Plan Review: 77 Issues Found

Summary: Detail 1 (SIGN DETAIL) specifies a 3'-0" wide footing supporting a 2'-0" wide central concrete pier. This geometry leaves a 6-inch footing toe projection on each side of the pier. The transverse reinforcement for the footing is specified as "#4x2'-6" @12" O.C. T&B". Assuming the 2'-6" (30-inch) long bar is centered within the 3'-0" (36-inch) footing, it extends 15 inches from the centerline. Be...

Why it matters: Under wind or seismic loading, the sign pedestal will transfer large bending moments to the footing. The transverse reinforcement must be fully developed at the face of the pier to resist the resulting tensile stresses. With only 3 inches of anchorage, the bars will pull out of the concrete at a ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the sign detail to provide adequate development length for the footing transverse reinforcement. This may require increasing the footing width, increasing the transverse bar length, providing standard hooks at the ends of the bars, or a combination thereof to sat...

RFI draft: Please revise the sign detail to provide adequate development length for the footing transverse reinforcement. This may require increasing the footing width, increasing the transverse bar length, providing standard hooks at the ends of the bars, o...

Summary: The drawing states a Risk Category of III under both wind and seismic design criteria, and specifies a seismic story drift limit of 0.025 hsx. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.12-1, the allowable story drift (Δa) of 0.025 hsx applies only to Risk Category I or II structures (four stories or less with walls designed to accommodate drift). For Risk Category III structures in that same row, the allowable dr...

Why it matters: Using a less restrictive drift limit could result in undersized lateral force-resisting system members and connections, leading to excessive deformations during a design-level earthquake. This affects the structural adequacy of the entire building (a high school, which justifies Risk Category III...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the allowable seismic story drift limit. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.12-1, Risk Category III structures are limited to 0.020 hsx (for structures four stories or less with walls designed to accommodate drift) or 0.015 hsx (for all other structures). The currently stat...

RFI draft: Please confirm the allowable seismic story drift limit. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.12-1, Risk Category III structures are limited to 0.020 hsx (for structures four stories or less with walls designed to accommodate drift) or 0.015 hsx (for all other s...

Summary: The framing plan indicates an edge of slab ("E/SLAB 3\"") that extends beyond the supporting framing near grid 4. A review markup explicitly notes that the "deck doesnt go out" to this extent. Because Note 4 specifies a 5" total thickness concrete floor on a composite steel deck, placing concrete where the deck does not extend results in a complete lack of support for the wet concrete. This sev...

Why it matters: During construction, if the concrete slab is poured up to the denoted "E/SLAB 3\"" edge without the underlying steel deck or supplementary edge framing to support it, the wet concrete will fail and collapse under its own weight. This is a critical safety and load path failure that must be correct...

Suggested next step: Review the architectural slab edge requirements at the marked "OPEN TO BELOW" boundary. Update the structural framing plan to either provide supplementary edge framing (e.g., bent plates or perimeter angles) to support the slab edge, or clarify the extent of the composite stee...

RFI draft: Review the architectural slab edge requirements at the marked "OPEN TO BELOW" boundary. Update the structural framing plan to either provide supplementary edge framing (e.g., bent plates or perimeter angles) to support the slab edge, or clarify th...

Summary: The framing elevation between grid lines Z.1 and X.1 shows upper-level cross-bracing members designed for an axial load of ±60K, while the lower-level bracing members directly below them are designed for only ±25K. Because lateral shear forces accumulate downward toward the foundation, the lower-level bracing must have adequate strength to resist at least the shear transferred from the upper le...

Why it matters: If constructed as drawn, the lower story would act as a weak story. During a seismic or extreme wind event, the lower braces could yield or fail prematurely because they lack the capacity to transfer the forces delivered by the upper level. This could lead to a localized or complete structural co...

Suggested next step: Please review and correct the axial load demands and member sizing for the bracing in the elevation between grid lines Z.1 and X.1. Verify if the ±60K and ±25K values were inverted, and update the lower level bracing to ensure it can adequately support the accumulated lateral ...

RFI draft: Please review and correct the axial load demands and member sizing for the bracing in the elevation between grid lines Z.1 and X.1. Verify if the ±60K and ±25K values were inverted, and update the lower level bracing to ensure it can adequately su...

Summary: There is a direct contradiction in the structural grid spacing along the south edge of the building between the main floor framing plan and the entrance canopy plan. On the Second Floor Framing Plan (S111), the vertical distance between Grid 2 and Grid 1 is dimensioned as 6'-0", Grid 1 to Grid 0.8 is 6'-3", and Grid 0.8 to Grid 0 is 18'-0". However, on the Entrance Canopy Framing Plan (S113), t...

Why it matters: Inconsistent primary grid dimensions will lead to catastrophic misalignments between the main building structure and the entrance canopy. Columns will be placed in incorrect locations, steel beams will be fabricated to the wrong lengths, and the structural integrity and architectural layout of th...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct vertical dimensions between horizontal Grids 0, 0.8, 1, and 2. The Second Floor Framing Plan (S111) indicates spacings of 18'-0", 6'-3", and 6'-0", while the Entrance Canopy Framing Plan (1/S113) indicates spacings of 9'-7 5/8", 18'-0", and 12'-3". P...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct vertical dimensions between horizontal Grids 0, 0.8, 1, and 2. The Second Floor Framing Plan (S111) indicates spacings of 18'-0", 6'-3", and 6'-0", while the Entrance Canopy Framing Plan (1/S113) indicates spacings of 9'...

Summary: The Second Floor Framing Plan (S111) contains detail callouts that severely conflict with the conditions depicted in the referenced sections on S310. Specifically, S111 references detail 12/S310 at an area noted for a "PRE FINISHED ALUMINUM CANOPY", but Section 12/S310 depicts a roof parapet ("T/PARAPET") without a canopy. Conversely, S111 calls out detail 6/S310 at a standard slab edge with no...

Why it matters: Fabricating structural steel based on incorrectly referenced detail sections will result in missing structural supports for exterior canopies where they are required, and the installation of inappropriate parapet or canopy framing at standard floor edges. This indicates a widespread detail number...

Suggested next step: S111 calls out detail 12/S310 at a canopy location, but Section 12 shows a parapet. S111 also calls out detail 6/S310 at a standard edge, but Section 6 shows a canopy. Please review and revise the detail reference callouts on S111 to accurately align with the correct sections ...

RFI draft: S111 calls out detail 12/S310 at a canopy location, but Section 12 shows a parapet. S111 also calls out detail 6/S310 at a standard edge, but Section 6 shows a canopy. Please review and revise the detail reference callouts on S111 to accurately al...

Summary: Due to the overlapping matchlines between Part E (S104) and Part F (S105) around horizontal grids 25 and 26, the same structural columns are specified with different footing sizes. Part E (S104) specifies footing mark "F6" for these columns, while Part F (S105) specifies footing mark "F5" for the identical column locations.

Why it matters: Footings F5 and F6 have different dimensions according to the Column Footing Schedule (F5 is 5'-0" x 5'-0", and F6 is 6'-0" x 6'-0"). Pouring the incorrect footing size could lead to inadequate structural support or unnecessary material costs.

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the columns in the overlap area between grids 25 and 26 should receive F5 or F6 footings, and update the respective part plan to remove the overlap and conflict.

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the columns in the overlap area between grids 25 and 26 should receive F5 or F6 footings, and update the respective part plan to remove the overlap and conflict.

Summary: The Column Footing Schedule specifies two rectangular footings: F9B (9'-4" x 6'-0") and F25 (14'-0" x 25'-0"). For the short direction reinforcement, the schedule only calls out a total quantity of bars ('(7)#6 SHORT T&B' for F9B and '(15)#7 SHORT T&B' for F25). ACI 318-19 Section 13.3.3.3 dictates that for two-way isolated rectangular footings, the reinforcement in the short direction must be ...

Why it matters: Lacking explicit instructions to band the short-direction reinforcement will likely result in the contractor distributing the bars uniformly across the entire length of the footing. This violates code requirements for two-way isolated footings and leaves the critical center band (directly under t...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if rectangular footings F9B and F25 are isolated two-way footings. If so, please provide the required number of bars within the center band for the short-direction reinforcement to comply with the banded distribution requirements of ACI 318-19 Section 13.3.3.3.

RFI draft: Please confirm if rectangular footings F9B and F25 are isolated two-way footings. If so, please provide the required number of bars within the center band for the short-direction reinforcement to comply with the banded distribution requirements of...

Summary: The framing plan notes specify floor construction to be reinforced with "6x6-W2.1xW2.1 WWF". The 'W' designation indicates plain wire. However, ACI 318-19 Section 20.2.1.1 requires that nonprestressed bars and wires be deformed, and explicitly limits the use of plain wires to spirals. Using plain wire for slab reinforcement directly violates this material property requirement.

Why it matters: Specifying plain wire instead of deformed wire reduces the mechanical bond between the reinforcement and the concrete. This compromises structural integrity, development length, and crack control in the composite slab. It will lead to code non-compliance, resulting in failed structural inspection...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the specified welded wire reinforcement should be revised to use deformed wire (e.g., D2.1 instead of W2.1) to comply with ACI 318-19 Section 20.2.1.1 requirements for nonprestressed wires to be deformed.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the specified welded wire reinforcement should be revised to use deformed wire (e.g., D2.1 instead of W2.1) to comply with ACI 318-19 Section 20.2.1.1 requirements for nonprestressed wires to be deformed.

Summary: The "Live Load Design Data" section on the drawing incorrectly includes "Slab-On-Grade Theoretical volume x 150 pcf". Per ASCE 7-16 Section 3.1.1, the weights of materials of construction are defined as "Dead loads", while Section 4.1 defines "LIVE LOAD" as excluding dead loads. Additionally, the drawing lists "Partition Load 15 psf of wall area (Reducible per code)". Section 4.3.2 establishes ...

Why it matters: Misclassifying structural dead weight (such as a slab-on-grade) as a live load violates standard code definitions and will lead to incorrect load factoring during structural analysis combinations (e.g., LRFD 1.2D + 1.6L). Incorrectly reducing an un-reducible partition load leads to unconservative...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Design Data notes to classify the "Slab-On-Grade" weight as a Dead Load. Clarify the Partition Load to apply to the floor area as required by Section 4.3.2, and remove the "(Reducible per code)" notation, as partition loads are not listed in Table 4.3-1 and t...

RFI draft: Please revise the Design Data notes to classify the "Slab-On-Grade" weight as a Dead Load. Clarify the Partition Load to apply to the floor area as required by Section 4.3.2, and remove the "(Reducible per code)" notation, as partition loads are n...

Summary: The drawing's legend defines the notation for a "MOMENT REACTION" with the value "125 kips". A kip is a unit of force, whereas a moment must be defined as a force multiplied by a distance (e.g., kip-ft or kip-in). This physically impossible unit specification makes the intended moment demand ambiguous and undefinable.

Why it matters: Per ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.2, structural connections must be designed to develop the specific forces and moments indicated from the structural analysis. Because the legend uses an invalid unit for moments, a steel detailer or connection engineer cannot definitively know whether the required momen...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct dimensional units for moment reactions (e.g., kip-ft or kip-in) and update the legend to reflect mathematically valid moment units so that the moment connections can be properly designed to resist the required loads.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct dimensional units for moment reactions (e.g., kip-ft or kip-in) and update the legend to reflect mathematically valid moment units so that the moment connections can be properly designed to resist the required loads.

Summary: ASCE 7-16 Section 14.2.2.2 (modifying ACI 318 Section 10.7.6.1.6) requires that if anchor bolts are placed in the top of a pedestal, the transverse reinforcement distributed within 5 inches of the top must consist of at least two No. 4 or three No. 3 bars. Detail 4/S201 explicitly specifies "COLUMN, BASE PL. & A. BOLTS" on top of the concrete pedestal. The detail also calls for "3 SETS OF TIES ...

Why it matters: Inadequate anchor bolt confinement can lead to premature concrete splitting or breakout failure under lateral or tension/uplift loads. This non-conformance is critical for structural stability and will likely trigger inspection failures, requiring costly post-pour remediation such as external con...

Suggested next step: Please revise the typical pedestal detailing to comply with ASCE 7-16 Sec. 14.2.2.2 / ACI 318 Sec. 10.7.6.1.6. To meet the requirement, please confirm if the tie size should be increased to #4 (so two ties within 5" is sufficient) or if the tie spacing should be tightened to p...

RFI draft: Please revise the typical pedestal detailing to comply with ASCE 7-16 Sec. 14.2.2.2 / ACI 318 Sec. 10.7.6.1.6. To meet the requirement, please confirm if the tie size should be increased to #4 (so two ties within 5" is sufficient) or if the tie sp...

Summary: Detail 4/S204 'INTERIOR STAIR SUPPORT DETAILS' shows stair stringer connections at two different structural levels: the upper 'ATTACHMENT AT FRAMED FLOOR' connects the stringer directly to a steel beam, and the lower 'THICKENED SLAB BELOW STRINGERS' anchors the stringer to a thickened concrete slab. The detail delegates the attachment design to the stair supplier but shows rigid, fixed connecti...

Why it matters: Without seismic displacement accommodation at the stair connections, the stair structure will act as a rigid diagonal brace between floors during a seismic event. This can lead to damage to both the stair and the primary structure, potential loss of egress, and non-compliance during plan review. ...

Suggested next step: Request that the EOR revise Detail 4/S204 to include seismic relative displacement accommodation requirements per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10, specifying the required DpI value and the type of connection (sliding with slotted holes, sliding bearing supports, or ductile metal att...

RFI draft: Request that the EOR revise Detail 4/S204 to include seismic relative displacement accommodation requirements per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10, specifying the required DpI value and the type of connection (sliding with slotted holes, sliding bearing ...

Summary: Note 5 on the 'TYP JOIST REINFORCING POINT LOADING S204 DETAIL' directs that hanger loads be calculated by considering "ALL PIPING TO BE FILLED WITH WATER AND ALL CONDUIT RUNS TO WEIGH TWICE THEIR UNFILLED WEIGHT." This prescriptive rule directly contradicts ASCE 7-16 Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, which mandate the use of the "actual weights of materials" and the "maximum weight of the contents" fo...

Why it matters: Underestimating the dead load of suspended MEP systems can result in undersized hanger connections and overloaded open-web steel joists, potentially leading to localized structural failure during maximum operational conditions. The structural joist reinforcements must be designed for the true wor...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note 5 to require that all hanger and point load calculations be based on the actual maximum operating weight of the suspended components, including the true maximum weight of their contents (e.g., actual cable weights inside conduits and specific fluid gravities...

RFI draft: Please revise Note 5 to require that all hanger and point load calculations be based on the actual maximum operating weight of the suspended components, including the true maximum weight of their contents (e.g., actual cable weights inside conduit...

Summary: The drawing shows basketball goal locations with a note stating 'BASKETBALL GOAL. GC TO COORDINATE LOADING WITH JOIST SUPPLER PRIOR TO JOIST FABRICATION.' However, no actual concentrated load values from the basketball goals are indicated on the construction documents. IBC Section 2207.2 requires the registered design professional to indicate on the construction documents the requirements for j...

Why it matters: Without the basketball goal concentrated loads being specified by the engineer of record on the construction documents, the joist manufacturer cannot properly design the joists supporting these loads during the initial shop drawing and fabrication phase. This delegation of load determination to t...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record provide the concentrated loads (magnitude, direction, and point of application) for the basketball goals on the construction documents, including any dynamic or impact load factors, so the joist manufacturer can properly incorporate th...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record provide the concentrated loads (magnitude, direction, and point of application) for the basketball goals on the construction documents, including any dynamic or impact load factors, so the joist manufactur...