¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ / v.20, no.4, 2006³â, pp.415-424
»ê¸²À¯¿ª Ư¼º¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ºØ±« À§ÇèÁö¿ªÀÇ Æò°¡ ¹× ¿¹Áö
( Evaluation and Prediction of Failure Hazard Area by the Characteristics of Forest Watershed )
Á¤¿ø¿Á;¸¶È£¼·; ±¹¸³°ø¿ø°ü¸®°ø´Ü ±¹¸³°ø¿ø¿¬±¸¿ø;°æ»ó´ëÇб³ ³ó°ú´ëÇÐ »ê¸²°úÇкÎ;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
»ê¸²À¯¿ª Á¶°Ç¿¡ µû¸¥ ºØ±« Åä»ç·®À» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿© »ç¸é ºØ±«°¡´É¼ºÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ°í ºØ±«À§Çè Áö¿ª¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¹Áö±â¼ú(çãò±Ðüâú)À» °³¹ßÇÔÀ¸·Î¼­ »êÁö»ç¸é¿¡¼­ ¹ß»ýÇÏ´Â °¢Á¾ ÀçÇØ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÇÇÇØ¸¦ ÃÖ¼ÒÈ­ ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â »ê¸²À¯¿ª °ü¸®¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±â¼úÀû ±âÃÊ ÀڷḦ Á¦°øÇϰíÀÚ ¿¬±¸ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºØ±« À§ÇèÁö¿ªÀ» Æò°¡ÇÑ °á°ú I±ÞÁö(¸Å¿ì À§ÇèÁö¿ª)´Â È­¼º¾ÏÁö ¿ªÀ¸·Î ħ¿±¼ö¸²À̸ç ÀÓ·ÉÀº 20³â»ý ÀÌÇÏ, Åä½ÉÀº 30cm ÀÌÇÏ, Å伺Àº »çÁú½Ä¾çÅä(SCL), ¼®·ÂÇÔ·®Àº $31{sim}40%$, »ç¸é¹æÀ§´Â ³²${sim}$µ¿$(S{sim}E)$»ç¸é, ÁÖÇÏõ±æÀÌ´Â $2,501{sim}3,500m$, ÃÑÇÏõ¼ö´Â$26{sim}30$°³, ÃÑÇÏõ±æÀÌ´Â$5,501{sim}10,000m$, ÇÏõÂ÷¼ö´Â 3Â÷¼ö, ÀÏÂ÷ÇÏõ¼ö´Â $11{sim}15$°³ ¶Ç´Â 16°³ ÀÌ»ó, »ç¸é°æ»ç´Â $31^{circ}$ÀÌ»óÀÇ Áö¿ªÀ¸·Î Æò°¡µÇ¾ú°í, II±ÞÁö(À§ÇèÁö¿ª)´Â º¯¼º¾ÏÁö¿ªÀ¸·Î Ȱ¿±¼ö¸²À̸ç ÀÓ·ÉÀº $21{sim}24$³â»ý, Åä½ÉÀº$31{sim}40cm$, Å伺Àº ¹Ì»çÁú½Ä¾çÅä(SiCL) ¶Ç´Â »çÁú½Ä¾çÅä(SCL), ¼®·ÂÇÔ·®Àº $11{sim}20%$, »ç¸é¹æÀ§´Â ³²${sim}$¼­$(S{sim}W)$»ç¸é, ÁÖÇÏõ±æÀÌ´Â $1,501{sim}2,500m$, ÃÑÇÏõ¼ö´Â $6{sim}10$°³, ÃÑÇÏõ±æÀÌ´Â $3,501{sim}5,500m$, ÇÏõÂ÷¼ö´Â 2Â÷¼ö, ÀÏÂ÷ÇÏõ¼ö´Â $6{sim}10$°³, »ç¸é°æ»ç´Â $31^{circ}$ÀÌ»óÀÇ Áö¿ªÀ¸·Î Æò°¡µÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, III±ÞÁö(ºñ À§ÇèÁö¿ª)´Â ÅðÀû¾ÏÁö¿ªÀ¸·Î ÀÓ»óÀº ȥȿ¸², ÀÓ·ÉÀº 25³â»ý ÀÌ»ó, Åä½ÉÀº $41{sim}50cm$, Å伺Àº ¹Ì»çÁú½Ä¾çÅä(SiCL), ¼® ·ÂÇÔ·®Àº 10% ÀÌÇÏ, »ç¸é¹æÀ§´ÂºÏ${sim}$¼­$(N{sim}W)$»ç¸é, ÁÖÇÏõ±æÀÌ´Â 500m ÀÌÇÏ, ÃÑÇÏõ¼ö´Â 5°³ ÀÌÇÏ, ÃÑÇÏõ±æÀÌ´Â 1,000m ÀÌÇÏ, ÇÏõÂ÷¼ö´Â 1Â÷¼ö, ÀÏÂ÷ÇÏõ¼ö´Â 2°³ ÀÌÇÏ, »ç¸é°æ»ç´Â $25^{circ}$ÀÌÇÏÀÇ Áö¿ªÀ¸·Î Æò°¡µÇ¾ú´Ù. ºØ±«À§Çè ¿¹ÃøÄ¡¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ºØ±«À§ÇèÁö¿ªÀ» ¿¹ÁöÇÑ °á°ú Á¡¼öÀÇ ÇÕ°è°¡ I±ÞÁö´Â 4.8052Á¡ ÀÌ»óÀ̸ç II±ÞÁö´Â 4.8051Á¡¿¡¼­ 2.5602Á¡ »çÀÌ¿¡ ÇØ´çÇϸç III±ÞÁö´Â 2.5601Á¡ ÀÌÇÏÀÇ Áö¿ªÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®µÇ¾ú´Ù.
