Medical Journal of the Chinese People's Armed Police Forces

Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute >

2025 , Vol. 42 >Issue 9: 22 - 33

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11988/ckyyb.20240625

River Lake Protection And Regulation

Review on the Characteristics and Mechanisms of Riverbank Collapse in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River

  • GONG Zhi-long , 1 ,
  • LI Ling-yun 1, 2 ,
  • WANG Hong-yang 1 ,
  • DENG Cai-yun 1 ,
  • GUO Chao , 1, 2
Expand
  • 1 River Research Department, Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, Wuhan 430010, China
  • 2 Key Laboratory of River and Lake Regulation and Flood Control in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Changjiang River of Ministry of Water Resources,Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute,Wuhan 430010, China

Received date: 2024-06-14

  Revised date: 2024-08-30

  Online published: 2025-01-02

Fold

Abstract

[Objectives] This paper aims to provide theoretical basis and scientific support for the prediction, early warning, and systematic prevention and control of riverbank collapse in the middle reach of mainstream Yangtze River by reviewing the characteristics and mechanisms of riverbank collapse. [Methods] By reviewing domestic and international literature, we systematically summarize current research status of riverbank collapse along the middle reach of mainstream Yangtze River, including the definition, classification, spatiotemporal distribution characteristics, and main influencing factors and their action mechanisms. Using measured data from hydrological stations including runoff, sediment load, and water level variations, we analyze the changes in water and sediment conditions before and after the operation of the Three Gorges Reservoir and their impacts on bank collapse. Particular focus is given to the mechanisms of bank collapse from both internal factors (such as the properties of riverbank soil and channel morphology) and external factors (such as hydrological and sediment conditions, water level fluctuations, vegetation coverage, and human activities). [Results] Spatiotemporal distribution characteristics: riverbank collapse along the middle reach of mainstream Yangtze River exhibits variation both longitudinally and laterally along the river; the frequency of collapse in the lower Jingjiang section is higher than that in the upper Jingjiang section, and collapses occur more often on the left bank than on the right bank. Affected by water scouring and water level fluctuations, the flood season and the recession period after the flood are peak periods for bank collapse. After the operation of the Three Gorges Reservoir, the number of river sections with strong catastrophic bank collapse decreases significantly. Internal factors of bank collapse include the composition of riverbank soil (such as the binary structure of an upper cohesive soil layer and a lower sandy soil layer), the height difference between the beach and the trough, channel sinuosity, and bank slope gradient. External factors include water and sediment conditions (such as longitudinal flow scouring, circulation erosion, and backflow scouring), water level fluctuations, vegetation coverage, and human activities (such as near-bank sand mining, sudden loading, and slope excavation). Water flow scouring is the dominant factor of bank collapse, especially the scouring effect of longitudinal flow, which directly impacts the riverbank crest and slope. Meanwhile, circulation erosion, backflow scouring, and water level fluctuations also jointly contribute to the occurrence of bank collapse. Bank protection projects achieve significant results in controlling collapse, but collapse still occasionally occurs in protected sections. Bank protection work does not significantly change the flow structure, but intensifies scouring at the unprotected toe of the slope, resulting in deep troughs approaching the bank and further aggravating riverbank erosion. [Conclusions] Bank collapse is the result of the combined effects of multiple factors. It remains necessary to conduct in-depth research on the characteristics of riverbank collapse in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River and to clarify the threshold values of influencing factors, to provide a reference for slope stability assessment and for the prediction and early warning of bank collapse. During design and construction, attention should be paid to controlling the underwater slope gradient of engineering works and to considering the impact of toe scouring on the overall stability of the riverbank. With the continued operation of hydropower stations such as Wudongde and Baihetan in the lower reaches of the Jinsha River and the ongoing implementation of soil and water conservation efforts in the basin, the “clear water scouring” in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River will persist. Therefore, priority should be given to preventing bank collapse caused by strong longitudinal scouring and channel pattern adjustment in highly sinuous river sections, and to strengthen protection, routine monitoring, and early warning in these areas. Future research may further explore the effect of vegetation in stabilizing riverbanks, and enhance monitoring of river morphology, the stability of specific cross-sections, and channel evolution, in order to increase the inspection frequency and monitoring precision in high-risk reaches and areas prone to collapse.

Key words： bank collapse; bank slope stability; river management; revetment engineering; middle reach of the Yangtze River

Cite this article

GONG Zhi-long , LI Ling-yun , WANG Hong-yang , DENG Cai-yun , GUO Chao . Review on the Characteristics and Mechanisms of Riverbank Collapse in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2025 , 42(9) : 22 -33 . DOI: 10.11988/ckyyb.20240625

开放科学(资源服务)标识码(OSID):

0 引言

崩岸是冲积平原河流常见的自然演变形式,通常指在水流泥沙运动与河床边界相互作用下,河岸受到各种因素的影响发生崩坍、滑塌变形[1-2]。崩岸不仅会改变河道平面形态、引起上下游河势的调整以及土地流失,而且直接影响防洪、航运、涉水建筑物的安全与岸线的保护和利用,一直是冲积平原河流保护与治理研究的重点问题。长江中游干流河道流经广阔的冲积平原,江阔、水深、流急,河床冲淤变化频繁而剧烈,而河岸基本由冲积土组成,抗冲性差,常发生岸坡崩塌险情[3]。近20 a来,长江中下游干流河道年均发生崩岸50余处,累计崩岸总长度约750 km。崩岸形式多样、机理复杂,其隐蔽性、突发性及随机性强,致灾重、预警及治理难度大,特别是近年来已护岸段崩岸也时有发生,严重威胁沿江经济社会发展和群众生命财产安全。例如,2017年长江中游洪湖段燕窝虾子沟堤段发生严重崩岸险情,崩长75 m,崩宽22 m,吊坎高6 m,距堤脚最近14 m,严重危及洪湖长江干堤的安全。随着长江中下游沿江两岸国民经济与社会的发展,对河势、航道、堤岸稳定及河岸带生态环境等方面的要求愈来愈高,相应崩岸所构成的威胁与造成的损失也愈来愈大[4],因此研究掌握长江中游河道崩岸特征,揭示崩岸内、外影响因素作用机理,支撑崩岸预测预警及系统防治是十分必要与迫切的。

1 长江中游河道基本情况

长江干流从湖北宜昌南津关以下,经湖北、湖南至江西鄱阳湖口为中游,长约955 km(图1),流域面积约68万km2,除宜昌—枝城河段(简称宜枝河段)为山体与硬土质岸坡外,长江中游干流河岸主要为上下层二元结构,其中上层为黏性土层,下层为粉细砂或细砂组成的砂土层。宜枝河段长约60.8 km,河道主要为顺直微弯型,其床沙构成以中粗砂占据主导,河床覆盖层薄且多为沙质,河床岸坡则主要由砂砾岩基岩、砂岩或老黏土共同构成。进一步向下,湖北枝城至洞庭湖入汇口城陵矶为荆江河段,长约347.2 km,以其迂回曲折的“九曲回肠”形态著称,上荆江以江口为界,江口以上为卵石夹沙河床,江口以下为中细沙河床;下荆江河床主要由细沙组成[5],该段的堤防岸坡则以土质和沙质为主。城陵矶—武汉河段(简称城汉河段)长约275 km,整体河段较为顺直,以分汊河型为主。床沙成分以细沙为主,岸坡则以土质岸坡占多数。随后,武汉—湖口河段(简称汉湖河段),长约272 km,河道同样保持顺直,河床主要由细沙和中细沙构成,岸坡则主要由亚黏土和亚砂土组成[6-7]。
图1 长江中游干流河道(根据文献[7]修改)

