Plan Review: 29 Issues Found

Summary: Detail A (Typ. Railing Connection) annotates the railing as "RAILING - PER MANUF. (42" MAX. HT.)", designating 42 inches as the maximum height. IBC Section 1015.3 requires guards to be "not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically...from the adjacent walking surfaces." The drawing's use of "MAX" directly contradicts the code's minimum requirement. By labeling 42 inches as the max...

Why it matters: This is a life-safety concern involving fall protection. If railings are installed below 42 inches based on this detail's "MAX" designation, the installation would fail code inspection and require costly rework. Even under the Exception 1 for Group R-3 and R-2 dwelling units (which permits 36-inc...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify and revise Detail A to change the railing height annotation from "42" MAX. HT." to "42" MIN. HT." (or "36" MIN. HT." if applicable under IBC Section 1015.3 Exception 1 for R-3/R-2 dwelling units). Confirm the applicable occupancy group a...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify and revise Detail A to change the railing height annotation from "42" MAX. HT." to "42" MIN. HT." (or "36" MIN. HT." if applicable under IBC Section 1015.3 Exception 1 for R-3/R-2 dwelling units). Confirm th...

Summary: The foundation plan includes multiple notes stating "POST ABOVE AT END OF HEADER MAY BEAR ON SLAB WITH NO ADDITIONAL FOOTINGS REQUIRED". Allowing a structural point load from a header to bear directly on an unthickened concrete floor slab violates the prescriptive minimums for shallow foundations. Under IBC Section 1809.4, footings must have a minimum depth of 12 inches below undisturbed ground...

Why it matters: If built as designed, the concentrated point load from the post may exceed the punching shear capacity of the standard floor slab, potentially leading to localized slab failure, settlement of the supported header, and structural damage above. This explicit omission of structural footings at point...

Suggested next step: Please provide an isolated pad footing detail (e.g., minimum 12"x12" width and 12" depth) or a thickened slab detail at all "P.A." (Post Above) locations where structural posts from headers bear on the slab, in order to comply with the minimum foundation requirements of IBC Se...

RFI draft: Please provide an isolated pad footing detail (e.g., minimum 12"x12" width and 12" depth) or a thickened slab detail at all "P.A." (Post Above) locations where structural posts from headers bear on the slab, in order to comply with the minimum fou...

Summary: The drawing specifies an 'HD-1' connection for an upper floor post with the note 'HD-1 FROM BOT. OF POST TO FND. BELOW (TYP. 2)'. The Hold-Down Schedule identifies HD-1 as a 'SIMPSON STHD14 (RJ) HOLD-DOWN'. An STHD14 is a strap-tie designed to be cast directly into a concrete foundation and is only approximately 35 inches long. It is physically impossible for this foundation embed strap to span...

Why it matters: Under IBC Section 1604.2, structural systems must be designed and constructed to safely support factored loads. Specifying a foundation strap for an upper floor connection severs the required continuous vertical load path for lateral uplift forces, rendering the lateral force-resisting system una...

Suggested next step: Clarify the hold-down detailing for the upper floor posts labeled HD-1. If a continuous load path to the foundation is required, please revise the hardware specification to an appropriate floor-to-floor tie-down (e.g., HDU series) and a tension tie system, or detail a continuo...

RFI draft: Clarify the hold-down detailing for the upper floor posts labeled HD-1. If a continuous load path to the foundation is required, please revise the hardware specification to an appropriate floor-to-floor tie-down (e.g., HDU series) and a tension ti...

Summary: Section 9 explicitly specifies anchoring the porch slab to the crawlspace wall using '#4 DOWELS... HAMMERED INTO 1/2" DIA. x 2" DEEP HOLES (NO EPOXY)'. IBC Section 1901.3 mandates that anchoring to concrete must comply with ACI 318, utilizing approved methods such as cast-in anchors, post-installed expansion anchors, undercut anchors, or adhesive anchors. Forcing a plain dowel into a hole of th...

Why it matters: Shallowly embedded, unbonded dowels provide inadequate shear and tension capacity. If the porch slab undergoes normal settlement, thermal expansion/contraction, or experiences lateral loads, the dowels will easily pull out or cause concrete spalling. This will result in a failed structural inspec...

