ارزیابی عملکرد مدل‌های EPA SWMM و ASSA و SewerGEMS در تحلیل سیلاب شهری جمع آوری شده توسط شبکه زهکش‌های سطحی (مطالعه موردی شهر جدید لار)

فصلنامه علمی مهندسی منابع آب

دوره 15، شماره 54، آبان 1401، صفحه 107-124   

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/wej.2021.25316.2253

نویسندگان

محمد رفیع رفیعی^{* 1}؛ داریوش رسولی²؛ مسیح ذوالقدر³؛ مهدی مهبد³

¹استادیار گروه علوم و مهندسی آب، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه جهرم، صندوق پستی 74135-111، جهرم، ایران.

²دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی ارشد رشته آبیاری و زهکشی، گروه علوم و مهندسی آب، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه جهرم، صندوق پستی 74135-111، جهرم، ایران.

³گروه علوم و مهندسی آب، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه جهرم، صندوق پستی 74135-111، جهرم، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت: 10 تیر 1399،  تاریخ بازنگری: 24 اردیبهشت 1400،  تاریخ پذیرش: 10 شهریور 1400 

چکیده

چکیده
مقدمه: مدل‌سازی بارش-رواناب یکی از روش‌های مهم در مطالعه هیدرولوژی و مدیریت زیست‌محیطی به‌ویژه در مناطق شهری است که در آن سیل‌های ناگهانی خسارات مالی و جانی قابل‌توجهی را به دنبال دارد. بر این اساس، مدل‌های مختلفی برای شبیه‌سازی سیل شهری توسعه داده شده است که از بین آنها انتخاب بهترین آنها در ادبیات مورد توجه قرار گرفته است.
روش­: دقت مکانی و زمانی مدل هیدرولوژیکی SWMM در قالب سه نرم‌افزار EPA SWMM و ASSA و Bently SewerGEMS V8i و مدل‌های SCS TR-55، SCS TR-20، Rational، Dekalb Rational، Santabarbara UH در قالب نرم‌افزار ASSA و مدل SCS UH در قالب نرم‌افزار Bently SewerGEMS V8i جهت برآورد هیدروگراف و دبی پیک رواناب در منطقه مطالعاتی بررسی گردید. مدل‌ها با به‌کارگیری داده‌های عمق و سرعت رواناب اندازه‌گیری شده در سه نقطه ازشبکه در سه واقعه بارندگی، واسنجی و با استفاده از سه واقعه مجزای دیگر، اعتبارسنجی شده‌اند. شاخص‌های ارزیابی عبارتند از: ضریب ناش-ساتکلیف، ضریب بایاس، ضریب تعیین و ریشه مربع خطا.
یافته ­ها: از بین مدل‌های مورد بررسی، مدل‌های SWMM در قالب هر سه نرم‌افزار بیشترین دقت را در شبیه سازی رواناب داشته‌اند. مدل SWMM در قالب نرم‌افزار EPA SWMM بالاترین دقت را در شبیه سازی شکل کلی هیدروگراف و دبی اوج رواناب داشته و سپس به ترتیب مدل SWMM در قالب نرم‌افزار SewerGEMS V8i و ASSA دقت بیشتری داشته‌اند. بر اساس روش‌های پارامتر جزئی و ضریب همبستگی اسپیرمن، بیشترین حساسیت خروجی مدل به‌ترتیب در درصد مناطق نفوذ ناپذیر، عرض معادل، ضریب مانینگ مناطق نفوذ ناپذیر، عمق چالابی مناطق نفوذ ناپذیر، درصد مناطق غیر‌قابل نفوذ بدون ذخیره چالابی، عمق چالابی مناطق نفوذ پذیر و شماره منحنی نفوذ مشاهده گردید. مدل به ضریب زبری مناطق نفوذ پذیر حساسیت نشان نداد.
نتیجه ­گیری: نتایج حاکی از آن است که مدل EPA SWMM  نسبت به سایر مدل‌ها، دقت بیشتری در شبیه‌سازی رواناب در منطقه مطالعاتی داشته و می‌تواند جهت طرح‌های مدیریت رواناب حوضه‌های شهری مشابه مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

رواناب شهری؛ واسنجی و اعتبار سنجی مدل‌های شبیه‌سازی سیلاب شهری؛ تحلیل حساسیت

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of EPA SWMM, ASSA and Sewer GEMS Models in Analysis of Urban Flood Collected by Surface Drainage Network (Case Study: Lar New City)

نویسندگان [English]

Mohammad Rafie Rafiee¹؛ Dariush Rasouli²؛ masih zolghadr³؛ Mehdi Mahbod³

¹Assistant Professor of Department of Water Sciences & Engineering, College of Agriculture; Jahrom University, Jahrom, I.R. Iran. Postal code: 74137-66171.

²Former M.Sc. Student of Department of Water Sciences & Engineering, College of Agriculture; Jahrom University, Jahrom, I.R. Iran. Postal code: 74137-66171.

³Deparment of water sciences & engineering, college of agriculture; Jahrom University, Jahrom, I.R. Iran. Postal code: 74137-66171.

چکیده [English]

Abstract
Introduction: Rainfall-runoff modeling is considered one of the important methods in the study of hydrology and environmental management, especially in urban areas, in which sudden floods lead to significant financial and human losses. Thereupon, various models have been developed for urban flood simulation, among which selecting the best, is of significant consideration in the literature.
Methods: Runoff peak flow and hydroghs measured in three nodes of an urban drainage network were applied for both spatial and temporal evaluation of the SWMM hydrological model in EPA SWMM, ASSA and Bently SewerGEMS V8i softwares. Other rainfall-runoff models also evaluated were SCS TR-55, SCS TR-20, Rational, Dekalb Rational, Santabarbara UH models (in ASSA software) and SCS UH model (in SewerGEMS V8i software). The models were calibrated considering the measurements during three precipitation events, and then validated by the measured data of three other events. The Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient along with the BIAS coefficient, the Coefficient of Determination and the Root Mean Square Error were used as the efficiency indicators.
Findings: The measured runoff peak flow and hydrograph were most compatible with those simulated by SWMM models of EPA SWMM, SewerGEMS V8i and ASSA softwares, respectively. Regarding the results of the partial parameter and the Spearman correlation coefficient methods, model outputs were most sensitive to the percentage of impervious areas, equivalent width, roughness coefficient of impervious areas, the depth of depression of impervious and pervious areas, the percentage of impervious areas without surface storage and the curve number, respectively. The model was not sensitive to the roughness of the permeable areas. The results suggest EPA SWMM as the software with more reliable simulation results for runoff management projects in the study area and urban basins alike.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Agriculture, Urban runoff, Calibration and validation, urban flood simulation models, Sensitivity analysis

مراجع

1.       Badieizade, S., Bahrehmand A., and Dehghani, A.A. 2016. Calibration and Evaluation of the Hydrologic- Hydraulic Model SWMM to Simulate Runoff (Case Study: Gorgan). Journal of Watershed Management Research Vol. 7, No. 14: 1-10 [In Persian].

2.       Javaheri, M. A. and Nazif, Sara. 2014. Calibration of urban runoff drainage model based on sensitivity analysis. 2nd national conference on flood management and engineering with the approach of urban floods. Tehran. [In Persian].

3.       Hoseinzadeh, R. and Jahadi, T. 2007. The effects of Mashhad city expansion on the natural drainage pattern and the intensification of Urban floods. Geographical research. Vol. 61 (39):145-160. [In Persian].

4.       Chow, V.T. 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics.

5.       Khani, S and Faghfour Maghrebi, M. 2017.Comparison of runoff design discharge estimation based on SWMM and HEC-HMS models using ASSA software (Study area: East Iqbal River). 16th National Hydraulic Conference, Ardabil, Iran [In Persian].

6.       Pornaby Darzi, S., Vafakhah, M. and Rajabi, R. 2021. Flood hazard zoning using HEC-RAS Hydraulic Model and ArcGIS (Case Study: CheshmehKileh River in Tonekabon County). Journal of Natural Environmental Hazards, Vol.10 (28): 15-28. [In Persian].

7.       Rostami Khalaj, M., Mahdavi, M., Khalighi Sigarodi Sh. and Salajeghe A. 2012. Sensitivity Analysis of Variables Affecting on Urban Flooding Using SWMM Model. Journal of Watershed Management. Vol 5: 81-91. [In Persian].

8.       Rezayi, E., Bahremand, A., Berdi Shaikh, V., Dasturani. M.T. and Tajbakhsh. S.M. 2019. Calibration and Evaluation of the SWMM Model in Runoff Simulation in District 9 of Mashhad City. Journal of Water and Sustainable Development. Vol. 5 (2): 91-100. [In Persian].

