JHA / JSA / AHA builderConcrete Prepenetration GPR Survey JHA
A JHA breaks the work into steps, hazards and controls. Use this example to build a draft for your actual job and review it with your crew.
Just need the example? Download it here.For the crew
You know the work. Let’s turn that experience into a plan your crew can talk through. Start with today’s job, then check the steps together.
Let’s build your JHA.
Step 1 of 4 · Working draft
Your job
Tell Jenkins what you’re planning and where the work will happen. Use the actual job details.
Use the published example’s suggestions when they fit your task, or write your own steps. These are planned controls, not verified worksite conditions.
Describe an observable step, how someone could be harmed, and the control that acts on that hazard. Identify who checks it and what evidence is needed.
Walk through the plan with the people doing the work. Resolve missing controls and agree who checks them. Moving to the next step does not approve the work.
Confirm people, equipment and emergency arrangements
Record changes, checks, and open actions
Walk the work area, review with the crew, and resolve missing controls. Follow the required approval process. This tool does not judge completeness, verify signatures or authorize work.
Print your own JHA by signing in, or contribute the selected structured categories as a guest. Signing in does not require research participation. Written job details are processed to prepare your export and are stored on our server only if you save to your private company library.
Research purpose, data fields, retention and withdrawal · Privacy notice
Sign-in uses a free account. Your tab draft is retained for the return from sign-in.
Hosted organization saving requires active jSMS access and a company workspace. View jSMS plans.
The export uses landscape pages, task-only continuation pages and a Page X of Y footer in current Chrome or Edge. Review every page. Opening an export is not proof that the JHA was printed or used. The PDF includes its research choice and reference; the private withdrawal link stays in the export’s screen-only receipt.
Device storage and other draft options
Device copies may contain private job information. Clear them when using a shared device.
Your entries stay in this working draft as you move between steps. Required field checks, employer review and work authorization remain separate.
Your Concrete Prepenetration GPR Survey JHA
Walk through the job in order. Use these possible hazards, planned controls and checks to start a conversation about your actual work.
011. Define the survey question and limits
Possible hazards: An undefined investigation can produce attractive images that do not address the proposed penetration or the relevant concealed hazard.
Planned controls: Survey lead identifies the concrete face, requested work envelope and available design/service records. Agree the actual coverage and information needed with the responsible reviewer, including inaccessible areas and confirmation requirements. Separate investigation permission from penetration release. Hold uncertain site identity or an unworkable survey extent rather than accepting a smaller convenient patch as evidence for the whole proposed operation.
Check before work: Lead records the area, purpose, requested coverage and unresolved information before scanning.
022. Establish protected access and fixed references
Possible hazards: Watching a screen while crossing debris, an opening or other workers' equipment can cause a fall and shift the survey's physical reference.
Planned controls: Crew separates the ground-floor survey area from intrusive work and conflicting movement. Check the full route, edges, services and working positions; use stable access without reaching across an exposure. Establish durable surface references and a clear orientation/file naming plan. Preserve access to those references and stop if other work or a moved template makes the location uncertain.
Check before work: Surveyor checks footing, boundaries and the link between surface references and planned files.
033. Verify the actual instrument and acquisition setup
Possible hazards: An unsuitable unit, wrong distance/depth configuration or impaired survey wheel can create misleading position or depth information.
Planned controls: Surveyor confirms the identified Mini XT, compatible software/instructions, power and storage condition and required equipment checks. Establish the actual acquisition mode, units, depth basis and prescribed calibration through the accepted plan and manufacturer method. Resolve surface or material conditions that prevent reliable wheel contact or interpretation. Do not import another model's settings or treat a manufacturer's nominal range as proof of site performance.
Check before work: Surveyor records equipment identity, required checks and the accepted acquisition configuration.
044. Acquire traceable coverage through the planned method
Possible hazards: Incomplete direction coverage, lost wheel tracking or an interrupted line can conceal targets while giving the appearance of a completed survey.
