Alabama Residential Addition: 17 Issues Found

Summary: The drawing footing schedule states that footing design is based on a 3,000 PSF allowable soil bearing pressure, but the structural general notes state that foundation design is based on 2000 PSF. This is a direct conflict in the foundation design basis.

Why it matters: If the footing schedule is used as drawn, footing sizes may be based on a higher allowable bearing pressure than permitted by the specification, which can result in undersized foundations and inspection or construction issues.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required allowable soil bearing pressure for the project. Revise the footing schedule and any affected footing sizing/design to match the specified 2000 PSF basis, or issue coordinated revised structural documents if 3,000 PSF is intended.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required allowable soil bearing pressure for the project. Revise the footing schedule and any affected footing sizing/design to match the specified 2000 PSF basis, or issue coordinated revised structural documents if 3,000 PSF is intended.

Summary: The roof truss bearing details call out 'SIMPSON H2.5A HURRICANE TIE @ EVERY OTHER TRUSS,' but the structural general notes require 'SECURE EACH COMMON ROOF TRUSS/ RAFTER TO TOP PLATE WITH SIMPSON H-10 OR H-7 HURRICANE CLIP AT ALL BEARING POINTS.' The drawing shows both a different connector and installation at every other truss instead of at...

Why it matters: If built as drawn, the truss-to-wall connection would not match the specified connection requirement and could require field replacement or redesign during framing review.

Suggested next step: Please revise the roof truss bearing details to show the specified hurricane clips at all bearing points and clarify where 'USE SIMPSON H-7 AT GIRDER TRUSSES' is required.

RFI draft: Please revise the roof truss bearing details to show the specified hurricane clips at all bearing points and clarify where 'USE SIMPSON H-7 AT GIRDER TRUSSES' is required.

Summary: The notes specify a slab-on-grade that is allowed to be only 4 in. thick and also require re-entrant-corner reinforcement at the slab mid-depth. ACI 318 requires 3 in. specified cover for reinforcement in concrete cast against and permanently in contact with ground. In a 4 in. slab, a mid-depth bar is only 2 in. from the bottom surface at most,...

Why it matters: If this note is followed at the minimum permitted slab thickness, the reinforced re-entrant corners in the slab-on-grade will be noncompliant and may require thicker concrete or relocated reinforcement during permit review or field inspection.

Suggested next step: Please revise the re-entrant-corner slab reinforcement note so the specified bar location and slab thickness can achieve ACI 318 required cover for concrete cast against ground. Confirm whether the slab must be thickened at these corners or the reinforcement location/detail must change.

RFI draft: Please revise the re-entrant-corner slab reinforcement note so the specified bar location and slab thickness can achieve ACI 318 required cover for concrete cast against ground. Confirm whether the slab must be thickened at these corners or the reinforcement location/detail must change.

Summary: At one footing location on the basement foundation plan, the plan shows '3 / S2.0.1' with footing mark '30'. In the 'FOOTING SCHEDULE,' mark '30' is listed as '3'-0\'X3'-0\' X 1'-4\'' with '(4) #5 X 2'-6\''. The referenced detail 3/S2.0.1, 'FOUNDATION DETAIL @ STEEL COLUMN FOOTING,' shows the same reinforcing and '3'-0\' SQR.' footing but...

Why it matters: A 1'-4' versus 1'-2' footing depth changes excavation, concrete quantity, and bearing depth at the steel column footing. The discrepancy can lead to conflicting field layout, forming, and inspection outcomes.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether footing mark 30 / detail 3 should be 1'-4' deep per the Footing Schedule or 1'-2' deep per 3/S2.0.1, and revise the schedule or the detail so both match.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether footing mark 30 / detail 3 should be 1'-4' deep per the Footing Schedule or 1'-2' deep per 3/S2.0.1, and revise the schedule or the detail so both match.

Summary: On the basement foundation plan, callout '9 / S2.0.0' is shown with footing mark '40'. In the footing schedule, mark 40 is '4'-0\'X4'-0\' X 1'-4\'' with '(5) #5 X 3'-6\''. The referenced detail on S2.0.0 shows the same 4'-0 square footing and matching reinforcement — '4'-0\' SQR.' and '(5) #5 BARS X 3'-6\' EA. WAY' — but the footing depth in...

Why it matters: This affects a structural footing size. If left unresolved, the footing could be excavated and poured at the wrong depth, changing concrete quantity, embedment, and reinforcing placement, and creating inspection and construction coordination problems.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required footing depth for the footing at callout 9 / mark 40: '1'-4\'' per the footing schedule or '1'-2\'' per Detail 9. Revise the schedule or the detail so the footing requirement is consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required footing depth for the footing at callout 9 / mark 40: '1'-4\'' per the footing schedule or '1'-2\'' per Detail 9. Revise the schedule or the detail so the footing requirement is consistent.

Summary: The roof framing plan callout reads '4/S2.0.4', but the detail bubble/title for detail 4 reads '4/S2.0.3 ROOF TRUSS DETAIL'. The sheet reference for detail 4 does not match between the plan and the detail page.

Why it matters: This mismatch can send reviewers and the framing contractor to the wrong roof detail and leave the intended roof edge or transition assembly unresolved during permitting and construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the roof framing plan should reference 4/S2.0.3, or revise the detail bubble/title so detail 4 is identified as 4/S2.0.4 and the callouts match.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the roof framing plan should reference 4/S2.0.3, or revise the detail bubble/title so detail 4 is identified as 4/S2.0.4 and the callouts match.

Summary: On S1.0.4, the 6/S2.0.2 and 11/S2.0.2 conditions are tagged 'P.T. LVL224.' The S1.0.4 framing legend defines 'LVL224' as 'TRIPLE 1¾\'X24\' LVL BEAM,' but S2.0.2 detail 6 calls for a 'P.T. DOUBLE 1 3/4\' X 24\' LVL BEAM' and detail 11 calls for a 'DOUBLE 1 3/4\' X 24\' LVL BEAM.' The plan designation and the referenced details disagree on...

Why it matters: A double-versus-triple LVL changes beam capacity, bearing width, and connector selection, so the discrepancy can lead to fabrication and installation errors.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the LVL224 conditions referenced to details 6 and 11 are intended to be double or triple 1 3/4' x 24' LVLs, and revise the plan legend/tag or the detail callouts to match.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the LVL224 conditions referenced to details 6 and 11 are intended to be double or triple 1 3/4' x 24' LVLs, and revise the plan legend/tag or the detail callouts to match.

Summary: On the second-floor framing plan, the 8/S2.0.3 callout is placed at a W16X31 beam in framing designated FT. The framing legend defines FT as 24' deep floor trusses. But detail 8/S2.0.3 is drawn as 18' deep floor trusses on a W16X26 cantilevered steel beam. The referenced detail therefore does not match the plan condition for either truss depth...

Why it matters: This creates a structural coordination problem for steel fabrication, truss depth, and connection selection at the 8/S2.0.3 location. If the wrong reference is followed, the installed beam and floor-framing assembly could be inconsistent with the framing plan.

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the 8/S2.0.3 condition is intended to be W16X31 with 24' FT framing, or whether the plan callout and beam tag should be revised to match the detail.

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the 8/S2.0.3 condition is intended to be W16X31 with 24' FT framing, or whether the plan callout and beam tag should be revised to match the detail.

Summary: At the condition referenced as '7 S2.0.4', the roof framing plan tags the member as 'LVL324', while detail 7/S2.0.4 specifies 'TRIPLE 2X10 BEAM W/ (2) 1/2' PLYWOOD FLITCH PLATES'. The plan and the referenced detail do not agree on the beam designation.

Why it matters: This affects structural procurement and installation because an LVL-tagged member and a triple 2x10 flitch beam are materially different assemblies with different connection and fabrication implications.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct member at the 7/S2.0.4 condition: should the plan label 'LVL324' remain, or should the member be revised to 'TRIPLE 2X10 BEAM W/ (2) 1/2' PLYWOOD FLITCH PLATES' to match the detail?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct member at the 7/S2.0.4 condition: should the plan label 'LVL324' remain, or should the member be revised to 'TRIPLE 2X10 BEAM W/ (2) 1/2' PLYWOOD FLITCH PLATES' to match the detail?

Summary: Callout '8 / S2.0.3' is placed at a 'W16X31' location within an 'FT' framing field. The legend defines 'FT' as '24\' DEEP PRE-ENGINEERED FLOOR TRUSSES @ 16\' O/C (MAX.)'. But detail 8/S2.0.3 calls for '18\' DEEP PRE- ENGINEERED OPEN WEB FLOOR TRUSSES @ 16\' O/C (MAX.)' on a 'W16X26 CANTILEVERED STEEL BEAM'. The referenced detail therefore does...

Why it matters: If this is not resolved, the wrong steel beam size and floor-truss depth could be fabricated or installed at this connection, affecting elevations, hanger selection, and structural coordination.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the 8/S2.0.3 plan callout should be revised to match the 'W16X31' / 'FT' plan condition, or whether the plan should be revised to match detail 8/S2.0.3 with '18\' DEEP PRE- ENGINEERED OPEN WEB FLOOR TRUSSES' on a 'W16X26 CANTILEVERED STEEL BEAM'.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the 8/S2.0.3 plan callout should be revised to match the 'W16X31' / 'FT' plan condition, or whether the plan should be revised to match detail 8/S2.0.3 with '18\' DEEP PRE- ENGINEERED OPEN WEB FLOOR TRUSSES' on a 'W16X26 CANTILEVERED STEEL BEAM'.

