Plan Review: 58 Issues Found

Summary: The 'TYPICAL SLEEPER CONNECTION DETAIL' specifies using a '3/4" TYPE 316 SS THREADED ADHESIVE ACHOR' but notes to 'WRAP THREADS WITH TEFLON TAPE TO ALLOW REMOVAL.' ACI 318-14 Section 17.1.3(d) requires adhesive anchors to meet the assessment criteria of ACI 355.4. As stated in R17.1.3, 'characteristic bond stress and suitability for structural applications are established by testing'. Wrapping ...

Why it matters: An adhesive anchor relies entirely on the chemical bond between the adhesive, the concrete, and the threaded rod. By wrapping the rod in Teflon tape, the connection achieves zero bond strength. If subjected to loads (such as wind uplift on the deck fascia), the anchor will simply slip out, leadin...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intent of the removable fascia connection. If a removable connection is required, consider specifying an internally threaded concrete insert with a standard removable bolt, rather than wrapping an adhesive anchor in Teflon tape, which completely eliminates i...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intent of the removable fascia connection. If a removable connection is required, consider specifying an internally threaded concrete insert with a standard removable bolt, rather than wrapping an adhesive anchor in Teflon tape,...

Summary: The 'SPECIALTY STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS' notes require delegated design for 'METAL / FRP STAIRS' and 'CURTAIN WALL AND GLAZING ASSEMBLIES' (Note 1). Note 4 mandates that 'CONNECTIONS MUST ACCOUNT FOR THERMAL MOVEMENT, DEFLECTION AND CREEP.' However, it omits the requirement to accommodate seismic relative displacements (drift). This contradicts ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10, which requires egress stairs...

Why it matters: Providing an explicit but incomplete list of required connection movements will lead the specialty engineer to omit seismic drift accommodation. This can result in rigid connections that fail during an earthquake, leading to severe life-safety hazards such as stair collapse and glass fallout.

Suggested next step: Please revise Specialty Structural Elements Note 4 to explicitly require connections to accommodate seismic relative displacements (DpI) in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Chapter 13.

RFI draft: Please revise Specialty Structural Elements Note 4 to explicitly require connections to accommodate seismic relative displacements (DpI) in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Chapter 13.

Summary: Section A1 specifies that the continuous 2x top plate is to be attached to the supporting steel beam with 1/2" diameter through bolts at a spacing of 24 feet on center ("24' OC"). This excessive spacing means that standard lengths of wood top plates will lack any bolted connection to the beam, completely severing the load path between the framing and the supporting structure.

Why it matters: ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3 requires that all parts of the structure be interconnected to form a continuous load path with adequate strength to transfer lateral and uplift forces to the point of resistance. A 24-foot bolt spacing on a wood plate fails this requirement and creates a critical structural ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the bolt spacing for the continuous 2x top plate to the steel beam in Section A1 should be 24" OC instead of 24' OC. Update the drawing to specify the correct spacing to ensure a continuous load path is maintained per ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the bolt spacing for the continuous 2x top plate to the steel beam in Section A1 should be 24" OC instead of 24' OC. Update the drawing to specify the correct spacing to ensure a continuous load path is maintained per ASCE 7 Sect...

Summary: The First Floor Life Safety Plan indicates an overall diagonal dimension of 140'-4" and notes that the "MIN. ALLOWABLE DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS = 35'". IBC Section 1007.1.1 requires exits to be separated by at least one-half of the maximum overall diagonal dimension (which would be approximately 70'-2"), or one-third of the diagonal if the building is fully sprinklered (approximately 46'-9"). The...

Why it matters: If the minimum allowable distance between exits is permitted to be 35 feet, exits may be placed too close together, compromising life safety in the event of a fire. This will result in plan review rejection or require significant redesign of egress paths, doors, and structural elements if discove...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the calculation used for the minimum allowable distance between exits. Revise the note on the Life Safety Plan to reflect a minimum distance of at least one-third the overall diagonal (46'-9") if fully sprinklered, or one-half (70'-2") if unsprinklered, and veri...

RFI draft: Please clarify the calculation used for the minimum allowable distance between exits. Revise the note on the Life Safety Plan to reflect a minimum distance of at least one-third the overall diagonal (46'-9") if fully sprinklered, or one-half (70'-...

Summary: The life safety notes on the drawing state that in a sprinklered building, the separation distance between exit doors must be not less than one-fourth (1/4) of the overall diagonal dimension of the area served. This directly conflicts with the building code, which requires a minimum separation distance of not less than one-third (1/3) of the diagonal dimension for sprinklered buildings.

Why it matters: Using a one-fourth multiplier instead of the required one-third multiplier allows exit doors to be placed too close to one another. This compromises safe egress during an emergency, as a single localized fire could potentially block both exits, and it will result in a failure during life safety p...

Suggested next step: Please update the 'SEPARATION DISTANCE OF EXIT DOORS' note to specify that the separation distance shall not be less than one-third of the maximum overall diagonal dimension per IBC 1007.1.1 Exception 2. Additionally, verify that all actual exit locations on the floor plans co...

RFI draft: Please update the 'SEPARATION DISTANCE OF EXIT DOORS' note to specify that the separation distance shall not be less than one-third of the maximum overall diagonal dimension per IBC 1007.1.1 Exception 2. Additionally, verify that all actual exit l...

Summary: Section C1 specifies vertical reinforcement as "#5 AT 8' OC MIDDLE OF WALL". An 8-foot (96-inch) spacing for #5 reinforcing bars in a concrete foundation/retaining wall is structurally inadequate and violates the strength design requirements of the building code. This is a critical typographical error and was likely intended to be 8" OC.

Why it matters: If constructed with vertical reinforcement spaced at 8 feet on center, the wall will severely lack the structural capacity required by IBC and ACI 318 to safely resist lateral soil loads, leading to a high risk of catastrophic structural failure. This error will cause inspection failures and cons...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the reinforcement spacing callout "#5 AT 8' OC MIDDLE OF WALL" in Section C1 is a typographical error and should be revised to 8" OC.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the reinforcement spacing callout "#5 AT 8' OC MIDDLE OF WALL" in Section C1 is a typographical error and should be revised to 8" OC.

Summary: Section C1 depicts a structural roof truss bearing on a continuous steel angle ledger (L6x6x1/4). The drawing specifies that this heavy steel ledger is fastened to the wood framing with only "(2) #10 x 2-1/2" SCREWS AT 16" OC". Standard #10 screws are light-duty fasteners that do not possess the necessary shear and withdrawal capacity to safely transfer the structural loads of a roof truss reac...

Why it matters: Constructing this connection with #10 screws will result in an assembly lacking the necessary structural capacity, potentially leading to an immediate or eventual structural failure of the roof system. This poses a severe life-safety risk and requires an engineered redesign prior to construction.

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail C1 to specify an engineered and structurally adequate connection for the L6x6x1/4 continuous ledger angle (such as using heavy structural wood screws, lag screws, or through-bolts) capable of safely supporting the designated roof truss reactions.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail C1 to specify an engineered and structurally adequate connection for the L6x6x1/4 continuous ledger angle (such as using heavy structural wood screws, lag screws, or through-bolts) capable of safely supporting the designated r...

Summary: Detail C4 specifies the hold-down anchor bolt centerline to be located "1'-1 3/8"" from the face of the chord stud in the 'AT BEARING OR END OF WALL' detail. Placing the anchor bolt 13.375 inches from the attachment face makes it physically impossible to connect the hold-down bracket to both the anchor bolt and the chord member simultaneously, as it drastically exceeds the dimensions of standar...

Why it matters: If the concrete anchor bolts are cast using the erroneous 1'-1 3/8" dimension, they will not align with the shear wall hold-down brackets. This severs the structural tension load path required to resist overturning forces, directly violating IBC Section 1604.2 which mandates that parts of the str...

Suggested next step: Verify if the "1'-1 3/8"" anchor bolt dimension in Detail C4 'AT BEARING OR END OF WALL' is a typo (e.g., intended to be 1 3/8" to match typical bracket offsets). Additionally, verify if the "7 7/8"" dimension in the 'AT CORNERS' detail is correct for the intended chord thickn...

