基于地貌参数的泥石流沟发育阶段划分
|
摘要
通过分析与泥石流沟发育阶段相关的地貌参数,认为使用面积高程积分值(S)对泥石流沟发育阶段进行定量的划分比较便捷和可靠。并根据白龙江流域550条泥石流沟爆发频率与S值的统计关系将泥石流沟发育阶段定量划分为发育期、发展期、旺盛期、衰减期和消退期五个阶段,并分析了各个阶段对应泥石流沟的发育特征,以期能为泥石流沟在各个发育阶段的防治对策提供理论支持,同时也对潜在泥石流的判定、泥石流危险性评价以及泥石流发生频率等的分析提供新的思路。
Geomorphologic parameters are used to analysis the developmental phase of debris flow torrents.We insist that it is convenient and reliable to quantitatively divide developmental phase of debris flow torrents by Elevation integral value( S),and we quantitatively divide developmental phase of debris flow torrents into five phases which are germination period,evolution period,vigorous period,attenuation period,and extinction period by the statistics relationship between outbreak frequency of 550 debris flow torrents in Bailong River basin and value of S.The development characteristics of each phase of debris flow torrents are analyzed,hoping to provide support and new idea of debris flow prevention countermeasures in diffident developmental phases,and also on judgment of potential debris flow torrents,debris flow hazard assessment and the analysis of debris flow occurrence frequency.
Geomorphologic parameters are used to analysis the developmental phase of debris flow torrents.We insist that it is convenient and reliable to quantitatively divide developmental phase of debris flow torrents by Elevation integral value( S),and we quantitatively divide developmental phase of debris flow torrents into five phases which are germination period,evolution period,vigorous period,attenuation period,and extinction period by the statistics relationship between outbreak frequency of 550 debris flow torrents in Bailong River basin and value of S.The development characteristics of each phase of debris flow torrents are analyzed,hoping to provide support and new idea of debris flow prevention countermeasures in diffident developmental phases,and also on judgment of potential debris flow torrents,debris flow hazard assessment and the analysis of debris flow occurrence frequency.
引文
[1]Lobeck A K.Geomorphology[M].New York:Mc Graw-Hall book Company Incorporation,1939.
[2]赵岩,孟兴民,郑娇玉,等.地貌学在泥石流研究中的应用与理论初探[J].灾害学,2017,32(1):43-49.
[3]刘小凤,刘百,郭德明,等.东北地区地貌信息熵与地震构造[J].防灾减灾学报,1994,10(2):29-36.
[4]铁永波,唐川,周春花.基于信息熵理论的泥石流沟谷危险度评价[J].灾害学,2005,20(4):43-46.
[5]孙然好,张百平,潘保田,等.祁连山北麓地貌信息熵与山体演化阶段分析[J].干旱区地理,2006,29(1):88-93.
[6]王晓朋,潘懋,任群智.基于流域系统地貌信息熵的泥石流危险性定量评价[J].北京大学学报(自然科学版),2006,43(3):211-215.
[7]李雅辉,杨武年,杨鑫,等.基于流域系统的地貌信息熵泥石流敏感性评价[J].中国水土保持,2011(1):55-57.
[8]岳俊生,王运生,吴俊峰,等.“超熵”评价泥石流沟发育现状及危险度——以大渡河某电站库区为例[J].南水北调与水利科技,2011,9(6):131-135.
[9]邹强,王青,刘延国.基于流域系统超熵的泥石流沟活跃度定量分析[J].科技导报,2012,30(18):50-55.
[10]王钧,欧国强,杨顺,等.地貌信息熵在地震后泥石流危险性评价中的应用[J].山地学报,2013,31(1):83-91.
[11]刘丽娜,许冲,陈剑.基于地貌信息熵与滑坡物源的芦山地震区泥石流危险性评价[J].地震地质,2015,37(3):880-892.
[12]张宝军,熊东红,董一帆,等.地貌信息熵理论在冲沟沟头活跃度评价中的应用初探[J].中国水土保持,2015(1):3-7.
[13]Davis W M.The geographical cycle[J].Geographical Journal,1973,14(5):481-504.
[14]Strahler A N.Hypsometric area-altitude analysis of erosional topography[J].Geological Society of America Bulletin,1952,63(11):1117-1141.
[15]艾南山.侵蚀流域系统的信息熵[J].水土保持学报,1987,1(2):1-8.
[16]Shannon C E.A mathematical theory of communication[J].Bell System Technical Journal,1948,27(3):379-423.
[17]艾南山,岳天祥.再论流域系统的信息熵[J].水土保持学报,1988,2(4):1-9.
[18]岳天祥,艾南山.论流域系统稳定性的判别指标——超熵[J].水土保持学报,1989,3(2):20-28.
[19]蒋忠信.泥石流流域系统的超熵[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,1992,3(1):35-42.
[20]蒋忠信.滇西北三江河谷纵剖面的发育图式与演化规律[J].地理学报,1987,42(1):16-27.
[21]刘希林.试论泥石流动力作用与沟谷地貌演变的关系[J].地理科学,1988,8(4):389-391.
[22]蒋忠信.西藏帕隆藏布泥石流沟谷纵剖面形态统计分析[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,2001,12(4):41-47.
