Excavation and Earth Retaining Structures Solutions at the

O'Living Residences, Moscavide

Sebastião Perestrello de Alarcão Borges Neto
Department of Civil Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
June 2022

Abstract
In this work, an excavation, located in the eastern Lisbon, is analyzed with the particularity of being
located over the Lisbon’s Metro (ML) gallery .The goal of this paper is to understand the various areas
of civil engineering associated with the implementation of an excavation and earth retaining project. In
addition, one of the adopted solutions, with a direct influence on the ML gallery was chosen, and this
solution was structurally studied using the Plaxis 2D software without first completing a backanalysis to
calibrate the numerical results to those observed, in situ, by the monitoring devices. Finally, two
alternative were proposed, and structurally and economically analyzed to optimize the number of
ground anchors considered at the original solution.

Keywords: Peripheral Earth retaining structures, numerical modeling, Mixed Berlin wall, economic
analysis.

1. Introduction
one of the presented structures. In addition, two
With the increase in population density in alternative options were explored, both of which
metropolitan areas comes the need to develop improved the structural and economic
new infrastructure and services to performance of the adopted anchors.
accommodate this growth (United Nations,
2018). These new places are typically found on 2. Flexible Earth Retaining
lots inserted into the urban mesh, on the Structures
periphery of cities or in building rehabilitation.
Because of the high level of surface occupation, A peripheral earth retaining structure, according
the construction of new infrastructures and to Eurocode 7 (EC7), is any structure meant to
services is frequently limited to subsurface support neighboring impulses and can be rigid,
occupation, such as the construction of semi-rigid, or flexible. Depending on the
transportation structures or basements. number of supports - struts or ground anchors -
it can be self-supporting, single-supported,
The execution of these underground multi-supported. In this dissertation, Flexible
infrastructures requires the assurance of multi-supported type structures will be studied.
neighboring land stability, both during the
excavation phase and during the service phase. A flexible retaining wall is dimensioned to work
Peripheral excavation and peripheral earth mainly in bending and does not rely on its
retaining technologies were created for this weight for dimensioning. The pressure
purpose, and they are discussed here. distribution and, as a result, the design efforts
are influenced by the bending deformations to
This work examines the solutions used in the which they are subjected. Compared to other
excavation and peripheral earth retaining of the types of structures, they allow a greater degree
O'living Residences - case study. of freedom for the redistribution of efforts.
(Cunha, 2021).
A backanalysis supported by monitoring data
was used to produce a structural analysis of
3. O´Living residences – Case study Regarding the ground water level, it was
detected to be 13,5m deep in Lot 1 and
The O'living Residences is a two-lot estimated to be 12m deep in Lot 2.
development for residential use, consisting of
two buildings, located in Lisbon's eastern urban Constraints related to the presence of the
area. Each of the buildings will have eight Lisbon Metro Tunnel
stories, plus two basements on Lot 1 and three Due to the presence of the Metro gallery, the
basements on Lot 2 for car parking. solutions adopted by the excavation and
Underneath the implementation area of this peripheral containment project had to be
residential development, there is the passage adapted in order to guarantee the requirements
of a gallery of the Lisbon Metro (ML), which a of the Lisbon Metro.
conditioned the excavation project and
peripheral containment. The Lisbon Metro authority's requirements are
detailed in the “Documento de interferência de
terceiros em estruturas do ML” (in Portuguese)
which was prepared in accordance with
RMUEL legislation and states that urbanistic
operations, such as excavations,
reconstruction, extension, or building
construction works, among others, that are less
than 25 meters in horizontal and vertical
projection from the ML infrastructure exterior
plan, require the ML's prior approval.
N
Among the Lisbon Metro's requirements is the
need to present an observation and monitoring
plan, both for the construction site and the
Figure 1 - Location of the residential development Metro's structures, to be initiated at least 30
and ML influence. days before the beginning of the works.
Also according to the Metro requirements, there
Geological-geotechnical characterization is a need to ensure, in project, that in
Using the geological map of Portugal and the excavations, containments and foundations are
geotechnical surveys performed, it was built at a distance of less than 3 meters from
possible to perform a geological-geotechnical ML's buried structures.
characterization. It is concluded that the terrain
implementation of the case study, has ages Adopted Solutions
attributed to the Miocene of Lisbon, specifically In the case study, discussed in this paper, it was
to Areolae of Cabo Ruivo, Areolae of Braço de necessary to ensure that the execution of the
Prata, Marvila Limestone; chosen retaining solutions respected the
existing limitations, namely those
During the course of the geotechnical surveys corresponding to the Metro. To this end, a
4 boreholes were drilled and in two of the number of solutions have been designed,
boreholes 2 piezometers were installed. A first among them:
layer of landfill (ZG4), a second layer (ZG3)
formed of strongly sandy silts with levels of silty • Definitive Berlin Wall
clay of greenish tints, an intermediate zone This type of solution was used in both lots to
(ZG2) composed of strongly silty clays, and a provide permanent containment during the
lower zone (ZG1) composed of strongly silty excavation and final phases. It has the
sand were identified. advantage of allowing the definitive wall to be
built during the excavation phase, with the
ZG4 possibility of changing the number of struts or
anchors throughout the construction phase.
ZG3 The construction method followed the typical
ZG2
construction phasing for retaining walls of this
type. It consisted of the phased execution, from
ZG1 top to bottom, of reinforced concrete panels
supported on vertical micropiles.

