Plan Review: 168 Issues Found

Summary: Sheet S1.10B Note 3 specifies that RTU/drift/uplift loads are unfactored superimposed loads per ASCE 7-22, while Sheet S1.10D Note 3 specifies those same loads are per ASCE 7-16 with a base snow load of 30 PSF. These two sheets directly reference each other (1/S1.10D appears on S1.10B and 1/S1.10B appears on S1.10D), indicating they are part of the same coordinated roof loading design set. The ...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 and ASCE 7-22 have different provisions for snow loads, drift loads, and wind uplift loads. Applying different code editions to different units of the same building could lead to inconsistent structural designs, non-compliant members, and issues during plan review. The building code req...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which ASCE 7 edition governs the structural design for this project. S1.10B Note 3 references ASCE 7-22 while S1.10D Note 3 references ASCE 7-16. Please confirm the correct code edition and revise the affected sheets and load calculations accordingly.

RFI draft: Please clarify which ASCE 7 edition governs the structural design for this project. S1.10B Note 3 references ASCE 7-22 while S1.10D Note 3 references ASCE 7-16. Please confirm the correct code edition and revise the affected sheets and load calcul...

Summary: Sheet S1.10D (Roof Loading Plan - Unit D) Note 3 specifies that loads are per ASCE 7-16, while sheet S1.10E (Roof Loading Plan - Unit E) Note 3 specifies that loads are per ASCE 7-22. These are different editions of the structural loading standard with potentially different snow load provisions, ground snow load maps, drift calculation methods, and load combinations. Additionally, S1.10D includ...

Why it matters: Using two different code editions on adjacent, interconnected roof structures is a fundamental design inconsistency that can lead to mismatched load assumptions at the shared boundary. ASCE 7-22 includes updated provisions for snow loads, including drift calculations, that may produce different r...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which edition of ASCE 7 governs the design for all roof loading plans. S1.10D references ASCE 7-16 while S1.10E references ASCE 7-22. Please confirm the correct code edition and update all roof loading plan notes for consistency. Additionally, please confirm whe...

RFI draft: Please clarify which edition of ASCE 7 governs the design for all roof loading plans. S1.10D references ASCE 7-16 while S1.10E references ASCE 7-22. Please confirm the correct code edition and update all roof loading plan notes for consistency. Ad...

Summary: The Foundation Plan - Dugout (Plan 3/S1.01) shows an HSS6X6X3/8 column at the central footing labeled F5, with a section cut callout 2/S1.02 pointing directly to this column and footing. However, Detail 2 on S1.02 (SECTION @ DUGOUT) depicts a 4"Ø STD PIPE COL instead of the HSS6X6X3/8 shown on the plan. These are fundamentally different structural members: HSS6X6X3/8 is a 6"x6" square hollow st...

Why it matters: This conflict affects steel fabrication, base plate design, anchor bolt layout, and connection details. The base plate shown in Detail 2 (PL 3/4"x10"x10" with (4) 3/4"Ø anchor bolts on a 16"x16" formed concrete fill pedestal) is designed for a round pipe column, not a square HSS section. If the w...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the column type at the center footing (F5) of the Dugout structure. The Foundation Plan (Plan 3/S1.01) and Section 8/S1.02 show HSS6X6X3/8, while Section 2/S1.02 shows a 4"Ø STD PIPE COL with associated base plate and pedestal details. Please confirm the correct...

RFI draft: Please clarify the column type at the center footing (F5) of the Dugout structure. The Foundation Plan (Plan 3/S1.01) and Section 8/S1.02 show HSS6X6X3/8, while Section 2/S1.02 shows a 4"Ø STD PIPE COL with associated base plate and pedestal detai...

Summary: On the framing plan S2.03B, the joists spanning on the TT side of the W33X130 beam in the auditorium area are designated as 44LH11 - 6.5S, 8N. The plan includes a section callout 5/S6.19 at this W33X130 beam. However, section 5/S6.19 on sheet S6.19, which cuts through grids TT, SS, and RR.1, shows the joist on the TT side (left) of the W33X130 labeled as 36LH09 - 6.5N. A 44LH11 is a 44-inch dee...

Why it matters: This 8-inch depth difference between joist designations has significant structural and constructability implications. The joist depth directly affects the roof elevation at this location, clear height within the auditorium, and connection details to the W33X130 beam. Per the roof framing notes, t...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct joist designation for the auditorium area on the TT side of the W33X130 beam. The framing plan S2.03B shows 44LH11 - 6.5S, 8N joists, while section 5/S6.19 shows 36LH09 - 6.5N at the same location. Please confirm which designation is correct and revi...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct joist designation for the auditorium area on the TT side of the W33X130 beam. The framing plan S2.03B shows 44LH11 - 6.5S, 8N joists, while section 5/S6.19 shows 36LH09 - 6.5N at the same location. Please confirm which d...

Summary: S2.03B specifies "ROOF ANCHOR LOCATION, SEE 11 / S6.02" in framing bays supported by standard joists (e.g., "20K7"). Detail 11/S6.02 mandates that the joist manufacturer design these joists for a 1,000 lbs vertical point load. However, the joists lack the SJI-required "SP" (Special) designation to alert the manufacturer of this non-standard load. Furthermore, S2.03B Roof Framing Note 5 restrict...

Why it matters: Without an "SP" designation on the specific joists or a clear plan note encompassing anchor loads, the manufacturer will supply standard joists that are not engineered to safely support the 1,000 lbs fall protection point load. Compounding this, the incomplete structural notes on Detail 11/S6.02 ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if all joists supporting roof anchors must be designated as "SP" to account for the 1,000 lbs point load, and revise S2.03B Note 5 if it should also encompass anchor loads. Additionally, please provide the missing reference information for the incomplete "PROVID...

RFI draft: Please confirm if all joists supporting roof anchors must be designated as "SP" to account for the 1,000 lbs point load, and revise S2.03B Note 5 if it should also encompass anchor loads. Additionally, please provide the missing reference informat...

Summary: The Overall Foundation Plan on S2.01 explicitly references the Alternate No.1 plans on S12.02. On S12.02, the Foundation Notes define the Level 1 Datum (0'-0") at an absolute elevation of 720.67'. However, the Framed Floor Notes on the same sheet define Level Two at a relative height of 14'-8" but an absolute elevation of 736.33'. Adding 14'-8" (14.67') to the 720.67' datum yields 735.34', not ...

Why it matters: A 1-foot discrepancy in absolute building elevations will cause severe coordination failures across all trades. If Civil/Site relies on the 720.67' absolute elevation for Level 1, and Steel Detailers/Architects rely on the 736.33' and 751.00' elevations for the upper floors, manufactured elements...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct absolute elevations for the building. Should the Level 1 Datum Elevation be revised to 721.67' (to match the upper floors), or should the Level 2 and Level 3 absolute elevations be lowered by 1 foot to 735.34' and 750.00' respectively to correctly co...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct absolute elevations for the building. Should the Level 1 Datum Elevation be revised to 721.67' (to match the upper floors), or should the Level 2 and Level 3 absolute elevations be lowered by 1 foot to 735.34' and 750.00...

Summary: The structural matchline along Grid 11 is severely uncoordinated between Unit A (Sheet S2.01A) and Unit B (Sheet S2.01B). 1) At the intersection of Grid 11 and C, S2.01B indicates a massive "W10X112 , BP1" column with an "F12.5X8" footing at "EL.= -6' - 0"". S2.01A's corresponding matchline area only shows smaller "W10X49, BP1" columns and shallower footings (e.g., "F9 EL. = -3' - 4"", "F6 EL....

Why it matters: Because Grid 11 is the shared structural boundary between Unit A and Unit B, these discrepancies mean the foundation cannot be constructed as drawn. Differing building extents, column sizes, footing sizes, and depths at the exact same geometric location will cause immediate physical clashes, lead...

Suggested next step: Please coordinate the foundation plans for Unit A (S2.01A) and Unit B (S2.01B) along the Grid 11 matchline. Clarify the correct building footprint extent (Grid B vs. C), verify the column sizes (W10X49 vs. W10X112), and provide the correct footing types and bottom elevations f...

RFI draft: Please coordinate the foundation plans for Unit A (S2.01A) and Unit B (S2.01B) along the Grid 11 matchline. Clarify the correct building footprint extent (Grid B vs. C), verify the column sizes (W10X49 vs. W10X112), and provide the correct footing...

Summary: S7.01 depicts the braced frames at Grids 21.9-22.3 (Elevation 2) and Grids 17.8-18.3 (Elevation 4) as 3-tier systems, where X-bracing extends continuously to the foundation (evidenced by three sets of diagonal brace forces per frame). Conversely, S7.02 depicts these same frames as 2-tier systems, where the X-bracing terminates at a raised lower horizontal beam, leaving the base level unbraced (...

