Check this out … The blue pipe is a 6″ storm drain that collects roof runoff (from the left) and delivers it to the city storm system. The civil dwgs show to run it to an existing manhole about 30-40 feet in the background. The did not find the manhole ( civil dwgs said “existing MH under existing asphalt) when they were prepping the site, but they did find this +/- 15” concrete pipe right in their path … pure luck.
When i arrived at the site today I found the first condition: new pipe stuck into the old one, propped up with bricks. They happened to be pouring some footers and the plbg sub told the concrete driver that he would take any leftover concrete. So they dumped 1/4 yard on top of the “joint” while I was there.
I asked the gc super later if they had called the city for an inspection, and he said they called and were told that no inspection was necessary for tying into the storm drain. Yeah, but I bet the inspector didn’t know how they were going to do it.
I sent a picture to my architect and civil engr and asked for advice. Should be an interesting response.
“Put your creed in your deed.” Emerson
“When asked if you can do something, tell’em “Why certainly I can”, then get busy and find a way to do it.” T. Roosevelt
Replies
Hey, that looks like something that I would do?
Cement, by itself, I don't think is bad. Wasn't it used to join bell and spigot clay pipe?
But I wonder if anyone varified that the 15" pipe was storm sewer. Strange there was just an open pipe there.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Yeah, using concrete to seal storm connections isn't unusual. But one wonders how they can be sure that's an active storm drain, and not a dead-end, connection to sanitary sewer, or maybe (joy of joys) a vent for an underground electric vault or some such.
Second, did they use something to "caulk" the connection between the two pipes before pouring the concrete? Seems like the concrete could end up running into the large pipe for a fair distance, possibly creating a clog situation for the new pipe.
That's a shat job! if they centered the pipe and actually tried to form it into a union it may have been ok. Looks like they just dumped it on top and let it be. As the earth moves that crap job is going to leak and dirt will end up consistently entering the system.
Edited 3/20/2007 9:12 pm ET by AllTrade
Move??????????????
That's why they poured the thrust block.
"civil drawings show to run it to an existing manhole about 30 - 40 ft in the background..." " Civil drawings said existing manhole under asphalt.."
IMHO, you must be a draftsman, cause you place too much faith in those civil drawings.
My past experiences with City/County PSD maps and drawings have led me to the assumption that very few ( if any) are ever very accurate. I have found lines in the ground that were never depicted in the drawings, and I have found pipes that were depicted, but not at the described elevation or at the described place. There is a reason why Utility companies in most states require a contractor to call first before digging; so as they (Utility company) can come out and verify if their underground lines are in the way.Sure, Utilities have drawings, City/County Engineers have drawings, but in the end, all these groups rely on people with tracking equipment to "verify" drawings, before any major digging is done...why?...because they too, realize mistakes can be made and that the maps are more of a "ballpark" guess, than actual science.
Although to you, the pipe "joint" may look crude, it most likely will work just fine; especially if the end of the 6inch dia pipe is sunk into the larger pipe by 2 ft or more. As long as this old pipe is actually still in use as a functioning storm sewer lateral, there should be no problem. Pipe looks deep enough, concrete probably was jammed into the old pipe along with the bricks that were noticeably jammed to keep the 6inch plastic SDR pipe from pulling out, and with the backfill on top; coupled by the fact this line is only servicing run-off water and will not be under tremendous flow pressure, this hook-up will work.
Things don't always have to look pretty to be functional.
Davo
No I'm not a draftsperson (gots to be p.c. around here) and I have no faith at all in the drawings. That note on the drawings was, to me, clearly a signal that the civil engr who drew the plans had no idea if the manhole existed, and he was pushing that detail off on the contractor. Like "field verify' and "as needed" and other similar notes on drawings."Put your creed in your deed." Emerson
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
After-action report: sent pictures to the archy and the site engineer, they decided that it is ok since it is a storm drain connection."Put your creed in your deed." Emerson
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
IMO..
Bogus work.
CYA if you are at all involved.
That will be dug up in the future when the ground above it falls into the sink hole that is bound to develop.
Tieing into a pipe without knowing what is does, where it goes, etc. is the biggest issue here in my opinion. On the joint, it will probably work but certainly not the most professional job. Some form of donut or something to take up the annular space prior to pouring the concrete over it would have been an improvement.