Plan Review: 75 Issues Found

Summary: Detail 2/S0.2 'REINFORCING SPLICE AND DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS' table lists #4 bottom bar Ld = 12", #4 top bar Ld = 13", and #3 top bar Ld = 12" for NWC, 2.5 KSI concrete. Per ACI 318-19 Section 25.4.2.1, development length must be calculated and shall be the greater of the computed value and the code minimum. Using the correctly computed #5 and #6 values in the same table as benchmarks — #5 bottom ...

Why it matters: Using these unconservative development and splice lengths during construction would result in insufficient anchorage of #4 top reinforcement in beams, grade beams, and footings. The #4 top bar development length deficiency is approximately 32% (13" vs ~19"), and the splice length deficiency is ap...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer verify and recalculate the development and splice lengths for #4 bars (both top and bottom) and #3 top bars in Detail 2/S0.2 per ACI 318-19 Section 25.4.2. Specifically: (1) #4 bottom Ld appears to be 12" but should be approximately 14-15"; (2) ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer verify and recalculate the development and splice lengths for #4 bars (both top and bottom) and #3 top bars in Detail 2/S0.2 per ACI 318-19 Section 25.4.2. Specifically: (1) #4 bottom Ld appears to be 12" but should...

Summary: Detail 4 (Covered Porch Post Footing) shows a 1'-0" SQ concrete pedestal (Ag = 144 in²) with (4) #4 vertical dowels as longitudinal reinforcement (Ast = 4 × 0.20 = 0.80 in²). ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1 requires that the area of longitudinal reinforcement in nonprestressed columns be at least 0.01Ag = 1.44 in². The provided reinforcement of 0.80 in² is only 55.6% of the code minimum, a deficien...

Why it matters: A pedestal with longitudinal reinforcement 45% below the code minimum has insufficient capacity to resist bending moments that may exist regardless of analytical results, and is susceptible to excessive creep and shrinkage transfer of load to the reinforcement. This will be rejected during plan r...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer verify the pedestal longitudinal reinforcement against ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1 minimum of 0.01Ag. For the 12" × 12" pedestal, the minimum required is 1.44 in² versus the 0.80 in² currently shown. Please provide revised reinforcement (bar siz...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer verify the pedestal longitudinal reinforcement against ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1 minimum of 0.01Ag. For the 12" × 12" pedestal, the minimum required is 1.44 in² versus the 0.80 in² currently shown. Please provide ...

Summary: Detail 4/S2.3 specifies a "6x FLUSH CLG BM IN EPC6Z POST CAP BOTH SIDES" framing into a "FULL HT DBL 2x6 SHEAR WALL BOUNDARY POST". This violates Section 2304.2, which requires structural design and sizing to be based on actual net dimensions. The net width of a double 2x6 post is 3 inches, while a 6x beam has a net width of 5.5 inches, creating a severe dimensional mismatch. Furthermore, an en...

Why it matters: The framers will be unable to execute this connection in the field because a post cap cannot be installed on the vertical side face of a continuous post, and a 5.5-inch wide beam cannot properly bear on a 3-inch wide post assembly. This prevents the safe transfer of factored loads as required by ...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 4/S2.3 to specify a compatible face-mount hanger for the 6x flush ceiling beam framing into the side of the boundary post, rather than an end post cap. Additionally, verify if the double 2x6 post (3" net width) provides sufficient bearing width for the req...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 4/S2.3 to specify a compatible face-mount hanger for the 6x flush ceiling beam framing into the side of the boundary post, rather than an end post cap. Additionally, verify if the double 2x6 post (3" net width) provides suffic...

Summary: Detail 1/S2.5 requires upper and lower "SHEAR PLYWOOD" panels to be spliced over a single "1½x LVL RIM BD" with a "SPLICE PLY ON RIM W/ 1/2" GAP". A 1.5"-wide rim board with a 0.5" centered gap provides only 0.5" of bearing width per plywood panel. This inadequate bearing makes it impossible to achieve the minimum nail edge distances required for structural sheathing, violating the requirement ...

Why it matters: Framing contractors will be unable to install the required shear wall boundary edge nailing without splitting the edge of the 1.5" LVL rim board or missing the framing entirely. If the 1/2" gap is ignored in the field to achieve proper nailing, future cross-grain shrinkage of the solid floor fram...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 1/S2.5 to provide adequate bearing width for the 1/2" splice gap. Consider specifying a minimum 3x nominal (2.5" actual) continuous rim board, or detailing a secondary continuous blocking member alongside the rim board, to ensure sufficient nail edge dista...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 1/S2.5 to provide adequate bearing width for the 1/2" splice gap. Consider specifying a minimum 3x nominal (2.5" actual) continuous rim board, or detailing a secondary continuous blocking member alongside the rim board, to ens...

Summary: The Garage Grid 4 Framing Elevation explicitly instructs to 'TRIM TOP OF WSWH AS REQUIRED'. The WSWH (Simpson Strong-Wall) is an engineered, prefabricated lateral load-resisting panel. Trimming the top of this panel removes its factory-installed top connection components and structural integrity.

Why it matters: This direct modification of an engineered structural component severs the designed load path, violating the requirement for a complete load path that transmits loads to the foundation. This will result in a rejected framing inspection, requiring the costly replacement of the shear panel.

Suggested next step: Please remove the instruction to trim the WSWH. Specify the correct standard height panel that fits the opening, or detail a custom built-up structural solution if standard panels cannot accommodate the required framing height.

RFI draft: Please remove the instruction to trim the WSWH. Specify the correct standard height panel that fits the opening, or detail a custom built-up structural solution if standard panels cannot accommodate the required framing height.

Summary: The Garage + One Bedroom Roof Framing Plan on S1.1 labels the continuous ridge beam as '7x18 CONT LVL RIDGE' (7-inch wide by 18-inch deep). However, the One Bedroom Roof Framing Details on S2.2 show the same ridge beam as 5¼ inches wide in multiple locations: Detail 9 (TYP RIDGE BEAM) labels it '5¼ x LVL SHAPED RIDGE BM', Detail 7 (RIDGE BEAM CONN TO POST AT SLOPE TRANSITION) labels it '5¼x LVL...

Why it matters: The ridge beam is the main load-carrying member for the entire roof structure. A 7-inch wide beam (4 plies of 1¾" LVL) has significantly greater structural capacity than a 5¼-inch wide beam (3 plies of 1¾" LVL). An undersized beam could fail to support design loads, while the discrepancy also aff...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct width of the continuous LVL ridge beam. The framing plan on S1.1 indicates '7x18 CONT LVL RIDGE' while the details on S2.2 (Detail 7, Detail 9, and Elevation 6) show a 5¼-inch wide LVL ridge beam. Please confirm the correct beam size and update all a...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct width of the continuous LVL ridge beam. The framing plan on S1.1 indicates '7x18 CONT LVL RIDGE' while the details on S2.2 (Detail 7, Detail 9, and Elevation 6) show a 5¼-inch wide LVL ridge beam. Please confirm the corr...

Summary: The keynote table on S1.1 specifies the ridge posts as engineered lumber '5.25x7.25 VERSA LAM LVL 3100 DF RIDGE POST' with ECCQ7.1-6SDS2.5 connectors (Keynotes 3 and 4) and CCQ7.1-6SDS2.5 post cap (Keynote 5). However, the details on S2.2 show the ridge posts as sawn lumber '6x6 POST' with 'EPC6Z POST CAP' hardware in Detail 7 (RIDGE BEAM CONN TO POST AT SLOPE TRANSITION) and Elevation 6 (RIDGE...

Why it matters: The structural capacity of a 5.25x7.25 engineered LVL post (Versa-Lam 3100) differs significantly from a 6x6 sawn lumber post. The ECCQ7.1-6SDS2.5 and EPC6Z are different Simpson Strong-Tie post cap products designed for different post and beam geometries. Using the wrong combination could result...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct ridge post size, material, and post cap hardware. The keynote table on S1.1 specifies 5.25x7.25 Versa-Lam LVL 3100 DF posts with ECCQ7.1-6SDS2.5 (and CCQ7.1-6SDS2.5) connectors, while the details on S2.2 (Detail 7 and Elevation 6) show 6x6 sawn lumbe...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct ridge post size, material, and post cap hardware. The keynote table on S1.1 specifies 5.25x7.25 Versa-Lam LVL 3100 DF posts with ECCQ7.1-6SDS2.5 (and CCQ7.1-6SDS2.5) connectors, while the details on S2.2 (Detail 7 and El...

Summary: The roof framing keynote 2 on the drawing specifies '1¾x14 BOISE CASCADE VERSA-LAM LVL 1.8E 2400 DF RAFTERS AT 16" O.C.' However, the Structural Notes on sheet S0.0 require 1.75x LVL to be 'BOISE CASCADE VERSA-LAM LVL 2.1E 2800 DF'. The 1.8E 2400 DF grade specified on the drawing corresponds to the grade the specification reserves for 'RIM BOARD AND BLKG', not for 1.75x LVL members. This means ...

