INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3443
www.rsisinternational.org
A Review towards a Standardized Approach in Building Structure
Inspection for Maintenance Management
Mohamad Haszirul Mohd Hashim
1*
, Norliyati Binti Mohd Amin
2
, Nurul Hakimah Binti Abdullah
3
,
Nurul Izza Abdul Ghani
4
1
Program of Building Surveying, Faculty of Built Enviroment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak
Branch
2
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam Selangor
3
Post Graduate Student, Faculty of Built Enviroment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam Selangor
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Politeknik Ungku Omar
*
Corresponding Author
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000299
Received: 04 November 2025; Accepted: 11 November 2025; Published: 20 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Maintenance is a combination of several management methods without changing the basic features and functions
of building structures and service systems. Effective maintenance planning ensures optimal use of the structure
and reduces operating costs. Building inspection is one of the methods in maintenance management for
assessment of building physical condition.
Moreover, this method is a preliminary analysis to gather information,
assess and identify damages to building structures. This paper discussed variety of structural inspection methods
including inspections for pitched roof and fade. Literature was collected from journals, conference proceedings,
standards and books. These methods were compared and classified according to defect. The results demonstrated
that there are weaknesses in the method of building structure inspection. For example, there are varieties of
information in the verification of damage causing inconsistencies in the inspection. Hence, causing inconsistent
final report on maintenance performed. Besides, the assessments also depend on the discretion and experience
of the inspector resulting in subjective evaluations. For instance, the final reports were interpreted differently
from individual perspectives. In conclusion, building structure inspection requires a guide to standardize the
inspection process. In addition, specific strategies are required to ensure the documents provided can be reduced
consistently by various inspectors.
Keyword: Building Inspection, Maintenance Management, Standardization, Structural Assessment, Building
Performance.
INTRODUCTION
Maintenance is defined as a continuous process carried out without altering the basic features and functions of a
building system after its construction is completed [1]. Maintenance management integrates various activities to
ensure that the building components and systems remain in optimal condition. However, some maintenance
activities are unpredictable and may involve certain risks [2]. Building maintenance management is closely
associated with building life cycle management, asset management, and health and safety management [3]. It
encompasses activities involving various building components such as basements, interiors and exteriors, walls,
columns, building services, and roof systems. The optimal operation of building service systems requires
continuous maintenance management. Poor maintenance practices may result in significant financial losses to
building owners [4]. Effective maintenance management can optimize and maximize system performance [5]. It
also helps to delay deterioration, defects, and failures [6]. Furthermore, maintenance can reduce operating costs
and extend the overall building life cycle [7]. Therefore, maintenance activities play a crucial role, as
approximately 70% of operating costs are typically allocated to building maintenance planning [3]. Hence,
effective maintenance management represents a sound investment for building owners [8]. Maintenance
management also involves early planning in several aspects, including budget control, maintenance scheduling,
and the allocation of financial resources [9]. This is particularly important because many organizations consider
maintenance work to be a financial burden on operating costs [10]. As noted by [11], approximately 90% of a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3444
www.rsisinternational.org
building’s life cycle requires maintenance work, which often results in maintenance costs exceeding the allocated
budget [12].
The main objective of this review paper is to identify and evaluate the existing methods currently practiced in
building structure inspection as part of maintenance management activities. This study seeks to examine the
various inspection techniques used to assess the physical condition of building components, including both visual
and non-destructive approaches. It also aims to analyze the strengths, limitations, and inconsistencies associated
with these inspection methods that may affect the reliability and accuracy of maintenance evaluations.
Furthermore, this paper highlights the need for standardization in building inspection procedures to ensure
consistency, repeatability, and objectivity in the assessment process.
