Plan Review: 79 Issues Found

Summary: 252 index entries | 29 perfect matches | 63 mismatched | 160 missing Mismatched (63): 00GM01: Expected: LEGEND AND SYMBOLS (00GM01) | Actual: MECHANICAL LEGEND AND SYMBOLS (00GM01)(p63) 41DM01: Expected: SLUDGE DAY TANK FEED PUMP STATION PLAN (41DM01) | Actual: DEMOLITION SLUDGE DAY TANK FEED PUMP STATION PLAN (41DM01)(p65) 41M01: Expected: AEROBIC DIGESTER AREA PLAN (41M0...

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: 160 missing, 63 mismatched out of 252 sheets

Summary: General Note 10.B for concrete exposed to earth or weather specifies a minimum concrete cover of '2 1/2 IN' for 'STIRRUPS, SPIRALS AND TIES' and a smaller cover of '2 IN' for 'PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT' in beams and columns. According to ACI 318-14 R20.6.1.1, concrete cover is measured to the outer edge of the transverse reinforcement (stirrups or ties) which encloses the main longitudinal bars. Si...

Why it matters: If construction proceeds strictly according to these dimensions, the primary longitudinal reinforcement would have to be placed closer to the concrete surface than the transverse ties. This would require placing the longitudinal bars outside the confining stirrups, which completely defeats the st...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the minimum concrete cover dimensions for beams and columns exposed to earth, liquid, or weather in General Note 10.B. The specified 2-inch cover for primary reinforcement is less than the 2 1/2-inch cover for stirrups, which is geometrically impossible if the p...

RFI draft: Please clarify the minimum concrete cover dimensions for beams and columns exposed to earth, liquid, or weather in General Note 10.B. The specified 2-inch cover for primary reinforcement is less than the 2 1/2-inch cover for stirrups, which is geo...

Summary: The structural drawing specifies control joints for the structural '12" RAFT' and '6" CONCRETE SOG' (e.g., 'CJ @ 25'-0" MAX FOR 12" RAFT'). This violates the standard defined in ACI 318-14 R13.2.4, which identifies structural slabs-on-ground as diaphragms that hold the building together and explicitly states that construction documents should prohibit sawcutting of such slabs.

Why it matters: Sawcutting or forming control joints in structural rafts and diaphragms creates weakened planes that compromise the reinforcement and the structural concrete section. This prevents the foundation from continuously transmitting lateral or vertical loads, potentially leading to a loss of diaphragm ...

Suggested next step: Confirm if the 12" raft and 6" SOG are intended to act as continuous structural foundations/diaphragms. If so, request to remove the control joint (CJ) specifications and provide alternative crack-control detailing (such as increased reinforcement or pour strips) that do not w...

RFI draft: Confirm if the 12" raft and 6" SOG are intended to act as continuous structural foundations/diaphragms. If so, request to remove the control joint (CJ) specifications and provide alternative crack-control detailing (such as increased reinforcement...

Summary: The drawing indicates a lower level trench with a dimensioned depth of "1'-6"" (18 inches) located within a foundation labeled "18" RAFT". Because the trench depth equals the total raft foundation thickness, the concrete is completely interrupted, leaving zero thickness beneath the trench. This directly violates ACI 318-14 Section 13.3.1.2, which requires the overall depth of the foundation to ...

Why it matters: Allowing a trench to cut entirely through a raft foundation severs the structural continuity of the mat, preventing load transfer and potentially leading to severe differential settlement or structural failure. It also eliminates the moisture barrier, creating a direct path for groundwater intrus...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the foundation detailing at the 1'-6" deep trench located in the 18" raft foundation. Should the raft foundation be locally thickened beneath the trench to maintain a minimum 6-inch effective depth for bottom reinforcement in accordance with ACI 318-14 Section 1...

RFI draft: Please clarify the foundation detailing at the 1'-6" deep trench located in the 18" raft foundation. Should the raft foundation be locally thickened beneath the trench to maintain a minimum 6-inch effective depth for bottom reinforcement in accord...

