It is also important to install gutters or other means of collecting rainwater from the roof.

Therefore, it is also recommended to use flexible pipe materials (i.e. PVC or ABS instead of
clay or concrete pipe) and flexible joints situated in accessible conduits. These conduits should
be waterproof.
Below the groundwater surface if any it is recommended to install plastic based membrane
beneath the foundation. This membrane below the foundation should be protected by using
two layers of lean concrete, at top and bottom and should extend to ground surface also
enveloping the foundation. Considering the platform levels for each area, significant amount of
excavations will be performed with permanent slopes. It is recommended to construct the
concrete lined permanent drainage ditches on berms and top of slopes as head ditches. These
ditches are recommended to be connected to proper drainage away from slopes and
excavated areas. It is also recommended to implement ditch details to regulate the flow speed
within head ditches at steep areas.
We suggest that French drains be tied to the main drainage. One of the possible reasons for
improved drainage performance experienced at Unit 10 is the presence of woodland and
comparably less concrete paved surfaces. This performance can be expected to differ
depending on the variation in landscaping during and after construction phases; as well as
presence of highly plastic material at shallow depths. At this stage, we recommend taking
identical drainage measures around both units.

4.4 Slope Stability Assessments for Generic Cross Sections

This subsection is devoted to presenting results of the limit state slope stability assessments
at the site for excavations up to 6 m (a maximum depth of 6 m is considered). The analyses
are conducted for i) dry soil state, ii) pore pressure ratio (r u) of 0.1 and iii) pseudo-static
conditions using kh=0.07 g. The idealized surficial deposits (further refinement of the profile is
possible; however is avoided for this case) are considered to possess shear strength
parameters of cu=100 kPa (significantly decreased for a more conservative approach to include
the effects of relatively loose / soft surface deposits and accumulation of local granular deposits
concentrated at excavated volumes)

7 kPa and

. The target safety factors for short

and long terms are selected as 1.3 and 1.5 respectively. The target safety factor for

pseudostatic loading is selected as 1.0. The limit state analyses were executed using
Rocscience Slide v.6.0 software. However, it should be noted that static safety factors of 1.3
may also be considered acceptable.
GeoDestek's scope covers a preliminary evaluation of expected slope performance in natural
deposits and engineered cuts near foundation excavations, compared to section specific
recommendations around each structure etc.

4.4.1. Short Term Stability

Under static loading conditions, the factor of safety against sliding is calculated as 4.61 for
single stage excavations of up to 6 m with a slope angle of 70 degrees. For the pseudostatic
case, safety factor is 4.12. Considering the potential risks due to looser / softer surficial
deposits and possibility of debris flow; the recommended slope is 2V:1H for short term
conditions. This only ensures that the global stability criteria are met, and minor debris flows
may occur due to non homogeneous structure in the field, especially for slope mirrors which
are directly exposed to precipitation. The results of limit state analyses are presented in Figures
43 and 44 for static and pseudostatic loading conditions respectively.

Figure 43. Slope stability assessment in short term, static loading conditions.

Figure 44. Slope stability assessment in short term, pseudostatic loading conditions

4.4.2. Long Term Stability

Under static loading conditions, the factor of safety against sliding is calculated as 1.67 for
single stage excavations of up to 6 m with a slope of 1V:1.5H (Figure 45). For the pseudostatic
case, safety factor is 1.45. This only ensures that the global stability criteria are met, and minor
debris flows may occur due to non homogeneous structure in the field, especially for slope
mirrors which are directly exposed to precipitation. Safety factor against sliding for the ru=0.1
and ru=0.2 case (Turkish National Highway Code recommendations) decreases to FS=1.52
and FS=1.37 respectively.
Considering a different generic cross section consisting of predominantly granular material
near the ground surface, extra set of limit equilibrium slope stability analyses were conducted.
The profile consists of CLAY material between 0-2.5 m elevations, SAND between 2.5-7.5 m
and CLAY for remaining deeper deposits; resembling the profile retreived from borehole BH14. S

=300 (Figure 46).

Figure 45. Slope stability assessment in long term, static loading conditions
For the generic profile presented in Figure 46, under static loading conditions, the factor of
safety against sliding is calculated as 1.56 for single stage excavations of up to 6 m with a
slope of 1V:2H (Figure 46). For the pseudostatic case, safety factor is 1.32. This only ensures
that the global stability criteria are met, and minor debris flows may occur due to non
homogeneous structure in the field, especially for slope mirrors which are directly exposed to
precipitation. Safety factor against sliding for the ru=0.1 and ru=0.2 case (Turkish National
Highway Code recommendations) decreases to FS=1.39 and FS=1.23 respectively. Regarding
ru=0.2 case, the safety factor of 1.3 is reached provided that the slope is rearranged as
1V:2.2H.

Figure 46. Slope stability assessment in long term, static loading conditions (generic profile

4.5 Evaluation of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential

Over the whole project area liquefaction susceptibility of clay / silt units was determined using
(Seed et al., 2003) criteria (Figure 47). Similarly, very densely deposited pervious sand / gravel
layers are not considered to be potentially liquefiable (Seed et al., 2003) due to relatively high
SPT-N blowcounts and the levels which the groundwater was encountered during drilling. As
assessing the factor of safety against liquefaction on the laboratory tested samples, which the
soil classification was performed in detail. The resulting safety factor values, under the M=6.5
moment magnitude earthquake and pga value of 0.15 g have revealed that liquefaction
problem is not foreseen at the project area (Table 43). In Table 42, F.C is the fines content of
the sample in percent, N60 and N1,60 are the measured and corrected SPT blowcount values
(overburden, energy as well as other standard related corrections),
dry and saturated unit weight values,

and

and

sat

are the estimated

d

is

al. (2004), CRR is the cyclic resistance ratio and FSliq is the factor of safety against liquefaction
for a defined probability of 0.2.