Farmland in southern China is prone to flooding and waterlogging alternation after short-term heavy rainfall. Single drainage form cannot meet the requirements of the farmland flooding and waterlogging removal. Drainage measures and layout forms should be explored to alleviate flooding and waterlogging threat and improve crop yield. So, based on an indoor sand tank experiment, this paper presents a combined drainage form: conventional subsurface drainage as an auxiliary drainage measure and is alternatively combined with open ditch (OD), filter drainage (FD), conventional (CD) and improved subsurface drainage (ID), respectively, under equal and unequal drain depth. The performance of different combined drainage forms and the effect of auxiliary drainage measures are discussed for stable ponding and receding water. During the experiment, two factors—drainage measure and drain depth—are considered. The results indicate that compared with the conventional subsurface drainage alone, the flow rates of the open-ditch, thin-improved, and thick-improved subsurface drainage combined with conventional subsurface drainage can be increased by 22.4–32.3%, 10.6–16.2%, and 29.8–32%, respectively, under equal drain depth in stable ponding water. Among the four combined drainage forms, the flow rate of shallow–deep combination is 8.1–17.1% higher than that of the shallow–shallow combination. Compared with a single drainage form, the flow rates of the combined drainage have the same change characteristics over time. Additionally, the use of auxiliary, conventional, subsurface drainage can improve the flooding and waterlogging removal efficiency in farmland. For the combined drainage forms, the contribution degree of the open-ditch and thin-improved subsurface drainage is 51.3–56.7%, while the thick-improved subsurface drainage is approximately 61.0%, under equal drain depth conditions in the flooding removal process. Moreover, open-ditch and thick-improved subsurface drainage combined with conventional subsurface drainage have significant advantages in flooding and waterlogging removal, which were 11.5–38.1% and 37.1–48.6% faster than conventional subsurface drainage in flooding removal time, 14.3–157.1% and 14.3–44.4% faster than conventional subsurface drainage in the waterlogging removal time. The synergistic application of shallow–deep and medium–medium combinations can be carried out by exploiting the advantages of each drainage measure. The experimental flow rate observation is in good agreement with the theoretically calculated value, with a relative error of less than 5%. These research findings could provide technical support for the increased application of combined drainage forms in areas prone to flooding and waterlogging.
Performance Evaluation of Different Combined Drainage Forms on Flooding and Waterlogging Removal
