Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Maintenance planning of facades in current buildings

Sara Madureira a, Inês Flores-Colen b,⇑, Jorge de Brito b, Clara Pereira b
a
Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) – Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
b
CERIS-ICIST, Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture & Georresources, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, P-1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal

h i g h l i g h t s

Inspections of 30 buildings’ facades in service conditions in a coastal area.

Pathology in each maintenance-source element.

Proactive maintenance plan for facades in current buildings.

Methodology to rank the priority of the interventions.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A methodology to implement a maintenance plan for buildings’ facades is presented. The theoretical pro-
Received 14 December 2016 posal is based on relevant literature and was applied and adjusted in a survey of 30 buildings. It considers
Received in revised form 26 April 2017 a three-step methodology: detailed inspection, post-inspection maintenance actions, and proactive main-
Accepted 28 April 2017
tenance planning. The proposal is based on systematized procedures, involving detailed information on
the facade. A methodology to use multi-criteria to prioritize maintenance actions is suggested, namely
environmental; extension; consequences; and safety requirements. Considering four types of mainte-
Keywords:
nance operations, they are used to solve the main anomalies in facades (aesthetical, adhesion loss and
Maintenance plan
Facade
fastening defects).
Proactive maintenance Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Prioritization
Pathology

1. Introduction allow optimizing global costs and fulfilling user’s satisfaction

The absence of adequate building maintenance policies, led to
the current degradation of the housing stock and to the early age-
ing of building’s elements, including facades’ elements. According
to ISO 15686-1 [1], maintenance combines all technical and
administrative actions, including supervision, that are necessary
to reinstate an element to a condition in which it fulfills adequate
performance requirements. During a building’s service life, costs
can occur at three stages: design, construction and use and main-
tenance. Although design and construction costs are subject to
great concern, according to Perret [2], about 75–80% of costs occur
during the use and maintenance stage, for a building with a service
life of 50 years. The economic impact proves the importance of
building maintenance. If maintenance plans were implemented
at the design stage with predefined performance levels, they would
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sara_madu@hotmail.com (S. Madureira), ines.flores.colen@
tecnico.ulisboa.pt (I. Flores-Colen), jb@civil.ist.utl.pt (J. de Brito), clareira@sapo.pt
(C. Pereira).
through the knowledge of the buildings’ in-service behaviour,
and its degradation mechanisms and agents, as well as the type
and main causes of anomalies. A maintenance plan is an additional
document to the project which anticipates proactive maintenance
actions, according to different time ranges, with minimal interfer-
ence in the regular functioning of the building [3,4]. It should not
eliminate the possibility of unforeseen corrective maintenance
actions and it should be periodically updated.
The building envelope is determinant for the comfort level of a
building. In this context, facades define the building’s appearance,
simultaneously working as a barrier to external aggressions and a
communication element between inside and outside (through
light, visibility and ventilation). Facades play a fundamental role
on the building’s performance, being a complex system to design,
build and maintain [5,6]. Facades are composed of walls, openings
and different types of claddings (continuous or discontinuous,
directly or indirectly fastened). Identifying the facade’s compo-
nents is useful to determine the maintenance needs, according to
the most probable anomalies and causes. To evaluate the facade’s
durability performance, it is necessary to know the aggressive

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.195
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802
agents to which the facade is exposed [6]. Humidity is the main
cause of anomalies in facades, but loads, stress, deformation, radi-
ation, extreme temperatures, dirt, pollution, salts, bacteria, plants,
mould, insects, birds, to name a few factors, combined with poor
constructive details, may also significantly affect the facade’s per-
formance. They may originate stains, cracks, detachment, cohesion
loss and fastening defects. The facade of a building requires peri-
odic maintenance like all the other major systems within the build-
ing; although the roof is widely recognized as needing preventive
maintenance, few owners understand that the vertical closure also
requires a similar commitment to preventive maintenance [7].
According to the research of Pires et al. [8], the main anomaly in
painted rendered facades is staining resulting from dirt deposits
on the wall surface. Results on adhesive ceramic tiling facades
are similar [9], as mainly two anomalies were detected: ‘‘staining,
change of colour or brightness of the tiles” and ‘‘change of colour of
joints”, both related with the effect of dirt deposits. In facades with
natural stone cladding, colour variations are also the most frequent
anomalies, according to Neto and de Brito [10]. With a comprehen-
sive knowledge of a facade, it is possible to plan proactive mainte-
nance operations, such as inspection, cleaning, surface protection
treatment, local repair, local replacements and minor and major
interventions [11].
Some countries have extensive studies on the definition of
building’s maintenance plans, and legislation to oblige builders
and/or homeowners to implement them [4,11–16]. In Europe,
mainly three Mediterranean countries were considered in this
research: France, Italy and Spain [12,14,16]. In France and Italy
buildings’ maintenance plans are more detailed and meticulous
than in Spain. In France, there is a great focus on inspection,
recording and processing all the inspection information; it is the
only country, out of these three, that regards costs planning of
maintenance operations. As for Italy, buildings’ maintenance plans
refer to new buildings and expect the active involvement of the
users and building managers, through user’s manuals with instruc-
tion and respective planning of actions. In Spain, buildings’ main-
tenance plans are similar to those of Italy, adding the mandatory
identification of those responsible for the building’s construction
and for the installed equipment.
This study proposes a structured methodology to implement a
facades’ maintenance plan, based on the analysis of 30 buildings’
facades. The proposed methodology may be adjusted to buildings
at the design stage or existing buildings, towards extending their
service life with satisfying performance levels. This approach will
allow regular in-time maintenance actions on facades with a better
use of economic resources. The paper describes the methodology in
the context of the literature, and characterizes the sample of the
buildings facades’ survey and main anomalies. The applied theoret-
ical principles are also described, namely the criteria to prioritize
maintenance actions and the probable post-inspection mainte-
nance actions. Results are discussed considering both a theoretical
proposal of maintenance operations and an adjusted one. The con-
clusions section presents the main findings on planning proactive
maintenance actions.
2. Methodology
2.1. Context methodology
Throughout a building’s service life, its constructive elements
should present the performance levels defined at the design stage,
contributing to the fulfillment of the user’s needs [5].
Planning maintenance operations is only possible after
analyzing the building’s elements performance, their predicted
service life, maintenance needs, degradation models and the most
791
frequent anomalies. Subjective factors also influence decision-
making at this stage, such as the user’s acceptance of the plan,
according to their needs and expectations [17]. Palmer [18] divided
maintenance operations into proactive actions (preventive and
predictive) and corrective actions.
Preventive maintenance strategies anticipate degradation signs,
acting before any significant physical or functional change in the
building’s elements occurs. Through regular maintenance actions,
unexpected anomalies are avoided, extra work is minimized and
there is minimal interference in the building’s use. To plan preven-
tive actions, it is necessary extensive information on each element,
concerning service life, in-service performance, degradation pat-
terns, adequate maintenance operations and costs. This mainte-
nance strategy is highly associated with a theoretical behaviour,
which may not correspond to real in-use conditions and thus
should be monitored [11,19].
Predictive maintenance strategies, on the other hand, are based
on inspections to assess the maintenance needs of each element.
These inspections are planned and maintenance actions are
performed according to the inspection results on the elements’
degradation condition. Predictive strategies are also based on a
vast number of technical and statistical information about the
behaviour of building’s elements [20]. Predictive maintenance
actions require qualified experts and valid diagnosis methods, in
order to evaluate the functional parameters, anomalies symptoms
and related causes. This strategy should increase the capacity to
determine when an intervention is needed, although prioritizing
maintenance operations still depends on the perspective of
decision-makers while assessing degradation conditions [21,22].
In contrast, corrective maintenance responds to advanced degrada-
tion and emergency actions, intervening after anomalies’ claims,
putting sometimes the life or integrity of users in danger.
Although, in the short-term, a corrective maintenance strategy
may seem cheaper, it leads to high costs, since in-depth urgent
interventions are needed resorting usually to after-hours
outsourced maintenance services [11].
This study intends to set up a maintenance plan for the facades
of current buildings, based on the analysis of in-service facades
behaviour. A maintenance plan, at the design stage, is an additional
document to the project, which intends to maintain performance
levels, functionality and efficiency of the building, rationalizing
costs and resources with minimal interference in the regular use
of the building [3]. If implemented in existing buildings, a mainte-
nance plan should be based on a detailed evaluation of the in-
service building’s degradation. This plan is fundamental to imple-
ment proactive maintenance strategies during the service life of
the building’s elements. Initially, the most probable preventive
actions and inspections (predictive) are defined. Through this pro-
cess, considering an adequate level of unpredictability, corrective
maintenance actions should also be accounted for. In the long
term, a maintenance plan should be regularly updated. A mainte-
nance plan should contain all the essential information to prevent
and monitor the performance of the building’s elements [4]: it
should list all the maintenance-source elements and expected ser-
vice lives; maintenance operations routines; in-service degrada-
tion mechanisms; technical maintenance recommendations;
resources; costs; and interventions’ records.
To efficiently manage resources and costs, a maintenance plan
for facades should be well structured and documented. To imple-
ment the proposed maintenance plan, there are three main steps
and corresponding actions to accomplish them:
(i) detailed inspection (existing buildings);
a. identifying every facade element subject to maintenance
(maintenance-source elements (MSE), described in sec-
tion 2.2.1);
792 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802
b. establish the most probable anomalies and their causes;
c. compiling the best intervention strategies;
(ii) post-inspection maintenance actions (existing buildings);
a. implementing remedial actions, according to the inspec-
tion’s diagnosis, reestablishing the building’s perfor-
mance levels;
(iii) and proactive maintenance plan (existing buildings and
buildings at the design stage);
a. defining the service life of each MSE;
b. and scheduling the proactive maintenance actions.
In the following sections, every step of the proposed plan is
addressed in detail.
2.2. Survey of facades in current buildings
As mentioned, a detailed inspection is the first step to imple-
ment a maintenance plan. It is performed by skilled experts, who
will effectively detect anomalies, their probable causes and define
the most adequate intervention solutions. In this step, expedient or
specialized equipment may be needed to assist visual inspection,
and further diagnosis methods may be recommended, if necessary.
The expert should, also, be provided with all necessary informa-
tion, such as location, construction year, functional characteriza-
tion, MSE and their materials, as well as previous maintenance
works. All the information should be registered in a standard
inspection sheet.
In this paper, the proposed maintenance plan is applied and val-
idated for 30 buildings in Lisbon, Portugal (Table 1). The sample is
composed of a set of 30 buildings located at Parque das Nações, Lis-
bon, which is a homogenous sample, out of the 819 residential or
partially residential buildings in the district. The district is com-
posed of 69% of buildings built after 1991. 77% of the district’s
buildings are exclusively residential and another 22% are mainly
residential [23]. All the buildings are located in an urban neighbor-
hood less than 1 km away from the sea, thus with a highly aggres-
sive climate. The dataset comprises residential buildings [24] with
4 to 17 floors (Fig. 1). All the buildings are less than 12 years old
(the facades’ survey occurred in 2010) and most of them have
not had any maintenance operations. All the buildings have a con-
crete structure with masonry walls. The facades’ claddings are
located in a ground floor socle or in the upper floors (Fig. 2). Most
of the socle claddings are in stone (32%), as it is a tough material
(comparison of results from Silva et al. [25] – natural stone – and
Gaspar and de Brito [26] – cement renders). Some variations of
the type of stone cladding may be found, but the large majority
of the present stone sample is composed of limestone. Silva et al.
[25,27] had a different approach on a different and wider sample
in the same location, which is taken into account, but not followed
in this methodology. In the upper floors, 25% of claddings are ren-
derings (only one façade’s socle was rendered) while 17% of the
claddings are stone plates and 16% are ceramic tiles. The proposed
maintenance plan was applied to these buildings based solely on
visual inspections from the ground level, which poses some limita-
tions for higher buildings.
2.2.1. Maintenance-source elements (MSE)
A building may be seen as a set of various subdivided elements
that allow its easier characterization. For instance, fasteners, win-
dows and a painted coating are some of the facades’
maintenance-source elements. Each MSE has its own degradation
mechanism and performance level throughout the building’s ser-
vice life, resulting in different maintenance needs. During the
detailed inspection, it is essential to identify the MSE, in order to
record and systemize the main probable anomalies and causes.
Table 2 shows the proposed classification of MSE, based on ASTM
E2136-04 [28].
2.2.2. Main anomalies in facades
Facades go through a complex degradation process, combining
several factors. It is important to know these factors to understand
the pathological process and to control it through proper mainte-
nance operations. Anomalies in facades may be aesthetical, adhe-
sion loss, fastening defects and defects in openings, as presented
in Table 3.
During fieldwork, since inspections were fundamentally visual
and there was no access to the inside of buildings, some MSE were
not wholly inspected, specifically windows and doors elements at
upper levels. Therefore, none of the defects in openings (A4) were
considered. In the survey, every building in the sample was identi-
fied in a ‘‘building identification file”, and the detected anomalies
were registered in an ‘‘inspection file”. In this file, the extent of
each anomaly was measured using expedient methods, like pho-
tography and measuring tape as reference for further analysis,
according to the affected area percentage, considering the facade
cladding area. By far, the most common anomalies in facades are
‘‘A1. Aesthetical anomalies” (80%), led by ‘‘A1.5 Runoff” (Fig. 3).
As the inspected buildings are recent, this was an expected result,
even more considering the environmental exposure of the area.
Aesthetical anomalies are the first expression of degradation and
maintenance absence. ‘‘A2. Adhesion loss” represents 15% of
anomalies in the sample, while ‘‘A3. Fastening defects” were only
detected in 6% of the facades. Both adhesion loss and fastening
defects are, usually, associated with poor detailing, materials
choice or application methods. Normally, they do not occur as a
consequence of degradation or lack of maintenance. Fig. 4 shows
different types of the detected anomalies as an example.
3. Theoretical approach
3.1. Maintenance actions prioritization criteria
Considering the MSE degradation level, the advised mainte-
nance operations and a limited amount of funds, it is necessary
to establish a set of criteria to define maintenance priorities. These
criteria may vary, according to different authors [29–32]. Gaspar
and de Brito [33] created a probabilistic model, concerning ren-
dered facades degradation levels. Five levels were defined, accord-
ing to the required repair and maintenance operations. Each level
was associated with a multiplying factor, considered in an expres-
sion which translated into the building’s global degradation state.
[22] analyzed multiple criteria for maintenance prioritization after
post-inspection assessment, identifying the most relevant criteria
for decision based on relative weight of importance, according to
physical performance (type of constructive solution), risk (critical-
ity of the area affected) and cost (cost of the maintenance work).
Combining some relevant factors, it is possible to determine an
index that reflects the intervention priority, namely immediate
actions (up to six months), short-term actions (up to two years)
and medium-term actions (between two to five years) [34].
Gonçalves et al. [35] and Magalhães [36] have taken similar criteria
into account, whereas anomalies were identified according to ‘‘in-
tervention urgency” and ‘‘safety and well-being”. Four levels of
intervention were defined (immediate action, short-term action,
monitoring and not urgent) and three levels of ‘‘safety and well-
being” were established (not complying with safety requirements,
not complying with minimal functional requirements and comply-
ing with minimal functional requirements). Each level was attrib-
uted a score, the sum of which corresponded to an intervention
priority level.
 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802 793

Table 1
Identification of the sample’s buildings.