Planned controls: Collect the required lines or grid from the established references using the selected method, checking position, direction and recording status as work proceeds. Keep attention on footing as well as the display. Record interruptions and recollect compromised coverage under the plan; stop for uncertain tracking or changed surface conditions. Preserve the raw files rather than relying solely on a screenshot or automatic target overlay.
Check before work: Surveyor verifies actual line/grid completion and identifies every unscanned or recollected area.
055. Interpret findings and expose uncertainty
Possible hazards: An inferred metal identity, assumed target size or incorrectly scaled depth can cause a later crew to strike a service or structural component.
Planned controls: Assigned trained interpreter reviews the actual data with its configuration and available records. Apply the accepted depth-assessment method and report indications, uncertainty and coverage limits. GPR signals alone do not distinguish every metal target; displayed shapes do not establish object size. Refer unresolved or congested areas for responsible confirmation rather than labeling them clear or choosing an arbitrary safe offset.
Check before work: Interpreter records supported findings, interpretation basis and unresolved areas for the reviewer.
066. Preserve the record and hand over investigation status
Possible hazards: Faded marks, mismatched filenames or a receiving crew assuming permission to drill can break the connection between the survey and the real structure.
Planned controls: Save the required raw data, references, report and photographs through the accepted record process. Label surface indications and investigation limits clearly without representing them as a drilling permit. Brief the receiving reviewer on unresolved areas and required corroboration. Restore safe access and maintain the intrusive-work hold until actual structural/service decisions are obtained; any later disturbance of references requires reassessment.
Check before work: Receiving reviewer confirms report identity, limitations and the separate penetration-release requirement.
Example scope and starting conditions
A trained concrete surveyor will acquire and interpret non-destructive radar data over a defined accessible ground-floor concrete area before a separately proposed penetration. The selected GSSI StructureScan Mini XT uses an accepted survey plan, fixed surface references and protected work positions. Findings and limitations pass to the responsible clearance reviewer; no hole is made. This fictional learning example describes planned controls and records no actual inspection or work authorization.
- The concrete area, proposed investigation extent and available structural/service information are identified. The survey planner defines coverage, depth interpretation, confirmation needs and reporting limits; a markout or a blank-looking image does not authorize drilling.
- The identified Mini XT is a supported legacy model. Manufacturer manual MN70-813 Rev K and the actual unit/software-compatible instructions govern setup and acquisition. Equipment suitability, data quality, surface access and current operating requirements are verified; no advertised depth guarantees detection.
- Drilling/dowel work 238110-06 and core/hammer drilling 238110-22 are partial connections: nonpenetrating evidence acquisition before intrusive work only. Drilling, structural design, service isolation, opening release, overhead scanning and ground-utility excavation are excluded.
Know when to pause
- The requested area, fixed surface references, instrument suitability or actual acquisition method cannot be established.
- Coverage, wheel tracking, depth basis or signal interpretation becomes uncertain or differs from the accepted plan.
- A markout or automatic display is being treated as complete service identification or permission to penetrate.
After a pause, correct the condition, reassess the work, and obtain required authorization before restarting.
Free example and template
No account required. The worked example contains planned controls. The blank template is for your own work; neither includes fabricated inspection results, signatures or approval.
Worked exampleNeed help? Ask Jenkins
Jenkins · Your Safety Concierge
What brings you here today? Choose what you’re working on, or tell Jenkins about your situation.
Jenkins matches your words to published starting points. Keep names and private job details in your working draft. Suitable free resources come first.
For managers
Does the team have what it needs to carry out the plan? Give the crew time, equipment and support, and make it clear who will resolve anything that is missing.
Manager checks and supporting resources
Confirm the people doing the work have the time, equipment, information and support to carry out the plan. Agree who checks the controls and who resolves open actions.
Questions to resolve before work
- Which concrete area and proposed penetration question must the survey actually investigate?
