Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and Building
MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat
School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, 117566 Singapore
Received 29 November 2002; received in revised form 2 July 2004; accepted 16 July 2004
Available online 9 September 2004
Abstract
The sources of defects and the impact of signicant factors including design, material, construction and maintenance on the
occurrence of defects in wet areas of 56 non-residential high-rise buildings were studied. Fourteen important risk factors aecting the
level of maintainability of wet areas were identied. The study has shown that among the frequency of the occurrence of defects,
water leakages ranked the highest with 53%, followed by corrosion of pipes 50% and spalling of concrete 47%. The occurrence
of all defects has been broadly attributed to their sources of decient construction 43%, material 37%, design 11% and maintenance
practices 9%. The implications of six key factors of maintainability of wet areas namely water-tightness, spatial, integrity, ventilation, material and plumbing on the occurrence of 14 most common defects found in wet areas were evaluated.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Maintainability; Wet areas; Building defects; Life cycle; Building performance; Durability; Building pathology
1. Introduction
Wet areas are areas subjected to constant damp conditions with alternating drying and wetting cycles.
Although the percentage occupied by wet areas is usually not more than 10% of a buildings gross oor area,
the annual maintenance cost for wet area can range
from 35% to 50% of the total maintenance cost of a
building [1]. The occurrence of defects resulting from
failures in function, performance, statutory and user
requirements of wet areas accounts for a large proportion of the expenditure. Much research has been conducted on investigation of defects in the component.
The fragmented nature of the whole building delivery
process has been found to be the main attributing factor
for the high occurrence of defects in wet areas [215].
A research program was carried out to study the
sources of defects in wet areas and the impact of significant factors including design, material, construction
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bdgchewm@nus.edu.sg.
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.07.005
and maintenance on the occurrence of defects. This paper discusses the main ndings from the evaluation of 56
high-rise non-residential buildings.
2. Research methodology
Fifty six high-rise non-residential buildings comprising of commercial (59%), industrial (23%) and school
(18%) were randomly selected. In-depth assessments
and face-to-face interviews with property managers were
conducted. The interviews were conducted with the aids
of an on-line questionnaire form highly supported by
visual photographs and illustrations. Site survey was
conducted after each interview for further detailed
investigations.
The questionnaire was divided into three main sections under the categories of building prole, detail
and building defects. In the rst and second sections
of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to select the relevant answer from the choices provided. In
the third section, respondents were asked to indicate
166
Table 1
Ratings of risk factors
Factor
Description
Rating
1
27
815
1630
>30
5
4
3
2
1
5
1
5
3
5
1
1 wet wall
2 wet walls
>2 wet walls
According to the details [17]
Additional 23 penetrations to the values [17]
Others
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
4
3
1
Selection of tting
5
3
5
4
1
Maintenance of ttings
5
3
1
Ventilation
5
3
1
>30
>2030
>1020
>510
65
5
4
3
2
1
Excellent resistance
Moderate resistance
Poor resistance
Level of usage
Oce/industrial
School
Oce/industrial
High school
Primary school
3
2
4
3
2
5
1
System
Requirement
Waterproong details
Plumbing detail
Wet wall
Penetrations
Material performance
Usage
Nature of usage
Maintenance practices
167
168
169
Table 2
Sources of defects
Overview of sources for all defects
Design
Construction
Maintenance practice
Mat/Env
Tile debonding
Mastic failure
Staining of tiles
Staining of ceiling nishes
Staining of vanity top
Water leakage through cracks
Water leakage at pipe penetrations
Paint defects
Water leakage through joints
Corrosion of exposed drainage pipes
Waterponding
Spalling of concrete
Staining at ttings
Unevenness of tile surface and poor pointing
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
170
Table 3
ANOVA for seriousness of defects
Defect
Mean rating
ANOVA
Oce
Industrial
School
F-ratio
Signicant
Tile debonding
Mastic failure
Staining of tiles
Staining of ceiling nishes
Water leakage through cracks
Staining of vanity top
Water leakage at pipe penetrations
Paint defects
Water leakage through joints
Corrosion of exposed drainage pipes
Waterponding
Spalling of concrete
Staining of ttings
Unevenness of tile surface and poor pointing
0.58
0.73
0.64
0.15
0.19
0.70
0.21
0.06
0.15
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.77
0.62
0.00
0.54
0.08
0.46
0.38
0.23
0.077
0.23
0.46
0.31
0.08
1.00
0.80
1.20
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.40
0.80
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.70
0.10
1.50
0.03
1.75
1.32
1.20
2.34
0.68
4.78
0.80
0.19
1.19
1.59
5.58
1.53
0.23
0.97
0.18
0.28
0.31
0.11
0.51
0.01
0.46
0.83
0.31
0.21
0.01
0.22
Table 4
Mean rating and t-test for the factors
Factors
Mean rating
t-test
Signicant level
Waterproong selection
Waterproong detail
Plumbing detail
Plumbing maintainability
Fitting selection
Fitting design
Fitting maintainability
Ventilation
Material durability
Material performance
Material maintainability
Usage
Construction quality
Level of maintenance practices
Building age
4.90
4.19
3.21
3.58
4.11
4.01
4.54
4.28
4.28
3.85
4.81
3.14
4.78
4.53
3.56
tions, water leakage through joints, corrosion of exposed drainage pipes, waterponding, spalling of concrete and staining of ttings (Table 5).
In the case of tile debonding, the results showed the
workmanship quality has signicantly correlated with
the
occurrence
of
the
failure
(correlation
value = 0.473, P = 0.000). The results coincides with
opinion of industry experts (Fig. 11). Poor mixing of
screed or poor tiling installation are the two main workmanship causes responsible for the failure. Age is another factor as given in the analysis (correlation
value = 0.391, P = 0.003). The bonding strength between the tile and adhesives would gradually reduce
over time, resulting in tile delamination.
The usage (nature and the level) was found to be the
main factor associated with staining of tiles (correlation
value = 0.544, P = 0.00). Five causes including waterproong selection, waterproong detail, workmanship,
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
Rank
t-value
1.94
7.43
15.63
7.12
10.93
7.34
4.28
4.73
33.09
47.37
3.76
20.14
1.86
3.63
10.84
7
4
9
5
8
11
10
2
1
12
3
13
6
Table 5
Causes of defects
Parameters
Defects
Staining
of tiles
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Waterproong selection
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Waterproong detail
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Plumbing detail
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Fitting selection
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Fitting design
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Ventilation
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Material selection
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Usage
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Workmanship
Correlation
Sig. (two tailed)
Water leakage
at pipe penetrations
Water leakage
through joints
Corrosion of
exposed
drainage pipes
Waterponding
Spalling of
concrete
Staining of
ttings
0.391
0.003
0.561
0.000
0.516
0.000
0.496
0.000
0.397
0.002
0.433
0.001
0.269
0.045
0.368
0.005
0.347
0.009
0.264
0.049
0.361
0.006
0.392
0.003
0.284
0.034
0.363
0.006
0.279
0.037
0.544
0.000
0.473
0.000
Age
Water leakage
through cracks
0.371
0.005
0.405
0.002
0.498
0.000
0.448
0.001
0.368
0.005
171
172
Table 6
Defect causing factors
Parameters
h2
Factor loading
Factor
Eigenvalue
Waterproong selection
Waterproong detail
Construction quality
Fitting selection
Fitting design
Fitting maintainability
Plumbing selection
Plumbing design
Material durability
Ventilation
Material performance
Material maintainability
Plumbing maintainability
0.65
0.70
0.77
0.66
0.75
0.72
0.64
0.64
0.66
0.66
0.56
0.78
0.68
0.736
0.749
0.791
0.692
0.718
0.826
0.555
0.758
0.608
0.575
0.742
0.756
0.603
Water-tightness
3.314
Spatial
2.083
Integrity
1.740
Ventilation
Material maintainability
1.437
1.156
Plumbing maintainability
1.082
4. Conclusions
The study has identied 14 important risk factors
aecting the level of maintainability of wet areas. A
cross comparison revealed the simultaneous presence
of defects in the three dierent groups of buildings.
Among these defects, water leakages has ranked the
highest with 53%, followed by corrosion of pipes 50%
and spalling of concrete 47%. The occurrence of all defects has been broadly attributed to their sources of de-
References
[1] Chew MYL, Nayanthara DS. Factors aecting water-tightness in
wet area of high-rise residential buildings. Archit Sci Rev
2002;45(4):37583. [Australia].
[2] Blanchard BS, Verma D, Peterson EL. Maintainability: a key to
eective serviceability and maintenance management. New
York: Wiley; 1995.
[3] Bowles G, Dagpunar JS, Gow H. Financial management of
planned maintenance for housing associations. Constr Manage
Econ 1997;15(4):31526. [UK].
[4] Lomas DW. Maintenance management of public housing in Hong
Kong: an analysis of the CARE system. In: Proceeding of 5th
international conference on inspection, appraisal, repairs &
maintenance of buildings & structures, Singapore; 1997.
[5] Shen Q, Lo K-K, Wang Q. Priority setting in maintenance
management: a modied multi-attribute approach using analytic
hierarchy process. Constr Manage Econ 1998;16(6):693702.
[UK].
[6] Van Winden C, Dekker R. Rationalization of building maintenance by Markov decision models: a pilot case study. J Oper Res
Soc 1998;49:92835. [US].
[7] Lounis Z, Vanier DJA. Multiobjective and stochastic system for
building maintenance management. Comput-aided Civ Inf Eng
2000;15(5):3200. [UK].
[8] Bogenstatter U. Prediction and optimization of life-cycle costs in
early design. Build Res Inf 2000;28(5/6):37686. [UK].
[9] Moua B, Russell J. Comparison of two maintainability programmes. J Constr Eng Manage 2001;127(3):23944. [US].
[10] Chew MYL, De Siva Nayanthara. Maintainability problems of
wet areas in high-rise residential buildings. Build Res Inf
2003;31(1):609. [UK].
[11] Porteous WA. Classifying building failure by cause. Build Res Inf
1992;20(6):3506.
173