## 2 Materials and Methods
### Numerical Analyses of Real Buildings
#### 2.2.5 Calibration of the Subsoil Numerical Model--Partial Models  
Calibration of subsoil parameters was performed on partial models. In order to standardise the calculations, subsoil mass with a depth of 12.0 m below the foundation level and dimensions in the plan view of 6.0 \(\times\) 6.0 m was adopted, in accordance with [PERSON]'s guidelines [61], which were developed on the basis of several dozen literature items by various authors. Each submodel consisted of three parts: a wall section with a benchmark, foundation and subsoil mass. For the subsoil and structure, solid elements were adopted (C3D8R--for the structure and C3D20R--for the subsoil). The dimensions of the finite element mesh were about 0.1 m for the wall and foundation and about 0.2 m for the subsoil at the connection point with the foundation. With the increase in distance from the foundation, the dimensions of the subsoil mesh increased, reaching in the farthest areas a side length of about 1.5 m. 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. Ultimately, the models consisted of 1892 \(\div\) 8940 solid elements and 7039 \(\div\) 32,583 nodes, with a total number of degrees of freedom in the range of 21,117 \(\div\) 97,749. No calculations were made for benchmarks Z2 and Z10 because they had been destroyed. A linear elastic model was used for the structure, and parameters of C25/30 concrete were assigned to it. The subsoil was modelled in 5 parameter variants (Table 3). The internal friction angle, bulk density and secondary compressibility, i.e., the parameters of the Modified Cam-Clay \(M\) and \(\kappa\) model, were assumed to be invariant, respectively \(\varphi^{\prime}\) = 35\({}^{\circ}\), \(\rho\) = 1.8 g/cm\({}^{3}\), E\({}_{\rm{H}}\) = 55.1 MPa. Primary compressibility for variants with parameters from in situ tests was taken by probing closest to the studied benchmark in accordance with the areas in Figure 3b. Figure 12: A scheme showing extraction of the partial calibration models. The initial variant was _EDO1_, where all parameters were derived on the basis of laboratory tests. In the _EDO2_ variant, the results were modified assuming that stabilisation of settlements in oedometric tests occurred after two hours. This increased the constrained moduli. In the _CPT1_ variant, the initial compressibility was derived from CPT static sounding. Because Modified Cam-Clay parameters are not directly obtained in CPT probing, the author developed an original conversion procedure. Due to OCR-1 and foundation at a depth of approximately \(4\div 7\) m, it was assumed that for stresses of about \(70\div 120\) kPa, the subsoil behaviour is in the range of secondary stresses, and the parameter \(\kappa\) was adopted from oedometric tests, i.e., \(\kappa\) = 0.0014. Additional stresses range from 70 to 250 kPa. Therefore, in order to determine the \(\lambda\) parameter, the actual results of oedometric tests for the stress range of \(126\div 252\) kPa were \"modified,\" assuming that the constrained modulus from CPT soundings occurs in this range. Subsequently, the compressibility index \(C_{c}\) was calculated, and the LPO slope was determined from the relationship \(\lambda=C_{c}/2.3\). In the _CPT1_ variant, homogeneous subsoil was assumed, and parameters of the layer directly below the foundation were adopted for the entire depth. In the _CPT2_ variant, the parameters were derived in a similar way; however, layered subsoil was assumed, in accordance with the divisions based on CPT, as in Figure 5. Division into sublayers was performed only for the zone directly below the foundation. Changes below 6 m from the bottom of the foundation were not taken into account due to their negligible impact on settlement. In the DMT variant, the parameters were derived from SDMT tests using a transitional procedure like in CPT probing.