Suggested next step: Please revise Section 9 to specify an IBC-approved concrete anchoring method, such as an approved adhesive/epoxy anchoring system with the appropriate embedment depth for the #4 dowels, in accordance with ACI 318.

RFI draft: Please revise Section 9 to specify an IBC-approved concrete anchoring method, such as an approved adhesive/epoxy anchoring system with the appropriate embedment depth for the #4 dowels, in accordance with ACI 318.

Summary: The Upper Floor Framing Plan (S-2.0) specifies 'HD-1' for multiple posts with the note 'HD-1 FROM BOT. OF POST TO FND. BELOW'. However, the Hold-Down Schedule defines HD-1 as a 'SIMPSON STHD14 (RJ) HOLD-DOWN'. An STHD14 is a cast-in-place concrete foundation strap. Because there is an intervening Main Floor Framing Plan (S-1.1) separating the upper floor from the foundation, an STHD14 cannot ph...

Why it matters: Specifying a foundation embedment strap for an upper-floor-to-foundation connection breaks the continuous vertical load path, as the detail is physically unbuildable (an STHD14 is only approximately 36 inches long). The hold-down schedule provides alternative strap ties (e.g., HD-6, HD-7) that ar...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the hold-down requirements for the posts on the Upper Floor Framing Plan (S-2.0) currently calling for HD-1. Since HD-1 is scheduled as a Simpson STHD14 foundation strap, it cannot span from the upper floor to the foundation below. Should these locations use flo...

RFI draft: Please clarify the hold-down requirements for the posts on the Upper Floor Framing Plan (S-2.0) currently calling for HD-1. Since HD-1 is scheduled as a Simpson STHD14 foundation strap, it cannot span from the upper floor to the foundation below. ...

Summary: The S-1.0 FOUNDATION PLAN clearly details a concrete "PORCH SLAB" on the east (right) side of the building footprint, surrounded by continuous concrete foundation walls. However, the S-1.1 MAIN FLOOR FRAMING PLAN shows a wood-framed deck in this exact same location, specifying "2x12 DECK JOISTS @ 16\" o.c." attaching to a ledger board and supported by a "5½\"x13½\" GLB FLUSH TOP B24" beam on "6...

Why it matters: This is a major discrepancy in structural design intent and material requirements. A concrete porch requires continuous stepped footings, stem walls, and backfill, whereas a wood-framed deck requires isolated post footings, ledger bolting, flashing, and treated lumber joists. If this is not coord...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the structural design intent for the exterior space on the right (east) side of the residence. S-1.0 Foundation Plan shows a 'PORCH SLAB' with continuous foundation walls, while S-1.1 Main Floor Framing Plan details a wood deck with 2x12 joists, a GLB flush beam...

RFI draft: Please clarify the structural design intent for the exterior space on the right (east) side of the residence. S-1.0 Foundation Plan shows a 'PORCH SLAB' with continuous foundation walls, while S-1.1 Main Floor Framing Plan details a wood deck with...

Summary: The framing plan calls for "HD-1 FROM BOT. OF POST TO FND. BELOW (TYP. 2)" at several upper floor locations, including posts bearing directly on a cantilevered floor system ("16\" FLOOR TRUSSES @ 16\" o.c. (CANT'D)"). However, both the drawing and specification hold-down schedules define HD-1 as a "SIMPSON STHD14 (RJ) HOLD-DOWN". This specific hold-down is a strap that must be embedded directly...

Why it matters: Requiring a cast-in-place concrete foundation strap on an upper floor framing plan is physically impossible to construct. This detailing error will halt framing progress at these critical shear wall boundaries and lead to failed structural inspections until an appropriate wood-to-wood upper-floor...

Suggested next step: Please revise the hold-down specification for the upper floor shear walls, particularly over the cantilevered floor sections. The currently specified HD-1 (STHD14) requires concrete embedment and cannot be installed from the upper floor to the foundation below.

RFI draft: Please revise the hold-down specification for the upper floor shear walls, particularly over the cantilevered floor sections. The currently specified HD-1 (STHD14) requires concrete embedment and cannot be installed from the upper floor to the fou...

Summary: The structural notes explicitly state that foundation wall design is based on backfill soil classifications of SC, ML-CL, or CL at 60 pcf equivalent fluid pressure. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 3.2-1, the minimum design lateral soil loads for these classifications are: SC = 85 psf/ft, ML-CL = 85 psf/ft, and CL = 100 psf/ft. The design value of 60 pcf is 29% below the minimum for SC and ML-CL soils, and ...

