Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/760

Rh A comparison of the pressure exerted on an ordinary foundation by the walls of the several thicknesses and heights provided for by the London Building Act of 1894, and a comparison of a few of the principal authorities, will be found useful in helping us to arrive at a decision as to

what can safely be allowed. Take as an example a wall of the warehouse class, 70 ft. high, whose section at the base for a height of 27 ft. is 2 bricks thick (or 22 in.), and for the same distance in height again is 2 bricks thick (or 18 in.), the remainder to the top being 1 bricks thick (or 14 in.). The weight of brickwork per foot run of such a wall is 4.05 tons on any area of 3.75 ft. super. of brickwork. According to the act the concrete is to project 4 in. on each side; we have then an additional area of .66 ft. super. to add, thus making the total foundation area of each foot run of wall 4.41 ft. super. to take a weight of 4.05 tons or nearly a ton per foot super. (viz. .9 ton.)

Another factor must, however, be taken into consideration, viz. the weight distributed from the loaded floor and from the roof. In this case there would be at least six floors, and the entire weight could hardly be taken at less than 6 tons, which would give a total weight of 10.05 tons on an area of 4.41 ft. super. or a load of 2.28 tons per foot super. This is on the assumption that no extra weight has been thrown on the foundations by openings or piers, or by girders, &c., in which case, in addition to the work being executed in cement, the foundations should be increased in area. Piers always involve a great increase of weight on the foundations, and in very many instances this increased weight, instead of being provided for by increasing the area of the foundations and so reducing the weight per foot super., is only partly met by the improper method of merely increasing the depth of the concrete, while keeping the same projection of concrete round the footings as for the walls. As an example take an iron column to carry a safe load of 80 tons, standing on a York stone template, and in turn supported by a brick pier 22 in. square. In this case we should have, after allowing for the projection of concrete on either side, an area of 4 ft. 5 in. square, or 19.6 ft. super., and this would give a pressure of 4.1 tons per foot on the foundations, or almost twice as much as in the previous example of a warehouse wall. Here, instead of increasing the depth of the concrete, it would be necessary to increase its width; if it were made 6 ft. square, we should have an area of 36 ft. super. to take the 80 tons, and thus the pressure would only be 2.2 tons per foot, and the cost of the foundation be much the same.

If we compare a section of wall of the dwelling-house class, as prescribed by the London Building Act, we find that, taking a wall 50 ft. high and having a thickness at base of 22 in. as for the warehouse wall to which we have referred, we have a wall weighing 3.75 tons per foot super. on an area of 4.41 feet super., or .85 ton per foot without weight of floors and roof as against the .9 ton in the warehouse example. To this must be added the weight of, say, 5 floors and roof at a total of 3 tons per foot run of wall, and we then have an aggregate of 6.75 tons per foot run and 1.50 tons per foot super. as against 2.28 tons in the warehouse class.

If we turn from the act to text-books we find that Colonel Seddon in the Aide Memoir gives the load which ordinary foundations will bear as a safe load per foot super. as follows:

Most of the work in London may be classed under one of the latter heads, and according to this table we have, when we erect walls in accordance with the building act, to overload our foundations.

As to the possibility of spreading weights, we have as an example the chimney at Adkin’s Soap Works in Birmingham, 312 ft. high, so arranged that its pressure on the foundations is only 1 tons per foot super.; also the great St Rollox chimney at Glasgow, which has a pressure of 1 tons; the weight of the Eiffel Tower (7500 tons) is so spread over 4 bases, each 130 ft. square, that the pressure is only .117 ton, or 2$1⁄3$ cwt., per foot super. The Tower Bridge has a load of 16 tons per foot on the granite bed under the columns of towers, reduced by spreading to an actual pressure on the clay foundation of 4 tons. The piers under the Holborn Viaduct have a load of 2 tons only, those of the Imperial Institute 2 tons, and those of the destructor cells and chimney shaft at Great Yarmouth 4 tons 6 cwt. per foot super. From these various examples it would appear that on sound clay or gravel foundation a load of from 2 to 4 tons may be employed with safety.

One of the first and most important requirements in preparing drawings for a large building is to ascertain the nature of the subsoil and strata at different levels over the proposed site, so as to be able to arrange the footings accordingly at the various depths and to decide as to the various forms and

methods to be employed. For this purpose trial holes or borings are sunk until a suitable bed or bottom is found, upon which the concrete foundation may safely be put. If no such solid bottom is found, as often happens near the water side, special foundations must be employed, such as dock, gridiron, cantilever and pile foundations, &c., all of which will be described hereafter. As examples of the varying subsoils we may mention the following, in which will be noticed the great depths dug before getting through the made ground: At the Bank of England there were 22 ft. of made ground resting on 4 ft. of gravel. Some of the made ground was of ancient date, and preserved relics of Roman occupation. In some parts the subsoils have been excavated for ballast or gravel, as at Kensington, or for brick earth, as at Highbury, and the pits filled in with rubbish. Rock, which forms an excellent and unchanging foundation in one situation, may prove a dangerous foundation in another. Thus chalk forms a good limestone foundation in certain positions, but when it dips towards a slope or a cliff with an outcrop of the gault or underlying clay, it is a very unsuitable foundation for any building, as the landslips in the Isle of Wight and on the Dorsetshire coast bear witness. A boring made in Tallis Street, near the Thames embankment, showed: (1) 18 in. ballast, dirty; (2) 6 in. greensand, wet and dirty; (3) 2 ft. peat clay; (4) 6 in. greensand; (5) 5 ft. peaty bog; (6) 9 ft. running sand; and (7) 4 ft. clean ballast, resting at a depth of 23 ft. below the ground line upon blue clay. A boring at Highbury New Park gave: (1) 2 ft. made ground, (2) 18 ft. loam, (3) 9 ft. sand, (4) 4 ft. peat, and (5) 8 ft. gravel and sand. These examples show that while trial holes should always be made before designing a foundation, to ascertain the nature of the subsoil, care must be taken not to calculate upon uniformity. Thus at the block 2 of the admiralty extension new buildings (London), one of the trial holes upon the south-west side of the old buildings showed the clay to be about 29 ft. below the surface of the ground, while actual excavation proved the dip of the clay to be such that in the execution of the new building it became necessary to underpin the north-west corner of the old building at the deepest part 42 ft. below the ground. The foundations of block 1 of the new admiralty buildings are placed in a dock, built upon the London clay at a depth of 30 ft. in solid concrete 6 ft. thick. At the Hotel Victoria, in Northumberland Avenue (London), the various subsoils are as follows: (1) 38 ft. made ground clay and gravel mixed, (2) 4 ft. gravel and sand, (3) 6 ft. rising sand; (4) 2 ft. fine ballast, and at a depth of 50 ft. blue clay. At the south end the clay was 43 ft. down and at the north end 37 ft. The front wall was constructed on a concrete bed 9 ft. wide. The site was surrounded by a similar wall of concrete about 6 ft. wide, forming a species of boxes, and the whole was covered with a depth of 6 ft. of concrete upon which the walls were raised. The foundation for 53 Parliament Street, where running sand was encountered, was constructed with short piles, 7 or 8 ft. long and 6 in. diam., pointed and placed as close together as possible over the whole foundation, the tops were then sawn off level, and a concrete raft, 7 or 8 ft. thick, was built over the whole area. At the Institution of Civil Engineers, Great George Street, Westminster, the foundations to the two party walls upon each side of the building were carried down about 22 ft. below the pavement level, that on the west side being 22 ft. deep and that on the east side 24 ft.

The London Building Act and the model by-laws prohibit the erection of buildings on sites that have been used as “shoots” for faecal matter or vegetable refuse, and in such cases the objectionable material must be removed prior to the commencement of building operations, and the holes

from which it was taken filled up with dry brick or other rubbish well rammed. Foundations are usually executed by excavators or navvies, and the tools and implements used are boning rods, level pegs, lines, spirit level, pickaxe, various shovels, wheel-barrow, rammer or punner, &c. In digging the ordinary trenches and