Falta model coberta

Transcript

Falta model coberta

INGENIERIA DE LA EDIFICACIÓN
PROYECTO FINAL DE GRADO
“CRITERI PER LA RI-ISPEZIONE DELLO STATO DELLE LESIONI NELLE FACCIATE
URBANE”
Proyectista/es: Sergio Fontecha Carrillo
Director/s: Vicenç Gibert Armengol i Carles Serrat Piè
Convocatoria: Febrero 2013
1
RIASSUNTO
Questo progetto è stato basato sulla realizzazione di ri-ispezioni delle facciate nel municipio
di Hospitalet del Llobregat, in concreto nel quartiere del centro.
Il fine di queste ispezioni delle facciate era fare uno studio dell’evoluzione delle stesse, sia a
livello di durata dei materiali sia come percentuale di facciate che hanno subito interventi
negli ultimi 12 anni
Lo studio parte da una prima ispezione realizzata nel 2000, nella quale si determinò lo stato
di degrado delle facciate nel quartiere del centro. Con lo scopo di stabilire quale sia stato il
livello di degrado sullo stesso campione in un periodo di 12 anni, si è decisa una seconda
ispezione che permettesse determinare se ci sia stata una evoluzione, se siano apparse
nuove lesioni e se le lesioni già esistenti abbiano sofferto una mutazione.
Il progetto è diviso in due parti, la prima è stata realizzare un lavoro di comprensione e
investigazione su gli studi esistenti sul tema, e un’analisi delle caratteristiche delle facciate
tanto a livello costruttivo come a livello patológico.
La seconda parte del progetto è stata realizzare un lavoro di campo in cui si sono identificate
ognuna delle facciate del quartiere del centro di Hosp., per poi introdurle in un database
contenente tutta l’informazione delle facciate esistenti nella zona e allo stesso tempo
introdurre le fotografie delle stesse facciate ispezionate nell’anno 2000.
Si è anche determinato quali facciate avessero súbito un intervento e quali no, in questo
modo si è conseguito avere uno studio delle facciate esistenti nel complesso edificato, per
così ottenere dei dati statistici e l’informazione di quali facciate abbiano bisogno di una
seconda ispezione.
Il progetto è innovativo, contempla infatti ri-ispezioni in una durata di tempo superiore ai 10
anni che permetterà stabilire criteri di qual’è la vita utile ed evolutiva degli elementi delle
facciate.
Un lavoro essenziale è stato il convalidare la metodología d’ispezione e un livello d’efficienza
nei risultati perseguiti visto che le nuove ispezioni e i dati devono essere comparabili per
stabilire le opportune correlazioni.
2 Sergio Fontecha Carrillo
CRITERIOS PARA LA REINSPECCIÓN DEL ESTADO DE LESIONES EN FACHADAS URBANAS 3
INDICE
1
2
3
INTRODUZIONE ............................................................................................................ 5
1.1
CONTESTUALIZZAZIONE ...................................................................................... 6
1.2
OBJECTIVOS DEL PROYECTO ............................................................................. 7
1.3
METODOLOGIA UTILIZZATA NEL PROGETTO..................................................... 9
1.4
GIUSTIFICAZIONE DEL PROGETTO ................................................................... 11
INQUADRAMENTO TEORICO .................................................................................... 12
2.1
STUDI SCIENTIFICI RELAZIONATI ...................................................................... 12
2.2
CONCLUSIONI ...................................................................................................... 15
SPETTRO DELLO STUDIO ......................................................................................... 16
3.1
STUDIO DELLA TIPOLOGÍA DELLE FACCIATE .................................................. 16
3.2
CLASSIFICAZIONE TECNOLÓGICA E COSTRUTTIVA DELLE FACCIATE ............
.............................................................................................................................. 17
3.3
RELAZIONE FRA GLI ELEMNTI DI CHIUSURA E SUPPORTO .......................... 20
3.4
DEFINIZIONE DEI COMPONENTI E DELLE ZONE DI VULNERABILITÀ DELLE
FACCIATE ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.4.1
4
PUNTOS CRÍTICOS FRENTE A LA DURABILIDAD EN UNA FACHADA: ..... 29
DETERMINACIÓN DE LOS CRITERIOS DE INSPECCIÓN ........................................ 31
4.1
COMPARACIÓN DEL SISTEMA EMPLEADO ...................................................... 31
4.2
ADECUACIÓN A NUEVAS INSPECCIONES ........................................................ 35
4.3
CREACIÓN DE LA ESTRATEGIA DE DETECCIÓN DE MUESTRAS
INALTERADAS ................................................................................................................ 37
5
CLASIFICACIÓN DE TIPOLOGIA DE LAS LESIONES RECURRENTES EN
FACHADAS DE EDIFICIOS................................................................................................. 39
5.1
6
INTRODUCCIÓN AL CONCEPTO DE LESIÓN ..................................................... 41
ANÁLISIS DEL ESTADO DEL PARQUE INSPECCIONADO ....................................... 49
6.1
EXTRACCIÓN DE RESULTADOS DE LAS SEGUNDAS INSPECCIONES .......... 49
6.2
COMPARATIVA DEL ESTADO DE DEGRADACIÓN ............................................ 51
6.2.1
6.3
CONCLUSIONES ........................................................................................... 52
COMPARACIÓN DE LOS DATOS DE LA PRIMERA Y SEGUNDA INSPECCIÓN 54
6.3.1
TABLA COMPARATIVA DE LAS LESIONES MÁS RECURRENTES EN LOS
DOS AÑOS DE INSPECCIÓN ..................................................................................... 54
6.4
EVALUACIÓN DE LOS RESULTADOS HALLADOS ............................................. 56
6.4.1
DESCRIPCIÓN DE LA BASE DE DATOS ...................................................... 57
6.4.2
TABLAS DE DATOS CUANTITATIVOS DE LA EVOLUCIÓN DE LAS
LESIONES EN EL PARQUE INSPECCIONADO ......................................................... 61
6.4.3
GRÁFICOS RESUMEN DE LA EVOLUCIÓN DE LAS LESIONES POR
SUBELEMENTOS DENTRO DE LAS FACHADAS REINSPECCIONADAS................. 63
7
CONCLUSIONES ........................................................................................................ 72
8
BIBLIOGRAFÍA ............................................................................................................ 74
1 INTRODUZIONE
Il presente progetto finale Proyecto de Final de Grado de Ingeniera de Edificación si
propone di stabilire il método e quali siano i criteri necessari per realizzare seconde
ispezioni di facciate in un complesso già deteriorato e che era già stato ispezionato
con anteriorità e determinare l’evoluzione delle facciate sia a livello di durabilità sia a
livello di patologie.
Questo studio si vuole realizzare nel quartiere del centro della città di Hospitalet del
Llobregat, con l’intenzione di stabilire quale sia stata l’evoluzione nel tempo delle
lesioni riscontrate nelle ispezioni anteriori.
Dopo la realizzazione di uno studio delle caratteristiche di una facciata e un lavoro di
campo, per identificare quali facciate avessero súbito interventi e quali no, si sono
ottenuti dei risultati quantitativi, introdotti in un database creato nelle prime ispezioni,
nel quale si sono introdotti i valori ottenuti in queste seconde ispezioni e con il quale si
sono realizzate delle comparazioni per verificare il sistema utilizzato.
Questi risultati e la metodología si propongono preparare il campione per futuri studi
di analisi statistica di sopravvivenza vincolati alla durabilità delle facciate degli edifici
nel tempo.
Rispetto ai contenuti è previsto partire dalla contestualizzazione del problema messo
in discussione e quali siano le conoscenze previe nel contesto scientifico sulla
problemática delle doppie ispezioni, come anche se i criteri delle prime (ispezioni)
fosseri adeguati.
Si vuole anche creare un método specifico che sia in grado di ispezionare grandi aree
urbane mediante una definizione del campione con un campione di dati per arrivare a
quantificare e comparare i risultati ottenuti.
In fine si pretende osservare quale sia l’evoluzione reale delle facciate e se questa
abbia un’entità suficiente per un intervento predittivo che attraverso azioni preventive
allunghi la loro vita utile e minimizzi il rischio di danno incontrollato.
1.1 CONTESTUALIZZAZIONE
Nel 1998, il comune della città di H… si mise in contatto con il Laboratorio di edificazione
della EPSEB, e sollecitò l’ispezione di tutte le facciate della cittá. Il motivo dell’iniziativa
si doveva ai vari incidenti che si produssero a causa del deterioro delle facciate, e che
causarono qualche danno. .
A partire da questo si fece uno studio, sullo stato delle facciate del municipio di
Hospitalet del Llobregat.
Il primo studio nel quartiere del centro si realizzò nel 2000; si analizzò lo stato del
complesso edificato della città Hospitalet del Llobregat dalle quali si estrapolarono dei
dati, per determinare la durabilità delle facciate che posteriormente si analizzerebbero
statisticamente
Dato che la base dello studio è analizzare la durabilità in funzione dello stato di degrado
dei materiali e degli elementi costruttivi, nelle facciate, il progetto vuole dare una risposta
a questa problematica.
Per questo si è ritenuto necesssario che dopo 12 anni, si sarebbe dovuto ripetere uno
studio nel complesso del quartiere del centro di Hospitalet del Llobregat, per osservare
quale sia stata l’evoluzione dei materiali, degli elementi costruttivi e della volontà da
parte dell’amministrazione di aiutare nel mantnimento delle facciate del municipio.
A prescindere dal fatto che sia un progetto che tocca una zona concreta e in un
municipio determinato questo progetto è solo una parte del macro progetto sullo studio
della durabilità di una grande area urbana come quella si vuole prendere in
considerazione.
Questo studio sarebbe stato impossibile da realizzare senza i dati e l’nformazione dei
lavori anteriori realizzati dal laboratorio di Edificazione, che processarono i dati
estrapolati da diversi lavori realizzati da studenti dell’ultimo anno di A.T.
1.2 OBJECTIVOS DEL PROYECTO
La motivazione del progetto è centrata nel contesto della predizione della durabilità delle
facciate nel tempo e la costatazione di quale sia l'evoluzione del fenomeno costatabile) della
lesione, in grandezza e gravità.
Per questo si sono marcati degli obiettivi generali e strategici che ci portino a conoscere la
problemática, come si cercano determinati indicatori casuali del degrado e che conclusioni si
possano trarre dallo studio realizzato.
Esistono per questo altri obbiettivi specifici che ci porteranno alla di quelli generali.de los
generales.
A continuazione si specificano gli obbiettivi generali e specifici:
1. Studiare la tipologia delle facciate.
i. Classificare la tecnologia costruttiva delle facciate.
ii. Mettere in relazione elementi di chiusura e di supporto.
iii. Identificare l'opacità degli elementi di chiusura.
iv. Definire zone di vulnerabilità.
2. Determinare i criteri di ri-ispezione.
i. Confrontare il sistema impiegato.
ii. Adeguare per le nuove ispezioni.
iii. Creare una strategia di prelievo di campioni inalterati.
3. Confrontare lo stato di degrado.
i. Classificare per tipologia le lesioni ricorrenti nelle facciate.
ii. Analizzare lo stato del complesso ispezionato.
iii. Estrapolare i dati delle seconde ispezioni.
iv. Confrontare i dati delle prime e delle seconde ispezioni.
v. Valutare i risultati ottenuti.
Il primo obbiettivo è studiare i classifcare le facciate come elemento costruttivo sia spiegando
gli elementi che la formano, che analizzando i loro punti deboli,
A continuazione si questiona e dibatte il sistema di ri-ispezione utilizzato, perchè la scelta del
sistema, renderlo adeguato per le nuove ispezioni e il rilevamento di campioni inalterati
ancora esistenti.
Con tutto ciò si è realizzato il lavoro di campo per estrarre i risultati quantitativi che ci
permettano comparare i dati della situazione del complesso edificato studiato e a sua volta
aiutino a corroborare che il sistema utilizzato per le ispezioni è l'ottimo per la realizzazione di
nuove ispezioni.
1.3 METODOLOGIA UTILIZZATA NEL PROGETTO
La metodologia scelta (presa in considerazione) risponde al conseguimento degli obiettivi
generali che si sono specificati. La base delle conoscenze si è acquisita con la revisione di
bibliografia scientifica, con esperienze previe di altri lavori e come risultato della propria
ispezione estratta dalle ispezioni da realizzare sulle facciate ri-ispezionate.
A continuazione si mostrano i punti sui quali si centra rispondere la metodologia:
1.-Caratterizzazione dei modelli costruttivi che permettano classificare in forma
generica le facciate studiate.
Uno dei primi punti è quello di realizzare uno studio sulla classificazione delle facciate
secondo un modello costruttivo, le loro caratteristiche, le tipologie e tutto ciò che possa
concernere in una facciata per determinare isuo l stato e la sua durabilità.
In questo punto sarà di gran rilevanza la revisione bibliografica e il proposito s¡di una
oroposta schematica che modulizzi l'elemento costruttivo. propuesta esquemática que
modalice el elemento constructivo.
2.- Mediante l'analisi dell'effettività del sistema impiegato e generando le variabili
necessarie di miglioramento senza distosionare le ispezioni realizzate anteriormente.
Così si struttura anche una pre-ispezione di campo per il prelievo dei campioni delle
facciate che non hanno subito interventi.
Il secondo punto sarà realizzare una parte del lavoro di campo, che consisterà nella
realizzazione di una ispezione visuale di ognuna delle facciate per poter fare una
comparazione del loro stato rispetto all'anno 2000.
Di qui si estrapolerrano dei risultati quantitativi che ci permetteranno identificare quali
facciate hanno subito un intervento in questi 12 anni e di quali bisognerà fare una ispezione
attraverso le schede generate nell'anno 2000.
Si struttura così anche una pre-ispezione di campo per il rilevamento dei campioni delle
facciate che non hanno subito interventi.
3.- Ordine e comprensione dei database esistenti con implementazione dell'informazione
della seconda ispezione. Creando nuove statistiche quantitavie delle variabili evolutive dello
stato delle lesioni in oggetto.
In questo ultimo punto si utilizzeranno tutti i dati ottenuti nel lavoro di campo per introdurli in un
database già generato, e creare così dei grafici
e dei dati statistici delle facciate ispezionate e
poter determinare in una forma quantitativa il volume delle facciate che non hanno subito interventi,
che tipo di lesioni sono le più ricorrenti, che materiali sono i più vulnerabili, di che tipo sono le
facciate che soffrono di più e in quali parti.
1.4 GIUSTIFICAZIONE DEL PROGETTO
Il presente progetto si propone corroborare l’applicazione di un sistema predittivo, già
utilizzato in ispezioni anteriori, che permetta confermare, con sufficiente affidabilità e
autenticità che il sistema utilizzato per la realizzazione delle ispezioni è il migliore e possa
eliminare qualsiasi tipo di rischio o danno a terzi.
Il suo apporto (contributo) principale consiste nello sviluppare uno strumento pratico,
affidabile che permetta ai tecnici sia municipali che non, realizzare le ispezioni delle facciate
in una maniera veloce , capibile e che serva da giustificante per i clienti o per le persone che
devono apportare i mezzi economici.
Questo progetto apporta anche:
-
Creare uno studio statistico dello stato del complesso di case del centro di Hospitalet
del Llobregat, e in concreto dello stato delle sue facciate.
-
Valutare i criteri in relazione con la durabilità e il rischio.
-
Identificare d’immediato se una facciata è in uno stato di avanzato degrado e sia
necessario un intervento per evitare qualsiasi rischio o danno.
-
Creare una metodología di lavoro e delle ispezioni delle facciate.
-
Ampliare gli studi relazionati con le ispezioni di facciate in un reticolato urbano.
2 INQUADRAMENTO TEORICO
2.1 STUDI SCIENTIFICI RELAZIONATI
In questo punto si spiegherà l’investigazione realizzata per la ricerca di studi, documenti,
progetti scientifici e tecnici, relazionati con il tema di questo progetto, le seconde ispezioni di
facciate in un reticolato urbano.
Questo fu uno dei primi punti su cui si incominciò a lavorare nella realizzazione di questo
progetto. Si cominciò a cercare informazione sullo studio delle seconde ispezioni nelle
facciate in un tracciato urbano e dei concetti di durabilità delle facciate.
La ricerca di informazione si realizzò principalmente utilizando i database ai quali l’università
ha acceso, per esempio CSIC, SCOPUS, KNOWLEDGE.
Utilizzando i sistema di ricerca si sono ottenuti vari documenti relazionati con il tema.
A continuazione si commenterà ognuno (i documenti saranno disponibili nell’annesso)
I.
Il primo documento da commentare è realizzato da Inês Flores-Colen e Jorge de
Brito, ed è stato ottenuto dalla ricerca di informazioni nel database Knowledge. Si
tratta di un documento del 2010. Questo documento è realizzato in inglese e ha come
titolo il seguente “A systematic approach for maintenance budgeting
of
buildings
façades based on predictive and preventive strategies” (Sistema di aprossimazione
per il presupposto di mantenimento di facciate di edifici, basato su strategie di
prevenzione e predittive).
In questo documento si spiega un sistema per la realizzazione di un mantenimento
preventivo nelle facciate con tecniche e strategie per far sì che la relazione costoeffetto sia minima all’interno di un complesso edificato.
Per la realizazzione di questo sistema si sono creati 6 database:
-
Database 1: dati tecnici
-
Database 2: vita utile
-
Database 3: danni e lesioni
-
Database 4: metodo di diagnosi
-
Database 5: operazioni di mantenimento
-
Database 6: procedimenti urgente
Attraverso l’uso di diversi modelli di (attuazione-stato di degrado) si sono stabilite della
costanti a partire da grafici, che determinano la vita utile della facciata.
Questi 4 modelli sono:
-
Modello I: relazione fra attuazione-degrado senza matenimento
-
Modello II: Relazione actuación-degradación con mantenimento periódico, pulizia
delle facciate.
-
Modelo III: relación actuación-degradación con mantenimiento periódico realizando
reparaciones. …..realizzando riparazioni
-
Modelo IV: relación actuación-degradación realización de una intervención
considerable en la fachada….realizzando un intervento considerevole sulla facciata
A partire dai dati introdotti nel database e quelli ottenuti nei grafici si ottengono dati
sulla relazione attuazione-costo, che ci permettono determinare quale sia il miglior
sistema per il mantenimento delle facciate sempre dalla relazione attuazione-costo.
II.
Anche questo secondo documento è realizzato da Inês Flores-Colen, Jorge de Brito e
Vasco P. de Freitas, si è ottenuto dal database Knowledge.
E’ un documento dell’anno 2008 titolato “Stains in facades rendering maintenance
techniques classification” (Campioni di sporcizia – Tecniche di classificazione di
mantenimento e diagnosi) In questo articolo si cerca mostrare quale sia stata
l’evoluzione dell’apparizione
della sporcizia (macchie) sulle facciate, di un gran
complesso urbano in Portogallo.
Gli autori di questo documento hanno voluto stabilire dei riferimenti fissi di
mantenimento e diagnosi, per la detenzione di queste lesioni a grande scala.
Per le tecniche di diagnosi e identificazione e caratterizzazione delle lesioni hanno
codificato le lesioni con la lettera “M” e un numero dall’1 all’11; le cause le hanno
indicate con la lettera “C” e una numerazione dall’1 al 16; per identificare la
magnitudine la numerazione va dallo 0,1,2.
In seguito alle tecniche di ispezione si è generata una tabella dove si indicano le
tecniche di mantenimento indicate con la lettera “T”, e in funzione della complessità
dei lavori da realizzare per riparare le lesioni si è codificato con le lettere dalla “A” alla
“J”. Con questo sistema gli autori hanno voluto semplificare e inglobare i sistemi di
analisi, ispezione e intervenzione, delle lesioni generate sulle facciate di una grande
area urbana.
Il terzo e ultimo articolo menzionato è quello realizzato dai seguenti autori J.A.R. Mendes
Silva *, Jorge Falorca ed ha come titolo (Piano per il mantenimento di edifici con
l’applicazione nel campione da analizzare della composizione delle facciate) Anche questo
articolo è stato ottenuto dal database Knowlege, e appartiene come gli anteriori alla rivista
“Construction and Building Materials”.
Si realizzò nell’anno 2009, dal dipartimento di ingenieria civile, della facoltà di scienze e
tecnología dell’Università di Coimbra.
In questo documento si spiega la creazione e il disegno di un piano di mantenimento
degli
edifici. de los edificios.
Le caratteristiche di questo piano si ricavano dalla seguente classificazione:
A.- Elementi dell’edificio: identificazione degli elementi principali.
B.- Sottostruttura degli elementi: caratterizzazione degli elementi primari.
C.- Procedimenti iniziali: identificazione della vita utile.
D.-Procedimenti delle ispezioni di mantenimento abituali: piano di mantenimento.
Per vedere l’utilità del sistema si prende in considerazione un esempio di un cui si
analizzano un gran numero di facciate (37.000m² aprox). Della quale si è realizzata una
ispezione visiva delle facciate una nell’anno 2004 e l’altra nel 2006. Con questo si realizza
una comparazione dello stato di degrado delle facciate utilizzando il sistema disegnato dagli
autori precedentemente menzionati.
2.2 CONCLUSIONI
La informazione spiegata nella sezione anteriore, è la più importante che si è trovata in
relazione al tema del presente progetto.
Tutta l’informazione che si trova nella sezione annessa 9.2 (lista dei documenti rilevanti per
la realizzazzione del progetto), e nella quale si sono introdotti i dati dell’informazione
ottenuta, in forma riassunta, perchè sia di utilità in future, investigazioni sulle ispezioni o riinspezioni di facciate in grande aree urbane.
I diversi articoli menzionati anteriormente, dal nostro punto di vista apportano solo una
maniera di classificazione e sistematicità nel momento di realizzare ispezioni di facciate in
una grande area urbana; arrivano addirittura a complicare il lavoro della realizzazione delle
ispezioni; senza comunque dettagliare i diversi tipi di lesione, la loro gravità e magnitudo,
che potremmo trovare nelle distinte ispezioni.
Tras contrastar la información que se ha obtenido de las bases de datos, de documentos
Dopo aver confrontato i dati ottenuti nei database, in biblioteche…, si può dire che il presente
progetto aiuta ad ampliare l’informazione sul tema. Permette infatti ottenere risultati
praticamente immediati sullo stato di un complesso edificato
Dato che è un tema, sul quale non sono stati fatti molti approfondimenti, e per questo
l’informazione che si è trovata è limitata si considera che l’informazione che apporta questo
progetto possa essere di grande aiuto per la realizzazione di futuri studi.
3 SPETTRO DELLO STUDIO
3.1 STUDIO DELLA TIPOLOGÍA DELLE FACCIATE
Seguendo il método del lavoro spiegato nel punto 1.4 (giustificazione del progetto) del
presente progetto; a continuazione si spiegheranno le caratteristiche di una facciata e
soprattutto le parti di una facciata che bisogna tenere in considerazione per poi studiarle a
posteriori durante l’ispezione.
Intendiamo come facciata qualcosa di così semplice come la parte esterna di un edificio;
nella quale normalmente si manifestano considerazioni estetiche e dalla quale ci si aspetta
che compia alcune funzioni intrinseche: proteggere dalle condizioni ambientali igrometriche,
termiche, dal rumore e allo stesso tempo preservare la struttura dell’edificio (inoltre, questa
parte esterna può formare parte del sistema strutturale dell’edificio).
La sezione tipo della facciata in analisi si compone di due “foglie” : uno esterno esposto
direttamente ai fattori descritti sopra e un’altro interno che delimiterà lo spazio interno
dell’edificio (le stanze); fra i quali c’è una separazione per un isolante termico (il quale può
essere anche semplicemente aria). Determineremo che la facciata è costituita dai seguenti
elementi: paramento (pieni), apertura (vani), elementi aggettanti, elementi ed elementi
ornamentali.
E’ evidente che essendo la facciata composta da differenti elementi che presentano diversi
ranghi di durabilità e distribuiti in zone diverse fa si che determinare la durabilità di una
facciata sia complesso. Così che pretendiamo realizzare un modelo concettuale genérico
attraverso il quale analizzaremo le parti e gli elementi che compongono una facciata e la
relazione o il grado incidenza che hanno rispetto alla durabilità.
Partendo dalla definizione di facciata e degli elementi che la costituiscono e la definiscono
per quanto riguarda la sua funzione e gli aspetti che la delimitano, possiamo stabilire o
marcare una tendenza verso la determinazione di una proposta comparativa che definisca la
capacità della durabilità della stessa.
Osservando che lo stato ideale dell’elemento facciata è l’essere compatta, continua e chiusa,
conoscendo le pratiche professionali sul limite di massa delle facciate, condizionato dal limite
di spessore e l’esistenza di aperture, elementi aggettanti. Questi condizionano la sua
capacità di durabilità.
3.2
CLASSIFICAZIONE TECNOLÓGICA E COSTRUTTIVA DELLE
FACCIATE
In linee generali nel mondo della costruzione e dell’edificazione troviamo due grandi gruppi di
facciate, secondo la loro tecnología costruttiva.
I due grandi gruppi sono:
i.
Facciate costruite/pesanti
ii.
Facciate móntate/leggere
Facciate costruite / pesanti:
Consideriamo le facciate costruite tutte quelle facciati tradizionali, sia che siano di mattone
a vista, rinzaffo, di pietra, di legno o altre, oltre alle retroventilate e alle prefabbricate.
Facciate retroventilate
Sono simili ai muri tenda. Anch’esse sono composte da montanti, traverse e chiusure,
però a differenza delle anteriori, i montanti si ancorano a muri di fabbricazione, e
bugnata i pezzi di chiusura sono pesanti: normalmente di pietra o cerámica.
All’esistere una foglia di chiusura interna (abitualmente di mattoni), le placche non
hanno bisogno di una giuntura stagna, e nel montaggio sono separate fra loro di pochi
millimetri, permettendo che l’isolamento térmico possa ventilare per le stesse grate.
Questo tipo di facciate si usano di solito negli edifici istituzionali, dovuto al fatto che
hanno una finitura di alta qualità.
Facciate prefabbricate
Sono facciate composte da moduli di parete che vengono fatti nel laboratorio, unite
uno all’altro in cantiere. Dipendendo dal livello di prefabbricazione possono addirittura
montarsi pareti di facciata con finestre e porte pre-istallate.
Il materiale più utilizzato nei prefabbricati è il cemento, anche se è esteso l’uso del
legno, e altri materiali più moderni come il GRC (Glass Reinforced Concrete). I sistemi
di unione fra i diversi moduli sono già incorporati nei pezzi stessi, in modo che sono di
solito costruzioni a unione in secco.
Facciate móntate/leggere
Le facciate móntate sono quelle che funzionano come una pelle appesa all’edificio. Come
indica il loro nome, sono leggere, e non contribuiscono alla stabilità della struttura. Dovuto
alla loro poca massa, sono cattivi isolanti per il rumore, per questo non sono applicabili in
edifici che richiedano ambienti silenziosi, come per esempio quelli residenziali.
Non funzionano bene neanche come isolanti termici, esigendo generalmente una spesa
extra di riscaldamento o aria condizionata. D’altra parte, il loro peso ridotto, la loro grande
capacità di permettere il passaggio della luce, e la loro rapidità nel montaggio le rendono
idonee per grattacieli e una gran varietà di spazi pubblici.
Si compongono di tre elementi:

Montanti:elementi di presa verticale che si ancorano alla struttura dell’edificio

Traverse o profili secondari:elementi orrizontali ancorati ai montanti e che
terminano di conformare l’armatura

