MANAGEMENT OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION CASE STUDIES FROM TURKEY

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

OĞUZ KAĞAN ÇET NKAYA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

JANUARY 2006

Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

__________________ Prof.Dr. Canan ÖZGEN Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

_________________ Prof.Dr. Erdal ÇOKÇA Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

___________________________ Assist.Prof. Dr. Şahnaz T ĞREK Supervisor

Examining Commitee Members Prof. Dr. Doğan ALTINB LEK Assist.Prof. Dr. Şahnaz T ĞREK Prof. Dr. Mustafa GÖĞÜŞ Prof. Dr. Melih YANMAZ Dr. Yurdagül KAYATÜRK (METU, CE) (METU, CE) (METU, CE) (METU, CE) (DS ) _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last Name: Oğuz Kağan ÇET NKAYA

Signature

:

iii

ABSTRACT

MANAGEMENT OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION CASE STUDIES FROM TURKEY ÇET NKAYA, Oğuz Kağan M.Sc., Department of Civil Engineering Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Şahnaz Tiğrek January 2006, 108 pages

Siltation is becoming a big problem as the dams get older all over the world. Conservation and sustainable management of existing reservoirs is gaining more importance than constructing new dams. In this study the program RESCON, which is outcome of a World Bank sponsored project, has been used to examine sediment removal strategies (flushing, hydrosuction sediment removal, dredging and trucking) for four dams of Turkey namely Çubuk I Dam, Bayındır Dam, vriz Dam and Borçka Dam. Sediment measurements are made by governmental agencies in Turkey. In this study characteristics of these

measurements will be presented for the future sediment related studies. Then sediment removal strategies which were used in RESCON will be introduced. Evaluation of RESCON results have been made and compared with previous studies for verification except Borçka Dam, since it is under construction.

Keywords: Siltation, reservoir sedimentation, sustainable management, sediment measurement.

iv

RESCON sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi yapılmış ve doğrulama amacıyla daha önceki çalışmalarla karşılaştırılmıştır. derin tarama ve kamyonla taşıma) incelemek için kullanıldı. Bu çalışmada yapılan ölçümlerin karakteristik özellikleri gelecekteki rüsubat ile ilgili çalışmalar için sunulmuştur. Bundan sonra RESCON programındaki rüsubat kaldırma stratejileri tanıtılacaktır. basınçlı emme rüsubat kaldırma. Borçka Barajı inşaa halinde olduğu için daha önce yapılan bir çalışma yoktur. Oğuz Kağan Yüksek Lisans. sürdürülebilir yönetim. nşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü Danışman: Yard. Mevcut barajların korunması ve sürdürülebilir yönetimi yeni barajlar inşa etmekten daha fazla önem kazanmaktadır. Bayındır Barajı. Bu çalışmada Dünya Bankası destekli bir projenin sonucu olan RESCON programı Türkiye’deki 4 baraj için (Çubuk I Barajı. rezervuar sedimantasyonu. Dr. rüsubat ölçümü.ÖZ REZERVUAR SED MANTASYONU YÖNET M TÜRK YE’DEN VAKA ANAL ZLER ÇET NKAYA. 108 sayfa Dünya çapındaki barajların yaşı büyüdükçe siltasyon büyük bir problem olmaktadır. Doç. Şahnaz Tiğrek Ocak 2006. v . vriz Barajı ve Borçka Barajı) sediment kaldırma stratejilerini (yıkama. Türkiye’de rüsubat ölçümleri devlet kurumları tarafından yapılmaktadır. Keywords: Siltasyon.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was suggested and has been completed under the supervision of Assist. M.Sc for their kind assist in finding data in DSI. Annandale for his kind assist related to RESCON program. Şahnaz T ĞREK for her helpful guidance and precious suggestions throughout this study.Sc. Şahnaz T ĞREK in Hydromechanics Laboratory of Civil Engineering Department of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. Turkey. and Bahadır Boz. vi . George W. Prof. Dr. and Şahnur Yılmaz. Special thanks go to Dr. The author is indebted to Dr. M. Special thanks also go to my family and my colleagues for their support and encouraging me with endless patience and sincerity throughout this period.

.......................................................................................vii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ SEDIMENT REMOVAL TECHNIQUES.................2 Scope of the Study...........TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM ................... INTRODUCTION........................................................10 vii ...................................................1 1..........................................................................................xxiv CHAPTER 1.........................2..............................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Problem Definition and Literature Survey ........................................................................................................1 Definition of Flushing and Flushing Parameters.......................................................................................................10 2....................................................v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................xxii ABBREVIATIONS...............1 General .............xviii LIST OF SYMBOLS .....10 2..............................................iv ÖZ....vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................10 2........................................................iii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................1 1..........xii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................2 Flushing ......................8 2.........................

.........2 Life Cycle Management Approach .................25 3..................3 Worldwide Experience of Flushing...................3 Optimization Framework in RESCON................................................3......................1 Introduction .................................38 viii ............................15 2..............................5 Decommissioning (Removal of a Dam).................................................37 3...........19 2...................3..........36 3.............2 Water Required for HSRS.4 Water Required for Trucking .............................4 Importance of Full Drawdown ..................2....................3.......2..............3.....21 2.........................................37 3.......................................2 Water Required for Sediment Removal in Economic Models ............................29 3.....1 Water Required for Sediment Flushing.2.....36 3...3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System (HSRS) .......................2......4 Dredging and Trucking ..4 Problems Related to Initiation of Flushing.3.........................................33 3.............31 3.................................1 No Sediment Removal Option ............13 2....2...........2..............................23 2.....2 Factors Affecting Applicability and Efficiency of Flushing .............................3 Water Required for Traditional Dredging ............35 3....17 2............................3..................36 3...........................3.......................................................................37 3...............3.....3...29 3......1 Yield Estimation in RESCON...3 RESCON Program ................................... LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT METHOD .....................2..2...2.......

..................3.....................3.......45 3.3.... REVIEW OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION IN TURKEY ............3..46 3......3.................2 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Results ...........4 Traditional Dredging and Trucking Option.................3........1 Flushing Results ..........38 3....3......63 3........3........................3...................38 3.....................................66 ix ................41 3.........64 3........63 3.....................................3.............3..............2 Unit Cost of Dredging .........9.........................................1 Unit Cost of Hydrosuction ...3........3 Unit Cost of Construction.........................................2 Run-of-River Option ........3..........3 Dredging and Trucking Results.9...........8 Precautions Using RESCON Program .................61 3..6 Hydrosuction Removal System (HSRS) Calculations in RESCON ..................38 3...........3..............................................................63 3...........3.....2 Flushing Option...9 Important Points for Evaluating RESCON Results.3......3..........................47 3.........5...46 3.....3..............5..64 4..1 Decommissioning of the Dam ........3..............43 3...................9...4 Sensitivity Analysis for RESCON ...............................4 Gould’s Gamma Function ....................................3...............3......5 Cost Calculations in Economic Models ...3..................................1.3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Option.....9...40 3................5...........3.......7 Definitions of RESCON Input Parameters...45 3.47 3........3............1....................

........................................82 4..............................3..............2......................2.......68 4...1 Evaluation of Borcka Dam RESCON Results ...................2.............66 4................3 Case Studies from Turkey ...............................4............1.....96 4......1 Sediment Information in State Hydraulic Works (DSI) ...................1....75 4......2 DSI Mapping Section .2 Sediment Sampling of EIE .....66 4.................1 Cubuk I Dam RESCON User Input .......2.........69 4.................................................................3.................................2 Sediment Studies of Electrical Survey Agency (EIE)....2............................................80 4.............3.....83 4.......1......2........................3................2...74 4...........................................3..................................................98 x .....................................3 Borcka Dam.......................................................................74 4.................95 4.1.....69 4..........2.......1 Evaluation of Bayındır Dam RESCON Results ...............66 4.................80 4......................1..........................2.93 4...............3...............67 4..............1 DSI Investigation and Planning Department...........2.................4 Ivriz Dam.............................94 4...3..............................................4 Sediment Measurement Studies of DSI..........3...............................2 Bayındır Dam .....3 DSI Operation and Maintenance Department ...2..........2 Evaluation of Cubuk I Dam RESCON Results ............1 General ...............1 Cubuk I Dam ...........3...............................1.................2 Data Collection.........1 General ...........

...................109 B..................... MAPS OF BASINS IN TURKEY ............... BORCKA DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS.........................................129 C.......................................................................159 H.......... IVRIZ DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS .................................................145 F................................4...................................3............... CHECK OF Wt/MAR FOR TESTED RESERVOIRS .........................4............................................104 APPENDICES A............131 D.......... DAMS WITH SEDIMENT MEASUREMENTS IN TURKEY......166 xi ... BAYINDIR DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS.......... SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR TARBELA DAM ..1 Evaluation of Ivriz Dam RESCON Results ...........152 G..................99 5........ CONCLUSION .139 E........ DAMS IN OPERATION IN TURKEY ..........................101 REFERENCES...........

...3 Table 3...............6 Table 3.........59 Estimate of Environmental and Social Impact Levels ............... Power and Sedimentation..................................................................................................3 Characteristics of Creek Dam.......7 Table 3............................60 Calculated Sediment Yields of Different Stations of EIE...............................................58 Classification of Safeguard Policy Criteria ........57 Capital Investment Parameters ....58 Environmental Parameters (Optional)......................... .....................2 Table 3.........3 Water Demand According to Region .........................9 Table 3..10 Table 3............1 Table 4.....48 Water Characteristics ..LIST OF TABLES Table 1.................... Gap Weir............59 Safeguard Policy Criteria .......................... Korrumbyn Creek Dam and Quipolly Dam....................................1 Table 3...................2 Worldwide Storage...5 Table 3..........49 Sediment Characteristics ...........................78 xii ......51 Economic Parameters ..2 Reservoir Characteristics........................................................8 Table 3..............................75 Cost Calculation Data for Turkey ................4 Table 3.........5 Table 3..........2 Table 1................................1 Table 1.............................11 Table 4.........49 Removal Parameters......................54 Flushing Benefits Parameters ..................................

............Table 4.....7 Table 4......................................84 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Cubuk I Dam .14 Cubuk I Input Data ......87 # of Flushing Events in Phase I...... 10 Table 4.............................92 xiii .......88 Frequency of Removal for Cubuk I Dam ... Cubuk I Dam ....13 Table 4..................................92 Table 4.......................9 Table 4..........................................17 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Removal........................................8 Table 4.......15 Table 4........12 Table 4...........................................................4 Table 4.....85 Annual Fund Results for Cubuk I Dam........88 Sediment Removed per Event for Cubuk I Dam..3 Table 4.......5 Table 4...89 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT....87 Phase I Lengths for Cubuk I Dam .... Cubuk I Dam..................90 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Removal................. Cubuk I Dam.......86 Long Term Capacity Values for Cubuk I Dam ...........82 Economic Results for Cubuk I Dam.......6 Table 4................................... Cubuk I Dam ....11 Table 4.............................90 Table 4...........91 Table 4................................83 Economic Conclusion for Cubuk I Dam .............18 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Cubuk I Dam ..................................................16 Technical Comments for Cubuk I Dam .....86 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Cubuk I Dam..................

............2 RESCON Results for Tested Reservoirs ............................133 Economic Parameter Assumptions for Tarbela Dam ................132 Table C...139 Bayındır Dam Input Data .....................................1 Table E....9 Table D.........................128 Calculation of Critical St for Tested Reservoirs .......................Table 5......138 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey ....................1 Table A.................8 Table C.....132 Table C..128 Classification of Dams For Multi Purpose ........................5 Table C....4 Table C...........................2 Assumed Constant Removal Parameters for Tarbela Dam ..................6 Table C...............135 Sensitivity to Discount Rate...........................................1 Table C.......................................101 Dams Under Operation in Turkey .......109 Classification of Dams For Single Purpose..........145 Economic Results for Bayındır Dam...............131 Physical Parameters Varied In Addition To Geometry Changes ..........137 Sensitivity to Cost of Removal Parameters .......................................1 Table E..........................136 Sensitivity to Operation and Maintenance Coefficient ...1 Table A.....7 Table C.......3 Table B.....146 xiv ................................ Tarbela Dam .............130 Geometric Parameters for Tarbela Dam......................................1 Table C..2 Table A............3 Constant Parameters In Sensitivity Analysis for Tarbela Dam .134 Sensitivity to Value of Unit Reservoir Yield ..

Table E.3 Table E.4 Table E.5 Table E.6 Table E.7 Table E.8 Table E.9 Table E.10 Table E.11 Table E.12

Economic Conclusion for Bayındır Dam ...............................146 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Bayındır Dam ..............147 Annual Fund Results for Bayındır Dam.................................147 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Bayındır Dam.................147 Long Term Capacity Values for Bayındır Dam .....................148 Phase I Lengths for Bayındır Dam .........................................148 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Bayındır I Dam ...................148 Frequency of Removal for Bayındır Dam ..............................149 Sediment Removed per Event for Bayındır Dam...................149 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Bayındır Dam ........................................................................................150

Table E.13 Table E.14

Technical Comments for Bayındır Dam ................................150 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Removal, Bayındır Dam.........................................151

Table E.15

Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Removal, Bayındır Dam.........................................151

Table E.16 Table F.1 Table F.2

Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Bayındır Dam ...............151 Borcka Dam Input Data..........................................................152 Economic Results for Borcka Dam ........................................153

xv

Table F.3 Table F.4 Table F.5 Table F.6 Table F.7 Table F.8 Table F.9 Table F.10 Table F.11 Table F.12

Economic Conclusion for Borcka Dam..................................153 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Borcka Dam.................154 Annual Fund Results for Borcka Dam ...................................154 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Borcka Dam ...................154 Long Term Capacity Values for Borcka Dam........................155 Phase I Lengths for Borcka Dam ...........................................155 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Borcka Dam........................155 Frequency of Removal for Borcka Dam ................................156 Sediment Removed per Event for Borcka Dam .....................156 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Borcka ........ Dam ........................................................................................157

Table F.13 Table F.14

Technical Comments for Borcka Dam ...................................157 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Removal, Borcka Dam ...........................................158

Table F.15

Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Removal, Borcka Dam ...........................................158

Table F.16 Table G.1 Table G.2

Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Borcka Dam..................158 Ivriz Dam Input Data..............................................................159 Economic Results for Ivriz Dam ............................................160

xvi

Table G.3 Table G.4 Table G.5 Table G.6 Table G.7 Table G.8 Table G.9 Table G.10 Table G.11 Table G.12

Economic Conclusion for Ivriz Dam......................................160 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Ivriz Dam.....................161 Annual Fund Results for Ivriz Dam .......................................161 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Ivriz Dam .......................161 Long Term Capacity Values for Ivriz Dam............................162 Phase I Lengths for Ivriz Dam ...............................................162 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Ivriz Dam............................162 Frequency of Removal for Ivriz Dam ....................................163 Sediment Removed per Event for Ivriz Dam .........................163 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Ivriz Dam ........................................................................................164

Table G.13 Table G.14

Technical Comments for Ivriz Dam .......................................164 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Removal, Ivriz Dam ...............................................165

Table G.15

Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Removal, Ivriz Dam ...............................................165

Table G.16

Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Ivriz Dam......................165

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1

Sedimentation Process................................................................5 Measured and Calculated Thalweg Profiles in Dashidaira Reservoir ..................................................................................16

Figure 2.2

Measured and Calculated Thalweg Profiles in Unazuki Reservoir ..................................................................................17

Figure 2.3

Sediment Concentration During Drawdown of Baira Reservoir ..................................................................................18

Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.10

Bed Elevations at a Cross Section of Sanmenxia Reservoir ....19 The Simplified Geometry for Calculation of Criteria ..............20 Hydrosuction Dredging ............................................................22 Hydrosuction Bypassing...........................................................22 Pumping of Sediment ...............................................................24 Dredging Operation in Upper Peoria Lake ..............................25 Number of Dams Removed in USA According to Their Heights......................................................................................27

Figure 2.11

Number of Dams Removed in USA by the Years....................27

xviii

........................................4 Figure 3.........2 Figure 4......................................................1 Figure 3.........81 Location of Borcka Dam .....................5 Half Life Calculation of Cubuk I Dam.................32 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Flushing ..........43 Figure 4... ...................................................................... 30 Life Cycle Management Approach .........41 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and Trucking (Se>Smin)..167 Marmara Basin (Basin #2) ......98 Layout of Basins in Turkey............................168 Susurluk Basin (Basin #3)........3 Figure H...................................169 xix ........12 Changes in Channel Cross Section Caused by Removal of Oakdale Dam in 1/00.........40 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Hydrosuction.............................................................42 Figure 3...............4 Figure H..................166 Meric Basin (Basin #1)...............72 Location of Cubuk I and Bayındır Dams.................................2 Figure H..................................28 Figure 3...............................................3 Figure 3............96 Location of Ivriz Dam . Figure 4.........................................Figure 2......................2 Figure 3...........................4 Figure H...........1.............................5 Design Life Approach ...............3 Figure 4.........168 Aegean Basin (Basin #4)......1 Figure H........................................6 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and Trucking (Se<Smin).....................

....13 Figure H...................................22 Figure H.....178 East Mediterranean Basin (Basin #17)..171 West Mediterranean Basin (Basin #8)....................6 Figure H.............................................172 Burdur Lake Basin (Basin #10)....176 North Kizilirmak Basin (Basin #15) ...........................9 Figure H.17 Figure H.....21 Figure H.12 Figure H.175 West Yesilirmak Basin (Basin #14) ..........19 Figure H......18 Figure H.....171 Middle Mediterranean Basin (Basin #9) .........................................11 Figure H...................................15 Figure H.............175 East Yesilirmak Basin (Basin #14) ...........................178 Seyhan Basin (Basin #18) ............180 Ceyhan Basin (Basin #20)..8 Figure H..............................................170 Great Meander Basin (Basin #7) ....................................................Figure H........10 Figure H...14 Figure H............170 Small Meander Basin (Basin #6)...........................................................182 xx ..................................................181 Lower Euphrates River Basin (Basin #21)............174 West Black Sea Basin – Anatolian Part (Basin #13)........................7 Figure H...................................................174 Sakarya Basin (Basin #12) ........................20 Figure H.................................................176 South Kizilirmak Basin (Basin #15) .............16 Figure H........24 Gediz Basin (Basin #5).................23 Figure H...........................................173 Afyon Basin (Basin #11).........................179 Hatay Basin (Basin #19)..177 Middle Anatolian Basin (Basin #16)...........................

.......26 Figure H...........................................186 Tigris-Zapsuyu Basin (Basin #26) ......................32 Middle Euphrates River Basin (Basin #21)....28 Figure H....................31 Figure H...................184 Van Lake Basin (Basin #25) ...29 Figure H........27 Figure H...........................183 Coruh Basin (Basin #23) .......186 xxi ............Figure H....................................184 Aras Basin (Basin #24)..........................................185 Tigris River Basin (Basin #26)................182 Upper Euphrates River Basin (Basin #21) ........................................................25 Figure H...................183 East Black Sea Basin (Basin #22) ...........30 Figure H.........

LIST OF SYMBOLS ASD maximum percent of accumulated sediment removed per dredging event AST maximum percent of accumulated sediment removed per trucking event C CD CH CLD unit cost of construction unit cost of dredging unit cost of hydrosuction maximum percent of capacity loss that is allowable at any time in reservoir for dredging CLF maximum percent of capacity loss that is allowable at any time in reservoir for flushing CLT maximum percent of capacity loss that is allowable at any time in reservoir for trucking CS Cw DU Gd HI sediment concentration (ppm) (mg/l) concentration by weight of sediment to water removed expected life of hydrosuction sediment removal system adjustment factor to approximate the gamma distribution cost of capital investment to install hydrosuction sediment removal system MT Qm QR Qs maximum amount of sediment removed per trucking event mixture flow rate in hydrosuction sediment removal operation sediment discharge (tons/day) sediment flow rate in hydrosuction sediment removal operation xxii .

S0. C0 s1 original reservoir capacity the fraction of run-of-river benefits available in the year flushing occurs s2 sd Se Smin St Vin W(0) W(St+1) Wt X Xt Yt Zpr the fraction of storage benefits available in the year flushing occurs standard deviation of incoming flows existing reservoir capacity lower bound of remaining reservoir capacity remaining reservoir capacity after year t mean annual water inflow water yield from run-of-river project water yield from storage capacity after flushing reservoir yield at time t amount of sediment dredged per cycle sediment removed in year t amount of water required to remove sediment standard normal variate of percent probability (p%) xxiii .

ABBREVIATIONS CAT DDR DSI EIE Caterpillar Drawdown Ratio State Hydraulic Works Directorate of Electrical Power Resources Survey and Development Agency FW FWR HR HSRS LTC LTCR MAR N/A NPV O&M ppm SBR SBRd SSf TWR Flushing Width Flushing Width Ratio HR Wallingford Institute. United Kingdom Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Long Term Capacity Long Term Capacity Ratio Mean Annual Runoff Not Applicable Net Present Value Operation and Maintenance parts per million Sediment Balance Ratio Sediment Balance Ratio (independent of drawdown) Flushing Channel Side Slope Top Width Ratio xxiv .

In order to compensate this water demand existing storage capacity should be used efficiently or new sources should be found. 2000). established in 1928. Nearly half the world’s large dams were built exclusively or primarily for irrigation (WCD.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. 2000). 1 .1 Problem Definition and Literature Survey There are more than 45 000 large dams built all around the world for several purposes such as power generation. The demand for water is increasing with the population rise. 19% of world energy is from hydropower. “The International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). Quality is important as much as capacity since a large percent of dams have been built for irrigation and water supply.Every year 0.” (WCD. flood control. Another way of determining reservoir capacity is using previously made sediment measurements to supply water for specified economical lifetime. 2000). If dams are between 5-15 m high and have a reservoir volume of more than 3 million m3. domestic or industrial water supply (WCD. 2000).5-1. defines a large dam as a dam with a height of 15 m or more from the foundation. General tendency in determining reservoir capacity of a new dam is assuming an economical life for a dam such as 50-100 years. they are also classified as large dams.0% of the world’s reservoir capacity is lost due to sedimentation (White. Today.

