Int J Civ Eng
DOI 10.1007/s40999-017-0259-7
RESEARCH PAPER
General Survey of Construction-Related Complaints in Recent
Buildings in Spain
Manuel J. Carretero‑Ayuso1 · Alberto Moreno‑Cansado2 · Jorge de Brito3
Received: 12 July 2016 / Revised: 14 August 2017 / Accepted: 23 September 2017
© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017
Abstract  In Spain the construction sector and specifically
the building area, is one of the sectors with the greatest num-
ber of complaints coming from the users and clients. Some-
times these complaints are important enough to be taken
to court. This study, the first of its kind in the literature,
is based on the final rulings of these court cases (involv-
ing 1166 buildings) to analyze quantitatively and qualita-
tively the anomalies, their causes and elements in which
they occur. The results show the construction zones with
the greatest damage and the most frequent anomalies, which
will facilitate all intervening actors in the building process
access to the knowledge about the anomalies-prone zones
and their future prevention. The most frequent pathological
processes, their climatic zone distribution and a prediction
tool in function of population are also included in the pres-
entation. Some design and execution procedures are pro-
posed to solve the problems detected.
Keywords  Complaints · Pathology · Spain · Damage
diagnosis · Statistical analysis · Current buildings
* Jorge de Brito
jb@civil.ist.utl.pt
Manuel J. Carretero‑Ayuso
carreteroayuso@yahoo.es
Alberto Moreno‑Cansado
albertmoreno57@hotmail.com
1
Musaat Foundation and University of Extremadura, Avenida
de las Letras s/n, 10004 Cáceres, Spain
2
Musaat Foundation and University of Extremadura, Avenida
de Elvas s/n, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
3
CERIS/ICIST, Instituto Superior Técnico-Universidade de
Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049‑001 Lisbon, Portugal
 
1 Introduction
The great majority of the most frequent failures in mod-
ern construction are not spectacular collapses; they take the
shape of relatively thin cracks, water infiltrations or other
maintenance issues, which are normal events [1]. Therefore,
they do not usually have an important impact on the news
[2]. All of them, however, can be considered as failures since
they lead to complaints and compensations.
The need to know the source of these problems is thus
easily understood, as an essential way of preventing similar
situations from occurring in the future, thus acting correctly
based on the information obtained [3]. This idea is not new
and the concept of learning from construction failures has
been used for years [4], as a way of understanding the vari-
ants of human error in them. In this way, the prevention of
failures in buildings should be a modest but worthy aspira-
tion that can make a significant contribution to sustainabil-
ity, as well as to safety [5].
A decrease in failures and deficiencies will make the
buildings’ service life longer and of a better quality [6], lead-
ing to an increasing importance of the management of the
constructed assets linked to the social relevance and costs
of the corresponding operations [7, 8]. This, together with a
suitable management of the buildings maintenance, will not
only allow in the near future reducing the expenses due to
low quality, but also optimizing the resources and promoting
a sustainable development [9]. The improvement in this area
depends to a great extent on the availability of information
[10]. In fact, to optimize the efforts made to preserve real
estate it is necessary to know beforehand which problems
exist.
The majority of latent faults in buildings appear only
when the buildings are lived in, and to accede to them once
they are occupied to acquire information about the faults
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

