This article explains foundation defects of occurrence:

Foundation failures due to an outside force, organized by foundation type and material of construction such as concrete, masonry block, brick, stone, wood foundation failures and how each foundation material will show damage due to impact, settlement, frost or water damage, and other causes.

Our page top photo shows significant settlement cracking in a two year old poured concrete foundation. Cracks occurred following blasting at an adjoining construction site. Steel reinforcement may also have been omitted from this wall.

Common Foundation Damage Organized by Type of Foundation Material Used in Construction

By "defects of occurrence" we mean things that happen to a building foundation (or masonry wall) after it has been built and which result in damage that might need repair or other further action.

Foundation movement, resulting in foundation bulge, foundation cracks, leaning, tipping, shifting or other damage are examples of potentially important occurrences that merit a careful diagnosis.

Strategy for Building Foundation or Floor or Slab Crack, Damage, or Movement Assessment

To understand the cause, effect, and remedy for all types of building foundation or masonry wall damage or movement we have categorized foundation damage into these broad categories:

1. FOUNDATION FAILURES by MOVEMENT TYPE:
   
   is the movement active or not, how is the foundation moving: bulging, leaning, settling, etc. ?
2. FOUNDATION FAILURES by TYPE & MATERIAL
   
   how does damage show up in different types of foundation material & what are the implications for collapse risk or repair need?
3. FOUNDATION CRACK DICTIONARY,
   
   what is the severity of foundation damage, what is its effect on the stability of the structure, and how urgently are foundation repairs needed?
4. FOUNDATION REPAIR METHODS
   
   discusses alternative ways to fix a damaged foundation or floor slab crack or movement

Types of foundation cracks, crack patterns, differences in the meaning of cracks in different foundation materials, site conditions, building history, and other evidence of building movement and damage are described to assist in recognizing foundation defects and to help the inspector separate cosmetic or low-risk conditions from those likely to be important and potentially costly to repair.

List of foundation failures of occurrence - things happening to the foundation

Foundation inspectors and engineers need to agree on what terms are used to describe various foundation conditions. Articles throughout this website use and illustrate the foundation damage or failure terms listed below.

• Backfill height too high or premature backfill 
  
  causing foundation buckling, leaning, or collapse
• Building relocation or set damage 
  
  foundation crack or damage during building set, often impact damage
• Bulging foundation walls & bulging cracks  -
  
  the center of the foundation wall arcs inwards towards the building; if the foundation materials are masonry block, brick or stone there will be horizontal cracks, most extreme at the inner-most point of bulging.
  
  See BULGE or LEAN MEASUREMENTS.
• Concentrated loads or point loads 
  
  and their characteristic appearance as foundation damage
• Equipment damage
  
   (backfill, vehicles) causing foundation wall buckling, breaks, or leaning; equipment striking a building can also result in impact damage
• Excessive loading leading to foundation fractures
  
   (frost heaves can produce similar damage)
• Improper materials (soft brick, below grade) causing settlement, differential settlement, leaning, or tipping of foundation walls
  
  or foundation material type or production related failures
  
  An example is improper concrete mix, too much water, wrong proportions of materials, or concrete types such as RAAC or Reinvfrced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete used in the U.S. between 1950 and 1995 that has been found prone to crumbling or collapse failures.
  
  Another example is the choice of foundation materials later found to lead to foundation failures such as the use of loess in foundations (Clevenger 1956).
• Inclusions in concrete
  
  such as iron and pyrrhotite-contaminated concrete can cause significant cracking and damage as well as stains
  
