Plan Review: 63 Issues Found

Summary: Drawing 1S-21 details the lower hopper dogging support as a standard structural steel joint consisting of a "COL AND W-BEAM" located at "EL 58.00 OR EL 25.00". In direct contradiction, drawing 1S-8 Section B shows that the structure at EL 25.00 consists of the column terminating at a baseplate on an "EL 25.00 EXISTING SLAB", with no W-beam framing into the column at this foundation level.

Why it matters: A horizontal W-beam connection cannot be executed at an elevation where the column bears directly on an existing concrete slab foundation. This discrepancy creates a physical clash and leaves the structural detailing for the lower EL 28.75/25.00 dogging tier unbuildable as drawn.

Suggested next step: Drawing 1S-21 Section B shows a W-beam framing into the column at EL 25.00 for the lower dogging support, but drawing 1S-8 shows the column bearing on an existing concrete slab at EL 25.00 with no W-beam. Please clarify the correct structural support condition and connection d...

RFI draft: Drawing 1S-21 Section B shows a W-beam framing into the column at EL 25.00 for the lower dogging support, but drawing 1S-8 shows the column bearing on an existing concrete slab at EL 25.00 with no W-beam. Please clarify the correct structural supp...

Summary: Detail S-534 ('LADDER TO RAILING CONNECTIONS') specifies connecting a steel ladder to an aluminum railing by inserting a pin through both members and welding 'BOTH ENDS'. The detail mandates the 'PIN SHALL BE THE SAME MATERIAL AS RAILING' (which is aluminum, per Note 1 on Detail S-515). This dictates welding an aluminum pin to a steel ladder runner using shielded arc welding, which is physicall...

Why it matters: Attempting to arc-weld aluminum to steel will fail structurally during fabrication. Direct contact between these two dissimilar metals will lead to galvanic corrosion. Both outcomes present significant structural safety and maintenance risks, and fail to comply with the project specifications for...

Suggested next step: Please revise the 'STEEL TO ALUMINUM' connection in Detail S-534 to utilize a purely mechanical connection (e.g., a stainless steel through-bolt with dielectric isolating washers and sleeves) to prevent galvanic corrosion and to remove the impossible steel-to-aluminum arc weld...

RFI draft: Please revise the 'STEEL TO ALUMINUM' connection in Detail S-534 to utilize a purely mechanical connection (e.g., a stainless steel through-bolt with dielectric isolating washers and sleeves) to prevent galvanic corrosion and to remove the impossi...

Summary: Detail S-561 ('BEAM TO COLUMN CONNECTION') illustrates a single-plate shear connection (shear tab) with a fillet weld symbol (size 'A'). The symbol is drawn with the triangle on the arrow side only, indicating a single-sided weld. According to standard structural steel detailing practice (such as AISC standards), single-plate shear connections must be welded on both sides of the plate to safely...

Why it matters: A single-sided weld on a shear tab is highly susceptible to prying, tearing, and weld root failure due to load eccentricity. If fabricated exactly as drawn, this presents a severe structural safety risk.

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the shear tab-to-column connection in detail S-561 should specify a double-sided fillet weld, and revise the welding symbol accordingly to meet standard structural and AISC requirements.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the shear tab-to-column connection in detail S-561 should specify a double-sided fillet weld, and revise the welding symbol accordingly to meet standard structural and AISC requirements.

Summary: The Inspection of Concrete Construction table explicitly states compliance with the 2021 IBC, yet the 'IBC REFERENCE' column lists sections 1908.4, 1908.2, 1908.3, 1908.6, 1908.7, 1908.8, 1908.9, and 1908.10. In the 2021 IBC, Section 1908 (Shotcrete) contains only Section 1908.1. Sections 1908.2 through 1908.10 do not exist in the 2021 IBC. These appear to be carryover references from a prior c...

