 I'm chairing this working group together with Helmut Wenzel from Austria, who will have a little longer presentation after myself. So it was very good to see the interactive discussion we had before the coffee break. It was really good because I think this working group or the emphasized content of this case study working group is somehow reflecting the interactive character of this cost action. Because the meaning is not that we just now as a working group for case studies start now with calculating our case studies. The meaning is that we get highly inspired from the other working groups for possible topics, for possible problem settings in order to finally demonstrate what we developed during this cost action but also to do some benchmark and sensitivity studies during the developments that take place in working groups one to three. So I think it's very, very important that we find the momentum how we can interact between the different working groups. So just to remind you from the memorandum of understanding the entire goal and objective of this action and the scientific focus of this action is the development or the further development of a theoretical framework that consists of these different parts we just saw this morning. We have to have tools but we also have decision theoretical framework which is more or less set and the challenges to apply this to practical situations. And this challenge of course is exemplified or somehow represented most in working group four where we have to demonstrate that something is applied in the practical situation. However, when we look at the contributions we had so far and also tomorrow as we are engineers and close to all of our contributions are a kind of case study on different levels of abstraction. So now it's the challenge of working group four how to separate the work we have to do or we intend to do in this working group or how we define this work differently to the work that is done in other working groups. So we have to develop efficient computational tools that is working group three and these tools they also have to be demonstrated and maybe most importantly after this overview we got before the coffee break which I found very, very informative and I found it not a big problem that is too much so first we have to have an overview. I think a big challenge is to find an idea which tool serves in which situation can also be demonstrated in this working group four. So the Memorandum of Understanding already defines some approach we will follow and of course should follow this approach because we have been thinking something when we have written this down so we should identify examples from different engineering domains in order to get a sense of representativeness of the field so we should not only look in one damaged mechanism from one particular type of structure so we should have a little broad spectrum on how we apply things and we should demonstrate the applicability of the value of information assessment approach that is developed in working group one and three. And this also means that we cannot start today because up to now not so much has been developed within this cost action so this is also the reason that the start of this working group is a little bit postponed by intention. But on the other hand we can also as a working group entitled to do some case studies we can come up with some practical implications and practical complications and difficulties and inspire the other working groups that these are issues that have to be followed further. And maybe the working group as it was attracting people more from the practical side of our field we might be able to deliver data and tomorrow in our parallel session we will look what data is available and how can we help in the work of the other working groups. So the challenges we talked a lot about these challenges and we saw this classical decision tree many times today and I will not talk too much about this but in the end we have to find practical ingredients or we have to find realistic assumptions for our theoretical problems. So as we are engineers we are always and scientists at the same time so we have always a scientific kernel. What we do we have some formulas some theoretical concepts that can be falsified that are purely scientific so they are either wrong or right but as engineers we have to embed our science into assumptions and I think a big challenge in bringing this concept into practical situations is how can we formulate assumptions that represent a real situation situations with a consistent level of crudeness. So how can we be consistent in our assumption? And this is associated in how can we formulate a likelihood we have discussed this and we have a working group especially on that but also how can we find a relation between the limit states or the failures we consider explicitly in our theoretical concepts but how can we find a relation between this limit state and real consequences? This is also a big challenge I think we have to address in the cost action as a whole and we have to demonstrate how this works in this working group. Working group for participation also we have so far 28 participants from 18 different countries the constitution is that we have 14 from universities so this is of course the biggest part we have public authorities, two partners and we have 8 participants from consulting or from industry. Tomorrow we have one hour of parallel sessions so we don't have any presentations as we have in the other working groups today the focus is clearly directed on working group 1 to 3 at this workshop however we had a lot of contributions and interests to do something actively already now and of course we accepted these initiatives and we received 8 abstracts and contributions that will be discussed tomorrow in the parallel session in terms of flash presentations and we will use the time, the short time in getting known to each other and discussing first directions we can take in this working group but as I said it's of course not an idea that our working group is a standalone activity it's highly important that we get inspired or that we highly interact with the other working groups and that we formulate examples and benchmarks and demonstration cases for the entire cost action during the 4 years. Interaction to other working groups are rather obvious I also scanned memorandum of understanding to find what is defined already there so working group 1 is intended to develop a generic classification and representation of different relevant decision situations and of course this classification should be applied then in working group 4 a conceptual example and framework is developed in working group 1 and this can be the starting point for a more practical example that is then developed further in working group 4 working group 2 is about the categorization of different structural health monitoring concepts and methodologies and also this categorization should be somehow then implemented in our working group and an information modeling platform of course could be also or the use of this platform could be demonstrated in working group 4 and as discussed before the coffee break it's obvious that all the tools and methods that are available in the different corners of our profession should be demonstrated and the relevance for the different situations should be assessed that's the time plan as intended we start next year actually with our official work and this is due to the fact that we have to define from the other working groups cases and case studies that we can then pursue in this working group so that's from my side now I suggest that we have a little possibility for questions from your side otherwise yeah please