demoncleaner
2017-07-12 08:19:14
- #1
Our house has been completely renovated. In the process, some things did not go at all as they should have. I am probably not the only one to whom something like this has happened. Now, I am particularly interested in one thing, as material costs were incurred here, which I consider much too high.
A drainage system has been installed along the 14m long front side of the house. It is about 1m deep and 50cm wide. The foundation was insulated with special paint, a plastic layer was placed in front of it, and the trench was filled with gravel. Of course, there is a pipe with a filter at the bottom, about 120mm in diameter. So far, so good. We also have a second drainage at the back of the house near the garage. However, the property slopes slightly, so I wonder whether a drainage system even makes sense here, since the water basically flows away from the house or garage into the garden anyway. The drainage is so to speak "in the shadow" of the house, running parallel to the slope along the garage wall. However, here the pipe is already at a depth of about 80cm in a 50cm deep gravel bed, and the rest is simply filled back up with soil. I consider this unfavorable and do not understand why it was not filled completely with gravel as in the front. The soil is also not compacted or anything. From my understanding, if grass does not grow quickly on top, we will have a little mud flow by the house during the next heavy rain.
Now to the actual question. In both cases, the pipe obviously leads away from the house. This adds about another 10m in length. This section is also filled with gravel and the top approximately 40cm is simply covered again with soil. Does this make sense? I assumed that the gravel is primarily intended to allow water, which comes from the roof, etc., that lands directly at the masonry to percolate, reach the pipe, and that the pipe then leads away from the house. To have a filled-in shaft with gravel right in the middle of the garden... I don’t know. It is not supposed to infiltrate anything there anymore in the garden. Am I seeing this incorrectly? This is mainly about material costs. Because we incurred quite high costs for the gravel, and the price and volume actually do not add up at all. (Not to mention the labor costs). 14 man-days for about 40m of excavation, preparation and closure.
In addition, it apparently has to rain quite heavily before anything even comes out of the pipes at the back. I get the feeling that the drainage system(s) are not particularly efficient to top it all off. So far, they remain bone dry.
It would be great if someone knows about this and could give me some information.
A drainage system has been installed along the 14m long front side of the house. It is about 1m deep and 50cm wide. The foundation was insulated with special paint, a plastic layer was placed in front of it, and the trench was filled with gravel. Of course, there is a pipe with a filter at the bottom, about 120mm in diameter. So far, so good. We also have a second drainage at the back of the house near the garage. However, the property slopes slightly, so I wonder whether a drainage system even makes sense here, since the water basically flows away from the house or garage into the garden anyway. The drainage is so to speak "in the shadow" of the house, running parallel to the slope along the garage wall. However, here the pipe is already at a depth of about 80cm in a 50cm deep gravel bed, and the rest is simply filled back up with soil. I consider this unfavorable and do not understand why it was not filled completely with gravel as in the front. The soil is also not compacted or anything. From my understanding, if grass does not grow quickly on top, we will have a little mud flow by the house during the next heavy rain.
Now to the actual question. In both cases, the pipe obviously leads away from the house. This adds about another 10m in length. This section is also filled with gravel and the top approximately 40cm is simply covered again with soil. Does this make sense? I assumed that the gravel is primarily intended to allow water, which comes from the roof, etc., that lands directly at the masonry to percolate, reach the pipe, and that the pipe then leads away from the house. To have a filled-in shaft with gravel right in the middle of the garden... I don’t know. It is not supposed to infiltrate anything there anymore in the garden. Am I seeing this incorrectly? This is mainly about material costs. Because we incurred quite high costs for the gravel, and the price and volume actually do not add up at all. (Not to mention the labor costs). 14 man-days for about 40m of excavation, preparation and closure.
In addition, it apparently has to rain quite heavily before anything even comes out of the pipes at the back. I get the feeling that the drainage system(s) are not particularly efficient to top it all off. So far, they remain bone dry.
It would be great if someone knows about this and could give me some information.