Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report

YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

REVISION HISTORY

REVISION HISTORY

Rev. Description Submit Date Submit Ref Response Response

No Letter No Date Letter No
(DVE/ER)

D0 Revision 08.11.2013 BP-GDY-419

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 1

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

1. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS REQUIRED FOR DESIGN ..................................................................... 4

1.1 Summary Information about the Project ...................................................................................... 4
1.2. Earth Pressure and Earth Retaining Works .................................................................................. 4
1.3 Calculation of Building Settlements Around Excavations ............................................................. 5
1.4 Seepage Flow and Pore Water Pressures at/under Excavation Base........................................... 5
1.5 Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations ........................................................................ 6
2. METHOD OF DETERMINING GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................. 7
2.1 Geotechnical Surveys for Determining Geotechnical Design Parameters .................................... 7
2.2 Classification of Strata ................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Basic Philosophy of Determining Design Parameters ................................................................... 8
2.4 Method of Determining Geotechnical Design Parameters .......................................................... 8
2.4.1 Unit Weight ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.4.2 Internal Friction Angle, ........................................................................................................ 8
2.4.3 Cohesion, c ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.4.4 Deformation Modulus ............................................................................................................ 9
2.4.5 Undrained Modulus of Clays, (Eu) ........................................................................................ 10
2.4.6 Poisson’s Ratio,.................................................................................................................. 11
2.4.7 Shear Wave Velocity ............................................................................................................. 11
2.4.8 Initial Shear Modulus............................................................................................................ 11
2.4.9 Permeability ......................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.10 Modulus of Vertical and Horizontal Subgrade Reaction (kv and kh) ................................... 12
2.4.11 Coefficients of Earth Pressure ............................................................................................ 12
2.4.12 Drained Modulus, E’ .......................................................................................................... 12
2.5 Design Ground Water Level ........................................................................................................ 13
2.5.1 Employer’s Requirements .................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Determination of Rock Parameters ............................................................................................. 13
2.6.1 Rock Mass Classification System .......................................................................................... 13
2.6.2 Procedure for Rock Classification ......................................................................................... 14
2.6.3 Deformation Modulus, Cohesion and Angle of Internal Friction ......................................... 15
2.6.4 Geological Strength Index (GSI) Classification...................................................................... 16
3. KOŞUYOLU AREA IN GENERAL (KM:10+900 TO 11+600) .................................................................. 18
3.1 Structures between Km:10+900 and 11+600 .............................................................................. 18
3.2 Ground Profile ............................................................................................................................. 18

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 2

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

3.3 Description of Strata ................................................................................................................... 19

3.3.1 Pedestrian Overpass (Km:10+969) .......................................................................................... 19
3.3.2 Retaining Wall (Km:10+900-11+100) ...................................................................................... 21
3.3.3. Koşuyolu Bridge to Be Extended ............................................................................................. 24
3.3.4 Retaining Wall (11+150-11+200) .............................................................................................. 27
4. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendices

A. Borehole Layout
B. N (SPT) – Depth Plots
C. Soil and Rock Properties
D. Tables and Figures From Literature
E. Geological Profile*
(*Please see Drawing No: EPC03 – GE – SW – GEN – GDP – 003 – DA for geological profiles. Document
Name: “PART 3 SECTION-1 (KM=10+900~11+600) GEOLOGICAL PROFILE”)

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 3

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

1. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS REQUIRED FOR DESIGN

1.1 Summary Information about the Project

The Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project (also known as The Eurasia Tunnel Project) will be
constructed between Kazlıçesme and Göztepe along a 14.6-km route including a 5.4-km twin-deck
tunnel that will cross the Bosphorus beneath the seabed, with the aim of alleviating İstanbul’s traffic
pressure.

In addition to the road tunnel between Cankurtaran coast on the European side and Eyüp Aksoy
Junction on D100 State Highway on the Asian side, the project also includes widening of approach
roads on Kennedy Street on the European coast and on D100 State Highway up to the Göztepe
intersection on the Asian side as well as improvements of related junctions.

1.2. Earth Pressure and Earth Retaining Works

In calculating earth pressures acting on retaining walls both Rankine’s earth pressure and apparent
earth pressure diagrams are to be utilized. Earth pressures on very rigid walls are to be calculated
using the coefficient of earth pressure at rest. Intermediate cases shall be considered depending on
the situations where there are restricted wall deformations. Finite element methods and structural
(hyperstatic beam) method are to be resorted to. These require the parameters shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameters for Calculating Earth Pressure

Parameter Intended Use

Internal friction angle,  To calculate coefficient of earth pressure

Cohesion, c Ditto

Unit weight, To calculate earth pressure

To calculate retaining wall deformations and to

Deformation modulus, E analyze ground displacements behind earth

retaining wall and base of excavation

To analyze influence of excavation on

Poisson’s ratio,
ground behind earth retaining wall

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 4

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

1.3 Calculation of Building Settlements Around Excavations

The settlements of nearby buildings originating from wall deformations due to excavation are to be
calculated by the finite element method. Soil parameters required in FEM analyses are shown in
Table 2. Database available for maximum deformations due to excavations worldwide will also be
studied.
Table 2. Soil Parameters required for Settlement Analyses
of Surrrounding Buildings

Parameter Intended Use

To calculate vertical ground

Deformation moduli, Eu , E’
displacements
Poisson ratio, u,’ Ditto

Unit weight,  Ditto

Internal friction angle,  Ditto

Cohesion, c Ditto

1.4 Seepage Flow and Pore Water Pressures at/under Excavation Base

Seepage flow under base of retaining structure into the excavation pit, if expected, shall be
calculated by flow net analysis. Critical sections shall be checked also by FEM routines. Possibility of
piping, boiling and heaving due to increased water pressure are to be checked.

These require the parameters shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Parameters for Seepage Flow Analysis and Checking Water Pressures

Parameter Intended Use

Permeability, k To calculate amount of water seeping into

excavation pit, etc.

Unit weight, To calculate effective soil weight

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 5

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

1.5 Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations

Bearing capacity of shallow foundations are to be calculated by the Terzaghi’s expressions for
granular soils (1943, 1967) and Skempton’s (1951) expression and Nc (bearing capacity factor) values
for cohesive soils. Bearing capacity of pile foundations are to be calculated by well established soil
mechanics principles of skin friction and end bearing capacity. Effective stress principle shall be
employed in cohesionless soils, and undrained shear strength shall be used in cohesive soils. The
required parameters are given in Table 4.
Table 4. Parameters for Calculating Bearing Capacity

Parameter Intended Use

Internal friction angle, To calculate bearing capacity

Drained and undrained cohesion, c’, cu To calculate bearing capacity

Unit weight, To calculate vertical soil stress

Initial and consolidation settlement of shallow foundations are to be calculated by conventional

procedures making use of vertical stress distributions and undrained / drained compressibilities of
soils. Skempton-Bjerrum (1957) correction is to be applied to cohesive soils. Settlement of pile
foundations is to be estimated by elastic approaches (i.e. Poulos and Davis, 1980; Poulos, et al.,
2001). The required parameters are given in Table 5.
Table 5. Parameters for Calculating Settlements

Parameter Intended Use

Coefficient of volume compressibility, mv To calculate amount of consolidation

Undrained deformation modulus, Eu To calculate amount of initial settlement

Drained deformation modulus, E’ To calculate total settlement

Poisson’s ratio, ’ To calculate elastic initial and total settlement

Undrained cohesion, cu To calculate bearing capacity

Unit weight, To calculate vertical stress

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 6

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

2. METHOD OF DETERMINING GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Geotechnical parameters are normally obtained from laboratory and field tests. If these are not
available or are insufficient or unreliable, various codes, standards and state-of-the-art reports are
considered. Since granular soils are not suitable for undisturbed sampling in routine site investigation
work, field tests are used to determine engineering properties like strength and compressibility. Field
tests are also used in cohesive soils to correlate with laboratory data, or in case no laboratory tests
are available, as the only tool to determine the parameters.

In the following sections final parameters for Koşuyolu Area will be specified.

2.1 Geotechnical Surveys for Determining Geotechnical Design Parameters

The geotechnical design parameters shall be determined using the data obtained in two phases of
site investigations as detailed below:
a) Site investigations performed in 2010:

Borehole S-AS-01 is used for pedestrian overpass (Km: 10+969) and proposed retaining wall (Km:
10+900-11+000). S-AS-02 and -03 are not representative of the ground conditions at the site of the
Koşuyolu Bridge which will be extended.

b) Site investigations performed in 2011:

S-EU-118 is not representative of the ground conditions at the Koşuyolu Bridge to be extended.

2.2 Classification of Strata

Boreholes drilled in both phases of soil investigation have been combined and displayed with their
ground surface elevations, and ground profiles have been obtained along the route. Each stratum has
been identified based on grain size distribution curves and plasticity tests. Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) has been used to identify and describe the samples. Main groups are clays / silts (fine
grained) and sands / gravels (coarse grained). Subgroups are also reported (e.g. SW, CH, etc.).

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 7

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

2.3 Basic Philosophy of Determining Design Parameters

In geotechnical engineering design works soils are treated in two main soil groups namely “fine-
grained” and “coarse-grained” and strength and compressibility parameters are assigned accordingly.
Fine grained soils are assumed to behave in an undrained way except in long term loading / unloading,
and friction angles are assumed to be equal to zero. Coarse grained soils are usually assigned zero
cohesion. The reason for this simplification is the current state of art in geotechnical engineering.
Mobilized internal friction angles, cohesion and compressibilities are very difficult to assess unless the
case is very well instrumented.

2.4 Method of Determining Geotechnical Design Parameters

2.4.1 Unit Weight

Unit weights (kN/m3) used in the calculations are bulk (wet) (), saturated (sat) and submerged (’)
unit weights. Submerged unit weight is calculated normally

’ = sat - w

wherew is the unit weight of water (w = 9.8kN/m3). It may be taken as 10 kN/m3 except in
calculations for uplift of underground structures.

Bulk and saturated unit weight can be determined directly on undisturbed samples during triaxial
compression and / or consolidation tests in cohesive soils. Since granular soils cannot be practically
sampled in the undisturbed state, codes, standards and other references are employed in the
assessment (e.g. BS 8002). Similar approaches are available for cohesive soils if no samples can be
obtained.

2.4.2 Internal Friction Angle,

Internal friction angle of granular soils is very difficult to determine under field loading. When
drained triaxial compression test results on reconstituted coarse-grained soils or on undisturbed fine-
grained soils are available their mean value are used.

If no such tests are available recommended values in codes, standards and technical papers are to
be used. Since standard penetration test is performed in large numbers in the investigation,
correlations that use N numbers are briefly summarized below:

Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) made comparisons of results of triaxial compression tests on

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 8

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

undisturbed samples with SPT N value in Japan. Energy level is reported as 65-78 percent (Skempton,
1986) and the equations are given in Appendix D.

In Turkey donut hammer and cathead with 1.5 (to 2) turns are used and 45 - 50 percent energy level
is appropriate (See Appendix D).

BS 8002 proposes an equation (’ = 30 + A + B + C) and empirical coefficients A, B and C are given in a
table (See Appendix D).

Modified (N60) De Mello (1971) and Hilf (1975) correlations are given in form of graphical plots (See
Appendix D). Modified Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1953) chart (N60) is also given in the Appendix D
(Stroud 1989). It should be reminded that ’ values will be lower at higher stress levels due to the
curvature of the failure envelope.

Standard (Menard type) pressuremeter limit pressure is an indication of state of the granular soil.
Baguelin et. al. (1978) proposed a table correlating limit pressure (and N) to density of cohesionless
soils. Detailed assessment of friction angle and dilation angle during a standard test is very complex.

2.4.3 Cohesion, c

When drained triaxial compression or undrained triaxial compression tests with pore pressure
measurement are available, mean value of effective cohesion (c’) is used. Similarly when undrained
tests are available for undrained cohesion (cu), an average value is selected. If such tests are not
available, correlations with field tests shall be used. Standard penetration test blow number N, cone
penetration test tip resistance (qc), pressuremeter limit pressure (PL), vane shear test T are
commonly used to determine undrained cohesion. Correlations with SPT-N value are given by Stroud
(1974, 1989), Stroud and Butler (1975) (See Appendix D) for stiff clays and Terzaghi-Peck (1967),
Sowers (1979), and Schmertmann (1975).

2.4.4 Deformation Modulus

Deformation modulus in coarse-grained soils under static loading is regarded as drained modulus.
There is a wide range of values depending on grain size, uniformity, relative density, fines content,
etc. Numerous equations and/ or graphs proposed in the literature reflect this variation. Some of
these, mainly based on SPT-N values are summarized below:

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 9

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600
E (MPa) = (0.6 ~ 3.0)*N Burland et.al. (1977)
E (MPa) = 21 + 1.06*N D’Appolonia (1970)
E (kPa) = 500*(N+15) Bowles (1988)
E (kPa) = 320*(N+15) Ditto, clayey sand
E (kPa) = 300*(N+6) Ditto, silty sand
E (kPa) = 1200*(N+6) Ditto, gravelly sand and gravel

AASHTO (1986) lists range of values for various soils and gives expressions based on SPT (N1)60
values. (See Appendix D) Values proposed (E, MPa) are between 0.4 (N1)60 and 1.2 (N1)60.

