生物滞留带构造对其渗蓄效果的影响

杨乾; 杨庆华; 唐雪芹; 尧远; 姚锦涛

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20180627

生物滞留带构造对其渗蓄效果的影响

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20180627

杨乾^1,,
杨庆华^1, ,,
唐雪芹²,
尧远¹,
姚锦涛¹

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金资助项目（51478403）

详细信息

作者简介:
杨乾（1990—），男，博士研究生，研究方向为海绵城市建设及市政流体力学，E-mail：yangqian-swjtu@foxmail.com

通讯作者:
杨庆华（1976—），男，副教授，研究方向为海绵城市建设及市政流体力学，E-mail：qhyang@home.swjtu.edu.cn

中图分类号: TU992.1
计量
- 文章访问数: 677
- HTML全文浏览量: 271
- PDF下载量: 13
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2018-07-25
- 修回日期: 2019-04-03
- 网络出版日期: 2018-04-04
- 刊出日期: 2020-08-01

Influence of Biologic Retention Zone Structure on Its Infiltration-Storage

摘要

摘要: 为了研究生物滞留带构造参数及组合方式对其渗蓄效果的影响，提出了判定生物滞留带渗蓄效果的评价指标，并对16组不同构造的生物滞留带开展模拟降雨径流正交试验，研究了种植土和填料层成分及含量、透水土工布位置、砂层颗粒级配和构造厚度对生物滞留带渗蓄效果的影响. 研究结果表明：影响生物滞留带渗蓄效应程度大小的排序为：砂层级配>填料层成分和含量>结构层厚度>土工布位置>种植土成分和含量；生物滞留带最佳组合形式从上至下依次为：20 cm厚种植土，35 cm厚填料层（其中珍珠岩、蛭石、土壤和砂的体积占比为10%、5%、10%和75%），10 cm厚砂层（其中砂层颗粒级配为0～0.5 mm占15%、0.5～0.7 mm占40%、0.7～1.0 mm占30%、1.0～2.0 mm占15%），20 cm厚砾石层以及不设置透水土工布.
- 城市道路 /
- 生物滞留带 /
- 径流 /
- 渗蓄效果 /
- 正交试验
Abstract: To investigate the influence of structural parameters and combination mode of the biologic retention zone on its infiltration-storage effect, the evaluation index for determining the infiltration-storage effect of biologic retention zone was put forward, and the 16 groups orthogonal experiments under the different conditions of the biological retention zone structural layer parameters were carried out. The composition and content of the planting soil and packing layer, the position of the geotextile, the grain gradation of the sand layer, and the thickness of structure layer on infiltration-storage effect of the biological retention zone were studied quantitatively. The results show that the degree of effect which varies from large to small is the grain gradation of sand layer, the composition and content of packing layer, the structural thickness, the position of geotextile, the composition and content of planting soil. The optimal structure of the biological retention zone from top to bottom is: 20 cm thick planting soil, 35 cm thick filler layer (the volume fraction are 10% perlite, 5% vermiculite, 10% loam, and 75% sand), 10 cm thick sand (0−0.5 mm accounting for 15%, 0.5−0.7 mm accounting for 40%, 0.7−1.0 mm accounting for 30%, and 1.0−2.0 mm accounting for 15%), 20 cm thick gravel layer, and without the geotextile.
- urban road /
- biological retention zone /
- runoff /
- infiltration-storage effect /
- orthogonal experiment

