Multifamily Podium / Wrap: 90 Issues Found

Summary: The MF A reaction tables on Pages 3 and 4 show the Snow (S Only) reactions as numerically identical to the Dead Load (D Only) reactions at every joint and in every direction (X, Y, and Z). On Page 3: D Only Node 1 = (0.268, 1.827, -1.313) and S Only Node 1 = (0.268, 1.827, -1.313); D Only Node 4 = (-0.268, 3.915, 1.321) and S Only Node 4 =...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 2.3.1 load combinations 2, 3, and 4 all include Snow (S) as a design load. If the S Only reactions used for MF A foundation design are erroneously equal to D (roughly 10 times the correct value), the resulting factored demands will be unconservative or nonconservative depending on the governing combination, leading to...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record (ICS) to verify and reissue the MF A Snow Load (S Only) reactions on Pages 3 and 4. The current S Only values are identical to D Only values, which is inconsistent with S/D ratios for all other moment frames on this sheet and is indicative of a data transcription error. Confirm the correct snow load...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record (ICS) to verify and reissue the MF A Snow Load (S Only) reactions on Pages 3 and 4. The current S Only values are identical to D Only values, which is inconsistent with S/D ratios for all other moment frames on this sheet and is indicative of a data...

Summary: Detail 7/SS-301 (MOMENT FRAME COLUMN FDN @ EXT WALL) shows an anchor bolt embedment dimension of '9' MIN.' inside the footing. However, the detail itself explicitly references Detail C2/SS-301 for moment frame reinforcement, which specifies '12' MIN.' embedment for the anchor bolt assembly. The moment frame base connection is part of the...

Why it matters: If constructed per Detail 7 with only 9' of embedment, the moment frame anchor bolts may not develop adequate pullout or breakout capacity in the concrete to resist the design seismic forces. This directly impacts the integrity of the seismic force-resisting system and could result in a failed plan check or require costly field rework (core...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the anchor bolt embedment depth shown as '9' MIN.' in Detail 7/SS-301 (MOMENT FRAME COLUMN FDN @ EXT WALL). Detail C2/SS-301, which is explicitly referenced for moment frame reinforcement, requires '12' MIN.' embedment. Should Detail 7 be revised to show 12' MIN. embedment consistent with Detail C2 to ensure the moment frame base...

RFI draft: Please clarify the anchor bolt embedment depth shown as '9' MIN.' in Detail 7/SS-301 (MOMENT FRAME COLUMN FDN @ EXT WALL). Detail C2/SS-301, which is explicitly referenced for moment frame reinforcement, requires '12' MIN.' embedment. Should Detail 7 be revised to show 12' MIN. embedment...

Summary: The structural steel specification Section 1.2 explicitly states that all structural steel work shall conform to the 'AISC Manual of Steel Construction Thirteenth Edition 'Allowable Stress Design'.' The AISC 13th Edition (2005) corresponds to AISC 360-05, which is an outdated edition. IBC Section 2205.1 requires the design, fabrication, and...

Why it matters: Using the outdated AISC 13th Edition as the governing standard could result in structural designs that do not meet current stability, connection, and seismic requirements updated in AISC 360-16. This would likely cause permit rejection by the building official and require re-evaluation of structural steel design and fabrication requirements,...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record update the specification Section 1.2 to reference the current edition of AISC 360 (AISC 360-16) as required by the 2021 IBC Section 2205.1, and confirm all design calculations and connection details comply with the current edition.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record update the specification Section 1.2 to reference the current edition of AISC 360 (AISC 360-16) as required by the 2021 IBC Section 2205.1, and confirm all design calculations and connection details comply with the current edition.

Summary: On Sheet SS-902, the MF F reaction schedule is presented in two tables for opposite lateral directions—Page 9 (labeled 'MFF') and Page 10 (unlabeled, same 6-joint structure). Gravity load reactions (D Only) should be identical in both tables since dead load is independent of lateral direction. However, at Node 5 the moment Z changes from 0.397...

Why it matters: MF F carries the highest vertical dead load reactions of any moment frame (Node 1 Y ≈ 119.6 k, Node 3 Y ≈ 78.4 k). The systematic discrepancy across all gravity load combinations suggests the two analysis models may have used different tributary load distributions or geometric configurations. Foundations designed using the incorrect reaction...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to confirm which set of gravity reactions (D Only, Lr Only, L Only, S Only) for MF F is correct—those on Page 9 or Page 10 of the analysis output—and issue a corrected schedule. Verify that both lateral direction analyses used identical gravity load definitions.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to confirm which set of gravity reactions (D Only, Lr Only, L Only, S Only) for MF F is correct—those on Page 9 or Page 10 of the analysis output—and issue a corrected schedule. Verify that both lateral direction analyses used identical gravity load definitions.

