An Integrated Approach to Risk Assessments and Condition Surveys

Taylor, Joel

doi:10.1179/019713605806082365

Cited by 23 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For successful applications of this level of refinement, see [47][48][49] While simulation and documentation work have been done on all levels, there is not yet an understanding of how combinations of different levels affect the ensuing simulation results. By understanding how different levels of documentation and modeling change building pathology and diagnostics, this work will enable more efficient workflows for projects and garner more accurate assessment for interventions and preventitive conservation [74]. The aim of this work is to examine the influence of initial conditions such as the level of modeling, geometry, and material properties to understand the importance of multi-level and integrated documentation for building pathology.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the Differences in Documentation and Modeling Levels for Building Pathology and Diagnostics

Napolitano

Heß

Glišić

2019

Arch Computat Methods Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building pathology and diagnostics enable a practitioner to quantify the severity of damage to an existing structure as well as prioritize interventive and preventive measures. Two key aspects of building pathology and diagnostics are documentation and analysis to understand how damage could have occurred on a structure and how it affects overall stability. Within these two methods there are various levels which a practitioner can utilize. The aim of the present work is to quantify the differences in documentation and modeling levels to understand how they affect the overall process of building pathology and delineate the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Using combinations of photogrammetry, laser scanning, thermal imaging, distinct element modeling, and finite-distinct element modeling, this work seeks to understand how differences in the level of numerical modeling affect damage diagnoses as well as how differences in documentation levels affect damage diagnoses. In particular, the advantages and disadvantages of simulations using simplified micro-modeling versus detailed micro-modeling, the effects of small perturbations to modeling geometry, and the influences of initial conditions are explored. These questions are examined through the use of two case studies including the foundation walls of the Baptistery di San Giovanni in Florence, Italy and a wall in Palazzo Vecchio Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

show abstract

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the Differences in Documentation and Modeling Levels for Building Pathology and Diagnostics

Napolitano

Heß

Glišić

2019

Arch Computat Methods Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taking into account only the structure's present condition, condition assessments alone cannot provide information about underlying catalysts of damage or predictive insights into a structure's potential for damage. For instance, damage on a structure could have already stabilized and not be related to current risks (Taylor, 2005). To attain information regarding diagnostics and prognostics, existing damage patterns have been considered in combination with nondestructive testing and/or physics‐based modeling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid physics‐based modeling and data‐driven method for diagnostics of masonry structures

Napolitano

Glišić

2020

Computer aided Civil Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Before implementing monitoring systems or reinforcements on a historic structure, it is essential to understand how crack patterns may have originated and how they affect the stability of the structure. Previous methods combining photogrammetry with physics‐based modeling have been successful in diagnosing the cause of crack formation. However, a limitation of existing methods is the manual comparison process to ascertain damage origins. This research outlines a method combining physics‐based modeling and data‐driven approaches to automate diagnostics for existing masonry structures. This method was shown to quantitatively reproduce the cause of damage for complex, 3D structures and was validated against a laboratory‐scale experimental masonry wall. The newly automated procedure increases throughput by 105 times compared to our prior method, allowing for the testing of orders of magnitude more hypotheses than were previously possible. Although the approach is demonstrated here for settlement‐induced cracking, it has important implications for the broader topic of data‐driven masonry diagnostics.

show abstract

“…Such surveys can therefore have a predictive character which is typical for risk assessments [7,8]. In contrast to surveys, the focus of risk assessments is not damage that has already occurred (assessed in surveys) but the potential for damage due to identified hazards [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accumulation of wear and tear in archival and library collections. Part I: exploring the concepts of reliability and epidemiology

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wear and tear is the outcome of degradation most frequently reported in assessments of archival and library collections. It is also problematic to study in controlled experiments, due to the difficulty in reproducing the conditions in which original objects are kept and used in archives and libraries. Hence, data collected from actual collections, for instance during surveys, could provide the evidence on how wear and tear occurs. However, to be useful, such data need to be purposely collected and analysed: unlike the usual collection surveys, the aim is not to quantify the prevalence of a certain damage type but to provide evidence on how such damage occurs. In this paper we explore whether two approaches used in other disciplines could be useful: reliability engineering, the method that deals with failure in complex systems, and epidemiology, which explores diseases in defined populations. We show that based on reliability engineering we can decide which data related to the causes of mechanical failure should be collected during collection surveys, while using epidemiology we can develop the study design and the data analysis needed to study the relationship between mechanical failure, and the factors that might affect the degree of failure. The results of epidemiological studies in heritage collections could provide quantitative evidence of patterns of decay in collections, and corroborate the qualitative analysis provided by reliability. The results can directly support collection management decisions or can be used in mathematical models in which the effect of preservation measures is explored.

show abstract

An Integrated Approach to Risk Assessments and Condition Surveys

Cited by 23 publications

References 11 publications

Quantifying the Differences in Documentation and Modeling Levels for Building Pathology and Diagnostics

Quantifying the Differences in Documentation and Modeling Levels for Building Pathology and Diagnostics

Hybrid physics‐based modeling and data‐driven method for diagnostics of masonry structures

Accumulation of wear and tear in archival and library collections. Part I: exploring the concepts of reliability and epidemiology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About