Uchiyama 2022 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 973 012012

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- (Invited) Singularity in Chemistry: Digitally
Efficacy Analysis of Urban Planning Scenarios for Controlled Kinetics of Titania-
Photocatalyzed Oxygen Evolution
Flood Mitigation with Low Impact Development Bunsho Ohtani, Shugo Takeuchi, Mai
Takase et al.
Technologies Using SWMM: A Case Study in - Characterization on deuterium retention in

tungsten target using spatially resolved
Saitama City, Japan laser induced desorption-quadrupole mass
spectroscopy
Yan Lyu, Cong Li, Ding Wu et al.
To cite this article: S Uchiyama et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 973 012012 - Reduction in Light Induced Degradation
(LID) in B-doped Cz-Si Solar Cells with
SiCxNy Antireflection (AR) Coating
Moon Hee Kang, Junegie Hong, Ian
Cooper et al.
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 136.158.37.85 on 24/06/2023 at 11:07

CEESD 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 973 (2022) 012012 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/973/1/012012
Efficacy Analysis of Urban Planning Scenarios for Flood

Mitigation with Low Impact Development Technologies Using
SWMM: A Case Study in Saitama City, Japan
S Uchiyama1,*, Y Bhattacharya2 and H Nakamura2

1
Graduate School of Systems Engineering and Science, Shibaura Institute of
Technology
2
Department of Planning, Architecture and Environment Systems, Shibaura Institute
of Technology, Japan
*
mf21009@sic.shibaura-it.ac.jp
Abstract. LID (Low impact Development) has been widely promoted as a measure against urban
flooding which has been recently increasing due to urbanization and climate change. However,
studies that consider the combined effects of spatially distributing multiple LIDs simultaneously
in an urban area of specific size as urban planning scenarios are few. In this study, two cases of
past rainfall data (short duration and long duration heavy rainfall), are used to simulate the effects
of 3 different urban planning scenarios of distributed LID (i.e. combined LIDs implementable at
the 1) building-level, 2) in open spaces, and 3) combined implementation of both 1&2), in
addition to simulating for separate implementation of each LID type using the Storm Water
Management Model (SWMM). The results show that in the case of short duration heavy rainfall,
all 3 LID scenarios provide a greater decrease in the rate of flood volume with comparison to the
case of long duration heavy rainfall. This points to the fact that LIDs have a high potential to
mitigate flood volumes resulting from short duration heavy rainfall - the type of rainfall which
has become more frequent recently. Furthermore, the paper also organizes the LID types
according to their implementability under different urban planning scenarios, and shows that
such combined use of LIDs results in higher flood mitigation efficacy.
1. Introduction
As our cities become more and more complex we are expected to face multiple challenges in terms of
environmental, social and economic aspects relating to climate change [1]. According to The IPCC’s
Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), due to global warming, average surface temperature will increase
considerably in the coming years all over the world [2]. All prediction scenarios for global warming
indicate temperature increase, whilst the worst case scenario predicts on increase of up to 4.8 degrees.
This directly relates to increase in the risk of storms and extreme precipitation, resulting in urban area
flooding [2], which is further exacerbated by the increasing impervious surface areas in cities due to
urbanization which prevents rainwater from penetrating the ground.
In Japan, the situation is no different. According to the Automated Meteorological Data Acquisition
System [3], the number of short duration heavy rainfall events exceeding 50mm/hour has increased
approximately 1.4 times compared to 30 years ago, and approximately one-third of the areas in Japan
have observed the largest rainfall in history since 2012. Serious flood disasters have been occurring
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
almost every year in Japan; namely Kanto-Tohoku Heavy Rainfall in 2015, Typhoon for Hokkaido and
Tohoku in 2017, Typhoon in East Japan in 2019 [4].
Urban development contributes to the increase in flood risk because of the reduction in ground
infiltration capacity due to transformation of the natural soil into impervious surface. We can however
use alternative methods that improve permeability, as well as better spatial planning techniques to
mitigate future flood risks in flood prone areas [5]. One approach to mitigate flood risk is through the
use of “Low Impact Development (LID)”. LID defines types of compact development approaches that
are distributed throughout the site to decrease impervious area and stormwater runoff, pollutant loading
and aid in stormwater management. Common practices such as permeable pavement and bioretention
are well known. The goal of LID implementation is to maintain or replicate the pre-development
hydrologic regime of an area to create a functionally equivalent hydrologic landscape [6] [7]. LID began
to be used as a new measure to achieve better environmental design that also reduce economic losses
from disasters, and has since become a popular approach for stormwater management with many major
cities around the world incorporating such type of green infrastructure [8] [9].
Simultaneously, in recent years, the use of computational model for planning and design of
stormwater management has become frequent [10]. One such model is the EPA’s (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) which is a dynamic rainfall runoff
simulation model used for single event or long-term simulation of runoff. SWMM has been used in
thousands of sewer and stormwater studies, and continues to be widely used for planning, analysis and
design related to storm water runoff and drainage system in urban area as well as non-urban area. The
latest version SWMM5.1 can simulate the effect of eight different types of LID controls [11].
Japan recently designated green infrastructure as one of its policies with national importance for the
first time in 2015 [12]. Since which, the concept of green infrastructure and LID have begun to be widely
adopted. Although there have been some case studies for simulating the flood mitigation efficacy of LID
in an urban area, as far as we know there are only few studies which consider the combined effects of
spatially distributing multiple LIDs simultaneously in an urban area of a specific scale in terms of urban
planning scenarios [13][14].
The purpose of this study is to consider the flood mitigation efficacy of different implementable LID-
based urban planning scenarios in an urban area where past floods have been recorded. Two cases of
past rainfall data (short duration and long duration heavy rainfall), are used to simulate the effects of 3
different urban planning scenarios of distributed LID (i.e. combined LIDs implementable at the: (1)
building-level, (2) in open spaces, and (3) combined implementation of both (1)&(2), in addition to
simulating separate implementation of each LID type using the Storm Water Management Model
(SWMM) with 1-chome Daitakubo Midori-ward in Saitama-city as the study area.
2. Methodology
2.1 SWMM
In this study, SWMM is applied to simulate: (1) total runoff and flood volume, (2) conduit capacity and flood
volume from manhole, during single urban precipitation event.
Sub-catchment division, drainage system and other main parameters are necessary for the simulation
of SWMM. Firstly, the target area is divided into several sub-catchments according to the sub-catchment
division map of Saitama City. Each sub-catchment can be divided into three areas, including a pervious
area and two impervious areas, one with and one without depression storage. The drainage system
including junctions and conduits as well as the points where the rainfall is collected by drainage system
and flows into the outlet (set as the nearby Touemon River) are modelled according to the sewerage map
of Saitama City (see Figure 1). In addition, Kinematic wave routing model is selected as flow routing
model, and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number method is selected as infiltration method.
Parameters of sub-catchment are presented in Table A-1 (see appendix A) based on SWMM User’s
Manual Version 5.1 [11].
2
2.2 Precipitation scenarios