Why it matters: During plan review, the building official will identify these non-existent code references and require drawing revisions before issuing a permit, causing delay. During construction, special inspectors attempting to verify requirements against the cited IBC sections will be unable to locate the ap...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer update the Inspection of Concrete Construction table to replace all non-existent Section 1908 references (1908.2, 1908.3, 1908.4, 1908.6, 1908.7, 1908.8, 1908.9, 1908.10) with the correct corresponding 2021 IBC section numbers applicable to each...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer update the Inspection of Concrete Construction table to replace all non-existent Section 1908 references (1908.2, 1908.3, 1908.4, 1908.6, 1908.7, 1908.8, 1908.9, 1908.10) with the correct corresponding 2021 IBC sect...

Summary: The drawing section titled 'STEEL CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN STRUCTURAL STEEL (IBC SECTION 1705.2.2)' explicitly cites IBC Section 1705.2.2 as its governing code section. However, for cold-formed steel deck floor and roof deck welds, the drawing lists 'AWS D1.3' as the referenced standard. IBC Section 1705.2.2 specifically requires that special inspections for cold-formed steel floor and roof deck...

Why it matters: Using AWS D1.3 alone instead of SDI QA/QC may result in incomplete inspection requirements for cold-formed steel deck, as SDI QA/QC includes quality assurance provisions beyond just welding (such as inspector qualifications, inspection frequency, and acceptance criteria specific to steel deck ins...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record update the cold-formed steel deck inspection requirements to reference SDI QA/QC as the governing quality assurance inspection standard, in compliance with IBC Section 1705.2.2. Confirm whether AWS D1.3 should remain listed as a supple...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record update the cold-formed steel deck inspection requirements to reference SDI QA/QC as the governing quality assurance inspection standard, in compliance with IBC Section 1705.2.2. Confirm whether AWS D1.3 sh...

Summary: The TWO-RAIL RAILING detail (S-515) dimensions the handrail extension at the top landing transition as "12" (MAX)". Section 1014.6 of the 2021 IBC requires handrails to "extend horizontally not less than 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser." Labeling the top extension as a maximum of 12 inches means a contractor could install the extension at any dimension up to 12 inches (e.g., 6 inches or...

Why it matters: This mislabeled dimension could lead to a non-compliant handrail installation. During inspection, a handrail extension shorter than 12 inches at the top of a stair flight would fail code review under Section 1014.6, requiring removal and reinstallation of the handrail extension. This rework cause...

Suggested next step: Request the designer confirm and revise the top handrail extension dimension from "12" (MAX)" to "12" (MIN)" on detail S-515, TWO-RAIL RAILING, to comply with Section 1014.6 requiring handrail extensions to extend horizontally not less than 12 inches beyond the top riser.

RFI draft: Request the designer confirm and revise the top handrail extension dimension from "12" (MAX)" to "12" (MIN)" on detail S-515, TWO-RAIL RAILING, to comply with Section 1014.6 requiring handrail extensions to extend horizontally not less than 12 inc...

Summary: Section M on this sheet designates the bracing member as "W4X10.5 BRACING (TYP)". There is no W4X10.5 in the AISC Steel Construction Manual, no W-shape (wide flange) exists with a 4-inch nominal depth and 10.5 lb/ft weight. By contrast, Section K on the same sheet designates the same type of bracing member for a virtually identical structural configuration (same gridline 2, same elevations WP ...

Why it matters: A steel fabricator receiving this drawing cannot procure or fabricate a "W4X10.5" because it does not exist as a standard rolled shape. This will require an RFI to the structural engineer before fabrication can proceed, causing a delay in the steel procurement and fabrication schedule. If the err...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm whether the "W4X10.5 BRACING (TYP)" shown in Section M should be revised to "WT4X10.5" (structural tee), consistent with the designation shown in Section K on the same sheet for the same structural configuration. Request a revised drawin...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm whether the "W4X10.5 BRACING (TYP)" shown in Section M should be revised to "WT4X10.5" (structural tee), consistent with the designation shown in Section K on the same sheet for the same structural configura...

Summary: IBC Section 2204.1 requires that the details of design, workmanship, technique for welding, and qualification of welding personnel be in accordance with the specifications listed in Section 2205, which explicitly mandates AISC 360. However, the drawing's Structural Steel notes mandate conformity to the "AWS CODE FOR ARC AND GAS WELDING IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION" and welder qualifications per the...

