ISSN 1003-8035 CN 11-2852/P
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • CSCD收录期刊
  • Caj-cd规范获奖期刊
欢迎扫码关注“i环境微平台”

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

藏东察雅县城地质灾害风险评价及源头管控对策建议

田尤 陈龙 黄海 刘建康 李元灵 李洪梁

田尤,陈龙,黄海,等. 藏东察雅县城地质灾害风险评价及源头管控对策建议[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2023,34(0): 1-9 doi: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202208033
引用本文: 田尤,陈龙,黄海,等. 藏东察雅县城地质灾害风险评价及源头管控对策建议[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2023,34(0): 1-9 doi: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202208033
TIAN You,CHEN Long,HUANG Hai,et al. Geological hazard risk assessment and suggestions for risk control in chaya county, eastern Tibet[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2023,34(0): 1-9 doi: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202208033
Citation: TIAN You,CHEN Long,HUANG Hai,et al. Geological hazard risk assessment and suggestions for risk control in chaya county, eastern Tibet[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2023,34(0): 1-9 doi: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202208033

藏东察雅县城地质灾害风险评价及源头管控对策建议

doi: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202208033
基金项目: 第二次青藏高原综合科学考察研究(编号:2019QZKK0902);中国地质调查项目(DD20190644)
详细信息
    作者简介:

    田尤:田 尤(1991-),男,贵州岑巩人,硕士,工程师,主要从事地质灾害调查与评价方向研究。E-mail:tyou@mail.cgs.gov.cn

  • 中图分类号: TU4

Geological hazard risk assessment and suggestions for risk control in chaya county, eastern Tibet

  • 摘要: 以藏东察雅县城为研究区,选取高程、坡度、坡形、坡向、斜坡结构、地层、距断层距离7个评价指标,运用证据权重法,构建了地质灾害易发性评价模型。以四种降雨频率(10%、5%、2%、1%)下的年最大日降雨量作为动态诱发因子,建筑人口和交通设施作为承灾体,评价了地质灾害的动态风险性。结果表明,除围绕县城场镇两侧的斜坡以高风险和极高风险区为主外,研究区其他区域以中、低风险为主。随着降雨频率的降低,区内高风险区与极高风险区面积同比最大增长25.81%和0.44%;低风险区与中风险区面积最大下降幅度分别为20.03%和6.52%。基于风险评价结果,提出考虑不同降雨频率的地质灾害风险源头管控方法,具体为:针对10%、5%、2%和1%四种降雨频率下的极高风险区,建议分别采取工程治理、工程治理/专业监测、专业监测、专业监测/群专结合的管控手段;针对1%降雨频率下的高风险与中风险区,建议采取的风险管控措施为群专结合与群测群防。该风险管控体系考虑了不同降雨频率下斜坡的动态风险,可精细化提高山区城镇地质灾害风险的管控水平。
  • 图  1  察雅县城地质灾害发育分布图

    1-全新世冲洪积;2-侏罗系泥页岩;3-侏罗系石英细砂岩;4-三叠系石英砂岩;5-崩塌;6-滑坡;7-泥石流;8-研究范围;09-逆断层;10-地层界线

    Figure  1.  Distribution map of geological hazard development in Chaya county, Tibet autonomous region, China

    图  2  研究区地质灾害易发性评价结果

    Figure  2.  Evaluation results of geological hazard susceptibility in the study area

    图  3  研究区易发性评价成功率检验曲线

    Figure  3.  Verification Curve for geohazard susceptibility evaluation between landslide accumulative frequency and prediction index

    图  4  研究区地质灾害危险性评价图

    Figure  4.  The probability assessment map of geological hazard risks at the study area

    图  5  研究区易损性评价图

    Figure  5.  The vulnerability assessment map of geological hazard risks at the study area

    图  6  研究区地质灾害风险评价图

    Figure  6.  The risk assessment map of geological hazard risks at the study area

    图  7  察雅县城风险区面积随降雨频率变化图

    Figure  7.  Risk zone area variation with rainfall frequency in Chaya county, Tibet autonomous region, China

