Performing the Work:
Contact Person:
�4 p 8x81 tt
U 7O
State Zip
Cell Phone # ( )
- LOCATION OF WORK TO BE DONE:
Street Address Where Work Will Be Done: s� Yt;
Business Name Where Work Will Be Done:
Dates For Work To Be Done: '8 -�AC ° C�1) To `
Contact Person: 77
Phone Number: ( ) ` Cell # (4A) &At") -
PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF PERMITS) 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
Applica Signature Dale'
7
343 E 4th N Suite 126 Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208 - 356 -4909 Fax: 208 - 356 -5896
DATE: 29 August 2008
SUBJECT: Engineering for Heritage Manor Apartments
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 129 Viking Dr.
To Whom It May Concern:
Axiom Engineering Corp. performed an onsite evaluation of the trusses and duplicated a truss for
engineering calculations. It was determined that the truss had two locations where the gusset plates
were improperly sized according to IBC 2006 code. The trusses can be fixed by attaching 48/24 APA
rated sheathing gussets (23/32" OSB or CDX Plywood) to BOTH SIDES of each truss, flush to the
perimeter of truss as shown in hatched area of drawing. Secure to truss members with (1) one row of
10D (0.131" X 3 ") nails at 3" on- center into all 2x4 members. Ensure all nails hit the truss members.
Stagger nails to avoid splitting lumber.
Because the trusses on the front wall have a high raised heel, the trusses require bracing to transfer the
sheer forces down into the exterior walls. Attached is a diagram showing the bracing needed to be
placed every 10' on- center.
With the properly sized gussets, the 8' cantilever does not require a bearing point to carry the load.
When trusses were built 20+ years ago, trusses were designed to fall into certain design methodologies.
If they couldn't fit into the standard methodologies, then they were engineered (mostly by hand
calculations). With this in mind, the trusses located at 129 Viking Dr., most likely met a design method
and were built without being engineered. Axiom Engineering contacted BMC West truss plant and
Idaho Truss plant to see if they had any documentation on when they started engineering all trusses
produced and neither had a definite date.
Jon R. North, P.E.
G , ! X /
Axiom Engineering Corp.
29 August 2008
Practical engineering solutions with timely turnaround
1�1 =1,t
July 18, 2008
Steve Kier
Kier Construction Corporation
3710 Quincy Ave
Ogden, UT 84403
STUDIES - MAS
14
•
0800397
rs
s_ Heritage Manor Roof Repair
C
AUG 1 8 2 008
Re: Mountain Pines Apartment Complex
Dear Steve:
CITY OF REXBURG
Williams Engineering, Inc. (WEI) was asked to perform an assessment and evaluation of the balcony roof
overhang supports. The roofing contractor, Stuart Roofing Inc, expressed concerns with the roof bancony
overhangs during re- roofing construction. Forrest Stuart of Stuart Roofing Inc. was on site during the initial
site visit and evaluation.
During the initial site visit, several roof
sheathing panels were removed on the north side
of the southwest building to reveal the trusses
and supports. Connections between the trusses
and the support columns appear to be deficient
(see Figure 1) for support of all of the
cantilevered trusses. The trusses do not appear
to have been designed to accommodate an eight
(8) foot cantilever or balcony overhang due
mainly to the lack of web members in the
cantilever section of the trusses. The column is
also connected to truss blocking on only one
bay, therefore creating a restrained area for the
adjacent two or three trusses only. This has
created a wavy appearance of the roof balcony
overhang (sagging of non - supported trusses and
non - sagging of supported trusses).
Due to the age of the structure and lack of structural drawings, it is not clear as to the intent of the design of
the trusses and supports, but common engineering practice would be to support the outer edge of the roof
balcony overhang with a beam between the existing columns. Therefore, we are recommending that the
existing columns be modified to accommodate a beam for supporting the trusses. The beam and appropriate
hangers have been designed and can be found in Appendix A of this report.
Since the structure has existed for nearly 20 years without any support on the cantilever end of the roof
balcony overhang, it appears that movements of the trusses through cyclic loading (i.e. wind gust and snow
Eastern ID: 208 359 -5353 Western CO: 970 858 -1014 Las Vegas NV: 702 454 -9666 Toll Free: 888 459 -5353
Fax: 208 359 -8181 217 N. 2nd East Rexburg, ID 83440 mail @grwei.com www.grwei.com
Figure 1: Column to truss connection.
STUDIES - MASTERPLANS - DESIGNS - CONSTRUCTION SERVICES - REVIEWS
WILL IANS ENGINEERING, INC.
Serving the Rocky Mountain Region Since 1992
loads) have resulted in loosening of the truss plates at the intersection of the top cord and the web members at
the outside wall of the building location (see Figure 2). It is our recommendation that the truss manufacturer
be contacted for an appropriate fix for the trusses that may have been effected.
Our assessment and evaluation was limited to
the roof balcony overhang and does not include
other parts of the structure. The assumption is
made that the structure was designed and
constructed in a sound and professional manner
in accordance with common engineering
practice and per local building codes.
Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations proposed in
accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of any other
warranties either expressed or implied. Findings and statements of professional opinion do not constitute a
guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact our
office at (208) 359 -5353 or e-mail at bcarter(rugrwei.com
Sincerely,
WILLIAMS ENGINEERING, INC.
By: Ben L. Carter, M.S., P.E., Project Manager
Eastern ID: 208 359 -5353 Western CO: 970 858 -1014 Las Vegas NV: 702 454 -9666 Toll Free: 888 459 -5353
Fax: 208 359 -8181 217 N. 2 " East Rexburg, ID 83440 mail @grwei.com www.grwei.com
Figure 2: Truss plate connection.
40
Appendix A
SEAM DESIGN
Page
Contents
• Beam Addition Drawings ......................
• Structural Notes ............................................................................ ............................... A -3
....A -4
• Beam Calculations ........................................................................... ........................
• Welding Calculations .. ...............................
• Column Calculations .......................... .................................. ...... .... . ... ......................... A -7
• Building Drawings ........................................................................ ............................... A -8
0
z
0
NE
<z
a z
oW
aEl
a�
0
U�
z
o
Ez
U I"
� tL
az
zF
oz
U�)
1 Z
f 7
�O
x �=
S
S JC
` i T
_ rl
Q
r\ Z
V '7_
r�
rl ....
III
Wft
Z
N
O
u
0
STUDIES- MA.STE'RPLANS - I)L:SIG.VS - COM1:STRUCI'In<V S/ KY7('E_S - REVILJ 'S
T+1 iLmAirs ENGINEERING, INC.
Serving the Rocky Mou ntain Region Since 1992
Project: Mountain View Apartments Date: 7/15/2008
Client: Kier Construction Designed by: B Carter
Job #: ID-Kier Construction Reviewed by:
Wood Beam Calculations for: Typical roof beam with < 10 ft span
4x8 Dimensional, DF #2 Length [ft]: 1.0.00
Dead Load
Live Load
A =50
Tributary Width
Load / ft ^2 Min Max
10.00 5.00
4-5.00 5.00
Loading
Dead Load Live Load
Le [in] =
beam P /ft]
6.17 N/A
unif.. P /ft]
50.00 225.00
Distance, x„
W mar [ # /ft]
0.00 0.00
[ft]
P, [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
P, [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
P [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
P 1
0.00 0.00
0.00
P 1#1
0.00 0.00
0.00
P [ #]
0.00 0.
0.00
P [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
P [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
Cd =1.25
C►° 1.0
Unbraced
Length [ft[ = 10.00
C
0.982
Le [in] =
220.80
RB =
11.43 < 50, ok
KbE =
0.438
Fb *[psi] =
1,462.5
E' [psi] =
1.600,000.0
FbE [psi] =
5,362.8
FbE/Fb* =
3.67
CF= 1.300
Genera[ Lo ading Diagram
P P p�
1 1 1 W
max
�-T^"I I III I Illilil I I�������I I I I I I I I I I I II�IIIIIIII'
x
X -�
X„
(280.8 +1,125.0)# (280.8 +1,125.0)#
Total Load Shear
1 1405.8 lb
Total Load Moment
1 3514.6 @ x [ft] : 5.00
Deflection A ok A TL: ok
k *DL: 0.07 [in], L/ 1689 k =1.0 @ x [ft] : 5.00
LL: 0.28 [in], U 422 @ x [ft] : 5.00
TL: 0.36 [in], U 337 4 x [ft] : 5.00
f,, = 1.5 ( 1,405.8) / 25.4 = 83.1 psi
F� = F� (CD)
F,,'= 225.0 psi o
f 12 ( 3,514.6 ) / 30.7 = 1,375.5 psi
F Fb (CD) CF (Cr) CL
F 1,436.2 psi ok
Camber 0.11 in
Use 0.00 in
• 0
STUDIES - MA.STE,RPLANS - DESIGNS- C'ONSTR UCTION SERVICES - REVIEW'S
WILLIAMS ENEIIVEERIKE, INE.