  See FOUNDATION DAMAGE by MATERIAL or INCLUSIONS
  
  Also see CONCRETE STAINS: ID & REMOVAL
• Interior cracks in buildings
  
  may be traced to foundation movement or damage
• Leaning or tipping
  
   foundation wall cracks & angles - the wall is said to be "rotating" or leaning inwards or outwards from an axis point that is usually the wall footing
• Movement
  
   or Foundation Damage indicators or signs can show up both in the foundation and as accentuated cracks higher in the building's walls or as opening/closing problems at windows or doors
• Settlement cracks
  
   in a foundation or masonry wall are due to differential settlement of the wall footings, poor original construction, water, nearby blasting operations
• Settlement cracks in a foundation
  
   may be traced to uniform or differential movement
• Severity or danger of foundation cracks or movement is  discussed
  
  at FOUNDATION CRACK DICTIONARY
• Shallow/absent/undermined/cut footings,
  
  settlement & frost damage causing settlement, differential settlement, leaning, or tipping of foundation walls
• Shrinkage cracks:
  
  in concrete, concrete block, are usually not a structural concern, but are a possible point of water or radon entry
• Soil liquefaction failures of foundations
  
  foundations or pier foundations built on soil subject to liquefaction such as during earthquake and that were not designed to withstand those conditions can collapse precipitously. (Haldar 2010)
• Soil preparation errors 
  
  - failure to compact soils, especially where foundations are constructed on fill, can lead to settling footings & slabs

Note: use of plumb lines, levels, laser levels, & simple measurements of amount by which a wall is out of level or plumb, or of crack widths and patterns are beyond ASHI Scope but are common simple tools and procedures used by masons, carpenters, builders, as well as foundation experts and engineers.

Articles that provide detail for each type of foundation and foundation material demonstrate that each foundation material and type has its own, sometimes unique, signs of damage and failure. For example, a horizontal crack in one type of foundation material may be much more serious than in another.

Just below are some articles that offer additional foundation damage analysis methods.

• FOUNDATION CRACK DICTIONARY discusses detail the process of evaluating foundation cracks and signs of foundation damage by examining the crack size, shape, pattern, and location.
• FOUNDATION BULGE or LEAN MEASUREMENTS explains a simple method for determining how much bulge or lean is present in a foundation or wall,
• FOUNDATION MOVEMENT ACTIVE vs. STATIC helps determine if the foundation movement is ongoing,
• FOUNDATION DAMAGE SEVERITY discusses how we decide the severity of foundation damage and the urgency of further action.
• FOUNDATION FAILURES by TYPE & MATERIAL describes the types of foundation damage, cracks, leaks, or other defects associated with each type of foundation material (concrete, brick, stone, concrete block, etc.).

Research on Foundation Material Failures

• Aufmuth, Raymond E., and James C. Aleszka. "A scanning electron microscope investigation of statically loaded foundation materials." Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists 13, no. 2 (1976): 137-149.
  
  Abstract
  
  Selected rock samples were tested to failure in bending, tension, and compression within the vacuum stage of a scanning electron microscope. The loads were applied very slowly so that crack initiation and growth could be observed visually and be recorded by both photography and video tape.
  
  The cracked surfaces of the failed specimens were further evaluated by more standard methods; two evaluation techniques were used to determine the failure mechanisms for each test mode and each rock type.
  
  Primary and secondary failure mechanisms were determined for selected rocks in each of the three failure modes.
• Bower, Jack, Guide to Domestic Building Surveys, Butterworth Architecture, London, 1988, ISBN 0-408-50000 X
• Building Pathology: Principles and Practice, David Watt, Wiley-Blackwell; 2 edition (March 7, 2008) ISBN-10: 1405161035 ISBN-13: 978-1405161039
• Clevenger, William A. "Experiences with loess as foundation material." Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 82, no. 3 (1956): 1025-1.
  
  Abstract
  
  Certain characteristic properties governing the behavior of loess as a foundation material have been defined through extensive laboratory and field studies conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation.
  
  These studies were primarily limited to the loess or loess-like materials occurring in the Missouri River Basin of central western United States. In this paper, broad generalizations of many pertinent properties of loess are presented and their significance is pointed out by discussions of specific typical experiences with loess as foundation material.
  
  Some interesting data gathered by the writer on residence foundation failures in Colorado are described, as well as results of laboratory and field studies of the properties of the loess connected with these failures.
• Clevenger, William A. "Experiences with loess as foundation material." Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 123, no. 1 (1958): 151-169.
  
  Abstract
  
  Certain characteristic properties governing the behavior of loess as a foundation material have been defined through extensive laboratory and field studies. These studies were primarily limited to loess or loess-like materials.
  
  In this paper broad generalizations of many pertinent properties of loess are presented, and their significance is examined on the basis of specific typical experiences with loess as foundation material.
  
  Some interesting data gathered by the writer on foundation failures of residences are described, as well as results of laboratory and field studies of the properties of the loess connected with these failures.
• Crossley, Robert William. "A geologic investigation of foundation failures in small buildings in Tucson, Arizona." (1969).
  
• Defects and Deterioration in Buildings: A Practical Guide to the Science and Technology of Material Failure, Barry Richardson, Spon Press; 2d Ed (2001), ISBN-10: 041925210X, ISBN-13: 978-0419252108.
• Goodier, Chris, Sergio Cavalaro, Kelvin Lee, and Rebe Casselden. "Durability variations in reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC)–extended abstract." In MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 361, p. 06005. EDP Sciences, 2022.
  Abstract
  
  Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) was a very common form of construction in the UK and elsewhere in the 1970s, and many of the buildings are now coming to the end of their design life.
  
  Although much is known regarding new RAAC (and AAC), many concerns exist regarding their durability, hence the current structural integrity of 40-50 year old RAAC panels, many of which are in use in critical infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and government buildings.
  
  Anecdotal evidence and preliminary site observations suggests that there is considerable variation in material properties between different RAAC panels, within the same structure, and across different structures, locations and ages. The aim of this research therefore was to investigate and understand the variability in surface resistivity, sorptivity, permeability, compressive strength, and density of RAAC across a single 2400mm panel, amongst panels from the same structure, and amongst different structures, locations and ages.
  
  The research is expected to demonstrate considerable variability in properties and performance, which will have significant implications for the repair, monitoring and management of these critical infrastructure.
• Gourvenec, Susan, and Mark Randolph. "Effect of strength non-homogeneity on the shape of failure envelopes for combined loading of strip and circular foundations on clay." Géotechnique 53, no. 6 (2003): 575-586.
  
  Abstract:
  
  The capacity of surface foundations on clay under pure vertical (V), horizontal (H) or moment (M) loading may be expressed in non-dimensional form through the use of appropriate bearing capacity factors, with values that will be affected by the shape of the foundation and also any variation of undrained shear strength with depth.
  
  A common assumption has then been that the shape of the complete failure envelope in three-dimensional loading space (V, M, H) will be similar regardless of foundation shape and soil non-homogeneity, once scaled to the appropriate apex points.
  
  The appropriateness of this assumption has been explored by means of two- and three-dimensional finite element analyses of strip and circular footings, for a simple Tresca soil model where the shear strength varies linearly with depth.
  
  With a view to applications involving partially embedded foundations, such as offshore skirted foundations, full suction and ‘bonding’ with the underlying soil has been assumed.
  
  The paper documents the normalised capacities under uniaxial (V, M or H) loading, and compares the shapes of the failure envelopes in the three planes H = 0, M = 0 and V = 0 for a practical range of strength gradients. The broad conclusion is that a single shape does indeed hold in the M = 0 plane, for both strip and circular foundations, but that for the H = 0 and V = 0 planes the overall size of the normalised failure envelope reduces as the degree of strength non-homogeneity increases.
  
  Hence the assumption of a failure envelope shape derived for homogeneous strength conditions would be unconservative.
• Haldar, Sumanta, and GL Sivakumar Babu. "Failure mechanisms of pile foundations in liquefiable soil: Parametric study." International Journal of Geomechanics 10, no. 2 (2010): 74-84.
  
