Plan Review: 29 Issues Found

Summary: 9 index entries | 8 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (1): S1.0: Expected: SCHEMATIC LAYOUT, NOTES & SCHEDULES (S1.0) | Actual: SCHEMATIC LAYOUT, NOTES, & SCHEDULES (S1.0)(p2)

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: 0 missing, 1 mismatched out of 9 sheets

Summary: Construction Note 2.A explicitly states the project is for "INSTALLATION OF LIME SLURRY TANKS AT AIRGAS, 352 W 133RD ST, LOS ANGELES, CA 90061, USA," establishing the site in south Los Angeles. However, Note 3.A lists the site coordinates as "34.40958, -119.81081," which corresponds to an area near Goleta/Santa Barbara, CA — approximately 100 miles northwest of the stated address. The earthquak...

Why it matters: If the Los Angeles address is the actual project site, the mapped SS and S1 values for that location would be materially higher than the 1.816 and 0.643 shown, resulting in higher SDS, SD1, and consequently higher seismic base shears and design forces throughout the structure. This would directly...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the actual project site is at the stated address (352 W 133rd St, Los Angeles, CA 90061) or at the listed coordinates (34.40958, -119.81081). If the Los Angeles address is correct, update the site coordinates and recalculate all seismic design parameters (SS, S...

RFI draft: Confirm whether the actual project site is at the stated address (352 W 133rd St, Los Angeles, CA 90061) or at the listed coordinates (34.40958, -119.81081). If the Los Angeles address is correct, update the site coordinates and recalculate all se...

Summary: Sheet SP1.0 lists the project coordinates as 33.910827°N, 118.279949°W, which corresponds to the stated project address at 352 W 133RD ST, LOS ANGELES, CA 90061. However, Sheet S1.0 lists the site latitude and longitude used for structural design as 34.40958, -119.81081, which is approximately 100 miles northwest near Santa Barbara/Goleta, CA. Both sheets reference the same project address. The...

Why it matters: If the seismic design parameters are based on wrong coordinates, the structural design for the deep pile foundation system, tank anchorage, containment wall, catwalk, and stair support structure may be inadequate or over-designed for the actual site. This directly impacts life safety and code com...

Suggested next step: Request SGE to confirm the correct site coordinates for seismic design. The project coordinates on SP1.0 (33.910827°N, 118.279949°W) match the Los Angeles project address, while S1.0 structural notes list 34.40958, -119.81081 (~Santa Barbara). Please verify which coordinates w...

RFI draft: Request SGE to confirm the correct site coordinates for seismic design. The project coordinates on SP1.0 (33.910827°N, 118.279949°W) match the Los Angeles project address, while S1.0 structural notes list 34.40958, -119.81081 (~Santa Barbara). Ple...

Summary: The Equipment Layout plan on S2.0 dimensions the two catwalk support columns with horizontal spacing of 9'-5", 9'-2", 9'-5" (from the left edge to the first column, between columns, and from the second column to the right edge). The Pile Layout on S2.1 dimensions the two corresponding catwalk support piles with horizontal spacing of 9'-8", 8'-9", 9'-8" for the same reference points. This produc...

Why it matters: Misalignment between the catwalk support piles and the columns they carry would create eccentric loading on both the piles and any connecting pile cap or footing. This can introduce unintended bending moments, reduce axial load capacity, and risk structural failure of the catwalk support system. ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct horizontal positions of the catwalk support columns and their corresponding piles. S2.0 shows column spacing of 9'-5", 9'-2", 9'-5" while S2.1 shows pile spacing of 9'-8", 8'-9", 9'-8". Please confirm which set of dimensions is correct and issue revi...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct horizontal positions of the catwalk support columns and their corresponding piles. S2.0 shows column spacing of 9'-5", 9'-2", 9'-5" while S2.1 shows pile spacing of 9'-8", 8'-9", 9'-8". Please confirm which set of dimens...

Summary: The drawing specifies the new containment wall concrete as '3,000 PSI NWC MIN' in multiple locations (equipment layout plan and containment wall section detail). However, the specification construction notes require all new reinforced concrete to have a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 PSI. The containment wall is clearly reinforced concrete, as the wall section detail shows both vertical ...

Why it matters: Using 3,000 PSI concrete instead of the specified 4,500 PSI would result in a structurally inadequate containment wall with significantly reduced compressive capacity. This could compromise the wall's ability to retain hazardous lime slurry in the event of a tank failure, posing both structural a...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Engineer of Record (SGE) on the required concrete compressive strength for the new containment wall. The drawing callout states 3,000 PSI NWC MIN, which contradicts the specification requirement of 4,500 PSI minimum for all new reinforced concret...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Engineer of Record (SGE) on the required concrete compressive strength for the new containment wall. The drawing callout states 3,000 PSI NWC MIN, which contradicts the specification requirement of 4,500 PSI minimum ...

Summary: Section detail 2 specifies structural bolts as '(N) Ø3/4" BOLTS ASMT F1325 GR. A325'. The designation 'ASMT' is not a recognized standards organization (the correct acronym is 'ASTM'), and 'F1325' is not a valid ASTM specification number for structural bolts. The correct standard should be ASTM F3125, Grade A325, which is the current ASTM standard governing high-strength structural bolts former...

Why it matters: This incorrect material specification could cause delays at multiple stages: plan review may reject the drawings for referencing a non-existent standard; the steel fabricator cannot procure bolts to a specification that does not exist and would need to issue an RFI; and the special inspector requ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to confirm the intended bolt specification and issue a revised detail correcting 'ASMT F1325 GR. A325' to the proper ASTM designation (e.g., ASTM F3125, Grade A325) on Section Detail 2 and any other affected details.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to confirm the intended bolt specification and issue a revised detail correcting 'ASMT F1325 GR. A325' to the proper ASTM designation (e.g., ASTM F3125, Grade A325) on Section Detail 2 and any other affect...

Summary: Sections 3 and 4 on this sheet specify bolts as 'ASTM F1325 GR. A325.' ASTM F1325 is not a valid ASTM standard for structural bolts. The correct designation is ASTM F3125, which unified the former standalone ASTM A325 and A490 specifications. This is confirmed on the same drawing sheet in Section 13, which correctly specifies 'ASTM F3125 GR. A325.' Per CBC Section 2204.2, bolt design, installat...

Why it matters: During fabrication and erection, the steel fabricator and special inspector will be unable to verify bolt conformance to a non-existent ASTM specification. This will trigger an RFI, potentially delaying steel fabrication, procurement, and erection. Plan check reviewers may also reject the details...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm that 'ASTM F1325' called out in Sections 3 and 4 should be corrected to 'ASTM F3125 GR. A325' consistent with the specification shown in Section 13 on the same sheet, and reissue corrected details.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm that 'ASTM F1325' called out in Sections 3 and 4 should be corrected to 'ASTM F3125 GR. A325' consistent with the specification shown in Section 13 on the same sheet, and reissue corrected details.

Summary: The project is explicitly classified as Seismic Design Category D (Note 3.C). Construction Note 8.A states structural steel shall be detailed, fabricated, and erected in accordance with the "AISC SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS" (AISC 360) only. General Note 1.G similarly lists "AISC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION" as the governing steel refere...

Why it matters: Without explicit AISC 341 compliance or a documented exception via ASCE 7 Table 15.4-1, seismic detailing requirements for connections, protected zones, expected member strengths, and brace/column design provisions may not be addressed. This could lead to plan check rejection by the Authority Hav...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the structural steel design complies with AISC 341 as required by CBC Section 2205.2.1.2 for Seismic Design Category D. If the design relies on the exception per ASCE 7, Table 15.4-1 for nonbuilding structures, add a clear statement to the construction notes id...

