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

106

4

Table 1. Table of Special Commissioner of Government Ordinances. Ordinance number Number of Church (n)

Date

23 32 38 84

69

05/05/2017 22/06/2017 08/09/2017 05/09/2019

103 100 640

The different ordinances a lsohave a different prioritycorrelated to the buildingdamages (initial emergencyphase) and to the socia l and territory rela tionship. Indeed, it is possible to divide the ordinances according to the date corresponding to the level of damage andpopulation needs: • first emergency phase: in this very first phase, considering community needs of having quickly a place of aggrega tionandworship, thea imof theplanning has been to identify interventions allowinga rapid reopeningof the churches, usinganappropriatesum; • emergency phase: in this intermediate phase the goa l has been the planning for the most significant and representative worship buildings in the territories as well as ca thedrals, shrines and churches of particular significance in terms of worship andhistorical-artistic value; • post-emergencyphase: the goa l has been to guarantee a t least one intervention in each municipality of the area, in accordancewith worship needs, safety measures a lreadyactivatedand historical-artistic value of buildings. 1.3. Ordinances and their different level of intervention During the first emergency phase have been activated the AeDes procedures (Suitability and Damage in seismic emergency, updated with the DPCM. 8 July 2014) and Fast (Italian acronym for Buildings for post-Earthquake Synthetic Compliance with safety standards). The buildings have been examined in a ll evident structural and non structural damages from outside andwhere the conditionwas considered safe in the interior. Right after this first phase, the Ordinance n. 23 and the Ordinance n.32 have been adopted, including respectively n. 69 and n.103 churches characterized by local and not extended damages, just allowing the urgent interventions (messe in sicurezza) that aimed either at savingbuildings from collapse throughemergency supports(bracing, shoring) or a t removing some local hazards, or even at demolishing and removing debris from partially or totally collapsed buildings. (Anagnoustopulos et Moretti, 2008). It means urgent but not definitive interventions a imeda t ensuring the continuity of the worship ’s exercise , as quoted in the ordinances n.23 and n.32. At the second phase corresponds the Ordinance n. 38 (after modified by Ordinance n.63) that includes n.100 churches while, a t the actual phase, corresponds the lastOrdinancen.84with n. 640 buildings involved.

Fig. 2. Time line of Special Commissioner of Government Ordinances, with regard to the three emergency phases.

Contrary to the churches involved in the first two ordinances (n. 23 and n.32), characterized by local damages, churches of ordinancen.63and 84are characterizedby a ll damage typologies.