FOR FOUNDATION INSPECTION OF

2y ago
38 Views
2 Downloads
460.82 KB
14 Pages
Last View : 3m ago
Last Download : 3m ago
Upload by : Averie Goad
Transcription

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural Committee19 February 2007Page 1 of 14QUALITY CONTROL CHECKLISTSFOR FOUNDATION INSPECTION OFRESIDENTIAL AND OTHER LOW-RISE BUILDINGSbyThe Structural CommitteeofThe Foundation Performance Associationwww.foundationperformance.orgHouston, TexasDocument # FPA-SC-10-1ISSUE HISTORY (Initial issue and issues outside the Structural Committee)Rev# DateDescriptionSubcommittee SubcommitteeChairMembersA02 Oct 01 For Committee CommentsJack SpiveyRon KelmJon MonteithI10 Jul 03 For FPA Peer ReviewMichael Skoller009 Oct 03 For FPA Web Site PublishingTerry TaylorMari MesMike PalmerLowell BrumleyGeorge WoznyDan JaggersToshi Nobe0A18 May 05 For Committee CommentsJack SpiveyMichael SkollerRon Kelm0K6 Nov 06 For FPA Peer ReviewMari Mes119 Feb 07 For FPA Web Site PublishingDan JaggersJon MonteithDick Peverley

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural Committee19 February 2007Page 2 of 14P REFACEThis document was written by the Structural Committee and was first peer reviewed by the FoundationPerformance Association (FPA) and published as Revision 0 on 9 October 2003. After obtaining additionalfeedback, it has been updated by the Structural Committee to Revision 1 and has again been peer reviewed.This document is made freely available to the public at www.foundationperformance.org so all may haveaccess to the information. To ensure this document remains as current as possible, it may be periodicallyupdated under the same document number but with higher revision numbers such at 2, 3, etc.The Structural Committee is a permanent committee of the Foundation Performance Association. At thetime of writing this document, Ron Kelm, P.E., chaired the Structural Committee of 25 to 30 activemembers. The committee sanctioned this paper and formed a subcommittee to write the document. Thesubcommittee chair and members are listed on the cover sheet of this document.Suggestions for improvement of this document shall be directed to the current chair of the StructuralCommittee. If sufficient comments are received to warrant a revision, the committee will form a newsubcommittee to revise this document. If the revised document successfully passes FPA peer review, it willbe published on the FPA website and the previous revision will be deleted.The intended audiences for the use of this document are field inspectors, builders, builders’ superintendents,municipal inspectors, or anyone with an interest in quality construction or repair of foundations.This document was created with generously donated time in an effort to improve the performance offoundations. The Foundation Performance Association and its members make no warranty, expressed orimplied, regarding the accuracy of the information contained herein and will not be liable for any damagesincluding but not limited to consequential damages resulting from the use of this document. Each projectshould be investigated for its individual characteristics to permit appropriate application of the materialcontained herein.

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural Committee19 February 2007Page 3 of 14INTRODUCTIONThe following checklist documents are related to two years of work completed in the late nineteen ninetiesby the Inspections Subcommittee of the Foundation Performance Committee (the name was since changedto Foundation Performance Association, or FPA). Jack Spivey chaired that original committee and hisfellow members were:MR. MICHAEL SKOLLER P.E.MR. JOE EDWARDSMR. LOWELL BRUMLEY P.E.MR. DEAN EICHELBERGERMeetings took place on a monthly basis and were attended by many interested parties. Special recognitionshould be given to Mr. Jim Dutton of Du-West Foundation Repair and Mr. Dan Jaggers of OlshanFoundation Repair. Their assistance with the foundation repair sections was invaluable. The topics fordiscussion were established at the onset of the meetings with the general intent to establish a set ofguidelines and procedures for the inspection of foundation construction and foundation repairs incorporatedinto an easy to use inspection document. It was established that the best form for our purposes would be asimple checklist, which would fully cover the subject of the inspection. It was also determined that keepingeach checklist to one page would afford the most user-friendly instrument for our purposes.The original documents were presented in a Foundation Performance Committee seminar in 1998.Subsequently the documents were revised, peer reviewed, and published as Document No. FPA-SC-10Revision 0, dated October 9, 2003, which included Checklist #'s 1-7. This Revision 1 is the result ofchanges and additions that were begun in February of 2005. The additions in Revision 1 are Checklist #'s 8and 9.The subjects of the checklists are presented in the following order:QC Checklist #1 – POST-TENSION SYSTEM FOUNDATION MAKE-UPQC Checklist #2 – CONCRETE PLACEMENTQC Checklist #3 – POST-TENSION STRESSINGQC Checklist #4 – CONVENTIONAL (REBAR) FOUNDATION MAKE-UPQC Checklist #5 – CONSTRUCTION (BUILDER'S) PIERSQC Checklist #6 – REPAIR PIERSQC Checklist #7 – SEGMENTED REPAIR PILESQC Checklist #8 – PRE-CONSTRUCTION SITE REVIEWQC Checklist #9 – POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE REVIEWThese topics were judged to represent the major types of foundation construction and foundation repairsfound in the Houston area. While these topics are certainly not inclusive of every inspection situation orconstruction method in use, they offer a basic set of guidelines for the majority of inspections that would beencountered in typical residential construction.The first order of business for the subcommittee was to establish a checklist heading format for eachinspection. The uppermost portion of the checklist is meant to establish a context for the inspection. Thebasics of the site such as, the builder, subdivision, address, lot and block, are set out at the top of the

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural Committee19 February 2007Page 4 of 14checklist. The next section is meant to establish the parameters that will govern the rest of the inspection.The most important of these deals with the plans. It was the opinion of the subcommittee that no inspectionshould be undertaken without a set of plans, and the plans should include the name of the engineer, the dateof the plans and the detail sheet. Other pertinent details of the site that are covered in this section are thedate, the time, the weather, etc. These guidelines were followed on each checklist, with variations dictatedby the context of the inspection.Once the context is established in the heading, the checklist moves on to sections relating to differentaspects of each inspection. In general, these sections are documented by simply checking the item to showthat it has been correctly completed. The checkmark ( ) serves to show that the item has beenconsidered and complies with the plans, whereas an (X) denotes that the item does not comply with theplans. In some sections, direct questions are asked that should be answered. Finally, the lower sections ofthe checklists generally have reference to a drawing of the slab, the piers or piles, or the foundation beingrepaired. The drawings further document the conditions specific to the site and the foundation and allow theinspector to orient the data being described in the conclusion of the inspection.Each of these checklists represents an attempt to document the events related to a specific foundationproject or a specific foundation repair. It should be remembered that all the answers and data reported aretypically the only documentation of what actually happened during this phase of construction. For thisreason, every item is pertinent and should be given careful consideration during the inspection. Thoughmany of the items listed are fairly common knowledge to the typical inspector or builder, it is thesequencing and nuances of certain questions and items listed, which are the greatest advantage of using thechecklists.

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural Committee19 February 2007Page 5 of 14TABLE OF CONTENTSQC Checklist #1 – POST-TENSION SYSTEM FOUNDATION MAKE-UPQC Checklist #2 – CONCRETE PLACEMENTQC Checklist #3 – POST-TENSION STRESSINGQC Checklist #4 – CONVENTIONAL (REBAR) FOUNDATION MAKE-UPQC Checklist #5 – CONSTRUCTION (BUILDER'S) PIERSQC Checklist #6 – REPAIR PIERSQC Checklist #7 – SEGMENTED REPAIR PILESQC Checklist #8 – PRE-CONSTRUCTION SITE REVIEWQC Checklist #9 – POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE REVIEW

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural CommitteeCLIENT19 February 2007Page 6 of 14QUALITY CONTROL COMPANYQC Checklist #1 - POST-TENSION SYSTEM FOUNDATION MAKE-UPBuilderSite AddressPlan #:Cable CountPlan provided at site Yes No Concrete ContractorWeather: Previous 48 Hrs.SubdivisionLotBlkDesign EngineerPlan DatePlacement DateDateTimePlan site specific Yes No SuperintendentDetail Sheet DateDetached Garage Yes No Permit #:CurrentSecCheck ( ) If Items Comply With The Plans(X) If Items Do Not Comply With The PlansSITESubdivision LotOtherLot DescriptionFill on site Yes No Compaction verified by Geotechnical Engineer:Yes No DateWill foundation make up drain: Yes No Trees removedAre trees within 20’ of foundation Yes No FORMS Forms secure Floats installed Proper clearance at floats Garage front closedSLAB Thickness(in) Measured: ScreedsString line Describe Pad Material Level and Firm Yes No TENDONSCount: L to RF to BGarageTotalVarianceExplainNumber of tendons left on siteRebar 1/2” tendonsOther No tendons spaced over 6’-0” 20D nails used at castings Live ends stripped of plastic not over 1” or taped Cathead clamps all tight All intersections tied All tendons supported at intersections Dead ends have 3/4” clearance to forms All S Hooks crimpedOtherBEAMS Design Depth:(in) ExteriorInterior Actual Depth:(in)(in)(in) Design Width:(in) Actual Width:(in)(in)(in) Average depth into undisturbed soil Clean of soil & debris Water in beams Yes No Average Depth Will water drain Yes No Plumbing obstructions accommodated Pier tops clean(in)(in)(in)(in)ADDITIONAL REVIEWSDateTime Beam tendons draped and secured by #3 rebar stakes or concrete bricks Ample chairs all tiedTendon grid secured for concrete placement Yes No POLYETHYLENE SHEETING 6-mil Lapped and Taped Seated in bottom of beams Secured at sides Mastic/tape applied at plumbingREINFORCING STEELSLAB SECTIONWWF:(Mesh) Size Lapped per plansRollSheetOR #3 or #Rebar @(in.) on center both ways No rebar or WWF (mesh) touching forms Supported by chairs per plansBEAM SECTIONRebar: gradeClearances per plan: Sides Bottom Top Splices lapped per plan Corner rebar installed at corners & dead endsTypical Rebar/Exterior BeamscontinuousTypical Rebar/Interior BeamscontinuousCorner bars installed at dead ends Yes No Bay Windows or PorchesRebarStirrupsExtra Rebar AddedDiagonal Rebar at Re-entrant Corners No. of CornersNose Bars @Construction JointsAnchor bolts on site Yes No Diameter(in) Length(in)Other FastenersIS FOUNDATION READY FOR CONCRETE PLACEMENT? Yes No SKETCHCHANGES N EEDED:Quality Controller’s SignatureSuperintendent’s Signature

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural CommitteeCLIENT19 February 2007Page 7 of 14QUALITY CONTROL COMPANYQC Checklist #2 - CONCRETE PLACEMENTBuilderSubdivisionSite AddressLotBlkSecDesign EngineerSuperintendentCopy of Foundation Makeup Report Provided Yes No Date of CopyConcrete ContractorDetached Garage Yes No DateTimePlan #:Cable CountQ.C. Arrival TimeDeparture TimeItems Repaired Yes No Permit #:Check ( ) If Items Comply With The Plans(X) If Items Do Not Comply With The PlansSITESubdivision LotOtherLot DescriptionAre there obstructions at the site that wouldprevent access for concrete trucks Yes No ExplainFORMSADDITIONAL REVIEWS Forms secureDateTime Floats installed Proper clearance at floats Garage closed inWEATHERWeather conditions: Prior 48 Hours:START:Will temperature be greater than 40 F for five hours following concrete placement Yes No Will temperature be greater than 32 F for 48 hours following concrete placementYes No Forty-eight hour forecast: HIGH TEMPERATURE:LOW TEMPERATURE:FINISH:CONCRETEConcrete CompanyBatch PlantTickets on site? Yes No Delivered by truck over what distanceWas a pump used Yes No Pump Co.Mix:psiPump primer dumped outside of forms Yes No Sack Mix: 4 ½ 5 Other OR Strength Mix Yes No Strength(psi)Additives:NO CALCIUM CHLORIDE–APPLIES TO POST TENSION SLABFly Ash: Type C? Yes No %Slump as ordered from plant(in)Explain (Discrepancies if slump is different):Was concrete consolidated by vibrator Yes No Other Test Cylinders TakenYes No Testing CompanySlump Test TakenYes No Testing CompanyIf water is added at the jobsite, show the amounts over ten gallons and give a visual estimate of the final slumpTimeDraw a diagram of the slab below showing thePoured Gallons Placement Est.Testedlocations of each load by truck numberTruck # OutAddedLocationSlumpSlumpTemp.Anchor bolts on site Yes No DiameterOther FastenersDescribe provisions for curingADDITIONAL COMMENTS:Quality Controller’s Signature(in) Length(in)SKETCHSuperintendent’s Signature

