地球科学进展

地球科学进展 ›› 2016, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (10): 1047 -1055. doi: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2016.10.1047

上一篇    下一篇

基于数值模拟的泥石流灾害定量风险评价
黄勋 1, 2, 3( ), 唐川 3,,A; *( )   
  1. 1.重庆市勘测院,重庆 401121
    2.重庆市岩土工程技术研究中心,重庆 401121
    3. 成都理工大学地质灾害防治与地质环境保护国家重点实验室,四川 成都 610059
  • 收稿日期:2016-07-02 修回日期:2016-09-15 出版日期:2016-10-20
  • 通讯作者: 唐川 E-mail:huangxun198671@163.com;tangc707@gmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    重庆市社会民生科技创新专项项目“水文地质三维建模技术在越岭隧道规划建设中的应用研究”(编号:cstc2016shmszx30021);国家科技支撑技术项目“地震扰动区重大滑坡泥石流等地质灾害防范与生态修复”(编号:2011BAK12B01)资助

Quantitative Risk Assessment of Catastrophic Debris Flows through Numerical Simulation

Xun Huang 1, 2, 3( ), Chuan Tang 3, *( )   

  1. 1.Chongqing Survey Institute, Chongqing 401121, China
    2.Chongqing Engineering Research Center of Geotechnical Engineering, Chongqing 401121, China
    3. State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
  • Received:2016-07-02 Revised:2016-09-15 Online:2016-10-20 Published:2016-10-20
  • Contact: Chuan Tang E-mail:huangxun198671@163.com;tangc707@gmail.com
  • About author:

    First author:Huang Xun(1986-), male, Guangyuan City, Sichuan Province, Ph. D. Research areas include the assessment and prediction of the geologic hazard.E-mail:huangxun198671@163.com

    *Corresponding author:Tang Chuan(1961-), male, Hefei City, Anhui Province, Professor. Research areas include the geologic hazard, geomorphology and engineering geology.E-mail:tangc707@gmail.com

  • Supported by:
    Project supported by the Special Program for Social Technology Innovation of Chongqing “Application of 3D hydrogeological modeling method on the planning and construction of the long tunnel”(No;cstc2016shmszx30021);National Science and Technology Support Program “Geohazard prevention and geoenvironment protection in the meizoseismal area”(No.2011BAK12B01)
全文 ( 6 ) 下载PDF ( 728 )

风险评价是灾害防治最有效的软措施之一,也是实现灾害风险管控的重要基础。针对承灾体类型和泥石流成灾方式的特殊性,以重要承灾体——建筑物和道路为研究对象,构建了一套适用于我国西南山地城镇的泥石流定量风险评价的理论体系和技术流程,主要分为3个步骤:①利用FLO-2D数值模型,以强度指数IDF表达泥石流危险性;②利用汶川七盘沟7·11泥石流灾损数据,构建基于超越损失概率的物质易损性曲线;③在建立承灾体数据库的基础上,通过设置不同的未来泥石流情境,实现承灾体预期损失的定量表达。以汶川羊岭沟为例的模型验证和案例运用表明,构建的泥石流定量风险评价体系,能够很好地反映承灾体与泥石流的响应机制,可为泥石流威胁区的防灾减灾工作提供科学依据。

关键词: 泥石流, 定量风险评价, FLO-2D, 易损性曲线

The risk assessment is not only the one of the most effective soft measures in natural hazard prevention, but also is the base of hazard risk management. On account of the specificity of various elements at risk and debris flow mechanism, the theoretical system and technical procedure of debris flow quantitative risk assessment for buildings and roads were established in the mountaineous area of Southwest China, which included three sections: ①To represent debris flow hazard quantitatively using the intensity index IDF through FLO-2D simulation; ②To build debris flow physical vulnerability curve based on the loss exceedance-probability from Qipan gully debris flow case; ③To quantify the expected loss of the important elements at risk based on their database after setting the future debris flow scenarios. The case study of Yangling catchment indicated that the responding mechanism between elements at risk and debris flow physical mechanism was described quantitatively by this quantitative risk assessment system, which can contribute to the construction planning and prevention measure making in the southwestern mountainous area.

Key words: Debris flow, Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), FLO-2D, Vulnerability curve.

