Two columns the design schedules are missing from the shop drawings.
The fabricator’s erection plans and piece drawings were checked against the structural drawings and general notes they were prepared from.
Structural steel shop drawings
A structural steel shop drawing submittal for one area of a multi-use event facility, reviewed against the issued structural drawings.
What the review compared
The review compared the steel fabricator’s erection plans, piece drawings and connection details for one area with the issued structural drawings, schedules and general notes. It checked members, sizes, elevations, base plates, welds, materials and the delegated connection design.
Where the submittal departs from the design
Columns and beams the design schedules are missing, some columns are split where the design runs them continuous, and several base plates are absent or do not fit their recessed footings. The delegated connection calculations were not included.
What to verify next
The engineer of record should return the submittal with the missing members, base plates and calculations listed, and check the resubmittal against each comment. This review did not enable code checking; the examples are questions for the engineer of record and the fabricator.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Scheduled columns are missing
Two columns the design schedules from foundation to second floor are absent from the shop drawings.
Why it matters: They would not be fabricated.
What to check: Add them to the erection plans.
StructuralColumns split where the design runs them through
Five wall columns are split at a sloped beam; the design shows them continuous.
Why it matters: The detailed columns differ from the design.
What to check: Revise the columns to run continuous.
StructuralBase plates missing at recessed footings
Seven columns set into recessed footings end with no base plate.
Why it matters: They cannot be anchored as designed.
What to check: Add the base plates the design detail shows.
StructuralBase plates do not fit the recess
Seven other recessed column base plates are larger than the footing opening.
Why it matters: The plates cannot be set as detailed.
What to check: Resize them in the sealed connection design.
StructuralSealed connection calculations are missing
The design delegates connection design to the fabricator; the submittal has no sealed calculations.
Why it matters: The connections cannot be reviewed.
What to check: Submit sealed calculations for every connection.
StructuralField welds are below the general notes
Wall-support angle field welds are 3/16 inch; the general notes require 1/4 inch.
Why it matters: Welds fall below the stated minimum.
What to check: Revise the welds to 1/4 inch.
StructuralSteel grade differs from the general notes
Shop drawings call wide-flange pieces a different steel grade from the general notes.
Why it matters: Material could be ordered to the wrong standard.
What to check: Use the grade the notes specify.
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.
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.