IEG 환경지질연구정보센터

전체 글

(1)æ~>Æ·~ã²æ. ò. Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 36~44, 2003. ê[ªC";j Ï æ~6 'æªC. ç¢Áf÷R. ÿ&v ÆÏ~ã" Site Suitability Analysis for Underground Dam Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Á. Sang-Il Lee Byeong-Chan Kim Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dongguk University. ABSTRACT The lack of water resources is becoming a serious issue throughout the world. The water shortage in Korea is expected to increase dramatically through 2020. The amount of water shortage could amount to 1.8 and 2.6 billion cubic meters in 2011 and 2020, respectively. Groundwater can be a solution to this matter in some places. Especially, underground dams are known to be advantageous over conventional dams, even if they have some drawbacks such as their limited location for development and small sizes. The analytic hierarchy process(AHP) is an analytical tool, supported by simple mathematics, which enables one to explicitly rank tangible and intangible factors against each other for the purpose of resolving conflicts or setting priorities. In order to check the applicability of AHP to the evaluation of underground dam sites, four candidate locations were chosen. They have suffered from problems like water-supply shortage and delayed dam construction. The analysis results are compared with those of the previous study using a conventional method. It is believed that the developed method can provide central or local government with a basis for reasonable decision-making regarding underground dam development. Key words : Site Suitability Analysis, AHP, Underground dam, Groundwater, Water Supply. º £ ^. * ^ê'b b¦ Òº Ö ' çö & . ÖÒ¾¢ê .º jîÚB 2011jöº £ 18Û m , 2020jöº £ 26Û m ~ Ï>¦ .çB . æ~>º ^B¢ ¢¦ æöB Ö "º j > ®b, ß® æ~6f *~f Î~ B£öê ®~ æç6 æî ®º ^B6 j > ® rJ ^ ® . æ~6 'æªCj * 6J æ" b¦j Ð ®º J æj F;~, .j Ö~ &n~ ÖFB*¢ Ö;~º ªCê ê[ªC";(AHP)j 'Ï~& . 6 AHP¢ Ï ªCÖ"¢ V f j v~& . BBB æ~6 'æªC O»f 7;¦¾ æO¶~Úö² Ò' ~ÒÖ;j * 6"¢ B ©b ÒòB . "BÚ : 'æªC, ê[ªC";, æ~6, æ~>, b/ 3. 3. 1.. B . º> ® . z× ÖÒ¾¢º ;Ö~ ê.', æ' ßW ;~ Ï>/ö ôf ÚJæj Ð ®Ú Ë¾ b ¦ö &¾~V * >¶ö { Onö Öv. b >º& /Ãö V¢ Ï>~ n;' / . ® *Corresponding author : [email protected] : 2003. 09. 15 : 2003. 12. 12 : 2004. 3. 30. ö7>¢ î~ 5 Æ~. ²Òß¢ ræ. 36.

