Plan Review: 89 Issues Found

Summary: 80 index entries | 53 perfect matches | 7 mismatched | 20 missing Mismatched (7): S-201: Expected: ENLARGED SHEAR WALL PLANS - WEST CORE - STAIR 1 AND ELEVATORS (S-201) | Actual: ENLARGED SHEAR WALL PLANS - WEST CORE - STAIR 1 AND ELEVATORS (S-203)(p49) S-202: Expected: ENLARGED SHEAR WALL PLANS - WEST CORE - STAIR 1 AND ELEVATORS (S-202) | Actual: ENLARGED SHEAR WALL PLANS -...

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: 20 missing, 7 mismatched out of 80 sheets

Summary: ACI 318-19 Section 26.6.1.1(b) requires construction documents to provide the "location requirements" for reinforcement. The drawings present a direct contradiction regarding the location of top and bottom mild reinforcement. Plan Notes 7 and 8 state that dashed lines ("----") indicate bottom reinforcing and solid lines (", , ") indicate top reinforcing. However, the graphical diagram in the "MIL...

Why it matters: If the contractor incorrectly interprets the linetypes by following the legend instead of the notes, top reinforcement will be placed at the bottom and bottom reinforcement at the top of the slab. Reversing the tension reinforcement will leave the concrete slab with completely insufficient flexur...

Suggested next step: Clarify the linetype convention for top and bottom mild reinforcement. Please confirm if the Plan Notes (dashed=bottom, solid=top) are correct and update the Mild-Reinforcing Nomenclature legend diagram to resolve the contradiction.

RFI draft: Clarify the linetype convention for top and bottom mild reinforcement. Please confirm if the Plan Notes (dashed=bottom, solid=top) are correct and update the Mild-Reinforcing Nomenclature legend diagram to resolve the contradiction.

Summary: The Drilled Pier Reinforcing Schedule (Detail 2) specifies uniform tie spacing of #4 at 18" O.C. for DP18 and DP24, and #5 at 24" O.C. for DP30, DP30TC, DP36, and DP42. ASCE 7-16 Section 14.2.3.1.2 requires that for uncased cast-in-place drilled concrete piles (SDC C and higher per Section 14.2.3.2): (1) transverse reinforcement spacing shall not exceed 6 in. or 8 longitudinal-bar diameters wit...

Why it matters: This deficiency affects all seven drilled pier types in the project. Inadequate transverse confinement reinforcement at the critical pile-to-cap connection zone and throughout the pier compromises ductility and shear capacity of the deep foundations during a seismic event. All drilled pier reinfo...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm the Seismic Design Category for this project and verify that drilled pier transverse reinforcement spacing complies with ASCE 7-16 Section 14.2.3.1.2. Specifically: (1) provide the required maximum tie spacing within three pile diameters...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm the Seismic Design Category for this project and verify that drilled pier transverse reinforcement spacing complies with ASCE 7-16 Section 14.2.3.1.2. Specifically: (1) provide the required maximum tie spaci...

Summary: The 'BASIC DESIGN WIND PRESSURES FOR COMPONENTS AND CLADDING' schedule specifies identical negative wind pressures (-66.1 PSF for a 10 SF effective area) for both the roof edge (ASCE 7 Zone 2) and roof corners (ASCE 7 Zone 3). According to ASCE 7-16 aerodynamic provisions, roof corner zones intrinsically experience significantly higher localized wind uplift pressures than edge zones due to corn...

Why it matters: Using the lower edge-zone wind pressures for the roof corners will lead to a significant under-design (typically ~30-40%) of the corner roof attachments, including roof decking, insulation fasteners, roofing membrane, and edge coping. Because corner zones are critical initiation points for wind u...

Suggested next step: Please review the Components and Cladding wind pressure schedule and revise the ASCE 7 Zone 3 (Roof Corners) pressures to reflect the correct, higher suction values required by ASCE 7. Ensure that all affected roof corner attachments are designed to the corrected higher pressu...

RFI draft: Please review the Components and Cladding wind pressure schedule and revise the ASCE 7 Zone 3 (Roof Corners) pressures to reflect the correct, higher suction values required by ASCE 7. Ensure that all affected roof corner attachments are designed ...

