# Failure Modes in Electricity and Telecommunication Facilities in Dwellings in Spain
## 3 Results
### Validation of the Proposed Interrelation Matrix  
The breakdown of the functional deterioration processes (Table 4) shows the complete classification of the problems in these two installations. In addition, it also serves to verify  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Installation** & **Pathological Origin** & **Type of Fault** & **\% of Installation** & **\% of Total** & **Range** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Electricity (I1)} & O1 & F1 & 30\% & 18.2\% & VH \\  & & F2 & 9\% & 5.2\% & M \\  & O2 & F1 & 32\% & 19.5\% & VH \\  & & F2 & 5\% & 3.9\% & L \\  & O3 & F1 & 15\% & 9.1\% & M \\  & O4 & F1 & 9\% & 5.2\% & M \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Telecommunications (I2)} & O1 & F1 & 30\% & 11.7\% & H \\  & & F2 & 10\% & 3.9\% & L \\ \cline{1-1}  & O2 & F1 & 31\% & 11.6\% & H \\ \cline{1-1}  & & F2 & 3\% & 1.3\% & VL \\ \cline{1-1}  & O3 & F3 & 13\% & 5.2\% & M \\ \cline{1-1}  & O4 & F1 & 13\% & 5.2\% & M \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Percentages of recurrence for each functional deterioration process.  
the starting hypothesis shown in the conceptual interrelation matrix expressed in the methodology (Table 2).  
In general, there are grounds to say that there is a formal validation of the initial proposal, albeit with some appreciations and nuances, which explain why everything is not exactly the same. To compare Tables 2 and 4, we must first add the analogous functional deterioration processes to the latter (i.e., those that have the same type of fault and pathological origin). Then, the percentages (of the total studied) of the two occurrences of O1-F1 (18.2% + 11.7%), O1-F2 (5.2% + 3.9%), O2-F1 (19.5% + 11.6%), O2-F2 (3.9% + 1.3%), and O4-F1 (5.2% + 5.2%) are added.  
* The O3-F1 interrelation only stands true for an electrical installation and the O3-F3 interrelation only stands true for the telecommunications installation.
* The interrelationships between'shortcomings and omissions in the installation' (O1) and 'alterations and malfunctions' (F1), and between 'anomalies in the installation' (O2) and 'alterations and malfunctions' (F1) are certainly the most important for I1 and I2. From a numerical point of view, the initial hypothesis (1 out of 3 times or more = 33%) is not strictly fulfilled since they obtain the values for O1-F1 (29.90%) and O2-F1 (31.10%) together. However, the authors understand that they can be considered 'predominant' because the percentage difference with respect to the proposal is meagre, and the difference with the other percentages obtained is vast.
* The interrelations between'shortcomings and omissions in the installation' (O1) and 'water ingress through construction elements' (F3) as well as between 'deteriorated or misplaced couplings' (O3) and 'incorrect or lack of placement of elements' (F2) have not been obtained among the 'associations of functional deterioration processes' found in the data source. This may have a double reading: first, that its frequency is very low and a much larger number of cases would be needed for them to appear; second, that they do exist but that their presence does not imply in practice a process of functional deterioration of the facility that is likely to be complained as a fault by the owners.