Statistical survey of the pathology, diagnosis and rehabilitation of etics in walls.
Amaro, Barbara ; Saraiva, Diogo ; de Brito, Jorge 等
Introduction
Besides being an innovative system, ETICS (external thermal
insulation composite system) constitutes an excellent solution from the
energy and constructive points of view for the rehabilitation of
buildings with insufficient thermal insulation, leakage problems or
degraded aspect. Initially this system was used almost exclusively in
services buildings but as its market importance grew the price fell to
the point when it became common in residential buildings. Over time the
system was used widely in Portugal, as reflected in an increase in the
area of cladding installed (Fig. 1) (Duarte 2011). Relative to other
countries in Europe the application of ETICS (in relative area) in
Portugal is still very small, as seen in Figure 2 (Duarte 2011). The
components of this insulation system may vary and they are chosen
according to the level of insulation, mechanical resistance and surface
finishing required. Presently much of the energy from heating systems is
wasted by leakage through passages that can easily be insulated, and it
is therefore crucial that thermal insulation is installed to reduce such
waste. The integrity and proper performance of insulation is fundamental
to its efficiency, which leads to the issue of its inspection,
maintenance and preservation.
The main problem with ETICS is that they are still a relatively
modern solution where long-term experience has not been gathered and
published. The relevance of this problem is illustrated by the potential
impacts of ETICS in buildings: positive impacts in energy savings and
improvement of the thermal comfort; negative impacts in terms of
unfulfilled expectations in terms of efficiency, architectural
integration and durability. This paper focuses especially in this last
aspect.
The aim of this research is to implement a methodology for the
inspection, diagnosis and repair of ETICS to monitor their performance
in walls. The system was validated through the inspection of a sample of
146 facades (14 buildings/sets of buildings) where various anomalies
were observed, causes identified, in situ diagnosis tests recommended
and repair techniques proposed, all designed to eliminate the root
causes of pathologies.
The pathological survey of ETICS has been studied elsewhere with a
view to analysing their applicability in new and rehabilitated
construction (Duarte et al. 2011; Fernandes, de Brito 2012; Freitas
2002) and evaluating their degradation (Barreira, Freitas 2008; Kiinzel
et al. 2006; Stazi et al. 2009; Daniotti, Paolini 2008).
The whole expert system is described in detail in another paper by
the same authors (Amaro et al. 2013) and is included in a series of
works (classification lists and correlation matrices) based on initial
research by de Brito (2009). This methodology has thus been tested and
implemented in various cladding systems/construction elements
(Silvestre, de Brito 2009; Pereira et al. 2011; Neto, de Brito 2011; Sa
et al. 2011).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Besides the proposed innovative expert-knowledge management system
specifically tailored for ETICS in walls, this paper presents the
statistical evaluation of the results of an inspection program of ETICS,
that is unprecedented in the literature in terms of size of the sample
analysed, scope of the analysis (pathology, diagnosis and
rehabilitation) and systemic approach to data collection and analysis.
It provides valuable information to building authorities, designers,
contractors, owners and maintenance/rehabilitation management firms.
1. Sample characterisation
The field work was done between April and June 2011 and data was
collected by visual inspection to validate the expert knowledge-based
tools used to detect any pathology in, and implement a diagnosis and
repair system on ETICS. It was initially based on a literature review.
The sample consisted of 14 buildings/sets of buildings comprising 146
facades coated with ETICS aged from 3 to 22 years, in which 476
anomalies were registered. 1098 causes (518 indirect and 580 direct)
were associated with these anomalies, and 662 auxiliary diagnosis
methods and 768 repair techniques were recommended. Table 1 shows the
most important characteristics of each building/set of buildings
inspected.
1.1. Geographical distribution of the sample
The buildings inspected covered a good part of the Portuguese
territory, particularly the north and centre regions (Fig. 3). Since
ETICS were most frequently used in Portugal to comply with
buildings' thermal comfort regulations, this system is mostly found
in the north, where it is cooler. That is why more buildings were
inspected in Porto, approximately 19 400 [m.sup.2] of facade area,
around the same as the total facade area inspected in the centre of the
country (5 250 [m.sup.2] in Coimbra and 11 780 [m.sup.2] in Lisbon
Metropolitan Area). No buildings in the south were inspected since there
are far fewer buildings with ETICS there and the few there are, are
relatively recent.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
1.2. Age distribution of the sample
ETICS are a relatively novel technology in the Portuguese
construction sector, having only really expanded in the 1990s. The 146
facades inspected comprise ETICS applied between 1989 and 2008, thus the
data collected had a considerable range of parameters. Considering that
the validation of the inspection and diagnosis system should focus on
the oldest possible ETICS to show their pathology, 20 facades over 20
years old were inspected, plus 84 between 10 and 20 years old and 42
less than 10 years old. Figure 4 shows the number of facades inspected
by age of application of the system, giving an average of 13 years.
2. Inspection and diagnosis
The inspection plan used to identify and characterise the anomalies
observed and define their origin is presented here. The inspection and
validation files used are also presented.
2.1. Inspection plan
Inspections are generally classified according to their periodicity
and they are often designated as current, detailed and
structural/functional evaluation (Table 2). However, in this case the
main objective of the inspections was to validate the classification
lists and correlation matrices within the expert system.
The inspection plan consisted of a set of visits to inspect facades
with ETICS cladding and use visual criteria to identify the anomalies
and their most probable causes. Auxiliary diagnosis methods are
mentioned only as a recommendation since, for economy reasons, no tests
were actually performed. The anomalies were mapped to identify their
location and so make it easier to monitor them in post-inspection
interventions.
The repair actions were prioritised on the basis of availability of
funding and thus privileged the more serious anomalies, according to the
quality criteria requirements. After any intervention a pro-active
(predictive) monitoring plan of premature degradation or re-pathology
must be kept up.
2.2. Inspection files
The inspection files' main function was to characterise the
inspected building and its facades. One inspection file was sometimes
created for a set of buildings where the individual buildings all had
the same characteristics and had been built in the same period, as in
some neighbourhoods or university campuses.
The information in the inspection files may help to characterise
the anomalies or to identify causes. Sometimes difficulties in accessing
the original design and reports from previous interventions may prevent
all the information needed from being obtained. Table 3 shows a standard
inspection file before it is filled in on site.
2.3. Validation files
The validation files complement the inspection files and register
for each facade the anomalies and their characteristics, the most
probable causes, the diagnosis methods and the repair techniques
considered most appropriate, in order to validate the expert system
proposed. Table 4 gives a standard validation file before it is filled
in on site.
3. Statistical analysis
Based on the data collected by visual inspection when the system is
validated, a statistical analysis of the pathological phenomena that
occur in ETICS insulation systems was performed to enable assessment of
the parameters the system is most sensitive to, in order to minimise the
degradation process. The analysis followed the approach used for other
construction elements, such as ceramic tiles, natural stone cladding and
renderings (Silvestre, de Brito 2011; Neto, de Brito 2012; Sa et al.
2011).
3.1. Incidence of the anomalies
The data for this section is represented graphically in Figures 5,
6 and 7, which cope with the contribution of each anomaly and group of
anomalies within the sample.
Figures 5 and 6 indicate that the commonest anomalies are
A-C5--Biological growth (present on 55.5% of the fa?ades inspected),
A-C6--Other colour changes (48.6%) and A-C2--Runoff marks (43.2%). All
three commonest anomalies belong to group A-C--Colour/Aesthetic
anomalies, which is not usually associated with dire consequences in
terms of thermal capacity.
This is why this group of anomalies has a higher incidence relative
to the other groups, as seen in Figure 7.
