Plan Review: 99 Issues Found

Summary: Plan Note 8 on this drawing explicitly states: 'DESIGN JOISTS FOR A MINIMUM NET UPLIFT OF XX PSF AT MAIN ROOF AND XX PSF (SERVICE LOADS)'. The 'XX PSF' entries are clearly placeholder values that were never replaced with the actual calculated net uplift pressures. ASCE 7-16 Section 30.2.2 requires that the design wind pressure for components and cladding shall not be less than a net pressure of...

Why it matters: This is a critical construction issue because open-web steel joists are typically designed and fabricated by the joist manufacturer based on the loading criteria provided on the structural drawings. Without specific net uplift values, the joist supplier cannot proceed with joist design, which wil...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to provide the actual calculated net uplift pressures (in PSF) for both the main roof and any secondary roof areas to replace the 'XX PSF' placeholders in Plan Note 8. These values must be determined from the project-specific wind load...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to provide the actual calculated net uplift pressures (in PSF) for both the main roof and any secondary roof areas to replace the 'XX PSF' placeholders in Plan Note 8. These values must be determined from ...

Summary: The Pre-Engineered Metal Building (PEMB) design criteria explicitly states that the entire building structure includes a 'MEZZANINE', but it provides a universal 'VERTICAL LIVE LOAD' of only 20 PSF. According to ASCE 7 Section 4.3.1, the design live loads for floors and structures must be at least the minimums specified in Table 4.3-1. For example, walkways and elevated platforms require a mini...

Why it matters: If the PEMB manufacturer designs the mezzanine to support only a 20 PSF live load, the floor structure will be severely under-designed. Normal floor usage, foot traffic, and storage will easily exceed this capacity, leading to a critical risk of structural failure and floor collapse. This will al...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the live load design criteria specifically for the mezzanine. Revise the PEMB design criteria notes to explicitly specify the code-required floor live load (e.g., 60 PSF or higher, depending on the intended occupancy) for the mezzanine, distinct from the 20 PSF ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the live load design criteria specifically for the mezzanine. Revise the PEMB design criteria notes to explicitly specify the code-required floor live load (e.g., 60 PSF or higher, depending on the intended occupancy) for the mezzan...

Summary: The foundation plan specifies an "8'-8 1/2"x4'-0"x3'-0" DEEP CAP" to support the twin C-2E columns. The schedule indicates the supporting PS-4 piers are 60-inch (5'-0") diameter straight shafts. A 48-inch (4'-0") wide cap is physically narrower than the 60-inch piers beneath it. Furthermore, the 104.5-inch long cap spanning columns spaced 4'-8 3/4" (56.75 inches) apart leaves only ~23.9 inches ...

Why it matters: Section 14.2.3.1.1 of the code requires all concrete piles to be connected to the pile cap by embedding the pile reinforcement (or dowels) into the cap. Because the pier diameter exceeds the cap dimensions, the longitudinal reinforcement located near the perimeter of the 60-inch pier will fall ou...

Suggested next step: Please revise the dimensions of the pile cap supporting the twin C-2E columns to fully encompass the 60-inch diameter of the PS-4 piers so that the pier's longitudinal reinforcement can be correctly embedded into the cap.

RFI draft: Please revise the dimensions of the pile cap supporting the twin C-2E columns to fully encompass the 60-inch diameter of the PS-4 piers so that the pier's longitudinal reinforcement can be correctly embedded into the cap.

Summary: Note 1 on the Tower Roof Framing Plan instructs to extend the tower roof columns 12" above the bottom of the roof deck and to "WELD A 3/4" THICK CAP PLATE AT TOP FOR SAFETY LINE ATTACHMENT." A flat 3/4" cap plate does not include an engineered attachment point (such as a welded D-ring or anchorage eyelet) that can physically secure a lifeline. Furthermore, extending the column only 12" above th...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 4.6.5 requires fall arrest anchorages to be designed for a live load of 3,100 lb "in every direction that a fall arrest load may be applied." A flat plate without a dedicated linkage cannot secure a line or resist loads in all directions. Additionally, if the anchorage is buried...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note 1 to increase the column extension to a sufficient height (e.g., 24" to 36" above the top of the roof deck) to ensure the safety line anchorage clears the roof buildup. Please also specify the engineered anchorage connector (e.g., welded D-ring or anchor pos...

