Seite - 451 - in Book of Full Papers - Symposium Hydro Engineering

4. CONCLUSION In this study, Vulnerability Ranking of hydrological safety was ranked using MCDM method in climate change scenario. MCDM technique is difficult the choice of one way due to the differences in the advantages and disadvantages of each method (Min and Song, 2003), However using the results of the various MCDM methods, it is considered to be able to take advantage of prioritization on Vulnerability Ranking for dam hydrological safety. In this study, dam I was calculated as the most vulnerable Dam I. When future peak flooding occurs, it is considered the most vulnerable due to the overflow of dam I. In comparison with other dams, It is considered necessary to take additional actions in the future to secure the remaining capacity of the dam. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement(KAIA) grant funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Grant 18AWMP-B083066-05). REFERENCES [1] Kim, T.H.(2013):Flood Risk Mapping Based on the Fuzzy MCDM by considering Inland River Inundations with Basin Runoff. Ph. D. dissertation, Kyungpook National University, Korea, pp.17-20. [2] Min, J.H., and Song, Y.M. (2003): A Comparison of MAUT, AHP and PROMETHEE for Multicriteria Decisions, Proceedings of the Korean Operations and Management Science Society Conference, Nov., pp. 229- 232. [3] MOLIT, KISTEC(2011).:Specific Guide for In-depth Inspection on dams. [4] Triantaphyllou, E. (2000): Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Comparative Study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer). ISBN 0-7923-6607-7. SUMMARY In this study, it was evaluated vulnerability ranking that hydrological safety evaluation of existing dam considering climate change. Using climate change scenario rcp 4.5 2040s. 451