Illinois Commercial Plan Review: 90 Issues Found

Summary: Framing Sheet Note 7 specifies a 'NON-COMPOSITE METAL DECK (TOTAL THICKNESS = 5 IN.) W/ W6x6-W2.9xW2.9 W.W.F.' and directs the contractor to 'PLACE W.W.F. AT MID-HEIGHT OF SLAB.' Per ACI 318-14 Section 1.4.4, slabs cast on non-composite decks are governed by the code as structural slabs, meaning they must meet the minimum flexural reinforcement...

Why it matters: Because the steel deck is non-composite, it serves only as formwork, and the concrete slab must resist all applied bending moments entirely on its own. Providing insufficient flexural reinforcement and placing it at the neutral axis (mid-height) instead of the tension face (bottom) leaves the tension zone unreinforced. This makes the slab...

Suggested next step: Please revise Framing Sheet Note 7 for the non-composite slab to specify adequate minimum flexural reinforcement (providing at least 0.084 in²/ft) and direct that this reinforcement be placed near the bottom of the slab (the tension face) with appropriate cover, rather than at mid-height, to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 7.6.1.1 and Table 7.6.1.1.

RFI draft: Please revise Framing Sheet Note 7 for the non-composite slab to specify adequate minimum flexural reinforcement (providing at least 0.084 in²/ft) and direct that this reinforcement be placed near the bottom of the slab (the tension face) with appropriate cover, rather than at mid-height, to...

Summary: The Screen Wall details show an HSS4x4 screen wall post rigidly anchored to the top of the CMU wall using expansion anchors (Detail 7). At the same time, this post is rigidly braced to the roof joist structural frame using a welded diagonal member (Detail 6). Because there are no vertical slip joints or slotted connections provided, this dual...

Why it matters: Roof joists are designed to deflect vertically under gravity, live, and environmental loads (as noted in Section 4.4 Commentary). Because the screen wall post rigidly links the deflecting roof joist to the rigid masonry wall below, any vertical deflection of the joist will induce massive unintended axial loads into the post and directly into...

Suggested next step: The current detail rigidly attaches the screen wall post to both the roof joist and the CMU wall, which will transfer vertical roof deflection loads into the masonry. Please revise the screen wall brace details to incorporate a vertical slip connection (e.g., vertically slotted holes at the joist brace or at the CMU wall brackets) to safely...

RFI draft: The current detail rigidly attaches the screen wall post to both the roof joist and the CMU wall, which will transfer vertical roof deflection loads into the masonry. Please revise the screen wall brace details to incorporate a vertical slip connection (e.g., vertically slotted holes at the...

Summary: Details 1, 3, and 4 on S405 specify a minimum lap splice length of 2'-0' (24 inches) for continuous #4 and #5 reinforcing bars in CMU bond beams. However, the project specifications dictate adherence to the 2018 International Building Code and specify a masonry compressive strength (f'm) of 2,500 psi with Grade 60 reinforcement. According to...

Why it matters: If installed with only a 24-inch lap, the bond beam reinforcement will not fully develop its yield strength, potentially causing cracking or structural failure under lateral or seismic loads. The details must be corrected to reflect the code-required development lengths based on the specified f'm of 2,500 psi.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required lap splice lengths for #4 and #5 continuous bars in CMU bond beams. The detailed 2'-0' lap is insufficient for Grade 60 bars in 2,500 psi masonry under the 2018 IBC / TMS 402 code. Provide updated minimum lap lengths.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required lap splice lengths for #4 and #5 continuous bars in CMU bond beams. The detailed 2'-0' lap is insufficient for Grade 60 bars in 2,500 psi masonry under the 2018 IBC / TMS 402 code. Provide updated minimum lap lengths.

Summary: Sheet Notes 7 and 8 specify 'W6x6-W2.9xW2.9 W.W.F.' as reinforcement for concrete slabs on metal deck. The 'W' prefix in the wire designation (W2.9) denotes plain (smooth) wire per ASTM A1064 nomenclature, not deformed wire (which would carry a 'D' prefix, e.g., D2.9). ACI 318-14 Section 24.4.3.1 explicitly requires 'Deformed reinforcement to...

Why it matters: This specification affects all elevated concrete floor and roof slabs across the project, including both the non-composite deck areas (Note 7) and composite deck areas (Note 8). If plain wire WWF is procured and installed before the discrepancy is identified during inspection, concrete removal and replacement with correctly specified deformed...

