Plan Review: 56 Issues Found

Summary: The framing details (Sections A1, A2, C1, and C3) explicitly direct the contractor to "REF TRUSS MFR FOR TIEDOWN REQUIREMENTS (MIN. SIMPSON (1) H8 STRAP EA. TRUSS". This note improperly delegates the engineering of the truss connection to the truss manufacturer. This directly violates IBC Section 2303.4.4, which mandates that "The design for the transfer of loads and anchorage of each truss to ...

Why it matters: Truss manufacturers are responsible for the internal design of the truss and calculating reaction forces, but they do not engineer the anchorage to the building's supporting structural elements. Delegating this responsibility creates a gap in the structural design load path, posing a severe risk ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the framing details to provide the explicit truss tiedown and anchorage design (or provide a comprehensive tiedown schedule based on calculated truss uplift reactions), as required by IBC Section 2303.4.4. Remove the notes delegating the tiedown requirements to t...

RFI draft: Please revise the framing details to provide the explicit truss tiedown and anchorage design (or provide a comprehensive tiedown schedule based on calculated truss uplift reactions), as required by IBC Section 2303.4.4. Remove the notes delegating...

Summary: Section A1b and Section B2 detail the exterior paving/curb 8 inches above the interior slab elevation (T/SLAB). In Section A1b, the overall depth to the bottom of the footing is explicitly dimensioned as 3'-0" from the exterior paving and 2'-4" from the top of the main foundation wall (where T/SLAB aligns). This geometry places the interior finished floor and the base of the exterior wall frami...

Why it matters: Omitting waterproofing on a wall assembly that is below grade will allow moisture from the exterior paving and soil to penetrate the brick cavity. This will lead to direct water intrusion onto the interior floor slab and severe decay/rot/corrosion of the structural wall framing, causing significa...

Suggested next step: Please review the exterior grade elevations in details A1b and B2. If the exterior paving must remain higher than the interior slab, please provide a compliant concrete retaining/stem wall extending above grade with proper waterproofing and dampproofing per IBC 1805.1. Alterna...

RFI draft: Please review the exterior grade elevations in details A1b and B2. If the exterior paving must remain higher than the interior slab, please provide a compliant concrete retaining/stem wall extending above grade with proper waterproofing and damppr...

Summary: Detail A3 calls for an "L8x8x1/2" steel angle to be attached to the wood framing with "1/2" DIA GR36 BOLT AT 12" OC". However, the wall framing directly behind the angle is detailed as "2x6 STUDS AT 16" OC". Because the 12-inch bolt spacing does not align with the 16-inch stud spacing, the majority of the bolts will completely miss the vertical framing members, violating IBC Section 1604.2 whic...

Why it matters: Fasteners that miss the structural framing provide no shear or withdrawal capacity. This detailing mismatch will result in an unbuildable and severely deficient structural connection that cannot safely support the roof deck loads, leading to connection failure under load.

Suggested next step: Please revise the bolt spacing for the L8x8x1/2 angle to align with the stud layout (e.g., 16" OC or 8" OC), or specify continuous solid wood blocking within the wall to receive the bolts at 12" OC.

RFI draft: Please revise the bolt spacing for the L8x8x1/2 angle to align with the stud layout (e.g., 16" OC or 8" OC), or specify continuous solid wood blocking within the wall to receive the bolts at 12" OC.

Summary: The Roof Framing Plan (S1.2) Keynote 13 directs the framer to use dimensional lumber ("DOUBLE 2x8 BLOCKING") to frame around roof openings and curb bearings. In direct contradiction, the pre-manufactured truss diagrams on S5.6 Detail C2 require engineered trusses ("30\" DEEP SHORT TRUSS") with intersecting web members to frame the openings for the Roof Hatch and RTUs.

Why it matters: If a 30-inch deep pre-manufactured wood truss is interrupted by a large opening (such as for a 3,000 lb RTU), it must be supported by a girder/header truss of equal depth, as shown on S5.6. A 7.25-inch deep 2x8 block (per S1.2) is structurally insufficient to act as a header for an interrupted 30...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required framing around the RTU and roof hatch openings. Should these large openings be framed with 30-inch deep header trusses as indicated in S5.6 Detail C2, and should Keynote 13 on S1.2 be revised to apply only to minor penetrations (like exhaust fans) t...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required framing around the RTU and roof hatch openings. Should these large openings be framed with 30-inch deep header trusses as indicated in S5.6 Detail C2, and should Keynote 13 on S1.2 be revised to apply only to minor pene...

Summary: In Section A3, the exterior parapet wall framing is specified as "2x6 STUDS AT 16" OC". However, the "L8x8x1/2" steel shelf angle supporting the exterior masonry is detailed to attach to this wall with a "1/2" DIA GR36 BOLT AT 12" OC". There is no continuous horizontal blocking detailed behind the angle to receive these bolts.

Why it matters: Because the 12" on-center bolt spacing does not align with the 16" on-center structural stud spacing, three out of every four bolts will completely miss the wood studs, anchoring only into the 5/8" wall sheathing. Wall sheathing cannot support the heavy dead load of a masonry parapet, making this...

Suggested next step: Please coordinate the masonry support angle bolt spacing with the wall stud framing spacing. Provide a revised detail showing either continuous structural let-in blocking to receive the 12" OC bolts, or revise the bolt spacing to match the 16" OC stud spacing (if structurally ...

RFI draft: Please coordinate the masonry support angle bolt spacing with the wall stud framing spacing. Provide a revised detail showing either continuous structural let-in blocking to receive the 12" OC bolts, or revise the bolt spacing to match the 16" OC ...

Summary: The Pre-Engineered Truss Notes specify that maximum live load deflection is not to exceed L/360 and total load deflection is not to exceed L/240, but adds the condition "WHICHEVER IS GREATER". This language permits the use of the less restrictive limit (L/240), directly contradicting IBC Section 1604.3.1 which mandates that deflections shall not exceed the "more restrictive" of the limitations.

Why it matters: Allowing the less restrictive deflection limit may result in trusses that are under-designed for stiffness. Excessive truss deflection during service can cause unacceptable floor bounce, cracking of drywall or other brittle finishes, and potential ponding issues on flat roofs, leading to signific...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the deflection limits for pre-engineered trusses by replacing "WHICHEVER IS GREATER" with "WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE", or by explicitly enforcing both limits independently, to comply with IBC Section 1604.3.1.

RFI draft: Please clarify the deflection limits for pre-engineered trusses by replacing "WHICHEVER IS GREATER" with "WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE", or by explicitly enforcing both limits independently, to comply with IBC Section 1604.3.1.

Summary: Keynote 22 on sheet S2.1 describes the 2x6 end wall assembly as having "(2) 2X6 TOP PLATE," indicating a double top plate. However, the keynote explicitly references details A3, A4, and A5 on sheet S5.4 for the end wall framing. All three of these referenced details on S5.4 consistently call out only a "2x6 TOP PLATE" (single) at the top of the end wall, none of them indicate a double top plat...

Why it matters: The number of top plates in the end wall directly affects the load path, connection capacity, and the structural adequacy of the parapet framing. A single vs. double top plate changes nailing requirements, affects uplift resistance at the roof-to-wall connection, and may alter the holdown and str...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the 2x6 end wall top plate should be a single 2x6 top plate (as shown in details A3, A4, and A5 on S5.4) or a double (2) 2x6 top plate (as described in Keynote 22 on S2.1). Please revise the affected drawings to ensure consistency between the framing ele...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the 2x6 end wall top plate should be a single 2x6 top plate (as shown in details A3, A4, and A5 on S5.4) or a double (2) 2x6 top plate (as described in Keynote 22 on S2.1). Please revise the affected drawings to ensure consi...

Summary: Keynote 22 on S2.2 describes the 2x6 end wall as having "(2) 2X6 TOP PLATE" (i.e., a double top plate) and references details A3, A4, A5 on S5.4. However, the referenced section details A3, A4, and A5 on S5.4 all call out only a single "2x6 TOP PLATE" for the end wall. Notably, the same sheet S5.4 explicitly labels "DOUBLE 2x6 TOP PLATE" on the main parapet wall sections (A1, A2, C1, C3), demon...