(2) ê[ªC";j Ï æ~6 'æªC. ~ ® . æ>¢ &Ú 6º > ®º >¶ö { Onf æ~> BB, >~ >z, Ò ; Ö j > ®º, 7 &Ë * 'b JF > ®º &nf V >¶öJ" ê > ®º 5 .j>ö {Nö~ Úê' æ~> BB . æ~ > Ï O»öº Öb, ·, æ~6ö ~ æ~> { ®b, ß® æ~6f ~ãz' æ~> ~ ï&~f n;' >& &Ë~ º Ë6j æî ® . î&¦V Ï>Ú N æ~6f j*Òf 7ÿæ öBê æ~ö bj &Ë~V * J ®b , Úê'b > B æ~6f ¢ ¾&Ò Ê*~ ¢æî(Ë)& Î . ê ê, öJ bj, 7, 2¢î, jj öBê æ~6j J~ bj /~ ® . Úöº næ~6(ã§ ç ", 1983j j)j jv 2003j *Ò 6B~ æ~6 j>Ú C 163,210 m /day~ /ËKj æî ®b, Á³ëÏ>¢ /~ ® . Þ, æ~6~ «æ¢ Ö;~º ©f Ö ÚJÚ ¢ . f ? &æ V&j J~ Fb ò Êº &nj dj röº V& ~ÒÖ; O»(Multi Criteria Decision Making, MCDM) Ï>, 7ö Bê ê[ªC";(Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP) V » ô ÒÏB . Saaty ö ~ 1980jö Ñ &B& B*B ê[ªC" ;f C&' ï&º öò jî¢ "&' ï&º ê >Ï~º Ö F ~ÒÖ;V»b >' º ç&j :ûb ~V r^ö ¢Ò& Ö £ º Ë6j æî ® . -V r^ö Òë G~ ~ÒÖ; ôf ã'ª¢öBº ê[ªC"; ¢3 Ï>Ú z . Þ Drake(1998)º vGö ê[ ªC";j 'ÏÊº ^Bö &~ , Bevilacquaf Braglia(2000)º ;FËöB~ Fæ&Ò;kj Ö;~º ê[ªC"; V»j Ï® . >¶ö ª¢öBº Ridgley(1993)& &j ÎN' Ï>Vªö , Jandric" Srdjevic(2000) FÒ¢jj~ Novi Sadö '~ æ~> &Ë*j dº , Jaberf Mohsen(2001) > ¶ö /ö ®ÚB~ 'z ö ê[ªC"; V»j ÒÏ® . "öº GISf ê[ªC";j Û~ 'æ ªCj ~º Òf j > dj" > ® . ¾ ê[ªC"; ~ÒÖ;j æö~º O»b B Ö FÏ V»ª «Ã> ^ ª¢öB. ·~² Ï> ®æò, æ~6 'æªCö 'ÏB ¢ 1). 2). 3,4). 3. 5,6). 7). 8-11). 12). 13). 14). 15). 16). 17). 37. ^f djV ¾. . æ, ç¢ (2002, 2003) æ >-æ~> êÏj * 'æªCö ê[ªC"; V »j ÒÏ~& . º JvÛ¦(2002) öB B 21B æ~6 BBFæ 7 J j &çb, ê[ªC";j Ï ~ æ~6 'æ¢ F;~V * 'æªC O»j BB~º Ï' ® . 18-21). 22). 2.. æ~6. ÏÚ 5 ;~ JvÛ¦ n¾æ(2003)ö ²B>Ú ®º æ~6 (groundwater dam)f “æ~>& vº &>[ö b ïãj J~~ æ~ö bj &ËÊ &; ~ · >Jj Ï, >~º æ~ &~æ VËj ö”¢ J«>Ú ® . ¾ >¶öÒ(1999) , ¦Wn" VÆ(2002) f groundwater damj æ~>6, subsurface damf æ~6b ª~ ®b, JvÛ¦Á> ¶öÒ(2002) º groundwater dam" subsurface dam j æ~6¢ bÏ~ ® . 6 ÿ&v(2002) º æ~ö J~~º Î 6j ~º underground damj æ~6¢ V~ ®Ú jç ÚöBº ÏÚ~ ;Ò & >Ú ®æ p . ~ ãÖöº, Hansen" Nilsson (1986) f groundwater damj subsurface dam" sand storage dam~ v ;b ¾*îb, underground dam, 2.1. 23). 2). 6). 5). 1). groundwater dam, subsurface dam, sand storage dam. ~ ÏÚ¢ æ; 5 æ~> &Ë ;ö V¢ ² V¢ ~ ®º ;Þ . öBº æçö J~º æç6~ >& Bvb, Ò æ~>òj &Ë~º 6(groundwater dam) öò j î¢ æ>f æ~>¢ ê > ®º 6(subsurface dam) " &Ëj Ï'b ~º sand storage damj Îv ~º *' ~öB~ underground damj æ~6¢ ~& . 24,25). Ú Òf æ~6~ Ú Òf¢ Table 1ö ¾æÚî . ~ æ~6 Ú'Òf¢ ÚÚ, " ;>ï '¾ &j æ j*Ò, Îæ ö ô ª~ ®b, jj & öBê ³ëÏ>¢ * æ~6 Ò f¢ dj" > ® . ß®, Î~ 2¢î Pernambuco "º 1990j&öò £ 500 B~ ·f æ~6j J~ b¦ö &w~ ® . 2.2. 2,5,6). 26). Journal of KoSSGE Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 36~44, 2003.

