DURABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING SYSTEMS

Durability assessment of building systems

J. LAIR and J.F. LE TENO
Centre Scientifique et Technique du Btiment (CSTB), Service Matriaux, Grenoble,
France.
D. BOISSIER
Laboratoire dEtude et de Recherche en MEcanique des Structures Centre
Universitaire des Sciences et Techniques (LERMES/CUST), Clermont-Ferrand,
France.
Durability of Building Materials and Components 8. (1999) Edited by M.A. Lacasse
and D.J. Vanier. Institute for Research in Construction, Ottawa ON, K1A 0R6,
Canada, pp. 1299-1308.
National Research Council Canada 1999

Abstract
Assessing the service life of building products is relevant for all building actors
(insurers, manufacturers, building owners and architects). Indeed, the knowledge of
building products service lives leads to a reduction of maintenance costs and
environmental impact, and an improvement of safety. This paper deals with a
methodological approach for durability assessment. The major steps are :
Research of available durability data and their organization in a graph structure
followed by the assessment of belief and plausibility distribution of service life.
A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, including a structural and a functional
analysis in order to search all potential failures (weathering factors, product
design and setting up).
The proposed method is a multi-model and multi-scale approach ; multi-model
in order to adjust the model with our knowledge and our aim (modelling real life of
building, but not a too complex and unusable model), multi-scale to take into account
the links between the three geometric scales materials/products/building.
Finally, it gives (1) a distribution of nominal service life, for normal weathering
processes, with corresponding belief and plausibility degrees, (2) details on the
design and setting up problems, on exceptional weathering phenomena, which could
lead to a shorter service life.
Keywords: belief, data quality, data sets, durability, FMEA, failure, functional
analysis, hypergraph, nominal service life, plausibility, service life, structural
analysis.

Introduction

The forecasting of building durability is needed for economic, environmental

and safety reasons. Durability can be defined as the ability of a building and its parts
to perform its required functions over a period of time and under the influence of
agents. (British Standards Institution, 1992)
This paper deals with a methodological approach for building and building
products durability assessment. But, instead of durability assessment with current
methods (artificial ageing, models, fundamental studies in materials science) or with
current data sets (field tracking studies and experts), our method is based on the use
of all the available data.
The product durability will be defined by :
the assessment of nominal service lives and belief degrees, which are the
expected service life of the product under normal conditions and the belief we
have in this assessment,
an exhaustive list of the potential failures, according to design problems, setting
up faults, exceptional use, maintenance errors (with FMEA).
2

Generalities

2.1 Data characteristics

The different sources of aging data are (Martin et al., 1996; Lair et al., 1998):
artificial and natural tests (short term laboratory based exposure) (Eurin et al.,
1985),
field tracking studies, in situ weathering, experts knowledge (long term in
service or outdoor exposures) (Ishizuka, 1983)
fundamental mechanistic studies (Martin et al., 1996)
reliability studies (Siemes et al.,1985).
According to the data sources, the data format is different. We propose a
characteristic review of each data, including the scale of the study (system, subsystem, component), hypothesis, format of the result (quantitative deterministic,
probabilistic or possibilistic data, qualitative orderly or non-orderly data), the type of
test and the reference. As we will see further, we will associate a mass to each data,
according to these characteristics and corresponding to the quality or credibility of the
data. Unfortunately, these data are often incomplete, uncertain, and imprecise.
2.2 Evidence theory
To take this uncertainty into account, we propose to use the evidence theory
(Shafer, 1976). Indeed, evidence theory and belief functions are tools of modelling
and quantifying the belief we can have in events which probability occurrence is unknown (Bouchon-Meunier, 1995). According to Pearl, belief consists of assertions
about a specific situation inferred by applying generic knowledge to a set of evidence
sentences. (Pearl, 1990)

Lets assume a set , called Frame of Discernment, which is a finite set of

alternatives (for example, when searching a product service life, is the temporal
scale [0, tmax] with tmax arbitrary high bound). Lets associate to each subset T of , a
basic probability assignment m(T), a belief Bel(T) and a plausible belief Pl(T). m(T),
Bel(T) and Pl(T) represent respectively the strength of an evidence, the reasons we
have to believe T and the reasons we have to believe T if all unknown facts were to
support T.
The relation between Bel(.) and m(.) is:

