工程堆积体坡面侵蚀过程及水动力指标对入流形式的响应
DOI:
CSTR:
作者:
作者单位:

1.山西农业大学资源环境学院;2.土壤健康山西省实验室

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金(42207397);山西省应用基础研究计划青年项目(20210302124074;20210302124373)


Response of Slope Erosion Processes and Hydrodynamic Indicators to Inflow Patterns on Spoil Heaps
Author:
Affiliation:

1.College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University;2.Soil Health Shanxi Provincial Laboratory

Fund Project:

National Natural Science Foundation of China ( 42207397 ) ; Basic Research Program of Shanxi Province ( 20210302124074 ; 20210302124373 )

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    摘要:[目的]工程堆积体作为生产建设项目水土流失的重要策源地,具有独特的“平台-陡坡”构成,平台汇流以不同的入流形式引发严重的坡面侵蚀,然而,关于坡面侵蚀过程对入流形式响应制尚不明确。[方法]基于人工模拟入流冲刷试验,试验设计2种入流形式(股流、面流)和3种入流量(4、8、12 L/min),以期揭示不同入流形式对坡面侵蚀产沙及其水动力学特性的影响。[结果] 1)股流和面流下,坡面产流产沙过程基本一致,产流过程均呈现从跃变到稳定,产沙过程呈现先快速降低再波动减小;而相比面流,土壤侵蚀率在股流下表现出更强的波动性,其变异系数高达71.49%~111.94%。2)坡面平均流速在股流下显著高于面流(p< 0.05),其幅度高达28.15%~52.85%。3)股流和面流下,坡面流型一致,均为过渡流和紊流并存,而坡面流态存在显著差异,股流下呈急流,面流下呈稳流。4)2种入流形式下,土壤侵蚀速率与雷诺数、阻力系数、径流剪切力、径流功率、径流单位能量均存在极显著正相关(p< 0.01)。但最佳水动力学指标存在差异,面流下为径流功率(R2= 0.68),而股流下为径流剪切力(R2= 0.80)。5)相比面流,股流下坡面土壤可蚀性指标Kτ、Kω和Kε分别增加了166.67%,81.25%和113.86%,对应的临界水动力阈值(τ0、ω0、ε0)分别增加了19.78%,40.70%,42.11%。[结论]入流方式为股流表现出更强的紊动性,具有更高的侵蚀能量,引发严重的水土流失。本研究有助于揭示入流形式对坡面侵蚀过程的影响机理,对不同入流方式下坡面侵蚀预测模型的建立提供重要的理论依据。

    Abstract:

    Abstract:[Objective] Spoil heaps, a major source of soil erosion in construction projects, feature a platform-slope structure, where platform runoff induces severe slope erosion in different inflow patterns. However, the response mechanisms of the slope erosion process to the inflow patterns remain unclear. [Methods] Artificially simulated scouring experiments were conducted with two inflow patterns (concentrated-flow and surfaced-flow) and three flow rates (4, 8 and 12 L/min), to reveal the effects of different inflow patterns on the sediment production and hydrodynamic characteristics of slope erosion. [Results] 1) The process of sediment and runoff production were the similar under both concentrated-flow and surfaced-flow. The process of runoff production exhibited a transition from jumping to stabilization, while the process of sediment production showed a rapid decrease and then a fluctuating reduction. Compared with the surfaced-flow, the soil erosion rate showed stronger volatility in concentrated-flow, with the coefficient of variation of 71.49%~111.94%. 2) Mean flow velocity in concentrated-flow was significantly increased 28.15%~52.85% compared with surfaced-flow (p< 0.05), with increasing in flow rate. 3) Runoff conditions under both concentrated-flow and surfaced-flow were transitional flow and turbulent flow, while there was a significant difference in runoff state, which was rapid flow in concentrated-flow and tranquil flow in the surfaced-flow. 4) Soil erosion rate was positively correlated with the Reynolds number, resistance coefficient, shear stress, runoff power, and runoff unit energy under the two inflow patterns (p< 0.01). However, the optimal hydrodynamic indicators differed, with runoff power (R2= 0.68) for surfaced-flow and runoff shear (R2= 0.80) for concentrated-flow. 5) Compared with surfaced-flow, soil erodibility indexes Kτ, Kω and Kε in concentrated-flow increased by 166.67%, 81.25% and 113.86%, respectively, and the corresponding critical hydrodynamic thresholds (τ0, ω0, ε0) increased by 19.78%, 40.70%, and 42.11%, respectively. [Conclusion] The concentrated-flow shows stronger turbulence, has higher erosion energy, and triggers serious soil erosion. This study reveals the influence mechanism of inflow patterns on the slope erosion process and provides an important theoretical basis for the development of slope erosion prediction models under different inflow patterns for spoil heaps.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文
分享
相关视频

文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2025-03-28
  • 最后修改日期:2025-04-25
  • 录用日期:2025-05-21
  • 在线发布日期: 2025-07-07
  • 出版日期:
文章二维码