The cladding pressure table uses a lower wind speed than the design criteria.
The structural criteria, pier schedule and framing plans disagree with each other and with the architectural set.
Coastal restaurant structural coordination
Architectural and structural permit drawings for a multi-level restaurant on drilled piers in a coastal flood hazard area.
What the review compared
The review placed the architectural plans, sections and wall sections beside the structural criteria, pier layout and schedule, framing plans and braced frame elevations. It checked load paths, connection information and the typical details against the conditions they serve.
Where the sets diverge
The two disciplines disagree on the first floor system, two grid positions, a stair opening and the grease trap location. Within the structural set, the wind, seismic and flood criteria, the pier schedule and the special inspection table do not support each other.
What to verify next
The engineer of record should settle the design criteria and the pier schedule, then coordinate the floor system and grids with the architect before permit. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designers and the building official.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Cladding pressures use a lower wind basis
The cladding pressure schedule is headed with a lower wind speed and exposure than the criteria.
Why it matters: Envelope design pressures are unresolved.
What to check: Confirm the basis or recompute the pressures.
StructuralLargest piers have no schedule row
Three piers carry a mark that the drilled pier schedule does not list.
Why it matters: Their reinforcement cannot be priced or placed.
What to check: Add the missing row to the schedule.
StructuralFirst floor is two different systems
Architecture shows hollowcore planks; structure shows a cast-in-place slab on beams.
Why it matters: Thickness, fire rating and guard anchorage depend on it.
What to check: Confirm the floor system in both sets.
Architectural · StructuralShort piers miss the minimum embedment
One pier type is scheduled shorter than the geotechnical minimum embedment in the criteria.
Why it matters: Drilling depth is unclear for pricing.
What to check: Reconcile the length with the geotechnical engineer.
StructuralDelegated brace connections have no forces
Braced frame elevations show the braces without the design forces the delegated-design notes require.
Why it matters: The connection designer has no load basis.
What to check: State the brace connection forces.
StructuralFlood design data is missing
The structural criteria omit the flood design class and lowest-floor elevation for a mapped flood zone.
Why it matters: The building official cannot check flood design.
What to check: Add both to the design criteria.
StructuralInspection table exempts pier work
The special inspection table marks pier and reinforcing inspection not required; the notes require it.
Why it matters: The inspection scope is inconsistent.
What to check: Mark both as required in the table.
StructuralReview 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 October 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.