Ref. Address [Lisbon, Portugal] Construction year1 Number of floors2 Common denominators
B.1 Rua D. João II, 1.02.2.3 2002 9 Residential buildings
B.2 Rua dos Argonautas, 3.09.06 1999 5 Located in a single urban neighborhood (Parque das Nações)
B.3 Rua Ilha dos Amores, 4.08.01 2000 7 Less than 1 km away from the sea
B.4 Alameda dos Oceanos, 2.06.05 2005 5
B.5 Rua Ilha dos Amores, 4.46.01 2002 5
B.6 Rua Nova dos Mercadores, 3.08.05 2003 4
B.7 Rua D. João II, 4.46.01 2004 7
B.8 Passeio das Garças AB1 1998 5
B.9 Rua Ilha dos Amores, 8 1998 4
B.10 Avenida D. João II, 1.02.2.2 2003 8
B.11 Rua Comandante Cousteau, 4.04.02 2005 6
B.12 Rua das Musas, 3.07.02 2000 5
B.13 Rua das Musas, 3.03.01 A 1999 4
B.14 Rua Vale Formoso de Cima, 160 2005 7
B.15 Rua Ilha dos Amores, 114 2004 7
B.16 Rua Nau das Musas, 3.07.03 2002 4
B.17 Rua Nau Catrineta, 3.07.04 2002 5
B.18 Rua Nau Catrineta, 3.09.10 2002 5
B.19 Avenida D. João II, 4.61.01 2002 5
B.20 Rua dos Mercadores, 3.10.02 2002 4
B.21 Rua Nova dos Mercantes, 3.10.04 2002 5
B.22 Rua Pedro e Inês, 2.05.09 2004 5
B.23 Passeio dos Levantes 1998 11
B.24 Passeio do Adamastor, 3.08.08 2003 4
B.25 Alameda dos Oceanos, 3.13.01 2004 17
B.26 Rua das Âncoras, 4 1998 5
B.27 Rua de Moscavide, 4.53.01 2004 6
B.28 Avenida D. João II, 4.51.02 2003 5
B.29 Avenida D. João II, 4.45.01 2005 7
B.30 Rua dos Aventureiros, 3.10.10 2003 4
1
The facades’ survey occurred in 2010.
2
Upper level floors from the ground level.

Fig. 1. Examples of buildings in the façade survey sample: on the left B.24 (4 floors, ceramic and stone tiles facade claddings), next B.4 (5 floors, painted render and stone tiles
facade claddings), next B.15 (7 floors, painted render, ceramic and stone tiles facade claddings), and on the right B.25 (17 floors, ceramic and stone tiles facade claddings).

40% Table 2
32% Proposed classification of facades’ maintenance-source elements.

25% Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Rendering
Vertical building envelope Claddings Continuous Renders
20% 16% 17% Ceramic tiles Paint
Discontinuous Ceramic tiles
9% Stone Stone tiles
Openings Doors/windows Wood
1% Aluminum
0% PVC
Ground floor Upper floors Glass
Others Seals
Fig. 2. Distribution of the inspected claddings, according to its location in the Openings’ metallic fittings
facade. Fasteners

In this study, prioritization is based on four criteria: environ- (NC). Based on Gaspar and de Brito (2005) multiplying factors sys-
mental exposure (EE); anomaly extent (AE); consequences of not tem, each criterion is divided into three severity levels: high (3),
intervening (NI); and non-compliance with the requirements medium (2) and low (1). These levels correspond to a description
794 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802

Table 3 an increase of degradation (score 2). The most serious non-

Proposed classification of anomalies in facades’ MSE. compliance with requirements refers to safety requirements, fol-
Type of anomalies Anomalies lowed by functional requirements and aesthetical requirements;
A1. Aesthetical A1.1. Efflorescence/cryptoflorescence preferably all requirements should be fulfilled.
A1.2. Localized stains Based on the described criteria, and the multi-criteria analysis
A1.3. Uniform dirt of Morgado et al. [34], a priority rating indicator is determined.
A1.4. Colour change Eq. (1) calculates the priority rating indicator. It considers the
A1.5. Runoff
A1.6. Graffiti
worst possible scenario (score 34), where each criterion is attribu-
A1.7. Biological contamination ted the highest level. The obtained percentages rank the urgency of
A1.8. Flatness deficiency post-inspection maintenance actions.
A1.9. Staining
A2. Adhesion loss A2.1. Cracking/breaking Panomaly
Pinterv ention ¼  100
A2.2. Detachments MaxðPanomaly Þ
A2.3. Peeling
1EE þ 2AE þ 3NI þ 4NC
A2.4. Erosion ¼  100 ð1Þ
A2.5. Blistering 34
A3. Fastening defects A3.1. Joints degradation
A3.2. Fasteners degradation
where Pintervention stands for the intervention’s priority ranking indi-
A3.3. Fasteners corrosion cator, Panomaly stands for the weight of the detected anomaly, EE
A3.4. Partial gaps and missing elements stands for the environmental exposure, AE stands for the anomaly
A3.5. Detachments extent, NI for non-intervention consequences and NC for non-
A4. Defects in openings A4.1. Operation deficiencies compliance with requirements. Each of the criteria is multiplied
A4.2. Seals degradation by its multiplying factor.
A4.5. Corrosion/oxidation of metallic elements
Table 5 shows how each percentage is associated with an inter-
A4.6. Rot wood elements
A4.7. Cracked/broken glass vention priority. The scale has four levels, which arise from possi-
A4.8. Water leakage through frames ble combinations for Pintervention, reflecting the data collected on
facades’ degradation in the survey. For example, if the lowest level
of each criterion is considered, the intervention indicator is 29%,
and to a score (3 to 1). The safety requirements compliance crite- the minimum intervention indicator, corresponding to non-
rion scoring system exceptionally ranges from 1 to 4. Additionally, urgent actions. The first two, Pintervention < 60%, correspond to
each criterion was attributed a multiplying factor. Table 4 shows non-urgent anomalies or anomalies with the need to be solely
the structure of the criteria classification. The environmental expo- monitored. The most urgent levels, Pintervention  60%, need
sure of the building may have consequences in the anomaly evolu- short-term maintenance actions in up to two years or six months,
tion. For instance, a coastal area (sea or river) accelerates the respectively. Still, corrective maintenance actions should not be
degradation process, and so does urban pollution. All climate sin- planned only using the intervention’s priority ranking indicator.
gularities could not be included in order to maintain an acceptable These actions should also ensure the rational (and economic) use
complexity level in the methodology. The surroundings’ environ- of means, without affecting the building’s functionality and safety.
mental exposure level was attributed a multiplying factor of 1, That is to say, sometimes less urgent work may be anticipated and
the lowest multiplying factor. done together with other urgent work to use the available
The anomaly extent was attributed a multiplying factor of 2. If resources, thus rationalizing costs.
more than 67% of the MSE was affected, a high extent was consid- As for the anomalies detected in the fieldwork, Fig. 5 shows that
ered. If less than 33% of the MSE was affected, a low extent was level 2 of intervention priority is the most representative in the
considered. Other situations were considered of medium extent. sample (43%). Level 2 corresponds to non-urgent actions with
Non-intervention consequences and non-compliance with monitoring needs, requiring a regular follow up. Anomalies with
requirements had the highest multiplying factors: 3 and 4, respec- level 3 priority, which require maintenance operations up to
tively. That has to do with the fact that they affect users the most, 2 years after, represent 39% of the sample. In total, levels 2 and 3
in terms of health/safety and functionality and costs. Non- represent 82% of the sample. In contrast, level 4 anomalies, requir-
intervention may result in the element’s collapse and may increase ing immediate action (up to 6 months after), were only detected in
MSE degradation, leading to higher intervention costs, or it may 2% of the sample. That may be associated, on the one hand, with
have minimal effects. In this context, minimal effects refer to those the fact that most of the detected anomalies are aesthetical, and,
cases in which not intervening does not imply the progression of on the other, with the fact that, even if not aesthetical, many of
defects. For instance, a mild stain on a rendered facade does not the detected anomalies have low extent. Aesthetical anomalies
affect the users’ health (score 1). But, a water leakage may keep are associated with the facade’s appearance, not compromising
progressing with dirt stains and biological colonization, implying safety nor originating the collapse of MSE. For this reason, when

30% 28%

25%
19% Aesthetical
20%
16%
Loss of adhesion
15% 12%
10% Fastening defects
5% 6%
4% 3% 3%
5% 2% 1% 2%
0%
A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A1.7 A1.9 A2.1 A2.5 A3.1 A3.4 A3.5

Fig. 3. Relative frequency of occurrence of anomalies in facades.

