BSA

[rowingengineer]

The latest insurance policy (July 2010) of the BSA has been released with a major change to the way they handle filling in regards to subdivisions- “if the proposed footing is supported on filling and the engineer’s design does not include piers through the filling, irrespective of whether or not the filling is part of the building contract or Level 1 compaction certificates are available, the engineer has documented requirements for further testing of or improvements to the filling such that piers are not required, or the engineer has provided written advice of the reason why the engineer has determined that piers are not required.”

I am wondering if anyone has any ideas on how to handle “the engineer has documented requirements for further testing of or improvements to the filling such that piers are not required”?
The real answer I believe is that you dig down and retest at each layer, but this option will cause more damage than good I believe.

Anyone else got any idea’s on this issue?


An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field

 

[hokie66]

For those not aware, this is a Queensland issue. There have been a lot of cases of settlement of houses on fill which was supposed to have been placed as controlled fill, and the QBSA had to reluctantly assume responsibility for repairs. I think they are trying to make building on filled sites impractical without deep foundations, which may not be a bad thing. It is certainly a bad thing to have to get involved with the QBSA.

The document which RE quoted is attached.

http://www.bsa.qld.gov.au/SiteColle...ets/Rectification Of Building Work Policy.pdf