Serving the Rocky Mountain Region Since 1992
Project: Mountain View Apartments Beam ID: Colmn Cap Hanger
Client: Kier Construction Designed by: B Carter
Job #: ID -Kier Construction Date: 7/16/2008 Reviewed by:
Weld Capacity of Eccentric Connections Based on AISC
Input Parameters
Thicker Part to be Jointed
t =
0.25 in
Weld Size
w =
0.125 in
Eccentricity to edge
x =
0 in
Weld Length
D =
6 in
Parallel Load
P =
0 kips
Lateral Load
F =
3 kips
Analysis
Minimum Weld Size
w m ; n =
0.13 in
Maximum Weld Size
wma =
0.25 in
Effective Throat Thickness
t o =
0.09 in
Centrodial Moment of Inertia
I X =
3.2 in
Direct Shear Stress
f = F /213t
2.8 ksi
f,, = P /213t
0.0 ksi
Bending Stress
f = DPx/2I,
0.0 ksi
Resultant Stress
f„ =
2.8 ksi
Allowable Stress
F v = 0.6FExx /W
21 ksi
I
r
NOW—
The Design is Adequate
> 2.8 ksi Satisfactory
1 ,
P
f 1 f
K�I
r
f
�
v'2
i
I
i
j
I
o, o.
o,
N:
{
l
K�I
4x5 =
8-0-0
8-0-0
ate UFFsets (X, Y)+
I L 17 U U
43-9-8
35-9-8
E
V
2-0-0
, LOADING (psf)
TOP CHORD 1-2=-434/1453, 2-3=-2193/120, 3-22=-2119/126, 4-22=-2067/133, 4 5-6=-2610/192, 6-7=-3575/239,
7-23=-4366/281, 8 8-9=-4494/272, 9 10-11=-265/4
BOT CHORD 1 20 19-20=-1317/391, 18-19=-13/2056, 17-18=-106/3388, 16-17=-106/3388,
15 -16= 191/4298, 14-15=-191/4298, 13-14=-226/4340, 12-13=0/265, 11-12=0/265
TOLL
35 0
SPACING 2-0-0
CSI
ri ght
DEFL
in(ioc)
Udef I
L/d
PLATES GRIP
Snow=35.0>
Plates Increase 15
TC
0,68
Vert(LL)
-0.3413-14
>999
360
MT20 22011
12 onol
7'0
Lumber Increase 1.
8) T h i s truss is designed 1 n accordance with -the 2006 1 nternat i ono t R e s i d e n t i a l Code sections R502. 11. 1 and R802, 10, 2
BC
0.73
Vert(TL)
- 0. 6113 -14
>699
180
MT20H 165/1
(0.131 "x3 ® ) nails at 3' on into alt 2x4 members and (2) rows of 10D (0,131'x3') nails at 3'
0.0
Rep Stress Incr YES
WB
0.97
Horz(TL)
0.13 12
n/a
n/a
BCDL
10, 0
Code IRC2006/TP12002
(Matrix)
W i ncl( LL)
0. 1213 -14
>999
240
Weight 205 Ho
�LUMBER
BRACING
TOP CHORD
2 X 4 DF
240OF 2.
TOP CHORD
Structural
wood sheathing
directly applied or
DOT CHORD
2 X 4 DF
180OF 1. 6E
3-3-14 oc
purtins,
WEBS
2 X 4 DF
Stud wExcept*
BOT CHORD
Rigid ceiling
directly applied or 10-0-0 oc
W28 2 X
4 DF 180OF 1. 6E, W30 2 X 4 DF
1 800E
1,6E
bracing,
Except
I - Pty
5-8-3 oc bracing:
1-21
REACTIONS
< lb/size)
12=1979/0-3-8, 21=276410-3-8
5-10-8 oc
bracing;
19-21.
Max Horz
21=61(LC 7)
Max Uptift12=-192(LC
6), 21=-381(1_C 5)
Max Grav
12=2094(LC 3), 21=2784<LC 1)
FORCES ( lb) - Maximum Compression /Maximum Tension
TOP CHORD 1-2=-434/1453, 2-3=-2193/120, 3-22=-2119/126, 4-22=-2067/133, 4 5-6=-2610/192, 6-7=-3575/239,
7-23=-4366/281, 8 8-9=-4494/272, 9 10-11=-265/4
BOT CHORD 1 20 19-20=-1317/391, 18-19=-13/2056, 17-18=-106/3388, 16-17=-106/3388,
15 -16= 191/4298, 14-15=-191/4298, 13-14=-226/4340, 12-13=0/265, 11-12=0/265
WEBS 10 5-18=0/835, 2-21=-2559/352, 9-13=-423/116, 7-14=0/286, 6-16=-15/682, 6
NOTES 7-16=-1103/103, 9 10 4 =-905/198, 2-19=-304/3522, 4-18=-60/652
1) W ind: ASCE 7-05; 90mphj h=25Ft) TCDL=4. 2psf; BCDL=G. Opsfj Category I I i Fxp Ci enclosed, MWFRS, cantilever left and
ri ght
exposed i end vert Left and r exposed; Lumber DOL=1,60 ptate grip DOL=1,60,
2) TCLU ASCE 7-05j Pf=35. 0 psf (fl at roof snow); Category I I j Exp C; Part i 0, L (y Exp. Ct= 1
3) Unbalanced snow toods have been considered for this design,
4) This truss has been designed For a 10.0 psf bottom chord Live Load nonroncurrent with any other Live loads,
5) ALL plates are MT20 plates unless otherwise indicated.
