Plan Review: 44 Issues Found

Summary: The Floor Plan on A2.02 annotates the perimeter concrete curb as '150 HIGH CONC. CURB, TYP.' However, the Slab Plan on the same sheet (A2.02) annotates the same curb as '100mm HIGH CONC. CURB, TYP.' and '100 HIGH CONC. CURB, TYP.' Building Section 1 on A5.00 also labels the curb as '100mm HIGH CONC. CURB, TYP.' Furthermore, the Slab Plan elevations confirm the 100mm dimension: Main Floor is 100...

Why it matters: A 50mm discrepancy in curb height affects formwork, concrete quantities, waterproofing details, and door threshold heights. Structural drawings referenced for the curb design cannot be coordinated if the architectural intent is unclear. This could lead to construction delays and rework if the inc...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct height of the perimeter concrete curb for the washroom building. The Floor Plan (A2.02) indicates 150mm while the Slab Plan (A2.02) and Building Section (A5.00) indicate 100mm. Please confirm the intended dimension and issue revised drawings as needed.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct height of the perimeter concrete curb for the washroom building. The Floor Plan (A2.02) indicates 150mm while the Slab Plan (A2.02) and Building Section (A5.00) indicate 100mm. Please confirm the intended dimension and i...

Summary: The R1 roof assembly detail drawing on sheet A2.00 specifies '400 DEEP TJI 230 @ 600 O.C.' and omits insulation and vapour barrier layers. A separate R1 assembly note on the same sheet specifies '241 DP TJI 230 WOOD JOISTS @ 400 O.C.' and includes R-28 batt insulation, poly vapour barrier, and framing to suit. These are fundamentally different structural specifications for the same roof assembl...

Why it matters: A 400 mm deep TJI 230 and a 241 mm deep TJI 230 are entirely different structural products with significantly different load-carrying capacities, and the change in spacing (600 vs 400 O.C.) further compounds the structural impact. The structural engineer's design would be based on one specific de...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct R1 roof assembly specification, confirm TJI 230 joist depth (400 mm or 241 mm), on-centre spacing (600 mm or 400 mm), and whether R-28 batt insulation and poly vapour barrier are required. Update the R1 assembly detail and notes on A2.00 to be consi...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct R1 roof assembly specification, confirm TJI 230 joist depth (400 mm or 241 mm), on-centre spacing (600 mm or 400 mm), and whether R-28 batt insulation and poly vapour barrier are required. Update the R1 assembly detail ...

Summary: The Ground Floor Plan specifies the main structural circular columns as "HSS 141Øx13" (which has an outer diameter of 141.3mm and a wall thickness of 13mm, resulting in an inner diameter of approximately 115.3mm). However, the 'Funeral Hall Column At Pad Footing' detail specifies the base connection stub as "-HSS127Ø x 9.5 STUB" (which has an outer diameter of 127mm). The 127mm stub outer diame...

Why it matters: This geometric incompatibility prevents the fabrication and erection of the primary structural columns. The base connection must be redesigned, which could affect the base plate sizing, anchor bolt layout, and the procurement of HSS sections.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the sizing for the main columns and base stubs. The currently specified HSS127 stub is too large to sleeve into the HSS141x13 column. Should the main column size be increased, or the stub size decreased?

RFI draft: Please clarify the sizing for the main columns and base stubs. The currently specified HSS127 stub is too large to sleeve into the HSS141x13 column. Should the main column size be increased, or the stub size decreased?

Summary: Detail 8 (TYP. WALL FOOTING) calls for "12" [300] LG. DOWELS TO MATCH WALL VERT REINF." at the interior side of the wall-to-footing joint. This contradicts the General Notes (CONCRETE REINFORCING NOTES, Note 3), which requires "CSA standard hooked dowels from bottom of footing to match and lap with verticals." Additionally, a 12" [300mm] total length is physically too short to satisfy the minim...

Why it matters: Straight dowels that are too short to develop a proper lap splice compromise the flexural capacity and shear transfer at the critical foundation cold joint. This can lead to a failure of the wall-to-footing connection under lateral or uplift loads.

