I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality. It will probably only be grassed over and
possibly used as paddock

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what is a
reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

AWEM

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:31:43 +0100, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:

I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality. It will probably only be grassed over and
possibly used as paddock

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what is a
reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

AWEM

I've had rubble 1.3M deep, consisting mainly of full bricks, covered
with 4 inches of soil and grassed for 4 years. None of the bricks have
shown any signs of floating or moving in any way. What sort of time
scale have you got in mind for this upsurge?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

Andrew Mawson wrote:
I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality. It will probably only be grassed over and
possibly used as paddock

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what is a
reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

AWEM


If you work the land all stone brick etc would seem to work their way
up. If however you simply put topsoil on then seed it I don't see why
it should.

Mike Halmarack wrote:
I've had rubble 1.3M deep, consisting mainly of full bricks, covered
with 4 inches of soil and grassed for 4 years. None of the bricks have
shown any signs of floating or moving in any way. What sort of time
scale have you got in mind for this upsurge?

I'd expect the topsoil to infill the cavities in the rubble,
time dependant on the type of soil, and if it's only 4" to
eventually disappear completely in a downward direction.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:20:34 +0100, Chris Bacon
wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:
I've had rubble 1.3M deep, consisting mainly of full bricks, covered
with 4 inches of soil and grassed for 4 years. None of the bricks have
shown any signs of floating or moving in any way. What sort of time
scale have you got in mind for this upsurge?

I'd expect the topsoil to infill the cavities in the rubble,
time dependant on the type of soil, and if it's only 4" to
eventually disappear completely in a downward direction.

Not unlike myself, if I get my traditionalist leanings pandered to.
Sorry for not mentioning the gravel.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:30:08 +0100, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:20:34 +0100, Chris Bacon
wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:
I've had rubble 1.3M deep, consisting mainly of full bricks, covered
with 4 inches of soil and grassed for 4 years. None of the bricks have
shown any signs of floating or moving in any way. What sort of time
scale have you got in mind for this upsurge?

I'd expect the topsoil to infill the cavities in the rubble,
time dependant on the type of soil, and if it's only 4" to
eventually disappear completely in a downward direction.

Not unlike myself, if I get my traditionalist leanings pandered to.
Sorry for not mentioning the gravel.
When I said "Not unlike myself", I wasn't referring to the "only 4""
bit, by the way.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

"Mike Halmarack" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:31:43 +0100, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:

I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality. It will probably only be grassed over and
possibly used as paddock

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below
through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what
is a
reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

AWEM

I've had rubble 1.3M deep, consisting mainly of full bricks, covered
with 4 inches of soil and grassed for 4 years. None of the bricks
have
shown any signs of floating or moving in any way. What sort of time
scale have you got in mind for this upsurge?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

As far as I can tell without excavating it is up to 3 metres deep in
places. It's my doom and gloom brother in law who is predicting the
floating bricks, though in fairness he has been working in some sort
of major works capacity for a local council for years so perhaps
speaks from experience. Mind you his solution was to cover it in 'no
fines' concrete ie cement and 20mm agregate without sand - then cover
in soil. I don't fancy 1/3rd acre of concreting personally G

AWEM

Broadback wrote:
Andrew Mawson wrote:
I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality. It will probably only be grassed over and
possibly used as paddock

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what is
a reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

AWEM


If you work the land all stone brick etc would seem to work their way
up. If however you simply put topsoil on then seed it I don't see why
it should.

Whatever is in the ground stays in the, unless dug up.

