Structural drawings are reviewed against two documents simultaneously: IBC for the prescriptive requirements and ASCE 7 for the load combinations and hazard parameters. A structural set that satisfies the calculations but fails to communicate the design clearly on the drawings is still a reviewable deficiency. Plan review catches both.
These are the structural violations that generate the most correction notices across commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects.
1. Missing or incomplete load path documentation
IBC Section 1604.4 requires a continuous load path from the roof to the foundation. The structural drawings must show how gravity and lateral loads travel through the structure at every transfer point. The most common deficiency is not a missing member, it is a missing connection. The beam is shown. The column is shown. The connection between them is not detailed.
This appears most often at roof-to-wall connections, diaphragm-to-collector connections, and collector-to-shear-wall connections. Each of those transfers needs an explicit detail. General notes that say "provide adequate connections" are not sufficient.
2. ASCE 7 seismic design parameters not shown
ASCE 7-22 Section 11.4 requires the design to use site-specific spectral acceleration values. The drawings must state the Seismic Design Category (SDC), the Site Class, the mapped accelerations Ss and S1, and the adjusted values SDS and SD1. When any of these are missing from the general notes, the reviewer cannot verify that the design parameters match the project location and the adopted code edition.
| Parameter | Where to Find It | Common Error |
|---|---|---|
| Ss, S1 | USGS Seismic Hazard Tool or ASCE 7 maps | Using values from wrong code edition |
| Site Class | Geotechnical report | Defaulting to D without geotechnical basis |
| SDS, SD1 | Calculated per ASCE 7 Section 11.4.4 | Missing from drawings entirely |
| SDC | Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2 | Inconsistent between pages |
| Rho (redundancy) | ASCE 7 Section 12.3.4 | Not calculated or stated |
The most common specific error: using Site Class D as a default without a geotechnical report to support it, in a jurisdiction where Site Class D is not the conservative default. ASCE 7-22 changed the default site class requirements. Projects designed to ASCE 7-16 and then reviewed under ASCE 7-22 requirements are a frequent source of corrections.
3. Wind exposure category inconsistencies
ASCE 7 defines Exposure Categories B, C, and D based on the surface roughness upwind of the site. Exposure C (open terrain) produces significantly higher wind pressures than Exposure B (suburban terrain). The correction notice happens when the exposure category stated on the drawings doesn't match the site conditions, or when different pages of the same drawing set use different exposure categories.
Wind pressure calculations must also show the basic wind speed for the location and the applicable edition of ASCE 7. The wind speed maps changed between ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16, and again in ASCE 7-22. A reviewer checking a set designed to ASCE 7-22 requirements with wind speeds from an older map will flag it.
4. Shear wall schedule and holdown specification
Wood-framed structures are particularly susceptible to shear wall documentation errors. IBC Chapter 23 and AWC SDPWS govern wood shear wall design. The drawings need to show the shear wall schedule with unit shear capacity, nailing pattern, sheathing thickness and grade, and sill plate size. The holdown schedule needs to match the shear wall demands at each end of each wall segment.
5. Special inspection requirements not shown
IBC Section 1705 requires special inspection for a long list of structural elements: high-strength bolting, structural welding, reinforced concrete, masonry, soils, driven piles, helical piles, and more. The structural drawings must include a Special Inspection Program (SIP) or a statement of special inspection that identifies every element requiring inspection, the type of inspection (continuous vs. periodic), and the applicable referenced standard.
The SIP is frequently missing entirely from permit submittals, or present but missing categories. A structural set that includes special moment frames but doesn't list structural welding inspection in the SIP is a correction. The reviewer will not assume the engineer intends to inspect it.
6. Concrete mix design documentation
ACI 318-19 Section 26.4 requires concrete mix design documentation for structural concrete. The drawings must state the minimum compressive strength (f'c), exposure categories, maximum water-cementitious material ratio, and air content requirements for freeze-thaw conditions. For projects in climates with freeze-thaw cycles, the concrete exposure class drives additional requirements that are often omitted.
| Exposure Class | Condition | Max w/cm | Min Air Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| F0 | No freeze-thaw | No limit | No requirement |
| F1 | Moderate freeze-thaw | 0.45 | 4.5% |
| F2 | Severe freeze-thaw | 0.45 | 6.0% |
| F3 | Very severe, deicers | 0.40 | 6.0% |
| W1 | Moderate water contact | 0.50 | N/A |
| W2 | Severe water contact | 0.45 | N/A |
From ACI 318-19 Table 19.3.3.1. Exposure class must be stated on structural drawings.
7. Footing design for frost depth
IBC Section 1809.5 requires footings to extend below the frost depth established by the local jurisdiction. This is one of the more straightforward requirements, but it generates correction notices regularly because the frost depth varies by county in some states, and the drawings show a standard footing depth without referencing the local frost depth or confirming compliance.
8. Deferred submittals scope
IBC Section 107.3.4.1 allows certain elements to be submitted after permit issuance as deferred submittals, including pre-engineered metal buildings, trusses, curtain walls, and fire suppression systems. The original structural drawings must identify every deferred element, the agency responsible for the deferred design, and the performance criteria the deferred design must meet.
The correction: drawings that reference trusses or pre-engineered components without identifying them as deferred submittals or defining the design parameters they must meet. The truss manufacturer needs to know the required uplift, the bearing conditions, and the deflection limits. If those aren't on the drawings, the deferred submittal can't be reviewed against anything.
Why structural reviews take more time than other disciplines
Structural reviews require cross-checking the drawings against the calculations, and the calculations against the design parameters. A reviewer who finds a beam marked W18x35 needs to verify it against the load takeoff, the connections, and the governing load combination. This isn't a field-by-field check. It's a system-level review.
First-pass automated review helps by flagging the documentation deficiencies before the structural reviewer sees the set: missing parameters, incomplete schedules, absent special inspection programs. Those are the corrections that are fast to catch automatically and slow to resolve once a project is in review.
Callout reviews structural drawings against IBC 2021, IBC 2018, and ASCE 7-22. Upload a drawing set, select the applicable codes, and get findings with exact section citations before the set goes to the AHJ. Try it with 50 free credits →