The design criteria name masonry shear walls, but the building has no structural masonry.
The structural design criteria, the code sheet and the wall types describe a different building from the one drawn.
Commercial shell design criteria
A construction document plan check set and design development architectural set for a single-story commercial shell building in a hurricane-prone region.
What the review compared
The review read the structural design criteria, general notes and submittal list beside the framing plans, wall types and architectural code sheet. It checked whether the criteria describe the building as drawn and whether the drawings carry the values the building code expects on structural drawings.
Where the criteria miss the building
The criteria name a masonry lateral system for a steel and wood building, leave the cladding wind pressures blank and omit rain and snow loads. The code sheet’s construction type conflicts with the wood stud walls, and the submittal list requires members the roof does not have.
What to verify next
The engineer of record should restate the lateral system, complete the design criteria and confirm the construction type with the architect before the set goes back for plan check. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Seismic system names walls that do not exist
Design criteria name masonry shear walls; the building is a steel frame with wood stud walls.
Why it matters: No one can tell what resists lateral load.
What to check: Name the actual system and locate its walls.
StructuralCladding wind pressures are blank
The component and cladding pressure heading is empty, yet rated storefront and roofing are required.
Why it matters: Suppliers have no pressure to certify to.
What to check: Add pressures by zone.
StructuralWood studs in a noncombustible type
The code sheet declares a noncombustible construction type; every wall type uses wood studs.
Why it matters: Framing may change at permit review.
What to check: Confirm the type or revise the framing.
Structural · ArchitecturalCanopy brace has no size
A canopy brace rod has no size, and no detail shows how the canopy resists uplift.
Why it matters: The brace cannot be fabricated.
What to check: Size the rod and show the uplift path.
StructuralRooftop unit weight is not given
Doubled purlins are marked for future units, but no design unit weight is stated.
Why it matters: Tenants cannot know what the roof carries.
What to check: State the design weight per area.
StructuralRain and snow criteria are missing
The design criteria give no rain intensity or ground snow load for a parapeted roof.
Why it matters: Plan review will ask for both.
What to check: Add both values.
StructuralSubmittal list requires joists, not steel
The submittal list requires steel joists the roof does not have and omits structural steel.
Why it matters: Steel shop drawings may not be submitted.
What to check: Require structural steel submittals.
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.