Condition Surveys as the Basis for Scientific Research and with the Aim of Conserving Torso Buildings

Abstract

Condition surveys are an important part of the whole scientific research of torso buildings, which we understand to be buildings with usually missing roofs, wooden ceilings, doors, windows, and other envelope constructions along with damaged internal and external infrastructure and surfaces. The aim of the processed condition surveys is to gather basic data on the technical state of the buildings. Torso buildings are, in our environment, especially the ruins of castles and manor houses, but also some churches, the remains of industrial enterprises, or even others. The proposed condition surveys can be used at any of them, not only in our country, but also in any other country of the world. The processed system of condition surveys allows us to anticipate further damage to architectural heritage buildings caused by their aging. It can contribute in a major way to the identification of eventual construction risks and to anticipate them. Condition surveys are designed as a quick, cheap, and easy to handle way to gather the basic overview needed for undertaking a basic stabilization of the most endangered parts of the ruins. In the next step, further scientific research using instruments i.e., in laboratories, can be undertaken. It is also important to know which parts of the torso buildings are dangerous and can endanger not only visitors, but also scientists realizing research on site. The first goal of the project focused on bettering of the stability of the torso buildings, especially ruins of castles, which was granted by the Slovak Ministry of Culture to elaborate and prepare a system for the identification of the most endangered parts of the ruins, which are in danger of dilapidation soon. The second goal was focused on preparing source material for further scientific research of the torso architecture. Experts from the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the Slovak University of Technology, with the cooperation of experts from praxis and from the Architectural Heritage Protection Office prepared a system for judging the construction details of torso buildings from the point of view of their construction–technical state. The aim of this judging lies in identifying the parts of their constructions that are most endangered by decay. Based on the condition survey results, conservation activities can be organized to save valuable details of the torso buildings before destruction and to protect the visitors of such localities before injuries, maybe even tragic injuries.

1. Introduction

The conservation of historical monuments is an important aspect of the protection of cultural heritage, which directly contributes to the preservation of the identity and history of peoples. The ruins, which are often understood as physical remnants of the past, have become symbols of enduring history, while also providing valuable testimony to the architectural and cultural challenges of past generations. The ruins, whose significance goes beyond the framework of architectural structures, are an important part of the landscape and cultural heritage, which attract not only experts but also tourists and are often a representative sign for the local inhabitants [1].

The maintenance and protection of these historical objects is a challenge faced by modern conservation practice, with the conservation of the ruins being an important part of the area. Conservation can also be considered an international topic that has been resonating in professional society for a long time. This fact is also evidenced by publications from different parts of the world and cultures that focus on the topic from different points of view [2,3,4,5]. While some of these publications describe the conservation and protection of ruins from the point of view of preserving the heritage, others focus on the use of these opportunities in connection with tourism and possibilities for using these objects [6].

A number of articles focus on various aspects of the sustainability of historical buildings. Some focus on the restoration of monuments with a sustainability aspect [7]; others focus on renovation with an improvement in the energy performance of buildings [8,9]. Unlike traditional building restoration, which aims to restore or reconstruct, the conservation of ruins focuses on preserving authentic elements and maintaining historical constructions in their current state. This approach means that conservators not only protect the constructions themselves from further damage, but also respect their historical damages and alterations, which are an integral part of their story. The stabilization of materials, their protection against weather influences, or minimal interventions to prevent the collapse of constructions are the main principles of this practice [10]. Beyond the inspection of individual structures, condition surveys can also inform the overall conservation strategy for a site or region. By examining the collective state of ruins, researchers can identify common challenges and develop comprehensive solutions to address them [11,12].

The complex conservation of the ruins requires an interdisciplinary approach that involves experts from various fields, including archaeology, architecture, civil engineering, chemistry, biology, environmental management, and others. Owing to this cooperation, it is possible to address the various challenges that arise in the protection of ruins. Technological advances in material analysis, structural condition diagnostics, and environmental monitoring make it possible to intervene more effectively and better understand the complex aging process of historical materials. The use of non-invasive technologies such as laser scanning or thermography allows experts to obtain detailed information about the condition of the ruin, which helps them plan appropriate measures. These surveys serve as foundational tools for assessing the state of ruins, guiding conservation efforts, and informing further scientific research. Condition surveys encompass a variety of methodologies, including 3D modeling, remote sensing, and geophysical techniques, which collectively enhance our understanding of archaeological sites and their preservation needs. Recent advancements in digital surveying techniques, such as those discussed by Fiorillo et al., have demonstrated the efficacy of 3D modeling in archaeological contexts. Their work highlights the importance of creating reality-based digital models that provide metric accuracy for conservation and facilitate the extraction of detailed maps and plans for technical applications [13]. Similarly, the integration of manual feature extraction using LiDAR datasets has proven valuable in identifying and analyzing archaeological landscapes, particularly in challenging environments like forests, as shown by Quintus et al. [14]. This dual approach of combining digital modeling with advanced remote sensing technologies allows for a comprehensive assessment of site conditions, ultimately informing conservation strategies. Moreover, the application of geoarchaeological core prospection, as explored by Garcia-Garcia et al., illustrates the potential of integrating geophysical data with traditional archaeological methods. Their findings indicate that while sediment core surveys may have limitations, they can still provide critical insights into the extent of archaeological sites when combined with other investigative techniques [15]. This underscores the necessity of employing a multi-faceted approach to condition surveys, where various methodologies complement each other to enhance the accuracy and reliability of archaeological assessments. Furthermore, the training of professionals in rapid condition surveys, as implemented in Minoan sites in Crete, emphasizes the importance of capacity building in heritage management. Chlouveraki et al. detail a program aimed at equipping heritage professionals with the skills necessary to document and assess the condition of archaeological remains effectively [16]. This initiative not only addresses immediate conservation needs but also fosters a culture of systematic monitoring, which is essential for the long-term preservation of archaeological sites. In conclusion, the use of condition surveys as a basis for conservation and scientific research is supported by a diverse array of methodologies and training programs. The integration of advanced technologies and professional training enhances the ability to monitor, assess, and ultimately conserve archaeological ruins, ensuring that these invaluable cultural heritage sites are preserved for future generations. But for acute basic saving of details of the ruins, such research is not needed.

At the same time, socio-economic and environmental factors that can have a significant impact on the ruins must be taken into consideration. Climate change effects, such as intense rainfall, increasing humidity, extreme temperatures, and increased soil erosion, pose significant risks to the stability of these historical constructions. In turn, increased tourist traffic often causes physical wear and tear of the materials and accelerates their degradation. For this reason, it is important to formulate conservation strategies that are sustainable and respect local conditions, traditional artisanal techniques, as well as the current challenges faced by monuments around the world. All these aspects are also not needed for the basic saving of the details of a torso.

From the point of view of conservation, the article by the author Małgorzata Doroz-Turek, who in her publication [17] describes the conservation interventions in Lisbon, which significantly helped to preserve the original historical buildings, is very interesting. At the same time, these buildings have received their new purposes; this, while preserving the original buildings, provides the opportunity to create their new history. An article by Czech authors [18] is also helpful and describes the possibility of integrating modern restoration technologies and databases that would help with conservation and restoration work in the protection of ruins.

On the contrary, the article by author Ioana Rus [19] points out the advantages and necessity of conservation by demolition, but on the other hand, it evaluates the use of this technology in a building that could have been reconstructed and reused. However, this was not possible. The owners were forced into conservation, which preserved the building, but the building, according to the words of the author, became only a romantic ruin, despite the fact that this conservation was successful.

A successful conservation of torso buildings, or ruins, requires the appropriate technical preparation. The main aim is, as we see it nowadays, to avoid the threat of destruction of their most endangered parts. For the preparation of such conservation, it is important to know about the buildings’ technical state in advance. It is also important to identify their parts that can collapse soon and to elaborate proposals for basic preservation and for further scientific research.

With the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic, a draft for condition surveys of ruins was prepared. This document created a basis for the preparation of conservation works and for ensuring their financing.

In Slovakia, the consent for the process of conservation of a ruin is given by a Regional Monument’s offices (KPÚ). To make a decision on it, officers of the offices need to have a design for conservation, or minimally, a draft of it. The officers usually have only basic information on the state of a torso building, about its history, about its architectural development over time, about valuable construction details, or about the results of archaeological research. So, they usually do not know exactly about the actual technical state of the torsos that need to be protected. The offices usually have only a frame information on the real technical state of the construction parts of the ruin of the degree of their dilapidation, and they are also not familiar with urgent needs for saving or stabilizing them.

