SETTLE Settlement Effects, Trough Topology and Local Evolution Assessment
Authors: Florczak, Magdalena
Type: Preprint
Published: 2026-08-03
Keywords: WNO/STII, WNO/STII 2.0, WNO/STII 3.0, WNO/STII 3.1, SETTLE, IAS-DX, Settlement Trough Irregularity Indicator, Settlement Effects, Trough Topology and Local Evolution Assessment, deep excavations, settlement trough, settlement morphology, settlement irregularity, ground deformation, terrain deformation, differential settlement, curvature, asymmetry, local anomalies, reference profile, reference profile selection, reference-width sensitivity, trough width, K parameter, settlement concentration, centroid index, time variability, monitoring interpretation, data quality, uncertainty assessment, sensitivity analysis, synthetic benchmark profiles, dynamic influence, 3D scanning, point cloud, geotechnical engineering, excavation impact assessment

<p class="pdq2pgselectionanchorcontainer">This paper presents SETTLE — Settlement Effects, Trough Topology and Local Evolution Assessment within IAS-DX, a canonical methodological version of the terrain-side assessment module developed for the integrated IAS-DX framework.</p>
<p>SETTLE consolidates and reorganises the earlier WNO/STII/SII settlement-trough irregularity concepts under a unified English naming standard. The earlier WNO/STII/SII framework is retained as the morphology and irregularity core of SETTLE, while the present version extends it into a broader assessment module for excavation-induced settlement effects, settlement-trough topology, terrain deformation and local evolution of deformation patterns.</p>
<p>The SETTLE module evaluates settlement effects not only through the magnitude of vertical settlement, but also through differential settlement, profile gradient, curvature, asymmetry, local anomalies, displacement of the maximum settlement point, reference-profile sensitivity, settlement concentration, centroid position and time variability. The method also introduces two extended diagnostic components: IDYN, addressing dynamic influences and vibration-related effects, and ISCAN, addressing scanning, 3D geometry, point-cloud evidence and spatial deformation indicators.</p>
<p>Within the IAS-DX framework, SETTLE provides the terrain-side demand input for OSCAR, which evaluates object susceptibility, coupling and response, and for MATCH, which selects the mechanism-matched technical control mode. The integrated methodological relationship is expressed as:</p>
<p>IAS-DX = DOCC + SETTLE + OSCAR + MATCH</p>
<p>The document presents the methodological lineage from WNO/STII/SII to SETTLE, defines the input-data structure, data-quality classes, reference-profile selection and verification module, morphology and irregularity core, settlement-intensity and deformation-intensity components, object–trough intersection, IDYN, ISCAN, reliability assessment, integrated SETTLE index, result notation and transfer of outputs to OSCAR and MATCH.</p>
<p class="pdq2pgselectionanchorcontainer">References and Methodological Background</p>
<p>[1] Florczak, M. (2026). WNO/STII — Settlement Trough Irregularity Indicator: A Supporting Tool for the Assessment of Deep Excavation Impact. Conceptual methodological preprint.</p>
<p>[2] Florczak, M. (2026). WNO/STII 2.0 — Settlement Trough Irregularity Indicator: Operational Interpretation Framework for Deep-Excavation Settlement Profiles. Revised operational conceptual preprint.</p>
<p>[3] Florczak, M. (2026). WNO/STII 3.0 — Scientifically Refined Methodological Framework for Settlement Trough Irregularity Assessment. Refined methodological preprint with synthetic benchmark profiles and uncertainty boundaries.</p>
<p>[4] Florczak, M. (2026). WNO/STII 3.1 — Extended Methodological Framework for Settlement Trough Morphology, Reference-Width Sensitivity and Time-Variability Assessment. Expanded methodological preprint.</p>
<p>[5] Florczak, M. (2026). OSCAR: Object Susceptibility, Coupling and Response Assessment within IAS-DX. Methodological framework developed from the earlier MKPO-GW/WPO and WPO-AON(t) concepts.</p>
<p>[6] Florczak, M. (2026). MATCH: Mechanism-Matched Technical Control within IAS-DX. Methodological framework developed from the earlier MTK-GW 1.0 and MTK-GW 2.0 concepts.</p>
<p>[7] Wysokiński, L., Kotlicki, W. (2002). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Instrukcja ITB nr 376/2002. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej.</p>
<p>[8] Kotlicki, W., Łukasik, S., Godlewski, T., Bogusz, W. (2020). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Wytyczne. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej.</p>
<p>[9] Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-the-Art Volume, pp. 225–290.</p>
<p>[10] Burland, J. B., Wroth, C. P. (1974). Settlement of buildings and associated damage. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge. London: Pentech Press, pp. 611–654.</p>
<p>[11] Boscardin, M. D., Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(1), 1–21.</p>
<p>[12] Clough, G. W., O’Rourke, T. D. (1990). Construction-induced movements of in situ walls. In: Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25, pp. 439–470.</p>
<p>[13] Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N., Burland, J. B. (1996). Prediction of ground movements and assessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunnelling. In: Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Rotterdam: Balkema.</p>
<p>[14] Hsieh, P. G., Ou, C. Y. (1998). Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused by excavation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(6), 1004–1017.</p>
<p>[15] Moormann, C. (2004). Analysis of wall and ground movements due to deep excavations in soft soil based on a new worldwide database. Soils and Foundations, 44(1), 87–98.</p>
<p>[16] ITA-AITES. (2014). ITATech Guidelines on Monitoring Frequencies in Urban Tunnelling. ITATech Activity Group Monitoring, Report No. 3.</p>
<p>WNO/STII</p>
<p>This paper presents an original conceptual proposal for the Settlement Trough Irregularity Indicator, referred to in Polish as WNO — Wskaźnik Nieregularności Niecki Osiadań and in English as STII — Settlement Trough Irregularity Indicator. The proposed indicator is intended to describe the morphology, irregularity and local disturbance of a settlement trough induced by deep excavation works.</p>
<p>The WNO/STII concept is not intended to function as a building susceptibility index. It does not replace the MKPO-GW method or the WPO Building Susceptibility Index. Instead, it focuses on the settlement trough itself, understood as a deformation pattern of the ground surface or subsoil. The indicator is based on the assessment of deviation from a reference settlement model, curvature, asymmetry, local anomalies and displacement of the maximum settlement point.</p>
