Plan Review: 79 Issues Found

Summary: 27 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 14 mismatched | 13 missing Mismatched (14): G-0.0: Expected: General Notes (G-0.0) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES (G0.0)(p2) G-0.1: Expected: General Notes (G-0.1) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES (G0.0)(p2) S-1.0: Expected: Shear Wall & Hold Down Plans, Details & Schedule (S-1.0) | Actual: SHEAR WALL & HOLD DOWN PLANS, DETAILS & SCHEDULE (S1.0...

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: 13 missing, 14 mismatched out of 27 sheets

Summary: The 16"×16" concrete piers in Details 2 and 3 specify (4) #4 vertical bars, providing As = 4 × 0.20 = 0.80 in² for Ag = 256 in² (reinforcement ratio = 0.31%). The 24"×24" concrete pier in Detail 4 specifies (4) #6 vertical bars, providing As = 4 × 0.44 = 1.76 in² for Ag = 576 in² (reinforcement ratio = 0.31%). ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1 requires a minimum longitudinal reinforcement area of 0.0...

Why it matters: Longitudinal reinforcement below the code minimum compromises the pier's resistance to bending, which may exist regardless of analytical results, and increases the risk of reinforcement yielding under sustained service loads due to creep and shrinkage effects transferring load from concrete to re...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer review and revise the longitudinal reinforcement for all concrete pier details (Details 2, 3, and 4) to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1 minimum requirement of 0.01Ag. The 16"×16" piers require a minimum of 2.56 in² of longitudinal steel ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer review and revise the longitudinal reinforcement for all concrete pier details (Details 2, 3, and 4) to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 10.6.1.1 minimum requirement of 0.01Ag. The 16"×16" piers require a minimum of 2...

Summary: The Roof Types schedule defines assemblies RA-3 (SIP Asphalt Roof Construction) and RA-4 (SIP Metal Roof Construction) using 10¼" S.I.P. Roof Panels containing foam plastic insulation. IBC Section 2603.4 requires foam plastic to be separated from the building interior by an approved thermal barrier of ½-inch gypsum wallboard, heavy timber per Section 602.4, or a material tested and meeting the ...

Why it matters: Foam plastic insulation exposed to the building interior without a code-compliant thermal barrier is a significant fire safety concern. During plan review, the building official will likely require demonstration of compliance with Section 2603.4 for the SIP roof areas. If unaddressed, this could ...

Suggested next step: Clarify how the thermal barrier requirement of IBC Section 2603.4 is met for the SIP roof assemblies RA-3 and RA-4. If an interior ceiling finish (e.g., ½-inch gypsum wallboard) is intended beneath the SIP panels, update the Roof Types schedule to include this component. Alter...

RFI draft: Clarify how the thermal barrier requirement of IBC Section 2603.4 is met for the SIP roof assemblies RA-3 and RA-4. If an interior ceiling finish (e.g., ½-inch gypsum wallboard) is intended beneath the SIP panels, update the Roof Types schedule to...

Summary: The roof details show 10¼" S.I.P. roof panels, which contain foam plastic insulation (EPS or polyurethane core). The interior ceiling finish is specified as "¾" T&G, BARN BD, OR GYP. BD. AS SELECTED BY OWNER," presenting tongue-and-groove wood boards and barn board as acceptable options. Section 2603.4 of the IBC requires foam plastic to be separated from the interior of a building by an approv...

Why it matters: This is a fire and life safety concern. If T&G or barn board is installed as the sole interior finish without a compliant thermal barrier, the assembly will fail building inspection, requiring costly removal and rework of the finished ceiling to add ½" gypsum wallboard or another code-compliant b...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the thermal barrier protection for the foam plastic insulation within the SIP roof panels. If T&G or barn board is to remain as a ceiling finish option, a note should be added requiring ½" gypsum wallboard between the SIP panel and the wood finish, or ...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the thermal barrier protection for the foam plastic insulation within the SIP roof panels. If T&G or barn board is to remain as a ceiling finish option, a note should be added requiring ½" gypsum wallboard between the SIP ...

Summary: Multiple roof details (Details 1, 2, 3, and 4) specify the interior ceiling finish applied directly to the underside of the SIP roof panels as "3/4" T&G, BARN BD, OR GYP. BD. AS SELECTED BY OWNER." SIP panels contain foam plastic insulation (EPS or polyurethane). Section 2603.4 of the IBC requires foam plastic to be separated from the interior of a building by "an approved thermal barrier of 1/...

Why it matters: If the owner selects T&G or barn board as the ceiling finish without a compliant thermal barrier, the installation would violate Section 2603.4. This would be caught during plan review or field inspection, potentially requiring removal and replacement of the installed ceiling finish, or the addit...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on how the thermal barrier requirement of IBC Section 2603.4 is met when the owner selects 3/4" T&G or barn board as the ceiling finish on the underside of the SIP roof panels. If these materials have not been tested and approved per NFPA 275, the details...

RFI draft: Request clarification on how the thermal barrier requirement of IBC Section 2603.4 is met when the owner selects 3/4" T&G or barn board as the ceiling finish on the underside of the SIP roof panels. If these materials have not been tested and appr...

Summary: The framing plan explicitly directs the contractor to "PROVIDE FRAMING UNDER HEARTH AND FIREPLAC" and specifies "1-3/4\" x 11-7/8\" LVL @ 12\" O.C.\nW/ ITS1.81/11.88 BELOW\nFIREPLACE." Wood LVL is combustible framing. IBC Section 2304.5 requires combustible framing to be located not less than 2 inches away from fireplaces. Specifying combustible framing directly below the fireplace indicates ze...

Why it matters: Providing combustible wood framing directly beneath a fireplace without maintaining the required minimum clearances poses a severe fire hazard. This will result in a failed framing and fire safety inspection. Immediate coordination is required to either detail a non-combustible support structure ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the fireplace type and its support requirements. If a standard masonry or factory-built unit requiring clearances is used, please revise the framing plan to provide the code-mandated minimum 2-inch clearance from combustible framing per IBC 2304.5 and detail a n...

RFI draft: Please clarify the fireplace type and its support requirements. If a standard masonry or factory-built unit requiring clearances is used, please revise the framing plan to provide the code-mandated minimum 2-inch clearance from combustible framing...

Summary: The drawing's 'Flue Termination Requirements' establish a generalized minimum clearance of 4 inches from any door or window, and 9 inches to non-mechanical air supply inlets for venting terminals. This directly conflicts with multiple IRC sections. Code Section M1804.2.6 requires mechanical draft system vent terminals to be located at least 4 feet below, 4 feet horizontally from, or 1 foot abov...

Why it matters: Providing only 4 inches of clearance to doors/windows or 9 inches to air inlets poses a severe life-safety hazard. Exhaust gases, including toxic carbon monoxide, can easily be drawn back into the dwelling through these openings. This will fail mechanical and safety inspections unless the notes a...

Suggested next step: Please revise the 'Flue Termination Requirements' notes to distinguish between direct-vent and non-direct mechanical draft systems. Update the general clearances to mandate a minimum 4-foot horizontal/vertical or 1-foot above clearance for mechanical draft vents, and a 3-foot ...

RFI draft: Please revise the 'Flue Termination Requirements' notes to distinguish between direct-vent and non-direct mechanical draft systems. Update the general clearances to mandate a minimum 4-foot horizontal/vertical or 1-foot above clearance for mechani...

Summary: The RA-3 and RA-4 SIP roof assemblies specify a 'SHARKSKIN VENTILATED ROOF MAT' installed between the 'S.I.P. ROOF PANEL'/'GAF DECK ARMOR' and the roof coverings ('ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES' / 'METAL ROOF'). A 'SELF ADHERED WEATHER BARRIER' is also specified directly adjacent to the mat. However, no solid nailbase layer (such as additional plywood or OSB) is specified above the ventilated mat. Asph...

Why it matters: Failing to provide a solid nailbase above a ventilated mat violates material compatibility and manufacturer installation instructions. Shingles and roof fasteners require a continuous solid deck for fastener withdrawal resistance. Driving fasteners through an airspace will crush the mat and fail ...

Suggested next step: Revise roof assemblies RA-3 and RA-4 to include a solid wood nailbase sheathing layer (or battens for metal roofing) installed above the ventilated roof mat to provide a continuous, compatible substrate for the self-adhered weather barrier and roof coverings.

