AUCKLAND WHARF.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19350, 10 December 1924, Page 8

AUCKLAND WHARF.

EFFORT OF COMMISSION. PLANS AND DESIGNS DEFECTIVE. ENGINEER’S RESIGNATION. ACCEPTED. (Pee United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, December 8. The 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 Auoklard Harbour Bcaid, 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 detective in that it provided a structure and arrangement of parts of such a nature that stresses of a character which the whan 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, duo to settlement and outward movement ill 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 rubble retaining wall and mound on which it stands be removed. That is the proper and only permanently effective remedy f°*’. the d' B, integrating influence. Similar influences are operating at Princes wharf, Calliope dock wharf, and Freeman’s Bay; and, although there does 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 the board to-mght. The board resolved to accept the resignation ot its engineer (Mr Hamer), anj 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 commissioners and to ask Mr G. Niool and Mr R F. Moore to report on the restoration of the western wharf. _ , . The commissioners state that the innuenccs which caused the collapse may have been, supplemented by some flaw in the ground, os suggested by Mr Hamer, or by a deposit of soft mud on the dredged benches supporting the rubble mound, as suggested by Mr Holderness; but they were sufficient in themselves to account for ad that has happened. “The fact that a large portion, if not the whole, of the remaining work was found in a state of distress under the influence of forces to which a braced structure of this kind should never be subjected. enables us,” they say, ‘to picture without difficulty what actually took place where the collapse occurred. The ouestion may bo raised 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; but there are reasons why the portion of it which did op should be the first to go.” 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 pile-driving records accord with the borings, and indicate that every bearing pile was driven into solid_ bottom or rock. The appearance of the distintegrated structure, as shattered by the 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 sounding after dredging indicate that the dredging of the benches and the 33ft trench alone the front of the wharf were carried out as closely in accord with the design as the limitations of dredging will allow.” “We regret ” state the commissioners, in conclusion, “that certain of our conclusions have been irresistibly forced upon us, and we would impress upon the board when considering these findings to bear in mind that no groat 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 Harbour Board stated to-night that during the afternoon the commissioners attended a meeting of the board and made several statements in regard to questions. Among them 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. In reply to a question, Mr Hamer said he had no statement to make in reply to the report of the commission.

EXPENSES OF INQUIRY. (PgE United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, December^. All expenses incurred by the special inquiry into the collapse of the Western wharf have not been computed, but the total will run into a considerable sum. The fees of the commissioners (Mr Cyrus Williams and Mr F. W. Furkort) have been fixed, it is understood, at £3OO each, exclusive of customary allowances. The resignation of the Harbour Board engineer, Mr Hamer, is stated to be already in operation.