Storypole Modeling ← Back to Storypole Modeling
Example issues we catch

Hundreds of issues
we’ve caught

Here are some of them, from a two-week period.

Every item below is a real entry from our issues log, found across ten different engineering and architectural drawing sets on live jobs running at the same time — with the model markup that was actually sent to the engineer of record. Nothing here is an illustration, and the quoted line under each one is what was written on it at the time.

This is just a small sample. We find hundreds of issues across even the best firms. Things slip through — on good sets, from good engineers, drawn by people who know what they are doing. A set is a two-dimensional description of a three-dimensional object, and nobody has ever built one of those perfectly on paper.

So we are not showing these to say the drawings were bad. Every set leaves something to be resolved — that is why the RFI exists as an instrument. The question is only whether it gets settled on a screen or at the wall.

6Columns or beams with nothing under them
7Things the set simply never said
4Two sheets disagreeing with each other
10Separate drawing sets, roughly two weeks
01

A wall out of location — with the footings under it and the trusses over it both wrong

435 Pelican Point DrLoad path Blocking

The worst one on this page. A wall was not where it needed to be. That alone is a dimension, and dimensions get fixed. But the footer and the pad footing beneath it had been set out to the wrong line as well, so the wall had nothing properly under it — and the pre-engineered 12″ floor trusses above had been laid out off the same line, so they were wrong too.

One error, three trades. Fixing the wall alone leaves a footing in the wrong place. Fixing the wall and the footing leaves a truss package already fabricated to the wrong bearing. That is how a single mis-set line turns into a footing repour, a truss re-order on a lead time you do not control, and a crew standing in the yard.

Found on a screen, before any of the three existed.

“Wall — footers and pad footing out of location — collapse + causes truss wrong”From the issue log
A wall out of location — with the footings under it and the trusses over it both wrong
435 Pelican Point Dr. Foundation and framing overlaid, with top-of-beam elevations at 13.57 and 24.24 and the out-of-location run marked in red.
02

A column that reaches a footing at the back and nothing at the front

435 Pelican Point DrLoad path Blocking

Two front 8×8 columns were drawn on the upper floors. Stacked in 3D, one of them lands on a footing and the other lands on air. On a plan view you are looking at one level at a time, so nothing about either column looks wrong.

This is the single most common finding on this page and the most expensive to miss. A column with no footing under it does not fail an inspection — it fails when the floor above it is loaded.

“Will goes to footer in back — BUT does not go to footer in the front”From the issue log
A column that reaches a footing at the back and nothing at the front
Tekla model, 435 Pelican Point Dr. Red arrows mark both conditions on the same pair of columns.
03

A second column missing from both the framing plan and the foundation

435 Pelican Point DrLoad path Blocking

A different column on the same job, and this one is absent twice over: nothing carries it on the second floor framing, and nothing receives it on the foundation drawings. It exists only on the level it was drawn on.

Found before the slab went in. The sheet in the background carries the stamp “these plans to be reviewed and signed by others before permit issuance” — which is exactly the window this work belongs in.

“Column does not go to footer in second floor framing or the foundation drawings”From the issue log
A second column missing from both the framing plan and the foundation
The column terminates in mid-air above the block. Nothing beneath it on either sheet.
04

Eight 12×12 concrete columns called out in a note — and not one of them located on the plan

5408 Spoonbill WayOmission Blocking

The foundation plan carries a text note: 12″×12″ concrete column, (4)-#5 vertical with dowels, #3 ties at 8″ — typical (8) locations. One leader. It lands where a WF3.0 wall meets a WF1.5 footing near the garage. The other seven are nowhere: there is no column schedule anywhere in the set, and the legend’s poured-in-place column symbol is never used on the plan.

The architectural rendering shows four posts along the open side of the carport and one at the rear patio. Whether those are five of the eight — form-and-pour concrete, a fiberglass wrap, or a concrete core inside a wrap — the set does not say. We will not guess a structural location. The model carries isolated pads with nothing standing on them, and the estimate carries the columns as an open item until the engineer answers.

“Quality screening shows 12x12 columns, 8 of them, but we cannot find them in the drawings. Columns are always identified in a column table with a clear CC1 and an arrow pointing to all the locations. Here they are, just in a note.”From the issue log
Eight 12×12 concrete columns called out in a note — and not one of them located on the plan
5408 Spoonbill Way. Foundation plan. The 12″×12″ note (boxed in red) reads “typical (8)-locations” with a single leader. The F3 footings with filled-cell symbols run down the right side along WF1.5.
05

Two 8×16 columns pointed at a wall corner — no outline, no fill, and no way to tell which way the 16″ runs

5408 Spoonbill WayOmission Blocking

A second note calls out (2) 8″×16″ concrete columns, (4)-#5 vertical with dowels, #3 ties at 8″. Each leader lands on a wall corner — one by the stair where WF3.0 meets WF2-8, near the porch; the other on a hatched corner further along. No column is drawn at either. No poured-in-place fill shows the concrete section.

