The stairway wall in question is an 8” hollow block masonry wall with a stucco coating on both faces. The wall extends vertically from grade level supporting both the stairway and portions of the second and third level walkways as well as a portion of the complex’s roof. There are intermediate stairway landings also supported by the wall between the ground level and second level as well as between the second and third level.

Immediately above where the third level floor connects with the stairway wall in question, a wide crack propagates laterally across the entire wall. The crack is widest adjacent to the third level floor (approximately ¾” in width) and narrows in width at the opposite end of the wall (approximately hairline in width). It appears as if attempts to seal this crack have been made due to the presence of caulking and an additional layer of paint. When the crack was investigated closer, it could be seen that the crack was propagating through a mortar joint in the block masonry wall and reflectively cracking through the exterior stucco coating.

Due to the crack’s location, propagation direction and varying width orientation, it is most likely caused by settlement to the stairway wall’s foundation. The location of the crack is immediately above the connection with the third level floor. The reason the crack has occurred in this location is that the wall below the crack is supporting the additional weight of the third level floor while the wall above the crack is most likely somewhat supported by the roof’s framing. Between the roof’s framing providing support against subsidence and the heavy vertical loads placed on the wall by the floors aiding subsidence, a crack has developed. The propagation direction (almost perfectly horizontal) is due to the crack developing in a mortar joint within the block masonry wall. Finally, the orientation of the crack’s opening (wider at the third level floor and narrower toward the opposite end of the wall) is due to the heavier vertical force of the third level landing causing additional subsidence. The opposite end of the wall (the end where the crack is a hairline) is not exposed to as great a vertical load due to the distance from the second and third level floors, therefore the subsidence is not as great, and the crack is finer.

It is recommended that a pier system be implemented to stabilize the stairway wall and prevent further subsidence. The settlement is most likely attributed to a weak layer of soil below the wall’s footing, which does not have sufficient bearing capacity. The pier system will bypass the weak layer of soil (in this case most likely sand) and bear on a stronger soil layer below which the footing currently bears. The pier system should be placed by an installer certified by the manufacturer of that particular system. In addition, water penetrating the surface in this area could have an adverse affect on the bearing capacity, aiding in settlement. For this reason it is important to carry the water discharged from the roof’s downspouts away from the structure’s foundation. This is true for the entire footprint of the structure as well.

An additional recommendation is to provide reinforcement within the stairway wall at the location of the crack in order to attain the lateral stability of a single wall instead of two wall segments (above and below the crack). This reinforcement should be comprised of steel reinforcement within the hollow cells of the wall, and grout filling the cells solid. The reinforcement and grout should extend a minimum of 3 courses of block above and below the crack and should be spaced at 24 inches on center maximum.

Note that the opinions, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report or discussed during the inspection are based on my observations and engineering experience. They are based on visual symptoms or lack of symptoms of structural problems common to this type of construction. No destructive inspection or material testing was performed, thus this report is based on the visual inspection of accessible and visible areas only.

The structure is a three-story detached timber framed structure most likely founded on shallow concrete footings. At the second and third levels, timber decks extend off the front of the structure, above the driveway below. The floor level height of the first deck is approximately 12½ feet above the driveway’s concrete slab, while the height of the second level, directly above, is approximately 21½ feet. At the front end of the deck, Laminated Veneer Lumber beams (LVL’s) with dimensions of approximately 3½ inches by 11¾ inches provide the support at each level, while at the end of the deck adjacent to the home, the support is derived from the connection to the house’s framing. The deck’s floor joists span from the connection with the house to the LVL beams, approximately 9 feet maximum, and cantilever over the LVL beams by approximately 2 feet 3 inches. The LVL beams (2 per level) are supported by 6×6 columns of preservative pressure treated (PPT) dimensional lumber extending to concrete pedestals below. At both deck levels, a 2×10 dimensional lumber ledger is attached to the front face of the house and the deck’s joists are attached to this ledger using steel joist hangers. The overall width of the two story deck is approximately the same width as the house, approximately 40 feet, and the total length the deck extends from the front of the house is approximately 11 feet maximum.

