Plan Review: 23 Issues Found

Summary: 4 index entries | 1 perfect matches | 2 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (2): S-100.00: Expected: FOUNDATION & FRAMING PLAN (S-100.00) | Actual: 1ST FLOOR FRAMING PLAN (S-100.00)(p2) S-101.00: Expected: DETAILS & NOTES (S-101.00) | Actual: SECTION & DETAILS (S-101.00)(p3) Missing (1) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: T: - T-001.00 TITLE SHEET &...

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: 1 missing, 2 mismatched out of 4 sheets

Summary: Plan Note 3 on the 1st Floor Framing Plan specifies the composite slab reinforcement as '#4@ 12" O.C EACH WAY,' while the 'COMPOSITE SLAB - TYP.' detail on the same sheet specifies 'REINF. W/ 6x6- W2xW2 WWF.' These are fundamentally different reinforcement types and quantities for the same composite slab system. #4 bars at 12" on center each way provides approximately 0.20 sq in/ft per directio...

Why it matters: This contradiction will cause significant confusion during construction. The contractor and inspector will not be able to determine which reinforcement to install without issuing an RFI. If the lighter WWF is installed when #4 bars were structurally required, the slab may be inadequate. If the he...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to clarify the correct reinforcement for the composite metal deck slab: is it #4 bars at 12" O.C. each way as stated in Plan Note 3, or 6x6-W2xW2 welded wire fabric as shown in the Composite Slab - Typ. detail? The conflicting specific...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to clarify the correct reinforcement for the composite metal deck slab: is it #4 bars at 12" O.C. each way as stated in Plan Note 3, or 6x6-W2xW2 welded wire fabric as shown in the Composite Slab - Typ. de...

Summary: Plan Note 3 on the 1st Floor Framing Plan specifies the composite slab as 'REINF. W/ #4@ 12" O.C EACH WAY', while the Composite Slab - TYP. detail on the same sheet specifies 'REINF. W/ 6x6- W2xW2 WWF'. These are fundamentally different reinforcement types with vastly different capacities: #4@12" each way provides approximately 0.20 sq.in/ft, while W2xW2 WWF provides roughly 0.02 sq.in/ft — a t...

Why it matters: This conflict will cause confusion during construction regarding which reinforcement to install in the composite floor slab. If the lighter WWF is installed where #4 rebar was designed, the slab may be structurally inadequate. If #4 rebar is installed where only WWF was intended, it adds unnecess...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the composite floor slab reinforcement is #4@12" O.C. each way or 6x6-W2xW2 WWF, and update Plan Note 3 and the Composite Slab - TYP. detail to be consistent.

RFI draft: Clarify whether the composite floor slab reinforcement is #4@12" O.C. each way or 6x6-W2xW2 WWF, and update Plan Note 3 and the Composite Slab - TYP. detail to be consistent.

Summary: Detail D ('FOOTING STEP - TYP.') illustrates a stepped footing transition with a sloped profile. The detail notes a horizontal run of '2 x H' for a vertical drop of 'H' (indicated as '16" MAX.'), resulting in a 1:2 (50%) slope. The drawing shows both the top and bottom surfaces sloping at this angle. This directly violates IBC Section 1809.3, which requires the top surface of footings to be lev...

Why it matters: A foundation bearing surface sloped at 50% will induce unintended lateral sliding forces into the supporting soil under vertical loading, which can lead to differential settlement, foundation instability, or shear failure of the soil. Additionally, a sloped top surface complicates the proper plac...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail D to indicate true vertical steps with level top and bottom surfaces. If a sloped bottom surface is required, clarify that the slope shall not exceed 10% (1 unit vertical to 10 units horizontal) to comply with IBC Section 1809.3.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail D to indicate true vertical steps with level top and bottom surfaces. If a sloped bottom surface is required, clarify that the slope shall not exceed 10% (1 unit vertical to 10 units horizontal) to comply with IBC Section 1809.3.

