Skip to main content
Log in

Downslope runoff and erosion response of typical engineered landform to variable inflow rate patterns from upslope

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Downslope wash-scour erosion driven by upslope inflow from compacted platform plays an important role in the acceleration of water and soil loss from engineered landforms. To explore the quantitative effects of variable upslope runoff on downslope runoff and erosion, a typical abandoned spoil deposit derived from the construction of Shenfu Expressway was selected to conduct a set of field runoff scouring experiments on steep slope (72.7 %). Four types of upslope inflow rate patterns including constant inflow rate pattern and earlier, intermediately, as well as later peak inflow rate patterns were designed dependent on different rainfall patterns and the timing for peak inflow rate (total inflow amount was kept constant). Thus, the downslope runoff and erosion response of the selected abandoned spoil deposit under variable upslope inflow conditions were investigated, and the results reveal that: (i) Maximum peak runoff intensity and the timing for the maxima were greatly impacted by upslope inflow rate patterns; however, little impact was exerted on total surface runoff; total runoff from the inflow events with earlier, later, and intermediately peak inflow rate increased by 20.6, 11.7, and 8.5 % in comparison with that from the uniform inflow event. (ii) Runoff events induced by variable inflow rate patterns altered the sediment-yielding process as well as the spatial distribution of sediment yield in the downslope direction, and thus produced more soil loss. Total soil loss from inflow events with earlier, later, and intermediately peak inflow rate increased by 79.7, 78.2, and 14.2 %, respectively, in comparison with that from the uniform inflow event. Statistically, sediment yield from designated control section decreased as a negative exponential function of slope length downslope. (iii) Among the selected runoff erosivity factors, runoff depth, unit runoff erosivity, and stream power are effective indicators for predicting the area-specific sediment yield from individual upslope inflow events, regardless of inflow rate pattern. (iv) Area-specific sediment yield performs remarkable power function correlation with unit runoff erosivity; the unit runoff erosivity can represent the variation in runoff erosion dynamics from individual inflow events, regardless of upslope inflow rate patterns. The results may provide evidence for soil erosion degree assessment, erosion model construction in drastically disturbed areas, as well as the prevention of newly arising water and soil loss from engineered landforms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed SI, Rudra RP, Gharabaghi B, Mackenzie K, Dickinson WT (2012) Within-storm rainfall distribution effect on soil erosion rate. ISRN Soil Sci. doi:10.5402/2012/310927

    Google Scholar 

  • An J, Zheng FL, Han Y (2014) Effects of rainstorm patterns on runoff and sediment yield processes. Soil Sci 179(6):293–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonta JV (2000) Runoff-energy factors for MUSLE sediment-yield model for surface mines. Int J Sediment Res 15(2):162–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta JV (2005) Challenges in conducting hydrologic and water quality research in drastically disturbed watersheds. J Soil Water Conserv 60(3):121–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunkerley D (2012) Effects of rainfall intensity fluctuations on infiltration and runoff: rainfall simulation on dryland soils, Fowlers Gap, Australia. Hydrol Process 26(15):2211–2224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan DC, Foster GR, Moldenhauer WC (1988) Storm pattern effect on infiltration, runoff and erosion. Trans ASAE 31(2):414–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster GR, Lombardi F, Moldenhauer WC (1982) Evaluation of rainfall-runoff erosivity factors for individual storms. Trans ASAE 25(1):124–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frauenfeld B, Truman C (2004) Variable rainfall intensity effects on runoff and interrill erosion from two coastal plain ultisols in Georgia. Soil Sci 169(2):143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock GR (2009) A catchment scale assessment of increased rainfall and storm intensity on erosion and sediment transport for Northern Australia. Geoderma 152:350–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetten V, de Roo A, Favis-Mortlock D (1999) Evaluation of field-scale and catchment-scale soil erosion models. Catena 37(3):521–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetten V, Govers G, Hessel R (2003) Erosion models: quality of spatial predictions. Hydrol Process 17(5):887–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapen A, Poesen J, Govers G, Gyssels G, Nachtergaele J (2007) Resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion: a review. Earth Sci Rev 80:75–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Mishra A (2015) Critical erosion area identification based on hydrological response Unit level for effective sedimentation control in a river basin. Water Resour Manage. doi:10.1007/s11269-014-0909-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei TW, Zhang QW, Zhao J, Tang ZJ (2001) A laboratory study of sediment transport capacity in the dynamic process of rill erosion. Trans ASAE 44(6):1537–1542

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Yang W, Yu Z, Lung I, Gharabaghi B (2015) Estimating sediment yield from upland and channel erosion at a watershed scale using SWAT. Water Resour Manage 29:1399–1412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luk SH, Merz W (1992) Use of the salt tracing technique to determine the velocity of overland flow. Soil Technol 5:289–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer LD, Wischmeier WH (1969) Mathematical simulation of the process of soil erosion by water. Trans ASAE 12(6):754–758, 762

  • Nearing MA, Simanton JR, Norton LD, Bulygin SJ, Stone J (1999) Soil erosion by surface water flow on a stony, semiarid hillslope. Earth Surf Proc Land 24:677–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons AJ, Stone PM (2006) Effects of intra-storm variations in rainfall intensity on interrill runoff and erosion. Catena 67:68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Römkens MJM, Helming K, Prasad SN (2002) Soil erosion under different rainfall intensities, surface roughness, and soil water regimes. Catena 46:103–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh VP, Cui H, Byrd A (2014) Sediment graphs based on entropy theory. J Hydrol Eng. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001068

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams J R (1975) Sediment-yield prediction with universal equation using runoff energy factor, pp 244–252. In: Present and pro-spective technology for predicting sediment yield and sources. Pro-ceedings of the sediment-yield workshop, USDA Sedimentation Lab., Oxford, MS, November 28–30, 1972. ARS-S-40

  • Williams JR (1977) Sediment delivery ratios determined with sediment and runoff models. IAHS Publ 122:168–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR, Berndt HD (1977) Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology. Trans ASAE 20(6):1100–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses: A guide to conservation planning. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 537. USDA, Washington

  • Xiao P, Zheng F, Yao W (2005) Downslope erosion process under upslope runoff and sediment using a dual-box system. Int J Sediment Res 20(2):136–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu JX (1999) Erosion and sediment yield of hyperconcentrated flows on Loess Plateau. Journal of Soil Erosion and Soil and Water Conservation 5(1):28–35 (in Chinese with English abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang H, Lin L, He Y (2008) Soil erosion caused by highway construction in expansive soils districts and its prevention measures. In: Geotechnical engineering for disaster mitigation and rehabilitation: proceedings of the 2nd international conference GEDMAR08, Nanjing, pp. 781–789

  • Zhang G, Luo R, Cao Y, Shen R, Zhang XC (2010) Correction factor to dye-measured flow velocity under varying water and sediment discharges. J Hydrol 389:205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Gao Z, Yang S, Li Y, Tian H (2015) Dynamic processes of soil erosion by runoff on engineered landforms derived from expressway construction: A case study of typical steep spoil heap. Catena 128:108–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng FL (1998) A study on rainfall erosion and runoff erosion. Bull Soil Water Conserv 18(6):20–24 (in Chinese with English abstract)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by the Key Projects in the National Science & Technology Pillar Program during the 12th 5-year Plan Period of China (Grant No. 2011BAD31B01). The gracious assistance from Shaojia Zhang and Kai Wang for field work is also appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z. L. Gao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, L.T., Gao, Z.L., Li, Z.B. et al. Downslope runoff and erosion response of typical engineered landform to variable inflow rate patterns from upslope. Nat Hazards 80, 775–796 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1996-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1996-z

Keywords

Navigation