RFI draft: Confirm whether the structural steel design complies with AISC 341 as required by CBC Section 2205.2.1.2 for Seismic Design Category D. If the design relies on the exception per ASCE 7, Table 15.4-1 for nonbuilding structures, add a clear statemen...

Summary: Detail 2 for the pile base contains a stamp that reads 'FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION'. Section 1603.1 requires that construction documents show the size, section, and relative locations of structural members. A detail marked not for construction fails to provide the required approved construction information for the pile structure.

Why it matters: A detail explicitly marked as not for construction cannot be used by the contractor to build the foundations or by the building official to verify code compliance. This will cause the permit application to be rejected or halt construction until an approved detail is provided.

Suggested next step: Remove the 'NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION' stamp from Detail 2 to confirm it is approved for construction, or issue the final approved structural detail for the pile base.

RFI draft: Remove the 'NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION' stamp from Detail 2 to confirm it is approved for construction, or issue the final approved structural detail for the pile base.

Summary: Sheet S3.0, Section 2 specifies structural bolts as 'ASMT F1325 GR. A325' for catwalk-to-tank connections. Sheet S3.3, Section 13 (the general bolt assembly detail) specifies 'ASTM F3125 GR. A325 GALV UNO OR APPROVED EQUAL'. ASTM F3125 is the recognized standard for high-strength structural bolting assemblies (which consolidated and superseded individual bolt standards including A325), while AS...

Why it matters: This inconsistency creates confusion for bolt procurement and inspection. If purchase orders reference the non-existent ASTM F1325, suppliers may be unable to identify the correct product, leading to procurement delays or substitution of incorrect bolt assemblies. Inspectors may also flag non-con...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct ASTM standard designation for all high-strength bolts on the project. Confirm whether all references to 'ASTM F1325' on S3.0 Section 2 and S3.3 Sections 3 and 4 should be revised to 'ASTM F3125' to match the bolt assembly det...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct ASTM standard designation for all high-strength bolts on the project. Confirm whether all references to 'ASTM F1325' on S3.0 Section 2 and S3.3 Sections 3 and 4 should be revised to 'ASTM F3125' ...

Summary: Drawing S3.3 Elevation 12 details the framing for a Containment Wall and references detail '3 / MIR' for the top connection of a diagonal brace. However, Detail 3 on S3.3 includes the note '9 1/2" MAX TO NEXT TREAD', confirming it is specifically designed as a stair stringer detail. This is corroborated by Drawing S3.2 (Elevation 6), which correctly calls out '3 / S3.3' for the top connection o...

Why it matters: A containment wall diagonal brace requires a different structural connection than a stair stringer, which must accommodate tread and riser layouts. Using the wrong detail could lead to incorrect fabrication, RFI delays during construction, and compromised structural integrity of the containment w...

Suggested next step: Elevation 12 on S3.3 references Detail 3 for the top diagonal brace connection, but Detail 3 includes stair-specific notes ('TO NEXT TREAD') and is used for stair connections on S3.2. Please clarify if a different detail should be referenced for the containment wall brace, or ...

RFI draft: Elevation 12 on S3.3 references Detail 3 for the top diagonal brace connection, but Detail 3 includes stair-specific notes ('TO NEXT TREAD') and is used for stair connections on S3.2. Please clarify if a different detail should be referenced for t...

Summary: The General Construction Notes on sheet S1.0 state that 'ALL NEW REINFORCED CONCRETE' must have a 'MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF IN 28 DAYS 4,500 PSI'. However, the Equipment Layout plan and the Containment Wall detail on sheet S2.0 explicitly specify '3,000 PSI NWC MIN' for the new containment wall.

Why it matters: Inconsistent concrete strength requirements will cause confusion during the concrete mix submittal and procurement process. Furthermore, the rebar splice lengths scheduled on S1.0 are explicitly based on a concrete strength of 4,500 PSI; using 3,000 PSI concrete for the containment wall would inv...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required concrete compressive strength (f'c) for the new containment wall. If 3,000 PSI is correct for the containment wall, please provide the appropriate rebar splice lengths, as the current schedule on S1.0 only applies to 4,500 PSI concrete.

RFI draft: Please clarify the required concrete compressive strength (f'c) for the new containment wall. If 3,000 PSI is correct for the containment wall, please provide the appropriate rebar splice lengths, as the current schedule on S1.0 only applies to 4,...

Summary: S3.1 Elevation 2 establishes the overall horizontal span between structural columns as 22'. On S3.2 Plan 4, the landings are dimensioned as 3'-4" on the left and 6'-8" on the right, which leaves only 12'-0" for the horizontal stair run (22' - 3'-4" - 6'-8" = 12'-0"). However, S3.2 Elevation 6 indicates the horizontal length of the stair run is 15'-4". If the stairs are 15'-4", the total require...

Why it matters: This dimensional conflict makes it impossible to construct the stairs and landings within the designed structural frame. Either the column spacing must be increased, the right landing shortened, or the stair run redesigned with a steeper pitch to fit a 12'-0" horizontal footprint.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct horizontal dimensions for the stairs and landings. Should the stair run be 15'-4" or 12'-0"? If 15'-4", should the right landing in Plan 4 be reduced from 6'-8" to 3'-4" to fit within the 22' structural span?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct horizontal dimensions for the stairs and landings. Should the stair run be 15'-4" or 12'-0"? If 15'-4", should the right landing in Plan 4 be reduced from 6'-8" to 3'-4" to fit within the 22' structural span?

Summary: The height of the secondary containment wall is specified inconsistently for structural bearing. The concrete detail on S2.0 indicates a maximum height limit of "3'-6" MAX" above the footing. However, the structural steel elevation on S3.3 relies on the wall for structural bearing, requiring an exact height of "3'-6"" from the ground line to support the horizontal beam without gaps.

Why it matters: Specifying a "MAX" dimension for a concrete element gives the contractor permission to pour the wall shorter than 3'-6". If the wall is poured shorter (e.g., 3'-4"), the fabricated steel framing will not bear properly on the wall, requiring field modifications, shims, or rework to correct the bea...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required concrete height for the containment wall. Should the 3'-6" dimension be an exact structural bearing elevation rather than a "MAX" dimension as shown on Detail 8/S2.0?

RFI draft: Please confirm the required concrete height for the containment wall. Should the 3'-6" dimension be an exact structural bearing elevation rather than a "MAX" dimension as shown on Detail 8/S2.0?

Summary: Section 2 on drawing S3.0 specifies the bolts as '(N) Ø3/4" BOLTS ASMT F1325 GR. A325'. The specification on sheet S1.0 requires all new bolts to be 'ASTM A325'. The drawing contains two errors in the standard designation: 'ASMT' instead of 'ASTM' and 'F1325' instead of either 'A325' or 'F3125' (the current unified ASTM standard for structural bolts). 'ASMT F1325' is not a recognized standard.

Why it matters: An incorrect ASTM designation on the structural drawings could lead to procurement confusion, rejected shop drawing submittals, or delays during fabrication if the fabricator cannot locate the referenced standard. During special inspection, an inspector may flag the non-existent standard, potenti...

Suggested next step: Request the engineer to confirm the correct ASTM bolt specification for the catwalk tank-support connection shown in Section 2. Clarify whether the intended designation is 'ASTM A325' per the construction notes, or 'ASTM F3125 Gr. A325' per the current unified standard, and is...

RFI draft: Request the engineer to confirm the correct ASTM bolt specification for the catwalk tank-support connection shown in Section 2. Clarify whether the intended designation is 'ASTM A325' per the construction notes, or 'ASTM F3125 Gr. A325' per the cu...