Plan Review: 225 Issues Found

Summary: 7 index entries | 5 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (1): S2.1: Expected: FOUNDATION AND TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAILS (S2.1) | Actual: TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAILS (S2.1)(p5) Missing (1) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Structural: - S1.01 SPECIAL INSPECTION FORM

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: 1 missing, 1 mismatched out of 7 sheets

Summary: The concrete framing beam cross-section in Detail 9 specifies a concrete cover of 3/4" for #11 or smaller reinforcement bars. Per ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1, for beams not exposed to weather or in contact with ground, the minimum specified cover for primary reinforcement, stirrups, ties, spirals, and hoops is 1-1/2", regardless of bar size. The 3/4" cover value in the code applies only to slab...

Why it matters: Specifying 3/4" cover instead of the code-required 1-1/2" on concrete framing beams reduces the specified cover by 50%. If beams are constructed per this detail, they would fail inspection and could require costly demolition and reconstruction. Insufficient cover compromises durability against co...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the concrete framing beam cross-section detail to show 1-1/2" minimum specified cover for all reinforcement (primary reinforcement, stirrups, ties, spirals, and hoops) per ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1, and to be consistent with the drawing...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the concrete framing beam cross-section detail to show 1-1/2" minimum specified cover for all reinforcement (primary reinforcement, stirrups, ties, spirals, and hoops) per ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1, and to ...

Summary: In Detail 11 (Options 1 and 3) and Detail 16, the plan views specify a horizontal edge distance of '1 1/4" TYP' from the centerline of the anchor bolts to the side edge of the base plate. Both details call for '3/4"Ø F1554 Gr.55 AB' anchor bolts equipped with a 'PL 1/4"x3"X3" SQ WASHER'. A 3"x3" square washer extends 1.5" from the bolt centerline; with a base plate edge distance of 1.25", the w...

Why it matters: A 3"x3" square washer cannot properly seat on a base plate that provides only a 1.25" edge distance. The overhang prevents full bearing of the washer, compromising the structural anchorage and load distribution. This geometric clash will cause immediate construction delays, requiring RFI submitta...

Suggested next step: Revise the base plate dimensions or anchor bolt layouts in Details 11 and 16 to provide a minimum 1.5" edge distance, ensuring the specified 3"x3" square washers bear fully on the base plates without protruding over the edge.

RFI draft: Revise the base plate dimensions or anchor bolt layouts in Details 11 and 16 to provide a minimum 1.5" edge distance, ensuring the specified 3"x3" square washers bear fully on the base plates without protruding over the edge.

Summary: Sheet Note 9 dictates a "SEISMIC GAP" of 0 inches at Level 1, while providing wider gaps at higher levels. ASCE 7-16 Section 12.12.3 requires that any portions of a structure that are not designed to act as an integral unit must be separated by a distance sufficient to allow for the maximum inelastic response displacement (δM). Providing a 0-inch gap indicates a physical separation joint but pr...

Why it matters: A 0-inch seismic gap creates a severe constructability and performance conflict. If the adjacent structures are independent, they will pound against each other at Level 1 during a seismic event, causing significant damage. If the structures are actually intended to act as a single integral unit a...

Suggested next step: Clarify the structural design intent at the Level 1 interface. If the buildings are structurally independent, provide a calculated seismic separation gap (δM) per ASCE 7-16 Section 12.12.3. If they share a foundation and are designed to act as an integral unit at Level 1, remo...

RFI draft: Clarify the structural design intent at the Level 1 interface. If the buildings are structurally independent, provide a calculated seismic separation gap (δM) per ASCE 7-16 Section 12.12.3. If they share a foundation and are designed to act as an ...

Summary: The LOWER ROOF FRAMING PLAN shows RJ2 joists spanning vertically between horizontal grid lines E-4 and E-5. The dimension string on the plan specifies the distance between grid lines E-4 and E-5 as 18'-8". However, the Joist Schedule strictly limits the allowable span for RJ2 joists to a 'MAX SPAN' of 16'-0". The detailed span exceeds the specified maximum capacity by 2'-8".

