This project focuses on the integrated modeling of a multi-component structural system located on steeply sloped terrain containing an archaeological site. The system is defined by the spatial relationships between different structural elements positioned at varying ground levels.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The modeled system consists of four retaining walls and one glass curtain wall, which together form a coordinated structural arrangement. The retaining walls are placed at different parts of the terrain: one on the upper mountain side, two along the boundaries of the archaeological excavation area, and one at the lower slope. Each retaining wall has a specific role and is located within a distinct functional zone. The glass curtain wall is positioned horizontally above the archaeological area and is supported by a steel structural system, allowing visitors to circulate above the excavation while maintaining visual access to the site.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rather than being treated as independent elements, all components are considered parts of a single integrated system. Their properties, roles, and relationships are represented within the ontology, allowing the entire system to be described and evaluated within a common integration framework.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The purpose of this ontology is to support the reuse, extension, and integration of domain knowledge related to individual structural systems within an integrated archaeological site context. Specifically, it provides a formal, machine-interpretable representation of components, functions, and relationships associated with retaining wall systems and the glass curtain wall and the whole system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ontology also makes domain assumptions explicit and enables transparent knowledge sharing among project team members. In addition, it supports the development of parametric models by providing a structured semantic foundation. Particular emphasis is placed on safety considerations, structural engineering logic, and project-specific requirements.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ontology includes concepts organized into two main groups: Subsystem concepts and whole- system connection concepts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Subsystem concepts include structural components, structural types, uses, materials, loads, design basis (including evaluation concepts such as drainage stability, erosion safety index, and deflection utilization ratio), construction details (specific to retaining wall systems), and their associated relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whole-system connection concepts include site zones and system-level requirements that connect individual systems (retaining walls and the glass curtain wall) to the overall archaeological site system.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The intended users of the ontology include civil and structural engineers, system modelers, project team members, and relevant stakeholders involved in the design and evaluation of the archaeological site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ontology is intended to be used as a knowledge representation framework to support parametric modeling, serve as a structured knowledge base for engineers and project teams, and enable reuse of domain knowledge. It may also be used by software agents to organize site- related data and support integration with similar projects or future extensions
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The core engineering challenge addressed by the ontology is knowledge integration rather than numerical optimization. Several specific challenges and corresponding modeling strategies are identified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Challenge: <\/strong>Retaining wall systems and glass curtain wall systems are designed using different engineering principles and performance criteria. Challenge: <\/strong>Safety is the dominant design concern of the project, requiring comprehensive and consistent assessment across all subsystems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Approach: <\/strong>Safety and serviceability are represented through multiple evaluation indicators, such as erosion safety index, drainage stability, and deflection utilization ratio. These indicators allow different aspects of system performance to be documented and compared across design scenarios. Challenge: <\/strong>The structural subsystems are inherently different in function and behavior, making system-level integration non-trivial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Approach: <\/strong>The archaeological site context provides a unifying framework. Retaining walls serve functions such as slope stability, erosion prevention, and excavation support, while the glass curtain wall enables visitor access and visual transparency while protecting archaeological assets from environmental exposure. Challenge: <\/strong>Individual ontologies developed independently must be aligned, reorganized, and extended to function as a coherent system-level ontology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alignment: <\/strong>Alignment was carried out manually using logical axioms to identify equivalent or overlapping concepts across individual ontologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reorganization: <\/strong>Overlapping concepts, such as retaining wall uses, were unified. Repetitive or irrelevant concepts (e.g., earthquake loading, which is outside the project scope) were removed. Relationships were restructured to reflect system logic rather than component-level organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Extension: <\/strong>To enable system-level integration, additional classes, object properties, and data properties were introduced where necessary. Designed items were associated with specific site zones through object properties, and each designed item was linked to relevant system requirements. Evaluation indicators such as stability index, drainage stability, and erosion safety index were assigned to corresponding design options. New concepts, such as drainage design, were introduced to support site-wide safety requirements. Ontological Consistency and Validation To ensure the logical integrity of the integrated system, we utilized the Pellet Reasoner within the Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 environment. The validation process focused on checking for logical consistency and unintended class subsumptions. By running the<\/p>\n\n\n\n reasoner, we confirmed that all NamedIndividuals correctly fulfilled the constraints of their assigned classes, such as DesignedRetainingWall and DesignedGlassCurtainWall. This automated verification proves that the knowledge model is internally consistent. It confirms that the<\/p>\n\n\n\n specific attributes assigned to each Individual\u2014such as material properties and geometric dimensions\u2014align perfectly with the semantic definitions of the class hierarchy, ensuring the structural knowledge is represented without logical contradictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" System Overview This project focuses on the integrated modeling of a multi-component structural system located on steeply sloped terrain containing an archaeological site. The system is defined by the spatial relationships between different structural elementsContinue reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":295,"featured_media":0,"parent":25022,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-26889","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26889","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=26889"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26889\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26926,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26889\/revisions\/26926"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25022"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=26889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Approach: <\/strong>A system-level perspective is adopted, in which subsystems are reorganized and adapted to be compatible with the requirements of the overall site system. For example, the glass curtain wall components are changed to support safe visitor circulation above the archaeological area.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\u2514\u2500Safety as the Primary Design Driver<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\u2514\u2500Integration of Heterogeneous Subsystems<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\u2514\u2500Alignment, Reorganization, and Extension of Individual Ontologies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nReasoner\/Validation<\/strong>
<\/h2>\n\n\n\n