Plan Review: 59 Issues Found

Summary: 34 index entries | 20 perfect matches | 9 mismatched | 5 missing Mismatched (9): AR-201: Expected: FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS (AR-201) | Actual: NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS (AR-201)(p11) SP-01: Expected: SITE PLAN (SP-01) | Actual: SITE PLAN (SP-101)(p2) ST-101: Expected: FOUNDATION PLAN (ST-101) | Actual: BASEMENT FOUNDATION PLAN (ST-101)(p23) AR-203: Expected: SEC...

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: 5 missing, 9 mismatched out of 34 sheets

Summary: The Architectural plan depicts a switchback stair descending ('DN') from a top landing and door (D1.02) located on the right side of the stairwell (near grid 2.8). However, the Structural plan details the switchback stair configuration with both the first-floor starting treads (1-8) and the second-floor arrival treads/landing (24-26) located on the left side of the stairwell. This causes a dire...

Why it matters: A switchback stair inherently requires the top and bottom access points to be on the same side of the stairwell (assuming a single intermediate landing). The structural plan places the top landing on the left, whereas the architectural layout relies on the second-floor door (D1.02) being on the r...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended stair configuration and second-floor landing location. Should the structural stair design be mirrored to align with the architectural right-side door (D1.02), or should the architectural plan be updated to relocate the second-floor access to the lef...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended stair configuration and second-floor landing location. Should the structural stair design be mirrored to align with the architectural right-side door (D1.02), or should the architectural plan be updated to relocate the ...

Summary: The structural Second Floor Framing Plan (ST-105) includes a Roof Top Units Schedule that lists 'RTU-1, RTU-2' as a combined entry with the same specifications (CARRIER 48GC*M14, 1390 lb, 115 x 63 x 57 in). However, the architectural Roof Plan (AR-106) only shows a single rooftop unit identified by a hexagonal tag labeled 'RTU 1' on the flat roof area. No second rooftop unit (RTU-2) is depicted...

Why it matters: This discrepancy creates ambiguity about the number of rooftop units required. If RTU-2 is needed, the architectural roof plan lacks its location, roof curb details, penetrations, and drainage coordination. The contractor will have no architectural guidance for placing RTU-2, risking construction...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether two rooftop units (RTU-1 and RTU-2) are required. If RTU-2 is required, please update the Roof Plan (AR-106) to show its location, roof curb, and associated details. If only one RTU is needed, please revise the Roof Top Units Schedule on ST-105 according...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether two rooftop units (RTU-1 and RTU-2) are required. If RTU-2 is required, please update the Roof Plan (AR-106) to show its location, roof curb, and associated details. If only one RTU is needed, please revise the Roof Top Unit...

Summary: Sections AA and BB both show the canopy concrete footings with a total below-grade depth of 4'-0" (comprised of a 2'-0" thick footing and 2'-0" below-grade pier). However, the Structural General Notes specify a frost depth of 5'-0" (1.5m). The bottom of the canopy footings is therefore 1'-0" above the design frost line.

Why it matters: Footings placed above the frost depth are susceptible to frost heave, which can cause differential settlement, cracking of the concrete piers, and structural distress to the canopy steel framing above. This is particularly critical for an exterior canopy structure fully exposed to the elements in...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to confirm the required depth of the canopy footings relative to the specified 5'-0" frost depth. If the footing bottom must be at or below the frost line, the foundation depth should be increased from 4'-0" to at least 5'-0" below finished grad...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to confirm the required depth of the canopy footings relative to the specified 5'-0" frost depth. If the footing bottom must be at or below the frost line, the foundation depth should be increased from 4'-0" to at l...

Summary: The structural sections indicate the use of "No.8 Anchor Bolt J- (5/8"Ø X4")" for anchoring column base plates. The notation "X4"" designates a length of 4 inches (as demonstrated by the "X 12"" notation used in detail A5-A5 to denote a 12-inch length). A 4-inch overall length for a structural anchor bolt is a clear mistake. After accounting for the thickness of the 3/4" base plate, grout/level...

Why it matters: Inadequate anchor bolt embedment completely compromises the pullout resistance and lateral stability of the structural columns, posing a severe safety risk. If the notation "X4"" was intended to specify a quantity (4 pieces) rather than length, it is formatted incorrectly as a dimension and omits...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the callout "No.8 Anchor Bolt J- (5/8"Ø X4")". Does "X4"" refer to an anchor bolt length of 4 inches or a quantity of 4 bolts? If it specifies length, please provide a revised detail with an adequate embedment length that meets structural requirements. If it spe...

RFI draft: Please clarify the callout "No.8 Anchor Bolt J- (5/8"Ø X4")". Does "X4"" refer to an anchor bolt length of 4 inches or a quantity of 4 bolts? If it specifies length, please provide a revised detail with an adequate embedment length that meets stru...

Summary: The door schedule lists doors D15-01 (C.Store to Walk-in Cold Storage) and D15-02 (Walk-in Cold Storage) with Frame Type I and frame material 'STEEL'. However, the Frame Type I detail on the same sheet explicitly labels the frame as 'PVC FRAME' for the single leaf cold room door jamb condition. PVC and steel are fundamentally different materials with different thermal, structural, and installat...

Why it matters: This material conflict will cause confusion during procurement and construction. Cold room door frames are critical for maintaining the thermal envelope integrity and preventing thermal bridging. PVC frames are typical for cold room applications specifically to prevent frost and condensation at t...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the frame material for doors D15-01 and D15-02 (Frame Type I, cold room doors). The door schedule specifies 'STEEL' as the frame material, but the Frame Type I detail labels the frame as 'PVC FRAME'. Which material is correct? Please update either the schedule o...

RFI draft: Please clarify the frame material for doors D15-01 and D15-02 (Frame Type I, cold room doors). The door schedule specifies 'STEEL' as the frame material, but the Frame Type I detail labels the frame as 'PVC FRAME'. Which material is correct? Pleas...

Summary: The framing for the water tank cover is detailed differently across the sheets. The ST-103 plan indicates that the "INSPECTION PRECAST COVER" is framed by "CB3" concrete beams (which the schedule defines as "8\"x8\""). However, ST-102 Section F2-F2 shows the "24\" x 24\" PRECAST CONCRETE COVER" resting directly in a notch atop the "1'-0\"" thick concrete tank walls, with no 8"x8" framing beams ...

Why it matters: Conflicting structural support methods for the tank cover will halt formwork construction for the tank roof. It is unclear whether the contractor needs to form and cast 8"x8" CB3 concrete beams around the opening or simply step the 12" wall to directly receive the cover.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the structural framing requirements around the tank inspection cover. Should the cover be framed with 8"x8" CB3 concrete beams as shown on ST-103, or should it rest directly on the stepped 12" concrete tank wall as detailed in ST-102 Section F2-F2?

RFI draft: Please clarify the structural framing requirements around the tank inspection cover. Should the cover be framed with 8"x8" CB3 concrete beams as shown on ST-103, or should it rest directly on the stepped 12" concrete tank wall as detailed in ST-10...

Summary: Basement Plan AR-101 explicitly labels the 9014mm [29'-7"] wide space on the left side of the building (from Grid 1 to 2) as "UNEXCAVATED". However, Section AA on AR-203, which cuts through this exact area, shows this same 9014mm wide footprint as a fully excavated basement space, complete with a floor slab at "BASEMENT LVL 49.89" and a clear floor-to-ceiling dimension of 2896mm [9'-6"].

Why it matters: This discrepancy heavily impacts earthwork, foundation construction, and concrete quantities. Proceeding with the wrong assumption will either result in costly rework to excavate and pour a basement slab later, or unnecessary excavation and concrete work in an area meant to be left untouched.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the architectural and structural intent for the 9014mm [29'-7"] wide space on the left side of the basement. Should this area be left unexcavated as indicated on the Basement Plan, or fully excavated with a floor slab and 9'-6" clearance as shown in Section AA?

RFI draft: Please clarify the architectural and structural intent for the 9014mm [29'-7"] wide space on the left side of the basement. Should this area be left unexcavated as indicated on the Basement Plan, or fully excavated with a floor slab and 9'-6" clea...

Summary: The Structural stair plan explicitly requires the stair stringers to be anchored to a 'CONCRETE WALL' using wedge bolts. Conversely, the Architectural plan tags the interior wall enclosing the stair shaft (separating the stair from the Gym) with a 'W3' wall tag, which conventionally denotes an interior framed stud partition, not a structural concrete wall.

Why it matters: Wedge bolts (such as the 6" x 5/8"Ø specified) rely on expansion within solid concrete or masonry to achieve their structural capacity. They cannot be installed into framed stud partitions. If wall 'W3' is built as a standard architectural stud wall, the stair stringers will not have the necessar...

Suggested next step: Please verify the intended construction type for the interior stair shaft wall tagged 'W3'. If 'W3' is a framed partition, please provide a revised structural detail for the stringer anchorage (e.g., integrating structural steel backing or columns). If it must be a concrete wa...

RFI draft: Please verify the intended construction type for the interior stair shaft wall tagged 'W3'. If 'W3' is a framed partition, please provide a revised structural detail for the stringer anchorage (e.g., integrating structural steel backing or columns...

Summary: The Metal Guardrail Detail (Detail 05) on structural sheet ST-111 specifies the guardrail top rail as a "1 1/2" ROUND TUBE TOP RAIL (38mm)". However, the architectural stair sections on AR-304, as well as the structural stair sections on ST-111 itself, consistently specify the guardrail as a "1 5/8" OD ROUND PIPE GUARDRAIL (41mm)". This is a direct conflict in both the size (38mm vs 41mm) and t...

Why it matters: This discrepancy affects material procurement and shop drawing preparation. Round tube and round pipe are distinct products with different cross-sectional properties: a 1-1/2" tube (38mm OD) is smaller than a 1-5/8" pipe (41mm OD), impacting the structural capacity, weld details, and fit-up with p...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct size and type for the guardrail top rail. The Metal Guardrail Detail (Detail 05 on ST-111) specifies a 1-1/2" round tube (38mm), while the stair sections on both AR-304 and ST-111 specify a 1-5/8" OD round pipe (41mm). Which specification should be f...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct size and type for the guardrail top rail. The Metal Guardrail Detail (Detail 05 on ST-111) specifies a 1-1/2" round tube (38mm), while the stair sections on both AR-304 and ST-111 specify a 1-5/8" OD round pipe (41mm). W...

