Page 42 of 50
When getting expert assessment, the first call should be to a geotechnical engineer who will do soil moisture samples at different depths and the second call should be to arrange a forensic plumbing inspection. There are too many 'experts' getting called on who are simply guessing and wasting people's money.
This is one point that is am relying on the builder's experience of such situations. The builder has insisted that this is a cracked pipe issue coupled with the truss brackets being "maxed out" which is pulling up the internal walls and door jambs. Although when someone says "I'm 95% sure!" I get a bit jittery. If I was doing it myself and was prepared to bare the costs, I would have done the geotechnical > plumbing inspection etc.
When getting expert assessment, the first call should be to a geotechnical engineer who will do soil moisture samples at different depths and the second call should be to arrange a forensic plumbing inspection. There are too many 'experts' getting called on who are simply guessing and wasting people's money.
This is one point that is am relying on the builder's experience of such situations. The builder has insisted that this is a cracked pipe issue coupled with the truss brackets being "maxed out" which is pulling up the internal walls and door jambs. Although when someone says "I'm 95% sure!" I get a bit jittery. If I was doing it myself and was prepared to bare the costs, I would have done the geotechnical > plumbing inspection etc.
If you have seen truss brackets, they are fairly flimsy and I would be doubting that any bent sheet metal angle. top fixed to top plate with clouts would have sufficient "pull" to cause damage. My guess is your slab has "dished". Perhaps you could start with checking slab levels.
Can't help poor professional advice and clients should always ask for relevance,qualifications, experience & proof of solution (no less than what is required in a court of law when rendering Expert Advice) and then decide firstly who should I trust?.
LOL personally, I'd rather be an engineer & contractor than a lawyer and the average punters I help out are grateful for that service..
Knowing there is a problem and doing nothing about it puts you in a precarious position, in regards to risk mitigation and claims, the longer you wait.Further more fixing individual problems piecemeal (pragmatically) means clients get tired of not getting to the root cause and soon they run out of patience and money.
Sure I make mistakes, and I am always on site to fix them.
Engineers are amongst the most trusted in society here
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6188- ... 1504280343 and IMO best suited to deal with data, theory, proofs, simulations and fixes... notice lawyers are at 15 in the survey..go figure
That old chestnut again? Need I remind you the sample of respondents included teenagers from age 14 who have zero idea of what many of the most "trusted" professions do and have never had contact with some of those professionals? 598 samples... how were the samples chosen? Under what circumstances. What is the demographic of the sample (other than 14 and above) etc? Did you notice school teachers are above engineers (maybe a large proportion of respondents were 14-16)? Ministers for religion increased despite the atrocities of abuse? Did you notice public opinion pollsters down at 16? There is so much missing information around the sample that you can't take any of it seriously. Did you even look at the question that was asked in the survey? The question alone means the result could be driven by what the respondent has been exposed to in media or by their associates recent conversations (whether true or not) at the time of the survey and have no actual bearing on the trustworthiness of the actual profession. It's just such a Rubbish survey.
Maybe I should explain the Japanese concepts of Honne and tatemai but Wikipedia does a good enough job:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honne_and_tatemaeA survey about opinions around "trust" does not make a professional trustworthy, only seem trustworthy because of title or position. This concept is actually a leading cause for many untrustworthy professionals in these roles getting away with what some of them do for such a long time. The role or title often discourages people to dig below the surface. Kids for cash? Dr Patel? Etc. etc.
For someone who claims to deal with unequivocal evidence based on data, I'm surprised youd pull out such a survey...
Engineers are amongst the most trusted in society here
and then in another thread you say
"Here in WA the engineer that does the drawings inspects the builders work and issues certificates ...but there is a problem with this and it goes like this
1. engineers require work from builders so they are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them.
2. Builders want the cheapest work possible so things often get left out, ignored or placed incorrectly.
3. +..but really you need an engineer & some one local, without conflict of interest"
So it seems that engineers can be trusted except when corrupted by dependency on the hand that feeds them.
I have a healthy respect for the engineering profession and in my lifetime of working with them I have nothing to complain about, however my pet hate are engineers working for insurers, the ones I came across have sold their soul to the devil without shame.
Engineers are amongst the most trusted in society here
and then in another thread you say
"Here in WA the engineer that does the drawings inspects the builders work and issues certificates ...but there is a problem with this and it goes like this
1. engineers require work from builders so they are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them.
2. Builders want the cheapest work possible so things often get left out, ignored or placed incorrectly.
3. +..but really you need an engineer & some one local, without conflict of interest"
So it seems that engineers can be trusted except when corrupted by dependency on the hand that feeds them.
I have a healthy respect for the engineering profession and in my lifetime of working with them I have nothing to complain about, however my pet hate are engineers working for insurers, the ones I came across have sold their soul to the devil without shame.
Anyone is capable of doing the wrong thing or being incompetent or having lack of foresight/ability/professionalism etc. not just those with an incentive.
My problem is with individuals who use their professions as soapboxes as if they are infallible, continue to give generic advice as if it's gospel and contradict themselves over and over.