An 8×16 sits two ways in a corner, and the orientation changes the block layout and how the column ties into both walls. Nothing on the sheet chooses. It went to the engineer with one request: draw the column to scale with its fill, dimension which way the 16″ side runs, and put it in a schedule.

“There are qty 2 (8x16) columns not in a column table and we cannot tell what their orientation is or where they're at. It just points to a corner and there's no concrete cross-section cell fill symbol.”From the issue log
Two 8×16 columns pointed at a wall corner — no outline, no fill, and no way to tell which way the 16″ runs
5408 Spoonbill Way. Foundation plan. The 8″×16″ note’s leader lands at a hatched wall corner with no column outline and no orientation shown.
06

Footings and pads sized so the reinforcing would finish outside the concrete

435 Pelican Point DrFoundation Blocking

Modelling the reinforcing inside the footings showed bar running out through the face. Cover is not a detail you can adjust on site once the steel is tied and the inspector is standing there.

Caught on a screen, this is a dimension. Caught at the wall, it is a stopped pour.

“Rebar would be exposed — correct footing and pads”From the issue log
Footings and pads sized so the reinforcing would finish outside the concrete
Second and third floor framing with the footing and pad conditions marked.
07

Wall corners and beams occupying the same space, and a beam only half supported

435 Pelican Point DrBearing Blocking

Two problems in one place: the corner geometry overlaps where the wall and beam meet, and the beam that results is bearing on part of its end rather than all of it.

Nothing in two dimensions shows this. A plan view draws the beam and draws the wall; only solid geometry shows that they cannot both be there.

“Wall corners and beams overlap and beam partially supported”From the issue log
Wall corners and beams occupying the same space, and a beam only half supported
The overlap at the corner, with the partially supported bearing boxed in red.
08

A column dimensioned too small to carry the beam landing on it

435 Pelican Point DrBearing High

The column size given on the schedule does not leave enough bearing for the beam that arrives on top of it. The beam fits on the drawing because a line has no width.

Raised as a second RFI on this job after the first round of corrections came back.

“Current dimension won't support beam”From the issue log
A column dimensioned too small to carry the beam landing on it
Current column dimension against the beam it receives, marked in the model.
09

A beam running straight through the patio landing, and no beam where one is needed

435 Pelican Point DrCoordination High

Built to the sheets, a beam passes through the finished patio landing. Somewhere else on the same level, a beam that the structure needs is not drawn at all.

The raised deck on the right-hand side of floor two is the area affected.

“There is no beam here — cuts into landing of the patio”From the issue log
A beam running straight through the patio landing, and no beam where one is needed
Model over the framing plan, with the conflict and the missing member both marked.
10

A steel beam bearing on half the wall width

435 Pelican Point DrBearing Blocking

The steel beam sits on roughly half the thickness of the wall carrying it. Our recommendation back to the engineer was a welded plate and the beam moved over — but that is his call, not ours.

We write the question, never the answer. The engineer of record decides what it means.

“Engineering required for this — steel beam half width, needs welded plate and move beam over”From the issue log
A steel beam bearing on half the wall width
The bearing condition boxed in red, with the dimension read off the model.
11

Openings with no precast lintel shown over them

403 Coquina Key RdOmission High

A row of openings with nothing scheduled to span them. Not an error in what was drawn — an absence of what was not.

Omissions are the hardest class of defect to find on paper, because there is nothing on the sheet to look at. In a model the opening simply has no member over it and the geometry will not close.

“Are there precast lintels above these openings? If so, please update drawings.”From the issue log
Openings with no precast lintel shown over them
403 Coquina Key Rd. The openings in question marked on the model elevation.
12

A roof-level beam with no size on it anywhere in the set

403 Coquina Key RdOmission High

No callout on the roof framing plan, and nothing in the schedules to fall back on. We modelled it at 16″ wide to keep going and asked for the real number.

Every assumption we make is written down and sent. A model that quietly picks a size and says nothing is worse than no model.

“No beam size callout on roof level. We modeled as 16 in wide.”From the issue log
A roof-level beam with no size on it anywhere in the set
Roof framing plan with the unsized member outlined, alongside the overhang details.
13

The same beam given two different sizes on two different sheets

403 Coquina Key RdConflict High

Second level framing shows 16″. The second floor plan shows 16″ × 7.625″. Both sheets are in the same permitted set and both are sealed.

Somebody on site is going to pick one of them, and nobody is going to ask him which.

“Beams are different sizes on each level, see two attached drawings. Please update drawings.”From the issue log
The same beam given two different sizes on two different sheets
The two sheets side by side, with the arrow running between the conflicting callouts.
14

A CMU wall bearing on the floor trusses

435 Pelican Point DrLoad path Blocking

The block wall lands on top of the pre-engineered 12″ floor trusses rather than on structure. We will not carry masonry on trusses, and neither will the truss manufacturer.

The same objection had already been raised on another job in the same month. It is a standing position, not a preference.

“CMU sits on top of trusses”From the issue log
A CMU wall bearing on the floor trusses
Second floor framing plan. Red arrows at the bearing line where the CMU meets the trusses.
15

Ledger boards left off at two separate locations

435 Pelican Point DrOmission Blocking

The floor framing meets the CMU with no ledger drawn to carry it — in two different places on the same sheet, found separately.

Neither one is visible until you try to make the floor bear on something.

“2nd no ledger”From the issue log
Ledger boards left off at two separate locations
Third floor framing. The bearing line where the trusses meet the block, with no ledger.
16

Girder trusses specified where engineered beams belong

435 Pelican Point DrSpecification High

Girder trusses were called out in a floor condition. Girder trusses are a roof product; the load here wants an engineered beam.

This is the kind of finding that comes from having laid the block and run the crews, not from the geometry — the model shows what is there, a builder recognises what should not be.

“Girder trusses should be engineered beams — these are for roofs”From the issue log
Girder trusses specified where engineered beams belong
The girder truss run, boxed, against the floor framing it was specified into.
17

Wall dimensions set to increments that force custom-cut block everywhere

435 Pelican Point DrBuildability Normal

The walls were dimensioned without reference to the 8″ module, so a large number of courses finish on a cut piece. Every one of those is a saw cut, a man standing at a saw, and a piece of waste.

Nothing here is wrong. It builds exactly as drawn — it just costs more to build than it needs to, and nobody finds that out until the crew is laying it.

“A lot of block pieces with walls to custom increments”From the issue log
Wall dimensions set to increments that force custom-cut block everywhere
Wall elevation at 23.91, showing the cut pieces the dimensioning produces.
18

Deck trusses drawn with no slope on them

435 Pelican Point DrOmission High

An exterior deck with the trusses running flat. Either the slope is in the topping and nobody said so, or it is missing from the truss design.

The truss plant cannot design without knowing which, and the answer changes both the truss package and the bearing heights.

“No slope in deck trusses?”From the issue log
Deck trusses drawn with no slope on them
Deck framing with the truss run marked, showing no pitch in the members.
And the rest of the log Everything else open across the same jobs over the same period. No markup attached to these ones — the finding is the point.
  1. NAVD elevation values are four inches out
  2. One column carries four different column types
  3. Foundation level — two columns missing entirely
  4. Wall dimension mismatch between A105 and S103
  5. Existing footings found in the new footing trenches
  6. Rebar to be corrected after the RFI change
  7. Two front columns in the model, none on the 2D drawing
  8. Second level girders unresolved — the truss quote is held on it
  9. Three third-floor columns with nothing beneath them
  10. Plans issued as raster PDFs — no vector data to reference
  11. Block walls appearing to bear on the second floor trusses
  12. Ledger size left blank in the set — a circular reference
  13. No load given for the spiral stair in the living room
  14. Third floor stepping out to the roof deck — a 6″ step down?
  15. Top chord bearing on the ledgers with no hangers — decision requested
  16. Breakaway walls intended? Zone AE, and the set labels it neither way
  17. Roof pitch from the roof material, or ¼″ built into the trusses?
  18. A 24″ deck and a 6″ step up makes the floor trusses 30″ — intended?
  19. Elevations show cantilever overhangs, every detail shows rake
  20. Steel beam at detail I-14 — pocketed or sitting on the wall?
  21. Beam cannot be pocketed down — a 10″ heel across the whole second floor
  22. Gyp-crete over the whole third floor? No loading given for it
  23. Elevator shaft drawn as wood on the architectural, concrete on the structural
  24. Last two joists cannot be designed as joists — must be carried as steel
  25. Top chord extension length forces deeper seats, or the beam has to drop
  26. Detail ST2 labelled “wood column to steel beam” — it connects to masonry
  27. Simpson LSSU28SS called out — that hardware does not exist
  28. 22″ LVL specified, not manufactured in that depth
  29. Hardie sill and cap drawn as 2×2 — Hardie does not make it
  30. Beam missing on the third floor — five weeks with no revised drawings
  31. Second floor boxed-out area — open to below or framed?
  32. Structural steel scope reads “None”, but the set schedules HSS beams and a column
  33. Knee wall set on the roof deck trusses, girders built into the truss design
  34. First floor truss direction changed to delete an LVL beam — needs sign-off
  35. Column sizes missing, and beam callouts that disagree with the schedule
Every one of these was found by building the shell in 3D first.

None of them required a special search. They are what happens when you put every block, rebar, column and beam where the drawings say it goes and the parts have to actually meet. A model either closes or it does not — and when it does not, something needs answering before anybody builds it.

We hand the findings back as a Confidential Build Quality Review: what will not build, why, with the sheet reference on every line. Any finding worth raising can be written up as a numbered RFI, ready to send.

Send us a plan set See what an RFI looks like
On the drawings shown here. Job addresses have been changed. Sheet titles and callouts appear as they did in our own model and issue log. These are coordination findings — what does not fit or does not close — and not a peer review, a code review or an engineering opinion. Every one went to the design professional of record, whose answer governs.