Several framing details key to the structural adequacy of the deck were investigated. A few areas of the soffiting below the deck was removed in order to view an example of these details and get a clear idea of the workmanship and structural soundness of the assembly. The area of soffiting removed was limited to the right side of both the first and second levels. The following framing and connection details are key to the structural function of the deck and were investigated during the inspection:
- Connection of the deck to the house (ledger board condition and connection)
- Column to beam connections
- Connection of the deck joists to both the ledger board and the supporting beams
- Span lengths of structural members
- Railing post connection details

These typical details as well as member sizes must adhere to certain codes and specifications and/or be designed for appropriate loading conditions. These details, as observed from field investigation on this deck structure, are described below.

The connection of the ledger board to the structure in a timber framed deck, especially for a deck that is not free standing, is an extremely critical connection, and can lead to failure if not adequately designed and constructed. The ledger board in the case of this particular deck is of 2×10 dimensional lumber, not preservative pressure treated (PPT). The ledger board is attached to the front of the house, which overhangs the foundation below. The home’s overhang is supported by metal plate connected wood trusses (MPCWT’s), which support a portion of the second level floor, and cantilever over the 2×6 front load-bearing wall at the first level. This overhang varies from approximately 2 feet 3 inches to approximately 4 feet. The second level’s MPCWT floor framing supports the front exterior stud walls of the second and the third levels at the end of their cantilever span. The ledger board of the first level deck is fastened to the home in the area of this cantilever. The first level ledger board is connected through a combination of lag bolts and nails. Two different sizes of lag bolts appear to have been used, ½” diameter and 3/8” diameter. The soffit and structure’s sheathing at the underside of the overhang (right side only) was removed in order to investigate the ledger connection to the MPCWT’s. Of three lag bolt connections viewed, two of these connections were solely into the OSB (orientated strand board) sheathing. One lag bolt appeared to be connected to the end of a MPCWT. The average lag bolt spacing seen was approximately 16 inches on center. The deck’s second level ledger board was observed at the right side. 3/8 inch diameter lag bolts were used and extend through the OSB sheathing of the house. The actual connection of the deck’s second level ledger board to the structure’s framing cannot be inspected unless the interior finishes are removed and the area be investigated from the inside the home.

There are serious issues concerning the current connection of the deck’s ledger boards to the front face of the house. The deck’s first level ledger board in many instances is simply connected to the OSB house sheathing with ½-inch and 3/8-inch diameter lag bolts. This connection is extremely inadequate due to the relatively low strength of the OSB to resist pull out and bearing of the lag screw. Typically, a special detail is required when connecting a deck ledger board to a MPCWT floor system. These details usually include special bridging within the bays between the ends of the trusses and a specific lag or through bolt spacing based on the length of the deck joists. An alternative to the special bridging may be a 1-inch thick Structural Composite Lumber (SCL) or 2x dimensional rim board. Neither of these details is present in the existing deck connection. In addition, 3/8-inch diameter bolts are typically undersized, as ½-inch diameter lag and through bolts are usually specified for ledger board connections. The lag or through bolts should be connected to the MPCWT floor system using a staggered pattern, as to avoid splitting along the grains of the ledger board. The current bolting pattern observed at the right side of the deck is not in a staggered pattern. The ledger board itself should be comprised of PPT lumber, however the current 2×10 ledger board is not PPT. There are several standard details available based on studies and tests conducted by the Virginia Tech Department of Wood Sciences and Forest Products and Washington State University Wood Materials and Engineering Laboratory. These studies and tests have been adopted by the 2007 Supplement to the 2006 International Residential Code (IRC). These documents should be used as a guideline when designing deck ledger connections. Prior to this supplement, the connection of the ledger board to the structure should be adequately designed to resist vertical and horizontal loading. It appears as if the current ledger connection at the first level is not strong enough to properly resist vertical and horizontal loading. The deck’s second level ledger connection was not observed except for the lag bolts present, which appear to be 3/8-inch diameter.

