DOI: 10.4018/IJ3DIM.2016010103
BIM and Cultural Heritage:
Compatibility Tests in an Archaeological Site
Cristiana Achille, Polytechnic University of Milan, Milan, Italy Nora Lombardini, Polytechnic University of Milan, Milan, Italy Cinzia Tommasi, Polytechnic University of Milan, Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, when people talk about BIM software, they refer to new constructions, made of regular elements and standard parameters. The question is: what happens when one, instead of a new building, considers an ancient or existing one? To answer this question, the possibility of using effectively the BIM process for the maintenance and the conservation of Cultural Heritage has to be evaluated. In particular, the research examines the case study of the archaeological site of the Sanctuary of Diana in Nemi (Rome), which is an important example in the National Heritage. The final product consists of a parametric model, where one can find, embedded in a database, all the information about the elements for the management of conservation projects. Highlighting positive aspects and existing limits, in order to contribute to further studies on the subject, leading to a mandatory implementation and use of this software, even in relation to future European legislative framework.
KeywoRDS
BIM, Conservation, Cultural Heritage, Maintenance, Survey
1. INTRoDUCTIoN
The aim of the research in progress today is to test, with real data and real case studies, the BIM process and highlight the difficulties in order to improve it. In particular, the target is to test these programs, which satisfy the requirements of the new buildings, and see if they can also be successfully used in complex situations, as those linked to the Cultural Heritage field, where you have to consider the unicity of the architectural elements, the constructive systems and materials (not standardisable as the new ones), the damage of the structures and the environmental conditions. Specifically, the presented work focuses on the theme of Archaeological Heritage that is defined by ICOMOS (1990): “The archaeological heritage is that part of the material heritage in respect of which archaeological methods provide primary information. It comprises all vestiges of human existence and consists of places relating to all manifestations of human activity, abandoned structures, and remains of all kinds (including subterranean and underwater sites), together with all the portable cultural material associated with them”.
The choice to deal with the study of an archaeological site is determined by the urgency to protect and conserve them (e.g. the Italian case of Pompeii). As “the overall objective of archaeological heritage management should be the preservation of monuments and sites in situ, including proper long-term conservation and curation of all related records and collections etc” (ICOMOS, 1990), it’s necessary to verify the possibility of a parametric model, interoperable, semantic and clever, capable of offering a 3D representation of the heritage within all the information about its life cycle
and all the survey made during time. Also the complexity proper of Archaeological Heritage of some characteristics (historical, architectonical, structural, constructive, materials and decay) makes the case study interesting in order to evaluate the feasibility of several operative and management procedures (Italian Cultural and Environmental Heritage Code, 2004).
Nowadays, there is a constant diffusion of BIM systems among different fields of application. Building Information Model is not a single software, but it is a process that supports both the information sharing and the maintenance of buildings. Harpaceas states that the BIM modules are three: “Authoring”, including all the software that build the 3D model; “Tools”, used for the computes and the information about the materials in the construction site; “Review”, checking the final model implemented by all the information, ensuring that the structural, architectural and plant models correspond.
It is clear that the potential, which until now has been used mostly in the new constructions field, can be adapted and refined in the CH field.
Before showing the case study, it is important to know which data are managed in archaeological areas.
2. wHAT THe CULTURAL HeRITAGe NeeD FRoM A BIM SySTeM?
What is interesting for the potentiality offered by the BIM technology is the methodical approach not only for the interventions needed, but also for the management of the cultural Heritage, with the activities to monitor its health condition and the maintenance.
The working method realized using these instruments would allow the achievement of these tasks: • The digital representation of the existing building;
• An informative database about all the different elements of the heritage; • A recurring checking of the health condition of the heritage;
• The evaluation of the effects of different typology of intervention.
The management of existing site has different needs from the new buildings, therefore it is important to know the precise information that the model must contain:
• Geo localization • Shape of the element • Materials
• Different layers of materials • State of decay
• Historical information • Environmental conditions
2.1. Uses of BIM in Cultural Heritage Fields: International experiences
The modern Information Technologies (IT) tools offer several possibilities to organize the knowledge of the artefacts, in order to conserve, protect and valorise them. The general trend is to build dynamic and suitable tools to handle the information about the restoring and management process.
