Check a geotechnical report against the drawings by confirming first that the report assessed the building now drawn, then tracing each recommendation into the sheet that should carry it: foundation type and capacity basis, bearing depth and embedment, pits and local deepenings, shoring, groundwater and waterproofing, slabs, walls and seismic inputs. List every element the report does not cover or the drawings contradict, and ask the structural and geotechnical engineers which governs.
Confirm the report covers the building now drawn
Start with the report’s project description, not its recommendations. Write down what the geotechnical engineer was told: the footprint, the number of storeys and basement levels, the lowest floor and excavation level, and the foundation type considered. Then compare that with the current architectural sections and foundation plans. Reports often say plainly that a deeper excavation, an added basement or a different foundation system requires their review. If the building has changed, every later check depends on an updated report or a letter.
In the deep basement and soil report review, the report described one general basement level, while the drawings added another below it, roughly a storey deeper. The report itself said that an added basement or a materially deeper excavation needed its engineer’s renewed review, and the structural notes made the report part of the design. The review recommended sending the planned levels to the geotechnical engineer before shoring and foundations were built.
Also confirm the report is actually in the package. In the house drawings budget review, the specification said the soil study was attached and it was not, so bidders could not check the ground assumptions behind deeper footings. In the reinforced concrete foundation review, the footing drawings gave neither the soil bearing assumption nor the report it came from.
Twelve questions to run against the report
Work through the report’s recommendations in order and find the sheet, note or specification section that carries each one. The CSV has columns for the location, the source references, the reviewer, the status, the decision and the closure evidence. It contains no design values; take those from the report itself.
| Review area | Open these sources together | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Report identity and issue | Report cover and date, structural general notes, drawing list | Do the structural notes cite the report by title, date and issue, and is it the report the current design was based on? |
| Building the report assessed | Report project description, architectural sections, foundation and basement plans | Does the building the report describes, including its basement levels, footprint and excavation depth, match the one now drawn? |
| Foundation system | Report recommendations, foundation plans, structural general notes | Is the drawn foundation type (spread footings, mat or raft, piles, piers) one the report recommends or allows? |
| Design bearing and capacity basis | Report design parameters, structural general notes, footing or pile schedule | Do the notes state the bearing or pile capacity basis the design uses and name the report it comes from? |
| Bearing stratum, depth and embedment | Report boring logs and recommendations, footing and pile schedules, sections | Do footing depths, pile tips and pier embedment reach the stratum or minimum depth the report sets for each element type? |
| Pits and local deepenings | Report excavation limits, sump, elevator and lift pit details, raft sections | Does any pit, sump or local deepening go below the level the report addresses, and has the geotechnical engineer reviewed it? |
| Shoring and excavation support | Report shoring recommendations, shoring plan and sections, pile schedule | Do the shoring type, penetration below excavation and lateral support match the report, including around deeper local pits? |
| Groundwater, drainage and waterproofing | Report groundwater observations, waterproofing details, uplift and dewatering notes, foundation drains | Do the waterproofing system, uplift design, dewatering notes and foundation drains use the groundwater condition the report gives? |
| Slab on grade and subgrade | Report subgrade, fill and vapor retarder recommendations, slab details, earthwork specification | Do the slab details and the earthwork specification carry the subgrade preparation and fill the report recommends? |
| Retaining and basement walls | Report lateral earth pressure parameters, wall details, structural design criteria | Do the wall design criteria name the report’s lateral pressure basis, surcharge and drainage assumptions? |
| Site class and seismic inputs | Report seismic recommendations, structural design criteria sheet | Does the structural design criteria sheet use the site class and seismic recommendations the report gives? |
| Observation and re-review triggers | Report conditions of use, special inspection statement, structural notes | Do the drawings carry the report’s required observations, and say when design changes go back to the geotechnical engineer? |
Mark a row not applicable only after recording why. A building on spread footings with no basement still has a bearing basis, a footing depth and a slab subgrade to check.
Follow every element that goes deeper than the rest
Reports usually set conditions at the general excavation level. The places to look hardest are the elements that go below it: sump and ejector pits, elevator and lift pits, automated parking pits, tank bases, thickened mat edges and stepped footings. Read their bottom levels from the structural sections and the plumbing or equipment sheets, and compare them with the level the report addresses and with any restriction it states on excavating below the foundation.
The deep basement review found three sump pits and a parking pit going below the raft underside, where the soil report did not allow excavation without its engineer’s review, and a note embedding the shoring piles below those pits less deeply than the report required. Around the parking pit, the raft stepped down with no perimeter shoring at all, although the report asked for shoring around a local excavation of that depth. The plumbing plan also put two of the sump pits where the structural raft was continuous, so the pits themselves were not yet agreed between disciplines.
Embedment is the same question for piers and piles. In the coastal restaurant structural review, one pier type was scheduled shorter than the geotechnical minimum embedment stated in the design criteria. List the element, both sources and the difference, and ask the engineer of record which governs.
Check where the report meets the waterproofing
A basement below groundwater is a structural, geotechnical and waterproofing problem at once. Compare the groundwater condition the report gives with the waterproofing system the details specify, the uplift note on the structural sheets and any dewatering requirement. Then look at how the structure connects to the shoring: slab dowels or anchor bars drilled into shoring piles pass through the membrane line, and each one needs a sealing detail or a connection that avoids the membrane.
In the deep basement set, slab anchor bars into the shoring piles crossed a membrane the waterproofing details drew unbroken, with no detail for sealing them, and the water tank’s floor-to-wall joint was detailed one way by the structural engineer and another by the waterproofing consultant. In the earlier basement structural coordination review, the slab-to-shoring dowels had no drilled depth, hole size or adhesive. The waterproofing specifications guide covers the membrane side of these joints.
Close the loop with the geotechnical engineer
Most of these questions end with the geotechnical engineer, not the drafter. Collect them into one transmittal that lists the planned levels, the deeper elements, the shoring and the changed foundation type, and ask for an updated report or a letter that addresses each item. When the answer arrives, update the structural notes so they cite the new document, and check that the shoring, pit and waterproofing details follow it.
Use the structural drawing review checklist for the rest of the structural set, the floor level coordination checklist to keep the basement levels consistent across disciplines, and the earthwork specifications guide for subgrade and fill. Federal projects that follow the unified facilities criteria can use the UFC 3-220-01 geotechnical review.
Where Groundbook fits
Groundbook compares the drawings with the geotechnical report you upload as a reference and returns potential conflicts with links to each source, such as a pit that goes deeper than the report allows or a pile embedment note shorter than the report recommends. It does not interpret borings, calculate bearing capacity or design shoring. Each finding is a question for the structural and geotechnical engineers to confirm. See drawings vs. reports review for the workflow.