6) This truss requires plate inspection per the Tooth Count Method when this truss is chosen for quaLity assurance
i nspect i on.
7) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 192 Ho uplift at joint
12 onol
381 lb uplift at joint 21.
8) T h i s truss is designed 1 n accordance with -the 2006 1 nternat i ono t R e s i d e n t i a l Code sections R502. 11. 1 and R802, 10, 2
and
referenced standard ANSI/TPI 1,
( A� Attach 48/24 APA rated sheathing gussets (23/32' ❑SB or CDX Plywood), BOTH FACES, flush to
the
perimeter of truss as shown in hatched area, Secure to truss members with (1) row of 10D
(0.131 "x3 ® ) nails at 3' on into alt 2x4 members and (2) rows of 10D (0,131'x3') nails at 3'
on into) -alt 2X6 or larger members, Mark the tOCOtiOn Of att interior members prior to
attaching the gussets to assure a nalts hit - truss members, Stagger nails to avoid sptitting
Lumber,
45-9-8
22
- 4x5
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12
2x4 11 3x7 = 3x10 = 3X8 i 3x10 MT20H = 5x10 MT20H
3xI0 MT20H= 3x5
3x5 =
�m
e 3
c
<
2 Z
Z C�
� w
O _
2 � O
N�o
°w
n
m
w O
a N
F A �
W �
F
x A O
f/1 W O
z
0
HE
d E"
a z
oW
O60
a a,
z dI
0W
HzA
a
z
zHa
U�
�O
W�
w
z J
O w O
S CC
Z
�aa
vSa
x
rl
Wti Z
cl
f�f
O
II
m
n
J
N
Z Q
O U
N �
d
2 j
n
FE
� 3
N
In
pi
lull
4 and o
H Y d Id
t oll
N il;
IIR
2
g �
2
_ ix
N
Fg go
;
a t cd
4d as
il
LLJ
x �
b�� Q LLJ Q
o ,Y q 1
g HIM Z m It
a 4 P 141 U 11
4 Rig
ig
L wt _
J Q�Q Jre
�fiieS .=eJMS Z �-
LLJ
Z W W p
LO
C7 - 0 .t i d a n d U 4 i eI .t ♦ ri o r�
N � � N
FQ �
Ujc 0
�� W o
z
a
dz
0 W�
ax � z
p .�
U
x
z w
o
z
a ,
Q�i Q
z I- -
ox
V)
w x
W
Y
• wa
0
i
M
a
o
N F
i >
0 •
STUDIES- MASTERPL 4N5 - DESIGNS- CON LS - REVIEWS
WiLmAms EX&IIVEEww. Mr.
Serving the Rocky Mountain Region Since 1992
Project: Mountain View Apartments Beam ID: Side Hanger
Client: Kier Construction Designed by: B Carter
Job #: ID -Kier Construction Date: 7/16/2008 Reviewed by:
Weld Capacity of Eccentric Connections Based on AISC
Input Parameters
Thicker Part to be Jointed
t =
0.25 in
Weld Size
w =
0.125 in
Eccentricity to edge
x =
1 in
Weld Length
D =
4 in
Parallel Load
P =
3 kips
Lateral Load
F =
0 kips
Analysis
Minimum Weld Size
w mi „ =
0.13 in
Maximum Weld Size
WmaX =
0.25 in
Effective Throat Thickness
t o =
0.09 in
Centrodial Moment of Inertia
I X =
0.9 in'
Direct Shear Stress
f = F /2Dt
0.0 ksi
f = P /213t
4.2 ksi
Bending Stress
f = DPx/2I
6.4 ksi
Resultant Stress
f v =
7.6 ksi
Allowable Stress
F„ = 0 . 6 FExx /W
21 ksi
0
F
Now—
The Design is Adequate
> 7.6 ksi Satisfactory
1 r
-S C L
N�
% f �Ji
�;4
t�c�� tf5 E 2Xy g1,�c�,v 4L-
_I
G.darw Ec? BRA -c.E Ta 'T+p.Vss
w1k L T+�t PLC T E 1N/
Js -tit 30 Vs -4e
VANi. �-S IN L 75
30
�� -� _A
Fl, ❑ El
�.ol�
F � 0� F] ❑n [J]
a 5 6 -x° O-)e SSF- U
C A B I /V P- T.5 o
fierj -la ge
• •
STUDIF,S - NIASTERPLANS - DESIGNS- CONS'TRUC'TION SFRY7CES - REVIEWS
yVI ums ENEwERiNE, In.
