Monitoring and Mitigation of Movements Affecting

Foundations on Expansive Soils in Colorado

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 04/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

John D. Reins, M.ASCE1; and Jennifer J. Volz, M.ASCE2

Abstract: Foundation movements attributable to expansive clays and claystones continue to challenge the geotechnical and structuralengineering communities. This study summarizes information and data, collected over the past 25 years, associated with the investigation, monitoring, and repair of numerous structures affected by expansive soil movements in Colorado. The paper provides a brief history and description of
the various foundation systems that have been used in Colorado in an effort to prevent or accommodate soil heave. From the sites included in the
study, real data on the rates of movement versus time and the time to stabilization are presented. Also provided is a summary of various remedial
approaches used to address foundation movements. Lastly, the subsequent performance of foundations that have stabilized without underpinning
as well as those that have been proactively stabilized are described and discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000395. 2013
American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Foundations; Expansive soils; Clays; Monitoring; Rehabilitation; Colorado.
Author keywords: Foundations; Differential movements; Expansive clay; Claystone; Monitoring; Repair; Mitigation; Rates of movement;
Stabilization; Heave.

Introduction
Most foundations that were designed and constructed on expansive
soils in Colorado during the past 25 years have performed well. Previous studies suggest that less than 10% of foundations along the Front
Range of Colorado have performed poorly (Thompson 1992). However, there are certainly well-documented (and litigated) instances of
heave and uplift of all foundation system types.
During the past 25 years, the authors have been involved in the
investigation, monitoring, and/or repair of numerous residential,
commercial, industrial, and municipal structures that have been affected by expansive soil movements. This study summarizes the
information and data collected from 350 sites where the authors had
a direct involvement in the evaluation of the design and construction
of the buildings on those sites, as well as the subsequent performance of the foundation systems for those buildings. All of the sites
included in this study were located in Colorado and predominantly
along the Front Rangethe heavily populated area just east of the
Rocky Mountain foothills and on the western edge of the Great
Plains. In addition to the information and data collected by the
authors, the project les generated for each site often include information and data gathered by other investigators as part of a
collaborative effort to solve a foundation problem or as part of a
litigation process where differing opinions were offered. It is important to acknowledge that, in many instances, other investigators

1
Principal, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, 3609 S. Wadsworth Blvd.,
Suite 400, Lakewood, CO 80235 (corresponding author). E-mail: jreins@
wje.com
2
Senior Associate, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, 3609 S. Wadsworth
Blvd., Suite 400, Lakewood, CO 80235. E-mail: jvolz@wje.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 22, 2012; approved on
September 10, 2012; published online on November 15, 2013. Discussion
period open until May 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 27, No. 6, December 1, 2013. ASCE, ISSN
0887-3828/2013/6-731736/$25.00.

reached different conclusions with respect to predictions of future

movement and recommended remedial measures. However, it should
also be noted that the authors had the opportunity to actually mitigate
foundation problems on many of the sites and to monitor subsequent
performance.
Various foundation systems used in Colorado are briey described in this paper, as well as how these systems have evolved over
the past 25 years. In addition, different remedial approaches are
described and discussed, ranging from riding out the movements
to proactively stabilizing the supported structure with a complete
repiering of the original foundation. The subsequent performance of
foundations that have stabilized, as well as those that were proactively stabilized, will also be presented. Data are presented on the
rates of foundation movement versus time and the time it took for
foundation movements to stabilize.
It should be noted that slabs-on-ground in Colorado are also
clearly affected by swelling of expansive soils. Slab heave can often
exacerbate the severity of distress within a building and complicate
the monitoring and diagnosis of foundation movements. Just as
foundation systems have continued to evolve in Colorado, the use of
structural oor systems over crawlspaces in lieu of slabs-on-ground
has increased signicantly in recent years. This is particularly true
for basements in residential construction where structural slabs were
rarely specied 20 years ago but are now frequently used. However,
the focus of this study is on the monitoring and mitigation of foundation movements.