Summary: The 'DESIGN LOADS' notes categorize 'SLUDGE WEIGHT' as a 'LIVE LOAD'. However, ASCE 7-16 Section 3.1.3 explicitly requires that the maximum weight of the contents of fixed service equipment, including variable liquid contents, be included in the determination of dead loads.

Why it matters: Misclassifying the liquid/sludge contents as a live load rather than a dead load leads to the application of incorrect load factors in structural load combinations. Crucially, live loads can be factored to zero in load combinations intended to check overturning, sliding, or uplift, whereas Sectio...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Design Loads criteria to classify the sludge weight as a dead load in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section 3.1.3, and verify that all structural calculations and load combinations have applied the correct load factors.

RFI draft: Please revise the Design Loads criteria to classify the sludge weight as a dead load in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section 3.1.3, and verify that all structural calculations and load combinations have applied the correct load factors.

Summary: The 'CODES AND STANDARDS' notes state the design utilizes ASCE 7-16. In the 'WIND DESIGN DATA', the notes identify the 'BASIC (NOMINAL) WIND SPEED - 86 MPH' and 'ULTIMATE WIND SPEED - 111 MPH'. However, ASCE 7-16 Section 26.2 and Section 26.5.1 define the 'Basic Wind Speed, V' as the mapped extreme-value 3-second gust speed, which corresponds to the ultimate wind speed (111 MPH). Labeling the 8...

Why it matters: Delegated design engineers and component manufacturers (such as for windows, louvers, and rooftop equipment) rely on the Basic Wind Speed specified in the structural notes to determine analytical design pressures. If a manufacturer mistakenly uses the mislabeled 'BASIC' wind speed of 86 MPH inste...

Suggested next step: Please revise the wind design data to correctly identify the 111 MPH ultimate speed as the 'Basic Wind Speed, V' in accordance with ASCE 7-16 terminology. Additionally, relabel the 86 MPH value strictly as the 'Nominal (ASD) Wind Speed, Vasd' to prevent dangerous under-design ...

RFI draft: Please revise the wind design data to correctly identify the 111 MPH ultimate speed as the 'Basic Wind Speed, V' in accordance with ASCE 7-16 terminology. Additionally, relabel the 86 MPH value strictly as the 'Nominal (ASD) Wind Speed, Vasd' to p...

Summary: The structural notes for Components and Cladding instruct the contractor to apply wall pressures to the stairwell roof ("- 4 ** - APPLY WALL PRESSURES OF HIGHER STRUCTURE TO STAIRWELL ROOF, TYP."). This directly violates ASCE 7-16 Section 30.3.2 and Table 30.3-1, which explicitly mandate that roofs must be designed using roof-specific external pressure coefficients (such as Figure 30.3-2 for fl...

Why it matters: Roof elements experience significantly different aerodynamic forces compared to walls, typically generating much higher suction (uplift) pressures at edges and corners. By misapplying the lower wall wind pressures to a roof assembly, the design will severely underestimate the required wind uplift...

Suggested next step: Please revise the wind design pressure notes for the stairwell roof to utilize the correct roof pressure coefficients as required by ASCE 7-16 Table 30.3-1 (e.g., using stepped roof provisions), and provide updated component and cladding design wind pressures for the stairwell...

RFI draft: Please revise the wind design pressure notes for the stairwell roof to utilize the correct roof pressure coefficients as required by ASCE 7-16 Table 30.3-1 (e.g., using stepped roof provisions), and provide updated component and cladding design wi...

Summary: The lower level floor plan specifies a TRENCH DRAIN within a TRUCK PIT to be covered with 1 1/4" METAL FLOOR GRATING. Standard 1-1/4 inch metal floor grating is designed for pedestrian loading and is structurally inadequate to support concentrated vehicular wheel loads. ASCE 7-16 Section 4.10.2 requires that areas subject to truck traffic be designed in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design...

