The placing plan shows fewer top bars than the structural design.
Bar counts, base-mat sizes and localized reinforcement need reconciliation with the governing structural design.
Concrete reinforcement shop drawings
Concrete deck reinforcing shop drawings compared with structural design drawings, general notes and cited design changes.
What the review compared
The review compared concrete reinforcing placing plans with structural design plans, legends and connection details. At one column, the placing plans showed fewer top bars in both directions. A separate base-mat callout used smaller bars than the design.
Why the revision matters
Some shop drawing details relied on design changes absent from the supplied design set. The review requested the governing revision and identified unresolved placing information for support embeds, curtain-wall anchors and future infill connections.
What to verify next
The structural engineer and reinforcing detailer should reconcile the comments against the governing design and identify any separate placing packages. This coordination review did not enable code checking. The comments do not establish fabrication approval.
6 selected examples from the review
Six distinct review comments, summarized for professional verification.
Governing design revision is missing
The shop drawing review cites approved changes absent from the supplied design set.
Why it matters: Changed reinforcement and connections cannot be verified.
What to check: Provide the governing revision and referenced details.
StructuralColumn top-bar counts are lower
The placing plans show fewer top bars in each direction than the structural design requires.
Why it matters: Column reinforcement does not match the supplied design.
What to check: Reconcile the bar counts or identify an approved change.
StructuralBase bottom bars are smaller
A base-mat callout uses smaller bars than the referenced structural design.
Why it matters: The reinforcement callout differs from the design.
What to check: Correct the base bars while retaining the separate additional bars.
StructuralEmbed reinforcement lacks placing callouts
Required local bars around transfer-slab support embeds are not identified in the placing plans.
Why it matters: Embed reinforcement cannot be traced.
What to check: Locate the bars and required edge hooks, or identify their placing package.
StructuralCurtain-wall hairpins lack coordinated locations
Required hairpin reinforcement is not identified at the applicable curtain-wall mullions.
Why it matters: Anchor reinforcement locations remain unresolved.
What to check: Confirm mullion locations and identify the reinforcement or separate placing package.
StructuralFuture-opening connections are not located
The plan does not clearly locate matching cast-in connection sets for future infill.
Why it matters: Future threaded-bar connections cannot be verified.
What to check: Provide the governing detail and locate the matching sets on every opening side.
StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
Medium and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Coordination and completeness within the set
This review checked the documents against one another. No code check was enabled.
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 coordination and completeness
Compare the documents and identify missing or conflicting information.
- 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 and completeness 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.
Was a code check included?
No code check was enabled for this review. It covered coordination and completeness within the set. Code checking is available: Groundbook reads the building codes that governments publish online and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it. You can upload a copy you’re licensed to use.
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.
Related examples and workflows
Apply this review to your project
- Backcheck shop-drawing comments
Verify the changed bar callout and its governing design before recording closure.
- Make design interfaces explicit
Identify the assigned criteria and the receiving structure in the project procedure.
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.