The remainder of the dwelling was inspected with some minor cracking to plasterboard linings in the

north east bedroom being observed. This damage is considered to be pre-existing and attributed to
general building movement, typical for a structure of this age. Apart from the above mentioned
defects the remainder of the dwelling was considered to be in a satisfactory condition with no visible
damage or defects being apparent at the time of the inspection.

CONCLUSION
Foundation Settlements.
Given the age and original condition of the residence some settlement, separation and cracking to
the concrete foundations and paving surrounding the dwelling is considered to have occurred over
time. This type of damage is typically considered to be minor in nature and associated with general
concrete shrinkage and foundation movement associated with expansion and contraction of the
foundation soil under normal moisture conditions as well as movements associated with the natural
thermal cycle.

The claimed event(s), being rupture of a water main is considered to have resulted in significant
water flow across the insureds property subjecting the site to abnormal moisture conditions and
erosion of the soil below foundations and concrete paving. The abnormal moisture conditions are
considered to affect the foundation soils resulting in larger than normal foundation movements
associated with additional swelling of the soils. Erosion of the foundation support material is
considered to attribute to larger than normal settlements experienced under normal conditions
where foundations are in full contact with the soil below.

Abnormal Moisture condition developed in fill material under foundations

The cracking in the external brickwork at the Western, Northern and Southern side of structure and
internal linings are considered to be associated with foundation settlement due to development of
abnormal moisture conditions in fill material and in foundation load bearing material over time. It
had happened likely due to inadequacies in the design or in the construction of the foundations in
the filled portion of the structure. The damage to the drainage pipes associated with abnormal
moisture conditions in fill material due to absence of required support of these pipes in the event of
any abnormal settlements. The damaged pipes and joints are a consequence of, rather than an
instigator to this movement.
Concrete pavements:
The damage observed to the concrete paving on the western side of the dwelling (refer P5-P8) is
considered to be attributed to a lack of provision of jointing throughout the slab to adequately
regulate cracking associated with general concrete shrinkage as well as expansion and contraction of
the concrete associated with the natural thermal cycle. However the cracking observed is considered
to have been exacerbated by foundation movement and loss of foundation support through erosion
attributed to the claimed event.
The settlement and separation observed to the concrete paving on the western, northern and
eastern side of the dwelling is considered to be associated with loss of foundation support through
erosion attributed to the claimed event. The cracking to the concrete pavement on the eastern side
of the dwelling (refer P32, P34-P37) is considered to have been pre-existing and associated with a
lack of provision of adequate jointing throughout the slab. However the cracking observed is
considered to have been exacerbated by foundation movement and loss of foundation support
through erosion attributed with the claimed event.

Cracks in Block Walls:

The damage observed to the concrete block retaining walls on the western side of the dwelling is
considered to be associated with settlement due to loss of foundation and is considered to be
attributed to the claimed event. Apart from the vertical cracking to these retaining walls (refer P6,
P9, P10, P12 and P13) the walls did not appear to have rotated and are considered to be in
satisfactory condition at the time of inspection. The remainder of the retaining walls throughout the
property appeared to be is satisfactory condition at the time of inspection with no apparent damage
or movement.

Cracking in Masonry:
The full depth cracking observed to the masonry and mortar on the northern wall of the dwelling is
considered to be associated with settlement of the foundations at the north-west and north east
corners of the dwelling. This foundation settlement is considered be associated with loss of
foundation support through erosion attributed to the claimed event.

2
 As requested, our office inspected the existing dwelling at 21 Samdon Street, Hamilton on 15th
November 2017. The inspection was in response to concern over a number of cracks which have
appeared in the walls of the dwelling.
The dwelling is a two storey weather board clad house with timber floor framing. Cracking was
observed in the plasterboard internal lining of the walls around doors and windows and in corners
throughout the house.
All cracks observed during the inspection had a width of less than 5mm and the majority of cracks
had a width of less than 1mm. AS2870 – Residential Slabs and Footings classifies cracks with widths
of less than 1mm as “Very Slight” and describes them as “fine cracks that do not need repair”. Cracks
between 1mm and 5mm are classified as “Slight” and are described as “noticeable but easily filled”.
The cracking in the walls is consistent with damage expected due to differential foundation
movement. Differential foundation movement can occur as a result of changing moisture conditions
in reactive soils over time. Geotechnical investigations our office has previously undertaken in the
surrounding areas have encountered reactive soils.