Figure 2 - Geological-geotechnical profile - lot 1

(Jetsj,2021).
• Mixed Berlin Wall which act as tie-rods, supporting the entire
This type of typology consists in the use of two structure overhead.
typologies in a single wall. In this case, both the
definitive Berlin typology and the provisional
Berlin typology were used.
Its use was due to the need to find a solution
that could combine the functionalities of the
structure both in the provisional and definitive
phases. Since the containment itself is
provisional, because it was only necessary for
the execution of the foundation frames.
However, as the adjacent lands are 4m above
the definitive phase elevation, the containment
would have to be definitive between the final
elevation of the land and the upstream
elevation.
The constructive phasing began with the
installation of HEB140 profiles in the ground to
materialize the vertical micropiles, followed by
the traditional phasing of the methodology Figure 4 -Earth retaining structure project of a
utilized in definitive Berlin walls. Afterward, definitive suspended berlin wall.
wooden bars were placed between the vertical
profiles in the provisional part of the Micropiles were drilled over the Metro gallery,
containment, and distribution beams were built however, without sealing length and respecting
allowing the provisional prestressed anchors to the safety margin in order not to cause
be installed, following the traditional phasing significant deformations in the Metro structure.
employed in this type of containment. Then, the crowning beam and the first level of
panels with resistant capacity were executed,
so that it was possible to execute the lower
panels, guaranteeing the transfer of loads to the
lateral grounds of the ML tunnel, functioning as
a wall-beam. The remaining process is identical
to the process used in a conventional "Berlin
definitive" methodology.

4. Observation & Monitoring Plan

The Observation & Monitoring Plan, was
Figure 3 - Mixed Berlin Wall - Lot 1. proposed after analysis of the constraints that
are most likely to affect the normal execution of
• Suspended Definitive Berlin Wall the work in this phase and in accordance with
The use of a definitive and suspended the requirements of the Lisbon Metro.
contention typology came as a result of the The purpose of this Monitoring Plan is to help
Lisbon Underground's requirement for a 3m monitor the impact of the excavation and
"crown" of protection surrounding metro parts. containment operations on nearby structures
Therefore, it was necessary to ensure that the and infrastructures, particularly the ML gallery,
solution adopted in the plans, where there is namely through the influence of displacements
direct interference with the metro, respects and vibrations caused.
these limitations, in addition to ensuring there is
no transfer of loads to the land immediately On the gables of the adjacent buildings, on the
above the metro element, to avoid structural retaining walls, and on the Metro gallery,
deformations. topographic targets for monitoring vertical and
This is a solution identical to a "definitive Berlin horizontal displacements were installed, as well
wall", however, it is suspended in the span over as topographic marks inside the Metro to
the Metro gallery, and is supported at the ends control the vertical displacements of the rails,
on land adjacent to the Metro structure. an inclinometer in lot 1, and two piezometers to
This technique consisted in the previous monitor the evolution of the groundwater level.
execution of micropiles properly sealed, on In accordance with the values set by the Lisbon
each side of the structure of the Metro gallery Metro system, the designer established alert
and ensuring a safety distance of 3 meters,
and alarm criteria for displacements in the The topographic targets located on the
various structures monitored. retaining walls do not allow the displacements
to be monitored from the beginning of the
Table 1- Alert and Alarm Criteria. excavation operations, so it was essential to
compare this information with that obtained by
Horizontal Vertical
Displacement Displacement
the inclinometer in order to understand the
Alert Alarm Alert Alert behavior of the retaining structure and the
criteria criteria criteria criteria terrain in the back.
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Earth retaining
20 30 15 25
Structures
neighboring
15 30 10 25
buildings
Metro Gallery
7 10 7 10
Structure
Metro rails ±3 ±5 ±3 5

Whenever the observed displacements exceed

the alert and alarm criteria, predefined
procedures should be set in motion, ranging
from increasing the frequency of monitoring to
structural reinforcement measures.

Results obtained by on-site instrumentation

In this dissertation, only the results of the
monitoring with direct impact on the plan that
includes the solution adopted using the Mixed
Berlin Wall were analyzed.

As a result of the monitoring installed on site, it

was possible to register the displacements
verified in the different structures, detailed Figure 6 – Inclinometer-Accumulated deformations
above. at the retaining wall in directions A and B.
The displacements observed in the gables of
the neighboring buildings were not very The inclinometer recorded a displacement,
relevant, being less than 10mm, never towards the interior of the excavation, of
exceeding the criteria previously presented. 2.72mm at the crowning beam and 2.3mm at
The topographic targets located on the the location where the change of typology from
retaining walls recorded the largest horizontal definite Berlin to temporary Berlin takes place.
displacement, at target L1.P6, with a value of
9mm, again far from the warning criteria. Relatively to the evolution of the groundwater
level, the two piezometers installed on site,
observed an apparent stabilization at the quota
of +30.60mm.

Figure 5 - Total displacements accumulated in the

targets placed at the Lot 1 Earth retaining structure
(in mm).

Regarding the monitoring installed inside the

ML gallery, the results were also satisfactory,
and no significant displacements were recorded
when the bottom of the excavation was
reached. The largest displacements were Figure 7- Piezometer readings.
recorded in the vertical direction of the ML
structure, as expected due to the ground
swelling caused by the excavation, which
stimulates soil decompression.
5. Modeling of the Earth Retaining one that presented the best quality relationship
Structure - Plaxis 2D with the results pretended.

A numerical modeling of the adopted solution - Ground and structural element parameters
Mixed Berlin Wall - used in lot 1, was In addition to the characterization of the model
developed, using the software Plaxis 2D, geometry, the soil and structural elements such
version 22. This modeling allowed me to as the wall itself, anchors, ML tunnel, etc, were
analyze and understand the behavior of the soil characterized.
and the retaining structure throughout the
Table 2 – Ground parameters.
construction phase
ZG4 ZG3 ZG2 ZG1
Hardening Soil Model Parameters
For the behavioral analysis of the soil, the Landfill Silts Clays Sands
software provides several models, but for the Eref 50 [kN/m2] 5000 40000 50000 60000
desired analysis, only two proved to be Erefoed [kN/m2] 5000 40000 50000 60000
adequate: the Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Erefur [kN/m2] 25000 200000 250000 300000
Soil models. nur [-] 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3
The Mohr-Coulomb model is a perfectly plastic Pref 100 100 100 100
elastic model, which considers that the soil 𝛾 [kN/m3] 18 20-21 20-21 21
stiffness remains constant between the elastic
F’[°] 25 33 33 36
and plastic phases, differing from the actual
behavior of the soil, which does not follow a c' [kN/m2] 2 19 23 5
linear elastic behavior. j [°] 0 0 0 0
In contrast, the Hardening Soil model offers an
elastoplastic analysis that reflects greater Table 3 - Structural elements parameters.
accuracy on the issue of soil stiffness. This E A 𝛾 nu
model considers the increase in soil [GP
a]
I
[m4]
[m2/
m]
[kN/m
3]
r
[-]
W[kN/
m]
EA EI