Simonovic (1994). Table 1. As can be seen from Table 1.Present and future water demand of each continent is given in Table 1. a capacity less or equal to its original capacity may be sustained. As a result of economical analysis and site investigations sediment deposited in existing reservoirs can be partially cleared. 2000) Demand For New Storage (km3) Region Europe South&Central America Africa Asia Total 2000-2010 50 465 165 315 995 2010-2020 50 495 205 280 1 030 2020-2030 55 425 250 215 945 In Turkey most of the dams can be considered as large dams and most of these large dams have been constructed for irrigation and domestic water supply. In this study obtaining storage requirement using current demand and finding the best management strategy for an existing reservoir was the objectives.1 demand for new storage increases.1. economical life of dams can be extended and capacity loss may be prevented. we need to find out ways for sustainable management of existing reservoirs as well as new ones. However. constructing new dams creates new problems as well as their benefits. opposed a methodology for the reassessment of a reservoir. Therefore. 2 . Thus. 1 Water Demand According to Region (White. If new policies are prepared in feasibility level for new dams.

If we do not pay enough attention for sedimentation problems. (2001). loss of aggricultural areas. etc. and change in habitat. environmental problems. Worldwide storage. power and sedimentation is shown in Table 1. various sediment removal techniques are compared economically and compared from sustainability point of view. next generations will have to pay for it but it may be too late for them to solve the problem. In their works.Constructing new dams receives too much criticism due to resettlement problem. All these activities need finance. Either we will deal with the problem or leave it to next generation. Sustainable management of a reservoir requires to examine the following topics: • • • • • • • • • • • Economical analysis Environmental considerations Sediment removing operations Use of removed sediment Frequency of removal operations Removal equipment Sediment properties within the reservoir Detection of sediment distribution within the reservoir Applicability of removal operations Delta formation upstream of the reservoir Determination of sediment yield and trap efficiency of the reservoir etc. Thus. Palmieri et al. 2 3 . small dams and maintenance of new dams gain importance. presented a new methodology in order to evaluate economics of reservoir sedimentation and sustainable management of dams.

5-1 0.5 16 14.17-0.23 1.5 0.3 Region Worldwide Europe North America South and Central America 4 North Africa Sub Saharan Africa Middle East Asia (excluding China) China Source: Adapted from White.0 2.08-1.5 145 65 Hydropower production in 1995 (TWh/yr) 2 643 552 658 575 14 48 57 534 205 Annual loss due to sedimentation (% of residual storage) 0.2 0.Table 1. . 2001.3-1.1 0. 2003) Number of large dams 45 571 5 497 7 205 1 498 280 966 895 7 230 22 000 Storage (km3) 6 325 1 083 1 845 1 039 188 575 224 861 510 Total Power (GW) 675 170 140 120 4.2 0.2 Worldwide Storage. Power and Sedimentation (RESCON Manual Volume I.5 0.

finer sediment is carried by quasi-homogeneous flow to nearer parts of the body of a dam (Yu et al. Especially. for the reservoirs with no watershed management or the reservoirs on high-sediment-carrying rivers this problem may be more severe. velocity of water decreases and coarser particles deposit mostly at entrance of the reservoir forming a delta as shown in Figure 1. Gap Weir. 5 . Common feature of these dams is sedimentation resulted in closure of the dams from service in a small period of time although they had been designed structurally very well. Information of use and siltation for these dams is shown in Table 1.83-13.. turbidity currents are also sources of sediment at downstream parts of a reservoir as in Figure 1. Moreover. On the other hand. Characteristic unit weight values of sediments in a reservoir are between 8. 3.1 Sedimentation Process (RESCON Manual Volume I.24 kN/m3 (RESCON Manual. 2003) Sedimentation is a big problem for reservoirs.1. 2003). 2000). These dams are More Creek Dam. Turbid inflow Coarse Delta Floating Debris Relatively clear water Outlets Fine sediments Density current Figure 1. Korrumbyn Creek Dam and Quipolly Dam.1.When a river flows into a reservoir. Four arch dams constructed in New South Wales have been examined by Chanson and James (1998).

NSW Werris Creek South Korrumb yn Creek Quipolly Creek 160 Water supply for railway purposes Water supply for the town of Murwillumbah Water supply of the town of Werris Creek Sediment by suspension load. 3 Characteristics of Creek Dam. disused since 1955 Korrumbyn Creek dam.bed load siltation primarily 6 Gap weir. Korrumbyn Creek Dam and Quipolly Dam Reservoir (1) Location (2) Stream (3) Volume* of Catchment reservoir area (m3) (km2) (4) (5) Use (6) Remarks (7) Moore Creek Dam. 1898 20 km north of Tamworth.28E+03 3 Quipolly dam.Table 1. 20km west of Murwillumbah 20 km southeast of Werris Creek. 1917-1918 27. Gap Weir. 1902 5 km west of Werris Creek. NSW Mount Warning National Park. NSW Moore Creek 220E+03 51 Water supply for the town of Tamworth Complete reservoir siltation by 1924(and probably earlier). fully silted in 1924 Rapid bed-load sedimentation associated with jammed scour valve Sedimentation volume larger than half of the initial storage by 1952. 1932 860E+03 70 *Original capacity .

Yalçınkaya (1991) studied deposition mechanism of sediment within a reservoir area. need for constructing dams. Altınbilek (2002). such as resettlement and change in environmental properties. 7 . Yılmaz (2003). Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) prepared a report for the determination of annual sediment yield and possible precautions for Ivriz reservoir using universal soil loss equation namely USLE. benefits of dams and diverse effects of dam construction. debate between construction of large dams. Geographic Information System (GIS) applications were also used in this study. introduced a new and simple graphical method for estimating half life of an existing dam using previously made sediment measurements. there are limited number of studies related to reservoir sedimentation. The two methods are used for 16 reservoirs of Turkey and results were compared with the actual measurements. presented need for sustainable management of finite water resources. Area Increment Method and Empirical Area Reduction Method are applied in order to find out real distribution of sediment within a reservoir using previously made sediment measurements.In Turkey. Also. the contribution of dams to the Turkish economy has been stated.

RESCON program and its running logic is given. Fourth chapter is devoted to sedimentation in Turkey. Within the scope of this thesis sediment removal techniques will be discussed with the help of package program RESCON promoted by World Bank. Importance of sustainability for reservoirs is presented. in this thesis it is not aimed to study the mechanism of sedimentation within reservoir area. 1997). However. the management of sedimentation of reservoirs will be discussed. Geography. sediment measurements and sediment measuring institutions have been introduced herein.1. hydrology. general situation in the world and definitions of sediment removal operations. Second chapter of this study is allocated for presenting sedimentation.2 Scope of the Study In this study it is aimed to present possibility of use of RESCON for Turkish reservoirs and giving information about sustainable reservoir management. geometrical structures of the dam and river morphology are the main components. climate. Instead. sediment measurement methods used in Turkey. life cycle management approach is introduced. To prevent sediment from coming into the reservoir watershed management is needed. The sedimentation mechanism needs extensive studies from several aspects. Case studies from Turkey are presented with 8 . Annual sediment transport rate in Turkey is approximately 5x109 kN (Yanmaz. For this purpose sediment removal techniques. Turkey is one of the countries with high erosion problem. The institutions taking sediment measurements and the current situation of sedimentation in Turkey are given. In third chapter.

This enables a person for selecting the proper sediment measurement stations for sediment studies. previously taken sediment measurements and basins of Turkey. Table A. Appendices include great amount of data related to dams in Turkey.3 classifies them according to multipurpose use.1 lists the dams in Turkey which are under operation. Appendix H is for maps of basins in Turkey.2 classifies these dams according to single purpose of use and Table A. Table D.comments on program results.1 includes all previously taken sediment measurement data (taken by DSI). In these maps all the observation stations (closed and open) operated by EIE are shown. 9 . Table A.

1 Definition of Flushing and Flushing Parameters Flushing is a way of increasing reservoir capacity using bottom outlet or similar structures by mobilizing the sediment within the reservoir and evacuating it with water under favourable conditions. However. Another difference is 10 . Sediment flushing evacuates previously deposited sediment and sediment sluicing evacuates the sediment coming with high discharges resulted from melted snow or heavy rain.2. These techniques are flushing.CHAPTER 2 SEDIMENT REMOVAL TECHNIQUES 2. hydrosuction sediment removal system (HSRS). There is another method called sediment sluicing. sediment flushing and sediment sluicing are a bit different. 2. decommissioning (removal of a dam completely).2 Flushing 2.1 General In this chapter sediment removal techniques have been presented with their applications in the world. Therefore supporting evidence should be obtained as a result of investigations. Flushing is not applicable for all types of reservoirs therefore investigation works should be carried out before flushing operation related to scale of the sedimentation problem. trucking and dredging. All of these works are very detailed and large amount of money is required to carry out researches.

Various reasons can lead to this result such as geometry of the reservoir or gradation of sediment within the reservoir (RESCON Manual. For a feasible solution.35. caution should be exercised. Besides economic parameters do not affect LTCR for flushing since flushing is related to engineering parameters rather than economic parameters (RESCON Manual. Sediment Balance Ratio (SBR): This is the ratio of sediment flushed annually to the sediment deposited annually. 2003).the size of sediments evacuated. 2003). SBR>1. 2003). There may be other reasons to be evaluated. in sediment sluicing mostly finer sediments are evacuated.0 condition should be satisfied (RESCON Manual. This implies that the scoured valley as a result of flushing operation does not cover the width of the reservoir and other outlets other than existing bottom outlet or derivation channels are required in order to make a successful flushing operation. Sometimes RESCON gives very low values of LTCR although flushing is an economic and feasible sediment management operation (Rescon Manual. In sediment flushing finer sediments are evacuated as well as sands and gravels. 11 . 2003). There are some parameters calculated during flushing calculations. However. These parameters will be given in this section in order flushing calculations to be understood more easily. Considering reported cases to the RESCON team for flushing operations LTCR estimations made by the program seems to be lower than reported values. Long Term Capacity Ratio (LTCR): This is the ratio of long term sustainable capacity of the reservoir to its original capacity. If LTCR<0.

7 (RESCON Manual. SBRd). 2003). Flushing Width (FW): Estimated actual flushing width using a best-fit equation resulting from empirical data (Atkinson. Top Width Ratio (TWR): This is the ratio of width of the scoured valley at top water level with the complete drawdown assumption to width of the reservoir at top water level of the reservoir calculated on the basis of simplified geometry. Flushing Width Ratio (FWR) and Top Width Ratio (TWR) are the criteria for flushing stated by Atkinson (1996). SBRd > 1. 2003). If TWR is not a constraint TWR approaching 1 is sufficient (RESCON Manual. Long Term Capacity Ratio (LTCR). the criterion used for feasibility of flushing is Sediment Balance Ratio. However. 12 . In RESCON. Sediment Balance Ratio (SBR. 2003). Flushing Width Ratio (FWR): This is the ratio of the width formed as a result of flushing operation to the representative bottom width provided by user. If TWR is a constraint TWR>2 is preferable. In order drawdown to be sufficient. Drawdown Ratio (DDR): The extent of reservoir drawdown is unity minus a ratio of flow depth for the flushing water level to flow depth for the normal impounding level. FWR>1 is preferable (RESCON Manual.0 is preferable (RESCON Manual. in calculation of SBRd Elf (reservoir elevation during flushing) is equal to Elmin (Minimum Reservoir Elevation).Sediment Balance Ratio (SBRd): This ratio has a calculation similar to SBR. 1996). DDR should be approximately 0. 2003).

Calculating the Brune ratio excel uses a piecewise equation which gives a curve close enough to Brune’s Curve for three types of sediment gradation. 2003). These are: • Hydraulic capacity of the outlet must be sufficient enough to keep reservoir level as constant as possible until flushing ends (Howard.Brune Ratio: This is ratio of the original reservoir capacity to the mean annual reservoir inflow. This adjusted Migniot's equation often over-estimates side slopes by 10 times. 2000).2. 2. 13 . so the equation was divided by 10 to obtain a more reasonable result (RESCON Manual. Actual Flushing Width: The actual flushing width is estimated using a best-fit equation resulting from empirical data (Atkinson. Trap Efficiency: Trap efficiency is the percent of entrapped sediment to the inflowing sediment to the reservoir. 1996). Flushing Channel Side Slope (SSf): Representative side slope for deposits exposed during flushing.2 Factors Affecting Applicability and Efficiency of Flushing Some hydraulic conditions should be provided for a successful flushing operation. Using this value and the sediment type provided by user program calculates trap efficiency.

domestic and industrial water supply and hydropower generation. Another important parameter is selecting flushing time. since these reservoirs have enough water for flushing. Coarser sediment mostly deposits at the entrance of the reservoir. Four more criteria are used by Atkinson(1996) for a successful flushing.• Flushing discharges of at least twice the mean annual flow are required (Howard. As a result of operation an incised channel forms in the reservoir. Reservoirs having annual runoff larger than volume of the reservoir are more suitable for sediment flushing (Howard. The amount of water required is not only critical for flushing operation but also water required for irrigation. • Amount of water used in flushing operation should be at least 10% of the mean annual runoff (Howard. wide and shallow reservoirs. long. 14 . Therefore he uses some new criteria for feasibility of flushing such as Sediment Balance Ratio (SBR) and Long Term Capacity Ratio (LTCR). These criteria are Drawdown Ratio (DDR). The reservoirs having similar shape to this incised channel are suitable for flushing. 2000). 2000). this deposit can be removed by trucking instead of flushing since these sediments cannot be mobilized by flushing. Top Width Ratio (TWR) and SBRd (same as SBR but SBRd is independent of drawdown). Therefore. relatively narrow reservoirs are more suitable for flushing than short. 2000). This means. Atkinson (1996) discusses the feasibility of flushing and states that previously presented flushing criteria are not reliable enough according to literature survey of Sloff (1991). It needs careful evaluation of seasonal properties of the site since considerable water can enter the reservoir as a result of snowmelt or heavy rain. Flushing Width Ratio (FWR).

In this case cost of construction of flushing facilities becomes 10%-30% of the cost of a new dam with similar capacity (Howard. bed evolutions. There are numerous models for predicting the reservoir sedimentation. (2004). and sediment concentration during flushing such as HEC-6 of the U.2.2.3 have greater chance for successful flushing. Two reservoirs in Japan. Army Corps of Engineers (1991) and the FLUVIAL-12 model developed by Chang (1998) (Liu et al. etc. and amount of sediment flushed. 2004). riverbed evolution. 2000).) may be a constraint. In the model of Liu et al. 2000): • The hydrology and sedimentalogy of the catchement should be fully understood. fisheries. a one dimensional numerical model is proposed for predicting the sediment concentration variations.S.3 Worldwide Experience of Flushing HR Wallingford Institute study results over 50 reservoirs worldwide has given the following findings (Howard. • Hydrologically small reservoirs with storage capacity to annual runoff ratio of 0. • Hydrologically large dams may need lateral and longitudinal diversion channels for flushing. were selected to varify 15 . In order flushing facilities to be cost effective the reservoirs which have lost 40%-60% of their original capacity are more suitable.. • Downstream impacts (following reservoirs. Daishidaira and Unazuki reservoirs.

Other four criteria are also met for six successfully flushed reservoirs and at least one is not met for eight unsuccessfully flushed reservoirs. 2000 Calculated in June 2001 Calculated in July 2001 Elevation (m) Measured amount of flushed sediment On June 24. The predicted results are in good aggreement with the measurements as can be seen in Figure 2. SBR and LTCR criteria are met for six successfully flushed reservoirs and LTCR criterion is not met for eight unsuccessfully flushed reservoirs.. Original in 1985 Measured in June 2001 Measured in Nov.the model. However.59 million m3 Calculated amount of flushed sediment On June 24. 2001 Measured in Dec.564 million m3 Distance from Dashidara dam (m) Figure 2. it should be kept in mind that the model is based on riverine conditions of the rivers in Japan and economical considerations are not included in the model.2.1 and Figure 2. 2004) 16 . Six of these reservoirs have been flushed successfully and rest of the reservoirs are not successfully flushed. 2001 = 0. 1 Measured and Calculated Thalweg Profiles in Dashidaira Reservoir (Liu et al. 2001 = 0. Fourteen previously flushed reservoirs worldwide have been examined by Atkinson (1996).

48 million m3 Distance from Unazuki dam (m) Figure 2.49 million m3 Calculated amount deposits on June 25. if possible full drawdown should be practiced for a successful flushing operation.3. Thus incipient motion of deposited sediment is provided.2 Measured and Calculated Thalweg Profiles in Unazuki Reservoir (Liu et al. 2004) 2. Sediment concentration in flow leaving reservoir vs. Therefore. Purpose of drawdown is decreasing water level to original flowing river elevation and increasing velocity.4 Importance of Full Drawdown According to report of Atkinson (1996) incomplete drawdown makes a flushing operation less effective. When drawdown is completed concentration increases tremendously.. 2001 Calculated in June 2001 Calculated in July 2001 Elevation (m) Measured amount of deposits on June 25. 2001 = 0.2. 2001 = 0. 17 . time from start of drawdown plot for Baira Resevoir in India is shown in Figure 2.Measured in 2000 Measured in June 2001 Measured in Nov.

5 the simplified model. cross 18 . As a result of flushing operation an incised channel is formed.Drawdown complete Sediment concentration in flow leaving reservoir(ppm) Time from start of drawdown (hours) Figure 2. sediment is deposited at these parts. 1996) Flushing operation may result in gain of most of the lost capacity for hydraulicaly small reservoirs.3 Sediment Concentration During Drawdown of Baira Reservoir (Atkinson. However. In Figure 2. In the model of Atkinson real reservoir model is idealized and a simple model for evaluation of criteria is formed.4 presenting storage plot and a cross-section before and after flushing. Due to this reason. This situation can be seen in Figure 2. Thalweg elevation of the reservoir can be maintained as a result of successful flushing operations but deposited sediment far from bottom outlet cannot be mobilized. As can be seen flushing is only effective in neigbourhood of bottom outlet. for large dams situation is different.

construction of new tunnels greatly increase cost of sediment removal.4 Bed Elevations at a Cross Section of Sanmenxia Reservoir (Atkinson. use of original diversion tunnel may result in a successful flushing (Annandale. By tactical dredging only a small part of the deposited sediment is removed but its importance is very high.section properties used in calculation of LTCR and meaning of LTCR can be seen. If possible. Sometimes capacity of bottom outlets may not be enough. However.4 Problems Related to Initiation of Flushing For a reservoir whose most of the capacity has been lost due to sedimentation. for such a reservoir opening of bottom outlets may be very diffucult. 1996) 2. use of original diversion facilities or construction of new tunnels may lead to a successful flushing operation. Because. 2005) . 19 . initiation of flushing operation is a real problem. therefore. In order to overcome this problem tactical dredging may be done around bottom outlets. Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.5 The Simplified Geometry for Calculation of Criteria (Atkinson. 1996) 20 .

Sediment is conveyed through the pipe before it deposits in the reservoir bottom area (Figure 2. If HSRS-bypass is installed at the beginning of construction of the dam sedimentation problem may be less severe (Hotchkiss and Huang. sediment carrying capacity of downstream river does not increase. valve. Unfortunately. Using HSRS these effects can be minimized by selecting a proper destination point for sediment deposition. Principle components of HSRS are intake. pipeline. releasing sediment has harmful effects on downstream part of the dam since it increases turbidity. For HSRS-bypass a sediment excluding system is required to separate sediment from water. 1995). Hydrosuction Dredging 2.7). In hydrosuction dredging ancillary facilities such as a raft or barge to move the pipeline inlet in the reservoir.6). the same principle is valid but a pipeline is constructed between entrance of the reservoir and downstream of the dam. outlet works and auxillary facilities. On the other hand. In hydraulic bypassing. Hydrosuction Bypassing In hydrosuction dredging accumulated sediment is removed and transported to a downstream location through a pipe using head difference between the upstream and the downstream. There is no need for power supply (Figure 2. an exernally powered water jet or cutter head at the inlet to break up consolidated sediments 21 .2.3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System (HSRS) There are two types of hydrosuction sediment removal: 1.

1995) HSRS dredging was first performed in Djidiouia Reservoir in Algeria from 1892 to 1894 (Hotchkiss and Huang. In this two-year period 1 400 000 m3 of silt and clay was dredged by a 61cm-diameter and 1. 1995) e ipelin ass P Byp Sediment Diversion Discharge Dam Figure 2. 1995).6 km-long pipe.7 Hydrosuction Bypassing (Hotchkiss and Huang. Fan. 1995. Dredge Pipeline To Discharge Facility Figure 2. Half of the incoming sediment is removed each year by HSRS dredging 22 .(if required) and instrumentation to monitor the operation are required (Hotchkiss and Huang. ref. 1985).6 Hydrosuction Dredging (Hotchkiss and Huang.

Pumping water-sediment mixture is difficult and expensive. For dredging operations. Benefit.$3.0 . Dredging operation done in Upper Peoria Lake 23 .0 per cubic meter of sediment. 2002). Before selecting HSRS to remove sediment from the reservoir its downstream should be evaluated in terms of environmental considerations as well.8 pumping of dredged material is seen.6 for this project. Transporting dredged material far away from reservoir increases the cost. A 10-step design procedure is applied for the design of HSRS pipeline by Hotchkiss and Huang (1995). An important problem related to dredging is handling of dredged material.from Xiao Xua-shan reservoir in China. removed material should be deposited in a close site or should be used for some other purposes. cost ratio was 3. 2. Therefore. According to Mahmood (1987). Dredged material can be used for landscaping and island formation (Marlin. Removed sediment is transported through pipes by pumping. Prior to dredging sediment properties of the site should be inspected in order to select proper equipment for dredging and determine potential uses of dredged material. mechanical dredging system is installed on a boat.4 Dredging and Trucking Dredging is removing deposited sediment in the reservoir area mechanically within the reservoir without emptying the reservoir. cost of dredging varies between $2. In Figure 2. That means service of the reservoir is continued during the period of dredging operation.

62 for 10 km of distance 24 . Sediment is removed by using excavators and is loaded on trucks and is transported to a proper location. Cost of trucking changes according to transportation distance. After the sediment in the reservoir has been dredged it is trucked to a proper location for drying. In Turkey. 2005). For large dams with large depths cost of dredging may be very high or dredging may be infeasible to be practiced (Annandale. Figure 2. In trucking all the water in a reservoir is released and deposited sediment within the reservoir is transported by using heavy equipment. In this figure conventional clamshell bucket is used.in USA is shown in Figure 2. 2002) The difference of trucking from dredging is to empty reservoir before operation.9.83 for 1 km of distance and $2.8 Pumping of Sediment – Water Mixture By A Positive Displacement Pump (Marlin. this cost varies between $0.

Sometimes cost of repairing may be very high especially for large dams. There is an important point to be kept in mind that decommissioning should be avoided as much as possible.5 Decommissioning (Removal of a Dam) Decommissioning is the complete removal of a dam and make deposited sediment to flow freely. 2002) 2. Figure 2. 25 . The purpose of this operation is providing original riverine and environmental conditions for that habitat required for continuity of life in that neighbourhood.9 Dredging Operation in Upper Peoria Lake (Marlin. There is no reported case of decommissioning of a large dam higher than 40 m (RESCON Manual. After 10 km of distance trucking is not economically feasible for sediment removal. 2005). The main factor for decommissioning is the difference between cost of repairing and cost of decommissioning. Most of the time dams have no fish passage and construction of a new dam disrupts routes of fish and fish habitat takes damage. 2003).(Koyuncu.

. This point should be 26 . This rate is approximately 15% in Turkey (Table A.2). There are different cases of dam removal in the literature. In Figure 2. The main discussion on decommissioning is removal of large hydropower dams (Doyle et al. Therefore.12. It is certain that gain of original habitat conditions may take more time. The sediment coming from deposited position moves toward the reservoir of next dam. Change in cross-section after removal of Oakdele Dam can be seen in Figure 2.11 number of dams removed by the years can be seen. in 1 – 2 years of time approximately this amount of sediment will be deposited in the reservoir of next dam. Decommissioning has been applied in USA several times. As for hydropower plants. After removal of a dam large amount of sediment flows freely and a disastrous situation may occur. It can be understood from these graphs that decommissioned dams are mostly small dams with a height of less than 10 m.10 number of dams which are removed are classified according to their heights and in Figure 2. Benefit which can be obtained from the reservoir decreases due to low water quality.2 km2 impoundment). Forming of original riverine conditions may take several months to 2 years or more. 2000). In USA large hydropower dams represents less than 3% of 75 000 dams (greater than 1.Continuous sedimentation depletes reservoir capacity as well as decreases oxygen capacity.8 m in height with at least 0. benefits of power generation and run-off river benefits may be enough not to employ decommissioning. Before employing decommissioning careful evaluation of benefits to be lost and benefits to be gained are very important.

. 2000) Number of Removed 100 0 pre.1970. Number of Removed 125 0 <5 5-10 10-15 15-20 >20 Height of Dam (m) Figure 2. 2000) 27 .post1940 49 59 69 79 89 1990 Year of Removal Figure 2..1940.1980.11 Number of Dams Removed in USA by the Years (Doyle et al.10 Number of Dams Removed in USA According to Their Heights (Doyle et al. In this period of time probably there will be no fish habitat or similar things in that part of the river.1960.underlined.1950.

.3 Elev. (m) 2 1 0 0 5 Pre-removal (12/99) Post-removal (3/00) 10 15 Distance (m) 20 Figure 2. 2000) 28 .12 Changes in Channel Cross Section Caused by Removal of Oakdale Dam in 1/00 (Doyle et al.

In this approach cost-benefit calculation is carried out over a certain time period. 29 .1 Introduction The design life approach is widely applied in the design of dams. In Figure 3. This time period is taken as 50 years in Turkey. In this approach environmental and social issues are only included at the initial stage of the project and any change over the operation and maintenance period is not included (RESCON Manual. whereas it can change for other countries such as 75 or 100 years.1. These operations are economically expensive operations and maintenance of a dam should be made for future generations. It is the economically feasible operation and maintenance of the project. 2003). In case of such a problem local sediment removal operations can be made but extending economical life of a dam is not included in pre-feasibility level. indicating weak relations. which is called the economic life of the dam.CHAPTER 3 LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT METHOD 3. the description of design life approach of RESCON is given. Sedimentation problem is not considered as long as sedimentation threatens water intake structures or other facilities of a dam. In this figure environmental and social concerns are related with the project by dashed lines. Economy of sediment removal operations and decommissioning are not included in dam budget.

1 Design Life Approach (RESCON Manual Volume I. 2003) 30 .Figure 3.

capacity of the dam may be lost tremendously. Since sedimentation is not considered in conceptual design life approach. any effect which may cause problem can be overcome due to continuous monitoring. Furthermore. Moreover. Figure 3. in case of a sudden sedimentation due to rapid melt of snow or a high rainfall.2 shows life cycle management approach schematically.3. some bad consequences may occur. intergenerational equity is considered in the approach. For example. 31 . different reservoir sedimentation management alternatives. decommissioning of the dam.2 Life Cycle Management Approach Life cycle management approach is different from conceptual design life approach. renewal of facilities such as water intakes or clearance of entrance of sluice gates may cost too much. Therefore. economical optimizations for all of the management techniques can be included in pre-feasibility level. Considering these two figures difference between the two approaches can be understood. the benefits that can be gained as a result of operations such as power generation or irrigation may be lost. social and environmental safeguards. In life cycle management approach continuity of reservoir management is under control and carried out in determined times. In this approach sedimentation. Removal of deposited sediment.

2003) 32 .Figure 3.2 Life Cycle Management Approach (RESCON Manual Volume I.

First page is concerned with data related to geometry of reservoir. sediment and water inflows. Second page is related to environmental parameters. However.3. the user should be aware of the physical removal capacity of these methods. HSRS is a method which can be used especially in 33 . It has two pages for data input. Output of the program gives information about the followings: • • • • HSRS technical calculations and results Flushing technical calculations and results Economic calculations and results Safeguard results There are 4 sediment removing methods used in RESCON. Since the sediment inflow may be much higher than removal capacity of this method. parameters for sediment management alternatives and economy. This page is optional and may be used if user is concerned about environmental results. These are: • • • • Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Flushing Dredging Trucking Dredging and Trucking are always feasible sediment management alternatives in RESCON.3 RESCON Program RESCON is a program based on excel and written in Visual Basic programming language.

Another reason is all the techniques have not been clearly understood yet. but conclusions should be used with caution. increasing frequency of flushing events is another way if removing capacity is not enough to remove annual deposited sediment. Another important point is the calculation of long term capacity of reservoir. Although watershed management is not an alternative in RESCON. There are also other sediment management techniques but they are not considered in RESCON since including all the management techniques in one program is very difficult. As RESCON calculates the economic life of a dam. Also. Phase I is the period prior to reaching the long-term capacity and phase II is the period after the long-term capacity has been reached. RESCON makes calculation in two parts which are phase I and phase II.small reservoirs because the sediment removing capacity of HSRS is also not high. RESCON can be used for any reservoir (new reservoir or existing reservoir). calculated values for sediment management alternatives are based on user input. Effectiveness of this technique is not clear enough. etc. However. watershed management. Another constraint is the sensitivity of the program to the values of variables. it assumes that all capacity of the reservoir is depleted. This frequency can be different from the frequency given by the user since the frequency calculated by the program is an optimal value. it can be included by lowering the amount of sediment inflowing to the reservoir by an amount considering the catchment’s properties. area of reservoir. The program calculates the application frequencies for sediment removing techniques for both of the phases. The difference of RESCON from other sediment management programs is the general usage of the program. for example. Sensitivity analysis made in RESCON Manual is given in Appendix C. There are some parameters calculated in 34 .

3. The Gould equation used in RESCON is: Wt = 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin − Zpr 2 ⋅ sd 2 ⋅ +4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd 2 = W (S t )  Gd 2 4 ⋅  St + ⋅ sd    Vin   (3.1 Yield Estimation in RESCON In RESCON water yield estimation is made using Gould’s Gamma Distribution. This yield is required in economical calculations to calculate economical value of the water which is to be used in sediment removal operations.RESCON. 3.1) where Wt St = reservoir yield at time t (volume) = remaining reservoir capacity after year t (volume) Vin = mean annual water inflow (volume) Zpr = standard normal variate of percent probability (p%) Gd = adjustment factor to approximate the Gamma distribution (offset from Normal distribution) sd = standard deviation of incoming flows calculated from the user specified coefficient of variation and Vin 35 . In order these parameters to be clearly understood some explanation is given in the following parts.

Water required to remove sediment (Yt) is (RESCON Manual. W(St+1) = water yield from storage capacity after flushing 3.3.3. Water yield is estimated as follows: Wt = s1 ⋅ W (0) + s 2(W (S t +1 ) − W (0)) (3.2.2.3.3) 36 . 2003): Q Yt =  m Q  s  ⋅ Xt   (3.2) where s1 = the fraction of Run-of-River benefits available in the year flushing occurs s2 = the fraction of storage benefits available in the year flushing occurs W(0) = water yield from Run-of River project.1 Water Required for Sediment Flushing If flushing operation is carried out in year t.2 Water Required for Sediment Removal in Economic Models 3. it is assumed by RESCON that the reservoir is to be completely emptied.2 Water Required for HSRS Hotchkiss and Huang’s (1995) hydrosuction method is used for HSRS operations in RESCON.3.

3.3 Optimization Framework in RESCON Selection of feasible sediment removal technique.where Qm = mixture flow rate (volume per time). = sediment removed in year t (volume). Brief information is given in the following paragraphs to clarify where RESCON makes optimization. retirement fund calculations are the result of optimizations made by RESCON. 3. 3. water yield for trucking operations is assumed to be zero for simplicity.3 Water Required for Traditional Dredging Concentration by weight of sediment to water removed (Cw) is specified by user and volume of water required to remove given sediment volume (Yt) is calculated as (RESCON Manual. Qs Xt = sediment flow rate (volume per time).65  ⋅ Xt Cw  (3.3. Therefore.2. 2003): Yt =    100 ⋅ 2.2. the highest aggregate net benefit. 37 .4 Water Required for Trucking For trucking operations significant amount of water is not used.3. frequency and phase lengths of removal operations.4) 3.

2 Flushing Option Flushing model used in RESCON is based on the report written by Atkinson (1996) as a part of TDR (Technology Development and Research) Project. 3. an optimal time is determined.3. FWR – Flushing 38 .3. There are two main criteria set by Atkinson are Sediment Balance Ratio (SBR) and Long Term Capacity Ratio (LTCR).1 No Sediment Removal Option 3. Annual net benefit and salvage value are important in calculation of this time.1. An annual retirement fund is calculated.2 Run-of-River Option For run-of-river option it is assumed by the program that the entire capacity of the reservoir has been depleted and reservoir has filled with sediment.3. 3. SBRdSediment Balance Ratio based on minimum reservoir elevation.1.3. Failure of LTCR criteria does not eliminate feasibility of flushing (RESCON Manual). Runof-river benefits are possible only if there is a power generation unit in the dam.3. An annual retirement fund is not calculated since the dam is not removed in this case.3.3.3.3. RESCON calculations of feasibility of flushing are based on SBR alone. Atkinson (1996) states four more criteria. DDR – Drawdown Ratio.1 Decommissioning of the Dam In case of decommissioning. LTCR is a ratio of the sustainable capacity that can be achieved over the long-term to the original capacity.

As a result of optimization possible time path for flushing in a form like shown in Figure 3. 39 . Length of phase I is determined in a way which maximizes the sum of NPV of phase I and phase II (RESCON Manual). Phase I and phase II are independent of each other. A higher LTC can be achieved by increasing the frequency of flushing but RESCON does not consider this. new flushing frequency is calculated in a way such that reservoir capacity can be maintained at LTC.3 is obtained. Since RESCON makes optimizations on the basis of economy not capacity. There are two phases in this optimization. Optimization is made to maximize aggregate net benefit.Width Ratio. TWR – Top Width Ratio but RESCON presents these criteria as a guideline to make user exercise caution. These are: • • Phase I Phase II In phase I regular flushing operations are made until reservoir capacity reaches long term capacity. In phase II.

This result is compared with annual sediment inflow to the reservoir. Energy requirement for HSRS operation is provided from the head difference between the upstream and the downstream water levels of the dam. Using an iterative scheme. 2003) 3. If HSRS cannot remove 40 . Hydrosuction is assumed to occur annually and the timing of HSRS installation is determined through economic optimization (RESCON Manual.3.3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Option The Hydrosuction technical model used in RESCON is based on Hotchkiss and Huang (1995). 2003). a mixture velocity is calculated and annual sediment amount which can be removed by HSRS is calculated.3.Figure 3.3 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Flushing (RESCON Manual Volum II.

4 Traditional Dredging and Trucking Option There are two phases for dredging and trucking.3. As a result of optimization possible time path for HSRS in a form like shown in Figure 3. Whether existing capacity of the reservoir Se is bigger or smaller than Smin affects length of phases. 2003) 3. There are two different time paths for these cases. LTC is determined on the basis of optimal cycle length of phase II. 41 .annual incoming sediment. In this case HSRS can only increase economic life of the dam and cannot prevent all capacity from being depleted in finite time.3.4 is obtained.4 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Hydrosuction (RESCON Manual Volume II. non-sustainable solution is obtained. Length of phase I is dependent on Smin (lower bound of remaining reservoir capacity) which is calculated as a result of optimization. Figure 3.

2003) 42 .If Se>Smin (where Smin is the lower bound capacity specified) no dredging or trucking operation is done until Smin has been reached.5 and Figure 3. Cycle length of phase II is calculated using the difference between Smin and LTC. Figure 3.6 is obtained. As a result of optimization possible time path for dredging and trucking in a form like shown in Figure 3. if Se<Smin immediate dredging or trucking is required until LTC has been reached and cycle length of phase II is calculated using the difference between LTC and Smin.5 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and Trucking (Se>Smin) (RESCON Manual Volume II. On the other hand.

4 Sensitivity Analysis for RESCON A detailed sensitivity analysis has been carried out for Tarbela Dam by RESCON team to find out how results of RESCON can vary by changing input parameters.3. Increasing width of reservoir for a constant value of flushing flow results in lower long term capacity ratios. During the analysis some parameters have been kept constant and some parameters have been changed. 43 .6 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and Trucking (Se<Smin) (RESCON Manual Volume II. 2003) 3. As a result of this analysis sensitivities to input parameters can be summarized as follows: 1.Figure 3.

Also. 9. 7.2. 8. The details of this sensitivity analysis can be seen in Appendix C. RESCON results may be unreliable (For the Wt/MAR checks of tested reservoirs in this study. Furthermore LTCR increases by 33% and 4%. respectively. 2003). If discount rate(r) is lowered from 5% to %3. respectively. Even 1% of change can affect economical results seriously. From applicability point of view this sensitivity analysis should be carried out on reservoir base. the long term capacity ratio increases by 31% and 6%. NPV increases for all of the strategies tremendously. when cost of sediment removal is reduced.2/m3. If the parameters describing the cost of sediment removal are considered. 3.4. NPV for each strategy increases by %50. 6. If Wt/MAR is less than 0.1/m3 to $0. for dredging and trucking. 5. Program is highly sensitive to market rate of interest. Program is not sensitive to operations and maintenance cost (omc). flushing could be preferred as a sediment management technique when reservoirs are hydraulically small and sediment loads are relatively high (RESCON Manual. see Appendix B. If unit value of reservoir yield (P1) is doubled from $0. for dredging and trucking. This parameter has a small effect on NPV. 4. According to Basson’s and Rooseboom’s empirical flushing results and RESCON results. the NPV for all strategies increase by nearly $140 billion. 44 .

5 Cost Calculations in Economic Models For cost calculations RESCON has internal routines to estimate the unit cost of operations if the user does not know site specific values.5. 3.3. Therefore.3. 2003). Technical maximum sediment transport rate is calculated by the program CH = HI DU ⋅ Qs (3. the method giving the highest aggregate net benefit and other economical optimizations.5) where CH = unit cost of hydrosuction HI = cost of capital investment to install HSRS DU = expected life of HSRS Qs = technical maximum sediment transport rate (annual) 45 . site specific values have great importance. net present value calculations.3.1 Unit Cost of Hydrosuction Unit cost of hydrosuction is calculated using the following formula (RESCON Manual. However unit cost of operations pretty much affect the cost of operations.

0 −0.8) (3. 2003). This calculation is also based on experience as dredging.5.7) (3.9) where X= amount of sediment dredged per cycle (m3) CD = unit cost of dredging (US$/m3) 3.3.5.10) where c = unit cost of construction (US$/m3) S0 = original capacity of the reservoir (m3) 46 . IF S0>500 000 000m3  S0  Else c = 3.2 Unit Cost of Dredging Unit cost of dredging calculated using the following criteria.43 (3.62 6     10  CD(X) = 15.3.0 CD(X) = 2.5 − 0. The criteria is based on experience (RESCON Manual.3 Unit Cost of Construction Unit cost of construction is calculted using the following criteria (RESCON Manual. IF X<150 000m3 IF X>16 000 000m3 X Else CD(X) = 6.3.16/m3 (3.53LN    1000000  c=US$0. 2003).

6 Hydrosuction Removal System (HSRS) Calculations in RESCON A 9-step routine is applied for HSRS calculations in RESCON.11 47 . There are 8 types of data user should input for the program RESCON in these two pages.1~Table3. These are given in Table 3. mixture flow rate and concentration in pipe (ppm). 3.3. This routine is the calculation method proposed by Hotchkiss and Huang (1995).3. mixture velocity. Two working sheets are available in order to input the required data. It works with macros.7 Definitions of RESCON Input Parameters RESCON is an excel-based program which is written in Visual Basic programming language.3. The program calculates sediment transportation rate.

this is a ELf (m) function of gate capacity and reservoir inflow sequence.1 Reservoir Characteristics Parameter So Se Units (m3) (m3) Description Original (pre-impoundment) capacity of the reservoir Existing storage capacity of the reservoir Representative bottom width for the reservoir-Wbot (m) use the widest section of the reservoir bottom near the dam to produce worst case for criteria SSres Representative side slope for the reservoir. L h (m) (m) Reservoir length at the normal pool elevation. (m) Elevation of top water level in reservoir--use normal pool elevation. 1 Vertical to SSres Horizontal. Minimum bed elevation--this should be the riverbed elevation at the dam.Table 3. Water elevation at dam during flushing . Lower elevation will result in a more successful flushing operation. Available head--reservoir normal elevation minus river bed downstream of dam ELmax ELmin (m) 48 .

1mm.1. Min 1600. Select from: 1600 for fine loess sediments. Mean annual sediment inflow mass. 650 sediments with median size finer than 0. 300. 300 for sediments with median size larger than 0. ¥ 650.2 Water Characteristics Parameter Vin Units (m3) Description Mean annual reservoir inflow (mean annual runoff) Coefficient of Variation of Annual Run-off Cv (m3) volume. 180 for flushing with Qf < 50 m3/s with any grain size. Determine this from statistrical analysis of the annual runoff volumes T (oC) Representative reservoir water temperature Table 3.1mm.Table 3. 180 49 .35. Typical values range between 0.9 .3 Sediment Characteristics Parameter Pd Units (tonnes/m ) (metric tonnes) 3 Description Density of in-situ reservoir sediment.

Enter the number corresponding to the sediment Type 1 or 2 type category to be removed by hydrosuction dredging: 1 for medium sand and smaller. 2 for gravel. 50 . Enter "1" if otherwise.3 Sediment Characteristics (continued) Parameter Units 1 2 3 Description Is the sediment in the reservoir: (1) Highly flocculated and coarse sediment (2) Average size and consistency (3) colloidal. Enter "3" if reservoir sediments are Brune Curve No Ans 3 or 1 significantly larger than median grain size (d50) = 0.1mm or if the reservoir has been impounded for more than 10 years without sediment removal.Table 3. fine-grained sediment This parameter gives the model a guideline of how difficult it will be to remove sediments. dispersed.

2 for no. Enter the number of pipes you want to try for NP 1. Should be between 1 . This should Qf (m3/s) be calculated with reference to the actual inflows and the flushing gate capacities. This fraction of YA Between 0 and 1 yield will be released downstream of the dam in the river channel. Frequency of flushing events (whole number of years between flushing events) Assume a trial pipe diameter for hydrosuction.1. Tf N (days) (years) Duration of flushing after complete drawdown.4 Removal Parameters Parameter HP Units 1 or 2 Description Is this a hydroelectric power reservoir? Enter 1 for yes. if hydrosuction cannot remove enough sediment. D (feet) 51 .Table 3. Maximum fraction of total yield that is allowed to be used in HSRS operations.4 feet. Try 1 first. 2. Enter a decimal fraction from 0 . try 2 or 3. or 3 hydrosuction sediment removal. Representative flushing discharge. It is often possible to replace required maintenance flows with this water release.

Maximum percent of capacity loss that is allowable at any time in reservoir for Dredging.Table 3. Sustainable solutions will attempt to remove sediment before this percent of the reservoir is filled completely. Sustainable solutions will attempt to remove sediment before this percent of the reservoir is filled completely. For an existing reservoir. Maximum percent of capacity loss that is allowable at any time in reservoir for Hydrosuction.4 Removal Parameters (continued) Parameter Units Description Maximum percent of capacity loss that is allowable at any time in reservoir for Flushing. this number must be CLD (%) greater than the percentage of capacity lost already. this CLH (%) number must be greater than the percentage of capacity lost already. For an existing reservoir. For an existing reservoir. Sustainable solutions will attempt to remove sediment before this percent of the reservoir is filled completely. this number must be CLF (%) greater than the percentage of capacity lost already. 52 .