is difficult, unless the dwellers complain to the authorities
or submit law suits [11], as in the cases described here.
In this aspect, for some authors [12] a ‘defect’ could be
defined as a deterioration of the performance of a product,
and therefore, it can lead to a failure.
Concerning the law suits mentioned above, the com-
plaints made by users or owners related to damages or
building faults, are increasingly frequent. With the
improvement of societies’ standard of living, the level of
requirements increases [13], so that requests for technical
reports and expert reports, related to the above mentioned
faults are becoming more frequent [14]. For this reason,
it is argued that there is a need for a centralized database
with types of faults, where designers can find solutions or
check the troublesome areas before finishing their design
[11].
Hence, based on the arguments stated above and to
divulge data on the construction sector status in Spain,
the authors prepared an extensive national investigation
on building pathology, promoted and supervised by the
MUSAAT Foundation. It is commonly known that, when
something fails, there is an investigation to find out why. But
apart from the legal and professional need to determine the
reason, the motivation to learn the lesson that should allow
avoiding similar situations also exists [15]. This concept can
summarize the main motivation for this paper on forensic
engineering [16].
The source of information used in this investigation was
the dossiers of events involving professional civil liability
of surveyors and technical architects throughout Spain [17],
as well as the data and documents provided by the technical
legal services firm Serjuteca, corresponding to the dossiers.
This information includes the general data from open legal
actions, and especially that from the technical expert reports,
as well as from trials in the courts of justice.
The investigation is based and acts on the dossiers that
contain a legal claim interposed between 2008 and 2010 and
with a final decision until 2011 [18]. The most important
information collected from them refers to the existence of
anomalies in the buildings affected, as well as their causes.
Due to the scope of the study, the complexity of the collec-
tion of information, the reading of many thousands of pages
and the systemization of the process, 3 years of work have
been necessary to be able to process this volume of informa-
tion and obtain the results presented.
A total of 1166 dossiers were studied, and the information
collected was standardized and systematized in a data sheet
designed for this purpose. Normally, each dossier comprised
various damages or anomalies, and their number reached a
grand total of 5666.
No study with these characteristics has been found in
Spain, nor in other European countries, both in terms of the
number of cases studied and the methodology adopted [19].
13
Int J Civ Eng
To produce a study of the type presented here, the major
challenge consisted on having access to the sources of infor-
mation and collecting it, a difficulty that has been solved by
the positive response of all participants. After that, it was
necessary to analyse thoroughly the expert and pathology
reports of each of the court processes.
Using all the available and analyzed information, a
series of objectives were set, from which the following are
highlighted:
• To obtain real data that identify the most frequent anoma-
lies or damages in buildings;
• To determine the reasons of the anomalies and reach con-
clusions on their incidence rate;
• To determine the most recurring causes;
• To quantify and classify the damages in terms of zone
affected.
The analysis presented here is, from the point of view of
the information source, novel in international terms. It is
developed as a case study presenting an innovative way of
collecting data resulting from court sentences and a techni-
cal evaluation.
2 Methodology
Four descriptive parameters were created that quantified
and characterized the anomalies found in the dossiers. The
investigation has been based on these four concepts, inter-
related with others such as the type of building. These four
parameters were:
• Zone Location in the building where the anomaly origi-
nated (even if the damages caused can be seen in another
zone of the building);
• Element Constructive unit where the failure takes place;
• Damage Anomaly or symptomatic fault that indicates a
depreciation or constructive decay;
• Cause Agent, active or passive, which acts as the origin
of the pathological process and that ends as one or vari-
ous damages.
Consequently, the designation ‘anomaly’ will be used to
quantify (i.e., determine the frequency of) a type of damage
occurring in an element and/or zone.
The importance of the information presented here,
besides the absence of analogous studies as referred above,
lies in the fact that it provides a global vision of the whole
sector of architecture and buildings in Spain, by X-raying
a wide scope of elements and zones. This is significant
because it is necessary to assume the complexity of the
investigation and the innovation in the construction sector
Int J Civ Eng
[20]. To characterize the main parameters that specify the
fundamental characteristics of the pathological process, the
authors have used the data fields that [21] used in their study.
2.1 Classification of the Zones and Their Elements
Table 1 presents the classification of the zones where the
damage originates, totalling 11, identified with the prefix
‘Z-’. Similarly, the various constructive units or integral ele-
ments within each zone have been indicated, totalling 59,
identified with the prefix ‘e’.
2.2 Classification of Types of Damage
As stated previously, the 5666 pathologies that have been
the object of study and classification in 46 different types of
damage, according to Table 2, are identified with the prefix
‘D’. The types of damage are listed by decreasing frequency
of occurrence.
To arrive at this list of types of damage, a detailed reading
and the collection of each of them from the court reports has
been necessary, according to the description of the techni-
cal personnel (e.g., architects, engineers) in their inspection
sheets.
In spite of having analysed every zone and element that
compose a building, and of their different nature, and of
the involvement of different contractors, designers and pro-
moters, there were fewer types of damages than expected
initially.
2.3 Classification of the Types of Damage According
to the Zone
Each of the 5666 anomalies reported has been classified
according to the following guidelines:
• Zone—element of the building where the damage was
originated;
• Type of cause of the damage.
The classification used in this investigation implies that
the same type of damage can be associated with different
zones and, therefore, different elements. Therefore, the anal-
yses regarding the types of damage must take into account
the zone and, in each case, the element where it occurred.
To easily visualize and understand this relationship, in
Fig. 1, for the 11 zones, the different types of damage that
have been detected in each one have been listed according to
the code from Table 2. The zones with the greatest number
of types of damage are Z-02 (structure) and Z-04 (envelope
and partition elements).
2.4 Classification of the Causes
The types of causes that occurred can be associated with
different types of damage and, therefore, the analysis of the
causes takes into account the relationship between type of
damage and zone and, in each case, the data from the ele-
ment where it occurred. As the technical information col-
lected from the 1166 dossiers was studied and analyzed,
the following classification was deducted as the causes
were typified and grouped. The causes of the damages were
classified, leading to 92 types of causes as seen in Table 3.
The types of causes are listed by decreasing frequency of
occurrence. The main reason for the great majority of the
anomalies was human errors and not materials deficiencies
or unexpected mistakes. In this respect, there are authors
[15] that group human errors in the following types: care-
lessness/negligence, insufficient knowledge, underestimation
of influences and forgetfulness.
2.5 Data Statistics and Parameters Analysed
The statistics concerning the parameters used to carry out
this study are summarized in Table 4.
Once the final decisions concerning all the lawsuits until
2011 were made, the process of analyzing the sources of
information, compilation, interpretation, reading, classifica-
tion, homogenization, statistical analysis and drawing results
began. This process of investigation started in 2012 and it
lasted for the following 3 years.
3 Results
3.1 Results by Type of Damages
The 5666 anomalies, object of this study, have been organ-
ized in 46 groups (types of damages). Figure 2 details these
types of damage, arranged by number of anomalies that have
been computed in each type and their percentage of the total.
Figure 2 shows that the first type of damage D01 (Infiltra-
tion humidity) represents by itself slightly more than a fifth
of the total of the anomalies. The two most repetitive types
of damages (D01 + D02, infiltration humidity and finishes
defects), add up to more than 1/3 of the total. Furthermore,
the types of damage with 50 or more repetitions (the first 23
types) concentrate more than 90% of the anomalies, object
of complaints in the dossiers.
On the other hand, if the anomalies are grouped by types,
meaningful information can be obtained. The sum of the
percentage of the five humidity-related types of damage of
the total (D01 + D03 + D04 + D06 + D13) is 42.25% and the
sum of the percentage of the 11 cracking-related types of
damage (D07 + D08 + D12 + D14 + D17 + D19 + D20 + D21 
13
 Int J Civ Eng

Table 1  Classification of the Code Cl. Zone Code Element

elements by zone e01 Walls
e02 Slabs
e03 Single footings
Z-01 Foundations e04 Strip footings
e05 Slab on grade
e06 Retaining walls
e07 Piles and micro-piles
e08 One-way slabs
e09 Columns
e10 Structural slabs
e11 Load-bearing walls
Z-02 Structure e12 Beams
e13 Insulating floor structures
e14 Waffle slabs
e15 Trusses
e16 Hollow core slabs
e17 Flat roofs
Z-03 Roofs
e18 Pitched roofs
e19 Cladded facades
e20 Face brick facades
e21 Partition walls
Z-04 Envelope and partition elements e22 External windowsill
e23 Exterior wainscot
e24 Cornices
e25 Ventilated facades
e26 Windows
Z-05 External carpentry e27 Doors
e28 Bay windows
e29 Vertical partitions
Z-06 Acoustic insulation e30 Technical rooms
e31 Horizontal partitions
e32 Tiling and plates
e33 Suspended ceilings
Z-07 Indoor cladding
e34 Gypsum plasters
e35 Cement renders
Z-08 Finishes e36 Multiple elements
e37 Indoor flooring
Z-09 Floorings
e38 Outdoor flooring
e39 Sanitation pipes
e40 Exposed sanitation pipes
e41 Forced ventilation systems
e42 Plumbing
e43 Heating ducts
e44 Electricity cabling
e45 Swimming pools
Z-10 Facilities e46 Air conditioning units
e47 Telecommunication cabling
e48 Firefighting equipment
e49 Sanitation services/drainage
e50 Elevators
e51 Gas ducts
e52 Fire alarm system
e53 Solar energy installation
e54 Perimeter sidewalks
e55 Fences
e56 Gardening works
Z-11 Landscaping
e57 Swimming pool area
e58 Sport grounds
e59 Metallic fencing

