PSI - Issue 55

6

Isabel Turbay et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 55 (2024) 168–176 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

173

Biplot (F1 and F2 axes)

6

Traffic

land use Inadequate occupation of public space

Simplicity of the constructive solution seismic vulnerability

SFP

AGU

4

cataloguing

roofs

Inadequate interventions

JOS

SPC

VI e1%

2

MER

urban landscape

CCC

CAG

CAR

SFA

SCD

VI e2%

0

ENC TRC

CAL

SDP

F2

SPA

Maintenance

STC

Physicochemical characteristics

ESC

VI % VI p %

-2

Facilities

Structure Coatings

SRC

ERM

Fire resistance

Texture

BEL

foundation

-4

level of use

LUP

-6

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

F1

Active Variables

Active Observations

Supplementary Variables

Fig. 2. Biplot graph observations on the F1 and F2 axes. The green circles include the churches (blue dots) and the determining factors in them (red dots).

The resistance to fire whose observation is drawn in a quadrant opposite shows that San Roque in Cartagena (SRC) and La Ermita de Popayan (ERM) are affected by a high vulnerability to fire (Fig. 2). 3.4. Vulnerability indexes In the case of the supplementary variables (VI, VIp, VIe1, VIe2), it can be observed that their trend is well represented by the first F1 axis since their values are close to 1, which corroborates the statistical effect (Fig. 2). The vulnerability index (VI) and the expanded vulnerability index (VIp) are highly correlated since they share their internal variables and in turn are correlated with the structure of the monument which are the defining variables. While the global expanded vulnerability index (VIe1) and the intrinsic expanded vulnerability index (VIe2) are in another quadrant affected by the greater number of defining variables. It should also be noted that the intrinsic expanded vulnerability index (VIe2) is close to the variables that define materiality and structure, and therefore to the vulnerability index (VI) and the expanded vulnerability index (VIP). 3.5. Application of PCA to the study of preventive conservation. Table 3 shows the number of monuments studied and their vulnerability degree classified in 5 levels from very low to very high (Ortiz and Ortiz, 2016), according to the least favourable condition of each building to the vulnerability index (VI, VIp, VIe1, VIe2). The buildings according to their vulnerability degree have been represented in the Biplot graph F1-F2 (Fig. 3), identifying characteristics that are somewhat unified in their vulnerability to carry out decision-making regarding preventive conservation. These decisions have considered the stages previously described in the PCA.