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 ÇETİNKAYA

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 TİĞREK
Supervisor

Examining Commitee Members

Prof. Dr. Doğan ALTINBİLEK (METU, CE) _________________

Assist.Prof. Dr. Şahnaz TİĞREK (METU, CE) _________________

Prof. Dr. Mustafa GÖĞÜŞ (METU, CE) _________________

Prof. Dr. Melih YANMAZ (METU, CE) _________________

Dr. Yurdagül KAYATÜRK (DSİ) _________________

 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 ÇETİNKAYA

Signature :

iii
 ABSTRACT

MANAGEMENT OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION

CASE STUDIES FROM TURKEY

ÇETİNKAYA, 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, İvriz 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
 ÖZ

REZERVUAR SEDİMANTASYONU YÖNETİMİ

TÜRKİYE’DEN VAKA ANALİZLERİ

ÇETİNKAYA, Oğuz Kağan

Yüksek Lisans, İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü

Danışman: Yard. Doç. Dr. Şahnaz Tiğrek

Ocak 2006, 108 sayfa

Dünya çapındaki barajların yaşı büyüdükçe siltasyon büyük bir problem

olmaktadır. Mevcut barajların korunması ve sürdürülebilir yönetimi yeni barajlar

inşa etmekten daha fazla önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada Dünya Bankası

destekli bir projenin sonucu olan RESCON programı Türkiye’deki 4 baraj için

(Çubuk I Barajı, Bayındır Barajı, İvriz Barajı ve Borçka Barajı) sediment

kaldırma stratejilerini (yıkama, basınçlı emme rüsubat kaldırma, derin tarama ve

kamyonla taşıma) incelemek için kullanıldı. Türkiye’de rüsubat ölçümleri devlet

kurumları tarafından yapılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada yapılan ölçümlerin

karakteristik özellikleri gelecekteki rüsubat ile ilgili çalışmalar için sunulmuştur.

Bundan sonra RESCON programındaki rüsubat kaldırma stratejileri tanıtılacaktır.

RESCON sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi yapılmış ve doğrulama amacıyla daha

önceki çalışmalarla karşılaştırılmıştır. Borçka Barajı inşaa halinde olduğu için

daha önce yapılan bir çalışma yoktur.

Keywords: Siltasyon, rezervuar sedimantasyonu, sürdürülebilir yönetim, rüsubat

ölçümü.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was suggested and has been completed under the supervision of

Assist. Prof. Dr. Şahnaz TİĞREK in Hydromechanics Laboratory of Civil

Engineering Department of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara,

Turkey.

The author is indebted to Dr. Şahnaz TİĞREK for her helpful guidance and

precious suggestions throughout this study.

Special thanks go to Dr. George W. Annandale for his kind assist related to

RESCON program, and Bahadır Boz, M.Sc. and Şahnur Yılmaz, M.Sc for their

kind assist in finding data in DSI.

Special thanks also go to my family and my colleagues for their support and

encouraging me with endless patience and sincerity throughout this period.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM .....................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................iv

ÖZ..........................................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................vii

LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................xii

LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................xviii

LIST OF SYMBOLS ........................................................................................xxii

ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................xxiv

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1

1.1 Problem Definition and Literature Survey ..................................................1

1.2 Scope of the Study.......................................................................................8

2. SEDIMENT REMOVAL TECHNIQUES......................................................10

2.1 General ......................................................................................................10

2.2 Flushing .....................................................................................................10

2.2.1 Definition of Flushing and Flushing Parameters................................10

vii
 2.2.2 Factors Affecting Applicability and Efficiency of Flushing ..............13

2.2.3 Worldwide Experience of Flushing....................................................15

2.2.4 Importance of Full Drawdown ...........................................................17

2.2.4 Problems Related to Initiation of Flushing.........................................19

2.3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System (HSRS) ...................................21

2.4 Dredging and Trucking .............................................................................23

2.5 Decommissioning (Removal of a Dam)....................................................25

3. LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT METHOD ..................................................29

3.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................29

3.2 Life Cycle Management Approach ...........................................................31

3.3 RESCON Program ....................................................................................33

3.3.1 Yield Estimation in RESCON............................................................35

3.3.2 Water Required for Sediment Removal in Economic Models ...........36

3.3.2.1 Water Required for Sediment Flushing.......................................36

3.3.2.2 Water Required for HSRS...........................................................36

3.3.2.3 Water Required for Traditional Dredging ...................................37

3.3.2.4 Water Required for Trucking ......................................................37

3.3.3 Optimization Framework in RESCON...............................................37

3.3.3.1 No Sediment Removal Option ....................................................38

viii
 3.3.3.1.1 Decommissioning of the Dam ..............................................38

3.3.3.1.2 Run-of-River Option ............................................................38

3.3.3.2 Flushing Option...........................................................................38

3.3.3.3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Option.......................40

3.3.3.4 Traditional Dredging and Trucking Option.................................41

3.3.4 Sensitivity Analysis for RESCON .....................................................43

3.3.5 Cost Calculations in Economic Models .............................................45

3.3.5.1 Unit Cost of Hydrosuction ..........................................................45

3.3.5.2 Unit Cost of Dredging .................................................................46

3.3.5.3 Unit Cost of Construction............................................................46

3.3.6 Hydrosuction Removal System (HSRS) Calculations in RESCON ..47

3.3.7 Definitions of RESCON Input Parameters.........................................47

3.3.8 Precautions Using RESCON Program ...............................................61

3.3.9 Important Points for Evaluating RESCON Results............................63

3.3.9.1 Flushing Results ..........................................................................63

3.3.9.2 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Results ......................63

3.3.9.3 Dredging and Trucking Results...................................................64

3.3.9.4 Gould’s Gamma Function ...........................................................64

4. REVIEW OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION IN TURKEY ....................66

ix
4.1 General ......................................................................................................66

4.2 Data Collection..........................................................................................66

4.2.1 Sediment Information in State Hydraulic Works (DSI) .....................66

4.2.1.1 DSI Investigation and Planning Department...............................67

4.2.1.2 DSI Mapping Section ..................................................................68

4.2.1.3 DSI Operation and Maintenance Department .............................69

4.2.1.4 Sediment Measurement Studies of DSI.......................................69

4.2.2 Sediment Studies of Electrical Survey Agency (EIE)........................74

4.2.2.1 General ........................................................................................74

4.2.2.2 Sediment Sampling of EIE ..........................................................75

4.3 Case Studies from Turkey .........................................................................80

4.3.1 Cubuk I Dam ......................................................................................80

4.3.1.1 Cubuk I Dam RESCON User Input ............................................82

4.3.1.2 Evaluation of Cubuk I Dam RESCON Results ...........................83

4.3.2 Bayındır Dam .....................................................................................93

4.3.2.1 Evaluation of Bayındır Dam RESCON Results ..........................94

4.3.3 Borcka Dam........................................................................................95

4.3.3.1 Evaluation of Borcka Dam RESCON Results ............................96

4.3.4 Ivriz Dam............................................................................................98

x
 4.3.4.1 Evaluation of Ivriz Dam RESCON Results ................................99

5. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................101

REFERENCES..................................................................................................104

APPENDICES

A. DAMS IN OPERATION IN TURKEY .......................................................109

B. CHECK OF Wt/MAR FOR TESTED RESERVOIRS ................................129

C. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR TARBELA DAM ..................................131

D. DAMS WITH SEDIMENT MEASUREMENTS IN TURKEY..................139

E. BAYINDIR DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS..................145

F. BORCKA DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS.....................152

G. IVRIZ DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS ..........................159

H. MAPS OF BASINS IN TURKEY ...............................................................166

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Water Demand According to Region ........................................2

Table 1.2 Worldwide Storage, Power and Sedimentation..........................3

Table 1.3 Characteristics of Creek Dam, Gap Weir, Korrumbyn Creek

Dam and Quipolly Dam. ............................................................5

Table 3.1 Reservoir Characteristics..........................................................48

Table 3.2 Water Characteristics ...............................................................49

Table 3.3 Sediment Characteristics ..........................................................49

Table 3.4 Removal Parameters.................................................................51

Table 3.5 Economic Parameters ...............................................................54

Table 3.6 Flushing Benefits Parameters ...................................................57

Table 3.7 Capital Investment Parameters .................................................58

Table 3.8 Environmental Parameters (Optional)......................................58

Table 3.9 Classification of Safeguard Policy Criteria ..............................59

Table 3.10 Safeguard Policy Criteria .........................................................59

Table 3.11 Estimate of Environmental and Social Impact Levels ............60

Table 4.1 Calculated Sediment Yields of Different Stations of EIE........75

Table 4.2 Cost Calculation Data for Turkey ............................................78

xii
Table 4.3 Cubuk I Input Data ...................................................................82

Table 4.4 Economic Results for Cubuk I Dam.........................................83

Table 4.5 Economic Conclusion for Cubuk I Dam ..................................84

Table 4.6 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Cubuk I Dam .................85

Table 4.7 Annual Fund Results for Cubuk I Dam....................................86

Table 4.8 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Cubuk I Dam....................86

Table 4.9 Long Term Capacity Values for Cubuk I Dam ........................87

Table 4. 10 Phase I Lengths for Cubuk I Dam ............................................87

Table 4.11 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Cubuk I Dam ........................88

Table 4.12 Frequency of Removal for Cubuk I Dam .................................88

Table 4.13 Sediment Removed per Event for Cubuk I Dam......................89

Table 4.14 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Cubuk I

Dam ..........................................................................................90

Table 4.15 Technical Comments for Cubuk I Dam ...................................90

Table 4.16 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable

Sediment Removal, Cubuk I Dam............................................91

Table 4.17 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable

Sediment Removal, Cubuk I Dam............................................92

Table 4.18 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Cubuk I Dam ..................92

xiii
Table 5.1 RESCON Results for Tested Reservoirs ................................101

Table A.1 Dams Under Operation in Turkey ..........................................109

Table A.2 Classification of Dams For Single Purpose............................128

Table A.3 Classification of Dams For Multi Purpose .............................128

Table B.1 Calculation of Critical St for Tested Reservoirs ....................130

Table C.1 Geometric Parameters for Tarbela Dam.................................131

Table C.2 Physical Parameters Varied In Addition To Geometry

Changes ..................................................................................132

Table C.3 Constant Parameters In Sensitivity Analysis for Tarbela

Dam ........................................................................................132

Table C.4 Assumed Constant Removal Parameters for Tarbela Dam ....133

Table C.5 Economic Parameter Assumptions for Tarbela Dam .............134

Table C.6 Sensitivity to Value of Unit Reservoir Yield .........................135

Table C.7 Sensitivity to Discount Rate, Tarbela Dam ............................136

