Plan Review: 28 Issues Found

Summary: 15 index entries | 2 perfect matches | 4 mismatched | 9 missing Mismatched (4): 10-11: Expected: Pier Details (10-11) | Actual: PIER DETAILS (11)(p11) 12-14: Expected: Superstructure Details (12-14) | Actual: SUPERSTRUCTURE DETAILS (6882)(p12) 15-16: Expected: Bridge Railing Details (15-16) | Actual: BRIDGE RAILING DETAILS (15)(p15) 21-24: Expected: Approach Slab ...

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: 9 missing, 4 mismatched out of 15 sheets

Summary: The Framing Plan on Sheet 6882 shows the spacing between the 6 bridge girders as 8'-6". However, the Typical Section at Diaphragms on Sheet B14 explicitly dimensions the typical spacing between the centerlines of the girders as 9'-0 1/2".

Why it matters: This dimensional contradiction fundamentally affects the overall width of the bridge deck, the required lengths of the transverse diaphragms, substructure layouts, and formwork. If unresolved, fabricated steel components may not fit the substructure, causing major construction delays and rework.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct spacing between the bridge girders. The Framing Plan on Sheet 6882 indicates 8'-6" typical spacing, while the Typical Section on Sheet B14 indicates 9'-0 1/2". Please also confirm if any corresponding adjustments are required for the overall deck wid...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct spacing between the bridge girders. The Framing Plan on Sheet 6882 indicates 8'-6" typical spacing, while the Typical Section on Sheet B14 indicates 9'-0 1/2". Please also confirm if any corresponding adjustments are req...

Summary: Sheet 9 'SECTION A-A' details the abutment cap and shows the '4A1' reinforcing bar completely encased within the concrete of the cap, with its top edge terminating below the top surface. However, Sheet 20 explicitly references '4A1' in the 'BETWEEN GIRDERS' detail for the end diaphragm, graphically showing the 4A1 bar projecting vertically out of the abutment cap and extending high into the end...

Why it matters: If the concrete contractor follows the substructure details on Sheet 9 and casts the 4A1 bars flush within the abutment cap, there will be no projecting dowels to splice with the *4S4 bars in the superstructure's end diaphragm as required by Sheet 20. This would sever the structural tie between t...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required installation for the 4A1 bars. Should they terminate entirely within the abutment cap as shown on Sheet 9 Section A-A, or should they project vertically into the end diaphragm to splice with the *4S4 bars as shown on Sheet 20? If projection is requi...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required installation for the 4A1 bars. Should they terminate entirely within the abutment cap as shown on Sheet 9 Section A-A, or should they project vertically into the end diaphragm to splice with the *4S4 bars as shown on Sh...

Summary: Page 21 details the Approach Slab, which includes a '7'-0" Sidewalk' and '12'-0" Sidewalk'. Note 8 on Page 21 directs the contractor to Sheet 17 for 'pedestrian railing post anchor bolt locations', indicating anchor bolts are expected on the approach slab. Furthermore, Page 17 Note 4 explicitly requires that expansion splices be located in the railing panel which 'passes over the bridge expansi...

Why it matters: Without pedestrian railings extending onto the approach slabs, the 7'-0" and 12'-0" sidewalks will lack required safety fall protection as pedestrians approach the bridge. Additionally, because the anchor bolt locations for the approach slab are not shown on Sheet 17 as referenced, the contractor...

Suggested next step: Clarify if the pedestrian railing is required to continue onto the approach slabs. If so, provide the revised railing PLAN showing the extended layout, post spacing, and anchor bolt locations for the approach slabs, and confirm how the railing will 'pass over' the bridge expan...

RFI draft: Clarify if the pedestrian railing is required to continue onto the approach slabs. If so, provide the revised railing PLAN showing the extended layout, post spacing, and anchor bolt locations for the approach slabs, and confirm how the railing wil...

