Plan Review: 83 Issues Found

Summary: 30 index entries | 20 perfect matches | 10 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (10): S002: Expected: STANDARD DETAILS & SCHEDULES (S002) | Actual: STANDARD DETAILS AND SCHEDULES (S002)(p2) S101: Expected: FOUNDATION PLAN - AREA A (S101) | Actual: EDWARD HOMES ARCA MULTIFAMILY - LAS VEGAS, NV FOUNDATION PLAN - AREA A (S101)(p3) S102: Expected: FOUNDATION PLAN - AREA B (S102) ...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 0 missing, 10 mismatched out of 30 sheets

Summary: Details 12 and 15 specify a guardrail "BASE PL 1/4"x4"x4"" fastened with "(4) 3/8" Φ LAG SCREWS" spaced at "(3 1/2" O.C. EA. WAY)". On a 4-inch square plate, spacing fasteners at 3.5 inches on center places the center of each screw only 0.25 inches from the edge of the plate. Accounting for the 0.375-inch diameter of the lag screw (and its required clearance hole), less than 1/16" of steel mate...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 4.5.1 requires guardrails to resist a 200 lb concentrated load and transfer it safely through the supports to the structure. The specified geometry is impossible to fabricate safely and will result in a connection that cannot sustain design loads, posing a severe life-safety fal...

Suggested next step: Please review the guardrail base plate dimensions in Details 12 and 15. A 4"x4" plate with 3/8" fasteners at 3.5" o.c. each way leaves insufficient edge distance (0.25" to the center of the hole). Recommend increasing the base plate size (e.g., to 5"x5" or 6"x6") to provide pr...

RFI draft: Please review the guardrail base plate dimensions in Details 12 and 15. A 4"x4" plate with 3/8" fasteners at 3.5" o.c. each way leaves insufficient edge distance (0.25" to the center of the hole). Recommend increasing the base plate size (e.g., to...

Summary: Details 23 and 26 depict floor trusses supporting an upper bearing/shear wall that is offset from the shear wall below, constituting an in-plane discontinuity (vertical irregularity Type 4). ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.3 mandates that elements supporting such discontinuous walls be designed to resist seismic load effects, including the overstrength factor (Ω0). The drawing delegates the truss design ...

Why it matters: If the truss manufacturer is not explicitly directed in the contract documents to apply the overstrength factor (Ω0) to the shear wall transfer loads, the supporting floor truss will only be designed for standard seismic base shear. During a seismic event, forces delivered by the yielding shear w...

Suggested next step: Please update Details 23 and 26 to explicitly require the manufactured floor trusses supporting discontinuous shear walls to be designed for "seismic load effects, including overstrength (Ω0)" in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.3.

RFI draft: Please update Details 23 and 26 to explicitly require the manufactured floor trusses supporting discontinuous shear walls to be designed for "seismic load effects, including overstrength (Ω0)" in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.3.

Summary: Details 9, 10, and 21 show roof and floor joists framing perpendicular to structural shear walls, supported by LUS hangers attached directly to the wall studs or to a face-nailed ledger. These details lack a dedicated out-of-plane tension strap (such as the LTS12 strap correctly utilized in Detail 13) to anchor the wall to the diaphragm. Relying on the withdrawal capacity of the hanger or ledge...

Why it matters: Failing to properly anchor structural walls to perpendicular roof or floor framing for out-of-plane seismic forces (Fp) creates a severe risk of the walls pulling away from the diaphragm during an earthquake, which is a leading cause of partial or complete building collapse.

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 9, 10, and 21 to include a direct out-of-plane tension connection (e.g., an LTS or similar strap) tying the wall studs to the perpendicular joists to resist out-of-plane seismic forces (Fp), consistent with the anchorage provided in Details 13 and 14.

RFI draft: Please revise Details 9, 10, and 21 to include a direct out-of-plane tension connection (e.g., an LTS or similar strap) tying the wall studs to the perpendicular joists to resist out-of-plane seismic forces (Fp), consistent with the anchorage prov...

Summary: Detail 2 details a parapet over a designated fire wall. The parapet is constructed using a "2x6 PARAPET TRUSS EXTENSION" which is integral to the combustible roof truss. IBC Section 706.2 requires fire walls to be designed to allow the collapse of the structure on either side without causing the collapse of the wall. Because the fire wall parapet is a direct structural extension of the roof tru...

Why it matters: If a fire wall's parapet collapses during a fire event, the fire wall loses its ability to prevent fire spread across the roof level, severely compromising building safety and the fire separation. This will result in plan rejection by the building official or fire marshal, requiring a structural ...

Suggested next step: Clarify the parapet framing over fire walls in Detail 2. Please revise the detail to provide a parapet structure that is independent of the roof trusses, ensuring that the collapse of the roof structure will not cause the collapse of the fire wall parapet, in compliance with I...

RFI draft: Clarify the parapet framing over fire walls in Detail 2. Please revise the detail to provide a parapet structure that is independent of the roof trusses, ensuring that the collapse of the roof structure will not cause the collapse of the fire wall...

Summary: The 2nd Floor Framing Plan (S201) explicitly calls out built-up posts (e.g., "(3) 2x6 LVL POST") to support beams (e.g., "5 1/8x18 GL BEAM"). However, at this exact same structural location, the 1st Story Shearwall Plan (S301) requires a solid "6x6 PSL" post with an "HDU14" holdown.

Why it matters: Although S201 Note 8 generally directs the contractor to reference the shearwall plan for solid posts at holdowns, the explicit labeling of built-up LVL posts at these specific locations on the framing plan creates a direct textual contradiction. Using a built-up post for heavy holdowns violates ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that solid 6x6 PSL posts are required at the specified holdown locations per S301, and confirm if the explicitly labeled built-up posts (e.g., '(3) 2x6 LVL POST') on S201 should be revised to indicate solid PSL posts.

RFI draft: Please confirm that solid 6x6 PSL posts are required at the specified holdown locations per S301, and confirm if the explicitly labeled built-up posts (e.g., '(3) 2x6 LVL POST') on S201 should be revised to indicate solid PSL posts.

Summary: The overall 3rd-5th Floor Framing Plan (S203) indicates standard wood framing members (e.g., "6x8 BM", "6x6 HDR") within the Common Area. However, the 4th Floor Enlarged Common Area Framing Plan (S209) displays a completely different structural system consisting of heavy steel and glulam members, such as a "W21x68 STEEL BEAM", a "W21x101 STEEL BEAM, CANT'L", and "STEEL COLUMN"s.

Why it matters: Because S203 serves as the typical plan for floors 3 through 5, showing wood framing in the common area creates a direct contradiction with the steel framing required on the 4th floor per S209. If the 4th floor is an exception that requires steel framing, the overall typical plan must explicitly ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the framing requirements for the 4th Floor Common Area. If the 4th floor requires steel and glulam framing as detailed on S209, please update the 3rd-5th Floor overall framing plan (S203) to exclude the 4th floor from the typical wood framing layout or add a cle...

RFI draft: Please clarify the framing requirements for the 4th Floor Common Area. If the 4th floor requires steel and glulam framing as detailed on S209, please update the 3rd-5th Floor overall framing plan (S203) to exclude the 4th floor from the typical wo...

Summary: S203 refers the contractor to S210 for Enlarged Common Areas framing. Stairwell #3 is depicted twice on sheet S210: once in the 'Enlarged Stairwell #3' plan and once within the 'Enlarged Common Area' plan. These two detail plans provide conflicting structural sizes for the same stairwell. The Enlarged Stairwell #3 plan specifies '5 1/8x12 GL BEAM' and '11 7/8" TJI 230 JOISTS', while the Enlarge...

Why it matters: Conflicting structural member sizes for the same stairwell will cause procurement errors and framing delays. The contractor will not know whether to order the 5 1/8x12 or 6 3/4x12 glulam beams, nor which TJI joist series is required, potentially impacting structural integrity or causing rework.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct glulam beam size and TJI joist series for Stairwell #3. Should it follow the 5 1/8x12 GL Beams and TJI 230 joists shown on the Enlarged Stairwell #3 plan, or the 6 3/4x12 GL Beams and TJI 360 joists shown on the Enlarged Common Area plan?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct glulam beam size and TJI joist series for Stairwell #3. Should it follow the 5 1/8x12 GL Beams and TJI 230 joists shown on the Enlarged Stairwell #3 plan, or the 6 3/4x12 GL Beams and TJI 360 joists shown on the Enlarged...

Summary: Details 16 and 18 specify a 12" concrete stem wall with #4 horizontal bars at 12" O.C. This provides a transverse reinforcement ratio ρt = As/(h×s) = 0.20 in²/(12"×12") = 0.00139. Per ACI 318-14 Table 11.6.1, the minimum transverse reinforcement ratio for cast-in-place walls with deformed bars ≤ No. 5 and fy ≥ 60,000 psi is ρt = 0.0020. The provided ratio of 0.00139 is approximately 30% below t...

Why it matters: This deficiency in minimum wall transverse reinforcement affects the stem wall's ability to resist in-plane shear and control shrinkage/temperature cracking. Since these stem walls directly support the exterior shearwall and transfer lateral forces to the footings, inadequate horizontal reinforce...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer verify the horizontal reinforcement in the 12" concrete stem walls shown in Details 16 and 18. The specified #4 @ 12" O.C. provides ρt = 0.00139, which is below the ACI 318-14 Table 11.6.1 minimum of 0.0020. Please revise the horizontal bar spac...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer verify the horizontal reinforcement in the 12" concrete stem walls shown in Details 16 and 18. The specified #4 @ 12" O.C. provides ρt = 0.00139, which is below the ACI 318-14 Table 11.6.1 minimum of 0.0020. Please ...

Summary: Structural General Note D.3 explicitly states that because the concrete design is based on a 2500 psi 28-day strength, "special inspection and testing of concrete strength is not required." This directly contradicts ACI 318-14, which mandates concrete strength testing using cylinder samples to verify compliance (Section 26.12.1.1) and requires that concrete construction be inspected throughout ...

Why it matters: Omitting strength testing and inspections for structural concrete removes critical quality assurance measures. If the concrete placed on site fails to meet the specified compressive strength, it could lead to severe structural deficiencies. Without mandatory testing, these defects would go undete...

Suggested next step: Please revise Structural General Note D.3 to remove the blanket waiver for concrete testing and inspection, and ensure the notes properly mandate concrete strength testing and special inspections in accordance with ACI 318-14 Sections 26.12 and 26.13.

RFI draft: Please revise Structural General Note D.3 to remove the blanket waiver for concrete testing and inspection, and ensure the notes properly mandate concrete strength testing and special inspections in accordance with ACI 318-14 Sections 26.12 and 26...

Summary: Framing Note 5 on the drawing specifies: 'MFR TRUSSES TO BE DESIGNED FOR CONCENTRATED TOP CHORD LOAD AT ANY POINT (DL=50 lbs, LL=250 lbs) FOR POTENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER LINE SUPPORTS.' This note explicitly attributes both the DL and LL components to fire sprinkler line supports. Fire sprinkler systems — including piping, hangers, fittings, and water contents — are fixed service equipment. Per ASC...

Why it matters: Truss manufacturers design trusses based on the DL/LL values specified in the framing notes. With only DL=50 lbs at sprinkler support points, LRFD Load Combination 1 (1.4D per Section 2.3.1) produces only 1.4 × 50 = 70 lbs factored concentrated load, whereas if the sprinkler weight were properly ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the dead load and live load breakdown for fire sprinkler line support design. Per ASCE 7-16 Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.3, the weight of fire sprinkler systems (piping, water, fittings, and hangers) is fixed service equipment and must be clas...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the dead load and live load breakdown for fire sprinkler line support design. Per ASCE 7-16 Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.3, the weight of fire sprinkler systems (piping, water, fittings, and hangers) is fixed serv...

Summary: The structural general notes list comprehensive design loads for the project including floor DEAD: 30 psf and floor LIVE: 40 psf, but do not include any provision for partition loads. The building has nonbearing partitions (Note A.5 references architectural drawings for their size and location). With a floor live load of 40 psf, which is below the 80 psf exemption threshold, ASCE 7-16 Section 4...

