论文部分内容阅读
着重比选确定性模型(CF)和逻辑回归模型(LR)的组合评价模型(CF&LR组合模型)与国际地质灾害减灾联合会的评价模型(ICG模型),应用于我国大尺度区域滑坡和泥石流灾害危险性评价结果的合理性和准确性。评价指标均为7个:坡度、岩性、地质年代、距断层距离、月降雨量变差系数、年平均≥50 mm暴雨日数和地震动峰值加速度。评价单元为1km×1km栅格。评价区域为中国和广东省。合理性检验结果表明,虽然ICG模型应用于中国滑坡和泥石流灾害危险度评价基本合理,但CF&LR组合模型对中国滑坡和泥石流灾害危险度的评价结果更为合理。准确性检验结果表明,无论从中国范围还是广东省范围来看,CF&LR组合模型评价结果的准确性均高于ICG模型。由此可见,适用于欧洲地质灾害危险性评价的ICG模型,在中国滑坡和泥石流灾害危险性评价应用中并没有优势。CF&LR组合模型则可以较为准确地对中国滑坡和泥石流灾害危险性进行评价,可推荐为中国区域滑坡和泥石流灾害危险性评价的方法之一。
The combination evaluation model (CFGM) and the evaluation model (ICG model) of the International Geological Disaster Reduction and Disaster Reduction Association (CFG), which focus on the comparison of certainty models (CFs) and logical regression models (LRs), are applied to large-scale landslide and debris flow disaster in China The rationality and accuracy of the results of the risk assessment. The evaluation indexes are all seven: slope, lithology, geochronology, distance from fault, coefficient of variation of monthly rainfall, annual average ≥50 mm rainstorm days and peak acceleration of ground motions. The evaluation unit is 1km × 1km grid. The evaluation area is China and Guangdong Province. The rationality test results show that although the ICG model is reasonable for the risk assessment of landslide and debris flow hazards in China, the CF & LR combination model is more reasonable to evaluate the risk of landslide and debris flow hazards in China. Accuracy test results show that the accuracy of CF & LR combination model evaluation results is higher than that of ICG model both in China and in Guangdong province. Therefore, the ICG model applicable to the assessment of the risk of geological disasters in Europe has no advantage in the application of the landslide and debris flow hazard assessment in China. CF & LR combination model can accurately evaluate the hazard of landslide and debris flow hazards in China and can be recommended as one of the methods for risk assessment of landslides and debris flow hazards in China.