راهکارهای اصلاح شبکه زهکشی آب‌های سطحی شهری بر اساس معیارهای مبتنی بر ریسک

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد مهندسی عمران- منابع آب، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران

2 استادیار، پژوهشکده محیط زیست، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران

3 دانشیار، دانشکده عمران و محیط زیست و رئیس پژوهشکده محیط زیست، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران

چکیده

اصلاح مناسب شبکه‌های موجود زهکشی آب‌های سطحی شهری سبب کاهش ریسک آب گرفتگی و حمل بار آلودگی توسط سیلاب می‌شود. بنابراین اتخاذ راهکارهای اصلاح سازگار با توسعه پایدار شهری نیازمند تحلیل ریسک‌های موجود کمی و کیفی آب در سیلاب شهری است. در این مقاله سه راهکار اصلاح این شبکه‌ها شامل یک راهکار سنتی (افزایش ابعاد کانال) و دو راهکار نوین (جوی باغچه و سیستم‌های ماند بیولوژیکی)، با استفاده از سه معیار شامل ریسک آب‌گرفتگی نقاط مختلف شبکه و ریسک آلاینده‌های سیلاب و هزینه اقتصادی بازسازی شبکه ارزیابی شدند. در نهایت این راهکارها با استفاده از روش تحلیل تصمیم‌گیری چند معیاره اولویت بندی ‌شدند. روش پیشنهادی برای مطالعه موردی سیستم زهکشی آب‌های سطحی شهر گلستان در استان تهران که مدل شبیه‌سازی هیدرولوژیکی و هیدرولیکی آن با استفاده از نرم‌افزار SWMM ساخته شده است، تشریح ‌شد. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که سیستم جوی‌باغچه می‌تواند به‌عنوان بهترین راهکار با هزینه تقریبی 20 میلیارد ریال معرفی شود که قادر به کاهش 59 درصدی ریسک کمی سیلاب (آب گرفتگی) و 26 درصدی ریسک کیفی (آلاینده‌ها) نسبت به شرایط موجود است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluatiopn of Strategies for Modifying Urban Storm Water Drainage System Using Risk-based Criteria

نویسندگان [English]

  • mahsa soleimani 1
  • Kourosh Behzadian 2
  • abdollah ardeshir 3
1 MSc Graduate of Water Resources Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Amir-Kabir University of Technology, Tehran
2 Assist. Prof., Environmental Research Center, Amir-Kabir University of Technology, Tehran
3 3. Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering and Director of Environmental Research Center, Amir-Kabir University of Technology, Tehran
چکیده [English]

Appropriate modification of existing urban storm water drainage networks may help reduce network inundation and flood-borne pollution risks. It will, therefore, be necessary to analyze the risks associated with water quantity and quality during urban flooding before any reconstruction strategies can be identified that are adaptable to, or compatible with, urban sustainable development strategies. In this paper, three network modification strategies are evaluated against the three criteria of network inundation at different sections, flood pollution risks, and modification plan costs. The modification strategies evaluated include the conventional approach of increasing conduit dimensions as well as the two novels swale and bio-retention systems. The strategies are then prioritised using a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method. The application of the proposed methodology is illustrated in the case study of urban storm water drainage systems in the Golestan City in Tehran Province for which a hydrological and hydraulic simulation model has been developed using the SWMM software. The results show that the swale system is the best strategy with an approximate cost of 20 billion Rials (almost US$ 6 million). Compared to the existing system in operation, the proposed system will be capable of reducing 59% of the quantitative risk of flooding (inundation) and 26% of the water quality risk (pollution loads).

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Risk Assessment
  • Urban Flood
  • Runoff Pollution Sources
  • Multi Criteria Decision-Making
  • SWMM

1. Goonetilleke, A., Thomas, E., Ginn, S., and Gilbert, D. (2005). “Understanding the role of land use in urban stormwater quality management.” Journal of Environmental Management, 74, 31-42.

2. Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Vollertsen, J., and Nielsen, A.H. (2010). Urban and Highway stormwater pollution, Taylor and Francis Inc., USA.

3. Chouli, E., Aftias, E., and Deutsch, J. (2006). “Applying stormwater management in Greek cities: Learning from the European experience.” J. of Desalination, 210, 61-68.

4. We-Bin Chen. (2006). “Optimal allocation of stormwater pollution control technologies in a watershed.” Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Ohio State University, Ohio.

5. Benzerra, A., Cherrared,M., Chocat, B., Cherqui, F., and Zekiouk,T. (2012) “Decision support for sustainable urban drainage system management: A case study of Jijel, Algeria.”  J. ofEnvironmental Management, 101, 46-53.

6. Chouli, E., Aftias, E., and Deutsch, J. (2006) “Applying stormwater management in Greek cities: Learning from the European experience.” J. of Desalination, 210, 61-68.

7. Barbosa, A.E., Fernandes, J.N., and David, L.M. (2012). “Key issues for sustainable urban stormwater management.” Water Research, 46 (20), 6787-6798.

8. Lioyd, S.D., and Chesterfield, C.J. (2002). Water sensetive urban design- a stormwater management prospective, CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Industry Report, Australia.

9. Furumai, H. (2006). “Reclaimed water and wastewater and factors affecting their reuse.” Cities of the future, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Racine.

10. Horner, R.R., Skupien, J.J., Linvingston, E.H., and Shaver, H.E. (1994). “Fundamentals of urban runoff management.” Cooperative Research Center for catchment Hydrology, Washington, D.C.

11. Scholes, L., Revitt, D.M., and Ellis, J.B. (2007). “A systematic approach for the comparative assessment of the stormwater pollutant removal potentials.” J. of Environmental Management, 88 (3), 467-478.

12. Fletcher, T., Duncan, H., Poelsma, P., and Lioyd, S. (2004). Stormwater flow and quality, and the effectiveness on non-proprietry stormwater treatment measures- A review and gap analysis, Technical Report, Coorperative Research Center for Catchment Hydrology, Monash University, Melborn.

13. Hunt, W., Jarrett, A., Smith, J., and Sharkey, L. (2006). “Evaluating bioretention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in north carolina.” J. of Irrigation and Drainage Engeering, 132(6), 600-608.

14. Schueler, T. (2005) “Urban subwatershed restoration manual series: Urban stormwater retrofit practices Appendices.” Center of Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.

15. Coffman, L., and Rushton, B. (2005). Bioretention applications, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

16. Rossman, L.A. (2010). Storm water management model, user's manual, version 5.0, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

17. Lundy, L., Ellis, J.B., and Revitt, D.M. (2012). “Risk prioritisation of stormwater pollutanat sources.” Water Research, 46, 6589-6600.

18. Han, S.Q., Xie, Y.Y., Li, D.M., and Li, P.Y. (2006) “Risk analysis and management of urban rainstorm water LOGGING in TIANJIN.” J. of Hydrodynamics, 18(5), 552-558.

19. Fedeski, M., and Gwilliam, J. (2007). “Urban sustainability in the presence of flood and geological hazards: The development of a GIS-based vulnerability and risk assessment methodology.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 50-61.

20. EUEQS. (2008). “Directive 2008/105/EC of the European parliament and of the council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy. ” Official J. of European Union, 348, 84-97.

21. Ugarellia, R., Almeida, M. C., Behzadian, K., Liserra, T., Smeets, P., Kapelan, Z., and Sagrov, S. (2014) “Risk based analysis for assessment of integrated urban water system Watermet2 model: A case study of Oslo.” HIC2014 – 11th International Conference on Hydroinformatics, New York, USA.

22. Andre´, F.J., and Romero, C. (2008). “Computing compromise solutions: On the connections between compromise programming and composite programming. ” Applied Mathematics and Computation, 195, 1-10.

23. USEPA. (2010). Economic analysis of final water quality standards for nutrients for lakes and flowing waters in Florida, USA.

24. Zhang, G., and Hamlett, J.M. (2006). Development of a SWMM water quality model for the Fox Hollow Watershed,  Centre County, Penn State University.

25. Narayanan, A., and Pitt, R. (2005). Costs of urban stormwater control practices, USEPA.

26. Soltani, M. (2009). “Quality modeling of urban streams.” MSc Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., Sharif University of Tech., Tehran. (In Persian)