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the interior face footing dowels in Detail 8 should be CSA standard hooked dowels rather than straight 12" [300] long dowels. Additionally, please confirm that these dowels must be sized to provide the minimum required tension lap splice length per the rein...

RFI draft: Please confirm that the interior face footing dowels in Detail 8 should be CSA standard hooked dowels rather than straight 12" [300] long dowels. Additionally, please confirm that these dowels must be sized to provide the minimum required tension ...

Summary: The drawing's STEEL NOTES specify that the steel-steel forces indicated on the plan are provided at a net force level of 'RdRo = 1.3'. However, the General Notes in the project specifications define the building's seismic system parameters as 'Rd = 1.5' and 'Ro = 1.3', which results in a combined RdRo value of 1.95.

Why it matters: Under CSA S16-19 Clause 27.12.2, systems with an RdRo greater than 1.3 require structural connections to be designed for forces amplified by the system's actual RdRo (or for the nominal yield capacity of the member). Providing connection forces at an 'RdRo = 1.3' level directly conflicts with the...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct Rd and Ro values for the primary seismic force resisting system. Confirm whether the steel connection forces shown on the roof plan must be amplified to match the Rd=1.5 and Ro=1.3 (RdRo=1.95) system parameters defined in the General Notes, and revis...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct Rd and Ro values for the primary seismic force resisting system. Confirm whether the steel connection forces shown on the roof plan must be amplified to match the Rd=1.5 and Ro=1.3 (RdRo=1.95) system parameters defined i...

Summary: The architectural Floor Plan on A2.02 specifies the galvanized HSS columns as 'HSS 141x13 Ø', indicating a 141mm diameter with a 13mm wall thickness. The structural Ground Floor Plan on S2.2 specifies the same columns as 'HSS 141Ø x 6.4', indicating a 141mm diameter with a 6.4mm wall thickness. While the column diameter is consistent at 141mm, the wall thickness differs significantly, 13mm on ...

Why it matters: The column wall thickness directly affects the structural capacity (axial, moment, and shear resistance) of the HSS columns. A 6.4mm wall is roughly half the thickness of a 13mm wall, resulting in substantially different section properties, weight, and load capacity. Construction using the wrong ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct HSS column specification for the washroom building columns at grids G-H / 5-6. The architectural drawings (A2.02) indicate HSS 141x13 Ø while the structural drawings (S2.2) indicate HSS 141Ø x 6.4. Which wall thickness is correct, 13mm or 6.4mm? Ple...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct HSS column specification for the washroom building columns at grids G-H / 5-6. The architectural drawings (A2.02) indicate HSS 141x13 Ø while the structural drawings (S2.2) indicate HSS 141Ø x 6.4. Which wall thickness i...

Summary: The architectural drawing (A1.01) specifies the gate perimeter frame as a 13x110 stainless steel flat bar and intermediate vertical/horizontal members as 13x38 stainless steel bars. The architectural gate section detail confirms these as simple flat bar profiles throughout the assembly. The structural drawing (S2.3) specifies the same perimeter frame members (top & bottom chords and vertical ed...

Why it matters: This conflict directly impacts gate fabrication. A 13mm-thick flat bar is a simple rectangular section, while a built-up T-section with a 19mm flange and 12.5mm web is a substantially different profile with greater structural capacity. The gate fabricator cannot proceed without clarity on which c...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the gate frame member cross-sections. The architectural drawings (A1.01) specify 13x110 stainless steel flat bar for the perimeter frame and 13x38 bars for intermediate members, while the structural drawings (S2.3) specify built-up T-sections (100x19 flange plat...

RFI draft: Please clarify the gate frame member cross-sections. The architectural drawings (A1.01) specify 13x110 stainless steel flat bar for the perimeter frame and 13x38 bars for intermediate members, while the structural drawings (S2.3) specify built-up ...

Summary: Building Section 1 on sheet A4.00 indicates the top of the cranked steel beam at elevation 105.205, with corresponding overall height 5205 mm and a cranked-section height of 1505 mm above the edge beam. Building Section 2 on the same sheet shows the same datum as elevation 105.200, with corresponding heights of 5200 mm and 1500 mm. The underside of the steel edge beam (103.700) and the ground f...

Why it matters: A 5 mm elevation difference with consistently mismatched height dimensions (5205 vs 5200, 1505 vs 1500) indicates a drafting error rather than intentional geometry. Steel fabricators and erectors rely on a single consistent reference elevation for the cranked beam. An ambiguous beam top elevation...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct elevation for the top of the cranked steel beam, 105.200 or 105.205, and update Building Sections 1 and 2 on A4.00 with consistent elevation and height dimensions (1500/5200 or 1505/5205).

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct elevation for the top of the cranked steel beam, 105.200 or 105.205, and update Building Sections 1 and 2 on A4.00 with consistent elevation and height dimensions (1500/5200 or 1505/5205).

Summary: The WC Ground Floor Plan specifies 150mm thick foundation walls, but the typical exterior wall construction joint detail (Detail 5) explicitly limits its standard keyway application to 200mm and 250mm walls.

Why it matters: The Ground Floor Plan notes "150 THK. FOUNDATION WALL. TYP. UNO.". The typical footing and joint sections (Details 5 and 11) detail a 2x4 (38x89mm) key or keyway. Installing an 89mm wide keyway in a 150mm wide wall leaves only ~30.5mm of concrete cover on either side, which is insufficient for st...

Suggested next step: Please provide a compatible construction joint and footing keyway detail for the 150mm thick foundation walls designated on the WC Plan, as Detail 5/S3.1 only covers 200mm and 250mm walls, and a 2x4 keyway violates concrete cover minimums in a 150mm wall.

RFI draft: Please provide a compatible construction joint and footing keyway detail for the 150mm thick foundation walls designated on the WC Plan, as Detail 5/S3.1 only covers 200mm and 250mm walls, and a 2x4 keyway violates concrete cover minimums in a 150...

Summary: The Roof Plan on sheet S2.1 indicates the use of 'ST1' straps for roof diaphragm strapping. However, the Strap & Holdown Schedule on sheet S3.3 defines 'ST1' exclusively as a vertical inter-story lap tie, noting a requirement to 'LAP 14" [350] ABOVE/BELOW JOIST SPACE'.

Why it matters: Using a vertical strap specification for roof diaphragm strapping creates a direct hardware conflict. The scheduled CS16 strap and its lapping requirements are designed for vertical floor-to-floor load transfer and cannot be properly applied to flat roof diaphragm strapping, which requires a hori...

Suggested next step: Clarify the strap specification intended for the roof diaphragm strapping. Provide the correct strap mark for horizontal diaphragm application, or revise the schedule notes to accommodate horizontal use for ST1.

RFI draft: Clarify the strap specification intended for the roof diaphragm strapping. Provide the correct strap mark for horizontal diaphragm application, or revise the schedule notes to accommodate horizontal use for ST1.

Summary: Drawing Detail 6 'TYP. OPENINGS IN CONC. WALL AND SLAB' specifies '(1) 15M 4'-0" [1200] EACH CORNER OF WALL/SLAB OPENING' for diagonal reinforcement at corners of openings. However, the General Notes on sheet S1.2 (Concrete Reinforcing Notes, item 11) require '(2)15M x 1200mm (4'-0") at a 45 degrees each corner.' The drawing provides only one diagonal bar per corner, which is half of the two ba...

Why it matters: Diagonal reinforcement at corners of openings in concrete walls and slabs controls crack propagation from stress concentrations at re-entrant corners. Providing only one 15M bar instead of the specified two reduces the crack control capacity by 50% at each corner, which could lead to excessive cr...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to confirm whether the diagonal reinforcement at corners of openings in Detail 6 should be revised to (2) 15M bars per corner, consistent with the General Notes requirement of '(2)15M x 1200mm (4'-0") at a 45 degrees each corner,' or whether the...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to confirm whether the diagonal reinforcement at corners of openings in Detail 6 should be revised to (2) 15M bars per corner, consistent with the General Notes requirement of '(2)15M x 1200mm (4'-0") at a 45 degree...

