Plan Review: 329 Issues Found

Summary: 180 index entries | 113 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 66 missing Mismatched (1): A7.02: Expected: AUDITORIUM PLANS AND SECTIONS - AUD 2 (SIM 3&4) (A7.02) | Actual: AUDITORIUM PLANS AND SECTIONS - AUD 2 (A7.02)(p59) Missing (66) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Plumbing: - P0.1 SYMBOLS, NOTES AND MATRIX OF RESPONSIBILITY - PLUMBING - P2.0 CASINO ...

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: 66 missing, 1 mismatched out of 180 sheets

Summary: The drawing for 'AUD 6 - ENTRY SLOPED FLOOR' designates a walking surface with a maximum slope of '1:20'. However, the design specifies a run length of '12' - 0"' spanning between spot elevations of 'EL= 101'-0"' and 'EL= 102'-0"'. This geometry results in an actual physical running slope of 1:12 (12 inches of rise over 144 inches of run). If constructed to these dimensions and elevations, the ...

Why it matters: Constructing the floor to the specified elevations and length will create a 1:12 slope. Because it is designated as a sloped floor (a walking surface) rather than a ramp, this violates the 1:20 maximum slope limit. This conflict will lead to failed accessibility inspections and require costly con...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the design intent for 'AUD 6 - ENTRY SLOPED FLOOR'. To maintain a compliant 1:20 slope, the run length must be extended to 20'-0" or the landing elevations adjusted. If a 1:12 slope is intended, please confirm if this element should be redesignated and detailed ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the design intent for 'AUD 6 - ENTRY SLOPED FLOOR'. To maintain a compliant 1:20 slope, the run length must be extended to 20'-0" or the landing elevations adjusted. If a 1:12 slope is intended, please confirm if this element should...

Summary: The Entry Landing (101) egress calculation shows a provided total width of 192 inches for three pairs of double doors (64 inches per pair, or two 32-inch leaves). Additionally, the exit near Exit Stair 2 shows a provided width of 60 inches for a double door (two 30-inch leaves). IBC Section 1010.1.1 requires that for double doors without a mullion, at least one leaf must provide a minimum clear...

Why it matters: Failing to provide the minimum 32-inch clear opening width severely restricts the required means of egress capacity and violates ADA accessibility standards. Correcting this after framing or ordering will require reframing the exterior storefront and reordering custom door assemblies, causing sev...

Suggested next step: Please revise the door schedules and plans to specify minimum 36-inch leaves (72-inch pairs) for the double doors without mullions at the Entry Landing and Exit 2 to ensure the 32-inch clear opening width is met. Update the provided egress width calculations accordingly.

RFI draft: Please revise the door schedules and plans to specify minimum 36-inch leaves (72-inch pairs) for the double doors without mullions at the Entry Landing and Exit 2 to ensure the 32-inch clear opening width is met. Update the provided egress width c...

Summary: The Column Schedule specifies that base plate bolts shall be 'F-3125 GR A325 UON'. ASTM F3125 Grade A325 is a material specification for high-strength heavy hex structural bolts intended for steel-to-steel connections, not concrete anchor rods. They are not manufactured in the required lengths or hooked/headed configurations necessary for concrete foundation embedment. IBC Section 2204.3 govern...

Why it matters: Specifying A325 structural bolts for concrete anchorage is a critical error. The contractor will not be able to procure A325 bolts in the lengths required for concrete embedment. This will cause immediate procurement failures, construction delays, and requires an RFI to change the specification t...

Suggested next step: Please revise Column Schedule Note 2 to specify an appropriate concrete anchor rod material standard (e.g., ASTM F1554 Grade 36 or 55) in lieu of ASTM F-3125 Grade A325 structural bolts.

RFI draft: Please revise Column Schedule Note 2 to specify an appropriate concrete anchor rod material standard (e.g., ASTM F1554 Grade 36 or 55) in lieu of ASTM F-3125 Grade A325 structural bolts.

