Plan Review: 67 Issues Found

Summary: 110 index entries | 8 perfect matches | 81 mismatched | 21 missing Mismatched (81): SC-02: Expected: WB Elevation, Scope of Work and Const. Sequence (SC-02) | Actual: WB ELEVATION, SCOPE OF WORK STRUCTURE NO. (SC-02)(p2) SC-03: Expected: Index of Sheets and Total Bill of Material (SC-03) | Actual: INDEX OF SHEETS AND TOTAL BILL OF MATERIALS STRUCTURE NO. 016-0460 (SC-03)(p3) ...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 21 missing, 81 mismatched out of 110 sheets

Summary: Sheet SC-47 directs the contractor to SC-51 for the Overhead Span Sign Structure Support Bumpout details. On SC-51, the 'POSITIONING PLATE(S)' detail specifies anchor rod holes spaced at 1'-6" (18") vertically and 9" + 9" = 18" horizontally. This establishes an 18" x 18" grid for the anchor rods. However, the 'EMBEDMENT ASSEMBLY DETAILS' and the Plan view both specify the base plates as 'PL 3/4...

Why it matters: If the embedment assemblies and base plates are fabricated to these dimensions, the anchor rods will fall completely outside the base plates, making it impossible to erect the sign structure without redesigning the base plates or coring new anchor rods.

Suggested next step: Please resolve the dimensional conflict between the 18" x 18" anchor rod spacing (Positioning Plate) and the 17" x 17" base plates (Embedment Assembly). Which dimension should be adjusted to allow the anchor rods to properly secure the base plates?

RFI draft: Please resolve the dimensional conflict between the 18" x 18" anchor rod spacing (Positioning Plate) and the 17" x 17" base plates (Embedment Assembly). Which dimension should be adjusted to allow the anchor rods to properly secure the base plates?

Summary: The Framing Plan (SC-76) indicates three field splices for the Stage II beams, explicitly detailing '℄ Field Splice 3' with a note indicating it is located past Bent I. However, the Beam Elevations for Beams 10 and 11 on SC-79 only depict two field splices. They show a continuous W30X99 beam segment extending uninterrupted from Field Splice 2, past Bents I and J, to the end of the girder at Ben...

Why it matters: A missing field splice detail creates a severe fabrication and erection conflict. The contractor cannot fabricate a single continuous ~75-foot piece if shipping or lifting constraints require a splice, nor can they introduce a splice without detailed location and connection plate dimensions. If t...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if Field Splice 3 is required for Beams 10 and 11 as indicated on the Framing Plan. If so, please provide updated Beam Elevations detailing the splice location and connection plates. If not, please confirm that the beams should be fabricated continuously from Fi...

RFI draft: Please clarify if Field Splice 3 is required for Beams 10 and 11 as indicated on the Framing Plan. If so, please provide updated Beam Elevations detailing the splice location and connection plates. If not, please confirm that the beams should be f...

Summary: The Top Plan designates the Stage I (left) side of the pier as having 'Exist. steel column to remain, typ.' and the Stage II (right) side as having 'Proposed column, typ.' (new columns without existing steel). However, the Elevation references Section E-E for the Stage II 'Proposed' column. SC-97 shows that Section E-E explicitly encases an 'Existing 14W167 to remain'. This directly contradicts...

Why it matters: This swap in section references will cause confusion regarding which portions of the pier encase existing steel columns and which are newly proposed, potentially leading to incorrect column sizing, erroneous rebar placement, and structural coordination failures.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct section references for the Stage I and Stage II columns. Should the Stage II (proposed) columns reference Section D-D, and the Stage I (existing) columns reference Section E-E?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct section references for the Stage I and Stage II columns. Should the Stage II (proposed) columns reference Section D-D, and the Stage I (existing) columns reference Section E-E?

