Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Geotechnical in Canada

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
This might be of some interest:


Bear in mind the following:

1. This was developed by the Structural Committed of the Foundation 
Performance Association, a local Houston ad-hoc group made up of engineers 
and contractors involved in design, construction, forensic investigation 
and repair of foundations for lightly-loaded structures in the Houston 
area, where we deal with moderate to extremely expansive soils. Obviously 
lightly-loaded foundations (e.g. residences, single-level warehouse and 
commercial buildings) are a concern where expansive soils are a problem. 
Therefore, much of the information contained therein is focused on 
information needed from the Geotechnical Engineer for those purposes.

2. That said, I have found much of the approach of this Recommended 
Practice to be useful in drafting RFPs for geotechnical work generally. I 
think while our Geotech cousins certainly bear some responsibility where 
unclear or ambiguous report contents are concerned, very often there are 
problems stemming from the foundation engineer not being very clear in what 
 he is asking the Geotech to do.

3. It should be noted that, at least at the time this RP was drafted back 
in 2001, the local Geotechs generally did NOT like it. Unfortunately I was 
left with the impression their dissatisfaction had more to do with its not 
giving them much leeway for obscurity. Note that this wasn't universally 
true - there were some Geotechs involved in drafting and reviewing the 
document - but I gathered that Geotechs who reviewed it from outside FPA 
didn't like being pinned down so exactly.

4. I have used this document before, to organize my thoughts as to what I 
have asked the Geotech to do. A few of them ignored what I asked for and 
gave me their standard boilerplate instead. But generally I've been 
satisfied with the results.

5. As always, YMMV, use with caution.

-----Original Message-----
From: seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at) [mailto:seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at)] On 
Behalf Of Daryl Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 12:35 PM
To: seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: [SEAINT-SEAOSC] Geotechnical in Canada


         Essentially, I agree with Neil with one minor adjustment.  I 
always preferred to get a draft of the report where possible.  This ensured 
 that what I needed/wanted in the report was in the report; it eliminated 
the need for addendums; it reduced the amount of incorrect paperwork in 
circulation; it  and it reduced the amount of printing and other costs on 
behalf of the consultant.  The only cost was that it may have delayed the 
delivery of the report for a day or so while I read it.



On 06/02/2014 9:35 AM, nma wrote:
> Scary.  Bill is correct.  You must read these reports - sometimes you
> will send them back to complete their job. Sometimes you have to have
> them modify their reports.
> If they gave you something over the phone, make sure that it gets in
> writing eventually.  I like to have them look at my design/calcs to

Truncated 676 characters in the previous message to save energy.

Post your message to the list by sending it to: 

The email messages sent to the list will be saved in an archive on the World Wide Web.
These archives are located at:

To contact the list owner, send your message to:

Sponsored By: Pacific Structural & Forensic Engineers Group, Inc. (PSFEG)

To unsubscribe, switch to/from digest, get on/off vacation, or change your email address, click here.