Hardwood Floor over Gypcrete Failure
Asked to consult on a garage floor reno today.
Sloping garage floor converted to living space, is covered with 2 in SM, taped joints,
quality pex tubing installed on rigid insulation with plastic clips, gypcrete pour from 4 1/2 in to 3 in thickness, 3/4 ply over the top, with maple ( not sure if it is soft maple or rock maple) gunned down , stained , filled, sealed and finished.
All work done in cool weather. No thought given to adequate drying of Gypcrete.
Maple flooring curling at top edges, inidicating, water vapor still present under floor. Start to finish of floor reno 30 days. First indication of problems 30 days later.
Who should accept responsibilty for floor failure?
GC hired “expert” radiant installer given that he had no experience with this system
Floor guy took direction to lay floor, without conducting his own test for substrate dryness, however he probably had no knowledge of the H2O present underneath, as he was given plywood sub floor to work on.
Is Gypcrete installer also party to failure, if he did not provide drying instructions as the gypcrete was overly thick ?
Delemma Huh?
Replies
Looks to me that the GC is eating this one.
Flooring guy was presented with ply substrate.
Gypcrete guy likewise did his job. Put down gypcrete, not be a flooring consultant.
Don't think it takes rocket science on the part of the GC to know that 3 to 4" of gypcrete is going to be wet and that a wood floor on top of that before it dries out is trouble. Should have at least asked the floor guy about it before the floor went down.
By your saying that there is rigid insulation under the gypcrete, I am assuming that the issue of anything coming up from under the slab was covered.
GC's job is to coordinate stuff like this.
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
1.Gypcrete does not reccommend pouring over 3 in thickness, however, no special instructions were given by them. to anyone.
2. the GC is a neophyte and asked the radiant installer specifically to "look after" the installation, as he had no previous exp. in radiant.It was a given that the radiant installer direct all aspects of the in-foor system.Money was not at issue.
dilemma .
1.Gypcrete does not reccommend pouring over 3 in thickness, however, no special instructions were given by them. to anyone.
2. the GC is a neophyte and asked the radiant installer specifically to "look after" the installation, as he had no previous exp. in radiant.It was a given that the radiant installer direct all aspects of the in-foor system.Money was not at issue.
dilemma .
Don't see how an extra inch of gypcrete would make a huge difference, but that might be the "hook" that gets some $$$ out of the installer.
The GC asking the radiant guy to "look after" the installation might be another "hook." If the radiant guy was in charge of the entire floor (not just the tubing and gypcrete), could pin it on him.
Again, if the GC either knew what he was doing or talked to these guys about what was going on, could have saved a headache.
Likewise, if the wood floor guy didn't just whack away but asked a few questions or even looked at what he was doing for a minute, could have saved a lot of trouble.
I still hang it on the GC. Lack of solid supervision on site leads to this kind of screw up.
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
As a G/C, I can't fathom passing the responsibility for good results into the hands of three different tradesman: Gyp guy, subfloor carp and floor layer.
G/C is, IMO, on the hook to sort this one out. Part of his job.
Yeah, I have to go the same road.
What the heck is the GC getting paid for if not to keep an eye out for these types of bad "interactions."
I get the feeling that the OP is trying to spread the load so maybe could be spread around a bit but the arguments are kind of crappy.
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
Phila,
In principle I agree with you. The GC should coordinate and watch out for things falling through the cracks. In reality, the legal situation is quite different.
Absent legal agreements to the contrary (which I bet there aren't), each sub can be held responsible for their own work. You accept it, you own it.
Sure, all of those bozos are at fault for being dumb and not communicating, particularly the GC. But the floor guy is in the crosshairs because HIS work failed due to a pre-existing, foreseeable and inspectable condition. My floor guy always checks moisture content of underlayment and puts very specific conditions and exclusions in his sub contract and warranty statement. He also asks what's under the ply if he can't inspect it. Did this guy do that?
Legally, unless somebody offers to pay, the HO can sue the GC and prevail, and the GC can sue the floor guy and prevail as well.
By the way, the floor may be salvageable. Sometimes if you let it dry out for a couple of months, must of the cupping will subside and all it may need is a sand and refinish. Notice I said "sometimes".
DG/Builder
I disagree.
If the floor guy comes in, checks the m/c of the subfloor and finds it acceptable, how can he be held responsible when the moisture eventually makes its way to the bottom surface of the floor?
Did the Gyp guy tell the floor guy, "I'm a bit new at this, but the gyp that you can't see under this nice dry plywood may need to dry out for a few more weeks with the heat on."
Did the carp say to the floor guy, "This nice dry plywood was just put down yesterday....I think the gyp looked pretty dry, but I'm not sure..."
The G/C's job is to coordinate and schedule these guys and pay attention to outcomes and foresee problems.
If the G/C is too inexperienced to ensure desired outcomes, part of his tuition for climbing the learning curve is eating something like this....even if the floor is not salvageable (and it may very well be), the cost of correcting the problem shouldn't tip him over.
BTW, maple flooring is probably as moisture sensitive as any...the floor may very well settle back down, but may swell again when painting is done....who knows....best not to sand and finish it till everything is stablized in the house.
All, great dialogue, thanx for posting.
Some more research on this (gypcrete) points to a minimum of 60 days drying time before moisture stabilization, and specifying that the gypcrete contain no more than 5 to 7%mc before finish flooring application.
No one took the time to check this out, with appropriate instruments.
I notice also that most of the advertising pictorials show thin overlays being placed, rather than the thick base poured at this site.
I'm going to bet that the Radiant Installer, who recommended the gypcrete, and did not point out it's negatives, is the guy who should shoulder the load here.
As of yet we have not measured the MC of the Maple, plywood or gypcrete.....
Will keep you posted.
>I'm going to bet that the Radiant Installer, who recommended the gypcrete, and did not point out it's negatives, is the guy who should shoulder the load here.Without more information, don't agree with the conclusion at all. Did someone even ask his recommendations on flooring and moisture content? Were they told wrong? Or did no one ask and instead assume what they could do with the flooring? Moisture content isn't a negative of gypcrete...any wet material needs to dry before adding a covering...and anyone watching gypcrete go down would see that it's really, really wet. And anyone putting down a subfloor should know to check the mc of the substrate first.BTW, who installed the plywood? And how long would they have waited before installing plywood over a concrete slab? Would they have checked mc? Or would they be faulting the guys who poured the slab for their own failure to plan?
Edited 3/31/2006 7:07 pm ET by CloudHidden
The GC installed the plywood subfloor after being given the "green light" by the radiant installer, who hired the gypcrete professsional.
The GC had asked the Radiant installer for advice and direction, and followed the advice given.
As the course of this work was directed by the Radiant Installer, I think he should admit the moisture problem.....and when instrumentation proves the MC of all floor materials to be high, maybe he will accept that he misdirected the troops.
Funny how when $$$$ is at stake, people are loathe to accept their responsibilities.
Cheers.
>The GC installed the plywood subfloor after being given the "green light" by the radiant installerIf that's what happened...that a green light was given...then it focuses the spotlight on the radiant installer. That tidbit of info wasn't presented till now.FWIW, when I was GC and we used gypcrete, the gypcrete installer and I specifically discussed cure time and moisture content, and arranged for him to test the mc to verify that it was within his tolerances. The GC here shoulda known better, and shouldn't be able to plead ignorance to escape all liability. I'd say he had contributory negligence and should be partially liable. That's not a legal opinion...just an "I've walked in those shoes" opinion.
Yes I erred in not adequately explaning the story, and it's intricacies.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the GC here, even though he had no previous in floor experience, should have taken a more pro-active course of education, evaluation and involvement, instead of relying totally on his Radiant guy.
If he had searched the web for info, such as here, he would have probably pulled off his 1st job without trouble.
So I have to agree that, the GC hired the guy and reccommended him to the HO, and should now stand with him also to remedy the situation.
Fair and ethical, I think so.
Thank-you for your insights and experience.
>Who should accept responsibilty for floor failure?
Whoever put the plywood down was the biggest screw-up.
The gypcrete people would be no more responsible that the concrete guys would be if a floor was installed the day after the slab was poured. I'm sure they woulda passed on the guidelines (5-7% moisture, most likely) if they'd been asked. They might have said it anyway, but not been listened to.
40% GC for not finding out as much as he could, 30% heating guy for not giving enough info, 30% flooring guy for not asking questions when he saw the garage had been converted and how the floor was built.
The fix! Remove the maple and save as much as poss. Run the heating for a season and then check to see if install of maple will be ok.
Maybe you could sand off the finish and leave it to dry out but this might take a while!! When would you be sure its dry enought to finish.................