Foul pipe through foundation

[showtime247]

I have 2 foul plastic pipes cutting through my foundations, which I have shuttered either side by 100mm to full depth of trench.

So effectively I now have a 300mm wide full depth cutting within the foundation run in 2 places.

Question:
Is this correct or should I be still pouring concrete underneath the pipes to say 100mm below pipework so that the concrete is continuous all be it a different depth

 

[^woody^]

The foundation should be continuous

 

[SpecialK]

Guess it depends on the person from building control. Mine wanted them shuttering off as above. Didn't seem right, but I didn't argue...

Make sure your shuttering had supports in the middle - Or fill it with shingle? It will have lots of pressure on it when the concrete is poured!

 

[^woody^]

Building control wont be there after a few years if one side of the foundation moves. Don't ever think that building control are there to mange quality or what standards should be followed. They only check a very basic level of compliance to a certain set of criteria.

 

[SpecialK]

Would you build a box around the pipe and pour the foundation?

When my parents one was done they just poured the footing with the pipe in there!

 

[Dereekoo]

Building control wont be there after a few years if one side of the foundation moves. Don't ever think that building control are there to mange quality or what standards should be followed. They only check a very basic level of compliance to a certain set of criteria.

Taking things to the extreme if you had a building supported on columns with pad foundations would you be expecting the columns to be settling differently (no?) therefore why would you expect foundations within 300mm of each other to settle by differing amounts. (unless one side was running sand and the other side rock)

 

[^woody^]

Taking things to the extreme if you had a building supported on columns with pad foundations would you be expecting the columns to be settling differently (no?) therefore why would you expect foundations within 300mm of each other to settle by differing amounts. (unless one side was running sand and the other side rock)

Taking it less extreme, if you had a raft, and you built it in two sections would you be expecting them to both move in synchrony?

Therefore why would you expect foundations within 300mm of each other not to settle by differing amounts.

Or even, if there is cause for one of those independent strips to not resist some ground movement in later years (as opposed to the initial settlement you refer to) whereby a continuous strip would resist?

Here's a concept, just do it right.

 

[Dereekoo]

Taking it less extreme, if you had a raft, and you built it in two sections would you be expecting them to both move in synchrony?

Yes if the water was frozen stiff and not going anywhere (a bit like normal ground i.e not frozen but not going anywhere)

Here's a concept, just do it right.

Woody's I am always right concept ? Obviously BC have a different concept of right but then they are a law unto themselves

 

[^woody^]

Obviously BC have a different concept of right but then they are a law unto themselves

It's not that "they are a law unto themselves" but that the law gives them limited remit and they have specific obligations and restrictions.

They are not there to look after the homeowner, just to make sure that certain work meets certain very basic standards. The OP could be left with a pair of mole grips to turn on the hot and cold taps, no working heating and a candle for the lights and it would pass building control.

As for who's right. Well, foundations have been built continuous for centuries, so I would say that it is more right than wrong. Nothing to do with me.

 

[Dereekoo]

so I would say that it is more right than wrong.

So we agree its a right way to do it but not wrong if you choose not to do so (or instructed not to do so)