DAI Shuangliang,HAN Jianqiao,CAO Qixin,et al.Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Dominant Discharge and Effective Discharge in the Lower Reaches of Weihe River[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2020,27(06):94-99.
渭河干流下游造床流量与有效流量的时空变化特征
- Title:
- Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Dominant Discharge and Effective Discharge in the Lower Reaches of Weihe River
- 文章编号:
- 1005-3409(2020)06-0094-06
- Keywords:
- lower reaches of Weihe River; dominant discharge; effective discharge; river evolution; river regulation
- 分类号:
- TV147
- 文献标志码:
- A
- 摘要:
- 为研究渭河下游河流演变关键特征流量的变化特性,采用改进的马卡维也夫法与水沙频率组合法,计算并分析了咸阳、临潼与华县水文站的造床流量与有效流量的时空变化特征,探讨了造床流量、有效流量与平滩流量之间的关系。结果表明:年均流量在1934—2014年呈波动性下降趋势,含沙量在1980年前呈增加趋势,此后至2014年急剧下降; 造床流量由1980—1989年之前的561～1 586 m3/s减小到之后的254～885 m3/s; 有效流量除了华县站在1930—1959年时段内急剧减小外,其他年份波动变化。在空间上,造床流量除了临潼站在1990—1999年大于下游华县站之外均呈现下游大于上游的特点; 有效流量除了临潼站在1970—1979年小于上游咸阳站和在2000—2009年略大于下游华县站之外也呈现下游大于上游的特点,这与径流量的沿程增大密切相关。年均径流量、含沙量与输沙率对造床流量影响较大,而含沙量与输沙率对有效流量影响较小。在渭河下游,平滩流量最大,造床流量次之,有效流量最小,三者并不一致,采用平滩流量法计算渭河下游的造床流量是不合适的。
- Abstract:
- To understand the key discharges of river evolution in the lower reaches of Weihe River, the Makovieve method and frequency combination of water and sediment method were used to calculate the dominant discharge and effective discharge in Xianyang, Lintong and Huaxian stations. In addition, we discussed the relationship between the key discharges and bank-full discharge. Conclusions are as follows. In terms of time, from 1934 to 2014, the average annual runoff showed a wave decline, and the sediment concentration showed an increasing trend before 1980, and then dropped sharply in the period from 1980 to 2014. The dominant discharge decreased from 561～1 586 m3/s before the period 1980—1989 to 254～885 m3/s after that period. The effective discharge fluctuated in other years except for the sharp decrease in Huaxian station during the period from 1930 to 1959. In terms of space, the dominant discharge showed the phenomenon that discharge of the downstream was larger than that of the upstream except that the discharge in Lintong station was larger than that of downstream in Huaxian station in 1990—1999. The effective discharge showed the phenomenon that the discharge of the downstream was larger than that of the upstream except that the discharge in Lintong station was smaller than that of the upstream of Xianyang station in 1990—1999 and was little larger than that of downstream of Huaxian station in 2000—2009, which was closely related with the increasing runoff along the river. The average annual runoff, sediment concentration and sediment transport rate had great influence on the dominant discharge, however, the sediment concentration and sediment transport rate had less influence on the effective discharge. In the lower reaches of Weihe River, the bank-full discharge was the largest, followed by the dominant discharge, and the effective discharge was the smallest, which was not consistent. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use the bank-full discharge method to calculate the dominant discharge in the lower reaches of Weihe River.
参考文献/References:
[1] Simon A, Dickerson W, Heins A. Suspended-sediment transport rates at the 1.5-year recurrence interval for ecoregions of the United States: transport conditions at the bankfull and effective discharge[J]. Geomorphology, 2004,58(1):243-262.
[2] Lenzi M A, Mao L, Comiti F. Effective discharge for sediment transport in a mountain river: Computational approaches and geomorphic effectiveness[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2006,326(1):257-276.
[3] 李子文.造床流量为参数的冲积河流输沙量模型研究及应用[D].西安:西安理工大学,2018.
[4] 马元旭,许炯心,黄河清.无定河流域悬移质有效输沙流量分析[J].泥沙研究,2010(3):73-80.
[5] Andrews E D. Effective and bankfull discharges of streams in the Yampa River basin, Colorado and Wyoming[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 1980,46(3):311-330.
[6] 李文文,吴保生.渭河下游平滩流量影响因子相关分析[J].应用基础与工程科学学报,2011,19(S1):28-36.
[7] Andrews E D, Nankervis J M. Effective discharge and the design of channel maintenance flows for gravel-bed rivers[J]. Natural & Anthropogenic Influences in Fluvial Geomorphology, 1995,89:151-164.
[8] Jianqiao H, Zhaohua S, Yitian L. Distribution of erosion intensity in the Jingjiang reach influenced by the Three Gorges Dam[J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 2018,43(12):2654-2665.
[9] 袁敏洁,徐梓曜,江恩慧.有效流量研究及应用现状[J].人民黄河,2015,37(6):32-35.
[10] 陈建国,胡春宏,董占地.黄河下游河道平滩流量与造床流量的变化过程研究[J].泥沙研究,2006(5):10-16.
[11] 张冰洁,王灵灵,薛亚莉.渭河下游河道造床流量及过洪能力变化分析[J].陕西水利,2018(1):8-9,11.
[12] 李福田,高澜.造床流量计算方法初探[J].河海大学学报,1990,18(4):113-116.
[13] Carling P. The concept of dominant discharge applied to two gravel-bed streams in relation to channel stability thresholds[J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 1988,13(4):355-367.
[14] 柴雪柯.渭河流域水沙变化及其影响因素[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2017.
[15] 陈星星.近代渭河下游河道演变趋势研究[D].西安:西安理工大学,2017.
[16] 戴清,胡健,袁玉萍.渭河下游河道输水能力与断面形态响应关系研究[J].中国水利水电科学研究院学报,2007,5(3):227-232.
[17] 马雪妍.渭河下游平滩流量与水沙条件响应关系研究[J].水资源与水工程学报,2006,17(3):79-82.
[18] 宝婉宁,郭维东,李翔.辽河干流中下游河段造床流量和平滩流量及有效流量分析[J].泥沙研究,2018,43(2):55-60.
[19] Wolman M G, Miller J P. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes[J]. the Journal of Geology, 1960,68(1):54-74.
[20] Ma Y, Huang H Q, Xu J, et al. Variability of effective discharge for suspended sediment transport in a large semi-arid river basin[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2010,388(3):357-369.
[21] Roy N G, Sinha R. Effective discharge for suspended sediment transport of the Ganga River and its geomorphic implication[J]. Geomorphology, 2014,227:18-30.
[22] 张为,高宇,许全喜.三峡水库运用后长江中下游造床流量变化及其影响因素[J].水科学进展,2018,29(3):331-338.
[23] 陈栋,余明辉,朱勇辉.三峡建库前后下荆江有效流量研究[J].水利水电快报,2018,29(6):788-798.
[24] Benson M A, Thomas D M. A definition of domiant discharge[J]. International Association of Scientific Hydrology Bulletin, 1966,11(2):76-80.
备注/Memo
收稿日期:2019-05-16 修回日期:2020-07-01
资助项目:国家自然科学基金(41807067); 陕西省水利水保科技项目(2017sbkj-01); 水资源与水电工程科学国家重点试验室(武汉大学)开放研究基金项目(2018HLG03)
第一作者:代双亮(1997—),男,四川自贡人,本科,研究方向为水文与水资源。E-mail:shuangliang622@163.com
通信作者:韩剑桥(1987—),男,河南禹州人,博士,副研究员,主要从事泥沙运动力学研究。E-mail:hjq13@163.com