吉林大学学报(地球科学版) ›› 2015, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (6): 1798-1807.doi: 10.13278/j.cnki.jjuese.201506203

• 地质工程与环境工程 • 上一篇    下一篇

甘肃舟曲锁儿头滑坡活动的主控因素分析

蒋秀姿1, 文宝萍1, 蒋树1, 冯传煌1, 赵成2, 李瑞冬2   

  1. 1. 中国地质大学(北京)水资源与环境学院, 北京 100083;
    2. 甘肃省地质环境监测院, 兰州 730050
  • 收稿日期:2015-01-26 发布日期:2015-11-26
  • 通讯作者: 文宝萍(1952),女,教授,博士生导师,主要从事滑坡形成机理、预测预报以及土体变形破坏理论方面的研究,E-mail:wenbp@cugb.edu.cn。 E-mail:wenbp@cugb.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:蒋秀姿(1990),女,博士研究生,主要从事滑坡形成机理和稳定性分析方面的研究,E-mail:jyz5671@163.com
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金项目(41372305)

Main Factors Analysis for Controlling Kinematic Behavior of Suoertou Landslide

Jiang Xiuzi1, Wen Baoping1, Jiang Shu1, Feng Chuanhuang1, Zhao Cheng2, Li Ruidong2   

  1. 1. School of Water Resources and Environment, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China;
    2. Gansu Institute of Geo-Enviroment Monitoring, Lanzhou 730050, China
  • Received:2015-01-26 Published:2015-11-26

摘要:

锁儿头滑坡是甘肃舟曲县城附近一个巨型老滑坡,自20世纪70年代末以来一直处于缓慢活动之中。滑坡所处的地质环境表明,锁儿头滑坡长期缓慢滑动是具有特殊性质的滑坡物质在自重、边界断层活动、白龙江侧蚀和地下水四大因素联合作用下的结果。然而,除自重这个基础因素外,其余三个因素在该滑坡中的作用程度如何,目前尚无定论。笔者在野外调查和监测数据分析的基础上,采用数值模拟手段,定量分析了三个因素对滑坡活动速率的贡献程度。研究结果表明:对于组成物质松软的锁儿头滑坡而言,除了其流变性质外,地下水和断层活动是导致滑坡长期缓慢活动的主要因素,其中地下水位上升的作用略大于断层活动;尽管滑坡在不同因素作用后的位移模式基本一致,但位移速率有明显差异;相较于单独自重作用,边界断层活动使滑坡位移速率增大20%~47%;地下水位上升1 m后,滑坡位移速率增大20%~97%,且随着水位上升量的增加,滑坡位移速率进一步增大;白龙江侧蚀仅对滑坡临江前缘部分的位移速率影响较大,但位移速率的增大幅度与白龙江水流速度并无明显正相关。

关键词: 锁儿头滑坡, 缓慢活动, 地下水, 断层活动, 河流侧蚀

Abstract:

Suoertou landslide, an old giant landslide in Zhouqu County in Gansu Province, has been moving slowly since 1970's.The geological environment indicates that the slow-movement was controlled by behavior of slide's materials under four factors, including weight of the slope, activity of its boundary faults, incision of Bailongjiang river at its toe, and the groundwater within the slope; although only the slope weight has been confirmed for its importance. Based on the field investigation and monitoring data analysis, numerical simulation was adopted to analyze the contribution of the other three factors to the activity rate of the slide. It was found that the creep behavior of Suoertou landslide was mainly controlled by the groundwater and active fault in addition to its rheological nature, in which the effect of rise of water table was great than active fault on the dynamics of the slide. The numerical simulation results showed that Suoertou landslide's dynamic modes were similar with different velocity under different controlling factors. It was also found that when boundary faults were activated, the velocity of Suoertou landslide increased by 20%-47% compared to the condition of only gravity was considered; the landslide's velocity increased with the increasing of water table, the velocity increased by 20%-97% with 1 m rise of the water table. However, the incision of Bailongjiang river had only an influence on the velocity of the front part of the slide, and the amplitude of its velocity had no obvious positive relationship with the flow rate of Bailongjiang river.

Key words: Suoertou landslide, slow-moving landslide, groundwater, active fault, river incision

中图分类号: 

  • P642.22

[1] 黄晓, 杨为民, 张春山, 等. 甘肃南部坪定化马断裂带锁儿头滑坡成因机制[J]. 地质通报, 2013, 32(12): 1936-1942. Huang Xiao, Yang Weimin, Zhang Chunshan, et al. The Formation Mechanism of Suoertou Landslide in Pingding-Huama Fault Zone, Southern Gansu[J].Geological Bulletin of China,2013,32(12):1936-1942.

[2] 李文彦, 张媛, 韩鑫, 等. 舟曲锁儿头滑坡裂缝变形特征研究[J].人民长江, 2013,44( 3): 33-35. Li Wenyan, Zhang Yuan, Han Xin, et al. Research on Deformation Characteristics of Cracks in Suoertou Landslide in Zhouqu[J]. Yangtze River, 2013, 44(3): 33-35.

[3] 宋丙辉, 谌文武, 吴玮江, 等. 锁儿头滑坡滑带土不同含水率大剪试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2012,33(增刊2): 77-84. Song Binghui, Chen Wenwu, Wu Weijiang, et al. Experimental Study of Large Scale Direct Shear Test of Sliding Zones of Suoertou Landslide with Different Moisture Content[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanis, 2012, 33(Sup.2):77-84.

[4] 宋丙辉. 滑坡滑带土工程特性试验研究[D].兰州:兰州大学, 2012. Song Binghui. Experimental Study on Engineering Properties of Sliding Zone Soils in Landslides[D].Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2012.

[5] 杨为民,黄晓,张春山,等. 白龙江流域坪定其化马断裂带滑坡特征及其形成演化[J]. 吉林大学学报:地球科学版, 2014, 44(2): 574-583. Yang Weimin, Huang Xiao, Zhang Chunshan, et al. Deformation Behavior of Landslides and Their Formation Mechanism Along Pingding-Huama Active Fault in Bailongjiang River Region[J]. Journal of Jilin University:Earth Science Edition, 2014, 44(2): 574-583.

[6] 张翔. 甘肃舟曲锁儿头滑坡变形破坏机制及稳定性研究[D].成都:成都理工大学, 2012. Zhang Xiang. Study on Stability and Deformation on Damage Mechanism of the Suoertou Landslide in Zhouqu County Gansu Province[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology,2012.

[7] 陈家兴. 甘肃舟曲锁儿头滑坡失稳机制离心模型试验研究[D].成都:成都理工大学, 2013. Chen Jiaxing. The Centrifuge Model Test for the Sliding Mechanism of the Suoertou Landslide in Zhouqu County Gansu Province[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology,2013.

[8] Di Maio C, Vassllo R, Vallario M. Plastic and Viscous Shear Displacements of a Deep and Very Slow Landslide in Stiff Clay Formation[J]. Engineering Geology, 2013,162:53-66.

[9] Mansour M F, Martin C D, Morgestern N R. Movement Behaviour of the Little Chief Slide[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2011, 48(4): 655-670.

[10] Macfarlane D F. Observations and Predictions of the Behaviour of Large, Slow-Moving Landslides in Schist, Clyde Dam Reservoir, New Zealand[J]. Engineering Geology, 2009, 109(1/2): 5-15.

[11] 谭万鹏, 郑颖人, 王凯. 考虑蠕变特性的滑坡稳定状态分析研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2010,32(增刊2): 5-8. Tan Wanpeng, Zheng Yingren, Wang Kai. Stable State of Landslide Considering Creep Properties[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2010,32(Sup.2):5-8.

[12] 严绍军, 项伟, 唐辉明, 等. 大岩淌滑坡滑带土蠕变性质研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2008,29(1): 58-68. Yan Shaojun, Xiang Wei, Tang Huiming, et al. Research on Creep Behavior of Slip Band Soil of Dayantang Landslide[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics,2008,29(1):58-68.

[13] 蒋树, 文宝萍, 赵成, 等. 甘肃舟曲泄流坡滑坡活动机理分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报, 2013, 24(3):1-7. Jiang Shu, Wen Baoping, Zhao Cheng, et al. Creep Mechanism Analysis of Xieliupo Landslide in Zhouqu County of Gansu Province[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2013,24(3):1-7.

[14] 蒋秀姿, 文宝萍. 缓慢复活型滑坡滑带土的蠕变性质与特征强度[J]. 岩土力学, 2015,36(2): 495-501. Jiang Xiuzi, Wen Baoping. Creep Behavior of the Slip Zone of Reactivated Slow-Moving Landslide and Its Characteristic Strength[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics,2015,36(2):495-501.

[15] 俞晶星, 郑文俊, 袁道阳, 等. 西秦岭西段光盖山迭山断裂带坪定化马断裂的新活动性与滑动速率[J]. 第四纪研究, 2012, 32(5): 957-967. Yu Jingxing, Zheng Wenjun, Yuan Daoyang, et al. Late Quaternary Active Characteristics and Slip-Rate of Pingding-Huama Fault, the Eastern Segment of Guanggaishan-Dieshan Fault Zone (West Qinling Mountain)[J]. Quaternary Sciences, 2012, 32(5): 957-967.

[16] 陈长云, 任金卫, 孟国杰, 等. 巴颜喀拉块体北东缘主要断裂现今活动性分析[J]. 大地测量与地球动力学, 2012, 32(3):27-30. Chen Changyun, Ren Jinwei, Meng Guojie, et al. Analysis of Modern Activity of Major Faults in Northeast Margin of Baryan-Har Block[J]. Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics,2012, 32(3):27-30.

[17] 冯传煌. 环境演变对甘肃舟曲特大型地质灾害的影响研究[D]. 北京:中国地质大学, 2014. Feng Chuanhuang. Effects of Environment Change on Oversize Geological Hazard in Zhouqu County of Gansu Province[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosicence,2014.

[18] 周翠英,刘祚秋,董立国,等. 边坡变形破坏过程的大变形有限元分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2003, 24(4): 644-652. Zhou Cuiying, Liu Zuoqiu, Dong Liguo, et al. Large Deformation FEM Anaysis of Slopes Failure[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2003, 24(4): 644-652.

[19] 张雪东, 陈剑平, 黄润秋, 等. 呷爬滑坡稳定性的 FLAC-3D 数值模拟分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2003, 26(1):131-134. Zhang Xuedong, Chen Jianping, Huang Runqiu, et al. A Study of Deformation Features of Gapa Landslide Using FLAC-3D[J]. Rock and Soil Me-chanics, 2003, 26(1):131-134.

[20] 晏鄂川,朱大鹏,宋琨,等. 基于数值模拟的三峡库区典型堆积层滑坡变形预测方法[J]. 吉林大学学报:地球科学版, 2012, 42(2): 422-429. Yan Echuan, Zhu Dapeng, Song Kun, et al. Deformation Prediction Method of Typical Accumulative Landslide in Three Gorges Reservoir Based on Numerical Modeling[J]. Journal of Jilin University:Earth Science Edition, 2012, 42(2): 422-429.

[21] 陈祥军, 汤劲松. 用FLAC3D进行马崖高边坡稳定性分析[J]. 石家庄铁道学院学报, 2002, 15(3): 76-79. Chen Xiangjun, Tang Jinsong. Stability and Deformation Analysis of Maya Slope Using FLAC 3D[J]. Journal of Shijiazhuang Railway Institute, 2002, 15(3): 76-79.

[22] 寇晓东, 周维垣, 杨若琼. FLAC-3D 进行三峡船闸高边坡稳定分析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2001, 20(1): 6-10. Kou Xiaodong, Zhou Weiheng, Yang Ruoqiong.Stability Analysis on the High Slopes of Three-Gorges Shiplock Using FLAC-3D[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock and Mechanic and Engineering, 2001, 20(1): 6-10.

[23] 王志俭. 万州区红层岩土流变特性及近水平地层滑坡成因机理研究[D]. 武汉:中国地质大学, 2008. Wang Zhijan. Rheological Experimental Study and Mechanism Research on Gentle-Dipped Landslides of Jurassic Red Strata in Wanzhou City[D]. Wuhan:China University of Geosciences,2008.

[24] 蒋树. 甘肃舟曲泄流坡滑坡活动机理与趋势预测研究[D]. 北京:中国地质大学, 2013. Jiang Shu. Mechanism Analysis and Dynamic Behavior Prediction for the Xieliupo Landslide in Zhouqu County of Gansu Province[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences,2013.

[25] Wang G, Liu F, Fu X, et al. Simulation of Dam Breach Development for Emergency Treatment of the Tangjiashan Quake Lake in China[J]. Science in China.Series E: Technological Sciences, 2008, 51(2): 82-94.

[26] International Union of Geological Sciences Working Group on Landslide. A Suggested Method for Describing the Rate of Movement of a Landslide[J]. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, 1995,52: 75-78.

[1] 杜新强, 尹呈杉, 方永军, 李孜涵, 郭辉. 基于地下水生态水位埋深阈值的可开采量评价——以三江平原普阳灌区为例[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2026, 56(2): 635-646.
[2] 束龙仓, 位书静, 澈丽木格, 温中琦, 刘波. 西辽河平原生态输水的地下水响应及不确定性量化[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2026, 56(2): 647-660.
[3] 杨婷, 李亚鑫, 刘娜, 林晓君, 曾经文, 王秀娟, 蔡倩怡, 罗子峰, 张苑铃, 容精男, 余伟达, 丘锦荣, 周建利. 沸石作为PRB填充介质修复NH4+污染地下水的效果及原位再生性能[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2026, 56(2): 661-672.
[4] 秦传玉, 尤凯鸿, 李小奇, 张成武, 于丽娟. 地下水常见阴离子影响双重改性纳米零价铁降解硝基苯的机制及效果[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2026, 56(1): 342-351.
[5] 张文静, 涂志鹏, 贾媛媛. 矿区重金属的释放迁移与污染预测研究进展[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(6): 2001-2027.
[6] 闫纲丽, 冯屾, 刘睿男, 黄冠星. 地下水背景值评估研究进展[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(5): 1655-1670.
[7] 王双, 朱奋, 李亮, 李林坚, 刘娜. 湛江市硇洲岛浅层地下水水化学特征及成因机制[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(5): 1680-1690.
[8] 黄树春, 李洪涛, 邓波, 王丹, 张高华.

湖南湘潭河西地区近20年岩溶水化学时空演变及其影响因素 [J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(4): 1269-1287.

[9] 王锦博, 贺志毅, 王亚楠, 程诗雨, 刘明柱. 某污染场地土壤与地下水协同修复阈值[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(4): 1288-1297.
[10] 王福刚, 管小桐, 何庆成, 程辉, 杨国华, 程中乐, 王耀辉. 考虑边界层流体黏度变化的黏性土低速非达西渗流数学模型[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(3): 893-905.
[11] 胡启智, 王秀娟, 丘锦荣, 康迪, 曾经文, 蔡倩怡, 刘人涛, 刘娜. 潮汕地区地下水饮用水源地酸性浅层地下水特征及其成因探讨[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(3): 906-918.
[12] 张晟瑀, 申文超, 苏小四. 基于随机森林法的区域地下水硝酸盐污染风险评价[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(3): 943-956.
[13] 马凌, 单玄龙, 向绪洪, 郝国丽, 张朋霖, 闫博, 衣健. 珠江口盆地白云凹陷裂陷期断裂活动特征与动力学机制[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2024, 54(6): 1968-1985.
[14] 段磊, 曾经文, 赵显林, 丘锦荣, 刘娜, 陶钧实, 周建利. 珠江三角洲典型水产养殖区浅层地下水碘化物分布、来源及健康风险评估[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2024, 54(5): 1657-1674.
[15] 韩红闪, 朱琳, 郭高轩, 李炳华, 卢灿. 新水情背景下北京平原朝阳—通州沉降区地面沉降特征及其影响[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2024, 54(4): 1326-1338.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 尤敏鑫,刘建民. 同位素地球化学在峨眉山大火成岩省研究中的应用现状与进展[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2014, 44(4): 1231 -1243 .
[2] 杨春梅, 李洪奇,陆大卫,张方礼,高 原,邵英超. 不同驱替方式下岩石电阻率与饱和度的关系[J]. J4, 2005, 35(05): 667 -671 .
[3] 祝洪臣,张炯飞,权 恒. 大兴安岭中生代两期成岩成矿作用的元素、同位素特征及其形成环境[J]. J4, 2005, 35(04): 436 -0442 .
[4] 朱建伟, 赵刚, 刘博, 郭巍, 成俊. 油页岩测井识别技术及应用[J]. J4, 2012, 42(2): 289 -295 .
[5] 陈力,梁海安,张文娟,荣帆. 模糊数学方法在城市工程地质环境区划中的应用--以抚顺市城区为例[J]. J4, 2008, 38(5): 837 -0840 .
[6] 高桂梅,苏 克,王文颖,甘树才,刘招君. 吉林省桦甸油页岩中稀土元素和微量元素的研究[J]. J4, 2006, 36(6): 974 -0979 .
[7] 吴孔运,蒋忠诚,叶 晔. 不同植物群落对灰岩试块溶蚀速率的影响[J]. J4, 2007, 37(5): 967 -0971 .
[8] 周彦章,迟宝明,刘中培. 山东夏甸金矿床充水机理构造控制模式[J]. J4, 2008, 38(2): 255 -0260 .
[9] 张渊,刘连登,孙景贵,陈国华,张洪喜,闫复传,杨开春. 胶东西北部黄埠岭金矿床两期次叠加成矿[J]. J4, 2008, 38(1): 21 -0026 .
[10] 鲁程鹏, 束龙仓, 苑利波, 张蓉蓉, 黄币娟, 王彬彬. 基于示踪试验求解岩溶含水层水文地质参数[J]. J4, 2009, 39(4): 717 -721 .