[23]吕学军,刘希林,苏鹏程.四川达曲河流域泥石流沟发育阶段的面积一高程分析[J].山地学报,2005,23(3):336-341.
[24]李泳,胡凯衡,苏凤环,等.流域演化与泥石流的系统性——以云南东川蒋家沟为例[J].山地学报,2009,27(4):449-456.
[25]倪化勇.海螺沟景区典型泥石流流域地貌特征及灾害防治[J].水土保持研究,2010,17(1):154-158.
[26]Pike R J,Wilson S E.Elevation-relief ratio,Hypsometric integral,and geomorphic area-altitude analysis[J].Geological Society of America Bulletin,1971,82(4):1079-1083.
[27]常直杨,王建,白世彪,等.面积高程积分值计算方法的比较[J].干旱区资源与环境,2015,29(3):171-175.
[28]赵岩,崔志杰,熊木齐,等.白龙江流域泥石流沟土体渗透特性及其受植被影响[J].兰州大学学报(自然科学版),2016,52(6):728-734.
[2]赵岩,孟兴民,郑娇玉,等.地貌学在泥石流研究中的应用与理论初探[J].灾害学,2017,32(1):43-49.
[3]刘小凤,刘百,郭德明,等.东北地区地貌信息熵与地震构造[J].防灾减灾学报,1994,10(2):29-36.
[4]铁永波,唐川,周春花.基于信息熵理论的泥石流沟谷危险度评价[J].灾害学,2005,20(4):43-46.
[5]孙然好,张百平,潘保田,等.祁连山北麓地貌信息熵与山体演化阶段分析[J].干旱区地理,2006,29(1):88-93.
[6]王晓朋,潘懋,任群智.基于流域系统地貌信息熵的泥石流危险性定量评价[J].北京大学学报(自然科学版),2006,43(3):211-215.
[7]李雅辉,杨武年,杨鑫,等.基于流域系统的地貌信息熵泥石流敏感性评价[J].中国水土保持,2011(1):55-57.
[8]岳俊生,王运生,吴俊峰,等.“超熵”评价泥石流沟发育现状及危险度——以大渡河某电站库区为例[J].南水北调与水利科技,2011,9(6):131-135.
[9]邹强,王青,刘延国.基于流域系统超熵的泥石流沟活跃度定量分析[J].科技导报,2012,30(18):50-55.
[10]王钧,欧国强,杨顺,等.地貌信息熵在地震后泥石流危险性评价中的应用[J].山地学报,2013,31(1):83-91.
[11]刘丽娜,许冲,陈剑.基于地貌信息熵与滑坡物源的芦山地震区泥石流危险性评价[J].地震地质,2015,37(3):880-892.
[12]张宝军,熊东红,董一帆,等.地貌信息熵理论在冲沟沟头活跃度评价中的应用初探[J].中国水土保持,2015(1):3-7.
[13]Davis W M.The geographical cycle[J].Geographical Journal,1973,14(5):481-504.
[14]Strahler A N.Hypsometric area-altitude analysis of erosional topography[J].Geological Society of America Bulletin,1952,63(11):1117-1141.
[15]艾南山.侵蚀流域系统的信息熵[J].水土保持学报,1987,1(2):1-8.
[16]Shannon C E.A mathematical theory of communication[J].Bell System Technical Journal,1948,27(3):379-423.
[17]艾南山,岳天祥.再论流域系统的信息熵[J].水土保持学报,1988,2(4):1-9.
[18]岳天祥,艾南山.论流域系统稳定性的判别指标——超熵[J].水土保持学报,1989,3(2):20-28.
[19]蒋忠信.泥石流流域系统的超熵[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,1992,3(1):35-42.
[20]蒋忠信.滇西北三江河谷纵剖面的发育图式与演化规律[J].地理学报,1987,42(1):16-27.
[21]刘希林.试论泥石流动力作用与沟谷地貌演变的关系[J].地理科学,1988,8(4):389-391.
[22]蒋忠信.西藏帕隆藏布泥石流沟谷纵剖面形态统计分析[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,2001,12(4):41-47.
[23]吕学军,刘希林,苏鹏程.四川达曲河流域泥石流沟发育阶段的面积一高程分析[J].山地学报,2005,23(3):336-341.
[24]李泳,胡凯衡,苏凤环,等.流域演化与泥石流的系统性——以云南东川蒋家沟为例[J].山地学报,2009,27(4):449-456.
[25]倪化勇.海螺沟景区典型泥石流流域地貌特征及灾害防治[J].水土保持研究,2010,17(1):154-158.
[26]Pike R J,Wilson S E.Elevation-relief ratio,Hypsometric integral,and geomorphic area-altitude analysis[J].Geological Society of America Bulletin,1971,82(4):1079-1083.
[27]常直杨,王建,白世彪,等.面积高程积分值计算方法的比较[J].干旱区资源与环境,2015,29(3):171-175.
[28]赵岩,崔志杰,熊木齐,等.白龙江流域泥石流沟土体渗透特性及其受植被影响[J].兰州大学学报(自然科学版),2016,52(6):728-734.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |