> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.stru.ai/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Rebar Drawing Review

> Review reinforcement drawings for inconsistencies, omissions, congestion, and code issues before the bars are bent

## 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](/how-to/drawing-review) focused on the reinforcement, then uses the [Review Agent](/platform-guides/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

<Steps>
  <Step title="Gather the package into one folder">
    Put the reinforcement drawings, the general notes sheet, and the bar schedules in one [project folder](/how-to/file-management), plus the specs if splice/development requirements live there. The review reads the whole folder as one package.
  </Step>

  <Step title="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](/how-to/drawing-review).
  </Step>

  <Step title="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](/how-to/review-modes).)
  </Step>

  <Step title="Brief it on the reinforcement">
    Pick the brief that matches your worry, or combine them:

    <Tabs>
      <Tab title="Development & splices">
        ```text theme={null}
        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.
        ```
      </Tab>

      <Tab title="Congestion">
        ```text theme={null}
        Review the beam-column joints and wall boundary elements for
        reinforcement congestion: flag joints where the drawn bars,
        ties, and embedded items look unplaceable or would block
        concrete consolidation. This is SDC D, expect heavy
        confinement steel.
        ```
      </Tab>

      <Tab title="Schedule consistency">
        ```text theme={null}
        Cross-check every bar mark on the plans and details against
        the bar schedules: flag marks that appear on sheets but not
        in a schedule (and the reverse), and any size or spacing
        that disagrees between plan, detail, and schedule.
        ```
      </Tab>
    </Tabs>

    <Tip>
      **Name the code edition.** *"Check against ACI 318-19"* beats letting the reviewer infer it. It is the single biggest upgrade to finding quality.
    </Tip>
  </Step>

  <Step title="Run it, then interrogate the findings">
    Confirm the price and start ([pricing is per drawing page](/how-to/review-pricing)). When results land in the folder's **Reviews** section, open the set with the [Review Agent](/platform-guides/review-agent) and pressure-test anything that matters:

    ```text theme={null}
    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?
    ```
  </Step>
</Steps>

<Warning>
  **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.
</Warning>

***

## Next Steps

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Drawing Review" icon="clipboard-check">
    The full launch-to-results walkthrough

    [Drawing Review guide](/how-to/drawing-review)
  </Card>

  <Card title="Review Modes" icon="list-check">
    What each mode catches, with example briefs

    [Review Modes & Instructions](/how-to/review-modes)
  </Card>

  <Card title="Review Agent" icon="comments">
    Chat with your drawings and findings

    [Review Agent guide](/platform-guides/review-agent)
  </Card>

  <Card title="Sharing & Permissions" icon="user-group">
    Editor access is needed to launch reviews

    [Sharing & Permissions guide](/how-to/file-access)
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

<Info>
  **Questions?** Email **[support@stru.ai](mailto:support@stru.ai)** or [book a call](https://cal.com/bhosh).
</Info>