9.       Rafiee, M.R., Ghadampour, Z., Sabzvari, T. 2020. Effect of rainfall distribution pattern and infiltration equation on urban flood simulation (case study: Kangan Abdossalam basin). Journal of Research and Urban Planning. Vol. 11(41):179-195. [In Persian].

10.   Taatpour, F., Khorsandi Koohestani, Z., Armin, M. 2019. Evaluating the efficiency of the surface water collection and disposal network using the SWMM model (case study: Likkak city, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad provinces). Irrigation Science and Engineering. Vol 42: 33-48. [In Persian]

11.   Alizadeh, A. 2006. Principles of Applied Hydrology. Astan Ghods, Emam Reza Publications. 20th edition [In Persian].

12.   Alishahi Toosi, M.R., Boudaghpour, S. 2010.Investigation and sensitivity analysis of EPA-SWMM model in modeling urban basins. 2nd National Conference on Comprehensive Management of Water Resources Exploitation, Kerman, Iran. [In Persian].

13.   Ghobadi, F. and Khodashenas, S., Mosaedi, A. 2019. A Comparison of Uniform Rainfall Method and Alternative Block Method in Assessing Runoff Collecting System in order to Control Flood in urban Areas with ASSA Software (case study: Chehel Bazeh Golestan Basin). Indian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage. Vol. 13 (5): 1491-1503. [In Persian].

14.   Karimi, V., Solaimani, K., Habibnejad Roshan M. and Shahedi K.2015.Simulation of Flow in Open & Closed Conduits by EPA-SWMM Model (Case Study: Babolsar Urban Watershed). Journal of Watershed Management Research Vol. 6 (11): 162-170. [In Persian].

15.   Mohamadi, M., Mamizadeh, J. and Ehsanzadeh, E. 2020. The Application of Rainfall-Runoff Methods in The Hydrological Investigation of Runoff Collection Systems in Eyalam City. Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management. Vol. 12(2): 428-440. [In Persian].

16.   Maghfouri Farsangi, M. and Ahmadi, M.M. 2017. Modeling surface runoff of Kerman metropolis using SWMM software. The 14th National Conference on Irrigation and Evaporation Reduction, Kerman, Iran. [In Persian].

17.   Hashemimonfared S.A., Aziziyan, Gh. And Derakhshan Alamdarloo, P.2018. Investigating of the Existing Urban Drainage Systems for the Passage of Floods and the Possibility of Its Modification Using SWMM5 (Case Study: Darab county). Journal of Natural Environmental Hazards, Vol. 7(15):219-237. [In Persian].

18.   Ahmed, S., Tsanis, I., 2016. Climate change impact on design storm and performance of urban storm water management system (A case study on West central mountain drainage area in Canada). Hydrol. Curr. Res. 7, 229.

19.   Akdoğan, Z. and Güven, B., 2016. Assessing the sensitivity of SWMM to variations in hydrological and hydraulic parameters: a case study for the city of Istanbul. Global Nest Journal, 18(4): 831-841.

20.   Babaei S, Ghazavi, R, Erfanian M. 2018. Urban flood simulation and prioritization of critical urban sub-catchments using SWMM model and PROMETHEE II approach. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C.

21.   Barco J, Wong K M, and Stenstrom, M. K. 2008. Automatic Calibration of the U.S. EPA SWMM Molel for a Large Urban Catchment, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 134(4): 466-474.

22.   Bai Y, Zhao N, Zhang R, Zeng X. 2019. Storm Water Management of Low Impact Development in Urban Areas Based on SWMM. Water, 11, 33; doi:10.3390/w11010033

23.   Beling F A, Garcia J I B, PaivaE M C D, Bastos G A P, Paiva J B D. 2011. Analysis of the SWMM Model Parameters for Runoff Evaluation in Periurban Basins from Southern Brazil. 12nd International Conference on Urban Drainage. Porto Alegre. Brazil.

24.   Bisht, D.S., Chatterjee, C., Kalakoti, S., Upadhyay, P., Sahoo, M. and Panda, A., 2016. Modeling urban floods and drainage using SWMM and MIKE URBAN: a case study. Natural Hazards, 84:749-776.

25.   Donquan Z, Jining C, Haozheng W, Qingyuan T, shangbing C, Zheng S. 2009. GIS-based urban rain fall-run off modeling using an automatic catchment-discretization approach: a case study in Macaa, Environ Earth Sci. 59: 465-472.

26.   Fletcher TD, Andrieu H, Hamel P. 2013. Understanding, management and modelling of urban hydrology and its consequences for receiving waters, a state of the art, Adv Water Resours, 51: 261–279.

27.   Gao, X., Yang, Z., Han, D., Huang, G. and Zhu, Q., 2020. A Framework for Automatic Calibration of SWMM Considering Input Uncertainty. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, pp.1-25.

28.   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(1): 31-42.

29.   Henriksen H J, Troldborg L, Nyegaard P, Obel Sonnenborg T, Refsgaard J C, Madsen B. 2003. Methodology for construction, calibration and validation of a national hydrological model for Denmark. Journal of Hydrology. 280: 52–71.

30.   Huber W C, Dickinson R E. 1992. Storm water management model user’s manual, version 4. Environmental Protection Agency. Georgia. 266.

31.   Jain Gaurav, V., Agrawal, R., Bhanderi, R.J., Jayaprasad, P., Patel, J.N., Agnihotri, P.G., Samtani, B.M. 2015. Estimation of Sub-Catchment Area Parameters for Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) Using Geo-Informatics. Geocarto International. 31(4):1-28.

32.   Khani S, Ghobadi F, Maghrebi M. F, Charmchi A. T. 2018. Estimating peak flow Based on EPA SWMM and HEC1 method Using ASSA (Case Study: East Eghbal Catchment, Mashhad, Iran). Geophysical Research Abstracts. Vol. 20, EGU2018-2160-3

33.   Marsalek J, Jime´nez-Cisneros BE, Malmquist PA, Karamouz M, Goldenfum J, Chocat B. 2006. Urban water cycle processes and interactions, IHP-VI Technical Document in Hydrology. 78. (UNESCO, Paris)

34.   Merz, R., & Tarasova, L. B. S. (2019). Towards regional consistent parameters of distributed hydrological models. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 21, 1–1.1

35.   Muleta M.K., McMillan J., Amenu G.G., Burian S.J.(2012). Bayesian approach for uncertainty analysis of an urban storm water model and its application to a heavily urbanized watershed, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 18(10): 1360-1371.

36.   Nayeb Yazdi M., Ketabchy M., Sample D. J. Scott D. and Liao H. 2019. An evaluation of HSPF and SWMM for simulating streamflow regimes in an urban watershed. Environmental Modelling & Software (118):211–225.

37.   Niyonkuru P, Sang J. K, Nyadawa M O, Munyaneza O. 2018. Calibration and validation of EPA SWMM for stormwater runoff modelling in Nyabugogo catchment, Rwanda, Journal of Sustainable Research in Engineering. 4 (4): 152-159.

38.   Patil N S, patil V S, vijaykumar H. 2016. Calibration & Validation of SWMM Model for Urban Watershed, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 09(06): 2457-2465.

39.   Rabori A.M, Ghazavi R, Ahadnejad Reveshty M. 2017. Sensivity Analysis of SWMM model parameters for urban runoff estimation in semi-arid area, Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES). 10(5: 284-294.

40.   Rezayi F, Bahremand A, Shaik V.B. 2019. ASSA Models and GIS Integration in the Determination of Flooding Point in Different Return Periods. Cercetări Agronomice în Moldova Vol. LII, No. 1 (177) / 2019: 91-105. DOI: 10.2478/cerce-2019-0010.

41.   Roozbahani A, Behzadi P, Bavani A.M.  2020. Analysis of performance criteria and sustainability index in urban stormwater systems under the impacts of climate change. J. of Cleaner Production. 271 (2020) .doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12272

42.   Rose S, Peters NE. 2001. Effects of urbanization on streamflow in the Atlanta area (Georgia, USA), a comparative hydrological approach, Hydrol Process. 15:1441–1457

43.   Swathi V, Srinivasa Raju & K, Murari R. R. Varma. 2020. Addition of overland runoff and flow routing methods to SWMM model application to Hyderabad, India. Environ Monit Assess. 192:643.

44.   Temprano J, Arango O, Cagiao J, Suarez, J. and Tejero, I. 2006. Storm Water quality calibration by SWMM: acase study in Northern Spain. Water SA. 32(1): 55-63

45.   Tsihrintzis V, Hamid R. 1998. Runoff quality prediction from small urban catchments using SWMM. Hydrol Process. 12(2: 311–329.

46.   Wang, M.., Zhang, D.Q., Su, J., Trzcinski, A.P., Dong, J.W., Tan, S.K. 2017. Future Scenarios Modeling of Urban Storm Water Management Response to Impacts of Climate Change and Urbanization. Journal of Clean Soil Air Water. 45(10).