| Literature DB >> 35185440 |
Jonathan Shireman1, Katherine Ratliff2, Anne M Mikelonis2.
Abstract
This paper presents a case study demonstrating the process used to develop an overland flow model of radionuclide transport following an aerosol deposition from a hypothetical radiological dispersal device explosion. The process included the integration of digital elevation, building, and land cover information with hydrologic information from a calibrated Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) model. The overland flow model was used to explore the impact of washoff parameter selection and different storm events on radionuclide transport in surface flow. The range of washoff parameters used in the literature resulted in over a 7 times difference in radionuclide washoff, from a small surface removal to nearly full removal. The overland flow model illuminated the primary pathways of contaminant transport, a potentially useful tool that informs emergency response, planning, and remediation activities.Entities:
Keywords: Cesium-137; SWMM; fate and transport; overland flow model; radionuclide
Year: 2021 PMID: 35185440 PMCID: PMC8855484 DOI: 10.1080/1573062x.2021.1968007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Urban Water J ISSN: 1573-062X Impact factor: 2.675
Figure 1.Detonation point and stormwater subcatchments potentially affected by air dispersion of radiological contamination (orange dashed area represents the area of highest radiation hazard in hypothetical scenario).
Data sources used in developing the case study SWMM model.
| Data Type | Responsible Agency | Date Range | Publication Date | Description | On-Line Source | Post-download processing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation Data | U.S. Geological Survey | 3/22/10–4/01/10 | 9/24/14 | USGS 0.855–0.942 m LiDAR Point Cloud (LPC) Data with 15 cm vertical accuracy for Macomb County USGS 1.037–3.091 m LiDAR Point Cloud (LPC) Data with 18 cm vertical accuracy for Wayne County | LiDAR grid files were downloaded from the USGS Earth Explorer website, but may also be accessed from the following FTP locations: | Selected tiles for LiDAR dataset. (ARA_Mi_4SE) Created 2 LiDAR datasets in ArcGIS. Selected the ground return for processing and created Digital Elevation Model from each ‘.LAS’ file. Mosaiced the datasets into a single raster to create a 0.6 m contoured DEM for the area of the case study. |
| Climate Data | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | 1/1/80-Present | Updated Monthly | Local climatological data for the United States. |
| Data imported into Excel and aggregated for import to ACCESS. Hourly and daily data separated into tables for import into ACCESS tables. |
| Building Footprint | Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) | 2009–2010 | 4/1/15 | Digital footprint of buildings in the area of the case study as of April 2015. |
| Data imported into ArcMap for processing and developing PCSWMM 2D Mesh for overland flow model and subcatchment sublayer component development. For 2D mesh generation selected buildings with footprint area >1% of the subcatchment area and exported new obstruction layer. |
| Road Centerline | Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) | 2010–2017 | 7/7/17 | Road features of the case study area; version 15 of the Michigan Geographic Framework |
| Data imported into ArcMap for processing. Applied buffer and created a new polygon layer for geoprocessing point generation for PCSWMM 2D Cell creation, and later incorporation as a new subcatchment sublayer component. |
| Landuse | Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium | 2011 | 2011 | National Land Cover Database |
| Imported into PCSWMM and assigned to subcatchments using the area weighting tool. |
Figure 2.Contents and steps in overland flow model preparation and execution.
Figure 3.Subarea of the model domain containing finer resolution overland flow mesh. Subcatchment, building, and road layers were used to construct the model.
Figure 4.Input data for converting 2D cells to subcatchments included land use type, percentage impervious, slope, and elevation information for the model domain.
Washoff coefficients and exponents used in the case study model representing the statistical summary of the relevant values from Maharjan, Pachel, and Loigu (2017) (used in the maximum/minimum parameter value comparison) and the values assigned to each land use type.
| TSS values from | Land Use | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Max | Mean | Min | Building | Road | Urban |
| Coefficient, KW | 4.90 | 0.74 | 0.13 | 2.45 | 0.56 | 0.13 |
| Exponent, NW | 1.57 | 1.45 | 1.20 | 1.25 | 1.23 | 1.20 |
Figure 5.Total runoff generated during the 2-year 24-hour MSE Type III storm (total precipitation = 58.7 mm). The subterranean conduit system was not factored into this analysis.
Simulation mass balance summary for the washoff studies using the Detroit case study model and the precipitation data from the 27 July 2014 storm.
| Minimum TSS Parameters | Maximum TSS Parameters | Mixed Land Use | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Runoff Quality Parameter | Cs (kg×10−5) | Cs (GBq) | Fraction | Cs (kg×10−5) | Cs (GBq) | Fraction | Cs (kg×10−5) | Cs (GBq) | Fraction |
| Subcatchments | |||||||||
| Initial Deposition | 914.01 | 29493 | 914.01 | 29493 | 914.01 | 29493 | |||
| Total Washoff | 106.77 | 3445 | 12% | 800.18 | 25820 | 88% | 498.87 | 16097 | 55% |
| Remaining Buildup | 807.23 | 26048 | 88% | 113.82 | 3673 | 12% | 415.14 | 13395 | 45% |
GBq – giga- becquerals.
Explanation of Fractions:
Subcatchments:
Total Washoff % = Total Washoff/Initial Deposition (Fraction Lost).
Remaining Buildup % = Remaining Buildup/Initial Deposition (Fraction Retained).
Figure 6.(a) 137Cs washoff and (b) maximum activity in overland flow and cumulative activity discharged at outfalls as a result of the 1-hour 2-year peak intensity storm that occurred on 27 July 2014.
Figure 7.(a)137Cs washoff and (b) maximum activity in overland flow and cumulative activity discharged at outfalls as a result of the 2-year, 24-hour MSE type III design storm.