Specialist consultancy for the Superintendency
In the context of monumental goods The role of the structural engineer has become increasingly relevant: as an external consultant for the resolution of punctual static problems, signed in close support to the leader architect for the entire design phase and works management, especially in cases where the intervention falls in seismic improvement or in safety for serious static problems, where the choices must be more shared between the structural project and the architectural project.
The author is pleased to bring his staff back to this article Three -year experience carried out as a structuralist consultant within the Offices of the Superintendency Archeology, Fine Arts and Landscape for the Provinces of Alessandria, Asti and Cuneo. The advice was attributed by call for qualifications that the Ministry of Culture issued at the end of 2020 by addressing exclusively to figures with VAT number, probably to make up for temporary organic deficiencies. For a time span of a few years, until the conclusion of the consultancy contracts that took place on 31 December 2024, several highly qualified professional figures with post -graduate titles and with many years of experience in the curriculum in the design and construction management on monumental assets were placed in the offices of all over the national territory: Architects, archaeologists, art historians, and also (finally) structural engineers.
Mediation between structural safety and protection: dialogue with officials
The author’s activity was carried out in support of zone officials in verifying projects subject of authorization, assisting them in the analysis of the structural part up to the drafting of more hands of the text of the authorizations themselves. There was therefore a constructive dialogue between the figure of the structural engineer and that of the official architectin which both have learned to mediate the preservation and safety needs. The architect officials appreciated the possibility of taking advantage of highly specialized advice to discern, during the analysis of the projects, limits and advantages of the various reinforcement techniques (traditional and innovative), whose effectiveness has been assessed on a case -by -case basis.
Furthermore, since many have been received Seismic improvement projects on buildings below bond (for example school buildings financed by PNRR bands), consultancy has been provided to evaluate the correct analysis of seismic vulnerabilities developed by designers. This is in order to converge towards the type of reinforcement strictly necessary for the individual case in question, always paying attention to the issue of safety but avoiding invasiveness on the work.
The synergy meant that the architect official had the opportunity to deepen specifications Notions of structural engineering applied to the monumental fieldwhile the structural engineer had the opportunity to deepen the conservation and restoration criteria, as well as learning the Complex operating of the ministerial machine operating in the protection of assets historical-artistic of the territory.
The comparison with the designers
The author’s advice also encountered in a constant comparison with the designerswhere the projects presented introduced critical issues to the conservation, suggesting corrections or simply more technical details. The feedback received from the outside highlighted a wide degree of appreciation by the structural colleagues, who had the possibility (rare) to be able to compare themselves with a similar specialist figure within the Superintendency, capable of mediating with the storage requests requested by officials.
Most of the engineers designed by structures, above all because they are already operating in the field of bound assets, has delivered in Superintendency projects that denote one Preparation and updating in the use of new reinforcement techniqueswith one Good sensitivity in choosing technologies (even traditional) and materials consistent with the protection of historical-architectural valuesoften correct with the modification of a few details.
On the contrary, another part still limited itself to proposing interventions solely with reinforced concrete to perform summit curbs (even in a case curbs in the breach), extradosal reinforcement caps of the vaults, compensation for cracking paintings, when today it is possible to intervene with lime -based mortars and lighter composite materials. The perceived feeling is that of professionals deriving from the field of civil and residential engineering, certainly valid structures but unrelated to the context of the restoration. Or of long professional experience technicians, but still linked to prescriptions of the seismic adaptation culture of the 80s. In the latter cases there has been a comparison with the designer to request a (sometimes total) review of the design choices towards solutions that canceled or mitigated the use of reinforced concrete in favor of lighter and compatible technologies.
In general The approach to the static conservation of the original structures has often missed (if of particular value), for example regarding ancient wooden trusses, proposing systematic replacement, perhaps out of habit to work in civil renovations, when instead, in cases of greatest structural value, it was possible to think about reinforce instead of replacingclearly within the safety limits.
Criticality in seismic improvement interventions
Certainly more delicate have proven to be the Seismic improvement interventionswhere the design proposals occasionally did not dialogue with the conservation requirements: for example, the insertion of (lime) armed plasters took place in the project without having performed dedicated stratigraphic essays to verify the presence of prestigious decorations and /or plaster. Sometimes changes of intended use, partial or total, were inserted, with deficient seismic assessments. Recurrent was theabsence of evaluation of out -of -terms Within seismic improvement projects or local interventions, when these checks were fundamental and priority to evaluate the effectiveness of the insertion of anti -seismic constraints such as chains or summit curbs.
Probably the designers were not used to finding a structural verifier alongside the official, and sometimes the calculation report of the intervention was considered by the designer a question outside the skills of the Superintendency. Actually consolidation and restoration must dialogue to reach the most satisfying result in terms of safety and conservation. Therefore the Superintendency, as a competent body to authorize the works on the bound assets, needs to also evaluate the effectiveness of the structural interventions, and to intervene in the mitigation and improvement of their impact on the protected asset. Structural reinforcement is part of the restoration intervention.
Towards a specialist training for historical heritage engineers
The experience carried out highlighted how the context of monumental goods requires specific skills also from a structural point of view, both within the protection bodies and for external professionals. For the latter, the skills required go beyond the basic ones already acquired in achieving the degree and during the professional experience of structural design in the civil sphere.
I am skills dedicated to the historical-architectural contextto be developed with training courses that universities and professional orders should spread with greater conviction. These paths should deepen the static of historical constructions, The clinical reading capacity of the structural instability, The planning of diagnostic campaigns, The methods of evaluation of safety in the monumental field until you learn to intervene with more “tailored” techniques and similar to the original schemes and construction techniques: to spread a better structural intervention culture on tied goods.
