Damage functions in heritage science

Abstract This contribution critically examines various concepts related to damage functions in current use; it does not represent a comprehensive review, however. In heritage science, damage functions can be defined as functions of unacceptable change, dependent on agents of change. Unlike in other domains of science, the reference to unacceptable change implies that a value-based decision needs to be applied to the analytically determinable change, or dose–response function. Since there are a number of values associated with heritage, there can be a number of damage functions describing one and the same physical or chemical process of change. For practical reasons, it is thus useful to decouple the value function from the dose–response function, as the latter can be independently deduced (empirically or experimentally). While the behaviour of single materials and objects is often modelled deterministically, the probabilistic approach can be used to describe the degradation of complex structures, e.g. buildings, although not commonly in heritage research. There is a case to be made for more in-depth exploration of incremental and stochastic processes of degradation of heritage materials and structures, and the associated values, with a view towards developing more damage functions. Damage functions find use in modelling for predictive maintenance. However, predictions are associated with uncertainty due to the need for extrapolation, and this is also rarely analytically examined. Validation of modelling processes is possible using accurate methodologies of asset monitoring, which would enable an effective appraisal of preservation strategies.

[1]  Douglas W. Nishimura,et al.  New tools for preservation : assessing long-term environmental effects on library and archives collections , 1995 .

[2]  Jacques Lemaire,et al.  Photo-induced degradation of cellulose , 2005 .

[3]  J. Rajasankar,et al.  Cumulative damage function model for prediction of uniform corrosion rate of metals in atmospheric corrosive environment , 2004 .

[4]  Catherine Higgitt,et al.  Non-destructive characterisation of iron gall ink drawings: not such a galling problem. , 2010, Talanta.

[5]  Stefan Michalski An overall framework for preventive conservation and remedial conservation , 1990 .

[6]  David Taylor,et al.  Predicting stress fractures using a probabilistic model of damage, repair and adaptation , 2004, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[7]  Siobhan Stevenson,et al.  Investigating subjectivity within collection condition surveys , 1999 .

[8]  Peter C. Kiessler,et al.  A critical look at the bathtub curve , 2003, IEEE Trans. Reliab..

[9]  Martin D. Judd,et al.  Intelligent condition monitoring and asset management. Partial discharge monitoring for power transformers , 2002 .

[10]  W. Pfender,et al.  A damage function for stem rust of perennial ryegrass seed crops. , 2009, Phytopathology.

[11]  Dan M. Frangopol,et al.  Probabilistic models for life‐cycle performance of deteriorating structures: review and future directions , 2004 .

[12]  Tom Strang TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF ORGANIC COLLECTIONS - THE ISOPERM REVISITED , 2009 .

[13]  Ali Fatemi,et al.  Cumulative fatigue damage and life prediction theories: a survey of the state of the art for homogeneous materials , 1998 .

[14]  Jerome P. Lynch,et al.  A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks for structural health monitoring , 2006 .

[15]  Lambros S. Katafygiotis,et al.  Unified Probabilistic Approach for Model Updating and Damage , 2006 .

[16]  Ann Fenech,et al.  Lifetime of Chromogenic Colour Photographs in Mixed Archival Collections , 2011 .

[17]  Leon Mishnaevsky,et al.  Micromechanical modelling of mechanical behaviour and strength of wood: State-of-the-art review , 2008 .

[18]  C. Sabbioni,et al.  The atlas of climate change impact on European cultural heritage : scientific analysis and management strategies , 2010 .

[19]  Matija Strlič,et al.  Determination of mechanical properties of historical paper based on NIR spectroscopy and chemometrics – a new instrument , 2008 .

[20]  Erica Avrami,et al.  Values and heritage conservation , 2000 .

[21]  H. L. Stark,et al.  A multiaxial fatigue damage function , 2007 .

[22]  Dario Ambrosini,et al.  Integrated reflectography and thermography for wooden paintings diagnostics , 2010 .

[23]  Alan Derbyshire,et al.  The continuing development of a practical lighting policy for works of art on paper and other object types at the Victoria and Albert Museum , 2002 .

[24]  R. Wei,et al.  Mechanistically based probability modelling, life prediction and reliability assessment , 2004 .

[25]  Stefan Michalski A systematic approach to preservation: description and integration with other museum activities , 1994 .

[26]  Mauro Bacci,et al.  Innovative Sensors for Environmental Monitoring in Museums , 2008, Sensors.

[27]  Konstantinos Ntanos,et al.  Modelling the lifetime of colour photographs in archival collections , 2013 .

[28]  Janusz Cofala,et al.  The global impact of ozone on agricultural crop yields under current and future air quality legislation , 2009 .

[29]  Donald K. Sebera,et al.  Isoperms - An Environmental Management Tool , 1994 .

[30]  A. Inaba,et al.  Development of damage function of acidification for terrestrial ecosystems based on the effect of aluminum toxicity on net primary production , 2004 .

[31]  Jp van Gigch,et al.  Setting a Strategic Framework for Conservation Standards , 1996 .

[32]  J. Tétreault,et al.  Airborne pollutants in museums, galleries and archives : risk assessment, control strategies, and preservation management , 2002 .

[33]  Vassilika Vouton OPTICAL AND DIGITAL HOLOGRAPHIC INTERFEROMETRY APPLIED IN ART CONSERVATION STRUCTURAL DIAGNOSIS , 2006 .

[34]  K. Gillen,et al.  The wear-out approach for predicting the remaining lifetime of materials , 2000 .

[35]  Sarah Buchanan,et al.  Deterioration Survey of the Stanford University Libraries Green Library Stack Collection , 1979 .

[36]  Peter Brimblecombe,et al.  Aesthetics of simulated soiling patterns on architecture. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[37]  Frank Ligterink,et al.  OPTIMUM ACCESS AT MINIMUM RISK: THE DILEMMA OF DISPLAYING JAPANESE WOODBLOCK PRINTS , 2008 .

[38]  Mark F. Horstemeyer,et al.  Nanostructurally small cracks (NSC): A review on atomistic modeling of fatigue , 2010 .

[39]  David Saunders,et al.  Acceptable Light Damage - A Preliminary Investigation , 2007 .

[40]  May Cassar,et al.  TEST FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH ORGANIC HERITAGE MATERIALS – A PROPOSED PROCEDURE , 2010 .

[41]  Elsa Garavaglia,et al.  Long-term damage of historic masonry: A probabilistic model , 2009 .

[42]  Marianne Odlyha,et al.  Non-destructive Condition Assessment of Painting Canvases Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy , 2011 .

[43]  Amy L. Murphy,et al.  Monitoring heritage buildings with wireless sensor networks: The Torre Aquila deployment , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks.

[44]  Matija Strlič,et al.  Ageing and Stabilisation of Paper , 2005 .