Summary: There is a direct contradiction regarding the corrosion protection required for the structural steel. Note 1 on Sheet 413 states that "All Structural Steel shall be metalized (thermal spraying)." However, the specific notes for Pier K on Sheet SC-107 state that "All columns, stiffeners and connections shall be AASHTO M270, Grade 50 Steel and galvanized according to AASHTO M111."

Why it matters: Metalizing (thermal spraying) and hot-dip galvanizing are distinct coating systems with different costs, application procedures, and performance characteristics. If unresolved, this discrepancy will lead to confusion during bidding, fabrication, and shop drawing review, potentially resulting in i...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required corrosion protection system for the structural steel columns, stiffeners, and connections at Pier K. Should these elements be metalized (thermal sprayed) per Note 1 on Sheet 413, or galvanized per the Notes on Sheet SC-107?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required corrosion protection system for the structural steel columns, stiffeners, and connections at Pier K. Should these elements be metalized (thermal sprayed) per Note 1 on Sheet 413, or galvanized per the Notes on Sheet SC-...

Summary: Sheet SC-37 Notes 3 and 4 direct the reader to Sheet SC-52 for the 'Section thru Double-Face Concrete Parapet' and to Sheet SC-39 for the 'Section thru Median Parapet'. However, Sheet SC-52 contains the 'SECTION THRU MEDIAN PARAPET', which directly contradicts Note 4. This indicates that the cross-references in the notes are incorrect and may point to the wrong sheets.

Why it matters: Incorrect cross-references can lead to delays or the application of incorrect reinforcement detailing. If the contractor assumes one of the sections on SC-52 is intended for the Double-Face Parapet, it could result in structural defects due to non-compliant dimensions or rebar placement. Addition...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct sheet locations for the 'Section thru Double-Face Concrete Parapet' and the 'Section thru Median Parapet', and update Notes 3 and 4 on Sheet SC-37 accordingly.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct sheet locations for the 'Section thru Double-Face Concrete Parapet' and the 'Section thru Median Parapet', and update Notes 3 and 4 on Sheet SC-37 accordingly.

Summary: Sheet SC-110 defines the single asterisk (*) note with a starting dimension of 2 7/16" and the double asterisk (**) note with a starting dimension of 2 7/16" at Sta. 276+98.65. However, sheet SC-43 defines the single asterisk (*) note with a starting dimension of 2 3/8", and defines the double asterisk (**) note with a starting dimension of 2 3/8" at Sta. 176+99.01 (which actually corresponds t...

Why it matters: These notes dictate the variable offsets for the roadway profile. The discrepancies in both dimensions (2 7/16" vs 2 3/8") and incorrect station references will lead to inaccurate geometric control and misalignment when laying out the concrete deck and barriers at these specific locations.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct starting offset dimensions for notes * and ** (2 7/16" or 2 3/8"). Additionally, confirm that note ** on sheet SC-43 should be revised to reference stations 276+98.65 to 277+25.53 with a 2 7/16" dimension as shown on sheet SC-110.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct starting offset dimensions for notes * and ** (2 7/16" or 2 3/8"). Additionally, confirm that note ** on sheet SC-43 should be revised to reference stations 276+98.65 to 277+25.53 with a 2 7/16" dimension as shown on she...

Summary: Sheet SC-32 (WB DECK PLAN STRUCTURE NO. 016-0460) specifies a minimum bar lap of 3'-5" for #5 bars, whereas Sheet SC-45 (EB DECK PLAN STRUCTURE NO. 016-0460) specifies a minimum bar lap of 3'-10" for the same bar size.

Why it matters: Minimum lap lengths are critical for ensuring proper load transfer and structural integrity. A discrepancy across deck plans for the same structure can lead to the contractor providing insufficient lap lengths (compromising structural capacity) or raising RFIs during construction.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct minimum bar lap length for #5 bars for Structure No. 016-0460. Should it be 3'-5" as indicated on Sheet SC-32, or 3'-10" as indicated on Sheet SC-45?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct minimum bar lap length for #5 bars for Structure No. 016-0460. Should it be 3'-5" as indicated on Sheet SC-32, or 3'-10" as indicated on Sheet SC-45?

Summary: The 'INSIDE ELEVATION OF EB SOUTH PARAPET' on sheet 461 identifies the centerline of the Overhead Span Sign Structure at 'Sta. 377+90.23'. However, the 'PLAN - OVERHEAD SIGN STRUCTURE BUMPOUT' on sheet SC-51 indicates the location is at 'Sta. 177+90.21'.

Why it matters: This is a discrepancy of exactly 200 stations (20,000 feet) and a slight decimal difference (0.23 vs 0.21). An incorrect stationing location will lead to severe positioning errors, layout confusion, and delays during construction.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct stationing for the Overhead Sign Structure bumpout. Should it be located at Sta. 377+90.23 or Sta. 177+90.21?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct stationing for the Overhead Sign Structure bumpout. Should it be located at Sta. 377+90.23 or Sta. 177+90.21?

Summary: Sheet SC-23 contains a 'DEAD LOAD DEFLECTION DIAGRAM - BEAMS 1 AND 2' which indicates intermediate dead load deflections of 1/8", 1/4", and 1/8" for the span between CL Bent H and CL Bent J. However, on Sheet SC-24, the elevation tables for BEAM 1 and BEAM 2 show that the 'Theoretical Grade Elevations' are identical to the 'Theoretical Grade Elevations Adjusted For Dead Load Deflection' for poi...

Why it matters: Note 1 on Sheet SC-23 instructs the Engineer to use the adjusted grade elevations on SC-24 instead of the diagram deflections in the field. If the SC-24 tables mistakenly omit the dead load deflection adjustments for Beams 1 and 2 in this span, it will result in incorrect slab thickness and fille...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct dead load deflections for Beams 1 and 2 in the span between Bent H and Bent J. Should the 'Theoretical Grade Elevations Adjusted For Dead Load Deflection' on Sheet SC-24 be updated to incorporate the 1/8", 1/4", and 1/8" deflections shown in the diag...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct dead load deflections for Beams 1 and 2 in the span between Bent H and Bent J. Should the 'Theoretical Grade Elevations Adjusted For Dead Load Deflection' on Sheet SC-24 be updated to incorporate the 1/8", 1/4", and 1/8"...

Summary: On sheet SC-25, the "PROP. WB B & PGL IDA B. WELLS DR." table shows "Theoretical Grade Elevations Adjusted For Dead Load Deflection" that are approximately 0.67' (8 inches) lower than the "Theoretical Grade Elevations" at all points, including at the supports (e.g., at Brg. Bent D, the Theoretical elevation is 611.39, but the Adjusted elevation is 610.72). Dead load deflection at bearing suppor...

Why it matters: Sheet SC-23 includes a note indicating that fillet heights are calculated by subtracting top-of-steel elevations and slab thickness from the "Theoretical Grade Elevations Adjusted for Dead Load Deflection" shown on the plans. If the PGL table already has the slab thickness inadvertently subtracte...

Suggested next step: Please review the "Theoretical Grade Elevations Adjusted For Dead Load Deflection" column in the "PROP. WB B & PGL IDA B. WELLS DR." table on sheet SC-25. The adjusted values are ~0.67' lower than the theoretical elevations at the supports, indicating an 8" slab thickness may ...

RFI draft: Please review the "Theoretical Grade Elevations Adjusted For Dead Load Deflection" column in the "PROP. WB B & PGL IDA B. WELLS DR." table on sheet SC-25. The adjusted values are ~0.67' lower than the theoretical elevations at the supports, indica...

Summary: The General Plan on sheet 413 indicates that Span 1 (from Gridline D / Bent D to Gridline E / Bent E) is 31'-3" when measured along both the WB and EB Reference Lines. However, the Offset Sketch on SC-05 shows the segment dimensions between Gridline D and Gridline E summing to 31'-5" along these same reference lines. For instance, along the WB Reference Line, the segments are dimensioned as 26'...