Fig.1 Middle reach of mainstream Yangtze River (modified from Reference [7])

三峡水库运用以来的2003—2022年宜昌、沙市和汉口水文站多年平均径流量分别为4 184亿、3 903亿、6 908亿m3。对比三峡水库蓄水前多年平均流量,自三峡水库蓄水以来,上述3个水文站偏枯幅度分别为4.2%、1%、2.9%,总体上看,水量略有减少,但变化并不显著[8]。
在三峡工程兴建前的几十年中,长江中下游的河床经历了频繁的冲淤变化,但总体上保持了相对平衡状态[8]。然而,自三峡工程投入运行以来,由于上游来沙量的减少以及库区对泥沙的有效拦蓄,2003—2022年,宜昌、沙市和汉口水文站多年平均输沙量分别为0.32亿、0.48亿、0.92亿t,较蓄水前分别减少93%、89%、77%。这一变化导致长江中下游河道经历了长时间的河床冲刷调整。具体来说,从2002年10月至2021年4月,宜昌至湖口河段的平滩河槽总冲刷量达到了26.2亿m3,年均冲刷量为1.35亿m3。在冲刷过程中,河道的断面表现为“滩槽均冲”(滩地与河槽二者均被冲刷)的特点,其中冲刷主要集中在枯水河槽,占据了平滩河槽冲刷量的92%[8]。

2 三峡水库运用以来长江中游河道崩岸特征

根据2016—2022年长江中游崩岸记录[9],得出4个河段崩岸发生位置、时间占比(见表1),可以看出,除城汉河段外,崩岸多发生在左岸,同时在宜枝河段与荆江河段,崩岸多发生在汛期,占比高于汛后退水期,在城汉河段与汉湖河段则相反。
表1 2016—2022年各河段崩岸情况

Table 1 Riverbank collapse conditions in different river sections from 2016 to 2022

河段名称 总崩
岸数		 崩长/
km		 左岸
占比/%		 左岸
占比/%		 汛期
占比/%		 汛后退水期
占比/%
宜枝河段 7 1.1 71 29 57 29
荆江河段 60 23.4 54 46 64 34
城汉河段 26 19.2 33 67 41 56
汉湖河段 38 19.4 84 16 39 53
崩岸情况随中游沿程河岸地质情况不同呈现不均衡性。从宜枝河段、黄石至武穴段、上荆江、城陵矶至黄石段、武穴至九江段到下荆江,河岸崩岸强度由弱变强。其中,因为宜枝河段位于山区河流至平原河流的过渡段,两岸多为丘陵山地,抗冲性强,河势稳定。下荆江河段因二元结构抗冲性差,虽然护岸工程的防护作用使得强崩现象少见,但在多数河段崩岸仍旧频发[3,10]。在沿江横向方面,左右岸因地质条件不同,崩岸发生频率也存在差异。以汉湖河段为例,该段左岸是冲积河漫滩地,抗冲性较差,右岸多为不易冲动的山地丘陵或阶地,故左岸崩岸多于右岸[10]。现场调查和断面形态分析表明荆江段崩岸分布规律表现为下荆江多于上荆江、左岸多于右岸[11-12]。
崩岸的年内分布有一定规律性。水流冲刷是崩岸的主要动力因素,长江中游河道输水输沙主要集中在汛期的5—10月份,此时水流造床作用强,故汛期是崩岸的高发时期。退水期水流流归河槽,比降和流速增大,岸坡坡脚受到严重冲刷,同时河道水位急剧下降,岸坡内的渗流强度不断加大,因而汛后退水期也较容易发生崩岸[6,13]。
余文畴等[3]依据岸线崩退速率将崩岸强度划分为4个等级,<20 m/a为弱崩,[[50,80]m/a为强崩,>80 m/a为剧崩。根据三峡水库运用后长江中游崩岸强度统计,强崩与剧崩河段显著减少,弱崩占比在各分河段有所上升,较强崩以上程度崩岸长度减少。同时,随着长江中游护岸工程的实施,在一定程度上减少了强崩、剧崩的发生[14]。

3 长江中游干流河道崩岸主要影响因素及作用机理

根据崩岸的平面形态,把崩岸分为洗崩、条崩、窝崩。洗崩是指局部河岸表层或小范围土体受水流、风浪(或船行波)侵蚀淘刷形成的剥落或流失;条崩为长距离河岸土体的大幅度崩解或塌落;窝崩则是河岸大面积土体的崩塌,崩塌长度和宽度相当,少则数十米,多则上百米,平面上成窝状(半圆形或马蹄形)楔入河岸[3]。长期以来,学者们致力于重建模拟崩岸过程,从早期的物理模拟[15-19]为主,发展至如今的物理模拟和数值模拟相互结合,互为印证。数值模拟分为基于经验方法及基于动力学方法的崩岸过程模拟[20-24]。基于经验方法的崩岸模拟往往经验性较强,应用于其他河段崩岸模拟时适用性有待验证;基于动力学方法的崩岸模拟则具有较强的动力学机制,可用于模拟计算崩岸的发展过程[25],其中河岸稳定性及坡脚侵蚀模型(Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model,BSTEM)应用较为广泛,国内学者运用其对包括长江、黄河在内多个流域河岸崩塌过程进行了模拟[26-27]。与此同时,崩岸往往是多因素相互作用的结果[28],故上述物理模拟与数值模拟从各个影响因素出发进行研究,根据作用机制角度不同,影响因素分为内部因素和外部因素。外部因素主要为水沙条件,涉及水流纵向冲刷、环流冲刷、水位变动等,同时近岸挖沙、突加荷载、边坡开挖以及植被破坏等人类活动在一定程度内影响崩岸发生;内部因素主要为河道形态、河岸土体性质,其中河道形态包括河弯曲率、滩槽高差、岸坡坡度等。基于现有研究,梳理总结了崩岸主要因素指标,如表2所示,各因素对崩岸的影响示意见图2。下面对各因素具体影响机理进行分析。
表2 长江中游干流河道崩岸主要影响因素及作用机理

Table 2 Main influencing factors and mechanisms of riverbank collapse in middle reach of mainstream Yangtze River

主要影
响因素		 具体指标 作用机理 典型崩岸实例 引起崩
岸阈值		 参考
文献
水动力 流速/
(m·s-1)		 冲刷侵蚀
作用		 1980—1984年长江南京河段崩岸 0.9~2 文献
[29]
水动力 流量造床值/
(m3·s-1)2·d		 造床作用 1980—1984年长江南京河段崩岸 2×1011 文献
[30]
水动力 水位降幅/
(m·d-1)		 渗透压力 2017年8月北门口凸咀下游新崩岸 0.15~
0.3		 文献
[29]
河道
形态		 滩槽高差/
m		 主槽冲刷、
滩面升降以
及岸坡形态
变化		 2018年长江扬中河段 20~30 文献
[31]
河道
形态		 曲率半径与
河宽比值		 水流顶冲 2011—2013年黄河宁蒙河段塌岸 2~4 文献
[29]
河道
形态		 河岸坡比 滑动力 1998年长江中游荆江段黄水套 0.18~
0.5		 文献
[31]、
文献
[32]
河岸
土体		 下卧砂土层厚
度与上覆黏土
层厚度之比		 抗冲刷
能力		 1996年长江下游彭泽马湖堤崩岸 0.7 文献
[33]