Serramenti: può essere di vetro o di pannelli leggeri (legno, aluminio). Questi
possono essere fissi o praticabili
I vantaggi di questo método sono un maggior controllo di qualità, nel fabbricare i pezzi in
laboratorio, e un processo di montaggio molto veloce che non ha bisogno di molta mano
d’opera. Per questo motivo in paesi
industrializzati dove la mano d’opera è
comparativamene più cara che i materiali, sta diventando sempre più popolare.
In funzione se la “pelle di facciata” è continua o si interrompe in ogni forgiato, le facciate
leggere si possono classificare in “muri tenda” o “facciate panello” rispettivamente.
Muro tenda:
Un muro tenda (in inglese curtain wall) è un sistema di facciata che non carica nessun
peso morto della costruzione che non sia il proprio, e un altro che trasferisce i pesi
orrizontali che incidono su di esso. Questi pesi sono trasferiti alla struttura principale
dell’edificio grazie a connessioni alle abitazioni o colonne dell’edificio. Un muro tenda è
disegnato per resistere le infiltrazioni di aria e acqua, le forze dei venti che attuino
sull’edificio, forze sismiche (generalmente, solo quelle imposte per inerzia dal muro
tenda), e le sue proprie forze di peso morto.
I muri tenda sono típicamente disegnati con profili di aluminio temperato anche se i primi
muri tenda erano fatti in acciaio. Lo stipide di aluminio è solitamente occupato da vetro, il
che permette dare un aspetto gradevole all’edificio, e contemporáneamente facilita
l’illuminazione naturale. Comunque, i parametri in relazione con il controllo del risparmio
solare, tali come confort térmico e visuale sono più difficili da controllare quando si
utilizzano muri tenda vetrati. Altri materiali usati sono la pietra, i pannelli metallici,
persiane e finestre meccaniche.
Esistono básicamente due tipi di Muro Tenda:
Di alluminio a vista: dall’esterno dell’edificio si possono aprezzare sia i vetri (fissi e
mobili) sia l’alluminio, il denominato “tappo o tappino”.
Di silicone strutturale: dall’esterno della faccate si possono vedere solo i diversi vetri;
rimane nascosta alla vista la struttura di alluminio, visibile solo dal lato interno.
Nei Muri Tenda di silicone strutturale, si usano di solito due tipi di finestre,
completamente integrate nella sua struttura, per raggiungere la ventilazione naturale
dell’interno dell’edificio.
Proiettante: scivola verso l’esterno, solo la parte inferiore
Parallela: scivola verso l’esterno tutto il perímetro della foglia della finestra, potendo
essere di azionamento manuale o motorizzato.
I muri tenda differiscono dalle vetrine nel fatto che sono disegnati per ricoprire multipli
piani e includono esigenze di disegno tali come: espansione e contrazione térmica;
movimenti e oscillazioni dell’edificio; desvii d’acqua; e efficenza térmica per
riscaldamento, raffreddamento e illuminazione a costi effettivi nell’edificio.
-
Facciata a pannelli
Si dice che si tratta di una facciata a pannelli quando la facciata si interrompe in ogni
forgiato delimitando pannelli o zone indipendenti
e di conseguenza la struttura
ausiliare della facciata leggera è apoggiata in ogni forgiato.
3.3 RELAZIONE FRA GLI ELEMNTI DI CHIUSURA E SUPPORTO
Per poter pianificare un programa preciso di intervento sulle facciate bisogna tener conto
della relazione che hanno con l’edificio.
I.
La facciata è una parete di un sistema strutturale di muri portanti
i.
La facciata è una parete che forma parte di un sistema strutturale generale
dell’edificio, e che qualsiasi movimento di alcune delle sue parti può ripercuotere su
un altro elemento, di connessione come i forgiati. A continuazione si enumerano le
relazioni delle facciate in un sistema strutturale di muri portanti.
ii.
La facciata in contatto con i forgiati interni. I forgiati interni si appoggiano sulla
facciata.
I forgiati interni sono paralleli alla facciata.
I forgiati interni sono situati nei due sensi.
iii.
La facciata in relazione con il resto delle pareti. I vincoli con le pareti interne hanno lo
stesso spessore.
I vincoli con le pareti interne hanno diverso spessore.
iv.
La facciata in relazione con gli elementi aggettanti, come balconi, tribune o cornici.
Gli elementi aggettanti unicamente si appoggiano sulla facciata.
Gli elementi aggettanti sono un prolungamento dei forgiati interni.
II.
La facciata è un elemento indipendente dalla struttura ed eserce la funzione di
serramento
Nelle costruzioni attuali, grazie alla evoluzione della técnica, delle caratteristiche dei materiali
e delle proprie caratteristiche morfologiche delle facciate, la facciata si è trasformata sempre
più in un elemento indipendente dal resto dell’edificio, e questo permette distinguere
numerosi casi nella relazione con gli altri elementi con i quali si relaziona. A continuazione si
menzionano questi casi.
I.
La facciata in relazione con la struttura.
Il grossore del serramento si appoggia direttamente sulla struttura.
Il grossore del serramento si appoggia parzialmente sulla struttura.
Il grossore del serramento è situato totalmente all’esterno della struttura.
II.
La facciata e la visualizzazione del suo paramento.
Il serramento è livellato con la struttura, in modo che i suoi elementi (pilari e
forgiati) rimangono a vista all’esterno.
Il serramento è livellato con la struttura e la facciata si ricopre con un
rivestimento continuo.
Il grossore del serramento si appoggia parzialmente sopra la struttura e i suoi
elementi (pilari e forgiati) si bugnato.
III.
Il contatto fra il grossore della facciata e la struttura.
Il grossore o parte dello stesso si trova fra pilari e forgiati.
Il grossore o parte dello stesso è agganciato con flessi o un altro mecanismo
che permettono la sua mobilità.
IV.
Relazione fra gli elementi aggettanti.
Il grossore della facciata continua gli sporgenti dei forgiati formando dei volumi
aggettanti.
Il grossore della facciata segue la linea dei pilari in modo che volano
(sporgono) solo i forgiati (balconi).
Il grossore rientra nella linea della facciata, e questo è, con balconi interni.
3.4 DEFINIZIONE
DEI
COMPONENTI
VULNERABILITÀ DELLE FACCIATE
E
DELLE
ZONE
DI
Dentro a una facciata c’è un insieme di elementi più vulnerabili di altri, è di grande
importanza identificare questi elementi che sono i più deboli in caso di lesioni; e per poter
attuare su di loro o trattarli in una forma specifica prima che la lesione li affetti.
A continuazione si spiegheranno ognuno degli elementi più vulnerabili di una facciata.
Il parámento
Il parámento costituisce la parte cieca o chiusa della facciata. Il parámento della maggiore
parte degli edifici esistenti è formato da una parete di materiali diversi, con o senza camera,
finita esteriormente con materiali di fabbrica a vista o con diversi rivestimenti. Questo
paramento può adottare, come abbiamo detto, diverse rifiniture: materiali di fabbrica a vista
(pietra, ceramica, blocchi di mortaio e cemento armato) e rivestimento continuo (stuccato,
graffiato, a buccia d’arancia e rasate) e rivestimenti per elementi (impiastrellato, laminati
aderenti e sospesi).
Il paramento dell’edificio è formato da una base, che è la parte in contatto con il livello del
terreno (esposta a l’azione dell’umidità, azioni di animali, atti vandalici, etc.), da una zona
intermedia dove si combinano le apertura e la parte massiccia propia del paramento, e,
infine, da una parte superiore o coronamento dell’edificio così cme si può osservare nella
figura 3.1.
I giunti di dilatazione sono gli elementi di separazione fra due pareti di uno stesso edificio, o
fra diversi edifici, disposti per assorbire gli sforzi di dilatazione e contrazione prodotti da
effetti termici e movimenti della struttura del proprio edificio. Inoltre questi giunti devono
essere stagni.
Figura 3.1. Fonte Gestione di explotacione de edificio. Seconda practica facciate. Separacione del paramento de
una facciate
i.
La base:: parte del paramento in contatto con il livelo del terreno (esposta all’umidità,
all’azione dei pedoni, animali, vandalismo etc.) è dove si trovano i punti d’ingresso
all’edificio.
ii.
La zona intermedia: dove si combinano le apertura e la parte massiccia del proprio
paramento.
iii.
El coronamiento del edificio: Il coronamento dell’edificio: è la parte superiore della
facciata dove si appoggia la coperta o si trova una terrazza.
Le aperture
Possono essere definite come apertura di un vuoto nel paramento per generare un
passaggio (balconate) o permettere la ventilazione ed entrata di luce e aria (finestra,
balcone) a una parte. Costituiscono la parte non massiccia di una facciata, così come si può
osservare nella figura 3.2
-
El propio cerramiento (carpintería): Los marcos, juntamente con montantes
I
propri serramenti (falegnameria): I marchi, insieme ai montanti e le traverse, possono
essere di diversi materiali: legno, acciaio, aluminio, PVC.
-
Marco: che circonda l’apertura è costituito dal coprifilo, che racchiude nella parte
superiore la cavità, gli stipiti che lo chiudono ai lati, en ella parte inferiore l’uscio (nel
caso dei balconi) o il parapetto (nel caso delle finestre). In questo senso, intendiamo
per parapetto la protezione leggera o pesante (parete) di una altezza fra il pavimento
e la vita o la testa di una persona, costruito ai piedi di una finestra.
-
Coprifilo: di una apertura è l’elemento che supporta e trasferisce i carichi ai laterali
dei marchi. Per tanto, anche se una facciata può o meno avere una funzione
strutturale, il coprifilo deve essere dimensionato rispetto a questa funzione.
-
Stipiti: sono la parte chiusa che rimane agli estremi del coprifilo e distribuisce il carico
dello stesso. reparte la carga del dintel.
- Soglia
- Cornice
-
Il serramento del vano: è costituito dalla carpenteria, che sono i montanti e le
traverse di diversi materiali (legno, aluminio, acciaio, PVC), che vanno attorno
all’elemento di chiusura propriamente detto (vetro, policarbonato, aluminio etc)
-
Il displuvio: si trova nella parte inferiore dell’apertura, è una superficie con una
pendenza tale da condurre l’acqua della pioggia verso l’esterno (mai inferiore all’1%)
-
Gli elementi di protezione: sono le persiane per far fronte alla quantità di luce e
vista non desiderate, le griglie che proteggono contro i ladri. In questo gruppo
includiamo le ringhiere, perche a parte il fatto che si tratta di un elemento che si può
associare agli elementi aggettanti (come i balconi) possono anche essere presenti
nelle finestre dove il parapetto è ridotto o l’apertura arriva fino al livello del pavimento.
-
Le griglie di ventilazione: in caso che la stanza che si affaccia sulla facciata sia una
cucina alimentata a gas; per motivi di normativa contro incendi deve averle nella
parte superiore o inferiore.
Figura 3. 2. Fonte Gestione di explotacione de edificio. Seconda practica facciate. Elementi di l’apertura de la
facciata.
I corpi aggettanti
Il capitolo degli elementi aggettanti è ampio già che ci si possono includere, cornicioni,
balconi, tribune, gallerie terrazze, modanature, etc.
Il balcone è uno sporgente che fuoriesce dal piano della facciata, formato da una lastra
inferiore che può seguire o no la continuità del forgiato strutturale. Generalmente e
accessibile attraverso una apertura e deve disporre di una ringhiera come sistema di
protezione contro le cadute. Abitualmente la ringhiera è leggera (metallica), anche se può
essere anche di cemento o di una combinazione di diversi materiali .
Possono essere definiti diversi tipi di balconi in funzione degli elementi di supporto:
-
Di lastre: di pietra o cemento
-
Unidirezionali: metallici, ceramici o di cemento
-
Bidirezionale: cemento
Possono differenziarsi nello stesso modo certe varianti di balconi in funzione dell’ubicazione
del serramento:
-
La tribuna è un balcone chiuso e coperto, ovvero, uno sporgente che fuoriesce dal
piano della facciata. Generalmente è acessibile direttamente da una parte , e deve
dotarsi di un serramento (leggero o pesante) come sistema di protezione contro le
cadute.
-
La galleria può essere uno sporgente (anche se non necesariamente) che fuoriesce o
no dal piano di un paramento che è costituito da una lastra inferiore che può essere
la continuazione del forgiato. In generale non si situa nella facciata principale, quella
che da sulla strada, se no in quella che da al cortile, o sulla facciata posteriore.
Quasi sempre è acessibile attraverso un’apertura, e deve anche possedere una
ringhiera, normalmente leggera, come sistema di protezione contro le cadute. La
superficie in. L’apertura può essere chiusa per mezzo di vetri o lamas.
Le terrazze si differenziano dai balconi dal fatto che non sporgono rispetto al piano
della facciata. A volte occupano la superficie del piano terra e si trovano al primo
livello, dove ci sono le abitazioni. In questo caso, nel loro perimetro avranno una
ringhiera, generalmente chiusa.
Figura 3. 2. Fonte Gestione di explotacione de edificio. Seconda practica facciate. Elementi sporgenze de la
facciata.
Elementi singoli
Si considerano elementi singoli tutti quelli che hanno una funzione ornamentale o di
protezione, per esempio, solare (tenda). Si includono anche in questo gruppo le giardiniere,
così come si mostra nella figura 3.3.
Le giardiniere sono elementi prefabbricati o costruiti in cemento per collocare e mantenere le
piante. A prescindere dal fatto che si tratti essenzialmente di un elemento decorativo,
giocano un ruolo rilevante, già che in molti casi, sono le responsabili dell’apparizione di
lesioni al non essere provviste di un buon sistema di evacuazione dell’acqua o per non
essere impermeabilizzate.
-
Elementi ornamentali: fra i quali troviamo: fregi, modanature, tettoie, mensole, etc.
Dipendendo dal tipo di ornamento possiamo distinguere 3 parti:
a) ancoraggio:è la forma in cui l’ornamento si tiene attaccato alla facciata
b) fine:è la punta o estremo più prominente dell’ornamento
c) risalto: è l’ornamento propriamente detto
In alcuni casi se l’ornamento è molto pronunciato la parte superiore dell’ornamento
può essere un piano inclinato per eliminare l’acqua e nella parte inferiore della fine si
troverà uno
-
sgocciolatoio.
Elementi aggiunti: elemento integrante della facciata con funzione ornametale o di
confort (per esempio, per la protezione solare tende) e decorativi come le giardiniere
(di costruzione,in cemento, prefabbricate o sovrapposte) (vedere fig. 3.4)
a) ancoraggio:è la forma in cui l’ornamento si tiene attaccato alla facciata
b) Supporto: sono gli elementi strutturali dell’elemento aggiunto propriamente detto
(rotaie, barrette,etc)
c) Elemento di rivestimento, chiusura o copertura. E’ l’elemento di chiusura,
protezione o
contenzione che è ataccato con il supporto (tende, laterali di una
giardiniera etc.)
Figura 3.4. Fonte Gestione di explotacione de edificio. Seconda practica facciate. Elementi aggiunti in facciata.
Elementi di unione (giunte): In aggiunta nel paramento troviamo le giunte di costruzione o
unione¸che sono gli elementi di separazione fra due parti di uno stesso edificio, o fra edifici,
disposte per assorbire gli sforzi di dilatazione e contrazione prodotti per effetti termici e
movimenti della struttura dell’edificio stesso (queste giunte devono essere stagne)
a) ripieno: elemento di transizione fra i componente laterali di una giunta
b) chiusura ermetica: elemento di protezione per la tenuta stagna della giunta (normalmente
di tipo elastico)
-
Tipo di giunte: a cima, bombata, articolata, armata, molle, placcata, di lato, ad
augnatura, a incavo (solco), di dilatazione, d’orlo, piagata, livellata, riaffondata, a
rastrel, di separazione, piallicciata, aggraffata, inglese, di interruzione, matada
inferiore, matada superiore, di movimiento orizzontale, di costruzione, sísmica,
rimboccata, elástica.
3.4.1 PUNTOS CRÍTICOS FRENTE A LA DURABILIDAD EN UNA
FACHADA:
Uno de los puntos más críticos en las fachadas son todos aquellos vulnerables a la
humedad y de los que se demanda un grado de estanquidad satisfactorio para garantizar la
durabilidad de la fachada en el tiempo. Tener que lograr superficies por donde no acceda
agua al interior de los materiales o de los espacios requiere especial cuidado en cierto tipo
de zonas o elementos constructivos de la fachada.
i.
Los vierteaguas: o peanas son los cierres de las fábricas ubicadas en la base de las
aberturas. Tal como las albardillas, deben cubrir el hueco en su totalidad y llevar
goterón; tiene una pendiente mínima no menor al 1% para la evacuación de agua al
exterior. Se fabrican en piedra natural o artificial, cerámicos, metálicos y otros. Tener
cuidado en el sellado entre el vierteaguas y las jambas del hueco y carpintería.
ii.
Las albardillas: son remates de coronación en los muros de fachadas. Se resuelven
con piezas longitudinales de 1,2 m. como máximo. Abarcan todo el ancho del muro y
deben incorporar un goterón. Los inconvenientes que pueden aparecer son los
referidos al rejuntado de las piezas, éste debe hacerse con sellados que absorban los
probables movimientos; en muros de dos hojas es necesario disponer una banda de
estanqueidad para que cubra el grueso del cerramiento.
iii.
Los dinteles de huecos: pueden ser puntos críticos en cuanto a estanqueidad se
refiere. Por esta razón debe evitarse que esta solución en los huecos de fachadas
tenga el correspondiente goterón con el mismo revestimiento (continuo o de
elementos).
iv.
Bases de apoyo: las bases de fábrica apoyadas sobre los elementos de cimentación
son sitios que requieren de atención por las probables filtraciones que pudieran
producirse en esos puntos críticos. Puesto que el agua puede afectar a la fábrica por
filtraciones del subsuelo del edificio.
v.
Juntas: otro punto crítico se encuentra en las juntas. Debe cuidarse el sellado
verificando que el ancho y la profundidad de las juntas.
vi.
Estanqueidad en carpintería exterior: las ventanas son un punto crítico de la
carpintería exterior en relación a la estanqueidad. En algunos tipos de ventanas, para
lograr la estanqueidad debe conseguirse una evacuación rápida del agua que pueda
penetrar en el interior de la carpintería.
vii.
Juntas con perfiles complementarios conformados: cuando existe el riesgo de
ingreso de agua través de las juntas, en principio se debe hacer un análisis de las
formas de los materiales base que integran la carpintería que por diseño impidan la
filtración del líquido elemento al interior del local.
4 DETERMINACIÓN DE LOS CRITERIOS DE INSPECCIÓN
Uno de los principales objetivos de este proyecto es el de analizar e inspeccionar el estado
de las fachadas de los edificios en el barrio del centro del municipio del Hospitalet del
Llobregat.
En este punto se analizará cuales han sido los criterios de inspección utilizados, para la
realización de las re inspecciones y porque motivo han sido seleccionados.
4.1 COMPARACIÓN DEL SISTEMA EMPLEADO
Para la elección de este sistema de inspección hemos analizado distintos sistemas, a partir
del proyecto final de grado “Analisis de fitxes d’inspecció de façanes mitjançant mètodes
multicriteris” realizado por la alumna Bibiana Siscart de la Cruz
En este proyecto se hizo una comparativa entre las distintas fichas utilizadas en la
inspección de fachadas. Todas las fichas se encuentran en el anejo 9.3 (fichas tipo de
inspección)
Estas fichas son las siguientes:
I.
La ficha realizada por el Instituto Tecnológico de la Construcción (ITEC), esta ficha
nació en el año 2000 con la publicación del libro “Análisis, diagnosis e intervención”.
La finalidad de esta ficha era poder ofrecer a los diferentes técnicos una metodología
más o menos pautada y completa que aportará los datos suficientes sobre el estado
de las fachadas que se inspeccionan.
Esta ficha consta de 3 hojas, la primera hace referencia a los datos propios del
edificio, y a la descripción de los elementos que conforman la fachada.
En la segunda hoja hay una tabla donde se indica que gravedad tiene la lesión, en
que parte de la fachada está ubicada, de qué tipo de lesión se trata utilizando la
codificación descrita en la parte inferior de la tabla, y algún tipo de observación
relevante de la lesión.
En la última hoja se utiliza para la realización de un croquis en alzado y en sección si
es necesario, donde se indica la ubicación de la lesión.
II.
La segunda ficha de inspección es la propuesta por la Generalitat de Catalunya, está
es la ficha más reciente de todas las seleccionadas para el estudio comparativo. En
este caso, se publico el 23 de noviembre del 2010 y entro en vigor el 23 de febrero
del 2011. Esta ficha se publico a partir del decreto 187/2010.
El objetivo de esta ficha por parte de la Generalitat de Catalunya ha sido la de instaurar un
sistema de control periódico del estado de los edificios de viviendas para verificar el estado
de los mismos y así cumplir con la ley “Llei del dret a l’habitatge i la normativa d’ordenació
de l’edificació, del patrimoni cultural i arquitectònic, de protecció del medi ambient i del
paisatge i d’urbanisme”
La composición de la ficha es bastante extensa. Con todas las páginas a cumplimentar (10
mínimo) se intentan dar toda la información relacionada con el edificio.
III.
La tercera ficha es la generada por el Laboratorio de Edificación de la EPSEB. Esta
ficha se creó en el año 1998 para dar respuesta a la realización de inspecciones de
fachadas de una gran zona urbana de una forma pragmática y rápida.
Esta ficha consta de dos páginas. En la primera página se indican los siguientes datos:

Datos de campo:
 Barrio
 Municipio
 Fecha inspección
 Número inspección

Datos cartográficos:
 Número coordenada UTM
 Número municipal
 Número parcela
 Longitud fachada
 Plantas sobre y bajo rasante

Datos catastrales:
 Año construcción
 Uso
 Parking
 Tipo de propiedad

Tipología constructiva:
 Tipología de vivienda
 Distribución
 Remontas
 Instalaciones en fachada
 Características en solar

Croquis:
 Planta
 Alzado
 Sección esquemática

Dimensiones de fachada
 Alto
 Ancho
En la segunda hoja encontramos por en la parte izquierda de la ficha todos los elementos
que pueden componer la fachada; en el resto de la ficha se distribuye la tabla para la
identificación de las lesiones. En la parte superior de la misma están indicadas de con sus
iniciales cada de las lesiones que se quieren analizar, y en la parte inferior de donde se
indican las lesiones están indicadas también con la inicial la magnitud de cada una de las
lesiones P: para lesiones puntuales; L: para lesiones locales; G: para lesiones generales.
-
Puntual (P)  Afecta un 25% del elemento.
-
Local (L)  Afecta entre un 25-50% del elemento.
-
General (G)  Afecta como mínimo a un 50% del elemento.
La tabla se acaba de cumplimentar con los números que nos determinan la gravedad de
cada lesión, en cada elemento. Estos números van des del 0 hasta el 6. Considerando
el número 0 no hay un riesgo aparente y que por lo tanto no se
que
tienen que tomar medidas
preventivas y cuando hay la existencia del número 6 se
requiere
de
una
intervención
inmediata.
Esta última ficha es la utilizada para la realización de las re inspecciones en las fachadas del
barrio del Centro del Hospitalet, de esta forma se obtendrán unos datos que se podrán
comparar con los obtenidos en las primeras inspecciones, y así se podrá determinar la
evolución de las lesiones en las fachadas y apreciar si el material, el elemento o la tipología
constructiva de la fachada afectan y en qué grado la evolución de las lesiones.
4.2 ADECUACIÓN A NUEVAS INSPECCIONES
Una vez realizado el estudio de las fichas, se ha observado que se podrían adecuar, las
inspecciones al uso de nuevas tecnologías.
I.
Por ejemplo en la parte superior izquierda de la ficha diseñada por el Laboratorio de
Edificación de la EPSEB, se podría incluir un apartado para ubicar la numeración de
las fotos, tal y como se indica en la figura 4.1.
En este apartado se indicaría la numeración que por defecto las máquinas de
fotografías digitales muestran en la pantalla. Se indicaría el número de la primera
fotografía que se haría de la fachada y a continuación el último.
De esta forma en caso de que el técnico tuviese alguna duda sobre la información
tomada de la fachada podría verificarla con las fotografías de las fachadas, siempre
sabiendo que foto corresponde a cada fachada.
Ubicación
numeración
fotografías
Figura 4.1. Ficha Inspecciones. Fuente TFM profesores Vicenç Gibert y Verónica Royano.
II.
Otra forma de aplicación de las nuevas tecnologías, seria la utilización de los
“Smartphones” con estos dispositivos, el técnico podría realizar una foto y enviarla
mediante correo electrónico a la oficina o despacho, y ahí otro compañero podría
realizar el informe, y consultar todas las dudas que le surgieran a su compañero que
se encuentra en fotografiando la fachada.
III.
Por último se podría utilizar los dispositivos llamados “Tablets”, con estos aparatos el
técnico podría realizar las fotos, enviarlas a la oficina mediante correo electrónico, e
incluso realizar el informe in situ y enviárselo directamente al cliente, lo que
supondría una rapidez sorprendente, que abarataría costes, sobre todo en el
desplazamiento del técnico al lugar de la inspección y también en la rapidez de
ejecución de los informes, ya que podría realizar un gran número de inspecciones y
de informes en un corto espacio de tiempo.
4.3 CREACIÓN DE LA ESTRATEGIA DE DETECCIÓN DE MUESTRAS
INALTERADAS
Una vez hemos elegido la ficha definitiva, empieza el trabajo de campo. El trabajo de campo
de este proyecto como ya se ha explicado con anterioridad consiste en la identificación de
las fachadas que no han sido intervenidas desde su construcción o prácticamente desde su
construcción, para después realizar la inspección mediante la utilización de la ficha y actuar
sobre las fachadas seleccionadas.
Para iniciar esta parte del proyecto previamente se ha analizado el parque edificatorio del
barrio del centro del Hospitalet del Llobregat. Se han identificado cada una de las fachadas
mediante fotografías, para a posteriori hacer una comparativa con las mismas fotografías
realizadas en el año 2000 e identificar que fachadas que han sido intervenidas y cuáles no.
Una vez se ha realizado este proceso de fotografiar el total de las 1554 fachadas que
componen el barrio del centro del Hospitalet del Llobregat. Para la realización de esta parte
se ha utilizado un plano del barrio del centro en el cual se identificaban todas las calles y
sobretodo el número de las coordenadas UTM. En este mismo plano se ha ido marcando en
diferentes colores el estado de cada una de las fachadas; en color verde se han marcado las
fachadas de obra nueva o que se habían intervenido hace muy poco tiempo con lo que no
se apreciado ningún tipo de deterioro, en color naranja se ha indicado las fachadas de que si
han sido intervenidas y su estado de degradación era mínimo, en color rojo se han marcado
las fachadas de edificios de viviendas que no han sido intervenidas y de las cuales hay que
hacer la inspección utilizando la ficha, en color lila se han indicado las fachadas de las que
habría que realizar una inspección pero el uso de los edificios de estas fachadas es
industrial y no entra dentro del estudio de este proyecto y por último se han marcado en
color azul los solares. Una vez realizado esta primera parte se pasa a la segunda parte del
trabajo de campo.
Esta segunda parte consiste en seleccionar las fachadas que no han sido intervenidas es
decir las indicadas con el color rojo e inspeccionarlas mediante la utilización de la ficha de
inspección, elaborada por el Laboratorio de Edificación de la EPSEB.
A continuación se indica de una forma más concreta el proceso de detección de las
muestras.
I.
Identificación de las muestras mediante la realización de un trabajo de campo, donde
se fotografiarán cada una de las fachadas del barrio del Centro del Hospitalet y se
contrastarán con las fotografías realizadas en las primeras inspecciones y se
determinarán cuales han sido intervenidas y cuáles no.
II.
Selección de las fachadas que no han sido intervenidas.
III.
Inspección de las fachadas no intervenidas, mediante la utilización de la ficha.
IV.
Introducción de los datos obtenidos en las inspecciones en la base de datos y
extracción de resultados.
5 CLASIFICACIÓN DE TIPOLOGIA DE LAS LESIONES
RECURRENTES EN FACHADAS DE EDIFICIOS
Para realizar el estudio de las lesiones de las distintas fachadas, tomaremos como punto de
partida una clasificación, y definiremos cada una de ellas, basándonos en la siguiente
clasificación genérica de lesiones.
Partiendo de las clasificaciones por grupos características como las lesiones físicas,
mecánicas y químicas que a su vez se clasifican en humedades, suciedad, erosión física
para las lesiones físicas; deformaciones roturas desprendimientos erosión mecánica para
las lesiones mecánicas; eflorescencias, oxidación superficial, corrosión, organismos erosión
química para las lesiones químicas.
Como se puede observar en la figura 5.1
Figura 5.1. Clasificación general de las lesiones. Fuente Rehabilitación, mantenimiento y conservación de
fachadas. Tornapunta Ediciones, S.L.U. 2011.
Otra manera de clasificar las lesiones lo encontramos en el TFM, del profesor Vicenç Gibert
y Verónica Royano. Dado que son las que utilizaremos para la posterior inspección de las
fachadas. Como se aprecia en la figura 5.2
Figura 5.2. Clasificación de las lesiones. Fuente TFM de los profesores Vicenç Gibert y Verónica
Royano
A continuación he creado una tabla para mostrar la relación que hay entre las lesiones
descritas en el TFM del profesor Vicenç Gibert y la clasificación general de lesiones.
Como se puede apreciar en la tabla 5.1.
Clasificación lesiones según
TFM profesores Vicenç Gibert y
Verónica Royano
Rotura (R)
Fisura (F)
Degradación material (DM)
Deformación (D)
Humedad (H)
Oxidación (O)
Bufado (B)
Desconchado (DC)
Relación con la clasificación general de
lesiones
Mecánica
Mecánica
Química / Física / Mecánica
Mecánica
Física
Química
Mecánica
Mecánica
Tabla 5.1. Relación de lesiones según la clasificación genérica y la extraída del TFM de los profesores Vicenç
Gibert y Verónica Royano. Fuente propia del alumno.
5.1 INTRODUCCIÓN AL CONCEPTO DE LESIÓN
Empezaré definiendo que es una lesión: entendemos por lesión cada una de las
manifestaciones de un problema constructivo, es decir el síntoma final del proceso
patológico.
Es de primordial importancia conocer la tipología de las lesiones porque es el punto de
partida de todo estudio patológico y de su identificación depende la elección correcta del
tratamiento.
La experiencia dice que en la mayoría de las ocasiones las lesiones que afectan a los
materiales o sistemas constructivos que conforman un edificio no suelen ser un hecho
aislado; por el contrario, unas lesiones desencadenan otras o existen varias a la vez. De
aquí viene que se pueda hablar de conjunto de lesiones o patología edificatoria.
Hay una clasificación clásica que admite la mayoría de los autores sobre las lesiones
referidas que las divide en tres grandes grupos: físicas, mecánicas y químicas.
Dichas lesiones se explican a continuación en la clasificación adjunta (Figura 5):
A continuación se define los tres grandes grupos de lesiones:
-
Físicas: se producen por las acciones físicas que actúan sobre los materiales o los
elementos constructivos dañándoles por sus características físicas. Su reparación
puede ser sencilla o compleja, según las causas que las han producido.
-
Mecánicas: aparecen por procesos mecánicos y afectan a las características
mecánicas de los elementos constructivos. Pueden iniciarse por acciones externas o
internas que afectan a los mismos: estructurales, constructivas o de uso. Su reparación
puede ser compleja porque debe superar las citadas acciones.
-
Químicas: se producen por la naturaleza química de los propios materiales o
asociadas a otros efectos producidos por los elementos atmosféricos, la contaminación
del ambiente o el ataque de los organismos vivos. Su reparación es variable y está
relacionada con la causa que la ha producido.
Dentro de las lesiones físicas tenemos:
- Humedades: se entiende cuando hay una presencia de agua mayor al considerado como
normal en un material o elemento constructivo.

Humedad de obra: es la generada durante el proceso constructivo, cuando no se ha
propiciado la evaporación mediante un elemento de barrera.

Humedad por capilaridad: es el agua que procede del suelo y asciende mediante
elementos verticales.

Humedad por filtración: es la procedente del exterior y que penetra en el interior
del edificio a través de fachadas o cubiertas.

Humedad por condensación: es la producida por la condensación del vapor de
agua de los ambientes con mayor presión del vapor, como los interiores, hacia los de
presión más baja, como los exteriores.

o
Se puede dividir en tres grupos:
Condensación superficial interior: es la que aparece en el interior de un
cerramiento.
o
Condensación intersticial: aparece en el interior de la masa del cerramiento
o entre dos de sus capas.
o
Condensación higroscópica: se produce dentro de la estructura porosa del
material que contienen sales que facilitan la condensación del vapor de agua
del ambiente.

Humedad accidental: es la producida por la rotura de conducciones y cañerías, y
suele provocar focos muy puntuales de humedad.
- Erosión: entendemos la erosión como la pérdida o transformación superficial de un
material y puede ser parcial o total.

Erosión atmosférica: es la producida por la acción física de los agentes
atmosféricos, sol, lluvia, viento…

Suciedad: es el depósito en partículas en suspensión, sobre la superficie de las
fachadas o incluso la penetración en los poros de las propias fachadas.


Se distinguen dos tipos:
Ensuciamiento por depósito: es el producido por la simple acción de la gravedad
sobre las partículas en suspensión en la atmósfera.

Ensuciamiento por lavado diferencial: es la producida por partículas ensuciantes
que penetran en el poro superficial del material por la acción del agua de lluvia y que
tiene como consecuencia más característica los churretones que son visibles en las
fachadas urbanas.
Dentro de las lesiones mecánicas tenemos:
- Deformaciones: son cualquier alteración de la forma del material, sufridos tanto en
elementos estructurales como de cerramiento y que son consecuencia de esfuerzos
mecánicos, y que a su vez se pueden producir durante la ejecución de la unidad constructiva
o cuando esta entra en carga.
Se distinguen cuatro tipos:

Flechas: son la consecuencia directa de la flexión de elementos horizontales debida
a un exceso de cargas o verticales transmitida desde otros elementos a los que los
elementos horizontales se encuentran unidos por empotramiento.

Pandeos: se producen como consecuencia de un esfuerzo de compresión que
sobrepasa la capacidad de deformación de un elemento vertical.

Desplomes: son la consecuencia de empujes horizontales sobre la cabeza de
elementos verticales.

Alabeos: son la consecuencia de la rotación de elementos debida, generalmente a
esfuerzos horizontales.
- Grietas: son las aberturas longitudinales que afectan a todo el espesor de un elemento
constructivo, estructural o de cerramiento.


Se distinguen dos tipos de grietas:
Grietas por exceso de carga: son las grietas que afectan a elementos estructurales
o de cerramiento al ser sometidos a cargas para las que no estaban diseñados.

Grietas por dilataciones y contracciones higrotérmicas: son las grietas que
generalmente afectan a elementos de cerramiento de fachada o de cubierta, pero
que también pueden afectar a las estructuras cuando no se prevén juntas de
dilatación.
- Fisuras: son aberturas longitudinales que afectan a la superficie del acabado o de un
elemento constructivo.


Se dividen en dos grupos:
Fisuras reflejo del soporte: es la fisura que se produce sobre el soporte cuando se
da una discontinuidad constructiva, por una junta, por falta de adherencia o por
deformación, cuando el soporte es sometido a un esfuerzo que no puede soportar.

Fisura inherente al acabado: es la producida por movimientos de dilatacióncontracción en el caso de los chapados y alicatados y por retracción en el caso de
morteros.
-
Desprendimientos: se entiende como la separación del material de acabado y el soporte al
que esta aplicado por falta de adherencia entre ambos, y suele producirse como
consecuencia de otras lesiones previas como humedades, deformaciones o grietas. Los
desprendimientos afectan tanto a los acabados continuos como discontinuos
-
Erosión mecánica: es la perdida de material superficial debida a esfuerzos mecánicos,
como golpes o rozaduras. Aunque normalmente se producen en el pavimento, también
pueden aparecer en las partes bajas de fachadas o divisiones interiores o cornisas, debido a
las partículas que transporta el viento.
Dentro de las lesiones químicas tenemos:
- Eflorescencias: se trata de un proceso patológico que suele tener como causa directa
previa la aparición de humedad. Los materiales contienen sales solubles y estas son
arrastras por el agua hacia el exterior durante su evaporación y cristalizan en la superficie
del material.
Se distinguen dos tipos de eflorescencias:

Sales cristalizadas que no proceden del material: sobre el que se encuentra la
eflorescencia sino de otros materiales situados detrás o adyacentes de él. Este tipo
de eflorescencia es muy común en morteros protegidos o unidos por ladrillos de los
que proceden las sales.

Sales cristalizadas bajo la superficie del material: aparecen en oquedades que a
la larga acabarán desprendiéndose, estas se llaman criptoflorescencias.
- Oxidación: es la transformación de los metales en óxido al entrar en contacto con el
oxigeno. La superficie del metal puro o en aleación tiende a transformarse en óxido que es
químicamente más estable, y de este modo protege al resto del metal de la acción del
oxigeno.
- Corrosión: es la pérdida progresiva de partículas en la superficie del metal. Este proceso
se debe a la acción de una pila electroquímica en la cual el metal actuará como ánodo o
polo negativo y perderá electrones a favor del cátodo o polo positivo.
Se distinguen cuatro tipos de corrosiones:

Corrosión por aireación diferencial: cuando la pila se produce entre una
superficie seca y otra húmeda de la misma pieza. La humedad actúa de ánodo.

Corrosión por inmersión: cuando el acero esta empapado o sumergido y o
bien tapa la capa de oxido férrico se convierte en hidróxido que actúa de cátodo,
o bien la ionización del agua facilita la aparición del hidróxido, que acaba
actuando de polo positivo.

Corrosión por par galvánico: producida entre dos metales, o entre un metal y
otro material más electropositivo. Si se trata de dos metales, el ánodo lo
constituye el más electronegativo, que, normalmente, suele ser el acero.

Corrosión intergranular: La que se produce entre partículas de los diferentes
metales de una aleación como micropares galvánicos, cuando esta no está
consumada. Es el caso que se puede explicar la oxidación del acero inoxidable.
- Organismos: su proceso patológico es fundamentalmente químico, puesto que segregan
substancias que alteran la estructura química del material donde se alojan, pero también
afectan al material en su estructura física.
Se distinguen dos tipos de organismos:

Animales: suelen afectar y en muchas ocasiones deteriorar, los materiales
constructivos; los insectos a menudo se alojan en el interior del material y se
alimentan de éste. También las aves y pequeños mamíferos causan lesiones
erosivas.

