Barend van Zadelhoff Jul 5, 2014:

'geveldek' is in deze context simpel de betondekking (concrete cover) van de gevel.

Literally - concrete cover of the façade

Richard Purdom Jul 2, 2014:

Mr Dave 'Because it's Dutch. In English, we would probably have simply said "resulting in further damage to the facade".'

Outside the rarefied world of translation, front wall/front elevation looks fine!

Dave Greatrix Jul 2, 2014:

Sorry Richard, I haven't a clue what you are referring to....

Richard Purdom Jul 2, 2014:

i think we would call it a front wall actually Dave. It's a French word and most English people are not even sure how to pronounce it.

Ghislaine van der Burgt (asker) Jul 1, 2014:

Ha! Magician par excellence? The whole thing is upside down and inside out; it has taken me hours already to do an initial two-hour read-through. I just cannot do the arbitrary glance. Anyway, off-topic. Thanks for your help again, I am calling it a night in a little while.

Dave Greatrix Jul 1, 2014:

There is no law that demands a literal translation - by all means, let the "dek" disappear.....

Evgeny Artemov (X) Jul 1, 2014:

Jis something like this. So that the client asks no questions about het verdwenen dek. :-)

Michael Beijer Jul 1, 2014:

I’d probably agree with Dave ‘facade surface layer’ sounds good to me too.

Dave Greatrix Jul 1, 2014:

On reflection, I would use "facade surface layer".

Ghislaine van der Burgt (asker) Jul 1, 2014:

The text explains that there was not enough concrete cover, which led to damage to the rebar, which in turn led to more damage to the facade (structure). A proposed resolution for this was to use the shotcrete, as the architect wanted to keep the original look and feel of the facade.

Evgeny Artemov (X) Jul 1, 2014:

Right. Question is how relevant the differentiation is to warrant differentiation in translation, Dutch or not. :-)

Dave Greatrix Jul 1, 2014:

They have probably used "geveldek" to differentiate between damage to the concrete cover and severe structural damage to the actual facade - i.e. deep structural cracks in the superstructure.

Ghislaine van der Burgt (asker) Jul 1, 2014:

Thanks for this gentlemen, I just want to make sure it is right, as this is a website, so someone's first impression. Not that I think the Dutch text is up to scratch, but that's not my concern. I dare say there will be more questions from me in the near future.

Dave Greatrix Jul 1, 2014:

Because it's Dutch. In English, we would probably have simply said "resulting in further damage to the facade".

Michael Beijer Jul 1, 2014:

@Dave: OK, I think I understand (no actual hands-on experience with any of this), but am still wondering why they used the word ‘dek’.

See e.g.:

OGL:
dek = (bedekking) cover(ing)
dekking = (bedekking) cover, covering, coverage
dekking (m.b.t. beton) = cover
deklaag = upper layer, coating
deksteen = covering stone, cover slab

GWIT:
dek [1] = deck
dek [4] = blanket; covering
dek [5] = cover

in a way, the word ‘geveldek’ is dubbelop, as a gevel is already a deklaag/dekking. i.e., the outer layer/cover
in this sense they could just have referred to it as the gevel, which would then lead us to your facade (structure)

Dave Greatrix Jul 1, 2014:

Because it's Dutch, Evgeny - why use one word when you can use half a dozen?

Dave Greatrix Jul 1, 2014:

That's about it in a nutshell Ghislaine.

Evgeny Artemov (X) Jul 1, 2014:

That explains the "dek" but why not find a closer word?

Dave Greatrix Jul 1, 2014:

For the sake of clarity, the Dutch term used for concrete "cover" - i.e. The layer of concrete covering the rebar is "dekking"

Ghislaine van der Burgt (asker) Jul 1, 2014:

So the facade structure is damaged, and the proposed resolution is to 'cover the facade (or facade structure) with a layer of shotcrete'?
This'll teach me to proofread out of my comfort zone...

Dave Greatrix Jul 1, 2014:

No Michael, there is no cladding. The rebar became exposed because the concrete cover became damaged resulting in further corrosion and damage to the facade structure.

Michael Beijer Jul 1, 2014:

@Dave: Ahaa, I think I see what you mean. So you’re saying that what they fixed was the (underlying) structure, rather than just the surface.

Michael Beijer Jul 1, 2014:

image: http://www.sealteq.nl/upload/111-spuitbeton_nam.jpg

Michael Beijer Jul 1, 2014:

source: http://www.sealteq.nl/betonreparatie/112-spuitbeton-nam-loca...

‘In opdracht van Visser & Smit Bouw en in nauw overleg met de eigenaar/gebruiker NAM, heeft Frans Nooren het schuine betonnen geveldek van het controlegebouw en de werkplaats ter plaatse van de gasopslaglocatie UGS Norg voorzien van een beschermende laag spuitbeton.

Het betonnen oppervlak bevond zich in een slechte staat. Door te weinig betondekking op de wapening is scheurvormingen en gedelamineerd beton ontstaan. Verder waren over het gehele oppervlak grindnesten en stortnaden zichtbaar. Hierdoor ontstond verder kwaliteitsverlies van het beton en zag het er esthetisch gezien niet fraai uit. Verdere zichtbare gevolgen waren dat het wapeningsijzer bloot kwam te liggen en gecorrodeerd was, met als gevolg dat de betonschade toenam en het geveldek verder zou gaan aantasten. Tevens zouden waterlekkages kunnen ontstaan in de ondergelegen ruimtes.

(...)

Gekozen is om het geveldek middels een laag spuitbeton te voorzien en deze qua textuur af te werken in het zelfde profiel als oorspronkelijk. Het betrof een oppervlak van totaal circa 350 m² waarbij de werkzaamheden als volgt zijn uitgevoerd.’