Start with the opening drawing note of the issued Section 31 62 13.13: confirm that the foundation plan and pile schedule give each pile its location, casing shape, length, and design strength, with the minimum diameters the tapered and constant section casing articles leave to the drawings, and that test piles, load tests, and soil data are shown. Then check that the casing kept, structural pipe or mandrel-driven shell with an open or closed tip, agrees with the pile details and boring logs, and that the casing inspection, reinforcing cage, concrete placement, splice, cutoff, and test pile requirements agree with the cap details, Section 03 30 00, and the geotechnical report.
Assemble the review package
Gather the foundation or pile plan with pile marks, test piles, and load test piles, the pile schedule with casing type and shape, length or tip elevation, cutoff elevation, design strength or capacity, batter, and any minimum casing wall thickness, the typical pile detail with the tip closure, the casing diameters, the reinforcing cage with its bar sizes and length, and the concrete strength, the splice detail if splices are allowed, the pile cap plan, schedule, and details with pile embedment and dowels into the cap, the structural general notes with design loads, uplift, lateral loads, and any piles standing unsupported above grade, the geotechnical report with boring logs, groundwater, and the bearing stratum, the plan of existing structures near the work, the statement of special inspections, and the issued Section 31 62 13.13 with Sections 03 30 00, 31 00 00, and 01 45 35, and, where the project also uses them, 31 62 23.13 or 31 62 16.13. Follow one pile from its tip closure through its cage to the cap before assuming the others match.
WBDG publishes UFGS 31 62 13.13: Cast-In-Place Concrete Piles as a public guide-specification reference (accessed November 9, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Drawing items and casing diameters | Opening drawing note (locations, dimensions, shape, length, and design strength of piles; test pile and load test locations and lengths; soil data) + Casings note (minimum wall thickness for structural casings; minimum diameters on the drawings) + Uniform Taper, Step-Taper, Constant Section, and Combination Type articles (diameters “as indicated”) + Pile Lengths and Quantity note and Table 1 + foundation plan, pile schedule, and typical pile detail | Does every pile mark resolve to a schedule line with its casing shape, length or tip elevation, cutoff elevation, and design strength, do the drawings give the minimum nominal diameters that the taper, step-taper, and constant section articles say are “as indicated”, at the tip and at the upper point the tapered articles name, where a structural casing is used, is its minimum wall thickness filled into the bracket or shown on the schedule, as the casing note directs, and if the lump sum Pile Lengths and Quantity paragraph is kept, do Table 1 or the drawings give the number, size, capacity, and length of piles it bases the bid on? |
| Casing type, mandrel, and tip closure | Casings article and note (open-end and closed-end structural casings, usually steel pipe; closed-end light-gage shells that are a form only and must be driven with a mandrel; closed-end casings in general, open-end where soil displacement must be avoided or soils are dense, clayey, or very coarse) + bracketed one-type-throughout sentence + Constant Section article (ASTM A252 pipe in lieu of a constant-section casing) + Piles and pile cap shop drawing (casing details, closures, splices) + certificates note (mill certificates only where the casing is structural) + boring logs and pile tip detail | Which casing does the design rely on, a structural pipe that carries load with the concrete or a light-gage shell that is only a form, and do the schedule, the tip detail, and the certificate items say the same thing, if shells are allowed, has the specifier added mandrel requirements, since the casing note says shells must be mandrel-driven but no article or equipment paragraph mentions a mandrel, is the open-end option kept only for ASTM A252 pipe where the logs or nearby structures call for it, as the note advises, and is the one-type-throughout bracket kept where the cap and test pile design assume a single casing, since the combination article lets pipe and shell sections be mixed? |
| Heave, cleanout, and casing inspection before concreting | Preparation article and note (no concrete until casings within a radius or heave range are driven and inspected; inside cleaned; free water removed; each casing inspected for integrity, distortion, and loss of area) + Tolerance in Driving article (heave check and redrive) + Section 03 30 00 Curing and Protection paragraph (pile driving vibration) + Section 31 62 23.13 Driving Procedure (wait before driving near freshly concreted casings) + installation sequence | Is the radius blank in the Preparation article filled in, and does the installation sequence hold concrete until every casing within it is driven, checked for heave, and inspected, how will the inside of a long or tapered casing be inspected along its length and who records it, where open-end casings are kept, has the specifier edited the article, since its note says all soil, water, and foreign material must come out of an open-end casing while the article text lets some free water remain in any casing, and because this section, unlike Section 31 62 23.13, has no rule against driving next to freshly concreted piles, does a sequence note or Section 03 30 00’s protection from pile driving vibration cover it? |
| Reinforcing cage and dowels into the cap | Reinforcement product article and note (bar size always indicated; length indicated if less than full pile length; Section 03 30 00) + bracketed Reinforcement execution article (unsupported sections, uplift or tension piles, piles in high bending not resisted by batter piles, and between pile top and cap or slab; preassembled unit secured before concreting) + Piles and pile cap shop drawing (placement of steel; bracketed reinforcement calculations) + typical pile detail, cap details, and general notes with uplift and lateral loads | Is the bracketed Reinforcement article kept wherever the general notes show uplift, lateral load, or bending, or a pile stands unsupported above grade, in water, or through very soft soil, does the pile detail give the bar size and, where the cage stops short, its length, as the note requires, are uplift piles reinforced over the length the bracket chosen calls for, do the cage bars or dowels project into the cap with the embedment the cap details show, and if the bracketed reinforcement calculations stay in the shop drawing item, is it clear who designs the cage, since the section has no design responsibility paragraph? |
| Concrete mix and placement in the casing | Concrete product article and note (Section 03 30 00; optional strength, slump, and aggregate size bracket when no pile mix is specified there) + Concrete execution article (continuous placement by funnel or hopper) + Section 03 30 00 Placing Concrete article and its note sending underwater placement to Section 03 31 30 Marine Concrete + Concrete Testing article + structural general notes and pile detail | Does the pile concrete strength on the drawings match either Section 03 30 00 or the bracketed sentence in this section, not both with different values, is the aggregate size compatible with the cage spacing and the smallest casing diameter, since the article places concrete only by funnel or hopper in one continuous operation, has the designer said how concrete reaches the bottom of a long or reinforced casing without segregating or hanging up on the cage, and where water cannot be removed from an open-end casing, is underwater placement specified under Section 03 31 30, as the Section 03 30 00 note directs, rather than left to the funnel sentence? |
| Hammers, driving schedule, tolerances, and jetting | Pile Hammers article and note + Driving Helmets (Caps) and Cushion (Capblocks) article + Driving Casing article (calculated tip elevation and the driving resistance schedule the Government prepares from test pile data) + Tolerance in Driving article and note + Jetting or Predrilling of Casings article and note + Pile Records article + pile cap plan and boring logs | Since the Pile Hammers note asks the designer to insert a driving energy chosen from a wave equation analysis but the article has no blank for it and the section has no wave equation article, has the specifier added the energy or the analysis the design expects, has the capblock paragraph been clarified, since it allows a solid hardwood block and then bars “wood blocks”, where the timber pile section bars “small wood blocks”, do the cap dimensions absorb the butt location tolerance kept, which its note says may be increased only if the design allows, is jetting or predrilling kept off uplift piles, friction piles in fine-grained soils, piles next to existing structures, and untested clusters, as the note advises, and is it clear when the Government will issue the driving resistance schedule? |
| Splices, welding, and cutoff | Splicing of Load Bearing Casings article and note (splices only when approved; bracketed limit per casing; vertical, lateral, and flexural capacity; full penetration groove weld under AWS D1.1) + Welding article (AWS D1.1/D1.1M for shop and field welding, welder qualification, and weld inspection) + Cut-Off article + Pile Lengths and Quantity adjustments sentence + Piles and pile cap shop drawing + splice detail, cap details, and statement of special inspections | Where the design needs splices, is there a splice detail, and has the structural engineer limited splices on uplift piles with structural casings, as the note advises, if the project also issues Section 31 62 23.13 or the steel pipe pile section, are the splice requirements reconciled, since Section 31 62 23.13 asks a splice to develop a smaller share of the casing’s flexural capacity than this section does, does the statement of special inspections cover the splice welds, since this section names AWS D1.1 for weld inspection but has no inspection or testing article of its own, and do the cutoff elevations on the schedule match the cap bottoms and pile embedment? |
| Test piles, load tests, concrete testing, and records | SD-06 Test Pile Data and Load Tests (Government-listed calculated tip elevations; no ordering before the list) + Test Piles article and its two notes (the second repeats the jetting note) + bracketed Load Tests article and note (ASTM D1143 compression test; anchor piles; three acceptance options; EFD branch approval) + Concrete Testing article and note table + Pile Records article + boring location plan and pile plan | Are test piles located on the plans or tied to boring numbers, as the note asks, at spots where they can stay in the work, is one load test acceptance option chosen and the test load filled in, where the schedule shows uplift or lateral piles, has a tension or lateral load test been added, since the section offers only the ASTM D1143 compression test, has the specifier replaced the note’s anchor pile approval by EFD Code 411, 402, or 405 with the office that reviews for the project, is the specimen frequency set from a checked table, since this section’s table repeats one lot size and gives a count out of step with its neighbours, and, with no as-driven survey article, does another section or the drawings require a butt location survey before cap concrete? |
Worked example: step-tapered shells with no diameters, a cage the section deleted, and no dowels into the caps
Illustrative example: a one-story vehicle maintenance building on a coastal plain is founded on cast-in-place concrete piles under two- and three-pile caps and a grade beam. The pile schedule calls for step-tapered light-gage shells but gives each pile only a length and a capacity, with no tip or upper diameter, and the issued Section 31 62 13.13 keeps every casing type and combination without the one-type-throughout bracket. The mandrel that the casing note requires for shells appears nowhere in the section. The general notes give uplift at the canopy columns and the typical pile detail shows a short cage in every pile, while the section deletes the bracketed Reinforcement article. The concrete strength in the general notes differs from the one filled into the section’s bracketed concrete sentence, the Preparation article’s radius is left blank, and the cap details show no dowels from the piles into the caps.
Ask the structural engineer to add the minimum tip and upper diameters to the schedule, to say whether the shells are forms only or the design relies on a structural casing, and to detail the cage for the uplift piles over the length the design needs, with dowels into the caps and their embedment. Ask the specifier to keep the one-type-throughout bracket or name the casings allowed, to add mandrel requirements for the shells, to restore the Reinforcement article, to keep one concrete strength in one document, and to fill in the radius so no casing is concreted before its neighbours are driven and inspected. Ask the geotechnical engineer whether the uplift piles need a tension load test, which the section does not offer, and when the driving resistance schedule from the test piles will be issued, since production casings cannot be ordered before it.
See the published structural revision finding. The illustrative scenario above is separate from that published finding.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 31 62 13.13 covers steel casings left in place and filled with concrete: their driving, splicing, cutoff, inspection, reinforcing, and concreting, and their test piles and load tests. The concrete, reinforcing steel, and concrete testing it relies on follow Section 03 30 00 and the concrete guide, whose placing note sends underwater placement to Section 03 31 30 Marine Concrete; pile cap excavation follows Section 31 00 00 and special inspection follows Section 01 45 35, all Active on WBDG; check those before calling a requirement missing. Section 31 62 23.13 Concrete-Filled Steel Piles, an Active USACE section reissued without revision in February 2021 under a new title, covers the same pile with the same four casing shapes and adds a unit price basis, ready-mix plant certification, an excavation sequence, a wait before driving next to freshly concreted casings, and a seismic special inspection paragraph; its Constant Section article ends in a truncated sentence. Driven steel pipe piles with optional concrete infill are UFGS 31 62 16.13 and the steel pipe pile guide, which relies on this section for the infill, and augered cast-in-place piles, drilled with no casing driven, are 31 63 16 and the augered pile guide, so a schedule that mixes pile types should say which section governs each. Pile capacity, casing type and thickness, driving stresses, hammer selection, driving resistance, and load test interpretation are decisions for the structural and geotechnical engineers. The current guide section cites AWS D1.1/D1.1M, ASTM A252, and ASTM D1143/D1143M; 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.