Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Pathology, diagnosis and repair of pitched roofs with ceramic tiles: Statistical
characterisation and lessons learned from inspections
N. Garcez a,b, N. Lopes a,b, J. de Brito a,⇑, G. Sá a
a
DECivil–IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
b
Aerodromes Engineering, Portuguese Air Force, Av. Leite de Vasconcelos, No. 4, 2614-506 Amadora, Portugal

h i g h l i g h t s

" Expert-knowledge system on pathology, diagnosis and rehabilitation of pitched roof claddings.
" Statistical data on the pathology (anomalies and causes) of pitched roof claddings.
" Statistical data on the use of diagnosis methods in pitched roof claddings.
" Statistical data on the rehabilitation of renderings.

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

Article history: This paper presents an expert-knowledge inspection and diagnosis system for pitched roofs with ceramic
Received 10 February 2012 tiles and reports a statistical characterisation of the pathology of 62 roofs. It also identifies the diagnosis
Received in revised form 9 May 2012 methods that may be used to characterise the anomalies and confirm their most probable causes, as well
Accepted 4 June 2012
as the best repair techniques. A detailed correlation between anomalies and causes is also established. For
Available online 15 July 2012
the first time in the literature the pathologies of ceramic tile pitched roofs are characterised using quan-
titative indicators based on a statistically significant sample.
Keywords:
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Anomalies
Pitched roofs
Diagnosis
Pathology
Repair
Inspection system
Ceramic tiles

1. Introduction
Roof claddings are one of the most relevant non-structural ele-
ments of a building. Anomalies in these elements may lead to
structural problems in the roof itself and in the rest of the building,
and also damage the furniture and goods inside. As in southern
Europe in general, ceramic tiles are the most popular pitched roof
cladding solution in Portugal, being used in almost 90% of pitched
roofs (ECPR – external claddings of pitched roofs) [1]. This has been
the theme of many studies published in Portugal, given its impor-
tance in terms of built heritage [2–4]. However, there is no litera-
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture
and Georesources, IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001
Lisbon, Portugal. Tel.: +351 218419709; fax: +351 21 8497650.
E-mail addresses: nunogarcez@gmail.com (N. Garcez), nuno.lopes333@gmail.
com (N. Lopes), jb@civil.ist.utl.pt (J. de Brito), gnpss86@gmail.com (G. Sá).
ture that analyses and characterises the pathology of the external
ceramic claddings of pitched roofs (ECCPRs), using quantitative
indicators supported by a statistically significant sample.
To bridge this gap this paper presents a ECCPRs inspection and
diagnosis system and the statistical analysis of the relevant field
work, comprising the anomalies, the diagnosis methods used to
characterise them and confirm their most probable causes, as well
as the appropriate repair techniques. The most important lessons
learned from this field work, which comprises a standard inspec-
tion programme of 62 ECCPRs, are summarised here. These lessons
can be useful to designers and contractors, in order to avoid recur-
rent in-use defects, building owners, in order to be positively crit-
ical in their appreciation of design and building plans and tenders,
maintenance and rehabilitation firms, in order to plan their activ-
ities within the frame of a pro-active strategy.
Given the academic non-funded nature of this work the diagno-
sis methods and repair techniques were not actually implemented,
they were simply prescribed.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.049
808 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819

2. Characterisation of the sample
The sample analysed consists of 62 ECCPRs (30% of the universe
inspected, consisting of 207 ECPRs of various types of roof clad-
dings – ceramic, micro-concrete, fibrocement, natural stone, metal,
plastic and composite) in 59 buildings, with a grand total of 426
anomalies detected. 616 Repair techniques were prescribed on site,
i.e. an average of 1.45 techniques per anomaly, as were 542 diagno-
sis methods, i.e. an average of 1.27 methods per anomaly.
2.1. Characterisation of the sample according to the type of ceramic
tile
The sample included the main types of ceramic claddings, of
which 34% used Lusa roof tiles, 32% used Marselha roof tiles and
the remaining 34% were made of Canudo roof tiles (Fig. 1). Both Ro-
man and plane roof tiles were left out because of their low signif-
icance at national level.
The roof tile types analysed in this study are illustrated in Table 1.
2.2. Geographical distribution of the sample
The inspection plan was devised in order to select a representa-
tive sample of the main ECCPRs used in Portugal. It was based
mostly on current buildings, in the centre (Lisbon and Tagus Val-
ley) and north (Porto) regions, mostly in rural and urban surround-
ings. Fig. 2 illustrates the geographical distribution of the sample.
2.3. Age distribution of the sample
Buildings are classified as recent if they were built after 1945
[1]. In fact the roofs inspected are mostly recent, as seen in

Fig. 1. Sample characterisation in terms of type of ECCPR.

