Detachment risk evaluation method on tile exterior wall

Abstract

To provide a detachment risk evaluation method on a tile exterior wall to efficiently diagnose degradation of the tile exterior wall.SOLUTION: A detachment risk evaluation method for a tile exterior wall 1 comprises an earthquake history confirmation process, a degradation determination process between floors, a degradation determination process on a corner section, a degradation determination process on a window section, and a detachment risk evaluation process. The tile exterior wall 1 comprises a wall substrate 2, a bond layer 3, and a plurality of tiles 4. The earthquake history confirmation process is a process to confirm whether or not there is a history of earthquakes on a building having a seismic intensity equal to or more than a prescribed intensity. Each of the degradation determination process between floors, the degradation determination process on a corner section, and the degradation determination process on a window section is a process to check joint portions between the plurality of tiles 4 at a target section through visual inspection to determine degradation of the joint portions. The detachment risk evaluation process is a process to evaluate detachment risk of the plurality of tiles 4 based on a confirmation result in the earthquake history confirmation process and determination results of one or more processes among the degradation determination process between floors, the degradation determination process on a corner section, and the degradation determination process on a window section.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 5

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present disclosure relates to a method for assessing the risk of peeling of tile exterior walls. [Background technology]

[0002] Various methods for diagnosing deterioration of tile exterior walls have been known. The diagnostic method disclosed in Patent Document 1 is a method for diagnosing an exterior wall having a wall substrate and an exterior material made of a plurality of tiles fixed to the wall substrate with adhesive, and includes a step of measuring the moisture content of the wall substrate and a step of determining the quality of the adhesion state of the exterior material based on the moisture content.

[0003] Furthermore, Patent Document 2 discloses a method for determining peeling of exterior wall tiles. The method involves striking each tile individually, collecting the impact sounds, and analyzing the frequencies of the collected impact sounds. The effective values ​​of healthy tiles are used as training data, and a correlation coefficient between this training data and the measurement data of each tile is calculated. If this correlation coefficient is greater than a predetermined threshold, the tile is diagnosed as healthy, and if it is less than this threshold, the tile is diagnosed as peeling. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0004] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2023-050238 [Patent Document 2] Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 11-304773 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] The diagnostic method disclosed in Patent Document 1 determines whether the adhesive condition of exterior materials is good or bad based on the moisture content of the wall substrate, while the method for determining peeling of exterior wall tiles disclosed in Patent Document 2 diagnoses whether a tile is sound or peeling based on the impact sound collected by striking each tile.

[0006] When the wall substrate is reinforced concrete, peeling of exterior wall tiles from the building is the peeling of the exterior wall tiles from the wall substrate, and peeling of exterior wall tiles can be effectively determined by a so-called tapping test as disclosed in Patent Document 2. Furthermore, when the wall substrate is a so-called ceramic wall substrate, peeling of exterior wall tiles from the building may not only be the peeling of the exterior wall tiles from the wall substrate, but also the peeling of part of the wall substrate to which the exterior wall tiles are fixed. In such cases, in addition to the peeling of exterior wall tiles determination disclosed in Patent Document 2, the exterior wall diagnostic method disclosed in Patent Document 1 is also an effective diagnostic method.

[0007] When diagnosing deterioration of a tile exterior wall, an operator visits the site of the building to be diagnosed and performs the diagnosis work on-site. Both the exterior wall diagnosis method disclosed in Patent Document 1 and the method for determining peeling of exterior wall tiles disclosed in Patent Document 2 have good diagnostic accuracy, but the on-site diagnosis work takes time, and there is room for improvement in terms of efficiency.

[0008] In view of the above-mentioned conventional problems, the present disclosure aims to provide a method for assessing the risk of peeling of tile exterior walls in order to efficiently diagnose deterioration of tile exterior walls. [Means for solving the problem]

[0009] To solve the above-mentioned problems, one embodiment of a method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall according to the present disclosure includes an earthquake history confirmation step, an inter-floor deterioration determination step, a corner deterioration determination step, a window deterioration determination step, and a peeling risk assessment step. The tile exterior wall includes a building's wall substrate, an adhesive layer made of an adhesive bonded to the surface of the wall substrate, and multiple tiles fixed to the surface of the wall substrate via the adhesive layer. The earthquake history confirmation step is a step of confirming whether the building has a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher. The inter-floor deterioration determination step is a step of visually inspecting joints between multiple tiles located in a predetermined range of the adhesive layer, including the boundary between adjacent floors, when the building has multiple floors, and determining deterioration of the joints. The corner deterioration determination step is a step of visually inspecting joints between multiple tiles located in a predetermined range of the adhesive layer, including the corner of the building, and determining deterioration of the joints. The window deterioration assessment process is a process for visually inspecting the joints between the tiles located within a predetermined range of the window, including the lower portion of the window, in the adhesive layer when the building has windows, to assess the deterioration of the joints. The peeling risk assessment process is a process for assessing the risk of peeling of the tiles based on the confirmation results of the earthquake history confirmation process and the judgment results of one or more of the inter-story deterioration assessment process, the corner deterioration assessment process, and the window deterioration assessment process. The worker performs the earthquake history confirmation process, and if the building has a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, performs the inter-story deterioration assessment process and the window deterioration assessment process, and evaluates the risk of peeling of the tiles in the peeling risk assessment process based on the judgment results of these processes. The worker performs the earthquake history confirmation process, and if the building does not have a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, performs the corner deterioration assessment process, and evaluates the risk of peeling of the tiles in the peeling risk assessment process based on the judgment results of these processes. [Effects of the Invention]