The digital archiving techniques, analysis and administration of the data. use the 3D model as a support where it is possible to georeference the material and topological information, the transformations in time, the constructive and technical installations (as climate services, utility services, lighting, etc.). In this way, if all the archive is constantly updated, it contributes to the life cycle management and the plan of work of the ancient building or archaeological site.
Many European countries create informative platforms that try to collect all the data about their CH: e.g. the Kist o Riches by the School of Scottish Studies (University of Edinburgh, 2015), the CultureSampo developed by the Helsinki University of Technology (2015), and the Italian SICaR (2012). In particular, the Italian experience organizes the historical and scientific documentation in order to evaluate the interventions needed, the execution, the maintenance and the monitoring: this is a practical example of a system not only used for valorisation and tourism purposes, but also useful for restorers and operators of the construction yards (Tommasi et al., 2016).
2.2. State of Art
Many researches are focusing their attention on building a system that can be adapted to all Cultural Heritage cases studies, even to the archaeological areas (Scianna et al., 2014); however, it is still very difficult to find it because each situation is very different from the others, having particular and unique needs and history. For this reason, hard structured information system cannot be actually used in Cultural Heritge field which requires more dynamic systems, capable of self-adapting to every case for covering all possible needs. Nowadays, it is possible to distinguish two different categories of software related to 3D models; so far, the BIM software are not able to solve all the issues that come from the modelling of the Cultural Heritage, but they need to be integrated the integration with other instruments to reach a sufficient result: 3D modelling software and BIM software. The first category includes the modelling software (as for example 3DStudio, AutoCad, Rhinoceros etc.) that can manage real based 3D models. These models can be characterized by high complexity, great accuracy, high-resolution and heterogeneous features (both line based and surface based at the same time), represented through Mesh and Nurbs. Normally these models are directly created from 3D dense point clouds, coming from survey.
On the other hand, speaking about BIM software, it is important to know that the most important letter of the word BIM is the “I”- Information - as they add to the 3D buildings models an information system, namely connecting digital models with different kind of information useful for building management.
Revit, for example, is one of best known “building design software specifically built for Building Information Modelling (BIM), with features for architectural design, (MEP and structural engineering, and construction” based on “parametric components”. BIM software offer hard structured information system able to connect data and information to the objects, with the possibility to perform queries and simulations on them. Inside the universe BIM, there is an experimental process called HBIM, explained by Dore and Murphy (2013), that represent an example of BIM specifically directed to Digital Heritage. It is a novel prototype library of parametric objects based on historic architectural data and a system of cross platform programs for mapping parametric objects onto a point cloud and image survey data (Fai et al., 2011; Dore et al., 2012). From all the case studies considered emerged the fundamental features that all the BIM software ought to operate in Cultural Heritage:
• To be able to collect historical-cultural information to understand where to operate;
• To guarantee the possibility of managing the survey data (CAD, point clouds), to ease the operation of virtual reconstruction of the building;
• To foresee the possibility of modifying or implementing, any time and by any operator, to ensure both the update of all the information linked to the different elements and the validity of the evaluations on the present state of the heritage;
• To let the construction of an informative and open database, containing the indications about the materials and the constructive methodologies of the building;
• To ensure the exchange of different data between different parametric or non-parametric software, thanks to the identification of some format (IFC, XLM, etc.).
When the work proposed has started (2012-2013), in order to make the BIM systems convenient in Cultural Heritage instead of using normal 3D modelling software, some operative issues needed to be resolved:
• Lack of interoperability between BIM and the technologies for topographical survey; hard management of heavy data coming from surveying instrument (e.g. Laser scanner, photogrammetry, etc.) Such as huge point clouds
• Simplification of the geometry of the monument
• Complexity in the restitution of the unicity and of the details of the historical elements • Inability to assign punctually specific data to points placed in the surface of the object
The need to ease the process of 3D model production and graphical elaborations for the CH became a goal not only for a correct reproduction of the existing monument, but also for a complete comprehension of the hierarchical logic among the parts of the monument itself.
3. DATA INTeRACTIoN IN THe BIM SySTeM 3.1. Survey Data
There are three common methods to survey a monument, an historical building or an archaeological area: the direct survey, the photogrammetric survey and the topographical survey. Even if the restitution of a historical building is a coordination of these three methods, the focus is on the data that comes from the photogrammetric and topographical survey. These two methods generate one product – the point cloud - through different means. The management of point clouds is one of the biggest problems of BIM applied to Cultural Heritage. Several design platforms faced this issue last year (e.g. Autocad 2015 added the function “attach point cloud”) and the BIM system is trying to catch up: now the software is able to import point clouds, but it’s important to underline that is not easy to manage them. The most common problems that came across opening the point clouds in Graphisoft Archicad and Autodesk Revit (2012-2013) were:
• Impossibility to import big point clouds (with millions point), making it impossible to reach an high level of details;
• Impossibility to recognize the points as snap point and redraw the profiles • Impossibility to edit the surfaces created with the triangulation;
Some plug-ins were available in order to solve in part the problems, for example Green Spider for Revit developed by Garagnani (2013) and Cadimage for Archicad, which improved the functionalities of the original programs as the recognition of the points as snap. Given that BIM is not a single software, but a process, it is impossible to have one unique program able to solve all the matters. For this reason, some software mediates between the instrument for surveying (e.g. laser scanner) and the BIM modeller (e.g. Archicad, Revit, Allplan, etc.), e.g. one program created with this aim is Scalypso. 3.2. existing Material Browser
Nowadays the use of BIM for new constructions requires the development of platforms containing National database with technical, financial and scientific information useful for the civil construction process (as the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, all the facilities of the urban planning and so on). As well known, the civil construction goes from the ideation of the object through its execution and its management up to its “demolition” and renovation according to the concept of “life cycle” as previewed in the BIM methodology. The Cultural Heritage, as the monument, is included in this process but, according the conservation approach, it is possible only considering the restoration of
it, bypassing the demolition phase, saving the whole construction from the technical, constructive, material point of view, (bearing in mind, also, the existing utility services as water, electrical, gas supplies, drainages, etc.). Talking about HBIM, the life cycle process going from the design to the end of the construction gets actually altered because it is necessary to substitute the demolition or the renovation phase with the restoration or conservation phase. Defining renovation as the possibility to change the existing materials, structures and any utility services with new ones, considering the conservation project as the saving of each existing elements of the construction itself using all the methodologies or materials able to avoid their substitution or the replacement.
The introduction of HBIM leads to a reflection on the BIM life cycle, dealing with BIM for the heritage implies to do maintenance and restoration on something which is heritage, as part of a widest range, that can be defined as the existing. In the life cycle of the monument (as the archaeological ruins) it is not anymore considered the end.
Thinking about sustainability and resources management, it is necessary to seek to conserve the monument, extending its life and seeking its “immortality”. As for the BIM for new constructions, also the BIM for the existing constructions requires the creation of a database which allows an immediate management of the project for the maintenance and for the restoration through the BIM procedure. As already said (starting from a wide range that is the existing, in which is pointed out the smaller range of older constructions and therefore even that of ancient buildings, called here cultural heritage) the issue is to build a specific database for the cultural heritage.
How is it possible to create this database starting from old constructive systems (structures and process plant engineering) and old materials which are not certified unlike new ones? What is it possible to do, today? To assign to each drawn element, through a BIM software, a schedule that describes the object, or the portion of object under exam? This procedure may only work through an absolute standardization of the terminology. Actually, even if Italian and International legislation have codified the typologies of degradation of stone materials, there is no precise codification of the ancient materials and constructive systems. In the same time alpha-numeric codes are not assigned to the decays listed in the Italian technical rules UNI or in the ICOMOS ISCS Glossary (2008). What does codification mean? It means to give each element an unequivocal denomination which corresponds to an alphanumeric code, which makes it possible to identify all the surveyed elements in the existing construction (as old buildings, monuments, archaeological ruins, etc.).