Grass will grow over a demolished brick area in time and completely cover
it in 20 years...summat to do with the wind carrying seedlings or grass
particals. ;-)

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:40:33 +0100, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:31:43 +0100, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:

I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality. It will probably only be grassed over and
possibly used as paddock

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below
through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what
is a
reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

AWEM

I've had rubble 1.3M deep, consisting mainly of full bricks, covered
with 4 inches of soil and grassed for 4 years. None of the bricks
have
shown any signs of floating or moving in any way. What sort of time
scale have you got in mind for this upsurge?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

As far as I can tell without excavating it is up to 3 metres deep in
places. It's my doom and gloom brother in law who is predicting the
floating bricks, though in fairness he has been working in some sort
of major works capacity for a local council for years so perhaps
speaks from experience. Mind you his solution was to cover it in 'no
fines' concrete ie cement and 20mm agregate without sand - then cover
in soil. I don't fancy 1/3rd acre of concreting personally G

AWEM

Are you there for the long term? You'll be one of the few these days
if you are. I know people talk about posterity and all that kind of
stuff but as it looks like I'm leaving a poisonous blood soaked cinder
to my progeny anyway, I really wouldn't want to draw too much
attention to the superficial details. ;-)
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

Andrew Mawson wrote:
I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality. It will probably only be grassed over and
possibly used as paddock

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what is a
reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

AWEM


They don't. I buried most of the foundations from my old house down the
bottom of the garden. I put about 3" of topsoil over. Its fine.

If its a bit rough, it may be cheaper to lay some limestone and sand
first...and ease up on the soil. Ive got limestone covered in no soil at
all out the front where the cars keep pulling onto the verge..its
greening up anyway.

Chris Bacon wrote:
Mike Halmarack wrote:
I've had rubble 1.3M deep, consisting mainly of full bricks, covered
with 4 inches of soil and grassed for 4 years. None of the bricks have
shown any signs of floating or moving in any way. What sort of time
scale have you got in mind for this upsurge?

I'd expect the topsoil to infill the cavities in the rubble,
time dependant on the type of soil, and if it's only 4" to
eventually disappear completely in a downward direction.

Funnily enough this doesn't seem to happen - not at any great rate anyway.

A layer of sand first helps too.

In message , Andrew Mawson
writes
I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality. It will probably only be grassed over and
possibly used as paddock

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what is a
reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

The proper solution would be to lay a membrane before spreading the
soil. Allows the water through but retains the soil.

I don't have a URL but they are commonly used for horse *menage* areas.
We tend to find them used the other way i.e. to prevent hard surfacing
disappearing into the soil.

I guess 1/3 acre worth would be costly:-(

Google on terram.

Grass will grow on a concrete yard in a few mm of soil but will be very
drought prone. Assuming you are going to seed the end result, why not
speak to a seed merchant and explain your problem. He may be able to
recommend drought resistant varieties.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Andrew Mawson presented the following explanation :

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what is a
reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

No particular experience of this, however....

Rather than the bricks flaoting up, the soil will fall through between
the bricks to fill in the voids between. Only once those voids are
full, will the soil stay on top. Might be better to grade the infill
with course rubble layers, working down to the finer material, then
finally soil.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
Mike Halmarack wrote:
I've had rubble 1.3M deep, consisting mainly of full bricks, covered
with 4 inches of soil and grassed for 4 years. None of the bricks have
shown any signs of floating or moving in any way. What sort of time
scale have you got in mind for this upsurge?

I'd expect the topsoil to infill the cavities in the rubble,
time dependant on the type of soil, and if it's only 4" to
eventually disappear completely in a downward direction.

Funnily enough this doesn't seem to happen - not at any great rate anyway.

A layer of sand first helps too.

Good interstitial filler. Ask Cormaic.

Tim Lamb wrote:
Andrew Mawson writes
I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality.

The proper solution would be to lay a membrane before spreading the
soil. Allows the water through but retains the soil.

He could "blind" it... I don't fancy wackering 1/3 acre, though...

In message , Chris Bacon
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
Andrew Mawson writes
I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality.
The proper solution would be to lay a membrane before spreading the
soil. Allows the water through but retains the soil.

He could "blind" it... I don't fancy wackering 1/3 acre, though...

No:-)

It could probably be rolled (highway construction type) for less the
cost of laying membrane though.

I think a bigger problem will be finding/affording soil to put on top.
The cheap solution of further tipping may not be available. Site
licence, insurance, access, neighbour complaints, requirements of waste
authority, etc.

