Plan Review: 131 Issues Found

Summary: 25 index entries | 24 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (1): A 1.0: Expected: SITE PLAN (ORIGINAL PLOT PLAN BY OTHER) (A 1.0) | Actual: SITE PLAN (A 1.0)(p4)

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 25 sheets

Summary: The truss design drawing explicitly states 'Mean Height: 0.00 ft' in the Wind Criteria section. Per ASCE 7-16 Section 28.3.1, the design wind pressure equation p = qh[(GCpf) - (GCpi)] requires qh to be the velocity pressure evaluated at mean roof height h. A mean roof height of 0.00 ft is physically impossible for any constructed building and would produce an invalid (near-zero or zero) velocit...

Why it matters: If the truss is fabricated and installed based on wind loads calculated with a mean roof height of 0.00 ft, the truss may be under-designed for the actual wind pressures at the true mean roof height. This could lead to structural failure during design wind events, potential collapse, and signific...

Suggested next step: Request that the truss manufacturer (Anderson Truss Company) confirm the actual mean roof height used in the wind load analysis for truss D1A-2. The Wind Criteria on the truss drawing shows 'Mean Height: 0.00 ft,' which is not a valid value per ASCE 7-16 Section 28.3.1. Please...

RFI draft: Request that the truss manufacturer (Anderson Truss Company) confirm the actual mean roof height used in the wind load analysis for truss D1A-2. The Wind Criteria on the truss drawing shows 'Mean Height: 0.00 ft,' which is not a valid value per AS...

Summary: The truss drawing explicitly states "Wind reactions based on MWFRS" and reports a maximum net uplift (U) of 25 lbs at bearing B. The general notes confirm this by stating "Wind loads based on MWFRS with additional C&C member design," showing that Component and Cladding (C&C) loads were intentionally excluded from the overall reactions. However, the roof truss has a span of 21'2" and a spacing o...

Why it matters: MWFRS wind pressures are spatially averaged and significantly lower than the localized C&C pressures required for connection design. For example, ASCE 7-16 Section 30.2.2 requires an absolute minimum design wind pressure for C&C of 16 psf, which would inherently produce gross uplift forces far ex...

Suggested next step: Please revise the truss design to provide uplift wind reactions based on Components and Cladding (C&C) wind pressures, in compliance with ASCE 7-16 requirements for elements with tributary areas under 700 sq ft. Ensure maximum C&C uplift reactions are clearly reported so the E...

RFI draft: Please revise the truss design to provide uplift wind reactions based on Components and Cladding (C&C) wind pressures, in compliance with ASCE 7-16 requirements for elements with tributary areas under 700 sq ft. Ensure maximum C&C uplift reactions...

Summary: The "WIND LOADS" schedule states the "ULTIMATE WIND SPEED" is 115 MPH and incorrectly labels 90 MPH as the "BASIC WIND SPEED". Under ASCE 7-16 Section 26.2, the "Basic Wind Speed, V" is explicitly defined as the ultimate wind speed determined by Section 26.5.1 (which the drawing acknowledges is 115 MPH). Applying the "Basic Wind Speed" label to the nominal ASD wind speed (90 MPH) contradicts th...

Why it matters: The drawings mandate that roof trusses and structural components and cladding (C&C) be designed by delegated professionals. If a delegated designer inputs the mislabeled 90 MPH "Basic Wind Speed" into structural software that adheres to ASCE 7-10 or ASCE 7-16 equations, the calculated wind pressu...

Suggested next step: Please revise the wind load parameters to align with ASCE 7-16 terminology. Confirm the Basic Wind Speed (V) is 115 MPH and relabel the 90 MPH value as the "Nominal Design Wind Speed (V_asd)", or remove it entirely, to prevent critical under-design by delegated engineers.

RFI draft: Please revise the wind load parameters to align with ASCE 7-16 terminology. Confirm the Basic Wind Speed (V) is 115 MPH and relabel the 90 MPH value as the "Nominal Design Wind Speed (V_asd)", or remove it entirely, to prevent critical under-desig...

Summary: Details 3 and 5 explicitly call out a "2" MAX OPEN" gap between the roof sheathing and the top of the blocking. Detail 3 indicates this blocking is "ATTACHED TO TOP PLATES WITH 8d @ 6" O.C. ALONG LENGTH OF BRACED WALL PANEL", establishing it as the element intended to transfer lateral forces to the wall. Because the 2" gap physically disconnects the roof diaphragm (sheathing) from the blocking,...

Why it matters: Without a positive connection between the roof diaphragm and the wall's shear transfer elements, seismic or wind forces collected by the roof cannot be safely transferred to the foundation. This creates a severe structural vulnerability, potentially leading to diaphragm failure or out-of-plane wa...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the load path for both in-plane shear transfer and out-of-plane wall anchorage at the roof level given the "2" MAX OPEN" ventilation gap. Provide a revised detail that maintains required ventilation while ensuring a direct, continuous structural connection betwe...

RFI draft: Please clarify the load path for both in-plane shear transfer and out-of-plane wall anchorage at the roof level given the "2" MAX OPEN" ventilation gap. Provide a revised detail that maintains required ventilation while ensuring a direct, continuo...

