Plan Review: 294 Issues Found

Summary: The foundation plan for the pre-engineered canopy specifies a penetration depth of only 1'-0" for multiple 30-inch diameter piers (noted as "30"/1'-0""). Open buildings, such as this canopy, are subject to net wind uplift pressures under ASCE 7 Section 27.3.2. Section 3.2.2 requires foundations to be designed to resist uplift loads where applicable. A 1-foot deep pier provides negligible dead l...

Why it matters: Constructing the canopy columns on piers with only 12 inches of embedment would result in severe foundation failure, overturning, or uplift during a wind event. Correcting this drafting error prior to drilling the piers is critical to avoid structural failure and construction delays.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended penetration depth for the canopy piers currently detailed as '30"/1'-0"'. Should these be revised to a depth of 7'-0" to match the piers at grids g1-g3 and g16, in order to adequately resist wind uplift and overturning loads per ASCE 7 Sections 3.2....

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended penetration depth for the canopy piers currently detailed as '30"/1'-0"'. Should these be revised to a depth of 7'-0" to match the piers at grids g1-g3 and g16, in order to adequately resist wind uplift and overturning ...

Summary: Elevation 05 details rigid HSS members (HSS5X5X5/16) for diagonal and chevron bracing but only specifies tension design forces (e.g., "T=35 KIPS (LFRD)", "T=55 KIPS (LFRD)"). Rigid HSS braces in seismic lateral force-resisting systems experience stress reversals and must resist both tension and compression. By contrast, other braced frames on the same sheet explicitly specify both tension and c...

Why it matters: If delegated connection engineers design the connections solely for the provided tension forces, the connections (such as gusset plates) may buckle or fail under seismic compression loads. This violates ASCE 7 Section 12.1.2, which requires that connections be designed to develop adequate strengt...

Suggested next step: Please provide the required compression ('C') design forces for all HSS braces in Elevation 05 so that connections can be properly designed for seismic stress reversals.

RFI draft: Please provide the required compression ('C') design forces for all HSS braces in Elevation 05 so that connections can be properly designed for seismic stress reversals.

Summary: The "TYPICAL ANCHOR ROD SCHEDULE" and "ANCHOR ROD SCHEDULE FOR W.B. AND M.C." define Anchor Rod Projection (P) dimensions that are physically too short to permit installation of the base plates and nuts, directly violating IBC Section 2204.3. For example, anchor rod AB3X specifies 3" of grout (G) but only 2" of projection (P), and AB1 specifies 2" of grout with only 1 1/2" of projection. Even i...

Why it matters: If anchor rods are fabricated and cast into the concrete foundations using these specified projection dimensions, they will be either completely buried in the grout pad or too short to secure the base plates and nuts. This will critically compromise the primary structural connections between the ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Anchor Rod Schedules to provide correct Projection (P) dimensions that account for the specified grout thickness, base plate thickness, washer thickness, nut height, and the necessary thread protrusion to comply with IBC 2204.3.

RFI draft: Please revise the Anchor Rod Schedules to provide correct Projection (P) dimensions that account for the specified grout thickness, base plate thickness, washer thickness, nut height, and the necessary thread protrusion to comply with IBC 2204.3.

Summary: Detail 01 Section At Beam explicitly directs the contractor to 'TIE OR TACK WELD TO STUD' for the #3 support bar. Systems of structural steel acting compositely with concrete must be designed and constructed in accordance with AISC 360 (per IBC 2206.1). AWS D1.1 (referenced by AISC 360 for welding via IBC 2204.1) strictly prohibits welding auxiliary attachments, such as reinforcing bars, direct...

Why it matters: If contractors follow this note and tack weld rebar to the shear studs, special inspectors will be required to reject the composite beam assembly per AISC 360/AWS D1.1 requirements. The affected studs would need to be replaced, causing significant rework, construction delays, and added costs. The...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 01 'SECTION AT BEAM' to remove the option to tack weld the support bar to the shear stud. Confirm that all reinforcing bars must be securely tied with wire to the shear studs, and no welding to the studs is permitted.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 01 'SECTION AT BEAM' to remove the option to tack weld the support bar to the shear stud. Confirm that all reinforcing bars must be securely tied with wire to the shear studs, and no welding to the studs is permitted.

Summary: The Glulam Beam Schedule on sheet S4.2A specifies beam RB6 as 8.5"x17.875" with combination 24F-V3 and beam end reactions of Dead=4 kips, Live=4 kips, Wind=-4 kips. However, every RB6 beam callout on the roof framing plan consistently labels the beam as 6.75"x15.125". The plan-called size (6.75"x15.125") has a cross-sectional area of approximately 102.1 in² versus 151.9 in² for the schedule siz...

Why it matters: Glulam beams are custom-fabricated items with long procurement lead times. The beam width discrepancy (6.75" vs. 8.5") and depth discrepancy (15.125" vs. 17.875") are substantial and not attributable to rounding. If the fabricator builds to the plan callout size, the installed beams could be stru...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record clarify the correct size for beam RB6 and confirm whether the end reactions in the Glulam Beam Schedule (Dead=4k, Live=4k, Wind=-4k) correspond to the schedule size (8.5"x17.875") or the plan callout size (6.75"x15.125"). Issue revised...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record clarify the correct size for beam RB6 and confirm whether the end reactions in the Glulam Beam Schedule (Dead=4k, Live=4k, Wind=-4k) correspond to the schedule size (8.5"x17.875") or the plan callout size ...

Summary: The drawings detail a WT2.5x8 beam attached to the plumb-cut end of the sloped glulam rafter using "(2) SDWS22500DB" wood screws at the "3/8\" GLULAM NOTCH". The WT beam acts as a cantilever supporting "(6) PIPE 3/4\" STD CONT" on the overhang. Gravity loads from these pipes create a bending moment that pulls the top of the WT flange away from the wood face, placing the upper wood screw in dire...

Why it matters: Per NDS Section 12.2.2.3, wood screws are strictly prohibited from being loaded in withdrawal from the end grain of wood and have zero design capacity for this condition (Ceg=0.0). Relying on these fasteners to resist the cantilever moment could result in the screws tearing out of the wood, leadi...

Suggested next step: Revise the overhang connection detail to eliminate wood screws loaded in withdrawal from the rafter's end grain. Consider redesigning the steel bracket to fasten into the side grain (top or bottom face) of the rafter, extending the glulam rafter to support the pipes directly, ...

RFI draft: Revise the overhang connection detail to eliminate wood screws loaded in withdrawal from the rafter's end grain. Consider redesigning the steel bracket to fasten into the side grain (top or bottom face) of the rafter, extending the glulam rafter t...

Summary: Detail 02 on sheet S3.2 ('TYPICAL COLUMN TO PIER CAP') directs the reader to 'REFER BASE PLATE DETAILS 09/S5.1 AND SECTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION' for the base plate connection at the column-to-pier-cap interface. However, detail 09 on sheet S5.1 is titled 'BEAM BEARS ON COLUMN NOTCH' and depicts a mass timber beam bearing in a notched column—not a steel base plate detail for a column-to-p...

Why it matters: The base plate detail is essential for properly constructing the column-to-pier-cap connection, including anchor rod sizing, bolt pattern, plate thickness, and welding requirements. Without the correct base plate detail, the contractor cannot fabricate or install this critical structural connecti...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which detail on S5.1 (or another sheet) contains the base plate details for the typical column-to-pier-cap connection referenced in detail 02/S3.2. If detail 09/S5.1 is incorrect, please provide the correct detail number and sheet reference, or issue a revised b...

RFI draft: Please clarify which detail on S5.1 (or another sheet) contains the base plate details for the typical column-to-pier-cap connection referenced in detail 02/S3.2. If detail 09/S5.1 is incorrect, please provide the correct detail number and sheet r...

Summary: Sheet S3.4 Detail 01 (TYPICAL VOID FORM DETAIL) includes a note stating void depths at grade beams and slabs shall be 12". However, every foundation section on Sheet S3.13 consistently specifies 20" deep carton forms as typical under grade beams and slabs. Both notes purport to define the standard/typical void form depth for the project — the S3.4 detail is titled 'TYPICAL VOID FORM DETAIL' and...

Why it matters: Void forms (carton forms) provide critical separation between structural concrete and expansive soils. An incorrect void depth could either leave the structure vulnerable to soil heave (if too shallow) or result in unnecessary cost and excavation (if too deep). An 8" discrepancy is structurally s...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required void form (carton form) depth under grade beams and slabs. Sheet S3.4 Detail 01 specifies 12" void depth, while all foundation sections on Sheet S3.13 indicate 20" deep carton forms. Please confirm which dimension governs and revise the conflicting ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required void form (carton form) depth under grade beams and slabs. Sheet S3.4 Detail 01 specifies 12" void depth, while all foundation sections on Sheet S3.13 indicate 20" deep carton forms. Please confirm which dimension gover...