(3) ç¢Áf÷R. 38 Table 1. Underground dams in the world. &. ¢. 2). 7 ê öJbj 2¢î 5). 6). 5). 26). . 2,5,6). Òëæ Ë Â¬ û9 $, ³µ. Palghat Gap Bombas Gursum Pernambuco State ( ( ( ( ( (. ã§ ç" n) ã§ '¢ ÎÇ) ÏÎ " KW) *§ ;s Ö¢) *§ ;s Â) ;ö ³. 3Â). Ï' (ç>) ç> ³ë ³ë ³ë ³ë, ë ³ë, "Oæ ³ë ³ë , ³ë, "Oæ ³ë ³ë ³ë ³ë ³ë . F'(ha). &jê. 6^(m). &>ï(m ). 60 − 720 12,400 120 15,600 9,780 10 20 − −. 1980 1985 1992 1998 2001 2001 1964 1979 1981 1981. 59 200 1,835 1,720 955 3,850 1,200 130 150 − −. 9,300 74,000 9,500,000 10,500,000 389,000 500,000,000 16,827 15,000 15,000 − −. −. 1999. −. −. 2,130 15,300 27,500 2,200 2,700 6,533. 1983 1986 1986 1986 1986 2000. 230 89 482 778 192 800. 4,143 4,017 2,850 2,457 1,534 −. ÚöBº 1983jö jB ã§ ç"~ næ~6 j ·b ÎÇÁKWÁÖ¢ÁÂÁ3Âæ~6j J~ C 6B~ æ~6j Ú'~ ® . 7 3Âæ ~6~ ãÖ, >«Oæf æ~>~ ·b Ï > /j "Ï'b ~ ®b, ï >ï 22,700 m /dayö ®Ú ÚöBº &Ë W' Òf c® ® . 3. 5,6). «æ æ~6~ ' «æf æ~>~ æ³' ÖÂW ·^~, &Î &~ËKj <º &>[ ªæ ' ~ . æ æ~6 J~ö ' æîÁæ; f Ñ, ï~ æ~>¢ &Ë > ®º &>[(FÎ N &>[ 9 vó² B ) Ò~ º , ~, æ~> ·ö >º >ö" 9f Fj <º æ, q, ~ç 5 F~ ãÒ& jò~, æ~ bïã J~& &Ë 7¦ 6º ªææ;, ], æ ~>* æÿö ~ æ>~& B~æ pº æ,. U, ç~æö J"ö ìÚ >îö 'Ëj ~æ pº æ . Vö ÖÒ¾¢~ ß>Wj 6n. V~ ç>ê J 5 &Úêf Ö Ï æ æ~6 J '~ «æ¢ <¾ ¢ > ® . 2.3. Journal of KoSSGE Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 36~44, 2003. J 7. 3.. 3. ê[ªC";(AHP). ;~ ê[ªC";f >~ ³W j ê['b ª~~ ' ³W~ 7ºê¢ 2kb ' &nj F;~º V»b Saatyö ~ F'b BB>î . ê[ ªCV» <º ^Wf >~ Ï, >~ ï&V&,. >~ ~ÒÖ;"Ú& >Ú ®º ~ÒÖ; ^B¢ ê[z~ Ö~º ® . ¯, º j â®ö J~ ' º² ~ 7ºê 6º &7~¢ ~º ©f. Ö ÚJÖæ ~ÒÖ; ^B¢ ê[zz ê ç* ê[ö ®º º²(V&)~ &6öB çê ~*ê[ö ®º º² ~ ç&' 7ºê 6º &7~¢ 3&jv (pairwise comparison)ö ~ G;~º Oj Û § 'b ~* ê[ö ®º &n ~ ÖFB*¢ > ®ê ~º © . 3.1. 7,27). 28,29). rÒ¾ ê[ªC"; V»f r" ?f Wz";(synthesization process)¢º êÖ";j . 1) ^B¢ ;~~ Ï'¾ Ï¢ Ö; . 2) ~ÒÖ;¶º ~ÒÖ; ^B¢ ~ÒÖ; º" & NB ê[b ª~ ê, ' º j jv~ ¯R 3.2.

