WWP3: P3: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENTFOR RISK ASSESSMENT
WP leader: UNIBOP leader: UNIBO
Rocco Mazzeo, Silvia Prati, Marta Quaranta, Gabriele Bitelli, Marcella Mannina
Omilia, May 31Omilia, May 31thth 2011 2011
WP3 PartnersWP3 Partners
Work package no. 3 Start date or starting event: Beginning of the Month 3
Work package title CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENT
Activity Type COORD
Benef. number 9 1 3 5 7 10 11 12
Short name UNIBO UL BBRI ITAM NTUA UNIFE IPPT PAN LABEIN
Person-months 11 1 2 4 3 3 1 2
WWP3: P3: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT
Objectives:
Risk identification; to search and analyze existing directives for risk assessment related to monument conservation
Setting up criteria to meet principles of CH protection Critically analyze and priorities all risks affecting the state of
conservation of cultural heritage and to set up assessment criteria which meet conservation ethics principles
Establishing indicators to be incorporated into the final strategy and model.
The overall aim of the work package was to draw a picture of currently employed methodologies, to critically analyse and evaluate actions, and to project and define future research priorities according to EU-CHIC requirements and perspectives.
Task 3.1 (month 3-9)Research and analysis of existing directives for risk assessment
related to monument conservation Leader: UNIBOParticipants: UL, BBRI, ITAM, NTUA, UNIFE, IPPT, LABEIN
Task 3.2 (month 6-11)Critical analysis of risks and setting up of assessment criteria
L: UNIBOP: UL, BBRI, ITAM, NTUA
Task 3.3 (month 8-13)Establishment of risk indicators
L: UNIBOP: UL, BBRI, ITAM
WORK PACKAGESWORK PACKAGES
Septe
mbe
r 200
9
April
2010
Oct
ober
201
0
Mar
ch 2
011
October 2010 Milestone: Current methodologies and risk assessment (Meeting in Ravenna, Italy)
February 2011 (actual date of delivery, April 2011) Deliverable “Report on risk indicators and roadmap for future research priorities”
June
201
1
TIMINGTIMING
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD
1. EXISTING EUROPEAN PROJECTS FOCUSED ON RISK ASSESSMENT
2. IDENTIFICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
CURRENTLY ADOPTED IN EUROPE
3. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE
INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD
4. PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN RISK ASSESSMENT
TERMINOLOGY
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD
1. EXISTING EUROPEAN PROJECTS FOCUSED ON RISK ASSESSMENT
Project Funding source Outcome
ESPON European Commission Hazard maps
NOAH’S ARC Research institutions (FP6 project)
Climate maps, heritage climate maps, damage maps, risk maps, thematic pages
COST ACTION C26
Research institutions Risk assessment methodology
Monumentenwatch Private organization Objective monitoring of buildings
CEN standard 346 European Commission Guidelines for condition survey of immovable heritage
RISK MAP MiBAC (Italian Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali), IsCR (Italian Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il restauro), Research institutions
Hazard maps, cultural heritage distribution, vulnerability datasheets (conservation state and seismic risk)
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD2. IDENTIFICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES CURRENTLY
ADOPTED IN EUROPEa. Development of a survey template
Template- General information
- Name- Responsible institution- Level of implementation- Access- Updating- Reference to catalogue
- Localization method- Risk assessment methodology
- Factors of danger- Vulnerability - Legal constrains- Risk mathematical model/algorithm- Possibility to realize database
queries- Data downloadable
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD2. IDENTIFICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES CURRENTLY
ADOPTED IN EUROPEa. Development of a survey templateb. Collection of data (template sent to all partners, 8 countries represented)
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD2. IDENTIFICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES CURRENTLY
ADOPTED IN EUROPEa. Development of a survey templateb. Collection of data (template sent to all partners, 8 countries represented)c. Data analysis
COUNTRYCOUNTRY METHOD'S METHOD'S NAMENAME
RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ASSESSMENT
HAZARDHAZARD VULNERABILITYVULNERABILITY RISKRISK
ITALY Risk Map
static-structural (seismic activity, landslides, flooding, coastal dynamics, avalanches, volcanic
activity), human impact danger (population density, tourist flows, number of thefts
environmental (erosion, blackening, physical stress)
vulnerability datasheets (conservation state) for
archeaological siteas and hitorical
building/monuments and vulnerability datasheets specific to seismic risk
RISK EVALUATION
BELGIUM
1. MonumentenWatch; 2.Objective monitoring (standard); 3. Method raccomanded by BBRI
hazard are extremely rare and no administration take them into account
monitoring of building condition, urgency of
intervention
VISUAL INSPECTION - URGENCY OF INTERVENTION
SLOVENIA Heritage Register - - -
CZECH REPUBLIC
MonumeNet-Heritage at risk
hazard are reported as free text in immovable heritage database
- NO
SLOVAKIAMonitoring the subgrade of historic monuments
Landslide/slip danger: Specific monitoring of selected historic monuments.
Static-structural domain: Movement of reference
points is monitoredNO
NORWAY CEN standard - -
EVALUATION OF MAINTENANCE AND
PROPOSAL OF MEASURES
POLAND not named
Static-structural domain: floods, building disaster (technical or chemical failure); Weather/Climate domain: wind; Anthropic domain: liability to theft, fires, vandalism, mass manifestation and riots,
terrorist attack, armed conflicts
-
MANAGEMENT PLANS BASED ON
REGULATION(August 2004)
GREECE Risk Map (pilot program)
static-structural (seismic activity, landslides, flooding, coastal dynamics, avalanches, volcanic
activity), human impact danger (population density, tourist flows, number of thefts
environmental (erosion, blackening, physical stress)
vulnerability index defined for each
monumentRISK EVALUATION
2. c. Data analysis
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD2. IDENTIFICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES CURRENTLY
ADOPTED IN EUROPEa. Development of a survey templateb. Collection of data c. Data analysis
1. Three approaches
Northern Europe (Belgium, Norway)Criteria for risk assessment: condition survey based on NEN2727
standard, detection of defects and definition of urgency of intervention. No risk assessment as risks are extremely rare (Belgium).
VISUAL INSPECTION DEFINITION OF POSSIBLE MEASURES
Southern Europe (Italy, Greece)Criteria for risk assessment: complex evaluation of risk based on analysis
of hazards and individual vulnerability (state of conservation) of building. EVALUATION OF RISK (hazard + vulnerability)
Eastern Europe (Poland) RISK MANAGEMENT plans (regulated by national law)
2. c. Data analysis1. Three approaches
TERMINOLOGY
2. c. Data analysis1.Three approaches2. Proposed assessment criteria
• Cultural Heritage distribution in each country
• Identification of HAZARD (geographic location)
• Harmfulness of HAZARDS to Cultural Heritage: definition of VULNERABILITY ( through Standardized condition surveys)
• RISK EVALUATION (function of hazard and vulnerability)
• Definition of risk indicators
e.g. RISK MAP – ISCR (MiBAC, Italy)
Proposed assessment criteria:
•Cultural Heritage distribution in each country
Proposed assessment criteria:
• Identification of HAZARD (geographic location)
EARTHQUAKES
Ravenna Meeting 13.October.2010The Diversity of Challenges in Creating Effective Risk Management SolutionsIngval Maxwell, OBE, DADun, RIBA, FRIAS, AABC, ACA, FSAScot
Ravenna Meeting 13.October.2010The Diversity of Challenges in Creating Effective Risk Management SolutionsIngval Maxwell, OBE, DADun, RIBA, FRIAS, AABC, ACA, FSAScot
LANDSLIDES
WINTER STORMS
Ravenna Meeting 13.October.2010The Diversity of Challenges in Creating Effective Risk Management SolutionsIngval Maxwell, OBE, DADun, RIBA, FRIAS, AABC, ACA, FSAScot
NOAH’S ARC PROJECTMonitor the actual situation and foresee its evolution within a given timescale: - baseline (recent past 1961-1990)- near future (2010-2030)- far future (2070-2099)
Proposed assessment criteria:
• Identification of HAZARD (geographic location)
A. vulnerability datasheets (conservation state) for archaeological site and historical building/monuments and vulnerability datasheets specific to seismic risk (Italy)
B. monitoring of building condition, urgency of intervention (Belgium)
C. vulnerability index defined for each monument (Greece)
* = related to mankind
Proposed assessment criteria:
• Harmfulness of HAZARDS to Cultural Heritage: definition of VULNERABILITY
3. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD1. Methodology
a. Take into consideration the structure developed by Risk Map: hazard + vulnerability
b. Make use of information provided by existing Eu-projects (ESPON, Noah’s Arc, COST C26, Climate for Culture, etc.)
c. Adaptation to Eu-CHIC needs defining priorities for each European regions
3. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD1. Methodology2. Proposal for risk indicators
- Static structural domain- ESPON European-level hazard maps / RISK MAP / COST C26
- Environment domain- blackening index- erosion index- physical stress
- Weather/climate domain- NOAH’S ARC Eu-project
climate maps, heritage climate maps, damage maps, risk maps
- Human impact domain- demography, number of visitors, thefts…
3. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD1. Methodology2. Proposal for risk indicators
a. Hazard
To be achieved through:
•Monumentenwatch, NEN 2767 (standardized condition survey and monitoring)
•CEN standard 346 (standardized condition survey)
•RISK MAP: vulnerability datasheets - conservation state
•RISK MAP: vulnerability datasheets - seismic risk
(1) M. Laurenzi Tabasso, Il Capitolato Speciale tipo per la Diagnostica: un “non-finito” della Commissione NorMal, KERMES, Speciale Normativa BB.CC., anno XXI, numero 71, luglio-settembre 2008.
Lack of STANDARDIZED DIAGNOSTICDIAGNOSTIC SURVEYs (1)
3. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD1. Methodology2. Proposal for risk indicators
a. Hazardb. Vulnerability
SPECIFICATION FORDIAGNOSTIC ACTIVITIES TO BE CARRIED OUTPRELIMINARY TO ANY CONSERVATION-RESTORATIONINTERVENTION
– Indagine storica e archivistica*– Rilievo e rappresentazione– Misura dei parametri ambientali– Caratterizzazione geologico-tecnica e geotecnica di un sito– Analisi e calcolo strutturale*– Definizione della tipologia e funzionalità degli impianti tecnici*– Caratterizzazione dei materiali lapidei (naturalie artificiali) e studio di processi di alterazione– Indagini non distruttive– Prove meccaniche– Caratterizzazione dello stato termoigrometrico delle murature– Valutazione preventiva dei prodotti e dei metodi da impiegare per il trattamento dei materiali lapidei naturali e artificiali.
OWNERS, MANAGERS OF MONUMENTS/SITES: advantages: cost-effective; existing standardized format for data
collection drawbacks: non professionals; lack of knowledge on material
science and degradation
ARCHITECT, ENGINEERS, CONSERVATION SCIENTISTS, NATURAL SCIENTIST, etc
advantages: professional and qualified survey drawbacks: demanding in terms of time, cost and knowledge
4. Professionals involveda. Different levels of involvement
WP3 ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE REPORTING PERIOD
WHO CAN USE THE RESULTS?
According to DOW the results achieved will be used by WP4 and WP5
•WP4 Task 4.1: after the conclusion of WP3, the aim of the task is to identify the techniques and methods used to collect data regarding monument documentation and risk assessment
•WP5 Task 5.1: an integrated documentation protocol will be based on new documentation procedures (WP2), responding to criteria and indicators for risk assessment (WP3), responding to advanced diagnostic and data management (WP4)
THANKS FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION
Top Related