Maintenance Inspection
Maintenance inspection is an essential component of building maintenance management that helps determine
the physical condition and performance of building elements. Its primary purpose is to identify defects,
deterioration, and potential failures in building structures before they develop into serious problems. Generally,
maintenance inspection methods can be categorized into visual inspection, non-destructive testing, and
instrument-based assessment. An effective inspection strategy plays a crucial role in minimizing maintenance
costs, enhancing building safety and health, and reducing the failure rate of building service systems [13]. In
addition, systematic inspection facilitates proper planning of repair works to prevent defects from worsening and
to avoid structural failures [14]. Furthermore, inspection results can assist maintenance teams in determining
appropriate repair actions and ensuring that maintenance interventions are performed efficiently [15].
Table 1: Assesssment of Inspection Methods.
Inspection Method
No.
Authors
Source /
Structure
Inspection
Elements to
Inspect
Level Defect
Assessment
1
[22]
Wooden
House in
Cambodia
Need to be
identified by the
inspector
Depending on
the cause and
type of defect
—
2
[23]
Wooden
House in
Melaka
Need to be
identified by the
inspector
Depending on
the cause and
type of defect
—
3
[8]
Flat roofs,
facades,
windows and
doors
Building
materials
Checklist
—
4
[24]
Pitched Roof
Element building
material
Checklist
—
5
[25]
Building
Subjective
component
Need to be
described by
inspector
—
6
[26]
Building
Moisture
contents in
building
Need to be
described by
inspector
—
7
[27]
Building
General
information to
Need to be
described by
inspector
—
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3445
www.rsisinternational.org
identify element
of the building
8
[28]
Roof school
building
Inspect external
roof, drainage
and down pipe
Need to be
described by
inspector
—
9
[29]
Pitched roof
General
information to
identify element
of the building
Need to be
described by
inspector
—
The review of studies presented in Table 1 demonstrates that building inspection and defect assessment practices
are predominantly qualitative and depend heavily on the professional judgment of inspectors [16]. Across
various studies, such as those involving wooden houses, pitched roofs, and general building structures, the
inspection elements are not standardized but are instead identified by inspectors based on the specific type, cause,
and extent of the defect [17]. The inspection process typically involves visual examination of materials, structural
components, and external features such as façades, roofs, drainage systems, windows, and doors. In several
studies, defect descriptions are documented through checklists or narrative assessments that describe visible
signs of deterioration, material degradation, or moisture-related problems. The level of defect assessment, in
most cases, is determined through the inspector’s interpretation and clarification of the building’s current
condition [18]. This indicates that the assessment relies on subjective evaluation rather than quantitative
measurement or a standardized scoring framework [19].
Such reliance on individual expertise can lead to inconsistencies in reporting and variations in assessment
outcomes between inspectors. Moreover, the lack of uniform criteria makes it difficult to compare inspection
results across different building types and research contexts [20].
Therefore, it is evident that while current inspection methods provide flexibility and adaptability, they also
highlight the need for more systematic, data-driven, and standardized assessment models [21]. Future studies
should aim to integrate objective indicators, measurable parameters, and digital tools such as sensors or defect
detection software to enhance the accuracy, consistency, and reliability of building defect inspection and
evaluation processes.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted in this review paper is primarily based on an extensive literature study. Various
sources, including reference books, academic journals, conference papers, technical reports, magazines, and
industry publications, were systematically reviewed. A structured approach was employed to examine the current
monitoring techniques applied in wooden structure maintenance.
The review also includes an evaluation of previous methods developed by researchers for defect detection and
assessment in timber structures. By comparing approaches from different studies and standards, this paper
identifies the current level of advancement in assessment for timber materials.
Overall, this comparative synthesis highlights current best practices, technological gaps, and emerging trends in
moisture monitoring systems. The findings are expected to provide valuable references for researchers,
engineers, and conservation professionals involved in the maintenance and preservation of wooden structures.
Issues And Challenges in Current Inspection Practices
Inspection is a visual assessment method of the components [30]. This method reviews the visual condition of
the defect at component based on their nature or performance parameters. Visual inspection is a non-assistance
process of assessment alongside various visual aids for assessment of conditions during inspection.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3446
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 2: Summary of Issues in Inspection.