(4) ê[ªC";j Ï æ~6 'æªC (matrix)j W . ' ê(level)öBº º ~ 3 &jv& jº~æ Table 2ö B 96 ¿ê¢ Ï . b 96 ¿ê ö ¿ê¢ ÒÏ~º ©ê &Ë~ . ¾ Saaty(1980) , Harkerf Vargas(1987) ö ~ >¯B º 96 ¿ê& ÒÏ~Vö Ö ± º ©j B~ ® . 3) WB .V8 ¯R(matrix) A(=a )öB ' j (column)ö & j . ò£ ''~ ö & (S )j ¾æÞ ~, (1) *B . 7). 7). 30). ij. j. n. Sj= ∑ aij. (1). i=1. 4). AöB ' º²8(a ) j ~ (S )b ¾. . ij. j. a Vij= -----ij Sj. (2). f ?f êÖ~ Ö" áÚæº ¯Rj ;zB 3 jv¯R(normalized pairwise comparison matrix) _f ;zB ¯R(normalized matrix)¢ ¦ . 5) º² ö & F^æ>(priority index)8 _f ç&' &7~¢ ~V * ' ¯(row) ê ; zB &7ïj . n V Pi= ∑ -----ijn j=1. êÇV(priority vector, PV)¢ W . 6) "Úê º²8ö &~ ¢Ò' ¢&W ®º&¢ Ò~V * ¢&WjN(consistency ratio, CR)j ï& ¢ .. i. i. 1. 2. i. Table 2. Saaty's scale for pairwise comparison. 7ºê. (4). CR=CI/RI. VB ¢&Wæ>(consistency index) CIº ¯R~ & F~ λ f ¯R~ V n b¦V áÚæº ©b, max. λmax – n CI= -----------------n–1. (5). b ¾æâ > ® . 6, Z·*æ>(random index, RI) º 1öB 9ræ ;> j Z·* ºÂ~ ç>¯R (reciprocal matrix)j ·W ê ¢~æ>¢ ©b, 8f 500B¦V Z·*æ>¢ ï~ ¾æÞ © (Table 3 ^). 6V&f ÖFB* ö ZÒ& ìº Ö > ®º Ö"¢ > ® . ¾ 8j &æ ~ÒÖ;¶& 6j >;~ ®¢~ê¢ *¾&B ¢&Wj BF~¢ . Fig. 1f ê[ªC";~ rÒ¾j BBê ¾æÞ © . 8). 4.. (3). VB P º º² i~ F^æ>¢ ~, P 8 j Îv z~ ‘1’ >Ú¢ . Ò P , P , Ã P º F^. 39. ê[ªC";~ 'Ï. «æF;¶~ êÂ æ~6 'æªCö J~¢ Ö;¶¢ ² ¶ 4.1. ; ~. ÿ~² 7º~¾ F^>º ãÖ(equal) £* z 7º~¾ F^>º ãÖ(moderate) ;~² z 7º~¾ F^>º ãÖ(strong) j" ;~² z 7º~¾ F^>º ãÖ(very strong) ê z 7º~¾ F^>º ãÖ(extreme) 7*;ê~ 7ºê¢ ¾æÚ¾ .Ï~V * ;8(compromise) Ñ ®ö jv~ v ® &n Öú~ º ©j >'~V * 8 jvº²& Ö jÝ~ ~ ª > ìj r ÒÏ~º 8. 1 3 5 7 9 2, 4, 6, 8 Reciprocals( 1.1-1.9. >). Table 3. Random index (RI). ¯R~ V. Z·*æ>. ¯R~ V. Z·*æ>. ¯R~ V. Z·*æ>. 1 2 3 4 5. 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12. 6 7 8 9 10. 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49. 11 12 13 14 15. 1.51 1.54 1.56 1.57 1.58. Journal of KoSSGE Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 36~44, 2003.

(5) ç¢Áf÷R. 40. F~& . 6 æ> >îf æ~> >îö 'Ëj ~æ 7º¶ F>î . Ò²ãB æ~6 Jj * 'æ¢ dº 'æªCöBº *~ö V¢ ÎNWj &z B¢ . ÎNWf ãBW" Ö &7 &êö ®bæ 7" ÏW, ' ;BBï, FãÒ, 6 ^ 7º ¶& B . 4.1.3. ç&' 7ºê Ö; C 4ê Úê ê[êöB «æF;¶*~ ç &' 7ºê¢ Ö;~V *Bº ¶ *~ F^ê¢ êïzB >~ *~V * ¿ê& jº~ . öBº Saaty& Bn 3&jv~ V¿ê¢ ÒÏ~ & (Table 2 ^). Ò Fig. 1öB ²B ê[ªC "; rÒ¾j Ï~ ç&' 7ºê, F^ê 5 ¢ &WjNj Ö;~ Table 4ö ¾æÚî . ¢&WjN ï&ö ®ÚBº Î Ï b ¾æ¾ ®Ú Ö > ®º .V8j J; ©b ¾æÒ . 