Summary: On AR-101 (Basement Plan), both rectangular water tanks are labeled as fire-fighting water tanks. The upper (smaller) tank is noted as '78,530 L FIRE-FIGHTING WATER TANK 10'-10" x 16' x 16'' and the lower (larger) tank as '103,070 L FIRE-FIGHTING WATER TANK 10'-10" x 16' x 21''. However, on the structural drawings ST-101 (Basement Foundation Plan) and ST-103 (Basement Framing Plan), the upper t...

Why it matters: Fire-fighting water tanks and sprinkler water tanks serve different functions and are governed by different NFPA standards and code requirements. The designation dictates pipe connections, pump sizing, system control valve arrangements, and required capacity calculations. If the tank is misidenti...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended function of the upper rectangular water tank in the basement. Is it a fire-fighting water tank as shown on AR-101, or a sprinkler water tank as shown on ST-101 and ST-103? Coordinate and revise the labeling across all architectural and structural dr...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended function of the upper rectangular water tank in the basement. Is it a fire-fighting water tank as shown on AR-101, or a sprinkler water tank as shown on ST-101 and ST-103? Coordinate and revise the labeling across all a...

Summary: The Structural plan explicitly designates the walls enclosing the central staircase as "CONCRETE WALL". The Architectural plan tags these same enclosing walls as "W3" and "EW2", which typically signify stud partitions or standard masonry envelopes rather than a cast-in-place structural concrete core.

Why it matters: If a concrete shear core is structurally required around the stairs for lateral stability, it must be reflected in the architectural plans to ensure proper wall thickness, forming clearances, and finishing requirements. A mismatch will lead to confusion during the framing and pouring stages of co...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required wall construction for the central stair enclosure. If a structural concrete core is necessary, confirm if the architectural wall tags (W3 and EW2) should be revised to indicate concrete walls.

RFI draft: Please clarify the required wall construction for the central stair enclosure. If a structural concrete core is necessary, confirm if the architectural wall tags (W3 and EW2) should be revised to indicate concrete walls.

Summary: The architectural Roof Plan (AR-106) identifies the rooftop unit as 'WEATHERMASTER® SINGLE-PACKAGED ROOFTOP UNITS WITH ECOBLUE TECHNOLOGY 48GC-12.5 NOMINAL TONS', indicating a 12.5-ton nominal capacity unit from the Carrier 48GC series. The structural Second Floor Framing Plan (ST-105) Roof Top Units Schedule specifies the same units as 'CARRIER 48GC*M14'. The model suffixes '12.5' and 'M14' do...

Why it matters: If the two model designations represent different unit sizes or capacities, the structural loading calculations on ST-105 (1390 lb weight, 27.63 psf load, dimensions 115 x 63 x 57 in) may not match the actual unit specified architecturally. A mismatch in unit weight or footprint could result in u...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct RTU model number and nominal capacity. The Roof Plan (AR-106) specifies '48GC-12.5 NOMINAL TONS' while the Roof Top Units Schedule on ST-105 specifies 'CARRIER 48GC*M14'. Please clarify which designation is correct, update both drawings for consisten...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct RTU model number and nominal capacity. The Roof Plan (AR-106) specifies '48GC-12.5 NOMINAL TONS' while the Roof Top Units Schedule on ST-105 specifies 'CARRIER 48GC*M14'. Please clarify which designation is correct, upda...

Summary: The Columns Schedule specifies the dimensions for concrete column CC1 as '19 3/4" x 19 3/4"'. However, the column detail drawing for CC1 indicates dimensions of '1'-8"' by '1'-8"' (20" x 20").

Why it matters: Conflicting structural dimensions can result in rebar detailing errors, formwork issues, and potential misalignment with adjacent architectural or structural elements during construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct dimension for concrete column CC1. Should it be 19 3/4" x 19 3/4" as per the Columns Schedule, or 1'-8" x 1'-8" (20" x 20") as shown in the CC1 detail?

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct dimension for concrete column CC1. Should it be 19 3/4" x 19 3/4" as per the Columns Schedule, or 1'-8" x 1'-8" (20" x 20") as shown in the CC1 detail?

Summary: The Anchor Bolt Schedule indicates 12 anchor bolts for BP3 ('NO.12 J- 5/8Ø" X4"'). However, the BP3 Detail graphic shows the assembly secured by only 10 anchor bolts.

Why it matters: A mismatch in anchor bolt quantities affects both foundation concrete embedment and steel fabrication. Missing anchor bolts can impact the column's base fixity and uplift capacity.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required number of anchor bolts for base plate BP3. The Anchor Bolt Schedule specifies 12 bolts, but the BP3 Detail shows 10 bolts.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required number of anchor bolts for base plate BP3. The Anchor Bolt Schedule specifies 12 bolts, but the BP3 Detail shows 10 bolts.