Table 1
Types of ceramic roof tiles in Portugal.

Lusa roof tile

Marselha roof tile

Canudo roof tile

 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819 809

were the less pitched ones, 23°, compared with 41° for the Canudo
tile roofs and 57° for the Marselha tile roofs.
The supporting structures were most often timber (68% overall)
especially in roofs with Marselha (95%) and Canudo tiles (100%).
Then came the continuous and discontinuous concrete structures
(respectively 16% and 15% of the sample), mostly for roofs with
Lusa tiles. Other types of supporting structures have a very low
incidence (2%).

3. Inspection and diagnosis

Inspection and diagnosis methods were developed into essen-

tial tools for the correct identification of anomalies and the deter-
mination of their extent and possible causes. The inspection
programme and its inspection and validation forms are presented
next.

3.1. Inspection programme

The inspection programme is based exclusively on visual anal-

Fig. 2. Geographic distribution of the sample.
Fig. 3, where the buildings are presented in terms of the decade
when they were built. The average age of the sample is 34.5 years
(8.3 years for Lusa, 62.6 years for Canudo and 26.5 years for Mars-
elha tiles).
ysis and consists of a set of scheduled visits to survey and evaluate
every situation in situ. The method used is inspired by the work
developed and perfected in recent decades by various research
teams. The following have all been studied: bridges in general
[5,6] and joints in road bridges [7,8]; timber and cork floor clad-
dings [9]; gypsum plasterboard walls [10,11]; wall renderings
[12,13]; epoxy coatings on industrial floors [14]; non-structural
anomalies in the building envelope [15]; natural stone cladding
on walls [16,17]; gypsum plaster on walls [18,19]; ceramic tiling
on walls [4,20]; waterproofing membranes on flat roofs [3], and
pitched roof cladding [21]. Table 2 gives details of the inspection
programme devised.

2.4. Constructive characterisation of the roofs 3.2. Anomaly mapping system

The 62 roofs inspected amounted to a total surface area of The inspection forms enable the anomalies to be identified in
12300 m2 (approximately three football pitches). The average roof terms of current surface, singularities and tail-ends. However, the
slope depends on the type of ceramic tile. Those with Lusa tiles data collected need to pinpoint precisely the anomalies identified

Fig. 3. Relationship between the roof tile type and the inspected buildings’ construction date by decade.

Table 2
Characterisation of an inspection programme.

