<
As you read this report, you will notice blatant discrepancies.
The first two paragraphs state general information about the house, the date and time of visit. The third paragraph begins:
The following items were reviewed by DCEI on December 8th and are summarized accordingly:
Basement Floor Slab
In the time between DCEI's site visits, potentially the most visible change at the subject residence appeared to have occurred within the basement floor slab. While heaving of the floor slab was visible in September , the concrete slab-on-grade noticeably heaved further upward since that time. This vertical displacement was especially noticeable around the concrete isolation rings under the steel post columns, particularly toward the west side of the basement at the rings marked with paint as #1 and #2.
A vertical displacement of 1 ¼” between the top of slab and top of concrete ring was measured at ring #1. A vertical displacement of 1 ½” was determined at ring #2. The vertical displacements between the floor slab and other rings in the basement were less. They ranged from ¼” and ½”, but this movement had occurred around all six (6) of the remaining rings.
At the east side of the residence, near the southeast corner, the floor slab had excessively heaved across the control joint. With the aid of a four (4) floor bubble level, it appeared the slab had heaved approximately 2 ½” near the south foundation wall.
The upward displacement of the floor also appeared to impact some of the rigid mechanical and plumbing lines that extended through the floor. Near its elbow transition from the vertical to the horizontal, a PVC waste line toward the west end of the house was found have been lifted about ¾” off of its hanger suspended from a nearby floor joist. The homeowner believed that the floor’s movement had also caused the PVC sump discharge line leading out of the sump pit to break loose from its attachment to the east foundation wall.
New fractures had formed and existing ones had elongated in the floor slab since September. In December, none of these fractures were found to be 1/8” in width, and most were 1/16” wide or less. These were consistent with any associated floor heave. Floor joists, steel beams, and sill plates
The main floor level was framed with engineered wood I-joists bearing on a system of steel beams and the perimeter foundation walls. The homeowner pointed out that several of the floor joists, particularly those bearing on the north foundation wall, east of the stair way, contained splits or separations in the bottom wood flanges. These splits were hairline in width and extended up to 12” from the joist ends. The splits were minor and were not detriments to the structural capabilities of the joists. Please note: Most splits have not elongated, but have widened.
Several of the joists appeared to have separated slightly from the wood bearing plates on top of the steel beams. These separations do not constitute a weakened structural condition. They are likely due to the natural shrinkage of the dimensional lumber plates on top of the steel beams. If desired, the joists may be re-nailed to the plates. Please note: Not one of the joists sits on the sill plate.
The homeowner believed the floor heaving condition had caused the steel beams to crown slightly above ( Please note: I said bend, not crown slightly) various columns. Some slight variations within the beams were noted, but these conditions can easily be remedied or corrected by adjusting the support columns. No long-term structural degradation of the beam has been caused by this existing condition.
The sill plate on which the joists were bearing above the north foundation was not completely flush with the foundation wall; it is essentially ‘overhung’ the inside face of the wall about ½”. However, no fracturing or other damages to the sill place were visible in December. The sill plate was affixed to the top of foundation wall with anchor bolts, and it was separated from the top of wall with a thin foal sill sealer. Portions of the sill sealer were visible inside the basement.
The homeowner believes that the overhanging sill plate and visible sill sealer were indicative that the house was actively ‘moving’. At the time of construction, the sill plate was affixed to the top of the foundation wall with anchor bolts on top of the blue sill sealer. Both sill plate and sealer were mostly likely overhung because the home’s exterior was finished with a brick veneer bearing on a brick ledge formed in the top of the foundation. As a result, BOTH ELEMENTS WERE MERELY MOVED OVER TO ACCOUNT FOR THE BRICK EDGE. ( Please note: This is not true. I would have asked for an explanation during the walk-through before closing if the insulation was hanging over.)
In the event extensive movement and displacement had occurred; the north foundation would have been heavily fractured. The anchor bolts would have caused the destruction of the sill plate due to the plate’s fixed connection with the anchor bolts. No such damages were noted by DCEI. From these observations, it appeared the residence had originally constructed in this manner.
Stairway and surrounding finished wall system
Inside the basement, the underside of the stair assembly leading up to the main floor level was visible. Minor fractures and checks were noted in the north side stair stringer. These were created when the stringer was cut to accommodate the appropriately sized treads and risers. The stair framing was also observed to exhibit a slight pitch or slope form the south to the north due to the floor heave. These various item were not extensive enough to have caused a loss of structural integrity within the stairway assembly.
As noted in DCEI’s September 22nd report, various fractures and deformations were visible in the painted gypsum wallboard at the bottom of the stairway leading into the basement. These damages had not yet been repaired. As noted in the earlier report, the damages were caused by the basemen floor slab heaving. The walls were non bearing elements, and they were constructed on top of the basement slab. However, the wall framing was not adequately separated from the floor in order to prevent the type of damages that have become visible. The damages and wall framing had not been repaired at the time of DCEI December 8th site visit.
Utility Room Floor
Also noted on the September report was a distortion or “hump” in the utility room floor. This condition remained present in December. It appeared to have become greater in the time between evaluations as the threshold at the door leading into the adjacent garage was raised to the point that the door could no longer close.
This condition was caused by the previously mentioned basement stairway wall. When the basement slab heaved, it pushed the framed wall up into a floor joist situated directly above and parallel with this wall. The visible deformation in the utility room floor was caused by this individual floor joist being pushed upward by the basement wall.
The repair recommendation letter issued by DCEI on September 27th specifically addressed this condition and securing the joist back to its original position. As of December 8th, this repair had not yet been performed.
Garage
Inside the garage, the homeowner was concerned about the slope of the garage floor slab and the support of the garage door rails. She believed the floor slab had moved or shifted since the time of move-in, and the slope of the floor had increased in that time.
The garage floor was constructed as a structural slab; it was supported by two (2) concrete piers tied in with an integral grade beam across the middle section. The slab edges were connected to the surrounding foundation wall with steel reinforcing. The floor slab was essentially ‘fixed’ in place. As a result of the installed condition, extensive fracturing of the garage slab along its sides and around the grade beam would have occurred in the event the slab had moved or shifted since construction.
DCEI observed that the garage floor was in very good condition and no fractures were visible in December to indicate the slab had been displaced. It was observed that a separation between the slab and much of the surrounding foundation wall had formed, but this was due to normal concrete shrinkage that occurs at the time of placement during construction. Concerns that the floor had moved were unfounded.
The homeowner was also adamant that the ceiling supports of the garage door rails were installed vertically plumb but had since shifted out of the vertical plane. Each garage door rail was supported and secured at two (2) locations. One end of a rail was attached to supports suspended form the ceiling/roof trusses above. The other end was secured to the top of foundation wall at the garage door opening. In the event the ceiling supports were displaced from the vertical plane, either the roof trusses would have shifted and/or movement of the foundation would have occurred. Please note: The attic was not inspected. It is obvious by the pictures on my web site, there was and is movement.
As noted previously, nothing was observed in the garage floor slab and its associated connection to the foundation to indicate the foundation have moved. The finished ceiling in the garage was attached directly to the bottom chords of the roof trusses. Any movement or displacement of the roof trusses would have results in the formation of fractures throughout the ceiling. No such damages were noted by DCEI in December. As a result of these findings, the evidence is indicative that the garage door rail supports at the ceiling were installed in their observed positions.
Other items
At the time of DCEI’s evaluation on December 8th, the homeowner also pointed out other areas of the subject residence that were of concern:
The Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the floor slab investigation of the subject residence was issued by Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI) on January 18, 2007. The findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report were ascertained by PSI coring through the basement floor slab and obtaining a total of 10 soil samples that were then tested.
PSI’s report indicated that the soil underneath the floor slab was found to consist of high plasticity silty clay, otherwise known as ‘fat clay’. This type of material has the potential to swell or expand when exposed to moisture. As a result, PSI then performed swell testing of the soil samples to determine swell potential. These tests indicated that the existing soil material was capable of generating swell pressures of approximately 600 pounds per square foot (psf). These were well in excess and above the live and dead loads generated by the floor slab. These loads can range between 50 and 100 psf. Simply stated, the expansive pressures generated by the expansive soil can overcome loads imposed by the floor slab. It is at that point that heaving can occur. This information is detailed in greater depth on pages #1 - #5 of PSI’s report.
On pages #5-#7 of PSI’s report, three (3) repair or remedial options are listed and described for the heaving floor slab condition. All options include the removal and replace of the basement floor slab.
At this time, it appears Options #2 and 3 are the most practical solution to the problems with the basement floor. However, as indicated by PSI, additional soil testing to verify the conditions listed under Option #2 are necessary. Based on the soil test results, a determination can then be made on which option is the most practical and beneficial to the homeowner. Conclusions
It is the professional engineering opinion of Dressler Consulting Engineers, Inc., that the basement floor slab at the subject residence has continued to heave in time since the initial assessment was conducted on September 11, 2006. It has progressed to the point that removal of the floor slab is necessary and remediation/neutralization of the underlying soil will be required. Various recommendations to stabilize the soil are outlined in the report issued by PSI on January 11, 2007.
Temporary removal of the framed basement walls around the stairway will be needed to facilitate and removal and replacement of the floor slab. At that time, the stairway can be adjusted and re-leveled. The lifted floor joist underneath the utility room can also then be secured as detailed in Dressler’s September 27th letter.
At this time, it is also our professional engineering opinion that the other items noted throughout the residence are not indicative of structural problems. No visual evidence is present to indicate that the foundation walls and garage floor have moved or shifted. Most of the issues are related to normal construction imperfections of the home.
I realize I should remain professional in my reporting of the damages to my house. However, this report is not entirely factual. I don’t need to be a structural engineer to see with my own eyes. I would like it known this company is on retainer by the builder and the fiduciary interest for this company belongs to the builder.
I did speak with the owner of Dressler Engineering after this report was issued requesting that he re-inspect the house. He declined.
Since the time of this report, Pulte has finally admitted in writing there are structural defects in this house. Pulte also admitted the same on the June 2007 news broadcast on KMBC channel 9. These admissions negate this report.
Return to the top of the page
Back to home page