You have asked a very open-ended question. In general, my experience has been a person with a construction technology or science background have the basic skill set to understand and implement the written procedures invloved in QA/QC testing. It also takes a certain type of person to be a good tech. They must be technical, but also excellent communicators. They must document every set of the process and be able to express themselves clearly to contractors, architects and engineers.
For those who possess the skills above, soil tech is often the stepping stone to an engineering position. A career soil tech is difficult to find and keep. Good luck!
Agreed that this is open ended but some of the great threads here are such - or they snake off to that.
Besides LanceK's comments, I put forth that
(1) he/she needs a passion about his work
(2) he/she needs to understand when he needs help/assistance
(3) he/she needs to have a pay a keen sense to detail
(4) she/he needs to be practical and able to soak up others' learned experience.
(5) she/he needs to put forth a presence; he can't be a shy guy (or shy gal)
(6) she/he needs to follow the HIT principal: Honesty, Integrity and Trustworthiness
Yes, they are hard to find; find a good one; don't worry if you pay him/her more than a junior to intermediate engineer!! (3/3 - PC??)
These comments are right on target, and I add one:
A good field technician should know when to bring in engineering help. An overconfident technician is a liability, while an underconfident, undertrained technician can be a nuisance to the engineering staff. The balance is key and usually comes with someone possessing the skills, temperament, and communication ability as previously noted.
The list is growing - a good one. I was thinking about it today as I watched time after time of contractor not paying attention to details - - -
add:
"he/she must have the the ability to not becoming desensitized to the quality of work. You need to stay upbeat, decide on what is important and what isn't - where to fight your battles, but stay "up"."
Contractors can wear you down. Sometimes I want to take cotton balls to the site and hand each contractor (and some of our inspectors) one ball each for their right ear. Then when what we say goes in the left - it can't get out so long as we keep it up and not let it come back out the right ear during a "pause".
I would also like to know what your opinion is of the depth and breadth of the knowledge that a good soil/geotechnicial engineering technician should have. for example: Should they be able to perform basic LABORATORY tests. Do you expect them to be able to visualy classify soil? Can they tell the difference between rutting, pumping and shearing soil? What test methods should or would your Tech's be able to perform in the field.
I am asking this with the thought that the soil/geo-technicians are an engineers hands, eyes and (yes) ears, in the field and in the lab too.
Be careful!
While the engineering tech. should have all the qualities you mention, they should not be making engineering decisions that affect the project and exposing your firm to liability. Techs are not a substitute for the geotechnical engineer visiting the site periodicly. They are your eyes and ears, but if they had your experience and engineering credentials, they would also have your job!
IF AN ENGINEER IS UNABLE TO VISIT EACH SITE THEN THEY DO RELY ON THE INFORMATION OF THE PERSON WHO DOES GO. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU STOOD AT THE EDGE OF A SOIL PIT AND MADE THE DECISION YOU HAVE SEEN ENOUGH? WAS THE DECISION MADE ON LUNCH TIME OR DATA GATHERED? WAS THE CHOICE ABOUT GETTING TO THE NEAREST WATERING HOLE OR GETTING THE JOB COMPLETE? YOUR SOIL TECH NEEDS TO BE PAID ENOUGH TO WANT TO KEEP THE JOB. MACDONALDS PAYS BETTER THAN MINIMUM WAGE.
An important component of "making" a good soils technician includes good training and project briefing. Before the technician is assigned to the project, he should have a clear understanding of the specifications, know the team members and the proper chain of communication, must have read the geotechincal report and understand the site issues that require more than routine attention. He must be observant and be able to clearly communicate with the responsible engineer in the office, items that need prompt engineering attention. He must understand loss prevention. He must be able to deal and work with hard nosed field personnel and get the job done in accordance with the project specs. And most importantly, timely and accurate written field reports and communication is crucial.
Enlightened by the answers on this line, I think a good soil tech should know exactly where to start, how to proceed and where to stop, no more and no less. A accurate interface with consultants, owners, officers and other stakeholders is of paramount importance. This will require that a qualified tech have a sound knowledge of geotechnical engineering, current code and pratice, a certain period of experience, creativity and a high sense of responsibility.
Interesting topic. Many techs also ask the question what makes a good geotechnical engineer. While the many attributes outlined for techs given in past responses are sound. I would also think that many of those that possess such qualities would proceed to obtain a degree as well if they have the requisite qualifications.
Given that you are a geotech engineer and you hired someone out of high school or college who had no previous hands on experience with soils or minimal experience, similar to many new engineers who would like to become geotec engineers, how you would develop that person to be a geotec tech should give some answers as well.
The statement by Rjeffrey is most appropriate in today's practice - "I am asking this with the thought that the soil/geo-technicians are an engineers hands, eyes and (yes) ears, in the field and in the lab too". The engineer needs therefore to spend the time if he/she is new to understand the capabilities of the geotech tech. For all categories of engineers(new and experienced)there is a need to discuss with the tech in detail the project and expectations.
For field assignments, one of the most important aspects of this discussion should be the establishment of good communication between yourself and your geotech since you must both continue to be on top of the assignment. The cell phone has become a key item in this respect.
It is rather unfortunate that many of the geotech engineer of today are not always in a position to be out on site as often as may be required (except for overseas asignments in the developing world where bank loans dictate such) because of many factors. A good tech can, therefore, help to solve many problems since solutions to most geotech problems are derived from site observations and a good understanding of the field conditions.
As has been previously pointed out, good technicians are hard to keep. Here in the Southeast US, we find that techs stay in the field for about 5 years before career hopping due to the low pay. We find that educational help (start with college students and help them become engineers) or with assistance with certifications (ACI, NICET, etc.) will help raise the level of professionalism. In addition, reward good technicians with reasonable pay and benefits to keep them in the field. While a good technician may often be better than a rookie engineer as far as field work, they should always defer to an engineer on engineering decisions. (We often find that saying that an engineer is needed also lets the technician avoid undue pressure from some contractors). I also agree that rookie engineers need at least 6 to 12 months in the field performing technician related duties to assure that they understand what the real world is like and to better understand the technician's needs.
I couldnt agree more! Rookie engineers civil or geotech really do benefit from spending time in the field. I have worked with several masters and doctorate level engineers that have an excellent understanding of the science of engineering, but just dont understand what happens after they write the report. I would suggest that EIT training should require field work. This should include not only field observation, but survey, testing, inspection, construction mgmt, startup and possibly some O&M.
I guess I'll wade in too. When I worked for a geotech/materials consultant, we had a policy I thought made a lot of sense. All field techs would get 50% of their work boots paid by the company with a limit of two pair per year(So. Florida-no off season). This is win-win. The techs get a benefit and you get better safety/comfort for them.
I don't recall the specific NICET tests/certificates but I do recall some of the concrete tests had questions about fire resistance that are for fire inspectors and not materials techs.
The EIT is for physical science knowledge. The two years of field experience should be required for the PE. This is for all designers not only geotechs. Good field techs can be like sargents in the army for the 'recruits'. The new folks can learn from them while both are doing field work.
![[cheers]](/data/assets/smilies/cheers.gif "[cheers] [cheers]")
![[pacman]](/data/assets/smilies/pacman.gif "[pacman] [pacman]")
