The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm

Building cracks
Building cracks: evidence on the
impact of new construction works
on existing buildings
Adi Irfan Che-Ani and Zaleha Mohd Noor 337
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
Low Sui Pheng
Department of Building, School of Design and Architecture,
National University of Singapore, Singapore, and
Norngainy Mohd Tawil and Mazlan Mohd Tahir
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose – There have been several recent cases reported in Malaysian newspapers of complaints
about the impact of construction works on the physical conditions of the surrounding buildings. The
purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a study conducted on a complaint received by
the Local Authority in Selangor, Malaysia, about the impact of adjacent new construction works on the
conditions of existing buildings in the neighbouring vicinity.
Design/methodology/approach – The sample case study consists of 28 units of two-storey terrace
houses, and the instrument used was the inspection form for building inspections. A building survey
was carried out for all the buildings in the case study. Two teams conducted the survey. Each team was
led by a professional building surveyor and assisted by two assistant building surveyors. Apart from
basic surveying tools, a digital calliper was also used to measure cracks. Crack-width data were
collected and analysed using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) software.
Findings – The findings show that the adjacent new construction works have impacted the existing
buildings nearby. A numbers of cracks of various magnitudes were identified in all the existing
houses. One significant finding is that there appears to be no significant relationship between the
cracks on the interior and the exterior, nor between the original and the renovated parts, of the existing
buildings.
Originality/value – The significant number of cracks identified in the existing houses implies that
the cracks were associated with the impacts from the new construction works. However, the primary
cause of the building cracks was difficult to determine. It is therefore proposed that the Local
Authority should establish guidelines at the local level for new construction works to prepare an
inspection report on the condition of existing buildings in the surrounding area before the project
commences. Building condition reports can then be used for reference in the event of claims received
from the surrounding building owners alleging that the new construction works have adversely
impacted the existing conditions of nearby buildings.
Keywords Building condition report, Building survey, Construction impact, Cracks,
Local authorities, Visual inspection, Construction industry, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In 2007, construction industry development contributed 2.5 per cent to the gross Structural Survey
Vol. 29 No. 4, 2011
domestic product of Malaysia and provided jobs to about 800,000 people (CIDB, 2007). pp. 337-351
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The construction industry impacts the economy, social networks, the natural 0263-080X
environment and the surrounding buildings. The economic and social impacts of the DOI 10.1108/02630801111162396
SS construction industry are well accepted and will continue to contribute to the
29,4 development of the country well into 2020. In relation to the surrounding natural and
built environment, however, the construction industry is often perceived as inefficient
in managing its negative impacts on the surrounding artefacts.
Ruzana (1999) found hat the construction of the Kuala Lumpur International Airport
(KLIA) had many socio-economic benefits, especially for the residents of the Sepang area
338 and, after KLIA commenced operations, the Malaysian people at large. However, the
KLIA construction works have caused negative impacts on the natural environment
(i.e. water, air and noise pollution). Likewise, the results of the research conducted by
Rahaya (2006) and Zuzyanna (2007) at Kemaman and Seremban, respectively, also found
that the construction activities in both areas have caused negative impacts on the
environment (i.e. similar water, air, noise and solid waste pollution).
The Berita Harian newspaper (2008) dated 9 May reported that a household at
Taman Sutera Prima, Seberang Jaya, complained that construction works caused a
serious crack in their dwelling house. Harian Metro (2008) dated 18 December reported
that a household at Kampung Kuala Pari, Ipoh, suffered a similar damage because of
the river dredging works undertaken by the Ipoh City Council nearby.
In such a context, the building owner made a complaint directly to the local
authority (LA) over the impact of the construction works on the existing building.
In some situations, building owners reported similar cases to a local Member of
Parliament or to the building developer in that area, but all such cases will eventually
be forwarded to the LA. This research seeks to highlight comprehensive methods for
the LA to resolve complaints by building owners over the adverse impacts of new
construction works on existing buildings.

