Loading...
03-025 -�� - L=iu.z.t H, �-.- \� L=36.78' R=105.00' he R=55.00' 0=38'19'01' 0=38'19'01' n / 6 �O N \ 1� OD. Cc r 53.68' 08 y I %'1 ss �� �'�6g • S 68'11'03" E p ``�, N 9 s 18'06 4 4 F t . � E���7 L=28.65 E S 53•�6� 9 S - co U; �.� 6 34, 945 ° E $� 2 �- 30 R=300.00' f, z 5 7-7-21 03„ E � o os �� 334 08,, 2 N� � ��5 �, ss• L=05 28 15 212).6 p `2,g.. U'- s o 54'18'06-w�)`3 L=50.78' ,Sp„ E �' S\ 'S0 F 60.95' 48.14 �� 94 w R=300.00 21 �3\, 0 p 0 3' S 7�� S 53. O " �. 28 >>• p=09'41 56 q.6 '�— 16'03" ��• S 67'20 20 E 6, � p• � N {�, 2A1 14g 00, E 29 L� �, prop d L=34.82' 9 S6 F 99.04' `Q F 80.99' `'� house R=300.00' S S 67'20'20" E 67'20'20" �ryh L=06'38'57" r z 1 � 2 ez W 130, 553+ / SQ. o �; 2. 9971 + — AC " N NN 0 .7 0 Z p6" W 134.25 13 .24' w N o 285.11' 25,5.16' N 69'52'35" W N 64'23'05" W 269.49' LEGEND r� 50.66' - 6 1 S. '52'35" p 6 +-- N 69 „ W a O FOUND IRON PIN N 73'24'54 this line • IRON PIN TO BE SET is one wall and barbed wire rer,ains along i ❑ FOUND CONCRETE BOUND o. ■ FOUND STONE BOUND �a BARBED WIRE FENCE f STONE WALL ' L UNMARKED POINT BRUCE DYER ROTH AND JOYCE MORRISON — BOOK 5121, PAGE 193 I REPORT THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMITY w WITH THE 1976 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS __-- i OF DEEDS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. , RANDALL E. IZER #35 32 a. N s ■aro 9 WHY fq iN N Y N s > IRU lb ji s A „iz Ohl to -d1 Y .s* tom. j o r i $i I V M n 0 3 a F , w ip of ;�o iS r Roof Rafter(!8 BOCA National Building Code(91 NDS)1 Ver 5.02 By: Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 03-25-2002: 07:55:28 AM Pmiect Somme-Location: Roof Rafters for Concord 601 Summary: SERIES 40 GPI/9.5-GsorgW P ' x 18.88 FT(17.9+ 1)(Actual 24.8 FT) ® 18 O.C. Section Adequate ey. 0.8% Control no Factor. Allowable A+bment •Consult manufacturers s for all cantilever applications. 1-ioisb wars designed for simple s ns with a limited cantilever using the ioist manufacturers Published values. If the design d not match the actual ioist loading or span conditions in any way,contact the joist manuftch rer for design verification. Interior Span DeAedtions: Dead Loadt Live Load: DLD4nterior= 0.43 IN Total Load; LLD-Interior- 0.98 IN=U319 Eave Deflections(Positive Deflections used fo design): TLD-Interior- 1.41 IN=LY221 Lam' Live DLD-Save= 0.00 IN Live Load: Total Load: LLD-Env*= 0.00 IN=2U17308 Rafter End Loads and Reactions: TLD-Esve= 0.00 IN=2L/31241000 4F LOADS: RXNS: Upper Live Load: �� 313 PLF 417 LB Upper TAI Load: � wok g G��� 139 PLF 188 LB Lower Dead Load: = go c3� N 349� 465 LB Lower Total Load: weft ys 158 PLF 208 LB Upper Equiv. Tributary Width: N0' 0.�0\�`� t jTWp 673 8.94 FT Lower Equiv. Tributary Width: gi'G1S , Rafter Dab: ffSS10N>►� LTWeq= 9.97 FT Interior Spah: L= 17.88 FT Rave Span: Rafter Spacing: L-Eaves 1.0 FT Rafter Pitcht Spacing= 16.0 IN O.C.Roof sheathing applied to top of joist&Top of rafters fully braced. RP= 10.0 : 12 Live Load Deflect Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Rafter Loads: Roof Live Load: LL= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load: DL= 12.0 PSF Roof Duration Factor. Cd= 1.15 Slope Adjusted Spans And Loads: Interior Spam: L-adi= 2327 FT Eave Span: L-Eeve-edi= 1.3 FT Rafter Live goad: wL-adi= 28 PLF Rafter Dead,Load: wD-adi= 12 PLF Rafter Total Load: =wT-ad 40 PLF Properties For. SERIES 40 GPI/9.5-Georgia aciflc j~ A Cagsdty D=pacity: Map= 23555 6 F F T-LB Shear Ca El: Vcap= 1120 LB End Reactioh Capacity: El= 193000000 LS-1N2 Comparisons With Required Sections: Rap= 1080 LB Maximum Moment Adjusted Mohne = 2892 FT-LS Capacity. B y. Mcap-a M= 2708 FT-LS Maximum Shear Adjusted Shaer Capacity: Veep-adi= 1285 LB El Required: El-req= 175581552 LB-IN2 El: EI= 193000000 LS-IN2 Maximum End Reaction: Rmax= 673 LB Adjusted Reaction Capacity: Reap-adj= 1242 LB Roof Rafbrt BOCA National Buildinq Code(91 NDS)I Ver. 5.02 BY: Teresa Nona Nevhart P.E. , on: 03-25-2002: 07:54:50 AM Project: Bercume-Location: Roof Rafters for oncord 601 Summorv: SERIES 60 WI/11.875-Geomis x 24.33 FT(23.3+ 1)(Actual 31.7 FT) Q 16 O.C. Section Adequate BY: 1.6% Controll Factor. Allowable Deflection •Consult manufacturers specificatio for ail cantilever applications. •Hoists ware designed for simple s with a limited cantilever using the joist manufacturers published'values. If the design not match the actual foist loading or span conditions in env wev, Contact the joist manufa for design verification. Interior Span Defections: Dead Load: OLD-Interior- 0.61 IN Lire Load: LLD-Interior- 1.38 IN = L1319 Total Load: TLD-Interior- 1.99 IN = L/221 Eave Deflections(Positive Deflections used for design): Dead Load: DLD-Eave= 0.00 IN Live Load: ��Of Wry_ LLD-Eave= 0.00 IN=21J17308 Total Load: ""`MCd, TLD-Save= 0.00 IN=2U31241000 Rafter End Upper Live Loads and Reactions: G LOADS: RXNS: Upper DeaRosd: +! �j�I001 N 82 PLF 243 LB VIA Upper Total Load: rMo8� sm. 590 PLF 787 LB Lower Live Load: s *a.i0w 444 PLF 592 LB Lower Total Load: .q,_ AEGIS 198 PLF 2134 LB Upper Equiv. Traibutary Width_ 10 N%-E �� UTTWeq= 858 1.06 FT Lower Equiv. Tributary Width. LTWeq= 12.69 FT Rafter Data: Interior Span: L= 23.33 FT Eave Span: L-Save= 1.0 FT Rafter Spacing: Spacinq= 16.0 IN O.G. Rafter Pitch: RP= 10.0 : 12 Roof sheathing applied to top of joie op of rafters fully braced. Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect Criteria: U 180 Rafter Loads: Roof Live Load: LL= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load: DL= 12.0 PSF Roof Duration Factor. Cd= 1.15 Slope Adjusted Spans And Loads: Interior Spoilt: L-adi= 30.37 FT Ewe Span: L-Eave-adi= 1.3 FT Rafter Live Load: wL-adi= 28 PLF Rafter Dead Load: wD-adi= 12 PLF Rafter Total(Load: wT-adj= 40 PLF Properties For SERIES 60 WI/11.875-Goorgia Pacific MMooment Caol"A . Mcap= 1 4335 IN Shear Capadty: Vcao= 1420 LB El: EI= 396000000 LB-iN2 End Reaction Capacltv: Reap= 1200 LB Comparisons With Required Sections: Maximum Moment M= 4587 FT-LB Adjusted Moment Capacity. Mcap-odj= 4985 FT-LB Maximum Sboar. V= ON LB Adjusted Shier Capacity: Vca"di= 1633 LB El Required: El-req= 389891488 LB-IN2 El: El= 396000000 LB-IN2 Maximum End Reaction: Rmax= 856 LB Adjusted Reaction Capacity: Rcap-adj= 1380 LB Roof Rafted 16 BOCA National Building Code(91 NOSH Ver. 5.02 Bv: Teresa ona Neyhart P.E. , on: 03-25-2002 : 07:54:11 AM Project: Bercume-location: Roof Rafters for ncord 601 Summary. SERIES 601 WI/9.5-Georgia Pacific 20.5 FT(19.5+ 1)(Actual 26.7 FT) Q 16 O.C. Section Adoquate Bv: 1.4% Controlli a Factor:Allowable Deflection •Consult manufacturers swificatio for all cantilever applications. •Hoists webs designed for simple s with a limited cantilever using the joist manufacturers published values. If the design does not match the actual joist loading or span conditions in env wev, oontect the joist manufactu ner for design verification. Interior Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Interior- 0.51 IN Live Load: LLD-Interior- 1.16 IN=U319 Total Load: TLD4ntedor- 1.67 IN=L221 Eave Deflections(Positive Deflections used for design): Dead Load: DLD-Eave= 0.00 IN Live Load: LLD-Eave= 0.00 IN=2UI7308 Total Load: TLD-Eave= 0.00 IN=2L/31241000 Rafter End Loads arld Reactions: LOADS: RXNS: Upper Live Load: 341 PLF 455 LB Upper Dead Load: ��OF 152 PLF 203 LB Upper Total Load: 493 PLF 658 LB Lower Live Load: t �' � op e^� 377 PLF 503 LB Lower Dead Load: 0K,1 [ H 188 PLF 224 LB Lower TotaM Load: �pN, 545 PLF 727 LB Upper Equiv. Tributary Width: WM � UTWeq= 9.75 FT Lower Equiv. Tributary Width: On. �O w LTWeq= 10.78 FT Rafter Data: Interior Span: '�fsSl0tl1►t. L= 19.5 FT Eave Span: L-Eave= 1.0 FT Rafter Spacing: Spacing= 16.0 IN O.C. Rafter Pttcht RP= 10.0 : 12 Roof sheathing applied to top of joists.Top of rafters fully braced. Live Load Dsf*cL Critens: L/ 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: L1 180 Rafter Loads: Roof Live Load: LL= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load: DL= 12.0 PSF Roof Duration Factor. Cd= 1.15 Slope Adjusted Spans And Loads: interior Span: f L-adi= 25.36 FT Eave Span: L-Eav"di= 1.3 FT Rafter Live Load: wL-adi= 28 PLF Rafter Dead Load: wD-adi= 12 PLF Rafter Total!Load: wT-adj= 40 PLF Properties For SERIES 60 Wl/9.5-Georgia Pacific Depth: D= 9.5 IN Moment Capacity. Moap= 3245 FT-LB ShearCapwiW. Vcap= 1120 LB El: El= 231000000 LB-IN2 End Reaction Capacity: Rcap= 1080 LB Comparisons With uired Sections: Maximum Moment M= 3203 FT-LB Adjusted Moment Capacity: Mcap-adi= 3732 FT-LB Maximum Shear. V= 507 LB Adjusted Shear Capacity: Vcap-adi= 1288 LB El Required; El-m= 227898240 LB-IN2 El: E1= 231000000 LB-IN2 Maximum 8nd Reaction: Rmax= 727 LB Adjusted Reaction Capacity: Rcep-sdj= 1242 LB Roof Rafter( 0 BOCA National Buildinq Code(91 NDS) )Ver. 5.02 BY: Teresa Nona Neyhert P.E. , on: 03-25-2002:07:53:30 AM Project Bercume-Location: Roof Rafters for oncord 601 Summary: 1.5 IN x 11,25 IN x 20.0 FT(19+ 1)(Actual 26 FT) ep 18 O.C. /$2-Spruce-Pine-Fir-Dry Use Section Adequste By: 0.4% Controlling Factor. Section Modulus/Depth Required 11.23 In Interior Span Deflections: Dead Load: OLD4nterior- 0.41 IN Live Load: LLD-Interior- 0.93 IN=L/319 Total Load: TLD-Interior- 1.34 IN=L/221 Eave Deflections(Positive Deflections used for design): Dead Load: OLD-Save= 0.00 IN Live Load: LLD-Eave= 0.00 IN=21!17308 Total Load: TLD-Eave= 0.00 IN=2L/31241000 Rafter End Loads and Reactions: LOADS: RXNS: Upper Live Load: 333 PLF 443 LB Upper Dead Load: 148 PLF 197 LB Upper Total Load: 480 PLF 641 LB Lower Live Load: 388 PLF 491 LB Lower Dead Load: 164 PLF 219 LB Lower Total Load: 533 PLF 710 LB Upper Equiv. Tributery Width: UTWeq= 9.5 FT Lower Equiv.Tributary Width: LTWeq= 10.53 FT Rafter Data: Interior Span: L= 19.0 FT Eave Span: L-Eave= 1.0 FT Rafter Spacing: Spacinq= 16.0 IN O.C. Rafter Pitctu RP= 10.0 : 12 Roof sheathing applied to top of joists Top of rafters fully braced. Notch Depth 0 Peak: NDoeak= 1.50 IN Notch Depth A Base: NDbase= 1.50 IN Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: u 180 Rafter Loads: Roof Live Load: Of LL= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load: DL= 12.0 PSF Roof Duration Factor. +>! IOU_ Cd= 1.15 Slope Adjusted Spans And Loads: o stK'� Interior Span: vo VI ML v' L-adi= 24.73 FT Eave Span: L-Esve-ad'1= 1.3 FT Rafter Live Load: Ns• p wL-adi= 28 PLF Rafter Dead!Load: REGISIE� ��� wD-adj= 12 PLF Rafter Total Load: '�fSSiONAt�� wT-adi= 40 PLF Properties For 02-Spruce-Pine-Fir Banding Stress: Fb= 875 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 70 PSI Modulus of ElasticiW. E= 1400000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc-psrp= 425 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 1157 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 C 1.00 Cr-1.15 Fv': Fv'= 81 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controllinq Moment: M= 3040 FT-LB 12.366 Ft from Left Support of S n 2(Center Span) Critical moment created by cam 'Wing sit dead loads and live loads on spans)2 Maximum Shaer V= 494 LB 24.732 Ft from Left Support of S an 2(Center Span) Critical shear created by oombin g all dead loads and live loads on spans)2, 3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 31.53 IN3 S= 31.64 IN3 Area: Areq= 9.20 IN2 A= 12.66 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 144.95 IN4 1= 177.98 IN4 Roof Rafter( 96 BOCA National Building Code(91 NOS)1 Ver. 5.02 BY:Teresa Nona Nevhart P.E. , on: 03-25-2002: 07:53:02 AM Project: Bercume-Location: Roof Rafters for oncord 601 Summary: 1.5 IN x 11.25 IN x 21.66 FT(20.7+ )(Actual 28.2 FT) Q 16 O.C. /Soled Structural-Spruce-Pine-Fir-Dry Use Section Adequate By: 2.3% Controls ng Factor. Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 11.17 In interior Span Deflections: Deed Load: DLD-Interior- 0.54 IN Live Load: LLD-Interior- 1.21 IN =L/268 Total Load: TLD-Interior- 1.75 IN = L/184 Eave Deflections(Positive Deflections used fo design): Dead Load: DLO-Save= 0.00 IN Live Load: LLD-Eave= 0.00 IN =21J17106 Total Load: TLD-Eave= 0.00 IN =21J31241000 Rafter End Loads and Reactions: LOADS: RXNS: Upper Live Load: 362 PLF 482 LB Upper Dead Load: 181 PLF 215 LB Upper Total Load: 523 PLF 697 LB Lower Live Load: 397 PLF 530 LB Lower Dead Load: 177 PLF 236 LB Lower Total Load: 575 PLF 766 LB Upper Equiv. Tributary Width: UTWaq= 10.33 FT Lower Equiv. Tributary Width: LTW Rafter Data: s4= 11.35 FT Interior Span: L= 20.66 FT Eave Span: L-Eave= 1.0 FT Rafter Spacing: Spacing= 18.0 IN O.C. Rafter Pitch: RP= 10.0 . 12 Roof sheathing applied to top of joists Top of rafters fully braced. Notch Depth it Peak: NDoeak= 1.50 IN Notch Depth Q Base: NDbase= 1.50 IN Live Load Deflect. Criteria: L/ 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: L/ 180 Rafter Loads: Roof Uve Load:Roof Dead Load: Zt1 ktt�,._ t- 35.0 PSF Roof Duration Factor. +� " DLL== 12.0 PSF Slope Adjusted Spans And Loads: C! TUM Cd= 1.15 ti1Ma yMEY gNABT Interior Span: L-edi= 28.89 FT RaverSoon:Load: tiMCTURK " L-Eave-adi= 1.3 FT UN.308 wL-adi= 28 PLF Rafter Dead Load: FCISTERE� `� wD-adi= 12 PLF Rafter Totall Load: G�� wT-adj= 40 PLF Properties For Select Structural-Spruce-Pin it E` lONAL Ea Bending Stress: Fb= 1250 PSI Shear Stress: Fv- 70 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1500000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Crain: Fc-perp= 425 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 1853 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 C 1.00 Cr-1.15 Fv': Fv'= 81 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 3596 FT-LB 13.447 Ft from Left Support of S an 2(Center Span) Critical moment created by coml ining all dead loads and We loads on spans)2 Maximum Shear: V= 537 LB At Right Support of Span 2(Can or Span) Critical shear created by combin rtg all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2, 3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 26.10 IN3 S= 31.64 IN3 Area: Areq= 10.00 IN2 A= 12.68 JN2 Moment of lnertle: lreq= 173.99 IN4 1= 177.98 IN4 Roof RaftW96 BOCA National Building Code(91 NDS)1 Ver. 5.02 By: Teresa ona Neyhart P.E. , on: 03-25-2002: 07:52:11 AM Project Bercume-Location: Roof Rafters for C oncord 601 Summary: 1.5 IN x 9.25 IN x 18.1 FT(17.1 + 1)(Actual 23.6 FT) A 16 O.C. /Select Structural-Spruce-Pine-Fir-Dry Use Section Adequate By: 0.4% ControllIng Factor. Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 9.24 In Interior Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Interior- 0.45 IN Live Load: LLD-Interior- 1.02 IN=L/261 Total Load: TLD-Interior= 1.48 IN=L/181 Eave Deflections(Positive Deflections used for design): Dead Load: DLD-Eave= 0.00 IN Live Load: LLD-Save= 0.00 IN=2L/11405 Total Load: TLD-Eave= 0.00 IN =21.131241000 Rafter End Loads and Reactions: LOADS: RXNS: Upper Live Load: 299 PLF 399 LB Upper Dead Load: 133 PLF 177 LB Upper Total Load: 432 PLF 578 LB Lower Live Load: 335 PLF 447 LB Lower Dead Load: 150 PLF 200 LB Lower Total Load: 485 PLF 647 LB Upper Equiv. Tributary Width. UTWeq= 8.55 FT Lower Equiv. Tributary Width: LTWeq= 9.58 FT Ratter Data: Interior Span: L= 17.1 FT Eave Span: L-Eave= 1.0 FT Rafter Spacing: Spacing= 16.0 IN O.C. Rafter Pitch: RP= 10.0 : 12 Roof sheathing applied to top of joists.Top of rafters fully braced. Notch Depth A Peak NDpeak= 1.50 IN Notch Depth A Bass: NDbase= 1.50 IN Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load reflect Criteria: u 180 Rafter Loads: X11 OF Roof Live Load: � TV= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load: DL= 12.0 PSF Roof Duration Factor. �� Cd= 1.15 Slope Adjusted Spana And Loads: gTlt11MIX H Interior Span: Ills.30 L-adl= 22.26 FT Ewa Span: EO L-Eeve-adi= 1.3 FT Rafter Live Load: '�CISTER �►4• w1.-adi= 28 PLF Rafter Death Load: NAt E '\ wD-adi= 12 PLF Rafter Total Load: wT-adj= 40 PLF Properties For Soled Structural-Spruce-Pi it Bending Stress: Fb= 1250 PSI Shear Stress: Fv-- 70 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1500000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc-pwp= 425 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 1818 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 C 1.10 Cr-1.15 Fw: Fv'= 81 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment M= 2462 FT-LB 11.13 Ft from Left Support of S n 2(Center Span) Critical moment created by coo 'ning all dead toads and live toads on spans)2 Maximum Shear: V= 445 LB At Right-Support of Span 2(Can Span) Critical shear created by oombini g all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2, 3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 16.25 IN3 S= 21.39 IN3 Area: Areq= 8.29 IN2 A= 9.74 iN2 Moment of Inertia: Iraq= 98.58 IN4 1= 98.93 IN4 Roof Rafter( BOCA National Building Code(91 NDS)1 Ver. 5.02 By: Teresa ona Neyhart P.E. , on: 03-25-2002: 07:51:39 AM Project Bercume-Location: Roof Rafters for 601 Summary: 1.5 IN x 9.25 IN x 17.4 FT 06.4+ 1)(kctual 22.6 FT) 0 16 O.C. /02-Spruos-Pine-Fir-Dry Use Section Adequate By: 0.2% Controlli ig Factor. Section Modulus/Depth Required 9.24 In Interior Span DeAeciions: Dead Load: DLD-Interior- 0.41 IN Live Load: LLD-Interior- 0.93 IN=L 276 Total Load: TLD-Interior- 1.34 IN=L1191 Ewe Deflections(Pdsitive Deflections used for design): Dead Load: DLD-Esve= 0.00 IN Live Load: LLD-Eave= 0.00 IN=2U11079 Total Load: TLD-Eaves 0.00 IN=2'LJ31241000 Rafter End Loads and Reactions: LOADS: RXNS: Upper Live Load: 287 PLF 383 LB Upper Dead Load: 128 PLF 170 LB Upper Total Load: 415 PLF 553 LB Lower Live Load: 323 PLF 431 LB Lower Dead Load: 144 PLF 192 LB Lower Total;Load: 467 PLF 823 LB Upper Equiv. Tributary Width: UTWeq= 8.2 FT Lower Equiv. Tributary Width: LTWeq= 9.23 FT Rafter Date: Interior Span: L= 16.4 FT Eave Span: L-Eave= 1.0 FT Rafter Spacing: Spacing= 18.0 IN O.C. Rafter Pitch: RP= 10.0 : 12 Roof sheathing applied to top of joists.Top of rafters fully braced. Notch Depth it Peak: NDpeak= 1.50 IN Notch Depth A Base: NDbase 1.50 IN Live Load Doffat Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deffect. Criteria: U 180 Rafter Loads: Roof Live Load: ZN OF LL= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead road: ,+ DL= 12.0 PSF Roof Duration Factor MESA Cd= 1.15 Slope Adjusted Spank And Loads: MR Yoe interior Span: WIN NEYNW H Lodi= 21.35 FT Eave Rafter oon:Load: Nei.CTCTUR L-Eave-odi= 1.3 FT wL-odi= 28 PLF Rafter Dead Load: IO wD-adj= 12 PLF Rafter Total Load: wT-adj= 40 PLF Properties For 02-Spruce-Pine-Fir WMAL Bending Stress: Fb= 875 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 70 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1400000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc-perp= 425 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 1273 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 C16 1.10 Cr-1.15 FV: Fv'= 81 PSI Adlustmerrt Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment M= 2284 FT-LB 10.874 Ft from Left Support of S n 2(Center Span) Critical moment crested by oom -ping all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2 Maximum Shear. V= 427 LB At Right Support of Span 2(C Span) Critical shear created by combin g all dead loads and It"loads on spans)2, 3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 21.34 IN3 S= 21.39 IN3 Area: Area= 7.95 IN2 A= 9.74 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Iraq= 93.15 IN4 1= 98.93 IN4 Roof Rafters 16 BOCA National Building Code(91 NDS)I Ver. 5.02 BY. Teresa ong Nevhart P.E. , on: 03-25-2002:07:55:59 AM Project Somme-Location: Roof Rafters for C oncord 601 Summary: SERIES 40 GPI/11.875-Georgia P flc x 21.66 FT(20.7+1)(Actual 28.2 FT) 16 O.C. Section Adequate By: 0.696 Controlli g Factor. Allowable Moment •Consult manufacturers spaciflcatio for all cantilever applications. •Hoists were designed for simple spa s with a limited cantilever using the joist manufacturers published values. If the design does of match the actual joist loading or span conditions in env way, contact the joist manufadu for design verification. Interior Span Deflections: Deed Load: DLD-interior- 0.45 IN Live Load: LLD-Interior- 1.02 IN=U319 Total Load: TLD-Interior= 1.47 IN=U221 Eave Deflections(Positive Deflections used for design): Dead Load: DLD-Eave= 0.00 IN Live Load: LLD-Eave-- 0.00 IN=2U17308 Tots!Load: Of TLD-Save= 0.00 IN=2LJ31241000 Rafter End Loads and Reactions: 1� LOADS: RXNS: Upper Live Load: 1i ° G,f 362 PLF 482 LB Upper Dead Load: sit 161 PLF 215 LB Upper Total Load: s ".N 00 H 523 PLF 697 LB Lower Live Load: sC� 397 PLF 530 LB Lower Dead Load: Lower Total Load: A• \� 5 177 PLF 236 LB 5 PLF 766 LB 0, Upper Eauiv� Tributary Width: EGIS � UTWeq= 10.33 FT Lower Equiv. Tributary Width: fSSI0NkIL LTWeq= 11.35 FT Rafter Data: Interior Span: L= 20.88 FT Eave Span: L-Eave= 1.0 FT Rafter Spacing: Spacing= 16.0 IN O.C. Rafter Pitch: RP= 10.0 : 12 Roof sheathing applied to top of joi op of rafters fully braced. Live Load Defied. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Defied. Criteria: U 180 Rafter Loads: Roof Live Load: LL= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Land: DL= 12.0 PSF Roof Duration Fedor. Cd= 1.15 Slope Adlusted Spans And Loads: Interior Span: L-edi= 26.89 FT Eave Span: L-Eave-edl= 1.3 FT Rafter Live Load: wL-adi= 28 PLF Rafter Dead f-.oad: wD-adi= 12 PLF Rafter Total Load: wT-adj= 40 PLF Properties For SERIES 40 GPI/11.875-Georg in Pacific Depth: 8 Moment Capacity: Mcap= 1 3145 FT-LB Shear Capacity: Vcap= 1420 LB El: El= 330000000 LS-IN2 End Reaction Capacity: Rcap= 1200 LB Comparisons With Required Sections: Maximum Moment: M= 3596 FT-LB Adjusted Moment Capacity: Mcap-adi= 3617 FT-LB Maximum Shear. V= 537 LB Adjusted Shear Capacity: Vcap-adi= 1633 LB El Required: El-m= 271268896 LB-IN2 El: El= 330000000 LS-IN2 Maximum Erld Reaction: Rmax= 766 LS Adjusted Reaction Capacity: Rcap-adj= 1380 LB Page: 2 Multi-Span Floor Beam(99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS) 1 Ver: 5.02 By: Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 :4:47:35 PM Project: CONCORD-Location: MAIN BEAM- TAIRS&DINING RM. AREA FDL-3= 45.