Summary: The Roof Framing Legend indicates a 500# point load for mechanical equipment, but explicitly states that this "DOES NOT INCLUDE CONCRETE HOUSE KEEPING PAD." IBC Section 1606.2 requires the design dead load to include the actual weights of materials of construction and fixed service equipment. Furthermore, IBC Sections 1603.1.8 and 2207.2 require the registered design professional to clearly ind...

Why it matters: The steel joist manufacturer designs the open-web steel joists (such as the 48LHSP and 48LH12 joists) based on the loads indicated on the framing plans. If the significant dead load of a concrete housekeeping pad is omitted from the point load, the roof joists will be under-designed, potentially ...

Suggested next step: Provide the total concentrated load for all mechanical equipment, explicitly including the dead load of the required concrete housekeeping pads, so the steel joist manufacturer can accurately design the joists. Alternatively, clarify if equipment will be mounted on dunnage/cur...

RFI draft: Provide the total concentrated load for all mechanical equipment, explicitly including the dead load of the required concrete housekeeping pads, so the steel joist manufacturer can accurately design the joists. Alternatively, clarify if equipment ...

Summary: Detail 3 shows a suspended mechanical unit ('MECH. (2200#)'). A drawing note states: 'NOTE: IF EQUIP. IS INSTALLED TIGHT UP TO FRAMING. BRACING IS NOT REQ'D & THERFORE CAN BE OMITTED'. This contradicts IBC Section 1613.1, which mandates that all nonstructural components permanently attached to structures be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions. Installing equipme...

Why it matters: Omitting seismic bracing for a 2200 lb mechanical unit creates a severe life safety hazard. During a seismic event, unbraced heavy equipment could undergo significant lateral displacement, resulting in structural failure of the supports, detachment of the unit, and damage to adjacent building com...

Suggested next step: Remove the note allowing the omission of seismic bracing. Provide an engineered seismic bracing detail for the equipment, or require a delegated design for the bracing system that complies with ASCE 7 seismic load requirements regardless of vertical clearance to framing.

RFI draft: Remove the note allowing the omission of seismic bracing. Provide an engineered seismic bracing detail for the equipment, or require a delegated design for the bracing system that complies with ASCE 7 seismic load requirements regardless of vertic...

Summary: The Loading Plan Notes explicitly define that Earthquake Loads (E) are seismic masses, and the legend reiterates that this mass shall be factored to proper seismic force levels. This contradicts IBC Section 1602.1, which strictly defines the notation 'E' as the combined effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake induced forces.

Why it matters: The drawing dangerously redefines the standard code symbol 'E' to represent unfactored seismic mass instead of the factored earthquake load effect. If a structural engineer directly substitutes these provided 'E' values into the required IBC load combinations (such as Equation 16-21), the lateral...

Suggested next step: Please revise the notations to use a different variable for seismic mass, and clarify that the 'E' variable must only be used to represent the combined earthquake-induced forces as defined by IBC 1602.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the notations to use a different variable for seismic mass, and clarify that the 'E' variable must only be used to represent the combined earthquake-induced forces as defined by IBC 1602.1.

Summary: The building code mandates that the notation "E" represents the combined effect of earthquake-induced forces. However, the drawing's Loading Plan Notes explicitly redefine "E" as "SEISMIC MASSES." Furthermore, the legend labels both "SEISMIC REACTION" and "SEISMIC SHEAR" (which are force vectors) with the notation "E" while stating that the given loads are "SEISMIC MASS". This creates a fundame...

Why it matters: This contradiction creates a critical safety risk during delegated load transfer. If the Shell Engineer of Record (SEOR) interprets the given "E" values as code-defined forces, they will apply them directly into load combinations. If they follow the note and treat a calculated "shear" or "reactio...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the values denoted by "E" (e.g., 116k E) are actual base shear forces/reactions or purely tributary seismic masses. Update the notation to comply with the IBC definition of "E" (forces) and correct the legend to prevent referring to a "SEISMIC SHEAR" or ...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the values denoted by "E" (e.g., 116k E) are actual base shear forces/reactions or purely tributary seismic masses. Update the notation to comply with the IBC definition of "E" (forces) and correct the legend to prevent refe...

Summary: The LOADING PLAN LEGEND uses the notation 'E' to denote 'MEZZANINE MASS', 'SEISMIC REACTION', and 'SEISMIC SHEAR', explicitly stating that 'LOADS GIVEN ARE SEISMIC MASS AND SHALL BE FACTORED TO THE PROPER SEISMIC FORCE LEVELS'. However, IBC Section 1602.1 specifically defines 'E' as the 'Combined effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake induced forces' (a calculated, factored force), not as...

Why it matters: Using the code-defined variable 'E' (which represents the final combined earthquake force) to represent unfactored mass is a critical error. The Shell Structural Engineer of Record (SEOR) may mistakenly apply these values directly as the seismic force 'E' without factoring them by the seismic res...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the values labeled 'E' represent unfactored effective seismic weights (W) or actual calculated earthquake forces (E). Revise the legend and plan annotations to correctly use 'W' for mass/weight and 'E' only for the combined earthquake forces, ensuring clear a...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the values labeled 'E' represent unfactored effective seismic weights (W) or actual calculated earthquake forces (E). Revise the legend and plan annotations to correctly use 'W' for mass/weight and 'E' only for the combined earth...

Summary: The Loading Plan Legend uses the notation 'E' to denote 'MEZZANINE MASS' and 'SEISMIC REACTION (E)', explicitly stating that 'LOADS GIVEN ARE SEISMIC MASS' and 'THIS MASS SHALL BE FACTORED'. This directly contradicts IBC Section 1602.1, which mandates that 'E' represents the 'Combined effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake induced forces' (i.e., the already factored forces).

Why it matters: Using the notation 'E' to represent unfactored mass/weight instead of factored earthquake forces is a severe coordination hazard. If the shell Structural Engineer of Record (SEOR) interprets 'E' according to its standard IBC definition, they will apply these values directly as seismic forces with...

Suggested next step: Please revise the legend and all corresponding annotations on the Loading Plan to use the correct notation for seismic mass/weight (such as 'W'). Remove the 'E' notation from these mass values to align with IBC Section 1602.1, reserving 'E' exclusively for actual factored eart...

RFI draft: Please revise the legend and all corresponding annotations on the Loading Plan to use the correct notation for seismic mass/weight (such as 'W'). Remove the 'E' notation from these mass values to align with IBC Section 1602.1, reserving 'E' exclus...

Summary: IBC Section 1603.1 requires design loads to be indicated clearly on construction documents. The "LOADING PLAN LEGEND" violates this by providing contradictory load definitions that conflate forces with unfactored weights. The legend defines structural markers as "SEISMIC REACTION" and "SEISMIC SHEAR" (which are forces), but immediately contradicts this by stating the "LOADS GIVEN ARE SEISMIC MA...

Why it matters: This contradiction makes it impossible for the shell building Engineer of Record (SEOR) to confidently determine whether the provided values are fully factored forces (reactions/shears) or unfactored seismic masses. If the SEOR misinterprets the data, the shell building's lateral force resisting ...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the provided seismic values are unfactored masses/weights (e.g., effective seismic weight "W") or fully factored lateral forces/reactions ("E"). Remove the contradictory text conflating "mass" with "shear/reactions", and use standard IBC notation to accurately ...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the provided seismic values are unfactored masses/weights (e.g., effective seismic weight "W") or fully factored lateral forces/reactions ("E"). Remove the contradictory text conflating "mass" with "shear/reactions", and use standa...

Summary: The LOADING PLAN LEGEND uses the notation "(E)" to indicate seismic mass (e.g., "MEZZANINE MASS (E)"), but IBC Section 1602.1 strictly defines "E" as the "Combined effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake induced forces", which is a force. Furthermore, the legend describes the "X.XK E" symbols as "SEISMIC SHEAR" and "SEISMIC REACTION" (which are forces), while simultaneously stating that th...