Summary: The drawing note requires Simpson H10A/H10A-2 hurricane ties for all rafters and roof trusses. The specification allows H-10 or H-7 at common roof trusses/rafters but specifically requires Simpson H-7 at girder trusses. As written, the drawing note applies one connector type to all roof trusses and conflicts with the required girder truss...

Why it matters: If this note is followed as written, girder truss bearings could receive the wrong connector, affecting the intended uplift load path and creating field correction during framing.

Suggested next step: Please confirm that girder trusses are to receive Simpson H-7 connectors per the structural general notes, and revise this framing plan note so it does not direct H10A/H10A-2 hurricane ties at all roof trusses without the girder truss exception.

RFI draft: Please confirm that girder trusses are to receive Simpson H-7 connectors per the structural general notes, and revise this framing plan note so it does not direct H10A/H10A-2 hurricane ties at all roof trusses without the girder truss exception.

Summary: Multiple foundation details state 'FILL ALL CELLS W/ CONCRETE' within the 8' CMU wall reinforcement notes. The specifications require concrete masonry units to be 'GROUTED WITH 2,500 PSI COARSE GROUT'. Calling for concrete instead of grout conflicts with the specified CMU cell-fill material.

Why it matters: This note can cause the masonry subcontractor to procure and place the wrong fill material in reinforced CMU cells, creating material compliance and inspection issues for the foundation walls.

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the CMU cell-fill notes reading 'FILL ALL CELLS W/ CONCRETE' should be revised to 2,500 psi coarse grout in accordance with the concrete masonry requirements.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the CMU cell-fill notes reading 'FILL ALL CELLS W/ CONCRETE' should be revised to 2,500 psi coarse grout in accordance with the concrete masonry requirements.

Summary: The roof decking note in the roof truss details specifies ring-shank nails '@ 6' O/C AT PANEL EDGES AND AT 12' O/C IN THE FIELD,' but the structural general notes require roof panels to be attached '@4' O/C AT PANEL EDGES AND AT 6' O/C IN THE FIELD.' The drawing therefore shows a less frequent roof panel fastening pattern than the project...

Why it matters: If installed as drawn, the roof sheathing fastening would not match the contract structural requirement and could require correction before acceptance of the roof framing and sheathing work.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required roof panel fastening and revise the roof truss details if the intent is to match the structural general notes requirement of 'RING SHANK NAILS @4' O/C AT PANEL EDGES AND AT 6' O/C IN THE FIELD.'

RFI draft: Please confirm the required roof panel fastening and revise the roof truss details if the intent is to match the structural general notes requirement of 'RING SHANK NAILS @4' O/C AT PANEL EDGES AND AT 6' O/C IN THE FIELD.'

Summary: The drawing calls for '#5 X1'-0\' DOWELS @ 2' O.C. (MAX.). EPOXY GROUT IN PLACE USING SIMPSON SET XP.' The specification states 'PRE-APPROVED ADHESIVE ANCHORS INCLUDE:' and lists approved concrete adhesive anchor products, including 'SIMPSON STRONG-TIE \'SET-3G\'' and other products, but not Simpson SET XP. This is a direct conflict between the...

Why it matters: Because this is a post-installed dowel condition, using a product outside the specification's pre-approved adhesive anchor products can create approval and installation problems for the structural connection.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether these dowels are to use one of the specification's listed concrete adhesive anchors, such as 'SIMPSON STRONG-TIE \'SET-3G\'', or revise the drawing/specification so the product requirement is consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether these dowels are to use one of the specification's listed concrete adhesive anchors, such as 'SIMPSON STRONG-TIE \'SET-3G\'', or revise the drawing/specification so the product requirement is consistent.

Summary: On the basement foundation plan, the stair condition referenced to 5/S2.0.1 is noted as 'DOUBLE P.T. 2X12 STAIR STRINGERS @ 2'-0\' O/C (MAX.)'. The referenced detail 5 on S2.0.1, 'THICKENED SLAB DETAIL @ STAIRS,' instead states 'DOUBLE 2X12 STAIR STRINGER 2'-6\' O/C (MAX.)'. The same stair assembly is therefore shown with two different maximum...

Why it matters: Using 2'-0' versus 2'-6' maximum spacing changes the number of stringers and the slab connection layout for the stair. If not reconciled, fabrication and inspection could proceed to different structural criteria.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required maximum spacing for the stair stringers at the condition referenced by 5/S2.0.1: '2'-0\' O/C (MAX.)' on the plan or '2'-6\' O/C (MAX.)' in detail 5. Revise one sheet so both match.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required maximum spacing for the stair stringers at the condition referenced by 5/S2.0.1: '2'-0\' O/C (MAX.)' on the plan or '2'-6\' O/C (MAX.)' in detail 5. Revise one sheet so both match.