RFI draft: Please revise Note 1 to increase the column extension to a sufficient height (e.g., 24" to 36" above the top of the roof deck) to ensure the safety line anchorage clears the roof buildup. Please also specify the engineered anchorage connector (e.g...

Summary: The 'TOWER STAIRS & ELEVATOR ROOF' plan designates a 'W10X22 LIFELINE BEAM' but fails to provide detailing for multi-directional load restraint, such as bottom flange bracing. Wide-flange beams lack sufficient inherent torsional and weak-axis capacity over an unbraced span to resist severe lateral loads. ASCE 7-16 Section 4.6.5 mandates that fall arrest anchorages and their supporting structura...

Why it matters: If a fall arrest event occurs, the sudden 3,100 lb lateral or longitudinal load applied to the unbraced flange of the W10X22 beam could cause torsional twisting or weak-axis buckling, resulting in a catastrophic failure of the lifeline system and severe life-safety consequences.

Suggested next step: Please provide structural detailing (such as bottom flange bracing or torsional restraints) for the W10X22 Lifeline Beam to ensure it can support the 3,100 lb fall arrest load in every direction, as required by ASCE 7-16 Section 4.6.5.

RFI draft: Please provide structural detailing (such as bottom flange bracing or torsional restraints) for the W10X22 Lifeline Beam to ensure it can support the 3,100 lb fall arrest load in every direction, as required by ASCE 7-16 Section 4.6.5.

Summary: Drawing Note 2 on the Special Inspections Notes states that the special inspector shall be "CONTRACTED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR." IBC Section 1704.2 explicitly requires that "the owner or the owner's authorized agent, other than the contractor, shall employ one or more approved agencies to provide special inspections and tests." The code specifically excludes the contractor from employing the ...

Why it matters: This is a fundamental conflict that will almost certainly be flagged during plan review by the building official, causing a permitting delay. The code's requirement that the owner—not the contractor—hire the special inspector exists to ensure independence and impartiality of the inspection proces...

Suggested next step: Revise Special Inspections Note 2 to state that the special inspector/approved agency shall be employed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, other than the contractor, in accordance with IBC Section 1704.2. If the contractor is also the owner, clarify that Exception 4...

RFI draft: Revise Special Inspections Note 2 to state that the special inspector/approved agency shall be employed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, other than the contractor, in accordance with IBC Section 1704.2. If the contractor is also the o...

Summary: Plan Note 8 on this drawing states: 'DESIGN JOISTS FOR A MINIMUM NET UPLIFT OF XX PSF AT MAIN ROOF AND XX PSF (SERVICE LOADS)'. The 'XX' values are clearly placeholders that were never replaced with actual calculated uplift pressures. IBC Section 2207.2 requires the registered design professional to indicate on the construction documents special loads including net uplift loads (item 1.3). Addi...

Why it matters: Without actual net uplift values, the steel joist manufacturer cannot design the joists to resist wind uplift forces. Per IBC Section 2207.3, the joist manufacturer must design joists to support the load requirements of Section 2207.2. Placeholder values will halt the joist design and fabrication...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record provide the calculated net uplift pressures (in PSF) for the main roof joists to replace the 'XX' placeholder values in Plan Note 8. Confirm whether different uplift values apply at different roof zones (e.g., corner, edge, field) and ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record provide the calculated net uplift pressures (in PSF) for the main roof joists to replace the 'XX' placeholder values in Plan Note 8. Confirm whether different uplift values apply at different roof zones (e...

Summary: Detail 6 (Panel Reinf - Type 16) for Panels P-26 and P-27 (OH) includes a reinforcement callout reading '(8) 6" OC EF' within a revision cloud. This callout is missing the rebar size designation (e.g., #5 or #6). All other similar callouts on the same detail and across the sheet consistently include the bar size, such as '(3) #6 EF', '(6) #6 EF', '#5@12" OC EF', etc. IBC Section 1901.5 item 3 r...

Why it matters: This omission will halt construction of panels P-26 and P-27, as the rebar size cannot be determined from the drawing. The contractor will need to issue an RFI and wait for a response from the structural engineer before placing reinforcement, causing a direct schedule delay. If the panel were cas...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record clarify the missing bar size in the reinforcement callout '(8) 6" OC EF' shown in Detail 6 (Panel Reinf - Type 16) for Panels P-26 and P-27. Please provide the correct bar size designation and confirm if the intent was '(8) #6 @ 6" OC ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record clarify the missing bar size in the reinforcement callout '(8) 6" OC EF' shown in Detail 6 (Panel Reinf - Type 16) for Panels P-26 and P-27. Please provide the correct bar size designation and confirm if t...