compactness as there is an increase in stress, Micropil

free
210
1,51 4,30
- - -
1,13E+ 3,96E+
which implies an increase in soil stiffness. es
length E-05 E-03 06 03
HEB14
Reflecting more accurately the behavior of the 0
sealing
length
33
1,92
E-04
4,91
E-02
25 - - - -

soil. Perman 5,33 4,00 0, 1,32E+ 1,76E+

33 25 10
Mixed ent E-03 E-01 3 07 05
Berlin
Model geometry Wall tempora
ry
210
1,51
E-05
4,30
E-03
96,16
0,
3
4,13E-
01
1,13E+
06
3,96E+
03
To obtain results as close to reality as possible, free 2,98 6,25E+
it is necessary to ensure that the geometric inclined
micropil
length
210 -
E-03
- - -
05
-

modeling of the model is as faithful as possible es sealing

length
33
7,85
E-05
3,14
E-02
25 - - - -
to the one verified on site.
free 8,40 1,76E+
In the characterization of the model, a 70m wide Tempor length
210 -
E-04
- - -
05
-
ary
by 42m high working window was considered. anchors sealing
33
7,85 3,14
25 - - - -
length E-05 E-02
And then all the essential elements were
2,25 3,00 0, 3,18E+ 7,43E+
modeled, using the tools provided by the Metro's Gallery 33
E-03 E-01
25
3
7,5
05 04

software. * Note: More parameters were used in the parameterization

of the structural elements. Consult the dissertation for
more detail.

Construction phasing - calculation phases

In addition to what has already been detailed, it
ZG3 was important to address and detail the
ZG2 construction phasing used on site in order for
the calculating software to give results that
were compatible with reality. Since the Plaxis
2D program, does not consider the excavation
and concreting of the primary and secondary
panels, in the phase corresponding to the
Definitive Berlin Wall, this process was
ZG1
simulated using the SMstage command.
Figure 8 - Model geometry. The following phasing was adopted:

A fine Finite element mesh was adopted to this

model analysis, as it was considered to be the
 Table 4 – Main Construction phases.

Phase Name Details

1st Initial Phase -
"Reset displacement
2nd -
to zero"
execution of the
3rd SMstage=1,0.
vertical micropiles
4th 1st excavation SMstage =1,0.
Concreting - capping
5th SMstage =1,0.
beam
6th 2nd excavation SMstage =0,5.
Concrete pouring 1st
7th SMstage =1,0.
Panel
8th 3rd excavation SMstage =0,5 Figure 10 - Total vertical displacements. (units
Concrete pouring 2nd expressed in *10-3m).
9th SMstage =1,0.
Panel
10th 4th excavation SMstage =1,0. In the retaining wall, in terms of horizontal
Activation of the
11th
provisional anchors
SMstage =1,0. displacements, values were observed in the
Prestressing prestress -> F=600kN; direction of the interior of the excavation,
12th
application SMstage =1,0. motivated by the instability and decompression
13th 5th excavation SMstage =1,0. caused by the excavation. A reduction of these
Activation of the displacements was observed in the area of
14th SMstage =1,0.
provisional anchors
Prestressing prestress -> F=600kN;
influence of the prestressed anchors.
15th
application SMstage =1,0. The estimated vertical displacements are
16th 6th excavation SMstage =1,0. upward, contrary to the movements of the soil
at the back of the retaining wall, and this can be
Model results explained by the interaction of friction at the
Starting with the values estimated by the soil-structure interface
program for the ground displacements:

