This research shows a noticeable comparison
between slide zones produced with the results using the Nilsen method with
active tectonic hazard zonation map. A determination landform of geometry or
morphometry factors is one of the best methods for study and evaluation active
tectonics. The first image provided is a Dem maps from GIS software showing
topography, geology and tectonic maps participant with field activities. The
second image provided shows an active tectonic map also generated by the same
above mentioned factors into three classes A, B, C, D and a landslide hazard
zonation map which shows five classes: Stable zone, generally stable zone,
stable moderately stable zone, moderately stable zone and talented to
liquefaction zone. The study and comparison and conformity landslide hazard zonation
map with hazard zonations into active tectonic hazard zonation map showed about
79 percent (56,880 hectare) moderately unstable zone and talented for liquefaction
zone settled in A zone (very high tectonic activity) and B zone (high tectonic
activity) active tectonic map and 21 percent (15,130 hectare) remain
unsettled sequential 12 percent (8640 hectare) and 9 percent (6480 hectare) in
C (moderate tectonic activity), D (lowest tectonic activity) zone of active
tectonic hazard zonation produced from above mentioned factors. This research
showed a relationship between slide zones produced in landslide hazard
zonations using the Nilsen method to measure active tectonic hazard zonation in
the study region.
References
[1]
V. Bogoslovsky and A. Ogilvy, “Geophysical Methods for the Investigation of Landslides,” Geophysics, Vol. 42, No. 3, 1977, pp. 562-571. doi:10.1190/1.1440727
[2]
D. K. Keeper, “Landslides Caused by Earthquakes,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 95, No. 4, 1984, pp. 406-421.
doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1984)95<406:LCBE>2.0.CO;2
[3]
W. L. Freedman, et al., “Final results from the Hubble Space Telescope key project to measure the Hubble constant,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 553, No. 1, 2008, p. 47. doi:10.1086/320638
[4]
E. Armandillo, A. Kearsley and C. Webb, “A Simple Technique for Measuring the Gain of RGH Lasers,” Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2000, p. 177. doi:10.1088/0022-3735/15/2/007
[5]
F. Guzzetti, et al., “Landslide Hazard Evaluation: A Review of Current techniques and their application in a Multi-Scale Study, Central Italy,” Geomorphology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1999, pp. 181-216.
doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(99)00078-1
[6]
Ercanoglu, M. and C. Gokceoglu, “Assessment of Landslide Susceptibility for a Landslide-Prone Area (North of Yenice, NW Turkey) by Fuzzy Approach,” Environmental Geology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2002, pp. 720-730.
doi:10.1007/s00254-001-0454-2
[7]
Duman, T., et al., “Landslide Susceptibility Mapping of Cekmece Area (Istanbul, Turkey) by Conditional Probability,” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions Discussions, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2005, pp. 155-208.
doi:10.5194/hessd-2-155-2005
[8]
M. H. Nabavi, “Introduction to the Geology of Iran,” Geological Survey of Iran, 1977.
[9]
J. Jackson and D. McKenzie, “The Relationship between Plate Motions and Seismic Moment Tensors, and the Rates of Active Deformation in the Mediterranean and Middle East,” Geophysical Journal, Vol. 93, No. 1, 2007, pp. 45-73. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1988.tb01387.x
[10]
N. N. Ambraseys and C. P. Melville, “A History of Persian Earthquakes,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
