Plan Review: 181 Issues Found

Summary: 101 index entries | 15 perfect matches | 3 mismatched | 83 missing Mismatched (3): D112: Expected: DEMO PLANS (D112) | Actual: DEMO PLANS (D111)(p6) A302: Expected: BUILDING SECTIONS (A302) | Actual: BUILDING SECTIONS (A301)(p14) A802: Expected: DETAILS (A802) | Actual: DETAILS (A803)(p23) Missing (83) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Gener...

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: 83 missing, 3 mismatched out of 101 sheets

Summary: Detail 3 ("TYP EXT FDN WALL DETAIL @ 8\" CMU") shows a continuous one-way foundation wall footing with dimensioned projecting wings ("EQ"). The reinforcement callout specifies only longitudinal bars ("(2) #5 CONT TOP & BOT"), but omits any transverse reinforcement across the width of the footing. ACI 318-14 Section 13.3.2.2 explicitly requires that reinforcement be distributed uniformly across ...

Why it matters: Omitting the primary transverse flexural reinforcement in a reinforced one-way footing leaves the cantilevered footing projections without the structural capacity to resist upward soil bearing pressures. This will likely lead to longitudinal shear failure or flexural cracking of the footing wings...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 3 to specify the required size and spacing of transverse reinforcement across the width of the footing, consistent with the detailing provided in Details 1 and 2.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 3 to specify the required size and spacing of transverse reinforcement across the width of the footing, consistent with the detailing provided in Details 1 and 2.

Summary: The drawing lists the following snow load parameters: Pg = 74 PSF, Ce = 1.0, Ct = 1.1, Is = 1.00. Per ASCE 7-16 Equation 7.3-1, the flat roof snow load is pf = 0.7 × Ce × Ct × Is × pg = 0.7 × 1.0 × 1.1 × 1.0 × 74 = 56.98 PSF (approximately 57 PSF). However, the drawing states Pf = 52 PSF and the design flat roof snow load Pfd = 52 PSF. The value of 52 PSF corresponds to a calculation using Ct =...

Why it matters: The flat roof snow load is the baseline for all roof snow load conditions including balanced, unbalanced, drift, and sliding loads. An underestimation of approximately 5 PSF propagates through all snow load cases and could result in undersized roof joists, beams, connections, and columns. For a n...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the flat roof snow load calculation. Using the stated parameters (Pg = 74 PSF, Ce = 1.0, Ct = 1.1, Is = 1.00) and ASCE 7-16 Eq. 7.3-1, pf = 0.7 × 1.0 × 1.1 × 1.0 × 74 = 57 PSF, not 52 PSF. Please confirm whether (a) the Ct value of 1.1 i...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the flat roof snow load calculation. Using the stated parameters (Pg = 74 PSF, Ce = 1.0, Ct = 1.1, Is = 1.00) and ASCE 7-16 Eq. 7.3-1, pf = 0.7 × 1.0 × 1.1 × 1.0 × 74 = 57 PSF, not 52 PSF. Please confirm whe...

Summary: Detail 2 ('DECK PERPENDICULAR TO CMU WALL 2') shows the metal deck welded directly to the continuous ledger angle ('L5X5X3/8 CONT') on the CMU wall. The detail does not indicate any dedicated continuous ties or struts (such as embedded straps or steel framing) extending into the diaphragm to anchor the wall. This assembly relies entirely on the metal deck to act as the continuous tie in the dir...

Why it matters: Relying on the metal deck to act as a tension tie perpendicular to its flutes concentrates out-of-plane masonry wall anchorage forces at the deck edge connections. This can lead to localized tearing of the deck sheet or premature connection failure during a seismic event, compromising the wall an...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 2 to incorporate dedicated continuous ties or struts (e.g., structural steel angles, channels, or embedded straps) that extend into the diaphragm a sufficient distance to transfer out-of-plane wall anchorage forces, independent of the metal deck, in compli...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 2 to incorporate dedicated continuous ties or struts (e.g., structural steel angles, channels, or embedded straps) that extend into the diaphragm a sufficient distance to transfer out-of-plane wall anchorage forces, independen...

