Skip to main content

​
Catch It Before the Bars Are Bent

Reinforcement drawings fail in predictable ways: a splice length that contradicts the schedule, a bar mark on the plan that isn’t in the schedule, a beam-column joint drawn with more steel than will physically fit. Each one is cheap to fix on paper and expensive to fix on site. This workflow runs a Drawing Review focused on the reinforcement, then uses the Review Agent to pressure-test what it finds. What it catches:
  • Schedule vs. plan mismatches: bar marks, sizes, and counts that don’t agree between the schedule and the sheets
  • Development and splice length issues: lengths on the details that look short against the schedule or the governing code
  • Congestion: joints and connections where the drawn reinforcement won’t place or consolidate
  • Omissions: missing bar marks, details that reference nothing, zones with no reinforcement called out

​
Step-by-Step

1

Gather the package into one folder

Put the reinforcement drawings, the general notes sheet, and the bar schedules in one project folder, plus the specs if splice/development requirements live there. The review reads the whole folder as one package.
2

Enable reviews and launch

Right-click the folder’s row, choose Enable Reviews, check the file labels, then click Launch Review. The mechanics are in the Drawing Review guide.
3

Pick the mode for the failure you're hunting

  • Code Compliance: when the question is “do these details hold up against the code?” (development lengths, cover, seismic detailing)
  • Consistency & Specs: when the question is “do the schedule, the plans, and the details agree with each other?”
Either way, the instructions carry the rebar focus; see the briefs below. (All six modes explained.)
4

Brief it on the reinforcement

Pick the brief that matches your worry, or combine them:
Check against ACI 318-19. Focus on reinforcement development
and splice lengths: flag every detail where the shown length
looks short against the schedule or the code. Include the
sheet, the detail, and the bar mark in each finding.
Name the code edition. “Check against ACI 318-19” beats letting the reviewer infer it. It is the single biggest upgrade to finding quality.
5

Run it, then interrogate the findings

Confirm the price and start (pricing is per drawing page). When results land in the folder’s Reviews section, open the set with the Review Agent and pressure-test anything that matters:
Finding 12 says the splice at detail 4/S-502 is short. Walk me
through it: what length is shown, what does the schedule say,
and what does ACI require for a #8 top bar here?
You’re still the engineer of record. The review flags candidates; the engineering call on every one of them is yours. Verify findings against the drawings and the code before anything gets revised. That is exactly what the Review Agent follow-up step is for.

​
Next Steps

Drawing Review

The full launch-to-results walkthroughDrawing Review guide

Review Modes

What each mode catches, with example briefsReview Modes & Instructions

Review Agent

Chat with your drawings and findingsReview Agent guide

Sharing & Permissions

Editor access is needed to launch reviewsSharing & Permissions guide
Questions? Email support@stru.ai or book a call.