Plan Review: 154 Issues Found

Summary: 164 index entries | 90 perfect matches | 5 mismatched | 69 missing Mismatched (5): C001: Expected: COVER SHEET (C001) | Actual: COVER SHEET (G0.0)(p1) C002: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (C002) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES (S0.01)(p29) A2.2.0: Expected: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (A2.2.0) | Actual: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (A2.1.0)(p15) A3.2.0: Expected: BUILDING SECTIONS (A3.2.0) | ...

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: 69 missing, 5 mismatched out of 164 sheets

Summary: The drawing states mapped spectral response accelerations Ss = 0.8g and S1 = 0.043g with Site Soil Class D, yielding reported design parameters SDS = 0.071g and SD1 = 0.065g with Seismic Design Category A. Per ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.4, for Site Class D with Ss = 0.8g, interpolating Table 11.4-1 between Ss = 0.75 (Fa = 1.2) and Ss = 1.0 (Fa = 1.1) gives Fa ≈ 1.18; thus SMS = Fa × Ss = 1.18 × 0.8...

Why it matters: If the correct SDC is D (from the stated Ss = 0.8g), the seismic force-resisting systems listed on the drawing — Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls and Steel Systems Not Specifically Detailed for Seismic Resistance — are generally not permitted in SDC D per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.2-1, requiring ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to verify the mapped spectral response acceleration parameters Ss and S1 for the project site per ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.2, recalculate site-adjusted values SMS and SM1 per Section 11.4.4 using site coefficients Fa and Fv from Tables 11.4-1 and ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to verify the mapped spectral response acceleration parameters Ss and S1 for the project site per ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.2, recalculate site-adjusted values SMS and SM1 per Section 11.4.4 using site coefficients Fa ...

Summary: The drawing's Division 4 – Masonry notes state: "MASONRY DESIGN IS BASED ON THE MINIMUM SPECIFIED NET AREA PRISM COMPRESSIBLE STRENGTH OF F'm = 2,000 PSF." The unit "PSF" (pounds per square foot) is incorrect. IBC Section 2102.1 defines f'm as the "Specified compressive strength of masonry at age of 28 days, psi (MPa)." A value of 2,000 PSF equates to approximately 13.9 PSI, which is an absurdl...

Why it matters: This unit error directly affects masonry quality assurance testing per IBC Section 2105.1. Prism testing laboratories verify f'm against the specified value on the construction documents. A plan reviewer or special inspector reading this note at face value would find the specified design strength...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record clarify and correct the unit for f'm from PSF to PSI in the masonry general notes, consistent with the IBC Section 2102.1 definition of f'm in psi and the CMU compressive strength note already shown in PSI on the same sheet.

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record clarify and correct the unit for f'm from PSF to PSI in the masonry general notes, consistent with the IBC Section 2102.1 definition of f'm in psi and the CMU compressive strength note already shown in PSI...

Summary: The structural general notes show the mapped short-period spectral response acceleration Ss = 0.8g alongside the design spectral response acceleration SDS = 0.071g, with Site Class D and Seismic Design Category A. Per IBC 1613 and ASCE 7, SDS = (2/3) × Fa × Ss, where Fa is the site coefficient from ASCE 7 Table 11.4-1. For Site Class D and Ss = 0.8g, Fa is approximately 1.18 (interpolated), yie...

Why it matters: If the Seismic Design Category is actually D rather than A, the consequences are substantial: (1) The specified 'Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls' and 'Steel Systems Not Specifically Detailed for Seismic Resistance' are severely restricted or prohibited in SDC D per ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1, po...

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct value of the mapped short-period spectral response acceleration parameter Ss per USGS seismic design maps for the project site. If Ss = 0.8g is correct, recalculate SDS, the Seismic Design Category, Cs, and design base shears per IBC 1613 and ASCE 7, and ve...

RFI draft: Confirm the correct value of the mapped short-period spectral response acceleration parameter Ss per USGS seismic design maps for the project site. If Ss = 0.8g is correct, recalculate SDS, the Seismic Design Category, Cs, and design base shears p...