Why it matters: Foundation walls designed for 60 pcf lateral soil pressure when code minimums require 85–100 psf/ft for the stated soil types may be significantly under-designed for lateral earth pressure. This could result in inadequate reinforcement and/or wall thickness, potentially leading to structural dist...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the design lateral soil pressure of 60 pcf for backfill soils classified as SC, ML-CL, or CL. ASCE 7-16 Table 3.2-1 requires minimum lateral soil loads of 85 psf/ft for SC and ML-CL soils and 100 psf/ft for CL soils. If a site-specific geotechnical report approv...

RFI draft: Please confirm the design lateral soil pressure of 60 pcf for backfill soils classified as SC, ML-CL, or CL. ASCE 7-16 Table 3.2-1 requires minimum lateral soil loads of 85 psf/ft for SC and ML-CL soils and 100 psf/ft for CL soils. If a site-speci...

Summary: The foundation plan contains notes stating "POST ABOVE AT END OF HEADER MAY BEAR ON SLAB WITH NO ADDITIONAL FOOTINGS REQUIRED". Allowing structural point loads from posts to bear directly on a standard slab without a designed footing or foundation element violates the code requirement that foundations must be designed to resist the forces developed by the structure. This also fails to provide a...

Why it matters: Slabs on ground are generally not designed to support significant concentrated structural loads. Without a footing or thickened slab, the point load from the post is highly likely to cause punching shear failure, slab cracking, and settlement, compromising the stability of the frame above.

Suggested next step: Please revise the foundation plan to provide a properly sized isolated footing or thickened slab detail at all "P.A." (Post Above) locations to safely resist the concentrated loads and maintain a continuous load path.

RFI draft: Please revise the foundation plan to provide a properly sized isolated footing or thickened slab detail at all "P.A." (Post Above) locations to safely resist the concentrated loads and maintain a continuous load path.

Summary: The structural notes specify f'c = 2,500 psi for foundation walls. IBC Section 1904.1 Exception requires that for Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies not more than three stories above grade plane, the specified compressive strength for concrete in basement walls, foundation walls, exterior walls and other vertical surfaces exposed to the weather shall be not less than 3,000 psi. This is a residential...

Why it matters: This discrepancy will likely be flagged during plan review, potentially delaying permit approval. Concrete acceptance testing is performed against the specified f'c value on the construction documents. Specifying 2,500 psi means the concrete would be batched, tested, and accepted at a strength be...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the specified concrete compressive strength for foundation walls from f'c = 2,500 psi to f'c = 3,000 psi minimum to comply with IBC Section 1904.1 Exception for R-3 occupancies. The asterisk note regarding equivalent mixes should be updat...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the specified concrete compressive strength for foundation walls from f'c = 2,500 psi to f'c = 3,000 psi minimum to comply with IBC Section 1904.1 Exception for R-3 occupancies. The asterisk note regarding eq...

Summary: The structural notes specify f'c = 2,500 psi for foundation walls. However, the same drawing specifies f'c = 3,500 psi for garage and exterior slabs on grade, which per Table R402.2 corresponds to severe weathering conditions (moderate weathering only requires 3,000 psi for that category). Additionally, the notes require 5% to 7% air entrainment for all concrete exposed to weather, which is req...

Why it matters: This discrepancy would likely be flagged during plan review or field inspection, as the minimum specified compressive strength on the drawings (2,500 psi) is below the code-required 3,000 psi for exposed foundation walls. A ready-mix supplier batching to the specified f'c = 2,500 psi could delive...

Suggested next step: Request that the engineer revise the concrete specification for foundation walls to clearly state a minimum f'c = 3,000 psi for all foundation wall concrete exposed to the weather, in accordance with Table R402.2 for the applicable weathering potential. The asterisked note abo...

RFI draft: Request that the engineer revise the concrete specification for foundation walls to clearly state a minimum f'c = 3,000 psi for all foundation wall concrete exposed to the weather, in accordance with Table R402.2 for the applicable weathering pote...

