Structural drawings carry more liability per sheet than almost any other discipline. A missing load path, an incomplete special inspection list, or an ambiguous connection detail can delay a permit, trigger a correction cycle, or create a real safety problem during construction. Plan reviewers know this, and structural submittals get scrutinized accordingly.
This checklist covers the 10 issues that generate the most structural plan review comments. It is organized from global items (design criteria, load paths) down to specific details (connections, notes, coordination), roughly following the order a reviewer would work through a structural set.
Design criteria and load paths
1. Structural design criteria sheet
Every structural set should include a design criteria sheet (or general notes sheet) that documents the design loads and governing codes. At a minimum, the reviewer expects to see: the applicable building code edition (IBC 2021, 2018, etc.), ASCE 7 edition, material design standards (ACI 318, AISC 360, NDS, TMS 402), occupancy/risk category, basic wind speed (with exposure category and topographic factors), ground snow load (with drift and sliding provisions noted), seismic design category with the site class and spectral acceleration values (SDS and SD1), and live load values for each occupancy type on the project. A missing or incomplete criteria sheet is often the first comment on a structural review.
2. Continuous load path
IBC 1604.4 requires a continuous load path from the point of load application to the foundation. Plan reviewers trace load paths both vertically (gravity loads through framing to columns to foundations) and laterally (wind and seismic forces through diaphragms to shear walls or braced frames to foundations). Common load path gaps include: transfer conditions at setbacks or offsets where columns do not stack, missing collector elements at re-entrant corners, discontinuous shear walls without adequate drag struts, and bearing walls that terminate without clear load transfer to the foundation below.
3. Lateral system identification
The lateral force resisting system (LFRS) must be clearly identified on the drawings. For each direction, the reviewer needs to see what system is used (moment frames, braced frames, shear walls, or a combination), the R-factor and system limitations claimed in the design, the diaphragm type (rigid or flexible) and how it distributes forces to the LFRS, and the location and extent of each lateral element on the framing plans. In higher seismic design categories (SDC D and above), the LFRS selection drives detailing requirements throughout the project. Ambiguity about the lateral system is a guaranteed comment.
Foundation and below-grade
4. Foundation design and soil parameters
Foundation plans should reference the geotechnical report and show the design soil bearing capacity, recommended foundation type, and any special soil conditions (expansive soils, liquefiable soils, high water table). The plan reviewer checks that footing sizes are consistent with the allowable bearing pressure, that minimum embedment depths are shown, and that the geotechnical recommendations are reflected in the structural details. Common issues include: footings sized for a bearing capacity that does not match the geotech report, missing frost depth callouts, no reference to the geotech report number or date, and undersized footings at concentrated loads like elevator pits or equipment pads.
5. Concrete reinforcement details
For concrete structures, the plan reviewer checks reinforcement against ACI 318 requirements. Frequent comments involve: missing development length and lap splice callouts (ACI 318 Section 25.4), inadequate concrete cover dimensions (ACI 318 Table 20.6.1.3.1), missing or incorrectly placed reinforcement at slab openings and re-entrant corners, shear reinforcement spacing that exceeds the maximum allowed (ACI 318 Section 9.7.6.2.2), and missing top reinforcement over continuous supports. The structural general notes should call out concrete strength (f'c), rebar grade, and cover requirements for each exposure condition. If post-tensioned elements are used, the stressing sequence and tendon profiles need to be on the drawings.
Connections and details
6. Connection design
Connections are where many structural reviews generate the most back-and-forth. Every connection should be detailed with enough information for the fabricator and field crew to build it without interpretation. For steel, this means: bolt size, grade, and quantity; weld size, type, and length; plate thickness and material grade; and the design load the connection carries. For wood, it means: connector type and model number (e.g., Simpson catalog numbers), fastener schedule, and bearing plate sizes. Ambiguous or "typical" connection details that do not address specific geometry are a common cause of Requests for Information (RFIs) during construction.
7. Anchor bolt and embed design
Anchorage to concrete is governed by ACI 318 Chapter 17 (formerly Appendix D) and is one of the most detail-intensive areas of structural design. The drawings should show: anchor bolt diameter, grade, embedment depth, edge distances, and spacing; base plate dimensions and thickness; and the design loads (tension, shear, or combined) at each anchorage location. For post-installed anchors, the product evaluation report (ESR number) should be referenced. Reviewers check that edge distances satisfy the concrete breakout requirements and that supplemental reinforcement is provided where needed. Missing anchorage calculations or incomplete embed schedules are high-frequency comments, especially at column bases and equipment supports.
| Category | Typical comment | Code reference |
|---|---|---|
| Design criteria | Incomplete or missing criteria sheet | IBC 1603 |
| Load path | Discontinuous load path at transfer level | IBC 1604.4 |
| Lateral system | LFRS not identified or R-factor not stated | ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1 |
| Foundations | Bearing capacity does not match geotech | IBC 1809 |
| Reinforcement | Lap splice lengths not shown | ACI 318 Section 25.4 |
| Connections | Bolt/weld sizes missing on details | AISC 360 Chapter J |
| Anchorage | Edge distances for breakout not checked | ACI 318 Chapter 17 |
| Special inspections | SI program missing or incomplete | IBC 1705 |
| Deflection | Live load deflection not documented | IBC Table 1604.3 |
| Coordination | Slab openings conflict with framing | N/A |
Special inspections and documentation
8. Special inspection program
IBC Chapter 17 requires a Statement of Special Inspections for most structural work. The structural drawings or specifications must include a special inspection schedule that lists each item requiring special inspection, the type of inspection (continuous or periodic), the applicable code section, and the inspector qualifications. Common special inspection items include: structural steel welding (AWS D1.1), high-strength bolting, concrete placement, reinforcing steel, post-installed anchors, structural masonry, and spray-applied fireproofing. Submitting without a complete special inspection program is one of the fastest ways to get a correction notice.
9. Deflection and drift limits
IBC Table 1604.3 sets maximum deflection limits for structural members, and ASCE 7 Section 12.12 sets story drift limits for seismic design. Plan reviewers expect to see deflection limits stated on the design criteria sheet and, for members supporting sensitive finishes (masonry walls, glass curtain walls), confirmation that the framing deflection is compatible with the architectural detailing. Story drift calculations should be included for buildings in SDC B and above. Where drift limits control the lateral design, the calculations need to show the elastic drift amplified by Cd per ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6.
Coordination
10. MEP and architectural coordination
Structural drawings do not exist in isolation. The plan reviewer checks for coordination between the structural framing and the other disciplines. Common coordination issues include: slab openings and penetrations that are not reinforced or that conflict with post-tensioning tendons, equipment loads on the mechanical schedule that are not accounted for in the structural framing, rooftop mechanical unit dunnage that is not detailed on the structural drawings, architectural floor-to-floor heights that do not match the structural framing depths, and curtain wall attachment details that do not correspond to the structural steel framing. These issues are easier to catch during an internal review than during plan check, where they generate comments that require responses from multiple disciplines.
Catching these issues before submittal
Structural plan review comments tend to cascade. A missing design criteria sheet raises questions about every load-dependent decision on the project. An unclear lateral system leads to questions about connections, anchorage, and special inspections. Running through a checklist like this one before submittal, or using an automated review tool that flags these categories systematically, reduces the chance of a multi-round correction cycle and gets the project to permit faster.