Why it matters: Using 1.8E 2400 DF LVL instead of the specified 2.1E 2800 DF LVL for the primary roof rafters results in reduced modulus of elasticity (1.8E vs 2.1E million psi) and reduced allowable bending stress (2400 vs 2800 psi). This could lead to excessive deflection and inadequate load-carrying capacity ...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on the correct LVL grade for the 1¾x14 roof rafters. The specification Section F.5 requires 2.1E 2800 DF for 1.75x LVL, while the roof framing keynote 2 on sheet S1.0 calls for 1.8E 2400 DF. Please confirm which grade is corre...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on the correct LVL grade for the 1¾x14 roof rafters. The specification Section F.5 requires 2.1E 2800 DF for 1.75x LVL, while the roof framing keynote 2 on sheet S1.0 calls for 1.8E 2400 DF. Pleas...

Summary: The roof framing keynote 2 specifies '1 1/2x11 7/8 BOISE CASCADE VERSA-LAM LVL 1.8E 2400 DF RAFTERS AT 16" O.C.' However, the structural notes on S0.0 specify that 1.75x LVL shall be 'BOISE CASCADE VERSA-LAM LVL 2.1E 2800 DF'. The 1.8E 2400 DF grade is only specified for 'RIM BOARD AND BLKG' per the same specification. The drawing therefore assigns the wrong LVL grade to the roof rafters.

Why it matters: Using 1.8E 2400 DF LVL rafters instead of the specified 2.1E 2800 DF results in a lower modulus of elasticity (1.8E vs 2.1E) and lower allowable bending stress (2400 vs 2800). This could lead to under-designed rafters that do not meet the structural load requirements, particularly given the groun...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required LVL grade for the 1-1/2 x 11-7/8 roof rafters. The structural notes specify 2.1E 2800 DF for 1.75x LVL, while the keynote on the ceiling/roof framing plan calls out 1.8E 2400 DF. Please confirm the correct grade and update the affected documents acc...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required LVL grade for the 1-1/2 x 11-7/8 roof rafters. The structural notes specify 2.1E 2800 DF for 1.75x LVL, while the keynote on the ceiling/roof framing plan calls out 1.8E 2400 DF. Please confirm the correct grade and upd...

Summary: The Roof & Ceiling Framing Plan Keynote 2 specifies LVL rafters as "1¾x14 BOISE CASCADE VERSA-LAM LVL 1.8E 2400 DF RAFTERS AT 16" O.C." The Structural Notes on sheet S0.0 explicitly require 1.75x LVL to be "BOISE CASCADE VERSA-LAM LVL 2.1E 2800 DF". The 1.8E 2400 DF grade is designated only for rim board and blocking per the specification. The drawing thus calls out a lower-strength LVL product...

Why it matters: Using LVL with a lower modulus of elasticity (1.8E vs 2.1E million psi) and lower allowable bending stress (2400 vs 2800 psi) for roof rafters could result in undersized members that do not meet the design loads, including the specified roof live load, ground snow load, and wind loads per the Str...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on the correct LVL grade for the 1¾x14 and 1½x11⅞ roof rafters. The Structural Notes specify 1.75x LVL as BOISE CASCADE VERSA-LAM LVL 2.1E 2800 DF, but the keynotes on Sheet S1.0 call out 1.8E 2400 DF. Please confirm the requi...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on the correct LVL grade for the 1¾x14 and 1½x11⅞ roof rafters. The Structural Notes specify 1.75x LVL as BOISE CASCADE VERSA-LAM LVL 2.1E 2800 DF, but the keynotes on Sheet S1.0 call out 1.8E 240...

Summary: The foundation plan specifies a 4" concrete slab reinforced with #4 bars at 16" O.C. each way (Keynote 1), indicating it likely acts as a structural diaphragm to tie the foundation together. Foundation Plan Note 5 explicitly permits this slab to be sawcut with a "MIN. DEPTH EQUAL TO 1/3 THE SLAB THICKNESS". However, ACI 318-19 Section 13.2.4 strictly requires that construction documents clearly...

Why it matters: Allowing a structural slab-on-ground to be sawcut compromises its ability to act as a diaphragm and transfer lateral forces. Furthermore, cutting a 4" slab to a minimum depth of 1/3 thickness (1.33") leaves very little clearance and risks directly severing the #4 reinforcing bars located at the "...

Suggested next step: Confirm if the reinforced 4" slab-on-ground functions as a structural diaphragm. If so, revise Foundation Plan Note 5 to explicitly prohibit sawcutting, and clearly label the slab as a structural member per ACI 318-19 Section 13.2.4 requirements.

RFI draft: Confirm if the reinforced 4" slab-on-ground functions as a structural diaphragm. If so, revise Foundation Plan Note 5 to explicitly prohibit sawcutting, and clearly label the slab as a structural member per ACI 318-19 Section 13.2.4 requirements.

Summary: The structural design criteria specifies GROUND SNOW LOAD = 326 PSF, which far exceeds the 15 PSF threshold in CBC Section 1603.1.3. Per that section, when pg exceeds 15 PSF, eight additional snow load parameters shall be provided on the construction documents 'regardless of whether snow loads govern the design of the roof': flat-roof snow load pf, snow exposure factor Ce, risk category, therma...

Why it matters: With a ground snow load of 326 PSF, the additional parameters — particularly drift surcharge loads, slope factors, and the snow exposure factor — can dramatically affect roof structural member sizing, snow drift loads at roof level changes and parapets, and connection designs. Their absence from ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer provide all required snow load design data per CBC Section 1603.1.3 on the structural design criteria, including: flat-roof snow load (pf), snow exposure factor (Ce), risk category, thermal factor (Ct), slope factor(s) (Cs), drift surcharge load...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer provide all required snow load design data per CBC Section 1603.1.3 on the structural design criteria, including: flat-roof snow load (pf), snow exposure factor (Ce), risk category, thermal factor (Ct), slope factor...

Summary: CBC Section 1809.3 requires that the top surface of all footings must be level, and the bottom surface is permitted a maximum slope of 1 unit vertical in 10 units horizontal (10%). To accommodate larger elevation changes, footings must be vertically stepped. Detail 5/S0.2 ("PIPE SLEEVE THROUGH FOOTINGS") violates this by showing the bottom surface of the footing sloping at a ratio of 1 vertical...

Why it matters: Constructing footings with excessively sloped top and bottom surfaces can induce lateral sliding forces, eccentric loading, and uneven bearing pressures, potentially compromising foundation stability. The plan reviewer will likely reject these sloped transitions and require true vertical steps wi...

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 3/S0.2 and 5/S0.2 to comply with CBC Section 1809.3. Detail 5/S0.2 should be revised so the bottom surface slopes no more than 1 unit vertical to 10 units horizontal (10%). Detail 3/S0.2 should be revised to show true footing steps with completely level t...

RFI draft: Please revise Details 3/S0.2 and 5/S0.2 to comply with CBC Section 1809.3. Detail 5/S0.2 should be revised so the bottom surface slopes no more than 1 unit vertical to 10 units horizontal (10%). Detail 3/S0.2 should be revised to show true footing...

Summary: Detail 1 (TOP PL & SILL NOTCH & BORING LIMITS) specifies a 16-gauge galvanized strap (Simpson RPS28) fastened across plate notches using "16d COMMON NAILS" for both "TOP PL OR SILL PL". Per CBC Section 2304.3.1, sill plates have an actual thickness of 1 1/2 inches. Because sill plates bear directly on concrete or masonry foundations, driving a standard 3.5-inch long 16d common nail vertically i...

Why it matters: This detailing error creates a severe constructability and structural integrity issue. During construction, the framing contractor will be unable to fully install the specified 16d nails without bending the nails, severely splitting the 1.5" sill plate, or damaging the foundation. If the contract...

Suggested next step: Detail 1/S0.3 specifies 16d common nails for straps across notches on both top plates and sill plates. Since sill plates are actual 1.5" thick and bear directly on concrete, 3.5" nails cannot be fully driven. Please revise the detail to separate top plate and sill plate fasten...

RFI draft: Detail 1/S0.3 specifies 16d common nails for straps across notches on both top plates and sill plates. Since sill plates are actual 1.5" thick and bear directly on concrete, 3.5" nails cannot be fully driven. Please revise the detail to separate t...

Summary: The foundation plan keynotes specify a typical 4" concrete slab (Keynote 1). Keynote 3 introduces an optional concrete slab depression of up to 1-1/2", which is shown applied to a large rectangular area in the foundation plan. Depressing a 4" slab by 1-1/2" without similarly depressing the subgrade results in a localized slab thickness of 2-1/2". This directly violates the building code, which ...

Why it matters: A concrete slab thickness of 2-1/2" lacks sufficient structural integrity to span subgrade imperfections and safely support floor loads, increasing the risk of severe cracking or localized failure. Permitting reviewers will likely flag this as a direct violation of the 3-1/2" minimum thickness re...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the subgrade detailing for the optional 1-1/2" concrete slab depression. To maintain the code-required minimum 3-1/2" slab thickness, the subgrade must be correspondingly depressed at these locations. Request a revised detail showing a dropped subgrade assembly ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the subgrade detailing for the optional 1-1/2" concrete slab depression. To maintain the code-required minimum 3-1/2" slab thickness, the subgrade must be correspondingly depressed at these locations. Request a revised detail showin...