Plan Review: 125 Issues Found

Summary: 14 index entries | 13 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (1): P6.2: Expected: WASTE WATER RISER (P6.2) | Actual: WASTE WATER & VENT RISER (P6.2)(p73)

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 14 sheets

Summary: The General Notes under Earthquake Loads indicate the structure is assigned to Risk Category III but specify a Seismic Importance Factor (Ie) of 1.0. According to ASCE 7-10 Table 1.5-2, Risk Category III structures require a Seismic Importance Factor of 1.25.

Why it matters: Designing a Risk Category III structure with an importance factor of 1.0 instead of 1.25 underestimates the required seismic design base shear and lateral loads. This results in an undersized lateral force-resisting system, violating the building code's structural safety requirements and preventi...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Earthquake Loads parameters to specify a Seismic Importance Factor (Ie) of 1.25 for a Risk Category III structure, as required by ASCE 7-10 Table 1.5-2, and verify that the seismic base shear and the lateral force-resisting system are designed accordingly.

RFI draft: Please revise the Earthquake Loads parameters to specify a Seismic Importance Factor (Ie) of 1.25 for a Risk Category III structure, as required by ASCE 7-10 Table 1.5-2, and verify that the seismic base shear and the lateral force-resisting syste...

Summary: Detail 1 shows steel floor joists bearing directly on a steel channel acting as a ledger. However, the channel is anchored to the masonry wall using threaded rods in "VERT. SLOTTED HOLES". Because the primary load from the joists is a downward vertical gravity load, vertically slotted holes fail to resist the vertical shear force. This orientation will allow the channel and the supported floor ...

Why it matters: This connection design violates basic structural principles of equilibrium and geometric compatibility required by ASCE 7-10 Section 1.3.4. Relying on an unintended slip connection for primary gravity support breaks the continuous load path requirement (Section 1.4) and will lead to dangerous flo...

Suggested next step: Revise the connection detail for the elevator shaft channel. Replace the vertical slotted holes with standard round holes to provide a reliable, immediate shear transfer for the vertical gravity loads imposed by the floor joists.

RFI draft: Revise the connection detail for the elevator shaft channel. Replace the vertical slotted holes with standard round holes to provide a reliable, immediate shear transfer for the vertical gravity loads imposed by the floor joists.

Summary: The partial electrical one-line diagram and keyed notes specify that the elevator circuit breaker and disconnect switches (DS5 and DS6) must be "LOCKABLE IN ON POSITION". Disconnect switches must be lockable in the OPEN (OFF) position to allow for safe maintenance and Lockout/Tagout (LOTO).

Why it matters: IBC 2015 Section 2701.1 requires electrical systems to be designed and constructed in accordance with NFPA 70 (NEC). NEC Article 620.51 mandates that elevator disconnecting means be capable of being locked in the open position. Specifying them to be lockable in the ON position directly violates t...

Suggested next step: Revise the drawings to require the elevator circuit breaker (Keyed Note 7) and disconnect switches (DS5 and DS6) to be lockable in the OPEN (OFF) position, in compliance with NFPA 70 (NEC) 620.51. Remove all references to being lockable in the ON position.

RFI draft: Revise the drawings to require the elevator circuit breaker (Keyed Note 7) and disconnect switches (DS5 and DS6) to be lockable in the OPEN (OFF) position, in compliance with NFPA 70 (NEC) 620.51. Remove all references to being lockable in the ON ...

Summary: Detail 1 illustrates a 'STEEL CHANNEL, REF. PLAN' that supports gravity loads from a 'FLOOR SLAB, REF. PLAN' and 'STEEL JOISTS'. The channel is anchored to a masonry 'DOUBLE COURSE BOND BEAM' using threaded rods with adhesive 'INTO VERT. SLOTTED HOLES'. Because adhesive anchors in masonry cannot be tensioned to establish a slip-critical connection, the vertically slotted holes will provide no i...

Why it matters: If installed as drawn, the steel channel will slip vertically by the length of the slot once loaded, causing an uncontrolled drop in the floor structure. This can lead to localized failure, severe cracking of the concrete floor slab, and a compromised structural load path.

Suggested next step: Confirm if the slotted holes should be horizontal instead of vertical for tolerance, or provide a positive gravity-bearing mechanism (such as a welded bearing angle or plate) to transfer vertical loads directly into the anchors without relying on friction.

RFI draft: Confirm if the slotted holes should be horizontal instead of vertical for tolerance, or provide a positive gravity-bearing mechanism (such as a welded bearing angle or plate) to transfer vertical loads directly into the anchors without relying on ...

Summary: The Level 2 Framing Plan explicitly directs the reader to the Column Details sheet for column connection information. However, the referenced detail sheet only provides 'COLUMN EMBED BASE PLATE' details requiring 10" to 16" anchor rods embedded into concrete. The elevated Level 2 floor deck only contains a 3" concrete topping. It is physically impossible to embed 10"-16" anchor bolts into a 3" ...

Why it matters: Applying foundation embed details to elevated steel framing is a major constructability issue. Without appropriate steel-to-steel column connection details for Level 2, fabrication and erection of the steel framing cannot proceed accurately, leading to immediate RFIs and potential construction de...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended column base and splice details for the elevated columns on Level 2. Are there separate steel-to-steel column connection details that should be referenced instead of the concrete foundation embed details shown on the referenced detail sheet?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended column base and splice details for the elevated columns on Level 2. Are there separate steel-to-steel column connection details that should be referenced instead of the concrete foundation embed details shown on the ref...

Summary: The Pile Layout Plan (S200) and Foundation Plan (S201) show completely different grid naming conventions and dimensional spacing for the same building addition, indicating a severe coordination failure or mismatch in revisions. For example, along the eastern boundary of the existing building, S200 shows consecutive vertical spacing of 14'-9", 9'-7", and 5'-6 1/4" between grids P.D, P.E, P.G, an...

Why it matters: If the pile locations from S200 are installed, they will not align with the grade beams, column foundations, and structural dimensions shown on S201. This would result in critical foundation support failures and require complete redesign or pile relocation.

Suggested next step: Please clarify which plan represents the correct, current architectural/structural layout. Issue a coordinated Pile Layout Plan and Foundation Plan with matching grid lines, names, and overall building dimensions.

RFI draft: Please clarify which plan represents the correct, current architectural/structural layout. Issue a coordinated Pile Layout Plan and Foundation Plan with matching grid lines, names, and overall building dimensions.

Summary: Elevation 5 (BRACE 5) on S502 details a single diagonal brace (HSS4X4X1/4) extending from the foundation at Grid G up to the midpoint of the L2 horizontal beam (W14X22). According to standard structural engineering practice, concentric bracing must frame directly into beam-column joints or be balanced by an opposing brace (e.g., in a chevron configuration) to maintain node equilibrium. Terminat...

Why it matters: This configuration disrupts the intended load path for the lateral force resisting system. Under wind or seismic loading, the vertical component of the brace's axial force will act as a concentrated load on the horizontal beam, likely causing it to deflect excessively or fail in flexure, which co...

Suggested next step: Please review the configuration of BRACE 5 on S502. Should this single diagonal brace frame directly into the beam-column joint at Grid E.4, or is an opposing chevron brace missing from the elevation to balance the vertical loads at the mid-span of the W14X22 beam?

RFI draft: Please review the configuration of BRACE 5 on S502. Should this single diagonal brace frame directly into the beam-column joint at Grid E.4, or is an opposing chevron brace missing from the elevation to balance the vertical loads at the mid-span o...

Summary: Detail 2 requires the middle bottom reinforcement of the grade beam to be continuous, stating "NO SPLICE REQ. FOR MIDDLE BOTTOM REINF.". However, Detail 1 shows the "STEEL PIPE PILE" embeds 8" directly into the grade beam at this exact location. A continuous bottom rebar cannot physically pass through the solid steel pipe shell without severing the bar or cutting the pile, which violates geomet...

Why it matters: During construction, the contractor will be forced to either cut the continuous middle bottom rebar (destroying the grade beam's positive tension capacity and the continuous load path) or torch holes in the steel pipe pile (compromising the pile's structural integrity). This creates a severe stru...

Suggested next step: Please clarify how the continuous middle bottom reinforcement should navigate the 8" embedment of the solid steel pipe pile. Should this bar be spliced around the pile like the other bottom reinforcement, or are pile penetrations required?

RFI draft: Please clarify how the continuous middle bottom reinforcement should navigate the 8" embedment of the solid steel pipe pile. Should this bar be spliced around the pile like the other bottom reinforcement, or are pile penetrations required?

Summary: The "MASONRY LOOSE LINTEL SCHEDULE" (Detail 3) specifies that lintels should rest purely on masonry with an "8.5\" BEARING AT EACH END" and requires a "3/8\" GAP IN MORTAR AT ENDS OF ANGLE". Providing an intentional gap and relying exclusively on loose bearing means there is no mechanical tie or positive connection provided to the supporting structure. This directly violates ASCE 7-10 Section 1...

Why it matters: While a loose bearing with a gap allows for thermal expansion (satisfying self-straining force provisions), the complete absence of a positive structural connection creates a severe weak point in the load path. For lintels spanning up to 17 feet and supporting heavy masonry walls, lacking a mecha...

Suggested next step: Please clarify how the loose lintels detailed in the "MASONRY LOOSE LINTEL SCHEDULE" comply with the structural integrity requirements of ASCE 7-10 Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.4. Should a positive mechanical connection (such as slotted clip angles or welded studs that allow thermal...

RFI draft: Please clarify how the loose lintels detailed in the "MASONRY LOOSE LINTEL SCHEDULE" comply with the structural integrity requirements of ASCE 7-10 Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.4. Should a positive mechanical connection (such as slotted clip angles or w...

Summary: Detail 3 and Section 2 show the new roof structure (metal deck and continuous L3X3X1/4 deck angle) adjacent to the pre-manufactured building (PEMB) columns and framing without any structural connection bridging the interface. Architectural roofing is shown continuing over the gap, indicating there is no separation/expansion joint. ASCE 7-10 Section 1.4.2 requires all parts of a structure betwee...

Why it matters: If the structures are not rigidly interconnected to share lateral loads, they must be completely isolated by a properly sized seismic/expansion joint to prevent destructive pounding during a seismic or high wind event. Bridging the gap with continuous architectural roofing without structural inte...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the new roof framing relies on the PEMB structure for lateral support. If yes, provide positive connection details transferring forces from the roof diaphragm (deck angle) to the PEMB columns/walls. If no, provide detailing for a structural separation joint a...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the new roof framing relies on the PEMB structure for lateral support. If yes, provide positive connection details transferring forces from the roof diaphragm (deck angle) to the PEMB columns/walls. If no, provide detailing for a...

Summary: The drawings explicitly detail a roof assembly consisting of 'TPO ROOF MEMBRANE OVER POLYISO INSULATION OVER METAL DECK'. Polyiso is a foam plastic insulation. The assembly does not include an approved thermal barrier (such as 1/2-inch gypsum wallboard) separating the foam plastic insulation from the interior of the building (the space below the metal deck). The metal deck alone does not qualif...

Why it matters: Per IBC 2603.4, foam plastic must be separated from the building interior by an approved thermal barrier to prevent rapid fire spread and smoke development in concealed spaces. Omitting this barrier creates a severe fire hazard and will result in permitting rejection or costly mid-construction co...

Suggested next step: Confirm if the roof assembly has been tested and approved for use without a thermal barrier. If not, please update the roof assembly callouts and details to include a minimum 1/2-inch gypsum wallboard thermal barrier beneath the polyiso insulation.

RFI draft: Confirm if the roof assembly has been tested and approved for use without a thermal barrier. If not, please update the roof assembly callouts and details to include a minimum 1/2-inch gypsum wallboard thermal barrier beneath the polyiso insulation.

Summary: The Second Floor Reflected Ceiling Plan identifies two electrical spaces ("ELEC. CLO. 220" and "ELEC. 223") but fails to apply the designated "EGRESS LIGHT W/ REMOTE MOUNTED BATTERY, TYP." symbol to either of these rooms. IBC Section 1008.3.3 explicitly requires that electrical equipment rooms be automatically illuminated by an emergency electrical system in the event of a power supply failure.

Why it matters: Omitting emergency egress lighting in electrical equipment rooms creates a critical life-safety hazard, as maintenance or emergency personnel could be left in complete darkness while working near high-voltage panels during a power outage. This non-compliance will result in failed electrical and l...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if emergency illumination will be provided for ELEC. CLO. 220 and ELEC. 223 to comply with IBC Section 1008.3.3, and update the Reflected Ceiling Plan to show the required egress lighting fixtures in these rooms.

RFI draft: Please confirm if emergency illumination will be provided for ELEC. CLO. 220 and ELEC. 223 to comply with IBC Section 1008.3.3, and update the Reflected Ceiling Plan to show the required egress lighting fixtures in these rooms.

Summary: Detail 08 'COPING @ BRICK PARAPET' shows a parapet wall capped with a coping but lacks continuous flashing installed beneath the coping across the top of the wall assembly. The only flashing shown is 'FLASHING W/ DRIP EDGE', which serves strictly as a counterflashing on the interior face to cover the 'TERMINATION BAR' of the 'TPO MEMBRANE'. IBC 1503.2 explicitly requires flashing to be installe...

Why it matters: Coping joints are prone to opening over time due to thermal expansion, sealant degradation, and wind-driven rain. Without a continuous through-wall flashing membrane installed directly beneath the coping, water that bypasses the coping joints will have a direct path into the cavity wall, leading ...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 08 to include a continuous through-wall flashing or waterproof membrane installed directly beneath the parapet coping. This flashing must span across the entire top of the wall cavity to ensure moisture entering through coping joints is directed to the ext...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 08 to include a continuous through-wall flashing or waterproof membrane installed directly beneath the parapet coping. This flashing must span across the entire top of the wall cavity to ensure moisture entering through coping...

Summary: The Door Schedule specifies Door 107E (Pastor's Office) as a set of pocket doors with two 1'-6" (18-inch) leaves. IBC Section 1010.1.1 requires that for door openings with two leaves, at least one leaf must provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches. Neither 18-inch leaf can satisfy this clear width requirement.

Why it matters: Failure to provide a single door leaf with a 32-inch minimum clear width violates egress and accessibility requirements. This will prevent required wheelchair access into the office and result in a failed building inspection, requiring costly reframing and door replacement.

Suggested next step: Please revise the door configuration for Door 107E to ensure at least one leaf provides a minimum 32-inch clear opening width (e.g., changing to a single 3'-0" door or an unequal-leaf double door).

RFI draft: Please revise the door configuration for Door 107E to ensure at least one leaf provides a minimum 32-inch clear opening width (e.g., changing to a single 3'-0" door or an unequal-leaf double door).