In this sense, the schedules developed by the Central Institute for the Cataloguing and Documentation of the Italian Ministry may offer us a very big help so as it was for stones deterioration patterns, it is important that the materials and the constructive systems are defined by a group of experts in an unambiguous way. What it is possible to do today is to build the object using a BIM program and assign it a schedule that has to be standardized, where are located standardized information and also personal comments about the project. In this way it is possible to support the communication and the interdisciplinary process. This aims to optimize the duration of the design process which, in case of the existing, goes from the geometrical survey to the historical analysis, to the materials and constructive techniques analysis, to the deterioration diagnosis, up to the intervention of conservation and restoration. There is of course a substantial difference between the process of restoration that can be done on a construction which has been built through a BIM process, and therefore that has already been computerized with all its elements and all the attached information, and the restoration on a building which has been done before the BIM introduction, which needs to be studied, analysed and surveyed in all its parts: all these parts have to be defined “a posteriori.”
Why transposing the BIM in Cultural Heritage? One of the reasons, but not the only one, may be found in the fact that the spreading diffusion of these software will lead to have a lot of specialized professionals, no abler to use different kinds of instruments nor methods. It is necessary to reorganize the information known today, in order to create this new alphanumeric database, the updating, into the HBIM database, of the materials and techniques for the intervention project according to what has been said so far, could be simplified by the fact that they represent standardized products (Figure
1). Of course the schedule may contain also other information, but it could not disregard the exact cataloguing of the object. What has been said so far about the codification, regards the use of BIM for the Cultural Heritage (ICOMOS, 2008; UNI Normal Code, 2006).
4. CASe STUDy: BIM APPLIeD To THe ARCHAeoLoGICAL AReA oF NeMI IN RoMe
Nemi is a small city, located in the middle of “Colli Albani” in Rome surroundings. The place is well known for the roman ships, recovered in the Thirty of the XX Cent. and destroyed during the second World War. Several interesting places of archaeological interest are distributed along and near the lake. One of the most famous is the Sanctuary of Diana (Figure 2). Up to now the temple, several parts of the Sanctuary and the so called “celle donarie” have been excavated.
Starting from the data surveyed on the site, they were elaborated in a BIM process.
The aim is to study a new system for covering the site and to obtain a smart model, plenty of information. The collected and available data in this case study are: the laser scanner and photogrammetrical survey of the ruins; the survey of the materials of the Sanctuary and of the Cells; the state of decay of the roman masonry structures of the Sanctuary and of the Cells; the micro environmental conditions of temperature, (humidity, rising dump in the masonries and ventilation) and the critical collection of historical documents, especially in order to deeply evaluate the constructive methods adopted in this ancient structures built in opus incertum, opus reticulatum, and listatum (masonries composed by a core of roman concrete protected by faces of pyramid blocks made in “peperino” – a volcanic tuff excavated in quarries very close Nemi).
It is interesting that the existing coverage on side of the Sanctuary, called “Portico”, was surveyed in the same time. Once all the information had been collected, the next phase was to put them in one container: in the market, there are several BIM software certified by Building Smart, an
Figure 1. Workflow of the management of the data related to the construction materials in order of their implementation and their use by the BIM software: how the model is built
organization that promotes the interoperability (open information exchange) between the different BIM instruments. To run the compatibility tests there were chose the two most used one: Graphisoft Archicad and Autodesk Revit.
The available information about Nemi coming from the survey can be divided in three categories: text, raster and vectorial. For each category, several attempts were made with different instruments given us by the two software, in order to define the best solutions for both information exchanging and time saving.
It is important to underline that these tests were run on 2013-14 and that with the new versions of Archicad and Revit, most of these issues described above are now overcame.
4.1. Data Management: Text and Raster
The text is the specific information about the materials, the decay, micro environmental, etc. What is required by a BIM software is the freedom to assign specific characteristics to specific points, but these softwares generally work for elements and components and they do not recognize the single points on their surface.
This is a problem for the Cultural Heritage field, where potentially every point of the surface can have different parameters, considering not only the specific characteristics which are not standardized, but also their damages. This problem was partially resolved putting some tags in selected points.
Now, with Revit 16 it is possible to divide an element in several parts and assign to every block specific information about it, also with Archicad 19 it is easier to attach labels to different points, even if very close to each other.
Regarding the metrical images (e.g. the ortophotos), they were useful in doing the 3D reconstruction of the shapes, to read the walls and to create materials for the material library (see Figure 3).
4.2. Data Management: CAD & Point Clouds
The CAD file can be a product of direct survey, so it is important to be able to handle it easily with the BIM software. In general, in 2013-14, while in Archicad there were no issues in managing them, in Revit the format could be imported and correctly viewed, but the files could not be edited and they worked only as tracing path. On the other hand, the point clouds are the product of laser scanner survey or photogrammetric survey. The management of this type of data is more complex, and, as said before, it is one of the biggest problem of BIM technology in Cultural Heritage field.
The tests, run with the former versions of the software (Revit 14 and Archicad 17) highlighted the limit of the programs: in Revit 14, the points were not considered as snaps, so it was possible to correctly view the point cloud, without using it to exactly define the shape of the elements. On the
other hand, Archicad 17 worked in quite different way: it is not able to import a big cloud, so before starting that operation, it was necessary to reduce it. Once you have a smaller point cloud, you can import it and thank to the add-on Archisuite and in particular, with Architools, it is possible to recognize the points as 3D elements, using them to trace the shape, Figure 4. However, it is clear that using this method, you are going to lose the level of detail because of the previous reduction of the cloud.
Today, the point cloud importation in Revit 16 and Archicad 19 has been implemented; in fact, it is possible to upload very big point clouds in short time, to visualize the RGB values, and to recognize the points as snaps.
Among the tools born to ease all the pipeline, there is Autodesk Recap, a software which works with Revit and Autocad that facilitates the importation process of the cloud, making also possible with the lastest version (2017 pro) to fully manage it and handle the process of pre-elaboration (cleaning,
alignment with target recognition, registration and union of the clouds) that usually is done with the native software of the laser scanner.
Regarding the new uses and functions of point cloud, they are proper objects and it is possible to link the information to them, or to easily use them for retracing the shape of the objects. While Revit 16 offers the possibility to build the model around it, Archicad 19 even if lets to retrace the shapes, does not make it possible to draw the complex profiles on it, and this is still a problem if the modelled object is a Cultural Heritage, where e.g. the borders of the windows can have complex sections (see Figure 5).
4.3. Parametric Modelling
The 3D modelling of the archaeological area was made in different ways, which led to different results and built the final model (Figure 6). The modelling of the coverage project (existing and new one) reached a very high level of detail, while the modelling of the ruins, created many difficulties and the result was enough satisfactory.
Figure 4. Changing of point cloud’s import pipeline through the years. The number of phases is considerably reduced and the result is improved.
Regarding the modelling part, when you worked on these platforms (2012-2014), there was a simplification caused by the parameterization of the elements, that had to became more flexible and embrace the irregularities and the unicity of an historical building or an archaeological area.
The modelling phase was complicated and (at that moment) time consuming, but there were significant advantages in using it, and, if able to reach a sufficient Level of Detail (LOD), obtaining a model inside an information system (Figure 7). Going forward through time, the simplification is reduced, and today it is possible to reach easily the LOD desired (usually the reference scale is 1:50). The stratification of the walls or a division in block is not a problem anymore: in Revit 16 the command “divide stratigraphy” draw on the element the lines that cut it in pieces, using also the point cloud as tracing path. Another aspect to consider is that also the interoperability between BIM and the 3D modelling software (as Rhino) is improved, and now it is easy to add high definition elements to Revit or Archicad projects (augmenting the accuracy of the model).
Figure 5. Changing of point cloud visualization through the years and the different level of detail: from a very small and not precise point cloud (2012/2014) to a high detailed and dense point cloud with RGB values (2015/2016), without the need to intermediate with plug-ins.
5. CoNCLUSIoN
This paper shows how the BIM process can be fundamental in the Cultural Heritage field: having a smart model that is possible to interrogate in every element, and that can show you the state of health, the geometrical features and the interventions on it, can really be helpful in the conservation and the
restoration of the monument or the archaeological site. Now (2016) there are still some problems in the restitution phase, but the new releases are more flexible and enable to overcome the issues of the data elaboration and modelling phase.
In the old version of the software, although there were several instruments that helped to return the historical buildings, the applications needed to be perfect and shaped on the demand of who survey and model these type of elements. The models of the “portico”, of the existing coverage and of the new coverage in the Sanctuary of Diana in Nemi improved/implemented by the two BIM software did not and could not acquire all the information. After these tests, the model did not contain all the data that it should have, but with the help of external modeller, it reached a sufficient level of detail. Even if it was reached a model of the area with some information inside it, a complete level of interoperability has not been reached yet, especially between the survey data and the BIM software, not even between the parametric and non-parametric ones. Some steps in that direction have been done: the latest version of the software improved the functionalities bounded to the point cloud importation and managing, focusing the attention on the existing heritage.
In Tables 1 and 2, based on the tests run in the archaeological area, it is possible to see that the former versions of the software had a sufficient level of management of the main functionalities, making difficult to model an archaeological area, where the elements were not standardisable and it was necessary to start from the survey data. The bigger lacks where: the impossibility to assign punctual information, the impossibility to fully manage the point clouds and the interoperability between software and survey tools or other external software.
Now the new releases are increasing the performances and complying with each other, almost overriding the gap in the level of data management.
The differences remained interest the Cultural Heritage field as regards the point cloud management, where Revit is a bit further compared to Archicad, as it is more flexible in the modelling phase, also with the help of Recap, which is able to handle the complete process of pre-elaboration of the clouds. On the other hand, Archicad has an agreement with Rhinoceros implementing the interoperability between the two programs (see Figure 8).
Generally, moving forward, it is possible to say that there is a uniformity in the BIM software skills, which are overcoming their differences, shaping the more and more advanced performance on the specific needs of Cultural Heritage world.
Figure 7. Different LOD created: from the ‘conceptual level’ (mass model) up to the level that contains all the graphic details and information, more and more detailed as the LOD grows. Second line: Environmental data management: placement of tags with temperature data, coming from hand drawings made in site. Third line: how the material’s browser looks like; peperino material, image inserted during the research phase. Insertion of raster data and modelling of the walls.
Table 1. Recap of the characteristics of the BIM process applied to the archaeological area (2013)
Model features
and data management softwareBIM management: goodLevel of
Level of management: sufficient Level of management: insufficient Text data: c) Extended d) Punctual Revit 2014 a. b. Archicad 17 b. a. Raster Data: e) Retracing support f) Material survey g) Decay survey h) Photo database Revit 2014 b. a. c. d. Archicad 17 b. b. c. d. Vectorial Data: d) CAD files e) Non parametric f) Point clouds Revit 2014 a. c. b. Archicad 17 a. b. c. Modelling:
d) Importing external elements from non-parametric software e) Use of IFC files
f) Modelling
Revit 2014 b. c. a. c.
Archicad
17 b. c. c. a.
Table 2. Recap of the characteristics of the BIM process applied to the archaeological area (2015)
Model features
and data management softwareBIM management: goodLevel of
Level of management: sufficient Level of management: insufficient Text data: c) Extended d) Punctual Revit 2016 a.b. Archicad 19 a.b. Raster Data: e) Retracing support f) Material survey g) Decay survey h) Photo database Revit 2016 a b. c. d. Archicad 19 a b. c. d. Vectorial Data: d) CAD files e) Non parametric f) Point clouds Revit 2016 a. c. b. Archicad 19 a. b. c. Modelling:
d) Importing external elements from non-parametric software e) Use of IFC files
f) Modelling
Revit 2016 a. b. c. Archicad
Figure 8. Top line: comparison between the performance in management of text data, raster data, vectorial data and modelling between Revit 16 and 14 and Archicad 17 and 19. Bottom line: The same comparison between Archicad 17 and Revit 14 and Archicad 19 and Revit 16.
ReFeReNCeS
Achille, C., Lombardini, N., & Valentini, M. (2012). Aree archeologiche e sistemi di protezione: modelli di valutazione di compatibilità. In La conservazione del patrimonio architettonico all’aperto. Superfici, strutture, finiture e contesti, Convegno nazionale, Bressanone (pp. 269-277).
Autodesk Revit. (n. d.). Retrieved from http://www.autodesk.it Building Smart. (n. d.). Retrieved from www.buildingsmart.org
Dore, C., & Murphy, M. (2012). Integration of Historic BIM (HBIM) and 3D GIS for Recording and Managing Cultural Heritage Sites.Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM), Milano (pp. 369–376).
Dore, C., & Murphy, M. (2013). Semi‐automatic modelling of building façades with shape grammars using historic building information modelling, Proc. of the Int. Conf., on 3D ARCH 2013 - 3D Virtual Reconstruction and Visualization of Complex Architectures, Trento (pp. 57-64). doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W1-57-2013 Fai, S., Graham, K., Duckworth, T., Wood, N., & Attar, R. (2011). Building Information Modeling and heritage documentation.Proc. of the 23rd Int. CIPA Symposium (pp. 43–48).
Garagnani, S., & Manferdini, A. M. (2013). Parametric accuracy: building information modeling process applied to the cultural heritage preservation, Proc. of the Int. Conf., on 3D ARCH 2013 - 3D Virtual Reconstruction and Visualization of Complex Architectures, Trento (pp. 87-92). doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W1-87-2013 Harpaceas. (n. d.). Retrieved from http://www.harpaeas.it
ICOMOS. (1990). Charter for the protection and management of the Archaeological Heritage. Gazzetta Ufficiale, 45(42).
ICOMOS, (2008). ICOMOS-ISCS: illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns - glossaire illustré sur les formes d’altération de la pierre.
Scalypso. (n. d.). Retrieved from http://www.allplan.com/it/software/altresoluzioni/scalypso.html
Scianna, A., Gristina, S., & Paliaga, S. (2014). Experimental BIM Applications in Archaeology: A Work-Flow. In M. Ioannides, N. Magnenat-Thalmann, E. Fink, R. Žarnić, A. Yianing Yen & E. Quak (Eds.), Proc. Of the 5th Int. Conf. on Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage, Limassol (pp. 490–498).
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13695-0_48
Sicar. (n. d.). Retrieved from http://sicar.beniculturali.it
Tommasi, C., Achille, C., & Fassi, F. (2016). From point cloud to BIM: a modelling challenge in the cultural heritage field. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLI-B5, 429-436.
Cristiana Achille is a researcher of Topography and Cartography at Politecnico di Milano. Her research focuses on survey and representation of Cultural Heritage and Urban context, particular interest is dedicated to study new technologies for survey and managing data. She founded and she is the head –with prof. Francesco Fassi - of the ‘3DSurvey Group’ (http://www.sitech-3dsurvey.polimi.it) researching and coordinating the activities in survey and representation, focusing on laser scanning, close range photogrammetry and BIM-GIS techniques, she is a Professor of Survey Techniques at Politecnico di Milano. She organized and taught at workshops and training courses for the survey and preservation of Cultural Heritage (survey, data elaboration, data management). She has been involved in several projects at national and international level, topics: 3D accurate, complete and rapid survey of complex architectures and large monumental sites. She is a member of the National Scientific Committee CSN ICOMOS Italy - CIPA – Heritage Documentation.
Nora Lombardini Associate Professor in Architectural Conservation at Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Research activity: study on history and theory of restoration of historical buildings and cultural heritage; analysis of traditional and modern constructive system; analysis of mechanical behavior of historical structures; studies on the conservation of historic centers. Author of scientific papers. International experience in organizing students’ practical work in Italy, Istanbul, Ukraine and Bulgaria; as tutor and local coordinators for an Erasmus Mundus Project (action 2012); menager, with prof. Maria Grazia Folli (official coordinators), of a Tempus Project (action 2012). With Cristiana Achille, is director of the workshop, titled “Conoscere per tutelare. Progetti per le aree archeologiche Rilievo 3D, Diagnosi, Valorizzazione e Musealizzazione L’area archeologica del tempio di Diana – Nemi”. The workshop is arriving at the 6th edition.
Cinzia Tommasi (Segrate, Milan - Italy, October 28, 1990) is a Ph.D. student with scholarship in the department of Architecture, Built environment and Construction engineering in Politecnico di Milano. She gained a Master degree in Architecture in 2014, and then a 2nd level Master degree in 2016. Her research, carried on in the 3D Survey Group (Politecnico di Milano), is mostly focused on the BIM processes applied to the Cultural Heritage field, in order to find a complete workflow based on the specific needs that has to be satisfied case by case. The pipeline must consider the architectural survey phase, carried on with the integration of different tools and techniques (laser scanner survey, photogrammetry, etc.) and the building of a final three-dimensional information model.
