269) TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES
PARA VOLTAR A PÁGINA PRINCIPAL CLIQUE NO LINK ABAIXO
Highlights
CONTENTS
01. Editor’s Note Introduction to GeoXchange: GeoXchange is a visionary
initiative to educate people about latest mitigation techniques and trends across the globe
03. Team Introduction
Our team of inducted veterans and professionals aim to consolidate intensive content, curated specially for geohazard trends.
05. Cover Story
Celebrating the evolution of rockfall protection- Growth and Upcoming trend-
11. News
Industry News
National and international geohazard news coverage, focuses on the latest happenings and discoveries in the natural disaster management sphere.
Case Studies
18. Emergency Slope Repair Using Flexible Umbrella Structures.
Steep slopes with unstable debris flow need immediate slope repair. Flexible Umbrella Structures intervene the debris flow through its lightweight modular structure and pyramidal geometry.
31. Interview
In Conversation With Prof. Satish Chandra, Director CSIR
35. LANDSLIDE INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN OF COST-EFFECTIVE
MEASURES AT MITHANA LANDSLIDE
A complete study on identification, types, and analysis of Mithana Landslide, that highlights cost-effective control measures that specially caters hilly terrains of the Himalayan region.
41. ROCKFALL 3D ANALYSIS CASE IN MUSANDAM (OMAN) COASTAL ROADS DEPARTING FROM PHOTOGRAMMETRY BY DRONE
Photogrammetry by drone for areas beyond the boundaries of slope excavation allows to acquire a detailed view of the parts generating problems, and their broad analysis to work on the scope of improvement.
47. SPAR GEO INFRA PVT LIMITED
A descriptive solution of the tackling glacial lake outbursts through adapting micropile pile cap bridge, a new technique that stitches the soil together.
52. TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES A complete overview of
assessing the different type of containment structure, while highlighting structural security, economic viability and environmental impact.
62. ROCKSPOT - FILLING THE GAP IN CRITICAL MONITORING
An innovative remote sensing monitoring system by IDS Georadar that detects sudden real-time rockfalls and generates hazard maps for detailed
analysis.
65. Advertorial ONLINE MONITORING OF LANDSLIDES
A detailed guide on online monitoring and analyses of landslides, highlighting concrete monitoring methods using various remote sensing techniques.
Case Studies
71. SHAKING UP THE FUTURE: ADVANCEMENTS IN SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES IN SEISMIC CONDITIONS
A cutting-edge technical advancement in geotechnical software combined with self- drilling anchors, that enables the engineer to analyze the effectiveness of the support before touching the soil.
76. TIDONG-I HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, HIMACHAL PRADESH
The case study covers rockfall barriers applied from Geobrugg with high-tensile steel wires, and impact energy to intercept the debris flow.
79. Concrete Canvas
A vigorous case study on replacement of conventional concrete slab with CC5™ a product of Geosynthetic Cementitious Composite Mat (GCCM), chosen for slope protection at the Haradh Gas Plant in Saudi Arabia.
83. Product Features
84. Tenders
WWW.GEO-XCHANGE.COM | VOL..01 ISSUE .01
51 CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 52
out to check its settlement as per IS Code 2911- Part IV. Load testing of pile is shown in Figure. Vertical and lateral load capacity test was performed.
1. Vertical Load Test Result: Maximum Settlement
of 8.9 mm at test load of 80 ton.
2. L a tera l L oa d T es t R es ult: Ma ximum
Displacement of 3.25 mm at test load of 2.5 ton.
3. L a tera l L oa d T es t R es ult: Ma ximum
Displacement of 3.57 mm at test load of 22 ton. The side slope of the embankment was protected
Fig 9: Vertical load test on micro piles at site
FINALIZATION OF DESIGNS FOR PIERS AND ABUTMENTS
with a 0.6m thick stone pitching. From field test of piles, the design for each pier has been finalised with a pile group of 49 piles. Out of this 49 piles, 25 piles at the center are vertical piles and at the outer 24 piles are of raker piles. The raker piles designed at an angle of 10 degrees and the corner four raker piles at an angle of 45 degrees to the pile cap axis plan.
The abutments were designed with 69 piles. Out of
this 69 piles, 25 piles at the center were vertical piles and at the outer 44 piles were rakered piles. The raker piles were designed at an angle of 10 degrees and the corner four raker piles at an angle of 45 degrees to the pile cap axis plan.
Fig 11: After completion of permeant bridge structure on Shyok River
Fig 10: After installed of Tam grouted micro pile at site.
ABSTRACT:
This article aims to develop a technical and economic analysis of containment structures of land masses with a view to executive methodologies and the budget involved for each of the types to be studied. For this, a bibliographic review of the types of geotechnical containment solutions used will be carried out when
implementing projects of various types. For each of the techniques that will be the object of study of the work, their respective executive and budget specificities will be pointed out, evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of using these methods, in order to compare them and then, conclude on the use of each one of them.
KEYWORDS: containment structures, geotechnics, budget.
1 INTRODUCTION
The retainers are structures designed to resist earth and / or water pushes, structural loads and any other efforts induced by adjacent structures or equipment, providing a stability configuration to
the massif. They are increasingly important for the implementation of projects of various kinds, such as: road, railway and waterway infrastructure works, special works of art, mining, industrial, commercial and residential areas, especially in urban areas, where there is a shortage increasing number of areas to build. In addition, containments often apply to emergency prevention or recovery works after landslides.
The correct choice of the solution to be employed is essential for its structural security and economic viability. For this, it is necessary to establish an interface between geotechnical, structural, budgetary and production knowledge in order to obtain a safe and cost-effective solution. Sizing, design and / or execution errors can have very serious consequences, damaging assets, interrupting roads and even losing human lives. Thus, containment structures must value structural safety, cost optimization, duration for the entire useful life of the work and the generation of the least possible environmental impact.
There are now many earth containment techniques being applied in Brazil and the choice of the
GEOXCHANGE | AUGUST 2020 WWW.GEO-XCHANGE.COM | VOL..01 ISSUE .01
53 CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 54
technique to be used involves many variables, such as the site of the work, the type of soil, local and global stability of the massif, economic cost, environmental impacts, executive deadlines, structure height, active loads, location of the water table, area available for the deployment and availability of manpower and necessary equipment, among others. In addition, it is important to remember that the containment structures must integrate as much as possible with the surrounding environment. In this article, some of the main types of containment structures used in Brazil will be analyzed, namely: curtained curtain, flexion wall, stapled soil, gabion wall and containment with high-resistance canvas.
The worsening and increasing occurrences of landslides in large cities are directly related to the disorderly growth of cities, with the occupation of risk areas without the necessary technical support and necessary urban equipment. Thus, the
containment structures are presented as technical engineering solutions of great importance in the urbanization and infrastructure creation process, arousing great interest in carrying out this work in order to contribute to the choice, design and execution of these structures.
The general objective of this work is to develop a technical and economic analysis of different types of containment of land masses. In order to achieve the proposed general objective, it will be necessary
to obtain the following specific objectives:
l Carry out a bibliographic review of the types of geotechnical containment solutions to solve the problems of landslides and excavations for the
implementation of projects of various kinds;
l Point out executive specificities for each
method presented;
l Assess the advantages and disadvantages of
using these methods, comparing them;
l Conclude on the use of each of the studied methods.
surface, and must basically resist the efforts of traction, shearing and bending moments. The clamps are not prestressed and efforts are mobilized based on the movements of the soil mass.
The distribution of the anchor bolts, that is, the configuration of the anchor bolts on the face of the slope to be stabilized depends mainly on the geometry of the slope, the mechanical properties of the soil and the mechanical properties of the anchors themselves.
The wire mesh must be applied to the entire slope with overlap specified in the project. Coated shotcrete must also be specified in design and must have sufficient strength to withstand the stresses arising from the movement of the soil mass. In addition, effective drainage devices must be provided to dissipate the containment pore
pressures.
This method has been used on slopes with different
configurations, due to its executive ease and
Figure 2 - Reinforced Concrete Containment
workload, which transmits the external traction effort to the terrain , through the bulb.
This type of containment can be temporary or permanent. Its application is recommended for cuts on slopes of great heights and pushes earth and / or soils with low resistance parameters. In certain circumstances, it is the only feasible containment system, which can be used to contain soils. It is necessary to take into account that this solution can interfere with neighboring lands. The perforations for the installation of the tie rods can cause settlements, the injections for fixing them
and the prestressing of these can introduce
2 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REVIEW
efficiency. However, its application is more feasible in stabilizing low-slope slopes, even at great
horizontal forces on the adjacent foundations.