Menzenbach (1967) prepared a correlation chart including overburden pressure. Stroud (1989)
recommends E (MPa) = N60 as the level of loading increases ((2N60) for low level of loads). Coarse and
dense soils give values near the upper limit as expected. Most data are related to footing design and
settlement, and the level of overburden pressure is very low (e.g. see the review by Douglas, 1983).
Another point to consider again is the energy level of SPT in the recent US practice which is 70
percent (old practice 45-55, Skempton, 1986). In Turkey, it is 45 - 50 percent.

2.4.5 Undrained Modulus of Clays, (Eu)

Undrained deformation moduli (Eu) for clays also show a large variation. Values are reported as ratio
of undrained shear strength (Eu / cu). Soft, medium stiff to stiff and very stiff clays exhibit different
ratios (See Appendix D). The wide variation observed in Eu / cu ratios is due to the strain level
(Jamiolkowski et. al., 1979; Jardine at al., 1985, See App. D) in different geotechnical problems.
Plasticity and overconsolidation ratio of clay also play a role. Research work on stiff overconsolidated
London clay by laboratory measurements, plate bearing tests and back analyses from the cases of
foundations and retaining walls explain the widely reported range of values of Eu / cu. In deep
excavations supported by retaining systems the strain level is lower compared to foundation
loadings, and Eu / cu ratios may be somewhat higher compared to values obtained from field loading
tests and foundation loadings. For overconsolidated plastic stiff clays a range of 150 to 500 may be
considered (Simpson and Sommer, 1974). Ladd (1964) and Bjerrum (1972) states that low values of
Eu / cu should be used for highly plastic clays with a high shear stress level and higher values for
lightly loaded clays of low plasticity. Moduli obtained in pressuremeter tests (Epm) are used to assess
deformation moduli for foundation design. Pressuremeter modulus may be directly used in case of
lateral loading.

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 10

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600
Coefficient of volume compressibility, mv

Compressibility of cohesive soils are usually given either by compression index (Cc) or bycoefficient
of volume compressibility (mv). The latter is more convenient to use for varying stress levels and for
stiffer cohesive soils. These parameters are obtained both in laboratory (1-D oedometer tests) and
in-situ tests. In-situ tests are correlated with average mv values (See Stroud, 1975, App. D).

2.4.6 Poisson’s Ratio,

Poisson’s ratios for coarse grained soils are reported between 0.2-0.4 and between 0.4-0.5
(undrained) for clays (Canadian Found. Eng. Man. (1978), AASHTO (1995)).

2.4.7 Shear Wave Velocity

Measured values of shear wave velocity by PS logging are preferred if available. When such tests are
not available standard penetration test N numbers shall be used. Some correlations given in
literature for coarse grained soils are:
Vs = 290 (N(60) + 1)0.3 (ft/sec) (Dickenson (1994) in K.O.Cetin, 2004)
Vs = 80 x N1/3 (m/s) (Spec. For Highway Bridges, Japan, 2002)
For clayey soils:
Vs = 18 (cu)0.475 (m/s) (Dickenson (1994) in K.O.Cetin, 2004)
Vs = 100 x N1/3 (m/s) (Spec. For Highway Bridges, Japan, 2002)

2.4.8 Initial Shear Modulus

Initial shear modulus is calculated from the conventional equation:

Go (kN /m2) = (t/g).Vs2

t : bulk or saturated unit weight

g : acceleration due to gravity
Shear wave velocity is either measured in PS logging, etc., or SPT correlations are used.
AASHTO (1996) proposedGo= 15560.(N60)0.68

2.4.9 Permeability
This parameter is very difficult to determine reliably both in the field and in the laboratory.
Permeability of granular soils is highly affected by fines content in addition to particle size
distribution and uniformity. In homogeneous soils (clean sands) expressions with D10 size are used if
no measured data are available. Borehole permeability tests or field pumping tests may be used if
available.

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 11

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

In the absence of test data, ranges of values for various soil types based on grain size given in the
literature should be cautiously referred to. Horizontal permeability is almost always greater than
vertical permeability due to layering of silty and clayey bands in alluvial soils.

2.4.10 Modulus of Vertical and Horizontal Subgrade Reaction (kv and kh)

These are not soil parameters but assigned properties which are used in soil-structure interaction
problems when soils are represented as springs. They are not constant and depend on the width of
structure and depth. Recommended values are mostly taken from literature. Certain soil types are
assigned values or Terzaghi (1955) plate values are modified to footings.

If needed in structural software the type of problem should be carefully considered and values
assigned accordingly. Poulos et. al. (2001) recommends lower values for retaining walls for better
prediction of displacements. Solutions may be obtained for specific structures using finite element
techniques, and then the displacements and stress levels known, better predictions for spring
coefficients may be made. DGGT (2003) recommends lower values for kh. For kv values for compacted
granular fills NAVFAC DM 7.1 (1982) may be referred to.

2.4.11 Coefficients of Earth Pressure

For normally consolidated soils, both granular and cohesive the following expression for the
coefficient of earth pressure at rest (Ko) is used;
Ko = 1 - sin’
Active (Ka) and passive (Kp) earth pressure coefficients shall be obtained from Annex A, BS8002.

2.4.12 Drained Modulus, E’

If the results of drained triaxial tests are not available, the drained modulus for overconsolidated
clays can be obtained approximately from the relationship Ed’ = 0.6 Eu (Tomlinson, 1995).
Alternatively, if mv values from oedometer tests are available, Ed’ is the reciprocal of mv. Hooper
(1973) gives E’ / Eu ratio of 0.75 for stiff clays. Stroud (1975) also shows the variation of E’/N with
plasticity index (See App. D, Fig. 9). Undrained modulus of elasticity can be obtained approximately
from the relationship Eu =3 E’ / (2(1+’)).

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 12

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

2.5 Design Ground Water Level

2.5.1 Employer’s Requirements

The Employer’s Requirements for design groundwater level are as below.

* Factor of Safety against Flotation
For structures on land, the assumed groundwater level shall be ground level or the flood level,
whichever is the higher, unless lower groundwater levels can be demonstrated under all conditions.
* Hydrostatic Load
For the purpose of design, hydrostatic pressures are usually assumed to act on under ground
structures.
See Table 7 for groundwater levels in the boreholes.

Table 6. Groundwater Levels in The Boreholes in Koşuyolu Section

Groundwater
Borehole Ground Groundwater
BORING Level Section
Depth(m) Level (m) Depth
YASS (m)

P.B. and
S-AS-01 10,10 4,95 21,00 16,05 Retaining Wall
S-AS-02 17,00 9,50 32,60 23,10
S-AS-03 15,00 11,70 36,75 25,05 -
S-AS-118 22,50 7,10 27,10 20,00

2.6 Determination of Rock Parameters

2.6.1 Rock Mass Classification System

Numerous rock mass classification systems have been developed for universal use. However, six have

enjoyed greater use. Those six systems include Terzaghi’s Rock Load Height Classification (Terzaghi

1946); Lauffer’s Classification (Lauffer 1958); Deere’s Rock Quality Designation (RQD) (Deere 1964);

RSR Concept (Wickham, Tiedemann, and Skinner 1972); Geomechanics System (Bieniawski 1973);

and the Q-System (Barton, Lien, and Lunde 1974).

However, three of the above six classification systems have been used extensively in correlation with

parameters applicable to the design of rock foundations. Those are the Rock Quality Designation,

Geomechanics System, and the Q-System.

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 13

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

2.6.2 Procedure for Rock Classification

Rock classification shall be according to The Geomechanics Classification, or Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

system, proposed by Bieniawski (1973). The RMR uses six parameters determined in the field:

• Uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock.

• Rock Quality Designation (RQD).

• Spacing of discontinuities.

• Condition of discontinuities.

• Groundwater conditions.

• Orientation of discontinuities.

The uniaxial compressive strength of rock is determined in accordance with standard laboratory

procedures but can be readily estimated on site from the point-load strength index. The first five

parameters (i.e.strength, RQD, joint spacing, joint conditions, and groundwater) are used to

determine the basic RMR. Ratings are assigned to each of the five parameters in accordance with

Part A of Table 6, Appendix D. The basic rock mass rating is obtained by adding up the five

parameters listed in Part A of Table 6, Appendix D.

Adjustment of the basic RMR value is required to include the effect of the strike and dip of

discontinuities. The adjustment factor (a negative number) and hence the final RMR value, will vary

depending upon the engineering application and the orientation of the structure with respect to the

orientation of the discontinuities.

The adjusted values, summarized in Part B of Table 6, Appendix D, are divided into five groups

according to orientations which range from very favorable to very unfavorable. The determination of

the degree of favorability is made by reference to Table 6 for assessment of discontinuity orientation

in relation to dams (Part A), and tunnels (Part B).

After the adjustment is made in accordance with Part B, Table 6, Appendix D, the rock mass ratings

are placed in one of five rock mass classes in Part C, Table 6, Appendix D. Finally, the ratings are

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 14

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

grouped in Part D of Table 6, Appendix D. This section gives the practical meaning of each rock class,

and a qualitative description is provided for each of the five rock mass classes. These descriptions

range from “very good rock” for class I (RMR range from 81 to 100) to“very poor rock” for class V

(RMR ranges < 20). The RMR can be used to estimate the rock mass deformation modulus. This

classification also provides a range of cohesion values and friction angles for the rock mass.

2.6.3 Deformation Modulus, Cohesion and Angle of Internal Friction

2.6.3.1 Deformation Modulus, (E)

In addition to test methods (uniaxial compression test, uniaxial-jacking test, pressuremeter test,

plate load test, pressure-chamber test, radial jack test, and borehole-jacking test) in which modulus

values are derived directly from stress-strain responses of rock, there are a number of empirical

methods that have been developed which correlate various rock quality indices or classification

systems to in-situ modulus. The more commonly used include correlations between RQD and RMR.

(i) RQD correlations. Deere, Merritt, and Coon (1969) developed an empirical relationship for the in-

situ modulus of deformation according to the following formula:

Ed= [(0.0231) (RQD) 1.32] Et50

where

Ed = in-situ modulus of deformation

RQD = Rock Quality Designation (in percent)

Et50 = laboratory tangent modulus at 50 percent of the unconfined compressive strength.

In the equation above it can be seen that the relationship is invalid for RQD values less than

approximately 60 percent. In addition, the relationship was developed from data that indicated

considerable variability between in-situ modulus, RQD, and the laboratory tangent modulus.

(ii) RMR correlations. A more recent correlation between in-situ modulus of deformation and the

RMR Classification system was developed by Serafim and Pereira (1983) that included an earlier

correlation by Bieniawski (1978) (Figure 12 in Appendix D).

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 15

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Ed= 10 (RMR -10)/40 for RMR < 50

Ed=2RMR-100 for RMR > 50

Where

Ed = in-situ modulus of deformation (in GPa)

RMR = Rock Mass Rating value

In both these correlations, the RMR is used without the adjustment for discontinuity orientation.

2.6.3.2 Cohesion and Friction Angle

Geomechanics classification of rock masses gives the following relationship for angle of internal

friction of rock masses (Bieniawski, 1989):

 = 0.5 RMR + 5

This classification also provides a range of cohesion values and friction angles for the rock mass.

2.6.4 Geological Strength Index (GSI) Classification

The Geological Strength Index (GSI), introduced by Hoek (1994), Hoek et al. (1995) and Hoek and

Brown (1998) provides a system for estimating the reduction in rock mass strength for different

geological conditions as identified by field observations. The rock mass characterisation is

straightforward and it is based upon the visual impression of the rock structure, in terms of

blockiness, and the surface condition of the discontinuties indicated by joint roughness and

alteration. The combination of these two parameters provides a practical basis for describing a wide

range of rock mass types, with diversified rock structure ranging from very tightly interlocked strong

rock fragments to heavily crushed rock masses. Based on the rock mass description the value of GSI is

estimated.

The uniaxial compressive strength σci and the material constant mi are determined by laboratory

testing or estimated from published tables. Wherever possible the values of these constants should

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 16

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

be determined by statistical analysis of the results of a set of triaxial tests on carefully prepared core

samples.

Using the GSI system, provided the uniaxial compressive strength value is known, the rock mass

deformation modulus Em for σci<100 MPa is estimated in GPa from the following equation (Hoek and

Brown 1998):

GSI 10
 ci ( )
Em  .10 40
100

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 17

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

3. KOŞUYOLU AREA IN GENERAL (KM: 10+900 TO 11+600)

3.1 Structures between Km: 10+900 and 11+600

a) Pedestrian Overpass (Km: 10+969)
b) Retaining Wall between Km: 10+900 and 11+100
c) Koşuyolu Bridge between Km: 11+100 and 11+200
d) Retaining Wall between Km: 11+150 and 11+200
The existing ground surface elevation of the road will be roughly preserved but certain road junctions
and U-turns are planned to be designed as box structures.

3.2 Ground Profile

Plan view of boreholes and the route layout is presented in App. A. This preliminary geotechnical
baseline report has been prepared to provide geotechnical parameters mainly for those main
structures.

Table 7. Description of sections along the route for Koşuyolu Area

No Structure Chainage between Borehole Nos

1 Pedestrian Overpass Km:10+969 S-AS-01

2 Retaining Wall Km:10+900-11+100 S-AS-01

3 Koşuyolu Bridge Km:11+100-11+200 _

4 Retaining Wall Km:11+150-11+200 _

Summary of Soil and Groundwater Conditions:

At this stage, there is no information on the planned foundation levels of the structures in this
section.
The soil strata encountered in the area are:
 Artificial fill. This layer is about 5 – 10 m thick in the area.
 Alluvium. Lean clay, sandy clay or sand, up to abot 10 m in thickness only in the area of
Koşuyolu Bridge Extension
 Sandstone and mudstone (Paleozoic bedrock)
Groundwater is not of major concern as it lies at a depth of greater than 15 m in the area.

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 18

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

3.3 Description of Strata

3.3.1 Pedestrian Overpass (Km:10+969)

S-AS-01 was drilled at the location of Pedestrian Overpass. Made ground is observed on the surface
but is only 0.90 m thick. Made ground consists of asphalt, topsoil and a mixture of gravel, sand and
clay. This layer is underlain by sandstone, which is observed from 0.90 m to 7.10 m in the boring. The
sandstone was described as “moderately strong - strong, grey, fine to medium grained, jointed /
fractured, with moderately disintagrated, vertical joints having rough surfaces. RQD values are within
the interval of 0 to 58%. Mudstone (siltstone) layer, which is another rock unit in the same geological
formation, was described as “moderately weak - medium strong, dark grey, jointed / fractured.

The rock formation consists of alternating layers of sandstone, siltstone and claystone (the latter two
are often termed “mudstone”).

The foundations of the pedestrian overpass will be founded in bedrock, consisting of alternating
mudstone and sandstone. The two abutments will be founded on the crests of steep rock cut slopes.
Rock slope stability and prevention of rockfalls must be considered in the design.

Figure 1. Pedestrian Overpass (Km10+969)

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 19

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Figure 2. The soil profile at S-AS-01 for overpass foundations

The footings of the overpass will be on the banks of the road cut as shown above. Although there is
no borehole near the footings, mudstone outcrops are locally visible and are covered by a thin (about
1 m) layer of artificial fill (made ground).

The following parameters are proposed for the design of this structure:

Table 8. Parameters Proposed for the Koşuyolu Pedestrian Bridge (Flat rock mass under
foundations)

Internal Modulus of
Unit weight, g Cohesion, c Poisson’s
Rock Type friction angle, deformation,
(kN / m3) (kPa) ratio,  (-)
(o) E (MPa)
Alternating
sandstone and 24 200* 25* 0.25 2300**
mudstone

RMR (avg) = 32 (Ref. Appendix B, Table 3)

* From Appendix D, Table 6, Part D, for RMR (avg) = 32
** From Appendix D, Figure 12, for RMR (avg) = 32.

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 20

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

The following parameters are proposed for the design of cuts and retaining walls as well as
foundations on crests of slopes:

Table 9. Parameters Proposed for the Koşuyolu Pedestrian Bridge (Cuts and Retaining Walls)
Internal Modulus of
Unit weight, g Cohesion, c Poisson’s
Rock Type friction angle, deformation,
(kN / m3) (kPa) ratio,  (-)
(o) E (MPa)
Alternating
sandstone and 24 70* 37* 0.25 600**
mudstone
* From RocLab (v. 1.003, www.rocscience.com) results; using the following input parameters:

** Assumed 25% of the value estimated for rock mass under foundations (see Table 8).

GSI 33
mi 10
c 20 MPa
Slope Height 15 m
Disturbance Factor, D 0.7

Note: The parameters given above Table can be used for the basic design stage. However, during the
detailed design stage, they should be investigated/ studied and may be subjected to revision in
accordance with further geological investigation performed on the site.

Permeability values have not been assigned to the strata in this section because the groundwater
level is considerably lower than the foundation level.

3.3.2 Retaining Wall (Km: 10+900-11+100)

S-AS-01 was drilled at the location of the retaining walls between km 10+900 and 11+100. As per the
borehole data, made ground is observed on the surface but is only 0.90 m thick. Made ground
consists of asphalt, topsoil and a mixture of gravel, sand and clay. This layer is underlain by
sandstone, which is observed from 0.90 m to 7.10 m in the boring. The sandstone was described as
“moderately strong - strong, grey, fine to medium grained, jointed / fractured, with moderately
disintagrated, vertical joints having rough surfaces. RQD values are within the interval of 0 to 58%.
Mudstone (siltstone) layer, which is another rock unit in the same geological formation, was
described as “moderately weak - medium strong, dark grey, jointed / fractured.

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 21

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

The rock formation consists of alternating layers of sandstone, siltstone and claystone (the latter two
are often termed “mudstone”).

Figure 3. Retaining Wall (Km: 10+900+11+100)

Figure 4. The Soil Profile for Retaining Wall

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 22

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Table 10. Geotechnical Design Parameters for the Rock Layers at the location of the Retaining Wall
(Km: 10+900-11+100) (for Flat Rock Mass Under Foundations)
Internal Modulus of
Unit weight,  Cohesion, c Poisson’s
Rock Type friction angle, deformation,
(kN / m3) (kPa) ratio,  (-)
(o) E (MPa)
Alternating
sandstone and 24 200 25 0.25 2300
mudstone
Note: see Table 8.
Table 11. Geotechnical Design Parameters for the Rock Layers at the location of the Retaining Wall
(Km: 10+900-11+100) (for Cuts and Retaining Walls)
Unit Internal Cohesion, Poisson’s Modulus of
Layer / Rock Condition weight,  friction c ratio,  deformation,
(kN / m3) angle, (o) (kPa) (-) E (MPa)
1- Slightly weathered,
thickly bedded Mudstone-
Sandstone*, medium 24 37 70 0.25 600
strong to strong
(Favorouble Orientation)
2- Moderately weathered,
medium bedded
Mudstone-Sandstone*, 23 34** 55** 0.25 300
weak to medium strong
(Fair Orientation)
3- Highly weathered, thinly
bedded / laminated
Mudstone-Sandstone*, 22 29*** 40*** 0.25 50
very weak to weak
(Unfavorable Orientation)
*: Trakya Formation, Carboniferous.
** From RocLab (v. 1.003, www.rocscience.com) results; using the following input parameters:

GSI 30
mi 10
c 15 MPa
Slope Height 15 m
Disturbance Factor, D 0.7

*** From RocLab (v. 1.003, www.rocscience.com) results; using the following input parameters:

GSI 27
mi 10
c 10 MPa
Slope Height 15 m
Disturbance Factor, D 0.7

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 23

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Note: The parameters given in the table can be used at the basic design stage. However, during the
detailed design stage, they should be studied in detail and may be subjected to revision in
accordance with the results of further geological investigations performed on the site.

Permeability values have not been assigned to the strata in this section because the groundwater
level is considerably lower than the foundation level.

3.3.3. Koşuyolu Bridge to Be Extended

The data of the boreholes ZKS-6/A, ZKS-6/B, KKS-6, KKS-6/A, KKS-6/B, and KKS-6/C are available for
the Koşuyolu Bridge (between Km: 11+100 and 11+200). Thickness of the made ground layer is
between 1.5m-4.5m. There is a layer of clayey sand and sandy clay layer under made ground. Clayey
sand layer is observed between 1.5m-5.5m and 7.5m-9m in borehole KKS-6/A. Sandy Lean Clay is
observed between 5.5m-7.5m and 9m-11.6m in borehole KKS-6/A .

Kadıköy - Kartal metro tunnel is running parallel to the main road. Investigation and analyses are
required for the interaction between the bridge and the tunnel. Soil improvement or piled
foundations are to be used for this structure.

Figure 5. Koşuyolu Bridge to be extended

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 24

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Figure 6. The soil profile for Koşuyolu Bridge

Table 12. Proposed Geotecnical Design Parameters for Soil Layers - Koşuyolu Bridge to be Extended

Proposed Geotecnical Design Parameters for Soil Layers-Koşuyolu Bridge to be Extended

Undrained Drained
Shear Shear
Strength Strength
γsat γsub c c'
Stratum (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kPa)  (°) (kPa) '(°)
Made Ground 16 6 _ _ _ 28

Clayey Sand (SC) 19 9 _ _ _ 30

Sandy Clay (CL) 20 10 30 0 5 28

Lean Clay (CL) 20 10 60 0 5 26

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 25

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Table 13. Proposed Geotecnical Design Parameters for Soil Layers - Koşuyolu Bridge to be Extended

Proposed Geotechnical Design Parameters for Soil Layers- Koşuyolu Bridge to be Extended

Undreaid Drained Drained Shear

Modulus of Modulus of Undrained Poisson Wave
Elasticity E , Elasticity Poisson Ratio Ratio Velocity
Stratum (MPa) E'(MPa) v v' m/s
Made Ground N/A 6 N/A 0,30 150

Clayey Sand (SC) N/A 9 N/A 0,30 180

Sandy Clay (CL) 7 4 0,45 0,30 190

Lean Clay (CL) 16 11 0.45 0,30 250

Table 14.Layer Thicknesses and SPT-N values

Borehole: KSS-6/A, KSS-6/B, KSS-6/C

SPT-N SPT-N45 N60
Description Thickness(m) (range) (ave.)
Made Ground 1,5-4,5 5-7 6 5
Clayey Sand (SC) 2-4,5 7-24 11 8
Sandy Clay (CL) 2-4,5 5-10 7 6
Lean Clay (CL) 4-6,5 13-18 16 12

Table 15. Vertical and Horizontal Subgrade Reaction Moduli (kv and kh)

kv* kh*
Description (MN/m3) (MN/m3)
Made Ground 7 4
Clayey Sand (SC) 9 7
Sandy Clay (CL) 5 3
Lean Clay (CL) 12 8

*Vertical and Horizontal Subgrade reaction moduli (kv and kh) are calculated for a foundation width
of B=1m

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 26

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Table 16. Geotechnical Design Parameters for Rock Layers at the location of Koşuyolu Bridge to be
Extended (for Rock Mass Under Foundations)
Internal Modulus of
Unit weight,  Cohesion, c Poisson’s
Rock Type friction angle, deformation,
(kN / m3) (kPa) ratio,  (-)
(o) E (MPa)
Alternating
sandstone and 24 200 25 0.25 2300
mudstone
Note: see Table 8.

Permeability values have not been assigned to the strata in this section because the groundwater
level is considerably lower than the foundation level.

3.3.4 Retaining Wall (11+150-11+200)

There are boreholes ZKS-6/B, KKS-6/B, and KKS-6/C executed for another project in the past for
assessing the ground conditions for the Retaining Wall. Made ground (artificial fill), about 1.5-4.50 m
thick, is encountered on the surface. The made ground consists of fine to coarse, angular to sub-
angular gravel and cobbles within a finer matrix. Silty sand layer is encountered in between depths of
3.00 m and 7.00 m in borehole S-AS-06.

Figure 7.Boreholes location plan for Retaining Wall (between Km: 11+150 and 11+200)

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 27

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Figure 8. The soil profile for Retaining Wall

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 28

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Table 17. Proposed Geotecnical Design Parameters for Soil Layers

Proposed Geotecnical Design Parameters for Soil Layers-Retaining Wall

Undrained Drained
Shear Shear
Strength Strength
γsat γsub c c'
Stratum (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kPa)  (°) (kPa) '(°)
Made Ground 16 6 _ _ _ 28

Clayey Sand (SC) 19 9 _ _ _ 30

Sandy Clay (CL) 20 10 25 0 5 28

Lean Clay (CL) 20 10 60 0 5 26

Table 18. Proposed Geotecnical Design Parameters for Soil Layers-Retaining Wall

Proposed Geotechnical Design Parameters for Soil Layers- Retaining Wall

Undreaid Drained Drained Shear

Modulus of Modulus of Undrained Poisson Wave
Elasticity E , Elasticity Poisson Ratio Ratio Velocity
Stratum (MPa) E'(MPa) v v' m/s
Made Ground N/A 6 N/A 0,30 140

Clayey Sand (SC) N/A 12 N/A 0,30 180

Sandy Clay (CL) 7 5 0,45 0,30 170

Lean Clay (CL) 16 11 0.45 0,30 225

Table 19. Proposed Geotecnical Design Parameters for Soil Layers

Borehole: KSS-6/B-ZKS-6/B,KKS-6/C
SPT-N SPT-N45 N60
Description Thickness(m) (range) (ave.)
Made Ground 1,5-4,5 5-10 7 5
Clayey Sand (SC) 4 8-14 14 11
Sandy Clay (CL) 2-4 5-10 7 5
Lean Clay (CL) 2,5-6,5 13-18 16 12

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 29

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

Table 20. Vertical and Horizontal Subgrade Reaction Moduli (kv and kh)

kv* kh*
Description (MN/m3) (MN/m3)
Made Ground 7 4
Clayey Sand (SC) 13 9
Sandy Clay (CL) 5 3
Lean Clay (CL) 12 8

*Vertical and Horizontal Subgrade reaction moduli (kv and kh) are calculated for a foundation width
of B=1m.

Table 21. Geotechnical Design Parameters for Rock Layers at the location of Retaining Wall (for Flat
Rock Mass under Foundations)

Internal Modulus of
Unit weight,  Cohesion, c Poisson’s
Rock Type friction angle, deformation,
(kN / m3) (kPa) ratio,  (-)
(o) E (MPa)
Alternating
sandstone and 24 200 25 0.25 2300
mudstone
Note: see Table 8.
Permeability values have not been assigned to the strata in this section because the groundwater
level is considerably lower than the foundation level.

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 30

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Project Geotechnical Parameters Report
YMSKJV Part 3 – KM:10+900~11+600

4. REFERENCES

 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO (1988), “Manual on Subsurface Investigations.”
Washington, D.C.
 AASHTO (1995). Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing - part II: tests,
Sixteenth Edition, Washington, D.C.
 AASHTO (1996). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th Edition, Washington, D.C.
 BS 8081: 1989, Ground Anchorages, British Standards Institution.
 Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1978), Canadian Geotechnical Society Montreal.
 Cetin, K.O. (2004). “Seismic Assessment for On Land Sections Excluding Bored Tunnels”, Report, 244 pages.
 Dickenson, S.E. (1994), “Dynamic Response of Soft and Deep Cohesive Soils During the Loma Prieta Earhtquake of October 17,
1989”, Dissertation Submitted in Partial Satisfaction for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of California at Berkeley.
 DGGT (2003) ‘Recommendations on Excavations’, German Society for Geotechnics, Ernst and Sohn, A Wiley Company.
 Douglas, D.J. (1983), “The Standard Penetration Test”,Proc.“In-situ Testing for Geotechnical Investigations”, pp.21-31, Sydney,
Balkema Publ.
 Jamiolkowski, M., et al. (1979), Design Parameters for Soft Clays, Proc. of 7th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engrg., Brighton, 5, pp. 21-57.
 Jardine, R., Fourie, A., Maswose, J., and Burland, J.B. (1985), Field and Laboratory Measurements of Soil Stiffness Proc. of
11th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engrg., San Francisco, 2, pp. 511-514.
 Hatanaka, M., and Uchida, A. (1996). “Empirical Correlation Between Penetration Resistance and Internal Friction Angle of
Sandy Soils.” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1-9.
 Hilf, J. W. (1975). “Compacted fill.” Foundation Engineering Hanbook, H. F. Winterkorn and H.Y. Fang, eds., Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
 Holtz, W. G., and Gibbs, H. J. (1979). Discussion of "SPT and relative density in coarse sand." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 105 (3),
439-441.
 Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. W. (1990). "Manual on estimating soil properties for foundations design." Report EL-6800, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Ca.
 NAVFAC, DM-7.1. (1982). “Soil mechanics” Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Department of the Navy, Alexandria, Virginia.
 NAVFAC, DM-7.2. (1986). “Foundations and Earth Structures” Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Department of the Navy,
Alexandria, Virginia.
 Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. 1974. Foundation Engineering, 2nd ed., Wiley and Sons, NY.
 Poulos, H.G., Carter, J.P. and Small, J.C. (2001). “Foundations and retaining structures- Research and Practice”, Proc. 15th
I.C.S.M.G.E. Theme Lecture, Vol. 4, pp. 2527-2606, Istanbul, Balkema Publ.
 Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980), Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, John Wiley, New York.
 PTI (1996), Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors, 3rd ed., Post-Tensioning Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
 Schmertmann, J.H. (1975). “Measurement of In-Situ Shear Strength.” Proceedings, ASCEConference on In-Situ Measurement of
Soil Properties, Vol. 2., Raleigh, N.C., pp. 57-138.
 Simpson, B., O’Riordan, N.J., and Croft, D.D. (1979), A Computer Model for the Analysis of Ground Movements in London Clay,
Geotechnique, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 149-175.
 Skempton, A.W. and Bjerrum, L. (1957), A Contribution to the Settlement Analysis ofFoundation on Clay, Geotechnique, 7, pp.
168-178.
 Skempton, A.W. 1986. Standard penetration test procedures and effects in sand of overburden pressure, relative density,
particle size, ageing and overconsolidation. Geotechnique 36, pp. 425-447
 Sowers, G.F- (1979). Introductory soil mechanics and foundations, Macmillan, New York.
 Stroud, M.A. (1974). “The Standard Penetration Test in Insensitive Clays and Soft Rocks.”Proceedings, European Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol. 2.2, Stockholm, Sweden,pp.367-375.
 St. John, H.D. (1975), Field and Theoretical Studies of the Behaviour of Ground aroundDeep Excavations in London Clay, Ph.D.
Thesis, Univ. of Cambridge.
 Stroud, M.A. (1975). Standard Penetration Test in Insensitive Clays and Soft-Rocks. Proc.ESOPTI 2(2). pp. 367-375.
 Stroud, M.A. and Butler, F.G. (1975). The Standard Penetration Test and the Engineering Properties of Glacial Materials. Proc.
Symp. Engrg. Behaviour of Glacial Materials, Univ. ofBirmingham, pp. 124-135.
 Stroud, M.A. (1989). “Standard Penetration Test: Introduction Part 2.” Penetration TestingIn the U.K., Thomas Telford, London,
pp. 29-50.
 Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G., Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1996, JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.
 Tomlinson M .J., 1995, Foundation Design and Construction Practice, Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
 Tomlinson M.J., 1994, Pile Design and Construction Practice, E&FN Spon Publ.
 Zemar (2012), Istanbul Strait Road Crossing Project, Factual Report for Structures between 10+900-11+600
 Kadıköy – Kartal Mass Transport Systems Geotechnical Surveys (Borehole Reports for KKS-6, KKS-6A, KKS-6B, KKS-6C, ZKS-6A,
ZKS-6B)

Document No: EPC03-GE-AR-GEN-GDP-003-D0 Page 31

APPENDICES

A. Borehole Layout
B. Soil and Rock Properties
C. N (SPT) – Depth Plots
D. Tables and Figures From Literature
E. Geological Profile*
(*Please see Drawing No.: EPC03 – GE – SW – GEN – GDP – 003 – DA for
geological profiles. Document Name: “PART 3 SECTION-1 (KM=10+900~11+600)
GEOLOGICAL PROFILE”)
 APPENDIX A

BOREHOLE LAYOUT
 APPENDIX B

SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES

Table 1.Soil Test Results of Boreholes: S-AS-118, S-AS-02 and S-AS-03

Table 2.Koşuyolu Extended Bridge Point Load Test Result

POINT LOAD TEST

Point Load Index,
Borehole No Depth (m) Rock Type Size (cm) Is (kg/cm2)
KKS-6 21.50 Sandstone 6.00 75.0
KKS-6 30.00 Sandstone 6.00 120.8

Table 3.RMR and GSI Values for Koşuyolu - Pedestrian Overpass Km. 10+969
 APPENDIX C

N (SPT) - DEPTH PLOTS

Figure 1. SPT N vs. Depth plot for all boreholes
 APPENDIX D

TABLES AND FIGURES

FROM LITERATURE
TABLE 1. Empirical Coefficients for BS 8002’ equation
FIGURE 1. Empirical Correlation between N60 and f for uncemented sands
(Adapted from DeMello, 1971)
FIGURE 2. Relationship between and Relative Density for Various Sands
(Hilf, 1975)
FIGURE 3. Effect of Overconsolidation Ratio on the Relationship between (N1)60 and
Angle of Friction ’
FIGURE 4. Relationship between Mass Shear Strength, Modulus of Volume
Compressibility, Plasticity Index, and SPT-N values ( after Stroud, 1975)

TABLE 2. Stroud (1989) recommendation for cu (cu = f1 * N60)

FIGURE 5. Approximate Correlation between Undrained Shear Strength and SPT-N
Values (After Sowers, 1979)
TABLE 3. Typical Ranges for Elastic Constants of Various Materials*

TABLE 4. Typical Values of Small-Strain Shear Modulus (AASHTO, 1996)

Soil Type Small-strainshearmodulus, Go (kPa)

Soft clays 2,750 to 13,750
Firm clays 6,900 to 34,500
Silty sands 27,600 to 138,000
Dense sand sand gravels 69,000 to 345,000
FIGURE 6. Relationship between Eu / cu and AxialStrain (afterJardine et al., 1985)

FIGURE 7. Relationship between Eu / cu Ratio for Clays with Plasticity Index and Degree
of Overconsolidation (afterJamiolkowski et al., 1979)
FIGURE 8. Undrained Young’s Modulus for London Clay from Laboratory and Field Data
(after St. John, 1975)
FIGURE 9. The Variation of Ev’ / N with Plasticity Index (after Stroud, 1975)

TABLE 5. Skempton and Bjerrum (1957) Consolidation Settlement Correction Factors

Type of Clay g
Very sensitive clays (soft alluvial) 1.0-1.2
Normally consolidated clays 0.7-1.0
Overconsolidated clays (London clays) 0.5-0.7
Heavily Overconsolidated clays 0.2-0.5
FIGURE 10. The Variation of Second Young’s Modulus with Shear Strain, derived from the
Mathematical Model for London Clay (Simpson, O’RiordanandCroft, 1979)

FIGURE 11. Values of friction anglefor clays of various compositions as reflected in

plasticity index (Terzaghi, PeckandMesri, 1996)
 TABLE 6. The Rock Mass Rating System

(Geomechanics Classification of Rock Masses) (Bieniawski, 1989)

A. Classification Parameters and Their Ratings

Parameter Range of Values
For this low
Strength of Point-load strength index range, uniaxial
10 4-10 2-4 1-2
intact rock (MPa) compressive test
1
material is preferred
Uniaxial compressive strength 250 100-250 50-100 25-50 5-25 1-5 <1
Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
Drill core quality RQD (%) 90-100 75-90 50-75 25-50 <25
2
Rating 20 17 13 8 3
200-600
Spacings of discontinuities >2 m 0.6-2 m 60-200 mm <60 mm
3 mm
Rating 20 15 10 8 5
Slightly Slightly
Very rough Slickensided
rough rough
surfaces surfaces or
surfaces surfaces Soft gouge > 5
Not Gouge < 5
Separation Separation mm thick or
Condition of discontinuities continuous mm thick or
4 < 1 mm < 1 mm Separation > 5
No separation Separation 1-
Slightly Highly mm Continuous
Unweathered 5 mm
weathered weathered
wall rock Continuous
walls walls
Rating 30 25 20 10 0
Inflow per 10 m tunnel length None <10 10-25 25-125 >125
(L/min) or or or or or
Jo int water pressure 0 < 0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.5 >0.5
Groundwater Ratio
5 Major principal stress or or or or or
Completely
General Conditions Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
dry
Rating 15 10 7 4 0

B. Rating Adjustments for Discontinuity Orientations

Strike and Dip
Orientations of Very Favorable Favorable Fair Unfavorable Very Unfavorable
Discontinuities
Tunnels and
0 -2 -5 -10 -12
mines
Ratings
Foundations 0 -2 -7 -15 -25
Slopes 0 -5 -25 -50 -60

C. Rock Mass Classes Determined from Total Ratings

Rating 100 ← 81 80 ← 61 60 ← 41 40 ← 21 <20
Class no. I II III IV V
Description Very good rock Good rock Fair rock Poor rock Very poor rock

D. Meaning of Rock Mass Classes

Class no. I II III IV V
30 min for 1 m
Average stand-up time 20 yr for 15 m span 1 yr for 10 m span 1 wk for 5 m span 10 h for 2.5 m span
span
Cohesion of the rock
> 400 300-400 200-300 100-200 <100
mass (kPa)
Friction angle of the
> 45 35-45 25-35 15-25 < 15
rock mass (degrees)
 Summary of Joint Orientation Adjustments for Dam Foundations and Tunnels

A. Assessment of joint orientation favorability upon stability of dam foundations

Dip 100-300
Dip Dip Dip
Dip direction
00 - 100 300 - 600 600 - 900
Upstream Downstream

Very favorable Unfavorable Fair Favorable Very unfavorable

B. The effect of joint strike and dip orientations in tunnelling

Strike Perpendicular to Tunnel Axis

Drive with Dip Drive Against Dip

Dip 450 - 900 Dip 200 - 450 Dip 450 - 900 Dip 200 - 450

Very favorable Favorable Fair Unfavorable

Dip 00 - 200
Strike Parallel to Tunnel Axis
Irrespective of Strike

Dip 450 - 900 Dip 200 - 450

Fair
Very unfavorable Fair

SHEAR STRENGTH DATA

(Serafim and Pereira, 1983; Bieniawski, 1989)

Rock Mass Properties

RMR 100-81 80-61 60-41 40-21 <20

Rock Class I II III IV V

Cohesion, kPa >400 300-400 200-300 100-200 <100

Friction, deg >45 35-45 25-35 15-25 <15

Modulus, GPa >56 18-56 5.6-18 1.8-5.6 <1.8

FIGURE 12. Relationship between In-situ Modulus and Rock Mass Rating

(after Bienawski, 1979 ; Serafim and Pereira, 1983)