Opening protection
Compare the door schedule with the location, wall separation, and referenced opening requirements. Check the actual condition and applicable exceptions before deciding a rating is missing.
AI building code review
Find potential mismatches between the design documents and the code references included in your review. See the affected drawing and supporting requirements together, then verify the application with the responsible reviewer.
Where to focus
Compare the door schedule with the location, wall separation, and referenced opening requirements. Check the actual condition and applicable exceptions before deciding a rating is missing.
Follow requirements such as guard and handrail design loads from notes to the details that rely on them. Ask the responsible engineer to confirm the governing criteria.
Review the relationship between equipment locations, support details, exhaust classification, and the requirements supplied for the project.
Investigate details that point to general notes without carrying the needed requirement through the set. Keep the source edition and local amendments visible in the review record.
Inside Groundbook
This hotel example places a door-rating finding beside the affected plan and linked drawing and code references. The reviewer can examine the location and the cited requirement before deciding what needs to change.
A practical workflow
Identify the jurisdiction, adopted editions, local amendments, occupancy, and relevant project conditions. Include the reference PDFs needed for the review.
Open the schedule, plan, detail, and cited requirement. Confirm that they describe the same condition and that the cited section applies.
Have the responsible professional accept, reject, or refine the finding. Coordinate any correction across every affected drawing and specification.
From a published project review
Sleeping-unit entry doors opening into an interior lobby were marked unrated, while the surrounding separation called for protected openings.
Read the findingGroundbook flags potential issues; it does not certify compliance or issue permits. Model codes, adopted editions, and local amendments can differ. The project’s qualified reviewers must verify applicability, exceptions, and the final design decision.
Questions, answered
Yes. Groundbook detects the codes the drawings cite and has many in its library. For a local code or amendment it does not have, upload the code PDF or add a link to the public code page. Save the PDF once to reuse it on future projects; it stays private to your account.
No. It provides potential findings with supporting document references for a reviewer to investigate. Compliance determinations and required approvals remain with the responsible professionals and authorities.
Use the edition and amendments applicable to the project and jurisdiction, confirmed by the project team or relevant authority. A model code’s publication date alone does not establish which requirements govern a project.
Yes. A reference may be real but inapplicable because of occupancy, construction type, scope, an exception, or a local amendment. Review the complete context before accepting a code-related finding.
Keep exploring
Yes. Upload your jurisdiction’s code PDF or link a public code page, save it once for future projects, and keep it private to your account. How it works.
ExploreReview your permit set for missing information, conflicting requirements, and coordination gaps before submission. Explore a practical pre-permit checklist.
ExploreUse source-linked findings in a professional review.
ExploreSet up a review or talk through your project with our team.