13
Int J Civ Eng

Table 2  Classification of the Classification of the types of damage Code Classification of the types of damage Code
types of damage
Infiltration humidity D01 Structural damage D24
Finishes defects D02 Jamming or malfunctioning of the installation D25
Humidity/runoffs in finished elements D03 Cracks in gable-walls and platbands D26
Localized infiltrations D04 Efflorescence D27
Malfunctions D05 Weathering D28
Condensation humidity D06 Corrosion D29
Cracks in walls or floorings D07 Cracks and detachment in corners D30
Cracks of the element itself D08 Absence or deficient placement of elements D31
Bulging and/or uplifting of floor cladding D09 Breakage of parts D32
Fallen and chipped parts D10 Loss of verticality D33
Others/no data D11 Planimetry D34
Vertical cracks D12 Oriented cracks D35
Rising damp D13 Joint between parts D36
Cracks in finished elements D14 Slippery surfaces D37
Settlements D15 Insufficient thermal insulation D38
Excessive noise D16 Elements out-of-place D39
Cracks in the outer surface of the envelope D17 Detached and/or sagging elements D40
Water and wind entry D18 Detached floorings and wall claddings D41
Cracks and/or detachments in floor surfaces D19 Buckling D42
Horizontal cracks D20 Biological attack D43
Cracks in parapets D21 Loss of section D44
Dirt, colour changes or spots D22 Exposed joint in wall surfaces D45
Unpleasant smells/ insufficient ventilation D23 Detached copings D46

Fig. 1  List of types of damage Z-01 D01 D07 D08 D11 D33 D39
per zone Z-02 D01 D06 D07 D08 D11 D14 D20 D24 D29 D41 D42 D43 D44
Z-03 D01 D04 D06 D11 D21 D26 D46
Z-04 D01 D06 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 D17 D19 D20 D27 D30 D32 D34 D38
Z-05 D01 D06 D11 D18 D43
Z-06 D16
Z-07 D03 D10 D11 D14 D35 D40 D45
Z-08 D02
Z-09 D09 D11 D22 D28 D36 D37
Z-10 D03 D05 D11 D14 D23 D25 D31
Z-11 D01 D08 D11 D15 D27 D29

+ D26 + D30 + D35) is 18.29%. These values identify a trend
of systematic deficiencies that the technical personnel must
prioritize to minimize damage.
3.2 Result by Number of Anomalies Per Zone
Table 5 shows the number of anomalies per zone and the
corresponding percentage of the total. The zone where the
major number of anomalies takes place is Z-04, with more
than a fifth of the total. It is significant that the most frequent
five zones (Z-04 + Z-10 + Z-03 + Z-08 + Z-01) concentrate
more than 70% of the damages object of a complaint in the
dossiers under study.
It is not easy or direct to compare these results with
those of other studies, as each one has its own peculiar
aspects and approach. In the case of [2], the assignment of
failures is similar to the one made here, with respect to its
two elements with more anomalies: ‘external walls’ with
20% of the cases and ‘roofs’ with 19%. These values are
very close to those of our study. These two zones are also
part of those that require more attention within preventive
maintenance, given their exposure to external elements
[9].

13
 Int J Civ Eng

Table 3  Classification of the types of causes

Types of causes Code Types of causes Code

Poor workmanship and finishing on site 01C Inadequate constructive solution/material 47C
Absence/deficiency of sealing 02C Defective connection between masonry elements 48C
Installation damage 03C Stress concentration 49C
Others 04C Poor compaction 50C
Absence of/poor waterproofing elements 05C Deficient support in floors or lintels 51C
Absence of/poor construction joints 06C Deficient finishing of columns 52C
Absence of/inadequate thermal isolation 07C Ground characteristics 53C
Absence/inadequate positioning of waterproofing membranes 08C Deficient treatment of metal elements 54C
Structural deformability 09C Rising damp from the ground (earth-bearing walls) 55C
Omission of/in an installation 10C Absence of/deficient curing/vibration 56C
Unknown reason/no diagnosis 11C Moisture state 57C
Joints or tail-ends inadequately placed or damaged 12C Deficient verticality 58C
Characteristics of the material or its finishing 13C Failure of the fastening system to the floor 59C
Lack of adherence 14C Absence/deficiency of drip 60C
Expansion movements 15C Absence of joint between elements 61C
Differential settlements 16C Absence/deficiency of ventilation 62C
Thermal bridges 17C Anomaly in sand layer 63C
Absence of/deficiency of gutters 18C Poor steel reinforcement cover 64C
Poor detailing of tail-ends in drains and grids 19C Poor timber treatment 65C
Deficient ground compaction 20C Deficient landfilling behind load-bearing walls 66C
Inadequate slope of cladding element 21C Deficient span: height ratio 67C
Absence/inadequate positioning of roof tiles 22C Insufficient depth of the sanitation network 68C
Deficient connection of brick wall with other elements 23C Absence of/inadequate ventilation of the attic space under 69C
the roof
Absence/deficient execution of singularities 24C Deficient formwork 70C
Absence of tight joints 25C Self-supporting characteristics 71C
Deficient tail-ends with vertical surfaces 26C Inadequate humidification of the substrate 72C
Absence of rising damp barrier 27C Faults of finishing or tail-ending 73C
Absence/faulty placement of acoustic insulation 28C Overly late application of gypsum plaster 74C
Deficient quality of cement renders 29C Humidity influence 75C
Inadequate anchorage or fastening system 30C Deficient evacuation of water in air-box of cavity wall 76C
Absence of/poor drainage 31C Plastic shrinkage 77C
Absence of tiling over façade structural elements 32C Deficient downspouts 78C
Deficient finishing of the lateral faces of slabs 33C Absence of ventilation in air-box of cavity wall 79C
Inadequate or deficient material 34C Expansive clays 80C
Inadequate slope 35C Defective repair of grooves 81C
Wrong sealing-union between tiling and sanitary element 36C Inadequate/inadequately supported lintels 82C
Absence of/deficient joints between floor claddings 37C Scouring and erosion of fines 83C
Incorrect levelling/slope 38C High groundwater level 84C
Faulty fastening to the building 39C Small thickness of the coating layer 85C
Anomaly of the levelling mortar 40C Wrong concrete composition 86C
Fluctuation of the groundwater level 41C Unpredicted ground characteristics 87C
Deficient reinforcement 42C Fastenings corrosion 88C
Salient elements from the facade 43C Premature removal of formwork 89C
Punching of the waterproofing membrane 44C Absence/ deficiency of adherence to the substrate 90C
Faulty carpentry elements 45C Aluminium cement-related defects 91C
Direct contact with the ground 46C Foundation in embankment 92C

13
Int J Civ Eng
Table 4  Studied data statistics Parameter
Number of years of the study
Percentage of final decisions
Number of dossiers examined
Number of anomalies reported
Number of zones affected
Number of building elements
Number of types of damage
Number of types of causes
Percentage of complaints analysed
3.3 Results by Number of Damages Per Type
of Element
Figure 3 provides information on the constructive ele-
ments contemplated in this study and the number of
anomalies affecting them. There are 11 element types
with a percentage of anomalies higher than 3%, 11 oth-
ers with between 1 and 3%, and the remaining ones with
less than 1%.
The element types in the 2nd (cladded facades), 3rd
(flat roofs), 5th (face brick facades), 6th (pitched roofs)
and 7th (windows) position in the most damaged rank-
ing belong to Z-04 (envelope and partition elements) and
Z-03 (roofs), which are two of the three zones where more
constructive deficiencies occur, which has a direct rela-
tion with the two most recurring damages: humidity and
cracking. The element in the 4th position (walls, with 364
anomalies) belongs to the foundations zone, also because
of humidity-related problems.
The element ranked first (with 681 pathologies) is
‘multiple elements’. This element is related with the type
of damage finishes defects’ comprising several damages
of the finishes, generally related to poor workmanship in
the execution of several elements and difficult to group
under a more precise name. This situation results from
the claimants, having decided to persecute, including in
their demands various small additional deficiencies to be
corrected, e.g., a malfunctioning window blind, unevenly
applied paint on a wall section, etc.
Except for ‘multiple elements’, which are a miscellany
of situations, the constructive element with the highest
number of cases (604 anomalies) is ‘cladded facades’, as
found before in similar studies [22–26]. The second one
of this zone (Z-04) is ‘face brick facades’ (284 anoma-
lies), which functions as a warning. Before the survey,
the zone where more anomalies were expected was Z-03
(roofs), instead of Z-04.
Value Comments
3 2008, 2009, 2010
100% All existing according to the courts’ ruling
1166 Belonging to the data obtained from Musaat and Serjuteca
5666 In each of the complaints there were several anomalies
11 As listed in Table 1
59 As listed in Table 1
46 Classified according to Table 2
92 As listed in Table 3
100% All the lawsuits in this period in Spain were studied
3.4 Results by Type of Cause
In Fig. 4 the types of cause are ranked according to the
number of damages (anomalies) associated with them. A
red rectangle on the right indicates the percentage range of
each one.
The number of times that a type of cause is related to a
type of damage is 61, which means an average frequency
of 1.08% (61/5666). Therefore, there are 31 types of causes
over the average, which are related to 81.38% of the anoma-
lies. It is highlighted that 50% of the studied anomalies have
been caused by one of the first 12 types of cause.
As in the analysis of the anomalies per type of element,
Fig.  4 shows a cause that clearly stands out (01C: poor
workmanship and finishing on site), which is exactly the
same that makes ‘multiple elements’ (e36) the element at
the top of the ranking. But taking into account that this cause
includes a large variety of situations, there is another cause
(02C: absence/deficiency of sealing) as the source of the
largest number of damages/anomalies out of the 92 types
of causes studied.
3.5 Most Recurring Damages and Causes Per Zones
For each zone, the two most prevalent damages were
selected, as well as the two most prevalent causes (Table 6).
With these criteria, interesting conclusions can be drawn:
• From among the 21 most common causes, only one is
repeated, 14C (for Z-07 and Z-09). Thus, 20 types of
causes only concentrate more than half the anomalies
(52.95%) of a total of 92 causes.
• From the 20 most common damages, 4 types are
repeated: D01 occurs four times (Z-01, Z-03, Z-04 and
Z-05), D03 takes place on 2 occasions (Z-07 and Z-10),
D06 also on 2 occasions (Z-04 and Z-05) finally D07 on
2 other occasions (Z-01 and Z-02). In other words, 14
13
 Int J Civ Eng

