Plan Review: 90 Issues Found

Summary: 52 index entries | 28 perfect matches | 24 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (24): S-5.0: Expected: P2 PLAN (S-5.0) | Actual: Level P2 Slab Plan (S-5.0)(p22) S-5.1: Expected: P2 PLAN (NORTH) (S-5.1) | Actual: Level P2 Slab Plan (North) (S-5.1)(p23) S-5.2: Expected: P2 PLAN (SORTH) (S-5.2) | Actual: Level P2 Slab Plan (South) (S-5.2)(p24) S-6.0: Expected: P1 PLAN (...

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, 24 mismatched out of 52 sheets

Summary: Drawing S-6.1H (P1 Slab Plan - North) shows an opening marked "OPEN" with the specific note "SEE S-7.0 FOR CONT." located to the left of the Match Line (near vertical grids P5 and A11). Adjacent to this opening, S-6.1H details a concrete elevator/stair core enclosed by a "12" CONC. WALL", a "10" CONC. WALL", and a "6" CONC WALL" central divider. However, drawing S-7.0 (L1 Slab Plan) does not sh...

Why it matters: The omission of the ramp opening and structural core shafts on the L1 Slab Plan is a critical vertical coordination failure. The concrete core walls and ramp originating from P1 must pierce the L1 slab. If the L1 slab is cast as drawn on S-7.0 with continuous reinforcement and drop panels, there ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct slab layout for the L1 level in the area left of grid A11. Drawing S-6.1H shows a ramp opening ("SEE S-7.0 FOR CONT.") and a concrete core (12", 10", and 6" walls) in this area, but S-7.0 shows a continuous slab and drop panels. Please provide update...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct slab layout for the L1 level in the area left of grid A11. Drawing S-6.1H shows a ramp opening ("SEE S-7.0 FOR CONT.") and a concrete core (12", 10", and 6" walls) in this area, but S-7.0 shows a continuous slab and drop...

Summary: On the L1 Slab Plan (S-7.1), the dimension string along the top of the plan shows a 64'-6" overall dimension from grid A1 to A6, with individual bays reading A1-A2 = 29'-5", A2-A4 = 5'-0", and A4-A6 = 30'-1" (verified: 29'-5" + 5'-0" + 30'-1" = 64'-6"). On the Level 1 Framing Over P1 Plan (S-8.0a), the continuous dimension string across the same grids reads 29'-5" (A1-A2), 5'-0" (A2-A4), 29'-5"...

Why it matters: This 8-inch difference between the concrete slab plan and the wood framing plan is critical because the wood framing at Level 1 bears directly on the concrete podium slab. If the grid spacing is built to either dimension, walls, columns, holdowns, and shearwall anchor bolts in the wood framing wi...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to confirm the correct dimension between grids A4 and A6: is it 30'-1" as shown on S-7.1, or 29'-5" as shown on S-8.0a? Please also confirm the overall A1-to-A6 dimension and issue revised drawings for the sheet found to be in error.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to confirm the correct dimension between grids A4 and A6: is it 30'-1" as shown on S-7.1, or 29'-5" as shown on S-8.0a? Please also confirm the overall A1-to-A6 dimension and issue revised drawings for the sheet fou...

Summary: There is a significant discrepancy in a specified top mount hanger load. The overall framing plan (S-8.2) specifies "500 lb TOP MOUNT INVERT.", while the North sectoral plan (S-8.2a) specifies "5 KIPS INVERTED TOP MOUNT HANGER" and the South sectoral plan (S-8.2b) specifies "5000 lb TOP MOUNT INVERT." at the exact same location.

Why it matters: A difference of a factor of 10 in structural load capacity (500 lbs vs 5,000 lbs) is critical. Under-sizing this connection based on the overall plan will result in a severe structural failure, as it will lack the capacity to support the actual 5 KIP / 5000 lb load.

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the correct point load for this top mount hanger is 5000 lbs (5 KIPS) as shown on the sectoral plans, and that the 500 lb callout on the overall plan is a typographical error.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the correct point load for this top mount hanger is 5000 lbs (5 KIPS) as shown on the sectoral plans, and that the 500 lb callout on the overall plan is a typographical error.

