Mountain Residential: 17 Issues Found

Summary: The Pedestal Schedule specifies a uniform reinforcement of (8)#4 VERT for all pedestal sizes. The area of (8)#4 bars is 8 × 0.20 in² = 1.60 in². ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1 requires that the area of longitudinal reinforcement shall be at least 0.01Ag. For the 12'×14' pedestal (Ag = 168 in², min = 1.68 in²), the 12'×18' pedestal (Ag = 216 in²,...

Why it matters: Pedestals that are detailed with longitudinal reinforcement and ties function as reinforced concrete compression members (short columns) and must comply with the minimum reinforcement ratio of Chapter 10. Failing to meet the 0.01Ag minimum could result in plan check rejection and would require redesign of the reinforcement for 4 of the 6...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer verify and revise the Pedestal Schedule reinforcement to meet the minimum 0.01Ag requirement of ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1 for each pedestal size. For the 14'×18' pedestal, a minimum of 2.52 in² of longitudinal steel is required (e.g., (8)#5 = 2.48 in², still slightly short, so (10)#5 or (8)#5 + additional bars...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer verify and revise the Pedestal Schedule reinforcement to meet the minimum 0.01Ag requirement of ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1 for each pedestal size. For the 14'×18' pedestal, a minimum of 2.52 in² of longitudinal steel is required (e.g., (8)#5 = 2.48 in², still...

Summary: The drawing states Fv = 1.500 for Site Class D-DEFAULT with S1 = 0.443g. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2, for Site Class D, interpolating between S1 = 0.4 (Fv = 1.9) and S1 = 0.5 (Fv = 1.8) for S1 = 0.443 yields Fv ≈ 1.857. The stated value of 1.500 corresponds to Site Class C, not Site Class D. This incorrect Fv cascades into the SD1 calculation:...

Why it matters: An unconservative SD1 value directly reduces the calculated seismic base shear for longer-period response and affects story drift checks, diaphragm design forces, and anchorage requirements. For a wood-frame structure in SDC D located in Truckee (a high-seismicity region), this error could lead to under-designed shear walls, hold-downs, and...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to verify the long-period site coefficient Fv per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 for Site Class D with S1 = 0.443g. The interpolated value should be approximately 1.857, not 1.500. Confirm that SM1, SD1, and all dependent seismic design parameters (including base shear) are recalculated accordingly. Also address whether...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to verify the long-period site coefficient Fv per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 for Site Class D with S1 = 0.443g. The interpolated value should be approximately 1.857, not 1.500. Confirm that SM1, SD1, and all dependent seismic design parameters (including base shear)...

Summary: The design criteria lists the seismic force-resisting system as 'LIGHT-FRAME (WOOD) WALLS SHEATHED WITH WOOD STRUCTURAL PANELS' with R = 6.5, Ω = 2.5, and Cd = 4. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.2-1, the only light-frame wood wall system with R = 6.5 and Cd = 4 is the Bearing Wall System variant, which prescribes Ω₀ = 3.0, not 2.5. The Ω₀ = 2.5 value...

Why it matters: Using Ω₀ = 2.5 instead of the required 3.0 results in approximately 17% underdesign of collector elements and their connections, which per Section 12.10.2.1 must be designed using load combinations including the overstrength factor for this SDC D structure. This underdesign of collectors and other elements requiring overstrength load...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended seismic force-resisting system classification per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.2-1. If Bearing Wall System is intended (consistent with R = 6.5 and Cd = 4), revise the system overstrength factor from Ω₀ = 2.5 to Ω₀ = 3.0 and update all affected design calculations including collector elements, connections, and special load...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended seismic force-resisting system classification per ASCE 7-16 Table 12.2-1. If Bearing Wall System is intended (consistent with R = 6.5 and Cd = 4), revise the system overstrength factor from Ω₀ = 2.5 to Ω₀ = 3.0 and update all affected design calculations including collector...

Summary: The Reinforcing Steel note 4 specifies 'ALL WELDED WIRE REINFORCEMENT (WWR) SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A185,' which is the standard for plain (smooth) welded wire reinforcement. ACI 318-19 Section 20.2.1.1 requires that nonprestressed bars and wires shall be deformed, with the only exception being plain bars or wires used in spirals. ASTM A185...

Why it matters: This material specification non-compliance is likely to be flagged during plan review by the jurisdictional plan check engineer, potentially delaying permit issuance until the specification is corrected. If not caught during plan review and plain WWR is procured and installed, it could be rejected during reinforcement inspection, requiring...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to revise Reinforcing Steel note 4 to replace the obsolete ASTM A185 reference with ASTM A1064, and clarify whether deformed welded wire reinforcement (D-designation) should be specified in lieu of plain wire (W-designation) to comply with ACI 318-19 Section 20.2.1.1. Also request clarification of the correct...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to revise Reinforcing Steel note 4 to replace the obsolete ASTM A185 reference with ASTM A1064, and clarify whether deformed welded wire reinforcement (D-designation) should be specified in lieu of plain wire (W-designation) to comply with ACI 318-19 Section...

Summary: The Pedestal Schedule specifies '(8)#4 VERT W/#4 @6' OC TIES' for all pedestals. Note 1 states 'USE SIMPSON CB OR SIMILAR POST FOR ALL THE POST BASE,' confirming that anchor bolts are placed in the top of each pedestal. Per ASCE 7 Section 14.2.2.2 (modifying ACI 318 Section 10.7.6.1.6), when anchor bolts are placed in the top of a pedestal, the...

Why it matters: Every post-to-pedestal connection in the building relies on Simpson CB (or similar) anchor bolts embedded in the pedestal top. Inadequate confinement reinforcement around these anchor bolts could lead to concrete cone breakout or splitting failure under combined axial and lateral seismic loads, compromising the continuous load path from the...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the Pedestal Schedule to specify additional transverse reinforcement within 5 in. of the top of each pedestal to provide at least two No. 4 ties (or three No. 3 ties) enclosing the anchor bolts and surrounding at least four longitudinal bars, in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 14.2.2.2 (ACI 318 Section...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the Pedestal Schedule to specify additional transverse reinforcement within 5 in. of the top of each pedestal to provide at least two No. 4 ties (or three No. 3 ties) enclosing the anchor bolts and surrounding at least four longitudinal bars, in accordance...

Summary: The foundation note states that the 'ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE' may be 'INCREASED BY 1/3 FOR WIND OR SEISMIC LOAD CASES.' ASCE 7-16 Section 12.13.6 bases allowable-stress foundation capacity on allowable geotechnical stresses and expressly permits earthquake combinations to include only the reduction of foundation overturning effects...

Why it matters: Leaving this note in the structural criteria can increase assumed seismic foundation bearing capacity beyond the ASCE 7-16 allowable-stress basis, which can affect footing sizing and trigger plan-check or field correction of the foundation design.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the note permitting a 1/3 increase in allowable soil bearing pressure for seismic load cases is intended to be used for foundation design. If not, revise the note to match ASCE 7-16 Section 12.13.6; if yes, provide the geotechnical report language and design justification supporting the increased seismic allowable capacity.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the note permitting a 1/3 increase in allowable soil bearing pressure for seismic load cases is intended to be used for foundation design. If not, revise the note to match ASCE 7-16 Section 12.13.6; if yes, provide the geotechnical report language and design justification...

Summary: The Tie Strap Schedule on sheet S1.1 lists Mark A as a 'SIMPSON CS14' strap with 0.148 x 2 1/2 fasteners and an allowable tension load of 2490 lbs for header openings, with note 2 explicitly directing the user to 'TYPICAL @ HDR STRAP DETAIL 8/S2.3.' However, Detail 8 on sheet S2.3, titled 'TYP STRAP @HEADER DETAILS,' specifies a 'SIMPSON CS16...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly affects which product is procured and installed at every header opening in the structure. If the contractor follows the Tie Strap Schedule, they will install CS14 straps; if they follow the detail, they will install CS16 straps. Since the schedule note explicitly cross-references Detail 8/S2.3, the conflict is...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the header strap at openings should be Simpson CS14 (as shown in the Tie Strap Schedule Mark A on S1.1) or Simpson CS16 (as shown in Detail 8/S2.3). Please revise the Tie Strap Schedule or Detail 8 to be consistent, and confirm the correct fastener specification for the selected strap.

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the header strap at openings should be Simpson CS14 (as shown in the Tie Strap Schedule Mark A on S1.1) or Simpson CS16 (as shown in Detail 8/S2.3). Please revise the Tie Strap Schedule or Detail 8 to be consistent, and confirm the correct fastener specification for the...

Summary: On S2.4, the Typical Wall Elevation (Detail 2) includes the general note 'DBL 2X TRIMMER & KING STUDS FOR SPANS GREATER THAN 6'-0'', indicating double 2x members for both trimmers and king studs at openings exceeding 6 feet. The same elevation also defers to the S2.3 schedule with notes 'TRIMMER PER SCHED REF 7/S2.3' and 'KING PER SCHED REF...

Why it matters: This conflict will cause confusion during framing. A contractor following the typical wall elevation note would install double 2x trimmers and king studs at all openings over 6'-0', potentially under-sizing members where 4X6 trimmers or triple king studs are required by the schedule, or over-sizing where single members are adequate. Under-sized...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the trimmer and king stud sizing requirements for openings exceeding 6'-0'. The Typical Wall Elevation on S2.4 states 'DBL 2X TRIMMER & KING STUDS FOR SPANS GREATER THAN 6'-0'' while the same drawing defers to the schedule at Detail 7/S2.3. The Detail 7 schedule shows different requirements including single 2x trimmers (interior...

RFI draft: Please clarify the trimmer and king stud sizing requirements for openings exceeding 6'-0'. The Typical Wall Elevation on S2.4 states 'DBL 2X TRIMMER & KING STUDS FOR SPANS GREATER THAN 6'-0'' while the same drawing defers to the schedule at Detail 7/S2.3. The Detail 7 schedule shows different...

Summary: The Hold Down Schedule on S1.0 specifies H12 (SIMPSON 1'Ø - WSWH-AB1X##) with a MINIMUM EMBED DEPTH of 11' and H13 (SIMPSON 1'Ø - WSWH-AB1X## - HIGH STRENGTH) with 18'. The Wood Shear Wall Schedule Note 8 on S1.0 directs the user to S2.5 & S2.6 for Simpson Strong-Wall details and specifications. However, S2.6 (ESR-2652, Table 1) lists the...

Why it matters: If the foundation depth or inspection criteria at Simpson Strong-Wall locations (SS1, SS2, SS3) are based on S1.0's stated 11' minimum embed depth for H12, the actual anchor bolt embedment of 15 1/2' minimum per S2.6 may not be accommodated. This discrepancy affects all SS-type Strong-Wall anchorage locations throughout the foundation plan...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the values listed under MINIMUM EMBED DEPTH for H12 (11') and H13 (18') in the Hold Down Schedule on S1.0. Per ESR-2652 on Sheet S2.6, the WSWH-AB1 anchor bolt embedment lengths (lₑ) are 15 1/2', 21 1/2', or 27 1/2'—none matching 11' or 18'. Do the listed values represent minimum concrete edge distances (dₑ) rather than bolt...

RFI draft: Please clarify the values listed under MINIMUM EMBED DEPTH for H12 (11') and H13 (18') in the Hold Down Schedule on S1.0. Per ESR-2652 on Sheet S2.6, the WSWH-AB1 anchor bolt embedment lengths (lₑ) are 15 1/2', 21 1/2', or 27 1/2'—none matching 11' or 18'. Do the listed values represent minimum...

Summary: S1.1 states 'USE SIMPSON CB OR SIMILAR POST FOR ALL THE POST BASE.' in the pedestal schedule. The same sheet also tags posts '6X6 DF#1 W/CPT66Z' and plan note 8 says 'REFER TO 3/S2.0 FOR CONCEALED POST TIE (CPT) CONNECTOR DETAIL.' On S2.0, detail 3 is 'CONCEALED POST TIE ( CPT ) CONNECTOR DETAIL' and the detail itself notes 'SIMPSON CPT##Z PER...

Why it matters: This affects structural connector selection and concrete anchorage requirements. The S2.0 CPT detail calls for '1/2' Ø SIMPSON CAST-IN-PLACE ANCHOR' and provides CPT66Z placement criteria, so installing a CB base where the plan/detail call for CPT would not match the referenced concealed-post-tie detail.

Suggested next step: Please clarify which post-base system governs at the locations labeled '6X6 DF#1 W/CPT66Z': the pedestal schedule note 'USE SIMPSON CB OR SIMILAR POST FOR ALL THE POST BASE.' or the referenced S2.0 concealed post tie detail. Revise the schedule, plan callouts, and/or detail reference so the connector type is consistent.

RFI draft: Please clarify which post-base system governs at the locations labeled '6X6 DF#1 W/CPT66Z': the pedestal schedule note 'USE SIMPSON CB OR SIMILAR POST FOR ALL THE POST BASE.' or the referenced S2.0 concealed post tie detail. Revise the schedule, plan callouts, and/or detail reference so the...

Summary: On S1.2, the 8/S2.4 callout is used where the framing note reads '(2)11 7/8\' TJI 560 RJ @16\' OC'. On S2.4, Detail 8 is a rafter perimeter-wall condition ('@ EA RAFTER' / 'RAFTER PER PLAN') and it specifically directs the user to Detail 7 for birds-mouth requirements. Detail 7 is explicitly a 'CUT OUT IN RAFTER FOR BIRD-MOUTH' condition. The...

Why it matters: If left unresolved, the framing crew will not know whether this edge is supposed to be detailed as TJI roof joists or as birdsmouth-notched rafters. That ambiguity can create an unbuildable perimeter bearing condition, review confusion, and inspection delays.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the 8/S2.4 callout at the '(2)11 7/8\' TJI 560 RJ @16\' OC' area is correct. If that location is intended to remain TJI framing, provide a TJI-compatible perimeter bearing/eave detail; otherwise revise the plan member callout so it matches the birdsmouth rafter detail.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the 8/S2.4 callout at the '(2)11 7/8\' TJI 560 RJ @16\' OC' area is correct. If that location is intended to remain TJI framing, provide a TJI-compatible perimeter bearing/eave detail; otherwise revise the plan member callout so it matches the birdsmouth rafter detail.

Summary: On S1.3, the referenced 8/S2.4 callout is used at a roof-framing location where the member note is '(2)14\' TJI 560 RJ @16\' OC'. On S2.4, Detail 8 is identified with 'RAFTER\nPER PLAN' and its note directs the user to Detail 7, which shows a 'CUT OUT IN\nRAFTER FOR\nBIRD-MOUTH'. The referenced section therefore depicts a birdsmouth-rafter...

Why it matters: If left unresolved, the field team will not know whether the referenced roof-to-wall bearing condition should be framed as a birdsmouth rafter assembly or as the TJI roof-joist condition shown on the plan. That affects constructability at the perimeter support and risks incorrect cutting, bearing, and connector installation.

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the referenced S1.3 8/S2.4 location at the '(2)14\' TJI 560 RJ @16\' OC' roof area is intended to use TJI roof joists or the birdsmouth-rafter assembly shown in Details 8 and 7 on S2.4, and revise the referenced perimeter detail if a TJI-specific section is required.

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the referenced S1.3 8/S2.4 location at the '(2)14\' TJI 560 RJ @16\' OC' roof area is intended to use TJI roof joists or the birdsmouth-rafter assembly shown in Details 8 and 7 on S2.4, and revise the referenced perimeter detail if a TJI-specific section is required.

Summary: S1.1 directs the header strap condition to 'HDR STRAP DETAIL 8/S2.3,' but the listed strap types in the TIE STRAP SCHEDULE on S1.1 are 'SIMPSON CS14' and 'MST48.' Detail 8 on S2.3 instead specifies 'SIMPSON CS16 STRAP W/10d NAILS, UNO.' This is a direct mismatch for the same header strap condition.

Why it matters: Because the schedule and detail call for different strap models, the contractor cannot reliably determine the required hardware and capacity for the header strap condition. That can affect procurement, structural load transfer at openings, and inspection approval.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required strap model and fastening for the header strap condition at Detail 8/S2.3, and revise the TIE STRAP SCHEDULE and/or the detail so one consistent strap designation is used throughout the set.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required strap model and fastening for the header strap condition at Detail 8/S2.3, and revise the TIE STRAP SCHEDULE and/or the detail so one consistent strap designation is used throughout the set.

Summary: The Upper Roof Framing Plan on S1.3 repeatedly calls out TJI joist blocking at 72' on center (e.g., 'PROVIDE BLK'G @72' OC'), while Detail 5 on S2.4, titled 'TYPICAL TJI JOIST BLOCKING DETAIL,' specifies TJI joist blocking at 48' on center ('TJI JOIST BLKG @ 48' OC'). Both notes address the same element — blocking between TJI joists — but...

Why it matters: During construction, the framer would reference the plan for layout spacing and the detail for installation method. A 72' OC spacing yields roughly one blocking piece per 6 feet of joist run, while 48' OC yields one per 4 feet — a roughly 50% increase in blocking material and labor. Incorrect blocking spacing could affect diaphragm capacity,...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the required TJI joist blocking spacing for the upper roof framing. Specifically, confirm whether the blocking shall be installed at 72' OC as noted on the Upper Roof Framing Plan (S1.3) or at 48' OC as shown in the Typical TJI Joist Blocking Detail (Detail 5/S2.4), and revise the conflicting drawing...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the required TJI joist blocking spacing for the upper roof framing. Specifically, confirm whether the blocking shall be installed at 72' OC as noted on the Upper Roof Framing Plan (S1.3) or at 48' OC as shown in the Typical TJI Joist Blocking Detail...

Summary: On S1.1 (page 4), the Wood Shear Wall Schedule defines SS3 as 'SIMPSON STRONG - WALL HIGH STRENGTH WOOD SHEAR WALL WSWH 24 X ##', indicating a 24-inch (2'-0') wide manufactured panel. However, on S1.2 (page 5) near the storage/trash area, the framing plan shows SS3 called out with a shearwall length of 1'-6' (18'). A 24'-wide manufactured...

Why it matters: This discrepancy creates a constructability conflict at the storage/trash partition. The contractor cannot install the specified WSWH 24 panel in an 18'-wide opening. If the wrong panel is installed or if field modifications are made without engineering review, the shear capacity at this location may not meet the design intent, potentially...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the SS3 designation at 1'-6' near the storage/trash partition on S1.2 should be revised to SS2 (which allows an 18' panel width per the WSWH 24/18 specification), or whether the plan dimension should be corrected to 2'-0' to match the WSWH 24 panel defined in the SS3 schedule on S1.1.

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the SS3 designation at 1'-6' near the storage/trash partition on S1.2 should be revised to SS2 (which allows an 18' panel width per the WSWH 24/18 specification), or whether the plan dimension should be corrected to 2'-0' to match the WSWH 24 panel defined in the SS3...