Why it matters: A 2-inch discrepancy in the primary span dimensions between Bent D and Bent E can lead to misplacement of foundations, incorrect steel beam fabrication lengths, and structural fit-up problems during superstructure erection.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct dimension between Gridline D and Gridline E along the reference lines. Should Span 1 be 31'-3" as dimensioned on the General Plan, or 31'-5" as derived from the offset segments on the Offset Sketch?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct dimension between Gridline D and Gridline E along the reference lines. Should Span 1 be 31'-3" as dimensioned on the General Plan, or 31'-5" as derived from the offset segments on the Offset Sketch?

Summary: On sheet SC-27, the "Dead Load Deflections" schedule indicates that Beam 17 has 0" dead load deflection across all spans, and Note 1 references the adjusted grade elevations on sheets SC-28 through SC-30. However, the "BEAM 17" table on sheet SC-30 shows non-zero adjustments. For example, at location N, the "Theoretical Grade Elevations" is 611.19 and the "Theoretical Grade Elevations Adjusted ...

Why it matters: This contradiction creates confusion over whether Beam 17 actually experiences dead load deflections and whether the contractor should build to the theoretical grade or the adjusted grade. If the contractor casts the deck using the adjusted elevations from SC-30 when the actual dead load deflecti...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the dead load deflection for Beam 17. Should the deflections be 0" as shown in the SC-27 Dead Load Deflections schedule, or should the adjusted theoretical grade elevations provided in the SC-30 BEAM 17 table be used?

RFI draft: Please clarify the dead load deflection for Beam 17. Should the deflections be 0" as shown in the SC-27 Dead Load Deflections schedule, or should the adjusted theoretical grade elevations provided in the SC-30 BEAM 17 table be used?

Summary: SC-46 Note 8 states: '8. For Barrier Gate and traffic gate connection details, see Sheet SC-54 and SC-55.' Following this reference, SC-54 details a 'S. BARRIER GATE SUPPORT PLAN' with its centerline at 'Sta. 179+01.70' (and 'SECTION C-C' confirming the 'Exist. S. Barrier Gate'). However, the EB Deck Plan on SC-46 does not depict or label this South Barrier Gate Support at or near '179+00', sho...

Why it matters: The omission of the South Barrier Gate Support from the main deck plan can lead to the contractor missing the required blockouts, anchor bolts, and structural steel connections detailed on SC-54 during the deck concrete pour, resulting in costly field rework.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the South Barrier Gate Support detailed on SC-54 should be added to the EB Deck Plan on SC-46 at station 179+01.70, and provide any specific deck reinforcement modifications required around this support.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the South Barrier Gate Support detailed on SC-54 should be added to the EB Deck Plan on SC-46 at station 179+01.70, and provide any specific deck reinforcement modifications required around this support.

Summary: The 'PARAPET JOINT DETAILS' specify cork joint dimensions for a '39" parapet'. However, the 'INSIDE ELEVATION OF MEDIAN PARAPET' and the cross-referenced 'SECTION THRU MEDIAN PARAPET (WB Span 1)' both clearly indicate that the parapet height is 3'-8" (44").

Why it matters: A discrepancy between the detailed parapet height (39") and the actual modeled/elevated parapet height (44") will cause confusion during fabrication and installation. If the cork joint is cut to 2'-5" as detailed for a 39" parapet, it will be 5 inches too short for the actual 44" parapet, comprom...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct parapet height. If the median parapet is 3'-8" (44") as shown in the section and elevation, please provide updated parapet joint details reflecting the correct cork joint length for a 44" parapet.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct parapet height. If the median parapet is 3'-8" (44") as shown in the section and elevation, please provide updated parapet joint details reflecting the correct cork joint length for a 44" parapet.