Bel ( A) = m(B ) B A

(1)

Pl(.) satisfies the following formula (where A is Not A):

(2)

Pl(A) = 1 Bel(A)

The use of belief functions result from assigning probabilities to sets rather than
to individual points. With evidence theory, it is possible to model the narrowing of a
hypothesis set with the accumulation of evidence.
3

Aim of the research

The aim of this research is the modelling of degradation phenomena of all

materials, products and buildings, so that actors (insurers, manufacturers, building
owners and architects) easily can have an opinion on the building systems behaviour.
All the building actors are interested in the service life of a building system, whatever
the degradation factors are. So, we have to model the real life of any building
system while considering phenomena and actors as fixed parameters (Fig. 1).
All building systems,
all degradation phenomena.

Phenomena

Building
actors

Actors

Models

Fig. 1 : Modelling parameters

In our opinion, the building of a single model modelling the behaviour of a
system as well as the change in time of this behaviour, as structures and properties
change is a too complex task. Our proposal is a multi-model and multi-scale
approach. For a multi-model approach, we build a normal functioning model, and
some other models in case of structural change (for example, setting up faults, lower
material quality).

For a multi-scale approach, we take into account the decomposition of the

system (building, products) into sub-systems (products) and components (materials).
Each decomposition level seems to correspond to a different data source. For
example (Lair et al. 1998), we have durability data of a roofing system with field
tracking studies. One of the sub-system, the waterproofing layer, is well-known with
artificial aging tests, and we assess the behaviour of its major component, the
polymer bitumen, through its physical properties. Sometimes, it would be possible to
model the behaviour of a new or unknown product combining the known behaviours
of its components and their interactions.
4

Method

The three steps of the proposed method are (Lair et al. 1998):
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA),
Data compilation and organization,
Service life and belief degree assessment.

4.1 Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)

Used in electronic and aeronautic industries, the FMEA is a method of failure
modes search. It gives an exhaustive list of all potential failures.
This approach requires:
A structural analysis of the system in order to define the sub-systems and
components, their characteristics, the physical, chemical and mechanical links;
A functional analysis to understand the behaviour of the system under weathering and use factors (we have to know the system environment: degradation
factors check-list);
The FMEA, i.e. the experts opinion compilation.
To compile failure modes data, we propose to fill Table 1, a FMEA adapted to
the building domain :
Table 1 : FMEA framework for a roofing system
Elements

Function

Modes

Water proofing Impermeability Cracking

Impermeability

Boring

Solicitations
Defects
Loads

Reasons
Wear and tear

Inner
Effects
Permeability

Punctual stress

Gravel

Permeability

Punctual stress

Maintenance
load

Permeability

Outer
effects
Moisture in
insulation
Moisture in
insulation
Moisture in
insulation

The first column is filled with structural analysis data. Using functional analysis,
we complete columns number 2, 3 and 4. Experts imagine columns 5, 6 and 7.

As we see, the degradation of a sub-system not necessarily lead to the failure of

the system, but can involve a structural change and then an unexpected solicitation of
a neighbouring sub-system (inner degradation but outer action change).
So, we determine not only sub-system failures, but also chaining events leading
to the system failure.
Finally, it will be possible to determine the failure modes resulting from design
errors (dimensional problems, material choices) or setting up and maintenance
faults (materials quality, setting up conditions). For example, we have to notice
that a faulty joining of plies in a roofing system (glue choice problem or too low
temperature during setting up) will lead to a premature failure through a loss of water
impermeability and moisture development in the insulation layer.
Therefore, we obtain a list of potential failure modes from a dialog with experts,
in which the time is only a qualitative parameter (durability not expressed as service
life but as ordinal classification).
4.2 Data compilation and organization
Now, we have to collect the available data, in any format, in any scale, on every
phenomenon which may occur during the life of the system. We can also make
analogies with similar products and/or similar environmental conditions. Lets notice
that FMEA helps us in this search.
After that, we have to organize all these data. Assume we have several superposed graphs; the set is called Durability hypergraph. Each graph is a more or less
precise picture of the system, built with a set of data. A graph is made of nodes
(durability data and models) and links (existence of common parameters between two
data). In top graphs, the temporal, geometric or phenomenological granularities are
large (close to one). In bottom ones, they are small (close to zero). Granularity is
defined as the ratio between the level of decomposition and the size of the system. It
represents grain fineness. The finer the grain is, the smaller the granularity is.
When we have equivalent granularities, we consider that the data are on the same
level.
As an example, consider a reinforced concrete wall, painted on its external face.
The service lives are classified in a complete preorder (Table 2)
Table 2 : Available data and their corresponding granularities
Service Level Reference
life (year)
20
150
> 30
[25, 100]
[100, 120]
D(100,80)
[5, 130]

1
1
1
1
2
2
3

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[55, 75]

[8]

Geometric
granularity

Temporal
granularity

Phenomenological
granularity

product
product
product
product
material (RC)
RC slab
steel, concrete,
paint
phenomenological
decomposition

Limit state
Failure time
failure time
failure time
failure time
failure time
failure time

not explicit
not explicit
not explicit
not explicit
not explicit
Carbonation
not explicit

limit state or
failure time

according to the
decomposition level

The references are:

[1] (OPAC38, 1993). The limit state is maintenance interval against carbonation
risk.
[2] (EPFL-LESO, 1995)
[3] (Perret, 1995)
[4] (Gumpertz & Schwartz, 1996)
[5] (Krti, 1971)
[6] (Siemes et al. 1985): D (100,80) is a probabilistic distribution with mean
100 years and standard deviation 80 years.
[7] (Pihlajavaara 1980). We have three nodes: concrete, steel, paint. Their corresponding service lives are SL (concrete | very severe exposure) [10, 100
years], SL (iron | very severe exposure) [1, 10 years], and SL (paint | severe
exposure) [2, 20 years]. Reinforced concrete wall service life of the level is
calculated with an appropriate algorithm.
[8] This level is composed of several nodes, corresponding to degradation
phenomena of reinforced concrete components, i.e. the concrete cover
(carbonation, chloride penetration, sulfates, thawing) with and without cracking
(lets notice again that some phenomena are strongly correlated), the steel
(corrosion) and the paint (gloss, cracking). Several references as (Sarja 1994;
Papadakis 1992)
4.3

Service lives and belief degrees

For each level (or graph), we assess the service life of the studied system from
the durability data, with appropriate algorithms. To each service life, we assign a
mass m (which is similar to a probability assignment) according to the quality of the
basic durability data. Thus m is a quality indicator according to the origin of the data.
Theoretical structures, data input, set-up conditions are quality criteria (Funtowicz
& Ravetz 1990) valued on a five-level scale, an example of which is given in Table 3.
This idea will be developed further.
Table 3: pedigree criterion
Level

Criterion Theoretical structures

4
3
2
1
0

Established theory
Theoretically-based method
Computational model
Statistical processing
Definitions

Lets now assume that is the finite temporal scale ([0, tmax]). Each durability
data correspond to a support function on . The degrees of support are easy to
specify (in this case, the data points precisely and unambiguously to a single nonempty subset A of (Shafer 1976)):

M(B) =

0 if B does not contain A

m if B contains A but B
1 if B =

(3)

We apply Dempsters rule (Shafer, 1976) to combine all support functions BEL1,
BEL2 (focusing respectively on A1, A2, ). The resulting support function is
independent of the combination order; and is given by :
BEL(A) = (((BEL1(A1) BEL2(A2)) ) BELn-1(An-1)) BELn(An)

(4)

However durability data are often conflicting data. In order to assess the validity
of Dempsters combination, lets define CON(BEL1, , BELn) the weight of conflict
(between evidences). The weight of conflict between BEL1 and BEL2 is the quantity:

CON ( BEL1 , BEL2 ) = ln K = ln

1
with k =
1 k

m ( A ).m
1

(B j )

(5)

i, j
Ai B j =

We can now assess belief and plausibility degrees of service lives (BouchonMeunier, 1995). For example, considering the data A = [25, 100years] and its
corresponding mass m([25, 100]years) 0; we have:
If B = [0, 20[ years
then Bel(SL B) = 0 and Pl(SL B) = 0.
If B = [0, 50[ years
then Bel(SL B) = 0 and Pl(SL B) 0.
If B = [0, 110[ years then Bel(SL B) 0 and Pl(SL B) 0.
The decision criterion is the confidence interval [Bel, Pl] (Dromigny-Badin et
al., 1997). It expresses the knowledge we have about an assumption. The closer we
are to [1, 1], more confident we are about our assumption; the closer we are to [0, 0],
the less probable the assumption is; [0, 1] gives no information.
The methodological approach is shown in Fig. 2 : (1) compile available
durability data, (2) organize data in a hypergraph, (3) assess service life and mass of
each level, (4) combine them to obtain belief and plausibility of service life.
5 Results
Table 4 represents a non exhaustive list of available data. For the moment, we
have used arbitrary masses m. Lets note that m(.) is an intrinsic value of the data.
Thus, we could classify the data according to their own quality, and compare the
belief and plausibility degrees of different products.
Table 4 : Data compilation and mass assignment
Level

Durability data

Mass m(.)

11
12
13
14
21
22
3
4

20 years
More than 30 years
[25, 100 years]
150 years
Distribution (=100, =80)
[100, 120 years]
[5, 130 years]
[55, 75 years]

0.1
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6

(1)

Data
Data
review
Data
review
Data
review
Scale :
Data
review Scale
:
Data review
Hypot
review Scale
:
Hypot
hesis:
Scale
:
Hypot
Scale : hesis:
Scale
: Forma
Hypot
hesis:
Forma
Hypothesis:
t
:
hesis:Hypot
Forma
Format
hesis:: t : Forma
:
Servicet life:
t : Forma
Reference:
t:

(2)
Levels 11, 12, 13, 14:

(3)

Reinforced Concrete Wall

Levels 21, 22:

Reinforced concrete

Level 3:
{concrete, steel, paint}

Level 4:
{carbonation, corrosion}

(4)

(SL, m)11
(SL, m)12
(SL, m)13
(SL, m)14
(SL, m)21
(SL, m)22

(SL, m)3

(SL, m)4

{(SL, m)1, (SL, m)4}

Belief and plausibility
service life graph.

Fig. 2 : Methodological approach

As an example, assume we want to combine the two evidences: A = {SL / SL
[5, 130 years]} and B = {SL / SL [55, 75 years]}. Assume that their corresponding
masses are 0.2 and 0.5. AB 0 so they are heterogeneous evidences. Dempsters
rule involves: M(AB) = 0.1 ; M(A) = 0.1 ; m(B) = 0.4 and M(\{A, B}) = 0.4.
Since we are in the particular case BA, M(B) = 0.4 + 0.1 = 0.5 (the belief degree of
a subset is the sum of its belief degree and the belief degrees of its subsets); so the
resulting separable function will be: M(A) = 0.1 ; M(B) = 0.5 ; M(\{A, B}) = 0.4.
Combining all the support functions, we obtain the resulting belief function. The
Fig. 3 : Service lives belief and plausibility graph shows the service life belief and
plausibility degrees for the reinforced concrete wall, given that CON(BEL1BELn) =
0.62.
Given a Bel-Pl level, this figure shows that we can strongly believe (90%) that a
[100, 130] years concrete wall structure would have failed. The reinforced concrete
wall failure may occur in the interval [0,100] years with a less than 60% belief
degree, given that only a 10% belief degree corresponds to [0,75] years, it is hardly
believed that failure would occur before a 75 years time.

1,00
0,90
Plausibility

0,80

Belief - Plausibility

0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
Belief
0,30
0,20
0,10

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0,00

Service lives [0, x] Years

Fig. 3 : Service lives belief and plausibility graph

6 Conclusion and perspectives

The proposed method gives belief and plausibility distributions of service life for
any building system (traditional or new systems), built on available durability data.
Combined with FMEA analysis, we also have an exhaustive list of possible defects or
faults (design, setting up, maintenance) leading to a premature failure of the studied
system. This method handles the incomplete, conflicting and uncertain data often met
in building industry.
Now the needs are developments in the aggregation of different opinions from
experts and in the assignment of the mass on data, according to their quality. We also
have to distinguish precisely nominal functioning (service life assessment in
hypergraph) and exceptional functioning (in FMEA).
Finally, the bounds of the studied system have to be defined in order to take into
account the interactions in the whole building (it will be interesting to simulate the
potential pathologies in a building, submitted to various weathering factors).
7 References
BOUCHON-MEUNIER, B. (1995) La logique floue et ses applications. Addison-Wesley,
Amsterdam. pp.84-92.
British Standards Institution (1992). Guide to Durability of buildings and building
elements, products and components. BSI, London. BS 7543.
DROMIGNY-BADIN, A. ROSSATO, S. YUE MIN ZHU (1997). Fusion des donnes
radioscopiques et ultrasonores, in Traitement du Signal. vol.14, n5: pp.499-510.

EPFL-LESO (1995) Vieillissement des lments de construction et cot dentretien.

Office Fdral des Questions Conjoncturelles: Berne.
EURIN, J. MARECHAL, J.C. et al. (1985) Barriers to the prediction of service life of
polymeric materials, in Problems in Service Life Prediction of Building and
Construction Materials (NATO ASI Series) Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
FUNTOWICZ, S.O. RAVETZ, J.R. (1990) Uncertainty and Quality in Science for policy.
Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht (The Netherlands)
GUMPERTZ, W.H. SCHWARTZ, T.A. (1996) The Well-Designed Horse Carriage, in
Durability of Building Materials and Components 7 (Stockholm 1996), E & FN
SPON, London. pp.1185-1194.
ISHIZUKA, Y. The degradation and prediction of service life of building components,
in Durability of Building Materials, vol.1: pp.345-352.
KURTI, I. (1971) Ubereinstimmung der Lebensdauer der Konstructionen und der
Funktionellen Zeitgemssheit von Wohnhusern, in Periodica Polytechnica
Architectura. vol.15 n 3-4: pp.195-219.
LAIR, J. LE TENO, J.F., BOISSIER, D. Prvision de la durabilit des systmes
constructifs du btiment, in Fiabilit des matriaux et des structures (A.
Mbarki, D. Boissier, D. Breysse) 2me confrence nationale JN-FIAB98.
HERMES, 1998. pp.287-296
MARTIN, J.W. SAUNDERS, S.C. et al. (1996) Methodology for predicting the service
lives of coating systems. Federation of Societies for coatings Technology.
OPAC38 (1993) Evaluation des besoins en entretien. OPAC Isre. Publication
interne.
PAPADAKIS, V.G. FARDIS, M.N. VAYENAS, C.G. (1992) Effect of composition,
environmental factors and cement-lime mortar coating on concrete
carbonation. in Materials and Structures vol.25 n 149: pp.293-304.
PEARL, J. (1990) Reasoning with Belief Functions : an Analysis of Compatibility, in
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. n4: pp.363-389.
PERRET, J. (1995), Guide de la maintenance des Btiments. Le Moniteur, Paris.
PIHLAJAVAARA, S.E. (1980) Background and Principles of long term Performance of
Building Materials. Durability of Building Materials and Components (Ottawa).
American Society for Testing and Materials, P.J. Sereda and G.G. Litvan,
pp.5-16.
SARJA, A. VESIKARI, E. (1992) Durability design of concrete structures. RILEM
TC130 CSL (Espoo).
SHAFER, G. (1976) A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
SIEMES, A. VROUWENVELDER, A. VAN DER BEUKEL A. (1985) Stochastic modelling
of building materials performance in durability. in Problems in Service Life
Prediction of Building and Construction Materials, (NATO ASI Series)
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.