Fig. 2  Anomalies per type of damage

13
Int J Civ Eng
Table 5  Anomalies detected Zone
per zone
(Z-04) Envelope and partition elements
(Z-10) Facilities
(Z-03) Roofs
(Z-08) Finishes
(Z-01) Foundations
(Z-05) External carpentry
(Z-02) Structure
(Z-09) Floorings
(Z-11) Landscaping
(Z-07) Indoor cladding
(Z-06) Acoustic insulation
TOTAL
types of damages only concentrate almost three quarters
of the anomalies (71.25%) of all 46 existing damages.
This leads to a ratio of recurrence of anomalies of about
30–70%.
3.6 Pathological Processes
It is interesting to perform an analysis of the pathological
processes (hereinafter referred to as p.p.), which are the
interrelationship of the four parameters indicated in the
Sect. 2 and that completely identify and characterize each
of the 5666 anomaly studies (zone/element/damage/cause).
For this reason, it is possible for a damage to be very fre-
quent altogether in a zone, without necessarily being the
most prevalent one in the most significant p.p. of that zone.
While not common, this can occur when the occurrences are
scattered across different elements and causes.
Unlike in Table 6, in which the reading of the damages
and causes is independent, the comprehensive interpretation
of Table 7 must be done horizontally, line by line, which is
how a pathological process should be understood.
In the most important parts of buildings (zones 1–5),
alongside Z-11, the p.p. cluster around a single element:
foundations, and with just one type of damage. This means
that those three p.p. alone add up to 43.44% of Z-01.
There are other p.p. that are dominated by a single type of
damage, which are those referred to as Z-06, Z-09 and Z-10;
the first being associated to just one type of cause.
The most recurring p.p. in this study are PP22 [Z-08/e36/
D02/01C] (12.02%), followed by a distant PP01 [Z-01/e01/
D01/05C] (3.02%) and PP13 [Z-05/e26/D01/02C] (1.91%).
An analysis of the zone where they take place shows that the
most prevalent ones are PP22 [Z-08/e36/D02/01C] (100%),
PP16 [Z-06/e29/D16/28C] (55.26%) and PP19 [Z-07/e32/
D10/90C] (35.26%). This latter p.p., while being the third, is
composed by a zone that, individually, occupies the second
to last position, an element that is in 15th place, a damage
Number of anomalies %
1178 20.79
854 15.07
801 14.14
681 12.02
663 11.70
341 6.02
332 5.86
316 5.58
234 4.13
190 3.35
76 1.34
5666 100.00
that is in the 10th position, and a cause that is among the last
3 out of 92, by absolute value.
The last column of Table 7 (factor) shows that 16 of the
31 p.p. are related to water (humidity and/or leakages); some
of them are more strongly related, both by type of damage
and by type of cause (shown as W–W). There are also three
others related to cracking.
3.7 Correlation of Anomalies with Climactic Areas
The Spanish regulations use a climactic classification for the
various population areas of the country, based on a gradient
of severity for winter (from lowest to highest: A, B, C, D and
E) and another for summer (from least to most severe: 1, 2,
3, and 4). Combining them, the identification of each sur-
face or territory is obtained. These values are normally used
to calculate values related to the buildings’ surroundings,
and it is intended here to understand the relationship of this
classification with the anomalies data obtained in the study.
The ratio is calculated by dividing the number of exist-
ing anomalies in each of the zones and climactic areas by
5666 and multiplying the result by 100. Underneath each of
these cells is included the ‘relative climactic-population fre-
quency’ (hereinafter RCPF) which is calculated by dividing
the previous figure by the population in each of the climactic
areas (this figure should be multiplied by 1­ 0−5). With this
operation, the figures shown are comparable and it is pos-
sible to directly evaluate the greater or lesser presence of
anomalies according to the climate.
Table 8 shows that there is indeed a direct relationship
between of the aspects that can be easily interpreted, such as:
the C/1 area is one of the most rainy ones, and it is precisely
here the highest RCPF (3.08) is found, while A/4 is the driest
and this corresponds to the smallest (0.14) RCPF.
In this same table, the last two rows indicate the ‘global
pathological demographic’: if one wants to know the aver-
age statistic incidence of anomalies in a city (or in a set of
municipalities) of, for example, 1,500,000 inhabitants with
regard to external carpentry (Z-05), it suffices to compute
13
 Int J Civ Eng

Fig. 3  Anomalies per type of element

13
Int J Civ Eng

Fig. 4  Anomalies per type of cause

13
 Int J Civ Eng

Table 6  Relation between the Cause Zone Damage

two most prevalent damages and Cod.-C % Cod.-Z Cl. Name Cod.-D %
causes per zone 05C 3.44 D01 6.94
 Z-01 Foundations 
16C 2.03 D07 2.31
09C 2.88 D07 2.52
 Z-02 Structure 
15C 1.01 D24 0.78
08C 3.21 D04 6.28
 Z-03 Roofs 
19C 1.78 D01 4.64
32C 2.33 D01 5.59
 Z-04 Envelope and partition elements 
18C 1.94 D06 3.28
02C 3.58 D01 3.02
 Z-05 External carpentry 
07C 0.94 D06 1.45
28C 1.27 D16 1.34
 Z-06 Acoustic insulation 
11C 0.07 -- 0.00
14C 1.34 D10 1.41
 Z-07 Indoor cladding 
36C 0.85 D03 0.88
01C 12.02  Z-08 Finishes  D02 12.02
13C 2.21 D09 3,28
 Z-09 Floorings 
14C 0.83 D22 1.01
03C 4.41 D05 6.21
 Z-10 Facilities 
04C 4.36 D03 5.63
20C 1.71 D15 1.46
 Z-11 Landscaping 
38C 0.74 D08 1.18
SC 52.95  Sum of causes Sum of damages  SD 71.25
OC 47.05  Other causes Other damages  OD 28.75

0.83 × 10−5 × 1,500,000, from which an average predic-
tion of pathological incidences of 12.45 cases results (with
a minimum estimate of 2.1 cases {0.14 × 10−5} and a maxi-
mum estimate of 22.2 cases {1.48 × 10−5}). If the specific
location of some of the climactic areas is known (e.g., D/2),
this figure is calculated based on its corresponding RCPF,
in this case 1.30 {1.30 × 10−5 × 1,500,000 = 19.5 cases}.
4 Discussion
4.1 General Remarks
a. This study provides a series of useful data for profes-
sionals who intervene in buildings, such as promoters,
designers, working site directors, contractors, suppliers
and insurance agencies, so that they may know the most
troublesome zones and be able to plan and act on each
one, depending on their liability. In this regard, Chong
and Low [11] argue that it is possible to eliminate the
majority of the potential faults in a construction through
a better design, if the designers are previously aware of
them. Therefore, the authors believe this study is crucial
to help designers to center their design on the elements
with most repetitive damages, optimize the design to
sharply decrease the accident rate, reduce the non-con-
formity costs and, finally, minimize inefficiencies on
site.
b. Should the drafting firm not have a self-control sys-
tem during the design process, it may be appropriate
for developers to hire the services of an external qual-
ity control entity. A research carried out on this point
for one of the construction elements with the highest
number of anomalies (e17) concluded that 81.81% of
projects had average or low quality [27].
c. In Spain some insurance companies are starting to con-
sider the possibility of charging different fees for the
‘construction damage insurance’ products they offer, in
function of the types of damages and causes that may
exist. The problem is to obtain a statistical foundation
for the generality of the problems existing in build-
ings and an independent scale that makes it possible to
implement the approaches in reality. Figures 3 and 4 can
assist with this, as well as Tables 6, 7 and 8.
d. The Spanish regulation allows the inclusion of technical
complementary documents for the design and construc-
tion of buildings. The results presented here are con-
sidered crucial to draft a map of pathologic distribution
according to the climatic severity, unavailable so far.
These aspects will be easily adopted for zoning different
areas of Spain and other countries with similar climatic
conditions.

13
Int J Civ Eng

Table 7  Relation of the three Zone Cl. Element Damage Cause p.p. % Zone % Total Factor
most significant pathological 05C PP01 25.79 3.02 W-W
processes for each zone Z-01 e01 D01 25C PP02 10.41 1.22 W-W
31C PP03 7.24 0.85 W-W
9C PP04 20.48 1.20 C-O
D07
Z-02 e08 15C PP05 9.64 0.56 C-O
D24 09C PP06 7.53 0.44 O-O
D04 08C PP07 11.61 1.64 W-W
Z-03 e17 D01 08C PP08 9.61 1.36 W-O
D01 19C PP09 8.86 1.25 W-W
D06 17C PP10 6.03 1.25 W-O
Z-04 e19 D01 18C PP11 5.01 1.04 W-W
D06 07C PP12 4.16 0.86 W-O
D01 02C PP13 31.67 1.91 W-W
Z-05 e26 D06 17C PP14 16.72 1.01 W-O
D18 02C PP15 10.85 0.65 W-W
e29 PP16 55.26 0.74 O-O
Z-06 e30 D16 28C PP17 34.21 0.46 O-O
e31 PP18 5.26 0.07 O-O
D10 90C PP19 35.26 1.18 O-O
e32
Z-07 D03 36C PP20 22.11 0.74 W-O
e33 D14 06C PP21 6.32 0.21 C-O
Z-08 e36 D02 01C PP22 100.00 12.02 O-O
90C PP23 9.18 0.51 O-O
e37
Z-09 D09 06C PP24 6.65 0.37 O-O
e38 06C PP25 4.75 0.26 O-O
12C PP26 6.09 0.92 W-O
e40
Z-10 D03 03C PP27 3.28 0.49 W-O
e39 03C PP28 2.93 0.44 W-O
D15 20C PP29 16.67 0.69 O-O
Z-11 e54 D01 38C PP30 11.54 0.48 O-O
D08 39C PP31 5.56 0.23 O-O
Factor: type of conceptual agent which intervenes in the pathological process
W: factor that has a direct or indirect relation with the presence of water
C: factor that has a direct relation with the presence of cracks and fractures
O: factor that responds to a relation distinct from W and C
p.p. pathological process

4.2 Interpretation of the Statistical Data
for Construction
The types of damages with 100 or more cases are selected,
resulting 14 types that represent 81.67% of all anomalies
studied. Of these, five are related to humidity and leakages
(D01 + D03 + D04 + D06 + D13) representing 35.97% of
cases and 4 are related to cracking (D07 + D08 + D12 + D14)
and represent 18.40% of all cases. These nine latter cases
amount to 54.37% of the total.
Based on this and the above data, the authors consider
that some design and construction rules should be recon-
sidered for current buildings. In universities and in some
standards, rules and procedures are provided to calculate
and evaluate the strength of construction materials and sys-
tems, prioritizing this aspect over others that have tradition-
ally been considered of minor importance. This study can
contribute to reconsider these rules and lead to everything
that may be related to water being studied (designed and
executed) with greater detail. The construction details, tail-
ends, seals, joints between elements, the permeability and
porousness of the layers exposed to the environment, the
degree of waterproofing of construction standards, etc.,
should be subjected to a specific assessment of their effi-
cacy in this light. In function of the zone in question, and
the specific element being considered, new regulations will
be necessary.
Further, a series of proposals for action are presented for
the main pathological processes described, which, based on
the analysis of the results obtained here, allow limiting the
advent of anomalies:
a. For Z-01 it would suffice to make it a requirement to
have waterproofing and external drainage around base-
ment walls, as this is not often done or, when done, the
approach to the solution is not the most adequate.
b. For Z-02 the data would be improved if there were more
effective testing of the active deflection of the slabs—