4.2. Fig. 1. Algorithm for AHP. , ~ã, Ò Ò²ãBb ª~~& . ¶ ¶öº æîÁæ~> >î¶¢ V . æ ;¶ê J " > ®b¾ ãB"ê & ®Ú ¶öBº î£V . æî ¶º æ~> ¦ æ 5 BB&Ëï~ .Gö ®ÚB > 2k>Ú¢ ¶ . æî" &NB º²º R>ê>, æ~>· ï, &>[ vþ, &j FÂï ¦ÆF > ® . 6 æ~> >îf ® J" > ¢ ¾Ò~V&. Ö Ú[, >î/ö V¢ ÒÏÏ' ¢ææ æ ~6 «æ 7 ¶ ª¢ö V . 4.1.1. ~ã ÖÒ¾¢º Ï>>º& /Ã~ ®b¾ >¶ö / Jf ö ~æ á~ *'b b¦ ' æ ãö & . JvÛ¦º >¶öËV«ê³ " 6 JËVê³ j B~B &Jº b¦ *çj Ö~V * &æ &nj J;~& . öB ê b¦~ çj J~ 2011j >ºV& Ï>¦ N, "ö n®® B~ ®º &jb, Ò . ö² ç7' 'Ëj "º ï;>ïj 7º ¶. 'æªC &ç æf JvÛ¦(2002)öB B 21B æ ~6 BB êæ6 7 J (WÁ§Â, ;¯ÁKê, â ¿Áö{, ÞÖÁ;ÿ)j F;~& (Fig. 2 ^). æ 6 j F Fº * 191B æ6~ Ï'[ æ~> F ¦ æ6 7 " BB 21B æ~6 BB ê æ6 " ÿ¢ æ6b æ &Ë ôf ¶ 4.3. 33). 6). 4.1.2. 31). 32). Journal of KoSSGE Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 36~44, 2003. Fig. 2. Study sites..

(6) ê[ªC";j Ï æ~6 'æªC. ò¢ F~ ®V r^ . ê[ªC";V»f V & ~ÒÖ; O»Vö ôf ¶ò¢ jº ~º ©j 6n '. æ6F;¢ > ® . Table 5º F;B ' æ~ «æF;¶ 8 j ;Ò © . R>ê>, &>[ vþ, Ò æ~>Áæ> >îf * æ ·^ Þ¾ æ~> ·ï, &j F. 41. Âï, ï;>ï f .O N¢ ® . 'êº Ú¶ æ æ~6 Jæb ' æ ~ ;ê¢ ¾æÚº ©b æ"~ jv¶ò& B. . 'ê~ Ö;f ªCF;ö V¢ ·~æò öBº ê[ç C 4ê WF ãÖö 'Ï > ®º r~ j F~& .. Table 4. Pairwise comparison matrix, priority vector and CR for evaluation factors. «æF; ¶ R>ê>. 1) (cm/sec). 2). æ~> ·ï (m3/day). 3). &>[vþ(m). 4). &jFÂï (m3/day). æ~> >î. 5). j >ºV & Ï>¦(%) 6) 2011. 7). 8). &jb. ï;>ï (mm/year). 9). 10). æ> >î 7" ÏW. 3&jv ¯R −8. −6. 10 ~10 10−6~10−3 10−3~102. ç ~ 10 ç 5~10 5 ~ 20,000 ç 10,000~ 10,000 ~ Ï> ³ëÏ> ëÏ> −20 ç 0~−20 {æ Ï¢B/> B/> bìÚ 1,000 ~ 1,000~ 1,200 ç 3/> ç 2/> 1/> ·^ Û ÚJæ 30,000 15,000~ 15,000. 10−8~10−6 1 3 7 30,000 1 1/3 1/7 10 1 1/3 1/5 20,000 1 1/3 1/6. ç. ç. ç. Ï>. 1 1/3 1/6 −20 1 1/4 1/7. ç. Ï¢B/> 1 1/4 1/8 1,000 1 1/3 1/5 3 1 1/3 1/6. ~. /> ç ·^ 1 1/3 1/6. F^êÇV. 10−6~10−3 1/3 1 5 15,000 3 1 1/5 5~10 3 1 1/3 10,000~ 3 1 1/2. ³ëÏ> 3 1 1/3 0~−20 4 1 1/4. B/> 4 1 1/3 1,000~ 3 1 1/3 2 3 1 1/3. />. Û 3 1 1/3. 10−3~102 1/7 1/5 1 ~15,000 7 5 1 5 5 3 1 10,000 6 2 1. ¢&WjN. (CR=CI/RI). 0.0833 0.1932 0.7235. 0.0567. 0.6434 0.2828 0.0738. 0.0565. 0.6333 0.2605 0.1062. 0.0334. 0.6667 0.2222 0.1111. 0.0000. 6 3 1. 0.6530 0.2510 0.0960. 0.0158. 7 4 1. 0.6877 0.2344 0.0778. 0.0668. 8 3 1 1,200 5 3 1 1 6 3 1. 0.7146 0.2064 0.0789. 0.0158. 0.6333 0.2605 0.1062. 0.0334. 0.6530 0.2510 0.0960. 0.0158. 0.6530 0.2510 0.0960. 0.0158. ~. ~. ~. ëÏ>. {æ bìÚ ç. />. ÚJæ 6 3 1. Journal of KoSSGE Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 36~44, 2003.

