Observations/Finding

The technician was onsite as requested by the contractor (Wilbanks) for the observation/testing of soils.

The contractor (Robbie) excavated and set structure BG3 to approx. elevation of 754. No testing was requested/preformed on this structure.

The contractor (Robbie) worked on pipeline SSMH1.3. The technician tested soils used for filling for moisture content. Moisture content was very high (out of optimum range) for proper compaction. The technician recommended to place dry material for fill. The contractor proceeded to place the over saturated material back into pipeline. No testing was requested/preformed on this pipeline.

The contractor removed topsoil from lots #99 – #102 and placed topsoil behind lots #30 -#39 and directly on lots #134 – #138 in greenspace. The contractor excavated approx. 30ft x 30ft x 2ft of topsoil from lot #99 and approx. 40ft x 40ft x 2ft on lot #100.

The technician and contractor proof rolled lots #99 – #102. There were no signs of bad compaction in this area. The contractor placed 1 lift, approx. 8in to 12in in thickness, across these lots.

The technician Density tested each lot from lot #31 – #39. Compaction appeared to be very high. The technician probe rodded these lots, and the probe rod did not enter the surface more than approx. 2in. The tests showed failing results due to high moisture content. Due to these factors, the technician preformed a proctor check plug to see if the proctor is accurate for this material. The proctor check showed a high moisture content with a lower dry density weight than the previously provided proctors. The technician sampled this material to take to the lab and informed the contractor of the results. The technician will need to go back through today’s tests to alter proctor information if lab proctor determines different specs.