Cunningham Lindsey
Subsidence Scanning Centre Woodhead House Centre 27 Business Park Woodhead Rd, Birstall WF17 9TD
Telephone 01622 608810 Facsimile 01622 608801
Policyholder: Mr Whitehead
Subject Property Address:
101, Canonbie Road
LONDON
SE23 3AQ
INSURANCE CLAIM
CONCERNING SUSPECTED SUBSIDENCE
ENGINEERING APPRAISAL REPORT
This report is prepared on behalf of Aviva for the purpose of investigating a claim for
subsidence. It is not intended to cover any other aspect of structural inadequacy or building
defect that may otherwise have been in existence at the time of inspection.
Date: 21/12/2009
Cunningham Lindsey Ref: MNHPD/KN/2467916
Continuation / 2
Our Ref: MNHPD/KL/2354866
INTRODUCTION
The technical aspects of this claim are being overseen by our Project Manager Andy
Butchers BSc (Hons) ACIArb MCIOB GradBEng, in accordance with our Project Managed
Service.
DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING
The subject property is a circa 1930 substantial semi detached property set on a medium
sized plot on an established residential estate location. The plot is generally terraced from
left to right and slopes gently from front to rear.
The house is conventional construction comprising load bearing masonry walls under a
pitched tiled roof. The floors are of suspended timber construction and the internal walls are
a combination of solid and stud.
Since construction the property has been extended including a single storey
sunroom/extension to the rear.
The general layout of the site is shown on a detailed sketch plan which forms part of the
attached specialist site investigation report.
There are a number of trees to the rear of the property within influencing distance of the
property. These are set on land which is believed to be under the ownership of a commercial
third party.
It is noted that previous reduction works have been carried out to these trees
The drainage system is a combined system which is located is to the rear of the property.
DISCOVERY OF DAMAGE
The policyholder origonally discovered the damage in the early summer of 2006 and that the
damage at this stage was subject to a previous subsidence claim. After limited mitigation
works, repaired were carried out and completed in 2008.
Over the summer of 2009, damage was noted to return primarily to the rear left hand corner
of the property and in noting this sudden change, a claim was duly intimated to the current
building insurers of the property.
Continuation / 3
Our Ref: MNHPD/KL/2354866
NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGE
Description and Mechanism
The main area of damage is to the rear left hand corner of the main house and to the left hand
side of the sunroom/conservatory.
Internal damage takes the form of tapering diagonal cracking to the rear elevation of some
4mm in magnitude within the rear left hand bedroom. Mirrored cracking was noted
externally to the rear elevation.
The cracking extends to the ceiling/wall junction to the left hand party wall.
To the rear elevation of the sunroom/conservatory, damage was noted both internally and
externally to the rear elevation. The damage takes the form of a tapering diagonal fracture to
blockwork wall and is of some 8mm in magnitude.
In review of the damage as described above, the damage indicates a mechanism of a down
and outward movement of the main body of the property toward the rear left and a
downward movement toward the rear left of the sunroom/conservatory.
Significance
The damage would be placed in category 3 of the BRE Digest 251 classification i.e.
moderate.
This classification is based on the magnitude of cracking noted to the rear elevation of both
the main house and the sunroom/conservatory.
Onset and Progression
The damage appears to recent in nature re-commencing in the summer of 2009 and has
progressed through the autumn.
We believe that the damage is progressing on a cyclical progressive movement with the
cracks opening ion the summer and closing slightly in the winter months.
Continuation / 4
Our Ref: MNHPD/KL/2354866
SITE INVESTIGATIONS
In order to confirm the cause of movement, the specialist investigation contractor CET
Safehouse who are under our supervision, carried out ground investigations. For details, and
the presise details of the site investigation, please refer to the attached factual data.
The investigation consisted of a trial hole located to rear left hand corner of the property and
more specifically to the rear left hand corner of the main body of the property within the sun
room/conservatory.
