Plan Review: 76 Issues Found

Summary: The typical enlarged foundation plan specifies a "4\" CONC SLAB w/ #4 @ 18\" O.C. EACH WAY". According to ACI 301-20 Section 3.3.2.3(a) and Table 3.3.2.3(a), concrete cast against and permanently in contact with the ground requires a minimum specified cover of 75 mm (approx. 3 inches) for all reinforcement. The two orthogonal layers of #4 reinforcing bars require 1 inch of vertical space (2 x 0...

Why it matters: The specified 4-inch slab thickness creates an unbuildable condition. The contractor will be forced to place the reinforcement with inadequate concrete cover, which will either violate the 3-inch ground clearance (risking severe and accelerated rebar corrosion from ground moisture) or violate the...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the slab thickness and concrete cover requirements for the 4" concrete slab. To meet the ACI 301 minimum cover for concrete cast against the ground (3 inches) plus two layers of #4 bars (1 inch) and the minimum top cover (3/4 inch), a minimum slab thickness of 4...

RFI draft: Please clarify the slab thickness and concrete cover requirements for the 4" concrete slab. To meet the ACI 301 minimum cover for concrete cast against the ground (3 inches) plus two layers of #4 bars (1 inch) and the minimum top cover (3/4 inch),...

Summary: The drawing specifies a '4" CONC SLAB w/ #4 @ 18" O.C. EACH WAY' at the base of each foundation pit. As a slab-on-ground, the bottom face is cast against and permanently in contact with ground, requiring 3 in. of concrete cover per ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1. With two crossing layers of #4 bars (0.50 in. diameter each), the minimum required slab thickness is: 3.0 in. (bottom cover) + 0.50 in. ...

Why it matters: This dimensional conflict will be identified during rebar placement or inspection, likely halting concrete placement for the slab and requiring a redesign. Either the slab thickness must be increased (affecting all connected elevations, pit geometry, and possibly formwork) or the reinforcement or...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer confirm the 4" slab thickness is adequate for the specified #4 reinforcement each way, given the minimum concrete cover requirements of ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1. If the slab is cast against ground, 3 in. bottom cover is required, necessitatin...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer confirm the 4" slab thickness is adequate for the specified #4 reinforcement each way, given the minimum concrete cover requirements of ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1. If the slab is cast against ground, 3 in. bottom c...

Summary: The '03 CONCRETE' notes specify that cast-in-place (CIP) anchors shall have a 90-degree hook with a straight extension of '1.5 DB' at the free end. However, when these anchors are constructed from deformed reinforcement bars, ACI 318-19 Table 25.3.1 strictly requires a straight extension of 12db for standard 90-degree hooks used for development in tension.

Why it matters: Providing an extension of only 1.5db is substantially less than the code-required 12db minimum. This creates a severely deficient anchorage detail that would prevent the anchor from fully developing its tensile strength, leading to a high risk of premature pullout failure under uplift or seismic ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the material and type of CIP anchors to be used. If utilizing deformed bars, revise the standard hook detail to require a minimum straight extension of 12db for 90-degree hooks per ACI 318-19 Table 25.3.1. If smooth hooked anchor bolts are intended, please verif...

RFI draft: Please clarify the material and type of CIP anchors to be used. If utilizing deformed bars, revise the standard hook detail to require a minimum straight extension of 12db for 90-degree hooks per ACI 318-19 Table 25.3.1. If smooth hooked anchor bo...

Summary: The Typical Foundation Wall detail (4/S301) specifies an 8" thick concrete foundation wall. However, the Anchor Reinforcement Section specifies a #4 U-shaped bar with an inside width of 5". Adding the 0.5" diameter of the #4 bar on both sides yields an outer width of 6" for the U-bar assembly. According to ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1, walls exposed to weather or in contact with the ground requi...

Why it matters: Insufficient concrete cover will lead to accelerated corrosion of the structural anchor reinforcement, spalling of the foundation wall, and ultimately the premature failure of the holdown connections under lateral shear loads. This is a critical structural and durability defect.

Suggested next step: Please revise the foundation wall thickness to a minimum of 9" (or 10" standard) where U-shaped anchor reinforcement is required, or specify an alternative anchor reinforcement detail that fits within an 8" wall while maintaining the ACI code-required 1-1/2" minimum clear cove...

RFI draft: Please revise the foundation wall thickness to a minimum of 9" (or 10" standard) where U-shaped anchor reinforcement is required, or specify an alternative anchor reinforcement detail that fits within an 8" wall while maintaining the ACI code-requ...

Summary: The Diaphragm Schedule and notes specify that "ALLOWABLE SHEAR CAPACITIES MAY BE INCREASED 40% FOR WIND LOADING" while simultaneously specifying the use of nails (0.131" x 2 1/2") to fasten the sheathing. This violates the 2021 IBC, which explicitly restricts the 40% allowable shear increase for wind design strictly to panels that are fastened with staples.

Why it matters: Applying a 40% capacity increase to nailed wood diaphragms and shear walls will result in an under-designed lateral force-resisting system. During high wind events, this could lead to premature failure of the lateral system, jeopardizing life safety and risking severe structural damage.

Suggested next step: Please revise the schedule notes to remove the 40% allowable shear increase for wind loading, or alternatively, switch the specified fasteners from nails to staples to comply with IBC Sections 2306.2 and 2306.3.

RFI draft: Please revise the schedule notes to remove the 40% allowable shear increase for wind loading, or alternatively, switch the specified fasteners from nails to staples to comply with IBC Sections 2306.2 and 2306.3.

Summary: Keynote 5 and Detail 8/S210 specify mounting a HUCQ410 face-mount hanger directly over a gypsum barrier by substituting the standard screws with 4-1/2 inch SDS screws. However, the NDS Chapter 12 lateral yield limit equations explicitly require that '(a) the faces of the connected members are in contact' to establish the connection's reference lateral design values. The gypsum layer breaks dire...

Why it matters: Applying heavy-duty structural hangers over gypsum without engineered gap analysis or spacer blocks can cause excessive fastener bending, gypsum crushing, and premature yield failure of the stair landing connection. Because the standard NDS formulas are voided by the lack of direct member contact...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the gypsum board should be routed out to allow direct wood-to-metal contact for the HUCQ410 hanger, or provide custom engineered calculations and details that explicitly account for the gypsum standoff per principles of engineering mechanics.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the gypsum board should be routed out to allow direct wood-to-metal contact for the HUCQ410 hanger, or provide custom engineered calculations and details that explicitly account for the gypsum standoff per principles of engineeri...

Summary: Detail 12/S210 shows the "3 1/8" x 15" GLULAM STRINGER" resting on an angle bracket ("L3x3x1/4") using "(2)1/2" THROUGH BOLTS TO STRINGER". The drawing indicates a "2"" gap from the bottom edge of the stringer to the top of the beam/blocking below, meaning the vertical load of the stringer is hanging on these through-bolts near the bottom edge. By hanging the stringer load on bolts, the connect...

Why it matters: Hanging a heavily loaded stair stringer from through-bolts near its tension (bottom) edge introduces severe splitting forces directly at the bearing connection. Under heavy load, the glulam is highly susceptible to splitting horizontally from the bolts to the end of the member, which would result...

Suggested next step: Revise Detail 12/S210 to eliminate tension perpendicular to the grain. Support the 3 1/8" x 15" Glulam stringer in direct bottom bearing using a properly sized saddle hanger, bearing seat, or structural ledger that fully supports the bottom face of the member.

RFI draft: Revise Detail 12/S210 to eliminate tension perpendicular to the grain. Support the 3 1/8" x 15" Glulam stringer in direct bottom bearing using a properly sized saddle hanger, bearing seat, or structural ledger that fully supports the bottom face o...

Summary: The Beam Schedule specifies Beam 5 as 'P.T. 6x12 DF No. 1' with an 'HUCQ610' hanger. The Simpson Strong-Tie HUCQ610 is a concealed-flange hanger designed for 6x10 nominal lumber (9-1/2" actual depth). A 6x12 member has an actual depth of 11-1/2", which is 2" taller than what the HUCQ610 accommodates. The beam cannot be fully seated in the hanger and the connection cannot properly transfer desig...

Why it matters: During construction, the HUCQ610 hangers would not physically fit the 6x12 beams, causing project delays while correct hangers (e.g., HUCQ612 or equivalent) are procured. Given that Beam 5 is a pressure-treated 6x12 DF No. 1 beam likely carrying significant loads, an improperly connected beam cou...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm the correct hanger for Beam 5. A 6x12 member requires an HUCQ612 or equivalent hanger rated for 6x12 members. Please revise the Beam Schedule accordingly.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm the correct hanger for Beam 5. A 6x12 member requires an HUCQ612 or equivalent hanger rated for 6x12 members. Please revise the Beam Schedule accordingly.

Summary: Keynote 5 specifies replacing supplied screws with 1/4"Ø x 4-1/2" SDS screws (which are wood screws) to install an HUCQ410 hanger. On the plan (e.g., near Grid 11/A), Keynote 5 is used to detail the connection of an A11 header to an HSS4x4x3/16 steel column. NDS 12.2.2.1 defines wood screws for insertion into the side grain of wood members; they cannot physically penetrate a 3/16" steel structu...

Why it matters: Using wood screws for a primary structural connection to a steel column is a critical constructability and safety issue, as the fasteners cannot penetrate the steel to develop structural capacity. Additionally, applying an oversized 10" deep hanger to a 7-1/4" deep beam means the side flange fast...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the hanger type and fastening method for header connections to the HSS4x4x3/16 steel columns. Specify an appropriate weldable hanger or structural steel fasteners suitable for the 3/16" steel tube instead of SDS wood screws. Additionally, provide a hanger sized ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the hanger type and fastening method for header connections to the HSS4x4x3/16 steel columns. Specify an appropriate weldable hanger or structural steel fasteners suitable for the 3/16" steel tube instead of SDS wood screws. Additio...

Summary: The 'TYPICAL ENLARGED DECK FRAMING PLAN' shows 'J3' joists flush-framed into a '(2) 2x6' edge beam. However, the 'FLOOR JOIST SCHEDULE' identifies 'J3' as a 'P.T. 2X8' joist supported by an 'LUS28Z' face-mount hanger. A nominal 2x8 joist (7-1/4" deep) is deeper than a nominal 2x6 supporting beam (5-1/2" deep). Consequently, the joist and its specified face-mount hanger will protrude below the b...

Why it matters: This violates NDS 11.2.3 and 12.1.2.5, which require metal hangers to be designed and installed in accordance with applicable metal design procedures and placement provisions (including edge distance for metal fasteners). Because the hanger's lower fasteners will miss the supporting beam entirely...

Suggested next step: Please revise the deck edge beam size to be at least as deep as the framing joists (e.g., upsize the (2) 2x6 to a (2) 2x8) to ensure the LUS28Z hangers can be fully supported and properly fastened into solid wood per manufacturer specifications and NDS placement provisions.

RFI draft: Please revise the deck edge beam size to be at least as deep as the framing joists (e.g., upsize the (2) 2x6 to a (2) 2x8) to ensure the LUS28Z hangers can be fully supported and properly fastened into solid wood per manufacturer specifications an...

Summary: Detail 14 specifies a DTC clip to isolate a non-bearing wall from the roof truss, but the note instructs to 'FASTEN NAIL NEAR BOTTOM OF SLOT... TO ALLOW FOR VERTICAL MOVEMENT.' Because the clip attaches to the wall and the truss deflects downward, the nail (driven into the truss) moves downward. Placing the nail at the bottom of the slot provides zero room for downward movement. When the truss ...

Why it matters: Restricting the downward deflection of the roof truss will unintentionally transfer structural roof loads into the interior non-bearing partition. This will result in buckled wall studs, severe drywall cracking, and it alters the engineered bearing behavior of the roof truss.

Suggested next step: Revise the note to require fastening the nail near the TOP of the slot, which will allow the truss and nail to deflect downward within the slot without transferring vertical load to the wall.

RFI draft: Revise the note to require fastening the nail near the TOP of the slot, which will allow the truss and nail to deflect downward within the slot without transferring vertical load to the wall.

Summary: The typical enlarged deck framing plans on S209 show 'J3' joists terminating into a '(2) 2x6' perimeter edge beam. The S209 Floor Joist Schedule defines 'J3' as a 2x8 member requiring an 'LUS28Z' hanger. S002 requires all connectors to be installed per manufacturer instructions. It is physically impossible to correctly install a hanger designed for a 2x8 joist onto a shallower 2x6 supporting be...

Why it matters: A 2x8 joist (7.25" actual depth) and its corresponding hanger cannot frame flush into a smaller 2x6 edge beam (5.5" actual depth). The joist and hanger will hang below the edge beam, compromising the structural integrity of the connection and causing a failed inspection due to improper hanger nai...

Suggested next step: The deck framing plans on S209 show J3 joists (P.T. 2x8 per schedule) framing into a (2) 2x6 edge beam using LUS28Z hangers. This creates a depth clash where the 2x8 hanger cannot be properly fastened to a 2x6 face per manufacturer instructions (as required by S002). Please ad...

RFI draft: The deck framing plans on S209 show J3 joists (P.T. 2x8 per schedule) framing into a (2) 2x6 edge beam using LUS28Z hangers. This creates a depth clash where the 2x8 hanger cannot be properly fastened to a 2x6 face per manufacturer instructions (a...

Summary: Drawing Note 8 explicitly allows STHD14 strap holdowns to be used as a blanket replacement for HDU5 holdowns. However, according to standard industry manufacturer data, an STHD14 has a significantly lower allowable tension capacity than an HDU5. Permitting this downgrade is a clear structural design mistake and contradicts the project specification's requirement that alternate products demonstr...

Why it matters: Allowing the substitution of a lower-capacity holdown without verifying the specific design loads could lead to shear wall uplift failures during a seismic or high-wind event, posing a severe life-safety risk and violating building code performance requirements.

Suggested next step: Please confirm if STHD14 holdowns are structurally adequate for all specific locations where HDU5 holdowns are required, or revise Foundation Plan Note 8 to remove HDU5 from the allowed substitution list to comply with the substitution load capacity requirements in the General...

RFI draft: Please confirm if STHD14 holdowns are structurally adequate for all specific locations where HDU5 holdowns are required, or revise Foundation Plan Note 8 to remove HDU5 from the allowed substitution list to comply with the substitution load capaci...

Summary: Detail 8/S303 specifies end-nailing the top plates to the vertical 4x6 blocking using "(4) 0.131"Ø x 2 1/2" NAILS". However, the project specifications require stud walls to have "DOUBLE 2X TOP PLATES", which have a combined thickness of 3 inches (1.5" + 1.5"). A 2 1/2" nail is physically too short to penetrate through a 3" plate assembly to embed into the blocking below. Furthermore, the requi...

Why it matters: Specifying a fastener that is shorter than the member it passes through results in zero structural embedment into the supporting member. This severs the load path between the deck beam's supporting post/blocking and the wall top plates, posing a critical risk of structural connection failure.

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 8/S303 to specify a fastener long enough to adequately penetrate the double top plates and embed into the vertical 4x6 blocking (e.g., 16d common nails or 3" x 0.131" nails), per the IBC Table 2304.10.2 fastening schedule for end-nailing.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 8/S303 to specify a fastener long enough to adequately penetrate the double top plates and embed into the vertical 4x6 blocking (e.g., 16d common nails or 3" x 0.131" nails), per the IBC Table 2304.10.2 fastening schedule for ...

Summary: The drawing specifies "WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A185." However, ACI 301-20 Section 3.2.1.6(a) requires plain welded wire reinforcement to conform to ASTM A1064/A1064M. ASTM A185 has been withdrawn and consolidated into ASTM A1064. The drawing directly contradicts the required material standard in ACI 301-20. Additionally, ASTM A185 is not listed among the referenced standards in...

Why it matters: Specifying a withdrawn standard creates procurement problems because manufacturers certify welded wire reinforcement to ASTM A1064/A1064M, not ASTM A185. Material submittals and certified mill test reports will reference ASTM A1064, which technically would not comply with the drawing specificatio...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record update the welded wire reinforcement specification from ASTM A185 to ASTM A1064/A1064M to comply with ACI 301-20 Section 3.2.1.6. Confirm that all welded wire reinforcement requirements (plain and deformed, including spacing of welded intersectio...

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record update the welded wire reinforcement specification from ASTM A185 to ASTM A1064/A1064M to comply with ACI 301-20 Section 3.2.1.6. Confirm that all welded wire reinforcement requirements (plain and deformed, including...