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural CommitteeCLIENT19 February 2007Page 8 of 14QUALITY CONTROL COMPANYQC Checklist #3 – POST-TENSION STRESSINGBuilderSite AddressPlan #:Cable CountPlan provided at site Yes No Concrete Placement DatePost-Tension CompanySubdivisionLotBlkDesign EngineerWeatherStress DateSecPlan DateDateTimePlan site specific Yes No SuperintendentDetail Sheet DatePartial Stress DatePermit #:Check ( ) If Items Comply With The Plans(X) If Items Do Not Comply With The Plans Are there any cracks in the surface of the slab Yes No DescribeADDITIONAL REVIEWSDateTimeEstimate size and locate on the sketch below Are elongations specified on the plans Yes No Are the tendons painted at the edge of the slab Yes No What is the predetermined distance between the mark and the edge of the slab(in) Are the wedges placed in a vertical position Yes No Is there evidence of gripper marks on the gripper end of all tendons Yes No ( If no, show location on sketch below) Are tendons stressed from two ends Yes No If So, How Many If on site during stressing, was stressing load recorded? Yes No If yes, attach pressure readingsUSE CHART IF ELONGATIONS ARE NOT LISTED ON PLAN, OR MULTIPLYTENDON LENGTH IN FEET BY 0.08 TO CALCULATE APPROXIMATEELONGATION IN INCHES FOR LENGTH OVER 30 FEET.SKETCHDraw a simple sketch of the foundation configuration noting all tendonlocations and their elongation measurements. Also note any problemswhich you have observed, particularly blowouts at corners or thegarage entry and cracks.FOLLOWING STRESS VERIFICATION: Are the tendon ends cut inside the pocket former After stressing are the nails cut Are the tendon ends grouted with a non-shrink groutQuality Controller’s SignatureSuperintendent’s Signature

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural CommitteeCLIENT19 February 2007Page 9 of 14QUALITY CONTROL COMPANYQC Checklist #4–CONVENTIONAL (REBAR) FOUNDATION MAKE-UPBuilderSubdivisionSite AddressLotBlkPlan #:Design EngineerPlan provided at site Yes No Plan DateConcrete ContractorPlacement DateWeather: Previous 48 Hrs.SecSuperintendentDetail Sheet DateDetached Garage Yes No Permit #:CurrentCheck ( ) If Items Comply With The Plans(X) If Items Do Not Comply With The PlansSITEFORMSSubdivision LotOther Forms secureLot Description Floats installedFill on site Yes No Proper clearance at floatsCompaction verified by Geotechnical Engineer: Garage front closedYes No DateWill make up drain: Yes No Trees removedAre trees within 20’ of foundation Yes No SLAB Thickness(in) Measured: ScreedsStringline Describe Pad Material Level and Firm Yes No POLYETHYLENE SHEETING 6-mil.Lapped and TapedCONSTRUCTION PIERSNumber of piersOtherDateTimePlan site specific Yes No ADDITIONAL REVIEWSDateTimeBEAMS Design Depth:(in) ExteriorInterior Actual Depth:(in)(in)(in) Design Width:(in) Actual Width:(in)(in)(in) Average depth into undisturbed soil Clean of loose soil & debris Water in beams Yes No Average Depth Will water drain Yes No Plumbing obstructions accommodated Pier tops clean Yes No Seated in the bottom of beams secured at sides Mastic/tape applied at plumbingAre pier tops clean of debris Yes No REINFORCING STEELGrade of SteelBEAM SECTIONSExterior Beams: Steel sizeNumber topBottomStirrup sizeSpacingInterior Beams: Steel sizeNumber topBottomStirrup sizeSpacingExtra Beam depth Yes No Additional steel requiredProper Clearance: Bottom(in) Sides(in) Top(in) Support SystemContinuity: Splices lapped per plan Yes No Corner bars installed Yes No Rebar clean of mud and excessive rust Yes No Void Forms in bottom of beam Yes No Height(in) Condition(in)(in)SLAB REINFORCINGWWF:(Mesh) SizeRollSheetOR #3 or #Rebar @(in.) on center both ways Lapped per plans No rebar or WWF (mesh) touching forms Supported by chairs per plansVoid Forms Yes No Height(in) Poly covering void forms Yes No ADDITIONAL REINFORCINGDiagonals: SizeNumber in slabFireplace pads: Size of steelPlacementBay windows: Size of steelPlacementOther projections:Control jointsConstruction joints:Anchor bolts on site Yes No Diameter(in) Length(in)Other FastenersIS THE FOUNDATION READY FOR CONCRETE PLACEMENT? Yes No CHANGES N EEDED:Quality Controller’s SignatureSuperintendent’s SignatureSKETCH(in)(in)(in)(in)