  Abstract
  
  This paper presents the response of piles in liquefiable soil under seismic loads. The effects of soil, pile, and earthquake parameters on the two potential pile failure mechanisms, bending and buckling, are examined. The analysis is conducted using a two-dimensional plain strain finite difference program considering a nonlinear constitutive model for soil liquefaction, strength reduction, and pile-soil interaction.
  
  The depths of liquefaction, maximum lateral displacement, and maximum pile bending moment are obtained for concrete and steel piles for different soil relative densities, pile diameters, earthquake predominant frequencies, and peak accelerations. The potential failure mechanisms of piles identified from the parametric analysis are discussed.
• Harris, Samuel Y. P.E., AIA, Building Pathology, Deterioration, Diagnostics, and Intervention, ISBN 0-471-33172-4, John Wiley & Sons, 2001 [General building science-DF] ISBN-10: 0471331724 ISBN-13: 978-0471331728
• Hinchberger, Sean D., and R. Kerry Rowe. "Geosynthetic reinforced embankments on soft clay foundations: predicting reinforcement strains at failure." Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21, no. 3 (2003): 151-175.
• "Avoiding Foundation Failures," Robert Marshall, Journal of Light Construction, July, 1996 (Highly recommend this article-DF)
• "A Foundation for Unstable Soils," Harris Hyman, P.E., Journal of Light Construction, May 1995
• "Backfilling Basics," Buck Bartley, Journal of Light Construction, October 1994
• "Inspecting Block Foundations," Donald V. Cohen, P.E., ASHI Reporter, December 1998. This article in turn cites the Fine Homebuilding article noted below.
• "When Block Foundations go Bad," Fine Homebuilding, June/July 1998
• Maduka, Raphael Iweanya, Nnadozie Onyekachi Ayogu, Chinero Nneka Ayogu, and Gabriel Auodugu Gbakurun. "Role of smectite-rich shales in frequent foundation failures in southeast Nigeria." Journal of Earth System Science 125 (2016): 1215-1233.
• Mamou, Anna, William Powrie, J. A. Priest, and Christopher Clayton. "The effects of drainage on the behaviour of railway track foundation materials during cyclic loading." Géotechnique 67, no. 10 (2017): 845-854.
• Matthys, John H., and Ronald E. Barnett. "New masonry product for the US designer emerges-autoclaved aerated concrete." In Structures 2004: Building on the Past, Securing the Future, pp. 1-11. 2004.
  
  Abstract
  
  Masonry is one of mankind's oldest building materials serving admirably in construction of shelters, buildings, and monuments for centuries. We marvel at the structures that stand after thousands of years. A testament to that system is the continued use of conventional brick, block and stone in all type and sizes of construction facilities in the USA.
  
  The last few years has seen an emergence in the USA of a new addition to the masonry system — Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Masonry. Autoclaved aerated concrete masonry units are manufactured from Portland cement, quartz sand, water, lime, gypsum and a gas forming agent.
  
  The units are steam cured under pressure in an autoclave transforming the material into a hard calcium silicate. The units are large, solid, rectangular prisms which are laid into masonry assemblages using thin-bed mortar. This paper covers all aspects of this masonry product from production to construction to applications to rational design provisions.
• Michalowski, Radoslaw L., and Lei Shi. "Deformation patterns of reinforced foundation sand at failure." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129, no. 5 (2003): 439-449.
  
  Abstract
  
  While the stability of foundation soils has been written about extensively, the ultimate loads on reinforced soils is a subject studied to a much lesser degree. There is convincing experimental evidence in the literature that metal strips or layers of geosynthetic reinforcement can significantly increase the failure loads on foundation soils. Laboratory tests were performed to investigate the kinematics of the collapse of sand reinforced with a layer of flexible reinforcement.
  
  Sequential images of the deformation field under a model footing were digitally recorded. A correlation-based motion detection technique was used to arrive at an incremental displacement field under a strip footing model. Color-coded displacements are presented graphically. The mechanism retains some of the characteristic features of a classical bearing capacity pattern of failure, but the reinforcement modifies that mechanism to some extent. The strips of geotextile used as model reinforcement give rise to the formation of shear bands in a narrow layer adjacent to the geosynthetic.
  
  Reinforcement restrains the horizontal displacement of the soil and alters the collapse pattern. The mechanism of deformation identified in the tests will constitute a basis for limit analysis of reinforced foundation soils.
• Perkins, Steven W., and Craig R. Madson. "Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on sand: A relative density approach." Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 126, no. 6 (2000): 521-530.
  
  Abstract
  
  An accurate prediction of bearing capacity of shallow foundations on granular soils has been historically complicated by effects due to scale of the foundation. These effects are due to the nonlinear strength behavior of the granular soil and the phenomenon of progressive failure.
  
  The former can be conveniently accounted for by strength-dilatancy relationships. It is proposed that the effect of progressive failure on ultimate bearing capacity can be described in terms of the relative dilatancy index inherent in strength-dilatancy relationships. A design approach to bearing capacity based on these considerations is presented.
  
  The approach is calibrated using bearing capacity results from studies spanning the past 20 years. The solution is shown to work well for the sands examined and is useful in that the proposed process by which strength parameters are determined reduces, or may eliminate, the need for laboratory or in situ shear testing, while increasing the accuracy of the predictions made when compared to conventional methods.
• Ransom, W.H. Building Failures, Diagnosis & Avoidance, 2d Ed., , E.& F. Spon, New York, 1987 ISBN 0-419-14270-3
• Raymond, G.P., 1973. Foundation failure of New Liskeard embankment. Highway Research Record, (463).
  Abstract:
  
  A case history of an embankment foundation failure in varved clay is presented. Stability analyses by total stress, partial total stress, effective stress, and finite elements have been obtained and are discussed. Attention is focused on the performance of the stiff crust, the selection of the soil properties, and the placement of the instrumentation. The site geology and soil properties of samples taken with a commercial sample tube are discussed.
  
  The instrumentation to measure pore response (illustrated) was placed on the embankment site a year prior to construction. Figures illustrate the response measured in the piezometers. The method used in the total stress and partial total stress analysis is described. Details are given of effective stress analysis and finite element total stress analysis.
  
  Conclusions drawn from the experience are presented. The near failure excess pore pressures in the foundation material may be calculated with sufficient accuracy for practical purposes from a boussinesq stress distribution increase and skempton's pore pressure coefficients. The assignment of soil strengths to the crust material is seen as the major problem in using undrained test results in a total stress analysis.
  
  Both actual failure and the estimated failure circles were found to be very shallow, extending generally to a depth less than 19.7 feet (6 m). The use of the most realistic effictive stress analysis parameters (I.E. With undrained excess pore pressures throughout the mass) resulted in a very shallow, unrealistic slip circle although the factor of safety was only slightly too large. The finite element analysis was found to be useful in predicting the failed area by using a pseudo total stress analysis, provided multilinear stress- strain properties were used.
• Seaquist, Edgar O., Diagnosing & Repairing House Structure Problems, McGraw Hill, 1980 ISBN 0-07-056013-7
• Serrano, Alcibiades, and Claudio Olalla. "Allowable bearing capacity of rock foundations using a non-linear failure criterium." In International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences & geomechanics abstracts, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 327-345. Pergamon, 1996.
• Soane, Alastair. "The Formation, Development, and Future of CROSS." In Forensic Engineering 2022, pp. 12-22.
  Abstract
  
  CROSS (Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures) captures safety concerns and events from submitted reports and shares lessons learned from them. The objective is to identify pre-cursors and help prevent future failures and loss of life. CROSS has a volunteer panel of expert engineers covering a wide spectrum of the design and construction sectors who comment on reports in a no-blame environment.
  
  These are published and examples will be given. Moreover, in 2017, a fire in Grenfell Tower in London resulted in 72 deaths. The UK Government commissioned an independent review of building regulations and fire safety: the Hackitt review. Included in the recommendations was a proposal that CROSS should be strengthened for structural safety and expanded to include fire safety.
  
  Results from this enhanced system will be available to all at no cost and the results will be used to inform the new UK Building Safety Regulator whose role is being formulated. Furthermore, as CROSS became established, there was interest from like-minded groups in other countries and currently there are schemes in the US (CROSS-US) and Australasia (CROSS-AUS) which will be covered in other papers of this session.
  
  Thus, the ultimate aim is to have a global network of CROSS communities who exchange reports and publish material that will help to keep users of buildings safer. This will be a resource for owners, design practitioners, builders, regulators, academics, and of course the public.
• Wang, G., Wang, Y., Lu, W., Zhou, C., Chen, M. and Yan, P., 2015. XFEM based seismic potential failure mode analysis of concrete gravity dam–water–foundation systems through incremental dynamic analysis. Engineering Structures, 98, pp.81-94
• Williams, Andrew. Domestic building surveys. Routledge, 2005.
• Yamamoto, Kentaro, and Koji Kusuda. "Failure mechanisms and bearing capacities of reinforced foundations." Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19, no. 3 (2001): 127-162.
  
  Abstract
  
  The objective of this paper is to investigate the behaviors of progressive failures of reinforced foundations and to establish a valid quantitative design method based on the failure mechanism. Firstly, a series of model loading tests using the simulation of the ground by aluminum rods are conducted, in which the length and the property of reinforcing material are varied. Based on these tests, not only the bearing capacity but also the mechanism of progressive failure are investigated by image processing analysis.
  
  The movement and the micro-rotation of aluminum rods are obtained by experiments. The maximum shear strain and the rigid rotation (macro-rotation) are determined analytically. The progressive failure and localized deformation of reinforced foundations are discussed on the basis of the microscopic observation and the analyzed results. Failure mechanisms of both unreinforced and reinforced foundations are shown by the results of the microscopic observation of model ground simulated by aluminum rods.
  
  Based on these failure mechanisms, a simplified upper-bound mechanism is proposed and its calculation is performed. It is shown that the calculated upper-bound solutions of the bearing capacities and the failure mechanisms are in reasonable agreement with the observations.

...

---

---

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---

Reader Q&A - also see RECOMMENDED ARTICLES & FAQs

On 2018-10-03 by (mod) - ok that re-bar rods were not tied together?

No, Mike, I can't say that it's okay to just toss in the re-bar without connections and possibly without adequate cover.

I don't know what your building or what the foundation is or what the loan requirements are or what the soil conditions are nor do we know if there's evidence of a history of movement. But those are the kinds of questions that a professional will consider.

Certainly in my inspection of collapsed buildings in earthquake zones it was clear that mistakes in construction such as impropre re-bar placement or lack of ties of rebar sections contributed to failures.

I think I wouldn't consider building up without getting an answer to those questions possibly also using some equipment to detect the connectors of the rebar.

Here is a model code excerpt from the International Residential Code or IRC

IRC R403.1.3.5.3 Support and Cover [for steel bar or Re-bar reinforcement]

Reinforcement shall be secured in the proper location in the forms with tie wire or other bar support system to prevent displacement during the concrete placement operation. Steel reinforcement in concrete cast against the earth shall have a minimum cover of 3 inches (75 mm).

Minimum cover for reinforcement in concrete cast in removable forms that will be exposed to the earth or weather shall be 11/2 inches (38 mm) for No. 5 bars and smaller, and 2 inches (50 mm) for No. 6 bars and larger. For concrete cast in removable forms that will not be exposed to the earth or weather, and for concrete cast in stay-in-place forms, minimum cover shall be 3/4 inch (19 mm).

Here is another example

ACI 318-14 via IBC Reference [International Building Code]

ACI IBC / ACI 318-14 IBC 26.6.2.2 Compliance requirements [for re-bar]

(a) Reinforcement, including bundled bars, shall be placed within required tolerances and supported to prevent displacement beyond required tolerances during concrete placement.

On 2018-10-03 by mike

I have a foundtion that I want to build on but I suspect that the rod were not tied together. is this ok?

On 2018-01-18 - by (mod) -

Fred

A foundation engineer will usually call *any* crack a "failure".

In my non-engineering opinion, a 19mm wide crack is substantial damage in any foundation material.

The actual impact of cracking and movement on the rest of the structure needs to be evaluated as does the cause and thus the remedy.

On 2018-01-18 by Anonymous

Is it possible

On 2017-11-13 by Fred

A new foundation has a 19mm crack, vertical 19mm at top to 10 mm at bottom. Is this structural deficient?

On 2016-10-27 - by (mod) -

Sam

You can use the page top or bottom CONTACT link to send me some photos for comment.

I don't want to annoy your "structural engineer" but if there is a 15mm wide diagonal crack in a masonry building that's certainly worth investigating.
If the crack is just in brick infill in a wood-framed wall, then the cracked brick itself isn't so worrisome, but it may be an important clue telling us that there is damage to and movement in the wood-framed structure. Or in the foundation below it.

Usually if we draw a line at right angles to and down from the diagonal crack the line points to the direction of downwards movement.

If the cracking is new and ongoing it's worth determining its cause (rot, bug damage, foundation settlement) by inspecting the building with some care.

On 2016-10-27 by sam

HI THERE i have a Victorian house from 1890. In The upstairs front bedroom we have a crack running diagonally in the party wall. I did get a structural engineer out who thought it was all fine. So when we pulled off the plaster to reveal the brick it turns out there is a 15mm stepped crack running throught the mortor joints of the bricks. In the corner the skirting had come away also. Should I be worried? i HAVE PHOTOS

On 2016-08-04 - by (mod) -

You can use our page top or bottom CONTACT link to send photos;

The importance of a crack depends on a number of factors: cause, effect on structure, anticipated further movement.

More crack evaluation guides are in the ARTICLE INDEX to BUILDING STRUCTURES - look there for article titles that most-closely speak to the size, shape, type, of cracking and the foundation material being used.

On 2016-08-04 by Basement crack

There is a crack in the foundation of our house currently under construction. Trying to determine if I should have it looked at other than by the builder. Can you offer advice? I have pictures but cannot post.

 

...

Continue reading at FOUNDATION FAILURES by MOVEMENT TYPE or select a topic from the closely-related articles below, or see the complete ARTICLE INDEX.

Or see these

Recommended Articles

• CONCRETE CORROSION DUE TO HYDROGEN SULFIDE
• CONCRETE or MASONRY DAMAGE TESTS 
• CONCRETE FOUNDATION, WALL, SLAB DEFECTS
• FOUNDATION CRACK DICTIONARY
• FOUNDATION DAMAGE by MATERIAL or INCLUSIONS
• FOUNDATION FAILURES by MOVEMENT TYPE

Suggested citation for this web page

FOUNDATION FAILURES by TYPE & MATERIAL at InspectApedia.com - online encyclopedia of building & environmental inspection, testing, diagnosis, repair, & problem prevention advice.

Or see this

INDEX to RELATED ARTICLES: ARTICLE INDEX to BUILDING STRUCTURES

Or use the SEARCH BOX found below to Ask a Question or Search InspectApedia

Ask a Question or Search InspectApedia

Try the search box just below, or if you prefer, post a question or comment in the Comments box below and we will respond promptly.

Note: appearance of your Comment below may be delayed: if your comment contains an image, photograph, web link, or text that looks to the software as if it might be a web link, your posting will appear after it has been approved by a moderator. Apologies for the delay.

Only one image can be added per comment but you can post as many comments, and therefore images, as you like.
You will not receive a notification when a response to your question has been posted.
Please bookmark this page to make it easy for you to check back for our response.
Our Comment Box is provided by Countable Web Productions countable.ca

Citations & References

In addition to any citations in the article above, a full list is available on request.

---

ADVERTISEMENT

---