Plan Review: 223 Issues Found

Summary: The Basis of Design notes state the allowable interstory seismic drift as Δa < 0.02h. However, the lateral force resisting system is explicitly identified as 'Special Masonry Shear Walls' with R = 5.0. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.12-1, 'Other masonry shear wall structures' have an allowable story drift of 0.007hsx for all Risk Categories (including Risk Category II as designated). The stated 0.02h l...

Why it matters: This incorrect drift limit is referenced by all deferred submittal designers (exterior façade framing and cladding, steel stairs, nonstructural components) as stated in the drawing's own Exterior Façade Framing and Cladding and Deferred Submittals sections. Using 0.02h instead of 0.007hsx could l...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the allowable story drift limit for this building. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.12-1, the allowable story drift for 'Other masonry shear wall structures' is 0.007hsx for Risk Category II. The Basis of Design currently states Δa < 0.02h. Please revise the interstory dr...

RFI draft: Please confirm the allowable story drift limit for this building. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.12-1, the allowable story drift for 'Other masonry shear wall structures' is 0.007hsx for Risk Category II. The Basis of Design currently states Δa < 0.02h. P...

Summary: The demolition plan shows existing bearing walls to be removed (identified in the legend with cross-hatching). Demolition Note 10 states that all channels must be installed per a specific detail before any wall section may be removed, but the detail reference is left as a blank placeholder '(_/S-__)' with neither a detail number nor a sheet number provided. This is a permit set, and this incomp...

Why it matters: This incomplete reference on a permit set will cause immediate construction delays. The contractor cannot proceed with bearing wall demolition because Note 10 prohibits any wall section removal until channels are installed per the unidentified detail. Without the detail, there is no guidance on c...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer complete Note 10 by providing the correct detail number and sheet reference for the channel installation required before bearing wall removal. Confirm that the referenced detail exists in the permit set and that it provides adequate information ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer complete Note 10 by providing the correct detail number and sheet reference for the channel installation required before bearing wall removal. Confirm that the referenced detail exists in the permit set and that it ...

Summary: The 'ELEVATOR SECTION' explicitly notes a building pier that "COMES DOWN TO TOP OF ELEVATOR PIT," terminating the main vertical load path onto the elevator pit structure rather than continuing directly to the foundation.

Why it matters: Per ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.3, a continuous load path must be provided to transfer all forces to the final point of resistance. Furthermore, Section 4.6.2 dictates that elevator elements are subject to dynamic impact loads. Routing a primary building pier's gravity and seismic loads through elevat...

Suggested next step: Clarify the continuous load path for the structural pier. Provide foundation details demonstrating that the elevator pit walls have been specifically designed as a primary building foundation element capable of supporting the combined building pier loads and elevator dynamic i...

RFI draft: Clarify the continuous load path for the structural pier. Provide foundation details demonstrating that the elevator pit walls have been specifically designed as a primary building foundation element capable of supporting the combined building pie...

Summary: Multiple wall type details include the note: "CERAMIC TILE OR STOE (MAY OCCUR). REPLACE OUTSIDE LAYER OF GYP. BOARD W/ MOISTURE RESISTENT GYP. BOARD, WHERE TILE OCCURS." These are generic wall type details applied building-wide, including in shower and tub areas. Section 2509.2 requires that materials used as a base for wall tile in tub and shower areas shall be of materials listed in Table 250...

Why it matters: If moisture-resistant gypsum board is installed behind tile in shower and tub areas as directed by the wall detail notes, it will fail code inspection under Section 2509.2 and 2509.3. The installed material would need to be demolished and replaced with a compliant backer material from Table 2509....

Suggested next step: Request that the wall type detail notes be revised to distinguish between shower/tub wet areas and other tiled wall areas. For tub and shower areas, the note should specify a code-compliant backer material from Table 2509.2 (e.g., glass mat gypsum backing panel per ASTM C1178 ...

RFI draft: Request that the wall type detail notes be revised to distinguish between shower/tub wet areas and other tiled wall areas. For tub and shower areas, the note should specify a code-compliant backer material from Table 2509.2 (e.g., glass mat gypsum...

Summary: Detail 7 allows the structural beam to be only "TACKED IN PLACE" on one end "DURING ERECTION" and remain in this state until "THE BUILDING IS DRIED IN". A tack weld is meant only for temporary alignment and lacks the structural strength to safely support construction dead loads (such as the concrete floor deck pour shown in the detail) or lateral wind loads.

Why it matters: This practice violates the structural integrity code requirement that all beam and girder end connections must maintain a minimum nominal axial tensile strength of 10 kips (45 kN) at all times. Delaying the final structural weld until the building is dried in poses a severe collapse and safety ha...

Suggested next step: Revise Detail 7 to remove the option to delay final welding. Require the final structural welds (or a fully engineered temporary bolted/welded connection capable of supporting the 10 kips minimum axial tension and interim dead/lateral loads) to be completed before applying fur...

RFI draft: Revise Detail 7 to remove the option to delay final welding. Require the final structural welds (or a fully engineered temporary bolted/welded connection capable of supporting the 10 kips minimum axial tension and interim dead/lateral loads) to be...

Summary: Detail 20 instructs the contractor to furnish and install an "ADDITIONAL DIAGONAL WEB MEMBER, L2x2x3/16 MIN" for any concentrated load greater than 100 lbs located more than 6 inches from panel points. This violates IBC Sections 2207.2 and 2207.3, which require the registered design professional to indicate concentrated loads on the construction documents so that the steel joist manufacturer ca...

Why it matters: Allowing field-installed prescriptive minimum reinforcement for arbitrary concentrated loads (which could significantly exceed the structural capacity of an L2x2x3/16 member) circumvents the joist manufacturer's certified engineering design. This poses a severe structural failure risk and will ca...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 20 to remove the prescriptive contractor-installed reinforcement. Clarify that all concentrated loads must be indicated on the drawings and that the joist manufacturer is required to design the joists to support these specific loads in accordance with IBC ...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 20 to remove the prescriptive contractor-installed reinforcement. Clarify that all concentrated loads must be indicated on the drawings and that the joist manufacturer is required to design the joists to support these specific...

Summary: The floor plans for Level 01 and Level 02 depict an elevator shaft connecting the floors. IBC Sections 713.4 and 707.3.1 mandate that shaft enclosures connecting less than four stories must be constructed as fire barriers with a minimum 1-hour fire-resistance rating. The 'WALL COLOR LEGEND' specifies that a '1 HOUR RATED STUD WALL' is designated by a bright green rectangle with diagonal hatchin...

Why it matters: Failing to provide a fire-resistance-rated enclosure around the elevator shaft severely compromises the building's fire compartmentalization. During a fire event, an unrated shaft allows smoke and flames to bypass floor/ceiling assemblies and rapidly spread vertically. This critical life safety d...

Suggested next step: Confirm the fire-resistance rating required for the elevator shaft enclosure, and update the Level 01 and Level 02 floor plans to graphically indicate a minimum 1-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly around the shaft in accordance with the wall type legend.

RFI draft: Confirm the fire-resistance rating required for the elevator shaft enclosure, and update the Level 01 and Level 02 floor plans to graphically indicate a minimum 1-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly around the shaft in accordance with the wal...

Summary: Several masonry-to-deck bearing details on this sheet contain explicit placeholder blanks for headed stud anchor (HSA) spacing. For example, Detail 17 sub-details specify anchors as 'HSA AT (_)"oc', 'HSA AT (___)"oc', and 'HSA AT (__)"oc', and Detail 16 sub-details similarly show 'HSA AT (_)"oc' and 'HSA AT (__)"oc'. These parenthesized underscores are clearly unfilled placeholder values within...

Why it matters: Without specified anchor spacing, the contractor cannot install the headed stud anchors for the deck bearing plate connections to masonry walls. This affects all roof deck-to-masonry wall connections governed by Details 16 and 17, which are referenced as typical details across the project. Constr...

