Plan Review: 29 Issues Found

Summary: The drawing states Site Class D with mapped spectral acceleration parameters Ss = 0.1905g and S1 = 0.0857g. The drawing reports Sms = 0.248 and Sm1 = 0.129. Back-calculating the site coefficients: Fa = 0.248 / 0.1905 ≈ 1.30 and Fv = 0.129 / 0.0857 ≈ 1.50. These correspond to Site Class C coefficients per ASCE 7-16 Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2, not Site Class D. For Site Class D with Ss ≤ 0.25, Tabl...

Why it matters: Using unconservative seismic site coefficients directly affects all seismic design forces, member sizing, connection designs, and potentially the Seismic Design Category. The drawing shows SDC = B, but with the corrected SD1 = 0.137, the SDC could increase to C, which would impose more stringent ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer verify the seismic site coefficients Fa and Fv used for Site Class D. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-1, Fa = 1.6 for Site Class D with Ss ≤ 0.25, and per Table 11.4-2, Fv = 2.4 for Site Class D with S1 ≤ 0.1. Recalculate SMS, SM1, SDS, SD1, and confir...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer verify the seismic site coefficients Fa and Fv used for Site Class D. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-1, Fa = 1.6 for Site Class D with Ss ≤ 0.25, and per Table 11.4-2, Fv = 2.4 for Site Class D with S1 ≤ 0.1. Recalculate ...

Summary: Using the correct Site Class D coefficients (Fa = 1.6, Fv = 2.4), the corrected SD1 = 2/3 × (2.4 × 0.0857) = 0.137. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.6-2, for 0.133 ≤ SD1 < 0.20 with Risk Category II, the Seismic Design Category is C. The corrected SDS = 2/3 × (1.6 × 0.1905) = 0.203, which per Table 11.6-1 for 0.167 ≤ SDS < 0.33 with Risk Category II yields SDC B. Per Section 11.6, each structure shall be...

Why it matters: A change from SDC B to SDC C introduces additional design and detailing requirements, including potentially more stringent redundancy provisions, additional structural irregularity checks, and different height limitations for certain structural systems. The 'Steel not detailed for seismic' system...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer reclassify the Seismic Design Category using the corrected design spectral parameters (SDS and SD1) computed with proper Site Class D coefficients, and verify that all SDC-dependent requirements (system selection, detailing, redundancy, irr...

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer reclassify the Seismic Design Category using the corrected design spectral parameters (SDS and SD1) computed with proper Site Class D coefficients, and verify that all SDC-dependent requirements (system selecti...

Summary: General Note 3.06 directs that non-load bearing exterior curtain wall framing 'SHALL BE DESIGN FOR WIND LOADS ONLY'. This explicitly conflicts with IBC Section 1604.2, which requires parts of structures to be designed to safely support the factored loads in the applicable load combinations. Load combinations require exterior walls to account for Dead loads (self-weight) and Seismic loads (if ap...

Why it matters: Restricting the delegated design to 'wind loads only' instructs the manufacturer to neglect the wall's self-weight and potential out-of-plane or in-plane seismic forces. For heavier cladding systems like brick veneer, seismic forces often govern over wind loads. Ignoring these required load combi...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note 3.06 to remove the 'WIND LOADS ONLY' limitation. Clarify that the exterior curtain wall framing must be designed for all applicable load combinations defined in the building code, including Dead, Wind, and Seismic loads.

RFI draft: Please revise Note 3.06 to remove the 'WIND LOADS ONLY' limitation. Clarify that the exterior curtain wall framing must be designed for all applicable load combinations defined in the building code, including Dead, Wind, and Seismic loads.

Summary: General note 1.01B on S000 lists the design basis as ASCE 7-22. However, the wind loads section on the same sheet explicitly states the analysis uses 'ASCE 7-16 DIRECTIONAL METHOD,' and the seismic loads section references 'ASCE 7-16 SECTION 12.8.' Since IBC 2024 adopts ASCE 7-22, the lateral load calculations should use ASCE 7-22, not ASCE 7-16.

Why it matters: Wind speed maps, exposure categories, seismic response parameters, and load combination factors changed between ASCE 7-16 and ASCE 7-22. A plan reviewer checking code compliance against IBC 2024 will flag the use of the superseded ASCE 7-16 edition. If the actual calculations were performed to AS...

Suggested next step: Clarify which edition of ASCE 7 governs lateral load design. If ASCE 7-22 is the correct reference per IBC 2024, update the wind and seismic load calculations and all associated parameters accordingly. If ASCE 7-16 was intentionally used under a Georgia amendment, correct the ...

RFI draft: Clarify which edition of ASCE 7 governs lateral load design. If ASCE 7-22 is the correct reference per IBC 2024, update the wind and seismic load calculations and all associated parameters accordingly. If ASCE 7-16 was intentionally used under a G...

Summary: The general structural notes (1.01B) state the structure is designed per 'MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES (ASCE 7-22)'. However, the wind loads analysis explicitly references 'ASCE 7-16 DIRECTIONAL METHOD' and the seismic loads analysis references 'ASCE 7-16 SECTION 12.8'. ACI 318-19 Section 26.2.1(a) requires the construction documents to specify the 'Name and year of i...

Why it matters: This conflicting information will likely be flagged during plan review by the building official, causing permit delays. If the lateral analyses were actually performed using ASCE 7-16 provisions when the jurisdiction (IBC 2024 with GA amendments) requires ASCE 7-22, there may be differences in wi...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify which edition of ASCE 7 was used for the wind and seismic load analyses. If ASCE 7-22 is the governing standard per IBC 2024 with GA amendments, request that the wind and seismic load sections be revised to reflect ASCE 7-22 provisions a...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify which edition of ASCE 7 was used for the wind and seismic load analyses. If ASCE 7-22 is the governing standard per IBC 2024 with GA amendments, request that the wind and seismic load sections be revised to ...

Summary: The concrete protection table (Detail 1, 'CONCRETE PROTECTION FOR REINF.') on sheet S200 specifies 1" concrete cover for 'TIES, STIRRUPS, SPIRALS' under 'BEAMS, COLUMNS' in condition c) 'CONCRETE NOT EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR IN CONTACT WITH GROUND.' ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1 requires 1-1/2" specified cover for 'Primary reinforcement, stirrups, ties, spirals, and hoops' in 'Beams, columns, pedest...

Why it matters: If beams and columns are constructed with only 1" cover to ties and stirrups instead of the required 1-1/2", this could be identified as a code violation during inspection, resulting in rework, construction delays, or rejection by the building official. Insufficient cover also compromises long-te...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the concrete protection table to specify 1-1/2" cover for ties, stirrups, spirals, and hoops in beams, columns, pedestals, and tension ties not exposed to weather or in contact with ground, in accordance with ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the concrete protection table to specify 1-1/2" cover for ties, stirrups, spirals, and hoops in beams, columns, pedestals, and tension ties not exposed to weather or in contact with ground, in accordance with...

Summary: Detail 9 (TYP. LATERAL BRACE ATTACHMENT), Option B specifies a 1/8" (0.125") fillet weld on 3 sides to connect a 2"×2"×54 mil (16 GA) clip angle to metal studs and a 1-1/2" cold-rolled channel. Where the clip angle leg overlaps the stud web surface, this constitutes a lap joint configuration per AISI S100-16 Section J2.5. The code explicitly requires that in lap joints, the weld leg w1 shall no...

Why it matters: Specifying an oversized fillet weld on thin-gauge material risks burn-through during field welding, leading to compromised lateral bracing connections. This detail applies to the bracing system for curtain wall studs that must resist wind loads. A code-compliance inspector reviewing the installat...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the fillet weld size for the clip angle lap joint connections in Detail 9 Option B. Per AISI S100-16 Section J2.5, the weld leg w1 must not exceed t1 (the connected member thickness) in lap joints. The 1/8" (0.125") specified weld leg exc...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the fillet weld size for the clip angle lap joint connections in Detail 9 Option B. Per AISI S100-16 Section J2.5, the weld leg w1 must not exceed t1 (the connected member thickness) in lap joints. The 1/8" (...

Summary: General Note 1.01 establishes the structural design basis using ASCE 7-22 and ANSI/AISC 360-22. However, AISI S100-16 (2020) Section A2.1 explicitly requires the use of ASCE/SEI 7-16 and ANSI/AISC 360-16 as the governing referenced standards for designs in the United States and Mexico.

