Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Inspection and diagnosis system for gypsum plasters in partition walls and ceilings
A. Pereira, F. Palha, J. de Brito ⇑, J.D. Silvestre
DECivil-IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an expert system to support the inspection and diagnosis of gypsum plasters applied
Received 18 August 2010 to partition walls and ceilings (inner gypsum plasters – IGP). This system includes the classification of the
Received in revised form 29 October 2010 defects that may affect IGP and their probable causes, which is complemented by the correlation matrices
Accepted 13 November 2010
between defects, and between defects and probable causes. It is completed by a classification of the diag-
Available online 10 December 2010
nosis methods and the repair techniques suitable for each IGP defect. Individual files containing a com-
plete characterization of defects, diagnosis methods and repair techniques are also exemplified. This
Keywords:
inspection system was validated through standard inspections of 119 IGP applied in walls or ceilings
Inspection system
Gypsum plaster
in 23 buildings.
Defect Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pathology
Diagnosis
Repair

1. Introduction These previous works, along with specialized literature related to

Nowadays, gypsum-based plasters are the most common inte-
rior coating of walls and ceilings of buildings in Portugal. Named
gypsum plasters in the European standard EN 13279-1 (dedicated
to gypsum binders and plasters), they are produced in a factory
and sold ready-mixed, only requiring the addition of water. Gyp-
sum plasters made with synthetic binders (usually called ‘‘syn-
thetic gypsum plasters’’) are also used for the interior coating of
walls and ceilings, but they have a smaller market share. Neverthe-
less, this solution has been gaining momentum and diversity
thanks to the development of the chemical industry. This paper
is focused only on gypsum plasters, despite the fact that some of
the conclusions presented could be extrapolated to synthetic gyp-
sum plasters.
Gypsum plasters made on-site (also called ‘‘traditional gypsum
plasters’’) are outside the scope of this paper. The technology and
pathology characterization of traditional gypsum plasters and the
definition of their most important repair techniques, mainly when
applied in ancient buildings, have already been published by the
same research team in refereed journals [1–4]. But no works spe-
cifically related to inspection systems for gypsum plasters applied
to partition walls and ceilings (inner gypsum plasters – IGP) have
been found in refereed journals or conference proceedings. The
methodology used in this paper has also been tried and tested by
the same research team for other construction elements [5–9].
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 218419709; fax: +351 21 8497650.
E-mail addresses: ap.cascais@clix.pt (A. Pereira), fpalha@gmail.com (F. Palha),
jb@civil.ist.utl.pt (J. de Brito), jds@civil.ist.utl.pt (J.D. Silvestre).
IGP technology and the thorough study of some pathological pro-
cesses of wall coatings ([10–15], for example) delineate the princi-
ples of the development of the inspection system of IGP proposed
in this paper. Each module of the inspection system, such as the de-
fects or diagnosis classification method, was subsequently devel-
oped based on the corresponding specialized references.
The quality of partition wall and ceiling coatings has a signifi-
cant influence on the indoor habitability conditions. It is essential
that coatings fulfil all aesthetic, durability, health, thermal and
hygrothermal comfort demands. But the quality of the coatings
has been declining thanks to the faster pace of construction, un-
skilled labour, and increasing diversity of coating solutions and
materials. Defects in coatings should therefore be prevented and
the most common ones must be well known for their causes to
be correctly diagnosed and the most suitable repair solutions pre-
scribed. This research work sets off from these principles, on the
assumption that only a full understanding of the characteristics
of the materials and construction technology related to IGP, and
the rigorous observation, recording and analysis of the defects will
allow them and their causes to be eliminated and similar patholog-
ical phenomena prevented. The inspection system of IGP proposed
in this paper is simultaneously innovative and scientifically vali-
dated in other studies [16,17]. The inspection procedure was cali-
brated through an inspection programme that included the
pathological characterization of 119 IGP applied in 74 walls and
44 ceilings in 87 rooms in 23 buildings (22 residential and one of-
fice building), 83% of which are in the Lisbon area, in Portugal. This
inspection programme was designed to simultaneously validate

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.015
 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156 2147

the classification systems and correlation matrices [5]. The stan-
dard inspections consisted solely of a visual observation of the
IGP (no in-situ or laboratory tests were performed) and were doc-
umented in standard inspection and validation files. Three hun-
dred and thirty-one defects (only one defect of each type was
recorded for each IGP) were identified in the sample, which gave
an average of 2.78 defect types per IGP. The average number of
probable causes associated with each defect was 9.5. Nevertheless,
the statistical analysis of the results of this inspection programme
is beyond the scope of this paper.
The last group contains pathological phenomena of a mechani-
cal nature, such as: dimensional changes to the substrate that can
cause cracking; impacts and other mechanical actions on the IGP
surface (Fig. 3); loss of cohesion or disintegration of the IGP.
Table 1 presents these three groups of defects. Each defect has
an acronym: a D (for ‘defect’) plus a hyphen and the group refer-
ence – P for Physical, C for Chemical and M for Mechanical. A
sequential number follows this second letter. The causes of the de-
fects, the diagnosis methods and the repair techniques are classed
using a similar labeling.

2. Pathology

This section includes the identification and characterization of

the most common defects in IGP and of their causes. The relation-
ship between defects and causes and the index that measures the
coincident occurrence of different defects are presented in correla-
tion matrices. Finally, the defect file concept is shown together
with the information that must be included in it. This module of
the inspection system was built based on a number of scientific
Refs. [4,12,14,15,18–26].

2.1. Defect classification system

It is not common to find defects in IGP. The ones found most fre-
quently, however, can be ranked in three groups to distinguish the
pathological problems caused variously by physical, chemical or Fig. 2. Detachment of an area of IGP [17].
mechanical actions.
Generally, the most recurrent defects of a physical nature are
dirt and damp. The latter justifies special attention since it is one
of the most aggressive problems that can affect modern buildings
and, consequently, the IGP. The destructive power of damp is re-
lated to the open porosity and hydroscopic nature of IGP which
ease the percolation of water through its micro-structure. This
leads to the development of a variety of aggressive actions: phys-
ical, due to the modification of the inter-crystalline structure of
the gypsum; chemical, caused by the presence of soluble salts in
the substrate and the IGP; and biological, via the development of
mould and fungus (Fig. 1). The consequence of all these actions is
the decline of the habitability and durability conditions of the in-
door area and, in a limited number of cases, the irreversible degra-
dation of the coatings, which necessitates their replacement in the
short-term.
The second group of defects comprises those that are caused by
chemical phenomena: actions that result in the development of
mould or bacteria on the coating, known as bio-deterioration;
Fig. 3. Result of impact on the IGP in normal use by the users [17].
the volumetric expansion of the salts within the coating or the sub-
strate, which results in efflorescence or crypto-florescence phe-
nomena; the adhesion failure of the coating that results in the Table 1
detachment, warping or loosening of part of the coating (Fig. 2). Classification of defects in IGP [17].