注:表2部分影响因素未检索到长江中游段实例、阈值,引用非长江中游河段崩岸实例及阈值以作参考。

图2 各影响因素对崩岸的影响示意图

Fig.2 Impact of various factors on riverbank collapse

3.1 水沙条件

3.1.1 纵向水流冲刷

在水动力条件中,一般认为纵向水流的冲刷作用是影响河流崩岸的主导因素[34-36]。唐日长等[37]发现下荆江来家铺河弯崩岸体积总量会随着流量平方与历时乘积的增大而相应增加,表明流量的大小以及持续时间的长短表征的水流强度对河岸的顶冲和冲刷具有直接的影响。对于长江中游冲积河道而言,水流中推悬比较小,因此悬移质在河道演变中起着关键作用。
根据周美蓉等[38]在低含沙量条件下应用张瑞瑾挟沙力公式,计算得到沙市站流速为1.2 m/s时,挟沙力为0.126 kg/m3,明显大于年平均含沙量0.052 kg/m3。由此可以看出,中游河道水动力作用依旧较强,挟沙力远大于平均含沙量,因此引起长江中游的持续强烈冲刷,易于破坏岸坡稳定引发崩岸。同时,据前文所述三峡工程运用以来,清水下泄,河道断面“滩槽均冲”情况,随着河床的持续冲深,滩槽高差和岸坡增大,导致岸坡稳定性下降,亦易导致崩岸发生。

3.1.2 环流冲刷

环流也是影响崩岸的一个重要因素,水流受河床限制,在离心力作用下水面产生横向比降,形成弯道环流。环流与纵向水流的相互作用形成了螺旋流,对凹岸河床产生了显著的冲刷效果,主要归因于其底部较高的旋度强化了底部泥沙的横向输移能力,从而促进了泥沙在河床中的横向输移过程[39]。而长江中游段,特别是荆江河段,以弯曲和蜿蜒河型为主,环流的作用会促进河道的横向变形,从而影响河岸稳定[40-41]。

3.1.3 回流淘刷

回流是指水流在局部突变和摩擦力作用下形成的绕竖轴旋转的副流,当回流强度足够大时,区内泥沙因水流作用不断对岸壁进行侵蚀,长江中下游典型的“口袋型”窝崩就与河道中大尺度竖轴回流有关[30]。

3.2 水位变动

崩岸同时受到水位升降的影响,王延贵等[42]对河岸受力情况进行了深入分析,认为洪水期河道水位变动对河岸稳定性有重要影响。具体而言,洪水缓慢上涨时期河岸的稳定性表现较为良好,而洪水骤降期稳定性最差。自2003年起,受梯级水库调控的显著影响,长江中游年水位变动的最大幅度呈现显著增长的趋势[43]。具体而言,位于大坝下游的宜昌站年水位最大下降幅度相较于水库蓄水前增加了高达90%,而最大上升幅度也相较蓄水前增长了45%。表3列出了荆江河段部分崩岸发生时段内的水位、流量变化。
表3 部分崩岸发生时段的水位、流量变化

Table 3 Changes in water level and flow rate during riverbank collapse

崩岸
位置		 崩岸巡查
时间		 预估发生
时间段		 水位变
化/m		 流量变化/
( m3·s-1)		 备注
洋溪 2008-10 09-29—
10-07		 -2.3 -7 300 汛后水位
快速降落期
青安
二圣洲		 2016-11 11-13—
11-26		 -3.9 -7 350 汛后水位
快速降落期
北门口 2017-09 08-18—
08-30		 -2.8 -4 200 汛后水位
快速降落期
文村夹 2002-03 03-15—
03-19		 1.3 1 840 汛前涨水期
天字一号 2006-03 02-18—
03-05		 2.5 1 910 汛前涨水期
南五洲 2006-05 05-09—
05-13		 3.6 6 970 汛前涨水期

注:水位变化为负值,表示水位降低;水位变化为正值,表示水位上涨;流量变化为负值,表示流量减小;流量变化为正值,表示流量增加。

虽然在汛期涨水期上升水位会在一定程度内加大对岸坡的侧向压力以及形成有助于土体稳定的逆向渗流,但土体被水浸润,随着含水量增加,孔隙水压力增大,土体抗剪强度将减小,加之涨水时河道流量增加,冲刷加剧,易导致岸坡失稳。
当汛后水位下降时,一方面岸坡所受侧向压力减小,同时岸坡经过长期浸润饱和后抗剪强度降低以及河道水位骤降形成非恒定渗流,这一过程引起土壤渗透压力增大,进而增加岸坡土壤的滑移力,导致岸坡稳定性降低,进而可能引发失稳和破坏[44-45]。汛后水位下降过程中,其下降速率是影响岸坡稳定性的关键[46-47]。当退水过程相对缓慢时,土体得以在较长时间内进行排水,随着含水率的逐步降低,土体的力学强度指标会相应提升,这种增强效应提升了滑裂面的抵抗力,从而有效地增强了河岸的稳定性;然而,若退水过程迅速,则土体将缺乏足够的时间进行排水,潜水位变化滞后于河道水位变化,在此情况下,土体的强度指标由于含水率变化不明显而基本维持不变,同时,土体内留存的水分会对滑动面产生渗透水压力,这一负面作用将削弱河岸的稳定性[48]。概化模型的研究也表明,在控制落水期历时相同的情况下,水位陡降相较于缓降更易于引发崩岸,且规模更为显著[49]。根据长江中游的水文资料显示,汛后的9—12月份期间水位消落速度最快,约占全年消落值的70%,而大部分崩岸也发生在这一时期,甚至延续至第二年的年初[6]。

3.3 河道形态

3.3.1 局部河势调整

鉴于长江中游面临的新水沙环境,河道展现出适应性变化,整体而言,河势维持稳定,但在特定区域却经历了显著的调整。以荆江河段为例,自三峡工程运用以来,下荆江的多处弯道凸岸地带出现了明显的冲刷现象,比如石首弯道北门口以下北碾子湾对岸边滩、调关弯道边滩、监利河弯右岸边滩、荆江门对岸的反咀边滩、七弓岭对岸边滩、观音洲对岸的七姓洲边滩等区域[50]。这种局部河势的变动不仅改变了河道的平面形态,还影响了河道河弯曲率,导致水流顶冲点的位置上移下提,主流贴岸的位置也随之改变。这种变化对于河岸的抗冲性构成了挑战,特别是那些未得到有效或足够保护的河岸,更容易出现冲刷与崩退的现象。以观音洲下段为例,由于弯道主流顶冲点的下移,该区域的未护岸线遭受了显著的崩退(图3)。分汊河道在调整过程中,水流分布和流速可能会发生变化。当主流线偏离原有河道或水流集中冲刷某一侧河岸时,会加剧该侧河岸的冲刷作用,导致土石失去稳定继而发生崩岸。长江中游城陵矶以下分汊河道的边界除南岸受到山体和阶地控制较多外,均为冲积型的二元结构,上层黏性土层较薄,抗冲性很弱,故在水流作用下,产生的崩岸速度较大[51]。
图3 观音洲河势变化与崩岸