    图  8  察雅县城地质灾害风险管控方法

    Figure  8.  The risk management and control system of geological disaster at Chaya county, Tibet autonomous region, China

    表  1  研究区承灾体易损性赋值表

    Table  1.   Vulnerability assessment table for hazard-bearing bodies in the study area

    承灾体类型分类易损性对应属性字段对应属性
    建筑及
    人口类型
    >1000人0.9类型密集多层居住区
    0.9类型医院
    0.9类型学校
    100−1000人0.8类型密集低矮居住区
    0.7类型寺庙
    0.6类型加油站
    0.8类型行政办公区
    10−100人0.4类型基础设施区
    0.2类型一般居住区
    0.3类型商业设施区
    <10人0.1类型临时居住区
    0.1类型农业区
    0.1类型荒地区
    0.1类型避难场地区
    交通设施县级公路0.3GB420301
    专用公路0.2GB420400
    其他公路0.1GB420800
    城市道路0.2−0.3GB430501、430501
    乡村道路0.0−0.1GB440100、440300
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  地质灾害风险等级划分表

    Table  2.   Risk level classification table for geological disasters

    需替换坡度需替换坡向需替换地层需替换
    高程1
    坡度0.0201
    坡形0.032-0.0011
    坡向0.0690.1680.0261
    斜坡结构0.1340.1280.0210.2581
    地层−0.316−0.1480.079−0.030−0.1101
    距断层距离0.3430.0800.0230.1140.016−0.1721
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3  各指标因子间的相关性统计

    Table  3.   Statistical table for correlation among each index factor

    高程坡度坡形坡向斜坡结构地层距断层
    距离
    高程1
    坡度0.0201
    坡形0.032−0.0011
    坡向0.0690.1680.0261
    斜坡结构0.1340.1280.0210.2581
    地层−0.316−0.1480.079−0.030−0.1101
    距断层距离0.3430.0800.0230.1140.016−0.1721
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4  研究区各证据因子权重值表

    Table  4.   Summary table of weighted values of each featured factor in the study area

    影响因子及分级${ {W} }_{ {i} }^{ {+} } $${ {W} }_{ {i} }^{-}$$W_f $
    高程(m)3000−35000.2483−0.21120.4596
    3500−4000−0.10640.0935−0.1999
    4000−4500−0.95140.0689−1.0203
    坡度<10°−0.72710.0691−0.7962
    10-20°0.2796−0.07500.3546
    20-30°0.1089−0.06160.1705
    30-40°0.0396−0.01460.0542
    40-50°−0.64490.0374−0.6823
    50-60°−1.17210.0095−1.1816
    >60°−4.31250.0014−4.3139
    坡向平面0.5463−0.07920.6256
    1.5770−0.20221.7792
    东北1.0220−0.21891.2409
    −0.11330.0128−0.1260
    东南−0.66380.0553−0.7192
    −2.30820.1450−2.4532
    西南−3.30310.1624−3.4655
    西−1.54410.1140−1.6580
    西北0.2250−0.03260.2575
    坡型凹形−0.22900.0491−0.2780
    凸型0.1337−0.23480.3685
    直线型−0.23920.0546−0.2938
    斜坡结构河谷−7.46340.0526−7.5160
    顺向飘倾坡−2.63800.0150−2.6530
    顺向层面坡−0.78480.0088−0.7936
    顺向伏倾坡−0.50730.0425−0.5498
    斜顺向坡−0.51590.0577−0.5737
    横向坡−0.28630.0976−0.3839
    斜逆向坡0.3733−0.10570.4790
    逆向坡0.5425−0.22250.7649
    地层T3d1.3006−0.13591.4366
    J2d−2.56770.2464−2.8140
    J2c0.00000.0007−0.0007
    J1w0.1942−0.57310.7673
    Qhel−3.71520.0512−3.7664
    距断层距离<200 m0.5295−0.03950.5690
    200−500 m0.8501−0.11140.9614
    500−1000 m0.8722−0.20731.0795
    1000−2000 m0.4909−0.19120.6820
    >2000 m−1.64150.6672−2.3087
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  5  研究区不同降雨频率下的年最大日降雨量估算结果