Summary: Metal Deck Note 2 specifies that metal deck material shall conform to ASTM A-446, which is a standard that has been withdrawn and replaced by ASTM A653. IBC Section 2203.1 requires identification of cold-formed steel members in accordance with AISI S100, which references current ASTM material standards. Since ASTM A446 is a withdrawn standard, metal deck material cannot be properly identified a...

Why it matters: Steel deck suppliers cannot issue mill certificates or material certifications to a withdrawn ASTM standard. This will cause procurement delays as suppliers will be unable to provide compliant documentation, potentially holding up deck installation. The specification must be updated to reference ...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record update Metal Deck Note 2 to reference the current ASTM A653 standard in place of the withdrawn ASTM A-446, and confirm the appropriate grade designation for the required 33,000 PSI minimum yield strength.

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record update Metal Deck Note 2 to reference the current ASTM A653 standard in place of the withdrawn ASTM A-446, and confirm the appropriate grade designation for the required 33,000 PSI minimum yield strength.

Summary: Concrete Note 2 directs that all concrete mix design shall be proportioned per Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of ACI 318R-05, which is the 2005 commentary edition. IBC Section 2206.1 requires that systems of structural steel elements acting compositely with reinforced concrete be designed in accordance with ACI 318 (the current edition adopted by the code). The project includes composite floor decks as c...

Why it matters: Referencing an obsolete edition and commentary of ACI 318 for concrete mix proportioning could result in plan review rejection, as reviewers will verify compliance against the current ACI 318 edition adopted by the code. If the concrete supplier follows the outdated section references, the result...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record update Concrete Note 2 to reference the current edition of ACI 318 as adopted by the 2015 IBC, with corrected section numbers for concrete mixture proportioning. Confirm that all concrete mix design requirements on the structural notes are consis...

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record update Concrete Note 2 to reference the current edition of ACI 318 as adopted by the 2015 IBC, with corrected section numbers for concrete mixture proportioning. Confirm that all concrete mix design requirements on t...

Summary: The SCOPE indicates a structural application for an "ALTERATION TYPE I... FOR THE ADDITION OF THE NEW CLASSROOMS". According to IBC Section 602.1, any building altered or extended in height or area must be classified into one of the five construction types defined in Sections 602.2 through 602.5 (Types I, II, III, IV, or V). However, the GENERAL DATA schedule only classifies the building under ...

Why it matters: The drawings state the project is in a "FIRE DISTRICT IN". Per Appendix D Section D103.1, an existing building cannot be increased in height or area unless it is modified to a type of construction permitted for new buildings in the fire district (Types I, II, III, or IV). Without declaring a vali...

Suggested next step: Please update the GENERAL DATA block to include the correct 2015 IBC Construction Classification (Type I, II, III, IV, or V) for the existing building and proposed addition, ensuring the chosen type complies with Fire District restrictions.

RFI draft: Please update the GENERAL DATA block to include the correct 2015 IBC Construction Classification (Type I, II, III, IV, or V) for the existing building and proposed addition, ensuring the chosen type complies with Fire District restrictions.

Summary: The Plan Note 3 on the 1st Floor Framing Plan specifies the composite slab reinforcement as '#4@ 12" O.C EACH WAY', while the Composite Slab - TYP. detail on the same sheet specifies 'REINF. W/ 6x6- W2xW2 WWF'. These are fundamentally different reinforcement types and quantities: #4 rebar at 12" O.C. provides approximately 0.20 in²/ft in each direction, while 6x6-W2xW2 welded wire fabric provid...

Why it matters: This discrepancy will trigger an RFI during construction, causing a delay in concrete slab placement. If the lower reinforcement (WWF) is installed when the higher reinforcement (#4 bars) is actually required by design, the slab could be structurally inadequate, potentially requiring demolition a...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to clarify the correct slab reinforcement for the composite deck slab. Specifically, confirm whether the reinforcement should be #4 @ 12" O.C. each way as stated in Plan Note 3, or 6x6-W2xW2 WWF as shown in the Composite Slab - TYP. de...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to clarify the correct slab reinforcement for the composite deck slab. Specifically, confirm whether the reinforcement should be #4 @ 12" O.C. each way as stated in Plan Note 3, or 6x6-W2xW2 WWF as shown i...