Fig.3 River regime and bank collapse in Guanyinzhou reach

3.3.2 河道弯曲程度

河道的弯曲程度对水流的动力学过程有着显著影响,弯道水流作用如图4所示,建立平面直角坐标系xOy,β为弯道转折角,R为单位时间内水流因动量变化对河岸的作用力,Rx为R的x方向分量,Ry为R的y方向分量,v1为水流进入弯道断面平均流速,v2为水流离开弯道断面平均流速, α1 为v1 与x轴夹角,α2 为v2与x轴夹角。弯道会改变水流的方向,增强水流与岸边的相互作用,进而加剧岸边的侵蚀作用,导致崩岸现象的发生。特别是在凹岸处,水流速度较快,河岸受到的顶冲作用强烈,这进一步增加了河岸侵蚀和塌岸的风险。Begin [52]提出,河弯凹岸所承受单位冲击力与河道曲率半径R'和河宽W的比值(R'/W),以及推移质的动摩擦系数,存在明确的函数关系,随着河道弯曲率增加,河道平面形态越弯曲,水流对岸顶冲角越大,河岸冲刷程度也越大[53]。代加兵等[54]的研究显示,黄河毛不拉及陶乐河段河岸坍塌量与河流的弯曲程度具有显著的正相关关系。姚仕明等[6]采用层次分析法对长江中游河道崩岸各影响因素进行权重赋值,认为纵向水流冲刷、河弯曲率较大等因素是影响崩岸发生的主要因素。
图4 弯道水流对河岸作用示意图

Fig.4 Impact of curved channel flow on riverbanks

3.3.3 滩槽高差

滩、槽是河流中的两种基本地貌单元,滩槽高差是指临河滩面高程与平滩流量时主槽平均河底高程的差值,可以反映河流的动力学状态和河床形态的变化。当滩槽高差较小时,意味着河床相对稳定,河流的动力学活动较低;相反,当滩槽高差增大时,意味着河流动力增强,可能引发河床侵蚀或冲刷,导致河道变窄或深化[54]。闻云呈等[31]在分析长江安徽段河势时认为崩岸段坡顶到坡脚距离一般>30 m,当滩槽高差为20~30 m时崩岸也会发生,而<15 m时一般不易发生大规模崩岸(图5)[55]。
图5 长江扬中河段崩岸段滩槽高差频率分布统计(根据文献[31]修改)

Fig.5 Statistics of frequency distribution of height differences between beach and channel in the collapsed section of Yangzhong section(modified from Reference[31])

3.3.4 岸坡坡度

岸坡坡度对河岸稳定的影响也较大。长江中游河岸崩塌的机制主要表现为下层砂土层的持续淘刷导致岸坡变陡,进而使得上方的黏土层失去稳定而坍塌。在砂土层的冲刷过程中,存在一个关键的临界坡比。一旦砂土层的实际坡比达到这一临界值,且水流冲刷持续,下砂土层将倾向于平行后退,同时上黏土层将因失去支撑而悬空,最终引发河岸崩塌。相反,若砂土层的实际坡比低于此临界值,河岸则能维持其稳定性[56]。李义天等[57]将下砂层坡比作为判断崩岸的依据,利用长江中下游实测资料,确定了临界坡比为0.222~0.363。齐家露等[58]在分析长江中游荆江段坡比时提出,需同时考虑水上、水下坡比才能准确反映崩岸区域,并总结得到荆江河段岸坡的水下稳定坡比为0.3,水上稳定坡比为0.5。

3.4 河岸土体性质

3.4.1 河岸土体垂向组成

长江中游河岸土体通常由上层黏性土层和下层砂土层的二元河岸结构组成(图6),而砂土和黏性土在水流中的运动特征存在显著差异。对于疏松的砂土而言,其运动主要受重力作用影响,当水流速度超过泥沙临界起动速度时,砂土颗粒会随水流被冲走;而黏性土则受到土颗粒之间的黏结力、静电引力以及胶结作用的支配,其临界抗冲流速远高于细砂[33,59]。所以,一般认为黏性土层厚度越大,河岸抗冲能力越强。Torrey[60]在研究密西西比河下游岸坡稳定性时发现,当岸坡的下层砂土层厚度与上层黏土层厚度之比<0.7时,岸坡通常能保持相对稳定的状态。岳红艳等[16]通过概化模型试验发现在同流量和河岸坡比时,上覆黏土层与下卧砂土层厚度比越大,河岸崩幅越小,故认为相对而言越稳定。
图6 长江中游河岸典型二元结构示意图

Fig.6 Typical binary structure of riverbanks in the middle reach of mainstream Yangtze River

3.4.2 河岸植被作用

植被在天然河岸的稳定性和崩岸过程中起着重要作用。首先,植被地下根系会与土体相互缠绕、增加土质黏性,能够牢固地固定土壤,减少土壤侵蚀和岸坡坍塌的风险。植被固土作用研究一般通过剪切试验确定根系对土体抗剪强度的增强作用,根系的发育能够增加土壤的抗冲击性和抗侵蚀性,从而有效地减缓河岸侵蚀速度[61]。唐瑞泽[62]采用现场土体冲刷试验方法,分析了植物根系对土体起动切应力及河岸冲刷的影响,并推导土体冲刷系数与植被根体积密度的关系式。其次,植被的茂密可以降低水流速度和能量,减少水流对岸坡的冲击,进而减缓岸坡的侵蚀和崩塌[63]。此外,植被覆盖能够提供阻挡风化和土壤侵蚀的物理保护层,有助于保持河岸的形态,起到稳定河势的作用。需要注意的是,由于植被抗水流冲刷能力有限,仅依靠植被无法达到抵抗侵蚀、稳定岸坡的作用,所以仍需采取硬化措施来保护受冲刷岸段[64]。

3.5 护岸段崩岸影响因素

护岸工程,作为河道整治的基石和防洪体系的核心组件,历经多年的实践,已在长江中下游河道崩岸控制上取得显著成效。河道的平面形态得以基本稳定,有效遏制了岸坡崩塌导致的堤防大幅后退现象。中华人民共和国成立以来的70余年,长江中下游河道治理工作已取得了显著成效,特别是兴建的护岸工程保护范围覆盖了约1 500 km的岸线,占据了总岸线长度(约4 000 km)的37%,且占崩岸总长(近1 800 km)的84% [65]。然而,值得注意的是,护岸工程段仍不时出现崩岸现象,例如2023年11月8日下荆江“天字一号”护岸段发生崩岸,崩长约100 m,崩宽约37 m,崩塌体积约2万m3,水面以上形成近10 m高的陡坎(见图7),这些崩岸事件不仅导致了严重的工程失效,还在很大程度上对长江沿岸的防洪抗汛、航道稳定等功能构成了威胁。
图7 2023年11月8日“天字一号”崩岸照片

Fig.7 Photo of the “Tianzi-1” bank collapse on November 8, 2023

在考虑护岸河段崩岸的影响因素时,水动力条件依然占据首要地位。高清洋等[66]在分析彭兴洲—江心洲护岸工程段崩岸原因时认为,深泓贴岸淘刷加剧是该工程段崩岸的主要原因。在长江中游河道,普遍采用的是平顺护岸工程结构[67],如图8所示。这一结构的主要做法是将抗冲刷材料直接铺设在河岸的岸坡上,特别是针对枯水位以上的区域,通过削坡调整坡度后进行防护。然而,值得注意的是,实施护岸工程后,水流结构并未发生显著改变。尽管护岸工程有效抑制了河岸的侧向变形,并减少了水流从岸坡带走的泥沙量,但这却加剧了水下未受保护区域的坡脚及河槽的冲刷。随着时间的推移,这种冲刷效应逐渐累积,使得深泓逐渐向岸边靠近,进一步加剧了河岸的淘刷,对河岸稳定性构成了显著影响。
图8 平顺护岸结构示意图