Summary: The Metal Deck Schedule Note 12 on the drawing states that concrete deck fill must have 'MIN f'c = 3000PSI.' However, the project specification Section 033000, Part 2.8.C explicitly requires lightweight concrete for metal deck fill to have a 'Minimum Compressive Strength: 4000 psi at 28 days.' The drawing's specified minimum concrete strength...

Why it matters: Concrete deck fill placed at 3000 PSI instead of the required 4000 PSI could result in inadequate structural capacity of composite floor systems, potentially affecting load-carrying ability, deflection performance, and shear connector capacity. This discrepancy could lead to non-conforming concrete being accepted during construction if the...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to clarify the minimum compressive strength for concrete fill on metal decks. The Metal Deck Schedule Note 12 specifies f'c = 3000 PSI minimum, while Section 033000, 2.8.C.1 of the Structural Specifications requires 4000 PSI minimum. Please confirm the correct value and issue a revised Metal Deck...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to clarify the minimum compressive strength for concrete fill on metal decks. The Metal Deck Schedule Note 12 specifies f'c = 3000 PSI minimum, while Section 033000, 2.8.C.1 of the Structural Specifications requires 4000 PSI minimum. Please confirm the...

Summary: The Beam Shear Connection Schedule and Column Shear Connection Schedule on this drawing both present connection capacities using LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design) methodology and reference the AISC 15th Edition. Specifically, the Beam Shear Connection Schedule column headers read 'SINGLE COPE LRFD CAPACITY (KIPS)' and 'DOUBLE COPE LRFD...

Why it matters: LRFD and ASD are fundamentally different design methodologies that produce different capacity values. LRFD capacities are numerically higher than ASD allowable values because LRFD accounts for load factors on the demand side. Since the specification states that loads are given at service-load level, comparing unfactored service loads directly...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer of Record on which design methodology (ASD or LRFD) and which AISC Manual edition (13th or 15th) govern the connection design. If ASD per the 13th Edition governs as stated in the specification, request that the connection schedules on SS-511 be revised to present ASD allowable capacities. If...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer of Record on which design methodology (ASD or LRFD) and which AISC Manual edition (13th or 15th) govern the connection design. If ASD per the 13th Edition governs as stated in the specification, request that the connection schedules on SS-511 be...

Summary: The Concrete Masonry General Notes on the drawing state that all concrete masonry units shall be lightweight (density = 105 pcf) above finished floor. However, the specification Section C04200, Part 2.1 explicitly requires load-bearing units to be ASTM C 90, normal weight. Since the project includes structural/load-bearing CMU walls (as...

Why it matters: Using lightweight CMU (105 pcf) instead of normal weight units as specified would affect the structural capacity, shear resistance, and fire rating of the masonry walls. This discrepancy could lead to under-designed walls, incorrect structural calculations, and potential code compliance failures. It must be resolved before construction to...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the CMU unit weight requirement. The drawing general notes specify lightweight CMU (105 pcf) above finished floor, while the specification Section C04200, 2.1 requires normal weight load-bearing units per ASTM C 90. Please confirm which requirement governs and whether the structural design is based on lightweight or...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the CMU unit weight requirement. The drawing general notes specify lightweight CMU (105 pcf) above finished floor, while the specification Section C04200, 2.1 requires normal weight load-bearing units per ASTM C 90. Please confirm which requirement governs and whether...

Summary: The ROOF DESIGN CRITERIA box on drawing SS-151 lists the typical roof live load as 40 PSF TC. However, the structural design notes on SS-001 explicitly state the roof live load is 20 PSF FLAT. This is a direct contradiction — the drawing shows double the specified roof live load for typical areas. The design criteria box is clearly for the...

Why it matters: A roof live load of 40 PSF versus the specified 20 PSF would significantly affect the sizing of roof joists, trusses, connections, and bearing walls. If the 40 PSF value was used for design but 20 PSF is the correct requirement, the structure is over-designed (increased material cost). If 20 PSF was used for design but 40 PSF is required, the...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record clarify the correct roof live load for the Level Roof framing. The specification on SS-001 states 20 PSF FLAT for roof live load, while the ROOF DESIGN CRITERIA on SS-151 shows 40 PSF TC for typical areas. Please confirm which value governs and revise the conflicting document accordingly.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record clarify the correct roof live load for the Level Roof framing. The specification on SS-001 states 20 PSF FLAT for roof live load, while the ROOF DESIGN CRITERIA on SS-151 shows 40 PSF TC for typical areas. Please confirm which value governs and revise...

Summary: The framing plan at GL B, 6-8 is shown as a joist-and-plywood floor system: '24\' FLOOR JOIST @ 24\' O.C.' with 'TYPICAL 3/4\' PLYWOOD STRUCTURAL 1 FLOOR SHEATHING (U.O.N.).' The structural calculation package for 'DESCRIPTION: GL B, 6-8' is instead a 'Composite Steel Beam' with 'Total Slab Thickness 5.0 in' on 'Metal Deck . . Vulcraft, 1.5VL /...

Why it matters: This is a fundamental structural coordination problem. A joist-and-plywood assembly cannot be fabricated, connected, decked, studded, shored, and poured the same way as a composite steel beam with metal deck and concrete slab. If this is not reconciled before fabrication, it can affect steel procurement, deck/slab scope, diaphragm design,...

Suggested next step: Please reconcile the structural floor system at GL B, 6-8. Confirm whether the required construction is '24\' FLOOR JOIST @ 24\' O.C.' with '3/4\' PLYWOOD STRUCTURAL 1 FLOOR SHEATHING' or the calculated composite beam with 'Total Slab Thickness 5.0 in' on 'Metal Deck . . Vulcraft, 1.5VL / VLI', and revise the drawings/calculations so one...

RFI draft: Please reconcile the structural floor system at GL B, 6-8. Confirm whether the required construction is '24\' FLOOR JOIST @ 24\' O.C.' with '3/4\' PLYWOOD STRUCTURAL 1 FLOOR SHEATHING' or the calculated composite beam with 'Total Slab Thickness 5.0 in' on 'Metal Deck . . Vulcraft, 1.5VL / VLI',...

Summary: The drawing calls out '24\' FLOOR JOIST @ 24\' O.C.' in the grid area that includes 1.7, 3, and 3.3, and also notes 'TYPICAL 3/4\' PLYWOOD STRUCTURAL 1 FLOOR SHEATHING (U.O.N.).' Artemis1.ec6 identifies those framing lines as 'GL 1.7 NORTH - COMPOSITE,' 'GL 3 - COMPOSITE,' and 'GL 3.3 - COMPOSITE [8' trib]' and gives composite-beam section data...

Why it matters: This is a major structural system mismatch. Composite beam capacities, stud requirements, reactions, and diaphragm behavior will not align with a plywood-sheathed joist roof, so fabrication and field installation cannot proceed without redesign or plan revision.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the level roof is intended to use '24\' FLOOR JOIST @ 24\' O.C.' with '3/4\' PLYWOOD STRUCTURAL 1 FLOOR SHEATHING,' or the composite beam system with 'Total Slab Thickness 5.0 in' on 'Metal Deck . . Vulcraft, 1.5VL / VLI.' Revise the roof framing plan and the Artemis1.ec6 design basis so the structural system is consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the level roof is intended to use '24\' FLOOR JOIST @ 24\' O.C.' with '3/4\' PLYWOOD STRUCTURAL 1 FLOOR SHEATHING,' or the composite beam system with 'Total Slab Thickness 5.0 in' on 'Metal Deck . . Vulcraft, 1.5VL / VLI.' Revise the roof framing plan and the Artemis1.ec6...

Summary: Detail A2 on SS-511 shows headed studs aligned with the beam centerline and a 4 1/2' minimum spacing between adjacent studs. Note 1 states studs may be 'DOUBLED' and/or omitted in isolated flutes at a repeated pattern when headed stud spacing does not align with even deck flute spacing. Artemis1.ec6 requires extremely high stud counts,...

Why it matters: If the steel is fabricated and decked per the current typical detail, the installed stud layout will not match the stud quantity assumed in the composite beam calculations. That changes the composite action used for strength and deflection and would force redesign or field rework after steel/deck installation.

Suggested next step: Revise the typical headed-stud detail or revise the composite beam calculations so the required stud quantity and the permitted stud arrangement are buildable and consistent. Clarify the exact stud layout to be used for the calculated beams.

RFI draft: Revise the typical headed-stud detail or revise the composite beam calculations so the required stud quantity and the permitted stud arrangement are buildable and consistent. Clarify the exact stud layout to be used for the calculated beams.

Summary: Drawing Note 2 states the sheathing attachment fasteners are '#8 OR #10 FOR 68 MIL FRAMING ONLY.' However, the shear wall schedule on the same sheet specifies all framing, tracks, and blocking at a minimum thickness of 43MIL (18GA). The specification LFRS analysis (Section 14.9) designs shear walls with a stud gauge of 18 (i.e., 18 gauge = 43...

Why it matters: This discrepancy could cause significant confusion during construction. If contractors follow Note 2 literally, they would either need to upgrade all shear wall framing to 68 mil (a major material and cost change not reflected in the design) or have no defined screw size for the 43 mil framing shown. If incorrect fasteners or an unintended...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify whether Note 2 should be revised to include 43 mil (18GA) framing to match the shear wall schedule, or whether the schedule minimum framing thickness should be revised to 68 mil. Confirm the listed nominal shear strength values (e.g., 890 plf for SP-A, 1330 plf for SP-B) are validated for the actual...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify whether Note 2 should be revised to include 43 mil (18GA) framing to match the shear wall schedule, or whether the schedule minimum framing thickness should be revised to 68 mil. Confirm the listed nominal shear strength values (e.g., 890 plf for SP-A,...

Summary: The roof framing plan shows grid '1' on this plan, and the left-side bay from grid 'B' to grid 'C' is dimensioned '18' - 0\''. The structural calculation set identifies the corresponding member as 'DESCRIPTION: GL 1, B-C' and gives it a span of '12.50 ft'. The design span therefore does not match the drawn span for that same grid location.

Why it matters: If GL 1, B-C is actually framed at 18'-0', a 12.50 ft design basis is not valid for fabrication or erection. This creates a major risk of incorrect beam selection and late structural redesign before construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct span for GL 1, B-C. Revise either the roof framing plan dimensions or the GL 1, B-C structural calculation/design so both documents show the same B-to-C span before fabrication.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct span for GL 1, B-C. Revise either the roof framing plan dimensions or the GL 1, B-C structural calculation/design so both documents show the same B-to-C span before fabrication.

Summary: The Level 2 Floor Design Criteria on this sheet lists 'INTERIOR NON BEARING PARTITION WALLS = 10.00 PSF' under DEAD LOADS. ASCE 7-16 Section 4.3.2 requires that in buildings where partition locations are subject to change, the partition load shall not be less than 15 psf. This is a multi-story building with typical live load of 40 PSF...

Why it matters: Using a partition load 5 PSF below the code minimum and classifying it as dead load instead of live load will result in unconservative design of all Level 2 floor framing members. In LRFD load combinations per Section 2.3.1, live load receives a factor of 1.6 (Combination 2) versus 1.2 for dead load, so the misclassification further reduces the...

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether partition locations on Level 2 are subject to change. If so, increase the partition load to the ASCE 7-16 Section 4.3.2 minimum of 15 PSF and classify it as a live load for use in load combinations per Section 2.3.1. Verify that all Level 2 floor framing members have been designed using the corrected partition load value...

RFI draft: Please confirm whether partition locations on Level 2 are subject to change. If so, increase the partition load to the ASCE 7-16 Section 4.3.2 minimum of 15 PSF and classify it as a live load for use in load combinations per Section 2.3.1. Verify that all Level 2 floor framing members have been...

Summary: The sheet is identified as 'FOUNDATION LOADS,' and the note states 'Attached are foundation loads from the level 2 red iron podium to level 1 slab on grade foundations' and 'Loads provided are unfactored loads.' The reaction schedules are reported as separate cases such as 'D Only,' 'Lr Only,' 'L Only,' 'S Only,' 'W Only,' and 'E Only.' ASCE 7...

Why it matters: Using only these unfactored single cases for foundation design can miss the governing combined gravity, wind, and seismic demands and can force redesign of foundation size, reinforcing, and anchorage after permit or delegated-design review.

Suggested next step: Provide revised foundation reactions or governing envelopes using a stated ASCE 7 design method and the required Section 2.3 or Section 2.4 load combinations, including the required seismic combinations.

RFI draft: Provide revised foundation reactions or governing envelopes using a stated ASCE 7 design method and the required Section 2.3 or Section 2.4 load combinations, including the required seismic combinations.