IAS-DX Integrated Assessment System for Deep Excavations

Abstract

IAS-DX — Integrated Assessment System for Deep Excavation Impact on Adjacent Objects is the final integrated methodological framework combining four authorial modules: DOCC, SETTLE, OSCAR and MATCH. The system consolidates and reorganises the earlier ZSO-GW / ZSO-GW 2.0 development line under a unified English naming standard. The previous ZSO-GW framework integrated object documentation, settlement-trough interpretation, object susceptibility assessment and technical control qualification. In the current IAS-DX architecture, these functions are reorganised into a clearer modular sequence: IAS-DX = DOCC + SETTLE + OSCAR + MATCH DOCC provides the documentation and object-context data basis.SETTLE evaluates terrain-side settlement effects, trough topology, deformation intensity, morphology, local anomalies, dynamic influence and scan-based geometry evidence.OSCAR evaluates object susceptibility, object–trough coupling, object response, dynamic response and scan-based geometry response.MATCH selects the mechanism-matched technical control state for the assessed object. IAS-DX is designed to organise the assessment of adjacent objects affected by deep excavation works through a traceable sequence of documentation, terrain-side interpretation, object-side response assessment and mechanism-matched control. The system combines data completeness, settlement-trough morphology, object-domain exposure, susceptibility class, dominant response drivers, dynamic influence, scan-confirmed geometry evidence, reliability and final control notation. The integrated workflow is expressed as: DOCC → SETTLE → OSCAR → MATCH → IAS-DX The current version incorporates the diagnostic extensions IDYN and ISCAN across the system. IDYN addresses dynamic and vibration-related influence, while ISCAN addresses scanning, 3D geometry, point-cloud evidence, tilt, deformation concentration, crack evidence and spatial geometry change. The system also includes reliability notation REL, dominant driver notation and feedback from monitoring, observed condition change and updated documentation. The document defines the methodological lineage from ZSO-GW to IAS-DX, the role of each module, the integrated data path, the transfer of outputs between modules, the combined assessment logic, the final IAS-DX result notation, dynamic update logic, reporting structure and the final system definition. References and Methodological Background [1] Florczak, M. (2026). ZSO-GW Method: Integrated Assessment System for Evaluating the Impact of Deep Excavations on Adjacent Objects. Earlier integrated methodological framework. [2] Florczak, M. (2026). ZSO-GW 2.0: Integrated Object–Settlement-Trough Assessment System for Deep Excavation Impact on Adjacent Objects. Expanded integrated methodological framework. [3] Florczak, M. (2026). DOCC: Documentation and Object Context Compilation within IAS-DX. Canonical methodological version. [4] Florczak, M. (2026). SETTLE: Settlement Effects, Trough Topology and Local Evolution Assessment within IAS-DX. Canonical methodological version. [5] Florczak, M. (2026). OSCAR: Object Susceptibility, Coupling and Response Assessment within IAS-DX. Canonical methodological version. [6] Florczak, M. (2026). MATCH: Mechanism-Matched Technical Control within IAS-DX. Canonical methodological version. [7] Florczak, M. (2026). KIB-GW Method: A Building Identification Card Framework for Structures Adjacent to Deep Excavations. Conceptual methodological preprint. [8] Florczak, M. (2026). MDO-GW Method: An Object Documentation Module Framework for Structures Adjacent to Deep Excavations. Conceptual methodological preprint. [9] Florczak, M. (2026). MDO-GW 2.0 Method: Object Documentation and Predicted Condition Deterioration Module for Structures Adjacent to Deep Excavations. Extended methodological framework. [10] Florczak, M. (2026). WNO/STII — Settlement Trough Irregularity Indicator: A Supporting Tool for the Assessment of Deep Excavation Impact. Conceptual methodological preprint. [11] Florczak, M. (2026). WNO/STII 3.1 — Extended Methodological Framework for Settlement Trough Morphology, Reference-Width Sensitivity and Time-Variability Assessment. Expanded methodological preprint. [12] Florczak, M. (2026). MKPO-GW / WPO framework. Earlier multi-criteria object susceptibility concept incorporated into OSCAR. Conceptual methodological preprint. [13] Florczak, M. (2026). WPO-AON(t). Earlier operational object–trough susceptibility update concept incorporated into OSCAR. Conceptual methodological preprint. [14] Florczak, M. (2026). MTK-GW Method: A Sequential Control-Mode Qualification Procedure for Adjacent Structures in the Vicinity of Deep Excavations. Conceptual methodological preprint. [15] Florczak, M. (2026). MTK-GW 2.0: Mechanism-Matched Control for Settlement-Trough Effects Near Deep Excavations. Expanded methodological preprint. [16] Wysokiński, L., & Kotlicki, W. (2002). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Instrukcja ITB nr 376/2002. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej. [17] Kotlicki, W., Łukasik, S., Godlewski, T., & Bogusz, W. (2020). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Wytyczne. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej. [18] PN-EN 1997-1:2008. Eurokod 7: Projektowanie geotechniczne — Część 1: Zasady ogólne. [19] PN-EN 1997-2:2009. Eurokod 7: Projektowanie geotechniczne — Część 2: Rozpoznanie i badanie podłoża gruntowego. [20] PN-EN 1990:2004. Eurokod: Podstawy projektowania konstrukcji. [21] ISO 13822:2010. Bases for design of structures — Assessment of existing structures. International Organization for Standardization. [22] 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. [23] 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. [24] Boscardin, M. D., & Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(1), 1–21. [25] 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. [26] 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. [27] 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. [28] 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. [29] DIN 4150-3:2016-12. Vibrations in buildings — Part 3: Effects on structures. Deutsches Institut für Normung. [30] 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. [31] ASTM E2807. Standard Specification for 3D Imaging Data Exchange, Version 1.0. ASTM International. [32] Huber, D. (2011). The ASTM E57 file format for 3D imaging data exchange. Proceedings of SPIE, 7864. [33] 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. [34] 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. ZSO-GW This paper presents ZSO-GW 2.0, an integrated assessment system for evaluating the impact of deep excavations on adjacent objects. The system combines four complementary methodological layers: MDO-GW 2.0 for object documentation and predicted condition deterioration, WNO/STII 3.1 for settlement-trough morphology assessment, MKPO-GW/WPO-AON(t) for operational object susceptibility evaluation, and MTK-GW 2.0 for mechanism-matched control-mode qualification. The main development of ZSO-GW 2.0 is the transition from a general documentation-and-assessment framework to a coupled object–settlement trough interpretation system. The proposed approach links object location, effective footprint, settlement distribution, deformation mechanisms, susceptibility parameters and technical control modes into one coherent workflow. ZSO-GW 2.0 supports structured documentation, transparent interpretation, prioritisation of objects, monitoring planning and requalification during successive excavation stages. The system does not replace geotechnical design, structural verification, field monitoring or expert engineering judgement, but organises their results into a consistent object-level assessment framework. References [1] Kotlicki, W., Łukasik, S., Godlewski, T., Bogusz, W. (2020). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Wytyczne. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej. [2] Wysokiński, L., Kotlicki, W. (2002). Ochrona zabudowy w sąsiedztwie głębokich wykopów. Instrukcja ITB nr 376/2002. Warszawa: Instytut Techniki Budowlanej. [3] PN-EN 1997-1:2008. Eurokod 7: Projektowanie geotechniczne. Część 1: Zasady ogólne. [4] PN-EN 1997-2:2009. Eurokod 7: Projektowanie geotechniczne. Część 2: Rozpoznanie i badanie podłoża gruntowego. [5] PN-EN 1990:2004. Eurokod: Podstawy projektowania konstrukcji. [6] ISO 13822:2010. Bases for design of structures - Assessment of existing structures. [7] Burland, J. B., Wroth, C. P. (1974). Settlement o