Skip to content

Daily Field Report

Date :04/26/2024
Project No :2024C112
Client Company :SR Homes
Arrival Time :04/26/2024
Onsite Hours :
Name of the Project :Sterlington
Project Location :Canton
Weather :sunny
Departure Time :04/26/2024
ASEC Technician Name :Russell Hendrix


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.


Overview: The following report documents the procedures and outcomes of the A7 to A6 lifts conducted after the placement of 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), B2 to B3 RCP placement and a Soil lift for future lots 9,10, and 11. Soil compaction was performed using various methods, including hand-held vibratory tamp, trench packer, and ride-on vibratory sheeps foot.


  1. Soil lifts were placed in 6-12 inch depths.
  2. Compaction was initially executed using a hand-held vibratory tamp (Wacker Packer) for A7 to A6.
  3. The first three lifts on the sides of the pipe were tested with a 3/8 probe rod, probing approximately 1 to 2 inches.
  4. Once lifts were over the pipe, a trench packer was utilized.
  5. At a depth of -1 foot from the surface, compaction testing was conducted using a Troxler 3430 (see test report results separately).
  6. RCP was placed between B2 and B3 without stone bedding. This section was not ready for testing.
  7. Soil was placed at the future lots 9, 10, and 11 at a depth of -3 feet from the surface and compacted with a ride-on vibratory sheeps foot (see test result report).

Test Results:

  1. The compaction test conducted at a depth of -1 foot from the surface using a Troxler 3430 indicated insufficient compaction. Retesting at this location was not ready.
  2. The first test conducted at future lots 9, 10, and 11 using a ride-on vibratory sheeps foot resulted in failure. Additional compaction was requested and completed, and the retest yielded acceptable results.

Conclusion: The compaction testing revealed issues with insufficient compaction at certain depths and locations. Retesting and additional compaction efforts were required to meet the desired compaction standards.

A7 to A6

testing A6



V2 to B3

Technician Signature / DateRussell Hendrix, April 26, 2024