Summary: The truss drawing lists 16 concentrated gravity loads of 1,021 lbs on the bottom chord spaced at 24" on center ('BC: 1021 lb Conc. Load...'), which represent structural reactions from supported roof framing. However, there are no corresponding concentrated wind uplift loads from these supported members listed in the 'Special Loads' section. As a result, the maximum non-gravity uplift reactions ...

Why it matters: Omitting the wind uplift reactions from the supported roof framing means the main girder truss, its connection plates, framing hangers, and the foundation tie-downs will be severely under-designed for wind uplift forces. This violates IBC Section 1604.2, which requires structures to safely suppor...

Suggested next step: Revise the girder truss engineering to include the required concentrated wind uplift loads from all supported roof framing. Update the calculations, truss connector plate designs, and bearing uplift reactions (U), and provide the updated tie-down anchorage requirements.

RFI draft: Revise the girder truss engineering to include the required concentrated wind uplift loads from all supported roof framing. Update the calculations, truss connector plate designs, and bearing uplift reactions (U), and provide the updated tie-down ...

Summary: Detail 15 shows combustible framing ("TIMBERSTRAND LSL RIM") located directly at the edge of an opening labeled "FLUE OPENING". IBC Section 2304.5 requires combustible framing to be kept a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm) away from flue openings.

Why it matters: Insufficient clearance between combustible framing and flue openings poses a serious fire hazard. This will lead to failed framing and fire inspections, and may require significant structural reframing around the flue or shaft to achieve the mandated code clearance before construction can proceed.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the framing intent at the flue opening in Detail 15. Revise the detail to provide the required 6-inch minimum clearance between the flue opening and any combustible framing, or clarify if this opening represents a framed shaft that already accounts for the requi...

RFI draft: Please clarify the framing intent at the flue opening in Detail 15. Revise the detail to provide the required 6-inch minimum clearance between the flue opening and any combustible framing, or clarify if this opening represents a framed shaft that ...

Summary: General Foundation Note 1 on the drawing specifies a "4" THICK 2500PSI CONCRETE SLAB" for the slab on grade. However, the structural specification on sheet S 0.0, Section III, Item 8 requires "CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT 28 DAY CURE SHALL BE 3500 PSI." The drawing calls out a concrete strength that is 1000 PSI lower than the minimum required by the project specification.

Why it matters: Using 2500 PSI concrete instead of the specified 3500 PSI could result in a slab with insufficient compressive strength, potentially leading to premature cracking, settlement issues, and failure to meet the structural design intent. This discrepancy could also cause issues during permitting inspe...

Suggested next step: Request the designer confirm the required concrete compressive strength for the slab on grade. The Foundation Plan Note 1 states 2500 PSI while the Structural Notes (Section III, Item 8) require 3500 PSI at 28-day cure. Please clarify which value governs and issue a revision t...

RFI draft: Request the designer confirm the required concrete compressive strength for the slab on grade. The Foundation Plan Note 1 states 2500 PSI while the Structural Notes (Section III, Item 8) require 3500 PSI at 28-day cure. Please clarify which value ...

Summary: Drawing details A2 and A3 on S 5.0 specify a minimum joist bearing of 1 3/4" at ends for TJI joists. However, the structural specification note IV.11 on S 0.0 requires floor joists to have a minimum 4" bearing on wood or wood plates on metal or masonry. The 1 3/4" minimum bearing shown on the drawing is less than half of the 4" minimum required by the project specification, constituting a direc...

Why it matters: Insufficient bearing length at joist supports is a critical structural concern. If joists are installed with only 1 3/4" of bearing as permitted by the drawing details, this could result in localized wood crushing at the bearing points, leading to excessive deflection or potential joist failure u...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer of Record on the minimum bearing length for TJI joists. Specifically, confirm whether the 4" minimum bearing requirement in Structural Note IV.11 applies to engineered I-joists (TJI), or whether the 1 3/4" minimum bearing show...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer of Record on the minimum bearing length for TJI joists. Specifically, confirm whether the 4" minimum bearing requirement in Structural Note IV.11 applies to engineered I-joists (TJI), or whether t...

Summary: Detail 1 (Typical Detail of Wall Footing) and Detail 4 (Typical Slab on Grade) both specify the slab on grade concrete strength as 2500 PSI. However, the structural specification notes on sheet S 0.0 require all concrete to have a compressive strength of 3500 PSI at 28-day cure. The drawings directly contradict this requirement by specifying a concrete strength that is 1000 PSI lower than the s...

Why it matters: Using 2500 PSI concrete instead of the specified 3500 PSI would result in a significant reduction in structural capacity, durability, and resistance to weathering. This could lead to premature cracking, reduced bearing capacity, and potential non-compliance with code requirements. A 29% reduction...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record to confirm the required concrete compressive strength for slabs on grade. The structural notes on S 0.0 specify 3500 PSI, while Details 1 and 4 on sheet S 10.0 indicate 2500 PSI. Please clarify whether the details should be revised to 3500 PSI to...

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record to confirm the required concrete compressive strength for slabs on grade. The structural notes on S 0.0 specify 3500 PSI, while Details 1 and 4 on sheet S 10.0 indicate 2500 PSI. Please clarify whether the details sh...

Summary: Detail 12 instructs the contractor to provide a '(3)2x12 LUMBER BEAM' but to 'CUT THE BEAM TO HAVE MINIMUM 5 1/2" DEPTH BELOW STAIR TREAD'. A 2x12 lumber member has an actual depth of 11.25 inches. Cutting the beam down to 5.5 inches removes more than half of its structural depth. The project specifications require all lumber to conform to the National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Constr...

Why it matters: Notching a 3-ply 2x12 beam by more than 50% of its depth will significantly compromise its load-carrying capacity, creating a high risk of structural failure or excessive deflection at the stair landing support.

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the (3)2x12 beam must be cut to 5-1/2" depth. Suggest revising the framing layout to avoid notching the beam, using a shallower beam if loads permit, or providing engineered reinforcement at the cut location.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the (3)2x12 beam must be cut to 5-1/2" depth. Suggest revising the framing layout to avoid notching the beam, using a shallower beam if loads permit, or providing engineered reinforcement at the cut location.

Summary: General Note 9 specifies the use of a Simpson Strong-Tie "LU2" joist hanger for flush-mounted floor joists. However, General Note 1 specifies that all floor joists are minimum "2X10". An LU2 hanger is sized for a 2x4 member and lacks the proper vertical depth and structural capacity to safely support a 2x10 joist. This violates the code requirement that floor construction must accommodate all i...

Why it matters: Using an undersized joist hanger on a floor joist will result in insufficient bearing capacity, potential splitting of the joist, and connection failure under dead and live loads, posing a severe safety risk.

Suggested next step: Please revise General Note 9 to specify the correct joist hanger size for 2x10 joists (e.g., LU210 or equivalent) to ensure adequate structural capacity.

RFI draft: Please revise General Note 9 to specify the correct joist hanger size for 2x10 joists (e.g., LU210 or equivalent) to ensure adequate structural capacity.

Summary: The structural general notes state that the design is based on the "2018 NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENTIAL CODE". However, the project is regulated by the 2024 code provisions. Citing an outdated 2018 code version means the structural design criteria, design loads, and materials may not comply with the current 2024 code requirements.

Why it matters: Permitting authorities will reject construction documents based on an outdated building code. The entire structural design, including wind, seismic, and load calculations, must be verified against the current 2024 code to prevent costly redesigns or non-compliant construction.

Suggested next step: Please update the Design Building Code reference to the current 2024 code and verify that all structural calculations, loads, and details comply with the updated code provisions.

RFI draft: Please update the Design Building Code reference to the current 2024 code and verify that all structural calculations, loads, and details comply with the updated code provisions.

Summary: Detail 2 "BALCONY DETAIL" specifies a "3/4\" PLYWOOD DECK (MINIMUM)" acting as the cantilevered structure ("SHEATHING REQUIRES 24\" BACKSPAN (MIN.)") without underlying cantilevered joists. It relies on a "2 X RETURN" diagonal brace for support, fastened directly to the plywood deck with "(2) 12D NAILS REQUIRED". A 12d nail is 3.25 inches long and cannot physically fasten a 1.5-inch thick brace...

Why it matters: This contradicts Section 1604.2, which requires structures to safely support factored loads without exceeding allowable strength limits, and Section 1604.4, which mandates that load effects and connections account for geometric compatibility and structural equilibrium. A balcony constructed witho...

Suggested next step: Provide a fully engineered balcony framing detail including structurally sized cantilevered joists extending from the main floor system, rather than relying on sheathing. Specify appropriate fastening hardware that is geometrically compatible with the connected materials.

RFI draft: Provide a fully engineered balcony framing detail including structurally sized cantilevered joists extending from the main floor system, rather than relying on sheathing. Specify appropriate fastening hardware that is geometrically compatible with...

Summary: The Wood Species table lists Southern Pine #2 reference design values with column header 'Fc II (a)' showing 565 psi and 'Fc L (b)' showing 1450 psi (for 2"-4" width). In standard engineering notation, 'II' represents parallel to grain (||) and 'L' represents perpendicular to grain (⊥). Under this reading, Fc parallel = 565 psi and Fc perpendicular = 1450 psi, which are clearly transposed. This...

Why it matters: If Fc perpendicular to grain is interpreted as 1450 psi (per the 'Fc L' column) when it should be 565 psi per NDS Table 4B, bearing area calculations for members bearing perpendicular to grain on SP #2 plates would be unconservative by approximately 2.6×. Per NDS Section 3.10.2, the actual compre...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm and correct the Southern Pine #2 reference design values in the Wood Species table. The values in the 'Fc II (a)' and 'Fc L (b)' columns appear to be transposed for all Southern Pine #2 rows. Per NDS Table 4B, SP #2 (2"-4" thick, 2"-4" w...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm and correct the Southern Pine #2 reference design values in the Wood Species table. The values in the 'Fc II (a)' and 'Fc L (b)' columns appear to be transposed for all Southern Pine #2 rows. Per NDS Table 4...