Loading...
23B-046 (65) April 29,2005 Anthony Patillo Structural Engineering Peer Review Page 2 Based on our review of representative elements and systems as well as discussions and correspondence with the Structural-Engineering-of-Record, we find that the design of the superstructures (primary building and chiller plant) is conceptually correct, there are no major errors in the design and structural information presented in the documents is in general conformance with the Massachusetts State Building Code, Sixth Edition. Very truly yours, SOUZ RU ANLO PARTNERS, INC. , TERRY o ASHTON LOU DERBACK STRUCTURAL Terry A. rback, P.E. 28641 Presiden TAL/atf oNA1.�' cc: Ms. Juanita M. Forsythe - FCS Cooley Dickinson Hospital 30 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 dg-B - q('.0 653 Mount Auburn Street Watertown, Massachusetts 02472 Telephone 617-926-6100 Telefax 617-924-4431 email:souzatrue@souzatrue.com SO U ZA, TRUE TERRY A.LOUDER BACK,P.E. PRAVIN V.SHAH,P.E. AND PARTNERS, INC. JEROME A.YURKOSKI,P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DAVID T.GILL,P.E. April 29,2005 M,AY n 1,/05 Anthony Anthony Patillo, Building Commissioner Northampton Building Department i 212 Main Street, Room 100 , Northampton,MA 01060-3189 Reference: Structural Engineering Peer Review New Surgery/Beds Expansion Project Cooley Dickinson Hospital Northampton, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Patillo: As the owner has requested and as a follow-up to our earlier review of the foundation design, we have conducted an independent structural engineering review of the superstructures of the above referenced project and their connections to the foundations. Our review has been conducted in accordance with Section 110.11 of the Massachusetts State Building Code, Sixth Edition.Note that the parts of the review of the superstructure had previously been performed in order to evaluate the foundation design. The documents reviewed were as follows: 1. Structural Drawings 5100, S202.A, S202.B, S203.A, S203B, S204.A, S204.B, S210 and 5402 up to and including Addendum No. 4 dated 4/7/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. 2. Structural Drawings S200.A, S200.B, S201.A, S2013 and S401 up to and including Addendum No. 2 dated 3/21/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. 3. Specification Sections 05120 (Structural Steel), 05130 (Shear Connectors), 05210 (Steel Joists) and 05300 (Metal Decking) all dated 3/21/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. FOUNDED IN 1959 BY - RICHARD W. SOUZA AND EDWARD K.TRUE Jeffrey W. Strube, PE Struble Engineering,, LLC 604 Main Street Reading, MA 01867-2951 (781) 942-3845 V (781) 942-7083 F 6/23/2005 11.1.�V i Va v Terry Louderback From: Jeffrey Struble gws.strublengr@comcast.net) Sent: Friday, May 13,2005 2:26 PM To: touderback@souzatrue.com Subject: RE: Cooley Dickinson Hospital-Copy of Bulletin with Peer Review Updates Thanks, Terry. I've asked the architect to send you a copy of the official issue of the Bulletin,which should go out today or Monday. Jeffrey W Struble, PE Struble Engineering, LLC 604 Main Street Reading, MA 01867-2951 (781) 942-3845 V (781) 942-7083 F From:Terry Louderback[mailto:tiouderback @souzatrue.com] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 2:48 PM To:jws.strublengr @comcast.net Subject: FW: Cooley Dickinson Hospital -Copy of Bulletin with Peer Review Updates Jeff: Your rationale on the braced frames sounds reasonable to me. I think I inadvertently sent your original e-mail back to you just now. Terry From. Jeffrey Struble [mailto:jws.strublengr @ comcast.net] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 1:13 PM To: Terry Louderback Subject: Cooley Dickinson Hospital -Copy of Bulletin with Peer Review Updates Terry: Attached is a copy of the bulletin I'm preparing for the Cooley Dickinson Hospital project that incorporates the revisions we discussed during your peer review some days ago. I'm sending it to see if you have any comments or concerns. The only explanation I should give is in the re-sizing of the diagonal braces to comply with the AISC seismic provisions for ordinary braced frames. i re-sized to keep the slenderness ratios under 0106 plus keep the b/t ratios under 16.22(Table 1-9-1). This b/t restriction demands relatively thick walls and therefore heavier members. To minimize the increases, I used actual brace lengths and assumed some fixity at the brace ends to compute Kl/r. I don't normally do this in braced buildings, but I wanted to keep the extra costs to a minimum. The commentary for AISC's seismic provisions says that the reasons for the limitations are to better the performance of the members in the inelastic range (energy dissipation for the KI/r restrictions;ductility for the b/t ratios). I have no doubt that these members won't reach the inelastic range due to the lack of mass in the stair areas to impart inertial loads to the braces to make them plastic. Nonetheless,the code should be followed,so I've made reasonable assumptions about the diagonal's physical behavior and sized them accordingly. Let me know if this doesn't suit you. Thanks. 6/23/2005 Terry Louderback From: Terry Louderback[tiouderback @souzatrue.com] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:48 PM To: 'jws.strublengr @comcast.net' Subject: FW: Cooley Dickinson Hospital-Copy of Bulletin with Peer Review Updates Jeff: Your rationale on the braced frames sounds reasonable to me. I think I inadvertently sent your original e-mail back to you just now. Terry From: Jeffrey Struble [mailto:jws.strublengr @comcast.net] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 1:13 PM To:Terry Louderback Subject: Cooley Dickinson Hospital -Copy of Bulletin with Peer Review Updates Terry: Attached is a copy of the bulletin I'm preparing for the Cooley Dickinson Hospital project that incorporates the revisions we discussed during your peer review some days ago. I'm sending it to see if you have any comments or concerns. The only explanation I should give is in the re-sizing of the diagonal braces to comply with the AISC seismic provisions for ordinary braced frames. I re-sized to keep the slenderness ratios under L/106 plus keep the b/t ratios under 16.22 (Table 1-9-1). This b/t restriction demands relatively thick walls and therefore heavier members. To minimize the increases, I used actual brace lengths and assumed some fixity at the brace ends to compute Kl/r. I don't normally do this in braced buildings, but I wanted to keep the.extra coasts to a minimum. The commentary for AISC's seismic provisions says that the reasons for the limitations are to better the performance of the members in the inelastic range (energy dissipation for the KVr restrictions;ductility for the b/t ratios). I have no doubt that these members won't reach the inelastic range due to the lack of mass in the stair areas to impart inertial loads to the braces to make them plastic. Nonetheless,the code should be followed,so I've made reasonable assumptions about the diagonal's physical behavior and sized them accordingly. Let me know if this doesn't suit you. Thanks. Jeffrey W. Struble, PE Struble Engineering, LLC 604 Main Street Reading, MA 01867-2951 (781)942-3845 V (781) 942-7083 F 6/23/2005 Item 04—Reference Drawing S-402, STAIR BRACING—SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONS. Revise the diagonal brace member sizes and axial forces as follows: Elev. SB1: Revise the HSS5x5x318 (}26 k) to an HSS8x8x112 (±32 k) below the Third Floor(lowest diagonal) Revise the HSS5x5x5 116(+26 k) to an HSS6x6x3l8 (t32 k) between the Third and Fourth Floors(middle diagonal) Revise the HSS5x5x5ll6 (±26 k) to an HSS6x6x3l8 (±32 k) between the Fourth Floor and East Stair Roof(upper diagonal) a@ Elev. SB2: Revise the HSS5x5xll4 (+26 k) to an HSS6x6x3l8 (+32 k) between the Elevator Lobby and the Fourth Floor(lower diagonal) Revise the HSS5x5xll4 (±26 k) to an HSS6x6x3l8(±32 k) between the Fourth Floor and Future Elevator Lobby(middle diagonal) Revise the HSS5x5xll4 (±26 k) to an HSS6x6x3l8(±32 k) between the Future Elevator Lobby and the Penthouse Roof (upper diagonal) @ Elev.. SB3: Revise both of the lowest K-brace diagonals, HSS5x5x3l8 (±32 k) to HSS6x6x3l8 (±36 k) Revise the HSS5x5xll4 (±26 k) to an HSS6x6x3l8 (+32 k) between the Third and Fourth Floors (lower single diagonal) Revise the HSS5x5x1/4 (}26 k) to an HSS6x6x3l8 (±32 k) between the Fourth and Fifth Floors (middle single diagonal) Revise the HSS5x5xll4(+26 k) to an HSS6x6x3l8 (+32 k) between the Fifth Floor and the Penthouse Roof(upper diagonal) Text item for inclusion in Bulletin No 300 for Package F.1, 05/13/05 Item 01 — Reference Structural Steel Specification Section 05120-2.01-C. Revise the first sentence in this section to read as follows: "Anchor bolts shall comply with the requirements of ASTM A307, except A 325 as indicated on the Drawings A( STM F1554 material with a minimum tensile strength of 905 ksi would be an acceptable alternative forA325 anchorbolts)." (underlined text is new). Item 02— Reference Shear Connector Specification Section 05130-1.05. Add subsection 1.05-E as follows: E. All shear studs field-welded to beams with flange thicknesses less than 0.30"shall be located within %"of the beam centerlines. The Owner's Testing Agency will verify this placement in their inspection of the shear stud installations. Item 03— Reference Drawing S-210, Section F1. Append the bond beam reference at elevation 217'-4"to read "OVER 12'0"DOOR OPENING—EXTEND 2'-0"PAST JAMBS" This deletes the mid-height bond beam at all walls except at the roll-up door. Revise the 8"-CMU REINFORCING NOTE to read as follows: "8"REINFORCED CMU W 1#5 a@ 32"o.c. VERT. IN FULLY-GROUTED CELLS, 249 WIRES HORZ. @ 8"o.c. PLUS BOND BMS. AS SHOWN." This spaces the horizontal joint reinforcing at each joint instead of alternate joints (added wires replace the deleted mid-height bond beam). Terry Louderback From: Jeffrey Struble Ows.strublengr @comcast.net] Sent: Friday,May 13,2005 1:13 PM To: Terry Louderback Subject: Cooley Dickinson Hospital-Copy of Bulletin with Peer Review Updates Terry: Attached is a copy of the bulletin I'm preparing for the Cooley Dickinson Hospital project that incorporates the revisions we discussed during your peer review some days ago. I'm sending it to see if you have any comments or concerns. The only explanation I should give is in the re-sizing of the diagonal braces to comply with the AISC seismic provisions for ordinary braced frames. I re-sized to keep the slenderness ratios under L/106 plus keep the b/t ratios under 16.22 (Table 1-9-1). This b/t restriction demands relatively thick walls and therefore heavier members. To minimize the increases, I used actual brace lengths and assumed some fixity at the brace ends to compute KI/r. I don't normally do this in braced buildings, but I wanted to keep the extra costs to a minimum. The commentary for AISC's seismic provisions says that the reasons for the limitations are to better the performance of the members in the inelastic range (energy dissipation for the KI/r restrictions;ductility for the b/t ratios). I have no doubt that these members won't reach the inelastic range due to the lack of mass in the stair areas to impart inertial loads to the braces to make them plastic. Nonetheless,the code should be followed,so I've made reasonable assumptions about the diagonal's physical behavior and sized them accordingly. Let me know if this doesn't suit you. Thanks. Jeffrey W. Struble, PE Struble Engineering, LLC 604 Main Street Reading, MA 01867-2951 (781) 942-3845 V (781) 942-7083 F 6/23/2005 NOWOMMM April 29,2005 Anthony Patillo Structural Engineering Peer Review Page 2 Based on our review of representative elements and systems as well as discussions and correspondence with the Structural-Engineering-of-Record, we find that the design of the superstructures (primary building and chiller plant) is conceptually correct, there are no major errors in the design and structural information presented in the documents is in general conformance with the Massachusetts State Building Code, Sixth Edition. Very truly yours, SOUZ RU A PARTNERS, INC. TERRY �© AStiTON LOUDER A4K , STRUCTURAL . Terry A. Wrback,P.E. 28641 Presiden � oNAt� TAL/atf cc: Ms. Juanita M. Forsythe - FCS Cooley Dickinson Hospital 30 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 i 653 Mount Auburn Street r Watertown, Massachusetts 02472 Telephone 617-926-6100 Telefax 617-924-4431 email:souzatrue @souzatrue.com SOUZAP TRUE TERRY A.AVINV.SHAH,P.E. PRAVIN V.SHAH,P.E. AND PARTNERS, INC. JEROME A.YU RKOSKI,P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DAVID T.clot,P.E. April 29, 2005 Anthony Patillo,Building Commissioner Northampton Building Department 212 Main Street, Room 100 Northampton, MA 01060-3189 Reference: Structural Engineering Peer Review New Surgery/Beds Expansion Project Cooley Dickinson Hospital Northampton, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Patillo: As the owner has requested and as a follow-up to our earlier review of the foundation design, we have conducted an independent structural engineering review of the superstructures of the above referenced project and their connections to the foundations. Our review has been conducted in accordance with Section 110.11 of the Massachusetts State Building Code,l Sixth Edition. Note that the parts of the review of the superstructure had previously been performed in order to evaluate the foundation design. The documents reviewed were as follows: 1. Structural Drawings S 100, S202.A, S202.B, S203.A, S203B, S204.A, S204.B, 5210 and S402 up to and including Addendum No. 4 dated 4/7/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. 2. Structural Drawings S200.A, S200.B, S201.A, S2013 and S401 up to and including Addendum No. 2 dated 3/21/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. 3. Specification Sections 05120 (Structural Steel), 05130 (Shear Connectors), 05210 (Steel Joists) and 05300 (Metal Decking) all dated 3/21/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. FOUNDED IN 1959 BY RICHARD W. SOUZA AND EDWARD K.TRUE (781) 942-3845 V (781)942-7083 F 6/23/2005 Terry Louderback From: Terry Louderback[tiouderback @souzatrue.com] Sent: Friday,April 29,2005 4:12 PM To: 'jws.strublengr@comcast.net' Subject: RE: 524 CMR-Section 17.02-CDH Jeff: I have gone over your responses to my questions and run a few quick calcs of my own just for comfort. Having done all that plus our discussions, I have now written a letter to the Northampton Building Department stating my belief that the superstructures (main building and chiller plant) are properly designed. (As I mentioned previously, I have already submitted my foundation review letter). I indicated in my latest letter that we did have discussions and correspondence without being specific about the issues.Thus, my review is considered to be based on the documents plus our correspondence/discussions. In my view, you have developed a good design and presented it very well. Plus, I appreciate your thorough and thoughtful responses to my questions. Please copy me on any document updates. Incidentally,we are going to order the new elevator regulations as a result of this. Best regards, Terry From: Jeffrey Strubie (mailto:jws.strublengr @comcast.net] Sent:Thursday,April 28, 2005 9:36 AM To:Terry Louderback Subject: 524 CMR -Section 17.02 -CDH Terry: I finally connected with TRO regarding the relevant section of the elevator code that we've been discussing vis-a- vis safety factors for the CDH columns. I read off the requirements that were shown on the fax you sent me yesterday and listed the sub-section number, 17.02. TRO's copy of this code,which is dated 1998,states that this sub-section is appended with a note that says it is only applicable to installations that occurred prior to July 1, 1989. Since the date on your faxed page of the code is 12/31/86, is it possible that this requirement has "morphed"into something else for new installations? TRO's inquiries to the State safety office resulted in their being directed to ASME A17,1-2000, Section 2.9, "Machinery and Sheave Beams, Supports and Foundations"as being applicable to Mass. elevator installations (by adoption). This section requires doubling the elevator reactions with allowable stresses on the supports being no higher than 80% from the elevator loads alone(100% for these loads plus non-elevator loads). The hand- written notes on your fax("use 80% of allowable"] may be in reference to this. I believe my maximum stress level for these columns was about 77% of allowable(including non-elevator loads). I point this out as a matter of curiosity. I just ordered a copy of CMR 524 online,so I'll be able to research this myself(it won't come for at least a week, although the State tacks on an °Expedited Processing Fee"over and above shipping and handling). Any thoughts on the matter? Jeffrey W. Strube, PE Struble Eryineering, LLC 604 Main Street Reading, MA 01867-2951 6/23/2005 "D Terry Louderback From: Jeffrey Struble ows.strublengr @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday,April 28,2005 9:36 AM To: Terry Louderback Subject: 524 CMR-Section 17.02-CDH Terry: I finally connected with TRO regarding the relevant section of the elevator code that we've been discussing vis-a- vis safety factors for the CDH columns. I read off the requirements that were shown on the fax you sent me yesterday and listed the sub-section number, 17.02. TRO's copy of this code,which is dated 1998,states that this sub-section is appended with a note that says it is only applicable to installations that occurred prior to July 1, 1989. Since the date on your faxed page of the code is 12/31/86, is it possible that this requirement has"morphed" into something else for new installations? TRO's inquiries to the State safety office resulted in their being directed to ASME A17.1-2000, Section 2.9, "Machinery and Sheave Beams,Supports and Foundations"as being applicable to Mass.elevator installations (by adoption). This section requires doubling the elevator reactions with allowable stresses on the supports being no higher than 80% from the elevator loads alone (100% for these loads plus non-elevator loads). The hand- written notes on your fax Cuse 80% of allowable') may be in reference to this. I believe my maximum stress level for these columns was about 77% of allowable(including non-elevator loads). I point this out as a matter of curiosity. I just ordered a copy of CMR 524 online, so I'll be able to research this myself(t won't come for at least a week, although the State tacks on an "Expedited Processing Fee"over and above shipping and handling). Any thoughts on the matter? Jeffrey W. Struble, PE Struble Engineering, LLC 604 Main Street Reading, MA 01867-2951 (781) 942-3845 V (781) 942-7083 F 6/23/2005 524 CMR: BOARD OF ELEVATOR REGULATIONS 17.02: continued (12) All overhead machinery and sheaves shall be supported on steel beams. Controllers, motor generator sets and other auxiliary equipment may be mounted on the machine room or secondary level floor provided the floor is designed to support the imposed static load. Governors may be mounted on machine room or secondary level floors if the floor is designed to withstand the impact load resulting from the application of the car safety device. Supports for machinery and sheave beams shall be of sufficient strength to support the imposed loads and may be building walls or.frames. (13) Supporting beams if used shall be so supported and fastened in place as to effectually prevent same from becoming loose or displaced under the conditions imposed in service. (14) Loads on overhead beams and their supports shall be computed as follows: (a) The total load on overhead beams shall be assumed as equal to the weight of all apparatus resting on the beams plus twice the maximum load ' suspended from the beams. (b) The load resting on the beams shall include the complete weights of machine, sheaves, controllers, etc. The load suspended from the beams shall include the sum of the tensions of all ropes suspended from the beams. (15) No elevator machinery, other than the deflector or secondary sheaves or signal devices, shall be fastened to the overhead supporting beams by means of a tension connection. (16) Where winding drum machines are used, a permanent beam or bar shall be provided at the top of the counterweight guides and beneath the counterweight rope sheaves to prevent the counterweights from being drawn into the sheaves. It shall be of such strength that the ropes will be pulled out of the sockets before there is failure of the beam. The bar or beam shall be located in line with the center of mass of the counterweight, or if more than one stop is used, they shall be located symmetrically with respect to the counterweight. x(17) The required factor of safety for all steel overhead beams and their supports, based upon both the average ultimate strength of the in terial and the Inzkds;shall be not less than five($). (18) The allowable deflections of overhead beams and their supports shall be in accordance with.the following: (a) For overhead machine beams of all a.c. installations, and for d.c. installations where the car speed is over one hundred fifty (150) f.p.m., the deflection under std load shall not exceed 1/2000 of the span. (b) For overhead machine beams of d.c. installation, where the-car speed is one hundreV-fifty (150) f.p.m. or less, the deflection under„-”"fate load shall not exceed 1/1666-of the span. "�"� (c) For all overhead sheave beams the deflection under static load shall not exceed 1/1333 of the span. (d) For overhead beams supporting the machine beams, the deflection under static load shall not exceed 1/1666 of the span. (19) Heating of Machinery Spaces and Hoistways. ` ` (a) Any source of heat may be used which does not contaminate the air in the above-mentioned spaces, and which does not conflict with any existing - health, fire or building ordinance. *' (b) Temperature. Any system of heating shall have a capacity to insure a ;: t continuous uniform temperature in machinery spaces and hoistways of not " ¢ ' less than fifty(50) degrees Fahrenheit and higher as required by the elevator manufacturer's specifications. (c) Machine rooms shall be provided with natural or other means of ventilation to avoid overheating of the electrical equipment and to insure safe operation of the elevator, with the temperature not to exceed ninety degrees(90°) Fahrenheit. q. 12/31/86 524 CMR - 133 -71&3 653 Mount Auburn Street � rWatertown, Massachusetts 02472 Telephone 617-926-6100 Telefax 617-924-4431 email:souzatrue @souzatrue.com S O U ZA, TRUE TERRY A.AVIN V.SHAH,P.E. PRAVIN V.SHAH,P.E. AND PARTNERS, INC. JEROME A.YURKOSKI,P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DAVID T.GILL,P.E. -TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL- (617-924-4431) DATE: ��� zo COMPANY: J'�r me ATTN: �� P(4 6 �� FROM: PROJECT NAME JOB# `� NUMBER OF PAGES INC UDING TRANSMITTAL: red P v ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL: IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (617) 926-6100 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. FOUNDED IN 1959 BY RICHARD W. SOUZA AND EDWARD K.TRUE 5TRUSLE ENGINEERING, L L C 604 Main Street, Reading, MA 01867-2951 (781) 942-3845 PROJECT C 14 To w-ax- PROJECT NO. 'L01) -//Z SHEET NO. CLIENT •T�Lo BY DATE 4 11' t 5Pe IA"aS v/ /op Plg �y � X �--7 -�6 - X= �p,zr '121)%z] = 0. 6 Z�� ILL 2 f��(°2j- 2s)(0,6 ZI `Y'�Z dry tS = 9./6 9B4 L -+ S,2�" (8.2/� beg, 4 92 ti T Zz, ► �C l o,�g '� /q,98 ('ol - 23 Y, v c 2 6oB, Gravity Beam Design RAM Steel v8.2 Page 2/2 Struble Engineering, LLC CDH Surgery/Bed Tower - Full-Height Lateral Model l OC (IBC2003) - Final UM DataBase: 03-13-05 Full-Height Lateral l OC 04/27/05 08:12:54 NTE�T� Building Code: MASS Steel Code: ASD 9th Ed. Left Right Max +total reaction 45.36 45.36 DEFLECTIONS: Initial load (in) at 14.00 ft = -0.404 L/D = 831 Live load (in) at 14.00 ft = -0.393 L/D = 855 Post Comp load (in) at 14.00 ft = -0.591 L/D = 569 Net Total load (in) at 14.00 ft = -0.995 UD = 338 P P G'/Zlkso , 62 cc -�--�- Teo' j� If =z.6'�o 2 S DL Co,,ohs Ic P + s 14 15. 6 /J�sll -r �%Z �o,Ps�� = 1141- p 4- _ 77 /I PSG t LL, CoR�fs = GJ " Spa S ek 5 �z /J'fl c�. �30,'1- P-- PLArly. rear {len '_ (y 36 + (4 p 0, y0 LL .,/.W �, r a Gravity Beam Design r= RAM Steel v8.2 A6 _,4:;- Struble Engineering, LLC 1/ ' CDH Surgery/Bed Tower - Full-Height Lateral Model l OC (IBC2003) - Final Z RAM DataBase: 03-13-05 Full-Height Lateral l OC 04/27/05 08:12:54 7= Building Code: MASS Steel Code: ASD 9th Ed. Floor Type: level four Beam Number = 109 SPAN INFORMATION (ft): I-End (145.00,108.00) J-End (173.00,108.00) Beam Size (User Selected) = W21 X50 Fy = 50.0 ksi Total Beam Length (ft) = 28.00 COMPOSITE PROPERTIES (Not Shored): Left Right Concrete thickness (in) 3.25 3.25 Unit weight concrete (pcf) 115.00 115.00 f c (ksi) 4.00 4.00 Decking Orientation parallel parallel Decking type USD 2" Lok-Floor USD 2" Lok-Floor beff(in) = 58.00 Y bar(in) = 18.43 Seff(in3) = 144.53 Str(in3) = 145.49 leff(in4) = 2577.77 Itr (in4) = 2608.30 Stud length (in) = 4.00 Stud diam (in) = 0.75 Stud Capacity (kips) q = 11.4 #of studs: Full = 91 Partial = 76 Actual = 62 Number of Stud Rows = 1 Percent of Full Composite Action = 70.21 POINT LOADS (kips): Dist DL CDL RedLL Red% NonRLL StorLL Red% RoofLL Red% CLL 9.333 9.35 7.39 0.00 0.0 21.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 Snow 2.80 18.667 9.35 7.39 0.00 0.0 21.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 Snow 2.80 LINE LOADS (k/ft): Load Dist DL CDL LL Red% Type CLL 1 0.000 0.840 0.000 0.000 0.0% Red 0.000 28.000 0.840 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 0.103 0.065 0.080 0.0% Red 0.027 28.000 0.103 0.065 0.080 0.027 3 0.000 0.050 0.050 0.000 --- NonR 0.000 28.000 0.050 0.050 0.000 0.000 SHEAR: Max V (DL+LL) = 45.36 kips fv = 5.74 ksi Fv = 20.00 ksi MOMENTS: Span Cond Moment @ Lb Cb Tension Flange Compr Flange kip-ft ft ft fb Fb fb Fb Center PreCmp+ 109.0 14.0 0.0 1.00 13.84 33.00 13.84 33.00 Max+ 388.3 14.0 --- --- Mmax/Seff 32.24 33.00 --- --- Mconst/Sx+Mpost/Seff 35.77 45.00 --- --- Controlling 388.3 14.0 --- --- 32.24 33.00 --- --- fc (ksi) = 1.07 Fc = 1.80 REACTIONS (kips): Left Right Initial reaction 12.17 12.17 DL reaction 23.24 23.24 Max+LL reaction 22.12 22.12 Gravity Beam Design 3e Fflor- FiIRAM Steel v8.2 A? Page 2/2 Struble Engineering, LLC CDH Surgery/Bed Tower - Full-Height Lateral Model l OC (IBC2003) - Final RAM DataBase: 03-13-05 Full-Height Lateral l OC 04/27/05 08:12:54 INTERNATCkW Building Code: MASS Steel Code: ASD 9th Ed. Left Right Max +total reaction 31.19 31.19 DEFLECTIONS: Initial load (in) at 14.00 ft = -0.469 L/D = 717 Live load (in) at 14.00 ft = -0.214 L/D = 1571 Post Comp load (in) at 14.00 ft = -0.478 UD = 703 Net Total load (in) at 14.00 ft = -0.947 L/D = 355 3`ll- levtI , 46 -,47- P ►J21A4tl. ZS S'c . S Dl. (. Ads w Y ems, c✓q �� 6 ac,lL-�P e.r4-f\0 SA( l S Z w-) _` 0, Z p 1 f-eh K P = h UnS b r;c IL : 9,33 `/�/,("oprl) f Z /k? - S. �/ J + Pu r �;� rY a C E,�s 1q,33'��8 - +Zo ) 3.9 F Z c (6 L (_ l�ad� W= Sl�s enJ,�� = iz oPs�� p p�r ���, re4i�n = 3%/ l q,33 �6 oPs�) = 9. 90 �k (no LI-R) d mAX r (9 6 q� w + Yb. y3>r' TefF T e n, Z2 LL �,fJ o. o6 ' Gravity Beam Design 3=� FI-- RAM Steel v8.2 A 6 _ A 7. Struble Engineering, LLC Ih- CDH Surgery/Bed Tower - Full-Height Lateral Model l OC (IBC2003) - Final RAM DataBase: 03-13-05 Full-Height Lateral l OC 04/27/05 08:12:54 INTERNATKXJAI Building Code: MASS Steel Code: ASD 9th Ed. Floor Type: level three Beam Number = 108 SPAN INFORMATION (ft): I-End (117.00,108.00) -End (145.00,108.00) Beam Size (Optimum) = W21 X44 Fy = 50.0 ksi Total Beam Length (ft) = 28.00 COMPOSITE PROPERTIES (Not Shored): Left Right Concrete thickness (in) 3.25 3.25 Unit weight concrete (pcf) 115.00 115.00 f c (ksi) 4.00 4.00 Decking Orientation parallel parallel Decking type USD 2" Lok-Floor USD 2" Lok-Floor beff(in) = 58.00 Y bar(in) = 18.74 Seff (in3) = 114.39 Str (in3) = 128.37 leff(in4) = 1893.72 Itr(in4) = 2341.50 Stud length (in) = 4.00 Stud diam (in) = 0.75 Stud Capacity (kips) q = 11.4 ' # of studs: Full = 78 Partial = 28 Actual = 28 Number of Stud Rows = 1 Percent of Full Composite Action = 36.29 POINT LOADS (kips): Dist DL CDL RedLL Red% NonRLL StorLL Red% RoofLL Red% CLL 9.333 11.31 7.39 8.40 5.4 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 Snow 2.80 18.667 11.31 7.39 8.40 5.4 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 Snow 2.80 LINE LOADS (k/ft): Load Dist DL CDL LL Red% Type CLL 1 0.000 0.630 0.000 0.000 0.0% Red 0.000 28.000 0.630 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 0.103 0.065 0.080 5.4% Red 0.027 28.000 0.103 0.065 0.080 0.027 3 0.000 0.044 0.044 0.000 --- NonR 0.000 28.000 0.044 0.044 0.000 0.000 SHEAR: Max V (DL+LL) = 31 .19 kips fv = 4.50 ksi Fv = 18.99 ksi MOMENTS: Span Cond Moment @ Lb Cb Tension Flange Compr Flange kip-ft ft ft fb Fb fb Fb Center PreCmp+ 108.4 14.0 0.0 1.00 15.94 33.00 15.94 33.00 Max + 263.2 14.0 --- --- Mmax/Seff 27.61 33.00 --- --- Mconst/Sx+Mpost/Seff 30.97 45.00 --- --- Controlling 263.2 14.0 --- --- 27.61 33.00 --- --- fc (ksi) = 0.67 Fc = 1.80 REACTIONS (kips): Left Right Initial reaction 12.09 12.09 DL reaction 22.18 22.18 Max+LL reaction 9.01 9.01 s=, : ` rn�7-H 1 wc. i Souza, True and Partners, Inc. /Terry Louderback 5 Cooley Dickinson Hospital Peer Review- Response to 4122105 STP Comments April 27, 2005 itself. If these responses are acceptable, I plan to produce a post-bid addendum that will incorporate the changes noted in items 3, 4, 6 and 7 for issue as soon as possible and I will make certain you receive a copy of it when it goes out. I appreciate your consideration during this review. Your comments were an aid to my own review process (which can be myopic at times as a single practitioner). Having done several such reviews myself, I appreciate the care you took in doing it and the timely manner in which it was done. W/encl. Struble Engineering, LLC Reading, Massachusetts Souza, True and Partners, Inc. /Terry Louderhack 4 Cooley Dickinson Hospital Peer Review--Response to 4122105 STP Comments April 27, 2005 under actual elevator machine loading being in the range of 6-7 ksi, I feel the safety factor based on an ultimate strength of 65 ksi is well above 5. Incidentally, the 8" column size was dictated by architectural concerns for clearances in the passageways around the elevators (note, for example, the inefficient size of a W8x58 at location D-10.6). The small sizes are also due to the large number of columns needed around the elevators to accommodate interstitial guide rail supports (needed between floor levels), which tended to keep the loads on the columns relatively low. 6. The diagonal braces around the stairs were included to brace the stair"towers" locally (they are not intended to act as the main lateral load resistance system for the building). Their large floor openings and relative detachment from the main body of the building prompted the decision on my part to provide local stiffening in the form of in-wall braces to counter lateral forces that could not be resisted reliably by extensions of the floor diaphragms/structure to the stairs. I agree, however, that these (secondary) braces should conform to the AISC Seismic Provisions in regards to minimum slenderness ratios for ordinary braced frames. We have the latitude to widen the braces within their cavities in the walls, so I will increase the HSS5x5's to HSS8x8's to achieve this end (this will actually reduce brace weights in some instances). 7. Concerning the distribution of horizontal reinforcing in the chiller building's masonry walls, I do feel that bond beams at mid-height and the roof do contribute to spreading out the reinforcing as directed in the specified Code section (the phrase "uniformly distributed" seems to be open to interpretation). However, I do not object to replacing the mid-height bond beam with horizontal joint reinforcing at each joint rather than at alternate joints. I will keep the bond beam locally over the roll-up door opening as a reinforced masonry lintel, however. I hope these responses have answered your questions. Please don't hesitate to contact me again with any concerns you may have about my responses or about the project Struble Engineering, LLC Reading, Massachusetts Now Souza, True and Partners, Inc. /Terry Louderback 3 Cooley Dickinson Hospital Peer Review- Response to 4122105 STP Comments April 27, 2005 no farther than the fillet distance away from their centerlines (within '/", usually). I also intend to mark this requirement on the shop drawings. While I could revise such thin-flanged beams upward to alleviate concern over this issue, I feel it would be more cost-effective to take advantage of the Code's allowance to use such beams with the SC's properly located. I would defer to your experience, however, if you felt such a practice could not be realistically achieved. 4. 1 have come up against the lack of availability of long A325 anchor bolts before in base plate applications and have allowed the substitution of ASTM Al 93 material, which is a high-strength, high-temperature bolt commonly used in pressure vessel applications (suggested on a past project by a steel fabricator experienced in both buildings and boilers). I will research the ASTM F1554 specification and satisfy myself that a properly-graded bolt substitution using this material can be used. I will offer such substitutions to the steel fabricator as an approved equal. 5. The columns around the elevators are sized to take the reactions supplied by the elevator manufacturer, which have been increased from the actual reactions by a factor of 2. The axial stresses in the W8 columns around the elevator are on the order of 10-13 ksi, which is approximately 70% of the allowable axial stress (ASD). These values include full live load stresses that are applied from the floor framing. I believe the section of 524 CMR that you refer to requires that the supports of the elevator overhead beams be able to carry the elevator loads with a safety factor of 5, "based on the average ultimate strength of the material and the loads." The loads in question are presumably the ones from the elevators themselves. I investigated the column stresses under a loading condition of only these (doubled) elevator loads and dead load from the surrounding superstructure and found axial stresses on the order of 8-11 ksi, which is approximately 55% of the allowable stresses. Determining a factor of safety based on ultimate strength (65 ksi for A992 material) is somewhat confusing given the influence of buckling on column behavior, but with actual stresses Struble Engineering, LLC Reading, Massachusetts Souza, True and Partners, Inc. %Terry Louderback 2 Cooley Dickinson Hospital Peer Review- Response to 4,122105 STP Comments April 27, 2005 post-composite deflections of U542. I include relevant computer-design output appended with hand-calculations to illustrate my investigations on this point. Our telephone discussions indicated your concern over long-term deflections for these edge beams, in which you add a portion of the live load deflection to the static totals to approximate creep, which I feel is a valid concern for the durability of the facade. Regarding the third floor spandrels, adding 25% of the live load deflection to my hand-calculated total yields a value corresponding to L/589. While still greater than U600, I feel that the inclusion of other factors such as live load reduction (5.4%), the moderate stiffening afforded by the continuous bent plate at the floor edge and the rotational stiffness that the end connections will provide will keep post-composite deflections low enough to avoid fagade problems. As far as the fourth floor spandrels are concerned, the high live load (150 psf) of the mechanical level, if increased by 25%, produces deflections on the order of U467. While above the L/600 threshold, I recognize that the A-line fagade at this level is mostly open louvers and metal panels (as is the D-line, which is similar structurally). Hence, my calculations over-estimate the amount of SDL (I used full brick loads for the fagade) and the brick that is present is well-supplied with control joints. Further, the need for louvers along these edges requires that the floor areas adjacent to them be un-obstructed for ducting, which indeed is evident on the HVAC drawings produced to date. Hence, the actual live load on these 4th floor spandrels will be significantly less than that produced by a floor loading of 150 psf. All these factors, then, would reduce post-composite deflections and I feel that any stiffening of these spandrels to further cut down the calculated values would not be cost-effective. I realize that this is an exercise of engineering judgment on my part. 3. Regarding adequate flange thickness to accommodate W-diam. shear connectors, I intend to append to the specifications the requirement for the Testing Agency to ensure that all SC's placed on thin-flanged beams are located Struble Engineering, LLC Reading, Massachusetts STRUBLE ENGINEERING, LLC 604 Main Street Reading, MA 01867-2951 (781) 942-3845 (781)942-7083 Fax MEMORANDUM TO: Souza, True and Partners, Inc. Attention: Terry Louderback t ^N r A P7 NE-7 FROM: Jeffrey W. Struble ,V"• �� REFERENCE: Cooley Dickinson Hospital Peer Review SUBJECT: Response to STP Comments dated April 22, 2005 DATE: April 27, 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am in receipt of your peer review comments on the superstructure for the referenced project dated April 22, 2005. As we discussed by telephone, I am responding in writing with this correspondence and I will index my responses to your numbered questions: 1. Regarding the use of W21x57 [92] girders at the 4th floor mechanical level, I rechecked my calculations for them, as you requested. While I can duplicate your 10% overstress results using AISC ASD, the girders are acceptable using an LRFD analysis, which the Mass. Code accepts. I do have the actual mechanical unit weights and distribution, which when applied locally do not come up to the level of 150 psf, but it is prudent to use such a loading for the Hospital's benefit in future reorganizations of this mechanical area. I suggest trying an LRFD analysis of these girders to see if you agree with my rationale. 2. The W21 x44 [28] spandrel girders on line A at the 3rd floor and the W21 x50 [62] girders similarly located on the 4th floor were designed to accommodate the (hung) veneer. My results for the third floor composite beam (W21x44) show a total SDL + LL deflection of L/659, and for the W21 x50 at the fourth level, I get rage i or i Terry Louderback From: Jeffrey Struble [jws.strublengrc@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday,April 27,2005 1:05 PM To: Terry Louderback Subject: Cooley Dickinson Hospital Peer Review-Response to STP Memo Terry: Here is the main text of my response to your 4/22/05 memo regarding the Cooley Dickinson project. I realize that I will have to fax it as well in order to include the calc's that I reference. Sorry to be redundant. Regarding the safety factor for the elevator columns, I showed you what the actual stresses are in the columns relative to the ultimate strength of A992 material, but since the columns will fail by buckling before getting close to that strength (not to mention inelastic behavior between Fy and Fu),this safety factor is tough to calculate (what do you compare the stress to?Fu itself?). If my answer to that question seems less than precise,that's why. I'm open to suggestions if you feel more should be done about it. Let me know if anything in my response doesn't suit you. Jeffrey W. Struble, PE Stnable Enr/ineering,LLC _ _, 604 Main Street Reading, MA 01867-2951 (781) 942-3845 V (781) 942-7083 F 6/23/2005 .STM F155-4 A nchar Rods.� By Charles J. Carter, S.E.,P.E. Anchorrods(oranchor bolts,for thosewhojustcan'tswitch ZRI xz to new lingo)are an area of focus for many of the questions RISC receives through its Steel Solutions Center.The"new ASTM F1554 anchor-rod specification accounts for a' y " a large number of these questions. Of course, ; i "new'is a relative term—the ASTM F1554 rF specification was introduced back in 1999.It marked the first time that hooked, headed .� and threaded and nutted rods in multiple grades were fully -- addressed in one 1 specification. While it is penetrating the r u market from coast to coast, ASTM F1554 still faces "specification inertia," and many do not " know what it has to offer.Hopefully,this article 1 will help change that. Following are some highlights of ASTM F1554: -ASTM F1554 covers hooked, headed, and threaded and 'Washers pro- vided nutted anchor rods in three strength grades: 36, 55 and 105. 55 with ASTM F ASTM F1554 grades 36, 55 and 105 are essentially the anchor- F 1554 with rods are ASTM rod equivalents of the generic rod specifications ASTM A36, F436 Type 1, unless the purchaser specifies an alternative requirement (such as ASTM A572 grade 55 and Al 93 grade B7,respectively. -Grade 36 is most commonly specified. It has 58 ksi tensile may be required for force transfer in applications strength,a size range up to 4-inch diameter and is weldable. transferring uplift or moment). -Grade 55 has 75 ksi tensile strength and a size range up to three grades of ASTM F1554 anchor rods 4-inch diameter. Weldability supplement S1 and the carbon are suitable for galvanizing either by hot-dip process equivalent formula in ASTM F15 y 54 Section S1.5.2.1 can e C) 1 (ASTM A153 Class or mechaiucal process (ASTM 5 bB695 Class 50). Note that the same process must be specified to allow welded field correction as a potential solution used for both rod and nut to ensure proper matching should the anchor nods be placed incorrectly in the field. of threads between the two products. Washers can be -Grade 105 has 125 ksi tensile strength and a size range up to 3-inch diameter. galvanized by either process and need not be of the same -Appropriate ASTM A563 nuts for the various grades are process as the rod and nut. given in ASTM F1554 Section 6.6.1 (see Table 1). -Threads can be made by rolling or cutting. Rolled and cut threads have identical strength,but the elongations of rods with rolled and cut threads will differ. From ASTM F1554 ASTM F1554 Rod Recommended ASTM A563 Nut Table 5, a 1-inch-diameter rod with cut threads has a Grade and Size,in. Plain Galvanized minimum body diameter of 0.9755-inches.A 1-inch- diameter rod with rolled threads has a minimum body Grade Size,in Grade Style Grade Style diameter of 0.9067-inches.Since the actual threads are the same,both have an identical stress area of 0.606 in.2 Over I to 4 A Heavy Hex A Heavy ex –and therefore identical strength–but the rolled-thread rod has about 14 percent less resistance to elongation. to lz �A " A FIeav�` Iex With this in mind,the best design practice is to use the CSver'l .to 4 A Heavy Hex. .A Heavy;Hex body diameter for rolled threads in design calculations i Hex DH Heavy Hex for serviceability (as this will permit the purchase of i either rolled or cut threads).The foregoing discussion Over 11/2 to 3 DH Heav Hex. is true of all rods,not just ASTM F1554 rods. Table I 42 STRUCTURE magazine•August 2004 •Grades are identified by color–36 is blue,55 is yellow,and 105 is red —■ The benefits of ASTM F1554 are clear: there is no other specification that brings all requirements for anchor rods together into one place—mechanical,chemical,threading,man ufacturing, LL' and dimensional.Compared to older"material-only"specifications like ASTM A449, ASTM FI554 eliminates con- fusion about what product is required. ASTM F1554 is here to stay,and it's catching on.In an informal poll conducted by Bill Liddy ofAISC's Steel Solutions Center, IS fabricators . representing all geographic regions of the United States were asked how often they see ASTM F 1554 specified.The results divide at the Rocky !] •'• Mountains. East of the Rockies, the respondents indicated that the demand for ASTM F 1554 was on the rise—but West of the Rockies, �a ASTM A449 still is common.Folks out West should keep in mind that ASTM A449 material can be obtained as ASTM F1554 grade ° 105—and additionally,you get all the specification requirements that make the material into an anchor rod. Dont let industry growing pains deter you—specify ASTM Easily' F1554, and encourage y our fabricator to order your anchor rod materials early. ASTM F1554 is included in the AISC publication Selected ASTM Standards for Structural Steel Fabrication, which is available at www.aisc.orglbookstore. Alternatively, an individual copy of ASTM F1554 can be R ETA l N P ®,GC7 M purchased from ASTM at wwwastm.ore.. Charles f. Carter,S E. P.E.is G'hiefStrsetural Engineer at the American Institute of Steel Construction in Chicago - .� Only if you personally have met Sasquatch and the Easter Bunny! ASTM A325 and A490 are specifications that cover headed bolts only, with limited threaded length,generally available only up to 8 inches Preparation in length,and governed by provision for steel-to steel structural joints Material for FE/PE Exams only.IYou may think you've always specified your anchorage devices as s NCEES offers hard copy and electronic ASTM A325 or A490 and it's never been a problem.But the reality exam preparation material to civil and is that your fabricator has been awfully nice to not embarrass you by structural candidates.Sample questions pointing out that you've specified a product that does not exist in the were developed by the same groups that length you likely specified—or as a hooked or longer-threaded rod. created the exams,and they conform to current exam specifications. Solutions are " provided. Structural I PE and Civil PE Watch cirthe STRUCTURE 2005 editorial Calendar in candidates can now take a timed Internet next month's Noteworthy We have kzegpn the search Practice Exam at the NCEES web site.For f6 aitif�eS t0 next yeat's_issues Pl ease L,, l- a' t ore information visit the NCEES Ylreh site tiii the`'STRUCTURE Ed�tgrtal Board,Chair, ai'M'De$te Aho atwwn nce2s.ory or call 1-sco z5o Ins. (chairfstm,durem 9;t3rg)or$TRUCTURE's publisher, National Council of Examiners Copper Creek(publishe4structuremag.org)with for En ineerin and 5urve in your ideas andlor absttacts:lQd can download Author � w �,�es.org �1-800-250-319g -Bo0 asa-3ts� g ' Guidelines atww*.structurema, org: STRUCTURE magazine•August 2004 43 z / Cooley Dickinson Hospital Peer Review p. 2 4. Anchor bolts at the heavy W14 columns are specified to be ASTM A325. These bolts generally are available in lengths up to only 8 inches and.with limited threaded lengths. I believe that ASTM F1554 anchor rods (of the proper Grade) would be a more appropriate specification. 5. Some of the columns at the elevator shaft, e.g. W8 x 35 at D.5 / 11.2 seem relatively small. Are these columns designed to support the machinery loads considering the increased factors of safety of the Mass. Elevator Regulations (524 CMR)? 6. Many of the diagonal HSS 5 x 5's in the braced frames depicted on drawing S402 have slenderness rations in excess of the 106 limitation in the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. Please justify. 7. The masonry wall reinforcing at the chiller plant is specified in SECTION F1/S210 to be #5 @ 32" o.c. verticals, 2- #9 wires @ 16" o.c. horizontals plus bond beams ( 2 #5's in bond beams at elevation 217'- 4" and at the second course from the top). While the total cross sectional area of steel over the full height of the wall meets to steel ratio requirements of the Code, it is not uniformly distributed as required by Section 2104.4.3. To resolve this, I suggest that truss-type horizontal joint reinforcement be used at every course (8" o.c.). The side rods and the cross rods of the joint reinforcing would be #9 wires. Please respond to these items expeditiously as Cooley Dickinson is looking for my final letter as soon as possible. y , 653 Mount Auburn Street Watertown, Massachusetts 02472 Telephone 617-926-6100 Telefax 617-924-4431 email:souzatrue@souzatrue.com S O U ZA TRUE TERRY A.LOUDER BACK,P.E. / PRAVIN V SHAH, P.E. AND PARTNERS, INC. JEROME A.YURKOSKI,P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS MEMORANDUM DAVID GILL,P.E. TO: Struble Engineering, LLC 604 Main Street Reading, MA 01867-2951 ATTENTION: Jeff Struble FROM: Terry Louderback REFERENCE: Cooley Dickinson Hospital eer Review DATE: April 22, 2005 I have reviewed the superstructure design for the main building and chiller plant. I find the design is well organized and generally Code compliant. I do, however, have a few questions: 1. The W21 x 57 [92] 4tn floor girders under the mechanical room appear to be about 10% overstressed based on 150 psf live load, 10 psf superimposed dead load and 50 psf materials weight . Please recheck this. 2. The W21 x 44 [28] and W21 x 50 [62] along line A at the 3rd and 4th floors, respectively, have live load plus long-time deflections of more than 1/600 times their spans. Will the veneer accommodate this deflection? 3. There area number of light beams, e.g. W12 x 14 [21] in the elevator lobby, that are specified to have shear connectors and, by calculation, need shear connectors. These light beams have flange thicknesses less than 0.3 inches. AISC requires that the shear stud diameter not exceed 2 Y2 times the thickness of the flange to which it is welded, unless the studs are located directly over the flange. From my experience, it is difficult to ensure that studs are exactly positioned over the beam webs. How will proper positioning of studs be assured? FOUNDED IN 1959 BY RICHARD W. SOUZA AND EDWARD K.TRUE PROGRAM : General Frame Analysis v2 .05 PAGE NO. 9 Souza, True and Partners, Inc. TIME Thu Jun 23 13 :29 :42 2005 JOB : 05098 JOB NO. 31 RUN : lateral frame check (LINE 6) R E A C T 1 0 N S NODE LOAD NO COMB PX PY MOMENT Units K K K -Ft LOAD COMBINATIONS: COMB 1 : 1 .00 X CASE 1 COMB 2 : 1 .00 X CASE 2 1 1 -22 .3696 -67 .3228 0.0000 2 -20 . 8609 -51 . 8244 0 .0000 2 1 -32 . 1949 -17 .4330 0 .0000 2 -29 .4173 -13 .7180 0 .0000 3 1 -23 .6355 84 .7558 0 .0000 2 -21 .8218 65 .5424 0 .0000 , ` ================================================================================ PROGRAM : General Frame Analysis v2 ' 05 PAGE DQ]' 8 Souza, True and Partners, Inc. TIME Thu Jun 23 13 :29 :41 3005 JOB NO : 31 JOB z O5O98 ^ RUN : lateral frame check (LINE 6) ================================================================================ E L E M E NT RE P 0IlT8 III,EM LOAD NODE SIGN CONVENTION : BEAM DESIGNERS NO COMB NO AXIAL SHEAR MOMENT MAX MOM/DEFL DIST 15 I 7 -7'4897 -19'2149 306 '5521 8 -7 '4897 -19 '2I49 -269 '8962 -O 'OS6G 7 '�4 2 7 -10 '9836 -14 ' 9154 237 '4274 8 -10 '9836 -I4 '3I54 -2I0'0354 -O 'O�35 7 '2I 16 1 8 -1,9450 -24 '4253 298 '8371 B -I'9450 -24 '4253 -336 '2207 O 'O4�� 19 '78 2 8 -3 '0782 -19.0431 233 '3436 9 -3 '0782 -I9 '0431 -261'7788 0 '0356 I9 '80 17 I lD -I1'6570 -15 '2525 246 '1005 11 -I1'6570 -I5 '2535 -211'4754 -0 '0473 7 '40 2 10 -11'6208 -10 '3801 165'5294 11 -11'6208 -I0 '280I -I42 '8736 -O'O3�6 7 .37 ' 18 I 11 -2 '9462 -18 '8561 238 '4394 12 -2 '9463 -18 '8561 -261 '8203 0'O369 19 '�7 2 11 -3 '4041 -12 .7370 154 '3848 12 -3 '4041 -I3 '7370 -176 '7774 O 'O��8 19 '68 19 1 13 -37 '4438 -8 '3071 137 '0466 14 -37 '4438 -8 '2071 -189 '1655 -0'0435 7 ' 87 2 13 -23 '1812 -5' 1336 85 '4244 14 -23 '18I2 -5 '1336 -68 '584I -U 'O�G8 7 'R3 20 1 14 -14 '3864 -9'7530 113 '6375 15 -14 '3864 -9 '7530 -I39 '94I7 D 'U3�5 1� '�8 2 14 -8'8259 -6 '1124 71'2829 15 -8 '8259 -6 'II24 -87 '6402 U 'O2O3 I9 '29 ================================================================================ I�\�� 2Q3 7 PROGRAM : General Frame A�zaI��eiG v3 ' 05 ' Souza, True and Partners, Inc. TIME Thu Jun 23 I3 :29 :41 2005 JOB NO 31 JOB � O5O98 ' '' RUN : lateral frame cbeo}c (I'ZN8 G) ================================================================================ E I, E M E B[ T Sl E P 0 fl T S ELEM LOAD NODE SIGN CONVENTION : BEAM DESIGNERS NO COMB NO AXIAL SHEAR MOMENT MAX MOM/DEFL DZST ================================================================================ 2 8 3 ,4357 32 '5719 -146 '7513 11 3 '4357 22 '5719 169 '2559 -O 'Ol37 lO '57 g I 9 -28 '6092 17 '3336 -109'3437 12 -28 '6092 17 '3326 133 '3125 -0 '0117 10 '41 2 9 -18 '8494 12 '2300 -71'4950 12 -18 '8494 12 '3300 99 '7356 -O 'OIO� IO 'O5 IO I IO 8 '207I I4 ' 1562 -I27 'I080 13 8 '2071 I4 'I582 I37 '0466 -O 'OI75 I�'38 2 10 5 '1336 8 '6188 -75 '4021 13 5 '1336 8 '6188 85 .4244 -0 '0119 I�'I7 II I II I'5460 33 '0574 -307 '4489 14 1'5460 23 '0574 233 '8031 -0 .028� 1� '39 2 11 0 '9780 14 '3553 -128 '0025 14 0 '9788 14 '3553 139 '8669 -O '0183 1� '3� 12 I 12 -9 '7530 14 '3864 -128 '5O78 15 -9 '7530 14 '3864 139 '9417 -0 '0182 14'33 2 12 -6 '1I24 8 ' 8259 -77 '05I0 15 -6'1124 8 '8259 87 '6402 -� 'OI�3 I� '15 13 I 4 0 '7601 -24 ' 6482 394 '6164 5 0 '7601 -24 '6402 -344 ' 8308 -O '13]I 7 '29 2 4 -5 '4535 -21 '4953 344 '4523 5 -5 '4535 -31'4953 -300 '4055 -U 'I165 7'3O 14 1 5 -4'3580 -31 '7213 387 '5585 6 -4 '3580 -31'7313 -437 '1954 0 '1082 19 '76 2 5 -6'5135 -27 ' 6498 337 '5737 6 -6 '5135 -27 ' 8498 -381 '33I5 O 'Og�G 1g '76 ================================================================================ PROGRAM : General Frame Analysis v3 '05 Ig\GB NJ' G Souza, True and Partners, Inc' TIME : Thu Jun 33 13z29 :4I 2005 JOB 2�) 31 JOB � O5U90 ' '' fO]0[ : lateral frame check (LINE G) ================================================================================ E L E M E2JT IlE P 0IlT8 EI,Ey@ LOAD NODE SIGN CONVENTION : BEAM DESIGNERS NO COMB NO AXIAL SHEAR MOMENT MAX MOM/DEFL DZST ================================================================================ 2 1 2 17 '4330 32 '1949 0 '0000 5 17 '4330 32 '1949 466 '8262 -0 'I246 8 '37 J 2 I3 '7180 29 '4173 0 ,0000 5 I3 '7I80 29 '4I73 436 '5502 -O 'II39 8 '37 3 I 3 -84 '7558 23 '6355 U'OOOD G -84 '7558 23 '6355 342 '7152 -O ' O9l5 8 '37 2 3 -65 '5424 3I'8218 O 'OOOO 6 -65 '5434 21'8218 316 '4161 -O 'O8�5 8 '37 4 I 4 42 ' 6745 16'8095 -70 '2570 7 42 '6745 16 '8095 209 '9561 -0'0526 10 '54 2 4 30 '3281 13 '0145 -41'9685 7 30 '3291 13 '0145 174 '9825 -O 'O4�7 1Q '�� 5 I 5 10 .3599 37'3129 -265 '5631 8 10 '3599 37 '3129 356 '4438 -O '05U5 1% 'O8 2 5 7'5634 30 '4772 -211'4291 8 7 '5634 30 '4772 296 '6267 -O '04�3 II'95 G I 6 -53 '0345 I9 '2776 -94 '4802 g -53 '0345 19 '3776 226 ' 8770 -0 '05I5 I0 '81 2 6 -37 '8936 15 '3083 -64 ' 0054 9 -37'8926 15'3083 190 .2838 -0 '0473 10 '56 7 I 7 23 '4596 15 '3992 -96 '5960 ID 23 '4596 15 '3992 1I8 '9935 -0' 0106 I0 '38 2 7 15 '4137 10 '8980 -62 '4449 IO 15 '4137 I0 '8980 90 '1273 -0 '0098 9 '97 G I 8 5 '1496 31 '7682 -312 '2895 11 5 '1496 31'7682 232 '4659 -O 'O17� IO '7� -------------------------------------------- PROGRAM : General Frame Analysis v2 . 05 PAGE NO. 5 Souza, True and Partners, Inc. TIME Thu Jun 23 13 :29 :41 2005 JOB : 05098 JOB NO. : 31 RUN : lateral frame check (LINE 6) N 0 D A L D I S P L A C E M E N T S NODE LOAD NO COMB DX DY ROTATION ------------------ --F--------------- 10 1 1.9471 0.0122 -0.0691 2 1.6553 0 .0089 -0. 0464 11 1 1.9429 0,0030 -0.0441 2 1 .6511 0 .0023 -0.0300 12 1 1 .9420 -0 .0152 -0. 0650 2 1.6501 -0 .0112 -0 .0441 1 2.33 19 - I A 4-7 ¢o it < 2.13 **f 13 1 2 .3519 h/ J 0 .0131 -0. 0604 2 1 .9118 h/qvo 0 .0095 -0.0376 14 1 2 .3360 0 .0032 -0 .0306 2 1.9020 0 .0024 -0 .0196 15 1 2 .3307 -0 .0163 -0.0549 2 1.8987 -0 .0118 -0 .0347 E L E M E N T R E P 0 R T S ELEM LOAD NODE SIGN CONVENTION : BEAM DESIGNERS NO COMB NO AXIAL SHEAR MOMENT MAX MOM/DEFL DIST Units K K K -Ft K -Ft /In Ft LOAD COMBINATIONS: COMB 1 : 1.00 X CASE 1 COMB 2 : 1.00 X CASE 2 1 1 1 67 .3228 22 .3696 0.0000 4 67 .3228 22 .3696 324.3586 -0.0866 8 .37 2 1 51 .8244 20.8609 0. 0000 4 51.8244 20 . 8609 302 .4838 -0 . 0808 8 .37 PROGRAM : General Frame Analysis v2 . 05 PAGE NO. 4 Souza, True and Partners, Inc. TIME Thu Jun 23 13 :29 :41 2005 JOB : 05098 JOB NO. 31 RUN : lateral frame check (LINE 6) N 0 D A L D I S P L A C E M E N T S NODE LOAD NO COMB DX DY ROTATION ---------------------------------------- Units In In Deg LOAD COMBINATIONS: COMB 1 : 1.00 x CASE 1 COMB 2 : 1.00 X CASE 2 1 1 0.0000 0 . 0000 -0.4163 2 0 . 0000 0 .0000 -0.3768 2 1 0.0000 0 . 0000 -0 .4489 2 0 .0000 0 .0000 -0.4044 3 1 0. 0000 0 .0000 -0.4200 2 0 .0000 0 .0000 -0 .3784 rr 4 1 1 .0392 7KIT 0 .0059 -0 .1940 2 0 .9345 0 .0045 -0 .1695 5 1 1 . 0396 0 . 0015 -0 .1290 2 0 .9321 0 .0012 -0 .1121 6 1 1.0379 -0.0074 -0 .1852 2 0 .9295 -0 .0057 -0 .1615 rr 7 1 1. 6529 00* .0102 -0 .0840 2 1.4430 0 .0076 -0 .0647 8 1 1.6503 0 . 0026 -0 .0574 2 1.4390 0 .0020 -0 .0449 9 1 1.6497 -0.0128 -0 . 0809 2 1.4381 -0 .0096 -0 .0628 ================================================================================ PROGRAM z General Frame Analysis v2 '05 PAGE NO' 3 Souza, True and Partners, Inc. TIME Thu Jun 23 13 :29 :41 2005 JOB ��' ' 31 JOB : 05098 ' RUN : lateral frame check (LINE 6) ================================================================================ yJ0DAL L 0 AD IDJFOR MA TIODJ 5LEC LOAD LOAD PX PY M 0O [ASE TYPE DX DY BETA ================================================================================ Description : wind No(I6a List : 7 6 2 I7{}RCII I3 'I0 0 '00 0 '00 Description : wind Node List : IO 7 2 FORCE 13 '90 O 'OD O 'OO Description : wind Bode List : 13 8 2 FORCE 31'80 0 '00 0 '80 PROGRAM : General Frame Analysis v2 .05 PAGE NO. 2 Souza, True and Partners, Inc. TIME Thu Jun 23 13 :29 :41 2005 JOB : 05098 JOB NO. : 31 RUN : lateral frame check (LINE 6) E L E M E N T I N F 0 R M A T 1 0 N ELEM NE PE ELEM BETA PROP ELEM NE PE NO NODE NODE LENGTH ANGLE TYPE TYPE HINGE HINGE 19 13 14------30.000 0 .00 4 BEAM 20 14 15 26 .000 0 .00 4 BEAM P R 0 P E R T Y I N F 0 R M A T 1 0 N PROP SECTION NO NAME MODULUS AREA I DIST ----------------------------------------------------- Units K /In 2 In2 In4 Ft 1 W14x233 2 .9e+004 68.5 3 .01e+003 2 W27x94 2 .9e+004 27.7 3 .27e+003 3 W33x118 2 .9e+004 34.7 5 .9e+003 4 W30x99 2 . 9e+004 29.1 3 .99e+003 N 0 D A L L 0 A D I N F 0 R M A T 1 0 N REC LOAD LOAD PX PY M NO CASE TYPE DX DY BETA Units K K Ft-K Ft Ft Deg Description : seismic Node List : 4 1 1 FORCE 4 .80 0 .00 0 . 00 Description : seismic Node List : 7 2 1 FORCE 8 .90 0 .00 0 .00 Description : seismic Node List : 10 3 1 FORCE 12 .90 0 .00 0 .00 Description : seismic Node List : 13 4 1 FORCE 51.60 0 .00 0 .00 Description : wind Node List : 4 5 2 FORCE 13 .30 0 .00 0 .00 ------------- PROGRAM : General Frame Analysis v2 . 05 PAGE NO. 1 Souza, True and Partners, Inc. TIME Thu Jun 23 13 :29 :40 2005 JOB : 05098 JOB NO. : 31 RUN : lateral frame check (LINE 6) N 0 D A L I N F 0 R M A T 1 0 N NODE NODAL COORDINATES SUPPORT CONDITIONS NO x Y CODE PX STIFF PY STIFF M STIFF Units Ft Ft K /In K /In K -In /Deg 1 0 .000 0.000 H 2 30.000 0 .000 H 3 56 .000 0 .000 H 4 0 .000 14 .500 5 30. 000 14 .500 6 56 .000 14 .500 7 0 .000 31.170 8 30 .000 31 . 170 9 56 .000 31.170 10 0 .000 45 . 170 11 30 .000 45 .170 12 56 .000 45 .170 13 0 .000 14 30.000 63 .830 15 56 .000 63 .830 ------------ E L E M E N T I N F 0 R M A T 1 0 N ELEM NE PE ELEM BETA PROP ELEM NE PE NO NODE NODE LENGTH ANGLE TYPE TYPE HINGE HINGE Units Ft Deg 1 1 4 14.500 90 .00 1 BEAM 2 2 5 14.500 90.00 1 BEAM 3 3 6 14 .500 90 .00 1 BEAM 4 4 7 16 .670 90 . 00 1 BEAM 5 5 8 16 .670 90 . 00 1 BEAM 6 6 9 16 .670 90 .00 1 BEAM 7 7 10 14 . 000 90 .00 1 BEAM 8 8 11 14.000 90 .00 1 BEAM 9 9 12 14 .000 90 .00 1 BEAM 10 10 13 18 .660 90.00 1 BEAM 11 11 14 18 .660 90. 00 1 BEAM 12 12 15 18 .660 90 .00 1 BEAM 13 4 5 30. 000 0 .00 2 BEAM 14 5 6 26. 000 0.00 2 BEAM 15 7 8 30 .000 0 .00 3 BEAM 16 8 9 26 .000 0 .00 3 BEAM 17 10 11 30 . 000 0.00 3 BEAM 18 11 12 26 .000 0 . 00 3 BEAM SO U ZA, TRUE JOB NO. o 56(?e SHEET NO. L -� AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB C©OLEy a"r GtJ S--Dd 2ral• DATE 4-7-1-03" CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT C.0. BY TAl- gvq(>f pzjzg,,,g I✓ (lN�ti f FvfL ebt4P14 n4 �- A) E G OK70 1 - 15 1 C Lc7 AO /ar ooz i lj=l.o d--S 3 V , �2 Fr 13 �tyxq 143�ot} F5 � r�r C25b�t2 17�, k P 'r - 6oU�2{^ FtL'Alas) Y-71K78 F4 P, f! '► , 71 ' 6 �- 930 1 7 �l� �3 7 V.0 . �' o.o . g �I (550)tl- + "6Af6b)>1-1IA 17 7 r S. X _ -_ ty '� �6 G W' 144sk .� D 13 (@ -. }- 114&o/nom�� ,p ,I•Z,C��,Z a f t•0 A 7 -4-71 1 - (0-0 `L �� � l 9•� ��- X 14.33 r3 f-t- fs,33�'��l t3rJ� S8 /-7)" 13� jj R J p p SOU ZA, TRUE JOB NO. L p j( SHEET NO. AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB ® - "4 '� DATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT C{ fl BY y ; - 2-D.7 �s SOUL/ \, TRUE JOB NO. /� of-0 F f�SHEET NO. C�.�!�i vr.��� D AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB `J CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT BY >/v 7/8 7 X L7 q73 V, > f/ �- S J a ,fi �rec ! t IT441 �y real 74 (s SOU ZA, TRUE JOB NO. Q T ® 0 SHEET NO. AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB c�� - »e A f1"t -L/ DATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT c 14 By r—U r e'4 Et, i � 1.7 �CpL� �� x :Y67 3z)l >! X, ,d c 3 / !o ,L/ B k)2j key f2�� 33 5 6o 4 z 3 - ` 41 of f�, SOU LA, TRUE JOB NO. ®J O O , SHEET NO. (//�,{ ,p AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB D Pet- r" ' • DATE 7' 2�1y loos CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT C •A - BY 3 — 5 ? X/6 0 X-27/, 1� z ¢7.2 °sic 47,2- l v aL ,� . t�7/ SOU ZA, TRUE JOB NO. 05'a lip SHEET NO. AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB ►( DATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT C i� , BY ��� 70.7 7 gtf 417 Q: ire tP rt � 1. 227 r x 4,L ( dam€ tt 'I 2l 2277 i1 X 2a/ �Z-77 V 47 & o- a 7/1611:, 0199"' � 1 f E t of 24 b ✓ , Cht c 1 � J'� t 4? " �` , o 0& x 6Z 112 ;Cf is, SO U ZA, TRUE JOB NO. y SHEET NO. AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB '' • 1Qe-j ;;,J DATE 63'2/-O�' CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT C.p BY v2? X 4671 t b ('sad} 3 6 ,� , o j 3 I5e-a d, 0 ¢,� �� _ V!'39 �2pv✓f fr7 21�C 5 ` '2, k4 A 14 7- r = 3 .67�- 3 17 4� , ¢3 //J70 f s-A t SO U ZA, TRUE JOB NO. 0 570 Q 6 SHEET NO. AND PARTNERS, INC. JOe C ' pG—eg (�E)j ttj DATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT C .CD, By TR�- 41�1 PLo--a,2. L'�' = 950F.-'p i 1 mull 3 47.2 f3 ??.�—��� - �l. -17 t1-1 7 T 2 -7. -7 t�7� CJ (5 coo J' �4 . 013�,02-4—z v. 03 ' ��f = ca,G5' (Lt) 10147 E: h ¢ seat (LT) t?.� � 97� �•fCor! ts-) 651 -LIZ 7 J r April 21, 2005 Cooley Dickinson Hospital Structural Peer Review Page 2 Based on our review of the representative elements, we find that the design of the foundations is conceptually correct, there are no major errors in the design and structural information presented in the documents is in general conformance with the Massachusetts State Building Code, Sixth Edition. Very truly yours, � ► �Af4 SOU TRU D PARTNERS INC. TERRY ��HTON LOUDERBA K �4 STRUCTURAL �SS70WAL�l, T rry A uderback, P.E. Presid t TAU 653 Mount Auburn Street Watertown Massachusetts 02472 Telephone 617-926-6100 Telefax 617-924-4431 email:souzatrue@souzatrue.com SOUZA TRUE TERRYA.LOUDERBACK, P.E. PRAVIN V.SHAH,P.E. AND PARTNERS, INC. JEROMEA.YURKOS<I,P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DAVID T.GILL,P.E. April 21, 2005 Anthony Patillo, Building Commissioner Northampton Building Department 212 Main Street Room 100 Northampton MA 01060-3189 Reference: Structural Engineering Peer Review New Surgery/Beds Expansion Project Cooley Dickinson Hospital Northampton, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Patillo: As the owner has requested, we have conducted an independent structural engineering review of the foundations for the above-referenced project as prescribed by Section 110.11 of the Massachusetts State Building Code, Sixth Edition. The documents reviewed were as follows: 1. Structural Drawings S100, S200.A, S200.13, S201.A, S201.13, S210, S401 up to and including Addendum No. 4 dated 4/07/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. 2. Specification Section 03300 (Cast-in-Place-Concrete) dated 02/28/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. 3. Geotechnical engineering reports dated May 21, 2004 and March 11, 2005 prepared by Weber Engineering Associates, LLC. These documents were reviewed with respect to only the design of the foundations. The superstructure(s) and its connections to the foundations will be the subject of a separate review. FOUNDED IN 1959 BY RICHARD W. SOUZA AND EDWARD K.TRUE SO U Z \, TRUE JOB N0. b SHEET NO. AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB GTb C46i J SVJ -P&91A-- It DATE °-:r CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT BY -a 4 iv M _ = l 4b62 .S 4• 2214- hA-w l-G 14-4 irk = 6 X 5-1 Fs' f--1,-o x 2600 — 2y 7�y, ;iS = 12 )� W-67 z 0.377 !b$ 67 + l a o — 11,2yi l b o + 68,7,I • SO U Z \, TRUE JOB NO. y 1570 1? SHEET NO. 6 AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB GppLS� 01GbA0i'04/�� ��-9� DATE mil'-757--05 CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT D BY 51a4 k— p � 15X61,5X x /5 t so9 f5;5 z1�� LSD 'p5" g.G. eat. 601L. RT &12.5 it IZ3 S o + i 4 o bz s 1 S 46k.is <-+I4-c13'4 6x 487- 27�oi� � � � 3 goo � Z OU ZA, TRUE JOB NO. 9• SHEET NO. AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB CO 4-jt) flj ,• 19 aj ge-� DATE ¢- 1�-o� CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT Cearru aiejela By 7�h� rohl)/fte4ej Wd11 f • 9X 1�—x 00a7 0 : aIX . rex6o ,c (li,ias- ,b���rly } 411IV93r� 33 H fA ( Z �- Yj H '-13 VN�3 - 3 l6.S'H'' 7 H = Zs933 �+ r-c#) r 14 2 ZV�i 14.r✓ acIV-/ o 15 / 2733E 14.67 25633 -�-- IMT1 �bs3 jAd 7 Q S O U ZA, TRUE JOB NO. d�0 `� SHEET NO. 4- AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB C00L 5yj t:)ICl.l4ill, —� PCCt (4 DATE 4-)S-o5 CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT �vTtti1(r �� F 1 ac,p6f rho = l.� � 4412+ 2q 539 -35z- � � JL►a° = Ci 3S8 Cc F 11`14 5 1.2 49 4,c,+ _ 1:5 9 2,65 '),6r 5 59285-s � �.w ' 1.2-x 1247 - 2,41.2A1)7,47 �seMlLe, ' �356?s� r' 3CA> a-- b - ( Zz1ps� wl 7 l V104- r Po.Q►.a� d.2 (s«q Ma 1.4 A 31oo �3,5 �l2 = 12 �s ll rcvuw = 0 ,9 �c o.3� ,c2 �60 ,� (Ig - 3 - 0.6) )2 = 4o)1� Rd, o•q 3513)�2.41bz1Z l.b � 221 �1.¢lb/� t3n8Lt 2.¢,Lf�S u e•� 0.14144 4(ob r �8 - 3 - .3�5-- 0.�}3)y)v 281 i u 29 3)4 Go 000 V- 4 1.0 ,- 1.o 2xm - 4 /O °l SO U Z \, TRUE JOB NO. y I SHEET NO. J AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB 0'o o C-a-� T�c�,.�S��r,.� 1RJRJ DATE �-/5-0 S CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT (��Wi[ ' /�50+✓ BY p,¢r%.ti sly 15r 4p 23t3-gam� r 16,s rsf 3�av 2'S t•o� 684Pr _ ;�' 9a8 ol ti �4e�T �t7 7C w • ( 3,+y1.o IZ1 3$q 1124-7 Ib A,94o4' �b Htv 3' IG.5`` , 41(."523 - Y2A,9:a$ ttl,stl3 = 441,1 2gs3q lam - t � F = 0.5 ,1 tl24-7 _ 5 33 16.5 - 'AL 51 A I ►b <,-6�27 1� Cc T ( 41404- ;-3611) 112 ] - i. 2C1►24-1 13C I •d- = '5:i56, rst I.$$ c+000� SO U ZA, TRUE JOB NO. o ��f�Jy SHEET NO. AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB COOL! O1Ckjs. ^, p'�LQ�,/, DATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT WDf/ i aiC4 r%4oJ By L oxjE SP;o f j3z - - cd Cl/,2 i0./3 4 29A 2 ¢•�3 u v 5*x �2 F3OM x /-3 A)'Z A 2-? A712 V, S.C"5 13 x (6.s - 2 4i X 327�- < �• won N/- AT Typl«, CuL, O. k. �o L g - 8 Cwt rn min�►7� %2 ` � 26� 09 /62 X, = , n I_l, _ 162 X ,i Zs2 14 13z , ,314 - - 3,y ks A t 0.7k-s4 < 1.33D-4 /'`/TESw- 45M71kL dt, w 1�'94wr OU LA, TRUE JOB NO. b J 0 11J SHEET NO. AND PARTNERS, INC. JOB CoocE1 Dick-W,90J P612 A J DATE .d-f¢-bS CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLIENT Coo Lt AiC<,W j4� By %7OIL- /;ou>J0 19770tJ C IAC L r CaL $- 7 ��P /�lT. �dt_. Nor ?T ez- Roop 2 r � P� 28' A 2t' x (45 ,4 iS /09. 211- /09.8 (4sf M5 f to c.s� .� � rr 2I X2C."X 26 " 0.11 P,// z 67.ok 6 S8.!o o,k, 0.97 os�s,' (2Q0 rr, _ - h : (26 - 0.8, /4.SZ)/L = 7. 9Z 2A7. /92 °- l7 3(� 2%Z � 2[�'x 2lv r3. � 1 _ Poan IQ G l 3 13 2 1 9 �� IN l2 ' 9 B.E.k1. �-r� = , 2Cn'�?,6 Sbj c 4-Z (20,2642� 4rw I. 4 X J-ll•G 4- 24-7 = q s5 k q3 lv ti (! " 0 IV—) June 23, 2005 Anthony Patillo, Building Commissioner Structural Peer Review -Cooley Dickinson Hospital Page 2 7. E-mail plus a memorandum (10 pages) dated April 27, 2005 from the Structural-Engineer-of-Record responding to my questions. (item #5, above) 8. E-mail dated April 28, 2005 from the Structural-Engineer-of-Record to me regarding elevator loads. 9. E-mail dated April 29, 2005 to the Structural-Engineer-of-Record indicating that I found his responses to my questions to be satisfactory and that a letter was to be issued to the Building Department stating the results of my review. 10. Letter (2 pages) to the Northampton Building Commissioner dated April 29, 2005 regarding our review of the design of the superstructure. 11. E-mail dated May 13, 2005 (1:13 pm) from the Structural-Engineer-of- Record describing the bulletin he was to issue covering changes to the design resulting from the findings of the peer review. (3 pages in total) 12. E-mail dated May 13, 2005 (1:48 pm) to the Structural-Engineer-of-Record indicating my concurrence with his rationale regarding the braced frames. 13. E-mail dated May 13, 2005 (2:26 pm) from the Structural-Engineer-of- Record indicating that an official copy of the bulletin describing the modifications would be sent to me. (I have received the official bulletin) In addition to the above correspondence, I had several telephone conversations with Mr. Struble regarding the structural design. If you need additional information, please let me know. Very truly yours, SOU , T AND PARTNERS, INC. T'e'rry ouderback, P.E. Presi ent TAL/jmd Cc: Mr. Tim Singleton, Cooley Dickinson Hospital 30 Locust Street, Northamptopn, MA 01060 653 Mount Auburn Street Watertown, Massachusetts 02472 Telephone 617-926-6100 Telefax 617-924-4431 email:souzatrue @souzatrue.com SOUZTRUE TERRY A.LOUDERBACK,P.E. �/ PRAVIN V.SHAH,P.E. AND PARTNERS, INC. JEROME A.YURKOSKI,P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DAVID T.CILL,P.E. June 23, 2005 r Anthony Patillo, Building Commissioner 0 ;� 2 2005 Northampton Building Department a 212 Main Street, Room 100 - Northampton, MA 01060-3189 ---° Reference: Structural Engineering Peer Review New Surgery/Beds Expansion Project Cooley Dickinson Hospital Northampton, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Patillo: As requested, I have collected our correspondence in connection with the above- referenced project. Enclosed are various letters, a-mails and reports. In addition, I have enclosed check calculations performed during the course of the review. Other checks were written on the drawings and are not included here. The following items are enclosed: 1. Foundation calculations page 1 to 7 dated 4-14-05 & 4-15-05. 2. Letter (2 pages) to the Northampton Building Commissioner dated April 21, 2005 regarding foundation review. 3. Sample superstructure calculations pages 1 to 7 dated 4-21-05 & 4-22-05. 4. Moment frame review calculations page L-1 dated 4-21-05 and pages No.1 to No. 9, latest printing 6-23-05. 5. Memorandum dated April 22, 2005 (2 pages + enclosure) to the Structural-Engineer-of-Record (Struble Engineering, LLC) with my questions regarding the design of the superstructure of the main building and chiller plant. 6. Copy of page out of CMR elevator regulations faxed by me to Struble Engineering, LLC on April 27, 2005, regarding loading on elevator supports. FOUNDED IN 1959 BY RICHARD W. SOUZA AND EDWARD K.TRUE April 21, 2005 Cooley Dickinson Hospital Structural Peer Review Page 2 Based on our review of the representative elements, we find that the design of the foundations is conceptually correct, there are no major errors in the design and structural information presented in the documents is in general conformance with the Massachusetts State Building Code, Sixth Edition. Very truly yours, � .DF M4 TERRY SOU , TRU D PARTNERS, INC. �o ASHTON LOUDERBA4K ��- 5TRUCTURAL ?,8641 �S�ONAL T rry A uderback, P.E. Presid t TAUj 0 3� _L&2 653 Mount Auburn Street Watertown, Massachusetts 02472 Telephone 617-926-6100 Telefax 617-924-4431 email:souzatrue @souzatrue.com SOUZ/� TRUE TERRY A.LOUDERBACK,P.E. / PRAVIN V.SHAH,P.E. AND PARTNERS, INC. JEROME A.YURKOSKI,P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DAVID T.GILL,P.E. April 21, 2005 Anthony Patillo, Building Commissioner Northampton Building Department 212 Main Street Room 100 Northampton MA 01060-3189 Reference: Structural Engineering Peer Review New Surgery/Beds Expansion Project Cooley Dickinson Hospital Northampton, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Patillo: As the owner has requested, we have conducted an independent structural engineering review of the foundations for the above-referenced project as prescribed by Section 110.11 of the Massachusetts State Building Code, Sixth Edition. The documents reviewed were as follows: 1. Structural Drawings S100, S200.A, S200.B, S201.A, S201.13, S210, S401 up to and including Addendum No. 4 dated 4/07/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. 2. Specification Section 03300 (Cast-in-Place-Concrete) dated 02/28/05 prepared by Struble Engineering, LLC. 3. Geotechnical engineering reports dated May 21, 2004 and March 11, 2005 prepared by Weber Engineering Associates, LLC. These documents were reviewed with respect to only the design of the foundations. The superstructure(s) and its connections to the foundations will be the subject of a separate review. FOUNDED 1N 1959 BY RICHARD W. SOUZA AND EDWARD K.TRUE