Scenarios for urban drainage on a Legal Amazon planned city: a case study in Palmas, Brazil

Mendes, Frederico Coli; Andrade, Rui da Silva

doi:10.1590/S1413-415220190019

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Engenharia Sanitaria e Ambiental

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Technical Article • Eng. Sanit. Ambient. 26 (3) • May-Jun 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-415220190019 copy

Scenarios for urban drainage on a Legal Amazon planned city: a case study in Palmas, Brazil

Cenários para drenagem urbana em uma cidade planejada na Amazônia Legal: um estudo de caso em Palmas, Brasil

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The significant urbanization of Brazil in the last decades has pushed cities to combine population growth with protection and harmonic living with their natural resources. The city of Palmas, a planned city in the Legal Amazon, is inserted in this context. In this sense, this study sought to analyze the hydrological and hydraulic responses to different scenarios of land use and occupation in one of its watersheds. Scenarios modeled with SWMM software were current, critical and compensatory techniques. The results showed that the conveyance system, including the main stream, are fully capable of conveying the affluent flow, even in the scenarios with greater impermeability of the watershed. The peak flow of the critical scenario is up to 11.12% higher than the current scenario. However, with compensatory techniques, it is possible to have a peak flow up to 25.76% smaller than the critical scenario.

Keywords:
urban drainage; urban planning; compensatory techniques; Legal Amazon

Land Use	Area (km²)	Area (% of total watershed)
Residential	5.50	52.11
Commerce / Urban Services	0.69	6.54
Urban Facilities	0.14	1.28
Commerce / Central Services	0.62	5.90
Green Area	1.82	17.28
Public Administration	0.44	4.18
Regional Services	1.34	12.71
TOTAL	10.55	100

Subcatchment	Area (km²)	Width (m)	Slope (%)
1	24.10	1,295.86	1.57
2	8.74	546.47	2.35
3	8.61	700.16	1.47
4	4.58	457.72	1.2
5	7.68	537.06	2.96
6	4.93	493.19	1.5
7	9.88	754.20	2.48
8	2.38	325.47	1.46
9	2.29	262.75	1.84
10	6.99	558.88	2.6
11	6.40	533.40	2.15
12	7.42	353.33	5.11
13	4.70	494.92	2.77
14	6.78	615.92	4.08

Sub.	Current			Critical		Compensatory Techniques
Sub.	Propagation	CN	Impervious Area (%)	CN	Impervious Area (%)	Propagation	CN	Storage Pervious (mm)
1	IMP.	93.96	43%	94.19	49%	PER.	93.85	89.39
2	PER.	93.57	39%	95.25	65%	PER.	94.57	250.98
3	IMP.	94.55	56%	94.99	66%	IMP.	94.45	221.90
4	IMP.	94.81	64%	95.00	70%	PER.	94.64	158.34
5	PER.	87.28	15%	87.53	17%	PER.	87.53	5.08
6	IMP.	95.09	66%	95.25	71%	PER.	94.89	162.69
7	IMP.	94.15	41%	95.90	67%	IMP.	93.84	87.99
8	IMP.	97.40	83%	97.59	87%	PER.	97.59	5.08
9	IMP.	95.83	54%	96.77	68%	PER.	96.77	5.08
10	IMP.	94.39	48%	95.62	64%	PER.	95.42	77.51
11	IMP.	96.34	68%	96.71	75%	IMP.	96.69	14.35
12	PER.	85.82	11%	86.02	12%	PER.	86.02	5.08
13	IMP.	95.70	75%	95.73	76%	IMP.	95.53	121.16
14	PER.	87.30	6%	88.79	27%	PER.	88.75	12.53

Subcatchment	Available area (m²)	Pervious area (%)	Added storage pervious (mm)
1	103,551.60	51%	84.31
2	75,928.92	35%	245.90
3	63,169.82	34%	216.82
4	21,294.97	30%	153.26
5	0	83%	0
6	22,611.83	29%	157.61
7	26,661.04	33%	82.91
8	0	13%	0
9	0	32%	0
10	18,204.38	36%	72.43
11	1,455.86	25%	9.27
12	0	88%	0
13	12,901.41	24%	116.08
14	3,659.99	73%	7.45

Parcel	Return Period (years)
	2			100
	Scenarios
	Current	Critical	Compensatory Techniques	Current	Critical	Compensatory Techniques
Total rainfall (mm)	46.79	46.79	46.79	86.14	86.14	86.14
Infiltration (mm)	12.76	9.97	10.41	12.96	10.1	10.54
Runoff (mm)	28.07	31.91	15.45	64.02	68.83	42.14
Final storage (mm)	5.98	4.93	20.94	9.21	7.26	33.51
Flow coefficient (%)	60	68	33	74	80	49
Maximum flow (m³/s)	61.58	68.47	50.83	106.12	116.54	101.25
Variation in Maximum flow (% Current)	-	+11.12	-17.46	-	+9.82	-4.59
Maximum outfall height (m)	214.98	215.02	214.91	215.20	215.25	215.18

Parcel	Return Period (years)
Parcel	2	10	25	50	100
Total rainfall (mm)	46.79	60.14	69.39	77.31	86.14
Infiltration (mm)	9.97	10.1	10.1	10.1	10.1
Runoff (mm)	31.91	44.13	52.81	60.36	68.83
Final storage (mm)	4.93	5.95	6.52	6.90	7.26
Flow coefficient (%)	68%	73%	76%	78%	80%
Maximum flow (m³/s)	68.45	83.85	95.16	105.25	116.54
Maximum outfall height (m)	215.02	215.10	215.15	215.20	215.25

Parameter	Current Scenario	PMSB	Palmas Sustentável
Maximum Flow (m³/s) - TR 2	61.58	28.24	40.40
Maximum Flow (m³/s) - TR 10	76.66	38.5	-
Maximum Flow (m³/s) - TR 25	86.85	44.64	73.92
Maximum Flow (m³/s) - TR 50	95.88	50.17	82.42
Maximum Flow (m³/s) - TR 100	106.12	56.18	90.93
CN	92.93	74.33	91.85
Time of Concentration (min.)	65.84	-	99

Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental - ABES Av. Beira Mar, 216 - 13º Andar - Castelo, 20021-060 Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: esa@abes-dn.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author: fcolimendes@gmail.com