Adaptability analysis of treatment project for medium-sized middle-level rock-mass traction landslide

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.S2.0014

Abstract

Abstract:

To address the issue that evaluations for traditional mine landslide treatment projects often emphasize technical and economic indicators while lacking systematic integration of multidimensional factors such as safety, environment, and society, an adaptability analysis of treatment projects was conducted using a medium-sized middle-level rock-mass traction landslide on the northern side of a mining area in Dechang County of Sichuan Province as the case study. Through systematic analysis of the landslide's geological characteristics and causative mechanisms, a comprehensive evaluation indicator system was constructed, encompassing five dimensions: safety reliability, economic rationality, technical feasibility, environmental adaptability, and social adaptability. On this basis, the AHP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method were integrated to quantitatively assess the treatment project from two aspects: indicator weight determination and membership degree calculation. The results indicate that the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation score of 3.276 places the project's overall importance between ″relatively important″ and ″important″. The adaptation indicator calculated by AHP is 2.135, which is classified as ″relatively well-adapted″ according to grading standards. This treatment plan demonstrates strong performance in structural safety, investment control, and technical implementation, and exhibits significant advantages in ecological restoration, construction disturbance control, and social benefits.

Key words: traction landslide, landslide treatment project, adaptability analysis, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method

CLC Number:

X936

XIE Zhiyuan, GONG Qiang, GE Cheng, HU Yiming, YUAN Yunxing. Adaptability analysis of treatment project for medium-sized middle-level rock-mass traction landslide[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(S2): 80-86.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig.1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

References 13

[1]	李强, 徐旭, 阮凡. 某矿山滑坡稳定性分析及治理措施[J]. 河南科技, 2024, 51(8):114-118.
	LI Qiang, XU Xu, RUAN Fan. Stability analysis and treatment measures of a mine landslide[J]. Henan Science and Technology, 2024, 51 (8): 114-118.
[2]	李少平, 韩斌, 王建栋, 等. 露天矿滑坡分析与治理方案研究[J]. 矿业研究与开发, 2022, 42(5):60-64.
	LI Shaoping, HAN Bin, WANG Jiandong, et al. Study on stability analysis and treatment scheme of open-pit mine landslide[J]. Mining Research and Development, 2022, 42 (5): 60-64.
[3]	许康曦, 杨美云. 智能监控在边坡工程中的应用及处治方法研究[J]. 西部交通科技, 2021(3):40-43.
[4]	赵昕, 范红英, 张浩, 等. BIM在滑坡智能监测中的应用研究[J]. 工程勘察, 2022, 50(12):12-16.
	ZHAO Xin, FAN Hongying, ZHANG Hao, et al. Intelligent monitoring and analysis of highway landslide based on BIM[J]. Engineering Investigation, 2022, 50 (12): 12-16.
[5]	张友锋. 基于可拓层次分析法的稀土矿山滑坡安全性评价构建[J]. 科学技术创新, 2019(25):46-47.
[6]	夏巍巍. 龙南县足洞地区滑坡危险性评价及防治对策研究[D]. 赣州: 江西理工大学, 2015.
	XIA Weiwei. Study on risk assessment and prevention countermeasures of landslide hazard in zudong, longnan county[D]. Ganzhou: Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, 2015.
[7]	洪火林, 王文金, 邹定安, 等. 地质灾害治理工程中的滑坡治理措施研究[J]. 山西冶金, 2023, 46(1):223-224,227.
	HONG Huolin, WANG Wenjin, ZOU Dingan, et al. Study on landslide control measures in geological hazard control engineering[J]. Shanxi Metallurgy, 2023, 46 (1): 223-224, 227.
[8]	傅能武, 张春. 某露天矿山采矿工业场地边坡滑坡治理[J]. 现代矿业, 2021, 37(10):111-112.
	FU Nengwu, ZHANG Chun. Slope landslide treatment of an open-pit mine mining industry site[J]. Modern Mining, 2021, 37 (10): 111-112.
[9]	张济斌, 侯付闯. 基于FLAC 3D数值模拟的抗滑桩土拱效应研究[J]. 水利技术监督, 2023(7):178-181.
	ZHANG Jibin, HOU Fuchuang. Research on soil arch effect of anti-slip pile based on FLAC 3D numerical simulation[J]. Water Conservancy Technical Supervision, 2023 (7): 178-181.
[10]	李江, 赵泽龙. 矿山工程中地质灾害及边坡滑坡治理方法策略分析[J]. 世界有色金属, 2020(22):200-201.
	LI Jiang, ZHAO Zelong. Analysis on the control methods and strategies of geological disaster and slope landslide in mine engineering[J]. World Nonferrous Metals, 2020 (22): 200-201.
[11]	董世文. 矿山地质灾害治理工程施工中边坡稳定问题及滑坡治理方法[J]. 世界有色金属, 2019(15):125-127.
	DONG Shiwen. Slope stability and landslide control method in construction of mine geological disaster control project[J]. World Nonferrous Metals, 2019(15): 125-127.
[12]	吴祥银. 布沼坝露天矿西帮边坡稳定性及滑坡综合治理研究[D]. 徐州: 中国矿业大学, 2022.
	WU Xiangyin. Study on the slope stability and comprehensive treatment of landslide in the western slpoe of Buzhaoba open-pit mine[D]. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology, 2022.
[13]	张健宁. 白音华一号露天矿东帮2^#煤变形区边坡稳定性与治理研究[D]. 阜新: 辽宁工程技术大学, 2015.
	ZHANG Jianning. Study on the stability and governance of the east slopedeformation area of 2^# coal in Baiyinhua No.1 open-pit mine[D]. Fuxin: Liaoning University of Engineering and Technology, 2015.

适应性评价指标	非常重要	重要	较重要	一般	不重要
安全可靠性U₁	0.35	0.2	0.2	0.15	0.1
经济合理性U₂	0.15	0.45	0.25	0.1	0.05
技术实施的可行性U₃	0.2	0.35	0.25	0.1	0.1
环境适应性U₄	0.05	0.25	0.4	0.2	0.1
社会适应性U₅	0.1	0.15	0.25	0.3	0.2

适应性评价指标	信息熵值e	信息效用值d	权重/%
安全可靠性A	0.758	0.242	17.922
经济合理性B	0.706	0.294	21.779
技术实施的可行性C	0.64	0.36	26.723
环境适应性D	0.752	0.248	18.385
社会适应性E	0.795	0.205	15.191

变量	系数	评价等级
非常重要	0.173	5
重要	0.296	4
较重要	0.269	3
一般	0.158	2
不重要	0.104	1
结果Y		3.276

适应性评价指标	特征向量	权重值/ %	最大特征根λ_max	CI值
安全可靠性	1.667	33.338	5	0
经济合理性	1.083	21.652
技术实施的可行性	0.916	18.324
环境适应性	0.75	14.99
社会适应性	0.585	11.695

一级指标	二级指标	评价标准			权重值θ₁
一级指标	二级指标	适应性好(3)	适应性较好(2)	适应性差(1)	权重值θ₁
安全可靠性 A	抗滑安全系数A₁	Ⅰ级 F_s≥1.3	Ⅱ级 1.2≤F_s<1.3	Ⅲ级 1.1≤F_s<1.2	0.11	0.33
	结构耐久性A₂	钢筋混凝土	素混凝土	浆砌块石	0.11
	地基承载力A₃	弱风化基岩地基	中风化基岩地基	强风化、软质地基	0.11
经济合理性 B	总体投资B₁/(万元)	<60	60~250	>250	0.11	0.22
经济合理性 B	单位滑坡体积费用B₂/(元·m^-3)	<1 200	1 200~4 500	>4 500	0.11	0.22
技术可行性 C	施工材料获取便利性C₁	本地丰富可直接取材	周边地区可便捷采购	需跨区域长途运输采购	0.09	0.18
技术可行性 C	工序的难易程C₂	简单施工	工序较复杂	工序很复杂	0.09	0.18
环境适应性 D	施工过程环境干扰程度D₁	施工干扰轻微	施工干扰较严重	施工干扰很严重	0.075	0.15
环境适应性 D	治理后生态恢复速率D₂	生态快速恢复	提高了坡体稳定性,生态恢复较快	生态破坏较重,需要较长时间恢复	0.075	0.15
社会适应性 E	施工期间社会干扰程度E₁	对社会无干扰或干扰极小	对社会有一定干扰但可控	对社会干扰较大且影响显著	0.06	0.12
社会适应性 E	治理后社会综合效益E₂	消除了滑坡安全隐患	基本消除了滑坡隐患	降低了滑坡风险	0.06	0.12