The Influence of Pathological Situations on Churches’Functionality:An Approach Based on Historical Records

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarc20 International Journal of Architectural Heritage Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration ISSN: 1558-3058 (Print) 1558-3066 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarc20 The Influence of Pathological Situations on Churches’ Functionality: An Approach Based on Historical Records A. J. Prieto, A. Silva, J. de Brito, J. M. Macías-Bernal & F. J. Alejandre To cite this article: A. J. Prieto, A. Silva, J. de Brito, J. M. Macías-Bernal & F. J. Alejandre (2017) The Influence of Pathological Situations on Churches’ Functionality: An Approach Based on Historical Records, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 11:4, 566-587, DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2016.1272011 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2016.1272011 Published online: 21 Feb 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 366 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 8 View citing articles The Influence of Pathological Situations on Churches’Functionality: An Approach Based on Historical Records A. J. Prieto a , A. Silva b , J. de Brito b , J. M. Macías-Bernal c , and F. J. Alejandre c a Department of Arquitetural Construction, ETSIE-University of Seville, Seville, Spain; b CERIS-ICIST, Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georresources, IST - Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal; c Department of Architectural Construction II, ETSIE - University of Seville, Seville, Spain ABSTRACT This study identifies the main anomalies that may occur in historical buildings, analyzing their related causes, and estimating the influence of pathological situations on the buildings’functionality. This information is essential to support qualified, conscientious, and sustainable rehabilitation interventions on sets of heritage buildings with homogeneous constructive characteristics. A fuzzy expert system was used to estimate the serviceability of buildings, performed based on historical records, over a long period of time, evaluating the influence of the pathological situations to establish the rehabilitation actions. The methodology includes 17 variables, (vulnerabilities and external risks damages), which determine a functionality index of the constructions analyzed. The application of historical data allows knowing the past behavior and performance of the buildings. These data can provide useful information for the definition of preventive maintenance plans, considering financial, social, and environmental requirements and their more frequent anomalies. A total of 390 records in a sample of 20 parish churches located in southwestern Spain were gathered. This study discussed the effects of the most common anomalies observed in these buildings, concluding that controlling moisture and timber-related anomalies is crucial to ensure the building’s serviceability over time. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 06 October 2016 Accepted 10 December 2016 KEYWORDS anomalies; built heritage; diagnosis; pathology; serviceability 1. Introduction Currently, it has been estimated that 50% of all buildings’refurbishments in European cities are related, in some way, with the preservation of the built heritage (European Commission 2000; Vicente et al. 2015). Evaluating the degradation condition of buildings over time, as well as predicting their future performance, is essential to establish the necessary repairs and rehabilitation actions. In this sense, the maintenance of architectural heritage buildings requires methods, strategies and efficient plans (Vicente, Ferreira, and da Silva 2015). The knowledge on past renewal and renovation processes on buildings, including the identification of the deterioration processes, main anomalies and probable causes that lead to the intervention, should be the basis of the definition of maintenance plans and strategies. As mentioned by Talon et al. (2005), to improve the design and management of buildings, it is essential to know “how”and “when”the buildings will be degraded or will fail, which allows knowing “how”,“when”, and “which”component should be intervened. Within this context, and considering the investment required for the maintenance and repair of the built heritage, it is essential to define, validate, and disseminate tools that may be useful to planning an appropriate maintenance strategy for architectural heritage (Neto and de Brito 2012). Therefore, this study intends to present an innovative contribution in the analysis of historical data of built heritage, evaluating the influence of pathological situations on the functionality of the buildings’over time. Consequently, this study correlates the physical condition of the buildings (through the identification of the anomalies observed and the buildings’physical degradation) with the functional obsolescence of the buildings (based on the definition of a numerical index, obtained through an expert survey). In this approach, 20 parish churches located in Seville were studied. The effects of different types of anomalies in some buildings are liable to considerably decrease their performance, compromising their ability to fulfil the functional requirements. Thus, this study identifies the most relevant anomalies to the loss of functional performance of the churches analyzed, as well as their relevance to establish repair and rehabilitation actions. CONTACT A. Silva, post-doctoral researcher [email protected] CERIS-ICIST, Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georresources, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) - Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal. Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uarc. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 2017, VOL. 11, NO. 4, 566–587 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2016.1272011 © 2017 Taylor & Francis 2. Buildings’degradation During their service life, buildings must comply with an assortment of demands that can be grouped as: functional; environmental; economic; legal; users’requirements; among others (Watt 2009). Inevitably, all buildings experience a deterioration process, starting from the instant they are built (Gaspar and de Brito 2005), which is not necessarily the result of design or execution defects. As a matter of fact, as mentioned by Rodrigues, Teixeira, and Cardoso (2011), the deterioration mechanisms are the consequence of the interaction of two independent variables: the building and the surrounding environment. In this decay process, the building progressively tends to fail in fulfilling the users’needs and expectations, which unavoidably lead to the end of the buildings service life, which usually occurs due to their physical degradation or their functional obsolescence, or a combination of these two situations (Gaspar and de Brito 2005). The evolution rate of anomalies in the earlier stage of the buildings’life cycle tends to apparently stabilize over time but accelerates again near the end of the service life (Silva, de Brito, and Gaspar 2016), due to the superimposition of more than one degradation mechanisms (Bordalo et al. 2011). In the last decades, several studies have been put forward related with the inspection, diagnosis, and rehabilitation of the buildings’envelope (Gaião, de Brito, and Silvestre 2012; Neto and de Brito 2012; Silvestre and de Brito 2011; Garcez et al. 2012a,b). However, this type of research is not common in cultural heritage buildings, since some anomalies are usually seen as patina. Nevertheless, currently, the presence of anomalies such as cracking or moisture stains, are not easily acceptable, being considered as pathological situations, instead of age-value (Ferreira and Maximo 2013). In reality, establishing a cause-effect relationship is a very complex task, given the variety of anomalies observed, which jeopardizes the determination and evaluation of the anomalies’causes based on their manifestations and consequences (Neto and de Brito 2012). In the built heritage, the most important causes of anomalies are related to the responses to physics and chemical actions, atmospherics agents and mechanical behavior of the material and components (Watt 2009). 