Plan Review: 46 Issues Found

Summary: 26 index entries | 21 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 5 missing Missing (5), listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Structural: - S1.2a UPPER LEVEL AND ROOF FRAMING PLAN - GARAGE - S1.3a UPPER ROOF FRAMING PLAN - GARAGE - S1.1b MAIN FLOOR FRAMING PLAN - MAIN GABLE - S1.2b ROOF FRAMING PLAN - MAIN GABLE - S1.1d MAIN FLOOR FRAMING PLAN - PRIMARY WING

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: 5 missing, 0 mismatched out of 26 sheets

Summary: The structural NAIL TABLE contains a note stating "OK TO SUBSTITUTE #10 SD x 1 1/2\" SCREWS FOR ANY NAIL, TYP". Standard framing lumber (such as the 2x4, 2x6, or 2x8 studs specified in the WOOD FRAMING NOTES) is nominally 1.5 inches thick. If a 1.5-inch-long screw is substituted for standard framing nails (such as 16d 3.5-inch nails or the specified 12d 3.25-inch nails used to assemble built-up...

Why it matters: A 1.5-inch fastener used to connect two 1.5-inch-thick framing members provides zero embedment into the supporting member. Allowing this global substitution ensures that framing elements will remain effectively unattached, physically preventing the transfer of imposed loads to supporting structur...

Suggested next step: Please revise the NAIL TABLE note to remove the global substitution of 1.5" screws for "any nail". Specify acceptable screw substitutions on a case-by-case basis (or reference a recognized fastener schedule) to ensure screws provide adequate penetration depth into receiving me...

RFI draft: Please revise the NAIL TABLE note to remove the global substitution of 1.5" screws for "any nail". Specify acceptable screw substitutions on a case-by-case basis (or reference a recognized fastener schedule) to ensure screws provide adequate penet...

Summary: Detail 14 ('TYP LEDGERS PARALLEL TO FRAMING') indicates a 'LEDGER TO CONCRETE WALL' condition where a wood ledger is bolted to a concrete wall using '5/8"Ø x 6" TITEN HD @24"' anchors. The detail shows 'EDGE NAILING' from the 'SHEATHING' to the ledger but lacks mechanical tension ties extending from the wall into the floor framing. This configuration incorrectly requires out-of-plane wall ancho...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 12.11.2.2.3 expressly prohibits the use of wood ledgers in cross-grain bending or cross-grain tension for anchoring concrete walls to wood diaphragms. Furthermore, Section 12.11.2.2.1 requires anchorage connections to extend into the diaphragm a sufficient distance to develop th...

Suggested next step: Provide revised typical details for the concrete wall-to-wood diaphragm anchorage that include positive, mechanical tension ties (such as hold-down straps or embedded wall anchors) connecting the concrete wall directly to the diaphragm framing (joists or blocking). This will b...

RFI draft: Provide revised typical details for the concrete wall-to-wood diaphragm anchorage that include positive, mechanical tension ties (such as hold-down straps or embedded wall anchors) connecting the concrete wall directly to the diaphragm framing (jo...

Summary: The "TRUSS SUPPLIER NOTE" explicitly defines the required design loads for the roof trusses as Dead Load and Snow Load, but omits any wind load requirements.

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 30.2.2 mandates that the design wind pressure for components and cladding (such as roof trusses) shall not be less than a net pressure of 16 psf acting in either direction. Because the explicit design instruction lists only gravity loads and omits wind loads, the trusses will no...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Truss Supplier Note to explicitly include the minimum C&C and MWFRS wind pressures required for the truss design, or reference the specific load key plan where these parameters are defined.

RFI draft: Please revise the Truss Supplier Note to explicitly include the minimum C&C and MWFRS wind pressures required for the truss design, or reference the specific load key plan where these parameters are defined.

Summary: The 'LEDGER CONNECTION SCHEDULE' details the attachment of floor/roof framing to a concrete wall using a wood ledger and joist hangers. The detail shows the ledger bolted directly to the concrete wall ('CONNECTION TO CONC WALL PER SCHEDULE') and the joists supported by face-mounted hangers on the ledger ('HANGER, SEE PLAN'). Relying on this load path to transfer out-of-plane seismic anchorage f...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 12.11.2.2.3 explicitly prohibits the use of wood ledgers or framing in cross-grain bending or cross-grain tension for the anchorage of concrete structural walls to wood diaphragms. This connection requires a positive, direct mechanical tie (e.g., an embedded strap tie or wall an...

Suggested next step: Please provide a revised concrete wall-to-wood diaphragm anchorage detail that includes a positive direct tension tie (e.g., strap ties connecting the joist directly to the concrete wall) to resist out-of-plane seismic forces without subjecting the wood ledger to cross-grain t...

RFI draft: Please provide a revised concrete wall-to-wood diaphragm anchorage detail that includes a positive direct tension tie (e.g., strap ties connecting the joist directly to the concrete wall) to resist out-of-plane seismic forces without subjecting th...

Summary: The Nail Table includes a note stating 'OK TO SUBSTITUTE #10 SD x 1 1/2" SCREWS FOR ANY NAIL, TYP,' which permits replacing all nails in the table, including 16d common nails (0.162" dia × 3-1/2" long) and 10d common nails (0.148" dia × 3" long), with screws only 1-1/2" long. This blanket substitution contradicts the drawing's own Structural Wood & Timber Note 12, which requires minimum nailing p...

Why it matters: If a framer follows this blanket substitution note for structural framing connections (e.g., stud-to-plate, double top plate splices, joist-to-header, structural sheathing), the resulting connections would be severely under-capacity compared to what the code-required fastening schedule demands. T...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on the intended scope of the screw substitution note in the Nail Table. Specifically, confirm whether the '#10 SD x 1 1/2" SCREWS FOR ANY NAIL' substitution is limited to specific applications (e.g., metal connector/hanger ins...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer on the intended scope of the screw substitution note in the Nail Table. Specifically, confirm whether the '#10 SD x 1 1/2" SCREWS FOR ANY NAIL' substitution is limited to specific applications (e....

Summary: The "CONCRETE FOOTING SCHEDULE (CONTINUOUS)" on the foundation plan is explicitly marked with the text "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION". Consequently, the dimensional sizes and reinforcement specifications provided for continuous footings (F18, F24, F30, F42) are technically void and invalid for building purposes.

Why it matters: Issuing a structural drawing with a core schedule tagged "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" violates IBC Section 1603.1, which mandates that construction documents must definitively show the size and section of structural members. A contractor cannot legally or safely build from voided specifications, which ...

Suggested next step: The Concrete Footing Schedule (Continuous) on sheet S1.0b is marked 'NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION'. Please confirm the listed continuous footing sizes and reinforcement are approved for construction and issue a revised sheet with the tag removed.

RFI draft: The Concrete Footing Schedule (Continuous) on sheet S1.0b is marked 'NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION'. Please confirm the listed continuous footing sizes and reinforcement are approved for construction and issue a revised sheet with the tag removed.

Summary: Keynote 3 permits the contractor to substitute 14" LVL joists in place of the 14" TJI joists, but instructs them to hang the substituted joists using "HANGER TYPE 1". According to the Hanger Schedule, Type 1 is an "A34 CLIP" fastened with a total of (8) #9 x 1 1/2" SD screws. An A34 clip is a small (2.5-inch tall) light-gauge framing angle without a bearing seat. It is physically insufficient t...

Why it matters: Supporting a primary 14" roof joist with an undersized framing angle instead of a proper load-bearing joist hanger will result in connection failure under design dead, live, and snow loads. This violates the IBC requirement that structural parts be designed and constructed to safely support facto...

Suggested next step: Please revise Keynote 3 to specify an appropriate heavy-duty joist hanger with a bearing seat and adequate vertical load capacity for the 14" LVL joists (such as Hanger Type 7 or 9), rather than an A34 framing clip.

RFI draft: Please revise Keynote 3 to specify an appropriate heavy-duty joist hanger with a bearing seat and adequate vertical load capacity for the 14" LVL joists (such as Hanger Type 7 or 9), rather than an A34 framing clip.

Summary: Detail 2 shows a 6'-0" cantilevered steel awning whose supporting fins are welded to a back plate. The drawing explicitly specifies attaching this plate with "(8) 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS TO BLOCKING BETWEEN STUDS" and connecting the blocking to the studs using "LS50 T&B OF BLOCKING". Relying on horizontal wood blocking and light-duty framing angles (LS50) to resist the massive dead load and overturnin...

Why it matters: An LS50 is a light-gauge skewable framing angle designed for light loads, not for transferring primary cantilever moments from heavy structural steel. This connection will be critically overstressed under the awning's self-weight alone. Failing to anchor the heavy cantilever directly to primary v...

Suggested next step: Submit a revised structural connection detail that anchors the steel awning directly to primary vertical structural members (such as engineered timber posts or steel columns) capable of resisting the applied moment. Provide calculations verifying the connection meets the stren...

RFI draft: Submit a revised structural connection detail that anchors the steel awning directly to primary vertical structural members (such as engineered timber posts or steel columns) capable of resisting the applied moment. Provide calculations verifying ...

Summary: S0.1 "STRUCTURAL ERECTION AND BRACING REQUIREMENTS" Note 8 explicitly mandates that basement or retaining walls must not be backfilled "UNTIL SUPPORTING SLABS AND FLOOR FRAMING ARE IN PLACE AND SECURELY ANCHORED". In direct contradiction, S1.0a "FOUNDATION PLAN NOTES" Note 6 permits backfilling "7 DAYS AFTER BASEMENT SLAB INSTALL", which does not require the floor framing to be in place.

Why it matters: Retaining and basement walls rely on the floor framing to provide essential top restraint against lateral earth pressures. If a contractor follows the note on S1.0a and backfills the walls 7 days after pouring the slab without the upper floor framing installed or adequate temporary bracing, the w...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required conditions for backfilling basement walls. Must the contractor wait until all supporting floor framing is securely anchored as stated on S0.1, or is temporary bracing required if backfilling occurs 7 days after the slab installation as implied by S1...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required conditions for backfilling basement walls. Must the contractor wait until all supporting floor framing is securely anchored as stated on S0.1, or is temporary bracing required if backfilling occurs 7 days after the slab...

Summary: Plan S1.0d calls out detail '10 S5.1' for a foundation wall and tags the underlying continuous footing as 'F24'. Detail 10/S5.1 ('10 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL AT PATIO') explicitly dimensions the required footing width as 3'-6". However, the Concrete Footing Schedule (Continuous) states that an F24 footing is only 2'-0" wide.

Why it matters: Specifying an undersized 2'-0" footing for a retaining wall that structurally requires a 3'-6" wide footing poses a significant overturning or failure risk. The contractor may pour the smaller footing based on the F24 tag without realizing the detail requires a much wider base to retain the soil.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required footing width and tag for the wall referenced by Detail 10/S5.1 on sheet S1.0d. Should the footing tag be revised from F24 to F42 (3'-6" wide) to match the dimensions explicitly required in Detail 10?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required footing width and tag for the wall referenced by Detail 10/S5.1 on sheet S1.0d. Should the footing tag be revised from F24 to F42 (3'-6" wide) to match the dimensions explicitly required in Detail 10?

Summary: Detail 5 indicates a "1 1/4" Ø ROUND SCHEDULE 40 HANDRAIL" installed at a height of "42" MIN". Because the balusters frame into this assembly, the handrail also acts as the top of the guard. IRC Section R312.1.2 Exception 2 strictly limits the height of a combined guard/handrail on the open side of stairs to a maximum of 38 inches. A 42-inch minimum height directly violates this limit.

Why it matters: A handrail exceeding the 38-inch maximum height creates an ergonomic and life-safety hazard during egress. This definitive code violation will result in rejected inspections and require the steel stair guards to be refabricated, causing substantial construction delays and cost overruns.

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 5 to specify a combined handrail/guard height of no more than 38 inches above the tread nosings, complying with IRC Section R312.1.2.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 5 to specify a combined handrail/guard height of no more than 38 inches above the tread nosings, complying with IRC Section R312.1.2.

Summary: The Truss Supplier Note specifies 'SNOW LOAD TOP CHORD: 10 PSF' as the only gravity live load for truss design. Per ASCE 7-16 Section 4.8.2, the minimum reduced roof live load for ordinary roofs is 12 PSF (Lr = LoR1R2 where 12 ≤ Lr ≤ 20). With the 8:12 roof slope shown on the plan (F = 8), R2 = 1.2 − 0.05(8) = 0.8, and even with maximum tributary area reduction R1 = 0.6, the calculated Lr = 20 ...

Why it matters: If trusses are fabricated using only the 10 PSF snow load without accounting for the governing roof live load of at least 12 PSF (or up to 16 PSF for individual trusses), the trusses could be under-designed for the controlling load combination. Discovery of this deficiency after fabrication could...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record clarify the roof live load for truss design. The Truss Supplier Note should either include a separate roof live load value of at least 12 PSF per ASCE 7-16 Section 4.8.2, or the snow load value should be increased to envelope the minim...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record clarify the roof live load for truss design. The Truss Supplier Note should either include a separate roof live load value of at least 12 PSF per ASCE 7-16 Section 4.8.2, or the snow load value should be i...

Summary: Keynote 2 on the Foundation Plan schedule specifies a 16" x 16" concrete pilaster with top transverse reinforcement of "(3) TIES @ 3" AT TOP". Pilasters serve as pedestals/columns and require clustered top ties to confine anchor bolts for superstructure connections. ASCE 7-16 Section 14.2.2.2 (modifying ACI 318 Section 10.7.6.1.6) explicitly requires that the top transverse reinforcement enclos...

Why it matters: Failing to place all required transverse ties within the top 5 inches compromises the confinement of the anchor bolts. Under lateral or uplift forces, this lack of confinement can lead to concrete breakout or spalling at the top of the pilaster, threatening the integrity of the connection between...

Suggested next step: Please revise the reinforcement spacing in Keynote 2 for the 16" x 16" pilaster to specify a tighter spacing for the top ties (e.g., "(3) TIES @ 2" AT TOP" or "(3) TIES WITHIN 5" OF TOP") to ensure all three #3 ties are confined within the top 5 inches, complying with ASCE 7-1...

RFI draft: Please revise the reinforcement spacing in Keynote 2 for the 16" x 16" pilaster to specify a tighter spacing for the top ties (e.g., "(3) TIES @ 2" AT TOP" or "(3) TIES WITHIN 5" OF TOP") to ensure all three #3 ties are confined within the top 5 i...

Summary: The structural notes designate the wind load analysis procedure as 'CH 28 PT 2: ENCLOSED SIMPLE DIAPHRAGM LOW-RISE BUILDINGS'. However, ASCE 7-16 Section 28.5.1 restricts this procedure to buildings meeting all conditions of Section 28.5.2. Condition 7 mandates an 'approximately symmetrical cross section in each direction' with 'either a flat roof or a gable or hip roof'. The drawings detail a ...

Why it matters: Applying the simplified Envelope Procedure to an asymmetrical building with multiple wings and mixed roof profiles fails to capture complex torsional wind loads and aerodynamic interactions. This can severely underestimate wind forces on the Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWFRS), posing a risk...

Suggested next step: Please revise the MWFRS wind load analysis using an appropriate procedure for an asymmetrical, multi-wing building with mixed roof profiles (such as the Directional Procedure in ASCE 7-16 Chapter 27 or Chapter 28 Part 1) and update the wind load design criteria in the structur...

RFI draft: Please revise the MWFRS wind load analysis using an appropriate procedure for an asymmetrical, multi-wing building with mixed roof profiles (such as the Directional Procedure in ASCE 7-16 Chapter 27 or Chapter 28 Part 1) and update the wind load d...