## 2 Materials and Methods
### Numerical Analyses of Real Buildings
#### 2.2.6 Numerical Analysis of the Full \"Building-Subsoil\" Model  
After calibration on small models, two variants of parameters were adopted for the subsoil in the full model (Table 6). In the first variant, _HOMO_, constant parameters were adopted for the entire subsoil. In the second variant, _AREA_, the subsoil was divided into computational areas (Figure 14) and soil parameters were assigned to them in accordance with in situ tests from these areas. For homogeneous subsoil, the mean of the parameters for particular areas was adopted. Moreover, calculations were performed in the _RIGID_ variant for the model of the building without subsoil--with rigid supports. The meshing for the full model started from the building. A mesh with sides of approximately 0.2 m was adopted, starting its creation from the smallest elements of the building. In the subsoil, in the zone of contact with the building, a mesh of similar dimensions, about 0.2 m, was used. Along with the depth and distance from the building, the dimensions of the mesh were increased. In the deepest parts of the subsoil, a mesh with dimensions of up to 3.6 m was used. Standard geotechnical boundary conditions were used to block horizontal movement perpendicular to the plane on the sides and vertical movement at the base of the subsoil mass. The full \"building-subsoil\" model was made up of 218,532 finite elements: solid,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Partial Model (Benchmark)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **Z1** & **Z3** & **Z4** & **Z5** & **Z6** & **Z7** & **Z8** & **Z9** \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Actual settlement} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4.0} & 7.1 & 5.8 & 5.1 & 7.2 & 7.8 & 2.3 & 5.8 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Calculated settlement} & \multirow{4}{*}{s [mm]} & _EDO1_ & 42.9 & 45.5 & 19.7 & 10.6 & 38.3 & 49.4 & 7.1 & 28.1 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _EDO2_ & 39.4 & 24.7 & 15.7 & 6.4 & 21.9 & 32.5 & 6.6 & 12.9 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _CPT1_ & 6.9 & 13.8 & 5.1 & 3.3 & 14.7 & 16.7 & 2.0 & 2.8 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _CPT2_ & 6.9 & 9.8 & 5.1 & 3.2 & 14.7 & 16.2 & 2.0 & 2.8 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _DMT_ & 7.3 & 6.6 & 4.6 & 3.0 & - & - & 1.8 & 3.1 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Absolute calculation error} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\Delta s\) [mm]} & _EDO1_ & 38.9 & 38.4 & 13.9 & 5.6 & 31.1 & 41.6 & 4.8 & 22.3 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _EDO2_ & 35.4 & 17.6 & 9.9 & 1.4 & 14.7 & 24.7 & 4.3 & 7.1 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _CPT1_ & 2.9 & 6.7 & \(-\)0.7 & \(-\)1.8 & 7.5 & 8.9 & \(-\)0.3 & \(-\)3.0 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _CPT2_ & 2.9 & 2.7 & \(-\)0.7 & \(-\)1.9 & 7.5 & 8.4 & \(-\)0.3 & \(-\)3.0 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _DMT_ & 3.3 & \(-\)0.5 & \(-\)1.2 & \(-\)2.1 & - & - & \(-\)0.5 & \(-\)2.7 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _EDO1_ & _77.7_ & 76.8 & 27.8 & 11.1 & 62.3 & 83.2 & 9.6 & 44.5 & 49.1 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _EDO2_ & 70.7 & 35.2 & 19.8 & 2.7 & 29.5 & 49.4 & 8.6 & 14.1 & 28.8 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _CPT1_ & 5.7 & 13.4 & \(-\)1.4 & \(-\)3.5 & 15.1 & 17.8 & \(-\)0.6 & \(-\)6.1 & 7.9 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _CPT2_ & 5.7 & 5.4 & \(-\)1.4 & \(-\)3.7 & 15.1 & 16.8 & \(-\)0.6 & \(-\)6.1 & 6.8 \\ \cline{3-10}  & & _DMT_ & 6.5 & \(-\)1.0 & \(-\)2.4 & \(-\)4.1 & - & - & \(-\)1.0 & \(-\)5.5 & 3.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: A comparison of the final settlements and settlements calculated for partial models.  
plate and beam elements with the dimensions of the subsoil element ranging from 0.2 to 3.6 [61]. In total, the model consisted of 502,224 nodes with 1,921,455 degrees of freedom.