Fig.8 Schematic diagram of a smooth revetment structure

同时,护岸工程沿河岸倾斜布置,其坡脚部位的稳定性对于整体防护功能的发挥至关重要。当河床冲刷加剧,床面高程显著下降,水下坡脚受到强烈冲刷而变得陡峭时,护岸块石可能因失稳而向下游滑动或滚落,从而丧失其应有的护岸作用。在此情况下,上部块石因失去下部支撑,长时间受水流冲刷作用,可能逐步导致护岸工程整体的破坏。因此,确保护岸工程坡脚部位的稳定性,对于维护河岸稳定具有重要意义。夏军强等[68]在进行荆江河段抛石护岸稳定性计算时发现,岸坡坡度越小,其坍塌比越小。所以在护岸工程实践中,应注意控制工程水下坡度。

4 结论与展望

长江中游干流河道崩岸频发,对河势稳定、防洪安全、河岸带生态环境健康等造成不利影响,是关系长江中游防洪安全保障的重点问题之一。本文分析总结了近期长江中游河道崩岸特性,探讨了天然段及已护段崩岸主要影响因素及作用机理。主要认识如下:
(1)长江中游河道崩岸在沿程纵向和沿河横向均表现出差异性,在分布差异较为显著的荆江河段表现为下荆江多于上荆江,左岸多于右岸。受水流冲刷及水位变动影响,汛期和汛后退水期为崩岸高发时期,三峡水库运用后强崩与剧崩河段显著减少。
(2)长江中游干流河道主要受自身重力和水流剪切力作用而发生崩岸。就内因而言,包括河岸土体组成、滩槽高差、河弯曲率、岸坡坡度等。外因有水沙条件、水动力条件、植被覆盖、人为因素等。其中水沙条件和水动力条件主要通过改变河道断面形态和河弯曲率,水位变化和植被覆盖主要通过改变河岸侧向压力、渗透压力及土体力学强度。
(3)受梯级水库调控的显著影响,长江中游河段年水位变动幅度显著增长,对河道崩岸的发生有重要促进作用。水位上升会有限地提高对岸坡的侧向压力,但降低了土体抗剪强度,同时往往伴随着流量增大带来的冲刷加剧,总体上对河岸稳定不利;水位下降导致侧向压力减小,浸润水外渗增大土体滑移力,岸坡稳定性下降,而水位下降越迅速则越不利于岸坡稳定。
(4)目前已有学者分析总结了长江、黄河部分河段崩岸影响因素的阈值,其中包括长江中游河道部分崩岸影响因素的阈值,但崩岸是多因素共同作用的结果,所以未来需继续分析总结长江中游河道崩岸情况,确定崩岸影响因素具体指标及对应阈值,在岸坡稳定评估,崩岸预测预警中可将其作为稳定判段条件之一,以作参考。
(5)护岸工程防护后的河段并非绝对的安全无虞,水下未受保护区域的坡脚及河槽的冲刷、深泓贴岸淘刷仍可能导致护岸段发生崩岸。在护岸工程设计施工时,应注意控制工程水下坡度,同时考虑坡脚冲刷幅度对岸坡整体稳定性的影响。
主要展望如下:
(1) 随着乌东德、白鹤滩水电站分别蓄水运用,以及流域水土保持工作的持续加强,预计未来较长时间内,三峡入库和出库的泥沙含量将保持在较低水平,坝下游的“清水下泄”现象将持续存在,进而促使长江中游河道的冲刷作用继续深化,未来应重点预防由纵向冲刷作用和河弯曲率较大引发的崩岸,加强对上述河岸段的防护与日常监测预警。
(2)顺应兼顾生态效益的发展趋势以及生态护岸技术的发展,在未来研究中可以对植被固土作用加以深入研究,比如植被对土体力学性质及岸坡稳定影响作用的定量分析,影响植被固土作用的因素等,从而继续加深植被固土作用对崩岸的影响研究,同时也可为护岸设计等提供参考依据。
(3)结合当前所掌握的崩岸机理及影响因素,在未来长江中游河道治理与防汛工作中,为了更系统地掌握长江中游干流河道的演变动态,应强化对河道地形地貌、特定横断面的形态稳定性及河势变化的观测,同时加强对易发崩岸区域近岸河床冲刷现象的精细监测。此外,还需提升对关键风险河段及崩岸高发区的巡查频次与监测精度,以确保及时发现并应对潜在的水文地质风险,为长江中游的防洪安全与生态保护提供坚实的数据支撑。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
ASCE Task Committee on Hydraulic,Bank Mechanics, Modeling of River Width Adjustment. River Width Adjustment I:Processes and Mechanisms[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 1998, 124(9):881-902.

[2]
张幸农, 蒋传丰, 应强, 等. 江河崩岸问题研究综述[J]. 水利水电科技进展, 2008, 28(3):80-83,94.

(ZHANG Xing-nong, JIANG Chuan-feng, YING Qiang, et al. Review of Research on Bank Collapse in Natural Rivers[J]. Advances in Science and Technology of Water Resources, 2008, 28(3):80-83,94. (in Chinese))

[3]
余文畴, 卢金友. 长江河道崩岸与护岸[M]. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2008:5-18.

(YU Wen-chou, LU Jin-you. Bank Collapse and Bank Protection of Yangtze River Channel[M]. Beijing: China Water & Power Press, 2008: 5-18. (in Chinese))

[4]
胡维忠. 长江中下游干流河道崩岸状况及其防治[J]. 长江技术经济, 2020, 4(1): 17-20.

(HU Wei-zhong. Bank Collapse and Its Prevention in the Main Stream of the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River[J]. Technology and Economy of Changjiang, 2020, 4(1): 17-20. (in Chinese))

[5]
孙慧雯, 夏军强, 邓珊珊, 等. 三峡工程运用后长江中游多断面水力几何关系变化特点[J]. 武汉大学学报(工学版), 2024, 57(7):863-871.

(SUN Hui-wen, XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Shan-shan, et al. Variation in the Hydraulic Geometry of the Middle Yangtze River after the Three Gorges Project Operation[J]. Engineering Journal of Wuhan University, 2024, 57(7):863-871. (in Chinese))

[6]
姚仕明, 岳红艳, 何广水, 等. 长江中游河道崩岸机理与综合治理技术[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2016:1-7.

(YAO Shi-ming, YUE Hong-yan, HE Guang-shui, et al. Mechanism and Comprehensive Control Technology of Bank Collapse in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2016:1-7. (in Chinese))

[7]
周美蓉, 夏军强, 邓珊珊, 等. 三峡工程运用后长江中游河床调整沿程变化特点[J]. 湖泊科学, 2023, 35(2):642-650.

(ZHOU Mei-rong, XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Shan-shan, et al. Longitudinal Variation of Channel Evolution along the Middle Yangtze River after the Operation of the Three Gorges Project[J]. Journal of Lake Sciences, 2023, 35(2): 642-650. (in Chinese))

[8]
许全喜, 董炳江, 袁晶, 等. 三峡工程运用后长江中下游河道冲刷特征及其影响[J]. 湖泊科学, 2023, 35(2):650-661.

(XU Quan-xi, DONG Bing-jiang, YUAN jing, et al. Scouring Effect of the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River and Its Impact after the Impoundment of the Three Gorges Project[J]. Journal of Lake Sciences, 2023, 35(2):650-661. (in Chinese))

[9]
长江水利委员会长江科学院. 长江中下游崩岸监测预警关键技术研发与示范报告[R]. 武汉: 长江水利委员会长江科学院, 2023.

((Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute. Report on Research and Development and Demonstration of Key Technologies for Bank Collapse Monitoring and Early Warning in the Middle and Lower Reaches of Yangtze River[R]. Wuhan: Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2023. (in Chinese))

[10]
张幸农, 假冬冬, 陈长英. 长江中下游崩岸时空分布特征与规律[J]. 应用基础与工程科学学报, 2021, 29(1):55-63.