Plantas: generalmente originadas por las raíces de las plantas. También las
plantas microscópicas causan lesiones mediante ataques químicos. Dentro de
estas están los Mohos que se encuentran en los poros y segregan substancias
químicas que producen cambios de color, olor y aspecto. Después existen los
Hongos que atacan directamente a la madera.
- Erosión química: es una lesión secundaria, pues necesita la existencia de la humedad o
de la suciedad para que se lleven a cabo las transformaciones químicas superficiales.
Se produce por el dióxido de carbono diluido y sustancias inorgánicas como sales minerales
y arcillas en el agua que contienen los suelos. Esto crea un entorno químico que
descompone y elimina unos materiales y a su vez otros son depositados.
Transformación molecular de la superficie de los materiales pétreos como consecuencia de
la reacción química de sus componentes con otras sustancias atacantes, como
contaminantes atmosféricos, elementos disueltos en capilaridad,…
Se trata de una lesión compleja en la que la analítica química juega un papel fundamental.
La problemática de la piedra monumental se sitúa aquí. Resulta fundamental el estudio
geológico y litológico de la piedra.
La propia formación geológica de la piedra implica una herencia decisiva en los procesos
patológicos que se generan y en la adecuación de los tratamientos.
Para intentar que lo explicado en este capítulo quede visualmente más claro se ha
propuesto incluir un esquema resumen con todas las lesiones explicadas anteriormente. En
este esquema resumen se aprecia la clasificación general de las lesiones.
Como se puede observar en la figura 5.3.
Figura 5.3. Esquema detallado de lesiones. Fuente Rehabilitación, mantenimiento y conservación de fachadas.
Tornapunta Ediciones, S.L.U. 2011.
En el trabajo se apuesta por una clasificación del tipo de lesiones según la figura 5.3, se
ajustan suficientemente al objetivo principal de inspecciones realizadas a gran escala.
6 ANÁLISIS DEL ESTADO DEL PARQUE INSPECCIONADO
6.1 EXTRACCIÓN DE RESULTADOS DE LAS SEGUNDAS
INSPECCIONES
En este punto se explica, la primera parte del trabajo de campo.
Esta primera parte del trabajo de campo a consistido en analizar todas las fachadas
ubicadas en el barrio del centro del Hospitalet; con este análisis se ha querido
determinar que fachadas han sido intervenidas, cuales son nuevas y cuáles no han
sido intervenidas a lo largo de su vida.
De esta forma hemos obtenido unos datos cuantitativos del número de fachadas a
realizar unas segundas inspecciones.
Para la realización de esta primera parte del trabajo de campo, se han ido
observando una a una las fachadas del barrio del centro, siempre partiendo desde las
coordenadas UTM, que cada manzana de edificios conforman, a partir de aquí se ha
ido fotografiando cada fachada, y a continuación se han ido indicando en el plano con
distintos colores, el verde se ha utilizado para indicar las fachadas que no han sido
intervenidas dado que son de nueva construcción o reformadas muy recientemente, o
incluso que están en proceso de rehabilitación y se considera que al finalizar la obra
su estado será óptimo. En color naranja se ha marcado las fachadas que si han sido
intervenidas de una forma integral, aunque en algunos casos los trabajos realizados
no hayan sido finalizados de una forma correcta. El color magenta se ha utilizado
para indicar las fachadas de edificios a reformar, pero estas fachadas hacen
referencia a edificios industriales, o que su uso no es la vivienda. Y por último se ha
utilizado el color rojo para identificar las fachadas de los edificios de viviendas a
intervenir y de las cuales hay que realizar unas segundas inspecciones.
Tal y como se muestra en la tabla 6.1.
Leyenda identificativa del estado del parque edificado inspeccionado
TIPOLOGIA DE FACHADAS
Solares / Terrenos sin edificar
Fachadas Obra Nueva
Fachadas Intervenidas
Fachadas No intervenidas edificios
de uso industrial
Fachadas No intervenidas edificios
de viviendas (reinspeccionadas)
COLOR DE CLASIFICACIÓN
Tabla 6.1. Fuente. Elaboración propia. Leyenda del estado de la clasificación del parque edificatorio, según el
estado de sus fachadas y uso.
Toda esa información se observa en los planos adjuntos en el anejo, realizados con el
programa de diseño Autocad donde se representa el plano del barrio del centro del
Hospitalet del Llobregat y se indica por colores el estado de las fachadas.
Una vez obtenido los resultados cuantitativos a partir de la inspección del parque. Hemos
observado que el número de segundas inspecciones a realizar asciende hasta las 121
fachadas de edificios de viviendas, de un total de 1554 fachadas.
A continuación se adjuntan las fichas de las segundas inspecciones realizadas, la ficha tipo
utilizada es la explicada en el apartado 4 del presente documento.
Todas las fichas de inspección utilizadas para la extracción de datos se encuentran en el
apartado de anejos del presente proyecto.
6.2
COMPARATIVA DEL ESTADO DE DEGRADACIÓN
En este punto se ha analizado el estado del parque edificado. Primero se han extraído los
resultados a nivel cuantitativo del estado del parque en las primeras inspecciones es decir
se ha analizado cuál era el número de solares existentes en el año 2000, cuantas fachadas
de obra nueva se habían construido, cuál es el número de fachadas ya intervenidas, que
fachadas de uso industrial no han sido intervenidas y cuantas fachadas no habían sido
intervenidas, en el barrio del Centro del Hospitalet del Llobregat.
Se ha realizado el mismo análisis de mismo número de fachadas, durante las inspecciones
del año 2012.
Estos datos se reflejan en los gráficos que aparecen a continuación. (Gráfico 6.1)
Gráfico comparativo del estado del parque edificado entre el año 2000 y 2012
1400
1231
1290
1200
1000
800
600
400
190
200
27
10
57
121
79
49
34
0
SOLARES
FACHADAS OBRA
NUEVA
FACHADAS
INTERVENIDAS
Parque edificado año 2000
FACHADAS USO
INDUSTRIAL
FACHADAS NO
INTERVENIDAS
Parque edificado año 2012
Gráfico 6.1 Fuente: Elaboración propia del alumno. Trabajo de campo del proyecto “Criterios para la
reinspección del estado de lesiones en fachadas urbanas 2012”
Una vez realizado el gráfico, podemos observar que hay una ligera diferencia entre los datos
obtenidos en el año 2000 y los datos del año 2012.
En el gráfico se observa que en el año 2000 había un número superior de solares respecto
al año 2012, también se aprecia que las edificaciones de obra nueva eran inferiores en el
año 2000 que en el año 2012.
Las diferencia entre las fachadas que ya han sido intervenidas es algo superior en el año
2012 y las fachadas de edificios industriales a intervenir a disminuido en la última década
igual que las fachadas que han de ser intervenidas.
6.2.1 CONCLUSIONES
Tras observar los datos, podemos concluir que la diferencia de valores se debe a la
situación económica producida en la anterior década, donde el gran impacto del sector de la
construcción durante la franja de años del 2002 al año 2007 ha permitido en la mayoría de
municipios aumentar la construcción de edificios, y en consecuencia la disminución de
solares y la desaparición de recintos industriales que permanecían en desuso.
También la gran disponibilidad de crédito por parte de las entidades financieras ha permitido
que las comunidades de vecinos y la administración, dispusieran de financiación suficiente
para la rehabilitación de las fachadas de ahí se explica el aumento de fachadas intervenidas
y la disminución de las fachadas no intervenidas.
A continuación se indica cual ha sido la variación de estos datos a nivel porcentual.
Podemos determinar que a nivel porcentual:
-
El número de solares en estos últimos 12 años ha disminuido un 37%.
-
El número de obras nuevas aumenta un 28%.
-
Las fachadas intervenidas aumentan un 4%.
-
Las fachadas de uso industrial sin intervenir disminuyen un 40%.
-
Las fachadas de edificios de viviendas no intervenidas disminuyen un 35%.
Estos datos los observamos en el gráfico de a continuación (gráfico 6.2).
Gráfico de la variación de valores a nivel porcentual del estado del parque edificado
entre los años 2000 y 2012
Variación de datos
35%
-37%
SOLARES
FACHADAS OBRA NUEVA
FACHADAS INTERVENIDAS
FACHADAS USO INDUSTRIAL
FACHADAS NO INTERVENIDAS
28%
-40%
4%
Gráfico 6.2 Fuente: Elaboración propia del alumno. Trabajo de campo del proyecto “Criterios para la
reinspección del estado de lesiones en fachadas urbanas 2012”
Se aprecia que la variación porcentual más considerable ha sido en la disminución de
fachadas de uso industrial. La disminución de la industria como sector económico y la
variación de la trama urbana aumentando lo que son los centros de los municipios y
trasladando a las afueras los recintos industriales, han propiciado la desaparición de los
antiguos edificios industriales, para la ampliación de los barrios de las ciudades ya sean
construyendo nuevos edificios o aumentando las zonas verdes.
6.3 COMPARACIÓN DE LOS DATOS DE LA PRIMERA Y SEGUNDA
INSPECCIÓN
En este apartado se explica mediante gráficos cual ha sido la evolución del estado de las
fachadas en el transcurso de estos 12 años.
Cada fachada inspeccionada se ha comparado con las mismas fachadas que se
inspeccionaron en el año 2000, para ello se han utilizado las fichas explicadas en el
apartado 4 del presente proyecto.
Se ha creado un archivo Excel para cada ficha a inspeccionar y se ha ubicado en lado
izquierdo las fichas de las fachadas inspeccionadas en el año 2000 y en el lado derecho las
fichas de las fachadas inspeccionadas en el año 2012. A continuación en la parte inferior de
las fichas se ha colocado el gráfico comparativo de la fachada, de esta forma se puede
apreciar cual ha sido la evolución del estado de las fachadas a lo largo de estos 12 años.
6.3.1 TABLA COMPARATIVA DE LAS LESIONES MÁS RECURRENTES EN LOS
DOS AÑOS DE INSPECCIÓN
Para poder dar respuesta a otra de las preguntas propuestas en el proyecto, se ha creado la
tabla de a continuación (tabla 6.2).
Esta tabla compara la cantidad de tipología de lesiones aparecidas en los subelementos de
fachada en el año 2000 el año de las primeras inspecciones, y en el año 2012.
Esta tabla nos permite ver la evolución a nivel cuantitativo de cada una de las fachadas en
cada subelemento.
Todos los datos reflejados en esta tabla se obtienen de la base de datos creada con el
programa Excel y adjuntada en el CD con el nombre Base de datos inspecciones 2012.
Tabla de la cantidad de lesiones producidas en cada subelemento de fachada en el
año 2000 y en el año 2012.
Inspecciones año 2000
ELEMENTOS
FACHADA
CUERPO
HUECOS
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA
CUBIERTA
BARANDILLAS
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS
TOTAL
ELEMENTOS
FACHADA
CUERPO
HUECOS
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA
CUBIERTA
BARANDILLAS
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS
TOTAL
(R)
(F)
( DM )
(D)
(H)
(O)
(B)
(DC)
14
14
66
0
4
27
0
6
12
0
0
2
0
11
5
0
0
2
0
5
2
0
0
2
27
16
13
0
11
3
0
0
0
23
3
35
88
18
0
0
2
25
2
2
0
0
11
0
0
0
2
4
5
0
0
2
22
7
9
2
4
0
0
0
29
6
5
0
181
60
45
6
Inspecciones año 2012
(R)
(F)
( DM )
(D)
(H)
(O)
(B)
(DC)
49
22
77
7
0
85
4
12
73
0
9
41
0
21
4
0
0
0
0
6
23
0
9
46
65
39
32
2
46
9
4
10
5
33
7
52
310
0
25
8
21
185
2
33
5
17
178
5
3
0
3
63
0
61
10
82
224
35
7
0
7
58
2
8
4
2
49
0
16
3
3
136
Tabla 6.2. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Tabla comparativa de la tipología de lesiones producidas en
los elementos de fachadas tanto en las inspecciones realizadas en el año 2000 como en las realizadas en el año
2012.
Una vez observada la tabla podemos determinar que ha habido un aumento muy importante
en número de todas las lesiones.
Observamos que el subelemento más afectado por las lesiones son los revestimientos
seguidos de las barandillas de cubierta. Estos son los subelementos más afectados ya que
son los que abarcan una mayor superficie de la fachada y son más vulnerables a todo tipo
de lesiones.
Con estos datos se puede saber sobre que subelementos se tiene que actuar y sobre que
lesiones intervenir.
6.4 EVALUACIÓN DE LOS RESULTADOS HALLADOS
Una vez que se han realizado las inspecciones y completado las fichas de inspección,
introducimos todos los datos obtenidos en una base de datos.
Para este proyecto se ha creado una base de datos adecuada a las necesidades del trabajo
y diseñada para dar respuesta a los objetivos que este proyecto desea cumplir.
Gracias a la base de datos se han obtenido los resultados estadísticos, que nos permiten
determinar cuál ha sido la evolución de las lesiones en estos últimos 12 años.
Esta base de datos es similar a la ficha de inspección utilizada, ha sido creada con el
programa Excel. Se divide en 3 bloques: el primer bloque se define la información propia de
la fachada dirección y elementos que la componen; el segundo bloque se identifican las
lesiones de la misma forma que en la ficha de inspección y en el tercer y último bloque se
definen cual ha sido la evolución de las lesiones.
La obtención se ha obtenido gracias a las herramientas que de las que dispone el programa.
En el apartado siguiente se explica cómo es la base de datos.
6.4.1 DESCRIPCIÓN DE LA BASE DE DATOS
La base de datos creada, se divide en tres apartados o bloques; se encuentra en
su totalidad en el CD con el nombre de “BASE DE DATOS INSPECCIONES
2012”.
I.
Primer bloque (datos generales):
Columna 1 dirección de la fachada inspeccionada.
Columna 2 coordenada UTM donde se encuentra la fachada.
Columna 3 año de construcción.
Columna 4 parte de la fachada.
Columna 5 elemento general de la fachada.
Columna 6 subelemento de la fachada.
Columna 7 indicación de la existencia del elemento o no y si ese elemento
está lesionado o no, en el año 2000. Para indicar estos parámetros se ha
realizado una codificación mediante números de 0, 1,2.
El número 0 significa que el no existe el subelemento.
El número 1 significa que si existe el subelemento.
El número 2 significa que si existe el subelemento y además está lesionado.
Columna 8 indicación de la existencia del elemento o no y si ese elemento
está lesionado o no, en el año 2012. Para indicar estos parámetros se ha
realizado una codificación mediante números de 0, 1,2.
El número 0 significa que el no existe el subelemento.
El número 1 significa que si existe el subelemento.
El número 2 significa que si existe el subelemento y además está lesionado.
DATOS DEL ANALISIS
DIRECCIÓN FACHADA
UTM
AÑO CONS.
PARTE FACHADA
ELEMENTO FACHADA
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ FREDERIC PRATS, 59
43947
1960
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
COL. 1
COL. 2
COL. 3
COL. 4
OTROS
COL. 5
CARACT.FACHADA
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
COL. 6
EX.ELEM 2000 EX.ELEM 2012
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
COL. 7
COL. 8
Figura 6.1. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Tabla comparativa de la evolución de las lesiones. Columna
de la 1-8 Bloque 1 Datos del análisis.
II.
Segundo bloque (lesiones):
En el segundo bloque se han introducido la identificación de las lesiones, de la misma
manera que en la ficha de inspección.
Se han hecho dos apartados uno para las lesiones en el año 2000 y otra para las lesiones
en el año 2012.
Se ha ido rellenando las casillas con el mismo criterio que en la ficha de inspección. De esta
manera y con las herramientas de que dispone el programa a nivel de realizar “filtros”,
permite obtener cualquier información introducida de cualquier elemento y lesión de una
forma rápida y concreta.
R
F
INSPECCIONES AÑO 2000
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
P L G P L G P L G P L G P L G P L G P L G P L G
R
DM
D
H
O
F
B
DC
4
3
2
4
2
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
Figura 6.2. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Tabla comparativa de la evolución de las lesiones.
Columna Bloque 2 Lesiones.
III.
Tercer bloque (evolución lesiones):
En este tercer bloque se han generado 4 columnas que nos permiten ver si ha habido una
evolución de la lesión en magnitud o en gravedad, o si la lesión se ha mantenido estable y
también si han aparecido nuevas lesiones.
En la primera columna “Evolución de la lesión” se han marcado con una “X” las casillas que
corresponden a la evolución de una lesión en un subelemento; y se han marcado con el
signo “=” las casillas donde la lesión del subelemento se ha mantenido estable.
En la segunda columna correspondiente a las lesiones que han evolucionado en gravedad
se ha marcado con una “X”, en todas las celdas que corresponde a las lesiones de los
subelementos donde ha habido una evolución de la lesión en su gravedad.
En la tercera columna se indica si la lesión ha evolucionado en magnitud.
Y en la cuarta columna se ha contabilizado en número de nuevas lesiones aparecidas en
cada subelemento desde la última inspección.
EVOLUCIÓN DE LA LESIÓN
EVOLUCIÓN LESIÓN GRAVEDAD MAGNITUD NUEVA LESIÓN
1
1
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
2
1
2
1
Figura 6.3. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Tabla comparativa de las
evoluciones de las lesiones. Columna Bloque 3 Evolución de las lesiones.
6.4.2 TABLAS DE DATOS CUANTITATIVOS DE LA EVOLUCIÓN DE LAS
LESIONES EN EL PARQUE INSPECCIONADO
Con la siguiente tabla se ha querido dar respuestas a una de las preguntas que se han
planteado en el proyecto.
Cual ha sido la cantidad de lesiones que han evolucionado y cuál ha sido el número de
lesiones nuevas que han aparecido.
En la tabla se han introducido los subelementos de la fachada en la parte izquierda y de
forma vertical y de forma horizontal y en la parte superior se ha introducido los diferentes
datos de la evolución.
Con lo que tenemos el número de lesiones, que han evolucionado en cada subelemento, ya
haya sido una evolución en gravedad, en magnitud, o se haya producido una nueva lesión
en el subelemento, también se ha contabilizado en que subelementos la lesión se ha
mantenido.
Hay que recordar que estos datos y los de las tablas que se han ido generando solo hacen
referencia a las 121 fachadas que se han inspeccionado, ya que es el número de fachadas
de edificios de viviendas que no han sido intervenidas en el barrio del centro del Hospitalet
del Llobregat.
Todo esto se puede observar en la tabla de a continuación (tabla 6.3).
Tabla de la evolución de las lesiones en cada subelemento.
ELEMENTOS DE
FACHADA
EVOLUCIÓN
LESIÓN
EN
GRAVEDAD
EN
MAGNITUD
NUEVA
LESIÓN
10
31
101
58
NO
EVOLUCIÓN
DE LA
LESIÓN
2
3
8
6
CUERPO
HUECOS
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA
CUBIERTA
BARANDILLAS
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS
TOTAL
7
30
87
40
4
24
55
40
44
38
229
134
21
56
5
69
353
0
4
0
4
27
14
47
2
52
272
20
36
4
56
239
18
117
26
105
711
Tabla 6.3. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Tabla resumen de valores cuantitativos de la evolución de las
lesiones en los elementos de fachada.
Una vez se han introducido los datos podemos extraer que la mayor parte de las lesiones
existentes han evolucionado ya sea en gravedad o en magnitud, tan solo un 15% de las
lesiones se han mantenido y no han evolucionado.
Se observa que los subelementos de las fachadas en los que las lesiones han evolucionado
en mayor número han sido los revestimientos seguidos, de otros elementos como las
cornisas, molduras o impostas; las barandillas de cubierta y los balcones también han
sufrido una evolución de las lesiones considerable.
Se aprecia que los subelementos de fachada antes mencionados, también son los
elementos en donde han aparecido el mayor número de lesiones.
La aparición del mayor número de lesiones en estos subelementos es comprensible, ya que
son los subelementos más vulnerables, ya que son elementos que abarcan la mayor parte
de la superficie de la fachada, y son elementos salientes que son más vulnerables a ciertos
tipos de lesiones más recurrentes.
Se determina que la evolución de las lesiones y la aparición de un gran número de nuevas
lesiones viene dado por la falta de mantenimiento y de la aplicación de medidas preventivas
y correctivas. A pesar de que los últimos años han sido beneficiosos para el sector de la
construcción y donde se ha podido llegar a intervenir muchas fachadas, no ha sido del todo
suficiente para llegar a un mayor número de intervenciones y de actuaciones de
mantenimiento.
6.4.3 GRÁFICOS RESUMEN DE LA EVOLUCIÓN DE LAS LESIONES POR
SUBELEMENTOS DENTRO DE LAS FACHADAS REINSPECCIONADAS
A continuación se exponen los gráficos resumen donde se indica cual ha sido la evolución
de las lesiones en cada subelemento de la fachada.
Estos gráficos nos permiten ver de una forma porcentual cual ha sido la evolución de las
lesiones durante los 12 años transcurridos de las primeras a las segundas inspecciones.
Para la elaboración de los gráficos se ha utilizado la tabla explicada en el apartado 6.4.1
DESCRIPCIÓN DE LA BASE DE DATOS.
Se han utilizado los datos introducidos en esa base de datos para extraer los porcentajes
representados en los gráficos. Gracias a las herramientas que dispone el programa con el
que ha sido realizado se han obtenido los resultados de una forma rápida y sencilla.
Para cada elemento de fachada se han generado 2 gráficos. En el primer gráfico se
representa la cantidad de lesiones a nivel porcentual detectadas en las inspecciones
realizadas en el año 2012. Se ha identificado cada lesión con un color para que sea más
sencilla su detección en el gráfico. En este primer gráfico se han representado el volumen
de las lesiones, en función de la magnitud de la lesión, es decir si las lesiones son Puntuales
(P), Locales (L) o Generales (G).
En el segundo gráfico creado, se realiza la comparativa a nivel porcentual de las lesiones
observadas durante las inspecciones del año 2000 y las inspecciones realizadas en el año
2012. Se han considerado que todas las lesiones empiezan su proceso, con una magnitud
en estado puntual (P), por eso los valores representados en el gráfico solo hacen referencia
a las lesiones con una magnitud en estado Puntual (P). Los valores reflejados en las
reinspecciones del año 2012, son el sumatorio de los porcentajes obtenidos en los
diferentes estados de magnitud.
Gráficos resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en el cuerpo de las fachadas.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
CUERPO
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
P
L
3,30%
G
7,00%
31,40%
1,65%
2,47%
Gráfico 6.4. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Gráfico resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en el
cuerpo de las fachadas, obtenidas en las reinspecciones realizadas en el año 2012.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
CUERPO
9%
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
38,40%
4,95%
2,47%
Gráfico 6.5. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Gráfico comparativo de la evolución de las lesiones en el
cuerpo de las fachadas.
El gráfico 6.4 se aprecia que la lesión predominante son las roturas. El paramento es un
subelemento con poca presencia de lesiones, ya que para que una lesión que se produce
desde el exterior llegue al paramento primero tiene que atravesar el revestimiento.
Ya que todas las fachadas disponen de paramento se han contabilizado las 121 fachadas
inspeccionadas.
En el gráfico comparativo 6.5 se aprecia que la única lesión detectada en las primeras
inspecciones ha sido la rotura y es la misma que se aprecia que aumenta de forma
considerable en las reinspecciones; otras lesiones que aparecen nuevas son las fisuras y los
desprendimientos de material.
Gráficos resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en los huecos de las fachadas.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
HUECOS
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
P
L
8,26%
G
7,43%
0,82%
3,30%
4,95%
0,82%
2,47%
3,30%
0,82%
1,65%
12,39%
2,47%
2,47%
4,95%
1,65%
2,47%
Gráfico 6.6. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Gráfico resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en los
huecos de las fachadas, obtenidas en las reinspecciones realizadas en el año 2012.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
HUECOS
9,91%
2,47%
4,13%
8,26%
3,30%
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
16,51%
9,07%
6,59%
16,51%
4,94%
6,60%
Gráfico 6.7. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Gráfico comparativo de la evolución de las lesiones en los
huecos de las fachadas.
En el gráfico 6.6 se aprecia que la lesión más recurrente observada en las reinspecciones,
han sido las humedades, seguida de las roturas. Para la realización de los porcentajes se
han considerado un total de 121 fachadas, es decir el total de fachadas inspeccionadas, ya
que todas las fachadas disponen de huecos.
En el gráfico comparativo de las inspecciones de realizadas en el año 2000 y las
reinspecciones observamos que ha habido un aumento considerable en roturas, fisuras y
humedades, y que han aparecido una nueva tipología de lesión, los desconchados.
Gráficos resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en los revestimientos de las
fachadas.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
REVESTIMIENTOS
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
P
L
39,66%
G
19,00%
3,30%
30,57%
38,01%
16,52%
0,82%
34,17%
14,04%
8,26%
16,52%
1,65%
2,47%
0,82%
12,39%
5,78%
22,31%
13,22%
1,65%
revestimientos de las fachadas, obtenidas en las reinspecciones realizadas en el año 2012.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
REVESTIMIENTOS
58,89%
21,48%
9,09%
3,30%
0,82%
0,82%
0,82%
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
61,86%
69,40%
58,95%
30,56%
2,47%
18,17%
37,18%
revestimientos de las fachadas.
En el gráfico 6.8 se observa que hay un gran volumen de lesiones, como roturas, fisuras,
desprendimientos de material y desconchados. Hay que tener en cuenta que los
revestimientos son el mayor subelemento de la fachada y a la vez el más expuesto a
cualquier lesión. Los porcentajes se han extraído del número total de fachadas
inspeccionadas 121, ya que todas las fachadas tienen revestimiento.
En el gráfico comparativo 6.9 aumentan considerablemente todas las lesiones exceptuando
las roturas y las oxidaciones.
Gráficos resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en las barandillas de cubiertas de
las fachadas.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
P
L
43,01%
G
16,12%
16,12%
7,52%
8,60%
20,43%
4,30%
20,43%
5,37%
1,07%
8,60%
31,18%
2,15%
5,37%
1,07%
2,15%
4,30%
5,37%
8,60%
1,07%
Gráfico 6.10. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Gráfico resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en las
barandillas de cubierta de las fachadas, obtenidas en las reinspecciones realizadas en el año 2012.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
31,18%
16,12%
12,93%
10,75%
2,15%
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
67,73%
40,85%
33,32%
1,07%
48,38%
8,59%
3,22%
9,67%
Gráfico 6.11. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Gráfico comparativo de la evolución de las lesiones en las
barandillas de cubierta de las fachadas.
En el gráfico 6.10 se observa que en las reinspecciones se han detectado un gran número
de lesiones de toda tipología. La barandilla de cubierta es en la gran mayoría de los casos
la continuidad del revestimiento, por eso se han detectado una gran variedad de lesiones.
Los porcentajes se han obtenido a partir de las 93 fachadas que son el número de fachadas
con barandilla de cubierta del total de reinspeccionadas.
Las lesiones más destacables son las roturas, fisuras, desprendimiento de materiales y
humedades.
En el gráfico 6.11 cabe destacar que han aparecido nueva tipología de lesiones como los
bufados y los desconchados; todas lesiones han aumentado de forma muy considerable.
Gráficos resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en las barandillas de las fachadas.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
BARANDILLAS
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
P
L
2,66%
G
1,33%
1,33%
2,66%
2,66%
2,66%
22,66%
20,00%
1,33%
barandillas de las fachadas, obtenidas en las reinspecciones realizadas en el año 2012.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
BARANDILLAS
3,99%
1,33%
22,66%
1,33%
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
3,99%
1,33%
5,32%
45,32%
1,33%
barandillas de las fachadas.
El gráfico 6.12 muestra las lesiones en las barandillas; las barandillas al ser la mayoría de
hierro la mayor lesión observada es la oxidación.
Se han reinspeccionado un total de 75 barandillas, que corresponden al número de
fachadas que disponen de tal subelemento.
En el gráfico 6.13, se observa el gran aumento producido en las oxidaciones durante los
últimos 12 años; en cambio otras lesiones como las roturas y los bufados se han mantenido
igual. Aunque han aparecido lesiones nuevas en un pequeño volumen como los
desprendimientos de material.
Gráficos resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en los balcones de las fachadas.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
BALCONES
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
P
L
31,03%
G
10,34%
12,06%
12,06%
24,13%
10,34%
5,17%
15,51%
29,31%
3,44%
8,60%
34,48%
24,13%
1,72%
1,72%
6,89%
6,89%
7,10%
3,44%
5,17%
5,17%
balcones de las fachadas, obtenidas en las reinspecciones realizadas en el año 2012.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
BALCONES
34,48%
10,34%
13,79%
1,72%
37,93%
1,72%
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
53,43%
41,36%
55,16%
3,44%
67,21%
8,61%
12,05%
17,44%
balcones de las fachadas.
En el gráfico 6.14 apreciamos que se han observado durante las inspecciones una gran
número de lesiones de toda tipología, el ser un elemento saliente es más propenso a sufrir
todo tipo de lesiones. El número total de fachadas con balcones reinspeccionados ha sido
de 58.
Las lesiones más recurrentes detectadas han sido las roturas, fisuras, desprendimientos de
material y las humedades.
El gráfico 6.15 muestra que ha habido un gran aumento del volumen de todas las lesiones
sobretodo las mencionadas anteriormente. También se observa la aparición de nuevas
lesiones como oxidaciones y desconchados.
Gráfico resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en las tribunas de las fachadas.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
TRIBUNAS
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
P
L
16,66%
G
5,55%
16,66%
5,55%
22,22%
11,11%
5,55%
5,55%
11,11%
33,33%
5,55%
5,55%
11,11%
5,55%
11,11%
tribunas de las fachadas, obtenidas en las reinspecciones realizadas en el año 2012.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
TRIBUNAS
11,11%
11,11%
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
27,76%
38,88%
22,21%
55,55%
16,65%
11,11%
tribunas de las fachadas.
Las tribunas son el elemento menos reinspeccionado ya que solo se 18 de las 121 fachadas
disponen de este subelemento. Por este número de fachadas es por el cual han resultado
unos valores tan similares y con números repetitivos.
En el gráfico 6.16 se observa que es un subelemento con gran variedad de lesiones, ya que
también es un elemento saliente como los balcones.
En el gráfico 6.17 se aprecia que durante los últimos 12 años han aparecido y aumentado
las lesiones, por ejemplo han aparecido nuevas lesiones como fisuras, desprendimientos de
material, bufados y desconchados y lesiones como humedades han aumentado de forma
considerable.
Gráficos resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en los otros de las fachadas.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
OTROS
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
P
L
26,92%
G
15,38%
5,76%
5,76%
10,57%
2,88%
2,88%
10,57%
1,92%
5,76%
54,80%
2,88%
16,34%
2,88%
0,96%
1,92%
Gráfico 6.18. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Gráfico resumen de la evolución de las lesiones en otros
elementos de las fachadas (cornisas, impostas, molduras), obtenidas en las reinspecciones realizadas en el año
2012.
ELEMENTO FACHADA
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
OTROS
25,96%
4,08%
0,96%
32,62%
1,92%
1,92%
LESIONES
P
R
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
48,06%
19,21%
15,37%
76,90%
5,76%
0,96%
1,92%
Gráfico 6.19. Fuente. Elaboración propia del alumno. Gráfico comparativo de la evolución de las lesiones en
otros de las fachadas (cornisas, impostas, molduras).
El gráfico 6.18 hace referencia a una variedad de elementos como son las cornisas,
impostas y molduras. Estos elementos forman parte de elementos decorativos y salientes
por es la gran variedad de lesiones; donde se observa que las roturas y humedades son las
más relevantes.
En el gráfico 6.19 las lesiones predominantes son las dichas anteriormente, pero aumentan
considerablemente lesiones como las fisuras y como los desprendimientos de material.
También aparecen de nuevas como los bufados.
7 CONCLUSIONES
CONCLUSIONES PARTICULARES
Una vez realizada la identificación de las lesiones y obtenido los resultados comparativos, se
puede concluir:
-
La utilización del sistema de inspección es fundamental para la detección de nuevas
lesiones.
-
En la reinspección realizada se ha detectado que ha habido un gran crecimiento de lesiones
de toda tipología y sobretodo se ha observado la aparición de un gran número de nuevas
lesiones.
-
En función del subelemento se han observado unas lesiones más recurrentes que otras por
ejemplo en el cuerpo de la fachada la lesión más recurrente ha sido la rotura, en cambio en
otros subelementos como tribunas, balcones las lesiones más voluminosa ha sido la
humedad, y en cambio en subelementos que abarcan una gran superficie de la fachada
como los revestimientos se detecta que hay un gran número de lesiones y en gran
porcentaje.
CONCLUSIONES GENERALES
El proyecto concluye con el cumplimiento de todos los objetivos y la consecución de las
aportaciones previstas.
A continuación se mencionan los objetivos obtenidos, tras la realización del proyecto:
1.- Se ha creado una nueva documentación sobre el estudio de las reinspecciones de
fachadas dentro de una gran área urbana.
2.- Se ha analizado el estado del parque edificado del barrio del centro del Hospitalet del
Llobregat.
3.- Se han propuesta mejoras y adecuaciones, al sistema utilizado; incluyendo las
propuestas para futuras inspecciones adecuándolas a las nuevas tecnologías.
4.- Se ha creado una base de datos con la información obtenida, manejable y adaptable a
futuras inspecciones.
5.- Se han extraído datos estadísticos comparables con los datos de las primeras
inspecciones, para el estudio de la evolución de las lesiones en fachadas dentro de una gran
área urbana.
A título personal el realizar este proyecto me ha permitido desarrollar y ampliar mis
conocimientos, que adquirido a lo largo de los años estudiando el grado,
También me ha llenado personalmente el haber podido contribuir a un macroproyecto como
este, y haber añadido mi granito de arena.
8 BIBLIOGRAFÍA
Broto.C. Enciclopedia Broto de patologías de la construcción. Ed. Links Internacional, 2004.
Flores-Colen,I. de Brito,J. A systematic approach for maintenance budgeting of buildings
façades based on predictive and preventive strategies. Construction and Building Materials,
2006.
Mendes Silva, J.A.R. Falorca,J. A model plan for buildings maintenance with application in
the performance analysis of a composite facade cover. Construction and Building Materials,
2008.
Tejela,J. Navas,D. Machín,C. Rehabilitación, mantenimiento y conservación de fachadas.
Tornapunta Ediciones, S.L.U. 2011.
Gibert,V. Royano,V. Determinación de estimadores de durabilidad adaptados a la edificación
existente. Projecte Final de Máster. EPSEB-UPC, 2010.
Bosch,C. Determinació criteris de durabilitat en l’Edificación, Basats en la trama urbana
d’Hospitalet del Llobregat. Projecte Final de Grau. EPSEB-UPC, 2011.
Roé,M. Gimenez,R. Alvarez,J. Gelma,J.. Catàleg de façanes amb factor de risc de
l’Hospitalet de Llobregat Projecte Final de Carrera. EPSEB-UPC, 2000.
Bellmunt,R. Paricio,A. Vila,N. Reconocimiento, diagnosis e intervención en fachadas. ITEC
2002.
Mendes Silva, J.A.R. Falorca,J. A model plan for buildings maintenance with application in
the performance analysis of a composite facade cover. Construction and Building Materials
23 (2009) 3248–3257.
Flores-Colen,I , Brito,J , Vasco P. de Freitas. Stains in facades’ rendering – Diagnosis and
maintenance techniques’ classification. Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 211–
221.
Flores-Colen,I , Brito,J. A systematic approach for maintenance budgeting of buildings
façades based on predictive and preventive strategies. Construction and Building Materials
24 (2010) 1718–1729.
“CRITERIOS PARA LA REINSPECCIÓN DEL ESTADO DE LESIONES EN FACHADAS
URBANAS”
ANEJOS
ANEJO A
ANEJO A.-TEXTOS CIENTÍFICOS RELACIONADOS
I
Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 1718–1729
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Construction and Building Materials
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat
A systematic approach for maintenance budgeting of buildings façades based
on predictive and preventive strategies
Inês Flores-Colen, Jorge de Brito *
DECivil-IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 October 2006
Received in revised form 2 February 2010
Accepted 7 February 2010
Available online 1 March 2010
Keywords:
Maintenance
Predictive
Preventive
LCC
Expert system
Façades
Buildings
Claddings
Performance
Service life
a b s t r a c t
Maintenance strategies are essential to control the first stages of degradation and prevent the failure of
building elements. The selection of the most cost-effective and appropriate strategies can enable better
budget allocation and can also minimize the decline in the performance of buildings during their whole
life cycle. This paper characterizes a systematic methodology for selecting optimal maintenance strategies for façades based on different maintenance policies and interaction with the user. Life-cycle cost
analysis is used to compare different maintenance scenarios using equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC)
for five façades’ claddings. These scenarios are compared through the simulation of performance–degradation models and characterization of several parameters: service life, performance, minimum level of
quality, maintenance operations, frequency and costs. The results allow the comparison of preventive
and predictive maintenance strategies. This methodology, the result of a two-year academic research program, is intended to help clients, users, practitioners and decision-makers in the choice of facades’ interventions (type, frequency and cost estimation) at buildings’ design and post-occupancy stages. Finally,
the future drawbacks and benefits of this study are discussed.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
During their service lives buildings deteriorate and become obsolete. As soon as they are built the process of decay begins, as well
as the deterioration of the fabric and services [1]. The inevitable
process of decay can be controlled and the physical life of the
buildings extended if they are properly maintained [2]. Maintaining buildings costs money and therefore, although building maintenance can be planned and specified correctly, if the funding
available is not adequate building failure will ultimately ensue
[1]. Buildings may fail for a number of reasons: faulty design, faulty
construction, faulty maintenance, faulty materials and faulty use.
This paper is related to the faulty building elements that can affect
the fulfilment of owner needs (needs of in-service budgeting control with accepted levels of comfort without potentially unsafe
risks), emphasizing the importance of maintenance to achieve this.
Faulty maintenance can be broken down into two parts: maintenance that has been carried out incorrectly and, more commonly,
no maintenance having been carried out at all during the life of
the building [1].
Faced with a shrinking maintenance budget, rising construction
and maintenance costs, building maintenance management has
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 218419709; fax: +351 218497650.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. de Brito).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.02.017
been gaining momentum and one of the more important tasks is
to minimize operating costs [2]. Therefore, the selection of the
most cost-effective and appropriate maintenance strategies can result in better budget allocation. It can also minimize the deterioration in the performance buildings over their whole life cycle
(design, construction, use and demolition).
Management, design and monitoring are complex processes
that require knowledge of different fields and the consideration
of different variables that make use of knowledge-based systems
[3] or decision support models that can be transformed into computerized semi-automatic tools [4]. A number of techniques that
have been developed and used for many years in the defence, aviation and oil industries to select the most effective maintenance
strategies [5] have also been adapted for building pathology and
maintenance with a growing number of applications:
Diagnosis systems or expert systems that provide logical steps
to diagnose building defects in a structured way, using diagnosis
charts, data banks, fault trees and artificial intelligence or
knowledge-based systems [6]; new applications for risk assessment of failures in building products (e.g. FMEA – Failure Mode
Effects Analysis) [7].
Models more suitable for helping designers to select the most
feasible and economical maintenance and refurbishment actions
in the conceptual phase of new or renovation projects; they can
I. Flores-Colen, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 1718–1729
be based on multi-criteria models [8], neural network techniques [9], probabilistic approaches (such as Monte Carlo simulation), life-cycle cost models (e.g. Eurolifeform European
Research Project) [10] and others.
Models to identify the most cost-effective and appropriate
maintenance strategy for existing buildings and other facilities