I tend to agree RE conflict of interest. It is a real problem. I don't do much work for builders but when I do, on one hand you're trying to come up with what you know is a good solution, on the other hand you've got the builder squeezing every cent they can out of the design. When you're forced to operate on the margins, there is no room for error or movement.
Another reason why I always advocate that people use their own architect/draftsman and engineer to design their building, then get a builder to simply build it, retaining their architect/engineers to do periodic inspections (and/or a building inspector of course).
Independent advice and independent oversight is a very effective way of quality assurance.
I tend to agree RE conflict of interest. It is a real problem. I don't do much work for builders but when I do, on one hand you're trying to come up with what you know is a good solution, on the other hand you've got the builder squeezing every cent they can out of the design. When you're forced to operate on the margins, there is no room for error or movement.
Another reason why I always advocate that people use their own architect/draftsman and engineer to design their building, then get a builder to simply build it, retaining their architect/engineers to do periodic inspections (and/or a building inspector of course).
Independent advice and independent oversight is a very effective way of quality assurance.
I think clients can go further than that by arming themselves with the (big) data and Building Information (BIM) that helps them make the correct informed decisions before they commit to land purchases,designs, build contracts, construction inspections, compliance, etc.
IMO, 2D engineering which every builder still insists on(why I ask?) will the last bastion to fall and I can tell you builders aren't happy with that change & giving the punters access to big data ie 3D engineering,apps,simulations and decision making tools,
Why,
1. because its money for jam for the builders and gives them scope to legally vary the contracts
2. clients rarely understand the engineering design process and capitulate and cough up the extra money.
3. question the builder when he says the engineer (who is trusted) recommends these changes?...Go figure
It ironic that homebuilders are more interested in posting about frivolous things, until something goes wrong with their build like slab heave, then its too late to be asking about the differences between M, P & H slabs,piles,
siteworks
I'm currently lead electrical design engineer on a $750m defence construction project, using Revit (3D drafting/modeling for those unaware).
I've got to say it's been more trouble than its worth. Mainly because the design team spends so much time and effort getting the 3D model right (down to the finest details) but then we issue 2D drawings for the contractors to tender on and build from, because they won't use the model.
Seems crazy to me. If you're going to go to the effort of 3D design, might as well put a tiny bit more effort in and actually use the thing properly and get some efficiencies during construction.
Imagine how quickly issues could be resolved on site if every trade's foreman walked around with a tablet with the Revit model...
But to be honest I don't really see how BIM is going to assist home owners. Apart from giving them a nice looking 3D render that they can virtually fly through... The only real way it might benefit home owners is by improving the accuracy of the initial design, *maybe* reducing errors.
I'm currently lead electrical design engineer on a $750m defence construction project, using Revit (3D drafting/modeling for those unaware).
I gave up on large projects years ago..they are too hard to control and make a quid
I've got to say it's been more trouble than its worth. Mainly because the design team spends so much time and effort getting the 3D model right (down to the finest details)
You need to know where to draw the line on 3D detail..lol..literally
but then we issue 2D drawings for the contractors to tender on and build from, because they won't use the model.
Seems crazy to me. If you're going to go to the effort of 3D design, might as well put a tiny bit more effort in and actually use the thing properly and get some efficiencies during construction.
I don't think we'll ever do away with 2D drawings completely for the same reason engineers will never completely move to 3d Vector PDEs analysis, every thing has a place,time,use & cost.
Imagine how quickly issues could be resolved on site if every trade's foreman walked around with a tablet with the Revit model...
But to be honest I don't really see how BIM is going to assist home owners.
Our clients already walk around the site with tablets with engineering details much to the contractors/tradies disgust who have static pdfs we unlock there 3D details and data when they choose to co-operated..LOL It doesn't take long for them to co-operate or it's 3 strikes your out for them when they screw up.Ive managed to cut down on site visits clients are happy to own the BIM and rise to the challenge..(unfortunately simulations is still work in progress, but will get there soon)
Apart from giving them a nice looking 3D render that they can virtually fly through...
That ship (HMS Render) sailed years ago clients now focus on data and value for money, architectural rendered walk through s offer nothing when your slabs heaves. Its now all about life cycle analysis
The only real way it might benefit home owners is by improving the accuracy of the initial design, *maybe* reducing errors.
We make changes all the way through so we've learnt not to get too hung up on too much 3D detail at the initial stages..also high costs and scarce resources contribute.
I haven't even touch on simulations and apps for the punters
If you're interested join the G+community before it becomes private.
But to be honest I don't really see how BIM is going to assist home owners. Apart from giving them a nice looking 3D render that they can virtually fly through... The only real way it might benefit home owners is by improving the accuracy of the initial design, *maybe* reducing errors.
Spot on! You cannot have technical solution to what are essentially human failings.
We all know we should not sign a building contract without reading and understanding but it happens all the time
We all know blind trust is not good for you but people trust blindly, builders, real estate agents, lawyers etc etc
People get caught by slick marketing tricks all the time (sign today, or promotion ends tomorrow and you loose if you don't)
Average homeowner does not have the skills or the time for proper monitoring of their construction, some are ignorant of the need for independent inspections, others know better but they don't, and many wished they had.
Flyover is not necessary when you can walk through builder's displays. Design to "Nth" degree is not necessary because builder can sort out any errors after the first project home build.
We don't need BIM. What we need is on one hand homeowners education and on the other
enforcement of current regulations and tweaking the system with proper balance of penalties and fear of punishment.
You would then see marked improvement in owner awareness and attitude and performance improvement from the builders.
I can see the benefits of BIM if we embrace modular-type construction and off-site manufacture. That has the prospect of reducing build time and increasing value for money.
But BIM for the current "business as usual" method of tired 20th century residential construction practices has little benefit in my view. It does (or can if used properly) have significant benefits for non Residential projects because they are far more complex and require much more detailed design coordination. The embedded information in the model can also be used for facilities management and even deconstruction at the end of the building's life.
But as for residential, let's be honest, with full respect to them, the majority of people building a new home, especially a project home, have very little knowledge about building and giving them loads of detailed technical information is going to be of little to no benefit to anyone. It might even be counter productive in some cases.
Just getting back to slab heave, what I am seeing even today are human failings and glaring lack of enforcement of regulations and standards. I regularly see lack of proper site drainage during construction, no temporary downpipes for managing roof water run off (even when they are installed they are quickly butchered by bricklayers or scaffolders), incorrectly finished levels etc, etc
The bottom line is that slabs on the ground are engineered structures and must be built by builders who have technical expertise and experience in building them. This is where we fail, supervisors are either not there (relying on subbies screwed on price) and are not trained in building engineered structures. Often they are just promoted carpenters just trained just to get to the next stage payment regardless of defects.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Inadequate site control and site supervision is far and away the number one reason why defects occur. I see it all the time and you would too.
Rewind back to my previous life as an electrical contractor - regularly a builder supervisor would send us to a job to fit off and we'd get there and it hadn't even been finished sheeting yet. Obviously the supervisor hadn't even been to site for several weeks let alone was aware of what was happening there. This was almost always the cheaper volume builders, it was only very rarely one of the small local family owned builders.
Large project homebuilders in Australia adopted Bim long before the defence Dept builders
primarily to do renderings(ie Sales & Marketing, because it's cheaper than building $1m displays) and automate quant take offs that's over 20 years ago now...
OT.What has now been added is scripting and automation ie customized tools using grasshopper, dynamo or marionette, depending on which software is used and simulations that can model/predict/quantify real world physical events (stress, thermal,moisture,movement etc) all combined with proofs.
Clients visit their sites constantly..LOL, haven't you noticed the photos, queries and technical questions here on H1...they need BIM and I am happy to promote that service to them.
I have no doubt that BIM is or can be beneficial to architects, engineers, and contractors, and I've been using software packages to conduct various forms of engineering simulations, analysis and design ever since I used MATLAB in first year uni, but other than pretty 3D renderings I can't really see BIM being useful to an unqualified home owner unless they also have an expert to explain it to them (in which case they probably don't need the BIM info... so what's the point?). I certainly don't see how it can prevent poor on site work practices and inadequate supervision. You can have the best design documentation in the world and a bunch of apps and 3D simulations, but if the brickie disconnects the down pipes and the builder's supervisor doesn't notice for 4 weeks because they haven't visited the site since the frame went up, the design documentation and engineering simulations count for nil.
....I can't really see BIM being useful to an unqualified home owner unless they also have an expert to explain it to them (in which case they probably don't need the BIM info... so what's the point?).
How many experts do the clients need to employ on site, isn't building expensive enough?
If you haven't noticed we do everything, even cut out the free-loaders, that equates to a savings for the battlers
I certainly don't see how it can prevent poor on site work practices and inadequate supervision. You can have the best design documentation in the world and a bunch of apps and 3D simulations, but if the brickie disconnects the down pipes and the builder's supervisor doesn't notice for 4 weeks because they haven't visited the site since the frame went up, the design documentation and engineering simulations count for nil.
My point is clients visit their sites (newhomes daily)& will notice missing details..as for matlab electrical/magnetic/power simulations why even bother it's best suited for manufacturing & plant design only
Over the last few years I have seen about a dozen swimming pools built in highly reactive clay foundation showing signs of foundation heave. The culprit again is poor drainage that has allowed water to enter excavation and cause swelling. The pools move and lift causing paving around pool to lift and crack.
No doubt there will be more of pools failing in coming years.
In one case I assisted owners to compel builder to replace fibreglass pool and in another (VCAT) decision, full cost of pool replacement was awarded.
Over the last few years I have seen about a dozen swimming pools built in highly reactive clay
I have seen 2 pools in the last 3 months being built around me... West of Melbourne... highest reactive clay rating. Makes me shiver even thinking about it.
Bump.
I thought it was time to revisit this thread. If you are building on reactive soils spend some time and read ALL of this thread. It just may save you some heartache down the track.