Brandon Chew

What reasons did he give for needing one?

Definitely needs an engineer to design a proper fix. Those columns are doing little more than providing a false sense of security and a convenient place to string a clothesline. The block wall is being pushed inward, probably from soil and/or water pressure from the outside. Those columns, or anything else that I can see in those photos, are doing nothing to push it back. If the columns are not anchored well enough at the top and bottom, or if they cannot resist the bending forces that would be put on them by the wall (and circular columns don't resist bending well), the wall will take the columns out. If the columns do hold and the wall reaches the point of collapse, then the columns will probably make a nice decorative feature on the first floor after they tear through the subfloor and the first floor comes down to join the basement. It looks like they are fastened at the top to blocking that is nailed between the floor joists.

Good catch Kurt. In my hastily typed reply I misspoke (can you do that on a message board?). I should have written "fill the cavity with a sprayed foam insulation like icynene that makes its own continuous air barrier and vapor retarder. I know that many of you guys know your stuff and I post here because I am learning and glad that I can count on you guys at TIJ to make sure I get it right! I have more time now than I had when I first posted, so here's what I think is happening. The wall profile you described from exterior to interior is as follows: solid masonry, 1.5 inch stud cavity filled with poorly installed fiberglass insulation, vapor barrier, drywall. Summer conditions: hot humid air on the outside, cooler drier air conditioned air on the inside. The temperature inside the home is below the dew point of the outside air. Heat wants to move toward cold, and wherever it can find air as it moves, it carries the water vapor along with it (as long as it doesn't hit a vapor barrier). Now you had a prolonged period of hot & humid weather. During these conditions a temperature gradient forms in the wall such that as the air (carrying the water vapor) inside the wall cools down, it passes through the dew point on the exterior side of the vapor barrier, condensing inside the wall cavity. In short, Chicago's climate for a period of time became like the climate for the southeastern US. The problem now becomes one of limiting air flow inside the wall cavity, and moving the dew point to a location where if condensation forms it cannot damage the building materials and the water still has a way to get back out of the wall so the wall assembly can dry. Air movement is by far the most prevalent way that water vapor moves through the building assembly, although it can also move by diffusion if the vapor gradient is great enough to overcome whatever is resisting it. Diffusion doesn't usually become a big factor unless you are dealing with extreme cold climates or below grade conditions. Sprayed polyurethane foam blocks air movement and does it well by filling voids and sticking to the building materials, and it has a greater R value per inch than fiberglass. Icynene is an open cell foam that has an R value of about 3.6 per inch, Icynene does not stop vapor movement but it slows it down (about 16 perms at 3" thickness). A good thing about Icynene is that if water vapor NEEDs to move through it, it can, and it can dry out if it does get wet. There are other polyurethane formulations that can bring the R value up to about 7 per inch, and/or are more effective blocking vapor or moisture movement. If you go the foam route, I recommend you consult with a contractor that specializes in spray foam insulation to help you select the formulation (density and open vs closed cell) that is most cost effective to meet your needs. Injection into the cavity could be done but I think you want to take the existing fiberglass and vapor barrier out before you put in the foam. Since you would be tightening up the building envelope, you'll need to be sure that moisture generated inside the home has a way to be removed other than by the air conditioner (because it doesn't run in your climate throughout the year), and that the mechanical ventilation systems do not cause back-drafting on any of the vented fuel burning appliances. Pressurizing the house might work, but as Mark mentioned you'll need to remove the humidity from the air that you bring in from outside. It might also force more cold air into the wall cavity making it even more likely that condensation would occur within the wall. It will also force the cold air to go into places where it hasn't been before, causing unknown effects. You'll also need to look at the effects it would have on the various venting systems in the home. If it does work, it is an energy intensive solution, so it may not be cost effective if they plan on staying in the home for a while. Chad's suggestion might work, but you still have that chase and stack-effect going on inside the wall cavity, you are now dealing with multiple vapor barriers, and you are moving the inside finished surface of the wall in a few inches. Whatever method you choose, flip the gradients around the other way for typical winter conditions in your climate (warm humid air on inside, colder drier air on outside). Do you foresee it causing any problems?

Tear the drywall off, remove the fiberglass and vapor barrier, fill the cavity with a sprayed foam insulation like icynene that makes its own continuous air & vapor barrier, reinstall new drywall? I don't think you would get any condensation on the drywall or the foam. Any moisture that entered the masonry from the outside needs to have a way to dry to the outside. Make sure the moisture generated inside the home has a way to get out since you are sealing up that stack effect in the furring chase. BTW, this is just an expansion of Terry's post above, I think he nailed it. (this is more of a idea for discussion purposes than an outright recommendation...)

In addition to the other good questions raised, do the floor joists run parallel or perpendicular to this wall? Is the sill plate properly anchored to the wall? What is the height of the unbalanced backfill? Does the yard slope toward the wall, or direct drainage away? What does NAHB's Residential Construction Performance Guidelines say about tolerances for plumbness of foundation walls? Even if this is not new construction, it can give you a reference point for what is generally considered to be "not a problem" (at least from a builder's point of view!). Brandon

We don't have much of an issue with expansive soils in my area, but from what I understand about post-tension foundations, the primary purpose of building it this way is to add strength to the slab so that as the soil under and around the house moves, the slab stays in one piece. With that in mind, the first thing that jumps out at me is that the potential for differential movement between the foundation for the addition and the foundation of the house would be a big issue that needs to be addressed in the design. You'll either need to ensure that both move together, or allow for them to move independently of each other. Brandon

Being a curious kind of guy, I like to learn and try to get a basic understanding of how testing equipment works so that I can be aware of its potential advantages and limitations when using it in the field. This thread prompted me to do a little research on the wiggy, and I came across this interesting article on wiggys and non-contact voltage testers. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9458300 Lots of you guys probably know this, but in the interest of safety it is worth repeating. These tools are useful in that they give simple on/off signals and can provide "ballpark" measurements of voltage. However, while "on" does mean on, "off" does not mean that the conductor does not carry potentially lethal current (waiting for the right circumstances to bite you). Brandon

A ground lift adapter is the thing that is used to insert a three prong plug into a two prong receptacle. http://cinemasupplies.stores.yahoo.net/grliadco41.html I haven't tried using the adapter on a plug-in GFI tester, but I would expect that you still couldn't get your plug-in tester to trip the GFI unless you took the time to connect the grounding tab to a good ground. The best thing to do is to perform the test as Jim described -- by using the test button on the GFI receptacle and then use the tester to confirm that the power has been interrupted. The test button on the GFI receptacle (or breaker) mimics the condition that the GFI device is monitoring, while the plug-in tester creates an alternative condition which causes the GFI to trip under most (but not all) circumstances. Brandon

Ok, now that we've established that I'm a freak [:-hypnoti , I think that I might fit in here at TIJ just fine. I mean that in the nicest of ways, of course. [:-smile_g Brandon

A few weeks ago I tried demos of several report software programs. One of them was highly recommended by many inspectors for it's boilerplate comment library. It was the one written by the guy with the Ph.D. in English. While I really liked how this program organized the comments and how easy it was to find what I was looking for, I quickly came to abhor the boilerplate. I had to wade my way though tons of CYA gobbledygook and fluff in order to figure out what he was actually trying to say. This might be ok for some inspectors, but for me I knew that if I bought this program I'd have to extensively re-write every single comment to reflect my style before I could use it. Granted, I'll be rewriting the boilerplate for any program I use, but I thought for me it would be best to start off with something that was written well (from a utilitarian perspective) and build upon it. Brandon

A few weeks ago I was in the process of deciding which report software to use in my soon-to-be-launched HI business. After reading the message boards I visited about a dozen report software web sites of the products most frequently mentioned by people in favorable terms, and of those, I decided to download a half dozen demos. I ran the demos through their paces for several days and then narrowed it down to the three that I had the most "good feelings" about. Those three were Inspect Express, AHIT's InspectIt, and 3D Systems. At that point I cracked open MS Word and made a list of some of the most important things I was looking for in my software, and I made a table where I could record how these three programs stacked up on those items. I then put the three programs through their paces paying particular attention to how each of them handled these items. Since my report will be the tangible "product" of my interaction with my client, at the very top of my list was the ability to be able to customize the content and format of the report in any way that I see fit. Inspect Express and InspectIt had a big advantage in that regard because their reports are created in MS Word. 3D has its own built-in word processor and has some ability to customize the format, but it is not as flexible as using MS Word. Working within Word I can even automate some tasks by programming my own macros, and I can share information between Word, Excel, Access, and PowerPoint which may prove handy down the road. Here are my notes on some of the other factors as I compared Inspect Express and AHIT. In the end, I decided to go with Inspect Express. Overall report type/format? InspectIt -- Pseudo checklist that flows item-by-item, but allows you to customize narrative for that item to include photos, links, diagrams, formatting, etc. It does not seem possible to change away from that basic layout. Has "positive attributes" bullet, which I find unnecessary and irritating. Inspect Express -- Reports created in either partial narrative or full narrative styles. Partial narrative has the description of components sections written in list style, followed by narrative for observations and recommendations. Ease of navigation between view of report as it will print, and view where you are working on creating & adding comments? InspectIt -- Works within Microsoft Word. You see actual report in the background at all times. When a panel/menu popup is open for a particular sub-section, you must close it before you can scroll or access the document, or move anywhere else in the program. Pain in butt. Inspect Express -- Works within Microsoft Word. You see actual report in the background at all times. You can scroll, access and edit the report while the menu popup is open (remains in foreground but can be moved around). Convenient. Ease of editing & adding new comments to the library? InspectIt -- Type new or edit existing comment anywhere within your report and format it as you want it to look. Select the text and then go through multiple step process to add it to your library. It is automatically added to end, then you must go through another process of editing another document to move the entry where you want it in the list. Cumbersome process. Inspect Express -- Click of a button can store a variation of a default comment in the archive (attached to observation check box) for quick recall in the future. Right click default comment to permanently change it. Right click available “custom commentâ€

It doesn't take an engineer or a rocket scientist to figure out that if a tree is farther away from a house than it is tall, then it can't hit the house if it falls over. My guess would be that's his reasoning, and it's good advice if you want to reduce the risk of the tree causing damage to the house to zero. But most of us are comfortable with bearing some level of risk. I might mention that fact to my client to inform him of the risk, but stop short of recommending a tree be taken down simply because it was closer to the house than it was tall (assuming the tree has no obvious signs of disease or decay). The client can weigh the risk vs. enjoyment of the tree and decide. Regarding the tree's root system, it extends out to roughly the spread of the tree's branches (in other words, where the shadow line would be if the sun was directly overhead). However, the roots out that far are the little feeder ones, not the kind that would move foundations, but the kind that like to find their way into your house sewer line or your leach field piping as they search for water. The big honking roots are closer to the trunk. They're the ones you see still attached when the tree is uprooted and falls over. Mature (not ancient) oaks, maples and pines I've seen around here that have fallen over have roots sticking up in the air about 12-15 feet from the trunk. So a rule of thumb that a large tree should be at least about 12-15 feet away from the foundation sounds about right to me (to reduce the risk that the tree roots would grow large enough at the foundation to damage it). Of course a mature tree growing that close will likely have large branches which overhang the house, so if the branches fall, or if the tree falls over into the house, it could damage the roof or framing (but the foundation would probably be fine). At my own home, there are three large red oaks near my house, one about 2 feet in diameter located 6 feet from the corner of my 30 year old CMU block foundation, and the other two are about 3 feet in diameter and about 14 feet from the foundation. I have no cracking or damage to the foundation walls visible in my basement. The one 6 feet from the house will be taken down this summer, as I feel it is too close to the foundation, and I don't want to let it get any larger before bringing it down. The other two will remain, and will probably grow better because they were being crowded by the one that will be taken down. They overhang the house, but if they fall, that's why I have homeowner's insurance. I'll enjoy the trees and the house, and pay my insurance company to bear the risk.

That's a beauty. When it comes time to replace it, they should sell it on E-bay. I'll bet someone would pay a pretty penny for it.

While the deer mouse is the primary carrier, it can be transmitted by other rodents as well. From the CDC website: "Which rodents are known to be carriers of hantavirus that cause HPS in humans? In the United States, deer mice, cotton and rice rats (in the Southeast), and the white-footed mouse (in the Northeast), are the only known rodent carriers of hantaviruses causing HPS." The carriers are located throughout the US. As of Feb 2006, there have been 416 cases of HPS in thirty states, most of them west of the Mississippi. There are a few cases in the northeast and middle atlantic states, but none reported yet in southeast. More info from the CDC is here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hant ... es/FAQ.htm Edit: Doh! [:-paperba Looks like Mike and I were tracking down the same info at the same time!

Yep, very true Carl. I probably wouldn't be a successful production home builder. I would approach building homes as if I was building it for myself (or mom, son, daughter, etc). I remember now where I had come across those photos. Hope this link works. http://www.apawood.org/level_b.cfm?cont ... ed_katibhs Scroll down about six photos or so.

It may be commonly done, but in my opinion it is not a good construction practice. Wind blown rain will get behind the siding. This can be managed by a properly applied layer of building paper, as Mike noted. Lack of sheathing can make the siding susceptable to damage, either from wind driven debris striking the outside, or very strong winds pressurizing the attic space and causing the siding to blow off from the inside out. The pressurization can occur from a strong enough wind on the soffet side of the house (air is forced into the soffets faster than it can exit the ridge or downwind vents), or more likely by wind blown debris that damages siding on the upwind gable, opening a hole which then causes the siding on the downwind gable to be blown outward. I recall seeing pictures of many homes that were damaged in this manner during last summer's hurricanes. These houses had the foam energy board for sheathing beneath the siding. The gable ends adjacent to the attic space were completely blown off. The gaping holes provided ready access for the wind driven rain to soak everything inside the homes. Structurally, the houses were fine. The rain trashed the interiors. It only costs a few dollars for plywood or OSB on the gable ends. In my opinion, that is money well spent. This and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.....