[0010] According to one embodiment of the method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall according to the present disclosure, deterioration of the tile exterior wall can be efficiently diagnosed. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0011] [Figure 1] Fig. 1A is a cross-sectional view of a main part of a tiled exterior wall in one embodiment of the method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tiled exterior wall according to the present disclosure, and Fig. 1B is a front view of a part of the same tiled exterior wall. [Figure 2] Fig. 2A is a cross-sectional view of the same tile exterior wall in a state where moisture has penetrated into the wall panel, and Fig. 2B is a cross-sectional view illustrating peeling of the tile from the wall substrate in the same tile exterior wall. [Figure 3] Fig. 3A is a cross-sectional view of the vicinity of a boundary of the same outer tile wall, Fig. 3B is a cross-sectional view of the vicinity of a corner of the same outer tile wall, and Fig. 3C is a front view of the vicinity of a window of the same outer tile wall. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing a list of correction coefficients used in the deterioration determination correction step in the method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall. [Figure 5] FIG. 5 is a flow chart of a specific example of the method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0012] The present disclosure relates to a method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall having a wall substrate of a building, an adhesive layer made of an adhesive bonded to the surface of the wall substrate, and a plurality of tiles fixed to the surface of the wall substrate via the adhesive layer. Hereinafter, one embodiment of the method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall according to the present disclosure will be described with reference to Figures 1 to 5. First, a tile exterior wall 1 will be described.

[0013] (1) Tile exterior wall As shown in FIG. 1A, the tile exterior wall 1 includes a building wall substrate 2, an adhesive layer 3, and a plurality of tiles 4.

[0014] (1.1) Wall underlayment The wall base 2 is composed of a plurality of wall panels 21 arranged side by side. Each wall panel 21 is formed in a rectangular shape when viewed from the front, and is fixed to a frame or the like (not shown). In this embodiment, a ceramic siding material is used as the wall base 2 (wall panels 21).

[0015] Gaps are formed between adjacent wall panels 21 that make up the wall base 2, and these gaps are filled with a sealant 22. As the sealant 22, silicone-based, modified silicone-based, urethane-based, acrylic-based, polysulfide-based, or acrylic urethane-based materials are preferably used, but the material is not limited to these.

[0016] A sealer layer 23 is provided on the surfaces of the wall panel 21 and the sealant 22. The sealer layer 23 is formed by applying a common sealant, and can firmly bond the wall panel 21 and the adhesive layer 3 to enhance their unity. The wall panel 21, sealant 22, and sealer layer 23 constitute the wall base 2.

[0017] (1.2) Adhesive layer The adhesive layer 3 fixes the tiles 4 to the wall base 2 (wall panel 21). The adhesive layer 3 is made of an adhesive that is adhered to the surface of the wall base 2. In this embodiment, the adhesive layer 3 is adhered to the wall panel 21 via a sealer layer 23. An elastic adhesive or mortar is preferably used as the adhesive layer 3, but the material is not limited to these.

[0018] (1.3) Tile The tiles 4 are provided as exterior materials that make up the exterior wall (tile exterior wall 1). The tiles 4 are made of ceramic materials, stone, ceramic panels, or the like, but are not limited to these. The tiles 4 are fixed to the wall substrate 2 by being adhered to an adhesive layer 3 that is adhered to the wall substrate 2 (wall panel 21). In other words, the tiles 4 are fixed to the surface of the wall substrate 2 via the adhesive layer 3.

[0019] As shown in FIG. 1B, each of the multiple tiles 4 has a rectangular shape when viewed from the front. The multiple tiles 4 are all the same shape, and are arranged in multiple rows in the vertical direction, with multiple rows arranged in the horizontal direction. Joints 31 made of the surface of the adhesive layer 3 are formed between the multiple tiles 4. The joints 31 extend across the multiple tiles 4 in the horizontal direction, but do not extend across the multiple tiles 4 in the vertical direction, and are interrupted at every tile 4.

