| Below
are some pictures of utility company defects submitted to
the site. The defects are in some cases a danger to road
users and have been there for a considerable time. The cost
of repairs to such defects found every day can lead to
hundreds of thousands of pounds being wasted unnecessarily.
These cost have to be passed onto others by way of increased
fuel charges to customers or, increased community charges to
the public where the cost of repairs cannot be recovered
from those responsible. This means that even those who
undertake the work are paying for their own poor quality of
workmanship. The quality of materials used, suitable
compaction equipment and a bit of time makes all the
difference and can save money. Supervisors and Operatives
holding the relevant qualifications have after all been
deemed competent to carry out the works.
 A good point to remember is,
over banding is not a substitute for edge sealing and
re-compacting the road base between interim and permanent
repair is good practice.
This latest
picture is in need of your comments. Click
here to give your views, please add the word 'defect' as
the subject.
|
|
 |
Recently submitted
photographs taken in the Coventry area show a series of
defects with the signing and guarding of the site.
Some where dangerous, in particular the provision of
temporary traffic lights where the permanent ones are still
in operation. An on-site risk assessment prior to
works commencing would have avoided this. Accidents do not
happen, they are caused.
The direction arrow does
not comply with TSRGD 2002
As above this sign does not
comply with TSRGD 2002. The sign behind this one shows
'Road Narrows' from the right. |
 |
Edges not
trimmed correctly has caused the existing surfacing to break
away. Compounded by inadequate compaction into the
corners at road base level. |
 |
Edge trip of
over 10mm along 100mm length caused by inadequate compaction
of material laid that has been laid too cold. There is
also little evidence of edge sealant. |
 |
The
reinstatement should have been trimmed back at the surfacing
to eliminate the narrow road surface strip as it is less
than 250mm. |
|
|
 |
This
reinstatement should have been trimmed back at surfacing to
the highway ironwork as it is less than 250mm |
|
|
 |
Road works
signing has been left where no works are taking place, this
would constitute a criminal offence and also be classed as
an unnecessary obstruction in the highway under the Highways
Act. |
|
|
 |
This defect
could have been avoided by ensuring that edge sealant was
used and the proper technique of compacting the material
used. |
|
|
 |
The wearing
course layer thickness was found to be between 15 and 25mm,
base course had not been laid at all. Materials used have
been laid and compacted too cold for a hot lay material,
this has lead to the material not being compacted properly.
Operatives/Supervisors should check the material temperature
on-site to ensure that it can be laid and compacted
properly. There was also no evidence of edge sealant being
used. |
|
|
 |
Poor compaction
of sub-base and roadbase material has lead to the surfacing
material sinking and cracking. The double yellow lines have
not been replaced. The adjacent road is also showing signs
of subsidence.
Note the damp patch retained
due to cracking of the adjacent surface. |
|
|
 |
After only 7
months of permanent reinstatement there are signs of
structural failure. This is also causing the existing road
to subside. Edge sealant was also not evident. |
|
|
 |
Edge sealant is
not evident and the adjacent road surface is beginning to
fail. This is caused by undercutting during excavation. |
Perhaps you have a good
picture that you would like to see on this site, send it
with a description. Click
here |