Why it matters: Specifying completely obsolete AWS standard titles from an outdated boilerplate note will cause major administrative and inspection hurdles during construction. Special inspectors cannot verify compliance or welder qualifications against non-existent or retired codes (as required by Section 1705....

Suggested next step: Please revise the structural steel notes to remove references to the obsolete 'AWS Code for Arc and Gas Welding in Building Construction' and specify that all welding and welder qualifications shall conform to the standards required by AISC 360 (current AWS D1.1). Additionally...

RFI draft: Please revise the structural steel notes to remove references to the obsolete 'AWS Code for Arc and Gas Welding in Building Construction' and specify that all welding and welder qualifications shall conform to the standards required by AISC 360 (c...

Summary: General Sheet Note 7 directs the contractor to secure the channel frame to existing concrete using a '5/8" DIAMETER DRILL AND EPOXY ANCHORS', but it fails to specify the required size (diameter) of the epoxy anchors themselves. The IBC strictly requires the construction documents to indicate the size of all anchors used in concrete.

Why it matters: Section 1901.5 of the IBC mandates that the size of anchors must be included in the construction documents. Omitting the anchor size leaves the structural connection incomplete. Furthermore, by specifying a 5/8" drill bit, the detail creates a severe constructability and safety issue if the inten...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended diameter of the epoxy anchors. If 5/8" diameter anchors are required, revise the note to specify the correct oversized drill bit diameter as required by the adhesive manufacturer's ICC-ES report to ensure proper bonding.

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended diameter of the epoxy anchors. If 5/8" diameter anchors are required, revise the note to specify the correct oversized drill bit diameter as required by the adhesive manufacturer's ICC-ES report to ensure proper bonding.

Summary: IBC Section 1603.1.8 requires construction documents to explicitly specify the locations of special loads, including machinery and equipment. The structural partial plan notes the presence of a hoist and skid, but General Sheet Note 2 directs the contractor to "COORDINATE HOIST SKID LOCATION... PRIOR TO FABRICATION." Deferring the determination of the equipment's location to the contractor fail...

Why it matters: Without the exact location of the hoist skid specified on the structural plans, the design documents do not definitively demonstrate that the support beams are sized to resist the equipment's specific point loads, which vary significantly based on their placement along the span. Allowing the cont...

Suggested next step: Please provide the exact required location(s) for the hoist skid on the structural plans so the equipment point loads are properly specified and accounted for in the support beam design, as required by IBC 1603.1.8.

RFI draft: Please provide the exact required location(s) for the hoist skid on the structural plans so the equipment point loads are properly specified and accounted for in the support beam design, as required by IBC 1603.1.8.

Summary: On sheet D-R30-1S-13 (page 19), Section K at gridline 2 calls out 'WT4X10.5 BRACING' (a structural tee), while Section M, also at gridline 2, calls out 'W4X10.5 BRACING (TYP)' (a wide flange designation). WT (structural tee) and W (wide flange) are fundamentally different steel shapes with different cross-sectional properties. W4X10.5 is not a standard AISC wide flange shape, suggesting the 'T'...

Why it matters: This inconsistency could lead to confusion during steel fabrication and erection. If the fabricator interprets Section M literally as a W4X10.5 wide flange, they will be unable to procure this non-standard shape. If they assume it should be WT4X10.5 to match Sections J and K, they are making an u...

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the bracing in Section M should be designated as 'WT4X10.5' (structural tee) to match the designation shown in Sections J and K on the same sheet, or if a different member size/type is intended for the Section M location.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the bracing in Section M should be designated as 'WT4X10.5' (structural tee) to match the designation shown in Sections J and K on the same sheet, or if a different member size/type is intended for the Section M location.

Summary: The Plan at EL 35.00 on sheet D-R30-1S-3 shows an octagonal standard detail callout labeled 'S-561 (TYP)' pointing to steel framing connections. However, the corresponding Section E and Section F views on sheet D-R30-1S-11, which cut through the same structure and show the same types of framing connections, reference a different standard detail number 'S-515 (TYP)'. Both callouts use the same o...

Why it matters: This inconsistency could lead to fabrication or construction errors, as the steel fabricator and contractor may reference different standard connection details depending on whether they consult the plan view or the section views. If S-561 and S-515 prescribe different connection configurations, b...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the correct standard detail reference for the typical steel framing connections is S-561 (as shown on the Plan at EL 35.00, sheet D-R30-1S-3) or S-515 (as shown on Sections E and F, sheet D-R30-1S-11). Please revise all affected drawings to show a single...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the correct standard detail reference for the typical steel framing connections is S-561 (as shown on the Plan at EL 35.00, sheet D-R30-1S-3) or S-515 (as shown on Sections E and F, sheet D-R30-1S-11). Please revise all affe...

Summary: On the PLAN AT EL 35.00 (sheet 1S-3), the callout for base plate 'BP7' references detail '2/1S-16' and shows an angled framing condition noted at '35.5°'. The callout for base plate 'BP8' references detail '3/1S-16' and shows an orthogonal (perpendicular) framing connection. However, on the MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS - II sheet (1S-16), Detail '3' explicitly shows an angled beam connection at '54.50...

Why it matters: Referencing the incorrect details for these connections will cause confusion during the shop drawing phase and structural steel fabrication. If fabricated according to the current plan callouts, the angled framing connection will be built orthogonal, and the orthogonal connection will be built an...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the detail callouts for 2/1S-16 and 3/1S-16 on the PLAN AT EL 35.00 (sheet 1S-3) are swapped. Should BP7 reference Detail 3/1S-16 (angled connection) and BP8 reference Detail 2/1S-16 (orthogonal connection)?

RFI draft: Please confirm if the detail callouts for 2/1S-16 and 3/1S-16 on the PLAN AT EL 35.00 (sheet 1S-3) are swapped. Should BP7 reference Detail 3/1S-16 (angled connection) and BP8 reference Detail 2/1S-16 (orthogonal connection)?

Summary: Drawing 1S-5 locates the "ROTATING FISH TRANSFER PIPE AND FRAME" on the angled wing with a "9"" offset from Grid "G". In contradiction, Section B on Drawing 1S-22 shows the support frame symmetrically centered on Grid "G" (with a "3'-0"" overall width, broken down symmetrically as "4 13/16" 2'-2 3/8" 4 13/16"", showing no offset). Additionally, Section A on 1S-22 explicitly places the frame's v...

Why it matters: If the mechanical frame is fabricated and installed based on the 1S-22 details (centered on Grid G and located at Grid 1), it will fail to align with the structural platform layout and supports dimensioned on the 1S-5 plan. This discrepancy will result in significant installation clashes requirin...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct spatial location and grid alignment for the Rotating Fish Transfer Pipe Frame. Should the frame be centered on Grid G (per 1S-22) or offset by 9" (per 1S-5)? Furthermore, please verify the reference to Grid 1 in Section A on 1S-22, as Grid 1 on the 1...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct spatial location and grid alignment for the Rotating Fish Transfer Pipe Frame. Should the frame be centered on Grid G (per 1S-22) or offset by 9" (per 1S-5)? Furthermore, please verify the reference to Grid 1 in Section ...

Summary: Drawing D-R30-1S-4 details comprehensive horizontal framing ('BEAM SCHEDULE @ TOS 46' 0"') for the 'PLAN AT EL 46.00'. However, Section H on D-R30-1S-12, which is cut from 1S-4 through the full height of the structure (from the 'EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB' at 'EL 25.00' up to 'WP EL 56.58'), does not show any horizontal floor framing at EL 46.00. It only shows a diagonal knee brace connection at 'W...

Why it matters: The absence of the EL 46.00 horizontal framing in the corresponding section view indicates either a missing structural level in the section drawing or an incorrectly labeled elevation on the plan drawing. This ambiguity prevents proper vertical layout coordination and structural continuity verifi...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct elevation for the platform framing shown on plan 1S-4. Update Section H and Section G to accurately reflect the horizontal framing at EL 46.00, or revise the plan elevation title if it is incorrectly labeled.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct elevation for the platform framing shown on plan 1S-4. Update Section H and Section G to accurately reflect the horizontal framing at EL 46.00, or revise the plan elevation title if it is incorrectly labeled.