(ZHANG Xing-nong, JIA Dong-dong, CHEN Chang-ying. The Spatial and Temporal Distribution Characteristic of Bank Collapses in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River[J]. Journal of Basic Science and Engineering, 2021, 29(1): 55-63. (in Chinese))

[11]
夏军强, 林芬芬, 周美蓉, 等. 三峡工程运用后荆江段崩岸过程及特点[J]. 水科学进展, 2017, 28(4):543-552.

(XIA Jun-qiang, LIN Fen-fen, ZHOU Mei-rong, et al. Bank Retreat Processes and Characteristics in the Jingjiang Reach after the Three Gorges Project Operation[J]. Advances in Water Science, 2017, 28(4):543-552. (in Chinese))

[12]
刘昭希, 王军, 周银军, 等. 长江荆江段二元结构河岸土体力学性能及崩塌试验[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2023, 40(2):7-13,26.

DOI

(LIU Zhao-xi, WANG jun, ZHOU Yin-jun, et al. Mechanical Properties and Collapse Test of Composite Riverbanks in Jingjiang Reach of Changjiang River[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2023, 40(2):7-13,26. (in Chinese))

[13]
夏军强, 邓珊珊, 李诺, 等. 长江中游河道崩岸预警技术及其初步应用[J]. 中国防汛抗旱, 2022, 32(9):21-26.

(XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Shan-shan, LI Nuo, et al. Early-warning Technology of Bank Erosion and its Preliminary Application in the Middle Yangtze River[J]. China Flood & Drought Management, 2022, 32(9):21-26. (in Chinese))

[14]
夏军强, 周美蓉, 许全喜, 等. 三峡工程运用后长江中游河床调整及崩岸特点[J]. 人民长江, 2020, 51(1):16-27.

(XIA Jun-qiang, ZHOU Mei-rong, XU Quan-xi, et al. Bank Collapse and River Bed Adjustment in Middle Yangtze River after Operation of Three Gorges Project[J]. Yangtze River, 2020, 51(1): 16-27. (in Chinese))

[15]
宗全利, 夏军强, 邓珊珊, 等. 荆江段二元结构河岸崩塌机理试验研究[J]. 应用基础与工程科学学报, 2016, 24(5):955-969.

(ZONG Quan-li, XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Shan-shan, et al. Experimental Study on Failure Mechanisms of Composite Bank in the Jingjiang Reach[J]. Journal of Basic Science and Engineering, 2016, 24(5):955-969. (in Chinese))

[16]
岳红艳, 姚仕明, 朱勇辉, 等. 二元结构河岸崩塌机理试验研究[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2014, 31(4):26-30.

DOI

(YUE Hong-yan, YAO Shi-ming, ZHU Yong-hui, et al. Experimental Research on the Mechanism of Binary Riverbank Collapse[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2014, 31(4): 26-30. (in Chinese))

DOI

[17]
张幸农, 应强, 陈长英, 等. 江河崩岸的概化模拟试验研究[J]. 水利学报, 2009, 40(3): 263-267.

(ZHANG Xing-nong, YING Qiang, CHEN Chang-ying, et al. Generalized Model Study on Mechanism of Riverbank Failure[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2009, 40(3): 263-267. (in Chinese))

[18]
SAMADI A, AMIRI-TOKALDANY E, DAVOUDI M H, et al. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Stability of Overhanging Riverbanks[J]. Geomorphology, 2013(184): 1-19.

[19]
吕庆标, 朱勇辉, 谢亚光, 等. 河道崩岸机理研究进展[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2021, 38(9):7-13.

DOI

(LÜ Qing-biao, ZHU Yong-hui, XIE Ya-guang, et al. Research Progress on Mechanism of River Bank Collapse[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2021, 38(9): 7-13. (in Chinese))

DOI

[20]
OSMAN A M, THORNE C R. Riverbank Stability Analysis. I: Theory[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 1988, 114(2): 134-150.

[21]
夏军强, 宗全利. 长江荆江段崩岸机理及其数值模拟[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2015: 143-167.

(XIA Jun-qiang, ZONG Quan-li. Mechanism and Numerical Simulation of Bank Collapse in Jingjiang Section of the Yangtze River[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2015: 143-167. (in Chinese))

[22]
假冬冬, 邵学军, 王虹, 等. 荆江典型河湾河势变化三维数值模型[J]. 水利学报, 2010, 41(12): 1451-1460.

(JIA Dong-dong, SHAO Xue-jun, WANG Hong, et al. A Three Dimensional Mathematical Modeling for the Jingjiang River[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2010, 41(12): 1451-1460. (in Chinese))

[23]
夏军强, 邓珊珊, 周美蓉, 等. 长江中游河道床面冲淤及河岸崩退数学模型研究及其应用[J]. 科学通报, 2019, 64(7): 725-740.

(XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Shan-shan, ZHOU Mei-rong, et al. One-dimensional Coupled Modeling of Bed Evolution and Bank Erosion Processes in the Middle Yangtze River[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2019, 64(7): 725-740. (in Chinese))

[24]
刘万利, 李旺生, 李一兵, 等. 长江中游戴家洲河段崩岸特性及护岸措施研究[J]. 水道港口, 2013, 34(2):133-138.

(LIU Wan-li, LI Wang-sheng, LI Yi-bing, et al. Research on Riverbank Protection Measures of Daijiazhou Reach in Middle Yangtze River[J]. Journal of Waterway and Harbor, 2013, 34(2): 133-138. (in Chinese))

[25]
夏军强, 邓珊珊. 冲积河流崩岸机理、数值模拟及预警技术研究进展[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2021, 38(11):1-10.

DOI

(XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Shan-shan. Review on Bank Erosion Processes in Alluvial Rivers: Mechanism,Modelling and Early-warning[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2021, 38(11):1-10. (in Chinese))

DOI

[26]
王博, 姚仕明, 岳红艳. 基于BSTEM的长江中游河道岸坡稳定性分析[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2014, 31(1):1-7.

(WANG Bo, YAO Shi-ming, YUE Hong-yan. Stability Analysis for Typical Riverbank Slope in the Middle Reach of Yangtze River by BSTEM[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2014, 31(1):1-7. (in Chinese))

[27]
宗全利, 夏军强, 邓春艳, 等. 基于BSTEM模型的二元结构河岸崩塌过程模拟[J]. 四川大学学报(工程科学版), 2013, 45(3): 69-78.

(ZONG Quan-li, XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Chun-yan, et al. Modeling of the Composite Bank Failure Process Using BSTEM[J]. Journal of Sichuan University (Engineering Science Edition), 2013, 45(3): 69-78. (in Chinese))

[28]
王龙, 罗玉龙. 崩岸机理研究进展[J]. 水利规划与设计, 2013(2):49-51.

(WANG long, LUO Yu-long. Research Progress of Bank Collapse Mechanism[J]. Water Resources Planning and Design, 2013(2):49-51. (in Chinese))

[29]
张帆一, 闻云呈, 王晓俊, 等. 长江下游崩岸预警模型水动力指标阈值研究[J]. 水力发电学报, 2023, 42(6):53-64.

(ZHANG Fan-yi, WEN Yun-cheng, WANG Xiao-jun, et al. Study on Hydrodynamic Index Threshold of Early Warning Model for Bank Collapse in Lower Reaches of Yangtze River[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 2023, 42(6): 53-64. (in Chinese))

[30]
陈引川, 彭海鹰. 长江下游大窝崩的发生及防护[C]// 长江水利水电科学研究院.长江中下游护岸工程论文集. 武汉: 长江水利水电科学研究院, 1985:112-116.

