The drawings add a basement level the soil report never assessed, and dig sump pits below the raft it limits.
The basement and ground-floor drawings for a residential building over four basement levels and an automated parking system were read against the soil report and the waterproofing details, and the excavation, the pits and the shafts are drawn differently from what the report and the other disciplines allow.
Deep basement and soil report
Architectural, structural, plumbing and drainage, electrical, HVAC and elevation drawings for four basement levels and the ground floor of a residential building, with the waterproofing detail book, read against one another and the soil investigation report supplied as a reference.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural, structural, plumbing and drainage, electrical and HVAC plans for four basement levels and the ground floor of a residential building, its elevations and the waterproofing detail book, with the soil investigation report supplied as a supporting reference. Its instructions asked for coordination conflicts, missing or inconsistent information and code concerns likely to cause permit comments, RFIs or field rework, with a document health check. Code checking was enabled.
Where the drawings outrun the soil report
The soil report was written for a shallower basement. The drawings add a general basement level below it, dig three sump pits and the automated parking pit below the raft, and note shoring piles around the pits shallower than the report requires, while the report asks its engineer to review any of these changes. Between the disciplines, two plumbing sump pits sit where the raft is continuous, two of three pump panels on one level have no feed, smoke shafts rise over the shoring wall with no slab openings, and slab bars cross a membrane the waterproofing details show unbroken.
What to verify next
The structural engineer should send the planned basement, raft, pit and excavation levels to the geotechnical engineer for an updated report before shoring and foundations are built, then settle the pits, shafts and waterproofing connections with the plumbing, HVAC and waterproofing consultants in one revision. Examples that cite a requirement follow the soil report and the fire regulations the review cited; every example is a question for the responsible designers and the authority having jurisdiction.
12 selected examples from the review
Twelve distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Soil report assumes one basement fewer
The drawings add a basement level below the lowest floor the soil report assessed.
Why it matters: The report requires a new review when excavation deepens.
What to check: Send the levels to the geotechnical engineer for an update.
Structural · ArchitecturalSump pits go below the raft
Three sump pits on the structural plans extend below the raft underside.
Why it matters: The soil report forbids excavation below the raft.
What to check: Obtain the geotechnical engineer’s written review, or raise the pits.
Structural · PlumbingShoring piles at the pits are short
A plan note embeds shoring piles below the pits less than the report requires.
Why it matters: Piles could be drilled too short.
What to check: Set the depth from the report, or obtain written approval.
StructuralParking pit has no perimeter shoring
The raft steps down to the automated parking pit with no shoring around it.
Why it matters: The report requires shoring around a pit this deep.
What to check: Add the shoring, or obtain written approval.
StructuralPlumbing pits are not where structure puts them
The plumbing plan places two sump pits where the structural raft is continuous.
Why it matters: Pits, pumps and piping would be built in different places.
What to check: Redraw the pits at the agreed locations.
Plumbing · Structural · ArchitecturalSmoke shafts sit on the shoring wall
Four smoke exhaust shafts rise over the perimeter wall and piles; the slab has no openings.
Why it matters: The shafts cannot be built as drawn.
What to check: Move the shafts inside and add the slab openings.
Mechanical · Structural · ArchitecturalParking smoke shaft is undersized
The parking smoke shaft and its intake grilles are smaller than the cited fire regulations require.
Why it matters: They would grow at permit review.
What to check: Enlarge them, or cite an engineering analysis the fire authority approved.
Mechanical · Fire ProtectionSlab bars pierce the waterproofing
Slab anchor bars into the shoring piles cross a membrane the waterproofing details show unbroken.
Why it matters: Each bar becomes an unsealed leak path.
What to check: Detail a connection that avoids or seals the membrane.
StructuralWater tank joint detailed two ways
Structural and waterproofing details give the tank’s floor-to-wall joint different pour joints and waterstops.
Why it matters: The contractor cannot tell which joint to build.
What to check: Agree one joint and update both details.
StructuralTwo pump panels have no power
Plumbing shows three sump pump panels on one level; electrical feeds only one.
Why it matters: Two pits would be built without power to their pumps.
What to check: Feed every pump panel the plumbing plan shows.
Electrical · PlumbingSection marks point to missing details
Five section marks on the structural plans refer to details no sheet contains.
Why it matters: Walls at the shoring edge cannot be built from the set.
What to check: Issue the details, or redirect the marks to existing ones.
StructuralSprinkler spacing written as a minimum
A plumbing note calls one sprinkler spacing a minimum; the next clause makes it a maximum.
Why it matters: Read literally, it requires sprinklers too far apart.
What to check: Change minimum to maximum in that clause.
Plumbing · Fire ProtectionReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical, Architectural, and Fire Protection
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.