Has anyone rectified slab heave successfully

This is so disappointing. I have seen comments on this forum before where people with slab and cracking problems have been advised to sell the house. Obviously in this case the previous owners felt no moral imperative to disclose the state of the house and the poor new buyers, who did the right thing by engaging an inspector, have ended up shouldering the problem. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We also fell into the trap of thinking an inspector had to be qualified to do their job to be licensed to operate in Victoria. Sadly not true. Another victim of the Victorian housing industry.

previous owners offloading their burden rather than face it themselves. should be some form of recourse for the new owners. sucks that almost anyone can claim to be an inspector.

Apart from fitting temporary downpipes, the land must slope away from the foundations...water is not allowed to pool next to the slab. For builders to allow this on reactive soil is the epitome of arrogance towards their clients and incompetence on their part.

The regs are covered in Volume 2 of the National Construction Code (NCC) and AS2870. The 3 Part NCC can be downloaded free of charge but you have to buy the Australian Standards...and they are expensive.

Always take as many photos as you can of everything during the build and never mind if you don't know what you are taking photos of. Also put all queries and requests in writing...verbals are worthless if there is a later dispute.

If no temp downpipes are put in, won't you have months of pooled water against your slab, they really need to go in yesterday, wouldn't you just make sure they were long enough so water comes out 3 metres or so from slab, where natural grading will place water well away from your slab.
I would also worry that builder would say in a slab heave situation that you have taken on this responsibility, a possible get out of jail card for him.

I will be paying very close attention to the grading and expressing my concern re any water from rainfall pooling near the slab in written emails. Wish i had taken photos of those houses under construction 3 weeks ago now.


Will ensure i have emails that wont allow that to be a get out of jail card if there was issues down the track
from my CFR
"It has been assumed that aspects of site drainage, paving and landscaping which
are described in the report have been, or will be, implemented. Where any or all of these aspects do not form part of the
building contract, it is a mandatory requirement that they be carried out within a period of 4 months from date of completion
of the building provided always that adequate temporary stormwater drainage is installed."

so i would assume they should provide adequate temporary stormwater drainage during construction and will be querying that in writing

Builders can't escape their responsibilities. There are required not to allow abnormal moisture conditions to develop during the build and to leave the site properly drained after completion.
Proper drainage being, grading the soil away from the foundations and not allowing water to pond against the foundations.
This has been confirmed in VCAT decisions against the builders.So the best thing you can do is gather evidence that shows
the builder is not for filling their duties :photos emails, original soil test and engineers design documents,etc and to ask your inspector why the have complied with the situation.
The one big thing in your favour is the soil moisture conditions now are not very dry in fact slightly on the wet side so
the chances of you actually getting slab heave have been greatly reduced as normally very dry clay will dramatically increase your chances of slab heave.
If you are still worried about the situation then get a geotechnical engineer to take floor levels after completion and soil moisture test around your perimeter of your house for your own records and as a bench mark to compare in future if needed.
Consider constructing a protective concrete paving around your house that drains(done by a licensed plumber not the concreter) all it's rain catchment into the stormwater system.

thanks insider and all to take into consideration.
i tend to always prepare or expect the worse that way i'm pleasantly surprised when it doesn't happen

I cannot post documents on here not sure how to do it,.
Yes There is the BTF 18 to the Home Owners guide to footings maintanance.
But theres also the CSIRO BTF 19 is part 1 AND CSIRO BTF 22 is part 2 its the Builders guide to preventing damage to Dwelling these 2 documents have been hiden so well no one whats to talk about these 2 documents and you will find some very intresting reading which puts the builder at fault in many cases.

Please let me know when you read these documents love to know your thoughts on this.

Thank you.

This us the BTF 19 CSIRO PART 1 THE PROBLEMS
History
Many homes in Australia suffer from one or more of the several
maladies that result from conditions that could have been
prevented had the engineer and/or builder undertaken thorough
site investigation and subsequent site preparation. This work
is just as important as employing sound practice in construc-
tion – in fact, at law it is increasingly seen as part of sound
building practice. The result is that a reasonably competent
builder is now expected to know more about building movement
caused by foundation soils than was the case before the
landmark legal battles of the middle 1990s.
The growth of consumerism has led to the notion that a
consumer can rely on the builder to be competent in all matters
related to construction. We know that the builder relies on the
competence of specialists and professionals, but in the end it
is the builder’s duty to the customer to ensure that the building
is not adversely affected by defective foundations. There are
many builders who are sufficiently competent in soils to carry
out the level of elementary investigation required for most small
sites. For them, this document may serve as a checklist for
their initial inspection and a reminder that if they discover any
soil problems, they should engage a suitably qualified engineer.
For those builders who are not familiar with site investigation,
this document is designed to give the rudiments of soils as
they affect housing in most parts of Australia, and to help the
practitioner on the road toward an understanding of the issues.
Such builders, while in the process of learning, would be wise
to engage an expert engineer for site investigation prior to
finalisation of the engineering design drawings.
The predominant practice in residential construction is for the
builder to ignore the soil except for the provision of bearing
surfaces for footings. In fact, Clause 3.2 of AS 1684 requires
the site to be clear of tree roots etc. and to be well drained.
AS 2870 requires soil classification and gives a brief description
of the allowable methods. AS 3798 details a number of issues
that should be covered in a site investigation. All of these
standards have been incorporated into the Building Code of
Australia (BCA). Because the BCA has been adopted by every
relevant jurisdiction in the nation, the law requires the builder to
abide by the provisions in the standards or have an engineered
solution accepted that will meet the performance requirements
of the BCA.
Results of soil problems
The upshot of all the above is that no longer are defects such
as falls in floor levels, cracking in floor tiles, cracking in
concrete slabs, cracking in walls and ceilings (especially
cornices), squeaky flooring, binding doors and windows,
deflecting roof slopes, and cracked mortar bedding to ridge
and hip caps believed to be caused by a natural phenomenon
beyond the responsibility of the builder. The builder should
therefore carry out proper site investigation and prepare the
site accordingly.
Water problems
The principal enemy is water – either flowing, ponding, seeping
by gravitational force, migrating by capillary action or in the air
as vapour. Any masonry product that can absorb water can be
damaged by it or by the chemicals carried with water; any
permeable mortar is also susceptible; timber will decay in
contact with water or vapour; gypsum plasterboard decomposes;
steel is obviously also vulnerable.
Aside from direct damage to building elements, water very
commonly causes damage to buildings indirectly by working
on the foundation soil – erosion, subsidence, swelling and
shrinkage of soil by absorption and shedding of moisture.
Buildings with subfloor voids, such as found when timber or steel
frame floors are constructed, also suffer from high humidity in
the subfloor when water flows or ponding exist. This can
encourage decay of the timber, cup the floorboards and raise
the humidity level in the living space.
This introduces another dimension of the problems created by
water – that of living organisms. The presence of water attracts
insects including termites. In turn, predators such as spiders
are also attracted. Perhaps the most insidious and serious
hazard is introduced by dust mites and some types of fungus,
that have been shown to greatly increase the incidence of
respiratory ailment symptoms in susceptible occupants.
Slab-on-ground construction is also subject to water incursion
problems. The added problem this method has is the ease with
which water can gain access to the cavity via weepholes. Once
in the cavity, it creates a damp environment which is very
slow to dry, transferring moisture to the inner leaf walls and
timber finishes and creating high humidity in the living space.
Vegetation problems
The other source of instability to structures that this BTF deals
with is vegetation and organic matter. Tree roots can cause
upheaval when growing and subsidence when decomposed, as
well as creating uneven moisture content by taking in water.
Organic material generally in the subsoil is not stable and does
not properly compact, therefore making a poor foundation for
a structure.
SOIL TYPES
The types of soils usually present under the topsoil in land zoned
for residential buildings can be split into two approximate groups
– granular and cohesive. Quite often foundation soil is a mixture
of both types. The general problems associated with soils having
granular content are usually caused by erosion. Cohesive soils
are either clay or silt. Clay soils are by far the more common
and are subject to saturation and swell/shrink problems.
As most buildings suffering continuing movement problems are
founded on clay soils, there is an emphasis on classification of
soils according to the amount of swell and shrinkage they
experience with variations of water content. The following
table is reproduced from AS 2870.
B UILDING
TECHNOLOGYfile
Number Nineteen
February 2003
Part 1 – Site investigation and preparation
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
the void. The excavator should be instructed to remove any
organic material while cutting or skimming. In addition,
particularly where a sandy foundation exists, it is good
practice to probe the subsoil in the immediate area around
where a stump has been removed. A good tool to use is a 1 m
length of 6–10 mm round reinforcement bar. Driven with a
hammer, this will discover not only tree roots, but floaters and
voids or poorly compacted areas. In some cases, poorly
compacted areas are composed of leaves and other decayed
vegetable matter. This material must not be left under or
adjacent to the location of any footings as it will reduce in
volume and cause a void.
Service trenches
It is not unusual to find that trenches that are dug to house
services are not well backfilled or compacted. Often the trench
is used as a repository for trade spoil. Where a subsoil water
flow picks up such a trench, a watercourse is provided where
water may be delivered alongside or even under footings.
Typically, sewer and stormwater pipes run adjacent to and/or
under footings. Where building additions are being constructed
it is important to check around existing service trenches that
may carry water to the proposed construction. Of course, it is
also imperative to ensure that trenches dug for the new project
are properly located, backfilled and compacted, but this topic
is dealt with in BTF 20. During the site investigation, other than
any pre-existing domestic service trenches, the following are
some of the possible problems:
• Trenches under the footpath or roadway for telephone cables,
gas, electricity, stormwater or sewer all have risers to the
surface. Often, water can gain access to the trench from
around the riser or manhole, then flow along or pond in the
trench until finding a way to flow out, through the proposed
domestic feed, or just by permeating the soil in the area.
• Street stormwater gullies can also be vulnerable, particularly
older ones with brickwork in their structure.
• The possibility of leaking water, stormwater or sewer piping
should not be ignored.
Where the new structure is downhill from these water sources,
moisture can surface under the building or at the external
footing where the soil has been cut. Builders sometimes believe
that running agricultural pipe around the external side of the
footing excavation solves the problem. This is not always the
case, because some systems in common use may collect only
a moderate percentage of the water, particularly when not
expertly installed. In fact, this practice often delivers water
directly to the footing area.
Water run-off
Surface water must not be allowed to flow to the building. A
thorough inspection of the topography is necessary in order to
properly allow for finished ground falls and water run-off
collection. Particularly on a sloping site, the finished falls can
be critical to the maintenance of good drainage.
REMEDIAL MEASURES
Other than the exception of water flow through rock faults,
which is very difficult to stop, almost all of the problems
above can be addressed by correct drainage of the soil or, in
the case of poor existing trenches, removal of poor ballast
material then refilling and compacting.
Correct drainage is an engineering matter and, unless very
straightforward, should be the province of a suitably qualified
person, however in essence the job is to prevent water from
coming into contact with the building or entering the soil
within the footprint and its environs.
The object of good ground drainage should be to exclude all
possible water from the building, the foundation and its area
of influence. There is a notion that reactive clays should be
kept at a constant moisture content in order to provide
equilibrium. Irrigation systems have been developed to try to
provide constant moisture content to subfloor areas, but
these can fail because there are other factors involved, i.e.:
• A building creates its own environment and predominant
weather conditions will either create moisture flow toward
the centre of the subfloor or away from it. This influence is
never evenly distributed but varies with several factors.
• Solar influence dries some areas more rapidly than others.
• Ground slope or other factors can result in uneven water
content at various parts of the perimeter.
These and other naturally occurring factors mean that the
irrigation system would have to be very sophisticated indeed in
order to keep all the foundation soil and immediately adjacent
soil at the same stage of volumetric expansion.
In practice, the best solution in all but extreme cases is to drain
the ground and surface water away from the building and keep
the foundations dry. In reactive clay this is likely to result in
cracking due to some shrinkage, and this needs to be redressed,
but once this has been remedied and providing the drainage
system is kept in working order, the building will remain stable.
This document has covered the bulk of the issues that a
builder should deal with in regard to discovery of pre-existing
conditions that can affect the stability of the foundation soil.
There are also several construction do’s and don’ts that the
builder must know about and put into practice in order to make
sure that the building itself does not contribute to instability
of the soil and resultant movement in the structure. These
matters are dealt with in BTF 18.
FURTHER READING
AS 1684, Residential Timber-Framed Construction, Standards
Australia, Sydney, 1999.
AS 2870, Residential Slabs and Footings – Construction,
Standards Australia, Sydney, Amdt 2, 2003.
AS 3798, Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and
Residential Developments, Standards Australia, Sydney, 1996.
BTF 22, A Builder’s Guide to Preventing Damage to Dwellings:
Part 2 – Sound Construction Methods, CSIRO, Highett,
Victoria, 2003.
This BTF was prepared by John Lewer
Partner, Construction Diagnosis
john@constructiondiagnosis.com.au
A builder’s guide to preventing
damage to dwellings
The information in this and other issues in the series was derived from various sources and was believed to be correct when published.
The information is advisory. It is provided in good faith and not claimed to be an exhaustive treatment of the relevant subject.
Further professional advice needs to be obtained before taking any action based on the information provided.
Building Technology File © CSIRO MIT 2003
Compiled and published by the CSIRO Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology, Building Information Resource Centre
PO Box 56, Highett, Vic. 3190, Australia, Tel (03) 9252 6378, Fax (03) 9252 6243, www.cmit.csiro.au
Unauthorised copying of this Building Technology File is prohibited
Distributed by CSIRO Publishing
Tel (03) 9662 7500, Fax (03) 9662 7555
www.publish.csiro.au

THIS IS BTF 22 CSIRO PART 2 BELOW IS EVERYTHING THE PROBLEMS
Site water problem identification
It is essential to investigate the site and prepare it in such a
way that ground and surface water are prevented from entering
the building footprint, whether the building has suspended
floors or is footed on a ground slab. Site investigation methods
are dealt with in BTF 19, which should be read prior to reading
this BTF. It is also recommended that BTF 18 be read as
additional information on this subject.
Legal considerations
Good site drainage always addresses both surface and ground
water flows. Lack of attention to potential building movement
caused by moisture migration can be a costly oversight for the
builder, who may be found liable for damage long after any
statutory warranty has expired. The Building Code of Australia
(BCA) has not made site drainage mandatory, although it does
set out acceptable construction practice in Volume 2, Clause
3.1.2, to be used where a local drainage authority deems it
necessary. This makes for uncertainty in the minds of builders
as to their responsibilities, but the courts tend to view the
builder as the expert and, where some foreseeable damage
occurs, it is usually found that the builder should have used
methods that would have prevented the damage.
Where site investigation has revealed that there is existing or
potential erosion problem, or where reactive clay subsoil is
present, the builder is wise to give written advice to the owner
and strongly recommend that ground drainage be installed.
Where the owner declines in writing, some jurisdictions are
known to have accepted that it is within the contractor’s rights
to continue the project. However, ground drainage is an area
where contractors ignore or try to side-step at their own peril.
As to water entering a building, the BCA is quite clear. It is the
task of the builder to prevent rainwater from entering a building,
even when the rainwater is propelled by a storm of a magnitude
that would only be expected to occur, on average, once in a
hundred years. What is not so obvious to many is that water
should not be allowed to enter the cavity, which is there not as
a drain or repository for water that enters through openings,
but as a break between the outer and inner leaves of exterior
walls to prevent water from permeating through as it used to
do when buildings were constructed of 230 mm solid brick-
work. When water enters the cavity in volume, a wet, dark
and enclosed environment is set up that can result in serious
consequences for the health and amenity of the occupants.
Water problems in buildings are usually cumulative, resulting from
several oversights rather than from a single source. This BTF is
designed as a general checklist of commonly occurring flaws in
construction methods, to help the builder deliver a product that
will be durable, weatherproof and provide a healthy environment.
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER PREVENTION
It is no longer acceptable for a builder to claim that building
movement is outside his or her power to prevent. The subsoil of
land that is available for building development normally has an
allowable bearing capacity well in excess of the loads imposed
by class 1a buildings. The movement problems that are
experienced by buildings are very often brought about by the
failure of the builder and designers to deal with site water.
Surface and ground water that is allowed within the footprint of
the building causes erosion and foundation soil movement, which
in turn causes an exacerbation of cracking in slabs; cracking
and failure in masonry and finishes; doming and dishing of
floors; cupping and lifting of timber flooring; decay to timber
members; degradation of metals and mortar; doming and
dishing of roofs, leading to breakage of tiles and degradation
of mortar beds.
Surface drainage methods
The basis of good surface water drainage is to:
• Have the finished exterior ground level at the building perimeter
a minimum of 150 mm below finished floor level, ground
floor cavity flashing weepholes or subfloor vents, whichever
are the lowest. However, where a slab is used as part of a
termite management system, 75 mm at the top of the slab
edge must be visible or able to be made visible.
• In the finished ground, provide a 1:20 fall away from the
building for at least the first metre. Nothing that needs to be
watered, including lawn, should be within this graded area
and it should preferably be a hard surface.
The above requirements mean that thought may need to be
given to finished floor level etc. before the plans go to council.
Where there is natural topography that leads to surface water
being encouraged toward the building, a dish or other surface
