{"id":24178,"date":"2026-02-02T10:48:20","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T10:48:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=24178"},"modified":"2026-02-03T14:43:56","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T14:43:56","slug":"5-1-scenario-1-baseline-design","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=24178","title":{"rendered":"Scenario 1 – Baseline Design"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This scenario represents the initial and balanced configuration of the system. All components are designed to meet safety and serviceability requirements under normal site conditions, without introducing unnecessary conservatism. It serves as a reference case for comparing the other design alternatives.

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this configuration, drainage performance, archaeological area boundary stability, visitor circulation over the archaeological area, and lower slope stabilization are all addressed at a standard level. No specific risk is prioritized; instead, the system is designed to work consistently as a whole.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 6 \u2013 Design Parameter Configuration for Scenario 1 (Baseline Design)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Based on the design principles described above, the design parameters assigned within the parametric model are presented in the table below.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 7 \u2013 Design Parameters Used in Scenario 1 (Baseline Design)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 4 \u2013 Parametric Model Output for Scenario 1 (Baseline Design)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mountainside retaining wall RW1 plays an important role in the overall system behavior due to the potential domino effects it may trigger. The drainage-related safety factor obtained from the parametric model indicates that the drainage system performs adequately under normal conditions. However, since the system requirements are intentionally kept at a minimum level in this scenario, RW1 may become a governing component under extreme rainfall or unfavorable soil conditions. In such cases, reduced drainage performance could indirectly affect other upper-level system components.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Retaining Walls RW2 and RW3 define the excavation boundaries and provide the structural conditions required for the safe operation of the glass curtain wall above. While high safety factors are obtained against overturning, the relatively limited margins in sliding and bearing capacity indicate potential vulnerabilities under changing conditions. A possible instability in RW2 or RW3 could affect not only the excavation area, but also the facility zone, the historical area, and the glass curtain wall.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The glass curtain wall shows a very low deflection utilization ratio, confirming sufficient stiffness for visitor circulation. However, its satisfactory performance depends directly on the stable behavior of RW2 and RW3, highlighting that the glass system does not act independently but relies on the surrounding retaining structures.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Retaining Wall RW4 is located at the lower part of the site, it plays a critical role in overall system stability. The safety factor of RW4 is close to the minimum acceptable value, indicating limited safety margin. A potential loss of stability at this level could lead to soil movements that may cause deformations and stability problems at the upper levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, Scenario 1 demonstrates that the system operates safely under normal conditions, but with several components performing close to their limit values. System safety therefore relies on balanced interaction between elements rather than on large safety margins within individual components. Drainage-related stability at RW1, possible sliding of RW2 supporting the facility and historical zones, and the stability of RW4 represent the most vulnerable points of the system. For this reason, Scenario 1 provides a clear reference case for evaluating targeted improvements in the following design alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The detailed performance results of the system are presented in the table below.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 8 \u2013 Performance Indicators Obtained for Scenario 1 (Baseline Design)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This scenario represents the initial and balanced configuration of the system. All components are designed to meet safety and serviceability requirements under normal site conditions, without introducing unnecessary conservatism. It serves as a reference caseContinue reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":295,"featured_media":0,"parent":24172,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-24178","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/295"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=24178"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24178\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25037,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24178\/revisions\/25037"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24172"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=24178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}