Journal of Northeastern University(Natural Science) ›› 2024, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5): 713-720.DOI: 10.12068/j.issn.1005-3026.2024.05.014
• Resources & Civil Engineering • Previous Articles
Shan-jun LIU1, Shi-yao LIU1, Lian-huan WEI1, Dong-lin LYU2
Received:
2022-12-25
Online:
2024-05-15
Published:
2024-07-31
CLC Number:
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.
易发性评价指标 | 等级划分 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Table 1 Classification of debris flow susceptibility assessment factors
易发性评价指标 | 等级划分 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
低 | 中 | 高 | 极高 | |
48小时累计降雨量 | 0~50 | 50~100 | 100~200 | >200 |
Table 2 Classification of debris flow hazard
诱发因素评价指标 | 等级划分 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Table 3 Judgment matrix for debris flow
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 |
泥石流危险性评价 | 易发性评价结果 | 诱发条件 |
---|---|---|
易发性评价结果 | 1 | 2/3 |
诱发条件 | 3/2 | 1 |
Table 4 Judgment matrix for debris flow hazard
泥石流危险性评价 | 易发性评价结果 | 诱发条件 |
---|---|---|
易发性评价结果 | 1 | 2/3 |
诱发条件 | 3/2 | 1 |
地形地貌 | 相对高差 | 平均坡度 | 流域面积 | 河沟纵坡降 |
---|---|---|---|---|
相对高差 | 1 | 1/2 | 3/4 | 6/5 |
平均坡度 | 2 | 1 | 8/3 | 5/3 |
流域面积 | 4/3 | 3/8 | 1 | 3/5 |
河沟纵坡降 | 5/6 | 3/5 | 5/3 | 1 |
Table 5 Judgment matrix of landform factors
地形地貌 | 相对高差 | 平均坡度 | 流域面积 | 河沟纵坡降 |
---|---|---|---|---|
相对高差 | 1 | 1/2 | 3/4 | 6/5 |
平均坡度 | 2 | 1 | 8/3 | 5/3 |
流域面积 | 4/3 | 3/8 | 1 | 3/5 |
河沟纵坡降 | 5/6 | 3/5 | 5/3 | 1 |
地质条件 | 地层岩性 | 断层距离 |
---|---|---|
地层岩性 | 1 | 7/3 |
断层距离 | 3/7 | 1 |
Table 6 Judgment matrix of geological condition
地质条件 | 地层岩性 | 断层距离 |
---|---|---|
地层岩性 | 1 | 7/3 |
断层距离 | 3/7 | 1 |
一级指标 | 一级权重 | 二级指标 | 综合权重 |
---|---|---|---|
地形地貌 | 0.5 | 相对高差 | 0.098 |
平均坡度 | 0.200 | ||
流域面积 | 0.089 | ||
河沟纵坡降 | 0.113 | ||
地质条件 | 0.25 | 地层岩性 | 0.175 |
断层距离 | 0.075 | ||
植被覆盖度 | 0.25 | — | 0.250 |
Table 7 Weights of debris flow susceptibility
一级指标 | 一级权重 | 二级指标 | 综合权重 |
---|---|---|---|
地形地貌 | 0.5 | 相对高差 | 0.098 |
平均坡度 | 0.200 | ||
流域面积 | 0.089 | ||
河沟纵坡降 | 0.113 | ||
地质条件 | 0.25 | 地层岩性 | 0.175 |
断层距离 | 0.075 | ||
植被覆盖度 | 0.25 | — | 0.250 |
评价指标 | 综合权重 |
---|---|
易发性评价结果 | 0.6 |
诱发条件 | 0.4 |
Table 8 Weights of debris flow hazard assessment
评价指标 | 综合权重 |
---|---|
易发性评价结果 | 0.6 |
诱发条件 | 0.4 |
区域 | 低易发区面积/km2 | 中易发区面积/km2 | 高易发区面积/km2 | 极高易发区面积/km2 | 合计面积/km2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
合计比例/% | 14.92 | 27.63 | 42.37 | 15.08 | 100.00 |
抚顺市区 | 546.36 | 481.22 | 290.96 | 4.67 | 1 323.20 |
抚顺县 | 288.57 | 555.02 | 706.94 | 107.37 | 1 657.90 |
新宾县 | 168.92 | 855.13 | 2 122.38 | 1 052.13 | 4 198.56 |
清原县 | 646.79 | 1 165.59 | 1 567.34 | 503.61 | 3 883.32 |
合计面积 | 1 650.63 | 3 056.96 | 4 687.61 | 1 667.78 | 11 062.98 |
Table 9 Statistics of debris flow susceptibility zoning in Fushun City
区域 | 低易发区面积/km2 | 中易发区面积/km2 | 高易发区面积/km2 | 极高易发区面积/km2 | 合计面积/km2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
