SEALY ENGINEERING 3818 Glen Arbor #5 Houston, Texas 77025 Telephone: 713 6673994, Fax: 713 6672905 [Link] Enclosed is the report of the visual inspection that was conclucted on the structural components of the residence located at , Houston, Texas, by Taylor Sealy, PE. This inspection was conducted for you an the date of The information you need should be contained in the attached report. A summary of the items of concern may be found in Section 4.0 near the end. Information specific to this house starts in Section 2.0. If you should have any questions, however, please give us a call, It was a pleasure to have done business with you, and we hope we may be of additional service to you some time in the future. Taylor Sealy Licensed Professional Engineer TSieasSTRUCTURAL INSPECTION REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to document the results of a visual inspection that was conducted on the residential building which is described below and to document our agreement regarding theso services. The information contained in this report takes precedence over any communications that may have occurred prior to the issuance of this report, although an attempt is made to give the final conclusions on the checklist. This inspection was conducted for you, as our client, in accordance with the Inspection Agreementto provide you with opinions regarding the performance of the primary load-bearing structural components of thisbuilding and to assess if hese comoonentsare performing the function for which intended or are in need of immediate repair. The primary load bearing components considered are the foundation, along with the wall, second floor, and roof framing. Level readings will be taken on the ground and other floors as deemed necessary to help with the assessment. For safety reasons we do not inspect within the foundation craw! space of pier and boam type houses but will look underneath if an access hatch is readily accessible. Condition of the subiloor framing on these housesis generally reported by the pest control inspectors since wood deterioration is the main cause of distress usually noted within that area. Other items not directly considered to he structuralin nature which we inspect include fireplace, windows, and water-tightness, of the walls and roof. The engineer performing this inspection may, at his option, mention conditions observed throughout this building on a “for information’ basis; however, the use of such information isal the option of the client. Items not ordinarily assessed include, but are not limited to, driveways, fences, sidewalks, drainage, gutters, insulation, screens, carpeting, toxic materials, hazardous materials (including asbestos), buried materials (including fuel tanks), paint, out buildings (not to include detached garages), cosmetic damage, etc. This inspection was limited, in accordance with the Inspection Agreement, toa visual examination of those portions of the structure thatwere visually accessible and Sealy Engineering assumas no responsibility should hidden items be discovered inthe future. The clients should understand that we could miss something during the inspection and itis our policy not to reimburse the clients forsuch items. Compliance with any government or industry code or standard, or with any other legal requirement, isnot within the scope of this inspection unless discussed herein. By law, inspections to determine the presence and the extent of damage created by wood destroying organisms, which includes all rotted/decayed wood, can only be done by individuals who are so licensed by the State for such purposes, and we are not so licensed. In the conduct of this work, Sealy Engineering has acted as an engineering consultant to provide visual obsorvations and opinions with regard to the visible condition of the load bearing structure of this building. Recognizing that latent defects could exist which inherently may not be detected during an inspection of this type, Sealy Engineering does not represent that the observations described herein and their analysis thereof represent every structural condition that may exist. You, as theclient, should not rely on this reports the sole basis for any decision you may make concerning the purchase of this property nor should you conclude that all of the repairs that may be needed are described herein. Any recommendations for repair that may be contained in this report should be correctly implemented prior tothe closing of the purchase of this property since such repairs may resultinthe discovery of adcitional defects which, for correct reasons, may nothave been discovered during the original inspection. Design calculations for solutions of structural problems go beyond the seope of this inspection. Monitoring of repairs is also not included. Sealy Engineering does not assume any responsibility whatsoever for any action that may or may not be taken as the result of the information provided during this inspection. Finally, this repor’ was written to satisfy the objectives of you, asourciient. Neitherthe author nor Sealy Engineering assumes any responsibilitywhatsoaver for the use of this report, or the information contained herein, by any third party person. The client(s) agrees in using this report that Sealy Engineering is not required to give tastimony or attendance in court or at any other hearing with reference to matters discussed herein, unless prior arrangements are made. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The residence inspected was located at Houston, Texas. The client for this inspection was . Construction on the residence was underway al the time of the inspection and only the people working on the house were present. The residence inspected was a three-story, single family wood frame dwelling with exterior plaster (stucco) siding. The house had three fireplaces. The structure had a combination shed, hip, and flat roof with a composition shingle covering and a raised seam metal covering on the sloping parts of the roof and modified bitumen covering on the flat parts. A patio and balcony were located at the rear of the house and a larger third floor balcony was located on the north side of the house. The garage was allached, The structure had a reinforced concrete slab on grade foundation. The blueprints showed the slab to have been constructed with attached 10 foot drilled piers. Construction of the residence is still underway. The residence outline is depicted in the attached sketch. 3.0 INSPECTION RESULTS 3.1_ FOUNDATION Inspection of the foundation of this residence failed to reveal the existence of a severely deflected condition or evidence indicating that major foundation instabilities were present. Floors, counters, sil, etc. were observed to be in a reasonably level condition. Minor deviations from level were observed al isolated locations in the floor. The level deviations were measured using an electronic version of a waterlevel, either a Stanley Compulevel or a Ziplevel by Technidea in this case, and the results have been superimposed upon the attached sketch. From this sketch, it can be seen that the level deviations tend to occur in a random pattern and do not appear to ba indicative of the concition one would normally expect to find if the performance of the foundation was defective. Counting the garage part of the foundation, the slab was measured to be level within approximately 0.4" from the high point to the low point, whichis within an acceptable range for a house of this size, in my opinion. This also falls within the recommended maximum slab construction tolerance of 1.5, inches given by the American Concrete Institute. Counting only the living space portion of the house, the house was measured to be level within 0.1" from the high point to the low point, which is the mosi level house | have inspected so far. Downstairs doors generally fit properly in their frames and doors opened and closed freely. Significant foundation related cracks were not observed on the interior or exterior of the residence. The concrete in the visible portion of the foundation was observed to. be free of significant honeycomb pockets, exposed reinforcement steel, or visible cracks. As far as cracks which may be presentin the grade beam, it shouldbe understood that cracks canbe extremely difficult to see and could possibly be detected by the client at some time ater the inspection has been completed. Since cracking is a normal property of brittle materials such as concrete, neither the author nor Sealy Engineering assume any responsibility whatsoever should cracks be found which were not mentioned. Itis our opinion that other indications are more important in determining whether a house has a foundation problem since cracks may be present in slabs due to shrinkage or minor movernents h reporttitled "Soil Survey of Harris County", the U. S. Natural Resources Conservation Service(formerly Soil Conservation Service) has classified the soil in this general area to be a member of the Lake Charies family of soils. The soll maps are generally considered to be accurate enough for most purposes, although only a soil analysis by means of a boring at the specific site can determine the precise characteristics present. The report shows soilsin this classification tohave high shrink/swell potentials because of the high percentage of expansive clays present. This type of soil is known tobe ane of the mostexpansive clay soils so classifiedin the area. Foundation watering and excluding ‘ree roots from under foundations are very effective in preventing damage to structures due tomoisture variations in this type of soil, Trees are generally capablo of affecting house foundations in aroas. with expansive soils out to about the limits of their untrimmed limbs, although their roots may extend farther. Trees act on house foundations by withdrawing moisture from the expansive clay, which then shrinks and allows the foundation to settle. Cutting of trees or their roots doesnot apply to those which may have existed on the site before construction or foundation repairsinvolving slurry or foam injections since heave can result in such cases as soil moisture retums. Cutting to a depth of about 2’ below the ground will sever the majority of the roots since they tend to stay near the surface. Cuts should not be made too close to a tree since they can fall over in high winds. Caution should be exercised s0 as notto cutunderground utilty ines. Some smalitrees are somewhat near the northwest comer of the house but are not large enough at this time or close enough to affect the foundation as long as normal watering practices are carried out during dry weather. The existence of minar deviations from level conditions in the tlooris, in our opinion, more a function of the limits of construction tolerances in this case rather than an indication of movement. The level teadings should be retained for future reference incase movementis suspected or in order to show the stability of the house over time. During periods of drought soil moisture levels should be maintained by watering because the condition of the foundation could undergo a drastic change in a short period oftime if the soil is allowed to become too dry. It should be noted, however, that the absence of visible indications of severe foundation distress does not mean that potential for future problems is without tisk. The acceptability of these risks is left to the olient. 3.2 FRAMING The roof support structure in the attic was observed to be a typical rafter and ceiling joist type with puriin and strut midspan support for the rafters. Although access to the attic area was limited, inspection of those portions of the atiic that were amenable to visual examination showed this portion of the structure to be typical of others we have inspected in the greater Houston area; except that an excessively long roof purlin span was noted in the south attic space over a furnace and strengthening of the purlin is recommended since addition of another strut would interfere with maintenance of the furnaco. That span between struts is 7’ 6" and another piece of 2x6 lumbernailed io the existing purlin along that span should be sufficient to adequately support the roof. Several upper floor door misalignments were noted and it is assumed they will be corrected before construction is complete. Since all of the door misalignments are on upper floors it is likely that some framing movement has occurred to result in this condition and itis hopefully stopped by now. The level readings do not indicate any large upper floor dips at this time but they should be retained for future reference incase additional movementis suspected. Otherise, no visible defects were observed inthe floors, 198, oF loactbearing walls. Upper story level readings are taken in most cases unless spans betwoon supporting walls below ate short enough to eliminate the likelihood of floor sagging. Sometimes the upper floor level readings can be used to document the levolness of the foundation below in places level readings cannot be readily taken, such as over porches arsometimes garages. In order to detect sagging of upper floors, an effort is made to take level readings over supporting walls at either end of the span, and thennear the middle of the span. Ifno sag whatsoever were present at midspan, the level reading there would equal the average of the readings at either end of the span. As an example of such a caso, the midpoint average of a span with readings of 1.0" and 0.8" at the ends would be 0.9". If the actual level reading at midspan was 0.6", then the amount of sag would be 0.3". A certain amount of sag is considered acceptable by the building code, with the acceptable value usually equal to the span divided by 360. A 10° span would give an acceptable “deflection”, or sag, of 0.028, or 0.33". Some variation in flcor levelness can be expected from normal construction tolerances, as with the foundation level readings. There was an absence of water spotting on the surface of the interior floors and upon the inside of the exterior walls, nor were any other indications of water penetration through the walls of the structure observed. It should be noted that wall stains are often difficultto see and depend on lighting conditions at that point. Also, while we check for gaps around lower story window frames, the upper frames are poorly accessible and are not checked except from the ground. 3.3 ROOF COVERING The composition shingles, modified bitumen coverings, and raised seam metal roof covering were all observed to be laying property on the roof. The roof coverings were not excessively deteriorated or damaged, as would be expected with a new roof covering. There was no sign that rain had penetrated into the altic nor were water spots found on interior ceilings. Detection of coiling stains are usually very difficult unless major leaks are present since the lighting has to be just right to see faintstains, Exhaust ventilation openings for the attic spaces need to be added toobtain acirculation of air flow through those spaces and comply with shingle manufacturer warranties and the building code. Soffit vants are currently present but no upper exhaust vent openings. It must be emphasized that these observations were based on those component parts that were visible and the existence of latent defects which could feasibly produce a leak cannot be discounted Aroof covering begins toage immediately after it has been placed on aresidential building. We have found that composition shingles tend to last approximately 15 -18 years in the Houston area. It important to understand that the aging rate of any roofing material cannot be determined with a great degree of accuracy based upon a visual inspection of the type thatis the subject of this report. Further, any foof can leak at any time and such an event cannot be accurately predicted. Although the roof of this building was found to be performing the function for which intended and was notin immediate need of recovering, any accelerated aging could possibly result in the need for recovering in the foreseeable future. It is also important to understand that a roof can leak al any time, regardless of the age of the material. In the event such a leak should occur, its presence does not necessarily mean that the roof is in need of recovering. The author of this report does not assume any responsibility whatsoever for the future performance of this roof covering. 3.4 FIRE! CE The fireplace chimney was visibly secured to the residential structure and there were no signs of tilting of the short chimney siructure. All three fireplace dampers opened and closed freely. There ware no large visible cracks in the firetiles or metal liners of the freboxes. There was no soot in the fireplace system since these arenew fireplaces. A 1/8" buildup is usually considered enough towarrant cleaning. There were covers and screens over the top of the chimney flues. Operability could not be verified during this type of inspectionMISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. The stairs and landings leading to the upper stories of this structure appear to be performing their intended functions. The stair step geometry generally appears to be within the allowable amounts and there were no excessive height changes in the steps. The lower fiight of the main stainway is 52" wide and has one handrail. The building code calls for two hancrails on stairways 44" in width and greater. The clients should consider having the builder install a second handrail forsatety reasons in my opinion. The windows that were tested on the exterior walls of this structure were observed to be performing their intended barrier functions. The windows that we tested opened and closed with only a slight amount of difficulty. Window operability does not correlate well with alack of structural problems, in my experience, and therefore we only spot check them for fire safety reasons. Hence, there could be some undetected problems with them. An outside door was present for the third floor room to use for emergency escape since the window is fixed. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the observations made during this inspection, itis our opinion that the following structural components of this residence were either defective in performance or are in need of attention 1. An excessively long purlin span in the south attic space needs to be strengthened to avoid future sagging as described in section 3.2. 2. Three upper floor doors are binding to some degree and this appears to be due to minor framing movements since the level readings do not indicate any large floor dips. it is assumed the door misalignmonts will be corrected before construction is complete and these level readings should be retained for future reference in case further movement is suspected. 3. Upper attic exhaust ventilation opening is missing for the attic spaces and neads to be added to comply with shingle manufacturer warranties and the building code, nat to mention keeping those spaces coo} enough to allow for servicing o/ equipment stored in the attic spaces, 4. Itis recommended that a second handrail be added on the lower flight of the main stairway due to its 52" width. The building code calls for two handrails 44" and wider for that reason. Itis our opinion that the performance characteristics of the other load-bearing structural components of this residence that were inspected are performing the function for which intended to a reasonable degree and are not in need of immediate repair. The drawing atthe end of this reportis provided to aid in determining the condition of the foundation *R’ on the drawing represents the reference paint from which all other level readings are taken. Changes in floor coverings such as the transition from carpet to tile etc. are taken into consideration when taking level readings. Taking the largest positive reading and adding the largest negative reading will give the overall levelness of the structure, This value, and the difference between any two points for that matter, is independent of the location of the reference point. Generally, when new houses aro finished, a certain amount of slope is built in. This slope is generally in the range of 1.5 inches for the average size house. Level readings are valuable notonly as a diagnostictool but can be used as a reference for any suspected foundation movement that may occur in the future. Readings can also verify the stabllty of the house. Please note that the scale of the drawings can change with faxing or copying of the original sketches.It is extremely important to understand that this inspection was conducted in accordance with the Inspection Agreementand, as such, there are definite limitations to the resultsthereof. The inspection ‘was limited to only those parts of the structure that were visible without removing any of the structural coverings. Its entirely possible that latent defects could be discovered if these structural coverings were to be removed; during remodeling, for example. The purpose of the inspection was to report any concitions which could be an indication that one of those structural components listed in the Inspection Agreement was either failing to perform the function for which intended or was in need of immediate repair. There are no provisions in this document for citing conditions which might be construed as unconventional ornot in accordance with building code requirements and/or accepted practices. Also, there is no provision in the Agreement for personal opinion regarding the relative goodness of any condition. The items described in this report are the authors opinion of the visible conditions, as they existed at the time of the inspection; and nothing more. The client may rely on these opinions, only to the extent of the limitations used in their formulation. Itis entirely possible that ancther individual inspecting this properly might have difforing opinions than those cited above. Further, it is also the nature of residential construction in the greater Houston area for the condition of building structures to change, often over a short period of time. Neither the author nor Sealy Engineering assume any responsibility whatsoever for the existence of latent defects that were not amenable to visual detection curing this inspection, for items not specifically identified in this report as having been inspected, for changes thal occur in items subsequent this inspection, for structure that has deteriorated because of wood destroying insects and/or organisms, or for opinions expressed byothers thatmay differ from those expressed in this report. No warranty, eitherexpressed or implied, is hereby made, and the client hereby waives all warranties, except for such waivers or disclaimers that may be prohibited bylaw. In using the iniormation provided by Sealy Engineering the user accepts thoso limitations and their attendant risks and agrees to limit any future claims for damages to the amount of the inspection fee. In using this report, the client further agrees, except asmay be limited bylaw, that thre are noother agreements or understandings concerning the standard, grade, quality oramount of the services provided by Sealy Engingering, other than what is contained in this report andthe Inspection Agreement. Finally, noother representations and/or statements have been made that this report and the Inspection Agreement include rights, remedies, or obligations which are not contained in these instruments, 5.0 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that | did inspect the structural components of tho residence located at , Houston, Texas, on the date of , and that | have reported my findings and opinions based upon my observations and my experience. | am a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Texas, whose registration number is 64962. | further cartify that the information contained in this report is based upon evidence and that no attempt was made {o investigate those latent defects not readily detectable from visual observations. No responsibility is assumed for events that occur subsequent 10 this inspection and ne warranty, either expressed or implied, is hereby made. Taylor Sealy Licensed Professional EngineerSealy Engineering First floor 40" 20' TTT Approx. scale 1 Patio Garage Garage levels at top of grade beamsSealy Engineering ga 10° 20° TTT TTT Approx. scale 1"=10' Balcony per s08 oa Sos" 0.3) e101" Sos'l | 40.2" 05° 30.2" 408" Os p.t"Sealy Engineering Third floor BalconyNo Atl Exhaust Vent Opening