## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{FULL MODEL OF THE BUILDING + SUBSOIL (HOMO)} \\ \hline Phase & Z1 & Z3 & Z4 & Z5 & Z6 & Z7 & Z8 & Z9 & Mean \\ \hline
1 & 4.1 & 2.3 & 4.5 & 2.5 & 1.7 & 2.4 & 4.9 & 3.5 & 3.2 \\ \hline
2 & 7.7 & 4.0 & 8.2 & 3.8 & 2.1 & 3.3 & 8.9 & 6.0 & 5.5 \\ \hline
3 & 8.8 & 4.6 & 9.3 & 4.2 & 2.2 & 3.5 & 10.2 & 6.8 & 6.2 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{FULL MODEL OF THE BUILDING + SUBSOIL (AREA)} \\ \hline Phase & Z1 & Z3 & Z4 & Z5 & Z6 & Z7 & Z8 & Z9 & Mean \\ \hline
1 & 4.9 & 2.0 & 5.7 & 3.0 & 2.0 & 2.8 & 2.8 & 2.3 & 3.2 \\ \hline
2 & 9.3 & 3.3 & 10.7 & 5.1 & 2.9 & 4.0 & 5.1 & 3.9 & 5.5 \\ \hline
3 & 10.5 & 3.7 & 12.1 & 5.7 & 3.2 & 4.4 & 6.0 & 4.4 & 6.2 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ACTUAL SETTLEMENT} \\ \hline Phase & Z1 & Z3 & Z4 & Z5 & Z6 & Z7 & Z8 & Z9 & Mean \\ \hline
1 & 2.7 & 2.7 & 4.3 & 3.9 & 3.0 & 5.1 & 3.2 & 5.2 & 3.6 \\ \hline
2 & 4.2 & 6.3 & 5.2 & 5.3 & 5.7 & 7.0 & 2.3 & 6.1 & 5.3 \\ \hline
3 & 4.0 & 7.1 & 5.8 & 5.1 & 7.2 & 7.8 & 2.3 & 5.8 & 5.6 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{CALCULATION ERROR} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Absolute error [mm]} & Z1 & Z3 & Z4 & Z5 & Z6 & Z7 & Z8 & Z9 & Mean \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(HOMO\) & 4.8 & \(-2.5\) & 3.5 & \(-0.9\) & \(-5.0\) & \(-4.3\) & 7.9 & 1.0 & 3.74 \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(AREA\) & 6.5 & \(-3.4\) & 6.3 & 0.6 & \(-4.0\) & \(-3.4\) & 3.7 & \(-1.4\) & 3.66 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Relative error [\%]} & HOLOO & 9.6 & \(-5.0\) & 7.0 & \(-1.8\) & \(-10.0\) & \(-8.6\) & 15.8 & 2.0 & 7.48 \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(AREA\) & 13.1 & \(-6.8\) & 12.5 & 1.2 & \(-8.0\) & \(-6.9\) & 7.4 & \(-2.8\) & 7.34 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: A comparison of final settlements and settlements calculated [mm] for full models. Figure 16: Maps of final vertical displacements [m]: (**a**) \(RIGID\) model, (**b**) \(AREA\) model. the subsoil, _HOMO_ and _AREA_, it was observed that the C segment tilts from the B segment. The displacements in cross-sections with expansion joints between these segments for the _HOMO_ and _RIGID_ models are shown in Figure 19. In reality, this phenomenon also took place because benchmarks located on the edge of segment C (Z6, Z7) show greater settlement than benchmarks located in the central part of the building (Z4, Z5, Z8). In the _RIGID_ model, naturally, no tilting of the building was observed. Figure 17: A map of vertical displacements [m] in a cross-section of the building in the AREA variant. Figure 18: Settlement [mm] change with depth [m] for the benchmarks \(z\)-axis in AREA variant (total displacements). differences are negligible. Figure 22 shows a close-up of the wall at the garage entrance, where there are evident differences in stress distribution. In the _RIGID_ model, stresses are distributed more evenly, while in the _AREA_ model, there is a stress concentration in the column strips in the wall. The differences can be substantial, and the values in the lowest nodes differ more than three times. Figure 23 shows the maximum principal stress distribution for the selected reinforced concrete deep beam, where there were also differences in the results for models with the subsoil and with rigid supports. They concerned both the shape of stress isolines and values. For the presented reinforced concrete deep beam it was approximately 14%. In other reinforced concrete deep beams, the differences reached up to 20%. Figure 21: Comparison of the minimum principal stress maps [kPa] of the building in the _AREA_ and _RIGID_ models. Figure 22: A comparison of the minimum principal stress maps [kPa] at the garage entrance in segment A in the _AREA_ and _RIGID_ models. Figure 23: A comparison of the maximum principal stress maps [kPa] in a selected reinforced concrete deep beam of segment A in the _AREA_ and _RIGID_ models.