0% found this document useful (0 votes)
4K viewsBRE Digest 251
BRE Digest 251
Uploaded by
Steven AllenCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
4K viewsBRE Digest 251
BRE Digest 251
Uploaded by
Steven AllenCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 9
Rie Digest ae
Concise reviews of building technology Cie
Assessment of damage in low-rise buildings
with particular reference to progressive foundation movement
resulting from structural distortion. The assessment is based on a ®
description of work considered necessary to repair the building fabric;
classification into six categories is recommended, taking into account the
nature, location and type of damage. bre press
‘The most common causes of damage are discussed. It is concluded that
for damage of Category 2 or less, cracking may result from a
combination of causes which are difficult to identify and the cost and
effort involved in carrying out an identification would be
disproportionate to the scale of the damage, except for circumstances
where the movement is likely to be progressive. It is rare for damage to
progress beyond Category 2; when it does ground movement is usually
the cause. The various causes of ground movement giving rise to damage
are described briefly and emphasis is placed on the identification of
conditions where the movement might lead to progressive deterioration.
This Digest will assist building professionals, property valuers and
insurance advisors both in putting building damage into its true
perspective and in determining necessary action, either in the form of
seeking expert advice or in recommending simple rep:
The severe droughts of 1975/6 and 1989/90 brought to the Fig Annual valve of insurance claims for subsidence and eave
Public’s attention the fact that low-rise buildings are susceptible damage to housing
tocracking ofthe materials from which te buildings are Note the subatial increase following 1989 and 1980 dry years
constructed. That widespread publicity and some alarm were
generated reflects not so much the severity of the damage as the
general ignorance of both causes of damage and the amounts,
which masonry structures can tolerate. Its important to realise
that very few buildings, if any, exist without some form of
damage. How much can be tolerated depends on @ number of
factors: the type of building, the function itis to perform, the
location and nature of the damage, the expectations of the user
and the cost of repair work in relation to the value of the
building. Many of the ways in which cracking can be produced
in buildings are discussed in Digests 359 and 361
Value of aime -£
One of the many causes of damage is foundation movement
resulting especially from the drying shrinkage of clay subsoil
This is not a new phenomenon and has been experienced many
times in the past. However, the 1975/76 drought, whilst |
admittedly being more extensive than previous dry spells,
Building Research Establishment Garston, Watford, WO2 7F. 251
initiated a spate of damage claims on insurance companies
‘out of all proportion to its severity. Indeed, cases of
damage, whilst being geographically more widespread,
‘were no more severe than have been identified by the
Building Rescarch Establishment in previous dry spells,
such as the dry summers of 1946 and 1947. The growth in
claims for subsidence damage from 1971, when insurance
against subsidence damage became widely available, is
shown in Fig | which was produced from data supplied by
leading household insurers and the Association of British
Insurers
In a two-year period following the end of the drought in
August 1976, BRE examined 90 properties which suffered
damage during and soon after the drought. These were
cases specifically brought to the attention of BRE, largely
by professionals, and probably they represent the worse end,
of the spectrum of subsidence damage. In addition, case
records supplied by NHBC (20) and major household
insurers (30) were examined. The ‘worst’ examples were
requested. The overall sample size was, therefore, 140.
Examining the results of this survey it was apparent that
‘one single factor had been responsible for the massive
increase in damage claims: when house insurance cover had
been enhanced in 1971 by insurance companies to
indemnify against damage caused by ground subsidence, no
{qualifications had been placed on the amount of damage
‘occurring. In consequence, many cases of damage hitherto
regarded as of no great importance had become the subject
‘of insurance claims. In addition, houses with cracks which
‘would once have been disregarded were being significantly
devalued unless expensive remedial measures were carried
out
It also became apparent that extensions to existing
buildings and structural protrusions, such as bay windows
and porches, were especially vulnerable to slight cracking
where they joined the main structure. As will be discussed
later, damage to extensions, usually ascribed to clay
shrinkage, may well result from other causes.
‘The over-sensitivity of the housing market has also affected
‘new construction. Local authority building inspectors are
now much more cautious and itis evident that unnecessarily
large sums of money are being spent on new foundations for
no apparent reason other than in an attempt to prevent small
cracks which, when they occur, may be totally unconnected
with foundation movement. Itis known, for example, that 3 m
{deep trench foundations have been used in a number of
locations and even S m deep trench foundations have been
reported for clay soils where I m deep trench foundations
‘would have been regarded as adequate inthe past
During the course of the investigations it was concluded
that inadequate attention was paid to describing building
damage and that the essential first step in any assessment
should be to ensure that all visible damage is properly
recorded and classified in terms of an objective, widely
accepted scale. The main purpose of this Digest is to
discuss the recording and classification of damage to enable
rational decisions to be made on such questions as severity
‘of damage, its cause and appropriate remedial measures.
REPORTING DAMAGE
The reporting of damage is frequently less than satisfactory
for assessing the severity and cause of damage. Statements
like “extensive eracking to interior walls’ are often the only
description of damage given fora property. Furthermore,
the subjective judgement of individuals on the seriousness
‘of damage varies considerably so that properties with
similar levels of damage brought about by similar events
‘may undergo vastly different degrees of remedial work
‘A prerequisite for the objective classification of damage in
‘a building is a thorough, well-documented survey. A
suggested procedure for carrying out such a survey consists
of
Ona sketch of each damaged walt, draw the position and
direction of any cracks
Distinguish where possible between tensile cracks,
‘compressive cracks (indicated by small flakes of brick
squeezed from the surface and by localised crushing) and
shear cracks (indicated by relative movement along a crack
Of points on opposite side of i). Note the direction of any
crack taper, crack widths, and the frequency of eracks if
they are too numerous to record individually. I both
external and internal crack patterns are plotted (a fll and
broken lines respectively) on the same elevation drawings,
the mode of distortion and cause of movement can be better
2
understood. An example of such a plot is shown in Fig 2
Generally, cracks produced by foundation movement are
not widely distributed throughout a building, but tend to be
concentrated in areas where maximum structural distortion
and structural weak points coincide. In these areas, cracks
are usually few in number so that recording of crack density
is not onerous. Photographs provide a useful record of
crack patterns and density; Figs 3 and 4 are typical cases.
‘Any movement on one side of a crack in relation to the
other in a direction out of the plane of the wall will also
help to identify the mode of distortion (see Digests 343 and
344),
Fig? Crack plting on building elevation
aay
Sarees cvs cence mary neeane
Nem Cty SEGE ELMEC WOT oe 251
Try to determine the approximate age of the cracks
‘This can be done by questioning the occupants on the date
of discovery and by examining the fracture surfaces,
particularly of extemal cracks, for signs of age. For
instance, recent cracks in brickwork have a clean
appearance, whereas older cracks show signs of dint
accumulation,
Where possible, measure or estimate the magnitude of any
distortion and movement of the building
Examples are tilt and bulge of walls, slope of floors and slip
on damp-proof course (Digest 344). The plotting of such
values on a drawing of the building can be very helpful:
Fig 5 shows a plot ofthe results of plumbing of walls. A
Fig 3. Category 2 subsidence damage series of level readings on a course of brickwork near
studs are used to monitor crack width ground level can provide an indication of both the direction
‘of vertical movement and the part of the structure where it
is concentrated, Figure 6 shows an example of a plot of
relative levels around a building, Of course, care is
necessary in interpreting such measures as the brick courses,
‘may not have been horizontal at the time of construction,
dally, a series of measurements at different dates should
be taken to show if movements are continuing, While this
Will not usually be practicable for full surveys of level and.
Verticality (Digests 344, 386, it may be possible to obtain a
series of measurements with time of the widths of cracks
(Digest 343), Many cases of alleged subsidence damage
take considerable time to be resolved so that such a series
‘of measurements, over say six months toa year, may well
be practicable and of immense value in determining cause
Evidence of building distortion is often hidden in lofts; the
‘ends of roof joists and purlins should be examined to
establish the extent of any movement, Movement in roofs
can also be detected by observing gaps between tiles.
Fig Category 3 damage
‘movements predominantly rotational and horizontal
Fig. Vericalty plot fora pair of semi-detached houses Beseribe how the serviceability ofthe building has been
impaired
For example, doors and windows jamming, window panes
cracked, draughts and rainwater penetrating cracks, and
service pipes fractured,
Give a thorough description of the materials of walls and
finishes and their condition, especially that of mortar
Information of this type can often enable the identification
‘of causes other than ground movement, for example
shrinkage of concrete products, or differential thermal
expansion of dissimilar materials, as well as assisting in the
selection of suitable methods of structural repair.
