Data Analysis of Inspection, Diagnosis,

and Rehabilitation of Flat Roofs

J. Conceição 1; B. Poça 2; J. de Brito 3; I. Flores-Colen 4; and A. Castelo 5

Abstract: This paper presents the data collected from the inspection of 105 Portuguese flat roofs. The inspections were based on a system of
inspection, diagnosis, and rehabilitation created and validated previously for flat roofs. The use of this system increases the objectivity and
effectiveness of an inspection and supports the inspection of flat roofs. The use of flat roofs is gaining momentum in the construction sector
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

worldwide, and there is little information concerning the correlation among the most common types of anomalies, their most probable causes,
applicable diagnosis tests, and the most suitable rehabilitation techniques. The information gathered during the field inspection of 105 flat
roofs allowed the validation of the proposed inspection system and the determination of the most common features that can occur in this type
of roofing system, as well as their correlation with the materials, characteristics, location, and position on the roofing system. The data
analysis of the information gathered aims at helping designers, end users, and inspectors as a decision-basis tool regarding this roofing
system, and is presented in various charts in order to facilitate their interpretation and help identify the most conditioning parameters
in the performance and durability of this type of nonstructural system. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001252. © 2018 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Flat roofs; Anomalies; Causes; Diagnosis; Rehabilitation; Data analysis.

Introduction Despite the existence of new and better-performing waterproof-

A roof consists of a set of load-bearing and protective elements
intended to protect the interior of a building from meteorological
phenomena such as rain, heat, cold, wind, and snow, sheltering the
building’s structure and ensuring high standards of living condi-
tions (Gomes 1968).
The use of flat roofs, considered to have a maximum slope of 7°,
is gaining momentum throughout the world, and every region has
its own tradition or preference in terms of the materials used. In
Portugal, according to data from the National Institute of Statistics
(INE), the ratio of flat roofs to pitched roofs has been steadily
increasing, and between 2006 and 2011, the use of mixed and flat
roofs represented 12.5% of those used in Portugal. Therefore, and
given the increased importance of these structures, it was important
to develop a system that supports the repair of anomalous situations
in roof operations (INE 2012).
1
Lieutenant, Portuguese Army, Military Academy, Rua Gomes Freire,
Lisbon 1169-203, Portugal. Email: joao.melro@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
2
Lieutenant, Portuguese Army, Military Academy, Rua Gomes Freire,
Lisbon 1169-203, Portugal. Email: bruno.poca@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
3
Full Professor, Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for
Sustainability, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georresources,
Instituto Superior Técnico, Univ. of Lisbon, Ave. Rovisco Pais, Lisbon
1049-001, Portugal (corresponding author). Email: jb@civil.ist.utl.pt
4
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for
Sustainability, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georresources,
Instituto Superior Técnico, Univ. of Lisbon, Ave. Rovisco Pais, Lisbon
1049-001, Portugal. Email: ines.flores.colen@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
5
Ph.D. Student, Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for
Sustainability, Instituto Superior Técnico, Univ. of Lisbon, Ave. Rovisco
Pais, Lisbon 1049-001, Portugal. Email: andre.castelo@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 2, 2018; approved on
August 6, 2018; published online on November 27, 2018. Discussion per-
iod open until April 27, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
ing materials, the poor training of the waterproofing layer appliers
is a constant source of problems. Due to these deficiencies, there
are water seepages that affect the underlying layers of the top floor,
causing damages that translate into costs, not only from the repair
but also due to the fact that the referred areas become unusable.
In order to reduce the lifetime costs of the roof, it is fundamental
to have a solid knowledge of state-of-the-art technology, execution
techniques, good implementation principles, and appropriate diagno-
sis and repair methods, which will increase the roof’s durability and
service life and slow down the appearance of degradation signs.
Also, the studied maintenance/rehabilitation techniques allow a nor-
malization of the maintenance procedures and contribute to a cost
reduction because more efficient interventions can be carried out.
The inspection and diagnosis system (Conceição et al. 2017)
validated in the paper is innovative and scientifically corroborated
by other studies. The system was created and validated with data
collected from the inspection of 105 flat roofs throughout mainland
Portugal and is based on a methodology that has been applied and
validated by the same research team to other nonstructural building
materials: waterproofing systems of flat roofs (Walter et al. 2005),
External Thermal Insulation Composite System (ETICS) (Amaro
et al. 2013, 2014), pitched roofs (Garcez et al. 2012a, b), painted
surfaces (Pires et al. 2015a, b), and window and door frames
(Santos et al. 2017a, b).
Inspection Plan for Flat Roofs
The inspections intend to identify the causes and precondition sig-
nals of each anomaly, allowing, during the use phase, an increased
ability to detect the need for intervention and thus reduce the risk
of unexpected anomalies. For the implementation of a proper diag-
nosis by the inspection team, inspection and validation sheets
should be prepared, as well as the necessary material for the
inspection (binoculars, markers, rulers, measuring equipment, pho-
tographic equipment, and other necessary accessories).

© ASCE 04018100-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100

 Table 1. Proposed classification system for anomalies in flat roofs mapping determines the incidence of each anomaly, as well as their
Code Anomaly severity, allowing the creation of their repair project and of other
constructive elements (Silvestre and de Brito 2007). Also, in terms
General
of suitable repairs, the manufacturers should provide detailed guid-
A-G1 Surface wear
A-G2 Fracture/failure
ance and specific requirements regarding installation and use of
A-G3 Detachment/peeling their membrane and flashing products.
A-G4 Creasing/bulging With the inspection campaign, it was possible to validate the
A-G5 Cracking proposed classification systems and the corresponding correlation
A-G6 Puncture matrices. Based on the information collected, a data analysis was
A-G7 Absence/inadequate layer positioning made.
A-G8 Debris accumulation
A-G9 Inadequate slope/ponding
A-G10 Biological growth Characterization of the Materials, Roofing Systems,
A-G11 Corrosion Sample, and Elements
A-G12 Moisture stains of condensation/leaks
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Specific Characterization of the Materials and Roofing Systems

