COLLAPSE OF WHARF

Evening Star, Issue 18811, 9 December 1924, Page 3

COLLAPSE OF WHARF

THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDING. DEFECTIVE DESIGNS. ENGINEER’S RESIGNATION ACCEPTED. [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, December 8. Tlie Commission of Inquiry into the collapse of the western wharf on October 28 has come to a conclusion. In its report, which was submitted to a special meeting of the Auckland Harbor Board, the commission states that, in view of all the circumstances, it is clear that the designs •and plans of the structure were neither good nor sufficient, the design being defective in that it provided a structure and arrangement of parts of such nature that stresses of a character which the, wharf was unable to bear must develop in it. The wharf collapsed on account of a rupture of some of the supporting piles at the back under an outward lateral pressure, due to settlement and outward movement in the mass of rubble mound which surrounded the piles. In the opinion of the Commissioners, want of foresight was displayed in designing and carrying out a structure unable to bear the inevitable stresses; otherwise no negligence had been shown by any officer or employee. It is recommended that the nibble retaining wall and mound on which it stands ho removed. That is the proper and only permanently effective remedy for the disintegrating influences. Similar influences are operating at Princes wharf, Calliope dock wharf, and Freeman’s Bay; and, although there docs not appear to be immediate danger of disruption at any one of these places, careful vigilance is urged as a precautionary measure. The report of the Commissioners was considered by tho board to-night. The board resolved to accept the resignation of its engineer (.Mr Hamer), and to grant him six months’ leave. World-wide applications for an engineer will be, called. Tho board also decided to authorise the works recommended by the Commissioners, and to ask Mr G. Nicol and Mr H. F. Moore to report on tlie restoration of the western wharf.

The Commissioners state that the influi enoes which caused the collapse may have been supplemented by some flaw in tho ground, as suggested hy Mr Hamer, or by a, deposit of soft mud on tlie dredged benches supporting tho rubble, mound, as suggested by Mr Holderness; but they were sufficient in themselves to account for all that has happened. ‘‘ Tlie fact that a largo portion, if not the whole, of the remaining work was found in a. state of distress under tho influence, of forces to which a, braced structure of this kind should never be subjected, enables us," they say, ‘‘to picture wit limit difficulty what actually took place, where the collapse occurred. The question may ho raised ns to why the rest- of the wharf, and particularly the part of it a, few hundred feet in-shore, which is now fully loaded with filling, did not also collapse; hut there, are reasons why the portion of it which did go should be, tho first, to go.” As to the question concerning tlie carrying out of the work, the answer of the Commissioners is that- all the evidence which came before them, fortified by their own observations, indicated that the works were faithfully carried out. They note that “ the pile-driving records accord with the borings, and indicate that every hearing pile was driven into solid bottom or rock. The. appearance, of the disintegrated structure, as shattered hy (he collapse and subsequent, disruption by blastings, indicates that the concrete was first-class, and that the reinforcement was placed as intended by the designer. Records of soundings after dredging indicate flint the dredging of the benches am! tlie 55ft trench along the front of the wharf were carried nut as closely in accord with tho design as tlie limitations of dredging will allow."

" We regret," state the Commissioners, iu conclusion, “ that certain of our conclusions have been irresistibly forced upon ns, and we would impress upon the board when considering these findings to bear in mind that no great engineering works, extending as these have done over nearly a quarter of a, century, have ever been constructed without something having been done, which the passage of time has indicated should not have been done." The chairman of the Harbor Board stated to-night that during the afternoon the Commissioners attended a meeting of the hoard and made several statements in regard to questions. Among them were the following That the Marine Department should have bee.n more explicit in its objections to the plans of tlie western wharf, and that tho disaster might have been averted had the. structure been watched and steps taken to relieve tho pressure. In reply to a question, Mr Hamer said ho had no statement, to make in reply to the report, of the Commission.