4 Removal Parameters (continued) Parameter Units Description Maximum percent of capacity loss that is allowable at any time in reservoir for Trucking.Table 3. Sustainable removal dredging will be subject to this technical constraint. The user is warned if this MD (m3) constraint is not met. For an existing reservoir. Maximum percent of accumulated sediment AST (%) removed per trucking event. Maximum amount of sediment removed per dredging event. Sustainable removal trucking will be subject to this technical constraint. but the program still calculates the NPV. 53 . Use default value unless better information is available. this number must be CLT (%) greater than the percentage of capacity lost already. Sustainable solutions will attempt to remove sediment before this percent of the reservoir is filled completely. Maximum percent of accumulated sediment ASD (%) removed per dredging event.

but the program still calculates the NPV. Use default value unless better information is available Concentration by weight of sediment removed to water removed by traditional dredging. Do not exceed this default unless you have studies for your reservoir showing different dredging expectations. The user is encouraged to replace this value with a project specific estimate.5 Economic Parameters Parameter Units Description If dam being considered is an existing dam enter E 0 or 1 0. The default value given here is a crude estimate based on original c ($/m3) reservoir storage capacity. Cw (%) Maximum of 30%. Unit Cost of Construction. 54 .4 Removal Parameters (continued) Parameter Units Description Maximum amount of sediment removed per trucking event. Table 3. If the dam is a new construction project enter 1. The user is warned if this MT (m3) constraint is not met.Table 3.

5 Economic Parameters (continued) Parameter Units Description Total Cost of Dam Construction. your total construction cost will be taken as 0. This cost is calculated as unit cost of construction times initial reservoir storage volume (C2 = So*c*E). this cost will be calculated in the above manner. Salvage Value. Unit Benefit of Reservoir Yield. 55 . This value is the cost of decommissioning minus any benefits due to dam V ($) removal. Where possible P1 ($/m3) use specific data for the project. C2 ($) If you entered E = 0 above.Table 3. enter a negative number. This could be different from discount rate "r". If no data is available refer to RESCON Manual Volume I report for guidance. if you entered E = 1. r decimal Discount rate Market interest rate that is used to calculate Mr decimal annual retirement fund. If the benefits of dam removal exceed the cost of decommissioning.

Table 3. but may have value if settled dredging slurry water is used for providing some of required yield.5 Economic Parameters (continued) Parameter Units Description Operation and Maintenance Coefficient. Unit Cost of Dredging--The user is encouraged to input her/his own estimate. enter "N/A" CD ($/m3) to instruct the program to calculate a default value of the unit cost of dredging. Should this be difficult at the pre-feasibility level. This coefficient is defined as the ratio of annual omc O&M cost to initial construction cost. This could PH ($/m3) be zero. PD ($/m3) This could be zero. Total annual O&M cost is calculated by the program as C1= omc*c* So. The calculated value is reported in Econ. but may have value if downstream released water is used for providing some of required yield. Unit value of water released downstream of dam in river by hydrosuction operations. 56 . Unit value of water used in dredging operations. Results& Conclusion Page.

5 Economic Parameters (continued) Parameter Units Description Unit Cost of Trucking--The user is encouraged CT ($/m3) to input her/his own estimate.Table 3. the default value is recommended.6 Flushing Benefits Parameters Parameter Units Description The fraction of Run-of-River benefits available s1 decimal in the year flushing occurs (s1 ranges from 0 to 1). 57 . s2 decimal The fraction of storage benefits available in the year flushing occurs (s2 ranges from 0 to1). Should this be difficult at the pre-feasibility level. Table 3.

8 Environmental Parameters (Optional) Safeguard Ratings for Each Sediment Management Strategy No impact and potential benefits Minor impact Moderate impact Significant impact Safeguard Ratings 1 2 3 4 58 .Table 3. Table 3.7 Capital Investment Parameters Parameter Units Description Cost of capital investment required for FI $ implementing flushing measures. Cost of capital investment to install HI $ Hydrosuction Sediment-Removal Systems (HSRS). DU Years The expected life of HSRS. The cost entered will be incurred when flushing is first practiced.

Interpretation No impact and potential benefits Minor impact Moderate impact Significant impact Policy Level A B C D Table 3.9 Classification of Safeguard Policy Criteria Safeguard Policy Criteria 6 7 to 11. with no 3's 12 to 15 or at least one 3 16 or higher. 59 . “N/A” is written for some of the strategies in this table.11. This means there is no technique used in this option.10 Safeguard Policy Criteria Policy Level Maximum allowable environmental and social damage (A to D) D Estimate of environmental and social impact levels can be seen in Table 3. or at least 4.Table 3.

11 Estimate of Environmental and Social Impact Levels Estimated Environmental & Social Impact Levels (Enter 1 to 4) Technique Natural Habitats Human Uses Possible Strategies Transboundary Cultural Assets Resettlement TOTAL 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Indigenous Non-sustainable (Decommission) with No Removal Non-sustainable (Decommission) with Partial Removal Non-sustainable (Runof-River) with No Removal Non-sustainable (Runof-River) with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Flushing HSRS Dredging Trucking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HSRS 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 HSRS 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 60 Impacts Peoples .Table 3.

RESCON should be used as a preliminary tool. Its results should be evaluated carefully with caution. It gives some cautions but gives the responsibility of evaluating outcomes of these two methods to the user since RESCON assumes that these two methods are always feasible. NPV (Net Present Value) is the discounted value of Aggregate Net Benefit to present. Aggregate Net Benefit is the benefits taken from dam minus any kind of expenses including installation of HSRS equipment of construction of new channels for flushing operations over entire life of the dam. It is advised by RESCON team that the program should be used for a number of isolated reservoirs rather than a single reservoir. This excel based program determines the engineering feasibility and economical values of sediment management techniques and rank them. 61 . However.3.8 Precautions Using RESCON Program RESCON does not make an analysis about the feasibility of dredging and trucking. The program makes economical optimization for each of the sediment removal technique and comparison with each other becomes possible in this way. Site specific data are crucial.3. The final aim of the program is to select the sediment management technique which is technically feasible and having the maximum net benefit. The program can be used for existing dams as well as new dams. the physical applicability of these methods and placement of the removed sediment is a big problem.

If decommissioning is the best solution an annual retirement fund is calculated by the program. where reservoir fills with sediment in finite time. This solution divides into two: a) The dam is decommissioned at an optimally determined time allowing salvage value (= cost of decommissioning minus any benefits due to decommissioning) to be collected at this time. Since removed sediment is also a big problem for neighborhood of the dam or for the next dam. This creates a chance to compare outcomes of each technique. For sustainable solutions NPV is calculated as well as for runof-river option. RESCON is a program to be used for a single isolated reservoir and using RESCON for systems of reservoirs (reservoirs following each other) may not give good results. where reservoir capacity can be maintained at original or a lower capacity. Since application of flushing or HSRS changes the amount of sediment inflowing to next reservoir. Environmental results are also important even if a sediment removal technique leads to a sustainable solution. 2) NON-SUSTAINABLE. 2003): 1) SUSTAINABLE.Solution of the program comes to user in two forms (RESCON Manual. This lowers economic life of the dam 62 . or b) The dam is maintained as a “run-of-river” project even after the reservoir is silted.

width of the reservoir may not be sufficient to get a successful flushing operation. etc. considering Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System as an option.1 Flushing Results Although flushing is feasible and evacuating incoming sediment successfully in RESCON results. In the following subsections hints about each technique are presented.9. respectively. about frequencies of the method. in order RESCON to be used for systems of reservoirs modifications should be made to the program code (RESCON Manual Volume I. 3. However. The capacities of pipes are not too high especially for large dams.9. As a result of this HSRS is a suitable method for small 63 . Therefore.2 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Results The number of pipes and diameter of pipes used in RESCON solution for HSRS are limited to 3 and 4 feet. amount of incoming sediment should be evaluated carefully.9 Important Points for Evaluating RESCON Results After calculations RESCON gives the method having the highest aggregate net benefit. 2003).3. 3. 3. partial removal options.whose inflowing sediment is higher than before.3. Therefore. long term capacity. caution should be exercised when using these results since from practical or economical point of view these results may be impossible.3. This results in evacuating less amount of sediment than planned.

However. which is required to carry annual incoming sediment. this function gives acceptable values if Wt/MAR ratio is higher than 0. water price and yield may affect the method which has the highest aggregate net benefit. In a long reservoir application of HSRS may not be feasible.3 Dredging and Trucking Results The highest amount of sediment removed by dredging operation in the world is 11 000 000 tons (RESCON Manual Volume I.3. If a dam has a height more than 30 m cost of dredging should be revised manually. Yield is important because in economic calculations. However..4 Gould’s Gamma Function This function is used to calculate reservoir yield (water available for use). Another constraint about HSRS is the length of reservoir. In RESCON it is assumed for dredging that reservoir depth is less than 30 m.3. As for trucking.4 where Wt is the water yield and MAR is the mean annual runoff. October 1997) is used. there is a physical capacity of trucks and this number of loads may not be physically possible. Therefore. Peoria. Illinois. If 0. information of trucks given in Caterpillar Performance Handbook ( 28th Edition.9.reservoirs or partial removal around water intakes or in similar places. USA.9. the user 64 . is calculated for each type of truck. Number of loads .4. 2003). 3.2<Wt/MAR<0. 3. CAT Publication by Caterpillar Inc. the results exceeding this value are not physically possible.

Wt/MAR values less than 0.should be careful. 65 .2 are not acceptable (RESCON Manual Volume I. 2003).

4.1 Sediment Information in State Hydraulic Works (DSI) In order to use RESCON we need site-specific data. Large seasonal flows also threat watershed and may increase sedimentation.CHAPTER 4 REVIEW OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION IN TURKEY 4. Practiced sediment removal operations are only for clearing around water intake structures or similar local operations.1 General In Turkey. Obtaining data were a tough work since there is not any archive having all measurements taken for 66 . There is no sediment removal operation done in a large scale in any reservoir. such as geometrical data of dam and reservoir. Green cover in Turkey is not enough to prevent sediment coming into reservoirs. annual water inflow. There are some studies done by State Hydraulic Works but they are generally related to sediment problem in local places and written to advise sediment prevention ways for that region.2 Data Collection 4. sediment data. sediment studies related to sustainability are quite a few. Turkey is a country having vary wide areas subject to erosion.2.

2. Operation and Maintenance Department is the department which is in charge of evaluating sediment data. Investigation and Planning Department is the department responsible for gathering sediment information.1. 4. quality of water and pollution observations by installing observation stations on rivers. DSI works in cooperation with State Meteorological Works Agency and Electrical Survey Agency (EIE). reliable data should be obtained. Incorrect measurements are highlighted for easy inspection. Field related maps are prepared by Mapping Section and given to Operation and Maintenance Department.1 DSI Investigation and Planning Department General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works Investigation and Planning Department carries out its duties and responsibilities under specified plans. At the end of these visits it is understood that sediment measurements had been taken for some of the dams in Turkey (totally 58 dams). In order to carry observation projects properly. Some brief information shall be given here to introduce these departments and their duties. Besides these. Therefore. This situation can be seen in Table D. all the departments in General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works related to sediment were visited and sediment information was requested.1.discharge and sediment. in lake observation stations level measurements 67 . DSI provides oportunity for discharge. Some of the measurements are not reliable and some of them are reliable. Because for some of the reservoirs capacity value is larger than previous capacity value which is impossible without a sediment removal operation. These maps are evaluated by this department and how much sediment had been accumulated between two measurements is calculated. sediment.

General Directorate of Land Registry and 68 . in meteorological stations rainfall. 4. Success of these works is related to economy. 392 meteorological observation stations and 115 snow observation stations are under operation. Precautionary measures are taken by DSI in order to prevent erosion and save aggricultural areas from sediment which is carried by water or wind. Using results of investigations pre-examination and planning reports are prepared by Erosion and Control Section of Investigation and Planning Department. evaporation. financing is a big obstacle for these services. temperature.2 DSI Mapping Section Mapping Section of Investigation and Planning Department of DSI makes the following duties: • • • • Preparing of all kind and various topographical maps Cross section.2.1. According to records by the end of 2002. profile works and project application Control of maps Technical mapping archive 1/5000 or larger scaled photogrammetric maps are prepared in coordination with General Command of Mapping. humidity and similar meteorological observations are made. 1139 stream gaging stations.are taken. Due to conditions of the country. 115 reservoir observation stations.

3 DSI Operation and Maintenance Department The mission of Operation and Maintenance Department is to operate and maintain the facilities related to irrigation. weekly or monthly). 4. flood protection and flood control developed by DSI. Dead volume of a reservoir is calculated assuming a 50 year economic life for a dam. sediment data of the dams or water structures previously constructed in that region are used with some approximation. DSI requests for sediment data from EIE. Annual sediment yield obtained for that dam is multiplied by 50 in order to 69 . If previously taken sediment measurement data are not available. run-off river power plants. The maps regarding to dam reservoirs are given to Operation and Maintenance Department in order to be evaluated.4 Sediment Measurement Studies of DSI When a dam is to be constructed. if approximation is also not possible. Finally. Because precision of sediment yield is may be important for small structures like weirs. approximate value for sediment yield is assumed using erosion or sediment yield maps. Monitoring the performance of the facilities and collecting assesment of all statistical data related to reservoir are the responsibilities of this department.2. If there is no gauging station sediment measurements are taken by DSI in that region in a frequency satisfying precision of sediment yield for a period (it may be daily. 4.2. etc. if EIE has gauging station in that region or at neighbourhood.1.Cadastre in compliance with the laws.1.

These are 1.D-43 type of samplers are used for depth integration method. depth integration method is used by DSI.obtain volume of sediment which would deposit in 50 years. US.DH-48.P-46R type of samplers are used for point integration method and US. Point Integration Method 3. Another conclusion is distribution of sediment within the reservoir.P-46 and US. As a result of her study. Depth Integration Method Most of the time the third one. In dead volume calculation it is assumed by DSI 70 . This calculated volume is allocated as dead volume for that dam. studied real sediment distribution in a reservoir based on hydrographic surveys using Area Increment Method and Empirical Area Reduction Method. It is proposed that this curve can be used for other reservoirs in Turkey with an adequate accuracy. Point Sampling Method 2. 2005). It obtains vertical variation of suspended sediment concentration at a river section (DSI report. it was obtained that previously stated sediment yields are underestimated. There are 3 sampling methods practiced by DSI. In this work real sediment distribution has been made for 16 dams of Turkey. For suspended sediment sampling US. Applicability of these methods for Turkish reservoirs are tested and draingage area versus mean annual sediment inflow curve is plotted.D-49 and US. Yalçınkaya (1991).

that sediment deposits only in dead volume but this study shows that sediment deposits not only in dead volume but also in active volume. comparison between resurvey data and actual measurements are explained in detail. This means dead volume calculations done by DSI are not correct. Unit weight of sediment becomes bigger as time goes by and volume occupied by sediment becomes smaller resulting in a longer economical life. Logic in this method is the assumption that capacity of minimum elevation cannot be depleted before that of maximum elevation. sediment yield calculations. a method for estimating life of a dam is presented. In this study level-capacity values . By using the result of such a work a water management policy can be prepared before dam construction in order to extend life of dam and decreasing the harmful environmental effects created by dam construction. The first 71 . devices used for sediment measurements. In the study of Yalçınkaya (1991) sediment measurements of DSI. This situation leads DSI to miscalculate economical life of a dam. If this method is used for an existing reservoir it enables the engineers in charge to select a proper sediment removal technique minimizing harmful removal effects and maximizing net benefits. Another important point in this study is related to unit weight of sediment. In the study of Yılmaz (2003). of dam are used to foretell the date at which the use of that dam is not possible. calculation of dead volume of a dam. taken at different dates. Method is based on plotting simple graphs of capacity versus time for different elevations and finding the time when half of the capacity of that dam is depleted. In order to use the method sediment measurement data at different times for different elevations are crucial.

Capacity vs. Capacity and Trap efficiency values are updated for each period 5.1.capacity measurement which is original capacity of a dam is accepted as the most correct one. It can be seen from this graph that half life of Çubuk I Dam is 68 years. Trap efficiency is calculated using the capacity value at the middle of the period between first and last measurement with the assumption that trap efficiency has a characteristic value approximately at the middle of the period 3. The step by step procedure in this method is as follows: 1. Time graphs are plotted for different elevations of the reservoir 6. The difference of capacity between last and first measurement is calculated and divided by difference in years to find out sediment deposited 2. Half life of the reservoir is read from graph A sample graph for Çubuk I Dam is shown in Figure 4. Observed sediment yield is divided by the trap efficiency to find out sediment yield of that catchment 4. 72 .

1 Half Life Calculation of Cubuk I Dam (Yılmaz. 2003) .73 Capacities in hm3 Figure 4.

This has mainly two reasons: First reason is that sediment samples are not taken at every tributary joining to a reservoir. Second reason is change in calculated amount of sediment even if at different parts of a river section. However.2. Sediment discharge value is a bit unreliable 74 .4. after examining this yearbook it was concluded that taken measurements may not be enough to predict annual sediment inflow for every reservoir in Turkey. Looking at this table it can be concluded that in order to predict sediment inflow to a reservoir sediment measurements should be done at the dam site before construction. For example Table 4. Some important duties of EIE are as follows.1 General EIE (Electrical Survey Agency) is the second biggest institution in Turkey studying on sediment. Yearbooks on water quality were published in 1989 and 1996.2.1 shows calculated amount of sediment at different stations operated by EIE. These measurements were published as yearbook titled as “Suspended Sediment Data and Sediment Transport Amount for Surface Waters in Turkey” in 1982.2. 1987. By this way sediment inflow can be predicted as much as possible. • • • • Hydrological studies Geotechnical researches Engineering services for dams and HEPPs Design studies are executed for dams and HEPPs Discharge and sediment measurements are taken by this agency. 1993 and 2000.2 Sediment Studies of Electrical Survey Agency (EIE) 4.

The data given by EIE and brief explanation about this data shall be given in the following section. if missing data of these yearbooks are excluded these yearbooks are the sources that are containing the largest amount of information about sediment measurements in Turkey. If the sample is taken by entering into the river US. Besides sediment coming from sides of reservoir throughout its life is not taken into consideration in these measurements because stations are located before reservoir entrance.2. 75 .1 Calculated Sediment Yields of Different Stations of EIE Station No 2315 2316 2320 2322 2325 River/Creek Name Çoruh R.because this value is dependent on location as well as time. However. Çoruh R. Oltu Suyu Catchment Area (km2) 17 835 5 514 4 767 16 507 1 800 Sediment Yield (tons/year/km2) 396 107 63 349 256 Sediment (tons/year) 10 594 000 885 000 450 000 8 640 000 4 608 000 Observation Years 1967-1990 1970-1990 1971-1990 1984-1990 1977-1990 4.2. Table 4. Since sediment sampling has been made at one section once a month this value is not enough for precise annual sediment inflow prediction.D-49 type of bottle is used. If teleferic or cren is used US. Çoruh R.DH-48 type of bottle is used. Çoruh R.2 Sediment Sampling of EIE Sample is taken by three different types of tools.

As a result of analysis and calculations following sediment information is given in the yearbook of EIE for every sediment measurement station: • • • • • • • • • • Gross rain area(km2) Net rain area(km2) Average sediment amount(Long-time average.1) where QR QS CS = Sediment Discharge (tons/day) = Water Discharge (m3/s) = Sediment Concentration (ppm) (mg/l) 76 .0864QS C S (4. tons/year) Sediment yield of catchment(tons/year/km2) Average sand percentage(%) Net sample weight(gr) Net sediment weight(gr) Sand weight(gr) Clay+Silt weight(gr) Amount of sediment(tons/day) Amount of sediment is calculated in the yearbook of EIE using the following equation: QR = 0.

1 and equation 4. There are two sections of EIE working on sediment.4 Duties of Sediment Investigation and Laboratory Section • Makes required laboratory analysis of sediment samples taken from sediment observation stations 77 . In order to calculate total sediment load for a sediment measurement station 10-50% of suspended sediment is added according to flow properties of the river on which station is founded.2.2. These are: • • Soil and Erosion Section Sediment Investigation and Laboratory Section 4.2.2) Calculated sediment amount using equation 4.3 Duties of Soil and Erosion Section • Makes erosion investigation and researches related to sediment movement. sediment accumulation and river bed movements required for plannings and projects • Makes erosion classification in order to determine amount of erosion about reservoir catchments 4.Sediment concentration (C) in equation 4.1 is calculated using equation 4.2 is the amount of suspended sediment.2.2. C= Sediment Weight (Total Weight of Sand + Clay + Silt ) x10 6 Sample Weight (Weight of Water + Sediment ) (4.

2.06%/kW 78 .0% 0.3 Economical Parameters for Turkey Economical parameters for Turkey are obtained by consulting Koyuncu (2005).25-$0.• Makes water quality analysis taken from discharge observation stations and publishes results • Evaluates sediment movement observations and publishes results 4. As a result of personal communication values given in Table 4.0% 8.2 are obtained.20-$0.2 Cost Calculation Data for Turkey Parameter Discount Rate Type Hydroelectric Power Dam Irrigation Dam Domestic Water Supply Market Interest Rate Unit Benefit of Reservoir Yield Irrigation Dam Domestic Water Supply Salvage Value $0.30 $0.40 Varies (Negative or Positive) Hydroelectric Power Dam Value 9.5% 5. Table 4.0% 3.

2 Economical Parameters for Turkey (continued) Parameter Unit Value of Water Used in Dredging Operations Dredging Trucking Type Value 0.62 $/m3 of sediment not rantable 3 000 $/m (with concrete lining) 2 000 $/m (without lining) If a new channel is required for flushing 3m-diameter tunnel If bottom outlet is to be used for flushing Pipe for HSRS with 4ft of diameter The Expected Life of HSRS $1 000 (workmanship included) 150 $/m Up to 10 years 79 .02-0.85 $/m3 of sediment 2.0 $/m3 of sediment 1km of distance 5km of distance 10km of distance more than 10km 0.05 $/m3 3.83 $/m3 of sediment 1.Table 4.

3 Case Studies from Turkey Four dams have been selected for this study. Borcka Dam and Ivriz Dam. deposited sediment in the reservoir is clayey silt and silt. Selection criteria for case studies are: • • There are some preliminary studies They have relatively small volumes (such as Cubuk I Dam which has a volume of 7 100 000 m3) • • Annual sediment and water inflow are known from previous studies They are quite isolated reservoirs 4. Its construction was started in 1930 and completed in 1936. 1986).2). It is a concrete gravity dam with a height of 25 m from river bed.3. Combined discharge capacity of spillway and bottom outlet is 227 m3/s and capacity of bottom outlet is 40 m3/s. on Cubuk creek (Figure 4.4. Bayındır Dam.1 hm3 at normal reservoir level. It has a reservoir capacity of 7.1 Cubuk I Dam Çubuk I Dam is located on 12 km north of Ankara. According to size. There is no power unit installed in the dam. according composition calcerous sandy silt and calcerous clay (Kılıç. Purpose of the dam is domestic and industrial water supply to the city of Ankara and flood control. Due to siltation Çubuk I Dam is used only for recreational purposes at present. Initial capacity of the reservoir is smaller than annual discharge of watershed Yılmaz (2003). These dams are Cubuk I Dam. 80 .

3.55 hm3 according to General Directory of State Hydraulic Works.72 hm3 according to Kılıç (1984) and 3.2 Location of Cubuk I and Bayındır Dams 81 .Catchment area has low green cover. In this study calculation of Yılmaz (2003) has been taken as a basis and capacity loss has been taken as 50%. Sediment deposition between 1936 and 1983 is 5. User input for Cubuk I dam is shown in Table 4. Figure 4. Operation and Maintenance Department.

0 907.00 2.08 0. 1991) Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkey.03 0.62 Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) 81 000 Yılmaz (2003) 82 .6 895 Yılmaz (2003) Yılmaz (2003) Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkey.1 Cubuk I Dam RESCON User Input Table 4.3 Cubuk I Input Data Parameter S0 Se Wbot SSres Elmax Elmin Elf m m m Unit Value Source Reservoir Geometry m3 m3 m 7 100 000 3 550 000 57. 1991) Dams in Turkey (1991) Dams in Turkey (1991) Assumed due to not knowing bottom outlet sill elevation L m 6 500 Measured from map Water Characteristics Vin m 3 65 500 000 Yılmaz (2003) Sediment Characteristics Min metric tonnes Removal Parameters Qf m3/s 27 Bottom outlet rating curve for Elf=895m (Dams in Turkey.0 1.085 3.35 0.6 882.4.1.3. 1991) Economic Parameters r Mr P1 omc CD CT decimal decimal $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 0.

4 detailed results for sustainable and nonsustainable solutions can be seen. 4. See Partial Removal with HSRS N/A 198 762 340 Partial Removal with HSRS is HSRS technically infeasible. Table 4.3. their aggregate net present values and the strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit as can be seen in Table 4.4 Economic Results for Cubuk I Dam Possible Strategies Do nothing Nonsustainable (Decommissioning) with Partial Removal Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with No Removal Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Technique N/A Aggregate Net Present Value 198 837 392 Partial Removal with HSRS is HSRS technically infeasible.For definitions of parameters see section 3.8. In Table 4.4.2 Evaluation of Cubuk I Dam RESCON Results As a result of economical optimizations RESCON gives information about sustainable and nonsustainable solutions.1. See Partial Removal with HSRS Flushing HSRS Dredging Trucking 196 870 145 209 857 262 214 531 501 206 129 328 83 .3. Analysis show that sustainable solution can be obtained for all of the strategies.

In Table 4.4 “N/A” means that there is no technique used in that option such as HSRS. Nonsustainable solution with partial removal using HSRS is technically infeasible. Aggregate Net Present Value is the discounted value of the money which can be gained from this reservoir over entire life of the dam.

Information on economic conclusion is given Table 4.5. In Table 4.5 information about the strategy yielding highest aggregate net benefit is given. This information includes whether the strategy is sustainable or nonsustainable, name of the strategy and its aggregate net benefit.

Table 4.5 Economic Conclusion for Cubuk I Dam
Strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: Technique yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: The highest aggregate net benefit is: $ Sustainable Dredging 2.145E+08

Detailed results of sustainable and nonsustainable solutions are given in Table 4.6, Table 4.7, Table 4.8, Table 4.9, Table 4.10 and Table 4.11.

In Table 4.6, number of years until partial removal option with HSRS is practiced is given. For Cubuk I Dam nonsustainable solution with partial removal using HSRS is not technically feasible. Therefore “Not applicable” is written for this part. If this would be feasible it would indicate the number of years between the solution time and first HSRS operation time. Second information is number of years until retirement for decommission with no removal option which is 68 years. This means using current information of the 84

dam solution has been obtained and if no sediment removal operation is carried out 68 years later 100% capacity of the dam will be depleted. Third information is number of years until retirement for decommission with partial removal using HSRS. “Not applicable” is written for this part since partial removal with HSRS is technically infeasible. The next information is the reservoir capacity at retirement time for decommission with no removal option and with partial removal using HSRS.

Table 4.6 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Cubuk I Dam
# of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: # of years until retirement for Decommission-with no Removal Option: # of years until retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option with HSRS: Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission-with No Removal Option: Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option with HSRS: Not applicable m3 37 663 m3 Not applicable years Not applicable 68 years years

A retirement fund is calculated by the program for nonsustainable solutions. This annual fund is allocated for future generations. Amount of this fund is given in Table 4.7.

85

Table 4.7 Annual Fund Results for Cubuk I Dam
Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Decommission Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Partial Removal with HSRS Not applicable $ 20 887 $

For nonsustainable solution with run-of-river, information is given Table 4.8. First information in Table 4.8 is number of years until partial removal option with HSRS is practiced. Since HSRS is technically infeasible “Not applicable” is written. Second information is number of years until dam is silted for run-ofriver with no removal option which is 69 years. This number is different from that of decommission, which is 68 years. This is because two different routines are used for the solutions. Third information is approximate number of years until dam is silted for run-of-river with partial removal option. Since HSRS is technically infeasible “Not applicable” is written.

Table 4.8 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Cubuk I Dam
# of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with No Removal Option: Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with Partial Removal Option: Not applicable years Not applicable 69 years years

86

Long term capacity ratios of each technique is given in Table 4.9. Long term capacity is the sustainable capacity for a reservoir.

Table 4.9 Long Term Capacity Values for Cubuk I Dam
Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 3 115 443 3 550 000 5 894 272 6 628 194 m3 m3 m3 m3

In Table 4.10 number of years until the dam is sustained at long term capacity is given for each technique. This number actually indicates the length of phase I for a sediment removal option. For dredging “right now” is written which means there is no phase I and dredging operation should be made immediately.

Table 4. 10 Phase I Lengths for Cubuk I Dam
Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Flushing Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for HSRS Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Dredging Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Trucking 6 years Right now years 1 years 10 years

Number of flushing events in phase I is given in Table 4.11. This number is different from that in phase II.

87

Table 4. often the first cycle is different from remaining cycles.11 # of Flushing Events in Phase I. Note that if flushing frequency is reported it is not necessarily the same as the frequency input by the user as variable “N”: rather it is the economically optimal flushing frequency. It includes frequency of removal event if the given sustainable outcome had the highest aggregate net benefit. Cubuk I Dam Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 0 times Technical conclusions based on economics are given in Table 4.12 Frequency of Removal for Cubuk I Dam Frequency of Removal (years) Not applicable Not applicable No Flushing occurs 1 1 Right now (No Cycle) 1 6 66 Strategy Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Technique HSRS HSRS Flushing Flushing HSRS Dredging Dredging Trucking Trucking Cycle/Phase Annual cycle Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II 88 .12. The cycle is the number of years between removal events. Table 4. depending on whether the reservoir is new or existing or what percent of reservoir is allowed to fill before event occurs.

These values are optimal values economically.Table 4. 2003). Note that when removal occurs. Note that these values are likely to be only approximate of discrete step sizes and possible rounding errors (RESCON Manual.13 indicates quantity of sediment removal per event if the given sustainable outcome had the highest aggregate net benefit. Table 4. 89 .14. CLD and CLT) at the time removal event occurs are indicated in Table 4.13 Sediment Removed per Event for Cubuk I Dam Sediment Removed (m3) Not applicable Not applicable 0 52 423 52 423 2 411 455 52 423 N/A 3 459 914 Strategy Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Technique HSRS HSRS Flushing Flushing HSRS Dredging Dredging Trucking Trucking Cycle/Phase Annual cycle Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Values for fraction of accumulated sediment removed (ASD or AST) and fraction of reservoir capacity lost (CLF. not physically. the same quantity is removed after each cycle.

16 indicates the number of truck loads required to complete sustainable sediment trucking removal option. 90 . material removed is moist sediment (negligible water) 300 000 ppm 359 ppm 19 417 ppm Table 4. Table 4.15 Technical Comments for Cubuk I Dam Average expected concentration of sediment to water flushed per flushing event: Average expected concentration of sediment to water released downstream of dam per hydrosuction event: Average expected concentration of sediment to water removed from reservoir per dredging event: Note: Because reservoir is dewatered prior to a trucking event and river is diverted during a trucking event.14 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT. Cubuk I Dam Technique Flushing(Phase I) Flushing(Phase II) HSRS Dredging(Phase I) Dredging(Phase II) Trucking(Phase I) Trucking(Phase II) ASD/AST(%) N/A 1 1 68 4 N/A 89 55 50 50 CLF/CLD/CLT 57 Information about concentration of sediment to water leaving reservoir is given in Table 4.15 for each technique.Table 4.16 should be examined carefully since indicated number of truck loads may not be accomodated at dam site in the time allowed (the maximum is one year). Table 4.

2 18.Table 4.16 Number of Truck Loads* Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Trucking Removal Option.0 26.0 31. 91 .17. It should be kept in mind that dredging calculation is made assuming dredging mixture velocity through pipe is 5 m/s. Cubuk I Dam Number of Loads (Phase I) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Number of Loads (Phase II) 213 575 192 217 133 074 111 610 82 183 60 700 47 396 36 041 Truck Model Number 769D 771D 773D 775D 777D 785B 789B 793C m3/Truck Load 16. 28. Caterpillar Performance Handbook. To remove more sediment. 2003).0 96. October 1997.. USA. CAT Publication by Caterpillar Inc.0 *1997. Peoria.0 73. Based on this gross estimate of sediment removal capability. the number of dredges to remove enough sediment annually to keep the reservoir sustainable is shown in Table 4. Illinois.1 57. Note that the approximated removal per dredge is very crude.0 42. site specific analysis must be done to confirm volume of sediment removal per dredge per year (RESCON Manual. but this would increase the overall cost of the project. Ed. additional dredges could possibly be installed on a reservoir.17. The highest sediment volume removal by dredging that can be expected from typical system over a year is approximately 11 Mm3. Number of dredges required to remove the optimally determined removed sediment is shown in Table 4.

Partial removal with HSRS is not applicable due 92 .18 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Cubuk I Dam Phase I Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) 3. All the strategies have yielded sustainable solution for Cubuk I dam.00 After presenting the detailed RESCON results for Cubuk I Dam comments for these results can be given. There is no phase I for dredging which means an immediate dredging operation is required.diameter of dredge pipe is 0. Table 4.00 1.18. dam height is less than 30 m. of Dredges (Phase I) 1 No. of Dredges (Phase II) 1 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for dredging and HSRS is given in Table 4. Long term capacity for dredging is 5 894 272 m3 (83% of the original capacity) and this capacity is quite a high capacity.17 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Dredging Removal Option. Dredging is the method having the highest aggregate net benefit. reservoir length less than 4 km. Cubuk I Dam Volume Removed per Dredge (m3/Dredge) 11 000 000 No. Table 4.8 m.77 Phase II 3. and dredge runs 70% of the time.

It is an earthfill dam with the purpose of domestic and industrial water supply.2 Bayındır Dam Bayındır Dam is located on 12 km southeast of Ankara. it was designed for taking water from reservoir not sediment. Depth of the dam is less than 30 m which is a limit for dredging calculations of RESCON. It has an elevation of 30 m from river bed. 1991) that this bottom outlet can not be used for sediment evacuation. if required studies for removing sediment from the reservoir would be done.to infeasibility.9 hm3. 4. Therefore total removal with HSRS or removal of sediment with other methods should be considered.2). Water for domestic use has not being taken from Bayındır Dam since 2003. It can be seen understood from bottom outlet drawings of Cubuk I dam (Dams in Turkey. Its initial storage capacity is 7. Because. the area surrounding the reservoir is used for recreational purposes. on the Bayındır stream (Figure 4. A 93 .3. Çubuk I Dam is now out of service because of siltation. which is less than 30%.0 hm3 and annual discharge of watershed is 3. The construction of the dam was started in 1962 and completed in 1965. Since original capacity is approximately 9% of the annual runoff. For flushing present condition of bottom outlets should be investigated for applicability of flushing. Length of the reservoir is also not quite long for the application of HSRS. water required for flushing is available. Besides this. However. Under the light of these comments if a study for the properties and locations of sediment within the reservoir is done Cubuk I dam is still beneficial. Since it is a dam for domestic&industrial water supply its water can not be used now due to health reasons.

1 Evaluation of Bayındır Dam RESCON Results For Bayındır Dam all the strategies have yielded sustainable results. the strategy having the highest aggregate net benefit is doing nothing. Green cover around the reservoir is not enough for preventing large amount of sediment from inflowing to the reservoir. All of them are quite high capacities.power plant is not installed in the dam.3. 5 122 034 m3 (73. Frequency of removal for trucking in phase I is 2 years and for phase II that is 14 years. all the sustainable solutions have negative aggregate net present value. 2 years of frequency for phase I 94 . The dam has a long life even if the sediment within the reservoir is not removed (76 years of half life). Half life of the dam has been calculated by Yılmaz (2003) as 73 years.11. Sediment removed per cycle in phase I is “N/A” in Table E. Long term capacities for HSRS. This frequencies are quite good from physical application point of view.17%) and 5 717 487 m3 (81. dredging and trucking are 5 124 196 m3 (73. As a result of this. Bayındır Dam has a long life because annually deposited sediment is low (63 500 tonnes/year).2%). removing sediment from this reservoir will not result in beneficial results. Therefore result of this study and that of Yılmaz (2003) are in good aggreement.68%).2. Dredging also provides a high capacity without disturbing the service. This is normal because existing capacity of the reservoir (5 170 000 m3) is very close to the long term capacity (5 122 034 m3). It has a removal frequency of 2 years for phase I and 1 year for phase II. However. respectively. For user input and RESCON results of Bayındır Dam is given in Appendix E. 4. This means that Bayındır Dam is not an economically feasible dam. Therefore.

Construction of Borcka dam was started in 1998. It is an eartfill dam with a reservoir capacity of 419 hm3. 95 . it has a low long term capacity.means 2 years later phase I will be completed and phase II will begin. All the investment is useless because flushing operation for Bayındır dam requires that 82% of capacity loss for economical reasons.3 Borcka Dam Borcka Dam is the dam with highest reservoir capacity in this study. Borcka Dam is being constructed at the time of this study. Height of the dam from river bed is 86 m. a new tunnel should be drilled or existing derivation tunnel should be opened. It has a removal frequency of 2 years for phase I. This also means 2 years later phase I for trucking will be completed and phase II will begin.10. As for flushing. Since. In Table E. For physical application it may be required to allocate quite an amount of money. There is green cover around the reservoir but sediment inflow to the reservoir is high according to preparation report of Borcka Dam which was prepared by contractor company. Artvin (Figure 4. All these means that flushing should not be thought as a sediment removal alternative. This project is called the Coruh Project and includes construction of 14 dams.3. It is a part of series of dams to be constructed on the Coruh River. It is in Borcka district. Purpose of the dam is energy production and installed power capacity is 300 MW.3). “N/A” is written for sediment removed per trucking event. 4. Trucking has similar situation with dredging.

Figure 4. dredging equipment allowing dredging operation up to 150 m depth is available (Roovers. However. Borcka dam has height of 86 m from river bed. 1989).3 Location of Borcka Dam 4. there is an important point here. Maximum dredging height in RESCON solution is 30 m.1 Evaluation of Borcka Dam RESCON Results All the strategies except HSRS have yielded sustainable solutions with positive aggregate net present value. Total removal with HSRS is not possible because maximum sediment evacuation capacity of HSRS solution (29 404 m3) is very low compared to 96 . This means net benefit calculated by RESCON should be revised. However. Dredging has the highest aggregate net benefit.3. this requires a proffessional study which is not our concern.3. In market.

As a result. respectively. 8 years and 12 years. Long term capacities for flushing. Since. sediment removal policy for Borcka Dam should be prepared since it has a half life of 32 years. This is not an acceptable situation. Using these comparisons. dredging and trucking are 3 years. For trucking reservoir should be emptied. On the other hand. respectively. trucking requires 10 years of frequency of removal for phase II.4%) and 399 229 929 m3 (95. However. Increasing frequency of trucking events will reduce this amount but lower frequencies for trucking could not be accepted especially for an energy dam like Borcka. In Phase II. frequency of removal for flushing. dredging and trucking are 193 200 773 m3 (46. This amount is logical because a dredging equipment has an annual sediment removal capacity of 11 000 000 m3 normally. 366 363 144 m3 (87. This amount is quite big for a trucking event.3%). Under the light of this conclusions flushing is economically the best solution. It requires no interruption in service. From physical applicability point of view trucking should be investigated more deeply. it is required to remove 65 733 570 m3 of sediment for one trucking event in phase II. flushing and dredging requires annual removal operation. Sediment amount removed per dredging event is 6 573 357 m3.1%).annual sediment deposition (7 779 020 m3). it can be concluded that dredging and trucking seems to be best options. this is an energy dam and could not possibly be emptied for a long time. 97 . For Phase I.

Main purpose of the dam is irrigation and flood control.4.4 Location of Ivriz Dam 98 . The capacity of the dam is 80 hm3 and height from river bed is 65 m. There is no sediment measurement done by State Hydraulic Works and other governmental or private institutions. In this work sediment inflow calculations have been made using GIS (Geographic Information System) technology and USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation). In the area surrounding the reservoir has no green cover. Konya (Figure 4. Figure 4. Construction of the dam was completed in 1993. The dam has a big siltation problem.4 Ivriz Dam Ivriz Dam is located on 10km southeast of Ereğli.4).3. A research has been carried out by Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) presenting possible methods to prevent sediment inflow and their cost for Ivriz dam.

4. maximum capacity loss is 8% of the total capacity. respectively. Therefore. 2002 is the year at which the report of Dönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) was prepared and 1993 is the construction completion year. In report of Dönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) depletion of 8% capacity was 26 years. Capacity of HSRS (3 926 m3/year) is less than annual sediment inflow (252 000 m3/year). Dredging and trucking are possible solutions for Ivriz dam.2%). 26 years of time also indicates the length of phase I. Sediment removed in phase I is “N/A” for dredging and trucking since long term capacity has already been exceeded for dredging and trucking. As for trucking sediment removed per trucking event is 5 126 398 m3. For phase II dredging requires annual operation and trucking requires removal operation every 21 years. However.4. Long term capacities for dredging and trucking are 73 653 030 m3 (92. This amount of sediment can be trucked if 99 . “Do nothing” option has the highest aggregate net benefit. The two results are close enough. Total number of years from construction is 26+(2002-1993)=35 years. In order flushing to be feasible 57% capacity loss is required but this is not acceptable for this dam.3. Approximate number of years until the dam is sustained at long term capacity for dredging and trucking is 26 years. Sediment removed per dredging event is 244 114 m3 which is quite a low amount of sediment for ordinary dredging equipment. this is dam constructed for irrigation purposes and bottom outlet of the dam is close to river bed elevation.1%) and 78 535 314 m3 (98.1 Evaluation of Ivriz Dam RESCON Results All the strategies except HSRS have yielded sustainable solutions with positive aggregate net present value.

enough number trucks are available. sediment removal operations can sustain a great amount of capacity for Ivriz dam. 21 year-of-removal frequency is quite good from serviceability point of view. 100 . This capacity gain results in economical outcome as well as continuity of aggriculture. As a conclusion.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The program RESCON has been run for four of the reservoirs of Turkey. It is observed that results of RESCON and those of previous works are in good aggreement. Table 5. Bayındır Dam. In Table 5. vriz Dam and Borçka Dam.1 shows the sustainable solutions for each reservoir with a descending order of aggregate net present value. RESCON results for these four dams have been evaluated. In section 4. Physically unacceptable solutions are excluded in this table such as trucking 65 733 570 m3 of sediment from Borcka reservoir. These dams are Çubuk I Dam. Comparisons between the results of RESCON and previous works have been made. In section 4.1 RESCON Results for Tested Reservoirs Reservoir Cubuk I Bayındır Borcka Ivriz Sustainable? Technologies (in order of Net Present Value) Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Dredging / HSRS / Trucking HSRS / Dredging / Trucking Dredging / Flushing Flushing / Dredging / Trucking 101 . while evaluating results applicability of the sediment removal techniques have also been discussed.1 RESCON results for the tested reservoirs can be seen. Table 5.

Due to deforestation and uncontrolled tree cut very large amount of sediment deposits in reservoirs and damage the economy. As can be seen from Table 4. Therefore. sediment data may not be available for every reservoir. Erosion and deforestation in Turkey is very high. Using RESCON is the first step for sedimentation mangagement for a reservoir. program is run and results are obtained. In order to carry out sediment removal operations these surveys are essential but there are not enough data taken.1 bathymetric survyes have not been made for every reservoir and the surveys that have been made have not 5-year intervals. If maps given in Appendix H are examined number of sediment observation stations of EIE are not enough. This situation has economical reasons. Normally bathymetric surveys should be made by DSI for each reservoir of Turkey every 5 years in order to monitor sedimentation. These means constructing new dams is not enough and sediment management is crucial. When evaluating RESCON results physical applicability should be kept in mind all the time. For example. After gathering required data for RESCON. Water capacity of Turkey is being depleted and new dams are constructed. construction of new tunnels for 102 .It can be concluded that RESCON results are acceptable for the tested reservoir. Program gives sustainable and non-sustainable solutions with their economical values. Since sediment sampling is an expensive task and monitoring every creek/river is not possible. Once these results have been obtained user of the program should evaluate the results.

once a policy for a reservoir has been prepared it can provide a sustainable solution and efficient use of existing water resources becomes possible. existence of fisheries. Therefore. cost of dredging if depth is more than 30m is the responsibility of the user. local conditions for successful removal operations. using it to find out the possible strategy to be used. 103 .flushing may be required or reservoir may be too long for sediment bypassing. After evaluation of results. When detailed calculations are made. Gathering required data. Evaluation of downstream conditions. Whether existing bottom outlet can be used for flushing or sediment bypassing or not is another key point. Economical values of all the strategies require quite economical knowledge. However. Trucking may not be possible due to amount of sediment deposited in a reservoir. Hydraulics knowledge is required to evaluate technical results. the user should be as proffessional as possible. investment expenses and operation expenses may be decided. economical calculations take time. RESCON should be used as a prefeasibility tool for preparing a sustainable reservoir sedimentation management policy. All these calculations are site specific and should be practiced on dam basis. the most probable method for a site is selected and more detailed calculations are made to find out more precise technical results. As a conclusion.

DSI Report. Atkinson. The Feasibility of Flushing Sediment from Reservoirs. and Societal Considerations. Volume 124.REFERENCES Annandale. Mishra. No:8. Engineering and Hydrosystems Inc.. Issue 1.. Luebke. Personal Communication. M. The Role of Dams in Development. Report OD 137. TDR Project R5839. Altınbilek. Dam Removal: Physical.. 1996..H..K. Rapid Reservoir Sedimentation of Four Historic Thin Arch Dams in Australia. ASCE Joint Conference on Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources Planning and Management.. Chanson. Water Science and Technology. 2002.109-113. P.W. State Hydraulic Works. E. Estimation of Delta Profile in the Indravati Reservoir. pp.169-180. Sinha. Biological.. obtained by personal communication.. D. S.M.. J.W. M. 2005.V. HR Wallingford. H. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.. Doyle. Stanley.. 1998. Minneapolis. MN. 104 . 1991. S. Harbor. pp. Vol. 2000. G. E.. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Chitale.A. 1998..45. James. P. 2005. Dams in Turkey.

pp97-112. Thematic Review IV. Monitoring and Decommissioning of Dams. Cape Town.tr.DSI (State Hydraulic Works). 2003... C. pp479-489. 2006. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 2000.. Doctoral Theses.H. R.. Kılıç. France. F. R. Volume II: RESCON Model and User Manual.5 prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams. Shah.. Çubuk I (Ankara) Barajında Siltasyonun ncelenmesi. Hydrosuction Sediment-Removal Systems (HSRS): Principles and Field Test... ed. 1986. X.. Volume 1. J.D.gov. R. Bruk. The World Bank. Methods of Computing Sedimentation in Lakes and Reservoirs.. Paris. Operations. T. last access date January. Methods of Preserving Reservoir Capacity. S... S. Huang. Issue 6. G.dsi. Gazi University. Annandale. Kılıç. Reservoir Conservation. Hotchkiss. 1984.W. 105 . Fan. Howard. 1985. Journal of Faculty of Engineering and Architecture. Kawashima. http://www. Johndrow.D. Issue 1. pp65-164. Çubuk I (Ankara) Baraj Gölünde Depolanan Sedimentlerin Sedimentolojisi ve Minerolojisi.. 1995.B. UNESCO. Volume 121. Gazi University.

2004. K.. 1987. Mahmood. Reservoir Sedimentation: Impact.A. http://www. World Bank Technical Paper Number 71. Liu.glc. Volume 123. P..Y. Denver. Prediction of Concerted Sediment Flushing. 2006. Ashida.org/dredging/benuse/Reusepaper_1. Evaluation of Sediment Removal Options and Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for Illinois River Restoration: Preliminary Report. Journal of Environmental Management.. pp1089-1096. 106 . Issue 6. K. H.S. Yu.PDF.. Liu. Otsuki. Dinar. Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Twenty-Second Technical Conference and Thirty-Fourth Texas A&M Dredging Seminar. pp520-528. E. Krause. K. W.. Marlin. Shah. last access date January... Palmieri. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. B. Washington.. Issue 11.C. F. The Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material for Upland Disposal. Dolsar Engineering Limited.Koyuncu. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering... 2000. Minami. 2002. A... H. S. 1997. J. Extend and Mitigation. Lee.. Volume 130. Personal Communication. J. Experimental Study of Reservoir Turbidity Current.R. pp131146. A. DC.. Economics of Reservoir Sedimentation and Sustainable Management of Dams. 2005. 2001.. McDonnell.

pp45-48.. 2000.. Dinar. W. Volume I: The RESCON Approach. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Water Policy and Management: Solving the Problems. The World Bank. 91-2.. Suspended Sediment Data and Sediment Transport Amount for Surface Waters in Turkey. Issue 3.W.Palmieri.J.5: Operation. Sustainable Management of Existing Reservoirs. F. Shah. 2000. 2002. M. Removal. Annandale. Contributing Paper: Flushing of Sediments from Reservoirs. pp242-245. Reservoir Conservation. HR Wallingford. USA. G. Dinçsoy. Communications on Hydraulic and Geotechnical Engineering. Volume 41.. General Directorate of Electrical Power Resources Survey and Development Administration. Monitoring and Decommissioning of Dams.R.. S. International Water Power and Dam Construction. Ankara. The Netherlands. B. Treatment and Use of Sediment From Reservoirs. C.. State Hydraulic Works. A.. White.P. Reservoir Sedimentation: A Literature Survey. 107 . Colorado. Report No. Roovers. 1994. Sönmez. 2003. Simonovic. Denver. UK. Y. Konya-Ereğli vriz Barajı Erozyon ve Rüsubat Kontrolu Planlama Raporu. Faculty of Civil Engineering. prepared for Thematic Review IV.. Delft University of Technology. 1991. 1989.. A.. Sloff.

Y.. Reservoir Sedimentation in Turkey. 2000. 2000. Lee. Ankara. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 1997.S.. 108 .. Prediction of Reservoir Siltation: Theory and Practice. S. Volume 126. Yalçınkaya.. Yu.M. 1991. Middle East Technical University. Experiments on Deposition Behavior of Fine Sediment in a Reservoir. Yanmaz. H.Sc. Applied Water Resources Engineering. Thesis. Dams and Development: A New Frame Work For Decision-Making. pp117.. 2003. METU Press. Earthscan Publishers. Ş. W.WCD (World Commission on Dams). M. Issue 12. A. pp912-920. F.. Turkey. Hsu. Yılmaz. London. Hungary. 34th International Post-Graduate Course on Hydrology.M.

1 Dams In Operation in Turkey Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply + Name of Dam Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1977 1989 1977 1986 1980 1999 2000 A.APPENDIX A Table A.KARAÖREN ADIGÜZEL AVŞAR AĞCAŞAR AHILI(Ç P ) AH KÖY I AH KÖY II AHMETBEY AHMETLER AKALAN AKBELEN AKÇAOVA AKKAYA AKKÖY AKÖREN AKSU AKYAR ALACA ALAÇATI ALAKIR AL BEY AL DEM RC ALMUS ALPAGUT ALTINAPA ALTINH SAR ALTINKAYA ALTINTAŞ (MESUD YE) ALTINYAZI APA ANKARA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + KIRKLAREL UŞAK BURSA TOKAT AYDIN N ĞDE KAYSER KONYA ÇORUM ANKARA + ÇORUM ZM R + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ANTALYA STANBUL BALIKES R TOKAT ÇANAKKALE KONYA N ĞDE SAMSUN UŞAK ED RNE KONYA + DEN ZL MAN SA KAYSER KIRIKKALE 2000 1998 1988 1994 1995 1967 1967 1990 1981 1999 1984 1997 1971 1983 1989 1966 1990 1967 1989 1988 1993 1967 1962 + + + + 109 .

DALAMANBEREKET ATABEY ATAKÖY ATATÜRK AT KH SAR AVCIPINAR AYDOĞMUŞ AYHANLAR AYRANCI AYVALI I AYVALI (AMASYA) BADEML BAĞARASI BAHÇEL K BAKACAK BALCI BALÇOVA BALIKLI BARANDA BARLA BAŞAĞIL BATMAN + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + KASTAMONU MARD N OSMAN YE KIRKLAREL BALIKES R YALOVA KARS TOKAT ANKARA ESK ŞEH R OSMAN YE + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ISPARTA TOKAT ŞANLIURFA ÇANAKKALE S VAS KONYA NEVŞEH R KARAMAN ESK ŞEH R AMASYA BURDUR ISPARTA KAYSER ÇANAKKALE ISPARTA ZM R KLS ANTALYA ISPARTA ED RNE BATMAN 1992 1977 1992 1973 1985 1989 2003 1958 1994 1990 1997 1989 2003 1998 1998 1980 1996 1978 2000 1978 1998 110 .1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 2000 1981 1999 1997 2003 1999 1983 1986 1980 1988 1984 2001 ARAÇ-TUZAKLI ARBETE ARIKLIKAŞ ARMAĞAN ARMUTALAN ARMUTLU ARPAÇAY ARTOVA ASARTEPE ASLANBEYL ASLANTAŞ AŞ.Table A.

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply + Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1991 1965 1991 1984 1996 1979 1995 1989 1984 1984 1998 1998 BAYAT BAYINDIR BAYIRLI BAYRAKTAR BAYRAM Ç BAYRAMŞAH BED RKALE BELENL BELPINAR BERDAN BEREKET I BEREKET II BERKE BEYKONAK BEYKÖY BEYLER BEYL K BIÇKIDERE BIYIKAL B REC K B RKAPILI BOĞAZDERE BORÇAK BOSTANCILAR BOZDOĞAN BOZKIR BOZTEPE (ED RNE) BOZTEPE (TOKAT) BUCUK BULCUK BULDAN BURCUN BÜLBÜLDERE + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + AFYON ANKARA AMASYA ZM T ÇANAKKALE TEK RDAĞ TOKAT BURDUR TOKAT ÇEL ADANA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ED RNE KASTAMONU ESK ŞEH R ZM T TEK RDAĞ ŞANLIURFA ÇEL S VAS B LEC K KARABÜK ÇORUM N ĞDE ED RNE TOKAT ANKARA KONYA DEN ZL BURSA ED RNE 2001 1978 2000 1992 1985 1978 1987 2000 2004 1984 1997 1983 1979 1981 1985 1983 1988 1993 1967 1985 1982 111 .

1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply + Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1991 1987 1992 1991 1995 1988 1979 1958 BÜYÜKAKÖZ BÜYÜKÇEKMECE + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + TOKAT STANBUL BURSA ANKARA BATMAN S NOP ANTALYA BÜYÜKORHAN CANILLI CEFFAN CEMALETT N CEV ZL CEYHANMARAŞ C HANBEYL CP ÇAĞÇAĞ III ÇAKMAK ÇALI ÇAMALAN ÇAMBAŞI II ÇAMGAZ ÇAMKÖY ÇAMLICA I ÇAMLIDERE ÇAMLIGÖZE ÇAN KÜÇÜKLÜ ÇAT ÇATAK ÇATAK(AYDIN) ÇATALAN ÇATMAPINAR ÇATÖREN ÇAVDARH SAR ÇAVDIR ÇAVUŞKÖY ÇAYBOĞAZI ÇAYGELD ÇAYGÖREN ÇAYHAN KONYA ELAZIĞ SAMSUN BURSA ANKARA ORDU ADIYAMAN BALIKES R ANKARA S VAS ÇANAKKALE MALATYA KASTAMONU AYDIN ADANA ESK ŞEH R ESK ŞEH R KÜTAHYA BURDUR ED RNE ANTALYA MUŞ BALIKES R KONYA 1989 1965 1968 1988 2001 1993 1997 1999 1991 1998 1985 1997 1994 1997 1992 1999 1996 1995 1987 1990 1996 1984 2000 1999 1971 1994 112 .Table A.

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1989 1997 1997 1984 2002 1975 1994 2002 2001 1981 1990 1975 1977 1936 1964 1981 1990 1971 1979 1988 1993 1978 1991 1996 1993 1979 1995 1960 1983 1990 1981 2000 ÇAYKÖY-AKSU ÇAYKÖYGÖNLÜK ÇERTE ÇEŞTEPE ÇET NCE ÇILDIR Ç FTEV Ç FTL KKÖY Ç FTL KÖZÜ Ç ĞDEM Ç TL ÇOĞUN ÇORUM ÇUBUK I ÇUBUK II ÇUKURÇ MEN ÇUKURH SAR DAMSA DANACI DARLIK DEDEÇAM DEĞ RMENC DEĞ RMENL DEL CE DEL LYAS DEM RC ÖREN DEM RDÖVEN DEM RKÖPRÜ DEM RTAŞ DERBENT DEREKÖY (BURDUR) DEREKÖY (SAMSUN) + + + + + + + + + + + + + BOLU BOLU KÜTAHYA ANKARA ISPARTA AKSARAY ED RNE KONYA KASTAMONU AMASYA KIRŞEH R ÇORUM ANKARA ANKARA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + KONYA ESK ŞEH R NEVŞEH R KIRIKKALE STANBUL ISPARTA ED RNE BALIKES R S VAS S VAS ÇANKIRI ERZURUM MAN SA BURSA SAMSUN BURDUR SAMSUN 113 .

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Name of Dam

Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply +

Flood Control

Energy

Irrigation

Location

In Operation

DEREKÖY (ZONGULDAK) DEREYALAK DER NÖZ DERMEKAPULUK DESTEK DEŞT Ğ N DEVEGEÇ D D CLE D KENL D NAR II D RSEKL D VANBAŞI DODURGA DOĞANCI I DOĞANH SAR DOĞANKENT I DOĞANKENT II DOĞANTEPE DOKUZDERE DOKUZYOL DÖRT EYLÜL DUMANLI DUMLUCA DURAĞAN DURUÇAY DUTLUCA ED L EĞREKKAYA EKŞ L ELMALI II EMEK ENG L ENNE ERENKÖY I

ZONGULDAK + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + AMASYA ED RNE KARAMAN S VAS ÇANKIRI MARD N S NOP SAMSUN TOKAT S NOP ANKARA + + + + ANTALYA STANBUL VAN KÜTAHYA + ESK ŞEH R ŞIRNAK SAMSUN ESK ŞEH R BURSA KONYA + + AMASYA KONYA D YARBAKIR D YARBAKIR ANTALYA ESK ŞEH R AMASYA

1988 1991 2002 1951 2000 1995 1972 1997 1989 2000 1968 1987 1977 1983 1995 1971 1971 1986 1978 1993 2003 1977 1991 1986 2001 1990 1991 1992 1990 1955 1989 1968 1972 1994

+

+

+ +

+

114

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Name of Dam

Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply

Flood Control

Energy

Irrigation

Location

In Operation 1991 1997 1979 1974 2002

ERKMEN ERZ NCAN ESK KADIN ESP YEL EŞEN II-GÖLTAŞ EVC YEN KIŞLA EVL YATEKKE EVREN (KÖPRÜDERE) EYM R FEH ML FETH YE FET YE FINDIKLI GAYT GAZ BEY GAZ HAL L GAZ LER GEBERE GED KSARAY GEL NGÜLLÜ GERMEÇTEPE GEVEN GEY K GEYKOCA GEZENDE G RLEV K I G RLEV K II+MERCAN GÖDET GÖKÇE GÖKÇEADA GÖKÇEDOĞAN GÖKÇEKAYA GÖKPINAR + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + +

AFYON ERZ NCAN ED RNE S NOP

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

ÇORUM KONYA ANKARA BURSA YOZGAT ESK ŞEH R ÇANAKKALE B NGÖL S VAS ED RNE N ĞDE AMASYA YOZGAT KASTAMONU ÇORUM MUĞLA ÇORUM ÇEL

1969 1994 1999 1990 1988 1999 2004 1990 1991 1992 2004 2002 1941 1993 1993 1985 1976 1988 1981 1990 1963 2001

+ + + +

KARAMAN STANBUL ÇANAKKALE ÇORUM ESK ŞEH R DEN ZL

1988 1988 1983 1992 1972 2001

115

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Name of Dam

Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply

Flood Control

Energy

Irrigation

Location

In Operation 1991 1959 1938 1995 1970 1988 1997 1996 1990 1964 1993 1988 1966 1993 1967 1996 1981 1989 1981 1980 1994 1999 2000 1989 2003

GÖKSU GÖKSUYERKÖPRÜ GÖLBAŞI GÖLCÜK GÖLKÖY GÖLOVA GÖLYER GÖNEN GÖZEBAŞI GÖZEGÖL GÜLDERE GÜLDÜREK GÜLÜÇ GÜMELEKÖY GÜMÜŞLER GÜNEYKÖY GÜRGENL K (YAPRAKLI) GÜVEN GÜZELH SAR GÜZELOĞLAN GÜZELYURT (AKSARAY) GÜZELYURT (MALATYA) HACIDEDE HACIHIDIR HACILARGÖKPINAR HAKKIBEYL HALHALCA HAL LAN HALKAPINAR HANCAĞIZ HANKÖY + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

D YARBAKIR D YARBAKIR BURSA BURSA BOLU S VAS BURDUR BALIKES R ADIYAMAN D YARBAKIR SAMSUN ÇANKIRI ZONGULDAK KÜTAHYA N ĞDE UŞAK ÇANKIRI SAMSUN ZM R S VAS AKSARAY MALATYA SAMSUN ŞANLIURFA

ADANA BURSA D YARBAKIR BALIKES R GAZ ANTEP ESK ŞEH R

1998 1998 1981 1983 1988 1985

116

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Name of Dam

Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply

Flood Control

Energy

Irrigation

Location

In Operation 1994 1981 1984 1993 1972 2001 1957 1967

HARMANCIK HASAN UĞURLU HASANAĞA HASANCIK HASANLAR HAT PLER HAZAR I HAZAR II HELVADERE HIDIRBEYL HIDIRLIK H RFANLI H SARARDI HÖYÜK ILICA IŞIKTEPE BEC K B RLER ĞD R K ZCETEPELER LEYDAĞI M RLER MRANLI NANLI NCEC K NCES (SELKAPANI) NEGAZ L NEGÖL KURŞUNLU NGÖLÜ VR ND KORUCU VR Z + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

S VAS SAMSUN BURSA ADIYAMAN BOLU ANTALYA

AKSARAY AYDIN ÇORUM KIRŞEH R ISPARTA ÇORUM ANKARA ELAZIĞ AMASYA BALIKES R ANKARA BALIKES R ISPARTA AMASYA S VAS TEK RDAĞ KAHRAMAN MARAŞ KAYSER ÇORUM BURSA G RESUN BALIKES R KONYA

1990 1998 1995 1959 1989 1979 1976 1996 2000 1988 1985 1990 1984 1995 2002 1983 1984 2000 1976 2003 1999 2002 1985

117

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Name of Dam

Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply

Flood Control

Energy

Irrigation

Location

In Operation 2001 1974 1975 1992 1972 1982 1971 1974

K.DOĞANCA K.KALEC K KABALAR KADIKÖY KADIKÖY (DERBENT) KADIKÖY (KARABÜK) KADINCIK I KADINCIK II KALEC K KANDIRA ARIKLAR KANGAL (BOZARMUT) KANLIDERE KANLIPINAR KAPIKAYA (ERZURUM) KAPULUKAYA KARAAĞA KARAAĞAÇ KARAAHMET KARAAHMETL KARABÜK KARACA KARACAÖREN I KARACAÖREN II KARACAÖREN (AFYON) KARACAÖREN (BALIKES R) KARAÇOMAK KARADERE (ÇANKIRI) KARAGÜNEY + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

ED RNE ELAZIĞ KASTAMONU ED RNE ED RNE KARABÜK

OSMAN YE KOCAEL S VAS YOZGAT ESK ŞEH R ERZURUM KIRIKKALE KONYA UŞAK ANKARA UŞAK SAMSUN S NOP BURDUR BURDUR

1985 2003 2000 1979 1978 1979 1989 2000 1990 1980 1991 1996 2000 1989 1993 2000 1988 1974 1990 1983

+ + + + +

AFYON BALIKES R KASTAMONU ÇANKIRI ANKARA

118

1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1996 1980 1987 1985 1973 2000 1997 1981 1971 1995 1999 1972 1997 1983 1996 1991 1987 1956 1986 1998 1995 1998 1977 1995 1975 1986 1958 1991 2002 1961 KARAHÖYÜK KARA DEM R KARAKAYA KARAKOL KARAMANLI (BURDUR) KARAMANLI (HATAY) KARAOVA KARAÖREN (ÇANKIRI) KARAÖREN (ESK ŞEH R) KARASATI KARKAMIŞ KARTALKAYA KAVAKAYAZMA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ADIYAMAN TEK RDAĞ D YARBAKIR BALIKES R BURDUR HATAY KIRŞEH R ÇANKIRI ESK ŞEH R ED RNE ŞANLIURFA KAHRAMAN MARAŞ ED RNE ED RNE BALIKES R AFYON KÜTAHYA KIRKLAREL BURSA ESK ŞEH R ESK ŞEH R ESK ŞEH R MUĞLA ELAZIĞ ESK ŞEH R AYDIN S VAS ELAZIĞ KAVAKDERE (ED RNE) KAVAKLI KAYABELEN KAYABOĞAZI KAYAKÖY KAYALIKÖY KAYAPA KAYI II KAYI III KAYMAZ KAZAN KEBAN KELKAYA KEMER KEMER Z KEPEKTAŞ KEPEZ I 119 .Table A.

