33 mechanical findings across an eleven-sheet boiler plant and its air distribution
Plant rooms fail at their interfaces. This mechanical review of an eleven-sheet set returned 33 potential findings, led by a vent category incompatible with the selected boiler and a chain of schedules that disagreed with the plans referencing them.
Project details have been anonymized. Findings are potential issues for professional verification, not final code or engineering conclusions.
Counts describe this anonymized review only. They do not establish the source project's compliance, safety, or final issue disposition.
Hydronic plant review
An eleven-sheet mechanical package covering a hydronic boiler plant, a dedicated outdoor-air system, VAV terminal units, fan coils, and radiant manifolds, reviewed with code checking enabled.
Plant rooms fail at their interfaces
The boiler, its vent, its combustion air, and its relief connection were each drawn somewhere. They did not agree with one another.
Schedules and plans disagreed repeatedly
Nine VAV units appeared on plans with no schedule entry, coil capacities conflicted with the temperatures beside them, and tags swapped between sheets.
Code checking ran against the set
Detected code references were read alongside the drawings, which is how the vent category conflict surfaced against the selected boiler.
6 selected findings from the review
6 of the 33 potential findings, ordered by severity. The wording is the review's own, with every project identifier removed.
Type B vent is incompatible with the selected KN-10 boiler
Detail 1/M6.02 calls for a “DOUBLE WALL TYPE "B" GAS VENT” at the hot-water boiler. M0.12 selects Advanced Thermal Hydronics KN-10 for B-1, whose installation manual requires a UL 1738 stainless-steel vent system for its US venting arrangements.
Why it matters: A vent unsuitable for the selected condensing boiler can allow flue gases containing carbon monoxide to escape. The manufacturer warns that improper venting can cause severe injury or death.
What to check: Replace the Type B note with a UL 1738 stainless-steel vent system approved for the KN-10. State the chosen Category II or IV arrangement and coordinate its route and termination.
MechanicalDOAS coil capacities conflict with temperatures and water flows
M0.12 lists DOAS-2 sensible cooling as 158.0 MBH, but its airflow and dry-bulb air temperatures imply a lower capacity. At standard air conditions: Sensible cooling (MBH) ≈ 1.08 × airflow (CFM) × temperature drop (°F) ÷ 1,000 = 1.08 × 6,000 × (79.2 − 63.8) ÷ 1,000 = 99.8 MBH, versus 158.0 MBH in the SENS. column. Both units’ water entries also disagree, using capacity (MBH) ≈ 500 × flow (GPM) × water-temperature difference (°F) ÷ 1,000. Calculated versus scheduled cooling totals: DOAS-1, 211.5 vs 237.4 MBH; DOAS-2, 159.8 vs 179.5 MBH. Calculated versus scheduled heating: DOAS-1, 150.9 vs 187.4 MBH; DOAS-2, 119.8 vs 147.9 MBH. Reconcile the en
Why it matters: Coil selections and balancing requirements cannot be checked against a consistent performance target.
What to check: Reconcile the airflow, air and water temperatures, water flows and capacities against the DOAS selections. Identify separate operating conditions if the values are intended to describe different duties.
MechanicalPlant separator and expansion-tank tags swap between plans
M1.11 and the background plant in 2/M2.11 tag the boiler-side air separator and expansion tank AS-2/ET-2, and the chilled-water pair AS-1/ET-1. The visible corrections on M5.01 and the primary CCC sector of M2.11 use AS-1/ET-1 for the boiler and AS-2/ET-2 for chilled water, matching M0.12.
Why it matters: The conflicting tags can misdirect equipment identification and submittal coordination.
What to check: Correct the stale AS/ET tags on M1.11 and the background plant in 2/M2.11 to match the scheduled services and the corrected plant drawings.
MechanicalNine VAV units shown on plans have no schedule entries
M1.11 and M1.12 tag VAV-39, VAV-40, VAV-41, VAV-42, VAV-43, VAV-44, VAV-45, VAV-47 and VAV-48. The VAV schedule on M0.12 ends at VAV-38, leaving these nine units without scheduled inlet sizes or minimum/maximum airflows. The other schedule sheet, M0.22, lists only fan coils and has no VAV entries.
Why it matters: The affected outside-air terminals cannot be selected, programmed or balanced to a stated design duty.
What to check: Add schedule rows for the nine VAV tags shown on the plans, including inlet size and design minimum/maximum airflows, and reconcile the revised schedule with the final zoning plan.
MechanicalBoiler combustion-air and vent routes are not shown
B-1 is shown in MECH 141, but the mechanical plans do not identify its combustion-air source or intake connection. The boiler connection and roof details on M6.02 show a vent, but the plans do not locate its route or terminal.
Why it matters: The boiler intake, vent and building openings need a coordinated design before installation can be planned.
What to check: Show the selected KN-10 combustion-air and vent arrangement, including sizes, routes and terminal locations. Coordinate the required openings and clearances with the architectural and structural drawings.
MechanicalFan-coil schedule is missing design duties
The 45 fan-coil rows on M0.22 leave airflow, external static pressure, sensible cooling and heating capacities, and cooling/heating water flows blank. Total cooling capacity is also blank for FCU-39, FCU-41 and FCU-43. These omissions leave the schedule without the values needed to select and balance the affected equipment.
Why it matters: Fan-coil selection and balancing require design values that the schedule does not state.
What to check: Complete the missing design duties for every fan coil and coordinate them with the duct outlets, piping and equipment selections.
MechanicalHow the findings were distributed
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Mechanical
The review returned 33 mechanical potential findings.
1 higher-priority finding to investigate first
The review assigned 1 high, 10 medium, 22 low severity ratings. Severity indicates potential impact if a finding is confirmed.
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 anonymized 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.
33 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 33 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.
A real review with project identifiers removed
The customer gave permission to publish this review content. The case study retains the review findings and aggregate results while removing details that identify the project or its participants.
- No address or location
- No project name
- No client or firm names
- No personnel
- No jurisdiction
About this review
Is this a real review?
Yes. These findings come from a Groundbook review completed in September 2026. The customer gave permission to publish the review content. Every project identifier has been removed: no client, firm, address, jurisdiction, project name, or personnel.
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 and you can also upload your own codebooks as reference files.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report walks through selected findings with their sources and the questions to verify.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or read more reviews from completed projects.
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.