A footing steel table counts four footings where the plan shows six.
The work quantity schedule was traced line by line to the structural drawings, element specifications and explanatory note behind it.
Stormwater treatment quantity schedule
A work quantity schedule for a stormwater treatment facility, checked against the structural drawings for its chambers, tank slabs and steel-framed buildings.
What the review compared
The work quantity schedule was the checked document. The review traced its lines back to the structural drawings, element specifications, steel tables and explanatory note, recounting members and footings and recomputing volumes and masses where the drawings gave enough dimensions.
Where the quantities drift
Several totals come from tables that miscount what the drawings show, including wall struts, footings, platform posts and bar masses. Elsewhere the documents name different materials for the same work, such as the fill under the buildings and the bedding under a tank.
What to verify next
The designer should correct the source tables, and the estimator should then rebuild the affected quantity lines. Code checking was not enabled; the fire rating example compares the bracing’s stated role with the fire-safety rules the review cited and remains a question for the designer.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Stability bracing has a lower fire rating
Bracing that the design note relies on for frame stability is rated below the main frame.
Why it matters: Losing the bracing in a fire weakens the frame.
What to check: Rate the bracing to its stated function.
Structural · Fire ProtectionSteel specification undercounts wall struts
The sections draw more wall strut length than the steel specification and quantity schedule carry.
Why it matters: Steel orders and the estimate run about 1.4 tonnes short.
What to check: Recount the struts and correct both totals.
StructuralFooting steel is counted for four, not six
A footing steel table counts four footings of one type; the plan shows six.
Why it matters: Reinforcement ordered from the table would be short.
What to check: Correct the table to six footings.
StructuralBar mass overstates three tank slabs
One bar’s listed mass in three tank slab schedules does not match its diameter and length.
Why it matters: Those steel totals are overstated by about a fifth.
What to check: Correct the bar mass and update the totals.
StructuralAnchor bolt sizes conflict
Foundation sheets give the column anchor bolts two different sizes.
Why it matters: Bolts and base plates cannot both be ordered.
What to check: Adopt one size across the sheets, note and schedule.
StructuralReplacement fill is two materials
The explanatory note calls for medium sand; the drawings and quantity schedule carry sand-gravel mix.
Why it matters: The fill cannot be priced or ordered reliably.
What to check: Name one fill material in every document.
StructuralPaving concrete exceeds its dimensions
The specification lists more paving and ramp concrete than the drawn dimensions produce.
Why it matters: The estimate carries roughly 18 percent too much.
What to check: Recalculate the volume and update the schedule.
StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural and Fire Protection
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, 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.
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.