Structural Inspection of Residential 4

[rlflower]

Perhaps several of you have conducted structural evaluations and/or inspections of residential construction. This subject is of interest to me in light of recent events highlighted on previous posts.

A couple of questions I would like to present here:

1.) Should there be general mandatory inspections required for structural elements of residential structures, regardless if they are privately owned or rented? How often should these inspections occur?
2.) In lieu of general mandatory inspections, should there be mandatory inspections of specific structural features of residential structures - and if so - what specific features should be inspected? And how often?

In absence of such required inspections, owners are left to their own judgement as to when to call for an evaluation. Usually, they do not call until disaster strikes. We get calls now and then from homeowners insurance companies for structural evaluations of residences that have recently been damaged. We also get calls from time to time from realtors regarding residences currently under escrow that have had a general inspection but required a "specialist" - in this case, a licensed engineer - to answer specific concerns.

Is it sufficient to leave the homeowner to his/her own devices, not really knowing when a certain situation could be dangerous, even life-threatening?

What are your thoughts on this?

Richard L. Flower, P. E., LEED Green Associate
Senior Structural Engineer
Complere Engineering Group, Inc.

 

[drawoh]

rlflower,

When I bought my house ten years ago, my home inspector was a Certified Engineering Technologist. I don't know what his actual training was. My insurance company was primarily interested in my electrics. Nobody in my neighborhood gets building permits, and there are lots of home handymen. The city is not aware of my roofed front porch or of my back room. Both of these extend across several townhouses. I am sure you can image the possibilities.

Having said that, I don't see any marginal structures like cantilevered balconies or porch roofs. Home handymen may overrate their skills, but they don't aggressively design crazy structures. My neighborhood does not lend itself to tall rear decks. Quite a few years ago on Toronto, somebody worked on his basement and undermined the townhouse next door. I don't know how common this is.

--
JHG

 

[rlflower]

Is it a requirement for realtors to have a general inspection of any given property during escrow? Perhaps this would be a state law?

Richard L. Flower, P. E., LEED Green Associate
Senior Structural Engineer
Complere Engineering Group, Inc.

 

[Lomarandil]

To pre-qualify my response, I don't know the first thing about how the residential world currently works -- except for my limited experience in buying a house myself.

That said, proposing mandatory structural inspections seems ludicrous to me. To make a long argument short, I don't see the market bearing the proper cost of having a qualified and experienced engineer inspecting every new home for structural issues (probably requiring several visits from the engineer per home). I can't imagine this sort of inspection being easy. How often on this forum are details of wood-frame construction brought up and debated for several pages before a consensus is reached about a certain analysis approach being kosher or not?

I suspect that with the cost of a robust inspection program, there would quickly be a number of fly-by-night low cost operators out there providing structural inspections without the expertise or experience you envision. Give it a few years, and my guess is that the number of structural life-safety issues being caught by such a requirement approaches nil.

My opinion aside, do code inspections on new construction currently check for structural issues as well as your typical plumbing/electrical/fire items? I honestly don't know.

 

[theonlynamenottaken]

This is more of a policy discussion than an engineering discussion. The implications of requiring structural inspection of new residential construction is daunting, if not completely infeasible. Requiring inspections for existing structures is probably impossible.

Refer to my post in the Balcony Collapse in Berkeley, CA thread for my thoughts on improving construction quality and/or the requiring of inspections. I believe the only way to make any actual progress on those ideas is to approach it from the insurance side of the equation. They are the ones ultimately footing the bill for issues so they'd be the most effective route for change. Piling more responsibility, policing duties, and documentation on governmental agencies won't work. If insurance (for contractors, designers and property owners) would offer discounts on rates for documented inspections similar to auto insurance rate discounts for attending driver safety courses there might be some adoption of engineering inspections of buildings.

 

[Lomarandil]

rlflower, to answer your question about inspections during escrow, I don't know of any requirement, although it seemed to be standard practice when I bought my home.

That said, this inspection was not required to be by any specifically qualified person. Additionally, if we're talking about inspections of existing properties, I'd imagine the effectiveness of a structural inspection is even lower without substantial access to the structure. And I can't imagine homeowners agreeing to having their drywall torn out so the engineer can take a look (except for the case where a problem is already evident).

 

[rlflower]

Here in California at least, there are sufficient inspections and observations conducted during construction as required by code. I tend to agree with Lomarandil regarding inspections; allowing the owner to make their own judgement as to when to call for an inspector is perhaps best. What remains, then, is how to educate the general public regarding residential safety and general maintenance.

Is it possible that an owner (not any specific owner) could be held liable for neglectful maintenance?

Richard L. Flower, P. E., LEED Green Associate
Senior Structural Engineer
Complere Engineering Group, Inc.

 

[msquared48]

When most everything is covered up, and special equipment would have to be brought into each privately owned residence each time, I do not think this would fly just based on economics.

I too am concerned for safety, but I think that the average homeowner would balk at 1 to 2k every 5 years or so. Upon sale, yes. It should be mandatory periodic for rental and commercial properties too.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[hokie66]

1) No
2) No

I don't like mandatory. I'm getting more libertarian the longer I live.

 

[Signious]

1) Realistically (in Canada at least) field level review of any Part 4 design is required by the designing engineer or any other suitably skilled person. If you want to try to actually enforce that - good luck. As-is (I had a meeting with our City permits department very recently on this very matter) it is left to the engineers discretion - if you think a monkey could do it right, no inspection; if you think they are capable of screwing it up - inspection.

2) Get real, first you have to sell it to the City. They are going to come back at you and ask where the money to oversee such a mammoth undertaking is going to come from. Second you have to explain it to the homeowner, which is going to be neigh impossible. Yah - multistory RC&Steel structures should be inspected, but if you are saying their should be a regular structural review of every townhouse, bungalow and 4-Plex people are going to call it exactly what it is - a make-work, money grab. No one is just going to swallow the cost of paying an engineer or ET $600 to crawl around there house, and possibly throw a big 'Do Not Occupy' sticker on the door at the end of it.

People are no-doubt going to tie this back to the balcony collapse - a regular inspection wouldn't have even caught that! A closed in balcony floor, only accessible in-suite. Totally independent of the superstructure and would not have been inspected in a regular structural review.

 

[drawoh]

rlflower,

My house was inspected because my insurance company insisted on it. Some friends of mine bought in downtown Toronto. When they asked about inspection, they were told the house would be sold before the inspector got there. In other words, "PFO".

--
JHG

 

[Signious]

drawoh,

Typically we get asked to do inspections when there are modifications to the house other than those the city has paper on. If the previous reno was covered by a DP, BP, ext... and the file is closed - sale w/o inspection. If the drawings don't match the as-is layout then they call is in.

 

[hokie66]

Property transactions vary a lot with location. Where I am, if a house is sold by negotiation, the purchaser normally makes the sale conditional on acceptable building and termite inspections. But if sold at auction, it is caveat emptor.

 

[drawoh]

rlflower,

My inspector tested all the wall sockets he could get at. He pulled out the plastic fascia and noted the type of wiring. About half of my wall sockets were wired incorrectly. We did not see any knob and tube. My insurance company wanted to know how old the wiring was, and he claimed it was less than twenty five years.

He told me I would need a new roof in around seven years. He was right. He told me that it was normal for my living room ceiling to sag, given the age of my house. Now that I understand how tile ceilings work, I don't understand why someone would apply stucco to one.

When you inspect a house that has people living in it, you have limited access to stuff. If it was me doing the inspection, I would make it very clear that I inspected only the stuff I could get at. All it takes is for the tenant to put a rug over the cantilevered balcony, and some lawn furniture on top of that.