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: Trib-1-3= 5.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-2-3= 2.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: BSW= 13 PLF Beam Self Weight: Wall-3= 160 PLF Wall Load: Total Live Load: wL-3= 490 PLF wD-3= 475 PLF Total Dead Load: Total Load: wT-3= 978 PLF Point Load LB Live Load: PL-3= 600 Dead Load: PD-3= 400 LB Location(From left and of span): X-3= 6.0 FT Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacifl Fb= 2600 PSI Bending Stress: Shear Stress: 285 PSI E= Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Fa perp= 700 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Adjusted Properties Fb'= 2592 PSI Fb'(Tension): =1.00 Cf=1.00 Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.00 285 PSI Fv': F�= Adi!ustment Factors: Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 8560 FT-LB 5.986 Ft from Left Support of S an 3(Right Span) Critical moment created by con bining ail dead loads and live loads on span(s) 1, 3 Maximum Shear: V= 5944 L8 At left support of span 3(Right pan) Critical shear created by combi iing all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2,3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 44.3 IN3 S= 82.2 IN3 Area: Areq= 31.3 iN2 A= 41.5 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 153.6 IN4 I= 488.4 IN4 Multi-Span Floor ajamF 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By: Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 : 4:47:35 PM Proiect: CONCORD- Location: MAIN BEAM-STAIRS&DINING RM.AREA Summary: (2) 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 23.33 FT(5.5+7.3+9.5)1 1.8E G-P Lam - Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By: 32.9% Contro lina Factor:Area/Depth Required 8.94 In Laminations are to be fully connecte J to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Left Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Left= 0.00 IN Live Load: LLD-Left= 0,02 IN = U5020 Total Load: TLD-Left= 0.02 IN= U3637 Center Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= -0.01 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= -0.02 IN= U3696 Total Load: TLD-Center= -0.03 IN=U2626 Right Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Right_ 0.07 IN Live Load: LLD-Right= 0.08 IN =U1405 Total Load: TLD-Right= 0.15 IN= U764 Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 1067 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 394 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 1462 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 0.60 IN Center Span Left End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 2657 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 997 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 3655 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 1.49 IN Center Span Right End Reactions(Support C) Live Load: LL-Rxn-C= 4840 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-C= 4533 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-C= 9373 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only Support capacity not checked): BL-C= 3.83 IN Right End Reactions(Support D): Live Load: LL-Rxn-D= 2320 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-D= 2123 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-D= 4443 LB Bearing Length Required (Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-D= 1.81 IN Dead Load Uplift F.S.: FS= 1.5 Beam Data: Left Span Length: L1= 6.5 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Top of m: Lu1-Top= 1.4 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Bottom Beam: Lu1-Bottom= 6.5 FT Center Span Length: L2= 7.33 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Top o Beam: Lug-Top= 1.4 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Botto of Beam: Lu2-Bottom= 7.33 FT Right Span Length: L3= 9.5 FT Right Span Unbraced Length-Top of m: Lu3-Top= 1.4 FT Right Span Unbraced Lenqth-Bottom of Beam: Lu3-Bottom= 9.5 FT Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Left Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-1= 40.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-1= 15.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-1= 5.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-1= 3.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 13 PLF Wall Load: Wall-1= 0 PLF Total Live Load: wL-1= 320 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-1= 120 PLF Total Load: wT-1= 453 PLF Center Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-2= 40.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2= 15.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-2= 5.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-2= 3.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 13 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-2= 320 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 280 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 613 PLF Right Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live load: FLL-3= 70.0 PSF Multi-Span Floor E eaml 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver. 5.02 By: Teres Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 :4:42:21 PM Proiect: CONCORD- Location: MAIN BEAM- 3TAIRS&DINING RM.AREA Summary: (3) 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 13.81 FT 1.8E GR Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:28.0% Contr !ling Factor: Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 10.94 In "Laminations are to be fully connecti od to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Center Span DeHeations: Dead Load: DID-Centerx 0.28 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= 0.26 IN= U636 Total Load: TLD-Center= 0.54 IN = U307 Center Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 2900 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 3104 LB Rx Total Load: TL- n-A= 6004 LB Bearing Length Required (Beam onl , Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.63 IN Center Span Right End Reactions (Support B Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 2900 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 3104 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 6004 LB Bearing Length Required (Beam onl), Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 1.63 IN Beam Data: L2= 13.81 FT Center Span Length: Center Span Unbraced Length-Top c f Beam: Lug-Tap= 1.4 FT Center Span Unbraced length-Botto n of Beam: Lu2-Bottom= 13.81 FT Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: L/ 240 Center Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-2= 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-2= 1.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-2= 5.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-2= 420 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 430 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 869 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacil c Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc,_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties F Fb'(Tension): b'= 2598 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.00 1=1.00 Cf=1.00 FV: � Fv'= 285 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 20728 FT-LB 6.906 Ft from Left Support of pan 2 (Center Span) Critical moment created by cot ibining ail dead loads and live loads on span(s)2 Maximum Shear: V= 6004 LB At Right Support of Span 2(C(nter Span) Critical shear created by comb ning ail dead loads and live loads on span(s)2 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 95.8 IN3 S= 1213 IN3 Area: Areq= 31.6 IN2 A= 62.3 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 572.5 IN4 1= 732.6 IN4 Pape: 2 Multi-Span Floor Boaml 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By: Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 : 4:40:38 PM Project: CONCORD- Location: MAIN BEAM-PIASTER CLOSET&BATH AREA FLL-3= 70.0 PSF Floor Live Load: FDL-3- 45.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: Trib-1-3= 5.0 FT Flow Tributary Width Side One: ib-2-3= 5.0 FT Flow Tr Tributary Width Side Two: gam= .0 FT Beam Self Weight: Wail Load: Wall-3= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-3= 700 PLF wD.3- 610 PLF Total Dead Load: Total Load: wT-3= 1329 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacifi Fb= 2600 PSI Bending Stress: Fv- 285 PSI Shear Stress: E= 1800000 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: AdJusted Properties Fb'= 2562 PSI Fb'(Compression Face in Tension): Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.00 C-0.98 Cf=1.00 Fyn= 285 PSI Fv': Adjustment Factors:Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: M= -14112 FT-LB Controlling Moment: Over left support of span 3(Rip it Span) Critical moment created by corr bining all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2,\3 8378 LB Maximum Shear: At left support of span 3(Right pan) Critical shear created by comb!i iing all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2,3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Sreq= 66.2 IN3 Section Modulus: S= 123.3 IN3 Area: Area= 44.1 IN2 A= 62.3 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ire 229.4 IN4 I= 732.6 I N4 Multi-Span Floor E Bamf 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS))Ver: 5.02 By: Teresi Wong Neyhert P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 :4:40:38 PM Proiect: CONCORD- Location: MAIN BEAM- ASTER CLOSET&BATH AREA Summary: (3) 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 20.25 FT( +5.7+ 10.6)/ 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:41.4% Contro ling Factor:Area/Depth Required 8.69 In *Laminations are to be fully connect4 d to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Left Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Left= 0.00 IN Live Load: LLD-Left= 0.00 IN- U9879 Total Load: TLD-Left= 0.01 IN= U6376 Center Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= -0.01 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= -0.01 IN= U4636 Total Load: TLD-Center= -0.02 IN= U3051 Right Span Deflections: Dead Load: OLD-Right= 0.08 IN Live Load: LLD-Right= 0.09 IN =U1407 Total Load: TLD-Right= 0.17 IN =U767 Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 1742 LB Dead Load. DL-Rxn-A= 1246 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 2988 LB Bearing Length Required (Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 0.81 IN Center Span Left End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 4137 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 1885 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 6023 LB Note:Dsaittn For Uplift Loads Rxn-B-min= -784 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 1.64 IN Center Span Right End Reactions(Support C): Live Load: LL-Rxn-C= 7815 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-C= 6905 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-C= 14720 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-C= 4.01 IN Right End Reactions(Support D): Live Load: LL-Rxn-D= 3083 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-D= 2711 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-D= 5793 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-D= 1.58 IN Dead Load Uplift F.S.: FS= 1.5 Beam Data: Left Span Length: L1= 4.0 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beim: Lu1-Top= 1.4 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Bottom Of Beam: Lu1-Bottom= 4.0 FT Center Span Length: L2= 5.65 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Top of m: Lug-Top= 1.4 FT Center Sparc Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lu2-Bottom= 5.65 FT Right Span Length: L3= 10.6 FT Right Span Unbraced Length-Top of m: Lu3-Top= 1.4 FT Right Span Unbraced Length-Bottom f Beam: Lu3-Bottom= 10.6 FT Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Left Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-1= 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-1= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-1= 5.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-1= 5.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-1= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-1= 700 PLF Total Dead toad: wD-1= 610 PLF Total Load: wT-1= 1329 PLF Center Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-2= 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-2= 5.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-2= 5.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-2= 700 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 610 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 1329 PLF Right Span Loading: Uniform Load: Page:2 Multi-Span Floor B mf 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By: Teresa ona Nevhart P,E. , on:07-29-2001 :4:37:13 PM Project'. CONCORD- Location: MAIN BEAM- STER BED&BATH AREA M= -19405 FT-1_13 Controlling Moment: Over left support of span 2 (Con Span) Critical moment created by com 'ning all dead loads and live loads on span(s) 1,`2 10877 L8 Ma)dmum Shear: At left support of span 2(Center Span) Critical shear created by combin ng all dead loads and live loads on span(s) 1, 2 Comparisons With Required Sections: Sfe4= 91.0 IN3 Section Modulus: S= 123.3 IN3 Area: Areq= 57.3 IN2 A= 62.3 IN2 Iraq= 327.0 IN4 Moment of Inertia: 1= 732.6 IN4 Multi-Span Flo r Beam(99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By: Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 :4:37:13 PM Project: CONCORD- Location: MAIN BF M-MASTER BED&BATH AREA Summary (3) 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 18.1 F (7.1 + 11)/1.8E G-P Lam -Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By: 8.9% Cortrollinq Factor: Area/Depth Required 10.9 In * Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Left Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Left= -0.01 IN Live Load: LLD-Left= -0.03 IN = U2499 Total Load: TLD-Left= -0.04 IN= U2146 Center span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= 0.11 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= 0.14 IN= U944 Total Load: TLD-Center= 0.25 IN= U538 Left End Reactions(Support A): LL-Rxn-A= 2802 LB Live Load: Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 1556 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 4358 LB Bearing Length Required (Beam Dnly, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.19 IN Center span Left End Reactions(Support ): LL-Rxn-B= 10284 LB Live Load: Dead Load_ DL-Rxn-B= 9283 L8 Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 19567 LB Bearing Length Required (Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 5.32 IN Center span Riqht End Reactions (Suppo I C): Live Load: LL-Rxn-C= 4081 LS Dead Load: DL-Rxn-C= 3465 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-C= 7546 LB Bearing Length Required (Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-C= 2.05 IN Dead Load Uplift F.S.: FS= Beam Data: Left Span Length: L1= 7.1 FT Left Span Unbreced Lenqth-Top of Beam: Lu1-Top= 1.4 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lu1-Bottom= 71 FT Center span Length: L2= 11.0 FT Center span Unbraced Length=f p of Beam: Lu2-Top= 1.4 FT Center span Unbraced Length- ttom of Beam: Lu2-Bottom= 11.0 FT Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Left Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-1= 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-1= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-1= 7.5 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-1= 5.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-1= 200 PLF Total Live Load: wL-1= 875 PLF Total Dead Load: WD-1= 763 PLF Total Load: wT-1= 1657 PLF Point Load Live Load: PL-1= 0 LB Dead Load: PD-1= 150 LB Location (From left end of span) X-1= 3.5 FT Center span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-2= 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-2= 7.5 FT Fioor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-2= 5.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2= 200 PLF Total Live Load: wL-2= 875 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 763 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 1657 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia F acific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties FU (Compression Face in Tensi)n): Fb'= 2560 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1 00 CI=0.98 Cf=1.00 Fv': Fv'= 285 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1 00 Design Requirements: Page: 2 Multi-Span Floor Beam(99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS))Ver: 5.02 Bv: Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 : 4:33:46 PM Project. CONCORD-Location: MAIN BEAM- KITCHEN AND HALL AREA M= -12301 FT-LB Controlling Moment: Over Plight Support of Span 1 (L aft Span) Critical moment created by combining all dead loads and live loads on span(s) 1,v 7785 LB Maximum Shear: At left support of span 2 (Center Span) Critical shear created by combin ng all dead loads and live loads on span(s) 1,2 Comparisons With Required Sections: Sreq= 57.5 IN3 Section Modulus: S= 123.3 IN3 Area: Areq= 41.0 IN2 A= 62.3 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 123.3 IN4 I= 732.6 IN4 Multi-Span Floo,Beam(99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By: Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 :4:33:46 PM Protect: CONCORD-Location: MAIN BE1+ -KITCHEN AND HALL AREA Summary: ( 3) 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 16.3 F (8.2+8.1)/1.8E G-P Lam - Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By: 52.1% Cor trolling Factor:Area/Depth Required 8.1 In *Laminations are to be fully conni icted to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Left Span Deflections: DLD-Left= 0.02 IN Dead Load: LLD-Left= 0.04 IN= U2477 Live Load: TLD-Left= 0.06 IN = U1657 Total Load: Center span Deflections: DLD-Center= 0.02 IN Dead Load: LLD-Center= 0.05 IN= U2148 Live Load: TLD-Center= 0.07 IN =U1426 Total Load: Left End Reactions (Support A): LL-Rxn-A= 2635 LB Live Load: DL-Rxn-A= 1981 LB Dead Load: TL-Rxn-A= 4615 LB Total Load: BL-A= 1.26 IN Bearing Length Required (Beam nly, Support capacity not checked): Center span Left End Reactions(Support ): LL-Rxn-B= 8037 LB Live Load: DL-Rxn-B= 6935 LB Dead Load: TL-Rxn-B= 14972 LB Total Load: gL_g= 4.07 IN Bearing Length Required(Beam niv, Support capacity not checked): Center span Right End Reactions(Support C): LL-Rxn-C= 3048 LB Live Load: OL-Rxn-C= 2196 LB Dead Load: TL-Rxn-C= 5244 LB Total Load: Support capacity not checked): BL-C= 1.43 IN Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Suppo FS= 1.5 Dead Load Uplift F.S.: Beam Data: L1= 8.2 FT Left Span Length: Lu1-Top= 1.4 FT Left Span Unbraced Lenqth-Top f Beam: Lu1-Bottom= 8.2 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Gott m of Beam L2= 8.1 FT Center span Length: Lu2-Top= 1.4 FT Center span Unbraced Length-T p of Beam: Lu2-Bottom= 8.1 FT Center span Unbraced Length- ttom of Beam: U 360 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: L/ 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: Left Span Loading: Uniform toad: FLL-1= 70.0 PSF Floor Live Load: FDL-1= 45.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: Trib-1-1= 8.5 FT Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-2-1= 2.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: BSW= 19 PLF Beam Self Weight: Wall-1= 160 PLF Wall Load: wL-1= 735 PLF Total Live Load: wD-1= 633 PLF Total Dead Load: wT-1= 1387 PLF Total Load: Center span Loading: Uniform Load: FLL-2= 70.0 PSF Floor Live Load: FDL-2= 45.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-2= 8.5 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-2= 19 PL F Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PL Wall-2= 160 PLF Wall Load: Total Live Load: wL-2= 805 PLF wD-2= 678 PLF Total Dead Load: Total Load: wT-2= 1502 PLF Point Load Live Load: PL-2= 360 LB Dead Load: PD 2= 120 LB Location (From left end of span) X-2= 5.0 FT Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam- Georgia Racific Fb= 2600 PSI Bending Stress: Shear Stress: 285 PSI E= Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb' (Compression Face in Tensi n): Fb'= 2571 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1 00 CI=0.99 Cf=1.00 Fv': Fv'= 285 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1 00 Design Requirements: Page:2 Multi-Span Floor S mf 99 BOCA National Buildinq Code(97 NDS))Ver: 5.02 BY: Teresa ong Nevhart P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 :4:29:51 PM Project: CONCORD-Location: MAIN BEAM- F MILY ROOM AREA FDL-3= 30.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: Trib-1-3= 8.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-2-3= 8.