Plan Review: 25 Issues Found

Summary: The Column and Foundation Schedule shows piers at grids A-5, C-6, and D-3, each with a pier size of 2'-6" × 2'-6" (Ag = 900 sq in.) and vertical reinforcement of (12) #6 bars (As = 12 × 0.44 = 5.28 sq in.). This yields a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 5.28/900 = 0.00587 (0.59%). ACI 318-14 Section 10.1.1 states that Chapter 10 applies to columns 'including reinforced concrete pedestals.' T...

Why it matters: Inadequate longitudinal reinforcement in the pedestals can reduce their capacity to resist bending moments, creep, and shrinkage effects under sustained compressive loads, potentially leading to structural distress. This deficiency would likely be flagged during plan review and could result in a ...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer of record confirm the minimum longitudinal reinforcement for the 2'-6" × 2'-6" piers at grids A-5, C-6, and D-3. Per ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1, the minimum area of longitudinal reinforcement is 0.01Ag = 9.0 sq in. for the 900 sq in. gross...

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer of record confirm the minimum longitudinal reinforcement for the 2'-6" × 2'-6" piers at grids A-5, C-6, and D-3. Per ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1, the minimum area of longitudinal reinforcement is 0.01Ag = 9.0 s...

Summary: S3.1 Note 2 states that T/SL ELEVATION = 32'-0" and T/STL ELEVATION IS 4 1/2" BELOW T/SL, which calculates to T/STL = 31'-7 1/2". This is consistent with S3.1 Note 3 which specifies a 4 1/2" total slab/deck assembly (2 1/2" lightweight concrete on 2" deep deck). However, the Section at Screenwall on S3.2 shows T/SLAB - ROOF at 32'-0" and T/STL - ROOF at 31'-5 1/2", which is 6 1/2" below T/SL. T...

Why it matters: A 2-inch error in the top-of-steel elevation directly affects every steel beam seat elevation, column splice height, and connection detail throughout the roof. Fabrication shop drawings, erection sequences, and concrete slab pour elevations would all be based on conflicting data, potentially requ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct T/STL - ROOF elevation. S3.1 Note 2 indicates T/STL is 4 1/2" below T/SL (= 31'-7 1/2"), consistent with the 4 1/2" total slab/deck noted in S3.1 Note 3. S3.2 Section at Screenwall shows T/STL at 31'-5 1/2" (6 1/2" below T/SL). Which elevation is cor...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct T/STL - ROOF elevation. S3.1 Note 2 indicates T/STL is 4 1/2" below T/SL (= 31'-7 1/2"), consistent with the 4 1/2" total slab/deck noted in S3.1 Note 3. S3.2 Section at Screenwall shows T/STL at 31'-5 1/2" (6 1/2" below...

Summary: Drawing Note 9 states that moment connection design is delegated to the fabricator and applies to locations "SHOWING REACTIONS ON PLAN AS SUCH: A. V (SHEAR) = XX K, B. M (MOMENT) = XX K-FT". The plan graphically indicates moment connections at multiple column intersections (marked by solid black triangles), but fails to provide the required shear (V) or moment (M) reactions at any of these loca...

Why it matters: Without the required shear and moment reactions specified on the plans, it is ambiguous whether the EOR intended to delegate these specific connections or if the fabricator should solely follow the typical moment connection details. If they are intended to be delegated, the steel fabricator lacks...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the moment connections indicated by solid black triangles on the plan are intended to be delegated to the fabricator. If so, please provide the required shear (V) and moment (M) design reactions as stated in Note 9. If not, confirm that the fabricator should ...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the moment connections indicated by solid black triangles on the plan are intended to be delegated to the fabricator. If so, please provide the required shear (V) and moment (M) design reactions as stated in Note 9. If not, confi...

Summary: General Note 9 establishes the criteria for moment connection design delegated to the fabricator, specifying that plan reactions will be given as "A. V (SHEAR) = XX K" and "B. M (MOMENT) = XX K-FT", and that "ALL REACTIONS SHOWN ARE UNFACTORED SERVICE LOAD COMBINATIONS". This specification violates two seismic design requirements. First, ASCE 7 Section 12.1.4 mandates that a positive connection...