(e.g. bridge protection systems, infrastructures); more than
one technique has been used in this field, e.g. FMEA with RCM
(reliability-centred maintenance) [5], genetic algorithms in conjunction with stochastic methods (e.g. Markov-chain) [11,12]
and others.
Integrated decision-making tools to assist building owners,
architects, contracting authorities and decision-makers in
assessing building degradation, choice of optimal maintenance
and refurbishment strategies (from a long-term financial investment point of view), improvement of energy and environmental
performance (environmental challenge) for different types of
buildings (INVESTIMMO and EPIQR for apartment buildings,
SUREURO for post-war European residential buildings, TOBUS
for office buildings, XENIOS for hotels) [13–18].
Despite the range of studies already carried out, new approaches to the efficient management of maintenance of different
buildings’ components, materials and systems are being developed
all the time. In this context, the following aspects justify the previous statement:
(1) The choice of optimal maintenance strategy should be based
on an analysis of different maintenance policies (e.g. reactive, corrective, preventive, time-based maintenance, condition-based maintenance, re-design) [1,5,19,20]; it is
necessary to distinguish the maintenance concept from
other terms normally used in building renovation, such as
refurbishment, retrofit and modernization [1,4,21].
(2) To globally address the issue of maintainability, the
approaches of building performance and building LCC are
essential [2] – maintainability is the ability of a functional
unit, under given conditions of use, to be kept in, or restored
to a state in which it can perform a required function when
maintenance is performed under given conditions and using
stated procedures and resources [22].
(3) Building performance evaluation is a crucial procedure that
offers feedback as a function of the performance of building
materials and components for future improvement [23,24];
even if it is a complex issue, it is crucial to define in each
study which component(s) of performance is(are) being
studied: functional, physical or financial [25].
(4) There is still little information regarding general in-use performance of components and materials [26]; this adversely
affects the practical application of theoretical models in
maintenance management.
(5) The reliability of the prediction of a building’s service life
strongly influences the effectiveness of a maintenance policy
[27]; methods based on coupling life-cycle cost assessment
and service life prediction are needed [28,29]; economic
tools are needed for assessing the life-cycle cost advantages
and disadvantages of new materials relative to conventional
materials [30].
(6) Users perceptions, needs, expectations and budget are relevant issues to the real implementation of maintenance models [13,31].
This paper first sets out a systematic approach for selecting
optimal maintenance strategies for façades in different stages
of the life cycle process (design and in-use stages). Secondly, relevant parameters to be included in databases are discussed.
1719
Then, different maintenance scenarios are simulated for façade
claddings; these are based on theoretical concepts with a view
to evaluating the future benefits of this methodology for practitioners, users and decision-makers. Finally, some needs for future research are suggested and the advantages and
disadvantages of this methodology are presented. Ongoing research by the authors has focused on the integration of previous
methodology with experimental and empirical methods for inuse performance assessment of plastered façades. This is an
extension of the work described in this paper and is not included in it.
2. A systematic approach proposal for façade maintenance
2.1. General remarks
The façade is a key element of a building and it influences its
comfort, safety and aesthetics. The overall performance of the façade depends on the performances of its components: separation,
support and facilities [32]. The poor design of construction details,
a bad choice of the façade materials (e.g. plaster with high porosity
in a marine environment), its inadequate application, and nonexistent maintenance are the core of current problems in buildings’
façades.
The systematic step-by-step methodology proposed in this paper is meant to provide technical support for façade design, inspection and maintenance management, integrating informatics-based
modules (databases) associated with different maintenance strategies (Fig. 1). In this methodology, the user defines the component
of the façade to be studied and the objective of the analysis (design
façade or existing façade) using several options. Three types of
analysis can be performed, depending on previous statements
and the knowledge of the behaviour of the component to be
studied:
Preventive maintenance (or planned maintenance): the items
included in this category are those scheduled for predefined,
regular intervals to ensure the component’s continued good performance [1]; this type of maintenance reduces non-planned
works and allows the estimation of overall costs.
Predictive maintenance (or condition-based maintenance) by
performing inspection planning: the predictions involved in this
type of maintenance show an important capacity for improved
accuracy [20]; it has for some time been a useful tool for reducing life-cycle costs and finding more efficient ways of using
maintenance budgets [32]; it is an appropriate maintenance
strategy for elements whose condition and performance can be
suitably monitored [11,33].
Reactive maintenance: this is associated with the correction of
unexpected anomalies and is almost always an emergency procedure, leading to unavoidable extra costs; it is important to
standardize technical procedures that allow the minimization
of the drawbacks of this type of maintenance.
The preventive and predictive maintenance strategies are
classed as proactive maintenance, which prevents problems before
they occur [20] and so cuts the cost throughout a building’s service
life.
The fact that this systematic approach is modular allows the
future addition of supplementary modules to define the service
behaviour of each element, thereby contributing to the characterization of the overall performance of the façade itself [34]. This
technical approach intends to systematize procedures, according
to the strategy and type of maintenance, in order to be used
in a knowledge-based system. The result is the continuous and
1720
Fig. 1. Methodology for systematic approach to building façades maintenance.
sustainable improvement of maintenance management of buildings’ façades.
2.2. Databases
The systematic approach proposed for façade maintenance includes six databases that systemize relevant data for the analysis
of maintenance strategies, namely technical options (Database 1
– DB1), serviceability (Database 2 – DB2), anomalies/causes/effects
(Database 3 – DB3), performance over-time (Database 4 – DB4),
maintenance operations (Database 5 – DB5) and urgent procedures
(Database 6 – DB6). See Fig. 2 for more details on the structure of
the databases.
2.2.1. Technical options (DB1)
The International Standard ISO 6241 [35] identifies the main
factors to be considered when assessing the performance of
buildings and their sub-systems, particularly in relation to user
requirements: stability, fire safety, safety in-use, watertightness,
hydrothermal, air purity, acoustic, visual, tactile, dynamic, hygiene,
suitability of spaces for specific uses, durability and economic
requirements. In Europe, the Construction Products Directive context [36] lays down certain essential performance criteria for buildings (as a whole and in separate parts) under six essential
requirements: mechanical resistance and stability (ER1); safety in
the event of fire (ER2); hygiene, health and the environment
(ER3); safety in-use (ER4); protection against noise (ER5) and
1721
Fig. 2. Databases of systematic approach proposed for façade maintenance.
energy economy and heat retention (ER6). These requirements
must be satisfied during an economically reasonable working life
(period of time during which the performance of the works will
be maintained at a level compatible with the fulfilment of the
essential requirements) when subjected to proper maintenance.
In this context, a façade should fulfil several functions in order
to meet users’ requirements, such as: provide strength and rigidity;
control fire; control rain penetration, water vapour flow and damp;
be suitable for specific uses; control noise; control heat flow, air
flow, light, solar and other radiation; be durable; be economical;
be aesthetically pleasing; and be sustainable [37]. ASCE [38] defines façade evaluation as the process by which the components’
suitability for their intended use is determined. Thus, to assess
and improve the global performance of the façade it is necessary
to identify the performance characteristics that each part (systems,
assemblies and components of walls and glazed areas) has to meet
throughout the service life.
The choice of the appropriate solutions depends on the evaluation of parameters related to durability, functionality, costs involved, accessibility and safety conditions. Technical documents
accessible to the designers can help the choice of optimal technical alternatives. They must include the procedures to be adopted
and the design techniques that allow the prediction of the elements
behaviour within an adequate and timely maintenance perspective.
2.2.2. Serviceability, durability and performance over-time (DB2, DB3
and DB4)
A sound knowledge of a design solution’s durability (long-term
performance) is crucial to ensuring the reliability of any maintenance strategy. According to ISO 15686-1 [21], service life is the
period of time after construction in which the building and its elements match or exceed the minimum performance requirements.
Estimating service life is a complex process and among the approaches that have been proposed in the past few years [39] are
the factorial, probabilistic and engineering methods. The factorial
method oversimplifies the complexity of the degradation factors
and the probabilistic methods are too complex to be used in everyday practice. But the engineering methods, although seeming to be
the best compromise, lack technical documentation that could
simplify their application [40].
The factorial method of ISO 15686-1 [21], used to predict service life, is based on a reference service life affected by several
deterministic factors that are related to the difference between
specific and reference conditions. To obtain the estimated service
life (ESLC), the reference service life (RSLC) is multiplied by several
factors, according to the following equation:
ESLC ¼ RSLC A B C D E F G
ð1Þ
where RSLC – reference service life for components based on experience, building codes or test results [41], and A–G – factors that
take into account the quality of materials, design, workmanship, indoor and outdoor environment, operating characteristics and maintenance. The estimated service life should be compared with the
minimum values for building design life and components’ design
life, taking into account maintenance needs (Table 1).
Shohet et al. [42] also report experimental and empirical methods for the evaluation of the service life of building components.
Experimental methods make use of in situ tests or laboratoryaccelerated degradation tests to evaluate the effect of a specific
agent of deterioration (e.g. poor quality of materials). Empirical
methods are supported by a field survey of degradation factors followed by the systematic determination of the life cycle expectancy
based upon ranking systems. Thus, the evaluation of the durability/
service life of building components includes identifying possible
factors, mechanisms and degradation effects, either from previous
experience (e.g. from materials currently in-use) or from results
derived from natural or accelerated aging tests (e.g. new materials,
whose long-term behaviour has not yet been characterized). However, results from tests and modelling should be interpreted in
combination with information gained from in-service performance
[43]. According to ISO 15686-1 [21], ‘‘the range of climatic conditions and building techniques throughout the world requires that
1722
Table 1
Suggested minimum design life values for components ISO 15686-1 [21].
Design life of
building
Inaccessible or structural
components
Components whose replacement is expensive
or difficult
Major replaceable
components
Service installations and external
works
Historical
150
100
60
25
15
10
Historical
150
100
60
25
15
10
100
100
100
60
25
15
10
40
40
40
40
25
15
10
25
25
25
25
25
15
10
Notes: 1 – Less important components may have design lives of 3 or 6 years.
separate factors for service life planning are developed for specific
circumstances”.
In the construction products directive [36], fitness for use is a
fundamental concept but it depends on the intended use of the
product and on national provisions on the design and execution
of works. But it may be necessary to establish minimum levels,
i.e. levels for certain performance characteristics below which a
construction product cannot under any circumstances be considered fit for a specific intended use.
The end of service life corresponds to reaching the minimum
acceptable value for the fulfilment of a certain requirement.
Fig. 3 illustrates how the service life value is conditioned by aesthetic requirements before the element reaches failure associated
with loss of functionality or reduction of safety levels [44]. This
example shows that appearance can be relevant to service life
when cladding systems applied on external walls are analyzed.
The establishment of a minimum level of quality is a compromise
that fulfils the minimum requirements and minimizes costs. A less
demanding minimum level of quality allows lower levels of performance with associated higher states of degradation, affecting service life, type of maintenance operations and costs.
In this context, according to the CSTB performance manual [45]
it is important to state the requirements that have to be accomplished during the service life, for each façade element, by defining
acceptable limits for the performance requirements using quantitative criteria. Examples of requirements for a façade comprising
a porous substrate are deformability under the action of wind, surface drying, permeability to air, thermal resistance and durability.
2.2.3. Maintenance operations and urgent procedures (DB5 and DB6)
Maintenance operations involve different techniques, such as
cleaning, local repairs, local replacements, protection or inspections. Cleaning, almost always underestimated and frequently neglected, is the most relevant operation in the prevention of
Fig. 3. Schematic degradation of different groups of properties [44].
anomalies, particularly the evolution of stains and accumulation
of other deposits on the outer surface [46]. Inspections should have
their own methodology and be sustained by adequate diagnosis
techniques that evaluate the degradation state of each layer (e.g.
condition of finishing, cleanness, background adherence and cracks
in plaster façades). Local repairs and replacement operations aim at
solving certain anomalies that appear in localized areas in order to
prevent them from spreading to the remaining façade coating.
These operations should be performed after analysis and correction
of the anomaly’s causes, to avoid its reappearance. As shown in Fig
4, maintenance operations affect the element’s behaviour overtime (the level of performance is increased depending on the type
of maintenance), modifying the models of degradation, the values
of service life and, therefore, maintenance costs [47]. Table 2 shows
maintenance actions for rendering, including different operations,
frequency, costs and service life [48].
The urgent procedures include temporary operations to minimize the effects of urgent situations (e.g. scaffolding to protect
the users from cladding falling down).
2.3. Simulation of maintenance scenarios
The establishment of maintenance schedules allows the rationalization of each maintenance strategy by relating the type of
intervention to the quality level required. In Portugal, the legal period of 8 years established for periodic maintenance operations is
not always observed and, in certain cases, it is inadequate. Façade
claddings’ specificity and their different behaviour in real service
conditions imply different maintenance needs. For example, the
short life cycle of emulsion paints means that interventions are often needed before the legal period mentioned (periodic cleaning
every 2 years and repainting after 5 years); for elastomeric paints,
meanwhile, these interventions are generally only required after a
longer period (periodic local repairs every 10 or 15 years) [47]. In
current practice, action planning at an initial stage (design) considers a theoretical behaviour of the elements, allowing the assessment of several construction options in terms of durability and
global costs. However, it requires updating and evaluation at a later stage (service), through inspections (to control the behaviour of
the design solutions over-time and their performance after interventions). In this context, the initial technical data is crucial to
the approach of the predicted theoretical behaviour versus the real
service behaviour.
Prior information can help with the preparation of an inspection
and maintenance plan at the design stage, which will allow optimization of resources, control of time and minimization of costs.
Life-cycle cost analysis is a relatively simple approach for minimizing coating maintenance costs. The total cost for a combination of a particular maintenance strategy is compared with the
total cost of another strategy. The strategy that yields the lowest
cost is considered the optimal maintenance strategy for the specific case under analysis [49].
1723
Fig. 4. Relationship between degradation states and maintenance operations, for renders.
Costs are derived for each strategy in current Euros, i.e. the
monies necessary at the moment of reference of the analysis (not
necessarily now) to carry out interventions at a future date. The basic formula used in life-cycle cost analysis can be obtained from
any economic textbook [50] using the Equivalent Uniform Annual
Cost method (EUAC) that combines all costs into a single annual
cost (AC) over the analysis period
EUAC ¼
t
N
i
X
C est
dð1 þ dÞN
t ð1 þ eÞ
t
ð1 þ dÞ ð1 þ dÞN 1
t¼0
ð2Þ
where ‘‘C esti
t ” (estimated cost for strategy i in year t); ‘‘e” (prices differential rate), ‘‘d” (discount rate) and ‘‘N” (analysis period in years).
The cost function ‘‘C esti
t ” includes some of the costs identified for
global cost function for bridges [51] such as initial costs, inspection, cleaning and repair costs, and also added restoring costs
(works associated with repainting walls) – Eq. (3). This paper has
focused on cleaning techniques because they are crucial for reducing stains and lead to their elimination, if their possible causes
have been treated before. Although cleaning techniques can deal
with most stains under analysis, in certain cases they might be
inappropriate for two main reasons: the technique cannot remove
the particular stain or is likely to cause an unacceptable degree of
damage to the substrate (this becomes even more important when
there is cumulative damage from repeated cleaning). Therefore the
paper has highlighted the importance of the test areas to assessing
the performance of each cleaning method and its effects on the
substrate or adjacent materials. When the analyzed cleaning tech-
niques are inappropriate, other types of maintenance techniques
should be used.
C esti
¼ C apl þ RC inps þ RC clean þ RC rep þ C rest
t
ð3Þ
where ‘‘Capl” (application costs), ‘‘Cinps” (inspection costs, if applicable), ‘‘Cclean” (cleaning costs), ‘‘Crep” (repair costs) and ‘‘Crest” (restoring costs). The estimation of various costs (application,
maintenance and replacement) was based on market average values
(€/m2).
3. Proactive maintenance strategies applied to cladding systems
3.1. General remarks
The case studies presented in this paper have resulted from a
large scope study which compared different maintenance strategies (preventive and predictive) for five current façade claddings
in Portugal (cementitious rendering, elastomeric coating, emulsion
coating, ceramic tiling and natural stone) [47].
A technical and economic analysis was performed in order to
determine the best strategies for each cladding, and it also allowed
the comparison of several strategies with different life cycles and
maintenance costs. This analysis has considered theoretical concepts and performance models based on experience and on national and international research. Ongoing research intends to
adapt these theoretical models with in-use performance measures
from field assessment.
Table 2
Maintenance operations for rendered façades, adapted from [48].
Operations
Periodicity
Visual inspection of the accessible areas and observation of cracking
Water jetting of the coating surface
Sounding by tapering over non-adherent patches
Twice a year
Twice a year
When surface deformations
are visible
Every 2 years
Deteriorated areas: treatment and local repair of the coating. Check if anomalies detected are associated with
background problems
Coating replacement: background treatment, widening and filing cracks with appropriate material, applying
mortar and checking its adherence
Service life: 30 years
Proportion
examined (%)
3
12
30
100
1724
Table 3
Factors included in estimated initial service life for five types of cladding.
Coating
Value of factors
Cementitious rendering
Elastomeric coating
Emulsion coating
Ceramic tile mosaic
Natural stone
ESLCa
RSLC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
16
12
6
20
32
20
15
7
25
40
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Comments: A, B, C, D, E, F = 1 (standard conditions); G = unfavourable maintenance conditions (absence of maintenance and/or inadequate repairs).
a
ESLC = RSLC A B C D E F G; where ESLC (estimated service life); RSLC (reference service life); A (quality of component); B (design level); C (work execution level); D
(indoor environment); E (outdoor environment); F (in-use conditions) and G (maintenance level).
3.2. Preventive maintenance strategies
Different preventive maintenance strategies for the first life cycle result from the combination of these parameters: service life
values, performance–degradation models, maintenance operations
costs, frequency of interventions, minimum level of quality and
end of service life.
3.2.1. Service life values
The initial service life values were determined by applying the
factorial method of ISO 15686 [21] to each cladding system, taking
the service life data from manufacturers as reference. The estimated service life and factors’ values are listed in Table 3, using
some literature as Refs. [21,52]. The prediction of the initial service
life, without maintenance, takes into account the reduction of no
maintenance in the reference values (RSLC) given by the manufacturers or national technical experience. In Portugal there is a
marked lack of maintenance and so it was assumed at the initial
analysis stage that these specific conditions can lower RSLC by
20% (G = 0.8), the other factors were assumed to be related to standard conditions. The main objective of using the factor method was
to obtain a realistic value of the initial service life (for example, in
Table 3, the reference value of cementitious rendering is 20 years;
assuming no maintenance the service life will be 16 years; this is
the value that appears in model I of Fig. 5, on the left, for cementitious rendering).
3.2.2. Performance–degradation models
The characterization of performance–degradation models depends on the identification of current degradation mechanisms,
anomalies and external mechanical, electromechanical, thermal,
chemical and biological agents [21]. A field survey identified patterns of long-term performance loss based upon a systematic evaluation of the physical and visual degradation of building cladding
systems. Four typical patterns were found that were characteristic
of the main mechanisms responsible for the symptoms observed in
cladding systems – convex, linear, s-shape and concave patterns
[53].
In this paper, the loss of performance over-time is represented
by qualitative curves that relate, for the first cycle of service life,
the change in the cladding’s performance levels, the degradation
rate and maintenance operations involved. These models (convex
curves) are intended to characterize the loss of protective action
of each cladding associated with physical and chemical degradation (1st – formation of cracks, from fine hairlines to deep cracks;
2nd – peeling, flaking or detachment of the cladding and aesthetic
deterioration). Four models (simulated scenarios) are therefore
represented in Figs. 5 and 6 for the first life cycle of each maintenance strategy for one-coat cementitious rendering:
Model I (performance–degradation model without maintenance): the degradation curve corresponds to a second or higher
degree polynomial expression with a yearly degradation rate
that slowly increases from the beginning (ffi4.5% of initial overall
performance) until the end (ffi8.0%) of service life of 13.5 years;
ordinates represent the functional performance of each coating
(in percentage) and abscissas the cladding life-time (in years);
the end of service life is reached when the cladding has a minimum performance level of 20% of the initial performance (i.e.
the level of quality that corresponds to the maximum state of
Fig. 5. Degradation models, for one-coat cementitious render: without maintenance (left) and with periodic cleaning operations (right).
1725
Fig. 6. Degradation models, for one-coat cementitious render: with periodic minor repairs (left) and with a single major repair (right).
degradation while still meeting the cladding’s requirements);
note that the degradation rate was measured by graphical methods using the following data (convex curve of degradation of the
cladding with two main stages of degradation; the value of estimated service life from Table 3 and the assumption of the minimum level of performance equal to 20% of the initial
performance, leading for example to an initial service life of
13.5 years, see model I of cementitious rendering in Fig 5, on
the left).
Model II (performance–degradation model with maintenance,
i.e. periodic cleaning operations): periodic cleaning operations
alter the initial shape of the curve (model I); it was estimated
empirically that these operations would reinstate the initial degradation rate (it was assumed that the cleaning operations did
not affect the performance level but did slow the degradation
rates); after four cleaning operations with a periodicity of 1/4
of the service life of model I (SLR, service life of reference, without maintenance), a new 16 years service life (about 19% higher
than the initially predicted) is reached.
Model III (performance–degradation model with maintenance,
i.e. periodic repair operations): periodic repairs alter the initial
shape of the curve, increasing the performance level of the cladding after each operation (it was assumed that minor repairs
improved the performance by about 15%); after eight minor
repairs with a periodicity of 1/3 of the service life of model I
(SLR), a new service life of 40 years (about three times that initially predicted) is reached.
Model IV (performance–degradation model with maintenance,
i.e. one extensive repair operation): a single major repair alters
the initial shape of the curve, increasing the performance level
of the coating after intervention (it was assumed that extensive
repairs improved the performance by about 40%); after the
repair, performed after 2/3 of the SLR, a new 22 years service life
(about 63% higher than the initially predicted) is reached.
3.2.3. LCC analysis of maintenance strategies
The LCC analysis of each maintenance strategy has included the
identification of current techniques of cleaning and repair and different costs (application, maintenance and replacement) based on
average market values (€/m2) for each cladding system. The areas
of intervention on the façade assumed for cleaning, minor repairs
and major repair were respectively 100%, 10% and 35% of the whole
area, based on current practice. For example, Table 4 describes the
techniques considered in four maintenance strategies for cementitious render in order to solve current anomalies (cracking, swelling, loss of adherence with scaling; and aspect degradation such
Table 4
Description of preventive strategy operations for cementitious render.
Strategy
Service life
(years)
Plan of activities (first life cycle)
Frequency (years)
Without maintenance
13.5
Cyclical cleaning
operations
16
Cyclic light repairs
40
0
13.5
0
3, 7, 10, 14
16
0
5, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27,
32, 36
Single extensive repair
22
Application of cementitious rendering (15.46 €/m2)
Scrabbling of rendering at the end of the cycle (7.73 €/m2)
Application of cementitious render (15.46 €/m2)
Water jetting of cladding surface (0.998 €/m2)
Cracks (<1 mm) treatment (10,974 €/m2). In this case, the area to be treated is on average 10%
of the whole façade area
Application of cementitious rendering (15.46 €/m2) on 10% of the whole facade area
Widening and closing of superficial non-structural cracking with non-retractile mortar
(13.47 €/m2), on 35% of the whole façade area
Application of cementitious rendering (15.46 €/m2) on 35% of the whole facade area
40
0
9
22
1726
Table 5
Values of EUAC (€/m2) and the service life (in years) for preventive strategies.
Preventive strategy
One-coat cementitious rendering
€/m
Without any maintenance
Cyclic cleaning
Cyclic minor repairs
Single major repair
*
2
1.93
1.91
1.55*
1.95
years
13.5
16
40
22
Elastomeric coating
€/m
2
1.18
1.35
1.08*
1.38
years
10
12
30
16
Emulsion coating
€/m
2
*
1.85
2.23
2.24
2.30
Ceramic tile
2
years
€/m
5
6
15
8
2.04
2.69
2.24
2.03*
Natural stone
years
€/m2
years
17
20
50
28
3.67
4.06
3.57
3.57*
27
32
80
44
Optimal strategies, with the lowest value of EUAC for the cases studied.
as stains and dirt). The frequency of interventions results from the
performance–degradation models.
3.2.4. Results of preventive maintenance on cladding systems
Table 5 summarizes the values of EUAC and service life obtained
for these different preventive maintenance strategies. It was concluded that the optimal preventive strategies were: minor repairs
for one-coat cementitious rendering and elastomeric coating (coatings of lower quality, with relatively short average service life), absence of maintenance for emulsion coating (very short service life)
and a single major repair for ceramic tiling and natural stone (better quality and more expensive coatings).
3.3. Predictive maintenance strategies
Inspections performed during the service stage allow the control of the performance of design solutions and interventions during a building’s service life. To that effect, two scenarios were
studied: in-service behaviour better or worse than the one predicted in preventive strategies (planned strategies). This analysis
can only be implemented if the end of the coating’s service life
and its real degradation rate can be established (these subjects
have been studied in the PhD of the first author, mainly based on
visual inspection of rendering and on-site testing results).
3.3.1. In-service behaviour better than that initially predicted
The characterization of various maintenance strategies was
based on the degradation models for the first life cycle. Fig. 7
exemplifies a degradation model characterized by a degradation
curve (solid line). For this model it was assumed immediately after
the first inspection (I1) that the real degradation rate of the coating’s performance was found to be 20% lower than initially assumed and, therefore, the initial service life changed from 13.5 to
16.2 years. Under these conditions (predictive maintenance strategy), the interval between repairs increased by about 1 year,
extending the service life to 49 years and reducing annual global
costs, even with inspection costs included. The definition of a predictive strategy is based on the average behaviour expected of the
material in real conditions (curve Tm), while a preventive strategy
relies on a theoretical pessimistic prediction (curve Tk). In this scenario, it is feasible that by performing periodic inspections it is possible to determine that the real behaviour of the cladding is in fact
slightly better than initially assumed in a preventive strategy (in
Fig. 7, the theoretical behaviour predicted is represented by a
dashed line).
Behaviour variations with degradation 10% and 30% lower than
that initially predicted lead to different values of S.L.R (i.e. 14.9 and
17.6 years, respectively) and also to different occurrences of
inspections and repairs. Consequently, different values for the
end of service life are expected (i.e. 44 years for 10% and 52 for
30%). Values of EUAC are provided in Table 6: the greater the increase of the initially predicted service life the lower the EUAC value. In other words, the predictive strategy is the most favourable
the better the real service behaviour of the coating compared with
the theoretical behaviour predicted in the preventive strategy.
3.3.2. In-service behaviour worse than that initially predicted
Sometimes the in-service behaviour of the coating is associated
with a higher degradation rate than that predicted for the preventive strategy. This occurs in practice when a coating does not
clearly fulfil the pre-established requirements or when gross coating design/application mistakes are detected. In these conditions,
two solutions can be considered:
Alternative A – repair the existing cladding with a material with
similar characteristics in terms of degradation rate.
Fig. 7. Degradation model for predictive strategy (solid line), for one-coat cementitious render.
Table 6
EUAC and service life values for in-service behaviour better than that initially
predicted.
Improved behaviour compared with that initially
predicted (preventive strategy) (%)
10
20
30
One-coat cementitious
render
EUAC
(€/m2)
Service life
(years)
1.536
1.427
1.352
44
49
52
Alternative B – replace the existing cladding with another that
has better characteristics in terms of the field conditions; this
alternative can be called improvement strategy as it improves
certain functional parameters after the new coating is applied.
In this context, and as with the previous examples, all technical
and economic parameters for each strategy should be evaluated.
The costs considered for alternative B are: inspection costs, removal of the existing material and application, maintenance and
replacement, at the end of the cycle, of a new cladding. Fig. 8 exemplifies a performance–degradation model that illustrates in-service
behaviour for a one-coat cementitious rendering worse than the
behaviour initially predicted, and an alternative that should be
an improvement. In this model it was assumed that right after
the first inspection (I1) a real degradation rate of the coating’s performance was detected that was 20% higher than the one assumed,
which corresponds to a decrease of the SLR (from 13.5 to 11.3 years
for cementitious rendering). This situation leads to a different frequency of light repairs (equal to 1/3 of 11.3 years). Alternative A is
represented by a dashed line and alternative B by a solid line. Strategy B consists of removing the cementitious rendering and then
applying natural stone, 1 year after the first inspection. It increases
the life cycle since the end of the cycle corresponds graphically to
the intersection of the degradation curve with the minimum level
of quality equal to 20% of initial performance. Table 7 summarizes
the EUAC and service life results for the two strategies mentioned.
The replacement of the existing one-coat cementitious rendering (maintained by light repairs) with a natural stone cladding
(maintained by a single major repair) has increased the service life
because the new coating is more durable, even though more
expensive (higher values of EUAC). The same situation was obtained for the other cladding systems that were analyzed but not
discussed in this paper; namely, alternative A – repair of existing
ceramic tiling, with EUAC values of 2.4 €/m2 and 23 years of service
life and alternative B – replace existing ceramic tiling with natural
1727
stone cladding, with EUAC of 3.8 €/m2 and 50 years of service life
[47]. In both these situations, in terms of cost-effectiveness it is
better to keep the existing cladding.
However, the results were different for other improvement
strategies studied but not discussed in this paper. For example,
the replacement of an existing emulsion coating by an elastomeric
coating has proved to be an optimal improvement technique from
a cost-efficiency point of view (alternative A – repair of existing
emulsion coating, with EUAC of 2.3 €/m2 and 4 years of service life
and alternative B – replace existing emulsion coating with elastomeric coating, with EUAC of 1.4 €/m2 and 32 years of service life)
[47,54]. In fact, this strategy has been used in real interventions
in Portuguese social housing façades [54].
3.4. Discussion of results
This analysis has put forward initial data that allowed a technical and economic comparison of different proactive maintenance
strategies (preventive and predictive).
The results have shown that a definition of preventive strategies
for different cladding solutions allows a better characterization of
the alternatives in terms of durability, maintenance needs and global costs. This data also helps with the definition of inspection and
maintenance plans (crucial tools for proactive maintenance) that
include the characterization of different aspects: decision, priority
and periodicity of interventions, maintenance operations and cost
estimates.
The results showed that predictive strategies, compared with
corresponding preventive strategies, led to an increase of service
life and lower EUAC values if the in-use performance of cladding
is better than that initially predicted at the design phase (theoretical performance), which very often happens. This analysis is only
viable as long as it is possible to define the real degradation rate of
the coating, based on inspection results. If the in-service behaviour
is worse, maybe because of faulty application, the study has also
demonstrated that the initial theoretical performance (preventive
strategy) and its inherent costs were totally inadequate as they
did not reflect that reality. The cost of replacement with a new type
of cladding could be avoided if this cladding were the initial design
option, particularly if severe service conditions (e.g. high risks of
cracking) could be predicted at an early stage. In conclusion, the
choice of appropriate solutions at the design stage can avoid future
interventions, extra costs and functional problems and so ensure
the end-users’ satisfaction.
The analysis has shown that the advantages and disadvantages of these strategies depend on structured data, performance
Fig. 8. Degradation model of improvement strategy: one-coat cementitious render removal and application of natural stone, after the first inspection.
1728
Table 7
EUAC and service life values for in-service behaviour worse than that initially predicted.
Existing coating
Preventive strategy (R)
€/m
Render
2
1.55
Alternative A (R)
years
€/m
40
1.8
2
Alternative B (improvement strategy) (N)
years
€/m2
years
34
3.58
48.5
Note: R – one-coat cementitious render; N – natural stone.
knowledge, decision criteria and the technical and economic characteristics of each intervention technique.
4. Conclusions
The systematic approach that has been proposed in this paper
was designed to systematize procedures according to different
maintenance policies that can be implemented during a building’s
whole life cycle (in terms of design or in existing façades). The
application examples used the integrated approach of performance–degradation models and life-cycle cost analysis to study
the benefits of different maintenance scenarios (preventive and
predictive strategies). With simulation scenario analysis, databases
to back decision and interaction with the user, the approach proposed can help practitioners, users and decision-makers to manage
building façade maintenance.
Since the comparison of each maintenance strategy depends
strongly on performance–degradation, minimum level of quality,
service life and frequency of maintenance operations, the ongoing
research being carried out by the authors (not presented in the
present paper) involves the integration of these parameters with
experimental and empirical methods in-service conditions. In the
future, this approach can be used in a knowledge-based system,
improving the maintenance management of buildings’ façades
continuously and sustainably.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the scholarship from the
FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) which partially supported the PhD work of the first author, and the support of the
ICIST Research Institute from IST, Technical University of Lisbon.
References
[1] Rikey M, Cotgrave A. The context of maintenance. In: Macmillan Palgrave,
editor. Construction technology. The technology of refurbishment and
maintenance, vol. 3, New York; 2005. p. 50–6.
[2] Chew MYL, Tan SS, Kang KH. Building maintainability. J Archit Eng, ASCE
2004:80–7.
[3] Van Balen KEP. Learning from damage of masonry structures, expert systems
