Plan Review: 27 Issues Found

Summary: Detail S46 explicitly instructs to "FINGER TIGHTEN & TACK WELD NUT TO BOLT" at the slide bearing assembly, while specifying the use of "A325 BOLTS". High-strength structural bolts (like ASTM A325) are quenched and tempered. Applying welding heat destroys their tempering, significantly reducing their strength and inducing embrittlement. This violates the structural steel design, fabrication, and...

Why it matters: Tack welding an A325 bolt compromises its metallurgical properties, leading to a high risk of brittle failure under stress. Because this is an expansion joint slip connection meant to accommodate movement, a failed bolt could lead to the joist girder walking off its seat or binding, causing serio...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail S46 to remove the instruction to tack weld the nut to the A325 bolt. We suggest using a lock nut, a double nut (jam nut) configuration, or burring the threads to secure the nut without applying heat to the high-strength bolt.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail S46 to remove the instruction to tack weld the nut to the A325 bolt. We suggest using a lock nut, a double nut (jam nut) configuration, or burring the threads to secure the nut without applying heat to the high-strength bolt.

Summary: Drawing S301 calls out Detail S53/S311 with the note "(TYP. ALONG EXPANSION JOINT)". However, Detail S53 on S311 is a "JOIST TO JOIST TOP CHORD CONNECTION" that specifies rigidly splicing the joist top chords together with a field-welded steel angle (L2X2X1/4X1'-4" with 3/16" welds). Rigidly tying members across an expansion joint directly contradicts the joint's purpose of allowing movement.

Why it matters: If installed as detailed, the rigidly welded top chords will physically lock the structural members together, preventing the expansion joint from slipping. This will lead to severe structural distress and potential failure of the connection during thermal expansion/contraction or seismic movement.

Suggested next step: Clarify if Detail S46, S47, or S48 should be used along the expansion joint instead of S53, and confirm where the rigid joist splice detail (S53) is actually intended to be applied on the framing plan.

RFI draft: Clarify if Detail S46, S47, or S48 should be used along the expansion joint instead of S53, and confirm where the rigid joist splice detail (S53) is actually intended to be applied on the framing plan.

Summary: Roof Framing Plan S301 indicates an expansion joint ('CL EXP. JT.') with 'SLIP' and 'FIXED' conditions to accommodate building movement. However, S301 references Detail S53/S311 for the typical joist connections along this expansion joint. Detail S53 illustrates a 'JOIST TO JOIST TOP CHORD CONNECTION' where the top chords of the meeting joists are rigidly tied together using a continuous steel ...

Why it matters: If joists are rigidly welded across an expansion joint, thermal expansion and contraction will be severely restricted. This will induce unintended structural stresses that can lead to buckling of the joists, failure of the welded connections, or tearing of the roof deck and membrane. A movement-a...

Suggested next step: Roof Framing Plan S301 designates 'SLIP' and 'FIXED' conditions at the expansion joint but references Detail S53/S311 for the joists. Detail S53 shows a rigid welded connection that prevents movement. Please clarify if a different detail (incorporating slotted holes or a slide...

RFI draft: Roof Framing Plan S301 designates 'SLIP' and 'FIXED' conditions at the expansion joint but references Detail S53/S311 for the joists. Detail S53 shows a rigid welded connection that prevents movement. Please clarify if a different detail (incorpor...

Summary: The General Structural Data design specifications require a minimum clear height of 36'-0" from the finish floor to the roof framing. The reference finish floor elevation is defined as 100'-0". On the Roof Framing Plan for Area B, the Joist Bearing Elevation (JBE) along Grid D is shown as 138'-3 1/2" and supports 66-inch deep girders (standard SJI designation 66G9N12.7K indicates a 66-inch dept...

Why it matters: Providing a clear height that is significantly lower than specified directly impacts the usability of the space (e.g., warehouse racking capacity or equipment clearance). Fixing this will require a major structural redesign, such as raising the overall roof elevation, increasing the roof slope fr...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required minimum clear height for Area B. The current design results in a clear height of 32'-9 1/2" at the girders along Grid D, which violates the 36'-0" minimum clear height specified in the design data. Please revise the framing elevations or member size...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required minimum clear height for Area B. The current design results in a clear height of 32'-9 1/2" at the girders along Grid D, which violates the 36'-0" minimum clear height specified in the design data. Please revise the fra...