Summary: The drawings provide a 'NOTE TO JOIST/DECK SUPPLIER' instructing them to design the roof joists and deck for a 'NET FACTORED UPLIFT=0.6D-0.6W', where 'W' is the gross uplift derived from the 'C&C WIND UPLIFT (ULTIMATE)' schedules. According to IBC Section 1605.3.2, load combinations that utilize a 0.6 multiplier on ultimate wind loads (e.g., '0.6 ωW') are explicitly designated as 'allowable str...

Why it matters: Because the net uplift load is explicitly labeled as 'FACTORED', the delegated steel joist and deck supplier is likely to compare this provided load against their joists' and fasteners' LRFD design capacities. Checking an ASD-level load (0.6W) against an LRFD capacity will result in the roof stru...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the joist and deck supplier should design the roof structure using Allowable Stress Design (ASD) capacities for the provided '0.6D - 0.6W' net uplift loads. If they are instead expected to use Strength Design (LRFD) capacities, please correct the 'NET FACTORE...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the joist and deck supplier should design the roof structure using Allowable Stress Design (ASD) capacities for the provided '0.6D - 0.6W' net uplift loads. If they are instead expected to use Strength Design (LRFD) capacities, p...

Summary: Detail 07 instructs the contractor to "FINGER TIGHTEN & TACK WELD NUT" on a "¾” Ø A325 THRU BOLT". A325 high-strength bolts are heat-treated (quenched and tempered). Tack welding these bolts alters their metallurgical properties and destroys the heat treatment, significantly reducing their structural strength. IBC Sections 2204.1 and 2204.2 require all welding and bolting workmanship to comply ...

Why it matters: Welding a heat-treated fastener compromises the structural integrity of the slip connection, posing a significant safety risk and failure point under loading. This will fail special inspections and require the costly removal and replacement of any compromised bolts during construction.

Suggested next step: Remove the instruction to tack weld the A325 nut. Please provide an approved mechanical method for preventing the nut from backing off in this slip connection, such as using a lock nut, jam nut, or burring the bolt threads.

RFI draft: Remove the instruction to tack weld the A325 nut. Please provide an approved mechanical method for preventing the nut from backing off in this slip connection, such as using a lock nut, jam nut, or burring the bolt threads.

Summary: The floor plan shows Corridor 150 (526 SF) running east-west between the northern tenant suites and Suite 100 – Grocery Tenant. The corridor's only exit is a stairway (marked 'DN') at the west end, adjacent to the Electrical Room and Fire Riser Room. Doors 140A, 130A, 120A, and 110A provide access from the tenant suites into the corridor, but no exit, exit access stairway, or corridor connectio...

Why it matters: A dead-end corridor of this length represents a significant life-safety concern: occupants entering the corridor from the east end (e.g., from Suite 110 via door 110A) would have to travel the full corridor length westward to reach the only stairway exit. In a fire or smoke event, this single-dir...

Suggested next step: Request the design team to review the Corridor 150 configuration and confirm the dead-end corridor length from the west stairway to the east terminus. Provide a second means of egress at the east end of the corridor, or reconfigure the corridor layout to ensure no dead-end cor...

RFI draft: Request the design team to review the Corridor 150 configuration and confirm the dead-end corridor length from the west stairway to the east terminus. Provide a second means of egress at the east end of the corridor, or reconfigure the corridor la...

Summary: Door 150 is a 1 HR fire-rated corridor door, Type C Double Asymmetrical Swing (5'-0" wide with a 2'-0" inactive leaf and a 3'-0" active leaf). It is assigned Hardware Group 2.0, which specifies only 1 closer (NORTON CPS7500) and 3 hinges. This hardware set is clearly configured for a single-leaf door. By comparison, Hardware Group 1.0 (assigned to the double storefront Type B doors) correctly s...

Why it matters: This will be flagged during fire door inspection per NFPA 80 (referenced by IFC 705.2). A fire-rated pair of doors also typically requires a door coordinator to ensure proper leaf sequencing, which is also absent from Hardware Group 2.0. Failure to correct this before construction will result in ...

Suggested next step: Request the architect clarify the hardware specification for Door 150 (1 HR fire-rated Type C double asymmetrical swing). Specifically, confirm whether a separate hardware group should be assigned that includes two closers, a door coordinator, and sufficient hinges for a fire-...

RFI draft: Request the architect clarify the hardware specification for Door 150 (1 HR fire-rated Type C double asymmetrical swing). Specifically, confirm whether a separate hardware group should be assigned that includes two closers, a door coordinator, and...

Summary: Brace Elevation 03 on S5.51 indicates a grid spacing of 22'-8" between grids 4 and 3, and specifies W10X33 columns. However, the Foundation Plan on S1.11 shows a vertical grid spacing of 23'-2" in the bay at grid 4, and specifies W12X53 columns for W-shape perimeter columns and HSS6X6X3/8 for interior columns. There is a direct contradiction in both the bay width and the designated structural c...

Why it matters: If the steel detailer uses the 22'-8" dimension from the brace elevation, the diagonal braces will be fabricated to the wrong length and angle for the actual 23'-2" bay, causing severe fit-up issues on site. Furthermore, designing gusset plates for a W10X33 column when the actual column is a W12X...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct grid spacing between grids 4 and 3. Additionally, please clarify the correct column sizes (W10X33 vs. W12X53 / HSS) for the braced frame located between these grids, and update the affected drawings accordingly.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct grid spacing between grids 4 and 3. Additionally, please clarify the correct column sizes (W10X33 vs. W12X53 / HSS) for the braced frame located between these grids, and update the affected drawings accordingly.

Summary: Wall Section 04 on S5.31 explicitly references Detail 02/S4.02 for additional information and requirements. Both drawings show an L4X4X1/4 continuous angle connecting the steel roof deck assembly to the load-bearing CMU wall. However, the anchor specifications are fundamentally different. S5.31 specifies 3/4"Ø x 6.75" embed Hilti HIT-HY 270 adhesive threaded rods at 8" O.C., while the reference...

Why it matters: This conflict directly affects the structural capacity and installation method of the roof-to-wall connection. The 8" O.C. spacing yields four times as many anchors as the 32" O.C. spacing, resulting in vastly different connection capacities. Adhesive anchors (Hilti HIT-HY 270) and mechanical scr...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the anchor specification for the L4X4X1/4 continuous angle connecting the roof deck to the load-bearing CMU wall at the condition shown in Wall Section 04/S5.31. S5.31 specifies 3/4"Ø x 6.75" embed Hilti HIT-HY 270 adhesive threaded rods at 8" O.C., while the re...

RFI draft: Please clarify the anchor specification for the L4X4X1/4 continuous angle connecting the roof deck to the load-bearing CMU wall at the condition shown in Wall Section 04/S5.31. S5.31 specifies 3/4"Ø x 6.75" embed Hilti HIT-HY 270 adhesive threaded...

Summary: The floor plan indicates a total distance of 26'-10" between structural grids 3 and 2, which includes an intermediate grid 2.2 (25'-0" from grid 3 to 2.2, and 1'-10" from 2.2 to 2). However, Building Section 3 contradicts this by showing a direct span of only 25'-0" between grids 3 and 2, completely omitting grid 2.2 and the additional 1'-10" spacing.

Why it matters: This dimensional discrepancy alters the overall length of the building by 1'-10". If uncorrected, this will cause critical coordination failures between the foundation pour, structural steel fabrication, and interior architectural build-outs, as the sections reflect a shorter building footprint t...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct dimension between grid lines 3 and 2. Should the building section be updated to include grid 2.2 and the total 26'-10" spacing shown on the floor plan, or is the floor plan incorrect?

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct dimension between grid lines 3 and 2. Should the building section be updated to include grid 2.2 and the total 26'-10" spacing shown on the floor plan, or is the floor plan incorrect?

Summary: S1.31 requires joists to be designed for "FACTORED UPLIFT". S0.05 provides "ULTIMATE" wind uplift tables, but defines the "NET FACTORED UPLIFT" using the standard Allowable Stress Design (ASD) combination formula: "0.6D-0.6W". Labeling an ASD-level load combination as "Factored" is a structural contradiction.

Why it matters: In structural engineering, "Factored" typically indicates LRFD (ultimate) level loads. If a manufacturer receives a load labeled "Factored", they will apply LRFD allowable limits to their design. Because the provided formula actually calculates a much lower ASD-level load (0.6W), applying LRFD li...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the design intent for net wind uplift. The provided formula '0.6D-0.6W' on S0.05 generates an ASD-level load, but S1.31 and S0.05 label it as 'FACTORED UPLIFT'. Should the joist manufacturer design to ASD or LRFD criteria when utilizing this formula?

RFI draft: Please clarify the design intent for net wind uplift. The provided formula '0.6D-0.6W' on S0.05 generates an ASD-level load, but S1.31 and S0.05 label it as 'FACTORED UPLIFT'. Should the joist manufacturer design to ASD or LRFD criteria when utili...

Summary: The architectural roof plan (A1.1.6) shows an overall north-south building dimension of 171'-3 1/4", while the structural roof framing plan (S1.30) shows this same overall dimension as 170'-11". Both dimension strings run vertically along the left side of the building, spanning the full extent of the horizontal grid lines. The discrepancy is 4-1/4".

Why it matters: A 4-1/4" discrepancy in the overall building dimension between the architectural and structural plans can result in misalignment of structural framing with architectural walls, roof drainage crickets, and mechanical equipment curbs. This affects foundation layout, steel fabrication lengths, and j...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the correct overall north-south building dimension for Building 1. A1.1.6 shows 171'-3 1/4" while S1.30 shows 170'-11". Please confirm which dimension is correct and issue revised drawings for the affected discipline.

RFI draft: Request clarification on the correct overall north-south building dimension for Building 1. A1.1.6 shows 171'-3 1/4" while S1.30 shows 170'-11". Please confirm which dimension is correct and issue revised drawings for the affected discipline.

Summary: The architectural gate section detail (Detail 14 on G1.1) identifies the gate post as 'GALV. TS 6X6X1/4"', while the structural gate post section (Detail 05 on S2.02) specifies 'HD GALV HSS4X4X1/2'. The cross-sectional dimensions differ significantly—6"×6" versus 4"×4"—and the wall thicknesses are also different (1/4" vs 1/2"). Additionally, another architectural detail on the same sheet (Detai...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly affects gate hardware compatibility, hinge sizing, structural capacity of the post, and the foundation design shown in S2.02 Detail 05 (which is sized for a 4×4 post with specific stud connections). During construction, the contractor will not know which post size to pro...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct gate post size for the service enclosure. G1.1 Detail 14 calls for TS 6X6X1/4" while G1.1 Detail 13 and S2.02 Detail 05 call for HSS 4X4. Clarify which size is correct and update all affected details accordingly, including the foundation detail on S2...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct gate post size for the service enclosure. G1.1 Detail 14 calls for TS 6X6X1/4" while G1.1 Detail 13 and S2.02 Detail 05 call for HSS 4X4. Clarify which size is correct and update all affected details accordingly, includi...

Summary: The architectural building section through the grocery (Section 1 on A3.1.0) shows the dimension between grid lines B and A as 24'-8 5/8". However, structural truss elevation 04 on S2.01 shows the span between grid lines A and B as 26'-9". Structural truss elevation 05 on S2.01 also confirms the 26'-9" dimension for the B-to-A span. This represents a discrepancy of approximately 2'-0 3/8".

Why it matters: A 2-foot discrepancy in the bay spacing between grids A and B directly impacts foundation placement, column locations, truss fabrication, exterior wall layout, and all associated MEP coordination. The structural truss cannot fit within the architectural envelope if the bay dimension is incorrect,...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct dimension between grid lines A and B. The architectural building section (A3.1.0, Section 1) shows 24'-8 5/8" while structural truss elevations 04 and 05 (S2.01) show 26'-9". Please confirm the correct bay spacing and revise the affected drawings.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct dimension between grid lines A and B. The architectural building section (A3.1.0, Section 1) shows 24'-8 5/8" while structural truss elevations 04 and 05 (S2.01) show 26'-9". Please confirm the correct bay spacing and re...