Earthquake Report

Document | Engineering Assessment Report
Property | 37 Fitzgerald Street, Balwyn
Table of Contents
1.0 Document Control & Quality Statement .................................................................................................. 3

2.0 Background............................................................................................................................................ 5
3.0 Property Description .............................................................................................................................. 5
4.0 Site Inspection ....................................................................................................................................... 8
5.0 Existing Foundation System ................................................................................................................... 9
6.0 Observations........................................................................................................................................ 10
7.0 Damage Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 13
8.0 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................... 14
9.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A: Floor Level Survey...................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix B: Key Damage – Site Photos ......................................................................................................... 18
Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 2 of 43

Rev | A
Structural Document Issue Authorisation

Prepared by: Tino
Job Title: Senior Structural Engineer
Limitations:
This report and documentation have been prepared by The O’Neill Group at the request of AAI Limited in accordance with the scope of services and is
exclusively for the AAI Limited’s use. No responsibility or liability to any third party is accepted by The O’Neill Group for any loss or damage whatsoever
arising out of the use of or reliance on this report by any third party. This report and documentation provide assistance to the client in assessing whether
the buildings and/or structures should be remediated or replaced, however, that decision is the sole responsibility of the AAI Limited.
No structural analysis has been carried out to assess the strength of the buildings and/or structures or to determine whether or not they comply with the
current and/or any previous Building Code. The O’Neill Group has not made any assessment of structural stability or building safety in connection with any
future earthquake events.
This report and documentation are limited by the restricted ability to carry out inspections due to possible health and safety considerations. This report
and documentation do not comment on structural damage that is not reasonably noted through visual inspection, including any s tructural damage that is
in inaccess ble places or has occurred latently.
The O’Neill Group has assumed that any and all documentation and information provided by the client and or any third party relating to the buildings
and/or structures is accurate and reliable. This documentation and information include but is not limited to Council records, plans, details, and geotechnical
information. No responsibility or liability is accepted by The O’Neill Group for any loss or damage whatsoever stemming from inaccuracies in any and all
documentation and information provided by the AAI Limited and/or any third party.
As outlined in the scope of work, The O’Neill Group has been engaged by the client to carry out an assessment and provide conclusions and
recommendations relating to the observed structural damage to the relevant buildings and/or structures. Although some observations and comments may
relate to non-structural elements, these comments should be read only in the context of adding completeness to this process.
Without limiting any of the above, The O’Neill Group’s liability, whether under the law of contract, tort, statute, equity or otherwise, is limited as set out in
the terms of the engagement.

Rev | A
2.0 Background
The applicable claim number is H034471036.
Taylors Development Strategists, together with The O’Neill Group consulting engineers have been engaged by
Suncorp to carry out an assessment of seismic activity damage to the property at 37 Fitzgerald Street, Balwyn.
The following report outlines the Engineering Assessment for the subject property following an inspection on
the 24th of November 2021 by Taylors Development Strategists and The O’Neill Group.
3.0 Property Description

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The 3-bedroom two storey and single storey extension residence was built approximately in 1947, with
additions added in 1990. The original two storey section of the house is solid cavity brick construction whilst
the additional extension section of the house is brick veneer construction. The roof is terra-cotta tiled
throughout. The floor consists of timber bearers/joist supported on brick pier stumps. External solid cavity brick
and brick veneer walls are most likely supported on strip footings and internal walls are of brick and render
construction.
GEOLOGY OF AREA
Reference to the Geological Survey of Victoria, 1.63,360 series, Ringwood sheet indicates that the site is most
likely to be underlain by sedimentary deposits of the Silurian age, which are locally referred to as the
‘Anderson Creek Formation’. The Anderson Creek Formation comprises massive siltstones interbedded with
thin sandstones and occasional bunches of massive, laminated and current bedded greywackes,
conglomerates and clast beds. The clays derived from the weathering of the siltstone and sandstone are
typically moderately to highly reactive, that is, they exhibit appreciable changes in volume, when subject to
changes in moisture content. Rock strengths typically range from very low to high within the siltstone and
sandstone.
The Anderson Creek Formations is anticipated to extend to depths significantly in excess of those likely to be
influenced by the footings of the subject dwelling.
Normally Class M, but can be Class H1, where the depth of the clay is appreciable and/or the residual clay is
highly reactive.
PROPERTY LOCATION (IN RELATION TO EPICENTRE)

From the Geosciences Australia website, a 5.9 magnitude earthquake was recorded on the 22 nd of September
2021 at around 9:15am with the epicentre located north of Rawson, Victoria (longitude 146.35, latitude -37.49)
which is located approximatley 115km from Balwyn.
Taylors Project Ref | 235 1/025 age 5 of 43

Rev | A
The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is commonly used to categorise earthquake damage to
buildings/structures.
The lower the number on the MMI scale generally refers to the manner in which the earthquake is felt by
people, the higher the number on the MMI scale is based on observed damage.
Slight damage is initially observed at MMI scale VI Strong and structural damage is observed at MMI VII Very
Strong (described as damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in
well built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some
chimneys broken).
From the Geosciences Australia website, the shaking Intensity map of the earthquake event on the 22
September 2021 is visually shown as MMI IV “light” in the Balwyn area. At this level, it is felt indoors by many,
outdoors by few, during the day. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed, walls make cracking sound. Standing
motor cars rocked noticeably. No damage to buildings at this level has been experienced.

Rev | A

Rev | A
5.0 Existing Foundation System

When adopting Australian Standard AS2870-2011 Residential Slabs and Footings Code which is used for
design of foundation systems, the code would classify the site for this geological area as Class M but can be
Class H1 where depth of clay is appreciable or residual clay is highly reactive described as moderately to
highly reactive clay sites which are subject to moderate to high ground movement from moisture changes.
Refer below Table 2.3 which is an extract from AS2870 which highlights the characteristic surface movement
relative to the site classification.
When a clay foundation shrinks or swells due to moisture changes it is difficult to avoid building movement.
When the footings lift in one section of the house and not another, the walls will usually develop cracks.
The Australian Standard acknowledges that minor foundation movements occur and that it is impracticable to
design a footing system that will protect the building from movement under all circumstances.
The expected performance for footing systems designed in accordance with the standard is defined in terms of
the damage classification in the table below.
There have been several major steps in improving building foundation performance historically.
When this house was built, strip footings were wider and shallower in depth and therefore not as stiff to cater
for this soil type. Current Australian Standards have moved to deeper strip footings combined with the general
trend away from strip footings and stumps to now adopt raft slab construction.

Rev | A
6.0 Observations
A walkthrough inspection was carried out with the homeowner who highlighted all the internal and external
defects to the property.
Internal
Office
- Vertical crack above window head and horizontal crack at bottom of cornice to wall interface. The cracks
appear weathered and likely to be pre-existing, caused by foundation movement.
Lounge room
- Crack at bulkhead cornice closest to external front window. The cornice appears to have delaminated and
may dislodge. The cracks look fresh and are likely to have opened further during the earthquake event of
September 2021.
We note that the bulkhead is likely to be concealing a beam that is supporting the outer wall of Bedroom 1
at first floor level on the west side.
- Vertical crack to lounge door adjacent to the front door and cracking above back window. We note some
patching has been carried out above the opening to the back wall of this room. Cracks appear to be
weathered and are pre-existing. The Lounge room walls are supported on presumably concrete strip
footings have undergone significant movement, according to the survey result by Taylors, causing cracking
of these masonry walls.
- Cracking to side wall adjacent to backwall opening was observed and are due to expected foundation
movement. The cracks are about 1.0mm in width and are considered to be non-structural.
Kitchen and Family room

- Cracking to cornice above kitchen rangehood and window was observed. The cracks in our opinion are pre-
existing as they appear to have been patched previously and have a weathered appearance.
- The homeowner also advised that the double doors to the Family room leading to the outside deck were
stuck and unable to be opened immediately after the earthquake event. It is possible that during the
earthquake event, hinges supporting the door may have bent due to the vibrations, causing the door to jam
up against the frame.
Bedroom 1
- Cracking observed along junction of wall to underside of cornice above door. Extensive patching evidently
carried out by the owner throughout this room. Patching appeared quite irregular and the compound used
appeared to be inappropriate, as cracking has re-appeared.
- We note from the level survey carried out by Taylors that there is a differential level change of 31mm
diagonally across the room which way have initiated the cracking below the cornice in the first instance.
The usage of what appears to be an inappropriate patching material and application has resulted in the
cracks re-appearing.
In our opinion, the cracking to this room cannot be attributed to the earthquake event of September 2021.
Bedroom 2
- Cracking at corner of cornice was observed and did not appear to extend down the corner of the walls. The
crack in our opinion appears weathered and is considered pre-existing and cannot be attributed to the
earthquake event of 22 September 2021.

Rev | A
Ensuite to Bedroom 1
- Vertical crack to wall next to the external window/door was observed. We note that the crack is in direct
alignment with where the house has been extended. The external expansion joint has been located in
alignment with the downpipe, however this has not been transferred to the inner skin of the wall and
consequently the cracking to the inner skin of the wall is likely to have occurred.
In our opinion, we can conclude that the cracks observed to this room have not been caused by the
earthquake event. It is suggested that the homeowner obtain professional advice on the rectification and
integration of expansion jointing into this wall as it is outside the scope of this report.
Bathroom
- Minor cracking to the re-entrant corner of wall to Bathroom window and minor horizontal cracking at
junction of cornice to wall. The crack appears to be a shrinkage render crack. The floor in this zone has a
differential level change of maximum of 11mm, which would be considered acceptable given the age of the
building.
Bedroom 3
- Very minor cracking was observed at cornice corner and extends horizontally for approx. 200mm and
vertically. Minor movement associated with the sliding door cupboard may have contributed to this cracking.
Hence, we are of the opinion that this cracking is not earthquake related.
Corridor/Hallway at first floor

- Minor hairline cracking observed to ceiling at corner junction and appears to be at plasterboard sheet join.
This junction appears to have been previously patched and pre-existing.
- Horizontal cracking at plasterboard junction with the cornice. Patching was observed to have been carried
out by the owner and cracking has re-appeared most likely due to shrinkage of the compound being used.
- Cracking to re-entrant corner of doorway opening to Balcony 1 was observed. The crack appears to be a
render shrinkage crack. There was evidence to suggest that this area has been previously repaired. The
cracking is non-structural and unrelated to the earthquake event.
Laundry
- External door from Laundry is evidently jammed and cannot be opened as highlighted by the homeowner.
There were no cracks observed around the frame to the walls both internally and externally to suggest that
the earthquake had caused this to happen. Externally there does not appear to be a lintel supporting the
brickwork over and the brickwork weight is carried by the door frame.
It was also noticed that the door is quite tight against the frame and is likely to have swelled up and made
the door unopened.
It is our opinion that in conjunction with the lack of a lintel at the top of the opening is, exerting pressure
onto the door frame with swelling effects of the timber frame are likely to have jammed the door.
External
- Crack to the external base wall below ground and under the deck was observed in a small section of the
wall as it was hidden by stacked, split firewood. This is likely to have occurred due to foundation movement.
It does not appear to be a major structural crack. No other cracks in the vicinity were observed and hence
cannot be attributed to the earthquake event.
- Crack to the external wall below windowsill at Office room was observed. The crack is following the
perpends and coursing of the brickwork down to the ground. At these locations, a brickwork expansion joint
should have been incorporated to alleviate this problem. Hence, this crack in our opinion cannot be
attributed to the earthquake event.

Rev | A
Subfloor
- A limited inspection of the subfloor was carried out through the access manhole located at the side of the
house. The ground was quite moist and surface water from the driveway and the garden beds on the west
side, front elevation of the house, would appear to be the primary source.
The pavement on the west side of the house is falling towards the house and there did not appear to be any
catch drain to collect the surface water. We highlight that changes in moisture conditions due to watering of
garden bed as well as the surface water entering the subfloor space can result in further movement of the
strip footings foundations and brick pier stump floor.

Rev | A
7.0 Damage Assessment

Internal
Ground Floor
The level survey carried out by Taylors indicated that foundation movement has occurred throughout the
house due to the nature of the soils and foundation system as described in Section 5 of this report.
This movement has in our opinion caused the extensive cracking that has occurred throughout, in the first
instance, over the years.
The poor patching observed to the Office, Lounge and Kitchen/Family room carried out before the earthquake
event has likely caused the cracks to reopen due to the poor nature of workmanship and patching compounds
used, The specific cracking of the bulkhead cornice that has delaminated is likely to have been caused by the
earthquake event.
In our opinion, the damage would not have occurred if the cornice were adequately adhered to the back
plaster. Other cracks in the room that have reopened are pre-existing cracks that have been poorly patched
and were likely to have reopened regardless if the earthquake event having occurred.
First Floor
Due to the extensive patching observed at First Floor level, the cracking throughout is deemed to be pre-
existing. The cracking observed appeared weathered and in our opinion the earthquake event did not
contribute to this cracking.
We note that the main walls of the Hallway are common and in the same alignment with the ground floor.
Foundation movement has translated to the first floor with similar movements indicated on the level survey
carried out Taylors.
The numerous cracks observed throughout the Hallway are pre-existing due to evidence of extensive
patching. The repairs carried out appear to be that of a poor standard and have most likely reopened due to
these repairs.
It would appear that there is no new cracking observed internally and externally to the house which is in line
with the damage expected to occur to a property which falls in a similar MMI scale area, as described under
Section 3 on page 3 of this report.
External
The cracking observed to the base wall under the timber deck initiates at the top of the wall and extends
vertically down is suggesting that it has been caused by foundation movement. The crack is non-structural and
is not attributed to the earthquake event.
Similarly with the cracking under the Office room window sill, the crack is vertical and the probable cause is
due to the lack of wall articulation jointing. At these locations an articulation joint is usually provided to
accommodate foundation movement. The cracking is not attributed to the earthquake event.

Rev | A
9.0 Conclusion
Based on our observations, it is our opinion that the internal cracking and defects to the house overall have
not been caused by the earthquake event of 22nd September 2021.
The repaired cracks throughout the house, other than the cracking to the bulkhead cornice that has
delaminated and is likely to have been caused by the earthquake event, in our opinion have reopened due to
very poor surface preparation and inappropriate usage of patching compounds. The compounds appear to
have undergone shrinkage and caused the reopening of the cracks.
The level survey undertaken by Taylors clearly indicated foundation movements in the order of 19mm to
43mm within rooms.
The primary cause of these foundation movements and cracking that has occurred is due to the performance
of the footing system, given the existing soil conditions. From our observations, the cracks did not exceed
5mm in width and as per Table C1 in Appendix C of AS2870-2011, the Damage Category is 2 – “Slight”, and
the cracks can be repaired.
The situation however has been exacerbated due to the lack of any pavement drainage installed in front of the
house at the front elevation to prevent surface drainage from entering the subfloor of the house. Also
observed, large garden beds in direct contact with the outer walls of the house. We highlight that moist
conditions were observed to the subfloor space at the access door opening to the subfloor. The constant
wetting and drying of the soil have detrimental effects to the performance of the foundations.
It is suggested to the homeowner to obtain professional advice on pavement drainage and drainage overall
particularly to the west side of the house to mitigate damage to the property.

Rev | A
Appendix A: Floor Level Survey

Rev | A
Appendix B: Key Damage – Site Photos
Photo 1. View of vertical crack above window to office

Rev | A
Photo 2. View of minor cracking at cornice junction to wall – office

Rev | A
Photo 3. View of cracking to cornice and delamination to bulkhead – loungeroom

Rev | A
Photo 4. View of vertical cracking above door – loungeroom

Rev | A
Photo 5. View of pre-existing cracks to second bulkhead cornice and wall – loungeroom

Rev | A
Photo 6. View of patched pre-existing crack to window on south wall of lounge

Rev | A
Photo 7. View of patched pre-existing crack above opening – south wall lounge to kitchen

Rev | A
Photo 8. View of pre-existing crack to south wall – lounge

Rev | A
Photo 9. View of pre-existing crack to cornice at kitchen rangehood location (cornice

poorly patched jointing and misalignment)

Rev | A
Photo 10. View of pre-existing vertical and horizontal crack at cornice – window to south
wall of kitchen

Rev | A
Photo 11. View of patched vertical crack and pre-existing horizontal crack at cornice – bed 1

Rev | A
Photo 12. View of extensively patched cracking above window to west wall – bed 1

Rev | A
Photo 13. Close up view of poorly patched wall with crack re-appearance

Rev | A
Photo 14. Vertical crack of north wall of ensuite adjacent to balcony access doorway

Rev | A
Photo 15. View of brickwork expansion joint in alignment with right hand side of downpipe –
ensuite wall

Rev | A
Photo 16. View of patched crack above door opening – ensuite external wall

Rev | A
Photo 17. View of pre-existing cracks to bathroom south wall

Rev | A
Photo 18. View of pre-existing crack to east wall cornice of bed 3 at wardrobe junction

Rev | A
Photo 19. View of pre-existing crack to hallway and corner cornice (1st)

Rev | A
Photo 20. View of pre-existing crack along bottom of cornice previously patched – hallway

Rev | A
Photo 21. View of pre-existing crack to cornice and horizontal crack at window – hallway

Rev | A
Photo 22. View of laundry door – viewed externally

Rev | A
Photo 23. View of laundry door – viewed internally

Rev | A
Photo 24. View of crack to base wall under the deck to rear of house

Rev | A
Photo 25. View of external wall crack below windowsill to office at ground floor

Rev | A
Photo 26. View of subfloor ground conditions

Rev | A

Earthquake Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earthquake Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earthquake Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document | Engineering Assessment Report

Property | 37 Fitzgerald Street, Balwyn

1.0 Document Control & Quality Statement .................................................................................................. 3

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 2 of 43

Structural Document Issue Authorisation

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 4 of 43

3.0 Property Description

PROPERTY LOCATION (IN RELATION TO EPICENTRE)

Taylors Project Ref | 235 1/025 age 5 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 6 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 7 of 43

5.0 Existing Foundation System

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 9 of 43

Kitchen and Family room

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 10 of 43

Corridor/Hallway at first floor

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 11 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 12 of 43

7.0 Damage Assessment

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 13 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 15 of 43

Appendix A: Floor Level Survey

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 16 of 43

Appendix B: Key Damage – Site Photos

Photo 1. View of vertical crack above window to office

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 18 of 43

Photo 2. View of minor cracking at cornice junction to wall – office

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 19 of 43

Photo 3. View of cracking to cornice and delamination to bulkhead – loungeroom

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 20 of 43

Photo 4. View of vertical cracking above door – loungeroom

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 21 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 22 of 43

Photo 6. View of patched pre-existing crack to window on south wall of lounge

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 23 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 24 of 43

Photo 8. View of pre-existing crack to south wall – lounge

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 25 of 43

Photo 9. View of pre-existing crack to cornice at kitchen rangehood location (cornice

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 26 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 27 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 28 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 29 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 30 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 31 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 32 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 33 of 43

Photo 17. View of pre-existing cracks to bathroom south wall

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 34 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 35 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 36 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 37 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 38 of 43

Photo 22. View of laundry door – viewed externally

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 39 of 43

Photo 23. View of laundry door – viewed internally

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 40 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 41 of 43

Taylors Project Ref | 23541/025 Page 42 of 43

Photo 26. View of subfloor ground conditions