2.1.3 GABION
2.1 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES
Containment is any element or structure intended to counteract the stresses or stresses generated in massif whose equilibrium condition has been altered by some type of excavation, cut or fill (RANZINI, Stelvio M. T. and NEGRO JR, Arsenio. 1998). Thus, the containment structures are installed on the slopes, natural or not, in order to guarantee their stability, whether offering resistance to movement or rupture, or even reinforcing the massif in order to resist stresses that may lead to instability. Five types of containment structures widely used in southeastern Brazil will be presented, which will be the object of study hereinafter in this article.
2.1.1 CLAMPED SOIL
Stapled soil is defined as the result of the introduction of anchor bolts into a solid mass in cut, associated with the application of a coating on the face of the slope (ABRAMENTO et al., 1998). According to Mitchell and Villet (1987), the technique of stapled soil or "soil nailing" originated, in part, from the technique used in the support of tunnels and galleries called NATM (New Austrian Tunneling Method) applied to Mining Engineering.
The first experiment with a stapled soil structure in true grandeur was carried out in Germany (STOCKER et al., 1979).
In the United States, SHEN (1981), suggests the existence of stapled soil since the 1960s, but the first registered application is from 1976, in an excavation for the foundations of Good Samaritan
Hospital, in Oregon.
In Brazil, the use of cramped soil restraints has only been boosted since the 1980s. The first results of studies on stapled soil in Brazil began with the realization of a project carried out by FUNDAÇÃO GEO-RIO in 1992, in which it intended - to know the mechanical behavior and the nature of the stresses induced in the clamps on a natural slope in
unsaturated residual soil, typically tropical.
It is a permanent or temporary containment process, which consists of the application of wire mesh anchored in the ground by means of anchor bolts, in previously calculated spacing, and coated with shotcrete. It is a reinforcement method "in
situ" used to stabilize excavated or natural slopes. The anchor bolts, or clamps, are generally composed of steel bars introduced into the ground in a hole previously made by a drill, surrounded by
grout throughout its length and anchored on the
heights. The use of this method on slopes with high slopes or with deep sliding wedges requires the application of bolts of large diameters and lengths, and in small spacing.
2.1.2 REINFORCED CURTAIN
Curtains are containments anchored or supported on other structures, characterized by small displacement (RANZINI et al, 1998). The structures of this type can be built in reinforced concrete, shotcrete, diaphragm wall or crimped metal profiles, and anchored by means of rods introduced in soil / rock and prestressed with appropriate
Figure 1 - Slope stabilization using soil nailing
Gabion walls (from Italian gabbioni = gaiolões) are gravity walls constituted by the superposition of galvanized wire mesh cages filled with stones whose minimum diameters must be greater than the opening of the mesh of the cages (RANZINI, Stelvio MT et NEGRO JR, Arsenio 1998).
The main characteristics of gabion walls are flexibility, which allows the structure to accommodate different differentials and
permeability (Barros, 2005).
This solution is found in the Brazilian market in different types and configurations. The main types are: reno mattress, bag and box. Box-type gabions are the most suitable for the construction of retaining walls and are supplied in different dimensions, according to the availability of each
manufacturer.
It is a piece with a parallel-piped shape, consisting of hexagonal mesh screens with double twist that form the base, the vertical walls and the lid. The vertical side walls are attached to the base screen and to the other walls by a mechanical twisting process or by a continuous spiral wire, which ensures perfect union and articulation between the
screens. (Belgo Bekaert Arames, 2014)
In the case of high walls, lower gabions, with a
GEOXCHANGE | AUGUST 2020 WWW.GEO-XCHANGE.COM | VOL..01 ISSUE .01
55 CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 56
height equal to 0.5 meters, which present greater rigidity and resistance, should be positioned in the lower layers, where the compression stresses are more significant. For very long walls, gabions up to
4.0 meters in length can be used to speed up construction.
2.1.4 HIGH RESISTANCE FASCIA
Slope containment with the use of high-strength wire mesh has been widely used on slopes of great height and / or with great instability. This technique constitutes a passive containment, in which the high-strength metal screens are fixed by means of anchors on the slope. Generally, it has been widely
Figur3 - Containment with gabion
used in the containment of rock blocks and falls, however, it can also be used in the containment of materials of different natures.
The high-resistance screens are made of double- twist hexagonal mesh with low-carbon wire coated with heavy galvanization with high tensile strength and low levels of elongation and may or may not be supplied with an additional layer of PVC, increasing resistance to corrosion of the mesh.
The high strength meshes are anchored to the slope by means of anchor bolts introduced in the massif, in specific diameters and lengths for each
Figure 4 - Containment with high-resistance mesh
project, and by appropriate anchor plates. The perimeter of application of the mesh is defined and reinforced with contour cables fixed to the anchorage. Generally, wire mesh is applied in conjunction with erosion control blankets. Several types of screens are found on the market, each with their own characteristics of resistance and use, depending on the manufacturer. The screens are sold in rolls, facilitating transport and application.
2.1.5 REINFORCED SOIL
The containment technique called Reinforced Earth or Reinforced Soil consists of the introduction of metallic tapes in the ground mass. The tapes, which may or may not be ribbed, are connected to concrete panels, which form the face of the massif (ABRAMENTO et al. 1998).
The technique was developed in 1963, by engineer and architect Henry Vidal, and was under patent protection until the early 1990s. The first wall with Reinforced Earth was built in France in 1965. After that, several walls were carefully instrumented and analyzed in order to validate this methodology, which today is in the public domain and has been progressively used in Brazil.
Basically, this solution involves three materials in the consolidation of the massif: the soil, which surrounds the armatures and occupies a space called "armed volume"; reinforcement in
Figure 5 - Containment on reinforced land
galvanized steel or flexible aluminum, which work in traction and must have good resistance to corrosion, being generally ribbed in order to increase the coefficient of friction for soil- reinforcement and improve the transfer of efforts; and the rigid precast concrete or metallic flexible cruciform plates, which form the outer wall and secure the armature by means of screws.
The solution has been used mainly in road and
Figure 6 - Proposed typical slope
of the construction site were neglected in this analysis because it deals with items present in all containments. The costs related to the mobilization of personnel and equipment was also neglected because it involves the specificity of each project and is a common item to all the studied solutions. The indirect cost of services, formulated by BDI, was also disregarded because it affected the direct price of all the solutions compared here. Then, in order to compare and analyze the solutions, the budgets will be made per linear meter of containment.
3.2.1 CLAMPED SOIL
For the execution of contention on stapled soil, the original geometry of the slope was maintained, minimizing earth movement. The anchor bolts were considered to have a unit length of 8.0 meters for the containment with a height of 3.0 meters and
12.0 meters for the containments with 6.0 and 9.0 meters. The mesh of anchor bolts was adopted with
2.0 meters of spacing, as well as the mesh, alternated to this, of barbican drains. The thickness of 0.10 meters was adopted for shotcrete coating. Deep sub-horizontal drains were placed every 5.0
Figure 7 - Typical cross section of the solution on reinforced soil
GEOXCHANGE | AUGUST 2020 WWW.GEO-XCHANGE.COM | VOL..01 ISSUE .01
57 CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 58
meters with a unit length of 15.0 meters. (Figure 7): The budgeted price for the execution of this solution on a slope with 3.0 meters, 6.0 meters and 9.0 meters high was R$ 2,016.98 (US$ 398.39), R$
4,585.46 (US$ 905.70) and R$ 6,589.46 (US$
1301.52), respectively, for each linear meter of containment.
3.2.2 REINFORCED CURTAIN
The solution illustrated in the figure below was proposed for the containment of the curtained curtain, with the location of the curtain on the central axis of the original slope, in order to minimize earth movement and facilitate the execution. The risers were considered to have a unit length of 10.0 meters for the containment with a height of 3.0 meters and 18.0 meters for the containments with 6.0 and 9.0 meters, including the anchored section. The spacing between risers was adopted equal to 2.0 meters. The curtain thickness was adopted with 0.25 meters. Barbacans were spaced every 2.0 meters (Figure 8): The budgeted price for the execution of this solution on a slope with 3.0 meters, 6.0 meters and 9.0 meters high was R$ 3,772.68 (US$ 745.16), R$
Figure 8 - Typical cross section of solution
11,341.25 (US$ 2240.08) and R$ 17,035.85 (US$
3364.85), respectively, for each linear meter of containment.
3.2.3 GABION
For the containment in gabion a solution was formulated where the total width was greater than or equal to half the height. The specified gabion is of the box type. In this case, it was necessary to excavate part of the slope, in order to allow the execution and positioning of the metal cages. For this, the excavation was planned, advancing beyond the final axis of the embankment with the same initial geometry as the embankment, in order to provide security for the excavation. The wall was
Figure 9 - Typical cross section of the gabion solution
designed with an inclination of approximately 5º in relation to the vertical. (Figure 9):
The budgeted price for the execution of this solution on a 3.0 meter, 6.0 meter and 9.0 meter high embankment was R$ 1,028.20 (US$ 203.09), R$ 3,254.06 (US$ 642.73) and R$ 7,578.73 (US$
1496.92), respectively, for each linear meter of containment.
3.2.4 HIGH RESISTENT FASCIA
For the containment in high resistance canvas, the initial geometry of the slope was maintained. After manual adjustment of the slope, any depressions or imperfections must be filled with shotcrete. The anchor bolts were considered to have a unit length of 8.0 meters for the containment with a height of
3.0 meters and 12.0 meters for the containment with heights of 6.0 and 9.0 meters. The spacing between the anchors was considered equal to 2.0 meters. The deep sub-horizontal drains, with a unit length of 15.0 meters, were spaced every 5.0 meters. The geotextile blanket for erosion control must be installed prior to the installation of the high-resistance mesh. In addition, contoured steel cables were provided, anchored on the slope, for better fixation of the screen. (Figure 10):
Figure 10 - Typical cross-section
of the high-strength mesh solution
The budgeted price for the execution of this solution on a slope with 3.0 meters, 6.0 meters and 9.0 meters high was R$ 3,499.88,(US$ 691.28) R$ 8,069.61(US$ 1593.88) and R$ 11,742.70 (US$
2319.37), respectively, for each linear meter of containment..
3.2.5 REINFORCED EARTH
For the containment on reinforced land, the solution presented in the figure below was proposed. In this case, it was necessary to excavate part of the embankment, in order to allow the execution of the compacted and reinforced backfill. For this, the excavation was planned, advancing beyond the final axis of the embankment with the same initial geometry as the embankment, in order to provide security for the excavation. The reinforced landfill was designed with a width of 70% of the height of the wall (Figure 11):
The budgeted price for the execution of this
Figure 11 - Typical cross section of the solution on armed land
solution on a slope with 3.0 meters, 6.0 meters and 9.0 meters high was R$ 2,347.97 (US$ 463.76), R$
4,691.14 (US$ 926.57) and R$ 8,383.78 (US$
1655.93), respectively, for each linear meter of containment.
4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The final results of the budgets are presented for the containments with 3.0, 6.0 and 9.0 meters in
height (Figures 12, 13 and 14):
The economic comparison between the studied solutions is shown in Figure 15.
The solution in stapled soil proved to be quite economical at the different heights of contention studied, being one with the lowest linear cost. In addition, it highlights the possibility of this solution
Figure 12 - Costs per meter of containment H = 3.0 m
Figure 13 - Costs per meter of containmentH = 6.0 m
Figure 14 - Costs per meter of containmentH = 9.0 m
GEOXCHANGE | AUGUST 2020 WWW.GEO-XCHANGE.COM | VOL..01 ISSUE .01
59 CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 60
Figure 15 - Containment: Cost per linear meter (R $) x Height
to adapt to local conditions, minimizing the movement of earth and maximizing the productivity of the execution. Another interesting aspect is the use of light and easy to use equipment, which facilitates mobilization and execution. The deformability of the containment provides resistance to total or differential settlements. However, it does not present itself as an adequate technical solution in some situations, such as in the case of clayey soils, in which there is little friction between the soil and the clamp with large hydrostatic pressures and in situations of heavy loads. In addition, in situations where displacements may cause damage to adjacent structures, this solution must be carefully evaluated, due to its deformability. The slope on which the solution is executed, provides greater stability while minimizing earth movements and losses due to reflection of the shotcrete. The use of this technique is restricted to embankments without the presence of a water level or even with a lowering of the sheet prior to the execution of the containment.
The reinforced containment proved to be the most expensive among the techniques of this study at the different proposed heights. This solution proves unfeasible for small heights, in which other solutions can serve effectively at lower costs. However, for large containment heights, where the buoyant loads of the massif are high, the thrown curtain presents itself as an effective geotechnical solution, resisting high loads with little displacement and with high safety factors. It is a containment that requires a great deal of earthmoving, heavy equipment, specialized labor and various materials, implying a complex and costly work. In addition, a high curtain curtain containment may require more complex foundations, such as piles, which makes this
solution more expensive. Its application is recommended for cutting in terrains with a high load to be contained or for soils that have little resistance to stability.
The use of the gabion wall as a containment proved to be economical, mainly due to the simplicity of the equipment and materials involved. This is not, however, a solution technically indicated for high containment heights as it does not support large loads. It is also noteworthy that the durability of a gabion retainer is quite reduced compared to the others studied here. Its use proves to be competitive for small heights and in the use of mixed solutions of gabion and other containment structure (s). The main advantages of this technique are the high permeability, which relieves hydrostatic impulses, the extreme flexibility, which allows the structure to adapt to the movement of the massif, and is easily integrated with the environment. In addition, the execution of this type of containment is facilitated by the fact that the filling material can be obtained at the construction site, the construction is predominantly dry, it can be carried out with the presence of water and because
it does not require specialized labor.
The use of high-resistance wire mesh as containment proved to be costly, mainly due to the high cost of materials and the need to use equipment and specialized labor. Even so, this solution is effective for containment of large areas, due to its executive practicality and great containment resistance. Another important aspect for this solution is the ability to contain materials of all characteristics, including those of the 3rd category, the most used in this case. However, it is noteworthy that there are several configurations of screens on the market, which may result in lower or higher costs, making this solution feasible or not. The main advantages of this technique are its cost benefit for containments of large areas, it does not require the use of surface drains like barbecans, it can be performed in the presence of water level, good aesthetics because it is practically invisible,
speed of execution.
Containment on armed land showed a reduced cost per linear meter at different slope heights studied, proving to be more costly with an increase in the containment height, justified mainly by the large backfill embankment of the wall. It is a
due to its executive methodology. It is noteworthy that this solution has been widely used due to its simplicity and speed of construction, since most of the executive process occurs behind the wall, without scaffolding and without interruptions in the traffic flow. The structures can be built a few centimeters from the edges and can easily be designed to follow curved alignments of the strokes. The large foundation area and the flexibility of the massif make it possible to support significant differential settlements, allowing to adopt, in relation to the breakdown of the foundation soil, lower safety factors than those of common foundations. The articulation of the scales allows them to move in relation to each other with differential deformations in the order of up to 1:75. The main advantages of this geotechnical solution are: the high internal resistance of the massif, which gives the group a significant capacity to withstand static and dynamic loads; the reliability of the structure, which can be easily monitored; its adaptability, as it can be used in the domain range narrow, unstable natural slopes, limit conditions of foundation with expectation of significant settlements, and the aesthetic aspect, being able to attend to several architectural requirements. Due to its executive methodology, this solution becomes competitive for landfill containment, being little used in other cases due to the need for a large earth movement. The main advantages of the application of reinforced earth result from its ease of assembly, even in works of great height, speed of execution, elimination of scaffolding, props and earthworks, high flexibility of the walls, does not require specialized labor; requires a smaller preparation area; requires less space in front of the structure for construction operations.
5 CONCLUSION
The correct choice of the solution to be used is essential for its structural security and economic viability. The containment structures must value structural safety, cost optimization, duration for the entire life of the work and the generation of the
least possible environmental impact.
Among the numerous containment techniques that exist today, a geotechnical engineer must be able to diagnose the problems that exist in each situation, assess the risks involved and point out the
best geotechnical solution for that case. The choice of a containment structure involves many variables, such as the site of the work, the type of soil, local and global stability of the massif, economic cost, environmental impacts, executive deadlines, height of the structure, active loads, location of the water table, area available for the deployment and availability of manpower and necessary equipment. Evaluating all these variables, the engineer must opt for that solution that results in the best economic cost, ensuring total safety and durability of the containment structure.
With the completion of this work, we sought to present the executive methodology, the necessary inputs, as well as the costs involved in each of the techniques studied, which may be different for each project. Technical analysis, assessing the needs and risks of each project, must always
precede economic analysis.
It is understood to have collaborated with the technical environment presenting the main needs, mechanisms of operation and execution and costs involved in the implementation of the studied containment structures, in order to facilitate the engineer in the design of solutions to the real problems of our daily lives.
6 GRATITUDE
To all who directly or indirectly participated in the execution of this work, especially the UFMG School of Engineering and Progeo Engenharia Ltda for their collaboration.
7 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
ABMS/ABEF, (1997). Fundações: Teoria e Prática.
Pini, São Paulo, SP, 2 ed.,751p. 1998.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS.
NBR 8964: Arames de aço de baixo teor de carbono, revestidos, para gabiões e demais produtos fabricados com malha de dupla torção. Rio de Janeiro, 2013
BELGO BEKAERT ARAMES. Gabiões Belgo -
Informe Técnico. 2014
CORSINI, Rodnei. Sistema de contenção utiliza paramento de placas pré-moldadas fixado a tiras metálicas enterradas no maciço compactado. Revista Infraestrutura Urbana - Projetos, custos e
GEOXCHANGE | AUGUST 2020 WWW.GEO-XCHANGE.COM | VOL..01 ISSUE .01
61 CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 62
construção. Edição 23. Novembro/2012. Disponível em:http://www.infraestruturaurbana.pini.com.br/s olucoes-tecnicas/23/artigo276269-1.aspx>. Acesso
Engenharia Ltda.
Prof. Marcos Fábio Porto de
em: 25/03/2015.
FEIJÓ, Rogério Luiz. Monitoração de uma Escavação Experimental Grampeada em Solo Residual Gnáissico Não Saturado [Rio de Janeiro] 2007 XIX, 157 p. 29,7 cm (COPPE/UFRJ, D.Sc.,
Engenharia Civil, 2007) Tese - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, COPPE.
GEOBRUGG. Tecco: Sistema de Estabilização de
Taludes. Manual do sistema. Edição: 07/AR/DF. 14 de Junho 2004.
JOPPERT JUNIOR, Ivan. Fundações e contenções em edifícios: qualidade total na gestão do projeto e execução. São Paulo: PINI, 2007.
MASSAD, Faiçal. Obras de terra: curso básico de geotecnia. 2ª edição. São Paulo. Oficina de Textos, 2010.
Prefeitura do Recife. Diretrizes Executivas de Serviços para Aterros Reforçados. DIRETRIZES EXECUTIVAS DE SERVIÇOS DE GEOTECNIA S E C R E T A R I A D E S E R V I Ç O S P Ú B L I C O S .
Documento nº VOL.3/ ES-C05. Ano 2004.
Terra Armada Sustainable Technology. Portfólio de produtos. Rio de Janeiro. Disponível em:
<http://www.terraarmada.com.br/produtos.php?x= 249752> Acesso em: 31/03/2015
Luiz Antonio Naresi Júnior is a civil engineer with
a n e m p h a s i s o n t h e Sanitation area. He has a postgraduate degree in O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y Engineering, Environmental Analyst from UFJF (Federal University of Juiz de Fora), a n d i n G e o t e c h n i c a l Engineering from UNICID (University of São Paulo). He
specializes in Deep Foundation works, Hillside Containment, Special Art Works, Containment Projects, Railway and Road Infrastructure. He is currently a partner at ABMS (Brazilian Association of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering), a professor at Puc Minas of the Geotechnical Engineering Course at UNICID - Universidade Paulista / INBEC, director of the Engineering Club of Juiz de Fora (MG), consultant, commercial and advisor to the board of directors of Empresa Progeo
Aguiar holds a PhD in Civil Engineering, an area of concentration in Geotechnics from C OP P E / F ederal University of Rio de Janeiro (2008), a master's degree in G e o t e c h n i c s a n d Infrastructure from the University of Hannover -
Germany (1997) and a civil engineer from the Federal University of Ceará (1993). Professor at the Federal Institute of Science and Technology Education of Ceará (IFCE), Coordinator of the Geotechnical Engineering Course | Foundations and Earthworks at Universidade Paulista and consultant in the areas of Transport Infrastructure and Foundations.
Thiago Abdala Magalhãe é graduated in civil engineering f r o m t h e S c h o o l o f Engineering of the Federal University of Minas Gerais - UFMG and has been working for two years in the area of geotechnical engineering and heavy construction at
Progeo Engenharia Ltda.
Crysthian Purcino Bernardes Azevedo is Deputy Professor a t the D e pa rtme nt of Transport and Geotechnics at UFMG. He has a degree in civil engineering from the Federal University of Minas Gerais, a master's degree in Structural Engineering from the Federal
University of Minas Gerais and a doctorate in Structural Engineering from the Federal University of Minas Gerais
Editor's Note: This article has been translated in English from Portuguese and any translation errors are those of the Editors and not of the Authors.