can help! In: Lourenço PB, Roca P, editor. 3rd Historical constructions 2001,
Guimarães, Portugal, November; 2001. p. 15–27.
[4] Rosenfeld Y, Shohet IM. Decision support model for semi-automated selection
of renovation alternatives. Automat Constr 1999;8(4):503–10.
[5] El-Haram MA, Horner RMW. Application of the principles of ILS to the
development of cost effective maintenance strategies for existing building
stock. Constr Manage Econ 2003;21(3):283–96.
[6] Henshell J. Tools and methodologies in GECoRPA/CIBW086/LNEC. In: 2nd
International symposium on building pathology, durability and rehabilitation,
Lisbon, Portugal, November; 2003. p. 3–9.
[7] Talon A, Chevalier J-L, Hans J. Failure modes effects and criticality analysis
research for and application to the building domain. A state of the art. Report
to CIB W80/RILEM 175, CSTB, France; 2005.
[8] Alanne K. Selection of renovation actions using multi-criteria ‘‘knapsack”
model. Automat Constr 2004;13:377–91.
[9] Chew MYL, de Silva N, Tan SS. A neural network approach to assessing building
façade maintainability in the tropics. Constr Manage Econ 2004;22(6):581–94.
[10] Silva AP, Alisa M, Kirkham RJ, Grindey T, Fernandes AA. Assessment of lifecycle costs of buildings based on probabilistic approach (in Portuguese). Int J
Construlink 2005;3(10):1–7.
[11] Morcous G, Lounis Z. Maintenance optimization of infrastructure networks
using genetic algorithms. Automat Constr 2005;14(1):129–42.
[12] Zayed TM, Chang L-M, Fricker JD. Life-cycle cost analysis using deterministic and
stochastic methods: conflicting results. J Perform Constr Facil 2002;16(2):63–74.
[13] European project INVESTIMMO. <http://www.investimmo.cstb.fr>.
[14] INVESTIMMO: a decision-making tool for long-term efficient investment
strategies in housing maintenance and refurbishment. In: 2nd International
symposium on integrated lifetime engineering of buildings & civil
infrastructures, ILCDES 2003, December 1–3, 2003, Kuopio, Finland; 2003. p.
559–64.
[15] Bluyssen PM. EPIQR and IEQ: indoor environment quality in European
apartment buildings. Energy Build 2000;31(2):97–170.
[16] Sureuro for European post-war residential buildings. <www.sureuro.com/>.
[17] Balaras CA. TOBUS – a European method and software for office building
refurbishment. Energy Build 2002;34(2):111–202.
[18] Dascalaki E, Balaras CA. XENIOS – a methodology for assessing refurbishment
scenarios and the potential of application of RES and RUE in hotels. Energy
Build 2004;36(11):1091–105.
[19] Teo EAL, Chew MYL, Harikrishna N. An assessment of factors affecting the
service life of external paint finish on plastered facades. In: DBMC 10 – 10th
international conference on durability of building materials and components,
Lyon, France (CD-Rom).
[20] Palmer D. Maintenance planning and scheduling handbook. McGraw-Hill;
1999.
[21] ISO 15686. 1 Buildings service life planning, part 1: general principles.
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2000.
[22] ISO/IEC 2382-14. Information technology – vocabulary, part 14: reliability,
maintain-ability and availability. ISO/IEC, Switzerland; 1997.
[23] Preiser WFE. Feedback, feedforward and control: post-occupancy evaluation to
the rescue. Build Res Inform 2001;29(6):456–9.
[24] Wong JKW, Li H, Wang SW. Intelligent building research: a review. Automat
Constr 2005;14(1):143–59.
[25] Facilities economics – incorporating premises audits. In: Bernard Williams
Associates, editors, 1st ed., Great Britain; 1994.
[26] Life expectancy of building components – surveyor’s experiences of buildings
in use – a practical guide. Building cost information service. London: The Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors; 2001.
[27] Shohet IM, Paciuk M. Service life prediction of exterior cladding components
under failure conditions. Constr Manage Econ 2006;24(2):131–48.
[28] Rudbeck C. Service life of building envelope components making it operational
in economical assessment. Constr Build Mater 2002;16(2):83–9.
[29] Balaras CA, Droutsa K, Dascalaki E, Kontoyiannidis S. Deterioration of European
apartment buildings. Energy Build 2005;37(5):515–27.
[30] Ehlen MA. Life-cycle costs of new materials. J Infrastruct Syst 1997;3(4):129–33.
[31] Lowry G. Modelling user acceptance of building management systems.
Automat Constr 2002;11(6):695–705.
[32] Hermans M. Deterioration of building components. A data collecting model to
support performance management. PhD Thesis. Faculty of architecture and
building science, Eindhoven, University of Technology; 1995.
[33] Hertlein BH. Predictive maintenance – what should be in a condition database.
In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ, editors. 8 DBMC – 8th international conference on
durability of building materials and components. Ottawa, Canada: Institute for
Research in Construction; 1999. p. 1203–12.
[34] Flores-Colen I, de Brito J. Building façades maintenance support system. In:
Ural O, Abrantes V, Tadeu A, editors. XXX IAHS world congress on housing
construction – an interdisciplinary task, Coimbra, Portugal, September; 2002.
p. 1899–907.
[35] ISO 6241. Performance standards in building – principles for their preparation
and factors to be considered. Switzerland: International Standards Organization;
1984.
[36] CPD. Directive 89/106/EEC. Construction products directive. <http://europa.
eu.int/comm/enterprise/construction/internal/cpd/cpd.htm> [18.05.04].
[37] Flores-Colen I, de Brito J, Freitas VP. Methodology for vertical envelope design,
inspection and maintenance. In: 2nd CIB student chapters international
symposium – sustainability and innovation in construction and real estate.
Beijing: Tsinghua University; 2004. p. 269–78.
[38] ASCE guideline for condition assessment of the building envelope. Structural
Engineering Institute. Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2000.
[39] Hovde PJ. Factor methods for service life prediction – a state of the art. CIB
W80/RILEM 175. SLM, final draft report; 2002.
[40] Cecconi FR. Performances lead the way to service life prediction. In: 9th DBMC
international conference on durability of building materials and components.
Brisbane, Australia: Brisbane Convention Centre; 2002 [paper 213].
[41] Rudbeck C. Methods for designing building envelope components prepared for
repair and maintenance. PhD Thesis. Department of Buildings and Energy,
Technical University of Denmark; 1999.
[42] Shohet IM, Puterman M, Gilboa E. Deterioration patterns of building cladding
components for maintenance management. Constr Econ 2002;20(4):305–14.
[43] Lacasse MA. Durability and performance of buildings envelopes. NRC–CNRC;
2003. <http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ircpubs> [04.05.04].
[44] Moser K. Towards the practical evaluation of service life – illustrative
application of the probabilistic approach. In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ, editors.
Proceedings of 8 DBMC – 8th international conference on durability of
building materials and components, Ottawa, Canada: Institute for Research in
Construction; 1999. p. 1319–21.
[45] CSTB manuel des performances. La structure l’enveloppe verticale. vol. I. Paris,
France: Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment; 1989.
[46] Flores I, de Brito J, Freitas VP. Stains in façades rendering – diagnosis and
maintenance techniques classification. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(3):211–21.
[47] Flores I. Maintenance strategies – current buildings envelope elements. MSc
Thesis, IST, Lisbon, February; 2002 (in Portuguese).
[48] Perret J. Guide de la maintenance des bâtiments. Moniteur Référence
Technique editor, Paris, France; 1995.
1729
[49] Zayed T, Chang L-M, Fricker JD. Life-cycle cost based maintenance plan for
steel bridge protection systems. J Perform Constr Facil 2002;16(2):55–62.
[50] Flanagan life cycle costing. Theory and practice. Oxford (UK): BSP Professional
Books; 1989.
[51] Branco F, de Brito J. Handbook of concrete bridge management. ASCE American
Society of Civil Engineers; 2004.
[52] The English edition of principal guide for service life planning of building.
Tokyo, Japan: Architectural Institute of Japan; 1993.
[53] Shohet IM, Rosenfeld Y, Puterman M, Gilboa M. Deterioration patterns for
maintenance management – a methodological approach. In: Lacasse MA,
Vanier DJ, editors. 8 DBMC – 8th international conference on durability of
building materials and components. Ottawa (Canada): Institute for Research in
Construction; 1999. p. 1666–86.
[54] Flores-Colen I, de Brito J, Freitas VP. Discussion of proactive maintenance
strategies in façades’ coatings of social housing. J Build Appraisal; in press.
doi:10.1057/jba.2009.21.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Construction
and Building
MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat
Stains in facades’ rendering – Diagnosis and maintenance
techniques’ classification
Inês Flores-Colen a, Jorge de Brito
b
a,*
, Vasco P. de Freitas
b
a
DECivil-IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
DEC-FEUP, University of Porto, Faculty of Engineering, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
Received 2 November 2005; received in revised form 31 July 2006; accepted 10 August 2006
Available online 20 October 2006
Abstract
Stains in rendered facades occur very frequently in recent buildings due to various causes (efflorescence, carbonation, corrosion,
cracking, dirt deposition, biological colonization and others). Most of the stains are damaging. In an initial stage, these anomalies affect
the aesthetics of the façade and, some types of stains, in conjunction with the presence of water, contribute to the physical degradation of
the cladding. This paper presents a set of tables and correlation matrixes related with the different types of stains, their possible causes,
diagnosis techniques and treatment techniques (in particular, cleaning techniques) aimed at removing the stains from the rendered
facades.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stains; Diagnosis; Maintenance; Cleaning; Techniques; Matrix; Rendering; Facades
1. Introduction
Rendering has been a very common construction technique for clay bricks masonry walls in Portugal [1]. From
statistical data, according to Portuguese Census 2001 [2],
renders represent a significant proportion, around 61.6%
of 2,561,227 buildings built between 1946 and 2001 (81%
of all buildings), when compared with the remaining types
of cladding currently applied in buildings’ walls – architectural concrete (21.2%), stone (11.3%), ceramics (5.5%), and
others.
Render mortars used in recent buildings are of two
types: cement and sand mortars in two or three layers,
mixed in situ (current renders), and factory-made mortars,
made of cement, sand, admixtures and additives in a single
layer (ready-mixed renders) [3], in which the finishing layer
is either the render itself (‘‘one-coat mortars’’) or other
materials (e.g., a paint). The use of ready-mixed mortars
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 218 419 709; fax: +351 218 497 650.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. de Brito).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
started in 90s in Portugal [4] and is constantly gaining
momentum.
In functionality terms, external rendering mortars give
an important contribution to the impermeability of the
wall structure (primary function), condition its aesthetics
(secondary function) and have a determining influence on
their durability [3]. Superficial stains affect, in an initial
stage, the visual quality levels [5]. Most of the stains are
damaging – if they are allowed to remain, they may contribute to the worsening of other anomalies and consequent
degradation and loss of properties of the coating material.
However, sometimes the treatment may cause more damage than the problem. The loss of performance and functionality over time occurs mostly due to chemical,
physical, mechanical degradation, and corrosion [6].
The current anomalies in renders (with or without painting) are cracking, dribbling, detachments, humidity, dirt
deposition, colour differences and biological colonization
[7–9]. Most of these anomalies may be included in the group
of wall stains, since they correspond to chromatic or gloss
changes in localized areas of the cladding that somehow
contrast with the adjoining areas [10,11]. Stains occur very
212
I. Flores-Colen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 211–221
frequently in exterior walls in recent buildings, most of the
times due to dampness [12]. Studies reveal an occurrence of
stains in 34–36% of rendered walls inspected, only exceeded
by cracking (differential or caused by shrinkage) with values
around 43–48% [8,9]. A more in-depth study of the stains
allows a better knowledge of the following aspects:
reduction of the visual quality levels due to staining [5];
relationship between the minimum levels of aesthetic
quality and the polluting agents’ concentration levels
[13] (e.g., gaseous pollutants, soot or black smoke, grit
and dust in urban areas) [5];
characterization of the pathology indicators that detect
at an initial stage premature degradation phenomena
(e.g., excessive accumulation of dirt in a very polluted
atmosphere or continuous humidification of the wall)
[14];
relationship between visual parameters and existing
physical degradation phenomena [15].
In this paper, a methodology based on existing literature
is proposed in order to improve the diagnosis and treatment of stains in rendered walls. This methodology
includes a set of tables that intend to minimize the subjectivity of diagnosis of different types of stains and help the
decision of treatment techniques.
The introduction of these tables, among others not
referred in this paper, in an informatic decision-tool in
future research aims at systematizing procedures that are
helpful for diagnosis and practice of a periodic maintenance of rendered façades.
This study is part of a broader methodology concerning
the diagnosis of current anomalies in external rendered
walls, which has been used in several inspections in façades
of current buildings, within the PhD research work of the
first author.
2. Diagnosis and maintenance methodology
The existence of diagnosis and maintenance methodologies that allow a systematic reduction of the stains also lead
to a reduction of the intervention costs [16]. These methodologies must be developed according to a set of procedures
with a logical sequence in order to adopt a proper solution,
since many of the failures in interventions result from the
inexistence or inadequacy of diagnosis [17].
In this context, a methodology is proposed in Fig. 1 for
backing staining diagnosis in rendered walls and choosing
the maintenance techniques, with a reference to various
existing methodologies:
service life prediction [18,19];
improvement of diagnosis through observation [8] and
in situ techniques [20];
backing for choosing maintenance interventions
[7,17,21,22].
The methodology proposed includes six main steps:
problem definition, visual observation, diagnosis, intervention strategy choice, intervention and report. The intervention should be the option to make if there is a potential for
the aesthetic damage to progress to functional or physical
damage. However, the option not to treat should always
be analyzed (Fig. 1).
Additionally, six tables integrated in the methodology
are proposed:
Tables 1 and 2 to support visual observation (step 2) –
characterization of stains and their correlation with possible causes;
Tables 3 and 4 to back diagnosis (step 3) – classification
of diagnosis techniques and their relationship with surface properties and types of stain;
Tables 5 and 6 for intervention choice (step 4) – characterization of test areas for cleaning techniques and their
suitability for each type of stain.
2.1. Visual observation at inspection
The visual observation of rendered walls allows the
identification of the types of stain and the evaluation of
the possible causes and in service conditions, complementing the documents obtained at a previous stage (claims
records, design elements, intervention reports, among others).This type of analysis also allows the evaluation of the
need to perform complementary tests. Nevertheless, it is
limited to the accessible areas of the facades that may be
but a few due to the absence of permanent means of access
in the buildings. Usually a visual inspection is made only at
the ground floor a few meters away from the walls. In order
to systematize procedures, a distance of 5 m is recommended for a first general visual observation [18]. A closer
inspection for more detail and testing performance is also
necessary.
To allow accurate identification, registry and classification of the anomalies and respective causes, tables and correlation matrixes are normally used [23]. In this context,
two tables are proposed as syntheses of existing literature
[3,5,10,11,16,23–28]: Table 1 systemizes the type of stains
and Table 2 establishes a correlation (0, 1 or 2) between
the stains and their possible causes, taking into account
the four main groups of errors (during design, construction
or use/maintenance and due to environmental conditions).
This rating system (no correlation, low or high correlation)
intends to identify the main cause and/or possible causes
for the occurrence of each type of stain.
These tables aim at reducing the subjectivity of the diagnosis. The in situ visual observation of white stains (Fig. 2)
and dark colour stains (Fig. 3) sometimes is not enough to
identify all types of stains: for example, efflorescence or
carbonation, and dirt deposits or biological colonization,
respectively. According to Table 2, some of the possible
1. Problem definition and data
collection
Stains characterization (typology
and possible causes)
Register of the location of stains
at the wall
2. Walls inspection through
visual observation in accessible
areas, with data collection from
the users (Tables 1 and 2)
Area of stains
Degradation level of render
(L1) Wall near ground level
(L2) Continuous wall
(L3) Windows and openings
(L4) Cornice or roof hangings
(L5) Balconies
(L6) Corners and edges
(L7) Instalations / equipments
(0) Difficult to evaluate
(1) Scarce
(2) Frequent
(3) Generalized
(a) No visible degradation
(b) With a few signs of
degradation
(c) With general degradation
(d) With severe degradation
Field tests and measures
3. Diagnosis techniques /
characterisation of degradation
patterns and relevant properties
(Tables 3 and 4)
Samples collection on the field
4. Choice of intervention
strategy (Tables 5 and 6)
(a) Users requirements
(b) Urgency of intervention
(c) Effects of no intervention
(d) Residual service life
(e) Costs involved
No intervention
Materials and techniques
specification
5. Intervention
Laboratorial tests
Compatibility with the existing
construction elements
Service life cycle
Costs prediction and works
planning
Quality, security and
environmental control
6. Report
Fig. 1. Methodology for diagnosis and maintenance of facades stains.
213
214
Table 1
Characterization of types of stains in rendered walls
Code
Stains
Description
M1
Efflorescence/cryptofflorescence
(colour white)
M2
Carbonation (colour white)
M3
Uniform dirt1/non-uniform
dirt2(dark colour – brown, grey
or black)
M4
‘‘Ghost-like stains’’ (dark colour)
M5
Moisture (dark colour)
M6
Fungi/moulds (dark colour)
M7
Parasitical vegetation (green,
yellow, orange and/or blue
colour)
M8
Corrosion (yellow and/or orange
colour)
Chromatic changes/
decolouration (various colours)
Weakly adherent crystalline deposit of soluble salts (sulphates, chlorides, nitrates,
carbonates), on the cladding surface (efflorescence) (Fig. 2) or between the surface and the
background (cryptofflorescence) caused by water migration/evaporation
Surface incrustations of calcium carbonate salts, resulting from calcium hydroxide from
cementitious products, dissolved by infiltrated water and converted to a non-soluble form
due to the surface exposition to carbon dioxide (CO2)
Surface accumulation of foreign material of diverse nature (dust, soot and other polluting
particles), with a variable depth, with weak adherence and cohesion, originating from the
cladding itself or from the ’background; looking uniform1 (areas protected from the rain) or
non-uniform2 (dribbling) (Fig. 3)
Non-uniform dust deposition on the wall, allowing the visualization of the bricks and the
structure from colour differentiation and in the most acute cases dirt stains (M3) and
microorganisms’ colonization (M6). (Fig. 4). These stains are a particular case of dirt stains
because are normally associated to hygrothermal problems on the walls
Colour changes due to different moisture contents with various origins: construction,
ground, rainfall, hygroscopicity phenomena and/or random causes
Biological microorganisms due to prolonged water presence (relative humidity higher than
70%) in facades less exposed to the sun, depending on the existence of nutrients (organic
material); according to ASTM D 4610-98, these stains can be told apart from dirt if they
bleach after around 60 s of contact with common household bleach
Biological microorganisms (microscopic algae) and other biological growths (lichens, mosses
and others plants and small trees (e.g., creepers)), in the presence of light and humidity;
being plants, they are capable of producing nutrients from water, minerals crystallization on
the surface and CO2 (Fig. 3)
Chromatic changes in the render’s surface resulting from the deposition of metallic elements
corrosion products (oxides) that are carried by water
Changes in the colour uniformity in the shape of stains (e.g., resulting from oil-based
products) – chromatic changes or loss of gloss and/or colour (total or partial destruction of
the pigmentation)
Painting or other surface signs on the wall due to various paints or markers, which are
absorbed by the porous materials
Surface deposits (acids and soluble salts) resulting from birds droppings (pigeons), providing
nutrients for microorganisms’ development (M6) and biological organisms (M7)
M9
M10
Graffiti (various colours)
M11
Birds droppings (various colours)
causes are different for the previous stains, e.g., efflorescence may occur due to the use of water with soluble salts,
although carbonation stains are highly correlated with the
cement content of mortar and deficient detailing of façades.
Finally, the identification of the possible causes from
Table 2 is very important to prevent the recurrence of
staining (e.g., if deficient detailing is a possible cause for
the stain, the intervention strategy should include other
measures to avoid the same anomaly in the future – Fig. 5).
2.2. Diagnosis techniques
Complementary diagnosis techniques allow precise indications, either qualitative or quantitative, about the characteristics
of
the
materials
used
(chemical
characterization, mineralogical composition, petrographic
characteristics, physical, hydro and mechanical properties)
and the pathological defects and degradation mechanisms
present (e.g., salts crystallization, thermo-hygrometric
cycles, UV radiation, chemical attack by contaminated
solutions or environments) [27,29,30].
These techniques may be classified in terms of the location where they are performed, in situ or in laboratory, and
in terms of the degree of destruction induced in the mate-
rial/construction element, semi-destructive or destructive.
In Table 3, the current techniques to back stain diagnosis,
to be used individually or simultaneously, are listed, as well
as comparison parameters already systemized in previous
studies [23]. Table 4 relates the techniques from Table 3
with the relevant properties of the cladding and the
types of stain. To prepare these two tables, recommendations from existing literature were used [5,6,16,23,25,
27,29–35].
For example, to identify the type and salts content (relevant properties for efflorescence and carbonation stains’
diagnosis) there are several techniques that can be performed in situ (TD1, TD2, TD3 in Table 3) or in laboratory
after samples collection (TD4, TD5, TD6, TD12, TD19).
Parameters A to J in Table 3 help the inspector to decide
which diagnosis techniques are more relevant for each case
under analysis – in certain cases the identification of the
type and salts content can be achieved by performing expedite in situ techniques that have low cost, easy results interpretation and required low workmanship specialization
(e.g., conductivity portable meter or analytical test strips)
instead of using laboratorial techniques that are time-consuming and increase the inspections’ costs (e.g., diffraction
of X rays analysis or scanning electron microscopy).
215
Table 2
Correlation matrix between stains and their possible causes
Causes
Stage
Surface stains
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
P
P
P
P
E
E
E
E
E
U/M
U/M
U/M
A
A
A
A
1
1
2
0
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
0
1
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
2
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
Legend:
correlation types – 0 (no correlation); 1 (low correlation); 2 (high correlation);
stages: P (design); E (construction), U/M (use/maintenance); A (environment);
causes:
C1 – Deficient detailing (absence of dripping-pans, . . .) (P);
C2 – Façade geometry (plane areas, with projections, . . .) (P);
C3 – Characteristics of the cladding’s surface (porosity, roughness, . . .) (P);
C4 – Deficient insulation of the walls (P);
C5 – Use of water with soluble salts (E);
C6 – Non-compliances in mortar mixing (water or cement content, pigments, . . .) (E);
C7 – Preparation and state of the background (dust or salts, humidity, joints, . . .) (E);
C8 – Unfavourable atmospheric conditions during application or curing (cold/humid weather, sudden changes of temperature,. . .) (E);
C9 – Unconformity with application standard procedures or design rules (depth,. . .) (E);
C10 – Human action (vandalism, air conditioning apparatus, flower beds. . .) (U/M);
C11 – Animal action (birds, pets, . . .) (U/M);
C12 – Deficient (cleaning with aggressive acids or bases, excessive water, . . .) or absent maintenance actions (U/M);
C13 – Insufficient sun exposition (high ratio of shaded areas) (A);
C14 – Continuous or alternate humidification (wet/dry cycles) (A);
C15 – Atmospheric pollution or other particles in the air (salts, spores, . . .) (A);
C16 – Action and direction of the predominant winds (A).
2.3. Maintenance techniques
Maintenance actions include cleaning, repair, localized
replacement techniques and prevention treatments [7].
The intervention program should also consider the treatment of the cause of the problem (identified from Table
2), since maintenance techniques alone will not prevent
the problem recurring (e.g., if the stains are originated by
water penetration due to the presence of cracks, these
should be repaired).
This paper focus on cleaning techniques because they
are crucial for reducing stains and lead to their elimination,
as long as their possible causes have been treated beforehand.
The techniques used for cleaning walls are based on four
types, which differ in terms of materials and application
methods: with water, chemicals, abrasives and laser
[36,37]. The last technique is applied more currently in his-
torical buildings (e.g., for cleaning black crusts in stone
surfaces).
Cleaning can significantly improve the aspect, remove
organic microorganisms, chemical contaminants and
stains, due to repair and maintenance works, and reveal
hidden defects.
However, cleaning may be disadvantageous if some
aspects are not taken into account: it may affect aesthetics,
remove the protection layer, change the colour of pigmented elements, leave behind chemical contaminants,
and increase the risk of rain penetration, among other possible problems [38].
The potential damage done by cleaning is an important
consideration, especially for stains whose long term effects
are likely to remain largely aesthetic. This becomes even
more important when there is a cumulative damage by
repeated cleaning. Therefore, the specific aspects of each
cleaning technique are a decisive factor for selecting the
216
Table 3
Diagnosis techniques for stains and their characteristics
Code
Techniques
TD1
TD2
TD3
TD4
TD5
Electrical conductivity portable meter
Analytical test strips (Fig. 6)
Kit for rapid chemical analysis
Diffraction of X rays analysis (XRD)
Polarized light optical microscopy (40· a
500·)
Ionic chromatography
Karsten tube
Capillary absorption test
Infra-red pyrometer (Fig. 7)
Standard colours kit (Munsell or NCS)
Portable colorimeter
Chemical analysis
Water content of the samples (mass
variations in relation with the dry mass of
samples)
Thermometers, hygrometers
Weather station
Gas meters
Compass
pH portable meter
Scanning electron microscopy, usually
with an energy dispersive X-ray
spectrometer (SEM-EDS)
Martinet-Baronie apparatus (Fig. 8)
Binocular lens (10·100·)
Microbiologic analysis (biological
growth)
Portable moisture meter (Fig. 9)
Gloss meter
Infra-red thermography
Nitrogen adsorption
Mercury intrusion porosimetry
Vapour permeability test
TD6
TD7
TD8
TD9
TD10
TD11
TD12
TD13
TD14
TD15
TD16
TD17
TD18
TD19
TD20
TD21
TD22
TD23
TD24
TD25
TD26
TD27
TD28
Characteristics
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
In situ
d
d
s
–
–
d
d
d
–
–
d
s
d
d
d
d
s
d
–
–
d
s
s
–
–
d
d
d
–
–
d
d
d
–
–
s
s
d
d
d
–
–
–
–
s
s
s
–
–
x
x
x
–
d
d
d
d
s
s
s
–
d
s
d
d
d
s
s
d
d
d
s
s
d
d
d
–
s
d
s
d
d
d
d
–
s
–
d
d
d
–
–
–
d
–
d
d
d
–
–
–
d
d
d
d
d
–
–
d
s
d
s
s
d
d
s
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
d
–
d
d
d
s
–
d
–
s
d
d
–
d
d
d
d
d
–
s
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
s
–
d
d
d
d
s
–
d
–
d
d
d
–
d
–
d
d
d
–
d
d
d
d
s
d
d
d
s
s
–
d
d
d
d
s
–
x
x
x
x
x
s
s
s
d
d
–
s
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
s
d
s
–
d
s
s
s
s
d
–
–
–
d
s
s
x
x
d
s
–
–
–
s
d
d
s
–
–
–
s
s
d
d
d
d
s
d
–
s
s
s
d
d
d
–
–
–
d
d
s
–
–
–
d
d
s
–
–
–
s
d
s
d
d
d
–
–
d
–
–
–
d
d
d
–
–
–
x
x
x
Lab.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Legend: A – low cost; B – ease of application; C – useful data gathered; D – easy results interpretation; E – non-intrusive; F – no need for external energy
source; G – low workmanship specialization, H – reliable results, I – no need for means of access, J – no need for specimens; Factors evaluation: d good
(positive); s medium; – bad/difficult (negative).
Table 4
Relationship between surface properties, diagnosis techniques and types of stain
Relevant properties
Diagnosis techniques
Types of stain
Type and salts content (chloride, nitrate,
sulphate, total hardness) – solubility ratio
Water absorption
Surface temperature
Porosity (% volume voids/total volume)
Colour differences
Water absorption content
Air temperature and relative humidity
Atmospheric parameters (wind speed,
rainfall registers, . . .)
Pollutants content (sedimentation ratio)
Walls orientation
pH surface value
Type of biological colonization
Gloss variation
Vapour permeability diffusion
Surface hardness
TD1, TD2, TD3, TD4, TD5, TD6, TD12, TD19
M1, M2, M5, M9, M11
TD7, TD8
TD9, TD25
TD5, TD19, TD26, TD27
TD5, TD10, TD11
TD13, TD23
TD14, TD15
TD15
M2, M4, M5,
M3, M4, M5,
M1, M2, M3,
M1 a M11
M1, M2, M4,
M3, M4, M5,
M3, M4, M5,
M9
M6, M7
M5, M6, M7, M9, M10
TD16
TD17
TD2, TD18
TD5, TD12, TD19, TD21, TD22, TD25
TD24
TD28
TD20
M3,
M3,
M1,
M3,
M4,
M3,
M5,
M7, M8
M6, M7
M7, M8, M9, M11
M7
M4,
M4,
M2,
M4,
M5,
M4,
M9
M6,
M5,
M6,
M6,
M9
M5,
M5, M6, M7, M9
M6, M7, M8
M6, M7, M8
M9
217
Table 5
Cleaning techniques to remove stains
Code
Cleaning technique
Aspects to be evaluated in the test area (trial cleaning), and compared with the specifications
TL1
Hand-washing with water and sponge
– wetting periods
– water volume
TL2
Washing with low pressure water rinsing (up to
17 atm)
– water-flow rate
– water temperature
TL3
Pressure water spray (cold or hot)
– volume of water absorbed by the wall
– identification of elements water-sensible
TL4
Nebulized water spray (up to 4 atm)
– control measures of water wastes
– evaluation of safety and health risks
TL5
Scrubbing with nylon or vegetable fibre brushes
(dry or with other methods – e.g., water jetting,
scraping, . . .) (Fig. 11)
–
–
–
–
–
–
TL6
Chemical cleaning products – acids (e.g.,
hydrofluoric, . . .)
– chemical constituents designation
– concentration and dilution contents
TL7
Chemical cleaning products – alkalis (ex.
hypochlorites)
Chemical cleaning products – organic solvents
Soaps and detergents
Biocides (ex. quaternary ammonia,. . .)
Herbicides
– efficiency of the methods of removal of wastes from the cleaning and neutralization of the
surface
– times of application of the cleaning product and its removal (temperatures register)
– abrasive effects of the cleaning
– measures to control the effluents (waste from chemicals used and cleaning water)
– eventual reaction of the cleaning product with the previous application of biocide or water
repellent
– pH value of the surface after cleaning
– evaluation of safety and health risks
TL8
T9
T10
T11
T12
Poultices and gels (clays, cellulose pulp or
polymers)
T13
Abrasive cleaning (dry or wet) up to around
7 atm; abrasives of reduced grading and calibrated
hardness – e.g., particles of aluminium oxide
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
thickness of the brush’ fibres
types and length of the fibres (natural, plastic, . . .)
estimation of the apparent pressure against the wall’s surface
abrasive effects of cleaning without pre-washing
estimation of the quantities of surface material lost, gathered in a plastic bag
estimation of the level of abrasion between the brushes and the surfaces
abrasive effects of cleaning without pre-washing
type of sprinkler nozzle, distance from the wall, impact angle
type and dimension of abrasives
air pressure, abrasives projection ratios
estimation of water absorbed (volume/minute)
estimation of the quantities of surface material lost, gathered in a plastic bag
location of areas affected by the cleaning
cleaning product and application method, as well as the
legal frame in terms of health, safety and environment
[38,39] and the necessary means of access (Fig. 10).
For the previous reasons, test areas (trial cleaning) are
necessary in order to assess the performance of the cleaning
method and its effects on the substrate or adjacent materials, by understanding the surface characteristics, the nature
of the stains, the efficiency of the products, the technique
procedures, the equipment, and the duration of the method
[36–39]. The trial areas are also useful to calibrate the objectives of the cleaning together with building owner (in terms
of the level of cleaning aimed at) [38]. The health and safety
risks inherent to the products used should be evaluated
before the test panel stage and modified if necessary.
In Table 5, the stain cleaning techniques are listed and
the aspects to take into account in the trial areas, to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of the cleaning technique
or techniques to be adopted, are characterized. In Table 6,
relationships between cleaning techniques and stains are
established. To prepare these tables, existing literature
was used [3,16,27,30,36–39].
Table 6
Suitability of the cleaning techniques in terms of type of stain
Code
Surface stains
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
TL1
TL2
TL3
TL4
TL5
TL6
TL7
TL8
TL9
TL10
TL11
TL12
TL13
–
–
–
–
d
–
–
–
–
–
–
d
x
–
s
–
d
d
d
–
–
–
–
–
d
x
d
d
–
d
d
x
x
x
d
–
–
d
x
s
s
–
–
d
s/x
s/x
s/x
d
s
s
–
s/x
–
–
–
s/x
s/x
s/x
d
–
–
–
s/x
s
s
–
–
s
d
d
–
–
d
d
–
–
s
s
–
s
d
d
–
–
d
d
d
–
–
–
–
–
–
x
x
x
–
–
–
d
x
–
s
–
s
s
d
d
d
d
–
–
d
–
–
–
–
–
–
d
d
d
d
–
–
d
x
d
d
s
–
d
–
–
d
d
–
–
d
x
Legend:
d recommended;
s recommended with some restrictions: the technique may not remove
the specific stain in some circumstances;
x recommended with some restrictions: the technique is likely to cause an
unacceptable degree of damage to the substrate;
- not applicable.
218
Fig. 2. Detail showing efflorescence stains (M1) in parapet.
Fig. 4. Detail showing ‘‘ghost-like stains’’ in building wall (M6).
abrasive techniques for cleaning dirt stains). These effects
can be controlled during trial cleaning.
Some stains may remain wholly as an aesthetic effect,
whereas other types of stains may be implicated in serious
and rapid functional or physical deterioration. Therefore,
the time scale over which a maintenance issue might arise
depends on the type of stains and their potential effects
on the rendered surface. To help the practitioners in their
maintenance and monitoring program, the stains are
related with short, medium and long term treatments,
according to the following considerations:
Fig. 3. Detail showing non-uniform dirt deposition (M3) and biological
colonisation (algae growth – M7), under the capping, on the surface of the
boundary wall.
Table 6 indicates potentially useful cleaning methods
and those that might be inappropriate in some instances
because of two main reasons: the technique cannot remove
a specific stain (e.g., washing with low pressure water of
carbonation stains) and/or is likely to cause an unacceptable degree of damage of the substrate (e.g., chemical or
stains that should be treated in the short-term, to avoid
future potential problems of physical deteriorationefflorescence/cryptofflorescence
(M1),
carbonation
(M2) and birds’ droppings (M11);
stains that should be treated in the medium-term,
including the monitoration of damage during service life
– fungi/moulds (M6), parasitical vegetation (M7),
‘‘ghost-like stains’’ (M4) and moisture (M5);
stains that should be treated in the long-term (or when
convenient), including their monitoring – dirt (M3), corrosion (M8), chromatic changes (M9) and graffiti (M10).
Fig. 5. Possible solution to solve the problem of staining in windows-sills (left): introduction of stooling and dripping-pans (right).
Fig. 6. Determination of chloride content by using analytical test strips:
the concentration of chloride is measured semi-quantitatively by visual
comparison of the reaction zones of the test strip with the individual
colour rows of a colour scale (TD2).
219
Fig. 9. Portable electronic moisture meter that gives a qualitative reading
on render, by using an appropriate scale. This equipment shows different
levels of moisture even if is not apparent on the surface (TD23).
Fig. 10. Scaffolding to access the facade (temporary means of access).
Fig. 7. Portable microprocessor supported infra-red radiation pyrometer
for non-contact temperature measurements (TD9).
Fig. 11. Dry scrubbing for dirt removal (TL5).
Fig. 8. Martinet-Baronie apparatus (TD20) (originally devised to test
painted surfaces by CSTB in 1966) recently adapted in LNEC to assess
gypsum plasters, according to the following surface tests: sphere shock
test, cut shock test, scratch (disk), and abrasion tests. With this equipment
it is possible to characterize render degradation (e.g., chalking).
The previous considerations depend on other parameters to be analysed, such as the area of the stains and their
location on the wall (Fig. 1).
It must be stressed that, although cleaning techniques
can deal with most of the stains under analysis, in certain
cases they should be replaced by other type of maintenance
techniques, not the subject of the present paper, such as:
220
application of a finishing layer (problems with ‘‘ghost-like
stains’’ – M4), correction of water infiltrations (humidity
problems – M5), or using a textured water-based paint
(chromatic changes – M9).
3. Conclusions
In this paper, a methodology was proposed in order to
improve the diagnosis and maintenance of stains in rendered walls. It includes six main steps: problem definition,
visual observation, diagnosis, intervention strategy choice,
intervention and report. Additionally, six tables were
established, based on existing literature, to systemize the
procedures for identification, registry and classification
of stains on rendered walls and cleaning techniques. The
following tables were proposed: classification of 11 types
of stains in rendered walls (Table 1); rating system for
identification of possible causes (Table 2); classification
of 28 diagnosis techniques (Table 3); correlation between
surface properties, diagnosis techniques and stains (Table
4); classification of 13 cleaning techniques (Table 5); and
applicability of cleaning techniques according to the type
of stain (Table 6). Those tables can be integrated in an
informatic decision-tool for diagnosis and maintenance
of façades.
This paper has focused on cleaning techniques because
they are crucial for reducing stains and lead to their elimination, if their possible causes have been treated before.
Although cleaning techniques can deal with most stains
under analysis, in certain cases they might be inappropriate
because of two main reasons: the technique cannot remove
the particular stain or is likely to cause an unacceptable
degree of damage on the substrate (this aspect becomes
even more important when exist a cumulative damage by
repeated cleaning). Therefore, the paper has highlighted
the importance of the test areas to assess the performance
of each cleaning method and its effects on the substrate
or adjacent materials. When cleaning techniques under
analysis are inappropriate, other types of maintenance
techniques should be used.
Finally, to help practitioners in their maintenance and
monitoring program, the stains were related with short,
medium and long-term treatment, taking into account their
potentially negative influence on functional and physical
performance of rendering.
This study is part of a PhD research work of the first
author concerning a broader methodology for diagnosis
and maintenance of façades in buildings built after 1946.
Acknowledgements
The authors thankfully acknowledge the scholarship of
FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) to support,
partially, the PhD study of the first author and the support
of the ICIST Research Institute from IST, Technical University of Lisbon.
References
[1] Sousa, H. Masonry in Portugal – Current situation and future
perspectives [in Portuguese]. In: P.B. Lourenço, H. Sousa, editor.
Symposium of masonry walls. 2002; p. 17–40.
[2] National Statistics Institute (INE). Portuguese national statistics –
Census
2001.
<http://www.ine.pt/prodserv/quadro/mostraquadro.asp> [2004.07.02].
[3] Veiga, R. Pathology and repair of several types of wall rendering.
Course of pathology of walls’ claddings and strategies to avoid them.
Lisbon, LNEC; 2004.
[4] Duarte CM, Alvarez JA. Presentation of a one type of pre-mixed
construction mortars [in Portuguese]. Construction 2001 – National
Congress on Construction, Lisbon, IST, 2001; p. 503–9.
[5] Parnham P. Prevention of premature staining of new buildings.
London: E&FN Spon; 1997. 59p.
[6] Norvaisiene R et al. Climatic and air pollution effects on building
facades. Mater Sci 2003;9(1):102–5.
[7] Flores I. Maintenance strategies – envelope’s elements of current
buildings [in Portuguese], Master thesis, Lisbon, IST; 2002. 186 p.
[8] Gaspar P, Brito Jde. Mapping defect sensitivity in external mortar
renders. Constr Build Mater 2005;19:571–8.
[9] Chew MYL, de Silva N. Factorial method for performance assessment of building facades. J Constr Eng Manage 2004(July/August):
525–33.
[10] NP 111, Paints and varnishes – defects. Terminology and definitions.
1982; 8 p.
[11] Henriques F. et al. Stone and other materials. Terminology of
alteration and degradation forms [in Portuguese]. ICT Pathology
and Rehabilitation of construction. ITPRC2, Lisbon, LNEC; 2004.
39 p.
[12] Vilhena A. Current anomalies on the walls due to humidity [in
Portuguese]. PATORREB 2003 – 1stNational meeting on pathology
and rehabilitation of buildings, Porto, FEUP; 2003. p. 127–35.
[13] Brimblecombe P, Grossi CM. Aesthetic thresholds and blackening of
stone buildings. Science of the Total Environment 2005;349: 175–89.
[14] Life expectancy of buildings components. Surveyor’s experiences of
building in use – a practical guide. London, Building Cost Information Service; 2001. 164 p.
[15] Shohet I et al. Deterioration patterns of building cladding components. Constr Manage Econ 2002;20:305–14.
[16] Chew MYL, Ping TP. Staining of facades. Singapore: World
Scientific Publishing; 2003. 60 p..
[17] Calejo R. Design and diagnosis of buildings pathologies [in
Portuguese]. In: 4th meeting on civil constructions: maintenance
and rehabilitation of buildings, Porto, FEUP; 1996.
[18] RILEM technical recommendations for the testing and use of
construction materials. London, E&FN Spon; 1994. 619 p.
[19] ISO 15686-2, Buildings and constructed assets – Service Life Planning
– Part2: Service life prediction procedures, International Organization
for Standardization; 2001.
[20] Moropoulou, A. et al. Integrated diagnostics using advanced in situ
measuring technology. In: 10th DBMC – International conference on
durability of building materials and components, Lyon; April 2005
(cd-rom).
[21] Brandt E, Wittchen KB. EPIQR – a new surveying tool for
maintenance and refurbishment.In: Ottawa, M.A. Lacasse e D.J.
Vanier, editors. 8th DBMC – international conference on durability
of building materials and components; 1999. p. 1576–84.
[22] Johnson MR. Preparation and Prioritization of Maintenance Programs. In: 8th DBMC – International conference on durability of
building materials and components. Ottawa, M.A. Lacasse e D.J.
Vanier, 1999.
[23] Branco FA, de Brito J. Handbook of concrete bridge management.
ASCE – American Society of Civil Engineers, USA; 2004. 468 p.
[24] BRE. Bird, bee and plant damage to buildings. Digest 418, Building
Research Establishment; September 1996. 8 p.
[25] Buchli, R. Microbiological growth on façades. In: 2nd International
symposium on building pathology, durability and rehabilitation:
learning from errors and defects in building. Lisbon, GECoRPA,
CIB/W086, LNEC; 2003. p. 427–36.
[26] Carrió JM, Ramos LM. Manual of technical inspection of buildings
[in Spanish]. Madrid, Editorial Munilla-Lerı́a, Spain; 2002. 174 p.
[27] Pathology and intervention techniques: facades and roofing [in
Spanish]. Rehabilitation Treatise, Vol. 4, Madrid, Editorial Munilla-Lerı́a, Spain; 1999. 382 p.
[28] LNEC, Stains on walls from parasitic vegetation [in Portuguese],
Lisbon; 1954. p. 10.
[29] Methodology of diagnosis and evaluation of treatments for the
conservation of historical buildings [in Spanish]. Technical Notebooks, Granada, Junta de Andalucı́a, Comares Editorial; 2003. 233 p.
[30] Campanella, C. Conservation and architectural restoration works –
special tendering conditions [in Italian]. Coordination and adaptation: J. Mascarenhas Mateus, Lisbon, CML, Lisbon; 2003. 211 p.
[31] ASTM D 4610-98, Standard guide for determining the presence of
and removing microbial (fungal or algal) growth on paint and related
coatings, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2 p.
[32] Teles M et al. Petrography study of concrete and mortars [in
Portuguese]. Int J Construlink 2004;5(2).
221
[33] Veiga M, et al. Conservation and renovation of walls claddings in old
buildings (in Portuguese). Buildings Collection, Lisbon, LNEC; 2004.
126 p.
[34] Machado JM, et al. The importance of laboratorial tests to the
determination of old mortars characteristics. Construction 2004 –
Rethinking construction, Porto, FEUP, VII; 2004. p. 925–30.
[35] Ludovico Marques MA, et al. Methodology to identified soluble salts
in efflorescence of old mortars [in Portuguese]. Seminary of soluble
salts of mortars in old buildings. Damages and process and solutions.
Lisbon, LNEC; 2005. 21.1–21.9.
[36] BRE. Cleaning external walls of buildings: removing dirt and stains.
Good Repair – Guide 27: parts 1 and 2, Building Research
Establishment; May–June 2000. 6 p.
[37] ASTM E1857-97, Standard guide for selection of cleaning techniques
for masonry, concrete and stucco surfaces, American Society for
Testing and Materials; 5 p.
[38] BRE. Cleaning exterior masonry. Legislation and good practice.
Digest 448, Building Research Establishment, England; June 2000. p.
8.
[39] BRE. Cleaning exterior masonry. Developing and implementing a
strategy. Digest 449-Parts 1and 2, Building Research Establishment;
September, July 2000.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Construction and Building Materials
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat
A model plan for buildings maintenance with application in the performance
analysis of a composite facade cover
J.A.R. Mendes Silva *, Jorge Falorca
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Coimbra, Rua Luís Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 April 2008
Received in revised form 13 May 2009
Accepted 22 May 2009
Available online 27 June 2009
Keywords:
Building maintenance
Facades
External finishing
ETICS
a b s t r a c t
The efficiency of maintenance of ordinary buildings is quite relevant in regard to their durability and
functionality. It requires an accurate method for planning the different actions involved. This paper deals
with some results of one of these models, being developed at the University of Coimbra and oriented
toward the maintenance of school buildings, where an External Thermal Insulation Composite System
(ETICS) was adopted. The model plan, called PIMEC, was developed in an organized system using the
common methods of building maintenance. It can be employed as an algorithm to create informatics
applications, allowing the active procurement of component performance data throughout the life of a
building. PIMEC differs from past studies in that all the information resulting from the simulated inspection and maintenance procedures in the elements can be organized with a configuration of straightforward consultation files. In order to test and validate the proposed model, it was analyzed large
buildings facades covered with ETICS. This paper explains the content of some important stages and
the applicability of ETICS by presenting the results of its performance behaviour analysis. Through this
specific case study it is intended to show not only the potential of PIMEC but also the extraordinary
advantage of slight but accurate maintenance actions over the anticipated lifetime of ETICS.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The building maintenance policies, with their relatively minimal expression in Portugal, have been applied with success in
other countries but have involved significant investments in the
construction sector. With the increasing costs of new construction,
the maintenance of existent buildings has become even more
important, allowing the qualification of the built park, the economy, the well-being of the users and the valorisation of spaces.
Additionally, the buildings’ quality challenges pass with respect
to the environment rules. The need to save energy and natural resources has become obligatory and essential. New energy codes [1]
impose a minimum standard of the energy conservation in new
buildings, driving energetic improvement to the fabric of construction, and consequently heating costs are decreasing as an important contribution to environmental protection. In this way the
requirements for heat insulation on building envelopes have significantly increased in recent years. The external wall insulation systems apparently have a life expectancy that can match if the
buildings to which they are applied are correctly maintained. As
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 239797206; fax: +351 239832969.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.A.R. Mendes Silva).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
a result, high requirements are placed on ETICS and the functional
lifetime of this material must still be studied.
This paper reports some of the results of an MSc thesis that has
proposed a model for planning inspection and maintenance in ordinary buildings, which Portuguese acronym is PIMEC [2]. It was
conceived for generic use, and can be customized for each kind of
construction solution, for each construction member, and eventually for each building material. In order to test and validate the proposed model, it was decided to analyze building facades covered
with ETICS (thin, reinforced synthetic mortar over an external insulation layer). The University of Coimbra has over the past 12 years
adopted this insulation technique for a large number of buildings
erected at the new campus, resulting in an impressive experimental
sample for this research work. The goal is to extend the knowledge
on organized methods of implementing maintenance in building
elements that require special attention throughout its lifetime, in
order to increase the general durability and avoid the incidence of
superfluous costs during the usage phase. With practical testing,
it was possible to detail the maintenance model applied to ETICS,
supplying an approximate knowledge of its real service behaviour
and feasible durability and making of this facade’s finishing a more
utilized material, mostly due to its contribution to the reduction of
energy loss on the envelopes of buildings.
The results have important implications for both managers and
researchers as they provide insights into the mechanism of how a
J.A.R. Mendes Silva, J. Falorca / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3248–3257
building maintenance method permits to obtain important theoretical results concerning the durability of its elements.
2. Background
2.1. Building maintenance sector
The construction industry has, for 18 years, attempted to incorporate sustainable development principles for the purpose of
improving the well-being of current and future generations. In
the European Union, the maintenance sector had two periods that
marked the development of the maintenance concept. The period
after the Second World War saw the introduction of economic
and durability principles that influenced the decisions of demolition or conservation of buildings, while an enormous built park
was erected, constituted by housing buildings and facilities of a
public, commercial or industrial nature. Then, on a stable economic
phase with stagnation in population growth, the construction
industry embraced the maintenance and rehabilitation to improve
the habitability demands of an important number of existing
buildings with dubious technical quality. More recently there has
been an enormous technical evolution through the enhancement
of comfort standards, as defined by the users, and by a significant
expansion occurring in the tertiary sector, accompanied by the
implementation of sophisticated equipment and integrated services to satisfy the needs of the corresponding companies. According to the recent data of Euroconstruct reporting to 2006 [3], the
maintenance and rehabilitation activity of the European Union corresponds to approximately 50% of the residential sector and 43% of
the non-residential sector, representing 37% of the total for the
construction sector.
In Portugal, the recent history of the built patrimony is not coincident with the course verified in the rest of Europe. This is because
Portugal didn’t directly suffer the devastating effects of the Second
World War. Its evolution was largely a result of the tentative
industrialization process initiated in the 1960s, as well as the
implementation of construction politics for social dwellings after
the Revolution of 1974. Over the past several years, construction
development has basically been sustained through significant
investments in equipment and infrastructures with public interest,
in the expansion of urban areas promoted by the city halls in order
to use the financial resources, and in the materialization of the
Expo 98 and Euro Football Championship 2004 Projects. This realization of new construction was not accompanied by the recovery
of the oldest buildings, as a consequence of the freeze on dwelling
taxes supported by the Estate. Nowadays is frequently to see the
promotion of new construction in the periphery of the cities, much
to the detriment of the culture of building preservation, principally
in the old urban nucleus, with the consequent depopulation. The
Portuguese housing stock is relatively recent, with approximately
57% of buildings being new than 30 years of age [4]. In 2006 were
estimated 3.4 million building units [5], of which only a small percentage was for non-residential use. However, its conservation
state is already preoccupying. The investments in new construction largely overcome the work of repair and maintenance. For instance, in Portugal, in 2006 new construction in the non-residential
sector corresponds to 91.5% [3].
In fact, the maintenance of Portuguese buildings is mainly
based on an empirical approach. There are three main reasons
for this: insufficient budgeting for intensive and systematic
maintenance; insufficient public knowledge of maintenance
benefits; and a lack of technical models and support tools to help
planning actions, in this domain, matching the Portuguese
reality. Most of these facilities are ordinary buildings, despite
their diversity of architectural solutions and construction options.
3249
2.2. Maintenance management advances
To solve the problems related to maintenance management and
adopt the proper procedures, several norms were created, most
significantly the BS 8210 [6] The glossary of associated terms is defined in the BS 3811 [7] and the corresponding vocabulary can be
found in the ISO 6707-1 [8].
The NF X 60-010 [9] standard defines the five levels of maintenance associated with the growing degree of intervention. The
smallest stage corresponds to the preventive maintenance operations, followed by the corrective maintenance, major repairs and
reconstruction. The NBR 14.037 [10] establishes a compulsory nature to the constructors to elaborate manuals for use and maintenance and the NBR 5674 [11] foresees the preservation or the
re-establishment of appropriate environmental conditions to the
anticipated use of buildings. Other guides for maintenance actions
[12] have established the repair procedures for the occurrence of
different defects, and a connected law [13] forces the delivery to
the residents of a building book. To make its application easier,
some informatics programs have been developed with instructions
for the maintenance of constructive elements and facilities [14] or
to support technical tasks relative to building maintenance management, specifically those organized in proprietors’ condominiums [15].
Accurate guidelines [16] create the connection between maintenance execution and the estimated lifetime value while expressing several performance steps for the elements of a building. Some
manuals [17] specify that each building element can have one or
more associated control operations in agreement with a degradation scale and an intervention scale. The improvement of maintenance operations in the elements over the lifetime of the
building can be also found among several technique files [18],
including the most favourable periods for each maintenance intervention. The requirements and procedures for the effective building operation, maintenance, decommissioning and demolition
were developed by certain organizations [19] together with details
of the building’s construction, history and maintenance, instructions for its operation and maintenance, and its guarantees and
warranties. Additionally, different maintenance works are considered with emphasis on the importance of building performance,
whether they are viewed as an investment, asset or facility [20].
A small guideline [21] shows how maintenance plans can be established, dealing with the strategic and procedural matters that must
be considered. However, the right execution of the maintenance
and repair work presumes safe access to all of a building’s facilities
while requiring the best practice guidance, specifically in the design of a new building [22].
Other tools [23] have been designed to help government building facility managers adopt the best practices for environmentally
preferable operation and maintenance. Many municipal governments throughout North America have imposed codes for housing
maintenance [24], most of them based on international standards
[25].
Lastly, reference is made to the International Council Research
and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), whose activity
has made a great contribution to the development of knowledge
in all fields of building and construction. In 2008, the Working
Commission W70 (Facilities Management and Maintenance) has
accomplished the International Conference in Facilities Management, whose themes scope ranges several researches outcomes
[26], including the maintenance management issue.
2.3. National research
It is clear that the theme of building maintenance has drawn
considerable interest from the scientific community, and this has
3250
had repercussions in Portugal. Consequently, as outlined in the
context of this subject, some research studies have been developed. The analysis and exploration of a database on a housing park
is known [27], and several proposals for methodologies concerning
building maintenance and exploration have been characterized
[28]. Subsequent studies [29] have accomplished the identification
of certain pathological anomalies in the building envelopes of a
housing group, thereby developing a statistical approach to the
emergence of anomalies in a short-to-medium period and
researching the periodicity and depth of ‘‘major maintenance
interventions” and beneficiation actions. The concepts for the practical application of organized maintenance and management [30]
have been gathered and presented, essentially addressing the issue
of industrial maintenance, despite their being applicable as general
concepts from a building’s perspective. The need to predict the
building’s service behaviour during its useful phase was the motivation to develop a simulation model supported in the Monte Carlo
method and adjusted to the necessary interventions in buildings
[31].
Others approaches to buildings maintenance, based on the degradation curves of their facade coating materials, are known in Portugal [32] but do not include ETICS. Furthermore, it would be
difficult to adapt other approaches to Portuguese climatic conditions and their influence on facades.
Table 1
General building elements with importance to application of PIMEC.
1. Building elements
A.
Main elements
A.A.
Primary elements
1
Base elements
A.A.1.1
A.A.1.2
A.A.1.3
Foundations
Support walls and outlying contention
Structure
2
Compartment elements
A.A.2.1
A.A.2.2
Walls
Roof
3
Finishing elements
A.A.3.1
A.A.3.2
Facade covers
Doors and windows
structive solutions, elements or components, with a constant correction of the operation conditions and then issue warnings as
necessary.
The establishment of a plan of inspection and maintenance in
current buildings, being forward assigned for PIMEC, involves diverse basic phases through an in-depth analysis. Each of these
phases will present a duly ordered configuration of procedures
(using, for example, letters and numbers). A set of orientation lines
for the establishment of a permanently adjusted dossier (plan files)
will result from this arrangement.
3.2. Main configuration
3. PIMEC approach
3.1. Subject
A maintenance plan is a group of specifications accomplished in
the context of the maintenance process, being designed to program
preservation actions. The development of these methodologies
must begin in the early phase of construction (i.e., the design
phase), and a dynamic actualization must be carried out during
the exploitation phase. They constitute precious tools of support
for the entities with responsibility in the building’s management,
whose main objective is to monitor the performance of the con-
The base proposal configuration for PIMEC (see Fig. 1), has two
initial phases involving a series of procedures. The attributed
assignments and references are merely examples. It is pretend that
the plan files be organized in agreement with that configuration,
including all information resulting from the design process and
other information collected later, mainly in the usage phase.
3.3. Identification of elements
The modulation of building performance requires the acceptance of the interaction among the elements. However, to the gen-
Fig. 1. Base scheme proposal for a PIMEC [2].
3251
throughout their lifetime and considered with emphasis on the
practical application of an inspection and maintenance plan (Table
1). This subdivision can still include other elements not mentioned
in this paper, depending on the characteristics of a particular
building.
3.4. Application of PIMEC
Fig. 2. PIMEC: initial procedures organizing scheme [2].
Fig. 3. Procedural scheme for preventive maintenance [2].
eral analysis of durability it becomes useful to identify them separately as independent nucleus of degradation. Consistent with the
defined criteria analysis of modulation of building performance
[31], this study, in its context, attempts to indicate some of the
usually elements of buildings that require maintenance care
Subsequent to the general characterization of building (stage
A.A.), planning maintenance with PIMEC includes a large number
of procedures and actions, organized as follows: detailing of elements and materials (B.), knowing their performance under service
conditions (C.) (see Fig. 2) and establishing guidelines for technical
actions and their specific schedule (D.).
The Handbook Organization (C.A.) includes some important aspects to support an efficient administration of resources and costs,
in agreement with the objectives of the managing entity. Later, this
paper will focus on stage (C.B.), Reference State Characterization, in
which the actual performance of building elements is observed and
stated.
The final stage consists of analyzing the Procedures of Current
Inspection and Maintenance (D.), specifically the subject of maintenance planning. This requires an objective analysis for each
group of technical actions whose accomplishment is demanded
during the lifetime of the building element, thus characterizing
the relevant considerations that give credibility to several referee
strategies.
For example, Preventive Maintenance (D.A.) (see Fig. 3) studies
the characterization of the involved parameters and registers the
degradation of building elements. A schedule of preventive maintenance is then developed, arbitrating and studying several strategies for intervention and using various maintenance operations, all
of which have previously been defined and budgeted.
A PIMEC has pretended to be a dynamic process, involving constant adjustments since the existence of new information or when
considered essential to adapt it, aiming to take appropriate decisions in agreement with the available budget. The knowledge acquired throughout the maintenance process can be used in future
actions, but for such to occur a database is needed. Therefore, all
the ordinary activities of PIMEC should be registered. Preferably,
the evaluation of existing information should be made annually
in order to lessen the doubts connected with any consideration.
Fig. 4. Selected buildings and their facades.
3252
Table 2
ETICS – reference state characterization [2].
1.A.A.3.1 Facade covers – ETICS
3. Initial procedures
C. Characterization of Service Behaviour
C.B. Reference State Characterization
C.B.1 Inspections accomplishment
First stage: preparation of field work, with the selection of aspects and defects with importance to analysis, creating tables to save inspections results
Second stage: considering the high surface of the building’s envelope, a small calendar observation is made
Third stage: employ a simple inspection technique in the field work, which, in this case, is a visual inspection to confirm the existence of previously identified
defects:
– System unstuck
– System perforation
– Irregular surface
– Surface cracking
– Visual defect of board interface
– Insulation boards swell up
– Colour change
– Parasitic vegetation
– Defects over corner reinforcement
Note: Considering the mentioned tasks, it can come necessary the accomplishment of more complex inspections
C.B.2 Saving results of each element inspection
For management archives organization, an inspection report model should be filled out and always filed in this sifter
This method allows the constant correction of the implemented PIMEC, based on the knowledge and experience that are acquired
and transmitted through the record of activities.
4. Case study
4.1. Scope of application
The test of PIMEC was carried out on four selected recent buildings of common typology (concrete structure, concrete walls and
masonry), despite their modern and outstanding design. These
buildings (with different acronyms shown in Fig. 4) are mainly of
the Engineering and Research departments of the University of
Coimbra, and have been designed by international teams of architects. The facades of all these buildings (more than 37,000 m2) are
covered with ETICS, using synthetic insulation boards 30–60 mm
thick and thin, synthetic mortar, painted with a light colour (white
or light gray).
ETICS, a high performance thermal insulation component, has
recently been introduced into building technology. It is provided
as a good aesthetic solution, and its high thermal resistivity supplies energy efficient for building envelopes. One of the most
important issues in terms of its application to a building is to minimize failure in service and to guarantee a service life in the range
of several decades under typical stress conditions, particularly the
thermal and hygrometric effects. However, there isn’t sufficient
knowledge regarding the long-term properties and durability of
ETICS to support its study in the current subject matter. Any
way, an international literature research concerning ETICS, already
shows some studies of different sort, developed on this material. A
quick review of the advantages of ETICS is available [33] and other
revision [34] contains a detailed description of the main system
components, quoting the advantages and details for its correct
Fig. 5. Examples of different groups of defects.
3253
it can be classified as a finishing element (A.3). Falling back upon
the analysis of the responsibility notebooks of different constructions, and based on certain important published documentation
in Portugal regarding this façade cover technique [42,43], simple
drawings, pictures and detailed characterization of the different
layers can be filed.
4.2. Reference state characterization
Once the Handbook Organization (C.A.) is complete, we will focus on stage (C.), particularly on the Reference State Characterization (C.B.) (see Fig. 2). This step is necessary in order to establish a
maintenance plan, not only because it gives technical information
about performance and degradation (including its prevention and
rehabilitation) but also because it helps to adjust the theoretical
degradation curves.
Fig. 6. General evolution of affected facades by each main defect: case studies [44].
application whilse evaluate the impact on the energy consumption
of buildings. Previous relevant studies [35] discuss different methods of insulating existing buildings, present the major limitations
and problems with its application in adverse climates and summarizes several recommendations for thermal insulations of buildings. Other study [38] based on the proceeding set by ISO 15686
[36] and referring to ETAG 004 [37], was aimed to build up a design
method of durability of ETICS with rendering and intended to assess the definition phase and the preparation phase in order to
achieve an exposure testing program meant to evaluate the degradation intensity and the service life. In a similar context of present
work, it’s possible to point out a research [39] with several results
of repeated inspections of multi-storey and larger buildings with
ETICS over longer periods of time and state other investigations
[40] with reference to the performance of ETICS. Still concerning
the process deterioration, were made some predictions of moisture
and temperature strains acting on an ETICS with mineral wool
insulations under natural climatic conditions and normal usage,
using computational simulations [41].
According to the defined configuration for PIMEC, ETICS is a primary element of the façade covers (A.A.3.1), particularly of the
building’s envelope (see Table 1). In order to main such elements,
4.2.1. Methodology
All the facades of the analyzed buildings have thus far been
inspected twice in order to obtain the essential data needed to
approach the reference state characterization for ETICS, as defined
by PIMEC. Table 2 summarizes the main guidelines of this procedure.
The first inspection occurred at 2004 and the second one at
2006; in both cases, the inspection action was based on visual identification of defects, according to a pre-defined list based not only
on scientific publications, but also on previous Portuguese experience [42,43]. Despite the accuracy and detail of the data collected
on defects, only the existence or the non-existence of each defect,
for each ‘‘module” of facade, is considered in establishing the reference state characterization. The relevance of additional information
obviously concerns another layer of this process, i.e., the technical
approach to maintenance actions and their scheduling.
4.2.2. Types of defects
Three groups of defects have been observed during both inspections: (i) surface defects, (ii) cracks and (iii) local deterioration.
Fig. 5 illustrate some of these defects.
Surface defects – including parasitic vegetation, areas soiled by
rainwater, and irregular surfaces – that affect a wide area of the facades are particularly inconvenient in what concerns visual comfort and aesthetics, but there is no evidence of their
consequences on the physical performance of the wall (thermal
insulation, waterproof, mechanical strength and cohesion).
Parasitic vegetation case has already reached about 17,685 m2
of surfaces area, most of all in the two exposed buildings about
Fig. 7. Evolution of relative importance of each defect distributed by degradation levels [44].
3254
Table 3
ETICS – characterization of parameters in the planning of preventive maintenance [2].
1.A.A.3.1. Facade covers – ETICS
4. Procedures of Current Inspection and Maintenance
D. Planning of Maintenance
D.A. Preventive Maintenance
D.A.1. Characterization of Parameters
Proceeded to a life time analysis based in an Evaluation (Av) by an Estimate (Es) using as Alternative (Al) some available Information (Id). The representative values
of lifetime obtained were:
VU
–For an inexistent maintenance level: 28 years
–For a normal maintenance level, including visual inspections, cleanings and periodic repairing: 35 years
–For a good maintenance with maintenance operations with reduced periodicity: 42 years
The minimum acceptable quality should be established, for instance, in the technical specifications of building project as an initial Register (Ri).
In this case, it’s necessary to create a Criteria definition (Dc): it is supposed that the minimum quality level should be approximately 20% to an incidence of
anomalies that correspond to any circumstance no longer accepted in the performance-demand point of view.
The perspective value of the lifetime, for this performance and without maintenance, is 24 years.
To the defined minimum quality level, theoretically is supposed been reached serious degradation states, such as:
NQ
– General system perforation
– General surface cracking or deep cracking
– Adherence loss of insulation boards and/or in the board interface with eventual detachment
– Deep deterioration over corner reinforcement
– Deep colour changes
From where implicate or result above all:
– Accentuated infiltrations and waterproof losses
– Considerable alteration of the term-hygrometric demands initially extolled
– Significant visual degradation that reaches the minimum requirements of aesthetics
– Other, in the verification of the performance level
environmental terms (DEEC and DEI), each one with a huge volume
and extensive surfaces. These aspects, linked to the local thermal
and hygrometric conditions, can justify the main reasons to the
appearance of this defect. In fact, it was verified that the buildings
facades with South orientation (opposite to Mondego river valley)
are the most affected. It seems that parasitic vegetation growth can
be directly connected with the environmental aggressiveness of
large facades, in particular due to prolonged surface wetness (rain
or night-time surface condensation) – which may be judged to be
visually unacceptable – also according to some authors [39]. The
expansion movements and retraction forced by local and seasonal
thermal extent can be the reason to become visible irregular surfaces in about 13,855 m2.
Cracks occur in 79% of total number of facades, but they affect
only small areas. The more relevant are the cracks between insulation boards (mainly due to a deficient execution of the system) and
local cracks over metal reinforcements of the ETICS system. Unlike
surface defects, cracks promote the progressive deterioration of
ETICS and of the facade’s physical performance.
Local defects result mainly from mechanical actions – unpredictable use or vandalism – that perforate the thin external mortar
layer and the reinforcement mesh, leading to the progressive degradation of ETICS. These phenomena occur at confined areas but
can be responsible for a general degradation. It is important to
remember that the most relevant function of the reinforced external mortar layer of ETICS is to protect the insulation boards against
rainwater, prevent the migration of humidity into the wall, and
prevent the deterioration of insulation material and the increase
of thermal conductivity. Local perforation often affects this basic
function.
4.2.3. Inspection results
Fig. 6 presents the general results of the first inspection (2004)
and the evolution of each defect (2006) for all the facades of the selected buildings (taking into account the medium between occurrences in the total areas and in the number of facades). Three
types of defects affect more than 50% of facades: colour degradation, irregular surfaces and cracks. Loss of adhesion between insu-
lation boards and the masonry wall is the defect less often
observed. The number of facades newly affected by each defect
over the last two years is between 1% (for visual defects at the surfaces of insulation boards) and 23% (for parasitic vegetation) with a
mean value of 11%. Also important is the colour change and dirtiness (due to rainwater and atmospheric contamination) that reach
nearly all the facades (35,785 m2) after this period of time [44].
The harmful effect of these anomalies is not proportional to the
percentage of affected facades, since their evolution and predictable contribution to reduced wall physical performance are quite
variable. Based on other works [45], a scale of anomalies has been
created, with four levels of degradation in which each kind of defect is considered.
Allowing for the same initial consideration used in the previous
diagram, Fig. 7 represents the proportion between all nine different
main defects, grouped according to this conventional graphical
scale of anomalies. This methodology is an additional and expedite
form to support the effective maintenance planning of ETICS, since it
Fig. 8. Degradation curve proposed for ETICS without maintenance [2] based on
similar models [32].
3255
Table 4
ETICS – preventive maintenance schedule: seven economical strategies [2].
allows evaluating constantly each event weigh by a growing ranking
of influence (level 1 to level 4), mostly due to own defect capacity to
harm radically the general performance. Besides, it is possible to get
a qualitative evaluation of the element condition. The distribution of
anomalies for each degradation level was decided considering the
value of each defect at all and the recognized importance of its
probable interference in the element real state.
Despite the different evolution for each defect, the general layout is the same for this period of time. It clearly shows that degradation level 4 is quite insignificant, while level 3 comprises 46% of
the detected anomalies.
4.3. Planing maintenance
4.3.1. Characterization of parameters
At the first stage, PIMEC suggests a theoretical approach to
maintenance planning based on conventional lifetime curves and
minimum quality levels for buildings. Then, PIMEC encourages
the use of a case-by-case approach based on inspection and analysis, as shown for ETICS in the previous sections and Table 3.
In Portugal it is still hard to predict the lifetime of ETICS, since
this system is being used only for 16 years – in a few buildings –
and case studies are rare. Moreover, its multilayer constitution
3256
Fig. 8 represents the degradation curve of the system without
any maintenance action – also based on similar models [32], simulated by a second-order polynomial function, with an initially
degradation tax slowly increased, becoming lightly accelerated as
it tends for the lifetime ends. As a result, it is possible to estimate
a lifetime of 24 years for a minimum performance of 20%.
Fig. 9. Example of degradation curve proposed for ETICS under a specific maintenance scenario [2] based on similar models [32].
represents an additional difficulty when it is necessary to know the
global durability of the facade.
Usually, it is possible to present the durability of a building element by different qualitative models, described through typical
degradation curves, almost connected to different exterior mechanisms with strongly incidence: close to a straight linear line when
associated to wind; a convex line when associated to pollutant
agents; a S line when associated to water mechanical effects; and
a concave line when linked to biological attacks – algae, mushrooms, etc. Thus, the approach to the real performance is increasingly larger if it’s based on an appropriate methodology of
analysis of the degradation mechanisms, supported by the understanding of the most important anomalies, of the main local external deterioration agents as well in an accurate evaluation of effects
and in the quality level of the construction process. Thus, in a theoretical point of view, it is promising to delineate a typical degradation curve of an element, presuming a qualitative sense of the
main combined effects.
At this particularly case, if we accept the conventional homogeneity of the system, some assessment tools are available
[16,32,36,43,46] and, in conjunction with the reference state
behaviour, it is possible to suggest a theoretical degradation
curve of ETICS and a total value of the performance. ISO
15686-1 [36] suggests minimum design lives for components
associated to the design life of buildings, considering the maintenance requirements and the opportunity to specify more reduced
values of durability. In a first approach, at this particularly case
of study (with a specific type of buildings and components), is
admitted a 40 year-old value. Other bibliography [43], especially
concerning to ETICS, refers that its durability can be dear as
being superior to 30 years, in case of normal use conditions
and high-quality design and construction. However, to predict
the total lifetime approximation, a simple simulation of the
factorial method was accomplished, just as it proposes the A.I.J.
[16], admitting a medium value of those behind referred
(YS = 35 years). So, in normal conditions of buildings service and
following a careful choice of factors with influence in the lifetime
of ETICS (to an inexistent level of maintenance and taking into
account the general reference state characterization), it was
seemed acceptable a 28 year-old value corresponding to total
failure (performance 0%).
4.3.2. Intervention planning
