Caribbean Master-Planned Residential: 103 Issues Found

Summary: The structural steel notes explicitly state that 'THE DESIGN IS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION - EIGHT EDITION (ASD)' and the applicable codes section lists 'AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION - MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION EIGHTH EDITION.' The AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 8th Edition, is an...

Why it matters: Designing structural steel to the AISC 8th Edition ASD manual rather than AISC 360 could result in non-compliant member sizing, connection design, and stability provisions. A plan review authority applying the 2012 IBC would reject the steel design basis, requiring a complete redesign of all structural steel elements to AISC 360. This would...

Suggested next step: Request that the Structural Engineer revise all structural steel notes and applicable codes references to specify AISC 360 (Specification for Structural Steel Buildings) as the governing design standard for structural steel, in compliance with IBC 2012 Section 2205.1. Confirm that all structural steel member and connection designs will be...

RFI draft: Request that the Structural Engineer revise all structural steel notes and applicable codes references to specify AISC 360 (Specification for Structural Steel Buildings) as the governing design standard for structural steel, in compliance with IBC 2012 Section 2205.1. Confirm that all structural...

Summary: The structural design criteria state 'Seismic Design Category=D' for this project. IBC 2012 Section 2205.2.2 requires that 'Structural steel structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E or F shall be designed and detailed in accordance with AISC 341.' However, the structural steel notes specify only the AISC 8th Edition (ASD) as the...

Why it matters: AISC 341 imposes critical seismic detailing requirements for steel structures in SDC D, including special requirements for moment frames, braced frames, connection prequalification, protected zones, and demand-critical welds. Designing structural steel without AISC 341 compliance in an SDC D project could result in inadequate seismic...

Suggested next step: Request that the Structural Engineer update the applicable codes and structural steel notes to include AISC 341 as the governing seismic design and detailing standard for structural steel, as required by IBC 2012 Section 2205.2.2 for Seismic Design Category D. Confirm that all steel lateral force resisting system elements and their connections...

RFI draft: Request that the Structural Engineer update the applicable codes and structural steel notes to include AISC 341 as the governing seismic design and detailing standard for structural steel, as required by IBC 2012 Section 2205.2.2 for Seismic Design Category D. Confirm that all steel lateral...

Summary: Detail F title reads 'Conn.W12' x 26 lb/ft. to W18' x 36 lb/ft.Girder.' However, both the Top View and Lateral View within the same detail explicitly label the girder as 'W18 x 50 Lb/ft. A572 Gr50.' A W18x36 weighs 36 lb/ft and a W18x50 weighs 50 lb/ft — these are distinctly different sections with different web thickness, flange dimensions,...

Why it matters: This discrepancy will directly impact fabrication and erection. The steel fabricator cannot determine whether the girder is a W18x36 or W18x50, which affects connection plate sizing, weld capacity, and bolt adequacy. If the fabricator assumes the wrong member, the connection may be structurally inadequate or the wrong member may be ordered....

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record to clarify the correct girder size for the connection shown in Detail F — specifically, whether the girder is W18x36 lb/ft or W18x50 lb/ft. Ask the engineer to confirm that the connection plate (114x150x10mm PL A36), weld sizes (6mm fillet both sides), and bolt specification (2 Bolts 3/4' A325-N) are adequate for...

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record to clarify the correct girder size for the connection shown in Detail F — specifically, whether the girder is W18x36 lb/ft or W18x50 lb/ft. Ask the engineer to confirm that the connection plate (114x150x10mm PL A36), weld sizes (6mm fillet both sides), and bolt...

Summary: The drawing specifies mechanical expansion bolts and wedge anchors for attaching structural support angles to reinforced concrete walls throughout the roof framing plan and details. Detail RF-01 calls out '75x75x6mm ∠. fix with 16Ø expansion bolts @762mm o/c.' and Note 7 calls out '16Ø x 121mm WEDGE ANCHORS AT 762mm o/c.' These angles support...

Why it matters: If mechanical expansion anchors are installed per the drawings, they would be rejected during inspection as non-compliant with the FDOT specification, requiring removal and replacement with adhesive-bonded anchor systems. This would result in significant construction delays and cost overruns, as all angle-to-wall connections across the entire...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer to confirm whether the angle-to-wall connections using 16Ø expansion bolts/wedge anchors are intended as structural post-installed anchors per Section 937 and Section 416. If so, request redesign of the connections to use adhesive-bonded anchor systems from the Department's Approved Product List (APL), including...