Summary: Plan Note 9 on sheet S1.1 directs the user to 'REFER DETAIL 1/S3.1 FOR TYPICAL PIER DETAILS AND REINFORCEMENT.' Plan Note 4 also states 'FOR TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAILS SEE SHEETS S3.1 TO S3.2.' However, sheet S3.1 is titled 'TILTWALL PANEL ELEVATIONS' and Drawing 1 on that sheet is 'PANEL ELEVATION - PRODUCTION WEST SIDE,' a tilt-wall panel elevation — not a typical pier detail. No pier reinfor...

Why it matters: The pier schedule on S1.1 lists 16 different pier types used extensively throughout the foundation plan. Without the referenced typical pier detail providing reinforcement requirements, bar sizes, spacing, concrete specifications, and construction requirements, contractors cannot properly constru...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the correct sheet location for the typical pier detail and reinforcement information referenced as Detail 1/S3.1 in Plan Note 9 on S1.1. The Pier Schedule references 'RE: 1/S5.1' for all pier types. Confirm whether Detail 1/S5.1 is the correct referenc...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the correct sheet location for the typical pier detail and reinforcement information referenced as Detail 1/S3.1 in Plan Note 9 on S1.1. The Pier Schedule references 'RE: 1/S5.1' for all pier types. Confirm whether Detail ...

Summary: On the OVERALL FOUNDATION PLAN (S1.0), vertical grids (C, D, E, F) run one direction at a 50'-0" spacing, while horizontal grids (2, 3) run perpendicular at a 56'-3" spacing. However, on S3.2, "PANEL ELEVATION - PRODUCTION EAST SIDE" shows the wall spanning the 50'-0" grids (D, E), and "PANEL ELEVATION - PRODUCTION NORTH SIDE" shows the wall spanning the 56'-3" grids (3, 3.5, 4). The East Side ...

Why it matters: Mislabeled exterior elevations can cause panels to be fabricated, detailed, embedded, and erected on the wrong face of the building, leading to severe structural and architectural errors.

Suggested next step: Please review and correct the titles of the panel elevations on S3.2 (and any corresponding sheets) to accurately match the building orientations established by the grid system on S1.0.

RFI draft: Please review and correct the titles of the panel elevations on S3.2 (and any corresponding sheets) to accurately match the building orientations established by the grid system on S1.0.

Summary: The Overall Framing Plan (S2.0) defines the 'OFFICE FRAMING' area with vertical grid lines L, M, and N, explicitly showing two 25'-0" bays and referring to detail 3/S2.6. However, the referenced Office Roof Framing Plan (3/S2.6) entirely omits Grid M, depicting a single 50'-0" clear span between Grids L and N with 30K9/30K10 joists spanning the full width.

Why it matters: The presence or absence of Grid M significantly alters the structural design. If Grid M exists, intermediate supports (beams/columns) are required along the gridline, and the joists would span 25'-0" instead of 50'-0". This discrepancy impacts steel fabrication, column procurement, and potential ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the Office Roof requires an intermediate support at Grid M with two 25'-0" bays (as shown on S2.0), or if it should be framed as a single 50'-0" clear span between Grids L and N (as detailed on 3/S2.6). Update the corresponding structural drawings to res...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the Office Roof requires an intermediate support at Grid M with two 25'-0" bays (as shown on S2.0), or if it should be framed as a single 50'-0" clear span between Grids L and N (as detailed on 3/S2.6). Update the correspond...

Summary: On Sheet S3.6, Panel P-28 is assigned to two different reinforcement details with incompatible configurations. Detail 4 (PANEL REINF - TYPE 14) explicitly lists 'PANEL: P-28' and shows a panel with two openings, specific girder reinforcement (#6@6" OC EF FOR 3'-6" SPAN ON BOTH SIDES OF GIRDER), and 6-#7 EF bars. Detail 8 (PANEL REINF - TYPE 18) lists 'PANEL: P-20, P-28 SIM' and shows a fundamen...

