Good Practice Guide
SEARCH
SITEMAP ACCESSIBILITY

Use of Foamed Concretes for Reinstatements

Date Submitted:

Question:

Clarification as to the use of Foamed Concretes for Reinstatements 
Read Answer


Use of Flowable Mastic Asphalt under the SROH

Date Submitted:

Question:

We have been using Ironguard (a proprietary flowable mastic asphalt) very successfully in several Highway Authority areas to reinstate around ironwork in the carriageway, especially on S81 work.  The product is HAPAS approved, and in our views is permitted under the SROH.  We have one Highway Authority who has said the product cannot be used under the SROH.  We understand the same Highway Authority permits its own contractor to use the product in their area.  


It would be appreciated if your group could review this and confirm that this product can be used in the carriageway to reinstate around ironworks. 

Read Answer


Use of flowable concrete for binder course around access covers & frames

Date Submitted: June 2014

Question:

Our supplier of frames and covers are advising us to use a flowable concrete binder course which is HAPAS approved up to 60mm from the road surface and acceptable under the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges HA104/09. On top of this the matching surface course to the existing road can be used.

 

We wish to follow this specification however some Highway Authorities are claiming this is unacceptable under the SROH and 100mm of flexible surface course & binder course is required. I understand that under S11.5.1.5 bedding material, including C32/40 strength concrete can fill the excavation to within 100mm of the road surface but the flowable concrete we are using is not “bedding material”.

 

Attached to this email are the data sheets for the material we are wishing to use and would be grateful if the SROH Working Group can clarify if material is acceptable (Ultracrete QC10) bearing in mind the quote from S11.5.1 “Works undertaken to apparatus shall be to the standard and specification of the owner of the apparatus”.

Read Answer


End Product Testing of Unbound Materials

Date Submitted: November 2013

Question:

A Highway Authority has issued an Undertaker with a number of Defect Notices, stating non-compliance in respect of compaction of unbound materials. The HA contends that the unbound material is insufficiently compacted on the basis of results from Panda Penetrometer compaction testing results, carried out following core extraction. In part, the HA is quoting recent field-based trials/research which used the same Panda Penetrometer testing to check CBR measurements, and thereby classified the unbound layers as achieving CBRs of 30% as the pass or fail threshold.

Does the current SROH 3rd Edition support retrospective end-product testing of unbound materials as determining compliance?

Read Answer


Enforcement of different Editions of the SROH Code of Practice

Date Submitted: October 2012

Question:

If a utility worked at a time that the SROH 1st Edition was in force, when Air Voids were not part of the specification, then if a HA subsequently chooses to core this reinstatement, can they legitimately fail the reinstatement for air void specification outlined in SROH 2nd Edition?

Read Answer


S10.2.3 Bituminous Materials – Rounding of Air Voids Test Results

Date Submitted: July 2012

Question:

In respect of the testing for Air Voids, the SROH CoP (2nd Edition) stated under S10.2.3(2):  “The overall accuracy of this test measurement is deemed to be ±0.5%”

Under the SROH CoP (3rd Edition), this statement was omitted and this has led to some Highway Authorities issuing air void failures for any result above the whole number in Table S10.1.

Testing results measured to ±0.5% is in line with normal Laboratory procedures against a Specification Limit set out in whole numbers – Tables S10.1 under respective 2nd and 3rd editions specify Air Voids limits as whole numbers.

Will the Working Party confirm whether the ±0.5% accuracy is applicable under the SROH CoP (3rd Edition).
Read Answer


S11.5 Access Covers, Frames and Surrounds

Date Submitted:

Question:

Can it be confirmed that the requirements of Section 11.5 Access Covers, Frames and Surround are only applicable to access covers greater that 600 mm dimension?  A number of Highway Authorities contend that it also applies to small covers, such as stop-cock boxes, hydrants and the like.
Read Answer


S12.1.2 - Remedial Works

Date Submitted: December 2011

Question:

Why is S12.1.2 in the SROH? If the reinstatement is failing on performance/tolerance levels a HA uses the SROH to Defect.  So when would S12.1.2 be looked at?
Read Answer


Minimum thickness of concrete surfacing in a rigid footway

Date Submitted: 8 October 2010

Question:

A query has been received by the SROH Working Party in respect of the minimum thickness of concrete surfacing in a rigid footway.  In the 3rd Edition, Section S8.3.5 and Appendix A7.2 both prescribe ‘match existing’, whilst Table A2.3 requires a minimum (single) lift thickness of 100mm.  Which prevails, in instances where the existing thickness is less than 100mm?
Read Answer


Minimum thickness of concrete surfacing in a rigid footway

Date Submitted: 8 October 2010

Question:

A query has been received by the SROH Working Party in respect of the minimum thickness of concrete surfacing in a rigid footway.  In the 3rd Edition, Section S8.3.5 and Appendix A7.2 both prescribe ‘match existing’, whilst Table A2.3 requires a minimum (single) lift thickness of 100mm.  Which prevails, in instances where the existing thickness is less than 100mm?
Read Answer


Code of Practice - Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways (Third Edition, 2010)

Date Submitted: August 13th 2010

Question:

Error regarding testing procedure outlined in the 3rd edition of SROH Code of Practice
Read Answer


© Copyright Highways Authorities & Utilities Committee
Cookie Policy