The characteristics of the two precipitation scenarios used in this study are shown in Figure 2. The first
case is Typhoon No.19 (Typhoon Hagibis) a long duration heavy rainfall scenario which recorded the
largest wide area precipitation covering eastern Japan on 12/10/2019; while the second case is a short
duration heavy rainfall that recently flooded in the study area on 8/12/2020. Both cases record a heavier
rainfall resulting in flood around peak time (14:00 and 21:00 on 10/12/2019, 14:00 on 8/12/2020)
respectively.
Figure 1. Sub-catchment division and Figure 2. Precipitation scenarios (12/10/2019 and

drainage system, outlet location. 8/12/2020).
3. Study Area
The area of this study is located in Midori-ward, Saitama-city, Japan, and the total area is approximately
25ha, as shown in Figure 3. Flood control facilities of Saitama-city are designed for rainfall of 55.5 mm
per hour. However, a number of rainfall events recording more than 100 mm per hour have occurred
recently [15]. Typhoon No.19 in 2019, flooded over 1000 houses in Saitama-city, and many physical
damages were reported [16]. The study area is within this flooded region and selected based on the
following 4 criteria below.
(1) Much of the area is impervious. (see Figure 3(a-b))
(2) The area has been flooded in the past. (see Figure 3(c))
(3) The area has lower elevation is compared to its surroundings making it prone to flooding. (see
Figure 3(d))
(4) The soil type of the area is permeable. (see Figure B-2 in Appendix B)
(a) (b)
3
(c) (d)
Figure 3. The condition of the study area: (a) The study area location by Google Earth; (b) Land
use map; (c) Flood hazard map; and (d) Elevation map of the study area
4. Usability of SWMM
Although here is no official water flow data for the study area, since there is an official water level data
of outlet points from the Saitama water level information system [17] during the flood event, the
simulated outlet water levels could be compared against the official data to verify the accuracy of the
SWMM simulation. This verification is presented in Figure 4 (a) and (b), which show similarity in peak
time values for both cases. This demonstrates that a fairly accurate simulation of flood situation
maximized on peak time is possible through SWMM. Furthermore, even at non-peak times, where there
is variance between the SWMM and official empirical data, the general trends of increasing and decrease
in values are still similar and do not contradict. Consequently, we can assume that the SWMM
methodology employed in this study can produce fairly accurate results of the simulation that mitigates
inland flooding using LID within the sub-catchment.
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Comparison the outlet depth of the simulation result with that of official data:
(a) Short duration rainfall event (8/12/2020); (b) Long duration rainfall event (10/12/2019)
5. Simulation scenarios
This study uses 6 types of LID (namely, bio-retention, permeable pavement, infiltration trench, green
roof, rain barrel, rooftop disconnection). It considers the efficacy of implementing each LID separately
as well as combined implementation scenarios of LID based on spatial planning. Three different LID
scenarios are used in terms of their applicability for: 1) the building level; 2) the open spaces; and 3)
both combination of building and open space implementation representing the maximum possible LID
use within the sub-catchment. However, in SWMM it is impossible to reflect accurate distribution of
LIDs as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, this study compares distribution of LIDs (see Figure 5) with sub-
catchment division map (see Figure 1). Figure 1, following which, each LID component presented in
4
Table C-1 (in Appendix C) is created, then added to SWMM according to the size and number of each
LID within each sub-catchment.
5.1 Singular LID scenarios

The description of each LID type considered and its placement in the study area are presented in Table
1, and Partial Parameter of each LID type is presented in Table C-1 (in Appendix C)
Table 1. Parameters of singular LID scenarios
Total used
LID Description Placement Others / Notes
area
Allows the infiltration of In the parking lots. Inflow all rainfall within each
rainfall on the surface into (Each area is set as parking lots in addition to
Bio-retention 14,339m2
the ground through the grass one-tenth of each rainfall that fell directly onto
and soil. parking lot area.) it.
Allows the infiltration of On the wide Only inflow the rainfall that
Permeable rainfall from the surface into walkways with fell directly onto it (i.e. not
35,044m2
Pavement the ground through high more than 3m including the rainfall from
permeability pavement. width. other places.).
Leads the surface rainwater
In detached house Only inflow the rainfall that
to infiltration pipe in the
Infiltration site. (Each area is 2 fell directly onto it (i.e. not
ground, allowing infiltration 15,490m
Trench set 2m2 (width including the rainfall from
rate the ground from side
0.4m* length 5m).) other places.).
and bottom of the pipe.
Allows infiltrating of The rainfall that does not
Apartment
rainwater falling on roof 2 infiltrate is set to flow directly
Green Roof through using grass and soil
buildings with a flat 172,994m
into drainage system through
roof.
set on the roof. drainage mat.
In detached house
The roof area of each
Retains the rainwater falling site. Capacity
detached house collected by
Rain Barrel on roof through a (The bottom area 1,549,000L
one rain barrel is set as
downspout. 0.266m2, Capacity (2,060m2)
35.75m².
200L)
Allows the rainfall from the
roof to flow into the current 276,884m2 The roof area of each
Rooftop In detached house (Total roof area
pervious area via the detached house collected by
Disconnection site. used for rooftop
downspout within the site of disconnection)
one downspout is 35.75m².
the detached house.
5.2 Combined scenarios

・ Scenario 1 – LIDs adoptable at the building level
This scenario envisions the use of infiltration trench and a combination of rain barrel and rooftop
disconnection for detached house; and a combination of green roof and rooftop disconnection for
apartment buildings with a flat roof. Overflow from the rain barrel and green roof LIDs can flow into
the pervious area due to the combination with rooftop disconnection. Since these LIDs need to be
adopted at the building level, their implementation can be incentivized through subsides aimed at the
house owners. For our study we assume the scenario as shown in Figure 5(a) with the combined LID
usage area being 190,544 m².
・Scenario 2 – LIDs implementable in open spaces
This scenario envisions the use of permeable pavement for all wide walkways with width over 3m
and bio-retention for all parking lots within the sub-catchment. The implementation of these LIDs is
based on public spaces and therefore under the jurisdiction of the municipal urban development authority.
This scenario can be adopted easily and widely in comparison to scenario 1 if the neighborhood is in a
development or re-development stage. However, it may be difficult to be adopted in an already
5
developed area. For our study we assume the scenario as shown in Figure 5(b) with the combined LID
usage area being 179,382 m².
・Scenario 3 – Maximum use of LIDs
This scenario combines scenarios 1 and 2 to examine how much rainfall flood mitigation is possible
if both the building-level strategies and open-space oriented strategies are adopted. This would give the
maximum flood mitigation efficacy possible in the study area through the use of LIDs. For our study we
assume the scenario as shown in Figure 5(c) with the combined LID usage area being 648,809 m².
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 5. Location used of each combined scenario:
(a) Placement of Scenario 1; (b) Placement of Scenario 2; (c) Placement of Scenario 3
6. Simulation Results and Analysis

Simulation results regarding runoff, flood volume, and the resulting flood situation in the study area are
shown in section 6.1 and 6.2 as explained. In this study, “runoff volume” is defined as the volume of
rainfall not infiltrating to the ground and instead directly flowing to the drainage system from the whole
sub-catchment area. Similarly, “flood volume” is defined as the volume of runoff overflow due to
exceedance of drainage capacity of the sub-catchment area.
6.1 Runoff and flood volume
6.1.1 Short duration heavy rainfall (8/12/2020). Table 2 shows the simulated total runoff and flood
volumes for each LID type, and their corresponding rate of decrease when compared with the current
situation (no LID present – as shown on the left column of the table), as well as the detailed peak time
transition of these volumes (from 14:10 – 14:40). All LID types show the potential to decrease the flood
6
volume. Especially, LIDs such as bio-retention, green roof, rooftop disconnection, rain barrel, which
can be used in large areas show higher potential.
When compared in terms of the scenarios explained in the previous section (employing different
combinations of LIDs), Scenario 1 shows greater potential compared with Scenario 2 at 68% flood
volume decrease, while Scenario 3 which combines the two scenarios shows approximately 86%
decrease in flood volume.
Table 2. Simulated total runoff and flood volumes for transition on peak time.
「Current Condition」 Permeable Pavement Bio-retention Green Roof Infiltration Trench Rooftop Disconnection Rain Barrel
Runoff V Flood V Runoff V Flood V Runoff V Flood V Runoff V Flood V Runoff V Flood V Runoff V Flood V Runoff V Flood V
(㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥)
SUM 51.72×10³ 12.24×10³ 50.66×10³ 11.35×10³ 48.62×10³ 8.98×10³ 47.51×10³ 8.15×10³ 51.22×10³ 11.58×10³ 50.09×10³ 6.10×10³ 50.17×10³ 10.03×10³
Rate of
-2.05% -7.24% -6.00% -26.64% -8.14% -33.36% -0.97% -5.35% -3.15% -50.17% -2.99% -18.06%
decrease
(㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s)
14:10 40.16 0.1 39.47 0.08 37.77 0.01 36.98 0 39.87 0.09 34.75 0 37.78 0
14:20 27.76 18.43 27.18 16.34 26.09 10.33 24.88 9.42 27.49 16.16 23.43 4.84 27.76 12.29
14:30 7.64 5.41 7.43 4.79 7.17 4.2 6.52 3.38 7.53 5.0 8.11 1.83 7.63 5.24
14:40 3.24 0 3.15 0 3.05 0 2.86 0 3.19 0 4.92 0 3.23 0
「Current Condition」「Scenario 1」「Scenario 2」「Scenario 3」