Why it matters: Omitting the 15 psf minimum partition load from the design basis could result in undersized floor framing members across all typical floors (2nd through 5th). This is a significant additional superimposed load that would affect joist, beam, and header sizing. A plan reviewer would likely reject t...

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether a partition load of not less than 15 psf per ASCE 7-16 Section 4.3.2 has been accounted for in the floor design. If it is included within the 30 psf dead load, please clarify the dead load breakdown. If not included, revise the design loads and verify th...

RFI draft: Please confirm whether a partition load of not less than 15 psf per ASCE 7-16 Section 4.3.2 has been accounted for in the floor design. If it is included within the 30 psf dead load, please clarify the dead load breakdown. If not included, revise ...

Summary: The structural general notes specify a single roof dead load condition: 'DEAD: 20 psf (includes 3 psf for future solar panels)'. However, ASCE 7-16 Section 4.17.1 mandates that roof structures supporting solar panel systems be designed to resist two distinct conditions: '1. The uniform and concentrated roof live loads specified in Table 4.3-1 with the solar panel system dead loads.' and '2. The...

Why it matters: Because 'Manufactured wood roof and floor trusses' are listed as deferred submittals, the truss manufacturer will rely exclusively on the specified loads. By combining the base dead load and the solar panel load into a single 20 psf value, the truss design will incorrectly use 20 psf to resist wi...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note A.12 to explicitly delineate the roof dead load both with and without the future solar panel dead load (e.g., specifying a base roof dead load of 17 psf and an additional superimposed solar dead load of 3 psf). Instruct the deferred truss designer to evaluat...

RFI draft: Please revise Note A.12 to explicitly delineate the roof dead load both with and without the future solar panel dead load (e.g., specifying a base roof dead load of 17 psf and an additional superimposed solar dead load of 3 psf). Instruct the defe...

Summary: The drawing specifies the seismic force-resisting system at the rooftop canopy as 'Ordinary Steel Cantilevered Columns (R=1.25)'. According to ASCE 7-16 Section 14.1.2.2.1, cantilever column systems are explicitly excluded from the exception that allows steel systems 'not specifically detailed for seismic resistance' to avoid AISC 341 detailing. Therefore, this system must be designed and detai...

Why it matters: AISC 341 imposes strict detailing, quality assurance, and special inspection requirements on seismic force-resisting systems. Exempting the cantilever column connections from special inspections could lead to inadequate seismic performance or failure of the rooftop canopy during an earthquake. Th...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note K.3 to clarify that connections for the Ordinary Steel Cantilevered Column system must be detailed and inspected in accordance with AISC 341, or explicitly provide the required AISC 341 detailing and inspection requirements for the canopy.

RFI draft: Please revise Note K.3 to clarify that connections for the Ordinary Steel Cantilevered Column system must be detailed and inspected in accordance with AISC 341, or explicitly provide the required AISC 341 detailing and inspection requirements for ...

Summary: Detail 6 (TYPICAL ROOF TOP UNIT SUPPORT) contains a note stating that 'DUCT HOLES UP TO 22" SQ. MAY BE CUT IN SHEATHING WITHOUT ADD'L REINF.' This directly contradicts ASCE 7 Section 12.10.1, which mandates that at diaphragm discontinuities (such as openings), the design must ensure the transfer of edge/chord forces is maintained within the shear and tension capacity of the diaphragm. Providing...

Why it matters: A 22-inch square opening severs a significant portion of the roof diaphragm sheathing. If such an opening is placed in a high-shear zone or near a boundary chord without proper framing, strapping, or blocking (reinforcement), it can lead to a localized shear or tension failure during a seismic ev...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if all roof diaphragm penetrations up to 22" square truly require no additional framing or strapping, regardless of their location. Request a typical detail for diaphragm opening reinforcement to ensure force transfer complies with ASCE 7 Section 12.10.1.

RFI draft: Please confirm if all roof diaphragm penetrations up to 22" square truly require no additional framing or strapping, regardless of their location. Request a typical detail for diaphragm opening reinforcement to ensure force transfer complies with ...