(7) ç¢Áf÷R. 42 Table 4. Continued. «æF; ¶ 11). ';BBï. ~ ç. 3&jv ¯R 10,000 ~. 10,000 10,000~ 30,000. (m3/day). 1 4 8. ¢ 1 ¢ 12) FãÒ 3 Û 5 jò 1,000 ç 13) 6 ^ 1 1,000 ç (m) 3 500~1,000 8 500 ~ æ~>·ï R>ê> 3 1 æ~>·ï 14) æî 1 1/3 R>ê> 1 1/3 &>[vþ 1 1/3 &jFÂï 2011j Ï>¦N 15) b¦ 1 2011j Ï>¦N 1/3 &jb 1/5 ï;>ï 7"ÏW ';BBï 2 1 7"ÏW 16) *~ 1 1/2 ';BBï 1/2 1/3 FãÒ 1/2 1/3 6 ^ æî 17) ¶ æî 1 >î 1/3 b¦ 18) ~ã b¦ 1 J" 1/5 &ËW 1 &ËW 19) 'W 1/2 /W 1/2 ÎNW   =  ∑ PV1 ⋅ ∑ PV2 ⋅ ∑ ( PV3 ⋅ PV4)   . (6). (6)öB PV , PV , PV , PV º ' êê F^êÇ V¢ ¾æÞ . (6)j Ï~ ' æê 'ê¢ Ö; Ö", WÁ§Â(0.5530), â¿Áö{(0.4719), ;¯ÁKê(0.3796), 2. 30,000 1/8 1/4 1. 1/3 1 3 500~1,000 1/3 1 4. 1/5 1/3 1 500 1/8 1/4 1. 0.0718 0.2267 0.7015. 0.0467. 0.1062 0.2605 0.6333. 0.0334. 0.0789 0.2064 0.7146. 0.0158. ï;>ï. 0.5000 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667. 0.0000. &j b. 3 1 1 1. 3 1 1/2. 6^. 0.6479 0.2299 0.1222. 0.0032. FãÒ. 5 2 1. 3 2 1 1. 3 2 1 1. 0.4547 0.2630 0.1411 0.1411. 0.0038. 3 1. 0.7500 0.2500. 0.0000. 5 1. 0.8333 0.1667. 0.0000. 0.5000 0.2500 0.2500. 0.0000. Û. jò ~. &>[vþ &jFÂï 3 1 1 1. >î J". /W. ÎNW 2 1 1. 2 1 1. ÞÖÁ;ÿ(0.3200) Bb ¾æÒ .. Suitability Index(SI). 1. ç. 10,000~ 1/4 1 4. ¢&WjN F^êÇV (CR=CI/RI). 3. 4. Journal of KoSSGE Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 36~44, 2003. æ f~ jv Table 6f JvÛ¦f >¶öÒ& B* B(2002) ~ æ~6 «æ ï& ¢¦ . V öB~ ï&Ïf æî, æ;, ~ã, Ò >î C 14B öB >¯ æ~6 «æF; ¶f j Ý~ . ¾ æ~6 «æ ï&öB ï&V&~ 4.4. 6).

