Hospitality Bar / Shell: 46 Issues Found

Summary: Detail 01, 'TYPICAL COLUMN PLINTH DETAILS (NON MAIN PEMB FRAMES),' shows column plinths dimensioned at 1'-3' from the centerline in each direction, resulting in a 2'-6' × 2'-6' (30 in. × 30 in.) cross-section with a gross area Ag = 900 sq in. The longitudinal reinforcement is specified as 8-#6 vertical bars (As = 8 × 0.44 = 3.52 sq in),...

Why it matters: The column plinth is a pedestal/short column element that transfers axial and lateral loads from the column above into the pier/foundation below. Providing only 39% of the code-required minimum longitudinal reinforcement can compromise resistance to bending (which may exist regardless of analytical results) and lead to excessive effects of...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to review and revise the column plinth longitudinal reinforcement to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1 (minimum 0.01Ag). For a 30 in. × 30 in. plinth, a minimum of 9.0 sq in of longitudinal reinforcement is required. Options include increasing the bar size (e.g., 8-#10 bars = 10.16 sq in) or increasing the...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to review and revise the column plinth longitudinal reinforcement to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1 (minimum 0.01Ag). For a 30 in. × 30 in. plinth, a minimum of 9.0 sq in of longitudinal reinforcement is required. Options include increasing the bar size...

Summary: The Anchor Rod Schedule in Detail 03 lists anchor mark AB14 with a diameter of 1/4', an embedment length of 24', and a bottom plate size of 1/2'x4'x4'. This is clearly erroneous: the diameter progression in the schedule is 5/8', 3/4', 7/8', 1', then drops to 1/4' (should logically be 1-1/4'). Furthermore, AB14 has the identical bottom plate...

Why it matters: If constructed as drawn, 1/4' diameter anchor rods would be installed at locations requiring 1-1/4' rods for PEMB (Pre-Engineered Metal Building) frame base plates. This would result in catastrophically undersized anchorage for primary structural frames. Even if caught during procurement or shop drawing review, this error would cause...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm the correct diameter for anchor rod mark AB14. Based on the schedule progression and identical bottom plate sizing to AB12 and AB13, the intended diameter appears to be 1-1/4'. Request a revised Anchor Rod Schedule with the corrected value.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm the correct diameter for anchor rod mark AB14. Based on the schedule progression and identical bottom plate sizing to AB12 and AB13, the intended diameter appears to be 1-1/4'. Request a revised Anchor Rod Schedule with the corrected value.

Summary: The Anchor Rod Schedule on Detail 03 (TYPICAL PEMB BASE PLATE DETAIL) lists anchor rod mark AB14 with a diameter of 1/4'. The schedule shows a clear progression of rod sizes (AB10 = 5/8', AB11 = 3/4', AB12 = 7/8', AB13 = 1') and then AB14 drops to 1/4', which is almost certainly a typographical error (likely intended to be 1-1/4'). This is...

Why it matters: If constructed as drawn, 1/4' anchor rods would be installed at AB14 locations, creating a structurally deficient PEMB column base connection unable to resist design lateral and uplift forces. This would be caught during shop drawing review or field inspection, causing construction delays for redesign, re-procurement, and rework of...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended diameter for anchor rod mark AB14. Based on the progression in the schedule and the specified bottom plate size (1/2'x4'x4'), it appears the diameter should be 1-1/4' rather than 1/4'. Please revise the Anchor Rod Schedule and reissue the detail.

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended diameter for anchor rod mark AB14. Based on the progression in the schedule and the specified bottom plate size (1/2'x4'x4'), it appears the diameter should be 1-1/4' rather than 1/4'. Please revise the Anchor Rod Schedule and reissue the detail.

Summary: The Anchor Rod Schedule in Detail 03 (TYPICAL PEMB BASE PLATE DETAIL) lists anchor rod mark AB14 with a diameter of 1/4'. The schedule shows a clear ascending progression: AB10 = 5/8', AB11 = 3/4', AB12 = 7/8', AB13 = 1', and then AB14 drops to 1/4'. Furthermore, AB14 has the same bottom plate size (1/2'x4'x4') and embedment length (24') as...

Why it matters: If the anchor rod schedule is followed as printed, 1/4' diameter anchor rods would be procured and installed at AB14 column base locations. This would result in a structurally deficient column-to-foundation connection for the PEMB frame, which would be caught during inspection and require removal, re-drilling, and replacement of all affected...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record confirm that the AB14 anchor rod diameter should be 1-1/4' (not 1/4' as shown) and issue a revised Anchor Rod Schedule correcting the typographic error. The corrected schedule should be reflected on all affected sheets.

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record confirm that the AB14 anchor rod diameter should be 1-1/4' (not 1/4' as shown) and issue a revised Anchor Rod Schedule correcting the typographic error. The corrected schedule should be reflected on all affected sheets.

Summary: The structural roof plan S-401 shows 10 gridlines from K through A with an overall building length of 217'-7', including a 24'-10' bay between grids K and J. The architectural roof plan A-105 shows only 9 gridlines from A through J, with the building perimeter and roof edge terminating at grid J. Grid K and its associated bay do not appear on...

Why it matters: This discrepancy in building extents is critical for permitting and construction. If the structural plan is correct, the architectural plan is missing an entire bay of approximately 25 feet, affecting exterior wall layouts, roof area, finishes, gutters, downspouts, and all MEP coordination. If the architectural plan is correct, the structural...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the overall building length and confirm whether Grid K with the 24'-10' bay shown on structural plan S-401 is intended. The architectural roof plan A-105 terminates at Grid J with no Grid K shown. Which document reflects the correct building extents?

RFI draft: Please clarify the overall building length and confirm whether Grid K with the 24'-10' bay shown on structural plan S-401 is intended. The architectural roof plan A-105 terminates at Grid J with no Grid K shown. Which document reflects the correct building extents?

Summary: The PIER LEGEND on sheet S-201 defines the two slash-separated pier notation values as 'BELL DIA. (INCHES)' and 'SHAFT DIA. (INCHES)', both measured in inches. The DRILLED PIER LEGEND on sheet S-302 defines the same notation format as 'SHAFT PENETRATION (FEET)' and 'SHAFT DIAMETER (INCHES)' — replacing the bell diameter with a penetration depth...

Why it matters: This conflict makes it impossible for the contractor to correctly interpret every pier callout on the foundation plan. If bell diameter is intended, piers require belled (enlarged base) construction with specific drilling equipment. If shaft penetration is intended, the notation defines drilling depth, not an enlargement. Furthermore, the...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify: (1) Whether the piers are intended to be straight-shaft or belled. (2) What the two slash-separated values in the pier callout notation (e.g., '24'/72'') represent — bell diameter and shaft diameter per the S-201 PIER LEGEND, or shaft penetration and shaft diameter per the S-302 DRILLED PIER LEGEND. (3)...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify: (1) Whether the piers are intended to be straight-shaft or belled. (2) What the two slash-separated values in the pier callout notation (e.g., '24'/72'') represent — bell diameter and shaft diameter per the S-201 PIER LEGEND, or shaft penetration and...

Summary: Sheet A-105 (Roof Plan) General Note A states the default roof slope is 3' in 12'. However, sheet A-501 Section A1 (Typical Wall Section) graphically depicts the ROOF-1 assembly with a slope triangle showing a 12' run and 4' rise, indicating a 4:12 slope. Both references describe the typical/standard roof condition for ROOF-1, yet they specify...

Why it matters: A one-inch-per-foot difference in roof slope significantly affects pre-engineered metal building (PEMB) frame geometry, rafter lengths, ridge elevation, structural member sizing, and roof drainage design. The PEMB supplier requires a definitive slope to fabricate the building frame. Conflicting slope information between the roof plan and...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct roof slope for ROOF-1. The Roof Plan (A-105) General Note A specifies 3:12 while Typical Wall Section A1 on sheet A-501 shows 4:12. Which slope is correct? Please revise the conflicting drawing and confirm coordination with the structural engineer and PEMB supplier.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct roof slope for ROOF-1. The Roof Plan (A-105) General Note A specifies 3:12 while Typical Wall Section A1 on sheet A-501 shows 4:12. Which slope is correct? Please revise the conflicting drawing and confirm coordination with the structural engineer and PEMB supplier.

Summary: The Anchor Rod Schedule in Detail 03 (TYPICAL PEMB BASE PLATE DETAIL) lists anchor rod mark AB14 with a diameter of 1/4'. The progressive sizing pattern of the other marks (AB10=5/8', AB11=3/4', AB12=7/8', AB13=1') strongly indicates AB14 should be 1-1/4'. Furthermore, AB14 is assigned the same bottom plate size (1/2'x4'x4') as AB12 (7/8') and...