13
 Int J Civ Eng

Table 8  Presence of anomalies according to zones and climactic areas

%/ Z-01 Z-02 Z-03 Z-04 Z-05 Z-06 Z-07 Z-08 Z-09 Z-10 Z-11
Climate SUM
RCPF
% 0.74% 0.28% 0.69% 1.34% 0.39% 0.09% 0.16% 0.55% 0.23% 0.62% 0.32% 5.40%
A/3
RCPF 0.84 0.32 0.78 1.52 0.44 0.10 0.18 0.62 0.26 0.70 0.36 6.12
% 0.05% 0.02% 0.02% 0.07% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.05% 0.07% 0.02% 0.07% 0.41%
A/4
RCPF 0.42 0.14 0.14 0.57 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.43 0.57 0.14 0.57 3.27
% 1.38% 0.56% 2.28% 2.81% 0.69% 0.23% 0.44% 1.55% 0.49% 1.89% 0.56% 12.88%
B/3
RCPF 1.19 0.49 1.96 2.42 0.59 0.20 0.38 1.34 0.43 1.63 0.49 11.10
% 1.11% 0.44% 0.83% 1.15% 0.35% 0.09% 0.23% 0.88% 0.42% 1.18% 0.46% 7.15%
B/4
RCPF 1.21 0.48 0.91 1.25 0.39 0.10 0.25 0.96 0.46 1.29 0.50 7.80
% 2.59% 1.08% 3.07% 4.89% 1.41% 0.32% 0.74% 2.51% 0.76% 3.14% 0.90% 21.41%
C/1
RCPF 2.60 1.07 3.08 4.90 1.42 0.31 0.73 2.50 0.77 3.15 0.91 21.47
% 1.82% 1.48% 2.63% 3.99% 1.04% 0.18% 0.58% 2.21% 1.24% 2.74% 0.60% 18.50%
C/2
RCPF 1.56 1.27 2.25 3.41 0.89 0.15 0.50 1.89 1.06 2.34 0.51 15.83
% 0.28% 0.11% 0.35% 0.35% 0.14% 0.04% 0.05% 0.46% 0.28% 0.53% 0.23% 2.82%
C/3
RCPF 1.73 0.65 2.16 2.16 0.87 0.22 0.32 2.81 1.73 3.24 1.41 17.31
% 0.85% 0.48% 0.71% 1.02% 0.42% 0.07% 0.18% 0.71% 0.56% 0.88% 0.12% 6.00%
C/4
RCPF 1.93 1.09 1.61 2.33 0.97 0.16 0.40 1.61 1.29 2.01 0.28 13.67
% 0.64% 0.25% 0.69% 1.24% 0.39% 0.14% 0.16% 0.60% 0.30% 0.64% 0.21% 5.24%
D/1
RCPF 2.43 0.94 2.63 4.72 1.48 0.54 0.61 2.29 1.15 2.43 0.81 20.01
% 0.72% 0.34% 1.06% 1.27% 0.49% 0.05% 0.16% 0.67% 0.32% 0.94% 0.18% 6.19%
D/2
RCPF 1.90 0.88 2.78 3.33 1.30 0.14 0.42 1.76 0.83 2.45 0.46 16.25
% 1.08% 0.51% 1.36% 1.89% 0.44% 0.09% 0.35% 1.29% 0.60% 1.50% 0.34% 9.44%
D/3
RCPF 0.67 0.32 0.85 1.18 0.28 0.06 0.22 0.80 0.37 0.94 0.21 5.88
% 0.44% 0.32% 0.46% 0.78% 0.23% 0.05% 0.28% 0.55% 0.30% 1.01% 0.14% 4.55%
E/1
RCPF 2.19 1.58 2.28 3.85 1.14 0.26 1.40 2.72 1.49 4.99 0.70 22.60

TO- % 11.70% 5.86% 14.14% 20.79% 6.02% 1.34% 3.35% 12.02% 5.58% 15.07% 4.13% 100%
TAL RCPF 1.41 0.71 1.70 2.50 0.73 0.16 0.40 1.45 0.67 1.82 0.50 0.12

ALL Range 0.42-2.60 0.14-1.58 0.78-2.28 0.57-4.9 0.14-1.48 0.00-0.54 0.14-1.40 0.43-2.81 0.26-1.73 0.14-4.99 0.21-1.41 3.27-22.60
RCPF Median 1.56 0.77 1.79 2.64 0.83 0.19 0.46 1.64 0.87 2.11 0.60 13.44

e08, e10, e13 and e14—and the maximum values
allowed by regulations were reduced [15]. The elimi-
nation of the Spanish habit of building flat beams (of
the same height as that of the slabs) would increase the
effectiveness of these measures.
c. For Z-03 it would be fundamental for flat roofs to have
an adequate design of the waterproofing membrane [28]
and the main singularities (tail-ends with perimeter
walls, sills and drains and their nozzles) [29].
d. For Z-04 it would be necessary to ensure the continu-
ity of the thermal insulation across the surface of the
façades, to eliminate the main thermal bridges (in beams
and columns), as well as to avoid the existence of free
falling water from roofs that do not have gutters [30].
e. For Z-05 it would be easy to decrease the number of
anomalies if there were better-performing external car-
pentry (greater profile width, with thermal bridge block-
age and more effective waterproofing) and if the qual-
ity of their tail-ends with the flashings and jambs were
increased.
f. For Z-06, the recent regulation’s requirements would
need to be increased to guarantee a higher match
between the calculated values and the construction sys-
tems put in place.
g. For Z-07 and Z-09 it would suffice to ensure that the
necessary construction and expansion joints would be
installed (and subsequently sealed), as well as increase
the adherence between the coatings (whether vertical or
horizontal) with regard to the underlying layer [25].
h. For Z-10 it is necessary to ensure the correct placement
between the various pipes and pieces, their waterproof-
ing and adequate slope, especially for sewage waters
(e39 and e40).