A-S1 Inadequate expansion joint design
A-S2 Inadequate downspout design
A-S3 Inadequate overflow drainage tube design
A-S4 Inadequate gutter design
A-S5 Inadequate lap-joint design
A-S6 Defects in the fastenings
A-S7 Defects in the coping
A-S8 Defects in the tail ends
The inspection sheets condense the information gathered in the
inspection of flat roofs, including the building characteristics and
other relevant information necessary for a proper characterization
of the anomalies. Thus, the inspection sheets should include the
following fields: for general information, a header with the inspec-
tion record number, date of inspection, person in charge, and
purpose of the inspection; for each building, the location, type of
dominant use, later interventions, number of floors above ground,
type of environment, and proximity to the sea; for each flat roof,
whether there is access to the interior, the roof’s total area and
slope, type of insulation system, thermal insulation material, type
of use (e.g., inaccessible, terrace, garden), type of protection, exist-
ence of mechanical fasteners, existence of circulation paths, and
existing singularities (chimneys, pipes, downspouts); for any on-
going maintenance operations, implemented type and frequency
of inspections, type and frequency of operations, characteristics
of operations, date of execution, technique used and its materials,
existing means of access to the building roof for the realization of
inspection/intervention (e.g., ladders, skylights), and registry of
other observations of inspections.
In turn, the validation sheets are designed to validate the inspec-
tion system and the proposed diagnosis, so for each inspected roof,
a validation sheet was created. In these sheets, every anomaly de-
tected was registered and analyzed in accordance with the anomaly
classification system presented in Table 1. The anomalies were
also characterized in accordance with several parameters (where
applicable): conditions for the anomaly progression; percentage
of affected area; aesthetic value of the affected areas; state of deg-
radation; humidity stains; occurrence of leaks; correct fixation ex-
ecution; propensity of the anomaly to affect in the short medium
term the state of the waterproofing coating; suitable materials;
adequate tail-end execution; suitable coatings over the tail ends;
existence of the item in question; protruding joints; proper execu-
tion of lap joints; sufficient overlap width; existence of drains;
convenient location; insufficient slope; and severity level.
One of the recommended methods during inspections is map-
ping the anomalies in addition to inspection sheets, since these do
not allow an accurate location definition of the anomalies. The
In order to take into account the main aspects to consider in the
design and execution of flat roofs, the latter can be classified
according to accessibility, type of superficial protection, type of
waterproofing membrane, type of constructive system, slope, and
supporting structure.
When applying a flat roof insulation system, several aspects
should be taken into consideration to maximize the life span of
the applied system. One of these aspects is the protection of the
insulation system against environmental agents and surface wear.
The protective layer can be categorized in three classes: unpro-
tected, light protection, and heavy protection, as exemplified in
Fig. 1. The unprotected class has no type of protection over the
waterproofing membrane. In the light protection class, the protec-
tion is usually applied at the production stage and contains sand or
gravel encrusted in the superficial layer of the exposed waterproof-
ing membrane. In the heavy protection class, the type of protection
to apply depends on the accessibility of the roof. Light concrete and
small concrete slabs are the more usual types of heavy protection
solutions.
The type of waterproof membrane can classify a flat roof system
as traditional or nontraditional, depending on the material applied.
The most common types of waterproofing membrane materials
found during the inspections were, as exemplified in Fig. 1, liquid
membranes, PVC membranes, and bituminous membranes. The
liquid membrane is an adherent membrane that consists on the ap-
plication (usually through painting) of a liquid material on the
thermal insulation or other waterproofing membranes and usually
requires superficial protection. The PVC membrane is a nonadherent
membrane that is normally mechanically fixed to the underlying
layers of the flat roof system. The bituminous membrane is the most
commonly used type of membrane and can be used in adherent
(through heat) and nonadherent (through mechanical fixings)
systems.
The position of the waterproofing membrane divides systems
into traditional when the waterproofing membranes are located over
the thermal insulation and inverted when the waterproofing mem-
branes are located under the thermal insulation, as shown in Fig. 1.
Characterizations of the Sample and Elements
The 105 inspections performed were carried out in buildings
from the Portuguese Army (26 buildings), the Portuguese Air Force
(31), the National Republican Guard (GNR) (8), and civilian
buildings (40).
The inspected roofs are mostly (approximately 85%) located in
the district of Lisbon. The remaining inspections were carried out
in the Santarém (8%) and Braga (5%) districts.
Table 2 presents the full sample and element characteristics.

© ASCE 04018100-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100

 Type of superficial protection

No protection Light protection Heavy protection

Type of waterproofing membrane material
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Liquid membrane PVC membrane Bituminous membrane

Type of constructive system
Traditional system Inverted system

1 - supporting structure; 2 - vapour barrier; 3 - thermal insulation; 4 - geotextile; 5 - waterproofing membrane; 6 - protection layer

Fig. 1. Classification of flat-roof waterproofing systems according to the type of superficial protection, type of waterproofing membrane, and type of
constructive system.