HTML全文

图 1 试验情况

Figure 1. Test condition

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 各评价指标在各因素下水平值

Figure 2. Level value of each evaluation index under various factors

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 各工况试验评价指标结果

Figure 3. Test evaluation index results of various working conditions

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 各因素对渗蓄指标的归一化

Figure 4. Normalization of various factors on the infiltration index

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 试验工况

Table 1. Test conditions

试验工况	水平					结构厚度比（砾石层∶砂层∶填料层∶种植土）	砂层各粒径体积比（（1.0～2.0 mm]∶ （0.7～1.0 mm]∶ （0.5～0.7 mm]∶ [0～0.5 mm]）	透水土工布位置	填料层体积比（珍珠岩∶蛭石∶ 土壤∶砂）	种植种植土层体积比（黏土∶草炭∶砂）
试验工况	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ	结构厚度比（砾石层∶砂层∶填料层∶种植土）		透水土工布位置	填料层体积比（珍珠岩∶蛭石∶ 土壤∶砂）	种植种植土层体积比（黏土∶草炭∶砂）
1	a	a	a	a	a	20∶10∶20∶35	25∶40∶30∶5	砂层～砾石层	10∶15∶20∶55	5∶30∶65
2	a	b	b	b	b	20∶10∶25∶30	20∶35∶35∶10	填料层～砂层	10∶10∶15∶65	5∶30∶65
3	a	c	c	c	c	20∶10∶30∶25	15∶30∶40∶15	包裹排水管	10∶5∶10∶75	5∶30∶65
4	a	d	d	d	d	20∶10∶35∶20	10∶25∶45∶20	无	10∶0∶5∶85	5∶30∶65
5	b	a	b	c	d	20∶10∶35∶20	15∶30∶40∶15	填料层～砂层	10∶15∶20∶55	5∶25∶70
6	b	b	a	d	c	20∶10∶30∶25	10∶25∶45∶20	砂层～砾石层	10∶10∶15∶65	5∶25∶70
7	b	c	d	a	b	20∶10∶25∶30	25∶40∶30∶5	无	10∶5∶10∶75	5∶25∶70
8	b	d	c	b	a	20∶10∶20∶35	20∶35∶35∶10	包裹排水管	10∶0∶5∶85	5∶25∶70
9	c	a	c	d	b	20∶10∶25∶30	10∶25∶45∶20	包裹排水管	10∶15∶20∶55	5∶20∶75
10	c	b	d	c	a	20∶10∶20∶35	15∶30∶40∶15	无	10∶10∶15∶65	5∶20∶75
11	c	c	a	b	d	20∶10∶35∶20	20∶35∶35∶10	砂层～砾石层	10∶5∶10∶75	5∶20∶75
12	c	d	b	a	c	20∶10∶30∶25	25∶40∶30∶5	填料层～砂层	10∶0∶5∶85	5∶20∶75
13	d	a	d	b	c	20∶10∶30∶25	20∶35∶35∶10	无	10∶15∶20∶55	5∶15∶80
14	d	b	c	a	d	20∶10∶35∶20	25∶40∶30∶5	包裹排水管	10∶10∶15∶65	5∶15∶80
15	d	c	b	d	a	20∶10∶20∶35	10∶25∶45∶20	填料层～砂层	10∶5∶10∶75	5∶15∶80
16	d	d	a	c	b	20∶10∶25∶30	15∶30∶40∶15	砂层～砾石层	10∶0∶5∶85	5∶15∶80

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 生物滞留带渗蓄效果评价指标

Table 2. Evaluation index of the infiltration effect of biological retention zone

序号	评价指标	定义	计算公式	备注
1	径流水量削减率	降雨径流总量和生物滞留带底部穿孔管出水总量差值占降雨径流总量的百分比，忽略蒸发及植物蒸腾，非渗透型生物滞留带无下渗量	R_W = (W_in − W_out)/W_in × 100%	W_in为降雨径流总量； W_out为出水总量
2	峰值流量削减率	入流流量与出流流量峰值差占入流流量百分比	R_Q = (Q_in − Q_out)/Q_in × 100%	Q_in为路面径流量； Q_out为排水管峰值流量
3	产流延时	降雨开始和排水管出水时刻之差	t_r = T_start − T_out	T_start为开始降雨时间； T_out为排水管出流时间
4	积水时间	储水层开始储水到全部下渗经历的时间	t_R = t_start − t_end	t_start为储水层开始储水时刻； t_end为结束储水时刻
5	孔隙削减率	储水前后生物滞留带沉降量差值与储水前生物滞留带厚度的比值	R_H = (H_start − H_end)/ H_start × 100%	H_start为雨前土体高度； H_end为雨后土体高度两者差值即为沉降值

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 各工况渗蓄效果评价指标计算结果

Table 3. Calculation results of evaluation index for seepage effect of various conditions

试验工况	孔隙削减率/%	积水时间/min	产流延时/min	峰值流量削减率/%	径流水量削减率/%
1	14.12	20.74	23.17	84.52	61.64
2	14.78	24.70	24.07	79.22	53.53
3	7.51	19.64	20.99	95.74	73.36
4	14.27	21.08	31.44	89.82	77.41
5	9.88	18.36	28.74	89.74	69.85
6	11.33	14.88	17.62	90.78	75.51
7	12.72	20.23	30.42	91.21	77.23
8	13.98	26.29	25.19	90.09	62.53
9	12.35	14.40	28.62	90.28	61.97
10	12.00	20.54	24.63	92.41	65.82
11	6.69	19.91	56.96	96.72	80.11
12	14.95	21.04	24.42	80.82	67.29
13	13.89	17.90	21.98	81.62	56.23
14	9.78	14.73	36.17	93.47	74.09
15	7.65	19.14	24.02	92.94	71.81
16	11.22	39.40	50.09	96.38	81.97

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 各指标最优组合方案统计

Table 4. Optimal combination schemes for each index

评价指标	最优水平组合
评价指标	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
径流水量削减率	d	c	d	c	d
峰值流量削减率	b	c	d	c	d
产流延时	c	b	d	c	d
积水时间	c	c	a	a	a
孔隙削减率	b	c	a	c	c
最优方案	c	c	d	c	d

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 各指标下各因素的水平均值和极差

Table 5. Horizontal mean and extreme difference of the factors under each index

影响因素	参数	峰值流量削减率/%	径流水量削减率/%	孔隙削减率/%	积水时间/min	产流延时/min
因素 Ⅰ （种植土成分和含量）	水平 a	87.33	66.48	12.67	21.54	24.91
	水平 b	91.10	71.03	10.64	22.79	33.06
	水平 c	90.06	68.80	11.50	18.97	33.66
	水平 d	90.46	71.28	11.98	19.94	25.49
	极差	3.78	4.80	2.03	3.82	8.74
	权重	0.127	0.111	0.145	0.125	0.158
	归一化处理W_Ⅰ	W_Ⅰ =（0.127+0.111+0.145+0.125+0.158）/5=0.133
因素 Ⅱ （填料层成分和含量）	水平 a	87.95	68.36	13.57	26.87	30.72
	水平 b	90.02	70.67	10.46	21.00	33.87
	水平 c	93.10	72.20	10.15	17.45	24.85
	水平 d	87.87	66.36	12.60	17.94	27.69
	极差	5.23	5.83	3.41	9.42	9.01
	权重	0.177	0.135	0.244	0.307	0.163
	归一化处理W_Ⅱ	W_Ⅱ =（0.177+0.135+0.244+0.307+0.163）/5=0.205
因素 Ⅲ （土工布位置）	水平 a	89.90	67.28	10.91	19.69	25.14
	水平 b	89.16	68.25	12.42	23.35	30.10
	水平 c	87.35	68.53	12.27	19.70	24.45
	水平 d	92.53	73.53	11.18	20.50	37.44
	极差	5.18	6.26	1.51	3.65	12.98
	权重	0.175	0.145	0.108	0.119	0.234
	归一化处理W_Ⅲ	W_Ⅲ =（0.175+0.145+0.108+0.119 +0.234）/5=0.156
因素 Ⅳ （砂层级配）	水平 a	89.87	68.73	12.24	17.52	29.59
	水平 b	85.84	59.53	13.66	22.36	23.97
	水平 c	94.65	76.32	8.83	24.33	39.19
	水平 d	88.59	73.00	12.05	19.04	24.38
	极差	8.81	16.79	4.84	6.80	15.23
	权重	0.297	0.390	0.346	0.222	0.275
	归一化处理W_Ⅳ	W_Ⅳ =（0.297+0.390+0.346+0.222 +0.275）/5=0.306
因素 Ⅴ （结构层厚度）	水平 a	88.41	68.37	11.51	18.36	29.93
	水平 b	85.82	66.19	12.35	19.71	28.35
	水平 c	92.26	67.42	10.37	19.87	24.70
	水平 d	92.45	75.61	12.55	25.31	34.14
	极差	6.64	9.42	2.18	6.95	9.44
	权重	0.224	0.218	0.156	0.227	0.170
	归一化处理W_Ⅴ	W_Ⅴ =（0.224+0.218 +0.156+0.227+0.170）/5=0.199

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(15)

LIU J, SAMPLE D J, BELL C, et al. Review and research needs of bioretention used for the treatment of urban stormwater[J]. Water, 2014, 6(4): 1069-1099. doi: 10.3390/w6041069

李海燕,罗艳红,张悦. LID措施在道路雨水利用工程中的应用[J]. 节水灌溉,2013,11: 44-49. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-4929.2013.02.012

LI Haiyan, LUO Yanhong, ZHANG Yue. Application of LID in road runoff utilization engineering[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2013, 11: 44-49. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-4929.2013.02.012

陶俊. 海绵城市理念在姚江新城道路设计中的实践[J]. 城市道桥与防洪,2017,7: 87-91.

TAO Jun. Practice of sponge city concept in road design of Yaojiang new city[J]. Urban Roads Bridges & Flood Control, 2017, 7: 87-91.

许萍,司帅,张建强,等. 深圳光明新区透水沥青道路与滞留带对径流水质水量控制效果研究[J]. 给水排水,2015,41(11): 64-69. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-8471.2015.11.015

XU Ping, SI Shuai, ZHANG Jianqiang, et al. Study on control effects of permeable asphalt road and road retention on water quality and quantity of runoff[J]. Water & Wastewater Engineering, 2015, 41(11): 64-69. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-8471.2015.11.015

罗瑜. 海绵城市道路低影响设计经验总结[J]. 低碳世界,2017,10: 233-234. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-2066.2017.15.149

LUO Yu. Summary of experience in low impact design of spongy city road[J]. Low Carbon World, 2017, 10: 233-234. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-2066.2017.15.149

LUCKE T, NICHOLS P W B. The pollution removal and stormwater reduction performance of street-side bioretention basins after ten years in operation[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2015, 536: 784-792. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.142

LI M H, SWAPP M, KIM M H, et al. Comparing bioretention designs with and without an internal water storage layer for treating highway runoff[J]. Water Environment Research, 2014, 86(5): 387-397. doi: 10.2175/106143013X13789303501920

LI L, DAVIS A P. Urban stormwater runoff nitrogen composition and fate in bioretention systems[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2014, 48(6): 3403-3410.

TIAN J, YI S, IMHOFF P T, et al. Biochar-amended media for enhanced nutrient removal in stormwater facilities[C]//World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2014: Water without Borders. Oregon: ASCE, 2014: 197-208.

杨世蜀,王海洋. 人工生物蓄水过滤系统对雨水的滞留与过滤功效[J]. 环境工程学报,2015,9(5): 2259-2264. doi: 10.12030/j.cjee.20150538

YANG Shishu, WANG Haiyang. Rainwater retention and filtration effects of artificial biological storage-filtration system[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2015, 9(5): 2259-2264. doi: 10.12030/j.cjee.20150538

殷瑞雪,孟莹莹,张书函,等. 生物滞留池的产流规律模拟研究[J]. 水文,2015,35(2): 28-32. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0852.2015.02.006

YIN Ruixue, MENG Yingying, ZHANG Shuhan, et al. Study on runoff of bioretention by model simulation[J]. Journal of China Hydrology, 2015, 35(2): 28-32. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0852.2015.02.006

MENG Y, WANG H, CHEN J, et al. Modelling hydrology of a single bioretention system with HYDRUS-1D[J]. The Scientific World Journal, 2014: 521047.

PAYNE E G I, FLETCHER T D, COOK P L M, et al. Processes and drivers of nitrogen removal in stormwater biofiltration[J]. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science & Technology, 2014, 44(7): 796-846.

HUNT W F, LORD W G. Bioretention performance, design, construction, and maintenance[M]. Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension, 2006: 2-3.

BRATIERES K, FLETCHER T D, DELETIC A, et al. Nutrient and sediment removal by stormwater biofilters:a large-scale design optimisation study[J]. Water Research, 2008, 42(14): 3930-3940. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.06.009

施引文献

附加材料(0)

访问统计