Type of inspection Periodicity minimum/maximum Objective Methodology

Current 15/24 months Detect fast-developing anomalies, monitor Visual observation; few equipment needs
anomalies detected in previous inspections
Detailed 5/10 years Monitor anomalies detected in previous Visual observation; in situ non-destructive
inspections, determine their extent, gravity tests; considerable backing in terms of
and causes personnel, equipment and materials
Post-intervention Non-periodic (in the first year after Check for early degradation due to execution Visual observation; few equipment needs
each intervention) errors of the repair techniques
810 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819
Fig. 4. Anomaly mapping scheme.
in ECCPRs. The solution is to map them using a grid. This is super-
imposed on the roof plans (if available), or over a mesh previously
made by scaling the roof’s dimensions to fit, and later comple-
mented with photos from the inspection. Fig. 4 shows an example
of anomaly mapping produced during the inspection of a pitched
roof.
3.3. Inspection forms
The data collected during the inspections are entered on the
forms, allowing the characterisation of the building and the
pitched roof cladding.
Table 3 shows the standard inspection form developed specifi-
cally for ECCPR inspections.
3.4. Validation forms
These forms are used to validate the proposed inspection and
diagnosis system. The anomalies, their probable causes, diagnosis
methods and prescribed repair techniques are all entered on the
forms. Table 4 shows the standard validation form.
4. Statistical analysis
This section briefly describes the main results of the statistical
analysis performed. The analysis is based on an expert-knowledge
inspection and diagnosis system for pitched roof claddings (of var-
ious materials), which is described in detail in another paper by the
same authors [21].
4.1. Frequency of anomalies
The system classes the anomalies into 4 groups according to
type and visual aspect (Table 4). The anomalies in each group are
listed according to their scope in terms of potential consequences:
affecting only one of the elements of the cladding system, or sev-
eral. These groups contain a total of 19 main anomalies. For the
cladding material under analysis in this paper (ceramic tiles –
ECCPRs), the total is reduced to 16 anomalies, since A-E2 (corro-
sion), A-E6 (disaggregation/oxidation (ageing)) and A-O3 (lack or
deterioration of sealants) can only occur in other cladding
materials.
For ceramic claddings (Fig. 5), it is found that anomaly A-O6 –
defects in the ventilation system is the most frequent, since the
components tend to be badly located and/or incorrectly installed
as a result of the low importance attributed to ventilation systems
at the design and execution stages. Defects in tail-ends (A-O2) are
also very often observed in ceramic claddings and are due to miss-
ing or deficient detailing of the singular areas and to poor work-
manship in the execution of these tail-ends. It is easy to spot the
excessive use of mortar at the copings and ridges and also the
use of mortar and asphalt membranes at the tail-ends, with ele-
ments emerging from the roof.
Anomaly A-E4 – vegetation growth/biological colonisation is
found in most ECCPRs thanks to the favourable conditions pro-
vided by their location, which exposes them to damp and solar
radiation. Vegetation grows mostly where water/debris accumu-
late, while biological colonisation is more widespread. The rarest
anomalies in ECCPRs are A-C – condensation and A-E3 – spalling/
peeling/exfoliation, with frequencies of 8.1% and 12.9%
respectively.
It was also considered relevant to analyse the data in terms of
the types of roof tile (Figs. 6 and 7), alongside the general analysis
presented above.
After taking into account the weight of each type of tile in the
sample it was found that the Canudo tiles are more affected by
anomalies than the others (Fig. 6).
Of the various anomalies found in Lusa tiled roofs the high
frequency of anomalies in the ventilation system (A-O6) stands
out. The absence of thermal insulation (A-O5) in this type of roof
is very significant (in 81% of the roofs inspected), which is
matched by the frequency of anomalies in tail-ends (A-O2).
Tail-ends are a problem in these roofs because they are often
poorly executed.
It was also found that the state of degradation of ECCPRs with
Canudo tiles is due to the age of those inspected in this programme,
associated with the rare or zero maintenance. The proliferation of
tiny organisms (A-E4), with a frequency of 100% of the roofs in-
spected, is a clear sign of careless maintenance of these ECCPRs.
The anomalies related to deformation (A-D1), misalignment (A-
D2) and loosening (A-D3) are due to lack of maintenance/repair
of the supporting structure, with timber structures displaying sig-
nificant deformation, associated with corrosion of the connections
(A-O1) which lose their ability to keep the ECCPR in place. The fre-
quent absence of thermal insulation (A-O5) is due mostly to the old
age of these roofs, which were made at a time when insulating
 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819
Table 3
Standard inspection form.
materials were rarely used. The anomalies in tail-ends (A-O2) are
once again very common, given the construction procedures of
the times, inadequate from a present-day constructive sector point
of view.
The Marselha roof tiles show frequent problems in tail-ends (A-
O2), around 95% of the cases caused by poor execution. Anomalous
ventilation (A-O6) is also extremely common – indeed, it was de-
811
tected in all roofs inspected. This has to do with ventilation prob-
lems of the soffit of ECCPRs, which are reflected in a high frequency
(60%) of cracking/fracture (A-E7). The presence of parasitic organ-
isms (A-E4), with a frequency of 90% and affecting a large area, is a
clear sign of careless maintenance of these ECCPRs. It was found
that interventions in these elements were poor (A-O8), as was
identified in 60% of the inspections of these ECCPRs.
812 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819

Table 4
Standard validation form.
 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819 813

Table 4 (continued)

The frequency of each group of anomalies per pitched roof in- fects (A-O) were found in all roofs inspected, which was expected,
spected was also determined. The sample was also analysed to given the low level of workmanship and poor detailing of the roof
see whether each ECCPR had at least one anomaly from each group, designs. Then come the anomalies associated with cladding degra-
and this resulted in Fig. 8. It is concluded that design/execution de- dation (A-E) that occur in 94% of the roofs, mostly due to the gen-
814 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819
Fig. 5. ECCPR anomaly frequency (number of records, at least once, of the anomaly
per roof/number of roofs inspected) (see Table 4).
eralised absence of periodical maintenance. Furthermore, slightly
over half of the roofs inspected (56%) had anomalies associated
with displacements/deformations (A-D), which seem to result from
Fig. 6. ECCPR anomalies: overall frequency per roof tile type (number of records for roofs with each type of tiles/total number of records).
Fig. 7. ECCPR anomalies: overall frequency per roof tile type (number of records, at least once, of the anomaly per roof with each tile type/number of roofs inspected with the
same type of tiles) (see Table 4).
the lack of maintenance over long periods of time. Finally it was
found that only 8% of the ceramic roofs show condensation phe-
nomena (A-C), far fewer than metal and plastic solutions. This is
attributed to the low susceptibility of the material to condensation,
given its moderate surface temperature. Nonetheless, this situation
could be improved if thermal insulation and vapour barriers were
installed.
4.2. Frequency of causes
Causes associated with anomalies in ECCPRs have been classed
according to the sequence in which they occur, as seen in Table 4.
There are two main categories – direct (or near) causes and indirect
(or initial) causes, as defined by the Official College of Architects of
Madrid [22] – and they are divided into five groups, totalling 44
possible causes. Cause C-E11 (incorrect positioning of sealants)
was left out because it is beyond the scope of ECCPR.
Fig. 9 gives the absolute contribution of each group of causes to
the incidence of each group of anomalies in the sample. It is found
that the causes from group C-E – execution errors are the most
common (31%), followed by those from group C-P – design errors,
with 28%. As expected the causes from group C-U – use/mainte-
nance errors make a strong contribution (20%) mostly due to cause
C-U1 – absent/inadequate maintenance. Even though less com-
mon, group C-A – environmental actions also contributes to the
anomalies in ECCPRs (15%), largely because of their location and
consequent exposure to environmental agents. Finally, a reference
to group C-M – mechanical actions, that has, as expected, the least
number of occurrences (6%).
 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819 815

Fig. 8. ECCPR anomaly groups: frequency (number of records of at least one anomaly of the group per roof/number of roofs inspected) (see Table 4).

Fig. 9. Relative contribution of each group of causes to anomalies in ECCPRs (number of records of the causes of the group/total number of records) (see Table 4).

The contribution of the groups of causes to the anomalies was
analysed from another perspective. The occurrence of at least
one cause within each group was registered for each roof, and
the results are presented in Fig. 10. It is concluded that design er-
rors (C-P) and execution errors (C-E) occur in respectively 100%
and 95% of all roofs inspected, which is consistent with what was
found in terms of design/execution defects (A-O), already ex-
plained in §4.1. Next come environmental actions (C-A). These
were identified as the most probable causes of anomalies in 94%
of the roofs, which is linked with the already-mentioned lack of
periodic maintenance and with exposure to environmental factors.
Use/maintenance errors (C-U) occur often (84%), which is again
considered to be linked to absent/inadequate maintenance. Again
mechanical actions (C-M) have lower (63%), albeit considerable,
frequency, which is due to the location of ECCPRs and consequent
poor accessibility.
4.3. Frequency of diagnosis methods
The diagnosis methods were classified into 4 groups (Table 4)
based on the procedures and functioning principle of the equip-
ment used. There are 6 diagnosis methods altogether, all of them
non-destructive and capable of being performed in situ. Methods
D-B1 (induced currents) and D-D1 (ultra-sounds) were left out of