Why it matters: Without the individual unfactored load components (D, L, W, E, etc.), the delegated connection designer cannot mathematically or legally execute an LRFD or ASD connection design because the ASCE 7 Chapter 2 load factors cannot be applied to a pre-bundled number. Additionally, omitting the 5% axia...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note 9 to explicitly provide individual unfactored load case reactions (e.g., D, L, Lr, S, W, E) rather than bundled service load combinations. Additionally, please provide the required axial reaction (T or P) or explicitly list the Dead and Live load shear react...

RFI draft: Please revise Note 9 to explicitly provide individual unfactored load case reactions (e.g., D, L, Lr, S, W, E) rather than bundled service load combinations. Additionally, please provide the required axial reaction (T or P) or explicitly list the ...

Summary: Details 9 and 10 explicitly direct the contractor to tack weld the nut and washer on the anchor rods. Tack welding structural nuts or washers directly to high-strength anchor rods is a prohibited practice in structural steel construction. The heat generated by welding alters the metallurgical properties of the high-strength steel rod and nut, causing localized embrittlement, stress concentratio...

Why it matters: This practice violates the fundamental material design and detailing requirements mandated by ASCE 7 Section 12.1.6, which defers to standard material codes (such as AISC 360) that prohibit unauthorized welding on structural fasteners. If installed as drawn, the anchor rods could fail catastrophi...

Suggested next step: Remove the directive to "TACK WELD NUT AND WASHER" from the foundation details. If the intent is to prevent the nut from backing off or to secure it during the pour, recommend using a double nut, locking compound, or mechanically upsetting the threads above the nut after tight...

RFI draft: Remove the directive to "TACK WELD NUT AND WASHER" from the foundation details. If the intent is to prevent the nut from backing off or to secure it during the pour, recommend using a double nut, locking compound, or mechanically upsetting the thr...

Summary: Detail 8 specifies "(2) SETS OF TIES AT TOP" utilizing "#3 CLOSED TIES" for the concrete pier. However, ASCE 7 Section 14.2.2.2 (which modifies ACI 318 Section 10.7.6.1.6) explicitly requires that anchor bolts at the top of a column or pedestal be enclosed by transverse reinforcement consisting of at least two No. 4 bars or three No. 3 bars. Providing only two No. 3 ties violates this minimum r...

Why it matters: Failing to provide the required amount of transverse reinforcement reduces the confinement of the concrete around the anchor bolts. Under lateral or seismic loading, this could lead to premature concrete breakout, splitting, or failure of the column-to-pier connection, significantly compromising ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the reinforcement in Detail 8 to specify either "(3) SETS OF TIES AT TOP" if using #3 ties, or change the top ties to be at least two #4 ties, to meet the minimum transverse reinforcement requirements for anchor bolts per ASCE 7 Section 14.2.2.2.

RFI draft: Please revise the reinforcement in Detail 8 to specify either "(3) SETS OF TIES AT TOP" if using #3 ties, or change the top ties to be at least two #4 ties, to meet the minimum transverse reinforcement requirements for anchor bolts per ASCE 7 Sect...

Summary: S3.1 labels the typical screenwall column as HSS6X6X3/8 on the roof framing plan. The Section at Screenwall detail on S3.2 calls out HSS6X6X1/2 as the typical screenwall member. Both use the 'TYP.' designation indicating they represent the standard screenwall framing size, yet the HSS wall thickness differs (3/8" vs 1/2").

Why it matters: The difference in wall thickness affects the member weight, structural capacity, and connection design. An HSS6X6X1/2 has significantly more cross-sectional area and moment of inertia than an HSS6X6X3/8, which would influence base plate sizing, anchor bolt design, and welded connections. The fabr...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct HSS size for the typical screenwall columns. S3.1 shows HSS6X6X3/8 COL. TYP. SCREENWALL COLUMN while S3.2 Section at Screenwall shows HSS6X6X1/2, TYP. Please clarify which wall thickness (3/8" or 1/2") is correct and revise the conflicting sheet.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct HSS size for the typical screenwall columns. S3.1 shows HSS6X6X3/8 COL. TYP. SCREENWALL COLUMN while S3.2 Section at Screenwall shows HSS6X6X1/2, TYP. Please clarify which wall thickness (3/8" or 1/2") is correct and rev...

Summary: Sheet S4.2 Plan 2 (Front Drive Thru Canopy) consistently labels the primary internal framing beams at column grid lines (DD, CC) as W16X31. However, Section 4 on sheet S6.1 (Section at Northeast Canopy) labels the roof beams of the Front Drive Thru Canopy as W14 BEAM. A W16 beam is 16 inches deep versus 14 inches for a W14 beam, constituting a meaningful structural size difference, not merely a...

Why it matters: If the section is followed during fabrication and erection, W14 beams would be supplied instead of the W16X31 beams required by the plan. This 2-inch reduction in beam depth, combined with the lighter section properties of a W14 versus a W16X31, could result in inadequate flexural capacity and ex...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to confirm the correct beam size for the Front Drive Thru Canopy primary framing members. If the framing plan (S4.2) is correct at W16X31, Section 4 on S6.1 should be revised to show W16 BEAM. If the section is correct, the framing plan should b...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to confirm the correct beam size for the Front Drive Thru Canopy primary framing members. If the framing plan (S4.2) is correct at W16X31, Section 4 on S6.1 should be revised to show W16 BEAM. If the section is corr...

Summary: The roof framing plan shows a hatched equipment zone designated "AHU-6" within the structural framing layout. However, the General Structural Notes on S0.1 list equipment loads only for AHU #1 through AHU #5 (items a through e under Design Loads item 2). There is no AHU #6 entry in the equipment load schedule, meaning the structural framing in the AHU-6 zone has no verified design load basis fo...

Why it matters: Without a defined equipment load for AHU-6, the structural framing members supporting this unit may be inadequately sized, potentially leading to overstress or excessive deflection under the actual equipment weight. This discrepancy must be resolved before steel fabrication and concrete placement...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether AHU-6 is a valid equipment designation for this project. If so, provide the corresponding equipment weight and verify that the roof framing in this zone is designed for the load. If AHU-6 is a labeling error on the plan, clarify the correct equipment designatio...

RFI draft: Confirm whether AHU-6 is a valid equipment designation for this project. If so, provide the corresponding equipment weight and verify that the roof framing in this zone is designed for the load. If AHU-6 is a labeling error on the plan, clarify th...

Summary: Detail 4 states to "CUT BARS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS AS REQUIRED AT OPENING." However, the structural notes on page 1 explicitly state that "REINFORCING BARS SHALL NOT BE TACK WELDED, WELDED, HEATED OR CUT." This creates a direct contradiction regarding whether field modification of reinforcing bars is permitted at openings.

Why it matters: Conflicting instructions regarding the field cutting of rebar can lead to improper field modifications. If bars are cut where the engineer intended them to be continuous or uniquely detailed, it compromises the structural integrity of the concrete element. Clarification is required to ensure the ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if reinforcing bars are permitted to be field-cut at openings as indicated in Detail 4, or if they must be placed without cutting as strictly required by the Reinforced Concrete Notes. If cutting is allowed at openings, please add an exception to the structural ...

RFI draft: Please clarify if reinforcing bars are permitted to be field-cut at openings as indicated in Detail 4, or if they must be placed without cutting as strictly required by the Reinforced Concrete Notes. If cutting is allowed at openings, please add a...

Summary: The canopy sections (e.g., Sections 1 and 3) show the structural steel columns and base plates extending down to the top of the footing at an elevation of '-2' - 0"', while the first floor slab/sidewalk is at '0' - 0"'. The drawings show the bare HSS steel columns extending through the subgrade without any concrete pier or encasement. According to standard structural practice, steel columns sho...

Why it matters: Burying structural steel directly in soil will lead to accelerated corrosion and eventual structural failure of the canopy supports. A concrete pedestal (pier) should be detailed to bring the base plate to or slightly above grade level. The structural specification lists a concrete mix for 'PIERS...

Suggested next step: Confirm if concrete piers should be added to extend from the footings at T/FTG -2'-0" to grade level to prevent the HSS steel columns from being buried directly in the soil.

RFI draft: Confirm if concrete piers should be added to extend from the footings at T/FTG -2'-0" to grade level to prevent the HSS steel columns from being buried directly in the soil.

Summary: The general structural notes require that concrete cover to reinforcing steel shall be 3/4" for slabs not exposed to earth or weather. However, Detail 1 on S7.1 contradicts this by explicitly specifying a 1 1/2" clear cover for the slab reinforcement.

Why it matters: Detail 1 intentionally specifies a 1 1/2" clear cover to ensure the reinforcement is placed deep enough to avoid being severed by the 1 1/4" deep saw cut control joint. While this is practically necessary, it directly violates the strict 3/4" cover requirement established in the specification not...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the 1 1/2" clear cover specified in Detail 1/S7.1 supersedes the 3/4" cover requirement in the general reinforced concrete notes for interior slabs to prevent the 1 1/4" saw cut from severing the reinforcement.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the 1 1/2" clear cover specified in Detail 1/S7.1 supersedes the 3/4" cover requirement in the general reinforced concrete notes for interior slabs to prevent the 1 1/4" saw cut from severing the reinforcement.

Summary: S7.2 Detail 9 (Section at Interior Column Foundation) labels the joint between the concrete encasement and the slab-on-grade as a "1/2" EXPANSION JT." However, S7.1 Detail 4 (Typ. Conc. Encasement at Interior Col.) shows the same interface as a "1/2" ISOLATION JOINT WITH FIBROUS FILLER," and S7.1 Detail 3 (Typ. Conc. Encasement at Exterior Col.) also specifies a "1/2" ISOLATION JOINT WITH FIBRO...

Why it matters: In concrete slab-on-grade construction, an isolation joint at a column is intended to separate the slab from the column foundation to allow independent movement, while an expansion joint accommodates thermal expansion. Using the wrong joint type or omitting the specified fibrous filler could lead...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the joint between the concrete column encasement and the slab-on-grade should be a 1/2" isolation joint with fibrous filler (as shown on S7.1 Details 3 and 4) or a 1/2" expansion joint (as shown on S7.2 Detail 9). Please confirm the correct joint type an...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the joint between the concrete column encasement and the slab-on-grade should be a 1/2" isolation joint with fibrous filler (as shown on S7.1 Details 3 and 4) or a 1/2" expansion joint (as shown on S7.2 Detail 9). Please con...

Summary: S3.1 Note 8 directs the reader to "DETAIL 5/S8.1 FOR TYPICAL SUBFRAMING AND EDGE DETAILS." On sheet S8.1, however, the item numbered 5 is titled "SECTION AT OPENING SUPPORT" and only shows the edge condition (bent plate, concrete slab on steel deck, supplemental steel). It does not depict the subframing beam layout. The actual plan view showing the subframing configuration with beam sizes (W8X1...

Why it matters: A contractor or fabricator following the S3.1 reference to "Detail 5/S8.1" for subframing would find only the edge section, not the plan view showing the required beam sizes and layout for framing duct openings. This could lead to confusion during steel fabrication and erection, potentially resul...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the cross-reference in S3.1 Note 8. Should the note reference Detail 3/S8.1 for the typical opening subframing plan view and Section 5/S8.1 for the edge detail, rather than "Detail 5/S8.1" for both? Please confirm and revise the note as appropriate.

RFI draft: Please clarify the cross-reference in S3.1 Note 8. Should the note reference Detail 3/S8.1 for the typical opening subframing plan view and Section 5/S8.1 for the edge detail, rather than "Detail 5/S8.1" for both? Please confirm and revise the not...

Summary: The typical anchor rod detail on S7.2 (Detail 2) specifies a 1/2"x2 1/2"x0'-2 1/2" square plate washer for the anchor rod assembly above the base plate. However, the steel base plate details on S8.1 specify different washer plate sizes for the same location: Detail 8 (Type A) calls for a 1/2"x3"x0'-3" washer plate, and Detail 9 (Type B) calls for a 1/2"x3 1/2"x0'-3 1/2" washer plate. The S7.2 t...

Why it matters: During fabrication and procurement, the steel fabricator will reference S8.1 base plate details while the concrete contractor references S7.2 for anchor rod installation. The conflicting washer plate sizes could result in ordering the wrong washer plates, field rework, or delays if the discrepanc...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct washer plate size for anchor rods at column base plates. The typical anchor rod detail on S7.2 (Detail 2) shows a 1/2"x2 1/2"x0'-2 1/2" square plate washer, while S8.1 Detail 8 (Type A) specifies a 1/2"x3"x0'-3" washer plate and Detail 9 (Type B) spe...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct washer plate size for anchor rods at column base plates. The typical anchor rod detail on S7.2 (Detail 2) shows a 1/2"x2 1/2"x0'-2 1/2" square plate washer, while S8.1 Detail 8 (Type A) specifies a 1/2"x3"x0'-3" washer p...