Plan Review: 227 Issues Found

Summary: The life safety notes provide incorrect code criteria for fire wall penetrations. First, it states general penetrations must comply with Section 712 (Vertical Openings), whereas IBC 706.9 requires compliance with Section 714 (Penetrations). Second, it states duct penetrations must not exceed the limitations of Section 705.8 (Exterior wall openings) and must comply with Sections 712 and 716. Acc...

Why it matters: Directing the mechanical designer and contractor to use exterior wall opening limits (Section 705.8) for an internal fire wall is a critical failure. Section 705.8 can allow up to 100% unprotected openings depending on fire separation distance, which would flagrantly violate the strict 156 sq. ft...

Suggested next step: Please revise the fire wall penetration notes to reference the correct code sections: general penetrations must comply with Section 714, and duct/air transfer penetrations must comply with Section 717 and not exceed the opening limitations of Section 706.8.

RFI draft: Please revise the fire wall penetration notes to reference the correct code sections: general penetrations must comply with Section 714, and duct/air transfer penetrations must comply with Section 717 and not exceed the opening limitations of Sect...

Summary: The 'SECURE PLAY YARD' serves as an outdoor area and exit discharge for multiple classrooms (e.g., doors 120B, 123B, 124B, 127B) and main building spaces. Per Section 1004.5, the occupant load of such outdoor areas must account for the egressing building occupants. The combined occupant load of the rooms discharging into the yard far exceeds 49, which per Section 1015.1 requires a minimum of tw...

Why it matters: Providing only a single exit from an enclosed courtyard that receives egress from multiple high-occupancy rooms creates a severe bottleneck and traps occupants during an emergency. This violates basic life safety egress capacity and number of exits requirements, ensuring a failure during permit r...

Suggested next step: Please add at least one additional compliant egress gate from the Secure Play Yard to the public way, ensuring the gates are separated by at least half the diagonal distance of the yard and provide sufficient combined egress width.

RFI draft: Please add at least one additional compliant egress gate from the Secure Play Yard to the public way, ensuring the gates are separated by at least half the diagonal distance of the yard and provide sufficient combined egress width.

Summary: The plan indicates an "ACCESS DOOR - PROVIDE BARRICADE ON INTERIOR SIDE" along a wall explicitly tagged as a "3 HOUR FIRE WALL". The corresponding Detail 2 (ACCESS DOOR ELEVATION) specifies that this barricade uses "REMOVABLE 2 X 8 WD BD" (combustible wood boards) bolted to the wall. Using combustible wood boards as a barricade on a fire wall violates IBC Section 706.3, which requires fire wall...

Why it matters: Introducing combustible materials (wood boards and mounting brackets) into or across a 3-hour fire wall assembly negates its fire-resistance rating and voids any UL listing. In the event of a fire, the combustible wood barricade will burn, allowing fire to rapidly breach the 3-hour compartment. T...

Suggested next step: Clarify if the opening in the 3-hour fire wall is protected by a rated 3-hour fire door assembly in accordance with IBC Section 706.8. If a barricade is required, replace the combustible 2x8 wood boards with a noncombustible barricade system (e.g., steel channels or plates) th...

RFI draft: Clarify if the opening in the 3-hour fire wall is protected by a rated 3-hour fire door assembly in accordance with IBC Section 706.8. If a barricade is required, replace the combustible 2x8 wood boards with a noncombustible barricade system (e.g....

Summary: The composite equipment platform plan shows an internal room completely enclosed by a "3 HOUR FIRE WALL", and the wall legend designates this partition as a "3 HOUR FIRE RATED FIRE WALL" that must be "STRUCTURALLY INDEPENDENT". However, per IBC Section 706.5, fire walls must be continuous from exterior wall to exterior wall to completely separate a building into separate structures. A localized...

