Match each opening to its specified size, fire rating, operation type, and structural support, then check guide and hood clearance, wind load for exterior openings, and controls before treating a schedule entry as complete.
Assemble the review package
Gather the door schedule, jamb and head details, the structural framing plan at each opening, life-safety or wall-rating plan, exterior elevations where openings are exposed, and the issued overhead coiling door specification. Review loading dock and exterior openings separately from interior service openings.
WBDG publishes UFGS 08 33 23: Overhead Coiling Doors as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 22, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Opening size assignment | Door schedule + specified opening dimensions | Does each tagged opening’s width and height match the specification’s stated size for that door? |
| Fire rating | Life-safety/wall-rating plan + specified fire-rated curtain option | Where the wall or opening is shown as fire-rated, does the specification identify the correct fire-rated curtain and closing-device option for that rating? |
| Operation type | Door schedule operation column + specified operator type | Does the specified operator (manual push-up, chain hoist, motorized) match what is shown in the door schedule for that opening? |
| Guide and hood clearance | Jamb/head detail + specified guide and hood dimensions | Does the drawn jamb and head clearance accommodate the specified guide assembly and coil hood depth? |
| Structural support | Structural framing plan + specified header and jamb support requirements | Is a header or supplemental framing shown at each opening consistent with the specified support requirements for the door weight and size? |
| Wind load at exterior openings | Exterior elevation and wind criteria + specified wind-load rating | For exterior openings, does the specified door’s wind-load rating match the design wind pressure referenced for that location? |
| Controls and safety devices | Electrical/controls plan + specified safety edge and interlock requirements | Are the specified safety edge, interlock, and control station locations reflected on the electrical or controls plan? |
| Insulation and weatherseal | Thermal notes + specified insulated curtain option | Where an insulated curtain is specified, does the drawing identify the same condition (exterior wall, conditioned-space boundary) that called for it? |
Worked example: a header sized for a narrower opening
Illustrative example: a loading dock opening is shown at one width on the architectural door schedule, while the structural framing plan’s header span was sized for a narrower opening carried over from an earlier design, leaving the header undersized for the specified door and its guide assembly.
Compare the current door schedule width against the structural header span shown at that opening, and ask the structural engineer to confirm or revise the framing. Recheck the guide and hood clearance at the same opening once the header is corrected.
Avoid a false conflict
A door schedule entry does not by itself confirm the structural support was updated to match it. Header framing set earlier in design can remain unrevised after a door opening size changes; confirm both together at each opening.
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.