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural CommitteeCLIENT19 February 2007Page 10 of 14QUALITY CONTROL COMPANYQC Checklist #5 – CONSTRUCTION (BUILDER’S) PIERSBuilderSubdivisionDateTimeSite AddressLotBlkSecPlan site specific Yes No Plan #:Design EngineerSuperintendentGeotechnical EngineerPlan provided at site Yes No Plan DateDetail Sheet DateWeather at siteConcrete ContractorGeotechnical Report #(THIS FORM NOT APPLICABLE FOR SLURRY PLACED PIERS)Check ( ) If Items Comply With The Plans(X) If Items Do Not Comply With The PlansSITESubdivision LotOtherExplainFill on site Yes No Compaction verified by Geotechnical Engineer Yes No DateTrees removed Yes No Location:Are trees within 20’ of foundation Yes No PIERSName of drilling company:Can drill equipment access all pier locations Yes No Type of drilling apparatus: Truck MountedTotal number of piers:PIER (ft)Describe the manner of measuring the bell sizes:Boring logs from Geotechnical report on site Yes No Describe bearing strata:ADDITIONAL n)(in)(in)(in)(in)TotalSKETCH TYPICAL PIERSHOWING DEPTH(Bell checking tool required)Pocket Penetrometer reading taken from auger cutting Yes No TSFWas water apparent in pier hole Yes No Depth“ Action TakenNote locations belowREINFORCINGRebar placed per plan Yes No Rebar gradeDoes rebar extend above pier top Yes No How much above(in) Sleeved Yes No DescribeCONCRETEWill concrete truck be able to access site Yes No Concrete company:Truck numbers:Was pump truck used Yes No Specified strength of concrete:psiWas concrete placed on the same day as the pier drilling Yes No Estimated time of completionIf not, explain:Draw a sketch of the structure indicating the pier placement ARE THE PIER HOLES READY FOR CONCRETE PLACEMENT Yes No SKETCHCHANGES N EEDED:Quality Controller’s SignatureSuperintendent’s Signature

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural CommitteeCLIENT19 February 2007Page 11 of 14QUALITY CONTROL COMPANYQC Checklist #6 – REPAIR PIERSOwnerSite AddressPlan #:Design EngineerPlan provided at site Yes No Weather at siteSubdivisionLotBlkSuperintendentPlan DatePermit #SecDateTimePlan site specificYes No Geotechnical EngineerDetail Sheet DateGeotechnical Report #Check ( ) If Items Comply With The Plans(X) If Items Do Not Comply With The PlansSITEADDITIONAL REVIEWSSubdivision LotOtherExplainDateTimeSoils Report on site Yes No Bearing Soils at what depth(ft)Test hole drilled to what depth(ft) Bearing soils at(ft)Underground plumbing test Yes No Water lines under slab Yes No Site obstructions to drilling, Describe:Were builder’s piers present Yes No Trees/shrubs removed or relocated Yes No Location(s)UNDERPINNINGName of repair contractor:Method of repair:Total number of riorPIER (in)(in)(in)TotalSketch Typical PierShowing DepthDescribe the manner of measuring the bell sizes:(Bell checking tool required)Describe bearing strata:Pocket Penetrometer reading Yes No TSFWas water apparent in pier hole Yes No DepthREINFORCINGRebar per plans Yes No Rebar gradeNote locations below(in) Action TakenHELICAL PIERSTest hole depth(ft)Bearing DataPier Log Onsite Yes No Helix SizeBracket StyleShaft DiameterCONCRETEWill concrete truck be able to access site Yes No Was pump truck used Yes No Concrete company:Truck numbers:Batch TimeOnsite TimeSpecified strength of concrete:psi Slump as deliveredWater added Yes No Amount(gal)Was concrete placed on the same day as the pier was belled Yes No Projected time of completion of concrete placementIf not, explain:ESTIMATED MAXIMUM LIFT(in)VOIDS TO BE GROUTED (MUD JACKED) Yes No Draw a sketch of the structure indicating the pier placement ARE THE PIER HOLES READY FOR CONCRETE PLACEMENT Yes No CHANGES N EEDED:Quality Controller’s SignatureSKETCHSuperintendent’s Signature

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural CommitteeCLIENT19 February 2007Page 12 of 14QUALITY CONTROL COMPANYQC Checklist #7 – SEGMENTED REPAIR PILESBuilderSite AddressPlan #:Design EngineerPlan provided at site Yes No Weather at siteSubdivisionLotBlkSuperintendentPlan DatePermit #DateTimePlan site-specific Yes No Geotechnical EngineerDetail Sheet DateGeotechnical Report #SecCheck ( ) If Items Comply With The Plans(X) If Items Do Not Comply With The PlansSITEADDITIONAL REVIEWSSubdivision LotOtherExplainDateTimeSoils Report on site Yes No Bearing Soils at what depth(ft)Test hole drilled to what depth(ft) Bearing soils at(ft)Underground plumbing test Yes No Water lines under slab Yes No Site obstructions to drilling, Describe:Were builder’s piers present Yes No Trees/shrubs removed or relocated Yes No Location(s)UNDERPINNINGName of repair contractor:Piling system:Total number of piles:InteriorExteriorFIELD OBSERVATIONS(E)RoundPile (A)SegmentLength(B)Number ofSegments(C)Pile CapSizeDistance From(D)Top of SlabTotal DepthPile Cap To Top ofFrom TopQuantity Pile Capof Slab(in)(in)(in)(in)(in)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(A x B) (C x D) E TOTAL DEPTHTotal number of pilings observed driven to completion (Minimum five is recommended)Was pile log available at the site Yes No ExplainWere the piles shimmed immediately upon completion of being driven Yes No If no, explainIs the piling cap horizontal Yes No If no, explainWere the piles driven without interruption Yes No If no, explainWere builders piers detached prior to jacking Yes No Were final shims determined to be tight Yes No What is the method of interlockWere interior piles installed Yes No If so, were tunnels used DescribeWas dewatering system used and maintained in excavating and tunnels Yes No Describe materials used in backfilling tunnelsDescribe method of protecting tunnel entrance from water intrusionWas jetting required to install piles Yes No ExplainESTIMATED MAXIMUM LIFT(in)VOIDS TO BE GROUTED (MUD JACKED) Yes No Draw a sketch of the structure indicating the pier placement CHANGES N EEDED:Quality Controller’s SignatureSKETCHSuperintendent’s SignatureObservedMeasurementof Liftat Refusal(in)(in)(in)(in)(in)

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural CommitteeCLIENT19 February 2007Page 13 of 14QUALITY CONTROL COMPANYQC Checklist #8 – PRE-CONSTRUCTION SITE REVIEWBuilderSite AddressArchitectural Plan #Site SurveyGeotechnical Report #Foundation Plan #SuperintendentPlan provided at site Yes No SubdivisionLotBlkDateDateDateDateDateSecPlan site specificArchitect/Designer Phone NumberSurveyor Phone NumberGeotechnical Engineer Phone NumberDesign Engineer Phone NumberSuperintendent Phone NumberPermit #Yes No Check ( ) If Items Comply With The Plans(X) If Items Do Not Comply With The PlansSITE DESCRIPTION:ADDRESS Does the site have an address or legal only Yes No Is it posted onsite Yes No WhereGOVERNING AUTHORITY MunicipalitySUBDIVISION LOT Center lot Cul de sac Corner lot Zero lot line Other ACREAGE LOT Describe size and characteristics of the siteLOT USAGE Single Family Residence Townhouse Multi-Family Other UTILITIES Electricity Water Gas Porta Can Sewer : Municipal Septic FENCING TypeWill it be removed or alteredLOT ACCESS Paved street All weather road Other PAD FILL Will fill be necessary Yes No Estimated heightRecommended fill typeCompaction Testing Co.Will pad fill extend a minimum of five feet beyond house footprint Yes No TREE INVENTORY:TREES ONSITE Do trees presently exist on site Yes No DescribeDo trees exist within thirty feet of the foundation Yes No DescribeWhat is the history of the trees on the site in the past five yearsAre aerial photos available Yes No TREES OVER 4" DIAMETER WITHIN 30' OF SLAB NumberSpeciesTrunk DiameterRemove Remain Are trees marked for removal Yes No Per the Geotechnical Report describe the method of dealing with tree excavationsand organic materialHas the geotechnical criteria been fulfilled Yes No If no what should be doneDEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCEHave significant structures been removed from the site Yes No DescribeDid these structures have foundations or piers Yes No Were they removed Yes No Do the following utilities pre-exist: Plumbing lines Gas lines Sewer lines Electrical communication lines Site drainage lines Describe existing utilitiesIs there evidence of previous drainage ditches Yes No Filled in ponds or low spots Yes No Other areas whichhave been altered by added fill or excavation Yes No DescribeNATURAL DRAINAGE Where does the site drain toWill alterations to the site disturb the natural drainage Yes No DescribeCan natural drainage be maintained during construction Yes No DescribeDoes the site drainage overflow onto the adjacent property Yes No DescribeDoes the surrounding property drain onto the site Yes No DescribeCONTROLLED DRAINAGE Where will the site drain toWill the drainage be FHA TYPE A or TYPE B What municipality controls the drainageIs there a drainage plan relative to the site if so describe Yes No If no will there be a plan Yes No Is the site in the flood plain Yes No DescribeCan positive drainage be maintained thru the construction process Yes No DescribeCan storm water run off be properly managed Yes No What provisions have been made for proper controlSURVEYDoes a survey of the site exist Yes No DateSurveyorCounty NumberDoes a survey of the site exist Yes No DateSurveyorCounty NumberLegal DescriptionEasements noted Yes No Building set backs Yes No Are the iron rods flagged Yes No Have conditions on the site changed since the survey Yes No Explain changesIs the plot plan on site Yes No Will the final floor height afford positive drainage around the house Yes No What is the proposed elevation for the slabHow is it determinedSKETCH Attach a sketch of the site showing the placement of the house, the site drainage patterns and the location of the existing trees

FPA-SC-10-1For FPA Website PublishingQuality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise BuildingsFoundation Performance Association - Structural CommitteeCLIENT19 February 2007Page 14

FPA-SC-10-1 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 19 February 2007 For FPA Website Publishing Foundation Performance Association - Structural Committee Page 2 of 14 . or anyone with an interest in quality construction or repair of f

Related Documents:

Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original

10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan

service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största

Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid

LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .

och krav. Maskinerna skriver ut upp till fyra tum breda etiketter med direkt termoteknik och termotransferteknik och är lämpliga för en lång rad användningsområden på vertikala marknader. TD-seriens professionella etikettskrivare för . skrivbordet. Brothers nya avancerade 4-tums etikettskrivare för skrivbordet är effektiva och enkla att

Den kanadensiska språkvetaren Jim Cummins har visat i sin forskning från år 1979 att det kan ta 1 till 3 år för att lära sig ett vardagsspråk och mellan 5 till 7 år för att behärska ett akademiskt språk.4 Han införde två begrepp för att beskriva elevernas språkliga kompetens: BI

**Godkänd av MAN för upp till 120 000 km och Mercedes Benz, Volvo och Renault för upp till 100 000 km i enlighet med deras specifikationer. Faktiskt oljebyte beror på motortyp, körförhållanden, servicehistorik, OBD och bränslekvalitet. Se alltid tillverkarens instruktionsbok. Art.Nr. 159CAC Art.Nr. 159CAA Art.Nr. 159CAB Art.Nr. 217B1B