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the welded wire fabric specification should be revised from W6x6-W2.9xW2.9 (plain wire) to W6x6-D2.9xD2.9 (deformed wire) in Sheet Notes 7 and 8 to comply with ACI 318-14 Sections 24.4.3.1 and 24.4.3.2, which require deformed reinforcement for shrinkage and temperature stress resistance in one-way slabs.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the welded wire fabric specification should be revised from W6x6-W2.9xW2.9 (plain wire) to W6x6-D2.9xD2.9 (deformed wire) in Sheet Notes 7 and 8 to comply with ACI 318-14 Sections 24.4.3.1 and 24.4.3.2, which require deformed reinforcement for shrinkage and temperature...

Summary: Detail 5 'TYPICAL THICKENED SLAB' specifies #4 transverse bars at 72' CTS within the thickened region that supports a masonry wall. Per ACI 318-14 Section 13.3.2.1, one-way shallow foundations including strip footings and grade beams shall be designed in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapter 7 and Chapter 9. The thickened slab...

Why it matters: This is a significant exceedance that results in only approximately one transverse bar per 6 feet of wall length within the thickened slab zone. Inadequate transverse reinforcement can lead to poor load distribution across the footing width and longitudinal cracking in the thickened section under the masonry wall. During reinforcement...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer review the transverse reinforcement spacing in Detail 5 'TYPICAL THICKENED SLAB.' Per ACI 318-14 Section 7.7.2.3 (applicable via Section 13.3.2.1 for one-way shallow foundations), the maximum spacing of deformed reinforcement is the lesser of 3h and 18 inches. For h = 12', the maximum permitted spacing is 18'....

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer review the transverse reinforcement spacing in Detail 5 'TYPICAL THICKENED SLAB.' Per ACI 318-14 Section 7.7.2.3 (applicable via Section 13.3.2.1 for one-way shallow foundations), the maximum spacing of deformed reinforcement is the lesser of 3h and 18 inches. For...

Summary: According to ACI 318-14 Section 11.6.1 and Table 11.6.1, cast-in-place concrete walls utilizing deformed bars ≤ No. 5 must maintain a minimum transverse (horizontal) reinforcement ratio (ρt) of 0.0020. Detail 5 specifies a 1'-4' (16') thick wall with horizontal #4 bars at 16' on center each face, which provides a reinforcement ratio of 0.00156...

Why it matters: Failing to provide the code-mandated minimum transverse reinforcement can result in unacceptable temperature and shrinkage cracking. This compromises the long-term durability of the foundation walls by increasing the likelihood of moisture intrusion, potentially leading to reinforcement corrosion and reducing the structural integrity of the...

Suggested next step: Please revise the transverse (horizontal) reinforcement specified in foundation wall Details 5 and 6 to satisfy the minimum reinforcement ratio (ρt ≥ 0.0020) required by ACI 318-14 Table 11.6.1. Consider decreasing the horizontal bar spacing or increasing the bar size to meet the requirement.

RFI draft: Please revise the transverse (horizontal) reinforcement specified in foundation wall Details 5 and 6 to satisfy the minimum reinforcement ratio (ρt ≥ 0.0020) required by ACI 318-14 Table 11.6.1. Consider decreasing the horizontal bar spacing or increasing the bar size to meet the requirement.

Summary: Framing Sheet Note 19 specifies a 3-inch thick concrete slab for shower recesses with #3 bars placed at both the top and bottom. The note explicitly allows a 5/8-inch concrete cover with a (+/- 1/8-inch) tolerance. If the construction reaches the maximum permitted cover within this tolerance (3/4-inch top and 3/4-inch bottom), the remaining...

Why it matters: Maintaining the minimum clear spacing between horizontal layers is critical to allow concrete (and aggregates) to flow readily between the bars and ensure proper consolidation without creating honeycombing or voids. In a thin 3-inch structural slab, attempting to place two distinct layers of reinforcement with overlapping tolerances severely...

Suggested next step: Please review the reinforcement detailing for the 3-inch recessed shower slabs described in Note 19. The specified #3 bars (top and bottom) with 5/8-inch (+/- 1/8-inch) cover explicitly permits a clear spacing between layers of 3/4-inch, which violates the 1-inch minimum clearance required by ACI 318-14 Section 25.2.2. Please clarify if the...

RFI draft: Please review the reinforcement detailing for the 3-inch recessed shower slabs described in Note 19. The specified #3 bars (top and bottom) with 5/8-inch (+/- 1/8-inch) cover explicitly permits a clear spacing between layers of 3/4-inch, which violates the 1-inch minimum clearance required by...

Summary: The structural general notes state that concrete work shall conform to “ACI 318” but do not identify the year/edition of ACI 318. ACI 318-14 requires construction documents to state the “Name and year of issue of the Code” governing design. Without the ACI 318 edition identified, the construction documents do not meet this requirement.

Why it matters: Not identifying the governing ACI 318 edition can create permitting and construction ambiguity (different editions have different technical requirements), potentially leading to rework of notes/specifications, anchor/rebar detailing revisions, and inspection/approval delays.

Suggested next step: Revise the structural general notes (or governing code statement) to explicitly identify the governing concrete code edition (e.g., “ACI 318-14”) consistent with the jurisdiction’s adopted code basis, and confirm whether any supplements/amendments apply.

RFI draft: Revise the structural general notes (or governing code statement) to explicitly identify the governing concrete code edition (e.g., “ACI 318-14”) consistent with the jurisdiction’s adopted code basis, and confirm whether any supplements/amendments apply.

Summary: The Cold-Formed Metal Framing note 5 on sheet S001 specifies design according to 'AISI'S 'STANDARD FOR COLD-FORMED STEEL FRAMING--GENERAL PROVISIONS'' which is the title of the superseded AISI S200 standard. The 2018 IBC Section 2211.1 requires cold-formed steel light-frame construction (structural walls, floor/roof systems, etc.) to be...

Why it matters: Referencing the wrong design standard could lead the contractor's specialty structural engineer to design the cold-formed steel framing package to an outdated and superseded standard. This would likely be flagged during plan review by the building official, causing permit delays. If not caught and built accordingly, the framing would not comply...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer update Cold-Formed Metal Framing note 5 to reference AISI S240 (North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing) as required by 2018 IBC Section 2211.1 for cold-formed steel light-frame construction, and also reference AISI S100 as required by Section 2210.1 for general cold-formed steel...

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer update Cold-Formed Metal Framing note 5 to reference AISI S240 (North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing) as required by 2018 IBC Section 2211.1 for cold-formed steel light-frame construction, and also reference AISI S100 as required...

Summary: Detail 1 (Section – Wall Brace) shows a WT6X17.5X10'-6' attached to a CMU wall using 5/8' Ø expansion anchors at 16' spacing, staggered, with 5' embedment. The wall is noted as having 'VERT. REINF. BARS IN GROUTED CELLS,' which is standard masonry terminology indicating partially grouted construction where only cells containing vertical...

Why it matters: If expansion anchors are drilled into hollow, ungrouted cells of the CMU wall, the expansion mechanism has no solid material to bear against and the anchors cannot develop their design capacity. This wall brace connection is part of the lateral force-resisting system, so inadequate anchorage is a serious structural deficiency. Failed anchors...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the CMU wall at the wall brace connection is fully grouted or partially grouted. If partially grouted, detail how all 5/8' Ø expansion anchors at 16' staggered spacing will be located exclusively within reinforced grouted cells as required by IBC Section 1604.8.2. Consider specifying the wall as fully grouted at brace connection...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the CMU wall at the wall brace connection is fully grouted or partially grouted. If partially grouted, detail how all 5/8' Ø expansion anchors at 16' staggered spacing will be located exclusively within reinforced grouted cells as required by IBC Section 1604.8.2. Consider...

Summary: Detail 1 'STEP FOOTING DETAIL' on sheet S301 depicts a diagonal sloping segment between two level footing pads to transition between elevations. The detail dimensions show a maximum vertical rise of '1'-6' MAX' over horizontal bottom segments dimensioned at '1'-6'' and '1'-0'', indicating the sloped transition portion has a slope far steeper...

Why it matters: This typical detail governs stepped footing construction across the entire project. If footings are constructed per this detail with the depicted sloped transition, they are likely to be rejected during foundation inspection, requiring costly demolition and reconstruction. The excessive bottom slope also reduces the effective bearing area on...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the Step Footing Detail (Detail 1) to eliminate the diagonal sloped transition and instead show vertical steps between level footing pads. The revised detail must ensure the bottom surface of each footing segment does not exceed the 1:10 (10%) maximum slope and the top surface of each segment is level, in...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the Step Footing Detail (Detail 1) to eliminate the diagonal sloped transition and instead show vertical steps between level footing pads. The revised detail must ensure the bottom surface of each footing segment does not exceed the 1:10 (10%) maximum slope...

Summary: IBC Section 1604.8.2 requires that anchors in masonry walls of hollow units be embedded in a reinforced grouted structural element. Framing Sheet Note 1 specifies expansion anchors at 24' on center, with instructions to 'GROUT CELLS AT ANCHORS'. However, the Masonry Schedule indicates that wall type M1 (typical 8' CMU walls) has reinforcing...

Why it matters: Proper anchorage of the roof diaphragm to the supporting masonry walls is critical for transferring lateral forces (wind and seismic) and resisting wind uplift. If expansion anchors are placed in unreinforced masonry cells, they lack the required structural continuity and can fail prematurely under load. Correcting this after construction...

Suggested next step: Please revise the masonry wall vertical reinforcing spacing for M1 to align with the required anchor spacing (e.g., 24' on center), or specify a continuous reinforced bond beam at the roof bearing elevation so that all anchors are embedded in a reinforced grouted structural element per IBC Section 1604.8.2.

RFI draft: Please revise the masonry wall vertical reinforcing spacing for M1 to align with the required anchor spacing (e.g., 24' on center), or specify a continuous reinforced bond beam at the roof bearing elevation so that all anchors are embedded in a reinforced grouted structural element per IBC...

Summary: Details 5 and 6 depict 'MASONRY DOWEL BARS' intended to connect the CMU wall to the concrete foundation wall. However, the graphical details incorrectly show the dowel bars starting exactly at the Top of Wall (TOW) without any embedment into the concrete foundation, nor do they overlap with the vertical concrete reinforcement. Additionally, the...

Why it matters: Without proper embedment into the concrete and adequate lap splice lengths with the CMU reinforcement, the masonry wall will lack the required tension and shear connection to the foundation. Section 1901.5 explicitly requires these lengths to be detailed on the construction documents, and Section 2107.2.1 mandates a minimum lap splice length of...

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 5 and 6 to graphically show the masonry dowel bars embedding into the concrete foundation wall and lapping with the wall reinforcement. Provide the specific required anchorage length into the concrete and the lap splice length for the CMU reinforcement to comply with IBC Sections 1901.5 and 2107.2.1.

RFI draft: Please revise Details 5 and 6 to graphically show the masonry dowel bars embedding into the concrete foundation wall and lapping with the wall reinforcement. Provide the specific required anchorage length into the concrete and the lap splice length for the CMU reinforcement to comply with IBC...

Summary: Detail 2 shows a #5 dowel bar drilled and epoxied into the CMU bearing wall at the upper floor elevation to anchor the floor slab. The slab embeds 5' into the masonry wall, destroying most of the block core. Additionally, the drawing notes 'GROUT ALL CELLS SOLID BELOW UPPER FLOOR ELEVATION', indicating the masonry cells at the upper floor...

Why it matters: IBC Section 1604.8.2 requires that anchors in hollow masonry walls be embedded in a reinforced grouted structural element. Drilling and epoxying into a hollow cell or remaining thin face shell at the floor elevation will not provide the required capacity for a structural floor-to-wall lateral support connection.

Suggested next step: Please revise the upper floor slab-to-wall anchor connection in Detail 2 to comply with IBC Section 1604.8.2. Ensure the anchor is embedded in a reinforced grouted structural element, potentially by specifying a solid grouted bond beam at the anchor elevation with sufficient depth for epoxy embedment, or by utilizing a cast-in bent dowel detail...

RFI draft: Please revise the upper floor slab-to-wall anchor connection in Detail 2 to comply with IBC Section 1604.8.2. Ensure the anchor is embedded in a reinforced grouted structural element, potentially by specifying a solid grouted bond beam at the anchor elevation with sufficient depth for epoxy...

Summary: Details 1 and 5 show structural anchors embedded into CMU walls where the cells are only noted to be grouted solid. Detail 1 calls for expansion anchors with the note 'GROUT CELLS SOLID AT ANCHORS', and Detail 5 calls for welded shear studs with the note 'C.M.U. GROUT CELLS SOLID BELOW BEARING PLATE TO FOUNDATION'. IBC Section 1604.8.2...

Why it matters: Omitting reinforcement in grouted cells at anchorage points fails to properly distribute concentrated tension and shear loads from the anchors into the wider masonry wall structure. Relying on unreinforced grout can lead to localized pull-out or structural failure of the masonry under lateral or wind uplift forces, which compromises the...

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 1 and 5 to specify and detail the required reinforcement (e.g., vertical rebar or tie bars) within the grouted CMU cells at all anchor and bearing plate locations to comply with IBC Section 1604.8.2.

RFI draft: Please revise Details 1 and 5 to specify and detail the required reinforcement (e.g., vertical rebar or tie bars) within the grouted CMU cells at all anchor and bearing plate locations to comply with IBC Section 1604.8.2.