[0020] (2) Deterioration of tile exterior walls Next, deterioration of the tile exterior wall 1 will be described. First, one well-known example of deterioration of the tile exterior wall 1 is the falling off (peeling) of tiles 4 from the wall substrate 2. In the previous stage of the tile 4 falling off from the wall substrate 2, a portion of the tile 4 generally peels off from the adhesive layer 3. That is, the tile 4 is partially adhered to the adhesive layer 3, and the remaining portion peels off from the adhesive layer 3. In the next stage, the remaining portion of the tile 4 that is adhered to the adhesive layer 3 peels off from the adhesive layer 3, causing multiple tiles 4 to fall off from the adhesive layer 3 (from the wall substrate 2). In the previous stage, peeling of tiles 4 from the adhesive layer 3 can be detected by a so-called hammering test on the tile exterior wall 1, and this type of hammering test is also effective for the tile exterior wall 1 according to this embodiment.

[0021] Next, the detachment of the tile 4 from the wall substrate 2 can occur when a portion of the wall substrate 2 to which the tile 4 is adhered detaches (separates) from the remaining wall substrate 2. This occurs when, as shown in FIG. 2A , moisture penetrates the wall substrate 2 for some reason, and the moisture expands during freezing or other processes, causing a crack in a portion of the wall substrate 2. Then, as shown in FIG. 2B , a portion of the wall substrate 2 completely peels off and separates from the remaining portion of the wall substrate 2, causing the tile 4 to detach (separate) from the remaining portion of the wall substrate 2 together with the portion of the wall substrate 2. In such a case, the tile 4 is not peeled off from the adhesive layer 3, and therefore the tapping test disclosed in Patent Document 2 cannot detect the infiltration of moisture into the wall substrate 2. Therefore, the diagnostic method based on the moisture content of the wall substrate disclosed in Patent Document 1 is effective.

[0022] However, when deterioration of a tile exterior wall 1 is determined using the diagnostic method based on the moisture content of the wall substrate 2 disclosed in Patent Document 1, although the diagnostic accuracy is high, it takes a huge amount of time and effort and is inefficient. Therefore, the present inventor has invented a method for assessing the risk of tiles 4 falling off (peeling off) from the wall substrate 2 due to moisture penetration into the wall substrate 2, which is capable of efficiently assessing the risk. The method for assessing the risk of peeling off a tile exterior wall 1 is described in detail below.

[0023] (3) Risk assessment method for peeling of tile exterior walls The peeling risk assessment method for tile exterior walls 1 (hereinafter simply referred to as the peeling risk assessment method) includes an earthquake history confirmation step, an inter-floor deterioration determination step, a corner deterioration determination step, a window deterioration determination step, and a peeling risk assessment step. The peeling risk assessment method also includes a general portion deterioration determination step and a deterioration determination correction step.

[0024] (3.1) Earthquake history confirmation process The earthquake history confirmation process is a process for confirming whether or not the building has a history of damage of a predetermined seismic intensity or higher. This is to know the earthquake history of the area where the building having the tile exterior wall 1 that is the subject of the peeling risk assessment method is located. The earthquake history of this area must include at least the earthquake history from the time the building was constructed to the present. The earthquake history of this area may be based on official records or records equivalent thereto, or may be based on data measured directly in the building, and the source is not particularly limited. The predetermined seismic intensity can be set as appropriate, and in this embodiment is seismic intensity 5 (seismic intensity 5-weak, seismic intensity 5-up).

[0025] (3.2) Deterioration determination process between floors The inter-floor deterioration assessment process is a process in which, when a building has multiple floors, the joints 31 between multiple tiles 4 located in a predetermined boundary range A1 of the adhesive layer 3, including the boundary between adjacent floors, are visually inspected to assess the deterioration of the joints 31.

[0026] If a building has not only a first floor but also a second floor, a third floor, etc., each floor is provided with a wall panel 21, a sealant 22, a sealer layer 23 (i.e., a wall base 2), an adhesive layer 3, and a plurality of tiles 4. As shown in Fig. 3A, at the boundary (inter-floor area) between adjacent floors, a wall panel 212 (hereinafter referred to as a "floor panel 212") is provided as a fascia board that does not belong to either the wall panel 211 of the upper floor or the wall panel 213 of the lower floor.

[0027] If a crack occurs in the joints 31 between multiple tiles 4 fixed to the back panel 212 via the adhesive layer 3, moisture may seep through the crack and into the gap between the wall panel 21 and the sealant 22 inside the adhesive layer 3. If moisture seeps into this area, it will be more likely to seep into the interior of the wall panel 21 through cracks and tiny gaps from the end grain (side edge face) of the wall panel 21. Cracks in the adhesive layer 3 are prone to occur due to deterioration over time, as well as earthquakes.

[0028] In the event of an earthquake, the wall panel 211 and the header board 212 on the upper floor and the wall panel 213 on the lower floor will move relative to each other. At this time, the sealant 22 between the wall panel 211 and the header board 212 on the upper floor and the sealant 22 between the header board 212 and the wall panel 213 on the lower floor are flexible and can follow the movement of each wall panel 21 and are therefore less likely to be damaged. In contrast, the adhesive layer 3 is less flexible than the sealant 22 and therefore less likely to follow the movement of each wall panel 21 and is more likely to be damaged.

