·434 工程科学学报，第40卷，第4期 表6待评样本评价指标和权重的云参数 Table 6 Calculation results of cloud for each index level and weight 评价指标及云权重 工程样本及云参数C详价 一级指标 二级指标 (权重云C权重】 (权重云C权重 1号滑坡 2号滑坡 3号滑坡 4号滑坡 斜坡平均坡度，U: (0.50,0.0039,0.0001) (0.66.0.0043,0.0004) (0.99,0.0018,0.0001) (0.73,0.0043,0.0007) (0.691,0.064,0.008) 斜坡纵向坡形，U2 (0.58,0.0510,0.0064) (0.36,0.0535,0.0097) (0.64,0.0825.0.0097) (0.48,0.0695,0.0090) (0.309,0.064,0.008) 地震水平加速度，U1 (0.61,0.010,0.0002) (0.45.0.0065,0.0008) (0.45,0.0065,0.0008) (0.77,0.0099,0.0016) (0.691,0.064,0.008) 滑坡发生，U1 地层岩性，U4 (0.83,0.0861,0.0106) (0.56,0.0528,0.0067) (0.76,0.0797.0.0097 (0.81,0.0851,0.0104) (1.0,0.103,0.013) (0.5,0.039,005) 地表径流，U1s (0.71,0.0735,0.0089) (0.52,0.0520,0.0067)(0.52,0.0520,0.0067) (0.37,0.0473,0.0074) (0.691,0.064,0.008) 年均降雨量，U16 (0.62,0.0083.0.0010) (0.65.0.0047.0.0009)(0.52.0.0021.0.0002)(0.51.0.0009.0.0001) (0.5,0.039,005) 人类活动，U1? (0.09,0.0640,0.0117) (0.34,0.0528,0.0079)(0.80,0.0821,0.0101) (0.64,0.0684,0.0083) (0.5,0.039,005) 抗滑加固，U21 (0.84,0.0887,0.0109) (0.85,0.0871,0.0108) (0.91,0.0942,0.0117) (0.81,0.0851,0.0104) (0.691,0.064,0.008) 滑坡防治，2 截水排水，U2 (0.94,0.0973,0.0122) (0.83,0.0861,0.0106) (0.94,0.0973,0.0122) (0.83,0.0861,0.0106) (0.691,0.064,0.008) (0.5,0.039,005) 植被覆盖度，Us (0.07,0.0095,0.0011) (0.45,0.0058,0.0004)(0.93,0.0095,0.0009) (0.65,0.0047.0.0008) (0.309,0.064,0.008) 管道位置，U31 (0.78,0.0809,0.0099) (0.80.0.0871,0.0106)(0.51.0.0721.0.0086) (0.82,0.0881.0.0107) (0.691,0.064,0.008) 管道敷设，U3 管道与主滑向夹角，U2 (0.91,0.0112.0.0002) (0.05.0.0062,0.0006)(0.53,0.0037.0.0005)(0.27.0.0046,0.0004) (0.5,0.039,0.005) (0.309,0.064,0.008) 管道埋深，U5 (0.25,0.0079,0.0009) (0.47.0.0040.0.0006) (0.52,0.0019,0.0002) (0.88,0.0145,0.0017) (0.309,0.064,0.008) 混凝土稳管，01 (0.19,0.0510,0.0104) (0.29,0.0552,0.0088) (0.29,0.0552,0.0088) (0.32,0.0485.0.0083) 管道防护，U, (0.309,0.064,0.008) (0.309,0.064,0.008) 管沟回填，U42 (0.42,0.0463,0.0064) (0.17.0.0568,0.0106)(0.53,0.0619.0.0077) (0.34,0.0528,0.0079) (0.309,0.064,0.008) 较低 高 表71~4号滑坡危险性状态评价结果对比表 3号沿坡 0.9 4号滑坡 Table 7 Comparison of risk assessment results of the No.1-4 landslide 0.8 待评滑坡 半定量法评 半定量法的 本文综合评价 0.7 赵0.6 样本 价所得指数 对应结果 结果 05 0.3362 较高 中~较高，偏向较高 0.4 1号 0.3 2号 0.1767 8 中~较高，靠近中等 0.2 0.1 3号 0.3878 较高 中~较高，贴近较高 0.10.2030.40.50.60.70.8 0.9 1.0 4号 0.3647 较高 中~较高，靠近较高 论域 图5管道滑坡危险性状态云 结合表7和图5可知，1~4号滑坡的危险性采 Fig.5 Cloud chart of pipeline landslide risk grade 用规范法所得结果与本文所提方法的结果基本一 适用性和有效性，参考规范推荐的滑坡灾害风险概 致，说明基于云理论的油气管道滑坡危险性综合评 率指数评价的原理、方法和级别标准)，分别对1~ 价方法是有效可行的，且在评价过程中能充分体现 4号滑坡的风险概率进行了评价，得出半定量评价 参评变量的模糊性和随机性，更符合人们对管道滑 结果及其对应等级如表7所列.规范法得出的风险 坡危险性发育认识上的思维模式和表达习惯，也使 概率值是基于管道在滑坡威胁下发生失效的可能性 评价结果的表达直观化. 指数，其与本文的云理论综合评价目的相同，即可用 3.3.2定性指标不同云化法所得结果比较 风险概率值来间接反映滑坡的危险性状态等级 前文述及，对于定性指标专家群评语的云转化工程科学学报，第 40 卷，第 4 期 表 6 待评样本评价指标和权重的云参数 Table 6 Calculation results of cloud for each index level and weight 评价指标及云权重 工程样本及云参数 C评价 一级指标 ( 权重云 C权重) 二级指标 ( 权重云 C权重) 1 号滑坡 2 号滑坡 3 号滑坡 4 号滑坡 斜坡平均坡度，U11 ( 0. 691，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 50，0. 0039，0. 0001) ( 0. 66，0. 0043，0. 0004) ( 0. 99，0. 0018，0. 