Why it matters: A fundamental conflict in frame geometry and the number of bracing tiers drastically alters the structural load path, base reaction forces, and steel fabrication requirements. If the steel is detailed based on the incorrect configuration, it will result in major rework and schedule delays.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct vertical configuration for the braced frames located at grids 21.9-22.3 and 17.8-18.3. Should the X-bracing extend all the way to the foundation per S7.01, or terminate at the lower horizontal beam per S7.02?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct vertical configuration for the braced frames located at grids 21.9-22.3 and 17.8-18.3. Should the X-bracing extend all the way to the foundation per S7.01, or terminate at the lower horizontal beam per S7.02?

Summary: The Roof Loading Plan Notes on sheet S1.10C (Unit C) specify that RTU/drift/uplift loads are per ASCE 7-22, while the Roof Framing Notes on sheet S1.10D (Unit D) specify these same loads are per ASCE 7-16. These are different editions of the ASCE 7 standard with significant changes in snow load, wind load, and seismic load provisions. Both units are part of the same project and should be design...

Why it matters: Using two different code editions for loading on the same project would create inconsistency in the structural design basis. ASCE 7-22 includes updated snow load provisions (including changes to ground snow loads and drift formulations) compared to ASCE 7-16. If the joist manufacturer designs joi...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which edition of ASCE 7 governs the design for this project. S1.10C Note 3 references ASCE 7-22 while S1.10D Note 3 references ASCE 7-16. Please confirm the correct code edition and revise the affected loading plan(s) accordingly.

RFI draft: Please clarify which edition of ASCE 7 governs the design for this project. S1.10C Note 3 references ASCE 7-22 while S1.10D Note 3 references ASCE 7-16. Please confirm the correct code edition and revise the affected loading plan(s) accordingly.

Summary: The Foundation Plan - Dugout (Plan 3 on S1.01) shows an HSS6X6X3/8 column at the central F5 footing, with section callout 2/S1.02 pointing directly to this footing. However, Section 2 on S1.02 (SECTION @ DUGOUT) depicts a 4"Ø STD PIPE COL at this column footing location. Additionally, Section 8/S1.02, which is referenced from the Roof Framing Plan - Dugout and shows the roof-to-column connectio...

Why it matters: This conflict directly affects the structural design of the dugout. The column size determines the footing design, base plate connections, and the beam-to-column connection hardware. If the wrong column is installed, it could be undersized for the design loads, posing a safety risk. The base plat...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct column type at the central footing (F5) of the Dugout. The Foundation Plan (Plan 3/S1.01) and Section 8/S1.02 show HSS6X6X3/8, while Section 2/S1.02 shows a 4"Ø STD PIPE COL. Please confirm which column is correct and revise the conflicting drawing(s...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct column type at the central footing (F5) of the Dugout. The Foundation Plan (Plan 3/S1.01) and Section 8/S1.02 show HSS6X6X3/8, while Section 2/S1.02 shows a 4"Ø STD PIPE COL. Please confirm which column is correct and re...

Summary: The Foundation Plan (S2.01A) establishes the building datum at 0'-0" = 720.67'. The Level 2 Framing Plan (S2.02A) states the top of floor slab elevation as 14'-8" (736.33'). Adding 14'-8" (14.667') to the datum of 720.67' yields 735.34', not 736.33', a discrepancy of approximately 1.00'. Similarly, the Level 3 Framing Plan (S2.03A) states the top of floor slab elevation as 29'-4" (751.00'). Ad...

Why it matters: A 1-foot discrepancy in the building datum directly impacts foundation excavation depths, column heights, steel fabrication lengths, and floor-to-foundation connections. All site civil elevations, architectural finish floor elevations, and MEP tie-in elevations are derived from this datum. If the...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct building datum elevation. The foundation plan states DATUM EL = 0'-0" at 720.67', but the Level 2 absolute elevation of 736.33' (at 14'-8" above datum) and Level 3 absolute elevation of 751.00' (at 29'-4" above datum) both im...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct building datum elevation. The foundation plan states DATUM EL = 0'-0" at 720.67', but the Level 2 absolute elevation of 736.33' (at 14'-8" above datum) and Level 3 absolute elevation of 751.00' (...