Why it matters: The top plate configuration is critical for the structural performance of the end wall/parapet framing. A double top plate provides a continuous load path for lateral and gravity loads, allows for splicing at different locations, and is typically required where the end wall must transfer wind upl...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the 2x6 end wall top plate at the parapet should be a single 2x6 top plate as shown in section details A3, A4, and A5 on S5.4, or a double (2) 2X6 top plate as described in Keynote 22 on S2.2. If a double top plate is required, please revise the section ...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the 2x6 end wall top plate at the parapet should be a single 2x6 top plate as shown in section details A3, A4, and A5 on S5.4, or a double (2) 2X6 top plate as described in Keynote 22 on S2.2. If a double top plate is requir...

Summary: Detail A2 on S5.5 (Section at Entry Portal Side Wall) specifies "2x4 BLOCKING AT SHEATHING JOINTS" for the SW3 shear wall. However, the Typical Shear Wall Elevation (detail A1 on S4.1) specifies "2x6 BLOCKING AT PANEL EDGES" as the standard for all shear walls. Detail A3 on S5.5 (Section at Entry Portal) explicitly references A1/S4.1 for "BLOCKING AT PANEL EDGES," confirming that the S4.1 typic...

Why it matters: Undersized blocking (2x4 instead of 2x6) at shear wall panel edges can reduce available nail penetration depth and edge distance, potentially compromising the rated shear capacity of the wall. SW3 is a high-demand shear wall type with structural panels on both sides. Incorrect blocking size could...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required blocking size at shear wall panel edges/sheathing joints. Detail A1 on S4.1 specifies 2x6 blocking at panel edges, while detail A2 on S5.5 specifies 2x4 blocking at sheathing joints for the SW3 shear wall at the entry portal side wall. Please confir...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required blocking size at shear wall panel edges/sheathing joints. Detail A1 on S4.1 specifies 2x6 blocking at panel edges, while detail A2 on S5.5 specifies 2x4 blocking at sheathing joints for the SW3 shear wall at the entry p...

Summary: Sheet S5.5, Section A3, references detail C2 on sheet S5.2 for header HDR3 connection details ('HDR3 T/HEADER EL = B/DECK ELEV. RE: C2/S5.2'). Sheet S5.2, detail A1 (Typical Wall Framing), also references C2/S5.2 multiple times for header and hanger information, jack stud requirements, and king stud details. However, sheet S5.2 does not contain a detail C2. The C-series details on S5.2 include ...

Why it matters: Detail C2/S5.2 is referenced for critical structural connection information including header hangers, jack stud configurations, and king stud details at wall openings. Without this detail, contractors cannot determine the correct header-to-stud connection hardware, hanger types, or jack/king stud...

Suggested next step: Please provide detail C2/S5.2 for header and hanger connection information, jack stud requirements, and king stud details as referenced in the Typical Wall Framing detail (A1/S5.2) and Section at Entry Portal (A3/S5.5). Clarify whether this detail was inadvertently omitted or ...

RFI draft: Please provide detail C2/S5.2 for header and hanger connection information, jack stud requirements, and king stud details as referenced in the Typical Wall Framing detail (A1/S5.2) and Section at Entry Portal (A3/S5.5). Clarify whether this detail...

Summary: Keynote 21 on S2.1 framing elevations directs the builder to detail A2/S4.1 for shear wall holdown connections. Detail A2 on S4.1 labels the foundation anchor as 'POST INSTALLED ANCHOR ROD RE: SCHEDULE.' However, the shear wall schedule C3/S4.1 specifies for SW1 hold-downs: '(2) SIMPSON HD12 w/ 1" DIA. PAB8H CIP ANCHOR. EMBED 15.5" MIN.' A CIP (cast-in-place) anchor must be embedded in formwork...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly impacts the construction sequence for SW1 shear wall foundations. If the contractor follows the typical holdown detail A2/S4.1 and plans for post-installed anchors, the PAB8H CIP anchor bolts specified in the schedule will not be placed before the concrete pour. Cast-in-...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the anchor installation method for SW1 shear wall hold-downs. Detail A2/S4.1 indicates a 'POST INSTALLED ANCHOR ROD' while the shear wall schedule C3/S4.1 specifies a 'PAB8H CIP ANCHOR' for SW1. Please confirm which anchor type and installation method governs fo...

RFI draft: Please clarify the anchor installation method for SW1 shear wall hold-downs. Detail A2/S4.1 indicates a 'POST INSTALLED ANCHOR ROD' while the shear wall schedule C3/S4.1 specifies a 'PAB8H CIP ANCHOR' for SW1. Please confirm which anchor type and ...