The cracks should be regularly monitored and Forum Consulting Engineers should be contacted if
cracks appear to be growing or if additional cracks appear.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 Specialist advice on resin injection is to be sought from a company, such as Mainmark

Uretek, on suitability of the product to lift the north east and north west corners of the
structure, the concrete block retaining wall on the western side of the dwelling and
concrete paving back into its original position.

 To allow site foundation materials to return to normal moisture conditions it is

recommended to allow the site to dry out for a minimum period of 6 months, from the
time of the claimed event, prior to commencing remediation works.

 Where resin injection is not suitable to re-level the concrete paving surrounding the
dwelling the paving is to be removed. The eroded foundation material is to be
reinstated with an imported low plasticity material placed in max 200mm layers and
vibratory compacted to not less than 98% standard compaction. The concrete paving
slab is then to be reinstated to match the original.

3
  Once remedial works are completed the cracking to the masonry and mortar on the
northern wall is to be repaired with an appropriate masonry repair system

 Specialist advice on resin injection is to be sought from a company, such as Mainmark

Uretek, on suitability of the product to lift the north east and north west corners of the
structure, the concrete block retaining wall on the western side of the dwelling and
concrete paving surrounds back into its original position. The extent and scope of
works associated resin injection remediation works is to be sought from the contracted
specialist.

 Upon completion of resin injection works the damaged masonry and mortar on the
northern face of the dwelling and cracking to the reinforced concrete block wall is to
be patch repaired with an appropriate proprietary concrete repair product in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and guidelines. The scope of
masonry repair work is based on the information provided in AS2870-2011 “Residential
Slabs and Footings” Appendix C “Classification of damage due to foundation
movement” Table C1 for a crack width less than 5mm (P9-P10,P13, P20-P26 & P49-
P48) resulting in a damage category of “2 – Slight, cracks noticeable but easily filled”

Option 2: Releveling of the damaged foundations with underpinning and replacement of the
concrete paved surrounds

 The damaged and subsided concrete paving immediately surrounding the dwelling on
the western, northern and eastern sides of the dwelling as shown in P14 - P19, P27
P29-P31, P33, P38-P39, P41 is to be removed.
 A min 1000mm wide section of concrete paving in front of the damaged concrete block
retaining wall running parallel with the northern boundary (refer P6) is to be removed
 Mass concrete underpins are to be placed at max 1500 centers below the subsided
building and retaining wall foundations at the north east and north west corners of the
main dwelling. Underpins are to consist of 500 square x min 500 deep mass concrete
pads founded in stiff natural material or better. All concrete underpins are to be N25
grade concrete or better. It is the responsibility of the contractor to place underpinning
footings is a way to maintain the stability of the existing structure.

4
  Once under pining footings have adequately cured the subsided footings are to be
jacked back into their original position and the space between the underpin pad and
footing be fully grouted with a high strength low shrink grout.
 The damaged masonry and mortar on the northern face of the dwelling and cracking to
reinforced concrete block work is to be repaired in accordance with process outlined in
option 1.
 The foundation material below the removed concrete paving is to be reinstated with
an imported low plasticity material placed in max 200mm layers and vibratory
compacted to not less than 98% standard compaction. The concrete paving slab is then
to be reinstated to match the original.

 Regrade the eaves gutter to obtain minimum 1% fall to the rear downpipe all around
dwelling. Damaged rear down pipe to be fixed at Southern corner of dwelling.

 Provide a nominal 600mm wide concrete (or alternative impermeable surface) strip
abutting the house and falling away from the house along the south western edge of
dwelling, Cracked concrete pavement at North eastern side of dwelling to be fix and
make a fall away from dwelling.

 It is recommended that specialized plumber to be engaged and all drainage system and
water supply to the dwelling to be tested to find out of any leaks and to be fixed it if
any.

 It is recommended to contact hunter water and get tested their services around the
dwelling property for leaks and to be fixed it if any.

 Further investigations on the geotechnical condition of subsoil foundation material

around affected area of the dwelling are also recommended.

 After finding out the cause and rectify the problem it is recommended that to allow site
foundation materials to return to normal moisture conditions, it is recommended to allow
the site to dry out for a minimum period of 6 months, from the time of the cause

5
 rectification, prior to commencing remediation works. It is likely that during this period
some the cracks will be reduced in width or may be closed off.

 Ideally the stabilization of the external perimeter would be undertaken. Provide a

nominal 600mm wide concrete (or alternative impermeable surface) strip abutting
the house and falling away from the house along the perimeter edge of dwelling and
left until the building experiences most seasonal weather changes (preferably 6-12
months), the performance of this work monitored by a structural engineer, using
glass ‘tell-tale’ plates across a selected number of existing cracks to assess the effect
of this work. After that, on advice of structural engineer, cracks to be repatched as
per specified in relevant Australian standards.

 It is recommended that conditional assessment of brick ties to be under taken by

specialized personnel after removal of roof tiles, brick ties are most likely to be
corroded and in rotten condition. In this case, install proprietary remedial brick ties
as per manufacturers/ suppliers specifications on max 600mm spacing in grid.

 Underpinning of foundations with isolated piers would not be practical, as

foundations would be high level brick work or isolated sandstone blocks. Nor would
repairs such as “Uratek” be suitable to elevate the footings.

Vehicular Impact:
Portion of dwelling house dislocated from its original position due to vehicular impact to be
pull back to its original position and squaring as specified below.

o Remove external cladding up to the extent of the damage and make sure all structural
members are structurally adequate and if any member was found cracked or damaged,
reinforce it to its original capacity.

o Ground floor timber joist and bearer of the affected area need to prop and jack up a bit
with slip joint connection between props and jacking member and allowing it to slide over.

o Install LVL beams as specified in (Sketches 1 to 4 in Appendix B – Repair Recommendation

and details) to build a braced frame with stiff members connected with existing timber wall
frames that will allow the whole frame move at the event of applied force.

o Pulling force must be applied in incremental manner and displacement must be

monitored and adjusted accordingly.

o All members must be monitored at the event of applied force and if any member seems
failing locally or as a system then adjustment to be made accordingly or contact Forum
Engineers immediately.

o Final tolerances must be with in allowable limits set in accordance with “New South
Wales Guide to standards and tolerances 2017 by Fair Trading NSW”.

6
 - Replace/Repair damaged brick work at south west elevation.

- Replace/Repair damaged external cladding.

- Replace/Repair damaged window frame, window panels and broken glass.

- Replace/Repair damaged wall and window was observed in storeroom with structural
members of at least equal sizes and material properties

Patch/ replace cracked/ damaged internal plasterboard lining, ceilings and cornices.

- It is strongly recommended to engage specialized structural engineer to access structural

stability and adequacy of the dwelling after completion of all repair and remedial works.

These recommendations are made without knowledge of the contents of the insured’s policy,
and as such no suggestion is made as to which party is responsible for the cost of repairs to be
carried out.

All work carried out is to comply with current Building Code of Australia, Local Government,
Australian Standards, WorkCover NSW and Work Health & Safety Act & Regulation requirements
as applicable.

I trust the above has suitably addressed all issues as required by this office, however should
you require any further information or wish to discuss please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned

It is our opinion that the structural integrity of the dwelling has not been compromised. The cracks in
the walls can be filled with a flexible filler and repainted.
.