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: BSW= 19 PLF Beam Self Weight: Wall-3= 160 PLF Wall Load: wL-3= 640 PLF Total Live Load: wD-3= 640 PLF Total Dead Load: wT-3= 1299 PLF Total Load: Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Fb= 2600 PSI Bending Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Shear Stress: E= 1800000 PSI Modulus of Elasticitv: Fcperp= 700 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: _ Adjusted Properties Fb'= 2563 PSI Fb' (Compression Face in Tension): Adjustment Factors:Cd=1.00 Cl 0.98 Cf=1.00 Fv'= 285 PSI FY: Adiustment Factors: Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: M= -12954 FT-LB Controllinq Moment: Over left support of span 3(Riql it Span) Critical moment created by com Dining all dead loads and live loads on span(s) 2,v 7966 LB Maximum Shear: At left support of span 3(Right pan) Critical shear created by combir ing qII dead loads and live loads on span(s) 2, 3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Sreq= 60.7 IN3 Section Modulus S= 123..3 IN3 Area: Areq= 42.0 1 N2 A= 62.3 I N2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 212.5 IN4 I= 732.6 IN4 2e AJ Multi-Span Floor Be mf99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By: Teresa onq Neyhart P.E. , on: 07-29-2001 : 4:29:51 PM Project: CONCORD- Location: MAIN BEAM- F MILY ROOM AREA Summary: ( 3) 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 21.83 FT(5. +6+ 10.3)1 1.8E G-P Lam -Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:48.7% Controili q Factor:Area/Depth Required 8.33 In Lamination's are to be fully connect to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Left Span Deflections: DLD-Left= 0.01 IN Dead Load: LLD-Left= 0.01 IN = U6204 Live Load: TLD-Left= 0.02 IN=U3604 Total Load: Center Span Deflections: DLD-Center= -0.01 IN Dead Load: LLD-Center= -0.02 IN=U4561 Live Load: TLD-Center= -0.02 IN=U2973 Total Load: Right Span Deflections: DLD-Right= 0.07 IN Dead Load: LLD-Right= 0.08 IN=U1603 Live Load: TLD-Right= 0.15 IN=U827 Total Load: Left End Reactions(Support A): LL-Rxn-A= 1808 LB Live Load: DL-Rxn-A= 1622 LB Dead Load: TL-Rxn-A= 3430 LB Total Load: BL-A= 0.93 IN Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): Center Span Left End Reactions (Support B): LL-Rxn-B= 4453 LB Live Load: pL_pxn_B= 3083 LB Dead Load: TL-Rxn-B= 7536 LB Total Load: BL-B= 2.05 IN Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): Center Span Right End Reactions(Support C)' LL-Rxn-C= 6968 LB Live Load: DL-Rxn-C= 6911 LB Dead Load: TL-Rxn-C= 13879 LB Total Load: BL-C= 3.78 IN Bearing Length Required(Beam only Support capacity not checked): Right End Reactions(Support D): LL-Rxn-D= 2778 LB Live Load: DL-Rxn-D= 2781 LB Dead Load: TL-Rxn-D= 5559 LB Total Load: gL_p= 1.51 IN Bearing Length Required (Beam only, Support capacity not checked): FS= 1.5 Dead Load Uplift F.S.: Beam Data: L1= 5.5 FT Left Span Length: Left Span Unbraced Length-Top of am: Lu1-Tap= 1.4 FT Lu1-Bottom= Left Span Unbraced Length-Bottom Beam: om= 5.5 FT Center Span Length: L2= 6.0 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Top o Beam: Lu2-Top= 1.4 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Botto of Beam: Lu2-Bolt L3= 10.0 FT Right Span Length: Right Span Unbraced Length-Top of earn: Lu3-Top= 1.4 FT Right Span Unbraced Lenqth-Bottom of Beam: Lu3-Bottom= 10.33 FT Live Load Deflect, Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Left Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-1= 40.0 PSF FDL-1= 30.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: Trib-1-1= 8.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side One: Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-1= 8.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-1= 160 PLF Total Live Load. wL-1= 640 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-1= 640 PLF Total Load: wT-1= 1299 PLF Center Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live load: FLL-2= 40.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2= 30.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-2= 8.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-2= 8.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-2= 640 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 640 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 1299 PLF Right Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-3= 40.0 PSF REEEiVED MAR 14 --j" Combination Roof and Floor Beam[AISC 9th Ed ASD 1 Ver: 5.02 B : Teresa onq Nevhart P,E. , on: 07-29-2001 : 7:35:04 PM Project: COCORD- Location: STEEL[-BEAM III GARAGE �Summarv: A36 W1 6X3101 x 24.0 F7 Section Adouate By: 8.6% Controlli Factor: Moment Deflections: DLD= 0.30 IN Dead Load: LLD= 0.52 IN=L1557 Live Load: TLD= 0.82 IN= U350 Total Load: Reactions(Each End): LL-Rxn= 10800 LB Live Load: DL-Rxn= 6364 LB Dead Load: TL-Rxn= 17164 LB Total Load: BL= 1.13 IN Bearing Ler>Mgth Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): Beam Data: L= 24.0 FT Span: Lu= 1.4 FT Maximum 10nbraced Span: L/ 360 Live Load Deflect.Criteria: L/ 240 Total Load Defied. Criteria: Roof Loading: RLL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Live Load-Side One: RDL1= 15.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: RTW1= 6.0 FT Roof Tribut$n Width-Side One: RLL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Live Load-Side Two: RDL2: 15.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: RTW2= 6.0 FT Roof Tributary Width-Side Two: Floor Loading: FLL1= 40.0 PSF Floor Live Load-Side One: FDL1= 15.0 PSF Floor Dead Load-Side One: FTVV1= 6.0 FT Floor Tributary Width-Side One: FLL2= 40,0 PSF Floor Live load-Side Two: FDt2= 15,0 PSF Floor Dead,Load-Side Two: FT Floor Tributary Width-Side Two: 80 PLF PL F Wail Load: WAALLLL= 8 Beam Loads: wL-roof= 420 PLF Roof Uniform Live Load: Roof Uniform Dead Load(Adjusted fc r roof pitch): wD-roof= 234 PLF Floor Unifqq�rm Live Load: wL-floor= 480 PLF Floor Uniform Dead Load: wD-floor= 180 PLF Beam Self Weight: BSW= 36 P_F Combined Uniform Live Load: wL= 900 PLF Combined Uniform Dead Load: wD= 414 PLF Combined Uniform Total Load: WT= 1430 PLF Controlling)Total Design Load: wT-oont= 1430 PLF Properties for: W16k36/A36 Yield Strome Fy= 36 KSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 29000 KSI Depth: d= 15.86 IN Web Thic ass: tw= 0.29 IN Flange Width: bf= 6.99 IN Flange Thickness: tf= 0.43 IN Distance to Web Toe of Fillet: k= 1.13 IN Moment of!Inertia About X-X Axis: Ix= 448.00 IN4 Section Modulus About X-X Axis: Sx= 56.50 IN3 Radius of oration of Compression F ange+ 1/3 of Web: rt= 1.79 ?N Design Properties per AISC Steel Constructio Manual: Flange Buoklinq Ratio: FBR= 8.12 Allowable Flange Buckling Ratio: AFBR= 10.83 Web Buckling Ratio: WBR= 53.76 Allowable Web Buckling Ratio: AWBR= 106.67 Controlling Unbraced Length: Lb= 1.4 FT Limiting 1.19braced Length for Fb=.66 FY: Lc- 7.37 FT Allowable BerMing Stress: Fb= 23.76 KSI Web Height to Thickness Ratio: h/tw= 50.85 Limiting Wpb Height to Thickness Ra io for Fv=.4`Fy: h/tw-Limit= 63.33 Allowable$hear Stress: Fv= 14.4 KSI Design Requiremerds Comparison: Nominal Moment Strength: Mr= 111870 FT-LB Controlling,Moment: M= 102982 FT-LB Nominal Shear Strength:Vr= 67373 LB Maximum $hear. V= 17164 LB Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 306.8 IN4 I= 448.0 IN4 ivuv 1"_eUUe_ iv•co iu"N ur rHuLGI 1 41.E DOb Jbbl r-.1J/15 Combination Roof and Floor Beam(AISC 0 Ed AW T Yer:5.02 0 By:Teresa Wong Nwitrart P.E. on:07-29-2001 :7:36:04 PM Project:COCORD-Location:STEEL.l-BEAM IN GARAGE - Summary: A36 W18x36 x 24.0 FT Section Adequate By:8.6% Controlling Factor.Moment Deflections: DLD= 0.30 IN Dead Load: LLD= 0.52 IN=U567 Live Load: TLD= 0.82 IN=U350 Total Load: Reactions(Each End): LL-Rxn= 1� LB Live Load: DL-Rxn= Deed Load: TL-fir 17164 LB Total Load: Bearing Length Required(Beam orgy,Support capacity not checked): BL= 1.13 IN Seam Date: L= 24.0 FT Span: Maximum Unbraced Span: Lu= 1.4 FT Live Load Defect.Criteria: U 240 Total Load DOW.Criteria: Roof Loadina: Roof Live Load-Side One: RLL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: RDLI= 15.0 PSF Roof Tributary Width-Silo One: RTWI= 35 0 PSF Roof Lire Load-Side Two: Roof Dead Load-Side Two: RDL2= 15.0 PSF Roof Tributary Width-Side Two: RTW2= 6.0 FT Floor Loadina: ELL1= 40.0 PSF Floor Live Load-Side One: Floor Dead Load-Side One. FDL1= 15.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width-Side One: FTWI- 6.0 FT Floor Live Load-Side Two: FLL2= 40.0 PSF Floor Dead Loud-Side Two: FDL2= 15.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width-Side Two: FTW2= 6.0 FT Wail Load: WALL= 80 PLF Beam Loads: ��pph+ 420 PLF Roof Uniform Live Load: Roof Uniform Dead Load(Adjusted for roof pitch): wD-roams 234 PLF Floor Uniform Live Load: wL-floor 480 PLF Floor Uniform Dead Load: wD41oor= 180 PLF Beam Self Wdaht: SSW= 36 PLF Combined Uniform Live Load: wL= 900 PLF Combined Uniform Dead Load: wD= 414 PLF Combined Uniform Total Load: WT= 1430 PLF Controllina Total Design Load: WT-cont= 1430 PLF Properties for.W18x3W/A36 Yield Stress: Fy= 36 KSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 29000 KSI Depth: d= 15.86 IN Web Thickness: tw= 0.29 IN Fie Width: bt= 6.99 IN Flange Thickness. tf= 0.43 IN Distance to Web Toe of Fillet. k= 1.13 IN Moment of Inertia About X-X Ards: Ix= 448.00 IN4 Section Modulus About X-X Ards: Sx= 56.50 IN3 Radius of Gyration of Compresslon Flange W of Web: rt= 1.79 IN Design Properties par AISC Steel Construction Manuel: Flange Buckling;Ratio: FBR= 8.12 Allowable Flange Suckling Rath: AFBR= 10.83 Web Bucklinq Ratio: W8R= 53.76 Allowable Web Budding Ratio: AWBR= 106.87 Controlling Unbraoed Length: Lb= 1.4 FT Limiting U nbraced length for Fb=.WFy: Lcr- 7.37 FT Alkw mble Bsrdinq Stress: Fb= 23.76 KSI Web Height to Thickness Ratio: hhw- 60.85 Limiting Web Height to Thickness Ratio for Fv--.4'Fy: hitw-Limit= 63.33 Allowable Shear Stress: 1" 14.4 KSI Design Requirements Comparison' Mr- 111870 FT-LB Nominal Moment Strength: Controwna Moment: M= 102982 FT-LB Nominal Shaer Strength: Vr= 67373 LB Maximum Shear: V= 17164 LB Moment of Inertia: Ine� 305.8 1N4 TOTAL P.13 NLJV-I4-11-k9ejz 144.ZU 1UWN Ut- r1HLLtT 1 413 Dot. Jbbl t'.1G/13 Multi-Span Floor Beaml 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Vet:5.02 By:Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on:07-29-2001 :4:47:35 PM Protect:CONCORD-Location:MAIN BEAM-STAIRS 6 DINING RM.AREA Summary: (2)1.75 IN x 11.675 IN x 23.33 FT(8.5+7.3+9.5)1 1.8E G-P Lam-Georclia Pacific Section Adequate By:32.9% Controlling Factor.Area/Depth Required 8.84 In •Laminations ate to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to ail members Left Span Deflections: Dead Load: OLD-Left= 0.00 IN Live Load: LLD-Left= 0.02 IN=U5020 Total Load: TLD-Left= 0.02 IN=U3837 Center Span Deflections: Dead Lam: DLO-Center= 401 IN Live toad: LLD-Center- -0.02 IN=U3696 Total Load: TLD-Center= 403 IN=U2626 Right Span Deflections Dead Load: DLD-Right= 0.07 IN Live Load: LLD-Right= 0.08 IN=U1405 Total Load: TLD-Right= 0.15 IN=1.1764 Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxth-A= 1067 LB Dead Load: DL-Pjov.Aa 394 LB Total toad: TL-Rxn-A= 1462 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 0-60 IN Center Span Left End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 2657 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 997 LB Total Load: TL4bm-B= 3855 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only.Support capacity not diet ked): BL-B= 1.49 IN Center Span Right End Reactions(Support.C): Live toed: LL-Rxn-C= 4840 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-Ca 4533 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-C= 9373 1-8 Beating Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-C= 3.63 IN Right End Reactions(Support D): Uve Load: LL-Rxn-D= 2320 LB Dead load: DL-Rxm-D- 2123 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-D= 4443 LB Bearing Length Required(Seam only,Support capacity notchec:ked): BL-Da 1.81 IN Dead Load Wiift F.S.: FS= 1.5 Beam Data: Left Span Length: Left Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: Lul-Top 6.5 4 FT Left Sim Unbraced Length-BeEtenh of Beam Lu1,-Bottom= 6.5 FT Center Span Length: L2= 7.33 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: Lu2-Top= 1.4 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Bottorn of Beam: Lu22-801tom= 7.33 FT Right Span Length: L3= 9.5 FT Right Span Unbraced length-Top of Beam: Lu3-Top= 1.4 FT Rift Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lu3-Bottom= 9.5 FT Live Load Deflect.Criteria: U 2400 Total Load Deflect.Cillefia: Left Span Loading: Uniform Load. Floor Live Load: FLL-1= 40.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-1= 15.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One. Trib-1-1= 5.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Ttib-2-1= 3.0 FT Beam Self Weight: - Wall toad: Wall-I= 13 0 PLF Total Live Load: wL-1= 320 PLF Total Dead Load: WE)-I= 120 PLF Tsai Load: WT-I= 453 PLF Center Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-2= 40.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2= 15.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One. Trib-1-2= 5.0 FT Floor Tributary WkM Stile Two: Tf W2-2= 3.0 FT Beam Self Wes: BSW- 13 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2a 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-2= 320 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 280 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 613 PLF Right Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-3= 70.0 PSF IVUV-lY-GC/C1G lY•GO 1uw114 ur, tIHULCl 1 q1.3 DOO 'bbl r.11/1-3 Pape:2 Muni-Span Floor Beam(WBOCA National Suikft Code(97 NDS)1 Ver.5.02 By Teresa Wong NeyhaR P.E., on:07-29-2001 :4,.47:35 PM Project:CONCORD-Location:MAIN BEAM-STAIRS&DINING RM.AREA Floor Dead Load: FDL-3= 45.0 P'SF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Tdb-1-3= 5.0 FT FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two Tgs� L y 13 PLF Seam Self Weld: Wall Load: Wan-3= 1130 PLF Total Live Load: wL-3= 490 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-3- 475 PLF Total Load: wT-3= 978 PLF Point toad Live Load: PL-3= 800 LB Dead Load: PD-3= 400 LB Location(From left and of snarl): X-3= 8.0 FT Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2800 PSI Shear Stress. Fv=- 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E- 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc-_oerp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb= 2592 PSI Acoustment Factors:Cd=1.00 CI-1.00 U-0.00 FY: Fd= 285 PSI Adfustment Factors:Cd=1.00 Design Reauiremerds: Controlling!Moment: M= 9580 FT-LB 5.985 Ft tram Left Support of Span 3(Rlaht Span) Critical moment created by combining all deed loads and live loads on span(s)1,3 Maximum Shear: V- 5944 LB At left su000rt of span 3(Right Span) Critical sheer created by combining sit deed toads and live loads on span(s)2,3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 44.3 IN3 S= 82.2 IN3 Area: Area= 31.3 IN2 An 41.5 IN2 Moment of Inertia: "a- 153.8 IN4 1= 488.4 IN4 Multi-Span Floor Beamr 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)t Ver:5.02 By:Teresa Wong Neyhert P.E. , on:07-29-2001 :4:42:21 PM Proiect:CONCORD-Location:MAIN BEAM-STAIRS&DINING RM.AREA Summary: (3)1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 13.81 FT /1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate BY:26.0% Control ina Factor:Moment of Inertia t Depth Required 10.94 in Laminations are to be hAy oonnected to provide uniform tromfeF of toads to all members Center Soon Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center- 0.28 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= 026 IN-U636 Total Load: TLD-Center= 0,54 IN=L1307 Center Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 2900 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 3104 LS Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 6004 LB Searlm Length Required(Bearn only,Support capacity not 0110*90: BL-A= 1.63 IN Center Span Right End Reactions(Support BY Live Load: LL-R4n-B= 2900 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 3104 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 6004 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 1.63 IN Beam Data: Center Span Lencitth: L2= 13.81 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: Lug-Top= 1.4 FT Center Span Unbrsced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lug-Bottom= 13.81 FT Live toad Deflect.Criteria: U 360 Total Load Dented.Criteria: U 240 Center Span Loading: Unifonr►Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-2= 70.0 PSF Floor Deed Load: FDL-2= 45.0 PSF Floor Tdbutwv Width Side One: Tdb-1-2= 1.0 FT Floor Tr14utaN Width Side Two: BSW= .0 P FT LF Beam Self Weight: Wall Lam: Wall-2= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-2= 420 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 430 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 869 PLF Properties For 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bendhv Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasftkv: E- 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI AdkisiedFb'(Tension)' FV= 2698 PSI Adjustment Factors:Cd--t-00 0--t.00 C =1.00 FV: Fv'= 285 PSI Adlustment Factors:Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: Controlift Moment: w 20728 FT-LB 6.905 Ft from Left Support of Span 2(Center Span) Critical moment created by combining all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2 V- 6004 LB Maidmum Shear: At Right Support of Span 2(Center Span) Critical shear created by combining W dead bads and Hve loads on spen(s)2 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreo= 95.8 IN3 S= 123.3 IN3 Area: Areq= 31.6 1N2 A= 62.3 IN2 Moment of Inertia: I M- 572.5 IN4 1= 732.6 I144 �-- -- -- VI vinL 1 1 "I-) ...)00 .1001 r-.ill/1.3 Pape:2 Muftl-SW Floor Beam(99 BOCA National Buildtixt Code(97 NDS)1 Ver:5.02 BY:Teresa Wong Nevtwt P.E. , on:07-29-2001 :4:40:38 PM Project:CONCORD-Location:MAIN BEAM-MASTER CLOSET&BATH AREA Floor Live Load: FLL-3= 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-3= 45.0 PSF Floor Tribcdary Width Side One: T0-1-3= 5.0 FT Flan TributarV Width Side Two: Trib-2-3= 5.0 FT Beam Self Weight: %V= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wa0-3= 160 PLF Total Live Load. wL3= 700 PLF Total Dead Load: W063= 810 PLF Total Load: wT-3- 1329 PLF Properties For 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb- 26W PSI Shear s o E E= 1800000 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fcjx p= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Compression Face in Tension): Fb'= 2562 PSI Adjustment Factors:Cd=1.00 C1=0.98 Cfa1.00 Fw; Fv'= 285 PSI Adjustment Factms:Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment M= -14112 FT-LB Over left support of span 3(Riptrt Span) Critical moment created by combining all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2,3 Maximum Shear: V= 8378 LB At left support of span 3(Right Span) Critical shear created bV combning all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2.3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 66.2 IN3 S= 123.3 IN3 Area: Area= 44.1 IN2 A= 82.3 IN2 Moment of Inertia: IMM 229.4 IN4 Jr. 732.6 IN4 1`IUV lY LUUG lY•G1 1VWI\ U! fll',lILLI 1 Y1`1 .IUU _IUUl f GIU 1..1 Multi-Span Floor Beeml 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS))Ver:5.02 By:Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E , on:07--2%2001 :4:40:38 PM Proisd CONCORD-Location:MAIN BEAM-MASTER CLOSET&BATH AREA Summary: (3)1.751N x 11.875 IN x 20.25 FT(4+5.7+10.8)/1.8E G-P tam-Georata Pacific Section Adequate By:41.4% Conbollina Factor:Area/Depth Required 9.591n Laminations are to be fully connected to provide-unif0m transfer of loads to an members Left Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Left= 0.00 IN Live Lam: LLD-Left= 0.00 IN=!/9879 Total Load: TLD-Lett= 0.01 IN=U6376 Center Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= -0.01 IN Live Load: 1-1-134enter= -0.01 IN-U4636 Total Load: TLD-Ceruer= -0.02 IN=U3061 Right Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLO-Right= 0.08 IN Live Load: LLD-Rlahl= 0.09 IN=U1407 Total Load: TLD-Right= 0.17 IN=U767 Left End Reactions(Support A): Live L.00M. Lt-Rxn-A= 1742 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxrt-A= 1246 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 2988 LB Bearina Length Required(Beam only.Support capacity rot checked): BL-A- 0.81 IN Center Span Left End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 4137 LB Dead Load: DL4bcn-B= 1885 LB Total Load: TL-Rim-6- W23 LB NotsZoelan For Ual ft Loads Rxn-B•fnin= -78a L8 Bearing Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not decked): BL-B= 1.84 IN Center Span Right End Reactions(Support C} Live Load: LL-Rxn-C= 7816 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-C= 8905 LS Total Load: TL-Fbm-C- 14720 LB Bearina Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-C= 4.01 IN Right End Reactions(Support D): Live load: LL-Floor-D= 3093 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-D= 2711 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-D= 5793 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-D- 1.58 IN Dead Load Uplift F.S.: FS= 1.5 Beam Data: Left Span Length: L1= 4.0 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: Lul-Top= 1.4 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beres. Lul-Bottom= 4.0 iT Center Span Length: L2= 5.65 FT Center Span Unbraosd length-Top of Beam: Lug-Top= 1.4 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lug-Bottom= 5.65 FT Ripftt Span Length: L3= 10.6 FT Right Span Unbraced Length-Top of Seam: Lu3-Top- 1.4 FT Rlaht Span UnWaced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lu3-Bottom= 10.6 FT Live Load Deflect.Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect.Criteria: L1 240 Left Spatz Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-1- 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-1= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Tdb-1-1= 5.0 FT Floor TribAw Width Side Two; Trib-2-1= 5.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Well Load: Wall-1= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-1= 700 PLF Total Dead Load: WD-1= 610 PLF Total Load: WT-1- 1329 PLF Center Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Lure Load: FLL-2-- 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-2= 5.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two- TM)..2-2= 5.0 FT Beam$elf Weight: SSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2a 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-2= 700 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 610 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 1329 PLF Right Span Loading: UnNorm Load: 1`1UV-lti-GCICIG 1.4.Gf IUW1I Ur ill'1llLL1 1 'Yl✓ ✓VU ✓UVi , V, i.. Pape:2 Multi-Span Floor Beam(99 BOCA National Bulldlnp-Code(67 NDS)I Ver:5.02 Bv:Teresa Wong Nevhad P.E. , on:07-29-2001 :4:37:13 PM Projed:CONCORD.location:MAIN BEAM-MASTER BED&BATH AREA -19 FT-LB Cor�l�t moment: Over left support of span 2(Center Span) Cr9ical moment created by combining ail dead bads and live loads on span(s)1,V 10877 LB Modmum Shear: At left support of span 2(Center Span) Critical shear created by combining&dead foods and live loads on span(s)1,2 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreo= 91.0 IN3 S= 123.3 IN3 57.3 IN2 A A= 62.3 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 327.0 IN4 1= 732.6 IN4 I'lum-IL1-LClC1G lY•CI Iuw1l Ur- IInLLCI 1 •+-- ✓VU ✓-- Multi-Span Floor Beam(99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver,. 5.02 By:Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on:07-29-2001 ,4:37:13 PM Proiect:CONCORD-Location: MAIN BEAM-MASTER BED&BATH AREA Summary: (3)1.751N x 11.875 IN x 18.1 FT(7.1 +11)/1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:8.90/6 Controlling Factor:Arco/Depth Required 10.9 In •Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Left Span Deflections: Dead Load: Dk D-Left= -0.01 IN Live Load: LLD-Left= -0.03 IN=U2499 Total Load: TLD-Left- -0.04 IN=U2146 Center span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center- 0.11 IN Live Load: LLD-Center- 0.14 IN=U944 Total Load: TLD-Center= 0.25 IN=U538 Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 2802 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 1556 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 4358 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.19 IN Center span Leda End Reactions(Support By Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 10284 LS Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 9263 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 19587 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only.Support rapacity not checked): BL-B= 5.32 IN Center span Riqht End Reactions(Support C): Live Load: LL-bm-C= 4081 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-C= 3485 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-C= 7546 LS BearkV Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-C= 2.05 IN Dead Load Uplift F.S.: FS= 1.5 Beam Data: Lett Span Length: L1= 7.1 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: Lu1-Top= 1.4 FT Left Span Unbraoed Length-BottomotBeam: tat-Bottom= 7.1 FT Center span Length: 1_2= 11.0 FT Center span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: Lu2-Top= 1.4 FT Center span Unbraced Length-Bctto n of Beam: Lu2-Bottom= 11.0 FT Live Load Deflect.Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect.Criteria: U 240 Left Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLLT1= 7D.0 PSF Floor Dead Load. FDL-1= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-1a 7.5 FT Floor Tnbutmv Width Side Two: Trib-2-1= 5.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-1= 200 PLF Total Live Load: wL-1= 875 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-1= 763 PLF Total Load: wT-1= 1657 PLF Point Load Live load: PL-1= 0 LB Dead Load: PDA= 150 LB Location(From left end of span): x-1= 3.5 FT Center span Loading: Uniform Lead: Floor Live Load: FLL-2= 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-2= 7.5 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-2= 5.0 FT Beam Self Weight: SSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2= 200 PLF Total Lire toad: wL-Z= 875 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 763 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 1657 PLF Properties For 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific 8endi Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity. E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Compression Face in Tension): Fb'= 2560 PSI Adjustment Factors:CO-1.00 C1=0.98 01.00 Fv': Fv'= 285 PSI Adiustment Factors:Cd=1.00 Design Requirements. .�� .ice Gf.IUG L'Y'GU IUW1If Ur FINULC1 1 413 Jtfb Jbbl r.Un/1-3 Pape:2 Multi-Span Floor Beamf 99 BOCA National Buildir-Code(97 NDS)1 Ver.5.02 Bv:Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. . on:07-29-2001 :4:33:46 PM Project:CONCORD-Location:MAIN BEAM-KITCHEN AND HALL AREA ControNinp Moment: M= -12301 FT-LB Over RKM Support of Span 1 (heft Span) Critical moment createtbtr combining all dead loads ond,live loads on spans)1.2 Maxtmurn Shear: V= 7785 LB At left support of span 2(Center Span) Critical shear treated bV combining all dead foadsand live loads on span(s)1.2 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus. Sreq= 57.5 IN3 S= 123.3 IN3 Ate: Area= 41.0 IN2 A- 62.3 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 123.3 IN4 1= 732.6 IN4 ••- ------ - -�-- .rw` - .r,a,­ 1 "X-) _100 .7001 r-.t7v/1-3 Multi-Span Floor Beaml 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)I Ver 5.02 Fly:Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on:OT-M-2001 :4:33:46 PM Proiect:CONCORD-Location:MAIN BEAM-KITCHEN AND HALL AREA Summary: (311.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 16.3 FT(8.2+8.1)11.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:52.1% Controlling Factar•_Area/Depth Required 8.1 In 'Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to alt members Left Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLE4-eft= 0.02 IN Live Load: LLD-Left= 0.04 IN=U2477 Total Load: TLD-Left- 0.06 IN=L/1657 Center span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center- 0.02 IN Live Load., LLD-Center= 0.05 IN=L2148 Total toad: TLD-Ceram= 0A7 IN=U1426 Left End Reactions(Support A). Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 2635 LB Dead Load: DL-Rhin-A= 1981 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 4615 LB eeerma Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked). BL-A= 1.26 IN Center span Left End Reactions(Support 8): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 8037 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 6935 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 14972 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only.Support capacity not checked): BL-8= 4.07 IN Center span Right End Reactions(Support C)• Live Load: LL-Bxru C= 3048 LB Dead Load: DL-Pbi n-C= 2196 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-C= 5244 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam o*Support capacity not Checked} BL-C= 1.43 IN Dead Load Uplift F.S.: FS= 1.5 Beam Data: Left Span Length: L1= 8.2 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Top of Seam: Lu1-Top= 1.4 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lu1-Bottom= 8.2 FT Center span Length: L2= 8.1 FT Center span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: Lug-Top= 1.4 FT Center span Unbraced Length-Beffem of Beam Lu243ottom= 6.1 FT Live Load Defled.Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Left Span Loading. Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLO= 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load' FDL-1= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-1= 8.5 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-1= 2.0 FT Beam Self Weight: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-1= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wl-A x 735 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-1= 633 PLF Total Load: wT-1= 1367 PLF Center span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load. FLL-2= 70.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2= 45.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trlb-1-2= 8.5 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-2= 3.0 FT Beam Self Woot: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2= 160 PLF Total Live load: wL-2= 805 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 678 PLF Total Load. wT-2= 1502 PLF Point Load Live Load: PL-2= 360 LB Dead Load: PD-2= 120 LB Location(From left end of span): X-2= 5.0 FT Properties For 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb(Compression Fake in Tension): Fb'= 2571 PSI Adjustment Factors:Cd=1.00 CI=0.99 Cf=-1.00 Fd: FV= 285 PSI Adjustment Factors:Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: Page:2 Multi-Span Floor Beam(99 BOCA National Buirdim-Code(97 NDS)I Ver:5.02 Bv:Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. . on:07-29-2001 :4:29:51 PM Project:CONCORD-Location_ MAIN BEAM-FAMILY ROOM AREA Floor Dead Load: FDL-3= 30.0 PSF Floor Tributary width Side One: Trib-1-3= 8.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two. Trib-2-3= 8.0 FT Beam Seat Wert: BSW= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wail-3= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-3= 640 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-3= 640 PLF Total Load: wT-3= 1299 PLF Properties Fa': 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv- 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stns Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Compression Face in Tension): FW= 2563 PSI Adjustment Factors:Cd=1.00 CI=0.98 Cf=1.00 Fv: FJ- 285 PSI Adjustment Factors:Cd-1.00 Design Requirements: Controli to Moment: M= -12954 FT-LB Over left support of span 3(RigM Span) Critical moment created by combining all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2,3 Mardmum Shear: V= 7966 LB At left support of span 3(Right Span) Critical shear created by combining aft dead loads auM live loads on span(s)2,3 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 60.7 IN3 S= 123.3 IN3 Area: Areq= 42.0 IN2 A= 62.3 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 212.5 IN4 1= 732.6 IN4 ..v.. a, ._..'v._ a,-..v w 1 Y1J ✓UU ✓UU1 1 UG/1J Mufti-Span Floor Beam]99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver:5.02 By:Teresa Wong Nevhart P-E. , on.07-29-2001 :4:29.51 PM Protect:CONCORD-Location.MAIN BEAM-FAMILY ROOM AREA Summary: (3 11.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 21.83 FT(5.5*6 4 10.3)/1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:48.7% Controlling Factor:Area/Depth Required 8.331n Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Left Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Left= 0.01 IN Live Load: LLD-Left= 0.01 IN=U6204 Total Load: TLD-Left= 0.02 IN=U3004 Center Span Deflections: Dead Lam; DLD-Center- -0.01 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= -0.02 IN=U4561 Total Load: TLD-Center- -0.02 IN=U2973 Right Span Deflections Dead Load: DLD-Right= 0.07 IN Live Load: LLD-Right= 0.08 IN=U1603 Total Load: TLD-Right= 0.15 IN=1-1827 Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: 1-64bai a= 1808 LS Dead Load: DL-Rim-A= 1622 LS Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 3430 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only.Support capacity not checked): RL--A- 0.93 IN Center Span Left End Reactions(Support B): Live Load. LL-Rxn-B= 4453 LB Dead Load DL-Rxn-B= 3083 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 7536 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only.Suppe4capacity not checked;: BL-B= 2.05 IN Center Span Right End Reactions(Support C): Live Load: LL-Rxn-C= 6968 LB Dead Load; DL-Rxm-C= 6911 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-C= 13879 I-B Bearing Length Required(Beam only.Support capacity not checked): BL-C= 3.78 IN Right End Reactions(Support D): Live Load: LL-Rxn-D= 2778 LB Dead Lam; DL-Rxn-D= 2781 LB Toted Load: TL-Rxn-D= 5559 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-D= 1.51 IN Dead Load Uplift F.S.: FS= 1.5 Beam Data: Left Span Length: L1= 5.5 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: tut-Top= 1.4 FT Left Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lu1-Bottom= 5.5 FT Center Span Length: 1.2- 6.0 FT Center Span Embraced Length-Top of Beam: Lug-Top= 1.4 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lug-Bottom= 6.0 FT Right Span Length: L3= 10.33 FT Right Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: Lu3-Top= 1.4 FT Right Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lu3-Bottom= 10.33 FT Live Load Deflect.Criteria: U 380 Total Load Defied.Criteria: U 240 Left Span Loading: Uniform Load: FLL-1= 40.0 PSF Floor Live Load: Floor Dead Load: FDL-1= 30.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-1= 8.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: TriBSW= 8.0 PLF Beam Self Weight: Wall Load: WOW= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-1= 640 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-1= 640 PLF Total Load: wT-1= 1299 PLF Center Span Loading: Uniform Load: Floor Live Load: FLL-2= 40.0 PSF Floor Dead Load: FDL-2' 30.0 PSF Floor Tributary Width Side One: Trib-1-2= 8.0 FT Floor Tributary Width Side Two: Trib-2-2= 8.0 FT Beam Self Wert BM= 19 PLF Wall Load: Wall-2= 160 PLF Total Live Load: wL-2= 640 PLF Total Dead Load: wD-2= 640 PLF Total Load: WT-2= 1299 PLF Right Span Loading: Uniform Load- Floor Live Load: FLL-3= 40.0 PSF NL" 14-GVJCIG 14•G.7 iuwi• ur nnawu + '++- --- --- ••-++ +-' . i �-as 4 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS ? E !A • � � • TOWN HALL too MIDDLE STREET HADIEY,.MASSAGNUSETYS 01035 �► fir; ii. ::(4i3JI 586=7274 FAX 586-5661 FAX NOV 1 j, � Date: A0 2- Number of pages including cover sheet To.a N Lt'0 FRO i rn l� Al rAI Town of Hadley 100 Middle Street Hadley,MA 01035 Phone: (413) 586- 77.7f FAX.(413)586-5661 t,tt�*******�************��s+r,�vr�r*A�trir,tw�r*r,rr►**+r��*�*�c�c tic**t*t,rtt,r,r�x*,r,r*****�****� Remarks: v r:Y.X. '(rgent: For Your Review& Comment:_Reply ASAP SUBJEcr. lei / '— 2� DoT 6'jC"0tL'b. sill"l Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 Crystal pointed out that they were just going on Misch's recommendation;they hadnI seen any of this. There was no recommendation In her staff report,but If she was saying verbally that It met her satisfaction... Misch explained that she did not make a recommendation because she had not heard back from the DPW. She confirmed that she thought this was a good design for the storm water. The design and the maintenance agreement were the big outstanding Issues, and she thought these had been addressed,she remarked. Without additional red flags from the DPW,she would recommend approval,she concluded. Yacuzzo said there was always the caveat of approving it subject to the DPW's approval. Jodrie moved to close the public hearing. Crystal seconded. The motion passed unanimously 6:0. Romano moved to approve the request by Ronald Bercume for Special Permits with Site Plan Approval under Sections 6.13 and 10.10 of the Zoning Ordinance for three flag lots and a Special Permit with Site Plan Approval under Section 6.12 to allow a common driveway to serve three lots, for property located on Coles Meadow Road,also known as Assessor's Map 3,Parcels 11 and 15, and to also approve the second curb cut because the application met the requirements of zoning. As part of her motion,she also moved to approve the requested waivers and to include the following conditions:1)approval is contingent upon DPW satisfaction and approval[with the revised plans], 2)approval is conditional upon the applicant clearly Indicating,in the deeds of the lots that the stormwater management facilities are the responsibility of the lot owners and must be maintained In operable condition and cleaned of sediment at least annually, 3)the revised maintenance schedule submitted tonight is incorporated into the permit by reference,and 4)the maintenance agreement must be amended to clarify that the Inspections and the report be completed by a professional engineer. Jodrie seconded. Crystal asked what if plans needed a minor change? Romano said she would give staff discretion to determine if it needed to come back to the Board. The motion passed unanimously 6:0. GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers&Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 Association precisely what their responsibilities were. Miner asked if he hadn't presented that he would make it a part of the Homeowner's Association[document]? Misch said he did, but it was not specific enough,and the DPW said It was not specific enough. After further discussion,members agreed to proceed by continuing the hearing to November 9,2000 at 7:45 p.m. They directed the applicant to give staff two weeks for review of any new material prior to November 9th. The motion passed unanimously 7:0. On November 9, 2000 at 8:40 p.m., Yacuzzo opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a request by Ronald Bercume for 1)Special Permits with Site Plan Approval under Sections 6.13 and 10.10 of the Zoning Ordinance for three flag lots,and 2)a Special Permit with Site Plan Approval under Section 6.12 to allow a common driveway to serve three lots,for property located on Coles Meadow Road,also known as Assessor's Map 3,Parcels 11 & 15. As part of Site Plan Approval, the applicant has also requested approval for a second curb cut. Yacuzzo read the legal notice. Don Miner of Harold Eaton&Associates Inc.reminded members that at the last meeting he had presented evidence that test holes were performed on the site to a depth of 20 feet which acknowledged that there were gravel and compacted clay levels. Two days after that hearing,percolation tests were performed on site,he reported. For test pit#1,perc rates were done at the bottom of the detention basin plus four feet below that and were recorded at 13 minutes to an inch. For detention basin#2, they were done at two elevations,one at the bottom and one four feet below,and the perc rate was determined to be two minutes to an inch,he related. Miner briefly reviewed the provisions for handling drainage. He reminded members that they were proposing a leaching basin in each of the retention basins. The question was raised about the effect of wintertime freezing,and they had information that it would infiltrate based on the perc rate, he assured. He described the provision for handling any drainage which might overflow retention basin#1 in frozen conditions, indicating that there was a stone-fined outlet leading to the other basin. For the detention basin near Coles Meadow Road, if that filled and overtopped, they were providing an outlet at the top which would carry flow under the driveway to another leaching catch basin,Miner indicated. (They are creating a two-foot diameter trench area underground, to be wrapped in fabric,he said.) Miner expressed the opinion that the basin would not overflow because they were installing two outlets, including the one for the leaching basin which would be in the ground. For construction of the basin,Miner said they were proposing to excavate down six feet and backfill with stone two to four inches in size,so the leaching basin would be sitting in a stone-lined area. Miner said he had presented the design to staff and, as of yesterday morning, had received no negative comments. He had presented a revised common drive[plan]and amended storm water maintenance agreement expanded to include not just the driveway but every structure,Miner related. The owners of the three lots had the responsibility to have structures inspected every three years by a person to be specified by the Board and to submit a report, he advised. Misch commented that she thought the design was finally to the point where it met the standards for drainage. She noted that it had progressed from the very first drawing where was no detail to where there was now strong detail. The Department of Public Works(DPW) received the revised information two weeks ago but as of today had not yet provided comments, she informed the Board. She said she called today and was told they had not finished reviewing it. Miner noted for the record that he had been to the DPW three times and had called four times,and he had never been able to touch base with Paulette Kuzdeba,who did the reviewing. Yacuzzo said they appreciated the time spent and the efforts made to address the technicalities of the drainage. Misch noted that Exhibit A was not attached to the maintenance agreement,and Miner said it was attached to the original. She also clarified that the inspections and report should be performed by a professional engineer, and Miner said he had no problem with that. Crystal asked what the purpose of the report was? Misch said just to insure that the system was operating overtime. They had had problems with these things overtime,she noted. Crystal questioned whether the requirement should be for a yearly inspection report and for the homeowners to fix the system if the report said it wasn't working? He said he thought he also remembered that on other projects they had specifically had language saying that the city wasn't responsible. .. Felder said that was usually on subdivisions and not on private developments were the assumption would be that the city was not responsible. Miner said they needed to add an easement which would be resubmitted. Yacuzzo asked if anyone In the audience wished to speak in favor or In opposition? No one spoke. Yacuzzo asked if members were satisfied with the information that was presented? GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers&Associates,Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 Misch pointed out that the Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)did not recommend Infiltration basins In this type of situation with this mix of clay or Impermeable types of soil. She acknowledged they were not required to meet DEP standards. Miner said that,at the same time,in the Water Supply Protection(WSP)district,they were required to Infiltrate. Misch said they could go with a shallower system along the entire length of the roadway Instead of two deeper basins. Yacuzzo asked why not provide a swale along the length of the roadway? Miner said they had drainage swales along the roadway. They were picking up all the drainage Into swales,putting them into catch basins,and exiting them into detention basins, he clarified. Crystal expressed the opinion that this was getting ridiculous. Maybe the Board should just act on the information they had before them, he suggested. He pointed out that Miner was making his proposal'based on something he gave staff today and on a design proposed by a consultant they did not have before them.' He said he didn't see anything before them that convinced him that this was going to work. Miner stressed that the design of the drainage system was not going to change except for the addition of leaching catch basins within the detention basins. . . Yacuzzo said he thought it was very difficult for them to believe that there wasn't going to be more water in those basins than they could handle because of the impenetrable surface. He pointed out that they didn't know the size of the basins;there were no specs on those, and they didn't know what the perc[rate]was below those leaching basins. Miner said he had provided evidence that the detention basins would support a 25-year storm. Yacuzzo said that was without the soil samples they just got. Based on the soil samples, it was going to be very slow penetration of water below a certain substrate, he noted. Crystal said this would make him very suspect of information he had provided before which said this would work. DPW Concerns. Yacuzzo read from the DPW comments. He said he didn't know that they had received an answer to the concerns recited. Miner said the plans showed there was a swale entering into the detention basin that went to a leaching catch basin. They had now provided soil logs which showed that the soil at that location was capable of accepting the water,he observed. Yacuzzo said he didn't know how other members of the Board felt,but he was not assured that the detention basin was not going to fail at infiltrating water back into the ground. He was not convinced that the water would penetrate the surface quickly enough not to cause an overflow to adjacent areas, he volunteered. Jodrie agreed. He added that he didn't know how the basin was designed not knowing the percolation rate at that depth. Romano said it seemed they were of the opinion that more information was needed to address the concerns raised by the DPW. She said it seemed to her that it was a little commonsensical to look at those concerns and anticipate what those questions would be. Misch said the board needed to be sure where the ground water was and that the detention basin would function as designed. Miner requested a continuance. Crystal said it was up to the applicant to provide information. Miner said he had been instructed at the last meeting to provide boring information and information as to what the soils were,and he had done that Yacuzzo said it appeared from the information that the soils would not perc. Crystal moved to continue. Diemand seconded. Misch said one option was to condition approval on the applicant's meeting the DPW's standards. Crystal said he would like to see them come back and present a full,complete, thoughtful design for how they were going to handle stormwater run-off in enough time for staff and DPW to review it Miner again asked if he should go back through the DPW, and Yacuzzo said he should go back through staff. Yacuzzo clarified that the issues were the two retention basins and Infiltration calculations showing the basins were sufficiently sized. Miner said he did present that information. Misch said they discussed at the last meeting that the maintenance agreement was not specific enough to be clear to the Homeowner's GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers&Associates, Inc. _ y\ Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 system]would be wholly owned by the lot owners and something else[missed]. Miner said he had discussed with legal counsel that,depending on the tone of the meeting, they would be willing to make such a statement for inclusion In the Homeowner's Association[document],subject to review by staff. Yacuzzo asked if there were any public comments? Hearing none,Jodrie moved to continue the hearing to October 12, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. Romano seconded. The motion passed unanimously 7:0. On October 12, 2000 at 7:48 p.m., Yacuzzo opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a request by Ronald Bercume for 1)Special Permits with Site Plan Approval under Sections 6.13 and 10.10 of the Zoning Ordinance for three flag lots,and 2)a Special Permit with Site Plan Approval under Section 6.12 to allow a common driveway to serve three lots, for property located on Coles Meadow Road, also known as Assessor's Map 3,Parcels 11& 15. As part of Site Plan Approval, the applicant requested approval of a second curb cut. Don Miner of Harold Eaton&Associates,Inc.said he had been requested to present soil logs at three locations: the two detention basins and the location of the proposed leaching basin at the entrance to the common drive. After repeated phone calls to boring contractors,he found out it would be a length of time before he could make arrangements for a boring contractor to come to the site, he reported. He discussed this with[Senior Planner]Carolyn Misch and requested permission to go on the site with a machine to dig 20- foot test holes. After consultation with[Planning Director]Wayne Feiden,she indicated this would be an acceptable procedure but requested that the test holes be observed by an officially licensed,state-mandated soil evaluator,he related. Ronald Bercume made arrangements for the person responsible for the perc tests to observe the tests, he continued. A total of three holes were done, two in the location of the proposed detention basins and an additional site. In the last day,an additional test was completed within six feet of Coles Meadow Road in the original location of the catch basin,he said. The sanitarian's report was submitted today for staff to review. Miner noted that the report appeared to support statements made at the last Planning Board meeting that they were Charlton soils, very compact...At the site of the leaching catch basin near the road, they experienced refusal at about eight feet. It might be ledge, or it might be a gigantic boulder,he submitted. Prior to that refusal,they went through some loam,about four feet of sandy material-like beach sand-then a couple of feet of clay,he reported. Based on that, the consulting engineer made a minor modification to the proposed catch basin. (The soil was similar to a sponge,Miner commented.) Particularly, the engineer proposed shortening the depth of the proposed leaching catch basin. A small portion of the clay would be removed,to be replaced with a gravel material. The majority of the leaching catch basin would be within the strata of four feet that would be receptive to[drainage], Miner concluded. Yacuzzo asked about the statement from the report of Timothy E.Maginnis that"available water capacity for Charlton soils is very low which in turn will cause rain water and snow melt to travel at the interface of the BIC horizon with very low permeability into the C horizon." He said it seemed to indicate that water would not penetrate below that surface. Miner said it would penetrate,but at a very slow rate. Crystal asked if he perced it and told him what the rate was? Miner said the report acknowledged that they were not there to do perc tests. He confirmed the purpose of the retention basin was to infiltrate water. If the purpose is to infiltrate, wouldn't it make sense to perform a perc test to see if the soil will percolate water for infiltration?Crystal asked. Miner said the fact remained that it would infiltrate, whether it was fast or slow. Crystal asked how he knew that it would infiltrate quickly enough in heavy rain so that it would not overflow? Miner said he could not respond to that question. Crystal said that, in that case,he would have a hard time acting on the application. Infiltration Basin Design. Miner said it was recommended to install leaching catch basins Five or six feet deep in the infiltration basin, surrounded by stone and filter paper, to assist in the infiltration into that soil during peak storms and during(). Crystal asked where this design was? Miner said he had not had time to present it. He stressed that they had not changed the design, they were just acknowledging that it would assist in the infiltration of water if they brought it down to a lower depth. Misch said the other issue was that the surrounding clay soils around the infiltration basin would still be a problem. Miner said there were levels of clay, it was not a protected situation. GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers&Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 Miner showed the location where they were performed. He acknowledged that they were not done In the area of the entrance to the common drive. He Informed members that there was a stream bed on property across the street which was between 12 and 14 feet below grade of where they were today. He showed the location of across culvert underneath the road,pointing out that it was for all intents and purposes dry except when they had rain. Yacuzzo said he was curious as to why a testing hole wasn't done In the area of the detention pond if they knew they were going to have a detention area there? ' Miner said right now there was a steep grade there and evidence of gravel. They were going to cut eight or nine feet right where the road comes in,he advised. The machine would have to go down nine feet-it wouldn't be possible,he concluded. Crystal asked if he could bring in a boring rig? Miner said he could. He repeated that he didn't anticipate seeing any water table. Members noted that that would be all that was necessary to satisfy the concerns of the DPW. Miner said if it was their choice to require test holes, obviously, they would have to do them. Crystal directed him to also include some kind of engineer's report as to what they observed. Miner showed the location of the detention basin in relation to the proposed driveway. He noted that there would be three to four feet between the driveway and the basin. They had proposed a guardrail in there so there would be no chance of any failure, he volunteered. Regarding grading on the downstream side of the catch basin,Miner noted that the road was elevated such that it had a series of drainage swales[flowing]to the catch basin[and from there]into the detention basin. Everything was elevated such that everything was directed toward the northeast in the upper part of the drive,he pointed out. At the intersection with Coles Meadow Road, it was graded so that[drainage]was directed toward the detention basin,he advised. Miner reminded members that calculations presented to them had Indicated that the retention basins were sized to accommodate a 25- year storm. There was a concern that, in the wintertime, these could freeze up,and where would the water go?he related. Miner made the observation that the size storms which would impact the drainage structures did not happen in the middle of winter,they were tropical storms that occurred in the spring,summer and fall. [The ponds]were in gravel,they were designed to infiltrate, he stressed. (The project]was all in the Water Supply Protection(WSP)area where they were required to infiltrate,and that's what they intended to do, he concluded. If it was the desire of the board, he could propose four-foot deep leaching basins which would the give opportunity for water to leach into the ground in the wintertime, he added. Yacuzzo asked how strong a concern it was? He said he thought it would be an extremely unusual circumstance for water to collect and freeze. Miner said he was suggesting that they did not need it because of the type of soils they had there. Yacuzzo asked if he had a soil map of the area? Misch said the applicant had noted the type of soil in his submittal. Crystal said with all the concern about run-off,he didn't understand why they just didn't do some soil tests. Jodrie arrived at 7:50 p.m. Crystal asked how difficult it would be to do some soil tests and just submit them? Yacuzzo agreed he thought they were going to want that information. The applicant's suggestion that there could be Infiltration basins in both detention areas was certainly worthy of consideration, but only if they knew the make-up of the soil,he commented. Members directed Miner to perform tests in each of the detention pond areas and to the left of the road. Miner asked whether he should use a boring[machine]or a backhoe, and members specified he should provide a soil boring. Crystal repeated that his recommendation was to require a soil boring and an engineer's report. Responsibility for Damange. Yacuzzo said the last issue was the DPW's recommendation that deeds to the lot include a statement that the lot owners are responsible for any damage to Coles Meadow Road[as a result of the failure of the drainage systems(swa/es, basins and catch basins)]. Miner said he couldn't believe the city could make such a requirement. Yacuzzo said he thought if they knew the soil composition, this information would negate the need for such a covenant. If the groundwater table, soils, etc. all look correct, his opinion was that that would be unnecessary, Yacuzzo stated. Misch asked If he could revise the draft Homeowner's Association[document]for next time to Include the statement that(the drainage GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers &Associates,Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 The Board requested a more detailed engineering drawing showing contours and an engineering report on drainage calculations,he reminded. He showed a plan depicting proposed and existing contours and details of the detention basin to accommodate the storm drainage. Members also requested documentation of the Homeowner's Association that would maintain the driveway,any covenants and restrictions associated with It,a detailed description of the roadway and drainage and copies of proposed easements for any of the lots the roadway would cover,he advised. Misch confirmed she had received a proposed easement agreement and road maintenance(agreement). The road maintenance and detention pond Information was not detailed enough for the Department of Public Works(DPW),so the DPW made several recommendations governing the detention pond's maintenance,she reported. Yacuzzo noted that it was the most comments he had seen from the DPW in his nine years. Miner.said they were willing to work with them. Yacuzzo said it was a relatively complex proposal,and Miner agreed. Miner said he had only received a copy of the DPW comments at four o'clock that afternoon. Yacuzzo said he thought to proceed,Miner should have the opportunity to go through and address the comments,because they were so detailed. He said he thought members of the board should also have the opportunity to read the DPW memo so they could have a focus on what the concerns of the department were. From his perspective, the bottom line was that they wanted the developer to be responsible for anything that should happen to Coles Meadow Road,Miner remarked. Yacuzzo agreed with this assessment, saying he felt it was due to the grades of Coles Meadow Road at that point. Yacuzzo said he would like to give Miner an opportunity to read through this and address the issues. Miner said he was hoping not to have to request a continuation. He asked if he should respond to the DPW or the Planning Board? Yacuzzo said he felt comfortable if he responded to them. Miner formally requested a continuance. Jodrie moved to continue the hearing to September 28, 2000 at 7:15 p.m. Neal seconded. The motion passed unanimously 6:0. On September 28, 2000 at 7:35 p.m., Yacuzzo opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a request by Ronald Bercume for 1)Special Permits with Site Plan Approval under Sections 6.13 and 10.10 of the Zoning Ordinance for three flag lots,and 2)a Special Permit with Site Plan Approval under Section 6.12 to allow a common driveway to serve three lots,for property located on Coles Meadow Road, also known as Assessor's Map 3, Parcels 11& 15. As part of Site Plan Approval, the applicant has also requested approval for a second curb cut. Yacuzzo read the legal notice. Don Miner of Harold Eaton&Associates,Inc.reminded members that they had received new comments from the Department of Public Works(DPW)at the last meeting, and neither board members or the applicant had had time to respond objectively within the time-frame provided. Since that time,Miner said he had formulated both written and verbal responses to the issues raised by the DPW. Regarding the issue that catch basins need four-foot sumps,Miner said his response was that catch basins could be designed to have four-foot sumps. Regarding the concern that detailed maintenance information was not provided, Miner said he had submitted a detailed maintenance plan that acknowledged conditions that would be dealt with both during construction and over a period of years. Misch confirmed she had reviewed this document. She said it wasn't clear that it was going to be incorporated into deed covenants. Miner said he would incorporate it Into the Homeowner's Association[document],and he would be willing to accept that as a condition of approval. He noted that he had submitted something saying that they were willing to maintain it as the homeowner's responsibility. Miner commented that he knew the soils in the entire area were Charlton soils. They were very heavily sandy and silty and were very susceptible to any water which was going to be infiltrated into the ground at that location,he observed. He noted that he had submitted to staff a complete outline of all the perc tests which had been done at the site,although they were not done in that location. The indication was that the soils along Coles Meadow Road were better than any other part, so they felt they had adequate conditions there to infiltrate into the ground. They had eight to ten feet before they would ever enter into a(groundjwater level situation, he asserted. in any of the tests done, there was absolutely no groundwater ever encountered,he claimed. If groundwater had been encountered, it would have required another permit, but they were aware there was no groundwater, he concluded. Misch remonstrated that the tests were done at the top of the hill. GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers&Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 On August 24, 2000 at 11:25 p.m., Yacuzzo opened the Public Hearing on a Request by Ronald Bercume for 1)Special Permits with Site Plan Approval under Sections 6.13 and 10.10 of the Zoning Ordinance for three flag lots,and 2)a Special Permit with Site Plan Approval under Section 6.12 to allow a common driveway to serve three lots,for property located on Coles Meadow Road,also known as Assessor's Map 3, Parcels 11& 15. As part of Site Plan Approval, the applicant has also requested approval for a second curb cut. Yacuzzo read the legal notice. Ronald Bercume purchased land on Coles Meadow Road from Steve Lapinski,Miner related. The property yielded four ANR lots which were approved and recorded in the Registry of Deeds,and the remaining land is the subject of the application for three flag lots. Miner pointed out the flag lots,stating that they all met the criteria as outlined in the regulations. They were asking for the opportunity to provide access by a common drive originally proposed to be at the southern end of the property. Because of steep grades, they were not able to accomplish that, so it was relocated to the northerly area,he advised. He noted that they would be cutting through gravel bank to establish the common drive and that it would join an existing driveway. Miner expressed his understanding that they were required to maintain drainage on site. In accordance with that, he noted that plans called for the driveway to be pitched to the side to drain to