The trial hole being some 1200mm square was extended to a total depth of 1800mm below
ground level. Due to the discovery of a tapering faced concrete foundation against the face
of the retaining wall, and due to Health and Safety concerns the trial pit was abandoned.
To establish the soil profile at depth, a bore hole was cast within the rear left hand reception
room.
A bore hole was extended through base of the trial hole to a total depth of 1800mm. The
bore hole was abandoned at that depth as an obstruction was found, believed to be brick
rubble/hardcore and this was not able to be passed.
The result of the ground investigation indicates that the foundation of the left flank wall of
the sunroom/conservatory is an earth retaining wall and is founded in excess of 1800mm
below ground level.
The foundation to the main body of the property is of a 500mm thick concrete and crushed
brick strip foundation and is founded at a depth of 1550mm of what is believed to be Made
Ground. The Made ground consisting of a medium compact to compact, brown, sandy,
gravelly silt with brick and concrete pieces.
To determine soil conditions at depth a bore hole was cast through the floor within the
suspended timber floor to the rear left reception room.
The results of the bore hole confirms that to a depth of 1800mm below ground level, the
property is founded upon a made ground consisting of a clay based made ground.
In review of the geological drift map for the area, the map confirms that the property is
founded upon a clay deposit.
Tree roots up to 15mm in diameter were noted to the underside of the house foundation. The
retrieved roots were DNA tested and found to originate from the Salix (willow) or Poplar
(poplar). It should be noted that roots of willow and poplars are indistinguishable.
However, mature trees including poplars were noted to the rear of the property. No willow
trees are noted within close proximity of the property.
As part of the investigation, a CCTV survey was carried out to the drains to the rear of the
property which are believed to be under the maintenance of Thames Water.
Continuation / 5
Our Ref: MNHPD/KL/2354866
The results of the CCTV drain survey revealed possible defects and the matter has been
passed to Thames Water. The survey has been reviewed and whilst de-scaling works have
been carried out they believe that no defects are noted and no further works are required.
Further investigations were considered and discounted. This included the water service pipe
but in review of the site investigation has shown the soil to be dry which suggests the water
main is both not damaged or affecting the supporting subsoil.
MONITORING
Whilst a programme of crack width monitoring has been started, the programme is still in its
infancy, and no trend can be drawn at present. However, we believe the cracks to progress
on a cyclical pattern with the cracks opening in the summer and closing in the winter
months.
CAUSE OF DAMAGE
Taking an overview of all the site investigation the damage noted and the timing of the
damage within the property, it is my opinion that the cause of damage results from clay
shrinkage subsidence brought about by the action of roots from the trees to the rear of the
property.
I base this view on the fact that the foundations of the property in the area of damage have
been built at a relatively shallow depth, bearing onto a clay based shrinkable subsoil. The
soil is susceptible to movement as a result of changes in volume of the clay with variations
in moisture content and analysis of the site investigation results indicates that the soil has
been affected by shrinkage. Poplar roots are present in the subsoil beneath the foundations.
In this case, I am satisfied that the damage has therefore been caused by clay shrinkage
subsidence following moisture extraction by the trees to the rear of the property.
I have also considered whether there could be any other influencing factors such as the water
main or insufficient foundation depths but these have been discounted at this time.
I am satisfied that there is no factor, other than the tress to the rear of the property which is
causing the damage to the property at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mitigation & Repair
It is recommended that the trees located to the rear of the property are addressed to mitigate
against further movement. The Mitigation Centre of Oriel Services Ltd will liaise with the
owners of the land in this regard.
Continuation / 6
Our Ref: MNHPD/KL/2354866
In the meantime crack width monitoring will continue after mitigation work to the tree in
order to check for stability. A detailed scope of repairs will be finalised upon conclusion of
the monitoring.
If the trees to the rear are removed then I consider that works including structural crack
repair and redecoration at an approximate cost of £15,000 will be appropriate in order to
repair the damage in this case.
If the trees is not removed then it may be necessary to consider substructure stabilisation of
the foundations of the property in the area of damage, or other stabilisation schemes such as
root barriers in addition to structural crack repair and redecoration needed to repair the
damage.