中图分类号: 

表1 七盘沟FLO-2D模拟主要参数
Table 1 Control parameters of Qipan Gully FLO-2D simulation
参数项 数值 参数项 数值
格网大小/m 5×5 泥砂比重γm/(t/m3) 2.2
曼宁系数n 排导槽
排导槽两侧
公路		 0.10
0.25
0.05		 层流阻力系数K
α1
β1		 2 285
0.811
13.72
模拟时间/h 1.5 α2 0.00462
体积浓度Cv 0.42 β2 11.24
图1 七盘沟7·11泥石流模拟强度指数IDF与受损建筑物的空间分布
Fig.1 Spatial distribution of the intensity index IDF and damaged buildings in the 7·11 Qipan Gully simulation
图2 建筑物损失等级现场照片
Fig.2 The photos of building loss rank
表2 建筑物损失等级
Table 2 The loss rank of buildings at risk
损失等级 损失定义 损失率/% 损失描述
Ⅰ 泥砂淤积 <25 承重墙、梁柱完好,室内泥砂淤积,部分非承重墙、门窗损坏,无结构性损坏
Ⅱ 部分结构损伤 25~75 少数承重墙体、梁柱损坏,部分非承重墙体损失,部分结构性损伤、功能降低
Ⅲ 主要结构损伤 75~100 部分梁柱、墙体、屋顶倒塌或损坏,受损比>20%,主体结构破坏、功能丧失
Ⅳ 完全损毁 100 承重墙、梁柱破坏>40%,或中央支撑柱破坏>20%,主体结构破坏、功能丧失
表3 超越损失概率与损失概率的换算
Table 3 The conversion principle between‘loss exceedance-probability’ and ‘loss probability’
损失等级
(损失率)		 DⅠ
(<0.25)		 DⅡ
(0.25~0.75)		 DⅢ
(0.75~1)		 DⅣ
(1)
强度IDF作用
下的损失概率		 1-P_DⅠ P_DⅠ-P_DⅡ P_DⅡ-P_DⅢ P_DⅢ
图3 建筑物的泥石流易损性曲线
Fig.3 The building vulnerability curves of debris flows
表4 道路损失等级划分
Table 4 The loss rank principle of road at risk
损失
等级		 损失
类型		 损失描述
高等级公路 低等级公路
Ⅰ 基本无
损伤		 泥砂通过涵洞、桥下净
空排泄,未涌入路面		 泥砂通过涵洞、桥下净
空排泄,未涌入路面
Ⅱ 部分
损伤		 少量泥砂涌入路沿
或隔离板		 掩埋较小比例车道
Ⅲ 严重
损伤		 掩埋隔离板或半幅
车道		 掩埋全幅车道,或导致附属设施损毁
Ⅳ 完全
损毁		 掩埋全幅车道,路面
铺面严重破坏,需更换		 完全堵塞车道,路基严重损毁
图4 泥石流作用下道路易损性曲线 [ 22 ]
(a)高等级公路;(b)低等级公路
Fig.4 The road vulnerability curves of debris flow [ 22 ]
(a)High-grade roads; (b)Low-grade roads
表5 羊岭沟7·10泥石流建筑物损失模拟/实际对比
Table 5 The comparison between simulation scenario and actual state of building loss in 7·10 Yangling debris flow
损失等级
(损失率)		 DⅠ
(<0.25)		 DⅡ
(0.25~0.75)		 DⅢ
(0.75~1)		 DⅣ
(1)
IDF=1 m3/s2作用
下的损失概率		 0.79 0.19 0.00 0.02
预测损失数量 9 2 0 0
实际损失数量 10 1 0 0
IDF=3 m3/s2作用
下的损失概率		 0.76 0.21 0.00 0.03
预测损失数量 2 1 0 0
实际损失数量 2 0 1 0
图5 羊岭沟堆积扇建筑物的空间分布
Fig.5 The spatial distribution of buildings at risk on the Yangling Gully deposition fan
图6 羊岭沟泥石流风险量化图
(a),(c),(e),(g)分别为10,20,50,100年一遇降雨,且不考虑防治工程的泥石流情境;(b),(d),(f),(h)分别为10,20,50,100年一遇降雨,且考虑防治工程的泥石流情境
Fig.6 The quantitative risk assessment results of Yangling debris flow catchment
(a),(c),(e) and (g) shows 10,20,50 and 100 years rainfall recurrence period simulation scenarios respectively, without considering prevention measures; (b),(d),(f) and (h) are the opposite
表6 羊岭沟泥石流治理工程经济效益分析
Table 6 The economic benefit analysis of prevention measures in Yangling Gully
降雨
频率		 治理
工程		 建筑物损失 道路损失
数量 价值
/万元		 减少损失
/万元		 等级 长度
/m		 减少损失
/m
10% × 21 179.38 175.00 Ⅳ 112 60
√ 1 4.38 Ⅳ 52
5% × 27 183.75 157.50 Ⅳ 118 60
√ 3 26.25 Ⅳ 58
2% × 37 253.75 188.12 Ⅳ 121 51
√ 9 65.63 Ⅳ 70
1% × 43 280.00 153.12 Ⅳ 132 49
√ 20 126.88 Ⅳ 83
[1] Shi Peijun, Kong Feng, Ye Qian, et al.Disaster risk science development and disaster risk reduction using science and technology[J]. Advances in Earth Science,2014,29(11):1 205-1 211.
[史培军,孔锋,叶谦, 等.灾害风险科学发展与科技减灾[J].地球科学进展, 2014, 29(11): 1 205-1 211.]