Record details of the construction
‘This can have a very significant effect, on both degree and
location of structural cracking. Every effort should be made
to establish basi information about the structure, for
‘example whether it has solid or cavity walls and the way in
Which the floor has been constructed. Whether or not the
floor slab has been carried off the inner laf, for example,
or is floating (see Fig 7) can affect significantly the
response of the structure to foundation movement, the way
in which damage may occur and the form of remedial
works.
CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGE
Three broad categories of damage should initially be
considered: ‘aesthetic’, ‘serviceability’ and ‘stability’
The first comprises damage which affects only the
appearance of the property. The second includes
‘eracking and distortion which impair the
‘weathertightness or other function of the wall (eg sound
insulation ofa party wall may be degraded), fracturing
of service pipes and jamming of doors and windows. In
the third category are cases where there is an
tunacceptable risk that some part of the structure will
‘collapse unless preventative action is taken. Very often
when damage is described, no distinction is made
between these three categories, making it impossible to
‘gauge the severity of the problem.
Itis only a short step from the three, general
descriptions of damage to the more detailed
classification shown in Table 1; this defines six
categories of damage, numbered 0 to 5 in increasing
severity.
‘The classification is hased on the ease of repair of
visible damage to the building fabric and structure and
has been derived from a number of previous
studies. In order to classify visible damage itis,
therefore, necessary when carrying out the survey to
assess what type of work would be required to repair
the damage both externally and internally. The
following points should be noted:
Fig 7 Alemative forms of Noor construction
Where the cause of damage is believed to be foundation
‘movement, additional factors may need to be considered
depending on the scale of the damage sustained
It may be necessary to carry out a thorough examination of
the foundations in the area of most movement and also to
determine the nature ofthe underlying ground (see
Assessing the possibility of severe damage due to
progressive ground movement). In both these cases it may
be necessary to call forthe services of a suitably qualified
civil or structural engineer.
‘© The classification applies only to brick or blockwork and.
isnot intended to apply to reinforced concrete elements.
‘© The classification relates only to visible damage at a
given time and not its cause or possible progression
which should be considered separately
‘© Great care must be taken to ensure thatthe classification
‘of damage is not based solely on crack width since this
factor alone can produce a misleading concept ofthe true
scale ofthe damage. It isthe ease of repair ofthe damage
‘hich is the key factor in determining the overall
category of damage for the whole building.
‘© It must be emphasised that Table I relates to visible
damage and more stringent criteria may be necessary
‘where damage may lead to corrosion, penetration or
leakage of harmful liquids and gases or structural failure.
For most cases, Categories 0, | and 2.can be taken to
represent ‘aesthetic’ damage, Categories 3 and 4
‘serviceability’ damage and Category 5 ‘stability’ damage.
However, these relationships will not always exist since
localised effects, such as the instability of an arch over a
doorway, may influence the categorisation. Judgement is
always required in ascribing an appropriate category to a
‘given situation. CAUSES OF DAMAGE
‘So far, only the reporting of damage and its classification
have been discussed. However, itis the cause of the
‘damage and whether it will be progressive that is of great
concern, There are many causes of damage brought about
by differential movements. Broadly, they can be divided
into those associated with the structure itself, and those
associated with the ground beneath the structure,
Table 1 Classification of visible damage to walls with
Particular reference to ease of repair of
plaster and brickwork or masonry
rack wide ison factor in asesing category of damage
and should not be sed ons. ovm asa diet measure of
Category Description of typical damage
of damage Ease of repair in italic type
Hairline cracks of less than about 0.1 mm which are
classed as negligible. No action required.
Fine cracks which can be treated easily using normal
decoration. Damage generally restricted to internal wall
Finishes; cracks rarely visible in external brickwork.
‘Typical erack widths up to 1 mm.
2 Cracks easily filled. Recurrent cracks can be masked by
suitable linings. Cracks not necessarily visible extemally;
some external repointing may be required 10 ensure
weather-tighiness. Doors and windows may stick slightly
and require easing and adjusting. Typical crack widihs
‘upto S mm,
3. Cracks which require some opening up and can be
patched by a mason. Repointing of exiernal brickwork
‘and possibly a small amount of brickwork to be replaced.
Doors and windows sticking. Service pipes may fracture.
‘Weather-tightness often impaired. Typical crack widths
are $to 15 mm, or several of, say, 3 mm,
4 Extensive damage which requires breaking-out and
replacing sections of walls, especially over doors and
windows. Windows and door frames distorted, floor
sloping noticeably*. Walls leaning or bulging
‘noticeably®, some loss of bearing in beams. Service pipes
