Premium
Assessment of Geological Security and Integrated Assessment Geo‐environmental Suitability in Worst‐hit Areas in Wenchuan Quake
Author(s) -
LI Wenpeng,
WEN Dongguang,
ZHOU Aiguo,
SUN Xiaoming,
MENG Hui,
SHI Jusong,
CHEN Zongyu,
ZHANG Liqin,
FENG Xiaoming,
LIU Changli,
ZHOU Jianwei
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
acta geologica sinica ‐ english edition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.444
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1755-6724
pISSN - 1000-9515
DOI - 10.1111/j.1755-6724.2009.00104.x
Subject(s) - zoning , active fault , geology , geologic hazards , mining engineering , quake (natural phenomenon) , fault (geology) , landslide , environmental science , seismology , civil engineering , engineering
The Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 and geo‐hazards triggered by the earthquake caused large injuries and deaths as well as destructive damage for infrastructures like construction, traffic and electricity. It is urgent to select relatively secure areas for townships and cities constructed in high mountainous regions with high magnitude earthquakes. This paper presents the basic thoughts, evaluation indices and evaluation methods of geological security evaluation, water and land resources security demonstration and integrated assessments of geo‐environmental suitability for reconstruction in alp and ravine with high magnitude earthquakes, which are applied in the worst‐hit areas (12 counties). The integrated assessment shows that: (1) located in the Longmenshan fault zone, the evaluated area is of poor regional crust stability, in which the unstable and second unstable areas account for 79% of the total; (2) the geo‐hazards susceptibility is high in the evaluation area. The spots of geo‐hazards triggered by earthquake are mainly distributed along the active fault zone with higher distribution in the moderate and high mountains area, in which the areas of high and moderate susceptibility zoning accounts for 40.1% of the total; (3) geological security is poor in the evaluated area, in which the area of the unsuitable construction occupies 73.1%, whereas in the suitable construction area, the areas of geological security, second security and insecurity zoning account for 8.3%, 9.3% and 9.3% of the evaluated area respectively; (4) geo‐environmental suitability is poor in the evaluated area, in which the areas of suitability and basic suitability zoning account for 3.5% and 7.3% of the whole evaluation area.