(8) ê[ªC";j Ï æ~6 'æªC Table 5. Properties for four study sites. «æF;¶ R>ê> æ~> ·ï(m /day) &>[ vþ(m) &j FÂï(m /day) æ~> >î 2011j Ï>¦(%) &jb ï ;>ï(mm/year) æ> >î 7" ÏW ';BBï(m /day) FãÒ 6^(m) 3. 3. 3. 43. W §Â ¶.+Î¾. ;¯ Kê ¶.+Î¾. â¿ ö{ ¶.+Î¾. ÞÖ ;ÿ ¶.[. 222,186 25.5 28,000. 53,170 15.0 25,000. 337,382 14.0 14,000. 18,933 20.0 5,700. Ï> −51.4% b ìr 1,342.8 1/> ·^ 40,000 Û. Ï> −13.8% Ï¢B/> 1,301.1 1/> ·^ 13,000 £* ¢. Ï> −13.8% Ï¢B/> 1,379.0 1/> ·^ 69,000 £* ¢. Ï> {æ B/> 1,089.6 1/> ·^ 5,000 jò. 610 m. 450 m. 700 m. 500 m. Table 6. Evaluation sheet for underground dam by Ministry of Construction and Transportation. ï&Ï Ï'[ª' (km2). F'(km ) J"öª ÆæÏ* 2. ï&V& 6>. 1.5 < 10 100 < 10. 1.0-1.5 7 50-100 7. 0.5-1.0 5 10-50 5. &&ê 8 jã·æ. 7&ê 5 ã·&ê(&). &ê 3 ã·&ê(7). 5. 3. 2. 6>¢ ÚÚ, ³¢' 6>¢ ¦"~ ®, ¦" B 6>~ æWö & "¶ò& *& ì . æ~6 «æF;" ? V& ~ÒÖ;öB~ &Ë 7º Ò f ' Ï ~ÒÖ;¶~ &6¾ F^;êö ² 'Ëj Aæò, ~ÒÖ;¶~ "&' &~V&j C &'b ï& > ®º O» > ®Ú¢ º © . öBº ~ÒÖ;¶& ¦"~º ç&' &7~(6 >)& C&' ¢Ò'b ¢&W ®ºæ¢ ¢&W jN(CR)j Û~ 6~&, 8 Ö > ®º ©b ¾æ¾ z "' O»¢ > ® . 5.. Ö . ôf >¶ f n;' Ï>/" b¦ö &¾ ~V * '' Kj VÞ ®b, îÚ > ¶ö { GöB * Wj 6n, æ~> BB" Ï j * æ~6 Jö & Îjæ ® .. < 0.5 1 < 10 1 − − ( ) 1. ã·&ê ç. *. 6>. 2.1. 10. 148.5. 10. &&ê ã·&ê(&). 8 3. öBº æ~6 'æªCj ö ®ÚB ~ÒÖ ;O»b ê[ªC";(AHP)j F~, æ~6 «æ F; ";öB J¢ ¶Á~ãÁÒ²ãB ö & C 13B~ ¶ j êÂ~& . ' ¶ ~ ç&' &7~¢ Ö;b æ~6 'æªC~ îÚ O»j {ã~&, WÁ§Â ~ J j &çb 'ÏWj {~& . Ö"¢ ;Ò~ r" ? . 1. æ~6 'æªCf ¶~ã, ~ã, Ò²ãB ~ ºV&j Fb ò¢ ~æ ê[ªC";j Ï~ Úê' ªC V»~ æj BB~& . 2. æ~6 'æªC J>Ú¢ ¶ C 4ê, 13&æ ¶¢ êÂ~& . 3. F;B J æ~ 'êº WÁ§Â − â¿Áö { − ;¯ÁKê −ÞÖÁ;ÿ~ Bb Ö;>î . 4. æ~6 'æªCö ®Ú ê[ªC"; V»f ¢Ò ' Úê' O»b 'ÏW Ö ¸f ©b 6B . Journal of KoSSGE Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 36~44, 2003.