Another paper on Portuguese ETICS (Silva, Falorca 2009)
corroborates these results for the prevalence of colour changes over
other anomalies. In fact various authors (Barreira et al. 2013;
Flores-Colen et al. 2008; Kiinzel 1998) have studied the development of
stains, especially those associated with surface condensation, to try
and scientifically explain their occurrence and also minimise them.
Other anomalies related to wall colour occur significantly less often
than those mentioned above, e.g. 8.2% for A-C4--Graffiti, half the
incidence of corrosion stains (A-C3) and next to no occurrences of
A-C1--Efflorescence on ETICS (of 146 facades only two showed this
anomaly and its extent was considered minimum, i.e. less than 10% of the
facade area).
The graphs further show that group A-M--Materials rupture anomalies
is the least frequent in the sample (24% of the total). No case of loss
of adherence of the whole system and only one of partial adherence loss
were detected in the sample (anomalies A-M4.2 and A-M4.1, respectively).
This is a positive finding since these anomalies represent the worst
scenarios of ETICS' defects and have very severe consequences for
the thermal behaviour of the building. However, according to French
statistics based on insurance companies' reports relative to 211
anomaly examples in ETICS between 1979 and 1985 (Freitas 2002), the
incidence of loss of adherence of the whole system was 12% and of
partial adherence loss was also 12%, indicating much higher incidence
than found in this study, even though the French study is much older
(ETICS' reliability has improved over the years). It is concluded
that the non-observance of loss of adherence of ETICS in this field work
is linked to the implicit need of immediate corrective intervention, and
so these occurrences are hidden from random inspections such as those in
this work (as opposed to those that involve insurance companies that are
usually expensive and extensive). The materials rupture anomalies is
generally the group with the greatest probability of causing changes
that hinder the normal performance of the system. Therefore the
incidence found for cracking (39.7% of the sum of A-M1.1 Oriented
cracking and A-M1.2--Non-oriented cracking), and for -M5--Material gap
(28.8%), may be considered worrying. However, based on the
characterisation of anomalies undertaken during the field work, it was
found that most of these anomalies are of minimal extent (crack width
less than 1 mm) and are therefore relatively easy to solve and do not
yet significantly affect the system as a whole.
Still, in the same group anomalies, A-M2--Deterioration of the
covering of reinforcement cantilevers and A-M3--Detachment of the
finishing coat are relatively rare in ETICS, with only 5 and 6
occurrences in this sample, which corresponds to incidences of 3.4% and
4.1%, respectively.
Concerning anomalies visually associated with changes to the
flatness of the wall, we can distinguish between those that are not
particularly detrimental in terms of the system's thermal
performance (A-P1, A-P2 and A-P3), which were registered with the
purpose of determining the cause of loss of flatness and homogeneity of
the wall, from the swelling anomalies (A-P4 and A-P5) which result from
mechanical actions associated with incorrect use of materials or faulty
system application. Anomalies A-P1--Flatness deficiency, A-P2--Surface
irregularities and A-P3 Joint., between plates visible were registered
38, 48 and 23 times, respectively, in the sample, indicating a moderate
incidence in walls with ETICS. The other flatness anomalies concern
swelling of the finishing coat (A-P4) and swelling of the insulation
plates (A-P5), whose occurrence has the direst consequences, were
observed less frequently (8.6% and 4.8%, respectively). It is concluded
from the analysis of these incidences that the anomaly classification
list proposed enables a good understanding of the pathologies that
affect ETICS.
3.2. Incidence of the causes
It was expected that the field work would make it possible to
relate each anomaly to its most probable cause(s) by visual inspection,
with indexes of 1 or 2 assigned to indirect and direct causes,
respectively. 1098 causes were assigned in the whole sample, 518 of
which were considered indirect and the rest direct.
The data that relates to the contribution of each cause to all the
anomalies observed is found in Figures 8 to 13, where each figure
corresponds to a group of causes. Figure 14 shows the contribution of
each group to the set of anomalies in the sample. Figures 15 and 17
represent the contribution of the groups of causes, divided in terms of
"initial stages" (design and application),
"exposure" (environmental and external mechanical actions) and
"others" (the other groups).
The cause considered to be at the root of anomaly development most
often was C-H7--Dirt build-up (dust), with a grand total of 98
occurrences. In fact the accumulation of dust particles or pollution can
be associated with a variety of factors, including very rough cladding,
atmospheric pollution/particles driven by wind/rain, the boundaries
between areas of different flatness or any situations resulting from the
facades getting wet, and this cause is thus directly or indirectly
related to various anomalies.
Causes C-H1 and C-H2, impacts and perforation of the system
respectively, occur 85 times. This is more than all the material gap
occurrences (the main consequence of these actions) put together, since
they are also associated with anomaly A-P2--Surface irregularities,
which results in several instances of repairing perforations of the
system. This reveals one of the sensitive aspects of ETICS, which is
their poor surface resistance (in particular to perforations). Also
associated with these causes (and anomalies) are design and application
errors in which the designers and appliers are held responsible for not
strengthening the system properly in areas accessible to the public.
Figure 14 shows that group C-H--External mechanical actions, which
includes the causes mentioned, accounts for the greatest proportion of
all causes registered with 26% of the total. Similarly group
C-A--Environmental actions represent 24% of the grand total of causes
attributed. The causes within this group can be associated with the
climatic conditions during application of the system and with subsequent
in-service actions. The first, even though mentioned several times in
the literature on this topic (Freitas 2002; Silva, Falorca 2009;
Fernandes 2010), are difficult to recognise due to the limitations of
visual inspection a long time after the system has been applied.
Therefore causes C-A1--Strong wind when cladding is applied and
C-A2--Exceptionally low temperature during application of the
cement-glue or covering have been given incidences of only 0% and 0.6%,
respectively. As for the remaining environmental actions, mostly in the
second subgroup, they all occurred at least 20 times, which is why this
group of causes makes such a big contribution to ETICS anomalies. In
fact the upper left graph of Figure 15 shows that 65% of the colour
anomalies are associated with the exposure of facades to environmental
or external mechanical actions, the only group of anomalies that is not
primarily influenced by design and application errors. Since this group
of anomalies occurs most often in the sample (49% of the total), these
two groups of causes together stand out from the others.
In Figure 12 causes C-A6--Surface condensation damp and C-A3--Rain
action stand out, because they come second and third in terms of
frequency of attribution in the whole sample. In fact these two causes
are directly related to the commonest anomalies since they propitiate
the development of micro-organisms, the adhesion of dirt to the wall and
the formation of water runoff marks. Another sensitive aspect of this
system is thus highlighted--the propensity of the facade to suffer long
periods of damp, thus allowing the related anomalies to develop.
Attributing environmental actions to the triggering of anomalies
requires a full understanding of their degradation paths, but they are
made worse by defects in the materials or constructive errors. In fact
even though the main causes were related to factors that are present
throughout the service life of the system, such as environmental or
external mechanical actions, the anomalies are generally indirectly
related to design or application errors or materials selection.
The application errors group accounts for 16% of the overall causes
in the sample, with special emphasis on cause C-E14--Deficient
overlapping of the finishing coat, attributed 41 times. This is partly
due to the many times that anomaly A-P1--Flatness deficiency was
observed. Cause C-E15--Deficient execution of flashings was attributed 9
times less than the previous one and 14 more than the next one. In fact
it was found on site that various anomalies arose directly or indirectly
from a deficient execution of the flashings, even though they were
correctly designed. The most notable aspect of the incidence graphs is
the simultaneously high values of some causes and very low values of
others. Causes C-E5, C-E6 and C-E8 (respectively coincidence of the
insulation plates' joints with discontinuities of the substrate,
render between the insulation plates and mechanical anchors too tight)
were never related to anomalies found on site. This is probably due to
their occurring within the system, which can only be confirmed with
destructive tests.
The C-C group of causes, design errors, only has five causes but
they amount to a total of 14% of all the anomalies of the sample.
