Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2020) 5:7

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-020-0072-6

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Relative importance of pathologies in the severity of facade

degradation
Elton Bauer1   · Carla Bozzi Piazzarollo1   · Jéssica Siqueira de Souza1   · Danilo Gonçalves dos Santos1

Received: 26 August 2019 / Accepted: 2 January 2020

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract
The facade is the main protective barrier against the atmospheric agents acting in a building. Many times, as a result of these
agents, the facade manifests pathologies that lead to the loss of performance of the external wall claddings. This article aims
to establish and score the importance of the pathologies involved in the cement mortars rendering. The probable causes and
the influence on the performance decrease over time are analyzed. The methodology is based on the survey and mapping of
the pathologies observed in field survey, correlating these pathologies with probable causes and implications for the system
performance. Among the active pathologies, cracks had both a higher intensity of occurrence and a greater gravity compared
to the others. Some pathologies, such as detachment and efflorescence, although of great importance in the degradation,
are little observed in the studied buildings. As a result, is presented a scale of importance of pathologies, which has great
application for the development of facade degradation models.

Keywords  Pathologies · Facades · Degradation · Cement mortar · External wall claddings

1 Introduction both mortars will have different functions, and, therefore,

In order to develop facade degradation models, it is neces‑
sary to quantify and classify the incidence of pathologies
in a given sample. It is also important to define the rela‑
tive severity of the pathologies. Some pathologies affect the
structural integrity of the facade, while others affect esthet‑
ics or water permeability. The problem is to define which
criteria can be used for this severity weighting.
Building facades are generally composed by either
ceramic or concrete blocks, in which cement mortar is both
used in the masonry and render. Evidently, this means that
* Elton Bauer
elbauerlem@gmail.com
Carla Bozzi Piazzarollo
carlabp@gmail.com
Jéssica Siqueira de Souza
jss.siqueira@gmail.com
Danilo Gonçalves dos Santos
engdanilo@live.com
1
Post‑Graduate Program in Structures and Civil Construction,
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
University of Brasília, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro,
Asa Norte, Brasília, DF, Brazil
different characteristics, which in turn means a different
answer to the degradation agents, namely in turns of ser‑
vice life, performance and pathologies [1–3]. The materials
used in mortars directly influence the properties of the com‑
ponent, significantly altering the porosity, water transport,
ductility or fragility of the material and consequently affect
its performance [4–6].
Protecting the indoor climate against the outdoor condi‑
tions is one of the several function of a building’s facade.
Thus, the climatic agents of degradation (solar radiation,
driving rain, wind, among others) act in the main mecha‑
nisms of degradation generating several pathologies [7, 8].
This action, especially in rendering systems, makes the ser‑
vice life of the facade to be severely affected, which results
in maintenance and replacement costs.
Before the end of the construction and beginning of the
use of the building, the facade begins its process of degrada‑
tion, which is spontaneous and natural. The solicitations that
the facades must resist may be of various natures (mechani‑
cal, chemical, physical, biological or due to the weather‑
ing action) and may accelerate the degradation [9–11]. The
solicitations that act on the facades promote differentiated
behavior between the layers of the system, which can also
affect the bond strength of the cladding to the substrate, thus

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 7  Page 2 of 10
altering its performance [12, 13]. This natural wear and tear
provides the development of several pathologies in this pro‑
cess of degradation, remain until the components or materi‑
als are unable to respond to the activities for which they were
planned, reaching the service life of the building [14, 15].
The Brazilian standard ABNT NBR 15575:2013 [16],
defines the service life as the period of time in which a build‑
ing and its systems attend the activities for which they are
designed, considering the periodicity and the correct execu‑
tion of the maintenance process. The pathologies, in the con‑
text of building, represent any manifestation that result in
poor performance of a material, component or constructive
system. Therefore, the study of the pathologies intends to
understand the symptoms, mechanisms, causes and patholo‑
gies origins, that is, it is the study of the parts that compose
the diagnoses of the problem [17].
The pathologies can still be divided in aesthetic and func‑
tional. The first category encompasses those that affect the
building appearance, without representing risks to the stabil‑
ity and safety of the building, such as stains. In contrast, the
functional ones negatively alter the integrity of the compo‑
nents and systems of the building, also, the performance and
security [18]. With regard to the possible causes, they may
occur due to the actions of several agents, acting indepen‑
dently or together with other causes. They range in function
of the building constructive characteristics, solicitations,
degradation agents activity and even depending on location
and the elements around [19].
To quantify the degradation of a facade, it is necessary
to map the damages, and also to quantify the relation of
importance between the pathologies. The performance loss,
which leads to degradation, depends directly on the sever‑
ity and frequency of occurrence of the pathologies. Thus,
in order to develop models and curves of degradation, it is
necessary to define the relative importance of pathologies.
What is more serious, a zone with generalized fissures or
with localized detachments?
The criteria to define the importance of the pathologies
can be established under different approaches, highlighting:
the importance of the causes of the pathologies, influence of
the pathology in the performance loss, cost of rehabilitation,
among others. Obviously, the constructive tradition of each
country, the age of the buildings, the use and maintenance,
as well as the degree of exposure to the agents of degrada‑
tion, influence the distribution of the pathologies observed
in the facades. Properly quantifying and modeling all these
variables is an extremely complex task, if not impossible.
The present study aims to contribute to the theme, present‑
ing a methodology to determine the relative importance of
the pathologies by analyzing together: the influence on the
performance loss (in terms of: structural, watertightness and
aesthetic behaviour) and the probable causes of patholo‑
gies. Under another approach, a field study is also carried
13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2020) 5:7
out to quantify the pathologies in facades of buildings in
Brasília-Brazil.
2 Methods
Brasilia is the first urban center of the twentieth century con‑
sidered a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. Thus, Brasilia’s
buildings follow an architectural standardization that is also
reflected in the constructive typology. This makes the build‑
ing samples very homogeneous. In this way, investigations
of degradation patterns, effect of climatic agents as well as
service life studies can be developed.
Brasilia’s climate is considered tropical with dry and
humid periods. Throughout the year there is basically
the rainy season (spring and summer) and the dry season
(autumn and winter). Figure 1 shows the monthly direct radi‑
ation values for each facade orientation throughout the year.
The high incidence on the north facade is evident, especially
from March to September. This radiation surely promotes
higher temperatures and thermo-mechanical effects on the
facade, contributing to the development of important pathol‑
ogies. The South facade receives little radiation through‑
out the year. The East and West orientations show constant
monthly radiation from January to September, with inter‑
mediate values between the North and South orientations.
Wind-driving rain is greatly influenced by the wind
regime in the rainy months of the year. As can be seen in
Fig. 2, the North orientation is the one with the highest
rainfall incidence, reaching 3–4 times higher than the other
orientations. It should be noted that all this directed rain
occurs within 6 months of the rainy season, which really
characterizes a high degree of intensity of this degradation
agent. Looking at Figs. 1 and 2, it is very evident that the
North orientation is the most critical in relation to exposure
to major degrading climate agents.
The focus of this investigation is the facade coated with
mortar and paint. The investigation is carried out in four
Fig. 1  Monthly direct radiation observed throughout the year (W/m2)
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2020) 5:7 Page 3 of 10  7

