저작자표시 - 변경금지 20 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다 이저작물을영리목적으로이용할수있습니다 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다 변경금지 귀하는이저작물을개작, 변형또는가공할수없습니다 귀하는, 이저작물의재이용이나배포의경우, 이저작물에적용된이용허락조건을명확하게나타내어야합니다 저작권자로부터별도의허가를받으면이러한조건들은적용되지않습니다 저작권법에따른이용자의권리는위의내용에의하여영향을받지않습니다 이것은이용허락규약 (Legal Code) 을이해하기쉽게요약한것입니다 Disclaimer
Determination of Dam Height Raise Through the Estimation of Flood Control Benefit in the Watershed 2011年 2月
Determination of Dam Height Raise Through the Estimation of Flood Control Benefit in the Watershed 2011年 2月
2011年 2月
요 지, 4 4 15m, 15m, 10m, 20m,,
Abstract Recently, the flood control project has been planned for minimizing the flood damages by reinforcing the existing dams and the flood prevention facilities Although the dam height raise project is one of the alternatives for flood control projects, there is no clear evaluation method to decide the heights of dams Therefore, this study attempted to provide evaluation methods by utilizing the results of economic analysis about the combined effectiveness analysis of unit projects as well as the effectiveness analysis of unit projects for each dam in the watershed or river basin The effectiveness analysis of unit project was performed by the estimation of the cost of each dam height raise and by the estimation of flood control benefit in the study area using MD-FDA(Multi Dimensional Flood Damage Analysis) method In addition, the effectiveness analysis of the combined project of unit projects was also performed in the same manner with the unit project and this study determined an optimal alternative using the effectiveness of economic analysis Therefore we suggested the method for the determination of an optimal alternative for dam height raise project in the river basin This study performed the case studies about the 4 dams in the Yeongsan River basin and analyzed the effects of each unit and combined projects Through the effectiveness analysis of the combined project, the sizes of the 4 dam height raise projects in the Yeongsan River basin were determined as 15m in Jangsung dam, 15m Naju dam, 10m Gwangju dam and 20m Hamdong dam As the results of the comparison of the effectiveness analyses between the two types of projects of unit and the combined, we concluded that the combined effectiveness analysis was more beneficial method to decide the plan in the case of the dam height raise project
목 차 Abstract
표목차
그림목차
제 1 장서론 11 연구배경및목적,,,,,
(1) - (2) (3) (4) 12 연구동향 [,(, 1985;, 1993)] (2001; 2002c), (GIS) (MD-FDA, Multi-Dimensional Flood Damage Analysis) (, 2004a, 2004b;, 2006a, 2006b) (2003), (2003) [ (, 2002d)], (2003),,
(2006) GIS, (2006) (2007), (2010) (PMF) Heaney (1978), (DP, Dynamic Programming) (Mays and Yen, 1975; Tang et al, 1975; Mays and Wenzel, 1976; Mays et al, 1976; Yen et al, 1976) (Mays and Bedient, 1982; Bennett and Mays, 1985; and Taur et al, 1987) (2007) Haimes Hall(1974) (SWT, Surrogate Worth Trade-off) (Haimes et al, 1990)
13 연구내용및범위 [ 11], 14, 4 댐별증고규모설정 단위사업효과분석 댐증고사업대안 경제성분석 편익에의한후보사업대안선정 단위사업조합효과분석 경제성분석 최적조합사업결정 ( 개별댐증고규모결정 [ 11] 4, -,
(MD-FDA), GIS GIS, (damage center) - HEC-1 -,, 2008
제 2 장댐방류량및홍수량산정을위한모형 21 HEC-5 211 HEC-5 HEC-5 모형과저수지운영모형 모형의개요 HEC(Hydrologic Engineering Center), Version 1973 5 HEC-5 1978 2, (Control Point), ( 利水 ) ( 治水 ), 212 저수지운영모형의구성및운영기준,,, ( 非 ), HEC-5
, (HWL) (LWL) (Minimum Desired Flow) (LWL) (DWL) (Minimum Required Flow) (FWL) (FWL) 2 213 저수지운영기법 (Reservoir Operation Method, ROM) (Simulation) (Optimization) Automatic ROM, Rigid ROM Technical ROM Auto ROM [ 21] ( ), - (Spillway Discharge Rating Curve),
Auto ROM 3 [ 21], Inflow Hydrograph(I t ) Q( m3 /s) S t Q t t s Time Rigid ROM,,,,
, R R 21 [ 22] Rigid ROM, V(t) = R = Q(t)/I(t) T0 = Tp = Te = R I(Te) = R I(Tp) Q( m3 /s) Inflow Hydrograph(I t ) S t O t i t p t e Time Technical ROM
T1 22 O t St,, [ 23] ROM, It = T2 = It Ot = Inflow Hydrograph(I t ) Q( m3 /s) S t Q t t 1 t 2 Time
22 HEC-1 모형 221 HEC-1 모형의개요 HEC-1 (Flood Hydrograph Package) (US Army Corps) Hydroogic Engineering Center HEC, 1968 10 LR Beard kinematic wave,, HEC-1, -, HEC-1 222 이론적가정과제한사항 rating curve,
223 HEC-1 모형의구성 (stream network model) HEC-1 HEC-1, [ 24],, HEC-1
10 30 40 10 1020 30 40 20 50 60 저수지요소 3040 20 2050 50 5060 20 50 소유역유출요소 60 60 수로추적요소 6070 분석및수문곡선합성지점 RES 70 kinematic wave, kinematic wave kinematic wave, kinematic wave,
[ 24] 10, 20 1020, 10 20 1020 20 kinematic wave 10 1020 20 20 20 1020 10 20 20 1020 kinematic wave 20 1020 20 -, [ 24] 20 2050 HEC-1,, NRCS, Clark, Muskingum
제 3 장치수사업투자대안설정및경제성분석 31 투자대안설정 311 투자안의형태 (investment proposal) (investment proposal),
, (contingent proposal) (contingent proposal),, 3 1, 2 (contingent relationship),, (financial interdependency), (investment proposal) (investment proposal), (decision option),, 312 상호배타적대안의작성,
, P1, P2 4 [ 31] 0 k(k =1, 2, 3 ) [ 31] A [ 32] 0-1 1, 2, 3,, k-1, k (k=1) P1 0 1 (k=2), P2 =4, 4 0, 4 1 ( )
, [ 32] 0 A0,,, [ 33] 10 P1 P2 P3 P1 P4 P2 $100,000, 16 [ 32] [ 34]
[ 33] [ 34] [ 35] [ 36] A0, A1, A2 A10
, N, 15 A1 B1,, 15 [ 36] 420 N 420 A1 A3
( ) j A, B, C, D 32 다차원홍수피해산정법(MD-FDA) 321 다차원홍수피해산정법의기본이론 2006b) (, 2
,, GIS (2004a) (MD-FDA, Multi-Dimensional Flood Damage Analysis) GIS GIS 322 다차원홍수피해산정법의피해항목 [ 37] 5 1990 (, 1985; 1993) /, 7 [ 31]
323 대상지역의행정구역별자산조사 [ 38],,
324 침수구역의설정,,,,,
200 100,,,,
, 2 3 [ 32] -, 빈도 ( 년 ) 빈도 ( 년 ) 무해빈도 무해빈도 N10 N10 사업전 N100 계획빈도 N100 사업후 사업전 N200 N200 D10 D100 피해액 연평균피해경감기대액 ΔD10 ΔD100 ΔD200 피해액 연평균피해경감기대액 - [ 33] - -, -, - [ 33] -, - [ 34] -
- - - 수위 수위 사업시행전 사업시행후 [a] 유량 [b] 피해 빈도 빈도 사업시행전 사업시행후 [c] 사업시행후 사업시행전 유량 사업시행전사업시행후 [d] 피해 피해액 피해액 경감 무해유량 홍수량경감 홍수량
325 침수편입률산정,, 1) (position),, 1 [ 35] 36] [ 동 면 동 읍 행정구역도 밭논공업 주거 과수원 토지피복도수치지형도 1m 2m 3m 침수구역도 동 면 동 읍 공간정보의중첩 [ 36] (a) A, B, C 3 ( 洞 ) C 3, A, B, (A 洞 ), (B 洞 ), (C 洞 )
[ 36] (a) A ( 洞 ) 0m 067, 0m 033 B 0m 1, 0m 0 C [ 36] (b) [ 37], 0m-05m, 05m-15m, 15m-25m, 25m 02, 025, 01, 015 행정구역침수구역건물도형농업지역 A B A B a b a b c c C (a) 주거, 산업의경우 C (b) 농업의경우 0m A 동 05m 15m 25m A 동내건물도형 = 20 - 침수심 0m = 6 - 침수심 05m 미만 = 4 - 침수심 15m 미만 = 5 - 침수심 25m 미만 = 2 - 침수심 25m 이상 = 3
326 일반자산침수피해액산정 0m 05m, 05m 10m, 10m 15m, 15m 20m, 30m 5, 327 인적피해액및공공시설물피해액산정,, 2005 (, 2007) (Stated Preference; SP), SP McFaden and Leonard(1993) Kenp and Maxwell(1993) CVM, Arrow et al(1993) SP SP
(Revealed Preference; RP),, 1 [ 39] [ 310] 1 3 9 878% 423 (325%) (298%) SP [ 311] 1 16,360 (, 2007)
) ( ) ( (CVM) = ( ) ( / ) ( ) ( ) ( / ) + ( ) ( / ) ( ) ( ) ( / ) + ( + ) ( /ha) ( ) ( / ) 39] [ 310] [ 312] [ 311] [
30 = ( ) ( ) ( / ), 10 10, 2007 365 4 8 [ 313],
1694 33 경제성평가기준,,, (benefit-cost analysis, BCA), (evaluation criteria), (evaluation indicator) (investment criteria), (net present value ; NPV), (benefit-cost ratio ; B/C ratio), (internal rate of return ; IRR) (pay nack period ; PB) (average rate of return ; ARR) 331 순현가(net present value, NPV)
(net benefit), 31, : t : t : t ( ) n : r : 32 332 편익 비용비 (benefit-cost ratio, B/C ratio), NPV, 33
편익 비용 333 내부수익율(internal rate of return, IRR) 34 1 (, B/C=10) (r) 0 (0 ) 0 r, 1 334 주요경제성평가기준의비교 (NPV) 0
(B/C) NPV (IRR) B/C,
제 4 장댐증고사업의규모결정및평가방안 4 4,,,(2008)] [, [ 41] [ 42]
주요흐름 세부흐름도 치수사업투자대안설정 치수사업투자대안설정 No 제한조건 Yes 댐별홍수조절효과분석 비용 - 홍수조절용량곡선 경제성분석 경제적투자대안선정 (10 개이하 ) 투자대안별경제성분석결과 경제적투자대안경제성분석 치수사업대안별경제성분석 홍수피해경감편익산정및경제성분석 지점별유량산정 유량 - 피해액곡선작성 경제성평가 홍수피해경감기대액산정 조합사업의경제성분석및결과도출 투자대안별분석및고찰 개별사업과조합사업간비교및고찰 치수사업의투자방향설정
단위사업효과분석 A 댐 B 댐 1m 2m 1m 2m 홍수량산정홍수량산정홍수량산정홍수량산정 비용, 편익비용, 편익비용, 편익비용, 편익 Aa Ab Ba Bb 투자대안조합 투자 01 투자 02 : : 투자 99 Aa Aa+Ba : : Ab+Bb 단위사업조합효과분석 A 댐 B 댐 1m 2m 1m 2m 투자대안조합 투자 01 투자 02 : : 투자 99 A 댐 1m A 댐 1m + B 댐 1m : : A 댐 2m + B 댐 2m 홍수량산정 홍수량산정 : : 홍수량산정 비용, 편익 비용, 편익 : : 비용, 편익 Aa Aa+Ba : : Ab+Bb 41 영산강유역의개황 5, 126 26 12 ~ 127 06 07, 34 40 16 ~ 35 29 01,,,,,,,,,, 1, 2, 3, 7 (EL4033m), (EL3478m), (EL5463m), ((EL6281m), (EL7101m), (EL5837m), (EL5910m), (EL1,1868m), (EL6016m) (EL4653m), (EL6133m), (EL8087m) (EL6133m), (EL4032m) 3,4696, 1360, 256,
195%,, 3,455 1,749 1,161 51% 34%, 242 7% ( 85%) [ 43], [ 44] N W E S 0 10 Kilometers
N W S E 개천 황룡강 증암천 평림천 광주천 함평천 고막원천 지석천 삼포천 만봉천 영산강 영암천 0 10 Kilometers 42 치수사업투자대안설정 4 05m, 10m, 15m, 20m, 25m, 30m, 35m, 40m [ 41] 4 43 -
[ 42] [ (2008)] ( ) 50% -, [ 41] [ 43]
16 576 43 치수사업대안별경제성분석 576
10 (MD-FDA) 431 행정구역별자산조사,, 3,, 2008 2007-41 (, 2007),,,,, 6 [ 45] [ 47] Arc-view [ 44] [ 46]
