OSCAR Object Susceptibility, Coupling and Response Assessment

Abstract

Deep excavations carried out in dense urban and infrastructure environments may affect adjacent objects through retaining-wall movements, vertical and horizontal ground displacements, differential settlement, local deformation concentration, vibration exposure and measurable changes in the geometry or technical condition of existing structures. In engineering assessment, the response of a neighbouring object is influenced not only by the magnitude of predicted or observed ground movements, but also by object susceptibility, settlement-trough morphology, object-domain exposure, object–trough coupling and measurement-based response recorded during subsequent project stages. This paper presents OSCAR — Object Susceptibility, Coupling and Response Assessment, the object-side assessment module developed within the integrated IAS-DX framework. OSCAR consolidates and reorganises the earlier MKPO-GW/WPO and WPO-AON(t) methodological line under a unified English naming standard. The earlier Polish acronyms are retained only as methodological sources and historical development stages of the current OSCAR module. The method preserves the original multi-criteria susceptibility structure based on ground and excavation context, structural characteristics, foundation system, technical condition and deformation-demand interpretation. This baseline structure is expressed through the G–K–P–S–U logic, while the displacement-related component is extended into UON+, an object-coupled response parameter that integrates deformation demand, SETTLE morphology, object–trough coupling, dynamic response and scan-based geometry evidence. The methodological structure of OSCAR is based on connected interpretation layers. The first layer preserves the baseline susceptibility assessment expressed through the G–K–P–S–U parameter structure. The second layer is COT — object–trough coupling, derived from the earlier WSON-GW concept, and used to evaluate how the settlement field intersects the object domain, effective object length, sensitive structural direction and local deformation exposure. The third layer is IDYN, which introduces object-side dynamic-response parameters such as dominant frequency, vibration velocity, acceleration, duration, event repetition and vibration direction. The fourth layer is ISCAN, which introduces scan-based geometry-response parameters such as three-dimensional displacement, tilt, surface residuals, local deformation concentration, crack development and scan-data quality. These components are integrated within UON+, the extended object-coupled response parameter. The final OSCAR result is expressed through IOSCAR, an object-side susceptibility and response index assigning the assessed object to class A–D, together with reliability level and dominant response-driver notation. Within the expanded IAS-DX architecture, OSCAR receives the terrain-side demand from SETTLE, evaluates object susceptibility, coupling and response, and provides the object-side response input for MATCH, which selects the mechanism-matched technical control mode. The integrated methodological relationship is: IAS-DX = DOCC + SETTLE + OSCAR + MATCH References and Methodological Background [1] Florczak, M. (2026). MKPO-GW / WPO framework. Earlier multi-criteria object susceptibility concept incorporated into OSCAR. Conceptual methodological preprint. [2] Florczak, M. (2026). WPO-AON(t). Earlier operational object–trough susceptibility update concept incorporated into OSCAR. Conceptual methodological preprint. [3] Florczak, M. (2026). SETTLE: Settlement Effects, Trough Topology and Local Evolution Assessment within IAS-DX. Canonical methodological version. [4] 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. [5] Boscardin, M. D., & Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(1), 1–21. [6] 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, 611–654. [7] 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, 439–470. [8] 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. [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, 225–290. [10] 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, 713–718. [11] Kotlicki, W., Łukasik, S., Godlewski, T., & Bogusz, W. (2020). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Wytyczne. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej. [12] Wysokiński, L., & Kotlicki, W. (2002). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Instrukcja ITB nr 376/2002. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej. [13] Phoon, K.-K., & Kulhawy, F. H. (1999). Characterization of geotechnical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(4), 612–624. [14] Fenton, G. A., & Griffiths, D. V. (2008). Risk Assessment in Geotechnical Engineering. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [15] ISO 13822:2010. Bases for design of structures — Assessment of existing structures. International Organization for Standardization. [16] PN-EN 1997-1:2008. Eurokod 7: Projektowanie geotechniczne — Część 1: Zasady ogólne. [17] PN-EN 1997-2:2009. Eurokod 7: Projektowanie geotechniczne — Część 2: Rozpoznanie i badanie podłoża gruntowego. [18] ISO 4866:2010. Mechanical vibration and shock — Vibration of fixed structures — Guidelines for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on structures. International Organization for Standardization. [19] DIN 4150-3:2016-12. Vibrations in buildings — Part 3: Effects on structures. Deutsches Institut für Normung. [20] ISO 17123-9:2018. Optics and optical instruments — Field procedures for testing geodetic and surveying instruments — Part 9: Terrestrial laser scanners. International Organization for Standardization. [21] ASTM E2807. Standard Specification for 3D Imaging Data Exchange, Version 1.0. ASTM International. [22] Huber, D. (2011). The ASTM E57 file format for 3D imaging data exchange. Proceedings of SPIE, 7864. [23] Besl, P. J., & McKay, N. D. (1992). A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(2), 239–256. [24] Lague, D., Brodu, N., & Leroux, J. (2013). Accurate 3D comparison of complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: Application to the Rangitikei canyon, New Zealand. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 82, 10–26.