In addition, attached decks are typically not to be supported by the overhang of a structure unless the framing supporting the overhanging portion was designed to support the additional load of the attached deck. In this particular instance, the MPCWT’s that cantilever off the front wall must be designed to support the loads associated with both decks, the first and second levels. Original drawings and the original truss design should be checked to verify that this loading was considered. Otherwise, the trusses may be overloaded.

The connection of the LVL beam to the 6×6 PPT column is achieved by notching the top of the column to receive the beam in full bearing. The column is then face bolted to the LVL beam using 3/8” diameter lag bolts. The column supporting the second level deck simply bears on the plywood decking of the first level deck. It appears as if a small piece of 6×6 PPT column has been placed below the decking in this area in an attempt to transfer the load of the second level column to the first level column below, however the blocking was loose during the inspection and the plywood decking supporting the second level’s column was sagging under the column’s load. In addition, it appears as if the first level column was cut slightly short, and the 2×4 used to connect the soffit to the underside of the deck was partially supporting the blocking.

Typical details for the connection of the post to a deck beam usually require ½-inch diameter through bolts. This can be verified within the “Prescriptive Residential Deck Construction Guide” published by the American Forest and Paper Association. In addition, the column support to the second level deck is inadequate due to the blocking condition between the top of the first level column and the bottom of the second level column. The second level column bears on the plywood decking and a sag can be seen in the plywood decking. The 6×6 piece of blocking placed within this location is currently loose and does not bear on the column to beam connection below.

The deck joists are comprised of 2×10’s of dimensional, non-PPT lumber and are spaced at approximately 16 inches on center. The joists’ main span (from house connection to LVL beam) is approximately 9 feet maximum and the cantilever span from the LVL beam to the end of the deck is approximately 2 feet 3 inches. The joists are connected to the ledger board using steel face mount hangers, Simpson Strong Tie, Model LUS 210Z. The joists rest upon the top face of the LVL beam and are toe nailed into the top of the beam. The deck joists supporting the second level deck have been ripped in order to provide a positive slope away from the structure.

The deck joists appear to be properly fastened to the ledger with steel joist hangers. It appears as if corrosion resistant fasteners have not been used in the toe nailing of the deck joists to the top of the LVL beam. Also, the connection between the joists and the LVL beam may require the addition of brackets connecting the joists to the beam. A proper bracket will assist in the bracing of the LVL beam, thereby restricting the possibility of lateral movement, or buckling. Typically, manufacturers design their engineered lumber products for continuous lateral bracing at 24 inches maximum.

The main span of the LVL beams is approximately 18 feet 3 inches. The LVL beams cantilever at each end between approximately 8 inches and 1 foot 2 inches. The main span of the deck joists is 8 feet 3 inch maximum (7 feet minimum) with a 2 feet 3 inch cantilever overhang.

Calculations were conducted to check the span lengths of the LVL beams as well as the deck joists. Since the manufacturer’s stamp of the LVL beam was not visible, a reference modulus of elasticity and bending strength were assumed based on literature from a common manufacturer. The LRFD method was used to verify the beam’s strength, using the 2005 National Design Specification guidelines published by the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA). The LVL beam appears to be strong enough in bending and stiff enough for allowable deflection based on these referenced values. The maximum span of the joists were cross referenced with The Prescriptive Deck Construction Guide, which is based on the 2006 IRC, and is published by the AF&PA. It appears as if the main span of the joist (from the front face of the house to the LVL beam) is well within the allowable span length for a 2×8 joist of hem fir species spaced at 16 inches on center. However, the allowable maximum cantilever span is typically the main length divided by 4. This would result in a 1 foot 9 inch maximum cantilever overhang length. The cantilever span of the joists present is 2 feet 3 inches, which would signify an over-spanned condition, and would require a design for this specific case.

