抽水蓄能电站建设期水土流失及其次生灾害风险评价

马萧萧; 朱安平; 余蔚青; 刘新; 李璇

doi:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2022.02.022

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

抽水蓄能电站建设期水土流失及其次生灾害风险评价

试验研究

- 抽水蓄能电站建设期水土流失及其次生灾害风险评价
- Risk Assessment of Soil and Water Loss and Secondary Disasters During Pumped Storage Power Station Construction
- 水土保持通报 2022年42卷第2期页码：157-165
- 作者机构：
  
  1. 国网新源控股有限公司,北京,100052
  2. 紫光软件系统有限公司,北京,100084
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
  
  国网新源公司2021年科技项目“安徽绩溪抽水蓄能电站环保水保验收管理及技术体系研究与应用服务”(202103)
- DOI：10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2022.02.022
  中图分类号： S157.1;TV743
- 纸质出版：2022
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
马萧萧, 朱安平, 余蔚青, 等. 抽水蓄能电站建设期水土流失及其次生灾害风险评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022,42(2):157-165.

Ma Xiaoxiao, Zhu Anping, Yu Weiqing, et al. Risk Assessment of Soil and Water Loss and Secondary Disasters During Pumped Storage Power Station Construction[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2022, 42(2): 157-165.
马萧萧, 朱安平, 余蔚青, 等. 抽水蓄能电站建设期水土流失及其次生灾害风险评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022,42(2):157-165. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2022.02.022.

Ma Xiaoxiao, Zhu Anping, Yu Weiqing, et al. Risk Assessment of Soil and Water Loss and Secondary Disasters During Pumped Storage Power Station Construction[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2022, 42(2): 157-165. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2022.02.022.

摘要

[目的] 对抽水蓄能电站建设期水土流失及其次生灾害风险进行评价，对涉及的要素特征进行筛选分析，为提高工程建设期绿色安全施工水平提供科学支持。[方法] 采用层次分析法结合模糊综合评价法，从3个维度共选取了8个一级指标和34个二级指标进行分析评价。[结果] 构建了抽水蓄能电站建设期水土流失及其次生灾害风险评价模型，并划分为5个风险等级，将模型应用于安徽省绩溪抽水蓄能电站的研究表明该电站在建设期水土流失风险灾害等级为3级，属一般安全等级。结合该工程建设期的实情，验证了模型的可行性。[结论] 抽水蓄能电站选址在很大程度上决定着工程建设期水土流失及其次生灾害风险等级。采用该方法评价风险等级为3级及以下的工程，可在确保工程水土保持措施按照要求落实建设的基础上，增强建设期水土保持监测水平。应重点关注建设期弃渣堆置不合规及取弃土过程中的潜在土壤流失量，防微杜渐，避免水土流失及其次生灾害现象的发生。

Abstract

[Objective] The risk of soil and water loss and such secondary disasters that may exist in the construction of pumped storage power stations was evaluated to screen and analyze the characteristics of the elements involved in order to provide scientific support for improving green and safe construction during the project construction period. [Methods] The analytic hierarchy process method was used combined with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to select eight primary indicators and thirty-four secondary indicators from three dimensions for analysis and assessment. [Results] A risk assessment model of soil and water loss and its secondary disasters during the construction period for a pumped storage power station was constructed

and the risk was divided into five levels. The model was applied to the Jixi pumped storage power station in Anhui Province. The risk level of soil and water loss and its secondary disasters during the construction period for this pumped storage power station was level three

which belongs to the general safety level. The feasibility of the model was verified by comparing results with actual measurements during the construction period. [Conclusion] Site selection for pumped storage power stations could largely determine the risk level of soil and water loss and secondary disasters during the project construction period. Projects with risk level of grade three as evaluated by using method in this study could benefit from improved supervision frequency on the basis of learning from relevant soil and water conservation supervision and risk prevention and control measures. Such actions could avoid soil and water loss occurring from slope sliding and slag sliding as far as possible

and allow for the taking of preventive measures to completely eliminate the occurrence of soil and water loss and related secondary disasters.

关键词

Keywords

references

王丙乾,董剑敏,关前锋,等.基于灰色关联TOPSIS法的抽水蓄能电站风险评价体系研究[J].南方能源建设,2020,7(S2):56-61.

