To the Issue of Assessment of the Technical Condition of Underground Structures of Buildings

Academic Editor: Kenneth Imo-Imo Israel Eshiet Received: 21 January 2025 Revised: 26 February 2025 Accepted: 3 March 2025 Published: 5 March 2025 Citation: Semko, O.; Vynnykov, Y.; Filonenko, O.; Yurin, O.; Ilchenko, T.; Hranko, O.; Semko, V.; Salles, A.; Mateus, R.; Bragança, L.; et al. To the Issue of Assessment of the Technical Condition of Underground Structures of Buildings. Sustainability 2025,17, 2264. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su17052264 Copyright: © 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/). Article To the Issue of Assessment of the Technical Condition of Underground Structures of Buildings Oleksandr Semko 1, Yuriy Vynnykov 2, Olena Filonenko 1, Oleg Yurin 1, Tetiana Ilchenko 1, Olena Hranko 3, Volodymyr Semko 4, Adriana Salles 5, Ricardo Mateus 5, Luís Bragança 5, Roman Rabenseifer 6and Nataliia Mahas 1,6,* 1Educational and Research Institute of Architecture Civil Engineering and Land Management, National University “Yuri Kondratyuk Poltava Polytechnic”, Pershotravnevyj Ave. 24, 36011 Poltava, Ukraine; [email protected] (O.S.); [email protected] (O.F.); [email protected] (O.Y.); [email protected] (T.I.) 2Educational and Research Institute of Oil and Gas, National University “Yuri Kondratyuk Poltava Polytechnic”, Pershotravnevyj Ave. 24, 36011 Poltava, Ukraine; [email protected] 3Institute of Geology, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, Bogumiła Krygowskiego 12, 61-680 Poznan, Poland; [email protected] 4Department of Structural Engineering, Institute of Building Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Transport Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Piotrowo Street 5, 61-138 Poznan, Poland; volodymyr[email protected] 5Department of Civil Engineering, ARISE, ISISE, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães, Portugal; [email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (R.M.); [email protected] (L.B.) 6Department of Building Construction, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Radlinského 2766/11, 810 05 Bratislava, Slovakia; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: A survey and assessment of the technical condition of basement and semibasement structures in public buildings aged 60 to 130 years were conducted to evaluate their suitability for use as basic shelters. Based on the survey results, the most adverse impacts were identified, including changes in groundwater levels, improper building operation, and the characteristic damages to underground structural elements. Structural solutions were proposed to eliminate the consequences of these damages. The reviewed cases indicate that the vertical and horizontal waterproofing systems used during construction cannot perform their function throughout the building’s entire life cycle. When designing new buildings, waterproof materials should be used for the enclosing structures of underground premises. While this may have a higher initial cost than membrane or coating waterproofing, considering life-cycle costs, it can provide a positive economic effect and improve the quality and comfort of the indoor environment. Keywords: technical condition assessment; damage; waterproofing; reinforcement corrosion; loess soil; flooding; settlement 1. Introduction The analysis of the building’s life cycle, cost, and impact on the environment from the beginning of construction, throughout operation, and during deconstruction is one of the key components of design and new construction. Life cycle assessment methods for existing buildings include ways to modernize, repair, or reconstruct buildings, which can extend the building’s life cycle. This, in turn, can reduce life cycle costs and environmental impact [ 1 ]. An alternative to building reconstruction and extending its life cycle is deconstruction (dismantling an existing building and constructing a new one using partially recycled materials) or demolition followed by new construction [ 2 ]. Even considering existing models Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052264 Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 2 of 19 for material reuse and construction waste management [ 3 , 4 ], the financial and energy costs of these approaches may be higher than those of building reconstruction [ 2 ]. Continuous monitoring of the technical condition of structures is crucial for safe operation, which is carried out visually and through non-destructive testing methods, allowing for decisions regarding further building operation, strengthening methods, and reconstruction [5–9]. Carrying out repair work and building reconstruction, which may include the reconfiguration of interior spaces, changes in functional purpose, and bringing the building’s structures and spatial planning solutions in line with existing regulatory requirements, is one of the ways to extend the building’s life cycle. The underground part of the building requires attention during design and construction [ 10 ] and during the building’s operation. A popular trend in modern urban planning, especially in densely populated areas, is the integrated use of underground space, such as constructing multi-level parking lots, retail and warehouse spaces, cafes, and other facilities. As can be seen from the daily chronicle of military conflicts and large-scale hostilities, especially in Ukraine nowadays, there is a great social need for numerous reliable and easily accessible underground shelters for civilians. The existing basement and semibasement premises were either not in use or were utilized as technical facilities. With the need to bring them into proper operational condition for potential use as basic shelters, many inspections were conducted on basement and semi-basement premises in public and residential buildings. Typical damages were identified, and a comprehensive analysis was carried out on the influencing factors affecting the “natural soil foundation–foundation– underground part of the building–above-ground structures”. As geotechnical practice shows, this area is also relevant for reconstructing buildings and structures. In addition to the social and economic advantages of underground construction, there are also purely geotechnical achievements, such as cutting through the upper layers, whose soils often have unique properties (subsidence, swelling, high organic content, anthropogenic origin, and significant compressibility). This makes it possible to choose more robust and less compressible soils as the bearing layer of the natural foundation base and, therefore, to sometimes refuse to use piles. However, the downside of building projects with a developed underground component is the need to (1) protect it from groundwater during construction and operation and (2) ensure that the absolute and relative settlements of the foundation of the surrounding buildings do not exceed their maximum regulatory values, which depend on the technical condition of the existing facilities. According to European [ 11 , 12 ] and national standards [ 13 , 14 ], the builder must ensure a sufficient level of reliability (dependability, maintainability, and durability) of the system: “natural soil foundation–foundation–underground part of the building–above-ground structures”. Therefore, for new constructions and reconstruction projects, standards limit the maximum settlement values of the foundations S u , the relative difference in these settlements (∆S/L)u, and the tilt of structures iu, among other factors. In addition to the aforementioned specific properties of soils, dangerous engineering and geological processes, such as area flooding, landslides, mechanical suffosion, karst, and artificial impacts, significantly complicate the system’s design. The following groups of causes of full or partial failure of the system are often identified [15–17]: 1. Errors in engineering and geological surveys (such as insufficient scope; incorrect evaluation of soil parameters, particularly with unique properties; incorrect or absent prediction of groundwater level changes; neglecting the possibility of temporary underground water formation; ignoring the history of the formation of the engineering– geological conditions of the site; and other factors); Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 3 of 19 2. Errors in designing this system (such as failure to account for soil property changes, incorrect selection of the system’s calculation scheme, deviations from norms, and other factors); 3. Failures of the system related to changes in the properties of the foundation and other components due to construction work (such as deficiencies in construction dewatering, prolonged cyclic wetting, drying, freezing of the upper bearing layer in open excavations, poor compaction of backfill soil, incorrect object conservation, and other factors); 4. System failures during operation (such as non-standard or unaccounted-for operational load, waterproofing and surface protection defects, and other factors). As practice shows, the greatest danger to underground structures in heavily urbanized areas is the long-term and seasonal flooding of territories [ 18 ]. In our view, an essential development for improving the reliability of calculations in geotechnical design is the recent proposal by a group of geotechnical engineers from the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom [ 19 ] to introduce probabilistic approaches in forecasting groundwater level changes, including extreme annual values, in the new edition of the Eurocode. The Ukrainian experience [ 20 – 22 ] and corresponding methods of comprehensive inspections of the condition of underground construction structures [ 23 ] are also helpful. Due to the urgent need to use basements and semi-basements as simple shelters, the results of such inspections provided recommendations for the further safe operation of these structures and the buildings as a whole. Each method of assessing the technical condition of underground structures based on the inspection results has its specifics, such as the following: • The condition of buildings before and after external influences from adjacent underground construction is considered [24]; • The so-called stability of structures and their components is assessed based on statistical and engineering studies, considering the parameters of soils and rocks, new underground structures, and others [25]; • In the “fuzzy logic model”, the input variables are the assessments of the technical condition of individual elements of the structure (underground structure, load-bearing walls, ceilings, roof, and other elements) and the technical condition of the structure as a whole [26]. Thus, none of these original approaches is universal. It is also advisable to monitor the technical condition of structures during construction and subsequent operation, i.e., to monitor the safety of underground structures by, for example, recording the “stress–deformation” ratio of the foundation soil during loading and unloading [27,28]. Attention is drawn to the new Chinese practice of creating a “comprehensive assessment of underground space resources” for individual cities (regions) based on the results of inspections of the system “foundation–foundation–underground part of the building–above-ground structures” evaluation of its technical condition and monitoring data [ 29 ]. The influence of microbial-induced carbonate precipitation treatment factors on the strength characteristics of loess soils is considered in [ 30 ]. The characteristics and methods of controlling the formation of cracks in underground tunnel structures are described in [ 31 ], analyzing the dependence of crack formation on the lining grade and the depth of the tunnel. The next step in solving the problem of reducing the risks of underground structure operation under potential flooding conditions is the creation of mathematical models of this process by Austrian and Ukrainian specialists [ 32 , 33 ]. For example, a model for predicting groundwater level changes in Kharkiv was developed, which considers essential water balance components (groundwater replenishment from atmospheric sources, addi- Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 4 of 19 tional replenishment from underground waters, evaporation, and water extraction from underground sources). There are also well-known examples of testing the modern “safe, optimized, and sustainable” design approach to the system: “soil foundation–foundation–underground part of the building–above-ground structures” [34]. The protection of the underground part of existing buildings from flooding often includes the following [ 35 – 37 ]: the installation of various drainage and water diversion systems, organization of open water drainage from sumps, elimination of drainage-free areas, regrading of surfaces away from buildings, restoration of waterproofing and drainage systems, creation of clay seals, and anti-filtration screens. Thus, based on the analysis of the current state of the issue, this work aims to systematize information about typical constructions and the materials of the buildings’ underground parts, the impacts they experience, and the damage caused by these impacts. 2. Methods The premises’ underground structures suffer damage during operation and require reinforcement. The deterioration of the operational characteristics of load-bearing and enclosing structures is often associated with the cessation of the premises’ operation (heating, ventilation, and so on) and the impact of external factors, including aggressive ones. The inspection of the condition of underground building structures, the assessment of their technical condition, the design of repairs and reinforcements, and the execution of urgent works to restore damaged objects are carried out by regulatory documents [ 13 , 23 ]. This study presents an analysis of the impacts on underground building structures, as well as an assessment of defects and damages based on the inspection results of five objects in the Poltava region. Recommendations for improving the operational condition of the structures are provided based on the current regulatory documents in Ukraine. The recommendations were developed as part of technical inspection reports and design documentation for repair work. According to the methodology for inspecting underground building structures and documenting the results, the classification features of the object’s damage category, the estimated degree of damage to the object as a whole, and general recommendations for further operation are determined. These recommendations include performing restoration work through routine repairs, major repairs, or urgent demolition of the object, if necessary. 3. Results The underground part of buildings and structures is subjected to a complex range of impacts considered during their design and operation. Distinguishing underground structures by their purpose can include foundation structures and structures that combine load-bearing and enclosing functions. Typical structures of basement premises and their characteristic damages include the following: • Concrete (prefabricated and cast in situ) load-bearing structures—non-sealed, exposed to aggressive influences, such as chemical corrosion of concrete (e.g., basements of industrial buildings, electrolysis, fertilizers, and other factors); • Reinforced concrete wall structures—corrosion of reinforcement in walls and ceilings, destruction of the protective concrete layer, leaks from above, tree roots, and condensation, among others; •Older structures—rubble or brick constructions with lime mortar—show destruction of the lime matrix, collapse of masonry, frost damage, vault destruction, and others; • Steel–brick ceilings—corrosion of metal beams, cracks in vaults, and falling ceiling elements, among others; Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 5 of 19 •Wooden structures—affected by rot, primarily in their bearing areas. The sites of the studied objects are located within the Poltava loess plateau, which consists of Quaternary loams and sandy loams. The thickness of the loess layer is 8.0–8.5 m , but when wet, there is no soil settlement from its weight. The upper layer of loess soils is typically composed of heavy silty clay loams, which are macroporous and, in a saturated state, range from stiff plastic to soft plastic. They have a porosity coefficient of e = 0.8–0.95 and the following geotechnical parameters in a saturated state: internal friction angle: φ = 17–20 ◦ , Cohesion: c = 18–24 kPa, and deformation modulus: E = 4–7 MPa. The lower layer of loess soils is generally composed of light silty clay loams, which are also macroporous and, in a saturated state, range from soft plastic to fluid. They have a porosity coefficient of e = 0.85–1.0 and the following geotechnical parameters in a saturated state: internal friction angle: φ = 17–24 ◦ , Cohesion: c = 10–15 kPa, and deformation modulus: E = 2.5–5 MPa. It is also worth noting that loess soils (loess) are typically silty clays and sandy loams with a characteristic property of collapsibility. This means that upon wetting, they undergo additional deformation—subsidence—beyond regular settlement, reducing their mechanical properties. Loess soils are relatively homogeneous, containing more than 50% silt particles ranging from 0.05 to 0.005 mm. They also have a significant amount of quickly and moderately soluble salts and many pores, cracks, and cavities of various sizes. In a low-moisture state, loess can maintain a nearly vertical slope but quickly disintegrates upon water exposure. When saturated, especially under dynamic loads, it acquires properties similar to quicksand. Loess is typically light yellow or light brown. In its dry state, it has a powdery texture to the touch. These characteristics allow geotechnical engineers to identify loess soil and incorporate preventive measures to reduce or eliminate subsidence effects in project designs. The mechanical properties of loess soil in its natural state and after wetting differ significantly. For example, the wetting of loess soils in the Poltava region to a water saturation coefficient of Sr = 0.9 leads, on average, to a 2.7–3 times reduction in the deformation modulus (E), decrease in the internal friction angle ( φ ) by 3–4 ◦ , and 2.5–3 times reduction in Cohesion (c). Unfavorable physical and geological processes at the sites include subsidence phenomena (soils of loess origin due to wetting from above—domestic leaks from water-carrying communications and atmospheric waters from drainage-free areas around buildings—and from below, due to the general rise in groundwater levels in cities, have practically entered a “degraded” state, and part of them has been classified as weak (very compressible) soils with a deformation modulus E < 5 MPa) and flooding of the area; the total thickness of the non-structural (anthropogenic) deposits is up to 2 m. The foundations of all the buildings were built by removing soil on a natural base consisting of degraded loess loams. The load-bearing layer is often composed of heavy, silty, stiff-plastic loam, with an underlying layer of light silty loam, from soft plastic to fluid plastic. It is also worth noting the significant impact on underground structures and their foundations from the fact that in urban areas, groundwater levels rise in almost all cities due to the ageing of water-carrying communications (older than 50 years) and the increase in uncontrolled leaks from them. Below, we will discuss in more detail the underground structures of buildings, their damages and defects, and the proposed methods of reinforcement and bringing them to an operational state based on the inspection of basement premises carried out to assess the possibility for the dual use of these premises, including as protective structures. Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 6 of 19 3.1. Shelter That Has Been Out of Operation The inspected premises were initially designed and constructed as shelters [ 21 ]. Given its specific location and purpose, it was also used as a shooting range. The structure has not been in use for over 20 years. The foundation slab and walls of the shelter are made of cast in situ reinforced concrete, and the ceiling is prefabricated reinforced concrete. The ceiling is covered with waterproofing consisting of 2–3 layers of fiberglass and topped with soil and grass. The primary defect of the shelter is water permeability. During inspection, the water level was between 20 and 30 mm, but the humidity plaster indicates that the water level was about 600 to 700 mm (Figure 1a). This level of flooding is attributed to both the failure of the external drainage system around the building and the water permeability of the prefabricated and monolithic reinforced concrete enclosing structures of the floor and walls. According to the provided design, the drainage system was installed as a ring drain 6–7 m below the ground surface, beneath the foundation slab. The drainage system consists of round asbestos-cement pipes with slits every 30 cm, laid in trays and covered with coarse and medium sand. The pipe slope is approximately i = 0.005. Wells are constructed at the corners of the shelter and along the middle of its long sides. Sustainability 2025, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20 due to the ageing of water-carrying communications (older than 50 years) and the increase in uncontrolled leaks from them. Below, we will discuss in more detail the underground structures of buildings, their damages and defects, and the proposed methods of reinforcement and bringing them to an operational state based on the inspection of basement premises carried out to assess the possibility for the dual use of these premises, including as protective structures. 3.1. Shelter That Has Been out of Operation The inspected premises were initially designed and constructed as shelters [21]. Given its specific location and purpose, it was also used as a shooting range. The structure has not been in use for over 20 years. The foundation slab and walls of the shelter are made of cast in situ reinforced concrete, and the ceiling is prefabricated reinforced concrete. The ceiling is covered with waterproofing consisting of 2–3 layers of fiberglass and topped with soil and grass. The primary defect of the shelter is water permeability. During inspection, the water level was between 20 and 30 mm, but the humidity plaster indicates that the water level was about 600 to 700 mm (Figure 1a). This level of flooding is attributed to both the failure of the external drainage system around the building and the water permeability of the prefabricated and monolithic reinforced concrete enclosing structures of the floor and walls. According to the provided design, the drainage system was installed as a ring drain 6–7 m below the ground surface, beneath the foundation slab. The drainage system consists of round asbestos-cement pipes with slits every 30 cm, laid in trays and covered with coarse and medium sand. The pipe slope is approximately i = 0.005. Wells are constructed at the corners of the shelter and along the middle of its long sides. The long-term semi-flooded condition of the basement has led to the following damages (Figure 1): destruction of the floor structures (such as rotting and others); corrosive wear of metal network structures—ventilation, heating, water supply, electricity, and sewage systems; corrosive damage to the working reinforcement of the prefabricated reinforced concrete ceiling panels (corrosion thickness 1–2 mm, bulges, damage to protective plaster, and efflorescence); accumulation of semi-rotted debris— remnants of furniture and equipment. (a) (b) Figure 1. Primary defects of the inspected basement shelter that has been out of operation: (a) damage to the finishing layer and erosion of the shelter’s wall and floor structures due to prolonged water exposure and saturation; (b) corrosion damage to the reinforcement of precast reinforced concrete roof panels, formation of corrosion-induced crack, deterioration of protective plaster, and efflorescence. Figure 1. Primary defects of the inspected basement shelter that has been out of operation: (a) damage to the finishing layer and erosion of the shelter’s wall and floor structures due to prolonged water exposure and saturation; (b) corrosion damage to the reinforcement of precast reinforced concrete roof panels, formation of corrosion-induced crack, deterioration of protective plaster, and efflorescence. The long-term semi-flooded condition of the basement has led to the following damages (Figure 1): destruction of the floor structures (such as rotting and others); corrosive wear of metal network structures—ventilation, heating, water supply, electricity, and sewage systems; corrosive damage to the working reinforcement of the prefabricated reinforced concrete ceiling panels (corrosion thickness 1–2 mm, bulges, damage to protective plaster, and efflorescence); accumulation of semi-rotted debris—remnants of furniture and equipment. The condition of the load-bearing building structures can be assessed as condition 3—unsuitable for normal operation, while the condition of all the networks is condition 4—emergency, destroyed. Considering that the damage to the basement occurred due to the cessation of use (suspension of dewatering, groundwater pumping in the 1990s, and heating), restoring the shelter requires not only one-time capital expenditures for repairs but also ongoing costs (for water pumping and heating) to maintain the premises’ operational state. Therefore, Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 7 of 19 when deciding to restore the basement’s properties, it is essential to also consider these ongoing maintenance costs. Thus, to restore the operation of the basement, the following measures have been recommended [21]: 1. Installation of low-voltage safe lighting (for wet conditions); 2. Cleaning up debris and remnants of the floor, corroded networks, and damaged plaster; 3. Restoration of water collection sumps; alternatively, installing 80 mm gravel fill and a new 60–80 mm reinforced concrete floor with water collection pits from which water should be pumped out and diverted outside the basement, preferably into a storm sewer; 4. Restoration of ventilation (both exhaust and supply). If the basement’s purpose changes, natural aeration can be arranged. This is the minimal cost option; implementing these works will allow the facility to be used immediately after completion (expenses—lighting, water pumping, and ventilation), which is essential for providing the population with the simplest shelters. Capital repairs are necessary for prolonged, comfortable basement use as a simple shelter and other purposes. In addition to measures 1–4 listed above, the following additional measures are recommended: 5. Restoration of drainage and external dewatering systems. 6. Roof repair of the basement: •Removal of soil fill; • Restoration of waterproofing (applying new waterproofing or asphalt concrete screed); •Installation of a 300 mm thick polystyrene concrete insulation, γo= 100–150 kg/m3; •Asphalt concrete screed with a thickness of δ= 60–80 mm; •Filling with clay and soil mixture with a 400–500 mm thickness. 7. Restoration of heating in the basement. 8. Restoration of water supply and sewage networks. 9. Restoration of interior finishing. 10. Restoration of furniture and furnishing of the premises. 3.2. Basement of the Historical Gymnasium Building in Poltava Region A historical gymnasium building, approximately 110 years old, was inspected in the Poltava region [ 22 ]. Over its lifetime, the building has been used as an educational facility and for military accommodation. The building has a U-shaped layout and is two stories high, with a functional basement under part of the structure and an attached single-story gymnasium. The building’s structural design is frameless, with longitudinal and transverse load-bearing walls. The walls are brick, with a thickness of 85 to 64 cm. The foundation and base of the building were examined through excavation pits. The foundations are made of brick, with 2.5–3.5 m depth. The subsoil consists of subsidence-prone soils. The blind area around the building is in poor condition and unfit for use (Figure 2a). The layout of the surrounding area contributes to the accumulation of atmospheric water and its localized infiltration into the foundation base, resulting in the formation of a waterlogged area. External engineering networks and wells are located around the building but are no longer used. Their poor technical condition has led to water accumulation in these areas. A mechanical suffusion of the soil was observed, causing subsidence of the asphalt blind area around the building. Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 8 of 19 Sustainability 2025, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20 The blind area around the building is in poor condition and unfit for use (Figure 2a). The layout of the surrounding area contributes to the accumulation of atmospheric water and its localized infiltration into the foundation base, resulting in the formation of a waterlogged area. External engineering networks and wells are located around the building but are no longer used. Their poor technical condition has led to water accumulation in these areas. A mechanical suffusion of the soil was observed, causing subsidence of the asphalt blind area around the building. Dampness was detected on the basement walls (Figure 2b). Frost-induced damage was recorded in areas where rain gutters were previously damaged and in the dampened plinth areas due to the water-logged sections around the building. Furthermore, neither the foundations nor the building itself is suited for subsidence-prone soil conditions (the foundations lack reinforcement, there are no monolithic reinforced concrete belts, the load-bearing walls are not reinforced, and other factors). To ensure the building’s continued safe operation, it is recommended that the old engineering networks within a 30 m radius of the building be inspected. Any damaged engineering networks should be dismantled, and the surrounding area should be improved. Vertical grading around the entire building, sloping away from the structure, should be performed, and a blind area at least 2 m wide with a clay barrier should be constructed. To restore the horizontal waterproofing layer of the load-bearing brick walls, it is recommended to inject hydrophobic solutions into the structure at the level of the firstfloor slab in a continuous strip, as detailed in [22]. (a) (b) Figure 2. Relevant defects of the inspected historical gymnasium building in the Poltava region: (a) the pavement around the building is in an unfit condition, and the site grading promotes the accumulation of atmospheric water, leading to its localized infiltration into the foundation base; (b) deterioration of the interior wall surfaces in the basement due to capillary moisture rise, resulting in plaster damage and efflorescence formation. Figure 2. Relevant defects of the inspected historical gymnasium building in the Poltava region: (a) the pavement around the building is in an unfit condition, and the site grading promotes the accumulation of atmospheric water, leading to its localized infiltration into the foundation base; (b) deterioration of the interior wall surfaces in the basement due to capillary moisture rise, resulting in plaster damage and efflorescence formation. Dampness was detected on the basement walls (Figure 2b). Frost-induced damage was recorded in areas where rain gutters were previously damaged and in the dampened plinth areas due to the water-logged sections around the building. Furthermore, neither the foundations nor the building itself is suited for subsidence-prone soil conditions (the foundations lack reinforcement, there are no monolithic reinforced concrete belts, the load-bearing walls are not reinforced, and other factors). To ensure the building’s continued safe operation, it is recommended that the old engineering networks within a 30 m radius of the building be inspected. Any damaged engineering networks should be dismantled, and the surrounding area should be improved. Vertical grading around the entire building, sloping away from the structure, should be performed, and a blind area at least 2 m wide with a clay barrier should be constructed. To restore the horizontal waterproofing layer of the load-bearing brick walls, it is recommended to inject hydrophobic solutions into the structure at the level of the first-floor slab in a continuous strip, as detailed in [22]. 3.3. The Basement of an Administrative Building in Poltava The basement serves as a simple shelter in an administrative building in Poltava. The building is historically from the late 19th century, originally constructed as a private estate. It is a two-story structure with a load-bearing wall system. The building’s dimensions are 23.55 × 16.65 m, with the highest roof point reaching +13.00 m. A basement is located under part of the building (Figure 3), and no groundwater was detected. Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 9 of 19 Sustainability 2025, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20 3.3. The Basement of an Administrative Building in Poltava The basement serves as a simple shelter in an administrative building in Poltava. The building is historically from the late 19th century, originally constructed as a private estate. It is a two-story structure with a load-bearing wall system. The building’s dimensions are 23.55 × 16.65 m, with the highest roof point reaching +13.00 m. A basement is located under part of the building (Figure 3), and no groundwater was detected. (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 3. Primary defects of the basement in the administrative building in Poltava: (a) deterioration of the interior wall surfaces in the basement, with efflorescence appearing on the walls; (b) corrosion damage to the basement ceiling structures, along with efflorescence on the wall surfaces; (c) destruction of the brick masonry of the basement walls; and (d) disruption of the air–moisture balance within the premises. Figure 3. Primary defects of the basement in the administrative building in Poltava: (a) deterioration of the interior wall surfaces in the basement, with efflorescence appearing on the walls; (b) corrosion damage to the basement ceiling structures, along with efflorescence on the wall surfaces; (c) destruction of the brick masonry of the basement walls; and (d) disruption of the air–moisture balance within the premises. The foundations of the load-bearing walls are strip-type and made of brick. The ceiling above the basement consists of cylindrical brick vaults supported by steel beams (I-beams Nos. 18-20), plastered internally with cement mortar. Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 16 of 19 • Damage or absence of a blind area around the building. Improper surface grading around a building typically results in localized water saturation of the underground structures, their soil base, and foundations. This can affect the structure itself, causing excessive moisture and damage. It may lead to uneven settlement of the foundations in certain soil types, resulting in cracks and other defects in the building’s load-bearing and enclosing structures. • Proximity of trees and shrubs to the building. Excessive watering of plants can lead to localized water saturation of foundation bases and backfill, while the root systems of trees may impact the structures. • Damage to water supply and sewage networks around the building results in localized water saturation of the foundations and structures. Worn-out networks in the soil often have ruptures and defects that cause either minor leaks or significant soil moisture, as well as mechanical soil erosion (suffusion). • Damage to water supply and sewage systems inside the building can cause localized water saturation of structures, ranging from small leaks to persistent water accumulation in basement areas, potentially leading to aggressive environmental effects. • The destruction of the building’s roof drainage system causes water saturation of walls and underground structures. • Condensation of moisture on underground structures occurs due to inadequate room ventilation, affecting the surfaces of these structures. • Operational impacts on structures include mechanical damage, unauthorized openings, exposure to aggressive environments, and more. • Additionally, damage during repair work, such as mistakenly removing fragments of load-bearing structures (walls), mistaking them for partitions, or excessively increasing the load on structures, foundations, and bases (e.g., during reconstruction), can harm load-bearing structures. •Defects that occurred during construction should also be considered. Analyzing the damage and defects in the underground parts of buildings, their foundations, and the causes and factors leading to the partial or complete failure of the system “natural soil base–foundation–underground part of the building–above-ground structures” allows for the selection of rational overall measures to bring the structures back to an operational state. This includes the mandatory restoration of vertical and horizontal waterproofing of the building’s walls and organizing proper ventilation and drying of the basement. If possible, groundwater lowering should be performed. Additionally, restoring the clay lock and blind area and maintaining water-bearing utilities in working condition are highly beneficial measures. Given the dual purpose of underground spaces, including use as protective shelters, insulating the foundation zone is also advisable when possible. The analysis of characteristic defects and damages, as well as their causes, can be taken into account when planning current and major repairs, reconstruction, and new construction, thereby improving the maintainability of underground building structures. Standard vertical and horizontal waterproofing solutions, such as films and mastics, are not maintainable. Once their sealing properties are lost, they lead to damage not only to the protected structures but also to other building elements. The application of waterimpermeable materials will help eliminate associated adverse effects and damages, such as high indoor humidity, salt deposits on enclosing structures, and corrosion of reinforcement in reinforced concrete elements that are not in direct contact with the soil but still suffer from corrosion due to high humidity in underground spaces. When designing new buildings, it is essential to incorporate water-impermeable materials for underground enclosure structures. While this may initially increase construction costs, considering the expenses over the entire life cycle, it will have a positive economic effect. Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 17 of 19 5. Conclusions Based on the assessment of the technical condition of underground building structures and foundations with a service life of 60–130 years, the most unfavorable factors affecting these structures have been identified. These factors include the rise in groundwater levels due to flooding caused by soil mass saturation from above (household leaks from water supply systems and atmospheric water from non-draining areas around buildings) and from below (general groundwater level rise in urban areas), improper building operation, such as uncontrolled leaks from water supply systems, unaddressed non-draining areas near building walls, damaged or absent pavement around foundations, closely planted trees, and lack of proper ventilation. The formation of non-draining areas around buildings and the destruction of pavement are consequences of the subsidence of water-saturated loess soils, which have effectively degraded, with some classified as highly compressible. These factors are primarily responsible for the corrosion of reinforcement in reinforced concrete structures, salt deposits on wall surfaces, frost-induced destruction of brick walls, and leaching of the lime matrix in brick masonry joints. Eliminating the consequences of such damages is possible but is a labor-intensive and financially costly procedure. The analyzed cases provide strong evidence that when designing new buildings, it is necessary to incorporate waterproof materials for the enclosing structures of underground spaces. Although this will initially increase construction costs, considering the expenses over the entire life cycle, it will yield a positive economic effect. Using standard vertical and horizontal waterproofing solutions in the shape of films and coatings is not repairable. Once their integrity is compromised, they lead to damage not only to the protected structures but also to other parts of the building. The application of waterproof materials will help eliminate associated adverse effects and damages, such as high indoor humidity, salt deposits on enclosing structures, and the corrosion of reinforcement in reinforced concrete elements. Even without direct contact with the soil, these elements suffer from corrosion due to excessive moisture in underground spaces. Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, O.S., Y.V., O.F., L.B. and V.S.; investigation, and resources, O.Y., T.I., O.H., A.S., R.M., N.M. and R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, O.S., Y.V., O.F., N.M. and V.S.; writing—review and editing, N.M., V.S. and R.R.; visualization, O.S., Y.V., O.F., O.Y. and N.M.; supervision, O.S. and Y.V.; project administration, O.S., R.R., A.S. and N.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The APC was partly funded by the Slovak Science Grant Agency within the project no. VEGA 1/0322/23 and partly by the Slovak Government grant no. 09I03-03-V01-00036. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: Luís Bragança, Ricardo Mateus, Adriana Salles, Volodymyr Semko, and Nataliia Mahas would like to thank the European Union for funding and COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) for supporting the COST Action CircularB CA21103 www.circularb. eu (accessed on 2 March 2025). Volodymyr Semko was supported by the Poznan University of Technology, grant number 0412/SBAD/0081. Roman Rabenseifer was supported by the Slovak National Research grant VEGA 1/0322/23 of the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences. Nataliia Mahas was funded by the EU NextGenerationEU through the Recovery and Resilience Plan for Slovakia under project No. 09I03-03-V01-00036. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 18 of 19 References 1. Caruso, M.; Pinho, R.; Bianchi, F.; Cavalieri, F.; Lemmo, M.T. A Life Cycle Framework for the Identification of Optimal Building Renovation Strategies Considering Economic and Environmental Impacts. Sustainability 2020,12, 10221. [CrossRef] 2. Wu, B.; Maalek, R. Renovation or Redevelopment: The Case of Smart Decision-Support in Aging Buildings. Smart Cities 2023, 6, 1922–1936. [CrossRef] 3. Freitas, M.C.D.; Tavares, S.F.; Bragança, L.; Barbosa, S. The Rehabilitation of Buildings from the Perspective of Circular Economy Principles. In Creating a Roadmap Towards Circularity in the Built Environment; Bragança, L., Cvetkovska, M., Askar, R., Ungureanu, V., Eds.; Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [CrossRef] 4. Borg, R.P. Standards for Recycling Oriented Deconstruction and Classification of Waste. In Creating a Roadmap Towards Circularity in the Built Environment; Bragança, L., Cvetkovska, M., Askar, R., Ungureanu, V., Eds.; Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [CrossRef] 5. Tworzewski, P.; Raczkiewicz, W.; Czapik, P.; Tworzewska, J. Diagnostics of Concrete and Steel in Elements of an Historic Reinforced Concrete Structure. Materials 2021,14, 306. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Kosior-Kazberuk, M.; Krentowski, J.R.; Wardach, M. Diagnostics of the RC Roofing Structure of the 100-Year-Old Municipal Theatre Facility. Materials 2022,15, 7438. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 7. Terlikowski, W. Problems and Technical Issues in the Diagnosis, Conservation, and Rehabilitation of Structures of Historical Wooden Buildings with a Focus on Wooden Historic Buildings in Poland. Sustainability 2023,15, 510. [CrossRef] 8. Grzmil, W.; Zapała-Sławeta, J.; Juru´s, J. Analysis of the Technical Condition of a Late 19th Century Public Building in Łód´z. Materials 2023,16, 1983. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Wardach, M.; Krentowski, J.R. Diagnostics of Large-Panel Buildings—An Attempt to Reduce the Number of Destructive Tests. Materials 2024,17, 18. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 10. Studzi´nski, R.; ´ Scigałło, J.; Ratajczak, M.; Ciesielczyk, K. Impact of Heterogeneous Soil Conditions on the Life Cycle Assessment of a Multi-Storey Reinforced Concrete Structure. Sustainability 2024,16, 6771. [CrossRef] 11. EN 1997-1:2004; Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design—Part 1: General Rules. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2004. 12. EN 1997-2:2004; Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design. Ground Investigation and Testing. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. 13. DSTU B V.3.1-2:2016; Repair And Reinforcement Bearing and Enclosing Building Structures and Bases of Buildings and Constructions. Minregion of Ukraine: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2016. (In Ukrainian) 14. DBN B.2.2-5:2023; Protective Shelters. Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2023. (In Ukrainian) 15. Briaud, J.-L. Geotechnical Engineering: Unsaturated and Saturated Soils; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [CrossRef] 16. Das, B.M. Shallow Foundations: Bearing Capacity and Settlement, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017. [CrossRef] 17. Cheng, Y.M.; Law, C.W.; Liu, L. Analysis, Design and Construction of Foundations, 1st ed.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2021. [CrossRef] 18. Wilk, K. Hazards for buildings and structures caused by flood conditions. E3S Web Conf. 2018,45, 00101. [CrossRef] 19. Schweckendiek, T.; Estaire, J.; Bond, A.J. Groundwater statistics in the second-generation Eurocode 7. In Geotechnical Engineering Challenges to Meet Current and Emerging Needs of Society, 1st ed.; Guerra, N., Matos Fernandes, M., Ferreira, C., Gomes Correia, A., Pinto, A., Sêco Pinto, P., Eds.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2024; pp. 1958–1963. [CrossRef] 20. Semko, V.; Mahas, N. Assessment of Existing Structures for Elongation of the Buildings Lifecycle Based on Ukrainian Experience and Codes. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference “Coordinating Engineering for Sustainability and Resilience” & Midterm Conference of CircularB “Implementation of Circular Economy in the Built Environment”. CESARE 2024, Timi s , oara, Romania, 29–31 May 2024 ; Ungureanu, V., Bragança, L., Baniotopoulos, C., Abdalla, K.M., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 489. [CrossRef] 21. Semko, O.; Filonenko, O.; Yurin, O.; Ilchenko, T.; Semko, V.; Rabenseifer, R.; Mahas, N. To the issue of assessment of the technical condition of basement structures of buildings. In Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference “Innovations in Construction and Smart Building Technologies for Comfortable, Energy Efficient and Sustainable Lifestyle”, Dnipro, Ukraine, 21 February 2024; pp. 51–54. 22. Semko, O.; Filonenko, O.; Yurin, O.; Mahas, N.; Rudenko, V. Moisture protection of structures adjacent to the ground in historic buildings. Acad. J. Ind. Mach. Build. Civ. Eng. 2021,2, 53–58. [CrossRef] 23. DSTU 9273:2024; Guidelines for Inspection of Buildings and Facilities for Identification and Evaluation of Their Technical Condition. Mechanical Resistance And Stability, UkrNDNC: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2024. (In Ukrainian) 24. Goh, K.H. Building condition and impact assessment of underground construction. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Forensic Eng. 2017, 170, 14–23. [CrossRef] 25. Zhu, H.; Chen, M.; Zhao, Y.; Niu, F. Stability Assessment for Underground Excavations and Key Construction Techniques; Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2017. [CrossRef] 26. Lendo-Siwicka, M.; Trach, R.; Pawluk, K.; Wrzesi´nski, G.; ˙ Zochowska, A. Assessment of the technical condition of heritage buildings with the use of fuzzy logic. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2023,2, 123–140. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2025,17, 2264 19 of 19 27. Oke, M.O.; Martins, O.; Idowu, O.A. Monitoring of Groundwater Recharge for Flood Management. In Special Publication of the Nigerian Association of Hydrological Sciences, Hydrology for Disaster Management; Federal University of Acriculture: Abeokuta, Nigeria , 2012; pp. 55–64. 28. Wan, Z.; Qin, J.; Wei, Z. Overview of technical research on safety monitoring, early warning, and risk assessment for underground structural engineering construction. Emerg. Manag. Sci. Technol. 2023,3, 18. [CrossRef] 29. Li, S.; Hong, Z.; Xue, X.; Liu, X.; Wei, S. Comprehensive evaluation of the underground space resources in Xianyang city. Sci. Rep. 2023,13, 17348. [CrossRef] 30. Chen, Y.; Zhang, R.; Zi, J.; Han, J.; Liu, K. Evaluation of the treatment variables on the shear strength of loess treated by microbial induced carbonate precipitation. J. Mt. Sci. 2025, 22, in press. [CrossRef] 31. Han, J.; Liu, D.; Zhang, S.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, L.; He, C.; Zhao, M. Characteristics and control techniques of soft rock tunnel lining cracks in high geo-stress environments: Case study of Wushaoling tunnel group. Open Geosci. 2024,16, 20220743. [CrossRef] 32. Hauser, M.; Reinstaller, S.; Oberascher, M.; Muschalla, D.; Kleidorfer, M. The Impact of Underground Structures on Urban Flood Models. Water 2024,16, 170. [CrossRef] 33. Sierikova, E.; Strelnikova, E.; Pisnia, L.; Pozdnyakova, E. Flood risk management of Urban Territories. Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 2020,26, 1068–1077. 34. Katzenbach, R.; Leppla, S.; Seip, M.; Kurze, S. Value Engineering as a basis for safe, optimized and sustainable design of geotechnical structures. In Proceedings of the XVI ECSMGE Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development, Edinburgh, UK, 13 September 2015; pp. 601–606. 35. Kryvosheiev, P.; Farenyuk, G.; Tytarenko, V.; Boyko, I.; Kornienko, M.; Zotsenko, M.; Vynnykov, Y.; Siedin, V.; Shokarev, V.; Krysan, V. Innovative projects in difficult soil conditions using artificial foundation and base, arranged without soil excavation. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, ICSMGE 2017, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 17–22 September 2017; pp. 3007–3010. 36. Becker, B.; Reichel, F.; Bachmann, D.; Schinke, R. High groundwater levels: Processes, consequences, and management. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2022,9, e1605. [CrossRef] 37. He, R.; Tiong, R.L.K.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, L. Enhancing resilience of urban underground space under floods: Current status and future directions. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2024,147, 105674. [CrossRef] 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.