The railing posts of both levels of the deck are comprised of 4×4 PPT dimensional lumber and in some instances extend through the floor decking and in other instances are simply nailed to the top of the decking. The right side posts were inspected from underneath and it was found that no posts were fastened to the deck framing with through bolting. Of the four posts investigated, two extended through the deck and two did not. The two posts that extended through the deck seem to be simply toe nailed to the right end joist and rim board. The first level railing posts at the front and rear of the second level’s right column do not extend through the plywood decking and appear to be simply toed into the plywood.

Typically, the standard detail for connecting railing post to the deck framing should include ½-inch diameter through bolting to the deck joists. In several cases, it was observed that the posts did not even extend through the plywood decking, making them susceptible to detachment.

Due to the severely deficient structural conditions observed, it is recommended that access to the deck be restricted until such time that the deck can be strengthened. The process of strengthening the deck will require the strengthening of the connection with the house, strengthening the connection between the columns and the LVL beams, strengthening the connection of the railing posts, and possibly converting the deck to a freestanding deck if the home’s MPCWT floor system was not designed to support the additional weight associated with the two deck levels. It is also recommended that the connection of the second level ledger with the house be investigated by removing interior finishes such as drywall and insulation in this area. The structural condition of the second deck connection cannot be fully surveyed unless the inner connection is visible. It is recommended that details be provided for making the deck structurally adequate. Much of the need for redesign may be eliminated if original design plans can be located. If the deck was designed properly, it may be simply an issue of improper construction, and the original design details may be reused.

An additional noted area of concern is the water-tightness of the soffit and capping. Trapped water in the underside of the soffit was released when the soffit was removed. Since very little of the lumber used in the framing of the deck is PPT, the prevention of water from contacting the timber members is important. Minor water staining to several timber members could be seen during the inspection. It is recommended that drip edges or channels be introduced at the flashing present at the fascias of the decking. It is also recommended that the overall soffit construction be inspected for water tightness.

Note that the opinions, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report or discussed during the inspection are based on my observations and engineering experience. They are based on visual symptoms or lack of symptoms of structural problems common to this type of construction. No destructive inspection or material testing was performed, thus this report is based on the visual inspection of accessible and visible areas only.

The second level floor structure of the condominium complex is comprised of precast, pre-stressed concrete floor planks (long narrow slab sections) that are supported by a combination of block masonry walls and steel beams. Throughout the majority of the structure, except for the portion of the second level above the parking area, the pre-stressed concrete planks run in the north-south direction. At the location where the carpeting was unattached from the floor, a portion of a plank was cracked and patched with a fine aggregate concrete, similar to self- leveling concrete. The patchwork was in satisfactory condition at the time of the inspection. The patch measured approximately 5 inches wide by 5 feet long. It appears as if the patch was placed to fill in a spalled area at the edge of a pre-stressed plank. The cause for this spalled section appears to be the attachment of the carpet’s tack strip being too close to the edge of the pre-stressed plank. During the attempted attachment, the nails most likely cracked a small section along the edge of the plank, which then spalled off. The floor carpeting along the entire length of the adjacent wall was pulled back to view the entire length of the edge of the plank within the room of the Unit. In a couple of areas, the edge can be seen where there is a small gap between the bottom of the wall and the top of the slab. This is most likely the original condition of the structure and does not appear to be a concern. The portion of the edge of the plank that was cracked and spalled during the installation of the carpet’s tack strip and subsequently patched appears to be in satisfactory condition. The ceiling of the unit below the affected area was inspected for any signs of cracking or deficiencies. None were observed during the inspection.

The balcony of the structure, similar to the floor of the structure within the second level units, is comprised of precast pre-stressed concrete planks. The planks supporting the balcony are supported by steel beams that cantilever off the structure and are hidden by a stucco soffit. The planks have what appears to be an original concrete topping applied to the top surface of the planks (placed after plank placement was completed) as well as a cast in place concrete edge, most likely covering a key detail in the edge of the planks. Cracks are typical in the concrete topping and concrete edge at the supporting beam locations where two planks butt against each other. This cracking is most likely attributed to the repetitious expansion and contraction of the planks during temperature change. These cracks observed above the beam locations most likely are not a structural concern, however should be monitored and filled with an expansive filler material to prevent water entrance and freeze thaw action causing damage to the structure. These cracks should be monitored for further widening.

