四川省小流域泥石流危险性评价

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1047.2017.01604

地球信息科学学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (12): 1604-1612.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1047.2017.01604

• 山洪/泥石流灾害风险评价 • 上一篇下一篇

四川省小流域泥石流危险性评价

熊俊楠^1,³(), 韦方强², 刘志奇¹

1. 西南石油大学土木工程与建筑学院,成都 610500
2. 中国科学院重庆绿色智能技术研究院,重庆 400714
3. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室,北京 100101

收稿日期:2017-06-30 修回日期:2017-09-26 出版日期:2017-12-25 发布日期:2017-12-25
作者简介:
作者简介：熊俊楠(1981-),男,四川南充人,博士,副教授,主要从事地理信息系统与灾害风险分析方面的研究。E-mail: neu_xjn@163.com
基金资助:
住房和城乡建设部科技计划项目（2016-K3-024）;国家安全生产监督管理总局科技项目（2014-3281）;西藏自治区科技支撑计划项目(省809);西南石油大学启航计划项目（2014QHZ034）

Hazard Assessment of Debris Flow in Sichuan Province

XIONG Junnan^1,^3,^*(), WEI Fangqiang², LIU Zhiqi¹

1. School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China
2. Chongqing Institute of Green and Intelligent Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chongqing 400714, China
3. State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Acdemy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

Received:2017-06-30 Revised:2017-09-26 Online:2017-12-25 Published:2017-12-25
Contact: XIONG Junnan

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

泥石流危险性评价是泥石流防灾减灾的重要内容。本文以四川省为研究区,以DEM为数据源,通过提取水流方向,计算汇流累积量,实现四川省小流域划分。基于收集的已查明泥石流流域资料,分析了泥石流孕灾环境与成灾特点,选择流域高差、流域面积为指标,建立基于能量条件的潜势泥石流流域判识模型,对划分的小流域进行判识,识别出7798个小流域具备泥石流发生所需能量条件,面积为31.1×10⁴ km²,占四川省总面积的64.18 %。进而建立了泥石流危险性评价指标体系和可拓物元模型,开展了小流域泥石流危险性评价,划分了危险度等级,得到中度、高度、极高危险区的小流域个数分别为1946、1725和1002个,面积分别为9.1×10⁴、7.7×10⁴和3.4×10⁴km²,中度以上危险区面积共20.2×10⁴ km2,占四川省总面积的41.67%。最后对评价结果可靠性和各等级泥石流危险区在各地市级行政区、各大流域的分布进行了分析。其结果对促进泥石流判识与危险性评价理论,区域泥石流防灾减灾与山区可持续发展等具有重要的理论和现实意义。

关键词: 泥石流, 地貌特征, 危险性评价, 小流域, 可拓物元模型

Abstract:

Hazard assessment is important for the prevention and mitigation of debris flow disaster. This study takes Sichuan Province as the research area. Based on the DEM data, we realize the demarcation of the small watershed in Sichuan Province by extracting the direction of water flow and calculating the accumulation of the flow confluence. Based on the collected information of debris flow watershed, we selected the watershed elevation difference and watershed area as the indicators. The identification model of potential debris flow watershed based on the energy condition was built by analyzing the hazard-formative environment and characteristics of debris flow hazards. A total of 7798 small watersheds with the required energy conditions for debris flow occurring were identified by utilizing the established model among all the demarcated small watersheds, which is 31.1×10⁴ km² accounting for 64.18% of the total area of Sichuan Province. The indicator system of debris flow hazard risk assessment and the extension matter-element model were established from the energy condition of the debris flow occurring, the condition of the loose solid materials, the precipitation condition and the condition of human activity. These determine the weights of the assessment factors, of dividing the grade of the hazard risk, by which it classifies the hazard risk degree of small watershed debris flow. The number of the moderate, high and very high hazard degree is 1946, 1725 and 1002, with an area of 9.1×10⁴ km², 7.7×10⁴ km² and 3.4×10⁴ km², respectively. The total area of moderate hazard areas is 20.2×10⁴ km2, accounting for 41.67% of the total area of Sichuan Province. Finally, the analyses were made for the reliability of assessment results and the distribution of the different hazard degree of debris flow areas in different municipal administrative districts and the major river valleys. All the known small watershed of very high hazard degree are identified as debris flow watersheds. The 896 watersheds of moderate hazard degree do not belong to the identified debris flow and 1233 watersheds of high hazard degree do not belong to the identified debris flow, either. They are the key area for disaster prevention and reduction in Sichuan province in the next few years. The results of the analyses have the great theoretical and practical significance for enhancing the debris flow identification, the prevention and mitigation of regional debris flow disaster. The sustainable development of mountainous areas and also the theory of the risk assessment of debris flow hazard.

Key words: debris flow, geomorphology characteristics, hazard assessment, small watersheds, extension matter-element model

熊俊楠, 韦方强, 刘志奇. 四川省小流域泥石流危险性评价[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2017, 19(12): 1604-1612.DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1047.2017.01604

XIONG Junnan,WEI Fangqiang,LIU Zhiqi. Hazard Assessment of Debris Flow in Sichuan Province[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2017, 19(12): 1604-1612.DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1047.2017.01604

图/表 9

图1

图2

图3

表1

表2

泥石流危险性评价的标准物元模型

概率	流域单元特征	标准物元
0-0.2	1. 断层密度/(m/km²)：F=0	$R p = 一级, H, < 0,100 >, < 3100, ∞ > S, < 0,50 ‰ >, < 650 ‰, ∞ > F, < 0 > E, < 0,3 > R, < 1 > L, < 0.05,0.1 > P mean, < 0,500 >, < 1100, ∞ > C v < 0,0.1 >$
	2. 地层岩性：R=1
	3. 地震烈度/°：0<E≤3
	4. 年平均降水量/mm： P_mean<500, P_mean>1100
	5. 降水量年际变差：C_v<0.1
	6. 高差/m: H>3100, H≤100
	7. 沟床比降/ $‰$ ：S>650,S<50
	8. 土地利用：0.05<L≤0.1
0.2-0.4	1. 断层密度/(m/km²)：0<F≤0.15	$R p = 二级, H, < 100,300 >, < 2500,3100 > S, < 500 ‰, 650 ‰ > F, < 0,0.15 > E, < 3,6 > R, < 2 > L, < 0.1,0.15 > P mean, < 500,600 >, < 1000,1100 > C v < 0.14,0.16 >$
	2. 地层岩性：R=2
	3. 地震烈度/°：3<E≤6
	4. 年平均降水量/mm： 500<P_mean≤600 1000<P_mean≤1100
	5. 降水量年际变差：0.14<C_v≤0.16
	6. 高差/m： 100<H≤300, 2500<H≤3100
	7. 沟床比降/ $‰$ ：500<S≤650
	8. 土地利用：0.1<L≤0.15
0.4-0.6	1. 断层密度/(m/km²)：0.15<F≤0.3	$R p = 三级, H, < 300,400 >, < 1700,2500 > S, < 350 ‰, 500 ‰ > F, < 0.15,0.3 > E, < 6,7 > R, < 3 > L, < 0,0.05 > P mean, < 600,700 >, < 900,1000 > C v < 0.1,0.12 >$
	2. 地层岩性：R=3
	3. 地震烈度/°：6<E≤7
	4. 年平均降水量/mm： 600<P_mean≤700, 900<P_mean≤1000
	5. 降水量年际变差：0.1<C_v≤0.12
	6. 高差/m: 300<H≤400, 1700<H≤2500
	7. 沟床比降/ $‰$ ：350<S≤500,
	8. 土地利用：0<L≤0.05
0.6-0.8	1. 断层密度/(m/km²)： 0.3<F≤0.5	$R p = 四级, H, < 400,600 >, < 1400,1700 > S, < 150 ‰, 350 ‰ > F, < 0.3,0.5 > E, < 7,9 > R, < 4 > L, < 0.2, ∞ > P mean, < 700,800 > C v < 0.16, ∞ >$
	2. 地层岩性：R=4
	3. 地震烈度/°：7<E≤9
	4. 年平均降水量/mm： 700<P_mean≤800
	5. 降水量年际变差：C_v>0.16
	6. 高差/m： 400<H≤600, 1400<H≤1700
	7. 沟床比降/ $‰$ ：150<S≤350
	8. 土地利用：L>0.2
0.8-1	1. 断层密度/(m/km²)：F>0.5	$R p = 五级, H, < 600,1400 > S, < 50 ‰, 150 ‰ > F, < 0.5, ∞ > E, < 9,11 > R, < 5 > L, < 0.15,0.2 > P mean, < 800,900 > C v < 0.12,0.14 >$
	2. 地层岩性：R=5
	3. 地震烈度/°：9<E≤11
	4. 年平均降水量/mm： 800<P_mean≤900
	5. 降水量年际变差：0.12<C_v≤0.14
	6. 高差/m：600<H≤1400
	7. 沟床比降/ $‰$ ：50<S≤150
	8. 土地利用：0.15<L≤0.2

表2

表3

表4

图4

表5

参考文献 19

[9]	[ Ding W F, Du J, Cheng X P, et al.Risk assessment and regionalization of mountain torrent disaster in Sichuan Province[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2015,32(12):41-45,97. ] doi: 10.11988/ckyyb.20140518
[10]	杜俊,丁文峰,任洪玉.四川省不同类型山洪灾害与主要影响因素的关系[J].长江流域资与环境,2015,24(11):1977-1983. doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201511023
[1]	唐邦兴,周必凡,吴积善,等.中国泥石流[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
	[ Tang B X, Zhou B F, Wu J S, et al.Debris in China[M]. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2000. ]
[2]	Saezuk E, Gardner J.GIS-Based mapping and modelling of debris flow hazards in Banff National Park, Alberta[J].Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 1998(5):7-20. doi: 10.1080/07038992.1998.10874691
[3]	Liu X L, Lei J Z.A method for assessing regional debris flow risk: an application in Zhaotong of Yunnan province (SW China)[J]. Geomorphology, 2003,52(3):181-191. doi: 10.1016/S0169-555X(02)00242-8
[10]	[ Du J, Ding W F, Ren H Y.Relationships between different types of flash flood disasters and their main impact factors in the Sichuan Province[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2015,24(11):1977-1983. ] doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201511023
[11]	钟敦论. 中国泥石流滑坡编目数据库与区域规律研究[M].成都:四川科学技术出版社,1998.
[4]	Hollingsworth R, Kovacs G S.Soil slumps and debris flows: prediction and protection[J]. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, 1981,38(1):17-28. doi: 10.2113/gseegeosci.xviii.1.17
[5]	刘希林,莫多闻.泥石流风险评价[M].成都:四川科学技术出版社,2003.
[11]	[ Zhong D L.The debris flow and landslide catalog database of China and regional regularity[M]. Chengdu: Sichuan Science and Technology Press, 1998. ]
[12]	苏鹏程,倪长健,孔纪名,等.区域泥石流危险度评价的影响因子识别[J].水土保持学报,2009,29(1):128-132.
[5]	[ Liu X L, Mo D W.Debris flow risk assessment[M]. Chengdu: Sichuan Science and Technology Press, 2003. ]
[6]	唐川. 汶川地震区暴雨滑坡泥石流活动趋势预测[J].山地学报,2010,28(3):341-349.
	[ Tang C.Activity tendency prediction of rainfall induced landslides and debris flow in the Wenchuan earthquake areas[J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 2010,28(3):341-349. ]
[7]	丁继新,杨志法,尚彦军,等.区域泥石流灾害的定量风险分析[J].岩土力学,2006,27(7):1071-1076. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2006.07.010
[12]	[ Su P C, Ni C J, Kong J M, et al.Impact factors identification of regional debris flow risk assessment[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2009,29(1):128-132. ]
[13]	苏鹏程,韦方强, 冯汉中,等. “8.13”四川清平群发性泥石流灾害成因及其影响[J].山地学报,2011,29(3):337-347. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2786.2011.03.011
[7]	[ Ding J X, Yang Z F, Shang Y J, et al.Quantitative risk analysis of regional debris flow hazards[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2006,27(7):1071-1076. ] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2006.07.010
[8]	王常明,田书文,王翊虹,等.泥石流危险性评价:模糊C均值聚类——支持向量机法[J].吉林大学学报(地球科学版),2016,46(4):1168-1175. doi: 10.13278/j.cnki.jjuese.201604203
[13]	[ Su P C, Wei F Q, Feng H Z, et al.Causes and effects of group occurring debris flow disasters in Qingping Town, Mian Yuan River Upstream, Sichuan[J]. Journal of Mountain Sciences, 2011,29(3):337-347. ] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2786.2011.03.011
[14]	谷复光,王清,张晨.基于投影寻踪与可拓学方法的泥石流危险度评价[J].吉林大学学报(地球科学版),2010,40(2):373-376.
[8]	[ Wang C M, Tian S W, Wang Y H, et al.Risk assessment of debris flow: a Method of SWM based on FCM[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), 2016,46(4):1168-1175. ] doi: 10.13278/j.cnki.jjuese.201604203
[9]	丁文峰,杜俊,陈小平,等.四川省山洪灾害风险评估与区划[J].长江科学院院报,2015,32(12):41-45,97. doi: 10.11988/ckyyb.20140518
[14]	[ Gu F G, Wang Q, Zhang C.Debris flow risk assessment by PPC and Extenics[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Earth Science Edition), 2010,40(2):373-376. ]
[15]	铁永波,唐川.汶川县城泥石流灾害风险评价研究[J],灾害学,2010,25(4):43-47.
	[ Tie Y B, Tang C.Assessment of Wenchuan debris-flow risk[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2010,25(4):43-47. ]
[16]	庄建琦,裴来政,丁明涛,等.潜在泥石流的界定与判识—以金沙江流域溪洛渡库区为例[J].灾害学,2009,24(4):1-9.
	[ Zhuang J Q, Pei L Z, Ding M T, et al.The definition and identification of potential debris flow gully - taking the Xiluodu reservoir area as an example[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2009,24(4):1-9. ]
[17]	熊俊楠. 基于遥感与GIS的精细化区域泥石流风险评估[D].北京:中国科学院大学,2013.
	[ Xiong J N.Refinement of regional debris flow risk assessment based on remote sensing and GIS[D]. Beijing: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2013. ]
[18]	蔡文. 物元模型及其应用[M].北京:科学技术文献出版社,1994.
	[ Cai W.Matter-element model and application[M], Beijing: Science and Technology Literature Press ,1994. ]
[19]	李华威,万庆.小流域山洪灾害危险性分析之降雨指标选取的初步研究[J].地球信息科学学报,2017,19(3):425-435. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1047.2017.00425
	[ Li H W, Wang Q.Study on rainfall index selection for hazard analysis of mountain torrents disaster of small watersheds[J].Journal of Geo-information Science, 2017,19(3):425-435. ] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1047.2017.00425

	高差	沟床比降	断层密度	地震烈度	地层岩性	土地利用	平均降水	降水变差
高差	1.000	0.404	0.171	0.233	-0.169	-0.458	0.107	0.161
沟床比降	0.404	1.000	0.111	0.122	-0.119	-0.364	0.012	0.091
断层密度	0.171	0.111	1.000	0.157	-0.119	-0.140	-0.052	0.000
地震烈度	0.233	0.122	0.157	1.000	-0.119	-0.200	-0.173	-0.105
地层岩性	-0.169	-0.112	-0.119	-0.119	1.000	0.273	0.396	0.195
土地利用	-0.458	-0.364	-0.140	-0.200	0.273	1.000	0.133	-0.002
平均降水	0.107	0.012	-0.052	-0.173	0.396	0.133	1.000	0.395
降水变差	0.161	0.091	0.000	-0.105	0.195	-0.002	0.395	1.000

