We have an unmade, unadopted road, shared by 15 properties. The road has been there 130 years and seems to be made up of compacted flint and earth. The threshold with the public road has started to develop serious pot holes in the braking and turn-in area. The threshold is not on public land.
Got three quotes for repairs using bitmac. Each contractor has proposed slightly different solutions. These differences are simply the area they think is best to fix. However, no mention has been made of digging out and adding a new base.
Is it okay to simply lay bitmac onto the existing flint & earth base?
Advice please.
Is a new base required ?
-
lutonlagerlout
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15184
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:20 am
- Location: bedfordshire
-
Dave_L
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4732
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:47 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Contact:
What traffic uses this road? Refuse trucks etc?
As LLL has said, a sub base is essential - the depth required would depend on what is going to traffic over the surface.
I can see getting contributions from 15 households for this repair is going to be troublesome......
My advice is do the job once and do the job properly in this important area of the road.
As LLL has said, a sub base is essential - the depth required would depend on what is going to traffic over the surface.
I can see getting contributions from 15 households for this repair is going to be troublesome......
My advice is do the job once and do the job properly in this important area of the road.
RW Gale Ltd - Civils & Surfacing Contractors based in Somerset
See what we get up to Our Facebook page
See what we get up to Our Facebook page
-
fingers
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:33 pm
- Location: Surrey
The road is a cul-de-sac and so there is no through traffic. Most traffic is cars (28 movements per day) , light goods (may be one per day) & refuse truck (once per week). Road is 7m wide with no pavements.
Totally agree with 15 household comments plus everyone has an idea, but hasn't really sought professional advice.
As an Enginner I agree with your last comment. I tempted to get a third party involved (eg a civil or a Qs) so I do not get it in the neck when it goes wrong.
Totally agree with 15 household comments plus everyone has an idea, but hasn't really sought professional advice.
As an Enginner I agree with your last comment. I tempted to get a third party involved (eg a civil or a Qs) so I do not get it in the neck when it goes wrong.
-
Big Phil
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:25 pm
- Location: UK
as long as the receiving course is of sound condition then you should be ok (if it's stood the test of time for 130 years...), but i agree that you should get a 3rd party involved. core samples will measure the thickness of the existing 'subbase' and a lab will report on it's condition & constituents. a CBR or FWD will also help.
for the level of traffic volume the asphalt thickness would be minimal, as you just need to ensure waterproofing and provide an even, durable running surface. As opposed to a binder course/surface course, you could look for a one layer option? personally i'd go for a 20mm SMA, as it's more durable than laying a 20mm DBM as a one layer solution. maybe not as aesthetically pleasing as a smaller nominal size surface course, but a better engineering solution IMO.
for the level of traffic volume the asphalt thickness would be minimal, as you just need to ensure waterproofing and provide an even, durable running surface. As opposed to a binder course/surface course, you could look for a one layer option? personally i'd go for a 20mm SMA, as it's more durable than laying a 20mm DBM as a one layer solution. maybe not as aesthetically pleasing as a smaller nominal size surface course, but a better engineering solution IMO.
i used to love using tarmac, but got fed up with getting my asphalt