Summary: The Roof Edge detail (Detail 4/S2.1) on sheet S4.1 specifies pack-out blocking fastened to the steel beam with '2 ROWS OF 13Ø A307 THROUGH BOLTS @ 900 O/C EA. ROW, STAGG.' However, the General Notes on S1.3 under 'Steel Members Within Wood Framing' require that web pack-out blocking be fastened with '13mmØ [½"] A307 through bolts @300 [12"] staggered top and bottom.' The drawing's 900mm per-row...

Why it matters: Under standard engineering convention, @300 staggered top and bottom equates to approximately 600mm per row; the drawing shows 900mm per row, which is 1.5 times the required per-row spacing. This results in roughly one-third fewer through bolts connecting the D.Fir blocking to the steel beam web,...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on whether the through bolt spacing for the web pack-out blocking in the Roof Edge detail should be revised to comply with the General Notes specification of @300mm staggered (i.e., approximately @600mm per row, staggered top ...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on whether the through bolt spacing for the web pack-out blocking in the Roof Edge detail should be revised to comply with the General Notes specification of @300mm staggered (i.e., approximately ...

Summary: Detail 4 'END OF SHEAR WALL AT CONC. FOUND.' on drawing S3.3 shows a dimension of 8" [800] between the sill plate anchor bolt and the cast-in holddown anchor. The General Notes specification requires anchor bolts to be located a minimum of 300mm [12"] from hold down anchors. The 8" (approximately 200mm) dimension shown on the detail is significantly less than the required 12" (300mm) minimum cl...

Why it matters: Insufficient spacing between anchor bolts and holddown anchors can result in interference during installation, reduced concrete breakout capacity due to overlapping stress cones, and potential splitting of the sill plate between the two anchors. This could compromise the lateral load path at the ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to revise Detail 4 'END OF SHEAR WALL AT CONC. FOUND.' to show the correct minimum spacing of 300mm [12"] between sill plate anchor bolts and holddown anchors per the General Notes. Also request correction of the metric conversion from [800] to ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to revise Detail 4 'END OF SHEAR WALL AT CONC. FOUND.' to show the correct minimum spacing of 300mm [12"] between sill plate anchor bolts and holddown anchors per the General Notes. Also request correction of the me...

Summary: Details 'Roof At Steel Beam' and 'Roof At Steel Beam At Gable Ends' both specify attaching a continuous PSL nailer plate to the top of the steel beam using 2 rows of 13Ø through bolts at 600 O/C staggered. However, the specification explicitly requires nailers fastened to the top or bottom flanges of steel beams to use 13mmØ A307 through bolts at 300 staggered each side.

Why it matters: Providing bolts at 600 O/C instead of 300 O/C provides half the specified fastener density. This discrepancy may lead to inadequate attachment of the roof diaphragm framing to the steel structure, potentially reducing the assembly's shear capacity or wind uplift resistance.

Suggested next step: Please advise if the bolt spacing for the continuous PSL nailer plates shown as 600 O/C in details 5/S2.1 and 8/S2.1 should be revised to 300 staggered each side, per the 'Steel Members Within Wood Framing' general notes.

RFI draft: Please advise if the bolt spacing for the continuous PSL nailer plates shown as 600 O/C in details 5/S2.1 and 8/S2.1 should be revised to 300 staggered each side, per the 'Steel Members Within Wood Framing' general notes.

Summary: The Ground Floor Plan indicates that the reinforcing for the 125mm thick slab on grade should be placed at 'MID-DEPTH TYP.' and the reinforcing for the 150mm thick slab on grade pad should be 'CENTRED'. However, the Concrete Reinforcing Notes explicitly specify that the concrete cover for reinforcement in a slab on grade must be 40mm from the top.

Why it matters: Placing the reinforcement at mid-depth (which calculates to 62.5mm for the 125mm slab, and 75mm for the 150mm pad) directly violates the specification's concrete protection requirements. Reinforcement in slabs on grade must be positioned closer to the top surface (as specified by the 40mm cover) ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the slab on grade reinforcement should be placed at mid-depth/centred as shown on the plan, or with a 40mm top cover as required by the Concrete Reinforcing Notes.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the slab on grade reinforcement should be placed at mid-depth/centred as shown on the plan, or with a 40mm top cover as required by the Concrete Reinforcing Notes.