0001) ( 0. 73，0. 0043，0. 0007) 斜坡纵向坡形，U12 ( 0. 309，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 58，0. 0510，0. 0064) ( 0. 36，0. 0535，0. 0097) ( 0. 64，0. 0825，0. 0097) ( 0. 48，0. 0695，0. 0090) 地震水平加速度，U13 ( 0. 691，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 61，0. 010，0. 0002) ( 0. 45，0. 0065，0. 0008) ( 0. 45，0. 0065，0. 0008) ( 0. 77，0. 0099，0. 0016) 滑坡发生，U1 ( 1. 0，0. 103，0. 013) 地层岩性，U14 ( 0. 5，0. 039，005) ( 0. 83，0. 0861，0. 0106) ( 0. 56，0. 0528，0. 0067) ( 0. 76，0. 0797，0. 0097 ( 0. 81，0. 0851，0. 0104) 地表径流，U15 ( 0. 691，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 71，0. 0735，0. 0089) ( 0. 52，0. 0520，0. 0067) ( 0. 52，0. 0520，0. 0067) ( 0. 37，0. 0473，0. 0074) 年均降雨量，U16 ( 0. 5，0. 039，005) ( 0. 62，0. 0083，0. 0010) ( 0. 65，0. 0047，0. 0009) ( 0. 52，0. 0021，0. 0002) ( 0. 51，0. 0009，0. 0001) 人类活动，U17 ( 0. 5，0. 039，005) ( 0. 09，0. 0640，0. 0117) ( 0. 34，0. 0528，0. 0079) ( 0. 80，0. 0821，0. 0101) ( 0. 64，0. 0684，0. 0083) 抗滑加固，U21 ( 0. 691，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 84，0. 0887，0. 0109) ( 0. 85，0. 0871，0. 0108) ( 0. 91，0. 0942，0. 0117) ( 0. 81，0. 0851，0. 0104) 滑坡防治，U2 ( 0. 691，0. 064，0. 008) 截水排水，U22 ( 0. 5，0. 039，005) ( 0. 94，0. 0973，0. 0122) ( 0. 83，0. 0861，0. 0106) ( 0. 94，0. 0973，0. 0122) ( 0. 83，0. 0861，0. 0106) 植被覆盖度，U23 ( 0. 309，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 07，0. 0095，0. 0011) ( 0. 45，0. 0058，0. 0004) ( 0. 93，0. 0095，0. 0009) ( 0. 65，0. 0047，0. 0008) 管道位置，U31 ( 0. 691，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 78，0. 0809，0. 0099) ( 0. 80，0. 0871，0. 0106) ( 0. 51，0. 0721，0. 0086) ( 0. 82，0. 0881，0. 0107) 管道敷设，U3 ( 0. 5，0. 039，0. 005) 管道与主滑向夹角，U32 ( 0. 309，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 91，0. 0112，0. 0002) ( 0. 05，0. 0062，0. 0006) ( 0. 53，0. 0037，0. 0005) ( 0. 27，0. 0046，0. 0004) 管道埋深，U33 ( 0. 309，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 25，0. 0079，0. 0009) ( 0. 47，0. 0040，0. 0006) ( 0. 52，0. 0019，0. 0002) ( 0. 88，0. 0145，0. 0017) 管道防护，U4 ( 0. 309，0. 064，0. 008) 混凝土稳管，U41 ( 0. 309，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 19，0. 0510，0. 0104) ( 0. 29，0. 0552，0. 0088) ( 0. 29，0. 0552，0. 0088) ( 0. 32，0. 0485，0. 0083) 管沟回填，U42 ( 0. 309，0. 064，0. 008) ( 0. 42，0. 0463，0. 0064) ( 0. 17，0. 0568，0. 0106) ( 0. 53，0. 0619，0. 0077) ( 0. 34，0. 0528，0. 0079) 图 5 管道滑坡危险性状态云 Fig． 5 Cloud chart of pipeline landslide risk grade 适用性和有效性，参考规范推荐的滑坡灾害风险概 率指数评价的原理、方法和级别标准［1］，分别对 1 ～ 4 号滑坡的风险概率进行了评价，得出半定量评价 结果及其对应等级如表 7 所列． 规范法得出的风险 概率值是基于管道在滑坡威胁下发生失效的可能性 指数，其与本文的云理论综合评价目的相同，即可用 风险概率值来间接反映滑坡的危险性状态等级． 表 7 1 ～ 4 号滑坡危险性状态评价结果对比表 Table 7 Comparison of risk assessment results of the No． 1--4 landslide 待评滑坡 样本 半定量法评 价所得指数 半定量法的 对应结果 本文综合评价 结果 1 号 0. 3362 较高 中 ～ 较高，偏向较高 2 号 0. 1767 中 中 ～ 较高，靠近中等 3 号 0. 3878 较高 中 ～ 较高，贴近较高 4 号 0. 3647 较高 中 ～ 较高，靠近较高 结合表 7 和图 5 可知，1 ～ 4 号滑坡的危险性采 用规范法所得结果与本文所提方法的结果基本一 致，说明基于云理论的油气管道滑坡危险性综合评 价方法是有效可行的，且在评价过程中能充分体现 参评变量的模糊性和随机性，更符合人们对管道滑 坡危险性发育认识上的思维模式和表达习惯，也使 评价结果的表达直观化． 3. 3. 2 定性指标不同云化法所得结果比较 前文述及，对于定性指标专家群评语的云转化 · 434 ·