Seite - 450 - in Book of Full Papers - Symposium Hydro Engineering

The target dams were ranked by 6 criteria. The score range of 3 criteria(1~3) is between 1 and 5. And the vulnerability has been evaluated as vulnerable if indicating a lower score for 4 criteria(1~3, 6). If dam has high hydrological safety vulnerability, that ranking is low value (ex: 1 ranking). Table 4 was shown by MCDM payoff matrix. The payoff matrix score in 6 criteria was used as hydrological safety assessment value of recently performed the in-depth inspection and climate change scenario(IPCC AR5). Table 4 MCDM Payoff Matrix(RCP4.5 2040s) Payoff Matrix Criteria1 Criteria2 Criteria3 Criteria4 Criteria5 Criteria6 weight 33 30 19 8 7 3 Dam A E(1) B(4) E(1) 20.8 13.4 -17.3 Dam B E(1) A(5) E(1) 22.9 14.7 -19.1 Dam C A(5) A(5) A(5) 28.5 19.2 -19.8 Dam I E(1) E(1) A(5) 4.1 7.4 -14.9 MCDM result values and ranking were shown in Table 5. MCDM result values were calculated according to various methods. The dams' hydrological safety vulnerability ranking was calculated by using the average value of the ranking to each result values. Table 5 MCDM values and vulnerability Ranking hydrological safety CP VIKOR TOSIS Rank ing Dam A 0.6542 0.8493 0.6342 2 Dam B 0.5737 0.8041 0.5654 3 Dam C 0.0321 0 0.1835 4 Dam I 0.9225 1 0.7957 1 The Vulnerability ranking of hydrological safety in existing dams was shown in Fig. 3. Dam I estimates the highest priority for all techniques, it showed the most vulnerable on hydrological safety. Dam I is considered to be the hydrological assessment most vulnerable. Figure 3 Vulnerability Ranking of hydrological in existing dams 450