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
CSTR:
作者:
作者单位:

作者简介:

陈岳岩(2001-),男,硕士研究生,主要从事土壤侵蚀研究。E-mail:13734017176@163.com

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

S157.1

基金项目:

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


Response of Erosion Processes and Hydrodynamic Indicators to Inflow Patterns on Engineering Accumulation Slopes
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

  • 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:

    [目的] 为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。[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),研究坡面侵蚀过程对入流形式响应机制。[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趋势;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,股流呈急流,面流呈缓流。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、径流单位能量等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,面流为径流功率(R2=0.68),而股流为径流剪切力(R2=0.80)。5)相比面流,股流坡面土壤可蚀性指标KτKωKε 分别增加166.67%、81.25%和113.86%,对应的临界水动力阈值(τ0ω0ε0)分别增加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。研究结果有助于揭示入流形式对坡面侵蚀过程的影响机理,为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:

    [Objective] To reveal the effects of different inflow patterns on slope erosion,sediment yield,and their hydrodynamic characteristics. [Methods] Based on simulated inflow scouring experiments,two inflow patterns (concentrated flow and sheet flow)and three flow rates(4,8,and 12 L/min)were designed to investigate the response mechanisms of slope erosion processes to inflow patterns. [Results] 1)Under concentrated flow and sheet flow,the slope runoff and sediment yield processes were basically consistent. The runoff yield process shifted abruptly and then stabilized,while the sediment yield process showed an initial rapid decline and then diminished with fluctuations. Compared with sheet flow,the soil erosion rate under concentrated flow exhibited stronger fluctuations,with coefficients of variation ranging from 71.49% to 111.94%. 2)The average flow velocity on the slope under concentrated flow was significantly higher than that under sheet flow(p<0.05),with differences ranging from 28.15% to 52.85%. 3)Under both concentrated flow and sheet flow,the slope flow types were consistent,both showing the coexistence of transitional flow and turbulent flow. However,significant differences existed in the slope flow regimes:concentrated flow showed supercritical flow,while sheet flow showed subcritical flow. 4)Under both inflow patterns,soil erosion rates were extremely significantly positively correlated(p<0.01)with Reynolds number,resistance coefficient,runoff shear stress,stream power,and runoff unit energy. However,the optimal hydrodynamic indicators differed:stream power(R2=0.68)for sheet flow and runoff shear stress(R2=0.80)for concentrated flow. 5)Compared with sheet flow,the slope soil erodibility indices(KτKω,and Kε)under concentrated flow increased by 166.67%,81.25%,and 113.86%,respectively, and the corresponding critical hydrodynamic thresholds(τ0ω0ε0)increased by 19.78%,40.70%,and 42.11%, respectively. [Conclusion] Concentrated flow shows stronger turbulence and higher erosion energy,leading to severe soil erosion. These findings help reveal the influencing mechanisms of inflow patterns on slope erosion processes and provide a crucial theoretical basis for developing slope erosion prediction models under different inflow patterns.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文

陈岳岩, 马宝红, 栾新龙, 魏晓兰, 吴旭, 牛耀彬.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[J].水土保持学报,2025,39(5):92~104

复制
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:
  • 在线发布日期: 2025-10-20
  • 出版日期: 2025-10-28
文章二维码