北京地区坡面径流计算模型的比较研究

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2002.05.604

地理科学 ›› 2002, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (5): 604-609.doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2002.05.604

北京地区坡面径流计算模型的比较研究

符素华^1,4, 刘宝元^1,4, 吴敬东², 段淑怀³

1. 北京师范大学资源与环境科学系北京 100875;
2. 北京市水科所北京 100044;
3. 北京市水土保持监测总站北京 100073;
4. 北京师范大学环境演变与自然灾害教育部重点实验室北京 100875

收稿日期:2001-10-15 修回日期:2002-02-10 出版日期:2002-09-20 发布日期:2002-09-20
基金资助:
国家杰出青年基金项目中国水蚀预报模(49725103);北京市科技项目;国家重点基础研究发展规划项目草地与农牧交错带生态系统重建机理及优化生态-生产范式(G2000018602)资助。

Study on Runoff Calculation Method in Beijing Mountainous Area

FU Su-hua^1,4, LIU Bao-yuan^1,4, WU Jing-dong², DUAN Shu-huai³

1. Department of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875;
2. Beijing Institute of Water Science, Beijing 100044;
3. Beijing Soil Loss Conservation Station, Beijing 100073;
4. Key Laboratory of Environmental Change and Natural Disaster, the Ministry of Education of China, Beijing 100875

Received:2001-10-15 Revised:2002-02-10 Online:2002-09-20 Published:2002-09-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 利用北京市西南山区房山蒲洼两个坡耕地小区30场降雨径流资料和密云石匣示范区休闲地试验小区13场降雨径流资料,对Chu修正的Mein-Larson-Green-Ampt(GAML)、Phillip、Horton和SCS径流曲线数法4种径流计算公式进行了对比。结果表明:GAML和Phillip计算结果的模型确定性系数较高,Horton入渗曲线和SCS曲线数的计算结果模型确定性系数偏低。根据模型参数的易获得性,建议在北京山区,在有降雨过程资料时,使用Chu修正的GAML入渗曲线进行径流计算;若无降雨过程资料可用SCS径流曲线数进行径流计算。本研究结果可用于北京地区径流量预报和水土资源评价。

Abstract: Runoff causes soil erosion and environmental pollution. It is very important for soil loss calculation and soil and water resources evaluation to select suitable runoff calculation method. The 30 single storm data of two conventional tillage plots at Puwa watershed, Fangshan County and 13 single storm data of one fallow plot at Shixia watershed, Miyun County were used. Several runoff calculation methods, including GAML revised by Chu, Phillip, Horton, SCS curve number, were compared. The results showed that the model efficiencies of GAML and Phillip were higher than those of Horton and SCS curve number. According to the parameters easily obtained, GAML revised by Chu is suggested when there are the continuous records of rainfall in Beijing mountainous area. If not, SCS curve number should be used. The results can be served as soil and water evaluation and plan.

中图分类号:

S157.1

符素华, 刘宝元, 吴敬东, 段淑怀. 北京地区坡面径流计算模型的比较研究[J]. 地理科学, 2002, 22(5): 604-609.

FU Su-hua, LIU Bao-yuan, WU Jing-dong, DUAN Shu-huai. Study on Runoff Calculation Method in Beijing Mountainous Area[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2002, 22(5): 604-609.

参考文献

[1] Green W H and Ampt G A. Studies on soil physics. part 1: the flow of air and water through soils[J]. Jour. Ag. Sci. 1911, 4(1):1-24.
[2] Mein R G, Larson C L. Modelling infiltration during a steady rain[J]. Water Resour. Res. 1973, 9(2):384-394.
[3] Shu Tung Chu. Infiltration during an unsteady rain[J]. Water Resource Research. 1978,14(3) :461-466.
[4] Philip J R. The theory of infiltration: 1. the infiltration quation and its solution[J]. Soil Sci. 1957, 8(3): 345-357.
[5] Chow V T, Maidment D R, Mays L W. Applied hydrology [M]. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988. 109.
[6] U.S. Soil Conservation Service, National engineering handbook [M]. Hydrology Section 4, 1985.79.
[7] 包为民.格林-安普特下渗曲线的改进和应用[J].人民黄河,1993,9:1～3.
[8] 郭瑛.一种非饱和产流模型的探讨[J].水文,1982,1:1～7.
[9] 郝振纯.黄土地区降雨入渗模型初探[J].水科学进展.1994,5(3):186～192.
[10] Williams J R. EPIC, the erosion-productivity impact calculator, volume 1: model documentation [R]. Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C..1983.
[11] Knisel W G (ed). Creams: a field scale model for chemicals,runoff, and erosions from agricultural management systems [R], USDA Conservation Research Report No. 26, 1980.
[12] YoungRA, OnsadCA, BoschDD, etal. Agnps: anonpoint source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds [J]. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1989, 44(2): 168-173.
[13] Nash J E, Sutcliffe J V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models, part 1: a discussion of principles [J]. J.Hydrol. 1970, 10(3) :282-290.
[14] NearingMA, LiuBY, RisseLM, etal. Curve numbers and Green-Ampt effective hydraulic conductivities[J]. Water Resources Bulletin. 1996, 32(1): 125-136.
[15] Rawls W J, Brakensiek D L. Comparison between GreenAmpt and curve number runoff predictions [J]. Trans. Asae1983, 29(6): 1597-1599.
[16] King K W, Arnold J G, Bingner R L. Comparison of GreenAmpt and curve number methods on Goodwin Creek watershed using Swat[J]. Trans. ASAE. 1999, 42(4):1-7.
[17] Clausnitzer V, Hopmans J W and Lstarr J. Parameter uncertainty analysis' of common infiltration models [J].Soil Sci.Soc. Am. J. 1998, 62(6):1477-1487.

北京地区坡面径流计算模型的比较研究

Study on Runoff Calculation Method in Beijing Mountainous Area

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

[1]	张传才, 秦奋, 王海鹰, 李宁, 李阳. 砒砂岩区地貌形态三维分形特征量化及空间变异[J]. 地理科学, 2016, 36(1): 142-148.
[2]	赵平伟, 郭萍. 1980~2013年滇西北地区降雨侵蚀力变化特征[J]. 地理科学, 2015, 35(10): 1306-1311.
[3]	汪言在, 苟诗薇. 重庆市降雨侵蚀力空间格局及其变化[J]. 地理科学, 2013, 33(1): 116-122.
[4]	王仁德, 邹学勇, 赵婧妍. 半湿润地区农田土壤粉尘释放的风洞模拟研究[J]. 地理科学, 2012, 32(11): 1364-1369.
[5]	杨育红, 阎百兴, 沈波, 曹会聪. ¹³⁷Cs示踪技术在黑土区农业非点源污染负荷研究中的应用[J]. 地理科学, 2010, 30(1): 124-128.
[6]	闫业超, 张树文, 岳书平. 克拜东部黑土区侵蚀沟遥感分类与空间格局分析[J]. 地理科学, 2007, 27(2): 193-199.
[7]	郭旭东, 邱扬, 连纲, 王静. 基于"压力-状态-响应"框架的县级土地质量评价指标研究[J]. 地理科学, 2005, 25(5): 579-583.
[8]	王小丹, 钟祥浩, 范建容, 李辉霞. 金沙江干热河谷元谋盆地冲沟沟头形态学特征研究[J]. 地理科学, 2005, 25(1): 63-67.
[9]	罗利芳, 张科利, 李双才. 撂荒后黄土高原坡耕地土壤透水性和抗冲性的变化[J]. 地理科学, 2003, 23(6): 728-733.
[10]	郑粉莉, 高学田. 坡面土壤侵蚀过程研究进展[J]. 地理科学, 2003, 23(2): 230-235.
[11]	赵善伦, 尹民, 张伟. GIS支持下的山东省土壤侵蚀空间特征分析[J]. 地理科学, 2002, 22(6): 694-699.
[12]	章文波, 谢云, 刘宝元. 利用日雨量计算降雨侵蚀力的方法研究[J]. 地理科学, 2002, 22(6): 705-711.
[13]	卢金发, 刘爱霞. 黄河中游降雨特性对泥沙粒径的影响[J]. 地理科学, 2002, 22(5): 552-556.
[14]	赵烨, 海春兴, 刘霄, 刘海鹏. 滦河源区东沟小流域土壤风蚀特征分析[J]. 地理科学, 2002, 22(4): 436-440.
[15]	张光辉, 刘国彬. 黄土丘陵区小流域土壤表面特性变化规律研究[J]. 地理科学, 2001, 21(2): 118-122.