Single-Family Residence Structural Plan Review: 50 Issues Found
An anonymized residential plan review found 50 structural and architectural issues including shear wall anchorage, sill capacity, and coordination—before construction.
Enterprise & volume pricing
Key findings
Insufficient Sill Anchorage Capacity for P2 Shear Walls
Structural
The Foundation Plan (S2) directs the contractor to refer to the "WOOD SHEAR WALL SCHD" for shear wall anchor bolt requirements. Within this schedule on S1.1, the "P2" shear wall has a listed Wind capacity of 460 plf and designates "S2" as its default sill anchorage. However, the adjacent "SILL ANCHORAGE SCHEDULE" lists the maximum capacity for "S2" as only 432 plf, creating a direct conflict where the specified anchorage is insufficient for the wall's design capacit
Brick Ledge Foundation Wall Thickness: 12" on Foundation Plan (Sheet 4) vs 10" on Brick Ledge Details (Sheet 8)
Structural
The Foundation Plan on Sheet 4 specifies brick ledge foundation walls as 12" poured concrete on a 24"x12" continuous concrete footing. However, both the Brick Ledge detail and the Garage Brick Ledge detail on Sheet 8 show a 10" poured concrete foundation for the same brick ledge wall condition. This is a direct 2" contradiction in the foundation wall thickness at every brick ledge location.
Concrete Slab Thickness: 6" on Foundation Plan (Sheet 4) vs 4" on Cross Section and Brick Ledge Details (Sheet 8)
Structural
The Foundation Plan on Sheet 4 consistently specifies a 6" concrete slab for all slab-on-grade areas throughout the structure. However, the Brick Ledge detail, Garage Brick Ledge detail, and the Cross Section's Typical Garage Floor callout on Sheet 8 all specify a 4" concrete slab. This is a direct 2" contradiction in the slab-on-grade thickness for the same construction areas.
14" I-Joist Spacing Conflict: Floor Plan Shows 16" O.C. vs Typical Wall Section and Cross Section Show 24" O.C.
Structural
The Main Level Floor Plan on Sheet 5 consistently annotates the second-floor framing as '14" I-JOISTS @ 16" O.C.' in multiple locations across the 2-Car Garage and adjacent areas. However, the Typical Wall Section on Sheet 8 specifies '14" I-JOISTS @ 24" O.C.' and the Cross Section on Sheet 8 specifies '14" I-JOISTS @ 24" o.c.' under the 'TYPICAL SECOND FLOOR' callout. Both the floor plan and the sections are describing the same 14" I-joist floor system supporting the second
CF1.5 Continuous Footing Used on Foundation Plan but Not Defined in Concrete Footing Schedule
Structural
The Foundation Plan on S2 shows 'CF1.5' at multiple locations along the exterior perimeter (right side and bottom walls of the building), with Detail 2/SD-1 callouts at these footing locations. Detail 2 on SD-1 specifies 'CONC FTG PER PLAN' for the footing dimensions, directing the contractor back to the plan and schedule for footing size and reinforcing. However, the Concrete Footing Schedule on S2 lists only three continuous footing marks—CF1.0, CF1.33, and CF2.0—and does not include CF1.5. Fo
Conflicting Seismic Design Parameters (Category, SDS/SD1, Cs, and Base Shear)
Structural
The General Structural Notes on the drawings specify the Seismic Design Category as A, with SDS/SD1 values of 0.000, a Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) of 0.010, and a Base Shear of 0.0 kips. However, the Structural Calculations indicate Seismic Design Category D, with SDS = 0.365, SD1 = 0.218, Cs = 0.056, and a Base Shear of 5.1 kips.
CF2.0 Continuous Footing: Drawing schedule shows 10" thick with (2) #4 bars vs. calculations require 12" deep with 3 #4 bars
Structural
The Concrete Footing Schedule on the Foundation Plan (S2) defines CF2.0 as '2'-0" WIDE x 10" THICK' with '(2) #4 CONT' bottom reinforcement. The structural calculations on page 14 define CF2.00 as 24" wide by 12" deep with 3 #4 bars lengthwise. There is a direct conflict in both the footing depth (10" on the drawing vs. 12" in the calculations) and the number of longitudinal reinforcing bars (2 on the drawing vs. 3 in the calculations).
P2 7'-3" shear wall segment shown as 'NO HD' on S5, but Line D 1st Story calculations require HDU4
Structural
Drawing S5 annotates the P2, 7'-3" shear wall segment along the south wall with 'NO HD', indicating no hold-down anchorage is required. However, the structural calculations for Line D, 1st Story on Sheet 24 specify HDU4 hold-downs for both wall segments along this line. The 7.33 ft calculated segment (corresponding to the drawing's 7'-3") shows an overturning moment (OTM) of 20,574 ft-lb versus a resisting moment (RM) of only 1,886 ft-lb, resulting in a net tension demand of 2,549 lbs requ
Discrepancy in Beam Span Dimensions Between Plan and Calculations
Structural
The Drawing Review Checklist states that spans used in calculations must match plan dimensions. However, the Structural Calculations package specifies contradictory lengths for beams FB4 and FB9. FB4 has a designed length of 24.25 ft in the calculation table but is labeled as 2'-3" on the Upper Floor Framing Beam Keyplan. Similarly, FB9 has a designed length of 3.75 ft in the calculation table but is labeled as 12'-9" on the Roof Framing Beam Keyplan.
Shear Wall and Hold-Down Demands Exceed Capacities
Structural
The Structural Engineering Checklist requires verifying that lateral element "Capacity" > "Demand". However, the calculations for LINE A 1ST STORY indicate that the structural demand exceeds the allowable capacity for a 3-foot P1 shear wall segment. The calculated Wind Shear (325 plf) exceeds the Wind Wall Capacity (210 plf), and the hold-down Tension (2809 lb) exceeds the HDU2 HD Capacity (2215 lb).
Issue categories
More example findings
Insufficient Sill Anchorage Capacity for P2 Shear WallsStructuralCritical
Summary: The Foundation Plan (S2) directs the contractor to refer to the "WOOD SHEAR WALL SCHD" for shear wall anchor bolt requirements. Within this schedule on S1.1, the "P2" shear wall has a listed Wind capacity of 460 plf and designates "S2" as its default sill anchorage. However, the adjacent "SILL ANCHORAGE SCHEDULE" lists the maximum capacity for "S2" as only 432 plf, creating a direct conflict where the specified anchorage is insufficient for the wall's design capacit
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Brick Ledge Foundation Wall Thickness: 12" on Foundation Plan (Sheet 4) vs 10" on Brick Ledge Details (Sheet 8)StructuralCritical
Summary: The Foundation Plan on Sheet 4 specifies brick ledge foundation walls as 12" poured concrete on a 24"x12" continuous concrete footing. However, both the Brick Ledge detail and the Garage Brick Ledge detail on Sheet 8 show a 10" poured concrete foundation for the same brick ledge wall condition. This is a direct 2" contradiction in the foundation wall thickness at every brick ledge location.
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Concrete Slab Thickness: 6" on Foundation Plan (Sheet 4) vs 4" on Cross Section and Brick Ledge Details (Sheet 8)StructuralCritical
Summary: The Foundation Plan on Sheet 4 consistently specifies a 6" concrete slab for all slab-on-grade areas throughout the structure. However, the Brick Ledge detail, Garage Brick Ledge detail, and the Cross Section's Typical Garage Floor callout on Sheet 8 all specify a 4" concrete slab. This is a direct 2" contradiction in the slab-on-grade thickness for the same construction areas.
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
14" I-Joist Spacing Conflict: Floor Plan Shows 16" O.C. vs Typical Wall Section and Cross Section Show 24" O.C.StructuralCritical
Summary: The Main Level Floor Plan on Sheet 5 consistently annotates the second-floor framing as '14" I-JOISTS @ 16" O.C.' in multiple locations across the 2-Car Garage and adjacent areas. However, the Typical Wall Section on Sheet 8 specifies '14" I-JOISTS @ 24" O.C.' and the Cross Section on Sheet 8 specifies '14" I-JOISTS @ 24" o.c.' under the 'TYPICAL SECOND FLOOR' callout. Both the floor plan and the sections are describing the same 14" I-joist floor system supporting the second
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
CF1.5 Continuous Footing Used on Foundation Plan but Not Defined in Concrete Footing ScheduleStructuralCritical
Summary: The Foundation Plan on S2 shows 'CF1.5' at multiple locations along the exterior perimeter (right side and bottom walls of the building), with Detail 2/SD-1 callouts at these footing locations. Detail 2 on SD-1 specifies 'CONC FTG PER PLAN' for the footing dimensions, directing the contractor back to the plan and schedule for footing size and reinforcing. However, the Concrete Footing Schedule on S2 lists only three continuous footing marks—CF1.0, CF1.33, and CF2.0—and does not include CF1.5. Fo
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Conflicting Seismic Design Parameters (Category, SDS/SD1, Cs, and Base Shear)StructuralCritical
Summary: The General Structural Notes on the drawings specify the Seismic Design Category as A, with SDS/SD1 values of 0.000, a Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) of 0.010, and a Base Shear of 0.0 kips. However, the Structural Calculations indicate Seismic Design Category D, with SDS = 0.365, SD1 = 0.218, Cs = 0.056, and a Base Shear of 5.1 kips.
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
CF2.0 Continuous Footing: Drawing schedule shows 10" thick with (2) #4 bars vs. calculations require 12" deep with 3 #4 barsStructuralCritical
Summary: The Concrete Footing Schedule on the Foundation Plan (S2) defines CF2.0 as '2'-0" WIDE x 10" THICK' with '(2) #4 CONT' bottom reinforcement. The structural calculations on page 14 define CF2.00 as 24" wide by 12" deep with 3 #4 bars lengthwise. There is a direct conflict in both the footing depth (10" on the drawing vs. 12" in the calculations) and the number of longitudinal reinforcing bars (2 on the drawing vs. 3 in the calculations).
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
P2 7'-3" shear wall segment shown as 'NO HD' on S5, but Line D 1st Story calculations require HDU4StructuralCritical
Summary: Drawing S5 annotates the P2, 7'-3" shear wall segment along the south wall with 'NO HD', indicating no hold-down anchorage is required. However, the structural calculations for Line D, 1st Story on Sheet 24 specify HDU4 hold-downs for both wall segments along this line. The 7.33 ft calculated segment (corresponding to the drawing's 7'-3") shows an overturning moment (OTM) of 20,574 ft-lb versus a resisting moment (RM) of only 1,886 ft-lb, resulting in a net tension demand of 2,549 lbs requ
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Discrepancy in Beam Span Dimensions Between Plan and CalculationsStructuralCritical
Summary: The Drawing Review Checklist states that spans used in calculations must match plan dimensions. However, the Structural Calculations package specifies contradictory lengths for beams FB4 and FB9. FB4 has a designed length of 24.25 ft in the calculation table but is labeled as 2'-3" on the Upper Floor Framing Beam Keyplan. Similarly, FB9 has a designed length of 3.75 ft in the calculation table but is labeled as 12'-9" on the Roof Framing Beam Keyplan.
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Shear Wall and Hold-Down Demands Exceed CapacitiesStructuralCritical
Summary: The Structural Engineering Checklist requires verifying that lateral element "Capacity" > "Demand". However, the calculations for LINE A 1ST STORY indicate that the structural demand exceeds the allowable capacity for a 3-foot P1 shear wall segment. The calculated Wind Shear (325 plf) exceeds the Wind Wall Capacity (210 plf), and the hold-down Tension (2809 lb) exceeds the HDU2 HD Capacity (2215 lb).
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Concealed LVL beam depth conflict: Architectural shows 11-7/8" depth vs Structural shows 14" depthStructuralHigh
Summary: The structural framing plan S3 specifies a (2) 1-3/4x14 LVL BM in the stairwell/walk-in closet area, while the architectural second level floor plan shows a CONCEALED (2) 1 3/4"x11 7/8" LVL beam in the same general area adjacent to the walk-in closet. Both beams share the same ply configuration (two plies of 1-3/4" LVL) but differ in depth: 14" on the structural plan versus 11-7/8" on the architectural plan. The structural framing notes further state that beam and header sizes ind
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Post Pier Diameter and Foundation Configuration Conflict: Structural MIN 10" Pier+Footing vs Architectural 18" Pier OnlyStructuralHigh
Summary: The structural detail on SD-1 (Detail 6) specifies a 'MIN ø10" OR SQUARE CONC PIER' with specific reinforcement (#4 HORIZ @ 12" OC, #4 VERTS @ 12" OC), a separate 'CONC FTG PER PLAN' below the pier separated by a 'CONSTRUCTION JOINT, ROUGHEN', and an 'ABU POST BASE w/ 5/8"ø x 6" GALVANIZED TITEN HD'. The architectural post footing detail on Sheet 8 specifies '18" DIA. CONC. PIERS TO BELOW FROSTLINE (TYP.)' with a generic 'GALVANIZED METAL POST BASE', no reinforcement, and no se
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Gable End Outrigger/Outlooker Spacing Conflict: Structural 24" OC vs Architectural 48" OCStructuralHigh
Summary: The structural gable end outrigger detail on SD-2 (Detail 3) specifies '2x4 OUTRIGGER @ 24" OC' for the gable end roof overhang framing. The architectural gable end detail on Sheet 8 specifies '2x4 OUTLOOKERS @ 48" O.C.' for the same gable end overhang condition. Both details address the same framing element (gable end overhang support members), but the spacing differs by a factor of two (24" OC vs 48" OC).
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Conflicting Roof Framing Assembly: Stick-Framed vs. Manufactured TrussesArchitecturalHigh
Summary: The Architectural cross section explicitly details a conventionally stick-framed roof using 2x8 rafters, a 2x12 ridge, and 2x10 valley/hip rafters. In contrast, the Structural details specify the use of manufactured roof trusses (including scissor trusses and gable endwall trusses) for the roof assembly.
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
Inconsistent Foundation Wall / Stem Wall Thickness (6" vs 10")ArchitecturalHigh
Summary: Structural Detail 2 specifies a 6" concrete stem wall centered on the footing. Conversely, the Architectural Typical Wall Section dictates a 10" poured concrete foundation wall.
Why it matters: Addressing this issue before construction prevents costly rework and ensures code and coordination compliance.
Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve this conflict before construction begins.
RFI draft: Please clarify this issue with the design team.
This is an anonymized example. Findings shown are excerpts for illustration. Actual project details have been modified to protect client confidentiality.
Related case studies
Similar AI plan review results by project type and discipline. Browse all case studies
Want this on your next set?
Start with the first $100 covered. See cited issues in hours, no call required.
- Median 87 issues per project
- 5+ issues or full refund
- Results in hours
5+ issues or full refund · No demo required