[2] Peng Jian, Liu Yanxu, Pan Yajing, et al.Study on the correlation between ecological risk due to natural disaster and landscape pattern-process: Review and prospect[J]. Advances in Earth Science, 2014, 29(10): 1 186-1 196.
[彭建, 刘炎序, 潘雅婧, 等. 基于景观格局—过程的城市自然灾害生态风险研究:回顾与展望[J]. 地球科学进展, 2014, 29(10): 1 186-1 196.]
[3] Fuchs S, Heiss K, Hübl J.Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment[J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 2007, 7(5): 495-506.
[4] Akbas S O, Blahut J, Sterlacchini S.Critical assessment of existing physical vulnerability estimation approaches for debris flows[C]∥Landslide Processes: From Geomorphological Mapping to Dynamic Modelling. Strasbourg:CERG Editions, 2009: 229-233.
[5] Leone F, Lavigne F, Paris R, et al.A spatial analysis of the December 26th, 2004 tsunami-induced damages: Lessons learned for a better risk assessment integrating buildings vulnerability[J]. Applied Geography,2011, 31(1): 363-375.
[6] Lo W C, Tsao T C, Hsu C H.Building vulnerability to debris flows in Taiwan: A preliminary study[J]. Natural Hazards,2012, 64(3): 2 107-2 128.
[7] Zeng Chao, He Na, Song Guohu.Analysis and assessment of methods to assess vulnerability of building in debris flow hazard[J]. Advances in Earth Science, 2012, 27(11): 1 211-1 220.
[曾超, 贺拿, 宋国虎. 泥石流作用下建筑物易损性评价方法分析与评价[J]. 地球科学进展, 2012, 27(11): 1 211-1 220.]
[8] Jakob M, Stein D, Ulmi M.Vulnerability of buildings to debris flow impact[J]. Natural Hazards, 2012, 60(2): 241-261.
[9] Luna B Q, Blahut J, Camera C, et al.Physically based dynamic run-out modelling for quantitative debris flow risk assessment: A case study in Tresenda, northern Italy[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences,2014, 72(3): 645-661.
[10] O’ Brien J S, Julien P Y, Fullerton W T. Two-dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,1993, 119(2): 244-261.
[11] Jakob M, Holm K, Weatherly H, et al.Debris flood risk assessment for Mosquito Creek, British Columbia, Canada[J]. Natural Hazards,2013, 65(3):1 653-1 681.
[12] Lin J Y, Yang M D, Lin B R, et al.Risk assessment of debris flows in Songhe Stream, Taiwan[J]. Engineering Geology,2011, 123(1): 100-112.
[13] Huang Xun, Tang Chuan, Zhou Wei.Occurrence frequency estimation model for debris flow using numerical simulation[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology,2014,(6):1 271-1 278.
[黄勋, 唐川, 周伟. 基于数值模拟的暴雨泥石流暴发频率计算模型[J]. 工程地质学报, 2014, (6): 1 271-1 278.]
[14] Zhang Peng, Ma Jinzhu, Shu Heping, et al.Numerical simulation of erosion and deposition debris flow based on FLO-2D model[J]. Journal of Lanzhou University (Natural Sciences),2014, 50(3): 363-368.
[张鹏, 马金珠, 舒和平, 等. 基于FLO-2D模型的泥石流运动冲淤数值模拟[J]. 兰州大学学报: 自然科学版, 2014, 50(3): 363-368.]
[15] Scheidl C, Rickenmann D.Empirical prediction of debris-flow mobility and deposition on fans[J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,2010, 35(2): 157-173.