Foundation Types
The expansive clays and claystones often encountered in Colorado
have prompted the use of various foundation systems to prevent or
accommodate the heave associated with increases in the moisture
contents of these expansive materials (Chen 1988).
Shallow footing systems are commonly utilized in locations
where site investigations suggest low to moderate swell potential,
as dened by the Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013 / 731

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:731-736.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 04/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(CAGE 1996, p. 5). In such areas, shallow footings are often used in
conjunction with various heave mitigation techniques, such as
stemwall-on-grade construction, intermittently voided footings, and
overexcavation. Stemwall-on-grade construction consists of grade
beams or foundation walls bearing directly upon the soil. This
system minimizes the bearing area and, therefore, increases bearing
pressures to resist soil movement due to soil heave. In a similar
fashion, intermittently voided footings rely upon increased bearing
pressures to resist the uplift pressures produced by the wetting of the
underlying expansive soils. Overexcavation involves the removal of
expansive soils from beneath the building footprint to depths ranging
from only 1 m (3 ft) to as much as 6 m (20 ft). Where new ll material
from off-site is utilized, the replacement lls are typically nonexpansive, granular materials with higher permeability and an undesirable tendency to introduce additional moisture to the soils
below. More often, the on-site excavated materials are moistureconditioned or lime-modied to reduce expansion potential and are
reused as ll material. Moisture conditioning in the eld reduces the
potential swell when moisture contents are increased to levels above
optimum. Moisture conditioning also results in lower and more
uniform permeability. The layer of low- to nonexpansive material
between the footing and the underlying undisturbed expansive
materials provides a buffer zone to reduce the heave potential and to
disperse, or mufe, the effects of any deeper heave that may occur.
Beginning in the 1990s, deep replacement lls have been increasingly utilized along the Front Range on highly expansive sites
and sites underlain with steeply dipping bedrock.
Straight shaft drilled piers are frequently used at sites identied as
having moderately to highly expansive subsurface materials, as
dened by CAGE (1996, p. 5). Void spaces are typically provided
beneath pier caps and grade beams that span between piers to isolate
the superstructure from the expansive soils. Use of drilled piers for
residential and light commercial structures became increasingly
prevalent in Colorado beginning in the 1960s. The length and depth
of drilled piers have increased signicantly over the past 40 years
(CAGE 1999). In the 1970s and early 1980s, minimum pier lengths
in the range of 3.55.5 m (1216 ft) were commonly specied.
Minimum pier lengths commonly specied today are in the range of
610.7 m (2035 ft).
As part of this study, the authors had access to the original
geotechnical reports for over one-half of the sites where drilled piers
were specied. As expected, there is a great deal of scatter in the
data, but the general trend with respect to increasing pier lengths
appears to be consistent with the trend reported by CAGE. The increased length of drilled piers has been prompted by incidences of
deep pier heave, by a greater understanding of the depth of wetting,
and in reaction to litigation.
Posttensioned mat foundations are occasionally used in Colorado
on sites with low to moderate swell potential. Their use is far more
prevalent in Texas and certain other parts of the country where
basements are far less common than in Colorado. When posttensioned mat foundations are specied, there is often an additional
requirement for some limited overexcavation.

Monitoring of Foundation and Slab Movements

The investigation of a property affected by expansive soil movement
typically involves an initial visual inspection to assess the extent of
the distress and an elevation survey to quantify the existing out-oflevelness of the foundation system and, in certain cases, the slabson-ground. In general, the nature and orientation of the distress
should correlate with the distortion of the foundation system suggested by the elevation survey data. However, interpretation of the

