Methodology for assessing geotechnical risks of urban development under wartime impacts and territorial recovery
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33271/crpnmu/86.286Keywords:
geotechnical risk; urban development; military impact; soil mass; stress-strain state; settlement; deformation; stability; soil-foundation-structure interaction; numerical modeling; geotechnical moni-toringAbstract
Purpose. Development of a scientific and methodological approach to the comprehensive assessment of geotechnical risks in urban development areas affected by military and related technogenic impacts, taking into account the transformation of the soil mass condition and the interaction within the “soil mass–foundation–structure” system.
The methods. Systematic and comparative analyses of current approaches to geotechnical risk assessment, soil–foundation–structure interaction, and changes in the state of the soil mass under military and anthropogenic impacts were performed. Structural-logical and conceptual modelling of the sequential transformation of territorial conditions, expert ranking of risk factors, and development of an algorithm for their integrated assessment were applied, incorporating site investigations, stress-strain state analysis, and geotechnical monitoring.
Findings. A geotechnical risk assessment algorithm was developed that integrates analysis of the territory’s transformation history, comprehensive site investigations, development of an updated geotechnical model, stress-strain state assessment, identification of potential instability mechanisms, evaluation of impacts on existing structures, and selection of engineering mitigation measures. Future research should focus on numerical modelling of the sequential transformation of the soil mass under military and technogenic impacts.
The originality. A correlation was established between ground conditions, structural vulnerability, the intensity of hazardous processes, and the level of geotechnical risk. Based on this relationship, an integrated risk assessment model and an implementation algorithm incorporating feedback between monitoring data and the computational geotechnical model were developed.
Practical implementation. The proposed approach can be applied to geotechnical site investigations, reconstruction projects, and new construction in areas affected by military impacts. Its application enables the identification of the most critical geotechnical hazards, justification of additional site investigation requirements, selection of appropriate computational models and monitoring parameters, and supports engineering decision-making for urban recovery and the improvement of building and infrastructure safety.
References
1. World Bank, Government of Ukraine, European Commission, United Nations. Ukraine – Fourth Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA4): February 2022 – December 2024. Washington, DC: World Bank, (2025). https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099022025114040022
2. Khrapatova, I., Strizhelchik, G., Shokarev, V., Liapin, O., & Bondarenko, O. (2025). Geotechnical risks in the reconstruction of buildings and structures affected by explosions. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1499(1), 12019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1499/1/012019
3. Bogusz, W., Caplane, C., Hard, D. (Ed.) et al. (2024). Implementation of Design during Execution & Service Life: Guidelines for the application of the second generation of Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https:// doi.org/10.2760/8383117
4. Estaire, J., Muralha, J., Segalini, A., Johansson, E., Nuijten, G., & Heintz, R. (2023). Rock engineering design in tomorrow's geotechnical toolbox: Eurocode 7 – Ground properties (EN 1997-2:2024). Geomechanics and Tunnelling, 16(5), 510–523. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/geot.202300023
5. Литвин О. (2024). Оцінка взаємодії будівлі з основою методом скінченних елементів із використанням даних компресійних випробувань ґрунтів. Основи і фундаменти, 49, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.32347/0475-1132.49.2024.69-76
6. Lei, Z., Wu, B., Wu, S., Nie, Y., Cheng, S., & Zhang, C. (2022). A material point-finite element (MPM-FEM) model for simulating three-dimensional soil-structure interactions with the hybrid contact method. Computers and Geotechnics, 152, 105009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105009
7. Xiong, H., Qiu, Y., Shi, X., Wang, X., & Chen, X. (2024). Arching development above active trapdoor: insight from multi-scale analysis using FEM–SPH. Acta Geotechnica https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02148-0
8. Xu, J., Yu, Z., Li, Y., & Ni, J. (2026). Effects of foundation types on structural response to tunnelling in sand: a numerical investigation. Computers and Geotechnics, 190, 107723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2025.107723
9. Patrício, J. D., Gusmão, A. D., Ferreira, S. R. M., Silva, F. A. N., Kafshgarkolaei, H. J., Azevedo, A. C., & Delgado, J. M. P. Q. (2024). Settlement Analysis of Concrete-Walled Buildings Using Soil–Structure Interactions and Finite Element Modeling. Buildings, 14(3), 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030746
10. Freisinger, J., Radišić, M., Taddei, F., & Müller, G. (2022). Dynamic response of three-dimensional rigid and flexible foundations on layered soils with local inhomogeneities. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 153, 107007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107007
11. Ручківський В. (2024). Дослідження впливу нового будівництва на напружено-деформований стан ґрунтової основи фундаментів існуючої забудови. Основи і фундамен-ти, 49, 62–68. https://doi.org/10.32347/0475-1132.49.2024.62-68
12. Mohamed G. I. Shaaban, Mamdouh A. Kenawi, Abdel-Aziz A. Senoon & Mostafa A. Abd El-Naiem. (2023). Effects of excavation and construction sequence on behavior of existing pile groups. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 8, Article 223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01193-8
13. Bahuguna, A., & Firoj, M. (2022). Numerical simulation of seismic response of Slope–Foundation–Structure interaction for mid–rise RC buildings at various locations. Structures, 44, 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.08.011
14. Berchun, Y., & Kaliukh, I. (2025). Application of geodetic methods to refine boundary conditions in digital twins of war-damaged multi-story buildings. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2025.003951
15. Bozkurt, S., & Akbas, S.O. (2023). Finite element-based geotechnical risk analysis for anchor-supported deep excavations. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 16, Article 470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-023-11463-5
16. Amendola, C., & Pitilakis, D. (2022). Urban scale risk assessment including SSI and site amplification. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 21(4), 1821–1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01575-w
17. Hryhorovskyi, P., Osadcha, I., Jurelionis, A., Basanskyi, V., & Hryhorovskyi, A. (2022). A BIM-Based Method for Structural Stability Assessment and Emergency Repairs of Large-Panel Buildings Damaged by Military Actions and Explosions: Evidence from Ukraine. Buildings, 12(11), 1817. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111817
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to deposit the final published version of their article, or the Author's Accepted Manuscript (AAM), in institutional or subject-specific open-access repositories (including the university's own institutional repository, CORE, Zenodo, or Figshare), ensuring maximum visibility, accessibility, and impact of the publication.
