T.R. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipalty Department of Earthquake Risk Management and Urban Development Directorate of Earthquake and Ground Analysis

T.R. ISTANBUL METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALTY DEPARTMENT OF EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE OF EARTHQUAKE AND GROUND ANALYSIS

PRODUCTION OF MICROZONATION REPORT AND MAPS EUROPEAN SIDE (SOUTH)

GEOLOGICAL – GEOTECHNICAL STUDY REPORT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AS A RESULT OF SETTLEMENT PURPOSED MICROZONATION WORKS

FINAL REPORT (SUMMARY REPORT)

OCTOBER 2007 ISTANBUL

OYO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE …………………………………………………………… 1 1.1 Objective of the Work ……………………………..………………………………… 1 1.2 Scope of the Work …………………………………………………………………… 1 1.3 Work Organization ……………………………………………………………...... 2

2 INTRODUCTION OF THE WORK AREA AND WORKING METHODS………… 3 2.1 Location of the Work Area ………………………………………………………… 3 2.2 Database, Mapping and Working Methods …………………………………………. 5 2.3 Summary of the Work ..……………………………………………………………. 6

3 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AND GEOMORPHOLOGY…………………….. 7 3.1 Geographical Location ………………………………………………………...... 7 3.2 Geomorphology ……………………………………………………..…...... 7

4 CONSTRUCTION PLAN ……………………………………….……………….…… 9

5 GEOLOGY…………………………………………………………….…………..…... 10 5.1 General Geology ………………………..……...... 10 5.2 Geology of the Project Area……...... 13 5.3 Structural Geology ………………...... 15 5.4 Historical Geology ………………...... 16

6 GEOLOGICAL WORKS, GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS AND IN-SITU TESTS …………………………………………………………………….… 17 6.1 Geological Works ……………………………………………………….………….. 17 6.2 Geophysical Measurements…………………………………………………………. 17 6.3 Local Soil Characteristics ……………………………………………...... 18

7 LABORATORY TESTS ………………………………………………………………. 24 7.1 Contents of Laboratory Tests ………………………………………………………… 24 7.2 Results of Laboratory Tests …………………………………………………………. 24

8 HAZARD ANALYSIS AND MAPPING ……………………………………………… 26 8.1 Earthquake Hazard Analysis ………………………………………………………… 26 8.2 Surface Ground Motion Analysis………………………………………………...... 37 8.3 Liquefaction Hazard Analysis……………………………………………………….. 48 8.4 Mass Movements (Slope Instability)………………………………………………... 53

9 WATER STATUS ……………………………………………………………………… 58 9.1 Groundwater Levels …………………………………..…………………...... 58 9.2 Flooding Hazard Analysis ………………………..…………………...... 61 9.3 Tsunami Hazard Analysis …...... …………………………..…………………...... 67

10 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY FOR SETTLEMENT ………………….…….... 78 10.1 Technical and Legal Criteria of the Evaluation …………….………………….……. 78 10.2 Evaluation of Hazards in Terms of Settlement Suitability………………….……….. 78 10.3 Suitable Areas (UA) …………………………………………………..………...... 78 10.4 Precautionary Areas (ÖA) …………………………………………………………… 79 10.5 Unsuitable Areas (UOA) …………………………………………………………….. 82

11 RESULTS AND SUGGESTIONS ………………….…………………………….….... 84

1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

This Report describes the summary of contents, methods and results of “PRODUCTION OF MICROZONATION REPORT AND MAPS – EUROPEAN SIDE (SOUTH)” (hereinafter referred to as “the Work”), prepared by OYO International Corporation (OIC), and submitted to Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM).

1.1 Objective of the Work The objective of the Work is to identify separate areas which have different potentials for hazardous earthquake effects and to produce the seismic microzonation report and maps which can serve as the basis for “hazard-related land use management and city planning” within the boundary of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. In order to assess these earthquake effects, detailed geological, geophysical, geotechnical, and seismological investigations and study were conducted.

1.2 Scope of the Work The flow of whole Work is shown in Fig. 1.2.1.

(1) Planning and Organization for the Work

(2) Site Investigations and Data Collections

(3) Data Input and Evaluation

(4) Data Analysis and Processing

(5) Microzonation Mapping and Reporting

Fig. 1.2.1 Flow of the Work

1 1.3 Work Organization The Work organization is shown in Fig. 1.3.1.

Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Technical Department of Committee Earthquake and Soil Research

OYO International Corporation

Project Team

Project Manager

Geological Seismological City Planning, Microzonation and and Geomorphology, Evaluation Geotechnical Geophysical and GIS Work Group Work group Work Group Work Group

Fig. 1.3.1 Work organization

2 2 INTRODUNTION OF THE WORK AREA AND WORKING METHODS

2.1 Location of the Work Area The location of the Work area is shown in Fig. 2.1.1.

Fig. 2.1.1 Location of the Work area

The Work area, shown in Fig. 2.1.2, is the land portion surrounded with the following coordinates:

1) X: 388,598.72 Y: 4,547,051.31 2) X: 388,430.19 Y: 4,535,945.17

3) X: 407,375.58 Y: 4,535,681.75 4) X: 415,860.39 Y: 4,541,134.16

5) X: 415,892.19 Y: 4,543,910.66 6) X: 411,720.15 Y: 4,546,736.56

The total area is approximately 182 km2. The Work period is between 18.01.2006 – 19.10.2007 and this final report has been prepared in October 2007.

Proje İçi Gridler Proje Dışı Gridler Proje Alanı

Fig. 2.1.2 Work area grid map (250 x 250 m. European Side (South), İstanbul)

2.2 Database, Mapping and Work Methods Data and maps are prepared in ArcInfo1 environment, after an agreement with the Municipality. National geodetic coordinate systems are used to produce data and maps. 1/1000 scale DGN files of year 1999 are mainly used as base map. 1/5000 scale DGN and GEO-TIFF files of year 2005 are used as assistant base map. Geological legends are based on MTA’s geological mapping standard, and updated for Istanbul based on the comments of control engineers, professors and other high engineers. The datum of “1/1000 scale DGN files of year 1999“ is “European Datum 1950”. The datum is pre-defined by ArcGIS 9.1. Major database systems developed in this project are listed in Table 2.2.1.

Table 2.2.1 Major database systems

Name Path Description Borehole Log I:/Project2006/ This is a borehole log system and data, including systems drilling data/ to draw the N chart and lithology in borehole logs in log excel/ Excel format. GeoDB I:/Project2006/ This is a system to combine the data files of field survey GeoDB result into one GIS database, including systems to import borehole logs, laboratory test result, CPT field test result, ground water monitoring result, PS logging result, ReMi field survey result, array microtremor field survey result, resistivity field survey result. The system also include the control system of elevation value of field survey locations with DEM data, and the liquefaction potential calculation system. Building Extraction I:/Project2006/ This is a system to extract building boundary polyline Tools from all 1/5000 base maps of year 2005, and convert to building polygon. The output of this system is used for Tsunami Simulation. 1/1000 base map file I:/Project2006/ This is a system to convert all 3D-Spline of DGN files conversion Tools into polyline, and then convert into shapefiles. Both of Microstation/J 7.1J BASIC environment and ArcGIS 9.1 VBA are used for system development. PDF Export I:/Project2006/ This is a system to shift map extent and export PDF files. Tools

1 Version 9.1

2.3 Summary of the Work Total amount of 2,830 normal drillings with 30m depth, 27 deep drillings, 764 liquefaction drillings, 608 landslide drillings, 100 drillings with differant depths to determine baserock depth and thickness of some formations and also 35 drillings to determine some structural features like faults and alluvium thickness as a total number of 4,364 mechanical drillings were conducted in 2,912 grids (250x250) within the context of project. Total drilling depth was 125,578.90 m. Beside SPT tests which were conducted in the site, 636 CPT tests were also conducted. Total 2,762 Seismic Refraction – ReMi measurements, 2,625 Electric Resistivity measurements, 201 PS Logging tests, Array Microtremor measurement in 30 points and 20km lenght Seismic Reflection measurement were conducted within the context of geophysical studies. These studies that conducted in field were supported with laborary tests and complied in office work with grouping recent and possible hazards by conducting necessery analiysis. Consequently, Microzonation maps were produced regarding to the studies which were mentioned above and settlement suitability map were created from these maps.

6 3 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AND GEOMORPHOLOGY

3.1 Geographical Location In the general view of Istanbul area, the Bosphorus, a narrow straight, links the Marmara Sea to the Black Sea, and divides Istanbul into two main parts: European side and Asian side. The European side of Istanbul is split in historical areas and modern areas by the Golden Horn, a narrow channel off the Bosphorus. The Work Area includes west part of the Golden Horn and it is bounded by the Golden Horn and the Marmara Sea enterance of the Bosphorus in east, the Marmara Sea in south, east slopes of Yakuplu district (west slopes of Haramidere) in west and TEM highway (South) in north.

3.2 Geomorphology Fig. 3.2.1 shows the topography in the project area. The project area, facing the Marmara Sea to south, lays east and west. Lots of hills divided by valleys along north to south are observed. The Küçükçekmece Lake divides the project area into the west part and east-middle parts. There are several rivers such as Harami Dere, Karagos Deresi, Hasan Deresi, Ayamama Deresi, Tavukçu Deresi, Çinçin Deresi, Terazidere, which run from north to south. There are also several major hills in Mabarli, Avcilar, west side of Bakirköy, west side of Bağcılar, west side of Bahçelievler, east side of Bakırköy, south side of Esenler, east side of Güngören, Zeytinburnu south side of Fatih, north side of Fatih, Eminönü, etc. These hills extend from south to North. North-east part of the work area is bounded by the Golden Horn. One of the most important topographic features is that the upper plains of hills gently incline toward the Marmara Sea to south. These flat plains on hills, covered by the Bakırköy limestone as mentioned later, are presumably the depositional surface of this layer. The horizontally formed plains became inclined to south in consequence of the change of sea water level and the structural movements. Through this process, valleys were generated along rivers flowing from north to south.

Fig. 3.2.1 Topography in the project area

8 4 CONSTRUCTION PLAN

The Work area includes whole parts of Bakırköy, Bahçelievler, Güngören, Zeytinburnu, Fatih, Eminönü, Avcılar districts and some parts of B.Çekmece, K.Çekmece, Bağcılar, Esenler, Bayrampaşa, Eyüp and Esenyürt districts. 1/5000 scale Main City Construction plan prepared by the Metropolitan Municipality is available in the Work area and 1/1000 scale Implemantation Construction Plan was prepared by district municipalities. Reclamation Construction Plans (North part of K.Cekmece Lake..etc.) were prepared inside of some district boundries. Also, in coasts of Bakırköy and Zeytinburnu districts along the Marmara Sea, the Tourism Central Construction Plans are available under the authorization of the Department of Tourism. 1/5000 scale Main City Construction Plan prepared by Metropolitan Municipality is available in the Work Area and 1/1000 scale Implemantation Construction Plans and also Reclamation Construction Plans of some districts in the boundries of Work Area. Tourism Central Plans is available for coastal parts of Bakırköy and Zeytinburnu districts. Geological Studies According to the Existing Plan are studies which were generally prepared after 1999 Marmara Earthquake. “Geology and Suitability for Settlement” study which is basis for 1/5000 scale Main City Construction Plan prepared by Metropolitan Municipality is available for every region in work area. Furthermore, “Geology and Suitability for Settlement” studies which are basis for 1/1000 or 1/2000 scale Implementation Construction Plan prepared by every district municipalities are also available. Unsuitable areas for settlement in existing studies regarding to the districts: In the boundries of Avcılar; area which was effected by the Balaban Landslide that occured in sea-facing slopes of Ambarlı ward (this place was declared as Disaster Effected Area according to number 9109 Cabinet Decision on 28/06/2005), slope of Firüzköy ward facing K.Cekmece Lake, Menekse Landslide inside the boundries of Bakirkoy district and Halkalı Junk Yard inside the Halkalı ward in K.Çekmece district are unsuitable areas because of their characteristic features. Beside these areas, coastal areas with fillings and recent fillings in highway route condemnation boundaries are suggested as unsuitable areas for settlement.

9 5 GEOLOGY

5.1 General Geology Fig. 5.1.1 shows the general stratigraphy for this project. The only Paleozoic stratum found in the project area is the Trakya Formation. This bed is so different from the upper beds in lithology that it can be identified without difficulty. The Ceylan Formation can be also easily identified because it is different from the lower Trakya Formation and the upper Gürpınar Member or the Güngören Member in facies. Although the Soğucak Member is assigned to the lower bed of the Ceylan Formation according to the IBB Geological Map, it was included in the Ceylan Formation for this project, because the limestone, which characterizes the Soğucak Member, is interlayered with the Ceylan Formation and is regarded as heteropic facies. According to the IBB Geological Map, the Danışmen Formation (including the Gürpınar Member) mainly consisting of clay is extensively distributed on hill areas in the west side of the Büyükçekmece Lake, the west to the project area. The Çukurçeşme Formation mainly consisting of gravel overlies the Danışmen Formation in the north of the hill areas. The Güngören Member mainly consisting of clay and the upper Bakırköy Member consisting of limestone or marl are distributed only along the coastal area of the Marmara Sea in the west part of the Büyükçekmece Lake. These two members are presumably one continuous bed deposited in a basin smaller than that where the Danışmen Formation and the Çukurçeşme Formation were deposited. It is reasonable that both of the Güngören Member and the Bakırköy Member are included in the Çekmece Formation because of no big difference in the depositional environment and transitional or interlayered border of the bed. According to the IBB Geological Map, the Kuşdili Formation is assumed in Holocene age. This formation, the lower bed of the Alluvium, is supposed to be characterized by considerably containing humus in black color or fossils. This formation could not be distinguished from the Alluvium in this project. As a result of the above consideration, the stratigraphy was the same as that in the IBB Geological Map except the Kuşdili Formation and the Soğucak Member. Regarding the Holocene beds, ‘Top soil (Qbt) and ‘Beach sand (Qpk) were distinguished from the Alluvium. Fig. 5.1.2 shows the geology in the bird’s-eye view of the project area. The stratigraphy in the geology is shown in Fig. 5.1.3. The bird’s-eye view shows there are inclined hills overlain by limestone layers called the Bakırköy Member in the south part (sea side) of the project area The hillsides are overlain by clayey soils (greenish grey color) called the Güngören Member. That is, the hill areas consist of the Güngören with the Bakırköy on the upper side. Some parts of the eastern side of the Küçükçekmece Lake are overlain by limestone layers called the Ceylan Formation (dark bluish color). Slopes of hills facing the Haliç in the eastern side of the project area are overlain by the Paleozoic layer called the Trakya Formation (dark greenish color). The Ceylan or Trakya Formation corresponds to the engineering bedrock.

Fig. 5.1.1 General stratigraphy 11 The bedrock is overlain by the Gürpınar Member (greenish grey color), which is observed partly at the low elevation zones in the northern part of the project area. The Çukurçeşme Formation (green) is partly found between the Gürpınar and the Güngören. The Alluvial plains, where the Alluvial sediments (light grey) are distributed, are found among hills from south to north. There is no large coastal plain. A large sand bank (2 km of length) is observed between the Küçükçekmece Lake and the Marmara Sea. Thick artificial fills (more than 10m of thickness) are found at coastal areas and some parts of inland areas. The eastern coast areas were formed by the reclamation of the sea area.

Fig. 5.1.2 Geology in bird’s-eye view of the project area

Fig. 5.1.3 Stratigraphy in geology

12 5.2 Geology of the Project Area Fig. 5.2.1 shows the geology in the project area. Formations and members found in the project area are as follows in ascending order. (a) Trakya Formation (Palaeozoic, sandstone and others ) (b) Ceylan Formation (Eocene, Limestone and others) (c) Gürpınar Member (belonging to Danışmen Formation) Oligocene - Miocene, sand, clay, clay stone, and others. (d) Çukurçeşme Formation Miocene, Gravel and sand. (e) Güngören Member (belonging to Çekmece Formation) Miocene, mainly clay. (f) Bakırköy Member (belonging to Çekmece Formation) Miocene, limestone marl, and others (g) Alluvium Deposit and others Mainly Holocene, clay, sand, beach sand, top soil (h) Recent Fillings

Fig. 5.2.1 Geology of the project area

13 (1) Trakya Formation The Trakya Formation is a sedimentary rock in the Paleozoic Carboniferous. The layer mainly consists of sand stone, including shale in most cases. A kind of pyroclastic rocks such as tuff is rarely included. These rocks are called “Graywacke” all together. The intact rock is extremely hard, well consolidated and influenced by the metamorphism.

(2) Ceylan Formation The Ceylan Formation is a sedimentary rock in the Paleogene and Eocene. The Ceylan Formation consists of limestone, calcareous sandstone, claystone, sandstone, or tuff. Some parts of this formation are sometimes called the Soğcak Member, which consists of only hard limestone not including other rocks.

(3) Gürpınar Member (belonging to the Danışmen Formation) The Gürpınar Member belongs to the upper part of the Danışmen Formation. The lower part is of Oligocene age, while the upper part is of Miocene age. The Gürpınar Member consists of clay or claystone (dark green), sand or sandstone, gravel or gravelstone (dark grey), tuff (dark green), and calcareous sandstone (grey).

(4) Çukurçeşme Formation The Çukurçeşme Formation is a sediment of Miocene age, distributed locally in the middle to west part of the project area. The Çukurçeşme Formation consists mainly of gravel or sand, partly of clay with gravel or gravelstone. This formation is characterized by its reddish brown color due to oxidation. The content of gravel is higher at the northwest area, while that of sand is higher at the southeast area.

(5) Güngören Member (belonging to Çekmece Formation) The Güngören Member, deposited in Miocene age, is the lower part of the Çekmece Formation. The Güngören Member consists mainly of clay and partly of sand. A part of the clay is, well consolidated, forming claystone. It rarely contains limestone or carboniferous sandstone.

(6) Bakırköy Member (belonging to the Çekmece Formation) The Bakırköy Member, the upper layer of the Çekmece Formation, is of the latest Miocene. The Bakırköy limestone is characterized by its plate-like shape. Thin greenish clay is usually contained in a white limestone layer of 5 to 20 cm in thickness. The limestone also usually contains soft white marl or sand.

(7) Alluvium, Top soil, Beach sand The Alluvium is deposited in low lands along rivers. The Alluvium is a stratum that was deposited in valleys created in times when the sea level was lowered. The Alluvium in the project area is mainly composed of clay. In case the Gürpınar sand is distributed around the buried valleys, the alluvium often contains the sand

14 layers from the Gürpınar sand. The bottom of buried valleys partly contains gravel.

(8) Recent Fillings Various fills are distributed in the project area. These fills are composed of various kind of artificial soils such as ones for construction of factories, airport, schools, ones for construction of roads or railroads, ones formed in the historical area, ones for reclamation of coastal areas, ones for filling the Alluvial plains, ones of which the origin is unknown.

5.3 Structural Geology Fig. 5.3.1 shows the elevation contours of bedrocks, created based on the results of drillings (including the deep drillings) and the array microtremor measurement. The bedrock in the east part of the project area is the Trakya Formation, while the Ceylan Formation is for the west to middle. The upper plains of bedrock, some 50m of elevation at the north part and -200m to -300m around the coast of the Marmara Sea, generally inclines from north to south at the east side of the Küçükçekmece Lake. A fault (from south to north) was inferred at the Küçükçekmece Lake, because there is a big elevation gap of bedrock between the right and left side of the Lake. Several faults at the east side of the Lake were inferred from the results of array drillings.

Fig.5.3.1 Contours of the upper boundary of bedrock

15 Fig. 5.3.2 shows faults in the project area. A fault (from south to north) was inferred at the Küçükçekmece Lake, because there is a big elevation gap of bedrock between the right and left side of the Lake.

Fig. 5.3.2 Distribution of inferred faults

At the north-west of Avcılar area, inferred fault lines are along the branch valleys. The fault was confirmed by the trench work for one of them.

5.4 Historical Geology In the middle of Eocene, about 40 million years ago, various soils such as clay, carboniferous sand, volcanic ash or limestome were accumulating on the Trakya Formation in the sea. These became the Ceylan Formation. In the middle of Oligocene, about 30 million years ago, the west part of the project area became again the sea. The sediments consisting of sand and clay at this time are called the Gürpınar Member. Before long, whole sea became shallower and was accumulated by gravels from rivers. These gravels are called the Çukrçeşme Formation. After that, in the latter of Miocene, about 10 million years ago, clayey soils were accumulating because there was no big river around the sea. This clayey layer is the Güngören Member. When the sea became shallower, the limestone called the Bakırköy was formed. About 5 million years ago when the Miocene ended and the Pliocene started, the water level of the Mediterranean Sea considerably lowered down. The Güngören clay (soft and not consolidated soils) was overlain by the Bakırköy limestone (hard soil).

16 6 GEOLOGICAL WORKS, GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENT AND IN-SITU TESTS

6.1 Geological Works Contents and volumes of geological works are shown Table 6.1.1

Table 6.1.1 Contents of geological works

Type of Works No. of Points Total Volume (m) Normal drillings 2,830 86,840

Deep drillings 27 4,201

Drilling for Liquefaction Analysis 764 12,344

Drilling for Landslide Analysis 608 18,144

Extra Drillings for faults, alluvium, basement, etc. 134 4,754

CPT 636 8,769

Trench Works 2 -

6.2 Geophysical Measurements Contents and volumes of geological works are shown Table 6.2.1

Table 6.2.1 Contents of geophysical measurements

Type of Measurement No. of Points Total Volume (m)

Seismic Refraction and ReMi 2,762 -

Seismic Reflection - 20 km

PS-Logging 201 8,069

Array Microtremor 30 -

Electric Resistivity 2,625 -

17 6.3 Local Soil Characteristics 6.3.1 Local Soil Conditions P-wave velocity (Vp), S-wave velocity (Vs) and Electrical Resistivity (Rho) down to 30m depth were obtained in most grid cells. Fig.6.3.1.1 shows contour line maps of P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity and Resistivity at 10m depth together with tomography and geology maps. The followings are significant features of P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity and Resistivity in the project area. a) P-wave velocity distributions correspond with geology information map. For example, relatively higher P-wave velocity zones are located the areas where Ceylan Formation or Trakya Formation distributes. And very low P-wave velocity zones are located in Alluvium deposit areas. b) P-wave velocities at depth of 10m or greater are generally higher than 1.5km/s even if soft alluvium deposits are present. This means that soil deposits are likely saturated with ground water at depths greater than around 10m. c) S-wave velocity distributions correspond with geology information map. For example, relatively higher S-wave velocity zones are located the areas where Ceylan Formation or Trakya Formation distributes. And low S-wave velocity zones are located in Alluvium deposit areas. d) Low resistivity zones likely correspond with Alluvium deposit. e) Higher resistivity zones correspond with the area underlying Ceylan or Trakya Formations.

18 Topografya(m

Vp(km/s)

Vs(km/s)

Rho(ohm-m

Fig. 6.3.1.1 Contour line maps of Vp, Vs and Rho with topography and geology map

19 6.3.2 Shear Wave Velocity (AVs30) The average Shear Wave velocity down to 30m depth was calculated based on the results of PS-logging and ReMi/MASW. Fig.6.3.2.1 shows a range of AVs30 with regard to predominant geological formations. The predominant geological formation is here defined as the geological formation/member which occupies the greatest part in terms of geology above 30m depth. Fig.6.3.2.2 shows distribution map of AVs30 together with geology map of the predominant geological formation.

Fig. 6.3.2.1 Vs30 range related to geological formations

Distribution map of the predominant geological formations

Contour line map of the AVs30 Fig. 6.3.2.2 Contour line map of the AVs30 (below) together with distribution map of the predominant geological formations (above)

6.3.3 Local Soil Classes Fig. 6.3.3.1 shows distribution maps of local soil classes in accordance with NEHRP, Euro Code and Turkish Earthquake Code.

(1) NEHRP The followings are major features of distribution of NEHRP classifications 1) NEHRP classifications of the project area have a range of from the class B to the class E. There are not any grid cells which have the class A.

21 2) The class E mainly distribute along the Alüvyon deposit area in the North part of Avcılar region. In addition, the several grid cells, which are classified as the class E, are displayed in other Alüvyon deposit areas or Yapay Dolgu areas, for example, along the Golden-hone bay, near the Ayamama River, in the vicinity of the Halkalı railway station, the Haramidere region etc. 3) The class D spread most project area. More than 80% of the project area is classified as the class D. 4) The distributions of the class C correspond to Bakırköy region where limestone underlay. The North part of Küçükçekmece region, where it is dominated by Ceylan Formation, and on hills underlying Trakya Formation along the Golden-hone bay are also classified as the class C. 5) Number of grid cells where they are classified as the class B is only eight (8). They are found in the North part of Küçükçekmece and on hills along the Golden Horn bay.

(2) Euro Code The definition of the Euro classification is almost same as the definition of the NEHRP classification. Therefore the distribution map of the Euro classification as shown in Fig.103.2.1 is very similar to the distribution map of the NEHRP classification. In addition, the features of the distribution map are also same as the features of the distribution map of the NEHRP classification as described in the above paragraph. The class E, S1 and S2 are uniqueness of the Euro code in comparison with the NEHRP code. 5 grids are classified as the class E where S-wave velocity contrast between bedrock and subsurface soil is very high. The grids of the class E are located near Halkalı railway station and in Eminönü region. There are no class S1 and S2 in the project area.

(3) Turkish Earthquake Code The following are major features of the local site classes. 1) The local site classes of the Turkish earthquake code in this project have a range of from the Z1 to the Z4. However, 84% of the project area is classified as Z3. 2) Z4 is located along the Alüvyon deposit areas, specifically in the northern part of Avcılar region, along the Golden-Hone bay, near the Ayamama River and in the vicinity of the Halkalı Railway Station as well as in the Haramidere region. 3) Z3 can be found in most part of the project area. 4) The Z2 classes are mainly found in Bakırköy, Ceylan and Trakya Formation areas. 5) The Z1 classes are located in the northern part of Küçükçekmece and in the hills along the Golden-Hone bay. 6) In the Eminönü region, there are small area which are not classified due to thick landfill along the coastline.

NEHRP classification

Euro earthquake code

None classified

Turkish earthquake code Fig. 6.3.3.1 Distribution maps of the classifications

23 7 LABORATORY TESTS

7.1 Contents of Laboratory Tests

Contents of the laboratory tests are summarized in Table 7.1.1.

Table 7.1.1 Contents of the laboratory tests Test Name Sample Measured Data Test Type (Standard) Type Physical Water content SPT Water contents (%) Characteristics (ASTM D2216) Grain size Sieve analysis SPT Grain size distribution analysis (ASTM D422) Hydrometer Test SPT Grain size distribution (ASTM D4221) (clay-silt differentiation) Atterberg limits SPT Liquid Limit (LL) (ASTM D4318) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) Soil Strength Uniaxial compression test UD Compressive strength and (ASTM D2166) (qu), Cohesion C (qu/2) Consolidation Triaxial compression test UD Inherent Friction Angle (ASTM D2850) (φ) Cohesion (c) Consolidation test UD Consolidation factor (ASTM D2435) (Mv) Swell test UD Swell factor (%) (ASTM D4546)

7.2 Results of Laboratory Tests The numbers of tests are shown in Table 7.2.1. The averaged soil characteristics of each formation are shown in Table 7.2.2.

Table 7.2.1 Sample numbers of the laboratory tests Test Water Grain Size Atterberg Uniaxial Triaxial Consolid- Swell

Type Content Sieve Hydrometer Limits Test Test ation Number of 53,938 53,938 124 46,432 1,120 462 2,315 2,315 Samples

24 Table 7.2.2 Averaged soil characteristics for each formation

Water Formation Atterberg limits Grain Size Distribution Swell Uniaxial Test Content

Clay Free Swell & Sand Gravel qu c(qu/2) Wn(%) LL(%) PL(%) PI(%) Swelling Pressure Silt (%) (%) (kgf/cm2) (kgf/cm2) (%) (kg/cm2) (%) ARTIFICAL FILLING 23,8 46,5 13,2 33,3 48,41 28,34 23,27 1,407 0,076 1,71 0,85 ALLUVION 32,2 50,3 13,0 37,3 68,15 26,24 5,98 0,969 0,058 1,38 0,69 BEACH SAND 20,8 40,4 16,7 23,6 12,20 77,83 9,78 0,905 0,055 TOP SOIL 27,2 56,6 13,4 43,2 79,58 14,31 6,11 1,501 0,083 2,14 1,07 BAKIRKÖY 24,1 47,1 15,2 31,9 62,78 17,98 19,25 1,531 0,071 1,56 0,78 GÜNGÖREN 28,9 60,6 16,0 44,5 79,21 17,78 3,06 2,223 0,112 1,96 0,98

ÇUKURÇEŞME 17,8 41,3 13,5 27,8 36,59 54,20 9,21 2,007 0,112 3,27 1,64 GÜRPINAR 24,6 56,1 15,7 40,4 73,57 23,41 3,07 2,228 0,132 2,53 1,27

CEYLAN 24,7 47,3 15,3 32,0 64,67 23,94 11,38 1,283 0,048 1,83 0,91

TRAKYA 14,6 35,5 15,3 20,2 35,18 37,70 27,11 0,689 0,038 1,82 0,91

25 8 HAZARD ANALYSIS AND MAPPING

8.1 Earthquake Hazard Analysis Fig. 8.1.1 shows the outline of this analysis.

Identification of Earthquake Sources

Active Faults Seismic Activities

Existing Fault Maps

Historical Earthquake Catalogue

Recent Earthquake Catalogue

Tectonic Setting Literatures

Fault Segmentation Extracting Earthquakes Characteristic Earthquakes 7>M>5 as background Floating Earthquakes

Earthquake Source Parameters by Earthquake Sources by

Active Faults Seismic Activities

(Multi-Segment rupture (Cascade)

Model) Attenuation Formula

Calculate PGA at Baserock (Vs>760m/s), for each 250m grid in Istanbul Region

Analyze 2%, 10%, 50% exceedance in 50 years Earthquake Hazard Map （PGA, PGV, Sa(h=5%, T=0.2 & 1.0 sec) (whole Istanbul)

De-aggregation analysis

(most effective max M, R & σfor several grid)

Fig. 8.1.1 Flow of Earthquake Hazard Map Generation

26 8.1.1 Analysis on active faults 8.1.1.1 Historical earthquakes and the sources faults Historical earthquakes in the Marmara Sea after 1500 A.D. can be divided into characteristic earthquakes and floating earthquakes as shown in Fig. 8.1.1.1. The former are the earthquakes of the magnitude around Mw≧7.0 which have the characteristic recurrence period and displacement on the specific fault. The latter are earthquakes of the magnitude around or less than Mw=7.0 which often occur in the interval of characteristic earthquakes.

8.1.1.2 Segmentation model analysis (1) Segmentation model The segmentation model of the active faults in the Marmara Sea region is shown in Fig. 8.1.1.2. The fault segments are classified into the segments related to characteristic earthquakes and floating earthquakes. The former is subdivided into the type A and the type B. Type A is the segment with the corresponding paleo-earthquakes data to evaluate earthquake occurrence probability. Type B is the segment with insufficient paleo-earthquake data, though it can be considered as characteristic.

1) Segments for type A (characteristic earthquakes) The segments composed of Ganos (GA), Princes’ Islands (PI), Izmit (IZ), Duzce (DU) and Mudurnu Valley (MV), corresponding to the 1509, 1668?, 1719, 1766 May, 1766 August, 1912, 1967 and 1999 August, 1999 November earthquakes are estimated for type A..

2) Segments for type B (characteristic earthquakes) The two branched fault systems distributed along the southern edge of the Marmara Sea and on the southern land are treated as the segments for type B. They are divided to segments from S1 to S12. In these segments, only the 1737, the 1855, the 1953, and the 1964 earthquakes are known after 1500 A.D. Thus, several segments ruptured only once after A.D.1500, and the most segments have no evidence ruptured historically.

3) Segments for floating earthquakes The normal faults in the northeastern and southern edges of the Cinarcik basin, and the central part of the Marmara Sea are estimated as the segments for the floating earthquakes, which are formulating the normal faults.

27 Black Sea

Istanbul 41°

Sea of Marmara

Saros Gulf

31°

40° 30° 0 50 100km 29°

28° t Gulf Edremi 27° Aug. Nov. 1999 2000

1912 1894 1900

1766 Aug. May 1800 1754 1719 1700

1600

1556 time 1509 1500

Characteristic earthquakes Floating earthquakes

Fig. 8.1.1.1 Historical earthquakes in the Marmara Sea

28 DU 100km 31° MV 50 S１ 0 30° S８ S２ Segments for type A earthquakes Segments for floating earthquakes Segments for type B earthquakes IZ Black Sea S９ S３ YA 29° Istanbul S10 PI

S４ Sea of Marmara S５ S11 28° S６ CM S12 S７ GA

27°

41°

e r

Fig. 8.1.1.2 Fig. 8.1.1.2 Segmentation model in region Sea the Marmara

d E Saros Gulf

40°

29 8.1.2 Analysis on seismic activities The other seismic source to be considered is seismic activities in and around Istanbul municipality. The data set of seismic observation by KOERI from 1900 to present including magnitude, depth and epicenter location has been already provided. The extent of the catalogue is 26.0˚ to 31.5˚E in longitude and 40.0˚ to 42.0˚N in latitude. Aftershocks and earthquake swarms are eliminated, also magnitude uniformity is checked. As discussed above, Mw above around 7.0 should be treated and corresponded to active faults. Then, in this study, Mw 5 to 7 will be adopted as background sources. Fig. 8.1.2.1 shows the earthquakes with magnitude 5 to 7.

Fig. 8.1.2.1 Seismic Activity (5≦Mw<7, 1900 to 2006)

8.1.3 Attenuation Relationships Based on the comparison of the Turkish strong motion data with Western USA data and owing to the geological and geotectonic similarity of Anatolia to California, Erdik et al. (2004) has adopted several attenuation relationships derived from California data. In this study, the following attenuation relationships were adopted under the guidance of board member. The average of following three attenuation relations was adopted to calculate the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and Spectral Acceleration (Sa) at 0.2 sec and 1.0 sec. 1) Boore et al. (1997) 2) Campbell (1997) 3) Sadigh et al. (1997)

Fig. 8.1.3.1 shows the PGA comparison by three attenuation relations with distance and magnitude. Fig. 8.1.3.2 shows the Sa(h=5%) comparison by three attenuation relations with magnitude.

1 1 1

0.1 0.1 0.1 PGA (g) PGA PGA (g) PGA (g) PGA 0.01 0.01 0.01 Mw=7 Mw=7 Mw=7 Mw=6 Mw=6 Mw=6 Mw=5 Mw=5 Mw=5 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000 Distance (km) Distance (km) Distance (km)

a) Boore et al. (1997) b) Campbell (1997) c) Sadigh et al. (1997)

Fig. 8.1.3.1 PGA attenuation relationships for strike-slip fault at NEHRP B/C boundary

1 1 1

0.1 0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01 0.01 Sa(h=5%) (g) Sa(h=5%) (g) Sa(h=5%) (g)

0.001 Mw=7 0.001 Mw=7 0.001 Mw=7 Mw=6 Mw=6 Mw=6 Mw=5 Mw=5 Mw=5 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10 Period (sec) Period (sec) Period (sec)

a) Boore et al. (1997) b) Campbell (1997) c) Sadigh et al. (1997)

Fig. 8.1.3.2 Spectrum accelerations for strike-slip fault at NEHRP B/C boundary (d=50km)

31 8.1.4 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed using the code made by USGS. This program calculates seismic hazard using the standard methodology for seismic hazard analysis.

(1) Time-dependent model Time-dependent probability calculations follow the renewal hypothesis of earthquake regeneration such that earthquake likelihood on a seismic source is lowest just after the last event.

(2) Hazard maps The probabilistic seismic hazard was calculated for “Cascade Model” and “No Cascade Model” of faults . Along with these fault models those were newly established in this project (OIC Model), the existing fault model by KOERI (KOERI Model, Erdik et al. (2004)) was also used. These three seismic hazards were unified under the guidance of board member. The numerical conditions are summarized below.

- Ground condition: NEHRP B/C boundary (30m average shear wave velocity is 760m/sec) - Calculated physical value: PGA, PGV, Sa(h=5%) 0.2sec and 1.0sec - Probability: 2%, 10% and 50% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years from 2006 (2006 to 2055) - Inherent variability of BPT model: α=0.5 (after Parsons(2004))

The results obtained for OIC Model, KOERI Model and Average of them are shown in Fig. 8.1.4.1 to Fig. 8.1.4.4. The fault traces of NAF by each Model are shown in these figures. The calculated PGA, PGV or Sa distribution by OIC Model and KOERI Model are similar for 2% and 10% PE in 50 years, however the value for 50% PE in 50years case is significantly different. The main reason of this difference may be attributed to the smaller segmentation of NAF and the larger probability of occurrence of each small segments of KOERI Model comparing OIC Model.

41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°0'0"N 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - OYO+KOERI yrs in 50 PE 2% PGA(g) OYO+KOERI yrs 50 in PE 10% PGA(g) OYO+KOERI 50yrs in PE 50% PGA(g) 29°30'0" E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0" E km km km 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 5 5 5 0 10203040 0 10203040 010203040 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N

3 3

S 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E

S S 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 -

4 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 4 4

S S KOERI Model 50yrs in PE 2% PGA(g) KOERIModel 50yrs PE in 50% PGA(g) KOERI Model 50yrs PE in 10% PGA(g) 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E

29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E

5 5

S S km km km

6 S 6 6 S S 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 5

5 5

7 7

S S 010203040 0 10203040 0 10203040 28°30'0" E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E

28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E

8 8

S S

9 9

S S PGA map for 2% PE in 50 years years PE in 50 2% for map PGA PGA map for 50% PE in 50 years years PE in 50 50% for map PGA years PE in 50 10% for map PGA 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E

28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E

0 0

1 1

S S 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.3 0.3 -0.4 0.4 -0.6 0.6 -0.8 0.8 -1.0 1.0 -1.5 1.5 - 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.3 0.3 -0.4 0.4 -0.6 0.6 -0.8 0.8 -1.0 1.0 -1.5 1.5 - 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E No Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs PE in 50% PGA(g) 29°30'0"E No Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs in PE 2% PGA(g) 29°30'0"E No Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs PE in 10% PGA(g) km km km 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 5 5 5 0 10203040 0 10203040 0 10203040 Fig. 8.1.4.1 map by OIC PGA Model, of themKOERI Average Model and OIC Model Model OIC Model KOERI Model KOERI and OIC of Average 28°30'0" E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E

28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0" N

41°30'0" N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°0'0"N 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E OYO+KOERI 50yrs in PE 10% t=0.2sec h=5% Sa(g) OYO+KOERI 50yrs in 2%PE t=0.2sec h=5% Sa(g) OYO+KOERI 50yrs in PE 50% t=0.2sec h=5% Sa(g) km km km 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 5 5 5 0 10203040 0 10203040 0 10203040 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N

3 3 3

S S S 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E

4 4 4

S S S 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E

29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E

5 5 5

S S S KOERI Model 50yrs in PE 2% t=0.2sec h=5% Sa(g) KOERI Model 50yrs in PE 50% t=0.2sec h=5% Sa(g) KOERI Model 50yrs in PE 10% t=0.2sec h=5% Sa(g) km km km

6 6 6 S S S 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E

5 5 5

7 7 7

S S S 010203040 0 10203040 0 10203040 Model, KOERI Model and Average of them of Average and KOERI Model Model, 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E

28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E

8 8 8

S S S

9 9 9

S S S 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E

28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E

0 0 0

1 1 1

S S S Sa(t=0.2sec) map for 2% PE in 50 years forin 50 years PE 2% map Sa(t=0.2sec) Sa(t=0.2sec) map for 50% PE in 50 years PE50 years in for 50% map Sa(t=0.2sec) PE50 years in for 10% map Sa(t=0.2sec) 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E No Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs in PE 2% t=0.2sec h=5% Sa(g) No Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs in PE 50% t=0.2sec h=5% Sa(g) Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs in PE 10% t=0.2sec h=5% Sa(g) km km km 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 5 5 5 010203040 010203040 010203040 OIC Model Model OIC Model KOERI KOERI and of OIC Average Fig. 8.1.4.2 map by Sa(t=0.2sec) OIC 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N

5 5 5 0 10203040 0 10203040 0 10203040 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N

3 3 3

S S S 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E

4 4 4

29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E

5 5 5

S S S KOERI Model 50yrs in 2%PE t=1.0sec h=5% Sa(g) KOERI Model Sa(g) h=5% t=1.0sec 50% PE in 50yrs KOERI Model Sa(g) h=5% t=1.0sec 10% PE in 50yrs km km km

6 6 6 S S S 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E

5 5 5

7 7 7

S S S 0 10203040 0 10203040 0 10203040 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E

28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E

8 8 8

S S S

9 9 9

S S S 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E

28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E

0 0 0

1 1 1

S S S Sa(t=1.0sec) map for 2% PE in 50 years years 50 in PE 2% for map Sa(t=1.0sec) Sa(t=1.0sec) map for 50% PE in 50 years years 50 PE in 50% for map Sa(t=1.0sec) years 50 PE in 10% for map Sa(t=1.0sec) 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0" E No Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs in 2% PE t=1.0sec h=5% Sa(g) No Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs in PE 50% t=1.0sec h=5% Sa(g) Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs in PE 10% t=1.0sec h=5% Sa(g) km km km 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 5 5 5 0 10203040 0 10203040 0 10203040 OIC Model Model OIC Model KOERI KOE and OIC of Average 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E 28°30'0"E Fig. 8.1.4.3 Fig. 8.1.4.3 of them Average Sa(t=1.0sec)by map OIC Model, KOERI Model and 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°30'0"N

35 41°30'0" N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - OYO+KOERI PGV(m/sec) PE2%in 50yrs 29°30'0" E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E OYO+KOERI 50yrs in PE 50% PGV(m/sec) OYO+KOERI 50yrs in PE 10% PGV(m/sec) km km km 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 5 5 5 010203040 010203040 010203040 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E

28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N

3 3 3

S S S 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E

4 4 4

29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E

5 5 5

S S S km km km

6 6 6 S S S 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E

5 5 5

7 7 7

S S S 0 10203040 0 10203040 0 10203040 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E

28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E

8 8 8

S S S

9 9 9

S S S PGV map for 2% PE forin map 2% 50 PGV years PGV map for 50% PE in 50 years years PE in 50 50% for map PGV years PE in 50 10% for map PGV 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E

28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E

0 0 0

1 1 1

S S S 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0" N

41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0"N 41°0'0"N 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 29°30'0" E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0" E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E 29°30'0"E No Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs in PE 10% PGV(m/sec) Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No 50yrs in PE 10% PGV(m/sec) Cascade*0.8+Cascade*0.2 No PGV(m/sec) PE 2% in 50yrs km km km 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 29°0'0"E 5 5 5 0 10203040 0 10203040 0 10203040 OYO Model Model OYO Model KOERI Model KOERI and OYO of Average Fig. 8.1.4.4 8.1.4.4 Fig. of them Average by OIC Model,map Model KOERI and PGV 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°30'0" E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 28°0'0"E 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0" N 41°30'0" N

36 8.2 Surface Ground Motion Analysis To produce surface ground motion related zonation map, following two types of zonation are conducted and overlaid for final result. Zonation A): Based on the average spectral acceleration with site response analysis Zonation B): Based on the short period spectral amplification factor of subsurface soil depending on average shear wave velocity

The outline flow chart for analysis is shown in Fig. 8.2.1. The main components are ground modeling, site response analysis and zonation.

Boring PS logging Micro Tremor ReMi Earthquake Hazard Map

Ground Model over Vs>760m/s layer

3 Input Time Histories

PGA at Sa (h=5%) at Engineering Bedrock Engineering Baedrock Shear Modulus/ 10%PE in 50 years 10%PE in 50 years Damping as a function of strain

Site Response Analys AVS30

Correction at valley & basin

Sa (h=5%) Sa (h=5%) at Surface at Surface 0.1 - 1.0sec 0.2sec

Zonation with Zonation with Average Short Period Spectral Acceleration Spectral Acceleration As/Bs/Cs/Ds/Es Av/Bv/Cv/Dv/Ev

Zonation with Ground Shaking Hazard AGS/BGS/CGS/DGS/EGS

Fig. 8.2.1 Flow for Surface Ground Motion Analysis

37 8.2.1 Ground Modeling 8.2.1.1 Shallow Ground Model In modeling of shallow ground, following three site investigation data are used. - PS Logging - Boring Log (Formation, Lithology) - ReMi

The flowchart of shallow ground modeling is shown in Fig. 8.2.1.1. Based on the data availability, the grids are classified to following five classes. The distributions of these classes are shown in Fig. 8.2.1.2. a) PS Logging + Boring Log (162 grids) b) ReMi + Boring Log (2531 grids) c) only ReMi (58 grids) d) only Boring Log (135 grids) e) None (26 grids)

The median Vs of each formation is shown in Table 8.2.1.1.

38 Necessary Data - S wave Velocity (Vs) (layer and value) - Density - Formation and PI (cohesive soil for dynamic property)

Contents of Site Investigation in the Grid

Vs: from PS Logging PS Logging + Boring Log YES Density: from Formation in Boring Log (162 grids) Formation and PI: from Labo test

Vs: from ReMi (Upper and Lower limits are defined) ReMi + Boring Log YES Density: from Formation in Boring Log (2531 grids) Formation and PI: from Labo test

Vs: from ReMi (Upper and Lower lomits are defined) Only ReMi YES Density: estimated from Boring Logs in surrounding grids (58 grids) Formation and PI: estimated from Boring Logs in surrounding grids

Vs: estimated from Formation and Depth Only Boring Log YES Density: from Formation in Boring Log (135 grids) Formation and PI: from Labo test

Vs: estimated form surrounding grids None YES Density: estimated from surrounding grids (26 grids) Formation and PI: estimated from surrounding grids

Shallow Ground Model (0 to 30 meters)

Fig. 8.2.1.1 Flowchart for Shallow Ground Modeling

39 Legend

PS+Boring ReMi+Boring ReMi Boring None

Fig. 8.2.1.2 Used Site Investigations to make the Shallow Ground Model

Table 8.2.1.1 S wave velocity for 0 to 30 meters depth Vs(km/sec) Formation Lithology Symbol Depth 10% Median 90% Yapay Dolgu Qyd 0.13 0.19 0.26 Bitkisel Toprak Qts 0.15 0.25 0.35 Plaj Kum Alüvyon Sand As 0.16 0.22 0.32 Kuşdili Alüvyon Clay, Silt Ac 0.13 0.20 0.26 Kuşdili Gravel Ag 1) - - - Soil Tceb1 0.21 0.29 0.44 Bakırköy Rock Tceb2 0.24 0.36 0.48 Soil Tceg1 0.20 0.31 0.40 Güngören Rock Tceg2 0.27 0.37 0.43 Soil Tc1 0.20 0.33 0.48 Çukurçeşme Rock Tc2 0.27 0.37 0.43 Soil Tdg1 0.26 0.36 0.48 Gürpınar Rock Tdg2 0.28 0.39 0.50 Soil Tkc1 0.40 0.55 0.65 Ceylan 0 - 10m 0.31 0.47 0.85 Soğucak Rock Tkc2 10 - 20m 0.45 0.81 0.89 20 - 30m 0.47 0.85 1.03 Soil Ctw 2) 0.27 0.57 0.77 0 - 10m 0.27 0.57 0.77 Trakya Rock Ct 10 - 20m 0.59 0.93 1.83 20 - 30m 0.83 1.19 1.83 1) No Vs data was available by PS logging 2) No Vs data was available by PS logging. Vs is assumed to be same to Ct (0-10m).

40 8.2.1.2 Deep Ground Model In modeling of deep ground, following three site investigation data and existing PS logging in JICA study are used. - Deep PS Logging - Deep Boring Log (Formation, Lithology) - Array Microtremor Measurement - PS Logging in JICA Study

The flowchart of deep ground modeling and total ground modeling is shown in Fig. 8.2.1.3. At first, the bottom of Alluvium layer, Bakirkoy, Gungoren/Cukurcesme formation and surface of Ceylan or Trakya formation was depicted mainly by deep boring logs. Next, the surface of engineering bedrock was decided by deep PS logging results, existing PS loggings, array microtremor results and deep boring logs. The Vs of each formation was decided based on the analysis on the relation of Vs by PS logging and formation.

Surface of Bottom of Surface of Bottom of Bottom of Ceylan or Gungoren/ Vs=760m/s Bakirkoy Alluvium Trakya Cukurcesme layer Formation Layer Formation Formation

Typical Vs by Formation and Depth

Typical Density by Formation

Deep Ground Model (Deeper than 30 meters to Vs=760m/s layer)

Shallow Ground Model - Shallow Ground Model has priority - Deeper Ground Model is modified to fir the Shallow Model

Groung Model for Response Analysis

Fig. 8.2.1.3 Flowchart for Deep Ground Modeling and Total Ground Model for Response Analysis

Table 8.2.1.2 is adopted as Vs value for deep ground.

41 Table 8.2.1.2 S wave velocity for deeper than 30 meters depth

Formation Symbol Depth Vs(km/sec)

Alüvyon A 0.32 Bakırköy Tceb 0.47 Güngören Tceg+Tc 0.38 Çukurçeşme 30 - 50m 0.40 50 - 100m 0.44 Gürpınar Tdg 100 - 150m 0.51 150m - 0.59 Ceylan Tkc 0.87 Soğucak

Trakya Ct 1.20

8.2.2 Site Amplification Analysis Earthquake motion at ground surface is strongly affected by subsurface soil structures, especially in the area covered by quaternary sediments. The effects of soils on seismic motion were evaluated by response analysis based on the ground models of each 250 m grid. In valley and basins, where 2D effects of amplification will be expected, additional amplification factor derived from the comparison between 1D analysis and 2D analysis was introduced.

8.2.2.1 Site Response Analysis The amplification of subsurface soil over engineering seismic bedrock was estimated by the 1D response analysis code “SHAKE 91”. This code analyses the propagation of shear wave through horizontally layered media over engineering bedrock. The following settings or conditions were adopted in the analysis.

(1) Input motion amplitude The engineering seismic bedrock motion calculated in Chapter 8 was defined at NEHRP B/C boundary, namely Vs=760m/sec layer. However, the formation of engineering bedrock is not uniform and the Vs of engineering bedrock is not uniform within the study area. The input motion amplitude for response analysis should be corrected based on the differences of Vs at engineering bedrock. The following empirical relation of Vs and amplification by Midorikawa et al. (1994) was used for this purpose. The amplification by this relation for the layer with Vs=760m/sec is almost 1.0 and the ratio of amplification factor for another Vs was used as the correction factor. The PGA distribution at engineering bedrock with Vs=760m/sec is shown in Fig. 8.2.2.1.

42 log R = 1.35 − 0.47logV R : amplification factor for PGA V : average S - wave velocity to a depth of 30 m (m/sec)

Fig. 8.2.2.1 Input ground motion acceleration levels at NEHRP B/C boundary

(2) Input seismic wave The amplification characteristics of subsurface layers differ depending on input seismic waves to the ground model. In this study, the following three strong motion records during the 1999 Izmit Earthquake and Duzce Earthquake were used under the guidance of board member. The parameters and wave forms are shown in Table 8.2.2.1 and Fig. 8.2.2.2. The amplitudes of waves were arranged for PGA at the engineering seismic bedrock in each grid. The averaged value of three results, which correspond to three input waves, was used as the final result.

Table 8.2.2.1 Parameters of Input Waves

Closest Preferred Name Latitude Longitude Earthquake Date M Component Acc. max Distance AVS30 1062NS 40.723 30.82 Duzce 1999.11.12 7.1 9.2km NS 0.114g 338m/s ARC 40.8236 29.3607 Kocaeli 1999.8.17 7.4 13.5km EW 0.149g 523m/s GBZ 40.82 29.44 Kocaeli 1999.8.17 7.4 10.9km NS 0.244g 792m/s Source: PEER Strong Motion Database

43 1062NS 0.2

0.1

Acc. (g) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -0.1

-0.2

ARC 0.2

0.1

Acc. (g) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -0.1

-0.2

GBZ 0.3

0.15

Acc. (g) Acc. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -0.15

-0.3

Fig. 8.2.2.2 Used Input Waves for Response Analysis

8.2.2.2 Earthquake Ground Motion The earthquake ground motion was evaluated by response analysis and valley/basin correction. The PGA distribution at ground surface is shown in Fig. 8.2.2.3.

Fig. 8.2.2.3 PGA distribution at ground surface including valley/basin correction

44 8.2.3 Zonation Related to the Surface Ground Motion 8.2.3.1 Zonation with respect to the Average Spectral Acceleration Fig. 8.2.3.1 shows the zonation of the average spectral acceleration (Ssi), which uses the criteria shown in Table 8.2.3.1.

Table 8.2.3.1 Criteria of Zonation by Average Spectral Acceleration

Zone Criteria As Ssi ≥ 1.4g Bs 1.4g > Ssi ≥ 1.2g Cs 1.2g > Ssi ≥ 1.0g Ds 1.0g > Ssi ≥ 0.8g Es 0.8g > Ssi

Fig. 8.2.3.1 Zonation with respect to the Average Spectral Acceleration

8.2.3.2 Zonation with respect to the Short Period Spectral Acceleration The short period (T=0.2 sec) spectral acceleration at ground surface was calculated after Borcherdt (1994). Fig. 8.2.3.2 shows the zonation of the short period spectral acceleration (Svi), which uses the criteria shown in Table 8.2.3.2.

45 Table 8.2.3.2 Criteria of Zonation by Spectral Amplification

Zone Criteria Av Svi ≥ 1.2g Bv 1.2g > Svi ≥ 1.0g Cv 1.0g > Svi ≥ 0.8g Dv 0.8g > Svi ≥ 0.6g Ev 0.6g > Svi

Fig. 8.2.3.2 Zonation with respect to the Short Period Spectral Acceleration by Borcherdt (1994)

8.2.3.3 Zonation with Respect to the Ground Shaking Hazard

Remark The zoning map by this methodology was intended to raise the awareness that the place of good ground condition in general meaning is not always safe for the mid-rise RC frame with brick wall residential apartments, which are very common in Istanbul. Please don’t misunderstand that the “bad” ground condition is safe for buildings. Fig. 8.2.2.4 and Fig. 8.2.3.1 should be used as the total seismic hazard maps.

46 The ground intensity shaking map was produced from two zonation results. A zone was assigned at each grid by overlaying of “Zonation with respect to the Average Spectral Acceleration (As to Es)” and “Zonation with respect to the Short Period Spectral Acceleration (Av to Ev)” following Table 8.2.3.3. Fig. 8.2.3.3 shows the zonation with respect to the ground shaking hazard.

Table 8.2.3.3 Criteria of Zonation by Ground Shaking Hazard

Zonation with respect to the Average Spectral Acceleration As Bs Cs Ds Es

Av AGS AGS BGS BGS CGS

Bv AGS BGS BGS CGS DGS

Cv BGS BGS CGS DGS DGS Acceleration Dv BGS CGS DGS DGS EGS Short Period Spectral Short Period C D D E E Zonation withto the respect Ev GS GS GS GS GS

Fig. 8.2.3.3 Zonation with respect to the Ground Shaking Hazard

47 8.3 Liquefaction Hazard Analysis In order to evaluate the liquefaction susceptibility of soils in the project area, the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) caused by the ground motion due to the expected earthquake and the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) of the soils were compared. The overview of the procedure for the liquefaction hazard analysis are shown Fig. 8.3.1.

Geological Investigations - Drilling for each grid (Depth:30m) - SPT (every 1.5m), Laboratory Test

Selection of No potential Liquefaction Potential Areas

Any potential

Extra Investigations

- Drilling, SPT, CPT, Labo. Test

Evaluation of Liquefaction Susceptibility

Result of SPT Result of CPT

Liquefaction Hazard Map

AL BL CL (No Potential) (High) (Medium) (Low)

Fig. 8.3.1 Flow for Evaluation of Liquefaction Susceptibility

48 8.3.1 Calculation for Liquefaction Susceptibility The calculations of liquefaction susceptibility were conducted by two methods, one using SPT results and the other using CPT results. These calculation flows are shown in Fig. 8.3.1.1 and Fig. 8.3.1.2 respectively.

amax ρ z N

CSR (Cyclic Stress Ratio) N-value correction

N1,60=NCNCRCSCBCE ⎛ a ⎞⎛ σ ⎞ CSR = 0.65 ⎜ max ⎟⎜ v ⎟r ⎜ ⎟⎜ ' ⎟ d ⎝ g ⎠ σ ⎝ v ⎠

N-value correction for FC

N1,60,CS= α+βN1,60

CRR (Cyclic Resistance Ratio) 7.5 CRR = 1/(34-N )+N /135+50/(10N +45)2-1/200 7.5 1,60 1,60 1,60

MSF (Magnitude Scaling Factor)

MSF=102.24/M 2.56 W

FS (Factor of Safety)

FS = (CRR7.5 / CSR) MSF

PL (Liquefaction Index) PL=∫(1-FS)w(z)dz

Fig. 8.3.1.1 Calculation for Liquefaction Susceptibility by SPT Data

Fig. 8.3.1.2 Calculations for Liquefaction Susceptibility by CPT Data

50 After calculating the liquefaction susceptibility, three zones were defined as Table 8.3.1.1.

Table 8.3.1.1 Zonation by Liquefaction Hazard

Zone Criteria Description

AL PL > 15 High susceptibility

BL 5 ≤ PL ≤ 15 Medium susceptibility

CL PL <5 Low susceptibility

8.3.2 Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazard The Liquefaction Hazard Map was produced as shown in Fig.8.3.2.1. The following results are derived in terms of the liquefaction susceptibility.

a) AL, “high liquefaction susceptibility” zones are typically observed at the following areas; - The southern sand bank and the east bank of the Küçükçekmece Lake - A part of the alluvium deposit area at the west part of the Lake - A part of the alluvium deposit area along the Ayamama River - The coastal areas to the Marmara Sea from Bakırköy to Eminönü - A part of the west bank of the Golden Horn

b) BL, “medium susceptibility “ zones or CL, “low susceptibility” zones are typically observed at the following areas; - The west part of the Lake - The westernmost part of the project area - The most of alluvium deposit areas in the middle part of the project area c) The high – medium susceptibility zones are generally observed in the alluvium or fill deposit areas. In case the tertiary deposits consist of sands or silty-sands with high groundwater level, these soils rarely have the liquefaction susceptibility. d) In general, the high susceptibility zones exist very locally except the southern sand bank and the east bank of the Küçükçekmece Lake.

Fig. 8.3.2.1 Liquefaction Hazard Map 52 8.4 Mass Movements (Slope Instability) 8.4.1 Method for the Landslide Hazard Analysis 8.4.1.1 Evaluation of the Present Landslide Activities The categorized landslides area shown in Table 8.4.1.1.

Table 8.4.1.1 Proposed evaluation for the present activity of landslides

Activity Damages of buildings, topographic features Activity I - Very clear landslide morphology - There are two or more damages with displacement of 10 cm or more. Furthermore, lots of other damages are observed. - It is inferred that these landslides will move by 1 – 10cm per year. Activity II - Clear landslide morphology - There are two or more damages with displacement of 1 - 10 cm. - It is inferred that these landslides will move by 1 cm or less per year. Activity III - Not clear landslide morphology - Lots of damages possibly caused by landslides are observed. - These landslides seem to be slightly active or the slopes are instable. Activity IV - Not clear landslide morphology - Some damages possibly caused by landslides are observed. - These landslides seem to be slightly active or the slopes are instable. Activity V - Not clear landslide morphology - Some damages possibly caused by landslides are observed. - These landslides seem to be slightly active.

8.4.1.2 Shear Strength of Soils by Shear Box Test The shear box tests were conducted using UD and SPT samples in the landslide areas. These samples consist of the Gungoren clay or Gurpinar clay at the depth of 7m – 10m. Table 8.4.1.2 shows the shear resistance angle for each landslide activity.

Table 8.4.1.2 Shear Resistance Angle for Each Landslide Activity

Activity Rank Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ Shear Strength Angle (degree) 5 7 10 15 20

8.4.1.3 Examination of Estimation of the Shear Resistance Angle The relation of the safety factor, the slope inclination of the landslide, and the strength of the slip surface is shown in the following formula (1) and the chart (Fig. 8.4.1.1), by Siyahi and Ansal (1999). Using this formula, the strength of the slip surface for the present situation can be estimated by back-calculation using the safety factor of each landslide block, where pga(g) is peak ground acceleration during earthquake and “pga=0” implies non-earthquake situation.

Fs = tanφ N1 (pga) ------(1)

Fs：safety factor φ：friction angle (for total stress) N1(pga)： minimum stability number according to pga ( coefficient given with the following chart)

Fig. 8.4.1.1 Relation of the slope inclination of the landslide, and the strength of the slip surface

The present safety factor (without earthquake) can be calculated by applying pga=0 to the previous formula (1). Fig. 8.4.1.2 shows the present safety factor for each landslide activity.

54 Safety Factor at Present

5 Activity Ⅰ 4 Activity Ⅱ Activity Ⅲ 3 Activity Ⅳ

Safety Factor Safety Activity Ⅴ 2

0 0 5 10 15 20 Inclination of Landslide

Fig. 8.4.1.2 Present Safety Factor for Each Landslide Activity

According to the result, the safety factors of landslides with the highest activity are 1.0 – 1.2. These values are reasonable considering that these landslides are unstable at present causing some damage to buildings. The low active landslides show considerably high safety factors. The estimated shear resistance angles can be judged proper as a whole.

8.4.1.4 Calculation of the Safety Factor at the Earthquake The safety factor at the earthquake can be calculated using the previous formula (1). This formula is based on a laboratory test using the Caolin (clay with low plasticity), of which the soil strength will become fairly lower due to earthquakes. Ordinary clayey soils generally have higher plasticity. That means the formula (1) represents the most dangerous case. Taking the above consideration into account, it will be an overestimation if the PGA value itself is used for the formula (1). In general, around 30% of the peak ground motion (PGA) is used for the effective ground motion for grounds or buildings. Therefore, 30 % of PGA is used as the ground motion for the formula (1).

8.4.2 Evaluation of the Landslide Hazard The evaluation by the safety factor at the earthquake is the relative one based on the presumption of the present safety factor and the decrease of PGA. Of the landslides in the project area, there are ones with clear landslide morphology and ones with not clear morphology. The landslides with clear morphology have possibly moved every time the big earthquake occurs,

55 while the landslides with not clear morphology have not moved for more than 1,000 years. Therefore, a landslide which has the same safety factor as the ones with clear landslide morphology is expected to move at the next big earthquake. On the other hand, a landslide which has the same safety factor as the ones with not clear landslide morphology is not expected at the next big earthquake. Fig. 8.4.2.1 shows the relation of the extent of development of the landslide morphology and the safety factor at the earthquake. According to this relation, the safety factor of landslides with clear morphology is less than 1.0. In case the safety factor is more than 2.0, the landslide hazard risk will be relatively low.

Safety Factor at Earthquake and Landslide Topography

4.00 3.50

3.00

2.50 Not Clear 2.00 Medium Developed 1.50

1.00

Safety Factor at Earthquake 0.50

0.00 0 5 10 15 20 Inclination of Landslide

Fig. 8.4.2.1 Development of landslide topography and safety factor at earthquake

Taking these considerations into account, the landslide hazard risk can be divided into the following three categories. Fs ≤ 1.0 ASL (High risk ) 1.0< Fs < 2.0 BSL (Medium risk) Fs ≥ 2.0 CSL (Low risk)

Fig. 8.4.2.2 shows the Landslide Hazard Map.

Fig. 8.4.2.2 Landslide Hazard Map

57 9 WATER STATUS

9.1 Ground Water Levels In order to observe water level, 50mm diameter of PVC pipes were inserted into 4364 mechanical boreholes with different depths (except PS Logging and Deep Wells) just after completion of drilling works. The top of each borehole was covered by concrete block to maintain the borehole under protection for the observation. Water level measurements were done in 2 or 3 days after the completion of boreholes. Water levels in boreholes were observed once a month for a year (as optimum twelve times) from completion of drilling works. Each result were recorded in the prepared forms and digitized. During the measurements, water level in some boreholes measured higher than other surrounding boreholes due to remaining drilling water in these boreholes (water couldn’t pomped out efficiently after completion of drilling). Data collected from these boreholes were used in estimations if the water level decreased to a similar level with the surrounding borehole water levels in two or three monts time. Measures that shows major dissonance (very low or very high) to measures of surrounding borehole water levels, were ignored. Measures in drilling points, which was damaged and not possible to get enough data, were reflacted to the maps with using geophysical data and correlation of measurement in surrounding boreholes. In final table, it was seen that water levels measured in summer time are similar to water levels measured in winter time. The Highest water level values were used in the maps mantioned above, because groundwater level is most important factor for espacially liquefaction and landslide analysis. Forms with whole measurements can be found in CDs attached to this raport. Figure 9.1.1 shows elevation distribution of groundwater tray regarding the sea water level. Averaged groundwater levels are corresponded to topography so the water level is high on hills while it drops in low lands. Water level is same or similar to sea water level or contiguous river levels. Figure 9.1.2 showes grounwater depth contour from surface.

Fig. 9.1.1 Groundwater Level Elevation Contour from Average Sea Water Level

Fig. 9.1.2 Groundwater level depth contour from surface 60 9.2 Flooding Hazard Analysis The “Flooding Hazard” consists of the following two types of hazard: a) Flooding along the lower river areas due to a dam break (referred as to ‘Dam Break Model’). b) Flooding along the river areas due to over-precipitation (referred as to ‘River Flooding Model’).

9.2.1 Analysis Method A finite difference method by the 2D Shallow Water Equation was used for the numerical analysis for the Flooding Analysis (both of the Dam Break Model and the River Flooding Model)

9.2.2 Analysis Results 9.2.2.1 Dam Break Model There are two areas for the analysis by the Dam Break model as shown in Fig. 9.2.2.1.

Sazlıdere Dam Alibey Dam

Fig. 9.2.2.1 Area for Dam Break Model

61 The maximum flow dapth due to the dam break is shown in Fig.9.2.2.2 for Sazlidere Dam and Fig.9.2.2.3 for Alibey Dam respectively.

Maximum Depth (m)

Fig. 9.2.2.2 Maximum Depth (Sazlıdere Dam)

Maximum Depth (m)

Fig. 9.2.2.3 Maximum Depth (Alibey Dam)

63 9.2.2.2 River Flooding Model Total 6 regions were selected for the analysis by the river flooding model as shown in Fig. 9.2.2.4.

Region１ Region 2 Region 4

Region 6 Region 3 Region 5

Fig. 9.2.2.4 Area for River Flooding Model

64 9.2.3 Evaluation of Flooding Hazard Calculated results were evaluated in terms of the hazard assessment. The calculated results include a lot of ‘noise’ and some ‘unrealistic data’. For example, some large flooded areas in the River Flooding Model are apparently due to the relatively high elevation of bridges (roads or railways) at the lower side. These data was removed for the hazard mapping. The evaluated areas were divided into three flooding hazard zones as shown in Table 9.2.3.1. The Flooding Hazard Map was created as shown in Fig.9.2.3.1.

Table 9.2.3.1 Zonation by Flooding Hazard

Zone Criteria

AF (High hazard area) Flooding depth > 3m

BF (Medium hazard area) 0.5 m < Flooding depth ≤ 3m

CF (Low or no hazard area) Flooding depth ≤ 0.5m

Regarding the “Dam Break Model”, the dam break is the “worst” scenario and the actual possibility of the dam break will be relatively very low. Therefore, the flooded areas by the dam break were categorized to the zone “CF”. The hazard levels for flooded areas by “the river flooding” were also evaluated taking into account the existing flooding records. Then these areas were divided into two categories as BF and CF. There is no area which will have the highest hazard as AF.

Fig. 9.2.3.1 Flooding Hazard Map 66 9.3 Tsunami Hazard Analysis Fig. 9.3.1 shows the flow of the Tsunami Hazard Analysis.

Earthquake Hazard Bathymetry Data Historical Tsunami Analysis Result (Marmara Sea) Catalogue

Topographical Analysis (vulnerable Submarine Slopes)

Response Analysis (PGA at slopes by active faults)

Stability Analysis (slip limit PGA for slopes)

Landslide Simulation (movement of slip mass of slopes)

Submarine Landslides Parameters

Active Faults Tsunami Simulation Parameters (verification)

Simple Probability of Tsunami Probability Analysis Tsunami for Istanbul

Tsunami Probability Maps

(vulnerable areas at Istanbul Shore)

Fig. 9.3.1 Flow of Tsunami Hazard Analysis in this study

67 9.3.1 Historical Tsunamis for Istanbul Fig. 9.3.1.1 is the distribution of historical tsunamis in Marmara Sea with space (Altinok, 2006b). Based on Altinok (2006b) etc. 30 events of historical tsunami during these 20 centuries for Istanbul were identified.

Fig. 9.3.1.1 Historical tsunami in Marmara Sea from 120 to 1999 A.D. with space (Altinok, 2003)

9.3.2 Tsunami Simulation Samples of simulated results for the Princes’ Islands faults are shown in Fig. 9.3.2.1. East side especially Adalar area of Istanbul city will be affected higher tsunami heights, and most of cases. The arrival time of initial wave will be within 10 minutes, and the maximum tsunami wave will arrive within 60 to 90 minutes after the generation of earthquake. When Princes’ Island fault will move, Istanbul city area will be affected more than other faults of Ganos or Central Marmara faults. Tsunami height to Adalar will reach 4 to 7 meters, to east side including Kadıköy or Tuzla will be 3 to 5 meters, and to west side including Yenikapı Yeşilköy or Avcılar will be 3 to 4 meters. But in Bosphorus and Golden Horn, tsunami height will be maximum 2 meters. Run-up height (m; height from sea level) is similar to tsunami height along shore, but 30 to 80 % higher than inundation depth. Thus inundation depth is 50 to 80% of tsunami height along shore.

68 Fig. 9.3.2 1(a) Simulated Results for Princes’ Island Fault

69 Fig. 9.3.2 1(b) Simulated Results for Princes’ Island Fault

70 9.3.3 Simulation Results of Submarine Landslides Samples of simulated results for EN1 of northern slope of Çinarcik Basin are shown in Fig. 9.3.3.1. East side of Istanbul Municipality especially Adalar area will be affected higher tsunami heights. The arrival time of initial wave will be within 10 minutes, and the maximum tsunami wave will arrive within 60 to 90 minutes after the generation of earthquake. Tsunami heights are maximum 4 to 5 m except West Marmara or ON2 southern Çinarcik Basin cases. Inundation depths are maximum 3-4 m by EN1, EN3 and ON1 cases. Run-up heights are similar to inundation depth.

9.3.4 Simulation Results of Combination of Active Faults and Submarine Landslides Fig. 9.3.4.1 shows a sample of the simulation results of combination of active faults and submarine landslides.

9.3.5 Probability of Tsunami for Istanbul The tsunami wave height at the coast of 10% probability of exceedance for 50 years is shown in Fig. 9.3.5.1. The Asian side of Istanbul is more hazardous than European side. The highest wave height is expected in Adalar and the highest wave height exceeds 9m. Kartal and Kadıköy are the next hazardous area in Asian side. In the European side, 3 to 4 m height is expected in Bakırköy to Zeytinburnu. The tsunami inundation depth at the seaside of 10% probability of exceedance for 50 years is shown in Fig. 9.3.5.2 and Fig. 9.3.5.3. The inundation at the south of Küçükçekmece Lake is remarkable. The maximum inundation distance from the coast reaches about 600m. The seaside of Kadıköy and Kartal to Tuzla also expected to suffer run-up for 100 to 300m from the coast.

Fig. 9.3.3.1 Simulated Results for EN1(northern Çinarcik Basin) 72

Fig. 9.3.4 1(a) Simulated Results of Active Faults and Landslides

Fig. 9.3.4 1(b) Simulated Results of Active Faults and Landslides

74 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! km ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ht at the Coast of 10% PE in 50 Years Years ht at the Coast of PE10% in 50 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! g ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 010203040 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! . 9.3.5.1 . 9.3.5.1 Hei Wave Tsunami ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! g ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fi ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 - 1 0 - 2 1 - 3 2 - 4 3 - 5 4 - 6 5 - 106 - ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Wave Height (m)Wave 10%PE in 50yrs

- 0.5 0.5 - 1 2 1 - 3 2 - 4 3 - 5 4 - 6 5 - Inundation DepthInundation (m) 10%PE in 50yrs th at the Seaside of 10% PE in 50 Years – West - West – Years the Seaside th at of 10% PE in 50 p km . 9.3.5.2 . 9.3.5.2 De Inundation Tsunami g Fi 0.5 101234

- 0.5 0.5 - 1 2 1 - 3 2 - 4 3 - 5 4 - 6 5 - Inundation Depth (m) Depth Inundation 10%PE in 50yrs th at the Seaside of 10% PE in 50 Years – East - East – Years at the Seaside50 of 10%th PE in p km . 9.3.5.3 De Inundation Tsunami g Fi 0.5 101234

77 10 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY FOR SETTLEMENT

10.1 Technical and Legal Criteria of the Evaluation This evaluation of suitability for settlement was prepared according to 15 different Microzonation Maps, which were produced regarding the technical specifications of this work, include each disaster hazard evaluation. The Technical Specifications of this work and several standarts, regulations, circulars..etc that implied in this spesification are technical purpose of the evaluation. Regulations (by-laws) and circulars issued by the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (MPWS) were taken into account as criteria for the preparetion of suitability for settlement maps and reports belonging to these maps. It was tried to stick to the size implied in circular which 31.05.1989 dated and 4343 numbered (no. 89/16) in this evaluation but, due to Microzonation maps are basis for this study and also this study is intensive and very detailed, the Manuel for “Integration of Geo-scientific Data to Planning” prepared by the MPWS on December 2006 was used.

10.2 Evaluation of Hazards in Terms of Settlement Suitability The following hazards were taken into consideration for the assessment of suitability for settlement - Liquefaction hazard - Landslide hazard - Flooding Hazard (Tsunami Hazard included) - Engineering problems (Filling, Tasman, Geological conditions, etc.)

After evaluating these hazards, base maps were prepared for each hazard and the Settlement Suitability Maps were prepared from these base maps. Regarding the ground shaking intensity, there were discussions as to whether or not it should be included as a factor for the settlement suitability. As a result, the project area was basically divided into the following three (3) zones in terms of the settlement suitability; (a) Suitable Areas (UA) (b) Precautionary Areas (ÖA) (c) Unsuitable Areas (UOA)

In order to determine these areas from various hazards, each hazard was evaluated in terms of the land suitability for settlement.

10.3 Suitable Areas (UA) Areas shown with “UA” in “Suitability for Settlement Maps” defined as “Suitable Areas for Settlement”. These areas correspond to % 39,64 of the Project area. In these areas; - There are zones with Trakya, Ceylan, Gürpınar Formations, units belonging to Bakırköy

78 Member and units belonging to Güngören Member geologicly. - Morphologicly there are no obstackles against settlement. - There is no risk for liquefaction or ground amphilication. - Lanslide or similar mass movements were not developed. - There is no Tsunami or Flooding hazards. - These areas are suitable for structuring in terms of Foundation Engineering.

There may be some local problems even if these areas are suitable for settlement. Therefore, these possible local problems should be determined in lot – based studies with presentation of solution suggestions and implementation projects should be conducted with taking these items into account. In deep drillings conducted for proccess of the work, there should be stability problems because of wedge type slips due to dense fractured structure of rocks and clay, silt or sand lens contained areas. In these type of areas some special measures should be taken and adequate projects should be prepared.

10.4 Precautionary Areas (ÖA) Areas shown with “ÖA” in “Suitability for Settlement Maps” defined as “Precautionary Areas”. These areas correspond to % 58,94 of the Project area. These areas have items like natural disaster hazards and geologic-geotechnic characteristics that may effect areas in terms of suitability for settlment so, planning and structuring for these areas is possible with taking some measures before or during structuring. Liquefaction, landslide, tsunami, flooding and engineering problems (ground amplification, bearing capacity, settlement, swelling, tasman, rock fall..etc.) may be seen individualy or together in these areas. Precautionary Areas (ÖA) were divided into sub-titles regarding to the problems that were occured and/or possible to occure. These areas are; - Precautionary Area 1 (ÖA1) : in terms of Liquefaction Hazard - Precautionary Area 2 (ÖA2): in terms of Stability Hazard - Precautionary Area 3 (ÖA3) : in terms of Tsunami and Flooding Hazard - Precautionary Area 4-5 (ÖA4 - ÖA5) : in terms of Engineering Problems - Precautionary Area 4 (ÖA4): In terms of Artificial Filling and Alluvium Areas - Precautionary Area 5 (ÖA5) : In terms of Rock Fall, Tasman Hazard and Mine areas. - Precautionary Area 6 (ÖA6): Multiple hazard possiblity (Complex problems) areas.

Also, precationary areas sub-divided into 2 regions regarding to the variaty and desity of problems and measures for these problems; - ÖA(a) : Primary Precautionary Areas - ÖA(b) : Secondary Precautionar yAreas

10.4.1 Precautionary Areas -1 These are the areas with liquefaction hazard. In case of evaluation of liquefaction hazard in terms of

79 suitability for settlement, each factor should be investigated regarding to damage on buildings or ground. One of these factors is ground settlement deformation due to liquefaction. Suitability for settlement can be estimated by ground deformation level. As a result, precautionary areas in terms of liquefaction hazard were divided into two sub-section as “ÖA-1(a)” and “ÖA-1(b)”.

10.4.1.1 Precautionary Areas-1(a); ÖA1(a) These areas are zones which include quaternary aged, grainy and terrestrial based alluvial deposits and sea - based soft grounds in coasts. In these areas; - Liquefaction potential is high, - Silt, clay and gravel layers are existed , - Groundwater is too close to surface, , - There is a risk for ground amplification, - There are infirm (soft) grounds in terms of foundation engineering, - Groundwater and stability problems may occure in foundation digs. - 10-30cm of settlements are expected according to analysis results. - Ground damages like small cracks, sand leakages..etc are expected.

10.4.1.2 Precautionary Areas-1(b); ÖA1(b) These areas are zones which include quaternary aged, grainy and terrestrial based alluvial deposits and sea - based soft grounds in coasts. In these areas, - Liquefaction potential is low, - There are layers with clay, silt, sand and gravel. - Groundwater is close to the surface, - There is a risk for ground amplification - There are infirm (soft) grounds in terms of foundation engineering, - Groundwater and stability problems may occure depending thickness of soft material in foundation digs - 10-30cm of settlements are expected according to analysis results, - Ground damages like small cracks..etc are expected.

10.4.2 Precautionary Areas-2 These are the areas with mass movements that may occure in some circumstances (Landslide). Precautionary areas in terms of mass movements were divided into 2 sub-section as “ÖA-2(a)” and “ÖA-2(b)”

10.4.2.1 Precautionary Areas-2(a): ÖA2(a) These are the areas that include Gürpınar and Güngören members, can be found in high inclination slopes

80 with serious stability problems. Areas with present safety factor estimated as (1.0 < Fs ≤2.0) from conducted analysis were evaluated in this group. These areas ; - Consist of clay, silt and sand under these materials, - Have inclination that may effect stability negatively, - Have groundwater problem, - Have possibility of slip surfaces that effect stability may be deeper than 10m of depth.

10.4.2.2 Precautionary Areas-2(b): ÖA2(b) These are the areas that include Gürpınar and Güngören members, can be found in high inclination slopes with medium-high stability problems. These areas, - Consist of clay, silt and sand under these materials - Have inclination that may effect stability negatively - Have groundwater problem - Slip surfaces that effect stability are between 3-10m of depth

10.4.3. Precautionary Areas-3 These areas have flooding possibility in case of an earthquake. These areas are mostly close to coasts, valleys intersected with a coastal and Haliç (Golden Horn) connected to sea and lake shores. These areas are divided into 2 subsections as “ÖA3(a)” and “ÖA3(b) according to possible wave hight.

10.4.3.1. Precautionary Areas-3(a): ÖA3(a)

These are areas where the tsunami height or inundation depth is expected to be between 3m ≤ HW <10m. Actually there is no such zone in the project area.

10.4.3.2 Precautionary Areas-3(b): ÖA3(b)

These are areas where the tsunami height or inundation depth is expected to be between 0m < HW < 3m Because of medium-low flooding hazard, special measures should be taken such as evacuation plans (routes, places, or notification system). Also, advises should be taken from related departments (ISKI,DSI..etc) for planning against possible floodings that may occure in valleys or other flood vulnerable areas depending on participation.

10.4.4 Precautionary Areas-4 and Precautionary Areas-5 These are areas with some engineering problems such as Alluvium areas, artificial fillings, tasman, rock falls, and cave-in of mines. These areas were divided into 4 subsections as “ÖA4(a), ÖA4(b), ÖA5(a) and ÖA5(b)“ in terms of engineering problems and level of the measures to be taken.

81 10.4.4.1. Precautionary Areas-4(a): ÖA4(a) These areas have major engineering problems such as very thick alluvium and very thick artificial fillings , etc. Actually there is no such zone in the project area.

10.4.4.2. Precautionary AReas-4(b): ÖA4(b) These areas represented by alluvium and artificial fillings. Thichness and distributions of these artificial fillings in these areas should be determined before construction because these fillings do not considered as carrier. Therefore, in construction phase, the foundation of buildings should be put on stable grounds.

10.4.4.3. Precautionart Areas-5(a): ÖA5(a) These are areas with major engineering problems such as tasman, rock falls, cave-in of mines, etc. Actually there is no such zone in the project area.

10.4.4.4. Precautionary AReas-5(b): ÖA5(b) These areas represented by rock fall hazard areas, tasman areas and mine areas. These areas includes step rock slopes, underground karstic gaps in some parts of the study area. Wedge type of slips may occure in rock environments, deep drillings and steep slopes. Tasman may occure in Bakırkoy region because of karstic gaps.

10.4.5. Precautionary Areas-6 These are areas with multiple problems like liqufaction, flooding, mass movements and engineering problems. These areas divided into 2 subsections according to levels of problems and measures.

10.4.5.1 Precautionary Area-6(a): ÖA6(a) These areas have more than one of the above problems with one of these problems has 1.level (a) of importance. Detailed studies should be conducted before implementation and measures to take should be determined.

10.4.5.2 Precautionary Areas-6(b): ÖA6(b) These areas have more than one of the above problems with one of these problems has 2.level (a) of importance. Detailed studies should be conducted before implementation and measures to take should be determined.

10.5 Unsuitable Areas (UOA) Unsuitable Areas (UOA) are defined in Table 10.5.1 with taking previous evaluations of related hazards into account. This area should not be planned and opened to the settlement due to some high hazard possibilities in terms of suitability of settlment. Avcılar Ambarlı Balaban District, Denizköşkler Districkt, Bakırköy Menekşe District, lake slopes in east part of Firuzköy and Halkalı garbage dump area are inside of this area.

Table 10.5.1 Definition of “UOA” (Unsuitable Areas)

Area Category Descriptions

Areas which are assigned to the highest hazard and assigned to UOA area for at least one of the following hazard items: UOA (1) Liquefaction Hazard (Very soft ground areas like swamp..etc.) (Unsuitable Area) (2) Landslide Hazard (3) Flooding Hazard (4) Engineering Problems

These areas were divided into 4 subsections according to source of the problem. There is no area with Liquefaction hazard (UOA1) or Flooding hazard (UOA3) in Project area. Unsuitable Areas correspond to %1,42 of Project area.

10.5.1 Unsuitable Areas-2: UOA-2 These areas have active mass movements and determined as active landslide areas in previous studies in Project area. These areas should not be planned and opened to the settlement.

10.5.2 Unsuitable Areas-4: UOA-4 These areas are thick artificial filling areas in Project area. These areas should not be planned or opened to settlement because of their thickness of fills and physical-chemical characteristics. Halkalı garbage dumb should be considered in this group in Project area. Detailed characteristics of problems and evaluations of analysis that suitability for settlement groups have, can be found in related section. Unsuitable areas should not be planned for structuring and parcel-based, detailed Ground Survey Works should be conducted for every other areas.

83 11 RESULTS AND SUGGESTIONS

(1) PRODUCTION OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSED MICROZONATION REPORT AND MAPS – EUROPEAN SIDE (SOUTH)” work which belongs to Istanbul City, European Side (South) was conducted by OYO International Corporation on behalf of The Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM). Geological, geotechnical, geophysical characteristics of the Work area were identified and the data were analyzed.

(2) Total 16 microzonation hazard maps were produced as implied in technical spesificaiton of this work. Also, extra 11 contributing and correlation maps were created. As a result of these maps and evaluation of risks reffered in these maps, 1/2000 scale “Settlement Suitability Maps” were produced.

(3) Total 2830 normal drillings with 30m depth, 27 deep drillings with 80-250m depth, 764 liquefaction drillings with 20m depth, 608 landslide drillings with 30m depth, 100 drillings with differant depths to determine baserock depth and thickness of some formations and also 35 drillings to determine some structural features like faults and alluvium thickness as a total number of 4364 mechanical drillings were conducted in 2912 grids (250x250) within the context of project and total drilling depth was reached to 125578,90m. Beside SPT tests which were conducted in field, 636 CPT tests were also conducted. 2762 Siesmic Refraction – ReMi measurements, 2625 Electric Resistivity measurements, 201 PS Logging tests, Array Microtremor measurement in 30 points and 20km lenght Seismic Reflection measurement were conducted within the context of geophysical studies.

(4) Work area is in regions that contain differant earthquake risks according to Turkey Earthquake Regions Map. Considering strong ground movements contained from last earthquake and accelerations and also according to Probabilistic Earthquake Hazard Maps preapered in this work and geological-geophysical, geomorphologic and techtonic charactersitics of the study area, informations about previous earthquakes and existing earthquake hazard maps should be reviewed and updated.

(5) Active landslides were observed in Menekşe District, Balaban District, slopes of east side of Küçükçekmece Lake (Firuzköy) and Denizköşkler District in Project area These areas were evaluated as unsuitable areas for settlement. There is a 28/06/2005 dated and 9109 numbered Cabinet Decision Disaster Effected for Avcılar Ambarlı District. Rock fall or avalanche risk do not existed in Project area other than this one. Opinion of DSI (ISKI) should be taken for water courses in Project area before planning.

(6) The project area was basically divided into three (3) zones as Suitable Areas (UA), Precautionary Areas (ÖA) and Unsuitable Areas (UOA) in terms of the settlement suitability;

84 Suitable Areas (UA) In these areas there are zones with Trakya, Ceylan, Gürpınar Formations, units belonging to Bakırköy Member and units belonging to Güngören Member geologicly. Precautionary Areas (ÖA) These areas have items like natural disaster hazards and geologic-geotechnic characteristics that may effect areas in terms of suitability for settlment so, planning and structuring for these areas is possible with taking some measures before or during structuring. Precautionary Areas (ÖA) were divided into sub-titles regarding to the problems that were occured and/or possible to occure. These areas are; - Precautionary Area 1 (ÖA1) : in terms of Liquefaction Hazard - Precautionary Area 2 (ÖA2): in terms of Stability Hazard - Precautionary Area 3 (ÖA3) : in terms of Tsunami and Flooding Hazard - Precautionary Area 4-5 (ÖA4 - ÖA5) : in terms of Engineering Problems - Precautionary Area 4 (ÖA4): In terms of Artificial Filling and Alluvium Areas - Precautionary Area 5 (ÖA5) : In terms of Rock Fall, Tasman Hazard and Mine areas. - Precautionary Area 6 (ÖA6): Multiple hazard possiblity (Complex problems) areas. Also, precationary areas sub-divided into 2 regions regarding to the variaty and desity of problems and measures for these problems; - ÖA(a) : Primary Precautionary Areas - ÖA(b) : Secondary Precautionar yAreas

Unsuitable Areas (UOA) This area should not be planned and opened to the settlement due to some high hazard possibilities in terms of suitability of settlment. Avcılar Ambarlı Balaban District, Denizköşkler Districkt, Bakırköy Menekşe District, lake slopes in east part of Firuzköy and Halkalı garbage dump area are inside of this area

(7) It is necessary to conduct lot-based Ground Survey studies before implementation for new constructions. (8) This study is a Construction Plans Based “Geological-Geotechnical Survey Study Regarding to Settlement Purposed Microzonation Works” that can not be used as lot-based (parcel-based) Ground Survey study.