Tool For Facade Inspection Traceability

TOOL FOR FACADE INSPECTION TRACEABILITY

Building inspection and condition assessments have been deemed as an essential measure to preserve the functionality and integrity of buildings. The exposure of façades experiencing adverse outdoor environmental conditions catalysis the degradation.

The number of requests for building façades inspections has increased considerably in Miami in recent years. The cause of this increment is due to a number of factors amongst possible others. The factors are as follows; (1) The increase in meteorological events such as tropical storms and hurricanes; (2) The reduction of the building recertification period; (3) The increase in litigations due to alleged construction defects. These factors are some of the reasons that have triggered the demand for façade condition assessments.

Each inspection generates a high volume of information that must be processed, analyzed and presented in the shortest time to satisfy the demand of knowledgeable Architects and Engineers. The results of these inspections must be presented in a clear and concise manner to the people who must make decisions on how to react to the problems and deficiencies detected. The practitioner who provides the service must inform the construction team that will restore the work in a clear and detailed way.

The use of information and computing technologies has extended to all areas of human life in the last 30 years. These technologies have revolutionized everything from Communications to the most every day activities of human beings, construction is not exempt from this. The amount of software that facilitates and speeds up the inspection and reporting process in the field of building inspections is increasing, which includes façade components.

The cost of these software, added to the need for training of technical personnel, makes their use limited for small companies who have extensive experience in the inspection and evaluation of facades. Instead, software offered by Microsoft at a low cost and a basic level of training are available to everyone and are used daily without taking advantage of all the capabilities they provide. The most used examples in the daily work of inspectors are Microsoft Word (MSW) and Microsoft Excel (MSE), but additional useful tools such as Microsoft Project (MSP) and Microsoft Access (MSA) should also be considered.

The good news is a simple method of facade inspection and assessment has been developed and has been in use for +18 years. The method consists of the identification, classification, evaluation and location of all defects on the façade of a building. The procedure consists of the identification and unequivocal location of each of the nonconformities (Items). Each Item is classified based on the magnitude of the damage and/or its condition. Once the Item has been identified and classified according to its nature, an associated criterion is issued for its magnitude according to the standards and best practices of construction.

In response to growing demand for inspections of facades and other building components, companies can implement this simple method using Microsoft Access Databases. Using this tool for managing information from facade inspections has reduced data processing and analysis time, boosted utilization of human technical resources, and sped up the company's response time from receiving inspection requests to delivering results to clients.

Utilizing MS Access as an affordable and user-friendly computer tool, while maintaining high standards in information management, has facilitated the integration of a new concept into the facade inspection process: Traceability.

The purpose of this aid is to develop an unbiased and standardized building inspection system, incorporating MS Access databases to manage the information collected during inspections.

Methodology

The following outlines a straightforward approach for inspecting buildings, combining accumulated knowledge from years of experience with MS Access database software, so that a more efficient tool for facade inspections may be utilized. The method consists of 7 Steps (i.e., refer to Figure No. 1).

Step 1. Documentation Review.

This step involves receiving all information provided by the customer, who could be a contractor, the building management company, a law firm, or the building owner. All the documents received are reviewed, classified and cataloged as Tabs of the future Report. In addition, a preliminary set of drawings is prepared to be used during the preliminary inspection. The quantity and quality (in terms of information provided) of the initial documentation is going to determine the necessity or not of the Preliminary Inspection (Step 2). ASTM 2128, titled "Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls," Section 6 offers guidance on conducting documentation reviews and lists some of the documents that may be necessary during this phase.

Step 2. Preliminary Inspection

The Preliminary Inspection must complement and extend the information gathered from the initial review of the documents. The decision to conduct a preliminary inspection depends on factors such as the nature of the inspection request, the complexity of the facade system, and the severity of damages. Following the Documentation Review and Preliminary Inspection, it is necessary to establish the objectives for the facade inspection and formulate an initial hypothesis, which should be included in the Inspection Protocol.

Step 3. Inspection Protocol.

The Inspection Protocol is crucial for a successful Façade Inspection. This document needs to be written in a clear and concise manner. It should outline the specific objective(s) to be achieved during the building inspection, focusing on the root causes that prompted the inspection. These objectives should align with the project's scale, budget, and customer expectations. The Inspection Protocol must be established before the inspection and refined as data collection progresses during the fieldwork.