Figure 9 shows that cause C-C5--Inadequate design of sills,
flashings or on the ground-floor has the highest incidence in the group,
and has been attributed (as direct or indirect cause) to 58 anomalies in
the 146 facades. As a matter of fact this error was associated several
times with the development of regular water runoff paths that lead to
efflorescence and the growth of microorganisms due to water accumulating
on the wall. In other cases the non-existence of tail-ends led to
various anomalies. The second most frequent cause in the design errrors
group was C-C1--Insufficient thickness of the base coat. Even though the
appropriate thickness of each coat is stated in the European technical
approval guideline for commercially available ETICS (ETAG 004 2000),
lower values are often specified at the design stage, especially for the
base coat, which leads to an overly thin coat (1 mm). Sometimes the
thickness is omitted and application criteria are dictated by the
appliers. The main consequence is the subsequent susceptibility of the
system to impacts and perforations that expose the inner coats. In some
cases the glass fibre grid was exposed instead of being embedded in the
base coat, because the latter was too thin. It is also important for the
designers to strengthen the reinforcement, especially in areas subjected
to tensions that cause cracking, such as window openings and corners.
Cause C-C2--No reinforcement was related to 33 cases of cracking. Causes
C-C3--Deficient interface between the system and other elements and C-C4
No primary coat were the least frequent within the group, with a total
of 10 and 11 attributions, respectively. Figure 15 shows that design and
application causes (called "initial stages") prevailed over
the other groups as causes of materials rupture anomalies and flatness
anomalies. This reveals the sensitivity of the system to the planning
and application tasks.
Figure 8 concerns the causes related to materials selection, with
an overall contribution of 9% to the grand total of causes. Though it
would be reasonable to regard these defects as design errors, by setting
them apart it was possible to highlight problems specific to the
materials. Causes C-M2--Inadequate protection against micro-organisms of
the finishing biocide (directly linked to the predominance of anomaly
A-C5--Biological growth in the sample) and C-M6--Contaminated materials
or ones having fabric defects stand out, which reveals the problem of
incorrect use of materials, bearing in mind the characteristics required
by the technical guidelines.
Finally the group of causes related to maintenance actions, mostly
the lack of it and the consequences in terms of the development of
existing anomalies and the emergence of new ones, accounts for 11% of
all the causes in the sample. Containing only three causes, this group
(and the environmental and external mechanical actions groups) clearly
show the need for a correct maintenance plan, which must include the
periodic inspection and diagnosis of the system, to solve the problems
that arise in-service and control the degradation rate of the system.
Figure 14 shows that 39% of the anomalies in ETICS can be prevented
by proper design, application and choice of materials, especially the
materials rupture anomalies and the facade flatness anomalies. It is
also concluded that implementing a plan of periodic inspections and
maintenance helps to prevent early degradation from environmental and
external mechanical actions during the service life, with special
emphasis on the control of colour changes.
3.3. Incidence observed of the diagnosis methods
Figure 16 shows the number of times each test was recommended, with
a grand total of 662 diagnosis methods for the 146 facades, and Figure
17 gives the incidence of each method relative to the 476 anomalies.
There are more tests than there are anomalies since all except anomaly
A-C4--Graffiti, to which no specific method was assigned, could need the
coupling of various in situ tests for a complete diagnosis.
Among the diagnosis methods recommended, D-T1--Infrared
thermography and D-E1--Contact moisture meter are important because they
are associated with the diagnosis of various anomalies and the
evaluation of their causes and are therefore the most useful on site,
especially when used together (also because they are non-destructive).
In fact they are recommended 159 and 155 times, respectively, in both
cases more than the number of facades inspected (146). This proves how
useful they are to help diagnose more than one anomaly or check on their
severity, with an additional advantage of the contact moisture meter in
terms of costs.
Since 10% of the anomalies concern oriented cracking and an extra
2% non-oriented cracking, it is natural that the recommendations of the
alternative methods to measure the width of cracks, D-S1--Crack
comparator and D-S2--Crack detection microscope, make 12% of the total.
Diagnosis method D-S2 is recommended in only 7 of the 58 cases of
cracking (12% of those cases). In other words in only 12% of the
cracking anomalies was it considered necessary to resort to the
millimetre accuracy of the crack detection microscope instead of the
crack comparator (D-S1). The method D-S3--Crack meter, which can be used
to monitor the stability of the cracks, had a similar usage frequency.
Also a part of the sensorial perception diagnosis methods group,
probing (D-S4) is only recommended in 9% of cases, mostly because of the
destructive nature of the method. Even though this is one of the most
efficient ways to evaluate ETICS, enabling the origin of the error to be
checked (application and/or design), the use of probing is only
recommended when it is considered essential to the complete diagnosis of
an anomaly.
Mechanical tests (D-M) showed frequencies between 2% and 5%.
Recommending these tests on site aimed at evaluating the characteristics
of the base coat in terms of the use of certified materials and
deformability, which are paramount in case of swelling, adherence loss
and evaluation of the base coat thickness or before applying a
reinforcement grid when the system is particularly susceptible to
shocks.
The Karsten tube test (D-H1), a liquid water permeability test, is
recommended for 7% of the anomalies identified, since it is directly
linked to some causes of anomalies, namely C-A4--Absorption and
capillarity damp and C-H8--Splattering at the bottom of the walls. The
incidence of these causes in the sample was 10.9% for C-A4 and 1.1% for
C-H8, which explains why in most cases the Karsten tube test was
considered the most suitable diagnosis method. Alternatively or
complementarily (depending on what is to be analysed) method D-E2 -
Needles moisture meter is used to measure the moisture within the system
and was recommended for 6% of the anomalies in the sample.
The chemical methods, D-Q1--Colorimetric stripes and D-Q2--Field
kit, for statistical purposes were always recommended simultaneously to
evaluate salts, and therefore the same number of times. One test is not
preferred over the other because both can be performed and the choice
made between them later, in terms of salts evaluation, rather than on
site. In comparative terms DQ1 are faster and cheaper but they are
usually a preliminary test (with wider detection ranges). D-Q2 provides
more accurate results but a spectrophotometer is needed and so it is
costlier.
Additionally the mechanical action tests (D-M1 Sphere impact
test--martinet baronnie, D-M2--Perforation test (perfotest) and
D-M3--Pull-off test) were considered useful to diagnosing 2% to 5% of
the anomalies observed. These values may be low because of their
destructive nature, which makes them less likely to be chosen. However,
in various situations these tests were considered indispensable,
particularly to evaluate the characteristics of the materials used (e.g.
A-M1 and A-M2), the adherence of the coats of the system and their
tensile strength (A-M3) and the application of the system.
The diagnosis method D-U1--Ultrasonic pulse velocity meter was
recommended for 10% of the anomalies, 8% of which were associated with
anomaly A-P1--Flatness deficiency and its main cause C-E14--Deficient
overlapping of the finishing coat, and the remaining 2% to other cases
where the results were considered relevant, i.e. the identification of
defects, voids or changes to the internal coats of the system.
Even though the tests are used to diagnose various anomalies there
is a clear pattern in the relationship between some factors and the
recommended method. In other words, each test can be strongly linked to
one of the objectives of the diagnosis.
Exemplifying this concept is the finding that method D-S3--Crack
meter is directly related to crack monitoring and that the causes linked
to water leakages within the system are related to methods D-H1--Karsten
tube test or D-E2--Needles moisture meter, and the corresponding groups
of anomalies are somehow linked to these diagnosis methods. Therefore
data on the relationship between each diagnosis technique recommended
and the various anomaly groups were collected and analysed.