Summary: The drawings indicate a project involving an alteration and addition, explicitly detailing a 'Proposed Basement Addition' and 'ADDITION OF THE NEW CLASSROOMS'. While the 'GENERAL DATA' block updates the occupancy group to a current code equivalent, it classifies the building's construction solely as '1-C (1968 Code)'. IBC Section 602.1 mandates that buildings altered or extended in height or ar...

Why it matters: The IBC construction type dictates the required fire-resistance ratings for building elements under Table 601, including the new 'PRIMARY STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STEEL' noted on the drawings. Without a valid IBC construction type (such as Type IB, IIA, etc.), plan reviewers and contractors cannot verif...

Suggested next step: Please update the General Data block to include the proposed IBC Construction Classification (Types I through V) for the building and new addition, and confirm that the new structural framing will meet the corresponding fire-resistance rating requirements of IBC Table 601.

RFI draft: Please update the General Data block to include the proposed IBC Construction Classification (Types I through V) for the building and new addition, and confirm that the new structural framing will meet the corresponding fire-resistance rating requ...

Summary: The Foundation Plan Note 2 on S-100.00 defines SOG as 'SLAB ON GRADE, 6" CONC. REINF. W/ #4@12 EA. WAY.' The 1st Floor Framing Plan on the same sheet labels the ramp/landing area as 'CONC. RAMP/LANDING SOG,' indicating the SOG specification applies to this location. However, Detail R1 (LANDING / RAMP EDGE) on S-101.00, which is explicitly referenced from the plan via the R1/S101 callout at this...

Why it matters: A 1" difference in slab thickness (6" vs. 5") represents approximately a 17% reduction in section depth, directly impacting the slab's structural capacity. During construction, the contractor will be uncertain whether to form and pour a 5" or 6" slab at the landing/ramp areas. This discrepancy al...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to clarify the required concrete slab thickness at the landing/ramp areas. Should the slab conform to the Foundation Plan Note 2 specification of 6" thick, or the 5" thickness shown in Detail R1 on S-101.00? Please revise drawings to ensure cons...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to clarify the required concrete slab thickness at the landing/ramp areas. Should the slab conform to the Foundation Plan Note 2 specification of 6" thick, or the 5" thickness shown in Detail R1 on S-101.00? Please ...

Summary: The 1st Floor Framing Plan Notes (S-100.00) specify a total 5" slab consisting of a 2" metal deck with 3" of concrete. In contrast, the 'Concrete Topping Slab' section detail (S-101.00) indicates a structural slab comprised of a 1 1/2" metal deck with a 3 1/2" concrete slab.

Why it matters: Conflicting deck and concrete thicknesses affect material ordering, structural dead loads, shear stud exposure lengths, and coordination with architectural floor elevations. Procuring the wrong deck profile could cause significant schedule delays during the steel decking or concrete pour phases.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct composite metal deck and concrete slab thicknesses. Should the assembly be a 2" deck with 3" concrete as noted in the S-100 framing plan notes, or a 1.5" deck with 3.5" concrete as shown in the Concrete Topping Slab detail on S-101?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct composite metal deck and concrete slab thicknesses. Should the assembly be a 2" deck with 3" concrete as noted in the S-100 framing plan notes, or a 1.5" deck with 3.5" concrete as shown in the Concrete Topping Slab deta...

Summary: The Foundation Plan general notes and the 'THICKENED SLAB @ SOG' detail state that the new Slab on Grade (SOG) is to be reinforced with #4 bars spaced at 12" on center each way. Conversely, the 'NEW & EXISTING SLAB ON GRADE' (Detail NES) specifies the reinforcement for the new slab as #4 at 16" on center.