Summary: The PLAN on Sheet 23 allocates the 49'-0" overall width as a 12'-0" Sidewalk, a 30'-0" Clear Roadway, and a 7'-0" Sidewalk (12' + 30' + 7' = 49'). However, SECTION B-B on Sheet B24 details the left sidewalk with a 12'-0" flat section plus a 1'-0" sloped curb (13'-0" total width to the clear roadway) and the right sidewalk with a 7'-0" flat section plus a 1'-0" sloped curb (8'-0" total width). I...

Why it matters: The drawings present two mathematically incompatible cross-sectional layouts. The Plan indicates a 30'-0" clear roadway, while Sections B-B and D-D construct a 28'-0" clear roadway due to the wider sidewalks. This will cause critical dimensioning errors during formwork setup and reinforcement pla...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct clear roadway and sidewalk widths. Should the clear roadway be 30'-0" (with 11'-0" and 6'-0" flat sidewalk sections to accommodate the 1'-0" curbs), or should it be 28'-0" to match the 12'-0" and 7'-0" flat sidewalk dimensions detailed in Sections B-...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct clear roadway and sidewalk widths. Should the clear roadway be 30'-0" (with 11'-0" and 6'-0" flat sidewalk sections to accommodate the 1'-0" curbs), or should it be 28'-0" to match the 12'-0" and 7'-0" flat sidewalk dime...

Summary: There is a direct geometric conflict regarding the offset of the Bridge Roadway centerline relative to the girders and piles. Sheet B10 (Pier Details) shows the 'Bridge Roadway' centerline exactly bisecting the central 'Girder' space, with symmetrical dimensions of '4'-6 1/4"' to the adjacent girders. However, Sheet B4 (Substructure Layout) shows the same centerline intersecting the pile line a...

Why it matters: If the abutment piles are installed according to the asymmetric offsets detailed on Sheet B4, but the pier caps and girders are constructed symmetrically as dimensioned on Sheet B10, the girders will not align straight across the bridge substructures. This will lead to severe structural and geome...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct location of the Bridge Roadway centerline relative to the girders and piles. Should the girders be placed symmetrically around the centerline across all substructures (as shown on Sheet B10 for the piers), or should they be installed asymmetrically (...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct location of the Bridge Roadway centerline relative to the girders and piles. Should the girders be placed symmetrically around the centerline across all substructures (as shown on Sheet B10 for the piers), or should they...

Summary: The ELEVATION depicts a pier structure with two shafts and two separate footings. However, the BILL OF REINFORCEMENT provides quantities for only a single shaft and footing per pier. For example, SECTION A-A requires 25 bars of 417-8 for a single footing, but the Bill lists only 25 bars total for the entire pier. Similarly, the shaft vertical reinforcement 820-6 requires 40 bars per shaft (15 p...

Why it matters: The Bill of Reinforcement undercounts the required quantities for the footings and pier shafts, providing exactly half of the required bars. Each pier comprises two shafts and two footings, but the Bill only accounts for one of each per pier.

Suggested next step: Please review and correct the Bill of Reinforcement for Pier 1 and Pier 2 to account for both shafts and footings per pier. The current quantities appear to only provide reinforcement for a single shaft and footing.

RFI draft: Please review and correct the Bill of Reinforcement for Pier 1 and Pier 2 to account for both shafts and footings per pier. The current quantities appear to only provide reinforcement for a single shaft and footing.

Summary: The Plan on Sheet 21 shows *4AS2 ties placed at 12" spacing over a main run distance of 14'-0", while *4AS3 ties are placed at 12" spacing over 27'-0". Since *4AS3 covers nearly twice the distance of *4AS2 at the same spacing, *4AS3 should require significantly more bars than *4AS2. However, the Bill of Reinforcement on Sheet 22 lists *4AS2 as requiring 48 bars and *4AS3 as requiring only 35 ba...