a stone-lined swale on the side of the driveway. Because they were not able to locate the driveway in the flag pole of the flag lot, they were requesting permission to allow a second curb cut on the same property. (The two driveways are a hundred feet apart,he presented.) Miner expressed his awareness that there had been some concern in the past about having two parallel driveways,since only one tended to be used. In this case, the house on Lot 5 would have its own separate driveway on the otherside of the detention pond,he noted. Crystal said technically it appeared that they were meeting all of the criteria. However, he said he would question whether the intent was met. He pointed out that the common drive meandered over Lot 4 and Lot 5 to service Lot 7. Yacuzzo noted that common drive did not have to follow the flag pole of the flag lot. Crystal said he thought they needed to see the legal agreements giving the property owners reciprocal rights to use the common drive. He asked if they had been prepared,and Miner said not at this time. Miner said he had no problem with the Planning Board requesting that 1) the Homeowner's Association document be presented to the Planning Department for review,and 2)the proposed deeded easements be presented with that. Misch asked how many lots would be in the Homeowner's Association? Miner said only three. The Homeowner's Association will be responsible for the maintenance of the retention basin because the basin is there for the service of the common drive,he said. Members noted that it was on somebody else's property. Yacuzzo noted that it was a case of'buyer beware'-if someone wanted to buy Lot 5 and have somebody else maintain the retention basin. Miner said he had done extensive testing on this piece of property to obtain perc tests. It was typical for a Coles Meadow Road area with gravel and ledge, and, in the gravel, there were some humongous boulders, then beautiful pockets of sand. Forty test holes were dug, and there was absolutely no water on the property, he presented. He showed the location of the perc tests. He said they were willing to accept the condition that the plan not be endorsed until such time as all easements. .. Yacuzzo said he wanted to continue the hearing to allow submittal of the easements and the maintenance agreement. Crystal noted that he had not looked at the detention basin. Miner said there was a statement that the retention basin was designed to accommodate the 11 year storm. Crystal said it would be nice to know the volume of the basin,and he couldn't see that because there were no dimensions. Miner asked if they wanted drainage calcs7 Members said yes. Jodrie moved to continue the hearing to September 14, 2000 at 8:00 p.m. Weil seconded. The motion passed unanimously 7:0. On September 14, 2000 at 8:43 p.m., Yacuzzo opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a request by Ronald Bercume for 1)Special Permits with Site Plan Approval under Sections 6.13 and 10.10 of the Zoning Ordinance for three flag lots, and 2)a Special Permit with Site Plan Approval under Section 6.12 to allow a common driveway to serve three lots, for property located on Coles Meadow Road, also known as Assessor's Map 3, Parcels 11 & 15. As part of Site Plan Approval, the applicant has also requested approval for a second curb cut. Yacuzzo read the legal notice. Don Miner of Harold Eaton&Associates, Inc. briefly reviewed particulars of the plan. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a common drive to service three flag lots over land other than either or any of the poles. He showed the course of the common drive. GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers &Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2000- Date: November 9,2000 Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws(MGL),Chapter 40A,Section 11,no Special Permit,or any extension, modification or renewal thereof,shall take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been filed,or if such an appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied,is recorded in the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or Land Court,as applicable and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title.The fee for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.It is the owner or applicant's responsibility to pick up the certified decision from the City Clerk and record it at the Registry of Deeds.(Please call the City Clerk prior to picking up the decision.) The Northampton Planning Board hereby certifies that Special Permits with Site Plan Approval have been GRANTED and that copies of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws,Chapter 40A,Section 15, notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the Northampton City Clerk on the date below. If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A,Section 17,with the Hampshire County Superior Court or the Northampton District Court and notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk within twenty days (20) of the date of that this decision was filed with the City Clerk. Applicant: Ronald Bercume-Coles Meadow Road DECISION DATE: November 9, 2000 DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK{: December 1, 2000 L �_ Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 FILING DEADLINE: MAILING DATE: HEARING CONTINUED DATE: DECISION DRAFT BY: APPEAL DATE: 8/3/00 8117100 9114100 11/23/00 REFERRALS IN DATE: HEARING DEADLINE DATE: HEARING CLOSE DATE: FINAL SIGNING BY: APPEAL DEADLINE: 8/10/00 1016100 1119100 1119100 12121100 FIRST ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING DATE: VOTING DATE: DECISION DATE: 8110100 8124100 1119100 12/1/00 SECOND ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING TIME: VOTING DEADLINE: DECISION DEADLINE: 8/17/00 11:25 PM 114101 114101 MEMBERS PRESENT: VOTE: Alton Neal votes to Grant M. Sanford Weil,Jr. votes to Grant Paul Diemand votes to Grant Daniel Yacuzzo votes to Grant Anne Romano votes to Grant Andrew Crystal votes to Grant MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: VOTE COUNT: DECISION: Anne Romano Kenneth Jodrie 6 Granted with Conditions MINUTES OF MEETING: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 11, I, Laura Krutzler, Board Secretary, hereby certify that I caused copies of this decision to be mailed, postage-prepaid, to the applicant and owner on December 1 , 2000. GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers&Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 F.The requested use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience or welfare and will not unduly Impair the integrity of character of the district or adjoining zones. The use is not detrimental to the health,morals, or general welfare and Is In harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. G.The requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not adversely affect those objectives, as defined in City master or study plans adopted under M.G.L. Chapter 41,Section 81-C and D. In addition,in reviewing the Site Plan, the Planning Board found the requested use complies with the following technical performance standards: 1.Curb cuts onto streets are minimized because a common driveway will serve the three flag lots. 2.Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic are separated on site to the extent possible. Section 6.13 Flag Lots. The Planning Board found each flag lot has: 1.met the requirements of the Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations, Section 6.2; 2.an access roadway with no curve having a radius of less than eighty(80)feet; 3.Conriguration such that a circle with a diameter equal to one and one-half(1 112) times the minimum frontage required for a non-flag lot in that district(187.5 feet)may be placed around the principal structure without any portion of said circle falling outside of the property's line; 4.No more than three flag lots having abutting,contiguous street frontage. Said contiguous flag lots share one common curb-cut and driveway access. Appropriate easements have been delineated on the Plot Plan and on the deeds to the lots,including a clear provision for the responsibility for the maintenance of the common driveway, common utilities(if any)and snow removal, running with the land. Said easements shall: A.Become part of all of the deeds, and B.Be recorded at the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds or Land Court,as applicable(proof of recording shall be submitted to the Building Commissioner prior to the issuance of any building permits). 5.An access driveway which is of suitable construction,in the opinion of the Planning Board, for the access and,where applicable, the turn-around for vehicles, including moving vans,ambulances,fire and police. Said driveways shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; 6.Plans submitted to the Planning Board under this Section shall be the same as the plan submitted to the Planning Board under the Subdivision Control Law,and shall include the statement"Lot(s) is a Flag Lot: building is permitted only in accordance with the special Flag Lot Provisions of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance." 7.As required,the Special Permit application included a plan showing the location and layout of the proposed driveway and house and all provisions for drainage and storm water run-off. 8.A Flag Lot Special Permit shall be deemed to have been exercised(and thereby shall not expire)when the Special Permit and endorsed subdivision plans have been properly recorded at the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds. The Planning Board found the project meets the criteria under Section 6.12 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Section 6.12 Vehicular Egress/Access to a Lot and Common Driveways. 1.Said common driveway does not serve more than three(3)lots. 2.Said common drive provides the only vehicular egress/access to the lots being served by it, and this shall be so stated in the deeds to the subject lots. 3.The grade, length and location of the common drive is of suitable construction, in the opinion of the Planning Board, for the access and turn-around of the number and types of vehicles which will be utilizing such driveway. The driveway: A.Has a width of at least fifteen(15)feet; B.Has passing turnouts providing a total width of at least 20 feet along a distance of at least 25 feet,spaced with no more than 300 feet between turnouts, with the first such passing turnout being located within ten feet of the driveway connection to the street, C.Has met the prior approval of the DPW and the Fire Department(In this case, the permit is conditioned upon final approval of the DPW of plans for handling stormwater run-oft);and D.Conforms to all other driveway requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. COULD NOT DEROGATE BECAUSE: GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers &Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: ?L-2001-0008 Date: November 15, 2000 APPLICATION TYPE: SUBMISSION DATE: Special Permlt/Slte Plan--Planning B 8/2/00 Applicant's Name: Owner's Name: Surveyor's Name: NAME: NAME: COMPANY NAME: Ronald Bercume BERCUME BUILDERS INC ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: 25 SYLVIA HEIGHTS TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: HADLEY MA 01035 PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: (413)549-4270 (413)549-6027 EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: Site Information: Property Recording Information: Book Page STREET NO.: SITE ZONING: COLES MEADOW RD RR TOWN: SECTION OF BYLAW: NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 17 MAP: BLOCK: I LOT: MAP DATE: ACTION TAKEN: 03 1 011 001 NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK: Request for Special Permits with Site Plan Approval to create three flag lots, Special Permit for a common drive,and approval for a second curb cut under Section 8.9(7). HARDSHIP: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1) Approval is contingent upon DPW satisfaction and approval of revised plans for the retention ponds and swales. 2) Approval is contingent upon the applicant clearly indicating in the deeds of the lots that the stormwater management facilities are the responsibility of the lot owners and must be maintained in operable condition and cleaned of sediment at least annually 3) The Declaration of Restrictions Regarding Road Maintenance(containing the maintenance schedule) is hereby incorporated into the permit by reference. The maintenance agreement must be amended to clarify that the inspections and the report must be completed by a professional engineer. 4) Approval is based on the following plans: 1) "Plan of Land in Northampton,Massachusetts Prepared for Bercume Builders,Inc.,'by Harold L.Eaton&Associates Inc.,dated July 13, 2000 and revised November 29,2000;and 2) "Proposed Common Driveway,Plan of Land in Northampton, Massachusetts Prepared for Bercume Builders,Inc.,"by Harold L.Eaton&Associates Inc.,revised July 18, 2000,July 25,2000,August 28, 2000, September 25,2000 and October 23, 2000. FINDINGS: In Granting the Special Permits with Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board found: A.The requested use(three flag lots and a common driveway)protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses because flag lots are allowed by Special Permit in the Rural Residential(RR)zoning district,and the use of the property will be residential, in keeping with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The applicant has included provisions for handling stormwater run-off from the project as depicted on plans and information submitted with the Special Permit application. B.The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area because the use of a common driveway to serve three house lots will minimize the number of curb cuts onto city streets, thereby enhancing safety. C.The requested use promotes a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area because the flag lots range from 2.4 to 6.4 acres in size,so considerable open space will be maintained. D.The requested use will not overload the City's resources,including the City's water supply and distribution system,sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection, streets and schools. E.The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance under Sections 6.12 and 6.13(See below for additional criteria.) GeoTMS®1993 Des Lauriers &Associates,Inc. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 413-587-1570 Samuel B. Brindis, P.E. Fax 413-587-1576 Director, City Engineer Guilford B. Mooring, P.E. Assistant Director of Public Works BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS DRIVEWAY PERMIT GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND REGULATIONS 1. A "Driveway Permit" is required in all cases where a new curb cut or an alteration to an existing curb cut is proposed on a City public way. 2. Driveway permits issued by the Board of Public Works (BPW) shall be attached to and become part of the "Building Permit" issued by the Building Inspector. 3. Prior to the issuance of a "Building Permit" the owner of any lot to be serviced by a new driveway shall apply to the BPW for a "Driveway Permit" by completing the pertinent portions of the permit (see attached). Once the location of the driveway is approved by the BPW, a building permit may be issued. 4. The Building Inspector shall not issue an "Occupancy Permit" unless the driveway to the lot has been approved by the BPW. 5. By the issuance of a driveway permit for the stated location, neither the City of Northampton nor the Department of Public Works imply that no drainage problems will result with the driveway when constructed. Properties situated or driveways installed in low lying areas in the path of the natural drainage will be subject to water problems. These problems may include water sheeting across roadways adjacent to the driveway. The City and the DPW assume no responsibility for any such drainage problems. The owner of the property is responsible for constructing and maintaining the driveway with adequate provision for natural water runoff situations. C� amuel B Brindis, P.E. Director of Public Works C:MyFiles\Lyn\Driveway Permit General Instructions D16-01 Conditions: Driveway Permit In lieu of plan approved by City Engineer I agree to the following added conditions: 1) I will contact the Department of Public Works and have an inspector check and approve the graded gravel base prior to paving to insure compliance with slope and location; 2) I further agree that if in the inspections any of the permit conditions are not met that I will at no expense to the City remove and replace the driveway as directed by the City Engineer. Petitioner NOTE: The Public Works Department recommends that you provide a plan showing the proposed driveway with grades and location in the future to avoid possible expense which you will incur by not getting approval of actual plans in advance. ' �E D16-01 FRI' 2 2 C I T Y O F N 0 TAI "E'-T III, YTS—S. November 14, 2000 THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS The undersigned respectfully petiition your honorable body for Permission to install driveway at 579 Coles Meadow Road Common driveway Fifteen (15) foot maximum width at the street line. Gutter drainage not to be disturbed. All drainage shall be directed off the driveway surface to adjacent land and not on the existing roadway. Driveway surface to be paved if the grade of the proposed driveway exceeds 3% or more. Note — Existing conditions as reviewed 12-07-00 do not meet complicance with above requirements: "All drainage shall be directed off the driveway surface to adjacent land and not on the existing roadway." By: Ronald Bercume 549-4270 Bercume Builders 25 Sylvia Heights, Hadley, MA 01035 Proposed Location Inspected by: Gravel Base Grade Inspected by: Final Approval: THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Voted that petition be granted. $25.00 Fee Paid Ck No 2896 George Andrikidis, Acting Director Public Works (SUBJECT TO ATTACHED CONDITION I & 2) Roof Beam(99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By:Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 11-042001 :4:26:43 PM Project: BERCUME-Location:#7 HIP FOR KINGWOOD-NO POST ' Summary: (2) 1.751N x 11.875 IN x 19.8 FT (Actual 23 FT) /2.0E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By: 7.5% Controlling Factor:Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 11.59 In •Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center- 0.60 IN Live Load: LLD-Center- 0.83 IN=U333 Total Load: TLD-Center- 1.43 IN= U193 Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 2654 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 1592 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 4246 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.28 IN Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 1327 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 851 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 2178 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 0.66 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 19.8 FT Maximum Unbraced Span: Lu= 1.0 FT Beam End Elevation Diff.: EL= 11.67 FT Pitch Of Roof: RP= 10 : 12 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Roof Loading: Roof Live Load-Side One: LL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side One: RL1= 14.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side Two: RL2= 14.