11(1)-15.fm

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "11(1)-15.fm"

재욱 영
5 years ago
Views:

1 w y wz 11«1y 73~80 ( ) Journal of Korean Society of Urban Environment SWMM 을이용한도시지역비점오염부하저류시설용량산정 Áw«Á *Áy **Á½ yá½ Á x w w Á* û w y œw Á** w y lœw ( , k) Determine Capacity of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Storage Facilities in Urban Areas by SWMM Rae-Seong Baek ½ Kwon-Chul Ha ½ Yong-Un Lee* ½ Seong-Chul Hong** ½ Myung-Mi Kim Min-Ho Kim ½ Do-Hyeon Paek Department of Biochemistry & Health Sciences, Changwon National University *Department of Environmental Engineering, Chonnam National University **Department of Regional Environmental System Engineering, Pusan National University (Received 13 June 2011 : Accepted 27 June 2011) Abstract Over the past 30 years, there has been an effort to run the facility which manages the domestic, industrial, and animal related sewages in Korea. Despite the effort, there has not been much improvement in the water quality in the lakes and marshes as expected. The limitation of the current water system is that, an inflow of the rainfall and other contamination elements are not being managed properly and so, there are a lot of efforts being made to effectively contain the contamination. The modeling locations are the Gwang-ju stream in Young-san river. These River of water quality was exceeded between level II~III, and the cause for that were determined as the non-point pollution material. The Ministry of Environment has set the Gwang-ju as supervised area to plan, establish, and to preform the 5.0 mg/l BOD concentration. We have carried out this research to improve the water quality at the main course of the Young-san river by proper calculation of capacity for the efficient management with non-point pollution source processing facility installation G stream in drainage area of Gwang-ju stream. Key Words : Nonpoint Source Pollution, SWMM, Rainfall-Runoff ù ù 30 y» mw w ù, w w. w». Ÿ BOD» II~III ùküš, w w ùkû. y Ÿ Ÿ BOD 5 mg/l t w w, wm wš. Ÿ G e z w mw t wš ww. : w, SWMM, - Corresponding author pdh315@changwon.ac.kr 73

2 74 Áw«Á Áy Á½ yá½ Á x I. ù w y ƒ w z ƒ w š. ù 30 yw, s, š s w y» ù w w ( x, 2002).» Á ƒ jš d yƒ,» Á Á x w p š» w š. w (BOD» ) 44.5% w w e ùkûš, e w ƒwš. Ÿ BOD» II~III ùk üš, ùkû. y Ÿ Ÿ Áš wš, Ÿ BOD 5.0 mg/l t w w Á wm wš (y š y, y» z). w w š yw ƒ w mw v w ( y, 2000). w w w y w v ƒ w x w. ƒ š SWMM x w. SWMM version 3 l ƒ ƒ w, x ¾ š (Baffaut, C. and J. W. Delleur, 1990). ƒ w EPA œwš Manual(Lewis A. Rossman, 2004)» x w (, 2004, ½, 2002). GIS w w. GIS œ w w w (, 1998). Ÿ G w» w wz w wì w w» w w» w x w. w w x mw wš l» w. 1. II. Ÿ Ÿ G w 9 w(fig. 1)w ƒ, s,, n w. s x xy x ùkü w ƒx xk ƒ w w. Table 1. Subcatchment information of study area Subcatchment Area (ha) Width (km) Slope ( o ) Residence (%) Commerce (%) Land Use Forest (%) S S S S S S S S S Etc (%)

3 SWMM w w 75 Fig. 1. The subcatchment division in G river area. W = ( 2 S k ) L W : Total width of overland flow (= 2 L) (m) S k = ( A2 A1) A S k :skew factor (0 S k 1) (dimensionless)»ww xkƒ w tš ¼ ù w, xkƒ w w ¼ ƒ s³w w. Table 1 eš (DEM) w Arc/Info v mw w. m w,,, œl, 5ƒ w. m v w m w GIS w š ùkü m w m w. 2. SWMM SWMM(Storm Water Management Model) x 1971 w w v 1971 EPA š. SWMM x ü w, w tw,, w w x ( k, 1996). SWMM Version 5.0 w G w w. 3. š SWMM x w Ÿ G p w. x v w Auto CAD, GIS w w, w DEM(Digital Elevation Model) k w. en, Runoff w Horton en ( š x) w š, conduit w» w Kinetic Wave w.» y w š w, Ÿ Ÿ G» (2009.8~2010.3) w x w. 1. x III. š d l k ƒ»,» w, w SWMM x w w x Ÿ Ÿ G y w. x y q w» w» d w, w dw k x w. SWMM x RUNOFF, TRNSPORT, EXTRAN Bolck w (calibration)w, k w x (verification) w.

76 Áw«Á Áy Á½ yá½ Á x Table 2. Data for rainfall situation Event '09.8.11 04:00 ~ '09.8.12 13:00 '10.2.24 9:00 ~ '10.2.25 18:00 '10.3.30 2:00 ~ '10.3.30 21:00 Rainfall (mm) Duration time in Rainfall (hr) 38.

