基于墙体裂缝特征的滑坡区房屋风险分析

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.03.0503

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为降低滑坡区房屋风险,评估房屋安全状态,指导滑坡区房屋防灾减灾措施,结合滑坡区房屋墙体裂缝特征,提出基于熵权法(EWM)-层次分析法(AHP)和梯形-半梯形隶属度函数的滑坡区房屋综合易损性分析方法。以重庆市万州区四方碑滑坡为例,基于摩根斯坦-普拉斯法和蒙特卡罗法计算滑坡破坏概率,结合现场调查房屋承灾体属性,分析滑坡危险性,计算并验证滑坡区房屋综合易损性分析方法的可靠性,进而获得该滑坡区房屋经济风险。结果表明:采用裂缝指标的复合模型分析四方碑滑坡区房屋易损性的结果可靠,滑坡区房屋易损性综合分析方法可行;四方碑滑坡稳定性受库水位下降和降雨因素联合作用共同影响,进而导致滑坡区房屋风险造成影响,在175 m库水位下降至145 m库水位加50年一遇降雨工况下滑坡区房屋处于最危险状况,房屋经济损失总和将超750万元,风险较高的房屋主要分布在滑坡中后部及滑坡右边界。

关键词: 墙体裂缝, 滑坡区房屋, 风险分析, 危险性, 易损性

Abstract:

To reduce building risks in landslide-prone areas and guide disaster mitigation measures, a comprehensive vulnerability analysis method was proposed based on Entropy Weight Method(EWM)-Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) and trapezoidal-semi-trapezoidal membership functions. Using the Sifangbei landslide in Wanzhou District, Chongqing, as a case study. The landslide failure probability was calculated using the Morgenstern-Price and Monte Carlo methods. Field surveys of building attributes were used to analyze landslide hazards and validate the analysis method. The results indicate that the composite model using crack indicators provides reliable vulnerability analysis for buildings in the Sifangbei landslide zone. The proposed method is feasible. The landslide is most dangerous when the reservoir water level drops from 175 m to 145 m. Combined with a 50-year rainfall event, leading to over 7.5 million yuan in economic losses. Vulnerable buildings are mainly located in the middle and rear parts of the landslide and along its right boundary.

Key words: wall cracks, buildings in landslide-prone areas, risk analysis, hazard, vulnerability

中图分类号:

X915.5

覃瀚萱, 桂蕾, 张文芳, 韩幽铭. 基于墙体裂缝特征的滑坡区房屋风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(3): 133-141.

QIN Hanxuan, GUI Lei, ZHANG Wenfang, HAN Youming. Risk analysis of homes in landslide-prone areas based on wall crack characteristics[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(3): 133-141.

图/表 13

图1

表1

表2

砌体房屋各破坏等级对应的损失比

破坏等级	损失比/%	$l n$ 取值/%
I	[0,10]	10
II	(10,30]	30
Ⅲ	(30,60]	50
IV	(60,100]	70

表2

图2

图3

表3

表4

图4

表5

表6

表7

图5

图6

参考文献 31

[1]	吴越, 向灵均, 吴同情, 等. 基于受灾体空间概率的滑坡灾害财产风险定量评估[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2020, 39(增2):3464-3474.
	WU Yue, XIANG Lingjun, WU Tongqing, et al. Quantitative assessment of landslide property risk based on impact probability of element at risk[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2020, 39(S2):3464-3474.
[2]	王芳, 殷坤龙, 桂蕾, 等. 单体库岸滑坡及其次生涌浪灾害风险分析[J]. 地球科学, 2018, 43(3):899-909.
	WANG Fang, YIN Kunlong, GUI Lei, et al. Risk analysis on individual reservoir bank Landslide and its generated wave[J]. Earth Science, 2018, 43(3):899-909.
[3]	FELL R, HO K, LACASSE S, LEROI E. A framework for landslide risk assessment and management[C]. International Conference on Landslide Risk Management, 2005:6-7.
[4]	肖莉丽, 殷坤龙, 翟月, 等. 渐进式滑坡破坏概率的分析及应用[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2011, 18(5):20-25.
	XIAO Lili, YIN Kunlong, ZHAI Yue, et al. Analysis and application of the failure probability of progressive failure landslide[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2011, 18(5):20-25.
[5]	MIAO Fasheng, WU Yiping, XIE Yuanhua, et al. Research on progressive failure process of Baishuihe landslide based on Monte Carlo model[J]. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2017, 31(7):1683-1696.
[6]	OUYANG Werihang, LIU Siwei, LIU Kai, et al. Efficient numerical implementation of limit equilibrium method for stability analysis of unsaturated soil slopes using Gaussian integral[J]. Acta Geotechnica, 2024, 19: 5933-5945.
[7]	LI Zhihong, NADIM F, HUANG Hongwei, et al. Quantitative vulnerability estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards[J]. Landslides, 2010, 7(2):125-134.
[8]	UZIELLI M, CATANI F, TOFANI V, et al. Risk analysis for the Ancona landslide-II: estimation of risk to buildings[J]. Landslides, 2015, 12(1):83-100.
[9]	CHEN Qin, CHEN Lixia, GUI Lei, et al. Assessment of the physical vulnerability of buildings affected by slow-moving landslides[J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2020, 20(9):2547-2564.
[10]	虢柱, 聂春龙. 基于AHP分析的二级模糊综合评价模型及在边坡风险易损性评价中的应用[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2012, 9(5):50-53.
	GUO Zhu, NIE Chunlong. Study of AHP fuzzy method and its application evaluating of damageability in slope[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2012, 9(5):50-53.
[11]	王硕楠, 余宏明, 刘运涛. 基于灰关联度的地质灾害易损性区划研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2011, 18(2):10-13.
	WANG Shuonan, YU Hongming, LIU Yuntao. Study on the regional vulnerability of geological hazard based on grey relative degree[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2011, 18(2):10-13.
[12]	SUBASINGHE C N, KAWASAKI A. Assessment of physical vulnerability of buildings and socio-economic vulnerability of residents to rainfall induced cut slope failures: a case study in central highlands, Sri Lanka[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2021, 65:1-11.
[13]	姜云. 小城镇灾害易损性熵权与可变模糊集评估方法研究[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 2009, 25(6):88-91.
	JIANG Yun. An integrated entropy weight-variable fuzzy sets evaluation approach for small town disaster vulnerability problem[J]. Geography and Geographic Information Science, 2009, 25(6):88-91.
[14]	张桂欣, 孙柏涛. 基于模糊层次分析的建筑物单体震害预测方法研究[J]. 工程力学, 2018, 35(12):185-193,202.
	ZHANG Guixin, SUN Baitao. Research on the prediction method of building monolithic earthquake damage based on fuzzy hierarchical analysis[J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2018, 35(12):185-193,202.
[15]	刘耀灿. 滑坡灾害下建筑物易损性评估模型与应用[D]. 重庆: 重庆大学, 2017.
	LIU Yaocan. Evaluation model and application of building vulnerability under landslide disaster[D]. Chongqing: Chongqing University, 2017.
[16]	FELL R, COROMINAS J, BONNARD C, et al. Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land-use planning[J]. Engineering Geology, 2008, 102:85-111.
[17]	赵立春, 刘永杰, 宗赫, 等. 同一边坡角下不同边坡形态及稳定性研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(增1):140-144.
	ZHAO Lichun, LIU Yongjie, ZONG He, et al. Study on different slope shapes and stability under same slope angle[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S1):140-144. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.S1.0837
[18]	曹颖. 单体滑坡灾害风险评价与预警预报:以万州区塘角1号滑坡为例[D]. 武汉: 中国地质大学, 2016.
	CAO Ying. Risk assessment and early warning of individual landslide-Case study of the Tangjiao landslide in Wanzhou[D]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences, 2016.
[19]	陈丽霞, 张文, 殷坤龙, 等. 重庆市三峡库区滑坡涌浪灾害评价与风险评估技术要求[M]. 武汉: 中国地质大学出版社, 2020:9-10.
	CHEN Lixia, ZHANG Wen, YIN Kunlong, et al. Technical requirements for hazard and risk assessment of landslide-triggered water waves in the Three Gorges reservoir in Chongqing[M]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences Press, 2020:9-10.
[20]	CUNEY D, KURUSCU A O, ARUN G. Damage evaluation of masonry buildings after Van earthquakes in 2011[J]. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2016, 10(2):269-280.
[21]	JGJ125—2016, 危险房屋鉴定标准[S].
	JGJ125-2016, Standard for dangerous building appraisal[S].
[22]	YANG Weichao, XU Kui, LIAN Jijian, et al. Multiple flood vulnerability assessment approach based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and coordinated development degree model[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018, 213:440-450. doi: S0301-4797(18)30202-0 pmid: 29505999
[23]	周海怡, 鲍全贵, 叶茂, 等. 基于组合赋权法的城市桥梁可靠性模糊综合评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(增1): 156-161.
	ZHOU Haiyi, BAO Quangui, YE Mao, et al. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of reliability of urban bridge reliability based on combination weighting method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(S1):156-161. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.S1.2494
[24]	陈仕阔, 周航, 廖昕, 等. 川藏铁路高地应力隧道减灾选线[J]. 地球科学, 2022, 47(3):803-817.
	CHEN Shikuo, ZHOU Hang, LIAO Xin, et al. Line selection for disaster reduction of high geostress tunnel on the Sichuan-Tibet railway[J]. Earth Science, 2022, 47(3):803-817.
[25]	GB/T 24335—2009, 建(构)筑地震破坏等级划分[S].
	GB/T 24335-2009, Classification of earthquake damage to buildings and special structures[S].
[26]	明小娜, 周洋, 卢永坤, 等. 云南省砖混结构房屋震害矩阵修正研究[J]. 地震研究, 2018, 41(4):605-612.
	MING Xiaona, ZHOU Yang, LU Yongkun, et al. Research on earthquake damage matrix correction of brick-concrete buildings in the Yunnan province[J]. Earthquake Research, 2018, 41(4):605-612.
[27]	林松, 王薇, 邓小虎, 等. 三峡库区典型滑坡地球物理实测及其意义:以万州区四方碑滑坡为例[J]. 地球科学, 2019, 44(9):3135-3146.
	LIN Song, WANG Wei, DENG Xiaohu, et al. Geophysical observation of typical landslides in the Three Gorges reservoir area and its significance:a case study of Sifangbei landslide in Wanzhou district[J]. Earth Science, 2019, 44(9):3135-3146.
[28]	邓楚星, 许国庆, 汪洋, 等. 基于邻域粗糙集理论的四方碑滑坡变形诱发因素研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2022, 29(2):78-84.
	DENG Chuxing, XU Guoqing, WANG Yang, et al. Study on inducing factors of Sifangbei landslide based on neighborhood rough set theory[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2022, 29(2):78-84.
[29]	白宇, 刘洁, 郝志强. 破坏概率分析法在滑坡稳定性评价中的应用[J]. 岩土工程技术, 2015, 29(5):256-260.
	BAI Yu, LIU Jie, HAO Zhiqiang. The application of failure probability in the stability analysis of landslide[J]. Geotechnical Engineering Technique, 2015, 29(5):256-260.
[30]	杨宇轩, 霍志涛, 方仕达, 等. 基于环剪试验的四方碑滑坡滑带土残余强度空间差异性和稳定性分析[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2021, 28(2):175-179,195.
	YANG Yuxuan, HUO Zhitao, FANG Shida, et al. Spatial difference of residual strength of sliding zone soil and stability analysis of Sifangbei landslide based on ring shear test[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2021, 28(2):175-179, 195.
[31]	曹羽哲, 曹运江. 基于破坏概率法的降雨型滑坡失稳破坏分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2021, 28(5):387-393.
	CAO Yuzhe, CAO Yunjiang. Analysis of instability and destruction of rainfall type landslide based on failure probability[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 28(5):387-393.