A strong relationship was found between the diagnosis methods
groups D-S--Sensorial perception tests and D-M--Mechanical action tests
and the materials rupture anomalies, and between the group of
hydrodynamic methods (D-H1--Karsten tube test) and the colour/aesthetic
anomalies, which is justified by their relation to the causes associated
with these anomalies. The methods D-E2--Needles moisture meter and
D-U1--Ultrasonic pulse velocity equipment are essentially related to the
diagnosis of flatness anomalies (A-P). More specifically, the first one
relates to swellings (A-P4 and A-P5) and the second one to flatness
deficiencies (A-P1) and joints between plates being visible (A-P3).
It is thus concluded that there is a direct relationship between
diagnosis methods and anomalies or groups of anomalies. Knowing this
relationship facilitates the recommendation of these methods during the
inspection.
3.4. Incidence of the repair techniques
Figure 18 shows that 43% of the repair techniques prescribed belong
to the group of surface techniques (TR-A1 and TR-A2). They can be seen
as maintenance and are directly related to the colour/aesthetic
anomalies that represent around half of all the anomalies detected. On
the other hand, the repair techniques concerning deeper interventions
make up 24% of the universe, coinciding with the 24% of the materials
rupture anomalies group, even though some of the techniques are
prescribed for other anomalies, i.e. those concerning flatness
deficiencies.
Figure 18 also shows that the technique TR-A1--Cleaning was the
most often recommended because of the large number of colour/aesthetic
anomalies, in particular leakage and biological growth. This has to do
with the usually light colour of the system and lack of periodic
maintenance as well as with the incorrect handling of singularities in
the walls, such as sill drip edges and parapet capping, which allow
biological organisms and other stains to build up on the facade.
Technique TR-A2--Application of surface protection had quite a high
incidence since it is generally implemented with cleaning.
Technique TR-B2--Partial/whole replacement of the finishing coat
was the second most often recommended since it remedies several
anomalies at the level of the finishing, viz., surface gaps and
irregularities and even flatness deficiencies.
Technique TR-C5--Correction of geometrical constructive features is
one of the most relevant techniques. Runoff marks (A-C2) mostly result
from the careless handling of some singularities on the facade. The
correction of these problems may require the application/replacement of
drip edges, flashings and other constructive details, which eliminate or
prevent the occurrence of this anomaly.
Technique TR-B3--Application of a new finishing on top of the
existing coat/paint layer is another of the most often recommended. This
is partly due to its versatility at repairing anomalies. It tends to be
recommended in situations of extreme soiling, when cleaning by itself is
not enough, or when there are surface colour changes.
Technique TR-B1--Filling/clogging of cracks is the best option in a
great number of oriented cracking cases. For non-oriented cracking
(mapped), which usually occurs in the finishing and is of considerable
extent, technique TR-B2 would be preferable.
The partial/whole replacement of the system (TR-C6) appears with a
non-negligible incidence, in circumstances when surface repair would not
be sufficient and deeper intervention is required.
Technique TR-C2--Filling of material gaps/perforations, however,
did not fulfil the initial expectations, even though 9% of the anomalies
detected were material gaps. Because of the mechanical fragility of the
system more damage caused by impacts and perforations was expected, even
though some gaps between materials had already been repaired (usually
incorrectly) leading to anomaly A-P2--Surface irregularities.
Techniques TR-C1--Protection of protruding edges and TR-C3--Joint
repair show lower incidence because they are intended for more specific
repairs. TR-C1 targets the correction of damage to protruding edges,
either cracks or material gaps. Furthermore, and even though it covers
various methods of repairing joints, TR-C3 was suggested as a solution
for anomalies other than cracking near expansion joints. This technique
was considered when the ETICS needed to be separated from other
construction elements or when the joints between plates were visible,
where there was a possibility of the insulation material becoming
dimensionally unstable and the creation of an expansion joint could
solve the problem.
Finally technique TR-C4--Application of new adhesive material
and/or mechanical anchors is relatively rare compared with the other
techniques, with only 9 recommendations. This low incidence is due to
the specific nature of the technique, which is used only in situations
of loss of adherence of the system or swelling of the plates. In the
only situation of partial loss of adherence of the system replacement of
that area was recommended. Therefore TR-C4 was recommended only to solve
problems of swelling of the plates.
3.5. Relationship between repair techniques and anomalies
Based on the data collected during the inspection campaign the
frequencies of each repair technique were correlated with the various
anomalies, as seen in Figure 19. The techniques aimed at repairing the
anomalies and/or eliminating their causes.
Oriented cracking (A-M1.1) was mostly solved by technique
TR-B1--Filling/clogging of cracks, and in some cases by partial/whole
replacement of the system (TR-C6), usually when plates coincided with
the profiles' joints. Non-oriented cracking (A-M1.2) was usually
handled by technique TR-B2--Partial/whole replacement of the finishing
coat, given the superficial nature of the anomaly, though techniques
TR-C6 or TR-C5--Correction of geometrical constructive features were
occasionally chosen if the anomaly was considerably extensive or
resulted from an incorrectly fitted construction element (Fig. 20).
[FIGURE 20 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 21 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 22 OMITTED]
The best technique for the deterioration of the covering of
reinforcement cantilevers (A-M2) was TR-C1--Protection of protruding
edges, as expected, given its specificity. For slight deterioration of
the finishing technique TR-B2--Partial/whole replacement of the
finishing coat was recommended. The same technique was prescribed 75% of
the times to remedy anomaly A-M.3--Detachment of the finishing even
though it was sometimes complemented by technique TR-C5--Correction of
geometrical constructive features, since replacing the finishing solves
the anomaly and correcting the tail-end elements eliminates the possible
cause (Fig. 20).
To finish the materials rupture anomalies, the only case of partial
loss of adherence of the system (A-M4.1) was solved by partial/whole
replacement of the system (TR-C6), complemented with technique TR-C5, in
this case resorting to back wrapping and replacement/installation of the
bottom profile. The material gaps (A-M5) observed were mostly handled
using technique TR-C2--Filling of material gaps/perforations, whenever
the perforation gap reached the insulation plate or the substrate (51%
of cases). For more superficial gaps that only reached the reinforced
mortar but did not damage the grid, partial/whole replacement of the
finishing coat (TR-B2) proved to be sufficient. Technique TR-C1 was
prescribed locally to treat protruding edges when the location of the
material gap near the edges justified the treatment of that area and the
installation of corner profiles was not considered (Fig. 20).
In the colour/aesthetic anomalies group there is a high incidence
of cleaning (TR-A1) and in most cases application of surface protection
(TR-A2). Anomalies A-C1--Efflorescence and A-C3--Corrosion stains were
rare in the sample analysed, representing less than 2% in total. With
the exception of a single case of efflorescence, where no deeper
intervention was deemed necessary, both anomalies were solved by surface
cleaning (TR-A1), in both cases over a small area, and correction of
geometrical constructive features (TR-C5) (Fig. 21).
Runoff marks (A-C2) and biological growth (A-C5) represent 61% of
the colour/aesthetic anomalies and 30% of all anomalies. In the first
case, cleaning (TR-A1) was most often prescribed to eliminate the marks.
But to eliminate the causes, correction of geometrical constructive
features (TR-C5) became fundamental. As for the manifestation of
micro-organisms on the system's surface, cleaning (TR-A1) and
complementary application of surface protection (TR-A2) were the
techniques chosen to eliminate the anomaly and prevent its recurrence.
In both cases, more severe problems were repaired by painting the wall,
thus justifying the incidence of technique TR-B3 in both cases (Fig.
21).
