Skip to content

Daily Field Report

Date :06/17/2025
Project No :2025C160
Client Company :Artisan
Arrival Time :06/17/2025 08:30
Onsite Hours :04:30
Name of the Project :Rockmart Township - 115 Felton Drive
Project Location :Rockmart
Weather :overcast
Departure Time :06/17/2025 13:00
ASEC Technician Name :Sean Willett

Observations/Finding

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.

Our ASEC representative was on site as requested by the contractor (Wilbanks) for the observation/testing of the placement of fill/backfill.

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

The contractor (Robbie) worked on pipeline SSMH1.3. The technician tested soils, to be used for fill, for moisture content. Moisture contents were very high (out of optimum range) for proper compaction. The technician recommended to place drier material for fill. The contractor elected to place the over saturated material back into pipeline.

The contractor removed topsoil from Lots #99 – #102 and placed topsoil behind Lots #30 -#39 and directly on Lots #134 – #138 (in green spaces). The contractor excavated approx. 30ft x 30ft x 2ft of topsoil from Lot #99 and approx. 40ft x 40ft x 2ft from Lot #100.

Our representative observed the contractor proof-roll Lots #99 – #102. There were no signs of pumping and/or rutting in these areas. The contractor placed 1 lift, approx. 8 to 12 inches in thickness, across these lots.

The technician density tested each lot from Lot #31 through #39. Compaction appeared to meet job specifications. The technician generally probed these lots, which were found to be stable. Density tests showed failing results due to high moisture contents. Due to these factors, the technician preformed a proctor check plug to see if the proctor was 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 transported a sample this material to take to the lab and informed the contractor of the results. Recalculation of these density tests will be performed once the new proctor is completed.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact us. We will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Technician Signature / DateSean Willett, June 17, 2025
Reviewer Name / DateKenneth Mosman, August 05, 2025