Summary: On sheet S6.1, all braced frame elevation connection design forces are labeled with the designation '(LFRD)' (i.e., LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design). For example, Elevation 03 shows 'HSS5X5X5/16 T=C=15 KIPS (LFRD)' and Elevation 05 shows 'HSS6X6X1/2 T=C=60 KIPS (LFRD)'. These elevations directly reference detail 01/S6.6 for their base connections. However, on sheet S6.6, Wind Bracing N...

Why it matters: ASD (Allowable Stress Design) and LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design) are fundamentally different structural design methodologies with different load factors and safety factors. LRFD-level forces are typically approximately 1.4–1.6 times larger than ASD-level forces for equivalent conditions...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the braced frame connection design forces shown on S6.1 elevations are in LRFD format (as labeled on the elevations, e.g., 'T=C=15 KIPS (LFRD)') or in ASD format (as stated in Wind Bracing Note 3 on S6.6). Please confirm which design methodology governs ...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the braced frame connection design forces shown on S6.1 elevations are in LRFD format (as labeled on the elevations, e.g., 'T=C=15 KIPS (LFRD)') or in ASD format (as stated in Wind Bracing Note 3 on S6.6). Please confirm whi...

Summary: Sheet S4.2A (Roof Framing Plan - Area A&D) references 'REFER 03/S4.4 FOR ENLARGED CANOPY PLAN'. On S4.2A, the vertical grid spacings are dimensioned as a15 to a16 = 20'-0", a16 to a17 = 20'-0", and a17 to a18 = 20'-6" (total a16 to a18 = 40'-6"). However, on S4.4 plan 03 (BLDG A CANOPY FRAMING PLAN), the same grid lines are dimensioned as a16 to a17 = 9'-4" and a17 to a18 = 11'-2" (total a16 to...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly affects the structural layout of the Building A canopy, including column locations, beam spans, connection geometry, and foundation placement. The canopy structure cannot be fabricated or erected until the correct grid spacing is confirmed. If columns are placed at the w...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct grid spacing between lines a16, a17, and a18 for the Building A Canopy Framing Plan (03/S4.4). Sheet S4.2A shows a16-a17 = 20'-0" and a17-a18 = 20'-6", while S4.4 plan 03 shows a16-a17 = 9'-4" and a17-a18 = 11'-2". Please confirm which dimensions and...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct grid spacing between lines a16, a17, and a18 for the Building A Canopy Framing Plan (03/S4.4). Sheet S4.2A shows a16-a17 = 20'-0" and a17-a18 = 20'-6", while S4.4 plan 03 shows a16-a17 = 9'-4" and a17-a18 = 11'-2". Pleas...

Summary: S2.1C1 specifies the Top of Pier elevation for the angled building section as 96'-10" (e.g., 24"/7'-0" over 96'-10"). However, S2.1C2 specifies the Top of Concrete (TOC) for the slab span in this exact same angled area as 96'-9" (TOC 96'-9"). This results in the Top of Pier being 1 inch higher than the finished Top of Concrete of the slab.

Why it matters: Having a pier top elevation higher than the finished slab elevation would cause the concrete piers to protrude through the slab, creating a severe constructability issue, resulting in an uneven floor surface, and preventing the correct placement of the slab over the piers or associated grade beams.

Suggested next step: Please review and coordinate the Top of Pier elevations on S2.1C1 with the slab TOC elevations on S2.1C2 in the angled building area. Should the Top of Pier be lowered, or is the TOC elevation of 96'-9" incorrect?

RFI draft: Please review and coordinate the Top of Pier elevations on S2.1C1 with the slab TOC elevations on S2.1C2 in the angled building area. Should the Top of Pier be lowered, or is the TOC elevation of 96'-9" incorrect?

Summary: There is a direct contradiction in the structural grid dimensions between the Overall Foundation Plan (Sheet S2.1) and the Miscellaneous Foundation Plans (Sheet S2.2). S2.1 indicates a spacing of 11'-0" between grids bG and eC, and a spacing of 49'-0" extending downwards from grid eD. Conversely, the enlarged plan on S2.2 shows a consistent 21'-0" spacing between grids bG and eC, as well as 21'...

Why it matters: Discrepancies in primary structural grid dimensions between the overall and detailed foundation plans will lead to critical setting-out errors, misplaced foundations, and framing misalignment during construction.

Suggested next step: Please verify and coordinate the correct distance between grid lines bG, eC, eD, and eE on both the Overall Foundation Plan (S2.1) and the enlarged Miscellaneous Foundation Plans (S2.2).

RFI draft: Please verify and coordinate the correct distance between grid lines bG, eC, eD, and eE on both the Overall Foundation Plan (S2.1) and the enlarged Miscellaneous Foundation Plans (S2.2).

Summary: Detail 01/S3.14, explicitly called out on the S2.1A1 foundation plan, shows a continuous 8" CMU wall resting directly on a concrete element with a vertical dimension of 2'-0". This element is identified as a pier ("T/PIER EL SEE PLAN") and is detailed with column-style vertical reinforcement ("8-#8 AT PERIMETER"). However, continuous masonry walls require a grade beam to span between isolated p...

Why it matters: Constructing a continuous unreinforced or lightly reinforced CMU wall directly on isolated piers without a supporting grade beam will result in severe flexural and shear failure of the masonry spanning the gaps between the piers. If the 2'-0" element shown in Detail 01 is actually intended to be ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the foundation support for the wall referenced by Detail 01/S3.14. Should a continuous grade beam and carton forms be added between the CMU wall and the drilled piers, similar to Detail 04/S3.14? If the 2'-0" deep element shown is intended to be the grade beam, ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the foundation support for the wall referenced by Detail 01/S3.14. Should a continuous grade beam and carton forms be added between the CMU wall and the drilled piers, similar to Detail 04/S3.14? If the 2'-0" deep element shown is i...

Summary: Multiple Braced Frame Elevations on S6.2 indicate grid line locations that directly conflict with where their corresponding section callouts are placed on the Overall Second Floor Plan (S4.1). 1. Frame 01: The elevation specifies grids 'bC' and 'bD', but callout 01/S6.2 on the plan is located near grids 'bB' and 'bD' ('bC' is absent). 2. Frame 02: The elevation specifies grids 'aB' and 'aA', b...

Why it matters: Inconsistent grid line references disconnect the structural framing details from their intended physical locations. This will halt shop drawing production, as steel detailers and erectors cannot accurately locate these braced frames on the building footprint.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct grid line locations for Braced Frames 01, 02, and 08. Update either the grid labels on the Braced Frame Elevations (S6.2) or the section callout locations on the Overall Second Floor Plan (S4.1) to ensure consistency.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct grid line locations for Braced Frames 01, 02, and 08. Update either the grid labels on the Braced Frame Elevations (S6.2) or the section callout locations on the Overall Second Floor Plan (S4.1) to ensure consistency.

Summary: On the framing plans of sheets S4.1A and S4.1B, beam FB3 is consistently labeled as 10.5"x26.125", while the Glulam Beam Schedule on both sheets lists FB3 as 10.5"x24.75" — a depth discrepancy of 1.375". Beam FB4 is labeled on the plans as 8.5"x26.125", but the Glulam Beam Schedule lists FB4 as 10.5"x23.375" — both the width (8.5" vs 10.5") and depth (26.125" vs 23.375") differ. These discrepan...

Why it matters: FB3 and FB4 are primary glulam floor beams used extensively across the second floor framing in Areas A, B, and D. An incorrect beam size directly affects structural capacity, deflection performance, connection geometry, and the beam end reactions used by the fabricator's engineer for connection d...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct beam sizes for FB3 and FB4. The plan labels show FB3 as 10.5"x26.125" and FB4 as 8.5"x26.125", while the Glulam Beam Schedule lists FB3 as 10.5"x24.75" and FB4 as 10.5"x23.375". Please confirm which sizes govern and update the plan labels or beam sch...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct beam sizes for FB3 and FB4. The plan labels show FB3 as 10.5"x26.125" and FB4 as 8.5"x26.125", while the Glulam Beam Schedule lists FB3 as 10.5"x24.75" and FB4 as 10.5"x23.375". Please confirm which sizes govern and upda...