Start with the surfacing and the slope: confirm that the issued Section 07 51 13 keeps aggregate only where the roof plan is away from jet intakes and airfields and below the wind speed its surfacing note sets, and that each roof slope on the plan falls inside the Asphalt note’s table, which stops short of the steepest slopes the section admits. Then check that the fire and wind listings, the base sheet and its attachment, the ply direction and backnailing, the nailers and cants, the flashing, drains, and curbs, and the walkpads and rooftop items agree with the roof plan, the roof sections, the details, and Sections 06 10 00, 07 22 00, 07 60 00, and 22 00 00.
Assemble the review package
Gather the roof plan with roof areas, slopes, crickets, tapered insulation, drains, overflow drains or scuppers, curbs, penetrations, walkpads, pavers, and rooftop equipment, the roof sections showing the deck and every layer up to the surfacing, the edge, parapet, curb, nailer, cant, expansion joint, area divider, drain, and penetration details, the structural roof framing and deck drawings with the wind design criteria, the site plan showing any airfield or jet engine intakes nearby, the mechanical, plumbing, electrical, lightning protection, and PV drawings for items on the roof, the fall protection anchorage layout, the energy compliance documents with the roof R-value and any cool roof requirement, the FM or UL listing of the proposed assembly, and the issued Section 07 51 13 with Sections 06 10 00, 07 22 00, 07 60 00, and 22 00 00. Follow one roof area from its low drain to its high edge, and one curb, before assuming the others match.
WBDG publishes UFGS 07 51 13: Built-Up Asphalt Roofing as a public guide-specification reference (accessed November 10, 2026). Use your project’s issued specification and amendments for the actual comparison; the guide specification does not automatically govern your project. The checklist below is an original suggested review workflow, not a reproduction of the UFGS requirements.
Eight checks to run against the issued set
Use one record per location or system. The CSV contains the same eight prompts plus fields for source revisions, observed evidence, the review owner, the decision, and closure references.
| Check | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Surfacing: aggregate or granule-surfaced cap sheet | Opening surfacing note (cap sheet where aggregate could be drawn into jet intakes or blown onto people and property) + System Description bracket + Surfacing Material note (no coral in humid or higher ESC locations; no aggregate at airfields or above the basic wind speed it names) + cap sheet ESC note + UFC 1-200-01 environmental severity classification + site plan and structural wind criteria + roof plan | Is one system kept in the System Description bracket, aggregate-surfaced felts or felts with a granule-surfaced cap sheet, and does it agree with the roof plan, the roof sections, and the surfacing article kept, and where the building is near an airfield or jet intakes, or the structural drawings give a basic wind speed at or above the one the note names, has aggregate been deleted, and has the surfacing been checked against the climate zone and environmental severity class the notes name? |
| Slope and asphalt type | Opening note (slope range the section covers) + Asphalt note and slope table (asphalt type by slope and climate; Type IV in hot locations above a stated slope) + the same table repeated in the article body + Asphalt bracket (ASTM D312 type) + roof plan slopes, crickets, and tapered insulation layout + Section 07 22 00 | Does each roof slope on the plan and the tapered insulation layout fall within the Asphalt note’s table, which stops short of the steepest slopes the opening note admits, so that a steeper roof has no asphalt type at all, has the specifier used the inch-pound slope column, since the metric column and the sentence after the table disagree with it, is the asphalt bracket edited to the type the slopes and climate call for, and has the copy of the table printed below the note been deleted from the issued article? |
| Fire classification and wind uplift | Fire Resistance article (Class A by ASTM E108, FM 4470, or UL 790; fire-classified or Class I deck listing) and its note (Class B option only where Class A cannot be reached, with justification) + Wind Uplift Resistance article and note (rated assembly, design wind speed bracket, licensed engineer’s calculations for non-rated systems, calculated values delineated in the specification and on the drawings) + Submittals (Wind Uplift Calculations under SD-03 and SD-05) + structural wind criteria + deck drawings + FM or UL listing | Do the roof drawings and the specification both state the calculated uplift values, as the wind note asks, with corner and perimeter zones, does the listed FM or UL assembly match the deck, base sheet, insulation, and attachment shown on the roof sections, has the design wind speed bracket been filled in to agree with the structural drawings, and where a wood deck or other condition cannot reach Class A, has the designer written in the Class B option and its justification, since the note refers to a Class B option the article does not contain? |
| Base sheet, attachment, and ply direction | Felt Materials note (venting base sheet with perforations only directly on concrete decks; base sheets under insulation in the insulation section) + Base Sheet Application notes (mechanical fastening on uninsulated nailable decks; venting base sheet on wet fill and new poured concrete; direction by slope) + Ply Felts note + cap sheet article’s base sheet attachment submittal (pattern in field, corners, and perimeter) + Section 07 22 00 + roof sections and deck type | Is the base sheet kept, deleted, or moved to Section 07 22 00 to match where the roof sections place it, is a venting base sheet specified over wet fill, lightweight insulating concrete, gypsum fill, and new poured concrete, is the attachment pattern for field, corners, and perimeter listed as a submittal, since it appears only as a sentence in the cap sheet article, and since the Base Sheet and Ply Felts notes give different slopes for running sheets parallel to the slope, has the specifier set one rule that matches the roof plan? |
| Backnailing, nailers, and cants | Backnailing of Ply Felts note and brackets (nailing strips matching insulation thickness, nailer spacing; insulated or uninsulated nailable deck option) + Backnailing of Cap Sheet note + Verification of Conditions (wood nailers at eaves, gables, openings, and walls; nailers for base flashing height; cants) + Cant Strips article and note (perlite or wood fiber; wood cants at unsupported flashings) + Section 06 10 00 waterborne preservative note + roof sections and edge, curb, and expansion joint details | Since the backnailing note sets two different slopes at which backnailing starts and names Type I asphalt, which the Asphalt article does not offer, has the specifier said which roof areas are backnailed, do the roof sections show nailing strips matching the insulation thickness at the spacing kept, with one inch-pound value for it, since the two brackets give different ones, are nailers drawn at every edge, opening, and wall, treated with the waterborne preservative Section 06 10 00 must specify, and are wood cants detailed where the flashing is not supported by a wall? |
| Substrate verification, venting, and decks | Verification of Conditions article (placed in PART 2: drains, curbs, cants, and penetrations in place; surface planeness; slope to drain; edge and underside venting for wet fill; wood deck covering and plywood joint taping; insulation roofed the same day; concrete cured and tested by ASTM D4263; precast joints stripped) + Test for Surface Dryness + structural deck drawings + Section 07 22 00 | Do the deck drawings identify each deck type, concrete, precast, steel with lightweight fill, wood, or plywood, so that the right items of Verification of Conditions are kept, is edge or underside venting kept and detailed where the deck carries wet fill such as lightweight cellular concrete, are precast deck joints and weld plates detailed for grouting and stripping, kept once rather than in both the bracketed and the plain sentence, and has the specifier corrected “No viable moisture” and moved the article into PART 3, where it belongs? |
| Flashing, drains, curbs, edges, and the membrane liner | Base Flashing Membrane and Membrane Flashing articles (modified bitumen base flashing, top edge fastened, membrane liner over exposed nailers and under sheet metal) + Strip Flashing + Membrane Flashing at Roof Drain note (drains in Section 22 00 00, drain flashings in Section 07 60 00) + retrofit drains to ANSI/SPRI RD-1 + Pre-fabricated Curbs article + edge systems to ANSI/SPRI/FM 4435/ES-1 + Roof Drain Test note (consult the structural engineer) + Membrane Liner article + details | Do the parapet, curb, and edge details show the base flashing height the Verification of Conditions nailer item sets, the fastened top edge, the membrane liner under the coping and counterflashing, and edge metal matching Section 07 60 00, does each drain detail on the plumbing and roof drawings agree with the flashing and clamping ring described, are existing drains on a reroof checked against ANSI/SPRI RD-1, and before the drain flood test is kept, has the structural engineer confirmed the roof can carry the ponded water around each drain? |
| Traffic, rooftop items, fire watch, and warranty | Walkpads note and article + Roof Walkways (asphalt planks; no installation paragraph) + Elevated Metal Walkways and Platforms (installation paragraph; no product article) + Paver Blocks + Set-On Accessories + Lightning Protection + PV Systems (NRCA guidelines not in References) + Fall Protection Systems blank + kettles kept off the roof and Fire Watch, with NRCA 4002 and the MRCA R&NW manual not in References + Protection Against Moisture Absorption (water cutoffs written for modified bitumen) + Warranty (term fixed in text) + roof plan | Does the roof plan show walkpads at every access point and service path the walkpad note calls for, with pavers under equipment supports, has the specifier either added an installation paragraph for the asphalt plank walkways or deleted them, and named the product and section for any elevated metal walkway, is the fall protection blank filled in to match the anchorage layout, are the references the fire watch and PV paragraphs rely on added to the References article, and has the water cutoff paragraph been rewritten for a built-up roof and the warranty term set to the one the note’s criteria give? |
Worked example: gravel near a flight line, a slope off the table, and walkways nobody installs
Illustrative example: a new two-story maintenance hangar annex sits beside an aircraft parking apron, with a steel deck under tapered polyisocyanurate insulation and a lower wing on a steeper sloped wood deck over an existing shop. The issued Section 07 51 13 keeps the aggregate-surfaced system, the steep wing’s slope on the roof plan is steeper than any row of the Asphalt note’s table, and the asphalt bracket keeps every type. The roof sections show a base sheet over the insulation, while Section 07 22 00 also specifies one. The Fire Resistance article still requires Class A over the wood deck with no justification on file, the walkpad article and the asphalt plank walkways are both kept but the roof plan shows no walkways, and the fire watch paragraph points to NRCA 4002, which the References article does not list.
