DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study of Evaluation System of NATM Tunnel using Delphi and AHP

델파이 및 AHP 기법을 활용한 NATM 터널의 평가체계 연구

  • 박광림 (한국시설안전공단 진단본부) ;
  • 정지승 (동양대학교 철도건설안전공학과)
  • Received : 2017.05.24
  • Accepted : 2017.10.30
  • Published : 2017.11.01

Abstract

Since the 30-year-old facility is expected to surge from 10.5% to 23.9% in 10 years, the new evaluation system is needed to establish efficient maintenance system for securing the safety and extending the life span of existing facilities. In this study, Delphi and AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) was conducted to provide a systematic new evaluation system for the NATM tunnel, which is the most frequently constructed structure of the existing tunnel. Since the existing assessment systems are limited in scope of evlauatuon criteria, the survey was conducted in conjunction with closed questionnaires on existing items and open questionnaires for eliciting new items. In results, suitable evaluation factors were derived for the NATM tunnel through the validation of the survey results. Also after calculating weighted value of the derived assessment item using AHP technique, a new evaluation system is proposed to meet the characteristics of the NATM tunnel, so that they can be used as reference materials for revising and supplementing detatiled guidelines in the future.

현재 국내에서 준공 후 30년 이상 된 시설물은 현재 10.5% 수준에서 10년 후 23.9%로 급증할 전망이며, 국가 주요 시설물의 공용연수 증가에 따라 신설보다는 기존 시설물의 안전 확보와 수명을 연장하고 효율적인 유지관리체계 구축을 위해 새로운 평가체계가 필요하다. 본 연구에서는 기존 터널의 여러 구조 형식 중 가장 많이 시공된 NATM 터널에 대하여 체계적인 새로운 평가체계를 마련하고자 하며, 이를 위해 델파이 기법과 AHP 기법을 활용하였다. 기존 평가체계 및 평가항목 검토결과 도출가능한 평가항목이 한정적인 것으로 판단되어 기존에 적용되고 있는 항목에 대한 폐쇄적인 설문과 새로운 항목 도출을 위한 개방형 설문을 병행하여 설문조사를 실시하였다. 조사한 설문결과를 내용타당도 검증을 거쳐 NATM 터널에 적합한 평가인자를 도출하였으며, AHP기법을 활용하여 도출된 평가항목에 대한 가중치를 산정한 후 구조물의 특성에 맞는 평가체계를 새롭게 제시하여, 향후 세부지침 수정 및 보완 시 참고자료로 활용될 수 있도록 하고자 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. KISTEC (2011), Detailed Instructions of Safety Inspection and Precision Safety Diagnosis, Tunnel, 1-171 (in Korean).
  2. KISTEC (2001), Establishment of criteria for condition evaluation of structures (tunnel).
  3. Molit (2007), Tunnel design standards.
  4. Molit (2012), Concrete Structural Standard.
  5. KISTEC (2002), Tunnel Maintenance Manual.
  6. Saaty, T. L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
  7. Saaty, T. L. (1990), Multicriteria Decision Marking: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP series I, RWS Publication.
  8. Saaty, T. L. (2008), Decision marking with the analytic hierarchy Process, Int. J. Services Sciences, 1(1), 83- 98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
  9. Lawshe, C. H. (1975), A UANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY, Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  10. Na, S. I. (1999), A study on the contents of general agricultural education for elementary.middle.high school students in the information society, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Human Resource Development, KSI KISS, 31(1), 21-42.
  11. Adler, M. and Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 3-33.
  12. Jerry, A. (2008). Effective Use of the Delphi Process in Research; Its Characteristics, Strengths and Limitations, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, 1-8.
  13. No, Y. S. (2006). Delphi Technique; Get predictive insights from professional insights, KRIHS, 299, 53-62.

Cited by

  1. 시스템 복잡도를 반영한 한국형 정비도 예측 방법론 vol.20, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14775/ksmpe.2021.20.04.119