To undertake a detailed review inspection of the torso, which can bring such needed information, is usually not possible for them because, for example, of valuable working time, financial reasons, or because there are not enough experts available directly at the needed time. But for appropriate decision making on allowing needed conservation activities, such information is avoidable. That is why also experts who are not a part of the top group of the scientific community can elaborate a condition survey. There is a much wider group of sufficiently educated people in the country who can help with the condition surveys, especially at a simple level.

So, the solution to this mentioned situation lies in the elaboration of such documentation, which will be focused on answering basic questions concerning the conservation of a ruin. But the following questions are how to prepare such documentation and who will elaborate it.

For the decision-making process of the Regional Monument’s office (KPÚ), a new system oriented to the practical appraisal of the state of a ruin was developed. This system should bring basic information on the state of construction of a ruin and about the next anticipated development of it. Estimation of the actual stability of the construction, or even construction details, is of high value. As there are not enough construction experts, especially structural engineers, available and the extent of the work is large, a new system of documentation for the structural conservation of torso buildings was developed under the name “condition surveys” [20].

2. Current State of the Art

The ruins are torso buildings that have usually lost their original or previous function [21,22]. Because of that, regular maintenance on the buildings was not performed. But on the other hand, influences from the surrounding environment, not only natural, but also human, did not stop. As a result of such influences, the circumference constructions were usually slowly but continuously perforated. The roofs were at first locally perforated, then largely perforated, and finally, they disappeared fully. Gates, doors, and windows were seriously damaged or stolen, so the rainwater and snow could easily penetrate though them into the interior of the buildings [1].

As a result of such influences, nearly all construction made of organic material, especially wood, deteriorated. This means that not only roof trusses but also ceilings disappeared, floors disappeared, and some of the vaults or arches collapsed. The dilapidation process continued further with hard damage to plasters [23]. Nowadays, at the end of such a process, there are usually naked vertical constructions of a previous building standing, sometimes with some preserved vaults and with a lot of debris lying on the site [24,25,26].

But the process of dilapidation does not stop at this stage [27]. It continues slowly further, and more and more details disappear, like it is clearly showed by Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and also Figure 4 as examples. Sometimes even a large vertical construction or some vaults collapse, with a definitive loss of the previous silhouette of a torso building. This leads, then, to a final stage of former buildings, which means that only a hill of debris covered with vegetation remains.

In between, the ruins are a very welcome aim for visitors. Thousands of tourists visit ruins as an attractive part of their touristic journeys. But at the same time as the visitors visit a ruin, the dilapidation process is continuous, and small pieces of plaster [28], small pieces of mortar, or even small stones freed by the influence of weathering fall down from the ruin’s constructions. This process of dilapidation goes slowly on, practically every day. But the visitors usually do not notice it. At worst, bigger stones from the constructions collapse, sometimes even a big part of a construction, i.e., a portion of a fortification wall or of circumference walls or other buildings, fall down. Both such accidents are a high danger for tourists, and from time to time, even tragic events have happened [29].

A good example of such consequences of ongoing dilapidation processes is the fall of the main entrance tower of the castle of Uhrovec (pronounced “uhrovets”), which happened sometime during March 2004. It fell down because of the influence of the melting of frozen water during the ongoing springtime that had invaded the construction of the tower during the fall and winter. Melting of the ice and snow made the mortar of the tower weaker. This process was then combined with the slowly rising temperature of the construction caused by the heat of the spring sun, influencing small changing dimensions of the stones used in the construction, and a disaster happened. Fortunately, there were no visitors at this time in the castle, so nobody was injured or killed [30].

3. Methodology

To prevent such abovementioned situations, a system for evaluating of the state of ruins was elaborated, called the condition survey of a ruin [20]. The main aim of such surveys lies in an effort to identify the actual construction–technical state of a torso building and to determine the actual long-term needs for conservation and stabilization works [31].

As the condition surveys should be organized effectively, which means quickly and as cheaply as possible, it is inevitable to realize them in the field, on the site of a ruin. Condition surveys are therefore based on visual inspections of touched areas of ruins, and they have to be elaborated at two basic levels of quality [32].