N W E S 단위 : 백만원 10,860-51,800 51,801-109,491 109,492-171,669 171,670-282,413 282,414-696,973 10 0 10 20 Kilometers
N W E S 10 0 10 20 Kilometers 단위 : 백만원 12-153 154-399 400-664 665-977 978-1,572
N W E S 10 0 10 20 Kilometers 단위 : 백만원 24,548-340,650 340,651-770,091 770,092-1,317,203 1,317,204-3,433,839 3,433,840-8,550,075
432 침수편입률의산정,, GIS, GIS [,(2008)] ([ 43]), ([ 48]), ([ 49]), ([ 410] [ 413]) N N W E W E S S 공업논밭주거 공업논밭주거 10 0 10 20 Kilometers 10 0 10 20 Kilometers
N N W E W E S S 0-05m 05-10m 10-15m 15-20m 20-25m 25 m 이상 20 0 20 40 Kilometers 0-05m 05-10m 10-15m 15-20m 20-25m 25m 이상 20 0 20 40 Kilometers N N W E W E S S 0-05m 05-10m 10-15m 15-20m 20-25m 25m 이상 20 0 20 40 Kilometers 0-05m 05-10m 10-15m 15-20m 20-25m 25m 이상 20 0 20 40 Kilometers 433 지점별유량-피해액곡선작성 17,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 17 [ 414] N JangsungDam W S E HamdonDam #S HY4 YS10 #S #S YS9 YS2 #S YS3 #S HY3 #S YS8 #S #S GJ1 #S YS7 #S YS6 HY1 #S #S YS5 #S JS1 #S YS4 JS3 #S JS4 #S GwangjuDam NajuDam YS1 #S 0 10 Kilometers #S Damagecenter River Dam - [ (2008)] 2016 HEC-1 [ 415] [ 431] -
50, 100, 200, 500 30-10,000 1,500,000 9,000 1,400,000 1,300,000 8,000 1,200,000 7,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 6,000 5,000 4,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 3,000 500,000 400,000 2,000 300,000 1,000 200,000 100,000-500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100-1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100 2,300 2,500 2,700 2,900 유량 (cms) 유량 (cms) 300,000 250,000 250,000 200,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 200,000 150,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 150,000 100,000 100,000 50,000 50,000-1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300-650 750 850 950 1,050 1,150 1,250 유량 (cms ) 유량 (cms) 450,000 25,000 400,000 350,000 20,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 15,000 10,000 100,000 5,000 50,000-2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 3,800 4,000 유량 (cms) - 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 유량 (cms)
7,000 60,000 6,000 50,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 40,000 30,000 20,000 1,000 10,000-1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 유량 (cms) - 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 10,500 11,000 유량 (cms) 120,000 7,000 100,000 6,000 80,000 5,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 60,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 4,000 3,000 40,000 2,000 20,000 1,000-550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050-6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 10,500 11,000 11,500 유량 (cms) 유량 (cms) 35,000 250,000 30,000 200,000 25,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 20,000 15,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 150,000 100,000 10,000 50,000 5,000-6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 10,500 11,000-5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 유량 (cms) 유량 (cms ) 300,000 30,000 250,000 25,000 200,000 20,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 150,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 15,000 100,000 10,000 50,000 5,000-5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000-3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 유량 (c ms) 유량 (cms)
피해액 ( 백만원 ) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000-1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 유량 (cms) 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000-1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100 2,300 2,500 2,700 2,900 유량 (cms) 600,000 500,000 피해액 ( 백만원 ) 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000-800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 유량 (cms) 44 치수사업대안별경제성분석-단위사업효과분석 33 -, HEC-1 (damage center) - [ 432]
비용 :a 증고높이 :1 피해경감액산정 : 1 유량산정유량 - 피해액곡선편익 : a 일번댐 비용 :b 증고높이 :2 피해경감액산정 : 2 유량산정유량 - 피해액곡선편익 : ß 증고높이 :3 이번댐 증고높이 :4 투자대안조합 투자대안 :A01 2 A01 의 NPV 투자대안 :A02 1+4 경제성분석 A02 의 NPV 최적규모결정 투자대안 :A04 1+3 A04 의 NPV 441 지점별홍수경감량산정 -, HEC-5 4 HEC-5,, Automatic ROM [ (2008)] Automatic ROM,,
HEC-5 HEC-1, [ 47] [ 410] (,,, ) 200, 500, 50 100,
, 25m
30m 15m 20m
, (HY4) 442 500 빈도별증고높이에따른홍수피해액산정 - - 50, 100, 200, [ 411] [ 414]
443 비용추정,,
, [,(2008)] 2002 2008 GDP Deflator [ 415] [ 419] GDP Deflator 2008 [ 416]
444 연평균피해경감기대액산정 3, 5, 5, 3 16, 50 [ 420] [ 422] ( : )
( : ) ( : ) [ 423] [ 427] ( : ) ( : )
( : ) ( : ) ( : ) [ 428] [ 432] ( : )
( : ) ( : ) ( : ) ( : ) [ 433] [ 435]
( : ) ( : ) ( : )
445 편익에의한후보사업대안의선정 576 433] 576,, B/C [ 576 NPV 10, [ 436] 576 10 [ 437]
10 A457 4 [ 436] 15m, 15m, 15m, 20m
45 치수사업대안별경제성분석-단위사업조합효과분석 576 10 [ 436] 451 지점별홍수경감량산정 50, 100, 200, 500 HEC-1 [ 438]
( : / s)
452 빈도별증고높이에따른홍수피해액산정 - [ 439] 10 [ 439] 50 453 댐별증고높이에따른연평균피해경감기대액산정 10 HEC-1 [ 440] [ 449]
( : ) ( : ) ( : ) ( : )
( : ) ( : ) ( : ) ( : )
( : ) ( : ) 454 최적조합사업의선정 434] 10 [
일번댐 증고높이 :1 투자대안 :A01 2 비용 :a 유량산정유량 - 피해액곡선편익 : a 피해경감액산정 : 1 증고높이 :2 증고높이 :3 투자대안조합 투자대안 :A02 1+4 비용 :a 유량산정유량 - 피해액곡선편익 : a 피해경감액산정 : 2 이번댐 증고높이 :4 투자대안 :A04 1+3 비용 :a 유량산정유량 - 피해액곡선편익 : a 피해경감액산정 : 3 1 A01 의 NPV 2 경제성분석 A02 의 NPV 최적규모결정 3 A04 의 NPV 10 NPV [ 450] 10 [ 451]
10 NPV, NPV 2 A457
46 개별사업효과분석과조합사업효과분석간분석및고찰 43 NPV [ 452] [ 435], 300 A452 5 A532 NPV
( 십억원 ) 900 890 880 870 860 850 840 830 820 810 조합사업 개별사업 800 A452 A457 A527 A427 A532 A432 A453 A458 A462 A459 투자대안 A457 A457 2 A452 2 NPV 4, 1 5 8,,, [ 452]
, 05m 05m A452 15m, 15m, 10m, 20m [ (2008)] 1 20m, 20m, 10m, 20m [ (2008)],, -, NPV B/C 4
제 5 장결론,,,,
참고문헌
Web Site