Plan Review: 47 Issues Found

Summary: 17 index entries | 16 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (1): S1.1: Expected: TYP. STRUCTURAL DETAILS (S1.1) | Actual: TYP. STRUCTURAL DETAILS (S1.2)(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 17 sheets

Summary: The Structural Design Parameters on the drawing state the Building Code is '2025 CBC' and use Site Class 'CD' (an intermediate site class introduced in ASCE 7-22). However, the seismic force resisting system note states '* SEE ASCE 7-16 TABLE 12.2-1', referencing the prior edition of the standard. The 2025 CBC adopts ASCE 7-22, not ASCE 7-16. ASCE 7-22 Chapter 22 explicitly defines parameters f...

Why it matters: This incorrect code edition reference could result in the wrong seismic force resisting system classification, incorrect response modification factor R, incorrect overstrength factor, or incorrect height limitation being applied to the design. The building department plan check will likely reject...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the seismic force resisting system designation per ASCE 7-22 Table 12.2-1 (not ASCE 7-16 Table 12.2-1) and verify that the R factor of 6.5, the system designation, and all associated seismic design parameters (Ω₀, Cd, height limits) are correct per the 2025 CBC ...

RFI draft: Please confirm the seismic force resisting system designation per ASCE 7-22 Table 12.2-1 (not ASCE 7-16 Table 12.2-1) and verify that the R factor of 6.5, the system designation, and all associated seismic design parameters (Ω₀, Cd, height limits)...

Summary: The foundation and main floor framing plan shows triangular shear wall markers with type numbers 7 (at multiple locations including walls with lengths of 24'-0", 20'-0", 13'-6", and 6'-0") and type 17 (near grids 1-2 and along grid D). Per the sheet legend, the triangular marker symbol represents "SHEAR WALL BELOW LEVEL PER SCHEDULE," and the Typical Shearwall Callout diagram confirms the numbe...

Why it matters: This violates Section 1603.1 which requires construction documents to show the material, size, and section of structural members. Without defined specifications for shear wall types 7 and 17, the contractor cannot construct these walls, special inspectors cannot verify correct installation, and t...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to either: (1) add shear wall types 7 and 17 to the Shearwall Schedule with all required parameters including sheathing material, number of sheathed sides, nail size, boundary spacing, edge spacing, transfer alternatives, and allowable...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to either: (1) add shear wall types 7 and 17 to the Shearwall Schedule with all required parameters including sheathing material, number of sheathed sides, nail size, boundary spacing, edge spacing, transf...

Summary: The material specification table on S0.2 lists a column headed "Fc (PSI)" with a value of 2,400 for Glulam 24F-1.8E. Per the NDS, "Fc" denotes compression parallel to grain, which is a distinct reference design value from "Fb" (bending). The glulam combination designation "24F-1.8E" itself indicates Fb = 2,400 psi (bending), as confirmed by NDS Table 5A being titled "Members stressed primarily ...

Why it matters: If a glulam compression member (column or post) is designed using Fc = 2,400 psi instead of the correct NDS Fc value (~1,600 psi), the member could be undersized by approximately 50%. This unconservative error could result in structural failure of glulam columns or require redesign, demolition, a...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm whether the specification table column heading should read "Fb (PSI)" (bending) instead of "Fc (PSI)" (compression parallel to grain), and provide the correct NDS reference compression design values (Fc) for all listed materials—particul...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm whether the specification table column heading should read "Fb (PSI)" (bending) instead of "Fc (PSI)" (compression parallel to grain), and provide the correct NDS reference compression design values (Fc) for...

Summary: Sheet S2.2 strap schedule lists minimum end lengths: CS14 = 18" min, CMSTC16 = 24" min, CMST12 = 30" min. Sheet S3.7 (Detail 7, Drag Strap to Beam) strap schedule OPTION 1 lists end lengths: CS14 = 15", CMSTC16 = 20", CMST12 = 39". This creates a direct conflict for CS14 and CMSTC16 because S3.7 Option 1 end lengths (15" and 20") are less than the S2.2 stated minimums (18" min and 24" min). CMS...