Serving the Rocky Mountain Region Since 1992
Project: Mountain View Apartments Date: 7/21/2008
Client: Kier Construction Designed by: B Carter
Job #: ID -Kier Construction Reviewed by:
Wood Post Calculations for: Typical Roof Post
4x4
DF #2
Cd =1.0
Dimensional, DF #2 E' [psi]= 1.6E +6 A [in 2]= 12.25
17, [psi]= 1,350 K 0.300 C 1.15
F,* [psi]= 1,553 c'= 0.8
Buckling about weak axis.
b = 3.50
Allowable Load
Support Data
Length
[ft]
P . [ #]
F.' [psi]
C
Fie / F�* i
F.E
L / d
2.0
18,384
1,501
0.967
6. 575
10,208.3
6. 9
4.0
15,793
1,289
0.830 r 'i
1.644
2,552.1
- 13.7
6.0
10,936
893
0.575
0.731
1,134.3
20.6
8.
10.0
7,000
4,694
571
0.368
0.411
638.0
27.4
383
272
0.247
0.175
0.263
0 .183
4083
283.6
34 3
41.1
12.0 3,332
14.0
2,478
202
0.130
0.13
208.3
48.0
16.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.0
18.0
20.0
-
-
-
_
-
2 0.0
22.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
-
24.0 -
26.0
-- - --
-
28.0
-
28.0
30
-
-
30.0
-
_
- -
34.0
32.0
34 .0
35.0
-
- - - --
35.0
- - --
-
38.0
-
38.0
_
-
- - -
-- _
40.0
- -'
-- _
-
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0
-
- -
Buckling about strong axis.
d = 3.50
Allowable Load
Support Data
Length
[ft]
P, [ #]
F.' [psi]
C
F,,/ F,*
FEE
L / d
2.0
18, 384
1,501
0.96
6.575
10,208.3
6.9
4.0
15,793
1,289
0.830
1.644
2,552.1
13.7
6.0
10,936
893
0.575
0. 731
1,134.3
20.6
8.0
7,000
5 7 1
0.368
0.411
638.0
27.4
10
4,694
383
272
0.247
0.17
0.263
0.1 83
408.3
283.6
34.3
41.1
12.0 ^3,332
14.0
2,478
202
0.130
0.
208.3
48.0
16.0
-
-
-
18.0
20.0
-
-
-
_
-
22.0
24.0
26.0
-
28.0
30
-
-
-
_
32.0
34.0
35.0
- - - --
----- - -
- - --
38.0
4 0.0
-
-
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0 -
1
i
i
I
i F F l f rim
5 I 1
r 11 1
n _ I (ni n f r �. i fn 1 Fn 1 V- f
9
i
x
i
S,xt Uniis
6lev.A -
Sca Ve 14'^ 10' 2 0;� Sfaa'�Sip
�_��
memo Imall Moir. M an
1101 "ll 11 Milli 1 10111MOVIOR'll..11110111 " ti 8
r liiiilllNlfiiill
-- tiilrfiiCi /"1�ittiu ■ ■/�I�i��-
!I �1���1��16iN ilBii�i�I11t1iiililYi� lUlHlhiilliiilllNll'Vil ii fk'� ' fY ilA liii I
9 �, • •
am
S711DIFS - A1AS - T Ri
it
S - I) e"T11 TI f
Jul 18, 2008
Steve Kier
Kier Construction Corporation
3710 Quincy Ave
Ogden, UT 84403
Re: Mountain Pines Apartment Complex
Dear Steve:
6
0800397
Heritage Manor Roof Repair
E C EJ W E
AUG 1 8 2008 0
dITY0FREBURG
Williams Engineering, Inc. (WEI) was asked to perform an assessment and evaluation of the balcony roof
overhang supports. The roofing contractor, Stuart Roofing Inc, expressed concerns with the roof bancony
overhangs during re- roofing construction. Forrest Stuart of Stuart Roofing Inc. was on site during the initial
site visit and evaluation.
During the initial site visit, several roof
sheathing panels were removed on the north side
of the southwest building to reveal the trusses
and supports. Connections between the trusses
and the support columns appear to be deficient
(see Figure 1) for support of all of the
cantilevered trusses. The trusses do not appear
to have been designed to accommodate an eight
(8) foot cantilever or balcony overhang due
mainly to the lack of web members in the
cantilever section of the trusses. The column is
also connected to truss blocking on only one
bay therefore creating a r est ra ined area for the
- - -- -------- - - - - --
adjacent two or three trusses only. This has
created a wavy appearance of the roof balcony
overhang (sagging of non - supported trusses and
non - sagging of supported trusses).
Due to the age of the structure and lack of structural drawings, it is not clear as to the intent of the design of
the trusses and supports, but common engineering practice would be to support the outer edge of the roof
balcony overhang with a beam between the existing columns. Therefore, we are recommending that the
existing columns be modified to accommodate a beam for supporting the trusses. The beam and appropriate
hangers have been designed and can be found in Appendix A of this report.