Suggested next step: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record provide the required headed stud anchor (HSA) spacing for all embed plates in Details 16 and 17 on sheet S702 where placeholder values currently exist. Specifically, fill in the blank spacing values for: (1) DB PL with 3/4" dia HS...

RFI draft: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record provide the required headed stud anchor (HSA) spacing for all embed plates in Details 16 and 17 on sheet S702 where placeholder values currently exist. Specifically, fill in the blank spacing values f...

Summary: Elevation 1 specifies 'W12X40' columns bearing on foundations at Level 01 and directs the contractor to 'SEE DETAIL (3 / S201)' for connection information. However, Detail 3 specifies a 'TUBE STEEL COLUMN TO SLAB DETAIL', providing anchorage for a hollow structural section (HSS/Tube) profile to an existing slab rather than a wide-flange profile to a foundation. This direct contradiction violate...

Why it matters: The contractor is left without a valid connection detail for the W12X40 columns, as the referenced Detail 3 applies to a completely different structural shape and base condition. This inconsistency will cause RFIs, halt structural steel fabrication, and delay framing erection.

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct base connection detail for the W12X40 columns shown in Elevation 1. If Detail 3 is the incorrect reference, please provide the applicable wide-flange connection detail. If the columns should be tube steel as shown in Detail 3, please update the elevation.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct base connection detail for the W12X40 columns shown in Elevation 1. If Detail 3 is the incorrect reference, please provide the applicable wide-flange connection detail. If the columns should be tube steel as shown in Detail 3, ...

Summary: TMS 402 Section 1.2.1(d) requires the project drawings to explicitly show the size and location of structural members. On the West Masonry Wall Reinforcing Elevation, the lower window openings located between Level 01 and Level 02 lack any masonry lintel callouts. While the upper section of the wall (between Level 02 and Level 03) correctly calls out 'ML-2' lintels for its openings, the lower s...

Why it matters: Omitting the structural lintel callouts means the contractor will not know the required size, reinforcement, or even the requirement to install a lintel over these lower windows. If the masonry is laid over the window openings without a properly designed structural lintel, it will lack the necess...

Suggested next step: Please revise the West Masonry Wall Reinforcing Elevation to specify the required masonry lintel (ML) callouts for the window openings located between Level 01 (100'-0") and Level 02 (114'-0").

RFI draft: Please revise the West Masonry Wall Reinforcing Elevation to specify the required masonry lintel (ML) callouts for the window openings located between Level 01 (100'-0") and Level 02 (114'-0").

Summary: Architectural plan A111 dimensions the internal elevator shaft width at 6'-0" (72"). Structural drawing S403 provides the typical elevator pit detail for this shaft but does not specify an overriding width. However, ADA clearance requirements on G006 dictate a minimum elevator car width of 68" (for a side-opening car) or 80" (for a center-opening car). A 72" wide structural shaft/pit cannot phy...

Why it matters: Elevator mechanical installations require the structural hoistway/pit to be wider than the interior car dimension to accommodate guide rails and running clearances. Constructing the shaft and pit at exactly 6'-0" will physically prevent the installation of an ADA-compliant elevator, resulting in ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended elevator cab type (side or center-opening) and revise the elevator shaft dimensions on A111, along with the corresponding structural pit dimensions on S403, to safely accommodate the ADA minimum car widths specified on G006 plus all necessary mechan...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended elevator cab type (side or center-opening) and revise the elevator shaft dimensions on A111, along with the corresponding structural pit dimensions on S403, to safely accommodate the ADA minimum car widths specified on ...

Summary: The architectural plans show the top-left (Northwest) corner of the building interior occupied by floor space (a 'COLLABORATION SPACE' on Level 02), enclosed continuously by an exterior masonry wall along both the top and left edges. The egress stair is located south of this corner room. However, the structural framing plan shows this entire top-left corner bay (Grid intersection A-5) as an 'OP...

Why it matters: This is a major discrepancy in the building footprint and shaft layout. If framed per the structural drawings, the corner Collaboration Space would lack both a floor structure and its northern exterior masonry envelope. The location of the main stairwell appears misaligned between the architectur...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the architectural layout versus the structural framing at the northwest corner (Grids A to B, at Grid 5). Does the top masonry wall wrap the corner, and should the Grid A-5 bay be framed for the 'COLLABORATION SPACE', or does the stair shaft occupy the extreme c...

RFI draft: Please clarify the architectural layout versus the structural framing at the northwest corner (Grids A to B, at Grid 5). Does the top masonry wall wrap the corner, and should the Grid A-5 bay be framed for the 'COLLABORATION SPACE', or does the st...

Summary: Architectural plans depict the interior southwest corner of the building footprint as solid floor space ('OFFICE' on Level 02, 'CUSTODIAN' on Level 01), entirely enclosed by the masonry perimeter wall. The egress stair ('COVERED EGRESS STAIR' / 'OUTDOOR PATIO') is shown as an exterior element extending outward (south) from the bottom masonry wall. Conversely, the structural framing plan shows t...

Why it matters: This conflict significantly impacts the building envelope and egress path. The architectural model places the stair outside the building's thermal and structural masonry envelope, while the structural plan frames a large opening inside the envelope at the corner, eliminating the Office/Custodian ...

Suggested next step: Please resolve the conflict at the southwest corner (Grid A-1). Is the egress stair meant to be an exterior extension outside the masonry perimeter wall as shown on architectural, or an interior shaft inside the masonry envelope as shown on structural? Update the floor framing...

RFI draft: Please resolve the conflict at the southwest corner (Grid A-1). Is the egress stair meant to be an exterior extension outside the masonry perimeter wall as shown on architectural, or an interior shaft inside the masonry envelope as shown on struct...

Summary: Wall Elevation 1 on S201 shows the vertical columns as 'W12X40' (wide-flange sections) and calls out 'Detail 6/S502' for both column base connections. However, Detail 6 on S502 is titled 'NEW TUBE STEEL COLUMN AT EXISTING WALL' and depicts a 'STL COL' with a tube steel (HSS) profile. A W12X40 is a wide-flange I-shaped section, which is fundamentally different from a tube steel (HSS) section. Th...

Why it matters: This conflict creates ambiguity about both the column member type and the appropriate base connection detail. If the columns are W12X40 wide-flange members, the tube steel base detail shown in 6/S502 cannot be used—the base plate dimensions, anchor bolt pattern, and weld configurations would be i...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the column type for Wall Elevation 1 on S201. The elevation labels the columns as W12X40 (wide-flange), but the referenced base connection Detail 6/S502 is specifically for a tube steel column. Please confirm whether the columns should be W12X40 wide-flange sect...

RFI draft: Please clarify the column type for Wall Elevation 1 on S201. The elevation labels the columns as W12X40 (wide-flange), but the referenced base connection Detail 6/S502 is specifically for a tube steel column. Please confirm whether the columns sho...

Summary: On the Footing and Foundation Plan (S101), multiple callouts direct the contractor to Detail 8/S501 for the heated parking manifold detail. However, on sheet S501, Detail 8 is titled 'TYPICAL TRIM BARS AROUND MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE WALL OPENINGS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,' which is an entirely unrelated detail concerning reinforcement around wall openings. No heated parking manifold detail exists ...

Why it matters: This cross-reference mismatch means the contractor will be unable to locate the structural detail for the heated parking manifold installation by following the callout on the foundation plan. Without the correct detail, the manifold support/embedment conditions, slab thickening, and coordination ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct detail number and sheet location for the heated parking manifold detail referenced on S101. Confirm whether a new detail needs to be added to S501 or if the callout on S101 should reference a different sheet/detail number.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct detail number and sheet location for the heated parking manifold detail referenced on S101. Confirm whether a new detail needs to be added to S501 or if the callout on S101 should reference a dif...