Start with the drawing notes of the issued Section 31 63 16: confirm that the pile plan and schedule give every pile its location, diameter, design load, tension or compression type, vertical or battered designation, design tip elevation, cutoff elevation, and reinforcement, and that the capacity and tip criteria filled into the section match them. Then check that the grout strength and flow, cage length and centralizers, working grade and casing, grout volume and monitoring records, tolerances and as-installed surveys, cap embedment, and the test pile, load test, and integrity test articles kept in the section agree with the pile cap and grade beam details and the geotechnical report.
Assemble the review package
Gather the foundation plan with pile locations, marks, and grid dimensions, the pile schedule with diameters, design loads, tension and lateral demands, tip and cutoff elevations, and test pile and soil probe locations, the typical pile detail with the cage, bars, ties or spiral, splices, and centralizers, the pile cap, grade beam, and foundation beam details with pile embedment and bar anchorage, the column schedule and base details, the structural general notes with the grout strength and design criteria, the geotechnical report with the boring logs, groundwater, soft, organic, cobble, or gas-bearing layers, and the recommended pile type and installation notes, the grading and excavation plans with the working surface at the piles, any plan of existing structures and utilities near the work, and the issued Section 31 63 16 with Sections 03 30 00, 31 00 00, and 01 45 35. Follow one pile cap from the pile tips to the column above before assuming the others match.
WBDG publishes UFGS 31 63 16: Augered Cast-In-Place Piles as a public guide-specification reference (accessed November 7, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Pile plan, schedule, and acceptance criteria | Opening drawing notes (locations and design loads, tension and compression piles by type, size, shape, and length, reinforcement, test piles, soil data, vertical or battered) + PART 1 drawing note (soil logs, diameter, design tip elevation for each pile, soil probes) + Basis of Bid notes and the bracketed Table 1 + Production Pile Acceptance Criteria article + foundation plan and pile schedule | Does every pile mark on the foundation plan appear in the schedule with its diameter, design load, tension or compression type, vertical or battered designation, and design tip elevation, as the notes require, where the project is bid lump sum, do the drawings give the number of piles, capacity, locations, and tip and cutoff elevations the Lump Sum note asks for, does the safe design capacity and the minimum tip elevation or depth below cutoff filled into the acceptance criteria article match the schedule, and if the bracketed Table 1 is kept instead, do its sizes, capacities, lengths, moments, and shears agree with the drawings? |
| Design responsibility and structural demands | Description article (design, furnish, install, and test) and its test pile options + note asking the structural engineer to confirm structural capacity and give bending moments, lateral loads, and other design requirements + Contractor’s Geotechnical Consultant Documentation + Production Pile Acceptance Criteria (terminal installation criteria) + Shop Drawings submittals + structural general notes and load plans | The Description article opens with design, furnish, install, and test, so do the drawings say whether the engineer of record has sized each pile or left length and reinforcement to the contractor, does the schedule or the structural notes give the bending moments, shears, lateral loads, and uplift the note says the structural engineer must provide, is the independent registered geotechnical consultant paragraph kept where that consultant is to set the terminal installation criteria from the load tests, and is one of the two test pile options kept, so it is clear whether test piles may become production piles? |
| Subsurface data, soil hazards, and soil probes | PART 1 note on peat and other low-strength soils, boulders and cobbles, and methane-producing soils + Subsurface Data article and its bracket options + Depth and Soil Profile articles and notes + Drilling Refusal article and note + geotechnical report and boring location plan | Does the Subsurface Data bracket kept say where the logs actually are, on the drawings, appended, or available for examination, does the geotechnical report show peat or other soft layers where necking can occur, cobbles or boulders, or methane-producing soils, as the note warns, and if so does the set say how installation addresses them, are the pile holes that need auger withdrawal and soil probes indicated on the drawings, as the Soil Profile note asks, or those paragraphs deleted where the agency waives them, and is the bracketed refusal criterion kept only where test piles, load tests, and soil probes are used, as its note directs? |
| Grout strength, flow, and materials | Grout article and its note (design strength blank, flow) + Portland Cement, Pozzolan, Grout Fluidifier, Chemical Admixtures, Fine Aggregate (alternate), and Aggregate articles and the reactive aggregate notes + Grout Mix Design submittal + Flow Cone Test and Grout Specimens articles + Silica Fume Manufacturer’s Representative + structural general notes | Does the grout strength filled into the Grout article match the pile grout strength in the structural general notes, does the consistency in the Grout article agree with the value the Flow Cone Test article states, since the guide writes the two separately, is one of the two sand paragraphs kept, is the Grout article’s sentence barring other admixtures reconciled with the chemical admixtures paragraph beside it, is the silica fume representative paragraph deleted when the mix has no silica fume, and where piles are exposed and reactive aggregate is likely, are the extra tests the aggregate notes suggest added? |
| Reinforcement, cage length, centralizers, and splices | Opening drawing note (details of reinforcement) + both Reinforcement articles (Section 03 30 00 reference, spiral, tie, and bar standards, ACI 315 detailing, splices determined by the designer and detailed on the plans, centralizers for vertical and battered piles) + Section 03 30 00 Splicing, Placing Reinforcement, and Welding articles + typical pile detail, pile schedule, and shop drawings | Does the pile detail give the bar count and size, the ties or spiral, and the cage or bar length below cutoff for each pile type, are the splices drawn on the plans, as the Reinforcement article leaves them to the designer, are centralizers shown for cages and single bars, including battered piles, does the reinforcement reach as deep as the uplift, lateral, and moment demands in the schedule require, and is one of the two Reinforcement paragraphs kept so the bar standards do not conflict with Section 03 30 00, which asks for weldable bars where reinforcement is welded and prohibits tack welding? |
| Working grade, casing, grout volume, and monitoring | Installation article (after rough grading, working surface above cutoff unless steel casing is used) + Casings and Casings Placement articles and the bracketed can or sleeve + Equipment and Grout Pump articles (pressure gauge, calibration) + Grout Volume and Grouting and Auger Removal articles + Pile Records article and its automated monitoring option + Section 31 00 00 Pile Cap Excavation + grading and excavation plans | Do the grading and excavation plans leave the working surface above cutoff at every pile while it is augered and grouted, as the Installation article requires unless steel casing is used, is the Pile Cap Excavation option kept in Section 31 00 00, which is written around pile driving, edited so the grade is not lowered first, where cutoff sits above drilling grade, is the bracketed can or sleeve kept, is the grout volume bracket filled in and measured by interval through the calibrated pump, and is the automated monitoring equipment option kept or deleted on purpose, along with the sentence that it does not replace manual pump displacement records? |
| Tolerances, as-installed surveys, cutoff, and cap embedment | Placement Tolerances article and its DFI note + Protection of Piles article + Pile Butts and Cutoff articles + Damaged Piles article (piles below butt elevation, mislocated or out-of-plumb piles) + pile cap, grade beam, and foundation beam details + column base details + construction schedule | Is the location tolerance blank filled in from the DFI manual the note cites, and can the cap and grade beam details absorb that offset without an eccentric column or a pile too close to a cap edge, does the installation sequence respect the spacing and set-time brackets in Protection of Piles where caps group piles closely, do the cap details show the pile embedment and the bar projection into the cap, does the schedule hold cutoff and cap and grade beam work until the as-installed surveys are approved, as the tolerance article requires, and has the structural engineer said how a pile cut below its butt elevation or installed out of position will be corrected, since the Damaged Piles article extends the footing, builds up the butt, or adds replacement piles as directed? |
| Test piles, load tests, integrity tests, records, and monitoring | Test Piles Placement note and options + Static Load Tests note and acceptance options (UFC 3-220-01) + Safe Design Capacity + Tensile Load Test and Lateral Load Test articles + Low-Strain Integrity Testing and Sonic Logging articles + Pile Records note (pile installation log and equipment data form) + Special Inspection and Testing for Seismic-Resisting Systems + Protection of Existing Structures, Vibration Control, Noise Control, Preconstruction Condition Survey, and Instrumentation articles and notes + Section 01 45 35 | Are test piles located on the drawings or tied to named borings, with load testing in each area of substantially different subsoil, as the note advises, is one static acceptance option chosen to match UFC 3-220-01, are tension and lateral tests kept only where the schedule shows uplift or lateral demand, is the number of low-strain or sonic logging tests filled in and tied to the installation records, with access tubes drawn on the cage if sonic logging stays, are the pile log and equipment data form attached, as the note requires, are the special inspection locations on the drawings and in Section 01 45 35, and are existing structures that need protection indicated on the drawings, with the vibration and noise paragraphs kept only where needed? |
Worked example: uplift piles with short cages and a cap excavation that lowers the working grade
Illustrative example: a three-story concrete administration building sits on augered cast-in-place piles under pile caps, foundation beams, and flat slabs. The structural load plan shows uplift on the piles under the braced core, but the pile schedule lists every pile as a compression pile and the typical pile detail draws one short cage for all of them. The pile schedule on the foundation plan and the pile table on a detail sheet give different tip elevations for the same mark. The issued Section 31 63 16 keeps sonic logging, yet the pile detail shows no access tubes, the Grout article states a different flow consistency from the Flow Cone Test article, the geotechnical report flags an organic silt layer, and Section 31 00 00 keeps the option to excavate to the bottom of the pile caps before the piles are placed.
Ask the structural engineer to mark the uplift piles in the schedule, extend their reinforcement to the depth the uplift requires, and issue one pile table with one tip elevation per mark. Ask the specifier to make the Grout and Flow Cone Test articles state one consistency and to either add access tubes to the pile detail or delete sonic logging in favor of the low-strain option. Ask the geotechnical engineer how the organic layer affects necking, grout volume, and the test pile program, and coordinate Section 31 00 00 so the working surface stays above cutoff, or casing is specified, while the piles are installed.
See the published structural revision finding. The illustrative scenario above is separate from that published finding.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 31 63 16 covers piles drilled with a continuous-flight hollow-shaft auger and grouted through it as the auger is withdrawn. Despite the similar name, Section 31 62 13.13 Cast-In-Place Concrete Piles covers driven steel casings filled with concrete, drilled concrete piers and shafts follow Section 31 63 29 or the older Section 31 63 26 Drilled Caissons, and helical piles follow Section 31 63 26.60. Reinforcement follows Section 03 30 00, which superseded 03 20 00.00 10, pile cap excavation and spoil follow Section 31 00 00, and special inspection follows Section 01 45 35. The section has no article for sonic logging access tubes, for when and how the cage is set into the fluid grout, or for the pile-to-cap connection, so check which document covers each before calling a requirement missing. Its Grout Specimens article cites ASTM D942, an oxidation stability test for lubricating greases, beside the cube and cylinder methods, and its sustainability article lists recycled content for stressed tendon reinforcing, which these piles do not use; ask the specifier to correct both. The working load note cites the 2015 IBC; confirm the edition your jurisdiction adopts. Pile capacity, terminal installation criteria, and load and integrity test interpretation belong to the structural and geotechnical engineers. The current guide section cites ACI 211.1, ACI 315, ACI 318-19, ASTM A615, A706, A1064, C31, C33, C39, C109, C150, C494, C618, C937, C939, C942, C1077, C1611, D942, D1143, D3689, D3966, D5882, D6760, E329, and E548, and UFC 3-220-01; 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.