A framework for the simplified risk analysis of cultural heritage assets

Available

online

at

ScienceDirect

www.sciencedirect.com

Cultural

HELP

2014

Special

Issue

A

framework

for

the

simplified

risk

analysis

of

cultural

heritage

assets

Xavier

Romão

a,∗

_,

_Esmeralda

_Paupério

b

_,

_Nuno

_Pereira

a

a_{CONSTRUCT-LESE,FacultyofEngineering,UniversityofPorto,Porto,Portugal}

b_{ConstructionInstitute,CONSTRUCT-LESE,FacultyofEngineering,UniversityofPorto,Porto,Portugal}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received29April2016 Accepted12May2016 Availableonline8June2016 Keywords:

Riskassessment Vulnerability Hazard

Builtimmovableculturalheritage Culturalheritagevalue

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Asimplifiedriskassessmentframeworkspecificallydevelopedforbuiltimmovableculturalheritage assetsisproposed.Theframeworkaddressesallthecomponentsinariskanalysisandcanbeusedasa screeningprocedureforthepreliminaryassessmentofalargenumberofassetswithlimitedresources. Furthermore,theframeworkcanalsobeusedtoidentifyculturalheritageassetsthatrequireamore refinedandresourcedemandingriskevaluation.Theproposedriskanalysisframeworkfallsintothe categoryofqualitativemethodsandisbasedonanexistingapproachdevelopedforthevulnerability assessmentofcriticalinfrastructures.Thequalitativeriskanalysisoftheproposedmethodologyisbased onasetofstructuredassessmentflowchartsthataddressthemaincomponentsofariskanalysis:the likelihoodofthehazard,thevulnerabilityoftheassettothehazard,theconsequencesofthehazard,the lossofvalueoftheassetandthecapacitytorecoverfromtheevent.Toillustratetheapplicabilityofthe proposedmethodology,anapplicationexampleisalsopresentedforthecaseofseismicrisk.

©2016ElsevierMassonSAS.Allrightsreserved.

1. Introductionandresearchaim

Riskisaconceptdeeplyembeddedinthecollective

conscious-nessofmodernsocietyandthereiscurrentlyaworldwidetrendto

enhanceourunderstandingofrisksinordertoincreaseourability

tomanagethem.Althoughanobjectiveanduniversaldefinition

ofriskis yettobeestablished[1],it canbeseenasa measure

ofthecombinedlikelihoodofoccurrenceofathreateningevent

andofitspotentialconsequences.Suchthreateningeventsare

usu-allytermedhazardsandrepresentapotentiallydamagingphysical

event,naturalorman-made,thatcancauselossoflifeorinjury,

propertydamage,socialandeconomicdisruptionor

environmen-taldegradation[2].Ontheotherhand,thepotentialconsequences,

globally termedaslosses, canbe seenas theresult of existing

vulnerabilities (e.g.physical, social, economic orenvironmental

vulnerabilities)thatrepresentthesusceptibilitytothedamaging

effectsofthehazard[2]combinedwithalackofabilitytocope

withthoseconsequences,i.e.alackofresilience[3].

Disasterscanoccurwhentheprobablenatureof thehazard

becomesa realdamagingevent andwhen thepotential

conse-quencesturnintoactuallosses.Overtheyears,severalinternational

initiativeshave beenpromotedtoaddresstheissuesofdisaster

riskreduction(DRR)anddisasterriskmanagement(DRM)inorder

∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+351225081956;fax:+351225081835. E-mailaddress:[email protected](X.Romão).

toestablishnewapproachestoreducetheimpactofdisastersin

society.Thewide-rangingconceptsofDRRandDRMinvolvethe

developmentandapplicationofpolicies,strategiesandpractices

tominimisedisasterrisksthroughoutsociety.In2005,the

adop-tionoftheHyogoFrameworkforAction(HFA)2005-2015[4]was

animportantsteptowardstheseobjectives.TheHFAwasthefirst

internationallyacceptedframeworkwhereinternationalagencies

andnationalgovernmentshavesettargetsandcommitmentsfor

DRRwhichweredefinedthroughfiveprioritiesforaction.Ofthose

fivepriorities,PriorityAction2specificallyaddressedrisk

assess-mentandmonitoring[4].Therefore,theHFAclearlyacknowledged

thatthesustainableimplementationofdisastermitigationactions

canonlybeachievedwhenbasedonadequateknowledgeabout

thehazardsthreateningrelevantassetsandtheirvulnerabilityto

thosehazards.

Even though the HFA ended in 2015, efforts towards DRR

continue since the HFA has now been replaced by the Sendai

FrameworkforDisasterRiskReduction2015–2030[5].Thisnew

frameworkisexpectedtobuildontheachievementsoftheHFAto

establishasetofimprovements.Despitetheworldwideprogress

achieved in DRR with the implementationof the HFA, several

features were identified for its enhancement (e.g. see [6–9]).

Amongotheraspects,theimportanceofculturalheritageandits

irreplaceablevalueforsocietyhavebeenexplicitlyrecognized,thus

emphasisingtheneedtoassesstheimpactthatpotentialhazards

mayhaveonculturalheritage[5,6].Moreover,thesignificantrole

ofculturalheritageinsocialcohesionandsustainabledevelopment

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.05.007

hasalsobeenhighlighted,makingitakeyresourcetobuildresilient

societies[10].

Despite these concerns, irreplaceable losses of cultural

her-itagecontinuetooccurthroughouttheworldasaresultofnatural

or man-made disasters (e.g. [11–16]). Even though numerous

culturalheritageassetsrequiretheimplementationofrisk

miti-gationmeasures(e.g.[17–21]),thedevelopmentofsuchmeasures

needstobebasedonadequateknowledgeabouttherisksthese

assets are facing. However, for most countries, carrying out a

multi-hazardriskanalysisforalargenumberofculturalheritage

assets requiresefforts and budgetsthatare frequently

unavail-able.Therefore,assessing therisksfor alargenumber ofassets

with limited resources is only feasible when based on simple

methodologies.

Toaddressthisneed,amethodologydevelopedtoperformthe

qualitativeriskassessmentofalargenumberofassetswithlimited

resourcesispresentedherein.Theproposedmethodologyinvolves

allthecomponentsinariskanalysisandcanbeusedasascreening

procedureforthepreliminaryassessmentandidentificationofbuilt

andimmovableculturalheritageassetsthatrequireamorerefined

andresourcedemandingriskevaluation.Giventhegeneralformat

ofthemethodology,itisexpectedtobeapplicabletoanytypeof

culturalheritageassetthreatenedbyanytypeofhazard.Specific

aspectsoftheframeworkwerefurtherdetailedfortheparticular

caseofseismicriskandanapplicationtoasingleculturalheritage

propertyispresentedtoillustratetheseprocedures.Theresultsof

thisexamplearealsocorrelatedwiththoseofamoredetailedand

complexanalysis.

2. Outlookofexistingriskanalysismethodologies

The ideal theoretical setting for conducting a risk analysis

requires the probabilistic quantification of hazard,

vulnerabil-ity and resilience. To establish probabilistic representations of

thosecomponents,bothsufficient/reliabledataandadequate

ana-lytical/numerical procedures are necessary. However, in many

situations,namelyintheriskanalysisofculturalheritageassets,

definingthesecomponentsinareliableprobabilisticcontextcan

befartoocomplexorresourcedemanding.

Intermsofthehazard,itsprobabilisticrepresentationcan

usu-allybe achievedbased ondata frompast events. Typically, for

naturaleventssuchasearthquakes,floods,landslidesorvolcanic

eruptions,aprobabilistichazardcanbedefined,e.g.see[22–25].

However,therearefieldsforwhichestablishingaprobabilistic

haz-ardisstillcomplexmostlyduetoalackofadequatedata[26–28].

Forthecaseofvulnerability,itsdefinitionreliesonthe

availabil-ity of procedurescapable of forecasting thedamaging/negative

effectsthataparticularhazardmayhaveonacertainassetunder

analysis.Althoughdetailed vulnerability representationscanbe

establishedinseveralcontexts,e.g.[29,30],fortheparticularcaseof

culturalheritageassets,theircomplexityandthelackofknowledge

regardingtheirbehaviourincertainsituationsareoftenimportant

obstaclestothedetaileddefinitionoftheirvulnerability[31,32].

Furthermore, when the risk analysis addresses a large amount

ofassets,thosedifficultiesareamplifiedduetoresource-related

restrictions that mightalso come intoplay. In such cases,

vul-nerabilityanalysesofteninvolvemethodologieswheresimplified

assumptionsaremade,e.g.see[33–37].

Withrespecttotheresiliencecomponent,eventhough

frame-works and quantitative approaches have been developed in

somefields,e.g. [38–44]and referencestherein,methodologies

addressingspecificaspectsrelatedtothepreservationofcultural

heritageassetsarestilllargelyunavailable.Inthisparticularcase,

disasterpreventionwiththepurposeof copingwiththe

conse-quencesofdisastersiscommonlyaddressedbypre-eventmeasures

suchasimplementingeducationandtrainingprogrammesin

emer-gency/recovery procedures. Additional predictors of resilience

measuringtheexpectedtimeandresourcesneededtorestorethe

functionality/quality of the asset[38] could potentially also be

established.However,whendealingwithculturalheritageassets,

themultidimensionalnatureofthevalueoftheassetandthe

com-plexityofitsevaluation[45–48]areamajorconceptualobstacle.

Therefore,in suchcases,predictingthetimeandresourcesthat

mightberequiredtorestorefunctionalityandqualityismuchmore

difficult.

Basedonthesedescriptions,theapplicabilityofaframework

thatinvolvesacomprehensiveriskassessmentprocedureandthe

regularupdateofitsresultsovertimeneedstointegratethe

fol-lowingkeyissues:

(1)reliableandsufficientdatatoestablishsuitablehazardmodels;

(2)sufficientandreliabledataontheassetsunderrisk;

(3)suitableprocedurestomodelthevulnerability;

(4)adequate models to predict the multidimensional

conse-quencesofthehazardousevent;

(5)sufficienthuman,timeandeconomicresources.

Inthecontextofariskassessmentprocedureforcultural

her-itageassets,4isthemostdifficultissuetoaddress,regardlessof

thehazardinvolved.Furthermore,addressing1,2and3

success-fullycanbeseentodependontheavailabilityof5.Inmostcases,

theseresourceswillsettheboundariesofthescopeand

compre-hensivenessofariskanalysisandwillbealsofundamentalforthe

successfulregularupdateandmonitoringoftheriskassessment

resultsovertime.Therefore,whendealingwithalargenumberof

culturalheritageassets,itisimportanttohaveasimple

methodol-ogythatcanbeusedforthepreliminaryriskanalysisofthoseassets

toestablishriskmitigationprioritiesortoidentifyassetsrequiring

moredetailedandresource-demandinganalyses.

Based onthese arguments, it can beseen that a qualitative

riskanalysisapproachcanfulfillthenecessaryrequirements.Ina

qualitativeriskmethod,riskisdefinedbyanon-numerical

esti-mate. Even though qualitative analyses still involve analytical

and evidence-basedcharacterizationsof therisk, theyestablish

descriptive or categorical treatments of information instead of

numericalestimates.Thesemethodssimplifytheriskanalysisby

reducingtherequiredinputsandcalculationstoasetofjudgments.

Thesimpleriskcategoriesthatareproducedasoutputscanthen

becommunicatedtopolicymakersandstakeholdersinasimpler

way[49].Qualitativeanalysesareusefulinsituationswheretheory,

data,timeorexpertisearelimitedbuttheyalsoprovideadequate

resultswhendecisionmakersonlyneedaqualitativeassessmentof

therisk.Furthermore,theycanalsobeusefulforproblemswhere

quantitativeriskanalysisis impractical.For example,the

quali-tativeanalysisofalargenumberofculturalheritageassets(e.g.

nationwide)maybeasuitablewaytoidentifysituationswherea

moredetailedassessmentisneeded[50].Qualitativemethodsmay

alsobepreferredwhenthemoreimportantsourcesofuncertainty

willnotchangetheendresultorwhenquantitativeanalysisislikely

toleadtoinconclusiveresults[51].Inmanysituations,a

qualita-tiveriskanalysisisabletoprovideriskmanagersorstakeholders

withenoughinformationfor decision-making.For example,the

gathereddata mayinclude sufficientevidence indicatingthat a

givenriskcan,infact,bedisregarded.Onthecontrary,the

gath-eredevidencemayalsopointouttoanunacceptablylargerisk,or

tothefactthatconsequencesofagivenhazardareso

unaccept-ablethatmitigationmeasuresareneededwhateverthelevelof

Y N Y N Y N Y N VI VII VIII VIV VV The loss in value is significant? The loss in value is significant? The loss in value is significant? The loss in value is significant? The loss in value is significant? The loss in value is significant? The loss in value is significant? The loss in value is significant? Y N

The funcon of the CH unit can be easily restored?

Y N

The funcon of the CH unit can be easily restored?

S N

The funcon of the CH unit can be easily restored?

Y N

The funcon of the CH unit can be easily restored? Y (enrely) Y (parally)

The damages are expected to be repairable?

Y (enrely) Y (parally) The damages are expected to be

repairable? What is the level of damage that the CH unit is expected to suffer?

Heavy Medium

Light

Theexposureohe CH unito the hazard is relevant? Y N R0 Y N Y N Y N Y N N N N The loss in value is significant? Y

Fig.1.Proposedriskanalysismethodology:assessmentofthelevelofvulnerabilityoftheculturalheritage(CH)unit.

3. Methodology:aframeworkforthesimplifiedrisk analysisofculturalheritageassets

3.1. Generaloverviewoftheframework

Basedontheargumentsintheprevioussection,a simplified

methodologyisproposedhereinwhichcanbeusedasascreening

procedureforthepreliminaryrisk analysisofbuiltand

immov-ableculturalheritageunits.Aculturalheritageunitisconsidered

tobeasinglepropertyoracomponentthatispartofapropertyfor

whichariskanalysisisrequired(e.g.achurchisaunitbutthebell

towerofachurchmayalsobeconsideredtobeaunitifnecessary).

Theproposedriskanalysisframework fallsintothecategory of

qualitativemethodsandisbasedonanexistingapproach

devel-oped for thevulnerability assessment of critical infrastructures

[52,53].Thequalitativeriskanalysisoftheproposedmethodology

isbasedonasetofstructuredassessmentflowchartsthataddress

themaincomponentsofariskanalysis:thelikelihoodofthe

haz-ard,thevulnerabilityoftheassettothehazard,theconsequencesof

thehazard,andthecapacitytorecoverfromtheevent.Figs.1and2

illustratethefullscopeoftheflowchartsandoutcomesthatcanbe

obtainedwiththeproposedframework.Fig.1presentsthepartof

themethodthatestablishesthevulnerabilityofthecultural

her-itageunitandFig.2presentsthepartwherethevulnerabilityis

combinedwiththehazardtodeterminetherisklevel.Ascanbe

seen,the processof Fig.1 establishesfive classes ofincreasing

V

I

V

II

V

III

V

IV

V

V The likelihood of the hazard is Low Medium High RI RII The li

kelihood of

the hazard is Low Medium High RII RIII The li

kelihood of

the hazard is Low Medium High RIII RIV The likelihood of the hazard is Low Medium High RIV RV The likelihood of the hazard is Low Medium High RV

vulnerability(VItoVV)whicharedefinedbyansweringquestions

thataddressthedifferentcomponentscontributingtothe

vulner-ability.Itisnotedthattheprocessalsoaccountsforthecasewhere

acertainculturalheritageunitmayhaveanirrelevantlevelofrisk

(R0)ifitslevelofexposuretothehazardunderconsiderationisnot

relevant.TheprocessofFig.2canbeseentoestablishfiveclassesof

increasingrisk(RItoRV)basedonthevulnerabilityclassesdefined

bytheprocessofFig.1,VItoVV,andontheexpectedlikelihood

ofthehazard.Theproposedframeworkconsidersthreecategories

ofexpectedhazardlikelihoodwhicharetermedhigh,mediumand

low.Thesehazardcategoriesdependonthetypeofhazardbutmust

reflectthefactthataneventwithahighlikelihoodisexpected

tohavealowerhazardintensitywhilealowlikelihoodeventis

expectedtohaveahigherhazardintensity.Forexample,forthe

caseofearthquakes,ahighlikelihoodeventisexpectedtohavea

loweraveragereturnperiodandalsoalowermagnitude,whilefor

alowlikelihoodeventitistheopposite.Thelevelofhazard

likeli-hoodcanbebased,forexample,onthevalueorrangeoftheaverage

returnperiodofagivenhazardscenarioorbasedonavailable

his-toricalhazardscenarios.FromFig.2itcanbeseenthat,foragiven

vulnerabilitylevel,whentheexpectedlikelihoodofthehazardis

highormedium,thesubsequentrisklevelisthesame.This

conser-vativeapproachwasconsideredinordertoreducethenumberof

riskcategoriesthatresultfromtheproposedframework.

Further-more,itcanalsobeseenthatwhenthevulnerabilitylevelisVV,

thesubsequentrisklevelisalwaysRV,irrespectiveoftheexpected

likelihoodofthehazard.Inthiscase,theframeworkassumesthat

ifaculturalheritageunitexhibitsthehighestlevelofvulnerability,

theseverityofthisconditionimpliestheneedtoalsoconsiderthe

highestlevelofrisk.Withrespecttotheinterpretationoftheserisk

levels,althoughthecolourcodeassignedtoeachlevelprovidesa

visualaid,theycanbeinterpretedasfollows:

• levelsRIandRIIcorrespondtocaseswherethelevelofriskcan

beaccepted;

• levelRIIIcorrespondstoacasewherethelevelofriskisatthelimit

ofacceptabilityand shouldbemonitoredregularly.Giventhe

qualitativenatureoftheassessmentframeworkandthe

uncer-taintiesitmayinvolve,amoredetailedanalysisofthecultural

heritageunitshouldbecarriedouttodetermineiftheactualrisk

isnothigher;

• levelRIVcorrespondstoacasewherethelevelofriskis

unaccept-able.Amoredetailedanalysisoftheculturalheritageunitshould

becarriedouttodefineriskmitigationmeasures;

• levelRV correspondstoacasewherethelevelofriskis

unac-ceptableandneedstobeaddressedassoonaspossible.Amore

detailedanalysisoftheculturalheritageunitisurgentlyneeded

todefineriskmitigationmeasures.

