Plan Review: 317 Issues Found

Summary: 516 index entries | 476 perfect matches | 27 mismatched | 13 missing Mismatched (27): A310: Expected: Wall Sections (A310) | Actual: Wall Sections (A311)(p120) S502: Expected: STEEL DETAILS (S502) | Actual: TYPICAL WF BOTTOM FLANGE BRACING (S502)(p81) IR400: Expected: IRRIGATION SCHEDULE (IR400) | Actual: Irrigation Notes & Schedule (IR400)(p33) IR400: Expected: I...

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: 13 missing, 27 mismatched out of 516 sheets

Summary: The Code Plan calculates the occupant load for business areas (such as offices and workrooms) using only the 150 gross SF/occupant factor. However, the Denver Building Code amends Table 1004.5 for Business areas, requiring the evaluation of both '150 gross' and '100 net' factors and the use of whichever results in the greatest occupant load. For example, Teacher Work Area 119 (231 SF) calculate...

Why it matters: Failing to evaluate the '100 net' factor as required by footnote 'c' yields an artificially low occupant load for the building. This can lead to undersized egress components, deficient plumbing fixture counts, and failure to comply with life safety standards during permit review.

Suggested next step: Please revise the occupant load calculations for all Business areas to evaluate both the 150 gross and 100 net occupant load factors, applying whichever yields the greatest occupant load per Denver Building Code Table 1004.5 footnote c. Update all affected room tags and aggreg...

RFI draft: Please revise the occupant load calculations for all Business areas to evaluate both the 150 gross and 100 net occupant load factors, applying whichever yields the greatest occupant load per Denver Building Code Table 1004.5 footnote c. Update all...

Summary: The structural design load criteria identify the building as a Risk Category III structure (High Occupancy) but specify a basic ultimate wind speed of 115.0 MPH. According to the Denver Building Code Amendment Table 1609.3, the minimum basic wind speed for a Risk Category III structure anywhere in Denver is 120 MPH, and can be up to 150 MPH depending on the specific site location relative to st...

Why it matters: Designing the lateral force-resisting system and components and cladding for a wind speed lower than the required code minimum will result in a deficient structural system. This poses a severe life-safety risk during high wind events and will cause the design to be rejected during permit review.

Suggested next step: Please revise the basic ultimate wind speed to at least 120 MPH (or the appropriate higher value from Denver Table 1609.3 based on the exact site location) for this Risk Category III building, and update all affected wind pressures and lateral design calculations accordingly.

RFI draft: Please revise the basic ultimate wind speed to at least 120 MPH (or the appropriate higher value from Denver Table 1609.3 based on the exact site location) for this Risk Category III building, and update all affected wind pressures and lateral des...

Summary: The drawing defines the boundary between "TYPE II-B BUILDING 01" and "TYPE IIIB BUILDING 02" as an "IMAGINARY LOT LINE" and designates the separating wall as a "3 HR FIRE WALL". According to IBC Section 706.1.1, a wall located on a lot line between adjacent buildings acts as a party wall and must be constructed "without openings". However, the drawing details a significant opening (labeled "11'...

Why it matters: When an imaginary lot line is established to regulate connected structures as separate buildings on the same lot, the shared wall must comply with party wall regulations, strictly prohibiting openings. Retaining this massive opening nullifies the legal fire separation between the two buildings, f...

Suggested next step: Clarify the building separation strategy between Building 01 and Building 02. If treating them as separate buildings via an imaginary lot line, remove all openings in the party wall to comply with Section 706.1.1. Alternatively, if utilizing a standard fire wall to create sepa...

RFI draft: Clarify the building separation strategy between Building 01 and Building 02. If treating them as separate buildings via an imaginary lot line, remove all openings in the party wall to comply with Section 706.1.1. Alternatively, if utilizing a sta...