Summary: Foundation Plan S1.1 references section "A2 SIM. S5.3" for the exterior wall framing. Detail A2 on S5.3 calls for a 5.5-inch deep metal stud ("550S162-43 METAL STUD"). However, Detail A4 on S5.3 ("TYPICAL METAL STUD BLOCKING"), which explicitly references A2/S5.3 for stud sizing, requires an 8-inch deep blocking member ("800S137-43 BLOCKING"). As per the nomenclature in Detail A3/S5.3, "550" in...

Why it matters: This dimensional conflict makes the metal stud blocking impossible to install as detailed. The contractor will either need to order smaller blocking to fit the 5.5-inch walls or increase the exterior wall thickness to 8 inches, which would impact the architectural floor plan and structural layout.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required metal stud size and blocking size for the exterior walls referenced by Detail A2/S5.3. Should the wall framing be 5.5 inches (550S) with a correspondingly smaller blocking, or 8 inches (800S)?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required metal stud size and blocking size for the exterior walls referenced by Detail A2/S5.3. Should the wall framing be 5.5 inches (550S) with a correspondingly smaller blocking, or 8 inches (800S)?

Summary: Sheet S1.1 Plan Note 4 instructs the contractor to provide the vapor barrier "IMMEDIATELY BELOW SLAB-ON-GRADE". However, the typical slab-on-grade details shown in A4/S5.1 illustrate a layer of "COMPACTED SELECT FILL" placed between the concrete slab and the vapor barrier.

Why it matters: The location of the vapor barrier: directly under the concrete slab versus beneath a granular cushion/fill layer: significantly impacts concrete curing behaviors, curling potential, and moisture mitigation. A discrepancy here can lead to improper subgrade preparation and long-term moisture or struc...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required elevation of the vapor barrier. Should it be placed immediately below the concrete slab as stated in Note 4 on S1.1, or beneath a layer of compacted select fill as detailed in A4/S5.1?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required elevation of the vapor barrier. Should it be placed immediately below the concrete slab as stated in Note 4 on S1.1, or beneath a layer of compacted select fill as detailed in A4/S5.1?

Summary: Framing Elevation C1 specifies a Top of Plate (T/PLATE) elevation of 112'-0" and a Bottom of Header (B/HEADER) elevation of 111'-0". This provides exactly 12 inches of vertical space for the header. Keynote 06 identifies the header in this location as HDR1. However, the Wood Header Schedule defines HDR1 as consisting of (3) 1.75x11.25 LVL members with a 2x6 at the bottom. The total depth of thi...

Why it matters: This geometrical impossibility means the framing contractor cannot install the specified HDR1 assembly without either dropping the rough opening height (B/HEADER) below 111'-0" or raising the top plate above 112'-0". This conflict may clash with architectural rough opening requirements for doors ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct dimensions for the HDR1 assembly or the framing elevations. Should the B/HEADER elevation be lowered to accommodate the 12.75" header depth, or should the HDR1 assembly be revised to fit within the 12" space shown on the elevations?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct dimensions for the HDR1 assembly or the framing elevations. Should the B/HEADER elevation be lowered to accommodate the 12.75" header depth, or should the HDR1 assembly be revised to fit within the 12" space shown on the...

Summary: The Foundation Plan (S1.1) specifies a '6' - 3" FOOTING PROJECTION' along the left perimeter wall (Shear Wall 1 location) and calls out section details A1b/S3.1 and A3b/S3.1. However, these specific foundation details hardcode the total overall footing width at the bottom as '5'-0"'. A footing cannot have a 5'-0" total width if it must project 6'-3" from the foundation face.

Why it matters: This geometric contradiction will cause confusion during foundation excavation and formwork layout. If the contractor builds the footing to the 5'-0" overall width shown in the section details, it will fail to meet the 6'-3" projection requirement indicated on the plan, potentially compromising t...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended dimensions for the Shear Wall 1 footing. Should the 5'-0" overall width in Details A1b/S3.1 and A3b/S3.1 be revised to accommodate the 6'-3" footing projection shown on the Foundation Plan?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended dimensions for the Shear Wall 1 footing. Should the 5'-0" overall width in Details A1b/S3.1 and A3b/S3.1 be revised to accommodate the 6'-3" footing projection shown on the Foundation Plan?