Basedonthecharacteristicsoftheproposedframework,this

methodologyisbelievedtobeapplicabletoanytypeofcultural

heritageunitthreatenedbyanytype ofhazardandcanbeused

tocarryoutastructuredqualitativeriskanalysis.Theapplication

oftheprocedurestartsbydefiningthehazardscenarioforwhich

theriskanalysisofacertainculturalheritageunitisrequired.After

definingthisscenario,theanalystwillthengothroughthe

assess-mentflowchartofFig.1toestablishthevulnerabilitylevel.The

assessmentflowchartofFig.2isthenusedtocombinethe

vul-nerabilitylevelwiththelikelihoodofthehazardscenarioinitially

definedandobtaintherisklevel.Toprovidefurtherguidancefor

theapplicationoftheproposedframework,additionalaspectsthat

needtobeconsideredwhenanalysingthecomponentsleadingto

thevulnerabilityclassificationareaddressedinthefollowing.

3.2. Characterizationofthevulnerabilityanalysiscomponents

Afterdefining the hazardscenario and establishing that the

exposureoftheculturalheritageunittothatscenarioisrelevant,

thenextstepofthevulnerabilityassessmentinvolvesclassifying

theexpectedlevelofdamageoftheculturalheritageunitforthat

scenario.Thisexpectedlevelofdamageneedstobedefined

accord-ingtooneofthreepossibleclasses:light,mediumorheavy.The

followingdescriptionsofthoseclassescanbeusedasareference:

• lightdamagecorrespondstothecasewheretheculturalheritage

unitonlyexhibitsnonstructuraldamage(i.e.damagethatwillnot

affecttheresistingsystemandtheoverallstabilityofthecultural

heritageunit);

• mediumdamagecorrespondstothecasewherethecultural

her-itageunitexhibitsmoreseverenonstructuraldamageandalso

suffersmoderatestructuraldamage(i.e.damagethatwillaffect

theresistingsystemoftheculturalheritageunitwithout

com-promisingitsoverallstability);

• heavydamagecorrespondstothecasewherethecultural

her-itageunit exhibitssevere structuraldamagethat canmake it

unstable(i.e.theoverallstabilityoftheculturalheritageunitis

compromised)orthatcancausethepartialortotalcollapseof

theculturalheritageunit.

Giventhequalitativenatureoftheproposedframework, the

expected level of damage of a given culturalheritage unit can

beestimated usinga simplified proceduresuchasexpert

elici-tation(e.g.see[54–56])oranindicator-basedapproach.Forthe

casesofearthquake,flood,fire,hydro-meteorological,landslideand

stormhazards,theproceduresanddatafoundin[57–70,33]canbe

usedtodefinesimplifiedindicator-basedapproaches suitableto

estimatetheexpectedlevelofdamage.Fortheparticularcaseof

earthquakehazard,theauthorshavedevelopedasetofsimplified

indicator–andmechanics–basedproceduresforspecifictypesof

culturalheritageunits[71].Additionaldetailsoftheseapproaches

areaddressedinthefollowingsections.

Incasethereareheritageassetsattachedtothemaincultural

heritageunit(e.g.tiles,muralpaintings,etc.),thevulnerability

anal-ysisof the culturalheritage unit shouldalso account for these

elements. Thisinfluence is,however, only accountedfor in the

subsequentstages ofthevulnerabilityanalysis,eventhoughthe

damagestotheseattachedheritageassetsandthoseofthecultural

heritageunitarecorrelated.Theproposedframeworkassumesthat

iflightdamageisexpectedintheculturalheritageunit,the

dam-agestotheattachedculturalassetswillbeeithernegligibleorfully

restorable.Assuch,onlythepotentiallossofvalueisanalysedin

thiscase(Fig.1).Iftheexpecteddamageismediumorheavy,the

classificationofthefollowingstagesofthevulnerabilityanalysis

willneedtoconsiderthedamageandlossinvaluetoboth the

culturalheritageunitandtheattachedheritageassets.

For thecases where the level of damage is expected to be

mediumorheavy,thenextcomponentoftheframework

analy-sesifthosedamagesarerepairable(fullyorpartially)todetermine

ifitwillbepossibletoreusetheculturalheritageunitasbeforethe

occurrenceofthedamagingevent.Damagesareconsideredtobe

repairableifitisphysicallyandtechnicallypossibletorestorethe

physicalandmaterialintegrityoftheculturalheritageunit.Inthis

context,thefollowingrepairpossibilitiesshouldbeexamined:

• restoringthematerialstotheirinitialconditionswithout

com-promisingtheauthenticityofaculturalheritageunit(whichmay

• stabilizingthedamagedelementswithoutmaskingorhidingthe

resultsoftherepair,strengthening,reconstructionor

consolida-tionprocesscarriedoutintheculturalheritageunit.

Sincetheexpectedlevel of damagewasdefined interms of

structural and non structural damage, the reparability analysis

mustbecarriedoutseparatelyforthesetwotypesofdamages.

Fur-thermore,ifthereareheritageassetsattachedtothemaincultural

heritageunit,thisanalysismustalsoaccountfortheseelements.

Asbefore,expertelicitationandjudgementbasedonthe

charac-teristicsoftheculturalheritageunitunderanalysisisexpectedto

beinstrumentaltoassesstheexpecteddamagereparability.

Afterclassifyingthepossibilityofrepairingtheexpected

dam-age,theframeworkthenanalyseshoweasywillitbetorestorethe

functionoftheculturalheritageunitbacktoitspre-damagingevent

state(evenifonlypartially).Accordingtotheproposedframework,

thisstageoftheanalysisis expectedtoreflectand characterize

theresilienceoftheculturalheritageunit.Toperformthis

clas-sification,thetime,humanandfinancialresourcesnecessaryto

repairand/orstabilizethedamagesneedtobeanalysed.In

addi-tion,resourcesthatmayberequiredtorestoreand/ordevelopthe

humanandtechnicalmeansnecessaryfortheactivitiesassociated

tothefunctionoftheculturalheritageunitmustalsobeaccounted

for.Inthiscontext,itisnotedthattheabilitytorestorethe

pre-damagingeventfunctionmaydependonfactorsotherthanthose

directlyrelatedtotheculturalheritageunit.Forexample,factors

relatedtoheritageassetsthatmaybeattachedtothemaincultural

heritageunit(e.g.tiles,muralpaintings,etc.)ormovableheritage

assets(e.g.museumcollections)thatmaybeinsidethemain

cul-turalheritageunitshouldbeconsideredinthisstageiftheyare

foundtoberelevant toitsfunction.Asfor thepreviousstages,

expertelicitationandjudgementareexpectedtobeinstrumentalto

classifythisstage.Asasuggestion,iftheavailabilityofhumanand

financialresourcesisnotarestriction,thefunctionofthecultural

heritageunitcanbeconsideredtobeeasilyrestoredifitoccursup

to6monthsaftertheendofthepost-eventemergencyresponse

operations.

Finally,thelaststageofthevulnerabilityassessmentanalyses

thesignificanceoftheexpectedlossinvalueofthecultural

her-itageunit.Giventhesimplifiednatureoftheproposedvulnerability

assessmentprocessandthewell-knowndifficultiesindefiningthe

multipledimensionsofculturalheritagevalue,thelossofvalue

analysismustalsobebasedonsimplequalitativeprinciples.Inthis

analysis,itissuggestedthatthefollowingfivetypesofvalue,which

arepartiallybasedon[72],shouldbeconsideredtoanalysethe

expectedlossofvalueofacertainculturalheritageunit:

• evidentialvalue:itderivesfromthepotentialofthecultural

her-itageunittoyieldevidenceaboutpasthumanactivity(physical

remains,writtenrecords,archaeologicaldeposits,etc.);

• historicalvalue:itderivesfromthewaysinwhichpastpeople,

eventsandaspectsoflifecanbeconnectedthroughthecultural

heritageunittothepresent(itcanbedividedinto(a)illustrative

value:theextenttowhichitillustratessomethingparticularor

distinctive;(b)associativevalue:theextenttowhichitis

associ-atedwithanotablefamily,person,eventormovement);

• aestheticvalue:itderivesfromthewaysinwhichpeopledraw

sensoryandintellectualstimulationfromtheculturalheritage

unit(eitherasaresultofconsciousdesignortheseemingly

for-tuitousoutcomeofthewayinwhichtheculturalheritageunit

hasevolvedandhasbeenusedovertime);

• communalvalue:itderivesfromthemeaningsofthecultural

heritageunitforthepeoplewhorelatetoit,orforwhomitfigures

intheircollectiveexperienceormemory(thesecaninclude(a)

commemorativeandsymbolicvalues:themeaningsofaplacefor

thosewhodrawpartoftheiridentityfromit,orhaveemotional

linkstoit;(b)socialvalue:placesthatpeopleperceiveasasource

ofidentity,distinctiveness,socialinteractionandcoherence;and

(c)spiritualvalue:emanatefromthebeliefsandteachingsofan

organisedreligion,orreflectpastorpresent-dayperceptionsof

thespiritofplace);

• economicvalue:itderivesfromthepotentialofthecultural

her-itageunittoproducefinancialdividendsforsocietyasaresultof

directorindirecteconomicactivitiesconnectedtotheuseand

functionoftheculturalheritageunit.

Theexpectedlossinvaluecanbeconnectedtomorethanone

class,dependingonthetypeofculturalheritageunitunder

consid-eration.Therefore,theanalysisoftheexpectedlossinvalueshould

considertherelativeimportanceofeachofthefiveclassesofvalue,

whichneedstobedefinedcasebycase.Ingeneral,theexpected

lossofvaluewilldependontheexpectedlevelofdamageaswell

asonthepossibilityofrepairingsuchdamage.Insomecases,the

expectedlossofvaluewillalsoneedtoconsiderhoweasyitisto

restorethefunctionoftheculturalheritageunitsincethisfactor

maybeparticularlyrelevantforthelossofeconomicvalue.

Fur-thermore,itisalsonotedthattheuniquenessandrarenessofa

givenculturalheritageunitshouldbereflectedintheexpectedloss

ofvalueanalysisanditmaybeassociatedwithanyofthereferred

classesofvalue.Asforthepreviousstages,expertelicitationand

judgementisexpectedtobeinstrumentaltoclassifythisstage.As

forthepreviousstages,ifthereareheritageassetsattachedtothe

mainculturalheritageunit,theircontributiontothelossinvalue

shouldalsobeaccountedfor.However,itisnotedthatthisanalysis

doesnotincludepotentiallossestomovableheritageassetsthat

maybeinsidethemainculturalheritageunit.Inrelevantcases,

aseparateanalysisoftheexpectedlossofvaluetotheseheritage

assetsshouldbeperformedusingasuitablemethodology.

4. Detailingoftheframeworkforearthquakeriskanalysis

Aspreviouslyreferred,thepresentedriskanalysisframework

wasfurtherdevelopedfortheparticularcaseofearthquake

haz-ard.Giventhatdifferenttypesofconstructionsexhibitdifferent

behavioursunderearthquakes, culturalheritageunitsneedfirst

tobeassignedtoarchitecturalclassesreflectingthosedifferences.

Basedontheseclasses,analysisprocedurescanthenbedefinedfor

eachclasswhichaccountfortheirspecificbehaviourunder

earth-quakes.Inthecontextofseismicanalysis,ageneralclassification

ofculturalheritageunitshasbeendefinedin[73]thatproposes

sixclasses accountingfortheconstruction morphologyandthe

buildingtechnology.Since thedetailingof theproposed

frame-workforearthquakeriskanalysiswasnotdevelopedforalltypesof

constructions,aclassificationisproposedhereinestablishingonly

fourarchitecturalclasses(CA1toCA4)partiallybasedon[73].The

architecturalclassesconsideredhereinonlyinvolvemasonry

con-structionsand adifferentmethodwasdefinedfor eachclassto

analysetheexpectedlevelofearthquakedamage.Thearchitectural

classesthatwereconsideredaredescribedinTable1andFigs.3–6

presentafewexamplesofculturalheritageunitsofeachclass.

Foreachtypeofarchitecturalclass,simplifiedindicator–and

mechanics– based procedureswere developed to establishthe

Table1

Architectural classes of masonry constructions considered in the proposed framework.

Architecturalclass Description

CA1 Single-storeyormulti-storeymasonrybuilding

CA2 Hollowslendermasonryconstruction

CA3 Solidslendermasonryconstruction

Fig.3. ExamplesofconstructionsfromthearchitecturalclassCA1.

expectedlevelof damageundera givenscenarioofearthquake occurrence.Theseproceduresarebasedontheclassificationof sev-eralparametersrelated,forexample,tothegeometryandshapeof theculturalheritageunit,toitsintegrationwiththesurrounding environment,tothetypeofstructuralsystem,tothequalityofthe materials,andtoitsstateofconservation.Foreacharchitectural class,aspecificdataformandmanualweredevelopedtorecord allthenecessaryparametersanddeterminetheexpectedlevelof damage.Thedetaileddescriptionanddefinitionofthedataforms andmanualsdevelopedforthefourarchitecturalclassesare pre-sentedin[71]butareunabletobereproducedhereinforthesake

ofbrevity.However,itisreferred thattheproceduredeveloped

forculturalheritageunitsofclassCA1isbasedontheclassification

andweightedaverageof14parametersrelatedtothetypeof

struc-turalsystem,thecharacteristicsofthemasonry,thelateralstrength

ofthestructure,geometricfactorssuchasthemaximumdistance

betweenwallsandtheheightofthebuilding,thetypeof

founda-tionsandsoilconditions,thebuildingpositionandinteractionwith

respecttoitssurroundings,planandverticalregularityfactors,the

typeandarrangementofopenings,thetypeoffloorsystem,thetype

ofroofsystem,thestateofconservationofthestructuralsystem

andtheexistenceofnon-structuralfallinghazards[59,69,74–77].

Theweightedaverageoftheseparametersleadstothe

quantifica-tionofafragilityindexwhichisthencorrelatedwiththelevelof

Fig.5.ExamplesofconstructionsfromthearchitecturalclassCA3.

expecteddamage.Theproceduredevelopedforculturalheritage

unitsofclassCA2issimilartothatofclassCA1.ForclassCA2,the

procedureisbasedontheclassificationandweightedaverageof

12parametersrelatedtothetypeofstructuralsystem,the

charac-teristicsofthemasonry,thelateralstrengthofthestructure,the

slendernessofthestructure,thetypeoffoundationsandsoil

con-ditions,theconstructionpositionandinteractionwithrespectto

itssurroundings,planandverticalregularityfactors,thetypeand

arrangementofopenings,thetypeoffloorandroofsystems,the

stateofconservationofthestructuralsystemandtheexistence

ofnon-structuralfallinghazards[78–81].Theprocedures

devel-opedforculturalheritageunitsofclassesCA3andCA4aredifferent

thanthoseofclassesCA1andCA2sincetheyaremostlybasedon

simplemechanics-basedapproaches.ForclassCA3,theexpected

levelofdamageis determinedfromtheoverturningstability of

theconstructionanditssensitivitytodeveloparocking

mecha-nism.Inthiscase,theproceduredependsonthegeometricand

materialpropertiesof theconstruction, thetype offoundations

andsoilconditions,thedynamicpropertiesandtheslenderness

oftheconstruction[82–88].ForclassCA4,theexpectedlevelof

damageisdeterminedbyanalysingthestabilityofsingleor

multi-plearchsystemswithrespecttotransversalfailuremechanisms.

Theprocedure depends onthegeometric characteristicsof the

structure(i.e.singleormultiplearchsystem,typeofpier,typeof

abutment,dimensions),theout-of-planestrengthofthespandrel

wall,theout-of-planeglobalarch-piersstrengthandthesoil

con-ditions[89–92].

Sincethedatarequiredforeachformneedstobeobtainedfrom

existingdocumentationandinsitusurveys,thelevelof

reliabil-ityofthedatathatisconsideredisalsoestablishedintheform.

ForculturalheritageunitsofclassesCA1andCA2,eachparameter

requiredtodefinetheexpectedlevelofdamageisassignedwith

areliabilitylevel(0,0.25,0.50,0.75and1.0forlowtohigh

reli-abilitylevels)whichreflectstheuncertaintyinthevalueofeach

parameter.Aglobalreliabilitylevelofthedamageanalysisisthen

obtainedfromtheweightedaverageoftheindividualvalues.Ifthe

globalreliabilitylevelisbelow0.20,thedamageanalysisisnotvalid

andmorereliabledataisrequired.Iftheglobalreliabilitylevelis

between0.20and0.50,thedamageanalysisisacceptedbut

obtain-ingadditionalinformationonthemoreuncertainparametersis

recommended.Iftheglobalreliability level ishigherthan 0.50,

thedamageanalysisisfullyaccepted.Forculturalheritageunits

ofclassesCA3andCA4,theglobalreliabilitylevelisestablished

directlyinaqualitativewaysincethenumberofparametersthat

areneededismuchlower.Fortheseclasses,Low,MediumandHigh

levelsofreliabilityarequalitativelydefinedforthedamage

analy-sisthatareinagreementwiththethreenumericalrangesdefined

forclassesCA1andCA2.

Fig.7. ViewofthecurrentconditionoftheRomanTempleofÉvora[93].

5. Applicationoftheframeworktoanalysetheseismicrisk oftheRomanTempleofÉvora

Toillustratetheapplicabilityoftheproposedframework,the

seismicriskassessmentoftheRomanTempleofÉvora,inPortugal,

ispresentedasacasestudy.Forthepurposeofdeterminingthe

levelofexpecteddamage,theRomanTempleofÉvorawas

con-sideredtobeaculturalheritageunitfromthearchitecturalclass

CA3,asshowninthefollowing.Toprovidefurtherdetailsabout

thiscasestudyapplication,theprocedureleadingtothelevelof

expecteddamageisalsodescribednext.

5.1. DescriptionoftheRomanTempleofÉvora

TheRomanTempleofÉvora(Fig.7)islocatedintheUNESCO

WorldHeritageSiteofthehistoricalcentreofÉvora,Portugal.The

exacttimeofconstructionofthetempleisnotknownexactlybut

thestylisticcharacteristicsofthecapitalsindicateitlikelydates

backfromthetimeofRomanemperorAugustus[94].Eventhough

thetempleconstructionislikelytohavebeguninthe1stcentury

AD,theconstructionwasonlyfinishedbetweenthe2ndand3rd

centuries[94].Overtime,thetemplestructurehasundergone

sev-eralmodificationsandreconstructions(seeFig.8).Thetempleis

believedtohavebeendestroyedaroundthe5thcenturyduringthe

Visigothinvasionandadditionalwritingsindicatethetemplewas

integratedintheÉvoracastleinthe14thcentury,serving

simulta-neouslyasafortifiedhouseandasaslaughterhouse[94].In1836,

thetemplestoppedbeingusedasslaughterhouseandbecamethe

focusofalargearchaeologicalinterventionthatwouldeventually

leadtothetemple’spresentconfiguration[94].

Currently,thestructureofthetemplehasfourteenCorinthian

columns exhibiting different levels of damage, configurations

and heights. Twoofthese columnsarefree standingwhile the

remainingonesareconnectedbyanarchitravesuperimposedon

thetopofthecolumns.Thearchitraveblocksandthecolumnshaft

drumsaremadeofgranitewhilethebaseblocksandcapitalsofthe

columnsaremadeofmarble[95].Recentstudies[96]haveshown

thatthemarbleblocksofthearchitraveareconnectedtoeachother

byironconnectors.Ontheotherhand,noconnectionswerefound

betweenthedrumsofthecolumns.Thetotalheightofthe

colon-nadecolumns(i.e.theheightofthebase,shaftandcapital)is7.7m

whilethatofthefreestandingcolumnsisonly6.7sincetheyare

missingthecapitals[97].Theshaftofeachcolumnhasadiameter

ofapproximately0.90m[97].Allthecolumnsarespaced2.25m

apartandsitonaplinthwithanareaof15×25m2 _andaheight

thatvariesbetweenof3.5mand4.3m[97].Theheightofthe

archi-travevariesacrossthetempleanditismadeofoneortwolayersof

graniteblocks,whereeachblockcanbeassumedtohaveaheight

of0.60mandawidthof0.90m.Aspecificmassof2625kg/m3_was

consideredforthegraniteblockswhileforthemarbleblocksthe

consideredspecificmasswas2563kg/m3_[98].

Alltheelementsofthetempleexhibitsomelevelofdamage.

Themostseveredamagecanbefoundinthetwomiddlecolumns

fromthemainfac¸adeofthetemple.Thebasesanddrumsofthese

columnswerecuttogiveroomforadoorwaythatwaspossibly

neededwhen thetemplewasservingasa slaughterhouse[97].

Manyofthemarblebaseblocksalsoexhibitdamageswhichrange

fromerosionand chippingofsmallpiecesofstonetocomplete

separationoftheblocksintotwopieces.Themarblecapitalsand

severaldrumsofthecolumns(otherthanthetwocolumns

previ-ouslyreferred)alsoexhibitlossofmaterialinsomeplaces.Itwas

alsoseenthatmostoftheelementsofthetempleexhibit

biodeteri-orationfromlichen,algaeormoss[97].Forfurtherdetailsregarding

thecharacteristics,existingdamageanddynamicpropertiesofthe

temple,readersarereferredto[97,99].

Inordertoanalysetheseismicriskaccordingtotheframework

previouslypresented,thetemplewasconsideredtobea

construc-tionfromarchitectural classCA3sincethestructuralstabilityis

controlledmainlybythestonecolumns.Giventhecurrent

geo-metricconfigurationofthetemple,thestructurewasdividedinto

fourstructuralsystemsandaseparatedamageanalysiswas

per-formedforeachone(Fig.9).Theseismicvulnerabilityandriskof

thetemplewerethenconsideredtobegovernedbythestructural

systemwherethelevelofdamageisexpectedtobehigher.System

1isagroupofthreecolumnsalongthelongitudinaldirectionof

thetempletoppedbythearchitravewhichismostlymadeoftwo

layersofgraniteblocks.System2isagroupoffivecolumnsalong

thelongitudinaldirectionofthetemplealsotoppedbythe

archi-travewhich,inthiscase,ismostlymadeofonlyonelayerofblocks.

System3isagroupofsixcolumnsalongthetransversedirectionof

thetemplealsotoppedbythearchitravewhichismostlymadeof

Fig.8.Evolutionofthestructureofthetempleovertime,after[95]:(a)whatisbelievedtobetheoriginalstructurefromthe1stcenturyAD;(b)structureof tem-ple/slaughterhouseatthebeginningofthe19th_{century;(c)currentstructure.}

Fig.9. Structuralsystemsconsideredforthedamageanalysisofthetemple.

Fig.10.SchematicrepresentationofTypeI(a),TypeII(b)andTypeIII(c)constructionsbelongingtoarchitecturalclassCA3(adaptedfrom[100]).

onlyonelayerofblocks.Finally,System4referstothefreestanding

columns.

5.2. Determiningtheexpectedlevelofdamageforconstructions

ofarchitecturalclassCA3

According to the procedure detailed in [71], constructions

belongingtoarchitecturalclassCA3canbeofthreetypes.

Con-structionsofTypeIinvolvecaseswheretheconstructioncanbe

analysedusingasinglerectangularblock,Fig.10a),andrequirethe

geometricparametersrepresentedinFig.11a).Constructionsof

TypeIIinvolvecaseswheretheconstructioncanbeanalysedusing

a single blockwith a variable geometryin elevationaccording

toFig.10b),requiringthegeometricparametersrepresentedin

Fig.11 b).ConstructionsofTypeIIIinvolvemulti-column

struc-turestoppedbyanarchitraveprovidingaconnectionbetweenthe

severalelements,Fig.10c).Forthistypeofconstruction,allthe

columnsareassumedtohavethesamegeometryandthe

neces-saryparametersforthiscasearethoserepresentedinFig.11c).For

constructionsofTypeIII,anadditionalparameterdefinedbyeq.

c.m.

R

₀

0

2h

2b

α

H

c.m.

r

b

H/3

R

0

0

α

_2h

2H

2b

0

0

α

2b

R

₀

R

₀ α c.m. c.m.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig.12.SchematicrepresentationofaTypeIconstructionwithaslopedfoundation.

(1)astheratiobetweenthemassofthearchitraveandthemassof

thecolumnsisalsonecessary.

=massarchitrave/masscolumns (1)

Theslopeangleˇofthefoundationisalsoaccountedforinthis

analysis,Fig.12.Thisangleissubtractedfromtheslendernessangle

␣toaccountforthenegativeinfluenceoftheslope(i.e.itfavours

theoccurrenceoftheliftingandoverturningoftheconstruction)

leadingtotheeffectiveslendernessangle␣fdefinedby:

˛f=˛−ˇ (2)

Thetypeoffoundationconnectionbetweentheconstructionand

thesoilis alsoaccountedforintheanalysis.Iftheconstruction

hasafoundationsystemthatcanprovidesomesortofbase

isola-tion(e.g.suchastheorthostatfoundationsystemsreferredin[83]

whichinvolveseverallayersofsmoothedstone withoutmortar

betweenthem),theexpectedlevelofdamageobtainedfromthe

analysiscanbereducedbyonelevel.However,ifthebaseofthe

constructionsitsontopofasurfacethatcanbeassumedasrigid

withrespecttobaseisolationfeaturesorifthebaseofthe

con-structionisburiedatalow-depth,nocorrectionoftheexpected

levelofdamageisneeded.Finally,ifthebaseoftheconstructionis

buriedatasignificantdepth,thedamageanalysisisnotvalidsince

thebehaviouroftheconstructionwillbedifferentthanassumed

bythemethodologypresentedherein.

In the proposed procedure, the expected level of damage

dependsonslendernessandfrequencyparameters.The

slender-nessparameterisgivenby:

= 1

tan



˛f



(3)

Ontheotherhand,thefrequency parameterpisdefined

differ-entlyforeachtypeofconstruction[85].ForTypeIconstructions,

parameterpisgivenby:

p=



3·g

4·R0

(4)

wheregisthegravitationalacceleration(i.e.9.81m/s2_)andR

0is

definedinFig.11.ForTypeIIconstructions,parameterpisgiven

by: p=



3·g 4·R0·



16 3



6−sin2˛



(5)

Finally,forTypeIIIconstructions,parameterpreflectsthe

stabilis-ingeffectofthearchitraveandisgivenby:

p=



3·g 4·R0·



1+2· 1+3· (6)

Basedonthegeometricparameters,thematerialproperties,the

soilcharacteristicsandtheselectedseismichazardscenario,the

seismicfragilityindexes1and2arethendeterminedtoestablish

theexpectedlevelofdamage.Index1definesalimitfortheground

accelerationuptowhichagivenconstructionisnotexpectedto

developarockingmechanismandisobtainedby:

1=

1

·S (7)

where Sis asoil factoraccounting forsoil amplificationeffects

defined according to Eurocode 8 [101]. Index 2 establishes a

limitforthegroundaccelerationabovewhichtheconstructionis

expectedtooverturnandcollapseandisdefinedby:

2=

5

1.7·S·p·Tc ·tan



˛f



(8)

whereTcistheperiodcorrespondingtotheupperlimitofthe

con-stantaccelerationbranchofastandardresponsespectrum.Inthe

currentprocedure,TcisalsodefinedaccordingtoEurocode8[101].

Theexpectedlevelofdamageisthendeterminedbycomparingthe

seismicfragilityindexes1and2withthepeakground

accelera-tiondthatisexpectedatthesitefortheselectedseismichazard

scenario.Thevalueofdcanbeobtained,forexample,from

earth-quakedesignstandardsandcanbeassociatedwithdifferenthazard

likelihoodsusinganappropriate relationwiththereturnperiod

(e.g.see[101]).Ifdislowerthan1,theexpectedlevelofdamage

isclassifiedasLight,ifdishigherthan1butlowerthan2,the

expectedlevelofdamageisclassifiedasMediumandifdishigher

than2,theexpectedlevelofdamageisclassifiedasHeavy.Basedon

theseranges,Lightdamageisexpectedtoinvolveslidingbetween

theseveralblockcomponentswithoutdevelopingarocking

mecha-nism.ForMediumdamagetheconstructionisexpectedtodevelop

arockingmechanismthatwillincreasethedamagebetweenthe

blockcomponentswithoutleadingtoglobaloverturning.Finally,

Heavydamagewillcorrespondtothecasewheretheoverturning

andcollapseoftheconstructionwilloccur.

6. Resultsanddiscussion:riskanalysisoftheRoman TempleofÉvora

TheresultsofthesimplifiedseismicriskanalysisoftheRoman

TempleofÉvoraaccordingtotheproposedframeworkare

pre-sentedherein.Theexpectedlevelofdamageisdeterminedusing

the proceduredetailed in the previoussection and part of the

resultsarethencomparedwiththoseofanadvancednumerical

analysis simulating the behaviour of the temple under

earth-quakes[97].Theselectedearthquakescenariocorrespondstothe

earthquakedesignintensitysetbythePortuguesenationalannex

ofEurocode8[102]which isconsideredtobealow likelihood

event(i.e.ithasanannualprobabilityofoccurrencearound0.2%).

Twotypesofearthquakesneedtobeconsideredforthisscenario

accordingto[102]:(i)earthquakeswithepicentresmainlyoffshore

termedearthquaketype1(EQ1)and(ii)earthquakeswith

epicen-tresmainlyinlandtermedearthquaketype2(EQ2).Thevalueof

dforthelocationofthetempleisfoundtobe0.10gforEQ1and

0.11gforEQ2[102]andthevalueofcisalsodifferentforthese

twotypesofearthquakes:0.6sforEQ1and0.25sforEQ2[101].

Sincethecolumnsofthetemplesitontopofaplinthwhichisnot

expectedtobemadeofsolidrock[97,99]andbasedonthesoil

mappingforPortugalpresentedin[102],thefoundationsoilwas

Table2

Intermediateparametersneededtodetermine1and2.

System ˛f=˛(rad)  ς p(Hz) 1 0.12 8.56 0.331 1.258 2 0.12 8.56 0.252 1.275 3 0.12 8.56 0.344 1.256 4 0.13 7.44 – 1.475 Table3

Valuesof1and2fortheEQ1andEQ2earthquaketypes1.

System 1(g) 2(EQ1)(g) 2(EQ2)(g)

1 0.087 0.337 0.810

2 0.087 0.333 0.790

3 0.087 0.338 0.811

4 0.100 0.331 0.793

to1.35.Withrespecttothetypeoffoundationsystem,nobase iso-lationfeaturessuchasthosereferredintheprevioussectionwere considered.

GiventheconfigurationsofSystems1to4(Fig.9),itcanbe

seenthatSystems1to3areTypeIIIconstructionswhileSystem

4isaTypeIconstruction.Theintermediateparametersneededto

establish1and2foreachsystemarepresentedinTable2and

arebasedonthesurveydatafoundin[97,99].Thevaluesof1and

2thatwerethendeterminedforeachearthquaketype(EQ1and

EQ2)arepresentedinTable3.Since2dependsonthevalueofc,

differentvaluesareobtainedforEQ1andEQ2.

Since1<d<2forSystems1to3,theconsideredearthquake

scenariois seentolead toanexpectedlevel of damagethat is

Medium.ThesethreeSystemsgovernthebehaviourofthe

construc-tionfortheintensityoftheselectedearthquakescenarioessentially

becauseSystem4 is shorter.Thevalues that wereobtainedfor

2 alsoleadtotwootherconclusions: theoverturning and

col-lapseoftheconstructionisgovernedbyEQ1andtheearthquake

intensityforwhichitisexpectedtooccurisbetweenthreetofour

timestheintensityoftheselectedscenario.Bothconclusionsare

inagreementwiththefindingsoftheadvancednumerical

simula-tionstudiesthatwerecarriedoutin[97].Furthermore,thefindings

in[97]arealsoinagreementwiththeexpectedlevelofdamage

thatwasobtainhereinfortheearthquakescenarioselectedforthe

currentanalysis.

Basedonthislevelofdamage,thenextstepoftheframework

analysesthereparabilityofthosedamages.Giventhatformedium

damagetheconstructionisexpectedtodeveloparocking

mech-anismthatwillcausesomephysicaldamagesuchasslidingand

chippingofsmallpiecesofstone,thelevelofdamageisexpected

tobeonlypartiallyrepairable.Nonetheless,giventhetypeof

con-struction,its functionis expected to beeasily restoredand no

significantlossofvalueisforeseen.Basedontheseconsiderations,

thevulnerabilityleveloftheconstructionisfoundtobeVII(Fig.1).

Combiningthislevelofvulnerabilitywiththelowlikelihoodofthe

selectedearthquakescenarioleadstoarisklevelRIII(Fig.2).

7. Finalremarks

Thesimplifiedriskassessmentframeworkproposedhereincan

beusedasascreeningprocedureforthepreliminaryassessment

ofalargenumberofculturalheritageassetswithlimitedresources

orforthepreliminaryidentificationofassetsthatrequireamore

refinedandresource demandingrisk evaluation.Theprocedure

involvesaqualitative risk analysisbasedona setofstructured

assessmentflowchartsaddressingthemaincomponentsofarisk

analysis:thelikelihoodofthehazard,theconsequencesofthe

haz-ard,thevulnerabilityandthelossofvalueoftheassetand,finally,

thecapacitytorecoverfromtheevent.

The general framework was further detailed by developing

specificdamageassessmentformsandguidelinesforthecaseof

seismicrisk[71].Inthiscontext,specificprocedureswere

devel-oped toanalyse theexpectedlevelof damagefor fourtypesof

culturalheritagemasonryconstructions.Themainaspectsofthese

proceduresweredescribedandanillustrativeapplicationforthe

RomanTempleofÉvorainPortugalwasalsopresented.

Compara-bleresultsofthisapplicationwerefoundtobeinagreementwith

thoseofanadvancedstudysimulatingthebehaviourofthetemple

underearthquakes.Nonetheless,additionalapplicationsshouldbe

carriedoutinvolvingconstructionsdamagedbypastearthquakes

tovalidatetheproposedmethodology.

Furtherrefinementsoftheproposedframeworkareexpected

tobedevelopedinthenearfuturetoincludemoretypesof

con-structionsaswellastodefinesimilarguidelinesforothertypesof

hazards.

References

[1]T.Aven,Onhowtodefine,understandanddescriberisk,ReliabilityEng.Syst. Saf95(6)(2010)623–631.

[2]UNISDR Terminology on disaster Risk Reduction. International strat-egy for disaster reduction, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009 [http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology, last accessed on April 2016].

[3]S.Manyena,Theconceptofresiliencerevisited,Disasters30 (4)(2006) 433–450.

[4]HyogoFrameworkforAction2005-2015:buildingtheresilienceofNations andCommunitiestoDisasters.ExtractfromthefinalreportoftheWorld ConferenceonDisasterReduction(A/CONF.206/6).Internationalstrategyfor disasterreduction,UnitedNations,Geneva,Switzerland,2007 [UN/ISDR-07-2007].

[5]Sendaiframeworkfordisasterriskreduction2015-2030.UnitedNations internationalstrategyfordisasterreduction,1sted.,2015[UNISDR/GE/2015 -ICLUXEN5000,Geneva,Switzerland].

[6]Synthesisreportonconsultationsonapost-2015frameworkondisaster riskreduction(HFA2).Internationalstrategyfordisasterreduction,United Nations,Geneva,Switzerland,2013.

[7]Thepost2015Hyogoframeworkfor action:managingrisks toachieve resilience.CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament, theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteeandtheCommittee oftheRegions,Brussels,Belgium,EuropeanCommission,2014.

[8]K.Ishigaki,J.Mochizuki,Post-2015frameworkfordisasterriskreduction:a proposalformonitoringprogress,2014,pp.304–307[GRFDavosPlanet@Risk 2(5)SpecialIssueforthePost-2015FrameworkforDRR].

[9]F.Schreiber,ResilientCities2014-5thGlobalForumonUrbanResilienceand Adaptation,2014,pp.318–323[GRFDavosPlanet@Risk2(5)SpecialIssuefor thePost-2015FrameworkforDRR].

[10]R.Jigyasu,M.Murthy,G.Boccardi,C.Marrion,D.Douglas,J.King,etal., Her-itageandresilience:issuesandopportunitiesforreducingdisasterrisks. FourthsessionoftheGlobalPlatformonDisasterRiskReduction, ICORP-ICOMOS,UNISDR,UNESCO,ICCROM,2013.

[11]Heritageatrisk:ICOMOSWorldReport2008/2010onmonumentsandsites indanger,in:C.Machat,M.Petzet,J.Ziesemer(Eds.),Internationalcouncilon monumentsandsites,HendrikBäßler,2010.

[12]TheGreatEastJapanearthquake–reportonthedamagetothecultural her-itage,ICOMOSNationalCommittee,Japan,2011.

[13]R.Kurin,SavingHaiti’sheritage-culturalrecoveryaftertheearthquake, SmithsonianInstitution,2011.

[14]E.Cunliffe,Damagetothesoul:Syria’sculturalheritageinconflict,Global HeritageFund,2012.

[15]X.Romão,A.A.Costa,E.Paupério,H.Rodrigues,R.Vicente,H.Varum,etal., Fieldobservationsandinterpretationofthestructuralperformanceof con-structionsafterthe11May2011Lorcaearthquake,Eng.Fail.Anal34(2013) 670–692.

[16]Heritageatrisk:worldreport2011/2013onmonumentsandsitesindanger, in:C.Machat,M.Petzet,J.Ziesemer(Eds.),Internationalcouncilon monu-mentsandsites,HendrikBäßler,2014.

[17]D.delaFuente,J.Vega,F.Viejo,I.Díaz,M.Morcillo,Cityscaleassessment modelforairpollutioneffectsontheculturalheritage,Atmos.Environ456 (2011)1242–1250.

[18]M.Rogerio-Candelera,M.Lazzari,E.Cano(Eds.),Scienceandtechnologyfor theconservationofculturalheritage,CRCPress,2013.

[19]B. Marzeion, A. Levermann, Loss of cultural world heritage and cur-rently inhabitedplacesto sea-levelrise,Environ ResLett9(3) (2014) 034001–034008.

[20]D.D’Ayala,S.Lagomarsino,Performance-basedassessmentofcultural her-itage assets:outcomes of theEuropean FP7 PERPETUATEproject, Bull. EarthquakeEng13(1)(2015)5–12.

[21]G.Lollino,D.Giordan,C.Marunteanu,B.Christaras,I.Yoshinori,C.Margottini (Eds.),Engineeringgeologyforsocietyandterritory-volume8–preservation ofculturalheritage,Springer,2015.

[22]J.Bommer,Deterministicvs.probabilisticseismichazardassessment:an exaggeratedandobstructivedichotomy,J.EarthquakeEng6(S1)(2002) 43–73.

[23]R.Sparks,W.Aspinall,Volcanicactivity:frontiersandchallengesin fore-castingpredictionandriskassessment,in:R.Sparks,C.Hawkesworth(Eds.), Thestateoftheplanet:frontiersandchallengesingeophysics,geophysical monograph19,IUGG,2004,pp.359–373.

[24]S.Lari,P.Frattini,G.Crosta,Aprobabilisticapproachforlandslidehazard analysis,Eng.Geol182(2014)3–14[PartA].

[25]J.Wang,Floodriskmapstoculturalheritage:measuresandprocess,J.Cult. Herit16(2)(2015)210–220.

[26]D.Lange,S.Devaney,A.Usmani,AnapplicationofthePEERperformance basedearthquakeengineeringframeworktostructuresinfire,EngStruct66 (2014)100–115.

[27]S.Kincaid,Aninvestigationintothefiresafetymanagementofhistoric build-ings,SheffieldHallamUniversityBuiltEnvironmentResearchTransactions4 (1)(2012)24–37.

[28]K.Smith,Environmentalhazards:assessingriskandreducingdisaster, Rout-ledge,2013.

[29]K.Pitilakis,H.Crowley,A.Kaynia,SYNER-G:typologydefinitionandfragility functionsforphysicalelementsatseismicrisk:buildings,lifelines. Trans-portationNetworksandCriticalFacilities,SpringerScience&BusinessMedia, 2014[Vol.27].

[30]L’.Solín,P.Skubinˇcan,Floodriskassessmentandmanagement:reviewof concepts,definitionsandmethods,Geograph.J65(1)(2013)23–44.

[31]D.Hadjimitsis,A.Agapiou,D.Alexakis,A.Sarris,Exploringnaturaland anthro-pogenicriskforculturalheritageinCyprususingremotesensingandGIS,Int. J.Digit.Earth6(2)(2013)115–142.

[32]P.Asteris, M.Chronopoulos, C. Chrysostomou,H.Varum, V. Plevris, N. Kyriakides,etal.,Seismicvulnerabilityassessmentofhistoricalmasonry structuralsystems,EngStruct62–63(2014)118–134.

[33]J.WattsJr.,M.Kaplan,FireRiskIndexforhistoricbuildings,FireTechnol37 (2)(2001)167–180.

[34]T.Goded,J.Irizarry,E.Buforn,Vulnerabilityandriskanalysisofmonuments inMálagacity’shistoricalcentre(SouthernSpain),Bull.EarthquakeEng10 (3)(2012)839–861.

[35]A.Blanco-Vogt,J.Schanze,Assessmentofthephysicalfloodsusceptibilityof buildingsonalargescale–conceptualandmethodologicalframeworks,Nat. Hazard.Earth.Syst.Sci14(2014)2105–2117.

[36]V.Stephenson,D.D’Ayala,Anewapproachtofloodvulnerability assess-mentforhistoricbuildingsinEngland,Nat.Hazard.Earth.Syst.Sci.14(2014) 1035–1048.

[37]P.Ortiz,V.Antunez,J.Martín,R.Ortiz,M.Vázquez,E.Galán,Approachto environmentalriskanalysisforthemainmonumentsinahistoricalcity,J. Cult.Herit.15(4)(2014)432–440.

[38]G.Cimellaro,A.Reinhorn,M.Bruneau,Frameworkforanalytical quantifica-tionofdisasterresilience,Eng.Struct32(11)(2010)3639–3649.

[39]P.Arbon,K.Gebbie,L.Cusack,S.Perera,S.Verdonk,Developingamodeland tooltomeasurecommunitydisasterresilience,TorrentsResilienceInstitute, Adelaide,Australia,2012.

[40]D.Henry,J.Ramirez-Marquez,Genericmetricsandquantitativeapproaches forsystemresilienceasafunctionoftime,ReliabilityEng.Syst.Saf.99(2012) 114–122.

[41]S.Menoni,D.Molinari,D.Parker,F.Ballio,S.Tapsell,Assessingmultifaceted vulnerabilityandresilienceinordertodesignrisk-mitigationstrategies,Nat. Hazard64(3)(2012)2057–2082.

[42]C.Zobel,L.Khansa,Characterizingmulti-eventdisasterresilience,Comput. Oper.Res.42(2014)83–94.

[43]B. Ayyub, Systemsresilience for multihazard environments:definition, metrics,andvaluationfordecision-making,RiskAnal34(2)(2014)340–355.

[44]C.Zobel,Quantitativelyrepresentingnonlineardisasterrecovery,Decis.Sci 45(6)(2014)1053–1082.

[45]M.DelaTorre(Ed.),Assessingthevalueofculturalheritage.ResearchReport, TheGettyConservationInstitute,LosAngeles,2002.

[46]K.Vecvagars,Valuingdamageandlossesinculturalassetsaftera disas-ter: concept paper and research options. CEPAL - SERIE Estudios y perspectivas–SedeSubregionaldelaCEPALenMéxico,UnitedNations Pub-lication,2006.

[47]P.Nijkamp,Chapter4-economicvaluationofculturalheritage.The eco-nomicsofuniqueness:investing,in:G.Licciardi,R.Amirtahmasebi(Eds.), Historiccitycoresandculturalheritageassetsforsustainabledevelopment, WorldBankPublications,2012.

[48]DassanayakeFD.,A.Burzel,H.Oumeraci,Evaluationofculturallosses. Xtrem-RisKProgressReport,Leichtweiß-InstituteforHydraulicEngineeringand WaterResources,TechnischeUniversitätBraunschweig,2012.

[49]L.Cox,D.Babayev,W.Huber,Somelimitationsofqualitativeriskrating sys-tems,RiskAnal25(3)(2005)651–662.

[50]M.Rausand,Riskassessment:theory,methods,andapplications,JohnWiley &Sons,2013.

[51]J.Lund,Ariskanalysisofriskanalysis,J.Contemp.WaterRes.Educ140(1) (2008)53–60.

[52]S.Krings, Verwundbarkeitsassessment der Strom- und Trinkwasserver-sorgunggegenüber Hochwasserereignissen,in:J.Birkmann, S.Dech, M.

Gähler,S.Krings,W.Kühling,K.Meisel,A.Roth,A.Schieritz,H.Taubenböck,M. Vollmer,T.Welle,J.Wolfertz,WurmM.,ZwenznerH.(Eds.),Abschätzungder VerwundbarkeitgegenüberHochwasserereignissenaufkommunalerEbene, FederalOfficeofCivilProtectionandDisasterAssistance,Bonn,2010.

[53]J.Birkmann,C.Bach,M.Vollmer,Toolsforresiliencebuildingand adap-tivespatialgovernance,RaumforschungundRaumordnung70(4)(2012) 293–308.

[54]R.Cooke,L.Goossens,Expertjudgementelicitationforriskassessmentsof criticalinfrastructures,J.RiskRes7(6)(2004)643–656.

[55]A.Babuscia,K.Cheung,Anapproachtoperformexpertelicitationfor engi-neeringdesignriskanalysis:methodologyandexperimentalresults,J.R.Stat. Soc177(2)(2014)475–497.

[56]M.Catenacci,V.Bosetti,G.Fiorese,E.Verdolini,Expertjudgmentelicitation protocols,in:V.Bosetti,M.Catenacci(Eds.),Innovationunderuncertainty:the futureofcarbon-freeenergytechnologies,EdwardElgarPublishing,2015.

[57]A.Copping,Thedevelopmentofafiresafetyevaluationprocedureforthe propertyprotectionofparishchurches,FireTechnol38(4)(2002)319–334.

[58]R.DeRisi,F.Jalayer,F.DePaola,I.Iervolino,M.Giugni,M.Topa,etal.,Floodrisk assessmentforinformalsettlements,Nat.Hazard69(1)(2013)1003–1032.

[59]S.Giovinazzi,Thevulnerabilityassessmentandthedamagescenarioin seis-micriskanalysis,TechnicalUniversityCarolo-WilhelminaatBraunschweig andFacultyofEngineeringoftheUniversityofFlorence,2005[PhD Disserta-tion].

[60]A.Godfrey,R.Ciurean,C.vanWesten,N.Kingma,T.Glade,Assessing vulner-abilityofbuildingstohydro-meteorologicalhazardsusinganexpertbased approach–anapplication inNehoiuValley,Romania,Int.J.DisasterRisk Reduction13(2015)229–241.

[61]M.Ibrahim,K.AbdulHamid,M.Ibrahim,A.MohdDin,R.MohdYunus,M. Yahya,Thedevelopmentoffireriskassessmentmethodforheritagebuilding, ProcediaEng20(2011)317–324.

[62]F.Jalayer,S.Carozza,R.DeRisi,G.Manfredi,E.Mbuya,Performance-based floodsafety-checkingfornon-engineeredmasonrystructures,Eng.Struct106 (2016)109–123.

[63]M.Kappes,M.Papathoma-Köhle,M.Keiler,Assessingphysicalvulnerability formulti-hazardsusinganindicator-basedmethodology,Appl.Geogr32(2) (2012)577–590.

[64]Z.Li,F.Nadim,H.Huang,M.Uzielli,S.Lacasse,Quantitativevulnerability esti-mationforscenario-basedlandslidehazards,Landslides7(2)(2010)125–134.

[65]A.Mebarki,N.Valencia,J.Salagnac,B.Barroca,Floodhazardsandmasonry constructions:aprobabilisticframeworkfordamage,riskandresilienceat urbanscale,Nat.Hazard.EarthSyst.Sci12(5)(2012)1799–1809.

[66]A.Puissant,M.VanDenEeckhaut,M.Kappes,M.Papathoma-Koehle,M. Keiler,J.Hervás,etal.,Index-orientedmethodologiesforlandslide conse-quenceanalysis:anapplicationtoamountaincommunityintheFrench Alps,in:Landslidescienceandpractice,Springer,BerlinHeidelberg,2013, pp.159–167.

[67]R.Spence,I.Kelman,Anoverviewoffloodactionsonbuildings,Eng.Geol73 (3)(2004)297–309.

[68]V.Stephenson,D.D’Ayala,Anewapproachtofloodvulnerabilityassessment forhistoricbuildingsinEngland,Nat.Hazard.Earth.Syst.Sci14(5)(2014) 1035–1048.

[69]R.Vicente,Strategiesandmethodologiesforurbanrehabilitation interven-tions:vulnerabilityassessment andseismicriskof thebuildingsofthe downtownofCoimbra,UniversityofAveiro,2008[PhDDissertation].

[70]J.WattsJr.,Fireriskindexing,in:SFPEhandbookoffireprotectionengineering, Springer,NewYork,2016,pp.3158–3182.

[71]X.Romão,E.Paupério,N.Pereira,Methodologyfortherapidevaluationof seismicriskinimmovablecultural.ReportfortheNationalAuthorityforCivil Protection,ConstructionInstituteandFacultyofEngineering,Universityof Porto,Porto,2015[inPortuguese].

[72]Conservationprinciples-policiesandguidanceforthesustainable manage-mentofthehistoricenvironment.EnglishHeritage,2008.

[73]S.Lagomarsino,S.Cattari,PERPETUATEguidelinesforseismic performance-basedassessmentofculturalheritagemasonrystructures,Bull.Earthquake Eng13(1)(2015)13–47.

[74]S.Lagomarsino,Onthevulnerabilityassessmentofmonumentalbuildings, BullEarthquakeEng4(4)(2006)445–463.

[75]P.Lourenc¸o,D.Oliveira,J.Leite,J.Ingham,C.Modena,F.daPorto, Simpli-fiedindexesfortheseismicassessmentofmasonrybuildings:international databaseandvalidation,Eng.Fail.Anal34(2013)585–605.

[76]S.Pereira,Análisedecritériossimplificadosparaaavaliac¸ãode vulnerabili-dadesísmicadeigrejas,FacultyofEngineeringoftheUniversityofPorto,2013 [MScDissertation.InPortuguese].

[77]A.Simões,J.Miloˇsevi ´c,H.Meireles,R. Bento,S.Cattari,S.Lagomarsino, FragilitycurvesforoldmasonrybuildingtypesinLisbon,Bull.Earthquake Eng13(10)(2015)3083–3105.

[78]E.Curti,VulnerabilitàsismicadelletorriCampanarie:modellimeccanicie Macrosismici,UniversitàdegliStudidiGenova,2007[PhDDissertation.In Italian].

[79]V.Sepe,E.Speranza,A.Viskovic,Amethodforlarge-scalevulnerability assess-mentofhistorictowers,StructControlHealthMonit15(3)(2008)389–415.

[80]S.Casciati,L.Faravelli,Vulnerabilityassessmentformedievalcivictowers, Struct.Infrastruct.Eng6(1–2)(2010)193–203.

[81]M.Shakya,H.Varum,R.Vicente,A.Costa,Anewmethodologyforvulnerability assessmentofslendermasonrystructures.SecondEuropeanConferenceon EarthquakeEngineering&Seismology,2014[Istanbul,Turkey].

[82]Y.Ishiyama,Motionsofrigidbodiesandcriteriaforoverturningbyearthquake excitations,EarthquakeEng.Struct.Dyn10(5)(1982)635–650.

[83]A.Bayraktar,H.Keypour,A.Naderzadeh,Applicationofancientearthquake resistantmethodinmodernconstructiontechnology,in:15thWorld Confer-enceonEarthquakeEngineering,Lisbon,Portugal,2012.

[84]E.Dimitrakopoulos,M.DeJong,Revisitingtherockingblock:closed-form solutions and similaritylaws, Proc. R. Soc. Lond.A 468(2144) (2012) 2294–2318.

[85]M.DeJong,E.Dimitrakopoulos,Dynamicallyequivalentrockingstructures, EarthquakeEng.Struct.Dyn43(10)(2014)1543–1563.

[86]E.Dimitrakopoulos,T.Paraskeva,Dimensionlessfragilitycurvesforrocking responsetonear-faultexcitations,EarthquakeEng.Struct.Dyn44(12)(2015) 2015–2033.

[87]S.Lagomarsino,Seismicassessmentofrockingmasonrystructures,Bull. EarthquakeEng13(1)(2015)97–128.

[88]A.Pappas,Structuralanalysisandmodellingapproachesfortheseismic vulnerabilityassessmentofarchaeologicalruins,UniversitàdegliStudidi Padova,2015[PhDDissertation].

[89]D.Oliveira,P.Lourenc¸o,C.Lemos,Geometricissuesandultimateloadcapacity ofmasonryarchbridgesfromthenorthwestIberianPeninsula,Eng.Struct32 (2010)3955–3965.

[90]G.Tecchio,P.Zampieri,F.daPorto,C.Modena,A.Prota,G.Manfredi, Simpli-fiedassessmentofrailwaymasonrybridgesseismiccapacity,in:15thWorld ConferenceonEarthquakeEngineering,Lisbon,Portugal,2012.

[91]P.Zampieri,G.Tecchio,F.daPorto,C.Modena,Limitanalysisfortransverse seismiccapacityofmulti-spanmasonryarchbridges,Bull.EarthquakeEng13 (5)(2015)1557–1579.

[92]F.daPorto,G.Tecchio,P.Zampieri,C.Modena,A.Prota,Simplifiedseismic assessmentofrailwaymasonryarchbridgesbylimitanalysis,Struct. Infras-truct.Eng12(5)(2016)567–591.

[93]Roman Temple at Evora, Portugal. Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository, 2007 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evora-RomanTemple.jpg,lastaccessedonApril2016].

[94]TemploRomano de Évora, Direc¸ão-Geral do Património Cultural. Min-istériodaCultura,2015[http://www.patrimoniocultural.pt/pt/patrimonio/ patrimonio-imovel/pesquisa-do-patrimonio/classificado-ou-em-vias-de-classificacao/geral/view/70489, last accessed on April 2016, in Portuguese].

[95]L.Lopes,J.Lopes,J.Cabral,P.Sarantopoulos,Caracterizac¸ãoPetrográficados MonumentosRomanosdeÉvora.AcidadedeÉvoraII(4),2000,pp.129–142 [inPortuguese].

[96]D.Oliveira,G.Grecchi,A.McCall,J.Noh,E.Speer,M.Tohidi,Seismic analy-sisoftheRomanTempleofÉvora,Portugal,in:15thWorldConferenceon EarthquakeEngineering,Lisbon,Portugal,2012.

[97]S.Nayeri,SeismicassessmentoftheRomantempleinÉvora,Portugal, Uni-versityofMinho,2012[MScDissertation,AdvancedMastersinStructural AnalysisofMonumentsandHistoricalConstructions].

[98]D.Oliveira,S.Nayeri,J.Lemos,R.Alfenim,P.Lourenc¸o,Análisesísmicado Tem-ploRomanodeÉvora.5asJornadasPortuguesasdeEngenhariadeEstruturas, Lisbon,Portugal,2014[inPortuguese].

[99]G.Grecchi,A.McCall,J.Noh,E.Speer,M.Tohidi,TheRomanTempleinÉvora: aconservationproposal.SA7-integratedprojectreport,advancedmasters instructuralanalysisofmonumentsandhistoricalconstructions,University ofMinho,2012.

[100] I.Psycharis,J.Lemos,D.Papastamatiou,C. Zambas,C.Papantonopoulos, NumericalstudyoftheseismicbehaviourofapartoftheParthenonPronaos, EarthquakeEng.Struct.Dyn32(13)(2003)2063–2084.

[101] ENV1998-1.Eurocode8:designofstructuresforearthquakeresistance-part 1:generalrules,seismicactionsandrulesforbuildings,EuropeanCommittee forStandardization,Brussels,Belgium,2004.

[102] NPENV1998-1.PortugueseNationalAnnextoEurocode8:designof struc-turesforearthquakeresistance-part1:generalrules,seismicactionsand rulesforbuildings,InstitutoPortuguêsdaQualidade,Lisbon,Portugal,2010.

[103] V.Silva,Developmentofopenmodelsandtoolsforseismicriskassessment: applicationtoPortugal,UniversityofAveiro,2013[PhDDissertation].