13
Int J Civ Eng
5 Lessons Learned
The construction-related scientific studies based on court
cases are very rare and even more when they concern final
decisions from the Supreme Court because of the diffi-
culties in reaching that court level. This paper discusses
100% of all such cases in a country (Spain), through the
expert reports in which the decisions were made. They
were then discussed based on a scientific literature review,
in an unparalleled work, which prevented comparison with
similar data from other countries. The sources, methodol-
ogy and scope of the data are pioneer in the field.
The values presented here can be used in other coun-
tries with similar cultural and economic aspects. Several
factors benefit this: the analogy in part of the construction
in Europe, the increasing standardization of products, the
existing common basic regulation that ensures free move-
ment of goods and people as well as the internationaliza-
tion of multinationals and scope of their patents.
Next the conclusions drawn are commented upon, as
well as the lessons learned from this study:
1. The zones of the building that have the largest number
of anomalies (envelope and partition elements, facilities,
roofs, finishes and foundations) correspond to 73.72%
of the cases reported.
2. The types of damage that most affect the zones with the
largest number of anomalies are:
a. Infiltration humidity (D01);
b. Condensation humidity (D06);
c. Humidity/runoffs in finished elements (D03);
d. Localized infiltrations (D04);
e. Finishes defects (D02);
f. Cracks in walls or floorings (D07);
g. Bulging and/or uplifting of floor cladding (D09).
The fact that the most usual anomalies are related with
humidity (the first four positions) stands out. These
types of damage are followed by ‘finishes defects’ that
are related to poor workmanship and the finishing of the
elements.
3. As seen in Fig. 1, out of the 46 different types of dam-
ages which were analysed, 12 occur in more than one
zone: D01 = 6, D03 = 2, D06 = 4, D07 = 2, D08 = 3,
D10 = 2, D11 = 9, D14 = 4, D20 = 2, D27 = 2, D29 = 2
and D43 = 2. Therefore, acting conceptually on these
would lead to a reduction in anomalies by more than a
fourth (26.09%). In other words, it is noted, for example,
that ‘infiltration humidity’ (D01) occurs in zones Z-01,
Z-02, Z-03, Z-04, Z-05 and Z-11, for which it would
be highly beneficial if technicians were careful in their
design and construction activities so that this damage
would not take place.
4. Statistics have been established for the relative fre-
quency of the anomalies for each of the studied climatic
areas and zones (RCPF). From these, their minimum
and maximum values (range), as well as of the average,
were provided. This allows knowing a given pathologi-
cal concentration in function of external climatic agents.
5. A statistical prediction tool of court complaints was
designed, in function of population, climate and the
building area in question. A series of general measures
are further proposed to help minimise the main patho-
logical processes found.
Acknowledgements  This work has been developed within a Plan
of Action approved in 2011 in the Musaat Foundation, in which an
investigation in Spanish national territory on the anomalies of buildings
was approved. The support of the CERIS-ICIST Research Institute,
IST, and of the FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) is also
acknowledged by the third author.
References
1. Mydin AO (2015) Significance of building maintenance manage-
ment system towards sustainable development: a review. J Eng
Stud Res 21:58–65
2. Ilozor BD, Okoroh MI, Egbu CE (2004) Understanding residen-
tial house defects in Australia from the State of Victoria. Build
Environ 39:327 – 37
3. Love PED, Smith J 2003() Benchmarking, benchaction, and
benchlearning: rework mitigation in projects. J Manage Eng
19:147–159
4. Carper KL (2001) Forensic engineering: the perspective from
North America. In: Peter, Campbell (eds) Learning from construc-
tion failures (applied forensic engineering). Whittles Publishing,
UK, pp 1–6
5. Chapman JC (2001) Learning from failures. In: Peter Campbell
(ed) Learning from construction failures (applied forensic engi-
neering). Whittles Publishing, UK, pp 71–101
6. Serres N, Braymand S, Feugeas F (2016) Environmental evalu-
ation of concrete made from recycled concrete aggregate imple-
menting life cycle assessment. J Build Eng 5:24–33
7. Love PE, Josephson P (2004) Role of error-recovery process in
projects. J Manag Eng 20:70–79
8. Lopez R, Love PE (2012) Design error costs in construction pro-
jects. J Construct Eng Manag 138:585–593
9. Raposo S, Fonseca M, de Brito J (2011) Planned preventive main-
tenance activities: analysis of guidance documents. 12th DBMC
International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and
Components, Porto, pp 1257–1264
10. Vaz Paulo P, Branco FA, de Brito J (2011) Deterministic and
stochastic prediction models for the Building Life platform. In:
12th DBMC International Conference on Durability of Building
Materials and Components, Porto, pp 589–597
11. Chong W, Low S (2006) Latent building defects: causes and
design strategies to prevent them. J Perform Constr Facil
20:213–221
12. Harrison HW, Trotman PM, Saunders GK (1996) Roofs and
roofing: performance, diagnosis, maintenance, repair and the
13

avoidance of defects, 3rd edn. Building Research Establishment,
London (UK)
13. Preece C, Chong HY, Golizadeh H, Rogers J (2015) A review
of customer relationship (CRM) implications: benefits and chal-
lenges in construction organizations. Int J Civ Eng 13:362–371
14. Piñeiro Martínez de Lecea R, Gutiérrez Jiménez JP, Asenjo Mon-
jín V (2008) Pathological processes frequent in construction: case
studies. 2012:843–853 (in Spanish)
15. Krishnamurthy N (2007) Forensic engineering in structural design
and construction. Forensic Eng Struct Des Construct 1:1–16
16. Brown S (2007) Forensic engineering: Reduction of risk and
improving technology (for all things great and small). Eng Fail
Anal 14:1019–1037
17. MUSAAT. Expert records and reports if accidents. Mutua de
Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos, 2008–2010. Madrid (in
Spanish)
18. SERJUTECA. Reports and documents on accidents involving
professional civil liability of surveyors and technical architects.
Madrid: Servicios Jurídicos Técnicos Aseguradores, 2008–2010.
Madrid (in Spanish)
19. Carretero-Ayuso MJ, Moreno-Cansado A (2013) National sta-
tistical analysis on construction anomalies: years 2008 to 2010.
MUSAAT Foundation, Madrid (in Spanish)
20. Azorín López V, Monjo Carrió J (2005) Research in construction.
Conclusions of the I Research Meeting on Construction. Informes
de la Construcción, vol 5, pp 4–15 (in Spanish)
21. Vieitez Chamosa JA, Ramírez Ortiz JL (1984) The pathology of
construction in Spain: a statistical approach. Informes de la Con-
strucción 36:5–15
13
Int J Civ Eng
22. Neto N, de Brito J (2012) Validation of an inspection and diagno-
sis system for anomalies in natural stone cladding (NSC). Constr
Build Mater 30:224–236
23. Pires R, de Brito J, Amaro B (2015) Statistical survey of the
inspection, diagnosis and repair of painted rendered façades.
Struct Infrastruct Eng 11:605–618
24. Sá G, Sá J, de Brito J, Amaro B (2015) Statistical survey on
inspection, diagnosis and repair of wall renderings. J Civ Eng
Manag 21:623–636
25. Silvestre JD, de Brito J (2007) Technical note: statistical analysis
of defects of tiles joints. Materiales de Construcción 57:85–92
26. Silvestre JD, de Brito J (2011) Ceramic tiling in building façades:
inspection and pathological characterization using an expert sys-
tem. Constr Build Mater 25:1560–1571
27. Carretero-Ayuso MJ, García-Sanz-Calcedo J, Reyes-Rodriguez
AM (2016) Qualitative and quantitative analyses on project defi-
ciencies in flat-roof design in Extremadura, Spain. J Constr Eng
Manag 142(11):0001176
28. Gonçalves M, Lopes JG, de Brito J, Lopes GA (2008) Mechanical
performance of lap joints of flat roof waterproofing membranes.
Exp Tech 32:50–57
29. Walter A, de Brito J, Lopes JG (2005) Current flat roof bitumi-
nous membranes waterproofing systems—inspection, diagnosis
and pathology classification. Constr Build Mater 19:233–242
30. Flores-Colen I, de Brito J, de Freitas VP (2008) Stains in facades’
rendering—diagnosis and maintenance techniques’ classification.
Constr Build Mater 22:211–221