AS2870 was introduced in 1986 claiming, ‘Adherence to this Standard will reduce litigation’. However, there is a growing body of evidence denying this claim. The Queensland Building Services Authority (Now Queensland Building and Construction Commission) reported in May 1998 (only twelve years after the introduction of AS2870), ‘A large percentage of damage compensation claims involved subsidence problems’. A subsequent QBSA press release revealed, ‘The cost of subsidence problems was doubling each year’. The Victorian Building Authority (VBA) research findings on slab heave reported in May 2014, ‘Research found that 5.3 percent of dwellings built in an area of Melbourne’s western suburbs between 2003 and 2011 showed some form of distress (such as cracks in the floor and walls), attributed to slab heave’, and concluded, ‘The key issues relating to slab heave were associated with deficiencies in the storm water drainage systems of the dwellings’.

Most, if not all VBA reported slab heave problems occurred within a few years after construction, some even within a few months. Why are so many slabs experiencing structural damage prematurely? AS2870 acknowledges that buildings constructed on sites subject to so-called ‘Abnormal moisture conditions’ have a higher probability of structural damage than those on normal sites. Who is responsible for abnormal moisture conditions? AS2870 suggests that site classifiers, qualified engineers, designers and builders are responsible for abnormal moisture conditions existing prior to or resulting from building construction, and home-owners are responsible for abnormal moisture conditions developing after construction.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that when AS2870 has been applied and there is a structural damage investigation, home-owners are all too often blamed for abnormal moisture conditions having developed after construction, and are thereby effectively prevented from proceeding to litigation.This has left many new home-owners with no avenue of recourse after their homes have suffered significant structural damage. The author contends this is a very unjust outcome for these home-owners, for the following reason

  • Abnormal moisture conditions at any point in time do not cause structural damage. The issue is how much the soil moisture content changed from the time of practical completion of construction to the time when significant damage developed. 
  • Whilst there is no doubt whatsoever that excessive foundation movement due to moisture changes is the principal cause of structural damage, investigators are not in a position to determine the quantum of soil moisture changes that actually cause structural damage. Nevertheless, bearing in mind that site characteristic surface movements are defined and determined in accordance with AS2870 as occurring between extreme moisture changes that have less than 5% chance of being exceeded in 50 years, it is very surprising that most, if not all, investigators to date have not looked for explanations of structural damage other than abnormal moisture conditions. The fact that the main symptom of structural damage is significant cracking of the slab and walls suggests that insufficient strength is the most likely explanation of structural damage. However, damage investigators are reasonably entitled to expect that standard deemed-to-comply slab design solutions prescribed in AS2870 have sufficient strength to sustain foundation movements at the design levels prescribed in AS2870. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Ys capacities

Comments

Slab failures — No Comments

Please write a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *