Plan Review: 91 Issues Found

Summary: 51 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 12 mismatched | 39 missing Mismatched (12): S-101: Expected: OVERALL FOUNDATION PLAN (S-101) | Actual: OVERALL FOUNDATION PLAN (Page 7)(p7) S-101A: Expected: FOUNDATION PLAN - AREA A (S-101A) | Actual: FOUNDATION PLAN - AREA A (Page 8)(p8) S-101B: Expected: FOUNDATION PLAN - AREA B (S-101B) | Actual: FOUNDATION PLAN - AREA B (Pa...

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: 39 missing, 12 mismatched out of 51 sheets

Summary: The foundation plan specifies reinforcement for walls, slabs, and pilasters using generic weight densities (e.g., "3 PSF", "6 PSF REBAR", "15 PLF REINFORCEMENT"). This violates ACI 301-20 Section 3.2.1.1, which mandates that the Contract Documents must explicitly specify the "grades, types of steel, and sizes" of reinforcing bars.

Why it matters: Specifying reinforcement merely by weight (lbs/sq.ft or lbs/lin.ft) fails to define the actual bar sizes, grades, and spacing required for construction. Without this information, it is impossible for the contractor to produce accurate shop placing drawings or ensure compliance with concrete cover...

Suggested next step: Please revise the foundation plan to explicitly specify the required reinforcement bar sizes, grades, and spacing (e.g., #5 at 12" O.C. each way) for all CIP walls, slabs, and pilasters in accordance with ACI 301-20 Section 3.2.1.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the foundation plan to explicitly specify the required reinforcement bar sizes, grades, and spacing (e.g., #5 at 12" O.C. each way) for all CIP walls, slabs, and pilasters in accordance with ACI 301-20 Section 3.2.1.1.

Summary: Detail 12 for the typical braced frame tie beam is explicitly marked "NEEDS DESIGNED" on the drawing, indicating that the structural engineering for this foundation element is incomplete and has not been finalized for construction.

Why it matters: Proceeding with construction without a fully engineered tie beam poses a severe structural risk, as it is a critical load-resisting element. The contractor cannot accurately procure materials (such as specific rebar sizes) or construct the beam, which will cause immediate schedule delays until th...

Suggested next step: Please provide the fully engineered structural design, including exact reinforcement sizes, layout, and spacing, for the typical braced frame tie beam shown in Detail 12.

RFI draft: Please provide the fully engineered structural design, including exact reinforcement sizes, layout, and spacing, for the typical braced frame tie beam shown in Detail 12.

Summary: Details 10 (PRECAST PANEL AT CFS EAVE) and 11 (PRECAST PANEL AT CMU EAVE) depict precast concrete panels bearing on structural supports at both edge beam and column locations without any visible positive mechanical connections (anchors, clips, embeds, welded attachments, or bolted connections) securing the precast panels to the supporting structure. In Detail 10 AT EDGE BEAM, the precast panel ...

Why it matters: Precast panels at eave locations are particularly vulnerable to wind uplift and lateral forces. Without positive mechanical connections, panels could be dislodged during high wind or seismic events, posing significant life-safety risks. Resolving this issue requires redesigning the connection det...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer provide positive mechanical connection details for precast panels at all eave conditions in Details 10 and 11, including connections that resist gravity, lateral, and uplift forces per ACI 318-19 Sections 16.2.1.3 and 16.2.1.4. Connection detail...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer provide positive mechanical connection details for precast panels at all eave conditions in Details 10 and 11, including connections that resist gravity, lateral, and uplift forces per ACI 318-19 Sections 16.2.1.3 a...

Summary: General Note 8 states that the clear spacing between vertical bars in columns, pilasters, and wall boundary elements shall not be less than the 'LESSER OF' 1.5 inches, 1.5x bar diameter, and 1.33x aggregate size. This directly contradicts ACI 318-19 Section 25.2.3, which mandates that the minimum clear spacing must be at least the 'greatest of' these three values.

Why it matters: Using the 'lesser of' these values instead of the 'greatest of' can result in reinforcement being placed too close together. This restricts concrete from flowing readily into the spaces between the bars during placement, leading to honeycombing, voids, and inadequate bond, which severely compromi...

Suggested next step: Please revise General Note 8 to state that clear spacing shall be the 'GREATEST OF' 1.5 inches, 1.5xBAR DIAMETER, and 1.33xAGGREGATE SIZE to comply with the minimum spacing requirements of ACI 318-19 Section 25.2.3.

RFI draft: Please revise General Note 8 to state that clear spacing shall be the 'GREATEST OF' 1.5 inches, 1.5xBAR DIAMETER, and 1.33xAGGREGATE SIZE to comply with the minimum spacing requirements of ACI 318-19 Section 25.2.3.

Summary: An annotation on the drawing explicitly asks, 'DOES METAL DECK DIAPHRAGM NEED TO CONNECT TO PRECAST DIAPHRAGM? OR TO HSS POST?'. This indicates that the diaphragm load path and force transfer mechanism have not been designed or verified. ACI 318-19 Section 12.5.1.1 requires design strengths of diaphragms and connections to satisfy factored load combinations, and Section 16.2.1.2 requires connec...

Why it matters: Without a continuous and fully verified diaphragm load path, the structure cannot safely transfer lateral loads (such as wind and seismic forces) to the vertical lateral-force-resisting system. This is a critical structural deficiency that will cause major construction delays if not resolved prio...

Suggested next step: Please establish the lateral load path and provide engineered connection details specifying how the metal deck diaphragm connects to the precast diaphragm or HSS post to satisfy all factored load combinations.

RFI draft: Please establish the lateral load path and provide engineered connection details specifying how the metal deck diaphragm connects to the precast diaphragm or HSS post to satisfy all factored load combinations.

Summary: The design criteria specifies the structural seismic lateral system as 'STRUCTURAL STEEL SYSTEMS NOT SPECIFICALLY DETAILED FOR SEISMIC RESISTANCE' but lists the System Overstrength Factor, OMEGA = 2.5. According to ASCE 7-16 (Table 12.2-1), the correct overstrength factor (Ω0) for this specific seismic force-resisting system is 3.0.

Why it matters: Using an under-specified overstrength factor of 2.5 instead of the code-mandated 3.0 will result in the under-design of critical seismic load path elements—such as collectors, column splices, and potentially base plates—that are required by code to be designed for the maximum seismic load effect ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the System Overstrength Factor (Omega) to 3.0 to comply with ASCE 7-16 for 'Structural Steel Systems Not Specifically Detailed for Seismic Resistance' and confirm that all elements requiring overstrength design have been evaluated using the corrected factor.

RFI draft: Please revise the System Overstrength Factor (Omega) to 3.0 to comply with ASCE 7-16 for 'Structural Steel Systems Not Specifically Detailed for Seismic Resistance' and confirm that all elements requiring overstrength design have been evaluated us...

Summary: Detail 12 for the typical braced frame tie beam includes a prominent placeholder note stating 'NEEDS DESIGNED'. This indicates that the dimensions and reinforcement shown are unverified placeholders and the structural member has not been engineered to resist the required loads, leaving the member without confirmed adequate strength.

Why it matters: The building code strictly requires all individual members and foundation elements to be designed for the anticipated seismic and gravity forces prior to construction. Issuing construction documents with explicitly un-engineered foundation elements prevents proper structural evaluation, delays pe...

Suggested next step: Please provide the completed engineering design, including the verified dimensions and reinforcement schedule, for the Typical Braced Frame Tie Beam in Detail 12.

RFI draft: Please provide the completed engineering design, including the verified dimensions and reinforcement schedule, for the Typical Braced Frame Tie Beam in Detail 12.

Summary: The drawing details a 'PERFORMANCE SPECIFIED STAIR TO COMPOSITE FRAMING' and states 'STAIR, LANDING & RAILING DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR'. Because the stair design is delegated to the contractor, its stiffness and strength cannot be included in the primary building structural model. Therefore, per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10, the egress stair must be detailed with sliding or ductile connections to acco...

Why it matters: If the stairs are installed with translationally fixed connections at both the upper floors and the slab-on-grade without sliding provisions, the stair system will act as an unintended diagonal brace during a seismic event. This will attract significant displacement-related compression and tensio...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if these are egress stairs. If so, update the details to provide sliding connections (such as slotted holes or sliding bearings) at one end of each stair run per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10, and provide the required seismic relative displacement (DpI) for the dele...

RFI draft: Please confirm if these are egress stairs. If so, update the details to provide sliding connections (such as slotted holes or sliding bearings) at one end of each stair run per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10, and provide the required seismic relative d...

Summary: The roof framing plan labels the vast majority of wide-flange beams with only their nominal depth (e.g., W21, W27, W18, W12, W14, W16, W24) without specifying the weight per linear foot. Only W16x26 is shown with a complete designation. A W-shape designation without the weight does not define a unique section—for example, W21 could be W21x44, W21x50, W21x57, W21x62, etc., all with substantially...

Why it matters: Incomplete member designations will prevent steel fabricators from ordering material and preparing shop drawings. This will directly delay the steel fabrication and erection schedule and could cause significant cost overruns. If members are assumed or estimated incorrectly in the field, it create...

Suggested next step: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record provide complete W-shape designations (depth and weight per foot) for all wide-flange members shown on the Roof Plan – Area B, in accordance with IBC Section 1603.1, which requires construction documents to show the size and secti...

RFI draft: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record provide complete W-shape designations (depth and weight per foot) for all wide-flange members shown on the Roof Plan – Area B, in accordance with IBC Section 1603.1, which requires construction docume...

Summary: Detail 12 'TYP BRACED FRAME TIE BEAM' explicitly contains a note stating 'NEEDS DESIGNED'. The detail shows the cross-section dimensions (1'-10" deep x 4'-0" wide) and graphically depicts reinforcing bar dots (7 top and 7 bottom), but no reinforcement bar sizes, grades, or spacing are specified. IBC Section 1901.5 requires construction documents for structural concrete to include 'The specified...

Why it matters: If these construction documents are issued for permit or construction in this state, the undesigned tie beam will halt construction at that element. The contractor cannot procure reinforcement or construct the tie beam without a completed design. This will cause a direct construction delay and po...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer of record complete the design of the Typical Braced Frame Tie Beam (Detail 12) and provide the specified reinforcement sizes, grades, spacing, and any additional detailing requirements (lap splices, hooks, etc.) in compliance with IBC Secti...

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer of record complete the design of the Typical Braced Frame Tie Beam (Detail 12) and provide the specified reinforcement sizes, grades, spacing, and any additional detailing requirements (lap splices, hooks, etc....

Summary: Detail 6 (PENTHOUSE ROOF TRANSITION) explicitly contains multiple unresolved design queries annotated directly on the detail, including: 'DOES DECK EXTENSION NEED VERTICAL SUPPORT?', 'DOES METAL DECK DIAPHRAGM NEED TO CONNECT TO PRECAST DIAPHRAGM? OR TO HSS POST?', 'HOW DOES PRECAST PANEL GET SUPPORTED? WHAT DOES THE CONNECTION LOOK LIKE?', and 'GALVANIZED?'. These are not minor notes — they re...

Why it matters: If these drawings are issued for construction with these unresolved questions, the contractor will be unable to construct the penthouse roof transition, as the precast panel support method and connection type are undefined, the diaphragm load path is not established, vertical support requirements...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record resolve all open design queries on Detail 6 (PENTHOUSE ROOF TRANSITION) prior to issuing drawings for construction. Specifically: (1) Define the precast panel support connection and detail it; (2) Determine whether the deck extension r...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record resolve all open design queries on Detail 6 (PENTHOUSE ROOF TRANSITION) prior to issuing drawings for construction. Specifically: (1) Define the precast panel support connection and detail it; (2) Determin...

Summary: The foundation plan specifies concrete reinforcement for walls, pilasters, and slab areas as a weight allowance (e.g., "3 PSF", "15 PLF", "6 PSF") rather than providing the specific rebar sizes, grades, and spacing. The building code requires construction documents to explicitly state the size and location of reinforcement.

Why it matters: Specifying reinforcement by weight (PSF/PLF) fails to provide the precise size and location details required by IBC Section 1901.5. This omission prevents accurate fabrication, placement, and inspection of the rebar, which can lead to structural failures, construction delays while awaiting RFIs, ...

Suggested next step: Please provide revised structural details that explicitly state the required rebar sizes, grades, and spacing (e.g., #4 @ 12" o.c.) for all cast-in-place walls, pilasters, and slab-on-grade areas currently specified with PSF or PLF allowances.

RFI draft: Please provide revised structural details that explicitly state the required rebar sizes, grades, and spacing (e.g., #4 @ 12" o.c.) for all cast-in-place walls, pilasters, and slab-on-grade areas currently specified with PSF or PLF allowances.

Summary: The Light Rigging Plan designates structural steel framing members merely as "W14" without specifying the complete member weight or section dimensions. According to IBC Section 1603.1, construction documents must explicitly show the specific size and section of structural members. The designation "W14" indicates only the nominal depth of the beam and omits the weight/thickness (e.g., W14x22), t...

Why it matters: Without complete structural steel section designations, the building official cannot perform a structural plan review to verify the frame's adequacy against design loads. Furthermore, contractors cannot procure, fabricate, or erect the correct steel members, leading to permitting rejection and co...

Suggested next step: Please provide the complete AISC section designations (including weight per foot, e.g., W14x___) for all structural steel framing members currently labeled only as "W14" on the Light Rigging Plan.

RFI draft: Please provide the complete AISC section designations (including weight per foot, e.g., W14x___) for all structural steel framing members currently labeled only as "W14" on the Light Rigging Plan.

Summary: The structural framing plan includes a block of "STEEL PRICING ASSUMPTIONS" that dictates assumed design parameters rather than providing final engineered structural specifications. Note 5 provides assumed uniform weights for structural steel (e.g., "LEVEL 2: 11 PSF") instead of specifying actual sizes and sections for columns, girders, and beams. Similarly, Note 2 states to "ASSUME W6x6-W2.1xW...

Why it matters: Drawings based on generic pricing assumptions rather than finalized structural engineering cannot be permitted or used for construction. The lack of explicit member sizes, connection details, and reinforcement locations prevents verification that the building can safely support its anticipated lo...

Suggested next step: Remove all pricing assumptions from the drawings. Provide finalized structural construction documents that explicitly call out the engineered sizes, sections, and locations of all structural steel members, as well as the exact sizes, spacing, and locations of all concrete rein...

RFI draft: Remove all pricing assumptions from the drawings. Provide finalized structural construction documents that explicitly call out the engineered sizes, sections, and locations of all structural steel members, as well as the exact sizes, spacing, and ...