Fig. 10. Contribution of each group of causes to anomalies in ECCPRs (number of records of at least one cause of the group per roof/number of roofs inspected) (see Table 4).
816 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819

this paper because they do not apply to ECCPRs. The system was
based on a large set of references, in particular [22–26].
Fig. 11 shows how often the various diagnosis methods were
recommended vis-à-vis the anomalies detected.
It was found that method D-A1 – visual inspection was by far
the most frequently prescribed (in all instances, in fact) since it
is fundamental to any diagnosis and the basis of this inspection
programme. More specific methods came next, as they became
available and were needed. Method D-C2 – infrared thermography
was the second most prescribed test, in 18% of the roofs inspected,
and in third place came method D-A2 – slope measurement, in 8%
of the cases. Method D-C1 – temperature and humidity measure-
ment was prescribed much less often than the others (1%) because
its scope of application to ECCPRs is very limited, given the nature
and characteristics of the material.
4.4. Frequency of repair techniques
Before any rehabilitation measure is advanced the general
pathologic context must be analysed by determining the level
of degradation and the causes of the anomalies. The classifica-
tion proposed for the repair techniques (Table 4) considers 5
groups in terms of the level of intervention, which rises from
the first to the last group (R-A ? R-E). There is a total of 19 re-
pair techniques of which only 13 are applied to ECCPRs, since
techniques R-A3 (corrosion removal and reestablishment of the
anti-corrosion protection), R-A4 (surface rehabilitation of plastic
ECPR), R-A10 (encapsulation), R-B2 (flocking), R-C1A and R-C1B
(application of spray polyurethane foam) fall outside the scope
of ceramic roof claddings.
Figs. 12–14 synthesise the data collected on the repair tech-
niques during the inspection programme. Canudo roof tiles have
the greatest need of repair, accounting for 40.4% of all interven-
tions proposed. Technique R-A6 – application/repair/replacement
of the ECCPR connections was very often prescribed (90%) to fit
missing connections and replace those that were significantly cor-
roded. Even though the Canudo tiles sample is significantly older
than the Marselha and Lusa tiles samples, there is less need to re-
place this type of ECCPR (R-D1), which suggests that the greater
need of intervention is not linked to the material’s quality but to
the lack of inspections and periodic maintenance.
It is generally possible to divide the repair techniques into sev-
eral groups in terms of their prescription frequency. The first con-
tains techniques R-A1 – cleaning of the ECCPR, R-A8 – installation
of ventilation tiles or accessories and R-A9 – repair of tail-ends and
singularities, which were prescribed for approximately 90% of the

Fig. 11. ECCPR diagnosis methods: prescription frequency (number of prescriptions, at least once, of the diagnosis method per roof/number of roofs inspected) (see Table 4).

Fig. 12. ECCPR repair techniques: prescription frequency (number of prescriptions, at least once, of the repair technique per roof/number of roofs inspected) (see Table 4).
 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819 817

Fig. 13. ECCPR repair techniques: prescription frequency per roof tile type (number of prescriptions, at least once, of the repair technique per roof with each type of tile/
number of roofs inspected with the same type of tile) (see Table 4).

Fig. 14. ECCPR repair techniques: overall prescription frequency per roof tile type (number of prescriptions in roofs with each type of tile/total number of prescriptions).

pitched roofs inspected. That was expected for R-A1 given the
overall lack of inspections and periodic maintenance. It was also
found that this technique applies to all tile types since its prescrip-
tion frequency is at least 81% for any roof tile type. The high inci-
dence of prescription of R-A8 was also expected, given the
manifest failings in terms of ventilation systems. This technique
shows slightly higher potential for Lusa tiles (100%) and Marselha
tiles (95%) than Canudo tiles (76%), which may due to the last one’s
lower watertightness and consequently better micro-ventilation,
with less occurrence of condensation. The common prescription
of R-A9 is mostly due to the poor workmanship and design for exe-
cution found in pitched roofs (often there is no such thing as a
pitched roof design), and this conditions correct detailing from
the start – especially at the level of tail-ends and singularities. As
expected this technique is evenly prescribed in terms of tile type
(at least 81%).
818 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819