[0029] In the inter-floor deterioration determination process, the predetermined boundary range A1 to be inspected is set to a range a predetermined distance in the vertical direction from the center between the upper and lower floors. The predetermined boundary range A1 may include not only the boundary (inter-floor section) between adjacent floors above and below, but also the adhesive layer 3 provided on the wall panel 21 near the lower end of the upper floor and the wall panel 21 near the upper end of the lower floor, and the predetermined boundary range A1 is set as appropriate.

[0030] In this embodiment, in the inter-floor deterioration determination step, deterioration of the joint 31 is determined based on cracks that have occurred in the joint 31. Specifically, in the inter-floor deterioration determination step, deterioration of the joint 31 is determined to be present if there are cracks in the joint 31 located in the boundary predetermined range A1 that are equal to or greater than a predetermined standard, and is determined to be absent if the cracks are not equal to or greater than the predetermined standard. The predetermined standard for determining the presence or absence of cracks is set appropriately with respect to various items such as the width, depth, length, number, and position in the joint 31 of the cracks.

[0031] (3.3) Corner deterioration determination process The corner deterioration assessment process is a process of visually inspecting the joints 31 between multiple tiles 4 located in a predetermined corner range A2 of the adhesive layer 3, including the corner of the building, to assess the deterioration of the joints 31.

[0032] If a crack occurs in the joint 31 at the corner, moisture will seep in through the crack, just as when a crack occurs in the joint 31 between floors, and moisture will easily seep into the interior of the wall panel 21 from the end of the wood of the wall panel 21 through the cracks and tiny gaps.

[0033] As shown in Figure 3B, at the corners, adjacent wall panels 214, 215 are butted together, and the adhesive tends to be applied thinly, especially at the corner vertices, making the adhesive layer 3 near the corner vertices prone to thinning. This makes the adhesive layer 3 at the corners prone to damage. The adhesive layer 3 at the corners is more susceptible to cracking than the general area, as described below, regardless of whether the building has been damaged by an earthquake.

[0034] In the corner deterioration determination process, the predetermined corner range A2 to be inspected is set to a range that is a predetermined distance in the horizontal direction from the center between adjacent wall panels 214 and 215. The predetermined corner range A2 may include not only the boundary area adjacent to each other via the corner, but also the area of ​​the end of the wall panel 21 on the corner side, and the predetermined corner range A2 is set as appropriate.

[0035] In this embodiment, in the corner deterioration determination step, deterioration of the joint 31 is determined based on cracks that have occurred in the joint 31. Specifically, in determining deterioration of the joint 31 in the corner deterioration determination step, if there are cracks in the joint 31 located in the corner predetermined range A2 that are equal to or greater than a predetermined standard, it is determined that deterioration is present, and if there are no cracks that are equal to or greater than the predetermined standard, it is determined that there is no deterioration. The predetermined standard for determining the presence or absence of cracks is set in the same manner as the predetermined standard in the inter-floor deterioration determination step, and may be the same as or different from the predetermined standard in the inter-floor deterioration determination step.

[0036] (3.4) Window Deterioration Assessment Process The window deterioration assessment process is a process in which, when a window section 10 is formed in a building, the joints 31 between multiple tiles 4 located in the adhesive layer 3 within a predetermined window section range A3 including the lower part of the window section 10 are visually inspected to assess the deterioration of the joints 31, as shown in Figure 3C.

[0037] When an earthquake occurs and the building shakes, the area around the window section 10 is more likely to deform than areas where the window section 10 is not formed, and deformation is particularly large in the area below the window section 10. For this reason, cracks are likely to occur in the joints 31 in the area below the window section 10. If a crack occurs in the joints 31 in the area below the window section 10, moisture will seep in through the crack, just as it does when a crack occurs in the joints 31 between floors or in corners, and moisture will easily seep into the interior of the wall panel 21 from the end grain of the wall panel 21 through cracks and tiny gaps.

[0038] In the window deterioration determination process, the window predetermined range A3 to be inspected is set to a predetermined range below the window 10. More specifically, the width A31 (horizontal length) of the window predetermined range A3 is at least the same as the width of the window 10, and the height A32 (vertical length) is set appropriately.

[0039] In this embodiment, in the window deterioration determination step, deterioration of the joint 31 is determined based on cracks that have occurred in the joint 31. Specifically, in determining deterioration of the joint 31 in the window deterioration determination step, if there are cracks in the joint 31 located in the window predetermined range A3 that are equal to or greater than a predetermined standard, it is determined that deterioration is present, and if there are no cracks that are equal to or greater than the predetermined standard, it is determined that there is no deterioration. The predetermined standard for determining the presence or absence of cracks is set in the same manner as the predetermined standard in the inter-floor deterioration determination step, and may be the same as the predetermined standard in the inter-floor deterioration determination step or the corner deterioration determination step, or may be different from the predetermined standard in the inter-floor deterioration determination step or the corner deterioration determination step.