Summary: The grading plan calls out a retaining wall with a Top of Wall (TW) elevation of 358.50 and an adjacent Finish Grade (FG) of 359.00. This indicates the retained soil is 6 inches higher than the top of the wall designed to hold it. Additionally, the Bottom of Wall (BW) is labeled as 556.00, which physically places the base of the wall 197.5 feet above its top.

Why it matters: These erroneous elevations present a physical impossibility and fail to provide a wall design capable of supporting the unbalanced backfill height, directly violating the design requirements of IBC Sections 1807.1.1 and 1807.1.2. Construction cannot proceed on this wall without corrected elevatio...

Suggested next step: Please review and revise the retaining wall elevations. Confirm if the Bottom of Wall (BW) should be 356.00 instead of 556.00, and coordinate the Top of Wall (TW) and Finish Grade (FG) elevations to ensure the wall is sufficiently tall to retain the adjacent soil.

RFI draft: Please review and revise the retaining wall elevations. Confirm if the Bottom of Wall (BW) should be 356.00 instead of 556.00, and coordinate the Top of Wall (TW) and Finish Grade (FG) elevations to ensure the wall is sufficiently tall to retain t...

Summary: The structural general notes under '04-MASONRY' specify that the masonry construction shall develop a minimum compressive strength of f'm = 2,000 PSI. However, the lap splice and development length schedules provided directly within this masonry detailing section are explicitly based on concrete compressive strengths (f'c = 4000 PSI and f'c = 4500 PSI) and utilize concrete terminology. Applying...

Why it matters: This violates IBC Section 1604.2, which requires structural elements to be designed safely without exceeding the strength limit states for the specific materials of construction used, and IBC Section 1808.9, which mandates that masonry foundation elements be designed in accordance with TMS 402 us...

Suggested next step: Please issue a revised reinforcing splice and development length schedule for masonry construction that is correctly calculated based on the specified masonry compressive strength of f'm = 2,000 PSI in accordance with TMS 402, rather than concrete strength properties.

RFI draft: Please issue a revised reinforcing splice and development length schedule for masonry construction that is correctly calculated based on the specified masonry compressive strength of f'm = 2,000 PSI in accordance with TMS 402, rather than concrete...

Summary: The 'LIVE LOAD (LL)' schedule specifies a concentrated live load of 2,000 lbs for the 'VEHICLE BAY' (Load Diagram Mark I). However, IBC Section 1607.7 requires that floors used for the storage of motor vehicles be designed for a minimum concentrated load of 3,000 lbs (acting on a 4.5 inch by 4.5 inch area) even for standard passenger vehicles. The 2,000 lb design load is below this mandatory co...

Why it matters: The drawing plan indicates the vehicle bay (Zone I0) utilizes Dead Load Mark 0, which is a framed floor consisting of 4" normal weight concrete on a 3" metal deck. Under-designing the concentrated wheel load on a framed slab creates a severe risk of localized punching shear failure when vehicles ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the concentrated live load for the 'VEHICLE BAY' (Mark I) to meet the minimum 3,000 lbs requirement per IBC 1607.7, or higher if intended for heavy vehicles per 1607.8. Update the Live Load schedule and verify the structural adequacy of the floor framing and meta...

RFI draft: Please revise the concentrated live load for the 'VEHICLE BAY' (Mark I) to meet the minimum 3,000 lbs requirement per IBC 1607.7, or higher if intended for heavy vehicles per 1607.8. Update the Live Load schedule and verify the structural adequacy...

Summary: The Live Load (LL) schedule indicates a concentrated load of 2,000 lbs for the "VEHICLE BAY" (Mark I). However, Section 1607.7 of the building code requires floors used for the storage of motor vehicles (even those restricted to passenger vehicles) to be designed for a minimum concentrated load of 3,000 lbs. If the bay is intended for heavy vehicles, Section 1607.8 dictates even higher loading ...

Why it matters: Under-designing a vehicle slab for concentrated (wheel) loads can lead to localized shear failure or punching shear under vehicle wheel loads. This poses a severe safety risk and would require costly structural remediation if constructed.

