Study on AHP-Based Comprehensive Evaluation Method of Earthquake-induced Geological Hazard
-
摘要: 基于层次分析法（AHP），对崩塌、滑坡、泥石流、地基土液化和软土震陷等主要地震地质灾害的影响因素进行归纳总结，构建了一套方便适用且参数易于获取的区域大尺度地震地质灾害危险性综合评价方法。首先，基于已有地震地质基础资料，确定了单因子地震地质灾害危险性分级；然后基于AHP，确定了各因子的贡献权重；最后借助ArcGIS的空间数据分析工具，对各因子地震地质灾害危险性分级进行叠加，得到地震地质灾害危险性综合评价分级。以四川省平武县为例，基于已有的地质资料和地理基础资料，利用本文方法给出了平武县地震地质灾害危险性综合评价分级图，可供区域规划和震后应急救援参考使用。Abstract: Based on AHP theory, the factors affecting earthquake-induced geological hazards, including collapses, landslides, debris flows, soil liquefaction, and soft soil seismic subsidence, were identified, and a comprehensive evaluation method with convenient and suitable advantages was established. The parameters of the system can be easily obtained. First, based on existing seismogeological data, the classification of earthquake-induced geological hazards for single factors is provided. Second, the contribution weight of each factor is determined using AHP. Finally, using the data processing tools of ArcGIS, the classifications of earthquake-induced geological hazards for all factors were superimposed, and a comprehensive evaluation classification was derived. Taking Pingwu county in Sichuan province as an example, a classified zonation map of earthquake-induced geological hazards was produced based on existing geological and geographical data. This map can serve as a reference for regional planning and emergency rescue operations after an earthquake.1)
1 2http://www.gb18306.net/ 2)2 3https://www.usgs.gov/ 3)3 4http://www.nagc.org.cn/ 4)4 5http://activefault-datacenter.cn 5)5 6https://www.usgs.gov/ 6)6 7http://www.webmap.cn -
图 1 地震地质灾害危险性综合评价指标体系
Figure 1. Comprehensive evaluation index system of earthquake-induced geological hazard
图 4 地震地质灾害危险性综合评价分级图
Figure 4. Classified comprehensive earthquake-induced hazard zonatoion map
表 1 判断矩阵1-9标度及含义
Table 1. Scale and definition of of judge matrix
标度 含义 1 2个因素相比，具有相同的重要性 3 2个因素相比，前一个因素比后一个因素稍微重要 5 2个因素相比，前一个因素比后一个因素明显重要 7 2个因素相比，前一个因素比后一个因素强烈重要 9 2个因素相比，前一个因素比后一个因素极端重要 2, 4, 6, 8 上述相邻判断的中值 倒数 因素B1与B2相比得B12，则B2/B1判断为B21=1/B12 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 平武县地震地质灾害危险性综合评价指标分级表
Table 2. Classified table of comprehensive evaluation index on earthquake-induced geological hazard of Pinwu county
因子 危险性评价指标分级表 低危险性（1） 中危险性（2） 中高危险性（3） 高危险性（4） 坡度 <8° 8°～20° 20°～45° >45° 到河流距离/m > 3000 2000～ 3000 1000 ～2000< 1000 地震烈度 ≤Ⅴ Ⅵ Ⅶ ≥Ⅷ 到断裂距离/m >2000 1000 ～2000500～ 1000 <500 工程岩组 坚硬岩 较坚硬岩 较软岩 软弱岩 VS30/(m·s−1) >760 360～760 180～360 <180 地形指数CTI/mm <800 800～ 1000 1200 ～1400 > 1400
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 综合评价指标权重分配
Table 3. Weight Distribution of comprehensive evaluation index
目标 准则 权重 因子 权重 组合权重 平武县地震地质灾害
危险性综合评价崩塌
滑坡
泥石流0.8750 坡度 0.1600 0.1400 到河流距离 0.0400 0.0350 到断层距离 0.3200 0.2800 工程岩组 0.1600 0.1400 地震烈度 0.3200 0.2800 液化
软土震陷0.1250 到河流距离 0.2668 0.0333 VS30 0.1540 0.0193 地形指数CTI 0.0827 0.0103 地震烈度 0.4965 0.0621 注：权重为评价因子相对于上一级准则指标的权重分配；组合权重为评价因子相对于目标层的权重分配。
下载: 导出CSV
-
陈博,李振洪,黄武彪等,2022. 2022年四川泸定 M W6.6级地震诱发地质灾害空间分布及影响因素. 地球科学与环境学报,44(6):971−985.Chen B., Li Z. H., Huang W. B., et al., 2022. Spatial distribution and influencing factors of geohazards induced by the 2022 M W6.6 Luding (Sichuan, China) earthquake. Journal of Earth Sciences and Environment, 44(6): 971−985. (in Chinese) 豆敬翔,2012. 基于GIS的平武县地质灾害危险性评价研究. 成都:成都理工大学.Dou J. X. ,2012. Based on GIS for Pingwu country disaster of geological reseach. Chengdu:Chengdu University of Technology. (in Chinese) 冯新科,2014. 基于GIS的地震地质灾害危险性评价−−以彝良县为例. 北京:中国地震局地质研究所.Feng X. K. ,2014. Risk assessment of earthquake-induced geological hazards based GIS – a case study of Yiliang County. Beijing:Institute of Geology,China Earthquake Administrator. (in Chinese) 郝连成,2013. 山区城镇地震地质灾害风险评价的技术方法与指标体系研究. 成都:成都理工大学.Hao L. C. ,2013. Study on the technology and index system of mountain towns’ earthquake-induced geological hazard risk assessment. Chengdu:Chengdu University of Technology. (in Chinese) 黄润秋,2017. 强震地质灾害效应及风险防控. 民主与科学,(6):18−20. 李程程,2016. 多尺度液化灾害区划和评估技术研究. 哈尔滨:中国地震局工程力学研究所.Li C. C. ,2016. Study on the multi-scale liquefaction hazard mapping and evaluation technoogy. Harbin:Institute of Engineering Mechanics,China Earthquake Administration. (in Chinese) 刘晓,2022. 基于AHP的吉林省辽源市地质灾害危险性评价. 首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),43(5):35−43.Liu X., 2022. Risk assessment of geological hazards in Liaoyuan City of Jilin Province based on AHP. Journal of Capital Normal University (Natural Sciences Edition), 43(5): 35−43. (in Chinese) 牛全福,2011. 基于GIS的地质灾害风险评估方法研究-以“4.14”玉树地震为例. 兰州:兰州大学.Niu Q. F. ,2011. Study on the method of geological disaster risk assessment based on GIS-A case study in “4.14” Yushu earthquake. Lanzhou:Lanzhou University. (in Chinese) 王兰民,吴志坚,2013. 岷县漳县6.6级地震震害特征及其启示. 地震工程学报,35(3):401−412.Wang L. M., Wu Z. J., 2013. Earthquake damage characteristics of the Minxian-Zhangxian M S6.6 earthquake and its lessons. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 35(3): 401−412. (in Chinese) 王谦,钟秀梅,高中南,等,2022. 门源 M 6.9地震诱发地质灾害特征研究. 地震工程学报,44(1):352−359.Wang Q., Zhong X. M., Gao Z. N., et al., 2022. Characteristics of geological hazards induced by the Menyuan M 6.9 earthquake. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 44(1): 352−359. (in Chinese) 王涛,2010. 汶川地震重灾区地质灾害危险性评估研究. 北京:中国地质科学院.Wang T. ,2010. Study on seismic landslide hazard assessment in Wenchuan earthuquake severely afflicted area. Beijing:Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. (in Chinese) 向喜琼,2005. 区域滑坡地质灾害危险性评价与风险管理. 成都:成都理工大学.Xiang X. Q. ,2005. Regional landslide hazard assessment and risk management. Chengdu:Chengdu University of Technology. (in Chinese) 许树柏,1988. 实用决策方法−−层次分析法原理. 天津:天津大学出版社. Lai C. G., Bozzoni F., Conca D., et al., 2021. Technical guidelines for the assessment of earthquake induced liquefaction hazard at urban scale. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19(10): 4013−4057. doi: 10.1007/s10518-020-00951-8 Saaty T. L. , 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1−160. Wald D. J., Allen T. I., 2007. Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5): 1379−1395. doi: 10.1785/0120060267 -
点击查看大图
图(4) / 表(3)
计量
- 文章访问数: 41
- HTML全文浏览量: 24
- PDF下载量: 8
- 被引次数: 0