Ask the architect and the roof consultant to switch the annex to the granule-surfaced cap sheet, as the opening note directs where aggregate could be drawn into jet intakes, and to confirm with the structural engineer that the basic wind speed does not rule out aggregate elsewhere. Ask the specifier to select the asphalt type for the steep wing from the manufacturer’s requirements or move that wing to a steep-slope or other low-slope system, since the table gives no type for it, to keep the base sheet in one section, and to decide whether the wood deck can reach Class A or to add a justified Class B option. Ask the architect to draw walkpads at the hatch and each rooftop unit and to keep one walkway product with an installation paragraph, and ask the specifier to add NRCA 4002 and the MRCA manual to the References article or delete them.
See the published rooftop equipment support finding. The illustrative scenario above is separate from that published finding.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 07 51 13 covers the hot-mopped built-up membrane, its modified bitumen base flashing and cap sheet, and its aggregate surfacing. Its opening note leaves the structural deck, insulation, and sheet metal fascias, gravel stops, and flashings to other sections: insulation, cover boards, and base sheets under insulation follow Section 07 22 00 and the roof insulation guide, counterflashing, edge metal, and drain flashings follow Section 07 60 00, wood nailers and their preservative treatment follow Section 06 10 00, and roof drains follow Section 22 00 00, so check those before calling a requirement missing. Modified bitumen sheet roofing is UFGS 07 52 00, EPDM is 07 53 23, TPO is 07 54 23, and below-grade built-up membranes are 07 12 00; see those guides. The section’s quality control note asks for a registered roof consultant, engineer, or architect experienced in roofing on the design team for larger or mission-critical roofs, and its notes point to UFC 3-110-03 Roofing, UFC 1-200-01, and ASHRAE 90.1. Wind uplift, fire classification, the roof’s capacity for ponded water and equipment, and energy performance are decisions for the architect, the structural engineer, and the roof consultant, and the warranty is settled between the owner and the manufacturer. The current guide section cites ASCE 7-22, FM 4470, UL 790, ASTM E108, ASTM D312, D2178, D4601, D4897, D6162, D6163, D6164, D1863, D3617, D4263, and C1153, ANSI/SPRI RD-1, and ANSI/SPRI/FM 4435/ES-1; confirm the editions your project invokes.
When requirements disagree, follow the project’s document-control and clarification process. Do not assume that drawings always override specifications, or the reverse. Identify the exact sources and request an authorized decision.
Close the issue across the affected documents
Record the location or tag, drawing and specification references, issue dates, observed difference, and the decision needed. Assign an owner and keep the item open until the response identifies the governing requirement. Check the revised drawings and specification references together; a response email alone may leave the issued package inconsistent.
For the overall process, use the guide to drawing and specification conflicts. Mark an inapplicable checklist row with a reason, and distinguish a verified correction from a question that still needs design information.
Where Groundbook fits
Groundbook’s drawing and specification review helps investigate potential disagreements in the documents you supply. Include the relevant specification sections and drawing references, then verify the cited evidence with the responsible reviewers before acting on a finding.