The balcony (the northeast most unit in the second level) was inspected from atop and at the underside. From the picture sent to our office, a section of the balcony appeared to be cracked and sagging, however upon a hands on inspection, it appears as if the slab is not cracked. The joint in the underside of the slab was investigated closely and a small area of paint was removed. It appears as if this section of slab has either a cast in place concrete underside or a section of the underside was patched at some point after original construction. It may be possible that the formwork used shifted downward slightly after original construction, or wasn’t completely level when constructed. There is a fine crack in the topping of the balcony in this area, however no downward translation was noted that would be consistent with a fractured and sagging slab. A small section of the edge of the slab on the east face was observed in a cracked and loose condition, partially being held in place by vinyl siding and capping.

During the inspection of the balcony, rust staining was noted in the stucco soffit box below the main beam above the parking area under the second level. This rust staining is a sign of corrosion to the beam and should be investigated.

It is recommended that all cracks within the balcony located over the supporting cantilever beams be sealed with an expansive sealant to prevent water from entering the cracks and causing freeze-thaw damage to the planks. It is also recommended that the stucco soffit surrounding the main beam above the parking area that has rust staining be removed and the extent of the corrosion be investigated. Corroded areas of steel that do not have significant section loss should be sand blasted clean and painted. Once investigated, all corrosion removed, and the beam painted, the soffit can then be replaced, with weepholes introduced in an effort to allow moisture buildup to drain. The small spalled section at the northeast corner of the structure’s second level should be removed and the slab investigated for any corrosion to the reinforcement. Any rust on the reinforcement should be removed, and a concrete patch can be applied. To access this area properly, portions of the vinyl siding and capping should be removed. It is recommended that the carpeting be replaced in the unit where it was removed to view the damaged floor.

Note that the opinions, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report or discussed during the inspection are based on my observations and engineering experience. They are based on visual symptoms or lack of symptoms of structural problems common to this type of construction. No destructive inspection or material testing was performed, thus this report is based on the visual inspection of accessible and visible areas only.

The building is a two-story, plus unfinished basement, row-home structure attached at both its left and right sides. The building is founded on stone masonry foundation walls extending from below the basement slab to the first level floor framing. The front and rear exterior walls are comprised of brick masonry and the left and right partition walls are also comprised of brick masonry. The left and right brick masonry partition walls are shared with the attached neighboring properties, except for a portion of the left-side wall to the rear, in which the wall offsets to the right and is an exterior wall. The floor framing throughout the structure is comprised of a mixture of original rough sawn timber and newer dimensional lumber and extends from side partition wall to side partition wall. The framing is pocketed within both partition walls, with the partition walls supporting the vertical loads associated with the floor framing and the floor framing bracing the partition walls laterally.

A concern of the homeowner and one of the reasons for the structural investigation is the unlevel state of the floor framing in the first and second floor levels, specifically toward the front section of the structure. In these areas, the floors typically slope downward from right to left toward the masonry partition wall that is shared with the attached home to the left. When the basement was investigated, the basement’s slab exhibited a slope downward to the left foundation wall with the slab fractured approximately 2 feet from the foundation wall. These deficiencies are likely signs of settlement of the left-side stone masonry foundation wall that is allowing the masonry wall at the left to lower with respect to the right masonry wall. With settlement of this foundation wall, the floor framing it supports will lower as well. Since it appears as if the rate of settlement of the left-side masonry wall is greater than the right-side masonry wall, the result is floor framing that slopes to the left-side foundation wall.

Settlement can be caused by numerous issues within the subsurface strata that the structure’s foundation is bearing upon. It is a possibility that a fill material was placed below the foundation prior to construction that has an insufficient bearing capacity. Another possibility is a natural weak layer of soil below the structure that is compressing with the pressure of the structure’s weight. In addition, it is possible that a leaking utility lies below the breezeway which may have accelerated settlement of the left-side masonry wall. Within the basement of the structure, the main sanitary sewer pipe of the home has been replaced and is above the basement slab. This pipe, however, goes beneath the slab before it passes through the front foundation wall. It is possible that the original sewer pipe was located below the basement slab and that the left-side neighbor’s main sewer pipe is currently below their basement slab against the left-side foundation wall. A leak from this pipe will facilitate settlement along the left-side masonry foundation wall.

It is recommended that the neighbor’s sewer pipe, if beneath the basement slab, be checked for leaks. If a leaking sewer line below the basement slab is found, the pipe should be repaired or replaced as necessary. It is recommended that the wall be monitored for further settlement and if ongoing settlement is observed indicating an ongoing structural issue, the settlement should be remediated. Remediating settlement on this type of foundation is expensive and intrusive in nature due to the relatively brittle nature of the existing stone masonry foundation walls. The wall must first be underpinned with a concrete footing, and then steel piers must be placed below the new concrete footing. Due to the age of the structure compared with the amount of settlement observed, it is recommended that the foundation wall be monitored for an increase in the rate of settlement in lieu of implementing the remediation at this point in time. The settlement repair should be designed by a licensed engineer with the design drawings submitted to the governing jurisdiction for review, approval and permitting.

A framing defect was observed in the first level framing in which an inadequate attempt at strengthening has been introduced. The header providing an opening in the first level floor framing for the staircase to the basement has fractured due to its original inadequate connections of mortise and tenon joints. To support the end of the header, a 2×4 column of dimensional lumber has been placed at the front end of the header, bearing on the concrete slab below. The basement’s concrete slab floor is very thin, most likely only an inch in thickness, and should not be relied upon in a structural application. In addition, many mortise and tenon joints connecting the first level floor joists to the header have weakened, causing the ends of the floor joists to split and lower.

It is recommended that the 2×4 column of dimensional lumber that supports the front end of the first level header providing the stairway opening through the first level framing be removed and replaced with a 6×6 of dimensional lumber. This new column should bear on a concrete footing measuring 2 feet by 2 feet and 8 inches deep that extends below the concrete slab. The column should be fastened to the framing above and the footing below with appropriate metal plate connecters to prevent the column from being dislodged. It is recommended that this repair be administered at the rear end of the header as well. It is recommended that metal joist hangers are introduced at the connection of the right ends of the first level floor joists with the first level header. These joist hangers will provide a more positive connection between the first level framing members. Proper temporary shoring should be introduced to support the first level framing prior to the repairs being done.

Another concern of the homeowner and one of the reasons for the structural investigation is the condition of the left exterior masonry wall toward the rear of the structure. The left exterior masonry wall is comprised of a two-wythe (thickness layer) brick assembly totaling approximately 8 inches and bears on a continuous stone masonry foundation wall below. The exterior face of the brick masonry wall has a stucco coating with little to no cracking observed in the stucco. When the wall is sited from the rear, slight to moderate outward curvature is noted. This curvature is likely a result of the combination of wall deterioration due to water intrusion and insufficient lateral bracing provided by the second level floor joists and roof rafters.

From the condition of the first level framing (the entire floor framing has been replaced at the rear) it appears as if water intrusion was likely prominent at some point after original construction. Water intrusion into a masonry wall of this age will deteriorate the wall due to the non-weather resistant material of the inner section of the wall. Also, since the left-side wall is an exterior wall to the rear of the structure, the wall relies on the connection of the floor joists for lateral bracing. This connection is significantly weak in tension, and the wall requires a positive tension connection for adequate lateral bracing. This circumstance is a product of the age of the home, level of maintenance provided during the life of the structure and the relatively weak original connection of the lateral bracing due to materials and methods of construction available at the time the home was built.

Due to the age of the structure combined with the condition of the stucco coating on the outer face, it is recommended that the left exterior be monitored for further outward displacement. The homeowner stated that they have lived in the home for at least four years with the stucco coating being done by the previous owners. Since the stucco coating shows little to no signs of cracking due to ongoing displacement and the interior of the structure shows no signs of separation, it is recommended that the wall be monitored. If the wall shows signs of ongoing outward displacement such as cracking of the stucco on the outer face or separation and cracking of the interior finishes, it is recommended that the wall be replaced. It is not feasible to add lateral bracing in this section of the structure due to the orientation of the framing and its weak tension connection with the right-side brick masonry partition wall.

Note that the opinions, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report or discussed during the inspection are based on my observations and engineering experience. They are based on visual symptoms or lack of symptoms of structural problems common to this type of construction. No destructive inspection or material testing was performed, thus this report is based on the visual inspection of accessible and visible areas only.

Visual observations from the interior of the dwelling at the basement level revealed horizontal cracking along the mortar joints of the front, right side, most of the rear wall, and the front half of the left side wall. These cracks were mostly located at the top first or second course mortar joints and were accompanied by an inward lateral movement and/or bowing. This is most likely caused by excessive hydrostatic pressure and/or poor backfill subsoil material (ie. clay). Vertical cracks were also observed at the front wall near the right corner, near the center of the right side wall, and at the rear wall near the rear right corner. The plan area of the basement measured 36.5 feet along the front and rear walls and 25.5 feet along the left and right side walls. The visible portion of the foundation walls consisted of 10 courses of masonry block with a timber double sill plate.

Visual observations from the exterior perimeter revealed vertical cracks at the front wall near the front right corner under the right side corner of the right front window, near the center of the right side wall under the right window, and at the rear wall near the right corner under the left window. These cracks correspond to the vertical cracks on basement walls as described previously and are consistent with the right front corner and rear right corner experiencing foundation subsidence. This movement appears to be ongoing and is further amplified by the gap near the right side window jamb were caulking material is present. There was a horizontal crack along the brick mortar joint located to the right of the main front door about mid height of the wall. At the rear of the dwelling a covered porch consisting of an elevated concrete slab floor was observed to have signs of minor foundation settlement and/or rotation mostly pronounced at the near end and at the outer rear corner. In addition a few minor hairline vertical cracks were found in the foundation wall located at the rear addition and rear left side of the garage.

Based upon the visual observations described previously the following is recommended. Stabilize the front, right side, rear and front portion of the left wall from further inward movement and/or bowing. This can be achieved by installing a #5 reinforcement bar within the masonry cavities at no more than 2 feet spacing and fill the cavity solid with masonry grout. In addition a 4 inch wide steel I-beam should be installed vertically along the front and rear walls at no more than 4 feet spacing. The installations should follow the attached drawings.

All vertical cracks and cracks along the porch slab should be sealed at least from the outside and periodically monitored for additional movement and reevaluated if changes are discovered.

Note that the opinions, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report or discussed during the inspection are based on my observations and engineering experience. They are based on visual symptoms or lack of symptoms of structural problems common to this type of construction. No destructive inspection (excavating, opening of walls, floors, ceilings, etc.) or material testing was performed, thus this report is based on the visual inspection of accessible areas only. The inspection and this report are not intended to warrant against present or future structural problems. Any repairs discussed in this report or during the inspection are for the purpose of identifying a method of repair and/or generating an approximate cost.

The building is a detached single-story structure, plus attic and basement, founded on hollow block masonry foundation walls. The exterior walls, floor framing and partition walls throughout are of wood framed construction, with a non-load bearing brick masonry fascia surrounding the exterior of the building at the front and left sides. Approximately six months ago foundation repairs were made along the left side foundation wall. Apparently concrete underpinning and vertical internal reinforcement and grouting were constructed by a contractor. Observations along the interior face of the left and a portion of the rear wall near the rear left corner revealed cracking along the mortar joints and through the masonry units at various locations. Some of the cracks have been repaired with mortar and have re-cracked while other cracks appear to be newer post-contractors foundation repair work. This recent appearance of cracks indicates that the foundation movement is still active. Although no documents were produced which show exactly the intensions of the contractor repairs, it is obvious that it is not performing as intended. The foundation movement and settlement appears to be localized along the left side wall and rear left corner and is effecting the operation of the entry door into the basement storage area.