合计比例/% | 14.92 | 27.63 | 42.37 | 15.08 | 100.00 |
抚顺市区 | 546.36 | 481.22 | 290.96 | 4.67 | 1 323.20 |
抚顺县 | 288.57 | 555.02 | 706.94 | 107.37 | 1 657.90 |
新宾县 | 168.92 | 855.13 | 2 122.38 | 1 052.13 | 4 198.56 |
清原县 | 646.79 | 1 165.59 | 1 567.34 | 503.61 | 3 883.32 |
合计面积 | 1 650.63 | 3 056.96 | 4 687.61 | 1 667.78 | 11 062.98 |
区域 | 低危险区面积/km2 | 中危险区面积/km2 | 高危险区面积/km2 | 极高危险区面积/km2 | 合计面积/km2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
合计比例/% | 16.26 | 30.33 | 29.80 | 23.62 | 100.00 |
抚顺市区 | 166.03 | 680.86 | 289.02 | 187.29 | 1 323.20 |
抚顺县 | 43.34 | 736.49 | 752.63 | 125.43 | 1 657.90 |
新宾县 | 1 564.85 | 679.98 | 1 667.84 | 285.88 | 4 198.56 |
清原县 | 24.72 | 1 257.75 | 586.80 | 2 014.05 | 3 883.32 |
合计面积 | 1 798.95 | 3 355.08 | 3 296.29 | 2 612.66 | 11 062.98 |
Table 10 Statistics of debris flow hazard zoning in Fushun City
区域 | 低危险区面积/km2 | 中危险区面积/km2 | 高危险区面积/km2 | 极高危险区面积/km2 | 合计面积/km2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
合计比例/% | 16.26 | 30.33 | 29.80 | 23.62 | 100.00 |
抚顺市区 | 166.03 | 680.86 | 289.02 | 187.29 | 1 323.20 |
抚顺县 | 43.34 | 736.49 | 752.63 | 125.43 | 1 657.90 |
新宾县 | 1 564.85 | 679.98 | 1 667.84 | 285.88 | 4 198.56 |
清原县 | 24.72 | 1 257.75 | 586.80 | 2 014.05 | 3 883.32 |
合计面积 | 1 798.95 | 3 355.08 | 3 296.29 | 2 612.66 | 11 062.98 |
易发性分区 | 面积/km2 | 易发区占比/% | 已有泥石流灾害点数量/处 | 灾害点占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
低易发区 | 1650.63 | 14.92 | 3 | 7.14 |
中易发区 | 3056.96 | 27.63 | 3 | 7.14 |
高易发区 | 4687.61 | 42.37 | 24 | 57.14 |
极高易发区 | 1667.78 | 15.08 | 12 | 28.57 |
Table 11 Statistics of debris flow susceptibility in Fushun City
易发性分区 | 面积/km2 | 易发区占比/% | 已有泥石流灾害点数量/处 | 灾害点占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
低易发区 | 1650.63 | 14.92 | 3 | 7.14 |
中易发区 | 3056.96 | 27.63 | 3 | 7.14 |
高易发区 | 4687.61 | 42.37 | 24 | 57.14 |
极高易发区 | 1667.78 | 15.08 | 12 | 28.57 |
危险性分区 | 面积/km2 | 危险区占比/% | 已有泥石流灾害点数量/处 | 灾害点占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
低危险区 | 1798.95 | 16.26 | 4 | 9.52 |
中危险区 | 3355.08 | 30.33 | 5 | 11.90 |
高危险区 | 3296.29 | 29.80 | 20 | 47.62 |
极高危险区 | 2612.66 | 23.62 | 13 | 30.95 |
Table 12 Statistics of debris flow hazard in Fushun City
危险性分区 | 面积/km2 | 危险区占比/% | 已有泥石流灾害点数量/处 | 灾害点占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
低危险区 | 1798.95 | 16.26 | 4 | 9.52 |
中危险区 | 3355.08 | 30.33 | 5 | 11.90 |
高危险区 | 3296.29 | 29.80 | 20 | 47.62 |
极高危险区 | 2612.66 | 23.62 | 13 | 30.95 |
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. |
[1] | WANG Shu-hong, ZHU Bao-qiang, ZHANG Ze. Rock Mass Structural Plane Classification Method Based on Improved Ideal Point Model [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Natural Science), 2021, 42(1): 117-123. |
[2] | QI Xi-jing, TANG Liang, KANG Wei-xin, QIN Jiao-jiao. Multi-objective Decision-Making Method for Bridge Deck Maintenance Scheme for Highway [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2020, 41(7): 1033-1040. |
[3] | WANG Wei-dong, HE Zhuo-lei, HAN Zheng, QIAN Yu. LandslidesSusceptibilityAssessmentBasedonDeepBeliefNetwork [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2020, 41(5): 609-615. |
[4] | LIU Yu, WANG Peng-yu, WANG Shu-hong, LING Shuang. Disease Mechanism and Theoretical Quantification Method of Tunnel Structure [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2019, 40(8): 1185-1190. |
[5] | ZHANG Zi-shan, WANG Shu-hong, WANG Fei-li. Comprehensive Assessment of Rock Slope Stability Based on Spatial Block Identification [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2018, 39(6): 896-901. |
[6] | LIANG Li, JI Gui-bin, ZHAO Ying. Ecological Adaptability Evaluation of Warm-Season Herb Plants of Highway Slope [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2018, 39(1): 128-132. |
[7] | REN Song, LI Zhen-yuan, CHEN Fan, JIANG De-yi. Study on the Corrosion Model of Tunnel Lining Structure in Gypsum Rock [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2017, 38(7): 1049-1054. |
[8] | SONG Xiao-ying, WEN Tao, SUN Wei, ZHANG Qi-long. Unequal Clustering Data Gathering Algorithm Based on Multiple Criteria Decision Making for WSNs [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2017, 38(4): 476-480. |
[9] | XIE Cheng-yu, LUO Zhou-quan, JIA Nan, WANG Wei. Goafs′ Risk Discrimination Based on Improved TOPSIS Coupled with GA-BP [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2016, 37(3): 440-445. |
[10] | RUAN Yun-kai, CHEN Jian-ping, SHI Ming-yuan, LI Yan-yan. Debris Flow Susceptibility Analysis Based on Relative Difference Function and Game Theory [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2016, 37(12): 1800-1804. |
[11] | CAO Chen, CHEN Jian-ping, SONG Sheng-yuan, ZHENG Lian-jing. Flash Flood Hazard Assessment in Coalmine Goaf Catchment [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2016, 37(11): 1620-1624. |
[12] | SUN Dong-yan, CHEN Jian-ping, MA Yu-fei, SUN Tie. Initiation of Debris Flow in Tianjin Panlonggu Based on Artificial Rainfall [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2016, 37(11): 1625-1630. |
[13] | YAN Yong-ming, ZHANG Bin, GUO Jun, MO Yu-yan. Virtual Machine Hotspot Degree Comprehensive Evaluation Method Based on Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2015, 36(2): 182-187. |
[14] | GUO Mudan, ZHU Fusheng, WANG Shuhong, RONG Xiaoyang. Partitioning Method of Dominant Groups Based on Characteristics of Structural Plane [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2014, 35(2): 295-298. |
[15] | SONG Shengyuan, WANG Qing, SUN Tao, BAO Shuochao. Extenics Evaluation of Engineering Geological Zoning of Foundation Soil in Tianjin Binhai New Area [J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2014, 35(10): 1502-1506. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||