¶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

Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ / v.22, no.3, 1989³â, pp.323-330
´ïÆÄ±« ¸ðÇüÀÇ ºñ±³Æò°¡
( Comparative Evaluation of Dam-Break Models )
ÀÌÃ¢ÈÆ;À̱漺; Çѱ¹°Ç¼³±â¼ú¿¬±¸¿ø À§ÃË¿¬±¸¿ø;¼­¿ï´ëÇб³;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
¼¼°³ÀÇ ´ëÇ¥Àû ´ïÆÄ±« ¸ðÇüÀÎ HEC-1, DAMBRK, SMPDBK¸¦ ¸ÕÀú ÀÌ·ÐÀûÀÎ °ßÁö¿¡¼­ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´°í ±× ´ÙÀ½ °üÃøÀÚ·á°¡ ÀÖ´Â Teton´ï ÆÄ±«¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±×°ÍÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾òÀº °á·ÐÀº ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù. : (1) ¼ö¹®ÇÐÀû ÃßÀû¹æ¹ýÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â HEC-1Àº º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ÀÇ °ÅÀÇ ¸ðµç °æ¿ì¿¡ ¾ÈÁ¤ÇÑ ÇØ¸¦ »êÃâÇØ ³½´Ù; (2) Dynamic Wave ÃßÀû¹æ¹ýÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â DAMBRK´Â ¼¼¸ðÇüÁß¿¡¼­ °¡Àå Á¤È®ÇÏ´Ù; (3) ÀϹÝÈ­µÈ dynamic ÃßÀû°ü°è¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â SMPDBK´Â °¡Àå °æÁ¦ÀûÀÌ°í ½±°Ô Àû¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
Three representative dam-break models, HEC-1, DAMBRK, and SMPDBK were analyzed respectively in theri theories and then applied to the failure of Teton Dam for which some observed data exist. From the results of this study, it can be concluded that: (1) HEC-1, which uses the hydrologic routing method, produces stable solutions for almost all the cases that were tested in this study; (2) DAMBRK, which uses the dynamic routing method, is most accurate among the three models; (3) SMPDBK, which uses the generalized dynamic routing relationships, is most economical and easily applicable.
 
Ű¿öµå
 
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸÁö / v.22, no.3, 1989³â, pp.323-330
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1738-9488
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO198911920092835)
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¿