冯志泽.自然灾害等级划分及灾害分级管理研究[J].灾害学,1996,1(1):34-37.

何利民,李静娜,赵雪雯.基于层次分析—模糊综合评价的油库衍生灾害分级研究[J].安全与环境学报,2021,21(1):33-41.

石济开,邵超峰,鞠美庭,等.石油化工企业环境风险分级评价指标体系研究[J].安全与环境学报,2015,15(2):324-330.

Aljaroudi A, Khan F, Akinturk A, et al. Risk assessment of offshore crude oil pipeline failure [J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2015,37(4):101-109.

Cavanagh N, Hickey C A. “Triple Bottom Line” approach to QRA [J]. Chemical Engineering, 2012,26(28):164-170.

Adi J, Nezamoddini Z. Evaluation of chlorine gas release hazard [J]. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2012,37(1):1-8.

McDaniels T L. Creating and using objectives for ecological risk assessment and management [J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 2000,3(6):299-304.

廖春芳,周羿霖,储诚诚,等.郴宁高速公路建设项目水土流失风险评价[J].公路工程,2013,38(1):17-19,27.

赵心畅,徐洪霞.溧阳抽水蓄能电站水土流失防治措施的分析[J].水力发电,2010,36(7):22-24.

肖国年,周宁,李铮,等.宜兴抽水蓄能电站工程区降雨侵蚀力特征分析[J].人民长江,2020,51(S2):45-49.

刘权,杨跃斌,龙方,等.超大城市内大型抽水蓄能电站建设与生态环境协调发展实践[J].水力发电,2021,47(2):14-17,30.

王静,张翼,杨凯.抽水蓄能电站水土保持措施设计[J].中国水土保持,2018(1):17-19.

刘兰芬.河流水电开发的环境效益及主要环境问题研究[J].水利学报,2002,33(8):121-128.

李文秀,张敬武,李文静,等.山区开挖对自然坡稳定性及环境影响分析[J].化工矿物与加工,2011(3):32-34.

孙金辉,谢忠胜,陈欢,等.基于层次分析法的北川县环境地质承载力评价[J].水土保持通报,2018,38(4):125-128.

王克勤,姜德文,高天天,等.基于层次分析法的生产建设项目水土保持影响综合指数研究[J].水土保持通报,2015,35(3):136-142.

Harker P T, Vargas L G. The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process [J]. Management Science, 1987,33(11):1383-1403.

Dong Sihui, Zhao Yuku, Li Min. Improvement of analytic hierarchy process and its application for coal mine safety assessment [J]. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2013,368/370(Ⅲ):1979-1984.

刘守强,武强,曾一凡,等.基于GIS的改进AHP型脆弱性指数法[J].地球科学,2017,42(4):625-633.

潘网生,李鑫,张晓周,等. FAHP-GIS在FAST台址单体滑坡危险性评价中的应用[J].水土保持通报,2020,40(4):108-115,132.

环境保护部科技标准司. HJ 19-2011环境影响评价技术导则生态影响[S].北京:中国环境科学出版社,2011.

刘迎春,石云山,卢启春,等.基于指标评分法的单体管道地质灾害风险评价:以土质滑坡为例[J].天然气技术与经济,2015,9(3):57-61.

贺宇昊,陈勇,曾向阳,等.基于AHP和FCE的矿山开采地质灾害风险评价:以上横山钒矿区为例[J].化工矿物与加工,2015(1):36-39.

水利部水土保持司. SL190-2007土壤侵蚀分类分级标准[S].北京:中国水利水电出版社,2007.

水利部水土保持监测中心. GB/T50434-2018生产建设项目水土流失防治标准[S].北京:中国计划出版社,2018.

中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. JGJ59-2011建筑施工安全检查标准[S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社,2011.

尚志海,刘希林.基于LQI的泥石流灾害生命风险价值评估[J].热带地理,2010,30(3):289-293.

国家环境保护总局科技标准司.GB3838-2002地表水环境质量标准[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2002.

浏览量

689

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

基于生态文明的西安市经济技术开发区土地集约利用合理度研究

多沙粗沙区露天煤矿水土保持生态效应的监测评价

基于模糊综合法和灰色关联法的百花湖水质评价

国家水土保持重点工程效益综合评价模型研究

资源枯竭型城市转型对净生态系统生产力的影响——以江苏省徐州市为例