The total cost of this option is estimated at £30,000. This is based on the need to stabilise
the rear of the property by some form of substructure stabilisation.
For and on behalf of Cunningham Lindsey
Andy Butchers BSc (Hons) ACIArb MCIOB GradBEng
Project Manager, Project Management Services
Customer Support Direct Dial: 01622 608814
Email: PMSMaidstone@cl-uk.com
FACTUAL REPORT
OF
INVESTIGATION
AT:- 101 Canonbie Road, London
ON:- 14 October 2009
FOR:-
c/o Cunningham Lindsey - Redhill
REF:- 2467916
JOB NO:- 70330
REPORT ISSUED:- 03/11/2009
SPECIALIST CONTRACTING DIVISION
CET SAFEHOUSE LIMITED
Lawness Barns, Mountnessing Road, Billericay, Essex CM12 0TS
WWW.CETSAFEHOUSE.COM
Tel: 01277 655377 Fax: 01277 655977
Sheet: 1 of 1
Investigation Job No: 70330E
Layout Plan 14/10/09 & Site: 101 Canonbie Road, SE23
Date:
15/10/09
Work carried
AH PB JF Weather: Dry out for: Cunningham Lindsey
(SI) (Checked:) (Drawn By)
CANONBIE ROAD
6.0m
NO 101
10.0m
DINING
ROOM
0.8m
BH1 A
INT INT SVP B
TP1
2.5m
WP
1.8m CARPET OVER
CONSERVATORY CONCRETE
- +
MH1
LEVEL
1.9m
CHANGE SLABS
SLABS
STEPS UP
PATIO
TREES
TREES
ON SITE TREE IDENTIFICATION FOR GUIDANCE ONLY. NOT AUTHENTICATED.
Remarks: Key:
Combined Gulley RWWG Surface Water Drain
Manhole MH Foul Water Drain
Rain Water Pipe RWP Tree / Bush
Rain Water Gulley RWG (approx. ht in m)
Soil Vent Pipe SVP
Trial Pit
Waste Gulley WG
Borehole
Scale: N.T.S. Waste Pipe WP
Sheet: 2 of 2
Trial Pit No: 1 Job No: 70330E
Conservatory (B) Date: 14/10/09
Site: 101 Canonbie Road, SE23
Work carried Cunningham Lindsey
Excavation Method: Drawn by: Jemma
out for:
Ground Level
Weather: N/A mOD:
SAND AND CEMENT
RENDER
1000 x700
SKIRTING Conservatory Floor Level
30
CEMENT SCREED
CONCRETE SLAB NO
150
REINFORCEMENT
800
BRICK
200
CONCRETE
200
FOUNDATION (STRONG
MIX)
1620
SOILS AND ROOTS AS TP1
SECTION A SHEET 1 OF 2
CONCRETE AND BRICK
FOUNDATION
TP ABANDONED AT 1800mm,
MASS CONCRETE
FOUNDATION ENDS OBSERVED.
Remarks: All measurements in millimetres. Key:
D Small disturbed sample J Jar sample
B Bulk disturbed sample V Pilcon Vane (kPa)
W Water sample M Mackintosh probe
TDTD Too dense to drive
Logged: AH Checked: PS Approved: Scale: N.T.S.
Sheet: 2 of 2
Trial Pit No: 1 Job No: 70330E
Site: 101 Canonbie Road, SE23
Date: 23/09/09
Work carried Cunningham Lindsey
Excavation Method: Hand Tools Drawn by: Jemma
out for:
Ground Level
Weather: Dry mOD:
Conservatory B
WALL
SKIRTING
Floor Level
100
BOARD
ELECTRIC
CABLE STRATA AS TP1 SHEET 1
OF 2
775
BRICK
200
225
CONCRETE FOUNDATION
TRIAL PIT 1 ENDS AT 1000mm.
Remarks: All measurements in millimetres. Key:
D Small disturbed sample J Jar sample
TP abanoned at 1000mm- ground collasping.
B Bulk disturbed sample V Pilcon Vane (kPa)
W Water sample M Mackintosh probe
TDTD Too dense to drive
Logged: MD Checked: PS Approved: Scale: N.T.S.
Sheet: 1 of 2
Trial Pit No: 1 Job No: 70330E
Site: 101 Canonbie Road, SE23
Date: 23/09/09
Work carried Cunningham Lindsey
Excavation Method: Hand Tools Drawn by: Jemma
out for:
Ground Level
Weather: Dry mOD:
Main House A
WALL
500 X 350
SKIRTING
Floor Level
100
BOARD
50 30
CONCRETE SCREED
CONCRETE
ELECTRIC
100
CABLE CONCRETE
BRICK
925
GENERAL BUILDERS
RUBBLE ( CONCRETE,
BRICK, SAND AND
GRAVEL)
75
820mm
75
TRIAL PIT 1 ENDS AT 1000mm.
Remarks: All measurements in millimetres. Key:
D Small disturbed sample J Jar sample
TP abanoned at 1000mm- ground collasping.
B Bulk disturbed sample V Pilcon Vane (kPa)
W Water sample M Mackintosh probe
TDTD Too dense to drive
Logged: MD Checked: PS Approved: Scale: N.T.S.
Sheet: 1 of 2
Trial Pit No: 1 (A) Job No: 70330E
MAIN HOUSE Date: 14/10/09
Site: 101 Canonbie Road, SE23
Work carried Cunningham Lindsey
Excavation Method: Hand Tools Drawn by: Jemma
out for:
Ground Level
Weather: N/A mOD:
SAND AND CEMENT
RENDER
1000 x 700
SKIRTING Conservatory Floor Level
30
CEMENT SCREED
CONCRETE SLAB(NO
150
REINFORCING
OBSERVED)
1000
BRICK
MADE GROUND, loose,
1220
250 brick and concrete rubble.
CONCRETE AND
500
CRUSHED BRICK
FOUNDATION
MADE GROUND, medium compact to compact,
150
brown, sandy, gravelly silt with brick and concrete
pieces.
Roots to15mm Ø.
TRIAL PIT ENDS AT 1550mm
NO BH
Remarks: All measurements in millimetres. Key:
D Small disturbed sample J Jar sample
Unable to extract U/S sample due to made ground.
Curved steel pin hammered in 250mm under foundation B Bulk disturbed sample V Pilcon Vane (kPa)
at 1500mm below ground level. W Water sample M Mackintosh probe
TDTD Too dense to drive
Logged: AH Checked: PS Approved: Scale: N.T.S.
Sheet: 1 of 1
Borehole No: 1
Job No: 70330E
D10001 Site: 101 Canonbie Road, SE23
Boring Method: Hand Auger Date: 15/10/2009
Diameter: 75mm Coordinates: Ground Level Work Carried Cunningham Lindsey
mOD: out for:
Depth Thick- Test Depth
(m) Description of Strata ness Legend Sample Type Result Depth Field Records/Comments to water
(m) (m) (m)
Floor
Level
Carpet over floor boards. 0.25
0.25
Timber Joist.
0.28 0.30
Floor Space
0.58 0.30
Concrete oversite 0.05 D M 50(10) 0.63
0.63 50(0) No roots observed.
MADE GROUND, medium compact to TDTD
compact, mid brown/orange, silty clay 0.37
with brick fragments, chalk deposits and
1.00 fine to medium gravel. D M 15 1.00
17
14
MADE GROUND, medium compact, mid 20
brown/orange, silty clay with brick 0.80
fragments and fine to medium gravel. D M 18 1.50
22
14
1.80 28
BH ends at 1800mm.Obstruction possibly
brick rubble/hard core.
Too compact to hand auger.
Remarks: Key: T.D.T.D. Too Dense to Drive
D Small disturbed sample J Jar sample
BH dry and open on completion. B Bulk disturbed sample V Pilcon Vane (kPa)
W Water sample M Mackintosh Probe
Logged: AH Checked: PS Drawn by: Jemma Scale: NTS Weather: N/A
Our Ref : 70330
Laboratory Testing Results Date Sampled: 14/10/2009
Location : 101 Canonbie Road Date Received : 18/10/2009
Work carried Cunningham Lindsey - Redhill Date Tested : 28/10/2009
out for: Date of Report : 30/10/2009
Sample Ref Moisture Soil Liquid Plastic Plasticity Liquidity Modified Soil Filter Paper Soil In situ Organic pH Sulphate Content
TP/BH Depth Type Content Fraction Limit Limit Index Index Plasticity Class Contact Sample Shear Vane Content Value (g/l) Class
No (m) > 0.425mm Index Time Suction Strength SO3 SO4
( % ) [1] ( % ) [2] ( % ) [3] ( % ) [4] ( % ) [5] [5] ( % ) [6] [7] ( h ) [8] (kPa) (kPa) [9] ( % )[10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
1 0.6 D 15 5 Unsuitable For Further Testing - Insufficient Sample
1.0 D 32 5 76 29 47 0.05 44 CV
1.5 D 37 <5 80 28 53 0.17 53 CV
Not Suitable For Suction Testing - Made Ground
Test Methods / Notes [9] Values of shear strength were determined in situ by CET Safehouse using Key
[1] BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990, Test No 3.2 a Pilcon hand vane or Geonor vane (GV). D Disturbed sample ( small )
[2] Estimated if <5%, otherwise measured [10] BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990, Test No 4 B Disturbed sample ( bulk )
[3] BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990, Test No 4.4 [11] BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990, Test No 9 U Undisturbed sample
[4] BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990, Test No 5.3 [12] BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990, Test No 5.6 W Groundwater sample
[5] BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990, Test No 5.4 [13] SO4 = 1.2 x SO3 ENP Essentially Non-Plastic by inspection
[6] BRE Digest 240 : 1993 [14] BRE Special Digest One (Concrete in Aggressive Ground) 2005 U/S Underside of Foundation
[7] BS 5930 : 1981 : Figure 31 - Plasticity Chart for the classification Note that if the SO4 content falls into the DS-4 or DS-5 class, it would be prudent to consider the sample as falling
of fine soils into the DS-4m or DS-5m class respectively unless water soluble magnesium testing is undertaken to prove otherwise
[8] In-house method S9a adapted from BRE IP 4/93
Sheet: 1 of 1
Site: 101 Canonbie Road,
Tree Root Job No: 70330
London, SE23 3AQ.
Date: 20/10/2009 Work carried
Identification Ltd Order No: 273987/E3 out for: Cunningham Lindsey.
Our Ref: CET201009
Certificate of Analysis
The following work was commissioned by CET Safehouse Limited on behalf of their client. Root samples were obtained in sealed packets from the
above site with no reference given as to the types of tree or shrub from which they may have originated.
The results were as follows -
Trial pit/ Root diameter Tree, shrub or climber Result of
Borehole (mm) from which root originates starch test#
number
TP1 (underside; Main House) 12.0 Salix (willow) or Populus (poplar)* positive
(4 roots)
# The presence of starch indicates that the root was alive in the recent past.
* Roots of willows and poplars are indistinguishable.
DR RONALD D MACLEOD
Principal Scientist
Address for correspondence: 3 Langley Drive, Kinnoull Hill, Perth, PH2 7XA.
Telephone: 01738 630873
e-mail: rdmmacleod@btconnect.com
Principal Scientist: R.D. MacLeod, B.Sc., Ph.D.,
Accounts/Quality Manager: Fiona M. Sinclair, H.N.C. (Management)
Registered in Scotland, No. 358068. Registered Office: "Mandaya", Highfield Place, Bankfoot, PH1 4AX.
