Trace each curtain wall zone into its anchorage, infill type, and specification clauses, then compare mullion spacing, structural attachment, glazing infill assignment, air-water barrier tie-in, and movement joints before treating a typical detail as covering every elevation condition.
Assemble the review package
Gather curtain wall elevations, typical and condition-specific sections, the glazing or infill schedule, slab-edge and structural attachment details, and the issued curtain wall specification. Include the air- and water-barrier drawings where the curtain wall ties into the adjacent wall assembly. Review one elevation zone and its transitions completely before assuming a typical detail governs a corner, setback, or floor-line condition elsewhere.
WBDG publishes UFGS 08 44 00: Curtain Wall and Glazed Assemblies as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 21, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| System and mullion assignment | Elevation zone + curtain wall system description | Does every elevation zone resolve to an identified system type and mullion spacing, including any distinct condition at corners or setbacks? |
| Structural attachment | Anchor detail + slab-edge and structural clauses | Can the anchor type, spacing, and receiving structure be traced from the detail into the specification for the zone being reviewed? |
| Glazing and infill assignment | Elevation vision/spandrel pattern + infill schedule | Is vision glass distinguished from spandrel, louver, or opaque infill at every location, consistent with the schedule rather than a generic glazing note? |
| Air and water barrier continuity | Wall-tie-in detail + barrier continuity clauses | Does the documentation show how the curtain wall barrier connects to the adjacent wall air and water barrier, rather than stopping at the frame line? |
| Thermal movement | Elevation run length + expansion-joint clauses | Are expansion joints and movement accommodation located consistent with the specified spacing for the actual run length and structural movement? |
| Structural glazing vs. mechanical capture | Glazing detail + glazing-method clauses | Is the glazing attachment method (structural silicone, mechanical pressure plate) identified consistently between the detail and specification for each zone? |
| Fire and perimeter containment | Floor-line detail + perimeter fire-containment clauses | Is a perimeter fire-containment system identified at the floor-to-curtain-wall interface consistent with the assembly rating shown? |
| Performance testing and mockup | Specified testing/mockup + scheduled system types | Do the specified mockup and performance-testing scope represent every distinct system, infill, and condition shown on the elevations? |
Worked example: a spandrel panel drawn like vision glass
Illustrative example: a typical elevation shows a repeating glazing module, and a floor-line spandrel panel is drawn with the same line weight as the vision glass above it, while the specification lists a different infill type and fire-containment requirement at the spandrel condition. The elevation alone does not distinguish which modules are spandrel.
Confirm the intended vision-to-spandrel boundary from the infill schedule or reflected elevation, correct the drawing callout, and coordinate the perimeter fire-containment detail with the specified assembly rating. Recheck adjacent modules on the same floor line before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A repeating mullion grid on an elevation does not establish that every module shares the same infill, attachment method, or fire-containment requirement; corners, setbacks, and floor lines commonly carry different conditions than the typical field of the wall.
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.