 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802 795

Fig. 4. Examples of anomalies in facades: aesthetical (left), adhesion loss (center) and fastening defects (right).

Table 4
Prioritization criteria classification.

Criterion Level Description Score Multiplying factor

Environmental exposure (EE) Low Rural area 1 1
Medium Urban area 2
High Coastal area 3
Anomaly extent (AE) Low 33% 1 2
Medium 34 a 66% 2
High 67% 3
Non-intervention consequences (NI) Low Minimal effects 1 3
Medium Degradation increase 2
High MSE rupture 3
Non-compliance with requirements (NC) Low Complies with minimal aesthetical, safety and functional requirements 1 4
Medium It does not comply with aesthetical requirements 2
High It does not comply with functional requirements 3
Very high It does not comply with safety requirements 4

Table 5 hence the higher scores. Fastening defects may be even more dan-
Classification of intervention priority. gerous, so they comprise all the anomalies with a level 4 interven-
Level Intervention priority Pintervention tion priority, which need fast action (up to 6 months after). These
1 Non-urgent actions 29%  Pintervention < 40%
anomalies may result in serious safety issues for people and goods,
2 Monitoring actions 40%  Pintervention < 60% endangering also their physical integrity.
3 Short-term action (up to 2 years) 60%  Pintervention < 80% As for Fig. 7, it represents the distribution of intervention prior-
4 Immediate actions (up to 6 months) Pintervention  80% ity levels for each anomaly. It supports the data analyzed in Fig. 6.
Fastening defects ‘‘A3.4 Partial gaps and missing elements” and
‘‘A3.5 Detachments” need immediate action (up to 6 months after),
2% while fastening defect ‘‘A3.1 Joints degradation” needs short-term
action (up to 2 years after). This agrees with the mentioned impor-
16% Priority level 1 tance and severity of fastening defects, as anomalies that may
39% affect the building’s safety. All efflorescence (A1.1) aesthetical
Priority level 2
anomalies need monitoring, which may be explained by the possi-
Priority level 3 ble consequences of such an anomaly. In its early stages, an efflo-
43%
rescence may not imply urgent action. But as it may originate
Priority level 4
blistering or adhesion loss or water-related anomalies, a regular
follow up on the anomaly evolution is justified. The most unex-
pected result is the predominance of level 3 intervention priority
Fig. 5. Distribution of intervention priority in the detected anomalies.
(short-term action, up to 2 years after) in three aesthetical anoma-
lies, namely: ‘‘A1.4 Colour change”, ‘‘A1.5 Runoff” and ‘‘A1.9 Stain-
analyzed considering the priority criteria, a lower score is consid- ing”. This is probably associated with the extent of anomalies. Even
ered, when compared with the severity of other anomalies. Their though these anomalies do not represent a safety loss, if they
low extent may be related with the age of the facades (up to spread throughout the façade, they represent a considerable loss
12 years old), and that will also contribute to a lower intervention in its appearance. A short-term action should, then, be considered.
priority level. Analyzing intervention priority results is fundamental to assess the
Observing Fig. 6, it is seen that 94% of intervention priority level theoretical proposal. It influences on the post-inspection mainte-
1 anomalies are aesthetical anomalies, while only 6% correspond to nance actions recommendation system and the planning of proac-
adhesion loss anomalies. This trend can also be observed in priority tive actions.
levels 2 and 3, with a slight increase of adhesion loss anomalies. The
percentage increase of adhesion loss anomalies from level 1 to level
2 intervention priority is coherent with the fact that this type of 3.2. Post-inspection maintenance actions
anomaly may score higher in criteria such as non-intervention con-
sequences and non-compliance with requirements. The most sev- Post-inspection maintenance actions are remedial procedures
ere adhesion loss anomalies may position users in serious danger, that follow the results of the inspection, according to the detected
796 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802

100% 3%
6%
23% 10%
80%

Fastening defects
60%
94% 77% 87% 100%
40% Loss of adhesion

20% Aesthetical

0%
Priority level 1 Priority level 2 Priority level 3 Priority level 4

Fig. 6. Contribution of each group of anomalies to each intervention priority level.

100%
80%
Priority level 4
60%
Priority level 3
40%
Priority level 2
20% Priority level 1
0%
A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A1.7 A1.9 A2.1 A2.5 A3.1 A3.4 A3.5

Fig. 7. Distribution of intervention priority levels for each detected anomaly.

anomalies and their most probable causes. They intend to reinstate
adequate performance and quality levels for subsequent planning
of proactive maintenance actions. The recommendation of post-
inspection actions is based on the final score of each anomaly.
But, based on the type of anomaly and its intervention priority
(which may assess severity), it is possible to define a type of main-
tenance action (Table 6). So, as aesthetical anomalies are less sev-
ere than adhesion loss anomalies, cleaning and painting actions are
recommended, according to the intervention priority, the number
of anomalies and the type of MSE. Adhesion loss anomalies’ main-
tenance actions consist in local repairs and replacements, depend-
ing on the severity. These actions may represent profound
interventions and great costs. Painting is a common maintenance
action, because it is relatively cheap and eliminates several aes-
thetic anomalies. But, on natural stone, only cleaning is viable to
eliminate aesthetical anomalies, as replacement is very expensive.
Fastening defects and faults in openings lead only to local replace-
ment, as they may have severe consequences, weakening the
building’s safety. Additionally, users are usually very aware of
defects in doors and windows. This type of anomalies affects the
building’s watertightness, becoming susceptible to climate condi-
tions, consequently having immediate impact on the user’s life.
Moreover, replacing windows or doors is often more profitable
than repairing them. Although suitable, these recommendations
are generic, needing additional analysis of each case.
Table 6
Type of post-inspection maintenance action according to type of anomaly.
Type of anomalies Maintenance action
A1. Aesthetical Cleaning/painting*
A2. Adhesion loss Repair/replacement**
A3. Fastening defects Replacement
A4. Defects in openings Replacement
*
with 3 or more aesthetical anomalies with level 2 priority-repaint (if the finish
is paint).
**
with 2 or more adhesion loss anomalies with level 3 priority-replacement of the
affected elements.
In order to systematize the recommendation of maintenance
actions, each cladding has to be considered as a whole, i.e. all
anomalies and causes have to be evaluated, and only then remedial
actions may be suggested. Table 7 associates standard mainte-
nance actions with detected anomalies in continuous claddings.
It also identifies which intervention priority level is associated
with the proposed maintenance action. In renders, aesthetical
anomalies ‘‘A1.1 Efflorescence/cryptoflorescence”, ‘‘A1.3 Uniform
dirt” and ‘‘A1.5 Runoff” should be eliminated through cleaning,
provided the intervention priority level is not higher than 2. If
the same anomalies are detected with an intervention priority
level of 3 or higher, repainting is advised, on a painted rendering,
or applying a new pigmented one-coat layer with textured paint,
on a single layer cladding. Theoretically, it is advised to repaint
only when three or more level 3 aesthetical anomalies are detected
(Table 6). But, considering the fieldwork, it is understood that a
render with any level 3 anomaly (A1.3, A1.4 or A1.5) is already in
an advanced state of degradation, requiring maintenance actions
as soon as possible. As for adhesion loss anomalies, the recommen-
dation of remedial actions varies according to the affected layer
and area. If cracking (A2.1) is detected in finishes, an elastomeric
paint should be applied in function of cracks width, because its
elasticity can control future cracking. But if cracking (A2.1) goes
as deep as the render layer, first it is necessary to repair the render,
closing individual cracks and applying a fiber-glass mesh. In the
sample, blistering (A2.5) was only detected locally. It is recom-
mended, at least, a short-term action, no matter the intervention
priority level or the layer affected.
Similarly to Table 7, Table 8 associates standard maintenance
actions with detected anomalies in discontinuous claddings, as
well as with intervention priority levels. Aesthetical anomalies
may be eliminated with cleaning works and prevented with bio-
cide and hydrophobic protection. Localized smudges (A1.2) may
occur both due to moisture or fastening material defects. There-
fore, it is important to adequately diagnose the detected anomaly
in discontinuous claddings using, for instance, a moisture meter
or/and a hammer tapping device. Adhesion loss anomalies imply
repair works and replacements. Repairs should be considered
 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802 797

Table 7 Table 8
Proposed post-inspection maintenance actions for anomalies in continuous claddings. Proposed post-inspection maintenance actions for anomalies in discontinuous
claddings.
Maintenance action Anomalies Priority
level Maintenance action Anomalies Priority
level
Renders
Cleaning A1.1. Efflorescence/ 2/2 Ceramic tiles
A1.3. Uniform dirt Additional diagnosis method to A1.2. Localized stains 3
A1.3. Uniform dirt 2 determine the presence of water
A1.3. Uniform dirt/ 2/1 Cleaning A1.1. Efflorescence/ 2
A1.5. Runoff cryptoflorescence
A1.5. Runoff 2 A1.3. Uniform dirt 1
Painting/new pigmented layer A1.3. Dirt/A1.4. Colour 2/3/3 A1.5. Runoff 1
change/A1.5. Runoff A1.7. Biological 2
A1.4. Colour change/ 3/3 contamination
A1.5. Runoff Apply biocide/hydrophobic A1.1. Efflorescence/ 2
A1.3.Uniform dirt/ 3/3 protection cryptoflorescence
A1.5. Runoff A1.7. Biological 2
Apply biocide A1.7. Biological 3 contamination
contamination Repair affected elements with A2.1. Cracking/breaking 2
elastic products, both closing
Rendering finishes cracks and laying tiles
Paint with elastomeric paint A2.1. Cracking – paint 2 Replacement of elements at risk A3.1. Joints degradation 3
Rendering repair and paint with A2.1.Cracking – render 2 and replacement of absent ones A3.4. Partial gaps and 4
elastomeric paint missing elements
Apply fiber-glass mesh. Apply A2.1. Cracking – 2 A3.5. Detachments 4
compatible render. Paint with rendered corners
Stone tiles
elastomeric paint A2.5. Blistering 2
Cleaning A1.3. Uniform dirt 1
Design window-sills and the rainwater A1.3. Uniform dirt/ 2/3
A1.5. Runoff 1
drainage system A1.5. Runoff
A1.7. Biological 2
contamination
Design the rainwater drainage A1.5. Runoff 2
system
when intervention priority level 2 or higher. Replacement is Replacement/replacement of A3.4. Detachments 4
advised for all cracking/breaking (A2.1) anomalies with a level 3 elements A2.1. Cracking/breaking 3
Replacement of the fastening A2.1. Cracking/breaking/ 3/4
or higher intervention priority.
system and of the affected A3.4. Partial gaps and
In all types of claddings, a great number of anomalies is caused elements missing elements
by design errors, which accelerates the degradation process of Waterproofing treatment A1.7. Biological 2
MSE. It is hard to predict the occurrence of this cause. So, it is contamination
important to analyze all the detected anomalies, correct any execu- Additional diagnosis to verify the A1.2. Localized stains 1
presence of water or fastening
tion deficiency, prioritizing actions, from major to minor ones. As defects (moisture measuring
an example, before cleaning a facade, it is fundamental to properly device and hammer tapping test)
design the rainwater drainage system, or the window-sills. Table 9
presents a summary of the post-inspection maintenance actions
recommendation system, adjusted after the fieldwork assessment. Table 9
Type of post-inspection maintenance action according to type of anomaly, consid-
ering the fieldwork.
4. Results and discussion on planning maintenance
Anomalies Maintenance action Description
Periodic planning is an essential tool in the definition of a Aesthetical Cleaning All claddings
proactive maintenance policy, highly contributing to the success Painting/replacement of Renderings with priority level
and practice of a maintenance plan, given its economic impact the finishing layer (A1.3; A1.4 or A1.5)  3

and the effects on the building’s degradation and on the user’s Adhesion Surface repair (applying Renderings finishing layer
well-being. A definition, as precise as possible, of the service life loss elastomeric paint)
Repair All claddings
of the building’s components will contribute to an effective plan- Replacement Discontinuous claddings with
ning of maintenance actions. Based on the literature and several priority level (A2.1.)  3
technical documents [15,28,37–41], Table 10 presents a proposal Fastening Replacement Discontinuous claddings
of the estimated service life for each element of a building’s facade. defects

4.1. Theoretical proposal of maintenance operations

The proposed planning of proactive maintenance actions is
based on a 50 years horizon, as this is the estimated service life
of a current building structure. Planning includes maintenance
operations, based on the literature and on costs rationalization,
as well as considering the user’s satisfaction. It is assumed that,
every time an element reaches the end of its service life, it is
replaced or significant intervention occurs. However, if an element
is in poor condition or becomes obsolete before the end of its esti-
mated service life, it should be replaced. Table 11 presents the pro-
posal of maintenance operations frequency for facade’s claddings,
based on technical documents and on the literature. The proposal
has four intervention levels: cleaning operations, surface treat-
ment, minor interventions and major interventions. As a reference,
the frequency of maintenance operations was considered 1/4 of its
service life for cleaning operations, 1/3 of its service life for minor
interventions and 2/3 of its service life for major interventions [11].
Stone tiles, ceramic tiles and renders frequently can last the whole
building’s service life (50 years), if properly maintained and in non-
aggressive service conditions. In contrast, paint has a service life of
5–10 years and needs regular replacement throughout the build-
ing’s service life. Paint has a short life cycle, but it is also a cheap
element to replace. The minor and major interventions occurrence
should be compared and close when possible, to avoid the use of
798 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802

Table 10
Estimated service life proposal for each facade element.

Elements Materials Service life of the building’s elements (years)

Minimal* Maximum* Average* Proposal
Claddings Rendering 20 81 50 40
Paint 4 10 7 8
Ceramic 15 57 36 40
Stone 20 70 45 50
Windows, doors and protection elements High quality wood 10 69 40 35
Aluminum 10 58 34 35
PVC 10 49 30 35
Cornices, eaves, door and window frames Stone 20 60 40 50
Cement/concrete 20 60 40 50
Joints’ seals 3 20 11 10
Discontinuous claddings’ fastening elements/doors and windows fittings Galvanized steel 10 10

Note: * data sourced from ASTM E 2136-04 (2013), Regulation (EU) No. 205/2011, ISO 15686-1:2011, RICS 2000, HAPM 1992, BPG 1999, Shohet and Paciuk 2004).

Table 11
Maintenance operations frequency proposal for facades’ claddings.