No
Author Source
Issue In Inspection
1.
[22]
The inspector assumes condition of defects on component
2.
[31]
Record the condition on the component without having the knowledge in the level
of defects.
3.
[32]
The inspector’s view is limited
4.
[33]
Lack of knowledge is a problem in the assessment of defects
5.
[34]
Assessment is guided by own judgment, perception or self-assumption
6.
[35]
Assessment based on knowledge, feelings and emotions
7.
[36]
Inspection depending on the memory of the framework
8.
[37]
Assessment based on the experience of the inspector
9.
[38]
The inspection is conducted in its own way
Based on table 2, several issues and challenges can be identified in current inspection practices. One of the main
issues is that inspectors often rely on their own assumptions about the condition of defects on components
without having sufficient knowledge about the actual level of defects [24]. This method goals is to get feedback
during a inspection on the performance of the component. This lack of knowledge leads to inaccurate
assessments and evaluations that depend heavily on personal judgment and perception [39].
Furthermore, inspectors’ limited viewpoints [12] and reliance on memory or personal experience [40] affect the
objectivity and consistency of inspection results. In some cases, inspections are conducted according to
individual methods without following standardized guidelines or frameworks [41], resulting in inconsistencies
in outcomes. Overall, the challenges in current inspection practices mainly stem from human factors such as
insufficient knowledge, dependence on personal experience and assumptions, as well as the absence of a
systematic and standardized approach to inspection assessment.
The review of previous studies reveals several recurring issues that affect the reliability and consistency of
building inspection practices. One of the most critical problems is the subjectivity of assessment, where
inspectors often make assumptions about the condition of defects without sufficient technical knowledge or
supporting evidence [24]. In many cases, inspections are influenced by the limited visual access to structural
components, resulting in incomplete evaluation and misinterpretation of the actual condition [12]. Furthermore,
a lack of knowledge and technical competency among inspectors contributes to inaccuracies in defect assessment
and reporting [39].
Another key issue identified is that inspections are frequently guided by personal judgment, perception, and self-
assumption, rather than standardized assessment criteria [42]. This subjectivity causes the evaluation process to
depend heavily on the experience, memory, and emotions of the inspector, which leads to inconsistent findings
between individuals [40]. Additionally, it is found that inspection activities are often conducted in a non-
standardized manner, where each inspector applies their own methods and interpretation framework [41].
Overall, these issues highlight the absence of a consistent and systematic approach in building inspection
practices. The heavy reliance on individual perception and experience results in inconsistent, unreliable, and
non-reproducible inspection outcomes. Therefore, there is a clear need to establish a standardized inspection
framework to improve objectivity, ensure uniform data collection, and support effective maintenance decision-
making.
Various assumptions of the life expectancy of the structure will also results in an unreliable report [43]. This
causes weaknesses of the current methods of data collection such inconsistencies, unrealistic assumptions and
manipulation of data [11]. The consequences are there will be various information from different inspectors [43].
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3447
www.rsisinternational.org
Studies conducted by [44] shows there is an existence of bias in the validation of structural defects. The
assumption with no knowledge on the gravity of defect would cause the method of maintenance to be biased or
irrelevant.
DISCUSSION
Knowledge and understanding of building maintenance programs is a prelude for an effective management.
Maintenance management should identify all operating systems in the building to facilitate the design of regular
maintenance schedules. This paper discusses on the building maintenance management system to achieve the
maintenance objectives. Reliable inspection also requires the arrangement of components and subcomponents
for strength assessment to determine structural stability [48]. It to ensure that the inspector can identify the
components to be inspected.
There are several methods of inspection depending on the of choice of the inspector. This problem described in
the study of maintenance based on the conditions conducted by [45] for social housing summarizes as follows:
1. The purpose of the inspection and the framework is unclear because the inspector is unfamiliar with the
components.