Data Analysis
The data analysis presented in this study follows the classification
system used in the inspection, diagnosis, and repair system
previously developed (Conceição et al. 2017). All anomalies,
causes, diagnosis methods, and repair techniques are thus men-
tioned according to their designation in the system and the relevant
abbreviation.
As shown in Table 1, the anomalies are classified into two
groups: A-G (general anomalies, comprising 12 anomalies) and
A-S (specific anomalies, comprising 8 anomalies). The most
common anomalies detected during the inspections are presented
in Fig. 2. Table 3 presents the classification system for the causes,
which are divided into five groups: C-P (project/design errors,
comprising 11 causes), C-E (execution errors, comprising 12
causes), C-A (environmental actions, comprising 7 causes), C-U
(maintenance/use errors, comprising 5 causes), and C-M (external
mechanical actions, comprising 2 causes).
Frequency Analysis of the Anomalies and Causes
Fig. 3 shows the relative contribution of each anomaly to the total
sample of anomalies detected in flat roofs. In turn, Fig. 4 shows the
relative frequency of anomalies identified at least once in each of
the 105 inspections. Debris accumulation (A-G8) and biological
growth (A-G10) were the most common anomalies. A-G8 was
identified in 74% of the sample (78 flat roofs), to which 313 pos-
sible causes were allocated, resulting in an average of 4.0 causes for
each occurrence of the anomaly. As for A-G10, it was identified in
62% of the sample (65 flat roofs), to which 216 probable causes
were allocated, resulting in an average of 3.3 causes for each
occurrence of the anomaly.
The causes of the A-G8 (debris accumulation) anomaly are
mainly from the C-U group (maintenance/use errors, responsible
for 60% of cases), mainly C-U3 (absent/inadequate inspection,
21% of all causes of this anomaly), C-U1 (lack of cleaning debris
in the current zone, 19%), C-U2 (accumulation/obstruction of
debris in downspouts or gutter entrances, 12%), C-U5 (vandalism,
9%), and C-A1 (wind, 17%) of the C-A group (19%).
Biological growth (A-G10) mainly results from causes of the
C-A group (environmental actions, corresponding to 59% of all
causes of this anomaly), including C-A2 (ultraviolet/solar radia-
tion, 12%), C-A3 (moisture, 25%), C-A4 (prolonged presence of
water/rain, 6%), and C-A5 (vegetation, 16%).
The more common anomalies are, in terms of frequency, A-G1
(surface wear), A-S2 (inadequate downspout design), and A-G4
(creasing/bulging), registering 50%, 48%, and 46%, respectively.
The group of causes with the highest frequency in A-G1 is C-A
(65%), particularly due to the contribution of C-A2 (solar radiation)
and C-A6 (natural aging), both detected in 30% of the cases of this
anomaly.
The groups of causes that are more related with the appearance
of A-S2 are C-E (execution errors, 48%) and C-P (project/design
errors, 36%). In the execution errors, there is usually poor labor
quality (C-E1) or poor execution of the downspouts (C-E7), or
both. This problem becomes relevant when sinking or protruding

© ASCE 04018100-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100

 Table 2. Sample and elements characteristics
Characteristic Description
Sample
Environment 90% urban and 10% rural.
Typology 60% services, 10% housing, and 30% others.
Rehabilitation 67% of the sample presents no rehabilitation/intervention, 33% were rehabilitated/intervened.
Number of floors 53 buildings have one floor; 14 buildings, 2 floors; 12 buildings, 3 floors; 3 buildings, 4 floors; 2 buildings, 5 floors; 9
buildings, 6 floors; and 12 buildings, 7 or more floors.
Circulation paths 10% presented circulation paths and 90% presented no circulation paths.
Area 19% of the sample has an area lower than 50 m2 ; 25% between 50 m2 and 100 m2 ; 17% between 100 m2 and 150 m2 ;
18% between 150 m2 and 400 m2 ; 11% between 400 m2 and 650 m2 ; and 10% higher than 650 m2 .
Slope 4% of the sample has a slope lower than 1°; 42% between 1° and 2°; 42% between 2° and 3°; 5% between 3° and 4°; 1%
higher than 4°; and in 7% of the sample, the slope was not measured.
Elements
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Type of constructive system
Type of protection
Type of membrane
Type of thermal insulation
Type of fastening
23% of the roofs have a traditional waterproofing system; 23% have an inverted system (i.e., the waterproofing is below
the insulation), and in 54% of the cases, the position of the insulation layer could not be determined or there was no
insulation layer.
24% of the elements present a heavy protection system; 62% a light protection system; and 14% of the elements are
unprotected.
82% of the elements have a bituminous waterproofing membrane; 7% a PVC waterproofing membrane; and 11% a liquid
waterproofing membrane.
73% of the elements could not be classified according to the type of thermal insulation applied; 22% of the elements had a
synthetic insulation; and 5% had a mineral insulation material.
Only 14% of the elements presented mechanical fastening.

COMMON ANOMALIES DETECTED

A-G1 Surface wear A-G4 Creasing/bulging A-G8 Debris accumulation

A-G10 Biological growth A-S2 Inadequate downspout’s design

Fig. 2. Most common anomalies detected during the inspections.

areas are created adjacent to the overlapping layers of the insu-
lation, affecting the flow of water. In the project/design errors
group, there is often a deficient design/detailing of the down-
spouts (C-P4).
The groups that most contribute to the appearance of A-G4
(creasing/bulging) are C-E (execution errors, 57%) and C-A
(environmental actions, 32%). In the first group, C-E1 (poor labor
quality) and C-E11 (poor placement of the waterproofing mem-
brane) are the most frequent causes of this anomaly. Both causes
are intrinsically linked to labor quality. As for the environmental
actions, the causes that most contribute to the appearance of this
anomaly are C-A2 (ultraviolet/solar radiation), C-A3 (moisture),
and C-A7 (cycles of wetting-drying), detected in 8%, 13%, and
11% of the cases, respectively.
On the other hand, A-S3 (inadequate overflow drainage tube
design) and A-S6 (defects in the fastenings) have the lowest prob-
ability of occurrence, appearing in only 4% and 7%, respectively,
of the inspected flat roofs. The anomalies classified as singular
anomalies represent 33% of the total anomalies; however, the clas-
sified general anomalies that can also occur at singular points must
be added to this value.
When making a comparison between the most common anoma-
lies in flat roofs and in pitched roofs (Garcez et al. 2012a), the
following conclusion could be taken:
• Anomaly A-G8 (debris accumulation) has a much greater
impact in flat roofs (74.3%) when compared to pitched roofs
(28%), mainly due to its relative position and increased ten-
dency to accumulate debris. So, it is even more important for
flat roofs to have routine maintenance/cleaning in current zones,
singular points, and drainage spots; and
• Anomaly A-G10 (biological colonization) was detected in simi-
lar percentages in flat roofs (61.9%) and pitched roofs (72.5%),
reflecting the greater ease of colonization of flat roofs and the
less frequent maintenance of pitched roofs.

© ASCE 04018100-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100

 Table 3. Classification system of possible causes of anomalies in flat roofs Regarding the causes of these anomalies, the following conclu-
Code Cause sions were drawn:
• The accumulation of debris in pitched roofs is associated with
Project/design errors
an incorrect slope or incorrect/insufficient cleaning of singular
C-P1 Deficient design/detailing of the coatings
points (e.g., gutters). In flat roofs, incorrect slope is not consid-
C-P2 Deficient design/detailing of the expansion joints
ered so relevant to this anomaly because the slope is too low to
C-P3 Deficient design/detailing of the protruding elements
C-P4 Deficient design/detailing of the downspouts
influence the accumulation of debris in these areas. The main
C-P5 Deficient design/detailing of the gutters
reasons are (1) wind displacement of debris, which promotes
C-P6 Deficient design/detailing of the lap joints the concentration of debris, especially in the singular points
C-P7 Deficient design/detailing of the pitch (corners, gutters); (2) a lack of maintenance/cleaning action,
C-P8 Deficient design/detailing of the tail ends and associated as in pitched roofs; and (3) vandalism from the concentration
protection elements of waste—in particular, cigarette butts. In flat roofs, cleaning
C-P9 Deficient design/detailing of the overflow drainage tubes of specific points such as the drainage system is particularly
C-P10 Difficult/impossible access to the surfaces relevant to allow water to flow.
• Biological colonization in pitched roofs is due to solar radiation,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C-P11 Inadequate choice of materials

biological action, insufficient slope, and lack of or insufficient
Execution errors maintenance actions (detected in 50% of the cases of the anom-
C-E1 Poor labor quality
aly). In flat roofs, the slope of the roof has no direct or indirect
C-E2 Application in humid/rainy weather
relationship with this anomaly. Solar radiation, the presence of
C-E3 Poor materials storage/transport
moisture, and the appearance of vegetation have similar rele-
C-E4 Poor execution of tail ends and associated protection
elements
vance when compared to pitched roofs, occurring on average
C-E5 Poor execution of expansion joints
58% of the times the anomaly occurs. Regarding maintenance
C-E6 Poor execution of lap joints actions, their occurrence is more important in flat roofs, being
C-E7 Poor execution of downspouts registered in 83% of the occurrences of the anomaly. When com-
C-E8 Poor execution of gutters pared to pitched roofs, the drainage system has higher relevance
C-E9 Poor execution of overflow drainage tubes in flat roofs because 30% of the cases of this anomaly come from
C-E10 Deficient fastenings a lack of maintenance/cleaning of the drainage system.
C-E11 Poor placement of the waterproofing membrane Fig. 5 shows the distribution of anomalies according to the
C-E12 Deficient pitch material used in the waterproofing membrane of the flat roof
system.
Environmental actions For A-G1 (surface wear), bituminous membranes present a
C-A1 Wind
higher value frequency. This result is primarily due to the fact that
C-A2 Ultraviolet/solar radiation
this material can be used both with heavy and light protection,
C-A3 Moisture
which can lead to a faster and more intense surface wear. On
C-A4 Prolonged presence of water/rain
C-A5 Vegetation
the other hand, the same situation was not detected on the PVC
C-A6 Natural aging
membranes because all the PVC membranes had heavy protection.
C-A7 Wet-dry cycles The anomalies considered typical of this type of material [A-G1,
A-G3, A-G4, A-G5, and A-G12 (surface wear, detachment/peeling,
Maintenance/use errors creasing/bulging, cracking, and moisture stains, respectively)] were
C-U1 Lack of cleaning debris in current zone not detected in PVC membranes. This absence is mainly due to the
C-U2 Accumulation/obstruction of debris in downspouts or gutter applied constructive solution that always uses heavy superficial pro-
entrances
tection, which makes this material more durable and results in less
C-U3 Absent/inadequate inspection
problems. The main anomalies detected in this type of membranes
C-U4 Change of the type of use of the roof
C-U5 Vandalism
are due to a lack of maintenance, resulting in the development of
A-G8 (debris accumulation) and A-G10 (biological growth).
External mechanical actions A-G10 (biological growth) is more recurrent in PVC membranes
C-M1 Dynamic loads than in other waterproofing membranes. This is justified by the over-
C-M2 Static loads exposure of the protective layer and the waterproofing membrane to

Fig. 3. Relative contribution of each anomaly to the total sample. (See Table 1 for anomalies.)

© ASCE 04018100-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100

 Fig. 4. Frequency of anomalies detected at least once in each of the 105 inspections. (See Table 1 for anomalies.)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Relative frequency of anomalies in different waterproofing membrane materials. (See Table 1 for anomalies.)

high-moisture conditions, creating a favorable environment for the
development of vegetation. This condition can also be justified
by the higher occurrence of A-G9 (inadequate slope/ponding) in
PVC membranes when compared to other materials (Fig. 5).
The predominance of A-G7 (absence/inadequate layer position-
ing) in PVC membranes relative to other materials is due to the
absence, in the inspected roofs, of a separation layer between
the waterproofing membrane and the heavy protection.
From the analysis of Fig. 5, one can also observe that the PVC
membrane is the material with more occurrences of A-G6 (punc-
ture), which can be explained by the fact that the system consists of
a single layer only.
The high occurrence of A-G3 (detachment peeling) and A-G4
(creasing/bulging) in the bituminous and liquid membranes has a
high correlation with the lack of quality and poor labor, particularly
in the preparation of bonding of the surface.
Fig. 4 also shows that bituminous membranes show a higher
frequency of A-G5 (cracking), which may be explained by their
darker color, which absorbs more energy in the form of heat,
relative to other lighter materials.
Liquid membranes have the lowest frequency of A-S8 (defects
in the tail ends), which can be explained by the ease of the system to
adhere to any material and be applied to any type of surface geom-
etry. The types of membranes that present the lowest frequency of
A-G10 (biological growth) also present a lower frequency of A-S8
(defects in the tail ends). These data support the conclusion that a
correct tail-end execution prevents the early development of
A-G10, due to a lower probability of accumulation of water and

© ASCE 04018100-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Relative frequency of anomalies in bituminous membranes of different superficial protections. (See Table 1 for anomalies.)
small debris (dust, sand, earth), which can accelerate the develop-
ment of this anomaly.
The different anomalies detected in bituminous membranes,
according to the different types of superficial protection, are pre-
sented in relative frequency in Fig. 6.
As expected, unprotected membranes and those with light
protection have an increased frequency of A-G1 (surface wear)
compared to those with heavy protection.
The frequency of detection of A-G4 (creasing/bulging) in
different protection materials was expected because bituminous
membranes without protection have the highest exposure to
solar radiation and temperature variation when compared
to light protection, and even more when compared to heavy
protection.
There is a higher frequency of A-G10 (biological growth) in
membranes with heavy protection due to the accumulation of mois-
ture between the protection and the membrane, creating a favorable
condition for the development of the anomaly.
The average number of anomalies detected in the different types
of waterproofing membranes is calculated by dividing the total
number of anomalies of a waterproofing membrane by the total
number of occurrences of that waterproofing system. Thus, the
average number of anomalies by the waterproofing system is
5.82 for PVC membranes, 6.27 for bituminous membranes, and
4.29 for liquid membranes.
The number of inspected liquid membranes (11) is much lower
than the number of bituminous membranes (86), but the average
number of anomalies is relatively close.
The anomalies that occur more often, on average, in the three
solutions are A-G10 (biological growth), A-G8 (debris accumula-
tion), and A-S2 (inadequate downspout design). The first two are
due, once again, to the absence of cleaning and maintenance
© ASCE 04018100-7
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100
operations, whereas the latter is due to bad detailing or execution
of downspouts, or both.
In PVC membranes, regarding the integrity of the waterproofing
membrane, A-G6 (punctures) has a high rate of occurrence
(13.3%), which can jeopardize the integrity of the membrane. In
the case of inverted systems, where PVC membranes are adopted,
A-G7 (absence/inadequate layer positioning) was detected in
13.3% of the cases. This anomaly occurred mainly in the thermal
insulation, which sometimes was damaged due to wind, vandalism,
and biological growth. A-S8 (defects in the tail ends) occurred with
a frequency of 6.7%, which shows the small importance that is
given to detailing and execution of singular points.
Regarding the use of liquid membranes, the most common
anomalies detected, besides the ones described previously, are
A-G4 (creasing/bulging, 9.4%) and A-G7 (absence/inadequate
layer positioning, 9.4%). The first is associated with poor labor
quality, particularly when placing the waterproofing membrane
on a moist substrate. The latter, in turn, relates to the lack of a glass
fiber net layer or the extra liquid membrane layer in some specific
locations.
As for bituminous membranes, besides the anomalies previ-
ously described, those that have a higher occurrence are A-G1
(surface wear, 9.6%) and A-G4 (creasing/bulging, 8.2%). In the
first case, it is the action of solar radiation that predominantly pro-
motes the aging of bituminous membranes. In the second case, the
anomaly is related to an inefficient fastening of the membrane
along with the presence of moisture in the substrate.
The level of severity/repair emergency of each anomaly was
also characterized in the fieldwork. In this inspection system, three
levels of severity were considered: 0 (immediate intervention,
up to 6 months); 1 (medium-term intervention by 1 year); and
2 (monitoring of the anomaly).
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Fig. 7. Relative contribution of each group of causes.
The level of severity for each anomaly was based on the infor-
mation gathered in the inspection and validation sheets and respec-
tive levels of severity/repair urgency referred to in the anomaly
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sheets. Level of severity 2 was allocated to 50.3% of all anomalies,
whereas the level of severity that requires immediate intervention
was allocated to 19.2% of all anomalies, in particular to A-G12
(moisture stains), A-S2 (inadequate downspout design), and
A-S6 (defects in the fastenings). The highest level of severity
was attributed to these anomalies in more than 50% of the
cases. For A-G11 (corrosion), A-G10 (biological growth), A-G9
(inadequate slope), A-G8 (debris accumulation), A-G7 (absence/
inadequate layer positioning), A-G5 (cracking), AG-3 (detachment/
peeling), and A-G1 (surface wear), the medium-term intervention
classing was attributed in more than 30% of the cases.
In Fig. 7, the relative contribution of each group of causes is
presented. It is apparent that the C-E (execution errors) group
presents the highest rate of incidence of all groups, being the
one that most contributes to the appearance of anomalies, followed
by the C-A (environmental), C-P (project/design), C-U (maintenance/
use), and C-M (external mechanical) causes groups, with the lowest
number of occurrences.
Two of the most recognized studies mentioned previously indi-
cated that project and design errors represented 40% of the causes
of the anomalies detected (Bureau Securitas 1984a, b). More recent
Fig. 8. Relative frequency of the causes from the C-P and C-E groups. (See Table 3 for causes.)
Fig. 9. Relative frequency of the causes from the C-A, C-U, and C-M groups. (See Table 3 for causes.)
© ASCE 04018100-8
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100
studies continue to identify the design phase as one of the main
reasons for lack of quality in flat roofs, with a weight of up to
50% (Cnudde 1991; Josephson and Hammarlund 1991). However,
the validation of this inspection system showed a lower percentage
of anomalies with design causes. This value is expected to continu-
ally decrease because the materials have an increasingly better
quality, are easier to apply, and are submitted to detailed tests
for quality control in many countries (Silva and Gonçalves 2001).
As shown in Figs. 8 and 9, C-E1 (poor labor quality) is the most
common cause and is responsible for most of the execution errors
detected. C-A2 (ultraviolet/solar radiation) is the environmental ac-
tion with the biggest impact because it faster deteriorates the layers
of the system. C-U3 (absent/inadequate inspection) is the third
most common cause related to incorrect cleaning and maintenance
of the system.
Frequency Analysis of the Diagnosis Methods
Along with the development of the inspection system, a total of
seven diagnosis methods, as presented in Table 4, were divided into
five groups: D-A (visual analysis), D-B (electric methods), D-C
(thermohygrometric methods, D-D (nuclear methods), and D-E
(load tests).
In the 105 inspections, a total of 936 diagnosis methods
were attributed to 608 detected anomalies, resulting, on average,
in 1.54 diagnosis methods per anomaly. The total number of
recommended diagnosis techniques is higher than the number
of anomalies, because for many of the anomalies, a combination
of several techniques may be necessary for a proper diagnosis.
The first conclusion to be drawn from Fig. 10 is that all diag-
nosis techniques proposed in the classificatory system are likely to
be used in flat roofs because they have been registered at least once
during the inspections.
As shown in Fig. 10, D-A1 (visual inspection) is the only
method common to all anomalies because it is the primary method
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Table 4. Proposed classification system of diagnosis methods of anomalies Table 5. Proposed classification of rehabilitation techniques of anomalies
in flat roofs in flat roofs
Code Diagnosis method Code Rehabilitation technique
Visual analysis General
D-A1 Visual inspection R.1 Cleaning of the exterior coating of the flat roof
D-A2 Measurement of slope R.2 Application/repair/substitution of the waterproofing system
Electric methods R.3 Application/repair/substitution of the thermal insulation
D-B1 Electric leak detection R.4 Application/repair/substitution of the separation layer
D-B2 Capacitance test R.5 Application/repair/substitution of the vapor barrier
Thermohygrometric methods R.6 Application/substitution of the shaping layer
D-C1 Infrared thermography R.7 Creation of circulation routes
Nuclear methods
D-D1 Nuclear method Singularities
Load tests R.8 Application/repair/substitution of expansion joints
D-E1 Flood test R.9 Repair of joints and associated protective elements
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