Why it matters: Incorrectly classifying an internal room partition as a "Fire Wall" triggers impossible or highly costly code requirements, such as independent structural stability and roof projections, which are not intended for simple interior enclosures. This will cause major confusion during structural desig...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the "3 HOUR FIRE WALL" enclosing the internal room is intended to be a 3-hour "Fire Barrier". If so, please update the drawing notes and wall legend to use the correct code designation to remove the conflicting requirements for exterior-to-exterior continuity...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the "3 HOUR FIRE WALL" enclosing the internal room is intended to be a 3-hour "Fire Barrier". If so, please update the drawing notes and wall legend to use the correct code designation to remove the conflicting requirements for e...

Summary: A general plan note establishes the New Addition finish floor as 0'-0" and states that "ALL ELEVATIONS ARE TAKEN FROM THAT DATA POINT". It also notes the Existing Building finish floor is +2'-8" above the new addition datum. Throughout the existing building (lower wing), ceiling elevation tags are marked as low as "8' - 0" A.F.F." and "9' - 0" A.F.F.". If these elevations are installed relative...

Why it matters: If constructed to the absolute datum elevations mandated by the note, the ceiling heights will be illegal for occupancy and fail building inspections. If the ceiling tags were instead intended to measure from the local +2'-8" finished floor (contradicting the global datum note), raising the ceili...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the ceiling elevation datum for the existing building. If the tags (e.g., 8'-0", 9'-0") are absolute elevations from the 0'-0" datum, the ceilings must be redesigned to ensure a minimum 7'-6" clear height from the local +2'-8" floor per IBC 1208.2. If they are i...

RFI draft: Please clarify the ceiling elevation datum for the existing building. If the tags (e.g., 8'-0", 9'-0") are absolute elevations from the 0'-0" datum, the ceilings must be redesigned to ensure a minimum 7'-6" clear height from the local +2'-8" floor...

Summary: The project must be designed and reviewed against the 2012 IBC. However, the drawing explicitly specifies the "2018 International Building Code" as the governing building code.

Why it matters: Designing to the 2018 IBC instead of the 2012 IBC introduces incorrect load calculation methodologies and reference standards (such as ASCE 7-16 instead of ASCE 7-10 for wind and seismic loads). Applying the wrong code edition will result in plan check rejections, requiring the engineer to recalc...

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing building code for this project. If the 2012 IBC applies, revise the 'Design Codes and Specifications' note to reference the 2012 IBC and ensure all applicable design loads and reference standards are updated accordingly.

RFI draft: Confirm the governing building code for this project. If the 2012 IBC applies, revise the 'Design Codes and Specifications' note to reference the 2012 IBC and ensure all applicable design loads and reference standards are updated accordingly.

Summary: The HVAC specifications (Drawing 02.png, Note 2.03.2) state that radiation dampers are only required in rated ceiling assemblies when the area of all penetrations, including ducts and diffusers, exceeds an "AGGREGATE AREA OF 100 SQUARE INCHES IN ANY 100 SQUARE FEET OF CEILING AREA." This incorrectly applies a specific building code exception that is strictly limited to steel electrical boxes in...

Why it matters: There is no code provision that exempts HVAC ducts or diffusers from requiring dampers simply because their aggregate area is under 100 square inches. Instructing contractors to omit radiation dampers for unprotected HVAC penetrations based on this area allowance will compromise the ceiling's fir...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that all HVAC duct and diffuser penetrations in fire-resistance-rated assemblies must be protected with listed ceiling radiation dampers (or tested systems) regardless of their area, and revise specification 2.03.2 to remove the 100-square-inch aggregate area ex...

RFI draft: Please confirm that all HVAC duct and diffuser penetrations in fire-resistance-rated assemblies must be protected with listed ceiling radiation dampers (or tested systems) regardless of their area, and revise specification 2.03.2 to remove the 100...

Summary: The drawings show multiple HVAC ducts penetrating the thick wall enclosing the central shelter area, which the legend designates as a '3 HOUR FIRE RATED FIRE WALL'. At these penetrations (e.g., adjacent to storm louvers SL-15 and SL-16), the plans specify only Smoke Dampers ('SD'). According to IBC Section 706.11, duct penetrations of fire walls must comply with Section 717. Section 717.3.2.1 a...

Why it matters: Failing to specify properly rated fire dampers compromises the fire compartmentation of the building, creating a severe life-safety hazard by allowing fire to spread through the ductwork across a 3-hour barrier. This will result in a failed building inspection and require costly retrofitting, whi...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required damper type for penetrations through the 3-hour fire-rated fire walls. Provide updated damper schedules and tags to specify 3-hour rated Fire Dampers (FD) or Combination Fire/Smoke Dampers (FSD) at all such penetrations to comply with IBC Section 71...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required damper type for penetrations through the 3-hour fire-rated fire walls. Provide updated damper schedules and tags to specify 3-hour rated Fire Dampers (FD) or Combination Fire/Smoke Dampers (FSD) at all such penetrations...

Summary: Details 2 and 3 on sheet M306 specify filling the annular space between the fire damper sleeve and the wall/floor with bulk fill and fire caulk ('3M FIRE MASTER BULK FILL' and '3M CP25WB+ FIRE CAULK'). Section 717.2 requires fire dampers to be installed in accordance with their listing and manufacturer's instructions, and Section 717.3.1 mandates compliance with UL 555. Standard UL 555 listed '...

Why it matters: If the contractor installs standard fire dampers as detailed, the installation will violate the damper's UL 555 listing requirements and will fail the fire damper inspection. The contractor would be forced to remove the caulk and bulk fill from the expansion gap and reinstall the damper with prop...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if a specially listed fire damper assembly that explicitly permits caulking the expansion gap has been specified. If standard UL 555 fire dampers are to be used, please revise Details 2 and 3 to remove the bulk fill and fire caulk from the annular space, and spe...

RFI draft: Please clarify if a specially listed fire damper assembly that explicitly permits caulking the expansion gap has been specified. If standard UL 555 fire dampers are to be used, please revise Details 2 and 3 to remove the bulk fill and fire caulk f...

Summary: The drawings show an incompatible match between Kitchen Exhaust Fans #1 and #2 (KEF-1, KEF-2) and their designated roof curbs. According to the product data, the DU180HFA fans have an outer base width of 26" and an inner base width of 16 1/2". However, the curb details and schedule specify a curb size of 26.5" x 26.5" with a roof opening of 26" x 26". Because the fan base is smaller than the to...

Why it matters: If fabricated as drawn, the fans will not physically fit onto the roof curbs, causing immediate construction delays while new curbs or fans are ordered and expedited. The lack of a proper overlap completely prevents the system from shedding water, which will lead to severe roof leaks, voided roof...

Suggested next step: Please review and revise the curb dimensions for KEF-1 and KEF-2 to be compatible with the DU180HFA fan base dimensions. Ensure the curb outside dimensions allow the 26" fan base to slip over properly, and coordinate the roof opening dimension with the 16 1/2" fan inner base.

RFI draft: Please review and revise the curb dimensions for KEF-1 and KEF-2 to be compatible with the DU180HFA fan base dimensions. Ensure the curb outside dimensions allow the 26" fan base to slip over properly, and coordinate the roof opening dimension wit...

Summary: The Wall Legend on the Floor Plan explicitly dictates that a 3-Hour Fire Rated Fire Wall must be continuous 'FROM SLAB TO ABOVE ROOF DECK.' However, Wall Section 1/A503 details the '3 HR FIRE RATED 8" CMU' wall terminating below the metal roof deck. It shows a 'COMPRESSIBLE TUBE' installed in the gap between the top of the wall and the deck, with the roof assembly running continuously over the ...

Why it matters: This represents a severe life safety and code compliance discrepancy. True 3-hour fire walls typically act as building area separation walls and have strict vertical continuity requirements, often necessitating a parapet extending above the roof surface to prevent fire spread. Terminating the wal...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the vertical continuity intent for the 3-hour fire-rated CMU wall shown in Section 1/A503. Should the wall extend through the roof deck to form a parapet as mandated in the A101 Wall Legend, or is it intended to terminate below the roof deck with a compressible ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the vertical continuity intent for the 3-hour fire-rated CMU wall shown in Section 1/A503. Should the wall extend through the roof deck to form a parapet as mandated in the A101 Wall Legend, or is it intended to terminate below the ...

Summary: Sheet A100 (Composite Floor Plan) cross-references detail 2 on A103 at the wall separating the serving/common area and the matchline. On Sheet A103 (Equipment Platform Composite Plan), this same matchline wall is explicitly designated as a "3 HOUR FIRE WALL" and includes a note for an "ACCESS DOOR". However, the cross-referenced detail 2 on A103 ("ACCESS DOOR ELEVATION") specifies that the acce...

Why it matters: Any penetrations or access openings within a 3-hour fire-rated wall assembly must be protected by an assembly with a commensurate fire protection rating (typically a UL-listed 3-hour or 90-minute fire-rated access panel) to maintain the integrity of the fire barrier. Installing untreated wood boa...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the fire rating required for the access door located in the 3-hour fire wall along the matchline. If the 3-hour rating must be maintained, please provide a revised detail for a UL-listed, fire-rated access panel assembly to replace the "REMOVABLE 2 X 8 WD BD" sp...

RFI draft: Please confirm the fire rating required for the access door located in the 3-hour fire wall along the matchline. If the 3-hour rating must be maintained, please provide a revised detail for a UL-listed, fire-rated access panel assembly to replace ...

Summary: The Demolition Plan (A002) references Window Type 'K', which is detailed on A202 as using glass type 'C'. However, drawing A202 contains a direct contradiction regarding glass type 'C'. The Glazing Schedule defines 'C' as '1/4" CLEAR GLASS', while the note immediately below the schedule states 'GLASS TYPE "C" TO BE 1" INSULATED SCHOOL GUARD GLASS'.

Why it matters: This contradiction makes it impossible to determine the correct glazing for Window Type K. A discrepancy between 1/4" monolithic clear glass and 1" insulated security glass represents a significant difference in material cost, thermal performance, frame compatibility, and school security requirem...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the specification for Glass Type 'C' used in Window Type K (referenced on A002). Should it be 1/4" clear glass as listed in the schedule, or 1" insulated security glass as stated in the notes?

RFI draft: Please clarify the specification for Glass Type 'C' used in Window Type K (referenced on A002). Should it be 1/4" clear glass as listed in the schedule, or 1" insulated security glass as stated in the notes?

Summary: The 'WALL LEGEND' on sheet S201 specifies the 3-hour fire-rated wall as an 8-inch fire-rated concrete block (C3). In direct contradiction, the 'WALL LEGEND' on sheet S301 specifies the 3-hour fire-rated wall partition as a 12-inch fire-rated concrete block (L3). Both details reference U.L. 904.

Why it matters: This inconsistency regarding the block thickness (8" vs. 12") and designation (C3 vs. L3) impacts architectural spatial planning, clear floor area, structural loading requirements, and fire safety compliance. Utilizing the incorrect wall thickness or block designation could lead to failed inspect...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct thickness and block type for the 3-hour fire-rated wall. Should the contractor install an 8" CMU (C3) as indicated in the S201 legend, or a 12" CMU (L3) as indicated in the S301 legend?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct thickness and block type for the 3-hour fire-rated wall. Should the contractor install an 8" CMU (C3) as indicated in the S201 legend, or a 12" CMU (L3) as indicated in the S301 legend?

Summary: The framing plan (S201) indicates an equipment platform framed with floor decking (B/DECK 11'-4") and cold-formed steel joists (800S162-54 @ 1'-4" O.C.) spanning between Grids C and D along Grid 3, and includes a section callout for 1/S401. However, structural section 1/S401 at Grid 3 does not show this platform; it only depicts the sloped roof trusses (26K5) and empty clearance space below.

Why it matters: If the equipment platform exists, it will clash with the sloping 26K5 roof trusses shown in the section. This contradiction leaves it unclear whether the platform is intended to be built at this location, potentially causing significant framing and spatial coordination errors.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the equipment platform shown on S201 between Grids C and D extends through Grid 3. If so, please provide an updated Section 1/S401 detailing the platform framing and resolving any clashes with the main roof trusses.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the equipment platform shown on S201 between Grids C and D extends through Grid 3. If so, please provide an updated Section 1/S401 detailing the platform framing and resolving any clashes with the main roof trusses.