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

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

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

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

.......1 Introduction .....3...........................................3...3 Water Required for Traditional Dredging .......................3...37 3...................2...3 Worldwide Experience of Flushing.5 Decommissioning (Removal of a Dam)..............................1 Yield Estimation in RESCON............2.2..............2.4 Problems Related to Initiation of Flushing...............................4 Water Required for Trucking ..................33 3.............3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System (HSRS) ........2 Factors Affecting Applicability and Efficiency of Flushing ...................3.....3 Optimization Framework in RESCON.............3 RESCON Program ..........29 3............................37 3..........................37 3.............19 2........................................................38 viii ........2.36 3.................3..................35 3..........................................36 3...............................3......................2 Water Required for Sediment Removal in Economic Models ...........................1 No Sediment Removal Option ......4 Importance of Full Drawdown ..........3...........................23 2.....2....3.....25 3.......2 Water Required for HSRS.............3..................................................36 3..............................29 3........................2 Life Cycle Management Approach ....................13 2..............................2...............17 2...............................................................15 2.. LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT METHOD ...1 Water Required for Sediment Flushing.........31 3...................21 2.............................................2......................4 Dredging and Trucking ...........2.....................

.....64 3....1 Unit Cost of Hydrosuction ......5 Cost Calculations in Economic Models ..............3 Dredging and Trucking Results.................9..... REVIEW OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION IN TURKEY .....1 Decommissioning of the Dam .3....................................3.....9....3......3...3...41 3.46 3........3.........................3.....................2 Run-of-River Option ........64 4.....3.................9..........................63 3........46 3............38 3...............47 3..3..................38 3.................3........................3..3.............61 3......45 3.........3...........................3...........1 Flushing Results ........63 3.......43 3...................................1......................................9 Important Points for Evaluating RESCON Results....2 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Results ..........2 Unit Cost of Dredging ...3..63 3...............................................38 3..........................................................8 Precautions Using RESCON Program ...5...........4 Sensitivity Analysis for RESCON ................................................5.3........3............3..5............9.........3..............4 Traditional Dredging and Trucking Option.................2 Flushing Option.....47 3.3..3..3...................1......................3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Option.......3........4 Gould’s Gamma Function .................45 3..40 3........66 ix .......3 Unit Cost of Construction...................7 Definitions of RESCON Input Parameters.........6 Hydrosuction Removal System (HSRS) Calculations in RESCON ................................3................

...............2............2..67 4...............66 4.....................................1..........98 x ...................2........74 4...................1............69 4.....................1......................3..........1 General .........................................83 4.2...................2.....2..............................1 Evaluation of Bayındır Dam RESCON Results .....2.2 Sediment Sampling of EIE ............82 4..........2....................1 General ...............................................68 4..........................4 Ivriz Dam..............3 Borcka Dam........1 DSI Investigation and Planning Department........................................................74 4......................3..................1....................................................3..................3...........4.............................2 Bayındır Dam ........94 4............................................................2 Evaluation of Cubuk I Dam RESCON Results .........66 4.........................80 4......................80 4......3.......3...................................3..............................................3..3 DSI Operation and Maintenance Department ..........................2........2...........3 Case Studies from Turkey ...1 Cubuk I Dam RESCON User Input ..66 4........1 Sediment Information in State Hydraulic Works (DSI) ...................4 Sediment Measurement Studies of DSI.......................................1...............75 4....95 4..93 4..................2 Sediment Studies of Electrical Survey Agency (EIE).1 Evaluation of Borcka Dam RESCON Results ............................69 4....1.........................96 4.........2 Data Collection...2 DSI Mapping Section ..3.....1 Cubuk I Dam .....................................2.......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 .

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

opposed a methodology for the reassessment of a reservoir. Therefore. Simonovic (1994). Table 1. However. 2 . Thus.1 demand for new storage increases.1. As can be seen from Table 1. we need to find out ways for sustainable management of existing reservoirs as well as new ones. 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. economical life of dams can be extended and capacity loss may be prevented. If new policies are prepared in feasibility level for new dams. constructing new dams creates new problems as well as their benefits. In this study obtaining storage requirement using current demand and finding the best management strategy for an existing reservoir was the objectives. 1 Water Demand According to Region (White. a capacity less or equal to its original capacity may be sustained.Present and future water demand of each continent is given in Table 1. As a result of economical analysis and site investigations sediment deposited in existing reservoirs can be partially cleared.

presented a new methodology in order to evaluate economics of reservoir sedimentation and sustainable management of dams. Either we will deal with the problem or leave it to next generation. In their works. Worldwide storage. various sediment removal techniques are compared economically and compared from sustainability point of view. All these activities need finance. (2001). loss of aggricultural areas. and change in habitat. If we do not pay enough attention for sedimentation problems. next generations will have to pay for it but it may be too late for them to solve the problem. 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. power and sedimentation is shown in Table 1. Palmieri et al. environmental problems. Thus. small dams and maintenance of new dams gain importance.Constructing new dams receives too much criticism due to resettlement problem. etc. 2 3 .

2001. Power and Sedimentation (RESCON Manual Volume I.5 0.3-1.2 Worldwide Storage.5 0.Table 1.2 0.1 0.0 2.5 16 14.23 1. 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. .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) 0.17-0.08-1.3 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.2 0.5-1 0.

Gap Weir. These dams are More Creek Dam. 3.24 kN/m3 (RESCON Manual.1. On the other hand.. Turbid inflow Coarse Delta Floating Debris Relatively clear water Outlets Fine sediments Density current Figure 1. Four arch dams constructed in New South Wales have been examined by Chanson and James (1998). Information of use and siltation for these dams is shown in Table 1. Especially. for the reservoirs with no watershed management or the reservoirs on high-sediment-carrying rivers this problem may be more severe. turbidity currents are also sources of sediment at downstream parts of a reservoir as in Figure 1. velocity of water decreases and coarser particles deposit mostly at entrance of the reservoir forming a delta as shown in Figure 1.83-13.1 Sedimentation Process (RESCON Manual Volume I. 2003) Sedimentation is a big problem for reservoirs. finer sediment is carried by quasi-homogeneous flow to nearer parts of the body of a dam (Yu et al. 5 .1. 2003). Characteristic unit weight values of sediments in a reservoir are between 8. 2000). Korrumbyn Creek Dam and Quipolly Dam.When a river flows into a reservoir. 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. Moreover.

NSW Mount Warning National Park. 20km west of Murwillumbah 20 km southeast of Werris Creek. fully silted in 1924 Rapid bed-load sedimentation associated with jammed scour valve Sedimentation volume larger than half of the initial storage by 1952. disused since 1955 Korrumbyn Creek dam. 3 Characteristics of Creek Dam. 1917-1918 27. Gap Weir.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. 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. 1932 860E+03 70 *Original capacity . 1898 20 km north of Tamworth.Table 1. 1902 5 km west of Werris Creek.28E+03 3 Quipolly dam. NSW Moore Creek 220E+03 51 Water supply for the town of Tamworth Complete reservoir siltation by 1924(and probably earlier).

such as resettlement and change in environmental properties. benefits of dams and diverse effects of dam construction. Also. 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.In Turkey. presented need for sustainable management of finite water resources. debate between construction of large dams. 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. there are limited number of studies related to reservoir sedimentation. Yalçınkaya (1991) studied deposition mechanism of sediment within a reservoir area. need for constructing dams. 7 . Altınbilek (2002). The two methods are used for 16 reservoirs of Turkey and results were compared with the actual measurements. 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. the contribution of dams to the Turkish economy has been stated. Yılmaz (2003).

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

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

Sediment flushing evacuates previously deposited sediment and sediment sluicing evacuates the sediment coming with high discharges resulted from melted snow or heavy rain. decommissioning (removal of a dam completely). 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. sediment flushing and sediment sluicing are a bit different. There is another method called sediment sluicing. 2.1 General In this chapter sediment removal techniques have been presented with their applications in the world.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. These techniques are flushing. However.2. trucking and dredging. Another difference is 10 . All of these works are very detailed and large amount of money is required to carry out researches.2 Flushing 2. Therefore supporting evidence should be obtained as a result of investigations.CHAPTER 2 SEDIMENT REMOVAL TECHNIQUES 2. hydrosuction sediment removal system (HSRS).

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

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. However. the criterion used for feasibility of flushing is Sediment Balance Ratio. 2003). 2003). Flushing Width Ratio (FWR) and Top Width Ratio (TWR) are the criteria for flushing stated by Atkinson (1996).7 (RESCON Manual. If TWR is a constraint TWR>2 is preferable. Long Term Capacity Ratio (LTCR). 12 . FWR>1 is preferable (RESCON Manual. 2003). In RESCON. 1996). 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. 2003). 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. Sediment Balance Ratio (SBR. 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. SBRd > 1. SBRd).0 is preferable (RESCON Manual. Flushing Width (FW): Estimated actual flushing width using a best-fit equation resulting from empirical data (Atkinson. In order drawdown to be sufficient. If TWR is not a constraint TWR approaching 1 is sufficient (RESCON Manual. DDR should be approximately 0.

