基于通径分析与可拓学的公路泥石流危险性评价

doi:10.13229/j.cnki.jdxbgxb201403050

吉林大学学报(工学版) ›› 2014, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (3): 895-900.doi: 10.13229/j.cnki.jdxbgxb201403050

• 论文 • 上一篇

基于通径分析与可拓学的公路泥石流危险性评价

王英杰¹,王磊¹,荣起国²,武永辉³

1.吉林大学建设工程学院,长春 130026;
2.北京大学工学院,北京 100871;
3.武警工程大学基础部,西安 710086

收稿日期:2013-01-19 出版日期:2014-03-01 发布日期:2014-03-01
作者简介:王英杰(1984),男,博士研究生.研究方向:道路工程.E-mail:buffon010101@sina.com
基金资助:
“973”国家重点基础研究计划项目(2010CB731503).

Danger evaluation of debris flow along highway based on path analysis and extension method

WANG Ying-jie¹,WANG Lei¹ ,RONG Qi-guo²,WU Yong-hui³

1.College of Construction Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun 130026,China;
2.College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871,China;
3.The Ministry of Basic Engineering University of China Armed Police Force , Xian 710086,China

Received:2013-01-19 Online:2014-03-01 Published:2014-03-01

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 利用通径分析,将公路泥石流危险性评价因子进行精简,选取对泥石流危险性影响较大的主沟长度、一次泥石流最大冲出量、流域面积、泥沙补给段长度比、流域最大相对高差、主沟床弯曲系数以及24 h最大降雨量等7个因子,并在此基础上利用可拓学方法对泥石流危险性进行评价。选取大西沟地区泥石流沟,根据可拓集合的关联函数计算可得到泥石流沟关于四类危险性级别的关联度分别为K₁(p)=-0.2889,K₂(p)=0.0344,K₃(p)=-0.6265,K₄(p)=-0.7504,由此可判断该泥石流沟危险性等级属于中度危险,该评价结果与实际调查时所用的刘希林模型、灰关联度方法评价结果一致,说明本文所选用的评价因子及评价结果具有一定的合理性与可靠性,可为减轻公路泥石流灾害提供依据。

关键词: 工程地质学, 公路泥石流, 危险性评价, 通径分析, 可拓学

Abstract: Debris flow is one of the main reasons to destroy highway, so debris flow danger ec=valuation is an important issue in reducing the harm of debris flow to highway. Evaluation factors of debris flow danger were retrenched based on path analysis method, and the factors which greatly influence the debris flow danger evaluation were selected, including the main channel length, the largest volume of once flow, the drainage area, the length ratio of sediment supplement, valley relative height, bending coefficient of major ditch bed and maximum rainfall in 24 h. Then extension method was applied in debris flow danger evaluation. The site of Da-Xi-Gou regional debris fully was selected for this study. Calculation were done according to the correlation functions of extension set about the four types of risk levels of the correlation, which are K₁(p) = -0.288 9, K₂(p) = 0.034 4, K₃(p) = -0.626 5, K₄(p) = -0.750 4 respectively. So the debris flow risk level of the gully is evaluated as moderate risk. The evaluation results are consistent with that of the actual survey Liu Xilin model, and the correlation method. The selection of evaluation factors is reasonable and the proposed evaluation method is feasible, which could provide a basis for mitigating debris flow disasters along highway.

Key words: engineering geology, debris flow along highway, danger evaluation, path analysis, extension method

中图分类号:

S131

王英杰,王磊,荣起国,武永辉. 基于通径分析与可拓学的公路泥石流危险性评价[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2014, 44(3): 895-900.

WANG Ying-jie,WANG Lei ,RONG Qi-guo,WU Yong-hui. Danger evaluation of debris flow along highway based on path analysis and extension method[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2014, 44(3): 895-900.

参考文献

[1] 足立胜治,德山九仁夫,中筋章人. 土石流发生危险度の判定にフやて[J]. 新砂防,1977,30(3): 7-16.
Adachi Masao,Sankyu Katsuji,Virtue Akihito .The like risk decision in your current residence[J] New Sand Control,1977,30(3): 7-16.
[2] 刘希林,唐川. 泥石流危险性评价[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2004.
[3] 夏添. 震区泥石流危险性评价及预警减灾系统研究[D].成都:成都理工大学, 2013.
Xia Tian. Research of debris flow risk assessment and early warning and mitigation system[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology,2013.
[4] 郭继发,崔铁军,崔伟宏,等.适宜尺度区间上的多尺度区域泥石流危险性评价[J]. 吉林大学学报:地球科学版,2012,42(1):150-160.
Guo Ji-fa, Cui Tie-jun,Cui Wei-hong,et al. Multi scale regional debris flow hazard assessment on fitting scale interval[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Earth Science Edition),2012,42(1): 150-160.
[5] 谷光复,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, 13(2): 17-19.
Gu Guang-fu,Wang Qing, Zhang Chen. Extenics method based on projection pursuit to debris flow risk assessment[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Earth Science Edition), 2010, 13(2) :17-19.
[6] 罗骑龙. 基RS和GIS龚嘴电站库区地质灾害危险性评价[D].成都:成都理工大学, 2011.
Luo Qi-long .The RS and GIS Gong Mouth Power Station reservoir geologic disaster danger evaluation[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology, 2011.
[7] 杜家菊, 陈志伟. 使用SPSS线性回归实现通径分析的方法[J]. 生物学通报, 2010,45(2):4-6.
Du Jia-ju, Chen Zhi-wei. Use SPSS Linear regression to realize size analysis[J]. Journal of Biology,2010,(2):4-6.
[8] 敬艳辉, 邢留伟. 通径分析及其应用[J]. 统计教育, 2006(2): 24-26.
JingYan-hui, Xing Liu-wei. Size analysis and its application[J]. Journal of Statistics Education, 2006(2): 24-26.
[9] 何隆祥, 王清, 熊辉,等. 膨胀土边坡稳定影响因素敏感度的通径分析[C]∥第九届全国工程地质大会论文集.青岛:中国地质学会工程地质专业委员会,2012:186-191.
[10] 赖海林, 孟庆辉, 敖翔. 可拓方法在泥石流危险性评价中的应用[J]. 路基工程, 2009(2):157-158.
Lai Hai-lin Meng Qing-hui, Ao Xiang. Extension method in the application of the debris flow risk assessment[J]. The Subgrade Engineering, 2009(2): 157-158.
[11] 张艳,钟诗胜,李江. 实例推理的可拓方法及其应用[J]. 吉林大学学报:工学版, 2009,39(2):424-429.
Zhang Yan,Zhong Shi-sheng, Li Jiang. Extension methods in case-based reasoning and applications[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Engineering and Technology Edition), 2009,39(2):424-429.
[12] 申桂香, 邵娜, 张英芝, 等. 基于可拓理论的数控机床顾客满意度评价[J]. 吉林大学学报:工学版,2011, 41(S1): 164-167.
[13] 刘沐宇, 李新平. 可拓识别方法在巷道围岩分类中的应用[J].岩石力学与工程学报,1999,18(增刊):1295-1297.
Liu Mu-yu, Li Xin-ping. Extension identification method in the application of classification of surrounding rock of roadway[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 1999, 18 (Sup.) : 1295-1297.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

基于通径分析与可拓学的公路泥石流危险性评价

Danger evaluation of debris flow along highway based on path analysis and extension method

RICH HTML

PDF (PC)

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 6

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

[1]	赵丁选, 王倩, 张祝新. 基于层次分析法的可拓学理论对舰载直升机可靠性的评估[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2016, 46(5): 1528-1531.
[2]	刘玉梅, 赵聪聪, 熊明烨, 郭文翠, 张志远. 基于物元模型的高速轨道车辆传动系可靠性评价[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2015, 45(4): 1063-1068.
[3]	王英杰, 王磊, 荣起国. 基于最小熵分析的泥石流危险度可拓学评价[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2013, 43(增刊1): 547-551.
[4]	杨印生, 徐艳杰, 白丽. 基于可拓学的设备运行状态诊断系统设计[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2010, 40(增刊): 270-0273.
[5]	汪明元,施戈亮,丁金华,包承纲. 土工格栅与压实膨胀土的界面模型及其参数[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2010, 40(03): 688-0693.
[6]	张艳，钟诗胜，李江 . 实例推理的可拓方法及其应用 [J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2009, 39(02): 424-0429.