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