2.1. Main built heritage anomalies To standardize the reports and inspection files in a sample of heritage buildings, it is essential to create a classification system of the anomalies that could occur in these buildings. The systematization of the anomalies detected in heritage buildings is based on an extensive literature review, characterizing the main maintenance source elements influenced by these anomalies: E1— masonry (Athmani et al. 2015; Lordsleem 2016); E2— timber elements (Delgado, de Brito, and Silvestre 2013); E3—Roofs (Walter, de Brito, and Grandão Lopes 2005; Garcez et al. 2012a;b); E4—foundations (Poulos 2016; Carretero-Ayuso, Moreno-Cansado, and Cuerda- Correa 2015); and E5—mortars and claddings (Flores- Colen, de Brito, and de Freitas 2008; Neto and de Brito 2012; Sá et al. 2014; Silvestre and de Brito 2009). As shown in Table 1, the main anomalies are organized in three groups: aesthetic (AA), which do not jeopardize the integrity of the building but strongly influence its visual appearance; associated with the presence of moisture (AH); and mechanical (AM), which are associated with the concentration of stresses (loads or displacements) that lead to the building’s degradation through their physical destruction (Sá et al. 2014). Figure 1 presents some examples of the anomalies observed on the cultural heritage analyzed. 2.2. Classification of probable causes of the anomalies This study does not intend to describe each cause exhaustively, since there are several causes for each anomaly considered. Instead the main causes are typified into generic groups. This classification comprises two main groups of causes: (i) direct, related with mechanical and environmental actions that lead to the occurrence of defects; and (ii) indirect, related to causes that need a direct cause to trigger the pathological process and comprising execution, and maintenance errors (Garcez et al. 2012a). All the possible causes (direct and indirect) of these anomalies (totalizing 31 causes) were then classified into five groups (Table 2): (a) design and execution errors (with the designation CA); (b) external mechanical actions (with the designation CB); (c) environmental actions (with the designation CC); and (d) use and maintenance actions (with the designation CD). 2.2.1. Design and execution errors Design and execution errors are responsible for a large number of pathological situations, mainly due to the result of unskilled workmanship and the subcontracting of the majority of construction works (Garcez et al. 2012a). Also, the inappropriate selection of the materials, their own vulnerability and consequently their poor in-use performance (Ahzahar et al. 2011; Delgado et al. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 567 2013) lead to the occurrence of a large number of anomalies. Chew, Tan, and Soemara (2004) refers that the selection of materials, in terms of their durability, is extremely relevant in order to control the occurrence of buildings’defect. 2.2.2. External mechanical actions External mechanical actions (CB1–CB8) include a great variety of causes, namely: impacts; vibrations; differential movements; shrinkage or swelling of elements; and accidental actions, such as vandalism. As mentioned by Table 1. Proposed classification of the main maintenance source elements of parish churches. Designation Element Group of anomalies Element Anomaly AA1 Aesthetic anomalies tScratches or wrinkles AA2 Aesthetic anomalies t, r, mc Stains/Color change/Discolouration AA3 Aesthetic anomalies r, mc Accumulation of debris and superficial dirt AH1 Anomalies associated with humidity t, r, mc Biological colonization, e.g., fungi or xylophage insects AH2 Anomalies associated with humidity t, mc Detachment/Loss of adherence AH3 Anomalies associated with humidity rCorrosion AH4 Anomalies associated with humidity m, mc Efflorescence/cryptoflorescence or carbonation AM1 Mechanical anomalies m, t, r, f, mc Cracking/fractures AM2 Mechanical anomalies m, t, r, mc Crumbling/Disintegration/Disaggregation AM3 Mechanical anomalies mCrushing AM4 Mechanical anomalies mBulging AM5 Mechanical anomalies mDegradation of the mechanical characteristics AM6 Mechanical anomalies mFailure to comply with thermal and acoustic requirements AM7 Mechanical anomalies tWarping, swelling, or other flatness deficiencies AM8 Mechanical anomalies t, r Broken or splintered elements/Spalling/Exfoliation AM9 Mechanical anomalies tRot AM10 Mechanical anomalies rMisalignment of cladding elements/Insufficient slope AM11 Mechanical anomalies fInsufficient structural sections AM12 Mechanical anomalies fDeformation and differential movements AM13 Mechanical anomalies fCollapse AM14 Mechanical anomalies rLack of downspouts and drain nozzles AM15 Mechanical anomalies rAbsence of fastening elements Note: m refers to masonry; tto the timber elements; rto roofs; fto foundations; and mc to mortars and claddings Figure 1. Examples of anomalies observed in the built heritage and its classification. 568 A. J. PRIETO ET AL. Delgado et al. (2013), depending on their severity, these actions can lead to cracking, breaking, or splintering of the timber elements. 2.2.3. Environmental actions Environmental actions (CC1–CC6) strongly influence the conservation state of buildings, being the main causes of anomalies in heritage buildings, especially the combined action of rain and wind, accelerating existing pathology. Strong winds can cause the detachment of cladding elements, especially in steep-pitched roofs, with incorrectly placed or degraded elements, or with unfastened elements (Guirguisa, Abd El-Aziz, and Nassief 2007; Pinto, Varum, and Ramos 2011). Moreover, the environmental actions are also responsible for colour changes in the external claddings (Garcez et al. 2012a). The severity of these actions depends on the degree of exposure of the buildings and their elements and the intensity of the individual actions. Solar radiation and other atmospheric agents are responsible for chemical changes on the buildings’elements, even though these changes do not jeopardize their mechanical properties. The rain action accelerates this degradation process (Delgado et al. 2013). In fact, the presence of moisture is known as a major cause if the advent of defects in buildings (around 76% of all the defects detected, according to a study performed by Almås et al. (2011)). According to Who (2009), the presence of damp is responsible for 75–80% of the building envelope’s defects. There are several ways for moisture to occur, such as: from materials applied wet; from migration through porous materials (e.g., rising damp); from condensation; due to hygroscopic phenomena; due to random causes (e.g., failure of water drainage systems); and in the majority of the cases, due to rainwater, which can penetrate in the building through discontinuities in walls, floors, roofs, windows, and doors (Kubba 2008). In timber elements, common in churches, the occurrence of moisture also affects the buildings durability and usually causes irreversible changes in their mechanical strength (Nunes and Cruz 2003). This group of anomalies also include biological actions such as the establishment of microorganisms (algae, moss, fungi, lichen, among others), the attack of xylophages and insects, the growth of parasitic vegetation (miscellaneous plants), among other living beings (pigeons and bats). 2.2.4. Use and maintenance actions The last group of causes (CD1–CD5) comprise actions related to the buildings’use and maintenance, and includes lack of conservation/maintenance, deficient ventilation of inner spaces, and lack of periodic inspections, among others. As mentioned by MacKenzie et al. (2007), maintenance actions allow ensuring that the initial condition of a building element will remain intact, allowing this element to continue successfully performing its projected function. Therefore, the lack of maintenance compromises the durability of the buildings elements, allowing these elements to degrade over time until reaching the end of their service life (Grüll et al. 2011). On the other hand, an inadequate maintenance can also promote and accelerate the occurrence of defects. The use, during maintenance operations, of materials or technologies different from the existing ones can generate incompatibilities between the different components. Their effects can trigger the appearance of new anomalies, thus contributing to the worsening of the degradation phenomena (Garcez et al. 2012a). 