K-12 Classroom Modernization (Structural Calcs): 10 Issues Found

Summary: The wind design note on S1.01 is labeled 'WIND LOADS (ASCE 7-16 SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE, SECTION 28.5.3)' and visually shows the relationship P = λKzt pS30 with λ = 1.21 and Kzt = 1.0 above the pressure table. Using that displayed factor, the positive table values for Zone B (7.38 psf) and Zone C (14.45 psf) are not below the ASCE 7-16 Section...

Why it matters: The original issue overstates the problem by including Zones B and C. Based on the visual note and the code minimums, the apparent noncompliance is limited to Zone D. If this value is used for design, the wind load effects for that zone could be understated.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the final simplified design wind pressure used for Zone D and revise the wind design criteria as needed to satisfy ASCE 7-16 Section 28.5.4 minimum design wind loads.

RFI draft: Please confirm the final simplified design wind pressure used for Zone D and revise the wind design criteria as needed to satisfy ASCE 7-16 Section 28.5.4 minimum design wind loads.

Summary: Detail 13, 'CONCRETE SLAB PATCH,' shows '#3 DOWEL @ 18\' OC W/ SIMPSON EPOXY ANCHOR' and a dimensioned '3\' MIN LAP' between the overlapping dowels. The '4\' TYP' callout is a separate horizontal dimension near the patch edge, while slab thickness is shown separately as 'VIF'. On the same sheet, the 'REINF BAR SPLICE AND STRAIGHT DEVELOPMENT...

Why it matters: If this patch is installed as detailed, the dowel splice may not fully develop the reinforcement across the repair. That can lead to rejected inspection, added dowels or epoxy retrofit, and patch rework after demolition and drilling have already occurred.

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 13 to provide a lap/development length for the #3 patch dowels that is consistent with the sheet's splice schedule, and clarify the required epoxy dowel embedment/lap for this slab patch before construction.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 13 to provide a lap/development length for the #3 patch dowels that is consistent with the sheet's splice schedule, and clarify the required epoxy dowel embedment/lap for this slab patch before construction.

Summary: Detail 7 requires a '5/8\'Ø x8\' EPOXY AB' with '7\' MIN EMBED' at the sill anchorage, and the same detail shows 2x studs bearing on a sill plate. IBC 2304.3.1 requires studs to bear on a plate or sill that is 'actual 1 1/2-inch' thick or larger. An 8-inch anchor cannot pass through the required sill plate and still provide 7 inches of...

Why it matters: This will force a field change at the wall anchorage because either the embedment will be shorter than detailed or the sill plate thickness would have to be reduced below the code minimum. That creates a likely permit comment, RFI, and installation delay for this wall detail.

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 7 so the sill anchorage is buildable and code-compliant, such as by increasing the anchor length to accommodate the code-required minimum sill thickness and the stated 7-inch embedment, or by revising the anchorage design and notes accordingly.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 7 so the sill anchorage is buildable and code-compliant, such as by increasing the anchor length to accommodate the code-required minimum sill thickness and the stated 7-inch embedment, or by revising the anchorage design and notes accordingly.

Summary: On the roof framing plan, the beam identified with the 13/S8.10 callout is labeled '(E)GLB 7 x 51 5/8.' In the referenced Detail 13, the same member is labeled '7\' x 51\' GLULAM.' Because the plan explicitly points to Detail 13, the member size shown in the detail does not match the plan.

Why it matters: This inconsistency can lead to incorrect connection fit-up and miscoordination of framing, sheathing, and attachment work because the referenced structural detail is not dimensionally aligned with the plan callout.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the member at the 13/S8.10 locations is '(E)GLB 7 x 51 5/8' or '7\' x 51\' GLULAM,' and revise the drawings so the referenced detail matches the roof framing plan.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the member at the 13/S8.10 locations is '(E)GLB 7 x 51 5/8' or '7\' x 51\' GLULAM,' and revise the drawings so the referenced detail matches the roof framing plan.

Summary: Both S4.10 'EPOXY ANCHOR BOLT AT (E) FOOTING' variants state 'ADD 5/8\'Ø EPOXY AB W/ PLATE WASHER PER DETAIL 4/S8.00 @ 48\' OC BTWN (E) AB W/ 7\' MIN EMBED.' On S8.00, Detail 4 is 'BORE AND NOTCH LIMITS IN JOISTS,' not an anchor bolt plate detail. On the same sheet, Detail 2 is 'TYPICAL ANCHOR BOLT PLATES' and includes 'ALT TO GALV 5/8\' Ø MB...

Why it matters: This note controls retrofit anchorage into '(E) FOOTING' at '48\' OC' with '7\' MIN EMBED'. If the note is followed literally, the user is sent to a joist detail instead of the anchor hardware detail, leaving the required plate/washer assembly unresolved for a structural footing connection. That can delay plan review and create field...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct S8.00 reference for the S4.10 note calling for 'ADD 5/8\'Ø EPOXY AB W/ PLATE WASHER' and '7\' MIN EMBED.' Should this reference be revised to Detail 2, 'TYPICAL ANCHOR BOLT PLATES,' instead of Detail 4, 'BORE AND NOTCH LIMITS IN JOISTS'?