Summary: Detail F34 'FOOTING STEP SECTION' shows a footing transitioning between two elevations (a 4'-0" vertical step) using a 1:1 slope (1 unit vertical per 1 unit horizontal, or 100% slope). IBC Section 1809.3 explicitly limits the bottom surface of footings to a slope not exceeding 1 unit vertical in 10 units horizontal (10-percent slope). The 1:1 slope shown is ten times the maximum permissible slo...

Why it matters: A footing bottom surface sloped at 1:1 can result in lateral thrust on the footing under vertical loading, potentially causing sliding or instability that the footing may not be designed to resist. During plan review, this detail would likely be flagged as non-compliant, requiring a redesign with...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise Detail F34 to comply with IBC Section 1809.3 by providing a properly stepped footing transition with level top and bottom surfaces at each step, where the bottom surface slope does not exceed 1 vertical in 10 horizontal (10% slope). The r...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise Detail F34 to comply with IBC Section 1809.3 by providing a properly stepped footing transition with level top and bottom surfaces at each step, where the bottom surface slope does not exceed 1 vertical in 10...

Summary: The 'LH JOIST ADD'L WEB MEMBER DETAIL' instructs the contractor to field-weld 'EXTRA L2X2X1/8 WEB MEMBER EA. SIDE OF JOIST' at locations with a 'CONCENTRATED LOAD' and 'HANGING LOAD'. This directly conflicts with IBC Section 2207.3, which mandates that the steel joist manufacturer shall design the joists to support the special load requirements listed in Section 2207.2, explicitly including 'Co...

Why it matters: Bypassing the joist manufacturer's engineered design for concentrated loads by relying on a typical field-welded reinforcement detail compromises the structural integrity of the engineered joist system and can void the manufacturer's warranty. The IBC requires that these loads be provided to the ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that all concentrated and hanging loads will be explicitly indicated on the structural plans so the steel joist manufacturer can properly design the joists to support these loads in accordance with IBC 2207.3, and consider removing the typical field-modification...

RFI draft: Please confirm that all concentrated and hanging loads will be explicitly indicated on the structural plans so the steel joist manufacturer can properly design the joists to support these loads in accordance with IBC 2207.3, and consider removing ...

Summary: The Roof Framing Plan (S300) shows special joists 28LHSP01, 28LHSP02, and 28LHSP03 spanning between horizontal grid lines A and B (a 45'-0" dimension). The Key Plan indicates that lettered grids (A, E) run horizontally and numbered grids (1, 7, 13) run vertically. However, the Loading Diagrams for these joists on S310 indicate their supports are grid bubbles 1 and 2, which contradicts their dra...

Why it matters: This contradiction creates severe ambiguity regarding the correct span length, support conditions, and orientation of the special joists. Sizing and fabricating the joists for a span between vertical grids 1 and 2 (which define a 56'-0" bay) instead of between horizontal grids A and B (a 45'-0" s...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct supporting grid lines and span lengths for special joists 28LHSP01, 28LHSP02, and 28LHSP03. Update the loading diagrams on sheet S310 to correctly reference the supporting grid lines (e.g., A and B) and confirm the correct design span.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct supporting grid lines and span lengths for special joists 28LHSP01, 28LHSP02, and 28LHSP03. Update the loading diagrams on sheet S310 to correctly reference the supporting grid lines (e.g., A and B) and confirm the corre...

Summary: The roof framing plan (S300) explicitly specifies '1 1/2" WIDE RIB DECKING' (typically a standard Type B deck with 6 ribs per 36" sheet). However, the metal deck connection and fastener details on sheet S310 dictate a '36/9 FASTENER PATTERN' and visually depict a deck profile with 9 bottom flats (valleys) per 36" sheet cover width.

Why it matters: A 36/9 fastener pattern requires 9 fasteners per sheet (one in each corrugation valley). This is geometrically incompatible with a standard 1.5" Wide Rib (Type B) deck, which only has 6 pans per 36" width. Attempting to apply a 9-fastener pattern to a 6-rib deck will cause field confusion, improp...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required roof deck profile and fastener pattern. If a standard 1.5" Wide Rib deck (Type B, 6 ribs) is intended, please issue a revised fastener pattern (e.g., 36/7). If the 36/9 pattern is required, please specify the correct corresponding deck profile (e.g....

RFI draft: Please clarify the required roof deck profile and fastener pattern. If a standard 1.5" Wide Rib deck (Type B, 6 ribs) is intended, please issue a revised fastener pattern (e.g., 36/7). If the 36/9 pattern is required, please specify the correct co...

Summary: The Foundation Plan (S200) calls out Detail F50 along the continuous building perimeter wall (Grid E), alongside dimensions referencing the 'OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL PANEL'. However, Detail F50 (S210) illustrates a cast-in-place concrete retaining wall with 'EXTERIOR CONCRETE (SEE CIVIL)' on both sides and 'CAST-IN SLEEVES FOR RAILING', rather than a foundation supporting a precast wall panel and a...

Why it matters: Constructing a site retaining wall at the building perimeter instead of the required precast wall panel foundation would result in missing structural support for the warehouse walls and an incorrect interface with the interior slab. This is likely a drafting error where the callout for a site ret...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct detail for the building perimeter wall along Grid E. Should the F50 callouts on S200 be relocated to the site truck well wing walls, and should the building perimeter strictly follow details F20, F22, and F25?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct detail for the building perimeter wall along Grid E. Should the F50 callouts on S200 be relocated to the site truck well wing walls, and should the building perimeter strictly follow details F20, F22, and F25?

Summary: S201 Detail F62 (C.M.U. Wall Footing Section) specifies the 8" bond beam at the top of the CMU wall with "2-#5 CONT." reinforcement. However, S340's Typical 8" Deep Bond Beam Detail shows "#4 CONT. EA. FACE" as the standard reinforcement for all typical 8" deep bond beams. This is a direct conflict in bar size (#5 vs #4) for the same element type. Notably, S340 itself contains a separate isomet...

Why it matters: The difference between #4 and #5 bars is significant in cross-sectional area (0.20 sq.in. vs 0.31 sq.in. per bar), representing approximately a 55% increase in reinforcement area. A contractor referencing S340's Typical 8" Deep Bond Beam Detail cross-section would install #4 bars, while S201 Deta...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct reinforcement bar size for 8" deep CMU bond beams. S201 Detail F62 specifies 2-#5 continuous bars, while S340's Typical 8" Deep Bond Beam Detail shows #4 continuous each face. Additionally, S340's isometric Typical C.M.U. Bond Beam Detail shows 2-#5 ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct reinforcement bar size for 8" deep CMU bond beams. S201 Detail F62 specifies 2-#5 continuous bars, while S340's Typical 8" Deep Bond Beam Detail shows #4 continuous each face. Additionally, S340's isometric Typical C.M.U...

Summary: The foundation plan general notes and plan callouts specify a uniform 7" unreinforced concrete slab. However, the footing sections for the dock areas explicitly dimension the floor slab and the fill-in slab as 8" thick.

Why it matters: A 1-inch variance in slab thickness impacts concrete volume calculations, subgrade preparation elevations, and the structural capacity of the slab at the loading docks. This discrepancy must be resolved prior to formwork and pouring.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required floor slab thickness at the dock areas. Should the slab be 7" thick as indicated in the general plan notes, or 8" thick as detailed in sections F25 and F70.1?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required floor slab thickness at the dock areas. Should the slab be 7" thick as indicated in the general plan notes, or 8" thick as detailed in sections F25 and F70.1?

Summary: Sheet S300 'ROOF FRAMING NOTES' Note 3 specifies that the continuous perimeter angle shall be installed with the 'VERTICAL LEG DOWN AT JOIST GIRDER/BEAM/DECK BEARING WALLS.' However, the details on sheet S311 for joist girder bearing walls (Section S15) and deck bearing walls (Sections S20, S21, S22) graphically show the continuous perimeter angle installed with the vertical leg extending UPWAR...

