Trace each door schedule entry into its frame type, anchor, and specification clauses, then compare door and frame gauge, fire-rating consistency across the leaf and frame, anchor type against wall construction, and glazing or louver infill before treating a schedule row as a complete, coordinated opening.
Assemble the review package
Gather the door and frame schedule, floor plans showing wall construction at each opening, fire and smoke-rating designations, hardware-set references, and the issued steel doors and frames specification. Include glazing and louver product data where an opening includes infill. Review one opening completely before assuming a similar schedule row elsewhere carries the same frame type, anchor, and rating.
WBDG publishes UFGS 08 11 13: Steel Doors and Frames 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Door and frame type assignment | Schedule row + door/frame type elevations | Does every scheduled opening resolve to a defined door and frame type, gauge, and profile, rather than a repeated mark with no matching elevation? |
| Fire-rating consistency | Schedule rating column + frame, glazing, and hardware rating clauses | Do the door leaf, frame, glazing, and listed hardware set all carry a consistent rating for the same opening, rather than a rating shown for the leaf alone? |
| Anchor type and wall construction | Plan wall type at the opening + frame-anchor clauses | Does the specified frame anchor type match the actual wall construction (stud, masonry, existing) shown at that opening? |
| Glazing and louver infill | Frame elevation infill + glazing/louver clauses | Where a frame shows glazing or a louver, is the infill type and its rating (where the opening is rated) identified consistent with the specification? |
| Undercut and threshold | Door detail + threshold and undercut clauses | Is the door undercut or threshold condition coordinated with the specified flooring transition and any smoke or sound requirement at that opening? |
| Finish and hardware preparation | Schedule finish column + hardware-preparation clauses | Does the specified factory hardware preparation match the hardware set referenced for that opening, rather than a generic preparation note? |
| Frame silencers and gasketing | Opening use + silencer/gasketing clauses | Where sound, smoke, or weather performance is intended for the opening, is the required gasketing or silencer identified consistent with the schedule? |
| Submittal scope | Specified shop drawings/labels + scheduled opening types | Do requested submittals include labeled-assembly documentation for every distinct rated opening type, not only a representative sample? |
Worked example: a rated leaf in an unrated frame callout
Illustrative example: a door schedule lists a 90-minute rating in the leaf rating column for a stair enclosure opening, but the frame type referenced on the same row is drawn from a typical detail with no rating notation, and the specified glazing for that frame is not listed as fire-rated glazing. The schedule row alone does not show whether the frame and glazing match the leaf rating.
Confirm the required opening rating from the life-safety plan, correct the frame type reference and glazing selection to a matching listed assembly, and update the hardware set reference if it depends on the rating. Recheck the wall construction and anchor type at that opening before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A rating shown in a schedule’s door-leaf column does not establish that the frame, glazing, and hardware at that opening carry a matching rating; each component of a rated assembly is tested and labeled together, so a mismatch in any one component is a real coordination question, not a formatting issue.
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.