The foundation beams are on the plan and in the steel quantities, but no sheet gives their reinforcement.
The structural drawings for a multi-level concrete building on pile caps were read across the foundation plan, slab plans, column schedule, beam elevations and reinforcement details, and several elements cannot be built as drawn or are drawn two ways.
Pile cap and flat slab reinforcement
Structural foundation, slab, beam and column drawings with a steel quantity summary for a multi-level concrete building on pile caps, read against one another and against the concrete code the customer uploaded.
What the review compared
The review read the foundation and setting-out plan, the slab plans, the column schedule, the beam elevations, the pile cap and slab reinforcement details and the steel quantity summary against one another. Its instructions asked for conflicts across plans, sections and details, load-transfer and connection information, typical details against actual conditions and document health issues. Code checking was enabled, with the structural concrete code the customer uploaded as the reference.
Where the set cannot be built as drawn
The foundation and tie beams have no reinforcement anywhere in the set, a row of wall columns sits beside the pile caps whose details center them, one cap has no detail and another cap detail predates the plan. Beam elevations give spans that differ from the slab plans, a wall type deleted on a detail sheet is still on the foundation plan, and the slab plans rely on punching shear links in slabs thinner than the cited code allows for them. The noted concrete cover is also less than the cited code asks for the larger bars.
What to verify next
The structural engineer should issue the foundation beam reinforcement, settle the column positions at the pile caps, bring the cap details and beam elevations up to the current plans, and resolve the punching shear and cover questions in one revision before the reinforcement is detailed and priced. Examples that cite a requirement follow the concrete code the review cited; every example is a question for the engineer of record.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Foundation beams have no reinforcement
The plan draws foundation and tie beams; no sheet gives their bars.
Why it matters: They cannot be built or priced, though the quantities carry their steel.
What to check: Add sections with bars, stirrups and cap anchorage.
StructuralWall columns sit off their pile caps
The plan puts wall columns beside their pile caps; the cap details center them.
Why it matters: Load path and bar anchorage are undefined.
What to check: Fix the positions or add an off-center base detail.
StructuralPunching links in slabs too thin
Slab plans add punching links to slabs thinner than the cited code allows.
Why it matters: Those joints rely on links the code does not credit.
What to check: Thicken the slab locally or resolve punching without links.
StructuralToo few bottom bars cross a column
At most one bottom bar crosses a narrow column one way; the code asks for two.
Why it matters: The slab lacks bars to hold it after punching.
What to check: Add two anchored bottom bars each way.
StructuralA deleted wall type is still on the plan
The foundation plan labels a wall type a same-day detail sheet deletes.
Why it matters: Whether those walls get a footing is unknown.
What to check: Update the plan, or detail that wall type.
StructuralPile cap detail predates the plan
An older cap detail draws the cap longer, with its piles farther apart.
Why it matters: Piling and reinforcing crews would use different pile spacings.
What to check: Update the detail and bar lengths, or correct the plan.
StructuralOne pile cap has no detail
The plan labels a two-pile cap that the cap detail sheets skip.
Why it matters: Its bars, pile spacing and column anchorage are undefined.
What to check: Add the cap detail with its reinforcement.
StructuralElevator hooks and tank area not located
Loads for elevator hooks and a water tank area appear only in an undimensioned sketch.
Why it matters: Cast-in hooks need positions before the pour.
What to check: Locate the tank area and dimension the hooks.
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.
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.