HomeMy WebLinkAbout6579 Rookery Rd - Special Inspections/Engineering - 11/09/2004Footing Quality Assurance Observation
Per the clients request, a representative of SECURE has visually SECURE
observed the footing forms under construction at the site referenced CONSULTING ENGINEERS
below. The following summarizes our observations and opinions at the
time of our visit.
Client: B�gti��ti Qs.�.� o- � s>6Z� �7Site Address: / _5 Q
v
Secure Job #: `3- 6 Lot: �_ Block: ,y_ Filing: /st
Date: ii oa vy Contact: S',s" Subdivision:
Foundation Plan Information
Plan By: _ce- a
Date: 08 !F vf/ _ Jobs:
Ftg sizes: S'x i2 il6
Pad sizes : 23 x_7y"_fS"x35':�4
Concrete on -site? lb. yes , ❑ no, (+/- % ftg pouredy7�
Are the footing forms free of loose material, frost, water and
or ice, roots, etc?;0 yes , ❑ no
Are the Footing / Pad form sizes in general conformance to
the above foundation plan? 0 yes, ❑ no
Is the footing/pad reinforcing steel in -place or on site per the
above foundation plan? A yes, ❑ no /
Weather:
Notes:
Summary of Opinions
It is our opinion that the footing formwork is in
general conformance with the foundation design
referenced above.
❑ It is our opinion that the footing formwork differs
significantly from the foundation design referenced
above (2"d observation required).
Corrective action:
Reinforcing Steel Quality Assurance Observation
Per the clients request, a representative of SECURE has visually SECURE
observed the reinforcement within the formwork under construction at CONSULTING ENGINEERS
the site referenced below. The following summarizes our observations
and opinions at the time of our visit.
Client:mW i6"j Site Address: a kne Z
Zn_
Secure Job #: Lot: (o Block: /o Filing: /
Date: Contact: TAB 96"VIOU Subdivision:
Reinforcing Plan Information
Plan By:c��i
Date: Tj lg ( za-"_ Job#: 5,=oyes-�L
Reinforcing Type(s):
❑ footing P9 foundation wall
❑ grade beam ❑ pier cap
❑ structural slab ❑ slab -on -grade
❑ column ❑ other
Wall / Grade Beam Reinforcing Steel
Grade
Horz.
Vert./Ties
60
70'y Irq 3a"o/L
l 1Y �l 110L
2
F
Gb
vw "it It we—
?owe /4"41,
3
y fM g
4
6i'Go
1
20,Nf,s
Pier Cap / Slab Reinforcing Steel
Grade Longitudinal Lateral
A
B
C
D
Max / Min wall height observed: q'! I /
If void forms are required, are they installed as
recommended?
❑ yes , ❑ no Required thickness: in.
Concrete on -site? ❑ yes A no (% poured
Weather:
v
Notes: .
Summary of O inions
It is our opinion that the reinforcing steel observed
was in general conformance with the plan.
❑ It is our opinion that the reinforcing steel observed .
was not in general conformance with the plan.
(2"d observation required).
Deficiencies noted:
Perimeter Drain / Dampproofing Quality
Assurance Observation
Per the clients request, a representative of SECURE has visually
observed the perimeter drain and/or dampproofing at the site referenced
above. The following summarizes our observations and opinions at the
time of our visit.
SECURE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Client: CONS — Site Address: 65%r1 P—,00k6„2y
Secure Job #: ter'- 59r Lot: (, Block: ) b Filing: —
Date: 12 IZ fl Contact: 'S� e,,,1 Subdivision:
Proiect Specifications
Foundation Plan By:
Date t4/��
Geotechnical Report By: EEL
Date 7 i31D
Job# IY-01-632
Recommended Drain type?
❑ Exterior perimeter )31 InterioO-,)
❑ other
Observations
Perimeter drain observed around:
'WBasement ❑ Crawlspace
❑ Other:
Where does the perimeter drain discharge?
❑ Daylight `VSump pit ❑ Subdivision drain
Dampproofing observed around:
Basement 0 Crawlspace ❑ All backfill areas
Comments
1'{lL��/�/ �rO+•t GG` Qi,or /^o IV J, 'rh
Summary of Opinions
t is our opinion that the foundation drain and/or
dampproofing observed generally conform with the
project referenced above. .
❑ It is our opinion that the foundation drain and/or
dampproofing observed differs significantly form the
project specifications (2nd observation required).
Corrective Action:
��7-0
Field Rep sentative
•. r`` (tl t�f�J .•
t 2:
3310
i ds
AL