Why it matters: This dual assignment will cause confusion during panel fabrication, as the contractor and rebar detailer will not know which reinforcement type to follow for P-28. Using the wrong reinforcement could result in either under-reinforced or incorrectly reinforced panels, potentially causing structura...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on which reinforcement type applies to Panel P-28: Type 14 (Detail 4/S3.6) or Type 18 (Detail 8/S3.6). If Type 14 is correct (given it specifically names P-28 and includes grid line 4 at the top matching the north side panel location), please confirm and ...

RFI draft: Request clarification on which reinforcement type applies to Panel P-28: Type 14 (Detail 4/S3.6) or Type 18 (Detail 8/S3.6). If Type 14 is correct (given it specifically names P-28 and includes grid line 4 at the top matching the north side panel ...

Summary: The horizontal grid lines and their dimensioned spacing below Grid 4.2 are inconsistent across the framing plans. On the Overall Framing Plan (S2.0), the sequence below 4.2 is labeled 4, 3.9, and 3.5, with dimensions of 14'-6" (between 4.2 and 4) and 4'-0" (between 4 and 3.9). On the Enlarged NW Plan (S2.1), the grid line immediately below 4.2 is labeled 4, with a 14'-6" dimension, which is con...

Why it matters: Horizontal grid lines establish the coordinate system for all structural elements. Contradictory grid line labels and spacing across the overall and enlarged plans will lead to critical layout errors, misaligned columns, and incorrectly located beams and joists during steel erection.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct designations and dimensioned spacing for the horizontal grid lines between Grid 4.2 and Grid 3. S2.0 and S2.1 show Grid 4 at 14'-6" below Grid 4.2, with Grid 3.9 an additional 4'-0" below Grid 4. However, S2.2 shows Grid 4 located 4'-0" below Grid 4....

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct designations and dimensioned spacing for the horizontal grid lines between Grid 4.2 and Grid 3. S2.0 and S2.1 show Grid 4 at 14'-6" below Grid 4.2, with Grid 3.9 an additional 4'-0" below Grid 4. However, S2.2 shows Grid...

Summary: Drawing Plan Note 8 states "DESIGN JOISTS FOR A MINIMUM NET UPLIFT OF XX PSF AT MAIN ROOF AND XX PSF (SERVICE LOADS)" where "XX" are placeholder values that were never replaced with actual design uplift pressures. The specification's Steel Joist Notes (Note 12) require joists to be designed for net wind uplift "AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS," meaning the drawings must provide definitive uplift values. T...

Why it matters: Without defined net uplift values, the joist manufacturer cannot design joists and bridging for the required wind uplift resistance. This is a life-safety concern, as inadequately designed joist connections and bridging could fail under wind uplift loading. This omission would likely be flagged d...

Suggested next step: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record provide the specific net uplift values (in PSF) to replace the "XX" placeholders in Plan Note 8 on sheet S2.3, for both the main roof ultimate and service load conditions, so that joist design can proceed with the correct uplift c...

RFI draft: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record provide the specific net uplift values (in PSF) to replace the "XX" placeholders in Plan Note 8 on sheet S2.3, for both the main roof ultimate and service load conditions, so that joist design can pro...

Summary: The TOWER FOUNDATION PLAN details a "4'-10"x2'-6"x3'-0" DEEP PIER CAP" for pier PS-3. However, the PIER SCHEDULE defines the size of PS-3 as "48-40". According to the drawing LEGEND, this nomenclature (e.g., "36-38") indicates a 36" diameter shaft. Therefore, PS-3 is a 48" diameter pier. A 2'-6" (30-inch) wide pier cap is geometrically smaller than the 48-inch pier it is supposed to cap, which ...

Why it matters: A pier cap must be larger than the drilled pier to properly encapsulate the pier reinforcement and evenly transfer column loads into the foundation. Attempting to construct a 30-inch wide cap over a 48-inch round shaft is a physical impossibility. This will halt foundation construction at this co...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required dimensions for the pier cap on PS-3. The specified cap width of 2'-6" (30 inches) is smaller than the scheduled 48-inch diameter of the pier. Should the pier cap dimensions be increased, or is the pier size listed in the schedule incorrect?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required dimensions for the pier cap on PS-3. The specified cap width of 2'-6" (30 inches) is smaller than the scheduled 48-inch diameter of the pier. Should the pier cap dimensions be increased, or is the pier size listed in th...