4 76 Áw«Á Áy Á½ yá½ Á x Table 2. Data for rainfall situation Event ' :00 ~ ' :00 ' :00 ~ ' :00 ' :00 ~ ' :00 Rainfall (mm) Duration time in Rainfall (hr) ~12, ~25, ~31 G» (Table 2)w e k wp w. w e w q w mw w. G w 9 ù 3 (A1, A2, A3) w 3 w ùkü. d Fig. 2 A1 S7 ƒ l, A2 S3 y, A3 S9 3 ƒ, SS, BOD, COD, TN, TP w d w, d k w Fig. 2. Oserved point for subcatcment. w k w. Ÿ Ÿ G x ~12 w d k w x wš k ~26, ~31 k G w x ww Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 ùkû. 2. Ÿ Ÿ G ( ~12, ~26, ~31) k x mw G 3 (A1, A2, A3) w w Fig. 3 ~Fig. 12 ùkü. Table 3. Correlation coefficient of calibration results ( ~12) Basin Flux SS BOD COD TN TP A1-S A2-S A3-S Table 4. Correlation coefficient of verification result ( ~26) Basin Flux SS BOD COD TN TP A1-S A2-S A3-S Table 5. Correlation coefficient of verification result ( ~31) Basin Flux SS BOD COD TN TP A1-S A2-S A3-S

5 SWMM w w 77 Fig. 3. Hydrograph of Runoff for ~26. Fig. 7. Pollutograph of TP for ~26. Fig. 4. Pollutograph of TSS for ~26. Fig. 8. Hydrograph of Runoff for ~31. Fig. 5. Pollutograph of BOD for ~26. Fig. 9. Pollutography of TSS for ~31. Fig. 6. Pollutograph of TN for ~26. Fig. 10. Pollutograph of BOD for ~31. v wƒ», w x G w washoff x w. ü w washoffƒ ù wƒ w w. 3. w» ùkû. w» w w w œœ w w. G w w w e» w

6 78 Áw«Á Áy Á½ yá½ Á x Fig. 11. Pollutography of TN for ~31. Fig. 12. Pollutograph of TP for ~31. Table 6. Accumulated flow in G river area ( ~ 12) TSS BOD TN TP Mean Accumulated Load (%) 7 0 Accumulated Flow (ton) Accumulated Load (%) 8 0 Accumulated Flow (ton) Accumulated Load (%) 9 0 Accumulated Flow (ton) Table 7. Accumulated flow in G river area ( ~ 26) TSS BOD TN TP Mean Accumulated Load (%) 7 0 Accumulated Flow (ton) Accumulated Load (%) 8 0 Accumulated Flow (ton) Accumulated Load (%) 9 0 Accumulated Flow (ton) Table 8. Accumulated flow in G river area ( ~ 31) TSS BOD TN TP Mean Accumulated Load (%) 7 0 Accumulated Flow (ton) Accumulated Load (%) 8 0 Accumulated Flow (ton) Accumulated Load (%) 9 0 Accumulated Flow (ton) w mw w wš w. 3z w TSS, BOD, TN, TP w w w 70%, 80%, 90% w w w (Table 6~Table 8, Fig. 13 ~Fig. 16). w 70% w w w» w w ƒ ù s³ 24,092 ton ³ ƒ v w 80% w w» w 29,079 ton š 90% w w» w

7 SWMM w w 79 Fig. 13. The relation between cumulated flow and TSS % loading ( ~26). Fig. 14. The relation between cumulated flow and BOD % loading ( ~26). Fig. 15. The relation between cumulated flow and TN % loading ( ~26). 34,968 ton ³ v w ùk û. IV. w Fig. 16. The relation between cumulated flow and TP % loading ( ~26). w w» w w z w ü w wì w» w w. w wì SWMM x w w w x e w w w ³ w. w d w 0 wù, Runoff w w.»» š,» ƒ w w. 2.» ~12, ~25, ~31 3z d w G w SWMM x ww ƒ ~ ~ ~31 w. 3. Ÿ Ÿ G w w ù», w» z w w œœ w» w. wƒ» w SWMM e w

8 80 Áw«Á Áy Á½ yá½ Á x w. 4.» Ÿ Ÿ G w w» w» w. w 70%, 80%, 90% w k w w. w ƒ ù 70% w w w» w s³ 24,093 ton, 80% w w» w 29,080 ton š 90% w 34,969 ton ³ v w ùkû. 2009~2010 w ü w. References 1. ½, ½,», «, dp. wy œwz. 24(11) x GIS y w mw x. w. w. 3.,, m p. wy œwz. 26(7) ƒ l w x. w, w. 5. k, ky, ½ y m w SWMM x. 4z w wz j y ƒ l l w mw. 2 š. w w. 7. Baffaut, C. and J. W. Delleur Calibration of SWMM Runoff Quality Model With Expert System. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. ASCE. 116(2). 8. Lewis A. Rossman, 2004, STORM WATER MANGEMENT MODEL USER`S MANUAL Version 5. EPA.

10(3)-09.fm

10(3)-09.fm w y wz 10«3y 253~258 (2010.12.) Journal of Korean Society of Urban Environment ³ w Á» Á Á y w y œw (2010 11 22, 2010 12 9 k) Study on Determine of Detention Pond in Small Developed Area In-Soo Chang ½