Homeowners (and engineers) beware! it could happen to you. 7

[csd72]

Yes interesting,

I was looking to buy a house in a development in Australia. The developer was reputable and seemed to be doing all the right things.

The problem was that is was on 10m of fill over alluvial soil and even though there was a very good compaction procedure specified in the supplied geotech report I knew that it would never be perfect.

Sometimes, regardless of what you do with the foundations some things happen, but the risk should be borne by those that stand to make a profit rather than the purchaser.

 

[muuddfun]

I am somewhere between YS and Msucog. The homeowner definately has a right to be mad. I would be to. Her reactions are typical when something this import to you goes bad. Here mistake though was in not making the builder carry out the extensive repair they offered. I read the geotech report and it looks about right to me to take a stab at a fix. If you do all that work to fix it, and then there is still problems then she would really have them over a barrel, but she didn't so now they have something to stand on because she didn't allow them to fix it. I believe they didn't pay attention to what they were doing in the first place, and during the hight of the boom were not paying attention, happens a lot. But once they got their engineers involved and were able to come up with some possible solution, its up to them to try to fix it, not her to tell them what to do, just to make them fix it. As I said if they do fix it, and it still doesn't work, then they should buy it back.

YS, the builder definetly should have a geotech through out the grading process etc. It doesn't add that much to the cost. In a lot of areas it is required and they know how to deal with it, sounds like they were just trying to save money in this area. They might add 2 to 5 thousand dollars to the building cost for geotech investigation and testing and observation for grading and post grading depending on the subdivision size and grading complications. Sure would have saved them some headackes.

 

[youngstructural]

First, the car analogy depends on where you are...

More to the point, I wonder how many of you have actually read through the site, or bothered to look at the timeline? Reading your posts I doubt many have...

I had the examct same reactions: Shock, horror, sympathy, anger at the builder, etc, etc, etc. That is until I noticed the dates and read the Geotechnical report.

As far as I am concerned this woman has robbed herself of any recourse when she rejected the builder's repair proposal. From that point on, I would think, the continuing deterioration cannot be held to be 100% the builder's. Also, the house was not very damaged at this time.

SO, yes, if the damage up to this point had occured without the builder having tried to fix the problem, I too would be insistant upon buy-back. It would be, as many of you have said, a house not fit to be described as the new home the person purchased... But that is simply not the case.

JedClampett's point about two sides is the most measured responce yet... But I suppose I'll just have to live with having a difference of opinion from the rest of you.

Regards,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[youngstructural]

Beat me by four minutes Muddfun... I must have been mid-post!

And please don't misunderstand my personal position on the use of Geotechnical Engineers; I think that a Geotech should be involved in each and every project involving new or existing foundations, no exceptions. Unfortunately in a number of areas this just that isn't the reality for residential construction. Probably a case of irrational economics in play, but they're out there playing none the less.

Cheers,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[msucog]

i do agree with ys on that point. i think geotechs SHOULD play a role in residential construction but absolutely don't believe i'll ever see it in widespread use. i, as a geotech, do not fool with residential construction because you've got very poor contractors, little control over the project, owners/developers that absolutely do not want to spend a dime on you (even though you would likely pay for yourself by how much you save the owner in the long run), owners/developers who think that the geotech should be fully liable for every single thing in the project even though they refused to pay for the "things" the geotech recommended, etc etc.

i think that large "neighborhood" developers should be required to have a geotech on board and provide the necessary documentation on the lots. unfortunately, there's always the dirt cheap geotech that will provide paper on anything for a buck...but that's a different discussion.

i do like the analogy with a car dealer...if you drive off the lot and the think clunks out, transmission falls out, wheels fall off, and radiator blows a gasket, it would not be acceptable for the dealer to say "well, let me put that stuff back on your car and we'll get you back on the road"...that would be absolutely unacceptable...they would be taking the car back and giving me a brand new one. a simple "fix" would not work for me.

pulte would be better off giving the lady her money back plus any legal/engineering fees she has incurred (plus maybe a cash settlement for her troubles) with terms that she must take down the website and keep her mouth shut. i just wonder how many potential homeowners have turned away from a pulte house due to this one single case. and perhaps this is a single unfortunate case and maybe pulte is getting a bad name for nothing...but i doubt it and everyone can rest assured that i'll never own a pulte house and i'll be sure to recommend to everyone i know that they not buy a pulte home due to this one case...at least at this point...if they took care of this woman and did the right thing, then maybe i'd reconsider my stance.

and ys, there's nothing wrong with having different opinions with anyone (or any group). if we all thought the same exact thing, we probably wouldn't be here talking to each other and the world would indeed be a bland place to live. i am often "in the minority" with my opinions and that's fine with me...sometimes it turns out that i'm 100% correct and sometimes maybe not. the toughest opinion to have is the "unpopular" one but it's almost always best to stick with what your gut tells you. and as noted, i can see your argument but i respectively disagree.

 

[DonPhillips]

In the jurisdictions that I do plan reviews for, if there is no geotechnical report, I use the USDA site to confirm silt/clay and the builder must use the 1500 psf bearing capacity of the IRC. Most subdivisions do have a soil report and must be part of the plan review if something greater than IRC values are used.

On the subject of insurance, what insurable event should cover the damage? If the house is not being repaired, why shouldn't the insurance drop coverage since it wil be more likely to be damaged during an event and difficult to disprove damage was not caused by an insurable event.

When I was doing forensic work, many times the homowner made a stink about improper maintenance not being paid by the insurance company. A 20 year old asphalt roof will leak and will be damamged by a hail event but the roof was already shot and needed replaced anyway. Homeowner just does not understand why they get nothing. The visible damage had to be worth something.

A property owner has a duty to mititate damages and this homeowner is not mitigating but compounding. Your remedy for a contract disput is the damages. Fix it and sue for the cost of the fix, plus the perceived loss of value of a fixed house.

If houses were cars, they would be worthless after 10 years. Apples and oranges.

If you cannot understand your contract, pay someone to protect your interests or pay later when you get screwed.

I am neither pro-builder or pro-consumer. Both have their interests and everyone needs to be educated and enter into agreements with their eyes open and their trusting hearts left at home.




Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[hokie66]

"the builder must use the 1500psf bearing capacity of the IRC". If that is all he has to do, there will be problems if the clay changes volume with moisture change, as happened in the case we are discussing. It sounds as if there need to be some prescriptive requirements (other than just bearing pressure) in your Code for site classification and footing design.

 

[GregLocock]

It must be a southern hemisphere thing. My reaction was "Crazy woman wants to get out of paying for house due to falling housing values and thinks she has builder over a barrel". Call me a cynic.

I've never seen the attraction of new houses myself, this story just confirms that opinion. I can't tell if the remediation will be effective, but if the builders extend the warranty then it sounds like they are trying to solve the problem.


Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[msucog]

"extend warranty" is a ploy...hell, that's like paving contractors insuring pavement for one year after construction...it'll most likely only catch the most severe damage but not what is reasonable for the 20 year life of the pavement. i've been a contractor, been around contractors and deal with contractors on a daily basis. i don't think she's crazy...i think she's standing up for herself as a homeowner that bought a product...that product did not perform well at all...return it for refund...that's my opinion in case it wasn't already clear.

 

[DonPhillips]

Hokie, expansive clays are not normal found in central Ohio, otherwise, you are right, the IRC has additional requirements (engineered design).


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[hokie66]

Fair enough, Don. Then if the lady's house in question did not have an engineered footing design, she has a case that the builder did not follow the IRC. If it was designed and built in accordance with an engineer's design, the engineer has a problem. Here in Queensland, Australia, a majority of the disciplinary cases which come before our engineering board are about residential site classifications and footing design. Getting it wrong is the surest way to lose your license.

 

[hokie66]

Just to carry this discussion a bit further and to try to get a sense of what should have happened, Don says there is a requirement in the IRC for engineered design of residential footings in shrink/swell clays. Does anyone know of the normal practice in the Kansas City area when this type material is found? This material had a PI of 40 to 67, and that was only in the first 3 ft under the basement slab, with no indication of further down. Highly reactive clay according to the swell testing the geotech did after the fact. Pad footings and strip footings are not appropriate for this type material.

I know from other threads that areas across the south, extending to California, use post-tensioned slabs about 10" or 12" thick. That can work if properly designed. Other solutions are stiffened rafts or deep foundations with cardboard "crush boxes" under the slab.

 

[youngstructural]

Good one Hokie... I'm personally very curious about this, and would like to hear more about the design techniques used to mitigate expansive clays.

It's interesting you mention the crush boxes, as that is exactly the retrofit which was proposed and rejected by the home owner. But it is unfortunate that it wasn't the original foundation design!

Has anyone looked at the other house at that link?

Cheers,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[msucog]

the card board boxes give the slab a little breathing room. it doesn't fix the already in place foundations after the fact. in the gumbo clays of the south, i've seen a lot of problems similar to the ones this lady is experiencing. building on fat clays is ugly when the appropriate precautions are not taken prior to construction. i recall my geotech professor being outraged that shotty developers were allowed to continue building shotty houses when there was a few neighborhoods in town that were built directly on some nasty gumbos and saw terrible cracking show up immediately.

 

[youngstructural]

Hmm... Sounds like if msucog is right, the solution wouldn't necessarily work...

Too bad the home owner didn't let the contractor try, since they may have then failed. Given access and subsequent failure, she probably would have gotten her buy-back wish!

As I've stated several times, and has now been echoed at least twice by others, not permitting access and insisting upon buy-back, buy-back, buy-back, has significantly weakened her position. Only the courts of public opinion can save her now...

Too bad; I really hate seeing the little guy loose!

Cheers,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[hokie66]

I can't see the void former solution working with the existing footings. What I was talking about was using deep footings (piles) to support the structure, and the void formers to prevent uplift of the slab between the piles. We have some of these highly reactive clays in Australia, and we would never use strip footings and column pads.