Actual Flushing Width: The actual flushing width is estimated using a best-fit equation resulting from empirical data (Atkinson.2 Factors Affecting Applicability and Efficiency of Flushing Some hydraulic conditions should be provided for a successful flushing operation.Brune Ratio: This is ratio of the original reservoir capacity to the mean annual reservoir inflow. 2003). These are: • Hydraulic capacity of the outlet must be sufficient enough to keep reservoir level as constant as possible until flushing ends (Howard. This adjusted Migniot's equation often over-estimates side slopes by 10 times. Using this value and the sediment type provided by user program calculates trap efficiency. Flushing Channel Side Slope (SSf): Representative side slope for deposits exposed during flushing. 2.2. 2000). Trap Efficiency: Trap efficiency is the percent of entrapped sediment to the inflowing sediment to the reservoir. 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. 1996). so the equation was divided by 10 to obtain a more reasonable result (RESCON Manual. 13 .

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

There are numerous models for predicting the reservoir sedimentation. 2004). riverbed evolution. etc. In order flushing facilities to be cost effective the reservoirs which have lost 40%-60% of their original capacity are more suitable. 2000). fisheries. and amount of sediment flushed. • Hydrologically large dams may need lateral and longitudinal diversion channels for flushing.. and sediment concentration during flushing such as HEC-6 of the U. a one dimensional numerical model is proposed for predicting the sediment concentration variations. 2000): • The hydrology and sedimentalogy of the catchement should be fully understood. Daishidaira and Unazuki reservoirs.3 have greater chance for successful flushing. Two reservoirs in Japan. • Hydrologically small reservoirs with storage capacity to annual runoff ratio of 0. 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. In the model of Liu et al.2. were selected to varify 15 . (2004). • Downstream impacts (following reservoirs.2. Army Corps of Engineers (1991) and the FLUVIAL-12 model developed by Chang (1998) (Liu et al.) may be a constraint.3 Worldwide Experience of Flushing HR Wallingford Institute study results over 50 reservoirs worldwide has given the following findings (Howard.S.

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. 2004) 16 . The predicted results are in good aggreement with the measurements as can be seen in Figure 2. 2001 = 0.59 million m3 Calculated amount of flushed sediment On June 24. Other four criteria are also met for six successfully flushed reservoirs and at least one is not met for eight unsuccessfully flushed reservoirs. 2001 = 0. 1 Measured and Calculated Thalweg Profiles in Dashidaira Reservoir (Liu et al. Original in 1985 Measured in June 2001 Measured in Nov. 2000 Calculated in June 2001 Calculated in July 2001 Elevation (m) Measured amount of flushed sediment On June 24.2..564 million m3 Distance from Dashidara dam (m) Figure 2. 2001 Measured in Dec. SBR and LTCR criteria are met for six successfully flushed reservoirs and LTCR criterion is not met for eight unsuccessfully flushed reservoirs. Six of these reservoirs have been flushed successfully and rest of the reservoirs are not successfully flushed.the model. Fourteen previously flushed reservoirs worldwide have been examined by Atkinson (1996).1 and Figure 2. However.

if possible full drawdown should be practiced for a successful flushing operation.49 million m3 Calculated amount deposits on June 25. Purpose of drawdown is decreasing water level to original flowing river elevation and increasing velocity. 2001 = 0..4 Importance of Full Drawdown According to report of Atkinson (1996) incomplete drawdown makes a flushing operation less effective. 2004) 2. When drawdown is completed concentration increases tremendously.2. Therefore.2 Measured and Calculated Thalweg Profiles in Unazuki Reservoir (Liu et al.Measured in 2000 Measured in June 2001 Measured in Nov.48 million m3 Distance from Unazuki dam (m) Figure 2. 2001 Calculated in June 2001 Calculated in July 2001 Elevation (m) Measured amount of deposits on June 25. time from start of drawdown plot for Baira Resevoir in India is shown in Figure 2. Sediment concentration in flow leaving reservoir vs. 2001 = 0. Thus incipient motion of deposited sediment is provided. 17 .3.

for large dams situation is different.3 Sediment Concentration During Drawdown of Baira Reservoir (Atkinson. In Figure 2.Drawdown complete Sediment concentration in flow leaving reservoir(ppm) Time from start of drawdown (hours) Figure 2. 1996) Flushing operation may result in gain of most of the lost capacity for hydraulicaly small reservoirs. sediment is deposited at these parts. As a result of flushing operation an incised channel is formed.4 presenting storage plot and a cross-section before and after flushing. Due to this reason. However. 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. In the model of Atkinson real reservoir model is idealized and a simple model for evaluation of criteria is formed. cross 18 .5 the simplified model.

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

5 The Simplified Geometry for Calculation of Criteria (Atkinson. 1996) 20 .Figure 2.

an exernally powered water jet or cutter head at the inlet to break up consolidated sediments 21 . There is no need for power supply (Figure 2. Principle components of HSRS are intake. sediment carrying capacity of downstream river does not increase. releasing sediment has harmful effects on downstream part of the dam since it increases turbidity. 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. the same principle is valid but a pipeline is constructed between entrance of the reservoir and downstream of the dam. For HSRS-bypass a sediment excluding system is required to separate sediment from water. On the other hand. In hydrosuction dredging ancillary facilities such as a raft or barge to move the pipeline inlet in the reservoir.7). 1995). Sediment is conveyed through the pipe before it deposits in the reservoir bottom area (Figure 2.6).3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System (HSRS) There are two types of hydrosuction sediment removal: 1. pipeline. Unfortunately. Using HSRS these effects can be minimized by selecting a proper destination point for sediment deposition. Hydrosuction Dredging 2. outlet works and auxillary facilities. valve. In hydraulic bypassing. If HSRS-bypass is installed at the beginning of construction of the dam sedimentation problem may be less severe (Hotchkiss and Huang.2.

Fan. 1995) HSRS dredging was first performed in Djidiouia Reservoir in Algeria from 1892 to 1894 (Hotchkiss and Huang. 1985).6 Hydrosuction Dredging (Hotchkiss and Huang. Dredge Pipeline To Discharge Facility Figure 2. 1995).(if required) and instrumentation to monitor the operation are required (Hotchkiss and Huang. 1995) e ipelin ass P Byp Sediment Diversion Discharge Dam Figure 2. In this two-year period 1 400 000 m3 of silt and clay was dredged by a 61cm-diameter and 1.6 km-long pipe. 1995.7 Hydrosuction Bypassing (Hotchkiss and Huang. ref. Half of the incoming sediment is removed each year by HSRS dredging 22 .

6 for this project. For dredging operations. Dredged material can be used for landscaping and island formation (Marlin. mechanical dredging system is installed on a boat. 2002). An important problem related to dredging is handling of dredged material.0 . Dredging operation done in Upper Peoria Lake 23 . cost ratio was 3.8 pumping of dredged material is seen. Before selecting HSRS to remove sediment from the reservoir its downstream should be evaluated in terms of environmental considerations as well.4 Dredging and Trucking Dredging is removing deposited sediment in the reservoir area mechanically within the reservoir without emptying the reservoir. Therefore. Transporting dredged material far away from reservoir increases the cost. In Figure 2. cost of dredging varies between $2. 2. Pumping water-sediment mixture is difficult and expensive. Removed sediment is transported through pipes by pumping. removed material should be deposited in a close site or should be used for some other purposes.0 per cubic meter of sediment. 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.$3. That means service of the reservoir is continued during the period of dredging operation. A 10-step design procedure is applied for the design of HSRS pipeline by Hotchkiss and Huang (1995). Benefit.from Xiao Xua-shan reservoir in China. According to Mahmood (1987).

In this figure conventional clamshell bucket is used. 2002) The difference of trucking from dredging is to empty reservoir before operation. In trucking all the water in a reservoir is released and deposited sediment within the reservoir is transported by using heavy equipment.83 for 1 km of distance and $2.62 for 10 km of distance 24 .9. Cost of trucking changes according to transportation distance. In Turkey. this cost varies between $0.in USA is shown in Figure 2.8 Pumping of Sediment – Water Mixture By A Positive Displacement Pump (Marlin. For large dams with large depths cost of dredging may be very high or dredging may be infeasible to be practiced (Annandale. Figure 2. 2005). Sediment is removed by using excavators and is loaded on trucks and is transported to a proper location. After the sediment in the reservoir has been dredged it is trucked to a proper location for drying.

