Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Heave ho, ho, ho

Letters

I write having had some amusement reading my wife's copy of NCE this week, in particular the article Undetected sulphates blamed for A10 heave (News last week).

As an agronomist who walked those soils for many years, I probably like many others was fully aware of the variable nature and high sulphate content where the Wadesmill bypass was routed.

It seems that site investigations miss a simple enhancement, namely surveying the previous users of soils for their intimate historic knowledge.

In the Wadesmill case it would probably have shown a dichotomy between that historic knowledge and the results of the first site investigation. That dichotomy may have suggested that further investigation was worthwhile and so avoid the subsequent problems.

Alan Rix, alan@rix1. demon.co.uk

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.