MSE Maintenance Recommended periodicity References Proposal

operations
Continuous Rendering Cleaning Biannual [2] Every 8 years
claddings Every 10 years 1/4 of service
life
2–5 years intervals [36]
Surface treatment When necessary or after repair works When necessary or after
repair works
Minor Every 2 years [2] Every 10 years
intervention Every 13 years 1/3 of service
life
Every 5 years [19]
Every 5 years [36]
Major intervention Every 2 years [2] After 20 years
After 26 years 2/3 of service
life
After 40 years [19]
Paint Cleaning It does not apply It does not apply
Surface treatment It does not apply It does not apply
Minor It does not apply It does not apply
intervention
Replacement Every 5 years [19] Every 8 years
5–10 years intervals [36]
Discontinuous Ceramic Cleaning Every 10 years 1/4 of service Every 10 years
claddings tiles life
When necessary [2]
Surface treatment When necessary or after repair works When necessary or after
repair works
Minor Every 13 years 1/3 of service Every 13 years
intervention life
Every 11 years [19]
Every 12 years [2]
Major intervention Every 26 years 2/3 of service Every 26 years
life
After 40 years (80 years’ service life), or after 20 years [2]
(40 years’ service life)
Stone tiles Cleaning Every 8 years [39], [40] Every 10 years
Every 10 years [2]
Every 15 years 1/4 of service
life

Surface treatment When necessary or after repair works When necessary or after
repair works
Minor Every 20 years 1/3 of service Every 20 years
intervention life
Every 15 years [2]
Major intervention Every 18 years [19] After 30 years or when
After 40 years 2/3 of service necessary
life
When necessary [2]
 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802 799

extra resources. Using the example of ceramic tiling, at year 26, the
minor intervention coincides with the major intervention, there-
fore excluding the minor intervention, only the major intervention
should take place, which may include some of the minor interven-
tion actions. When replacing, at the end of service life, the same
rationale approach applies.
Table 12 is similar to Table 11, but it refers to windows, doors
and other facade’s elements, such as joints and seals. For this last
type of elements, replacement frequency is the same as the esti-
mated service life, simplifying the planning process. For every
wood, aluminum or PVC elements, cleaning is recommended every
2 years, while glass needs more regular cleaning with appropriate
products. According to use patterns, metallic fittings are expected
to be easily degraded. So, minor interventions may be regularly
needed, in this case, annually. Fittings and seals are easily replaced,
leading to less preventive measures, promoting replacement as
needed or at the end of service life.
4.2. Adjusted proposal of maintenance operations
During fieldwork, the maintenance needs of the inspected
facades were evaluated, according to the age of the facade and to
intervention priorities. Most of the facades had not benefited from
any maintenance operations. It is, then, possible to adjust the
maintenance plan theoretical proposal, but with some limitations:

The inspected facades are 12, or less, years old, not allowing the
assessment of all long-term operations;

As the inspection corresponds to the first step of the mainte-
nance plan (detailed inspection), a large number of mainte-
nance operations are post-inspection corrective, and not
proactive;

There was no clear information on the maintenance operations
performed, as users and building managers are not familiar with
the comprehensiveness of the maintenance practice; some
facades had been repainted; some facades have had minor
interventions related with stone tiles detachment;

As referred, many anomalies were in a more advanced state of
degradation due to poor design or incorrect application; these
situations are not considered in proactive maintenance plan-
ning, but they have visible consequences in degradation and
in advancing maintenance operations.
In the sample, 18 facades were rendered. Fig. 8 shows the main-
tenance needs found on painted rendered facades. 24% of facades
needed cleaning, 40% repainting, and 36% minor interventions,
namely crack repairs. Painted rendered facades that needed clean-
ing operations had an average age of 7.5 years. The average inter-
vention priority level of these facades was 1.6, which is relatively
low. Considering that the effectiveness of the cleaning works in
painted renders is not high, when compared with the considered
paint service life (8 years), the periodicity of cleaning operations
should be kept as theoretically established – as the need is identi-
fied in inspections. The average age of facades in need of repainting
works was 8.4 years old, and the average intervention priority level
is 2.75. This is a high priority intervention level, considering the
proposal of post-inspection maintenance actions indicated that
level 3 or higher aesthetical anomalies required immediate inter-
vention. Considering the proposed repainting frequency every
8 years, fieldwork data confirm the theoretical proposal, thus it
should be kept. As for facades with minor intervention needs, they
had an average age of 7.8 years old and an intervention priority
level of 2.2. Theoretically, a minor intervention was advised every
10 years. Nevertheless, minor interventions imply adhesion loss
anomalies and a faster degradation rate of MSE. Intervention fre-
quency may be increased. Table 13 shows the proposed plan of
proactive maintenance operations for rendered facades, according
to the theoretical proposal and adjusted by the dataset. Inspections
periodicity was fine-tuned, considering render and paint together.
As the sample did not present any need for surface treatment, it
was determined that it should be applied only when necessary.
The frequency of minor interventions in render was adjusted to
coincide with repainting. The same sense was applied to major
interventions.
As for ceramic tiling, 13 facades had this type of cladding.
Although it is a small sample, the main results were similar to the
theoretical proposal. Fig. 9 shows the maintenance needs of ceramic
tiling facades. 4% of that sample had no need for maintenance; 12% of
the sample required a regular follow up. These facades had an aver-
age age of 9.3 years and level 3 average intervention priority, associ-
ated with unclear situations and costly corrective actions. Cleaning
was the most detected maintenance need (48%). Facades with clean-
ing needs had an average age of 7.9 years and an average interven-
tion priority level of 1.9. A cleaning operation every 10 years was
theoretically recommended and, considering a non-urgent priority

Table 12
Maintenance operations frequency proposal y for windows, doors and other facades’ elements.

MSE Maintenance operations Recommended periodicity References Proposal

Openings (doors and windows) Wood Cleaning Annual [2] Biannual
When necessary [43]
Biannual [42]
Minor intervention Every 5 years [2] Every 5 years
Every 2 years [5]
After 5 years [42]
Aluminum Cleaning When necessary [43] Biannual
Biannual [42]
Minor intervention Every 10 years [43] Every 10 years
Every 13 years [42]
PVC Cleaning When necessary [43] Biannual
Biannual [42]
Minor intervention Does not apply [43] Does not apply
[42]
[2]
Glass Cleaning Regularly [42] Regularly
Replacement When necessary
Others Metallic fittings Minor intervention Annual [43] Annual
Every 2 years [2]
Replacement When necessary When necessary
Seals Replacement When necessary When necessary
800 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802

Minor intervention 36%

Repaint 40%

Cleaning 24%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Fig. 8. Maintenance needs in rendered painted facades.

Table 13
Adjusted proactive maintenance planning for painted rendered facades.

Maintenance actions Action type B Q D wn Other (years)

Painted rendering Check for adhesion loss. If necessary, perform a hammer tapping test to Inspection x
check for hollow areas and detachments. Check for any efflorescence
and cracks
Surface visual check, controlling humidity stains and dirt
Water jet cleaning and brushing with liquid detergent in trace areas Cleaning x
Apply anti-graffiti, anti-fungal/biocide treatment Surface treatment x
Repair cracks in render. If necessary, apply render fiber-glass mesh. Minor intervention 8
Repaint with an elastomeric paint
Repaint Finishing replacement 8
Spalling all the damaged render. Apply a new rendering and painting Major intervention 24

B – biennial; Q – quinquennial; D – decennial; wn – when necessary or after repair works.

Major intervention 12%

Minor intervention 8%
Surface treatment 16%
Cleaning 48%
Inspection 12%
No need for maintenance 4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Fig. 9. Maintenance needs in ceramic tiling facades.

Table 14
Adjusted proactive maintenance planning for ceramic tiling facades.