You need to use Real Player to play those audio and video files (.ram file extension). You can get it here for free: http://www.real.com/ A suggestion: pay close attention during the install process, so it doesn't install a lot of junk you don't want, or change all your media file associations to Real player. I set it to only play the Real file extensions, while keeping my Windows Media Player and Jukebox settings the way they were.

In one of my past lives, before becoming a home inspector, I designed machines that moved large, heavy objects up, down, sideways and round & round as well as the safety features that accompanied them. If someone hired me to design a safer garage door, the first thing I'd do would be to install a spring-loaded leading edge sensor with several inches of travel. It could be calibrated to respond to ounces of pressure consistantly and would remain consistent regardless of resistance and slop in the rest of the system because it would be entirely independent of the rest of the system. I'll bet that I could design one that you could test with a carton of eggs. The only problem with that approach, as many other inspectors have learned, is that the door, motor, or drive system sometimes breaks while you've got your hands under it. Sometimes a door section or a track or motor even falls on your head. - Jim Katen, Oregon Hi Jim, Yep, using pressure measured along the business end of the door for the reverse trigger is probably the best way to do it. But I'll halt this discussion about building a better mousetrap here, so we don't drag this great discussion too far off topic. [] Good point about the door breaking and/or possibly falling. I had that in the back of my mind, which is why I posted that I would do the 2x4 test first. That way I could observe the operation of the door (from a safe distance) through a full cycle without touching it. If it broke while I used an industry standard procedure, and while using normal operator controls, they MIGHT not expect me to pay for fixing it. Having gone through a cycle without mishap on the 2x4 test, I think the odds would be pretty low that it would break doing the hand test. But you raise a good point so I think for safety reasons it would be good practice to always do the hand test while standing on the outside of the door. If the door went through the 2x4 test without mishap but then broke when I did the hand test, I'd probably be offering to pull my check book out, as I'd feel I was responsible for breaking it. [:-ouch] Brandon

Great article and discussion. Jim Katen's post made some very good points. I am a PE with 20 years of engineering experience but I am by no means an expert on garage doors. After reading this thread and thinking about it for a bit I think there are two areas to consider. First, the 2x4 protocol tests whether the reverse mechanism functions under a set of very standard and easily created conditions, and, as Jim states, really only addresses the issue of entrapment. However, injury may be caused by the force exerted by the door as it approaches the floor, and the 2x4 test does nothing to measure this force. In other words, the force applied by the door could kill you but at least they will be able to pull the body out because the door will be up and not pinning you down. If what Jim posted about using amp draw on the motor to kick the reversing mechanism is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), then trying to set a standard based upon force applied wouldn't work very well .... there's just too much slop in the system between the business end (the door bottom edge) and the measurement point (amp draw) to develop a force which was constant along much of its length of travel and which would be the same each time the door closed. With the amp draw 2x4 method, the motor is trying to drive the door that extra 1 1/2" down to the floor and will keep cranking and the amps will build until it reaches the amp set-point for the reverse (or the circuit breaker, whichever is less) -- force applied at the door edge can vary widely and has little to do with the actual reversing of the door in this system. To base the reverse mechanism on the force applied, would probably require either fitting the entire door bottom edge with a pressure sensor, or a redesign of the linkage between door and motor so there is very little "slop" in this linkage, and then in some manner measuring the strain being placed on the linkage. Either of these methods would probably add considerable cost to your door/opener. So you approach the safety problem a different way. Keep the existing opener/door design, and add the photo eyes down by the floor which reverses the door before it could travel low enough to crush or suffocate somebody. Now, any object down by the floor will cause the door to reverse without even needing to touch it. If I decide to make the jump and become a home inspector, I think my procedure would be to first test the reverse with the 2x4 method, and then repeat the test with the hand test (down near the floor, keeping the 2x4 in place to keep fingers from being crushed) in order to feel the pressure. I would report my observations of both tests. I would call the door/opener a defect if it failed the 2x4 test. I would recommend photo eyes as a safety upgrade if they were not present. I might even go so far as to have my client do the hand test and feel the pressure themselves as I explained why having the photo eyes installed would be a good idea.