elevation survey data, especially a single set of measurements, is

complicated by the fact that foundations and structures have initial
elevation differentials attributable to normal construction tolerances
(Walsh and Miguel 2003).
One or more follow-up inspections and elevation surveys are
usually needed to better dene the nature and extent of any ongoing
movements. The elevation surveys for the sites included in this study
were performed by various investigators using various types of
equipment: laser levels, electronic manometers, conventional surveying levels, and total station instruments. The engineering community along the Colorado Front Range has adopted a fairly
consistent methodology for performing elevation surveys to monitor
foundation movements. Survey points are typically established with
permanent markings or with pins set into structural or architectural
elements. For residential structures, survey points to monitor foundation movements are typically established on the bottoms of the
main-level oor joists that can be accessed from within the basement. In general, the accuracy of those measurements is assumed to
be 63 mm 60:125 in:, but in cases where numerous turning
points are required or where survey point locations cannot be marked
to enhance repeatability, the accuracy of the measurements is
considered to be in the neighborhood of 66 mm 60:25 in:. If the
typical accuracy of a given measurement was 63 mm 60:125 in:,
then a comparison of two measurements of the same survey point,
taken at different points in time, could vary by 66 mm 60:25 in:
because of the limits of surveying accuracy.
The number of survey points needed to adequately monitor
foundation movements will vary considerably depending upon the
size and complexity of the structure. A large commercial or municipal building may require in excess of 100 survey points, whereas
a small single-family residence may require only 20 survey points.
The surveys can be tied into a permanent benchmark; however, it is
usually sufcient and certainly more convenient to simply conduct
relative elevation surveys of points strategically established within
the structure. This approach is usually sufcient, because structures
are typically affected more by differential changes in elevation than
by absolute changes (Kropp 2011). Differential movement across
a foundation system distorts the supported structure and produces
cosmetic damage and distress such as cracking of structural and
architectural elements as well as racking of door and window frames.
All other factors being equal, the severity of the distress is a function
of the magnitude of the differential movement; e.g., a house that is
100 mm (4 in.) out-of-level will exhibit more distress than a house
with the same oor plan that is only 50 mm (2 in.) out-of-level.
However, the authors experience strongly suggests that there are
many other factors that can signicantly inuence the magnitude of
distress. For example, different framing systems and building geometries can mitigate or exacerbate the tendency for distress. In
addition, if the slope of the change in elevation across a building is
fairly constant, the magnitude of distress may be relatively modest as
compared with the magnitude of distress in a building where the
same total elevation change occurs predominantly or abruptly in one
portion of the building.
The basic investigative approach outlined previously was used to
evaluate virtually all of the 350 sites included in this study. For
a substantial number of sites, data and observations from other
investigators were used to supplement the results from the authors
investigations.

Historical Data on Foundation Movements

Data collected from elevation surveys performed on the structures
that are the subject of this study illustrate that the measured rates of

732 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:731-736.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 04/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

movement varied from site to site. Typically, the rst survey was not
performed until there had been sufcient foundation movement to
result in building distress and/or to concern the owner. For a singlefamily home, by the time that the rst survey was conducted, the
differential elevation across the foundation system was often in the
range of 4065 mm (1.52.5 in.). Because of construction tolerances,
the foundation system as originally constructed (before any movement
had taken place) may have been 2540 mm (11.5 in.) out-of-level.
Hence, the initial magnitudes and rates of movement had to be estimated based upon an extrapolation back to an assumed baseline
reading. Subsequent survey readings provided further clarication on
the rates of movement. Based upon the data obtained from this study,
the initial rates of movement varied considerably from site to site, but
the maximum initial rates of movement for an individual monitor
point occasionally approached and sometimes exceeded 25 mm=year
1 in:=year. Rates of movement for an individual survey point generally diminished versus time and eventually abated. A very typical plot
of movement versus time for a survey point is shown in Fig. 1.
Magnitudes of movements also varied considerably from site to
site. A differential elevation in excess of 320 mm (12 in.) was measured across one large building footprint. Elevation differentials
across residential foundations typically ranged from 25 to 125 mm (1
to 5 in.). Certainly, some portion of those elevation differentials may
be the result of variations associated with the original construction,

but these ranges are provided to give some perspective on the severity of the movements that were encountered in this study.
The plots of foundation movement versus time for structures
supported upon drilled piers did not typically have perceptible
seasonal or climatic uctuations. This is consistent with the belief
that the movements are usually the result of deeper seated heave and
the changes in the moisture contents of the deeper clays and claystones are not greatly inuenced by near-surface changes associated
with seasonal and climatic changes. Even the plots of foundation
movement versus time for structures supported on shallow footings
did not have pronounced seasonal or climatic uctuations. On approximately half of the sites in this study, survey data for slab-onground movements were gathered. Those measurements did exhibit some seasonal and climatic uctuations. It should be noted that
the ability to measure such uctuations was and continues to be
limited by the accuracy of the surveying equipment and techniques
commonly utilized in Colorado.

Remedial Approaches
Within the total population of 350 sites included in this study, there
were 206 sites where the authors had an opportunity to serve as
Engineer of Record for the mitigation efforts. At 161 of those 206

Fig. 1. Typical plot of foundation movement versus time

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013 / 733

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:731-736.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 04/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sites, the differential movements producing further distortion of the

foundation system eventually abated without any underpinning or
repiering. This decision to ride out the movements was always made
after discussions with and approval from the owner of the property. In
a few notable cases, the decision to ride out the movements was made
despite very signicant rates and magnitudes of movement.
On the remaining 45 of those 206 sites, the authors concluded
that steps should be taken to proactively stabilize the foundation
system, and the authors served as Engineer of Record for the stabilization work. The decision to proactively stabilize a foundation
was prompted by one or more of the following factors:

Elevation surveys were showing signicant rates (.13 mm=year)

of ongoing movement.

Elevation surveys were indicating that foundation movements

would not likely abate for several more years.

The level of cosmetic distress was considered excessive and

difcult to manage.

There was unwillingness on the part of the owner or client to ride

out the movements.
On most of the sites, where proactive stabilization was undertaken (or recommended), the original foundation system was
straight shaft drilled piers. In only a few instances did the authors
underpin or recommend underpinning a shallow foundation. This
was because of the inherent difculties associated with underpinning and establishing a void system beneath grade beams and foundation walls that had been originally designed for relatively uniform
bearing pressures. In no case did the authors attempt to underpin
a posttensioned mat foundation. In the authors opinion, that would
have been an economically unfeasible undertaking.
After the decision had been made to proactively stabilize
a foundation, the next step was to determine which portions of the
foundation required repiering. Occasionally (at 7 of the 45 sites), the
scope of repair only needed to address one or two piers that, for
reasons known or unknown, had been affected by uplift. More
typically (at 25 of the 45 sites), a discrete but signicant portion of
the foundation system required underpinning with new and deeper
piers or piles. In 13 cases, the entire foundation system was repiered.
On the 45 properties where the authors served as Engineer of
Record and proactive stabilization was necessary, virtually every
type of underpinning system was used. Push piles, helical piles,
micropiles, and occasionally new straight shaft concrete piers were
installed as part of a stabilization program. The repair contractor was
typically given a choice of underpinning systems with the one requirement that a certain minimum depth had to be achieved with
each pile or pier. The design approach taken in specifying the depth
of the new piles or piers was to extend the new foundation system
1.53 m (510 ft) deeper than the original foundation system. Rarely
was another geotechnical study undertaken to better dene the depth
of wetting and remaining heave potential in an effort to more
precisely determine an appropriate pier/pile depth. In the authors
experience, the empirical data from the site itself as well as empirical
data from other foundations in the area provided a good prediction of
how deep the replacement piles or piers needed to be.
After the new piles or piers had been installed to the specied
depths, the original piers were clipped and abandoned. In many
instances, the foundation was then partially releveled utilizing hydraulic rams or by using gravity to drop the portions of the foundation that had lifted. In conjunction with the underpinning work,
steps were typically taken to improve surface grading and belowgrade drain systems. On approximately one-quarter of the sites
where the foundations were partially or fully repiered, there were
also movements and distress, attributable to lateral earth pressures
on below-grade walls, which had to be addressed. Basements with
slab-on-ground oors had a greater tendency for excessive lateral

movements of the foundation walls than basements with structural

oors. Those issues were typically mitigated with the installation of
helical tiebacks, the strengthening of oor diaphragms, the addition
of effective counterforts, or the addition of concrete sister walls to
thicken, stiffen, and strengthen the foundation walls.

Determining the Point in Time When a Foundation

Has Stabilized
When the decision was made to ride out the foundation movements,
the structure was monitored until it was determined that the foundation had stabilized. When the decision was made to proactively
stabilize the foundation, the structure was monitored to conrm
that the stabilization efforts had been effective in stopping further
movement.
In either case, the point at which the authors concluded that the
foundation system had stabilized was based upon at least one and
usually both of the following two conditions:
1. Over a period of at least 6 months and more often 12 months,
the relative elevation measurements for all survey points did not
exhibit any changes exceeding the limits of surveying accuracy, which were typically 63 mm 60:125 in: for a single
reading and, therefore, 66 mm 60:25 in: when comparing
readings taken at two different times for a given survey
point.
2. No signicant manifestations of further structural or cosmetic
distress within the building and/or no signicant complaints
from the owner. Signicant manifestations of cosmetic distress would be drywall cracking in excess of hairline cracking
normally found in residential construction.
With respect to the elevation surveys used to monitor foundation
movements, the key word is relative. A foundation was deemed to
have stabilized when the elevation measurements of each survey
point stopped changing relative to the elevation measurements of all
the other survey points.
It could be argued that, without a reliable benchmark, the relative
elevation measurements used to monitor the structures in this study
did not measure absolute movement and therefore did not provide
conrmation that the foundation had stopped moving. However, the
authors would argue that, even if the deep-seated movements were
continuing, if those additional movements were no longer producing
further distortion of the structure, then one should not care (and
neither does the structure).
This discussion clearly relates tangentially to the ongoing discussion and debate about depth of wetting (Walsh et al. 2009; Chao
et al. 2006). It is the authors hope that the anecdotal evidence and
empirical data presented in this paper will provide another perspective on the performance of foundations and structures in the real
world, which may, in turn, provide insights into the accuracy and
relevance of the various nite-element models that are being developed to predict depth of wetting.
The evidence and data that the authors have gathered appears to
be intuitively consistent with the concept of a progressive depth of
wetting. As moisture migrates deeper but progressively more slowly
into the underlying expansive materials, the rates of relative
movement (Fig. 1) will tend to naturally diminish over time. Even if
the wetting on a particular site eventually extends to a considerable
depth, the effect upon the foundation and the supported structure will
diminish over time as the ever-deeper volume increases attributable
to expansion have an increasingly dispersed and mufed inuence
on the foundation above. Eventually, the effect cannot be measured
by conventional surveying methods and is inconsequential to the
structure.

734 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:731-736.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 04/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The authors believe that they have observed examples of that type
of behavior (prolonged and relatively deep wetting) on certain sites
where the decision was made to ride out the movements. But in most
instances, the authors believe that the point in time at which the
foundation movements stabilized coincided with the point in time that
the zone of wetting reached a condition of equilibrium and progressed no deeper. The authors numerous case histories where only
a portion of the foundation was underpinned with new and deeper
piers do not include any instances where several years later the
shorter original piers that had been left in place suddenly began to lift
as the depth of wetting eventually approached or surpassed the depth
of those shorter piers. From a different, but similar perspective, the
authors anecdotal experiences do not include any instances where
signs of pier uplift rst appeared many years after construction.
However, the authors are not asserting that delayed movements
cannot occur. In fact, the authors believe they can and do. But, based
upon the case histories included in this study, such occurrences
appear to be rare.

Time to Stabilization
For the 161 foundation systems where the decision was made to ride
out the movements, the authors have reliable data, with respect to the
time to stabilization, for 149 of the sites. The histogram of that data is
shown in Fig. 2.

The histogram indicates that the average time for differential

foundation movements to abate is between 4 and 5 years after
construction, and 90% of the case histories indicate stabilization
within 7 years (and 95% within 9 years). This is consistent with the
experiences of other investigators (Department of the Army 1983,
p. 5-5; Nelson and Miller 1992, p. 4).
There are certainly outliers in the data. Those instances involve
unusual geological conditions such as sites with steeply dipping
bedrock, extraordinary sources of groundwater, interbedded sandy
layers, and extremely deep excavations to accommodate belowgrade structures (Attwooll et al. 2006).

Subsequent Performance of Foundations

On 206 of the sites in this study, the authors served as Engineer of
Record for some remedial plan or they provided an engineering
report indicating that the foundation had stabilized. On 161 of those
sites, a decision was made to ride out the movements without underpinning but often with other remedial measures such as efforts to
better manage water on the site or to address lateral earth pressure
issues and/or to better accommodate the ongoing foundation movements. On 45 of the sites, the authors served as Engineer of Record for
an underpinning program.
For the 206 sites where the authors provided some remedial
plan or an engineering report indicating that the foundation had

Fig. 2. Histogram of the time to stabilization for 149 sites with no underpinning

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013 / 735

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:731-736.

stabilized, there have been no subsequent indications of signicant

additional foundation uplift. On three sites, there was minor movement and cosmetic distress in the rst year after the repairs, which
was fully addressed with no further follow-up required.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 04/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Summary
Foundation movements attributable to expansive clays and claystones
continue to challenge the geotechnical and structural engineering
communities in Colorado. The data presented in this paper perhaps provide some insights into the long-term behavior of foundations on expansive soils. In particular, the histogram of the time
to stabilization appears to suggest a statistical distribution that is
consistent with some depth of wetting studies that have been recently published. The data also appear to be intuitively consistent
with the notion that moisture migrates deeper but progressively
more slowly into the underlying expansive soils until an equilibrium condition is achieved and no further signicant wetting (or
movement) occurs.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank several clients who allowed the release of limited
technical data pertaining to certain sites. Agreements limit the disclosure of specic names and sites to protect the privacy and best
interests of current and future owners.

References
Attwooll, B., Reins, J. D., and Lykosh, P. J. (2006). Heave at manufacturing
facility: Observations and response. Proc., Fourth Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Chao, K. C., Overton, D. D., and Nelson, J. D. (2006). The effects of site
conditions on the predicted time rate of heave. Proc., Fourth Int. Conf.
on Unsaturated Soils, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Chen, F. H. (1988). Foundations on expansive soils, Elsevier, New York.
Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE). (1996). Guideline
for slab performance risk evaluation and residential basement oor system
recommendations (Denver metropolitan area), Denver.
Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE). (1999).
Commentary on geotechnical practice, drilled pier design criteria for
lightly loaded structures in the Denver metropolitan area, Denver.
Department of the Army. (1983). Foundations in expansive soils.
Technical Manual TM 5-818-7, Washington, DC.
Kropp, A. (2011). Survey of residential foundation design practice on
expansive soils in the San Francisco Bay Area. J. Perform. Constr.
Facil., 25(1), 2430.
Nelson, J. D., and Miller, D. J. (1992). Expansive soils, problems and
practice in foundation and pavement engineering, Wiley, New York.
Thompson, R. W. (1992). Performance of foundations on steeply dipping
claystone. Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Expansive Soils, ASCE, Geotechnical Division, Reston, VA.
Walsh, K. D., Colby, C. A., Houston, W. N., and Houston, S. L. (2009).
Method for evaluation of depth of wetting in residential areas.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(2), 169176.
Walsh, K. D., and Miguel, G. (2003). Method for forensic analysis of residential oor-elevation data. J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 17(3), 110117.

736 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:731-736.