| Literature DB >> 35742457 |
Yan Chen1,2, Hao Hou1,2, Yao Li3, Luoyang Wang1,2, Jinjin Fan1,2, Ben Wang1,2, Tangao Hu1,2.
Abstract
Under the circumstances of global warming and rapid urbanization, damage caused by urban inundation are becoming increasingly severe, attracting the attention of both researchers and governors. The accurate simulation of urban inundation is essential for the prevention of inundation hazards. In this study, a 1D pipe network and a 2D urban inundation coupling model constructed by InfoWorks ICM was used to simulate the inundation conditions in the typical urbanized area in the north of Lin'an. Two historical rainfall events in 2020 were utilized to verify the modeling results. The spatial-temporal variation and the causes of urban inundation under different designed rainfalls were studied. The results were as follows: (1) The constructed model had a good simulation accuracy, the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient was higher than 0.82, R2 was higher than 0.87, and the relative error was ±20%. (2) The simulation results of different designed rainfall scenarios indicated that the maximum inundation depth and inundation extent increased with the increase in the return period, rainfall peak position coefficient, and rainfall duration. According to the analysis results, the urban inundation in Lin'an is mainly affected by topography, drainage network (spatial distribution and pipe diameter), and rainfall patterns. The results are supposed to provide technical support and a decision-making reference for the urban management department of Lin'an to design inundation prevention measures.Entities:
Keywords: InfoWorks ICM; Lin’an city; designed rainfalls; urban inundation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35742457 PMCID: PMC9223009 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19127210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Location of the study area. AFR, Agricultural and Forestry Road; SLS, Shuanglin Street; LSR, Linshui Road; NLS, Nonglin Street; WSS, Wusu Street; XSS, Xishu Street; MXR, Maxi Road; XJSR, Xijingshan Road; BNR, Baini Road. (a) Zhejiang Province (b) Study area.
List of geographic data in the study area.
| Type | Format | Resolution (m) | Main Attributes | Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEM | GeoTIFF | 2 | Elevation | Surveying and mapping department of Lin’an |
| UAV image | GeoTIFF | 0.5 | — | |
| Land-use data | Shapefile | — | Land-use type | Meteorological department of Lin’an |
| Rainfall data | Excel | — | Time and rainfall | |
| Drainage system data | Shapefile | — | Pipe diameter, pipe materials | Urban management department of Lin’an |
Figure 2Hydrographs of the designed rainfall events (t = 120 min).
Figure 3Technical flowchart.
Parameter attributes for five kinds of surfaces.
| Surface Type | Routine | Routine | Surface | Runoff | Runoff | Initial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Road | SWMM | 0.02 | Impervious | Fixed | 0.9 | 0.0015 |
| Building | SWMM | 0.02 | Impervious | Fixed | 0.8 | 0.001 |
| Others | SWMM | 0.025 | Impervious | Fixed | 0.5 | 0.005 |
| Water | SWMM | 0.03 | Impervious | Fixed | 1 | 0 |
| Green space | SWMM | 0.2 | Pervious | Horton | – | 0.005 |
Figure 4Comparison between simulated and observed flows.
Model validation results.
| Events | Peak Flow (m3/s) | NSE | R2 | RMSE | Relative Error (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Record | Simulation | |||||
| 29 May 2020 | 0.569 | 0.603 | 0.82 | 0.94 | 0.07 | 6.0 |
| 2 July 2020 | 1.351 | 1.150 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.15 | –14.9 |
Statistics of the maximum inundation depth of the 2 July 2020 rainfall event.
| Number | Position | Recorded Depth (cm) | Simulated Depth (cm) | Errors (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MXR | 20 | 16.9 | 3.1 |
| 2 | XSS | 10 | 11.7 | –1.7 |
| 3 | SLS | 10 | 11.3 | –1.3 |
The inundation depths and extents in the study area under different designed rainfall scenarios (t = 120 min).
| Return Period (a) | r | Number of Overflow Nodes | Maximum Overflow Volume of Nodes (m3/s) | Maximum Inundation Depth (m) | Inundation Extent (m2) | Contribution Area of Different Inundation Depths (m2) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤0.2 m | 0.2–0.4 m | 0.4–0.6 m | 0.6–0.8 m | 0.8–1 m | >1 m | ||||||
| 1 | 0.3 | 12 | 0.5 | 0.813 | 80,781 | 75,772 | 3515 | 1161 | 309 | 24 | 0 |
| 0.4 | 13 | 0.5 | 0.847 | 84,453 | 78,710 | 4228 | 1115 | 376 | 24 | 0 | |
| 0.5 | 13 | 0.5 | 0.86 | 87,483 | 81,457 | 4511 | 1115 | 376 | 24 | 0 | |
| 2 | 0.3 | 16 | 0.6 | 0.946 | 100,981 | 93,347 | 5809 | 1190 | 564 | 71 | 0 |
| 0.4 | 18 | 0.6 | 0.978 | 103,769 | 95,645 | 6299 | 1120 | 620 | 85 | 0 | |
| 0.5 | 20 | 0.7 | 0.99 | 106,932 | 98,468 | 6603 | 1156 | 620 | 85 | 0 | |
| 5 | 0.3 | 28 | 0.7 | 1.096 | 137,329 | 126,259 | 8708 | 1147 | 710 | 157 | 48 |
| 0.4 | 31 | 0.8 | 1.126 | 148,234 | 136,652 | 8957 | 1710 | 710 | 134 | 71 | |
| 0.5 | 32 | 0.8 | 1.139 | 158,139 | 146,146 | 9368 | 1579 | 841 | 134 | 71 | |
| 10 | 0.3 | 36 | 0.8 | 1.203 | 188,477 | 173,377 | 11,171 | 2702 | 920 | 222 | 85 |
| 0.4 | 37 | 0.9 | 1.222 | 195,118 | 178,884 | 11,843 | 3084 | 1000 | 222 | 85 | |
| 0.5 | 44 | 0.9 | 1.235 | 201,744 | 185,235 | 11,974 | 3218 | 1010 | 155 | 152 | |
Figure 5Simulation results under designed rainfall scenarios, where “1a-0.3” means P = 1a and r = 0.3 (t = 120 min).
Figure 6The inundation scene with different rainfall peak position coefficients (t = 120 min and P = 5a).
The simulation results of different rainfall durations (r = 0.4).
| Rainfall Duration (min) | Return Periods (a) | Cumulative Rainfall (mm) | Maximum Inundation Depth (m) | Inundation | Proportion of Inundation Area (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | 1 | 40.3 | 0.803 | 78,115 | 4.13% |
| 2 | 45.2 | 0.864 | 99,016 | 5.24% | |
| 5 | 51.6 | 1.093 | 134,200 | 7.11% | |
| 10 | 56.4 | 1.199 | 181,229 | 9.59% | |
| 120 | 1 | 50.8 | 0.847 | 84,453 | 4.47% |
| 2 | 56.9 | 0.978 | 103,769 | 5.49% | |
| 5 | 65.0 | 1.126 | 148,234 | 7.84% | |
| 10 | 71.1 | 1.222 | 195,118 | 10.33% | |
| 180 | 1 | 57.3 | 0.857 | 87,236 | 4.62% |
| 2 | 64.2 | 0.979 | 106,455 | 5.63% | |
| 5 | 73.3 | 1.135 | 155,823 | 8.25% | |
| 10 | 80.2 | 1.229 | 201,027 | 10.64% |
Figure 7The inundation scene at different durations (P = 5a and r = 0.4).
Figure 8The inundation result from rainfall on 2 July 2020 ((A) is MXR, (B) is XSS, and (C) is SLS).
Figure 9The inundation situation in MXR (the image came from aerial photography).
Figure 10Inundation of the study area during different return periods (t = 120 min and r = 0.4): (A) XJSR, (B) NLS, (C) AFR, (D) WSS.