OJG  Vol.3 No.3 , July 2013
A Study of the Relationship between Landslide and Active Tectonic Zones: A Case Study in Karaj Watershed Management
Abstract: 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.
Cite this paper: R. Sharifi, A. Solgi and M. Pourkermani, "A Study of the Relationship between Landslide and Active Tectonic Zones: A Case Study in Karaj Watershed Management," Open Journal of Geology, Vol. 3 No. 3, 2013, pp. 233-239. doi: 10.4236/ojg.2013.33027.

[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.