Graffiti (A-C4) strongly affects the aesthetics of a facade and is
not always easy to remove. Consequently, combining cleaning (TR-A1) and
the application of an anti-graffiti barrier (TR-A2), repainting the wall
(TR-B3) was deemed necessary in 50% of the situations when this anomaly
was detected. Depending on the characteristics, damp and dirt stains,
surface decolouration, and other problems within anomaly A-C.6--Other
colour changes, were solved through simple cleaning (TR-A1). In the case
of dirt stains (e.g. due to atmospheric pollution), cleaning plus the
application of water repellent (TR-A2) was the technique used for runoff
marks, and the application of a new finishing/painting (TR-B3) for other
colour changes, especially those caused by incorrect surface repairs
(Fig. 21).
Flatness anomalies are mostly due to incorrect characteristics or
application of the finishing coat or damage to it. Apart from swelling
of the insulation plates (A-P5) which implies another level of
intervention, the first four anomalies of the group require an
intervention to the finishing coat, usually by partial/whole replacement
(TR-B2). In fact anomaly A-P1--Flatness deficiency was dealt with solely
by this technique, which was considered sufficient given the causes
established. This anomaly has a sizeable incidence (8%) and in almost
all instances its origin was a deficient overlapping of the finishing
coat (86%) during the system's application. Depending on the height
of the scaffolding when the system was installed, it could have been
applied in horizontal coats. The transition between a new coat and the
previous one must ensure the greatest possible homogeneity at the level
of overlapping of the finishing coat. Surface irregularities (A-P2) come
from uneven texture of the finishing coat, from incorrect interventions
or from small superficial material gaps. The replacement of the
finishing coat (TR-B2) and the application of a new finishing on top of
the existing coat (TR-B3) were the preferred techniques to rectify this
anomaly (Fig. 22).
Joints between plates visible (A-P3) is caused mostly by
incoherencies in terms of the base coat or the dimensional stability of
the insulation plates. Deficiencies of the base coat are solved by the
partial/whole replacement of the finishing coat (TR-B2). However, the
dimensional instability of the plates requires the creation of an
expansion joint (TR-C3) to allow movement of the system, or, as a last
resort, its replacement (TR-C6). Swelling of the finishing coat (A-P4)
necessarily requires its replacement. The correction of geometrical
constructive features (TR-C5) was prescribed to eliminate the causes of
this anomaly, in this case essentially by capping the parapets, areas
where water can infiltrate the system, thereby boosting this and other
types of anomalies (Fig. 22).
As with the previous anomaly, so swelling of the insulation plates
(A.P5) may also derive from seepages into the system, which justifies
the frequent prescription of technique TR-C5 to eliminate its causes.
But to deal with the anomaly itself, which generally results from
deficient anchoring of the plates to the substrate as well as faulty
preparation of the latter, technique TR-C4--Application of new adhesive
material and/or mechanical anchors seems like the natural choice (Fig.
22).
Conclusion
There are pathology, diagnosis and repair systems for a variety of
construction elements, but in the literature survey performed none was
found concerning the evaluation of ETICS.
That was the main objective of this research, aiming at monitoring
the performance of ETICS on walls. Furthermore it is expected that some
of the difficulties inherent to the need for specialized labour may be
eased by creating a plain, concise and innovative document.
Both the system itself and all the assumptions made in its creation
(Amaro et al. 2013) were validated and calibrated after field work and
statistical post-treatment of the data collected on 146 facades where
ETICS had been applied. These statistics concern the performance of the
system and made it possible to perfect the process of evaluating and
intervening in the system.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
--The commonest anomalies of ETICS in walls (approximately once
every two cases) are biological growth, other colour changes and runoff
marks, all included in the colour/aesthetic anomalies group; flatness
and materials rupture anomalies come second and third respectively
(approximately a quarter of the occurrences each);
--The most frequent causes of the anomalies (approximately once
every six anomalies) are dirt build-up (dust), surface condensation damp
and rain action, and the most prolific groups of causes are external
mechanical actions and environmental actions;
--Around two out of five of the anomalies in ETICS can be prevented
by proper design, application and choice of materials, which shows the
importance of these stages in the service life of ETICS;
--Infrared thermography and contact moisture measurements account
each for around one third of all diagnosis methods recommended in the
event of an anomaly being found in ETICS;
--The most frequent repair techniques prescribed are those that act
on the surface of the system (cleaning and application of surface
protection), followed by those that act on the finishing coat (with
emphasis on the partial/whole replacement) and only about one fifth of
the times does the system core need to be intervened upon (with emphasis
on the correction of geometrical constructive features).
References
Amaro, B.; Saraiva, D.; de Brito, J. de; Flores-Colen, I. 2013.
Inspection and diagnosis system of ETICS in walls, Construction and
Building Materials 47: 1257-1267.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.024
Barreira, E.; Freitas, V. P. 2008. Defacement of ETICS cladding due
to hygrothermal behaviour, in Proc. of the 11th International Conference
on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Istanbul, Turkey,
paper T 24.
Barreira, E.; Delgado, J. M. P. Q.; Ramos, N. M. M.; Freitas, V. P.
2013. Exterior condensations on facades: numerical simulation of the
undercooling phenomenon, Journal of Building Performance Simulation
6(5): 337-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2011.560685
Daniotti, B.; Paolini, R. 2008. Evolution of degradation and decay
in performance of ETICS, in Proc. of the 11th International Conference
on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Istanbul, Turkey,
paper T 42.
De Brito, J. 2009. Sistemas de inspeccao e diagnostico em edificios
[Inspection and diagnosis systems in buildings], in Proc. of the 3rd
National Meeting on Pathology and Rehabilitation of Buildings, Porto,
Portugal, 13-23.
Duarte, C. 2011. A Europa das argamassas e dos ETICS. Tend?ncias,
perspectivas e oportunidades [The Europe of mortars and ETICS. Trends,
perspectives and opportunities], in Proc. of the IX SBTA--Brazilian
Symposium on Mortars Technology, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 7-16.
ETAG 004 2000. Guideline for European technical approval of
external thermal insulation composite systems with rendering, Brussels,
Belgium.
Fernandes, C.; de Brito J. 2012. Solucoes para integracao
arquitectonica do sistema ETICS em reabilita?ao [Solutions for
architectural integration of the ETICS system in rehabilitation], in 4
Congress on Construction and ETICS, Coimbra, Portugal, 39/2012.
Flores-Colen, I.; de Brito, J.; Freitas, V. P. 2008. Stains in
facades' rendering--diagnosis and maintenance technique
classification inspection, Construction and Building Materials 22(3):
211-221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.023 Freitas, V. P.
2002. Isolamento termico de fachadas pelo exterior--reboco delgado
armado sobre poliestireno expandido --ETICS [Thin reinforced render over
expanded polystyrene--ETICS], in Report HT 191A/02, MAXIT--Construction
and Renovation Technologies, Ltd, Porto, Portugal.
Kunzel, H. M. 1998. Effect of interior and exterior insulation on
the hygrothermal behavior of exposed walls, Materials and Structures
31(2): 99-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02486471
Kunzel, H.; Kiinzel, H. M.; Sedlbauer, K. 2006. Long term
performance of external thermal insulation systems (ETICS), Acta
Scientiarum Polonorum Architectura 5(1): 11-24.
Neto, N.; de Brito, J. 2011. Inspection and defect diagnosis system
for natural stone cladding (NSC), Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering 23(10): 1433-1443.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000314
Neto, N.; de Brito, J. 2012. Validation of an inspection and
diagnosis system for anomalies in natural stone cladding (NSC),
Construction and Building Materials 30(1): 224-236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.032
Pereira, A.; Palha, F.; de Brito, J.; Silvestre, J. D. 2011.
Inspection and diagnosis system for gypsum plasters in partition walls
and ceilings, Construction and Building Materials 25(4): 2146-2156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.015
Sa, G.; Sa, J.; de Brito, J., Amaro, B. 2013. Inspection and
diagnosis system for rendered walls, Journal of Civil Engineering
(approved for publication).
