Settlement Behavior Analysis of Adjacent Existing Buildings Induced by Foundation Pit Construction in River Basin
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Model Establishment
2.1. Model Establishment
2.2. Constitutive Model Selection
2.3. Parameter Selection
2.4. Boundary Settings
2.5. Model Validation
3. Settlement Patterns of Adjacent Buildings Under Different Parameters
3.1. Settlement of Adjacent Buildings Under Different Foundation Strengths
- (1)
- Soil Parameters and Working Conditions
3.2. Settlement Patterns of Adjacent Buildings Under Different Slope Ratios
3.3. Settlement Patterns of Adjacent Buildings Under Different Soil and Rock Elastic Moduli
3.4. Settlement Patterns of Adjacent Buildings Under Different Construction Sequences
4. Sensitivity Analysis of Foundation Pit Settlement Deformation and Stability Based on Orthogonal Experimental Design
4.1. Model Establishment
4.2. Selection of Orthogonal Table
4.3. Orthogonal Experimental Results and Analysis
- (1)
- Analysis of Stability Coefficient and Settlement Deformation
- (2)
- Range Analysis
- (3)
- Variance Analysis
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- The maximum settlement value increases with the increase in the reduction coefficient K, and the magnitude of the increase also increases with the increase of K. There is an exponential function relationship between the settlement value and the reduction coefficient K. This indicates that as the soil parameters decrease, the settlement will increase more and more significantly.
- (2)
- The smaller the slope ratio, the greater the settlement value. This is because the smaller the slope ratio, the closer the building is to the edge of the foundation pit, and the greater the impact of foundation pit excavation. The maximum settlement value at the building location is greater than the settlement value at the edge of the foundation pit. When the distance between the building and the edge of the foundation pit reaches 60 m, the settlement impact is minimal.
- (3)
- For different soil and rock elastic moduli, the magnitude of the elastic modulus has a smaller impact on the settlement of distant adjacent buildings but a greater impact on the edge of the foundation pit. In particular, when excavating foundation pits in clay with low elastic modulus, slope support should be carried out according to the specifications.
- (4)
- From the perspective of construction sequence, when there are adjacent building projects in foundation pit engineering, carrying out the construction of adjacent buildings first and then excavating the foundation pit can reduce the settlement of adjacent buildings.
- (5)
- Through sensitivity analysis of the factors, it is found that among the factors significantly affecting the settlement deformation at the foundation pit bottom, groundwater and internal friction angle have the most significant impact. Depth, slope ratio, and cohesion also have a notable impact, while the compression modulus of the soil has a less significant effect. By comparing with the measured data from the engineering project, it is evident that the groundwater factor has a substantial impact on slope deformation, necessitating strict control of groundwater level changes to ensure slope safety.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhou, Q. Research on Foundation Deformation Calculation Analysis Based on Melan’s Solution. Sichuan Archit. 2020, 40, 158–160+162. [Google Scholar]
- Quan, Y.; Tan, X.; Hu, Z.; Huang, M. Measurement and Analysis of Deformation of Underlying Tunnel Induced by Foundation Pit Excavation. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2023, 2023, 8897139. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, L. Numerical Simulation of Foundation Pit Excavation Impacts on Adjacent Infrastructure Using FLAC3D. J. Geotech. Eng. 2023, 45, 45–58. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, Z.; Lan, B.; Jiang, M.; Jiang, S. Numerical Modeling of Submarine Landslide Motion and Impact Behavior Based on the SPH Method. J. Ocean. Univ. China 2025, 24, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Li, X.; Su, J.; Liu, W.; Fang, Z.; Wang, S.; Kang, J.; Yu, W. A study on the reasonable width of narrow coal pillars in the section of hard primary roof hewing along the air excavation roadway. Energy Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 2746–2765. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Z.; Gao, T.; Sun, J.; Gao, C.; Bai, S.; Jin, G.; Liu, Y. An FDM-DEM coupling method based on REV for stability analysis of tunnel surrounding rock. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2024, 152, 105917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, K.; Li, L.; Cheng, S.; Sun, S. Development of similar materials with different tension-compression ratios and evaluation of TBM excavation. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2024, 83, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, B.; Pei, C.; Chen, Q.; Deng, Y.; Chen, Y.; Long, X. Progress on Multi-Field Coupling Simulation Methods in Deep Strata Rock Breaking Analysis. Comput. Model. Eng. Sci. 2025, 142, 2457–2485. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, J.; Thewes, M.; Zhang, D.; Huang, H.; Lin, W. Deformational behaviors of existing three-line tunnels induced by under-crossing of three-line mechanized tunnels: A case study. Can. Geotech. J. 2025, 62, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, C.; Zheng, H.; Yang, N.; Sun, T.; Si, J.; Ren, D. Microstructural evolution and mechanical properties of snow under compression. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 472, 140883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, N. Research on the Impact of Foundation Pit Group Excavation on the Deformation of Elevated Rail Transit Structure Foundations and Control Methods. Ph.D. Thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, X.; Zhao, Z.; Li, Y. Influence of shield tunnel construction on neighboring building. J. Tianjin Univ. 2008, 41, 725–730. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ding, R. Analysis and Countermeasures of the Impact of Deep Foundation Pit Construction on Adjacent Buildings. Fujian Constr. Technol. 2001, 4–5+15. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, F.; Xie, X. Analysis of the Impact of Subway Foundation Pit Enclosure Structure Trench Construction on the Settlement of Adjacent Buildings and Monitoring Data. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2014, 33, 2901–2907. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, H. Research on the Surface Settlement Law of Shallow Buried Tunneling Method in Shenzhen’s Water-Rich Weak Strata. Master’s Thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, C.; Zhang, D.; Han, K.; Wang, J. Study on Engineering Properties and Settlement Characteristics of Water-Rich Weak Strata in Shenzhen Metro after Excavation. Mod. Tunneling Technol. 2014, 51, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, J.; Cui, Y.; Shao, J. Three-Dimensional Finite Element Simulation of Groundwater and Ground Settlement in Jining City. J. Chang. Univ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 30, 376–381. [Google Scholar]
- Ran, Q.; Gu, X. Ground Settlement Calculation Model of Fluid-Solid Coupling Considering Rheological Characteristics. Chin. J. Geol. Disaster Prev. 1997, 9, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, W. Research on Surface Settlement and Deformation Control Technology Caused by Shallow Buried Tunneling Construction in Water-Rich Weak Strata of Shenzhen Metro. Master’s Thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lei, G.; Han, F.; Xu, L. Analysis of Surface Settlement and Control Measures of Shield Tunnel in Water-Rich Gravelly Sand Layer. J. Jilin Jianzhu Univ. 2016, 33, 39–42+47. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, X. Experimental Study on Settlement Characteristics of Recently Deposited Soil Foundation Under Water Level Fluctuation. Master’s Thesis, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Z.; Wu, J.; Zhao, Y.; Li, B.; Du, J.; Tan, C. Finite Element Simulation and Monitoring Study on the Impact of Subway Deep Foundation Pit Excavation on Adjacent Buildings. J. Build. Sci. Eng. 2016, 33, 121–126. [Google Scholar]
- GB 50330—2013; Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China. Technical Code for Building Slope Engineering. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2014.
- Liu, C. Research on the Impact of Deep Foundation Pit Excavation Support Methods in Water-Rich Areas on Adjacent Buildings. Master’s Thesis, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Attewell, P.B.; Yeates, J.; Selby, A.R. Soil Movement Induced by Tunneling and Their Effects on Pipelines and Structures; Chapman & Hall: Glasgow, UK, 1986. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content. |
