Fencing and Retaining walls

[Meehole]

John the builder - the site in Takapuna that is having the issues didn't require driven piles to put down a raft floor. The ground has moved which has in turn damaged a pipe within the slab. It is not well known for years that there is a problem with subsidence in Auckland and in particular the with the clay, that I know for a fact.
It has only been since the ChCh earthquakes that new methodology has been developed to deal with the ground conditions down there that there is now a better understanding of what is happening to houses up here that have cracks appearing and are not on timber piles.
The brochure you showed was dated 2012 and after the earthquakes in ChCh. Driven piles under the raft floor became a solution in some soils in ChCh for rebuilds. The house I referred to was built in 2007 and well before the date of the brochure. I am not sure what you mean by side track? Is the purpose of this forum not to discuss and inform?

[John the builder]

the thread was off topic?

the ground movement (unless poor fill and the like) is likely expansive clays and piles dont behave any better unless founded 600 or deeper into clay to avoid the shrinkage zone in expansive soils. Ribrafts by their nature are 300 or so deep. The brochure illustrates the issue but the problem was well known in 2007.

Chch issues are liquefaction issues and we have few soils in Auckland prone to that, apart from some peat areas.

[Meehole]

the thread was off topic?

the ground movement (unless poor fill and the like) is likely expansive clays and piles dont behave any better unless founded 600 or deeper into clay to avoid the shrinkage zone in expansive soils. Ribrafts by their nature are 300 or so deep. The brochure illustrates the issue but the problem was well known in 2007.

Chch issues are liquefaction issues and we have few soils in Auckland prone to that, apart from some peat areas.

What are you the thread off topic police? Without a geotech report you cannot determine the required depth of the piles. Some soils such as volcanic rock in Mt Eden you can't even dig into. I have never heard of a shrinkage zone?
Is your core business foundations and did you spend time in Christchurch developing a new system to repair slab on grade foundations and ring foundations?
Not all of ChCh was liquefaction, certainly the properties in Sumner, Mt Pleasant and the Cashmere Hills suffered ground movement that was not attributed to liquefaction. The issue with the clay is potentially as bad as the swampy soils, mark my words.

[John the builder]

off topic because this was about nailing tpo a retaining wall and asian builders

Is your core business foundations and did you spend time in Christchurch developing a new system to repair slab on grade foundations and ring foundations?

Are you saying it is your core business? (and you dont know what expansive clays are?)

Have you heard of expansive soils? Takapuna has them and worse further north

They dont have expansive soils in ChCh but they wish they did.

, You are talking about a Takapuna Auckland? then expansive clay? or is there another issue such as fill?

If your ribraft was on Mt Eden rrock it wouldnt have settled. and of course you need geo-tech ??? What is your point?

[Meehole]

off topic because this was about nailing tpo a retaining wall and asian builders




Are you saying it is your core business? (and you dont know what expansive clays are?)

Have you heard of expansive soils? Takapuna has them and worse further north

They dont have expansive soils in ChCh but they wish they did.

, You are talking about a Takapuna Auckland? then expansive clay? or is there another issue such as fill?

If your ribraft was on Mt Eden rrock it wouldnt have settled. and of course you need geo-tech ??? What is your point?

Not off topic because moving ground = moving retaining wall which was the topic.
Where did I say I didnt know what expansive soils were? I was busy trying to make sense of what you were saying.
I didn't mention about a ribraft being in MT Eden rock, I was referring to you saying that 600 deep holes should be dug, near impossible in that case.
My point is that the retaining wall may have moved because the ground has moved and it is highly unlikely that the Council will accept responsibility nor will an insurance company for that matter.
My point is also that alot more ground movement is happening of late and it will be like the leaky homes.

[John the builder]

meehole;

Not off topic because moving ground = moving retaining wall which was the topic

.

the ground is moving because the wall is failing.(not the other way round)...........it is called cause and affect

It seems (based on chain if events)the retaining wall has moved because some plonker stuck a bloody great house on the soil that it retained andwall wasn't designed to cope with this extra surcharge load so is failing, house should have had piles or deep foundations to get loads off the wall but if it was your Mt Eden rock it wouldnt be an issue but then ground wouldn't need retaining either

Where did I say I didnt know what expansive soils were?

well, you said;" I have never heard of a shrinkage zone?"

My point is also that alot more ground movement is happening of late and it will be like the leaky homes.

you sound like someone looking for another gravy train

more ground movement?? what a load of bollocks the ground has always moved especially on clays.

and it is highly unlikely that the Council will accept responsibility nor will an insurance company for that matter.

(not accepting responsibility is not the same as not being liable) If the house was built and caused the failure because retaining wall was not considered then designers have stuffed up and that makes council partly responsible and likely the first port of call because doing the checks is part of their consent process.

it could also be an issue for EQC as land stability is their domain.

[Meehole]

meehole;

.

the ground is moving because the wall is failing.(not the other way round)...........it is called cause and affect

It seems (based on chain if events)the retaining wall has moved because some plonker stuck a bloody great house on the soil that it retained andwall wasn't designed to cope with this extra surcharge load so is failing, house should have had piles or deep foundations to get loads off the wall but if it was your Mt Eden rock it wouldnt be an issue but then ground wouldn't need retaining either




well, you said;" I have never heard of a shrinkage zone?"



you sound like someone looking for another gravy train

more ground movement?? what a load of bollocks the ground has always moved especially on clays.



(not accepting responsibility is not the same as not being liable) If the house was built and caused the failure because retaining wall was not considered then designers have stuffed up and that makes council partly responsible and likely the first port of call because doing the checks is part of their consent process.

it could also be an issue for EQC as land stability is their domain.

EQC only responsible if cause from an "event". Fact getting them to accept responsibility for "expansive soils" is impossible.
Gravy train?? Like we are responsible for the damage being done to the houses? NOT! Perhaps you could upskill, more money in becoming a specialist in this area than sitting on the sidelines watching.

[John the builder]

the problem is isolated and involves poor design in certain cases the issue is understood and should be appreciated at design stage.

Read my lips....... the wall in this case is failing (we are told) after a house was built above the wall and this is the problem, not moving ground causing failure but a wall loaded beyond original design.

In that case there is an 'event'?

[Winston001]

There are 300 years of common law cases regarding rights and obligations for the natural support of land and its corollary in nuisance (its a legal term) of interfering with other land. So slipping down onto your neighbour gets you sued. Or flooding it.

Here is your foundation case: Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v_Fletcher