2. Building cracks
According to Eldridge (1976), BRE (1991), Carillion (2001), Johnson (2002), Panchdhari
(2003) and Ahmad (2004), building cracks can be categorised depending on the level of
the crack, such as an aesthetic crack and stability crack; the shape of the crack, such as
a horizontal, vertical, diagonal or random crack; and the width of the crack, ranging
from a delicate crack to a large crack. The location of the crack also gives an indication
of the severity of the crack. The variables in this study were identified and a theoretical
framework of building cracks was developed and presented in Figure 1.

BUILDING CRACKS

Input Medium Output

Level

Component

Location Building

Element Types of
Visual checking
building
Section crack
Figure 1.
The theoretical framework Shape Crack
of building cracks
Width
In addition, Eldridge (1976) emphasised that building usage and surrounding factors Building cracks
can result in building cracks. Similarly, Carillion (2001) emphasised that material
procurement and surrounding factors do cause building defects. On the other hand,
Panchdhari (2003) highlighted the environmental factors, and Ahmad (2004) described
the error factors of construction and the environment that can cause many building
cracks. Thus, environmental factors, such as soil movement, either natural or due to
human activities, excessive load, pesticide agents, temperature changes and vibration 339
should be given proper attention as these may cause cracks in buildings.

3. Research method
This study was triggered by frequent complaints in Malaysia by building owners
relating to cracks in existing buildings that were perceptibly caused by new
construction works in the surrounding vicinity. In the context of this study, research
was conducted based on a complaint received by a LA from building owners on the
impact of new construction works near surrounding buildings. The purpose of this
research was to identify the types and causes of building cracks involved, as alleged by
the owners of the affected buildings, and the physical links between the buildings
affected by the new construction works in that area. The quantitative research part of
this study involved numerical analysis and statistical inferences. The sample consists
of 28 units of two-storey terrace houses, and the instrument used was the inspection
form for building inspections. Figure 2 shows the site plan of the existing buildings
surveyed in this study.
Meanwhile, the nearby new construction works is a mixed commercial development
consisting of blocks of high-rise buildings. On-site measurements revealed that the
distance between the rear of the existing buildings and the new buildings is about
4.0–6.0 m and separated by a metal fence as shown in Figure 3.
A building survey was carried out for all the buildings shown in Figure 2. The
existing building condition is very much important in determining the current state of
building defects (Hoxley, 2002; Che-Ani et al., 2011), particularly the building cracks.
Two teams conducted the survey. Each team was lead by a professional building
surveyor and assisted by two assistant building surveyors. Apart from basic
surveying tools, the digital calliper was also used to measure cracks. Crack-width data

Buildings under study

Figure 2.
Site plan
SS
29,4

340

4.0 m – 6.0 m

Figure 3.
View of rear side of the
existing buildings

were collected and analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
software.
This particular case was chosen for the study because the complaint filed was the
latest case being processed by the LA, which was still trying to identify the best
possible solutions to resolve such issues. Since the sample numbered was less than
50 (i.e. a total of 28 buildings), the Spearman correlation was used to measure the
relationship between the variables. The correlation coefficient, or the strength of the
relationship, is based on the range between 1 and þ 1. A value of 0 shows no
direct relationship between the variables. For interpreting the significant correlations
between the variables involved, the p-value is referred to establish a significant
relationship when the value of pp0.01 or p0.05 (Foster, 2001).

4. Data analysis and discussions

Based on the building surveys, only five houses were of original design, without
extensions. The remaining 23 houses were extended from the original building design.
Thirteen of the houses have an additional portion at the ground floor in the back of the
house. Ten other houses have additional portions at both the ground floor and Level 1
in the back of the house. However, all 28 houses have renovations to the porch area.
Table I shows the frequency distribution of cracks for each house. The crack-width
category is based on BRE (1991) practice notes.
 Crack width (mm)
Building cracks
Building Very small Small Medium Large Very large
name (o1.0) (o5.0) (o15.0) (o25.0) (X25.0)

