Comment closed: revised shear-wall calculations using Force Transfer Around Openings per SDPWS-21 Section 4.3.2, with updated hold-down and strap forces documented in the revised calculation file and marked on the plan sheet with clouded callouts. Pending reviewer confirmation, the resubmittal package includes the independent check and the controlling output screenshots referenced below.
TL;DR:
- Most review comments are clarified by showing existing documentation more clearly, minimizing unnecessary recalculations.
- Using an independent check alongside the main calculation reduces review cycles and increases review confidence.
- Force Transfer Around Openings is appropriate for walls with multiple openings or irregular pier layouts, supported by laboratory testing.
- A well-organized resubmittal package with direct links to files, specific code citations, and clear comparison outputs speeds up approval.
- The ShearWise Pro tool streamlines the creation of review-ready PDFs, saving time on organizing complex shear wall data.
Table of Contents
- What to include in every resubmittal package
- How to revise shear wall calculations without triggering a follow-up comment
- Addressing comments about openings with FTAO
- Verification evidence that shortens the review cycle
- Keeping a Comment Resolution Sheet that prevents repeat comments
- What to expect for timeline, effort, and fees
- A practitioner's take on handling review comments
- ShearWise Pro: assembling reviewer-ready packages faster
- FAQ
- Sources
What to include in every resubmittal package
A reviewer should never have to ask where the evidence is. Every response package we assemble points directly to a file, a tab, or a page, so the reviewer can confirm the fix in minutes instead of flipping through a stack of documents.
Use this as a copy-paste checklist for your Comment Resolution Sheet or cover email:
- Revised calculation file name, revision date, and author, with the specific calc tab referenced.
- Marked-up PDF plan pages showing clouds or highlights tied to callout numbers.
- Screenshots of calculation outputs, including hold-down tables, strap forces, and deflection numbers, with arrows pointing to the controlling values.
- A CRS entry listing comment ID, the bottom-line response, attachments, status, and verifier initials.
- Code clause citations and a short list of any assumptions that changed.
Numbered for the cover letter itself:
- State what changed in one sentence.
- Point to the exact file, tab, and sheet.
- Confirm the governing code section used.
- Note the verification method attached.
Reviewers process packages faster when every item on this list is present on the first pass, which cuts down on repeat comment cycles tied to missing documentation rather than actual design issues.
How to revise shear wall calculations without triggering a follow-up comment
Before touching the calculation, figure out whether the comment is really asking for a recalculation or just a drawing clarification. Many comments read like a math objection but are actually a request to show something that already exists on the plan more clearly. Misreading this distinction wastes a review cycle in either direction.
Once you know a recalculation is needed, work through it methodically:
- Perform the revision and note every assumption that changed from the original submittal.
- Add a short calculation header explaining why the change was made, not just what changed.
- Run an independent check using an alternate method or a hand calculation, and attach both results side by side.
- Update every dependent sheet, including schedules, tags, and general notes, and list each one in the CRS entry.
Dependent sheets are where repeat comments come from most often; understanding differences like knock down vs welded door frame can prevent such recurring issues. A hold-down size change on the calculation sheet that does not make it to the foundation plan or the hardware schedule will generate a second comment on the same issue weeks later.
Pro Tip: Log dependent sheet updates in the CRS the moment you make the calculation change, not after the package is assembled, so nothing gets missed in the final review.
Addressing comments about openings with FTAO
When a reviewer flags a wall with multiple openings, an irregular pier layout, or an aspect ratio that makes segmented shear wall design impractical, Force Transfer Around Openings is often the right path. FTAO is a code-recognized method under SDPWS-21 Section 4.3.2, and it is backed by laboratory testing that supports its use on walls where a segmented approach cannot capture the actual load path around an opening.
Reviewers checking an FTAO submission look for a specific set of outputs:
- Hold-down forces at the boundary elements.
- Tension strap forces transferring load around the opening.
- Sheathing attachment shear at the perimeter of each pier.
- Maximum calculated deflection for the wall line.
The APA FTAO calculator generates worked outputs for walls with one, two, or three openings, including design examples suitable to attach directly to a resubmittal. Export or screenshot the worksheet, highlight the controlling cells, and reference the specific opening configuration you used. For a deeper walkthrough of the method, our FTAO guide covering APA M410 and calculator use walks through assembling a permit-ready FTAO package step by step.
Verification evidence that shortens the review cycle
An independent check means running the same wall line through a second method, a different software tool, or a documented hand calculation, and presenting both results together rather than asking the reviewer to take the first result on faith. This single habit resolves more comments on the first resubmittal than any other practice.
Keep the presentation tight:
- Place the original and independent results side by side on one page, not scattered across the calc package.
- Prepare screenshots with red boxes or arrows and a one-line caption tying each image directly to the comment ID.
- Cite the specific code clause and table or figure number behind each result, rather than a general reference to the code as a whole.
Pro Tip: A caption that reads "Comment #4, controlling hold-down force, calc tab FTAO-2" tells the reviewer everything they need in one glance.
Keeping a Comment Resolution Sheet that prevents repeat comments
A CRS only works if it is consistent enough that a reviewer can scan it without asking you to explain the format. Keep the fields minimal and the same across every submittal:
- Comment ID, matched to the plan check letter or review memo.
- The reviewer's original comment text, quoted exactly.
- A bottom-line response stating what changed.
- The attachment list for that comment.
- Date, status, and verifier initials.
File naming and revision stamps matter just as much as the CRS itself. A file named ShearwiseProject_Rev2.pdf with a matching revision stamp on the title block prevents a reviewer from confusing it with an earlier submittal. When a calculation change affects a schedule, a section tag, or a general note, log that dependent change in the same CRS row so the reviewer sees the full scope of the fix without opening a new comment to ask about it.
What to expect for timeline, effort, and fees
A reasonable internal sequence runs from quality assurance, to the independent check, to assembling the package, to submission. Skipping the QA step to save time is usually what produces the comment that costs you another full cycle.
- Reviewer turnaround windows vary by jurisdiction, so check your local plan check office for its current cycle time rather than assuming a fixed number.
- A complete, well-documented package with clear evidence tends to move through a review faster than one that forces the reviewer to ask clarifying questions.
- Some comments, particularly those involving a peer review requirement or a signed engineer's letter, may carry an added fee. Note that cost directly in your response so the reviewer and the client both see it coming.
A practitioner's take on handling review comments
The single biggest time saver we have seen is a short phone call before writing anything. When a comment is really about plan clarity rather than a code issue, five minutes on the phone can save weeks of back-and-forth. Never respond with a bare "revised as requested." Always point to the exact page, the exact calc tab, and the governing code section. Reviewers close comments faster when they do not have to hunt for proof.
— Evalin
ShearWise Pro: assembling reviewer-ready packages faster
![CTA image placeholder]
Building the artifacts a reviewer expects, organized wall lines, hold-down tables, transfer strap forces, and story drift checks, takes real time when it is done sheet by sheet in a spreadsheet. We built ShearWise Pro to organize that work into one place: wall lines, openings, full-height segments, hold-down forces, and roof information all feed into a clean PDF report formatted for review coordination.
- Export calculation outputs and plan-ready PDFs directly from your project data instead of rebuilding tables by hand.
- Try the Three-Report Trial with three watermarked reports before committing to a paid plan.
- Review our tutorials and training videos to see how a finished report is structured before building your own.
When a reviewer asks for a revised calculation set, a faster path to the finished PDF means more time spent on the actual engineering. Sign up to try ShearWise Pro on your next resubmittal.
FAQ
What should a resubmittal response to an engineer's comment include?
A strong response states what changed in one sentence, points to the exact file, calc tab, and plan sheet, and names the governing code section used. Attach the revised calculation, a marked-up plan page, and screenshots of the controlling outputs so the reviewer can confirm the fix without asking follow-up questions.
How do I know if a comment needs FTAO instead of a segmented shear wall approach?
Force Transfer Around Openings becomes appropriate when a wall has openings, asymmetric piers, or an aspect ratio that a segmented method cannot handle. FTAO is recognized under SDPWS-21 Section 4.3.2 and is supported by laboratory testing specific to that condition.
What counts as an independent check on a shear wall calculation?
An independent check is a second analysis of the same wall line using a different method or a documented hand calculation, presented alongside the original result. Reviewers accept a corrected calculation faster when both analyses appear together rather than relying on a single uncorroborated file.
How long does a shear wall comment resubmittal typically take?
Turnaround depends on the local jurisdiction's review cycle, so check directly with the plan check office handling your project for current timing. A complete package with clear code citations and verification evidence tends to move through review with fewer clarifying questions than an incomplete one.
Does ShearWise Pro help prepare documents for a review response?
ShearWise Pro organizes wall lines, hold-down forces, transfer straps, and story drift checks into a clean PDF report that can support a resubmittal package. The Three-Report Trial lets you test the workflow with three watermarked reports before choosing a paid plan.