- How will surface references, acquisition coverage and interpretation uncertainty remain traceable in the report?
- Who reconciles the scan with other evidence and authorizes any later intrusive investigation or penetration?
Training and qualifications to confirm
- Actual Mini XT and software instruction on acquisition, survey-wheel position, recording, depth interpretation and the selected method's limitations.
- Instruction on protected scanning routes, uncertainty reporting, preservation of surface/file references and the separate structural and service-clearance process.
Confirm the actual training evidence for the assigned people. A toolbox talk does not establish competence.
Decisions that change the plan
Does an automatic green drill-hole display establish a safe penetration?
No. The manufacturer's analysis aids interpretation and does not replace a trained review. This survey produces evidence within its actual detection and coverage limits. Keep intrusive work held until the responsible parties reconcile structural and service information and resolve the specific proposed hole; any confirmation drilling requires its own clearance and task plan.
What must the surveyor record for actual use?
Record area and purpose, equipment/software identity, method, setup and required checks, surface references, actual lines/grids and raw filenames. Document the depth basis, indications, uncertain or inaccessible areas, interpreter and report handover. Identify the later clearance authority without inventing its approval, target identities or a finding that every concealed object has been located.
Keep planning connected
Resources that support this JHA
Additional tools for task planning and safe work. Start with the free resources; explore paid options only when they meet an additional need.
Toolbox talks for the work
Prepare a practical crew discussion.
Concrete Drilling: Verify the Hole and Breakthrough →Validate Assumptions: Find the Evidence →Job-Site Review: Does the Place Match the Plan? →
Safety program resources
Review procedures, roles, and requirements.
Browse the existing catalog and confirm the scope and purchase availability of each program.
Browse safety programs →
Paid service · Availability
Task-specific training and qualifications
Explore applicable training and qualification needs.
Task-specific training services are not currently available to book here. Start with the free training-needs lookup; a toolbox talk or online course alone does not establish competence or employer authorization.
Review training needs · Free →People, equipment, emergency arrangements and open actions are recorded in the guided JHA’s Crew review step.
Open the crew review step →For safety professionals
How do we know the planning process and controls are working? Connect what the crew reports with field checks, risk decisions and the evidence behind your system.
Industry context, SIF, control verification and AHA review
Guidance and evidence
Review the method, risk decisions and evidence behind the plan. Use the actual jurisdiction, equipment instructions, employer process and project requirements.
Task-by-task control and verification rationale
1. Define the survey question and limits
Hazard: An undefined investigation can produce attractive images that do not address the proposed penetration or the relevant concealed hazard.
Control: Survey lead identifies the concrete face, requested work envelope and available design/service records. Agree the actual coverage and information needed with the responsible reviewer, including inaccessible areas and confirmation requirements. Separate investigation permission from penetration release. Hold uncertain site identity or an unworkable survey extent rather than accepting a smaller convenient patch as evidence for the whole proposed operation.
Verification: Lead records the area, purpose, requested coverage and unresolved information before scanning.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The evidence can support a decision only when its investigated extent is explicit.
2. Establish protected access and fixed references
Hazard: Watching a screen while crossing debris, an opening or other workers' equipment can cause a fall and shift the survey's physical reference.
Control: Crew separates the ground-floor survey area from intrusive work and conflicting movement. Check the full route, edges, services and working positions; use stable access without reaching across an exposure. Establish durable surface references and a clear orientation/file naming plan. Preserve access to those references and stop if other work or a moved template makes the location uncertain.
Verification: Surveyor checks footing, boundaries and the link between surface references and planned files.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Good positional evidence and safe movement both depend on a controlled, identifiable work area.
3. Verify the actual instrument and acquisition setup
Hazard: An unsuitable unit, wrong distance/depth configuration or impaired survey wheel can create misleading position or depth information.
Control: Surveyor confirms the identified Mini XT, compatible software/instructions, power and storage condition and required equipment checks. Establish the actual acquisition mode, units, depth basis and prescribed calibration through the accepted plan and manufacturer method. Resolve surface or material conditions that prevent reliable wheel contact or interpretation. Do not import another model's settings or treat a manufacturer's nominal range as proof of site performance.
Verification: Surveyor records equipment identity, required checks and the accepted acquisition configuration.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The configuration affects what the recorded data can reasonably represent.
4. Acquire traceable coverage through the planned method
Hazard: Incomplete direction coverage, lost wheel tracking or an interrupted line can conceal targets while giving the appearance of a completed survey.
Control: Collect the required lines or grid from the established references using the selected method, checking position, direction and recording status as work proceeds. Keep attention on footing as well as the display. Record interruptions and recollect compromised coverage under the plan; stop for uncertain tracking or changed surface conditions. Preserve the raw files rather than relying solely on a screenshot or automatic target overlay.
Verification: Surveyor verifies actual line/grid completion and identifies every unscanned or recollected area.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Traceable coverage makes gaps visible instead of hiding them behind a finished image.
5. Interpret findings and expose uncertainty
Hazard: An inferred metal identity, assumed target size or incorrectly scaled depth can cause a later crew to strike a service or structural component.
Control: Assigned trained interpreter reviews the actual data with its configuration and available records. Apply the accepted depth-assessment method and report indications, uncertainty and coverage limits. GPR signals alone do not distinguish every metal target; displayed shapes do not establish object size. Refer unresolved or congested areas for responsible confirmation rather than labeling them clear or choosing an arbitrary safe offset.
Verification: Interpreter records supported findings, interpretation basis and unresolved areas for the reviewer.
Why this belongs in the analysis: An honest limit is useful evidence; an unsupported clearance claim transfers the concealed hazard.
6. Preserve the record and hand over investigation status
Hazard: Faded marks, mismatched filenames or a receiving crew assuming permission to drill can break the connection between the survey and the real structure.
Control: Save the required raw data, references, report and photographs through the accepted record process. Label surface indications and investigation limits clearly without representing them as a drilling permit. Brief the receiving reviewer on unresolved areas and required corroboration. Restore safe access and maintain the intrusive-work hold until actual structural/service decisions are obtained; any later disturbance of references requires reassessment.
Verification: Receiving reviewer confirms report identity, limitations and the separate penetration-release requirement.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The survey ends with accountable evidence, while permission to disturb the concrete remains a separate decision.
Compare control wording
| Needs improvement | More useful for this scenario |
|---|---|
| The screen shows no target here, so drill on this mark. | Report investigated coverage and uncertainty, then obtain the separate structural and service-clearance decision using all required evidence. |
| A screenshot is enough to show we scanned the area. | Preserve raw files, surface references, configuration and actual coverage gaps so the reviewer can trace the investigation. |
Common questions
Can this example be adapted to a JSA?
Use its Task | Hazard | Control analysis in the employer's actual JSA format. Confirm the scenario, assigned verification and real findings before relying on the adapted work plan.
What changes when the project requires an AHA?
Apply the governing AHA format, risk method, supporting records and acceptance process. The published formwork AHA illustrates additional structure; this JHA supplies no completed AHA rating or acceptance.
Are these resources part of a paid course?
This walkthrough, browser draft builder and downloads are free public resources, separate from Academy course enrollment.
References and source note
- GSSI StructureScan Mini XT manual MN70-813 Rev K: acquisition and interpretation limits
- GSSI support: retained Mini XT manual and software resources
- GSSI Mini XT product and legacy-support information
Original instructional scenario with planned controls. Primary references support hazard planning. Use actual equipment and product instructions, project design and employer requirements to establish field criteria. This example supplies no inspection findings or work authorization. Use actual equipment instructions and site requirements alongside these references. Reference review: October 13, 2026.
Developed by Todd Jerome Jenkins, MS, CSP · Edition v1.0 · October 13, 2026
Use the builder’s Print / Save as PDF action after signing in or accepting research participation.