The second group is composed of three techniques. Technique broad scope of application of this group of techniques. It was also
R-D1 – replacement of the ECCPR was prescribed for 76% of the found that a change of the ECCPR’s supporting structure (R-E) was
roofs inspected, mostly because of its wide range of application prescribed in 27% of the roofs inspected, all of them timber and
in terms of the anomalies it can eliminate. Technique R-B4 – appli- over 30 years old.
cation/repair/replacement of thermal insulation was prescribed for
71% of the roofs, which was predictable considering that around
5. Conclusions
60% of them did not have any type of insulation. It was found that
Canudo tiles have a considerably higher prescription frequency (al-
Some specialised systems to evaluate damage and anomalies in
most three times) than the Marselha ones, which is mostly because
construction materials and elements are available. However, to the
they are older. However, the same does not apply to Lusa tiles, for
best of the authors’ knowledge none resemble the one presented
which the prescription frequency is similar to Canudo tiles, even
here in terms of scope and objectives.
though they are on average the newest ones, which is worrying
It is concluded that anomalies in external ceramic claddings of
in terms of trends in the quality of construction. The third tech-
pitched roofs (ECCPRs) can be divided into three main groups in
nique in this group is R-A6 – application/repair/replacement of
terms of frequency:
the ECCPR connections, which was prescribed in 61% of the roofs
inspected, but more often (90%) in Canudo tiles, as expected, given
1. A-E4 (vegetation growth/biological colonisation), A-O2 (defects
their shape and consequent lack of a fitting system between the
in tail-ends), A-O6 (defects in the ventilation system) and A-O5
tiles. Lusa tiles, with 62% prescription frequency, also exhibit many
(defects in the thermal insulation) that have a very frequent
problems that may be associated with their complex and irregular
incidence, affecting between 71% and 89% of all pitched roofs
shape, while Marselha tiles, with only 30% prescription frequency,
inspected;
seem to be the least troublesome.
2. A-O8 (deficient interventions), A-E7 (cracking/fracture) and A-
The low incidence of techniques from group R-E – changes in
D2 (misalignment) with frequencies around 50%; and
the ECCPR’s supporting structure (R-E1 – execution of a roof slab
3. A-O4 (too little or too much overlap), A-O1 (defects in the con-
and R-E2 – repair/strengthening/replacement of the supporting
nections), A-E5 (colour unevenness/changes), A-D1 (significant
structure) was expected in roofs with Lusa tiles, since almost all
deformations of the ECCPR) and A-D3 (loosening of the ECCPR)
of them had concrete (85%) or metal (5%) structures, i.e. more dura-
with frequency of around 30%; the frequencies of the remaining
ble than the timber structures that predominate in the roofs with
anomalies are considered very low, with a few exceptions such
Canudo (100%) and Marselha tiles (85%). In the latter, which are
as A-O7 (insufficient/excessive slope).
younger, the prescription frequency of technique R-E1 was almost
zero. Technique R-A5 – repair/execution of additional watertightn-
Two main groups of causes were found:
ening measures, prescribed for 19% of the roofs, seems to be di-
rectly related to age, since it was prescribed more often for the
1. C-P (design errors) and C-E (execution errors) that accounted
older tiles (Canudo, 52%) than the newer ones (Lusa – almost zero
for around 30% of all causes detected; and
– and Marselha – 5%). The least often prescribed technique (11%)
2. C-A (environmental actions) and C-U (use/maintenance errors)
was R-A7 – construction of walkways, which is justified by the
with a lightly lower incidence (around 17.5% on average).
general perception that it is not essential since it only affects access
to the roof for inspection and maintenance works.
In terms of diagnosis methods, D-A1 (visual inspection) was
Finally, the frequency of prescription of the groups of repair
prescribed for 100% of the roofs, with D-C2 (infrared thermogra-
techniques per pitched roof inspected is analysed. The data com-
phy) a distant second, with 18%.
piled in Fig. 15 shows that techniques that apply to the outer sur-
Finally, two main groups of repair techniques were identified:
face of the ECCPR (R-A) were prescribed in every instance, which is
not a surprise since this layer is more exposed to the various ac-
1. R-A9 (repair of tail-ends and singularities), R-A8 (installation of
tions/agents. Next come the groups of techniques applied to the in-
ventilation tiles or accessories) and R-A1 (ECCPR cleaning) with
ner surface of the ECCPR (R-B) and those that imply changes to the
a prescription frequency of around 90%; and
ECCPR (R-D), with prescription frequencies of 82% and 76% respec-
2. R-D1 (ECCPR replacement), R-B4 (installation/repair/replace-
tively. In the first case this is due to the high percentage of roofs
ment of thermal insulation) and R-A6 (fitting/repair/replace-
without any type of thermal insulation (60%) and the total absence
ment of the ECCPR connections) with an average of around 70%.
of vapour barriers, and in the second case it is mostly due to the

