TYPICAL FORENSIC REPORT

INSURANCE COMPANY

NAME : HOMEOWNER

LOCATION : 1 Perfect Home

Magnificent, NJ 07000

POLICY : ---

CLAIM : xxxx

LOSS DATE : 2/10/2014

METRO FILE : ALL-3-5-2014

Dear Mr. Client:

Pursuant to your request an on-site inspection was performed at xxxx on Tuesday, February 25, 2014. The purpose of your assignment was to determine the cause and origin of the living room/kitchen ceiling cracks.

The results of the on-site inspection are as follows:

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES

The subject structure is identified as a single-story residential dwelling. The structure is constructed of typical masonry and wood materials with a cross gable roof that is covered with typical roofing shingles. The envelope of the dwelling is covered with vinyl siding and stone veneer.

Note: All directional references contained within this report are based upon viewing the home from the street.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The homeowner, Mr. Nice Guy was present during the inspection and he made the following statements. Mr. Nice Guy stated that the home was built in 1950 and that he purchased it in 1996. Mr. Nice Guy stated that in 2006 he hired an architect to develop plans for the following additions to his home: he added a foyer where the original porch of the home used to be and he expanded the living room and kitchen by adding a new roof. As part of this addition, Mr. Nice Guy stated that he removed a load bearing wall to create an open space in his kitchen/living room. Mr. Nice Guy made available for our review the architect’s drawings showing the basement, floor and roof plans for these construction activities. The plans were not specific as to the structural design of the new roof beams that would take the load of the removed load bearing wall; furthermore, the required connections of the beams to the dwelling structure were not shown on the architect’s plans. Mr. Nice Guy stated that he does not seem to have the structural engineering plans available and that he will keep looking in his papers to try to find them, if any exist.

Mr. Nice Guy stated that on February 10, 2014, he saw long and wide cracks developing on the ceiling of the living room area. The cracks appear to follow the path of the new roof beam that was installed in 2006. Cracks also developed in adjacent areas on the kitchen/living room ceiling, mostly in the construction area of the 2006 new addition.

Mr. Nice Guy stated that he believes that the weight of the snow and ice from the recent winter storms was the cause and origin of the damage to his ceiling because the cracks appeared right after a 10-inch snow blanket covered his roof on February 10, 2014.

INSPECTIONS/OBSERVATIONS

Upon our arrival at the subject property we met Nice Guy who made the statements listed earlier. After showing us the damaged kitchen/living room ceiling, Mr. Nice Guy took us to the basement to visually inspect it for any settlement/shifting of the foundation and then to the roof to visually inspect its components for signs of damage. Inspection of the structure revealed the following:

Living Room/Kitchen Ceiling

Inside the living room/kitchen, where the cracks in the ceiling appeared, inspections found the following observations:

Inspections found a 1/8-inch crack that follows the path of the roof beam installed during the 2006 addition in order to take the loads after the removal of the load bearing wall;
Inspections found that additional cracks had been developed over the new addition to the home and the ceiling appeared uneven at several locations;

Basement

Inspections found no settlement or shifting cracks in the visible areas of the original concrete masonry foundation walls;
Inspections found no settlement or shifting cracks in the new foundation constructed for the 2006 addition to the home;

Attic

Inspections found that the flush ceiling beam header (or flush girder) installed in 2006 as part of the new home addition was a so called a flitch beam header; that beam was about 24-feet long and was constructed of a ½-inch steel plate sandwiched between two 2”x12” timber beams. This beam header was held together by ½-inch carriage bolts. The one end of this beam was not visible and was presumably sitting on top of the exterior load bearing wall. The beam end that was visible from the open attic space was not sitting on top of a load bearing wall or column/post; instead, the new roof beam header was sitting at its 14-foot point on top of the lateral beam of the living room/kitchen, leaving one of its ends unsupported by a solid load bearing wall; although concealed during our inspection, it is presumed that the ceiling joists of the new 2006 addition are attached to that flush flitch beam header; inspections noted cracks and deformations in the area where these ceiling joists attach to the flitch beam.
Inspections found that there are no collar ties at 48” o.c. at the upper one-third the original roof rafters; the new 2006 roof addition was not visible and we could not determine if these collar ties had been installed;
Inspections found none of the inspected rafters to be split, cracked or damaged;
Inspections found that a 2”x4” post nailed to the roof ridge of the original roof had been split in half at the connection with the roof ridge; the ridge beam was cracked/split at that location as well; inspections found that the 2”x4” post had been incorrectly placed perpendicular to the ridge beam, instead of being placed parallel to it; inspections found that the other posts were not nailed to the ridge beam and there were slightly off center. Most likely, these 2x4s were there for temporary support to hold the ridge in place while being constructed. We recommend that the homeowner obtain the advice of a qualified professional as to whether these 2x4 posts should be toe nailed to the ridge beam and whether the broken area of the ridge beam should be spliced.
Inspection of the attic space and framing found that a separation at the ridge beam; the ridge beam separation was capped with roofing shingles; it was most likely intended for a ridge vent that was never installed but rather capped;

Analysis

Our inspections did not reveal any deflection or rotation of the front and real walls of the first floor or any cracks in the accessible foundation walls. Our inspections did not reveal any damaged rafters or roof joists. Our inspections revealed that the reason for the ceiling cracks is the lack of proper support of the end of the flitch beam header that was installed in 2006 as part of the new addition to the original dwelling.

Engineers and builders support flitch plate beam headers at each end with load bearing walls, posts, studs or prefabricated shear walls. As the homeowner stated, he wanted to have an “open floor space” and removed the load bearing wall to create that look. Therefore, that wall could not and should not have been used to support the flitch beam. The flitch beam should have been supported at both ends at a solid load bearing wall or post. This is not what was done here at least on one end of the flitch beam that we were able to visually inspect. This represents a major design or construction deficiency that without any reinforcement that is the cause and origin of the structural damage to the ceiling.

Snow/Ice Loads

The homeowner stated that the weight of snow and ice caused the cracks in the ceiling. As part of our investigation and analysis we assessed snow accumulation by obtaining nearby weather stations pertinent records. To that effect, we obtained the snow and other precipitation records for the first 13 days of February, 2014 from the nearby station at Newark, NJ; these records confirmed the snow depth of 10-inches or so. The next step was to assess if there are any special considerations, such as, the potential for drifting, any special loading situations, etc. While the weight of snow varies and changes with temperature, it has been determined through various studies that heavy wet snow can weigh from 12 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 20 pcf. Most design codes in the region require at least a 30 psf ground snow live load. This would suggest that the roof should be capable of handling a snow pack of 30” (2.5 feet) of light snow (30 psf/12 pcf) and 18” (1.5 feet) of heavy snow (30 psf/20 pcf). Based on the above, it appears that the snow load did not cause the collapse of the roof.

We typically have found a range of snow and ice accumulation loads in the state ranging from 10 psf (pounds per square foot) to 25 psf. Normally this loading would cause bending of the roof framing and the roof ridge but typically does not break anything. The design code tolerance allows for a specified amount of bending at the design load. Typically, a 1" in 20' is the tolerance for most roof structures.

The amount of snow we had in most of our area is still under the design capacity of a typical roof and therefore the weight of snow and ice cannot be the root cause of the roof failure.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the above-described inspections, observations and calculations, the cause and origin of the structural damage to the ceiling was the lack of proper structural support of the end of the flitch beam header that was installed in 2006 as part of the new addition to the original dwelling. The amount of snow and ice we had in the area is under the design capacity of a typical roof and there were no signs of damaged rafters or ceiling joists; therefore the weight of snow and ice was not the cause and origin of the ceiling failure. There was no evidence of damage associated with a single sudden or accidental occurrence, but it was the result of a design/construction deficiency.

It is recommended that the homeowners retain the services of a qualified licensed Professional Engineer or Architect to develop the necessary plans and specifications to correct the deficiencies in the structural stability of the roof and ceiling framing.

If additional information or documentation becomes known METROPOLITAN reserves the right to amend and\or supplement this report.

PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION