InspectMind AI logo InspectMind

Parking Garage: 58 Issues Flagged

Review concrete strength notation, reinforcement dimensions, and temporary support sequencing in a structural QC set.

Anonymized review · Published 2026-09-16

First $100 covered. Enterprise and volume pricing

Potential findings
58
Discipline
1
Published examples
3
Critical or high examples shown
3

About this review

InspectMind ran an AI plan review on this commercial set and returned 58 potential findings across Structural. The selected examples below show the document conflict, why it matters, and a suggested next step.

Project type
Commercial
Disciplines
Structural
Potential findings
58
Published examples
3
Published
2026-09-16
Evidence status
Selected findings marked useful in the source review record

What this review documents

Review concrete strength notation, reinforcement dimensions, and temporary support sequencing in a structural QC set.

The documented result is a set of review findings. This case study does not establish that corrections were completed or that savings were realized. The examples below were marked useful in the source review record; they have been paraphrased to remove identifying details.

Key findings

  1. Shoring removal sequence needs clarification

    Structural

    Critical

    A note permits formwork support removal before post-tensioning with engineer approval. The review flagged whether the required load-support condition is adequately stated.

    Next step: Have the engineer specify the support-removal criteria and required stressing sequence.

  2. Column concrete strength differs by a factor of ten

    Structural

    High

    The column schedule states 50 ksi, while the general notes specify 5,000 psi for columns.

    Next step: Correct the strength designation and coordinate the concrete schedule.

  3. Wall reinforcement spacing appears implausible

    Structural

    High

    A wall detail labels vertical reinforcement at nine feet four inches on center. The review flagged the value for engineering verification.

    Next step: Confirm whether the dimension is a notation error and issue the intended reinforcement spacing.

Issue categories

Structural
Structural findings in the selected review excerpts.

Review details and suggested questions

Shoring removal sequence needs clarification

Structural

Critical

Summary: A note permits formwork support removal before post-tensioning with engineer approval. The review flagged whether the required load-support condition is adequately stated.

Why it matters: This discrepancy leaves the design team or contractor with conflicting instructions. Resolve the governing requirement before relying on the affected documents.

Suggested next step: Have the engineer specify the support-removal criteria and required stressing sequence.

RFI draft: Have the engineer specify the support-removal criteria and required stressing sequence.

Column concrete strength differs by a factor of ten

Structural

High

Summary: The column schedule states 50 ksi, while the general notes specify 5,000 psi for columns.

Why it matters: This discrepancy leaves the design team or contractor with conflicting instructions. Resolve the governing requirement before relying on the affected documents.

Suggested next step: Correct the strength designation and coordinate the concrete schedule.

RFI draft: Correct the strength designation and coordinate the concrete schedule.

Wall reinforcement spacing appears implausible

Structural

High

Summary: A wall detail labels vertical reinforcement at nine feet four inches on center. The review flagged the value for engineering verification.

Why it matters: This discrepancy leaves the design team or contractor with conflicting instructions. Resolve the governing requirement before relying on the affected documents.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the dimension is a notation error and issue the intended reinforcement spacing.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the dimension is a notation error and issue the intended reinforcement spacing.

Anonymized, paraphrased excerpts from a completed project review. These three examples were marked “good catch” in the source review record; that label is feedback, not independent validation. The project total excludes duplicate-group members, dismissed findings, wrong finds, and insufficient-reference findings. Only selected excerpts are published. Customer identity, project address, source identifiers, and private drawings are omitted. Corrections, permit outcomes, and financial savings have not been independently verified. A qualified professional should assess each finding against the complete project documents.

Similar AI plan review results by project type and discipline.

Browse all case studies