Development characteristics and risk assessment of geological hazards in the mountainous and hilly areas of western Zhengzhou City
-
摘要: 郑州市西部山地丘陵区地质环境条件复杂，崩塌、滑坡及泥石流等地质灾害频发，尤其是2021年“7·20”特大暴雨引发了大量地质灾害。地质灾害危险性评价主要采用单一方法进行，存在评价准确性略低等问题。通过对研究区地质环境背景、地质灾害分布特征的分析研究，选取坡度、地貌、工程地质岩组、高程、距断裂距离、距河流距离、24 小时最大降雨量和人类工程活动强度8个评价因子，采用加权信息量法，对研究区进行地质灾害危险性评价。结果表明：低、中、高危险区面积分别为1387.14 km2、1803.18 km2、1066.47 km2，分别占总面积的32.59%、42.36%、25.05%，地质灾害点的空间分布与地质灾害危险性评价结果基本一致，利用受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线检验评价结果合理，研究结论可为郑州市西部山地丘陵区地质灾害防治提供准确的依据。Abstract:
Objective The mountainous and hilly areas of western Zhengzhou City have a complex geological environment, affected by rainfall and human engineering activities. Geological hazards such as collapses, landslides, and debris flows occur frequently. In particular, the “7·20” extreme rainstorm that occurred on July 20, 2021 caused many geological hazards, resulting in heavy casualties and huge economic losses. Therefore, analyzing and summarizing the development characteristics of geological hazards and conducting a risk assessment is necessary for this region. At present, the risk assessment of geological hazards is mainly conducted using a single method that has limitations including slightly low evaluation accuracy. In addition, an overall geological hazard risk assessment has not yet been conducted in the mountainous and hilly areas of western Zhengzhou City. Methods Based on the research and analysis of the geological environment background and the distribution characteristics of geological hazards in the study area, eight evaluation factors were selected: slope, landform, engineering geological rock group, elevation, distance from fault, distance from river, rainfall, and human engineering activities. The weighted information method which incorporates elements of the information quantity model and analytic hierarchy process, was used to evaluate the risk of geological hazards in the study area. Results The low-, medium-, and high-risk areas are 1387.14 km2, 1803.18 km2, and 1066.47 km2, respectively, accounting for 32.59%, 42.36%, and 25.05% of the total area, respectively. The medium- and high-risk areas are mainly distributed in the tectonic erosion medium-low mountains and loess hills in the central part of the four cities, the tectonic erosion medium-low mountains south of Dengfeng, and the loess hilly areas in northern Gongyi and Xingyang. The terrain has steep slopes and deep gullies, and the main stratigraphic lithology is clastic rocks intercalated with carbonate rocks, soft and hard rock layers, and loess. Fault structures are developed, and geological hazards are prone to occur under the action of inducing factors and are highly dangerous. The majority (93.11%) of geological hazards are distributed in medium- and high-risk areas, with hazard point densities of 0.1752 km−2 and 0.2869 km−2, respectively. The spatial distribution of geological hazard points is consistent with the geological hazard risk assessment results. The rationality of the evaluation results was assessed by a Receiver Operating Characteristic curve, yielding an AUC value of 0.868. The evaluation accuracy met the requirements for hazard assessment. Conclusion Geological hazards have the largest information value in the range of >40° slopes loess hilly landforms, loess engineering geological rock groups, and 24-h maximum rainfall of 500–550 mm. The risk of geological hazards is positively correlated with distance from faults and water systems — the closer the distance, the higher the risk. The risk of geological disasters in the study area is controlled by the terrain slope and landform and is closely related to the lithology of the formation, which is an important factor in inducing geological disasters. The weighted information method, which has high accuracy and rationality, was used to evaluate the geological hazard risk. Significance The results of this study can provide a basis and technical support for geological hazard prevention and management in the mountainous and hilly areas of western Zhengzhou City and serve as a valuable point of reference for urban planning and infrastructure geological hazard risk assessment in the study area. -
0. 引言
塔里木盆地北缘毗邻天山山脉，新生代天山隆升对塔里木盆地北缘构造格局具有重要影响。关于该地区的构造变形、地壳缩短、增厚以及隆升过程、与天山山脉之间的构造耦合关系等是国内外地球科学领域关注的热点问题[1~7]。GPS观测资料[1~3]与热释光测年[4~5]等都揭示出塔里木盆地北缘与天山相接部位现今地壳活动十分强烈，南北向地壳快速缩短。天山之下的陆-陆碰撞是中、新生代发生的重要造山事件[6]。天山地区新生代构造运动以山体向南北两侧双向逆冲及天山地壳缩短为主要特征[3, 5~6]，新生代陆-陆碰撞导致了天山再次隆起和两侧盆地进一步拗陷，逐渐形成现在的地貌与构造格局[7]。不同的动力学背景，在不同的地质发展阶段导致了不同的盆地类型、边界条件和盆山耦合模式，因而产生了不同的构造应力场特征[8]。塔里木盆地北缘的边缘变形、现今地应力状态等，作为塔里木盆地动力学研究的基础内容之一，已经受到地学界的广泛重视[8~12]。
岩石声发射法测量地应力具有较高的准确性[10~11, 14~16]。目前已通过岩石声发射[8, 11~12]和测井资料计算地应力[9]等方法对库车山前挤压区开展了地应力实测工作，获得了库车地区中生代以来经历的构造期次和各期最大主应力值[8, 10~12]。但因为选取的测量方法不同导致获取的地应力值存在一定差异，而且对柯坪地区的地应力实测工作尚属空白。针对目前盆地北缘岩石地应力测试工作存在的问题，本文采用单轴岩石声发射试验对天山南麓山前的柯坪及库车地区的岩石样品进行测试，探讨新生代天山隆升对塔里木盆地北缘的影响。
1. 区域地质背景
塔里木盆地处于哈萨克斯坦板块、西伯利亚板块、特提斯-羌塘板块和柴达木板块的交汇处，盆地周缘被天山、昆仑山和阿尔金山所夹持，喜马拉雅期以来处于构造活跃地带（见图 1）。塔里木盆地盆地北缘包括柯坪隆起和库车坳陷2个构造单元。柯坪隆起位于天山造山带与塔里木盆地之间，属于西南天山前陆构造的一部分，柯坪推覆构造是天山山前新生代以来逆冲和褶皱变形最强烈地段[5]。库车坳陷位于天山造山带南侧，经历了多期构造变革，并在喜马拉雅期的构造变动中最终定格[8]。天山山前沉积了新生代巨厚的磨拉石建造，认为天山在新生代有一个快速隆升过程，这次隆起和两侧盆地的强烈下沉主要发生在中新世以后[6~7]。
塔里木盆地北缘柯坪和库车地区是古生代和中、新生代地层出露最完整的地区。其中库车地区是中、新生代地层出露最齐全的地区，尤以库车河剖面最具代表性；柯坪地区是塔里木古生代克拉通边缘拗陷盆地的典型代表，出露了完整的震旦系—二叠系海相沉积层序（见图 1）。
2. 样品采集与分析测试
岩石声发射效应能够记录岩石所遭受的最大应力[14]。岩石在加载试验过程中因失稳产生不可逆Kaiser效应[8, 15]。Kaiser效应是岩石应力测量的最基本依据[15]，与岩石变形的不可逆性有关。
2.1 样品采集
受地质构造和地壳运动的影响，浅部应力与深部应力在方向上具有一致性，浅部地应力测量结果能够反映区域构造应力场的特征[10]。考虑到深部围压对岩石的影响[11]，本次所需实验样品均取自地表浅层。
在前人研究的基础上，为补充和完善塔里木盆地北缘岩石地应力值，选择在柯坪地区铁热克阿瓦提村四石厂剖面和库车地区夏克阔坦村库车河剖面进行岩石地应力样品采集（见图 1）。
2.1.1 志留系样品
志留系样品采集于塔里木盆地北缘柯坪地区铁热克阿瓦提村四石厂剖面（见图 2），地理坐标为北纬40°50′706″，东经79°50′096″，海拔高程为1329±3 m。该测点属志留系柯坪塔格组，由潮坪-滨外相碎屑组成（见图 3a），发育大型羽状交错层理，岩性为灰绿色、紫红色粉—细砂岩、泥岩、页岩，厚度为100~200 m。
2.1.2 二叠系样品
二叠系样品采集于塔里木盆地北缘柯坪地区铁热克阿瓦提村四石厂剖面，地理坐标为北纬40°49′747″，东经79°50′129″，海拔高程1310 m。该测点属二叠系康克林组，为砂岩向灰岩过渡区（见图 3b），下部是灰色厚层砾岩和石英砂岩，中部以灰色中—厚层石英砂岩为主并夹砾岩和泥岩，局部发育灰岩透镜体，灰岩透镜体含蜓类、牙形石和双壳类。岩层产状147°∠62°。
2.1.3 三叠系样品
三叠系样品采集于塔里木盆地北缘库车地区夏克阔坦村库车河剖面，地理坐标为北纬42°15′810″，东经83°15′486″，海拔高程1822 m。该测点属三叠系黄山街组，底部黄灰色砂岩整合于克拉玛依组顶部黑色泥岩之上（见图 4）；岩性以深灰色泥质岩为主，底部和中部具有由黄灰色长石粗砂岩、粉砂岩及炭质泥岩组成的2套由粗到细的韵律层，砂岩顶部常夹煤线，泥岩中常夹饼状泥灰质团块（具同心构造）及叠锥构造。剖面中富含植物、孢粉、轮藻、介形类及板足鲎化石，层面见虫管遗迹。
2.2 测试结果
本次岩石声发射求取地应力的测试在中国石油大学（北京）油气资源与探测国家重点实验室进行。首先将野外采集的样品严格加工为符合ISRM国际岩石力学标准的三组圆柱形试样，然后采用美国物理声学公司（PAC）的发射测试仪，通过AE(Win) For PCI-2（E2.12）分析软件进行声发射样品测试。岩石声发射发测量的主应力值统计见表 1。
表 1 岩石声发射主应力值统计表Table 1. Cartogram of primary stress by rock acoustic emission
塔里木盆地北缘的岩石声发射地应力测量结果定量记录了它所受到的构造变形强度。根据岩石声发射测试结果，可以确定塔里木盆地北缘志留系所记录的最大主应力和最小主应力分别为57.74 MPa和52.37 MPa，二叠系所记录的最大主应力和最小主应力分别为53.64 MPa和45.36 MPa，三叠系所记录的最大主应力和最小主应力分别为58.86 MPa和47.46 MPa。
2.3 准确性分析
目前关于塔北地区库车坳陷中生代以来各期构造运动的最大主应力值尚有争议（见表 2）。
表 2 库车坳陷中新生代构造期次与最大主应力值Table 2. Structural stage and primary stress, Kuqa depression
李军等[9]利用测井资料计算库车山前稳定区DG1井3860~4980 m井段最大有效主应力值为42.88~67.17 MPa，实验最大有效主应力值为47~51 MPa；KL201和KL202井3636.8~4358.5 m井段测井资料计算最大有效主应力值为50.75~71.29 MPa，实验最大有效主应力值为53.04~69.6 MPa。曾联波等[11]利用岩石声发射效应测得库车山前构造带部分井的现今最大主应力平均值N1+2为54 MPa，E1+2为96.6 MPa，K1为90.6 MPa，J1为96.7 MPa。
本次试验所得到的库车地区现今最大主应力平均值为56.76 MPa，与李军等[9]、曾联波等[11]的实验结果相似，佐证了本次测试结果的可靠性。
3. 测试结果讨论
已有的研究成果表明，塔里木盆地北缘山前构造带以挤压构造变形为主，最大主应力方向近南北向[5, 6, 8~12, 17]，经历了多期构造运动变革[8, 10, 12]。
3.1 库车地区地应力测量结果
库车河位于库车冲断褶皱带的中段[17]，从该地区三叠系样品的岩石声发射响应与时间曲线（见图 5）可以看出，水平和垂直方向上存在多个Kasier效应点，分别记录了库车地区三叠纪至今经历的多期构造变革。
图 5 岩石声发射响应与时间曲线Figure 5. Cumulative Acoustic Emission count-time graph for rock tests曾联波等[11]对库车山前构造带N1+2的岩石声发射地应力测量结果显示，其主应力为49.8~55.9 MPa，而本次实测的T岩石声发射地应力值在47.46~58.86 MPa之间，两者基本吻合。综合曾联波等[8]、张明利等[12]对库车山前地区中新生代构造期次及与其对应的最大主应力值的研究成果，确定本次实测的三叠系样品的最大主应力值为58.86 MPa，代表喜马拉雅晚期构造运动的主应力值。三叠系样品除现今最大主应力值外，各方向仍然有2个明显的Kaiser效应点（见图 5），这与曾联波等[8]实测库车地区N1岩石声发射响应曲线特征相同，结合对库车地区新近系岩石样品实测的最大古应力有效值（见表 3），得到库车坳陷喜马拉雅晚期所遭受3次构造运动的主应力平均值分别为57.02 MPa、49.40 MPa和44.15 MPa。
表 3 库车坳陷岩石声发射地应力统计表Table 3. Statistics of crustal stress by rock acoustic emission of Kuqa depression
库车地区新近纪的构造变形是从造山带向坳陷内部逐渐传递的过程[18]。上新世变形强烈，改造了早期断层和褶皱[17]，现今仍在强烈活动。也有观点认为天山山脉现今的地质面貌主要是受早更新世以来的构造运动影响[20]。所以，塔里木盆地库车地区在新生代经历了3次构造运动，分别代表早上新世的喜马拉雅晚期Ⅰ幕运动、早更新世的喜马拉雅晚期Ⅱ幕运动和中更新世开始的喜马拉雅晚期Ⅲ幕运动（曾联波等[8]称此为新构造期，距今0.7 Ma—现今）。
3.2 柯坪地区地应力测量结果
本次在柯坪地区四石厂剖面，分别取早古生界志留系和晚古生界二叠系样品进行地应力测量，从岩石声发射响应与时间曲线（见图 5）分析，水平和垂直各方向曲线稳定，应力表现为持续的加载过程，呈现出韧性破坏机制，确定该地区岩石样品在推覆至地表之前并未记录更早的构造运动。
从岩石声发射实验得到柯坪地区志留系样品的现今最大主应力值为57.74 MPa，二叠系样品的现今最大主应力值为57.73 MPa。根据现有数据分析，柯坪地区推覆至地表的志留和二叠系是同期构造作用改造的结果。岩石声发射响应与时间曲线揭示，志留系样品各方向仅1个Kasier效应点，推测志留纪至今仅遭受了一期构造运动。阿图什逆断裂-背斜带和柯坪地区多组推覆构造的热释光测年研究表明，柯坪推覆构造主要形成于早更新世[4~5]。结合前人资料和本次测试结果，确定柯坪隆起是喜马拉雅晚期构造运动改造的结果。
综合分析认为，柯坪地区志留纪至今并未遭受早期构造运动的强烈改造，志留纪—二叠纪是稳定沉积期。缺失中生界的原因可能是由于该地区中生代为早期古隆起，并与巴楚隆起为一整体。李乐等[21]通过对地层系统、岩石组合、古生物和沉积特征分析证实柯坪和巴楚在前中生代是连为一体的。喜马拉雅晚期构造运动造成柯坪隆起现今构造面貌，引起这期构造运动的最大主应力值约为57.7 MPa。
3.3 塔里木盆地北缘现今构造变形
塔里木盆地北部地区喜马拉雅构造运动占主导地位[10]。天山与喜马拉雅山同受到南北方向的挤压力，区内俯冲活动几乎同期开始，在新生代逆冲活动开始至今，天山南部底面可能隆升了1~2 km[6]。
塔里木板块向天山之下俯冲，这个陆内俯冲是导致新生代天山隆升的动力学机制[6]。本次岩石声发射实验显示库车和柯坪地区在喜马拉雅晚期受到了几乎相同的地应力作用，最大主应力平均值为58.11 MPa，推测这是新生代印度板块与欧亚板块碰撞所传递到塔里木盆地北缘的最大平均主应力值，造成了天山隆升和盆地北缘的现今构造面貌。
现今天山南缘山前柯坪与库车地区具有明显的东西差异性。通过GPS观测认为天山具有分段变化特征，这种东西变形的显著差异是由于帕米尔北向推挤和塔里木顺时针旋转的共同作用[3]。但从实测地应力来看，这种可能性不大。本次实测的天山南缘与塔里木盆地相接的东、西段受到的最大主应力几乎相同，推测天山南缘山前的东西差异为早期构造格局，晚期只是在早期基础上继承改造。有证据表明天山在渐新世存在快速隆升，且新近纪不断隆升，并且库车—天山盆山系统的变形样式具有基底与盖层的不一致性[18]。库车地区新生代变形开始时（距今24 Ma，正是吉迪克组沉积初期），南天山已经隆升了1.1~3.7 km[22]，所以库车坳陷在此之前就已经是一个早期坳陷了；后期由于喜马拉雅晚期运动的强烈改造，天山再次隆升形成现今的构造格局。库车—天山边界向盆地方向倾斜的正断层也说明了天山的多次隆升[18~19]。
岩石声发射准确记录了喜马拉雅晚期塔里木盆地北缘库车坳陷与柯坪隆起的构造运动。塔里木盆地北缘现今构造格局（柯坪隆起、库车坳陷）成型于新生代之前，是现今天山南缘山前东西段差异的主要原因。新生代受欧亚板块南缘地体增生、板块碰撞远距离效应和天山地区复活造山影响，喜马拉雅晚期原天山山前东、西段差异基础上强烈改造，形成了现今柯坪隆起的推覆构造以及库车内的褶皱与断层。
4. 结论
库车坳陷新生代喜马拉雅晚期经历了上新世、早更新世和新构造期（距今0.7 Ma—现今）3次构造运动，最大主应力平均值分别是为57.02 MPa、49.40 MPa和44.15 MPa。
现今天山南缘山前柯坪与库车地区的东西差异是晚期构造运动在早期构造格局基础上的继承与改造。新生代吉迪克组沉积前库车坳陷与南天山之间已经形成了一定规模的隆坳格局，喜马拉雅晚期天山不断隆升，造成了库车坳陷的持续沉降与柯坪隆起的东西差异。
柯坪隆起现今构造面貌是喜马拉雅晚期运动改造的结果。柯坪隆起在喜马拉雅晚期之前与巴楚隆起为一整体，并未遭受强烈地构造改造，早更新世受天山复活造山的影响被推覆成型，最大主应力平均值为57.74 MPa。
喜马拉雅晚期是塔里木盆地北缘现今构造的主要变形和定格期。天山南缘山前柯坪及库车地区所受的构造主应力基本一致，这是新生代印度板块与欧亚板块碰撞的远程效应传递到塔里木盆地北缘的作用力。
-
图 1 研究区地质灾害隐患点分布图
Figure 1. Distribution map of geological hazard hidden danger points in the study area
图 2 地质灾害危险性评价影响因子分级图
a—坡度；b—地貌；c—工程地质岩组；d—高程；e—距断裂距离；f—距河流距离；g—24小时最大降雨量；h—人类工程活动强度
Figure 2. Grading map of influencing factors of geological hazard risk assessment
a—slope; b—landform; c—engineering geological rock group; d—elevation; e—distance from fault; f—distance from river; g—24-h maximum rainfall; h— human engineering activity factors
图 3 地质灾害危险性评价层次结构图
Figure 3. Hierarchical structure diagram of geological hazard risk assessment
表 1 研究区地质灾害隐患点统计表
Table 1. Statistical table of geological hazard hidden danger points in the study area
灾害类型 灾害点/处 百分比/% 威胁人数/人 威胁财产/万元 崩塌 502 75.1 25955 79638 滑坡 97 14.5 3790 8117 泥石流 17 2.6 2554 12806 地面塌陷 52 7.8 2895 8964 合计 668 100.0 35194 109525 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 A-B判断矩阵及权重
Table 2. A-B judgment matrix and weight
A B1 B2 Wi B1 1 5 0.8333 B2 1/5 1 0.1667 λmax=2，CI=0，RI=0，CR=0<0.1
注：Wi—第i个评价因子的权重；λmax—判断矩阵最大特征值；CI—一致性指标；RI—随机一致性指标；CR—一致性比率，若 CR<0.1，则认为判断矩阵通过一致性检验，所求权重值是合理的，下表同。
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 B1-C判断矩阵及权重
Table 3. B1-C judgment matrix and weight
B1 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Wi C1 1 5 6 3 8 7 0.4651 C2 1/5 1 2 1/2 4 3 0.1305 C3 1/6 1/2 1 1/4 3 2 0.0823 C4 1/3 2 4 1 6 5 0.2324 C5 1/8 1/4 1/3 1/6 1 1/2 0.0361 C6 1/7 1/3 1/2 1/5 2 1 0.0537 λmax=6.1780， CI=0.0356， RI=1.26，CR=0.0283<0.1
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 B2-C判断矩阵及权重
Table 4. B2-C judgment matrix and weight
B2 C7 C8 Wi C7 1 4 0.8 C8 1/4 1 0.2 λmax=2， CI=0， RI=0 ，CR=0<0.1
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 A-C层次总权重排序
Table 5. Ranking of the total weights of layers A-C
A B A-B权重 C B-C权重 A-C权重 地质灾害危险性评价 B1
0.8333C1 0.4651 0.3876 C2 0.1305 0.1087 C3 0.0823 0.0686 C4 0.2324 0.1937 C5 0.0361 0.0301 C6 0.0537 0.0446 B2 0.1667 C7 0.8000 0.1334 C8 0.2000 0.0333 CR=(0.8333×0.0356+0.1667×0)/(0.8333×1.26+0.1667×0)=0.0283<0.1
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 地质灾害危险性评价因子加权信息量表
Table 6. Weighted information scale of geological hazard risk evaluation factors
评价因子 分级 Ni Ni/N Si Si/S 信息量 权重 加权信息量 地形坡度/（°） 0~10 141 0.2111 3026.94 0.7111 −1.2146 0.3876 −0.4708 10~25 428 0.6407 1073.4301 0.2522 0.9325 0.3614 25~40 89 0.1332 146.2915 0.0344 1.3550 0.5252 >40 10 0.0150 10.1339 0.0024 1.8387 0.7127 地貌 冲洪积倾斜平原 21 0.0314 775.0863 0.1821 −1.7565
0.1087−0.1909 黄河河漫滩 2 0.0030 225.2701 0.0529 −2.8722 −0.3122 山间洪积平原 47 0.0704 379.7426 0.0892 −0.2374 −0.0258 河谷阶地 68 0.1018 335.1929 0.0787 0.2568 0.0279 黄土丘陵 319 0.4775 1379.5019 0.3241 0.3877 0.0421 构造剥蚀丘陵 40 0.0599 185.4328 0.0436 0.3182 0.0346 构造侵蚀中低山 171 0.2560 976.5689 0.2294 0.1096 0.0119 高程/m <200 171 0.2560 1317.3781 0.3095 −0.1898 0.0686 −0.0130 200~400 304 0.4551 1752.2913 0.4116 0.1003 0.0069 400~600 154 0.2305 812.9577 0.1910 0.1883 0.0129 600~800 29 0.0434 249.9416 0.0587 −0.3019 −0.0207 800~1000 5 0.0075 91.2935 0.0214 −1.0527 −0.0722 >1000 5 0.0075 32.9333 0.0077 −0.0331 −0.0023 工程地质岩组 一般土 67 0.1003 1099.9754 0.2584 −0.9464 0.1937 −0.1833 碳酸盐岩 87 0.1302 692.5129 0.1627 −0.2224 −0.0431 坚硬−较坚硬岩 68 0.1018 469.6385 0.1103 −0.0805 −0.0156 软弱层状碎屑岩 42 0.0629 329.4227 0.0774 −0.2077 −0.0402 软硬相间变质岩 37 0.0554 216.7597 0.0509 0.0841 0.0163 碎屑岩夹碳酸盐岩 26 0.0389 114.5522 0.0269 0.3690 0.0715 黄土 341 0.5105 1333.9341 0.3134 0.4880 0.0945 距断裂距离/m >2000 402 0.6018 3011.4432 0.7074 −0.1617 0.0301 −0.0049 1000~2000 121 0.1811 583.7909 0.1371 0.2782 0.0084 500~1000 68 0.1018 324.3219 0.0762 0.2898 0.0087 <500 77 0.1153 337.2395 0.0792 0.3750 0.0113 距河流距离/m >800 436 0.6527 3294.3728 0.7739 −0.1703 0.0446 −0.0076 500~800 71 0.1063 332.0601 0.0780 0.3093 0.0138 200~500 80 0.1198 368.1142 0.0865 0.3256 0.0145 <200 81 0.1213 262.2484 0.0616 0.6771 0.0302 24小时最大降雨量/mm 225~300 76 0.1138 893.4056 0.2099 −0.6123 0.1334 −0.0817 300~350 87 0.1302 792.6438 0.1862 −0.3575 −0.0477 350~400 263 0.3937 1435.6581 0.3373 0.1548 0.0207 400~450 125 0.1871 626.8523 0.1473 0.2396 0.0320 450~500 74 0.1108 391.6921 0.0920 0.1856 0.0248 500~550 43 0.0644 116.5436 0.0274 0.8549 0.1140 人类工程活动强度 微弱 129 0.1931 1445.3425 0.3395 −0.5643 0.0333 −0.0188 一般 34 0.0509 252.7182 0.0594 −0.1539 −0.0051 较强 221 0.3308 1230.7963 0.2891 0.1347 0.0045 强烈 284 0.4251 1327.9385 0.3120 0.3096 0.0103
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 地质灾害危险性评价结果统计表
Table 7. Statistical table of geological disaster risk assessment results
危险性分区 灾害点/
个灾点占
比/%面积/
km2面积占
比/%灾点密度/
个/ km2低危险区 46 6.89 1387.14 32.59 0.0332 中危险区 316 47.30 1803.18 42.36 0.1752 高危险区 306 45.81 1066.47 25.05 0.2869
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] ALI S, BIERMANNS P, HAIDER R, et al., 2019. Landslide susceptibility mapping by using a geographic information system (GIS) along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (Karakoram Highway), Pakistan[J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 19(5): 999-1022. doi: 10.5194/nhess-19-999-2019 [2] CHEN G Y, WANG L, JIAO H J, et al. , 2009. Environmental geological survey and evaluation report of major cities in Henan Province (Zhengzhou City)[R]. Zhengzhou: Henan Geological Survey Institute. (in Chinese) [3] CLERICI A, PEREGO S, TELLINI C, et al., 2002. A procedure for landslide susceptibility zonation by the conditional analysis method[J]. Geomorphology, 48(4): 349-364. doi: 10.1016/S0169-555X(02)00079-X [4] DENG H, HE Z W, CHEN Y, et al., 2014. Application of information quantity model to hazard evaluation of geological disaster in mountainous region environment: a case study of Luding County, Sichuan Province[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 23(2): 67-76. (in Chinese with English abstract [5] DING L, LI Z X, LI X W, et al., 2016. AHP-based assessment of geological hazards risk in Dengfeng city[J]. Journal of Geological Hazards and Environment Preservation, 27(2): 92-96. (in Chinese with English abstract [6] DU C L, LU W F, LI J F, et al., 2008. Analysis on the hazard degree of geological disasters[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 4(6): 1169-1176. (in Chinese with English abstract [7] DU G L, ZHANG Y S, GAO J C, et al., 2016. Landslide susceptibility assessment based on GIS in Bailongjiang watershed, Gansu Province[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 22(1): 1-11. (in Chinese with English abstract [8] FAN Z Y, GOU X F, QIN M Y, et al., 2018. Information and logistic regression models based coupling analysis for susceptibility of geological hazards[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 26(2): 340-347. (in Chinese with English abstract [9] FENG W, TANG Y M, MA H N, et al., 2021. Comprehensive risk assessment of multi-hazard natural disasters in Xianyang City based on AHP[J]. Northwestern Geology, 54(2): 282-288. (in Chinese with English abstract [10] HUANG R Q, XU X N, TANG C, et al. , 2008. Geological environment assessment and geological hazards management[M]. Beijing: Science Press: 151-179. (in Chinese) [11] Investigation Group on Disaster of State Council of China, 2022. Investigation report on the “7.20” extraordinary rainstorm disaster in Zhengzhou city, Henan province[R]. Beijing: Ministry of Emergency Management of the People’s Republic of China. (in Chinese) [12] LANG Q L, ZHANG Y C, ZHANG J Q, et al., 2019. Analysis of debris flow hazard factors based on combination weighting theory[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 34(1): 68-72. (in Chinese with English abstract [13] LI C Y, MENG H, ZHANG R L, et al., 2017. Risk assessment of geo-hazard of China in county unit[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 44(2): 160-166. (in Chinese with English abstract [14] LI L P, LAN H X, GUO C B, et al., 2017. Geohazard susceptibility assessment along the Sichuan-Tibet railway and its adjacent area using an improved frequency ratio method[J]. Geoscience, 31(5): 911-929. (in Chinese with English abstract [15] LI X, XUE G C, LIU C Z, et al., 2022. Evaluation of geohazard susceptibility based on information value model and information value-logistic regression model: a case study of the central mountainous area of Hainan Island[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 28(2): 294-305. (in Chinese with English abstract [16] LIAO L P, YU M, WEN H T, et al., 2019. Evaluation on the susceptibility of collapse and landslide in Rongxian County, Southeastern Guangxi[J]. Earth and Environment, 47(4): 518-526. (in Chinese with English abstract [17] LIU C Z, CHEN C L, 2020. Research on the origins of geological disasters in China[J]. Geological Review, 66(5): 1334-1348. (in Chinese with English abstract [18] LIU C Z, HUANG S, 2022. Research on “7·20” mountain torrents and geological disasters in Zhengzhou City, Henan Province of China[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 30(3): 931-943. (in Chinese with English abstract [19] LIU L, YANG Z, SUN J, et al., 2021. Study on risk assessment of geological hazards in Huizhou District, Huangshan City, Anhui Province[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 32(2): 110-116. (in Chinese with English abstract [20] LV D Y, LIU C L, MENG S R, et al. , 2021. Zhengzhou urban geological survey report[R]. Shijiazhuang: Institute of Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. (in Chinese) [21] LV D Y, MENG S R, ZHANG J Y, et al., 2023. Atlas of natural resources in Zhengzhou city [M]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences Press. (in Chinese) [22] POURGHASEMI H R, PRADHAN B, GOKCEOGLU C, 2012. Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran[J]. Natural Hazards, 63(2): 965-996. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0217-2 [23] QIU H J, CUI P, WANG Y M, et al., 2015. Spatial distribution structure of loess landslides and cause analysis based on correlated fractal dimension[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 34(3): 546-555. (in Chinese with English abstract [24] SUN R, WANG C D, XIA Z B, et al., 2015. Geological disasters risk assessment in Fee County based on AHP-information method[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 38(6P): 430-435. (in Chinese with English abstract [25] WANG L, ZHANG C S, YANG W M, et al., 2011. Risk assessment of geohazards by using GIS in Gangu County, Gansu Province[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 17(4): 388-401. (in Chinese with English abstract [26] WANG Q C, 2018. Study on geological hazards and countermeasures in Gongyi City[D]. Xi’an: Chang’an University: 1-77. (in Chinese with English abstract [27] WEI G L, JIN Y L, QIU J A, et al., 2020. Susceptibility assessment of geological hazard in Luhe County of eastern Guangdong[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 31(1): 51-56. (in Chinese with English abstract [28] WU S R, SHI J S, ZHANG C S, et al., 2009. Preliminary discussion on technical guideline for geohazard risk assessment[J]. Geological Bulletin of China, 28(8): 995-1005. (in Chinese with English abstract [29] WU X G, WANG Y D, WANG L T, et al., 2024. Hazard assessment of landslides in Lancang County, Yunnan Province based on weighted information value model[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 35(3): 1-10. (in Chinese with English abstract [30] WU Z B, WAN H B, 2022. A brief analysis of “7·20” extreme rainstorm disaster of four cities in mountainous area of Zhengzhou in Henan Province in 2021[J]. China Flood & Drought Management, 32(3): 27-31. (in Chinese) [31] YIN Z Q, MENG H, LIAN J F, et al., 2013. Study on the geological disasters response to climate change in different temporal scales[J]. Geological Review, 59(6): 1110-1117. (in Chinese with English abstract [32] YU K N, WU T, WEI A H, et al., 2023. Geological hazard assessment based on the models of AHP, catastrophe theory and their combination: a case study in Pingshan County of Hebei Province[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 34(2): 146-155. (in Chinese with English abstract [33] ZHANG C, TIAN Y T, ZHANG Y F, 2019. Geo-hazard risk assessment in Shijiba Town at Longnan area in Gansu Province[J]. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University (Natural Sciences), 38(7): 83-89. (in Chinese with English abstract [34] ZHANG C S, HAN J L, SUN W F, et al., 2008. Assessments of geohazard danger zoning in Longxian County, Shaanxi, China[J]. Geological Bulletin of China, 27(11): 1795-1801. (in Chinese with English abstract [35] ZHANG J Y, LÜ D Y, LIU C L, et al., 2023. Characteristics of rock-soil stratigraphic structure in Zhengzhou City and suggestions for development and utilization of underground space[J]. Geological Review, 69(1): 305-315. (in Chinese with English abstract [36] ZHANG M S, XUE Q, JIA J, et al., 2019. Methods and practices for the investigation and risk assessment of geo-hazards in mountainous towns[J]. Northwestern Geology, 52(2): 125-135. (in Chinese with English abstract [37] ZHANG X D, LIU X N, ZHAO Z P, et al., 2018. Comparative study of geological hazards susceptibility assessment: constraints from the information value + logistic regression model and the CF + logistic regression model[J]. Geoscience, 32(3): 602-610. (in Chinese with English abstract [38] ZHANG X Y, ZHANG C S, MENG H J, et al., 2018. Landslide susceptibility assessment of new Jing-Zhang high-speed railway based on GIS and information value model[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 24(1): 96-105. (in Chinese with English abstract [39] ZHAO D L, LANCUO Z M, HOU G L, et al., 2021. Assessment of geological disaster susceptibility in the Hehuang Valley of Qinghai Province[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 27(1): 83-95. (in Chinese with English abstract [40] ZHEN X C, SHANG Z P, QI S, et al. , 2012. Research on geological hazards and prevention in Henan Province[M]. Zhengzhou: Yellow River Water Conservancy Press. (in Chinese) [41] ZHENG S Y, ZHANG X J, YANG Y, et al., 2012. The application of analytic hierarchy process to the danger evaination of collapse and slide in Lujiang basin segment of Nujiang valley, western Yunnan Province[J]. Geological Bulletin of China, 31(2-3): 356-365. (in Chinese with English abstract [42] ZHOU J J, ZHANG X M, ZHAO F S, et al., 2019. Research on risk assessment of geological hazards in Qinling-Daba mountain area, south Shaanxi Province[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 25(4): 544-553. (in Chinese with English abstract [43] ZHOU X C, LIAO L M, 2019. Geological hazard assessment in Sakya county of Tibet autonomous region[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 30(6): 113-116. (in Chinese with English abstract [44] 陈光宇,王利,焦红军,等,2009. 河南省主要城市环境地质调查评价报告(郑州市)[R]. 郑州:河南省地质调查院. [45] 邓辉,何政伟,陈晔,等,2014. 信息量模型在山地环境地质灾害危险性评价中的应用:以四川泸定县为例[J]. 自然灾害学报,23(2):67-76. [46] 丁丽,李再兴,李学问,等,2016. 基于层次分析法的登封市地质灾害危险性评价[J]. 地质灾害与环境保护,27(2):92-96. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4362.2016.02.018 [47] 杜春兰,陆文凤,李剑锋,等,2008. 地质灾害危险度研究:以重庆市渝北区为例[J]. 地下空间与工程学报,4(6):1169-1176. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-0836.2008.06.036 [48] 杜国梁,张永双,高金川,等,2016. 基于GIS的白龙江流域甘肃段滑坡易发性评价[J]. 地质力学学报,22(1):1-11. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6616.2016.01.001 [49] 樊芷吟,苟晓峰,秦明月,等,2018. 基于信息量模型与Logistic回归模型耦合的地质灾害易发性评价[J]. 工程地质学报,26(2):340-347. [50] 冯卫,唐亚明,马红娜,等,2021. 基于层次分析法的咸阳市多灾种自然灾害综合风险评价[J]. 西北地质,54(2):282-288. [51] 国务院灾害调查组,2022. 河南郑州“7·20”特大暴雨灾害调查报告[R]. 北京:中华人民共和国应急管理部. [52] 黄润秋,许向宁,唐川,等,2008. 地质环境评价与地质灾害管理[M]. 北京:科学出版社:151-179. [53] 郎秋玲,张以晨,张继权,等,2019. 基于组合赋权理论的泥石流孕灾因子分析[J]. 灾害学,34(1):68-72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-811X.2019.01.014 [54] 李春燕,孟晖,张若琳,等,2017. 中国县域单元地质灾害风险评估[J]. 水文地质工程地质,44(2):160-166. [55] 李郎平,兰恒星,郭长宝,等,2017. 基于改进频率比法的川藏铁路沿线及邻区地质灾害易发性分区评价[J]. 现代地质,31(5):911-929. [56] 李信,薛桂澄,柳长柱,等,2022. 基于信息量模型和信息量-逻辑回归模型的海南岛中部山区地质灾害易发性研究[J]. 地质力学学报,28(2):294-305. [57] 廖丽萍,于淼,文海涛,等,2019. 广西东南部容县崩塌滑坡的易发性评价[J]. 地球与环境,47(4):518-526. [58] 刘传正,陈春利,2020. 中国地质灾害成因分析[J]. 地质论评,66(5):1334-1348. [59] 刘传正,黄帅,2022. 郑州西部山区“7·20”山洪地质灾害成因研究[J]. 工程地质学报,30(3):931-943. [60] 刘乐,杨智,孙健,等,2021. 安徽黄山市徽州区地质灾害危险性评价研究[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,32(2):110-116. [61] 吕敦玉,刘长礼,孟舒然,等,2021. 郑州城市地质调查报告[R]. 石家庄:中国地质科学院水文地质环境地质研究所. [62] 吕敦玉,孟舒然,张建羽,等,2023. 郑州市自然资源图集[M]. 武汉:中国地质大学出版社. [63] 邱海军,崔鹏,王彦民,等,2015. 基于关联维数的黄土滑坡空间分布结构及其成因分析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,34(3):546-555. [64] 孙冉,王成都,夏哲兵,等,2015. 基于AHP-信息量法的费县地质灾害风险评价[J]. 环境科学与技术,38(6P):430-435. [65] 王磊,张春山,杨为民,等,2011. 基于GIS的甘肃省甘谷县地质灾害危险性评价[J]. 地质力学学报,17(4):388-401. [66] 王庆超,2018. 巩义市地质灾害区划与防治对策研究[D]. 西安:长安大学:1-77. [67] 魏国灵,金云龙,邱锦安,等,2020. 粤东陆河县地质灾害易发性评价[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,31(1):51-56. [68] 吴树仁,石菊松,张春山,等,2009. 地质灾害风险评估技术指南初论[J]. 地质通报,28(8):995-1005. [69] 吴兴贵,王宇栋,王蓝婷,等,2024. 基于加权信息量模型的云南澜沧县滑坡危险性评价[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,35(3):1-10. [70] 吴泽斌,万海斌,2022. 2021年河南郑州山区4市“7·20”特大暴雨灾害简析[J]. 中国防汛抗旱,32(3):27-31. [71] 殷志强,孟晖,连建发,等,2013. 基于不同时间尺度的地质灾害对气候变化响应研究[J]. 地质论评,59(6):1110-1117. [72] 于开宁,吴涛,魏爱华,等,2023. 基于AHP-突变理论组合模型的地质灾害危险性评价:以河北平山县为例[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,34(2):146-155. [73] 张超,田运涛,张宇飞,2019. 甘肃陇南石鸡坝乡幅地质灾害危险性评价[J]. 重庆交通大学学报(自然科学版),38(7):83-89. [74] 张春山,韩金良,孙炜锋,等,2008. 陕西陇县地质灾害危险性分区评价[J]. 地质通报,27(11):1795-1801. [75] 张建羽,吕敦玉,刘长礼,等,2023. 河南郑州市岩土地层结构特征及地下空间开发利用建议[J]. 地质论评,69(1):305-315. [76] 张茂省,薛强,贾俊,等,2019. 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,52(2):125-135. [77] 张晓东,刘湘南,赵志鹏,等,2018. 信息量模型、确定性系数模型与逻辑回归模型组合评价地质灾害敏感性的对比研究[J]. 现代地质,32(3):602-610. [78] 张向营,张春山,孟华君,等,2018. 基于GIS和信息量模型的京张高铁滑坡易发性评价[J]. 地质力学学报,24(1):96-105. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2018.24.01.011 [79] 赵东亮,兰措卓玛,侯光良,等,2021. 青海省河湟谷地地质灾害易发性评价[J]. 地质力学学报,27(1):83-95. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2021.27.01.009 [80] 甄习春,商真平,戚赏,等,2012. 河南省地质灾害及防治研究[M]. 郑州:黄河水利出版社. [81] 郑师谊,张绪教,杨艳,等,2012. 层次分析法在滇西怒江河谷潞江盆地段崩塌与滑坡地质灾害危险性评价中的应用[J]. 地质通报,31(2-3):356-365. [82] 周静静,张晓敏,赵法锁,等,2019. 陕南秦巴山区地质灾害危险性评价研究[J]. 地质力学学报,25(4):544-553. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2019.25.04.053 [83] 周学铖,廖黎明,2019. 西藏萨迦县地质灾害危险性评价[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,30(6):113-116. -
下载:
下载:
计量
- 文章访问数: 504
- HTML全文浏览量: 87
- PDF下载量: 135
- 被引次数: 0