Since the structure has existed for nearly 20 years without any support on the cantilever end of the roof
balcony overhang, it appears that movements of the trusses through cyclic loading (i.e. wind gust and snow
Eastern ID: 208 359 -5353 Western CO: 970 858 -1014 Las Vegas NV: 702 454 -9666 Toll Free: 888 459 -5353
Fax: 208 359 -8181 217 N. 2' East Rexburg, ID 83440 mai,@grvvei.com www,grwei.com
Figure 1: Column to truss connection.
III
VTrb�'S
IF), ES — ,�1 =1�7�
WILLIAMS ENGINEERINav APT „ °l�' -- hFtilG - r_.o�,, rrla; .;ow s � Tc�' I•
the ���7cka? Since -,-992
loads) have resulted in loosening of the truss plates at the intersection re commendation ion that the
our truss manufacturer
the outside wall of the building location (see Figure 2). It is o rec
be contacted for an appropriate fix for the trusses that may have been effected.
From the initial inspection, it appears that the roof overhang is substandard and could potentially fail under
design load conditions. It is therefore our
conclusion and recommendation that the
existing columns be retrofitted to accommodate - e
a load bearing beam that would support the
overhang properly. The existing trusses should ;
also be analyzed to ensure that existing and
proposed bearing points are sufficient, and
existing loose or failed plates should also be
fixed. g
Our assessment and evaluation was limited to
the roof balcony overhang and does not include
other parts of the structure. The assumption is
made that the structure was designed and
constructed in a sound and professional manner
in accordance with common engineering
practice and per local building codes.
d in
Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, a nd
This warranty a
lieu p any her
accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practic nion
warranties either expressed or implied. Findings and statements of professionalopi feel free t contact our
guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied. If you should have any questions, pl
office, at (208) 35 -535 or e-mail bcarter agr�Ge -
- --
Sincerely,
WILLIAMS ENGINEERING, INC.
1 3070
Pea
By: Ben L. Carter, M.S., P.E., Project Manager ' t� \� OF P ,
4.
CARS%
-
Eastern ID: 208 359 -5353 Western CO 970 858 -1014 Las Vegas N`J; 70
Fax: 208 359 - 8181 217 N. 2 ” ' East Rexburg, ID 83440 mail @grNei.com
Toll Free: 888 459 -5353
www.grvei.com
Figure 2: Truss plate connection.
� • §
AML Ak
w �
0�
w O�
�¥ Q
§w/ k
§\( �� §
4
OR E-4
§/
a�
k
�Z
\Z
R
2
§ lark¥*
CY
/}§ )1 k§
§ }E \K\
Q R �,-
�(j
%=2
C) \
■2k
%/m
q
7 \\
\ �z �
§ . NOW
_ z
lo �
r �
» \)
z/ $/
k §
`(
�_\
A1111& AMR,
2 '� p
W
., o o
b• / �� � w o
ad's
�� n a w H
OR O z
k # U ¢
P4
d "
0
Nei
Q
I NIM11 511 1111 , 11 1 i li a H 41
v d
g _
F� �t ode6d 01111 an d d t vi t d to
8811111 ajrS $
� x
V) N d d d e: d d d y�
X
Iq
V 7
Anna
ju g ta lia%� 112! Z �, x
b �� s Q F- �.
.11 r o S q 1
g l w z J ill M%
1 w i
O
l it
LL' 1— w Z t
z d Q �
. all
j . a•ssa . Nrf Z
H
3 <
L.L� W W 1, 5 111 1v e �LI S Q i N O
LIJ U` N .f 4d or:d U �:N 2 4 t4 'd4.6.6r:
0 s >
• •
t.4TF.RPL.1�:�:5- DI- NIC,NS - CUA� S7RUC'"I70N Sl:'RII('1S - REt7 WI ;
I f
L Serv ing the Rocky Mountain Region Since 1992
Project: Mountain View Apartments Date: 7/15/2008
Client: Kier Construction Designed by: B Carter
Job #: ID -Kier Construction Reviewed by:
Wood Beam Calculations for: Typical roof beam with < 10 ft span
4x8 Dimensional, DF #2 Length [ft]: 10.00
Dead Load
Live Load
A =50
Tributary Width
Load! ft ^2 Min Max
10.00 3.00
45.00 5.00
Loading
Dead Load Live Load
Le [in] = 220.80
W beam [ # /ft]
6.17 N/A
W ., P /ft]
50.00 225.00
Distance. x„
W max [ # /ft]
0.00 0.00
[ft]
P, [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
P, [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
1) 3 [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
P, 141
0.00 0.00
0.00
P 1#1
0.00 0.00
0.00
P [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
P [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
P [ #]
0.00 0.00
0.00
Cd =1.25
Cr
Unbraced
Length ]ftl = 10.00
C
0.982
Le [in] = 220.80
RB =
11.43 < 50, ok
KbE =
0.438
Fb *[psil =
1.462.5
E' [psi] =
1.600.000.0
FbE [psi] =
5.362.8
FbE,'Fb* = 3.6'
CF= L.300
General Loading Diagram
PI P, P�
- 1 1 W
max
�rrliTifTlllllllllllllll����������lll���lllllllllllll�
W
x
x -►
X,
( 280.8 + 1,125.0 ) # ( 280.8 + 1,125.0 ) #
Total Load Shear
1405.8 Ib
Total Load Moment
- -- 35- 14.-6 -lb-ft - - - -- - -- x- [h]- :-- --
Deflection ALL : A 4 TL ok
k *DL: 0.07 [in], L/ 1689 k =1.0 q x [ft] : 5.00
LL: 0.28 [in], L/ 422 � x [ft] : 5.00
TL: 0.36 [in], L/ 337 i x [ft] : 5.00
f,, = 1.5 ( 1,405.8) / 25.4 = 83.1 psi
F,,'= F�(CD)
F,,'= 225.0 psi A
f 12 ( 3,514.6 1,' 30.7 = 1,375.5 psi
F Fb (CD) CF (Cr) CL
F 1,436.2 psi ok
Camber 0.11 in
Cse 0.00 in
0 !
STUDIES - M }:STERPL.4, S - DE SIGNS - CO,1 , 'CTIO:V SER TI(' S - REVIEWS
Serving the Rocky Mountain Region Since 1992
Project: Mountain View Apartments Beam ID: Side Hanger
Client: Kier Construction Designed by: B Carter
Job #: ID -Kier Construction Date: 7/16/2008 Reviewed by:
Weld Capacity of Eccentric Connections Based on AISC
Input Parameters
Thicker Part to be Jointed
t =
0.25 in
Weld Size
w =
0.125 in
Eccentricity to edge
x =
1 in
Weld Length
D =
4 in
Parallel Load
P =
3 kips
Lateral Load
F =
0 kips
Analysis
Minimum Weld Size
w =
0.13 in
Maximum Weld Size
wmax =
0.25 in
Effective Throat Thickness
t =
0.09 in
Centrodial Moment of Inertia
I =
0.9 in
Direct Shear Stress
f = F /2Dt
0.0 ksi
f = P /2Dt
4.2 ksi
Bending Stress
f = DPx /21
6.4 ksi
Resultant Stress
f, =
7.6 ksi
Allowable Stress
F, = 0.6F /W
21 ksi
X P
The Design is Adequate
> 7.6 ksi Satisfactory
STC;DIES - _ 14STERPLA.VS - DESIGNS- COi4STR t %CTION SER b7CES - RE VIE- S
W ILLIA MS E NE
INE RIN�, 1A��
Serving the Rocky Mocrrztain Region Since 1992
Project: Mountain View Apartments Beam ID: Colmn Cap Hanger
Client: Kier Construction Designed by: B Carter
Job #: ID -Kier Construction Date: 7/16/2008 Reviewed by:
Weld Capacity of Eccentric Connections Based on AISC
Input Parameters
Thicker Part to be Jointed
t =
0.25 in
Weld Size
w =
0.125 in
Eccentricity to edge
x =
0 in
Weld Length
D =
6 in
Parallel Load
P =
0 kips
Lateral Load
F =
3 kips
Analysis
Minimum Weld Size
w =
0.13 in
Maximum Weld Size
wmax =
0.25 in
Effective Throat Thickness
t =
0.09 in
Centrodial Moment of Inertia
I =
3.2 in'
Direct Shear Stress
f, = F /2Dt
2.8 ksi
f, = P ; 2Dt
0.0 ksi
Bending Stress
f� = DPx /2I,
0.0 ksi
Resultant Stress
f, =
2.8 ksi
Allowable Stress
F, = 0.6F /W
21 ksi
L
—
m w- -
The Design is Adequate
> 2.8 ksi Satisfactory
�T
L
—
m w- -
The Design is Adequate
> 2.8 ksi Satisfactory
C�
DF-. SIGA' - CON ,'7RU'TIO.VSFRUICF,S- R:l7EY:S
6
I
Ser vino the Rocky Mountain Region Since 1992
Project: Mountain View Apartments Date: 7/21/2008
Client: Kier Construction Designed by: B Carter
Job #: IUD -Kier Construction Reviewed by:
Wood Post Calculations for: Typical Roof Post
4x4 Dimensional, DF 42 E' [psi] = 1.6E +6 A [in']= 12.25
DF #2 F, [psi ]= 1,350 K = 0.300 CF= I.IS
Cd =1.0 F,* [psi]= 1,553 c'= 0.8
Buckling about weak axis.
b = 3.50
.allowable Load
Support Data
Length
[ft]
Pall [ #]
F; [psi]
C
F,, F,*
FEE
L / d
2.0
18,38
1,501
0.967
6.575
10,208.3
6.9
4.0 15,793
15,793
1,289
0.830
1.644
2,552.1
13.7
6.0
10,936
893
0 .575
0.731
1,134.3
20.6
8.0_
7,000
5 71
0.368
0.411
6 38.0
27.4
10,0
-
4,694
383
0.247
0. 263
-
408.3
34.3 -
12.0
3,332
2
0 .175
0.183
2 83.6
41.1
14.0
2,478
202
0.130
0.131
208.3
48.0
16.0
-- --
-_ --
-
- - - --
-
--
18.0
2 0.0 --
_
-
22,0
22.0
---------------
24.0
24.0
_ -
-- -
-- _
--
26.0
26.0
2 8.0
30.0
32.0
2 8.0
30.0
32.0
38.0
34.0
35 .0
38.0
40.0
44.0
46.0
48.0
-
42.0
44.0
46.0
Buckling about strong axis.
d = 3.50
Allowable Load
Support Data
Length
[ft]
P [ #]
F,' [psi]
C
FcE / F,*
FEE
L / d
2.0
18,384
1 ,501
0.967
6.575
10,208.3
6.9
4.0
15,793
1,289
0.830
1.644
2,552.1
13.7
6.0
10,936
893
0.575
0.7 31
1,134.3
20.6
8.0_
7,000
571
0.368
0 .411
638.0
27.4
10.0
4 ,694
383
0.247
_
0.263
408.3
34.3
12.0
3,332
272
0.175
0.183
283.6
41.1
14.0
2,
202
O.li0
0.134
208.
48.0
16.0
-
-
-
-
-
-_
18.0
20.0
22.0
---------------
- - ----
24.0
_ -
-- -
-- _
--
- --
-
26.0
2 8.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
35 .0
38.0
40 .0
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0
0
Appendix A
REA A4 DESIGN
40
Contents Page
• Beam Addition Drawings ............................................................. ............................... A -2
• Structural Notes ............................................................................ ............................... A -3
• Beam Calculations ........................................................................ ............................... A -4
• Welding Calculations .................................................................... ............................... A -5
• Column Calculations ....................................................................... ............................A -7
• Building Drawings ........................................................................ ............................... A -8
i
CD
0
cu
O U V w o
�i r �W 2
w0l X O
o n O� EdZ
z � N Z Z
$�Zv w O W
w
_ o p,
U
U� F O�
Z m U
I
z /� - CO
"o m Z Q7i
Win" x o0
Ngw O W
Hza
U~"w
CD :D
az5
w
o a zHa
Oz
OW�Z2wOJ O
O WOw /y
zQZw�� W
_ C5 z a�
I wo
Q
Z OO 0 a D
✓ o . u W
W «�
a- z n x
a- Z a
rr
a W sS n`i
0" W
0 z
O U LJ d
J ~ 7T
0 0 �a Z z
U a o o a , r ...
N m Z F My
C1
5R f K n N
� U
w�0 fwd W LL
V o J
f W
"T w x
�m W
Z �
J
Z J O N
COQ
Uw0 O0
W
= 00 X �
Z K w n U
N0. O w
MQd F w n
m =a w m
X
W
Q
�Q N
F 0 w<
Ow0 00
iW M
m Z Z W
O
s
� a
a
O
� F
2 W
T
c6 �
^
p' I J
41 X 12
t�
N �
• __.... .- .....i._ -
I
J,
V-
� I
I
3
k x r d Y
V k
,. � _ � "e*`� y y �.ra W� ^ ''.fr x � ; '� ?. v F z - N•t -��f, a �' j.- ,., ":� yY".c �`�;,' t
A Sr 1 ra ..°,r
is
16
III [ � �' I II t �I ! �I .� I I I I ' i I� � eoLLel• r � �a�at
SC
Dr by S 4if�c UP4
"5
Fle
'son
Mcl
T YP / C 4 C I{ 7!� r
Y/ /'0-
r
TYPICAL F.I RE WA CL S E C T %oN
k
7
eioq
cm
ry ice{ Q •'S IN
l � x
Y Q
1 � j
YP L
her 4ag-
t _ ~
�.�: ,� � � �" ('o • T � S o-c v semi's i
P---j
TS
FF
ILL l L I -J!
Eil
-AB0vLT-S
H e 4age AP4-5
br by
7Z
P---j
TS
FF
ILL l L I -J!
Eil
-AB0vLT-S
H e 4age AP4-5
br by
ea -,.vim ....
• •
f
if
ill
0
�n
M
4