Fig. 15. Contribution of each group of ECCPR repair techniques (number of prescriptions of at least one repair technique from the group per roof/number of roofs inspected)
(see Table 4).
 N. Garcez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 807–819
When relating techniques, anomalies and causes it was found
that R-A1 (ECCPR cleaning) is seen as a comprehensive technique
with a high prescription frequency due to the widespread presence
of debris and biological growth that results from the lack of
periodic maintenance. But the high prescription frequency of tech-
nique R-B4 (installation/repair/replacement of thermal insulation)
surpassed initial expectations and is explained by 66% of the roofs
inspected not having any type of thermal insulation; this situation
is absolute proof that pitched roofs are often poorly designed and
built, since thermal insulation in a roof is essential to ensuring
its adequate functional performance. It was also found that the cor-
rection of the roof’s ventilation (R-A8) was recommended quite of-
ten because 60% of the roofs inspected only benefited from natural
micro-ventilation, which resulted in a wide range of anomalies and
non-compliance with essential functional requirements.
Not a single vapour barrier was found in the entire roof sample,
due to ignorance of the building companies about this constructive
detail that is fundamental in buildings with an active production of
water vapour. Timber roof supporting structures were the com-
monest because they are a traditional solution especially in older
buildings, whereas in the present-day panorama there is a wider
use of metal and (continuous and discontinuous) concrete struc-
tures. The supporting structures that required most intervention
were those made of timber, as expected, given their age and sus-
ceptibility to biological agents, accelerated by lack of maintenance.
6. Lessons learned
Experience tells us that their exposure to atmospheric agents
turns pitched roof claddings into one of a building’s most vulnera-
ble non-structural elements, especially if their execution and the
materials used are not the most suitable.
To prevent early degradation of cladding and the shortening of
its service life it is essential that reactive maintenance methodolo-
gies give way to pro-active ones, involving preventive and predic-
tive actions; roofs should be monitored with recommended
regularity and inspection and assessment procedures activated to
define what action to take and when to act, whenever anything
anomalous is detected.
It was also found that the labour used is rarely proficient in this
type of work (especially in the singular areas) and that the materi-
als used for cladding, fastening and tail-ending are not appropriate.
Another lesson to bear in mind concerns the design stage,
where quite often design/detailing is missing/incorrect, as, too, is
the prescription of construction materials.
Pitched roofs with ceramic claddings only very rarely have been
designed for easy and safe maintenance (maintainability) and re-
pair, which quite often leads to an acceleration of the various deg-
radation mechanisms and to a shortening of the service life of
these elements and its support structure.
All this must be changed at the design stage, where adequate
detailing and choice of materials is required, at the execution stage,
when qualified workmanship and the application of the materials
as prescribed in the design is mandatory, and at the maintenance
stage, when a periodic and non-periodic inspection programme
must be implemented throughout the service life of the cladding.
This survey provides useful information to practitioners,
designers, contractors, owners, people in charge of maintenance
and repair and insurance companies.
819
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of the research centre
ICIST (Instituto de Engenharia de Estruturas, Território e Con-
strução), IST, Technical University of Lisbon and FCT (Foundation
for Science and Technology).
References
[1] Census 2001: Definite Results. XIV general census of the population. Lisbon,
Portugal: National Statistics Institute; 2001 [in Portuguese].
[2] Flores-Colen I, de Brito J, Freitas VP. Discussion of criteria for prioritization of
predictive maintenance of building façades – survey of 30 experts. J Perform
Constr Facil (ASCE) 2010;24(4):337–44.
[3] Walter A, de Brito J, Grandão Lopes J. Current flat roof bituminous membranes
waterproofing systems – inspection, diagnosis and pathology classification.
Constr Build Mater 2005;19(3):233–42.
[4] Silvestre JD, de Brito J. Ceramic tiling inspection system. Constr Build Mater
2009;23(2):653–68.
[5] Branco FA, de Brito J. Handbook of concrete bridge management. Reston, VA,
USA: ASCE Press; 2004. p. 468.
[6] Brito J, Branco FA, Thoft-Christensen P, Sørensen JD. An expert system for
concrete bridge management. Eng Struct 1997;19(7):519–26.
[7] Marques Lima J, de Brito J. Management system for expansion joints of road
bridges. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2010;6(6):703–14.
[8] Marques Lima J, de Brito J. Inspection survey of 150 expansion joints in road
bridges. Eng Struct 2009;31(5):1077–84.
[9] Delgado A., de Brito J., Silvestre J. Inspection and diagnosis system for wood
flooring, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, accepted for
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000342.
[10] Gaião C, de Brito J, Silvestre JD. Inspection and pathological characterization of
gypsum plasterboard walls. Materiales de Construcción 2011;25(3):172–80.
[11] Gaião C, de Brito J, Silvestre JD. Inspection and pathological characterization of
gypsum plasterboard walls. Materiales de Construcción 2011. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3989/mc.2011.62210.
[12] Sá G., Sá J., de Brito J. Inspection and diagnosis system for rendered walls,
International Journal of Civil Engineering, submitted for publication.
[13] Sá G., Sá J., de Brito J. Statistical survey on inspection, diagnosis and repair of
wall renderings, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, submitted for
publication.
[14] Garcia J, de Brito J. Inspection and diagnosis of epoxy resin industrial floor
coatings. J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE) 2008;20(2):128–36.
[15] Gonçalves C, de Brito J, Dias Pereira T. A system to support the inspection,
register and classification of non-structural anomalies in current buildings.
Teoria e Prática na Engenharia Civil 2005;7:61–72 [in Portuguese].
[16] Neto N, de Brito J. Inspection and defect diagnosis system for natural stone
cladding. J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE) 2011;23(10):1433–43.
[17] Neto N, de Brito J. Validation of an inspection and diagnosis system for
anomalies in natural stone cladding (NSC). Constr Build Mater
2012;30(5):224–36.
[18] Palha F, Pereira A, de Brito J, Silvestre JD. The effect of water on the degradation
of gypsum plaster coatings: inspection, diagnosis and repair. J Perform Constr
Facil 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) CF.1943-5509.0000258.
[19] Pereira A, Palha F, de Brito J, Silvestre JD. Inspection and diagnosis system for
gypsum plasters in partition walls and ceilings. Constr Build Mater
2011;25(4):2146–56.
[20] Silvestre JD, de Brito J. Inspection and repair of ceramic tiling within a building
management system. J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE) 2010;22(1):39–48.
[21] Garcez N, Lopes N, de Brito J, Silvestre JD. System of inspection, diagnosis and
repair of external claddings of pitched roofs. Build Res Inform, accepted for
publication.
[22] Curso de patología, conservación y restauración de edificios. Colegio oficial de
arquitectos de Madrid – Madrid: COAM; 1991. ISBN 84-7740-041-5. Tomo 1
[in Spanish].
[23] Bureau Veritas – Gestion Technique du Patrimoine – Réhabilitation et
Maintenance. Guide Veritas du Bâtiment. Tome 4, Editions Le Moniteur,
3éme édition, Paris; 1993 [in French].
[24] Rafael C, Santiago F, Ignacio O. Manual de Mantenimiento de Edificios – El
Libro del Tecnico Mantenedor. Consejo Superior de Los Colegios de Arquitectos
de España; 1997 [in Spanish].
[25] Vallens K, Bescher E, Mackenzie JD, Rice E. A new technique for the
measurement of the impact resistance of wall coatings. Cem Concr Res
2001;31(6):965–8.
[26] Rodrigues J, Costa D. A new method for data correction in drill resistance test
for the effect of drill bit wear. Int J Restorat 2004;10(3):1–18.