This study was carried out to analyze the characteristics of forest watershed factors by using the quantification theory(I) for evaluation and prediction of the failure hazard area. Present $sediment(m^3/yr/ha)$ of erosion control dams were investigated in 95 sites of erosion control dam constructed during 1986 to 1999 in Gyeongnam province. The results obtained from this study were summarized as follows; General condition of class I(Very hazard area) were as follow; Igneous rock in parent rock, coniferous in forest type, below 20year in stand age, below 30cm in soil depth, SCL in soil texture, $31{sim}40%$ in gravel contents, $S{sim}E$ in aspect, $2,501{sim}3,600m$ in length of main stream, $26{sim}30$ in number of total streams, $6,601{sim}10,000m$ in length of total streams, over 3 in stream order, over 16 in number of first streams order and over $31^{circ}$ of slope gradient. General condition of class IIl(hazard area) were as follow; Metamorphic rock in parent rock, hardwood in forest type, over $21{sim}24year$ in stand age, $31{sim}40cm$ in soil depth, SiCL or SCL in soil texture, $11{sim}20%$ in gravel contents, $S{sim}W$ in aspect, $1,501{sim}2,600m$ in length of main stream, $6{sim}10$ in number of total streams, $3,501{sim}5,500m$ in length of total streams, 2 in stream order, $6{sim}10$ in number of first streams order and over $31^{circ}$ of slope gradient. General condition of class III(Un hazard area) were as follow; Sedimentary rock in parent rock, mixed in forest type, over 25year in stand age, $41{sim}50cm$ in soil depth, SiCL in soil texture, below 10% in gravel contents, $N{sim}W$ in aspect, below 500m in length of main stream, below 5 in number of total streams, below 1,000m in length of total treams, below 1 in stream order, below 2 in number of first streams order and below $25^{circ}$ of slope gradient. The prediction method of suitable for failure hazard area divided into class I, II, and III for the convenience of use. The score of class I evaluated as a very hazard area was over 4.8052. A score of class II was 4.8051 to 2.5602, it was evaluated as a hazard area, and class III was below 2.5601, it was evaluated as a un hazard area.
 
Ű¿öµå
¼ö¶ûÈ­ÀÌ·Ð(I);ºØ±«Åä»ç·®;»ç¹æ´ï;QUANTIFICATION THEORY(I);SEDIMENT;EROSION CONTROL DAM;
 
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸÁö / v.20, no.4, 2006³â, pp.415-424
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-3857
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200606142049700)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