Why it matters: Relying on unapproved or mismatched editions of the primary structural standards can lead to significant discrepancies in load combinations, member capacities, and wind/seismic forces. This creates a compliance issue during permitting, as the base cold-formed steel code is calibrated against the ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the design basis should be revised to ASCE/SEI 7-16 and ANSI/AISC 360-16 to comply with the AISI S100-16 (2020) referenced standards, and update General Note 1.01 to reflect the legally mandated code editions.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the design basis should be revised to ASCE/SEI 7-16 and ANSI/AISC 360-16 to comply with the AISI S100-16 (2020) referenced standards, and update General Note 1.01 to reflect the legally mandated code editions.

Summary: Detail 10 (MULTI. STUDS & JAMB STUD ATTACH.) specifies built-up stud assemblies such as 'DOUBLE STUDS' and 'DOUBLE JAMB' to be uniformly fastened with screws spaced at 12 inches on center ('2 #10 @ 12"' and '4 #10 @ 12"'). However, AISI S100 Section I1.2(b) requires that the ends of built-up compression members must be connected with fasteners spaced longitudinally no more than 4 fastener diame...

Why it matters: Adequate end fastening is critical for built-up compression members to ensure the individual cold-formed sections act compositely. Without the required tight spacing at the ends, the individual studs may buckle or cripple independently under axial loads (such as those transferred through window j...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 10 to include a note specifying that the ends of built-up compression members (including jambs and multiple load-bearing studs) shall have fasteners spaced at a maximum of 4 screw diameters for a distance equal to 1.5 times the maximum width of the member,...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 10 to include a note specifying that the ends of built-up compression members (including jambs and multiple load-bearing studs) shall have fasteners spaced at a maximum of 4 screw diameters for a distance equal to 1.5 times th...

Summary: The drawing lists roof C&C downward (positive) wind pressures for Zones 1, 2, and 3 as 8.38 psf, 7.85 psf, 7.16 psf, and 6.63 psf for tributary areas ranging from <20 ft² to <200 ft². ASCE 7-16 Section 30.2.2 requires that the design wind pressure for C&C shall not be less than a net pressure of 16 psf acting in either direction normal to the surface. All listed positive roof C&C pressures are ...

Why it matters: Using these unconservatively low positive roof pressures could result in undersized roof cladding, deck attachments, and component connections for the downward wind loading case. During plan review, this will likely be flagged as a code violation, causing permitting delays. If constructed without...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the roof C&C positive (downward) wind pressures comply with the ASCE 7-16 Section 30.2.2 minimum net pressure requirement of 16 psf in either direction. The current listed values of 6.63–8.38 psf are below this minimum. Please revise the roof C&C positive p...

RFI draft: Please confirm that the roof C&C positive (downward) wind pressures comply with the ASCE 7-16 Section 30.2.2 minimum net pressure requirement of 16 psf in either direction. The current listed values of 6.63–8.38 psf are below this minimum. Please ...

Summary: Detail 4 (Section at Exterior Wall) explicitly shows '3/4"øx1'-6" SMOOTH DOWELS @ 18" O.C.' connecting the existing slab to the new foundation, creating a direct structural load path between the new addition and the existing building. However, Detail 5 (Typical Interior Steel Column Footing) shows a '1"- GAP BETWEEN NEW BLDG. AND EXISITNG BLDG.' at the column locations, indicating the designer ...

Why it matters: If the addition is classified as structurally dependent due to the dowel connections, ASCE 7-16 Section 11B.3 requires the entire structure—including the existing building—to conform to current seismic force-resistance requirements for new structures, unless all three exception conditions are dem...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the new addition is intended to be structurally independent or structurally dependent from the existing building per ASCE 7-16 Sections 11B.2 and 11B.3. If structurally independent, explain how the smooth dowels shown in Detail 4 do not create seismic force tra...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the new addition is intended to be structurally independent or structurally dependent from the existing building per ASCE 7-16 Sections 11B.2 and 11B.3. If structurally independent, explain how the smooth dowels shown in Detail 4 d...

Summary: Note 3.06 on sheet S300 explicitly states: "NON-LOAD BEARING EXTERIOR CURTAIN WALL FRAMING SHALL BE DESIGN FOR WIND LOADS ONLY WITH FOLLOWING LIMITS FOR ULTIMATE WIND SPEED 110 mph." However, ASCE 7-16 Table 13.5-1 lists "Exterior nonstructural walls" with seismic design coefficients ap=1, Rp=2½, and Ω0=2, and Section 13.5.5 requires out-of-plane bending design for seismic forces. Additionally,...

Why it matters: If the metal stud manufacturer designs the curtain wall framing based solely on the wind load criteria given in note 3.06 without considering seismic out-of-plane forces per ASCE 7-16 Chapter 13, the resulting stud sizes and connection designs may be inadequate for seismic loading. This omission ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the exterior non-load bearing curtain wall framing must also be designed for seismic forces per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.3.1 and Table 13.5-1 in addition to wind loads. If the project is exempt from nonstructural seismic requirements (e.g., Seismic Design Ca...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the exterior non-load bearing curtain wall framing must also be designed for seismic forces per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.3.1 and Table 13.5-1 in addition to wind loads. If the project is exempt from nonstructural seismic require...

Summary: Sections 6 and 10 detail a base plate connection between an HSS4x4x1/4 steel column and a steel Roof Perimeter Beam. The drawings specify "(4)-3/4"ø ANCHOR BOLTS" for this joint. Anchor bolts are designed exclusively for embedment into concrete or masonry foundations. Using them to fasten steel structural members together is physically unconstructible.

Why it matters: Because the specified anchor bolt hardware cannot be used for a steel-to-steel connection, the joint cannot be completed as designed. This failure severs the necessary continuous load path between the roof structure and the perimeter framing, directly violating ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3, which requir...

Suggested next step: Confirm that the connections between the HSS column base plates and the steel Roof Perimeter Beam in Sections 6 and 10 should utilize structural machine bolts (e.g., A325, as correctly detailed in Section 9) rather than concrete anchor bolts, and update the hardware callouts a...

RFI draft: Confirm that the connections between the HSS column base plates and the steel Roof Perimeter Beam in Sections 6 and 10 should utilize structural machine bolts (e.g., A325, as correctly detailed in Section 9) rather than concrete anchor bolts, and ...

Summary: The drawing header states 'ANALYSIS PROCEDURE: ANALYTICAL METHOD - ASCE 7-16 DIRECTIONAL METHOD,' yet all code citations on the same sheet reference IBC 2024 (e.g., FIG. 1609.3(1) – IBC2024, TABLE 1604.5 – IBC 2024, SECT. 1609.4.3 – IBC 2024). IBC 2024 adopts ASCE 7-22, not ASCE 7-16. The drawing also lists the Ground Elevation Factor, Ke = 1.00, a parameter introduced in ASCE 7-22 that does no...

Why it matters: This code-edition conflict has practical consequences. If ASCE 7-22 is the governing standard (as required by IBC 2024), the velocity pressure is understated by approximately 18% (15.00 psf vs. 18.17 psf). Subcontractors (cladding, glazing, roofing) using the stated 15.00 psf to independently cal...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer clarify which edition of ASCE 7 is the basis of design. If ASCE 7-22 applies (as required by the IBC 2024 citations on the drawing), request recalculation of the velocity pressure per ASCE 7-22 Equation 26.10-1 (qz = 0.00256 × Kz × Kzt × Ke...

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer clarify which edition of ASCE 7 is the basis of design. If ASCE 7-22 applies (as required by the IBC 2024 citations on the drawing), request recalculation of the velocity pressure per ASCE 7-22 Equation 26.10-1...

Summary: Drawing Note 3.04 specifies that cold-formed steel design shall be in accordance with 'AISI SPECIFICATION FOR DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS OR LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR COLD-FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.' These are the pre-2001 separate ASD and LRFD specifications that were superseded and unified into AISI S100 (North American Specification for the ...

Why it matters: Referencing superseded design standards on the construction documents will likely result in plan check corrections by the building department, delaying permit issuance. Because Note 3.01 delegates cold-formed steel design to the contractor's engineer, the incorrect standard reference in Note 3.04...

Suggested next step: Request that the Engineer of Record revise Note 3.04 to reference AISI S100 for general cold-formed steel structural member design per IBC Section 2204.1, and AISI S240 for cold-formed steel light-frame construction per IBC Section 2206.1. Confirm that all delegated design req...

RFI draft: Request that the Engineer of Record revise Note 3.04 to reference AISI S100 for general cold-formed steel structural member design per IBC Section 2204.1, and AISI S240 for cold-formed steel light-frame construction per IBC Section 2206.1. Confirm...