Step 4. Façade Inspection(s)

The inspection of the façade involves examining specific elements of both the building envelope and critical interior components that could impact the façade's anticipated performance. It's important to interview occupants, building maintenance staff, and contractors who have firsthand experience with the façade's performance. These interviews provide valuable insights into how the façade elements are functioning. During Step 4 of the process, inspectors should meticulously document all relevant information. This includes recording details such as the precise location of anomalies or defects, capturing both macro and micro photos of these issues, noting elevations, and any other evidence necessary for tracking findings during the inspection.

Deficiencies identified during the inspection are catalogued based on their significance and urgency. Each identified issue is assessed for its magnitude and time sensitivity. The urgency of repair, restoration, or replacement depends on factors like how much time has passed since the issue was discovered, the likelihood of further deterioration, and the urgency of restoring the deficiency. Failure to address these issues promptly can lead to worsening problems over time. Severity of deficiencies is determined after reviewing available documents and examining photographic records.

A number of different criteria may be used to select the information for this summary. Such as: repetitive nature of defects and omissions, extent to remedy these defects, lack of performance of the assembly, potential lack of performance of the assembly, stage of deterioration due to aging. All Observations are referenced to viewing the building from the exterior.

The Observations are divided into three columns. It lists an item for each condition that has become a focus of concern. The type of problem (i.e., omission, and defect) and stage of resolution is covered under status/condition. The condition and remedial options for each item described in this schedule are assigned an action code. This code is intended to describe and establish the severity of the problems observed. The building systems installed are either accepted or rejected. Work that is acceptable includes ongoing tasks and incomplete work that seems to be in satisfactory condition. Work rejected requires repair, completion, correction or additional information. Condemned work must be removed and corrected, along with any work damaged by the correction process. Additionally, work that is not required but is considered prudent and necessary is strongly recommended in this schedule.

Step 5. Information Data Entry

The Information Data is assisted by the database created in the Microsoft Access tool. The database is created to facilitate the tabulation of the data with a friendly inter-face. The database formulary facilitates the tabulation of the data gathered during the inspections and the classification of deficiencies according to its nature, time sensitivity and severity (i.e., refer to Figure No. 2). The use of a MS Access formulary decreases the time that Architects and Engineers spend in the data entry of the information collected. Technicians with knowledge and training are in charge of the fulfillment of each field value in the database. The field notes must be reflected in the paper, drawings or tablet in a clear manner by the inspector.

The database creation process should be tailored specifically to the unique requirements of each project or investigation. The objectives guiding the design of the database structure are directly influenced by the specific focus and goals of the research being conducted. For example, in the case of the research represented in Figure No. 2, the research objective was to determine the causes of water damage in a townhouse association and whether those causes were related to the occurrence of a hurricane.

During the planning of the research, it was determined that the driving model of the study would be each of the places where a deficiency would be detected. For this reason, each location was assigned a unique identifier. This locator number, referred to as the 'Specific Location', served as the primary means of tracing and tracking the investigation.

Utilizing codes and pre-established deficiencies typical in facades or facade components (e.g., glazing system, stucco, curtain wall) is beneficial for consolidating information. One company developed the use of 21 data points with the must common deficiencies/damages that can be found in glazing systems (i.e., refer to Figure No. 3). The Preliminary Inspection (Step 2) is usually useful to determine the repetitive pattern of deficiencies prior the final inspection(s). Using lookup fields in the database, with a preconceived list of values, displays a list where the data entry technician can choose from (i.e., the list of 21 common deficiencies in glazing systems). This feature is an efficient method for data entry.

Let's consider the previous example of investigating damage inflicted by a hurricane on a structure/facade. The use of codes allows grouping, counting and classifying those deficiencies that could be pre-existing and those caused by the effects of strong winds and rain. An analysis of these two groups of elements can help understand the magnitude of the damage, as well as the causes.

MS Access offers a distinct advantage in that through its Query modules, groupings based on the established codes can be swiftly generated. The simplicity of the programming based on the investigative questions provides speed to the process of formulating results.

The required fields in the database can be classified in three groups. The three groups are as follows;

Group No. 1 Location

Group No. 2 Technical Evaluation

Group No. 3 Supporting information, technical evidence

The fields in Group No. 1 are those that allow the identification of the position of every item/deficiency in unequivocal manner from the macro location (i.e., Building, Floor, Elevation, and Stratification) to the micro location (i.e., Specific Specimen, and Specific Area). The use of fields in Group No. 1 are useful to identify a pattern/s in the damages discovered. For example, glazing damages caused by a hurricane in two or more exposed elevations to the windward or leeward winds can be derived from the information obtained. A source/s can be distinguished from other possible respondent assemblies based on a pattern that is discovered between cladding and glazing.

The fields in Group No. 2 are those that describe and classify each item according its nature, magnitude, and time sensitivity. The combination of three factors allows you to identify and establish priorities during the phase of corrective work after the completion of the inspections of the facade elements. An example might be: there are seven categories to classify each item/deficiency and each category can be assigned one of six time periods to be addressed. The combination of the damage categories with the time sensitivity classes allows the tracing of subsequent strategies. The description of these categories are as follows:

The magnitude of the damage and/or condition was categorized. The damage and condition of the specific location was classified into six descriptions (the descriptions are abbreviated).

Acronym Description

CON Condemned

USC Unsafe Structure/ Condition

DEF Defects/Deficiencies

OM Omission/Error

WIP Work in progress

IW Incomplete Work

NWT Normal Wear & Tear

Duration between the discovery of an item and the action required. The time sensitivity of the damaged condition is related to the required time to solve the problems. The description for the required time to perform repairs, demolition and construction, improvements and other recommendations in the allotted time described is as follows:

Acronym Description

U Urgent: Immediate & Not to exceed 72 hours

TC Time Critical: Maximum 6 months

TP Top Priority: From 6 months to 12 months

IMP Important: From 12 months to 18 months

PR Phased Replacement: From 18 to 24 months

NO No Action Necessary to Structure

Acronyms associated to time sensitivity are accompanied by a Numerical Sub-Category that emphasizes the extent of the damage and the urgency to perform the corrected work and take all the required actions to protect life, safety and welfare. The Sub-Categories are as follows:

1 Severe

2 Moderate

3 De minimis

The fields in Group No. 3 allows the verification (e.g., traceability) of the information gathered during the inspections. The field references for each item for the supporting data within the work in progress (i.e., Photographic Record, floor plans, etc.) will be demonstrated in the final draft of the report.

These classifications, with minimal variations, are commonly used by investigators during inspections. This paper suggests tabulating and managing the information using databases. As explained before, the database design must be kept as part of the research design. The simplicity and generalized mastery of the MS Access program allows the creation of a database tailored to the needs of each project.

Step 6. Technical Analysis

The combination of the three groups of data entry fields covers about 95% of the information gathered during the inspection in a simple and consolidated manner. The results of the compilation of the data in this way, allows others to audit the inspector’s findings. The proposed method implicitly introduces a new concept in the construction industry that can be audited.

Traceability, typically associated with metrology, logistics and interlaboratory research can also be applied to facade inspections. In this context, traceability refers to the ability to track the quantity of a discovery made during the research conducted. The proposed method enables easy verification of the information provided by the inspectors. Other companies and interested parties are able to verify assigned criterion to each item by accessing the location and/or through the photos provided. The Figure No. 4 illustrates an example of traceability of the information in the use of MS Access database. The items that appear inside the blue ellipses for each of the line items link a specific specimen (i.e., B1 and B2) with the floor plant for their location.

An investigator, contractor or building manager can identify each type of data entry and corroborate its accuracy by just following the information contained in the database (i.e., refer to Figure No. 5).

The use of the MS Access database simplifies the consolidation and understanding of the information contained by the use of queries. The query module of the MS Access program is easy to program by the forensic investigator. Figures No. 6 illustrates a consolidated table of the same example shown in Figures Nos. 3 through 5. Figure No. 7 Illustrates a graph obtained after the consolidation of the data.

After coding and inputting all the gathered inspection data into the database, the information is analyzed. Researchers utilize tools from the Module enabling the creation of MS Access queries. The researcher has the option, through simple commands, to group the information and analyze the evidence from different perspectives to reach the correct conclusions.

The Figures Nos. 5 and 6 are examples of how the different categories can be grouped according to the investigative needs and from the execution of simple commands of the MS Access program. Figure No. 7 exemplifies how the consolidation of data can be presented in graphic form from the use of the "Report" tool offered in the software, or from the combination of the use of MS Access and MS Excel.

Conclusions

Thank you for allowing us to present a simple model to analyze and present inspection façade reports. This method, utilized by forensic inspectors for years, involves reporting and tracing all identified deficiencies during facade inspections. It relies on databases to identify each deficiency and link all necessary information for further preparation.

The MS Access Database facilitates the classification of the deficiencies according to the severity of the defect and the time required for it to be resolved. The simplicity of the software’s interface accelerates the data entry and the management of the information. The database software responds to these questions: What (what is the deficiency?), Where (where is it precisely located in the facade?), When (required time for repair?).

This tool offers detailed and measurable information, allowing for its extraction and utilization as the foundation for conclusions in scientific reports. Quantifiable items can be extrapolated and or interpolated to support the visual opinions of forensic engineers and architects.