(9) ç¢Áf÷R. 44. 6Ò~ &. º 21^V *ÚBBÒë >¶ö~ æ ³' {VFBBÒë~ jæö("B®^: 3-4-1) ö ~ >¯>îÛî .. ^^ò 1. Hanson, G. and Nilsson, A. “Ground-water Dams for RuralWater Supplies in Developing Countries”, Ground Water, 24(4), pp. 497-506 (1986). 2. , “ ”, , 74, pp. 104-116 (2002). 3. Molano, C., Bonilla, F., Mejia, J. and Rodriguez, C. Artificial Recharge of the Santa Marta Aquifer, Colombia, In Johnson, A. I. and Pyne, D. G. (eds), Artificial Recharge of Ground Water, II, ASCE, pp. 446-454 (1994). 4. Liu, P., Liu, Z. and Duan, Z. A Case Study on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater Into the Coastal Aquifer in Longkou, China, In Johnson, A. I. and Pyne, D. G. (eds), Artificial Recharge of Ground Water, II, ASCE, pp. 464-470 (1994). 5. , (1 ), pp. 46-49 (2002). 6. , , pp. 3-18 (2002). 7. Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York (1980). 8. Zahedi, F. “Data-Base Management System Evaluation and Selection Decision”, Decision Science, 16(1), pp. 91-109 (1985). 9. Min, H. “Location Analysis of International Consolidation Terminals Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Journal of Business Logistics, 15(2), pp. 25-45 (1994). 10. “AHP (MIS 3 )”, , 21(3), pp. 109-124 (1996). 11. , “ (AHP) ”, , 16(1), pp. 75-85 (1999). 12. Drake, P. R. “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Engineering Education”, Int. J. Engng. Ed., 14(3), pp. 191-196 (1998). 13. Bevilacqua, M. and Braglia, M. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process Applied to Maintenance Strategy Selection”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 70, pp. 71-83 (2000). 14. Ridgley, M. A. “A Multicriteria Approach to Allocation Water During Drought”, Resource Management and Optimization, 9(2), pp. 135-149 (1993). 15. Jandric, Z. and Srdjevic, B. “Analytic Hierarchy Process in Selecting Best Groundwater Pond”, Proc. of 31st Interna-. ¦Wn VÆ æ~>6" næ " >« OæVF ³Ú2" ~ã. ÿ&v æ> æ~> êÏ V » BB Njê B JvÛ¦Á>¶öÒ æ~6 BB On >ãÒ B. JÒ V»~ 'ÏÎ" 5 ê 6ö & Wºï&¢ * &æ ÛêV» jv7 ã' " ²æ ;÷^ ² &;Ò~ '«V¶ F;j * ê[ ªC"; Î;~ BB ã'". Journal of KoSSGE Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 36~44, 2003. tional Geological Congress, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (2000). 16. Jaber, J. O. and Mohsen, M. S. “Evaluation of Non-conventional Water Resources Supply in Jordan”, Desalination, 136(1-3), pp. 83-92 (2001). 17. Thirumalaivasan, D. and Karmegam, M. “Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and GIS for Upper Palar Warershed”, The 22nd Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Singapore (2001). 18. , “ ”, , pp. 307-310 (2002). 19. , , “ ”, , pp. 171-174 (2002). 20. “ ”, (21 , ) , , pp. 79-90 (2003). 21. Lee, S. I. and Kim, B. C. “Evaluation of Groundwater Dam Sites for Emergency Water Supply”, 23rd General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG 2003), Sapporo, Japan, Abstracts (Week B), p. B353 (2003). 22. , , pp. 52-54 (2002). 23. , , pp. 171-173 (1999). 24. Nissen-Petersen, E. “Water from Sand-Rivers”, 23rd WECD Conference, South Africa, pp. 394-396 (1997). 25. Print, C. R. “Subsurface Dam for a Pastoral Environment”, 23rd WECD Conference, South Africa, pp. 401-403 (1997). 26. Foster, S. “Subsurface Dams to Augment Groundwater Storage in Basement Terrain for Human Subsistence-Brazilian Experience”, World Bank, Case Profile Collection No. 5 (2002). 27. Saaty, T. L. “A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, pp. 234-281(1977). 28. Saaty, T. L. “Priority Setting in Complex Problems”, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 30(3), pp. 140155 (1983). 29. Saaty, T. L., “Rank Generation, Preservation and Reversal in the Analytic Hierarchy Decision Process", Decision Sciences, 18, pp. 157-177(1987). 30. Harker, P. T. and Vargas, L. G. “Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Management Science, 33(11), pp. 1,383-1,403 (1987). 31. , (2001). 32. , (2001). 33. , (1998).. ç¢ ¶çÆ ê[ªC";ö ~ æ > æ~> ê Ï 'æªC æ ~>Æ·~ã² ¾êF&²¢ ^÷ ç¢ BBã ¶çÆ æ> æ~> êÏj * æ 'ê ï& æ~>Æ·~ã² ºêFB² ç¢ æ~>f æ>~ ê BB 5 &Ò On ^ê b~ ææ ^V æ~>¶ö~ æ³ &Ë BB Ï 5 &Ò B ¢^÷ æ~>Æ· ~ã². JvÛ¦ æ~>&Ò Vê³ >¶öÒ æ~> · 5 ÏÃ &On . JvÛ¦ >¶öËV«ê³ JvÛ¦ 6JËVê³ JvÛ¦Á>¶öÒ æ> 5 æ~> êÒë VÒ B.

(10)