--
JHG

 

[XR250]

The fact of the matter is that, other than decks, houses are pretty resilient. I have never witnessed any portion of a house collapse in my 24 years of residential work. Seen plenty of sagging, however.

 

[thaidavid40]

In this neck of the woods, home inspections of existing homes are only called for by the lending agency, prior to underwriting the mortgage. Cash sales do not get mandatory inspections, though many smart buyers will require one prior to closing. If they even see it at all (or are smart enough to recognize what they are seeing), the home inspectors around here will usually record anything they suspect is structurally deficient, and recommend an independent inspection by a registered engineer or architect. Fortunately, the termite control guys, who really have some cost liability on the line, tend to really look at the structure carefully, and they often see items missed by the home inspector. Thank God for them as a backup resource.

Thaidavid

 

[Guastavino]

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that as long as the residential code is prescriptive while also saying "provide a complete load path", I wouldn't know what to expect. With residential I feel like you follow a prescriptive set of measures that don't consider diaphragm elements, shear wall design, etc. and then you put your head in the sand at the end and say that'll work. Granted, except in the most extreme cases it seems to work.

In summary, I think the residential code needs a rehab before any true inspections are required. I don't think a house in my state would meet the commercial building code.

But it's not all doom and gloom. Houses have a good track record and we all hedge our bet somewhere. Think about this, no code really designs for tornados, and yet they happen. So it's about an acceptable level of risk. If you think about it too, car accidents happen and people die, and yet we still build roads. It's because the value added by roads exceeds the risk taken. Same way with houses. Let's say you had to provide a true complete load path. Well, good luck selling any existing houses. And then all these other new houses people want to build that have more jut-ins and outs than a coloring book maze.

I think sometimes we as structural engineers get too pie in the sky with theory and forget that even electrical conduit and ductwork add stiffness to a building/house. Point is, I don't think the risk is high enough that the extra cost is warranted. You might be able to buy a code approved house but can't afford to eat. Just my opinion though.

 

[dhengr]

I think that anything that isn’t at least thrice redundant should be inspected three times to provide some redundancy to the system. And, when we once get things a little more codified, every conceivable condition in the universe will be covered in such convoluted and conflicting detail that nothing can possible be built to code. Problem solved. The AHJ will be the organization or deity we pray and bow to, even more so than we do today, and for no better reason. If we can just get the code complex enough, any damn fool will be able to do anything, without even thinking, certainly without any need for engineering judgement or experience. As for working with insurance companies on some of these issues and problems, one would think that that might have some merit, until one thinks about how the insurance companies work and keep their books. The agent wants his/her commission on premiums, so mostly they care about selling lots of insurance. Hell, they’ll insure almost anything as long as the premium gets paid. Sometimes some of the crap that they insure falls down or fails, for all kinds of reasons. Then they pay a claim, and promptly raise the premiums to cover this payout and add a little more cushion and profits to their bank accounts. The upshot is that WE all pay the bill and most anyone who might bring some control to this mess doesn’t give a damn, they’re insured, so they don’t really have to care or think about the best (a better) approach. I’ve had this conversation a number of different times, after insurance companies retained me to help them figure what went wrong and who was at fault. I’ve said to them that I would have advised against insuring this situation, this structure if they had asked me in the first place, for the exact reasons which caused the problem which we are now facing. And while, what I said above about the insurance business is not an exact quote of what they answered, it is the gist of what their answers and shrugged shoulders suggested. Just part of doin business.

 

[manstrom]

Thank god I can finally put my X-ray vision to use.

I had a home owner request this. They wanted to make sure their 30 year old house was structurally sound - no specific concerns. I told them that I could come out, look at what I could see without opening anything up and give them a stamped letter saying that the few things that I could see were / weren't ok. I gave them a fee of twice what a standard home inspection cost.

I did not get the job.



When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.

-R. Buckminster Fuller

 

[XR250]

@Manstrom;

I get this "structurally sound" request al the time.
How do we define "structurally sound"?