Silva, J. A. R. M.; Falorca, J. 2009. A model plan for buildings
maintenance with application in the performance analysis of a composite
facade cover, Construction and Building Materials 23(10): 3248-3257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.05.008
Silvestre, J. D.; de Brito, J. 2009. Ceramic tiling inspection
system, Construction and Building Materials 23(2): 653-668.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.02.007
Silvestre, J. D.; de Brito, J. 2011. Ceramic tiling in building
facades: inspection and pathological characterization using an expert
system, Construction and Building Materials 25(4): 1560-1571.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.09.039
Stazi, F.; di Perna, C.; Munafo, P. 2009. Durability of 20-yearold
external insulation and assessment of various types of retrofitting to
meet new energy regulations, Energy and Buildings 41(7): 721-731.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.02.008
LIST OF ACRONYMS
A-M--Materials rupture anomalies
A-M1.1--Oriented cracking
A-M1.2--Non-oriented cracking
A-M2--Deterioration of the covering of reinforcement cantilevers
A-M3--Detachment of the finishing coat
A-M4.1--Partial loss of adherence
A-M4.2--Loss of adherence of the whole system
A-M5--Material gap
A-C--Colour/Aesthetic anomalies
A-C1--Efflorescence
A-C2--Runoff marks
A-C3--Corrosion stains
A-C4--Graffiti
A-C5--Biological growth (lichens, fungi, algae, plants)
A-C6--Other colour changes
A-P--Flatness anomalies
A-P1--Flatness deficiency
A-P2--Surface irregularities
A-P3--Joints between plates visible
A-P4--Swelling of the finishing coat
A-P5--Swelling of the insulation plates
C-M--Materials selection
C-M1--Insufficient dimensional stability of the insulation material
C-M2--Inadequate protection against micro-organisms of the
finishing biocide
C-M3--Dark or greatly contrasting coatings
C-M4--Metal elements with no protection against corrosion
C-M5--Finishing coat of insufficient permeability
C-M6--Contaminated materials or ones having fabric defects
C-M7--Plates of non-uniform thickness
C-M8--Shrinkage of the base coat
C-C--Design
C-C1--Insufficient thickness of the base coat C-C2--No
reinforcement
C-C3--Deficient interface between the system and other elements
C-C4--No primary coat
C-C5--Inadequate design of sills, flashings or on the ground-floor
C-E--Application
C-E1--Inadequate preparation of the substrate
C-E2--Deficient anchoring of the insulation to the substrate
C-E3--Absence of joints between adjacent strengthening profiles
C-E4--Coincidence between the joints of the strengthening profiles
and the insulation plates
C-E5--Coincidence of the insulation plates' joints with
discontinuities of the substrate
C-E6--Render between the insulation plates
C-E7--Incorrect alignment of the insulation plates
C-E8--Mechanical anchors too tight
C-E9--Deficient treatment of singularities
C-E10--Insufficient overlapping of the reinforcement splices
C-E11--Deficient application of the coating
C-E12--Incorrect application of constructive elements
C-E13--Disregard of the dosages and manufacturers recommendations
C-E14--Deficient overlapping of the finishing coat
C-E15--Deficient execution of flashings
C-E16--Absence of reinforcement cantilever
C-E17--Joints between plates wider than 2 mm
C-A--Environmental actions
C-A1--Strong wind when cladding is applied
C-A2--Exceptionally low temperature during application of the
cement-glue or covering
C-A3--Rain
C-A4--Absorption and capillarity damp
C-A5--Infiltration damp
C-A6--Surface condensation damp
C-A7--Atmospheric pollution
C-A8--Low solar exposure
C-H--External mechanical actions
C-H1--Impacts
C-H2--Perforation of the system
C-H3--Human action
C-H4--Anchoring of equipment or scaffolding
C-H5--Substrate settlements
C-H6--Undue boring of the wall
C-H7--Dirt build-up (dust)
C-H8--Splattering at the bottom of the walls
C-H9--Parasitic plants near the facade
C-H10--Parasitic plant growth in the system
C-U--Maintenance
C-U1--Insufficient maintenance
C-U2--Undue intervention
C-U3--Repair
D-S--Sensorial perception tests
D-S1--Crack comparator
D-S2--Crack detection microscope
D-S3--Crack meter
D-S4--Probing
D-M--Mechanical action tests
D-M1--Sphere impact test--martinet baronnie
D-M2--Perforation test (perfotest)
D-M3--Pull-off test
D-H--Hydrodynamic methods
D-H1--Karsten tube test
D-T--Thermal methods
D-T1--Infrared thermography
D-E--Electric methods
D-E1--Contact moisture meter
D-E2--Needles moisture meter
D-U--Ultrasonic methods
D-U1--Ultrasonic pulse velocity equipment
D-Q--Chemical methods
D-Q1--Colorimetric stripes
D-Q2--Field kit
TR-A--Surface
TR-A1--Cleaning
TR-A2--Application of surface protection (water repellent,
fungicide, biocide)
TR-B--Finishing coat
TR-B1--Filling/clogging of cracks
TR-B2--Partial/whole replacement of the finishing coat
TR-B3--Application of a new finishing on top of the existing
coat/painting
TR-B--System
TR-C1--Protection of protruding edges
TR-C2--Filling of material gaps/perforations
TR-C3--Joint repair
TR-C4--Application of new adhesive material and/or mechanical
anchors
TR-C5--Correction of geometrical constructive features
TR-C6--Partial/whole replacement of the system
Barbara AMARO, Diogo SARAIVA, Jorge de BRITO, Ines FLORES-COLEN
Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources,
Instituto Superior Tecnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco
Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
Received 17 April 2012; accepted 25 May 2012
Corresponding author: Jorge de Brito
E-mail: jb@civil.ist.utl.pt
Barbara AMARO holds a Master's degree in Civil Engineering
from Instituto Superior Tecnico, Technical University of Lisbon,
Portugal. Her research interests include the life cycle of construction
elements.
Diogo SARAIVA holds a Master's degree in Civil Engineering
from Instituto Superior Tecnico, Technical University of Lisbon,
Portugal. His research interests include the life cycle of construction
elements.
Jorge de BRITO is a Full Professor at Instituto Superior Tecnico,
Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal. He is a member of CIB W80, W86
and W115. His research interests include the performance, pathology, in
situ testing, diagnosis, maintenance, rehabilitation and service life
prediction of buildings and construction elements and sustainable
construction.
Ines FLORES-COLEN is an Assistant Professor at Instituto Superior
Tecnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal. She is a member of
CIB W86 and W70. Her research interests include the performance,
pathology, in situ testing, diagnosis, maintenance, rehabilitation and
service life prediction of buildings and construction elements.
Table 1. Main characteristics of the buildings inspected in the field
work
Type Year of No. of
of use application facades
Ed 1--Bairro Alto da Eira
St. Mouzinho de Housing 2003 12
Albuquerque, Lisbon
Ed 2--Tagus Park--Siza Vieira
Tagus Park, Oeiras Offices 2008 6
Ed 3--Housing cooperative of Massarelos
Housing cooperative of Housing 1994 16
Massarelos, St. de
Salgueiro Maia, Porto
Ed 4--FAUP
FAUP, Via Panoramica Porto Services 1989 20
Ed 5--Outeiro neighbourhood
Bairro do Outeiro/St. do Housing 2007 15
Mondego, Porto
Ed 6--FEUP--Departments of Engineering
FEUP, St. Dr. Placido Services 1999 24
da Costa 91, Porto
Ed 7--FEUP--Canteen
FEUP, St. Dr. Placido Services 2001 2
da Costa, Porto
Ed 8--FEUP--INESC
FEUP--IESCP, St. Dr. Services 2002 4
Roberto Frias, Porto
Ed 9--FCTUC--Department of Informatics
Engineering
FCTUC, Polo II, St. Services 1994 10
Silvio Lima, Coimbra
Ed 10--FCTUC--Department of Civil Engineering
FCTUC, Polo II, St. Services 2000 5
Silvio Lima, Coimbra
Ed 11--FCTUC--Department of Electrical and Computers Engineering
FCTUC, Polo II, St. Services 1996 9
Silvio Lima, Coimbra
Ed 12--Hotel IBIS
Av. Jose Malhoa, Lisbon Services 2002 1
Ed 13--Museum of Neo-realism
St. Alves Redol, Vila Services 2007 3
Franca de Xira
Ed 14--Urbanization Quinta Verde
Quinta Verde, Sao Martinho, Housing 1996 19
Massarelos, Sintra
Characterization of
the surroundings
Ed 1--Bairro Alto da Eira
St. Mouzinho de Social neighbourhood with
Albuquerque, Lisbon some propensity to vandalism
Ed 2--Tagus Park--Siza Vieira
Tagus Park, Oeiras Detached office building
in the Tagus Park complex
Ed 3--Housing cooperative of Massarelos
Housing cooperative of Housing neighbourhood in a
Massarelos, St. de very busy urban area
Salgueiro Maia, Porto
Ed 4--FAUP
FAUP, Via Panoramica Porto University complex in an urban
surrounding, with considerable
number of trees around it
Ed 5--Outeiro neighbourhood
Bairro do Outeiro/St. do Housing neighbourhood in a
Mondego, Porto very busy urban area
Ed 6--FEUP--Departments of Engineering
FEUP, St. Dr. Placido University complex in an urban
da Costa 91, Porto surrounding, with considerable
movement of people and vehicles
Ed 7--FEUP--Canteen
FEUP, St. Dr. Placido Canteen of FEUP, protected from
da Costa, Porto direct human contact. Facades
inspected exposed to a
watering system
Ed 8--FEUP--INESC
FEUP--IESCP, St. Dr. Detached building with major
Roberto Frias, Porto vegetation near one of the facades
Ed 9--FCTUC--Department of Informatics Engineering
FCTUC, Polo II, St. University complex in a rural
Silvio Lima, Coimbra surrounding with considerable
number of trees around it
Ed 10--FCTUC--Department of Civil Engineering
FCTUC, Polo II, St. University complex in a rural
Silvio Lima, Coimbra surrounding with considerable
number of trees around it and
some movement of people and
vehicles
Ed 11--FCTUC--Department of Electrical and Computers Engineering
FCTUC, Polo II, St. University complex in a rural
Silvio Lima, Coimbra surrounding with considerable
number of trees around it
Ed 12--Hotel IBIS
Av. Jose Malhoa, Lisbon Hotel in Lisbon in a street with
considerable traffic
Ed 13--Museum of Neo-realism
St. Alves Redol, Vila Museum in Vila Franca de Xira in an
Franca de Xira urban area with considerable
car traffic
Ed 14--Urbanization Quinta Verde
Quinta Verde, Sao Martinho, Urban development of houses in a
Massarelos, Sintra rural area with a lot of trees
Area
([m.sup.2])
Ed 1--Bairro Alto da Eira
St. Mouzinho de 6080
Albuquerque, Lisbon
Ed 2--Tagus Park--Siza Vieira
Tagus Park, Oeiras 2750
Ed 3--Housing cooperative of Massarelos
Housing cooperative of 4350
Massarelos, St. de
Salgueiro Maia, Porto
Ed 4--FAUP
FAUP, Via Panoramica Porto 2700
Ed 5--Outeiro neighbourhood
Bairro do Outeiro/St. do 4200
Mondego, Porto
Ed 6--FEUP--Departments of Engineering
FEUP, St. Dr. Placido 6250
da Costa 91, Porto
Ed 7--FEUP--Canteen
FEUP, St. Dr. Placido 150
da Costa, Porto
Ed 8--FEUP--INESC
FEUP--IESCP, St. Dr. 1750
oberto Frias, Porto
Ed 9--FCTUC--Department of Informatics Engineering
FCTUC, Polo II, St. 2850
Silvio Lima, Coimbra
Ed 10--FCTUC--Department of Civil Engineering
FCTUC, Polo II, St. 650
Silvio Lima, Coimbra
Ed 11--FCTUC--Department of Electrical and Computers Engineering
FCTUC, Polo II, St. 1750
Silvio Lima, Coimbra
Ed 12--Hotel IBIS
Av. Jose Malhoa, Lisbon 1000
Ed 13--Museum of Neo-realism
St. Alves Redol, Vila 700
Franca de Xira
Ed 14--Urbanization Quinta Verde
Quinta Verde, Sao Martinho, 1250
Massarelos, Sintra
Table 2. Characterisation of the types of inspection plans
Type of Periodicity Minimum/
inspection maximum
periodicity
Current Periodic 12 to 24
months
Detailed 5 to 10
years
Post- Non- --
intervention periodic
Type of Objective
inspection
Current Detect fast-developing
anomalies, monitor
anomalies detected in
previous inspections
Detailed Monitor anomalies detected
in previous inspections,
determine their extent,
severity and causes
Post- Verify early degradation
intervention due to application errors
of the repair techniques
Type of Method
inspection
Current Visual observation of ETICS;
little equipment needed
Detailed Visual observation, nondestructive
in situ tests, considerable backing
in terms of personnel and material
Post- Visual observation of ETICS;
intervention reduced need of equipment
Table 3. Standard inspection file
FILE INSPECTION No.
Person in charge / role:
Objective of the inspection:
Temperature: < 5[degrees] Between 5[degrees]
and 15[degrees]
Rainfall: Nil Showers
Humidity: Low Medium
I--BUILDING:
I.1--Location:
I.2--Type of use: Housing
I.3--Year of construction:
I.5--No. of floors
above the ground:
I.7--Building configuration:
I.8--Climatic zone: Winter:
II.A--INSPECTED ENVELOPE
ETICS:
Type of facade: Front
Facade orientation:
Type of cladding: Traditional
Type of finishing:
Exposure to pollution: Nil
Type of surroundings: Rural
Characterisation of Concrete
the substrate:
Elements within the facade: Hanger
Lower tail-end:
III--MAINTENANCE
III.1--Periodicity of
inspections and/or
interventions:
III.2--Previous interventions: Yes No III.3--Date
III.4--Technique used:
III.5--Materials applied:
III.6--Means of access for
inspection/intervention:
OBSERVATIONS:
FILE INSPECTION No. DATE:
Person in charge / role:
Objective of the inspection:
Temperature: > 15[degrees]
Rainfall: Heavy rain
Humidity: High
I--BUILDING:
I.1--Location:
I.2--Type of use: Commerce Services
I.3--Year of construction: I.4--Year of last intervention:
I.5--No. of floors I.6--No. of facades inspected:
above the ground:
I.7--Building configuration:
I.8--Climatic zone: I II
II.A--INSPECTED ENVELOPE
ETICS: Area of facade:
Type of facade: Side Back
Facade orientation:
Type of cladding: Reinforced Ceramic
Type of finishing:
Exposure to pollution: Low Medium
Type of surroundings: Urban Coastal
Characterisation of Masonry Other
the substrate:
Elements within the facade: Ventilation system Lighting system
Lower tail-end:
III--MAINTENANCE
III.1--Periodicity of
inspections and/or
interventions:
III.2--Previous interventions:
III.4--Technique used:
III.5--Materials applied:
III.6--Means of access for
inspection/intervention:
OBSERVATIONS:
FILE INSPECTION No.
Person in charge / role:
Objective of the inspection:
Temperature:
Rainfall:
Humidity:
I--BUILDING:
I.1--Location:
I.2--Type of use: Other
I.3--Year of construction:
I.5--No. of floors
above the ground:
I.7--Building configuration:
I.8--Climatic zone: III
II.A--INSPECTED ENVELOPE
ETICS:
Type of facade:
Facade orientation:
Type of cladding: Other
Type of finishing:
Exposure to pollution: High
Type of surroundings: Other
Characterisation of
the substrate:
Elements within the facade: Other
Lower tail-end:
III--MAINTENANCE
III.1--Periodicity of
inspections and/or
interventions:
III.2--Previous interventions:
III.4--Technique used:
III.5--Materials applied:
III.6--Means of access for
inspection/intervention:
OBSERVATIONS:
Table 4. Standard validation file
VALIDATION FILE No. DATE:
Code of each ETICS Hour:
Temperature: < 5 Between 5[degrees] > 15
[degrees] and 15[degrees] [degrees]
Rainfall: Nil Showers Heavy rain
Humidity: Low Medium High
ANOMALIES DETECTED
NOTES:
CHARACTERISATION OF THE ANOMALIES ANOMALIES
(fill only the field that applies to the anomaly)
Location: accessible area1 (AA), non-accessible area (NAA),
edges (E), near an opening (NO)
Extent: minimum, < 10% (M); low, 10-30 % (L); considerable,
30-60% (C); high, > 60% (H)
Thickness: thin, < 1 mm (T); medium, 1-2 mm (M); high,
> 2 mm (H)
Depth: reinforcement (R), insulation (I), substrate (S)
Type of cracking: horizontal (H), vertical (V), diagonal
(D), reticulated (R), mapped (M)
Aesthetic impact on the fa?ade: low (L), medium (M), high (H)
Coats affected: reinforced coat (R), system (S)
Type of organisms: fungi, (F), lichens (L),
algae (A), plants (P)
Severity level: (0,1,2)
MOST PROBABLE CAUSES ANOMALIES
NOTES:
AUXILIARY DIAGNOSIS METHODS ANOMALIES
NOTES:
REPAIR TECHNIQUES ANOMALIES
NOTES:
Fig. 2. Application of ETICS (in relative area) in Europe in 2008
(Duarte 2011)
Germany 30%
Poland 29%
Czech Republic 12%
Italy 7%
Austria 6%
Slovakia 5%
France 2%
Portugal 1%
Others 8%
Note: Table made from pie chart.
Fig. 4. Age distribution of the sample
1989 20
199 21
1994 26
1996 28
1999 24
2000 5
2001 2
2002 4
2003 12
2007 18
2008 6
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Fig. 5. Anomalies within the sample
A-M1.1 47
A-M1.2 11
A-M2 5
A-M3 6
A-M4.1 1
A-M4.2 0
A-M5 42
A-C1 2
A-C2 63
A-C3 6
A-C4 12
A-C5 81
A-C6 71
A-P1 38
A-P2 48
A-P3 23
A-P4 13
A-P5 7
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Fig. 6. Incidence of the anomalies in terms of probability of
occurring in a facade
A-M1.1 32.2%
A-M1.2 7.5%
A-M2 3.4%
A-M3 4.1%
A-M4.1 0.7%
A-M4.2 0.0%
A-M5 28.8%
A-Cl 1.4%
A-C2 43.2%
A-C3 4.1%
A-C4 8.2%
A-C5 55.5%
A-C6 48.6%
A-PI 26.0%
A-P2 32.9%
A-P3 15.8%
A-P4 8.9%
A-P5 4.8%
Note: Table made from bar graph
Fig. 7. Contribution of each anomaly group to the grand total of
anomalies detected
Flatness anomalies 27%
Materials rupture anomalies 24%
Colour/aesthetic anomalies 49%
Note: Table made from pie chart.
Fig. 8. Absolute and relative incidence of materials selection errors
Absolute frequency Relative frequency
C-Ml 15 3.2%
C-M2 38 8.0%
C-M3 0 0.0%
C-M4 5 1.1%
C-M5 9 1.9%
C-M6 26 5.5%
C-M7 0 0.0%
C-M8 5 1.1%
Note: Table made from bar graph
Fig. 9. Absolute and relative incidence of design errors
Absolute frequency relative frequency
C-Cl 42 8.8%
C-C2 33 l6.9%
C-C3 10 2.1%
C-C4 11 2.3%
C-C5 58 12.2%
Note: Table made from bar graph
Fig. 10. Absolute and relative incidence of application errors
Absolute frequency Relative frequency
C-El 7 1.5%
C-E2 4 0.8%
C-E3 3 10.6%
C-E4 7
C-E5 0 0.0%
C-E6 0 0.0%
C-E7 1 O.2%
C-E8 0 0.0%
C-E9 16 3.4%
C-E10 9 1.9%
C-Ell 18 3.8%
C-E12 13 2.7%
C-E13 15 3.2%
C-E14 41 8.6%
C-E15 32 6.7%
C-E16 2 0.4%
C-E17 9 1.9%
Fig. 11. Absolute and relative incidence of maintenance errors
Absolute frequency Relative frequency
C-U1 43 9.0%
C-U2 18 3.8%
C-U3 64 13.4%
Note: Table made from bar graph
Fig. 12. Absolute and relative incidence of environmental actions
Absolute frequency Relative frequency
C-Al 0 0.0%
C-A2 3 0.6%
C-A3 66 13.9%
C-A4 52 10.9%
C-A5 23 4.8%
C-A6 75 15.8%
C-A7 20 4.2%
C-A8 21 4.4%
Note: Table made from bar graph
Fig. 13. Absolute and relative incidence of external mechanical
actions
Absolute frequency Relative frequency
C-Hl 41 8.6%
C-H2 44 9.2%
C-H3 38 8.0%
C-H4 18 3.8%
C-H5 1 0.2%
C-H6 2 0.4%
C-H7 98 20.6%
C-H8 5 1.1%
C-H9 33 6'9%
C-H10 4 0.8%
Note: Table made from bar graph
Fig. 14. Contribution of each cause group to the grand total of
causes attributed
Design 26%
Maintenance 14%
Materials selection 16%
Application 11%
Environmental actions 24%
External mechanical actions 9%
Note: Table made from pie chart.
Fig. 15. Contribution of each cause to each anomaly group
Initial stages Exposure
(C+E) (A+E)
Materials rupture anomalies 57% 33%
Colour/aesthetic anomalies 14% 65%
Flatness anomalies 44% 24%
Others
(U+M)
Materials rupture anomalies 10%
Colour/aesthetic anomalies 21%
Flatness anomalies 32%
Note: Table made from pie chart.
Fig. 16. Recommended diagnosis methods within the sample
D-S1 52
D-S2 7
D-S3 50
D-S4 45
D-M1 26
D-M2 21
D-M3 10
D-H1 34
D-T1 159
D-E1 155
D-E2 28
D-U1 49
D-Q1 13
D-Q2 13
Note: Table made from bar graph
Fig. 17. Contribution of each method to the anomalies diagnosed
D-S1 11%
D-S2 1%
D-S3 11%
D-S4 9%
D-M1 5%
D-M2 4%
D-M3 2%
D-H1 7%
D0T1 33%
D-E1 33%
D-E2 6%
D-U1 10%
D-Q1 3%
D-Q2 3%
Note: Table made from bar graph
Fig. 18. Contribution of each repair technique group to the grand
total of techniques prescribed
Surface 43%
Finishing layer 34%
System 23%
Note: Table made from pie chart.
Fig. 19. Incidence of the repair techniques prescribed
TR-A1 26.5%
TR-A2 16.1%
TR-B1 5.3%
TR-B2 16.5%
TR-B3 11.9%
TR-C1 1.3%
TR-C2 3.2%
TR-C3 1.6%
TR-C4 0.6%
TR-C5 12.6%
TR-C6 4.0%
Note: Table made from bar graph