RFI draft: Request the Engineer to confirm whether the angle-to-wall connections using 16Ø expansion bolts/wedge anchors are intended as structural post-installed anchors per Section 937 and Section 416. If so, request redesign of the connections to use adhesive-bonded anchor systems from the Department's...

Summary: The drawing specifies mechanical post-installed anchors for structural connections to concrete walls in multiple locations: Note #7 calls for '16Ø x 121mm WEDGE ANCHORS AT 762mm o/c.' for perimeter angle connections, Details DW-1C and DW-2C specify '16Ø expansion bolts @762mm o/c.', and beam-to-wall connection details specify '4Bolts:1/2' Titen...

Why it matters: This affects all structural connections from steel framing to concrete walls throughout the building, including the continuous perimeter angle supports and all beam-to-wall connections (W8x18 and W6x12 to wall). Using non-compliant anchor types could result in failed inspections and require complete redesign and replacement of all affected...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer redesign all post-installed anchors for structural connections to concrete walls using adhesive-bonded anchor systems complying with Sections 416 and 937. This includes the perimeter angle connections (Note #7, Details DW-1C and DW-2C) and all beam-to-wall connections. Revised details should specify an adhesive...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer redesign all post-installed anchors for structural connections to concrete walls using adhesive-bonded anchor systems complying with Sections 416 and 937. This includes the perimeter angle connections (Note #7, Details DW-1C and DW-2C) and all beam-to-wall...

Summary: Detail sections VMR-02 and VWR-03 specify '76x76x10mm~∠, fix with 16Ø expansion bolts @762mm o/c.' for the structural connection of the steel angle (supporting the composite roof deck) to the 191mm R.C. wall. Note #7 similarly specifies '16Ø x 121mm WEDGE ANCHORS AT 762mm o/c' for the same continuous angle-to-wall connection. These are...

Why it matters: This violation affects all perimeter angle connections to the R.C. walls, which are critical load-path elements supporting the composite roof deck at the building perimeter. If mechanical anchors are procured and installed, they would be non-compliant and would need to be removed and replaced with adhesive-bonded anchors meeting Section 937...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to revise the anchor type in Details VMR-02, VWR-03, and Note #7 from mechanical expansion bolts / wedge anchors to adhesive-bonded anchor systems conforming to Section 937 and Section 416. The engineer should specify an adhesive system (Type HV or Type HSHV) from the Department's Approved Product List, along...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to revise the anchor type in Details VMR-02, VWR-03, and Note #7 from mechanical expansion bolts / wedge anchors to adhesive-bonded anchor systems conforming to Section 937 and Section 416. The engineer should specify an adhesive system (Type HV or Type HSHV) from...

Summary: Multiple locations on the drawing specify mechanical expansion bolts and screw-type anchors for structural steel-to-concrete connections. The plan notes call out '76x76x10mm con. fix with 16Ø expansion bolts @ 914o/c.' at the perimeter connections. Detail ML-04 specifies '76x76x10mm~L, fix with 16Ø expansion bolts @762mm o/c.' Detail ME-01...

Why it matters: This violation affects all steel-to-concrete connections throughout the mezzanine structure, including angle connections at the perimeter, the entry frame bracing (ME-01), the building joint detail (ML-04), and the beam-to-wall connection. All expansion bolt and screw-anchor connections would need to be redesigned for adhesive-bonded anchor...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record to redesign all post-installed concrete anchorage connections currently specified with expansion bolts and Titen HD screw anchors to use adhesive-bonded anchor systems in accordance with Sections 416 and 937. The redesign should specify adhesive systems from the Department's Approved Product List, appropriate hole...

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record to redesign all post-installed concrete anchorage connections currently specified with expansion bolts and Titen HD screw anchors to use adhesive-bonded anchor systems in accordance with Sections 416 and 937. The redesign should specify adhesive systems from the...

Summary: The drawing specifies mechanical anchors for multiple structural connections to reinforced concrete walls: Note #7 calls for '16Ø x 121mm WEDGE ANCHORS AT 762mm o/c' to fix continuous angles to concrete walls; the Concrete Firewall detail specifies 'Simpson Strong-Tie 2No.10Ø x 75mm wedge anchors'; and the plan notes call for '16Ø expansion...

Why it matters: Using non-compliant mechanical anchors in structural applications violates FDOT material and installation requirements. Field inspectors would reject these connections, requiring removal and replacement with adhesive-bonded anchor systems from the Department's Approved Product List. This would cause significant rework, delay the roof framing...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer redesign all post-installed anchor connections to concrete walls using adhesive-bonded anchor systems that are listed on the FDOT Approved Product List per Sections 937 and 416. The revised details should specify adhesive type (Type HV or Type HSHV per Section 416-2.1), anchor diameter, embedment depth, hole...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer redesign all post-installed anchor connections to concrete walls using adhesive-bonded anchor systems that are listed on the FDOT Approved Product List per Sections 937 and 416. The revised details should specify adhesive type (Type HV or Type HSHV per Section...

