Plan Review: 155 Issues Found

Summary: 66 index entries | 42 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 23 missing Mismatched (1): S503: Expected: ENCLOSURES (S503) | Actual: ENCLOSURES (A530)(p42) Missing (23) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Structural: - S001 GENERAL NOTES - S002 GENERAL NOTES - S100 FOUNDATION PLAN - S101 LOWER LEVEL SLAB ON GRADE PLAN - S102 MAIN LEVEL SLAB ON...

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: 23 missing, 1 mismatched out of 66 sheets

Summary: 7 index entries | 1 perfect matches | 3 mismatched | 3 missing Mismatched (3): 1: Expected: Cover Sheet (1) | Actual: COVER SHEET (COVER SHEET)(p1) 3: Expected: Notes (3) | Actual: FRAME CROSS SECTION AT FRAME LINE(S) (3)(p15) 4-6: Expected: Anchor Rod Plan (4-6) | Actual: ANCHOR ROD PLAN (D)(p4) Missing (3) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: ...

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: 3 missing, 3 mismatched out of 7 sheets

Summary: Elevation 1 on sheet A314 details an "ACCESSIBLE LAVATORY" (Note 3) with the top of the sink countertop dimensioned at 3'-2" (38 inches) above the finished floor. Section 404.2 of the IPC requires accessible plumbing fixtures to be installed with clearances and heights in accordance with ICC A117.1, which mandates a maximum counter and rim height of 34 inches for accessible lavatories. The dime...

Why it matters: Installing the sink at a 38-inch height directly violates accessibility codes. If built as dimensioned, the project will fail final accessibility inspections, necessitating the tear-out and rebuilding of the custom millwork, plumbing rough-ins, and wall finishes at the correct height, leading to ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the lavatory dimensions in Elevation 1 to ensure the top of the accessible sink/countertop is no higher than 34 inches above the finished floor, in accordance with ICC A117.1 and IPC 404.2. Additionally, confirm that plumbing rough-in heights will be adjusted to ...

RFI draft: Please revise the lavatory dimensions in Elevation 1 to ensure the top of the accessible sink/countertop is no higher than 34 inches above the finished floor, in accordance with ICC A117.1 and IPC 404.2. Additionally, confirm that plumbing rough-i...

Summary: Drawing A200 General Note 4 directs to A003 for Wall Types. A200 uses wall type 'WT-06' for the walls enclosing ELEVATOR 105. However, on drawing A003, the detail for WT-06 contains a direct internal contradiction: the detail title designates it as a 'CMU WALL', but the material callout specifies '8" CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE'.

Why it matters: This creates critical ambiguity regarding the structural material required for the elevator shaft. The contractor will not know whether to construct the shaft using Concrete Masonry Units (CMU) or Cast-In-Place (CIP) concrete, which significantly impacts structural framing, fire rating compliance...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required wall material for Wall Type WT-06 at the elevator shaft. Should it be constructed of 8" Cast-In-Place Concrete or 8" CMU?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required wall material for Wall Type WT-06 at the elevator shaft. Should it be constructed of 8" Cast-In-Place Concrete or 8" CMU?

Summary: The Lower Level Floor Plan (A200) explicitly references Section 2/A401 at the East side of the building (Grids S and T). On the plan, the enclosed southern exterior wall for this zone stops at Grid 2, with the area between Grid 2 and Grid 1 consisting of an open space supported by steel I-columns at Grid 1. However, Building Section 2 on A401 contradicts this by showing the enclosed interior sp...

Why it matters: This conflict directly impacts the building's structural footprint, foundation layout, and exterior envelope framing. A contractor cannot determine whether to pour continuous foundation walls at Grid 1 or to construct isolated footings for structural columns, potentially leading to significant re...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the architectural enclosure and foundation layout for the South-East corner (near Grids S-T and 1-2). Should the enclosed exterior wall stop at Grid 2 with exterior columns at Grid 1 as shown on the floor plan (A200), or does the enclosed foundation wall extend ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the architectural enclosure and foundation layout for the South-East corner (near Grids S-T and 1-2). Should the enclosed exterior wall stop at Grid 2 with exterior columns at Grid 1 as shown on the floor plan (A200), or does the en...

Summary: The drawings specify a 4" thick concrete slab on grade containing #3 bars and #4 bars (at joints). However, ACI 301-20 Table 3.3.2.3(a) mandates a minimum concrete cover of 75 mm (approx. 2.95") for concrete cast against the ground, and 20 mm (approx. 0.79") for the top of slabs not exposed to weather. This requires a combined cover of 95 mm (3.74"). In a 4" (101.6 mm) slab, only 6.6 mm (0.26")...

Why it matters: Proceeding with a 4" slab makes it impossible to achieve the code-required minimum concrete cover on either the top or bottom. This compromises the bond strength, durability, and structural integrity of the slab, leaving reinforcement vulnerable to environmental exposure and increasing the risk o...

Suggested next step: The specified 4" slab on grade provides exactly 101.6 mm of total thickness. ACI 301-20 Table 3.3.2.3(a) requires 75 mm of bottom cover and 20 mm of top cover, leaving only 6.6 mm of space. This cannot physically fit the specified #3 or #4 bars. Please verify if the slab thick...

RFI draft: The specified 4" slab on grade provides exactly 101.6 mm of total thickness. ACI 301-20 Table 3.3.2.3(a) requires 75 mm of bottom cover and 20 mm of top cover, leaving only 6.6 mm of space. This cannot physically fit the specified #3 or #4 bars. P...

Summary: The drawing notes indicate that "stud wall vertical load must be supported by mezzanine floor deck only" along grids 1 and T. However, the note immediately states that the supporting "BMC mezzanine beams and spandrel beams are NOT designed to support stud wall vertically." Because the floor deck must inherently transfer its applied vertical gravity loads to the supporting beams, explicitly excl...

Why it matters: Creating a broken load path where primary framing elements are explicitly not designed to carry the actual dead weight of the assemblies they ultimately support can lead to beam overstress, excessive deflection, or structural failure. Redesign and reinforcement will be required if this is discove...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the structural load path for the stud wall vertical load along grids 1 and T. If the mezzanine floor deck is carrying these walls, the framing must support it. Update the structural calculations and drawing details to confirm the mezzanine beams and spandrel bea...

RFI draft: Please clarify the structural load path for the stud wall vertical load along grids 1 and T. If the mezzanine floor deck is carrying these walls, the framing must support it. Update the structural calculations and drawing details to confirm the me...

Summary: At multiple grid intersections, the structural concrete piers are dimensioned larger than the architectural column enclosures designed to conceal them. - Grid D/3: Architectural detail 14 (A520) shows the enclosure extending 6" from grids D and 3, but structural detail 6 (S502) shows the pier extending 8 1/2" from both grids. - Grid J/2: Architectural detail 8 (A520) shows the enclosure extendi...

Why it matters: If the concrete piers are poured according to the structural dimensions, they will protrude past the finished architectural walls by up to 4 1/8" (at grid L/2). This will require either costly concrete chipping/modification in the field or a redesign of the architectural column wraps, potentially...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required dimensions for the column enclosures and concrete piers at grids D/3, J/2, L/2, and L/6. Should the architectural enclosures be enlarged to conceal the structural piers, or can the concrete pier dimensions be reduced to fit within the currently spec...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required dimensions for the column enclosures and concrete piers at grids D/3, J/2, L/2, and L/6. Should the architectural enclosures be enlarged to conceal the structural piers, or can the concrete pier dimensions be reduced to...

Summary: The engineer's structural plan (S102) specifies a secondary rectangular opening dimensioned 6'-8" by 18'-10" directly adjacent to the main core. However, the joist placement plan (J2.0) does not show an opening in this location and instead details continuous floor joists (e.g., 7-14LH453/259-J10) running directly through this space.

Why it matters: If the joists and deck are fabricated and installed continuously across a required shaft or stairwell, the structural steel will have to be cut and heavily modified on-site. This requires structural re-engineering and will cause significant installation delays.

Suggested next step: Please verify if the 6'-8" x 18'-10" opening shown on S102 is required. If so, advise the joist and deck manufacturer to revise J2.0 and D2.0 to frame out this opening accordingly.

RFI draft: Please verify if the 6'-8" x 18'-10" opening shown on S102 is required. If so, advise the joist and deck manufacturer to revise J2.0 and D2.0 to frame out this opening accordingly.

Summary: Architectural floor plans show an elevator shaft (ELEVATOR 105) and a staircase in the central core (LOBBY 104) between vertical grids J and L. However, the structural Joist Placement Plan (J2.0) and Deck Placement Plan (D2.0) indicate continuous floor framing (joists marked '28LH453/259') and continuous decking (e.g., '5 @ 30'-2" [FD]') spanning across this 22'-0" bay, without any framed openi...

Why it matters: If the structural joists and deck are fabricated and installed continuously as shown on the structural plans, they will physically block the architectural elevator shaft and the monumental lobby staircase. This conflict requires immediate structural redesign of the central bay to frame the necess...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the structural framing plans should be revised to frame the openings for Elevator 105 and the Lobby 104 stairs as shown on the architectural plans. Please provide updated structural framing dimensions and edge of slab/pour stop details for these shafts.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the structural framing plans should be revised to frame the openings for Elevator 105 and the Lobby 104 stairs as shown on the architectural plans. Please provide updated structural framing dimensions and edge of slab/pour stop d...

Summary: Structural sections define the typical steel column half-widths as 6 1/2" (for HSS columns per Section 3) and 6 7/8" (for W-shape columns per Section 8). However, architectural plan details D/3 and Q/3 specify tight column enclosure dimensions that are smaller than the steel itself. Plan Detail D/3 limits the outer face of the enclosure to 6" from the grid lines. Plan Detail Q/3 restricts the o...

Why it matters: Because the structural steel column profile extends 6.5" to 6.875" from the centerline/grid, an architectural wrap dimensioned at 5" or 6" to the outer finished face means the bare steel column will protrude out of the finished wall assembly by 0.5" to 1.875". The architectural assemblies (studs,...

Suggested next step: Please advise if the architectural column enclosures at grid intersections D/3 (currently dimensioned 6" to outer face) and Q/3 (dimensioned 5" to outer face) should be enlarged to accommodate the minimum 6.5" to 6.875" half-widths of the structural steel columns, plus the req...

RFI draft: Please advise if the architectural column enclosures at grid intersections D/3 (currently dimensioned 6" to outer face) and Q/3 (dimensioned 5" to outer face) should be enlarged to accommodate the minimum 6.5" to 6.875" half-widths of the structur...

Summary: The PEMB erection drawings specify a 2" non-shrink grout pad beneath the column base plates, positioning the base plate 2" above the concrete. However, the Structural foundation plans list Top of Foundation Wall/Pier elevations that exactly match the PEMB base plate elevations (e.g., 85'-4" and 100'-0"), leaving zero vertical space for the required grout.

Why it matters: If the concrete foundation is poured to the elevations specified in the structural drawings (such as 85'-4" or 100'-0"), the top of the concrete will clash with the PEMB requirement to have the base plate placed at the same elevations with 2" of leveling nuts and grout underneath. The structural ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the structural Top of Pier/Wall elevations should be lowered by 2" to accommodate the 2" grout space required by the PEMB 'Grouted Base Requirement' detail, or if the elevations provided in the PEMB details refer to the Top of Concrete rather than the Base Pl...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the structural Top of Pier/Wall elevations should be lowered by 2" to accommodate the 2" grout space required by the PEMB 'Grouted Base Requirement' detail, or if the elevations provided in the PEMB details refer to the Top of Co...

Summary: The 'KEY PLAN' on the drawing indicates the area of focus is 'EAST WX' (shown via hatching). However, the 'Frame Clearances' schedule on the drawing lists vertical clearances up to 30'-5 3/4", which contradicts the project specification that defines the 'East WX' structure as having a height of only 19'-2" (59 x 82 x 19'2). The drawn vertical clearances align instead with the 'Center Tower' spe...

Why it matters: Fabricating and erecting a ~33' tall frame in the East WX area, which is designed to be 19'-2" tall, will result in severe dimensional mismatches, interfering with roof framing and the exterior envelope. Alternatively, if this frame actually belongs to the Center Tower, the incorrect Key Plan wil...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct location for the frame detailed on Sheet 19. If this frame is intended for the Center Tower, please update the Key Plan to hatch the correct section. If it is intended for East WX, please revise the frame design and vertical clearances to adhere to t...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct location for the frame detailed on Sheet 19. If this frame is intended for the Center Tower, please update the Key Plan to hatch the correct section. If it is intended for East WX, please revise the frame design and vert...

Summary: The drawing details a cross-section explicitly labeled for the 'East WX' building and notes internal vertical clearances of 25'-11 7/16" and 27'-6 3/4". However, the project specification defines the 'East WX' shape as having dimensions of '59 x 82 x 19'2'. It is physically impossible for the internal vertical clearances to exceed the overall 19'-2" specified height dimension.

Why it matters: This severe dimensional discrepancy indicates that either the frame details and clearances belong to a different, taller building section on the project, or the clear height dimensions are incorrectly noted. If fabricated or erected as shown, it will result in major structural envelope violations...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the frame shown on this cross-section is intended for the 'East WX' building as labeled, or for a taller building section. If it is correctly assigned to the 'East WX', please provide revised vertical clearances and frame dimensions that fit within the specif...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the frame shown on this cross-section is intended for the 'East WX' building as labeled, or for a taller building section. If it is correctly assigned to the 'East WX', please provide revised vertical clearances and frame dimensi...

Summary: The drawing illustrates structural connections framing a 'MEZZANINE BEAM (WRX***)' directly into a 'COLUMN (CX***)'. However, the specification explicitly limits structural loading by stating, '-This building is not designed for concentrated loads greater than 250 lbs'. The direct connection of a mezzanine floor beam to the primary column inherently imposes concentrated loads vastly exceeding 2...

Why it matters: If the main building frame was not engineered to support these mezzanine connections, the excessive concentrated loads could cause structural failure. Furthermore, if the mezzanine is intended to be independent, the specification requires that 'proper isolation from the Butler building has been p...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the primary structural columns have been engineered to support the mezzanine connections, as the specification limits concentrated loads to 250 lbs. If this is an independent mezzanine, please provide revised details demonstrating proper isolation from the Bu...

RFI draft: Please confirm if the primary structural columns have been engineered to support the mezzanine connections, as the specification limits concentrated loads to 250 lbs. If this is an independent mezzanine, please provide revised details demonstratin...