Why it matters: Installing standard pedestrian-grade metal grating in a truck loading area will result in the immediate structural failure of the grating under a vehicle's weight. This poses a severe safety hazard to personnel, risks significant damage to vehicles, and will cause operational disruptions. Retrofi...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required vehicular load rating for the trench drain grating located in the truck pit. We recommend revising the specification to an AASHTO HS-20 heavy-duty traffic-rated grating and updating the concrete trench edge details to accommodate the required deeper...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required vehicular load rating for the trench drain grating located in the truck pit. We recommend revising the specification to an AASHTO HS-20 heavy-duty traffic-rated grating and updating the concrete trench edge details to a...

Summary: Detail 4 (SECTION AT CIP SHEAR WALL) shows the connection of a cast-in-place shear wall or concrete beam to a composite metal deck diaphragm. The connection is detailed exclusively as an edge connection using a continuous perimeter angle ("L5x5x1/4 CONT PERIMETER ANGLE") fastened to the wall with Titen HD anchors to support the deck. There is a complete vertical separation between the wall conc...

Why it matters: Relying solely on a perimeter ledger angle without structural ties extending into the diaphragm's concrete topping means the out-of-plane wall anchorage force is transferred only to the very edge of the metal deck. This lack of an embedded continuous load path can lead to localized failure at the...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 4 to include continuous structural ties—such as embedded reinforcing bars, straps, or headed studs welded to the angle—that extend from the cast-in-place shear wall/beam into the composite metal deck diaphragm a sufficient distance to develop the required ...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 4 to include continuous structural ties—such as embedded reinforcing bars, straps, or headed studs welded to the angle—that extend from the cast-in-place shear wall/beam into the composite metal deck diaphragm a sufficient dis...

Summary: The Life Safety Symbols Legend defines the top dimension of the egress door tag as 'DOOR WIDTH'. Multiple egress doors on the plan (such as 100F and 100E) are tagged with a door width of 32". According to IBC 1010.1.1, egress doors must provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches, measured between the face of the door and the stop with the door open 90 degrees. A nominal 32-inch wide doo...

Why it matters: Specifying a 32-inch nominal door for egress will result in a clear opening width of approximately 30.5 inches, directly violating the life safety egress requirements. This error will lead to failed framing and life safety inspections, necessitating costly tear-out of walls and door frames to ins...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the '32"' dimension on the egress door tags refers to the nominal door leaf width or the required clear opening width. Update the nominal door widths to at least 36 inches (3'-0") to ensure the minimum 32-inch clear opening width required by IBC 1010.1.1 is p...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the '32"' dimension on the egress door tags refers to the nominal door leaf width or the required clear opening width. Update the nominal door widths to at least 36 inches (3'-0") to ensure the minimum 32-inch clear opening width...

Summary: The provided drawings indicate a multi-story facility, evidenced by the 'LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN' denoting 'STAIR A' and 'STAIR B' routing 'UP', alongside a 'ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE' that lists upper-level spaces including a 'CONTROL ROOM' (202) and 'RESTROOM' (203). However, the complete lower level floor plan footprint provides no elevator, ramp, or other accessible route connecting the levels. T...

Why it matters: Failing to provide an accessible route between stories in a multi-story employee facility prevents accessibility for physically disabled personnel. Furthermore, placing the sole restroom on an inaccessible level is a major ADA and building code violation. This will result in immediate rejection d...

Suggested next step: Please clarify how vertical accessibility is achieved between the lower level and the upper level. If an elevator or lift is omitted based on an exception, please provide the specific code justification. Additionally, address how the facility complies with IBC 1109.2 given tha...

RFI draft: Please clarify how vertical accessibility is achieved between the lower level and the upper level. If an elevator or lift is omitted based on an exception, please provide the specific code justification. Additionally, address how the facility comp...

Summary: The drawing represents an "UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN" for a facility, establishing it as a multistory building. Section 1104.4 requires that at least one accessible route connects each accessible story. There is no elevator, platform lift, or interior ramp shown on the floor plan to provide the required accessible route to or from this upper level.

Why it matters: Failure to provide vertical accessibility violates ADA and IBC requirements, preventing individuals with mobility impairments from accessing the upper level. This will result in immediate rejection during permitting and major structural/layout redesigns to accommodate an elevator shaft.

Suggested next step: Please update the floor plan to include an elevator or other compliant accessible route connecting the upper level to the rest of the facility, or clarify if an accessibility exception applies and provide the corresponding documentation.

RFI draft: Please update the floor plan to include an elevator or other compliant accessible route connecting the upper level to the rest of the facility, or clarify if an accessibility exception applies and provide the corresponding documentation.

Summary: The "REINFORCING BAR LAP SPLICES - CMU" table specifies an 18-inch lap splice length for #4 bars centered in 8" or 10" CMU walls. However, IBC Section 2107.2.1 mandates that the length of the lapped splice shall not be less than 40 bar diameters. For a #4 bar (0.5-inch diameter), the minimum required lap splice length is 20 inches. Furthermore, the drawing includes a note stating that the splic...

Why it matters: Providing inadequate lap splice lengths compromises the structural integrity of the masonry shear walls by preventing the proper transfer of tensile and compressive forces between reinforcing bars. This direct violation of the building code will result in failed structural inspections, requiring ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the "REINFORCING BAR LAP SPLICES - CMU" table and remove or modify the 0.70 reduction note to ensure that all lap splice lengths strictly meet the absolute minimum requirement of 40 bar diameters as required by IBC Section 2107.2.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the "REINFORCING BAR LAP SPLICES - CMU" table and remove or modify the 0.70 reduction note to ensure that all lap splice lengths strictly meet the absolute minimum requirement of 40 bar diameters as required by IBC Section 2107.2.1.

Summary: The plan for Stair A indicates section cuts for Section 1 and Section 2 through the same stairwell. However, the sections provide conflicting vertical dimensions for the upper flights. Section 1 specifies rises of '6'-0 7/8"' and '6'-6 7/8"', while Section 2 specifies '6'-3 7/8"' and '6'-5 7/8"'.

Why it matters: Conflicting vertical dimensions for the same stair flights will lead to improper stair fabrication. If stairs are built to the incorrect vertical dimensions, they will not align with floor levels or intermediate landings, causing significant structural rework and code compliance failures.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct vertical riser dimensions for all flights in Stair A and update either Section 1 or Section 2 so that both sections reflect identical and coordinated stair geometry.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct vertical riser dimensions for all flights in Stair A and update either Section 1 or Section 2 so that both sections reflect identical and coordinated stair geometry.

Summary: Architectural Detail 1 (44A0801) specifies a "FLUID APPLIED AIR/VAPOR BARRIER, INSTALLED ON INNER FACE OF CONC". However, the leader line points to the exterior face, and the note states the barrier "OVERLAPS ON TOP OF FLASHING IN WALLS". This contradicts the "INNER" text, as exterior facade details locate the "3 5/8\" SPLIT-FACE CONCRETE VENEER" and "DRIP PLATE AND THRU WALL FLASHING" on the e...

Why it matters: If the fluid-applied air/vapor barrier is installed on the inner face of the concrete wall as noted, it is physically impossible to overlap the exterior cavity thru-wall flashing. It would also interfere with structural steel attachments on the interior face. The word "INNER" in the note is likel...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the fluid-applied air/vapor barrier specified in Detail 1/44A0801 is intended to be installed on the outer (exterior) face of the 12" CIP concrete wall, and that the text "INNER FACE" is a typo. This will clarify the correct assembly, allow the barrier to o...

RFI draft: Please confirm that the fluid-applied air/vapor barrier specified in Detail 1/44A0801 is intended to be installed on the outer (exterior) face of the 12" CIP concrete wall, and that the text "INNER FACE" is a typo. This will clarify the correct as...