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Duration Factor: Cd= 1.15 Beam Self Weight: BSW= 11 PLF Slope/Pitch Adjusted Lengths and Loads: Adjusted Beam Length: Ladi= 22.98 FT Beam Triangular Live Load Adjusted for Slope: TRL= 257 PLF Beam Triangular Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: TRD= 167 PLF Beam Uniform Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: wD_adj= 10 PLF Properties For:2.0E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2850 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 2000000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 750 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 3270 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 CI=1.00 Cf=1.00 Fv': Fv'= 328 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 14977 FT-LB 11.491 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 3357 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 55.0 IN3 S= 82.2 IN3 Area: Areq= 15.4 IN2 A= 41.5 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 454.4 IN4 1= 488.4 IN4 Roof Beam(99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS))Ver:5.02 Bv:Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 11-042001 :4:21:56 PM Project: BERCUME-Location:#6 HIP FOR KINGWOOD-NO POST Summarv: 1.75 IN x 11.251N x 14.8 FT (Actual 17.2 FT) /1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:33.3° Controlling Factor: Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 10.22 In Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= 0.35 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= 0.51 IN=U407 Total Load: TLD-Center- 0.86 IN=U240 Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 1489 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 870 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 2359 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.52 IN Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 745 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 455 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 1199 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 0.77 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 14.8 FT Maximum Unbraced Span: Lu= 1.0 FT Beam End Elevation Diff.: EL= 8.75 FT Pitch Of Roof: RP= 10 : 12 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Roof Loading: Roof Live Load-Side One: LL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side One: RL1= 10.5 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side Two: RL2= 10.5 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Duration Factor: Cd= 1.15 Beam Self Weight: BSW= 5 PLF Slope/Pitch Adjusted Lengths and Loads: Adjusted Beam Length: Ladi= 17.19 FT Beam Triangular Live Load Adjusted for Slope: TRL= 193 PLF Beam Triangular Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: TRD= 125 PLF Beam Uniform Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: wD_adj= 5 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv-- 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 2963 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 CI=0.98 Cf=1.01 Fv'; Fd= 328 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 6182 FT-LB 8.597 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 1858 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 25.1 IN3 S= 36.9 IN3 Area: Areq= 8.6 IN2 A= 19.6 IN2 Moment of Inertia: lreq= 155.8 IN4 1= 207.6 IN4 Roof Beam[99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By:Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 11-042001 :4:18:23 PM Project: -Location: fly VA Summary: -! (2) 1.75 IN x 11.25 IN x 15.0 FT (Actual 19.5 FT) /1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By: 1.7% Controlling Factor:Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 11.19 In "Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Deflections: Dead Load: DLD= 0.56 IN Live Load: LLD= 0.72 IN=U324 Total Load: TLD= 1.28 IN=U183 Reactions(Each End): Live Load: LL-Rxn= 1613 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn= 1242 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn= 2856 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL= 1.17 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 15.0 FT Ma)amum Unbraced Span: Lu= 2.0 FT Beam End Elevation Diff.: EL= 12.5 FT Pitch Of Roof: RP= 10 : 12 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Roof Loading: Roof Live Load-Side One: LL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 15.0 PSF Tributary Width-Side One: TW1= 3.0 FT Roof Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 15.0 PSF Tributary Width-Side Two: TW2= 5.0 FT Roof Duration Factor: Cd= 1.15 Beam Self Weight: BSW= 12 PLF Slope/Pitch Adjusted Lengths and Loads: Adjusted Beam Length: Ladi= 19.53 FT Beam Uniform Live Load: wL= 165 PLF Beam Uniform Dead Load: wD adi= 127 PLF Total Uniform Load: -WT= 293 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 2990 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 CI=0.99 Cf=1.01 Fv': Fv'= 328 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 13940 FT-LB 9.763 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 2856 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 56.0 IN3 S= 73.8 IN3 Area: Areq= 13.1 IN2 A= 39.3 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 408.3 IN4 1= 415.2 IN4 Y Roof Beamf 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 BY:Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 11-042001 :2:08:03 PM Project: BERCUME-Location:#4 VALLEYFOR KINGWOOD-NO POST Summary: (2) 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 19.6 FT (Actual 22.8 FT) /1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate BY:0.3% Controlling Factor: Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 11.86 In Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center- 0.64 IN Live Load: LLD-Center- 0.88 IN=U311 Total Load: TLD-Center- 1.51 IN=U181 Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 2611 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 1566 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 4177 LB Bearing Length Required (Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.35 IN Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 1305 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 838 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 2143 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 0.70 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 19.6 FT Maximum Unbraced Span: Lu= 1.0 FT Beam End Elevation Diff.: EL= 11.58 FT Pitch Of Roof: RP= 10 : 12 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Roof Loading: Roof Live Load-Side One: LL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side One: RL1= 13.9 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side Two: RL2= 13.9 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Duration Factor: Cd= 1.15 Beam Self Weight: BSW= 11 PLF Slope/Pitch Adjusted Lengths and Loads: Adjusted Beam Length: Ladj= 22.77 FT Beam Triangular Live Load Adjusted for Slope: TRL= 255 PLF Beam Triangular Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: TRD= 165 PLF Beam Uniform Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: wD_adj= 10 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 2983 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 CI=1.00 Cf=1.00 FY: Adjustment 328 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 14579 FT-LB 11.383 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 3298 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 58.7 IN3 S= 82.2 IN3 Area: Areq= 15.1 IN2 A= 41.5 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 486.9 IN4 1= 488.4 IN4 Roof Beamf 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By:Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 11-04-2001 :2:07:03 PM Project: BERCUME-Location:#3 HIP FOR KINGWOOD-NO POST Summary: (2) 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 19.5 FT (Actual 22.6 FT) /1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:2.6% Controlling Factor:Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 11.77 In 'Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Span Deflections: Dead Load: OLD-Center- 0.62 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= 0.85 IN=U318 Total Load: TLD-Center- 1.47 IN=U185 Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 2577 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 1547 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 4124 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.33 IN Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 1289 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 828 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 2117 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 0.69 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 19.5 FT Maximum Unbraced Span: Lu= 1.0 FT Beam End Elevation Diff.: EL= 11.5 FT Pitch Of Roof: RP= 10 : 12 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Roof Loading: Roof Live Load-Side One: LL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length (HipNallev)-Side One: RL1= 13.8 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side Two: RL2= 13.8 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Duration Factor: Cd= 1.15 Beam Self Weight: BSW= 11 PLF Slope/Pitch Adjusted Lengths and Loads: Adjusted Beam Length: Ladi= 22.64 FT Beam Triangular Live Load Adjusted for Slope: TRL= 253 PLF Beam Triangular Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: TRD= 164 PLF Beam Uniform Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: wD_adj= 10 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): FV= 2983 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 CI=1.00 Cf=1.00 Fv': Fv'= 328 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 14329 FT-LB 11.319 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 3260 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 57.7 IN3 S= 82.2 IN3 Area: Areq= 15.0 IN2 A= 41.5 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 475.9 IN4 I= 488.4 IN4 Roof Beam[99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By:Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 11-04-2001 :2:04:51 PM Project: BERCUME-Location:#2 VALLEY FOR KINGWOOD-NO POST Summary: 1.75 IN x 14.0 IN x 18.4 FT (Actual 21.4 FT) /1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:8.1% Controlling Factor:Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 13.64 In Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= 0.54 IN Live Load: LLD-Center- 0.78 IN=U330 Total Load: TLD-Center= 1.32 IN=U195 Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 2290 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 1338 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 3628 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 2.34 IN Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 1145 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 699 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 1844 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 1.19 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 18.4 FT Maximum Unbraced Span: Lu= 1.0 FT Beam End Elevation Diff.: EL= 10.83 FT Pitch Of Roof: RP= 10 : 12 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Roof Loading: Roof Live Load-Side One: LL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNalley)-Side One: RL1= 13.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side Two: RL2= 13.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Duration Factor: Cd= 1.15 Beam Self Weight: BSW= 7 PLF Slope/Pitch Adjusted Lengths and Loads: Adjusted Beam Length: Ladi= 21.35 FT Beam Triangular Live Load Adjusted for Slope: TRL= 239 PLF Beam Triangular Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: TRD= 155 PLF Beam Uniform Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: wD_adj= 6 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 2878 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 CI=0.98 Cf=0.98 Fv': Fv'= 328 PSI Adjustment Factors:Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 11827 FT-LB 10.676 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 2862 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 49.4 IN3 S= 57.1 IN3 Area: Areq= 13.1 IN2 A= 24.5 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 370.2 IN4 1= 400.1 IN4 Roof Beam[99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 BY: Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 11-042001 :2:03:42 PM Project: BERCUME-Location:#2 VALLEY FOR KINGWOOD-WITH POST Summary: 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 15.6 FT (Actual 18.1 FT) /1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:28.0°/6 Controlling Factor: Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 10.94 In Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= 0.39 IN Live Load: LLD-Center- 0.56 IN=U390 Total Load: TLD-Center- 0.94 IN=U230 Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 1642 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 960 LB Total Load: TL-Rxm-A= 2602 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only,Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.68 IN Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 821 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 502 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 1323 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 0.86 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 15.6 FT Maximum Unbraced Span: Lu= 1.0 FT Beam End Elevation Diff.: EL= 9.17 FT Pitch Of Roof: RP= 10 : 12 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Roof Loading: Roof Live Load-Side One: LL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side One: RL1= 11.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNallev)-Side Two: RL2= 11.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Duration Factor: Cd= 1.15 Beam Self Weight: BSW= 6 PLF Slope/Pitch Adjusted Lengths and Loads: Adjusted Beam Length: Ladi= 18.09 FT Beam Triangular Live Load Adjusted for Slope: TRL= 202 PLF Beam Triangular Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: TRD= 131 PLF Beam Uniform Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: wD_adj= 5 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 2943 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 CI=0.98 Cf=1.00 Fv': FV= 328 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 7192 FT-LB 9.047 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 2054 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 29.4 IN3 S= 41.1 IN3 Area: Areq= 9.5 IN2 A= 20.7 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 190.8 IN4 1= 244.2 IN4 Roof BeamL99 BOCA Nation uilding Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 6? eresa evh : 11-042001 :2:00:50 PM Project: BERCUME-Locatio . 1 HIP FOR KINGWOOD-NO POS Summary: (2) 1.75 IN x 16.0 IN x 24.0 FT ( ua .8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:8.8% Controlling Factor:Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 15.55 In Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center- 0.72 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= 0.99 IN=U339 Total Load: TLD-Center- 1.71 IN=U196 Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 3908 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 2361 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 6270 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 2.02 IN Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 1954 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 1271 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 3225 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 1.05 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 24.0 FT Maximum Unbraced Span: Lu= 1.0 FT Beam End Elevation Diff.: EL= 14.17 FT Pitch Of Roof: RP= 10 : 12 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Roof Loading: Roof Live Load-Side One: LL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNalley)-Side One: RL1= 17.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length (HipNalley)-Side Two: RL2= 17.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Duration Factor: Cd= 1.15 Beam Self Weight: BSW= 15 PLF Slope/Pitch Adjusted Lengths and Loads: Adjusted Beam Length: Ladj= 27.87 FT Beam Trianqular Live Load Adjusted for Slope: TRL= 312 PLF Beam Triangular Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: TRD= 202 PLF Beam Uniform Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: wD_adj= 13 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 2883 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 CI=1.00 Cf=0.97 Fv': Fv'= 328 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 26846 FT-LB 13.935 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 4957 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 111.8 IN3 S= 149.3 IN3 Area: Areq= 22.7 IN2 A= 56.0 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 1097.7 IN4 1= 1194.6 IN4 Roof Beam(99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 i -By Teresa E. , on: 11-042001 : 2:01:50 PM Project: BERCUME-Loca' :#1 HIP FOR KING WO WIT OST Summary: 1.75 IN x 11.875 IN x 15.6 FT (A ual 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:28.0% Moment of Inertia/Depth Required 10.94 In Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= 0.39 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= 0.56 IN=U390 Total Load: TLD-Center- 0.94 IN=U230 Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 1642 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 960 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 2602 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.68 IN Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 821 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 502 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 1323 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 0.86 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 15.6 FT Maximum Unbraced Span: Lu= 1.0 FT Beam End Elevation Diff.: EL= 9.17 FT Pitch Of Roof: RP= 10 : 12 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 180 Roof Loading: Roof Live Load-Side One: LL1= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNalley)-Side One: RL1= 11.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 35.0 PSF Roof Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 15.0 PSF Rafter Length(HipNalley)-Side Two: RL2= 11.0 FT Tributary Width Based on half span of rafters. Roof Duration Factor: Cd= 1.15 Beam Self Weight: BSW= 6 PLF Slope/Pitch Adjusted Lengths and Loads: Adjusted Beam Length: Ladi= 18.09 FT Beam Triangular Live Load Adjusted for Slope: TRL= 202 PLF Beam Triangular Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: TRD= 131 PLF Beam Uniform Dead Load Adjusted for Slope: wD_adj= 5 PLF Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 2943 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 CI=0.98 Cf=1.00 Fv': Fv'= 328 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.15 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 7192 FT-LB 9.047 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 2054 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 29.4 IN3 S= 41.1 IN3 Area: Areq= 9.5 IN2 A= 20.7 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 190.8 IN4 1= 244.2 IN4 OMMMUNIMMw Uniformly Loaded Floor Beamf 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)]Ver:5.02 By:Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 11-042001 :4:46:37 PM Proiect: BERCUME-Location: HALLWAY OPENING CEILING BEAM- Summary: (2) 1.5 IN x 11.25 IN x 7.0 FT /#2-Spruce-Pine-Fir-Dry Use Section Adequate By: 11.3°x6 Controlling Factor:Area/Depth Required 10.11 In Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Deflections: Dead Load: DLD= 0.02 IN Live Load: LLD= 0.02 IN=U4306 Total Load: TLD= 0.04 IN=U1917 Reactions(Each End): Live Load: LL-Rxn= 630 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn= 785 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn= 1415 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL= 1.11 IN Beam Data: Span: L= 7.0 FT Unbraced Lenqth-Top of Beam: Lu= 0.0 FT Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Floor Loading: Floor Live Load-Side One: LL1= 10.0 PSF Floor Dead Load-Side One: DL1= 12.0 PSF Tributary Width-Side One: TW1= 9.0 FT Floor Live Load-Side Two: LL2= 10.0 PSF Floor Dead Load-Side Two: DL2= 12.0 PSF Tributary Width-Side Two: TW2= 9.0 FT Live Load Duration Factor: Cd= 1.00 Wall Load: WALL= 0 PLF Beam Loading: Beam Total Live Load: wL= 180 PLF Beam Self Weight: BSW= 8 PLF Beam Total Dead Load: wD= 224 PLF Total Maximum Load: WT= 404 PLF Properties For:#2-Spruce-Pine-Fir Bending Stress: Fb= 875 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 70 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1400000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 425 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb' (Tension): Fb'= 875 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.00 Cf=1.00 Fv': Fv'= 70 PSI Adiustment Factors:Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 2476 FT-LB 3.5 ft from left support Critical moment created by combining all dead and live loads. Maximum Shear: V= 1415 LB At support. Critical shear created by combining all dead and live loads. Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 34.0 IN3 S= 63.2 IN3 Area: Areq= 30.4 IN2 A= 33.7 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 44.6 IN4 1= 355.9 IN4 Multi-Loaded Beamf 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By:Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 11-042001 :4:51:20 PM Proiect: BERCUME-Location: DINING ROOM CEILING BEAM ` Summary: (3) 1.5 IN x 11.25 IN x 11.0 FT /#2-Spruce-Pine-Fir-Dry Use Section Adequate By:22.50/6 Controlling Factor: Section Modulus/Depth Required 10.16 In *Laminations are to be fully connected to provide uniform transfer of loads to all members Center Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center- 0.09 IN Live Load: LLD-Center- 0.08 IN=U1745 Total Load: TLD-Center- 0.17 IN=1_1792 Center Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 755 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxm-A= 900 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 1655 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 0.87 IN Center Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 755 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 900 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 1655 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 0.87 IN Beam Data: Center Span Length: L2= 11.0 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: L.u2-Top= 0.0 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lu2-Bottom= 11.0 FT Live Load Duration Factor: Cd= 1.00 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Center Span Loading: Uniform Load: Live Load: wL-2= 80 PLF Dead Load: wD-2= 80 PLF Beam Self Weight: BSW= 12 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 172 PLF Point Load 1 Live Load: PL1-2= 630 LB Dead Load: P01-2= 785 LB Location(From left end of span): X1-2= 5.5 FT Properties For:#2-Spruce-Pine-Fir Bending Stress: Fb= 875 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= .70 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1400000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 425 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 1006 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.00 Cf=1.00 Cr-1.15 Fv': Fv'= 70 PSI Adiustment Factors: Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 6497 FT-LB 5.5 Ft from Left Support of Span 2(Center Span) Critical moment created by combining all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2 Maximum Shear: V= 1655 LB At Right Support of Span 2(Center Span) Critical shear created by combining all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 77.5 IN3 S= 94.9 IN3 Area: Areq= 35.5 IN2 A= 50.6 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 161.8 IN4 1= 533.9 IN4 Mufti-Loaded Beam(99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver: 5.02 By:Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 11-042001 :4:50:15 PM Proiect: BERCUME-Location: DINING ROOM CEILING BEAM Summary: 1.75 IN x 11.25 IN x 11.0 FT /1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Section Adequate By:25.8° Controlling Factor: Section Modulus/Depth Required 10.03 In Center Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= 0.18 IN Live Load: LLD-Center- 0.15 IN=U873 Total Load: TLD-Center- 0.33 IN=U403 Center Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 755 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 866 LB Total Load: TL-Rxm-A= 1621 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.32 IN Center Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 755 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 866 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 1621 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 1.32 Beam Data: Center Span Length: L2= 11.0 FT Center Span Unbraced Length-Top of Beam: Lu2-Top= Center Span Unbraced Length-Bottom of Beam: Lu2-Bottom= 11.0 FT Live Load Duration Factor: Cd= 1.00 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 360 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 240 Center Span Loading: Uniform Load: Live Load: wL-2= 80 PLF Dead Load: wD-2= 80 PLF Beam Self Weight: BSW= 6 PLF Total Load: wT-2= 166 PLF Point Load 1 Live Load: PL1-2= 630 LB Dead Load: PD1-2= 785 LB Location(From left end of span): X1-2= 5.5 FT Properties For: 1.8E G-P Lam-Georgia Pacific Bending Stress: Fb= 2600 PSI Shear Stress: Fv= 285 PSI Modulus of Elasticity: E= 1800000 PSI Stress Perpendicular to Grain: Fc_perp= 700 PSI Adjusted Properties Fb'(Tension): Fb'= 2619 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.00 Cf=1.01 F�: FV= 285 PSI Adjustment Factors: Cd=1.00 Design Requirements: Controlling Moment: M= 6404 FT-LB 5.5 Ft from Left Support of Span 2(Center Span) Critical moment created by combining all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2 Maximum Shear: V= 1621 LB At Right Support of Span 2(Center Span) Critical shear created by combining all dead loads and live loads on span(s)2 Comparisons With Required Sections: Section Modulus: Sreq= 29.4 IN3 S= 36.9 IN3 Area: Areq= 8.6 IN2 A= 19.6 IN2 Moment of Inertia: Ireq= 123.8 IN4 1= 207.6 IN4 Floor Joistf 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver.5.02 By:Teresa Wong Neyhart P.E. , on: 11-042001 :5:24:19 PM Project: BERCUME-Location: I-JOIST FLOOR SYSTEM Summary. : SERIES 60 WI/11.875-Georgia Pacific x 18.0 FT A 16 O.C. Section Adequate By:24.1% Controlling Factor:Allowable Deflection Hoists were designed for simple spans using the joist manufacturers published values. If the design does not match the actual joist loading or span conditions in any way, contact the joist manufacturer for design verification. Joist Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center= 0.13 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= 0.35 IN=U614 Total Load: TLD-Center= 0.48 IN=U447 Joist Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 480 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 180 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 660 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.75 IN Joist Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 480 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 180 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 660 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): IN Joist Data: Joist Span Length: Floor sheathing applied to top of joists-top of joists fully braced. Live Load Duration Factor: Cd= 1.00 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 480 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 360 Joist Span Loading: —�40�_QPSF Uniform Floor Loading: Live Load: L-2= Dead Load: DL- = Total Load: TL-2= 55.0 PSF Total Load Adjusted for Joist Spacing: wT-2= 73 PLF Properties For: SERIES 60 WI/11.875-Georgia Pacific Depth: D= 11.875 IN Moment Capacity: Mcap= 4335 FT-LB Shear Capacity: Vcap= 1420 LB El: El= 396000000 LB4N2 End Reaction Capacity: Rcap= 1200 LB Comparisons With Required Sections: Maximum Moment: M= 2970 FT-LB Adjusted Moment Capacity: Mcap-adi= 4335 FT-LB Maximum Shear: V= 660 LB Adjusted Shear Capacity: Vcap-adi= 1420 LB El Required: El-req= 319087520 LB-IN2 El: El= 396000000 LB-IN2 Maximum End Reaction: Rmax= 660 LB Adjusted Reaction Capacity: Rcap-adj= 1200 LB Floor Joistf 99 BOCA National Building Code(97 NDS)1 Ver. 5.02 By: Teresa Wong Nevhart P.E. , on: 11-04-2001 : 5:23:52 PM Project: BERCUME-Location: I-JOIST FLOOR SYSTEM Summary: SERIES 60 WI/11.875-Georgia Pacific x 20.0 FT (, 12 O.C. Section Adequate By:22.9° Controlling Factor:Allowable Deflection *Hoists were designed for simple spans using the joist manufacturers published values. If the design does not match the actual joist loading or span conditions in any way, contact the joist manufacturer for design verification. Joist Span Deflections: Dead Load: DLD-Center— 0.15 IN Live Load: LLD-Center= 0.39 IN=U608 Total Load: TLD-Center= 0.54 IN=U442 Joist Span Left End Reactions(Support A): Live Load: LL-Rxn-A= 400 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-A= 150 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-A= 550 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-A= 1.75 IN Joist Span Right End Reactions(Support B): Live Load: LL-Rxn-B= 400 LB Dead Load: DL-Rxn-B= 150 LB Total Load: TL-Rxn-B= 550 LB Bearing Length Required(Beam only, Support capacity not checked): BL-B= 1.75 IN Joist Data: Joist Span Length: L2= Floor sheathing applied to top of joists-top of joists fully braced. Live Load Duration Factor: Cd= 1.00 Live Load Deflect. Criteria: U 480 Total Load Deflect. Criteria: U 360 Joist Span Loading: Uniform Floor Loading: Live Load: LL-2= 40.0 PSF Dead Load: DL-2= 15.0 PSF Total Load: TL-2= 55.0 PSF Total Load Adjusted for Joist Spacing: wT-2= 55 PLF Properties For: SERIES 60 WI/11.875-Georgia Pacific Depth: D= 11.875 IN Moment Capacity: Mcap= 4335 FT-LB Shear Capacity: Vcap= 1420 LB El: Fl= 396000000 LB-IN2 End Reaction Capacity: Rap= 1200 LB Comparisons With Required Sections: Maximum Moment: M= 2750 FT-LB Adjusted Moment Capacity: Mcap-adj= 4335 FT-LB Maximum Shear: V= 550 LB Adjusted Shear Capacity: Vcap-adj= 1420 LB El Required: El-req= 322327232 LB-IN2 El: EI= 396000000 LB-IN2 Maximum End Reaction: Rmax= 550 LB Adjusted Reaction Capacity: Rcap-adj= 1200 LB � 7 G I I MAScheck COMPLIANCE REPORT I Massachusetts Energy Code I Permit # MAScheck Software Version 2.01 Release 3 I I Checked by/Date I I CITY: Amherst STATE: Massachusetts HDD: 6404 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 1 or 2 Family, Detached HEATING SYSTEM TYPE: Other (Non-Electric Resistance) DATE: 9-27-2002 COMPLIANCE: Passes Maximum UA = 1339 Your Home = 1056 Area or Cavity Cont. Glazing/Door Perimeter R-Value R-Value U-Value UA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CEILINGS 2702 38.0 38.0 38 WALLS: Wood Frame, 16" O.C. 6210 19.0 19.0 211 BSMT: Conc. 8.0' ht/7.0' bg/0.0' insul 1866 0.0 0.0 405 GLAZING: Windows or Doors 670 0.500 335 DOORS 58 0.350 20 FLOORS: Over Unconditioned Space 1866 19.0 19.0 47 HVAC EQUIPMENT: Furnace, 92.0 AFUE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLIANCE STATEMENT: The proposed building design described here is consistent with the building plans, specifications, and other calculations submitted with the permit application. The proposed building has been designed to meet the requirements of the Massachusetts Energy Code. The heating load for this building, and the cooling load if appropriate, has been determined using the applicable Standard Design Conditions found in the Code. The HVAC equipment selected to heat or cool the building shall be no greater than 125% of the design load as specified in Sections 780CMR 1310 and J4.4 . Builder/Designer -Z' — Date i Nov 08 00 01 : 12p P• c _ , Qlitp of �'C ItAMp�, $ iaesRCEfneet'.e w Q�. DEPARTMEN^ OF BUILL)I1�G INSPECTIONS 212 Main Street ' Municipal Biii!dinv INSPECTOR °orthumpton, Mass. COGC \ Square Footage knotint as�ment @ .1C w_ZQ •1st Floor- @ .40 grid F.1cx>r @ .20 1/2 Floors, Attic, Carage TCT.�L z !��tiC=��u�"�: .7 ,-'�____� �• /dye" ( �� r Nov 08 00 01 : 12p p J 1 i UIL )NG INSPEC`71ONS i_ { '`gMaitz Sfr,� Municipei Building 'a Northampton, Mass. 01060 WORKER'S COMPENSATION LNSURANCE AFFIDAVIT a princip2, place of bu>ii:.es--Jresidence at: (strrf_t;�cl^�(s1�J�pj do hereby ce[-tif}, u C'er `be pains and penalties of perjury, that: { 1 I ii_rII a:i emi) dyer proAd:ng the followiug cove:uge fir Inv empioyet"s worktita(ja this job: - --- (Tnsuranu--compa-y)~ (Policy Ntunbe,) _^ ,7ifa�ioa Dare) ' } I ",-I a tie propriet general contractor ar homeowner(circ'.e aut) aad flare hired the contracto4lst ff below who have the:allowing workees compensation p cdcies: (Naiue c:i Cor.rac2orj flrisu aw CortpazylPo[a,NumE,cr) (1 spin lion Date) ;tia tie of< :u:r5�,?r) L51LrdIlC�C�zr nauy�'FoG�y NumE,<r1 �xp:racien Dale) ;Nar:c of Cu>1 I,:t rl (I[S1iC1J Lol:r�anylPosc} Numxs) :j puracon Late) (Name of C�=Jctof} (Insurance cnmp"a--ly/Policy Number) (E.gtrdtiou gate) Ouxt"Idoaal%;b='lzc—a: w xn IoJc Lfx"u Eau patai—K to aU o:xi!rad.ora) I am a sole ptopr:e or and have no one wor dng for me. l ) Y am a horn: perfortring all the work myself. NOTE:pt=ec be aWarc t=:tU�7t haaxcNVCfa wW er-{Iay persava to do=,zu� =Z-Jctiw rcpatt-QM<m a dwtiliag ct CAI tLtorc tS&a thrm Lrx-,-a wlxc t the bomoow=rezd^..a er oa the(rte mpp natant thac¢o asc aoS SMW2Ly OJM dcrcd W Lc cmplo),=uni'r the wxScry-a«cvazutioa Act(GLI57-11(5;. amiicaban by a 5crseowtxr fa e l,:D: or p=md mAp cVsdcocr the ltsx am"of an ouuP,.oyer un.iar the wukues corapmsLLioa a I aadaatsnd that�(,W r oCLL'u rwarc ct may be forty ,[od to tbo bcpattmwc oftmau3trid P.zadcG&CAEm oCIaausooe far the cevcma verification and that faUum to tac=co%,* n tndx soc6cc 25A of MGJ_152 can Iced W tb,,im7as600 of Mmi w pcaaltit% <x anisiisg of a fax of up to-I I,50C,0C an&or" of up to cAe rV nod city pmthies is t�c f r.to of it Stop'Ncdr.orddx and it fno of S 10D.00 a day aga ino t>,-. For dgraztmuaal Pcsmit Number } Wp# Lot J Signature of Licensee/Permiate ____ SECTION 8-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 8 1 Licensed Construction Supervisor: Not Applicable El Name of License Holder : > 1�- ----- --� — - — License Number Address Expiration Date Signature Telephone t R.� �� �.. s �`zE�` � � ,,, Not Applicable ❑ e>risteretlSNome �riiproveme`ntContractor� � , .;�, .w „„_� �. � �.�. Company Name Registration Number Address Expiration Date Telephone SECTION 10-WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE AFFIDAVIT (M.G.L. c. 152, § 25C(6)) Workers Compensation Insurance affidavit must be completed and submitted with this application. Failure to provide this affidavit will result in the denial of the issuance of the building permit. Signed Affidavit Attached Yes....... ❑ No......,0 - mw, �O n r E&&ffiY oft w � _ The current exemption for"homeowners” was extended to include Owner-occupied Dwellings of one(1) or two(2) families and to allow such homeowner to engage an individual for hire who does not possess a license, provided that the owner acts as supervisor. CMR 780 Sixth Edition Section 108.3.x.1. Definition of Homeowner: Person(s)who own a parcel of land on which he/she resides or intends to reside, on which there is, or is intended to be, a one or two family dwelling, attached or detached structures accessory to such use and/or faun structures. A person who constructs more than one home in a two-year period shall not be considered a homeowner. Such"homeowner" shall submit to the Building Official, on a form acceptable to the Building Official,that he/she shall be responsible for all such work performed under the building permit. As acting Construction Supervisor your presence on the job site will be required from time to time, during and upon completion of the work f(-,-which this permit is issued. Also be advised that with reference to Chapter 152 (Workers' Compensation) and Chapter 153 (Liability of Employers to Employees for injuries not resulting in Death)of the Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, you may be liable for person(s) you hire to perform work for you under this permit. The undersigned"homeowner" certifies and assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building Code, City of Northampton Ordinances, State and Local Zoning Laws and State of Massachusetts General Laws Annotated. Homeowner Signature F CTION 5- DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK(check all applicablew House Addition ❑ Replacement Windows Alteration(s) ❑ Roofing ❑ Or Doors ❑ Accessory Bldg. ❑ Demolition❑ N w S"gns ] De k ] Siding [ ] Other [ ] Brief Description of Proposed Work:_%— ---- Alteration of existing bedroom Yes No Adding new bedroom Yes No Attached Narrative 0 Renovating unfinished basement Yes No Plans Attached Roll o- Sheet 0 sa 1"f�New house antl=or ad`ditibn''to exi'sting`tio'usini7, cornplefe tiie=following: a. Use of building : One Family 4 �" Two Family Other b. Number of rooms in each family unit:_ -`7 _ Number of Bathrooms c. Is there a garage attached? d. Proposed Square footage of new construction. ? ="? Dimensions e. Number of stories? f. Method of heating? _ Fireplaces or Woodstoves Number of each _ g. Energy Conservation Compliance. ' !' _ Mascheck Energy Compliance form attached?_ h. Type of construction =� ��►?�� i. Is construction within 100 ft. of wetlands? Yes No. Is construction within 100 yr. floodplain Yes ___No j. Depth of basement or cellar floor below finished grade / k. Will building conform to the Building and Zoning regulations? Yes No . I. Septic Tank City Sewer _ Private well G— City water Supply SECTION 7a -OWNER AUTHORIZATION -TO BE COMPLETED WHEN OWNERS AGENT OR CONTRACTOR APPLIES FOR BUILDING PERMIT as Owner of the subject property hereby authorize _ _ _ ___ _------ __to ac; on my behalf, in all matters relative to work authorized by this building permit application. Signature of Owner Date as Owner/Authorized Agent hereby declare that the statements and information or the foregoing application are true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury. Print Name Signature of Owner/Agent Date Section 4. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION Existing Proposed Required by Zoning This column to be filled in by Building Department Lot Size a' Frontage -0�� 57C)Setbacks Front " C Side L• Ly�R:� Rear DL,lie Building Height Bldg. Square Footage % Open Space Footage % (Lot area minus bldg&paved parking) n of Parking Spaces v= Fill: volume&Location A. Has a Special Permit/Variance/Finding ever been issued for/on the site? NO DON'T KNOW YES IF YES, date issued:��'& C2/- YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DON'T KNOW YES IF YES: enter Book Page and/or Document # B. Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO DON'T KNOW YES IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission? Needs to be obtained Obtained Date Issued: _ C. Do any signs exist on the property? YES NO IF YES, describe size, type and location: D. Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property ?YES — No. :– IF-YES, deF[ ribe size, type and location: — rthampton S atso t epartment C..r. 21 r din Street S n 100 a 7 � ,rr� NdAhaM n, MA 01060 T° ei, phone 413-5871 124 Fax 413-587-1272 PtoStt OtierYSper APPLIC1YtT1UN-TO CONSTRUCT, ALTER, REPAIR, RENOVATE OR DEMOLISH A ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING SECTION 1- SITE INFORMATION 1.1 Property Address: This segt o"n t"be c pI' t'd,,64 ffil � s Map Zone Overlay Distract Elm St. District CBD'istrict' SECTION 2 - PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/AUTHORIZED AGENT 2.1 Owner of Record: L��f' /�j Name(Print) Current Oing Address: Telephone Signature 2.2 Authorized Agent: Name(Print) Current Mailing Address: Signature Telephone SECTION_3 - ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION_COSTS Item Estimated Cost(Dollars) to be Official Use Only com feted by ermit applicant 1. Building (a) Building Permit Fee 2 Electrical (b) Estimated Total Cost of / h Construction from 6 _ 3. Plumbing Building Permit Fee ,f 4. Mechanical (HVAC) 5. Fire Protection 6. Total = (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5) Check Numberrs-' This Section For Official Use Only Building Permit Number: 3 Date Issued: Signature: Building Commissioner/Inspector of Buildings Date. File#BP-2003-0408 APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON BERCUME BUILDERS INC ADDRESS/PHONE 25 SYLVIA HEIGHTS (413)549-4270 PROPERTY LOCATION 579 COLES MEADOW RD-LOT#2 / J MAP 03 PARCEL 025 001 ZONE RR 6 6tj Gy, THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE ZONING FORM FILLED OUT Fee Paid Building Permit Filled out Fee Paid J v Typeof Construction: CONSTRUCT 2 STORY SFH/ATT GARAGE/DECK New Construction Non Structural interior renovations Addition to Existing AccessoKy Structure Building Plans Included: Owner/Statement or License 00 848 3 sets of Plans/Plot Plan ,#,J5;41J THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON INFORMATION PRESENTED: Approved Additional permits required(see below) PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER:§ Intermediate Project: Site Plan AND/OR Special Permit With Site Plan Major Project: Site Plan AND/OR Special Permit With Site Plan ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § Finding Special Permit Variance* Received&Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Other Permits Required: Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer Availability Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health Permit from Conservation Commission Permit from CB Architecture Committee Permit from Elm Street Co 'ssion Signature of Building Official Date Note:Issuance of a Zoning permit does not relieve a applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from Board of Health,Conservation Commission,Department of public works and other applicable permit granting authorities. *Variances are granted only to those applicants who meet the strict standards of MGL 40A. Contact Office of Planning&Development for more information. I Of 'Nortljamptali - 6 �a�sR�qsrtte -= DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ! Munic;ipal,Building Northtunptcm, MA 01000 CERTIFICATE of OCCUPANCY and USE This is to certify that permission is hereby granted under 780 CMR, sixth edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code, allowing the occupancy or use of the premises or structure or part thereof located at 579 Coles Meadow Road — ,Lot #2 as shown on the Assessors Page# " Lot# _2 Zone RR in the City of Northampton, as herein specified: CONSTRUCTION TYPE(780CMR 6) 5B USE GROUP CLASSIFICATION (780 CMR 3 -- R-4 OCCUPANT LOAD PER FLOOR (780 CMR Table 1008.1.2 40 PSF 30 PSF LIVE LOAD PER FLOOR (780 CMR Table 1606.1) 40 PSF Under the following limitations, special stipulations, and /or conditions of the permits: Issued this 17th day of March_ 20 03 Certificate of Occupancy and Use # Authorized Department Personnel Electrical , Elevator Fire � Gt�('tit.�� :1 Plumbing Building =i� Gas Building Commissioner This certificate shall be posted by the owner, in a permanent manner and in a visible location, on all floors designated as use group H, S, M, F, or B, and in every room where practicable of use group A, 1, R-1, or R-2 per requirement of 780 CMR section 120.5 Posting Structures. 579 LMMtADOW"'.t&*I BP-2003-0408 GIs #: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ., � CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Lot: -001_ Permit. B u i l bg Category: BUILDING P]ERMI`I' Permit# BP-2003-0408 Project# JS-2003-0693 Est. Cost: $205000.00 Fee: $1373.60 PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO: Const. Class: 513 Contractor: License: Use Group: R4 BERCUME BUILDERS INC 001848 Lot Size(sq. ft.): Owner: Ronald Bercume Zoning: RR Applicant: BERCUME BUILDERS INC AT. 579 COLES MEADOW RD - LOT #2 Applicant Address: Phone: Insurance: 25 SYLVIA HEIGHTS (413) 549-4270 HADLEYMA01035 ISSUED 0AW214102 0:00:00 TO PERFORM THE FOLLOfJ'ING fVORK:CONSTRUCT 2 STORY SFH/ATT GARAGE/DECK POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET Inspector of Plumbing Inspector of Wiring D.P.W. Building Inspector Underground: Service: J Meter: _Footings: Rough3 jJ�� Rough: I � >)3(��-�-Rouse# Foundation:C/ !( ii -ISrivc�ray Final: r�� Final 2/" Final: r% i Rough Frame: i Gas: 31a V1,2 J We be,partment Fireplace/Chimney: Rough: Oil: Insulation:(� - �3"� 3 Final: Smok Final:Q Jf 3'lT C 3 'V THIS PERMIT MAY BE VO 46' TIIE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON UPON VIOLA OF ANY OF ITS RULES AND REG IONS. _ `� Certificate of Occupancy�'G � ' si nature: Fie Type: Receipt No: Date Paid: Check No: Amount: 1274/02 0`:00:00 47 7 di ding - 80 $1373.60