The structural and architectural basement plans letter the same column grids differently.
The basement plans of a building were read across the architectural, structural, HVAC and plumbing sheets, and the structural plan disagrees with the architectural plan and with its own notes.
Basement structural coordination
Basement plans for architecture, structural reinforcement, HVAC and plumbing, read against one another for coordination, connection details and document health.
What the review compared
The review placed the basement floor plan beside the structural reinforcement plan, the HVAC plan and the plumbing and drainage plan, following grids, walls, concrete notes and typical details. Its instructions asked for conflicts across plans, sections and details, load-transfer and connection information, and document health issues such as broken references and unreadable annotations.
Where the plans disagree
The structural and architectural plans letter the same grids differently, and the structural plan, dated before the latest architectural revision, omits two courtyard walls. Its notes, typical wall detail and slab sections imply three concrete covers and two concrete classes for the basement walls, the slab-to-shoring detail gives the dowels no embedment, and the typical opening detail prints two dimensions on top of each other.
What to verify next
The structural engineer should reletter the grids, bring the plan up to the current architectural revision and settle the cover, concrete class and dowel anchorage in one reissue. Code checking was enabled; every example is a question for the engineer of record and the architect.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Grid letters differ between disciplines
The structural and architectural plans letter the same column grids differently.
Why it matters: Walls, bars and openings set out by grid letter can land on the wrong line.
What to check: Reletter the structural grids to match and reissue.
Structural · ArchitecturalConcrete cover is given three ways
A basement note, the typical wall detail and the slab sections imply three covers.
Why it matters: Durability and bar lengths depend on which governs.
What to check: Set one cover per element and correct each source.
StructuralSlab-to-shoring dowels have no embedment
The slab-to-shoring pile detail shows dowels with no drilled depth, hole size or adhesive.
Why it matters: The contractor would choose an anchorage that may not carry the forces.
What to check: Add drill depth, diameter, adhesive and any pull-out testing.
StructuralCourtyard walls missing from the structural plan
The latest architectural revision adds two courtyard walls the earlier structural plan omits.
Why it matters: If concrete, they get no starter bars and need drilling later.
What to check: Update the structural plan, or mark the walls non-structural.
Structural · ArchitecturalBasement wall concrete class conflicts
General notes give basement walls one concrete class; the wall schedule gives a higher one.
Why it matters: The wrong concrete may be ordered or priced.
What to check: Set one class and correct the note or the schedule.
StructuralTwo dimensions printed over each other
At every corner of the typical opening detail, two different dimensions overlap.
Why it matters: Reinforcement around every wall opening cannot be read.
What to check: Delete the wrong value and keep one clear dimension.
StructuralRevision table has no date for one issue
One row of the architectural revision table shows a placeholder instead of a date.
Why it matters: Consultants cannot confirm they worked from the right revision.
What to check: Add the issue date to the revision table.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural and Architectural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Drawing coordination and code checking
Code checking was enabled alongside the review of plans, schedules, details, and notes.
Findings connected to their source context
Groundbook links each finding to the sheets it came from so the responsible designer can confirm or dismiss it.
Potential impacts describe the issue type. They are not verified outcomes from this project.
Follow the information across the complete set
Groundbook reads the documents you upload and reports where they disagree, where a reference does not resolve, and where a required value is absent.
See how a full set is reviewed or how interfaces are coordinated.
- 1Map the complete set
Identify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, and notes.
- 2Connect repeated information
Follow tags, references, and requirements wherever they reappear.
- 3Check drawings and code references
Read the detected code references alongside the drawing evidence.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
Questions for professional verification
The output supports the responsible designers as they review the source documents and decide what needs to change.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination, completeness, and code-reference questions in the uploaded set.
- Each finding includes source context for verification.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation.
- The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority.
- A correction was made, or any cost or delay was avoided.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in November 2026. Findings are summarized.
Are these findings confirmed defects?
No. Each one is a potential issue for the responsible designer to verify against the source documents. Groundbook reports what the documents say and where they disagree. It does not make design decisions, certify compliance, or replace the authority having jurisdiction.
How long did the review take?
Turnaround runs from 20 minutes to 24 hours depending on project size.
Which codes were checked?
Code checking was enabled for this review. Groundbook detects the codes a set references, reads the codes and amendments that governments publish online, and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report shows all 79 findings from one review of a drawing set and its specifications, with the cited excerpts.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or browse every published case study.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass
Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context.