Figure 11 - Horizontal and vertical displacements at

Figure 9 - Total horizontal displacements (units the retaining wall.
expressed in *10-3m).
The impact of the excavation was also analyzed
Regarding horizontal displacements, a greater on ML's structure. The behavior of the
displacement was visible in the soils adjacent to displacements verified in the ML structure,
the retaining wall, with the maximum value suggest, once again, that the displacement of
occurring at the level of the retaining typology the ML structure occurred towards the
change. excavation side due, once again, to
Regarding vertical displacements, on the left decompression and corresponding soil
side of the containment, the existence of mostly heaving.
ascending displacements was observed, while
on the right side the displacements were In this first analysis performed, the discrepancy
descending. The maximum value of the vertical between the values obtained by the program
displacement was observed at the level of the (theoretical) and the values registered on site
excavation bottom, motivated by the (practical) was notorious. This means that the
decompression of the excavated soils that actual characteristics of the soils where the
originated soil swelling. construction site is located are better than those
initially predicted and used in the analysis
model.
Backanalysis of the model
In order to converge the estimated Although the backanalysis is closer to the
displacements to those observed at the site, a results verified on site, there is still a significant
backanalysis was performed. The backanalysis discrepancy between the values. However, for
consists of calibrating the characteristics of the values smaller than 4mm, the modeling of the
soil layers, iteratively, until the results are close soil characteristics is very difficult to perform.
to those verified by the instrumentation. The fact that the estimated displacements were
The parameters modulus of deformability and reduced by about 50% is worth mentioning.
effective soil cohesion c' of the soils were fitted.
The relationship previously established as Structural stresses at the retaining wall
"#$ "#$ "#$ Once the reliability of the backanalysis was
E!" ≈ 5E%& was also incremented to E!" ≈
"#$
6E%& . verified, it was possible to analyze the stresses
Table 5 - Parameters from the backanalysis. obtained in the retaining wall.

ZG4 ZG3 ZG2 ZG1

Parameters
Landfill Silts Clays Sands
Eref 50 [kN/m2] 10000 80000 90000 110000
Erefoed [kN/m2] 10000 80000 90000 110000
Erefur [kN/m2] 60000 480000 540000 660000
nur [-] 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3
Pref 100 100 100 100
𝛾 [kN/m3] 18 20-21 20-21 21
F’[°] 25 33 33 36
c' [kN/m2] 20 30 50 10 Figure 12 - Stresses at the retaining wall.
j [°] 0 0 0 0
The axial force [N] above the excavation
After the backanalysis procedure, the bottom, manifested itself mostly in
distribution of displacements on the retaining compression. Whenever one of the prestressed
wall remained similar to the one previously anchors was reached it manifested itself
presented, although with lower values. through a plateau and reached a maximum
The results obtained, were positioned more in compressive value of 162.1kN/m.
accordance with those verified on site through
the installed instrumentation. The shear force [Q] varies in steps, increasing,
From the following tables it is possible to in depth, whenever a sub-horizontal micropile
confirm the approximation of the displacement or a temporary anchor is reached. These
values after the backanalysis to the values variations arise from the resistance offered by
obtained on site, and consequently, distancing the blocking elements to the displacement of
from the warning criteria on the retaining wall. the soil, at the back of the retaining wall,
towards the interior of the excavation.
Table 6 – Comparation maximum horizontal The maximum value was recorded near the
displacements- retaining wall (mm).
prestressed anchors with an absolute
Topo. maximum of 98.66kN/m.
Initial Backanalysis Inclinometer
target
8,43 4,09 2,72 3 The bending moment [M], recorded maximum
negative values of -6.794 kNm/m along the wall
Table 7- Comparation maximum horizontal panels and maximum positive values of
displacements - retaining wall (mm). 24.28Nm/m at the location of the prestressed
anchors, associated with the points where the
Initial Backanalysis Inclinometer
Topo. transverse moment diagram [Q] changes sign,
target as expected.
2,16 1,04 - 4

Safety Verification
Table 8 - Maximum horizontal displacements- ML
(mm). A safety verification was performed, according
to the Eurocode. Since the retaining wall uses
Initial Backanalysis Topo. target distinct structural elements, this verification was
6,45 3,18 0,5 performed according to the following
indications:
Table 9 - Maximum horizontal displacements – ML • reinforced concrete element: verification of
(mm). safety to bending and shear stress,
according to Eurocode 2;
Initial Backanalysis Topo. target
10,93 5,49 2,3
• Temporary Berlin element: Safety Model characterization, and construction
verification of vertical profiles to bending phasing.
according to Eurocode 3. In terms of the characterization of the soil and
structural elements, everything has remained
6. Alternative Solutions Model as in the original solution. The only change in
structural terms, introduced in the software,
In order to understand if the solution adopted on occurred in alternative B. As mentioned, the
site was an optimizable solution, two other spacing between inclined micropiles went from
alternative solutions were analyzed. 3.20m to 6.40m at the level of the reinforced
The alternative solutions were subject to concrete panels.
changes, compared to the initial solution, in the
blocking elements, because it was considered Regarding the construction phasing adopted,
that these were the most likely elements to be Alternative A adopted the following one:
optimized both structurally and economically.
The following changes have been adopted: Table 10 - Construction phases - Alternative A

Phase Name
Alternative A - Optimization of blocking in the
1st Initial Phase
temporary component of the Retaining wall.
Instead of using two levels of temporary 2nd "Reset displacement to zero"
anchors, this solution suggests the use of only 3rd execution of the vertical micropiles
one level of prestressed anchors, located 4th 1st excavation
approximately at mid-span of the temporary 5th Concreting - capping beam
Berlin. 6th 2nd excavation
7th Concrete pouring 1st Panel
8th 3rd excavation
9th Concrete pouring 2nd Panel
10th 4th excavation
11th Placing Wood Beams
12th 5th excavation
Placing Wood Beams+ Activation
13th
provisional anchors
14th Prestressing application
Figure 13 - Alternative A - Model geometry. 15th 6th excavation

Alternative B - Optimization of the blocking in

the definitive component of the retaining wall. It While alternative B, maintained the phasing
consisted of the suppression of the inclined adopted in the original solution.
micropiles in the secondary panels, keeping it
only on primary panels, by changing the Comparative Analysis: Adopted Solution VS
spacing between inclined micropiles from Alternative A VS Alternative B
3.20m to 6.40m. In the capping beam there is A comparison of the 3 solutions was performed
no change in the blocking, compared to the to understand if there is room for optimizations
existing ones in the solution initially adopted.
Displacements
As can be seen at figure 15, throughout the first
four excavation stages, the phase in which the
application of the definitive Berlin was finalized,
the difference in displacements between the
solutions is minimal. From the fifth phase on, an
increase in the displacements is visualized in
the alternative solution A, since the supported
span in this phase is much larger than the span
supported in the other two solutions, due to the
suppression of one anchorage level.

The suppression of the bracing at the

secondary panels of the definitive Berlin in
Figure 14 - Alternativa B - Model geometry.
solution B, did not bring significantly higher
displacements than those estimated for the Concerning the Shear Stress, there was no
adopted solution. significant change between the solutions. Only
Alternative A presented slightly lower values
than the other two.

Figure 15 - Maximum horizontal displacements at

the retaining wall along the excavation phases.

The estimated impact of the changes on the

ML’s structure was minimal.
Figure 18 - Shear force comparation.

At last, in relation to the Bending Moment, the

alternative solution A was the one that
presented itself more attractive, since the
reduction observed in the absolute maximum
values was about 40%, when compared to the
initial solution. However, alternative B also
produced significant reductions. This is
important to highlight, since the retaining wall
works mostly in bending.
Figure 16 - Maximum horizontal displacements at
the ML structure along the excavation phases.

Stresses
For each solution, the maximum and minimum
predicted stresses throughout the structure
were calculated, in order to understand the
influence of the suggested changes on the
stresses.

Regarding the Axial force, there was a

significant decrease in the maximum and
minimum axial force in the alternative solutions. Figure 19 - Bending moment comparation.
With the reduction of the number of associated
blocking in each of the alternatives, the total Economic analysis
vertical component of these elements is lower To complement the comparative analysis of the
than in the original solution, impacting the value solutions, an economic analysis was
of the effort in question. performed. This analysis focused only on the
cost of the inclined micropiles, prestressed
anchors and capping beams for each solution.
Since the remaining material (reinforced
concrete, vertical micropiles, wood blocks, etc)
remained constant between solutions it was not
considered in this analysis.

In this analysis, the following material unit costs

were considered, directly taken from the site's
unit cost map and already considering the cost
of the material, labor, transportation, and extra
elements such as grout injection for the sealing
bulbs:
Figure 17 - Axial force comparation.
 Table 11 - Units Costs. (in Confrassilva 2021). blueprints, budgeting tables, some legislation,
as well as interpersonal skills.
Elements unit cost Unit
Inclined micropile 109,47 €/m
Prestressed Anchor 92,12 €/m
A structural analysis of one of the solutions
Distribution Beam 3,20 €/kg adopted on site was done using the Plaxis 2D
software, giving the opportunity to develop
Then, for each solution, the number of elements another competence. Through this analysis, It
that are target of this analysis were counted and was concluded, that in the elaboration of this
a map of quantities per unit of measure was type of project all details are important and it is
presented: always necessary to have a critical spirit, in
Table 12 - Quantities per unit of measure. order to obtain the best results.

Elements
Adopted Alternative Alternative However, all the numerical effort may be in vain
S. A B if it is not calibrated by a good observation &
Inclined
micropile (m)
390 390 305 monitoring plan, which allows the control of the
Prestressed structure's behavior, as well the approximation
253 126 252
Anchor (m) of the results obtained to the in situ behavior.
Distribution
5677,1 2838,5 5677,1
Beam (kg) Regarding the results of this work, it would be
interesting to complement it with the analysis of
Finally, in order to obtain the costs associated a 3rd alternative, with the combination of
with each blocking configuration, the quantity alternative A with alternative B, in order to
map was multiplied by the unit costs. The understand whether it would also be structurally
following result was obtained: feasible, and if its impact on the ML’s gallery
Table 13 - Costs per element and total cost.
would be compatible with its savings potential.
Adopted Alternative Alternative
Elements
S. A B 8. References
Inclined
42693,3 42693,3 33388,4
micropile [€]
Prestressed Confrassilva (2021), Mapa de quantidades e
23306,4 11607,1 23214,2
Anchor [€] Orçamento (in portuguese).
Distribution
18166,6 9083,3 18166,6
Beam [€]
Total [€] 84166,3 63383,7 74769,8 Cunha, P.M.I (2021), Soluções de Escavação,
Contenção Periférica e de Fachadas em Meio
It was possible to conclude that the alternative Urbano recorrendo a Bandas de Laje Caso de
A, in economic terms, is the most favorable, Estudo – Hotel Dos Reis na Avenida Almirante
with a reduction of 20782,53€, corresponding to Reis, 34-34E, Lisboa, , Dissertação para
24.7% of savings compared to the original obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Engenharia
solution. Civil, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa (in
portuguese).
Comparation remarks
Following the comparison of the three solutions, Eurocode 7. Geotechnic Project – Part 1:
it can be concluded that all of them satisfy the Support Structures, 2010.
proposed function safely.
If you favor the savings potential, alternative A JETsj. (2021) Projecto de Excavação e
is the way to go. If a more conservative Contenção Periférica Quinta dos Candeeiros,
optimization measure is chosen, alternative B Memória Descritiva e Justificativa (in
is the best solution. portuguese).

7. Conclusions Metropolitano de Lisboa (2017), Documento de

interferência de terceiros em estruturas do ML
The main objective of the work presented was (in portuguese).
to develop geotechnical and in site construction
concepts and competences in a challenging United Nations (2018), 68% of the world
environment. It is considered that the proposed population projected to live in urban areas by
objectives were achieved. 2050,https://www.un.org/development/desa/en
/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-
Due to the need to attend an ongoing urbanization-prospects.html, Accessed in
construction site, it was possible to absorb January 2022.
some skills related to technical material such as