Start with the opening drawing note of the issued Section 03 31 29: confirm that the drawings list the structures the section covers and give the design assumptions, the design strength and its test age, the reinforcement grade, member dimensions and cover, joint details, and the critical construction joints with waterstops, keys, and dowels. Then check that the service life, the site data in Table 1, and the exposure zone of each element are stated, that the drawn cover and member sizes leave room for the cover the Durability Modeling Report may raise, that every bar, strand, and coating on the drawings is one the section allows, and that the section’s strength, curing, form, and cold weather paragraphs are resolved to one meaning before mixtures are qualified.
Assemble the review package
Gather the structural general notes with the design strength and its test age, reinforcement grade and coating, cover by exposure, and the service life the Government set, the general plan with the list of structures the section covers, the pile, pile cap, deck, bulkhead, and seawall sections and details with member dimensions and cover, the tidal datums with the MLLW and MHHW elevations and whether the site is sheltered from open-ocean waves, the joint plan with construction joints, waterstops, keys, dowels, and expansion joints, the fender, bollard, rail, and utility details with embedded steel, the precast and prestressed element drawings, any coating or cathodic protection drawings, the geotechnical report with soil and seabed sulfate data, the design analysis with the environmental severity classification (ESC) under UFC 1-200-01, and the issued Section 03 31 29 with Sections 03 31 30, 01 33 29, 32 01 19.61, and the pile sections. Follow one pile, one pile cap, and one deck bay from the submerged zone to the atmospheric zone before assuming the others match.
WBDG publishes UFGS 03 31 29: Marine Concrete with Service Life Modeling as a public guide-specification reference (accessed November 12, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Structures covered, service life, and site data | Opening notes (marine and chloride exposure; ESC C4 and C5 locations and deicing salts; service life defined by the Government before design; Section 03 31 30 where modeling is not required; a list of the structures covered on the drawings) + Service Life Design (an unbracketed service life that applies “unless otherwise specified”) + Table 1 Environmental Design Conditions (location, tidal datums, deicing exposure, temperatures, humidity, and salinity or surface chloride blanks for the Engineer of Record) + Marine concrete definition (buried components, land piles in brackish groundwater, salt spray inland) + general notes | Do the drawings list every structure the section covers, including buried pile caps, land piles that reach salty groundwater, and nearby buildings that salt spray reaches, has the Government’s service life been stated rather than left to the value the section applies when nothing is specified, are the Table 1 blanks filled with the datums, temperatures, and salinity or surface chloride values the chosen modeling tool needs, and do those datums match the elevations on the drawings? |
| Exposure zone of each element | Definitions of the submerged, tidal, splash, atmospheric, and buried zones (splash zone measured differently for sheltered and unprotected sites) + Exposure Conditions by Element (each element at its severest condition; sulfate exposure class bracket for buried and seabed elements) and note (ACI 318 sulfate categories) + Concrete Design Requirements (ACI 301 sulfate class) + pile, cap, deck, and seawall sections with elevations + geotechnical sulfate data | Can each element be placed in a zone from the elevations drawn, with the splash zone taken from the definition that fits whether the site is sheltered or open to ocean waves, is the sulfate class bracket kept for buried and seabed elements and consistent with the geotechnical report, and do the structural notes give cover by zone or element rather than one cover for the whole structure? |
| Cover, member size, and the Durability Modeling Report | Durability Modeling Report items (cover to all bars with ACI 117 placement tolerances; transport properties; other deterioration mechanisms and their mitigation) + Cover article (at least ACI 318; may be greater from service life modeling; tolerances modeled; embedded steel shapes) and note + Reinforcing Bars note (plain bars with specified cover; no service life credit for coatings) + Form Ties (no mild steel left near the surface; cover not reduced) + sections and connection details | Since the modeling may raise the cover after award, do the member dimensions, bar sizes, and congested zones at pile-to-cap and beam-to-deck connections leave room for more cover without redesign, does the cover agree among the general notes, the typical sections, and the details, and are embedded plates, fender anchors, and steel shapes given the same cover as the reinforcement? |
| Reinforcement type, coating, and the chloride threshold table | Reinforcing Bars article (ASTM A615 and A996 grades only) + Table 3 (A706, strand, coated, low-carbon chromium, and stainless grades; A882 called indented and A886 epoxy-filled; three stainless grades under ASTM A276) + Prestressing Steel (the same strand designations) + References titles (A882 filled epoxy-coated, A886 indented) + Stainless Steel Reinforcing Bars (ASTM A955) + Welding (A706) + coated bar and strand notes (do not mix coated and plain) + reinforcement drawings | Is every bar and strand on the drawings one the issued section allows, with A706 added to the Reinforcing Bars article where the drawings call for welded or seismic bars, since only Table 3, the note, and Welding name it, has the specifier corrected the strand designations, which the article and table assign the reverse way from the References titles, and the stainless standard in Table 3, and do the drawings keep coated and plain bars or strands out of the same element, as the notes ask? |
| Strength, test age, and acceptance basis | Definitions (design strength and required compressive strength both given f’c; fcr called field test strength) + Hardened Concrete Properties note and items (test age brackets; test result on small cylinders, with a large-aggregate alternative at a single age; placement and underwater acceptance against f’c) + Acceptance of Concrete Strength (cylinders and cores against fcr, with a different individual-test limit) + lot sampling (large cylinders) + Mixture Design Report (f’cr) + SCM content note + structural notes | Do the structural notes give the design strength and the age it is specified at, and if they rely on the later ages the definitions and notes encourage, does the bracket kept allow that age, has the specifier made one acceptance basis govern, since one article judges strength against f’c and another against fcr with different limits for individual tests and cores, and is one specimen size set, since the test-result definition and the lot sampling call for different cylinders? |
| Mixture qualification and durability limits | Concrete Design Requirements and Table 2 (freeze-thaw, drying shrinkage, chloride, spacing factor, and scaling; transport limits from the Durability Modeling Report) + trial batch, test section (horizontal and vertical), and mass concrete mock-up + cementitious materials notes (Type II or V cement in severe locations; supplementary materials always; silica fume only overseas with approval) + coral aggregate bracket + Fresh Concrete Properties and Slump Tests (adjustments only if the water-cementitious ratio is not exceeded) + Water Reducing note | Are the freeze-thaw and scaling limits kept only where the site freezes or deicing salts are used, is the coral aggregate bracket kept only where conventional aggregate is not available, does the cement type follow the ESC in the design analysis, and since slump adjustments depend on a water-cementitious ratio that no article or table states, does that limit come from the structural notes, the Durability Modeling Report, or a paragraph the specifier adds? |
| Joints, embedded items, and mass concrete | Drawing note (joint details; critical construction joints with waterstops, splices, keys, and dowels) + Construction Joints (shown, or located by the contractor with calculations; a spacing limit; horizontal joints in pile caps, bulkheads, and retaining walls avoided or kept above MHHW) + Joints submittal + Expansion and Contraction Joints + PVC Waterstops and Waterstop Splices + Setting Miscellaneous Material (exposed steel isolated from the reinforcement) + Mass Concrete definition and Temperature Control Plans + joint plan | Are the construction joints drawn, so the contractor is not left to locate them with calculations, are any horizontal joints in pile caps, bulkheads, and walls drawn above MHHW where they cannot be avoided, do the fender, bollard, and rail anchor details show the concrete separation from the reinforcement the section requires, and are thick pile caps and other mass concrete elements identified so a temperature control plan is planned for them? |
| Forms, tie wire, curing, cold weather, and tolerances | Materials for Forms (wood, plywood, or steel) + Form Ties and Form-Facing Material (absorbent facing; controlled permeability liner) + Placing Reinforcement (black soft iron tie wire) + Reinforcement Supports (non-corrodible supports; plastic-coated tie wire for coated bars) + curing compound product and execution paragraphs (different ASTM C309 types and classes) + Curing and Protection (after final set) + Concrete Curing Plan and Curing Periods (after placement) + Cold Weather (an approval temperature and a stop temperature) + Defects (ACI 347R) + Tolerances (ACI 117) + finish callouts | Has the specifier settled the paragraphs that disagree before the contractor plans the work: whether steel forms may be used where the facing paragraph asks for an absorbent facing and liner, which tie wire applies to coated or stainless bars, which curing compound type governs, whether curing starts at placement or at final set, when cold weather placement needs approval and when it must stop, and whether surface tolerances follow ACI 117 or ACI 347R, and do the drawings name the formed and slab finishes the section offers? |
Worked example: a pier whose cover, bars, and strength age do not fit the issued section
Illustrative example: a pier replacement at a naval station uses precast prestressed piles, cast-in-place pile caps, and a cast-in-place deck. The structural notes give the design strength at a later age than the issued Section 03 31 29 bracket allows and one cover for every element, the pile-to-cap details show epoxy-coated deck bars lapped with plain pile cap bars in the same connection, the pile drawings call for indented strand, and welded A706 dowels appear at each bent. Table 1 is left blank, the joint plan shows no construction joints in the pile caps, and the deck depth leaves no room for added cover. The issued section keeps both strength acceptance paragraphs, the strand designations as printed, the Reinforcing Bars article without A706, and the form, tie wire, curing compound, and cold weather paragraphs unchanged.
Ask the structural engineer to state the service life the Government set and fill in Table 1 with datums that match the drawings, to give cover by zone and confirm the pile caps and deck can take the cover the modeling may require, to keep coated and plain bars out of the same connection, and to draw the pile cap construction joints with any horizontal joints above MHHW. Ask the specifier to align the strength age bracket with the notes, make one strength acceptance basis govern, correct the strand designations and the stainless standard in Table 3, add A706 to the Reinforcing Bars article, state where the water-cementitious ratio limit comes from, and resolve the form, tie wire, curing compound, curing start, and cold weather paragraphs, and confirm with the contracting officer that the modeling tool and laboratory will be approved before mixtures are qualified.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 03 31 29 covers marine and chloride-exposed concrete where the Government sets a service life and the contractor models it. Marine concrete without service life modeling follows Section 03 31 30, ordinary cast-in-place concrete follows Section 03 30 00 and the concrete guide, piles and sheet piling follow their own sections and guides, joint sealants on fuel-exposed horizontal surfaces follow Section 32 01 19.61, and recycled content follows Section 01 33 29, so check those before calling a requirement missing. Some of the section’s own wording needs resolving: the definitions give one symbol to two different strengths, two articles judge strength on different bases and specimen sizes, the test age brackets offer fewer ages than the notes encourage, the strand designations are reversed from the References titles, Table 3 lists stainless grades under a general bar and shape standard, the Reinforcing Bars article omits the A706 bars the table and Welding rely on, the curing compound type, curing start, cold weather limits, surface tolerance source, form facing, and tie wire each appear in two forms that disagree, and the slump and air adjustments rely on a water-cementitious ratio the section never states. Ask the specifier which wording the project intends before treating a difference as a design conflict.
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.