Summary: The drawing specifies '16Ø expansion bolts' for structural connections at multiple locations where steel angles (L~76x76x10mm) are post-installed into concrete walls/elements to support the composite deck/framing system. These are load-carrying structural connections in the gravity load path. FDOT Section 937-1 explicitly limits post-installed...

Why it matters: This violation affects a pervasive structural connection used throughout the project at all perimeter slab-to-concrete-wall interfaces across multiple bays of the retail building. If expansion bolts are procured and installed, they would need to be removed and the connections redesigned and reinstalled with adhesive-bonded anchors, causing...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer to redesign all post-installed anchor connections currently shown as '16Ø expansion bolts' to use adhesive-bonded anchor systems in accordance with FDOT Sections 416 and 937. The revised details should specify the adhesive type (Type HV or Type HSHV per Section 416-2.1), required hole diameter per manufacturer's...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer to redesign all post-installed anchor connections currently shown as '16Ø expansion bolts' to use adhesive-bonded anchor systems in accordance with FDOT Sections 416 and 937. The revised details should specify the adhesive type (Type HV or Type HSHV per Section...

Summary: The drawing specifies reinforcing bars using metric diameters that do not correspond to any standard ASTM A615 bar size. Specifically, 10Ø (10.0 mm diameter) stirrups are called out in Stub Column C1, Stub Column C2, and the Tie Beam detail, while 12Ø (12.0 mm diameter) bars are specified for Ftg.'F' reinforcement and the wall footing detail...

Why it matters: These bar designations (10Ø, 12Ø, and the use of 'ht.' for high-tensile) follow British Standard (BS 4449) conventions rather than ASTM. Because 10 mm and 12 mm bars are not manufactured to ASTM A615, they cannot be procured from domestic reinforcing steel suppliers. Direct substitution with the nearest ASTM A615 sizes — No. 10 (9.5 mm) for...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to revise all reinforcement callouts to use ASTM A615 Grades 60 or 80 standard bar sizes as required by Section 931-1.1.1. Specifically: (1) Confirm the ASTM A615 bar designation and grade to replace 10Ø stirrups in all stub column and tie beam details; (2) Confirm the ASTM A615 bar designation and grade to...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to revise all reinforcement callouts to use ASTM A615 Grades 60 or 80 standard bar sizes as required by Section 931-1.1.1. Specifically: (1) Confirm the ASTM A615 bar designation and grade to replace 10Ø stirrups in all stub column and tie beam details; (2)...

Summary: The beam seat detail (BS) specifies '8No.12Ø F1554 Gr.36 bolts. Simpson Strong-Tie. Titen HD®.' for anchoring a W12 x 26 lb/ft structural beam seat assembly to a concrete wall. The Simpson Strong-Tie Titen HD is a proprietary mechanical concrete screw anchor, not an adhesive-bonded anchor system. Section 937-1 states that post-installed anchor...

Why it matters: This violation would likely result in rejection during plan review or field inspection. The beam seat connection supports the W12 x 26 lb/ft beam and its full tributary load, making it a critical structural element. Redesigning the connection to use an approved adhesive-bonded anchor system may require changes to anchor diameter, embedment...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer to redesign the beam seat wall anchorage (Detail BS) using an adhesive-bonded anchor system that meets Section 937 requirements and is listed on the Department's Approved Product List (APL), or provide documented engineering justification for an alternative anchorage approach with Engineer approval.

RFI draft: Request the Engineer to redesign the beam seat wall anchorage (Detail BS) using an adhesive-bonded anchor system that meets Section 937 requirements and is listed on the Department's Approved Product List (APL), or provide documented engineering justification for an alternative anchorage...

Summary: The connection detail specifies beam steel as 'W12x26Lb/ft. A572 Gr50' and 'W21x55Lb/ft. A572 Gr50', and the connection plate as '229x102x10mm A36 plate.' FDOT Section 962-2.1 requires all structural steel for bolted or welded construction to meet ASTM A709 (Table 962-1). ASTM A572 and ASTM A36 are not listed as acceptable material designations...

Why it matters: Specifying non-conforming ASTM material designations will result in procurement of steel that does not carry the required A709 certification and supplementary requirements (e.g., composition reporting, killed steel, fine grain practice). This would lead to material rejection during shop drawing review or field inspection, causing procurement...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise all steel material callouts from ASTM A572 Gr50 to ASTM A709 Grade 50, and from ASTM A36 to ASTM A709 Grade 36, in compliance with FDOT Section 962-2.1 and Table 962-1. Confirm that all supplementary requirements for each grade are included in the specifications.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise all steel material callouts from ASTM A572 Gr50 to ASTM A709 Grade 50, and from ASTM A36 to ASTM A709 Grade 36, in compliance with FDOT Section 962-2.1 and Table 962-1. Confirm that all supplementary requirements for each grade are included in the...

Summary: The drawing repeatedly specifies '100mm Thick concrete reinf. with BRC.126 Fabric on 38mm (1.5') Corpulosa deck' for the composite roof slab, and the FR-01 section detail confirms '100mm concrete topping reinfwth BRC.126 Fabric.' BRC.126 is a British Reinforcement Catalogue mesh designation, not an ASTM product. FDOT Section 931-1.2.1 requires...

Why it matters: Using a non-ASTM designated wire reinforcement product will fail material acceptance under FDOT requirements. The contractor would be unable to provide the required manufacturer's certified mill analysis per ASTM A1064. This would cause material rejection at the jobsite, requiring re-procurement of compliant welded wire reinforcement and...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer replace the BRC.126 Fabric designation with an ASTM A1064-compliant welded wire reinforcement of equivalent cross-sectional area and spacing. Provide the wire gauge/diameter, spacing in both directions, and grade designation (Grade 75 for deformed wire per FDOT Section 931-1.2.1) on the revised drawings.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer replace the BRC.126 Fabric designation with an ASTM A1064-compliant welded wire reinforcement of equivalent cross-sectional area and spacing. Provide the wire gauge/diameter, spacing in both directions, and grade designation (Grade 75 for deformed wire per FDOT...

Summary: The drawing specifies reinforcing bars throughout using metric diameters of 10mm, 12mm, and 16mm (e.g., '10Ø stirrups @200o/c.', '12Ø bars @305o/c.', '16Ø ht.bars @305 o/c.'). These sizes correspond to British/European standard bar sizes (BS 4449 / EN 10080), not to ASTM A615 standard bar designations. FDOT Section 931-1.1.1 requires that...

Why it matters: This issue will cause significant construction delays and procurement problems. Contractors in Florida cannot procure 12mm diameter reinforcing bars to ASTM A615 because this size does not exist in the standard. If 12mm (British-standard) bars are substituted, they will not meet FDOT material certification requirements and will be rejected upon...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer to revise all reinforcing bar designations to conform to ASTM A615 standard sizes (No. 10, No. 13, No. 16, No. 19, etc.) as required by FDOT Section 931-1.1.1. Specifically, clarify the intended ASTM A615 bar size for every instance of 10Ø, 12Ø, and 16Ø bars on this sheet, confirm the steel grade (Grade 60 or...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer to revise all reinforcing bar designations to conform to ASTM A615 standard sizes (No. 10, No. 13, No. 16, No. 19, etc.) as required by FDOT Section 931-1.1.1. Specifically, clarify the intended ASTM A615 bar size for every instance of 10Ø, 12Ø, and 16Ø bars on...

Summary: The Stub Column C1 detail shows a 533×533mm column section with 8No.19Ø longitudinal bars (3+2+3 No.19Ø ht. bars). The total area of longitudinal steel is 8 × (π/4 × 19²) = 2,268 mm². The gross column area Ag = 533 × 533 = 284,089 mm². The longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρ = 2,268/284,089 = 0.0080 (0.80%). ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1 requires...

Why it matters: The Stub Column C1 appears at all interior pad footing (Pad 'A') locations across the entire foundation grid, as shown by the repeated 'Stub Col. 533 x 533' and 'Pad.-'A'' callouts on the foundation plan. These columns support steel RHS columns above via base plate connections. Given the large number of locations affected, this deficiency has a...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to verify the longitudinal reinforcement ratio for Stub Column C1 (533x533). The 8No.19Ø bars provide As = 2,268 mm² which yields ρ = 0.80%, below the 1% minimum required by ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1. The minimum required As = 2,841 mm². Please confirm the revised reinforcement design for all interior Pad 'A'...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to verify the longitudinal reinforcement ratio for Stub Column C1 (533x533). The 8No.19Ø bars provide As = 2,268 mm² which yields ρ = 0.80%, below the 1% minimum required by ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1. The minimum required As = 2,841 mm². Please confirm the...