 Welcome to Brussels. Welcome to the status and strategy workshop. Summary of activities. So we are remembering, I think, the workshops, one in Istanbul, one of course the first workshop in Denmark at the Technical University. We had one in Barcelona, Guildford, this picture. Here we had the special session of the EWSHM conference, the European workshop on Structure Health Monitoring in Bilbao. We, when we are working, we are, I think, coming often across the web, the website, of course E-Cost and also the E-Cost website. But what is it about? But first, closer look to the workshops. We had the first workshop with 65 participants from 23 countries and the other workshops, second, third and fourth and fifth, around 40 participants from and yes, and around 20 countries. So this is our working mode and when we think we have about 130 participants, then it's approximately a third which is activated for each of the workshops. And country-wise, we have 27 countries. So there is around two-thirds or three-fifths of the countries who are at the moment associated to our cost action. It's this percentage which is involved. One important aspect is, I think, that we, for the fifth workshop, we did not have a management committee meeting. So we have reduced this in the second year of the action to one management committee meeting. But still, the number of participants stayed constant. So that's, I think, very important to, or it is an expression of getting the community going. First, we have to invest and in the way that the network needs really to come together and then it's a sign that that it now goes more easy. Okay, but what is it about? You have been seeing the progress report at month 24. That's how it is called. It's about objectives delivered with networking impact, dissemination and exploitation of action results. I think this is also a point we need to think about, but I think we just had a perfect input for that by the cost director and action successes. This is what should happen, but of course what we cannot enforce or work on really, we need to be free and open and then it's perfect if it happens. Okay, the objectives, I think this is rather aligned. We want to enhance the benefit of structural health monitoring and we want to apply decision analysis for that to assess the value of SHM before it is implemented and then we want to improve the design operation, life cycle integrity management of structures or any engineering systems for more cost efficient, reliable and safe strategies. So I think this is this point to the impact. This point to the point where we need to think about how to impact, how to show in, throughout our working groups. So then this is the objective and then there is, there's aims and specific aims and one aim is about the theoretical and methodological impact, framework, I'm sorry, the workshop is about impact here in the objectives. So it is the framework and then there is an associated specific aim, the documentation of this theoretical basis and that's basically done with the fact sheets in the workshop reports we have and of course on the website with the presentations and also within the action database and then we have a two step dissemination, we have internal dissemination, this goes especially to the database and then this is at the same time, this is our working base here, we are exchanging the documents, so this is for internal dissemination and internal working and then we have the, we have publications where we disseminated further to the community outside our action but first we need to work and I think it's also, it may be a good strategy if we are working step by step and coordinate with each other. So this is about the first aim which is associated to the objective, the second aim, this is about networking, collected expertise and again to the first aim it is how to utilize the framework for practical applications in all the variety of aspects involving the design and asset management for engineering systems or structures or infrastructure systems. So I think the main interaction here in the network is related to working group two, that's our biggest working group and here this is the communities we are building on and in the most basic distinction it is the SHM community and it is the structural reliability community. We want to utilize the framework, we have been working on that, we have been documenting the framework, we are developing test cases, we have developed a common language that goes to the glossary or what we, the aim of the glossary was and still is to have the most important underlying wording in it so we don't want any detailed wording and probably then it gets very complicated and can be also contradictory. So we need to have solid foundation also in the communication, this is what the glossary is about. So we have within our action in network and when we think of other networks then it's TU1406, Jose Matos is here today. I have also name tags but they are in my suitcase we can take the name tags in the lunch break and our dissemination channels it is again our website and the database. So this is about the objectives and there are more specific aims appropriate and efficient tools so this goes again to working group two and three. I think this is very central and challenging at the same time. Here we have the development of practical examples, I think this is our focus now. Also at this workshop I'm waiting for Jochen but we should show up soon I think Jochen Köhler. It is about the guidelines, I'm very happy that John joined today. So I think this is a good point in time to make plans for the standardization community but of course at the same time it's even more important to think about a draft guideline in the four JCSS and for practical examples. This is what we wrote in the normal random of understanding so that we have the basis and then that the standardization committees would be open. So if we have something and educational activities so this is also should be a focus in the second half of the action. We have not started that yet. So we are coming from the objectives to the deliverables. I think I mentioned them in every workshop opening that's what we are after. So it's dedicated dissemination activities that's our homepage so that goes to workshops and all activities we are organizing. A library of tools and algorithms we would like to have and then the both deliverables associated to standardization or a step before a guideline. One for the scientists and the probabilistic model code and one for the practitioners how to utilize the things we are doing here. So the action website is under development. I think you have noticed it's getting better and it will be further developed but I think we have quite comprehensively documented our events, the presentations and we have many, many videos of the workshops and presentations and of course we have our database developed. Dissemination activities we had five workshops, three special sessions. One was in the ICASP conference where we even went internationally. Of course we are going for international conferences but they should be in Europe or this should be our basis here for cost but of course we should also disseminate internationally. It goes to the special session at the EWSHM in Bilbao this year and this goes to the MSSE special session, a Rylem conference also this year in August. Seven scientific missions we have performed and we can find 30 publications. Okay for the library of tools and algorithms this is still under development and mainly we have collected fact sheets from the third and fourth and also the fifth workshop. Okay here I think when we have a closer look to standardization we can say that in our network there are representatives from all these organizations so this is from the networking side I think covered but the next steps are necessary and on the work on the guideline we have not started yet but maybe the work of the working groups could be associated to that in terms of we have a basis and we have material we can work with. Additional outputs and achievements I think this goes to the joint workshop in Zagreb which is five or six weeks right and associated to that a special issue, a journal issue on SHM value and performance assessment of existing structures and we have been working on the SDSM program because I think this is a very good tool the SDSMs. I think this is very central I will come back to that because we are supporting here young researchers and we are supporting capacity building and at the same time these people may not be so busy as very senior researchers so I think here we are investing in the right tool to scientifically accelerate activities and also we are there is some scientific resources we can activate with SDSMs we should also talk about what we have learned how a cost action works or a scientific networking program how does it work so it's not a research project no we don't have any money for supporting research but the way to work is crowd working so that's why we have the different levels of of organization so we have the steering committee we have the management committee the steering committee is less people and then we have the management committee which is more people and then we have the participants which is even even more people so all these people can do a small bit but we need to organize that and that's that's crowd working we need to find a specific topic I think a very good example is categorizations we do the categorization and then we are working with calls we are working with the network we are asking them for small contributions but the very many small contributions can then grow into something big so this is the way to work we work here with the network and we do crowd working okay deliverables so then I think this is also very important oh yeah it goes also to the point how we are working with the cost action so it is crowd working and I think we had two years time it is about having organized scientific support by using the cost action for national applications using the the topics there can be direct support I'm very happy to to provide or to support calls with letters of of intent or letters of support so this is another point how we are working so very important is here publications a cost publication I can say this again is that if there was at least two different cost countries involved where the authors are belonging to it's it doesn't work if just one author works in two cost countries that doesn't work but it must be two also two persons when you talk talk about horizon 2020 then we have one success the infrastructure Marie Curie itn is is funded and this was the proposal was submitted in the early early days of this cost action but the topic of the cost action I think John remembers that that entered the the application and that's that's why we listed it here and it may be may have been a part of of the evaluation and then I think we also had a little luck here that it was finally funded and then we have had two unsuccessful horizon 2020 proposals but I'm a little in doubt about these numbers here so we have listed three and it was the ones I knew of or I was involved in but I cannot imagine that a network of 130 participants across Europe just produces three proposals of horizon 2020 projects so this is what I cannot imagine and I think we all have to work here on hopefully communicating it whatever I think we should we should at least list the attempts this is not too too difficult and of course it would be very good if there was a successful proposal and we are disseminating this in our action network so that that all the people are motivated and in the end we will also profit from that because it is the action network is there to support and I think we are covering very many fields so yeah I would like to encourage the of course the proposal writing but also the open communication and the and finally then also the documentation okay networking so actually this is a picture of the first management committee meeting here in Brussels so and we could say we have really widened it's widened our network and the fifth workshop but but maybe that's a little camera trick oh there's Jochen hi welcome so I think this is also important to to have in the in the background what is the networking about it's of course about the integration of knowledge and experience of it's about the integration of different expertise it's not just research it should also be engineers and operators and maybe authorities working together the relevant oh it's relevant experts and relevance okay so yes and this is how we should utilize as the researchers our network it it is I think the operators and the authorities and senior industrial people who can advise us in which direction should go and I think this is the the point here about we should also ensure their contribution it's about innovation networking it's about innovation and communicating innovation I think Helder has done a very good job from right from the beginning so I'm looking forward to the continuation of that and networking is about distributed encourage across Europe and worldwide I think this is something we need to work on so putting a little more light on the individual points yeah I think we our network is is substantial here in Europe I think what is the maximum number of countries we can arise 36 okay we have 27 we have two requests one from Slovakia and one from Luxembourg so this will soon be 29 so I think this this is fine this is also fine this this number here it may grow a little we should be sure to we should make sure to involve any body who can who can contribute so if there was if there was a good contribution I think we should be very open and happy to involve these people we have even in the networking written but this is a memorandum of understanding paste and copy we have been writing that there is a highly specialized and thinly finely populated research discipline regarding methods and tools and yeah this is true and but we are very happy that in working group three there is about 30 people Eleni and Daniel so this is quite a network to work with this point we already took maybe this is interesting it's about 30 percent of the participants are affiliated with commercial research and engineering institutions and infrastructures owners operators and authorities so it's about one-third of the project network I think this this is still a good number this is fine but we could develop this here to 40 or 50 especially as we are after case studies we have also introduced to ensure that the framework is practically applicable and relevant an advisory board consisting of Helmut Wenzel Iga wanted to come but she wrote me an email today that she that she said we have Peter Hart from the German highway research institution and we have regular academic board meetings and their advice is documented in our database we could work on making that a little more visible this is what we will do generation of innovation so this goes to our innovation committee very active from the I think there was a document even for the first workshop and then the second there was a session and this also goes to the advice from the innovation committee to the SCSM and that has been realized so this is this very good activity okay I think we see here now that the activities we are organizing these workshops and special sessions in Europe and worldwide that these activities have can be associated to two different parts of the memorandum of understanding and what we are asked for it is about networking it's it's about the scientific plan we are working on so I think this is the what this slide is about international research community this is what we what we have achieved not to the extent we would like to achieve it we have included Australia as an international partner country we have this joint activity but we should focus here more and the extent of networking this was what we are asked for and I think this is very important for cost so for instance the SCSM three out of seven went to female participants four out of seven to early career investigators inclusive in its target countries there are quite a few here in our network and we even had two workshops okay we had we had one workshop in Turkey and then there will is one more planned here this year in Croatia and Zagreb okay impact so we are in point D I think until F it goes but impact is not it's one one very important thing we need to I think have the common understanding here this is why this is why I'm presenting this here so we have the categories scientific technological economic society and then time horizons achieved foreseen within two years to five years to ten and ten plus so where each of the picture stands for where this is a scientific impact this could be the technological impact we invent the wheel economic impact we may find already because the value of information of structural health monitoring is where can be tremendous and it is there it is well developed but nobody quantified the the the value of information of that yet and these numbers this is 18 31 or okay one percent but this is what we are after we want to show where structural health monitoring is extremely efficient and I think well 31 percent here in terms of risk and cost reduction this is quite a number and this is significant and of course we identify strategies which are not deficient okay and we are after societal impact and then I think this goes to the points the cost director did make which may be about life safety and I think this is also something to keep in mind we are asked for impact in these categories and I think we have I think we can cover all here to quite a large extent there is technological impacts also because this thinking of of very efficient SHM strategies this can also be done not scientifically but just in engineering and by by knowing what is the context what we would like to achieve and that goes to the integrity management and then there is there's very efficient technologies so that sets the context for technological impact but also for innovation I think in my mind this is this is perfect because many people are developing and without really knowing what it what the things they are doing and what they are very good at what is really good for and if we can provide this context here and we do provide it then this can have a tremendous technological impact and this should go to should boost innovation what did I wrote about the impacts so we for sure have scientific and also technological I think this was this was together here so scientific impact for quantifying the value of SHM and making the scientific fields accessible we have evidence of improved economic efficiency and we have quantified it and then we should go it should come out the technological the industrial impacts so that there should be new business opportunities for SMEs or for large enterprises and which should then lead to increased competitiveness and enhanced management of risks to individuals environment and economy so I think this goes very much to the societal level point e uh dissemination and exploitation of action results uh here I think we need to think more about what are the most efficient way efficient way of disseminating and also of of exploiting but of course we are in the first half and this should be more facilitated in the second half of the action success stories we have been asked to document breakthroughs scientific technological socioeconomic policy implementation is also a success story and capacity building meaning helping someone in the in in the action here participants to develop their professional capacities yeah maybe you will also say something to point E and F probably so that seems to be under development as I understood understood the cost director so this is very important that so I'm providing the context here in terms of the the progress report but we should also follow the latest developments and I think with setting up this cost action we we made a scientific breakthrough in the field of value of structural health monitoring analysis because we have we have a wide network it's it's a unique problem it's an unique project worldwide on this topic I think this is this something extremely extremely good already and success stories or impact I think we have the potential here for scientific socioeconomic breakthrough and because we are working with the quantification of risk reduction and cost reduction okay thank you for your attention this was to set the context and going through what we have achieved in the last two years thanks