drain should be installed and connected to the stormwater
system through a pit.
Ground water drainage methods
If it is desired to keep the soil dry in areas other than the
building footprint, it should be realised that this other drainage
may not be sufficient to prevent water entering the footprint,
and additional drainage for the building may be necessary. It
should be understood that ground drainage is a complex subject,
often requiring the expertise of an engineer who is suitably com-
petent in hydrology and geotechnics. For anything other than
straightforward problems, even drainers or builders experienced
in installing ground drainage should engage a consultant to
assist in the design. This section is therefore intended to give
reminders to already competent people, and to assist others
toward a rudimentary understanding to help them discuss the
issues with a consultant. In addition, it is essential for a
builder or drainer to comply with the minimum requirements of
BCA Volume 2, Clause 3.1.2, and AS 3500.3.2, Sections 6–8,
unless installing a system certified by an engineer.
The first step is to investigate the depth and volume of the
subsoil flow of water. Test pits, particularly on the uphill perimeter
of the footprint should be dug as outlined in BTF 19. It is, how-
ever, important to remember that ground drainage problems are
not restricted to sloping sites. Some of the most susceptible
sites are on flat land, particularly where the area is ringed by
B UILDING
TECHNOLOGYfile
Number Twenty-Two
August 2003
Part 2 – Sound construction methods
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
Weepholes
AS 3700, Clause 12.7.2.3, requires that weepholes are formed
immediately above the cavity flashing and that mortar is removed
from the joint so that the opening is clean and the flashing is
exposed. This is to ensure the free flow of water from the cavity.
It is not uncommon to find blocked weepholes, recessed DPCs
and fouled cavity flashings all on the same job.
Window and door openings
The popularity of unevenly faced bricks has led to a problem at
openings. The problem arises where brickwork reveals do not
present a straight line against windows, and is exacerbated
by the fact that these bricks are generally not suited to flush
mortar bedding. Consequently, it is common to see gaps at
window/reveal interfaces caused by brick unevenness and
raked joints. Such gaps mean that the building envelope is not
weatherproof within the requirements of the BCA.
It should be realised that the cavity is not envisaged as a part
of a water removal system, but is there to prevent moisture
permeation from the outer skin to the inner skin. It may also act
as a last line of defence in the event of an extraordinary event,
however the idea that a builder should leave gaps in the build-
ing envelope through which water can penetrate into the cavity
is in direct conflict with the objectives and requirements of the
BCA. An external wall that routinely allows water to enter the
cavity, turns that cavity into a hazard to the building elements,
and to the health and amenity of the occupants. It is the job of
the builder to make the envelope weatherproof. The construct-
ion system must prevent significant volumes of water entering
the cavity.
In the case of window and door reveals, the bricklayer, while
being mindful of the danger of ceramic growth, should not
rake or iron the joint past the leading edge of the frame. In
some cases where gaps must be left because long walls make
ceramic growth a hazard, or where the brick profile is badly
uneven, storm moulds should be installed, and bedding should
be left flush with the leading edge of the storm mould.
It is also common to see cases where an overwide cavity creates
insufficient overlap between the window and the brickwork
reveal. Where this occurs, storm moulds are also called for.
Window gaskets
When fitted to brick veneer construction, windows need to be
clear of the brickwork sill so as to allow for timber shrinkage in
the frame. The usual allowance is 5–10 mm clearance to ground
floor windows and a minimum of 15 mm on the second storey.
For this purpose, aluminium window assemblies are fitted with
neoprene gaskets to bridge the gap between the window frame
and the brickwork sill. As with reveals, the brickwork sill should
have joints left flush from the leading edge of the gasket to the
rear edge of the sill. Commonly, little attention is paid to seat-
ing the gasket to provide a waterproof surface. Mortar is left
on top of sill bricks which, when timber shrinkage reduces or
closes the gap, pushes the gasket up and away from the brick
and allows water to enter the cavity. Mortar should be cleaned
off the top of bricks while laying. In addition, bricklayers
commonly turn the ends of gaskets down into the perpends at
the sill/ reveal joints. This is poor practice, as it leaves a gap
above the gasket where water can gain entry to the cavity
and which also encourages water into the mortar where the
gasket turns down. These gaskets should be cleanly cut off
flush with the reveal and the mortar should be flush with the
sill brickwork. If the reveal bed aligns with the gasket there is
no reason that the gasket cannot be bedded into it.
Sills and thresholds
Where brickwork sills are significantly sloped, it is common to
find that the bricks are cut to have a minimal overlap with the
gasket. These gaskets need a minimum 15 mm overlap with
the sill bricks where the sill is at 30° to the horizontal. For
lesser angles the necessary overlap increases.
Brickwork patio and other door thresholds are often laid
without any fall away from the building. This will always result
in water entering the cavity. Some bricklayers fill the cavity in
at the doorway to prevent water incursion, but this does not
work and only inhibits the operation of the flashing. The builder
must provide the bricklayer with sufficient height to allow for
weepholes to be continued across the doorway as necessary,
and for either a soldier course sill with sufficient fall or room
to lay a sloped tiling threshold.
Subfloor vents
In dwellings having suspended ground floors, particularly where
timber floor framing is used, adequate cross-flow ventilation
must be installed to counteract condensation. BCA Volume 2,
Section 3.4.1, gives minimum ventilation standards that are
deemed to satisfy the performance requirements. The required
ventilation area is based on the perimeter length of the building
and differs depending on:
• The zone in which the dwelling is located.
• The moisture content of the foundation soil.
It is also important to realise that where the floor is lower to
the ground, there is less volume of air to dissipate the moisture
that is transferred to it from the ground.
Landscaping
Two important aspects of landscaping that relate to water entry
were introduced in the surface drainage section above, viz.:
• The finished exterior ground level at the building perimeter
should be a minimum of 150 mm below finished floor level,
ground floor cavity flashing weepholes or subfloor vents,
whichever are the lowest. However, if paving is to be used
around the building perimeter, the clearance may be 50 mm.
Where a slab is used as part of a termite management
system, 75 mm at the top of the slab edge must be visible
or able to be made visible.
• The finished ground should have a 1:20 fall away from the
building for at least the first metre. Nothing that needs to
be watered, including lawn, should be within this graded
area and it should preferably be a hard surface.
In addition, the landscaper should only install automatic
watering systems where the beds that they service are lower
than the base of the footings or where they are separated
from the building by a properly engineered surface and ground
water drainage system.
FURTHER READING/REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
AS 2050, Installation of Roof Tiles, Standards Australia,
Sydney, 2002.
AS 3500.3.2, Stormwater Drainage – Acceptable Solutions,
Standards Australia, Sydney, 1998.
AS 3700, Masonry Structures, Standards Australia, Sydney,
2001.
BTF 18, Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance –
A Homeowner’s Guide, CSIRO, Highett, Victoria, 2001.
BTF 19, A Builder’s Guide to Preventing Damage to Dwellings:
Part 1 – Site Investigation and Preparation, CSIRO,
Highett, Victoria, 2003.
Building Code of Australia (BCA) Volume 2, Australian Building
Codes Board, Canberra, 1996.
This BTF was prepared by John Lewer
Partner, Construction Diagnosis.
john@constructiondiagnosis.com.au
A builder’s guide to preventing
damage to dwellings
The information in this and other issues in the series was derived from various sources and was believed to be correct when published.
The information is advisory. It is provided in good faith and not claimed to be an exhaustive treatment of the relevant subject.
Further professional advice needs to be obtained before taking any action based on the information provided.
Building Technology File © CSIRO MIT 2003
Compiled and published by the CSIRO Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology, Building Information Resource Centre
PO Box 56, Highett, Vic. 3190, Australia, Tel (03) 9252 6378, Fax (03) 9252 6243, www.cmit.csiro.au
Unauthorised copying of this Building Technology File is prohibited
Distributed by CSIRO Publishing
Tel (03) 9662 7500, Fax (03) 9662 7555
www.publish.csiro.au

A little off-topic, but any recommendations for building inspector/engineer to access a single story dwelling for slab-heave in Tarneit (VIC)

Do you mean for a report ?

Yes, a building inspection report for a house built a few years ago.

If you’re after the cause of slab heave then you will need a geotechnical report

Thanks.. Actually we don't even know if there is a slab heave. So, I'm after recommendations for a building inspection or building + geotechnical report to check the state of the house.

If there is slab heave, you should be able to see it with naked eye as well as confirm with levels.

Is there any damage?

We've had some consistent cracking around wall voids which the builder has fixed time after time. A few years ago the builder also fixed underground piping that was broken due to house movement.
We've had some new cracking now in the middle of the house and one of the expansion joins in the bricks has compressed to the maximum.
Hence why I wanted a professional opinion before the warranty expires.

You need to find a engineer to check your floor levels at every corner of the house, this will tell you if the slab has moved from its original levels. That's important to have the TBM taken from an external fixed point like a electricity pit or something like it has to be anchored deep into ground so a pit has no chance of moving. I've had a total 12 floor levels done and even after 9 years this October the Waffle pod slab still moving so as insider said and other very good people on this site no cure for waffle slab heave.
If it was not for the information these good people gave me early last year I would not have known about of a lot of things also I'd like to thank everyone for the help and their own experience in the field I'd like to also thank the structual engineer from Perth if it was not for him and the answers he gave me I would have not been able to kick the builder in the arse and also our own solicitor because he was not using our evidance we had since talking with all these good people on this forum it opened my eyes to the truth of things so yes. There is a lot of good people on this forum and I thank you so much for the wealth of information passed on to me. With all my heart your God sent at the right time.

How is it going with your builder Mauromario? Any outcome yet?