Runoff V Flood V Runoff V Flood V Runoff V Flood V Runoff V Flood V
(㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥)
SUM 51.72×10³ 12.24×10³ 43.60×10³ 3.86×10³ 47.52×10³ 8.50×10³ 39.67×10³ 1.61×10³
Rate of
-15.71% -68.42% -8.12% -30.52% -23.30% -86.82%
decrease
(㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s)
14:10 40.16 0.1 32.51 0 37.05 0 29.53 0
14:20 27.76 18.43 22.28 2.32 25.48 9.4 20.25 1.23
14:30 7.64 5.41 6.57 1.4 6.96 3.74 5.97 0
14:40 3.24 0 3.06 0 2.95 0 2.79 0
* Runoff V: Runoff Volume, Flood V: Flood Volume
6.1.2 Long duration heavy rainfall (10/12/2019). Table 3 shows the simulated total runoff and flood
volumes for each LID type and, their corresponding rate of decrease when compared with the current
situation (no LID present – as shown on the left column of the table), as well as the detailed peak time
transition of these volumes (from 20:40 – 21:50). Both runoff and flood volume of LIDs such as green
roof, rooftop disconnection and rain barrel which showed high effectiveness previously show low
effectiveness. Bio-retention also shows comparatively lower effectiveness in the case of long duration
heavy rainfall. The following reasons can be assumed for this outcome: 1) in the case of green roof,
most of the rain directly flows into the drainage system due to declining infiltration and storage capacity
of the thin soil layer on the roof from continued precipitation; 2) in the case of rooftop disconnection,
the rain flows to the pervious areas, causing its infiltration capacity to decline from continued
precipitation; 3) in the case of rain barrel, it has limited storage capacity which is exceeded by the
inflowing rainfall; 4) in the case of bio-retention, surface runoff due to declining infiltration and storage
capacity of the soil and gravel layer from continued precipitation can occur.
The rate of decrease of permeable pavement and infiltration trench are almost similar with short
duration rainfall, indicating that all inflow can be infiltrated without causing decline in the infiltration
and storage capacity throughout the whole rainfall event used for the study. However, it is necessary to
note that the simulation inputs are set to only collect the rainfall falling directly on a location rather than
considering the accumulated flow of rainfall from other locations.
All combined scenarios show low effectiveness in line with rate of decrease of singular LID scenarios.
Especially, both runoff and flood volume of Scenario 1 and 3 show considerably lower effectiveness;
Their rate of decrease of flood volume is approximately 60% lower when compared with short duration
rainfall.
7
Table 3. Simulated total runoff and flood volumes for transition on peak time.
「Current Condition」 Permeable Pavement Bio-retention Green Roof Infiltration Trench Rooftop Disconnection Rain Barrel
(㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥)
SUM 667.41×10³ 78.28×10³ 659.02×10³ 74.65×10³ 641.10×10³ 64.27×10³ 662.67×10³ 79.78×10³ 662.99×10³ 74.95×10³ 667.37×10³ 73.66×10³ 665.87×10³ 78.87×10³
Rate of
-1.26% -4.64% -3.94% -17.90% -0.71% +1.91%¹ -0.66% -4.25% -0.01% -5.90% -0.22% +0.76%¹
decrease
(㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s)
20:40 14.22 0 14.03 0 13.64 0 13.93 0 14.13 0 13.61 0 14.22 0
20:50 21.7 0.34 21.4 0.31 20.79 0.21 21.27 0.26 21.56 0.32 20.6 0.19 21.69 0.34
21:00 31.25 5.57 30.81 4.71 29.95 3.64 30.28 4.3 31.05 5.28 29.36 2.84 31.25 5.61
21:10 41.72 28.9 41.14 26.73 40.01 24.72 41.73 29.07 41.45 25.73 39.36 23.1 41.72 29.35
21:20 33.29 27.74 32.83 24.23 32.16 25.55 32.6 24.47 33.07 24.46 32.6 27.51 33.29 24.34
21:30 26.41 17.1 26.07 20.64 26.4 20.35 30 24.44 26.24 18.7 27.44 21.55 26.41 19.86
21:40 13.32 6.8 13.17 6.36 13.29 6.37 12.44 8.28 13.24 7.99 15.17 7.61 13.32 6.96
21:50 10.36 0 10.24 0 10.04 0 10.79 0 10.3 0 12.1 0 10.36 0
「Current Condition」「Scenario 1」「Scenario 2」「Scenario 3」

(㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥) (㎥)
SUM 667.41×10³ 78.28×10³ 655.89×10³ 71.06×10³ 631.29×10³ 63.37×10³ 620.74×10³ 56.22×10³
Rate of
-1.73% -9.22% -5.41% -19.05% -6.99% -28.18%
decrease
(㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s) (㎥/s)
20:40 14.22 0 13.35 0 13.43 0 12.59 0
20:50 21.7 0.34 20.03 0.08 20.47 0.19 18.86 0
21:00 31.25 5.57 28.82 2.19 29.48 2.7 27.12 1.16
21:10 41.72 28.9 38.59 24.18 39.38 24.93 36.38 17.97
21:20 33.29 27.74 32.83 27.96 31.61 28.08 31.18 25.86
21:30 26.41 17.1 26.68 22.05 25.93 17.96 25.61 16.3
21:40 13.32 6.8 16.41 11.13 13.14 7.2 16.06 7.47
21:50 10.36 0 11.9 0.09 9.93 0 11.5 0.02
6.2 Conduit capacity and flood volume from manhole

In addition to the runoff and flood volume, SWMM can also visualize the capacity of conduit and flood
volume from manhole in time series in the drainage model. This allows for further comparison of the
flood situation for cases with and without LIDs.
6.2.1 Short duration heavy rainfall (8/12/2020). Figure 6 (a-d) visualizes the peak situation at 14:20 which
recorded the highest flood volume in the study area (see Table 2). Based on the previous analysis
presented in Table 2, the manhole and conduit details of the LIDs which showed high mitigation
potential (i.e. bio-retention, rooftop disconnection, and scenario 3-maximum use of LID) are compared
against the current condition of no LID use (see Figure 6 (a-d)).
Without the case of any LIDs, flood results from most manholes in the study area as they exceed the
drainage capacity (Figure 6 (a)), however this is considerably mitigated especially with the use of bio-
retention and rooftop disconnection. Moreover, full flood prevention is possible (no flood occurrence)
in the case of Scenario 3 which uses multiple LIDs. This emphasizes our previous finding that LID has
high potential to decrease flood in the study area for short duration heavy rainfall.
1
Reason for a positive rate of decrease.
In these cases, the total runoff volume slightly decreases while the total flood volume slightly
increases compared with the current situation. This could be due to exceedance of the infiltration
capacity and storage capacity of the LID at an earlier time, which would lead to an increase in the total
runoff volume compared to the current situation.
8
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 6. Conduit capacity and flood volume from manhole at 14:20 for: (a) Current condition
(without LID); (b) Bio-retention; (c) Rooftop Disconnection; (d) Scenario 3 - maximum use LID
6.2.2 Long duration heavy rainfall (10/12/2019). Figure 7 (a-d) visualizes the peak situation at 21:10
which recorded the highest flood volume in the study area (see Table 3). Based on the previous analysis
presented in Table 3, the manhole and conduit details of the LIDs which showed high mitigation
potential (i.e. bio-retention, rooftop disconnection, and Scenario 3-maximum use of LID) are compared
against the current condition of no LID use (see Figure 7 (a-d)).
Without the use of any LIDs, flood results from most manholes in the study area as they exceed the
drainage capacity (Figure 7 (a)). However, compared with the case of short duration heavy rainfall, LID
use in long duration heavy rainfall does not seem to have much flood mitigative effect (Figure 7 (b-d)).
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 7. Conduit capacity and flood volume from manhole at 21:10 for: (a) Current condition
(without LID); (b) Bio-retention; (c) Rooftop Disconnection; (d) Scenario3 - maximum use LID
7. Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to consider combined effects of implementing urban planning scenarios of
multiple LIDs simultaneously distributed in an urban area as a measure against urban flooding. Our
result shows that LIDs have a high potential to mitigate flood volumes resulting from short duration
heavy rainfall - the type of rainfall which has become more frequent in recent times, Similarly, it also
highlights that long duration heavy rainfall due to continuing precipitation causing capacity shortage
caused by continued precipitation. Furthermore, this study also organizes the LID types according to
their implementability under different urban planning scenarios, showing that LIDs have a high
9
mitigation potential for flood volume during short duration heavy rainfall even if it occurs frequently as
long as it is possible to sufficiently distribute various LIDs over the urban area through proper spatial
planning. In this regard, three scenarios have been presented which can be strategically implemented
through incentivization at the home-owner level (Scenario 1), or through development initiative of the
municipal authority (Scenario 2). Both cases as well as their combined output (Scenario 3) show higher
flood mitigation efficacy compared to the current situation with no LIDs.
The study also demonstrates the usability of SWMM for urban planning. It can visualize not only
flood volume and drainage capacity, but also exceeding volume of the infiltration and storage capacity
for every LID, enabling the evaluation of different spatial plans with varied forms of LID distributions.
A point to note however, is that this study shows simulation results on a daily basis only. Simulation for
monthly and yearly basis could yield higher accuracy with consideration of long-term precipitation
trends.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Takanori Tanabe (graduated student) for his contribution to the project,
and Saitama City for providing with the sub-catchment division and sewerage maps for their cooperation.
Appendix A
Table A-1. Parameters in SWMM
Parameter Parameter Meaning Value
N-Imperv Manning coefficients in impervious areas 0.01