Several maintenance strategies and the consequent temporary
schedules of intervention have been simulated. A schedule with the
seven economically strategies in the case of preventive maintenance
is represented in Table 4. The decision criterion to select the most
favourable strategy was supported by Life Cycle Cost (LCC) method.
A predictive maintenance strategy is characterized by a median
value of the material behaviour in real conditions, represented by a
Tm curve. On the other hand, a preventive maintenance strategy is
characterized by a theoretical pessimistic behaviour corresponding
to a Tk curve. In probabilistic terms it can be associated to the superior characteristic values of the degradation tax. This means the
use of predictive strategies allows to verify that the normal real
behaviour can be slightly superior to that admitted for a preventive
strategy [32]. Likewise were also admitted the following hypotheses: (i) the accomplishment of a 5 year-old close inspection action,
admitting that the material presents an inferior degradation of
about 20% relative to the Tm curve; (ii) the accomplishment of periodic inspection actions one year before each repair intervention
and another three years before the end of the resulting life cycle.
Fig. 9 shows the degradation curve for one of the simulated scenarios of predictive maintenance for ETICS, according to PIMEC and
similar models [32]. In this specific case a global cleaning action
is considered at the 16th year (half the predicted minimum lifetime), followed by a high repair at the 32nd year, resulting in a
50% increase of predictable lifetime (thus reaching 48 years).
5. Conclusions
This research work has produced a configuration for an inspection and maintenance model referred to as PIMEC, attempting to
make its realistic analysis on ETICS (External Thermal Insulation
Composite System).
The establishment of a PIMEC process leads to the identification
and characterization of all building elements, straight to the gathering of significant information. Furthermore, there is an increased
need to constantly understand the behaviour of all elements, together with the storage of resulting information in each analysis.
With PIMEC it is often possible to increase the relative knowledge
about the parameters involved in the simulation of forecasted
maintenance procedures, being able to present simplified approaches by understanding the interaction among the building’s
elements. It also promises the unification of information through
a model of rapid consultation files. The presented proposal configuration for a PIMEC intends to be a debatable model, in the sense
that one finds a better, more effective solution.
The survey of more than 37,000 m2 with ETICS has been presented, and its results have been analyzed under the scope of that
proposed method. Thus it was possible to certify some theoretical
advantages of its use, such as flexibility, the permanence of a good
aesthetic level of the external walls, and the satisfaction of criteria
such as thermal comfort and minimization of thermal bridges.
Moreover, it was also possible to conclude that the environmental
conditions and the execution mode of ETICS have significant influence on the variations of its behaviour patterns. Given the practical
rehearsal of the maintenance planning in agreement with the different actions perspectives, we studied the theoretical modulations
applied on ETICS, supplying a perspective of what could prove to be
its long-term behaviour. Probably the most important aspect to
take from this study is the indication that any type of maintenance
accomplishment allows to achieve quite good theoretical results in
terms of durability. In the case of ETICS, its durability can be duplicated through the application of maintenance efforts similar to
those proposed.
References
[1] Characteristics regulation of thermal behaviour of buildings. Decree–Law no.
80/2006. Portugal: Laws and Decrees; April 2004 [in Portuguese].
[2] Falorca J. Model plan of inspection and maintenance in ordinary buildings.
M.Sc Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and
Technology, University of Coimbra, Portugal; 2004 [in Portuguese].
[3] National Association of Contractors of Public Works. Notebooks of
construction. Report of the 63rd conference of the Euroconstruct in plague,
Portugal; 1st semester of 2007 [in Portuguese].
[4] Census 2001. Statistics Portugal; 2001.
[5] Statistics of the construction and housing 2006. Statistics Portugal; 2006 [in
Portuguese].
[6] BSI – BS 8210 – Building maintenance management. BSI, British Standards;
1986.
[7] BSI – BS 3811 – Glossary of maintenance management terms in terotechnology. BSI, British Standards; 1984.
[8] ISO 6707-1 – Building and civil engineering vocabulary – Part 1:
General
terms.
Switzerland:
International
Organization
for
Standardization; 1989.
[9] Norme NF X 60-010. Maintenance – concepts et définitions des activités de
maintenance. France: Association Française de Normalisation; 1994.
[10] NBR 14.037 – Operation manual of use and maintenance of constructions –
content and recommendations for elaboration and presentation. Brazilian
Association of Technical Norms, Brazil, 1998 [in Portuguese].
[11] NBR 5674 – Maintenance of constructions – procedure. Brazil: Brazilian
Association of Technical Norms; 1999 [in Portuguese].
[12] NTE. Technological norms of edifications. Spain; 1972 [in Spanish].
[13] LOE. Ordination law of edification. Spain; 1999 [in Spanish].
[14] Building manual. Institute of construction of Castilla and Leon, v. 4.0. Spain;
2007 [in Spanish].
[15] CLAU2000 – Assistant de manteniment – libre de l’edifici test manteniment
reports, Collegi D’aparelladors i Arquitects Tècnics de Barcelona; 2000.
[16] The English edition of principal guide for service life planning of buildings.
A.I.J. – Architectural Institute of Japan; 1993.
[17] Arbizzani E. Technologies for maintenance of real estate patrimonies and nets.
ICIE - Cooperative Institute for Innovation; 1991 [in Italian].
[18] Perret J. Guide de la maintenance dès bâtiments. Paris: Monitor Référence
Technique; 1995.
[19] Operation and maintenance manuals for buildings – a guide to procurement
and preparation. CIRIA; 1999.
[20] Chanter B, Swallow P. Building maintenance management. Blackwell Science;
2000.
[21] RCIS Books. Building maintenance: strategy, planning & performance. UK: The
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; 2000.
[22] Iddon J, Carpenter J. Safe access for maintenance and repair. CIRIA; 2004.
[23] Green building maintenance manual. Pennsylvania Department of General
Services. <http://www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/lib/dgs/green_bldg/greenbuilding
book.pdf>.
3257
[24] NYC housing maintenance code. Department of Housing Preservation and
Development – Office of Rent and Housing Maintenance. <http://
www.tenant.net/Other_Laws/HMC/hmctoc.html>.
[25] International property maintenance code. International Code Council; 2006.
[26] Book of proceedings of the CIB W070 conference in facilities management,
healthy and creative facilities. Edinburgh: Heriot Watt University; 2008.
[27] Calejo R. Building maintenance: analysis and exploration of a database on a
housing park. M.Sc. Thesis, F.E.U.P., Porto; 1989 [in Portuguese].
[28] Gomes J. Methodology for the maintenance and exploration of buildings. M.Sc.
Thesis, I.S.T., Lisbon; 1992 [in Portuguese].
[29] Taborda R. Maintenance management of a housing park – experimental model
for estimation. M.Sc. Thesis, F.E.U.P., Porto; 1995 [in Portuguese].
[30] Cabral J. Maintenance organization and management – from the concepts to
the practice. Lisboa: Lidel; 2004 [in Portuguese].
[31] Calejo R. Buildings management – model of technical and economic
simulation. Ph.D. thesis, F.E.U.P., Porto; 2001 [in Portuguese].
[32] Flores I, Maintenance strategies - current building’s envelope. M.Sc. Thesis.
I.S.T., Lisbon; 2002 [in Portuguese].
[33] Rouni G. Efficient energy thermal insulation facade systems for optimal savings
and flexibility in architectural design. In: International conference passive and
low energy cooling for the built environment, Greece; 2005. p. 487–92.
[34] Panagiotis D. Thermal insulation façade systems: optimal energy savings,
better investment practices. <http://www.srcosmos.gr/srcosmos/showpub.
aspx?aa=10619>.
[35] Spitzner M. Thermal insulation of buildings: materials, properties and
systems. The annual insulation conference, Dubai; 2003. <http://www.fiwmuenchen.de/PDF/Sonderdr_Thermal_Insulation_2003.pdf>.
[36] ISO 15686-1 – Buildings – service life planning – Part 1: General principles.
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2000.
[37] ETAG 004. Guideline for European technical approval of external thermal
insulation composite systems with rendering. Brussels: EOTA; March 2000.
[38] Daniotti B, Paolini R. Durability design of external thermal insulation
composite systems with rendering. In: 10th DBMC international conference
on durability of building materials and components, Lyon; 2005. p. 749–59.
[39] Künzel H et al. Long-term performance of external thermal insulation systems
(ETICS). Acta Sci Polon Archit 2006;5(1):11–24.
[40] Nieminen J. Case studies on external wall insulations systems faced with thin
render. Papers published in ICBEST ’97, Centre for Window and Cladding
Technology (CWCT), Bath; 1997. p. 441–6.
[41] Holm A, Kunzel H. Combined effect of temperature and humidity on the
deterioration process of insulation materials in ETICS. In: Proceedings of the
5th symposium on building physics in the Nordic Countries, Gothenburg;
1999. p. 667–84.
[42] Mendes da Silva J et al. Natural aging and pathology of external thermal
insulation composite system in facade walls. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
international symposium about pathology. Durability and rehabilitation of
buildings. Lisbon: LNEC; 2003 [in Portuguese].
[43] Lucas J. ITE 24 – Classification and general description of coverings for
masonry walls or concrete. Lisbon: LNEC; 1990 [in Portuguese].
[44] Mendes da Silva J, Falorca J. Advances in ETICS behaviour analysis and
consequences for planning maintenance. In: Proceedings of the CIB world
building congress, construction for development. South Africa: Cape Town
International Convention Center; 2007. p. 612–22.
[45] Gaspar P. Methodology for service life prediction of external cementitious
renders. M.Sc. Thesis, I.S.T., Lisbon; 2002 [in Portuguese].
[46] Sjotrom C et al. Implementation of the European construction products
directive via the ISO 15686 Standards. In: Proceedings of the 9th international
conference on durability of building materials and components, Australia:
Brisbane Convention Centre; 2002 [paper 010].
ANEJO B
ANEJO B.- LISTADO DE DOCUMENTOS RELEVANTES
PARA LA REALIZACIÓN DE L PROYECTO
II
Marco de estudio
Sistema de mantenimiento y estrategias de predictivas y preventivas
Temática
Contenido
Mantenimiento Texto PDF
Autor
Año
Inês Flores‐ 2010
Colen, Jorge de Brito
Planes de mantenimientos en edificios
J.A.R. Mendes Silva *, Jorge Falorca
Diagnosis y mantenimiento de fachadas
2009
2006
Ineˆs Flores‐
Colen a, Jorge de Brito a, Vasco P. de Freitas
Título original
Título traducido
Palabras clave
Sistema de A systematic maintenance,façad
aproximación para es,
approach for el mantenimiento preventive maintenance presupestado de budgeting of strategies
fachadas de edificios buildings façades based basado en on predictive estrategias de and preventive predicción y strategies
prevención maintenance, A model plan for Plan tipo para el mantenimiento de durability
buildings edificios con la maintenance with application demostración de analisis y la in the composición de las performance
fachadas
analysis of a composite facade cover
Objetivos del artículo
Tamaño muestra
Proponer nuevas estrategias de mantenimiento predictivo y preventivo para las fachadas de edificios
‐‐‐
Lugar
Cualquier parque edificado
Conclusiones del estudio
Aplicaciones potenciales
Estudios particulares
Corroboración del sistema utilizado para la inspección de fachadas en grandes areas urbanas
Extraer resultados estadísticos de la durabilidad de las fachadas de una gran parque edificado en Portugal
Creación de un sistema codificado para que la detección de las lesiones en una gran area urbana se mucho más sencillo y ágil
Stains in facades’ rendering – Diagnosis and maintenance
techniques’ classification
Determinar nuevas técnicas de mantenimiento en para el diagnosis de las lesiones en fachadas
Proponer distintas formas a Grandes áreas urbanas
partir de tablas y parametros para la detección y prevención de las lesiones de suciedad en las fachadas
maintenance
Manchas en fachadas diagnosis y techniques’ classification
clasificación de técnicas de mantenimiento 37000m²
‐‐‐
Grandes áreas urbanas
Evaluación personal
Interesante
Muy interesante
Interesante
ANEJO C
ANEJO C.- FICHAS TIPO DE INSPECCIÓN
III
ITE-903/1
Informe de la Inspecció Tècnica
Identificació de l’expedient
Data de la inspecció
Any de construcció
Tipus de via
Nom de la via
Número
Codi Postal
Població
Província
Bloc
Escolliu una opció
Referència Cadastral de l’edifici
(14 primers dígits de qualsevol entitat de l’edifici. Els 7 primers indiquen la finca i els 7 següents el full de plànol)
Finca / Parcel·la
Full de plànol
Fotografia de l’edifici
(en entrar en el camp de formulari se us obrirà l’explorador per cercar i inserir una imatge)
Model normalitzat per l’Agència de l’Habitatge de Catalunya
Escala
ITE-903/1
Dades del sol·licitant (Propietat de l’edifici o comunitat de propietaris)
NIF / CIF / NIE / Altres
Nom i cognoms / Raó social
Tipus de via
Nom de via
Codi Postal
Població
Número
Bloc
Escala
Pis
Porta
Província
Escolliu una opció
Telèfons de contacte
Adreça electrònica
/
Dades del tècnic
Nom i cognoms del tècnic/a inspector/a
Titulació
Núm. Col·legiat
Escolliu una opció
Telèfons de contacte
/
ITE-903/1
Índex
01.
Dades relatives a l’edifici
Descripció de l’edifici
Relació de nombre d’entitats
02.
Descripció del sistema envoltant
03.
Descripció del sistema estructural
Estructura vertical
Estructura horitzontal
Escala
04.
Descripció del sistema d’instal·lacions
Xarxa de sanejament
Instal·lació d’aigua
Instal·lació d’electricitat
Instal·lació de gas o altres fonts energètiques
Ascensor
05.
Deficiències detectades
Descripció de la deficiència detectada
Qualificació de la deficiència detectada
Fotografies
06.
07.
Relació i qualificació de les deficiències detectades
Estat general de l’edifici segons les deficiències detectades
Qualificació de l’estat general de l’edifici
Signatura del/de la tècnic/a
08.
Altre documentació d’interès
En aquest apartat es podrà adjuntar tot tipus de documentació, tant gràfica com escrita, que es consideri adient
ITE-903/1
01. Dades relatives a l’edifici
Descripció de l’edifici
Descripció
Croquis (esquema en planta que indiqui façanes, mitgeres i patis)
ITE-903/1
Relació de nombre d’entitats
INSPECCIONATS
Habitatges
(indiqueu les portes visitades)
Total
Pàrquing
Locals
PLANTA
Habitatges
EXISTENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Locals
8
1
Total d’entitats
2
3
TOTAL
D’ENTITATS
inspeccionades
4
ITE-903/1
02. Descripció del sistema envoltant
Descripció del sistema envoltant
Subsistema
Descripció
Fotografia
(en entrar en els camps de formulari se us obrirà l’explorador per cercar i inserir una imatge)
Imatge 1:
Imatge 2:
Imatge 3:
ITE-903/1
03. Descripció del sistema estructural
Descripció del sistema estructural
Cal especificar el sistema estructural de l’edifici fent esment, fins on sigui possible, dels materials i elements que el componen o, si s’escau, dels que no es poden determinar.
Estructura vertical
Descripció
Estructura horitzontal
Descripció
Escala
Descripció
Fotografia
ITE-903/1
04. Descripció del sistema d’instal·lacions
Descripció del sistema d’instal·lacions
Xarxa de sanejament
Localització
Baixant
Col·lector
Situació:
Vist
Encastat
Material:
Ceràmic
Fibrociment
PVC
Situació:
Enterrat
Vist
Encastat
Material:
Formigó
Ceràmic
Fibrociment
Es desconeix
PVC
Es desconeix
Instal·lació d’aigua
Procedència:
Xarxa general
Aforament
Captació pròpia
Ubicació bateria comptadors
Ubicació clau de pas general
Tipus de canonada dels muntants:
Plom
Ferro
Coure
Plàstic
Fotografia de la bateria de comptadors
Altres:
ITE-903/1
Instal·lació d’electricitat
Ubicació de quadre de protecció
Quadre general de protecció:
ICP
Interruptor diferencial
Ubicació de comptadors:
Individuals a cada habitatge
Centralitzats
Fotografia del quadre general de protecció de l’edifici
Instal·lació de gas o altres fonts energètiques
Tipus de subministrament:
Gas natural
Ubicació de comptadors:
Individuals a cada habitatge
Centralitzats
Ascensor
Hi ha ascensor?:
Sí
Dimensions de la cabina:
No
És possible la instal·lació?
Profunditat:
Sí
Amplada
No
Ubicació
Observacions
ITE-903/1
05. Deficiències detectades
Deficiències detectades
Element
Localització
Descripció de la deficiència
Qualificació de la deficiència
Greu
Deficiència que cal esmenar en el termini indicat:
6 mesos
Representa un risc per a les persones?
Sí
Mesures urgents de seguretat a adoptar, prèvies a l’execució de les obres:
Lleu
12 mesos
No
Cal efectuar treballs de manteniment per evitar el deteriorament de l’edifici o de part d’aquest.
Fotografia
(en entrar en els camps de formulari se us obrirà l’explorador per cercar i inserir una imatge)
Imatge 1:
Imatge 2:
Imatge 3:
mesos
ITE-903/1
06. Relació i qualificació de les deficiències detectades
Relació i qualificació de les deficiències detectades
Greus
Termini per a
esmena de
deficiències
Hi ha risc per a les
persones?
Element:
Localització:
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
mesos
Si
No
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Element:
Localització:
Descripció:
Lleus
ITE-903/1
Cal realitzar una diagnosi estructural?
Sí
No
Cal realitzar altre tipus de proves?
Sí
No
Indiqueu-les
07. Estat general de l’edifici segons les deficiències detectades
Estat general de l’edifici segons les deficiències detectades
Molt greu:
Existència generalitzada de deficiències que per la seva importància afecten greument l’estabilitat de
l’edifici i representen un perill per a la seguretat de les persones.
Cal adoptar amb caràcter immediat les mesures de seguretat corresponents.
Amb deficiències greus:
Existència de deficiències que per la seva importància cal esmenar en els terminis indicats.
Si les deficiències comporten risc per a les persones, cal adoptar mesures urgents de seguretat,
prèvies a l’execució de les obres.
Amb deficiències lleus:
Existència de deficiències produïdes per manca de conservació. Cal efectuar treballs de
manteniment per evitar el deteriorament de l’edifici o de part d’aquest.
Sense deficiències:
No s’aprecien deficiències en la inspecció ocular.
Signatura del/de la tècnic/a
Col·legi professional
Nom i cognoms:
Localitat i data:
D’acord amb el que disposa la Llei orgànica 15/1999, de 13 de desembre, de protecció de dades, de caràcter personal (LOPD), u s informem que les vostres dades de caràcter
personal seran incorporades en un fitxer del qual és responsable l’Agència de l’Habitatge de Catalunya, amb domicili social al carrer de la Diputació, 92, 08015 Barcelona, a fi de
gestionar la vostra sol·licitud. Us informem de la possibilitat de d’exercir el dret d’accés, rectificació i, en cas de finalitzar la vostra relació amb l’Agència, cancel·lació de les vostres
dades personal mitjançant una comunicació escrita, a la qual haureu d’adjuntar una còpia del DNI, adreçada a la seu de l’Agència (Àrea TIC), al domicili social abans esmentat.
ITE-903/1
08. Altre documentació d’interès
Cal fer una relació de la documentació adjuntada.
INFORMACIÓ GENERAL
FITXA:1
DADES DE CAMP
BARRI:
MUNICIPI:
DATA INSPECCIÓ:
NÚM.INSPECCIÓ:
DATA ENTREGA:
DADES CARTOGRÀFIC
NÚM. U.T.M.:
NÚM. MUNICIPAL:
NÚM. PARCEL.LA:
Núm. Plantes Sb. R:
Núm. Plantes St. R:
Longitud façanes:
ADREÇA:
NOVA ADREÇA:
NÚM.:
NÚM.:
ANY DE CONSTRUCCIÓ
TIPUS DE PROMOCIÓ
PÚBLICA
EUPB
Pl.
Alt.
LABORATORI DÉDIFICACIÓ
DADES CADASTRALS
NÚM. U.T.M.:
NÚM. MUNICIPAL:
NÚM .PARCEL.LA:
Núm. Plantes:
Parking:
Longitud façanes:
Any construcció:
Ús:
Propietat
H:
V:
SECCIÓ ESQUEMÀTICA
PRIVADA
TIPOLOGIA CONSTRUCTIVA
UNIFAMILIAR
PLURIFAMILIAR
AÏLLADA
ENTRE MITGERES
TIPUS D´ÚS
MAJORITARI
VIVENDA
COMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
DISTRIBUCIÓ
NÚM. PLANTES Sb.R
St.R
NÚM. DÉSCALES
NÚM. DE VIVENDES
NÚM. VIV. PLANTA
NÚM. LOCALS
ASCENSOR
SI
NO
PARKING
SI
NO
NÚM. FAÇANES
REMONTES
ANY DE REMONTA
PLANTES REMONTADES
NÚM. VIVENDES PLANTA
INSTAL.LACIONS FAÇANA
GAS
TV
ELECTRIC.
TLF
A.A.
BAIXANTS
ENLL. PÚBLIC
ALTRES
CARACTERÍSTIQUES
DEL SOLAR
ESQUEMA DE PLANTA
DIMENSIONS FAÇANA
A:
Edificis afectats per Normes
B:
Edifici abandonat
Solar amb tanca
Edifici en construcció
Façana en rehabilitació
sense tanca
C:
FAÇANA PRINCIPAL
CARACTERISTIQUES FAÇANA
FITXA:2
T
F
EUPB
DM
LABORATORI D'EDIFICACIÓ
D
H
O
B
Es
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
P
L
G
G
P
G
P
G
P
G
P
G
P
G
P
G
P
COS
PARAMENTS
PARAMENTS
BUITS
LLINDES
BRANCALS
LLINDES
BRANCALS
AMPITS
REVESTIMENTS
DISCONTINU
APLACAT
APLACAT
CONTINU
ARREBOSSAT
ESTUCAT
ESGRAFIAT
PINTAT
BARANA DE COBERTA
PARAMENT
PARAMENT
APLACAT
ARREBOSSAT
BALUSTRES
REMAT
COSSOS SORTINTS
BARANES
PARAMENT
PARAMENT
APLACAT
ARREBOSSAT
BALUSTRES
REMAT
BALCONS
LLOSES
LLOSES
CANTELLS
SOTABALCÓ
TRIBUNES
PARAMENT
PARAMENT
APLACAT
ARREBOSSAT
ESTUCAT
ESGRAFIAT
PINTAT
LLINDES
BRANCALS
SOTATRIBUNA
ALTRES ELEMENTS
SÒCOL
MÈNSULES
IMPOSTES
CORNISES
RÀFECS
PESCANTS
MOTLLURES
ALTRES
ALTRES
T
P
L
F
L
DM
L
D
L
H
L
O
L
B
L
Es
L
G
ANEJO D
ANEJO D.- BASE DE DATOS
IV
DATOS DEL ANALISIS
R
DIRECCIÓN FACHADA
UTM
AÑO CONS.
PARTE FACHADA
ELEMENTO FACHADA
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
43947
1960
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
44944
1975
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ JOSEP
MARIA SEGARRA, 40-48
45895
1961
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
CRTA. BARCELONA, 147
45924
1961
BARANDILLAS
CARACT.FACHADA
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
EX.ELEM 2000 EX.ELEM 2012
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
DM
D
H
O
B
DC
R
DM
D
H
O
F
EVOLUCIÓN DE LA LESIÓN
B
DC
P L G P L G P L G P L G P L G P L G P L G P L G EVOLUCIÓN LESIÓN GRAVEDAD
4
MAGNITUD
3
2
1
4
X
2
2
X
X
X
4
3
4
3
2
1
X
X
X
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
X
X
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
3
X
3
3
X
2
X
2
1
X
X
2
X
X
X
4
2
2
X
4
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
3
NUEVA LESIÓN
1
1
6
X
X
X
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
45924
1962
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ XIPRERET, 33
45939
1920
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/XIPRERET, 37
45939
1850
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
3
5
5
4
3
4
2
5
5
2
4
5
X
X
1
3
X
X
2
X
X
3
2
2
1
4
2
=
2
2
X
4
4
3
1
4
X
X
X
X
2
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
X
X
1
1
X
X
1
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
CRTA. BACRELONA,
132-130
45939
1940
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
CRTA. BACRELONA,
136-134
45939
1931
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT JOAN, 31
45956
1920
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT JOAN, 33
45956
1958
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO
APLACADO
REVOCO
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
2
4
3
2
X
X
2
2
3
X
X
1
4
4
2
4
2
=
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
X
X
1
X
X
1
1
1
4
3
4
X
X
X
4
2
3
2
3
3
5
4
3
2
1
3
2
4
4
4
X
X
4
=
4
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
6
3
X
X
X
5
3
1
1
3
X
X
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
AV. CARRILET, 334
46891
1965
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ JOSEP MARIA
SEGARRA, 51-39
46891
1977
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANTA ROSA, 48
46896
1957
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANTA ROSA, 52
46896
1960
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
2
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
2
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
2
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
X
2
3
3
X
X
X
X
1
1
2
3
4
3
3
X
3
3
3
X
X
X
2
X
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
4
2
3
X
4
4
3
3
3
3
X
X
X
X
2
1
4
3
X
3
4
3
X
4
X
X
X
X
1
1
5
3
4
3
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
X
X
X
1
3
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
2
X
2
3
3
3
X
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ FRANCESC MORAGAS,
23
46903
1974
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ PROVENÇA, 27
46903
1968
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ JOSEP PRATS, 29
46903
1942
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
3
3
X
X
5
3
3
2
2
5
3
4
3
3
3
X
X
X
1
2
1
X
X
X
3
5
2
3
4
5
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
4
X
X
X
1
5
X
X
X
1
2
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
4
1
=
3
4
2
3
4
3
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
3
4
2
X
X
1
X
X
1
C/ SANTA ROSA, 19
46904
1926
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ JOSEP PRATS, 23
46904
1931
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ XIPRERET, 10
46925
1925
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ XIPRERET, 16
46925
1975
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
3
5
4
6
6
6
6
4
4
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
2
X
5
3
4
3
5
4
2
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
3
X
4
4
5
5
4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
2
2
3
1
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
1
4
X
X
X
2
2
1
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ PRINCEP BERGARA,
18
46927
1969
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MAJOR, 55
46927
1930
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MAJOR, 53
46927
1930
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MAJOR, 51
46927
1928
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
X
X
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
6
4
X
4
X
X
X
X
4
6
6
5
1
6
6
2
2
4
5
1
1
3
4
4
=
3
5
4
6
5
5
6
5
4
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
2
6
X
6
6
6
X
X
X
X
6
2
2
6
6
5
5
3
5
5
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
3
1
6
6
6
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
5
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MAJOR, 49
46927
1930
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MAJOR, 45
46927
1923
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MOLINES, 25-27
46942
1964
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
5
2
6
4
6
6
1
6
6
3
6
5
5
6
6
5
6
5
3
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
4
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
4
5
1
5
5
X
X
4
3
6
1
5
1
6
2
3
4
1
5
4
X
5
4
3
X
X
2
2
4
3
1
1
4
5
2
5
1
C/ DIGOINE, 19
46943
1960
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MOLINES, 24
46943
1918
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MOLINES, 30
46943
1918
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT ROC, 76
47889
1910
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
4
2
3
1
3
2
2
3
4
X
X
X
5
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
5
2
2
4
1
2
4
3
6
6
4
3
5
5
3
3
X
X
X
1
4
X
X
X
3
4
X
X
X
3
5
1
2
5
4
6
5
6
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
4
4
1
6
5
5
1
1
4
5
4
1
6
6
1
6
6
1
6
1
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT ROC, 74
47889
1910
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT ROC, 72
47889
1958
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT ROC, 70
47889
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT ROC, 68
47889
1958
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
3
3
6
4
3
4
5
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
1
5
2
4
1
1
4
3
4
3
3
4
5
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
1
5
X
X
X
5
X
4
5
4
4
5
3
4
X
4
X
1
3
1
4
1
4
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
X
X
3
X
X
2
1
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSEND ARUS, 30
47905
1931
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSEND ARUS, 32
47905
1936
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ PRINCEP BERGARA,
52
47909
1924
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ PROVENÇA, 46
47909
1960
BARANDILLAS
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
X
5
4
X
X
2
X
X
3
X
X
1
4
1
3
3
3
4
5
4
3
5
3
4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
X
X
3
=
4
X
4
X
1
X
X
X
4
1
1
3
3
5
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
4
4
1
3
1
3
3
5
X
X
X
2
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT ROC, 35
47911
1962
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ JOSEP PRATS, 11-13
47911
1935
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT ROC, 37
47911
1951
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
4
4
4
1
4
=
3
1
3
4
2
3
2
5
2
3
4
5
4
4
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
1
1
3
5
5
=
4
4
3
X
=
4
2
3
3
5
4
X
3
3
4
1
4
4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
1
X
1
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ PRINCEP BERGARA,
42
47911
1923
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ PROVENÇA, 39
47911
1922
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ PRINCEP BERGARA,
17-19
47917
1961
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSSEND ARUS, 14
47917
1922
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
3
5
3
5
3
3
3
4
4
X
X
X
X
4
2
4
1
3
4
X
3
2
3
X
4
3
4
4
X
X
2
1
X
X
3
=
3
1
4
1
3
5
X
X
X
3
1
2
2
3
3
4
X
X
3
1
3
3
3
2
5
X
4
=
X
X
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
1
2
5
3
3
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
4
X
X
X
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSSEND ARUS, 18
47917
1922
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
PASSATGE RECTORIA,
10
47922
1942
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ JOSEP PRATS, 8
47928
1940
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ JOSEP PRATS, 12
47928
1933
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
1
3
3
4
=
4
4
3
X
2
4
1
4
1
5
3
X
4
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
3
1
5
2
4
4
4
5
4
4
X
X
X
4
5
3
X
3
2
X
X
4
=
1
4
5
4
X
X
3
4
4
1
4
4
=
3
4
1
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
1
3
3
5
X
4
4
4
X
3
4
2
1
X
4
3
1
1
5
3
X
X
1
4
4
1
6
4
X
X
X
1
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
47937
1945
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ CENTRE, 8
47944
1960
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ BARÓ DE MALDÀ, 17
47947
1927
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
4
3
1
1
3
3
5
2
4
X
5
X
X
X
X
4
2
2
X
3
4
3
1
4
3
4
5
X
X
X
X
1
4
X
X
1
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
4
2
1
4
3
5
4
2
4
3
5
4
3
4
X
5
X
3
1
1
3
4
X
3
3
2
3
X
X
1
4
=
1
47947
1926
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ESGLESIA, 42
47947
1961
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ JOAN PALLARES, 1210
47951
1900
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ JOAN PALLARES, 14
47951
1900
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
2
3
2
X
X
4
3
3
4
4
5
2
4
6
4
5
X
X
X
3
5
X
X
X
1
5
X
X
1
X
X
5
5
6
5
4
3
6
5
5
5
X
X
X
5
5
6
6
4
X
X
X
5
3
3
3
X
X
4
6
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
1
X
X
X
6
3
X
X
X
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT JOAN, 15-13
47952
1960
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ BLANCHART, 14
47966
1932
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ BLANCHART, 7-9
47967
1969
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ BLANCHART, 3
47967
1930
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
3
2
2
5
3
3
X
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
X
X
5
5
3
3
3
4
=
3
4
3
1
4
2
2
2
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
4
5
4
4
3
3
2
1
5
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
1
1
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT ROC, 79
48883
1930
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSSEND ARUS, 56-58
48901
1955
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSSEND ARUS, 52-54
48901
1924
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSSELLES, 56
48904
1955
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
4
4
4
4
X
X
4
3
4
2
5
3
4
X
5
5
4
5
X
X
X
2
4
X
X
X
2
1
5
=
1
5
5
1
6
4
4
4
5
5
4
3
4
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
3
5
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
4
2
X
5
4
X
4
5
X
X
=
3
3
5
2
1
4
X
X
X
4
2
5
3
4
1
1
4
X
X
X
3
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSEND ARUS, 53
48906
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MAJOR, 1
48927
1921
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSSELLES, 37
48927
1963
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
4
1
5
2
1
4
4
2
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
5
1
2
5
3
2
4
3
6
X
2
4
X
X
1
6
2
1
5
2
6
6
6
6
3
6
X
X
X
X
5
3
X
1
5
5
3
4
3
5
3
4
5
3
3
X
X
X
X
=
1
4
CUERPO
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSSELLES, 35
48927
1946
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ROSSELLES, 21
48927
1910
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MAJOR, 5
48927
1918
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
PL.AYUNTAMIENTO, 4
48927
1960
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
4
4
3
4
5
X
X
3
4
1
4
4
1
5
4
5
5
X
4
3
5
5
5
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
X
5
X
X
2
X
X
1
1
X
=
6
5
6
6
6
5
6
X
X
1
6
X
X
X
X
4
6
X
X
X
2
1
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/MAJOR, 1b
48927
1905
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/MAJOR, 3
48927
1953
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
CRTA. BARCELONA, 87
48936
1950
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
CRTA. BARCELONA, 91
48936
1928
BARANDILLAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
4
5
4
4
X
X
X
X
1
1
6
6
4
3
6
6
4
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
=
3
5
X
1
X
X
3
3
1
1
3
4
4
5
5
X
X
X
2
5
5
X
X
X
1
4
1
4
5
2
3
4
5
6
5
5
4
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
1
1
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MAJOR, 2
48937
1918
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ RIERA DE LA CREU, 1416
48946
1957
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
48948
1945
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
4
4
6
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
1
5
5
5
5
3
2
4
X
X
3
5
6
X
X
X
X
1
2
4
X
X
X
X
5
4
X
1
3
5
3
3
4
X
X
X
1
4
X
X
X
1
5
X
X
X
X
X
4
1
3
3
5
3
4
2
5
3
6
3
1
1
4
6
X
X
X
X
2
1
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ LLEIDA, 6
48952
1935
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ LLEIDA, 19-21
48953
1953
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ BRUC, 53
48953
1927
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ BRUC, 39
48953
1925
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
5
6
5
X
5
X
1
6
2
4
1
2
3
5
5
X
X
5
5
X
X
4
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
1
1
X
X
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
5
4
4
X
1
1
X
5
3
1
4
X
X
5
1
3
1
3
4
4
5
4
5
4
2
5
5
4
5
4
4
5
3
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
1
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
RAMBLA JUST OLIVERES,
33
48958
1930
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
35
48958
1940
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
37
48958
1917
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
AV. CARRILET, 327
49896
1977
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
1
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
5
1
1
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
2
1
5
5
4
X
X
X
X
1
4
5
5
X
4
2
1
4
3
3
4
5
5
5
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
4
5
3
2
5
4
3
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
1
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
2
5
3
4
2
1
4
4
4
3
1
6
6
X
X
2
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
PL. MARE DE DÉU DE
MONSERRAT, 6
49917
1954
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/TARRAGONA, 11-13
49952
1923
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/BRUC, 17
49969
1958
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
5
3
5
4
3
4
3
1
X
X
X
X
2
5
4
4
2
4
2
4
1
4
3
4
2
3
3
X
X
5
4
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
4
4
4
6
3
X
2
4
5
2
2
X
X
5
4
5
5
6
5
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
2
X
4
2
1
4
2
6
2
5
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
C/LLEIDA, 37
49969
1930
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/LLEIDA, 53
49969
1967
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
PSTGE. MILANS, 15
50894
1968
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ENRIC PRAT DE LA
RIBA, 256
50939
1910
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
5
2
4
1
4
X
X
1
4
2
5
2
6
4
5
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
1
4
5
4
4
5
4
X
X
1
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
3
5
3
3
3
6
3
1
3
1
1
X
X
2
X
2
2
=
5
5
4
3
5
X
6
5
X
1
1
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/CASANOVAS, 42
50939
1850
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/CASANOVAS, 52
50939
1954
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/CASANOVAS, 19-21
50948
1967
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
CRTA. BARCELONA, 62
50949
1922
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
4
4
4
5
4
5
3
4
4
5
5
X
X
5
X
X
2
5
4
4
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
3
4
X
X
X
1
3
3
4
X
X
X
1
X
X
4
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
6
6
5
3
2
1
6
4
3
4
X
4
X
X
3
=
4
4
X
3
X
X
X
X
3
2
2
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ MARE DE DÉU DE
MONSERRAT, 2
50949
1928
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ TARRAGONA, 16-18
50951
1931
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ TARRAGONA, 27
50954
1974
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ PAU CASALS, 13
51925
1933
BARANDILLAS
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
4
4
X
X
1
4
3
1
6
6
X
X
1
5
1
3
3
4
5
X
5
X
X
X
1
X
X
5
3
1
4
3
4
5
5
5
4
5
X
X
X
X
2
2
5
2
5
5
2
1
4
5
3
5
5
2
5
2
4
2
4
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
=
2
=
1
X
4
1
X
2
2
1
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ARTS I OFICIS, 5
51925
1952
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ENRIC PRAT DE LA
RIBA, 216
51935
1920
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/JOSEP PLA, 9
51936
1950
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO
APLACADO
REVOCO
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
4
4
=
2
3
2
2
2
X
2
4
5
4
6
4
4
5
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
4
4
6
4
5
4
X
X
5
3
2
2
2
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
1
2
X
1
6
5
5
5
6
5
2
1
3
5
4
3
1
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
1
5
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/JOSEP PLA, 13
52939
1965
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
CRTA. BARCELONA, 15
52946
1943
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
PL. MESTRE CLAVE, 18
52946
1945
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ENRIC PRAT DE LA
RIBA, 196
52946
1960
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
4
X
X
X
4
1
4
1
3
3
4
5
3
4
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
4
1
3
3
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
1
4
3
3
2
4
4
4
X
X
3
X
X
2
X
X
1
5
4
4
X
X
1
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ENRIC PRAT DE LA
RIBA, 200
52946
1955
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SAURI, 10
53922
1926
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SAURI, 8
53922
1940
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SAURI, 26
53922
1918
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
1
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
5
3
4
5
3
3
4
5
4
4
5
X
X
1
1
X
X
4
X
X
1
5
4
1
5
5
3
4
5
6
4
5
X
X
5
2
6
4
X
6
6
4
6
6
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
5
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
6
2
3
5
4
3
5
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SAURI, 34
53922
1963
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SAURI, 24
53922
1926
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ARTS I OFICIS, 28
53923
1918
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
4
5
3
2
5
5
X
X
X
2
4
4
X
X
X
1
5
X
X
5
1
5
3
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
X
X
3
2
5
5
X
X
3
5
1
1
3
2
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
5
5
3
5
6
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
2
X
X
1
C/ SANT ANTONI, 17
53923
1928
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ SANT ANTONI, 13
53923
1928
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
CUERPO
HUECOS
CUERPO
REVESTIMIENTOS
BARANDILLA CUBIERTA
C/ ARTS I OFICIS, 42
53923
1960
BARANDILLAS
CUERPOS SALIENTES
BALCONES
TRIBUNAS
OTROS ELEMENTOS
OTROS
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
PARAMENTO 1
DINTELES
JAMBAS
ANTEPECHO
APLACADO 1
REVOCO 1
PINTADO
PARAMENTO 2
APLACADO 2
REVOCO 2
BALAUSTRES 2
REMATE 2
PARAMENTO 3
APLACADO 3
REVOCO 3
BALAUSTRES 3
REMATE 3
LOSAS
CANTOS
BAJOBALCÓN
PARAMENTO 4
APLACADO 4
REVOCO 4
BAJOTRIBUNA
IMPOSTAS
CORNISAS
MOLDURAS
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
5
1
4
1
1
4
2
5
3
5
3
4
3
5
5
4
X
5
X
X
4
5
X
X
2
4
3
4
3
5
X
4
=
3
4
4
5
5
X
X
2
3
5
X
X
1
6
3
6
4
X
1
5
4
X
X
1
2
“CRITERIOS PARA LA REINSPECCIÓN DEL ESTADO DE LESIONES EN FACHADAS
URBANAS”
PLANOS

Falta model coberta

Transcript

Documenti analoghi

Testamento olografo - Lega del Filo d`Oro

voci di capitolato sistema first

Preghiera di liberazione con l`Arcangelo Michele

Scarica

Eres, oh Rita, amada

Las Palomas is a family hotel located in the little fishing

Restauro conservativo della basilica di Santa Maria presso San Satiro

Descargar este fichero PDF - P3-USAL