The foundation pit support scheme was not compared and selected among multiple options, and the conservative option adopted increased costs by more than 30%.
Foundation pit support engineering is a critical prerequisite for underground construction, and its cost typically accounts for 15%–35% of the total underground engineering cost. According to industry survey data, a large number of foundation pit projects exhibit a severe conservative tendency in the selection of support schemes, resulting in support engineering costs 30%–50% higher than optimized schemes. The core reason for this problem lies in the fact that design institutes, when designing foundation pit support schemes, adopt overly conservative safety factors, underutilize geological conditions, and lack awareness of multi-scheme technical and economic comparison. When analyzing stratum parameters, designers tend to take the minimum values from geotechnical investigation reports, and adopt the lower-middle limits of test values for soil cohesion and internal friction angle, resulting in calculated earth pressures that are too high, embedment depths that are too deep, and pile diameters and reinforcement that are too large. From the perspective of codes and standards, GB 50007, JGJ 120-2012 and GB 50330 have clear provisions on the design calculation and safety factor values for foundation pit support, where the safety factor is usually specified as a range, and the value selected by designers within this range directly determines the safety margin and cost of the project. From the perspective of operational impact, over-design of foundation pit support engineering not only increases direct costs, but excessive pile diameters and overly dense bracing systems increase the difficulty of earthwork excavation, and excessive embedment depths increase earthwork excavation volumes and foundation pit dewatering costs. From cost data, for a deep foundation pit project with an excavation depth of 18 m and an area of 8,000 m², optimizing the support scheme can reduce support costs by approximately 3–5 million yuan. The core measure to solve this problem is to establish a multi-scheme technical and economic comparison system for foundation pit support schemes, whereby geotechnical engineers propose no fewer than three alternative support schemes, cost engineers conduct itemized cost estimation and full life-cycle cost analysis for each scheme, and finally a comprehensive comparison is made incorporating safety risks, construction feasibility and schedule factors. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires the coordinated advancement of four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full life-cycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to foster an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically integrating these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellence in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires the coordinated advancement of four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full life-cycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to foster an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically integrating these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellence in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires the coordinated advancement of four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full life-cycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to foster an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically integrating these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellence in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires the coordinated advancement of four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full life-cycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to foster an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically integrating these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellence in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires the coordinated advancement of four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full life-cycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to foster an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically integrating these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellence in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires the coordinated advancement of four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full life-cycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to foster an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically integrating these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellence in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires the coordinated advancement of four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full life-cycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to foster an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically integrating these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellence in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires the coordinated advancement of four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full life-cycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to foster an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically integrating these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellence in project management.