| Literature DB >> 22829790 |
Peng Chen1, Jiquan Zhang, Xinyu Jiang, Xingpeng Liu, Yulong Bao, Yingyue Sun.
Abstract
In this study, an experiment was performed to assess the trip difficulty for urban residents of different age groups walking in various depths of water, and the data were corroborated with the real urban rainstorm waterlogging scenarios in downtown (Daoli district) Ha-Erbin (China). Mathematical models of urban rainstorm waterlogging were constructed using scenario simulation methods, aided by the GIS spatial analysis technology and hydrodynamic analysis of the waterway systems in the study area. Then these models were used to evaluate the impact of waterlogging on the safety of residents walking in the affected area. Results are summarized as: (1) for an urban rainstorm waterlogging scenario reoccurring once every 10 years, three grid regions would have waterlogging above 0.5 m moving at a velocity of 1.5 m/s. Under this scenario, waterlogging would accumulate on traffic roads only in small areas, affecting the safety and mobility of residents walking in the neighborhood; (2) for an urban rainstorm waterlogging scenario reoccurring once every 20 years, 13 grids experienced the same waterlogging situation affecting a larger area of the city; (3) for an urban rainstorm waterlogging scenario reoccurring once every 50 years, 86 grid regions were affected (waterlogging above 0.5 m moving at 1.5 m/s), and those areas would become impassable for residents.Entities:
Keywords: GIS; Ha-Erbin City ; scenario simulation; trip difficulty; urban rainstorm waterlogging
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22829790 PMCID: PMC3397364 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9062057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Diagram of the study area.
Figure 2Technical flowchart.
Figure 3Flowchart of the numerical simulation models for treacherous factors in urban rainstorm waterlogging.
Figure 4Grids, routes and properties in the models.
Information of the participants.
| Identity | Age | Weight (Kg) | Height (cm) | No of residents | Walking distance (m) | Toad type | Walking direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pupil | 8–12 | 30–45 | 125–155 | 10 | 15 | Asphalt | Downstream, upstream |
| Youth | 18–24 | 55–75 | 168–175 | 10 | 15 | Asphalt | Downstream, upstream |
Information of the experimental participants.
| Pupil | Youth | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Velocity | Depth | Distance | Speed | Number | Velocity | Depth | Distance | Speed |
| A1 | 0.00 | 0.35 | 4.50 | 0.91 | C1 | 0.48 | 0.30 | 15 | 0.84 |
| A2 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 4.50 | 0.73 | C2 | 0.78 | 0.20 | 15 | 0.90 |
| A3 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 3.00 | 0.85 | C3 | 0.78 | 0.30 | 15 | 0.88 |
| A4 | 0.25 | 0.42 | 4.50 | 0.66 | C4 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 15 | 0.58 |
| A5 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 4.50 | 0.56 | C5 | 0.50 | 0.70 | 15 | 0.56 |
| A6 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 4.50 | 1.00 | C6 | 1.00 | 0.40 | 15 | 0.68 |
| A7 | 0.77 | 0.20 | 4.50 | 0.98 | C7 | 1.30 | 0.30 | 15 | 0.78 |
| A8 | 0.48 | 0.20 | 4.50 | 0.87 | C8 | 1.20 | 0.60 | 15 | 0.48 |
| A9 | 0.48 | 0.57 | 4.50 | 0.56 | C9 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 15 | 0.34 |
| A10 | 0.48 | 0.60 | 0.30 | 0.58 | C10 | 0.95 | 0.50 | 15 | 0.53 |
| B1 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 7.50 | 1.02 | D1 | 1.10 | 0.20 | 15 | 0.90 |
| B2 | 0.77 | 0.35 | 7.50 | 0.90 | D2 | 1.20 | 0.30 | 15 | 0.81 |
| B3 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 7.50 | 0.84 | D3 | 1.30 | 0.40 | 15 | 0.88 |
| B4 | 0.48 | 0.40 | 7.50 | 0.70 | D4 | 1.10 | 0.30 | 15 | 0.85 |
| B5 | 0.77 | 0.35 | 7.50 | 1.20 | D5 | 1.20 | 0.40 | 15 | 0.88 |
| B6 | 0.48 | 0.30 | 7.50 | 0.85 | D6 | 1.30 | 0.50 | 15 | 0.78 |
| B7 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 7.50 | 1.23 | D7 | 0.95 | 0.70 | 15 | 0.30 |
| B8 | 0.36 | 0.25 | 7.50 | 1.10 | D8 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 15 | 1.00 |
| B9 | 0.77 | 0.25 | 7.50 | 0.88 | D9 | 1.41 | 0.80 | 15 | 0.53 |
| B10 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 7.50 | 0.76 | D10 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 15 | 0.68 |
Note: A1–A10 is K-12 students walking against current, B1–B10 are students walking with the current, C1–C10 are youth walking against the current, D1–D10 are youth walking with the current.
Figure 5Relationship between walking speed and the depth and velocity of water flow.
Figure 6Depth of accumulated water in urban area under three scenarios: from right to left: occurring every 10 years, 20 years, 50 years.
Figure 7The velocity of waterlogging under three scenarios of reoccurrence of rainstorm: from right to left: every 10 years, 20 years, 50 years.
Figure 8The flowing direction of waterlogging after rainstorm in urban area.
Relationship between trip difficulty for residents and the depth of waterlogging.
| 0.5 m < | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Passable | Passable | Difficult | |
| 0.5 m/s < | Passable | Difficult | Impassable |
| Difficult | Impassable | Impassable |
Figure 9Evaluation of resident trip difficulty under the three scenarios.