RFI draft: Verify if the "1'-1 3/8"" anchor bolt dimension in Detail C4 'AT BEARING OR END OF WALL' is a typo (e.g., intended to be 1 3/8" to match typical bracket offsets). Additionally, verify if the "7 7/8"" dimension in the 'AT CORNERS' detail is correct...

Summary: Detail D3 specifies a 3/4" threaded adhesive anchor to secure the fascia to the concrete slab, but explicitly directs the contractor to "WRAP THREADS WITH TEFLON TAPE TO ALLOW REMOVAL." Wrapping the embedded portion of an adhesive anchor in Teflon tape intentionally debonds the epoxy from the threaded rod, completely negating the anchor's tensile and pullout capacity.

Why it matters: Under IBC 1604.2, structural parts and connections must be designed to safely support factored loads. IBC 1901.3 mandates that adhesive anchoring to concrete comply with ACI 318, which strictly relies on the bond strength between the adhesive and the rod to transfer loads. Intentionally debonding...

Suggested next step: Clarify the fascia attachment detail. Remove the requirement to wrap the adhesive anchor in Teflon tape. If a removable connection is required, revise the detail to specify a cast-in-place internally threaded insert or an approved drop-in anchor that accommodates removable bol...

RFI draft: Clarify the fascia attachment detail. Remove the requirement to wrap the adhesive anchor in Teflon tape. If a removable connection is required, revise the detail to specify a cast-in-place internally threaded insert or an approved drop-in anchor t...

Summary: IFC Section 904.3.3 requires automatic fire-extinguishing systems to interlock with fuel shutoffs (including electrical power) for the protected hazard. Panel K2 properly details interlocks using shunt trips for its cooking equipment (indicated by the '^' note: 'INTERLOCK WITH SHUNT TRIP'). However, Panel K3 serves heat- and grease-producing commercial cooking appliances (e.g., Griddle, Fryer) ...

Why it matters: If electrical commercial cooking appliances are not interlocked with the fire extinguishing system, they will continue to produce heat during a fire event. This can reignite the fire after the extinguishing agent is discharged, compromising the fire suppression system's effectiveness and leading ...

Suggested next step: Confirm that the commercial cooking equipment on Panel K3 (Griddle, Fryers, Skillet, etc.) are located under the Type I exhaust hood. If so, revise the Panel K3 schedule to provide shunt trip breakers and interlock wiring tied to the commercial hood fire-extinguishing system t...

RFI draft: Confirm that the commercial cooking equipment on Panel K3 (Griddle, Fryers, Skillet, etc.) are located under the Type I exhaust hood. If so, revise the Panel K3 schedule to provide shunt trip breakers and interlock wiring tied to the commercial ho...

Summary: Sheet S401 defines Key Note 126 as a 10" thick concrete slab with #5 reinforcement at 16" O/C. Sheet S401A applies Key Note 126 to the Platform Decking Slab Plan (Detail C4). However, the corresponding Platform Foundation Section (Detail D3) on S401A details this exact same slab as only 4" thick with #4 reinforcement at 12" O/C.

Why it matters: This is a critical discrepancy in structural requirements. Pouring a 4" slab instead of a 10" slab could result in structural failure under platform loading, while over-pouring to 10" if only 4" is required will cause major elevation coordination issues with the decking system and unnecessary mat...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required concrete slab thickness and reinforcement for the Alternate #01 Platform. Should it follow the 10" thickness with #5 rebar per Key Note 126, or the 4" thickness with #4 rebar per Section D3?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required concrete slab thickness and reinforcement for the Alternate #01 Platform. Should it follow the 10" thickness with #5 rebar per Key Note 126, or the 4" thickness with #4 rebar per Section D3?

Summary: The Cast-In-Place Concrete Notes provide a schedule for "BEAM TOP REINFORCING AND TENSION SPLICES" that explicitly dictates tension lap splice lengths (e.g., 93xBD) for an unbounded bar size category of "#7 AND LARGER". This category includes No. 14 and No. 18 bars, providing tension lap splice criteria for them.