N-Perv Manning coefficients in pervious areas 0.1
Dstore-Imperv Depression storage in impervious areas (mm) 2
Dstore-perv Depression storage in pervious areas (mm) 6
%Zero-Imperv Percent of impervious area with no depression storage (%) 25
Infiltration Curve Number SCS runoff curve number 77
Data Drying Time Time for a fully saturated soil to completely dry (days) 7
Roughness (conduit) Manning's roughness coefficent 0.013
Appendix B
Figure B-1. Permeability Capacity Map [18]
10
Appendix C
Table C-1. Partial Parameters of LIDs.
Permeable Infiltration Green Rain Rooftop
Layer Parameter Unit Bio-retention
Pavement Trench Roof Barrel Disconnection
Berm Height mm 152 1.5 0 152 700 (Height)

Vegetation Volume Fraction 0.2 0 0 0
Surface
Surface Roughness 0.15 0.015 0.04 0.15
Surface Slope Percent 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Thickness mm 50
Void Ratio (Volids / Solids) 0.165
Pavement Impervious Surface Fraction 0
Permeabitlity mm/h 3960
Clogging Factor 0
Thickness(mm) mm 700 114

Porosity (Volume fraction) 0.4 0.4
Field Capacity (Volume fraction) 0.15 0.15
Soil Witing Point (Volume fraction) 0.03 0.03
Conductivity mm/h 150 200
Conductivity Slope Percent 45 45
Suction Head mm 50 50
Thickness mm 500 200 700 0

Void Ratio (Volids / Solids) 0.165 0.165 0.165
Seepage Rate mm/h 108 108 108
Storage
Clogging Factor 0 0 108
Surface Roughness 0.01
Surface Slope Percent 2.0
Thickness mm 25.4
Drainage Mat Void Fraction 0.5
Roughness 0.01
Roof Drain Flow Capacity mm/h 140
References
[1] Judy Busha, Andreanne Doyonb, 2019 Cities Building urban resilience with nature-based
solutions: How can urban planning contribute? 95 102483
[2] IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 10-13
[3] Japan Meteorological Agency Automated Meteorological Data Acquisition System
https://www.jma.go.jp/bosai/amedas/#area_type=japan&area_code=010000
[4] Social Capital Development Council 2020 Water-related disaster preparedness in the conte with
climate change ～ A shift to sustainable watershed flood control by the stakeholders ～ (in
Japanese) pp 9-11
[5] Ahmed Mustafa, Martin Bruwier, Pierre Archambeau, Sebastian Erpicum, Michel Pirotton
Benjamin Dewals and Jacques Teller 2018 Journal of Environment Management Effect of spatial
planning on future flood risks in urban environments 225 193-204
[6] Christopher Pykea, Meredith P. Warrena, Thomas Johnsona, James LaGro Jr. b, Jeremy
Scharfenbergc, Philip Grothd, Randall Freede, William Schroeere and Eric Mainf 2011
Landscape and Urban Planning Assessment of low impact development for managing stormwater
with changing precipitation due to climate change 103 166-73
[7] United States Environmental Protection Agency 2000 Low impact development (LID) a literature
review EPA-841-B-00-005
[8] Larry S. Coffman, Associate Director Department of Environmental Resources Prince George’s
County, Maryland 2000 Low-Impact Development Design: A New Paradigm for Stormwater
11
Management Mimicking and Restoring the Natural Hydrologic Regime An Alternative

Stormwater Management Technology p 158
[9] Fanhua Kong, Yulong Ban, Haiwei Yin, Philip James and Iryna Dronova 2017 Environmental
Modeling & Software Modeling stormwater management at the city district level in response to
changes in land use and low impact development 95 132-42
[10] Alexander H. Elliott Sam A, Trowsdale and Sanjay Wadhwa 2009 Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering. Effect of Aggregation of On-Site Storm-Water Control Devices in an Urban
Catchment Model 14 9
[11] Lewis A. Rossman Envronmental Scientist, Emeritus U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2015 Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual Version 5.1
[12] Landscape and Ecology Division, National Institute of Land and Infrastrucure Management
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan 2018 TECHNICAL NOTE of
National Institute for Land, Technical Note on Grenn Infrastructure Planning for Urban
Rresilience -Handbook of Landscape Planning for Disaster Risk Reduction in Urban Areas- p6
[13] Mehran Niazi, Chris Nietch, Mahdi Maghrebi, A.M.ASCE, Nicole Jackson, Brittatny R Bennett,
Michael Tryby, and Arash Massoudieh, M.ASCE J. 2017 Sustainable Water Built Environment
Storm Water Management Model: Performance Review and Gap Analysis 3(2) 04017002
[14] Kyle Eckart, Zach McPhee, Tirupati Bolisetti 2017 Science of the Total Environment
Performance and implementation of low impact development – A review 607-8 413-3
[15] Saitama City 2017 Saitama City Guidelines for Integrated Rainwater Control Measures
(Summary) (in Japanese) https://www.city.saitama.jp/001/010/008/p011862_d/fil/gaiyou.pdf
[16] Saitama City 2019 Situation in the city due to Typhoon No.19 (Typhoon Hagibis) (in Japanese)
https://www.city.saitama.jp/001/011/015/010/p075963.html
[17] Saitama Prefecture Saitama water level information system https://www.flood-
info.city.saitama.jp/JP/index.html
[18] Saitama Prefecture Saitama Prefecture Permeability Capacity Map
https://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/a1007/usuijyourei/usuiryuusyutu.html
12

Uchiyama 2022 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 973 012012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uchiyama 2022 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 973 012012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

Technologies Using SWMM: A Case Study in - Characterization on deuterium retention in

This content was downloaded from IP address 136.158.37.85 on 24/06/2023 at 11:07

Efficacy Analysis of Urban Planning Scenarios for Flood

S Uchiyama1,*, Y Bhattacharya2 and H Nakamura2

2.2 Precipitation scenarios

Figure 1. Sub-catchment division and Figure 2. Precipitation scenarios (12/10/2019 and

5.1 Singular LID scenarios

5.2 Combined scenarios

6. Simulation Results and Analysis

6.1 Runoff and flood volume

「Current Condition」 「Scenario 1」 「Scenario 2」 「Scenario 3」

* Runoff V: Runoff Volume, Flood V: Flood Volume

「Current Condition」 「Scenario 1」 「Scenario 2」 「Scenario 3」

6.2 Conduit capacity and flood volume from manhole

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Parameter Parameter Meaning Value

N-Imperv Manning coefficients in impervious areas 0.01

Figure B-1. Permeability Capacity Map [18]

Berm Height mm 152 1.5 0 152 700 (Height)

Thickness(mm) mm 700 114

Thickness mm 500 200 700 0

Roof Drain Flow Capacity mm/h 140

Management Mimicking and Restoring the Natural Hydrologic Regime An Alternative

You might also like

「Current Condition」「Scenario 1」「Scenario 2」「Scenario 3」

「Current Condition」「Scenario 1」「Scenario 2」「Scenario 3」