Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: code soil values vs. site specific values

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
We prefer and actively encourage a geotechnical investigation for all
projects.  (San Diego, Ca.)  We get a tremendous variety of soil conditions
in our area, even on adjacent sites.  I would say about 90% of the time a
soils report is provided.  That said, because the soils investigation is not
mandated by code, we occasionally receive projects where the owner does not
want to wait for or pay for a soils investigation.  Our response has been to
advise the owner of the necessity, and attach a release of liability for
soil related problems clause to the contract (carefully crafted with the
help of our insurance company).  If the owner will not agree to the contract
restrictions or provide soils info, we will not take the project.

Our initial contract proposals, where soils data is not yet available,
always indicate that the proposal price is based on the assumption of
conventional foundations and dependent on the results of the soils
investigation.

Paul Feather PE
----- Original Message -----
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 10:41 AM
Subject: code soil values vs. site specific values


> I understand that if everyone on this list answered this question, I would
> get response that varied from one end of the "spectrum" to the other.
>
> So let me define my target audience: private consulting structural
engineers
> who typically work on low rise commercial projects.
>
> Do you typically use code given soil profile types or do you do a detailed
> site investigation involving geotechnical information?
>
> Do some of you do both depending on the project?
>
> Do some of you offer the different design methods to your clients based on
a
> cost / benefit analysis?  If so, what is the typical response from them.
>
> Thank you in advance to anyone who responds.
>
> david adie
>
>
>
>
>
>