Why it matters: Detailing a structural member with a span that exceeds its engineered maximum allowable limit indicates the member lacks adequate strength and stiffness to resist design forces. This directly violates ASCE 7 Section 12.1.2, which requires individual members to have adequate strength. If built as ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the framing design between grid lines E-4 and E-5. The plan shows an 18'-8" clear span for the RJ2 joists, which exceeds the 16'-0" maximum span limit specified in the Joist Schedule. Should an intermediate support beam be added, or should a joist type with a lo...

RFI draft: Please clarify the framing design between grid lines E-4 and E-5. The plan shows an 18'-8" clear span for the RJ2 joists, which exceeds the 16'-0" maximum span limit specified in the Joist Schedule. Should an intermediate support beam be added, or...

Summary: The 'TIE DOWN ANCHORAGE TO MAT SLAB' schedule lists exactly identical values for 'Cumulative Tension Load (kips-ASD)' and 'Cumulative Compression Load (kips-ASD)' for tie-down designations (e.g., TDS-W01 lists 37.95 kips for both at the 1st level). Under ASCE 7 Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.5, basic load combinations for Allowable Stress Design (ASD) require distinguishing between tension/uplift combi...

Why it matters: Reporting identical values for tension and compression strongly indicates that dead and gravity load contributions were improperly omitted or applied identically to both forces. Failing to apply the code-mandated load combinations will result in either severely undersized compression posts (if de...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the load calculations for the tie-down schedule. Revise the Cumulative Tension and Compression loads to correctly reflect the required ASCE 7 ASD load combinations, properly differentiating the effects of dead, live, and snow loads on tension/uplift versus compr...

RFI draft: Please clarify the load calculations for the tie-down schedule. Revise the Cumulative Tension and Compression loads to correctly reflect the required ASCE 7 ASD load combinations, properly differentiating the effects of dead, live, and snow loads ...

Summary: Detail 13 (FLUSH FRAMED BEAM/HEADER HOLDOWN TIE) specifies a holdown ("HD AT END BLK PER SCHED") attached to the joist blocking to serve as a tension tie. However, the detail fails to show any threaded rod, strap, or mechanical tie extending from the holdown across the flush-framed "BEAM PER PLAN" to complete the structural connection to the supporting wall or opposite diaphragm.

Why it matters: ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3 requires that all parts of the structure be interconnected to form a continuous load path to the seismic force-resisting system. An isolated holdown on the blocking without a complete structural tie across the beam breaks this path, rendering the connection completely ineffe...

Suggested next step: Clarify Detail 13 by specifying the required hardware (e.g., threaded rod) to span from the holdown across the beam to the wall framing, or provide an alternate detail showing a continuous structural tie over or under the flush-framed beam to complete the load path.

RFI draft: Clarify Detail 13 by specifying the required hardware (e.g., threaded rod) to span from the holdown across the beam to the wall framing, or provide an alternate detail showing a continuous structural tie over or under the flush-framed beam to comp...

Summary: Detail 21 provides an 'ALTERNATE TIE DOWN SYSTEM' that explicitly specifies 'ANCHORAGE AT TOP STORY ONLY'. For multi-story wood shear walls, overturning uplift forces are generated at each floor level. Because this alternate system bypasses the intermediate floors without providing floor-level anchorage, the shear walls at the lower levels are not connected to the tension tie-down rod. This fai...

Why it matters: Without anchorage to the tie-down rod at each floor, intermediate-level shear walls will experience unrestrained uplift during a seismic event. This breaks the tension load path, as lower walls cannot transfer their tension forces through purely compressive wood posts. This will result in excessi...

Suggested next step: Revise Detail 21 to remove the 'ALTERNATE TIE DOWN SYSTEM ANCHORAGE AT TOP STORY ONLY' option for multi-story shear walls, or clearly limit its applicability to single-story walls. Ensure that all multi-story continuous tie-down systems include bearing plates and take-up devic...

