Observations/Finding

At the request of the client’s representative, our AS ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, LLC (ASEC) representative visited the job site to observe the contractor’s work activities from a quality standpoint to verify compliance with project drawings/specifications, applicable codes, and materials submittals and conducted QC testing per the project drawings and specifications.  The following observations were made on site this shift:

Proof-roll Summary and remediation recommendations:

Project Overview

• Project Name: Sterlington Entrance Deceleration Lane
• Deceleration Lane Dimensions: 150 feet x 16 feet

Proof Roll Details

• Equipment Used: Loaded tandem dump truck
• Attendees:
  • Grading Foreman
  • County Inspector

Proof Roll Results

A proof-roll was conducted on the entire deceleration lane at the entrance to Sterlington. The proof-roll covered an area approximately 150 feet long and 16 feet wide. The grading foreman and county inspector were present to observe the procedure.

Observations:

• Acceptable Areas: Majority of the deceleration lane was found to not exhibit severe pumping and/or deflection.
• Problematic Area: An approximately 4-foot-wide section running the length of the deceleration lane exhibited some noticeable deflection.

Issue Identified

• Problem: Pumping was observed in the 4-foot-wide section.
• Cause: The pumping is likely caused by a pre-existing water line buried under current grade, leading to instability in the soils above.

Recommendations

• Soil Removal and Replacement:
  • Action: Remove approximately 6 inches of soil over the problematic 4-foot-wide section.
  • Replacement Material: Backfill the excavated area with No. 57 stone to stabilize the section.
• Reasoning: The removal of unstable soil and replacement with No. 57 stone should increase subgrade stability.

Agreement

• Both the county inspector and grading foreman agreed with the identified issue and the recommended remediation plan.

Immediate Actions Taken

• Communication: Findings and recommendations were communicated to the grading foreman.
• Planning: Coordinated with the grading foreman to prepare for the soil removal and stone placement process.

Remediation Observation

• Status: The remediation process was not observed during the proof-roll.

Conclusion

The proof-roll identified an issue in a 4-foot-wide section of the deceleration lane, likely due to a pre-existing water line. The recommended remediation involves removing 6 inches of soil in the affected area and replacing it with No. 57 stone. This plan was agreed upon by both the county inspector and the grading foreman. Follow-up actions will be necessary to confirm the completion and effectiveness of the remediation.