CAJ | 학술논문

正确计算排涝模数,对于确定排涝工程的适宜规模具有重要现实意义.该文以湖北省四湖流域螺山排区为例,根据排区下垫面条件进行产流计算,分别采用经验公式法和平均排除法计算不同排涝标准下的排涝模数,分析2种计算方法中排涝天数、排涝模数及排涝重现期之间的关系.结果表明:经验公式法对应于平均排除法的排涝天数为3.5d.当经验公式法求得的排涝模数小于平均排除法求得的排涝模数时(本区对应排涝天数小于3.5d),选用平均排除法计算排涝模数偏于安全;而当经验公式法求得的排涝模数大于平均排除法求得的排涝模数时(本区对应排涝天数大于3.5d),则选用经验公式法计算排涝模数偏于安全.此外,在排涝模数确定的条件下(即工程的排水能力一定),采用不同的排水公式校核排水标准时存在差异.一日暴雨时,采用平均排除法(采用三日排除)10年一遇和20年一遇的设计标准分别相当于经验公式法15年一遇和33年一遇的设计标准;而在三日暴雨下,平均排除法(采用五日排除)10年一遇和20年一遇的设计标准则分别相当于经验公式法4年一遇和7年一遇的设计标准.研究成果对合理选择排涝模数计算方法具有一定参考价值.
정학계산배로모수,대우학정배로공정적괄의규모구유중요현실의의.해문이호북성사호류역라산배구위례,근거배구하점면조건진행산류계산,분별채용경험공식법화평균배제법계산불동배로표준하적배로모수,분석2충계산방법중배로천수、배로모수급배로중현기지간적관계.결과표명:경험공식법대응우평균배제법적배로천수위3.5d.당경험공식법구득적배로모수소우평균배제법구득적배로모수시(본구대응배로천수소우3.5d),선용평균배제법계산배로모수편우안전;이당경험공식법구득적배로모수대우평균배제법구득적배로모수시(본구대응배로천수대우3.5d),칙선용경험공식법계산배로모수편우안전.차외,재배로모수학정적조건하(즉공정적배수능력일정),채용불동적배수공식교핵배수표준시존재차이.일일폭우시,채용평균배제법(채용삼일배제)10년일우화20년일우적설계표준분별상당우경험공식법15년일우화33년일우적설계표준;이재삼일폭우하,평균배제법(채용오일배제)10년일우화20년일우적설계표준칙분별상당우경험공식법4년일우화7년일우적설계표준.연구성과대합리선택배로모수계산방법구유일정삼고개치.
The correct calculation of drainage modulus is of important practical significance for the determination of the suitable scale of water logging control projects. Taking the Luoshan drainage area in Four-lake Watershed in Hubei Province as an example, based on the runoff generation characteristics of underlying surfaces in the drainage area, the drainage area was classified into 4 kinds of underlying surfaces, i.e. the paddy field, the arid land (including wasteland), the water surface, and the building plot. Then the runoff of different underlying surfaces was calculated respectively. Drainage moduli under different water logging control standards were calculated with the empirical formula and average draining method respectively. Then the relationship between days of drainage for water logging control, drainage moduli and return periods derived from both calculation methods was analyzed. Results showed that the corresponding days of drainage for water logging control calculated by the empirical formula were 3.5 days. When drainage moduli calculated by the empirical formula were less than that by the average draining method, days of drainage for water logging control were less than 3.5 days in the drainage area. Then drainage moduli calculated by the average draining method were suggested to ensure the project safety. However, when drainage moduli calculated by the empirical formula were more than that by the average draining method, days of drainage for water logging control were more than 3.5 days in the drainage area. So drainage moduli calculated by the empirical formula were relatively safe. In addition, if drainage moduli were determined, the drainage standard checked with different methods was different. The design standards with return periods of 10 years and 20 years and the water logging discharge duration of three days derived from the average draining method were equivalent to design standards with return periods of 15 years and 33 years derived from the empirical formula under one-day rainstorm respectively. However, design standards with return periods of 10 years and 20 years and the water logging discharge duration of five days derived from the average draining method were equivalent to design standards with return periods of 4 years and 7 years derived from the empirical formula under three-day rainstorm, respectively. This research can be used as a reference for reasonable selection methods for calculating drainage modulus.