Arabian Journal of Geosciences

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 1349–1369 | Cite as

Geotechnical site investigations for possible urban extensions at Suez City, Egypt using GIS

  • Mohamed O. Arnous
Original Paper


With the development of economic activities in the world, the construction activities have also increased. A proper surface and subsurface investigation is made to assess the general suitability of the site and to prepare an adequate and economic safe design for the proposed work. The main purpose of the current study is to create a spatial model of the geotechnical conditions and considerations by using geographic information systems (GIS) techniques to develop and analyze a site model and to plan site activities at the new extension of Suez City (SC). In the geotechnical site evaluations, GIS can be used in four ways, data integration, data visualization and analysis, planning and summarizing site activities, and data presentation. The integrated data can be displayed; manipulated and analyzed using tools build into the GIS programs, thus creating the geotechnical site model of the study area. Decisions can be made for further site activities and the results of the site activities can be integrated into the GIS site model. Interpretation of geotechnical data frequently involves assimilating information from many sites each with a unique geographical location. Interpretation of these data requires the spatial location to incorporate into the analysis. Weights are assigned to different of mechanical, physical soil properties, geological, hydrogeological, and other ancillary data. Finally, the weighted maps are integrated using a GIS based on the construction purposes for the new extension of SC for significant cost savings in design, construction and longevity. The ideal and good zones’ highest regime has been observed towards central and western regions with sporadic pockets. The marginal zones to average zones are moderately suited for shallow foundation.


Geospatial analysis Urban planning Geo-environmental Foundations 


  1. Abdel Tawab S and Shendi EH (1993) Geotechnical and geophysical studies on the building subsidence of a building at El Sahab sector, Suez Governorate, Annals of Geological survey of Egypt, v. xix, P. 525–543Google Scholar
  2. Akpokodje EG (1979) The importance of engineering geological mapping in the development of the Niger Delta basin. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 19:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnous, MO (2004) Geo-environmental assessment of Cairo–Ismailia road area, Egypt, using remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS). Ph.D. thesis, Geology Dept., Fac. of Science, Suez Canal Univ., Ismailia, P. 283Google Scholar
  4. Arnous MO (2010) Integrated remote sensing and GIS techniques for landslide hazard zonation: a case study Wadi Watier area. South Sinai, Egypt. J Coast Conserv. doi: 10.1007/s11852-010-0137-9
  5. Arnous MO, Green DR (2010) GIS and remote sensing as tools for conducting geo-hazards risk assessment along Gulf of Aqaba coastal zone, Egypt. J Coast Conserv. doi: 10.1007/s11852-010-0136-x
  6. Arnous MO, Aboulela HA, Green DR (2011) Geo-environmental hazards assessment of the north western Gulf of Suez, Egypt. J Coast Conserv 15(1):37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Authority EM (1996) Climatic atlas of Egypt. Ministry of Transp. & Communicat, Cairo, 157 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker VR (1975) Urban geology of Boulder, Colorado: a progress report. Environ Geol 1:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bansal VK (2010) Application of geographic information systems in construction safety planning. Int J Project Manage. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.007
  10. Bosworth W (1995) A high strain rift model for the southern Gulf of Suez (Egypt). In: Lamias JJ (ed) Hydrocarbon habitat in rift basins, vol 80. Geological Society, London, pp 75–102, Special PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowles JE (1984) Physical and geotechnical properties of soils, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. Bush P, Cooke RU, Burunsden D, Doornkamp JC, Jones DKC (1980) Geology and geomorphology of the Suez city region, Egypt. J Arid Environ 3:265–281Google Scholar
  13. Chacon J, Irigaray C, Fernandez T, El Hamdouni R (2006) Engineering geology maps: landslides and geographical information systems. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65(4):341–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chowdhury R, Flentje P (2007) Perspectives for the future of geotechnical engineering, proceedings of the international conference on civil engineering for the new millennium: opportunities and challenges. Bengal En- gineering College, Shibpur, India, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  15. Colletta B, Le Quellee P, Letouzey J, Moretti I (1988) Longitudinal evolution of the Gulf of the Suez Rift structure (Egypt). Tectonophysics 153:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins MG, Steiner FR, Rushman MJ (2001) Land-use suitability analysis in the United States: historical development and promising technological achievements. Environ Manage 28(5):611–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dai FC, Lee CF, Zhang XH (2001) GIS-based geo-environmental evaluation for urban land-use planning: a case study. Eng Geol 61:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eastman IR, Jin W, K’ Kyem PA, Toledano J (1995) raster procedures for multi-criteria/multi-objective decisions. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 61(5):539–547Google Scholar
  19. Edbrooke SW, Mazengarb C, Stephenson W (2003) Geology and geological hazards of the Auckland urban area, New Zealand. Quat Int 103:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. El May M, Kacem J, Dlala M (2009) Liquefaction susceptibility mapping using geotechnical laboratory tests. International Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology 6:299–308Google Scholar
  21. El May M, Dlala M and Chenini I (2010) Urban geological mapping: Geotechnical data analysis for rational development planning, Engineering Geology, Vol. 116, 1–2, 27, PP. 129–138Google Scholar
  22. El-Ghawaby MA (2006) A standard procedure to weigh controlling factors on land use planning of arid regions through spatial modeling, 6th international Conference on Earth, Observation & Geoinformation Sciences in Support of Africa’s Development, NARSS &AARSE, PP. 1–7Google Scholar
  23. Farrokhnia A, Pirasteh S, Pradhan B, Pourkerman M, Arian M (2010) A recent scenario of mass wasting and its impact on the transportation in Alborz Mountains, Iran: Contribution from Geo information technology. Arabian Journal of Geosciences (article on-line first available) doi: 10.1007/s12517-010-0238-7
  24. Fuchu D, Yuhai L, Sijing D (1994) Urban geology: a case study of Tongchuan city, Shaanxi Province, China. Eng Geol 38:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goh ATC, Goh SH (2007) Support vector machines: their use in geotechnical engineering as illustrated using seismic liquefaction data. Comput Geotech 34:410–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haliburton TA (1984) Foundation on expansive soil, principal Pacher–Haliburton. Heil Inc., Still water, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  27. Hasan NM, Arnous MO, Geriesh MH and El-Ghawaby MA (2004) Siting of favourable areas for urban expansion of Ismailia Town using GIS Integration of Geological Determinants, Proc. 7th Conf. Geol. Sinai Develop, Ismailia, pp. 121–127Google Scholar
  28. Haworth RJ (2003) The shaping of Sydney by its urban geology. Quat Int 103:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jankowski P, Richard L (1994) Integration of GIS-based suitability analysis and multicriteria evaluation in a spatial decision support system for route selection. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 21(3):323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jianquan C, Masser I (2001) Towards a spatial analysis framework: modelling urban development patterns, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on GeoComputation. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  31. Jones DKC (2001) Ground conditions and hazards: Suez City development, Egypt, Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications; v. 18; P. 159–169.Google Scholar
  32. Jones R, Barron M (2002) Site selection of petroleum pipelines: a GIS approach to minimize environmental impacts and liabilities. URL:
  33. Kasani RB (2005) A new method for site suitability analysis: the analytic hierarchy process. Environ Manage 13(6):685–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleinhans I (2002) Explanation of the engineering and geotechnical conditions for the Rietvlei Dam 2528CD 1:50 000 scale map sheet. Council for Geoscience, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolat C, Doyuran V, Ayday C, Suzen ML (2006) Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using geographical information systems based on multicriteria decision analysis. Eng Geol 87(34):241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mahfouz AHA (1999) Geotechnical investigation for construction purposes at the new extension of Suez City. M.Sc. thesis, Geological Engineering Dept., Fac. of Petroleum and Mining Engineering. Suez Canal Univ, Ismailia, p 132Google Scholar
  37. Malczewski J (2004) GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. Progr Plann 62(1):3–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malczewski J (2006) Ordered weighted averaging with fuzzy quantifiers: GIS-based multicriteria evaluation for land-use suitability analysis. Int J of Appl Earth Observation and Geoinformation 8:270–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martinez F, Cochran J (1988) Structure and tectonics of the northern Red Sea: catching a continental margin between rifting and drifting. Tectonophysics 150:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moustafa A (1976) Block faulting of the Gulf of Suez presented at 5th exploration seminar. Egyptian General Petroleum Company, Cairo, p 19, Unpublished ReportGoogle Scholar
  41. Moustafa A (1993) Structural setting and tectonic evolution of the east margin blocks of the Suez Rift. Tectonophysics 233:381–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moustafa A, Abdellah A (1991) Structural setting of the central part of the Cairo–Suez district. Earth Sci 5:133–145Google Scholar
  43. Nath SK (2004) Seismic hazard mapping and microzonation in the Sikkim Himalaya through GIS integration of site effects and strong ground motion attributes. Nat Hazards 31:319–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nath SK (2005) An initial model of seismic microzonation of Sikkim Himalaya through thematic mapping and GIS integration of geological and strongmotion features. J Asian Earth Sci 25:329–343Google Scholar
  45. Neves, N. and Condessa, B (1994) “Decision support systems for municipal planning.” Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference and Exhibition on Geographic Information Systems, EGIS ′94. Utrecht: EGIS Foundation, 1:734–739Google Scholar
  46. Nott JF (2003) The urban geology of Darwin, Australia. Quat Int 103:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Orhan A, Tosun H (2010) Visualization of geotechnical data by means of geographic information system: a case study in Eskisehir city (NW Turkey). Environ Earth Sci 61:455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orhan A, Seyrek E, Tosun H (2007) A probabilistic approach for earthquake hazard assessment of the Province of Eskisehir, Turkey. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ozsan A, Ocal A, Akin M, Başarir H (2007) Engineering geological appraisal of the Sulakyurt dam site, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66:483–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pandey A, Dabral PP, Chowdary VM, Yadav NK (2008) Landslide hazard zonation using remote sensing and GIS: a case study of Dikrong river basin, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Environ Geol 54:1517–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Papadimitriou AG, Antoniou AA, Bouckovalas GD, Marinos PG (2007) Methodology for automated GIS-aided seismic microzonation studies. Comput Geotech 35:505–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Player R (2000) Using GIS in Preliminary Geotechnical Site Investigations for Transportation Projects, MID-CONTINENT TRANSPORTATION SYMPOSIUM 2000 PROCEEDINGS, pp. 174–177Google Scholar
  53. Pradhan B (2010) Manifestation of an advanced fuzzy logic model coupled with geoinformation techniques for landslide susceptibility analysis. Environ Ecol Stat. doi: 10.1007/s10651-010-0147-7
  54. Pradhan B (2011) Use of GIS based fuzzy relations and its cross application to produce landslide susceptibility maps in three test areas in Malaysia. Environ Earth Sci 63(2):329–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pradhan B, Youssef AM (2010) Manifestation of remote sensing data and GIS on landslide hazard analysis using spatial-based statistical models. Arabian J Geosci 3(3):319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pradhan B, Sezer E, Gokceoglu C, Buchroithner MF (2010a) Landslide susceptibility mapping by neuro-fuzzy approach in a landslide prone area (Cameron Highland, Malaysia). IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48(12):4164–4177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pradhan B, Lee S, Buchroithner MF (2010b) Remote sensing and GIS-based landslide susceptibility analysis and its cross-validation in three test areas using a frequency ratio model. Photogrammetrie, Fernerkundung, Geoinformation 2010(1):17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rajesh S, Sankaragururaman D and Das A (2003) A GIS/LIS approach for study on suitability of shallow foundation at southern Chennai, India,, URL:
  59. Robson D (1971) A detailed magnetic survey of the southern Red Sea. Geol Jahrb D13:131–153Google Scholar
  60. Safari HO, Pirasteh S, Pradhan B, Gharibhvand LK (2010) Use of remote sensing data and GIS tools for seismic hazard assessment of shallow oilfields and its impact on the settlements in and around Masjed-i-Soleiman area, Zagros Mountains, Iran. Remote Sensing 2(5):1364–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shahid S, Nath S (2002) GIS integration of remote sensing and electrical sounding data for hydrogeological exploration. J Spat Hydrol 2(1):1–12Google Scholar
  62. Shendi EH (2000) Results of geophysical site investigations near a destroyed building in El-Sahab sector, Suez government, Egypt, Proceedings of the 1st international Conference on Geotechnical. Geoenvironmental Engineering and Management in Arid Lands, Al-Ain, UAE, pp 493–497Google Scholar
  63. Smith C (1984) Geology of Egypt. Well Evaluation Conference, Schlumberger, Egypt, pp 1–64Google Scholar
  64. Steckler M, Berthelot F, Lyberis N, Le Pichon X (1988) Subsidence in the Gulf of Suez implications from rifting and plate kinematics. Tectonophysics 153:249–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Süzen ML, Doyuran V (2004) Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using Geographical Information Systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment, Turkey. Eng Geol 71:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1967) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Tosun H, Zorluer I, Orhan A, Seyrek E, Savas H, Turkoz M (2007) Seismic hazard and total risk analyses for large dams in Euphrates basin, Turkey. Eng Geol 89:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. United Nations, (2005) World urbanization prospects, URL: [Accessed on 20 September 2010]
  69. Willey EC (2003) Urban geology of the Toowoomba conurbation, SE Queensland, Australia. Quat Int 103:57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Woodward J (2005) An introduction to geotechnical processes, Spon Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 328 PGoogle Scholar
  71. Youssef MA, Pradhan B, Tarabees E (2010) Integrated evaluation of urban development suitability based on remote sensing and GIS techniques: contribution from the analytic hierarchy process. Arab J Geosci 4:463–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Sabtan AA, Harbi HME (2011) Coupling of remote sensing data aided with field investigations for geological hazards assessment in Jazan area, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Environmental Earth Sciences (Article on-line first available) doi: 10.1007/s12665-011-1071-3

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geology Department, Faculty of ScienceSuez Canal UniversityIsmailiaEgypt

Personalised recommendations