Maintenance actions Action type B Q D wn Other (years)

Ceramic tiling Check for adhesion loss, colour change, cleaning needs, graffiti Inspection
Check for localized stains: humidity, laying material, biological colonization, efflorescence
Check for joints, namely efflorescence, wearing, biological colonization, colour change
Check for cracks, broken elements, gaps, detachments
Clean with damp sponge. For deep stains, use a detergent and light brushing Cleaning x
Apply waterproofing or anti-graffiti product Surface treatment x
Joints filling material treatment Minor intervention 13
Reinforce the laying material. Repair localized elements
Replacement/replacement of elements with new ones Major intervention 26

B – biennial; Q – quinquennial; D – decennial; wn – when necessary or after repair works.

level, it should be kept. Facades with minor intervention needs (8%)
had an average age of 7 years and a level 2 average intervention pri-
ority, reflecting the need for monitoring. As for inspection periodic-
ity, an inspection every 3 years was considered appropriate, as it was
observed, during fieldwork, that ceramic tiling had a slower degra-
dation process than renders. The need for surface treatment was
detected in 16% of the sample, with an average age of 9.3 years (high)
and a level 2 average intervention priority (low). This type of main-
tenance action should take place whenever the need is detected dur-
ing inspections. Table 14 presents the adjusted planning for ceramic
tiling facades, considering the dataset.
21 of the inspected facades were cladded with stone tiles, 16%
of which had no need for maintenance. Fig. 10 shows the mainte-
nance needs of the inspected stone tiling facades. Inspections and
cleaning works were the most recommended maintenance actions.
The need for inspection, using specialized equipment, was detected
in facades with an average age of 7.7 years and an average inter-
vention priority level of 2.1. As for cleaning, its need was detected
in facades 8.6 years old, on average, and 2.3 average intervention
priority level. In 8% of the stone claddings surface treatment was
recommended, with an average age of 8.3 years and a level 2 aver-
age intervention priority. As for minor interventions, they were
needed in 5% of the sample, with an average age of 6 years and
an average intervention priority of 3.75, which requires short-
term intervention (in less than 2 years). Major intervention was
recommended in the same number of stone tiling facades. Stone
is a highly resistant cladding, but it may endure a large number
of anomalies, especially if tiling is not well executed. Inspections
 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802
Major intervention 5%
Miinor intervention 5%
Surface treatment 8%
Cleaning
Inspection
No need for maintenance
0% 5% 10%
Fig. 10. Maintenance needs in stone tiling facades.
Table 15
Adjusted proactive maintenance planning for stone tiling facades.
Maintenance actions
Stone tiling Check for adhesion loss, efflorescence, cleaning needs
Check for localized stains: humidity, grease, laying material, corrosion
Check for cracks, broken elements, gaps, detachments
Water jet cleaning and brushing with a neutral detergent
Apply waterproofing or anti-graffiti product
Repairing/replacing cracked and broken elements with a fluid lime mortar
Localized joints repair. Repair of gaps with stone dust paste
Replacement/replacement of broken and missing elements
B – biennial; Q – quinquennial; D – decennial; wn – when necessary or after repair works.
at an early stage are essential to detect pre-pathology signs. Given
the young age of the inspected facades, the high number of
detected anomalies was unexpected. Therefore, an inspection
two years after construction was suggested and, after that, an
inspection every 5 years, using specialized equipment to detect
water related and adhesion loss defects. It is advised to perform
regular surface treatment as the need is detected in inspections.
Although theoretically minor interventions were only recom-
mended after 20 years, the fieldwork revealed an earlier need for
this type of interventions. Nevertheless, it is expected that the
implementation of the maintenance plan, including regular inspec-
tions, will minimize the need for minor interventions, within the
20-year intervals. Major interventions should also be kept after
30 years. Table 15 shows the adjusted maintenance plan for stone
tiling facades.
The sample adjusted maintenance plans presented in
Tables 13–15 fixes intervals for maintenance operations to allow
costs planning. Nevertheless, the proposed plan is dynamic, mean-
ing that, as data on this sample inspection procedures increase,
there is the possibility of revising some of the proposed intervals,
and, consequently, the planned costs. It is not a reactive plan. What
is not considered in the fixed intervals is balanced by inspections’
monitoring, which should not be overlooked.
5. Conclusions
This study proposes a maintenance plan for facades in current
buildings. The implementation methodology goes through three
main steps: detailed inspection, post-inspection maintenance
actions and proactive maintenance planning. To perform each step,
some basic information needs to be identified, i.e.: facades’
maintenance-source elements; main probable anomalies and
causes; estimated service life of each element; and maintenance
actions. Planning is based on this set of information and it was val-
idated in an inspection program of 30 buildings’ facades. This study
also proposes a system to prioritize post-inspection maintenance
in facades. It considers environmental in-service exposure, the
801
32%
32%
16%
15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Action type B Q D wn Other (years)
Inspection x
Cleaning x
Surface treatment x
Minor intervention 20
Major intervention 30
extent of anomalies, the consequences of not intervening, and
non-compliance with requirements. Taking a wide range of infor-
mation into account to define maintenance strategies, it is reflected
in costs reduction; i.e., routine maintenance interventions, in ade-
quate scale and frequency, such as regular cleaning of windows,
walls, gutters, or even repairing small detachments, may postpone
or avoid major interventions in the building (like premature
replacement of renders, or drainpipes), not to mention the great
added-value in the building’s general appearance.
Although the inspection program that validated the proposed
planning is only composed of 30 buildings, their age and location
homogeneity allowed identifying the main trends for each clad-
ding type. A complete system validation still lacks an effective
inspection of doors and windows, as during fieldwork there was
no access to the inside of the buildings. There was insufficient
information about the maintenance actions that had been per-
formed, mainly because no data on maintenance actions was usu-
ally registered.
In the sample, aesthetical anomalies were more frequent than
other types of anomalies. Runoff, uniform dirt and localized stains
were the most frequent anomalies, which denote, among other
causes, lack of maintenance. Furthermore, most anomalies were
classed as level 2 or 3 intervention priority, which is coherent with
the high frequency of aesthetical anomalies, not compromising the
facade’s safety or integrity. Methodologically, all anomalies in a
facade must be taken into account before advising any corrective
maintenance operation.
A theoretical proposal planning proactive maintenance actions
was based on the literature, considering four levels of intervention:
cleaning; surface treatment; minor interventions; and major inter-
ventions. Through the results of the fieldwork, the theoretical plan
was adjusted according to the detected maintenance needs, age
and intervention priority level. As buildings in the sample were
only up to 12 years old, proactive planning beyond this age could
not be validated. A general lack of maintenance was detected,
which, together with some design and execution defects, led to
the anticipation of some theoretical proactive maintenance
actions. Early years inspections, after construction, are fundamen-
802 S. Madureira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 790–802
tal to detect pre-pathological signs originated by design and execu-
tion errors, avoiding further degradation and, consequently, major
costs.
This study allowed defining the main maintenance actions
according to the type of cladding and detected anomalies. Aesthet-
ical anomalies may be eliminated with cleaning works, and, in
painted renders, with repainting. Adhesion loss anomalies imply
surface repair in painted renders and repair and replacement in
ceramic and stone tiling claddings. Fastening defects anomalies
should be eliminated by replacement.
For this study to be effective, the proposed plan should be
implemented and monitored taking into account the in-service
conditions of each facade. In further developments, the methodol-
ogy applied in the present research could be put in action for other
homogeneous sets of buildings, old buildings, or buildings with
another life-cycle span, and data could be analyzed and compared.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of CERIS-ICIST
from IST, University of Lisbon, and FCT, Foundation for Science and
Technology.
References
[1] CEN (European Committee for Standardization). Condition determination for
integrated lifetime assessment of constructed facilities and components. CEN
Workshop Business Plan, CEN Workshop 63, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
[2] J. Perret, Guide de la maintenance des bâtiments. Moniteur référence
techniques. Paris, France, 1995.
[3] A. Auteri, E. Macci, Maintenance plan of the building and its parts is subject to
durability of building components, in: Proc., International Workshop on
Management of Durability in the Building Process, Politecnico di Milano,
Milano, 2003.
[4] C. Silva, I. Flores-Colen, A. Coelho, Green roofs in Mediterranean areas – survey
and maintenance planning, Build. Environ. 94 (2015) 131–143.
[5] CSCAE (Consejo Superior de Colegios de Arquitectos de España). Manual de
mantenimiento de edificios – El libro del técnico mantenedor. Madrid, 1999 (in
Spanish).
[6] L. Silva, I. Flores-Colen, N. Vieira, A.B. Timmons, P. Sequeira, Durability of ETICS
and premixed one-coat renders in natural exposure conditions, in: João M.P.Q.
Delgado (Ed.), New Approaches to Building Pathology and Durability, vol. 6,
Springer, Singapore, 2016, pp. 131–154.
[7] J.L. Erdly, G.M. Beklja, Reporting unsafe conditions at public schools and
private structures, in: J.L. Erdly, T.A. Schwarts (Eds.), Building Facade
Maintenance, Repair and Inspection ASTM STP 1444, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2004.
[8] R. Pires, J. de Brito, B. Amaro, Statistical survey of the inspection, diagnosis and
repair of painted rendered facades, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance 11 (5) (2014)
1–14.
[9] J.D. Silvestre, J. de Brito, Ceramic tiling in building facades: inspection and
pathological characterization using an expert system, Constr. Build. Mater. 25
(2011) 1560–1571.
[10] N. Neto, J. de Brito, Validation of an inspection and diagnosis system for
anomalies in natural stone cladding (NSC), Constr. Build. Mater. 30 (2012)
224–236.
[11] I. Flores-Colen, J. de Brito, A systematic approach for maintenance budgeting of
buildings facades based on proactive and preventive strategies, Constr. Build.
Mater. 34 (9) (2010) 1718–1730.
[12] C. Cecchini, El mantenimiento de los edificios en Italia: tecnologías,
herramientas, legislación y aplicaciones [Building maintenance in Italy:
Technologies, tools, legislation and applications]. Colección Papers Ser. ‘‘El
mantenimiento de los edificios – desde el inicio del proyecto al final de su vida
útil”. Catalunya, Spain, 1999, 23–38 (in Spanish).
[13] DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung). Maintenance – Maintenance
terminology: trilingual version EN 13306, 2009–2010, Berlin, Germany, 2010.
[14] ICCL (Instituto de la Construcción de Castilla y León). Manual visual del usuario
de la vivienda [Graphic user’s manual for the inhabitant]. Junta de Castilla y
León. Instituto de la Construcción de Castilla y León, Burgos, Spain, 2003 (in
Spanish).
[15] ISO (International Organization for Standardization). Buildings and
constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 1: General principles and
framework, ISO 15686-1. Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
[16] J. Merlet, Los trabajos de mantenimiento y mejora de los edificios en Francia
[Maintenance and improvement works of buildings in France]. Colección
Papers Ser. ‘‘El mantenimiento de los edificios – desde el inicio del proyecto al
final de su vida útil”. Catalunya, Spain, 1999, 39–48 (in Spanish).
[17] G. Lowry, Modeling user acceptance of building management systems, Autom.
Constr. 11 (6) (2002) 695–705.
[18] R.D. Palmer, Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, 2006.
[19] I. Flores-Colen, J. de Brito, Discussion of proactive maintenance strategies in
facades’ coatings of social housing, J. Build. Appraisal 5 (2010) 223–240.
[20] T.J. Pitt, Data requirements for the prioritization of predictive building
maintenance, Facilities 15 (3/4) (1997) 97–104.
[21] B. Williams, Facilities Economics – Incorporation Premises Audits, Building
Economic Bureau, Shortland, UK, 1994.
[22] I. Flores-Colen, J. de Brito, V.P. Freitas, Discussion of criteria for prioritization of
predictive maintenance of building facades: survey of 30 experts, J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 24 (4) (2010). 337-334.
[23] JFPN (Junta de Freguesia do Parque das Nações). Diagnóstico social da
freguesia do Parque das Nações [Social diagnosis of Parque das Nações
district]. Junta de Freguesia do Parque das Nações, Universidade Lusófona,
Lisbon, Portugal, 2015. Available online at http://www.jf-parquedasnacoes.pt/
Cache/jfpn-diagno-sticosocial-ultima-errata-4393-4843.pdf (accessed
February 27th 2017).
[24] I. Marie, Perception of darkening of stone façades and the need for cleaning,
Int. J. Sustainable Built Environ. 2 (1) (2013) 65–72.
[25] A. Silva, J. de Brito, P.L. Gaspar, Application of the factor method to
maintenance decision support for stone cladding, Autom. Constr. 22 (2012)
165–174.
[26] P.L. Gaspar, J. de Brito, Service life estimation of cement-rendered facades,
Build. Res. Inf. 36 (1) (2008) 44–55.
[27] A. Silva, J.L. Dias, P.L. Gaspar, J. de Brito, Service life prediction models for
exterior stone cladding, Build. Res. Inf. 39 (6) (2011) 637–653.
[28] ASTM International (American Society for Testing and Materials). Standard
Guide for Specifying and Evaluating Performance of Single Family Attached
and Detached Dwellings – Durability, ASTM E2136-04. West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2013.
[29] B. Marteinsson, B. Jónsson, Overall survey of buildings – performance
maintenance, in: Proc, 8th International Conference on Durability of
Buildings Materials and Components, Vancouver, Canada, 1999, 1634–1644.
[30] ISO (International Organization for Standardization). Buildings and
constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 3: Performance audits and
reviews, ISO 15686-3. Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
[31] CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association).
Operation and maintenance manuals for buildings – a guide to procurement
and preparation, C507. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, UK, 1999.
[32] A. Straub, Using a condition-dependent approach to maintenance to control
costs and performances, Facil. Manage. 1 (4) (2003) 380–395.
[33] P.L. Gaspar, J. de Brito, Assessment of the overall degradation level of an
element, based on field data, in: Proc., 10th DBMC International Conference on
Durability of Building Materials and Components, Lyon, France, 2005.
[34] J. Morgado, I. Flores-Colen, J. de Brito, A. Silva, Maintenance programs for flat
roofs in existing buildings, Property Management, accepted for publication in
2016.
[35] C. Gonçalves, J. de Brito, T. Pereira, Development of an inspection support
system of current buildings, in: Proc, 3rd Encore Meeting on Buildings’
Conservation and Rehabilitation, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, 2003 (in Portuguese).
[36] R. Magalhães, Technical maintenance process in buildings – Painted
renderings. M. Sc. thesis, Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Porto
University, Porto, Portugal, 2008 (in Portuguese).
[37] The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation
No. 305/2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of
construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC. Official
Journal of the European Union L 88/5, Brussels, Belgium, 4 April 2011.
[38] RICS (The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) Books. Building
maintenance: Strategy, planning and performance. The Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors, UK, 2000.
[39] HAPM (Housing Association Property Mutual), Component Life Manual,
Construction Audit Ltd, London, UK, 1992.
[40] BPG (Building Performance Group), The BPG Building Fabric Component Life
Manual, E&FN Spon, UK, 1999.
[41] I. Shohet, M. Paciuk, Service life prediction of exterior cladding components
under standard conditions, Constr. Manage. Econ. 22 (10) (2004) 1081–1090.
[42] S. Barbosa, Maintenance planning of facade elements in service buildings. M.
Sc. thesis, Civil Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical Univ. of
Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 2009 (in Portuguese).
[43] C. Leite, Structure of a maintenance plan for residential buildings. M. Sc.
dissertation, Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Porto University, Porto,
Portugal, 2009 (in Portuguese).