Plan Review: 88 Issues Found

Summary: 21 index entries | 9 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 11 missing Mismatched (1): S-4.2: Expected: FOUNDATION DETAILS (S-4.2) | Actual: FOUNDATION DETAILS (S-4.3)(p91) Missing (11) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Structural: - S-2.0 MEZZANINE FRAMING PLAN - S-2.1 STAIR FRAMING PLANS & DETAILS - S-3.0 ROOF FRAMING PLAN - S-5.2 MEZZANINE FR...

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: 11 missing, 1 mismatched out of 21 sheets

Summary: The meter pack single line diagram indicates that the utility transformer (XFMR-1) will deliver an available fault current of 88,121 A. However, the main service meter pack and 1400 AMP main breaker are specified with an interrupting rating of only 65 KAIC (65,000 A). Electrical equipment intended to interrupt fault currents must have a short-circuit current rating equal to or greater than the ...

Why it matters: Installing service equipment with an interrupting rating lower than the available fault current is a severe code violation and a catastrophic safety hazard. In the event of a major short circuit, the 65 kAIC breaker will not be able to safely clear the 88,121 A fault, likely resulting in an explo...

Suggested next step: Please upgrade the main service meter pack and 1400A main breaker to have an interrupting rating of at least 100 kAIC to safely clear the 88,121 A available fault current, or coordinate with the utility to determine if a smaller transformer or higher impedance can be used to r...

RFI draft: Please upgrade the main service meter pack and 1400A main breaker to have an interrupting rating of at least 100 kAIC to safely clear the 88,121 A available fault current, or coordinate with the utility to determine if a smaller transformer or hig...

Summary: The code analysis specifies a maximum overall diagonal dimension of 164'-0" and calculates a required exit separation of 84'-0" (1/2 of the diagonal). The proposed separation distance is 52'-0", which is significantly less than 84'-0", yet it is incorrectly marked as "(OK)". Even when applying the exception for a fully sprinklered building (which permits a minimum separation of 1/3 the diagonal...

Why it matters: Providing less than the minimum required exit separation distance is a critical life safety violation of IBC Section 1007.1.1. This compromises the means of egress because a single fire event or emergency could potentially block both exits. This will result in plan review rejection and require a ...

Suggested next step: Please adjust the exit layout to ensure the distance between exits is at least 1/3 of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area served (minimum 54.66 feet) as permitted for sprinklered buildings, and update the code analysis calculations to accurately reflect compliance.

RFI draft: Please adjust the exit layout to ensure the distance between exits is at least 1/3 of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area served (minimum 54.66 feet) as permitted for sprinklered buildings, and update the code analysis calculations ...

Summary: Detail 6 specifies a "6", 25. GA @ 16" O.C. STEEL STUD" for the exterior stud wall framing at the storefront head. Section 1402.3 requires exterior walls and associated openings to be designed to safely resist superimposed loads, and Section 2404.1 requires exterior windows to be designed to resist wind loads. 25-gauge cold-formed steel framing is designated as nonstructural (classified as AISI...

Why it matters: Utilizing nonstructural 25-gauge light-gauge metal framing as a header for an exterior storefront window will lead to excessive deflection under wind loads. This inadequate structural support can cause the storefront glass to break, lead to premature seal failure, allow water intrusion, and poten...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the 25-gauge metal framing at the exterior storefront head should be revised to an engineered structural gauge (e.g., 18 or 16 gauge structural studs per AISI S240) to safely resist Chapter 16 wind load requirements.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the 25-gauge metal framing at the exterior storefront head should be revised to an engineered structural gauge (e.g., 18 or 16 gauge structural studs per AISI S240) to safely resist Chapter 16 wind load requirements.

Summary: The REINFORCING LAP SCHEDULE for masonry (f'm = 2000 psi) specifies lap lengths that are shorter than the building code's absolute minimum requirement of 40 bar diameters. For example, the schedule specifies a 1'-0" (12-inch) centered lap for #3 bars (which requires a minimum of 40 x 0.375" = 15 inches), a 1'-1" (13-inch) centered lap for #4 bars (which requires a minimum of 40 x 0.50" = 20 inc...

Why it matters: Providing inadequate lap lengths compromises the structural ability to transfer tensile and compressive stresses between reinforcing bars in masonry walls. This under-design can lead to cracking or structural failure and will likely be flagged during structural inspections, resulting in costly te...

Suggested next step: Please revise the 'MASONRY f'm = 2000 psi' lap splice lengths in the REINFORCING LAP SCHEDULE to comply with the 40 bar diameter minimum specified in IBC Section 2107.2.1. Update the centered and edge lap lengths to at least 15" for #3 bars, 20" for #4 bars, and 25" for #5 bars.

RFI draft: Please revise the 'MASONRY f'm = 2000 psi' lap splice lengths in the REINFORCING LAP SCHEDULE to comply with the 40 bar diameter minimum specified in IBC Section 2107.2.1. Update the centered and edge lap lengths to at least 15" for #3 bars, 20" f...