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct S8.00 reference for the S4.10 note calling for 'ADD 5/8\'Ø EPOXY AB W/ PLATE WASHER' and '7\' MIN EMBED.' Should this reference be revised to Detail 2, 'TYPICAL ANCHOR BOLT PLATES,' instead of Detail 4, 'BORE AND NOTCH LIMITS IN JOISTS'?

Summary: On the roof framing plan, the member tagged to 13/S8.10 is labeled '(E)GLB 7 x 51 5/8'. In Detail 13, the same member is identified as an existing glulam beam and sized '7\' x 51\' GLULAM'. These member sizes do not match.

Why it matters: This leaves the beam size unresolved at the referenced condition. Even a 5/8 in. difference can affect fit-up, connection geometry, and field verification for work built to the detail.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct existing glulam size at the 13/S8.10 condition and revise the plan or detail so one consistent beam size is shown.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct existing glulam size at the 13/S8.10 condition and revise the plan or detail so one consistent beam size is shown.

Summary: The elevation note for the 'CMSTC16' continuous strap instructs installers to 'FASTEN W/ 16d SINKER EVERY HOLE,' but the project rough carpentry requirements state that 'NAILS CALLED FOR ON PLANS AND DETAILS SHALL BE COMMON WIRE' and also that 'ALL NAILS SHALL BE COMMON WIRE NAILS.' The drawing therefore specifies a nail type that conflicts...

Why it matters: If built as drawn, this strap fastening would use a nail type that does not match the project nail requirement, which can affect the intended connection performance and create field confusion during construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the 'CMSTC16' strap fastening note should be revised from '16d SINKER' to a common wire nail requirement, or provide an engineered revision approving the alternate nail type for this strap connection.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the 'CMSTC16' strap fastening note should be revised from '16d SINKER' to a common wire nail requirement, or provide an engineered revision approving the alternate nail type for this strap connection.

Summary: Detail D 'PIPE WELL BELOW FOOTING' shows a pipe well below the footing and calls for 'COMPACTED FILL PER 8.' The structural foundation notes require that 'OVER-EXCAVATED AREA OF FOUNDATIONS MUST BE BACKFILLED WITH CONCRETE.' Using compacted fill in this over-excavated footing area contradicts the foundation requirement.

Why it matters: If compacted fill is used instead of concrete beneath an undercut footing condition, footing support and bearing continuity at the pipe crossing can be compromised, which can affect inspection approval and long-term performance.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether Detail D 'PIPE WELL BELOW FOOTING' should be revised to require concrete backfill instead of compacted fill at the pipe well below the footing, or provide an engineered exception.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether Detail D 'PIPE WELL BELOW FOOTING' should be revised to require concrete backfill instead of compacted fill at the pipe well below the footing, or provide an engineered exception.

Summary: Detail 2 allows an existing-concrete anchor alternative of 'GALV 5/8\'Ø ATR DRILL & EPOXY W/ 7\' MIN EMBED.' The specification instead calls for 'Hilti ∅ 5/8 in HIT-HY 200 V3 + HAS-V-36 (ASTM F1554 Gr.36) with 12 in nominal embedment depth' and also states 'Hole depth in the base material: 12.000 in.' The drawing therefore permits a different...

Why it matters: This is a structural anchorage mismatch that will create submittal, inspection, and installation conflicts. If the 7 in embedment detail is used in the field, the installed work will not match the specified anchor system and embedment and may require removal and replacement.

Suggested next step: Revise Detail 2 to match the specified existing-concrete anchorage, including the Hilti HIT-HY 200 V3 + HAS-V-36 5/8 anchor and 12 in embedment, or issue a revised engineered anchor detail if another system is intended.

RFI draft: Revise Detail 2 to match the specified existing-concrete anchorage, including the Hilti HIT-HY 200 V3 + HAS-V-36 5/8 anchor and 12 in embedment, or issue a revised engineered anchor detail if another system is intended.

Summary: On 'ELEVATION ALONG LINE 7', the drawing calls for 'PLYWOOD SHEATHING TO MATCH (E) SHEATHING TYP'. The Line GL7 design check instead specifies 'Panel Grade = Structural I' and 'Min. Nimonal Panel Thickness = 3/8 in' for the plywood sheathing. 'MATCH (E) SHEATHING' is a different installation criterion than the specified wall design.

Why it matters: Because this wall is part of the 'Wood Shear Wall with Opening Design Check: OK', using existing-match sheathing instead of the specified Structural I, 3/8-inch panel can change the lateral capacity that the calculations are based on. That can lead to permit comments, failed inspection, or removal and replacement of installed sheathing.

Suggested next step: Please revise the Line 7 sheathing callout to state the required new plywood sheathing from the calculation package—'Panel Grade = Structural I' and 'Min. Nimonal Panel Thickness = 3/8 in'—rather than 'PLYWOOD SHEATHING TO MATCH (E) SHEATHING TYP'.

RFI draft: Please revise the Line 7 sheathing callout to state the required new plywood sheathing from the calculation package—'Panel Grade = Structural I' and 'Min. Nimonal Panel Thickness = 3/8 in'—rather than 'PLYWOOD SHEATHING TO MATCH (E) SHEATHING TYP'.