Plan Review: 153 Issues Found

Summary: 121 index entries | 107 perfect matches | 14 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (14): C101: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (C101) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES (C100)(p2) S002: Expected: STRUCTURAL NOTES (S002) | Actual: STRUCTURAL NOTES (S001)(p42) M102: Expected: MECH. ENLARGED FLR PLAN - WH ADDITION (M102) | Actual: MECH. ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN - WAREHOUSE ADDITION (M102)(p61) M10...

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: 0 missing, 14 mismatched out of 121 sheets

Summary: The building section details show the C12 steel stair stringers fully field-welded to the PEMB floor framing at the top and the cold-formed steel (CFS) wall framing for intermediate/bottom support. ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10 requires egress stairs that are not part of the primary seismic force-resisting system to be detailed to accommodate seismic relative displacements, typically using sliding ...

Why it matters: If stairs are fixed without sliding or ductile connections, they must be included in the primary building structural model. However, rigidly connecting a heavy C12 steel stair between an independent PEMB mezzanine and light-gauge CFS wall framing forces the stair to act as an unintended diagonal ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the stair stringer connections should be revised to incorporate sliding bearing supports with slotted holes at one or both ends to accommodate the design seismic relative displacements (DpI) per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10, ensuring the stairs do not act as uni...

RFI draft: Please confirm if the stair stringer connections should be revised to incorporate sliding bearing supports with slotted holes at one or both ends to accommodate the design seismic relative displacements (DpI) per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10, ensurin...

Summary: The stair section drawing instructs to "FIELD-WELD TIPS OF C12 STL STRINGER FLANGES TO CFS WALL FRAMING (EA SIDE) FOR PERMANENT STAIR SUPPORT". However, the partition wall framing that the stairs are adjacent to is specified as "NON-LOADBEARING 6\" CFS STUDS @ 16\" O.C. PART WALL W/ 5/8\" TYPE X GYPSUM WALLBOARD & ACOUSTICAL BATT INS". ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10 requires that egress stairs "shal...

Why it matters: Utilizing non-loadbearing studs for the permanent structural support of C12 steel stair stringers will lead to severe overloading of the partition wall under gravity, live, and seismic loads. This creates a high risk of structural failure of the egress path during an emergency event or normal usage.

Suggested next step: Please revise the stair detailing to ensure the C12 stringers are supported by positive and direct structural supports, such as independent structural columns or designated loadbearing walls, rather than non-loadbearing CFS partitions. Additionally, confirm the supports are de...

RFI draft: Please revise the stair detailing to ensure the C12 stringers are supported by positive and direct structural supports, such as independent structural columns or designated loadbearing walls, rather than non-loadbearing CFS partitions. Additionall...

Summary: The drawings rely on the concrete slab to provide lateral restraint and tie the foundation elements together. Specifically, the plan calls for "#5 HAIRPINS INTO SLAB" to transfer rigid frame lateral thrust, and Sheet Note 13 requires to "DOWEL ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SLABS TO THE BUILDING PERIMETER FOUNDATION WALL". However, Sheet Note 14 simultaneously dictates to "PROVIDE ISOLATION JOINT BE...

Why it matters: This contradiction breaks the fundamental structural requirement for a continuous load path. An isolation joint prevents the transfer of lateral seismic forces from the column foundations and perimeter walls into the slab (acting as a tie or diaphragm), which directly violates ASCE 7-16 Section 1...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the isolation joints required by Note 14 should be omitted at locations where hairpins and dowels are required for lateral load transfer, or provide revised details that satisfy both the slab separation requirements and the continuous seismic load path mandated...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the isolation joints required by Note 14 should be omitted at locations where hairpins and dowels are required for lateral load transfer, or provide revised details that satisfy both the slab separation requirements and the continu...

Summary: The ground level framing plan for the warehouse break area explicitly identifies the wall along grid line 14 as a 'BEARING WALL BENEATH JOISTS.' However, this wall is labeled with framing tag '1'. According to the 'CFS WALL FRAMING MARK LEGEND & SCHEDULE', Mark 1 is a '3 5/8” CFS FURRING/PARTITION WALL' with top track options designated as '(NOT TIGHT TO STRUCT ABOVE)' or a slotted track '(TIGH...

Why it matters: Non-load-bearing partition assemblies are designed to prevent the transfer of vertical loads into the wall studs by maintaining a gap or using slotted tracks for deflection. Specifying a Mark 1 non-load-bearing partition assembly for a bearing wall severs the continuous vertical load path require...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct framing mark for the load-bearing wall along grid 14. Should this be revised to Mark 6 (3 5/8” CFS Load-Bearing Wall) or Mark 3 (6” CFS Load-Bearing Wall) to ensure a proper load-bearing assembly capable of supporting the vertical loads from the joists above?

RFI draft: Clarify the correct framing mark for the load-bearing wall along grid 14. Should this be revised to Mark 6 (3 5/8” CFS Load-Bearing Wall) or Mark 3 (6” CFS Load-Bearing Wall) to ensure a proper load-bearing assembly capable of supporting the verti...

Summary: Detail G ('TYP FDN WALL SECTION @ GRID A.2') designates a #5 vertical dowel to anchor the CMU wall, but the callout erroneously specifies to 'EPOXY 8" INTO SLAB'. The interior 'S6' slab is offset from the wall and structurally separated from the foundation by an 'ISOLATION JOINT (TYP)'. Anchoring the structural CMU wall into the isolated floor slab instead of its direct supporting foundation wa...

Why it matters: If constructed as annotated, the CMU wall will lack a positive connection to its foundation to resist out-of-plane and in-plane seismic forces. This violates ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.3 (requiring a continuous load path to the final point of resistance) and Section 12.11.2.1 (requiring a direct conn...

Suggested next step: Revise the dowel callout in Detail G. Should 'EPOXY 8" INTO SLAB' be corrected to 'EPOXY 8" INTO FDN WALL' to ensure the CMU wall is properly anchored to its supporting foundation?

RFI draft: Revise the dowel callout in Detail G. Should 'EPOXY 8" INTO SLAB' be corrected to 'EPOXY 8" INTO FDN WALL' to ensure the CMU wall is properly anchored to its supporting foundation?

Summary: The drawing schedules for thrust blocking (e.g., TEES AND DEAD ENDS) dictate bearing areas using a fixed "SOIL BEARING CAPACITY (psf) 1500". Note 2 for the thrust blocks confirms these blocks provide bearing "AGAINST UNDISTURBED TRENCH WALL", which is a lateral load application. However, IBC Section 1806.3 requires lateral load resistance to be calculated using the presumptive values in Table 1...

Why it matters: Assuming a constant 1500 psf lateral bearing capacity without accounting for depth will result in severely undersized thrust blocks for typical shallow water mains (e.g., at 5 feet deep, Class 5 soil provides only 500 psf of lateral bearing, not 1500 psf). This can lead to thrust block failure, j...

Suggested next step: Please revise the thrust block sizing schedules to calculate the required bearing area using the depth-dependent lateral bearing pressures (psf/ft below natural grade) specified in IBC Table 1806.2 and Section 1806.3.3, rather than using a constant vertical bearing capacity va...

RFI draft: Please revise the thrust block sizing schedules to calculate the required bearing area using the depth-dependent lateral bearing pressures (psf/ft below natural grade) specified in IBC Table 1806.2 and Section 1806.3.3, rather than using a constan...

Summary: IBC Section 505.2.3 requires mezzanines to be open to the room below, with enclosing walls no higher than 42 inches. The drawings detail a 'MEZZANINE WALL W/ LINER PANELS TO CEILING (TYP)' along the mezzanine perimeter, making it fully enclosed. Exception 2 of Section 505.2.3 allows enclosed mezzanines only if they have two or more exits. However, the mezzanine plan shows only one compliant exi...