RFI draft: Revise Detail 21 to remove the 'ALTERNATE TIE DOWN SYSTEM ANCHORAGE AT TOP STORY ONLY' option for multi-story shear walls, or clearly limit its applicability to single-story walls. Ensure that all multi-story continuous tie-down systems include be...

Summary: Detail 11 shows a discontinuous "POP-OUT WALL" resting on a "CANTILEVER WF BEAM" via a 6-inch steel plate ("STL PL 6"x BEAM ABOVE WIDTH, TYP"). The detail fails to specify any anchors, bolts, or fasteners connecting the wood sill plate of the wall to the steel plate.

Why it matters: ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.3 requires that connections of discontinuous walls to supporting members be adequate to transmit design seismic forces. Without a specified positive connection, there is no continuous load path to resist lateral in-plane or out-of-plane shear forces, which could allow the wa...

Suggested next step: Please update Detail 11 to specify the required positive connection (such as bolted sill plates, welded clips, or powder-actuated fasteners) between the wood pop-out wall and the supporting steel plate to transmit seismic forces in accordance with ASCE 7 Sections 12.1.3 and 12...

RFI draft: Please update Detail 11 to specify the required positive connection (such as bolted sill plates, welded clips, or powder-actuated fasteners) between the wood pop-out wall and the supporting steel plate to transmit seismic forces in accordance with...

Summary: Details 1 and 2 (ROOF at EAVE) specify hurricane tie connections between the roof rafters and the top plate at a spacing of 4 feet on center ("H2.5A at 4'o.c."). A 4-foot spacing leaves intermediate rafters without a direct positive connection to the supporting top plate. This directly violates ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.4, which explicitly mandates that a positive connection be provided for *each*...

Why it matters: Failing to provide a positive connection at every rafter interrupts the continuous load path. During seismic or high-wind events, unconnected rafters are highly vulnerable to sliding, uplift, or detachment, which could result in partial or total roof failure.

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 1 and 2 to specify an H2.5A (or equivalent positive connection) at *each* rafter location to comply with the connection support requirements of ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.4.

RFI draft: Please revise Details 1 and 2 to specify an H2.5A (or equivalent positive connection) at *each* rafter location to comply with the connection support requirements of ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.4.

Summary: The structural notes explicitly state wind loads are calculated per 'ASCE 7-16 SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE, SECTION 28.5.3' with a basic wind speed V = 92 MPH. ASCE 7-22 Section 26.5.1 requires the basic wind speed to be determined from ASCE 7-22 Figures 26.5-1A through 26.5-1D based on Risk Category. The wind speed maps were updated between ASCE 7-16 and ASCE 7-22, meaning the applicable wind speed f...

Why it matters: Using wind loads from the wrong code edition could result in an unconservative or non-compliant wind design for the primary structural system and components and cladding. The building department will likely reject the plans during permit review, causing delays. If discovered during construction, ...

Suggested next step: Confirm the basic wind speed per ASCE 7-22 Figure 26.5-1B (for Risk Category II) or the ASCE 7 Wind Design Geodatabase for the project location (36.95446, -122.049478). Update all wind load calculations, including the simplified procedure parameters (λ, ps30), to comply with A...

RFI draft: Confirm the basic wind speed per ASCE 7-22 Figure 26.5-1B (for Risk Category II) or the ASCE 7 Wind Design Geodatabase for the project location (36.95446, -122.049478). Update all wind load calculations, including the simplified procedure paramete...

Summary: Detail 16 (BRIDGE SHEAR WALL HSS ANCHORAGE) specifies a plan view "AT CORNER" where the bottom anchor bolt centerline is dimensioned "1/2"" from the edge of the base plate. The anchor bolts are specified as "3/4"Ø F1554 Gr.55 AB W/ PL" and require a "1/4"x3"X3" SQ WASHER, TYP". A 1/2" centerline edge distance for a 3/4" diameter bolt violates minimum edge distance requirements for structural st...

Why it matters: Providing only 1/2" from the center of a 3/4" anchor bolt to the plate edge leaves less than 1/8" of clear steel to the hole, meaning the hole will likely break out of the plate. Additionally, the required 3"x3" square washer extends 1.5" from the bolt centerline, causing it to overhang the base ...

Suggested next step: The 1/2" edge distance for the 3/4" anchor bolt shown in the "AT CORNER" plan view of Detail 16 is insufficient and will cause the hole to break out and the 3"x3" washer to overhang the plate. Please revise the base plate dimensions or bolt layout to provide adequate edge dist...

RFI draft: The 1/2" edge distance for the 3/4" anchor bolt shown in the "AT CORNER" plan view of Detail 16 is insufficient and will cause the hole to break out and the 3"x3" washer to overhang the plate. Please revise the base plate dimensions or bolt layout...

Summary: Detail 25 specifies a 1/4" fillet weld to connect a wood "2x NAILER" to a steel beam. Welding wood to steel is physically impossible, meaning the detailed connection cannot be constructed as drawn and fails to provide a viable load path.

Why it matters: This violates CBC Section 1604.4, which requires structural systems to be based on rational analysis and well-established principles of mechanics to provide a complete load path. If left unresolved, this unbuildable connection will require an RFI and a revised mechanical fastening method (e.g., b...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 25 to remove the weld symbol connecting the wood nailer to the steel beam, and clarify the intended mechanical fastening method to provide a complete and constructible load path.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 25 to remove the weld symbol connecting the wood nailer to the steel beam, and clarify the intended mechanical fastening method to provide a complete and constructible load path.

Summary: Detail 6 for a double-sided shear wall instructs the contractor to install the sole plate and top plate to rim joist connections at 'TWICE THE SPACING PER SW SCHED (E.G. IF SCHED CALLS FOR 4" SPACING, PROVIDE 8" SPACING)'. Increasing the fastener spacing reduces the number of fasteners by 50%, effectively cutting the shear transfer capacity of the connection in half. This contradicts the fundam...

Why it matters: Reducing the fastening density by 50% creates a severe weak link at the floor-to-wall interface. During a seismic or wind event, this bottleneck will be incapable of transferring the accumulated lateral shear forces from the double-sided wall into the diaphragm or lower framing, leading to premat...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the notes on Detail 6 that direct the contractor to use 'TWICE THE SPACING' for the sole plate and top plate rim connections. For a double-sided shear wall, the connections must transfer the combined shear of both sides (which generally requires tighter spacing/...

RFI draft: Please clarify the notes on Detail 6 that direct the contractor to use 'TWICE THE SPACING' for the sole plate and top plate rim connections. For a double-sided shear wall, the connections must transfer the combined shear of both sides (which gener...

Summary: The ceiling framing plan specifies structural beams that are significantly wider than their supporting posts. Specifically, nominal '6x8 DF' beams (actual width 5.5 inches) are explicitly supported by '4x4 POST TO BM' connections (actual width 3.5 inches). Additionally, a '5.25x11.25 PSL' beam is supported by typical posts, which the legend defines as 'TYP. 4x4 OR 4x6' (3.5 inches wide).

Why it matters: Beams that are wider than their supporting posts cannot achieve full bearing across their cross-section. This creates an incomplete and eccentric load path, violating Section 1604.4, which requires a complete load path to transfer loads. The unsupported outer fibers of the beam can suffer localiz...

Suggested next step: Please revise the post sizes to provide full bearing width for the supported beams (e.g., use 6x4 or 6x6 posts for the 6x8 DF and 5.25-inch PSL beams), or provide a specific engineered connection detail for attaching wider beams to narrower posts.

RFI draft: Please revise the post sizes to provide full bearing width for the supported beams (e.g., use 6x4 or 6x6 posts for the 6x8 DF and 5.25-inch PSL beams), or provide a specific engineered connection detail for attaching wider beams to narrower posts.