House 1 7 12 1 1 0
House 2 25 4 1 0 1
House 3 17 0 1 0 0 341
House 4 3 10 3 0 0
House 5 11 0 2 0 0
House 6 14 0 6 0 0
House 7 14 1 0 0 0
House 8 15 8 2 0 0
House 9 11 1 2 1 0
House 10 8 0 3 0 0
House 11 19 0 1 0 0
House 12 6 7 1 0 0
House 13 11 6 6 0 2
House 14 12 3 5 0 1
House 15 4 6 2 2 4
House 16 13 1 7 0 1
House 17 8 3 5 0 0
House 18 8 8 1 7 1
House 19 8 5 6 3 3
House 20 15 5 1 1 0
House 21 5 2 0 1 0
House 22 13 2 0 0 0
House 23 0 10 3 0 0
House 24 0 2 1 0 0
House 25 2 2 1 0 0
House 26 16 0 2 0 0
House 27 16 0 1 0 0 Table I.
House 28 25 2 0 0 0 Frequency distribution of
Total 306 100 64 16 13 cracks for each house

Based on Table I, cracks become less frequent when the width of the crack is larger.
The category of very small cracks has the greatest percentage (61.3 per cent) followed
by the small cracks (20.0 per cent), medium cracks (12.8 per cent), large cracks
(3.2 per cent) and very large cracks (2.6 per cent) categories.
Table II shows the frequency distribution of cracks according to location, showing
that a majority of the existing houses experienced very small cracks.
Based on Table II, the walls recorded the highest frequency of cracks as compared to
other building elements, with a total of 364 cracks. This finding is consistent with the
structure of the houses, consisting of a brick wall and a reinforced concrete frame.
Vertical cracks occurred most frequently, with a total of 190 vertical cracks, consisting
of very small to very large cracks. Most vertical cracks occurring on the wall elements
are expected to have resulted from expansion and contraction of the clay brick because
of changes in moisture content and temperature. According to Carillion (2001), most
cracks occurred in the early stages of the life of the building, with capillary-width
cracks, and become wider until the building age is 20 years old. This finding is in line
with preliminary information showing that the houses in this current study are 12 years
of age. Figure 4 shows examples of cracks that appeared in the existing houses.
SS Crack width (mm)
29,4 Very small Small Medium Large Very large
Subject (o1.0) (o5.0) (o15.0) (o25.0) (X25.0)

Building level
Ground floor 159 75 56 7 8
342 Level 1 147 25 8 9 5
Building components
Porch 35 25 26 3 2
Living room 30 11 0 0 1
Kitchen 49 27 20 4 2
Utility room 31 7 8 0 3
Toilet 3 14 5 2 0 0
Family area 42 9 0 0 0
Room 1 22 3 0 0 0
Room 2 31 5 3 5 3
Room 3 31 4 5 4 2
Toilet 1 9 3 0 0 0
Toilet 2 12 1 0 0 0
Building location
Exterior 61 37 29 4 4
Interior 245 63 35 12 9
Building elements
Wall 256 63 28 9 8
Parapet wall 11 11 10 3 2
Beam 5 2 0 0 0
Column 3 3 0 0 0
Floor 9 8 8 3 2
Sidewalk floor 3 12 17 1 1
Ceiling 19 1 1 0 0
Shape of cracks (for walls, parapet walls, beams and columns only)
Horizontal 86 13 3 0 0
Horizontal and vertical 43 6 1 0 0
Horizontal and
diagonal 10 2 0 0 1
Vertical 96 47 26 12 9
Vertical and diagonal 2 0 2 0 0
Diagonal 24 9 6 0 0
Table II. Random 14 2 0 0 0
Frequency distribution of Building section
cracks according to Original 231 60 17 1 1
location Extension/renovation 75 40 47 15 12

The present study also found that the frequencies for the very small cracks and
the small cracks in the original portions of the buildings were greater than the
frequency of very small cracks and small cracks for the extensions/renovations
(i.e. 291–115 cracks, respectively). However, medium cracks, large cracks and very
large cracks in the extensions/renovations of the buildings were more frequent than
that of medium cracks, large cracks and very large cracks for the original buildings
(i.e. 74–19 cracks, respectively). Cracks were less frequent for the original buildings
when the crack-width became larger. Figure 5 shows examples of the width categories
of cracks.
 Building cracks