Why it matters: This contradiction violates IBC Section 1603.1, which requires design loads to be clearly indicated on the construction documents. Conflating mass with shear and reaction forces creates a severe risk of catastrophic design failure. If the Shell Engineer of Record (SEOR) treats a provided mass val...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the seismic values in the legend. Do the numerical values represent seismic mass (weight to be factored) or actual seismic forces (shear/reactions)? Correct the legend to use "E" exclusively for earthquake forces per IBC 1602.1, and clearly distinguish between m...

RFI draft: Please clarify the seismic values in the legend. Do the numerical values represent seismic mass (weight to be factored) or actual seismic forces (shear/reactions)? Correct the legend to use "E" exclusively for earthquake forces per IBC 1602.1, and...

Summary: The LOADING PLAN LEGEND uses the notation 'E' (e.g., 'X.XK E') to indicate 'SEISMIC MASS' for both 'SEISMIC REACTION (E)' and 'SEISMIC SHEAR (E)'. However, the building code strictly defines 'E' as the combined effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake-induced forces. Defining a shear or reaction as a 'mass' is a fundamental contradiction.

Why it matters: Because 'E' is the code-mandated variable for factored seismic force in structural load combinations, explicitly providing mass values under the 'E' notation creates a severe risk of misapplication. If the Shell Structural Engineer of Record (SEOR) uses these values as forces in standard load com...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the provided 'X.XK E' values are factored seismic design forces (in kips) or unfactored seismic mass. If they are mass, remove the 'E' notation and the terms 'Shear' and 'Reaction' to comply with code definitions and prevent improper use in structural load comb...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the provided 'X.XK E' values are factored seismic design forces (in kips) or unfactored seismic mass. If they are mass, remove the 'E' notation and the terms 'Shear' and 'Reaction' to comply with code definitions and prevent improp...

Summary: Elevation General Note B explicitly directs the contractor to "PAINT ALL BATTERY PACK UNITS... TO MATCH SURROUNDING SURFACE." Battery pack units serve as emergency egress illumination fixtures. Painting over these units covers their photometric lenses, status indicator lights, and test switches, which renders them inoperable and non-compliant with standard life safety and electrical egress ligh...

Why it matters: Painting life safety equipment voids its UL listing and directly compromises the egress lighting system. This will result in failed fire and electrical inspections. The contractor will be required to discard the painted units and purchase, install, and rewire new battery units, leading to delays ...

Suggested next step: Clarify that life safety equipment, including emergency lighting battery pack units and exit signs, must not be painted. Request a revision to Elevation General Note B to exclude these devices.

RFI draft: Clarify that life safety equipment, including emergency lighting battery pack units and exit signs, must not be painted. Request a revision to Elevation General Note B to exclude these devices.

Summary: The Column Schedule (Note 2) specifies "BASE PLATE BOLTS SHALL BE F-3125 GR A325 UON." ASTM F3125 Grade A325 describes high-strength structural bolts designed for steel-to-steel connections, not for embedment in concrete as column anchor rods. IBC Section 2205.1 requires structural steel elements to be designed and fabricated in accordance with AISC 360, which mandates specific threaded rods (s...

Why it matters: Using A325 bolts as anchor rods creates a severe constructability issue. Due to their limited thread length, the threads will likely not extend far enough above the concrete to allow the base plate nuts to be fully engaged and tightened, directly violating IBC Section 2204.3. This error will resu...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note 2 on the Column Schedule to specify an appropriate anchor rod material designation (e.g., ASTM F1554 Grade 36 or 55) instead of ASTM F3125 Grade A325, and clarify the required thread lengths and embedment depths.

RFI draft: Please revise Note 2 on the Column Schedule to specify an appropriate anchor rod material designation (e.g., ASTM F1554 Grade 36 or 55) instead of ASTM F3125 Grade A325, and clarify the required thread lengths and embedment depths.