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1986 KEPEZ II KERAMETT N KES KKÖPRÜ KES KSUYU KESK N KESTEL KEŞANÇAMLICA KILDIR KILIÇKAYA KINIK KIRKA KIRKAT KIRKLAR KIRKLAREL KIRKÖY KISIK KIZIK(AKYURT) KIZIK(TOKAT) KIZILCAPINAR KIZILDAMLAR KIZIL N Ş KIZILSU KIZLARKALES K RAZDERE KT KOCAAVŞAR KOCABEY KOCADERE KOCAŞ KOÇKÖPRÜ KORKUTEL KORUKLU KORULUK KOVADA I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + BALIKES R BALIKES R ED RNE ESK ŞEH R VAN ANTALYA ED RNE GÜMÜŞHANE ANKARA TOKAT ZONGULDAK B LEC K KAHRAMAN MARAŞ BURDUR GÜMÜŞHANE KOCAEL ED RNE ANKARA ADANA ESK ŞEH R ZM R ED RNE S VAS S VAS ADIYAMAN AFYON BATMAN AFYON KIRKLAREL ANKARA 1988 1966 1971 1997 1988 2002 1992 1989 1989 1989 1985 1997 1995 1982 1993 1970 2000 1993 2001 1994 1965 1998 1999 1966 1994 1989 1979 1990 1991 1975 1986 2004 1960 120 .

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1971 KOVADA II KOVALI KOYUNLU KOYUNYER KOZAĞACI (ANTALYA) KOZAĞACI (BURDUR) KOZAN KOZANSIKI KOZÇEŞME KOZLU KOZLUÖREN KOZV RAN KÖKLÜCE KÖMEV RAN KÖRKÜLER KÖSENÇAYIRI KÖSREL K KÖYCEĞ Z KRALKIZI KULA KUMDERE KUMTEPE KUNDUZLAR KURTBEY KURTBOĞAZI KURTDERE KURUCAGÖL KURUÇAY KUZAYCA KUZGUN KÜÇÜKHÖYÜK KÜÇÜKLER KÜLTEPE KÜPDERE + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + S VAS ISPARTA KASTAMONU ANKARA ERZURUM D YARBAKIR MAN SA ED RNE NEVŞEH R ESK ŞEH R ED RNE ANKARA ZM T S VAS KÜTAHYA YOZGAT ERZURUM S VAS UŞAK KIRŞEH R ED RNE KAYSER N ĞDE ÇANAKKALE ANTALYA BURDUR ADANA SAMSUN ÇANAKKALE ZONGULDAK BURSA UŞAK 1988 1995 1988 1989 1985 1972 1990 1997 1986 1994 2000 1988 1971 1998 1986 1968 1985 1997 2002 1985 1990 1983 1974 1967 1979 1983 1985 1997 1995 1985 2002 1983 1987 121 .

1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 2002 1995 1997 1982 1962 1988 1991 1999 1990 1987 1991 1981 1985 1975 1989 1986 1974 2003 1981 2003 2000 1999 1989 1951 1991 1992 1969 1983 1995 KÜRTÜN LAD K MADRA MAHSUTLU MAMASIN MANAVGAT MART MARUF (ÇANKIRI) MARUF(S NOP) MAY MAY(PEYN RL ) MEC D YE (ED RNE) MEC D YE (KONYA) MED K MENZELET MERCAN MER Ç MERKEZ MERKEZ PULLAR MERKEZ ŞARKÖY MERKEZ YASSIÇAL MOLU MORÇ ÇEK MUMCULAR MURGUL MURSAL MURTAZA MUSAÖZÜ MUZALIDERE NERG ZL K + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + GÜMÜŞHANE KONYA BALIKES R S VAS AKSARAY ANTALYA ÇANKIRI ÇANKIRI S NOP KONYA KONYA ED RNE KONYA MALATYA KAHRAMAN MARAŞ ED RNE ED RNE KÜTAHYA TEK RDAĞ AMASYA VAN MUĞLA S VAS N ĞDE ESK ŞEH R ED RNE ADANA 122 .Table A.

1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1998 1996 1967 1997 1981 1979 1988 1994 1993 1984 1989 1972 1993 1997 1992 2003 1998 1989 2001 2004 2000 NS OLUR ÜRÜNLÜ ONAÇ I ONDOKUZ MAYIS ONDOKUZ MAYIS II ORTAKÇILAR ORTAKÖY OSMANCIK OSMANLI OVACIK OYMAPINAR ÖMERKÖY ÖMERL ÖRENC K ÖREN ÖRENLER ÖZALP GÖLEGEN ÖZLÜCE PALANDÖKEN (GED KÇAY) PALANDÖKEN (LEZG ) PAMUK PAMUKOVAKAREL PAŞA PATNOS PERŞEMBE YAYLASI PINARLI (AFYON) PINARLI (ÇORUM) POLAT + + + + + + + + S NOP ERZURUM BURDUR + SAMSUN SAMSUN + + + + + + + + + + KARABÜK AMASYA KONYA ED RNE BALIKES R ANTALYA ESK ŞEH R STANBUL ANKARA ISPARTA AFYON VAN B NGÖL + + + + + + + + + + + ERZURUM ERZURUM AMASYA AĞRI ORDU AFYON ÇORUM MALATYA 1993 1991 1994 1993 1980 1989 123 .Table A.

POLATKAN SAZLIDERE SEFER H SAR SEK ÖREN SELEV R SERBAN SEV ŞLER SEYD KÖY (ULUDERE) SEYD M I SEYD M II SEYHAN I SEYHAN II SEY TLER SIDDIKLI SIHKE SIR SIZIR + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ERZURUM ESK ŞEH R N ĞDE S VAS KASTAMONU ÇANKIRI AMASYA BALIKES R AMASYA KIRKLAREL S VAS VAN KAYSER AKSARAY ANKARA STANBUL ZM R ESK ŞEH R AFYON AFYON MAN SA 1984 1972 2003 1985 1976 1972 1989 1985 1990 1990 1989 1991 1968 1989 1956 1996 1993 2002 1965 1994 1981 1996 1973 1976 1956 1992 1964 1998 1958 1991 1961 + ÇANKIRI ÇORUM ÇORUM + + + + + + + ADANA AFYON KIRŞEH R VAN KAHRAMAN MARAŞ + + 124 .Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation PORSUK (ERZURUM) PORSUK (ESK ŞEH R) POSTALLI SAHL SAKIZ SARAYKÖY SARAYÖZÜ SARIBEYLER SARIBUĞDAY SARICAAL SARIÇAL SARIMEHMET SARIMSAKLI SARIYAHŞ SARIYARH.

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control + Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1960 1989 1983 1994 2000 S LLE S NCAN SOFUHAL L SOĞUKSU SORGUN SÖĞÜTDEREBOYU (ZEVYE) SÖĞÜT (BURDUR) SÖĞÜT (KÜTAHYA) SÖVE SUAT UĞURLU SUÇATI SUĞLA DEPOLAMASI SULTANKÖY SULTANSUYU SUSUZ SÜLOĞLU SÜRGÜ SÜTÇÜLER ŞABANÖZÜÖDEK ŞAH NBURGAZ ŞAH NLER ŞAMLI ŞEH TLER ŞEREF YE ŞER FBABA ŞEYHL ŞEYTANDERE TADIM TAHTAKÖPRÜ TAHTARLI + + + + + + KONYA ÇORUM KIRKLAREL BALIKES R ISPARTA + + + + + + B LEC K BURDUR KÜTAHYA BALIKES R SAMSUN 2004 1997 1983 1992 1981 2000 KONYA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ÇANKIRI BALIKES R ZM T BALIKES R ISPARTA S VAS MARD N KAYSER ZM T ELAZIĞ HATAY ZM R + + ED RNE MALATYA ANKARA ED RNE MALATYA 2003 1993 1992 1992 1980 1969 1998 2002 1994 1991 1997 1998 1996 1974 1992 1983 1993 1975 1996 125 .

YOL.Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1984 1983 1975 1998 1966 2000 1997 1985 1991 1990 1992 1994 1989 1991 1998 1984 1994 1960 1997 1998 1984 2003 1983 1993 1991 1980 1999 1997 1989 1969 TAKMAK TAŞÇILAR TAŞMANLI TAŞOLUK (AFYON) TATLAR N TAVAKLI (ALEMŞAH) TAVAS TAYFUR TEFENN TEK R TELME TEMREZL TERCAN TINAZTEPE TOHMA-MED K TOPÇAM (AYDIN) TOPLUKONAK TORTUM I TÜRKMENL ULUAĞAÇ ULUBORLU ULUDAĞ UN .ÇAT ULUKÖY (AMASYA) ULUKÖY (ÇANAKKALE) ULUÖZ UN VERS TE I UŞAKPINAR UZGAÇ UZUNLU ÜÇBAŞ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + UŞAK KASTAMONU S NOP AFYON NEVŞEH R ÇANAKKALE DEN ZL ÇANAKKALE BURDUR KAYSER GÜMÜŞHANE TEK RDAĞ ERZ NCAN AFYON MALATYA + + + + + + + + + + + + + AYDIN G RESUN ERZURUM ED RNE N ĞDE ISPARTA BURSA AMASYA ÇANAKKALE TOKAT SAMSUN BURSA ED RNE YOZGAT ANKARA 126 .

Table A.MUHAC R YAĞLIPINAR YAĞMURCA YAHYASARAY YAKACIK YALINTAŞ YALVAÇ YAPIALTIN YAPILDAK YAPRAKLI YARSEL YASSIALAN YAYLADAĞ YAYLAKAVAK YED KIR YELTEN YEN CE(BURSA) YEN CE (ESK ŞEH R) YEN HAYAT YEN KÖY YEN KÖY YEN CEKÖY I YEŞ LBÜK YEŞ LÇAT YILDIZ YUKARIKARTAL + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ESK ŞEH R KLS S VAS ZM R KIRKLAREL ED RNE ED RNE ANKARA ED RNE YOZGAT AMASYA NEVŞEH R ISPARTA S VAS ESK ŞEH R BURDUR HATAY SAMSUN HATAY AYDIN AMASYA ANTALYA BURSA ESK ŞEH R ÇORUM AMASYA KIRŞEH R KÜTAHYA AFYON S VAS ESK ŞEH R ESK ŞEH R KASTAMONU YUKARISÖĞÜT YUMURTACI 127 .KARPUZLU Y.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 2002 2001 1972 1989 1990 1995 1993 1967 1991 1990 2000 1994 1973 1977 1992 1990 1989 2001 1998 1996 1985 1993 1995 1999 1997 1986 2004 1997 1986 1988 1998 1971 1988 1976 ÜÇÇAM ÜÇPINAR ÜÇTEPE ÜRKMEZ ÜSKÜP Y.

&Ind.96 15.12 8.&Ind. Water Supply+Flood Control+Energy Dom. Water Supply+Flood Control+Irrigation Flood Control+Energy+Irrigation Dom. Water Supply+Irrigation Flood Control+Irrigation Energy+Irrigation % of Reservoirs 0.&Ind.&Ind.00 9.33 0.26 81.33 Table A.80 1. Water Supply+Energy+Irrigation Dom.66 0.2 Classification of Dams For Single Purpose Number of Reservoirs Total Number of Reservoirs in Operation # of Reservoirs Functioning For Dom.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued) Name of Dam Domestic & Indutrial Water Supply Flood Control Energy Irrigation Location In Operation 1972 YÜREĞ R ZERNEK Z NC DERE ZÜLF KAR + + + + + VAN KAYSER GAZ ANTEP 1988 1991 1990 Table A.33 0.&Ind.43 0.66 1.&Ind.17 0. Water Supply # of Reservoirs Functioning For Flood Control # of Reservoirs Functioning For Energy # of Reservoirs Functioning For Irrigation # of Reservoirs Functioning For Environmental Protection # of Functioning For Fishering 603 55 54 92 491 2 2 % of Reservoirs 100.Table A.99 128 . Water Supply+Flood Control Dom.32 5.3 Classification of Dams For Multi Purpose Number of Reservoirs 4 1 4 8 1 14 35 12 Multipurpose Functions Dom.17 2.

APPENDIX B CHECK OF Wt/MAR FOR TESTED RESERVOIRS In order to calculate water yield Gould’s gamma distribution is used and the equation that is used in RESCON to calculate water yield is: Wt = 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin − Zpr 2 ⋅ sd 2 + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd 2 = W St  Gd 2 4 ⋅  St + ⋅ sd    Vin   ( ) (B.1) In order to find until where above equation is valid rearrangement can be made for easy calculation as follows: Wt = 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin − Zpr 2 ⋅ sd 2 + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd 2 = W St  S t ⋅ Vin Gd ⋅ sd 2   4 ⋅ +  V  Vin  in  ( ) (B.3) 2 2 2 2 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd ⋅ Vin − Zpr ⋅ sd ⋅ Vin Wt = = W St 2 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd 2 2 Wt Zpr ⋅ sd = 1− = W St 2 Vin 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd (B.5) Critical St is the value that makes 2 2 Zpr ⋅ sd 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd 2 2 2 Wt Zpr ⋅ sd = 1− = 0.4) ( ) (B.6) 129 . 4 2 Vin 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd = 0.6 (B.2) 2 2 2 2 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin − Zpr ⋅ sd ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd ⋅ Vin Wt = = W St 2 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + Gd ⋅ sd ( ) ( ) ( ) (B.

03 10.33 2.33 sd(m3) 6 550 000 565 500 000 10 400 000 390 000 Vin Gd St(m3) (B.4Vin Vin Table B.42 Reservoir Capacities Çubuk I Borçka vriz Bayındır 7 100 000 m3 418 950 000 m3 80 000 000 m3 7 000 000 m3 % % % % Description of Variables Zpr sd Vin Gd Standardized Normal Variate at pr*100% Standard Deviation of Annual Run-off Mean Annual Run-off (includes all sources to reservoir) Gould's Correction Factor 130 .33 2.4 − [Gd ⋅ sd 2 ] = S t ⋅ Vin (B.Z pr 2 ⋅ sd 2 2 .99 0.50 104 000 000 1.29 0.33 2.7) Zpr 2 ⋅ sd 2 Gd ⋅ sd 2 St = − 2.4 7.50 499 137 43 093 456 792 523 29 720 Capacity Ratio For Wt/Vin=0.1 Calculation of Critical St for Tested Reservoirs Dam Çubuk I Borçka vriz Bayındır Zpr 2.8) 65 500 000 1.50 5 655 000 000 1.50 3 900 000 1.

1 Geometric Parameters for Tarbela Dam Parameter Description Original (initial) capacity of the reservoir Existing storage capacity of the reservoir Reservoir length at the normal pool elevation Representative bottom width for the reservoir Minimum bed elevation just upstream of dam Water surface elevation at flushing gates during flushing Elevation of top water level in reservoir (normal pool) Available head = normal pool elevation minus tail water elevation Representative side slope for the reservoir Parameter Symbol S0 Se L Wbot Elmin Elf Elmax h SSres 131 .APPENDIX C SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR TARBELA DAM MADE BY RESCON TEAM Table C.

HP Brune Curve ANS Parameter Symbol rd T Type 132 . Sediment type category to be removed by hydrosuction (medium sand/smaller or gravel).1-3.Table C. Estimated reservoir water temperature. Is reservoir yield ever used for hydroelectric power? Sediment type for Brune Curve calculations. Reservoir similar to Chinese reservoirs? “3”: if reservoir sediments are significantly larger than median grain size (d50)=0.2 Physical Parameters Varied In Addition To Geometry Changes Parameter Symbol Min Parameter Description Mean annual sediment inflow mass Multiplier for reservoir and its sediment (Tsinghua University Method) Representative discharge passing through reservoir during flushing Frequency of flushing events Duration of flushing after complete drawdown Coefficient of Variation of Annual Run-off volume Number of pipes used for hydrosuction sediment removal Pipe diameter for hydrosuction Range of Values 0.1mm or if the reservoir has been impounded for more than 10 years without sediment removal.0% of inflow 180.5 feet Table C. Y 1600 (depending on site) Q N Tf Cv NP D 10-3 000m3/s (depending on site) 1-15 year intervals 1 day-2 months 0. 300.3 Constant Parameters In Sensitivity Analysis for Tarbela Dam Parameter Description Density of in-situ reservoir sediment.1-2. 650. A value of “3” was used throughout the analysis.0 1-3 pipes 1-3. Use “1”: if otherwise.

4 Assumed Constant Removal Parameters for Tarbela Dam Parameter Symbol pr Parameter Description Acceptable probability of failure to provide reservoir yield in a given year (as decimal).Table C. Maximum percent of capacity loss allowable at any time in reservoir. Assumed Value 0.01 YA 1 cl 75% ASD AST Cw 80% 80% 30% 133 . Maximum fraction of total yield that is allowed to be used in HSRS operations. Percent of accumulated sediment dredged per event. Allowable loss must be greater than the existing loss. Percent of accumulated sediment trucked per event. Concentration by weight of sediment removed to water removed by traditional dredging.

05 $0.01 0 0. Reservoir (Dam) Operation and Maintenance Coefficient Dam Salvage Value Coefficient Discount Rate (decimal) Price of Net Reservoir Yield.005/m3 $0. This cost is estimated using S0 specified in Reservoir Geometry. Unit value of water released downstream of dam in river by hydrosuction operations. Unit cost of traditional dredging Assumed Value 0 c Default Calculation C2 Default Calculation omc a r P1 0.01/m3 PF $0. Cost of Dam Construction. Unit Value of Water Used released downstream during actual flushing operations (water lost during drawdown is internally assigned a value of zero).Table C.005/m3 $5/m3 Default Calculation 134 . Unit cost for hydrosuction operations expressed as $/m3 of sediment removed. If the dam is a new construction project.005/m3 PH PD CH CD $0. enter 1. Unit Cost of Construction. The default cost is estimated as unit cost of construction times initial reservoir storage volume (C2 = S0*c*E).5 Economic Parameter Assumptions for Tarbela Dam Parameter Symbol E Parameter Description If dam being considered is an existing dam enter 0. Unit value of water used in dredging operations.

6 Sensitivity to Value of Unit Reservoir Yield (P1=$0.4 138. Tarbela Dam Change Possible Strategies Technique in NPV ($ 1000 million) Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with No Removal Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with Partial Removal Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with No Removal Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable N/A HSRS N/A HSRS Flushing HSRS Dredging Trucking 138.7 138.4 138.3 138.2/m3).7 139.1/m3 to P1=$0.Table C.2 N/A 142.8 Change in NPV (%) 100 100 100 100 100 N/A 101 115 Change in LTC(million m3) Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 0 N/A +1.089 +405 Change in LTC(%) 0 N/A 31 6 135 .

9 Change in NPV (%) 51 51 52 52 59 N/A 63 31 Change in LTC(million m3) Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 0 N/A 2 025 270 056 Change in LTC(%) 0 N/A 33 4 136 .Table C.1 37.7 Sensitivity to Discount Rate (r reduced from 5% to 3%).2 70. Tarbela Dam Change Possible Strategies Technique in NPV ($ 1000 million) Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with No Removal Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with Partial Removal Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with No Removal Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable N/A HSRS N/A HSRS Flushing HSRS Dredging Trucking 70.2 72.7 N/A 89.2 72.2 81.

3 -1. Tarbela Dam Change Possible Strategies Technique in NPV ($ 1000 million) Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with No Removal Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with Partial Removal Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with No Removal Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable N/A HSRS N/A HSRS Flushing HSRS Dredging Trucking -1.3 -1.830 -1.05).01 to omc=0.830 -1.830 N/A -1.8 Sensitivity to Operation and Maintenance Coefficient (omc=0.3 -1.830 Change in NPV (%) -1.801 -1.801 -1.Table C.3 -1.3 N/A -1.5 137 .830 -1.3 -1.

00/m3).Table C.9 Sensitivity to Cost of Removal Parameters (S2.2 2. (PH decreased from $0.6 3 310. Tarbela Dam Change Possible Strategies Technique in NPV ($ 1000 million) Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with No Removal Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with Partial Removal Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with No Removal Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable N/A HSRS N/A HSRS Flushing HSRS Dredging Trucking 0 0.2 1 367. (CT decreased from $50 to $40/m3).5 to 0.003) (CD decreased from $2.2 0 0. CD.0 N/A 0.7 Change in LTC(million m3) Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 0 N/A 810 135 Change in LTC(%) 0 N/A 13 2 138 .62 to $2.16 Change in NPV (%) 0 0 0 0 1.2 N/A 264.75). CT) (S2 increased from 0.005 to $0. PH.

3 1983 38.4 17.2 1977 91.8 5.4 16.0 19.05 1250.1 1977 1060.2 290.50 500.1 1987 36.1 1971 1060.9 5.1 1972 54.APPENDIX D Table D.60 162.00 79.7 5.2 1986 44.25 236.00 312.9 1.00 471.2 280.4 DEM RKÖPRÜ MAX MIN MARMARA MAX MIN II SEV ŞLER MAX MIN BULDAN MAX MIN AFŞAR MAX MIN III PORSUK MAX MIN ALTINAPA IV BEYŞEH R MAX MIN MAX MIN 139 .0 1979 18.2 1976 465.03 11.85 860.5 1125.10 126.7 28.6 5.5 1974 24.3 2001 454.0 1992 42.8 3.5 1969 320.50 119.1 1976 54.4 1970 517.00 475.2 1962 5263.5 7.9 11.00 333.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey OPERATIN G LEVELS DS REGION RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3) MEASUREMENT YEAR 1 1969 2 1977 12.1 2591.75 892.5 14.2 1976 126.5 8.40 1121.5 27.0 2.0 1239.6 3 4 5 6 NAME OF DAM GÖLBAŞI I DOĞANCI MAX MIN MAX MIN 128.00 259.00 460.7 3.8 1986 120.8 1976 320.6 1986 83.1 11.6 2411.20 73.2 2000 5337.3 6.

