Investigation of the Suitability of a Pipe Stock Site in Terms of Geotechnical Characterization and Engineering Design Parameters Considering the Economic Aspects

Abstract

G eotechnical investigations are generally site specific and the parameters variate spatially and sometimes temporally due to meteorological events and earth dynamics. In this study, the suitability of an inert area to utilize a pipe stock site under a natural gas pipeline project was investigated, while considering the economic yield. Within the context of this study, office works and field works are performed. Geotechnical data are collected during the field work in order to assess sub-surface conditions, prevailing under the proposed loads or pipe batch structures. Under field works, drilling operations, in –situ testing are performed. Assessment of the collected sub-surface data and its interpretation are realized within the office works. In other respects, rentability is one of the main parameters controlling the feasibility of the project in engineering. In this study, the bearing capacity of the soil profile and the liquefaction potential of the investigated area are enlightened and the suitability of the study area for the project is evaluated by comparing it with the various alternatives of soil remediation techniques and the consideration of their costs. As a result of this study, it is revealed that the soil remediation costs are much more than port storage renting fees

Keywords

• Bearing capacity,Liquefaction analysis,Geotechnical investigations

References

1. 1. Phoon, K.K. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1999. Characterisation of geotechnical variability. Can. Geotech. J. 36, 612-624.
2. 2. Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation analysis and design, fifth ed. McGraw – Hillbook Co.
3. 3. Fenton, G.A. and Griffiths, D.V., 2003. Bearing capacity prediction of spatially random c- Φ soils. Can. Geotech. J. 40(1), 54-65.
4. 4. Griffiths, D.V. and Fenton, G.A., 2001. Bearing capacity prediction of spatially random soil: the undrained clay Prandtl problem revisited. Géotechnique 54 (4), 351-359.
5. 5. Huang A.B. and Mayne, P.W., 2008. In: Huang Mayne (Eds.), Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation. Taylor and Francis Group, London. ISBN:978-0-415-46936-4.
6. 6. Jaksa, M.B., Brooker, P.I. and Kaggwa, W.S., 1997. Inaccuracies associated with estimating random measurement errors. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng. 123 (5), 393-401.
7. 7. Vanmarcke, E.H., 1977. Probabilistic modelling of soil profiles. ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. 103 (11), 1227-1246.
8. 8. National Mapping Agency of Turkey, 1999. 1/25000 scaled Hatay O36-d3 topographical map.

9. 9. Tekeli, O. and Erendil, M., 1985. Kızıldağ ofiyolitinin (Hatay) jeoloji ve petrolojisi. MTA Dergisi. 33-48.
10. 10. Barka, A. and Reilinger, R., 1997. Active tectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean region: deduced from GPS, neotectonic and seismicity data. Annali Di Geofizika. XL (3), 587-610.