Why it matters: Uncoordinated strap end-length requirements can result in incorrect strap selection/installation at drag/collector locations, potential insufficient transfer capacity if shorter lengths are used where minimums were intended to govern, and can also cause inspection/plan-check failure.

Suggested next step: Confirm which strap end-length schedule governs at drag strap/collector conditions, particularly resolving the CS14 and CMSTC16 mismatch between S2.2 minimums and S3.7 Option 1. Also clarify whether CMST12 should be 30" min or 39" for this condition. Provide a single coordinat...

RFI draft: Confirm which strap end-length schedule governs at drag strap/collector conditions, particularly resolving the CS14 and CMSTC16 mismatch between S2.2 minimums and S3.7 Option 1. Also clarify whether CMST12 should be 30" min or 39" for this conditi...

Summary: Detail 22 (CONCRETE STEPS AT ENTRY) specifies "1" CLR. TYP." for the #4 reinforcing bars within the steps. These are exterior entry steps, confirmed by the general note "NOTE: WATERPROOFING, DRAINAGE, SLOPE BY OTHERS," which establishes that the concrete is exposed to weather. ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1 requires a minimum specified cover of 1-1/2 in. for No. 5 bars and smaller that are exposed...

Why it matters: Insufficient concrete cover at an exterior location directly impacts the long-term durability of the reinforcement by reducing the protection against moisture ingress and corrosion. This deficiency would likely be identified during field inspection of formwork or after concrete placement, requiri...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 22 (CONCRETE STEPS AT ENTRY) to increase the specified concrete cover from 1" CLR. TYP. to a minimum of 1-1/2" CLR. TYP. for all reinforcement in the steps, in accordance with ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1 for concrete exposed to weather with No. 5 and small...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 22 (CONCRETE STEPS AT ENTRY) to increase the specified concrete cover from 1" CLR. TYP. to a minimum of 1-1/2" CLR. TYP. for all reinforcement in the steps, in accordance with ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1 for concrete exposed t...

Summary: The holdown embedment table in Detail 16 (TYP. HOLDOWN TO FOUNDATION) lists the model 'HDUE13' twice: once with a 24" embedment and once with a 30" embedment. However, the red note directly below the table states 'HDUE13&17 REQUIRE HEAVY HEX NUT & GRADE 55 (55 KSI) ANCHOR RODS,' confirming that the model 'HDUE17' is intended to be a separate entry. The second 'HDUE13' row with 30" embedment is ...

Why it matters: During construction, a contractor installing an HDUE17 holdown would reference this table and find only 'HDUE13' entries. They could reasonably select the 24" embedment (matching the first HDUE13 row) instead of the required 30" embedment for HDUE17, resulting in a 6" shortfall in anchor rod embe...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm that the second 'HDUE13' entry (30" embedment) in the Detail 16 embedment table should be corrected to 'HDUE17,' and issue a revised detail with the corrected holdown designation.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm that the second 'HDUE13' entry (30" embedment) in the Detail 16 embedment table should be corrected to 'HDUE17,' and issue a revised detail with the corrected holdown designation.

Summary: The holdown embedment table in Detail 30 (TYP. HOLDOWN TO FOUNDATION) lists models 'HDUE13' (24" embedment) and 'HDU17' (30" embedment). However, the note below the table states 'HDU14 REQUIRE HEAVY HEX NUT,' referencing a model (HDU14) that does not appear in the table. The note likely should reference 'HDU17' (or possibly 'HDUE13'), which are the actual models listed. This results in the cons...