Why it matters: Inconsistent rebar spacing can lead to insufficient structural reinforcement if the wider 16" spacing is installed where 12" spacing is required by design. This discrepancy will cause confusion during procurement and installation.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required reinforcement spacing for the new Slab on Grade. Should the reinforcement be #4 at 12" on center each way as noted in the Foundation Plan notes and Detail TS1, or #4 at 16" on center as shown in Detail NES?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required reinforcement spacing for the new Slab on Grade. Should the reinforcement be #4 at 12" on center each way as noted in the Foundation Plan notes and Detail TS1, or #4 at 16" on center as shown in Detail NES?

Summary: Detail PLA 'PLATE ANCHOR' on S-100.00 specifies in its text annotation 'BOLTED W/ 8 -1/2" DIA. HILTI HIT-HY200 EPOXY ANCHOR, 6" MIN. EMBED. INTO CONC. WALL', calling for eight anchors. However, the detail graphic depicts only six anchor points on the 1'-0" x 1'-0" base plate.

Why it matters: A discrepancy between the number of anchors shown graphically and specified in the annotation creates ambiguity for the contractor installing epoxy anchors. If only 6 anchors are installed instead of 8, the connection capacity is reduced by 25% and may not meet design load requirements. The HSS3x...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the plate anchor requires 6 or 8 epoxy anchors per connection and revise the detail graphic and/or annotation to be consistent. Provide an updated bolt pattern layout.

RFI draft: Clarify whether the plate anchor requires 6 or 8 epoxy anchors per connection and revise the detail graphic and/or annotation to be consistent. Provide an updated bolt pattern layout.

Summary: Foundation Plan Note 2 specifies the slab on grade as '6" CONC. REINF. W/ #4@12 EA. WAY.' However, the SOG Joint Detail F on S-101.00 depicts welded wire fabric as the slab reinforcement, with the Construction Joint sub-detail noting 'WWF - STOP 3" CLEAR EACH SIDE OF JOINT' and the Sawcut Control Joint sub-detail noting 'PRECUT THE ALTERNATE WIRE AT JOINT'. These details assume WWF, directly co...

Why it matters: The contractor will not know whether to install #4 rebar at 12" spacing or welded wire fabric in the slab on grade. The SOG joint detail is specifically designed to show how to treat reinforcement at joints, so the reinforcement type shown must match the actual specification. This discrepancy cou...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the slab on grade reinforcement is #4@12" O.C. each way or welded wire fabric, and update the SOG Joint Detail F to match the specified reinforcement type.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the slab on grade reinforcement is #4@12" O.C. each way or welded wire fabric, and update the SOG Joint Detail F to match the specified reinforcement type.

Summary: Detail D 'FOOTING STEP - TYP.' on S-101.00 specifies '2 1/4" CLEAR ON BOTTOM' for the reinforcement cover at the bottom of stepped footings. However, Concrete Notes Note 5 on S-102.00 states concrete protection for 'CONCRETE PLACED ON EARTH' shall be 3". Since footings are cast directly against earth, the 2-1/4" cover shown in the detail is 3/4" less than the 3" minimum required by the project'...

Why it matters: This 3/4" shortfall in concrete cover also violates ACI 318 requirements for concrete cast directly against earth (3" minimum). Insufficient cover leads to premature corrosion of reinforcement. A plan examiner will likely flag this conflict. In the field, if the contractor follows the detail dime...

Suggested next step: Clarify the required concrete cover at the bottom of stepped footings. The Footing Step detail shows 2-1/4" but Concrete Notes and ACI 318 require 3" for concrete placed on earth. Update the detail dimension to be consistent.

RFI draft: Clarify the required concrete cover at the bottom of stepped footings. The Footing Step detail shows 2-1/4" but Concrete Notes and ACI 318 require 3" for concrete placed on earth. Update the detail dimension to be consistent.