پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,225 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,685 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 114,945,695 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,614,637 |
پهنه‌بندی مخاطرۀ سیلاب به منظور تعیین حریم رودخانهها | ||
| اکوهیدرولوژی | ||
| مقاله 20، دوره 6، شماره 2، تیر 1398، صفحه 553-567 اصل مقاله (764.17 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/ije.2019.276389.1056 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| رویا پناهی1؛ محمد مهدی حسین زاده* 2؛ سمیه خالقی3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری ژئومورفولوژی، دانشکدۀ علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران | ||
| 2دانشیار دانشکدۀ علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران | ||
| 3استادیار دانشکدۀ علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تکرار وقوع مخاطرۀ سیلاب در سراسر جهان در حال افزایش است؛ با این حال در بسیاری از مناطق دنیا، به‌ویژه کشورهای در حال توسعه، نظارتی بر دادههای دقیق در توصیف احتمال خطر سیلاب ندارند. در پژوهش حاضر پهنه‌بندی ژئومورفولوژیکی مخاطرۀ سیلاب رودخانۀ گاماسیاب انجام شده است که از جنوب شهر صحنه، در شرق استان کرمانشاه، جریان دارد. به منظور شبیه‌سازی سیلاب از مدل هیدرودینامیکی یک‌بعدی HEC_RAS استفاده شده است و پردازش دادههای ژئومتری در محیط GIS توسط الحاقی HEC–GEORAS انجام شده است. با استفاده از نرمافزار SMADA با توزیع پیرسون تیپ 3، دبی پیک لحظهای برای دورۀ بازگشتهای مختلف محاسبه شد. با توجه به الگوی رودخانه، منطقه به چهار بازۀ مختلف تقسیم شد و ضریب زبری مانینگ برای هر بخش جداگانه به دست آمد. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده از مدل نشان میدهد با مقایسۀ دو دورۀ بازگشت 25 ساله که مساحتی حدود 87/23 کیلومترمربع و دورۀ بازگشت 100 ساله با مساحتی حدود 1/42 کیلومترمربع از اراضی کشاورزی، مناطق مسکونی (روستایی) و مراتع تحت مخاطرۀ سیلاب قرار گرفتهاند. با توجه به نتایج، میزان خسارت سیلاب 100 ساله نسبت به 25 ساله به طور متوسط بیش از 6/25 درصد بوده است. همچنین، عرض پهنای سیلگیر در بازههای دوم، سوم و چهارم نشان میدهد از تعیین حد بستر براساس دورۀ بازگشت 25 ساله نتایج مطلوبی به دست نیامده است و باید ویژگیهای دیگر رودخانه از جمله مورفولوژی بستر، عمق رودخانه و الگوی رودخانه را بررسی کرد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| پهنه‌بندی سیلاب؛ حریم رودخانه؛ سیل‌راه؛ گاماسیاب | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Flood risk zonation in order to determine river flood fringe (Case study: Gamasiyab river) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| roya panahi1؛ Mohammad mahdi hoseinzadeh2؛ Somaiyeh Khaleghi Khaleghi3 | ||
| 1Ph.D. student ,Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran | ||
| 3Assistant Pr ofessor, Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Abstract The frequency and severity of floods has increased globally. However, in many parts of the world, especially in developing countries, there is no accurate data for estimating the probable of flood risk. In this research, flood risk zonation has been done for delineation of flood fringe in Gamasiyab River (south of the Sahneh city, east of the Kermanshah province).The simulation of the flood has been carried out based on the HEC-RAS (one-dimensional hydrodynamic model), and the geometric data has been processed in the GIS by the HEC-GEORAS extension. Also peak discharge in diffrence return periods has been calculated using SMADA software by Type III Pearson distribution. The study area has been divided to four reaches based on river patterns and then manning's roughness coefficient has been calculated for each reach. The results show that 23.78 km2 and 42.1 km2 of the river floodplain have been inundated by 25-year and 100-year return periods respectively, so that amount of damage from the 100-year flood was higher than the 25-year flood. Also the width of inundation area in the reaches 2, 3 and 4 indicated that 25-year return period was not good criteria for flood fringe. It is necessary to study the other features of the river, including bed morphology, river depth and river pattern. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Key words: flood zonation, floodway, flood fringe, Gamasiyab river | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1) UNFPA. United Nations Population Fund. 2018. https://www.unfpa.org/
2) Samela c, Troy J, Manfreda s. Geomorphic classifiers for flood-prone areas delineation for data-scarce environments. Journal of the Advances in Water Resources. 2017; 102: 13–28.
3) Lyu HM, Shen SL, Zhou A, Yang J. Perspectives for flood risk assessment and management for mega-city metro system. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 2019; 84: 31-44.
4) Hosseinzadeh MM, Esmaeli R. Fluvial geomorphology concepts, froms and processes. Puplisher Shahid Beheshti University Publication.2015. [Persian].
5) Hapuarachchi HAP, Wang QJ, Pagano TC. A review of advances in flashflood forecasting. Hydrol. Process. 2011; 25 (18): 2771–2784.
6) Petit-Boix A, Sevigne-Itoiz E, Rojas-Gutierrez LA, Barbassa AP, Josa A, Rieradevall J, et al. Floods and consequential life cycle assessment: integrating flood damage into the environmental assessment of storm water Best Management Practices. J. Cleaner Prod. 2017; 162: 601–608.
7) Herold C, Mouton F. Global flood hazard mapping using statistical peak flow estimates. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2011; 8 (1): 305–363.
8) The ministry of Power. Iran water resource management company. Flood Zoning Guide and Determining the Limit of River Landing and Area. 2005; Issue No. 307. [Persian]
9) New Yourk State Departement of Environment Conservat. Flood plain development and flood way guidance. www.NY.gov. 2011.
10) Gunasekara D. Planning for the Flood Fringe: A Comparative Analysis of Two Zone Concept Planning Policies Used by Conservation Authorities in Southern Ontario. School of Urban and Regional Planning Queen’s University Kingston, 2015.
11) Kia Abduli K. Final report on the determination of boundaries and boundaries of rivers. Publications Applied Research of Iran Water Resources and Water Resources Management Company.2014. [Persian]
12) Mondal I, Bandyopadhyay J, Paul.A. Estimation of hydrodynamic pattern change of Ichamati Riverusing HEC RAS model, West Bengal, India.Model. Earth Syst. Environ.2016;.2 (125):3- 13
13) Khattak MSh, Anwar F, Saeed T, Sharif M, Sheraz Kh, Ahmed A. Floodplain Mapping Using HEC-RAS and ArcGIS: A Case Studyof Kabul River.Arab J SciEng. 2016; 41:1375–1390.
14) Parhi PK. Flood Management in Mahanadi Basin using HEC-RASand Gumbel’s Extreme Value Distribution.J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.2018; 99(4):751–755.
15) Ezz H. Integrating GIS and HEC-RAS to model Assiut plateau runoff. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences. 2018; 2 :219–227.
16) Zelenakova M, Fijko R, Labant S, Weiss E, Markovic G, Weiss R. Flood risk modelling of the Slatvinec stream in Kru _ zlov village, Slovakia. Journal of Cleaner Production.Journal of Cleaner Production.2019; 212: 109-118.
17) Nott J. Extreme Events: A physical reconstruction and risk assessment. Cambridge University Press. 2006.
18) Black AR, Burns J C. Re-assessing the flood risk in Scotland. Sci. Total Environ. 2002;294 (1):169–184.
19) Xiao Y, Yi S, Tang Z. Integrated flood hazard assessment based on spatial ordered weighted averaging method considering spatial heterogeneity of risk preference. Science of The Total Environment. 2017; 599–600: 1034-1046
20) Su HT, Tung YK. Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty for flood mitigation. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk Assess. 2014; 28 (7): 1657–1670.
21) Hajkowicz S, Collins K. A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour Manage. 2007; 21 (9): 1553–1566.
22) Voogd H. Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning, vol. 207 Pion. London. 1983.
23) Kabenge M, Elaru J, Wang H, Li F. Characterizing flood hazard risk in data scarce areas, using a remote sensing and GIS-based flood hazard index. Nat. Hazards. 2017; 89 (3): 1369–1387.
24) Elkhrachy I. Flash flood hazard mapping using satellite images and GIS tools: a case study of Najran City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences. 2015; 18 (2): 261–278.
25) Schumann AH, Funke R, Schultz GA. Application of a geographic information system for conceptual rainfall–runoff modeling. J. Hydrol. 2000; 240 (1): 45–61.
26) Mejia-Navarro M, Wohl EE, Oaks SD. Geological hazards, vulnerability, and risk assessment using GIS: model for Glenwood Springs Colorado. Geomorphology. 1994;10 (1): 331–354.
27) Horritt MS, Bates PD. Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predictingriver flood inundation. J. Hydrol. 2002; 268 (1): 87–99.
28) Quan RS. Research on risk assessment of rainstorm waterlogging disaster in typical coastal city. Normal University, Shanghai, China. 2012.
29) Rad M, Vafakhah M. Gholamali Fard M. Flood zoning using HEC-RAS hydraulic model in downstream of Khorramabad watershed. 2018; 7(16): 211-226. [Persian].
30) Azizian A. Determining the Optimum Map Scale for Use in the Hydraulic Modeling of the Flood (Economic-Hydraulic Approach). Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research. 2018;141(4): 807- 820. [Persian].
31) Rezaei Moghaddam MH, Yassi M, Nikjou MR, Rahimi M. Morphological zonation and morphological analysis of the Gharshoo River floods using the HEC-RAS hydrodynamic model (from Pearsamian Village to the Ahar Chay River Cross). 2016; 09 – 13:1-15. [Persian].
32) Yerramilli SA. Hybrid Approach of Integrating HEC-RAS and GIS Towards the Identification and Assessment of Flood Risk Vulnerability in the City of Jackson, MS. American Journal of Geographic Information System. 2012, 1(1): 7-16.
33) Zahraatkar Z, Hassan pour F. Simulation of Birjand urban flood using HEC-RAS and ARC-GIS models. 2018; 112: 42 -56. [Persian].
34) Ildemi A, Sheikhipour A. Investigation of river morphology changes and its role in erosion and sedimentation using HEC-RAS (Case study: Khorramabad River-DoAb Visian). Quantitative Methods in Geography.2016; 3(19): 146-163. [Persian]. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 777 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 582 |
||