Why it matters: The *4AS2 tie has a total cut length of 19'-5" and serves the shorter 7'-0" sidewalk edge, while the *4AS3 tie has a total cut length of 29'-7" and serves the longer 12'-0" sidewalk edge. If the fabricator follows the Bill as printed, 48 shorter ties (*4AS2) and only 35 longer ties (*4AS3) would ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct quantities for *4AS2 and *4AS3 ties in the Bill of Reinforcement on Sheet 22. Based on the spacing and distances shown in the Plan on Sheet 21, the quantities appear to be transposed: *4AS2 should require 35 bars and *4AS3 should require 48 bars. Ple...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct quantities for *4AS2 and *4AS3 ties in the Bill of Reinforcement on Sheet 22. Based on the spacing and distances shown in the Plan on Sheet 21, the quantities appear to be transposed: *4AS2 should require 35 bars and *4A...

Summary: Sheet 9 (Abutment No. 2 Details) explicitly calls out and details a '2" x 8" Keyway' running along the top of the abutment cap in both the 'PLAN' view and 'SECTION A-A'. However, Sheet 20 (Slab Details) shows the cross-section of the exact same interface in the 'BETWEEN GIRDERS' detail, but depicts a perfectly flat construction joint, entirely omitting the 2" x 8" keyway.

Why it matters: The shear keyway is a critical structural feature for transferring lateral loads between the superstructure's end diaphragm and the substructure abutment. If the formwork contractor follows the superstructure details on Sheet 20, the keyway may be omitted during the abutment cap pour, leading to ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the 2" x 8" shear keyway is required at the interface between the abutment cap and the end diaphragm as detailed on Sheet 9, or if the interface should be a flat construction joint as depicted in the 'BETWEEN GIRDERS' detail on Sheet 20.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the 2" x 8" shear keyway is required at the interface between the abutment cap and the end diaphragm as detailed on Sheet 9, or if the interface should be a flat construction joint as depicted in the 'BETWEEN GIRDERS' detail on S...

Summary: Sheet 16, Note 3 requires '1 1/16" ø holes' to be drilled in the rails to accommodate the rail bolts. However, the 'RAIL BOLT DETAIL' on Sheet 15 shows the rail bolt is a '1/2" Φ Bar' (U-bolt) and utilizes a washer plate with '9/16" Holes'. A 1-1/16" hole is significantly oversized for a 1/2" bolt and contradicts the 9/16" hole size provided in the matching hardware.

Why it matters: If the fabricator drills 1-1/16" holes in the rails as noted, the 1/2" U-bolt will have excessive clearance (over 1/2" of slop). This will compromise the tight fit required for the rail-to-post connection, potentially allowing the rails to shift or rattle under load, and the bolt could pull throu...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required hole size to be drilled in the rails at post locations. Should Note 3 on Sheet 16 specify 9/16" holes to match the 1/2" diameter U-bolt and washer shown in the 'RAIL BOLT DETAIL' on Sheet 15?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required hole size to be drilled in the rails at post locations. Should Note 3 on Sheet 16 specify 9/16" holes to match the 1/2" diameter U-bolt and washer shown in the 'RAIL BOLT DETAIL' on Sheet 15?

Summary: Sheet 21 shows the overall top horizontal dimension of the approach slab backfill in Section A-A as '**33'-0"', with a bottom excavation limit dimension of '**23'-0"'. However, Sheet 23 shows the same Section A-A with an overall top dimension of '**34'-10"' and a bottom excavation limit dimension of '**24'-10"'.

Why it matters: This 1'-10" discrepancy affects the total quantity of bridge approach backfill material required, the length of the approach slab reinforcing, and the required bottom limits of excavation. Incorrect dimensions could lead to improper structural sizing and backfill volumes.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct horizontal dimensions for the bridge approach backfill and excavation limits in Section A-A. Should the top dimension be 33'-0" (as shown on Sheet 21) or 34'-10" (as shown on Sheet 23)?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct horizontal dimensions for the bridge approach backfill and excavation limits in Section A-A. Should the top dimension be 33'-0" (as shown on Sheet 21) or 34'-10" (as shown on Sheet 23)?

Summary: Sheet B18 "SECTION B-B", which details the deck drain on the 7'-0" sidewalk, includes a callout pointing to the sidewalk-to-slab joint that states "See Detail A". This contradicts Sheet B19 "TYPICAL SECTION THRU ROADWAY", which correctly calls out "See Detail B" for the 7'-0" sidewalk joint. Furthermore, "DETAIL A" on Sheet B18 is a deck drain pipe support detail, not a joint detail. The actual...

Why it matters: If the contractor attempts to follow the callout in Section B-B literally, they will find an unrelated pipe detail on the same sheet. If they assume it refers to Detail A on Sheet B20, they will incorrectly use the joint geometry and rebar layout intended for the 12'-0" sidewalk (which specifies ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the callout "See Detail A" in Section B-B on Sheet B18 should be revised to reference "Detail B" on Sheet 20 for the correct 7'-0" sidewalk construction joint.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the callout "See Detail A" in Section B-B on Sheet B18 should be revised to reference "Detail B" on Sheet 20 for the correct 7'-0" sidewalk construction joint.

Summary: SECTION B-B specifies the pier cap width as 3'-0" (36") and explicitly calls out a 1" clear cover (1" Cl) for the outer stirrups. To achieve a 1" cover on both sides of a 36" cap, the stirrup width must be 34" (2'-10"). However, the bending diagrams for cap stirrups 4B33 and 4B34 detail their horizontal width as 2'-8" (32"). This 32" width in a 36" cap results in 2" of cover per side, directly ...

Why it matters: If the stirrups are fabricated to 2'-8" wide, they will not align with the 1" clear cover specification, reducing the structural core area enclosed by the ties. Conversely, if placed at 1" cover, the 2'-8" ties will be too short to span the cap, preventing proper installation.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required clear cover for the pier cap. Should the horizontal dimension for stirrups 4B33 and 4B34 be revised from 2'-8" to 2'-10" to maintain the 1" clear cover in the 3'-0" wide cap?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required clear cover for the pier cap. Should the horizontal dimension for stirrups 4B33 and 4B34 be revised from 2'-8" to 2'-10" to maintain the 1" clear cover in the 3'-0" wide cap?

Summary: Drawing Note 6 specifies that railing sleeves shall be fabricated from structural steel conforming to AASHTO M 183 (ASTM A 36), which has a minimum yield strength of 36 ksi. The project specification General Notes require that all structural steel shall conform to ASTM A709 (Grade 50W), which has a minimum yield strength of 50 ksi. The specification only provides explicit exceptions for deck dr...

Why it matters: Using A36 steel for the railing sleeves instead of the specified A709 Grade 50W means a lower-strength material is being specified for a structural connection element. While the sleeves are relatively small components, this is a direct material specification conflict that could affect fabrication...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the steel material grade for pedestrian railing sleeves. The drawing Note 6 specifies AASHTO M 183 (ASTM A 36) while the project specification requires all structural steel to conform to ASTM A709 (Grade 50W). Please confirm whether railing sleeves are...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the steel material grade for pedestrian railing sleeves. The drawing Note 6 specifies AASHTO M 183 (ASTM A 36) while the project specification requires all structural steel to conform to ASTM A709 (Grade 50W). Please confi...

Summary: The specification explicitly requires that all longitudinal dimensions for the superstructure be measured along grade. However, the note provided under the Framing Plan in the drawing contradicts this by stating that its longitudinal dimensions are shown "along the bottom of the bottom flange".

Why it matters: Using the bottom of the bottom flange instead of the finished grade as the measurement basis establishes a different geometric reference line. Due to girder camber, varying web depths, and potential vertical curves, the arc length measured along the bottom flange will differ from the length measu...

Suggested next step: Clarify the measurement basis for the longitudinal dimensions on the Framing Plan. Please confirm if the dimensions should be measured "along grade" as strictly required by the General Notes, and if the contradicting note on the Framing Plan should be revised or removed to pre...

RFI draft: Clarify the measurement basis for the longitudinal dimensions on the Framing Plan. Please confirm if the dimensions should be measured "along grade" as strictly required by the General Notes, and if the contradicting note on the Framing Plan shoul...