Why it matters: Enclosing a mezzanine that provides only a single means of egress traps occupants if that primary stair is compromised by fire or smoke. This constitutes a severe life-safety hazard that will result in a failed permit review.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the mezzanine walls will be lowered to a maximum height of 42 inches to comply with openness requirements, or provide a compliant second exit stairway to allow the mezzanine to be enclosed per IBC 505.2.3 Exception 2.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the mezzanine walls will be lowered to a maximum height of 42 inches to comply with openness requirements, or provide a compliant second exit stairway to allow the mezzanine to be enclosed per IBC 505.2.3 Exception 2.

Summary: The stair details instruct the contractor to field-weld the C12 steel stair stringer flanges directly to the adjacent Cold-Formed Steel (CFS) wall framing to act as the permanent stair support. However, the CFS wall framing designated in the building sections is explicitly detailed as "NON-LOADBEARING".

Why it matters: A non-loadbearing light-gauge metal stud wall is not designed as a structural framing system and cannot carry superimposed structural loads. Relying on a non-loadbearing wall to permanently support the dead, live, and seismic loads of heavy structural steel stairs creates a severe life-safety col...

Suggested next step: Please provide an independent, structurally adequate support system (such as heavy-gauge loadbearing studs or structural steel columns) for the stair stringers, and remove the note instructing the stringers to be permanently supported by the non-loadbearing CFS wall framing.

RFI draft: Please provide an independent, structurally adequate support system (such as heavy-gauge loadbearing studs or structural steel columns) for the stair stringers, and remove the note instructing the stringers to be permanently supported by the non-l...

Summary: The foundation drawings are explicitly "ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW" and state that the "FINAL DESIGN" is based on "NOT STAMPED" shop drawings from the pre-engineered metal building manufacturer. IBC Section 1603.1 requires the construction documents to indicate "design loads and other information pertinent to the structural design". Using unstamped submittals means the structural loads and anchor...

Why it matters: Submitting a foundation design for permitting based on unstamped PEMB reactions will likely trigger a permit rejection. Furthermore, if the final stamped loads from the PEMB manufacturer differ from the unstamped assumptions, the foundation will require costly redesign, and any already-placed con...

Suggested next step: Please obtain the final, stamped and sealed shop drawings and reactions from the PEMB manufacturer, verify that the foundation design and anchor bolt layouts accommodate the finalized loads, and update the foundation drawings to remove the reliance on "NOT STAMPED" documents p...

RFI draft: Please obtain the final, stamped and sealed shop drawings and reactions from the PEMB manufacturer, verify that the foundation design and anchor bolt layouts accommodate the finalized loads, and update the foundation drawings to remove the relianc...

Summary: The "CFS WALL FRAMING MARK LEGEND & SCHEDULE" specifies slotted top tracks ("600SLT250-43" for Mark 3 and "362SLT250-43" for Mark 6) for cold-formed steel load-bearing walls. Slotted tracks (SLT) are slip connections designed to allow vertical deflection of the primary structure without transferring axial loads to the wall studs. Using a slotted track on a load-bearing wall physically prevents ...

Why it matters: This directly violates the code requirement that structures must be designed and constructed to safely support factored loads. If installed with slotted top tracks, the load-bearing walls will not have a continuous vertical load path, which will result in excessive structural deflection or potent...

Suggested next step: Revise the top track specification for CFS wall Marks 3 and 6 to standard solid tracks (e.g., 600T250-43 and 362T250-43) to ensure proper vertical load transfer, and confirm if any additional bearing details are required.

RFI draft: Revise the top track specification for CFS wall Marks 3 and 6 to standard solid tracks (e.g., 600T250-43 and 362T250-43) to ensure proper vertical load transfer, and confirm if any additional bearing details are required.

Summary: The mezzanine plan shows equipment F-3 (furnace) discharging into a pipe labeled "1"ø SAN, DN". On the ground level, this pipe ("1"ø SAN, UP") routes horizontally and connects directly into the sanitary drainage system for the break room sink. Connecting a furnace condensate drain directly to a sanitary sewer without an air gap or indirect waste receptor violates mechanical codes governing mech...

Why it matters: A direct connection between the furnace condensate and the sanitary sewer creates a severe health hazard by distributing toxic and combustible sewer gases throughout the building via the mechanical HVAC system. This will fail plumbing and mechanical inspections. The contractor will be forced to c...

Suggested next step: Please revise the piping layout to eliminate the direct connection of the F-3 condensate drain to the sanitary sewer. Clarify the location of the condensate drain receiver referenced in Note 2, and provide a detail showing the required air gap or indirect connection in accorda...

RFI draft: Please revise the piping layout to eliminate the direct connection of the F-3 condensate drain to the sanitary sewer. Clarify the location of the condensate drain receiver referenced in Note 2, and provide a detail showing the required air gap or ...

Summary: The Enlarged Floor Plan (A103) identifies the north exterior wall of Conference Room 165 as an existing Pre-Engineered Metal Building (PEMB) wall with its panels removed. However, Building Section A/A504, which explicitly cuts through Conference Room 165 at Grid A.2, details this same exterior wall as a highly detailed structural masonry (CMU) wall resting on a new continuous concrete foundatio...

Why it matters: There is a massive discrepancy in the project scope, structural design, cost, and schedule between reusing an existing PEMB frame versus constructing a new structural masonry wall with a new foundation. The contractor cannot accurately bid, order materials, or proceed with foundation/wall constru...

Suggested next step: Clarify the intended construction for the north exterior wall of the Admin Addition at Grid A.2 (bordering Conference Room 165). Please confirm if the primary structure is an existing PEMB wall with new finishes (as noted on A103), or a new structural CMU masonry wall with a n...

RFI draft: Clarify the intended construction for the north exterior wall of the Admin Addition at Grid A.2 (bordering Conference Room 165). Please confirm if the primary structure is an existing PEMB wall with new finishes (as noted on A103), or a new struct...

Summary: Architectural plan A301 designates the walls forming Corridor 114A and defining the boundary of Offices 115A, 115B, and 116 as existing construction (specifically designated as W-8 and W-9). However, Structural plan S161 depicts these same walls as new construction, drawing them with solid black lines and tagging them with Mark 1 (new 3-5/8" CFS partitions).

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly affects the scope of work, material takeoffs, and construction estimates. If the walls are existing, they require only finishes/patching; if they are new, the contractor must supply framing, track, and drywall. This requires immediate resolution before structural pricing...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the interior partitions separating Corridor 114A from the adjacent offices are new construction (as shown on S161, Tag 1) or existing construction (as shown on A301, W-8 and W-9).

RFI draft: Please confirm if the interior partitions separating Corridor 114A from the adjacent offices are new construction (as shown on S161, Tag 1) or existing construction (as shown on A301, W-8 and W-9).

Summary: The underground plumbing plan (P103) indicates a main 6" reducing to 4" sanitary line running vertically down grid line 18, with cleanouts and catch basins (CB-1) connecting to it. However, the foundation plan (S101) shows isolated column footings (F-20, F-21) centered on grid line 18 at intersections with horizontal grids D, E, and F.

Why it matters: Gravity sanitary piping cannot be routed directly through solid concrete column pedestals and footings. The sanitary line must be offset from the structural grid line to avoid clashing with the foundation elements. Shifting this line will also impact the placement of the connected floor cleanouts...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required offset dimension for the main sanitary line running along grid 18 to avoid clashing with column footings F-20 and F-21 at grids D, E, and F. Please provide updated routing and dimensioning for the sanitary piping, cleanouts, and catch basin connecti...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required offset dimension for the main sanitary line running along grid 18 to avoid clashing with column footings F-20 and F-21 at grids D, E, and F. Please provide updated routing and dimensioning for the sanitary piping, clean...