CET SAFEHOUSE, Unit E2, Boundary Court, Willow Farm Business Park, Castle Donington. DE74 2NN
Telephone – 01332 813700 Fax – 01332 814750 E-mail - drainage.solutions@cetsafehouse.com
To: Cunningham Lindsey - Redhill Our Ref: 70330
3rd Floor
Aquila House Your Ref: 2467916
London Road
Surrey Date: 16-Oct-09
RH1 1NJ
Ftao: Andy Butchers
ESTIMATE
Site:- 101 Canonbie Road, London
Item No recommendations required. Amount
Total £0.00
plus VAT @15.0% £0.00
Total + VAT £0.00
Quotation is binding only if accepted within 28 days from date of issue and is subject to our Standard Terms and Conditions
Sheet: 1 of 2
101 Canonbie Road, London
Underground Drainage Report Site:
Job No: 70330
Work carried Cunningham Lindsey - Redhill
Date: 15-Oct-09 out for:
MANHOLE DETAILS
Manhole Depth to Invert Condition
MH1 2700mm Poor
CCTV Survey:-
1. Drainage Run:
From manhole 1 run A to internal waste pipe - 100mm clay foul water - Upstream
Surface Material/
Metres: Code: Observations: Condition:
0.0 Start Under conservatory /
concrete floor
0.3 ESL From 12 o'clock to 12 o'clock - 5%
0.6 JN At 9 o'clock - 100mm unknown
0.7 ESL From 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock - 20%
2.2 LU
3.7 FH Unable to push camera
2 Drainage Run:
From manhole 1 run B to internal soil vent pipe - 100mm clay foul water - Upstream
Surface Material/
Metres: Code: Observations: Condition:
0.0 Start Under conservatory
0.1 DEG From 12 o'clock to 12 o'clock - 5%
0.3 JDM
2.4 LU
3.0 FH Reached line up to soil vent pipe
- END OF SURVEY -
Water Test Grade:
2 - Medium Loss over 2 minutes
0 - Unable to fill 3 - Slow Loss over 5 minutes
1 - Heavy Loss 4 - No Loss
Sheet: 2 of 2
101 Canonbie Road, London
Underground Drainage Report Site:
Job No: 70330
Work carried Cunningham Lindsey - Redhill
Date: 15-Oct-09 out for:
Our assessment of the drainage system is based on our visual inspection and on
information collated at the time of the survey. Where assumptions have been made
these are based on our experience and do not constitute any form of guarantee, nor
do we guarantee that further deterioration will not occur following this survey.
CCTV video records will be stored for a period of 3 months from date of inspection
and then destroyed.
Water Test Grade:
2 - Medium Loss over 2 minutes
0 - Unable to fill 3 - Slow Loss over 5 minutes
1 - Heavy Loss 4 - No Loss
Water Authority Sewer Condition Codes
B Broken pipe at… (or from… to..) o'clock JN Junction at…o'clock, diameter…mm
BR Branch Major JX Junction defective at.. o'clock, diameter.. mm
CC Crack circumferential from… to… o'clock LC Lining of sewer changes/starts/finishes at this point
CL Crack longitudinal @… o'clock LD Line of sewer deviates down
CM Cracks multiple from… to… o'clock LL Line of sewer deviates left
CN Connection at… o'clock, diameter… mm LN Line defect at (or from.. to.. ) o'clock
CNI Connection at… o'clock, diameter… mm, intrusion… mm LR Line of sewer deviates right
CU Camera under water LU Line of sewer deviates up
CX Connection defective at… o'clock MB Missing bricks at.. (or from.. to..) o'clock
CXI Connection defective at… o'clock, diameter… mm, MC Material of sewer changes at this point
intrusion… mm MH Manhole/node
D Deformed sewer… % MM Mortar missing medium at.. (or from.. to..) o'clock
DB Displaced bricks at (or from.. to..) o'clock MS Mortar missing surface at.. (or from.. to..) o'clock
DC Dimension of sewer changes at this point MT Mortar missing total at.. (or from.. to..) o'clock
DE Debris (non silt/grease)… % cross-sectional loss OB Obstruction… % height/diameter loss
DEG Debris grease… % cross-sectional area loss OJL Open joint large
DES Debris silt… % cross-sectional area loss OJM Open joint medium
DI Dropped invert, gap… mm PC Length of pipe forming sewer changes at this point,
EHJ Encrustation heavy from.. to.. o'clock % cross-sectional new length…mm
area loss (at joint) RFJ Roots fine (at joint)
ELJ Encrustation light from.. to.. o'clock% RMJ Roots mass… % cross-sectional area loss (at joint)
EMJ Encrustation medium from.. to.. o'clock %, cross-sectional RTJ Roots tap (at joint)
area loss (at joint) SA Survey abandoned
ESH Scale heavy… % cross-sectional area loss from... to… SC Shape of sewer changes at this point
o'clock SSL Surface damage, spalling large at (or from.. to..)
ESL Scale light from… to… o'clock o'clock
ESM Scale medium… % cross-sectional area loss from… to… SSM Surface damage, spalling medium at (or from.. to..)
o'clock o'clock
FC Fracture circumferential from… to… o'clock SSS Surface damage, spalling slight at (or from.. to..)
FL Fracture longitudinal at… o'clock o'clock
FM Fractures multiple from… to… o'clock SWL Surface damage, wear large at… (or from.. to..)
GO General observation at this point o'clock
GP General photograph number… taken at this point SWM Surface damage, wear medium at… (or from.. to..)
H Hole in sewer at… o'clock o'clock
IDJ Infiltration dripper at (or from… to…) o'clock (at joint) SWS Surface damage, wear slight at.. (or from.. to..)
IGJ Infiltration gusher at (or from… to…) o'clock (at joint) o'clock
IRJ Infiltration runner at (or from… to…) o'clock (at joint) V Vermin (rats and mice)
ISJ Infiltration seeper at (or from… to…) o'clock (at joint) WL Water level… % height/diameter
JDM Joint displaced medium X Sewer collapsed… % cross-sectional area loss
JDL Joint displaced large FH End of survey
Contract: 70330 Date: 15-Oct-09
Operative Initial: AH
Site Address: 101 Canonbie Road, London Page: 1 of 1
M/H: 1 Depth: 2700mm Depths of run if
RWP to ground C different to invert level:-
A
B Run C & X B Manhole Condition
section 24 C
sewer live run D Poor
A E
F
G
H
X
Chamber Dimension (mm): 1000 x 600
M/H: Depth: Depths of run if
different to invert level:-
A
B Manhole Condition
C
D
E
F
G
H
X
Chamber Dimension (mm):
M/H: Depth: Depths of run if
different to invert level:-
A
B Manhole Condition
C
D
E
F
G
H
X
Chamber Dimension (mm):
KEY….
Internal Back Drop.
Interceptor
x
External Back Drop.
LEVEL MONITORING - RELATIVE SURVEY READINGS
Provider Details Client Details Risk Address
Insurance Co.: Occupier:
Name: CETSafehouse
Client Name: Cunningham Lindsey Address: 101 Canonbie Road
Our Ref: 00/24268 Technical Mgr: Andy Butchers Address:
Date of Issue: 8/10/10 Email: pmsmaidstone@cl-uk.com Town: London
Client Ref: 2467916 County:
Monitoring Details Address: 3-4 North Court Post Code: SE23 3AQ
Instruction Date: 19/02/10 Address: Armstrong Road Tel Day:
First Reading Date: 24/02/10 Town: Maidstone Tel Eve:
Maximum No Visits: TBC County: Kent Mobile:
Anticipated Expiry Date: TBC Post Code: ME15 7AF Other:
Monitoring Int (Wks): 6 Other Email: Other:
Target Date: 7/4/10
Reading Date: 24/2/10 14/4/10 29/5/10 15/7/10 10/8/10 7/9/10 4/10/10
Issue Date: 8/3/10 20/4/10 6/6/10 20/7/10 18/8/10 10/9/10 8/10/10
Row Point X Co- Y Co-