R.10 Application/repair/substitution of the drainage system

R.11 Application/repair/substitution of fastening elements

of diagnosis of any anomaly, followed by more specific methods

if available and necessary. The second most indicated method is
D-C1 (infrared thermography), with 12.2% of all recommended
methods, followed by D-B1 (electric leak detection), registered
in 11.2% of cases. D-B2 (capacitance test), D-D1 (nuclear method),
and D-E1 (flood test) have very close contributions, considering
their individual constraints.
The uniform distribution among the diagnosis methods (with the
exception of the D-A1 technique, visual inspection) can be related
with high frequency of two anomalies that can be diagnosed by all
the methods presented: the A-G2 (fracture/failure) and A-G12
(moisture stains) anomalies, detected in 21.9% (A-G2) and
19.0% (A-G12) of all the flat roofs.
Frequency Analysis of the Rehabilitation Techniques
Along with the development of the inspection system, a total of 11
diagnosis methods, as presented in Table 5, was divided into two
groups: for general anomalies (comprising 7 methods), and for sin-
gular anomalies (comprising 4 methods).
In the 105 inspections, a total of 385 rehabilitation techniques
were attributed to 608 detected anomalies, resulting, on average,
in 0.63 techniques per anomaly and 3.67 techniques per roof.
An average below 1 demonstrates that the rehabilitation techniques
are intended to eliminate the anomaly and not the cause.
As shown in Fig. 11, the most common rehabilitation techniques
are R.1 (cleaning of the exterior coating of the flat roof, 93%) and
R.2 (application/repair/substitution of the waterproofing system,
95%). These values demonstrate the lack of maintenance that most
roofs presented when inspected.
A-G8 (debris accumulation) and A-G10 (biological growth) can
be resolved by using the R.1 technique due to its swiftness, easy
implementation, and low cost. The results for this technique were
expected because of the absence of routine maintenance, along with
the proliferation of vegetation.
The high frequency of R.2 is mainly due to the different types
of anomalies that can occur in the waterproofing membrane. The
application of this technique does not imply that the waterproofing
system is not working, but that the membrane is not in perfect con-
dition, affecting its proper functioning and the durability of the
remaining materials of the system.
The use of R.9 (repair of joints and associated protective ele-
ments) is related to the detection of A-S7 (defects in the coping)
and A-S8 (defects in the tail ends) and is the third most recom-
mended technique, in more than half of the roofs inspected.
As shown in Fig. 12, PVC membranes are the ones that overall
require less intervention, particularly using R.2, i.e., they have
greater durability. Still, it is not possible to say that PVC mem-
branes are more durable than the other materials because in the
inspections performed, all PVC membranes had heavy protection.
Lessons Learned and Conclusions
With the 105 inspections carried out, it was possible to validate
and calibrate the proposed classification systems, perform a data
analysis of the collected information, and even change some as-
sumptions that improved the application of the classification sys-
tem to real situations; however, the calibration of the system should

Fig. 10. Relative frequency of each of the diagnosis methods recommended for the anomalies detected. (See Table 4 for diagnosis methods.)

© ASCE 04018100-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100

 Fig. 11. Relative frequency of the rehabilitation techniques. (See Table 5 for rehabilitation techniques.)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Relative frequency of the rehabilitation techniques adequate for different waterproofing materials. (See Table 5 for rehabilitation techniques.)
be continued in terms of more inspections in order to increase the
number and diversity of the sample.
The data analysis of the anomalies concluded that A-G8 (debris
accumulation) and A-G10 (biological growth) are the most likely
anomalies to de detected during an inspection in 74% and 62%
of the cases, respectively. As expected, the relevance of the causes
associated with errors of use/maintenance and environmental ac-
tions was demonstrated.
In bituminous membranes with heavy protection, there was
a higher incidence of A-G10, about 86%, than in membranes that
have no protection (33%) or in those with light protection (61%).
This result was predictable because the protection in the water-
proofing system slows the evaporation of water, creating a prosper-
ous environment for the proliferation of vegetation.
Roofs without heavy protection had a higher number of cases
with A-G1 (surface wear), with values close to 65%. These results
show the importance of selecting the best type of protection be-
cause it protects the membrane from mechanical strain and UV
and thermal variations.
Comparing the results obtained for flat roofs with those from a
pitched-roofs study (Garcez et al. 2012a, b), it can be concluded
that, as expected, the environmental agents have a higher influence
in the occurrence of anomalies in pitched roofs, in comparison to
flat roofs, which can be justified by their geometry and position.
It is then possible to conclude the following:
1. Concerning project/design errors (C-P), it is essential to take
into account
• the use of appropriate materials (C-P11) to minimize surface
wear (A-G1) (the choice of inappropriate materials is respon-
sible for 57% of the occurrences of this anomaly), fracture/
failure (A-G2) (26%), cracking (A-G5) (57%), corrosion
© ASCE
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100
(A-G11) (100%), and moisture stains of condensation/leaks
(A-G12) (35%); and
• a correct design/detailing of the tail ends and associated
protection elements (C-P8) to prevent detachment/peeling
(A-G3) (this cause is responsible for 39% of the occurrences
of this anomaly), moisture stains of condensation/leaks
(A-G12) (35%), defects in the coping (A-S7) (88%), and
defects in the tail ends (A-S8) (100%).
2. Concerning execution errors (C-E), it is essential to improve the
quality of labor (C-E1) in order to avoid/minimize the occur-
rence of detachment/peeling (A-G3) (this cause is responsible
for 58% of the occurrences of this anomaly), creasing/bulging
(A-G4) (85%), absence/inadequate layer positioning (A-G7)
(62%; for example, in the downspouts when the waterproofing
layer is not extended into the interior of the tube), inadequate
slope/ponding (A-G9) (79%), inadequate design of the expan-
sion joint (A-S1) (85%), inadequate design of expansion joints
(A-S1) (86%), defects in the fastenings (A-S6) (43%), and
defects in the tail ends (A-S8) (71%).
3. Concerning environmental actions (C-A), the main causes of the
occurrence of anomalies are
• ultraviolet/solar radiation (C-A2): 75% of surface wear (A-G1),
65% of fractures/failure (A-G2), 29% of creasing/bulging
(A-G4), and 78% of cracks (A-G5) are due to this cause; and
• presence of moisture (C-A3): responsible for 100% of the
occurrences of corrosion and 48% of creasing/bulging
(A-G4).
4. Concerning maintenance/use errors (C-U), it is essential to
improve the following aspects:
• Absent/inadequate inspection (C-U3) greatly contributes to
the accumulation of debris (A-G8) (83%) and for biological
04018100-10 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 colonization (A-G10) (83%); because they are the two most
frequent anomalies, it becomes essential to have cleaning/
maintenance operations in flat roofs.
• A lack of cleaning debris in the current zone (C-U1) clearly
contributes to the accumulation of debris (A-G8) (74%), in
particular near the drainage system where the wind action is
preponderant.
5. Concerning external mechanical actions (C-M), it is noted that
• static loads (C-M2) are responsible for 30% of the occur-
rences of fracture/failure (A-G2) and 37% of that of punctu-
res (A-G6); and
• dynamic loads (C-M1) are responsible for 53% of the occur-
rences of punctures (A-G6).
In comparison to Freitas and Sousa (2003) in terms of execution
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
errors, there was a significance decrease (from 80% to 30%); how-
ever, it is still the group that most contributes to the occurrence of
anomalies in flat roofs. Thus, it can be said that since 2001 there has
been a significant improvement in waterproofing execution, par-
ticularly in terms of skilled labor. A similar result is presented
in Garcez et al. (2012b), in which 31% of the causes are execution
errors. In comparison with Silva and Gonçalves (2001), the results
obtained in this study are similar, but the design errors decrease
from 38% to 22%. In short, it is concluded that the results are gen-
erally in line with other studies, even though a broader universe of
causes was considered.
When comparing the occurrence of anomalies in different
materials of the waterproofing membranes, it can be concluded
that the highest number of anomalies can be detected in bitumi-
nous and liquid membranes. This should be considered in a
more demanding specification of materials when choosing a bi-
tuminous or liquid membrane solution, with particular attention
to the strength and durability of the material when exposed to
the sun.
Level 2 of severity/repair emergency was the most often re-
corded, with 50.3%, showing that anomalies of this gravity should
be monitored in order to check their evolution. Anomalies with a
repair emergency of 0 (19.6%), because their occurrence affects
one of the main functional requirements of a roofing system—its
water tightness—should lead to an immediate intervention. The se-
verest anomalies detected were moisture stains of condensation/leaks
(A-G12), inadequate downspout design (A-S2), defects in the fasten-
ings (A-S6), and fracture/failure (A-G2).
Visual inspection (D-A1) is recommended in an initial diagnosis
of any anomaly, being easy to use and not requiring any special
equipment, apart from a skilled experienced professional; however,
where possible, it is recommended to use auxiliary means in order
to obtain a more complete diagnosis.
Many of the inspected roofs show no signs of an implemented
maintenance plan. This demonstrates the need to use R.1 (cleaning
of the exterior coating of the flat roof) in 93% of the sample because
it is designed to repair A-G8 (debris accumulation) and A-G10