    Table  5.   Estimation results of Annual Maximum Daily Rainfall under Different Rainfall Frequencies in the study area

    P/%KPH24P/mm
    11.43655.14
    21.37452.76
    51.28649.38
    101.21246.54
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 齐信,唐川,陈州丰,等. 地质灾害风险评价研究[J]. 自然灾害学报,2012,21(5):33 − 40. [QI Xin,TANG Chuan,CHEN Zhoufeng,et al. Research of geohazards risk assessment[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters,2012,21(5):33 − 40. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.13577/j.jnd.2012.0506
    [2] COROMINAS J,VAN WESTEN C,FRATTINI P,et al. Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk[J]. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,2014,73(2):209 − 263.
    [3] 吴树仁,石菊松,张春山,等. 地质灾害风险评估技术指南初论[J]. 地质通报,2009,28(8):995 − 1005. [WU Shuren,SHI Jusong,ZHANG Chunshan,et al. Preliminary discussion on technical guideline for geohazard risk assessment[J]. Geological Bulletin of China,2009,28(8):995 − 1005. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-2552.2009.08.001
    [4] 康婧,王伟伟,程林,等. 基于模糊数学方法的海岛地质灾害风险评价—以长兴岛为例[J]. 海洋环境科学,2016,35(6):861 − 867. [KANG Jing,WANG Weiwei,CHENG Lin,et al. Risk assessment of geological hazard based on fuzzy mathematics—A case study of Changxing Island[J]. Marine Environmental Science,2016,35(6):861 − 867. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.13634/j.cnki.mes.2016.06.035
    [5] 李天华,袁永博. 地震重灾区诱发次生地质灾害风险评价研究[J]. 地震工程学报,2018,40(1):111 − 115. [LI Tianhua,YUAN Yongbo. Risk assessment of secondary geological disasters induced in an earthquake-stricken area[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal,2018,40(1):111 − 115. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0844.2018.01.111
    [6] 罗路广,裴向军,谷虎,等. 基于GIS的“8·8”九寨沟地震景区地质灾害风险评价[J]. 自然灾害学报,2020,29(3):193 − 202. [LUO Luguang,PEI Xiangjun,GU Hu,et al. Risk assessment of geohazards induced by “8·8” earthquake based on GIS in Jiuzhaigou scenic area[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters,2020,29(3):193 − 202. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.13577/j.jnd.2020.0321
    [7] 张茂省,薛强,贾俊,等. 山区城镇地质灾害调查与风险评价方法及实践[J]. 西北地质,2019,52(2):125 − 135. [ZHANG Maosheng,XUE Qiang,JIA Jun,et al. Methods and practices for the investigation and risk assessment of geo-hazards in mountainous towns[J]. Northwestern Geology,2019,52(2):125 − 135. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.19751/j.cnki.61-1149/p.2019.02.013
    [8] 王佳佳. 三峡库区万州区滑坡灾害风险评估研究[D]. 武汉: 中国地质大学

    WANG Jiajia. Landslide Risk Assessment in Wanzhou County, Three Gorges Reservoir[D]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences. (in Chinese with English abstract)
    [9] 王芳. 万州区滑坡灾害风险评价与管理研究[D]. 武汉: 中国地质大学

    WANG Fang. Study on risk assessment and management of landslide in Wanzhou district[D]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences. (in Chinese with English abstract)
    [10] 肖婷. 三峡库区万州区及重点库岸段滑坡灾害风险评价[D]. 武汉: 中国地质大学

    XIAO Ting. Landslide risk assessment in Wanzhou district and A key section, three gorges reservoir[D]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences. (in Chinese with English abstract)
    [11] 周超,常鸣,徐璐,等. 贵州省典型城镇矿山地质灾害风险评价[J]. 武汉大学学报(信息科学版),2020,45(11):1782 − 1791. [ZHOU Chao,CHANG Ming,XU Lu,et al. Risk assessment of typical urban mine geological disasters in Guizhou Province[J]. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University,2020,45(11):1782 − 1791. (in Chinese with English abstract)
    [12] 熊小辉,汪长林,白永健,等. 基于不同耦合模型的县域滑坡易发性评价对比分析—以四川普格县为例[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2022,33(4):114 − 124. [XIONG Xiaohui,WANG Changlin,BAI Yongjian,et al. Comparison of landslide susceptibility assessment based on multiple hybrid models at County level:A case study for Puge County,Sichuan Province[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2022,33(4):114 − 124. (in Chinese with English abstract)
    [13] 解明礼,巨能攀,刘蕴琨,等. 崩塌滑坡地质灾害风险排序方法研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质,2021,48(5):184 − 192. [XIE Mingli,JU Nengpan,LIU Yunkun,et al. A study of the risk ranking method of landslides and collapses[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology,2021,48(5):184 − 192. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.16030/j.cnki.issn.1000-3665.202007011
    [14] 范强,巨能攀,解明礼,等. 2017年九寨沟MS7.0地震前后地质灾害风险对比[J]. 地震研究,2019,42(3):419 − 427. [FAN Qiang,JU Nengpan,XIE Mingli,et al. Comparation of geological hazard risks before and after Jiuzhaigou MS7.0 earthquake in 2017[J]. Journal of Seismological Research,2019,42(3):419 − 427. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0666.2019.03.016
    [15] 关朝阳,李章国. 西藏昌都地质灾害特点及防治对策[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2018,29(2):104 − 107. [GUAN Chaoyang,LI Zhangguo. Characteristics and prevention measures of geological hazards in Changdu City,Tibet[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2018,29(2):104 − 107. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.2018.02.17
    [16] 范强,巨能攀,向喜琼,等. 证据权法在区域滑坡危险性评价中的应用—以贵州省为例[J]. 工程地质学报,2014,22(3):474 − 481. [FAN Qiang,JU Nengpan,XIANG Xiqiong,et al. Landslides hazards assessment with weights of evidence—A case study in Guizhou,China[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology,2014,22(3):474 − 481. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.13544/j.cnki.jeg.2014.03.017
    [17] 郭长宝,唐杰,吴瑞安,等. 基于证据权模型的川藏铁路加查—朗县段滑坡易发性评价[J]. 山地学报,2019,37(2):240 − 251. [GUO Changbao,TANG Jie,WU Ruian,et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment based on WOE model along Jiacha—Langxian County section of sichuan—tibet railway,China[J]. Mountain Research,2019,37(2):240 − 251. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.16089/j.cnki.1008-2786.000418
    [18] 胡燕,李德营,孟颂颂,等. 基于证据权法的巴东县城滑坡灾害易发性评价[J]. 地质科技通报,2020,39(3):187 − 194. [HU Yan,LI Deying,MENG Songsong,et al. Landslide susceptibility evaluation in Badong County based on weights of evidence method[J]. Bulletin of Geological Science and Technology,2020,39(3):187 − 194. (in Chinese with English abstract)
    [19] 刘传正. 崩塌滑坡灾害风险识别方法初步研究[J]. 工程地质学报,2019,27(1):88 − 97. [LIU Chuanzheng. Analysis methods on the risk identification of landslide disasters[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology,2019,27(1):88 − 97. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.13544/j.cnki.jeg.2019-009
    [20] 地质灾害风险调查评价技术要求(1∶50000)[S]. 中国地质调查局, 2020

    Technical guide for geohazard risk survey and evaluation(1∶50000)[S]. China Geological Survey, 2020.
    [21] 张俊,殷坤龙,王佳佳,等. 三峡库区万州区滑坡灾害易发性评价研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,2016,35(2):284 − 296. [ZHANG Jun,YIN Kunlong,WANG Jiajia,et al. Evaluation of landslide susceptibility for Wanzhou district of Three Gorges Reservoir[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,2016,35(2):284 − 296. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.13722/j.cnki.jrme.2015.0318
    [22] CHUNG C,FABBRI A. Probabilistic prediction models for landslide hazard mapping[J]. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,1999,65:1389 − 1400.
  • 加载中
图(8) / 表(5)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  239
  • HTML全文浏览量:  234
  • PDF下载量:  37
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2022-08-24
  • 录用日期:  2023-04-21
  • 修回日期:  2022-11-15
  • 网络出版日期:  2023-04-29

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回