Summary: The framing plan specifies a "5½"x13½" GLB FLUSH TOP B24" and "2x12 DECK JOISTS @ 16" o.c." for the exterior deck structure. However, unlike the supporting posts which are explicitly designated as pressure-treated (e.g., "6x6 P.T. POST"), the joists and glued-laminated beam lack any designation indicating they are naturally durable or preservative-treated wood. The IRC explicitly mandates that ...

Why it matters: Providing an explicit material designation for some exterior members (posts) while omitting it for others (joists and beams) strongly implies standard, untreated wood is specified for the latter. Utilizing untreated glulam and lumber for exterior deck structural supports will lead to rapid wood d...

Suggested next step: Please revise the structural framing plan to explicitly specify that the exterior "5½"x13½" GLB" and "2x12 DECK JOISTS" must be naturally durable or pressure-preservative-treated wood, in accordance with IRC Sections R317.1.3 and R317.1.5.

RFI draft: Please revise the structural framing plan to explicitly specify that the exterior "5½"x13½" GLB" and "2x12 DECK JOISTS" must be naturally durable or pressure-preservative-treated wood, in accordance with IRC Sections R317.1.3 and R317.1.5.

Summary: Detail A 'TYP. RAILING CONNECTION' specifies a '4" MIN.' vertical clearance from the deck surface to the bottom horizontal rail. Per IRC Section R312.1.3, required guards shall not have openings from the walking surface to the required guard height that allow passage of a sphere 4 inches in diameter. A gap specified at 4 inches minimum means the opening is equal to or greater than 4 inches, whi...

Why it matters: This is a life-safety issue related to child fall protection. Building inspectors routinely check guard openings with a 4-inch sphere test tool. The detail as drawn would fail inspection at every deck railing location where this typical detail is referenced, requiring rework of the railing instal...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise Detail A to specify the clearance from the walking surface to the bottom horizontal rail as less than 4 inches (e.g., 3-7/8" MAX.) to comply with IRC Section R312.1.3 guard opening limitations, or confirm that the railing system manufactu...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise Detail A to specify the clearance from the walking surface to the bottom horizontal rail as less than 4 inches (e.g., 3-7/8" MAX.) to comply with IRC Section R312.1.3 guard opening limitations, or confirm tha...

Summary: The drawing specifies '2x12 DECK JOISTS @ 16" o.c. w/ SIMPSON LUS210 HANGERS AS REQ'D.' The Simpson LUS210 is a face-mount hanger designed for 2x10 members (9.25-inch actual depth), not the specified 2x12 members (11.25-inch actual depth). The correct hanger for 2x12 joists would be a Simpson LUS212. This is corroborated by the consistent hanger-to-member matching elsewhere on this drawing, suc...

Why it matters: If LUS210 hangers are procured and installed, the 2x12 deck joists would extend approximately 2 inches below the bottom of the hanger seat, resulting in an improper connection that does not fully engage the joist. This would fail framing inspection, requiring removal and replacement of all deck j...

Suggested next step: Confirm that the deck joist hanger specification should be Simpson LUS212 (for 2x12 members) rather than the currently specified LUS210 (for 2x10 members), and issue a revised drawing with the corrected hanger model number.

RFI draft: Confirm that the deck joist hanger specification should be Simpson LUS212 (for 2x12 members) rather than the currently specified LUS210 (for 2x10 members), and issue a revised drawing with the corrected hanger model number.

Summary: The foundation plan includes explicit notes stating 'POST ABOVE AT END OF HEADER MAY BEAR ON SLAB WITH NO ADDITIONAL FOOTINGS REQUIRED' at post locations within the slab areas. The building code requires wall construction to transmit resulting loads to capable supporting structural elements and to the soil. A standard unthickened concrete slab is not an approved structural system of sufficient ...

Why it matters: Allowing structural columns that carry concentrated header loads to bear directly on a standard concrete slab without a dedicated footing or designed structural thickening will likely cause the slab to crack and settle. This fails to safely transmit the structural loads to the soil within its bea...

Suggested next step: Please provide properly sized isolated footings or structural thickened slab details for all 'P.A.' posts supporting headers to safely transmit concentrated structural loads to the soil, or provide engineering documentation confirming the slab acts as a structural mat foundati...

RFI draft: Please provide properly sized isolated footings or structural thickened slab details for all 'P.A.' posts supporting headers to safely transmit concentrated structural loads to the soil, or provide engineering documentation confirming the slab act...