(CHEN Yin-chuan, PENG Hai-ying. The Occurrence and Prevention of the Great Depression in the Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River[C]// Yangtze River Water Resources and Hydropower Research Institute. Essays on Bank Protection Engineering in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River. Wuhan: Yangtze River Water Resources and Hydropower Research Institute, 1985:112-116. (in Chinese))

[31]
闻云呈, 贾梦豪, 张帆一, 等. 长江扬中河段典型岸段江岸稳定性研究[J]. 水道港口, 2022, 43(4): 457-465, 548.

(WEN Yun-cheng, JIA Meng-hao, ZHANG Fan-yi, et al. Research on the Riverbank Stability of the Yangzhong Reach in the Yangtze River[J]. Journal of Waterway and Harbor, 2022, 43(4): 457-465, 548. (in Chinese))

[32]
邓珊珊, 夏军强, 周悦瑶, 等. 长江中游河岸形态特征及稳定性判别阈值[J]. 水力发电学报, 2024, 43(8): 112-122.

(DENG Shan-shan, XIA Jun-qiang, ZHOU Yue-yao, et al. Morphological Characteristics and Stability Threshold of Banks in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 2024, 43(8): 112-122. (in Chinese))

[33]
张幸农, 蒋传丰, 陈长英, 等. 江河崩岸的影响因素分析[J]. 河海大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 37(1): 36-40.

(ZHANG Xing-nong, JIANG Chuan-feng, CHEN Chang-ying, et al. Influencing Factors for Bank Collapse in Fluvial Rivers[J]. Journal of Hohai University (Natural Sciences), 2009, 37(1): 36-40. (in Chinese))

[34]
李长安, 杨则东, 鹿献章, 等. 长江皖江段岸崩特征、形成机理及治理对策[J]. 第四纪研究, 2008, 28(4): 578-583.

(LI Chang-an, YANG Ze-dong, LU Xian-zhang, et al. Bank Collapse Characteristics, Formation Mechanism, and Countermeasures of the Changjiang River in Anhui Province[J]. Quaternary Sciences, 2008, 28(4): 578-583. (in Chinese))

[35]
吕庆标. 冲刷条件下水位降落速率对河道崩岸的影响研究[D]. 武汉: 长江科学院, 2020.

(LÜ Qing-biao. Study on the Influence of Water Level Falling Rate on River Bank Collapse under Scour Condition[D]. Wuhan: Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2020. (in Chinese))

[36]
姚仕明, 黎礼刚, 岳红艳, 等. 长江中下游崩岸机理与护岸工程技术回顾与展望[J]. 中国防汛抗旱, 2022, 32(9):7-15.

(YAO Shi-ming, LI Li-gang, YUE Yong-yan, et al. Review and Prospect of Bank Collapse Mechanism and Bank Protection Engineering Technology in the Middle and Lower Yangtze River[J]. China Flood & Drought Management, 2022, 32(9):7-15. (in Chinese))

[37]
唐日长, 贡炳生, 周正海, 等. 荆江大堤护岸工程初步分析研究[C]// 湖北省水利学会.湖北省水利学会第一次年会论文选编. 武汉: 湖北省水利学会, 1962:22-28.

(TANG Ri-chang, GONG Bing-sheng, ZHOU Zheng-hai, et al. Preliminary Analysis and Research on Bank Protection Project of Jingjiang Levee[C]// Hubei Water Conservancy Society. Selected Papers of the First Annual Meeting of Hubei Water Conservancy Society. Wuhan: Hubei Water Conservancy Society, 1962:22-28. (in Chinese))

[38]
周美蓉, 夏军强, 邓珊珊, 等. 低含沙量条件下张瑞瑾挟沙力公式中参数确定及其在荆江的应用[J]. 水利学报, 2021, 52(4):409-419.

(ZHOU Mei-rong, XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Shan-shan, et al. Determination of Parameters in the Zhang Rui-jin’s Formula for Sediment-transport Capacity in Low Sediment-laden Flows and its Application in the Jingjiang Reach[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2021, 52(4):409-419. (in Chinese))

[39]
高清洋, 李旺生, 杨阳, 等. 长江中下游河道崩岸研究现状及展望[J]. 水运工程, 2016(8):99-105.

(GAO Qing-yang, LI Wang-sheng, YANG Yang, et al. Research Progress and Prospects of Bank Collapse in Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River[J]. Port & Waterway Engineering, 2016(8): 99-105. (in Chinese))

[40]
卢金友, 朱勇辉, 岳红艳, 等. 长江中下游崩岸治理与河道整治技术[J]. 水利水电快报, 2017, 38(11):6-14.

(LU Jin-you, ZHU Yong-hui, YUE Yong-yan, et al. Technology of Bank Collapse Control and River Regulation in the Middle and Lower Reaches of Yangtze River[J]. Express Water Resources & Hydropower Information, 2017, 38(11):6-14. (in Chinese))

[41]
夏军强, 周美蓉, 邓珊珊. 河床演变学概论[M]. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2023: 63-75.

(XIA Jun-qiang, ZHOU Mei-rong, DENG Shan-shan. Introduction to Riverbed Evolution[M]. Beijing: China Water & Power Press, 2023: 63-75. (in Chinese))

[42]
王延贵, 匡尚富, 陈吟. 洪水位变化对岸滩稳定性的影响[J]. 水利学报, 2015, 46(12):1398-1405.

(WANG Yan-gui, KUANG Shang-fu, CHEN Yin. Impacts of Water Level Fluctuations on Bank Stability During Flood Period[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2015, 46(12):1398-1405. (in Chinese))

[43]
周建军, 张曼. 近年长江中下游径流节律变化、效应与修复对策. 湖泊科学, 2018, 30(6):1471-1488.

(ZHOU Jian-jun, ZHANG Man. Effect of Dams on the Regime of the Mid-lower Yangtze River Runoff and Countermeasures[J]. Journal of Lake Sciences, 2018, 30(6):1471-1488. (in Chinese))

[44]
LIU W L. Analysis on Bank Collapse Mechanism of Typical Reaches in Middle and Lower Yangtze River[J]. Advanced Materials Research, 2013(779/780):1537-1542.

[45]
邓珊珊, 夏军强, 李洁, 等. 河道内水位变化对上荆江河段岸坡稳定性影响分析[J]. 水利学报, 2015, 46(7): 844-852.

(DENG Shan-shan, XIA Jun-qiang, LI Jie, et al. Influence of the Variation of In-channel Water Levels on the Riverbank Stability in the Upper Jingjiang Reach[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2015, 46(7): 844-852. (in Chinese))

[46]
马崇武, 刘忠玉, 苗天德, 等. 江河水位升降对堤岸边坡稳定性的影响[J]. 兰州大学学报, 2000(3):56-60.

(MA Chong-wu, LIU Zhong-yu, MIAO Tian-de, et al. The Influence of Water Level Changing on the Stability of River Embankment[J]. Journal of Lanzhou University(Natural Sciences), 2000(3):56-60. (in Chinese))

[47]
夏军强, 邓珊珊, 周美蓉. 荆江河段崩岸机理及多尺度模拟方法[J]. 人民长江, 2017, 48(19): 1-11.

(XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Shan-shan, ZHOU Mei-rong. Bank Collapse Mechanism of Jingjiang River Reach and Multi-scale Simulation[J]. Yangtze River, 2017, 48(19): 1-11. (in Chinese))

[48]
宗全利, 夏军强, 许全喜, 等. 上荆江河段河岸土体组成分析及岸坡稳定性计算[J]. 水力发电学报, 2014, 33(2):168-178.