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

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. It can be understood from these graphs that decommissioned dams are mostly small dams with a height of less than 10 m. benefits of power generation and run-off river benefits may be enough not to employ decommissioning. In USA large hydropower dams represents less than 3% of 75 000 dams (greater than 1.12.10 number of dams which are removed are classified according to their heights and in Figure 2. In Figure 2. This rate is approximately 15% in Turkey (Table A. After removal of a dam large amount of sediment flows freely and a disastrous situation may occur. in 1 – 2 years of time approximately this amount of sediment will be deposited in the reservoir of next dam. The sediment coming from deposited position moves toward the reservoir of next dam. Therefore. As for hydropower plants. Forming of original riverine conditions may take several months to 2 years or more. The main discussion on decommissioning is removal of large hydropower dams (Doyle et al.. Benefit which can be obtained from the reservoir decreases due to low water quality. There are different cases of dam removal in the literature.2). Before employing decommissioning careful evaluation of benefits to be lost and benefits to be gained are very important.Continuous sedimentation depletes reservoir capacity as well as decreases oxygen capacity.8 m in height with at least 0. 2000). Decommissioning has been applied in USA several times. This point should be 26 . It is certain that gain of original habitat conditions may take more time.2 km2 impoundment).

post1940 49 59 69 79 89 1990 Year of Removal Figure 2.1980. Number of Removed 125 0 <5 5-10 10-15 15-20 >20 Height of Dam (m) Figure 2.10 Number of Dams Removed in USA According to Their Heights (Doyle et al..1960.1950.1970.11 Number of Dams Removed in USA by the Years (Doyle et al.. In this period of time probably there will be no fish habitat or similar things in that part of the river.1940. 2000) Number of Removed 100 0 pre.underlined. 2000) 27 .

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..

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

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

intergenerational equity is considered in the approach.2 shows life cycle management approach schematically. Moreover. Removal of deposited sediment. In this approach sedimentation. renewal of facilities such as water intakes or clearance of entrance of sluice gates may cost too much. different reservoir sedimentation management alternatives. In life cycle management approach continuity of reservoir management is under control and carried out in determined times.2 Life Cycle Management Approach Life cycle management approach is different from conceptual design life approach. in case of a sudden sedimentation due to rapid melt of snow or a high rainfall. For example. any effect which may cause problem can be overcome due to continuous monitoring. capacity of the dam may be lost tremendously. economical optimizations for all of the management techniques can be included in pre-feasibility level. Since sedimentation is not considered in conceptual design life approach. social and environmental safeguards. Figure 3.3. 31 . some bad consequences may occur. Therefore. Furthermore. the benefits that can be gained as a result of operations such as power generation or irrigation may be lost. decommissioning of the dam. Considering these two figures difference between the two approaches can be understood.

2 Life Cycle Management Approach (RESCON Manual Volume I.Figure 3. 2003) 32 .

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

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

1 Yield Estimation in RESCON In RESCON water yield estimation is made using Gould’s Gamma Distribution. In order these parameters to be clearly understood some explanation is given in the following parts.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 . 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. 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.

Water yield is estimated as follows: Wt = s1 ⋅ W (0) + s 2(W (S t +1 ) − W (0)) (3.2.3.3) 36 .2.2) 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.3. W(St+1) = water yield from storage capacity after flushing 3. Water required to remove sediment (Yt) is (RESCON Manual.2 Water Required for HSRS Hotchkiss and Huang’s (1995) hydrosuction method is used for HSRS operations in RESCON.3. 2003): Q Yt =  m Q  s  ⋅ Xt   (3.3.2 Water Required for Sediment Removal in Economic Models 3. it is assumed by RESCON that the reservoir is to be completely emptied.1 Water Required for Sediment Flushing If flushing operation is carried out in year t.

water yield for trucking operations is assumed to be zero for simplicity.3. 3.4 Water Required for Trucking For trucking operations significant amount of water is not used.2. Therefore.where Qm = mixture flow rate (volume per time).65  ⋅ Xt Cw  (3.4) 3. the highest aggregate net benefit. retirement fund calculations are the result of optimizations made by RESCON. 2003): Yt =    100 ⋅ 2. 37 .3. = sediment removed in year t (volume).3 Optimization Framework in RESCON Selection of feasible sediment removal technique.3.3 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.2. Brief information is given in the following paragraphs to clarify where RESCON makes optimization. frequency and phase lengths of removal operations. Qs Xt = sediment flow rate (volume per time). 3.

DDR – Drawdown Ratio.1. Atkinson (1996) states four more criteria.3. 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.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. SBRdSediment Balance Ratio based on minimum reservoir elevation. FWR – Flushing 38 . LTCR is a ratio of the sustainable capacity that can be achieved over the long-term to the original capacity. 3.3. An annual retirement fund is not calculated since the dam is not removed in this case. Annual net benefit and salvage value are important in calculation of this time.3.3.3. 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. An annual retirement fund is calculated.1 Decommissioning of the Dam In case of decommissioning.3. There are two main criteria set by Atkinson are Sediment Balance Ratio (SBR) and Long Term Capacity Ratio (LTCR). RESCON calculations of feasibility of flushing are based on SBR alone.1.3.1 No Sediment Removal Option 3.

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

Using an iterative scheme. Energy requirement for HSRS operation is provided from the head difference between the upstream and the downstream water levels of the dam.Figure 3.3.3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Option The Hydrosuction technical model used in RESCON is based on Hotchkiss and Huang (1995). If HSRS cannot remove 40 . 2003). 2003) 3. a mixture velocity is calculated and annual sediment amount which can be removed by HSRS is calculated. This result is compared with annual sediment inflow to the reservoir.3 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Flushing (RESCON Manual Volum II.3. Hydrosuction is assumed to occur annually and the timing of HSRS installation is determined through economic optimization (RESCON Manual.

Whether existing capacity of the reservoir Se is bigger or smaller than Smin affects length of phases. Figure 3. 41 . In this case HSRS can only increase economic life of the dam and cannot prevent all capacity from being depleted in finite time.4 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Hydrosuction (RESCON Manual Volume II.4 is obtained. 2003) 3.annual incoming sediment. non-sustainable solution is obtained. LTC is determined on the basis of optimal cycle length of phase II.3.4 Traditional Dredging and Trucking Option There are two phases for dredging and trucking. Length of phase I is dependent on Smin (lower bound of remaining reservoir capacity) which is calculated as a result of optimization. There are two different time paths for these cases. As a result of optimization possible time path for HSRS in a form like shown in Figure 3.3.

Cycle length of phase II is calculated using the difference between Smin and LTC. Figure 3. As a result of optimization possible time path for dredging and trucking in a form like shown in Figure 3. On the other hand.5 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and Trucking (Se>Smin) (RESCON Manual Volume II.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. 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.6 is obtained. 2003) 42 .

Increasing width of reservoir for a constant value of flushing flow results in lower long term capacity ratios. 2003) 3.6 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and Trucking (Se<Smin) (RESCON Manual Volume II.Figure 3. During the analysis some parameters have been kept constant and some parameters have been changed.3. As a result of this analysis sensitivities to input parameters can be summarized as follows: 1. 43 .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.

5.1/m3 to $0. 3. Even 1% of change can affect economical results seriously. the long term capacity ratio increases by 31% and 6%. the NPV for all strategies increase by nearly $140 billion. respectively. see Appendix B. for dredging and trucking. According to Basson’s and Rooseboom’s empirical flushing results and RESCON results. 4. Furthermore LTCR increases by 33% and 4%.2. If the parameters describing the cost of sediment removal are considered. 8. Also. This parameter has a small effect on NPV. RESCON results may be unreliable (For the Wt/MAR checks of tested reservoirs in this study. Program is highly sensitive to market rate of interest. If Wt/MAR is less than 0. The details of this sensitivity analysis can be seen in Appendix C. 2003). for dredging and trucking.2/m3. 6. NPV for each strategy increases by %50. 44 . From applicability point of view this sensitivity analysis should be carried out on reservoir base. If unit value of reservoir yield (P1) is doubled from $0. flushing could be preferred as a sediment management technique when reservoirs are hydraulically small and sediment loads are relatively high (RESCON Manual. Program is not sensitive to operations and maintenance cost (omc). NPV increases for all of the strategies tremendously. respectively.4. 7. If discount rate(r) is lowered from 5% to %3. when cost of sediment removal is reduced. 9.

the method giving the highest aggregate net benefit and other economical optimizations. net present value calculations.3. Technical maximum sediment transport rate is calculated by the program CH = HI DU ⋅ Qs (3.5 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.5.3.5) 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.3. However unit cost of operations pretty much affect the cost of operations. 2003). Therefore. 3.1 Unit Cost of Hydrosuction Unit cost of hydrosuction is calculated using the following formula (RESCON Manual.

2 Unit Cost of Dredging Unit cost of dredging calculated using the following criteria.62 6     10  CD(X) = 15.3.3 Unit Cost of Construction Unit cost of construction is calculted using the following criteria (RESCON Manual.3.5 − 0.3. This calculation is also based on experience as dredging.0 −0.7) (3.0 CD(X) = 2.5. 2003). 2003).53LN    1000000  c=US$0.43 (3.9) where X= amount of sediment dredged per cycle (m3) CD = unit cost of dredging (US$/m3) 3.8) (3.10) where c = unit cost of construction (US$/m3) S0 = original capacity of the reservoir (m3) 46 . The criteria is based on experience (RESCON Manual.5.16/m3 (3. IF S0>500 000 000m3  S0  Else c = 3. IF X<150 000m3 IF X>16 000 000m3 X Else CD(X) = 6.

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

L h (m) (m) Reservoir length at the normal pool elevation.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. Minimum bed elevation--this should be the riverbed elevation at the dam. Water elevation at dam during flushing . (m) Elevation of top water level in reservoir--use normal pool elevation. Lower elevation will result in a more successful flushing operation.Table 3. Available head--reservoir normal elevation minus river bed downstream of dam ELmax ELmin (m) 48 .this is a ELf (m) function of gate capacity and reservoir inflow sequence. 1 Vertical to SSres Horizontal.

Typical values range between 0.9 . 300. ¥ 650.1.1mm.3 Sediment Characteristics Parameter Pd Units (tonnes/m ) (metric tonnes) 3 Description Density of in-situ reservoir sediment. Min 1600. Select from: 1600 for fine loess sediments.35. 300 for sediments with median size larger than 0. 180 49 . Mean annual sediment inflow mass.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.Table 3. Determine this from statistrical analysis of the annual runoff volumes T (oC) Representative reservoir water temperature Table 3. 650 sediments with median size finer than 0. 180 for flushing with Qf < 50 m3/s with any grain size.1mm.

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.1mm or if the reservoir has been impounded for more than 10 years without sediment removal.Table 3. dispersed. fine-grained sediment This parameter gives the model a guideline of how difficult it will be to remove sediments. 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. Enter "3" if reservoir sediments are Brune Curve No Ans 3 or 1 significantly larger than median grain size (d50) = 0. 2 for gravel. 50 . Enter "1" if otherwise.

D (feet) 51 . Enter the number of pipes you want to try for NP 1.4 feet. Maximum fraction of total yield that is allowed to be used in HSRS operations. or 3 hydrosuction sediment removal. 2. Frequency of flushing events (whole number of years between flushing events) Assume a trial pipe diameter for hydrosuction. Representative flushing discharge. It is often possible to replace required maintenance flows with this water release. if hydrosuction cannot remove enough sediment. try 2 or 3.1. This fraction of YA Between 0 and 1 yield will be released downstream of the dam in the river channel. Should be between 1 . Try 1 first. This should Qf (m3/s) be calculated with reference to the actual inflows and the flushing gate capacities. 2 for no.4 Removal Parameters Parameter HP Units 1 or 2 Description Is this a hydroelectric power reservoir? Enter 1 for yes. Enter a decimal fraction from 0 . Tf N (days) (years) Duration of flushing after complete drawdown.Table 3.

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

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

If the dam is a new construction project enter 1. Do not exceed this default unless you have studies for your reservoir showing different dredging expectations. The default value given here is a crude estimate based on original c ($/m3) reservoir storage capacity. Table 3. 54 .Table 3. Unit Cost of Construction. The user is warned if this MT (m3) constraint is not met. The user is encouraged to replace this value with a project specific estimate. 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. Cw (%) Maximum of 30%.5 Economic Parameters Parameter Units Description If dam being considered is an existing dam enter E 0 or 1 0.4 Removal Parameters (continued) Parameter Units Description Maximum amount of sediment removed per trucking event.

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

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

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). 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 3.5 Economic Parameters (continued) Parameter Units Description Unit Cost of Trucking--The user is encouraged CT ($/m3) to input her/his own estimate. the default value is recommended. 57 . Table 3.

The cost entered will be incurred when flushing is first practiced.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 .7 Capital Investment Parameters Parameter Units Description Cost of capital investment required for FI $ implementing flushing measures.Table 3. Table 3. Cost of capital investment to install HI $ Hydrosuction Sediment-Removal Systems (HSRS). DU Years The expected life of HSRS.

Interpretation No impact and potential benefits Minor impact Moderate impact Significant impact Policy Level A B C D Table 3.Table 3.9 Classification of Safeguard Policy Criteria Safeguard Policy Criteria 6 7 to 11. 59 . This means there is no technique used in this option. or at least 4.11. with no 3's 12 to 15 or at least one 3 16 or higher.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. “N/A” is written for some of the strategies in this table.

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.

The program can be used for existing dams as well as new dams. 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.3. However. Site specific data are crucial. The program makes economical optimization for each of the sediment removal technique and comparison with each other becomes possible in this way. the physical applicability of these methods and placement of the removed sediment is a big problem. 61 . It is advised by RESCON team that the program should be used for a number of isolated reservoirs rather than a single reservoir.8 Precautions Using RESCON Program RESCON does not make an analysis about the feasibility of dredging and trucking. 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. RESCON should be used as a preliminary tool. The final aim of the program is to select the sediment management technique which is technically feasible and having the maximum net benefit. This excel based program determines the engineering feasibility and economical values of sediment management techniques and rank them. Its results should be evaluated carefully with caution.3. NPV (Net Present Value) is the discounted value of Aggregate Net Benefit to present.

If decommissioning is the best solution an annual retirement fund is calculated by the program.Solution of the program comes to user in two forms (RESCON Manual. Since removed sediment is also a big problem for neighborhood of the dam or for the next dam. This lowers economic life of the dam 62 . where reservoir fills with sediment in finite time. For sustainable solutions NPV is calculated as well as for runof-river option. or b) The dam is maintained as a “run-of-river” project even after the reservoir is silted. 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. 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. This creates a chance to compare outcomes of each technique. 2003): 1) SUSTAINABLE. 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.

in order RESCON to be used for systems of reservoirs modifications should be made to the program code (RESCON Manual Volume I. etc. This results in evacuating less amount of sediment than planned. considering Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System as an option. 3.1 Flushing Results Although flushing is feasible and evacuating incoming sediment successfully in RESCON results. caution should be exercised when using these results since from practical or economical point of view these results may be impossible. partial removal options.9.9 Important Points for Evaluating RESCON Results After calculations RESCON gives the method having the highest aggregate net benefit. However. Therefore. 3. long term capacity. 3.2 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.3. amount of incoming sediment should be evaluated carefully. 2003). In the following subsections hints about each technique are presented. width of the reservoir may not be sufficient to get a successful flushing operation. respectively. Therefore.3.3. about frequencies of the method.whose inflowing sediment is higher than before. As a result of this HSRS is a suitable method for small 63 . The capacities of pipes are not too high especially for large dams.9.

9. information of trucks given in Caterpillar Performance Handbook ( 28th Edition. Therefore. However.reservoirs or partial removal around water intakes or in similar places. there is a physical capacity of trucks and this number of loads may not be physically possible. is calculated for each type of truck. Another constraint about HSRS is the length of reservoir. In RESCON it is assumed for dredging that reservoir depth is less than 30 m. 3.3 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. However.2<Wt/MAR<0. If a dam has a height more than 30 m cost of dredging should be revised manually. October 1997) is used.3. 3.9.3. As for trucking.4. In a long reservoir application of HSRS may not be feasible. CAT Publication by Caterpillar Inc. the user 64 . If 0. 2003). this function gives acceptable values if Wt/MAR ratio is higher than 0. the results exceeding this value are not physically possible. Number of loads . Yield is important because in economic calculations. water price and yield may affect the method which has the highest aggregate net benefit. USA.. which is required to carry annual incoming sediment. Peoria.4 Gould’s Gamma Function This function is used to calculate reservoir yield (water available for use).4 where Wt is the water yield and MAR is the mean annual runoff. Illinois.

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

Green cover in Turkey is not enough to prevent sediment coming into reservoirs. There is no sediment removal operation done in a large scale in any reservoir. Large seasonal flows also threat watershed and may increase sedimentation.2.2 Data Collection 4. Turkey is a country having vary wide areas subject to erosion. 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. 4.1 General In Turkey. sediment data. Obtaining data were a tough work since there is not any archive having all measurements taken for 66 . annual water inflow. sediment studies related to sustainability are quite a few. such as geometrical data of dam and reservoir. Practiced sediment removal operations are only for clearing around water intake structures or similar local operations.1 Sediment Information in State Hydraulic Works (DSI) In order to use RESCON we need site-specific data.CHAPTER 4 REVIEW OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION IN TURKEY 4.

2. Investigation and Planning Department is the department responsible for gathering sediment information.1.1 DSI Investigation and Planning Department General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works Investigation and Planning Department carries out its duties and responsibilities under specified plans. Some brief information shall be given here to introduce these departments and their duties. all the departments in General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works related to sediment were visited and sediment information was requested. 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). Field related maps are prepared by Mapping Section and given to Operation and Maintenance Department. These maps are evaluated by this department and how much sediment had been accumulated between two measurements is calculated. Incorrect measurements are highlighted for easy inspection. This situation can be seen in Table D.discharge and sediment. DSI works in cooperation with State Meteorological Works Agency and Electrical Survey Agency (EIE). reliable data should be obtained. DSI provides oportunity for discharge. in lake observation stations level measurements 67 . 4.1. sediment. Some of the measurements are not reliable and some of them are reliable. Besides these. Operation and Maintenance Department is the department which is in charge of evaluating sediment data. In order to carry observation projects properly. Because for some of the reservoirs capacity value is larger than previous capacity value which is impossible without a sediment removal operation. quality of water and pollution observations by installing observation stations on rivers. Therefore.

Using results of investigations pre-examination and planning reports are prepared by Erosion and Control Section of Investigation and Planning Department. General Directorate of Land Registry and 68 . 1139 stream gaging stations. evaporation. According to records by the end of 2002. 4.2 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. in meteorological stations rainfall. financing is a big obstacle for these services. Success of these works is related to economy. Precautionary measures are taken by DSI in order to prevent erosion and save aggricultural areas from sediment which is carried by water or wind.1. temperature. Due to conditions of the country. humidity and similar meteorological observations are made. 392 meteorological observation stations and 115 snow observation stations are under operation. 115 reservoir observation stations.2.are taken. 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.

run-off river power plants. Finally. weekly or monthly). approximate value for sediment yield is assumed using erosion or sediment yield maps. flood protection and flood control developed by DSI.3 DSI Operation and Maintenance Department The mission of Operation and Maintenance Department is to operate and maintain the facilities related to irrigation. 4.4 Sediment Measurement Studies of DSI When a dam is to be constructed.1. DSI requests for sediment data from EIE. If previously taken sediment measurement data are not available.2. sediment data of the dams or water structures previously constructed in that region are used with some approximation. The maps regarding to dam reservoirs are given to Operation and Maintenance Department in order to be evaluated. 4. Annual sediment yield obtained for that dam is multiplied by 50 in order to 69 . Monitoring the performance of the facilities and collecting assesment of all statistical data related to reservoir are the responsibilities of this department. etc. Dead volume of a reservoir is calculated assuming a 50 year economic life for a dam. if approximation is also not possible.Cadastre in compliance with the laws. 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. if EIE has gauging station in that region or at neighbourhood. Because precision of sediment yield is may be important for small structures like weirs.1.2.

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

In the study of Yalçınkaya (1991) sediment measurements of DSI. 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.that sediment deposits only in dead volume but this study shows that sediment deposits not only in dead volume but also in active volume. In this study level-capacity values . devices used for sediment measurements. Logic in this method is the assumption that capacity of minimum elevation cannot be depleted before that of maximum elevation. 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. This means dead volume calculations done by DSI are not correct. 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. Unit weight of sediment becomes bigger as time goes by and volume occupied by sediment becomes smaller resulting in a longer economical life. calculation of dead volume of a dam. The first 71 . a method for estimating life of a dam is presented. comparison between resurvey data and actual measurements are explained in detail. This situation leads DSI to miscalculate economical life of a dam. In order to use the method sediment measurement data at different times for different elevations are crucial. of dam are used to foretell the date at which the use of that dam is not possible. In the study of Yılmaz (2003). taken at different dates. sediment yield calculations.

Capacity vs. 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 3.1. The step by step procedure in this method is as follows: 1. Time graphs are plotted for different elevations of the reservoir 6. It can be seen from this graph that half life of Çubuk I Dam is 68 years. Capacity and Trap efficiency values are updated for each period 5. Half life of the reservoir is read from graph A sample graph for Çubuk I Dam is shown in Figure 4. 72 .capacity measurement which is original capacity of a dam is accepted as the most correct one. Observed sediment yield is divided by the trap efficiency to find out sediment yield of that catchment 4. The difference of capacity between last and first measurement is calculated and divided by difference in years to find out sediment deposited 2.

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

By this way sediment inflow can be predicted as much as possible. 1993 and 2000.2. Sediment discharge value is a bit unreliable 74 . Some important duties of EIE are as follows. Second reason is change in calculated amount of sediment even if at different parts of a river section. However. Yearbooks on water quality were published in 1989 and 1996.4. 1987.1 General EIE (Electrical Survey Agency) is the second biggest institution in Turkey studying on sediment.1 shows calculated amount of sediment at different stations operated by EIE.2 Sediment Studies of Electrical Survey Agency (EIE) 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. These measurements were published as yearbook titled as “Suspended Sediment Data and Sediment Transport Amount for Surface Waters in Turkey” in 1982. This has mainly two reasons: First reason is that sediment samples are not taken at every tributary joining to a reservoir.2. 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 4.2. • • • • 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.

Table 4. 75 . 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. 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.D-49 type of bottle is used.2. If teleferic or cren is used US.DH-48 type of bottle is used.2.1 Calculated Sediment Yields of Different Stations of EIE Station No 2315 2316 2320 2322 2325 River/Creek Name Çoruh R. 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. The data given by EIE and brief explanation about this data shall be given in the following section. However.2 Sediment Sampling of EIE Sample is taken by three different types of tools. If the sample is taken by entering into the river US. Since sediment sampling has been made at one section once a month this value is not enough for precise annual sediment inflow prediction. Çoruh R. Çoruh R.because this value is dependent on location as well as time.

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.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 .

There are two sections of EIE working on sediment.2 is the amount of suspended sediment. These are: • • Soil and Erosion Section Sediment Investigation and Laboratory Section 4.4 Duties of Sediment Investigation and Laboratory Section • Makes required laboratory analysis of sediment samples taken from sediment observation stations 77 . 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. C= Sediment Weight (Total Weight of Sand + Clay + Silt ) x10 6 Sample Weight (Weight of Water + Sediment ) (4.2.1 is calculated using equation 4.2) Calculated sediment amount using equation 4.2.2. 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.2.2.3 Duties of Soil and Erosion Section • Makes erosion investigation and researches related to sediment movement.Sediment concentration (C) in equation 4.1 and equation 4.

0% 3.5% 5.2 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 $0.20-$0.40 Varies (Negative or Positive) Hydroelectric Power Dam Value 9. Table 4. As a result of personal communication values given in Table 4.30 $0.25-$0.0% 8.• Makes water quality analysis taken from discharge observation stations and publishes results • Evaluates sediment movement observations and publishes results 4.3 Economical Parameters for Turkey Economical parameters for Turkey are obtained by consulting Koyuncu (2005).06%/kW 78 .0% 0.2.2 are obtained.

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 .05 $/m3 3.Table 4.2 Economical Parameters for Turkey (continued) Parameter Unit Value of Water Used in Dredging Operations Dredging Trucking Type Value 0.85 $/m3 of sediment 2.0 $/m3 of sediment 1km of distance 5km of distance 10km of distance more than 10km 0.83 $/m3 of sediment 1.02-0.

1986).2). 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. 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. There is no power unit installed in the dam.3.1 hm3 at normal reservoir level. Bayındır Dam. According to size. Initial capacity of the reservoir is smaller than annual discharge of watershed Yılmaz (2003). Its construction was started in 1930 and completed in 1936. Due to siltation Çubuk I Dam is used only for recreational purposes at present. These dams are Cubuk I Dam.3 Case Studies from Turkey Four dams have been selected for this study. It has a reservoir capacity of 7.1 Cubuk I Dam Çubuk I Dam is located on 12 km north of Ankara. Borcka Dam and Ivriz Dam. Purpose of the dam is domestic and industrial water supply to the city of Ankara and flood control. It is a concrete gravity dam with a height of 25 m from river bed.4. 80 . according composition calcerous sandy silt and calcerous clay (Kılıç. deposited sediment in the reservoir is clayey silt and silt.

72 hm3 according to Kılıç (1984) and 3.Catchment area has low green cover. Figure 4. Sediment deposition between 1936 and 1983 is 5. Operation and Maintenance Department.3.2 Location of Cubuk I and Bayındır Dams 81 . In this study calculation of Yılmaz (2003) has been taken as a basis and capacity loss has been taken as 50%. User input for Cubuk I dam is shown in Table 4.55 hm3 according to General Directory of State Hydraulic Works.

6 895 Yılmaz (2003) Yılmaz (2003) Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkey.4.08 0. 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.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 57.62 Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) 81 000 Yılmaz (2003) 82 .0 1.35 0.6 882. 1991) Economic Parameters r Mr P1 omc CD CT decimal decimal $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 0.03 0.1 Cubuk I Dam RESCON User Input Table 4.3.085 3. 1991) Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkey.1.0 907.00 2.

Analysis show that sustainable solution can be obtained for all of the strategies.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. See Partial Removal with HSRS N/A 198 762 340 Partial Removal with HSRS is HSRS technically infeasible. 4. In Table 4.8. See Partial Removal with HSRS Flushing HSRS Dredging Trucking 196 870 145 209 857 262 214 531 501 206 129 328 83 .2 Evaluation of Cubuk I Dam RESCON Results As a result of economical optimizations RESCON gives information about sustainable and nonsustainable solutions.3.4 detailed results for sustainable and nonsustainable solutions can be seen.For definitions of parameters see section 3.1. Table 4.4.3. their aggregate net present values and the strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit as can be seen in Table 4.

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

11 # of Flushing Events in Phase I.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 . Table 4. 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. often the first cycle is different from remaining cycles.Table 4. The cycle is the number of years between removal events.12. 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. It includes frequency of removal event if the given sustainable outcome had the highest aggregate net benefit. 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. Note that when removal occurs.13 indicates quantity of sediment removal per event if the given sustainable outcome had the highest aggregate net benefit. CLD and CLT) at the time removal event occurs are indicated in Table 4.14.13 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.Table 4. the same quantity is removed after each cycle. not physically. 89 . 2003). Table 4. Note that these values are likely to be only approximate of discrete step sizes and possible rounding errors (RESCON Manual.

material removed is moist sediment (negligible water) 300 000 ppm 359 ppm 19 417 ppm Table 4. 90 . 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. Table 4.16 indicates the number of truck loads required to complete sustainable sediment trucking removal option.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). 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.

1 57. 91 .0 *1997. The highest sediment volume removal by dredging that can be expected from typical system over a year is approximately 11 Mm3.Table 4. Peoria. Based on this gross estimate of sediment removal capability.17. but this would increase the overall cost of the project.0 96.16 Number of Truck Loads* Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Trucking Removal Option. To remove more sediment.17.2 18. Note that the approximated removal per dredge is very crude.0 73. 28..0 42.0 31. CAT Publication by Caterpillar Inc. It should be kept in mind that dredging calculation is made assuming dredging mixture velocity through pipe is 5 m/s. 2003).0 26. Illinois. 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. the number of dredges to remove enough sediment annually to keep the reservoir sustainable is shown in Table 4. Caterpillar Performance Handbook. October 1997. additional dredges could possibly be installed on a reservoir. Number of dredges required to remove the optimally determined removed sediment is shown in Table 4. Ed. site specific analysis must be done to confirm volume of sediment removal per dredge per year (RESCON Manual. USA.

of Dredges (Phase I) 1 No.77 Phase II 3. Table 4. and dredge runs 70% of the time. Dredging is the method having the highest aggregate net benefit.diameter of dredge pipe is 0. reservoir length less than 4 km. Cubuk I Dam Volume Removed per Dredge (m3/Dredge) 11 000 000 No.8 m. 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. Long term capacity for dredging is 5 894 272 m3 (83% of the original capacity) and this capacity is quite a high capacity.18. dam height is less than 30 m.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.00 1. of Dredges (Phase II) 1 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for dredging and HSRS is given in Table 4.17 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Dredging Removal Option. Table 4.

2 Bayındır Dam Bayındır Dam is located on 12 km southeast of Ankara. The construction of the dam was started in 1962 and completed in 1965. It is an earthfill dam with the purpose of domestic and industrial water supply. Besides this. 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. if required studies for removing sediment from the reservoir would be done. 4. A 93 . Water for domestic use has not being taken from Bayındır Dam since 2003. water required for flushing is available. It has an elevation of 30 m from river bed. Çubuk I Dam is now out of service because of siltation. Its initial storage capacity is 7. which is less than 30%. Since original capacity is approximately 9% of the annual runoff. Since it is a dam for domestic&industrial water supply its water can not be used now due to health reasons. It can be seen understood from bottom outlet drawings of Cubuk I dam (Dams in Turkey.to infeasibility.2). on the Bayındır stream (Figure 4.9 hm3. For flushing present condition of bottom outlets should be investigated for applicability of flushing. Because.3. Length of the reservoir is also not quite long for the application of HSRS. the area surrounding the reservoir is used for recreational purposes. 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. However. Therefore total removal with HSRS or removal of sediment with other methods should be considered. 1991) that this bottom outlet can not be used for sediment evacuation.0 hm3 and annual discharge of watershed is 3.

68%). The dam has a long life even if the sediment within the reservoir is not removed (76 years of half life). respectively. 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). As a result of this. This frequencies are quite good from physical application point of view.17%) and 5 717 487 m3 (81. 4. Frequency of removal for trucking in phase I is 2 years and for phase II that is 14 years. All of them are quite high capacities. dredging and trucking are 5 124 196 m3 (73. For user input and RESCON results of Bayındır Dam is given in Appendix E. Green cover around the reservoir is not enough for preventing large amount of sediment from inflowing to the reservoir. Therefore. all the sustainable solutions have negative aggregate net present value.power plant is not installed in the dam. Half life of the dam has been calculated by Yılmaz (2003) as 73 years. Long term capacities for HSRS. However. Dredging also provides a high capacity without disturbing the service. the strategy having the highest aggregate net benefit is doing nothing. This means that Bayındır Dam is not an economically feasible dam. 5 122 034 m3 (73.2%).1 Evaluation of Bayındır Dam RESCON Results For Bayındır Dam all the strategies have yielded sustainable results.2. Therefore result of this study and that of Yılmaz (2003) are in good aggreement. removing sediment from this reservoir will not result in beneficial results. Sediment removed per cycle in phase I is “N/A” in Table E. It has a removal frequency of 2 years for phase I and 1 year for phase II.3.11. 2 years of frequency for phase I 94 . Bayındır Dam has a long life because annually deposited sediment is low (63 500 tonnes/year).

it has a low long term capacity. For physical application it may be required to allocate quite an amount of money. Height of the dam from river bed is 86 m. 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. It is an eartfill dam with a reservoir capacity of 419 hm3. 4.3 Borcka Dam Borcka Dam is the dam with highest reservoir capacity in this study.3). Borcka Dam is being constructed at the time of this study. “N/A” is written for sediment removed per trucking event. It has a removal frequency of 2 years for phase I. a new tunnel should be drilled or existing derivation tunnel should be opened.10. This also means 2 years later phase I for trucking will be completed and phase II will begin.means 2 years later phase I will be completed and phase II will begin. It is in Borcka district. It is a part of series of dams to be constructed on the Coruh River. Purpose of the dam is energy production and installed power capacity is 300 MW. 95 . In Table E. Since. As for flushing.3. Artvin (Figure 4. All these means that flushing should not be thought as a sediment removal alternative. Construction of Borcka dam was started in 1998. This project is called the Coruh Project and includes construction of 14 dams. Trucking has similar situation with dredging. All the investment is useless because flushing operation for Bayındır dam requires that 82% of capacity loss for economical reasons.

However. 1989). In market.3 Location of Borcka Dam 4. 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. this requires a proffessional study which is not our concern. there is an important point here. However. Dredging has the highest aggregate net benefit.1 Evaluation of Borcka Dam RESCON Results All the strategies except HSRS have yielded sustainable solutions with positive aggregate net present value. Maximum dredging height in RESCON solution is 30 m.3. Borcka dam has height of 86 m from river bed.Figure 4. dredging equipment allowing dredging operation up to 150 m depth is available (Roovers.3.

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

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

As for trucking sediment removed per trucking event is 5 126 398 m3.3.2%). However. Total number of years from construction is 26+(2002-1993)=35 years. this is dam constructed for irrigation purposes and bottom outlet of the dam is close to river bed elevation. In report of Dönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) depletion of 8% capacity was 26 years. The two results are close enough. respectively.4.1 Evaluation of Ivriz Dam RESCON Results All the strategies except HSRS have yielded sustainable solutions with positive aggregate net present value. For phase II dredging requires annual operation and trucking requires removal operation every 21 years. 26 years of time also indicates the length of phase I. 2002 is the year at which the report of Dönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) was prepared and 1993 is the construction completion year. Sediment removed per dredging event is 244 114 m3 which is quite a low amount of sediment for ordinary dredging equipment. Approximate number of years until the dam is sustained at long term capacity for dredging and trucking is 26 years. Sediment removed in phase I is “N/A” for dredging and trucking since long term capacity has already been exceeded for dredging and trucking. Capacity of HSRS (3 926 m3/year) is less than annual sediment inflow (252 000 m3/year). Long term capacities for dredging and trucking are 73 653 030 m3 (92. Dredging and trucking are possible solutions for Ivriz dam. “Do nothing” option has the highest aggregate net benefit.1%) and 78 535 314 m3 (98.4. In order flushing to be feasible 57% capacity loss is required but this is not acceptable for this dam. maximum capacity loss is 8% of the total capacity. This amount of sediment can be trucked if 99 . Therefore.

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

vriz Dam and Borçka Dam. Table 5.1 RESCON results for the tested reservoirs can be seen. These dams are Çubuk I Dam. In section 4. Physically unacceptable solutions are excluded in this table such as trucking 65 733 570 m3 of sediment from Borcka reservoir. Table 5.CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The program RESCON has been run for four of the reservoirs of Turkey. Bayındır Dam. while evaluating results applicability of the sediment removal techniques have also been discussed.1 shows the sustainable solutions for each reservoir with a descending order of aggregate net present value.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 . Comparisons between the results of RESCON and previous works have been made. In Table 5. RESCON results for these four dams have been evaluated. It is observed that results of RESCON and those of previous works are in good aggreement. In section 4.

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

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

Personal Communication. Vol. Biological. E.V. The Feasibility of Flushing Sediment from Reservoirs..169-180. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering.M. James. Rapid Reservoir Sedimentation of Four Historic Thin Arch Dams in Australia. pp.. DSI Report.A.109-113... 1998. D. G. M. S.W. 2005. ASCE Joint Conference on Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources Planning and Management. Luebke.K. MN.. Volume 124. Atkinson. Stanley. 1998. Altınbilek. 2005.. obtained by personal communication. State Hydraulic Works. S. E. Engineering and Hydrosystems Inc. Estimation of Delta Profile in the Indravati Reservoir. 2002.. Minneapolis. No:8.. P. The Role of Dams in Development. Mishra. 2000.. Issue 1.H... J. 1996. Dam Removal: Physical. Doyle. TDR Project R5839. pp.45.REFERENCES Annandale. Report OD 137.. Sinha. Chanson. HR Wallingford. 104 . Dams in Turkey. M.. Harbor. Chitale. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. P. and Societal Considerations.W. 1991. H. Water Science and Technology.

Huang. Monitoring and Decommissioning of Dams. Methods of Preserving Reservoir Capacity. Fan. Volume 121.. 1986.. Kılıç. Methods of Computing Sedimentation in Lakes and Reservoirs. Gazi University. pp97-112. R.H. Gazi University. X.. Kawashima. Kılıç. 1985.5 prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams... UNESCO. last access date January. G.DSI (State Hydraulic Works). 2006.. S.. 2003. Operations.tr.. http://www. Thematic Review IV.W. Doctoral Theses. Shah. ed. Annandale... Issue 6. C. S. Hotchkiss. 1995. Howard. F. 1984. France.D. Journal of Faculty of Engineering and Architecture. J. R.. 2000. R. Reservoir Conservation. pp479-489.D. Paris. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. The World Bank.. Çubuk I (Ankara) Barajında Siltasyonun ncelenmesi. pp65-164. Volume II: RESCON Model and User Manual. Cape Town. Hydrosuction Sediment-Removal Systems (HSRS): Principles and Field Test. 105 . Bruk.dsi. Çubuk I (Ankara) Baraj Gölünde Depolanan Sedimentlerin Sedimentolojisi ve Minerolojisi. Volume 1. Issue 1. Johndrow.B.gov. T.

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

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

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

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 .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.

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. 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 .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 .

Table A.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.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

Table A.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 .

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 .Table A.

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.

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 .

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. 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 .

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 .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.YOL.

KARPUZLU Y.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 .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.Table A.

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 100.96 15.&Ind.33 0.32 5.&Ind.26 81.&Ind.&Ind.99 128 .80 1. Water Supply+Irrigation Flood Control+Irrigation Energy+Irrigation % of Reservoirs 0.66 1. Water Supply+Flood Control Dom.33 Table A.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.3 Classification of Dams For Multi Purpose Number of Reservoirs 4 1 4 8 1 14 35 12 Multipurpose Functions Dom.&Ind. Water Supply+Flood Control+Energy Dom.&Ind.66 0.33 0.17 0. Water Supply+Flood Control+Irrigation Flood Control+Energy+Irrigation Dom.2 Classification of Dams For Single Purpose Number of Reservoirs Total Number of Reservoirs in Operation # of Reservoirs Functioning For Dom.00 9.Table A.43 0. Water Supply+Energy+Irrigation Dom.17 2.12 8.

6 (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.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.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.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.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.

33 2.Z pr 2 ⋅ sd 2 2 .33 2.4 7.50 104 000 000 1.4 − [Gd ⋅ sd 2 ] = S t ⋅ Vin (B.50 5 655 000 000 1.42 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 .03 10.29 0.8) 65 500 000 1.33 2.33 sd(m3) 6 550 000 565 500 000 10 400 000 390 000 Vin Gd St(m3) (B.50 3 900 000 1.1 Calculation of Critical St for Tested Reservoirs Dam Çubuk I Borçka vriz Bayındır Zpr 2.50 499 137 43 093 456 792 523 29 720 Capacity Ratio For Wt/Vin=0.7) Zpr 2 ⋅ sd 2 Gd ⋅ sd 2 St = − 2.99 0.4Vin Vin Table B.

APPENDIX C SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR TARBELA DAM MADE BY RESCON TEAM Table C.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 .

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. Reservoir similar to Chinese reservoirs? “3”: if reservoir sediments are significantly larger than median grain size (d50)=0. 300. 650.1-3.0 1-3 pipes 1-3. Estimated reservoir water temperature. Sediment type category to be removed by hydrosuction (medium sand/smaller or gravel).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. Use “1”: if otherwise.Table C. Is reservoir yield ever used for hydroelectric power? Sediment type for Brune Curve calculations.0% of inflow 180.1-2. A value of “3” was used throughout the analysis.1mm or if the reservoir has been impounded for more than 10 years without sediment removal.5 feet Table C.3 Constant Parameters In Sensitivity Analysis for Tarbela Dam Parameter Description Density of in-situ reservoir sediment. HP Brune Curve ANS Parameter Symbol rd T Type 132 .

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). Percent of accumulated sediment trucked per event. Maximum percent of capacity loss allowable at any time in reservoir. Assumed Value 0. Allowable loss must be greater than the existing loss.Table C.01 YA 1 cl 75% ASD AST Cw 80% 80% 30% 133 . Concentration by weight of sediment removed to water removed by traditional dredging. Percent of accumulated sediment dredged per event. Maximum fraction of total yield that is allowed to be used in HSRS operations.

005/m3 $0.Table C. Unit cost of traditional dredging Assumed Value 0 c Default Calculation C2 Default Calculation omc a r P1 0. Reservoir (Dam) Operation and Maintenance Coefficient Dam Salvage Value Coefficient Discount Rate (decimal) Price of Net Reservoir Yield. enter 1. Unit Value of Water Used released downstream during actual flushing operations (water lost during drawdown is internally assigned a value of zero).01 0 0. Unit value of water released downstream of dam in river by hydrosuction operations.01/m3 PF $0. This cost is estimated using S0 specified in Reservoir Geometry. Unit value of water used in dredging operations. If the dam is a new construction project. Unit cost for hydrosuction operations expressed as $/m3 of sediment removed. The default cost is estimated as unit cost of construction times initial reservoir storage volume (C2 = S0*c*E).005/m3 $5/m3 Default Calculation 134 .05 $0. Cost of Dam Construction.5 Economic Parameter Assumptions for Tarbela Dam Parameter Symbol E Parameter Description If dam being considered is an existing dam enter 0. Unit Cost of Construction.005/m3 PH PD CH CD $0.

7 139.1/m3 to P1=$0.3 138.Table C.8 Change in NPV (%) 100 100 100 100 100 N/A 101 115 Change in LTC(million m3) Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 0 N/A +1.4 138.089 +405 Change in LTC(%) 0 N/A 31 6 135 . Tarbela Dam Change Possible Strategies Technique in NPV ($ 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 138.6 Sensitivity to Value of Unit Reservoir Yield (P1=$0.2/m3).2 N/A 142.4 138.7 138.

2 70.2 81.2 72.Table C. 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 70.7 N/A 89.1 37.2 72.7 Sensitivity to Discount Rate (r reduced from 5% to 3%).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 .

3 -1.Table C.05).5 137 .8 Sensitivity to Operation and Maintenance Coefficient (omc=0.3 -1.801 -1.830 Change in NPV (%) -1.3 -1.830 -1.3 -1.801 -1.830 -1.01 to omc=0.3 -1.3 N/A -1.830 -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 -1.830 N/A -1.

5 to 0.16 Change in NPV (%) 0 0 0 0 1.Table C. CD. (CT decreased from $50 to $40/m3). Tarbela Dam Change Possible Strategies Technique in NPV ($ 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 0.75).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 . CT) (S2 increased from 0. PH.2 0 0.2 1 367.2 N/A 264.005 to $0.00/m3).2 2.6 3 310.003) (CD decreased from $2. (PH decreased from $0.62 to $2.0 N/A 0.9 Sensitivity to Cost of Removal Parameters (S2.

0 19.1 1976 54.4 17.0 1239.03 11.3 1983 38.00 259.2 1986 44.6 3 4 5 6 NAME OF DAM GÖLBAŞI I DOĞANCI MAX MIN MAX MIN 128.9 1.6 1986 83.1 1987 36.8 3.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey OPERATIN G LEVELS DS REGION RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3) MEASUREMENT YEAR 1 1969 2 1977 12.0 1992 42.5 27.2 280.85 860.8 1986 120.1 11.2 1977 91.1 1977 1060.4 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 .2 2000 5337.5 14.2 1962 5263.0 2.3 2001 454.1 1971 1060.5 1969 320.75 892.25 236.00 312.4 16.00 460.2 1976 126.3 6.00 79.00 333.1 1972 54.20 73.5 7.50 500.8 1976 320.5 1974 24.60 162.2 1976 465.50 119.8 5.6 5.05 1250.2 290.9 11.40 1121.6 2411.7 28.1 2591.00 471.7 3.7 5.00 475.APPENDIX D Table D.4 1970 517.0 1979 18.5 1125.5 8.9 5.10 126.

50 1027.00 1193.00 1170.6 1982 173.6 1977 171.6 1972 50.1 1.90 1021.04 1034.2 1972 166.6 2.30 1707.00 1720.8 1980 30.34 1352.0 0.5 1977 31.Tablo D.7 0.8 1978 4.0 1966 30.9 4.0 0.50 227.0 140 .9 6.4 37.1 1941 2.5 1958 30.7 1.4 1971 178.4 6.3 1978 50.6 4126.8 5.6 5.48 3.5 18.9 1974 2.00 255.1 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 1267.00 842.1 1977 50.60 1054.5 1972 6224.1 1978 185.6 6.7 1967 167.7 1991 154.4 0.1 1977 177.1 22.8 19.3 1973 165.19 1084.8 5.50 785.8 0.00 1335.00 1107.55 772.46 851.0 1980 184.0 3705.7 0.7 1967 3.0 1965 2.9 0.3 4129.5 0.2 6.6 2.1 31.7 1969 6218.5 1977 2.86 1253.9 1.5 1977 5750.8 1979 88.1 1979 2.4 1974 97.

00 535.0 141 .2 3.9 1965 8.1 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 475.4 1943 5.0 1074.9 3.4 4.6 1970 7.71 1113.0 1985 38.1 0.5 972.0 0.9 1986 878.00 465.5 1980 93.2 1991 32.4 0.61 895.7 1936 9.8 8.0 67.0 1966 1238.6 1972 1007.50 49.00 961.0 1983 22.00 203.3 1976 148.5 138.8 3.6 0.9 159.6 1975 95.5 1970 1698.6 0.9 1985 96.2 859.00 274.0 0.1 1972 168.0 1973 22.9 7.4 149.8 151.00 907.6 1980 6.2 6.7 0.4 1964 25.2 151.5 1.5 1980 883.00 804.00 170.3 1998 92.6 0.0 1973 5.6 1977 1006.9 0.0 1.2 221.00 224.5 767.1 1978 23.9 0.4 1976 924.0 986.4 1986 59.1 5.8 1983 5.Tablo D.1 1967 6.1 1.6 756.7 1971 1029.5 1967 102.4 159.5 1991 865.00 493.00 931.0 1975 54.8 0.7 8.37 1901.8 300.

00 1205.5 1972 5.6 6.9 8.00 63.00 1212.50 997.4 1967 6.5 1977 207.1 7.80 202.7 3.00 1183.00 1126.7 1976 6.00 1225.00 739.2 142 .7 1968 7.3 1973 38.2 1971 1975 67.50 82.0 1997 45.0 3.1 8.1 1.1 3.5 7.6 1977 34.4 3.0 1.2 3.8 2.9 1972 32.5 1978 38.45 104.5 1.50 1004.9 0.5 1983 50.00 757.8 2001 70.6 2.30 1109.8 1975 65.9 2.80 177.3 2.8 2.Tablo D.3 1997 111.60 1288.2 1980 122.8 1971 7.2 1997 36.1 1997 56.5 1980 51.30 2.1 1980 219.20 27.1 0.4 10.40 91.50 39.5 10.3 1975 7.8 75.1 0.3 7.2 1966 65.8 1972 202.1 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 1309.0 1.

8 102.00 62.6 1982 186.7 1977 204.5 1.6 264.4 267.9 3.7 98.50 1183.1 1974 36.65 1106.00 166.7 1973 199.00 1143.Tablo D.1 MAX MIN 850.85 1168.75 1036.0 121.2 3.50 1039.3 120.00 143 .00 1092.9 1995 1400.7 3.2 5.6 1977 60.50 1.3 1979 40.00 46.7 1979 12.1 1.6 1979 38.1 1976 2.3 1989 296.2 1989 1400.25 1065.2 0.00 1047.9 1978 22.3 42.9 1974 13.9 1967 38.00 184.7 9.1 1.6 1962 38.6 1966 74.00 815.4 1984 349.6 2.50 1075.30 1094.00 4.2 1979 357.7 4.4 2.9 1966 388.1 275.0 1973 23.7 220.1 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 1151.0 4.50 1.

5 57.2 0.50 287.0 1998 358.70 271.4 1.00 40.Tablo D.60 817.8 1978 165.1 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 717.37 216.0 1977 55.0 1985 79.8 17.4 79.00 110.5 5.9 1990 19.8 1.7 1994 19.8 1992 83.3 50.1 1974 193.6 1982 197.00 61.45 248.7 51.5 1.0 1985 19.4 1998 212.9 46.9 1.5 14.5 66.6 1990 222.50 206.0 1980 180.8 0.8 1983 52.00 38.70 81.65 60.50 820.6 1983 159.3 1985 180.5 0.1 33.9 1968 457.1 5.8 1989 169.0 1989 18.00 238.8 1971 171.2 1989 372.5 9.50 242.8 0.5 6.4 1979 389.1 85.9 1975 225.0 125.70 684.2 1.9 1974 407.0 144 .6 14.

03 0.0 970 (Yılmaz. 2003) (Yılmaz.08 0.085 3. 2003) 145 .0 985.62 Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) 63 500 (Yılmaz. 2003) Sediment Characteristics Min metric tonnes Removal Parameters Qf m3/s 5 Bottom outlet capacity.0 960.00 2. 1991) Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkyey.35 0. 1991) Economic Parameters r Mr P1 omc CD CT decimal decimal $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 $/m3 0.APPENDIX E BAYINDIR DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS Table E. 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.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 2. (Dams in Turkyey. 2003) Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkyey.

000 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.Table E. See Total Removal with HSRS -1 499 060 -2 978 471 -4 310 891 -4 932 516 Table E. See Total Removal with HSRS N/A -1 500 402 Partial Removal with HSRS is HSRS technically infeasible.000E+00 146 .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.

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.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 .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.

Table E. Bayındır Dam Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 0 times 148 .9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I.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.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 .

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.Table E.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT.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 .

15 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Dredging Removal Option.0 42.0 26.0 31.16 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Bayındır Dam Phase I Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) N/A 1.1 57.0 96.Table E.14 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Trucking Removal Option.0 Table E. of Dredges (Phase I) N/A No.94 Phase II 3. of Dredges (Phase II) 1 Table E. 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 16.2 18.00 151 .0 73. Bayındır Dam Volume Removed per Dredge (m3/Dredge) 11 000 000 No.

1 Borcka Dam Input Data Parameter S0 Se Wbot SSres Elmax Elmin Elf m m m Unit Value Source Reservoir Geometry m3 m3 m 418 950 000 418 950 000 385.0 187.APPENDIX F BORCKA DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS Table F.095 0.1 3.18 0.0 1.00 2.0 103.62 Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) 152 .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 0.03 0.

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.Table F.590E+09 153 .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 7.2 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.

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.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 .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.

Table F.9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I.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. Borcka Dam Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 14 times 155 .

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.

specified in the User Input page. Decrease AST or increase MT.Table F.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT.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. 157 . 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. is being exceeded. 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.

of Dredges (Phase II) 1 Table F.Table F.0 96.0 31.000 No. of Dredges (Phase I) N/A No.000.2 18.0 26. 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 16.0 Table F.00 158 .15 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Dredging Removal Option.14 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Trucking Removal Option. Borcka Dam Volume Removed per Dredge (m3/Dredge) 11.18 Phase II 3.0 73.0 42.16 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Borcka Dam Phase I Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) N/A 6.1 57.

35 0.0 1155.1 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 1114.03 0.00 2. 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 0.10 3.8 1121 DSI Web Page (2005) Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) Measured from Drawings (Dams in Turkey. 1991) Measured from Drawings (Dams in Turkey.0 2.62 Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) Koyuncu (2005) 159 .APPENDIX G IVRIZ DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS Table G.08 0.

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.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 .Table G.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.

Table G.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.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 .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.

Ivriz Dam Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 0 times 162 .9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I.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.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.

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.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 .Table G.

material removed is moist sediment (negligible water) 300 000 ppm 40 ppm 19 471 ppm 164 .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.Table G.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT. 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.

0 42.0 26.000.00 165 .0 96.000 No.0 31. of Dredges (Phase I) N/A No. of Dredges (Phase II) 1 Table G.15 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Dredging Removal Option. Ivriz Dam Volume Removed per Dredge (m3/Dredge) 11.14 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment Trucking Removal Option.Table G.0 Table G.16 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Ivriz Dam Phase I Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) N/A 46.31 Phase II 3.0 73.1 57.2 18. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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