学术
应用DRASTIC、AHP对地下水脆弱性的评价比较
杨维[1] 王虎[1] 李宝兰[2] 王立东[1] 郭毓[1] 杨军锋[1]
[1]沈阳建筑大学市政与环境工程学院,辽宁沈阳110168 [2]辽宁省水工勘查院,辽宁大连116037
摘 要:
目的确定在辽宁省中南部分城市地下水脆弱性评价中采用的最优评价方法，方法以先期勘查和搜集的资料为基础，采用DRASTIC和AHP模型对辽宁省中南部分城市地下水脆弱性进行评价，对比分析两种评价方法的评价过程，以及评价结果与实际情况符合度，确定采用何种评价方法的结果更适合应用．结果两种评价方法均显示太子河冲洪积扇、海城河冲洪积扇、大清河冲洪积扇以及平原地区易于污染，东部山前坡洪积平原和大清河冲洪积扇的基岩地区不易污染．但AHP模型的评价结果图更符合实际情况．结论两种评价方法所得结果的总体趋势是相同的，但基于AHP模型所获得脆弱性评价结果更适于为辽宁省中南部分城市的地下水管理和保护．[著者文摘]
文章出处:
《沈阳建筑大学学报：自然科学版》-2007年23卷3期 -489-492页
栏目信息:
分 类 号:
文献标识码:
A
文章编号:
1671-2021（2007）03-0489-04
The Research Into the Comparison of Two Groundwater Vulnerable Models
YANG Wei, WANG Hu, LI Baolan, WANG Lidong, GUO Yu, YANG Junfeng （1.School of Municipal and Environmental Engineering, Shenyang Jianzhu University, Shenyang 110168, China; 2. Hydrogeology ＆ Engineering Geology Survey Institute of Liaoning, Dalian 116037, China ）
Abstract:
By comparing and analyzing linear weighting DRASTIC and the AHP in which the fuzzy mathe-matics is applied, the more suitable ground water vulnerable model is opted for assessing the groundwater vulnerability in certain cities of central and southern Liaoning Province. According to the data from previous exploration and material collection, the DRASTIC and AHP models are applied to assess the groundwater vulnerability. A better model is adopted by comparing the process and the result of the two assessing models. The results of the two assessment methods show similar tendency. However, AHP is more practical and its final result is more easily understood and adopted by policy-makers.[著者文摘]
Key words:
groundwater vulnerability assessment; DRASTIC; AHP; fuzzy assessment
基金资助:
国家建设部重点科技项目（04-2-068）
更多>>免费文章
cqvip.com