Structural Invest Rprt 2nd Floor Public Safety Bldg 1994 (in vault) STRUCTURAL I NVR ST I GAT I ON RE PORT
ON THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO THE
ATLANTIC BEACH PUBL I C SAFETY BUILDING
ATLANT I C BEACH, FLORIDA
APRIL 1 , 1994
]FOR:
CITY OF ATLANT I C BEACH
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ATLANT I C BEACH , FLORIDA
IP
BY :
NADEEM 0. ZEBOUN I , P _ E _
200 EXECUTIVE WAY, SUITE 2 1 6
PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA 32082
NADEEM ZEBOUNI, P.E.
Tel: (904)285-9890
�► Fax: (904)273-4254
April 1, 1994
Mr. Don C. Ford
Building Official
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233-5455
Subject: Sleeping Quarters Addition
Atlantic Beach Public Safety Building
Atlantic Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Ford:
You have provided me with a 100% review submittal set of the
construction documents for the existing Atlantic Beach Public
Safety Building. The drawings were prepared by Gee & Jenson on
February 16, 1987. You also provided me with a set of the
drawings for the additions and remodeling of the same building.
'These drawings were prepared by Fleet & Associates and dated
' September 30, 1993. Copies of the structural calculations
;prepared by Bill Simpson and Associates (see Exhibit "A" ) were
also submitted.
You authorized me to perform a structural investigation of the
proposed second story addition of the sleeping quarters over the
apparatus room. The work has been completed and this letter
report presents the data obtained for analysis and my evaluation
of the existing conditions and proposed addition. At the end of
the report is the conclusion which includes recommendations and
my opinion regarding some of your concerns.
INTRODUCTION
It is my understanding that the existing Atlantic Beach Public
Safety Building was built in 1987 in general conformance with the
plans prepared by Gee & Jenson.
;The work covered under, this report is limited to the proposed
second floor addition 4nd its effect on the existing structure.
200 EXECUTIVE WAY, SUITE 216 • PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA 32082
EVALUATION AND CALCULATIONS
The structural evaluation performed was based upon the data
obtained, my understanding of the information presented in this
report, and my past experience with similar projects. The
evaluation was also based on the requirements of the standard
building code and the following design criteria:
Loads:
Existing Roof Dead Load -- 17 PSF
Existing Roof Live Load -- 20 PSF
Existing Mezzanine Live Load -- 50 PSF
New Second Floor Dead Load -- 15 PSF
New Second Floor Live Load --100 PSF (with LL Reduction)
Wind Load Analysis Was Not Performed
Materials:
Structural Steel -- ASTM A36
Steel Tube -- ASTM A 500, Grade B
High Strength Bolts -- ASTM A 325
Anchor Bolts -- ASTM A 307
Welds -- AWS E70
Concrete fc' '= 3000 PSI
Reinforcing -- ASTM A615, Gr. 60
Concrete Masonry Units -- fm' = 1350 PSI
Stress Grade lumber: Southern Yellow Pine, No. 2, having
the following minimum allowable stress values under normal
load and 19% maximum moisture content:
Fb = 1210 psi (repetitive member use)
Ft - 575 psi
Fv = 90 psi
Fc = 565 psi (perpendicular to grain)
Fc = 1500 psi (parallel to grain)
E 1600 ksi
Plywood: APA glued Sturd-I-Floor using 1" thick T&G
plywood.
Pile Allowable Capacity -- 15 Tons
The calculations in Exhibit "A" were reviewed. Also, selective
calculations were performed on the structural numbers specified
for the second floor framing plan. A copy of these calculations
are included in Exhibit. "B" .
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the existing piles supporting the interior wall are loaded
to their capacity, interior columns in the apparatus room were
used and 15 feet long cantilevered steel beams were utilized
to support the new floor system. The concept is good and sound
but it is my opinion that the deflection at the end of these
beams must be limited to IIL/60011 since it is occurring against a
wall instead of midspan. A deflection limit of I'L/360" is an
appropriate criteria to control deflections in the middle of the
span. A more conservative deflection limit will also reduce
stresses in the T & G plywood floor deck. For this reason, I
recommend that a W 18 X 71 steel beam be used instead of
W 18 X 50 and W 18 X 50 be used at the ends instead of W 18 X 35 .
This will slightly increase the dead load deflection but will
reduce the live load deflection by approximately 30%.
The design and construction documents of the area investigated,
meet cu rent applicable structural building code criteria.
f ou have any questions or require additional assistance,
le s let me know.
i' ISi ceely,
,r
iN.'G. ebo E.
� cc: Fleet & Associates, Bill Simpson & Associates
File
�,I
EXHTBYT
err
pJai5
P
P sl 7- f
.,e
r: 81993
'-Building 'and Zoning _.....
.
. . �r
t
r
A
L4AL t
4 '
11 wil
r
• �R
n �
Corr
JQ
(Z-----------------
UJ`J` - --_
to I
1106
A
I; 19
17' "037
-------------
' . 1
_ Ca 11 OIL
------------
1
ilk
Ltd Rolm
•�!-Lam_.._ Z.
0 SIZ)
GOBI
hog
A Now
� of
c a t -----------
..........
AJ
,'7t Z C 2 7
UJ
I,j -- ...._
1
i�
Wfi
r,
p 0
an -�-P , O-j
9Ji. rn►J�
J-1 TA6
1�1
44
ji�
- -- «'
LL
_.
----�---r - - 0't�i ......_... _. ....... .w�.._..._._._. ..__..._.w..�ryM..�.�..._._ .
__....._....._.
IT
`n
� � 0
.
�.
Xf
BAN
v_.__..,... ._ �.
7
i � W
Z
e)-N rr
Ile Pt VC-4. irf 7XI" 7A�
ill
i,
v
r
° .-- __
hL
AAte
... .. �3 +!'C __ __!�+4.__ .. �►,��, -
.
�I
.i
,� -
9
,.r ... .� .._
1 _ ..`.
. . : ,..__.. t_.
,. ,�...
.. .. ,
4 .. .._.. � ...i . I i
t - i. :i
a.
vr,-
i .'..: � r
..,..:: 'V ::.:
. - ..
� .. �, i ..
. .. ..
;. ... �
.i :. ...
i .. a ...
.. � .. ...i r .. .. .. .. ....yr f r...r..v. .. .,..v� i ... .. _ .._
,.; _. _ _ .
;;.
. i . ; ; . ..
..
_ . �
a',. . .
, ,
,. ,k. '.
.. � ,.:".
Y,r .. ;:.., ,...
1
.:
� i .. � ..
.. .. � ..
r ..;. .. .... ..
` � .:�
... .. �.
Y ....� r .v_.„ _ .�.n .._.. .... .. � �
�,..
,.'' '� �.
_ z s ,: , �
r ,._., ......,..,..
r .,
s � _
_. � .. . ,
a ,. _ _ _
_ , ,
t
�. ,. ti
__ ; , . .