WHARF COLLAPSE

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 12007, 9 December 1924, Page 11

WHARF COLLAPSE

RESULT OF INQUIRY Ai-CKLAXn HARBOUR BOARD CONSIDERS REPORT. DESIGN DEFECTIVE. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, December 8. The Commission of Inquiry into the collapse of the western wharf on October 28th has come to a conclusion. In its report, which was submitted' to a special meeting of the Auckland Harbour 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 was defective in that it provided a structure and an arrangement of the parts of such a nature and that the stresses of a character which the wharf was unable to bear and must develop in it. The wharf collapsed on account of the rupture of lome of the supporting piles at the hack under an outward lateral .pressure, due to a settlement and outward movement in the mass of rubble mound which surrounded the piles. WANT OF FORESIGHT. In the opinion of the commissioners a want of foresight waa displayed in designing and carrying out the structure, which was unable to bear the inevitable stresses. Otherwise no negligence had been shown by any officer or employee. It is recommended' that the rabble retaining wall and mound on which it stands be removed. This is the proper and only permanently effective remedy for disintegrating influences. OTHER WHARVES SIMILARLY INFLUENCED. Similar influences are operating at Princes wharf, Calliope dock wharf, and Freeman’s Bay, and although there does not appear to be any immediate danger of dieruption at ony one of these places, careful vigilance is urged as a precautionary measure. The , report of the commissioners was considered by the board to-night, and it was 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. The board also decided to authorise the works recommended by the. commissioner, and to ask Messrs .G. Niccol,and R. F. Moore to report on the restoration of the Western wharf. COLLAPSED UNDER STRAINThe commissioners state.: “The influences whiclr caused the collapse may have been supplemented by some flaw in the ground, as suggested by Mr Hamer, -or by: a- deposit of soft mua on the dredged benches supporting the rubble mound as suggested by Mr Holderness, but, they were not sufficient in themselves to account for all that has happened. “The fact that a large portion, if not the whole of the remaining work, was found in a state of distress cinder the., influence of the forces to which,:-a structure of this kind should never be subjected. enables ns to picture without difficulty what actually took, place where the collapse occurred. Tho-ques. tion may be raised as to why the rest of the wharf, particularly the part; of it a few hundred feet inshore,' which is now fully loaded with filling, dirt not also collapse, but there are reasons why the., portion of it which did sty should be the first to go.” ~ r DESIGNER’S PLANS CARRIED OUT. As to the question concerning the 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 piledriving records are in accord with the borings, and indicate that every bearing pile was driven into a-solid-bottom or rock. The appearance of the disintegrated structure, as shattered by the collapse, and the' subsequent disruption by blastings, j indicates that the concrete waa first-class,' and that the reinforcement was placed as intended bv the designer. The records of the soundings after' dredging indicate that the dredging -of the benches and the 33ft trench along the. front of the wharf were carried out as closely in accord with the design as the limitations of'the dredging will allow" “THE PASSAGE OF TIME.’’ “Wo regret,” state the commission ers, in concluding their report, "“that certain of our conclusions have been irresistibly forced upon- ns, and w« would impress upon the board, whfcn considering there 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.” MARINE DEPARTMENT CRITICISED. The chairman of the Harbour Board stated to-night that during the afternoon the commissioners attended the meeting of the board, and made several statements in regard to questions. Among thorn were the following: “That the Marine Department should have been more explicit in its objections to the plans of the Western wharf, and that the disaster might have been averted had the structure been watched and steps taken to relieve the pressure.” reply to a question, Mr Hamer said that he had no statement to make in reply to the report of the commission.