343
Horizontal crack Vertical crack

Figure 4.
Examples of building
cracks in the existing
houses
Diagonal crack Random crack

Based on the findings in Table I, Table II and Figure 5, very large cracks occurred in
the wall elements or on the floors in the extensions to House 13, House 14, House 15,
House 16, House 18 and House 19. An initial survey of the new construction works near
the area found excavation works in the back row of the buildings. Consequently, it
appears that the very large cracks were caused by soil movements due to changes in
water content arising from dredging and vibrations from a piling machine during the
new construction works nearby. However, House 17 did not have very large cracks in the
building elements, which was expected to be caused by the good quality of design and
construction for the extensions. Information and documents obtained earlier showed
that only House 17 had a building plan approval for renovation works from the LA.
Based on Table I, Table II and Figure 5, the original buildings of all 28 houses were
found to have very small cracks and small cracks. Cracks are expected to result from
the expansion and contraction of building materials due to changes in moisture content
and temperature as well as the age of the building. Medium to large cracks appearing
in the original buildings only occurred in the parapet walls by the porches. Those
cracks are expected to result from the design of the parapet walls, lack of proper
foundations for the porches and natural sedimentation and/or settlement due to the
land pressure exerted by live loads and dead loads (i.e. the weight of vehicles). The rest
of the medium cracks to very large cracks occurred in the extension/renovated
buildings.
Table III shows the measurements of the width of the cracks in all the houses. The
table shows the minimum and maximum sizes of the lowest and the highest
observation for each category of width of cracks. The results show that the smallest
crack-width value recorded at the inspection site was 0.1 mm, while the largest crack
width was 60.0 mm. The mean value shows the average width for each category of
cracks width in this study, and the mode shows the crack width that most frequently
occurred in each category of crack widths. The width most frequently recorded at the
inspection site for very small cracks was 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm for small cracks, 5.0 mm for
medium cracks, 20.0 mm for large cracks and 27.7 mm for very large cracks.
SS
29,4

344
A very small crack (0.5 mm wide) in the A small crack (3.0 mm wide) in the
wall in the Toilet 3, House 16 parapet wall on the porch, House 8
(The original building on the ground floor) (The renovated building on the ground floor)

A medium crack (5.0 mm wide) on the A large crack (21.1 mm wide) on the floor
sidewalk floor on the porch, House 3 in Room 2, House 19
(The original building on the ground floor) (The extension building on Level 1)

Figure 5. A very large crack (37.9 mm wide) in the

Width categories of cracks wall in the utility room, House 13
(The extension building on the ground floor)

Crack width (mm)

Very small Small Medium Large Very large
Measurement (o1.0) (o5.0) (o15.0) (o25.0) (X25.0)

Minimum 0.1 1.0 5.0 15.0 26.4

Table III. Maximum 0.9 4.7 14.3 24.1 60.0
Measurement of the size of Mean 0.5 2.2 8.6 19.4 35.4
crack width for all houses Mode 0.5 1.0 5.0 20.0 27.7