<p>The proposed indicator may support the interpretation of monitoring results, the identification of locally disturbed deformation zones, the planning of monitoring point locations and the preliminary selection of cases requiring more detailed numerical or observational analysis. It is particularly relevant for linear infrastructure and urban projects, where multiple structures, ground sections and monitoring profiles may need to be assessed in a transparent and repeatable manner.</p>
<p>Literature and Methodological Context</p>
<p>The WNO/STII indicator is positioned in relation to existing approaches used for the assessment of excavation- and tunnelling-induced ground movements, including settlement trough shape, settlement magnitude, differential settlement, angular distortion, curvature and building damage risk. These issues are widely discussed in the geotechnical literature concerning ground movements and structural response to excavation- or tunnelling-induced deformation.</p>
<p>The proposed indicator is also related to monitoring-based interpretation of ground displacements in urban conditions, where measured settlement profiles may deviate from idealized or reference shapes due to local soil variability, construction effects, groundwater conditions, existing infrastructure or anthropogenic ground disturbances.</p>
<p>The original contribution of the WNO/STII concept lies in the proposed composite interpretation of settlement trough morphology and irregularity. Unlike building susceptibility classifications, the WNO/STII approach focuses on the deformation pattern itself. It provides a supplementary indicator intended to support the interpretation of settlement profiles, rather than to replace existing zoning, monitoring, numerical modelling or structural assessment procedures.</p>
<p>WNO/STII 3.0</p>
<p>This paper presents WNO/STII 3.0, a refined methodological framework for the interpretation of settlement-trough irregularity induced by deep excavation works. The method focuses on the morphology of settlement profiles and combines five components: deviation from a reference profile, curvature, settlement-area asymmetry, local anomaly intensity and displacement of the maximum settlement point. Version 3.0 consolidates the previous WNO/STII 1.0 and 2.0 developments by adding a clearer reference-profile selection procedure, uncertainty boundaries, sensitivity checks and synthetic benchmark profiles.</p>
<p>WNO/STII 3.1</p>
<p>Methodological version of the Settlement Trough Irregularity Indicator. WNO stands for Wskaznik Nieregularnosci Niecki Osiadan, while STII stands for Settlement Trough Irregularity Indicator. The framework supports the interpretation of settlement-trough morphology induced by deep excavation works, especially where the deformation pattern is not fully described by the maximum settlement value alone.</p>
<p>Version 3.1 consolidates the WNO/STII 3.0 framework and expands it with modules concerning the shape and width of the adopted reference trough, sensitivity to the literature-based trough-width parameter K, settlement-trough concentration, centroid position and time-variability of settlement morphology. The classical trough-width parameter K is not introduced as a new empirical coefficient. It is treated only as a documented literature-based or case-calibrated input when used to define or test the width of a reference settlement profile.</p>
<p>The added morphology descriptors are intended to support transparent interpretation of how settlement is distributed within the adopted reference length and how the settlement profile changes between monitoring stages. The time-variability module is focused on changes in maximum settlement, settlement area, profile shape and WNO/STII irregularity over time.</p>
<p>References and Technical Background</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[1]</span> Florczak, M. (2026). MKPO-GW Method: A Multi-Criteria Classification Approach for Assessing Building Susceptibility to Deep Excavation Impact. Conceptual preprint / methodological proposal.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[2]</span> Florczak, M. (2026). Mathematical Appendix to the MKPO-GW/WPO Framework: Auxiliary Indicators Supporting Selected WPO Parameters. Technical appendix to conceptual preprint / methodological proposal.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[3]</span> Wysokiński, L., Kotlicki, W. (2002). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Instrukcja ITB nr 376/2002. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[4]</span> Kotlicki, W., Łukasik, S., Godlewski, T., Bogusz, W. (2020). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Wytyczne. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[5]</span> Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-the-Art Volume, pp. 225–290.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[6]</span> Burland, J. B., Wroth, C. P. (1974). Settlement of buildings and associated damage. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge. London: Pentech Press, pp. 611–654.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[7]</span> Boscardin, M. D., Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(1), 1–21.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[8]</span> Clough, G. W., O’Rourke, T. D. (1990). Construction-induced movements of in situ walls. In: Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25, pp. 439–470.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[9]</span> Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N., Burland, J. B. (1996). Prediction of ground movements and assessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunnelling. In: Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Rotterdam: Balkema.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[10]</span> Hsieh, P. G., Ou, C. Y. (1998). Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused by excavation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(6), 1004–1017.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[11]</span> Moormann, C. (2004). Analysis of wall and ground movements due to deep excavations in soft soil based on a new worldwide database. Soils and Foundations, 44(1), 87–98.</p>
<p><span class="text-token-text-primary">[12]</span> ITA-AITES. (2014). ITAtech Guidelines on Monitoring Frequencies in Urban Tunnelling. ITAtech Activity Group Monitoring, Report No. 3.</p>