Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Engineering for COM2010-00062 - COM Engineering / Geo-Tech Reports - 6/28/2013
Cc,rn zc i Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical 14245 591h Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Cell: (206) 571-8794 -- JUL 1 0 2 JJ June 28, 2013 426 W. CEDAR ST. Mason County Building Department Attn: Building Official/Site Inspector Subject: Final Inspection of Structural Repairs and Upgrades, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, 4371 E. Grapeview Loop* Road, Grapeview, WA Dear Sir: On Monday, June 10, 2013, this office visited the above building to carry out a comprehensive final evaluation of structural repairs and upgrades which have been performed on the building over the last two years. This office has been involved in the ongoing evaluation of the work in that time and extensive guidance on work has been provided by this office over that period. During this visit, observations were made of all areas where detailed guidance had been provided. The work in all areas was found to be completed and all specific guidance provided in our letters had been complied with in a though and diligent manner. As background, the building is a one story wood framed structure constructed in at least four or five major stages over the last eighty years. It appears most work and additions were not constructed professionally or under permit, and certainly not structurally engineered. Throughout its entire life it has been used as a retail store, with kitchen service and gas station facilities added in its later life. The building consists of three sections to the south built in probably two early phases with flat truss girder roof structure, and a fourth section at the north end with an add-on shed type roof. At a later period all areas received a rather flimsy over roof with some post support in the dead air space down to the old roof. Of note is that the original roof structure in all areas was found to have been poorly constructed, and the additional roof structure was even worse. Reference is made to the following documents prepared by this office and supplied to the Building Department previously: July 25, 2011: Subject: Information Reference Mason County Correction Notice (July 18, 2011), Miscellaneous Structural Items, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA This letter dealt with foundation problems and upgraded internal post and beam work, and various other minor problem areas. August 22, 2011: Subject: Evaluation of Some Concerns in Original Roof Truss Condition and Structure, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA This letter dealt with observed design weaknesses in the main roof trusses in the three southern sections of the building. August 22, 2011: Subject: Evaluation of Kitchen Area Floor Structure Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA This letter dealt with poorly designed and badly rotted out floor structure in the north section of the building, known as the kitchen area. August 29, 2011 Subject: Engineering Evaluation and Upgrade Design Requirements for General Building Structure through Completion, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA This letter dealt with several general problems, including some general floor area problems and support problems in all roof areas caused by the very poorly constructed "second roof' over all areas of original roofing, this having been done in all areas of the building. The new roof created a dead air space of from one to five feet between the two roof structures. September 13, 2011 Subject: Engineering Evaluation and Upgrade Design Requirements for Building Roof Structure, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA r This letter provided specific design guidance for the upgrade of original truss girders and additional correct support of the upper roof by the original roof structure in all areas. Of note with this letter and several previous letters was that both the original roof structure and the "second roof' constructed over the original were incredibly poorly "designed" and constructed, with only a fraction of the necessary safe capacity available. This area was the most important for corrective work from a safety standpoint. Provided in each of the above letters were a clear identification of the problem area and its specific problems, and specific guidance for the repair or upgrade of that area to provide full code level strength (and long term durability) to that area. During this visit the following areas were observed, and completed repairs and upgrades confirmed: Floor and foundation areas, all sections, mostly consisting of post support work and rotten perimeter sill replacement. Interior posts and roof support beams. Major reinforcement of truss girders in three southern sections. Complete reconstruction of original shed roof section in the northern section. Complete reconstruction of floor in northern section. Complete reconstruction of rotted out northern wall of building. The supplemental placement of numerous support posts and spreader plates between the two roof sections to fully support the upper roof down to the now-reinforced lower original roof structure. The repair or replacement of some minor old roof leak areas and wall moisture damaged areas. Of note is that the entire roof was renewed and sealed approximately two years ago and future leak or moisture deterioration problems are not foreseen. Conclusions and Summery: All areas addressed by the Building Department and this office have been repaired and/or structurally upgraded to current code strengths. Numerous other minor areas requiring repairs and upgrades, but not structurally dangerous, have been completed. The building may now be considered a structurally competent shell and finish work, including plumbing, mechanical and electrical, may now good forward to complete the job of making this an economically useful building. This office is available for further guidance or field inspection as necessary. Questions relating the above may be made directly to this office. Sincerely Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Ma Civil Engineer ���oFwas,��1rr� H x w t CC' EXPIRES: 4/24// John Maynard 799 Chesapeake Drive Shelton, WA 98584 reeves 15/0837 mial ..�.: t- GENERAL VIEW OF BUILDING, EAST SIDE NEW INTERNAL POST AND BEAMS r REINFORCED TRUSS GIRDERS, SOUTH THREE SECTIONS s ADDITIONAL POSITIVE SUPPORT FOR UPPER ROOF, SOUTH THREE SECTIONS c 1 ADDITIONAL POSITIVE SUPPORT FOR UPPER ROOF, NORTH SECTION M._ RE-BUILT NORTH SECTION SHED ROOF STRUCTURE AND WALL L . Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59`" Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Cell: (206) 571-8794 July 25, 2011 Mason County Building Department Attn: Building Official/Site Inspector Subject: Information Reference Mason County Correction Notice (July 18, 2011), Miscellaneous Structural Items, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA Dear Sir: On July 21, 2011 this office visited the above site and evaluated the comments in the above Correction Notice. The purpose of the evaluation was to ensure that proper measures were taken to respond to the items in the Notice. The following discussion addresses the items in the Notice, with numbers corresponding to its items. A copy of the Notice is attached to this letter for reference. Item 1 - North wall blocking between rafters. The blocking had been installed between the rafters at the time of the visit. Due to repairs and splices made to the rafters, the spacing was irregular. The blocking appeared complete and would properly prevent rafters from tilting or rotating at the wall. Item 2 - North wall sheathing in poor condition. The sheathing of the north wall was is poor condition. It consisted of original 1" x 8" planking overlain on the outside, at a later date, with thin plywood, probably materials were badly weathered 1/4 thick. In many areas the mate y > in some areas completely rotten. This was caused by leaking roof areas above the wall, which have been corrected. The sheathing is deemed unsalvageable. I have directed it be replaced with 5/8" nominal T-1-11 siding. Nailing is to be directly to the studs with galvanized 8d nails, 4" edge nailing and 6" field nailing. It was noted during the visit that most of the original 2" x 4" studs have been replaced, and at 16" centers instead of the original 24" centers. Since this wall has only a few minor openings along its entire length, this nailing will produce a shear wall meeting current seismic and wind load shear requirements, by inspection. I have directed that the new sheathing be underlain by either 15# tar felt or Tyvek membrane, either being adequate in this case. The sheathing is to be painted with a quality exterior paint. In addition to the replacement of the sheathing and most of the rest of the rotted wall structure, the following additional work is recommended along the place where the old concrete deck was installed against the outer wall. It is understood that the concrete deck, which runs approximately 10' to 15' along the north wall, will remain. Rainwater will still be a problem for the new wood wall. A small hand placed mortar"dam" should be made on the concrete near the wall, with a well-sealed metal flashing acting as a little roof over the dam. This will direct all rainwater away from the side of the building. Attached is a sketch of the recommended work. Item 3 - Posts are not continuous to supporting concrete and are not treated. These posts are along the south part of the kitchen area and the line of posts runs front to back. The untreated 6" x 6" posts come down to the floor level or slightly below, with (it was found) a short vertical piece of pressure treated 6" x 6 continuing down to the concrete foundation, length of 6 to 10 . It was found that the cut bottom of the pressure treated piece was not re-treated but was underlain with a construction grade self-stick rubber like membrane in all cases. The membrane, while not the usual moisture barrier, is deemed adequate in this case. The connection between the two wood portions and to the concrete is recommended as follows. On one side of the post, connect the wood portions together with TP15 straps, with nailing. On the other side, the side flush with the concrete below, install either an MSTI26 or MST27 (they are equivalent for this use). The top should be tied to the main post with a 1/2" lag bolt, 2-1/2" long, nailed to the short treated portion, and the bottom connected to the concrete with a 1/2 " diameter by 3" anchor bolt into the concrete. Note that at the front wall, the embedded post in this line is a 4" x 6". It is connected to the pressure treated 6" x 6" below with a single TP15 on the right side (seen from inside). The left side is tied to a set of cripples in the wall. This wall, with new sill plates, has new 1/2" anchor bolts connecting the wall as a whole to the foundation. This is deemed acceptable as it is, and no modifications are recommended. Item 4 - A new glulam beam resting on a short vertical post not connected. This beam is a 3-1/8" x 12" glulam running crosswise at the right rear portion of the building. A short 4" or so long 4" x 4" post is used as a spacer to major beam below. The upper glulam should be connected across and down past the short post to the main glulam below using a TP15 strap, or equivalent. Strap may be nailed to all members. The space on either side of the upper glulam beam should be fill-blocked with 2" thick wood material. Connection to a support post should also use a TP15, as above. Item 5 - Beam placement cuts through top plate. This is at the front wall of the building. In this case, upon looking at the overall situation of the wall, beam and roof placement, it is determined in this case the cutting of the top plate will have no structural significance since the diaphragm of the roof and the connection of the beam itself will stabilize the plane of the front wall of the building. It is noted that the contractor should have consulted with the engineer before doing this, although as noted in this case it was benign. Items 6 and 7 - Top plates have short overlap and end on unsupported space. This is along the north wall in two locations. The overlaps are less than 24". A short filler 2" x 4" piece has been placed under the short splice and firmly nailed into place. An MSTA24 has been installed across each splice. No modifications required. Questions relating the above may be made directly to this office. Sincerely, Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. �� oe Civil Engineer �, �� x cc: John Maynard +sss 6545 Troon Lane S.E. Olympia, WA 98501 reeves10/0837 ExF�RES: 4/24/i_3 Co Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. n] 2,0119 - (GOU Z RECEIVEI.� Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical SEF' 0 20t1 14245 59 Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Cell: (206) 571-8794 426 W. CEDAR ST. August 22, 2011 Mason County Building Department Attn: Building Official/Site Inspector Subject Evaluation of Some Concerns in Original Roof Truss Condition and Structure, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA Dear Sir: On this date this office visited the above site and evaluated some general concerns reference the existing old roof structure in significant portions of the old store building. This evaluation was not a full evaluation, but an effort to provide positive first steps in upgrading the roof structure in a meaningful way and allow progress in the overall building remodel to continue. Note that the underlying posts and beams have received almost complete replacement at this point and are generally in full upgraded condition. The "trusses" in question are quite old and were installed without engineering. They consist of top and bottom chords of 2" x 6", scabbed together with various minor 1"x and 2"x pieces nailed to their sides. They in effect are not really connected for additive support of roof loading. They also cannot act as a true truss in that the ends are not connected to accept horizontal shear if they were connected. The top and bottom chords would act similar to leaf springs. The depth of the "trusses" varies from approximately 24" in the front of the store down to approximately 6" towards the rear of the store. (At that point, an old addition to the rear of the original building uses single layer shed roof framing.) This graduation in depth reflects the original to-the-rear sloping of the original roof. At this point, it is recommended that at each end of each "truss" a solid vertical post or blocking be installed snugly in place. This will at least provide a vertical load transfer to the bottom chord. These posts or blockings need only be toenailed into the top and bottom members. Similarly, at the mid-point of each span, a vertical post or blocking is to be installed, again toenailed into the top and bottom chords. It is understood that an entire over-roofing structure was installed at some distant part of the building's past to level the roofing surface. This has not been evaluated. It is understood that it generally rests of the structural members of the original roof_ The owner's understand that a complete evaluation, with recommended upgrading work, will be required for the overall roof structure. This office has been authorized to proceed with this evaluation. Attached are sketches of the recommended posts or blocking showing the general scheme of upgrade work. Questions relating the above may be made directly to this office. ;Sincerel , Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. �G a s ��o Civil Engineer cc: John Maynard 6545 Troon Lane S.E. Olympia, WA 98501 EXPIRES: 4/24/�1 reeves 11/0837 1 1 i I I J ' i I 1 a oo : 1 i- , - - J - 7VA --� i I I fi I Zt -J I i -7- --� 1--�-- - 1___,t _ _ --- �--;- --- 1EXPIRE I , I : I 1 --�- 1 I � 1 S - - - _ Ilil. Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical SEP 0 12011 14245 59'" Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 426 W. CEDAR ST. Cell: (206) 571-8794 August 22, 2011 Mason County Building Department Attn: Building Official/Site Inspector Subject: Evaluation of Kitchen Area Floor Structure, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA Dear Sir: On this date this office visited the above site and evaluated exposed areas of the existing floor structure in the kitchen and pantry areas along the east side of the store. The cross span is 8'. A 4" x 8" (probably DF) beam runs down the middle of the run, with 2" x 8" joists at 24" to 36" spacing. It appears to be in good condition. The existing sheathing is double thickness 3/4" plywood. This will be reinstalled or replaced (for damaged panels) with the double thickness. The reasoning for this is that the kitchen equipment may have heavy point loads on the floor. The center beam rests on minimal footing support which is not acceptable. High levels of soil may lead to deteriorating of the beam. It is understood that the owners plan to excavate the crawl space to a depth of 18", at least in the middle of the run where it will not weaken soil support for the adjacent building foundation. The floor area will be substantially taken apart, new basic concrete piers placed at spaced locations under the beam, and the joists re- supported by the beam. Some minor posts may be necessary. Attached are beam calculations sizing the support spacing. The joists, where in good condition, will be retained, and where deteriorated, replaced in kind. Where the joist spacing exceeds 24" a supplemental joist will be added. It was observed that to fit onto the outer foundation, the bottom of the joists have some significant notching which may affect their ability to carry a heavy vertical load without splitting. On both new and existing joists which have a notching greater than 2", a minor metal strap should be installed diagonally on each side. Attached are beam calculations for the joists at 24" centers. Also attached is a sketch showing the layout of the beam and joists, and a sketch of the diagonal metal strapping. The owners have been informed that following the installation of the bearing piers and main floor framing, that the soil must be covered with plastic sheathing for moisture control per usual practice. Questions relating the above may be made directly to this office. Sincer y Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Gti wA4 Civil Engineer y x cc: John Maynard 66S 6545 Troon Lane S.E. Olympia, WA 98501 reeves12/0837 EXPIRES: 4/24//3 Zz i�v4T/ s 1. i I I I I■■ "�'� IE� _ �I■■�JI■■ �I■■ I■ 1■ri �i�■ ■�■■■■i■■■i■ii■■�■■I i■t■■■■■■■1■■■ ■ 1■■I t ■I■■ 1M911 ■■■■I A� �; - ■■■ IN 1001■ ■I■■■■I■■■01■■■■I■ 11 ; :; .� _� �■■■ 1 �■■I■■■■II■ ■I■■■■I■■■■I■■L, 'A �":; "'w� .:`�'■■ ■r■ ■■ ■ ■■■■ ■►`■■ ■ ■ _■■ ■ lriii9liiif3i( AM 0 ■■ ■■■ ■ ■ ii,1ii■■ l�L�!'■■ ■■■ ■■■ 1=■1l ■ mom �■ ■ ..ii ■ 9es greater support in 31/z';either fill every nail hole with 10dx1Yz'nails or fill every other nail 1 lines and chamfered hole with 16d commons.Reduce the allowable load based on the size and quantity Fasteners 6a Total i for connecting the of fasteners used.The LSTI light strap ties are suitable where gun-nailing is Model Dimensions ( ) necessary through diaphragm decking and wood chord open web trusses. No. W L Total a lower nailing profile. FINISH:PS—HDG;all others—galvanized.Some products are available in stainless steel or Z-MAX;see Corrosion-Resistance,page 5. LSTA9 11/a 9 8-1Od at wall intersections, INSTALLATION:Use all specified fasteners.See General Notes. LSTA12 11/4 12 10-1Od )erect for use on 11/2' OPTIONS:Special sizes can be made to order.See also HCST. LSTA15 11/4 15 12-1Od ices the possibility of CODES:See page 10 for Code Listing Key Chart. LSTA18 11/a 18 14-10d umber narrower than LSTA21 11/4 21 16-10d LSTA24 20 11/a 24 18-1Od ST292 21/i6 95/16 12-16d ST2122 21/16 1213/16 16-16d ST2115 3/s 1 65/16 8-16d 2'T)'p- (O N c�Q ST2215 21/16 165/16 20-16d a FJ LSTA30 11/4 30 22-1 Od LSTA36 1'/+ 36 24-10d LSTI49 33/a 49 32-10dx LST173 33/4 73 48-10dx114". MSTA9 11/a 9 8-10d MSTA12 18 11/a 12. 10-10d l<e - g N MSiA15 1Ya 15 12-10d co MSTA1_8 1'/a 18 14-10d LL MSTA21 11/4 21 16-10d A N m MSTA24 11/4 24 18-1Od MSTA30 11/4 30 22-10d v MSTA36 11/4 36 2610d VI 3' ST6215 21A6 165/,6 20-16d 3 N ST6224 21A6 235/16 28-16d ST9 11/49 8-16d ST12 16 11/4 11% 10-16d Ilk < W ST18 11/4173/4 14-16d T1� LL HRS ST ST22 11/421% 18-16d I MSTC28 3 281/a 36-16d sinker: LSTA and MSTA FHA MSTC40 3 401/a 52-16d sinker: MSTAM36 (Pilot holes not MSTC52 3 521/4 62-16d sinker: shown) * MSTC66 3 1 653/4 76-16d sinker: .I I_W MSTC78 14 3 773/a 76-16d sinker: ST6236 2Yi6 3313/16 40-16d -4-I 13/6 6 6-10d 3+ rn HRSS 13/e 8 10-10d Cl) 13/a 12 14-10d 3'-► MSTC28 FHA6 1'/16 63/6 8-16d a FHA9 17/16 9 8-16d w FHAl2 17/ie 115/6 8-16d L L FHA18 12 17/16 173/4 8-16d 0 o FHA24 17/i6 237/6 8-16d HST FHA30 17/m 30 8-16d $ MSTI26 2Y,6 26 2610dx11/2 '- ---- ------------- a MST136 2/16 36 36-1Odx1/2 /4 21i HST2 and HST5 HST2 H T5 o ' 1' MSTI48 21/�6 48 48-10dx11/2 11k 3' HST3 and HST6- HST3 HST6 MSTI60 2Y16 60 60-1 Odx11/2 ST2115 N s v MSTI72 2'/,6 72 64-10dx1'/z � o ® O 1.1-oads Include a 33%or 60%load duration increase but 00 NOT_include a 33%stress increase on the si ST9, ST12, � 2.10dx1'/s'nails may be substituted where 16d sinkers ST18 ST22 S g 3.10d commons may be substituted where 16d sinkers ' V 4.160 sinkers(9 gauge x 3%7 or 10d commons may b 0.85 of the table loads. 5.Use half of the nails in each member being connecter 6.PS strap design loads must be determined by the I both perpendicular and parallel-to-grain.Hole cl ameb Designer must determine if the oversize creates an ui 7.For overlap splice details,refer to T-CMST. Typical HRS Installation Typical LSTI Installation BEAM CALCULATIONS DATE: z Z A c,C, "// PROJECT: 6PA,0�--v/ c: MEMBER LOCATION: Cola s s SPAN= L FEET DL = 00 PSF LL = PSF THEREFORE TL = PSF w = TL x width contrib. area = /Z D PLF �ox2" MDES.(UW. LOAD) = w x L2/8 FT # rA = /zo 4zV£, FT # FT # IN # MDES. (POINT LOAD) _ ((I- — /L x P) x X FT # = FT # FT # IN # BEAM OR JOIST TYPE : /`71z,�x/> GRADE: 1711 z Fb PSI BEAM OR JOIST SIZE: Z X 9 S = b x d216 IN = _ /g IN3 THEREFORE: MCAP. = S Fb = MCAP. IN # M _ /3-, rid = ///� � IN # MCAP. — i GREATER THAN MDES; _ E'er° IN # REQU THEREFORE OKAY (AABEAlGBLANKBLANK.DOC) BEAM CALCULATIONS DATE: Z z '-l PROJECT: MEMBER LOCATION: SPAN= L = FEET DL = Ze PSF LL PSF THEREFORE TL PSF w = TL x width contrib. area PLF 6 MDES.(UNM. LOAD) = w x L2/8 FT # FT # FT # IN # MDES. (POINT LOAD) - (( - ) /L x P) x X FT # FT # FT # IN # BEAM OR JOIST TYPE : GRADE: 2 Fb = PSI BEAM OR JOIST SIZE: 4 `X 8 S = b x d2/6 IN' 6 IN3 THEREFORE: MCAP, = S Fb = MCAP. IN # MCAP. _ �G�G� �`S-U ZG b(> l IN # �� tl GREATER THAN MDES; /Z p' IN # RE Q THEREFORE OKAY (AABEAM BLANKBLANK.DOC) i Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical RECEIVED 14245 591h Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 SEP 0 12011 Cell: (206) 571-8794 426 W. CEDAR ST. August 29, 2011 Mason County Building Department Attn: Building Official/Site Inspector Subject: Engineering Evaluation and Upgrade Design Requirements for General Building Structure through Completion, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA Dear Sir: This office has been instructed by the owners to carry out a fairly comprehensive evaluation of the building structure to complete its structural upgrade. Major areas identified for evaluation are: 1. All roof areas. It is understood that the beam and post/wall supports have been largely upgraded at this time. However questions remain of the structural adequacy and condition of major roof structures themselves. These will be field evaluated, capacities checked per current code loading requirements, and engineered upgrades designed where necessary. Deteriorated areas will have repairs engineered during this process. 2. Portions of the floor structure in the vicinity of the small basement area which once housed the cooler compressors. Initial observations indicate that this area is basically in fairly good condition, however some strapping and possible post and cross joist connections may be required. 3. Minor portions of the existing main floor area, to be determined. As has been the practice during the earlier remodel work for this building, as areas are opened up for work they will be evaluated by this office and upgrades and repairs engineered. These remaining areas are limited due to the already extensive work in many areas of the building to date. The owners understand that this office must be contacted and an on-site evaluation made at these times. i l A written record, with sketches and calculations, where appropriate, will be made of each visit. Questions relating the above may be made directly to this office. Sincere , Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. ��As,, ` Civil Engineer cc: John Maynard 6545 Troon Lane S.E. f Olympia, WA 98501 EXPIRES: 4/24/ reeves13/0837 z 7 Corn 2� �o �- C�oo�Z Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical ��� 14245 59`h Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 � Cell: (206) 571-8794 Q S September 13, 2011 \44 Mason County Building Department Attn: Building Official/Site Inspector Subject: Engineering Evaluation and Upgrade Design Requirements for Building Roof Structure, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA Dear Sir: This office has been instructed by the owners to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the building roof structure, excluding the supporting posts and beams which have previously been evaluated and upgraded. Major areas of the roof structure do require additional upgrades to meet current strength requirements. The building has been constructed with a series of additions. The original core building was probably built about one hundred years ago, followed by at least three additions. Following the above, a new over roof was constructed over the original roof with a gap of one to four feet left in between. The original roof sections were found to have structural design defects, and the final over roof was constructed poorly and is under strength. The over roof, the last major structural modification to the building prior to this remodel, was probably done in the 1950's, or at the latest the 1960's. The following is a list of items and areas requiring strength improvements and recommended solutions. Sketches illustrating most of these items are included in the calculation set prepared concurrently with this letter. 1. The vertical support posts between the upper and lower roof are only nail scabbed to the upper rafters. In all locations an additional 2" x 4" or 6" should be installed directly under the supported rafter. This situation is found throughout the building. 2. The upper rafter over the left (looking south) kitchen area and in the two right bays should have an additional 2" x 6" glued and nailed to the existing rafter. The spliced on sections need only be installed in the middle part of each span, with a foot or so at ends omitted. w 3. The rafter and ceiling joist over the kitchen should each be doubled with glued additional 2" x 6", with a block placed between them at mid-span. The outer foot or so of splice may be omitted. 4. The rear 12 feet or so of the three right bays should be reinforced similar to the work in Paragraph 3, except the additional 2" x 6" need be added only to the top rafter. 5. The high strength 14 inch BCI joists observed on site should be soldiered with the existing "truss joists" at those joists where a point load comes down from the support posts above. This is in the three right bays, front sections of 20 feet or so. This has already been done in several observed areas and is appropriate. 6. Per previous letters, the "truss joists" should be vertically blocked at ends and mid-points. They should then be gusseted with sections of 7/16 inch OSB extending a minimum of 18 inches from there ends, with the gusset being glued. Where possible, place on both sides. If at a location where the BCI joist has already been placed on one side of the joist, it may be omitted on that side. 7. Any decayed and damaged sections should be repaired and spliced per previous guidance from this office. It appeared during the visit that all damaged areas had already been repaired as recommended. This office is available for further guidance or field inspection as necessary. Questions relating the above may be made directly to this office. Since el 001 / WASIy.. Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer cc: John Maynard L 6545 Troon Lane S.E. Olympia, WA 98501 EXPIRES: 4/24//,,7 reeves14/0837 -- - I tj i tS'4 a � I I i L 1 4-- f4.,1 RA J _ 7-1 --- T - Qk R .li 'V Q —r— j _I IL i S r MOONSman ■ N■■ ■ e _ SOON■■■® rely so ■■ BEEN■G ZMEMMEMMEM IIC4 , '_ ■ ■ 11 ■ ■II J■■ ■ ■ 1 1 � Z=2 WEi �■■ 1 �■ - ♦ice � �. ■ ■ ■■ ■■■■!■■■■ /_'' � �' gi7ly i I I 1 A"'k, >1 I_ I 19 97 7-11 I � I r i I I - 4(- A'/ I + 7-f-+ LL ' I 21 -I +-- LL i -I- --I -�-- i t t Coe r-; / � ( 1 -j ---7 19 _1 ----.—_i_—�— � of _f. o � I I 1 I j M I- I _ —E I — I i I f � i a - �r _l ' � I o I RKS s - - y i sTv I --- law xi 01 J--J- -7 s aj s --{— -- - - I -4- v t - _ 044 L-_. -i - /. ior I i v About Floor Performance methods used to increase the performance and reduce vibration of wood Homeowner's expectations and opinions vary floor systems is to Increase the joist depth,limit joist deflections,glue p p ry greatly due to the subjective and screw a thicker,tongue-and-groove subtloor,install the joists nature of rating a new floor.Communication with the ultimate end user to vertically plumb with level-bearing supports,and install a direct- determine their expectation is critical. Vibration is usually the cause of attached ceiling to the bottom flanges of the joists. most complaints.Installing lateral bridging may help;however,squeaks may occur if not installed properly.Spacing the joists closer together does The floor span tables listed below offer three very different performance little to effect the perception of the floor's performance.The most common options,based on performance requirements of the homeowner. THREE STAR,t* k ,t-***FOUR STAR*' * k* *MINIMUM STIFFNESS ALLOWED BY CODE,t Live Load deflection limited to U480: The Live Load deflection limited to U860+: In Live Load deflection limited to U360: Floors common industry and design community standard addition to providing a floor that Is 100%stiffer that meet the minimum building code U360 for residential floor Joists,33%stiffer than U360 than the three star floor,field experience has criteria are structurally sound to carry the specified code minimum. However,floor performance may been Incorporated into the values to provide a loads;however,there is a much higher risk of floor still be an issue In certain applications,especially floor with premium performance level for the performance issues. This table should-only be with 91/2"and 111/8"deep joists without a direct- more discriminating homeowner. used for applications where floor performance is Joist Joist attached telling. not a concern. Depth series 12"o.c. 16" - - - -o,c. 19.2"o.c. 24"o.c. 32"o.c. 12"o c. 16"o.c. 19,2"o.c. 24'ac.j 32"o:c. 1-2'o.e--7- -- . 16'O.C. '1_U o.c. 24 o.c.- 32'o.c. 50001.7 1 T-1" { 15 7 14 9 13 9' 12 0 11 8 ; 11-6 10 0 10'-0 9 6" 18'-11" 17'-0" 1 V-6" 13'-11" 12'-0" 9'/2' 60001.7 1 T-8" 16 2 15 3 14 3 12 11' 11-6 11-6 10 C 10_ 9-10" 19'-8" 17'-11" 18'-9" 15'-0" 13'-0" - 65001.8 18'-5" 16'-10"; 15-11" 14'-10" 13'-6" 11-6'-�11-6" 10 0 �v10-0' { 10'-o" 20'-0" 18'-8" 17'-8" 16'-5" 14'-3" 50001.7 20 2" 18'-5" 17'-5" 15'-9" 1 13'-4" 15'-6" 14'-4" i 13'-6 12'-7" I ii'-5" 22'-3" 19'-4" 1T-7" 15'-9" 13'�" 60001.7 21-0" 19 2' 18'-1' 16'-10" 14'-8" 15-6 14 11 1 14 1 13 1 11 10" 23'-2" 20'-10" 19'-0" 17'-0" 14'-8" 65001.8 21'-11 20 0 18'-11" 17-7" 14'-10" 164" i 1b 7 14 9 1 13-$" 12'-5 24'-3" 22'-2" 20'-11" 18'-10" 14'-10" --�-- -,-_ - - ---, 802.0 23'-3T 2D'-1" { 18' 8" 16'-4" 18-0 116 7' r 15 7' I '14-6 r 13'-2 25'-9" 23'-0" 22'-3" 20'-9" 16'--4" 902.0 26'-3" j 23'-11"i 22'-0" 20'-11"' 19'-1" 19'-0' 18 7" i 17-6 18-2" 14'-8" 29'-0" 26'-6" 25'-0" 23'-3" 19'-4" B000 1.7 23'-10"121'-9" 20'-7" 18"-6" 15'-5" 18'-8" =1'T-0' 16'-O" 14'=11''113'-6" 26'-0" 22'-0" 20'4" 18'-6" 15'-5" 65001.8 24-10" 22'-9" 21-5" ; 20-0" 15 5' 19 5 1 17 9 t 16 8 15-6 14 1" 27-6 25'-1" 22'-11" 20'-6" 15'-5" 14" 602.0 26'-5" 24'-2" 22 9 21 3' 16-4' 204 - 7 9 16 5 14-11" 29'-3" 26'-8" 25'-3" 21'-10" 16'-4" 902.0 29'-9" j 2T-1" ! 25'--6" 23'-8" 19'-6" 23'-3"-, 21-1' 19-9" 1 18-4' 1 16'-7" { 32'-10" 30'-0" 28'-3" 26'-0" 19'-6" 65001.8 27'-5" 25'-1" 23' 8" 21'-l" 15-9" 21-0 19 7 j 18 5 17 2' 15-7' 30'-4" 26'-11" 24'-6" 21'-1" 15'-9" 16" 802.0 29'-3" 26'-8' 25 2 j 21'-10 16-4" 22'-•10 ' 2( 14 1 7 18 2 16-4 c: 32'-4" 29'-8" 27*-4" 21'-10" 16'-4" 802.0 32'-11"; 29'-11 28'-2' 26'-2" 19-7' 25 8 23-4' 21 11 2Q 3'_ { 18'-4' 36'-4" 33'-2" 31'-3" 2V-2" 19'-7" 18" 902.0 35'-11" 32'-8" 30'-9' 28'-7" 23'-10" 28'-1 25-5 2T-11" 22'-2' 20-D" 39'-8" 36'_2" 34'_1" 31'-9" 23'-10" 20" 902.0 38'-10"' 35' 4" 33'-4" 30'_11" 24'-8„ 30-4" 27-6" 26-11" 24'-O'.' 21'78" 1 42'-11" 39'-1" 36'_10" 32,_11" 24'-8" Table values based on residential floor bads of 40 psf Eve bad and Table values represent the most resmtive of simple or multiple span Table values assume minimum bearing lengths without web stiffeners 10 psf dead bad(12 psf dead load for BCI*90 2.0 joists). applications. for)Dist depths of 16'inches and less(18'3 20'joists require web Table values assume that"/,;min.plywood! Table values are the maximum allowable dear distance between stiffeners at all bearing locations). OSB•rated sheathing is glued and nailed to joists. supports. This table was designed to apply to a broad range of applications. It may be possible to exceed the limitations of this table by analyzing a sped6c application with the BC CALC•sizing software. BCI® Design Properties BCI• End Reaction Ibs Intermediate Reaction�IbsL__ NOTES: ---- Joist Depth Weight Momenl El x 101 K x 10, Shear 1a1;Bearing- 3'/;Bearing T/2 Bearing 5'/;Bearing __ _r_ r._- _ (1) No web stiffeners Series inches fl-Ibs Ib In' bs bs No WS'111 WSm No WSi11 WSm No WSM WSm No WSM WSm required. 5000 91/2 2.0 2460 160 5.0 1475 950 1125 1125 1275 2100 2350 2525 2750 ------ ---- -- -------- ---- -- --- - -- --�-------------- (2) Web stiffeners h 1.7 1P/e 2.5 3150 265 6.0 1625 950 1425 1425 1475 2250 2850 2525 3000 required. 0� 91/2 2.2 2865 180 5.0 1575 1175 1375 1375 1425 2400 2650 2700 2750 (3) Not applicable.web 6000 --_. - -- 117/e 2.514350 3670 305 6.0 1675 1175 1425 1425 1475 2500 2850 2900 3000 stiffeners required. 1.7 -- --14 2.7 445 80 1925 1175 1525 1525 1725 2600 3150 2925 3200 • Moment,shear and reactions values based 91/2 2.3 3505 210 5.0 1575 1175 1375 1375 1425 2400 2650 2700 2750 upon a load duration -�- --- -- - -- - -- --- -- - .•--- ---- -- ---------- of 100%and maybe 6500 11 /e 2.6 4495 350 7.0 1675 1175 1425 1425 1475 2500 2850 2900 3000 adjusted for other load 1.8 2.9 3 515 8.0 1925 1175 1525 1525 1725 2600 3150 2925 3200 durations. 16 3.1 6085 695 9.0 2175 1175 1625 1550 1975 2650 3350 2950 3350 • Design values listed are applicable for Allowable 11% 2.9 235 430 7.0 1675 1175 1425 1425 1475 2750 2850 3200 3250 Stress Design(ASD). - - - - - -. --._ - -- - -- ----- -- -- _- 60 2.0 14 3 1 7446 635 8.0 1925 1175 1525 1525 1725 2750 3450 3200 3650 16 3.3 8520 0 9.0 2175 1175 1625 1550 1975 2750 3650 3200 3750 BUILDING CODE v 117/e 3.9 550 645 7.0 2150 1425 1850 1800 1950 3375 3700 4000 4300 EVALUATION REPORTS J 14 4.1 11390 940 8.0 2350 1450 1950 1850 2150 3400 3850 4100 _4450 - ICC ESR 1336 p 90 2. 16 4.4 1 050 1275 ^9.0 2550 1475 2150 1900 2350 3425 4000 4200 4650 (IBC,IRC,UBC) 18 4.6 1W0 1660 10.0 2750 NAM 2300 NAM 2550 NAM 4150 N/A(3) 4750 20 4.8 16310 2100 11.0 2850 N/Ant 2500 N/A(3) 2650 N/A(3) 4300 r N/At31 4850 _ 5 w l4 w l2 0 = deflection[in] 384 EI + K w = uniform load[lb/in] 1 = clear span[in] EI = bending stiffness[lb-ins] 11/2005 K = shear deformation coefficient[lib] CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 VERSA-LAM® VERSA-LAM® BOISE BCI®5000 1.7 BCI®6000 1.7 BCI®6500 1.8 BCI®60 2.0 BCI®90 2.0 2.02800 2.0 3100 GLULAMTM 1'/a" I 1'/z"I T ,�/z"T �I 1 /a"I 1 /a" I T 117/e" i 9 /z' /s" 14" 5'/2" + 5'/2" < , 4 /z" 9 /z' s/a" 117/a" 3/8' 14" 3/8" 16" to to 24" f to 3/8„ 9'/2" 3/e" 11�/a" 14" 16 18" �S 18" 24„ a., _l 1 �I I� �I I-- �I I� —►I I� —►I If— �I �I f~I — 2" 25/16" 29/16" 25/16" 31/2" 1314",2'18'* 3'h",5'/4",7" 3'/8',3'/z",5'/8',5'/2 *Product may'not be available. Check with supplier or Boise representative for availability. 631a" gala" 103/a"* Increase in category is an increase in span length. See page 4 for BCI®Residential Floor Span Tables. I� 15/16"T 1 Ve"T —{— —}— 1 /2"I 1 /a"I T . . I' I, hr 9 ilz.. 9,/z" 9 /z' 9 /z 3/8" 117/8" 3/8" 117/8" 3/8„ 9'/z" �.,' 3/8.. 9'/2" 3/$'r 117/8" 3/B" 117/e" 14" 1 ., 117/8" ? 117/a" 14" 14" 16" 61 I ,Imo-- --•I �� —�I Imo— . �I 'I� --�I I� � �I I--- kk 11/2" 2" 13/4" �� 25/,6" 25/16" a 29/16" / l 101 . Scope: This work includes the complete Design: The BCI®Joists shall be sized Storage and Installation: The BCI® furnishing and installation of all BCI®Joists and detailed to fit the dimensions and loads Joists, if stored prior to erection, shall be as shown on the drawings, herein specified indicated on the plans.All designs shall be stored in a vertical and level position and and necessary to complete the work. in accordance with allowable values and protected from the weather. They shall Materials: BCI®Joists shall be manu- section properties developed in accordance be handled with care so they are not factured by Boise Engineered Wood with ASTM D5055 and listed in the damaged. Products with oriented strand board governing code evaluation service's report. The BCI®Joists are to be installed in webs, VERSA-LAM®laminated veneer Drawing: Additional drawings showing accordance with the plans and the Boise lumber flanges and waterproof;structural layout and detail necessary for determining Engineered Wood Products Installation adhesives. fit and placement in the building are (are Guide.Temporary construction loads which Joist webs shall be graded Structural I not)to be provided by the supplier. cause stresses beyond design limits are Exposure 1 by an agency listed by a model ® not permitted. Erection bracing shall be code evaluation service. Strands on the Fabrication: The BCI Joists and section provided to keep the BCI®Joists straight properties shall be manufactured in a plant and plumb as required and to assure face layers of the web panels shall be evaluated for fabrication by the governing adequateplum lateral eu support for the individual oriented vertically in the joist. The web code evaluation service and under the BCI®Joists and the entire system until the panels shall be glued together to form a supervision of a third-party inspection sheathing material has been applied. continuous web member.The web panels agency listed by the corresponding pp shall be machined to fit into a groove in evaluation service. Codes: The BCI®Joists shall be evaluated the center of the wide face of the flange by a model code evaluation service. members so as to form a pressed glue joint at that junction. Western Specifier Guide Nov 2005 Mi tA dl NrN r ly I ' T--r -� t I I i _ -_ I-- ,Y j J - PK ► I I I s i ��_ � i I i 1 K If _ z4o, 1 -I-- -+-1-- - -- I _ { I i� 4 f 71' i -,-- ,- i __f v. y Y- 37 ( I� l2 i o z z- ( Ooo 3 2--- Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59th Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Office: (206) 242-7665 Fax: Same Eastwood Enterprises,Inc. August 11, 2010 Attn: Paul Reeves 5105 Solberg Dr. S.W. Lakewood, WA 98499 Subject: Beam Sizing, Transverse at Left Rear Section of Building, Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA Dear Mr. Reeves: Attached are beam calculations for the beam to replace the existing haphazd "composite" transverse beam observed and measured on August 1 Oth on the site. A sketch is provided as a reference with the span measurements and beam location. It is recommended that: 1. The new beam be placed in the same location. Note that the replacement beam also is adequate for the adjacent span of 9.75 feet,which may be installed as a separate span or as a continuation of the 16.50 foot span beam. This beam size is also adequate for the third span in the line of the other two beams,the third span also being approximately 16 feet. 2. Connection clips of some sort should be provided where the new beams rest on their supports, although the importance of these clips is small, their installation is good and standard practice. As necessary,the rear rafters supported by the beam should be connected with hangers unless the rafters rest on top of the new beam. Questions relating the above may be made directly to this office. Sincerely, s" ' r Bruce S. MacVei ,P.E. Civil Engineer � �� �� reeves07/0837 Summery of Calculated New Be — - T Beam, Left Rear and Central Rear Area Glulam, Fb=2,400 psi 3-1/8" x 12" Rf. � ' UNIs � V �v I N Q/� t7/!-?/ D/ �.t�:✓�7�n�"�1!.•-�' �/�� -�. may- r'r c�G'�•-` 2i(:74 Clfi dom �! '19 BEAM CALCULATIONS Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. 14245 59th Ave. S. DATE: BY: Tukwila;WA 98168 ��slt✓ Z- �, d�,.aj -g-v.er Office: (206)242-7665 LOCATION: �/� -� , s vr-A C If Fax: Same SPAN= L= AV,�" FEET DL = z O PSF LL = z PSF TL = PSF w = TL x spacing = 315- PLF MDES.(UNIF. LOAD) — w x L2/8 FT#z = 31 s- L/ FT# FT # lz L-1 ?o IN# MDES. (POINT LOAD) — (( X) /L P) x X FT # FT # FT # IN # BEAM OR JOIST TYPE : �G/r�9ra ; 38 N X Z 'M1 Fb = ZI PSI S = bxd /6IN' - M = �S` z.9 a IN# (cap.) w� GREATER THAN Z �� 3 j A THEREFORE OKAY - .rWSES: 4/24// �l %L� C7 O r Ir �_J, N Lass�r� cllo�j a id�Dp�^,;G°l t � � .;� �:;,tom]Lam/ { J '�pc✓s 1 6 lJ ;� '►To Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59 h Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Office: (206) 242-7665 Fax: Same Eastwood Enterprises,Inc. August 11, 2010 Attn: Paul Reeves 5105 Solberg Dr. S.W. Lakewood, WA 98499 Subject: Beam Sizing, Rafter Repair,Right Front Section of Building(Kitchen Area), Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview, WA Dear Mr. Reeves: Attached are calculations for the spliced repair of the existing rough cut 2" x 6" DF rafters in this section. The outer one-third has rotted out, and the original sizing was found to be under strength. A sketch is provided as a reference with the span measurements and layout. It is recommended that: 1. The rotted portions of the rafters should be completely removed and a new 2" x 10" HF#2 be glued and spliced on the remaining portion of the existing rafter. 2. The splice should be fully glued along the splice with a construction adhesive such as "Liquid Nails",with the new rafter firmly nailed to the existing rafter. Note that the nails are to secure the connection while the adhesive is curing and have no calculational value. 3. While the length of the new 2" x 10" is a minimum of 10 feet, it may, at the contractor's option,be placed full span. 4. H-1 clips should be placed at the connections of the rafters to the outer wall. 5. The bottom of the new 2" x 10" may be trimmed away in the outer third or so near the wall to maintain a finished ceiling height level with the top plate. 6. The rafters are to be blocked at the outer wall location in all spaces. Questions relating the above may be made directly to this office. Sincerely, ' J. i Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer 1 r7 reeves07/0837 �o I Cs !JKPIRES; 4124/ /� - I- -- ._ IF ' I i I _ S _ XIM.1 i t _i I ► _� I I � I � I ---.7 7 G'7 - - I I ; .I I i i fi ---- - I ' 00 pre ice_ LA I I I to ' -- �.� 1 0 E �6iW1REs: area /C BEAM CALCULATIONS Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. 14245 59th Ave. S. DATE: ///,�G'� `/� BY: �s� Tukwila;WA 98168 �� s^ Office: (206)242-7665 Fax: Same LOCATION: �iz�i'�''r -' FZ s SPAN= L= FEET DL = Z e) PSF LL = Z S` PSF TL = S� PSF w = TL x spacing PLF 0 MDES.(UNIF. LOAD) - w x L2/8 FT # 9 FT# FT # IN# MDES. (POINT LOAD) _ ((L .— ) /L x P) x X FT# FT # IN # Fb = BEAM OR JOIST TYPE : z x,r© �° PSI IN3 _ 2-/ IN3 o fz/, Z�} = 28 .3 IN# 0 w ' M(cap.) GREATER THAN v �/ WIRES: 4/24/ THEREFORE OKAY %(,i 41 ei 're Tu,c N 71S ............. j2 rapc-v i,a L'o Ce eKe-y-a- Z,i 43-71 cp THESE PLANS MUST BE `8 S IT E ON THE j11-; FOR INSPECfION. ck- r U , .f,_j 2- 1 DOO 0 Documents attaclied ip approved piano Site Plan Plan review chlrxjklist: Engineering:CV N Lateral *,tic Mumbpr of pups D MASON BUILDING I CTI.? q1j, IVO7`` `I vyfp/� r �Ll !r �y ® W Q Ckf �¢ W d n O VLLo Joe-,,- � t vi`M.d Ac.� N t S Fr�v�� Zo,I ,/4 43.r71 Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59a'Ave. S., Tukwila,WA 98168 Office: (206) 242-7665 Fax: Same June 20,2010 Eastwood Enterprises,Inca Attn: Paul Reeves 5105 Solberg Dr.S.W_ Lakewood,.WA 98499 Subject: Beam Sizing,Remodel of Existing Gas Station Building, Grapeview`Loop Road, Grapeview,WA Dear Mr.Reeves: Attached are beam calculations for the beams to replace the existing ones observed and measured of June 20th on the site. A sketch is provided as a reference with the span measurements of each beam location. It is recommended that: 1. The new beams be placed<in,the same locations due to the apparent(but not verified) column foundation supports in their present location. 2. That all wood columns or posts be replaced with 6"x 6 "members,HF#2. 3. Connection brackets of proper size provided to attach the tops of the new columns to. the new beams. Questions relating the above may be made directly to this office. Sincerely, r M ` G Fw�sy - Bruce S.MacVeigh,P.E. �Jo Gtc� Civil Engineer a Cn reeves05b/0837 ° EXPIRES: 4124/ CHANGES SUBMIT CHANGES FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PERFORMING WORK �d l n� ��� � c-s 7 R L-� uf-T,- jr 0 CKD i 7 crr ai A a c4r i� f e � AOf � �J��a� a(n�c��J� 2-1 IT 11i Ili wy �C CYA 0,y -J . �f) ,,tooQ