Table IV shows the correlation coefficients between levels of the buildings. Based
on Table IV, there appears to be no significant relationship between the ground
floor and Level 1 of the buildings. This finding suggests that the cracks that occurred
on the ground floor did not influence the cracks that occurred at Level 1 of the
buildings.
 Table V shows the correlation coefficients between components of the buildings. Building cracks
Based on Table V, there appears to be significant relationship between the living room
and kitchen, kitchen and toilet 3 and utility room and toilet 3 due to the adjacent
components on the ground floor of the buildings. The ground floor of the buildings
contains the porch, living room, kitchen, utility room and toilet 3. Figure 6 shows a
sample floor plan of the ground floor of the buildings, namely House 11.
Based on Figure 6, the adjacent components of buildings share elements of the 345
building, such as the walls, beams and columns. Thus, when there is cracking along
the connection between the wall and the beam in the living room, cracking also occurs
in the connection between the wall and the beams in the kitchen because the two
components share the same load of the walls and beams. However, such cracks were
not penetrating and were probably caused by the different degree of expansion of the
building materials. Figure 7 shows the examples of crack along the connection between
the wall and the beam in the kitchen for House 16. The same crack occurred along a
connection between the wall and the beam in the living room.
In addition, there appears to be significant relationships between the family area
and room 1, family area and room 2 as well as room 2 and room 3 due to the adjacent
components on Level 1 of the buildings. Level 1 of the buildings included the family
area, room 1, room 2, room 3, toilet 1 and toilet 2. Figure 8 shows the sample of Level 1
floor plan, namely for House 11.
Based on the findings shown in Table V, there appears to be no significant
relationship between any components at the ground floor and Level 1 of the buildings,
which corresponded with the correlation coefficients in Table IV that showed no
significant relationship between the levels of the buildings. Table VI shows the
correlation coefficients between the locations of cracks in the buildings.
Based on Table VI, there appears to be no significant relationship between the
exterior and the interior of the buildings. This suggests that cracks that occurred
inside do not affect the outside of the buildings. Most cracks occurred inside the
buildings (i.e. 364 cracks) compared to the outside of the buildings (i.e. 135 cracks), as
shown in Table II. This result was to be expected due to destructive agents, such as
water, occurring more inside the buildings than outside the buildings. The use and
conditions of the buildings, such as human activity, leaking pipes, water treatment and
water penetration from rain that enters via the roof, walls or indirectly through
absorption, contribute to the moisture in the buildings. Moisture problems cause the
expansion and contraction of building materials, resulting in cracks. Table VII shows
the correlation coefficients between the elements of the buildings.

Spearman’s r Ground floor Level 1

Ground floor
Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.325
p-value – 0.092
Level 1
Correlation coefficient 0.325 1.000 Table IV.
p-value 0.092 – Coefficient of correlation
between levels of the
Note: Correlation is significant at level 0.05 buildings
 SS
29,4

346

Table V.

the buildings
Correlation coefficients
between components of
Spearman’s r Porch Living room Kitchen Utility room Toilet 3 Family area Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Toilet 1 Toilet 2

Porch
Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.272 0.281 0.135 0.142 0.161 0.088 0.032 0.131 0.028 0.205
p-value – 0.233 0.184 0.586 0.543 0.452 0.737 0.887 0.583 0.932 0.523
Living room
Correlation coefficient 0.272 1.000 0.498* 0.435 0.348 0.139 0.318 0.347 0.089 0.156 0.151
p-value 0.233 – 0.030 0.071 0.244 0.477 0.289 0.134 0.762 0.667 0.699
Kitchen
Correlation coefficient 0.281 0.498* 1.000 0.137 0.729** 0.277 0.024 0.090 0.251 0.026 0.307
p-value 0.184 0.030 – 0.582 0.002 0.225 0.932 0.713 0.315 0.943 0.332
Utility room
Correlation coefficient 0.135 0.435 0.137 1.000 0.865** 0.152 0.010 0.013 0.152 0.358 0.360
p-value 0.586 0.071 0.582 – 0.000 0.534 0.972 0.959 0.574 0.345 0.307
Toilet 3
Correlation coefficient 0.142 0.348 0.729** 0.865** 1.000 0.349 0.049 0.088 0.436 0.363 0.360
p-value 0.543 0.244 0.002 0.000 – 0.243 0.917 0.764 0.180 0.548 0.540
Family area
Correlation coefficient 0.161 0.139 0.277 0.152 0.349 1.000 0.683** 0.480* 0.404 0.593 0.274
p-value 0.452 0.477 0.225 0.534 0.243 – 0.007 0.037 0.108 0.054 0.414
Room 1
Correlation coefficient 0.088 0.318 0.024 0.010 0.049 0.683** 1.000 0.082 0.011 – 0.232
p-value 0.737 0.289 0.932 0.972 0.917 0.007 – 0.741 0.999 – 0.580
Room 2
Correlation coefficient 0.032 0.347 0.090 0.013 0.088 0.480* 0.082 1.000 0.727** 0.064 0.173
p-value 0.887 0.134 0.713 0.959 0.764 0.037 0.741 – 0.002 0.861 0.681
Room 3
Correlation coefficient 0.131 0.089 0.251 0.152 0.436 0.404 0.011 0.727** 1.000 0.216 –
p-value 0.583 0.762 0.315 0.574 0.180 0.108 0.999 0.002 – 0.607 –
Toilet 1
Correlation coefficient 0.028 0.156 0.026 0.358 0.363 0.593 – 0.064 0.216 1.000 –
p-value 0.932 0.667 0.943 0.345 0.548 0.054 – 0.861 0.607 – –
Toilet 2
Correlation coefficient 0.205 0.151 0.307 0.360 0.360 0.274 0.232 0.173 – – 1.000
p-value 0.523 0.699 0.332 0.307 0.540 0.414 0.580 0.681 – – –
Notes: *Correlation is significant at level 0.05; **correlation is significant at level 0.01
 Building cracks
Toilet 3

Utility
room Kitchen 347

Living
room

Porch

Figure 6.
Sketch floor plan of the
ground floor for House 11

Beam

Wall
Living
room
Kitchen

Figure 7.
Sketch of crack in the
kitchen for House 16
Legend: Line of crack

Based on the findings presented in Table VII, there appears to be significant

relationship between walls and floors, beams and columns and columns and floors,
caused by the main load bearing, connected structural elements of the buildings. For
example, cracks occurred along the connection between the walls and floors, the
SS
29,4

Room 3 Room 2

348

Family
Toilet 2 area

Room 1

Toilet 1

Figure 8.
Floor plan of Level 1,
House 11

Spearman’s r Exterior Interior

Exterior
Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.288
p-value – 0.137
Interior
Table VI.
Correlation coefficient 0.288 1.000
Correlation coefficients
p-value 0.137 –
between the locations of
crack in the buildings Note: Correlation is significant at level 0.05

connection between the columns and beams and along the connection between the
columns and floors. Table VIII shows the correlation coefficients between sections of
the buildings.
Based on the results in Table VIII, there appears to be no significant relationship
between the original buildings and extension/renovated buildings. The cracks that
occurred in the extensions/renovations do not affect the original buildings because
both sections of the building have separate foundations or separate structures. Most of
the cracks that occurred in the extensions/renovations were medium to very large,
Spearman’s r Wall Parapet wall Beam Column Floor Sidewalk floor Ceiling
Building cracks
Wall
Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.009 0.465 0.363 0.526* 0.150 0.125
p-value – 0.966 0.353 0.548 0.036 0.465 0.749
Parapet wall
Correlation coefficient 0.009 1.000 0.224 0.949 0.017 0.341 0.082
p-value 0.966 – 0.718 0.051 0.952 0.120 0.846 349
Beam
Correlation coefficient 0.465 0.224 1.000 1.000** 0.459 0.101 –
p-value 0.353 0.718 – – 0.437 0.848 –
Column
Correlation coefficient 0.363 0.949 1.000** 1.000 1.000** 0.154 –
p-value 0.548 0.051 – – – 0.805 –
Floor
Correlation coefficient 0.526* 0.017 0.459 1.000** 1.000 0.043 0.309
p-value 0.036 0.952 0.437 – – 0.878 0.500
Sidewalk floor
Correlation coefficient 0.150 0.341 0.101 0.154 0.043 1.000 0.104
p-value 0.465 0.120 0.848 0.805 0.878 – 0.825
Ceiling
Table VII.
Correlation coefficient 0.125 0.082 – – 0.309 0.104 1.000
p-value 0.749 0.846 – – 0.500 0.825 –
Correlation coefficients
between the elements of
Notes: *Correlation is significant at level 0.05; **correlation is significant at level 0.01 the buildings

Spearman’s r Original Extension/renovation

Original
Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.118
p-value – 0.567
Extension/renovation
Correlation coefficient 0.118 1.000 Table VIII.
p-value 0.567 – Correlation coefficients
between sections of the
Note: Correlation is significant at level 0.05 buildings

while the original buildings have very small cracks and small cracks, as shown in
Table II.
Indeed, aesthetic cracks that impacted on the appearance of the buildings occurred
in the original buildings of all 28 houses in the study. However, stability cracks that
affect the structural integrity of extensions occurred in only six houses.

5. Conclusions
According to reports in local newspapers in Malaysia and information from the LA,
there were complaints about the impact of new construction works on existing
buildings over the last few years. Research has been conducted arising from a
complaint received by one LA from homeowners about the adverse impact of new
construction works close to their buildings. This study was conducted to identify the
SS significance of cracks and how they affect existing houses arising from new
29,4 construction works nearby.
Based on visual inspection, the study found all the buildings to have cracks in
several locations, structures and building elements, with a number of levels, shape and
width of cracks, as alleged by the owners of the affected houses. However, the primary
cause of the cracks was difficult to determine. As an owner of one of the existing
350 buildings stated, “[y] before this, my house wall had cracks of only 1.0 m long, but
when the new construction started, the crack on the walls of my house increased to
over 2.0 m”. When allegations such as this arose, a lot of time and effort is wasted to
determine the authenticity of the statement.
In conclusion, this study therefore proposes that the LA creates a set of guidelines
at the local level for mandatory condition survey of existing houses where new
construction works will be carried. The condition survey should be carried out with the
supporting documents submitted to the LA before building approvals are issued to the
developers to commence works on site. These guidelines should be established
urgently by the LA to handle the likely occurrence of more such complaints arising
from the expected growth in building activities in the construction industry in tandem
with the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2008-2010). Moreover, it is proposed that research be
undertaken on preventive measures to avoid cracking due to new construction works
as to minimise the impact on existing buildings, as well as preserving the health and
safety of the building occupants. It is also proposed that research be undertaken on
developing the building assessment model that can generate the matrix or weightage;
that can categorise the level of damage to the existing buildings.

References
Ahmad, R. (2004), Panduan Kerja-Kerja Pemeriksaan Kecacatan Bangunan (in Malay), Building
& Urban Development Institute, Batu Caves.
Berita Harian (2008), “Pemilik dakwa projek pangsapuri punca rumah retak (in Malay)”, Berita
Harian, 9 May, available at: www.hba.org.my (accessed 13 January 2009).
BRE (1991), BRE Digest 361 Why do Buildings Crack? BRE Press, Bracknell.
Carillion Services Limited (2001), Defects in Buildings: Symptoms, Investigation, Diagnosis and
Cure, The Stationery Office, London.
Che-Ani, A.I., Tazilan, A.S.M. and Kosman, K.A. (2011), “The development of a condition survey
protocol matrix”, Structural Survey, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
CIDB (2007), “Executive summary construction industry master plan Malaysia 2006-2015”,
available at: www.cream.com.my (accessed 21 January 2009).
Eldridge, H.J. (1976), Common Defects in Buildings, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.
Foster, J.J. (2001), Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows New Edition Versions 8 to 10:
A Beginner’s Guide, SAGE, London.
Harian Metro (2008), “Macam bom jangka (in Malay)”, Harian Metro, 18 December, available at:
www.mbi.gov.my (accessed 13 January 2009).
Hoxley, M. (2002), “Condition inspections of residential property: a procedural framework”,
Structural Survey, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 31-5.
Johnson, R.W. (2002), “The significance of crack in low-rise buildings”, Structural Survey,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 155-61.
Panchdhari, A.C. (2003), Maintenance of Buildings, New Age International (P) Limited,
New Delhi.
Rahaya, M.J. (2006), “Impact of development on the environment and its management in Building cracks
Kemaman”, Pusat Pengajian Siswazah, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, unpublished
master thesis.
Ruzana, M. (1999), “Impact of airport development on the environment: the socio-economic
impact”, Pusat Pengajian Siswazah, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor,
unpublished master thesis.
Zuzyanna, K. (2007), “Impact of development on the environment and its management in 351
Seremban”, Pusat Pengajian Siswazah, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor,
unpublished master thesis.

Corresponding author
Adi Irfan Che-Ani can be contacted at: adiirfan@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints