RISK ASSESSMENT AND PREVENTION PRIORITIES IN CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION

Summary European Union has been promoting research actions on cultural heritage, recognizing and underlining its central role for the community policies and establishing its safeguard and valorisation as urgent priorities for the future. A research on rational tools for establishing seismic risk, intervention priorities, and decision-making on renovation of historical buildings and museums, just started at the University of Camerino, School of Architecture and Design, is described in this paper. The basic idea of the research is to develop a probabilistic methodology for the assessment of seismic risk of cultural heritage starting from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) approach, consisting of a general framework where the risk problem is decomposed into its three main features (i.e. seismic hazard, vulnerability and losses), analysed in a rigorous and consistent interdependent manner. The application of this methodology to cultural heritage requires investigations and original proposals on various open issues. This paper reports some results concerning the general methodology and preliminary analyses of a case study.

[1]  Armen Der Kiureghian,et al.  Life‐cycle cost analysis based on a renewal model of earthquake occurrences , 2004 .

[2]  Jamie E. Padgett,et al.  Probabilistic seismic loss assessment of aging bridges using a component‐level cost estimation approach , 2011 .

[3]  E. Tondi,et al.  Geological analysis and seismic hazard in the Central Apennines (Italy) , 2000 .

[4]  Andrea Dall'Asta,et al.  Probabilistic performance assessment of low‐ductility reinforced concrete frames retrofitted with dissipative braces , 2012 .

[5]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Performance‐based seismic engineering: the need for a reliable conceptual comprehensive approach , 2002 .

[6]  C. Cornell.  Engineering seismic risk analysis , 1968 .

[7]  Anne S. Kiremidjian,et al.  A review of earthquake occurrence models for seismic hazard analysis , 1988 .

[8]  Michele Barbato,et al.  Influence of Model Parameter Uncertainty on Seismic Transverse Response and Vulnerability of Steel–Concrete Composite Bridges with Dual Load Path , 2012 .

[9]  Paolo Gardoni,et al.  Probabilistic Demand Models and Fragility Curves for Reinforced Concrete Frames , 2006 .

[10]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  DETERMINISTIC VS. PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT: AN EXAGGERATED AND OBSTRUCTIVE DICHOTOMY , 2002 .

[11]  R. Fedriga,et al.  Mazzanti M., "Metodi e strumenti di analisi per la valutazione economica del patrimonio culturale" , 2004 .

[12]  E. Tondi,et al.  Spatiotemporal evolution of the Central Apennines fault system (Italy) , 2003 .

[13]  Enrica Petrucci.  Metodologie per lo sviluppo, la gestione e la valorizzazione dei beni culturali: il programma dell’Amministrazione Comunale di Monterubbiano , 2013 .

[14]  Livio De Luca,et al.  Shedding light on the city: Discovering, appreciating and sharing cultural heritage using 3D visual technology , 2012, 2012 18th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia.

[15]  Kevin R. Mackie,et al.  Seismic Demands for Performance-Based Design of Bridges , 2003 .

[16]  Keith Porter,et al.  An Overview of PEER's Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology , 2003 .

[17]  A. Kiureghian.  Non‐ergodicity and PEER's framework formula , 2005 .