Has anyone had experiences of having got a soil report, then either not believed it, or challenged it for some reason……then got a second report and it's a different reading?? (But same property, nothing's changed)
I have just heard of this happening to someone, and am now questioning the reliability of a soil test, and the ethics of the soil teaster!
Considering it could be the difference b/wn thousands of dollars in footings/excavations etc, I would like to hear ppl's stories.
A project I am doing at the moment had this problem and one geotech said we needed to remove all of the fill down to one metre over an area of about 2000m2. Client didn't like that even though it was his geotech, so they got another guy who said the fill was ok to build on.Footings and slab got redesigned, and saved somewhere in the order of $200,000
Tools
It all comes down to the brief given to the soil tester, the number of samples, where they have been taken from on the site etc. If the site previously had a building which had been razed and the rubble buried on site the results will vary widely. Soil testing must be undertaken in the area where the works are to be done, to a sufficient depth to give a soil profile which can then be interpreted by the engineer. The engineer should brief the soil tech appropriately and have some idea of the pre-existing soil conditions.
I have seen a few sites where the testing was inconclusive (and included in the tender documentation), it just led the PM to variation heaven – new pier/footing design, rubble removal, floaters etc.
90% of construction problems begin in the ground by having incomplete/non-reliable information about the ground conditions. Everything else above the ground can be controlled.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