Summary: The CMU Reinforcing Plan explicitly instructs to 'DISCONTINUE ALL BARS THROUGH CONTROL JOINT' at multiple locations along exterior structural walls (e.g., Wall Types A, B, and C). By discontinuing all horizontal reinforcement, these vertical joints effectively act as separation joints. However, ASCE 7 Section 12.12.3 states that structural portions must act as an integral unit 'unless separated...

Why it matters: Severing all horizontal reinforcement (including critical bond beams) completely eliminates the exterior wall's ability to act as a continuous diaphragm chord or shear collector. In a seismic event, the inability to transfer in-plane forces across these control joints will result in disconnected ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the control joints in the exterior structural walls (Types A, B, and C) are intended to function as full seismic separation joints. If they are not designed for structural separation, revise the drawings to specify that continuous horizontal reinforcement (su...

RFI draft: Please confirm if the control joints in the exterior structural walls (Types A, B, and C) are intended to function as full seismic separation joints. If they are not designed for structural separation, revise the drawings to specify that continuou...

Summary: Detail 5 "WOOD CANOPY AT EXTERIOR WALL" specifies connecting the wood canopy joists to the CMU wall using a "SIMPSON LUS26 HANGER" attached to a "1-3/4" X 5-1/2" FIRE TREATED LVL LEDGER". The ledger is face-mounted to the masonry wall using post-installed anchors. Relying on this assembly to transfer out-of-plane seismic forces from the heavy CMU wall into the wood diaphragm puts the hanger nai...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 12.11.2.2.3 expressly prohibits the use of wood ledgers in cross-grain bending or cross-grain tension for the anchorage of concrete or masonry structural walls to wood diaphragms. Furthermore, it prohibits anchorage relying on toenails or nails subject to withdrawal. Under seism...

Suggested next step: Revise Detail 5 to include direct, positive tension ties (e.g., Simpson DTT or HTT series hold-downs) connecting the wood joists directly to the CMU wall to resist out-of-plane forces, bypassing the ledger and hanger fasteners in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section 12.11.2.2.3.

RFI draft: Revise Detail 5 to include direct, positive tension ties (e.g., Simpson DTT or HTT series hold-downs) connecting the wood joists directly to the CMU wall to resist out-of-plane forces, bypassing the ledger and hanger fasteners in accordance with A...

Summary: There is a severe discrepancy between the architectural E/W sections, the architectural N/S section, and the structural framing design. By correlating the lower roof elevations (Architectural 'LIFEGUARD ROOF -1' - 0"' matches Structural 'T.O.S. = B.O.DECK 113'-0"', establishing that Architectural 0'-0" equals Structural 114'-0"), the High Roof elevations fundamentally conflict. Architectural E...

Why it matters: Because the structural '68DLH' joists follow the much lower sloped profile (dropping to an architectural equivalent bearing of ~7'-8"), the 68-inch deep framing will completely obstruct the '16'-5" DIVING BOARD CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS' shown on the architectural sections. Additionally, the high ro...

Suggested next step: URGENT: Coordinate the High Roof elevations across all architectural sections and structural plans. Architectural E/W sections show the bottom of joist at 17'-10" and 22'-4", while structural plans and the N/S architectural section show sloped joists dropping to a bearing elev...

RFI draft: URGENT: Coordinate the High Roof elevations across all architectural sections and structural plans. Architectural E/W sections show the bottom of joist at 17'-10" and 22'-4", while structural plans and the N/S architectural section show sloped joi...

Summary: The partial foundation plan on S101.1 labels the surge tank wall with an elevation of TOW = 105'-0". However, the corresponding surge tank section details on S505 (Detail 2 – SURGE TANK SECTION and Detail 3 – SURGE TANK SECTION AT WALL) both indicate T.O. WALL = 99'-0". This is a 6'-0" discrepancy in the top-of-wall elevation for the same surge tank structure. With T.O.PIT = 95'-0" shown on the...

Why it matters: A 6-foot difference in wall height directly impacts concrete quantity, reinforcing steel lengths and lap splices, formwork, hydrostatic design pressure on the tank walls, and footing sizing. The contractor cannot proceed with forming and placing the surge tank walls without knowing the correct el...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to confirm the correct top-of-wall elevation for the surge tank. Clarify whether the plan callout of TOW = 105'-0" or the section detail elevation of T.O. WALL = 99'-0" is correct, and issue revised drawings as needed for the affected ...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to confirm the correct top-of-wall elevation for the surge tank. Clarify whether the plan callout of TOW = 105'-0" or the section detail elevation of T.O. WALL = 99'-0" is correct, and issue revised drawin...

Summary: Wall Section 1 (West Wall and Canopy at Natatorium) encloses the "POOL DECK S101" interior space using "2X6 FRAMING." Section Note 3 specifies only a "WEATHER BARRIER BETWEEN EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL AND SHEATHING" (i.e., a water-resistive barrier on the exterior side), Note 4 references insulation per the IECC, and Note 8 limits closed-cell spray foam to "WINDOW AND DOOR PERIMETERS AND IRREGUL...

Why it matters: In a natatorium environment, the absence of an interior-side vapor barrier is a well-documented failure mode. Moisture migrates from the high-humidity pool area through the wall assembly and condenses on cooler surfaces within the 2x6 framed cavity, leading to mold growth, wood rot of the structu...

Suggested next step: Request that the Architect clarify the condensation protection strategy for all natatorium exterior wall assemblies per IBC 1402.2. Specifically: (1) confirm whether a Class I vapor retarder (e.g., continuous polyethylene membrane or equivalent) is to be installed on the inter...

RFI draft: Request that the Architect clarify the condensation protection strategy for all natatorium exterior wall assemblies per IBC 1402.2. Specifically: (1) confirm whether a Class I vapor retarder (e.g., continuous polyethylene membrane or equivalent) i...

Summary: Door 103 is explicitly listed in the door schedule as 'FIRE RATED, 1-HR' and is assigned Hardware SET 2. SET 2 includes '1 TRANSFER GRILLE.' A transfer grille creates an unprotected opening through the fire door assembly, which compromises its tested and listed fire-protection rating. IBC Section 716.1 requires that fire door assemblies 'shall comply with the provisions of this section and shal...

Why it matters: This conflict would be caught during plan review or field inspection, resulting in a code violation and potential construction delay. The chemical storage room served by door 103 likely requires ventilation (hence the transfer grille), but this ventilation cannot be provided through the fire-rate...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on how ventilation for the chemical storage room (Door 103) will be achieved while maintaining the required 1-hour fire rating. Recommend either: (1) relocating the transfer grille to the adjacent fire-rated wall assembly with a fire/smoke damper, or (2) ...

RFI draft: Request clarification on how ventilation for the chemical storage room (Door 103) will be achieved while maintaining the required 1-hour fire rating. Recommend either: (1) relocating the transfer grille to the adjacent fire-rated wall assembly wit...

Summary: The EV Door Schedule designates Door 103 as using Door Type F and Hardware SET 2. Hardware SET 2 requires a 'PANIC BAR EXIT DEVICE', confirming the door serves as a means of egress. However, the elevation detail for Door Type F specifies a prefinished FRP finish that must 'MATCH ADJACENT EXT WALL COLOR'. This directly violates the building code requirement that means of egress doors must be rea...

Why it matters: Camouflaging an egress door creates a severe life safety hazard by preventing occupants from quickly identifying the exit during an emergency evacuation. This design will result in a failed inspection and require the door finish to be repainted or replaced in the field to ensure it is easily reco...

Suggested next step: Please revise the finish specification for Door Type F (or Door 103 specifically) to ensure it contrasts clearly with the adjacent exterior wall construction, as required for means of egress doors.

RFI draft: Please revise the finish specification for Door Type F (or Door 103 specifically) to ensure it contrasts clearly with the adjacent exterior wall construction, as required for means of egress doors.

Summary: The "CMU LAP SPLICE" schedule specifies lap splice lengths of 12 inches for #3 and #4 bars, and 18 inches for #5 bars in singly reinforced 8" walls. However, IBC Section 2107.2.1 mandates that the minimum length of a lapped splice shall not be less than 40 bar diameters. For a #3 bar (0.375" diameter), 40 diameters is 15 inches. For a #4 bar (0.5" diameter), 40 diameters is 20 inches. For a #5 ...

Why it matters: Reinforcement splices shorter than 40 bar diameters may fail to fully develop the required tensile or compressive strength. This risks premature bond failure and compromises the structural integrity of the masonry wall system under load, which will lead to rejection during structural plan review ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the "CMU LAP SPLICE" schedule to ensure all lap splice lengths provide a minimum of 40 bar diameters to comply with IBC Section 2107.2.1 (e.g., minimum 15" for #3 bars, 20" for #4 bars, and 25" for #5 bars).

RFI draft: Please revise the "CMU LAP SPLICE" schedule to ensure all lap splice lengths provide a minimum of 40 bar diameters to comply with IBC Section 2107.2.1 (e.g., minimum 15" for #3 bars, 20" for #4 bars, and 25" for #5 bars).

Summary: The building sections show "INTERIOR HVAC EQUIPMENT" suspended high within the open structural volume directly over the pool basin (indicated by the "VOLLEYBALL NET" and diving board clearances). IMC Section 306.1 requires that HVAC system components utilizing energy be accessible for service, specifically mandating a level working space not less than 30 inches deep by 30 inches wide in front o...

Why it matters: Failure to provide a level working space violates the mechanical code and creates a severe operational flaw. Routine maintenance, inspections, and repairs cannot be performed without erecting expensive scaffolding over the water or draining the pool, leading to significant downtime and excessive ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify how the suspended interior HVAC equipment will be accessed for service. Suggest relocating the equipment to be suspended over the solid pool deck where a temporary lift can be utilized, or provide a permanent structural catwalk with the required 30x30 inch level...

RFI draft: Please clarify how the suspended interior HVAC equipment will be accessed for service. Suggest relocating the equipment to be suspended over the solid pool deck where a temporary lift can be utilized, or provide a permanent structural catwalk with...

Summary: The Code Summary table for Level 2 calculates the total required water closets as 4.18 for males and 7.28 for females. Rounding up to whole fixtures requires a minimum of 5 male and 8 female water closets. However, the total provided is listed as '2 WC + 1 Urinal + 1 SINGLE-USER' for males (4 equivalent fixtures) and '3 WC + 1 SINGLE-USER' for females (4 fixtures). This results in a deficit of ...

Why it matters: The female water closet deficit of 4 fixtures (providing only 4 of the 8 required) is particularly severe, representing only 50% of the code-required count. This level accommodates approximately 530 assembly occupants across multi-purpose rooms, game room, flex rooms, and lounge areas. Such a sig...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the Code Summary on sheet G011 is intended to document only the existing building's current fixture count or the total fixture count after project completion. If the water closet deficiency for Level 2 is to be addressed by the proposed natatorium addition or o...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the Code Summary on sheet G011 is intended to document only the existing building's current fixture count or the total fixture count after project completion. If the water closet deficiency for Level 2 is to be addressed by the pro...

Summary: Detail 5 on S701 (STEEL BAR JOIST AT ROOF OPENING LARGE) contains the note 'AT JOIST PROVIDE WEB REINFORCING PER 1/S705 AT ALL RTUS', directing the contractor to Detail 1 on sheet S705 for joist web reinforcing requirements at rooftop units. However, Detail 1 on S705 is titled 'BEAM POCKET DETAIL' and shows a steel beam-to-CMU wall bearing connection with bearing plates, anchor rods, bond beams...

Why it matters: This cross-reference mismatch means there is no valid detail for joist web reinforcing at RTU locations. Without proper web reinforcing details, the joist fabricator and steel erector have no guidance on reinforcing requirements at roof openings for mechanical units. This could lead to inadequate...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct detail reference for joist web reinforcing at RTU locations. Detail 5 on S701 references 1/S705 for web reinforcing, but Detail 1 on S705 is a 'BEAM POCKET DETAIL' unrelated to joist web reinforcing. Was the web reinforcing detail omitted from the se...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct detail reference for joist web reinforcing at RTU locations. Detail 5 on S701 references 1/S705 for web reinforcing, but Detail 1 on S705 is a 'BEAM POCKET DETAIL' unrelated to joist web reinforcing. Was the web reinforc...