The first level of quality is a simple inspection [33] of the general state of a torso, which brings basic information about the most dangerous positions or details. The second level of quality is a detailed inspection [33] of a ruin, which evaluates the state of all its constructions and details. It brings information on the level of urgency of the repair intervention and expects some roughly estimated costs of such conservation intervention.

Both levels of condition surveys refer (approximately) to the first and second levels of visual inspections according to the Forensic Standard [34] elaborated in the Slovak Republic for the evaluation of failures of constructions.

To summarize the issues both levels of condition surveys should follow, we can define it in a summary.

Their outputs are to be elaborated in the following forms [20]:

• Simple inspection (summary, brief evaluation) maps the total of the ruin with the aim to point out the most endangered constructions, their parts, or details. The output of this level should serve, especially to the owner and the Regional Monument’s offices (KPÚ), as a basis for decision making on the immediacy of saving works at the ruin and for determination of the order of conservation works.
• Detailed inspection (consistent, complex evaluation) maps the total of the ruin for the needs of detailed coordination of conservation works as well as for designing works and further expertise and for the needs of archiving.
• Basic goals of the condition surveys of ruins include the following [20]:
• Specification of needs, kinds and extents of saving works for the elimination of assaults by people and the surroundings and for the prevention of the loss of historical construction in an immediate time period. As an example of highlighted crucial danger with draft of possible conservation interventions can serve the Figure 4.
• Specification of kinds and extents of safeguarding works needed for minimizing damage and for the prevention of future loss of historical construction.
• Specification of further steps for sustainable conservation of the ruin.
• Delivering of data about cubature and an estimated financial cost of the recommended saving, safeguarding, and conservation works.
• Evaluation of the success of the construction measures already carried out, including recommendations of continuing or changing present conservation ways.
• Specification of conservation and other construction technologies and materials as a basis for the elaboration of methodical guidelines and Technology Instructions for further interventions.

For the elaboration of condition surveys, especially at the first level, there is no need to take and analyze samples of masonry or soil. Much more useful is to document the state of a torso building with enough photographs. Pictures should be taken from a distance to give a view of the wide circumstances, from a closer position to understand the possible reasons for a certain damage or danger, and from a near distance to see the detailed situation. It is very useful to make some graphic interventions into the photographs by using circles, arrows, lines, or other useful symbols. To elaborate a report of the condition surveys, some basic technical tools also can be used, like documentary equipment, computers, etc.

The following structure of condition surveys was elaborated on the basis of applied overseas backgrounds [29] with personal experiences from the processors [20]:

1.0

Abstract of the survey

2.0

Description of the range

3.0

Description of constructions

4.0

Summary of emergency failures

5.0

Recommendations for saving and conservation works

• Photographical documentation
• Graphical annexes
• Other annexes

At the level of a simple inspection, it is enough when only those constructions that are most in danger of collapse are identified [35]. This identification is then the basis for an immediate intervention to stabilize such construction or its details, which might be of a higher monument’s value.

Evaluation of all constructions of a torso building is then a matter of a detailed inspection, by which all construction entities of a ruin should be reviewed, even those that are not immediately affected by rapid dilapidation. A detailed survey brings needed information not only about the technical state of the existing visible constructions, i.e., vertical walls, some preserved vaults, and sometimes chimneys, or the most valuable surface arrangements, but also about constructions that might be hidden under the surface. A detailed survey estimates also the future development of the technical state of a ruin, meaning that it estimates the future progress of the dilapidation processes over time. This allows us to prepare a plan for timely intervention before construction, or the details will be seriously damaged.

For practical reasons, it is important to categorize the remaining construction of a ruin introducing a clear system, which allows the correct judgment of the construction also for other users of the survey [36]. Standing constructions should be identified in a very simple way by using a simple and easily understandable system. This system is based on simple alphabetic and/or numeric marks. For example, for identification, the following system can used (

Table 1. Abbreviations for identification of construction units of the ruins [40].

Wall	W
Vault	V
Stair	S
Chimney	Ch
Cistern	C
…	…

For precise designation of all constructions, consecutive numbers should be used, signs like W1, W2, W3, etc.

) [37,38,39]:

There is no need to use a precise floor plan for ruins, as in the stage of a condition survey, these are not inevitable. Simple floor schemes can serve in an appropriate basic document, like those that can be found easily in the common literature. As an example, a floor scheme is shown that was published in Slovakia in the book of “Encyclopedia of Slovak Castles” [41] added by Figure 5. But we can be sure that in other European countries, similar schemes are also available.

Such schemes can be used for basic spatial and structural division of the ruin, introduction of marks, and even points of photographic documentation. They also should be used for the labeling of the most endangered constructions or details of a torso building. In cases when some of the parts of a ruin have their own names, these can also be used (like gate, main tower, Donjon, Bergfrid, palace, etc.).

There is also a need for specific terminology that can describe and localize the evaluated torsos of constructions. There is no such terminology developed for wider use in the construction industry, not even on an international scale. So, this means that each country should develop its own experts’ denomination. Following are some examples of the developed Slovak terminology given by the Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9.

A complex survey should also contain conceptual recommendations on how to eliminate all points of possible damage, especially acute damage like it is listed in

Table 2. List of emergency failures of a ruin–example [20].

Identification of the Construction	Identification of the Failure	Description of the Failure and Its Reason	Recommended Way of Repair	Measurement	Commentary	Reference Picture	Priority of Repair
16 Side wall	Cracks	Cracks caused by movements of the rock	Support of the wall by wooden beams	2 m3 of needed new masonry	Give attention to the openings	Added	Very high

and

Table 3. Evaluation of photographed parts of a ruin from the point of view of intervention urgency.

Locality	Urgency of Repair	Photo No.
E	2	12
F	3	13
D	1	10
N	1	26
B	1	08
H	1	22
I	1	22
M	3	29
L	3	29
A	3	06, 04
G	3	21

Legend: 1—Most urgent; 2—Medium urgency; 3—Less urgent.

. It is not needed to elaborate in detail; just a rough proposal is appropriate at this stage of elaboration of the renewing design. To understand how to formulate rough recommendations, some examples can be listed. Recommendations like to support an arch, to fill some joints, to mason a gap, to seal a small opening with mortar, or to support a construction with a beam, etc., could be appropriate. Like it is showed in Figure 4 in concept, or in Figure 10 in real.

Such a first recommendation should also clearly result already from the first-level, simple inspection, especially if it is focused on an acute stabilization of endangered details or constructions, and the first saving activities can be organized immediately.

A detailed inspection serves then as a good basis for the elaboration of appropriate design concepts needed for the complex stabilization of the constructions of a torso building. Especially, when possible, failures that can become crucial will in this stage develop in a couple of years.

A survey is, therefore, not focused on solving the details of saving and conservation of ruins—this part of the work is left for further detailed expertise or designs. However, in a survey, the estimated technological complexity of the realization should be reflected. This should include also related research and realizing temporary support construction, which can ensure the most endangered constructions.

The core of the condition survey lies in prejudging the technical state of individual constructions with an estimated way of repair, connected to an estimated amount of material, time, and cost. Very important is to summarize a list of the most endangered constructions or details that have to be stabilized first [42]. This information gives the actual basis for the methodical decision making of the Regional Monument’s Offices. An example is listed in Table 2 in written and in Figure 11 in graphics.

Recommendations for saving and conservation [43] can be given in a frame of time starting with the most urgent intervention, which should be undertaken as soon as possible, maximally in a time period of two years. Otherwise, serious damage to the touched constructions or details will happen. Later, in the following years, less serious damage can be repaired. Also, recommendations for further maintenance of the torso should be given.

The urgency of interventions is divided according to an estimated development of the failure in the future:

5.1.

Immediate interventions with a need of realization up to 2 years.

5.2.

Immediate interventions with a need of realization during approximately 2–10 years.

5.3.

Further interventions with a need of realization during approximately 10–30 years.

5.4.

Focus and extent of recommended monitoring of constructions and terrain.

5.5.

Kind, extent, and timing of standard maintenance.

Concerning the graphic documentation of the state of a ruin in the frame of condition surveys, photographic documentation especially should be used. A scheme of taking photographic documentation of a research of a castle’s wall is showed by Figure 12. There are also possibilities that should be used to paint lines, circles, arrows, or other symbols into the pictures, like those one showed by Figure 1, Figure 2, or Figure 4. Such symbols should be used to point out important details of which the readers of the report should be aware. Other graphic documentation, especially schemes, should also be used. Enough text should be used, but it should not be too wide, to make the readers tired.

4. Results and Discussion

The proposed system of condition surveys was primarily tested in practice, and now it is used for preparing concepts of how to avoid a lot of further damage to cultural heritage and how to save visitors from injuries, even with fatal consequences. The authors of the present survey do not know about any statistics on injuries caused by dilapidating constructions in castle ruins in Slovakia. But from time to time, coming from information in the media, we can see that over a couple of years, injuries, some even fatal, have been caused mostly by fallen down stones. So, the proposed condition surveys can, if they are elaborated precisely, contribute to more stable and safer torso buildings.

The outcomes of condition surveys allow us to plan needed construction interventions against weathering to the masonry of walls and vaults, standing usually without propped protection. On the basis of the obtained data about the kind of construction work, the needed repair material, or the necessary financial coverage, the needed interventions can be planned. Like the realized examples showed by Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15 and Figure 16.

The condition surveys can so far help not only the owner, but also the local authorities and methodologists of the Regional Architectural Heritage Offices to steer the needed conservation process with its focus on the interventions most needed to constructions or details of a torso building. The methodologists can, by using them, also influence owners or activists in their efforts to help to save ruins from quick dilapidation.

An important question remains: Who will elaborate the condition surveys? Of course, top specialists on the stability of old houses, technologists dealing with the repair of monuments, or material engineers and chemists are welcomed, especially if they can cooperate. But there are not enough specialists in the country. The condition surveys, especially in their first level, are designed for elaboration even by some instructed laypeople. They should not be prepared by the methodologists or other officers of the Regional Bureau for Architectural Heritage Protection. They should be aware of such documents, and they should be able to judge them.

A basic question is also about who will order the condition surveys. This problem can be divided first according to the ownership of the ruins in localities; for those that do have clear owners, they should therefore be the customers, and for those in state ownership, it should be the localities (including not identified localities). Such should be, for the first, an issue of grant support from various financial sources. In the second, the problem can be divided also according to the level of elaboration—at detailed inspection levels it should be bounded on the owners, but at simple inspection levels, which map the most acute problems, condition surveys could be a matter for grant supports.

5. Conclusions

In addition to the mentioned benefits of stabilized torso architecture, whose dilapidation process was partially or significantly slowed down with a direct impact on the safety of visitors, contribution to the development of science also should be mentioned [44,45].

• The first such conservation efforts, which should be based on the use of lime products, help us to understand how to work with this traditional material. Lime and its products were widely common in the past, but due to the discontinuation of use, we lost a lot of skill in how to deal with it. In addition to laboratory examinations, also practical testing needs to be used. Working on repairs to damaged traditional masonry gives us the opportunity to know and learn much more about the practical use of this basic product.
• Practical examination of condition surveys in the field leads to a lot of knowledge about how science can and should be involved in preparing conservation efforts. Specific processes of analysis of samples brought a lot of information on how castles were built in the Middle Ages. The condition survey helped to applicate scientific testing of constructions and materials, analyzing possible ways in which a castle could be built, how its constructions were put together, which details were functioning and which not, etc.
• Condition surveys helped to improve the understanding of ongoing processes of dilapidation of torso architecture standing on weathering, exposed locations. Research on such influences helped to model how wind, heat, water, snow, frost, etc. are causing major damage to torso buildings, where the weakest points of preserved constructions are, how the materials used react to weathering influences, and finally, how to face them, with the aim of preserving as much of the authentic constructions and materials of a monument as possible, to say nothing of ensuring higher safety for visitors of ruins.
• The given system for the use of condition surveys can be a matter for further research and evaluation. This can also be a good basis for further international discussion.
• This study of condition surveys is not a situation analysis. It is an elaborated scientific system for undertaking of scientific and expert research in the field. There is no need to undertake any simulations or experiments in the first, simple stage of the condition surveys, like a study on the behavior of the building in the case of an earthquake. Such study is, in Slovak conditions, not urgent. As mentioned, further scientific research activities are the matter of further ongoing study of torso buildings. So, the condition surveys can serve as a good basis for further scientific research using instruments, laboratories, or simulations.
• A complex analysis of a torso building in the frame of a condition survey goes against the main aim of the elaborated system of condition surveys. In the first stage of saving torso buildings, there is no need to collect detailed information on the construction or materials of the torso building. Such an approach is the matter of architectural–historical research undertaken afterwards by specialists according to the Monuments Act, No.49/2002, of the Slovak Republic.