2. There is several experiences of inspectors in conducting inspections.
3. The level of disability is not realistic by the inspector.
4. There is incomplete or inappropriate data in the report inspection.
5. Lack of information or lack of clarity in providing maintenance programs is a major contributing factor to
the level of dissatisfaction among building owners.
To ensure a more effective method of inspection, some improvements are needed in visual assessment so that
inspection is easy and fast based on the studies conducted by [46]:
1. A standard hierarchy or sequence of components and sub-components are required for inspection.
2. A guide such as the use of color code to indicate good, medium and bad condition on floor plans are required.
3. Can be used in mobile PCs for easier movement.
4. Picture of damages from each point of inspection need to be collected.
5. A picture database is required as a guide during the inspection to reduce subjective assessment.
Despite the usefulness of existing inspection practices in identifying visible defects, several limitations have
been observed in previous studies. The reliance on visual observation and inspector experience introduces a high
degree of subjectivity, leading to potential bias and inconsistency in evaluation outcomes. In addition, many
inspections are carried out manually, which makes the process time-consuming and prone to human error,
especially in large or complex buildings. The absence of standardized evaluation criteria further complicates
defect classification, making it difficult to establish clear thresholds for severity levels or maintenance
prioritization. Moreover, the documentation methods such as manual checklists or descriptive notes lack
integration with digital data systems, thereby limiting traceability and long-term performance monitoring.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3448
www.rsisinternational.org
Figure 1: Conceptual Standardized Guideline
To overcome these limitations, recent research has suggested the development of a more systematic and
technology-driven inspection framework. This conceptual approach could integrate digital tools such as Building
Information Modelling (BIM), sensor-based monitoring systems, and computer vision techniques for automatic
defect detection. The incorporation of quantitative indicators, supported by image analytics and data-driven
decision models, would enable objective and repeatable assessments. Furthermore, the establishment of
standardized rating systems and performance benchmarks would promote consistency and comparability across
different building types and conditions. By merging traditional visual inspection with emerging digital
technologies, future frameworks could significantly improve the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of building
defect assessments, ultimately supporting proactive maintenance and sustainable building management
practices.
CONCLUSION
Maintenance activities are important to building management. Building maintenance management needs to be
planned before the building is built and monitored during construction to ensure contractors comply with the
specifications. Since, the level of effectiveness of some elements in the building service system will deteriorate
and needs continuos maintenance. This paper described the importance of maintenance planning to building
structures based on inspection methods. Guide framework for visual inspection are required so the inspection
process is faster, less subjective and more suitable for less experienced inspector.
Therefore, based on studies of previous works, a guide framework is the key to achieve uniform inspections. In
addition, specific strategies are required to ensure the documents provided can be interpreted consistently by
various inspectors.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Olanrewaju, M. F. Khamidi, and A. Idrus, “Quantitative analysis of defects in Malaysian university
buildings: Providers’ perspective,” J. Retail Leis. Prop., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 137–149, 2010.
2. Z.-A. Ismail and N. Kasim, “Improving maintenance management practices on conventional method at
Malaysian polytechnic,” 2012.
3. M. Rum, N. Azizah, and Z. A. Akasah, “Pendekatan kos kitaran hayat (LCC) ke arah pembangunan lestari
di Malaysia,” 2011.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3449
www.rsisinternational.org
4. M. Holmgren, “Maintenance-related losses at the Swedish Rail,” J. Qual. Maint. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5–
18, 2005.
5. C. Y. Yong and M. Z. Sulieman, “Assessment of Building Maintenance Management Practice and Occupant
Satisfaction of School Buildings in Perak, Malaysia,” 2015.
6. M. A. A. Rahman$^1$, Z. A. Akasah, and S. N. F. Zuraidi, “Analisis Tren Semasa Demografi Personel
Penyenggaraan Bangunan Warisan di Malaysia,” J. Surv. Constr. Prop., vol. 2, no. 2, 2012.
7. A. Shah Ali, “Cost decision making in building maintenance practice in Malaysia,” J. Facil. Manag., vol. 7,
no. 4, pp. 298–306, 2009.
8. Z. A. Akasah, S. H. Shamsuddin, I. Abd Rahman, and M. Alias, “School Building Maintenance Strategy: a
new management approach,” 2009.
9. K. Jones and M. Sharp, “A new performance-based process model for built asset maintenance,” Facilities,
vol. 25, no. 13/14, pp. 525–535, 2007.
10. T. Labeodan, W. Zeiler, G. Boxem, and Y. Zhao, “Occupancy measurement in commercial office buildings
for demand-driven control applications—A survey and detection system evaluation,” Energy Build., vol.
93, pp. 303–314, 2015.
11. O. A. Lateef, “Case for alternative approach to building maintenance management of public universities,”
J. Build. Apprais., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 201–212, 2010.
12. N. De Silva, M. Ranasinghe, and C. R. De Silva, “Risk factors affecting building maintenance under tropical
conditions,” J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 235–252, 2012.
13. M. N. Grussing, D. R. Uzarski, and L. R. Marrano, “Condition and reliability prediction models using the
Weibull probability distribution,” in Applications of Advanced Technology in Transportation, 2006, pp. 19–
24.
14. S. Mathew, “An inspection maintenance strategy using the inspection factor,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag.,
vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 532–540, 2008.
15. S. Das and M. Y. L. Chew, “Generic method of grading building defects using FMECA to improve
maintainability decisions,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 522–533, 2011.
16. S. M. H. M. Hashim and N. I. A. Ghani, “Pendekatan Pembangunan Garis Panduan Yang Seragam Dalam
Penyenggaraan Bangunan”.
17. M. H. M. Hashim, A. S. Ali, F. W. Akashah, and N. I. A. Ghani, “Identify Visual Component Inspection
for Design Non-Destructive Pitch Roof Checklist,” 2022.
18. N. I. A. Ghani, M. H. M. Hashim, and W. S. Zamani, “Literature Review on Problem of Defect Assessment
Inspection for Building Maintenance Management Planning,” Architecture, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 2279–2284,
2023.
19. M. H. Mohamad Haszirul Mohd Hashim, “Pembangunan Komponen Penilaian Pemeriksaan Kecacatan
Bumbung Curam Untuk Bangunan Sekolah Di Malaysia,” Universiti Malaya, 2021.
20. S. Yacob, A. S. Ali, and A.-Y. C. Peng, “Building Condition Assessment: Lesson Learnt from Pilot
Projects,” in MATEC Web of Conferences, 2016, p. 72.
21. J. Kempton, A. Alani, and K. Chapman, “Potential effects of the confirmation bias in house condition
surveys,” Struct. Surv., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 6–12, 2002.
22. A.-I. Che-Ani, A. Ramly, M.-F. Mohd-Zain, N. Mohd-Tawil, and A.-E. Hashim, “Assessing the condition
of traditional Khmer timber houses in Cambodia: A priority ranking approach,” J. Build. Apprais., vol. 4,
no. 2, pp. 87–102, 2008.
23. Che-Ani, A. Zaharim, M. F. M. Zain, N. Mohd-Tawil, and M. Surat, “Timber defects in building: a study
of Telapak Naning, Malacca, Malaysia,” WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 109–118, 2009.
24. N. Garcez, N. Lopes, J. d de Brito, and G. Sá, “Pathology, diagnosis and repair of pitched roofs with ceramic
tiles: Statistical characterisation and lessons learned from inspections,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 36, pp.
807–819, 2012.
25. J. Streeter, “BS on building maintenance,” Facilities, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 4–5, 1984.
26. K. Mjörnell, J. Arfvidsson, and E. Sikander, “A method for including moisture safety in the building
process,” Indoor Built Environ., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 583–594, 2012.
27. J. de Oliveira Pedro, J. de Paiva, and A. José Dâmaso Santos Matos Vilhena, “Portuguese method for
building condition assessment,” Struct. Surv., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 322–335, 2008.
28. P. Bastidas, “Maintenance Manual for School Buildings in the Caribbean.,” 1998.
29. R. Oberle and W. G. James, “Developing O&M plans for homeowners associations: Case study,” J. Archit.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3450
www.rsisinternational.org
Eng., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 76–84, 2008.
30. C. G. Drury and J. Watson, “Good practices in visual inspection,” Hum. factors Aviat. maintenance-phase
nine, Prog. report, FAA/Human Factors Aviat. Maintenance.@ URL http//hfskyway. faa. gov, 2002.
31. T. J. Pitt, “Data requirements for the prioritization of predictive building maintenance,” Facilities, vol. 15,
no. 3/4, pp. 97–104, 1997.
32. R. N. Wahida, G. Milton, N. Hamadan, N. M. I. B. N. Lah, and A. H. Mohammed, “Building Condition
Assessment Imperative and Process,” Procedia-Social Behav. Sci., vol. 65, pp. 775–780, 2012.
33. W.-K. Chong and S.-P. Low, “Latent building defects: causes and design strategies to prevent them,” J.
Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 213–221, 2006.
34. A. M. Alani, A. K. Petersen, and K. G. Chapman, “Applications of a developed quantitative model in
building repair and maintenance--case study,” Facilities, vol. 19, no. 5/6, pp. 215–222, 2001.
35. P. Shaver, J. Schwartz, D. Kirson, and C. O’connor, “Emotion knowledge: further exploration of a prototype
approach.,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 52, no. 6, p. 1061, 1987.
36. O. Bayazit, “Use of AHP in decision-making for flexible manufacturing systems,” J. Manuf. Technol.
Manag., vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 808–819, 2005.
37. E. Finch, K. Jones, and M. Sharp, “A new performance-based process model for built asset maintenance,”
Facilities, vol. 25, no. 13/14, pp. 525–535, 2007.
38. M. Hoxley, “Condition inspections of residential property: a procedural framework,” Struct. Surv., vol. 20,
no. 1, pp. 31–35, 2002.
39. [N. Ahzahar, N. A. Karim, S. H. Hassan, and J. Eman, “A study of contribution factors to building failures
and defects in construction industry,” Procedia Eng., vol. 20, pp. 249–255, 2011.
40. K. S. Kamal, A. G. Ahmad, and L. Ab Wahab, “Kecacatan Bangunan dan Kepentingan Pemuliharaan
Warisan di Bandaraya Ipoh,” in Proceedings: National Conference On Malaysia Cityscape, 2007, pp. 28–
29.
41. H. Y. H. Lee and D. Scott, “Identification of main aspects in the management of building maintenance
operation processes,” Surv. Times’, Hong Kong Inst. Surv., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 37–41, 2008.
42. H. Al-Zubaidi, “Assessing the demand for building maintenance in a major hospital complex,” Prop.
Manag., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 173–183, 1997.
43. Che-Ani, Ramly, and S. Jamil, Zain, “Role And Methods Of Building Defects Inspection,” 2008.
44. H. Abdul-Rahman, C. Wang, L. C. Wood, and Y. M. Khoo, “Defects in affordable housing projects in Klang
Valley, Malaysia,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 272–285, 2012.
45. B. D. Ilozor, M. I. Okoroh, C. E. Egbu, and others, “Understanding residential house defects in Australia
from the State of Victoria,” Build. Environ., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 327–337, 2004.
46. T. Hegazy, S. Singh Ahluwalia, and M. Attalla, “Two condition indicators for building components based
on reactive-maintenance data,” J. Facil. Manag., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 64–74, 2010.