and height of 3 and 6 floors. The inspection takes place from

Fig. 2  Annual wind-driven rain (l/m2)
stages: data collection; causes analysis; loss of performance
analysis; analysis of the relative importance of pathologies.
These steps are presented below.
2.1 Data collection
The objective of field evaluation (data collection) is to iden‑
tify the main pathologies and quantify their incidence. It is
not intended to discuss diagnosis or mechanisms of degrada‑
tion, but to characterize these pathologies. In the study area
(Brasília-Brazil) can be evidenced eight main pathologies,
five of them due to the rendering mortar system (detach‑
ment, cracking, pulverulence, efflorescence and stain) and
three that affect the paint film (detachment, cracking and
bubble) [20]. These pathologies are named in Table 1.
By inspecting 60 facade samples, the incidence of pathol‑
ogies is determined. The inspected buildings are located
in the Brasília-DF region. The age of the buildings varies
between 17 and 43 years, with reinforced concrete structure
January to May, covering the summer and fall seasons.
The quantification of the building facade degradation is
performed by the application of the Degradation Measure‑
ment Method [21]. First the sample is scanned to obtain high
resolution photographic images of the facade. These images
are orthogonalized to define scale and to be able to quantify
area. The second inspection is done by a scan employing
quantitative infrared thermography. This allows to identify,
measure and define the degree of damage of each pathology.
Subsequent to these steps, a mapping is performed in which
the degraded areas in scale are presented.
In this method, the degraded area is measured by overlap‑
ping a 0.50 × 0.50 m mesh over the facade mapping sketch
(in scale), quantifying how many units are overlapped by the
extension of the pathology. Thus, the area of influence of
each pathology is defined. As an example, it has the crack,
which should not be counted only by the area of a line, but
by the number of area units in which it manifests itself. In
Fig. 3 is exemplified the mapping of pathologies in a sample
investigated.
2.2 Analysis of causes versus pathologies
The study of the possible causes of pathologies aims to
punctuate and quantify the importance of these pathologies
according to their causes. The probable causes analyzed are
classified into four main groups namely: design faults, sub‑
strate faults, construction faults and use/maintenance faults.
Table 2 details the different causes in each group.
The correlation matrix between causes and patholo‑
gies is obtained from the crossover of Tables 1 and 2. The

Table 1  Classification and denomination of the pathologies

Layer Pathologies Denomination

Rendering mortar Detachment De.M

Cracking Cr.M
Pulverulence Pu.M
Efflorescence Ef.M
Stain St.M
Paint cladding Detachment De.P
Cracking Cr.P
Bubble Db.P
Fig. 3  Mapping example of pathologies in a facade sample

13
 7  Page 4 of 10 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2020) 5:7

Table 2  Classification of causes of pathologies

C-A Design faults

 C-A1 Specification of materials (materials proportion, types of mortar)
 C-A2 Specification of bonding layer
 C-A3 Specification of layers ( thickness, function)
 C-A4 Specification of execution techniques (metal or polymer mesh to prevent cracking. fibers)
 C-A5 Joints (inadequacy or non-existence)
 C-A6 Water flow control (joints between facades and windows, border, zones of water concentration)
 C-A7 Masonry-structure connection (interface between masonry and structure)
C-B Substrate faults
 C-B1 Masonry cracks around windows and doors
 C-B2 Structural deformations in the masonry
 C-B3 Moisture
C-C Construction faults
 C-C1 Non-compliance with the time between steps
 C-C2 Logistics of production and execution of the mortar (mortars mixed on-site)
 C-C3 Logistics of production and execution of mortar (pré-mixed mortars)
 C-C4 Logistics of production and execution of mortar (industrialized mortars)
 C-C5 Service life for mortar application
 C-C6 Substrate preparation
 C-C7 Application in unfavorable environmental conditions
 C-C8 Difficulties of execution (corners and borders)
 C-C9 Inadequate thicknesses due to plumb errors
 C-C10 Premature finishing of the mortar
 C-C11 Inadequate or non-existent cure
C-D Use and maintenance faults
 C-D1 Adaptation and installation of elements not provided in the cladding (air conditioning equipment)
 C-D2 Adaptation and installation of elements not provided in the cladding (protective mash)
 C-D3 Adaptation and installation of elements not provided in the cladding (metal protective grids)
 C-D4 Failure or lack of cleaning facade
 C-D5 Joints and seals maintenance (windows and doors))
 C-D6 Inadequate painting maintenance
 C-D7 End of the paint service life

