saveasteading

Good point, neither am I. But it should be better than just a loose filling on top.

Thanks for that @ETC. The page and the link. This NI version I have not seen before. It very sensibly allows the shallower depths of 0.3 and 0.4 according to different bedding standards, on the pages before the one you swiped. This shall be the reference from now. The English and Scottish versions don't have this, but imply 0.6 whatever. This table is for rigid pipes but it goes on to discuss flexible pipes and is consistent. I will be reading all of this fine document. The week ends well (not just this). So well that I'm now expecting our home rugby teams to win too. this.

Agreed that Is sensible. Is that written down formally anywhere?

I meant to attach this for anyone interested. It shows depths are to be over 0.6. Anyway I have prevailed and it will now be " as appropriate". If I need an easy argument, it will be that "in a field" implies that it can be ploughed. In a garden isn't covered in table 10, So panic over and 50 years of drains can stay where they are.

It shouldnt be getting ripped up yet. The bitumen (or other bonder) is only surface coating the aggregate so it will be good, blended stone, whatever.

That is my view entirely. As "the Engineer" that's what I have designed and nobody has ever objected. And there have been no problems that I know off. In so doing, several km of drains have been 200mm less deep and without a concrete slab over. Consequently so has every rodding point, manhole and sewage digester. But someone is pointing out table 10 of Doc H. That is the only point of reference. There are contradictions too eg the drawing below and the term "where necessary" I'd rather not respond " because I'm the Engineer and I know better". I really want to find something definitive. And so would everyone about to start a project.

Makes space rather than money. I wouldn't buy a second hand Titan or equivalent own brand as I've had some fail prematurely ( hardly used, guarantee passes, use again...falls apart)

Be a neerd and watch the highways people. A patch won't stick, so they cut a rectangle out and fill it tight. Then wheels are pushing the material sideways against the vertical face, not scrubbing it upwards. Meanwhile you could make the pothole cleanish then apply bitumen tacky stuff before the infill. A tamper will be helpful.

I don't know when I last saw a subby using mains tools, other than 110V heavy breaker. As above. I have a suite of tools (Einhel) with the same batteries in 3 sizes for power v weight. They need changing a lot on the bigger tools.eg chop saw / vacuum cleaner. Plus some 240V for really heavy stuff, but seldom used: Titan sds breaker used once and was worth having. A bosch drill, just for the pleasure of the smoothness, but it is good for deep holes in timber or mass production. I will build a charging gantry in the site office so that batteries just slot in whenever passing.

Best put courser cheaper stone down first. Then 50mm minimum 100 better.

Road planings are a favourite material. It is a highly controlled product as if type 1 with added sticky. So if it is well broken up into being like a load of stone, and is well spread and compacted, it will be very strong. I can't remember the bitumen content but it is a small %. About 3% maybe? ie lots of good stone. Then you get a hot summer and it adjusts and sticks even better. BUT make sure you aren't getting footpath surfacing. It is not strong and not a good surface for traffic. The only downside of planings is that it used to be cheap but now is popular. And quite rightly it can now be recycled for roads...it used to be designated as waste.

Is it just the floor that isn't level? What about wall verticality? If they are vertical then subsidence is unlikely. There are some very bad builders out there, especially on developments. I'm including site management here. So it is probably a floor poured without care. I once was called out to advise why a house ( 1m of brick walls at that stage) was out of kilter ( something is wrong!). I found that the brick coursing was a spiral. At least they had someone with a level check it, unlike your slab.

That's sensible if it might ever get some load. But the regs say a reinforced concrete slab. Imagine thd maximum load on that footpath...what possible risk is there to that pipe? I'm looking at garden though. 300mm for a garden fork risk. 450mm in the Cairngorms for frost getting into the ground. 600mm? Not "sustainable design". I'm still thinking it is crazy overdesign. Maybe the code compilers assume that trenches are never compacted or all have driveways over them. Or maybe they have never been out of their office. A search threw up a previous BH discussion. 450mm quoted by some, and that appears in some unofficial advice elsewhere too.

I've been designing drains for nearly 50 years. Wrongly perhaps. Today I've been told, and referred to document H, that there must be at least 600mm cover. And that less than that needs a reinforced slab over it. Its only a reference in a table, and nowhere else is it mentioned. The actual regulation doesn't mention any minimum. I can see no purpose in that depth in a garden. A foul drain isn't going to freeze at any depth. Elsewhere online, 450 is mentioned. It matters especially on long runs. I have been avoiding pointless expense. Nobody has ever said it should be deeper. I am allowed to over-rule this but perhaps there is a good reason I've missed. Any thoughts or better if it's definitive? I've lost my BS on the subject.

They were not uderstanding physics in the first place. It’s a shame that … it’s expensive to run. All that fancy functionality comes with an added energy cost. At least this article measured how the heat spread. I have recently read similar reviews where the lowest powered one is automatically rated the most economical. The previous day the review would be leggings or toys or some such, and maybe fashionistas would despair at my ignorance if i wrote it.

How about normal concrete with crushed stone, severely tamped to bring the fines up. Next day pressure hose or brush the surface to expose the stone. OR sprinkle grit on and tamp in .

Use what is around you? Stone, peat, reeds, heather, sand, (old barrels ?). Not my choice now we have options.

Can we see the whole cross section from ground to floor surface? Words or pictures You need structural support and insulation within it.

1:20 is quite noticeable i think. From observation, a person who prefers a ramp will like a rail. But as this is not through official channels, @ToughButterCup can decide later.

No. I've met the designer of a housing estate. A technician working to the developer's brief of units / acre. Mock Georgian combined with local styles. 4 modules and 3 sets of finishes to iterate. Having glaring mistakes pointed out didn't seem to break him out of the docile state. Then a more sales type person does some talking about heritage and stuff. Not Architecture.

The builder did you a service then, building a flawed house that wasn't highly desirable. A family member had a more extreme case, where a mid terrace had no front door and access through the neighbours' yard. Quirky, the agents called it. It was even less satisfactory than we had expected. We put a front door in (With PP). Sorted. It was v nice when sold on.

Isn't that based on the coldest day, which is already an extreme case?

They squeezed more houses in. It is normal for mid terraces to have no side passage. You bought it.

I mention most things several times, I'm told. Again: When building a 3 storey timber building i was surprised that the timber contractor insisted on a brick kerb above floor level.. That cost was a loss to us. I could see why they wanted it but thought bricks would displace. So used lintels. The price halves with big quantities and it doesn't need a bricklayer. It worked and the company said it was a great idea. Now we are building a timber building inside a steel building. I had intended to use tanalised timber as sole plate, but pc lintel is going to : Live for ever Be much more accurate Not distort or compress. Rest on continuous mortar, not occasional plastic packers. (Strength, precision, no gaps for air or beasties.) Not get kicked over. Hold the stud robustly during construction. Against? Cost 4 x timber May still need a timber sole plate above it...or can we fix stud panels direct?