Engineerataltitude
Structural
- Oct 31, 2008
- 81
In the jurisdiction where I do most of my practice (Sierra Nevada in CA), the soil is really very good for footings for light frame construction. All the preliminary geotechnical investigations I have seen in the past 30+ years have either 2000 or 3000 psf soil bearing allowable for locations where there are no troublesome soil indicators. The local building departments in this area are very reasonable about not requiring geotech reports unless there is some kind of indicator for atypical soil.
With that in mind, is there much or any value to requiring compaction testing for the bottom of footings placed in competent native soil placed at the prescribed embedment depth (either 18" or 24")? Seems like overkill testing to me. My understanding is that if you have excavated into untouched native soil, it is usually compacted adequately for building light frame construction. Correct?
Any benefit to compaction testing I might be missing? I try to be sensitive about not requiring costly inspections if there is limited value to either safety or quality.
btw, I am a civil engineer in practice in this area for the past 30+ yrs. For whatever that's worth.
With that in mind, is there much or any value to requiring compaction testing for the bottom of footings placed in competent native soil placed at the prescribed embedment depth (either 18" or 24")? Seems like overkill testing to me. My understanding is that if you have excavated into untouched native soil, it is usually compacted adequately for building light frame construction. Correct?
Any benefit to compaction testing I might be missing? I try to be sensitive about not requiring costly inspections if there is limited value to either safety or quality.
btw, I am a civil engineer in practice in this area for the past 30+ yrs. For whatever that's worth.