(ZONG Quan-li, XIA Jun-qiang, XU Quan-xi, et al. Soil Composition Analysis and Slope Stability Calculation for Riverbanks in the Upper Jingjiang Reach[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 2014, 33(2):168-178. (in Chinese))

[49]
岳红艳, 吕庆标, 朱勇辉, 等. 河道岸坡水位涨落变化对崩岸影响试验研究[J]. 人民长江, 2021, 52(增刊2):15-20.

(YUE Hong-yan, LÜ Qing-biao, ZHU Yong-hui, et al. Experimental Study on Influence of River Bank Slope Water Level Fluctuation on Bank Collapse[J]. Yangtze River, 2021, 52(Supp.2):15-20. (in Chinese))

[50]
曹广晶, 王俊. 长江三峡工程水文泥沙观测与研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2015: 763-792.

(CAO Guang-jing, WANG Jun. Observation and Study on Hydrology and Sediment of the Three Gorges Project on the Yangtze River[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2015: 763-792. (in Chinese))

[51]
卢金友. 长江中下游河道整治理论与技术[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2020: 63-65.

(LU Jin-you. Theory and Technology of River Regulation in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2020: 63-65. (in Chinese))

[52]
BEGIN Z B. Stream Curvature and Bank Erosion: a Model Based on the Momentum Equation[J]. The Journal of Geology, 1981, 89(4): 497-504.

[53]
余文畴. 长江河道演变与治理[M]. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2005:48-54.

(YU Wen-chou. Evolution and Regulation of the Yangtze River Channel[M]. Beijing: China Water & Power Press, 2005: 48-54. (in Chinese))

[54]
代加兵, 刘宏远, 戴海伦, 等. 黄河宁蒙河段塌岸侵蚀现场监测及评价研究[J]. 泥沙研究, 2015(5):63-68.

(DAI Jia-bing, LIU Hong-yuan, DAI Hai-lun, et al. Field Monitoring and Evaluate Study on Bank Erosion in the Ningxia-Inner Mongolia Reaches of the Yellow River[J]. Journal of Sediment Research, 2015(5):63-68. (in Chinese))

[55]
安徽长江河道设计研究院. 长江干流安徽段2018 年度河势分析及崩岸监测预警[R]. 安徽: 安徽长江河道设计研究院, 2018.

(Anhui Yangtze River Design and Research Institute. River Regime Analysis and Bank Collapse Monitoring and Warning in Anhui Section of the Yangtze River Main Stream in 2018[R]. Anhui: Anhui Yangtze River Design and Research Institute, 2018. (in Chinese))

[56]
唐金武, 邓金运, 由星莹, 等. 长江中下游河道崩岸预测方法[J]. 四川大学学报(工程科学版), 2012, 44(1):75-81.

(TANG Jin-wu, DENG Jin-yun, YOU Xing-ying, et al. Forecast Method for Bank Collapse in Middle and Lower Yangtze River[J]. Advanced Engineering Sciences, 2012, 44(1):75-81. (in Chinese))

[57]
李义天, 唐金武, 朱玲玲, 等. 长江中下游河道演变与航道整治[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2012: 108-130.

(LI Yi-tian, TANG Jin-wu, ZHU Ling-ling, et al. River Evolution and Waterway Regulation in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2012: 108-130. (in Chinese))

[58]
齐家露, 夏军强, 邓珊珊, 等. 三峡工程运行后荆江河段坡比的统计特征及稳定坡比确定[J]. 武汉大学学报(工学版), 2022, 55(10):993-1001.

(QI Jia-lu, XIA Jun-qiang, DENG Shan-shan, et al. Statistical Characteristics of Bank Slope in the Jingjiang Reach and Determination of Critical Slope after the Three Gorges Project Operation[J]. Engineering Journal of Wuhan University, 2022, 55(10):993-1001. (in Chinese))

[59]
顾轩, 姜月华, 杨国强, 等. 河流崩岸研究进展和问题讨论[J]. 地球科学前沿, 2021, 11(2):213-223.

(GU Xuan, JIANG Yue-hua, YANG Guo-qiang, et al. Research Progress and Problem Discussion on River Bank Collapse[J]. Advances in Geosciences, 2021, 11(2):213-223. (in Chinese))

[60]
TORREY V H. Retrogressive Failures in Sand Deposits of the Mississippi River. Report 2:Empirical Evidence in Support of the Hypothesized Failure Mechanism and Development of the Levee Safety Flow Slide Monitoring System[R]. Mississippi: US Army Corps of Engineers, 1988.

[61]
宗全利, 冯博, 蔡杭兵, 等. 塔里木河流域河岸植被根系护坡的力学机制[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2018, 37(5):1290-1300.

(ZONG Quan-li, FENG Bo, CAI Hang-bing, et al. Mechanism of Riverbank Protection by Desert Riparian Vegetation Roots in Tarim River Basin[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 37(5):1290-1300. (in Chinese))

[62]
唐瑞泽. 塔里木河岸坡植被对河岸冲刷影响的定量分析及过程模拟[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2023.

(TANG Rui-ze. Quantitative Analysis and Process Simulation of Vegetation Influence on Tarim River Bank Erosio[D]. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2023. (in Chinese))

[63]
白玉川, 杨树青, 徐海珏. 不同河岸植被种植密度情况下河流演化试验分析[J]. 水力发电学报, 2018, 37(11):107-120.

(BAI Yu-chuan, YANG Shu-qing, XU Hai-jue. Experiment and Analysis of River Evolution under Different Planting Densities of Riparian Vegetation[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 2018, 37(11):107-120. (in Chinese))

[64]
李凌云, 野博超, 刘心愿. 河道生态护坡技术研究现状[J]. 水运工程, 2022(7):205-210,245.

(LI Ling-yun, YE Bo-chao, LIU Xin-yuan. Research Status of River Ecologicalslope Protection Technology[J]. Port & Waterway Engineering, 2022(7):205-210,245. (in Chinese))

[65]
水利部长江水利委员会. 长江中下游护岸工程65年[J]. 水利水电快报, 2017, 38(11): 1-5.

Changjiang Water Resources Commission of the Ministry of Water Resources. 65 Years of Revetment Engineering in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River[J]. Express Water Resources & Hydropower Information, 2017, 38(11): 1-5. (in Chinese))

[66]
高清洋, 杨阳, 程小兵, 等. 长江中下游护岸工程段崩岸原因分析:以彭兴洲—江心洲段为例[J]. 水道港口, 2017, 38(1):38-44.

(GAO Qing-yang, YANG Yang, CHENG Xiao-bing, et al. Cause Analysis of Revetments Collapse in Pengxingzhou-Jiangxinzhou Reach of the Yangtze River[J]. Journal of Waterway and Harbor, 2017, 38(1):38-44. (in Chinese))

[67]
黄召彪, 王朋超, 陈一梅. 长江中下游护岸服役状态评价[J]. 水道港口, 2022, 43(4):471-476.

(HUANG Zhao-biao, WANG Peng-chao, CHEN Yi-mei. Evaluation of Service Performance of Revetment in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River[J]. Journal of Waterway and Harbor, 2022, 43(4):471-476. (in Chinese))

[68]
夏军强, 周悦瑶, 邓珊珊, 等. 荆江段抛石护岸稳定性计算及其影响因素分析[J]. 水力发电学报, 2022, 41(8):1-11.

(XIA Jun-qiang, ZHOU Yue-yao, DENG Shan-shan, et al. Calculations of Bank Stability of Riprap Revetment in Jingjiang Reach and Analysis of its Influencing Factors[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 2022, 41(8):1-11. (in Chinese))

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

Copyright © Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd.