Plan Review: 91 Issues Found

Summary: The drawing note DL-1 explicitly states the building is Risk Category IV. Note DL-8 uses an Ice Load Importance Factor Ii = 1.0, referencing ASCE 7-16 Table 1.5-2. However, ASCE 7-16 Table 1.5-2 assigns Ii = 1.25 for Risk Category IV structures. The value Ii = 1.0 corresponds to Risk Category II. Section 10.4.4 requires that importance factors be determined from Table 1.5-2 based on Risk Catego...

Why it matters: This underestimation of the design ice thickness for an essential facility (Risk Category IV, likely a police station) would result in unconservative ice loads and unconservative wind-on-ice loads throughout the design. A plan reviewer would flag this discrepancy against ASCE 7-16 Section 10.4.4,...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to verify and correct the Ice Load Importance Factor Ii for Risk Category IV per ASCE 7-16 Table 1.5-2. Ii should be 1.25 for Risk Category IV, resulting in a revised design ice thickness td = (1.5")(1.25)(0.99)(1.0)^0.35 = 1.86". Conf...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to verify and correct the Ice Load Importance Factor Ii for Risk Category IV per ASCE 7-16 Table 1.5-2. Ii should be 1.25 for Risk Category IV, resulting in a revised design ice thickness td = (1.5")(1.25)...

Summary: In Section 7, the canopy bearing plate is detailed to be attached to the exterior face of the wall assembly. The wall's total thickness is dimensioned as 1'-3", but the structural core is an 8" CMU bearing wall, leaving an exterior veneer space. Attaching the canopy's 5x1/2x1'-2" bearing plate directly to the face of the non-structural veneer means the 8" long headed studs must span across the ...

Why it matters: A canopy subjected to wind uplift and gravity loads must transfer forces directly to the building's structural force-resisting system. Attaching through a veneer without rigid standoffs will cause the non-structural veneer to crush under the applied load, and it subjects the headed studs to unbra...

Suggested next step: Please revise the canopy attachment detail to provide steel standoffs (e.g., HSS or pipe sections) that bridge the veneer cavity, allowing the canopy to transfer loads directly to a structural bearing plate fully embedded within the CMU wall, ensuring no canopy loads bear on t...

RFI draft: Please revise the canopy attachment detail to provide steel standoffs (e.g., HSS or pipe sections) that bridge the veneer cavity, allowing the canopy to transfer loads directly to a structural bearing plate fully embedded within the CMU wall, ensu...

Summary: Detail 08 ('TYPICAL ROOF TOP UNIT SUPPORT DETAIL') specifies to 'TACK WELD TO EACH JOIST' and 'TACK WELD TO ANGLE' for the MC6x12 support channels. Tack welds are temporary alignment welds and do not provide a calculated structural connection to resist permanent equipment loads and wind uplift. Additionally, both Details 08 and 12 indicate to weld the MC6x12 channels (located 'OVER DECK RIB') d...

Why it matters: The specified details fail to provide a structurally adequate or physically buildable load path to transfer the rooftop unit's gravity, wind, and seismic forces into the primary structural frame. This directly violates the IBC requirement that parts must be designed and constructed to safely supp...

Suggested next step: Please revise the typical roof top unit support details to provide a structurally adequate and constructible load path. Specify permanent structural connections (e.g., specific fillet welds or mechanical fasteners, not 'tack welds') and provide a detail demonstrating how the M...

RFI draft: Please revise the typical roof top unit support details to provide a structurally adequate and constructible load path. Specify permanent structural connections (e.g., specific fillet welds or mechanical fasteners, not 'tack welds') and provide a ...

Summary: Section 3, cut from sheet S-102 and detailed on both S-404 (Floor Framing Sections) and S-503 (Roof Framing Sections), shows the K-Series OWSJ bearing plate with conflicting headed stud lengths. On S-404, the bearing plate is specified as '5X1/2X1'-2" BRG PLATE WITH (2) 3/4" DIA X 4" HEADED STUD 10" APART', while on S-503 the same bearing plate is specified as '5X1/2X1'-2" BRG PLATE WITH (2) 3/...

Why it matters: Headed stud length directly affects anchorage capacity into the bond beam and grouted CMU. A 4" stud provides significantly less embedment and pullout resistance than an 8" stud. Using the wrong length could result in inadequate anchorage for roof joist bearing loads, potentially leading to conne...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to clarify the correct headed stud length for the 5X1/2X1'-2" K-Series OWSJ bearing plate at Section 3/S-102. Specifically, confirm whether the studs should be 4" (as shown on S-404 Section 3) or 8" (as shown on S-503 Section 3), and i...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to clarify the correct headed stud length for the 5X1/2X1'-2" K-Series OWSJ bearing plate at Section 3/S-102. Specifically, confirm whether the studs should be 4" (as shown on S-404 Section 3) or 8" (as sh...

Summary: Section 7 details a floor framing condition at the "2ND FLOOR 14' - 0"" elevation, where an "8" CMU" wall supports a floor deck on a "W8 PER PLAN" beam. This detail includes a note to "REF 2/S-503 FOR ROOF DECK SUPPORT", indicating the roof deck is located above the 2nd floor level. However, the explicitly referenced roof detail, Section 2 on page 20, contradicts this in two major ways. First, ...

Why it matters: These discrepancies mean that the structural plans specify two different assemblies (a floor and a roof) occupying the exact same elevation on the referenced wall. Furthermore, the conflicting wall thicknesses (8" CMU vs a 1'-3" wall with a 10x8 bond beam) will cause immediate confusion for the m...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the structural intent and elevation at the wall shown in Section 7 (page 17). This section indicates an 8" CMU wall with a W8 floor framing system at the 14'-0" elevation, and refers to Section 2 (page 20) for roof deck support above. However, the referenced Sec...

RFI draft: Please clarify the structural intent and elevation at the wall shown in Section 7 (page 17). This section indicates an 8" CMU wall with a W8 floor framing system at the 14'-0" elevation, and refers to Section 2 (page 20) for roof deck support abov...

Summary: The framing plan calls out a steel beam ('W 12X14 (S)') along the boundary between the roof framing ('10K1') and the floor framing where Section 4/S-404 is cut. However, Section 4/S-404 details this transition bearing entirely on a load-bearing masonry wall with a bond beam, showing no steel wide-flange beam.

Why it matters: This is a major structural discrepancy. The framing plan implies a steel frame system is supporting the step in the building, while the section details a load-bearing CMU wall. This will cause critical coordination issues during construction and steel detailing.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the support structure at the transition between the roof and floor areas detailed in Section 4/S-404. Is this boundary supported by a W 12X14 steel beam as shown on S-102, or a load-bearing CMU wall as shown in Section 4/S-404?

RFI draft: Please confirm the support structure at the transition between the roof and floor areas detailed in Section 4/S-404. Is this boundary supported by a W 12X14 steel beam as shown on S-102, or a load-bearing CMU wall as shown in Section 4/S-404?

Summary: The Column Footing Schedule on drawing S-202 includes Note 3 stating the schedule is based upon an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 PSF. However, the General Structural Notes on S-002 specify in note F-1 that the assumed soil bearing capacity is 2000 PSF per the geotechnical report. This is a direct contradiction: the footing sizes in the schedule are designed for a soil bearing capacity...

Why it matters: Footings sized for 3000 PSF bearing pressure would be undersized for a site with only 2000 PSF allowable bearing capacity. This could lead to excessive settlement, differential settlement, or bearing capacity failure under design loads. All column footings in the schedule (F3.0 through F7.5) are ...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer of Record on whether the allowable soil bearing pressure for column footing design should be 2000 PSF (per General Structural Note F-1 and the geotechnical report) or 3000 PSF (per Column Footing Schedule Note 3). If 2000 PSF ...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer of Record on whether the allowable soil bearing pressure for column footing design should be 2000 PSF (per General Structural Note F-1 and the geotechnical report) or 3000 PSF (per Column Footing ...

Summary: The thickened slab detail at the 8" CMU interior security wall shows an overall depth of 8". The note on the detail states 'USE ONLY WHERE FOOTING IS NOT SHOWN ON PLAN,' indicating this element functions as a foundation/footing for the wall. Per the Typical Concrete Cover/Clear at Footings detail on the same sheet, the minimum concrete cover at the bottom of footings is 3". With 3" bottom cover...

Why it matters: If this thickened slab is constructed as shown, the foundation element would not meet the minimum effective depth requirement, potentially compromising its flexural capacity and leading to inadequate structural performance under the wall's self-weight and any lateral loads. Resolving this will li...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer review the overall depth of the thickened slab at the 8" CMU interior security wall to verify compliance with ACI 318-14 Section 13.3.1.2 requiring a minimum effective depth of bottom reinforcement of 6 inches. If this element is classified...

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer review the overall depth of the thickened slab at the 8" CMU interior security wall to verify compliance with ACI 318-14 Section 13.3.1.2 requiring a minimum effective depth of bottom reinforcement of 6 inches....

Summary: The drawing details a thickened slab-on-ground acting as a foundation to transmit vertical loads from the stair stringer to the ground. The detail specifies an overall depth of 8 inches with (2) #5 bottom reinforcing bars. General Note 1 requires 3 inches of cover below the bottom reinforcing bars. This results in an effective depth of approximately 4.69 inches (8" - 3" cover - 0.3125" bar radi...

Why it matters: Failing to provide the minimum effective depth significantly reduces the flexural and shear capacity of the thickened slab at the stair base. This can lead to structural cracking, differential settlement, or bearing failure under the stair load, posing a safety risk and leading to failed structur...

Suggested next step: Please revise the 'SLAB-ON-GROUND BELOW STAIR STRINGER' detail to increase the overall depth of the thickened portion to a minimum of 10 inches. This is required to achieve the 6-inch minimum effective depth for bottom reinforcement per ACI 318-14 Section 13.3.1.2, while accom...

RFI draft: Please revise the 'SLAB-ON-GROUND BELOW STAIR STRINGER' detail to increase the overall depth of the thickened portion to a minimum of 10 inches. This is required to achieve the 6-inch minimum effective depth for bottom reinforcement per ACI 318-14...

Summary: The wall sections detail the 2nd floor acting as a structural diaphragm with a 4" thick composite slab. The sections specify 5/8" deformed bar anchors (DBA) to connect the slab to the perimeter wall at a spacing of 48" on center. However, ACI 318-14 Section 12.7.2.2 limits the maximum spacing of deformed reinforcement in a diaphragm to the lesser of five times the diaphragm thickness (5 x 4" = ...

Why it matters: Exceeding the maximum spacing for diaphragm boundary reinforcement compromises the shear transfer capacity between the diaphragm and the lateral-force-resisting system. This is a critical structural deficiency that can lead to localized failures under lateral loads (wind or seismic) and will caus...

Suggested next step: Please revise the spacing of the 5/8" DBAs at the floor diaphragm boundary to a maximum of 18" on center to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 12.7.2.2.

RFI draft: Please revise the spacing of the 5/8" DBAs at the floor diaphragm boundary to a maximum of 18" on center to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 12.7.2.2.

Summary: The general structural notes for concrete work and post-installed anchors mandate compliance with ACI 318-14. However, the governing building code for this project (AISI S100-16, Section A2.1) explicitly requires compliance with ACI 318-19 for structural concrete.

Why it matters: Evaluating post-installed anchor substitutions and designing structural concrete using the outdated ACI 318-14 instead of ACI 318-19 is a code violation. ACI 318-19 introduces stricter requirements, particularly in Chapter 17 for adhesive anchors and seismic conditions. Permitting the use of an o...

Suggested next step: Please update the general structural notes (C-1) and post-installed anchor notes (PA-12) to require compliance with ACI 318-19 as mandated by the governing code, and confirm all concrete and anchorage designs satisfy the ACI 318-19 requirements.

RFI draft: Please update the general structural notes (C-1) and post-installed anchor notes (PA-12) to require compliance with ACI 318-19 as mandated by the governing code, and confirm all concrete and anchorage designs satisfy the ACI 318-19 requirements.

Summary: Section J5 of the AISI S100-16 limits the thickness of the steel substrate in contact with a power-actuated fastener (PAF) head to a maximum of 0.06 inches (1.52 mm). Detail "WALL PARALLEL TO JOIST" specifies a 68 mil (0.068 inch) clip angle connected to the joist/beam using PAFs. Additionally, detail "WALL PERPENDICULAR TO JOIST" specifies a similar connection using a 68 mil clip angle with "P...

Why it matters: Exceeding the prescriptive maximum substrate thickness for PAF connections invalidates the code-approved connection strength. It can lead to incomplete fastener penetration, inadequate anchorage, or premature pull-over failure, compromising the lateral bracing of the non-load bearing wall.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the connection method for the 68 mil clip angles. Should the clip angle thickness be reduced to 54 mil (0.054 in) or less to comply with AISI S100-16 prescriptive PAF limitations, or should an alternative fastening method (e.g., self-drilling screws or welds) or...

RFI draft: Please clarify the connection method for the 68 mil clip angles. Should the clip angle thickness be reduced to 54 mil (0.054 in) or less to comply with AISI S100-16 prescriptive PAF limitations, or should an alternative fastening method (e.g., sel...

Summary: The drawing specifies to 'WELD DECK TO CONTINUOUS ANGLE OR PLATE AT 6" OC', but does not specify the effective diameter of the weld. AISI S100 Section J2.2 requires arc spot welds to be specified by a minimum effective diameter of fused area (de), which must be at least 3/8 inch.

Why it matters: Without a specified minimum effective diameter, the weld may be undersized during installation, leading to inadequate shear and uplift resistance in the diaphragm system and causing structural inspection failures.

Suggested next step: Please specify the required minimum effective diameter (de) for the deck puddle welds to comply with AISI S100 Section J2.2. Confirm if the minimum 3/8" diameter applies.

RFI draft: Please specify the required minimum effective diameter (de) for the deck puddle welds to comply with AISI S100 Section J2.2. Confirm if the minimum 3/8" diameter applies.

Summary: The 'TYPICAL JOIST CHORD REINF DETAIL' specifies a 1/4" typical fillet weld to connect the LH-Series reinforcement angle to the joist chord. The specified angle is an 'L2 1/2X2 1/2X3/16', which has a material thickness of 3/16". The cross-section diagram shows the vertical leg of this angle placed flush against the joist chord, forming a lap joint at its edge. According to AISI S100-16 Section ...

Why it matters: Specifying a fillet weld size greater than the material thickness in a lap joint can cause the edge of the thinner member to melt away (burn-through) during welding. This reduces the effective size and strength of the weld, compromising the structural capacity of the joist chord reinforcement. It...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the requirements for the LH-Series joist chord reinforcement. Should the fillet weld size be reduced to 3/16" to comply with maximum lap joint weld sizes, or should the reinforcement angle thickness be increased to 1/4"?

RFI draft: Please clarify the requirements for the LH-Series joist chord reinforcement. Should the fillet weld size be reduced to 3/16" to comply with maximum lap joint weld sizes, or should the reinforcement angle thickness be increased to 1/4"?

Summary: Section 8 specifies a 3/16" fillet weld to connect a 6" CFS-S (cold-formed steel) stud to a continuous L6x4x5/16 angle in a lap joint configuration. AISI S100 applies because the thinnest connected part (the cold-formed steel stud) is less than 3/16" thick. Section J2.5 dictates that the leg of a fillet weld in a lap joint shall not exceed the thickness of the connected part (w1 ≤ t1). Because ...

Why it matters: Attempting to deposit a 3/16" fillet weld onto a thin-gauge cold-formed steel stud will result in excessive heat input, causing burn-through and destruction of the stud edge. This will render the connection structurally deficient and force a field RFI and work stoppage to establish an alternative...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the connection detail between the 6" CFS-S stud and the L6x4x5/16 angle in Section 8. Revise to an alternative connection, such as a flare-bevel groove weld, mechanical fasteners, or a fillet weld sized appropriately for the specific gauge of the stud per AISI S...

RFI draft: Please clarify the connection detail between the 6" CFS-S stud and the L6x4x5/16 angle in Section 8. Revise to an alternative connection, such as a flare-bevel groove weld, mechanical fasteners, or a fillet weld sized appropriately for the specifi...