Ensuring the long‐term effectiveness of partial underpins

Abstract

Consulting engineers have, in the recent past, had to investigate numerous claims for subsidence damage to residential buildings on behalf of insurance companies and/or their loss adjusters. In most cases, they have had to repudiate the claim, institute a monitoring programme, specify minor repairs, or recommend that the afflicted property be underpinned. Factors often taken into account in arriving at any one of the above decisions include: the history of the foundation movement; the causative agent(s); the severity of the damage, and the likelihood of progressive movement. When underpinning is recommended, the engineer often has to specify whether underpinning of the whole property is required or whether partial underpinning (i.e. restricting the underpin to only a part – usually the damaged part – of the property) would suffice. Partial underpins also automatically result when a semidetached, a mid‐terraced or an endterraced property is underpinned. Addresses the long‐term effectiveness of partial underpins. Reviews the circumstances that may favour a partial underpin and, using previous case histories, develops guidelines for ensuring the appropriate recommendation of partial underpins as a long‐term solution to subsidence problems.

Citation

Anumba, C. and Rafiq, M. (1995), "Ensuring the long‐term effectiveness of partial underpins", Structural Survey, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/02630809510104876