Summary: The lighting plan features multiple exterior doors discharging from the warehouse and open office areas (e.g., along the north and south exterior walls). These doors are equipped with wall packs and fixtures labeled "EMX1". Keyed Note 1 specifically identifies these "EMX1" fixtures as "EMERGENCY LIGHTING", not exit signs. There are no dedicated exit signs ("EX1") indicated at these exterior dis...

Why it matters: Failing to mark the exterior discharge doors with illuminated exit signs can cause confusion during an emergency evacuation, delaying occupants from finding the exits. This is a critical life safety violation that will result in a failed inspection.

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the "EMX1" fixtures are intended to be combined exit sign/emergency light units. If they are not, provide dedicated exit signs ("EX1") at all exterior egress doors to comply with IBC Section 1013.1.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the "EMX1" fixtures are intended to be combined exit sign/emergency light units. If they are not, provide dedicated exit signs ("EX1") at all exterior egress doors to comply with IBC Section 1013.1.

Summary: The single-line diagram indicates the secondary available fault current from transformer XFMR-1 is 88,121 A. However, the main service equipment (Meter Pack 'MP1') connected to it is specified with an interrupting rating of only 65 KAIC (65,000 A). Electrical equipment must be rated to safely interrupt the maximum available fault current, but 65,000 A is significantly lower than 88,121 A.

Why it matters: Installing electrical service equipment with an interrupting rating lower than the available fault current creates a severe life safety and fire hazard. During a short circuit, the equipment could violently explode (arc flash) instead of safely clearing the fault. This violates IBC Section 2701.1...

Suggested next step: Verify the calculated available fault current of 88,121 A with the utility (Northwestern Energy). If confirmed, revise the 1400 AMP meter pack and main breaker to have an interrupting rating equal to or greater than the available fault current (e.g., 100 KAIC), or provide appr...

RFI draft: Verify the calculated available fault current of 88,121 A with the utility (Northwestern Energy). If confirmed, revise the 1400 AMP meter pack and main breaker to have an interrupting rating equal to or greater than the available fault current (e....

Summary: The code analysis indicates a required exit separation distance of 84'-0" based on a maximum diagonal of 164'-0" (though 164/2 is mathematically 82). The proposed exit separation is stated as 52'-0" and marked as "(OK)". However, 52'-0" is less than the required unsprinklered distance. Furthermore, even when applying the 1/3 diagonal exception for sprinklered buildings per IBC 1007.1.1 Exceptio...

Why it matters: Failing to maintain the minimum exit separation distance is a critical life safety violation. If the exits are too close together, a single fire event could compromise both means of egress, endangering occupants. This will result in a failed plan review and requires revising the egress layout.

Suggested next step: Please revise the exit layout to ensure the distance between exits is at least 1/3 of the overall diagonal dimension (approx. 54'-8" for a 164' diagonal in a sprinklered building), and update the Code Analysis to reflect the compliant proposed distance.

RFI draft: Please revise the exit layout to ensure the distance between exits is at least 1/3 of the overall diagonal dimension (approx. 54'-8" for a 164' diagonal in a sprinklered building), and update the Code Analysis to reflect the compliant proposed dis...

Summary: Detail 1 for the exterior concrete wall shows 2" rigid insulation on the interior face of the tilt-up concrete panel with no interior covering or wallboard over it. Rigid insulation is a foam plastic, and the building code requires foam plastic to be separated from the interior of the building by an approved thermal barrier (such as minimum 1/2-inch gypsum wallboard).

Why it matters: Leaving foam plastic insulation exposed to the interior space is a severe life safety and fire hazard. Foam plastics can rapidly spread fire and produce toxic smoke. This will result in a failure during plan review and fire inspections.

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 1 to show an approved thermal barrier, such as 1/2-inch gypsum wallboard, applied over the interior face of the 2" rigid insulation, or specify an assembly that has been tested without a thermal barrier in accordance with IBC 2603.9.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 1 to show an approved thermal barrier, such as 1/2-inch gypsum wallboard, applied over the interior face of the 2" rigid insulation, or specify an assembly that has been tested without a thermal barrier in accordance with IBC ...

Summary: Detail 7 shows an H.S.S. column at the storefront jamb wrapped with 'EXTRUDED POLISTYRENE RIGID INSULATION' (a foam plastic). The foam plastic is covered only by a '22 GA. BRAKE METAL WRAP'. Based on the presence of interior finishes ('CORNER BEAD @ EDGE') directly adjacent to the wrap, the brake metal forms the interior face of the column wrap and is exposed to the interior space. IBC Section ...

Why it matters: Leaving combustible foam plastic insulation inadequately protected from the interior poses a severe life-safety fire hazard, as it can rapidly ignite and produce toxic smoke during a fire. If installed as drawn, this will result in a failed fire inspection and require costly field modifications t...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 7 to include an approved thermal barrier (e.g., 1/2-inch gypsum wallboard) separating the extruded polystyrene insulation from the interior space, or specify a column wrap assembly that has been tested to meet the requirements of NFPA 275.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 7 to include an approved thermal barrier (e.g., 1/2-inch gypsum wallboard) separating the extruded polystyrene insulation from the interior space, or specify a column wrap assembly that has been tested to meet the requirements...