importance of the relation between cause and pathology ∑N

is assessed using indices to designate a possible corre‑
lation. The value of the correlation index is assigned: 2
for a strong relation, 1 for a possible relation and 0 when
there is no relation between causes and pathologies. Each
pathology is quantified by the correlation index for each
one of the 28 causes that are inserted in the four main
groups. For each pathology (matrix column), the average
of the correlation index is calculated for each group of
causes, since each group has a different number of causes.
The relevance of each pathology is measured by an
importance index related to the causes (I c), described
by the Eq. (1). This index evaluates the relevance of the
causes of each pathology, in such a way that, the greater
its value, the greater the relevance of these causes in the
degradation process
𝜇ci
Ic = i=1
(1)
𝜇ctot
where, Ic is the importance index related to the causes of a
pathology, N is the number of groups analyzed (design, sub‑
strate, execution, use and maintenance, in this case N = 4),
µci is the mean of the correlation indices for the causes of
a pathology in each group analyzed, and µctot is the is the
sum of all µci values for all pathologies (detachment, cracks,
pulverulence, efflorescence, stain, detachment in painted sur‑
face, cracks, bubble).

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2020) 5:7 Page 5 of 10  7
2.3 Performance loss analysis
In a similar way to the correlation matrix between prob‑
able causes and pathologies, another matrix is defined in
which the correlation of the pathologies with the loss of
performance of the building facade is analyzed. The patholo‑
gies are then classified according to their influence in the
performance decrease according to three criteria: structural,
watertightness, and aesthetics, where the same correlation
indices are used (2 for a strong relation, 1 for a possible rela‑
tion and 0 when there is no relation). For each pathology,
the sum of the correlation indices in the three performance
criteria is made. When doing this for all pathologies, one can
compare how much each pathology affects the performance
loss. The relative importance index of each pathology in the
facade loss of performance (Ip) is calculated by the Eq. (2)
∑N
pki
Ip = i=1
(2)
pk total
where, Ip is the relative importance index of a pathology i in
facade loss of performance, N is the number of pathologies
(in this case N = 8), pki is the index of loss of performance of
a pathology I (sum of the correlation indices for each pathol‑
ogy); pk total is the sum of the values of pki, considering all
the studied pathologies.
2.4 Analysis of the relative importance
of pathologies
Associating the importance of the causes and the influence
on the performance loss, a severity index (GI) is established
using the two defined indices (Ic and Id). To calculate the
GI, firstly, an Importance Indicator (I) is established for
Fig. 4  Distribution of the pathologies in the study samples
each pathology, determined by the multiplication of Ic and
Ip (Eq. 3)
I = Ic ⋅ Ip (3)
where I is the importance indicator, Ic is the importance
index related to the causes of a pathology, Ip is the rela‑
tive importance index of a pathology in facade loss of
performance.
The severity index GI is obtained by relating I of the
pathology under analysis to the highest value of I found, as
shown by the Eq. (4)
I
GI = (4)
Imax
́
where, GI is the severity index of a pathology, I is the impor‑
tance indicator of the pathology under analysis, Imáx is the
highest value of I found among all pathologies.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Distribution among the investigated
pathologies
The results of the distribution among pathologies found in
the studied sample is presented in Fig. 4. It is observed that
the predominant pathology in the samples is the crack (52%),
followed by the stains (27%) and the painting pathologies
(cracking, detachment and bubble representing 7%, 6% and
5%, respectively), totaling 18%. The sum of other patholo‑
gies (detachment, pulverulence and efflorescence) represents
3% of the total.
13
 7  Page 6 of 10 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2020) 5:7

This pathologies distribution is close to result found by
Santos et al. [20], who measured the degradation of three
buildings with mortar rendering system and paint finish in
the region of Brasília-Brazil. The higher incidence of crack
occurrence may occur due to external stresses, where each
layer of the cladding undergoes different movements, caus‑
ing different stresses at each layer of the system [22]. If
the materials do not exhibit characteristics of strength and
deformability suitable to absorb these solicitations, cracking
may occur. The stains are often associated with the pres‑
ence of moisture and may contribute to the increase of other
anomalies and accelerate the degradation process. The paint‑
ing pathologies can be associated also the stains [23]. In this
case it can be affirmed the pathologies that affect the surface
of the building facades, mainly in relation to aesthetics and
moisture correspond to 45% of the total pathologies. Another
important analysis regards to the detachment. In rendered
facades, there are few cases of detachment when compared
to ceramic tiling cladding systems, where detachment is the
most frequent. Thus, although the building facades have the
same function and performance requirements, the definition
of the composition of the rendering system differentiates the
incidence of the pathologies and the mechanism by which
occur [13].
3.2 Correlation between probable causes/
pathologies
From the pathologies identified, and the main causes attrib‑
uted to them (Table 2), it is possible to compose the cor‑
relation matrix probable causes/pathologies (Table 3). Cor‑
relation indices 2 (strong relation), 1 (possible relation), and
0 (no relation) are used. This definition is obtained from a
meticulous analysis of the association of different causes
in the mechanisms of pathologies. Obviously, the pathol‑
ogy with the greatest number of causes is more relevant and
important. Thus it is possible to quantify this relevance by
obtaining relative values for all pathologies.

Table 3  Correlation matrix Causes Pathologies

between probable causes/
pathologies De.M Cr.M Pu.M Ef.M St.M De.P Cr.P Db.P

C-A1 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 1
C-A2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-A3 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
C-A4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-A5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-A6 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1
C-A7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-B1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-B2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-B3 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 2
C-C1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2
C-C2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-C3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-C4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-C5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-C6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-C7 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
C-C8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-C9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-C10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-C11 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
C-D1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
C-D2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
C-D3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
C-D4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
C-D5 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 1
C-D6 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1
C-D7 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2

Caption: 2 (strong correlation); 1 (possible correlation); 0 (low or null correlation)

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2020) 5:7 Page 7 of 10  7

Table 4  Steps to obtain the Steps Pathologies

index ­Ic for pathologies
De.M Cr.M Pu.M Ef.M St.M De.P Cr.P Db.P

µci
 CA 1.29 1.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.29 0.00 0.29
 CB 0.67 1.33 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.67
 CC 1.18 1.45 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18
 CD 0.00 0.14 0.57 1.00 1.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
Σµci 3.13 4.36 1.94 2.10 2.67 1.37 0.75 1.71
µctot 18.03
Ic 0.17 0.24 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.09

The pathologies and its respective indices from Table 3
can be better analyzed using the index Ic (Eq. 1). In Table 4,
the steps are given to obtain Ic and their respective values
for each pathology.
It is observed that the crack presents a higher result of
Ic (0.24), emphasizing the relevance of this pathology to
probable causes, followed by detachment (0.17), stains
(0.15), efflorescence (0.12) and pulverulence (0.11). For
painting cladding pathologies, on the other hand, the occur‑
rence of bubble appear with a major importance (0.09), fol‑
lowed by the detachment (0.08) and cracking (0.04). These
results highlight the relevance of each pathology taking into
account its possible causes.
3.3 Correlation between pathologies/loss
of performance
In the analysis of pathologies influence on the loss of perfor‑
mance, the correlation matrix is presented in Table 5. The
indicator Ip calculated by the Eq. (2) is also presented.
Regarding the building facade pathologies, it is observed
that the detachment presents a strong correlation in all
aspects of loss of performance, reflecting its greater relative
importance (0.22), and this is due to the cladding failing to
fulfill all its functions [24, 25]. In this analysis, the crack is
no longer of the greatest importance, in contrast to what is
evidenced by importance index related to the causes of a
pathology (Ic), being the second indicator (0.19). This occurs
because its importance index in terms of aesthetic is small.
The pulverulence also shows an importance index of 0.19,
however in this case its structural loss of performance is not
strong since, despite the disintegration of cladding parts, it
still provides protection to the system. Follow on, the efflo‑
rescence (0.11) shows a null correlation in structural loss of
performance and possible correlation in the watertightness,
presenting strong correlation in the aesthetics, since this
pathology is associated to the fault in this item. Finally, the
stains (0.07) do not show any loss of performance regarding
structure and watertightness, but its relation with the aesthet‑
ics of building facades is strong.
With regard to the paint cladding pathologies, it can be
seen that these do not directly cause the structural loss of
performance of the system, but it cause superficial damages
with greater effects in aesthetics of the building facades.
In general, the relative importance of these pathologies in
loss of performance is also low, showing the detachment in
painted surface with higher value (0.11), affecting mainly
the aesthetics of the building. The cracking of the paint film
presents Ip equal to 0.07, which results from its correlation
with watertightness and aesthetics, but both situations do

Table 5  Correlation matrix Pathologies Loss of performance Σpki pk total Ip

of the pathologies regarding
the performance drop and the Structural Watertight‑ Aesthetic
calculation of the ­Id index ness

De.M 2 2 2 6 27 0.22
Cr.M 2 2 1 5 0.19
Pu.M 1 2 2 5 0.19
Ef.M 0 1 2 3 0.11
St.M 0 0 2 2 0.07
De.P 0 1 2 3 0.11
Cr.P 0 1 1 2 0.07
Db.P 0 0 1 1 0.04

Caption: 2 (Strong correlation); 1 (Possible correlation); 0 (Low or null correlation)

13
 7  Page 8 of 10 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation
not present strong correlations. Lastly, the bubble formation,
with an indicator of 0.04, presents correlation associated
with aesthetics only.
3.4 Relative importance of pathologies
The results of the Ic and Ip indices can be observed com‑
paratively in Fig. 5. It is important to emphasize that the
behavior associated with the importance of causes and also
those associated with the performance loss, present a similar
general tendency, but they differ in the particular analysis
of each pathology. For cracking (Cr.M) and detachment
(De.M), the importance of causes (Ic) is very significant.
When the influence on the performance (Ip) is observed,
the detachment (De.M) is more relevant than the cracking
(Cr.M). In any case, both pathologies are the most critical
in relation to the others. For pulverulence (Pu.M), efflores‑
cence (Ef.M) and stain (St.M) an intermediate behavior is
observed. For the Ic the stains (St.M) have the highest value,
while for the Id the pulverulence (Pu.M) is higher. For the
pathologies of paint it is identified that for Ic the bubbles
(Db.P) and the detachment (DE.P) are larger than the crack‑
ing (Cr.P). In relation to Ip, the detachment (De.P) is far
superior to the others.
The Severity Index (GI), proposed by the Eqs. (3) and (4),
evaluating the relative weight of pathologies causes and the
influence on loss of performance of the system is calculated
and presented in Table 6.
Fig. 5  Comparison of the indexes of importance of the pathologies
related to the causes (Ic) and the loss of performance (Ip)
Table 6  Severity Index (GI) of Indices Pathologies
the investigated pathologies
De.M Cr.M
Ic (Table 4) 0.174 0.242
Ip (Table 5) 0.222 0.185
Ic·Ip 0.039 0.045
GI 0.86 1.00
13
(2020) 5:7
The relation observed in Table 6 is treated linearly. Since
reference is made with the GI value of 1.00 for the most rel‑
evant pathology (crack), the other pathologies have a lower
importance corresponding to the GI value of each pathology
(from highest to lowest: Cr.M, De.M, Pu.M, Ef.M, St.M,
De.P, Db.P, Cr.P).
Regarding the survey of the incidence of pathologies
presented in Fig. 1, it can be observed that crack is the
pathology with the highest incidence (52%) and is the most
grave (GI of 1.00). Thus, special attention should be given
to design, construction and material definition, in order to
achieve the performance and durability objectives of clad‑
ding systems of building mortar facades.
The detachment, which is the second most serious pathol‑
ogy (GI of 0.86) has a very low incidence (2%). It is noted
that detachment is not a frequent pathology, although when
it occurs it has high gravity. Usually when there are cases
of detachment with significant incidence, there is a case of
serious faults in execution or materials.
Pathologies most related to aesthetics (stains and paints),
when combined, present an incidence of 45% (Fig. 4). When
the GI of these pathologies is combined, it has a value of
0.58, only behind the cracks and detachment (Table 6). It
is evident the importance of this pathology, which although
superficial, has significant incidence and gravity. It should
also be noted that the service life of painting cladding sys‑
tems is relatively much shorter than the service life of the
building facade, which leads to a higher frequency of main‑
tenance. It can also be deduced that the severity related to
stains and paint pathologies is related to several cases in
which the paint system has reached its service life limit and
its replacement is necessary. The high incidence of these
cases shows that in the studied sample this condition is
significant.
4 Conclusions
Through the correlation between the pathologies and its
probable causes, as well as the loss of performance of the
system, it was possible to establish a Severity Index (GI)
able to punctuating the importance of the pathologies in the
mortar rendering system.
Pu.M Ef.M St.M De.P Cr.P Db.P
0.108 0.116 0.148 0.076 0.042 0.095
0.185 0.111 0.074 0.111 0.074 0.037
0.020 0.013 0.011 0.008 0.003 0.004
0.45 0.29 0.24 0.19 0.07 0.08
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2020) 5:7 Page 9 of 10  7
The most incident pathologies observed are cracks and
stains, which together account for 79% of the pathologi‑
cal occurrences. While the detachment, pulverulence and
efflorescence present quite low occurrences, amounting
to about 3%. The pathologies involved in the paint film
account for 18% of the occurrences, distributed in cracking
(7%), detachment (6%) and bubble (5%). These values are
obviously restrict to the sample investigated, but provide
subsidies for analysis of the pathologies importance.
With respect to causes that can lead to the development
of pathologies, they are grouped according to the stages
of occurrence (design faults, substrate faults, construction
faults and use and maintenance faults). A strong correla‑
tion of these causes with the cracks, the detachment and
the stain is observed. This trend is also confirmed when
the index Ic (importance index related to the causes of a
pathology) is observed, in which these three pathologies
presented values between 0.15 and 0.20, while the others
remained close to or below 0.10. It can be affirmed that,
in this case, the quantified causes are determinant for the
occurrence of the pathologies.
In the analysis of loss of performance, correlating the
pathologies and their consequences in the structure, water‑
tightness and aesthetics of the cladding, it was pointed out
by the Ip (relative importance index of pathology in loss
of performance) that the detachment, the fissure and the
pulverulence indicate to be most damaging to cladding
performance. Stains, which in the analysis of the causes
were among the most important, did not show great rel‑
evance, being close to the other pathologies, with Ip near
or below 0.10.
From the results, it can be observed that the cracks pre‑
sent both a higher occurrence incidence (52%) and a higher
GI (1.00), and should be analyzed with caution, especially
in the design and construction stages. These should prior‑
itize techniques and materials to combat or minimize the
cases of this pathology in order to obtain facades that meet
the requirements of durability and service life of buildings,
established by Standard NBR 15575: 2013. The detach‑
ment, the pulverulence and the efflorescence, in spite of
presenting intermediate values of GI, present incidences
of low occurrence, and may not represent a great relevance
in the degradation of the building facades.
Acknowledgements  This study was financed in part by the Coorde‑
nação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil
(CAPES)—Finance Code 001. We are grateful to the research group
of Performance and Degradation of the Postgraduate Program in Struc‑
tural Engineering and Construction of the University of Brasília.
Compliance with ethical standards  measurement. In: Proceedings of XI Brazilian symposium on
Conflict of interest  On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Gaspar PL (2017) End of the service life of ceramic cladding:
lessons from the girasol building in Madrid. J Perform Constr
Facil 31(2):401–608
2. Madureira S, Flores-Collen I, De Brito J, Pereira C (2017)
Maintenance planning of facades in current buildings. Constr
Build Mater 147:790–802
3. Silva A, Gaspar PL, De Brito J (2016) Methodologies for ser‑
vice life prediction of buildings: with a focus on facade clad‑
dings, 1st edn. Springer, Switzerland
4. Salomão MC, Bauer E, Kazmierczak C (2018) Drying param‑
eters of rendering mortars. Ambiente Construído 18(7–19):2018
5. Cultrone G, Sebastian E, Huertas MO (2007) Durability of
masonry systems: a laboratory study. Constr Build Mater
21:40–51
6. Bordalo R, De Brito J, Gaspar PL, Silva A (2011) Service life
prediction modelling of adhesive ceramic tiling systems. Build
Res Inf 39(1):66–78
7. Carretero-Ayuso MJ, Moreno-Cansado A, de Brito J (2016)
Study of the prevalence of critical and conflict-prone points in
facades. Eng Fail Anal 75:15–25
8. Nascimento MLN, Bauer E, Souza JS, Zanoni V (2016) Wind-
driven rain incidence parameters obtained by hygrothermal
simulation. J Build Pathol Rehabilit 1(5):1–7
9. Gaspar PL, De Brito J (2008) Quantifying environmental effects
on cement-rendered facades: a comparison between different
degradation indicators. Build Environ 43(11):1818–1828
10. Barreira E, De Freitas V (2016) Evaluation of surface humidifi‑
cation of exterior insulation and finish systems. J Perform Con‑
str Facil 30(2):40–50
11. Madrigal LO, Lanzarote BS, Bretones JMF (2015) Proposed
method of estimating the service life of building envelopes. J
Constr 14(1):60–88
12. Neto N, De Brito J (2011) Inspection and defect diagnosis sys‑
tem for natural stone cladding. J Mater Civ Eng 23:1433–1443
13. Bauer E, Castro E (2013) Service life of facade renderings—
evaluation of pathological manifestations on facades of build‑
ings in Brasília. In: Proceedings of X Brazilian symposium on
mortars technology, Fortaleza, Brazil
14. Martinez SE, Sánchez VM, Gonçález JB (2014) Durability and
accelerated aging tests in construction products. Mater Technol
89(2):176–182
15. Silvestre JD, Brito De (2011) Ceramic tiling inspection system.
Constr Build Mater 25(4):1560–1571
16. NBR 15575-1 (2013) ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NOR‑
MAS TÉCNICAS: Edificações Habitacionais – Desempenho.
Parte 1: Requisitos gerais. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
17. CIB (2013) "Building pathology: a state-of-the art report" CIB
report Publication 393. International Council for Research and
Innovation in Building and Construction, Delft
18. Flores-Colen ID, Brito J, De Freitas V (2008) Stains in facades’
rendering—diagnosis and maintenance techniques’ classifica‑
tion. Constr Build Mater 22(3):211–221
19. Gaspar M, Casals MG (2016) Classifying system for facades
and anomalies. J Perform Constr Facil 30(1):1–10
20. Santos DG, Macedo MSH, Souza JS, Bauer E (2018) Measure‑
ment and distribution of pathologies in mortar degradation. In:
Proceedings of 6th conference on pathology and rehabilitation
of buildings PATORREB 2018, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
21. Bauer E, Silva MNB, Zanoni VAG (2015) Facade degradation
mortars technology, Porto Alegre, Brazil
13
 7  Page 10 of 10 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2020) 5:7

22. Pires R, De Brito J, Amaro B (2015) Inspection, diagnosis and building facades: survey of 30 experts. J Perform Constr Facil
rehabilitation system of painted rendered facades. J Perform Con‑ 24(4):337–344
str Facil 29(2):1–9
23. Garrido MA, Paulo PV, Branco FA (2012) Service life prediction Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
of facade paint claddings in old buildings. Constr Build Mater jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
29:394–402
24. Flores-Colen I, De Brito J, De Freitas V (2006) Expedient in situ
test techniques for predictive maintenance of rendered facades. J
Build Apprais 2:142–156
25. Flores-Colen I, De Brito J, De Freitas V (2010) Discus‑
sion of criteria for prioritization of predictive maintenance of

13