Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:20 am
Hi everyone, seems like a pretty professional forum with real facts and no nonesense advice, so would like to hear the views in my particular case:-
I'm replacing a very rough concrete driveway to my 1860 farm workers cottage and although I'd love to to lay real brick or old salvaged brick paviers my wife and I simply cannot afford this (our finances are tenuous to say the least after going bust nine years ago, house repossession, the lot), thus I have to lay the cheapest possible driveway and do all the work by hand including sledge hammering the existing concrete, however I want the work to be quality even though cheap in cost.
I have an old Ifor Williams 2.2 ton plant trailer which acts as a skip and a nearby council recycling centre for dumping all my rubble for free and for collecting bulk materials at the best rates.
Having read the info in pavingexpert.com on the various ways of laying driveways one thing stands out as being of ultimate importance, the need for a suitable sub-base, in fact the advice goes so far as to say that if someone says a new sub-base is not needed then show them the door! I believe that in my case with the type of sand/silt alluvial deposit in this area I actually don't need one, see http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/valeleaflet-web.pdf (my guess is approx 95% sand, 5% clay and organic matter).
The evidence for this comes from simply walking on the 'soil' after clearing tons of rubble, old bikes, tin cans etc. buried in the garden which as far as I can determine has not been cultivated for 30 years, and being forced to hire a mini digger to losen the rock hard 'soil' down to a depth of three feet. After the final levelling and initial compacting the soil became incredibly firm again unlike any top soil I've ever experieced. Further more, my house is resting on the typical Victorian 'pyramid' brick foundation with the bottom row of bricks at a mere two feet depth laid on top of the soil and after 150 years there has been no detectible subsidence.
Can I therefore get away with laying a new sub-base or will I be "shown the door".
Here are photos (if image download works) of part of the drive starting with heaps of loose soil, initial levelling by eye, firming by treading only, then driving car and trailer over to show how firm this base is.
I'm replacing a very rough concrete driveway to my 1860 farm workers cottage and although I'd love to to lay real brick or old salvaged brick paviers my wife and I simply cannot afford this (our finances are tenuous to say the least after going bust nine years ago, house repossession, the lot), thus I have to lay the cheapest possible driveway and do all the work by hand including sledge hammering the existing concrete, however I want the work to be quality even though cheap in cost.
I have an old Ifor Williams 2.2 ton plant trailer which acts as a skip and a nearby council recycling centre for dumping all my rubble for free and for collecting bulk materials at the best rates.
Having read the info in pavingexpert.com on the various ways of laying driveways one thing stands out as being of ultimate importance, the need for a suitable sub-base, in fact the advice goes so far as to say that if someone says a new sub-base is not needed then show them the door! I believe that in my case with the type of sand/silt alluvial deposit in this area I actually don't need one, see http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/valeleaflet-web.pdf (my guess is approx 95% sand, 5% clay and organic matter).
The evidence for this comes from simply walking on the 'soil' after clearing tons of rubble, old bikes, tin cans etc. buried in the garden which as far as I can determine has not been cultivated for 30 years, and being forced to hire a mini digger to losen the rock hard 'soil' down to a depth of three feet. After the final levelling and initial compacting the soil became incredibly firm again unlike any top soil I've ever experieced. Further more, my house is resting on the typical Victorian 'pyramid' brick foundation with the bottom row of bricks at a mere two feet depth laid on top of the soil and after 150 years there has been no detectible subsidence.
Can I therefore get away with laying a new sub-base or will I be "shown the door".
Here are photos (if image download works) of part of the drive starting with heaps of loose soil, initial levelling by eye, firming by treading only, then driving car and trailer over to show how firm this base is.