Summary: The drawing's 'GOVERNING CODES' schedule establishes the 'INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE IBC 2018' as the design code. However, the project is required to comply with the 2021 International Building Code (IBC).

Why it matters: Listing an outdated code directly conflicts with the requirement to design and construct per the 2021 IBC. This indicates the structural design and referenced standards (such as ACI 318, ASCE 7, and AISC) may not account for current code provisions, which will result in plan review rejection, del...

Suggested next step: Please update the 'GOVERNING CODES' schedule to specify the 2021 International Building Code (IBC) alongside its current referenced standards, and verify that all structural calculations and details satisfy the 2021 IBC requirements.

RFI draft: Please update the 'GOVERNING CODES' schedule to specify the 2021 International Building Code (IBC) alongside its current referenced standards, and verify that all structural calculations and details satisfy the 2021 IBC requirements.

Summary: Details 5 and 6 depict a double-track slip head assembly designed to accommodate structural deflection, showing a 1-inch clearance at the top of the nested 'TOP TRACK'. However, both details show the '#10 SCREWS EACH STUD/TRACK FLANGE' visually penetrating the outer 'DEFLECTION TRACK' leg to connect with the inner track and stud. Pinning the deflection track to the stud completely locks the joi...

Why it matters: Locking the deflection joint forces the non-load-bearing C.F.S. wall studs to carry vertical loads from the primary structure above as it deflects downward. This will likely cause the studs to buckle, violating IBC Section 1604.2 which requires parts of structures to safely support loads without ...

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 5 and 6 to clarify that the wall studs are only screwed to the inner Top Track, and that fasteners must not penetrate the outer Deflection Track, ensuring the slip joint functions correctly to accommodate structural deflection.

RFI draft: Please revise Details 5 and 6 to clarify that the wall studs are only screwed to the inner Top Track, and that fasteners must not penetrate the outer Deflection Track, ensuring the slip joint functions correctly to accommodate structural deflection.

Summary: The METER PACK 'MP1' SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM indicates an estimated available fault current of 88,121 A at the transformer secondary. However, the main service equipment is explicitly specified with a short-circuit interrupting rating of 65 KAIC (65,000 amps). Installing equipment with an interrupting rating lower than the available fault current is a major safety violation because the equipment ca...

Why it matters: If a short circuit occurs, the 65 KAIC rated equipment could physically explode when attempting to interrupt up to 88,121 A of fault current, posing extreme arc flash hazards, fire risk, and danger to life. This critical flaw will fail electrical plan review and inspections, causing significant p...

Suggested next step: The specified 65 KAIC rating for the main service equipment is insufficient for the 88,121 A calculated available fault current at the transformer. Please verify the actual available fault current from Northwestern Energy. If the 88.1 kA calculation is accurate, please provide...

RFI draft: The specified 65 KAIC rating for the main service equipment is insufficient for the 88,121 A calculated available fault current at the transformer. Please verify the actual available fault current from Northwestern Energy. If the 88.1 kA calculati...

Summary: The drawing's Code Analysis table calculates the required exit separation distance as 56'-0". However, the proposed exit separation distance is listed as 52'-0", which is physically less than the required minimum, yet is erroneously marked as "(OK)".

Why it matters: Failing to provide the required exit separation distance is a severe egress life-safety violation. This will result in plan review rejection and require a redesign of the floor plan to physically separate the exits further.

Suggested next step: Please revise the floor plan to ensure exits are separated by the required minimum distance of 56'-0" and correct the Code Analysis table.

RFI draft: Please revise the floor plan to ensure exits are separated by the required minimum distance of 56'-0" and correct the Code Analysis table.

Summary: Detail 6 specifies an interior stud wall with a "3HR" fire rating and references assembly "UL W460". However, the drawing only indicates a single layer of "5/8\" GYP. BOARD @ BOTH SIDES". A single layer of 5/8-inch gypsum board on each side of a steel stud physically cannot provide a 3-hour fire-resistance rating (typically providing only a 1-hour rating). Section 701.1 of the IFC mandates that...

Why it matters: Providing only one layer of gypsum board for a required 3-hour fire separation is a critical life-safety and code compliance failure. If constructed as drawn, the assembly will fail fire inspections and require a complete tear-down and reconstruction with the correct number of Type X gypsum board...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required fire-resistance rating for the wall in Detail 6. If a 3-hour rating is required, update the detail to specify the correct number of gypsum board layers (typically 3 or more layers per side) and reference the appropriate UL assembly to achieve the 3-...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required fire-resistance rating for the wall in Detail 6. If a 3-hour rating is required, update the detail to specify the correct number of gypsum board layers (typically 3 or more layers per side) and reference the appropriate...