WALKER'S GULLY.

Waipa Post, Volume VI, Issue 268, 28 November 1913, Page 2

WALKER'S GULLY.

WORK 1 EMPORARILY SUSPENDED.

An unfortunate stoppage has occurred with the work at Walker’s Gully. The following report on the position was read by the county.engineer, Mr W. H. Mandeno, at Wednesday’s meeting of the Waipa County Council :

“ 1 regret that 1 have to report that trouble has arisen in connection ’with the culvert at Walker’s Gully. Owing to the fact that the culvert was necessarily placed on'that side of the gully from which the great bulk of the material for filling had to be obtained, it was impossible, without greatly increased expense, to fill up both sides simultaneously, as ought to have been done. The position was further aggravated owing to the old creek .bed being m close proximity to the culvert on .the further side. The consequence has been, therefore, that as the filling advanced a great side pressure has been brought to bear upon the culvert, and it has yielded to the extent of about six inches in the centre. Under these circumstances .1 found it necessary to stop the earthwork contract in the meantime, and 1 have had sonic of the filling material removed by hand to die further- side of the culvert so as to relieve the pressure on the one side, and support it on the other. 1 Of course, 1 was well aware that advancing a heavy filling lrom one side only was placing a verydieavy strain upon the culvert, but it appeared to me that, heavily reinforced as it is, it would be equal to the strain. .1 still believe it would 'have been so but for the fact before mentioned —viz., that tine bed of the old creek was adjacent on the other side. This, in-conjunction with the soft nature of the ground, has caused the whole ground underneath the culvert to give towards the creek bed, and has thus caused the trouble. Undoubtedly, in doing this I took'a big risk, bid the largely-increased expense of any other plan was my only reason for doing so. However, the result has shown I did wrong'. The question now arises as to "whether it is advisable to go on with the work and remove sufficient material to thoroughly support the culvert on the further side, then to pro- - ceed with the filling in in such a way that the pressure will come on the culvert uniformly, •or whether it is necessary to take some measures to farther strengthen the culvert before, putting more weight on it. In my opinion the- structure v \vas originally strong enough to carry its load had the pressure been uniformly put upon- it. In .order Jo assist the council in coming to. a decision on this point, I have consulted Mr 3/ B. Sims, ‘borough engineer, of Hamilton,' and he > has 'been on the ground and 'made an inspection. Mr Sims, in his report, gave it as his opinion that the trouble had been caused by the faulty foundation. He recommended the diverting of the stream and underpinning, which would cost £500.” The chairman said that the c'ouncil had taken this work.up on their own responsibility, and they would have to seethe matter through. According-to Mr Sims, there will he a further expense ox £SOO, and he personally was not in favour of spending a large sum like this without getting

more expert advice. Cr Teasdale also favoured this proposition. Cr Ryburn considered that they should get advice from men who had had a good deal of experience in concrete work, and mentioned a Mr Roche, who had built the Whakatane bridge, and had had considerable trouble v/itli it. ft was eventually decide,d to ask Mr Williams, Government engineer at Hamilton, and Mr Roche, of Auckland, to report.

In connection with the same matter, a letter a received from Messrs H. Andrew and Son, the contractors, regretting the suspension of the contract, which placed them in an awkward position. They had a good gang on the job, and these they would lose, some having already gone. They asked that as there would be considerable delay in starting again the contract be cancelled. The letter further stated that they had done their very best with the job, and had handled it most economically; but they were, in spite of this, losing money, and they could not afford to lose more through disarrangement of their plans.

It was decided that as the contractors had still 2000 yards of earth tonftve, witnoifi interfering with the culvert, the contract be continued, but would receive further consideration after the experts' advice.