破坏等级	最大裂缝宽度/mm	最大裂缝长度/mm	裂缝总面积/mm²	裂缝总周长/mm	破坏分类
I	[0,4]	[0,500]	[0,5 000]	[0,2 100]	轻微破坏
II	(4,15]	(500,1 300]	(5 000,13 000]	(2 100,4 500]	轻度破坏
Ⅲ	(15,30]	(1 300,2 500]	(13 000,62 000]	(4 500,15 000]	中度破坏
IV	(30,∞)	(2 500,∞)	(62 000,∞)	(15 000,∞)	严重破坏

工况	库水位/m	降雨程度设定
1	175静水位	无降雨
2	175静水位	50年一遇暴雨
3	175下降至145动水位	无降雨
4	175下降至145动水位	50年一遇暴雨

状态	岩土体参数	平均值	标准差	变异系数
天然	重度/(kN·m^-3)	19.7	—	—
	C/kPa	25.3	3.8	0.15
	φ/(°)	19.8	2.9	0.14
饱和	重度/(kN·m^-3)	20.5	—	—
	C/kPa	21.8	4.3	0.20
	φ/(°)	15.5	2.3	0.15
参数	含水率/%	残余黏聚力C'/kPa	残余内摩擦角φ'/(°)
前缘	16.0	44.2	20.9
中部	20.5	29.4	12.9
后缘	24.0	27.4	9.6

工况	模拟时间/d	稳定性系数F_s	破坏概率P
1	30	1.571	0.135
2	30	1.165	0.326
3	30	1.494	0.163
4	30	1.098	0.422

编号	最大裂缝宽度/mm	最大裂缝长/mm	裂缝总面积/mm²	裂缝总周长/mm
1	5	800	4 000	1 610
2	50	2 000	170 000	11 840
︙	︙	︙	︙	︙
28	30	3 500	151 000	14 540
29	24	4 260	98 217	8 567