Start with the design option the issued Section 32 32 23.13 assumes: confirm that the drawings give the wall height, length, construction limits, embedment depth profile, surcharge loads, and the minimum global stability requirements, including reinforcement lengths and the design strength of the lowest layers, that the contractor’s engineer must design to, and that any soil parameters and water elevation in the Design Parameters article match the geotechnical report. Then check that the wall elevations, sections, and details agree with the section on reinforcement, block face and caps, leveling pad, drainage aggregate, filter, and drain pipe, fill, testing, and tolerances, and that any wall more unusual than the notes contemplate is flagged for a Government design.
Assemble the review package
Gather the site and grading plans with the wall alignment and top and bottom of wall elevations, the wall elevations or profiles with the embedment depth profile, the typical wall sections with any reinforcement lengths and layers the designer set, the surcharge loads from traffic, buildings, slopes, and fences or barriers near the wall, the geotechnical report with properties for the reinforced, retained, and foundation soils, water levels, and the global stability analysis, the seismic criteria, the storm drainage plan for the wall drain outlet, the site utility, lighting, and fence plans for anything crossing or founded in the reinforced zone, the landscape plan above and below the wall, and the issued Section 32 32 23.13 with Sections 01 33 00 and 01 45 00 and the earthwork section. Follow one wall from its leveling pad to its cap at its tallest point before assuming the others are the same.
WBDG publishes UFGS 32 32 23.13: Segmental Concrete Block Retaining Wall as a public guide-specification reference (accessed November 4, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Design option and responsibility | Opening designer notes on Contractor, Government, and Hybrid Design + Navy note + System Description and Design Requirements articles + drawing general notes | Does the edited section match the design option the drawings assume, with only geometry and minimum requirements drawn for a contractor design, does a hybrid design route the shop drawings to the wall designer of record, as the note advises, do conditions the note lists, such as coastal, blast resistant, high seismic, or bin walls, point to a Government design, and on Navy projects does the wall drawn fit the gravity wall and height limit the Navy note sets? |
| Wall geometry on the drawings | Opening note on geometric requirements + Layout and Measurement articles + site plan, grading plan, and wall elevations | Do the drawings give the wall height, length, construction limits, top of wall elevations, and the embedment depth profile that the Layout article says leveling pads may not rise above, and do they show the features, such as leveling pad steps, curves, and corners, that the Layout article says the final design must incorporate because the contract documents indicate them? |
| Soil parameters, water, and surcharges | Design Parameters article and its designer note + geotechnical report + surcharge loads on the drawings | If the soil parameter list is kept, are its blanks for unit weights, friction angle, cohesion, and water elevation in the reinforced fill filled in from the geotechnical report, are surcharge loads, live or dead, and their locations indicated on the drawings, as the note asks, and if the list is deleted, do the contract documents give the test results the note offers as the alternative? |
| Global stability, seismic, and the design submittal | Global Stability Design Requirements article + Table 1 + Seismic Design Requirements article and its note + Design Parameters and Layout articles + wall sections | Is the blank for the number of lowest reinforcement layers filled in, with their long term design strength in Table 1, are the reinforcement lengths the contractor must meet shown on the drawings, is the seismic acceleration blank filled in or the bracketed paragraph deleted, with walls beyond the method’s range sent to Government design, as the note says, and does the project specification define the design submittal, since two articles cite a paragraph titled Segmental Retaining Wall Design that the current guide section does not contain? |
| Reinforcement layout and products | Definitions, Geogrid Reinforcement, Geotextile Reinforcement, Reinforcement Properties, and Long Term Design Strength articles + Layout items + Reinforcement Installation article + wall sections + utility, lighting, and fence plans | Is the reinforcement geosynthetic only, as the definitions require, do the sections avoid mixing geogrid and geotextile or products from different manufacturers in one wall, are the Table 1 blanks filled in, and are pipes, pole foundations, drainage structures, or fence posts in the reinforced zone shown so the shop drawings can keep the full coverage and unspliced layers the installation article requires? |
| Blocks, caps, and face | Segmental Concrete Units, Face Color, Face Texture, Face Appearance, Block Size, Bond Configuration, Structural Requirements, and Wall Caps articles + wall elevations + site plan curves + finish schedule | Do the color, texture, and face appearance chosen match the wall elevations and any finish schedule, is a half bond drawn where the face is beveled or sculptured, does a curved alignment on the plan suit the face type the note recommends for curves, is the freeze-thaw option kept that fits the site and any deicing salt exposure, and are caps shown on every wall? |
| Leveling pad, drainage, and filter | Leveling Pad, Aggregate Base Leveling Pad, Concrete Leveling Pad, Drainage Aggregate, Geotextile Filter, and Drainage Pipe articles + wall sections + storm drainage plan | Do the wall sections show the leveling pad type, the subgrade compaction option chosen, drainage aggregate behind and within the units, the geotextile filter where it is used, and a drain pipe laid with continuous fall to an outlet that the storm drainage plan actually shows? |
| Fill, testing, and tolerances | Reinforced Fill, Retained Fill, Compaction, Moisture Control, Soil Testing, Reinforcement Testing, and Construction Tolerances articles + geotechnical report + grading plan + Section 01 45 00 | Is one fines limit chosen for the reinforced and retained fill that the geotechnical report and any on-site borrow can meet, is moisture control completed where the geotechnical engineer requires it, are the testing total and frequency blanks filled in, and do the horizontal, vertical, and batter tolerance blanks fit the top of wall elevations and the batter drawn? |
Worked example: a curved yard wall with no embedment profile and fence posts in the geogrid
Illustrative example: a vehicle maintenance yard expansion has a curved segmental block wall along a fill slope, with a parking lot and a chain link fence at the top and a storm drain inlet near the toe. The grading plan gives top of wall elevations but no bottom of wall or embedment profile, the typical section shows geogrid layers without lengths, the issued Section 32 32 23.13 keeps the soil parameter list and the seismic paragraph with every blank empty, the fence post foundations fall inside the reinforced zone, and the wall drain is drawn with no outlet.
Ask the civil and geotechnical engineers to add the embedment depth profile and bottom of wall elevations, fill in the soil parameters, water elevation, and parking lot surcharge from the geotechnical report, state the seismic value or delete the paragraph, and show the minimum reinforcement lengths from their global stability analysis. Ask them to detail how the fence posts pass through the reinforced fill without cutting the geogrid, to connect the wall drain to the storm drainage system, and to state in the submittal requirements that the wall designer of record reviews the shop drawings.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 32 32 23.13 covers segmental block walls reinforced with geosynthetics and was first developed for USACE civil works. Walls with steel strip or other inextensible reinforcement follow different design and construction rules, as its definitions note warns, cast-in-place concrete retaining walls are designed on the structural drawings and specified in the concrete sections, and dewatering, shoring, and earthwork below the foundation are outside the section, so check the earthwork section and the structural drawings before calling a requirement missing. Fences, guardrails, and barriers on top of the wall are excluded from the wall pay area, but their foundations still have to fit the reinforcement. The published sample plan review report, linked below, includes a finding on site retaining walls whose heights, civil keynote, and structural details disagree, the same kind of drift to look for here. The current guide section cites NCMA TR127B, FHWA NHI-00-043, AASHTO M 252 and M 288, and ASTM C1372, C1262, D698, D4595, D6638, and D6706; confirm the design method and editions your project invokes with the geotechnical engineer, the civil engineer, and the wall designer of record.
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.