Summary: The overall framing plan S-8.3 specifies a '2x4 FULL HT. LOAD BEARING WALL' near the central elevator/stairwell core (adjacent to ELEV 1 and ELEV 2). However, both the north detail plan S-8.3a and the south detail plan S-8.3b specify a '2x6 FULL HT. LOAD BEARING WALL' at the same central core location, adjacent to the 4-2x8 B.U. POST. A 2x4 wall (3.5" deep studs) has significantly less load-bea...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the overall plan (S-8.3) and builds the wall with 2x4 studs instead of the 2x6 studs shown on the detail plans, the wall may be structurally inadequate for the intended loads. This could compromise structural integrity and would likely require remediation. Conversely, if...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to confirm whether the full-height load-bearing wall at the central stairwell/elevator core on Level 3 should be framed with 2x4 or 2x6 studs, and to issue a revision to the conflicting sheet(s).

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to confirm whether the full-height load-bearing wall at the central stairwell/elevator core on Level 3 should be framed with 2x4 or 2x6 studs, and to issue a revision to the conflicting sheet(s).

Summary: The specification explicitly limits the project to a "six storeys wood frame only". The drawing sheet S-8.6a is titled "ROOF FRAMING OVER L6 FLOOR PLAN -NORTH", which implies the North building has a Level 6 wood-framed floor. However, the shearwall legend on this exact sheet lists 6 wood-framed stories for the North building starting from Level P1 up to Level 5 (P1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). If North ha...

Why it matters: Building a 7-story wood-framed structure when the structural design, shrinkage assumptions, and building code applicability are strictly based on a 6-story building is a major code violation and severe structural risk. If the North building is correctly designed as 6 stories (Level P1 to Level 5)...

Suggested next step: Clarify the exact number of wood-framed stories for the North building. If it is 6 stories (Level P1 to Level 5), confirm that sheet S-8.6a ("OVER L6") is mislabeled or does not apply. If Level 6 does exist for North, update the shearwall table to include North Level 6 require...

RFI draft: Clarify the exact number of wood-framed stories for the North building. If it is 6 stories (Level P1 to Level 5), confirm that sheet S-8.6a ("OVER L6") is mislabeled or does not apply. If Level 6 does exist for North, update the shearwall table to...

Summary: The Roof Framing Legend on S-8.1 states that skirt trusses (SKT) shall have their wall connection per Detail 2.11 on Dwg. S-2.2. However, Detail 2.11 on S-2.2 is titled 'TYP. SLABBAND TOP REINF. @ STEP' and shows a concrete slabband reinforcement detail with section and plan views for hooking transverse top steel at a slab step. This detail has no relevance to a skirt truss-to-wall connection. ...

Why it matters: Without a valid wall connection detail for skirt trusses, the contractor has no engineering guidance for this critical connection. Skirt trusses transfer roof loads to the wall framing, and an improperly detailed connection could compromise the structural integrity of the roof system. This mismat...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct detail reference for the skirt truss (SKT) to wall connection. Detail 2.11 on Dwg. S-2.2 is 'TYP. SLABBAND TOP REINF. @ STEP', which is a concrete reinforcement detail and does not appear to be the intended wall connection detail for skirt trusses. P...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct detail reference for the skirt truss (SKT) to wall connection. Detail 2.11 on Dwg. S-2.2 is 'TYP. SLABBAND TOP REINF. @ STEP', which is a concrete reinforcement detail and does not appear to be the intended wall connecti...

Summary: Detail 1.9 on S-2.1 (TYP. INTERIOR FOOTING) specifies '2-15M CONT. MIN.' as the minimum continuous bottom reinforcement in the footing. However, Foundation Note 4 on S-4.0 states that strip footings U.N.O. shall have '3-15M BOT. CONTINUOUS.' The Footing Schedule on S-4.0 also confirms that the smallest strip footing (SF1) contains 3-15M CONT. reinforcement. The typical interior footing detail d...

Why it matters: This discrepancy could lead to under-reinforced strip footings if the contractor follows the typical detail's minimum instead of the foundation plan notes and schedule. During construction, workers may use the typical detail as a quick reference and install only 2-15M bars, which would be structu...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on the minimum continuous bottom reinforcement for interior strip footings. Specifically, confirm whether the minimum should be 2-15M as shown in Detail 1.9 on S-2.1 or 3-15M as specified in Foundation Note 4 on S-4.0 and the ...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on the minimum continuous bottom reinforcement for interior strip footings. Specifically, confirm whether the minimum should be 2-15M as shown in Detail 1.9 on S-2.1 or 3-15M as specified in Found...

