Debris Flow Susceptibility and Hazard Assessment in Fushun City Based on Hydrological Response Units

doi:10.12068/j.issn.1005-3026.2024.05.014

Abstract

Abstract:

Targeting at the problems of fuzzy evaluation system and neglect of triggering factors such as rainfall in the susceptibility and hazard assessment of debris flows， a study was conducted in the Fushun City based on analysis of the development and distribution patterns of debris flow disasters， the analytic hierarchy process method was utilized to assess the susceptibility and disasters of debris flow， using hydrological response units as evaluation units. The assessment accuracy is evaluated by incorporating existing debris flow disaster points. The results show that among the 42 existing debris flow disaster points， 36 are located in the high and extremely high susceptibility areas （accounting for 85.71%）， and 33 are located in the high and extremely high hazard areas （accounting for 78.57%）. This indicates that the susceptibility and hazard assessment results are reliable and consistent with the current development situation of debris flow disasters in Fushun City.

Key words: debris flow, hydrological response unit, analytic hierarchy process, susceptibility assessment, hazard assessment

CLC Number:

X 43

Shan-jun LIU, Shi-yao LIU, Lian-huan WEI, Dong-lin LYU. Debris Flow Susceptibility and Hazard Assessment in Fushun City Based on Hydrological Response Units[J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Natural Science), 2024, 45(5): 713-720.

Figures/Tables 18

References 21

1	Iverson R M.The physics of debris flows［J］.Reviews of Geophysics，1997，35（3）：245-296.
2	Tang C， Rengers N， van Asch T W J，et al.Triggering conditions and depositional characteristics of a disastrous debris flow event in Zhouqu City，Gansu Province，northwestern China［J］.Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences，2011，11（11）：2903-2912.
3	张宏建，李贵阳，潘俊，等.抚顺市“8·16”特大暴雨山洪灾害调查分析［J］.农业科技与装备，2013（11）：54-56.
	Zhang Hong‐jian， Li Gui‐yang， Pan Jun，et al.Analysis of Fushun City "8·16" super heavy rain and flood disaster［J］.Agricultural Science & Technology and Equipment，2013（11）：54-56.
4	Li Y， Liu X N， Gan B R，et al.Formation‐evolutionary mechanism analysis and impacts of human activities on the 20 August 2019 clustered debris flows event in Wenchuan County，southwestern China［J］.Frontiers in Earth Science，2021，9：616113.
5	Hollingsworth R， Kovacs G S.Soil slumps and debris flows：prediction and protection［J］.Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists，1981，XVIII（1）：17-28.
6	谭炳炎.泥石流沟严重程度的数量化综合评判［J］.水土保持通报，1986，（1）：51-57，44.
	Tan Bing‐yan.Quantitative comprehensive evaluation of the severity of debris flow gully［J］.Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation，1986，（1）：51-57，44.
7	刘希林，唐川.泥石流危险性评价［M］.北京：科学出版社，1995.
	Liu Xi‑lin， Tang Chuan.Danger assessment on debris flow ［M］.Beijing：Science Press，1995.
8	Lyu H M， Shen J S， Arulrajah A.Assessment of geohazards and preventative countermeasures using AHP incorporated with GIS in Lanzhou，China［J］.Sustainability，2018，10（2）：304.
9	Li D M， Zhang H Q， Li Y Q，et al.Hazard assessment of debris flow in Guangxi，China based on hydrodynamics mechanism［J］.Environmental Earth Sciences，2019，78（2）：50.
10	Shen S W， Liao W W， Nie L，et al.Debris flow hazard assessment at Dongmatun Village in Laomao mountainous area of Dalian，Northeast China［J］.Arabian Journal of Geosciences，2018，11（20）：648.
11	Lee M R， Cho J M， Yoon H S.Quantitative risk analysis of debris flow disasters in urban area using geographic information system［J］.Sensors and Materials，2020，32（12）：4573-4586.
12	Li Y C， Chen J P， Li Z H，et al.A case study of debris flow risk assessment and hazard range prediction based on a neural network algorithm and finite volume shallow water flow model［J］.Environmental Earth Sciences，2021，80（7）：275.
13	Tang Y M， Guo Z Z， Wu L，et al.Assessing debris flow risk at a catchment scale for an economic decision based on the LiDAR DEM and numerical simulation［J］.Frontiers in Earth Science，2022，10：821735.
14	Zhou Y Y， Yue D X， Liang G，et al.Risk assessment of debris flow in a mountain‐basin area，western China［J］.Remote Sensing，2022，14（12）：2942.
15	Shan B， Wang Q， Chen J P，et al.Hazard assessment of debris flow based on the TFSE：a case along Jinsha river close to the Jinsha Dam site in China［J］.Applied Mechanics and Materials，2013，405-408：2358-2363.
16	Wang X D， Sun Y F， Li S Y，et al.Hazard assessment of debris flows based on a PCA‐GRNN model：a case study in Liaoning Province，China［J］.Arabian Journal of Geosciences，2020，13（4）：151.
17	Wang J， Yu Y， Gong Q H，et al.Debris flow disaster risk analysis and modeling via numerical simulation and land use assessment［J］.Arabian Journal of Geosciences，2020，13（19）：979.
18	自然资源部.地质灾害风险调查评价技术要求（1 ∶50 000）［EB/OL］.［2021-03-19］..
	Ministry of Natural Resources.Technical requirements for geological hazard risk investigation and evaluation（1 ∶50 000）［EB/OL］.［2021-03-19］..
19	Refsgaard J C.Parameterisation，calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models［J］.Journal of Hydrology，1997，198（1）：69-97.
20	中华人民共和国国土资源部. 滑坡崩塌泥石流灾害调查规范（1∶50 000）：［S］.北京：中国标准出版社，2015：1.
	Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Specification of comprehensive survey for landslide，collapse and debris flow （1∶50 000）：［S］.Beijing：Standards Press of China，2015：1.
21	Saaty T L， Kearns K P.Analytical planning：the organization of systems［M］.Oxford：Pergamon Press，1985：63-86.

易发性评价指标	等级划分
易发性评价指标	低	中	高	极高
相对高差/m	<100	100~300	300~500	>500
平均坡度/（°）	<7	7~12	12~15	>15
流域面积/km²	>100	10~100	5~10	<5
河沟纵坡降/（°）	<3	3~6	6~12	>12
地层岩性	中酸性岩浆岩	沉积岩	变质岩	第四系
断层距离/m	>3 000	1 500~3 000	500~1 500	0~500
植被覆盖度	>0.6	0.3~0.6	0.1~0.3	<0.1

易发性评价指标	等级划分
易发性评价指标	低	中	高	极高
相对高差/m	<100	100~300	300~500	>500
平均坡度/（°）	<7	7~12	12~15	>15
流域面积/km²	>100	10~100	5~10	<5
河沟纵坡降/（°）	<3	3~6	6~12	>12
地层岩性	中酸性岩浆岩	沉积岩	变质岩	第四系
断层距离/m	>3 000	1 500~3 000	500~1 500	0~500
植被覆盖度	>0.6	0.3~0.6	0.1~0.3	<0.1

诱发因素评价指标	等级划分
诱发因素评价指标	低	中	高	极高
48小时累计降雨量	0~50	50~100	100~200	>200

诱发因素评价指标	等级划分
诱发因素评价指标	低	中	高	极高
48小时累计降雨量	0~50	50~100	100~200	>200

泥石流易发性指标	地形地貌	地质条件	植被覆盖度
地形地貌	1	2	2
地质条件	1/2	1	1
植被覆盖度	1/2	1	1