区域泥石流危险度	危险度分区	泥石流活动特征
0.0-0.2	极低危险区	基本无泥石流活动,没有泥石流灾难,安全区
0.2-0.4	低度危险区	能够发生小规模和低频率的泥石流,一般不会造成重大灾难和严重危害
0.4-0.6	中度危险区	能够间歇性发生中等规模的泥石流,较少造成重大灾难和严重危害
0.6-0.8	高度危险区	能够发生大规模和高频率的泥石流,可造成重大灾难和严重危害
0.8-1.0	极高危险区	能够发生巨大规模和特高频率的泥石流,可造成重大灾难和严重危害

市级行政区	极低危险区	低度危险区	中度危险区	高度危险区	极高危险区
成都市	8285	711	829	503	1777
自贡市	4376	0	0	0	0
攀枝花市	872	1260	1890	2157	1231
泸州市	6391	2949	1950	924	0
德阳市	4364	71	326	65	1093
绵阳市	10 355	346	4684	4237	567
广元市	8000	3436	2571	2182	14
遂宁市	5322	0	0	0	0
内江市	5003	5	0	0	0
乐山市	5435	1936	1378	3848	539
南充市	12516	50	0	0	0
眉山市	577	300	418	688	15
宜宾市	8095	3375	1733	49	0
广安市	4780	892	331	350	0
达州市	8587	6060	1548	375	4
雅安市	2337	852	2602	4335	4898
巴中市	6817	4373	461	635	0
资阳市	7922	15	4.56	0	0
阿坝藏族羌族自治州	32 373	18 952	20 387	8530	2493
甘孜藏族自治州	48 051	30 493	37 376	25 326	7188
凉山彝族自治州	7415	3397	12 677	22 338	14 356

四川省小流域泥石流危险性评价

Hazard Assessment of Debris Flow in Sichuan Province

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 19

相关文章 10

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

类别	地面要素类							气象要素类
类别	断层密度		地层岩性	地震烈度	高差	沟床比降	土地利用	年平均降水量	降水量年际变差
各类权重	0.17	0.1	0.08	0.22	0.2	0.04		0.14	0.05

[1]	徐繁树, 王保云, 韩俊. 一种沟谷型潜在泥石流危险性评价方法：基于多源数据融合的卷积神经网络[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2023, 25(3): 588-605.
[2]	郭紫甜, 王春梅, 刘欣, 庞国伟, 朱梦阳, 王晋卿. 基于小流域抽样单元的中国FROM-GLC30数据精度评价[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2021, 23(3): 524-535.
[3]	曹泽涛, 方子东, 姚瑾, 熊礼阳. 基于随机森林的黄土地貌分类研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2020, 22(3): 452-463.
[4]	张婷, 程昌秀. 顾及空间集聚程度的中国高温灾害危险性评价[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2019, 21(6): 865-874.
[5]	叶超凡, 张一驰, 熊俊楠, 秦建新. 湖南省山丘区小流域山洪灾害危险性评价[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2017, 19(12): 1593-1603.
[6]	李青, 王雅莉, 李海辰, 张淼, 李昌志, 陈星. 基于洪峰模数的山洪灾害雨量预警指标研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2017, 19(12): 1643-1652.
[7]	岳溪柳, 黄玫, 徐庆勇, 陈昌彦, 谷晓平. 贵州省喀斯特地区泥石流灾害易发性评价[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2015, 17(11): 1395-1403.
[8]	陈加兵, 励惠国, 郑达贤, 曾从盛. 基于DEM的福建省小流域划分研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2007, 9(2): 74-77,95.
[9]	牛宝茹, 马贺平, 吕录仕, 鲍贵宝. 川藏公路海竹段地质灾害的遥感分析[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2000, 2(4): 29-31.
[10]	王治华. 面向新世纪的滑坡、泥石流遥感技术[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 1999, 1(2): 71-74.