There also are prevalent horizontal cracks on the left side wall, as seen from the basement interior located about mid height of the wall. This crack was mostly continuous and followed the bed joint of the masonry block. It appears that the contract installed internal reinforcement along the left side wall and a portion of the rear wall as a preventative against further inward movement. Most of the horizontal cracks have been repointed with mortar. A few of the horizontal cracks seemed to have reappeared, indicating active movement. However, it is unclear at this time weather the cracks are reappearing as a result of active vertical movement or active lateral movement or a combination of both. It is surmised that the cracks are a result of the vertical movement. Sighting by eye, it can be seen that the wall is bowing inward slightly. When this occurs, typically exterior walls with brick facades tend to move and or bow/lean in the opposing direction. This can be seen at the left rear corner where it appears that the brick façade has started to pull away from the wall. Caulking should be applied where necessary to prevent water infiltration behind the brick façade and wall cavity.

In order to prevent further vertical foundation movement or settlement, which could lead to additional structural damage and defects to interior finishes at the upper living level, it is recommended to underpin the affected foundation wall(s). The preferred and recommended underpinning method is to install a series of deep driven steel push piers along the left side wall and portion of the rear wall near the rear left corner. An analysis will be required to determine the quantity and spacing of the piers for underpinning the foundation.

Once this portion of the foundation is underpinned with the recommended system, the cracks on the wall should be periodically monitored, particularly the horizontal cracks, for further movement. If horizontal cracks reappear or continue, then it is likely that lateral movement is actively accruing. If this occurs, it basically means that the internal reinforcing method installed by the contractor is failing. This is a wait a see situation.

In addition, the rear middle section of foundation wall maybe or may have experienced some foundation movement and/or settlement. There is a crack observable at the lower right corner of the window which extends downward towards the left corner. This crack is discontinuous through the plane of the window opening and reappears at the upper left corner (facing the window from the exterior). On the opposite side of the connecting corner (towards the left side) a few vertical cracks are observable near the corner. These crack locations and orientations are consistent with foundation movement at this connecting corner. Since the cracks are relatively narrow in width, and no history is definable, it is recommended to periodically monitor this area for any changes. An easy way to monitor the cracks is to paint or fill with mortar paste. If cracks reappear, then movement is likely active and remediation would be warranted.

Maintaining the gutters and downspouts to assure that the water is directed away from the foundation of the house is essential to help prevent water infiltration issues and foundation movement and distress problems.

The rear concrete patio has experienced advanced cracking and minor movement which can be attributed to the subsoil movement below. This movement could have been caused by poor drainage or possible a malfunctioning and leaking underground storm water drainage pipe. If reconstruction is proposed in this area or slab replacement is desirable, it is recommended to eliminate the underground piping and re-compact the sub-base soil materials prior to placing new concrete

No other observable structural distress or defects were found around the perimeter foundation walls. The cracking and slight settlement of the concrete slab front porch is relatively minor, but should be periodically monitored as described above. Sometimes settlement of concrete slabs tends to indicate a distressed foundation wall of the house adjacent to the slab. Since the main basement area is mostly finished, and more specifically the front foundation wall, the other foundation walls are not directly observable for condition evaluation. Access holes maybe provided at key locations if it so desired to observe these other foundation wall areas.

Note that the opinions, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report or discussed during the inspection are based on my observations and engineering experience. They are based on visual symptoms or lack of symptoms of structural problems common to this type of construction. No destructive inspection (excavating, opening of walls, floors, ceilings, etc.) or material testing was performed, thus this report is based on the visual inspection of accessible areas only.