Study on prediction of dam safety by instability of deformation body near dam of a hydropower station

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.S2.0033

Abstract

Abstract:

Aiming at the risk of overall instability caused by the deformation of the near dam at upstream of a hydropower station in Dadu River, Panjiazheng and other well-recognized classical algorithms at domestic and abroad were used to quickly and quantitatively determine the possibility of plug dams. The maximum sliding speed into the reservoir was obtained, and the maximum surge height at the dam site was calculated. Furthermore, the impact of surge disasters on the safety of the dam body was predict and analyzed. The results show that the safety of the hydropower station dam in Dadu river is not endangered by the deformed body caused by the disasters such as the plug dam and surge under extreme working conditions, e.g., the strong earthquake coupled with rainstorm. What's more, it is recommended that when the deformed body part is below the calculated water level, Panjiazheng sliding speed method is suggested to calculate the sliding speed of the sliding body. When it is urgent to confirm whether the wave generated by the deformed body affects the safety of the dam or when it is difficult to obtain the relevant parameters, the method proposed by China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research can be preferentially used for the surge height calculation.

Key words: near dam deformation body, weir plug dam, swell, dam, safety forecast

WANG Yongfei, LI Xiaofei, LI Ang, XIE Fengxiang. Study on prediction of dam safety by instability of deformation body near dam of a hydropower station[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S2): 200-205.

