Originally Posted by
John Stephenson
Okay, I see some cracking in sheetrock walls and floors being unlevel, or even some doors binding - all indicating some ,let's say for a lack of better terminology at this point, "MINOR" to "MODERATE" settlement.
As West Coast Jerry said, stay away from 'descriptive terms' such as 'minor' and 'moderate'.
Today, the "minor settlement" does not warrant repairs - - but two years from now, the MINOR/MODERATE could move to MAJOR. Do you go ahead a recommend SE or foundation company look at the foundation even though (AT THIS TIME) the is only minor/moderate settlement?
I guess what I'm driving at, is what type of verbiage do you all use for foundations in between (1) & (2) that is defensible in a court of law?
If there is differential settlement (movement out of plane), that's not good.
If there is separation in a 'V' shape, that's not good.
If there is a vertical crack through concrete block (or brick or any masonry), that's not good.
If there is bowing or leaning (go back to movement out of plane), that's not good.
If there is 'humping' or 'dipping' (two terms I just made up - i.e., what was a level line is now going up and down), that's not good.
Those, and any others which fall into 'not good' need to be referred to an engineer to 'design appropriate repairs' (not, NOT, 'further evaluation).
What type of engineer? The structural engineer can state what is wrong with the structure, but a soils engineer will be needed to determine if there was a failure of the soil to provide proper support to the structure. If the soils provide inadequate support, the structural engineer can use the load bearing capacity of the soil to 'design appropriate repairs'. If the soil does provide adequate support, the structural engineer will need to find out what is 'not right' with the foundation and 'design appropriate repairs'.
A foundation system which works well on solid rock may not work well at all on peat moss.