Why it matters: This conflict affects the fabrication of the precast wall panels and the installation of the perimeter angle. If the vertical leg is oriented up, the wall embed anchors must be cast above the deck bearing elevation. If the leg is oriented down, the anchors must be cast below the deck bearing elev...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required orientation of the continuous perimeter angle at joist girder and deck bearing walls. Should the vertical leg be oriented down as specified in S300 Roof Framing Note 3, or oriented up as detailed in S311 Sections S15, S20, S21, and S22?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required orientation of the continuous perimeter angle at joist girder and deck bearing walls. Should the vertical leg be oriented down as specified in S300 Roof Framing Note 3, or oriented up as detailed in S311 Sections S15, S...

Summary: The foundation details for F20 (Dock Wall Footing), F22 (Overhead Door Footing), and F25 (Dock Door Footing) all specify the F1 base angle to be preset with 1/2" diameter expansion anchors at a minimum embedment depth of 2 1/4". However, the specification's expansion anchor minimum embedment depth table on S100 shows that all approved 1/2" Ø expansion anchors require a minimum embedment greater...

Why it matters: Insufficient expansion anchor embedment depth reduces the anchor's pullout capacity, potentially leading to failure of the F1 base angle connection that provides temporary stability to precast wall panels during erection and grouting. This is a safety-critical connection during construction. Usin...

Suggested next step: Request the engineer clarify the required minimum embedment depth for the 1/2" Ø expansion anchors used with the F1 base angle. The current 2 1/4" minimum embedment shown on details F20, F22, and F25 is less than the minimum 2 3/8" required by the expansion anchor embedment ta...

RFI draft: Request the engineer clarify the required minimum embedment depth for the 1/2" Ø expansion anchors used with the F1 base angle. The current 2 1/4" minimum embedment shown on details F20, F22, and F25 is less than the minimum 2 3/8" required by the...

Summary: Detail S46 instructs the contractor to "FINGER TIGHTEN & TACK WELD NUT TO BOLT" for the slide bearing connection using "2 - 3/4" Ø A325 BOLTS". The specification notes require all bolts to conform to ASTM F3125 Grade A325 and all welding to follow the AWS Structural Welding Code. A325 bolts are quenched and tempered high-strength fasteners; welding on them destroys their heat treatment and temp...

Why it matters: Tack welding the nut to an A325 bolt compromises the bolt's strength and creates a severe point of failure in the slide bearing assembly, potentially leading to brittle failure. An alternative mechanical locking method must be specified to prevent the nut from backing off without damaging the fas...

Suggested next step: Confirm if an alternative thread-locking method (such as double-nutting, a nylon insert locknut, or thread upsetting/peening) should be used instead of tack welding the nut to the A325 bolt to comply with AWS D1.1.

RFI draft: Confirm if an alternative thread-locking method (such as double-nutting, a nylon insert locknut, or thread upsetting/peening) should be used instead of tack welding the nut to the A325 bolt to comply with AWS D1.1.

Summary: Both the Joist Girder Net Uplift Diagram and the Joist Net Uplift Diagram include Note 1 stating: "ALLOWABLE MATERIAL STRESS INCREASES ARE NOT PERMITTED PER IBC SECTION 1605.3.1." However, Section 1605.3.1 does not exist in the 2021 International Building Code. The 2021 IBC Section 1605 contains only Section 1605.1 (General), Section 1605.1.1 (Stability), and Section 1605.2 (Alternative allowab...

Why it matters: During plan review, the building official or plan reviewer will attempt to verify the cited code section and find it does not exist in the 2021 IBC, which will generate a correction comment. This will require a drawing revision or addendum to correct the code reference, delaying permit issuance. ...

Suggested next step: Request that the Engineer of Record update Note 1 on both the Joist Girder Net Uplift Diagram and Joist Net Uplift Diagram to reference the correct 2021 IBC section. Clarify whether the design is based on IBC Section 1605.2 (Alternative ASD) or ASCE 7 Section 2.4 (ASD), and co...

RFI draft: Request that the Engineer of Record update Note 1 on both the Joist Girder Net Uplift Diagram and Joist Net Uplift Diagram to reference the correct 2021 IBC section. Clarify whether the design is based on IBC Section 1605.2 (Alternative ASD) or AS...