Summary: Detail 10 explicitly instructs to 'EXTEND PIER REINFORCING TO WITHIN 3" OF TOP OF PIER' and terminates column dowels at the bottom of the pier cap. This leaves the horizontal joint between the drilled pier and the pier cap completely without vertical tension reinforcement. Detail 6 explicitly states that drilled piers are designed to resist uplift forces ('INCLUDED FOR UPLIFT RESISTANCE'). By t...

Why it matters: During a seismic event, unanchored pier caps subject to uplift forces will separate from the drilled piers at the cold joint, leading to a loss of column support and severe structural failure. This violates the building code requirement for a continuous load path and specific pile anchorage requi...

Suggested next step: Detail 10/S-302 notes that drilled pier vertical reinforcement terminates at the top of the pier, leaving no tension continuity into the pier cap. Since Detail 6 indicates drilled piers must resist uplift, should the pier vertical reinforcement extend into the pier cap to main...

RFI draft: Detail 10/S-302 notes that drilled pier vertical reinforcement terminates at the top of the pier, leaving no tension continuity into the pier cap. Since Detail 6 indicates drilled piers must resist uplift, should the pier vertical reinforcement ex...

Summary: The Level 2 Geometry Plan (S-102G) consistently labels bottom elevations as "B.O. DECK" (Bottom of Deck), indicating a concrete-on-metal-deck system. However, S-102G explicitly references Detail 3/S-340 for continuous columns, and this detail identifies the supported slab as a "CONCRETE PT SLAB" (Post-Tensioned). Furthermore, S-102G Note 7 mandates that all slab soffits are flat, which aligns w...

Why it matters: Conflicting identification of the primary structural floor system (Post-Tensioned concrete vs. Concrete on Metal Deck) is a major discrepancy. It creates ambiguity in estimating, forming, and reinforcing, as a PT slab requires flat formwork and tendon profiling, whereas a metal deck serves as sta...

Suggested next step: S-102G identifies bottom slab elevations as 'B.O. DECK', suggesting a metal deck, but S-102G Note 7 requires flat soffits, and the referenced Detail 3/S-340 calls out a 'CONCRETE PT SLAB'. Please confirm if the Level 2 elevated slab is a PT slab or a concrete-on-metal-deck sys...

RFI draft: S-102G identifies bottom slab elevations as 'B.O. DECK', suggesting a metal deck, but S-102G Note 7 requires flat soffits, and the referenced Detail 3/S-340 calls out a 'CONCRETE PT SLAB'. Please confirm if the Level 2 elevated slab is a PT slab o...

Summary: The reinforcing plan notes explicitly state that dashed lines indicate bottom reinforcing and solid lines indicate top reinforcing. However, the nomenclature legend provides contradictory information, indicating that a solid line represents the bottom bar and a dashed line represents the top bar. This discrepancy is repeated in the notes of the stud rail plan.

Why it matters: Ambiguous line type definitions for rebar placement can result in ironworkers installing top reinforcing mats at the bottom of the slab and vice versa. This would lead to a critical structural failure, especially concerning negative moment over supports and positive moment at midspans in a post-t...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the standard line types for top and bottom mild reinforcing bars. Should dashed lines represent top bars and solid lines represent bottom bars, or vice versa? Update the plan notes or nomenclature legend to be consistent.

RFI draft: Please clarify the standard line types for top and bottom mild reinforcing bars. Should dashed lines represent top bars and solid lines represent bottom bars, or vice versa? Update the plan notes or nomenclature legend to be consistent.

Summary: The framing plan notes indicate that column sizes shown on the plans are for "STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS". However, the reinforcing plan notes specifically refer to reinforcement placement at "CONCRETE COLUMNS", and the stud rail plan nomenclature details shear stud rails embedded around a "COLUMN, RE: PLAN" in a concrete slab, which is a structural element unique to concrete columns.

Why it matters: A fundamental discrepancy regarding whether the primary vertical supports are structural steel or reinforced concrete affects the entire construction process, including procurement, scheduling, detailing, and trades sequencing. Standard shear stud rails for two-way slabs are only applicable to co...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the columns for this project are structural steel or reinforced concrete. If they are concrete columns, please remove or revise Note 12 on the framing plan to avoid confusion.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the columns for this project are structural steel or reinforced concrete. If they are concrete columns, please remove or revise Note 12 on the framing plan to avoid confusion.

Summary: Plan S-203 references Elevation 2A/S-211 for the West core wall. On S-211, Elevation 2 specifies a '#5 at 2"' vertical reinforcement spacing above Level 10 up to the matchline. Elevation 2A continues this wall from the matchline, but completely omits a vertical reinforcement callout for the segment between the matchline and Level 11. Above Level 11, the spacing is explicitly called out as '#5 a...

Why it matters: Reinforcement splices and transitions typically occur at construction joints (floor levels) per standard concrete design practice. The missing callout between the matchline and Level 11 creates an unbuildable ambiguity and risks incorrect reinforcement density being installed in this mid-story se...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct vertical reinforcement spacing for the Northeast Elevation between the matchline and Level 11. Should the '#5 at 2"' spacing shown below the matchline continue full height to Level 11, or is a different spacing intended?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct vertical reinforcement spacing for the Northeast Elevation between the matchline and Level 11. Should the '#5 at 2"' spacing shown below the matchline continue full height to Level 11, or is a different spacing intended?

Summary: The concrete column schedule drawing shows the transition from 6,000 PSI to 5,000 PSI concrete occurring at Level 10, and the 6,000 PSI zone spanning from Level 6 to Level 10. However, the Structural Notes specification clearly states that column concrete strength shall be 6,000 PSI from L6 to L12 and 5,000 PSI from L12 to Roof. This means columns between Levels 10 and 12 are shown with 5,000 P...

Why it matters: Using 5,000 PSI concrete instead of the specified 6,000 PSI for columns between Levels 10 and 12 represents a 17% reduction in concrete compressive strength for those columns. This could result in structurally inadequate columns at those levels, potentially affecting the load-carrying capacity an...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer to confirm the correct concrete strength transition levels for columns. The Structural Notes specify 6,000 PSI from L6-L12 and 5,000 PSI from L12-Roof, but the column schedule on S-310 shows the 6,000 PSI to 5,000 PSI transition occurring at Lev...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer to confirm the correct concrete strength transition levels for columns. The Structural Notes specify 6,000 PSI from L6-L12 and 5,000 PSI from L12-Roof, but the column schedule on S-310 shows the 6,000 PSI to 5,000 P...

Summary: Detail 19 'MONUMENT SIGN FOUNDATION' on sheet S-303 shows a concrete footing with a total depth of only 1'-0" below the top of grading. The structural notes specify under Section 2.1-G that the minimum frost depth is three feet. A shallow footing at 12" below grade is well above the 36" frost line, making the monument sign foundation susceptible to frost heave.

Why it matters: A foundation placed above the frost depth will be subject to frost heave during freeze-thaw cycles, which can cause the relocated monument sign to shift, tilt, or suffer structural damage. This violates fundamental foundation design criteria established for the project and could result in buildin...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the structural engineer on whether the monument sign foundation should be deepened to extend below the 3'-0" minimum frost depth, or whether an alternative frost protection method (e.g., frost-protected shallow foundation with insulation) is intended...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the structural engineer on whether the monument sign foundation should be deepened to extend below the 3'-0" minimum frost depth, or whether an alternative frost protection method (e.g., frost-protected shallow foundatio...

Summary: The Level 2 Framing Plan shows multiple parking spaces labeled 'EV INSTALLED' without the universal ('UNIV.') designation. Per Denver Building Code Section 1107.2.3, all required EVSE Installed Spaces that are not accessible shall be designed as universal vehicle charging stations. The plan shows approximately 6–8 spaces labeled 'EV INSTALLED' (non-universal) compared to only approximately 3 sp...

Why it matters: Universal vehicle charging stations require a vehicle space size of 132 inches minimum in width with an adjoining 60-inch minimum access aisle per Section 1107.2.3. Non-compliant designations would be flagged during plan review and could require significant redesign of the parking layout, widened...

Suggested next step: Request the design team clarify which EVSE Installed Spaces are designated as accessible per Section 1107.2.1 and confirm that all remaining EVSE Installed Spaces comply with Section 1107.2.3 universal vehicle charging station requirements, including the 132-inch minimum space...

RFI draft: Request the design team clarify which EVSE Installed Spaces are designated as accessible per Section 1107.2.1 and confirm that all remaining EVSE Installed Spaces comply with Section 1107.2.3 universal vehicle charging station requirements, includ...

Summary: Detail 3 on sheet S-301, titled "DEVELOPMENT LENGTH OF GRADE 60 REINFORCING HOOKS IN TENSION," provides hook dimensions and development lengths for what it labels as a "135 DEGREE" hook alongside the 90-degree hook. The hook diagram for the "135 DEGREE" type shows a straight extension of "4db OR 2 1/2" MIN," which matches the geometry of a 180-degree standard hook per ACI 318-19 Table 25.3.1, n...

Why it matters: This mislabeling on a typical detail sheet could cause bar fabricators to produce 135-degree hooks instead of 180-degree hooks for all reinforcing bars requiring hooked anchorage in tension throughout the project. A 135-degree hook has a significantly different geometry than a 180-degree hook, po...

Suggested next step: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record revise Detail 3 on S-301 to correctly label the "135 DEGREE" hook as a "180 DEGREE" hook in both the "TYPICAL REINFORCING BAR END HOOK DIMENSIONS" table and the accompanying hook diagram, in conformance with ACI 318-19 Table 25.3....

RFI draft: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record revise Detail 3 on S-301 to correctly label the "135 DEGREE" hook as a "180 DEGREE" hook in both the "TYPICAL REINFORCING BAR END HOOK DIMENSIONS" table and the accompanying hook diagram, in conforman...

Summary: Detail 6 'SECTION AT LEVEL 1 SLAB TRANSITION' specifies an 8" cast-in-place infill wall with only '(1) #4 X CONT. AT TOP OF WEDGE' as horizontal reinforcement, along with '#5 @ 16" O.C. VERTICAL DOWELS.' Per ACI 318-19 Table 11.6.1, for a cast-in-place wall with deformed bars ≤ No. 5 and fy ≥ 60,000 psi, the minimum transverse (horizontal) reinforcement ratio ρt is 0.0020. For an 8" thick wall,...

Why it matters: Insufficient horizontal wall reinforcement could lead to plan review rejection by the building official, causing permitting delays. If constructed as detailed, the wall may experience uncontrolled cracking due to shrinkage and thermal effects, as well as inadequate in-plane shear resistance. This...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record clarify the horizontal reinforcement for the 8" cast-in-place infill wall in Detail 6/S-303. Per ACI 318-19 Table 11.6.1, minimum transverse ρt = 0.0020 requires distributed horizontal bars (e.g., #4 @ 12" O.C. or equivalent) over the ...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record clarify the horizontal reinforcement for the 8" cast-in-place infill wall in Detail 6/S-303. Per ACI 318-19 Table 11.6.1, minimum transverse ρt = 0.0020 requires distributed horizontal bars (e.g., #4 @ 12"...

Summary: The structural notes (Note 5.5.I.4) prescribe a uniform spacing of 12" on center for fasteners securing multiple stud jambs. Jambs act as built-up compression members supporting header loads. This uniform spacing conflicts with AISI S100-16 Section I1.2(b), which requires the ends of built-up compression members to have much tighter fastening (connectors spaced no more than 4 diameters apart fo...

Why it matters: Failing to provide the required concentrated fastening or continuous welding at the ends of built-up jamb members can prevent the individual studs from acting compositely at the supports where forces are introduced. This could cause localized buckling or compression failure of the jamb assembly w...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note 5.5.I.4 to include the correct end-connection requirements for built-up compression members per AISI S100-16 Section I1.2(b), specifying either a continuous end weld or closer fastener spacing (max 4 diameters apart) over the required end distance.

RFI draft: Please revise Note 5.5.I.4 to include the correct end-connection requirements for built-up compression members per AISI S100-16 Section I1.2(b), specifying either a continuous end weld or closer fastener spacing (max 4 diameters apart) over the re...