Why it matters: If the contractor references Detail 30 for the heavy hex nut requirement, they will find the note applies to 'HDU14,' which is not in the detail's table. Consequently, neither the HDUE13 nor HDU17 holdowns would be flagged as requiring a heavy hex nut. Using a standard hex nut on a high-capacity ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify whether the note in Detail 30 referencing 'HDU14' should instead reference 'HDU17' (or another model in the table), and whether Grade 55 anchor rods are also required for the holdowns in this detail, consistent with the requirement noted...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify whether the note in Detail 30 referencing 'HDU14' should instead reference 'HDU17' (or another model in the table), and whether Grade 55 anchor rods are also required for the holdowns in this detail, consist...

Summary: Details 14/S3.2 (WF COLUMN AT RAISED FOOTING) and 16/S3.2 (HSS COLUMN AT RAISED FOOTING) both explicitly show "2" TYP." concrete cover at the bottom of the footing for the anchor reinforcement bars, which extend to the bottom of the footing. Per ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1, concrete that is "Cast against and permanently in contact with ground" requires a minimum specified cover of 3 inches for ...

Why it matters: Insufficient concrete cover at the bottom of footings that are cast against ground will expose reinforcement to accelerated corrosion from ground moisture, reducing the long-term durability of the foundation. If caught during construction inspection, this would require either increasing the footi...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to revise Details 14/S3.2 and 16/S3.2 to show a minimum 3" concrete cover at the bottom of the footing, in compliance with ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1 for concrete cast against and permanently in contact with ground. Confirm whether the overall ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to revise Details 14/S3.2 and 16/S3.2 to show a minimum 3" concrete cover at the bottom of the footing, in compliance with ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1 for concrete cast against and permanently in contact with ground...

Summary: The drawings specify that the minimum clear spacing between parallel bars is one bar diameter but not less than 1 inch. However, ACI 318-19 also requires the clear spacing to be at least (4/3)dagg, which can govern (e.g., when using 1-1/2 in. maximum aggregate, (4/3)dagg = 2.0 in.). The sheet also permits 1-1/2 in. aggregate in footings, so the stated 1 in. minimum bar spacing directly contradi...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the stated 1 in. minimum spacing with the specified footing aggregate size, reinforcement could be placed too tightly to allow proper concrete consolidation, risking honeycombing/voids and potential failed inspection and rework (demolition/repair) at foundations.

Suggested next step: Revise the minimum reinforcement spacing specification to match ACI 318-19 25.2.1 (include the (4/3)dagg criterion), or explicitly limit maximum aggregate size wherever the specified bar spacing would otherwise violate ACI 25.2.1.

RFI draft: Revise the minimum reinforcement spacing specification to match ACI 318-19 25.2.1 (include the (4/3)dagg criterion), or explicitly limit maximum aggregate size wherever the specified bar spacing would otherwise violate ACI 25.2.1.

Summary: The nailing schedule specifies the bottom plate connection at braced wall panels (Item 15) as 16d common at 16" O.C. face nail, while the bottom plate connection at non-braced wall panel locations (Item 14) is specified as 16d common at 12" O.C. face nail. Braced wall panels are part of the lateral force-resisting system and must transfer diaphragm shear forces through the bottom plate into the...

Why it matters: If constructed per this schedule, braced wall panel bottom plates would have approximately 75% of the nailing density provided at non-braced locations (one nail per 16 inches versus one nail per 12 inches). This inadequate bottom plate nailing at braced wall panels could compromise the diaphragm-...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record verify and correct the bottom plate nailing schedule for Items 14 and 15. The nailing spacing at braced wall panels (Item 15) should be at least as restrictive as the spacing at non-braced locations (Item 14), and should comply with th...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record verify and correct the bottom plate nailing schedule for Items 14 and 15. The nailing spacing at braced wall panels (Item 15) should be at least as restrictive as the spacing at non-braced locations (Item ...

Summary: Detail 3 (HSS BEAM TO HSS BEAM) specifies 3/16" fillet welds throughout the connection, at both the top and bottom plate-to-beam interfaces. The awning framing plan shows Detail 3 (callout 3/S2.4) at locations where two HSS 12X8X5/8 beams connect, as both member labels 'HSS 12X8X5/8' appear adjacent to the '3/S2.4' callout. HSS 12X8X5/8 has a wall thickness of 5/8". The detail note specifies pl...

Why it matters: This undersized weld specification would be identified during required special inspection of structural steel welding, causing construction delay and rework at every affected beam-to-beam connection. All fillet welds at HSS 12X8X5/8 beam-to-beam connections would need to be increased from 3/16" t...

Suggested next step: Please review the fillet weld size for Detail 3 (HSS BEAM TO HSS BEAM) at connections involving HSS 12X8X5/8 members with 5/8" wall thickness. Per AISC 360 Table J2.4, as required by CBC Section 2202.1, the minimum fillet weld size for thinner part joined exceeding 1/2" is 1/4...

RFI draft: Please review the fillet weld size for Detail 3 (HSS BEAM TO HSS BEAM) at connections involving HSS 12X8X5/8 members with 5/8" wall thickness. Per AISC 360 Table J2.4, as required by CBC Section 2202.1, the minimum fillet weld size for thinner par...

Summary: Detail 14 (WF COLUMN AT RAISED FOOTING) and Detail 16 (HSS COLUMN AT RAISED FOOTING) both show "2" TYP." at the bottom of the footing where anchor reinforcement bars extend. The note in both details states "EXTEND ANCHOR REINF. TO BOTTOM OF FTG. TYP.," confirming the reinforcement reaches the footing bottom with only 2 inches of cover. Per Table 1808.8.2, minimum concrete cover for shallow foun...

Why it matters: Insufficient concrete cover at the bottom of footings cast against earth will not pass special inspection per Chapter 17 requirements. If the footing is already poured with the 2" cover shown, it would require a costly engineering evaluation for acceptance or potential demolition and re-pour. If ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise Details 14 and 16 to provide a minimum 3" concrete cover at the bottom of the footing for all reinforcement, including anchor reinforcement bars, consistent with Table 1808.8.2 (referencing ACI 318 Section 20.5) and consistent with the 3"...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise Details 14 and 16 to provide a minimum 3" concrete cover at the bottom of the footing for all reinforcement, including anchor reinforcement bars, consistent with Table 1808.8.2 (referencing ACI 318 Section 20...

Summary: The structural design parameters identify the construction type only as "TYPE V". CBC Table 601 distinguishes between Type V-A and Type V-B with different required fire-resistance ratings for building elements; therefore, the construction type must be clearly identified as Type V-A or Type V-B to establish the correct minimum fire-resistance ratings required by CBC Section 602.1 and Table 601.

Why it matters: If the construction type (V-A vs V-B) is not explicitly identified, the required fire-resistance ratings for structural elements cannot be verified during plan check and can result in permitting comments, redesign, or field changes to fire protection of structural members.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the building is Type V-A or Type V-B (or other) per CBC Chapter 6, and revise the structural title sheet to explicitly state the correct construction type consistent with CBC Table 601 requirements for fire-resistance ratings.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the building is Type V-A or Type V-B (or other) per CBC Chapter 6, and revise the structural title sheet to explicitly state the correct construction type consistent with CBC Table 601 requirements for fire-resistance ratings.

Summary: The plan includes a directive to demolish an existing slab and pour a new slab, but states the “FINAL LOCATION TBD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION,” meaning the slab’s final location/extent is not defined on the construction documents. CBC requires construction documents to show the relative locations of structural members.

Why it matters: Leaving the slab location/extent “TBD” can prevent permit approval and creates a high risk of field changes (layout conflicts, rework, and schedule delay) once demolition begins and the slab placement limits are determined later.

Suggested next step: Revise the structural plan(s) to define the exact limits/location of the slab replacement work (dimensions to control lines/grids and/or coordinates), and confirm any related structural design impacts (footings/grade beams, dowels, reinforcement, and load path) at the finalize...

RFI draft: Revise the structural plan(s) to define the exact limits/location of the slab replacement work (dimensions to control lines/grids and/or coordinates), and confirm any related structural design impacts (footings/grade beams, dowels, reinforcement, ...