Daily Field Report

Density test report

Date *

Project Number *

Name of the Project *

Project Location *

Client Company *

Weather

Arrival Date

Arrival Time

Departure Date

Departure Time

Onsite Hours

ASEC Technician Name

Observations/Finding

Summary *

As requested, the site was visited by our AS Engineering and Consulting (ASEC) representative for the purpose of providing quality control inspection and testing services.  Visual observation techniques were employed to verify compliance with project drawing/specifications, applicable codes, and materials submittals. The following observations were observed on site this day:

Objective:
A request was made to evaluate the footing at Lot 53 located at Heritage Point, The Georgian, in Paulding County, following concerns raised by a previous engineer/technician regarding the adequacy of the existing footing.

<hr />

Observations Upon Arrival:
Upon inspection, it was observed that remediation work had been initiated, consisting of the following:
<ul>
 	<li>Installation of 11 piers approximately 16 inches by 16 inches by 18 inches deep.</li>
 	<li>Installation of 3 piers approximately 24 inches by 16 inches by 18 inches deep.</li>
 	<li>The piers were spaced approximately every 2 to 3 feet along the East side of the footing.</li>
</ul>
Several attempts to further investigate the footing conditions were made using an auger. However, auger refusal was encountered each time, limiting the depth of investigation.

<hr />

Soil and Material Findings:
In the southeast corner of the lot, soil testing results showed:
<ul>
 	<li>1st Foot: 7 hits – Tan silty sand with some clay.</li>
 	<li>2nd Foot: 6 hits – Tan silty sand with some clay.</li>
</ul>
The site was found to contain numerous boulders, some exceeding 24 inches in size (refer to attached photos). Solid rock was also encountered within the footing itself (refer to attached photos), further contributing to the auger refusal.

<hr />

Concerns and Limitations:
<ul>
 	<li>Boulder Fill: Based on field observations, there is reason to suspect that the lot may have been used as boulder fill. This raises concerns about the suitability of the material and its potential impact on the foundation’s stability.</li>
 	<li>Unverifiable Fill Material: The fill material used in lifts for this lot could not be verified during the evaluation. This presents an area of concern as it is unclear whether the material meets geotechnical standards for stability.</li>
 	<li>Limited Evaluation: Due to the presence of boulders and the likelihood that the worst soil was removed during previous construction or remediation, a complete and accurate evaluation of the footing could not be achieved.</li>
</ul>

<hr />

Conclusion:
The presence of large boulders, rock formations, and possible boulder fill, in combination with auger refusal, has significantly limited the ability to fully assess the integrity of the footing. Further investigation, including excavation or more advanced geotechnical testing, may be necessary to verify the composition of the fill and to ensure the long-term stability of the foundation.

Recommendations:
<ul>
 	<li>Conduct a more detailed geotechnical analysis, potentially through excavation or core drilling, to verify the fill material and its suitability for support.</li>
 	<li>Assess the need for additional remediation, particularly in areas where the footing is underlaid by boulders or solid rock.</li>
 	<li>Monitor the stability of the existing piers to ensure they are providing adequate support over time.</li>
</ul>

<hr />

Attachments:
<ul>
 	<li>Photos of the site, boulders, and footing.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;

Upload Images

	Image	Description
1		Boulders on the lot
2		Boulders on the lot
3		Boulders on the lot
4		Boulders on the lot
5		Rock in the footing
6		Rock in the footing
7		Boulder on the lot
8		Lot 53
9		Footing with exposed rock
10		exposed rock in pier
1

Add Row

Post Status custom

Validate Email