Laserfiche WebLink
SENT BY <br />.,tr..:. <br />7 95 :10=23A1d <br />MBMaRANDLIM . . <br />T'O: Ms. Ann Tatum . <br />DATE: .June 90,1995 <br />PAGE: 3 <br />Roof Systerri <br />0 S ~ 303 832 8106:# 4/ S <br />-:,w a-, <br />... ~;. r~ <br />;' ; . <br />• ,, <br />We agree with the oamments made by Mr. Pendleton and are In the process <br />of assisting th the repair of these waterproofing problems and the associated <br />deterioration of the south wall <br />Site Cottditions ~ • <br />IVir. Pendleton has accurately characterized this portion of our report and <br />thet+e~.la agreement on the;observatione (or lack thereof) whkh have been.. <br />made. . ~ . <br />. . ' i~s'~-i: <br />Preliminary Conrlusiurts . <br />It appears that we differ with Mr. Pendleton with respect to the diagnosis of <br />the distress which has developed 1n the east end of tha house. I-Ie believes <br />that the aacking and differential movements suggest that the strucuree 1s <br />expanding outward and that "simple deterioration of the structural adobe <br />walls could aaootmt for the observed structural distress and movement " <br />It could but, in our opinion, it doesn't ~ y <br />This is not random distress and deterioration within the Tatum residence. <br />There is a consistent orientation and pattern to the locations of the distress <br />that lead tts to surmise that the east and south walls have shifted/rotated <br />downward; i.e., they have subsided. <br />Apparently the underlying premise which prompts Mr. Pendleton to reJect <br />tha notion that subsidence has occurred is that there is no known foundation <br />distress. In our practice we rnut[nely observe foundation systems that exhibit <br />no signtf cant distress despi6e pronounced (many incites) heave or settlement. <br />In this particular instance we estimate that the fottndatian movements are <br />not particularly substantial Aa such, the foundation system for the hat~se is <br />simply "going along for the ride." <br />lvir. Pendleton perceives some inconsistencies in our discussion of the <br />fragility of adobe structures. In responding, we need to draw a distinction <br />between the concept of resilienty and the tendency to manifest distress. <br />Adobe structures are very resilient They have a great ability to "roll with the <br />punch" They can look like heck and still remain standing. However, <br />because of the lack of tLnsile capadty and reinfordng within adobe structures, <br />they will quickly and sometimes dramatically exhibit Qacking and separatlort <br />.~~ <br />