Authenticity is one of the main phenomena of architectural conservation. At first glance it refers to the emphasizing of fidelity, originality and sincerity to the origin of historic buildings, sites or objects. This notion is a common subject of argument in the interpretation of historic buildings and sites which involves experts of the architectural conservation council. Cognoscenti are bound to decide for the difficult resolution of authenticities of historic fabrics relating to their knowledge and experience. The question about the authenticity of a historic fabric can be answered whether it is authentic or not, but this does not give an idea about the level that is “how much”. The answer relies on the experts’ perceptions and while one may say “very good, authentic” the others may say “not authentic” for the same historic building. This shows a lack of clarity and certainty. In this study, a new ranking system has been developed to interpret the unequal results of deterioration of historic buildings and their authenticity levels by the use of “fuzzy logic” sets. A fuzzy logic model evaluates historic buildings according to the question of “how much”. Although numerical categorization sets forward sharp and mutually exclusive classes according to classical Aristotelian logic, “fuzzy logic” includes mutually inclusive classes. Fuzzy logic operators provide a formal method of manipulating linguistic variables. The usage of fuzzy logic in this system provides a comparative analysis of different conservation states of historic buildings to go through and accurate restoration works according to authenticity ratings. This study proposes objective decisions that can be interrogated and reconsidered on the authenticity of a monument rating model to evaluate the degree of authenticity of historic buildings and sites. This logical fuzzy model provides an easy tool to take reliable results. The model was briefly explained with working principles and formulations through
{"title":"Developing a new authenticity rating system on architectural conservation","authors":"M. Ulukan, H. Arslan","doi":"10.2495/SC121031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2495/SC121031","url":null,"abstract":"Authenticity is one of the main phenomena of architectural conservation. At first glance it refers to the emphasizing of fidelity, originality and sincerity to the origin of historic buildings, sites or objects. This notion is a common subject of argument in the interpretation of historic buildings and sites which involves experts of the architectural conservation council. Cognoscenti are bound to decide for the difficult resolution of authenticities of historic fabrics relating to their knowledge and experience. The question about the authenticity of a historic fabric can be answered whether it is authentic or not, but this does not give an idea about the level that is “how much”. The answer relies on the experts’ perceptions and while one may say “very good, authentic” the others may say “not authentic” for the same historic building. This shows a lack of clarity and certainty. In this study, a new ranking system has been developed to interpret the unequal results of deterioration of historic buildings and their authenticity levels by the use of “fuzzy logic” sets. A fuzzy logic model evaluates historic buildings according to the question of “how much”. Although numerical categorization sets forward sharp and mutually exclusive classes according to classical Aristotelian logic, “fuzzy logic” includes mutually inclusive classes. Fuzzy logic operators provide a formal method of manipulating linguistic variables. The usage of fuzzy logic in this system provides a comparative analysis of different conservation states of historic buildings to go through and accurate restoration works according to authenticity ratings. This study proposes objective decisions that can be interrogated and reconsidered on the authenticity of a monument rating model to evaluate the degree of authenticity of historic buildings and sites. This logical fuzzy model provides an easy tool to take reliable results. The model was briefly explained with working principles and formulations through","PeriodicalId":151288,"journal":{"name":"The Sustainable City VII","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126580317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Ghasempourabadi, V. Arani, O. Bahar, M. Mahdavinejad
{"title":"Assessment of behavior of two-shelled domes in Iranian traditional architecture: the Charbaq School, Isfahan, Iran","authors":"M. Ghasempourabadi, V. Arani, O. Bahar, M. Mahdavinejad","doi":"10.2495/SC121021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2495/SC121021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":151288,"journal":{"name":"The Sustainable City VII","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124418152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. C. Jong, T. Lin, C. Suen, Chi-Kang Lee, I. Chen, H. J. Wu
Level crossings are potential hazardous locations in a railway system. To reduce the risk of level crossings, several active protection devices such as flashing lights and barriers may be installed. Previous studies have proved that such protection devices are effective in decreasing the probability of accidents. However, these protection devices may be partially out of order or receive error signals. Once protection devices cannot operate correctly, they may deliver wrong information that confuses the users. As a result, the users may trespass a level crossing in a dangerous situation. To realize the causes of different types of wrong operations, this study categorized them into error warning, conflict warning, and no warning. Then fault tree analysis is employed to identify the failure types and the causes behind the wrong operations of protection devices, including the failures of flashing lights, boom barriers, train direction indicators, obstacle detectors, and emergency buttons. The results indicate that error warning is mostly due to the error messages of the track circuit. Conflict warning is caused by specific failures of the protection devices. Finally, the wiring error of the track circuit is the main cause leading to no warning.
{"title":"Using fault tree analysis to identify the failures of level crossing protection devices","authors":"J. C. Jong, T. Lin, C. Suen, Chi-Kang Lee, I. Chen, H. J. Wu","doi":"10.2495/SC121002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2495/SC121002","url":null,"abstract":"Level crossings are potential hazardous locations in a railway system. To reduce the risk of level crossings, several active protection devices such as flashing lights and barriers may be installed. Previous studies have proved that such protection devices are effective in decreasing the probability of accidents. However, these protection devices may be partially out of order or receive error signals. Once protection devices cannot operate correctly, they may deliver wrong information that confuses the users. As a result, the users may trespass a level crossing in a dangerous situation. To realize the causes of different types of wrong operations, this study categorized them into error warning, conflict warning, and no warning. Then fault tree analysis is employed to identify the failure types and the causes behind the wrong operations of protection devices, including the failures of flashing lights, boom barriers, train direction indicators, obstacle detectors, and emergency buttons. The results indicate that error warning is mostly due to the error messages of the track circuit. Conflict warning is caused by specific failures of the protection devices. Finally, the wiring error of the track circuit is the main cause leading to no warning.","PeriodicalId":151288,"journal":{"name":"The Sustainable City VII","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127051798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}