Suggested next step: Please revise the concentrated live load for the Vehicle Bay (Mark I) to meet the minimum requirements of IBC Section 1607.7 (3,000 lbs for passenger vehicles) or Section 1607.8 for heavy vehicles, and verify that the structural slab and supporting framing are adequately sized...

RFI draft: Please revise the concentrated live load for the Vehicle Bay (Mark I) to meet the minimum requirements of IBC Section 1607.7 (3,000 lbs for passenger vehicles) or Section 1607.8 for heavy vehicles, and verify that the structural slab and supportin...

Summary: The 'LIVE LOAD (LL)' schedule specifies a concentrated load of 2,000 lbs for the 'VEHICLE BAY'. This violates IBC Section 1607.7, which mandates that floors in portions of a building used for storing motor vehicles must be designed for a minimum concentrated load of 3,000 lbs acting on a 4.5" x 4.5" area for passenger vehicles. If the bay is intended for heavy vehicles, an even greater load is ...

Why it matters: Designing a vehicle bay slab with a concentrated load capacity of only 2,000 lbs leaves the structure highly vulnerable to localized slab failure or punching shear when subjected to standard vehicle wheel loads, which easily exceed 2,000 lbs.

Suggested next step: Please revise the concentrated live load for the Vehicle Bay to be at least 3,000 lbs to comply with IBC Section 1607.7, or higher if governed by heavy vehicle loads as described in IBC Section 1607.8.

RFI draft: Please revise the concentrated live load for the Vehicle Bay to be at least 3,000 lbs to comply with IBC Section 1607.7, or higher if governed by heavy vehicle loads as described in IBC Section 1607.8.

Summary: Detail 24 (Section C) illustrates a new framing angle ('STEEL ANGLE PER PLAN DETAIL') supporting a roof opening that is connected directly to the existing vertical/diagonal web member of an open-web steel joist ('(E) STEEL JOIST, FV'). The graphical detail explicitly shows a 1 1/4" overlap connection welded to the joist web. Joist web members are slender elements designed exclusively to resist ...

Why it matters: Welding a load-bearing framing angle directly to a slender web diagonal without providing structural reinforcement violates IBC Section 1604.2, which requires structures to be designed to safely support factored loads without exceeding the strength limit states for the materials. The unsupported ...

Suggested next step: Please provide a revised detail for Section C. The connection must be redesigned to either frame the new opening support angle directly into an existing joist upper or lower panel point (node), or provide structural reinforcement (e.g., a vertical web kicker or bracing, simila...

RFI draft: Please provide a revised detail for Section C. The connection must be redesigned to either frame the new opening support angle directly into an existing joist upper or lower panel point (node), or provide structural reinforcement (e.g., a vertical...

Summary: The drawing specifies that the 1x2 steel tube frame supporting the perforated metal panel screen (MWP-B) is to be 'ATTACHED TO BRICK'. The exterior material legend identifies this brick as 'BRK-A TYPICAL BRICK VENEER'. According to IBC Sections 1403.4 and 2101.2.1, masonry veneer is a non-structural facing that requires its own structural backing (concrete, masonry, steel, or wood framing). Att...

Why it matters: Brick veneer is not designed to support structural loads beyond its own vertical dead weight. Transferring the wind and dead loads of a 72-foot long steel-framed metal screen wall onto the brick veneer will likely overload the veneer ties and the brick itself. This presents a critical structural ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the attachment details for the MWP-B perforated metal panel screen on the South 1 elevation. Confirm that the 1x2 steel tube frame will be anchored directly to the building's main structural framing/backing (e.g., steel studs or CMU) behind the brick veneer, rath...

RFI draft: Please revise the attachment details for the MWP-B perforated metal panel screen on the South 1 elevation. Confirm that the 1x2 steel tube frame will be anchored directly to the building's main structural framing/backing (e.g., steel studs or CMU)...

Summary: Section 1023.2 requires interior exit stairways to be enclosed by fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707. Section 707.5 requires fire barriers to be continuous and extend from the floor assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof deck above. The building sections (Stair A - Section 4 and Stair B - Section 3) show that both stairways are open to Corridor 200 at Level 2...

Why it matters: Leaving an interior exit stairway open to a corridor at an upper level severely compromises life safety. Smoke, hot gases, and fire can easily spread between the corridor and the stairwell, trapping occupants during evacuation. This is a severe violation of fire and life safety requirements that ...

Suggested next step: Revise the design of Stair A and Stair B to fully enclose the stairwells at Level 2. Extend the separation walls between the stairways and Corridor 200 up to the underside of the roof deck or floor assembly above, maintaining the required 1-hour or 2-hour fire-resistance ratin...

RFI draft: Revise the design of Stair A and Stair B to fully enclose the stairwells at Level 2. Extend the separation walls between the stairways and Corridor 200 up to the underside of the roof deck or floor assembly above, maintaining the required 1-hour o...

Summary: Detail 1 on sheet A520 shows a "STRUCTURAL LINTEL" supporting the brick veneer above the aluminum storefront. The storefront framing is detailed directly under the structural lintel without a compressible deflection joint. Because structural lintels will naturally deflect under the superimposed dead and live loads of the masonry above, omitting a deflection gap transfers these structural loads ...

Why it matters: Storefront frames are not designed to carry superimposed structural loads. Forcing the storefront head to bear the deflected load of the masonry lintel violates IBC Section 1402.3, which requires openings to safely resist superimposed loads. This incorrect detail will likely lead to buckling of t...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended design for the storefront head deflection gap. Revise the detail to provide a properly sized compressible joint (e.g., backer rod and sealant) between the structural lintel and the storefront head to accommodate the calculated maximum deflection of the str...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended design for the storefront head deflection gap. Revise the detail to provide a properly sized compressible joint (e.g., backer rod and sealant) between the structural lintel and the storefront head to accommodate the calculated...

Summary: The electrical schematic for the primary control panel states '1ST HOOD LIGHT BREAKER SHARED W/ CONTROL POWER.' IBC Section 904.3.1 requires electrical wiring for automatic fire-extinguishing systems to comply with NFPA 70. NFPA 70 mandates that power for fire protection and alarm control equipment must be supplied by a dedicated branch circuit and cannot share a breaker with general lighting o...

Why it matters: Sharing the fire extinguishing system control panel power with the hood lighting creates a severe life safety risk. A fault or short circuit in the lighting circuit would trip the shared breaker, de-energizing the fire system control panel and completely disabling both the automatic and manual fi...

Suggested next step: Please revise the electrical wiring schematic to provide a dedicated 120V, 15A branch circuit for the primary control panel, completely isolated from the hood lighting and any other appliance loads.

RFI draft: Please revise the electrical wiring schematic to provide a dedicated 120V, 15A branch circuit for the primary control panel, completely isolated from the hood lighting and any other appliance loads.

Summary: The plumbing roof drainage plan shows primary roof drains (RD-1) and secondary overflow drains (OD-1) connected together by the same shared piping. IBC Section 1502.2 requires a secondary (emergency overflow) drainage system to prevent water entrapment on the roof if the primary drain allows buildup for any reason. Connecting both systems to a single pipe line defeats this requirement, as a blo...

Why it matters: If the primary and secondary roof drains are not piped completely independently, a single pipe blockage could cause severe water ponding on the roof. This can lead to roof loads exceeding the structural design rain load, potentially resulting in catastrophic structural failure or severe water inf...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the primary (RD-1) and secondary (OD-1) roof drains are intended to share piping. If so, please revise the design to provide completely independent piping systems for the primary and secondary roof drainage systems, discharging to separate approved locations ...

RFI draft: Please confirm if the primary (RD-1) and secondary (OD-1) roof drains are intended to share piping. If so, please revise the design to provide completely independent piping systems for the primary and secondary roof drainage systems, discharging t...