4 1974 97.0 3705.1 1977 177.8 1978 4.4 37.8 1980 30.5 0.46 851.5 1977 5750.3 1973 165.8 19.5 1972 6224.8 1979 88.00 842.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued) OPERATING LEVELS RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3) MEASUREMENT YEAR DS REGION NAME OF DAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 1969 S LLE MAX MIN ÇAVUŞÇU MAX MIN APA MAX MIN IV GÜMÜŞLER MAX MIN GEBERE MAX MIN AYRANCI MAX MIN MAMASIN MAX MIN H RFANLI MAX MIN V HASANLAR MAX MIN KES KKÖPRÜ MAX MIN 1267.00 1107.4 0.0 1966 30.0 1965 2.19 1084.7 1.2 6.Tablo D.90 1021.9 6.7 0.3 4129.1 1978 185.6 5.6 1972 50.1 1.50 227.4 6.3 1978 50.04 1034.1 1941 2.2 1972 166.48 3.50 1027.9 1.00 1170.8 5.50 785.55 772.8 5.4 1971 178.1 22.0 1980 184.86 1253.7 1967 3.6 1977 171.00 1720.1 1977 50.5 1958 30.0 0.5 18.7 1969 6218.8 0.9 4.6 2.1 31.6 4126.5 1977 2.7 0.6 2.00 1193.7 1991 154.1 1979 2.6 1982 173.0 140 .00 255.5 1977 31.9 1974 2.00 1335.6 6.34 1352.0 0.30 1707.9 0.60 1054.7 1967 167.

0 1966 1238.0 67.00 961.0 141 .6 1970 7.5 972.1 1978 23.00 535.8 0.8 3.9 7.8 8.6 1972 1007.00 170.00 224.2 6.00 907.1 5.5 1970 1698.9 159.9 3.00 804.0 1975 54.2 1991 32.0 0.6 1980 6.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued) OPERATING LEVELS RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3) MEASUREMENT YEAR DS REGION NAME OF DAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 1951 SARIYAR MAX MIN KURTBOĞAZI MAX MIN V ÇUBUK I MAX MIN ÇUBUK II MAX MIN BAYINDIR MAX MIN SEYHAN MAX MIN KALEC K VI KOZAN MAX MIN MAX MIN MEHMETL MAX MIN VII ALMUS MAX MIN 475.0 1973 5.2 221.5 1.2 151.3 1976 148.6 0.9 1986 878.37 1901.6 1977 1006.9 0.0 1973 22.6 0.00 274.9 0.0 1983 22.1 1.3 1998 92.0 0.50 49.5 1991 865.71 1113.6 0.8 300.61 895.7 8.7 1971 1029.4 0.0 986.8 151.0 1074.00 465.9 1965 8.0 1.4 4.8 1983 5.4 1943 5.7 0.5 1980 883.5 1980 93.7 1936 9.9 1985 96.2 3.5 1967 102.2 859.4 159.6 1975 95.6 756.1 1967 6.00 931.1 1972 168.00 493.4 1976 924.4 1964 25.5 767.1 0.5 138.Tablo D.00 203.4 149.0 1985 38.4 1986 59.

1 1997 56.2 1997 36.0 1997 45.50 82.3 7.1 0.5 1972 5.5 10.8 1975 65.50 997.7 1976 6.9 0.3 1975 7.2 3.1 8.50 39.3 1973 38.Tablo D.9 8.4 1967 6.00 739.4 3.3 2.9 1972 32.2 1966 65.0 1.8 1972 202.2 142 .1 1.0 1.1 1980 219.5 1978 38.00 757.5 1983 50.00 1183.00 63.50 1004.6 2.5 1.5 1980 51.8 75.1 0.00 1126.7 1968 7.9 2.5 1977 207.8 1971 7.45 104.20 27.8 2.5 7.0 3.00 1225.80 202.2 1980 122.6 6.1 7.80 177.8 2.8 2001 70.00 1205.00 1212.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued) OPERATING LEVELS RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3) MEASUREMENT YEAR DS REGION NAME OF DAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 1971 SÜRGÜ IX ÇP MAX MIN MAX MIN X DEVEGEÇ D MAX MIN ALTINYAZI MAX MIN KADIKÖY XI KARA DEM R MAX MIN MAX MIN SÜLOĞLU MAX MIN DAMSA MAX MIN XII SARIMSAKLI MAX MIN BOZKIR MAX MIN 1309.4 10.60 1288.30 1109.3 1997 111.30 2.6 1977 34.40 91.1 3.2 1971 1975 67.7 3.

00 62.1 1.9 3.1 1.1 1974 36.9 1978 22.6 1966 74.4 1984 349.6 2.00 1092.50 1039.25 1065.85 1168.00 815.9 1995 1400.30 1094.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued) OPERATING LEVELS RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3) MEASUREMENT YEAR DS REGION NAME OF DAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 1972 TATLARIN XII ÇOĞUN MAX MIN MAX MIN KORKUTEL XIII OYMAPINAR MAX MIN MAX MIN ÖMERL XIV DURUSU MAX MIN MAX MIN XVII SELEV R MAX MIN YALVAÇ XVIII SEY TLER MAX MIN MAX MIN XIX KILIÇKAYA 1151.2 5.75 1036.00 184.2 1989 1400.1 1976 2.7 1979 12.4 2.5 1.4 267.65 1106.00 46.50 1183.3 1979 40.0 4.0 1973 23.1 MAX MIN 850.3 1989 296.00 143 .2 0.8 102.00 1143.7 220.7 98.6 264.0 121.50 1.3 120.7 4.7 3.7 9.2 3.7 1973 199.3 42.6 1979 38.6 1977 60.7 1977 204.9 1974 13.50 1.1 275.6 1982 186.50 1075.00 1047.9 1966 388.6 1962 38.Tablo D.00 4.2 1979 357.9 1967 38.00 166.

9 1.8 0.50 206.5 66.6 14.5 9.8 1983 52.1 5.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued) RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3) OPERATING LEVELS MEASUREMENT YEAR DS REGION NAME OF DAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 1967 XX KARTALKAYA MAX MIN IŞIKLI MAX MIN KEMER XXI MUMCULAR MAX MIN MAX MIN TOPÇAM MAX MIN ÇAYGÖREN MAX MIN XXV ATIKH SAR MAX MIN SARIBEYLER MAX MIN 717.8 1989 169.70 81.2 0.0 1989 18.0 1985 79.60 817.9 46.00 61.2 1.00 110.4 1.45 248.8 1978 165.8 1971 171.00 40.5 57.0 1985 19.3 1985 180.1 85.Tablo D.4 79.9 1975 225.00 238.5 6.37 216.5 14.7 1994 19.5 1.1 33.4 1998 212.4 1979 389.0 125.7 51.0 1980 180.70 684.70 271.8 1.50 820.50 287.0 1998 358.5 0.8 1992 83.8 0.50 242.65 60.3 50.6 1982 197.2 1989 372.5 5.6 1990 222.1 1974 193.00 38.0 144 .8 17.6 1983 159.9 1990 19.0 1977 55.9 1974 407.9 1968 457.

2003) Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkyey. 1991) Economic Parameters r Mr P1 omc CD CT decimal decimal $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 0. 2003) Sediment Characteristics Min metric tonnes Removal Parameters Qf m3/s 5 Bottom outlet capacity.62 Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) 63 500 (Yılmaz. 1991) Dams in Turkyey (1991) Dams in Turkyey (1991) Assumed due to not knowing bottom outlet sill elevation L m 3 000 Measured from map Water Characteristics Vin m3 3 900 000 (Yılmaz.35 0.1 Bayındır Dam Input Data Parameter S0 Se Wbot SSres Elmax Elmin Elf m m m Unit Value Source Reservoir Geometry m3 m3 m 7 000 000 5 170 000 105.0 970 (Yılmaz.08 0. 1991) Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkyey.0 960. 2003) 145 .0 2.03 0.00 2. (Dams in Turkyey. 2003) (Yılmaz.085 3.APPENDIX E BAYINDIR DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS Table E.0 985.

See Total Removal with HSRS N/A -1 500 402 Partial Removal with HSRS is HSRS technically infeasible.2 Economic Results for Bayındır Dam Possible Strategies Do nothing Nonsustainable (Decommissioning) with Partial Removal Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with No Removal Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Flushing HSRS Dredging Trucking Technique N/A Aggregate Net Present Value 0.000E+00 146 .Table E. See Total Removal with HSRS -1 499 060 -2 978 471 -4 310 891 -4 932 516 Table E.3 Economic Conclusion for Bayındır Dam Strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: Technique yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: The highest aggregate net benefit is: $ Do nothing N/A 0.000 Partial Removal with HSRS is HSRS technically infeasible.

5 Annual Fund Results for Bayındır Dam Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Decommission Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Partial Removal with HSRS Not applicable $ 0 $ Table E.4 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Bayındır Dam # of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: # of years until retirement for Decommission-with no Removal Option: # of years until retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option with HSRS: Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission-with No Removal Option: Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option with HSRS: Not applicable m3 5 170 000 m3 Not applicable years Not applicable 0 years years Table E.6 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Bayındır Dam # of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with No Removal Option: Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with Partial Removal Option: Not applicable years Not applicable 114 years years 147 .Table E.

9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I.Table E. Bayındır Dam Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 0 times 148 .8 Phase I Lengths for Bayındır Dam Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Flushing Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for HSRS Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Dredging Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Trucking 2 years 2 years 2 years 86 years Table E.7 Long Term Capacity Values for Bayındır Dam Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 1 313 957 5 124 196 5 122 034 5 717 487 m3 m3 m3 m3 Table E.

10 Frequency of Removal for Bayındır Dam Frequency of Removal (years) Not applicable Not applicable No Flushing occurs 1 1 2 1 2 14 Strategy Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Technique HSRS HSRS Flushing Flushing HSRS Dredging Dredging Trucking Trucking Cycle/Phase Annual cycle Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Table E.11 Sediment Removed per Event for Bayındır Dam Sediment Removed (m3) Not applicable Not applicable 0 45 804 45 804 N/A 45 804 N/A 641 257 Strategy Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Technique HSRS HSRS Flushing Flushing HSRS Dredging Dredging Trucking Trucking Cycle/Phase Annual cycle Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II 149 .Table E.

Table E.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT. Bayındır Dam Technique Flushing(Phase I) Flushing(Phase II) HSRS Dredging(Phase I) Dredging(Phase II) Trucking(Phase I) Trucking(Phase II) ASD/AST(%) N/A 1 2 N/A 2 N/A 34 27 27 27 CLF/CLD/CLT 82 Table E.13 Technical Comments for Bayındır Dam Average expected concentration of sediment to water flushed per flushing event: Average expected concentration of sediment to water released downstream of dam per hydrosuction event: Average expected concentration of sediment to water removed from reservoir per dredging event: Note: Because reservoir is dewatered prior to a trucking event and river is diverted during a trucking event. material removed is moist sediment (negligible water) 300 000 ppm 1 412 ppm 51 547 ppm 150 .

00 151 .94 Phase II 3. of Dredges (Phase I) N/A No.0 31.15 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Dredging Removal Option.1 57. of Dredges (Phase II) 1 Table E.0 96.0 73. Bayındır Dam Number of Loads (Phase I) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Number of Loads (Phase II) 39 584 35 625 24 664 20 686 15 232 11 250 8 784 6 680 Truck Model Number 769D 771D 773D 775D 777D 785B 789B 793C m3/Truck Load 16.0 42. Bayındır Dam Volume Removed per Dredge (m3/Dredge) 11 000 000 No.16 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Bayındır Dam Phase I Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) N/A 1.2 18.0 Table E.0 26.Table E.14 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Trucking Removal Option.

0 1.0 103.62 Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) 152 .03 0.00 2.1 3.APPENDIX F BORCKA DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS Table F.0 113 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) Assumed due to not knowing bottom outlet sill elevation L m 30 500 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) Water Characteristics Vin m3 5 655 000 000 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) Sediment Characteristics Min metric tonnes Removal Parameters Qf m /s 3 10 501 677 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) 287 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003) Economic Parameters r Mr P1 omc CD CT decimal decimal $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 0.1 Borcka Dam Input Data Parameter S0 Se Wbot SSres Elmax Elmin Elf m m m Unit Value Source Reservoir Geometry m3 m3 m 418 950 000 418 950 000 385.095 0.18 0.0 187.

3 Economic Conclusion for Borcka Dam Strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: Technique yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: The highest aggregate net benefit is: $ Sustainable Dredging 7.Table F.590E+09 153 . See Partial Removal with HSRS Sustainable Sustainable Dredging Trucking 7 590 185 391 7 208 603 765 N/A 7 490 195 435 Technique N/A HSRS Aggregate Net Present Value 7 488 543 414 7 488 918 784 Table F.2 Economic Results for Borcka Dam Possible Strategies Do nothing Nonsustainable (Decommissioning) with Partial Removal Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with No Removal Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with Partial Removal Sustainable HSRS Flushing 7 490 570 806 7 368 404 656 Total Removal with HSRS is Sustainable HSRS technically infeasible.

Table F.6 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Borcka Dam # of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with No Removal Option: Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with Partial Removal Option: 64 years 1 64 years years 154 .4 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Borcka Dam # of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: # of years until retirement for Decommission-with no Removal Option: # of years until retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option with HSRS: Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission-with No Removal Option: Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option with HSRS: 6 499 638 m3 4 828 508 m3 63 years 1 63 years years Table F.5 Annual Fund Results for Borcka Dam Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Decommission Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Partial Removal with HSRS 551 682 $ 551 682 $ Table F.

Borcka Dam Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 14 times 155 .8 Phase I Lengths for Borcka Dam Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Flushing Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for HSRS Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Dredging Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Trucking 12 years 8 years Not applicable years 56 years Table F.7 Long Term Capacity Values for Borcka Dam Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 193 200 773 Not applicable 366 363 144 399 229 929 m3 m3 m3 m3 Table F.9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I.Table F.

Table F.10 Frequency of Removal for Borcka Dam Frequency of Removal (years) 1 1 3 1 Not applicable 8 1 12 10 Strategy Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Technique HSRS HSRS Flushing Flushing HSRS Dredging Dredging Trucking Trucking Cycle/Phase Annual cycle Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Table F.11 Sediment Removed per Event for Borcka Dam Sediment Removed (m3) 26 954 26 954 10 165 604 6 573 357 Not applicable N/A 6 573 357 N/A 65 733 570 Strategy Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Technique HSRS HSRS Flushing Flushing HSRS Dredging Dredging Trucking Trucking Cycle/Phase Annual cycle Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II 156 .

Table F. 157 . Decrease AST or increase MT. Borcka Dam Technique Flushing(Phase I) Flushing(Phase II) HSRS Dredging(Phase I) Dredging(Phase II) Trucking(Phase I) Trucking(Phase II) ASD/AST(%) Varies 3 N/A N/A 13 N/A 83 19 N/A 13 CLF/CLD/CLT 55 Table F. MT. material removed is moist sediment (negligible water) 300 000 ppm 199 ppm 86 091 ppm The physical maximum limit for removal of sediment with trucking.13 Technical Comments for Borcka Dam Average expected concentration of sediment to water flushed per flushing event: Average expected concentration of sediment to water released downstream of dam per hydrosuction event: Average expected concentration of sediment to water removed from reservoir per dredging event: Note: Because reservoir is dewatered prior to a trucking event and river is diverted during a trucking event.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT. is being exceeded. specified in the User Input page.

Borcka Dam Number of Loads (Phase I) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Number of Loads (Phase II) 4 057 628 3 651 865 2 528 214 2 120 438 1 561 367 1 153 221 900 460 684 725 Truck Model Number 769D 771D 773D 775D 777D 785B 789B 793C m3/Truck Load 16.2 18.1 57.00 158 .15 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Dredging Removal Option. of Dredges (Phase I) N/A No.Table F.16 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Borcka Dam Phase I Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) N/A 6. of Dredges (Phase II) 1 Table F.0 96.18 Phase II 3.0 42. Borcka Dam Volume Removed per Dredge (m3/Dredge) 11.14 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Trucking Removal Option.0 31.0 73.0 Table F.000 No.0 26.000.

1991) Measured from Drawings (Dams in Turkey.03 0.35 0.1 Ivriz Dam Input Data Parameter S0 Se Wbot SSres Elmax Elmin Elf m m m Unit Value Source Reservoir Geometry m3 m3 m 80 000 000 75 122 000 75.0 1155.APPENDIX G IVRIZ DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS Table G.00 2.0 1114.8 1121 DSI Web Page (2005) Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) Measured from Drawings (Dams in Turkey.10 3.08 0.0 2.62 Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) 159 . 1991) DSI Web Page (2005) DSI Web Page (2005) Assumed due to not knowing bottom outlet sill elevation L m 32 000 Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) Water Characteristics Vin m3 104 000 000 Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) Sediment Characteristics Min metric tonnes Removal Parameters Qf m /s 3 340 200 Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) 55 Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) Economic Parameters r Mr P1 omc CD CT decimal decimal $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 0.

3 Economic Conclusion for Ivriz Dam Strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: Technique yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: The highest aggregate net benefit is: $ Do nothing N/A 4.335E+07 160 .2 Economic Results for Ivriz Dam Possible Strategies Do nothing Nonsustainable (Decommissioning) with Partial Removal Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with No Removal Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with Partial Removal Sustainable HSRS Flushing 43 333 978 43 347 011 Total Removal with HSRS is Sustainable HSRS technically infeasible. See Partial Removal with HSRS Sustainable Sustainable Dredging Trucking 41 485 803 38 115 009 N/A 43 347 725 Technique N/A HSRS Aggregate Net Present Value 43 347 725 43 333 978 Table G.Table G.

6 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Ivriz Dam # of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with No Removal Option: Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with Partial Removal Option: 327 years 326 328 years years 161 .4 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Ivriz Dam # of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: # of years until retirement for Decommission-with no Removal Option: # of years until retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option with HSRS: Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission-with No Removal Option: Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option with HSRS: 910 600 m3 907 001 m3 323 years 322 324 years years Table G.5 Annual Fund Results for Ivriz Dam Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Decommission Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Partial Removal with HSRS 0 $ 0 $ Table G.Table G.

7 Long Term Capacity Values for Ivriz Dam Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 47 065 739 Not applicable 73 653 030 78 535 314 m3 m3 m3 m3 Table G.Table G.8 Phase I Lengths for Ivriz Dam Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Flushing Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for HSRS Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Dredging Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity for Trucking 26 years 26 years Not applicable years 137 years Table G.9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I. Ivriz Dam Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 0 times 162 .

Table G.11 Sediment Removed per Event for Ivriz Dam Sediment Removed (m3) 3 599 3 599 0 244 114 Not applicable N/A 244 114 N/A 5 126 398 Strategy Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Technique HSRS HSRS Flushing Flushing HSRS Dredging Dredging Trucking Trucking Cycle/Phase Annual cycle Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II 163 .10 Frequency of Removal for Ivriz Dam Frequency of Removal (years) 1 1 No Flushing occurs 1 Not applicable 26 1 26 21 Strategy Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with Partial Removal Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable Technique HSRS HSRS Flushing Flushing HSRS Dredging Dredging Trucking Trucking Cycle/Phase Annual cycle Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Annual cycle Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Table G.

13 Technical Comments for Ivriz Dam Average expected concentration of sediment to water flushed per flushing event: Average expected concentration of sediment to water released downstream of dam per hydrosuction event: Average expected concentration of sediment to water removed from reservoir per dredging event: Note: Because reservoir is dewatered prior to a trucking event and river is diverted during a trucking event.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT.Table G. material removed is moist sediment (negligible water) 300 000 ppm 40 ppm 19 471 ppm 164 . Ivriz Dam Technique Flushing(Phase I) Flushing(Phase II) HSRS Dredging(Phase I) Dredging(Phase II) Trucking(Phase I) Trucking(Phase II) ASD/AST(%) N/A 1 1 68 4 N/A 89 8 N/A 8 CLF/CLD/CLT 41 Table G.

00 165 . of Dredges (Phase I) N/A No.Table G.0 26.1 57.2 18. Ivriz Dam Volume Removed per Dredge (m3/Dredge) 11.31 Phase II 3.16 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Ivriz Dam Phase I Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) N/A 46.0 73.0 Table G.14 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Trucking Removal Option.0 31.15 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Dredging Removal Option.0 96. of Dredges (Phase II) 1 Table G.000.000 No.0 42. Ivriz Dam Number of Loads (Phase I) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Number of Loads (Phase II) 316 444 284 800 197 169 165 368 121 767 89 937 70 225 53 400 Truck Model Number 769D 771D 773D 775D 777D 785B 789B 793C m3/Truck Load 16.

1 ~ Figure H.32.APPENDIX H MAPS OF BASINS IN TURKEY There are 26 catchment areas in Turkey. These are given in Figure H.1 Layout of Basins of Tureky . 166 Figure H.

Figure H.2 Meric Basin (Basin #1) 167 .

3 Marmara Basin (Basin #2) Figure H.Figure H.4 Susurluk Basin (Basin #3) 168 .

Figure H.5 Aegean Basin (Basin #4) 169 .

6 Gediz Basin (Basin #5) Figure H.Figure H.7 Small Meander Basin (Basin #6) 170 .

Figure H.9 West Mediterranean Basin (Basin #8) 171 .8 Great Meander Basin (Basin #7) Figure H.

Figure H.10 Middle Mediterranean Basin (Basin #9) 172 .

Figure H.11 Burdur Lake Basin (Basin #10) 173 .

13 Sakarya Basin (Basin #12) 174 .12 Afyon Basin (Basin #11) Figure H.Figure H.

15 West Yesilirmak Basin (Basin #14) 175 .Figure H.14 West Black Sea Basin – Anatolian Part (Basin #13) Figure H.

17 South Kizilirmak Basin (Basin #15) 176 .16 East Yesilirmak Basin (Basin #14) Figure H.Figure H.

18 North Kizilirmak Basin (Basin #15) 177 .Figure H.

20 East Mediterranean Basin (Basin #17) 178 .19 Middle Anatolian Basin (Basin #16) Figure H.Figure H.

21 Seyhan Basin (Basin #18) 179 .Figure H.

22 Hatay Basin (Basin #19) 180 .Figure H.

Figure H.23 Ceyhan Basin (Basin #20) 181 .

24 Lower Euphrates River Basin (Basin #21) Figure H.Figure H.25 Middle Euphrates River Basin (Basin #21) 182 .

27 East Black Sea Basin (Basin #22) 183 .Figure H.26 Upper Euphrates River Basin (Basin #21) Figure H.

29 Aras Basin (Basin #24) 184 .28 Coruh Basin (Basin #23) Figure H.Figure H.

30 Van Lake Basin (Basin #25) 185 .Figure H.

32 Tigris-Zapsuyu Basin (Basin #26) 186 .31 Tigris River Basin (Basin #26) Figure H.Figure H.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful