KAYNAKLAR • Guinau, M., Palla`s, R., Vilaplana, J.M., 2005. A feasible methodology for landslide susceptibility assessment in developing countries: A case-study of NW Nicaragua after Hurricane Mitch, Engineering Geology, 80,316-327. • Gullà, G., Antronico, L., Iaquinta, P., Terranova, O., 2008. Susceptibility and triggering scenarios at a regional scale for shallow landslides, Geomorphology, 99, 39-58. • Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F.,1954. Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena, 310 pp. • Guzzetti, F., Cardinali, M., Reichenbach, P., Carrara, A., 2000. Comparing landslide maps: a case study in the Upper Tiber River Basin, Central Italy. Environmental Management, 25, 247-263. • Guzzetti, F., Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Reichenbach, P., 1999, Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi–scale study, Central Italy, Geomorphology, 31, 181-216. • Guzzetti, F., Crosta, G., Detti, R., and Agliardi, F., 2002. STONE: A computer program for the three-dimensional simulation of rock-falls: Computers and Geoscience, v. 28, p. 1079-1093. • Guzzetti, F., Mondini, A.C., Cardinali, M., Fiorucci, F., Santangelo, M., Chang, K.T., 2012. Landslide inventory maps: new tools for and old problem. Earth-Science Reviews, 112, 42-66. • Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., Ardizzone, F., Cardinali, M., Galli, M., 2006. Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models, Geomorphology, 81, 166-184. • Harmon, R.S., Doe III, W.W., 2001. Landscape Erosion and Evolution Modeling, Spinger-Verlag. 535 pp. • Hartlen, J. and Viberg, L., 1988. General Report: Evaluation of landslide hazard. Proc. V. Int. Symp. on Landslides, Lausanna, 2, 1037-1057. • Hasekioğulları, G. D. and Ercanoğlu, M., 2012. A new approach to use AHP in landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study at Yenice (Karabuk, NW Turkey), Natural Hazards, 63, 1157-1179. • He, S., Pan, P., Dai, L., Wang, H., Liu, J., 2012. Application of kernel-based Fisher discriminant analysis to map landslide susceptibility in the Qinggan River delta, Three Gorges, China, Geomorphology, 171-172, 30-41. • Heim, A., 1932. Bergsturtz und Menschenleben: Fretz und Wasmuth, Zurich, 218 pp. • Holm, K. and Jakob, M., 2009. Long rockfall runout, Pascua Lama, Chile, Can. Geotech. J., 46, 225–230. • Hong, Y., Adler, R.F., 2008. Predicting global landslide spatiotemporal distribution: Integrating landslide susceptibility zoning techniques and real-time satellite rainfall estimates, International Journal of Sediment Research, 23, 249-257. • http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2011/02/23/on-the-causes-of-the-high-levels-of-loss-in-the-christchurch-earthquake (Erişim Tarihi: 27.02.2014). • http://pubs.usgs.gov (Erişim Tarihi: 25.01.2014). • http://www.nps.gov/acad/photosmultimedia/Earthquake-Effects.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 27.02.2014). • Hutchinson, J. N., 1988. Morphological and geotechnical parameters of landslide in relation to geology and hydrogeology, in: 5th international symposium on landslides, Lausanne, edited by: Bonnard, C., A.A. Balkema, 1, 3–35. • Hutchinson, J.N., 1992. Keynote paper: landslide hazard assessment. Proc. 6th lnt. Symp. on Landslides, Christchurch, 3, 1805-1841. • Ilanloo, M., 2011. A comparative study of fuzzy logic approach for landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS: An experience of Karaj dam basin in Iran, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 668-676. • International Association of Engineering Geology (IAEG), 1976. Engineering geological map: a guide to their preparation. UNESCO Press, Paris, 79 pp. • ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics), 1981. ISRM Suggested Methods for Discontinuities in Rock Masses. • Ives, J.D. and Messerli, B., 1981. Mountain Hazards Mapping in Nepal Introduction to an Applied Mountain Research Project. Mountain Research and Development, Vol.1, No. 3-4, pp. 223-230. • Jaboyedoff, M and Labiouse, V., 2011. Technical Note: Preliminary estimation of rockfall runout zones, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 819–828. 144 Bütünleşik Tehlike Haritalarının Hazırlanması HEYELAN-KAYA DÜŞMESİ TEMEL KILAVUZ
• Jaiswal, P., Van Westen, C.J., Jetten, V.G., 2011. Quantitative estimation of landslide risk from rapid debris slides on natural slopes in the Nilgiri hills, India. In: Natural hazards and earth system sciences (NHESS) : open access, 11 (2011)6 pp. 1723-1743. • Kamp, U., Growley, B.J., Khattak, G.A., Owen, L.A., 2008. GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping for the 2005 Kashmir earthquake region, Geomorphology, 101, 631-642. • Kanungo, D.P., Arora, M.K., Sarkar, S., Gupta, R.P., 2006. A comparative study of conventional, ANN black box, fuzzy and combined neural and fuzzy weighting procedures for landslidesusceptibility zonation in Darjeeling Himalayas, Engineering Geology, 85, 347-366. • Kanungo, D.P., Arora, M.K., Sarkar, S., Gupta, R.P., 2009. A fuzzy set based approach for integration of thematic maps for landslide susceptibility zonation. Georisk, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 30-43 p. • Kawabata, D., Bandibas, J., 2009. Landslide susceptibility mapping using geological data, a DEM from ASTER images and an Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Geomorphology, 113, 97-109. • Kayastha, P., Dhital, M.R., De Smedt F., 2013. Application of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for landslide susceptibility mapping: A case study from the Tinau watershed, west Nepal, Computers & Geosciences, 52, 398-408. • Keefer, D.K., 1984. Landslides Caused by Earthquakes, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 95, 406-421. • Khezri, S., 2011. Landslide susceptibility in the Zab Basin, northwest of Iran, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 726-731. • Kienholz, H., 1978. Maps of Geomorphology and Natural Hazards of Grindelwald, Switzerland, Scale 1:10,000. Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol.10, No.2, pp. 169-184. • Komac, M., 2006. A landslide susceptibility model using the Analytical Hierarchy Process method and multivariate statistics in perialpine Slovenia, Geomorphology, 74, 17-28. • Kremier, A., Arnould, M., 2000. World Bank’s role in reducing impacts of disasters. Nat. Hazards Rev., 1(1):37-42. • Labiouse, V., 2008. Mitigation measures: protective works, Intensive Course on Landslide Quantitative Risk Assessment and Risk Management, September 3 rd., Barcelona, Spain. • Larcher V., Simoni, S., Pasquazzo, R., Strada, C., Zampedri, G., 2012. Rockfall and Forecast systems, WP6 guidelines, PARAmount. • Lee, C.-T., Huang, C.-C., Lee, J.-F., Pan, K.-L., Lin, M.-L., Dong, J.-J., 2008. Statistical approach to earthquakeinduced landslide susceptibility, Engineering Geology, 100, 43-58. • Lee, S., Lee, M-J., 2006. Detecting landslide location using KOMPSAT 1 and its application to landslide-susceptibility mapping at the Gangneung area, Korea, Advances in Space Research, 38, 2261-2271. • Lee, S., Hwang, J., Park, I., 2013. Application of data-driven evidential belief functions to landslide susceptibility mapping in Jinbu, Korea, Catena, 100, 15-30. • Lee, S., Ryu,J.-H., Kim, I.-S., 2007. Landslide susceptibility analysis and its verification using likelihood ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models: case study of Youngin, Korea. Landslides,4, 327-338. • Lee, S., Ryub, J., Wonb, J., Park, H., 2004. Determination and application of the weights for landslide susceptibility mapping using an artificial neural network, Engineering Geology, 71, 289–302. • Lee, S., Talib, J.A., 2005. Probabilistic landslide susceptibility and factor effect analysis. Environ. Geol., 47: 982-990. • Leroi, E., 1996. Landslide hazard - Risk maps at different scales : objectives, tools and development. ISL’96, 7th International Symposium on Landslides, 17-21 June 1996, Trondheim, Norway. • Loye, A., Jaboyedoff, M., and Pedrazzini, A., 2009. Identification of potential rockfall source areas at a regional scale using a DEM-based geomorphometric analysis: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, v. 9, p. 1643-1653. • Malamud, B.D., Turcotte, D.L., Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., 2004a. Landslides, earthquakes and erosion. Earth and Planetery Science Letters, 229. 45-49. • Malamud, B.D., Turcotte, D.L., Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., 2004b. Landslide inventories and their statistical properties. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 29, 687-711. Bütünleşik Tehlike Haritalarının Hazırlanması HEYELAN-KAYA DÜŞMESİ TEMEL KILAVUZ 145
- Page 1 and 2:
AFAD Ankara, 2015
- Page 3 and 4:
önemlidir. Bu tür haritalardan fa
- Page 5 and 6:
5. HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE
- Page 7 and 8:
Şekil 3.5. Kuzulu-Koyulhisar (Bak
- Page 9 and 10:
Şekil 8.19. Kaya düşmeleri önle
- Page 11:
Çizelge 5.1. Heyelan değerlendirm
- Page 14 and 15:
1 GİRİŞ Özellikle 1950-1960’l
- Page 16 and 17:
1 GİRİŞ 50 Yıllık Periyotta 28
- Page 19 and 20:
2 HEYELANLAR ve GENEL ÖZELLİKLER
- Page 21 and 22:
2.2. Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Meyd
- Page 23 and 24:
Şekil 2.3. Türkiye’de son 50 y
- Page 25 and 26:
Ülkemizde, özellikle Karadeniz b
- Page 27 and 28:
2.3.1. Kütlesel Özellikler Heyela
- Page 29 and 30:
2.3.3. Heyelanların Aktivite Özel
- Page 31 and 32:
2.3.5. Heyelanların Aktivite Türl
- Page 33 and 34:
2.4. Heyelanların Sınıflandırı
- Page 35 and 36:
HEYELANLAR Can ve Mal Kayıpların
- Page 37 and 38:
Şekil 2.14. Heyelan sınıflamalar
- Page 39:
Şekil 2.17. Ulus (Bartın) bölges
- Page 42 and 43:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ Heyelanlar, je
- Page 44 and 45:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ 3.2. Heyelan E
- Page 46 and 47:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ Şekil 3.4. Yu
- Page 48 and 49:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ 3.3.3. Jeoloji
- Page 50 and 51:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ Örneğin, Lan
- Page 52 and 53:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ 3.6. Diğer Y
- Page 54 and 55:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ Şekil 3.11. K
- Page 57 and 58:
4 HEYELAN ANALİZ AŞAMALARI
- Page 59 and 60:
4.1. Kullanılan Ölçekler ve Etki
- Page 61 and 62:
4.2. Jeolojik Çalışmalar Uzun s
- Page 63 and 64:
Şekil 4.4. Yenice (Karabük) bölg
- Page 65 and 66:
Trabzon Çal-Çiğdemli Köyü Heye
- Page 67 and 68:
Çizelge 4.4. Heyelan değerlendiri
- Page 69 and 70:
Şekil 4.5. Heyelan envanteri-veri
- Page 71:
Şekil 4.7. Vektör ve raster veril
- Page 74 and 75:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 76 and 77:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 78 and 79:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 80 and 81:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 82 and 83:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 84 and 85:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 87 and 88:
6 HEYELAN DUYARLILIĞI VE DEĞERLEN
- Page 89 and 90:
6.1. Jeomorfolojik Analizler Jeomor
- Page 91 and 92:
6.2.2.2. Diskriminant Analizi Diskr
- Page 93 and 94: Şekil 6.1. Uygulamanın gerçekle
- Page 95 and 96: 6.5.3. Frekans Oranı Değerlerinin
- Page 97: ilgileriyle hesaplanabilecek ve ala
- Page 100 and 101: 7 HEYELAN TEHLİKE VE RİSK DEĞERL
- Page 102 and 103: 7 HEYELAN TEHLİKE VE RİSK DEĞERL
- Page 104 and 105: 7 HEYELAN TEHLİKE VE RİSK DEĞERL
- Page 106 and 107: 7 HEYELAN TEHLİKE VE RİSK DEĞERL
- Page 109 and 110: 8 KAYA DÜŞMESİ ANALİZLERİ
- Page 111 and 112: Buna karşın, kaya düşmesi olay
- Page 113 and 114: Potansiyel aktif kaynak alanların
- Page 115 and 116: Yukarıdaki yaklaşımla, sayısal
- Page 117 and 118: Şekil 8.9. 25x25 metre çözünür
- Page 119 and 120: Kaya düşmesi olayının gelişti
- Page 121 and 122: Çizelge 8.3. teki çok sayıdaki a
- Page 123 and 124: Çizelge 8.5. Gölge Açısı sın
- Page 125 and 126: Şekil 8.15. Konik yayılım uygula
- Page 127 and 128: Şekil 8.16. S. Martino dağlık b
- Page 129 and 130: Ormanlık ve çıplak yamaçlarda d
- Page 131 and 132: 8.7. Örnek Uygulama Bu bölümde,
- Page 133 and 134: Şekil 8.22. ISRM (1981)’e göre
- Page 135 and 136: Şekil 8.24.Farklı konik yayılım
- Page 137 and 138: G Kayma yüzeyi, yerdeğiştiren ma
- Page 139 and 140: T U V Kayan kütle içinde meydana
- Page 141 and 142: • Booth, A.M., Roering, J.J., Per
- Page 143: • Ermini, L., Catani, F., Casagli
- Page 147 and 148: • Ozdemir, A., Altural, T., 2013.
- Page 149 and 150: • Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Marre, A.
- Page 151: KATKIDA BULUNANLAR Yürütücü Eki