[0040] (3.5) General part deterioration determination process The general part deterioration assessment process is a process of visually inspecting the joints 31 between multiple tiles 4 located in the adhesive layer 3 excluding the specified boundary area A1, the specified corner area A2, and the specified window area A3, and assessing the deterioration of the joints 31.

[0041] In the general area (excluding the boundary area specified range A1, the corner area specified range A2 and the window area specified range A3), the exterior wall has a wall panel 21, a sealant 22, a sealer layer 23, an adhesive layer 3 and a plurality of tiles 4.

[0042] If a crack occurs in the joint 31 of the general part, moisture will seep in through the crack, just as when a crack occurs in the joint 31 of the inter-floor part, corner part or window part 10, and moisture will easily seep into the interior of the wall panel 21 from the end of the wood of the wall panel 21 through the cracks and tiny gaps.

[0043] In this embodiment, in the general portion deterioration determination step, deterioration of the joint portion 31 is determined based on the wear or powdering that has occurred in the joint portion 31. Specifically, in the general portion deterioration determination step, the deterioration of the joint portion 31 is determined to be present if the wear or powdering in the joint portion 31 located in a predetermined range of the general portion is equal to or greater than a predetermined standard, and is determined to be absent if the wear or powdering is not equal to or greater than the predetermined standard. The predetermined standard for wear or powdering to determine the presence or absence of deterioration is set as appropriate.

[0044] (3.6) Deterioration determination correction process The deterioration determination correction process corrects the determination results of the inter-floor deterioration determination process, window deterioration determination process, corner deterioration determination process, and general deterioration determination process based on the amount of precipitation in the area where the building is located. Peeling of multiple tiles 4 from the wall substrate 2 is mainly caused by moisture seeping in through cracks formed in the wall substrate 2 (wall panel 21). Therefore, even for the same crack, the risk of peeling varies depending on the amount of precipitation on the building. Therefore, the determination results of each deterioration determination process are corrected based on the amount of precipitation in the area where the building is located. In this embodiment, the region is defined as a prefecture in Japan, and a correction coefficient is set for each prefecture based on the annual precipitation for each prefecture (see Figure 3).

[0045] (3.7) Peeling risk assessment process The peeling risk assessment process is a process of assessing the risk of peeling of multiple tiles 4 based on the results of the earthquake history confirmation process and the judgment results of one or more of the inter-floor deterioration judgment process, corner deterioration judgment process, and window deterioration judgment process.

[0046] In the peeling risk assessment process, the worker first performs an earthquake history confirmation process. If the building has a history of damage caused by earthquakes of a predetermined seismic intensity or greater, the worker performs an inter-story deterioration assessment process, a window deterioration assessment process, and a general deterioration assessment process, and then evaluates the peeling risk of multiple tiles in the peeling risk assessment process based on the results of these processes.

[0047] In addition, after performing the earthquake history confirmation process, if the building does not have a history of damage of a specified seismic intensity or higher, the worker performs the corner deterioration determination process and the general deterioration determination process, and based on the determination results of these processes, evaluates the risk of peeling of multiple tiles in the peeling risk assessment process.

[0048] (4) Specific examples A specific example of the peeling risk assessment method of this embodiment will be described with reference to the flow chart of FIG.

[0049] After the flow of the peeling risk assessment method starts, in (S1), it is determined whether the building is more than 10 years old. If it is more than 10 years old, the process moves to (S2); if it is not more than 10 years old, the peeling risk assessment method ends.

[0050] In (S2), an earthquake history confirmation step is executed to check whether the building has a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher. In this example, in (S2), it is determined whether the building has a history of damage with a seismic intensity of 5 or higher. If the building has a history of damage with a seismic intensity of 5 or higher, the process proceeds to (S3), and if the building does not have a history of damage with a seismic intensity of 5 or higher, the process proceeds to (S12).

[0051] In (S3), an inter-floor deterioration determination process and a window deterioration determination process are executed. If the determination result of the inter-floor deterioration determination process is that there is deterioration, the peeling risk value is set to 30, and if the determination result of the inter-floor deterioration determination process is that there is no deterioration, the peeling risk value is set to 0. Next, if the determination result of the window deterioration determination process is that there is deterioration, 10 is added to the peeling risk value, and if the determination result of the window deterioration determination process is that there is no deterioration, 0 is added to the peeling risk value. This calculates the peeling risk value, and the process proceeds to (S4).

[0052] In (S4), it is determined whether the building is more than 20 years old. If it is more than 20 years old, the process proceeds to (S5), and if it is not more than 20 years old, the process proceeds to (S6).

[0053] In (S5), a general part deterioration determination step is executed, and if the determination result of the general part deterioration determination step is that deterioration exists, 10 is added to the peeling risk value, and if the determination result of the general part deterioration determination step is that deterioration does not exist, 0 is added to the peeling risk value. In this way, the peeling risk value is calculated, and the process proceeds to (S6).

