1. 西北农林科技大学资源与环境学院, 陕西杨凌,712100
2. 中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所黄土高原土壤侵蚀与旱地农业国家重点试验室, 陕西杨凌,712100
3. 西北农林科技大学水土保持研究所, 陕西杨凌,712100
4. 江西省水土保持科学研究院土壤侵蚀与防治重点试验室,江西,南昌,330029
5. 浙江省水利水电勘测设计院,浙江,杭州,310014
6. 中国水电顾问集团华东勘测设计研究院,浙江,杭州,310014
7. 杭州大地科技有限公司,浙江,杭州,310000
纸质出版:2014
移动端阅览
詹松, 王文龙, 黄鹏飞, 等. 非硬化路面与原生地面侵蚀水动力参数对比研究[J]. 水土保持通报, 2014,33(2):1-6.
ZHAN Song, WANG Wen-long, HUANG Peng-fei, et al. Comparative Analysis of Hydrodynamic Parameters for Unpaved Road and Original Ground[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2014, 33(2): 1-6.
詹松, 王文龙, 黄鹏飞, 等. 非硬化路面与原生地面侵蚀水动力参数对比研究[J]. 水土保持通报, 2014,33(2):1-6. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2014.02.001.
ZHAN Song, WANG Wen-long, HUANG Peng-fei, et al. Comparative Analysis of Hydrodynamic Parameters for Unpaved Road and Original Ground[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2014, 33(2): 1-6. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2014.02.001.
非硬化路面是神府煤田重要的侵蚀单元
其侵蚀过程和方式与原生地面存在一定差别。通过野外人工模拟降雨试验
对比分析了非硬化路面和原生地面水沙响应的过程和机制。结果表明:(1)非硬化路面径流主要为过渡流
原生地面主要为层流
且均为缓流; (2)非硬化路面水流流速、剪切力、佛汝德数、雷诺数、功率大于原生地面
曼宁系数、达西系数小于原生地面; (3)非硬化路面水力参数随坡度、雨强变化趋势与原生地面不完全一致; (4)非硬化路面产沙量随径流量增大
原生地面产沙量为非硬化路面的0.8%~14%; (5)非硬化路面侵蚀模数对水动力参数响应紧密程度表现为:径流总动能> 平均水流功率> 平均水流剪切力。
Erosion processes and modes may be changed on unpaved road formed by rolling original ground. The objective of this study was to reveal the changing mechanisms of water and sediment yield by a series of outdoor artificial rainfall simulation experiments in Shenfu coalfield. Results show that: (1) Flow regime is mainly the transitional flow on unpaved road and the laminar flow on original ground
and both of them are the subcritical flow. (2) Reynolds number
shear force
Froude number
flow velocity and stream power on unpaved road are higher than those on original ground
while the Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient and the Manning roughness coefficient on unpaved road are lower than those on original ground. (3) Hydrodynamic parameters on unpaved roads are not absolutely consistent with those on original ground. (4) Sediment yield on original ground is lower than that on unpaved road and increased as runoff yield increases. (5) Correlation coefficients for the responsive relationships between sheet erosion rate and hydrodynamic parameters on unpaved road are in the following order: runoff kinetic energy> mean stream power> mean flow shear stress.
张科利,徐宪利,罗丽芳.国内外道路侵蚀研究回顾与展望[J].地理科学,2008,28(1):119-123.
Fransen P J B, Phillips C J, Fahey B D. Forest road erosion in New Zealand:Overview[J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 2001, 26(2):165-174.
Nyssen J, Poesen J, Moeyersons J, et al. Impact of road building on gully erosion risk:A case study from the northern Ethiopian Highland[J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 2002,27(12):1267-1283.
Carr W W, Ballard T M. Hydroseeding forest roadsides in British Columbia for erosion control[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1980, 35(1):33-35.
王贞,王文龙,罗婷,等.非硬化路面侵蚀产沙规律野外模拟试验[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(12):79-83.
崔欢虎,闫翠萍,靖华,等.黄土丘陵区不同下垫面降雨产流与蓄水窖工艺技术[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(2):101-104.
田风霞,刘刚,郑世清,等.草本植物对土质路面径流水动力学特征及水沙过程的影响[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(10):25-29.
刘刚,郑世清,田风霞,等.坡度与降雨强度对植物路路面侵蚀动力参数的影响[J].水土保持学报,2009,3(4):44-49.
郑世清,田风霞,王占礼,等.植物路与土质路产流产沙过程的比较试验[J].泥沙研究,2009(4):1-6.
曹世雄,陈莉,高旺盛. 在黄土丘陵区土质路面种草[J].生态学报,2005,25(7):1754-1763.
Nearing M A, Simanton J R, Norton L D, et al. Soil erosion by surface water flow on a stony, semiarid hillslope[J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,1999,24(8):677-686.
张宽地,王光谦,吕宏兴,等.模拟降雨条件下坡面流水动力学特性研究[J].水科学进展,2012,23(2):229-235.
罗婷,王文龙,王贞,等.非硬化土路土壤剥蚀率与水动力学参数分析[J].人民黄河,2011,3(4):96-102.
刘俊娥,王占礼,高素娟,等.黄土坡面片蚀过程动力学机理试验研究[J].农业工程学报,2012,28(7):144-149.
0
浏览量
1254
下载量
0
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621