PSI - Issue 29

Maria Pianigiani et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 29 (2020) 103–110 Pianigiani M., Careccia C., Montone C./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

108

6

Fig. 3. (a) Ss. Annunziata Collegiate Church in S. Ginesio (MC), cracked fresco; (b) San Benedetto Church in Norcia (PG), altar; (c) S. Francesco Church in Norcia (PG), altarpiece. On the basis of this variety, it is evident the complexity for the seismic damage identification on these typical artworks. However, it is possible to make a first damage differentiation into two large categories: • direct damages causedby shocks, includingdetachments, cracks andcollapses. The level of damages depends on the type of property, its conservation conditions a t the time of the earthquake, the intensity and shocks length, as well as on the correla ted structural damages and the constraint level/degree between structural andnon-structural elements. • indirect damages due to the delayof interventions both on artworks andon churches. In fact, buildingcollapses and injuries expose movable artistic goods to temperature changes and weathering (Guccione, Nappi, Recchia, 1998). From this first analysis it is possible to deduce: • direct damages are proportional to the constraint existingbetween content andcontainer; • indirect damages can be easily estimated only for movable artworks (NC), by transferring to deposits for their safetyandconservation. In fact, forDC artworks such as frescoes or stuccos, only temporary protectionandcoverage measures are possible, for example the adhesion of a protective layer to prevent loss of the paint (most often tissuepaper upon thefaceof a fragile pa inting : “ velinatura ” ) because of the difficulty and possible impairment during protection interventions. Direct damages by earthquakes result limited on movable artworks (NC) if the intervention takes place promptly and correctly during the first emergencyphase. However, someproblems mayarise a lso for these goods (NC artworks): • if removal from the damagedchurchdoes not take place promptly; • if removal is not carried out by personnelwith experienceandknowledge through tested procedures; • if the removal is not carried out on the basis of adequate documentation (small churches located in small towns are oftenoverlooked and their documentation is difficult to find). 2.2. Mibact management experience formobile artworks’ recovery Past experiences from 2009 earthquake, in particular L'Aquila and Emilia Romagna, have been fundamental for the mobile artworks’ recovery. In fact,MIBACThas testeda codifiedprocedure for the recognition, schedulingand first intervention of recovered artworks. These procedures have been carried out with the technical and scientific support of the territorial offices ( Soprintendenze ) of the Ministry andcentral institutes ( Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione e il Restauro, Opificio delle Pietre Dure and Istituto centrale per il restauro e la conservazione del patrimonio archivistico e librario ) to help the regiona lUCCRoffices as required by the Directiveof 23.04.2015 2 .

2 The Directive of 23.04.2015 (OJ n.169 of 23.07.2015) integrate the Directive of 12 December 2013 (OJ n.75 of 31.3.2014) “Procedure per