FEMA P-1100/ICC 1300 Contributors

Thanks for reaching out regarding FEMA P-1100 plan sets. The original P-1100 was manageable before seismic zones were added to them. The new P-1100 2A requires an amount of shear wall that is very difficult to install in seismic zone 1.

The new P-1100 2B used by the ESS program requires removing and replacing foundations if you can meet the shear wall numbers. This has a negative effect on cost to our customers. I reached out to Thor Matteson when these plans first came out as he was on the steering committee for these plans and we install his designs for his clients. His comment was that these plans won’t work on most homes. I would agree with that statement. Plan Set A has been a useful tool for houses that fit into its parameters. Even Plan Set A can be overkill when compared to the BSF but the cost saving by not having to have an engineer/ special inspections involved does pencil out.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have used it less than 10 times in the past year. 2024 is the first year that I was forced to use it as a requirement from the Brace and Bolt Program. I typically do a lot of engineered work as I am a framer by trade.

3, How would you compare it to Standard Plan A?

The FEMA Plan set is a bit more comprehensive and inclusive. At first glance, It can be quite complicated to utilize during the estimating phase. Not because of its complexity (as it is just framing details), but remembering the details during the initial estimate and denoting it on my sketch. It took me a few hours to get comfortable, read through it and memorize them. But I typically do this for most engineered jobs anyway to get acquainted with the scope and details of the work. With regard to the actual digital plan set, some building departments have requested to remove the pages that are not being used during a project.

Standard Plan Set A is easy to use and work with. However, it is a bit antiquated with some of its information and does not cover all scenarios that are found in the field. With more building departments requesting updated figures of the connectors and URFP-10, it’s becoming more tedious to use Plan Set A in certain cities. In some cities, their 3rd party plan checkers are requesting for me to create cover pages denoting current building codes and the plot plan layout of the property in relation with the city street layout. This adds to Standard Plan Set A pages that would normally be done by an engineer.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have used p1100 2a and p1100 2b around 30 times. I have used plan set A around 300 times. I had used engineered plans around 90 times. The number one issue is that the plans are incredibly complicated. P1100 the most. You have to remember, contractors aren’t the sharpest tools in the tool shed. I once had a supervisor who literally couldn’t read. The new plan set should be written so a fourth grader can read it. This will help mitigate a lot of the confusion that I see. Both p1100 and plan set A read like a lot of engineers got together, offered their opinions and put together a mish mash plan set for other engineers to read. Remember your target audience. Dumb it down, then dumb it down some more, and you probably will still have people mess it up.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nice site Howard, filled with tons of useful and practical information.

I’m a GC (#634650), Cal Poly engineer (BSIE ’86), 35 year home inspector (15,000+ inspections), and a CA listed EBB/ESS contractor.

Here’s my short answers to your questions:

I have heard of FEMA P-1100, my opinion is Standard Plan A is a much better solution, based on costs to install vs. needed (and additional) strength provided. It’s overkill for the most part, in my opinion.
I’ve never used it. have provided quotes based on it before, because clients demanded it (most times because it was a requirement, for whatever reason). Once they see the cost difference, everyone likes Standard Plan A.
It’s great in theory (it please the engineer in me immensely), but it falls apart once it leaves the paper (sometimes it can’t be built, or is really hard to build), and is ridiculously overpriced for the (mostly unnecessary) added strength it does provide.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I used around 5 times. (-2A)

But for the -2B it’s very expensive, especially putting new concrete foundation. It’s cheaper to pay an Engineer.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

R L F C CONSTRUCTION

37812 Mosswood Dr, Fremont

(License #: 1040646)

Email:

Phone: (510) 387-4845

Web: http://rlfcconstruction.com

AVANT GARDE CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE

1271 Washington Ave, San Leandro

(License #: 1005420)

Email:

Phone: (510) 881-6573

Web: https://www.avant-gardece.com/