Summary: The Foundation Plan notes specify the vertical reinforcement for 'C-1 WITHIN FDN WALL' as '8-20M VERT.', yet explicitly state it is 'TO MATCH COLUMN ABOVE'. However, both the Column Schedule and the C-1 column detail (4.14/S-2.4) indicate that C-1 requires '8-25M' vertical reinforcement.

Why it matters: A discrepancy in vertical bar size (20M vs 25M) impacts the structural capacity of the column. If the smaller bar size is installed, it may violate the intended structural design for the column above, leading to potential structural failure and required rework.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required vertical reinforcement for the C-1 columns located within the foundation wall. Should it be 8-20M as noted on the foundation plan, or 8-25M to match the Column Schedule and detail 4.14/S-2.4?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required vertical reinforcement for the C-1 columns located within the foundation wall. Should it be 8-20M as noted on the foundation plan, or 8-25M to match the Column Schedule and detail 4.14/S-2.4?

Summary: The foundation wall section details on S-2.4 specify default top reinforcement extending from the walls into the L1 slab as "U.N.O. 15M 6'-0" @ 12"" (section W2) and "U.N.O. 15M 6'-0" @ 10" H.1.E." (sections W1 and W3). However, Note 10 on the L1 Slab Plan (S-7.0) states "PROVIDE MINIMUM 15M 9'-0" @ 12" TOP REINF. OVER ALL WALLS U.N.O." Both are U.N.O. (unless noted otherwise) provisions intend...

Why it matters: This discrepancy creates ambiguity for the contractor at wall locations where specific reinforcement is not called out on the plan. If the contractor follows the wall section detail, bars will be 3'-0" shorter than the slab plan minimum, potentially reducing the development length and negatively ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct default (U.N.O.) top reinforcement over walls at the L1 slab level. The wall section details on S-2.4 (W1, W2, W3) indicate 15M 6'-0" (at 10" or 12" spacing) while Note 10 on S-7.0 specifies a minimum of 15M 9'-0" @ 12". Which specification governs f...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct default (U.N.O.) top reinforcement over walls at the L1 slab level. The wall section details on S-2.4 (W1, W2, W3) indicate 15M 6'-0" (at 10" or 12" spacing) while Note 10 on S-7.0 specifies a minimum of 15M 9'-0" @ 12"....

Summary: On sheet S-3.8, the notes for detail F 8.1 (WOOD STAIR DETAIL WITH MID FLOOR LANDING) state in Note #3: "FOR STRINGERS SPANNING GREATER LANDING DISTANCE SEE DETAIL F9.10 ON S-3.9". However, sheet S-3.9 does not contain any detail numbered F9.10. The detail numbers present on S-3.9 are F/9.1, F/9.2, F 9.3, F 9.4, and F/9.5. The detail that matches the referenced content — a wood stair detail for...

Why it matters: This incorrect detail reference can cause confusion in the field. The standard stair detail on S-3.8 specifies 2x12 D-FIR #2 stringers for spans up to 7'-6", while the greater-span detail F 9.2 on S-3.9 specifies 1 3/4" x 11 7/8" PSL (2.2E) stringers — a significantly different and stronger mater...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the reference in S-3.8 detail F 8.1 Note #3 to "DETAIL F9.10 ON S-3.9" is intended to refer to detail F 9.2 on S-3.9 (WOOD STAIR DETAIL FOR LANDING DISTANCE GREATER THAN 7'-6"). If so, please issue a revised drawing correcting the detail number reference.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the reference in S-3.8 detail F 8.1 Note #3 to "DETAIL F9.10 ON S-3.9" is intended to refer to detail F 9.2 on S-3.9 (WOOD STAIR DETAIL FOR LANDING DISTANCE GREATER THAN 7'-6"). If so, please issue a revised drawing correcting ...

Summary: Sheet S-5.0 Note 5 defines the integrity reinforcement types and states 'INT 2 DENOTES 2-25M IN SHORT DIRECTION; 3-35M IN LONG DIRECTION.' However, Detail 2.13 on sheet S-2.2 (TYP. INTEGRITY REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT) Note 2 states 'SEE PLAN FOR REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED. MIN. 2-30M IN EACH DIRECTION.' The INT 2 short direction specification of 2-25M bars is below the minimum bar size of 30M estab...

Why it matters: Integrity reinforcement is a code-required progressive collapse resistance mechanism. If the 25M bars specified for INT 2 are insufficient per the detail's own minimum requirement, it could result in non-compliance with CSA A23.3 integrity reinforcement provisions. During construction, the contra...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the conflict between the INT 2 integrity reinforcement specification on S-5.0 (2-25M in short direction) and the minimum requirement of 2-30M in each direction stated in Detail 2.13/S-2.2. Should INT 2 short direction bars be increased to 30M to meet the detail ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the conflict between the INT 2 integrity reinforcement specification on S-5.0 (2-25M in short direction) and the minimum requirement of 2-30M in each direction stated in Detail 2.13/S-2.2. Should INT 2 short direction bars be increa...

Summary: The Roof Framing Legend on S-8.1 specifies that gable end trusses with drop top chords should be constructed per 'Detail 1.25 on drawing S-2.1'. However, sheet S-2.1 (GENERAL CONCRETE DETAILS - 1) contains details numbered 1.1 through 1.18 only. Detail 1.25 does not appear anywhere on S-2.1. Furthermore, S-2.1 is dedicated to general concrete details (footings, slabs, piers, elevator pits, etc....

Why it matters: Without the referenced detail, the contractor and truss manufacturer have no guidance for the drop top chord configuration on gable end trusses. This could delay truss fabrication and erection, as the truss manufacturer requires sealed engineering details. The missing detail may exist on a differ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct drawing and detail number for the gable end truss with drop top chord connection. The Roof Framing Legend on S-8.1 references 'Detail 1.25 on drawing S-2.1', but this detail does not exist on S-2.1. Please provide the correct detail reference or issu...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct drawing and detail number for the gable end truss with drop top chord connection. The Roof Framing Legend on S-8.1 references 'Detail 1.25 on drawing S-2.1', but this detail does not exist on S-2.1. Please provide the co...

Summary: S-3.6 wall section details consistently specify the rim beam as "2-1 1/4"X9 1/2" TIMBERSTRAND RIM BEAM" at all floor levels (1st through 6th). However, S-8.1a's framing notes state that "All Rim and Closure Joists shall be 1 1/4"x_ Timberstrand to match joist depth." The floor joist legend on S-8.1a defines the primary I-joist types as "TJ1 11 7/8" TJI 230 @ 19.2" o.c." and "TJ2 11 7/8" TJI 230...

Why it matters: Using a 9 1/2" deep rim beam with 11 7/8" deep I-joists would result in a 2 3/8" height discrepancy at every floor-to-wall connection. This mismatch could compromise the continuous load path between the floor framing and bearing walls, lead to improper bearing of I-joists on the rim beam, and cre...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to clarify the correct Timberstrand rim beam depth at each floor level. Should the rim beam be 1 1/4" x 11 7/8" to match the TJ1/TJ2 I-joist depth as stated in the S-8.1a framing note, or is the 9 1/2" depth shown on S-3.6 intentional for a spec...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to clarify the correct Timberstrand rim beam depth at each floor level. Should the rim beam be 1 1/4" x 11 7/8" to match the TJ1/TJ2 I-joist depth as stated in the S-8.1a framing note, or is the 9 1/2" depth shown o...

Summary: On the Level P2 Slab Plan (S-5.0), the perimeter wall at the northeast corner near grids PA/P8 is labeled "10" CONC. WALL" and a section callout "8.4/S-2.8" is located directly at this wall. However, Section 8.4 on sheet S-2.8 depicts all walls as "8" WALL" — including a wall with "SEALER PER CSA S413 (BY OTHERS)" and "FOOTING ON FIRM BEARING" consistent with a perimeter condition. No 10" wall ...

Why it matters: A wall designed as 8" instead of 10" has different structural capacity, reinforcement requirements, and formwork dimensions. If this is a perimeter retaining wall, the thinner section may not resist the required soil and hydrostatic loads. This discrepancy must be resolved before formwork and rei...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended wall thickness shown in Section 8.4/S-2.8 at the northeast corner of the P2 level. The Level P2 Slab Plan (S-5.0) labels the perimeter wall as 10" concrete and Foundation Note 6 requires 10" for perimeter retaining walls, yet Section 8.4 shows only ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended wall thickness shown in Section 8.4/S-2.8 at the northeast corner of the P2 level. The Level P2 Slab Plan (S-5.0) labels the perimeter wall as 10" concrete and Foundation Note 6 requires 10" for perimeter retaining wall...