Architectural and structural details give the roof parapet two different sizes.
The tender drawings disagree on parapet sizes, a slab opening, stair supports and the block used in several wall types.
Villa architectural and structural coordination
Architectural and structural tender drawings for a two-story villa type, reviewed sheet by sheet for coordination between the disciplines.
What the review compared
The review placed the architectural plans, sections and enlarged details beside the structural framing plans, foundation layout, schedules and general notes, following grids, columns, openings, stairs and the roof edge between the two disciplines.
Where the disciplines diverge
The parapet, a ground-slab opening at a shaft and the external stair supports were drawn differently in each discipline. Wall construction and the layers under the ground slab also changed between the schedule, the type details and the structural notes.
What to verify next
The architect and structural engineer should agree the parapet section, the shaft opening and the stair columns, then reissue both sets. Code checking was enabled; the structural examples that cite the concrete code remain questions for the engineer of record.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Parapet sizes disagree between disciplines
Architectural and structural details give the roof parapet posts and capping beam different sizes.
Why it matters: Parapet concrete and reinforcement cannot be priced consistently.
What to check: Agree one parapet section and revise both details.
Architectural · StructuralA slab opening appears on one plan only
The structural ground slab plan shows a shaft opening; the architectural plan shows solid slab.
Why it matters: The contractor cannot tell whether to form the opening.
What to check: Confirm the opening on both plans.
Architectural · StructuralStair columns are missing from the schedule
Two stair-support columns on the foundation layout have no entry in the column reinforcement schedule.
Why it matters: Their reinforcement and setting-out are undefined.
What to check: Add both columns to the schedule with grid offsets.
StructuralLanding columns are missing from architectural drawings
Structural drawings place columns under the external stair landings; architectural plans and elevations omit them.
Why it matters: Their footprint and appearance are not coordinated.
What to check: Show the columns on the architectural plans and elevations.
Architectural · StructuralWall schedule and wall types disagree
The schedule calls some wall types solid block and another hollow; the type details reverse them.
Why it matters: Block quantities and wall weights are unclear.
What to check: Align the wall schedule with the type details.
ArchitecturalColumn cover is thin for the stated fire rating
The noted column cover is below the concrete code’s requirement for the stated fire rating.
Why it matters: Columns may not reach their stated fire resistance.
What to check: Increase the cover or confirm the rating basis.
StructuralSub-slab layers differ between disciplines
Architectural sections put plain concrete under the ground slab; the structural detail shows different preparation.
Why it matters: Sub-slab work cannot be priced from one instruction.
What to check: Agree the sub-slab build-up and align both details.
Architectural · StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural and 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 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.
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.