Subsoils from development may be ideal but getting consents a major
obstacle. A chat with local waste management officers might be
informative.

regards





--
Tim Lamb

Chris Bacon wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
Andrew Mawson writes
I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it to a
semblance of normality.

The proper solution would be to lay a membrane before spreading the
soil. Allows the water through but retains the soil.

He could "blind" it... I don't fancy wackering 1/3 acre, though...

Its not bad with a whacker..


Or if Gordon Brown hasn't forced to to scrap it, drive a 4x4 over it for
an hour or three.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Chris Bacon wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
Andrew Mawson writes
I may have to cover perhaps a 1/3 acre of builders rubble that a
previous owner has used to infill a small valley (amazingly with
planning permission it being greenbelt) with soil to return it
to a
semblance of normality.

The proper solution would be to lay a membrane before spreading
the
soil. Allows the water through but retains the soil.

He could "blind" it... I don't fancy wackering 1/3 acre, though...

Its not bad with a whacker..


Or if Gordon Brown hasn't forced to to scrap it, drive a 4x4 over it
for
an hour or three.

Blind it with clay and puddle the clay with a flock of sheep was one
suggestion! Fortunately the backfilling is all legal and above board,
with the local planners happy for me to re-landscape with topsoil to
loose an eyesore in a Greenbelt 'area of outstanding beauty'. I'm
hoping to steal topsoil from the rest of the 7.5 acres having first
done a few test pits to check depth. All a good excuse to buy a JCB !

AWEM

The message
from "Andrew Mawson" contains
these words:

All a good excuse to buy a JCB !

Oh, well, if you're going to buy a JCB to do it you can run that back
and forth for an afternoon to compact what's there.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Guy King wrote:
The message
from "Andrew Mawson" contains
these words:

All a good excuse to buy a JCB !

Oh, well, if you're going to buy a JCB to do it you can run that back
and forth for an afternoon to compact what's there.

Yup. Does a far better job than a whacker...especially on limestone.

In message , Andrew Mawson
writes

Blind it with clay and puddle the clay with a flock of sheep was one
suggestion!

Well drained ground. Should suit outdoor pigs:-)

Fortunately the backfilling is all legal and above board,
with the local planners happy for me to re-landscape with topsoil to
loose an eyesore in a Greenbelt 'area of outstanding beauty'.

Will they let you import soils though.

I'm
hoping to steal topsoil from the rest of the 7.5 acres having first
done a few test pits to check depth. All a good excuse to buy a JCB !

There will be a greater depth of soil at the bottom of the slope,
particularly if it has ever had an arable use.

As the owner of an ancient JCB I still hire in a skilled contractor for
tricky work.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not bad with a whacker..

It's a "wacker", actually. A vibrating plate compactor. Best for
thin layers.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Andrew Mawson presented the following explanation :

People are telling me that bricks will 'float' up from below through
the soil - has anyone any experience of this phenomenon, and what is a
reasonable depth of top soil to aim for?

No particular experience of this, however....

Rather than the bricks flaoting up, the soil will fall through between
the bricks to fill in the voids between. Only once those voids are
full, will the soil stay on top. Might be better to grade the infill
with course rubble layers, working down to the finer material, then
finally soil.

Yes. I would only worry about brick floating if its prone to flooding.

I'd also include as much organic junk as poss with your soil to get
worms/plants/etc started. I had a barren area of land, just added
plenty of hedge clippings, weeds, paper and food waste, and it was soon
teeming with worms and richly fertile. The new plants did well.


NT

Chris Bacon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not bad with a whacker..

It's a "wacker", actually. A vibrating plate compactor. Best for
thin layers.

I know WHAT it is...Just forgot the brand name was spelt differently
from the 'action'

The message
from Chris Bacon contains these words:

It's a "wacker", actually. A vibrating plate compactor. Best for
thin layers.

Mine isn't. Mine's a generic Chinese machine, so uses the generic name
whacker.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.