Supporting Report

6.
6.1.

Evaluation of Slope Stability

General
The following three methods are indicated as the slope stability estimation methods in the
Manual for Zonation on Seismic Geotechnical Hazards by TC4, ISSMFE (1993).
1) Method Grade 1:

simple and synthetic analysis by using seismic intensity or magnitude

without information of geological condition

2) Method Grade 2:

rather detail analysis with geological information by using site

reconnaissance result or existing geological information

3) Method Grade 3:

detail analysis by using geological investigation result and numerical

analysis
For evaluation of the slope failure, many characteristics are to be considered. Especially the
following parameters are basic factors for stability of slope: scale of slope, shape of slope,
geological condition, groundwater condition, type, shape or scale of failure, strength of
ground. There are varieties of slope characteristics in the Study area. It is difficult to take all
these parameters into account for every slope. Procedure applied in this Study corresponds to
above-mentioned Grade 2 to Grade 3 method.

6.6.

Present Topographic Condition and Slope Stability Condition

(1) Present Topographic Condition
50m grid DTM data are used in calculation. Distribution maps of slope area ratio for
gradient over 10% and 30% are compiled. These data are summarized by each district and
slope gradient are calculated. Districs Adalar, Beykoz, Sariyer shows most slope prevailing
area. Slope area ratio of gradient less than 10%, shows 30% in these districts.

(2) Slope Stability Condition

Kutay zaydn(2001) summarized general condition of slopes as follows:
In areas where surface geology is Gngren Formation and Glpnar Formation,
landslide take place in many places. This sliding phenomenon is conspicuous for 1)
once ground surface gradient exceeds 30%, 2) once cut and fill work are undertaken
and 3) change of groundwater level occurs.
Erdoan Yzer (2001) summarized general condition of slopes as follows:
In Asian side, surface geology is mainly rock and landslide is not obvious. In
European side, landslide is observed alongside coast lines and its adjacent areas.

Evaluation of Slope Stability

The Study on a Disaster Prevention/Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey

This phenomena is observed far beyond Silivri District. Scale of slide is complex of 50
to several 100m sliding block. Especially eastside slope of Bykekmece Lake, south
coast of Avclar District and southwest coast of Kkekmece lake.are typical area of
landsliding. In these area, soil strength are considered as residual conditions.
JICA Study team also observed some surface failures of slope in rock formation. In these
areas, slope gradient shows over 100% and there are residential buildings in front of and top
of failure surfaces.
Typical examples are shown in Figure 6.2 .1, Figure 6.2 .2 and Figure 6.2 .3.

(3) Types of Slope Failure

Considering the above mentioned slope conditions, types of major slope failure are classified
as:
Area of Rock Formation
Surface failure of weathered zone or talus is considered. Large rock mass failure, of
which size exceeds several hundreds meters, are not considered. Stability of these kinds
of large failure must be examined based upon detail indivisual investigation.
Area of Tertiary Formation
Gngren Formation and Glpnar Formation distributing areas are always suffered
from landslide activities. Ground strength is considered as residual condition. Surface
failure of weathered zone or talus is considered in other Tertiary prevailing area.
Area of Quaternary Formation and Fill Material
General circular slip is considered.

Supporting Report

Figure 6.2.1 Landslide in Eastside Slope of Bykekmece Lake

Note: Many residential buildings have been damaged.

Figure 6.2.2 Surface Failure in skdar District

Note: Residential building exists in front of failure

Figure 6.2.3 Surface Failure in Pendik District

Note: Sliding is observed alongside of river slope. Horizontal length reaches to several
hundreds meters. Some building exists at top of the slope.

Evaluation of Slope Stability

The Study on a Disaster Prevention/Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey

6.7.

Method of the Slope Stability Evaluation

(1) Procedure for Slope Stability Proposed By B. Siyahi
Siyahi and Ansal studied procedure of slope stability for microzonation purpose. This
procedure is introduced in Manual for Zonation on Seismic Geotechnical Hazards by TC4,
ISSMFE (1993) as Grade 3 method. Applicability of the procedure was confirmed against
earthquake occurred in 1967 at Akyokus Villedge, in Adapazar region, Turkey.
Bilge Siyahi (1998) revised this procedure. The method originally proposed by Koppula
(1984) was a pseudo-static evaluation of slope stability utilizing a seismic coefficient A to
account for the earthquake induced horizontal forces. The variation in shear strength s with
depth is assumed and potential failure surface is taken as a circular arc as shown in Figure
6.3 .4.

Figure 6.3.4 A Typical Section of Slope

Source: Siyahi (1998)

Parameters , , , and n are related to the geometry of the slope and configuration of sliding
surface. Shear strength is defined as s. Then safety factor, Fs, ca be defined as:
Fs

a0
c
N1 0 N 2

where
s c0 a 0 z

N1

3( cot cot cot )

sin 2 sin 2 ( D1 D2 )

N2

6
sin sin 2 ( D1 D2 )
2

D1 1 2 cot 2 3 cot cot 3 cot cot 3 cot cot 6n cot 6n 2 6n cot 6n cot
D2 A(cot cot 3 3 cot cot 2 3 cot cot cot 6n cot cot )

If it is assumed that shear strength changes linear with depth, and c 0=0 for normally
consolidated soil, then the shear strength of soils is represent as follows:
c0 0
s a0 z
s tan z tan
a0 tan

Supporting Report

Then safety factor is calculated as

Fs

a0
tan
N1
N1 N1 tan

(eq. 6.3.1)

Thus the safety factor depends on the angle of shear strength and stability number N 1
representing the configuration of the slope and failure surface. The minimum value of the
stability number are determined by carrying out a parametric study in terms of , , and n
to find out the most critical failure surface as given in Figure 6.3 .5. The variation of
minimum N1 can be expressed as a function of (slope angle) and A (earthquake
acceleration). It becomes possible at this stage to calculate minimum safety factor Fs, if
value can be determined or estimated.

Horizontal axis:
Vertical axis:
A:
g:

Slope gradient (degree)

Minimum shear strength stability index
Acceleration
Gravitational acceleration

Figure 6.3.5 Relationship between Slope Gradient, Seismic Coefficient and

Minimum Shear Strength Stability Number
Source: Siyahi (1998)

(2) Consideration of Analysis Procedure

There are varieties of slope characteristics in the Study area and it is difficult to identify
slope failure parameters for every slope in detail. Therefore, it is required that slope stability
is qualitatively evaluated assuming slope failure categorization.
Siyahis procedure introduced idea for obtaining minimum safety factor for various shapes of
failure surface and slope shape. And it assumes circular arc failure and normally
consolidated soil. Only slope gradient and shear strength are required data for calculation.

Evaluation of Slope Stability

The Study on a Disaster Prevention/Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey

Furthermore, as results of the parametric approach, this procedure is considered to extend to

not only circular surface failure but also another type of slope failure to some extent. Slopes
and failure types in the Study area are not always that of assumed in Siyahis procedure.
However the characteristics of the procedure acts advantageous for considering the slope
failure categorization.
In this Study, Siyahis procedure is applied to evaluate slope stability for small analysis unit.
And each result of evaluations is aggregated into microzonation units.

(3) Procedure of Analysis and Evaluation of Stability

The outline of the evaluation method is described below and shown in Figure 6.3 .6.
Topographic Condition

Gradient of Slope for each 50 m Grid

Peak Ground Acceleration

Soil Strength

Judgement of Slope Stability for 50m Grid

Unstable Score for

500m Grid

Stability Grading for each 500m Grid

Figure 6.3.6 Flowchart of Slope Failure Evaluation

Source: JICA Study Team

a. Slope Stability Evaluation for 50m Grids

The slope gradient for each 50-m grid, that covers all of the Study area, is calculated at first.
Then the slope stability of each point is judged, using Siyahis equation (eq. 6.3.1) taking the

Supporting Report

peak ground acceleration value and strength of soil into account. Score F i = 0 for a stable
point (Fs > 1.0) or Fi = 1 for an unstable point (Fs < 1.0) is given.

b. Slope Stability Evaluation for 500m Grids

There are total 100 of 50m-grids in every 500m grid and the stability score for 500 m grid is
determined as follows:
Unstable Score 500m Grid
Fi 50m Grid 1 unstable

100

Score F 50m Grid

i

i 1

or

0 ( stable)

If all 50m grids are evaluated as unstable, then Score (500m grid) is calculated as 100. If all
50m grids are evaluated as stable, then Score (500m grid) is calculated as 0. This score
directly represents how much percent of 59m grids in each 500m grid is judged as unstable.
Finally the results are represented by risk for each 500m grid, as shown in Table 6.3 .1.
Table 6.3.1

6.8.

Evaluation of Risks on Slope Stability for 500m Grid

Unstable Score (500m Grid)

Risk Evaluation for 500m Grid

Very low

1-30

Low

31-60

High

61-100

Very high

Parameters for Calculation

(1) Slope Gradient
Details are mentioned in the Main Report.

(2) Ground Motion

Scenario earthquake model A and model C are considered because these two scenarios is
considered to represent the most general idea of the hazard conditions.

(3) Shear Strength of Ground

Shear strength is the most important parameters for calculation. Available data on shear
strength for soil is limited and do not cover for all the geological formation. Therefore the
values are estimated considering existing two references. One is Strength of Sliding Surface
for Weathered Rocks, quoted in Design Guideline for Road Construction, Slope Treatments
and Stabilization, Japan Road Association, 1999 (Table 6.4 .3). Another one is Strength
of Sliding Surface for Weathered Rocks, quoted in Slope Stability and Stabilization

Evaluation of Slope Stability

The Study on a Disaster Prevention/Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey

Methods, L. Abramson et al., 1996 (Table 6.4 .4). Determined strength of each formation
and considered failure type are summarized in Table 6.4 .2.
Table 6.4.2

Applied Angle of Shear Strength for Slope Stability Calculation

Type of
Ground

Geological Formation
Formation

Angle of
shear
Strength
(Degree)

Remarks

Geological Map

Rock

IBB 1:5,000

Kuf, Af, Gf, Df, Kf, Tf, Blf, Trf, Bg, V

25

MP 1:50,000

Kuf, Af, Gf, Df, Kf, Tf, Blf, Trf, Kz, Saf

Considering surface failure

of weathered zone or talus

MTA 1:25,000

tsk, ts, tq, ptq

IBB 1:5,000

Sf, Cf, Baf

25

MP 1:50,000

Sf, Cf, Baf

Considering surface failure

of weathered zone or talus

IBB 1:5,000

Cmlf

15

Same with Gf , Gnf

IBB 1:5,000

Sbf, f, Saf

30

MP 1:50,000

f,

MTA 1:25,000

m2m3-19-k

Considering surface failure

of weathered zone or talus.
Gravelly condition are
taken into account.

IBB 1:5,000

Gf , Gnf

15

MP 1:50,000

Gf , Gnf

MTA 1:25,000

e3-ol1-10-s, ebed-20-s, ebed-8-s,

m3-pl-18k, ol2-18-k, ol2m1-19-k, ol-8-s,pgg

Landslides are occurring in

these formations. Residual
strength is considered.

IBB 1:5,000

Ksf, Qal, Ym

25

MP 1:50,000

Oa, Q

General slope failure

Same with weathered zone

MTA 1:25,000

Q-21-k

Tertiary
Sediments

Quaternar
y
Sediments

Fill
IBB 1:5,000
Yd, Sd
Source: JICA Study Team

Table 6.4.3

25

Strength of Sliding Surface for Weathered Rocks

Rock Type

Number of Samples

Cohesion (kN/m2)

Angle
of
Shear
Strength (degree)

Metamorphic Rocks

0 2 (1)

20 28 (26)

Igneous Rocks
Sedimentary Rocks

0 (0)

23 36 (29)

Paleozoic Strata

0 4 (0)

23 32 (29)

Mesozoic Strata

0 10 (5)

21 26 (24)

Palaeogene Strata

0 20 (7)

20 25 (23)

0 25 (20)

12 22 (12.5)

Neogene Strata
32
Source: Japan Road Association (1999)
Note: () shows average value

Supporting Report

Table 6.4.4

Shear Strength of Residual Soils, Weathered Rocks and Related

Minerals

Soil/Rock/Mineral Type

Degree of Weathering

Strength Parameters
Kg/cm 2

Degrees

Igneous Rocks

r = 26 33

Granite

Partly weathered (Zone IIB)

Granite

Relatively sound (Zone III)

Quartz diorite

Decomposed; sandy, silty

c=0.1

= 30 +

Diorite

Weathered

c=0.3

= 22

Rhyolite

Decomposed

r = 29 32

= 30

Metamorphic Rocks

= 23 37

Gneiss (micaceous)

Decomposed (Zone IB)

Gneiss

Decomposed (Zone IC)

Gneiss

Decomposed (fault zone)

c=1.5

= 27

Much decomposed

c=4.0

= 29

Medium decomposed

c=8.5

= 35

Unweathered

c = 12.5

= 60

Schist

c = 0.3-0.6

= 18.5

= 24.5

Weathered (mica-schist soil)

Partly weathered

= 35

c=0.7

= 26 30

Schist

Weathered

Phyllite

Residual soil (Zone IC)

c=0

= 18 24

Weathered (brown)

c' = I.2

= 19 22

Unweathered

c = 0.9 1.8

Sedimentary rocks
London clay

r = 14
= 23 30
r = 18 24
Keuper Marl

Highly weathered

c< 0.l

Moderately weathered

c' < 0. l

= 25 32
r = 18 24
= 32 42
r = 22 29

Unweathered

= 40

c < 0.3

r = 23 32
Shale

Shear zones

= 10 20

Minerals common in residual

soils and rocks

r = 12 22

Minerals
Kaolinite
Illite

r = 6.5 11.5
r = 40 11

Montmorillonite
Source: Lee Abramson, Tom Lee, Suil Sharma, Glenn Boyce,. 1996.

6.9.

Slope Stability
(1) Slope Stability Risk
The result of the slope stability estimation is shown in Figure 6.5 .7 and Figure 6.5 .8.
Generally most of the Study areas are evaluated as very low risk.

Evaluation of Slope Stability

The Study on a Disaster Prevention/Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey

In case of Model A, Very High Risk grids exist in Adalar and Silivri. These correspond to
steep cliff and not residential area. Low Risk grids exist in Avclar and Kkekmece,
Bykekmece. These correspond to residential area.
In case of Model C, Very High Risk grids extend to Avclar. , High Risk grids prevail in
Bykekmece. These correspond residential area. Low Risk grids extend to Bahelievler,
Bakirky, Gngren. These correspond to residential area.

10

Supporting Report

Figure 6.5.1

Risk on Slope Stability: Model A

Figure 6.5.7 Risk on Slope Stability: Model A

Evaluation of Slope Stability

11

The Study on a Disaster Prevention/Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey

Figure 6.5.2

Risk on Slope Stability: Model C

Figure 6.5.8 Risk on Slope Stability: Model C

12

Supporting Report

(2) Slope Stability Condition for each District and Geological Formation Unit
Slope risks are examined more detail level. Unstable score are summarized for each District
and each geological formation.
The stability score for each district is determined as follows:
Unstable Score District

Number of Unstable 50m grid

100 (%)
Number of 50m grid in the District

At first, slope stability for each 50m grid is calculated. Next, number of unstable grids in a
distict is calculated. Then, area ratio for these grids is calculated. This score directly
represents how much percent of area for each district is judged as unstable.
The stability score for each geological unit is determined as follows:
Unstable Score Geological Formation

Number of Unstable 50m grid

100 (%)
Number of 50m grid in the Formation

At first, slope stability for each 50m grid is calculated. Next, number of unstable grids in
each geological formation is calculated. Then, area ratio for these grids is calculated. This
score directly represents how much percent of area for each geological formation is judged as
unstable.
Unstable scores are summarized for each district and for geological formation unit. Results
are shown in Table 6.5 .5 and Table 6.5 .6 respectively.
In Bykekmece district, areas of low risk and high risk are prevailing. Unstable scores
are about 3% for Model A and about 7% for Model C, respectively. This area is
characterized by landslide. Unstable area is concentrated in eastside slope of Bykekmece
Lake. Low strength of Gf formation is a reason of high damage ratio; even slope gradient is
not steep.
In Adalar district, areas of high risk and very high risk exist in southern part of
Bykada Island. The area is closest to source fault. Unstable scores are about 2% for
Model A and about 5% for Model C, respectively. Unstable area concentrates in Bykada
Island because this district is closest to earthquake source fault.
In Avclar dstrct, areas of high risk and very high risk exist in southern part of the
district. Unstable scores are about 1% for Model A and about 4% for Model C, respectively.
This area is also characterized by landslide. Unstable area concentrates in southern coast

Evaluation of Slope Stability

13

The Study on a Disaster Prevention/Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey

area where Gnf formation is prevailing. Some unstable areas exist in districts Bahelievler,
Bakirky, Gngren, atalca and Silivri.

Table 6.5.5
District Name

Results of Slope Stability Analysis by District

Calculation
Points
(50m grid)

Adalar
3786
Avcilar
15358
Bahelievler
6638
Bakirky
11678
Bacilar
8768
Beykoz
15208
Beyolu
3487
Beikta
7217
Bykekmece
5520
Bayrampaa
3840
Eminn
2001
Eyp
20208
Fatih
4157
Gngren
2880
Gaziosmanpaa
22680
Kadiky
16304
Kartal
12462
Kaithane
5778
Kkekmece
47949
Maltepe
22038
Pendik
18822
Sariyer
11040
ili
14161
Tuzla
19641
mraniye
18252
skdar
15059
Zeytinburnu
4583
Esenler
15552
atalca
21054
Silivri
15262
Total
391383
Source: JICA Study Team

14

Model A
Unstable Points
Unstable Score
(50m grid)
(Average
Unstable Area
Ratio %)
75
1.98
140
0.91
26
0.39
49
0.42
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
166
3.01
1
0.03
0
0.00
0
0.00
3
0.07
6
0.21
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
59
0.12
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
50
0.24
116
0.76
691
0.18

Model C
Unstable Points
Unstable Score
(Average
(50m grid)
Unstable Area
Ratio %)
185
608
111
95
8
0
0
0
402
14
0
1
23
24
0
0
0
0
256
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
16
144
141
2030

4.89
3.96
1.67
0.81
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.28
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.10
0.68
0.92
0.52

Supporting Report

Table 6.5.6

Results of Slope Stability Analysis by Geological Formation Unit

Covering
Geological
Map

Formation
Name

Calculation
Points
(50m grid)

IBB
1:5,000
MP
1:50,000

Gnf
mlf
Gf
Tf
Af
Kuf
V
ebed-8-s
ol2-18-k
ol-8-s
pgg

18562
3284
1991
2104
4497
24427
436
908
19289
488
1026
391383

MTA
1:25,000

Total
Source: JICA Study Team

Model A
Unstable Points Unstable Score
(50m grid)
(Average
Unstable Ratio
%)
259
1.59
1
0.03
24
1.21
3
0.14
52
1.16
16
0.07
4
0.92
25
2.75
282
1.46
24
4.92
1
0.10
691
0.18

Model C
Unstable Points Unstable Score
(Average
(50m grid)
Unstable Ratio
%)
1063
6.69
18
0.55
77
3.87
3
0.14
144
3.20
31
0.13
7
1.61
73
8.04
544
2.82
60
12.30
10
0.97
2030
0.52

Evaluation of Slope Stability

15

The Study on a Disaster Prevention/Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey

Unstable Score (max 100)

Model A

Model C

5
4
3
2

BYKEKMECE
ADALAR
AVCILAR
BAHELEVLER
SLVR
GNGREN
BAKIRKY
ATALCA
FATH
KKEKMECE
BAYRAMPAA
ESENLER
BACILAR
ZEYTNBURNU
EYP
BEYKOZ
BEYOLU
BEKTA
EMNN
GAZOSMANPAA
KADIKY
KARTAL
KAITHANE
MALTEPE
PENDK
SARIYER
L
TUZLA
MRANYE
SKDAR

District

Figure 6.5.9 Unstable Score (Area Ratio) of Slope by District

Souce: JICA Study Team

Unstable Score (max 100)

14
Model A

12

Model C

10
8
6
4
2
0
ol-8-s ebed-8-s

Gnf

Gf

Af

ol2-18-k

pgg

mlf

Tf

Formation Name

Figure 6.5.10 Unstable Score (Area Ratio) of Slope by Geological Formation

Souce: JICA Study Team

16

Kuf

Supporting Report

Acknowledgement
The slope stability analysis in this Chapter was conducted under close discussions with Dr.
Prof. Kutay zaydn, Yldz Technical University, Fuculty of Civil Engineering, Department
of Engineering, Geotechnical Division, Dr. Prof. Erdoan Yzer, Istanbul Technical
University, Faculty of Mining, Geological Engineering Department, Dr. Assoc. Prof. Bilge G.
Siyahi, Boazii University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute,
Department of Earthquake Engineering. The Study Team expresses special thanks to their
collaboration for the Study.
Reference to Section 6
Bilge G. Siyahi, 1998, Deprem Etksindeki Normal Konsolide Zemin evlerinde Yari-Statik
Stabilite Analizi, MO Teknik Dergi, Yaz 112, 1525-1552.
Erdoan Yzer, 2001, Privarte Interview.
ISSMFE, 1993, Manual for Zonation on Seismic Geotechnical Hazards, Technical
Committee for Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, TC4, International Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Japan Road Association, 1996, Japanese Design Specification of Highway Bridge (in
Japanese).
Japan Road Association, 1999, Design Guideline for Road Construction, Slope Treatments
and Stabilization, pp. 352. (in Japanese)
Kutay zaydn, 2001, Private Interview.
Lee Abramson, Tom Lee, Suil Sharma, Glenn Boyce, 1996, Slope Stability and Stabilization
Methods, John Willy & Sons, pp94.

Evaluation of Slope Stability

17