3.8 Proceedings Paper

Monitoring Mechanism in Preservation of Monuments in Hot and Wet Climate Area (Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China -Part of the Results of the Study)

Journal

25TH INTERNATIONAL CIPA SYMPOSIUM 2015
Volume 40-5, Issue W7, Pages 271-275

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W7-271-2015

Keywords

Preservation monitoring; impact factors of environment; preservation objects; preservation methodology; preservation periods

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Historic monuments and buildings are critical cultural assets which cannot be presented by again by human beings. Longer affected by natural climate, environment and biological behavior (including human), resulting in damage and the need for repair. Therefore, UNESCO proposed periodic reporting and reactive monitoring in 2007, in order to achieve early detection, early repair. This study discusses about suitable preservation monitoring methods for Taiwan. To shed light on damage and impact factors of historical buildings and cultural relics, the study is based on impact and sensor, monitoring method, monitoring period and maintenance personnel in order to propose standard operating procedures of monitoring method. To reduce the rate of the human and sensor monitoring, with the long-term monitoring data analysis, it is calculated that 30 minutes is the best period of data collecting. Besides, the study is adopted regression analysis to select temperature variable only then calculate humidity variable function. This study provides a reference monitoring method for monitoring personnel and maintenance personnel, and establishes a long-term monitoring data based information for damage and destroy in the future. Monitoring period and maintenance personnel can follow the data based to find out the damage points and problems, to keep the value of cultural assets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available