[16] Bell R, Glade T.Quantitative risk analysis for landslides-Examples from Bíldudalur, NW-Iceland[J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 2004, 4(1): 117-131.
[17] Zeng Chao, Cui Peng, Ge Yonggang, et al.Characteristics and mechanism of buildings damaged by debris flows on 11 July, 2013 in Qipangou of Wenchuan, Sichuan[J]. Journal of Earth Sciences and Environment,2014, 36(2): 81-91.
[曾超, 崔鹏, 葛永刚, 等. 四川汶川七盘沟“7·11”泥石流破坏建筑物的特征与力学模型[J]. 地球科学与环境学报, 2014, 36(2): 81-91.]
[18] Xiang Lingzhi, Cui Peng, Zhong Dunlun, et al.Quantitative hazard assessment of road debris flow in Wenchuan earthquake area: A case study of Xiaojia Ravine in Wenchuan County[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University,2012, 47(3): 387-393.
[向灵芝, 崔鹏, 钟敦伦, 等. 汶川地震区泥石流危害道路的定量分析——以汶川县肖家沟为例[J]. 西南交通大学学报, 2012, 47(3): 387-393.]
[19] Cui P, Xiang L, Zou Q.Risk assessment of highways affected by debris flows in Wenchuan earthquake area[J]. Journal of Mountain Science,2013, 10(2): 173-189.
[20] Han Y, Dong S, Chen Z, et al.Assessment of secondary mountain hazards along a section of the Dujiangyan-Wenchuan highway[J]. Journal of Mountain Science,2014, 11(1): 51-65.
[21] Xu Linrong, Chen Shuyang, Cao Lulai.Engineering vulnerability assessment for bridges and tunnels harmed by debris flow hazards[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics,2014, 35(9): 2 642-2 650.
[徐林荣, 陈舒阳, 曹禄来. 泥石流危害桥隧工程易损性评价[J]. 岩土力学, 2014, 35(9): 2 642-2 650.]
[22] Winter M G, Smith J T, Fotopoulou S, et al.An expert judgement approach to determining the physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow[J].Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,2014, 73(2): 291-305.
[1] 龚凌枫, 唐川, 李宁, 陈明, 杨成长, 蔡英桦. 急陡沟道物源起动模式及水土耦合破坏机制分析[J]. 地球科学进展, 2018, 33(8): 842-851.
[2] 胡雨豪, 袁路, 马东涛, 李梅. 泥石流次声警报研究进展[J]. 地球科学进展, 2018, 33(6): 606-613.
[3] 刘希林, 庙成, 田春山, 邱锦安. 十年跨度中国滑坡和泥石流灾害风险评价对比分析[J]. 地球科学进展, 2016, 31(9): 926-936.
[4] 张大林, 刘希林. 崩岗泥砂流粒度特性及流体类型分析——以广东五华县莲塘岗崩岗为例[J]. 地球科学进展, 2014, 29(7): 810-818.
[5] 刘清华,余斌,唐川,李丽. 四川省都江堰市龙池地区泥石流危险性评价研究[J]. 地球科学进展, 2012, 27(6): 670-677.
[6] 曾 超,贺 拿,宋国虎. 泥石流作用下建筑物易损性评价方法分析与评价[J]. 地球科学进展, 2012, 27(11): 1211-1220.
[7] 鲁科，余斌，韩林，谢洪. 泥石流流域岩性的坚固系数与暴发频率的关系[J]. 地球科学进展, 2011, 26(9): 980-990.
[8] 张康，王兆印，余国安，韩鲁杰. 城市泥石流沟的治理启示——以深沟为例[J]. 地球科学进展, 2011, 26(12): 1269-1275.
[9] 安培浚,李栎,张志强. 国际滑坡、泥石流研究文献计量分析[J]. 地球科学进展, 2011, 26(10): 1116-1124.
[10] 唐川，章书成. 水力类泥石流起动机理与预报研究进展与方向[J]. 地球科学进展, 2008, 23(8): 787-793.
[11] 余斌. 粘性泥石流的平均运动速度研究[J]. 地球科学进展, 2008, 23(5): 524-532.
[12] 唐川. 城市泥石流灾害预警问题探讨[J]. 地球科学进展, 2008, 23(5): 546-552.
[13] 崔鹏; 唐邦兴. 泥石流学科的发展和对策[J]. 地球科学进展, 1993, 8(2): 14-18.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

网站版权所有 © 《地球科学进展》编辑部
地址：甘肃省兰州市天水中路8号
QQ：114723517
电话：0931-8762293　E-mail：adearth@lzb.ac.cn
陇ICP备2021001824号-5　 甘公网安备62010202000687