Summary: The foundation plan (S2.01B) states the datum EL = 0'-0" corresponds to absolute elevation 720.67'. The Level 2 framing plan (S2.02B) states the top of floor slab elevation is 14'-8" (736.33'). If 0'-0" = 720.67', then 14'-8" should equal 720.67 + 14.667 = 735.34', not 736.33'. The difference is approximately 0.99' (~12"). The Level 3 framing plan (S2.03B) states the top of floor slab elevation...

Why it matters: A 1-foot error in the datum elevation directly affects all footing and pier elevations referenced from the datum on the foundation plan. This discrepancy will cause confusion during construction layout and could lead to incorrect excavation depths, footing elevations, and slab elevations. It also...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to clarify and reconcile the datum elevation. The foundation plan states DATUM EL = 0'-0" at 720.67', but Level 2 (14'-8" = 736.33') and Level 3 (29'-4" = 751.00') absolute elevations imply a datum of approximately 721.67'. Please confirm whethe...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to clarify and reconcile the datum elevation. The foundation plan states DATUM EL = 0'-0" at 720.67', but Level 2 (14'-8" = 736.33') and Level 3 (29'-4" = 751.00') absolute elevations imply a datum of approximately ...

Summary: The foundation plan S2.01D establishes the structural datum as 0'-0" = 720.67' (survey). The Level 2 framing plan S2.02D states the top of floor slab elevation as 14'-8" (736.33'). However, 720.67' + 14'-8" = 735.34', not 736.33', a discrepancy of approximately 1'-0". Similarly, the Level 3 framing plan S2.03D states the top of floor slab elevation as 29'-4" (751.00'). However, 720.67' + 29'-4...

Why it matters: This 1-foot systematic error affects all survey-based coordination with civil, site grading, MEP rough-in elevations, and exterior construction. If the foundation datum is incorrect, excavation depths, footing elevations relative to site grades, and utility tie-in elevations could all be wrong by...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct relationship between the structural datum (0'-0") and the survey elevation. The foundation plan S2.01D states 0'-0" = 720.67', but the absolute elevations on S2.02D (14'-8" = 736.33') and S2.03D (29'-4" = 751.00') both imply the datum should be 721.6...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct relationship between the structural datum (0'-0") and the survey elevation. The foundation plan S2.01D states 0'-0" = 720.67', but the absolute elevations on S2.02D (14'-8" = 736.33') and S2.03D (29'-4" = 751.00') both i...

Summary: Elevations on S7.01 depict the braced frames at grid lines 21.9-22.3 (Elevation 2/S7.01) and 17.8-18.3 (Elevation 4/S7.01) as three-tier frames, showing three distinct levels of cross-bracing (HSS6X6X1/4 with F = +/- 10K). Conversely, the opposite views of these exact same frames on S7.02 (Elevations 2/S7.02 and 4/S7.02) depict them as two-tier frames, omitting the bottom tier of cross-bracing ...

Why it matters: This direct contradiction creates ambiguity regarding the required lateral load-resisting system. If the 3-tier system is assumed but only 2 tiers are installed, the frame may fail to meet structural wind/seismic load requirements. Conversely, adding an unintended third tier could clash with arch...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct configuration for the braced frames at grids 21.9-22.3 and 17.8-18.3. Should these frames have three tiers of X-bracing as shown on S7.01, or two tiers as shown on S7.02?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct configuration for the braced frames at grids 21.9-22.3 and 17.8-18.3. Should these frames have three tiers of X-bracing as shown on S7.01, or two tiers as shown on S7.02?

Summary: Roof Framing Note 3 on the drawing states 'BASE SNOW LOAD = 30PSF.' However, the project specification Design Loads section explicitly states the Ground Snow Load Pg = 35 PSF (Frederick County Requirement) and the Flat-Roof Snow Load Pf = 35 PSF. Whether 'base snow load' refers to the ground snow load or the flat-roof snow load, 30 PSF directly contradicts the specification value of 35 PSF. Not...

Why it matters: Using a base snow load of 30 PSF instead of 35 PSF would result in unconservative snow drift loads. Since drift surcharge loads are calculated based on the ground snow load, underestimating Pg directly reduces the magnitude of drift loads applied to the roof structure. This could lead to inadequa...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to confirm whether the base snow load for the project is 35 PSF per the Design Loads section on S0.01, and to revise the Roof Loading Plan note accordingly. Verify that all drift and snow loading calculations on the roof loading plans ...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to confirm whether the base snow load for the project is 35 PSF per the Design Loads section on S0.01, and to revise the Roof Loading Plan note accordingly. Verify that all drift and snow loading calculati...