Greg Hayes’ Post

View profile for Greg Hayes

Associate Director at Priority Geotechnical

Question: how wide a gap should there be between the geotechnical interpretative report, GIR and the design report? who is responsible for closing that gap ? and when should it be closed? My employer, a SI Contractor, was recently was asked to return to site to carry out rotary boreholes as recommended in the interpretative report. The issue in this case, was while the GIR recommended supplementary rotary boreholes, among other additional works, to further clarify the ground model, there was no scope for these works in the absence of the foundation layout. Having assumed the foundation design was complete, I considered the request a quality control matter rather than SI matter; is the Client trying to verify the design bearing resistance? And if any further works impacted the ground model then how is the design to be changed, keeping it in mind the Contractor is onsite and construction has started. One of the GIR conditions was that the report may be subject to change if further information became available. So who shall direct the works, the Designer who has a design and obviously feels there is some need to verify the design or the SI Contractor who initially highlighted a possible issue? I would suggest the SI Contractor is a resource to be utilise by the Designer, where the Designer is ultimately responsibility for their design.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore content categories