ordinate ordinate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. Name
1 1-TBM 0.00 0.00 10.0000 10.0000 10.0000 10.0000 10.0000 10.0000 10.0000
2 6.00 0.00
3 2 6.00 3.00 9.8655 9.8658 9.8668 9.8675 9.8678 9.8672 9.8668
4 3 6.00 6.50 9.8243 9.8256 9.8261 9.8269 9.8273 9.8260 9.8254
5 4 6.00 9.90 9.7757 9.7767 9.7769 9.7782 9.7782 9.7762 9.7756
6 5 6.00 10.10 9.7753 9.7765 9.7763 9.7775 9.7775 9.7758 9.7749
7 6 6.00 12.00 9.7982 9.7995 9.7992 9.8006 9.8005 9.7981 9.7974
8 7 6.00 13.00 9.8541 9.8568 9.8562 9.8567 9.8553 9.8536 9.8532
9 8 4.00 13.00 9.8720 9.8744 9.8741 9.8739 9.8724 9.8704 9.8702
10 9 2.00 13.00 9.9201 9.9229 9.9219 9.9219 9.9192 9.9185 9.9181
11 10 0.00 13.00 10.0192 10.0234 10.0240 10.0210 10.0178 10.0153 10.0144
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sketch Plan Comments
10 9 8 7 Not same brick course
6
S/S Extension
5
4
3
2
1-TBM FRONT
File 24268 Levels.XLS Readings Printed on 08/10/10
RING - DISTORTION SURVEY CHART LEVEL MONITORING - RELATIVE MOVEMENT SKETCH
Client: Cunningham Lindsey Client Ref: 2467916 CETSafehouse Ref: 00/24268
10; -5
9; -2
8; -2
7; -1
6; -1
5; 0
4; 0
1-TBM; 0 3; 1
2; 1
Datum Reading Reading 1 (24/2/10) Reading 2 (14/4/10) Reading 3 (29/5/10) Reading 4 (15/7/10)
Reading 5 (10/8/10) Reading 6 (7/9/10) Reading 7 (4/10/10) Reading 8 (0/1/00) Reading 9 (0/1/00)
Reading 10 (0/1/00) Reading 11 (0/1/00) Reading 12 (0/1/00)
Notes:
Vertical distorted scale 1: 100
Chart is displaying Subsidence
Point labels give level difference of last reading from original datum in mm.
File 24268 Levels.XLS Sketch Printed on 08/10/10
LEVEL MONITORING - RELATIVE SURVEY READINGS
Client: Cunningham Lindsey Client Ref: 2467916 CETSafehouse Ref: 00/24268 Chart Scale 1:1000
1 1
10.0
8.0
6.0 Date
Difference in reading
4.0
Point 1
3.00
2.60
2.50 2.50
2.20 2.30
2.20
2.0 1.80 2.00
1.70
1.30
1.20
1.00
1.30
1.20
1.00
1.30
1.10 Point 2
mm
0.30 0.50
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-0.10
-0.40
Point 3
/10
/10
/10
/10
/10
/10
/10
-2.0
/0 2
/0 4
/0 5
/0 7
/0 8
/0 9
/1 0
Point 4
24
14
29
15
10
07
04
-4.0
-6.0 Point 5
-8.0
-10.0
2 1
10.0
8.0
6.0 Date
Difference in reading
4.80
4.0 4.20
Point 6
2.80
2.70 2.60
2.40 2.10 2.40 2.30
2.0 1.80 1.90
1.80
1.30 1.00 1.20 Point 7
mm
0.40
0.0 0.00 -0.10
-0.50 -0.80
-0.90 -0.90 Point 8
-1.40 -1.60
-2.0 -1.80
-2.00
Point 9
-4.0 -3.90
-4.80
-6.0 Point 10
/10
/10
/10
/10
/10
/10
/10
/0 2
/0 4
/0 5
/0 7
/0 8
/0 9
/1 0
-8.0
24
14
29
15
10
07
04
-10.0
24268 Levels Charts Printed 08/10/10