Why it matters: If this error is not corrected before construction, 1/4' diameter anchor rods could be procured and installed at PEMB column bases, resulting in critically deficient anchorage. Under the specified design wind loads (105 MPH ultimate), inadequate anchor bolts could lead to base connection failure and potential structural collapse. This error...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm that the diameter for anchor rod mark AB14 in the Anchor Rod Schedule on Detail 03 (TYPICAL PEMB BASE PLATE DETAIL) should be 1-1/4' rather than 1/4' as currently shown, and issue a corrected Anchor Rod Schedule.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm that the diameter for anchor rod mark AB14 in the Anchor Rod Schedule on Detail 03 (TYPICAL PEMB BASE PLATE DETAIL) should be 1-1/4' rather than 1/4' as currently shown, and issue a corrected Anchor Rod Schedule.

Summary: The drawing sheet provided documents UL Assembly/Design No. X524 and indicates ratings of 1 and 2 hours. Within the X524 listing, Item 9 calls for nominal 1/2 in. gypsum board (with an alternate 5/8 in. gypsum option noted elsewhere in the same listing). The project specification references UL Design No. U465 for a 1-hour nonbearing wall and...

Why it matters: Using or detailing the wrong UL Design/System for the intended fire-resistance-rated condition can lead to plan review comments, inspection failures, or rework if constructed to an assembly that does not match the required UL listing for the application.

Suggested next step: Confirm which UL Design is required for the applicable project condition(s) (U465 vs X524) and where each is intended to be used. If U465 is required for the rated wall condition, revise the drawings to reference U465 and align all materials/attachments to the U465 listing. If X524 is intended, confirm the intended application and rating with...

RFI draft: Confirm which UL Design is required for the applicable project condition(s) (U465 vs X524) and where each is intended to be used. If U465 is required for the rated wall condition, revise the drawings to reference U465 and align all materials/attachments to the U465 listing. If X524 is intended,...

Summary: The referenced UL assembly information is inconsistent: the A-013 UL excerpt shows UL Design No. U493 (Nonbearing Wall Rating – 1 or 2 Hr.), while another referenced UL excerpt indicates UL Design No. U465 (Nonbearing Wall Rating – 1 HR.). In addition, the construction criteria differ between the two UL designs: U493 runners are installed in...

Why it matters: If the project is built to the wrong UL design, the wall may not be constructed in accordance with the intended tested assembly, which can jeopardize the required fire-resistance rating and lead to AHJ/inspection rejection and rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm which UL Design is required for this wall type/condition (U465 vs U493). If U465 is required, revise the UL assembly sheet/excerpts to match U465 construction criteria; if U493 is intended, revise the other referenced UL assembly requirement accordingly and confirm fire-rating requirements remain satisfied.

RFI draft: Confirm which UL Design is required for this wall type/condition (U465 vs U493). If U465 is required, revise the UL assembly sheet/excerpts to match U465 construction criteria; if U493 is intended, revise the other referenced UL assembly requirement accordingly and confirm fire-rating...

Summary: The drawing's PIER DESIGN CRITERIA table shows End Bearing = 25.0 KSF, Compression Skin Friction = 2.6 KSF, and Tension Skin Friction = 1.8 KSF. The geotechnical specification for straight drilled shafts bearing in gray shale provides significantly different allowable values: Net allowable end bearing capacity = 35,000 psf (35.0 KSF), Net...

Why it matters: Using incorrect pier design criteria directly affects the sizing, depth, and reinforcement of every drilled pier on the project. If the lower drawing values were used for design, the piers would be significantly oversized, leading to substantial material cost overruns and construction delays. If the drawing values originated from an outdated or...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer on the correct pier design criteria. The drawing shows End Bearing = 25.0 KSF, Compression Skin Friction = 2.6 KSF, and Tension Skin Friction = 1.8 KSF, while the geotechnical specification recommends 35.0 KSF, 5.0 KSF, and 3.0 KSF respectively. Confirm which values...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer on the correct pier design criteria. The drawing shows End Bearing = 25.0 KSF, Compression Skin Friction = 2.6 KSF, and Tension Skin Friction = 1.8 KSF, while the geotechnical specification recommends 35.0 KSF, 5.0 KSF,...

Summary: The geotechnical specification defines the proposed construction as “A 5 to 7-story multifamily residential wrap with a 6-level Parking Garage” with assumed column loads up to 1,750 kips and wall loads up to 6 klf. However, structural sheet S-401 (ROOF PLAN) depicts a Pre-Engineered Metal Building (PEMB) roof framing system, including repeated...

Why it matters: All geotechnical recommendations—including foundation type selection, bearing capacity analysis, settlement calculations, and lateral earth pressure assumptions—were developed for a 5-7 story multifamily/parking structure with column loads of 150 to 1,750 kips and wall loads of 1-6 klf. A PEMB rigid-frame roof system typically has very...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the geotechnical report applies to the PEMB rigid-frame roof/framing system shown on S-401, or whether the geotechnical investigation needs to be revised to reflect the actual proposed construction. The geotechnical report states that if ECS' understanding of the project is not correct, ECS should be contacted to review changes...

RFI draft: Confirm whether the geotechnical report applies to the PEMB rigid-frame roof/framing system shown on S-401, or whether the geotechnical investigation needs to be revised to reflect the actual proposed construction. The geotechnical report states that if ECS' understanding of the project is not...

Summary: Foundation General Note 6 specifies that all grade beams shall be supported on 10' carton forms, but for slabs it states 'ALL SLABS SHALL BE SUPPORTED ON 15 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER OVER PROTECTION BOARD ON X' CARTON FORMS.' The 'X' is clearly an unresolved placeholder that was never replaced with the required dimension. The geotechnical...

Why it matters: Without a specified carton form thickness for slabs, the contractor cannot procure void form materials, prepare subgrades, or construct the slab-on-grade system. This will generate an RFI and delay slab construction, which is typically on the critical path. Given the geotechnical report documents expansive clays requiring void isolation, this...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer provide the required carton form void thickness for all slabs. Confirm whether the slab void dimension should be 10 inches (matching grade beams), 6 inches (if moisture conditioning is performed), or another value based on the geotechnical recommendations.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer provide the required carton form void thickness for all slabs. Confirm whether the slab void dimension should be 10 inches (matching grade beams), 6 inches (if moisture conditioning is performed), or another value based on the geotechnical recommendations.

Summary: Geotechnical/specification requirements state that grade beams/pier caps supported by drilled shafts require a 10' void space beneath the beams (reducible to 6' with moisture conditioning), and that pier caps extending outside the nominal pier diameter should be constructed over void forms. In Section 05 on sheet S-310, the pier cap supported...

Why it matters: The void space is a critical geotechnical requirement for projects on expansive clay soils to isolate grade beams and pier caps from active clays and reduce uplift/heave forces. If the drawings do not clearly indicate the void space/void form requirement in the foundation sections used for construction, there is a significant risk that void...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer revise the foundation sections on sheet S-310 (Sections 03, 04, and 05) to explicitly show and dimension the required void space beneath grade/tie beams and pier caps supported by drilled shafts per specification Section 4.5.4 (10' void, or 6' with moisture conditioning). Also confirm that pier caps...

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer revise the foundation sections on sheet S-310 (Sections 03, 04, and 05) to explicitly show and dimension the required void space beneath grade/tie beams and pier caps supported by drilled shafts per specification Section 4.5.4 (10' void, or 6' with moisture...

Summary: The drawing's post-installed anchor note states that concrete expansion anchors 'SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ACI 318, APPENDIX D.' The project's Design Criteria note (S-102) establishes that the project shall meet all requirements of the 2021 International Building Code (IBC), which adopts ACI 318-19. In ACI 318-19, the anchoring-to-concrete...

Why it matters: Plan reviewers checking the cited code section will not find 'Appendix D' in ACI 318-19, which is likely to generate plan review comments and delay permit approval. Contractors and inspectors may also be uncertain about which code provisions govern post-installed anchor design, qualification, and inspection, potentially causing delays during...

Suggested next step: Confirm that the post-installed anchor requirements should reference ACI 318-19 Chapter 17 (Anchoring to Concrete) instead of the nonexistent Appendix D. Request the engineer reissue the note with the corrected code reference and verify that all anchor design information required by Section 26.7.1 is provided in the construction documents.

RFI draft: Confirm that the post-installed anchor requirements should reference ACI 318-19 Chapter 17 (Anchoring to Concrete) instead of the nonexistent Appendix D. Request the engineer reissue the note with the corrected code reference and verify that all anchor design information required by Section...