(biological growth).
The most recommended techniques for bituminous membrane,
with a recommendation frequency higher than 50%, were clean-
ing of the exterior coating of the flat roof (R.1), repair of joints
and associated protective elements (R.9), and application/repair/
substitution of the waterproofing system (R.2), given the high
frequency of anomalies in the membrane, such as surface wear
(A-G1), detachment/peeling (A-G3), and creasing/bulging (A-G4).
The most recommended techniques for PVC membranes, with
a recommendation frequency higher than 70%, were cleaning of
the exterior coating of the flat roof (R.1) and application/repair/
substitution of the waterproofing system (R.2). The use of R.1 is
mainly due to A-G8 (debris accumulation) and A-G10 (biological
© ASCE 04018100-11
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100
growth), each of which was observed in 20% of the inspected PVC
membranes.
Of the three types of membranes analyzed, liquid membranes
were those that had a lower occurrence of A-G10 (biological
growth) and A-S8 (defects in tail ends).
The objective of this study was to perform an analysis of the
data gathered in field inspections of flat roofs. This data allowed
the calibration of the inspection, diagnosis, and rehabilitation of
flat roofs, and it was properly calibrated and validated through
an extensive campaign of inspections. The system is therefore con-
sidered a good tool to aid in future inspections. The data presented
in this paper help review the design choices according to the types
of materials and systems to use and the possible problems that may
occur in the service life of the flat roof. The use of a computerized
system that allows the condensation of the information gathered is
important. The use of this system facilitates the standardization of
maintenance operations and can reduce the costs of the operations
by achieving more efficient choices and effective interventions.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the CERIS Re-
search Institute, Instituto Superior Técnico—University of Lisbon
and Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT).
References
Amaro, B., D. Saraiva, J. de Brito, and I. Flores-Colen. 2013. “Inspection
and diagnosis system of ETICS on walls.” Constr. Build. Mater.
47 (Oct): 1257–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06
.024.
Amaro, B., D. Saraiva, J. de Brito, and I. Flores-Colen. 2014. “Statistical
survey of the pathology, diagnosis and rehabilitation of ETICS in
walls.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 20 (4): 511–526. https://doi.org/10
.3846/13923730.2013.801923.
Bureau Securitas. 1984a. “Étude statistique de 10000 dossiers de sinistres,
[Statistical study of 10.000 claim files].” [In French.] In Annales
L’institut Technique du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics, 378. France:
L’institut Technique du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics.
Bureau Securitas. 1984b. “Étude statistique de 12200 dossiers de sinistres
en 1982 [Statistical study of 12.200 claims files in 1982].” [In French.]
In Annales L’institut Technique du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics,
426. France: L’institut Technique du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics.
Cnudde, M. 1991. “Lack of quality in construction.” In Proc., European
Symp. on Management, Quality and Economics in Housing. Quality
and Economics in Housing, 508–515. London: E&FN Spon.
Conceição, J., B. Poça, J. Brito, I. Flores-Colen, and A. Castelo. 2017. “In-
spection, diagnosis, and rehabilitation inspection system for flat roofs.”
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 31 (6): 04017100. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001094.
Freitas, V., and M. Sousa. 2003. “Building pathology: A catalogue.” In
Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Building Pathology, Durability and Rehabili-
tation, 477–488. Lisbon, Portugal: Portuguese National Laboratory of
Civil Engineering.
Garcez, N., N. Lopes, J. de Brito, and G. Sá. 2012a. “Pathology, diagnosis
and repair of pitched roofs with ceramic tiles: Statistical characterisation
and lessons learned from inspections.” Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (Nov):
807–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.049.
Garcez, N., N. Lopes, J. de Brito, and J. D. Silvestre. 2012b. “System
of inspection, diagnosis and repair of external claddings of pitched
roofs.” Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (Oct): 1034–1044. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.047.
Gomes, R. 1968. Flat roof. Technical information buildings. Lisbon,
Portugal: National Laboratory of Civil Engineering.
INE (National Statistics Institute). 2012. Census 2011: Definitive results:
Portugal. [In Portuguese.] Lisbon, Portugal: INE.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Josephson, P., and Y. Hammarlund. 1991. “Sources of quality failures in
building.” In Proc., European Symposium on Management, Quality and
Economics in Housing, 671–680. London: E&FN Spon.
Pires, R., J. de Brito, and B. Amaro. 2015a. “Inspection, diagnosis, and
rehabilitation system of painted rendered façades.” J. Perform. Constr.
Facil. 29 (2): 04014062. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509
.0000534.
Pires, R., J. de Brito, and B. Amaro. 2015b. “Statistical survey of the inspec-
tion, diagnosis and repair of painted rendered façades.” Struct. Infrastruct.
Eng. 11 (5): 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.890233.
Santos, A., M. Vicente, J. de Brito, I. Flores-Colen, and A. Castelo. 2017a.
“Analysis of the inspection, diagnosis, and repair of door and window
frames.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 31 (3): 04017098. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001095.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Santos, A., M. Vicente, J. de Brito, I. Flores-Colen, and A. Castelo. 2017b.
“Inspection, diagnosis, and rehabilitation system of door and window
frames.” J. Perfor. Constr. Facil. 31 (3): 04016118. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000992.
Silva, J., and P. Gonçalves. 2001. “Frequent pathologies in flat roofs in
Portugal.” [In Portuguese.] In Proc., National Construction Congress.
Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto Superior Técnico.
Silvestre, J. D., and J. de Brito. 2007. “Technical note: Statistical analysis of
defects of tiles’ joints.” [In Spanish.] Materiales de Construcción
57 (285): 85–92. https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2007.v57.i285.42.
Walter, A., J. de Brito, and J. Lopes. 2005. “Current flat roof bituminous
membranes waterproofing systems: Inspection, diagnosis and pathol-
ogy classification.” Constr. Build. Mater. 19 (3): 233–242. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.05.008.

© ASCE 04018100-12 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2019, 33(1): 04018100