This study addresses the modeling of the Integrated Archaeological Site System in a sensitive archaeological area with steep slopes, prioritizing the structural safety of the integrated system and the associated user safety. The project goes beyond the traditional component based design approach, presenting a hybrid methodology that combines knowledge representation (ontology) and parametric evaluation in solving structural engineering problems. The results obtained show that, in such multi component systems, safety depends on the integrated behavior of the system and the interaction between components rather than on the strength of individual elements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Ontological Model designed in the initial phase of the study served as the brain of the project and unified the rules of different structural systems within a common knowledge framework. The semantic disconnect between the soil mechanics principles of retaining walls, the usage areas in the region, and the structural requirements of the glass roof system was resolved through the developed class hierarchy and network of relationships. The validation processes, performed using Pellet Reasoner in particular, ensured the logical consistency of the system before proceeding to the geometric construction of the parametric model. In this process, the relationship between requirements such as safety and the physical components was made machine readable, thus ensuring that the numerical model was based on a logical foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The system, whose rules and intercomponent relationships were defined using ontology, was evaluated in the second phase of the study using a parametric modeling approach. At this stage, the parametric model did not aim to directly simulate environmental impacts or physical processes; instead, it was used as a decision support tool to comparatively examine the relative effects of different design decisions and priorities on system safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The three different scenarios developed (Baseline, Rainfall-Focused, and Visitor-Focused) revealed that not only structural elements but also the location and protection level of the facility zone and archaeological area within the system are directly affected by design decisions. It has been observed that targeted changes in parameters, even if they start in a specific component, are transferred to other parts of the system through these functional areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In particular, the design improvements applied to the drainage related and geometric parameters of Retaining Wall 1 on the mountainside were found to reflect a higher safety priority assigned to the upper level of the system. Within the parametric modelling framework, this design priority was addressed consistently by adopting more conservative geometric and sectional configurations for the Facility Zone at the lower level and for Retaining Wall 2 and 3, which defines the excavation boundary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This approach indicates that the safety of the archaeological area does not result from a direct physical cause effect mechanism, but rather from the coherent and coordinated application of design decisions across different system levels. Accordingly, the protection of the archaeological area depends not only on the performance of the walls directly defining the excavation boundaries, but also on the overall design strategy adopted for the supporting and usage zones located at higher elevations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Similarly, it has been established that the performance of the Glass Curtain Wall covering the archaeological site cannot be considered as a superstructure element on its own; it must be evaluated in conjunction with the rigidity and displacement tendencies of the RW2 and RW3 retaining walls located beneath the system. This situation demonstrates that visitor safety and the protection of the archaeological site must be addressed together through the interactions between the infrastructure and superstructure components.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another critical component in terms of system integrity, the lower retaining wall RW4, plays a role in balancing global stability against loads transferred from the upper levels and possible ground movements. Scenario based assessments have shown that improvements in the geometric and cross sectional parameters of RW4 also reduce the potential for unfavorable system level responses that could occur in the facility area and archaeological site at the upper levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When scenario based assessments are generally reviewed, the Baseline design is sufficient under normal conditions, it offers limited safety margins, particularly in terms of the facility area, archaeological site, and lower slope stability. In the rainfall focused scenario, parametric interventions created a more balanced and protective safety level across the system. In the visitor focused scenario, the glass cover system provided a more consistent rigidity distribution between excavation boundaries and lower elevation support structures. These results demonstrate that it is a system scale assessment tool covering usage areas and protection targets at different levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In summary, this project has revealed the necessity of an integrated approach where ontology defines what the system is, its rules, and logical boundaries, while the parametric model explores how this logic is reflected through design configurations in a physical context. It has been concluded that in complex projects such as archaeological sites, where conservation and security risks are intertwined, a sustainable level of security is only possible if the components are designed not as isolated structures but as an integrated system connected by semantic and physical links.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Akbay Arama, Z., Kayabekir, A. E., & Bekda\u015f, G. (2021). Sustainable optimum design of RC retaining walls: The influence of structural material and surrounding soil properties. Structural Engineering and Mechanics<\/em>, 78<\/em>(2), 145\u2013160.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ak\u0131\u015f, E. (2023). Optimum cost prediction of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls<\/em> (Master\u2019s thesis). Department of Civil Engineering, At\u0131l\u0131m University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n American Concrete Institute. (2019). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19) and commentary<\/em>. ACI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowles, J. E. (1995). Foundation analysis and design<\/em> (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00c7etin, K. \u00d6. (2022). Soil mechanics \u2013 Soil properties<\/em> (Lecture notes). Middle East Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CIRIA. (2019). Retaining wall design guide (C760)<\/em>. Construction Industry Research and Information Association.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Das, B. M. (2014). Principles of foundation engineering<\/em> (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mohammad, F. A., & Ahmed, H. G. (2019). Optimum design of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls according to Eurocode 2 (EC2). Athens Journal of Technology and Engineering<\/em>, 5<\/em>(3), 277\u2013296.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology<\/em>. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tanyu, B. F., Sabatini, P. J., & Berg, R. R. (2008). Earth retaining structures<\/em> (Publication No. FHWA-NHI-07-071). Federal Highway Administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yalaz, E. T. (2016). Curtain wall deficiency and failures: Observations on multi-story buildings in Istanbul<\/em> (Doctoral dissertation). Istanbul Technical University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zhang, L., & El-Gohary, N. M. (2018). Ontology-based reasoning for sustainable infrastructure design. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering<\/em>, 32<\/em>(5), 04018037.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This study addresses the modeling of the Integrated Archaeological Site System in a sensitive archaeological area with steep slopes, prioritizing the structural safety of the integrated system and the associated user safety. The project goesContinue reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":295,"featured_media":0,"parent":24751,"menu_order":6,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-25026","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25026","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=25026"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25026\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27126,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25026\/revisions\/27126"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24751"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=25026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}