Soil Layer | γ/ (kN/m3) | C/kPa | Φ/(°) | Porosity | Horizontal Permeability Coefficient kx,y/(m/s) | Vertical Permeability Coefficient kz/(m/s) | Poisson’s Ratio | Thickness/m | Es /kPa |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Silt ① | 18.7 | 11 | 26.5 | 0.875 | 2.4 × 10−4 | 2.18 × 10−4 | 0.3 | 3 | 11,400 |
Silt ② | 19.3 | 10.5 | 26 | 0.755 | 2.4 × 10−4 | 2.18 × 10−4 | 0.3 | 12 | 11,750 |
Silt ③ | 18.9 | 115 | 27 | 0.828 | 8.1 × 10−5 | 7.48 × 10−5 | 0.3 | 3.3 | 11,030 |
Silty Clay | 18.4 | 16.5 | 12 | 0.959 | 3.1 × 10−5 | 8.7 × 10−6 | 0.32 | 9.7 | 3710 |
Clay | 17.8 | 18 | 15 | 1.163 | 8.6 × 10−5 | 88 × 10−5 | 0.33 | 22 | 4100 |
Model | Slope Ratio | Model Dimensions | Foundation Pit Depth (m) | Distance Between Foundation Pit and Building (m) |
---|---|---|---|---|
① | 1:1.25 | 195 m × 50 m × 50 m | 15 | 23.25 |
② | 1:1.5 | 195 m × 50 m × 50 m | 15 | 19.5 |
③ | 1:2 | 195 m × 50 m × 50 m | 15 | 12 |
Model | Soil Layer | γ/(kN/m3) | C/kPa | Φ/(°) | Porosity | Poisson’s Ratio | Es/kPa |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model ① | Silt ① | 18.7 | 11 | 26.5 | 0.875 | 0.3 | 11,400 |
Model ② | Silt ② | 19.3 | 10.5 | 26 | 0.755 | 0.3 | 11,750 |
Model ③ | Silt ③ | 18.9 | 115 | 27 | 0.828 | 0.3 | 11,030 |
Model ④ | Silty Clay | 18.4 | 16.5 | 12 | 0.959 | 0.32 | 3710 |
Model ⑤ | Clay | 17.8 | 18 | 15 | 1.163 | 0.33 | 4100 |
Horizontal | Factors | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A: Slope Ratio | B: Depth /m | C: Cohesion /kPa | D: Internal Friction Angle/° | E: Compression Modulus/MPa | F: Groundwater Level | |
1 | 1:1 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 2.5 | None |
2 | 1:1.25 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 5 | −1 |
3 | 1:1.5 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 10 | −2 |
4 | 1:2 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 20 | −3 |
5 | 1:3 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 40 | −4 |
Experimental Groups | Factors | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | E | F | |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
8 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 |
9 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
10 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
11 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 |
12 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
13 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
14 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
15 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
16 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 |
17 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
18 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 |
19 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
20 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
21 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
22 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
23 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
24 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
25 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Experimental Groups | Stability Coefficient FS | Settlement Values/mm | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 m | 5 m | 10 m | 20 m | 30 m | 40 m | 50 m | 60 m | ||
1 | 1.40 | 55.35 | 36.03 | 25.02 | 11.34 | 3.90 | 0.07 | −2.30 | −3.57 |
2 | 1.11 | −20.78 | −28.95 | −29.63 | −32.65 | −33.95 | −33.48 | −32.26 | −30.76 |
3 | 1.10 | −18.31 | −25.56 | −27.64 | −30.05 | −31.15 | −31.16 | −30.51 | −29.44 |
4 | 1.13 | −8.90 | −16.02 | −19.87 | −23.42 | −24.53 | −24.66 | −24.16 | −23.30 |
5 | 5.80 | −3.44 | −8.15 | −11.10 | −14.40 | −15.65 | −16.04 | −15.93 | −15.54 |
6 | 2.30 | 6.15 | 3.03 | 1.40 | −0.54 | −1.51 | −2.08 | −2.38 | −2.50 |
7 | 2.20 | 6.01 | 3.72 | 2.45 | 0.95 | 0.18 | −0.27 | −0.52 | −0.65 |
8 | 1.61 | −119.60 | −182.67 | −214.97 | −249.76 | −261.53 | −264.80 | −263.58 | −261.78 |
9 | 0.80 | −120 | −200.00 | −220.00 | −250.00 | −265.00 | −270.00 | −265.00 | −265.00 |
10 | 0.80 | −120 | −200.00 | −220.00 | −250.00 | −265.00 | −270.00 | −265.00 | −265.00 |
11 | 3.43 | −56.54 | −60.44 | −60.11 | −56.37 | −51.48 | −46.67 | −42.27 | −38.48 |
12 | 5.90 | 4.99 | 0.39 | −2.32 | −5.22 | −6.42 | −6.76 | −6.67 | −6.39 |
13 | 1.74 | 11.47 | 7.45 | 4.86 | 1.80 | 0.17 | −0.69 | −1.16 | −1.40 |
14 | 1.15 | −7.05 | −7.54 | −7.52 | −7.02 | −6.31 | −5.56 | −4.86 | −4.25 |
15 | 1.50 | −75.23 | −92.96 | −99.04 | −99.85 | −92.94 | −83.46 | −73.98 | −65.46 |
16 | 3.10 | −3.21 | −3.58 | −3.61 | −3.39 | −3.03 | −2.68 | −2.37 | −2.09 |
17 | 2.20 | 28.90 | 2.05 | −14.46 | −32.31 | −41.43 | −44.69 | −45.50 | −44.71 |
18 | 1.20 | 24.93 | 5.58 | −5.35 | −18.35 | −24.62 | −27.30 | −28.30 | −28.27 |
19 | 2.00 | 26.16 | 15.42 | 9.46 | 2.27 | −1.38 | −3.08 | −4.04 | −4.50 |
20 | 0.80 | −120 | −200.00 | −220.00 | −250.00 | −265.00 | −270.00 | −265.00 | −265.00 |
21 | 4.60 | −38.95 | −37.79 | −35.24 | −30.33 | −25.58 | −21.77 | −18.48 | −15.76 |
22 | 1.83 | −17.70 | −19.70 | −20.34 | −19.88 | −18.67 | −17.29 | −15.78 | −14.50 |
23 | 0.80 | −120 | −200.00 | −220.00 | −250.00 | −265.00 | −270.00 | −265.00 | −265.00 |
24 | 1.03 | −74.09 | −84.86 | −85.35 | −86.53 | −85.41 | −81.42 | −76.02 | −70.43 |
25 | 5.80 | 40.20 | 23.22 | 13.28 | 1.63 | −4.44 | −7.05 | −8.41 | −8.88 |
Factors | A: Slope Ratio | B: Depth /m | C: Cohesion /kPa | D: Internal Friction Angle/° | E: Compression Modulus/MPa | F: Groundwater Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
K1j | 10.538 | 14.8303 | 6.3758 | 9.7004 | 7.7473 | 13.1254 |
K2j | 7.7129 | 13.2313 | 7.7098 | 7.7632 | 12.3321 | 9.2723 |
K3j | 13.7035 | 6.4379 | 8.5567 | 12.5504 | 14.4035 | 8.3287 |
K4j | 9.301 | 6.1126 | 17.5444 | 10.6383 | 7.7817 | 8.3567 |
K5j | 14.0598 | 14.7031 | 15.1285 | 14.6629 | 13.0506 | 16.2321 |
Rj | 6.3469 | 8.7177 | 11.1686 | 6.8997 | 6.6562 | 7.9034 |
Sensitivity Ranking | 6 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
Factors | A: Slope Ratio | B: Depth /m | C: Cohesion /kPa | D: Internal Friction Angle/° | E: Compression Modulus/MPa | F: Groundwater Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
K1j | 3.92 | −37.2 | −64.47 | −299.66 | −184.67 | 139.19 |
K2j | −347.44 | 1.42 | −183.7 | −206.61 | −132.19 | −306.38 |
K3j | −122.36 | −221.51 | −262.93 | 49.89 | −146.11 | −234.45 |
K4j | −43.22 | −183.88 | −86.52 | −92.14 | −128.98 | −276.54 |
K5j | −210.54 | −278.47 | −122.02 | −171.12 | −127.69 | −41.46 |
Rj | 351.36 | 279.89 | 198.46 | 349.55 | 56.98 | 445.57 |
Sensitivity Ranking | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
Source of Error | Sum of Squares for Factor Deviations | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | F | Level of Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 6.1113 | 4 | 1.52 | 40.74 | Significant |
B | 15.6085 | 4 | 3.902 | 104.06 | Significant |
C | 19.6064 | 4 | 4.902 | 130.71 | Significant |
D | 5.6195 | 4 | 1.405 | 37.463 | Significant |
E | 7.6962 | 4 | 1.924 | 51.308 | Significant |
F | 9.7960 | 4 | 2.449 | 65.307 | Significant |
Error | 0.1500 | 4 | 0.038 | ||
Total Variation | 64.5879 | 24 |
Source of Error | Sum of Squares for Factor Deviations | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | F | Level of Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 15,664.1207 | 4 | 3916.030 | 12.743 | Significant |
B | 11,646.7172 | 4 | 2911.679 | 9.475 | Significant |
C | 5166.500136 | 4 | 1291.625 | 4.203 | Not Significant |
D | 13,833.66158 | 4 | 3458.415 | 11.254 | Significant |
E | 457.913536 | 4 | 114.478 | 0.373 | Not Significant |
F | 28,565.26406 | 4 | 7141.316 | 23.238 | Significant |
Error | 1229.2300 | 4 | 307.308 | ||
Total Variation | 76,563.4072 | 24 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, Y.; Cao, M.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, L.; Abi, E. Settlement Behavior Analysis of Adjacent Existing Buildings Induced by Foundation Pit Construction in River Basin. Buildings 2025, 15, 1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15121991
Zhao Y, Cao M, Guo Z, Zhang L, Abi E. Settlement Behavior Analysis of Adjacent Existing Buildings Induced by Foundation Pit Construction in River Basin. Buildings. 2025; 15(12):1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15121991
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Yanlu, Mingrui Cao, Zhigang Guo, Lifeng Zhang, and Erdi Abi. 2025. "Settlement Behavior Analysis of Adjacent Existing Buildings Induced by Foundation Pit Construction in River Basin" Buildings 15, no. 12: 1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15121991
APA StyleZhao, Y., Cao, M., Guo, Z., Zhang, L., & Abi, E. (2025). Settlement Behavior Analysis of Adjacent Existing Buildings Induced by Foundation Pit Construction in River Basin. Buildings, 15(12), 1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15121991