RFI draft: Revise roof assemblies RA-3 and RA-4 to include a solid wood nailbase sheathing layer (or battens for metal roofing) installed above the ventilated roof mat to provide a continuous, compatible substrate for the self-adhered weather barrier and roo...

Summary: The Typical Wall Section (Detail 6) on sheet A1.2 references 'DETAILS 1-6/A4.3' for siding over furring strips and building wrap details. However, sheet A4.3 is titled 'INTERIOR FRAMING & FINISHING DETAILS' and details 1 through 6 on that sheet are: Detail 1 – TYPICAL FLOOR BLOCKING DETAIL, Detail 2 – STRUCTURAL FRAMING WITH SECOND FLOOR DECKING, Detail 3 – TIMBER RAFTER FRAMING AT STUD WALLS, ...

Why it matters: Without proper siding installation details, the general contractor and siding subcontractor will lack critical guidance on furring strip layout and attachment, building wrap installation, and how the drainage plane is to be constructed behind the wood siding. This could lead to construction delay...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct sheet and detail numbers for the exterior siding, furring strip, and building wrap installation details referenced in the Typical Wall Section on A1.2 as 'DETAILS 1-6/A4.3'. Sheet A4.3 currently contains only interior framing and finishing details. W...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct sheet and detail numbers for the exterior siding, furring strip, and building wrap installation details referenced in the Typical Wall Section on A1.2 as 'DETAILS 1-6/A4.3'. Sheet A4.3 currently contains only interior fr...

Summary: Sheet S2.1 "GARAGE DETAILS" provides multiple typical details specifying the use of "PRE-ENGINEERED WOOD ROOF TRUSS" framing for the garage roof (e.g., Details 2 and 6). However, the architectural "ROOF PLAN" (Sheet A1.3) details the garage roof as stick-framed, explicitly calling out a "(4)1-3/4\" X 16\" LVL RIDGE BEAM" and "2x12 RAFTERS @ 16\" O.C. DF #2\nOR BETTER W/ 2X6 COLLAR TIE".

Why it matters: A structural ridge beam with 2x12 rafters and collar ties constitutes a fundamentally different structural system than pre-engineered roof trusses. Trusses are self-supporting across the span and do not utilize a structural ridge beam. This contradiction directly impacts structural calculations, ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended roof framing structural system for the garage. Should the roof be stick-framed using 2x12 rafters and an LVL ridge beam as detailed on the Architectural Roof Plan (A1.3), or should it be framed using pre-engineered wood roof trusses as indicated on ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended roof framing structural system for the garage. Should the roof be stick-framed using 2x12 rafters and an LVL ridge beam as detailed on the Architectural Roof Plan (A1.3), or should it be framed using pre-engineered wood...

Summary: Detail 4 (TYPICAL 2'-0" CONCRETE PIER DETAIL) explicitly labels the 24" x 24" concrete pier at 3,500 PSI. The General Notes (CONCRETE section, page 3) specify a minimum 28-day compressive strength of f'c = 4,000 PSI for piers. The drawing value of 3,500 PSI is 500 PSI below the required minimum. While the General Notes include the qualifier 'UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,' specifying a strength below ...

Why it matters: Using concrete with a compressive strength below the design minimum could compromise the structural capacity of the pier, potentially leading to inadequate load-bearing performance. This discrepancy would likely be flagged during plan review and could result in a failed inspection if the lower-st...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify whether the 24" x 24" concrete pier in Detail 4 should be specified at f'c = 4,000 PSI to match the General Notes minimum for piers, or whether the 3,500 PSI shown on the detail is an intentional override per the 'UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE'...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify whether the 24" x 24" concrete pier in Detail 4 should be specified at f'c = 4,000 PSI to match the General Notes minimum for piers, or whether the 3,500 PSI shown on the detail is an intentional override pe...

Summary: The FIRST FLOOR FRAMING PLAN states that the deck ledger is to be fastened with: `LEDGER TO BE BOLTED W/ (2) 5/8" Ø X 7" LAG BOLT EVERY 4" O.C.` Specifying two large 5/8-inch lag bolts every 4 inches is a clear mistake. Installing fasteners at this density violates standard minimum spacing requirements and will physically split and destroy the structural integrity of the wood ledger.

Why it matters: This is highly likely a typographical error for either '48" O.C.' or '4'-0" O.C.'. If a contractor attempts to execute this detail exactly as drawn, the ledger board will fail due to excessive wood removal and splitting, creating a critical safety hazard for the deck structure attachment.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended spacing for the lag bolts on the deck ledger. The current note specifies `(2) 5/8" Ø X 7" LAG BOLT EVERY 4" O.C.`, which is excessively dense and will split the ledger board. Was this intended to be spaced at 48" O.C. or 4'-0" O.C.?

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended spacing for the lag bolts on the deck ledger. The current note specifies `(2) 5/8" Ø X 7" LAG BOLT EVERY 4" O.C.`, which is excessively dense and will split the ledger board. Was this intended to be spaced at 48" O.C. o...

Summary: The general notes specify "LAP ALL BARS 40 DIAMETERS AT ALL SPLICES" as a universal requirement for all concrete reinforcement. ACI 318-14 Section 25.4.1.1 requires that tension or compression in reinforcement be developed by calculated embedment lengths, and Section 25.5.1.4 explicitly prohibits reduction of development length when calculating lap splice lengths. For this project's specified m...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the blanket 40db note for tension lap splices in footings or other elements with f'c = 3,000 psi, the splices will be undersized per ACI 318-14 requirements. This could result in failed structural inspections, required rework to correct insufficient splices, construction...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record review and revise the general lap splice note to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 25.5 tension lap splice requirements. The note should either provide calculated splice lengths for each bar size and concrete strength used on the project,...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record review and revise the general lap splice note to comply with ACI 318-14 Section 25.5 tension lap splice requirements. The note should either provide calculated splice lengths for each bar size and concrete...

Summary: The drawings specify that 8" CMU walls require full-height vertical reinforcing consisting of #5 bars spaced at 16" horizontally. However, the note for foundation dowels specifies extending #4 bars spaced at 32" from the footing into the grouted cells. This means that half of the #5 vertical wall bars will not have a connecting dowel, and the provided dowels are undersized compared to the wall ...

Why it matters: Omitting foundation dowels for half of the required vertical wall reinforcement and undersizing the remaining dowels will create a severe structural weak point at the base of the wall. The wall will lack the required capacity to transfer out-of-plane lateral loads (such as wind, seismic, or soil ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the size and spacing of the foundation dowels for the 8" CMU walls. Should the dowels be revised to #5 bars spaced at 16" horizontally to match the specified full-height vertical wall reinforcement?

RFI draft: Please clarify the size and spacing of the foundation dowels for the 8" CMU walls. Should the dowels be revised to #5 bars spaced at 16" horizontally to match the specified full-height vertical wall reinforcement?

Summary: Drawing Note S states foam plastic shall be separated from the interior by "1/2 INCH GYPSUM WALL BOARD, 23/32 INCH WOOD STRUCTURAL PANEL OR A MATERIAL TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND MEETS THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA OF BOTH THE TEMPERATURE TRANSMISSION FIRE TEST AND THE INTEGRITY FIRE TEST OF NFPA 275." However, IBC Section 2603.4 specifies only three acceptable thermal barriers: (1) 1/2-inch gypsum...

Why it matters: If a contractor follows this general note and installs a 23/32" wood structural panel as the thermal barrier over foam plastic insulation in wall or floor assemblies, the installation would not comply with IBC Section 2603.4. A plan reviewer or building inspector would likely reject this detail, ...

Suggested next step: Request that the design team revise General Note S to align with IBC Section 2603.4. The note should replace "23/32 INCH WOOD STRUCTURAL PANEL" with "HEAVY TIMBER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 602.4" or remove it as a listed general alternative. Note that 23/32" wood structural p...

RFI draft: Request that the design team revise General Note S to align with IBC Section 2603.4. The note should replace "23/32 INCH WOOD STRUCTURAL PANEL" with "HEAVY TIMBER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 602.4" or remove it as a listed general alternative. Note...