• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Staff
    • Publication Ethics
    • Indexing and Abstracting
    • Related Links
    • FAQ
    • Peer Review Process
    • News
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Reviewers
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
Desert
Articles in Press
Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 24 (2019)
Volume Volume 23 (2018)
Volume Volume 22 (2017)
Volume Volume 21 (2016)
Volume Volume 20 (2015)
Volume Volume 19 (2014)
Volume Volume 18 (2013)
Issue Issue 2
Summer and Autumn 2013, Page 99-183
Issue Issue 1
Winter and Spring 2013, Page 1-97
Volume Volume 17 (2012)
Volume Volume 16 (2011)
Volume Volume 15 (2010)
Volume Volume 14 (2009)
Volume Volume 13 (2008)
Volume Volume 12 (2007)
Volume Volume 11 (2006)
Volume Volume 10 (2005)
Daliri, F., Seraji, H., Kholghi, M., Dehghanipour, A. (2013). Prioritizing sub-watersheds flooding intensity for structural Damaging Flood control and managing. Desert, 18(2), 153-162.
F. Daliri; H. S. Seraji; M. Kholghi; A. H. Dehghanipour. "Prioritizing sub-watersheds flooding intensity for structural Damaging Flood control and managing". Desert, 18, 2, 2013, 153-162.
Daliri, F., Seraji, H., Kholghi, M., Dehghanipour, A. (2013). 'Prioritizing sub-watersheds flooding intensity for structural Damaging Flood control and managing', Desert, 18(2), pp. 153-162.
Daliri, F., Seraji, H., Kholghi, M., Dehghanipour, A. Prioritizing sub-watersheds flooding intensity for structural Damaging Flood control and managing. Desert, 2013; 18(2): 153-162.

Prioritizing sub-watersheds flooding intensity for structural Damaging Flood control and managing

Editorial, Volume 18, Issue 2, Summer and Autumn 2013, Page 153-162  XML PDF (173.44 K)
Authors
F. Daliri email 1; H. S. Seraji1; M. Kholghi2; A. H. Dehghanipour3
1University of Power and Water Technology, Tehran, Iran
2Irrigation Eng. Department, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
3Expert of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Nowadays multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods are a useful tool for investigating natural resources and to
address problems related to hydro systems. The goal of this research was to assess the Daliri Standardization Method
(DSM) to prioritize and make selections for application to MCDM. And to compare the DSM method with the Utility
Additive (UTA) method. The (DSM) method, unlike the (UTA) method, lines up choices without incorporating a
decision-maker. Moreover, by conditioned weights, linear or exponential functions, the choices partial additive function is
formulated in the Lingo program and finally, the total additive function is used to make priorities among the choices. In
this study, 47 sub-watersheds in eastern Khurasan province were evaluated according to 25-year return periods for flood,
lag time and fatal-cost damage. Results of the (DSM) method were accompanied by all multi-component goals in subbasins
based on real data. The utility function of each method was compared with data relating to the Kan river northwest
of Tehran, and comparison showed that 80 percent of the results were the same, so the DSM method can be considered as
more logical and sensible than the UTA method. This evaluation was made without consideration of site variation, so it
can be used effectively in watershed flood management to prevent investment in low priority sub-basins.
Keywords
Damaging Flood; DSM; Utility Function
Statistics
Article View: 2,188
PDF Download: 1,323
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by sinaweb.