Figures/Tables 8

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.2

References 17

[1]	罗辉, 邓创, 赵高文. 2008—2017年中国典型滑坡堰塞坝(湖)灾害事件统计与初步分析[J]. 水利水电科技进展, 2020, 40(1):17-24.
	LUO Hui, DENG Chuang, ZHAO Gaowen. Statistics and preliminary analysis for typical landslide dams in China in past decade[J]. Advances in Science and Technology of Water Resources, 2020, 40(1):17-24.
[2]	张国栋, 李雷, 彭雪辉. 基于大坝安全鉴定和专家经验的病险程度评价技术[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(9):158-166.
	ZHANG Guodong, LI Lei, PENG Xuehui. Appraising techniques for dam severity based on dam safety appraisal and expert's experience[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2008, 18(9):158-166.
[3]	黄波林, 殷跃平, 李滨, 等. 库区城镇滑坡涌浪风险评价与减灾研究[J]. 地质学报, 2021, 95(6):1949-1 961.
	HUANG Bolin, YIN Yueping, LI Bin, et al. Study of risk assessment and mitigation for landslide induced impulse wave near towns in reservoir areas[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica, 2021, 95(6):1949-1 961.
[4]	柴贺军, 刘汉超, 张倬元. 中国堵江滑坡的类型及其特点[J]. 成都理工学院学报, 1998, 25(3):411-416.
	CHAI Hejun, LIU Hanchao, ZHANG Zhuoyuan. The types and characteristics of landslides in China[J]. Journal of Chengdu University of Technology, 1998, 25(3):411-416.
[5]	徐则民, 刘文连, 黄润秋. 滑坡堵江的地貌效应[J]. 第四纪研究, 2013, 33(3):490-500.
	XU Zemin, LIU Wenlian, HUANG Runqiu. Geomorphological effects of landslide damming[J]. Quaternary Sciences, 2013, 33(3):490-500.
[6]	徐文杰, 陈祖煜, 何秉顺, 等. 肖家桥滑坡堵江机制及灾害链效应研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2010, 29(5):933-942.
	XU Wenjie, CHEN Zuyu, HE Bingshun, et al. Study on river blocking mechanism and disaster chain effect of Xiaojiaqiao landslide[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 29(5):933-942.
[7]	邓卫东. 西南某水电站滑坡稳定性及其失稳影响研究[J]. 资源环境与工程, 2017, 31(4):442-448,459.
	DENG Weidong. Study on landslide stability and its instability influence in a hydropower station in southwest China[J]. Resources Environment and Engineering, 2017, 31(4):442-448,459.
[8]	张昀青, 刘维宁, 赵逊. 岗南水库大坝安全稳定分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2003, 13(4):55-59.
	ZHANG Yunqing, LIU Weining, ZHAO Xun. Safety and stability analysis of Gangnan Reservoir dam[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2003, 13(4):55-59.
[9]	邓成进, 党发宁, 陈兴周. 库区滑坡涌浪传播及其与大坝相互作用机理研究[J]. 水利学报, 2019, 50(7):815-823.
	DENG Chengjin, DANG Faning, CHEN Xingzhou. Study on landslide surge propagation and its interaction mechanism with dam in reservoir area[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2019, 50(7):815-823.
[10]	陈玺, 李守义, 孙平, 等. 考虑压脚措施下滑坡涌浪经验估算法对比研究[J]. 水资源与水工程学报, 2017, 28(4):131-136.
	CHEN Xi, LI Shouyi, SUN Ping, et al. Comparative study on empirical estimation method of sliding slope surge considering foot pressing measures[J]. Journal of Water Resources and Water Engineering, 2017, 28(4):131-136.
[11]	樊晓一, 黄润秋, 乔建平, 等. 未受河流阻止的滑坡水平运动距离与滑坡堵江判别[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2014, 41(1):128-133.
	FAN Xiaoyi, HUANG Runqiu, QIAO Jianping, et al. Horizontal movement distance of landslide unstopped by river and discrimination between landslide blockage[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2014, 41(1):128-133.
[12]	柯超, 汪洋, 霍志涛, 等. 高陡库岸滑坡初始涌浪波幅预测模型研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2021, 28(4):164-169.
	KE Chao, WANG Yang, HUO Zhitao, et al. Study on initial surge amplitude prediction model of high and steep reservoir bank landslide[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2021, 28(4):164-169.
[13]	单郸, 陈辰, 沈明毅, 等. 优化降雨因子分量的岩质边坡变形预测模型[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2020(10):248-253.
	SHAN Dan, CHEN Chen, SHEN Mingyi, et al. Prediction model of rock slope deformation to optimize rainfall factor component[J]. China Rural Water Resources and Hydropower, 2020(10):248-253.
[14]	潘家铮. 建筑物的抗滑稳定和滑坡分析[M]. 北京: 水利出版社, 1980:120-132.
[15]	黄锦林, 张婷, 李嘉琳. 库岸滑坡涌浪经验估算方法对比分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2014, 35(增1):133-140.
	HUANG Jinlin, ZHANG Ting, LI Jialin. Comparative analysis of reservoir landslide surge experience estimation method[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2014, 35(S1):133-140.
[16]	陈学德. 水库滑坡涌浪的经验算法及程序设计[M]. 武汉: 水利电力部中南勘测设计院科研所, 1984:1-18.
[17]	黄种为, 董兴林. 水库库岸滑坡激起涌浪的试验研究[C]. 水利水电科学研究院科学研究论文集第13集(水力学), 1983:157-170.

A_r/m	B_r/m	ϕ_s/(°)	E_min/ (10⁴·m³)	备注
100	300	21	1 705	水面介于300~358 m之间,蓄水深度为100 m
100	320	21	1 819
100	358	21	2 035

Δt/s	t_i/s	a_xi /(m·s^-2)	v_xi /(m·s^-1)
4.36	4.36	2.36	10.28
9.24	13.6	2.42	12.88
11.38	24.98	0.33	6.31

S/m	B/m	h/m	η₀/m	Δt/s	T/s	η/m
200	358	100	18.1	10.02	35.7	10.3
500	358	100	18.1	10.02	35.7	6.56
1 000	358	100	18.1	10.02	35.7	2.24
14 500	358	100	18.1	10.02	35.7	0.12

与变形体距离/ m	K	V/ (m·s^-1)	E_m/ (10⁴ m³)	η_max/ m
200	0.262 6	12.88	400	9.59
500	0.152 3	12.88	400	5.56
1 000	0.100 87	12.88	400	3.58
14 500	0.020 57	12.88	400	0.75