Code Defect
D-P PHYSICAL NATURE
D-P1 Excessive damp
D-P2 Dirtiness
D-C CHEMICAL NATURE
D-C1 Bio-deterioration
D-C2 Efflorescence/crypto-florescence
D-C3.1 Adhesion failure – detachment
D-C3.2 Adhesion failure – warping
D-C3.3 Adhesion failure – loosening of an area
D-M MECHANICAL NATURE
D-M1.1 Cracking – superficial/craquelé
D-M1.2 Cracking – average
D-M1.3 Cracking – linear and deep
D-M2 Impact and other mechanical actions
D-M3 Loss of cohesion/disaggregation
Fig. 1. IGP on wall and ceiling with fungus and mould [17].
2148 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156

2.1.1. Defect rating Table 2

Every defect detected during an inspection is rated in terms of Classification of probable causes of defects in IGP [17].

its repair urgency: Code Probable cause

C-A DESIGN ERRORS
 0 – Action required immediately or in the short-term C-A1 Incorrect application of mandatory construction rules or
(6 months); standards
 1 – Action required in the medium-term (12 months); C-A2 Incorrect design/detailing of ventilation system
C-A3 Incorrect design/detailing of waterproofing system
 2 – Action required in the long-term (reassessment at the next C-A4 Incorrect design/detailing of water drainage system
routine inspection). C-A5 Malpractice in the definition of structural deformations
of the building and their influence on the substrate
The prescription of an immediate intervention depends on the C-A6 Negligence in the conditions demanded of the substrate
C-A7 Incorrect design/detailing of the system of protection
severity of the defect in the moment it is inspected. The severity
against mechanical actions
is measured considering the levels included in each defect file (as C-A8 Incorrect design/detailing of joints
illustrated further on). As an example, for defect ‘‘D-P1 – DAMP’’ C-A9 Incorrect prescription of materials
an action is required in the short-term if ‘‘affected area >15% or C-A10 Insufficient/absent prescription of tests or execution
with high aesthetic value’’ and an action is required in the med- methods
C-A11 Incorrect prescription of the thickness of IGP layers
ium-term if it is a ‘‘local problem with no conditions that favour
C-B PROBLEMS WITH MATERIALS
the progression of the degradation’’. C-B1 Use of material with production defects
C-B2 Use of non-prescribed, incorrect and/or incompatible
2.2. Classification of probable causes materials
C-C EXECUTION ERRORS
C-C1 Insufficient understanding of the execution project
A defect always results from a combination of adverse factors.
C-C2 Inexperienced or unskilled gypsum plaster workers
These factors occur simultaneously or arise from an accumulation C-C3 Incorrect/absent installation of drainage system
of effects, leading to or accelerating the degradation of the IGP. It is C-C4 Incorrect/absent installation of waterproofing barriers
therefore important to correlate the large body of knowledge of the and protection profiles included in the project
symptoms with the global knowledge of the causes that lead to C-C5 Incorrect/absent installation of ventilation system
C-C6 Accumulation of mortar debris or other construction
their manifestation. All the risks that may affect the IGP can thus waste in air gaps of double walls
be known and the development of defects effectively controlled. C-C7 Incorrect/non-execution of joints
Table 2 proposes a classification of the causes of the defects, C-C8 Disregard of instructions on mixing quantities and
chronologically ordered in each of the groups. As an example, in procedures
C-C9 Absent/insufficient mechanical preparation of substrate
group C–E – execution errors, the causes related to the substrate
C-C10 Inadequate roughness of the substrate
preparation precede the causes associated with the application C-C11 Insufficient wetting of the substrate
and drying of the IGP. The sections that follow include the descrip- C-C12 Excessive waterproofing of the substrate
tion of each group and a brief presentation of examples of the C-C13 Application to dirty, powdery or uneven substrates
causes listed in Table 2. C-C14 Lack of application of primer to the support (or
insufficient quantity applied)
C-C15 Incorrect/ non-installation of protection systems in the
2.2.1. Design errors interface between different materials
Nowadays, design errors are among the most important causes of C-C16 Lack of protection on protruding corners particularly
problems and disputes in the construction sector. They may result exposed to impact
from the prescription of inadequate materials or from the ineffi- C-C17 Application in damp/rainy weather or uncontrolled dew
point
ciency of the proposed constructive solutions. Responsibility for
C-C18 Non-compliance with the setting time between the
the quality guarantee of the IGP, for example, is mainly shared by various stages of execution
designers, builders and materials suppliers. These actors must clearly C-C19 Inadequate depth of the IGP
and mutually define: the scope of application of the coatings; their C-C20 IGP with insufficient permeability to water vapour
limitations; the mandatory conditions for their application; quality C-C21 IGP with excessive permeability to water vapour
(excessive porosity)
insurance procedures, and any need for training the workers, and C-C22 Application of inappropriate paint
the application schedule. The likelihood of defects increases consid- C-C23 Insufficient supervision/quality control
erably whenever these parameters are not verified and not everyone C-C24 Too short execution time
involved clearly defines their objectives and responsibilities. The C-D EXTERIOR MECHANICAL ACTIONS
C-D1 Impact/mechanical vibration
increasing complexity of buildings, lack of systematization of knowl-
C-D2 Differential movement of adjacent materials
edge, new architectonic concerns and the diversity of materials used C-D3 Excessive stress concentration in the substrate
are some of the main causes of the non-quality of these construc- C-D4 Excessive shrinkage of the IGP
tions. As an example, malpractice in the definition of the structural C-E ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS
deformations of the building result in the formation of strong tension C-E1 Solar radiation
C-E2 Extreme temperatures
stresses in the substrate-coating interface which lead to crack forma-
C-E3 Air pollution
tion when the resistance capacity of the coating is surpassed. C-E4 Excessive humidity
C-E5 Chemical/biological attack
2.2.2. Problems with materials C-E6 Natural ageing
C-F MAINTENANCE ERRORS
The causes related to problems with materials are responsible
C-F1 Insufficient ventilation
to a lesser degree for the occurrence of defects but are equally C-F2 Lack of conservation/maintenance works
important. All materials or construction assemblies should be C-F3 Excessive/incorrect cleaning of IGP
delivered on-site in compliance with a previously defined set of C-F4 Change of the original field of application of the IGP
mechanical, physical and chemical characteristics. This is the only C-F5 Impact or friction actions related to use, occupation or
circulation of the inhabitants
way to ensure their good execution and proper functioning when C-F6 Pipe rupture or water penetration
applied in the building. Any characteristic that does not comply
 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156 2149

Fig. 4. Water dripping on an IGP surface caused by condensation [17].

Fig. 7. Deterioration of a protruding corner of an IGP lacking mechanical protection

[17].

Fig. 5. Result of inappropriate use of IGP [17].

Fig. 8. Grid placed between two layers of plaster [16].

Fig. 9. Perforated plastic profile with reinforcement grid to reinforce a protruding

Fig. 6. Water penetration resulting in damp and fungus in IGP [17].
corner and adjacent wall of an IGP [16].

may lead to the onset of a new pathological process. The number of 2.2.3. Execution errors
causes in this group may be small but all of them are important on- Execution errors cause the most defects in IGP. The need to in-
site and should not be disregarded. crease the productivity of the construction sector has resulted in
2150 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156

the widespread contracting of unskilled labour. This has led to var-
ious instances of negligence in some important tasks, particularly
the comprehension of the execution project, the incorrect use of
materials, failure to use the right amounts of components, and
use of inadequate construction techniques. The consequent execu-
tion errors can be related to substrate preparation (absence of
roughness, excessive waterproofing, lack of humidity, or presence
of dust or powdery substances), incorrect execution of some com-
ponents of the coatings (waterproofing barriers, ventilation sys-
tems, air gaps and drainage holes) or, in many cases, materials
applied with inappropriate pot live.
2.2.4. Exterior mechanical actions
Exterior mechanical actions can also condition the performance
of IGP because they include various mechanisms that are difficult
to be predict. They include impacts, vibrations, substrate deforma-
tion and, above all, the concentration of stresses in the interface
substrate-plaster. The significance of these actions is directly re-
lated to the elasticity and compressive strength, tension and flex-
ural actions of the plaster and the restrictions imposed by the
substrate on the free shrinkage movements of the plaster.
2.2.5. Environmental actions
Environmental actions are among the main causes of defects in
IGP, especially when they arise during its application or when it is
submitted to unpredictable actions during its service life (e.g. par-
tition walls that get wet because of infiltrations of rainwater). This
and other causes included in this group are also accidental actions.
Most condensation inside buildings results from water vapour
generated there (Fig. 4). This condensation, which occurs mainly

Table 3
Defects/probable causes correlation matrix [17].

C/D D-P1 D-P2 D-C1 D- C2 D- C3.1 D- C3.2 D- C3.3 D-M1.1 D- M1.2 D- M1.3 D- M2 D- M3
C-A1 h _ h h h h h h h h h h
C-A2 h h j h _ h h h h
C-A3 j j h h j h h j
C-A4 h h h h j h h
C-A5 h h j j j
C-A6 h h j h j h
C-A7 j j j j j j
C-A8 j h
C-A9 h h h h h h h h h _ _ h
C-A10 h _ h h h h
C-A11 h h h h _
C-B1 h h h h h h h h h _ _ h
C-B2 _ _ h h h h h h h _ _ h
C-C1 h _ h h h h h h h h h h
C-C2 h h h h h h h h h h h h
C-C3 h j h h h h h j
C-C4 j j h h j h h j
C-C5 h h j h _ h h h h
C-C6 h h _ h
C-C7 j h
C-C8 h _ h j h h h h h _ _ h
C-C9 j j j j j j
C-C10 j j j
C-C11 j
C-C12 j j
C-C13 j j j
C-C14 j j j
C-C15 j
C-C16 j
C-C17 j h h _
C-C18 h h h _ _
C-C19 h h h h h
C-C20 h j h
C-C21 j h h j
C-C22 h h h h h h
C-C23 h h h h h h h h h h h h
C-C24 h h h h h h h h
C-D1 j h h h j
C-D2 j j j j
C-D3 h j j j j
C-D4 j j
C-E1 h
C-E2 h h h h
C-E3 h
C-E4 j h j j h h j h j
C-E5 j j h j j j
C-E6 h
C-F1 j h j h _ j h h h
C-F2 h j j j j h
C-F3 h j h h h j
C-F4 h h _ _ h h h
C-F5 j j
C-F6 j h h h j _ h h

Notes: Each defect has an acronym: a D (for ‘defect’) plus a hyphen and the group reference – P for Physical, C for Chemical and M for Mechanical – and a sequential number
(see Table 1). Each cause has an acronym: a C (for ‘cause’) plus a hyphen, the group reference (A–F) and a sequential number – see Table 2. In this table, ‘h’ represents ‘low
correlation’, ‘j’ represents ‘high correlation’ and ‘_’, ‘h’ or ‘j’ represent a theoretical correlation degree that was changed after on-site validation.
 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156 2151

Table 4
Inter-defect correlation matrix [17].

D/D D-P1 D-P2 D-C1 D-C2 D-C3.1 D-C3.2 D-C3.3 D-M1.1 D-M1.2 D-M1.3 D-M2 D-M3
D-P1 – jhhh jjjh jjhh jjhh jjjh jjhh jhhh jjhh jhhh jhhh jjhh
D-P2 jjhh – jjjh jjhh jhhh jjhh jhhh jhhh jhhh jhhh jjhh jjjh
D-C1 jjjh jjhh – jjjh jjhh jjjh jjhh jhhh jjhh jhhh jhhh jjjh
D-C2 jjjh jjhh jjjh – jjhh jjjh jjhh jhhh jjhh jhhh jhhh jjjh
D-C3.1 jjhh jhhh jjhh jjhh – jjjh jjjh jhhh jjhh jjhh jhhh jhhh
D-C3.2 jjhh jhhh jjhh jjhh jjjh – jjjh jhhh jjhh jhhh jhhh jjhh
D-C3.3 jjhh jhhh jjhh jjhh jjjh jjjh – jhhh jjhh jjhh jhhh jjhh
D-M1.1 jhhh jhhh jhhh jhhh jjhh jhhh jjhh – jjhh jhhh jhhh jhhh
D-M1.2 jjhh jhhh jjhh jjhh jjhh jjjh jjjh jjhh – jjhh jhhh jjhh
D-M1.3 jhhh jhhh jhhh jhhh jjjh jjjj jjjj jhhh jjjh – jjhh jhhh
D-M2 jhhh jjhh jhhh jhhh jjhh jjhh jjhh jhhh jjhh jjhh – jhhh
D-M3 jjjh jjhh jjjh jjjh jjhh jjjh jjhh jhhh jjhh jhhh jhhh –

Notes: Each defect has an acronym: a D (for ‘defect’) plus a hyphen and the group reference – P for Physical, C for Chemical and M for Mechanical – and a sequential number
(see Table 1). In this table, ‘hhhh’ represents ‘0%’, ‘jhhh’ represents ‘]0; 25]%’, ‘jjhh’ represents ‘]25;50]%’, ‘jjjh’ represents ‘]50;75]%’ and ‘jjjj’ represents
‘]75; 100]%’.

Table 5
covered with perforated plastic profiles within the plaster (Figs. 8
Classification of diagnosis methods for IGP [17]. and 9).
Code Diagnosis method
T-A TEMPERATURE
2.3. Correlation matrices
T-A1 Temperature measurement (superficial and/or environmental)
T-B WATER CONTENT Identifying and characterizing the defects and their causes
T-B1 Damp measurement (superficial and/or environmental – humidity) (Tables 1 and 2) facilitates the building up of the correlation matrices.
T-B2 Measurement of interior damp
They associate defects observed in-situ with their probable causes
T-C PERMEABILITY/POROSITY
T-C1 Test of water absorption under low pressure and assist the diagnosis and prescription of repair solutions [7].
T-D SALT IDENTIFICATION The correlation matrices, which associate each defect with the
T-D1 Salt identification others and with their probable causes, were built with the same
T-E CRACKING methodology as that employed in previous works by this research
T-E1 Measurement and surveillance of cracks and fissures
T-F INTERNAL STRENGTH
group [5,7–9]. All the correlation matrices described in this paper
T-F1 Micro-perforation test were validated via in-situ standardized inspections of IGP fitted
T-G SUPERFICIAL STRENGTH AND COHESION in 87 rooms of an office building and 22 residential buildings in
T-G1 Sphere impact Portugal. The statistical analysis of the results of this inspection
T-G2 Squaring test
programme is beyond the scope of this paper.
T-G3 Striking test
T-G4 Friction test
T-G5 Pendulum sclerometer test 2.3.1. Defects/probable causes correlation matrix
T-H RESISTANCE TO STAIN FORMATION
T-H1 Assessment of resistance to staining
The causes of defects in IGP were divided into groups and cor-
T-I ASSESSMENT OF ADHESION TO THE SUBSTRATE related with defects in IGP in accordance with a classification sys-
T-I1 Pull-off test tem with two main sets: the group of direct, or near, causes, and
T-J DETACHMENT AREAS AND DISCONTINUITIES IDENTIFICATION the group of indirect, or first, causes [21]. Direct/near causes are
T-J1 Percussion test
those that immediately precede the visual detection of the defect,
T-J2 Infrared thermography
T-J3 Ultrasound test particularly exterior mechanical actions or environmental actions.
These are usually eliminated by proper repair solutions. Indirect/
first causes need a direct cause for the pathological process to un-
fold, like human errors at the design stage, during execution or
on the coldest areas of the inner face of exterior walls, can be pre-
even when the building is being used. These causes can be avoided
vented by correct ventilation, if the space is not too crowded or if
if preventive measures are established at each stage of the IGP ser-
the production of water vapour is not excessive. The persistence of
vice life.
condensation on walls or ceilings may result in the development of
After the identification of the defects and the classification of
mould and fungus or in the formation of efflorescence or crypto-
their causes as direct or indirect, the matrix is filled in using a cor-
florescence phenomena.
relation index for these two entities. The correlation matrix en-
ables the identification of the probable cause(s) of each defect,
2.2.6. Maintenance errors rating each cause with a number (0, 1 or 2) according to their cor-
The last group of causes includes the actions related to the use relation degree [5]:
of IGP. Among the most important are changes to the service con-
ditions from those initially predicted (Fig. 5), repair or rehabilita-  0 – no correlation – there is no direct or indirect relationship
tion works carried out without adequate preparation, and the between the defect and the cause;
lack, insufficiency or inadequacy of the maintenance work under-  1 (h) – low correlation – indirect (first) cause of the defect
taken on IGP. Quick degradation of the IGP can be prevented by related to the triggering of the deterioration process; cause
Veiga [27]: avoiding water penetrating the coating (Fig. 6); using not necessary for the deterioration to develop;
an antifungal admixture in the IGP or paint with antifungal charac-  2 (j) – high correlation – direct (near) cause of the defect, asso-
teristics when it is applied to a wet area or one without ventilation. ciated with the final stage of the deterioration process; when
Obviously, when the IGP may suffer impacts (Fig. 7), it should be one of these causes occurs it is one of the main reasons for
protected via a reinforcement grid and salient corners should be the deterioration process and is essential for its development.
2152 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156

Table 3 presents the correlation matrix, built as described (de-
fects in IGP as columns and corresponding causes as rows). From
this table it is possible to identify the most common causes of de-
fects in IGP, namely some of the design, execution and exterior
mechanical actions related causes.
The theoretical correlation matrix (based on the experience of
the authors and on specialized literature) of IGP defects and their
probable causes was validated through standardized in-situ
inspections of IGP as described above, resulting in changes in some
theoretical correlation degrees (in the cells underlined in Table 3)
and in the confirmation of the remaining. These changes represent
an adjustment of the theoretical correlation matrix to the relations
found in the sample between defects and causes.
The classification of diagnosis methods proposed in this paper
stresses the techniques (destructive or non-destructive) that could
be used relatively easily in-situ and whose methodology is effec-
tive, clean and cheap. These methods could therefore be broadly
used to characterize the defects in IGP, without forgetting that
the visual inspection and the experience of the inspector must con-
tinue to have a decisive importance in the interpretation of the
data collected. The diagnosis methods are consequently included
in a correlation matrix based on the same rationale used to build
the system for inspection and diagnosis of IGP proposed in this
paper.
3.1. Classification of diagnosis methods

In-situ diagnosis methods for IGP are divided into 10 groups or

2.3.2. Inter-defect correlation matrix
An inter-defect correlation index that lists the simultaneous
occurrence of defects is therefore necessary to establish the likeli-
hood of other defects occurring once one is detected. This index is
obtained based on the defects/probable correlation matrix causes
(Table 3) using the methodology described in detail in [8] which
follows the principle that the number of probable causes that a de-
fect have in common with other one is directly proportional to
their simultaneity index. Each index is represented in Table 4
and estimates the probability of defect j (column j) occurring when
defect k (row k) occurs. Therefore, if the probability of occurring
defect j (column j) when defect k (row k) occurs is signalized in
the table with the symbol ‘‘jjjj’’, which represents a percentage
in the interval ]75; 100], this means that the defect j will be found
in almost all the situations where defect k occurs.
A defect in IGP may be localized or occur throughout the IGP
area. Furthermore, this defect may be single or associated with
other defects covered by the classification proposed in this paper.
The correlation between defects is thus expressed as an index that
establishes the likelihood of other defects occurring once one is de-
tected, which is obtained based on the defects/probable causes cor-
relation matrix (Table 3) using the methodology described in full
by Silvestre and de Brito [8], and estimates the probability of defect
j (column j) occurring when defect k (row k) occurs (Table 4).
3. Inspection and diagnosis
To schedule and justify any work on an IGP with defects it is
essential to promote a full understanding, analysis and record of
the existing condition. One or more visits must be made to the
building to make a record and graphical representation of the char-
acteristics, materials and texture of the plasters and to analyze the
chemical and mechanical actions that may affect it.
families, with particular characteristics, methods of execution and
quantification parameters. The selection of the diagnosis methods
for each of the defects in Table 1 depends on the suitability for each
specific circumstance, i.e. the material’s needs, advantages and
limitations, and it is based on a range of specialized Refs. [23,28–31].
Table 5 lists the diagnosis methods chosen for the inspection
system, with each group having an acronym which is also used
to construct the relevant correlation matrix [7].
3.1.1. Defects/diagnosis methods correlation matrix
Table 6 presents the defects/diagnosis methods correlation ma-
trix that enables choosing the most suitable diagnosis method
within those listed in Table 5, after the identification of a defect
in IGP. In this matrix, at the intersection of each row (representing
a defect) with each column (representing a diagnosis method)
there is a number representing their degree of correlation in accor-
dance with the following criteria [5,9,32]:
 0 – no correlation – there is no relationship between defect and
diagnosis method;
 1 (h) – low correlation – the diagnosis method is suitable for the
characterization of the defect, but has shortcomings in terms of
technical practicality or costs, which may reduce its usefulness;
 2 (j) – high correlation – the diagnosis method is suitable for
the characterization of the defect, technical difficulty is mini-
mal, and equipment is affordable, e.g. its scope of application
is wide.
The validation of this matrix in the inspection programme re-
sulted in the change of some theoretical correlation degrees, which
are underlined in Table 6, and in the confirmation of the remaining.
As an example of the correlation between defects and diagnosis
methods, Table 7 gives the methods that may be used to diagnose

Table 6
Defects/diagnosis methods correlation matrix [17].

D/T T-A1 T-B1 T-B2 T-C1 T-D1 T-E1 T-F1 T-G1 T-G2 T-G3 T-G4 T-G5 T-H1 T-I1 T-J1 T-J2 T-J3
D-P1 h j j h h
D-P2 h j
D-C1 h j j h h
D-C2 h j j h j h h
D-C3.1 h h h j j h h
D-C3.2 j j h h j h h h
D-C3.3 h h h j j h h
D-M1.1 h j h
D- M1.2 h h h h h j h
D- M1.3 j
D- M2 h j j j j j
D- M3 h h h j j j j j j h

Notes: Each defect has an acronym: a D (for ‘defect’) plus a hyphen and the group reference – P for Physical, C for Chemical and M for Mechanical – and a sequential number
(see Table 1). Each diagnosis method has an acronym: a T (for ‘test’) plus a hyphen, the group reference (A–J) and a sequential number – see Table 5. In this table, ‘h’
represents ‘low correlation’, ‘j’ represents ‘high correlation’ and ‘_’, ‘h’ or ‘j’ represent a theoretical correlation degree that was changed after on-site validation.
 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156
Table 7
Correlation between defect D-C3.1 and in-situ diagnosis methods.
DEFECT – DIAGNOSIS METHODS CORRELATION FILE: Defect D-C3.1 –
adhesion failure – detachment
Diagnosis method Description of the method
T-B1 – Dampness 1. Draw a reference grid over the surface of the IGP; 2.
measurement Place the equipment over a fraction of this grid; 3. Read
(superficial the value on the screen; 4. Repeat the measurement at
and/or different points of the surface; 5. Measure the humidity
environmental on the frontiers of the covering
– humidity)
T-B2 – 1. Make a small hole in the wall, to a depth of almost
Measurement 5 cm; 2. Carefully clean the hole; 3. Continue making the
of interior hole until its length is a third of the width of the wall; 4.
damp Weigh a part of the debris from the hole in a scale; 5.
Clean the metal box with an adequate sponge; 6. Put the
weighed debris in the metal box; 7. Add calcium carbide
to this mix; 8. Close the box and wait for the chemical
reaction between the two components; 9. Check the
pressure inside the box on the screen of the manometer;
10. Correlate the pressure increase with the percentage
of damp in the sample; 11.Repair the hole with mortar
T-D1 – Salt 1. Provoke the reaction between an efflorescence and a
identification set of pure and highly reactive agents (selected in
accordance with the observed characteristics of the
salts); 2. Measure the intensity of the colour, which
results from the reaction, on the screen of the
spectrophotometer; 3. Relate the result to the type of
salt observed on the IGP surface
T-I1 – Pull-off test 1. Core the IGP all the way to the substrate with a
circular shape like the metal piece (a 50 mm diameter
disk); 2. Glue the disk to the IGP surface; 3. Apply a force
perpendicular to the wall plane, using the test
equipment coupled to the disk, measured with a
dynamometer; 4. Determine the tension (N/mm2)
needed to pull-off and record the rupture mode
T-J1 – Percussion 1. Hit the IGP surface with the rubber hammer: a hollow,
test reverberant, low frequency sound (low in pitch) reveals
a low adhesion between the substrate and the covering;
a solid, high frequency, clean sound is a sign of total
contact; 2. Use tape to mark with a cross the areas where
IGP has low adhesion
T-J2 – Infrared 1. Heat the IGP surface with projectors with adequate
thermography light power before doing the test; 2. Observe the
thermographic images through the camera; 3. Mark
with a cross the areas where hollows, fissures, entrance
of water or other discontinuities are observed; 4. Keep
the video recording of the inspection for future
confirmation or interpretation
T-J3 – Ultrasound 1. Connect the transducers to the IGP surface; 2. Apply a
test compression impulse using the piezoelectric ceramic
transmitter; 3. Look at the screen to confirm the
measurement of the signal received; 4. Correlate the
velocity of propagation of the sound wave with the
physical and mechanical characteristics of the IGP, i.e.
the modulus of elasticity and the compressive strength
the defect D-C3.1 – adhesion failure – detachment (the methods
with a high correlation are underlined).
3.1.2. Diagnosis method files
Individual files for the diagnosis methods of defects in IGP were
built from the data described earlier. The diagnosis method files
contain the following information: number of file; aim of the
method; equipment needs; procedure; advantages and limitations.
Table 8 provides an example of a diagnosis method file for method
T-A1 – temperature measurement (superficial and/or environmen-
tal) which includes all the information described above.
3.2. Repair techniques
The importance of building rehabilitation has been increasingly
recognized in Portugal, mainly due to a reduction of available land
2153
Table 8
Test file T-A1 – temperature measurement (surface and/or environmental – humidity)
[17].
TEST FILE T-A1
Designation Temperature measurement (surface and/or environmental)
Equipment Thermometer or portable thermo-hygrometer
Procedure 1. Place the equipment over the IGP surface; 2. Read the value
on the screen; 3. Repeat the measurement over different points
of the surface; 4. Measure the humidity on the frontiers of the
covering
Advantages Fast method, with an easy interpretation of data and a
satisfactory precision
Limitations Nothing noteworthy
Objectives Measurement of the temperature in IGP surface and/or
environmental temperature
for new construction. Thus, the need to systematize the repair tech-
niques of all kinds of coatings, and particularly IGP, is also greater
than ever. This paper only covers current buildings whose architec-
tural or historic value is not significant. The repair techniques of tra-
ditional or old gypsum plasters are thus not a priority here since
they have already been described in papers prepared by the same
research team [1,2]. Within the inspection programme, repair tech-
niques were prescribed (but not actually used) for the defects iden-
tified in the inspections. Nevertheless, it was possible to confirm the
completeness of the classification system of repair techniques and
their interrelations with defects. This inspection system module
was built based on existing literature [1,2,4,13,23,32–34].
3.2.1. Classification of repair techniques
Next, the classification of repair and maintenance work under-
taken on defects in IGP is presented. This classification includes
three types of techniques [32]: curative repair techniques (cr), pre-
ventive repair techniques (pr) and maintenance works (m). Cura-
tive repair techniques warrant the repair, elimination or covering
up of the defects, and may amount to the rehabilitation or the par-
tial or complete replacement of the IGP [32]. Preventive repair
techniques are required to eliminate the cause of the defect but
they may not help to eliminate the defect itself. Maintenance
works are periodic interventions designed to prevent or correct
low-level degradation problems in the building so that it fulfils
its service life without loss of performance (or at least meets min-
imum quality demands) [16]. These techniques were divided into
four groups, corresponding to interventions in one of the elements
of the IGP (R-A – IGP surface or R-B – Finishing layer), in the whole
IGP (R-C – IGP) or in the surface between the IGP and its substrate
(R-D – Interface substrate-IGP) (Table 9).
Table 9
Classification of repair techniques for IGP [16].
Code Repair technique
R-A IGP SURFACE
R-A1 IGP cleaning (rc/m)
R-A2 Application of fungicide (rp/rc)
R-B IGP FINISHING LAYER
R-B1 Repair of fissures (rc)
R-B2 Application of a thin finishing layer over the IGP (rc)
R-C IGP
R-C1 IGP replacement (rc)
R-C2 Insertion of a grid within the plaster layers (rc)
R-C3 Protection of protruding corners (rp/rc)
R-C4 Application of fungicide inside the IGP (rp/rc)
R-C5 Removal/replacement of corroded metallic
elements and repair of IGP (rp/rc)
R-C6 Local strengthening of IGP with staples (rc)
R-D INTERFACE SUBSTRATE-IGP
R-D1 Local disconnection of the covering (rc)
2154 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156

3.2.2. Defects/repair techniques correlation matrix
The correlation matrix for defects and repair techniques is pre-
sented in Table 10. It was first built using theoretical values gath-
ered from the literature. Then, during the inspection programme
that validated the inspection procedure, some theoretical correla-
tion degrees in the matrix were changed (those underlined in Table
10) and the remaining were confirmed. At the intersection of each
row (representing a defect) with each column (representing a re-
pair technique), the correlation index is inserted according to crite-
ria similar to those used for the diagnosis methods.
Table 11 shows an example of a relationship between defects
and repair techniques in IGP. This table includes the curative and
preventive repair techniques that may be used in interventions
in defect D-C1 – bio-deterioration (the techniques with a high cor-
relation are underlined).
3.2.3. Repair files
Each repair technique has generated a repair file [5,7,32], which
contains the following data: number and name of the repair tech-
nique (in accordance with Table 9); part of IGP to which the repair
technique is applied; characteristics of the materials to be applied;
procedure (with the operations in chronological order, their execu-
tion depending on the causes and extent of the defect and on the
simultaneous occurrence of other defects); estimated labour (and

Table 10
Defects/repair techniques correlation matrix [16].

D/R R-A1 R-A2 R-B1 R-B2 R-C1 R-C2 R-C3 R-C4 R-C5 R-C6 R-D1
D-P1 j
D-P2 j _ h
D-C1 h j h j
D-C2 j _ j h
D-C3.1 j h
D-C3.2 h j h
D-C3.3 h j h
D-M1.1 _ j h
D- M1.2 h h h j j
D- M1.3 h h h h h h h
D- M2 h j h j
D- M3 j h h

Notes: Each defect has an acronym: a D (for ‘defect’) plus a hyphen and the group reference – P for Physical, C for Chemical and M for Mechanical – and a sequential number
(see Table 1). Each repair technique has an acronym: an R (for ‘repair’) plus a hyphen, the group reference (A or B) and a sequential number – see Table 9. In this table, ‘h’
represents ‘low correlation’, ‘j’ represents ‘high correlation’ and ‘_’, ‘h’ or ‘j’ represent a theoretical correlation degree that was changed after on-site validation.

Table 11
Repair techniques appropriate for defect D-C1 – bio-deterioration [16].

Defect – Repair techniques correlation file: Defect D-C1

Repair techniques Procedure
R-A1 – IGP cleaning Rooms badly ventilated and with high humidity – 1. Wet the
surface with solution of water and 10% bleach; 2. Gently brush
the affected area with a cotton compress moistened in the same
solution; 3. Clean with water; 4. Thoroughly dry the surface
R-A2 – Application Apply fungicidal paint – 1. Wet the surface with water and a
of fungicide solution with 10% bleach; 2. Gently brush the affected area with
a cotton compress moistened in the same solution; 3. Clean
with water; 4. Thoroughly dry the surface; 5. Paint the whole
surface with a paint with fungicidal characteristics
R-B2 – Application 1. Scratch the surface; 2. Apply a sterilizing and toxic cleaning
of a thin finishing solution; 3. Dry the surface for an entire week; 4. Apply a thin
layer over the IGP finishing layer over the IGP; 5. Final layer of paint
R-C4 – Application 1. Remove the entire covering all the way to the substrate; 2.
of fungicide Prepare the substrate surface and apply a primer (to promote
inside the IGP adhesion) over it, if needed; 3. Apply the gypsum plaster over
the substrate; 4. Add the appropriate quantity of fungicide
admixture to the finishing layer preparation; 5. Apply the
finishing layer; 6. Final layer of paint
Cost Expected result
estimation
2.5 €/m2 It is possible to eliminate the defect with this repair solution if
the fungus proliferation is just superficial
2.5 €/m2 This technique is adequate when the defect is not stabilized and
the condensation continues to occur. It is possible to eliminate
the defect with this repair solution if the fungus proliferation is
just superficial
8.0 €/m2 This technique eliminates the defect and ensures uniform
finish. But it should only be used when the defect is stabilized
and does not go beyond the finishing layer
14.0 €/m2 This technique ensures the same results as the previous one (R-
B2) but is more invasive and expensive. It should only be
applied when bio-deterioration has led to the irreversible
degradation of IGP

Table 12
Repair file R-A2 – application of fungicide to IGP surface [16].

REPAIR FILE R-A2 – APPLICATION OF FUNGICIDE ON THE IGP SURFACE

DESIGNATION: application of fungicide to the IGP surface
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MATERIALS: (a) fungicide solution for superficial application and bleach; (b) paint with fungicide characteristics and bleach
WORK DESCRIPTION: (a) 1. Wet the surface with solution of water and 10% bleach; 2. Clean with water; 3. Thoroughly dry the surface; 4. Apply a fungicide solution by
manual spraying (in fragile areas) or by brushing; 5. Remove by brushing off the fungicide solution three days after application; 6. Final layer of paint; (b) 1. Wet the
surface with solution of water and 10% bleach; 2. Clean with water; 3. Thoroughly dry the surface; 4. Paint the whole surface with a fungicidal paint
LABOUR AND EXECUTION TIME ESTIMATED: Cleaning and protection of 15 m2 of covering = 1 man  1 h
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: Sponge, paintbrush, brush, stepladder (for ceilings)
ESTIMATED COST: Cleaning: 1 €/(m2  number of layers); Fungicidal paint 1 €/(m2  number of layers)
OBSERVATIONS: Fungicide solution has limited effect and only delays the appearance of defects if the relevant causes are not eliminated
 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156 2155

corresponding area of specialization), equipment and amount of
time and money required for execution (to provide information
to the decision-makers); expected results (repair of defects, elimi-
nation of causes and improvement of IGP performance); problems
related to the technique such as special precautions or disadvan-
tages. Table 12 presents an example of a repair file for a preventive
technique R-A2 (Application of fungicide in an IGP surface), which
includes all the fields described.
4. Defect file
After the classification and characterization of the most impor-
tant defects that may occur in IGP and the presentation of their
correlation with their probable causes, the information related to
each defect is summarized in individual defect files. The format
and content of defect files are based on previous work by the same
research team [5,7,9,32] and contain the following data: heading
with the defect name and designation (in accordance with Table
1); a short characterization of its pathological effects; its probable
causes (in accordance with the defects/probable causes correlation
matrix; near causes are underlined); possible consequences of the
defect, such as other defects; items to be checked (important for
diagnosis); diagnosis methods to be applied in-situ to characterize
the extent, severity and stability of the defect (in accordance with
Table 5; methods with high correlation are underlined); classifica-
tion parameters (which may result from the application of diagno-
sis methods and allow checking of the severity level of the defect);
severity level/repair urgency. Table 13 gives an example of a defect
file, corresponding to defect D-P1 (Excessive damp).
5. Conclusion
This paper presents a proposal of an expert system to support
the inspection and diagnosis of gypsum plasters applied to parti-
tion walls and ceilings (inner gypsum plasters – IGP). Because this
solution is used in almost all new and rehabilitated buildings, in
Portugal and in many countries namely in Europe and the Ameri-
cas, it must be carefully applied on-site and properly maintained
afterwards, since the non-compliance of these rules were found
to be among the most common causes of the defects. These con-
cerns are related to the high susceptibility of IGP to deteriorate un-
der the action of water/damp, one of the most common defects
found in the field campaign.
The expert system proposed in this paper can be included in a
proactive maintenance strategy because it is robust, reliable and
supported by a statistically significant validation work. Neverthe-
less, the size of the inspection programme can be extended to in-
clude more pathological situations in IGP, namely the ones that

Table 13
Defect file for D-P1 damp [17].

DEFECT FILE D-P1 – DAMP

DESCRIPTION: Excessive water within the IGP (internal or superficial) resulting in unsightly stains
PROBABLE CAUSES:
-Incorrect application of mandatory construction rules or standards (C-A1)
-Problems in the ventilation system (C-A2; C-C1; C-C2; C-C5)
-Problems in the waterproofing system (C-A3; C-C1; C-C2; C-C4; C-C6)
-Problems in the drainage system (C-A4; C-C1; C-C2; C-C3)
-Non-compliance with the conditions demanded from the substrate when the IGP was applied
(C-A6; C-A9; C-A10; C-B1; C-C23)
-Disregard of instructions for mixing quantities and procedures (C-C2; C-C8; C-C17; C-C18; C-C23; C-C24)
-Application of inappropriate paint over the IGP (C-A9; C-B1; C-C1; C-C22; C-C23)
-Excessive humidity/production of water vapour (C-E4; C-F1)
-Superficial or air temperature near/equal to dew point (C-E2)
-Lack of conservation/maintenance works (C-F2)
-Excessive or incorrect cleaning of IGP (C-F3)
-Change of the original field of application of the IGP (C-F4)
-Pipe rupture or water penetration (C-F6)
POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES -Efflorescence/crypto-florescence
-Aesthetic aspect affected -Adhesion failure or IGP disaggregation
-Development of fungus and mould
ITEMS TO BE CHECKED: -Double wall (Y/N)
-Interior/interior wall and/or interior/exterior wall -Frequent cleaning (Y/N)
-Type of substrate -Cleaning products
-Water entrance (Y/N) -Common use of the room affected
-Damp around the defect (Y/N) -Characteristics of the finishing layer
-Excessive production of water vapour (Y/N) -Affected area: (...) %
-Insufficient ventilation (Y/N)
TESTS TO BE PERFORMED:
-Temperature measurement (surface and/or environmental)(T-A1)
-Damp measurement (superficial and/or environmental – humidity) (T-B1)
-Measurement of interior damp (T-B2)
-Test of water absorption over low pressure (T-C1)
-Infrared thermography (T-J2)
-Ultrasound test (T-J3)
RATING PARAMETERS:
-Aesthetic rating of the area affected (L-low; A-average; H-high)
-Conditions for the degradation to proceed (Y/N)
-Affected area: (. . .) %
REPAIR URGENCY:
0 – Affected area >15% or with high aesthetic value
1 – Local problem with no conditions that favour the progression of the degradation
REPAIR SOLUTIONS:
R-A1 – IGP cleaning (rc/m)
2156 A. Pereira et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2146–2156
were found just a few times in the sample. Finally, the systematic
approach used in the construction of this inspection system is
innovative and can help the in-situ inspector in making its activi-
ties more objective and, at the same time, standardizing its
procedures.
Defects in IGP can be prevented/minimized through adequate
building management. This should include the development and
implementation of plans for proactive maintenance that take into
account technical (adequate maintenance and repair solutions,
including materials and execution techniques), economic (to min-
imize running costs) and functional (adequate use) parameters.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the ICIST
Research Institute, IST, Technical University of Lisbon and of the
FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology).
References
[1] Cotrim H, Veiga MR, de Brito J. Methodology for the rehabilitation of ancient
gypsum plasterwork. J Build Appraisal 2007;3(3):195–212.
[2] Cotrim H, Veiga MR, de Brito J, Freixo Palace. Rehabilitation of decorative
gypsum plasters. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(1):41–9.
[3] Freire T, Silva AS, Veiga MR, de Brito J. Characterization of Portuguese historical
gypsum mortars: a comparison between two case studies. Mater Sci Forum
2010;636–637(2):1258–65.
[4] Silveira P, Veiga MR. De Brito Jorge gypsum coatings in ancient buildings.
Constr Build Mater 2007;21(1):126–31.
[5] Branco FA, de Brito J. Handbook of concrete bridge management. Reston (VA,
USA): ASCE Press; 2004. 468 p.
[6] Gaião C, de Brito J, Silvestre JD. Inspection and diagnosis of gypsum
plasterboard walls. J Perform Constr Facil, in press [21.06.2010].
[7] Garcia J, de Brito J. Inspection and diagnosis of epoxy resin industrial floor
coatings. J Mater Civil Eng, ASCE 2008;20(2):128–36.
[8] Silvestre JD, de Brito J. Ceramic tiling inspection system. Constr Build Mater
2009;23(2):653–68.
[9] Walter A, de Brito J, Grandão Lopes J. Current flat roof bituminous membranes
waterproofing systems – inspection, diagnosis and pathology classification.
Constr Build Mater 2005;19(3):233–42.
[10] EN 13279-2 Gypsum binders and gypsum plasters – Part 2: Test methods.
Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium; 2004.
[11] EN 13279-1 Gypsum binders and gypsum plasters – Part 1: Definitions and
requirements. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium; 2005.
[12] Dias T. Salt crystallization in plastered or rendered walls. PhD Thesis in Civil
Engineering at Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon,
Portugal, 2007.
[13] Veneer plaster systems. 12th ed., Gypsum Construction Guide, National
Gypsum; 2008, 14 p.
[14] Rodrigues J, Gonçalves T, Luxán M, Vergès-Belmin V, Wijffels T, Lubelli B. A
proposal for classification of salt crystallisation behaviour of plasters and
renders. COMPASS end-report; 2005.
[15] Vergès-Belmin V, Wijffels T, Gonçalves T, Nasraoui M. The COMPASS salt
crystallization test (COMPASS-TEST) as way to Fig. out how salts migrate and
accumulate in renovation plasters. COMPASS end-report; 2005.
[16] Palha F. Technology and rehabilitation of gypsum plasters in partition walls (in
Portuguese). Masters Thesis in Civil Engineering at Instituto Superior Técnico,
Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal; 2008. 150 p.
[17] Pereira A. System for inspection and diagnosis of gypsum plasters in partition
walls (in Portuguese). Masters Thesis in Civil Engineering at Instituto Superior
Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal; 2008. 112 p.
[18] Arnold A., Zehnder K. Monitoring wall paintings affected by soluble salts. The
conservation of wall paintings. In: Sharon Cather editor. Symposium organized
by the Courtauld Institute of Art and the Getty Conservation Institute, London
1987. p. 103–35.
[19] Carrio J. Pathology of external walls and architectonic coverings (in Spanish).
Department of Construction and Architectural Technology – UPM, Munilla-
Lería, Madrid, Spain; 2000.
[20] Charola E. Salts in deterioration of porous materials: an overview. J Am Inst
Conserv 2000:327–43.
[21] Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de Madrid Pathology, conservation and
rehabilitation of buildings (in Spanish). Vols. 1, 3 and 4, Madrid, Spain; 1991.
[22] Goudie A, Viles H. Salt weathering hazard. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons;
1997.
[23] Henriques F. Action of moisture in walls: types of defects quantification
criteria and repair solutions. PhD Thesis in Civil Engineering at Instituto
Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal; 1992.
[24] Magalhães A, Veiga R. Physical and mechanical characterization of historic
mortars. Application to the evaluation of the state of conservation. Mater
Constr 2009;59(295):61–77.
[25] Pühringer J. Salt disintegration, salt migration and degradation by salt – a
hypothesis. Swedish Council for Building Research, Document D15; 1983.
[26] Sabbatini FH. Technology of execution of mortar coverings (in Portuguese). In:
13th Symposium on application of concrete technology, São Paulo, Brazil;
1990. p. 1–24.
[27] Veiga MR. Specialization course on wall coatings (in Portuguese). National
Laboratory Civil Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal; 1995.
[28] Fernandes F. Evaluation of two novel NDT techniques: micro-drilling of clay
bricks and ground penetrating radar in masonry. PhD Thesis in Civil
Engineering, Minho University, Guimarães, Portugal; 2006.
[29] Flores-Colen I, de Brito J, Freitas VP. Expected rendering performance based on
in-field assessment – impact resistance. Constr Build Mater
2009;23(9):2997–3004.
[30] Rodrigues J, Costa D. A new method for data correction in drill resistance test
for the effect of drill bit wear. Int J Restor 2004;10(3):1–18.
[31] Vallens K, Bescher E, Mackenzie JD, Rice EA. New technique for the
measurement of the impact resistance of wall coatings. Cement Concrete
Res 2001;31(6):965–8.
[32] Silvestre JD, de Brito J. Inspection and repair of ceramic tiling within a building
management system. J Mater Civil Eng 2010;22(1):39–48.
[33] Freedland J, Charola E. Salts in ceramic bodies III. An experimental study on
desalination. Int J Restor Build Monuments, Zurich 2001;1:149–60.
[34] Veneer Plaster. Gypsum Association-151.97. Washington DC; 1997, 8 p.