Start with the drawing note of the issued Section 31 63 29: confirm that the foundation plan and shaft schedule give every pier or shaft its top and bottom elevation, diameter, bearing capacity, count by size, any bell and casing dimensions, reinforcement, and the shafts chosen for penetration, proof, and load tests. Then check that the bearing stratum or rock socket, the groundwater and casing assumptions behind the section’s dry placement, the cage and embedded items, the fixed concrete values, the tolerances, and the cap, grade beam, and column base connections agree with the geotechnical report and the structural details, and that the tests the bid items count are described somewhere in the issued documents.
Assemble the review package
Gather the foundation plan with shaft locations, marks, and grid dimensions, the shaft schedule with diameters, top and bottom elevations, bearing capacities, rock socket lengths, bells, casings, and test shafts, the typical shaft detail with the cage, bars, ties or spirals, splices, cover, centering devices, and any integrity test tubes, the pile cap, grade beam, and column base details with dowels, anchor bolts, and templates, the structural general notes with the concrete strength, design criteria, and ASCE 7 edition, the geotechnical report with boring and rock core logs, groundwater, caving or water-bearing layers, rock quality, and the recommended bearing stratum and construction method, the site utility plan and any existing structures near the shafts, the bid form with the unit price items, and the issued Section 31 63 29 with Sections 03 30 00, 31 00 00, 01 45 35, and 01 35 26, plus Section 31 63 26 if the project also issues it. Follow one shaft from the column base to its bearing stratum before assuming the others match.
WBDG publishes UFGS 31 63 29: Drilled Concrete Piers and Shafts 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Shaft schedule against the drawing note | PART 1 drawing note (soil logs, top and bottom elevation of each pier or shaft, diameter, bearing capacity, and number of each size, bell and casing dimensions, reinforcement, penetration-test, proof-test, and load-test shafts) + Basis of Bids article + Assembly article and the shop drawing submittals + foundation plan and shaft schedule | Does every pier or shaft mark on the foundation plan appear in the schedule with its diameter, top and bottom elevation, bearing capacity, and reinforcement, do the counts by diameter match the plan, since the Basis of Bids prices the number and total length set by those elevations and diameters, are bell and casing dimensions given wherever a detail draws a bell or a permanent casing, and are the shafts chosen for penetration, proof, and load testing marked on the drawings? |
| Design responsibility and the shaft design analysis | Design Requirements article (shaft foundation design analysis: building code criteria, dead, live, compressive, lateral, collateral, and foundation loads, bearing strata, casing) + SD-05 Design Data + Qualification of Professional Engineer (state license, ACI 336.1, FHWA NHI-18-024, ASCE 7-16, and the building code blank) + structural general notes, load plans, and shaft schedule | Because the section asks the contractor for a shaft design analysis by an engineer qualified in drilled shaft design, do the drawings show a complete design, with the analysis submittal edited to confirm it, or a delegated one, with the axial, lateral, uplift, and collateral loads and the bearing strata a delegated engineer needs, are the state and building code blanks filled in, and does the ASCE 7 edition the section names match the one in the structural general notes? |
| Bearing stratum, rock sockets, and bearing tests | Project Conditions note (proof testing where rock soundness below bearing is unknown, with each proof-tested shaft indicated) + Load Test, Penetration Test, and Proof Test Hole bid items + Removal of Rock and Removal of Obstructions items + Drilling and Excavation Equipment article (rock core barrels, rock tools) + geotechnical report and rock core logs + UFC 3-220-01 note on shafts anchored in rock + Section 31 63 26 Penetration Tests and Proof Test Hole Requirements articles | Does the schedule define the bearing stratum for each shaft type, with a rock socket length or a top-of-rock rule rather than a bottom elevation alone where the report expects variable rock, are the shafts to be proof tested indicated wherever the report leaves rock soundness below bearing unknown, as the note requires, and because Section 31 63 29 counts penetration tests and proof test holes in its bid items but has no article that says how to run them, has the specifier added that procedure, as Section 31 63 26 provides, or deleted the items? |
| Groundwater, casing, and dry or wet placement | Excavation article (temporary watertight steel casing, water removed before concrete) + Concrete Placement article (dry excavations whenever possible, written approval) + Weather Limitations article + Casings Permanently Left in Place item + drawing note (casing dimensions) + geotechnical report groundwater and caving layers + Section 31 00 00 Dewatering article + Section 31 63 26 placement paragraph (tremie or pumping in wet holes) | Where the report shows groundwater above the shaft bottoms, caving sands, or artesian pressure, can the dry, cased method the section describes be built, or does the design need slurry or tremie placement, which Section 31 63 29 does not specify, are permanent casings drawn with their dimensions and length, with a note on whether the design counts side resistance along the cased length, and does the casing left in place pay item agree with the casing the drawings show? |
| Cage, embedded items, and welding | Steel Reinforcement materials article (bar and wire standards, ACI 318) + Steel Reinforcement execution article (CRSI manual, ACI SP-66, cage delivered complete, splices as shown on approved shop drawings, no tack welding of crossing bars, centering devices, anchor bolts, inserts, and embedded items, templates) + Welding Qualifications article + Steel Reinforcement and Anchor Bolt Locations shop drawings + Section 03 30 00 Welding article + shaft, cap, and column base details | Does the shaft detail give the cage length, vertical bars, ties or spirals, splices, cover, and centering devices, does the cage run the full length of shafts that carry tension, as the UFC 3-220-01 note on piers in rock advises, where the details show welded pick-up hoops or stiffener rings, are the bars weldable, since Section 03 30 00 asks for ASTM A706 bars where reinforcement is welded while Section 31 63 29 names ASTM A615 and prohibits tack welding crossing bars, and do the anchor bolt templates and embedded items on the column base details clear the cage, since the section asks the contractor to report those conflicts before concrete is placed? |
| Concrete mix, placement, and same-day pours | Ready-Mix Concrete article (ACI 117, ACI 301, ACI 304R, fixed strength, slump, and cement type, one brand for exposed surfaces) + Mix Design Data submittal + Sequencing and Scheduling article (each shaft poured the day it is drilled) + Concrete Placement article (continuous, ACI 318, hot and cold weather, base cleanliness judged by the engineer) + Field Quality Control article + structural general notes + Sections 03 30 00 and 03 31 30 | Do the strength, slump, and cement type the guide text fixes agree with the shaft concrete in the structural general notes and with the sulfate, chloride, or marine exposure in the geotechnical report, with Section 03 31 30 Marine Concrete considered where the 03 30 00 scope note sends marine work, is the slump workable through the cage spacing on the shaft detail and for any wet placement the design adopts, does the installation plan pour each shaft the day it is drilled, and is it clear who inspects base cleanliness, since the article leaves that to the engineer by visual inspection? |
| Tolerances, top of shaft, and cap and grade beam connections | Construction Criteria article (dimensions and alignment checked jointly, fixed location, bottom diameter, plumb, and bottom level tolerances, straight cylindrical shafts of the type indicated) + Excavation article (ACI 336.1 tolerances, under-reaming tools) + Pre-Construction Conference item on alignment between the foundation and structural members + anchor bolt template paragraph + pile cap, grade beam, and column base details | Can the cap, grade beam, and column base details absorb the location and plumb tolerances written into Construction Criteria, and do those values agree with the ACI 336.1 tolerances the Excavation article also cites, does each detail give the top of shaft elevation and the dowel or cage projection into the cap or grade beam, or the anchor bolts where a column bears directly on a shaft, and is the sentence calling for straight cylindrical shafts edited where the schedule shows bells, which the drawing note and the under-reaming tools allow for? |
| Load and integrity tests, records, utilities, and inspection | Load Test bid items and the SD-07 note (load testing in each area of substantially different subsoil, number, size, location, and sequence of test shafts) + SD-06 Test Reports + Existing Conditions, Interruption of Existing Utilities, and Preparation articles (protection, fall protection, 29 CFR 1926.651) + Section 31 63 26 Load Tests and Records articles + Section 01 45 35 + site utility plan | Are the test shafts located and sequenced on the drawings, as the note asks, and are the load test method, load, and acceptance defined in the issued documents, since Section 31 63 29 counts load tests but has no test article, is any integrity testing the drawings show, such as access tubes on the cage, backed by a written requirement, since the section has none, is an installation record of diameters, depths, bearing stratum, casing, and concrete volume required, as Section 31 63 26 lists, are utilities in the drill path located on the site plan, and are the drilled shaft inspections listed in Section 01 45 35 and the statement of special inspections? |
Worked example: a dry-hole specification over water-bearing sand and seamed rock
Illustrative example: a two-story readiness center with a steel frame stands on drilled shafts socketed into limestone. The geotechnical report expects groundwater above the shaft bottoms, a caving sand layer above the rock, and clay-filled seams below the planned bearing level. The shaft schedule gives bottom elevations but no rock socket length, the issued Section 31 63 29 keeps temporary casing and dry placement only, the bid form carries proof test holes but no shaft is marked for proof testing, the shaft detail draws integrity test tubes on the cage that no specification article mentions, the concrete strength fixed in the section differs from the structural general notes, and the column base detail sets anchor bolts at the shaft top inside the cage with no template clearance shown.
Ask the geotechnical and structural engineers to define the bearing stratum with a socket length or a top-of-rock rule, to mark the shafts for proof testing given the seams below bearing, and to choose a placement method for wet holes, with slurry or tremie requirements written into the section from ACI 336.1, FHWA NHI-18-024, or Section 31 63 26 as they decide. Ask the specifier to add an integrity testing article for the tubes or remove them and to align the fixed concrete strength with the general notes, and ask the structural engineer to check the anchor bolt layout against the cage and confirm the installation record the contractor must keep.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 31 63 29 covers drilled concrete piers and shafts excavated with augers or under-reaming tools, supported by temporary watertight steel casing, and concreted in a dry hole whenever possible. Section 31 63 26 Drilled Caissons, an August 2008 USACE section that is still Active on WBDG, covers the same foundation with the same drawing note and bid items and adds articles for penetration tests, proof test holes, load tests with acceptance blanks, tremie or pumped concrete in wet holes, belled and ribbed caissons, workers entering the excavation, and installation records; a project normally issues one of the two, so check that the schedule, test articles, and bid items all follow the same section. Augered cast-in-place piles follow Section 31 63 16, driven piles follow the 31 62 sections, and helical piles follow Section 31 63 26.60. Section 31 63 29 carries its own ready-mix article rather than pointing to Section 03 30 00, so check the two for conflicting concrete requirements; excavation, dewatering, and spoil follow Section 31 00 00, special inspection follows Section 01 45 35, and safety follows Section 01 35 26. The section has no slurry, tremie, or integrity testing article and no load test procedure, so check which document covers each before calling a requirement missing. Shaft capacity, socket design, and load test interpretation belong to the geotechnical and structural engineers. The current guide section cites ACI 117, ACI 301, ACI 304R, ACI 305R, ACI 306.1, ACI 318-19, ACI 336.1, ACI SP-66, ASCE 7-16, AWS A5.1, D1.1, and D1.4, ASTM A615, A1064, C31, C39, C94, C143, C150, and C172, the CRSI Manual of Standard Practice, FHWA NHI-18-024, and 29 CFR 1926.651; 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.