Why it matters: ACI 318 Section 25.5.1.1 strictly prohibits lap splices for bars larger than No. 11 (except for specific compression splice scenarios not applicable to tension splices). Providing tension lap splice multipliers for an unbounded "#7 AND LARGER" category contradicts this restriction and could lead ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the reinforcing splice schedules to explicitly cap the maximum bar size for lap splices at No. 11, and provide details for mechanical or welded splices if No. 14 or No. 18 bars are required on the project.

RFI draft: Please revise the reinforcing splice schedules to explicitly cap the maximum bar size for lap splices at No. 11, and provide details for mechanical or welded splices if No. 14 or No. 18 bars are required on the project.

Summary: Keynotes 120 and 124 specify that the primary two-way slab reinforcement (#5 bars at 8" OC) and the diagonal corner bars are to be placed in the "MIDDLE OF SLAB". However, ACI 318-14 Section 8.6.1.1 strictly mandates that flexural reinforcement must be provided "near the tension face" in the direction of the span. For a slab subjected to typical gravity loads, the tension face occurs at the bot...

Why it matters: Positioning flexural reinforcement in the middle of the slab drastically reduces the effective depth (d), which severely limits the slab's moment capacity. This structural deficiency will render the reinforcement largely ineffective at resisting tension, potentially leading to excessive deflectio...

Suggested next step: Please revise Keynotes 120 and 124 to specify that the reinforcement must be placed near the tension face(s) (e.g., in top and/or bottom layers with appropriate cover) to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 8.6.1.1, rather than in the middle of the slab.

RFI draft: Please revise Keynotes 120 and 124 to specify that the reinforcement must be placed near the tension face(s) (e.g., in top and/or bottom layers with appropriate cover) to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 8.6.1.1, rather than in the middle of the slab.

Summary: Detail C2 (TYPICAL PIPE SLEEVE AT WALL FOOTING DETAILS) specifies a "#4 TIE BAR TOP EA SIDE" arranged as an inverted U-shape over the pipe sleeve. However, the drawing does not show any longitudinal reinforcement enclosed within the bends of this tie bar. ACI 318-14 Section 25.7.1.2 requires that each bend in a U-stirrup or tie enclose a longitudinal bar. Furthermore, Section 25.7.1.3 requires ...

Why it matters: Without longitudinal bars enclosed within the bends, the #4 tie bars lack proper anchorage. This renders them ineffective at developing the required tensile capacity to control splitting or diagonal tension cracks around the pipe sleeve embedment, which can lead to local concrete failure and comp...

Suggested next step: Please revise the typical pipe sleeve detail to specify and show longitudinal reinforcement enclosed within the bends of the #4 tie bars to satisfy anchorage requirements per ACI 318-14 Sections 25.7.1.2 and 25.7.1.3.

RFI draft: Please revise the typical pipe sleeve detail to specify and show longitudinal reinforcement enclosed within the bends of the #4 tie bars to satisfy anchorage requirements per ACI 318-14 Sections 25.7.1.2 and 25.7.1.3.

Summary: The Typical Stepped Grade Beam Detail (B4) shows #6 vertical bars acting as transverse ties across the step, with standard 90° hooks at the bottom. However, the drawing graphically depicts these hooks terminating in the concrete without enclosing the horizontal longitudinal reinforcement of the grade beam. ACI 318-14 Section 25.3.2 explicitly requires that standard hooks used to anchor transver...

Why it matters: If transverse hooks do not wrap around or enclose longitudinal bars, the vertical ties lack proper anchorage. This can lead to pullout of the ties under load, compromising the shear transfer across the stepped footing and potentially causing cracking or structural failure of the joint.

Suggested next step: Please revise the Typical Stepped Grade Beam Detail (B4) to graphically indicate that the standard 90° hooks at the ends of the #6 vertical bars enclose the bottom longitudinal reinforcement, as required by ACI 318-14 Section 25.3.2.

RFI draft: Please revise the Typical Stepped Grade Beam Detail (B4) to graphically indicate that the standard 90° hooks at the ends of the #6 vertical bars enclose the bottom longitudinal reinforcement, as required by ACI 318-14 Section 25.3.2.