x% ² Ò v v > e Á » ß Ç å0{ | v%Á b e È t b...
TRANSCRIPT
STUDY ON HYSTERESIS EFFECTS OF FLOODS ON BEDLOAD TRANSPORTWITH A PIPE HYDROPHONE IN UPSTREAM OF NUNOME-DAM
Kazuhide TOMISAKA, Tomoya YAMAZAKI, Itaru YONEDA, Sohei KOBAYASHI, Yasuhiro TAKEMON, Tetsuya SUMI, Daizo TSUTSUMI
We installed a pipe hydrophone and monitored bedload transport for 3 years at an upstream site of the Nunome Dam in Nara Prefecture. A few dozen times of flood events were observed each year including large-scale floods,such as the typhoon No.18 last year. The hysteresis curve between discharge and bedload was examined by comparing bedload transport between rising and receding phases in each flood event. The curve of each event changed according to the previous occurrence of large flood. Bedload at given discharge was almost equal between rising and receding phases for small floods, while that of receding phases increased for a large flood, and that of rising phases increased for a few subsequent smaller floods. Bedload is likely to increase temporally after a sediment supply from banks and tributaries occurring during large floods.
Key Words : pipe hydrophone, bedload, flood events, rising and receding phases,hysteresis curve, sediment supply
1),2) 5cm
2011 43)
2mm
3)
3
- 43 -
1km
300m
50.92km2 1/100
18.3m
48mm
2.25m
mV
6
2 4 16 64 256 1024
3)
16
0
SB(m3/s)
)1(10 616 WLpS B
45.84 p16 16
2mm
0.7 L 2.25m
W 18.3m
16
2m3/s
5m3/s
16
*
)2(11
2
dRi
gdu e
u* m/s 2.65
1 g 9.8m/s2 dm R m ie m/m
50% 0.0985m m
0.01 3
qb*
N
5km
cc/s
pulse/s
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
50
100
150
2000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00(m
3 /s)
(m3 /
s)
2013/9/15 9/16 9/17 9/18
2013 9 15 17
- 44 -
)3(1
*
gd
qq bb
qb m3/s
(1)4)
2011 4 2013 12
84
2011
12,15 2012 17 2013 18
185m3/s 2013 18
5% 95% 3
1×10-3(m3/s)
10m3/s 2011
10m3/s 2013 2012
3
201318
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
(m3 /
s)
5%
95%
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1 10 100
(m3 /
s)
(m3/s)
5%95%
5%95%
5%95%
2011
2012
2013
( )
3
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
0.01 0.1 1 10
q b*
*
201120122013
0
50
100
150
200
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0
50
100
150
200
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 8/1 12/16/15/1 9/17/1 11/110/1
0
50
100
150
200
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
(m3 /
s)
(m3 /
s)
12
15
17
18
2011 2013
- 45 -
5)
4-5
6)
4
2011 4-6
3
2012 2013
2012 2013
7-9
10-12
2013
18 10
150m3/s 2012
17 2009 2004
2
100m3/s
7)
2
4 1
<10m3/s 2 10-20m3/s 3 20-40m3/s 4 >40m3/s
90%
3
10m3/s 20m3/s 40m3/s
50m3/s
40m3/s 0
(m3 )
0.01
1
100
(m3)
1-34-67-910-12
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1 10 100 1 10 100(m3/s)
1 10 100
104
105
106
107
107
107
105
104
104
106
106
105
- 46 -
1 10 100
m3/s
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1 10 100 1 10 100
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
(m3 /
s)(m
3 /s)
1
10
100
1.E-06
1.E-04
1.E-0290% 90%
1
10
100
1.E-06
1.E-04
1.E-02
1
10
100
1.E-06
1.E-04
1.E-02
1
10
100
1.E-06
1.E-04
1.E-02
2011 2012 20134 12 1 12 1 12
(m3 /
s)
90%
- 47 -
50m3/s
2 3
50m3/s
3
50m3/s
1) , , :
, ,
Vol.61, pp.35-38, 2008.
2) , , , , :
, , Vol. 62, pp. 18-26, 2010.
3) , , , , , ,
:
, , Vol.19, pp.147-152, 2013.
4) :
11 , , 1999.
5) :
, pp.176-177, 2012.
6) , , , , :
, Vol. 66, pp.
13-22,2014.
7) , ,Reservoir Sedimentation
:
, , 2010
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
1 10 100(m3/s)
(m3 /
s)
( )
- 48 -