[0054] In (S6), a deterioration determination correction process is executed. In the deterioration determination correction process, the peeling risk value calculated in (S3) is multiplied by a correction coefficient (see FIG. 3) based on the amount of precipitation in the region (prefecture) where the building is located, to calculate a corrected peeling risk value, and the process proceeds to (S7).

[0055] In (S7), a peeling risk assessment step is executed to determine whether the peeling risk value is equal to or greater than a first predetermined value. If the peeling risk value is equal to or greater than the first predetermined value in (S7), the process proceeds to (S8), where it is determined that the peeling risk is high, and the peeling risk assessment method ends. In this case, the peeling risk assessment method ends, but a detailed diagnosis of the tile exterior wall 1 is performed by conducting a tapping test on the tile exterior wall 1 and by conducting a diagnosis based on the moisture content of the wall base 2. There is a high urgency for a detailed diagnosis of the tile exterior wall 1 and for maintenance of the tile exterior wall 1.

[0056] If the peeling risk value is less than the first predetermined value in (S7), the process proceeds to (S9), where it is determined whether the peeling risk value is equal to or greater than a second predetermined value that is lower than the first predetermined value. If the peeling risk value is equal to or greater than the second predetermined value in (S9), the process proceeds to (S10), where it is determined that there is a medium risk of peeling, and the peeling risk assessment method is terminated. In this case, a detailed diagnosis of the tile exterior wall 1, such as a tapping test of the tile exterior wall 1 and a diagnosis based on the moisture content of the wall base 2, will be performed within a few years. The urgency of the detailed diagnosis of the tile exterior wall 1 is medium.

[0057] If the peeling risk value is less than the second predetermined value in (S9), the process proceeds to (S11), where the peeling risk is determined to be low, and the peeling risk assessment method is terminated. In this case, there is little urgency in performing a detailed diagnosis of the tile exterior wall 1.

[0058] In (S2), if the building has no history of damage with a seismic intensity of 5 or higher, the process proceeds to (S12), where the corner deterioration determination process is executed. If the determination result of the corner deterioration determination process is that there is deterioration, the peeling risk value is set to 30, and if the determination result of the corner deterioration determination process is that there is no deterioration, the peeling risk value is set to 0, and the process proceeds to (S4). The steps from (S4) onwards are as described above.

[0059] (5) Effects If the building has a history of damage caused by a seismic intensity of at least the specified level, the process is limited to the inter-floor deterioration assessment process and the window deterioration assessment process; if the building does not have a history of damage caused by a seismic intensity of at least the specified level, the process is limited to the corner deterioration assessment process, thereby making it possible to efficiently diagnose the deterioration of tile exterior walls while minimizing any decrease in the accuracy of the peeling risk assessment.

[0060] (6) Variations As the wall base 2, ALC (lightweight aerated concrete), calcium silicate board, gypsum board, gypsum slag board, or the like may be used.

[0061] The sealer layer 23 is an optional component and may not be included in the tile exterior wall 1 .

[0062] The tiles 4 do not have to be of the same shape. The tiles 4 may be arranged in a row in the vertical direction, and a plurality of rows in the horizontal direction, or they do not necessarily have to be arranged in rows. The joints 31 may extend across the tiles 4 in the vertical direction, or may be interrupted at every tile 4 without spanning across the tiles 4 in the horizontal direction.

[0063] The predetermined seismic intensity in the earthquake history confirmation step may be any one of seismic intensity 1, seismic intensity 2, seismic intensity 3, seismic intensity 4, seismic intensity 6 (seismic intensity 6-weak, seismic intensity 6-strong), and seismic intensity 7.

[0064] In the process of determining deterioration of the inter-floor section, visual inspection of the joint section 31 does not have to be a direct inspection of whether or not there are cracks, but may also be, for example, an inspection of whether or not there is wear or powdering in the joint section 31.

[0065] In the corner deterioration determination process, visual inspection of the joint 31 does not have to be a direct inspection of whether or not there are cracks, but may be, for example, an inspection of whether or not there is wear or powdering in the joint 31.

[0066] In the window deterioration determination process, visual inspection of the joints 31 does not have to be a direct inspection of whether or not there are cracks, but may be, for example, an inspection of whether or not there is wear or powdering in the joints 31.

[0067] In the general portion deterioration determination step, the visual inspection of the joint portion 31 may be a direct inspection of whether or not there is a crack.

[0068] The general section deterioration determination process is an optional configuration and does not necessarily have to be included in the peeling risk assessment method. In this case, in the peeling risk assessment process, the worker first executes the earthquake history confirmation process. Next, if the building has a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, the worker executes the inter-floor section deterioration determination process and the window section deterioration determination process, and evaluates the peeling risk of multiple tiles in the peeling risk assessment process based on the determination results of these processes. Furthermore, if the building does not have a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, the worker executes the corner section deterioration determination process, and evaluates the peeling risk of multiple tiles in the peeling risk assessment process based on the determination results of these processes.

[0069] The deterioration determination correction step is an optional step and may not be included in the peeling risk assessment method.

[0070] The risk of peeling does not have to be determined by a numerical value such as a peeling risk value.

[0071] In the inter-floor portion deterioration determination step, window portion deterioration determination step, corner portion deterioration determination step, and general portion deterioration determination step, the joint portion 31 may be indirectly inspected visually by visually checking an image of the joint portion 31 captured by an imaging device of an aircraft having an imaging device. This makes it easy to inspect the joint portion 31 in areas that are difficult for workers to inspect visually, such as at high places.

[0072] (7) Summary As is clear from the above-described embodiment, the first aspect of the method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall 1 includes an earthquake history confirmation step, an inter-floor deterioration determination step, a corner deterioration determination step, a window deterioration determination step, and a peeling risk assessment step. The tile exterior wall 1 includes a building wall substrate 2, an adhesive layer 3 made of an adhesive bonded to the surface of the wall substrate 2, and multiple tiles 4 fixed to the surface of the wall substrate 2 via the adhesive layer 3. The earthquake history confirmation step is a step of confirming whether the building has experienced a history of damage of a predetermined seismic intensity or higher. The inter-floor deterioration determination step is a step of visually inspecting the joints 31 between multiple tiles 4 located in the adhesive layer 3 within a predetermined boundary range A1 that includes the boundary between adjacent floors, if the building has multiple floors, and determining the deterioration of the joints 31. The corner deterioration determination step is a step of visually inspecting the joints 31 between multiple tiles 4 located in the adhesive layer 3 within a predetermined corner range A2 that includes the corner of the building, and determining the deterioration of the joints 31. The window deterioration assessment process is a process for visually inspecting the joints 31 between multiple tiles 4 located in a predetermined window area A3, including the lower portion of the window area 10, in the adhesive layer 3 when a window area 10 is formed in a building, to assess deterioration of the joints 31. The peeling risk assessment process is a process for assessing the risk of peeling of multiple tiles 4 based on the results of the earthquake history confirmation process and the judgment results of one or more of the inter-story deterioration assessment process, corner deterioration assessment process, and window deterioration assessment process. The worker performs the earthquake history confirmation process, and if the building has a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, performs the inter-story deterioration assessment process and the window deterioration assessment process, and evaluates the risk of peeling of multiple tiles 4 in the peeling risk assessment process based on the judgment results of these processes. The worker performs the earthquake history confirmation process, and if the building does not have a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, performs the corner deterioration assessment process, and evaluates the risk of peeling of multiple tiles 4 in the peeling risk assessment process based on the judgment results of these processes.

[0073] According to the first aspect, if the building has a history of damage caused by earthquakes of a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, the execution is limited to the inter-floor deterioration assessment process and the window deterioration assessment process, and if the building does not have a history of damage caused by earthquakes of a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, the execution is limited to the corner deterioration assessment process, thereby making it possible to efficiently diagnose the deterioration of tile exterior walls while minimizing a decrease in the accuracy of the peeling risk assessment.

[0074] The second aspect is realized by combining the first aspect. In the second aspect, in the inter-floor deterioration determination step, corner deterioration determination step, and window deterioration determination step, deterioration of the joints 31 is determined based on cracks that have occurred in the joints 31.

[0075] According to the second aspect, cracks in the adhesive layer 3, which are the greatest cause of deterioration of the tile exterior wall 1, are directly inspected, thereby improving the accuracy of the peeling risk assessment.

[0076] A third aspect is realized by combining the first or second aspect. In the third aspect, the peeling risk assessment method for a tile exterior wall 1 further includes a general section deterioration assessment step. The general section deterioration assessment step is a step of visually inspecting joints 31 between multiple tiles 4 located in the adhesive layer 3, excluding the predetermined boundary section range A1, the predetermined corner section range A2, and the predetermined window section range A3, to assess the deterioration of the joints 31. The worker performs an earthquake history confirmation step, and if the building has a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, performs an inter-story section deterioration assessment step, a window section deterioration assessment step, and a general section deterioration assessment step, and evaluates the peeling risk of the multiple tiles 4 in the peeling risk assessment step based on the assessment results of these steps. The worker performs an earthquake history confirmation step, and if the building has not a history of damage with a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, performs a corner section deterioration assessment step and a general section deterioration assessment step, and evaluates the peeling risk of the multiple tiles 4 in the peeling risk assessment step based on the assessment results of these steps.

[0077] According to the third aspect, the general section deterioration determination step is executed in addition to the inter-floor section deterioration determination step, the corner section deterioration determination step, and the window section deterioration determination step, thereby improving the accuracy of the separation risk assessment.

[0078] The fourth aspect is realized by combining with the third aspect. In the fourth aspect, in the general part deterioration determination step, deterioration of the joint part 31 is determined based on wear or powdering that has occurred in the joint part 31.

[0079] According to the fourth aspect, deterioration of the joint portion 31 can be easily determined by inspecting items that can be easily confirmed visually.

[0080] A fifth aspect is realized by combining with any one of the first to fourth aspects. In the fifth aspect, the method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall 1 further includes a deterioration determination correction step. The deterioration determination correction step corrects the determination results of the inter-story deterioration determination step, window deterioration determination step, and corner deterioration determination step based on the amount of precipitation in the area where the building is located.

[0081] According to the fifth aspect, the risk of moisture infiltration into cracks in the adhesive layer 3 is specifically reflected, and the accuracy of the peeling risk assessment is further improved.

[0082] The sixth aspect is realized by combining with any one of the first to fifth aspects. In the sixth aspect, in the inter-floor portion deterioration determination step, the window portion deterioration determination step, and the corner portion deterioration determination step, the joint portion 31 is inspected indirectly by visually inspecting an image of the joint portion 31 captured by an imaging device of an aircraft having an imaging device.

[0083] According to the sixth aspect, it is possible to easily inspect the joints 31 in locations that are difficult for workers to visually inspect, such as at high places. [Explanation of symbols]

[0084] 1. Tile exterior wall 2. Wall base 3 Adhesive layer 31 Joint 4. Multiple tiles

Claims

1. A method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall having a wall substrate of a building, an adhesive layer made of an adhesive bonded to the surface of the wall substrate, and a plurality of tiles fixed to the surface of the wall substrate via the adhesive layer, It has an earthquake history confirmation process, an inter-floor deterioration determination process, a corner deterioration determination process, a window deterioration determination process, and a peeling risk assessment process. The earthquake history confirmation step is a step of confirming whether or not the building has a history of damage caused by earthquakes of a predetermined seismic intensity or higher, The inter-floor deterioration determination step is a step of visually inspecting the joints between the tiles located within a predetermined range of the boundary, including the boundary between the adjacent floors, in the adhesive layer when the building has a plurality of floors, and determining the deterioration of the joints; The corner deterioration determination step is a step of visually inspecting joints between the tiles located in a predetermined range of the corners, including the corners of the building, in the adhesive layer, and determining deterioration of the joints; The window portion deterioration determination step is a step of visually inspecting joints between the plurality of tiles located in a predetermined range of the window portion, including a lower portion of the window portion, in the adhesive layer, when the window portion is formed in the building, and determining deterioration of the joints; The peeling risk assessment step is a step of assessing the risk of peeling of the plurality of tiles based on the confirmation results in the earthquake history confirmation step and the judgment results in one or more steps among the inter-floor portion deterioration judgment step, the corner portion deterioration judgment step, and the window portion deterioration judgment step, The worker: Execute the earthquake history confirmation step, If the building has a history of damage caused by a predetermined seismic intensity or more, the inter-story deterioration determination step and the window deterioration determination step are executed, and based on the determination results of these steps, the peeling risk of the plurality of tiles is evaluated in the peeling risk assessment step; If the building has no history of damage caused by a seismic intensity equal to or greater than a predetermined level, the corner deterioration determination step is executed, and based on the determination result of this step, the peeling risk of the plurality of tiles is evaluated in the peeling risk assessment step. A method for assessing the risk of peeling off exterior tile walls.

2. In the step of determining deterioration between floors, the step of determining deterioration in corners, and the step of determining deterioration in windows, deterioration of the joints is determined based on cracks that have occurred in the joints. The method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall according to claim 1.

3. Further, a general part deterioration determination step is included, The general portion deterioration determination step is a step of visually inspecting joints between the tiles located in the adhesive layer excluding the predetermined range of the boundary portion, the predetermined range of the corner portion, and the predetermined range of the window portion, and determining deterioration of the joints; The worker: Execute the earthquake history confirmation step, If the building has a history of damage caused by a predetermined seismic intensity or more, the inter-story deterioration determination step, the window deterioration determination step, and the general deterioration determination step are executed, and based on the determination results of these steps, the peeling risk of the plurality of tiles is evaluated in the peeling risk assessment step; If the building does not have a history of damage caused by a seismic intensity equal to or greater than a predetermined level, the corner deterioration determination process and the general deterioration determination process are executed, and the peeling risk of the plurality of tiles is evaluated in the peeling risk assessment process based on the determination results of these processes. The method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall according to claim 1.

4. In the general part deterioration determination step, deterioration of the joint part is determined based on wear or powdering that has occurred in the joint part. The method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall according to claim 3.

5. The method further includes a deterioration determination correction step, The deterioration determination correction step corrects the determination results of the inter-story portion deterioration determination step, the window portion deterioration determination step, and the corner portion deterioration determination step based on the amount of precipitation in an area where the building is located. The method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall according to claim 1.

6. In the inter-floor deterioration determination step, the window deterioration determination step, and the corner deterioration determination step, the joint portion is inspected indirectly by visually inspecting the captured image of the joint portion captured by the imaging device of an aircraft having an imaging device. The method for assessing the risk of peeling of a tile exterior wall according to claim 1.

Images