2.3. Anomaly/probable cause correlation matrix Table 3 presents a correlation matrix between the anomalies and their probable causes (showing anomalies in rows and causes in columns), based on the Table 2. Proposed classification of the causes of anomalies in built heritage. Classification of the main probable causes CA Design and execution errors CA1 Incompatible, omitted, or unsuitable choice of materials CA2 Lack of support preparation (cleaning, roughness, wetness) CA3 Inadequate application of joints CA4 Setting of warped or defective timber elements CA5 Lack of conformity to design CA6 Disregard of the settling time between the stages of execution CA7 Corrosion in metal elements CA8 Incorrect design/detailing of the elements CA9 Inexperienced or poorly qualified workmanship CA10 Incorrect positioning of the different layers CB External mechanical actions CB1 Stress concentration CB2 Shrinkage or expansion CB3 Impacts/Bumping CB4 Actions not foreseen at design stage CB5 Abrasion CB6 Structural movements and differential settlements CB7 Stress concentration CB8 Land conditions/Characteristics of the ground soil CC Environmental actions CC1 Solar radiation/Temperature action CC2 Presence of damp CC3 Wind/Rain action CC4 Atmospheric pollution CC5 Poor ventilation CC6 Natural wear and tear CD Use and maintenance actions CD1 Lack or inadequate maintenance CD2 Plumbing defects/Lack of fittings (piping, drains, gutters, rainwater vertical piping) CD3 Premature use CD4 Accidental actions and vandalism CD5 Change of the initially predicted in-service conditions INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 569 description shown in Tables 1 and 2. This matrix could be an useful tool for an inspector in situ, since it can help in its diagnosis by giving hints to identify the causes of an anomaly just detected; at the intersection of each row and column, a correlation degree (0, 1, or 2) is determined (Athmani et al. 2015; Carretero- Ayuso, Moreno-Cansado, and Cuerda-Correa 2015; Delgado et al. 2013; Flores-Colen, de Brito, and de Freitas 2008; Garcez et al. 2012a;2012b; Ruiz- Jaramillo et al. 2016; Neto and de Brito 2012; Othman et al. 2015; Vicente, Ferreira, and da Silva 2015; Sá et al. 2014; Silvestre and de Brito 2009; Suffian 2013; Walter, de Brito, and Grandão Lopes 2005): 0—no correlation; there is no direct or indirect relationship between the anomaly and the cause; 1—low correlation—indirect (first) cause of the anomaly related to the triggering of the deterioration process; cause not necessary for deterioration to progress; and 2—high correlation; direct (near) cause of the anomaly, associated with the final stage of the deterioration process; when one of these causes occurs, it is one of the main reasons for the deterioration process and is essential to its development. 3. Description of the sample It is extremely important to understand the difference between the detailed approaches used for individual buildings and those methods most efficient for larger scale analysis of groups of buildings, as is the case of this study. However, when increasing the number of buildings and the area to be assessed, the resources and amount of information required also increased, so it is necessary to simplify the building typologies and the anomalies and causes of this kind of constructions, thus reducing the complexity of the analysis. 3.1. A sample of heritage building located on south spain This study is based on available data regarding the state of conservation of 20 heritage buildings located in the province of Seville, Spain, in an area over 14,000 km 2 . The geographical region extends from the Atlantic Ocean (Southeast) until the mouth of the Guadalquivir River (Southwest) (Figure 2). This territory has a warm Mediterranean weather with an annual average temperature of 18.5ºC; winters are generally mild. Nevertheless, in the summertime the temperature Table 3. “Anomaly-cause”correlation matrix for built heritage. CA1 CA2 CA3 CA4 CA5 CA6 CA7 CA8 CA9 CA10 CB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 CB5 CB6 CB7 CB8 CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 CC5 CC6 CD1 CD2 CD3 CD4 CD5 AA1200000000 0 0022000000000000000 AA2200011110 0 0000000022201221000 AA3000000000 0 0000000010220002021 AH1000000000 0 0000000012212102000 AH2221011102 0 1111011002100111100 AH3100000020 0 0000000000000000000 AH4000001000 0 0000000002100002000 AM1011011000 1 1220222111100100020 AM2220011011 2 0220201022200111020 AM3000000000 0 0000020100000000000 AM4000000000 0 0000010100000000000 AM5000010010 0 0000010100000000000 AM6100010000 2 0000000000000000001 AM7010210000 0 0000000000100000000 AM8100200010 0 1121000000101000000 AM9000100000 0 0000000012000011000 AM10 000020020 1 0000000000000000000 AM11 000020020 0 0000000000000000000 AM12 000000000 0 0000020200000000000 AM13 000000000 0 0000010200000000000 AM14 000020020 0 0000000000000000000 AM15 000020020 0 0000000000000000000 570 A. J. PRIETO ET AL. often can easily exceed 40ºC. This sample of historical constructions was built in the Mudejar-Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque styles between the 13 th and 18 th centuries. Most of these churches were built in the Middle Ages and their architectural style was a unique Spanish artistic movement since it was influenced by both Islamic and Gothic Christian elements. These churches are morphologically characterized by this stylistic dualism: a vaulted Gothic apse and a body of three naves with a timber roof (collar beam in the main nave) of Moorish origin. Its brick walls are complemented with quadrangular or sometimes octagonal pillars and with raised brick moldings as decoration. Pointed round or segmental arches rest on these supports. Among other elements of particular interest, funeral chapels have been successively added to the side naves, which on some occasions, are housed in the remaining sections of pre-existing mosques (Zamarreño, Girón, and Galindo 2008). The built heritage buildings under analysis are shown in Figure 3. 3.2. Constructive characterization of the case studies Table 4 presents the characterization of the 20 churches analyzed, according to their construction time, their architectural style, and some relevant information regarding the main maintenance actions performed over the years. Most of these churches have Gothic- Mudejar architecture with different variations. Other primitive parish churches disappeared and were built in either baroque or neoclassical style after the earthquake of Lisbon (1755). The 20 churches analyzed present similar constructive characteristics. The predominant materials used in the monuments analyzed in the province of Seville were bricks, limestones, mortars, and marbles (Colao et al. 2010). In the Gothic- Mudejar churches there are either stonework or brickwork (in some cases, covered by mortars) as support structure, a horizontal timber covering with jointed rafters, and a finishing consisting of ceramic tiles on top. The foundations are made of continuous footings of bricks or stones. On the columns, the foundations are made of brick or stone footings (Ortiz and Ortiz 2016). The churches analyzed show that the materials used in the constructive system and in the structure are very similar. Nonetheless, it is possible to find other kind of materials as concrete or metal elements introduced into the buildings after interventions or refurbishment actions in the 20th and 21st centuries. 4. Methodology 4.1. Functional service life model The serviceability of buildings is a complicated system of associations between several variables. The loss or Figure 2. Location of the sample in the Province of Seville, Spain. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 571 gain of functionality of the heritage constructions, related with the refurbishment and maintenance actions over time, is evaluated. Therefore, different assessments of the input parameters are possible and, in some situations, traditional logic is unable to lead to unequivocal conclusions (Prieto et al. 2016b). Thus, the principles of fuzzy logic established by Zadeh (1965) were used. This fuzzy inference system (FIS) identifies a total of 17 input parameters. In Table 5 the sample of input variables is defined. 4.1.1. Fuzzification The fuzzification process comprises the transformation of crisp values into grades of membership for linguistic terms of fuzzy sets. Input variables may be translated into linguistic terms, such as Very Good, Good, Regular, Bad, or Very Bad. The membership functions are used to associate a grade to each linguistic term (Silva, De Brito, and Gaspar 2016). These applications assign a degree of membership to each element in the discourse universe U on which the fuzzy set in question is defined. The membership function μ A (u) of a fuzzy set A can take any value in the range [0, 1] (Equation (1)): μAu ðÞ :U!I0;1 ½ :(1) Gaussian-type membership functions are generally used, as they are considered the most appropriate for modeling the degradation conditions of the buildings and also because a non-zero value can be reached at all points (Ross 2010). This happens in all membership functions of the fuzzy inference model, except in the input variable v 1 :Geological location, in this case a trapezoidal function is used. Each one of the membership functions for the input, intermediate and output variables of the model have a linguistic label associated to them, from the minimum values EG—Extremely Good or VG—Very Good (very low vulnerability or risk); to maximum values B—Bad, VB—Very Bad,orEB—Extremely Bad (very high vulnerability or risk). 4.1.2. Knowledge base and inference rules The degradation of building components occurs mainly due to the static-structural and anthropogenic damage, weathering and pollution (Ortiz and Ortiz 2016). In this study, the most relevant factors for the deterioration of built heritage are considered in the proposed model. The full hierarchical structure of the fuzzy Figure 3. Illustration of the sample of heritage buildings analyzed. 572 A. J. PRIETO ET AL. Table 4. Characterization of the 20 churches analysed. ID Parish church Location Construction time Architectural style Information and time of the more relevant maintenance actions performed AZ-SPB* San Pablo Aznalcázar 15 th Century (1400) Mudejar-Gothic 1765–1767—Generalized rehabilitation of the church. 1932—The temple has been torched, losing the roofs of the naves, the altarpieces and the images that enhanced the beauty of this interesting building. 1945—The new church was opened, being a replica of the previous one. Several artworks only were replaced over the subsequent years. 2003–2004—Periodic visual inspections, in order to avoid the presence of water in the church. Repainting of the external wall and execution of a waterproofing layer in the vaults of the presbytery. 2005—Reinforcement of the timber beams in the roof, due to termite attack. BZ-SMN* Santa María de las Nieves Benacazón 16 th Century (1550) Mudejar-Gothic 1632–1634—Reform of the altarpiece. 1650—Another nave and a Sagrario chapel are added to the rectangular nave. 1760—After the Lisbon’s earthquake, the building is repaired, which allow building the tower (two bodies, with pyramidal spire), the dressing room and windows’covers. CC-SMA* San Miguel Arcángel Castilleja del Campo 18 th Century (1760–1762) Baroque 1696—It was declared the necessity of intervene in the church 1723—Execution of the first rehabilitation actions. 1742—Execution of the altar. 1760—After the Lisbon’s earthquake, the church is damaged and ruined. Therefore, some actions were performed in order to avoid the collapse of the building and its bell tower. 1762—The new parish church was built. 1905—The wood ladders on the pulpit were replaced by metal ladders. 1917—Replacement of the ceramic tiling floor 1983—Important works were performed for the expansion and renovation of the chapel. 1997—Integral replacement of the roof of the chapel, Sagrario chapel, baptismal chapel, sacristy and storage room. The bell tower is restored, replacing ceramic panels. The walls of the tower have been plastered and repainted, restoring its original style, white and red tile. A generalized cleaning was performed. HV-NSA* Nuestra Señora de la Asunción Huévar del Aljarafe 16 th Century (1510) Mudejar-Gothic 1550—The chapel of the Virgen de la Antigua (also known as the Guzman or Don Gonzalo chapel) was added to the building. 1700—The Sagrario chapel was added to the building. 1760—Reconstruction of the tower bell, destroyed by the Lisbon’s earthquake. 1793—A neoclassical altarpiece was built. 1850—Generalized rehabilitation actions. 1919—The church presented a severe degradation condition, being subjected to eight months of rehabilitation works in order to restore its functionality levels. 1920—Reform of the crypt. 2012—Restoration of the church PL-SMM* Santa María la Mayor Pilas 16 th Century (1575) Mudejar-Gothic 1618—Expansion works. 1712 /1717 /1728–1731—Rehabilitation works. 1775—Expansion of the church. 1798—Execution of the altarpiece. LP-NSG* Nuestra Señora de la Granada La Puebla del Río 13 th Century (1275) Mudejar-Gothic 1475—Change in the direction of the axis of the temple. 1560–1585—Expansion of the church. 1618 /1627—Maintenance works, repair of the roof, the vaults and the slabs graves. 1711–1716—Repair of walls. 1755—Rebuild of the tower’s roof. 1846–1899—Maintenance works, cleaning of the roof elements and repainting of the walls. 1905–1939—Generalized maintenance works, on the roof, porches and masonry. 1988–1989—Works in the upper body of the building, restoration of the heads of the beams of the choir. CR-SME Nuestra Señora de la Estrella Coria del Río 14 th Century (1350) Mudejar-Gothic 1598—Suffered a fire, which almost destructed the church (only the head of the church it remains standing). 1620—Rehabilitation of the support structure of the arches of the naves of the church. 1700—Construction of the second body of the tower, the Rosario’s Chapel and the Chapel del Carmen. 1750—Reconstruction of the building. 1900—Construction of the chapel del Gran Poder. 1911—Construction of the sacramental chapel, to the right of the head of the temple. 1983—Consolidation and restoration of the apse of the cathedral of Coria del Río. Interventions in the church. (Continued) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 573 until 2016. In the analysis of Santa Marina’s church, (ID code: SE-SMR) a total of 23 historical records were recovered (López 2015). Figure 5 shows the evolution of the Santa Marina church’s functionality. Four cataclysm events with disastrous consequences in the building performance were examined: (i) the first one occurred in the 14 th century, due to the 1356’s earthquake, located around San Vicente’s cape, leading to “bad”functional condition of the church; (ii) the second one, occurred in 18 th century (1755—Lisbon’s earthquake); (iii) the third one occurred in 1936 (first half of 20 th century), during the Spanish Civil War, in which the church was burned; and (iv) finally, the fourth event occurred in 1981 (second half of 20 th century), corresponding to the complete destruction of the church due to a fire. The building was also involved in another fire during the period of time considered. Regarding the evaluation of the parish church performance (Table 10 and Figure 5), the data gathered from historical records of Santa Marina’s church were considered. The historical records mentioned the following (Vigil-Escalera Pacheco 1991): The building was burned in 1936, during the 60 th decade various restoration campaigns (reinforcement of vaults and arches, roofs and masonry reconstruction) were carried out. In 1973, the church was again ready to be opened to the public. However, it remained closed without maintenance actions for almost ten years, even suffering plundering of many of the goods that were stored inside. In 1981, the church suffered another fire. The building did not have any detection or fire protective system and the roof was completely destroyed. Between 1981 and 1994, the reconstruction of the church was performed. During this period: in 1984, emergency works occurred mainly to clear parasitic vegetation on the roofs, in addition to repairing; in 1987 the church reopened after a new restoration project; in 1989 the reconstruction of the coffered ceiling of the central nave was made as well the repair of the decks and in the tower; and, finally, in 1994 the reconstruction works were finalized. Table 9 presents the quantification of the variables introduced into the fuzzy system, which were defined based on time-series analysis of the historical data, which provide relevant information regarding the vulnerabilities and risks of the building over its life cycle. This quantification is based on an expert knowledge system, as described in this study. When the professional experts, who are analyzing the historical data and quantifying the input variables, cannot find records related with the state of conservation of the building, they must evaluate the building considering an average situation. In this case study, some input variables are considered with the same value during the period of time considered— v1, r12, and r13—since the geological location (v1) remains the same over the years, as well the atmospheric risks, which are considered in a medium level, since the building is located in a Mediterranean climate (with moderate weather conditions). After the analysis of these historical records, the roof of this church is shown as one of the most vulnerable elements, conditioning the maintenance actions performed, or in other words, the maintenance actions occur mainly to repair and restore the roof of the church. Figure 5. Functional performance over time of Santa Marina’s church. 580 A. J. PRIETO ET AL. Table 10. Santa Marina’s parish (SMR) historical records from 1250–2016. Records Year Qualitative information v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 r6 r7 r8 r9 r10 r11 r12 r13 r14 r15 r16 r17 FBSL Serviceability 1 1250 The parish church is built. 1333223324 3 3 3 4 5 5 3 65Medium 2 1265 The side chapels are constructed. 1223223324 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 67Medium 3 1300 The tower and the central body of the building are built. The main front door of the feet is erected. 1222223323 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 76Good 4 1356 Damages due to the earthquake of 1356. 1544544335 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 38Medium 5 1600 The church presents generalized deterioration. 1666644335 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 29 Bad 6 1700 Several chapels are rehabilitated. 1333334343 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 61Medium 7 1721 Moisture problems on parish’s roof. 1443434444 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 45Medium 8 1724 Report, two chapels need conserved actions. 1544544444 4 3 3 4 5 5 3 40Medium 9 1725 Maintenance works. 1333333334 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 58Medium 10 1755 The Lisbon earthquake causes cracks and fractures that lead to repair the damage caused. 1644644444 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 34 Bad 11 1869 The roofs of the naves are destroyed by a fire. The buildings present a bad conservation state. 1844647454 5 3 3 4 4 4 7 20 Bad 12 1885 New restoration works in the Chapel of Piety are undertaken. 1333333344 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 57Medium 13 1906 The baptismal chapel is reconstructed. 1233233344 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 63Medium 14 1936 The roofs of the naves burn; all altarpieces are lost. 1766755566 4 3 3 4 7 7 7 20 Bad 15 1942 The building is re-erected following the original Gothic pattern. 1666644454 4 3 3 2 6 6 6 31 Bad 17 1955 A vertical crack appears in the corner between the tower and the wall. 1555544444 3 3 3 2 5 5 5 38Medium 18 1961 Conservation and restoration works on the interior walls and facades are considered. 1333344444 3 3 3 1 5 5 4 56Medium 19 1963 Repair and maintenance works are done in the north facade. 1333244444 3 3 3 1 5 5 3 59Medium 20 1969 More maintenance works is done in the north facade. 1322233334 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 66Medium 21 1981 The church burns again. 1877755567 4 3 3 1 7 7 7 19 Bad 22 1994 The building reconstruction is finished. 1222222234 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 72Medium 23 2016 Current state of conservation 1222222233 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 83Good INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 581 6. Results and discussion It seems then relevant to analyze the influence of the different possible anomalies and related causes on the functionality of built heritage. The historical reports consulted reveal that the roof of the churches is the most relevant element of construction (not only in the case study analyzed but in all the sample studied). The Institut Technique du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics in France, after an analysis of 12,000 anomalies, concluded that roofs present more pathological problems than most building elements. A similar study carried out, more recently in Australia, also concluded that roofs are one of the elements most affected by pathological situations, and where a higher number of anomalies were observed (Ilozor, Okoroh, and Egbu 2004). The occurrence of anomalies in roofs usually leads to structural problems in the roof itself and in the rest of the building, and even damages the furniture and goods inside (Garcez et al. 2012a). All the case studies analyzed (Seville parish churches) present anomalies in the main elements considered (Figure 6). Similarly, to what is described in the literature, in this study, the most of the anomalies detected occur in the roofs (32%), followed by anomalies in timber elements (25%), anomalies in the masonry (22%), anomalies in mortars and claddings (19%), and finally in the foundations (only 2%). Concerning the pathology of the churches analyzed, one of the main problems is caused by the presence of moisture. In fact, the anomalies associated with humidity (AH) are the most common in the sample analyzed, occurring in 75% of the churches analyzed, during the period of time under analysis. The presence of moisture is usually associated with a defective roof (or problems in the roof system), which allow water to penetrate and cause damage to the structural elements of the buildings, their interior, and furniture, and also lead to a loss of quality in the indoor air (Olanrewaju, Faris, and Arazi 2010). Moisture problems commonly happen in current buildings, with a higher impact on heritage buildings. In the sample analyzed, whenever infiltrations in the roof occur, a maintenance action is carried out, since this anomaly not only compromises the roofs’performance but also promotes the occurrence of various anomalies, namely peeling and blistering of the painted surfaces, stains, discolouration, mold growth, and corrosion, among others. Another common situation is related with the presence of rising damp in the churches. Torres and de Freitas (2007) consider that moisture transfer in the walls of old buildings, which are in direct contact with the ground, leads to a migration of soluble salts responsible for most of the buildings’pathology. Anomalies in the timber elements are also very common in the churches analyzed. Who (2009) refers that the growth of microorganism (such as fungi or bacteria) (Figure 7), are usually caused by prolonged presence of moisture on the building elements, associated with lack of ventilation, with adverse effects on the salubrity of the interior spaces. In the sample analyzed, the anomalies most commonly detected are: accumulation of debris and superficial dirt (AA3); biological colonization (AH1); efflorescence/cryptoflorescence or carbonation (AH4); cracking/fractures (AM1); crumbling/disintegration/ disaggregation (AM2); degradation of the mechanical characteristics (AM5); and warping, swelling, or other flatness deficiencies (AM7). These anomalies affect between 50% and 60% of all the case studies analyzed. Efflorescence is the most common defect detected in walls and claddings, essentially due to raising damp or capillarity phenomena. During the period of time analyzed in the historical records, detachment/loss of adherence (AH2) only occurs in 7% of the claddings in the churches analyzed, and the main causes of defects in the claddings are related with exterior mechanical actions and lack of maintenance. Cracking Figure 6. Frequency of the anomalies in the elements of historical buildings, based on the records of the 20 churches analyzed. 582 A. J. PRIETO ET AL. and fractures are usually detected in roofs and timber elements, caused mainly by environmental actions and lack of maintenance. The anomalies stains/colour change/discolouration (AA2), bulging (AM4) and broken or splintered elements/spalling/exfoliation (AM8) are less common, with a frequency of around 35%. Misalignment of cladding elements (AM10) only occurs in one case study. Collapse (AM13) of the tower bells occurred in around 6% of total of 390 historical records analyzed, mainly due to the occurrence of an earthquake. Some of the mechanical anomalies (AM) considered never occur in the sample analyzed: insufficient structural cross-sec- tions (AM11); lack of downspouts and drain nozzles (AM14); absence of fastening elements (AM15). These anomalies are related with design and execution errors, which may reveal that the heritage buildings are less prone to this type of errors, being subjected to a more careful construction process, when compared with housing buildings. Environmental actions (CC) and use and maintenance actions (CD) are the most common causes of anomalies in the churches analyzed. On the other hand, design and execution errors (CA) are less common, as well as exterior mechanical actions (CB). As mentioned before, damp (CC2) and wind/rain action (CC3) are the most common causes of anomalies. Poor ventilation (CC5) is also one relevant cause of anomalies in churches located at the periphery of a city, which are usually open only once a week for the religious ceremonies. Discrete phenomena also influence de degradation of the heritage buildings, even though they cannot be modelled the same as the other mechanisms. In the sample analyzed, 9.5% of the records reveal the occurrence of an earthquake or/and a fire. Also, in recent decades, in the city centre, vandalism actions have compromised the functionality of some buildings (detected in 2% of the historical data). Use and maintenance actions (CD) have a tremendous impact on the churches’functionally. In general terms, careful application and frequent maintenance are equally important to guarantee a good performance of this type of buildings (Neto and de Brito 2012). In some situations, during the period of time analyzed, maintenance actions were carried out based on subjective criteria. 24% of the historical records reveal that a small intervention was performed, in general, repainting the church. In 9% of the cases, the maintenance of the church only contemplates the chapel, due to the problems in the roof or simply to programmatic issues or the availability of funds to perform conservation actions. Part of the historical records, obtained from Vigil- Escalera Pacheco (1991), show that: in the parish churches used as case studies, restorations have been repeated, treating almost always the same elements and anomalies, namely the humidity on the naves’roofs and cracks in the vaults of the chapels, but the main problem is related with lack of maintenance of the roofs. This happens in the case study of the parish church of San Pablo (ID AZ-SPB), in which a maintenance action Figure 7. (a) A fungus infection of the timber roof could be due to permanent damp, dirt collection and natural causes; (b) external atmospheric actions (strong wind and rainwater); (c) active attack of xylophages’insects; and (d) Biological actions inside the roof. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 583 was performed in 2005 to solve infiltration problems; this action was inadequately performed, since it did not contemplate the analysis of the pathological situation of the building, being performed as a “standard”action, i.e., repairing the roof of the church. This case study was also repaired in 2007 and 2008, in order to restore the adequate functionality levels of the building. This lack of maintenance strategies leads to unnecessary costs, since it is impossible to adopt general methodologies, neglecting the analysis of the characteristics and the pathology of the buildings that will be subjected to the maintenance actions. Therefore, it is fundamental to define accurate tools, which can be used by all stakeholders involved in the various stages and levels of activity, to establish integrated building maintenance routines (including periodic inspections, preventive works, and conservation and rehabilitation actions). Silva, de Brito, and Gaspar (2016) and Prieto et al. (2016b) proposed different tools for the physical and functional service life prediction of the buildings and their components, based on their pathological situation. These tools provide reliable information regarding the instant in which it is necessary to intervene, knowing the deterioration condition of the element under analysis, acting in accordance with its pathological situation. Successful maintenance plans can only be achieved through the analysis of the pathological situations of the heritage buildings under analysis, identifying the elements that require intervention, thus rationalizing resources and funds, avoiding repetitive placebo-like processes that do not solve the initial problem. 7. Conclusions In this study, the serviceability and the pathological characterization of 20 heritage buildings located on Seville were analyzed. This analysis is based on historical data gathered from photographs, historical archives, and chronicles. Analyzing the functionality of these specific case studies, it is possible to establish the buildings performance over time in terms of functional degradation conditions, except for discrete events, which lead to unacceptable degradation levels. This knowledge can help in understanding the past functionality level of the buildings, identifying the most common pathological situations, thus predicting the future behavior of the buildings analyzed. In 85% of the buildings under analysis, the time of refurbishment actions after a disastrous event was between 1 and 20 years. This result can be seen as a first approximation of the possible path in terms of intervention time in historical constructions after disastrous incidents, revealing that usually, after a calamity, stakeholders recognize the importance of intervening, in order to restore the functionality of the building. In some cases, when there are not available funds, the restoration occurs many years later, which also reveals the subjective criteria that affect the decision of intervening. Using the buildings functionality over time and the historical refurbishment and maintenance actions recorded, it was possible to determine the most frequent anomalies and their causes. The roof is the one of the most vulnerable element, showing the higher incidence of anomalies and being responsible for the majority of the decisions to intervene. The occurrence of moisture is identified as the major cause of heritage buildings’pathology, and is a determinant environmental factor in the degradation process. This approach allows understanding the weak points of this kind of buildings, which should be carefully analyzed during the periodic inspections. The analysis of the maintenance and conservation data may be able to demonstrate the success that can be achieved by identifying the optimum period of time to perform preventive maintenance actions, thus reducing the maintenance costs during the buildings life cycle, promoting the sustainability of the conservation policies. This study could be extended to other constructions and components, and can also be adjusted to different environmental context. Funding The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of CERISICIST from IST, University of Lisbon, and FCT, Foundation for Science and Technology. This article was supported and based on the Methodology developed by two Projects: RIVUPH, an Excellence Project of Junta de Andalucía (code HUM-6775), and Art-Risk, a RETOS project of Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), (code: BIA2015-64878-R (MINECO/FEDER, UE)). Part of the research has been carried out thanks to the grant of Andrés J. Prieto from CEI- PatrimoniUN-10. ORCID A. Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6715-474X J. de Brito http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6766-2736 J. M. Macías-Bernal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6073-9745 F. J. Alejandre http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0942-8313 584 A. J. PRIETO ET AL. References AENOR (Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación). 2009. Building diagnosis. Part 1: General. Committee AEN/CTN 41-Construcción. UNE 41805:2009 224. Madrid, Spain: Asociación Española de Normalización, UNE. Ahzahar, N., N. Karim, S. Hassan, and J. Eman. 2011. A study of contribution factors to building failures and defects in construction industry. Procedia Engineering 20:249–55. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.162. Almås, A.-J., K. R. Lisø, H. O. Hygen, C. F. Øyen, and J. V. Thue. 2011. An approach to impact assessment of building in a changing climate. Building Research & Information 39 (3):227–38. doi:10.1080/09613218.2011.562025. Archives of Archdiocese of Seville. 2016. http://www.archise villa.org/documentacion/archivo-historico/ (accessed August 30, 2016). Athmani, A. E., A. Gouasmia, T. M. Ferreira, R. Vicente, and A. Khemis. 2015. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry buildings located in Annaba city (Algeria) using non ad-hoc data survey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13 (8):2283–307. doi:10.1007/s10518-014- 9717-7. Bordalo, R., J. de Brito, P. L. Gaspar, and A. Silva. 2011. Service life prediction modelling of adhesive ceramic tiling systems. Building Research and Information 39 (1):66–78. doi:10.1080/09613218.2010.532197. Carmona, T. 2014. Vulnerability and risk factors in parishes temples of the Archpriesthood of Pilas. Bachelor thesis in Construction Management, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; [in Spanish]. Carretero-Ayuso, M. J., A. Moreno-Cansado, and E. M. Cuerda-Correa. 2015. Research and analysis on recurring anomalies in foundations and structures. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 30 (3):04015037. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000779. Carter, R. W., and R. Bramley. 2002. Defining heritage values and significance for improved resource management: An application to Australian tourism. International Journal of Heritage Studies 8 (3):175–99. doi:10.1080/13527250220000/18895. Charneco, L. 2014. Análisis e influencia de las series temporales y los factores de riesgo y vulnerabilidad en distintos edificios del Arciprestazgo de Itálica. Bachelor thesis in Construction Management, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; [in Spanish] Chew, M. Y. L., S. S. Tan, and E. Soemara. 2004. Serviceability of materials in the tropics. Journal of Architectural Engineering 10 (2):69–76. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)1076-0431(2004)10:2(69). Colao, F., R. Fantoni, P. Ortiz, M. A. Vázquez, J. M. Martín, R. Ortiz, and N. Idris. 2010. Quarry identification of historical building materials by means of laser induced breakdown spectroscopy, x-ray fluorescence and chemometric analysis. Spectrochimica Acta Part B 65:688–94. doi:10.1016/j.sab.2010.05.005. Delgado, A., J. de Brito, and J. D. Silvestre. 2013. Inspection and diagnosis system for wood flooring. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 27 (5):564–74. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000342. Dias, J. L., A. Silva, C. Chai, P. L. Gaspar, and J. de Brito. 2014. Neural networks applied to service life prediction of exterior painted surfaces. Building Research & Information 42 (3):371–80. doi:10.1080/09613218.2013.819551. European Commission. 2000. Research for protection, conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage: Opportunities for European enterprises, in: Proceedings of the 4th European Commission Conference, Strasbourg, France, 22–24 November. Ferreira, O. L., and M. A. Maximo 2013. Palace of Justice Raymundo Faoro: Access for all to Brazilian modern heritage sites. World Congress on Housing Science: changing needs, adaptive buildings, smart cities, IAHS, Milan, Italy. Flores-Colen, I., and J. de Brito. 2010. A systematic approach for maintenance budgeting of buildings façades based on predictive and preventive strategies. Construction and Building Materials 24 (9):1718–29. doi:10.1016/j. conbuildmat.2010.02.017. Flores-Colen, I., J. de Brito, and V. P. De Freitas. 2008. Stains in facades’rendering–diagnosis and maintenance techniques’classification. Construction and Building Materials 22 (3):211–21. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.023. Gaião, C., J. de Brito, and J. Silvestre. 2012. Inspection and diagnosis of gypsum plasterboard walls. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 25 (3):172–80. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000149. Garcez, N., N. Lopes, J. de Brito, and J. Silvestre. 2012a. System of inspection, diagnosis and repair of external claddings of pitched roofs. Construction and Building Materials 35:1034– 44. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.047. Garcez, N., N. Lopes, J. D. de Brito, and G. Sá. 2012b. Pathology, diagnosis and repair of pitched roofs with ceramic tiles: Statistical characterisation and lessons learned from inspections. Construction and Building Materials 36:807–19. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.049. García, F. J. 2014. Clima y conservación: Series temporales de cinco templos del Aljarafe. Bachelor thesis in Construction Management, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. [in Spanish] Gaspar, P. L., and J. De Brito 2005. Assessment of the overall degradation level of an element, based on field data. 10th Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Lyon, France, TT8–68. Grüll, G., M. Truskaller, L. Podgorski, S. Bollmus, and F. Tscherne. 2011. Maintenance procedures and definition of limit states for exterior wood coatings. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 69:443–50. doi:10.1007/s00107-010-0469-z. Guirguisa, N., A. Abd El-Aziz, and M. Nassief. 2007. Study of wind effects on different buildings of pitched roofs. Desalination 209 (1–3):190–98. doi:10.1016/j. desal.2007.04.028. Ilozor, B. D., Okoroh M. I., Egbu C. E.. 2004. Archicentre Understanding residential house defects in Australia from the State of Victoria. Building and Environment 39 (3):327–37. Indirli, M., P. Clemente, B. Carpani, A. Martelli, B. Spadoni, and M. G. Castellano 2003. Research, development and application of advanced antiseismic techniques for cultural heritage in Italy. In Proc. of the 8th World Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures, Yerevan, Armenia, 6–10, October. Ipekoglu, B. 2006. An architectural evaluation method for conservation of traditional dwellings. Building and INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 585 Environment 41 (3):386–94. doi:10.1016/j. buildenv.2005.02.009. ISO. 2009. Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines, ISO 31000. Kubba, S. A. A. 2008. Architectural Forensics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Law on Construction Planning. 2007. Rehabimed method; RehabiMed method. Traditional Mediterranean architecture, II Rehabilitation building. RMSU Euromed Heritage, Brussels, Belgium. Löfsten, H. 2000. Management of industrial maintenance – economic evaluation of maintenance policies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 19 (7):716–37. doi:10.1108/01443579910271683. López, P. 2015. Análisis de los factores de riesgo y vulnerabilidad a través de series temporales de cinco Iglesias mudéjares. Bachelor thesis in Construction Management, University of Seville, Seville, Spain [in Spanish] Lordsleem, A. C., Jr. 2016. Cracks of masonry partition walls in multifloor building: Case study. In J. M. P. Q. Delgado (Ed.), Case Studies of Building Pathology in Cultural Heritage, 183–98. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media. Macías-Bernal, J. M., J. M. Calama, and M.-J. Chávez. 2014. Prediction model of the useful life of a heritage building from fuzzy logic. Informes De La Construcción 66 (533): e006. doi:10.3989/ic.12.107. MacKenzie, C. E., C. H. Wang, R. H. Leicester, G. C. Foliente, and M. N. Nguyen. 2007. Timber service life design guide. Victoria, Australia: Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited. Mamdani, E. H., and S. Assilian. 1975. An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 7 (1):1–13. doi:10.1016/S0020-7373(75)80002-2. Moreno-Velo, F. J., I. Baturone, A. Barriga, and S. Sánchez- Solano. 2007. Automatic tuning of complex fuzzy system with Xfuzzy. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158 (2026–2038). doi:10.1016/j.fss.2007.03.006. National Cathedrals Plan. 1990. http://ipce.mcu.es/pdfs/ PNCatedralesCompleto_EN.pdf. Neto, N., and J. De Brito. 2012. Validation of an inspection and diagnosis system for anomalies in natural stone cladding (NSC). Construction and Building Materials 30:224– 36. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.032. Nunes, L., and H. Cruz. 2003. Fungal degradation of wood in buildings. In RILEM Int. Conf. on Microbial Impact on Building Materials, Lisbon, Portugal, ed. M. Ribas Silva, 84–93. France: RILEM, Baneux. Olanrewaju, A. A., K. M. Faris, and I. Arazi. 2010. Sustainability in the Context of Maintenance: Building Defects in the Malaysian University Campuses. Journal of Retails and Leisure Property 9:137–49. doi:10.1057/rlp.2010.2. Opina version 3 [Computer software]. 2004. Servicio de Informática y Comunicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. Seville, Spain: Servicio de Informática y Comunicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. Ortiz, P., V. Antunez, J. M. Martín, R. Ortiz, M. A. Vázquez, and E. Galán. 2014. Approach to environmental risk analysis for the main monuments in a historical city. Journal of Cultural Heritage 15:432–40. doi:10.1016/j. culher.2013.07.009. Ortiz, R., and P. Ortiz. 2016. Vulnerability index: A new approach for preventive conservation of monuments. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration.doi:10.1080/15583058.2016.1186758. Othman, N. L., M. Jaafar, W. M. W. Harun, and F. Ibrahim. 2015. A case study on moisture problems and building defects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 170:27– 36. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.011. Pickard, R., and T. Pickerill. 2002. Conservation finance 1: Support for historic buildings. Structural Survey 20 (2):73– 77. doi:10.1108/02630800210433846. Pinto, J., H. Varum, and L. Ramos. 2011. Two roofs of recent public buildings, the same technological failure. Engineering Failure Analysis 18 (2):811–17. doi:10.1016/j. engfailanal.2011.01.001. Poulos, H. G. 2016. Tall building foundations: Design methods and applications. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions 1 (1):1–51. doi:10.1007/s41062-016-0010-2. Prieto, A. J., M. J. Chávez, M. A. Garrido-Vizuete, J. M. Macías-Bernal, and F. J. Alejandre 2016c. Time series on functional service life of buildings using Fuzzy Delphi method. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational and Mathematical Methods in Science and Engineering, CMMSE 2016, Rota, Spain, ISBN: 978-84-608-6082-2. Prieto, A. J., J. M. Macías-Bernal, and M.-J. Chávez 2015. Series temporales de factores principales para la conservación preventiva del patrimonio, 5º Congreso de Patología y Rehabilitación de Edificios Porto, Portugal, ISBN: 78-972-752-177-7. Prieto, A. J., J. M. Macías-Bernal, M. J. Chávez, and F. J. Alejandre. 2016a. Expert system for predicting buildings service life under ISO 31000 standard. Application in architectural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage 18:209–18. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2015.10.006. Prieto, A. J., A. Silva, J. De Brito, and F. J. Alejandre. 2016b. Functional and physical service life of natural stone claddings. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 12:0401650. Rodrigues, M. F. S., J. M. Teixeira, and J. C. Cardoso. 2011. Buildings envelope anomalies: A visual survey methodology. Construction and Building Materials 25 (5):2741–50. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.029. Ross, T. J. 2010. Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Ruiz-Jaramillo, J., E. Mascort-Albea, and A. Jaramillo-Morilla. 2016. Proposed methodology for measurement, survey and assessment of vertical deformation of structures. Structural Survey 34 (3):276–96. doi:10.1108/SS-02-2016-0006. Sá, G., J. Sá, J. De Brito, and B. Amaro. 2014. Inspection and diagnosis system for rendered walls. International Journal of Civil Engineering 12 (2):279–90. Silva, A., J. De Brito, and P. L. Gaspar. 2016. Methodologies for Service Life Prediction of Buildings: With a Focus on Façade Claddings. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Silvestre, J. D., and J. de Brito. 2009. Inspection and repair of ceramic tiling within a building management system. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 22 (1):39–48. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2010)22:1(39). Silvestre, J. D., and J. de Brito. 2011. Ceramic tiling in building façades: Inspection and pathological characterization using an expert system. Construction and Building Material 25 (4):1560–71. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.09.039. 586 A. J. PRIETO ET AL. Spanish Technical Building Code. 2007. Industry ministry - Institute of energy savings and diversification (IDEA).Spain. Suffian, A. 2013. Some common maintenance problems and building defects: Our experiences. Procedia Engineering 54:101–08. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.009. Talon, A., D. Boissier, J.-L. Chevalier, and J. Hans 2005. Temporal quantification method of degradation scenarios basedonFMEA.10thConferenceonDurabilityof Building Materials and Components, Lyon, France,, TT4–139. Torres, M. I. M., and V. P. De Freitas. 2007. Treatment of rising damp in historical buildings: Wall base ventilation. Building and Environment 42 (1):424–35. doi:10.1016/j. buildenv.2005.07.034. UNE EN ISO/IEC 31010. 2011. Risk management - Risk assessment techniques focuses on risk assessment. Risk assessment helps decision makers understand the risks that could affect the achievement of objectives as well as the adequacy of the controls already in place. Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. Vicente, R., T. M. Ferreira, and J. R. M. da Silva. 2015. Supporting urban regeneration and building refurbishment. Strategies for building appraisal and inspection of old building stock in city centres. Journal of Cultural Heritage 16 (1):1–14. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2014.03.004. Vigil-Escalera Pacheco, M. 1991. Iglesias mudéjares sevillanas de los siglos XIII, XIV y XV. Propuesta para su restauración, conservación y mantenimiento. Doctoral Thesis, University of Seville, Seville, Spain [in Spanish]. Walter, A., J. de Brito, and J. Grandão Lopes. 2005. Current flat roof bituminous membranes waterproofing systems - inspection, diagnosis and pathology classification. Construction and Building Material 19 (3):233–42. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.05.008. Watt, D. S. 2009. Building pathology: Principles and practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. World Health Organization. 2009. WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Dampness and Mould.Copenhagen,Denmark: WHO. Xfuzzy 3.0 [Computer software]. 1997–2003. CNM-Centro Nacional de Microelectrónica y IMSE-Instituto de Microelectrónica de Sevilla. Seville, Spain: CNM-Centro Nacional de Microelectrónica y IMSE-Instituto de Microelectrónica de Sevilla. Zadeh, L. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Computation 8 (3):338–53. Zamarreño, T., S. Girón, and M. Galindo. 2008. Assessing the intelligibility of speech and signing in Mudejar-Gothic churches. Applied Acoustics 69:242–54. doi:10.1016/j. apacoust.2006.09.007. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 587