Table C.8 Sensitivity to Operation and Maintenance Coefficient ..........137

Table C.9 Sensitivity to Cost of Removal Parameters ............................138

Table D.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey .....................139

Table E.1 Bayındır Dam Input Data .......................................................145

Table E.2 Economic Results for Bayındır Dam......................................146

xiv
Table E.3 Economic Conclusion for Bayındır Dam ...............................146

Table E.4 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Bayındır Dam ..............147

Table E.5 Annual Fund Results for Bayındır Dam.................................147

Table E.6 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Bayındır Dam.................147

Table E.7 Long Term Capacity Values for Bayındır Dam .....................148

Table E.8 Phase I Lengths for Bayındır Dam .........................................148

Table E.9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Bayındır I Dam ...................148

Table E.10 Frequency of Removal for Bayındır Dam ..............................149

Table E.11 Sediment Removed per Event for Bayındır Dam...................149

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

Dam ........................................................................................150

Table E.13 Technical Comments for Bayındır Dam ................................150

Table E.14 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 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Bayındır Dam ...............151

Table F.1 Borcka Dam Input Data..........................................................152

Table F.2 Economic Results for Borcka Dam ........................................153

xv
Table F.3 Economic Conclusion for Borcka Dam..................................153

Table F.4 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Borcka Dam.................154

Table F.5 Annual Fund Results for Borcka Dam ...................................154

Table F.6 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Borcka Dam ...................154

Table F.7 Long Term Capacity Values for Borcka Dam........................155

Table F.8 Phase I Lengths for Borcka Dam ...........................................155

Table F.9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Borcka Dam........................155

Table F.10 Frequency of Removal for Borcka Dam ................................156

Table F.11 Sediment Removed per Event for Borcka Dam .....................156

Table F.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Borcka ........

Dam ........................................................................................157

Table F.13 Technical Comments for Borcka Dam ...................................157

Table F.14 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 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Borcka Dam..................158

Table G.1 Ivriz Dam Input Data..............................................................159

Table G.2 Economic Results for Ivriz Dam ............................................160

xvi
Table G.3 Economic Conclusion for Ivriz Dam......................................160

Table G.4 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Ivriz Dam.....................161

Table G.5 Annual Fund Results for Ivriz Dam .......................................161

Table G.6 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Ivriz Dam .......................161

Table G.7 Long Term Capacity Values for Ivriz Dam............................162

Table G.8 Phase I Lengths for Ivriz Dam ...............................................162

Table G.9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Ivriz Dam............................162

Table G.10 Frequency of Removal for Ivriz Dam ....................................163

Table G.11 Sediment Removed per Event for Ivriz Dam .........................163

Table G.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Ivriz

Dam ........................................................................................164

Table G.13 Technical Comments for Ivriz Dam .......................................164

Table G.14 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 Sedimentation Process................................................................5

Figure 2.1 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 Bed Elevations at a Cross Section of Sanmenxia Reservoir ....19

Figure 2.5 The Simplified Geometry for Calculation of Criteria ..............20

Figure 2.6 Hydrosuction Dredging ............................................................22

Figure 2.7 Hydrosuction Bypassing...........................................................22

Figure 2.8 Pumping of Sediment ...............................................................24

Figure 2.9 Dredging Operation in Upper Peoria Lake ..............................25

Figure 2.10 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
Figure 2.12 Changes in Channel Cross Section Caused by Removal of

Oakdale Dam in 1/00................................................................28

Figure 3.1 Design Life Approach ............................................................. 30

Figure 3.2 Life Cycle Management Approach ..........................................32

Figure 3.3 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Flushing ........40

Figure 3.4 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Hydrosuction.41

Figure 3.5 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and

Trucking (Se>Smin)....................................................................42

Figure 3.6 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and

Trucking (Se<Smin)....................................................................43

Figure 4.1. Half Life Calculation of Cubuk I Dam.....................................72

Figure 4.2 Location of Cubuk I and Bayındır Dams..................................81

Figure 4.3 Location of Borcka Dam ..........................................................96

Figure 4.4 Location of Ivriz Dam ..............................................................98

Figure H.1 Layout of Basins in Turkey. ...................................................166

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

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

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

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

xix
Figure H.6 Gediz Basin (Basin #5)...........................................................170

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure H.15 West Yesilirmak Basin (Basin #14) .......................................175

Figure H.16 East Yesilirmak Basin (Basin #14) ........................................176

Figure H.17 South Kizilirmak Basin (Basin #15) ......................................176

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

Figure H.19 Middle Anatolian Basin (Basin #16)......................................178

Figure H.20 East Mediterranean Basin (Basin #17)...................................178

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

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

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

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

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

Figure H.26 Upper Euphrates River Basin (Basin #21) .............................183

Figure H.27 East Black Sea Basin (Basin #22) ..........................................183

Figure H.28 Coruh Basin (Basin #23) ........................................................184

Figure H.29 Aras Basin (Basin #24)...........................................................184

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

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

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

xxi
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

ASD maximum percent of accumulated sediment removed per dredging

event

AST maximum percent of accumulated sediment removed per trucking

event

C unit cost of construction

CD unit cost of dredging

CH unit cost of hydrosuction

CLD 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 sediment concentration (ppm) (mg/l)

Cw concentration by weight of sediment to water removed

DU expected life of hydrosuction sediment removal system

Gd adjustment factor to approximate the gamma distribution

HI cost of capital investment to install hydrosuction sediment removal

system

MT maximum amount of sediment removed per trucking event

Qm mixture flow rate in hydrosuction sediment removal operation

QR sediment discharge (tons/day)

Qs sediment flow rate in hydrosuction sediment removal operation

xxii
S0, C0 original reservoir capacity

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

sd standard deviation of incoming flows

Se existing reservoir capacity

Smin lower bound of remaining reservoir capacity

St remaining reservoir capacity after year t

Vin mean annual water inflow

W(0) water yield from run-of-river project

W(St+1) water yield from storage capacity after flushing

Wt reservoir yield at time t

X amount of sediment dredged per cycle

Xt sediment removed in year t

Yt amount of water required to remove sediment

Zpr standard normal variate of percent probability (p%)

xxiii
 ABBREVIATIONS

CAT Caterpillar

DDR Drawdown Ratio

DSI State Hydraulic Works

EIE Directorate of Electrical Power Resources Survey and

Development Agency

FW Flushing Width

FWR Flushing Width Ratio

HR HR Wallingford Institute, United Kingdom

HSRS Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System

LTC Long Term Capacity

LTCR Long Term Capacity Ratio

MAR Mean Annual Runoff

N/A Not Applicable

NPV Net Present Value

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ppm parts per million

SBR Sediment Balance Ratio

SBRd Sediment Balance Ratio (independent of drawdown)

SSf Flushing Channel Side Slope

TWR Top Width Ratio

xxiv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Definition and Literature Survey

There are more than 45 000 large dams built all around the world for several

purposes such as power generation, flood control, domestic or industrial water

supply (WCD, 2000). “The International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD),

established in 1928, defines a large dam as a dam with a height of 15 m or more
from the foundation. If dams are between 5-15 m high and have a reservoir
volume of more than 3 million m3, they are also classified as large dams.”
(WCD, 2000).Every year 0.5-1.0% of the world’s reservoir capacity is lost due

to sedimentation (White, 2000). Today, 19% of world energy is from

hydropower. Nearly half the world’s large dams were built exclusively or

primarily for irrigation (WCD, 2000).

The demand for water is increasing with the population rise. In order to

compensate this water demand existing storage capacity should be used

efficiently or new sources should be found.

Quality is important as much as capacity since a large percent of dams have been

built for irrigation and water supply. General tendency in determining reservoir

capacity of a new dam is assuming an economical life for a dam such as 50-100

years. Another way of determining reservoir capacity is using previously made

sediment measurements to supply water for specified economical lifetime.

1
Present and future water demand of each continent is given in Table 1.1. As can

be seen from Table 1.1 demand for new storage increases. However,

constructing new dams creates new problems as well as their benefits.

Table 1. 1 Water Demand According to Region (White, 2000)

Demand For New Storage (km3)

Region 2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-2030
Europe 50 50 55

South&Central America 465 495 425

Africa 165 205 250

Asia 315 280 215

Total 995 1 030 945

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.

Therefore, we need to find out ways for sustainable management of existing

reservoirs as well as new ones. Simonovic (1994), opposed a methodology for

the reassessment of a reservoir. In this study obtaining storage requirement using

current demand and finding the best management strategy for an existing

reservoir was the objectives. If new policies are prepared in feasibility level for

new dams, economical life of dams can be extended and capacity loss may be

prevented. As a result of economical analysis and site investigations sediment

deposited in existing reservoirs can be partially cleared. Thus, a capacity less or

equal to its original capacity may be sustained.

2
Constructing new dams receives too much criticism due to resettlement problem,

loss of aggricultural areas, environmental problems, and change in habitat, etc.

Thus, small dams and maintenance of new dams gain importance. 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.

All these activities need finance. Either we will deal with the problem or leave it

to next generation. Palmieri et al. (2001), presented a new methodology in order

to evaluate economics of reservoir sedimentation and sustainable management of

dams. In their works, various sediment removal techniques are compared

economically and compared from sustainability point of view. 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.

Worldwide storage, power and sedimentation is shown in Table 1. 2

3
 Table 1.2 Worldwide Storage, Power and Sedimentation (RESCON Manual Volume I, 2003)

Hydropower Annual loss due to

Number of Storage Total Power
Region production in sedimentation
large dams (km3) (GW)
1995 (TWh/yr) (% of residual storage)

Worldwide 45 571 6 325 675 2 643 0.5-1

Europe 5 497 1 083 170 552 0.17-0.2

North America 7 205 1 845 140 658 0.2

South and Central America 1 498 1 039 120 575 0.1

4

North Africa 280 188 4.5 14 0.08-1.5

Sub Saharan Africa 966 575 16 48 0.23

Middle East 895 224 14.5 57 1.5

Asia (excluding China) 7 230 861 145 534 0.3-1.0

China 22 000 510 65 205 2.3

Source: Adapted from White, 2001.

When a river flows into a reservoir, velocity of water decreases and coarser

particles deposit mostly at entrance of the reservoir forming a delta as shown in

Figure 1.1. On the other hand, finer sediment is carried by quasi-homogeneous

flow to nearer parts of the body of a dam (Yu et al., 2000). Moreover, turbidity

currents are also sources of sediment at downstream parts of a reservoir as in

Figure 1.1. Characteristic unit weight values of sediments in a reservoir are

between 8.83-13.24 kN/m3 (RESCON Manual, 2003).

Turbid inflow Floating Debris

Coarse Relatively clear water

Delta Outlets
Fine sediments
Density current

Figure 1.1 Sedimentation Process (RESCON Manual Volume I, 2003)

Sedimentation is a big problem for reservoirs. Especially, for the reservoirs with

no watershed management or the reservoirs on high-sediment-carrying rivers

this problem may be more severe. Four arch dams constructed in New South

Wales have been examined by Chanson and James (1998). 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.

These dams are More Creek Dam, Gap Weir, Korrumbyn Creek Dam and

Quipolly Dam. Information of use and siltation for these dams is shown in Table

1. 3.

5
 Table 1. 3 Characteristics of Creek Dam, Gap Weir, Korrumbyn Creek Dam and Quipolly Dam

Reservoir Location Stream Volume* of Catchment Use Remarks

(1) (2) (3) reservoir area (6) (7)
(m3) (km2)
(4) (5)

Moore Creek Dam, 1898 20 km north of Moore 220E+03 51 Water supply Complete reservoir siltation
Tamworth, NSW Creek for the town of by 1924(and probably
Tamworth earlier);bed load siltation
primarily
6

Gap weir, 1902 5 km west of Werris Werris - 160 Water supply Sediment by suspension load;
Creek, NSW Creek for railway fully silted in 1924
purposes

Korrumbyn Creek dam, Mount Warning South 27.28E+03 3 Water supply Rapid bed-load sedimentation
1917-1918 National Park, 20km Korrumb for the town of associated with jammed scour
west of yn Creek Murwillumbah valve
Murwillumbah
Quipolly dam, 1932 20 km southeast of Quipolly 860E+03 70 Water supply Sedimentation volume larger
Werris Creek, NSW Creek of the town of than half of the initial storage
Werris Creek by 1952; disused since 1955

*Original capacity
In Turkey, there are limited number of studies related to reservoir sedimentation.

Yalçınkaya (1991) studied deposition mechanism of sediment within a reservoir

area. 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 two methods are used for 16

reservoirs of Turkey and results were compared with the actual measurements.

Altınbilek (2002), presented need for sustainable management of finite water

resources, need for constructing dams, debate between construction of large

dams, benefits of dams and diverse effects of dam construction, such as

resettlement and change in environmental properties. Also, the contribution of

dams to the Turkish economy has been stated.

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. Geographic Information System (GIS) applications

were also used in this study.

Yılmaz (2003), introduced a new and simple graphical method for estimating

half life of an existing dam using previously made sediment measurements.

7
1.2 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. For

this purpose sediment removal techniques, sediment measurement methods used

in Turkey, sediment measurements and sediment measuring institutions have

been introduced herein.

The sedimentation mechanism needs extensive studies from several aspects.

Geography, climate, hydrology, geometrical structures of the dam and river

morphology are the main components. However, in this thesis it is not aimed to

study the mechanism of sedimentation within reservoir area. Instead, the

management of sedimentation of reservoirs will be discussed. Turkey is one of

the countries with high erosion problem. Annual sediment transport rate in

Turkey is approximately 5x109 kN (Yanmaz, 1997). To prevent sediment from

coming into the reservoir watershed management is needed. Within the scope of

this thesis sediment removal techniques will be discussed with the help of

package program RESCON promoted by World Bank.

Second chapter of this study is allocated for presenting sedimentation, general

situation in the world and definitions of sediment removal operations. In third

chapter, life cycle management approach is introduced. Importance of

sustainability for reservoirs is presented. RESCON program and its running

logic is given. Fourth chapter is devoted to sedimentation in Turkey. The

institutions taking sediment measurements and the current situation of

sedimentation in Turkey are given. Case studies from Turkey are presented with

8
comments on program results. Appendices include great amount of data related

to dams in Turkey, previously taken sediment measurements and basins of

Turkey. Table A.1 lists the dams in Turkey which are under operation. Table A.2

classifies these dams according to single purpose of use and Table A.3 classifies

them according to multipurpose use. Table D.1 includes all previously taken

sediment measurement data (taken by DSI). Appendix H is for maps of basins in

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.

9
 CHAPTER 2

SEDIMENT REMOVAL TECHNIQUES

2.1 General

In this chapter sediment removal techniques have been presented with their

applications in the world. These techniques are flushing, hydrosuction sediment

removal system (HSRS), trucking and dredging, decommissioning (removal of a

dam completely).

2.2 Flushing

2.2.1 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. 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. All of these works are

very detailed and large amount of money is required to carry out researches.

Therefore supporting evidence should be obtained as a result of investigations.

There is another method called sediment sluicing. However, sediment flushing

and sediment sluicing are a bit different. Sediment flushing evacuates previously

deposited sediment and sediment sluicing evacuates the sediment coming with

high discharges resulted from melted snow or heavy rain. Another difference is

10
the size of sediments evacuated. In sediment flushing finer sediments are

evacuated as well as sands and gravels. However, in sediment sluicing mostly

finer sediments are evacuated.

There are some parameters calculated during flushing calculations. These

parameters will be given in this section in order flushing calculations to be

understood more easily.

Long Term Capacity Ratio (LTCR): This is the ratio of long term sustainable

capacity of the reservoir to its original capacity. Considering reported cases to

the RESCON team for flushing operations LTCR estimations made by the

program seems to be lower than reported values. Various reasons can lead to this

result such as geometry of the reservoir or gradation of sediment within the

reservoir (RESCON Manual, 2003). There may be other reasons to be evaluated.

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. Besides economic parameters do not affect LTCR for flushing since

flushing is related to engineering parameters rather than economic parameters

(RESCON Manual, 2003). If LTCR<0.35, caution should be exercised.

Sediment Balance Ratio (SBR): This is the ratio of sediment flushed annually

to the sediment deposited annually. For a feasible solution, SBR>1.0 condition

should be satisfied (RESCON Manual, 2003).

11
Sediment Balance Ratio (SBRd): This ratio has a calculation similar to SBR.

However, in calculation of SBRd Elf (reservoir elevation during flushing) is

equal to Elmin (Minimum Reservoir Elevation). SBRd > 1.0 is preferable

(RESCON Manual, 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. In order drawdown to be sufficient, DDR should be

approximately 0.7 (RESCON Manual, 2003).

Flushing Width Ratio (FWR): This is the ratio of the width formed as a result

of flushing operation to the representative bottom width provided by user.

FWR>1 is preferable (RESCON Manual, 2003).

Flushing Width (FW): Estimated actual flushing width using a best-fit equation

resulting from empirical data (Atkinson, 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. If

TWR is a constraint TWR>2 is preferable. If TWR is not a constraint TWR

approaching 1 is sufficient (RESCON Manual, 2003).

Long Term Capacity Ratio (LTCR), Sediment Balance Ratio (SBR, SBRd),

Flushing Width Ratio (FWR) and Top Width Ratio (TWR) are the criteria for

flushing stated by Atkinson (1996). In RESCON, the criterion used for

feasibility of flushing is Sediment Balance Ratio.

12
Brune Ratio: This is ratio of the original reservoir capacity to the mean annual

reservoir inflow. Using this value and the sediment type provided by user

program calculates trap efficiency. 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.

Trap Efficiency: Trap efficiency is the percent of entrapped sediment to the

inflowing sediment to the reservoir.

Flushing Channel Side Slope (SSf): Representative side slope for deposits

exposed during flushing. This adjusted Migniot's equation often over-estimates

side slopes by 10 times, so the equation was divided by 10 to obtain a more

reasonable result (RESCON Manual, 2003).

Actual Flushing Width: The actual flushing width is estimated using a best-fit

equation resulting from empirical data (Atkinson, 1996).

2.2.2 Factors Affecting Applicability and Efficiency of Flushing

Some hydraulic conditions should be provided for a successful flushing

operation. These are:

• Hydraulic capacity of the outlet must be sufficient enough to keep

reservoir level as constant as possible until flushing ends (Howard,

2000).

13
 • Flushing discharges of at least twice the mean annual flow are

required (Howard, 2000).

• Amount of water used in flushing operation should be at least 10% of

the mean annual runoff (Howard, 2000).

Reservoirs having annual runoff larger than volume of the reservoir are more

suitable for sediment flushing (Howard, 2000), since these reservoirs have

enough water for flushing. Another important parameter is selecting flushing

time. 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.

The amount of water required is not only critical for flushing operation but also

water required for irrigation, domestic and industrial water supply and

hydropower generation. Coarser sediment mostly deposits at the entrance of the

reservoir. Therefore, this deposit can be removed by trucking instead of flushing

since these sediments cannot be mobilized by flushing. As a result of operation

an incised channel forms in the reservoir. The reservoirs having similar shape to

this incised channel are suitable for flushing. This means, long, relatively narrow

reservoirs are more suitable for flushing than short, wide and shallow reservoirs.

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). Therefore he uses some new criteria for feasibility of flushing

such as Sediment Balance Ratio (SBR) and Long Term Capacity Ratio (LTCR).

Four more criteria are used by Atkinson(1996) for a successful flushing. These

criteria are Drawdown Ratio (DDR), Flushing Width Ratio (FWR), Top Width

Ratio (TWR) and SBRd (same as SBR but SBRd is independent of drawdown).

14
2.2.3 Worldwide Experience of Flushing

HR Wallingford Institute study results over 50 reservoirs worldwide has given

the following findings (Howard, 2000):

• The hydrology and sedimentalogy of the catchement should be fully

understood.

• Hydrologically small reservoirs with storage capacity to annual

runoff ratio of 0.3 have greater chance for successful flushing.

• Hydrologically large dams may need lateral and longitudinal

diversion channels for flushing.

• Downstream impacts (following reservoirs, fisheries, etc.) may be a

constraint.

In order flushing facilities to be cost effective the reservoirs which have lost

40%-60% of their original capacity are more suitable. In this case cost of

construction of flushing facilities becomes 10%-30% of the cost of a new dam

with similar capacity (Howard, 2000).

There are numerous models for predicting the reservoir sedimentation, riverbed

evolution, and sediment concentration during flushing such as HEC-6 of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (1991) and the FLUVIAL-12 model developed by

Chang (1998) (Liu et al., 2004). In the model of Liu et al. (2004), a one

dimensional numerical model is proposed for predicting the sediment

concentration variations, bed evolutions, and amount of sediment flushed. Two

reservoirs in Japan, Daishidaira and Unazuki reservoirs, were selected to varify

15
the model. The predicted results are in good aggreement with the measurements

as can be seen in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2. However, 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.

Fourteen previously flushed reservoirs worldwide have been examined by

Atkinson (1996). Six of these reservoirs have been flushed successfully and rest

of the reservoirs are not successfully flushed. SBR and LTCR criteria are met for

six successfully flushed reservoirs and LTCR criterion is not met for eight

unsuccessfully flushed reservoirs. Other four criteria are also met for six

successfully flushed reservoirs and at least one is not met for eight

unsuccessfully flushed reservoirs.

Original in 1985 Measured in Dec. 2000

Measured in June 2001 Calculated in June 2001
Measured in Nov. 2001 Calculated in July 2001
Elevation (m)

Measured amount of flushed sediment

On June 24, 2001 = 0.59 million m3
Calculated amount of flushed sediment
On June 24, 2001 = 0.564 million m3

Distance from Dashidara dam (m)

Figure 2. 1 Measured and Calculated Thalweg Profiles in Dashidaira Reservoir

(Liu et al., 2004)

16
 Measured in 2000 Calculated in June 2001
Measured in June 2001 Calculated in July 2001
Measured in Nov. 2001

Elevation (m)

Measured amount of deposits

on June 25, 2001 = 0.49 million m3
Calculated amount deposits
on June 25, 2001 = 0.48 million m3

Distance from Unazuki dam (m)

Figure 2.2 Measured and Calculated Thalweg Profiles in Unazuki Reservoir

(Liu et al., 2004)

2.2.4 Importance of Full Drawdown

According to report of Atkinson (1996) incomplete drawdown makes a flushing

operation less effective. Purpose of drawdown is decreasing water level to

original flowing river elevation and increasing velocity. Thus incipient motion of

deposited sediment is provided. Sediment concentration in flow leaving

reservoir vs. time from start of drawdown plot for Baira Resevoir in India is

shown in Figure 2.3. When drawdown is completed concentration increases

tremendously. Therefore, if possible full drawdown should be practiced for a

successful flushing operation.

17
 Drawdown complete

Sediment concentration in flow leaving reservoir(ppm)

Time from start of drawdown (hours)

Figure 2.3 Sediment Concentration During Drawdown of Baira Reservoir

(Atkinson, 1996)

Flushing operation may result in gain of most of the lost capacity for

hydraulicaly small reservoirs. However, for large dams situation is different. As

a result of flushing operation an incised channel is formed. 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. Due to this

reason, sediment is deposited at these parts. This situation can be seen in Figure

2.4 presenting storage plot and a cross-section before and after flushing. 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. In Figure 2.5 the simplified model, cross

18
section properties used in calculation of LTCR and meaning of LTCR can be

seen.

Figure 2.4 Bed Elevations at a Cross Section of Sanmenxia Reservoir

(Atkinson, 1996)

2.2.4 Problems Related to Initiation of Flushing

For a reservoir whose most of the capacity has been lost due to sedimentation,

initiation of flushing operation is a real problem. Because, for such a reservoir

opening of bottom outlets may be very diffucult. In order to overcome this

problem tactical dredging may be done around bottom outlets. By tactical

dredging only a small part of the deposited sediment is removed but its

importance is very high. If possible, use of original diversion tunnel may result

in a successful flushing (Annandale, 2005) . Sometimes capacity of bottom

outlets may not be enough, therefore, use of original diversion facilities or

construction of new tunnels may lead to a successful flushing operation.

However, construction of new tunnels greatly increase cost of sediment removal.

19
Figure 2.5 The Simplified Geometry for Calculation of Criteria (Atkinson, 1996)

20
2.3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System (HSRS)

There are two types of hydrosuction sediment removal:

1. Hydrosuction Dredging

2. Hydrosuction Bypassing

In hydrosuction dredging accumulated sediment is removed and transported to a

downstream location through a pipe using head difference between the upstream

and the downstream. There is no need for power supply (Figure 2.6). In

hydraulic bypassing, the same principle is valid but a pipeline is constructed

between entrance of the reservoir and downstream of the dam. Sediment is

conveyed through the pipe before it deposits in the reservoir bottom area (Figure

2.7). Unfortunately, releasing sediment has harmful effects on downstream part

of the dam since it increases turbidity. On the other hand, sediment carrying

capacity of downstream river does not increase. Using HSRS these effects can

be minimized by selecting a proper destination point for sediment deposition. If

HSRS-bypass is installed at the beginning of construction of the dam

sedimentation problem may be less severe (Hotchkiss and Huang, 1995).

Principle components of HSRS are intake, pipeline, valve, outlet works and

auxillary facilities. For HSRS-bypass a sediment excluding system is required to

separate sediment from water. In hydrosuction dredging ancillary facilities such

as a raft or barge to move the pipeline inlet in the reservoir, an exernally

powered water jet or cutter head at the inlet to break up consolidated sediments

21
(if required) and instrumentation to monitor the operation are required

(Hotchkiss and Huang, 1995).

Dredge Pipeline

To Discharge Facility

Figure 2.6 Hydrosuction Dredging (Hotchkiss and Huang, 1995)

e
ss Pipelin Sediment
Byp a
Diversion
Discharge

Dam

Figure 2.7 Hydrosuction Bypassing (Hotchkiss and Huang, 1995)

HSRS dredging was first performed in Djidiouia Reservoir in Algeria from 1892

to 1894 (Hotchkiss and Huang, 1995, ref. Fan, 1985). 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. Half of the incoming sediment is removed each year by HSRS dredging

22
from Xiao Xua-shan reservoir in China. Benefit, cost ratio was 3.6 for this

project. A 10-step design procedure is applied for the design of HSRS pipeline

by Hotchkiss and Huang (1995). Before selecting HSRS to remove sediment

from the reservoir its downstream should be evaluated in terms of environmental

considerations as well.

2.4 Dredging and Trucking

Dredging is removing deposited sediment in the reservoir area mechanically

within the reservoir without emptying the reservoir. That means service of the

reservoir is continued during the period of dredging operation. For dredging

operations, mechanical dredging system is installed on a boat. Removed

sediment is transported through pipes by pumping. Pumping water-sediment

mixture is difficult and expensive. In Figure 2.8 pumping of dredged material is

seen.

According to Mahmood (1987), cost of dredging varies between $2.0 - $3.0 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.

An important problem related to dredging is handling of dredged material.

Transporting dredged material far away from reservoir increases the cost.

Therefore, removed material should be deposited in a close site or should be

used for some other purposes. Dredged material can be used for landscaping and

island formation (Marlin, 2002). Dredging operation done in Upper Peoria Lake

23
in USA is shown in Figure 2.9. In this figure conventional clamshell bucket is

used. After the sediment in the reservoir has been dredged it is trucked to a

proper location for drying. For large dams with large depths cost of dredging

may be very high or dredging may be infeasible to be practiced (Annandale,

2005).

Figure 2.8 Pumping of Sediment – Water Mixture By A Positive Displacement

Pump (Marlin, 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. Sediment is removed by

using excavators and is loaded on trucks and is transported to a proper location.

Cost of trucking changes according to transportation distance. In Turkey, this

cost varies between $0.83 for 1 km of distance and $2.62 for 10 km of distance

24
(Koyuncu, 2005). After 10 km of distance trucking is not economically feasible

for sediment removal.

Figure 2.9 Dredging Operation in Upper Peoria Lake (Marlin, 2002)

2.5 Decommissioning (Removal of a Dam)

Decommissioning is the complete removal of a dam and make deposited

sediment to flow freely. The main factor for decommissioning is the difference

between cost of repairing and cost of decommissioning. Sometimes cost of

repairing may be very high especially for large dams. There is no reported case

of decommissioning of a large dam higher than 40 m (RESCON Manual, 2003).

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. Most of the time dams have no fish passage and

construction of a new dam disrupts routes of fish and fish habitat takes damage.

25
Continuous sedimentation depletes reservoir capacity as well as decreases

oxygen capacity. Benefit which can be obtained from the reservoir decreases due

to low water quality. As for hydropower plants, benefits of power generation and

run-off river benefits may be enough not to employ decommissioning. Before

employing decommissioning careful evaluation of benefits to be lost and

benefits to be gained are very important.

Decommissioning has been applied in USA several times. In Figure 2.10 number

of dams which are removed are classified according to their heights and 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. The main discussion on decommissioning is

removal of large hydropower dams (Doyle et al., 2000). In USA large

hydropower dams represents less than 3% of 75 000 dams (greater than 1.8 m in

height with at least 0.2 km2 impoundment). This rate is approximately 15% in

Turkey (Table A.2).

After removal of a dam large amount of sediment flows freely and a disastrous

situation may occur. There are different cases of dam removal in the literature.

Forming of original riverine conditions may take several months to 2 years or

more. Change in cross-section after removal of Oakdele Dam can be seen in

Figure 2.12. It is certain that gain of original habitat conditions may take more

time. The sediment coming from deposited position moves toward the reservoir

of next dam. Therefore, in 1 – 2 years of time approximately this amount of

sediment will be deposited in the reservoir of next dam. This point should be

26
underlined. In this period of time probably there will be no fish habitat or similar

things in that part of the river.

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., 2000)

Number of Removed

100

0
pre- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- post-
1940 49 59 69 79 89 1990
Year of Removal

Figure 2.11 Number of Dams Removed in USA by the Years

(Doyle et al., 2000)

27
 3 Pre-removal
(12/99)
Elev. (m) 2 Post-removal
(3/00)

0
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (m)

Figure 2.12 Changes in Channel Cross Section Caused by Removal of Oakdale

Dam in 1/00 (Doyle et al., 2000)

28
 CHAPTER 3

LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT METHOD

3.1 Introduction

The design life approach is widely applied in the design of dams. In this

approach cost-benefit calculation is carried out over a certain time period, which

is called the economic life of the dam. This time period is taken as 50 years in

Turkey, whereas it can change for other countries such as 75 or 100 years. It is

the economically feasible operation and maintenance of the project. 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, 2003). In Figure 3.1, the description of design life

approach of RESCON is given. In this figure environmental and social concerns

are related with the project by dashed lines, indicating weak relations.

Sedimentation problem is not considered as long as sedimentation threatens

water intake structures or other facilities of a dam. 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. Economy of sediment removal

operations and decommissioning are not included in dam budget. These

operations are economically expensive operations and maintenance of a dam

should be made for future generations.

29
Figure 3.1 Design Life Approach (RESCON Manual Volume I, 2003)

30
3.2 Life Cycle Management Approach

Life cycle management approach is different from conceptual design life

approach. In this approach sedimentation, decommissioning of the dam,

different reservoir sedimentation management alternatives, social and

environmental safeguards, economical optimizations for all of the management

techniques can be included in pre-feasibility level. Moreover, intergenerational

equity is considered in the approach. Figure 3.2 shows life cycle management

approach schematically. Considering these two figures difference between the

two approaches can be understood.

Since sedimentation is not considered in conceptual design life approach, some

bad consequences may occur. For example, in case of a sudden sedimentation

due to rapid melt of snow or a high rainfall, capacity of the dam may be lost

tremendously. Removal of deposited sediment, renewal of facilities such as

water intakes or clearance of entrance of sluice gates may cost too much.

Furthermore, the benefits that can be gained as a result of operations such as

power generation or irrigation may be lost.

In life cycle management approach continuity of reservoir management is under

control and carried out in determined times. Therefore, any effect which may

cause problem can be overcome due to continuous monitoring.

31
Figure 3.2 Life Cycle Management Approach (RESCON Manual Volume I,

2003)

32
3.3 RESCON Program

RESCON is a program based on excel and written in Visual Basic programming

language. It has two pages for data input. First page is concerned with data

related to geometry of reservoir, sediment and water inflows, parameters for

sediment management alternatives and economy. Second page is related to

environmental parameters. This page is optional and may be used if user is

concerned about environmental results. 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, the user should be aware of the physical removal capacity

of these methods. Since the sediment inflow may be much higher than removal

capacity of this method. HSRS is a method which can be used especially in

33
small reservoirs because the sediment removing capacity of HSRS is also not

high. Another constraint is the sensitivity of the program to the values of

variables. Sensitivity analysis made in RESCON Manual is given in Appendix C.

The difference of RESCON from other sediment management programs is the

general usage of the program. RESCON can be used for any reservoir (new

reservoir or existing reservoir), but conclusions should be used with caution. As

RESCON calculates the economic life of a dam, it assumes that all capacity of

the reservoir is depleted. Another important point is the calculation of long term

capacity of reservoir. RESCON makes calculation in two parts which are phase I

and phase II. 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. The

program calculates the application frequencies for sediment removing

techniques for both of the phases. This frequency can be different from the

frequency given by the user since the frequency calculated by the program is an

optimal value. However, calculated values for sediment management

alternatives are based on user input. 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, for example, watershed

management. Effectiveness of this technique is not clear enough. Although

watershed management is not an alternative in RESCON, it can be included by

lowering the amount of sediment inflowing to the reservoir by an amount

considering the catchment’s properties, area of reservoir, etc. Also, increasing

frequency of flushing events is another way if removing capacity is not enough

to remove annual deposited sediment. There are some parameters calculated in

34
RESCON. In order these parameters to be clearly understood some explanation

is given in the following parts.

3.3.1 Yield Estimation in RESCON

In RESCON water yield estimation is made using Gould’s Gamma Distribution.

This yield is required in economical calculations to calculate economical value

of the water which is to be used in sediment removal operations. The Gould

equation used in RESCON is:

4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin − Zpr 2 ⋅ sd 2 ⋅ +4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd 2
Wt = = W (S t ) (3.1)
 Gd 2
4 ⋅  S t + ⋅ sd 
 Vin 

where

Wt = reservoir yield at time t (volume)

St = 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
3.3.2 Water Required for Sediment Removal in Economic Models

3.3.2.1 Water Required for Sediment Flushing

If flushing operation is carried out in year t, it is assumed by RESCON that the

reservoir is to be completely emptied. Water yield is estimated as follows:

Wt = s1 ⋅ W (0) + s 2(W (S t +1 ) − W (0)) (3.2)

where

s1 = the fraction of Run-of-River benefits available in the year

flushing occurs

s2 = the fraction of storage benefits available in the year flushing

occurs

W(0) = water yield from Run-of River project,

W(St+1) = water yield from storage capacity after flushing

3.3.2.2 Water Required for HSRS

Hotchkiss and Huang’s (1995) hydrosuction method is used for HSRS

operations in RESCON. Water required to remove sediment (Yt) is (RESCON

Manual, 2003):

Q 
Yt =  m  ⋅ X t (3.3)
 Qs 

36
 where

Qm = mixture flow rate (volume per time),

Qs = sediment flow rate (volume per time),

Xt = sediment removed in year t (volume).

3.3.2.3 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, 2003):

100 ⋅ 2.65 
Yt =  ⋅ Xt (3.4)
 Cw 

3.3.2.4 Water Required for Trucking

For trucking operations significant amount of water is not used. Therefore, water

yield for trucking operations is assumed to be zero for simplicity.

3.3.3 Optimization Framework in RESCON

Selection of feasible sediment removal technique, the highest aggregate net

benefit, frequency and phase lengths of removal operations, retirement fund

calculations are the result of optimizations made by RESCON. Brief information

is given in the following paragraphs to clarify where RESCON makes

optimization.

37
3.3.3.1 No Sediment Removal Option

3.3.3.1.1 Decommissioning of the Dam

In case of decommissioning, an optimal time is determined. Annual net benefit

and salvage value are important in calculation of this time. An annual retirement

fund is calculated.

3.3.3.1.2 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. An annual

retirement fund is not calculated since the dam is not removed in this case. Run-

of-river benefits are possible only if there is a power generation unit in the dam.

3.3.3.2 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. 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. Failure of LTCR criteria does not eliminate

feasibility of flushing (RESCON Manual). LTCR is a ratio of the sustainable

capacity that can be achieved over the long-term to the original capacity.

Atkinson (1996) states four more criteria, DDR – Drawdown Ratio, SBRd-

Sediment Balance Ratio based on minimum reservoir elevation, FWR – Flushing

38
Width Ratio, TWR – Top Width Ratio but RESCON presents these criteria as a

guideline to make user exercise caution.

Optimization is made to maximize aggregate net benefit. There are two phases in

this optimization. These are:

• Phase I

• Phase II

In phase I regular flushing operations are made until reservoir capacity reaches

long term capacity. In phase II, new flushing frequency is calculated in a way

such that reservoir capacity can be maintained at LTC. Phase I and phase II are

independent of each other. A higher LTC can be achieved by increasing the

frequency of flushing but RESCON does not consider this. Since RESCON

makes optimizations on the basis of economy not capacity. Length of phase I is

determined in a way which maximizes the sum of NPV of phase I and phase II

(RESCON Manual). As a result of optimization possible time path for flushing

in a form like shown in Figure 3.3 is obtained.

39
 Figure 3.3 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Flushing (RESCON

Manual Volum II, 2003)

3.3.3.3 Hydrosuction Sediment Removal System Option

The Hydrosuction technical model used in RESCON is based on Hotchkiss and

Huang (1995). Energy requirement for HSRS operation is provided from the

head difference between the upstream and the downstream water levels of the

dam. Using an iterative scheme, 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. Hydrosuction is assumed

to occur annually and the timing of HSRS installation is determined through

economic optimization (RESCON Manual, 2003). If HSRS cannot remove

40
annual incoming sediment, non-sustainable solution is obtained. In this case

HSRS can only increase economic life of the dam and cannot prevent all

capacity from being depleted in finite time. As a result of optimization possible

time path for HSRS in a form like shown in Figure 3.4 is obtained.

Figure 3.4 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity for Hydrosuction

(RESCON Manual Volume II, 2003)

3.3.3.4 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. LTC is determined on the basis of optimal cycle length of

phase II. Whether existing capacity of the reservoir Se is bigger or smaller than

Smin affects length of phases. There are two different time paths for these cases.

41
If Se>Smin (where Smin is the lower bound capacity specified) no dredging or

trucking operation is done until Smin has been reached. Cycle length of phase II

is calculated using the difference between Smin and LTC. On the other hand, 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. As a result of optimization possible time path for dredging and trucking in

a form like shown in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 is obtained.

Figure 3.5 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and

Trucking (Se>Smin) (RESCON Manual Volume II, 2003)

42
 Figure 3.6 Possible Time Path of Remaining Capacity For Dredging and

Trucking (Se<Smin) (RESCON Manual Volume II, 2003)

3.3.4 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. During the analysis some parameters have been kept constant and

some parameters have been changed. As a result of this analysis sensitivities to

input parameters can be summarized as follows:

1. Increasing width of reservoir for a constant value of flushing flow results

in lower long term capacity ratios.

43
2. According to Basson’s and Rooseboom’s empirical flushing results and

RESCON results, flushing could be preferred as a sediment management

technique when reservoirs are hydraulically small and sediment loads are

relatively high (RESCON Manual, 2003).

3. If Wt/MAR is less than 0.4, RESCON results may be unreliable (For the

Wt/MAR checks of tested reservoirs in this study, see Appendix B.

4. If unit value of reservoir yield (P1) is doubled from $0.1/m3 to $0.2/m3,

the NPV for all strategies increase by nearly $140 billion. Also, the long

term capacity ratio increases by 31% and 6%, respectively, for dredging

and trucking.

5. If discount rate(r) is lowered from 5% to %3, NPV for each strategy

increases by %50. Furthermore LTCR increases by 33% and 4%,

respectively, for dredging and trucking.

6. Program is highly sensitive to market rate of interest. Even 1% of change

can affect economical results seriously.

7. Program is not sensitive to operations and maintenance cost (omc). This

parameter has a small effect on NPV.

8. If the parameters describing the cost of sediment removal are considered,

when cost of sediment removal is reduced, NPV increases for all of the

strategies tremendously.

9. The details of this sensitivity analysis can be seen in Appendix C. From

applicability point of view this sensitivity analysis should be carried out

on reservoir base.

44
3.3.5 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. However unit cost of

operations pretty much affect the cost of operations, net present value

calculations, the method giving the highest aggregate net benefit and other

economical optimizations. Therefore, site specific values have great importance.

3.3.5.1 Unit Cost of Hydrosuction

Unit cost of hydrosuction is calculated using the following formula (RESCON

Manual, 2003). Technical maximum sediment transport rate is calculated by the

program

HI
CH = (3.5)
DU ⋅ Qs

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
3.3.5.2 Unit Cost of Dredging

Unit cost of dredging calculated using the following criteria. The criteria is

based on experience (RESCON Manual, 2003).

IF X<150 000m3 CD(X) = 15.0 (3.7)

IF X>16 000 000m3 CD(X) = 2.0 (3.8)

−0.43
X
Else CD(X) = 6.62 6  (3.9)
 10 

where

X= amount of sediment dredged per cycle (m3)

CD = unit cost of dredging (US$/m3)

3.3.5.3 Unit Cost of Construction

Unit cost of construction is calculted using the following criteria (RESCON

Manual, 2003). This calculation is also based on experience as dredging.

IF S0>500 000 000m3 c=US$0.16/m3

 S0 
Else c = 3.5 − 0.53LN   (3.10)
 1000000 

where

c = unit cost of construction (US$/m3)

S0 = original capacity of the reservoir (m3)

46
3.3.6 Hydrosuction Removal System (HSRS) Calculations in RESCON

A 9-step routine is applied for HSRS calculations in RESCON. This routine is

the calculation method proposed by Hotchkiss and Huang (1995). The program

calculates sediment transportation rate, mixture velocity, mixture flow rate and

concentration in pipe (ppm).

3.3.7 Definitions of RESCON Input Parameters

RESCON is an excel-based program which is written in Visual Basic

programming language. It works with macros. Two working sheets are available

in order to input the required data. There are 8 types of data user should input for

the program RESCON in these two pages. These are given in Table

3.1~Table3.11

47
Table 3.1 Reservoir Characteristics

Parameter Units Description

Original (pre-impoundment) capacity of the
So (m3)
reservoir

Se (m3) 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

Representative side slope for the reservoir. 1

SSres
Vertical to SSres Horizontal.

Elevation of top water level in reservoir--use

ELmax (m)
normal pool elevation.

Minimum bed elevation--this should be the

ELmin (m)
riverbed elevation at the dam.

Water elevation at dam during flushing - this is a

function of gate capacity and reservoir inflow

ELf (m)
sequence. Lower elevation will result in a more

successful flushing operation.

L (m) Reservoir length at the normal pool elevation.

Available head--reservoir normal elevation

h (m)
minus river bed downstream of dam

48
Table 3.2 Water Characteristics

Parameter Units Description

Mean annual reservoir inflow (mean annual
Vin (m3)
runoff)

Coefficient of Variation of Annual Run-off

Cv (m3) volume. Determine this from statistrical

analysis of the annual runoff volumes

T (oC) Representative reservoir water temperature

Table 3.3 Sediment Characteristics

Parameter Units Description

Density of in-situ reservoir sediment. Typical
3
Pd (tonnes/m )
values range between 0.9 - 1.35.

(metric
Min Mean annual sediment inflow mass.
tonnes)

Select from:

1600 for fine loess sediments;

1600, 650 sediments with median size finer than

650, 0.1mm;
¥
300, 300 for sediments with median size larger than

180 0.1mm;

180 for flushing with Qf < 50 m3/s with any

grain size.

49
Table 3.3 Sediment Characteristics (continued)

Parameter Units Description

Is the sediment in the reservoir:

1
Brune Curve (1) Highly flocculated and coarse sediment
2
No (2) Average size and consistency
3
(3) colloidal, dispersed, fine-grained sediment

This parameter gives the model a guideline of

how difficult it will be to remove sediments.

Enter "3" if reservoir sediments are

significantly larger than median grain size (d50)

Ans 3 or 1
= 0.1mm or if the reservoir has been impounded

for more than 10 years without sediment

removal.

Enter "1" if otherwise.

Enter the number corresponding to the sediment

type category to be removed by hydrosuction

Type 1 or 2
dredging: 1 for medium sand and smaller; 2 for

gravel.

50
Table 3.4 Removal Parameters

Parameter Units Description

Is this a hydroelectric power reservoir?

HP 1 or 2
Enter 1 for yes; 2 for no.

Representative flushing discharge. This should

Qf (m3/s) be calculated with reference to the actual

inflows and the flushing gate capacities.

Tf (days) Duration of flushing after complete drawdown.

Frequency of flushing events (whole number of

N (years)
years between flushing events)

Assume a trial pipe diameter for hydrosuction.

D (feet)
Should be between 1 - 4 feet.

Enter the number of pipes you want to try for

hydrosuction sediment removal. Try 1 first; if

NP 1, 2, or 3
hydrosuction cannot remove enough sediment,

try 2 or 3.

Maximum fraction of total yield that is allowed

to be used in HSRS operations. This fraction of

Between 0 yield will be released downstream of the dam in

YA
and 1 the river channel. It is often possible to replace

required maintenance flows with this water

release. Enter a decimal fraction from 0 - 1.

51
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, this number must be

CLF (%) greater than the percentage of capacity lost

already. Sustainable solutions will attempt to

remove sediment before this percent of the

reservoir is filled completely.

Maximum percent of capacity loss that is

allowable at any time in reservoir for

Hydrosuction. For an existing reservoir, this

CLH (%) number must be greater than the percentage of

capacity lost already. Sustainable solutions will

attempt to remove sediment before this percent

of the reservoir is filled completely.

Maximum percent of capacity loss that is

allowable at any time in reservoir for Dredging.

For an existing reservoir, 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.

52
Table 3.4 Removal Parameters (continued)

Parameter Units Description

Maximum percent of capacity loss that is

allowable at any time in reservoir for Trucking.

For an existing reservoir, this number must be

CLT (%) greater than the percentage of capacity lost

already. Sustainable solutions will attempt to

remove sediment before this percent of the

reservoir is filled completely.

Maximum percent of accumulated sediment

removed per dredging event. Sustainable

ASD (%)
removal dredging will be subject to this

technical constraint.

Maximum percent of accumulated sediment

removed per trucking event. Sustainable

AST (%)
removal trucking will be subject to this technical

constraint.

Maximum amount of sediment removed per

dredging event. The user is warned if this

MD (m3) constraint is not met, but the program still

calculates the NPV. Use default value unless

better information is available.

53
Table 3.4 Removal Parameters (continued)

Parameter Units Description

Maximum amount of sediment removed per

trucking event. The user is warned if this

MT (m3) constraint is not met, 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%. Do not exceed this default

unless you have studies for your reservoir

showing different dredging expectations.

Table 3.5 Economic Parameters

Parameter Units Description

If dam being considered is an existing dam enter

E 0 or 1 0.

If the dam is a new construction project enter 1.

Unit Cost of Construction. The default value

given here is a crude estimate based on original

c ($/m3) reservoir storage capacity. The user is

encouraged to replace this value with a project

specific estimate.

54
Table 3.5 Economic Parameters (continued)

Parameter Units Description

Total Cost of Dam Construction. This cost is

calculated as unit cost of construction times

initial reservoir storage volume (C2 = So*c*E).

C2 ($) If you entered E = 0 above, your total

construction cost will be taken as 0; if you

entered E = 1, this cost will be calculated in the

above manner.

r decimal Discount rate

Market interest rate that is used to calculate

Mr decimal annual retirement fund. This could be different

from discount rate "r".

Unit Benefit of Reservoir Yield. Where possible

use specific data for the project. If no data is

P1 ($/m3)
available refer to RESCON Manual Volume I

report for guidance.

Salvage Value. This value is the cost of

decommissioning minus any benefits due to dam

V ($) removal. If the benefits of dam removal exceed

the cost of decommissioning, enter a negative

number.

55
Table 3.5 Economic Parameters (continued)

Parameter Units Description

Operation and Maintenance Coefficient. This

coefficient is defined as the ratio of annual

omc O&M cost to initial construction cost. Total

annual O&M cost is calculated by the program

as C1= omc*c* So.

Unit value of water released downstream of dam

in river by hydrosuction operations. This could

PH ($/m3) be zero, but may have value if downstream

released water is used for providing some of

required yield.

Unit value of water used in dredging operations.

This could be zero, but may have value if settled

PD ($/m3)
dredging slurry water is used for providing some

of required yield.

Unit Cost of Dredging--The user is encouraged

to input her/his own estimate. Should this be

difficult at the pre-feasibility level, enter "N/A"

CD ($/m3) to instruct the program to calculate a default

value of the unit cost of dredging. The

calculated value is reported in Econ. Results&

Conclusion Page.

56
Table 3.5 Economic Parameters (continued)

Parameter Units Description

Unit Cost of Trucking--The user is encouraged

to input her/his own estimate. Should this be

CT ($/m3)
difficult at the pre-feasibility level, the default

value is recommended.

Table 3.6 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).

The fraction of storage benefits available in the

s2 decimal
year flushing occurs (s2 ranges from 0 to1).

57
Table 3.7 Capital Investment Parameters

Parameter Units Description

Cost of capital investment required for

implementing flushing measures. The cost

FI $
entered will be incurred when flushing is first

practiced.

Cost of capital investment to install

HI $ Hydrosuction Sediment-Removal Systems

(HSRS).

DU Years The expected life of HSRS.

Table 3.8 Environmental Parameters (Optional)

Safeguard Ratings for Each Sediment Management

Safeguard Ratings
Strategy

No impact and potential benefits 1

Minor impact 2

Moderate impact 3

Significant impact 4

58
Table 3.9 Classification of Safeguard Policy Criteria

Safeguard Policy Criteria Interpretation Policy Level

6 No impact and potential benefits A

7 to 11, with no 3's Minor impact B

12 to 15 or at least one 3 Moderate impact C

16 or higher, or at least 4. Significant impact D

Table 3.10 Safeguard Policy Criteria

Policy Level

Maximum allowable environmental and

D
social damage (A to D)

Estimate of environmental and social impact levels can be seen in Table 3.11.

“N/A” is written for some of the strategies in this table. This means there is no

technique used in this option.

59
Table 3.11 Estimate of Environmental and Social Impact Levels

Estimated Environmental & Social

Impact Levels (Enter 1 to 4)

Technique

Natural Habitats

TOTAL
Transboundary
Cultural Assets
Resettlement
Possible Strategies

Human Uses

Indigenous

Impacts
Peoples
Non-sustainable

(Decommission) N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

with No Removal

Non-sustainable

(Decommission) HSRS 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

with Partial Removal

Non-sustainable (Run-

of-River) with No N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Removal

Non-sustainable (Run-

of-River) with Partial HSRS 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Removal

Sustainable Flushing 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Sustainable HSRS 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Sustainable Dredging 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Sustainable Trucking 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

60
3.3.8 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. However, the physical applicability of these

methods and placement of the removed sediment is a big problem.

RESCON should be used as a preliminary tool. Its results should be evaluated

carefully with caution. It is advised by RESCON team that the program should

be used for a number of isolated reservoirs rather than a single reservoir. This

excel based program determines the engineering feasibility and economical

values of sediment management techniques and rank them. The program can be

used for existing dams as well as new dams.

The final aim of the program is to select the sediment management technique

which is technically feasible and having the maximum net benefit. 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. 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. NPV (Net

Present Value) is the discounted value of Aggregate Net Benefit to present.

61
Solution of the program comes to user in two forms (RESCON Manual, 2003):

1) SUSTAINABLE, where reservoir capacity can be maintained at original or a

lower capacity,

2) NON-SUSTAINABLE, where reservoir fills with sediment in finite time.

This solution divides into two:

a) The dam is decommissioned at an optimally determined time allowing

salvage value (= cost of decommissioning minus any benefits due to

decommissioning) to be collected at this time; or

b) The dam is maintained as a “run-of-river” project even after the

reservoir is silted.

If decommissioning is the best solution an annual retirement fund is calculated

by the program. For sustainable solutions NPV is calculated as well as for run-

of-river option. This creates a chance to compare outcomes of each technique.

Environmental results are also important even if a sediment removal technique

leads to a sustainable solution. Since removed sediment is also a big problem for

neighborhood of the dam or for the next dam.

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. Since application of flushing or HSRS changes the amount of

sediment inflowing to next reservoir. This lowers economic life of the dam

62
whose inflowing sediment is higher than before. Therefore, in order RESCON to

be used for systems of reservoirs modifications should be made to the program

code (RESCON Manual Volume I, 2003).

3.3.9 Important Points for Evaluating RESCON Results

After calculations RESCON gives the method having the highest aggregate net

benefit, about frequencies of the method, partial removal options, long term

capacity, etc. However, caution should be exercised when using these results

since from practical or economical point of view these results may be impossible.

In the following subsections hints about each technique are presented.

3.3.9.1 Flushing Results

Although flushing is feasible and evacuating incoming sediment successfully in

RESCON results, width of the reservoir may not be sufficient to get a successful

flushing operation. This results in evacuating less amount of sediment than

planned.

3.3.9.2 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, respectively. The capacities of pipes are not too high

especially for large dams. Therefore, considering Hydrosuction Sediment

Removal System as an option, amount of incoming sediment should be

evaluated carefully. As a result of this HSRS is a suitable method for small

63
reservoirs or partial removal around water intakes or in similar places. Another

constraint about HSRS is the length of reservoir. In a long reservoir application

of HSRS may not be feasible.

3.3.9.3 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, 2003). Therefore, the results

exceeding this value are not physically possible. In RESCON it is assumed for

dredging that reservoir depth is less than 30 m. If a dam has a height more than

30 m cost of dredging should be revised manually.

As for trucking, information of trucks given in Caterpillar Performance

Handbook ( 28th Edition, CAT Publication by Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, Illinois,

USA, October 1997) is used. Number of loads , which is required to carry annual

incoming sediment, is calculated for each type of truck. However, there is a

physical capacity of trucks and this number of loads may not be physically

possible.

3.3.9.4 Gould’s Gamma Function

This function is used to calculate reservoir yield (water available for use). Yield

is important because in economic calculations, water price and yield may affect

the method which has the highest aggregate net benefit. However, this function

gives acceptable values if Wt/MAR ratio is higher than 0.4 where Wt is the

water yield and MAR is the mean annual runoff. If 0.2<Wt/MAR<0.4, the user

64
should be careful. Wt/MAR values less than 0.2 are not acceptable (RESCON

Manual Volume I, 2003).

65
 CHAPTER 4

REVIEW OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION IN TURKEY

4.1 General

In Turkey, sediment studies related to sustainability are quite a few. There is no

sediment removal operation done in a large scale in any reservoir. Practiced

sediment removal operations are only for clearing around water intake structures

or similar local operations. 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. Turkey is a country

having vary wide areas subject to erosion. Green cover in Turkey is not enough

to prevent sediment coming into reservoirs. Large seasonal flows also threat

watershed and may increase sedimentation.

4.2 Data Collection

4.2.1 Sediment Information in State Hydraulic Works (DSI)

In order to use RESCON we need site-specific data, such as geometrical data of

dam and reservoir, sediment data, annual water inflow. Obtaining data were a

tough work since there is not any archive having all measurements taken for

66
discharge and sediment. Therefore, 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). Some of the measurements are not reliable and some of them are

reliable. Because for some of the reservoirs capacity value is larger than

previous capacity value which is impossible without a sediment removal

operation. This situation can be seen in Table D.1. Incorrect measurements are

highlighted for easy inspection. Investigation and Planning Department is the

department responsible for gathering sediment information. Operation and

Maintenance Department is the department which is in charge of evaluating

sediment data. 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. Some brief information shall be given here to

introduce these departments and their duties.

4.2.1.1 DSI Investigation and Planning Department

General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works Investigation and Planning

Department carries out its duties and responsibilities under specified plans. In

order to carry observation projects properly, reliable data should be obtained.

DSI works in cooperation with State Meteorological Works Agency and

Electrical Survey Agency (EIE). DSI provides oportunity for discharge,

sediment, quality of water and pollution observations by installing observation

stations on rivers. Besides these, in lake observation stations level measurements

67
are taken, in meteorological stations rainfall, temperature, evaporation, humidity

and similar meteorological observations are made.

According to records by the end of 2002, 1139 stream gaging stations, 115

reservoir observation stations, 392 meteorological observation stations and 115

snow observation stations are under operation.

Precautionary measures are taken by DSI in order to prevent erosion and save

aggricultural areas from sediment which is carried by water or wind. Using

results of investigations pre-examination and planning reports are prepared by

Erosion and Control Section of Investigation and Planning Department. Success

of these works is related to economy. Due to conditions of the country, financing

is a big obstacle for these services.

4.2.1.2 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, 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, General Directorate of Land Registry and

68
Cadastre in compliance with the laws. The maps regarding to dam reservoirs are

given to Operation and Maintenance Department in order to be evaluated.

4.2.1.3 DSI Operation and Maintenance Department

The mission of Operation and Maintenance Department is to operate and

maintain the facilities related to irrigation, flood protection and flood control

developed by DSI. Monitoring the performance of the facilities and collecting

assesment of all statistical data related to reservoir are the responsibilities of this

department.

4.2.1.4 Sediment Measurement Studies of DSI

When a dam is to be constructed, DSI requests for sediment data from EIE, if

EIE has gauging station in that region or at neighbourhood. 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,

weekly or monthly). Because precision of sediment yield is may be important for

small structures like weirs, run-off river power plants, etc. If previously taken

sediment measurement data are not available, sediment data of the dams or water

structures previously constructed in that region are used with some

approximation. Finally, if approximation is also not possible, approximate value

for sediment yield is assumed using erosion or sediment yield maps. Dead

volume of a reservoir is calculated assuming a 50 year economic life for a dam.

Annual sediment yield obtained for that dam is multiplied by 50 in order to

69
obtain volume of sediment which would deposit in 50 years. This calculated

volume is allocated as dead volume for that dam.

There are 3 sampling methods practiced by DSI. These are

1. Point Sampling Method

2. Point Integration Method

3. Depth Integration Method

Most of the time the third one, depth integration method is used by DSI. It

obtains vertical variation of suspended sediment concentration at a river section

(DSI report, 2005).

For suspended sediment sampling US.P-46 and US.P-46R type of samplers are

used for point integration method and US.DH-48, US.D-49 and US.D-43 type of

samplers are used for depth integration method.

Yalçınkaya (1991), 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. Applicability of these methods for Turkish reservoirs are tested

and draingage area versus mean annual sediment inflow curve is plotted. It is

proposed that this curve can be used for other reservoirs in Turkey with an

adequate accuracy. As a result of her study, it was obtained that previously

stated sediment yields are underestimated. Another conclusion is distribution of

sediment within the reservoir. In dead volume calculation it is assumed by DSI

70
that sediment deposits only in dead volume but this study shows that sediment

deposits not only in dead volume but also in active volume. This means dead

volume calculations done by DSI are not correct. This situation leads DSI to

miscalculate economical life of a dam. 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.

In the study of Yalçınkaya (1991) sediment measurements of DSI, calculation of

dead volume of a dam, sediment yield calculations, devices used for sediment

measurements, comparison between resurvey data and actual measurements are

explained in detail. 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.

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.

In the study of Yılmaz (2003), a method for estimating life of a dam is presented.

In this study level-capacity values , taken at different dates, of dam are used to

foretell the date at which the use of that dam is not possible. In order to use the

method sediment measurement data at different times for different elevations are

crucial. 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. Logic in this method is the assumption that capacity of minimum

elevation cannot be depleted before that of maximum elevation. The first

71
capacity measurement which is original capacity of a dam is accepted as the

most correct one.

The step by step procedure in this method is as follows:

1. The difference of capacity between last and first measurement is

calculated and divided by difference in years to find out sediment

deposited

2. 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. Observed sediment yield is divided by the trap efficiency to find out

sediment yield of that catchment

4. Capacity and Trap efficiency values are updated for each period

5. Capacity vs. Time graphs are plotted for different elevations of the

reservoir

6. Half life of the reservoir is read from graph

A sample graph for Çubuk I Dam is shown in Figure 4.1. It can be seen from this

graph that half life of Çubuk I Dam is 68 years.

72
73

Capacities in hm3

Figure 4.1 Half Life Calculation of Cubuk I Dam (Yılmaz, 2003)

4.2.2 Sediment Studies of Electrical Survey Agency (EIE)

4.2.2.1 General

EIE (Electrical Survey Agency) is the second biggest institution in Turkey

studying on sediment. Some important duties of EIE are as follows.

• 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. These

measurements were published as yearbook titled as “Suspended Sediment Data

and Sediment Transport Amount for Surface Waters in Turkey” in 1982, 1987,

1993 and 2000. Yearbooks on water quality were published in 1989 and 1996.

However, after examining this yearbook it was concluded that taken

measurements may not be enough to predict annual sediment inflow for every

reservoir in Turkey. This has mainly two reasons: First reason is that sediment

samples are not taken at every tributary joining to a reservoir. Second reason is

change in calculated amount of sediment even if at different parts of a river

section. For example Table 4.1 shows calculated amount of sediment at different

stations operated by EIE. 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. By this way sediment inflow can be

predicted as much as possible. Sediment discharge value is a bit unreliable

74
because this value is dependent on location as well as time. Since sediment

sampling has been made at one section once a month this value is not enough for

precise annual sediment inflow prediction. 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. However,

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.

Table 4.1 Calculated Sediment Yields of Different Stations of EIE

Station River/Creek Catchment Sediment Yield Sediment Observation

No Name Area (km2) (tons/year/km2) (tons/year) Years

2315 Çoruh R. 17 835 396 10 594 000 1967-1990

2316 Çoruh R. 5 514 107 885 000 1970-1990

2320 Çoruh R. 4 767 63 450 000 1971-1990

2322 Çoruh R. 16 507 349 8 640 000 1984-1990

2325 Oltu Suyu 1 800 256 4 608 000 1977-1990

4.2.2.2 Sediment Sampling of EIE

Sample is taken by three different types of tools. If the sample is taken by

entering into the river US.DH-48 type of bottle is used. If teleferic or cren is

used US.D-49 type of bottle is used.

75
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, 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 = 0.0864QS C S (4.1)

where

QR = Sediment Discharge (tons/day)

QS = Water Discharge (m3/s)

CS = Sediment Concentration (ppm) (mg/l)

76
Sediment concentration (C) in equation 4.1 is calculated using equation 4.2.

Sediment Weight (Total Weight of Sand + Clay + Silt )

C= x10 6 (4.2)
Sample Weight (Weight of Water + Sediment )

Calculated sediment amount using equation 4.1 and equation 4.2 is the amount

of suspended sediment. 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.

There are two sections of EIE working on sediment. These are:

• Soil and Erosion Section

• Sediment Investigation and Laboratory Section

4.2.2.3 Duties of Soil and Erosion Section

• Makes erosion investigation and researches related to sediment

movement, sediment accumulation and river bed movements required for

plannings and projects

• Makes erosion classification in order to determine amount of erosion

about reservoir catchments

4.2.2.4 Duties of Sediment Investigation and Laboratory Section

• Makes required laboratory analysis of sediment samples taken from

sediment observation stations

77
 • Makes water quality analysis taken from discharge observation stations

and publishes results

• Evaluates sediment movement observations and publishes results

4.2.3 Economical Parameters for Turkey

Economical parameters for Turkey are obtained by consulting Koyuncu (2005).

As a result of personal communication values given in Table 4.2 are obtained.

Table 4.2 Cost Calculation Data for Turkey

Parameter Type Value

Discount Rate Hydroelectric Power Dam 9.5%

Irrigation Dam 5.0%

Domestic Water Supply 8.0%

Market Interest Rate 3.0%
Unit Benefit of Hydroelectric Power Dam 0.06%/kW
Reservoir Yield
Irrigation Dam $0.20-$0.30

Domestic Water Supply $0.25-$0.40

Salvage Value Varies (Negative or

Positive)

78
Table 4.2 Economical Parameters for Turkey (continued)

Parameter Type Value

Unit Value of Water Used in 0.02-0.05 $/m3
Dredging Operations
Dredging 3.0 $/m3 of sediment
Trucking 1km of distance 0.83 $/m3 of sediment

5km of distance 1.85 $/m3 of sediment

10km of distance 2.62 $/m3 of sediment

more than 10km not rantable

If a new channel is required for 3 000 $/m (with
flushing 3m-diameter tunnel
concrete lining)

2 000 $/m (without

lining)
If bottom outlet is to be used for $1 000 (workmanship
flushing
included)
Pipe for HSRS with 4ft of 150 $/m
diameter
The Expected Life of HSRS Up to 10 years

79
4.3 Case Studies from Turkey

Four dams have been selected for this study. These dams are Cubuk I Dam,

Bayındır Dam, Borcka Dam and Ivriz Dam. 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

4.3.1 Cubuk I Dam

Çubuk I Dam is located on 12 km north of Ankara, on Cubuk creek (Figure 4.2).

It is a concrete gravity dam with a height of 25 m from river bed. Combined

discharge capacity of spillway and bottom outlet is 227 m3/s and capacity of

bottom outlet is 40 m3/s. Its construction was started in 1930 and completed in

1936. There is no power unit installed in the dam. Purpose of the dam is

domestic and industrial water supply to the city of Ankara and flood control. It

has a reservoir capacity of 7.1 hm3 at normal reservoir level. Due to siltation

Çubuk I Dam is used only for recreational purposes at present. Initial capacity of

the reservoir is smaller than annual discharge of watershed Yılmaz (2003).

According to size, deposited sediment in the reservoir is clayey silt and silt,

according composition calcerous sandy silt and calcerous clay (Kılıç, 1986).

80
Catchment area has low green cover. Sediment deposition between 1936 and

1983 is 5.72 hm3 according to Kılıç (1984) and 3.55 hm3 according to General

Directory of State Hydraulic Works, Operation and Maintenance Department. 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 4.3.

Figure 4.2 Location of Cubuk I and Bayındır Dams

81
4.3.1.1 Cubuk I Dam RESCON User Input

Table 4.3 Cubuk I Input Data

Parameter Unit Value Source

Reservoir Geometry
S0 m3 7 100 000 Yılmaz (2003)
Se m3 3 550 000 Yılmaz (2003)
Wbot m 57.0 Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkey, 1991)
SSres 1.0 Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkey, 1991)
Elmax m 907.6 Dams in Turkey (1991)
Elmin m 882.6 Dams in Turkey (1991)
Elf m 895 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
metric
Min 81 000 Yılmaz (2003)
tonnes
Removal Parameters
Qf m3/s 27 Bottom outlet rating curve for Elf=895m

(Dams in Turkey, 1991)

Economic Parameters
r decimal 0.08 Koyuncu (2005)
Mr decimal 0.03 Koyuncu (2005)
P1 $/m3 0.35 Koyuncu (2005)
omc $/m3 0.085 Koyuncu (2005)
CD $/m3 3.00 Koyuncu (2005)
CT $/m3 2.62 Koyuncu (2005)

82
For definitions of parameters see section 3.3.8.

4.3.1.2 Evaluation of Cubuk I Dam RESCON Results

As a result of economical optimizations RESCON gives information

about sustainable and nonsustainable solutions, their aggregate net present

values and the strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit as can be seen

in Table 4.4. Analysis show that sustainable solution can be obtained for all of

the strategies. In Table 4.4 detailed results for sustainable and nonsustainable

solutions can be seen.

Table 4.4 Economic Results for Cubuk I Dam

Possible Strategies Technique Aggregate Net Present Value

Do nothing N/A 198 837 392

Partial Removal with HSRS is

Nonsustainable (Decommissioning) with
HSRS technically infeasible. See
Partial Removal
Partial Removal with HSRS

Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with No

N/A 198 762 340
Removal

Partial Removal with HSRS is

Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with Partial
HSRS technically infeasible. See
Removal
Partial Removal with HSRS

Sustainable Flushing 196 870 145

Sustainable HSRS 209 857 262

Sustainable Dredging 214 531 501

Sustainable Trucking 206 129 328

83
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: Sustainable

Technique yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: Dredging

The highest aggregate net benefit is: $ 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: Not applicable years

# of years until retirement for Decommission-with no Removal 68 years

Option:

# of years until retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option Not applicable years

with HSRS:

Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission-with 37 663 m3

No Removal Option:

Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission: Partial Not applicable m3

Removal Option with HSRS:

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: 20 887 $

Decommission

Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Partial Not applicable $

Removal with HSRS

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-of-

river 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: Not applicable years

Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with No 69 years

Removal Option:

Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with Not applicable years

Partial Removal Option:

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 3 115 443 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS 3 550 000 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging 5 894 272 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 6 628 194 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 10 years

for Flushing

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 1 years

for HSRS

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity Right now years

for Dredging

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 6 years

for Trucking

Number of flushing events in phase I is given in Table 4.11. This number is

different from that in phase II.

87
Table 4.11 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Cubuk I Dam

Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 0 times

Technical conclusions based on economics are given in Table 4.12. It includes

frequency of removal event if the given sustainable outcome had the highest

aggregate net benefit. The cycle is the number of years between removal events;

often the first cycle is different from remaining cycles, depending on whether the

reservoir is new or existing or what percent of reservoir is allowed to fill before

event occurs. 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.

Table 4.12 Frequency of Removal for Cubuk I Dam

Frequency of
Strategy Technique Cycle/Phase
Removal (years)
Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable

Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with
HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable
Partial Removal

Sustainable Flushing Phase I No Flushing occurs

Sustainable Flushing Phase II 1

Sustainable HSRS Annual cycle 1

Sustainable Dredging Phase I Right now (No Cycle)

Sustainable Dredging Phase II 1

Sustainable Trucking Phase I 6

Sustainable Trucking Phase II 66

88
Table 4.13 indicates quantity of sediment removal per event if the given

sustainable outcome had the highest aggregate net benefit. Note that when

removal occurs, the same quantity is removed after each cycle.

Table 4.13 Sediment Removed per Event for Cubuk I Dam

Sediment Removed
Strategy Technique Cycle/Phase
(m3)
Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable

Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with
HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable
Partial Removal

Sustainable Flushing Phase I 0

Sustainable Flushing Phase II 52 423

Sustainable HSRS Annual cycle 52 423

Sustainable Dredging Phase I 2 411 455

Sustainable Dredging Phase II 52 423

Sustainable Trucking Phase I N/A

Sustainable Trucking Phase II 3 459 914

Values for fraction of accumulated sediment removed (ASD or AST) and

fraction of reservoir capacity lost (CLF, CLD and CLT) at the time removal

event occurs are indicated in Table 4.14. Note that these values are likely to be

only approximate of discrete step sizes and possible rounding errors (RESCON

Manual, 2003). These values are optimal values economically, not physically.

89
Table 4.14 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Cubuk I Dam

Technique ASD/AST(%) CLF/CLD/CLT

Flushing(Phase I) N/A
57
Flushing(Phase II) 1

HSRS 1 50

Dredging(Phase I) 68
50
Dredging(Phase II) 4

Trucking(Phase I) N/A
55
Trucking(Phase II) 89

Information about concentration of sediment to water leaving reservoir is given

in Table 4.15 for each technique.

Table 4.15 Technical Comments for Cubuk I Dam

Average expected concentration of sediment to water flushed per flushing 19 417 ppm

event:

Average expected concentration of sediment to water released downstream 359 ppm

of dam per hydrosuction event:

Average expected concentration of sediment to water removed from 300 000 ppm

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)

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).

90
Table 4.16 Number of Truck Loads* Required to Complete Sustainable
Sediment Trucking Removal Option, Cubuk I Dam

Number of Loads Number of Loads

Truck Model Number m3/Truck Load
(Phase I) (Phase II)
769D 16.2 N/A 213 575

771D 18.0 N/A 192 217

773D 26.0 N/A 133 074

775D 31.0 N/A 111 610

777D 42.1 N/A 82 183

785B 57.0 N/A 60 700

789B 73.0 N/A 47 396

793C 96.0 N/A 36 041

*1997. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Ed. 28. CAT Publication by Caterpillar Inc., Peoria,

Illinois, USA. October 1997.

Number of dredges required to remove the optimally determined removed

sediment is shown in Table 4.17. The highest sediment volume removal by

dredging that can be expected from typical system over a year is approximately

11 Mm3. To remove more sediment, additional dredges could possibly be

installed on a reservoir, but this would increase the overall cost of the project.

Based on this gross estimate of sediment removal capability, the number of

dredges to remove enough sediment annually to keep the reservoir sustainable is

shown in Table 4.17.

Note that the approximated removal per dredge is very crude; site specific

analysis must be done to confirm volume of sediment removal per dredge per

year (RESCON Manual, 2003). It should be kept in mind that dredging

calculation is made assuming dredging mixture velocity through pipe is 5 m/s,

91
diameter of dredge pipe is 0.8 m, reservoir length less than 4 km, dam height is

less than 30 m, and dredge runs 70% of the time.

Table 4.17 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment

Dredging Removal Option, Cubuk I Dam

Volume Removed per Dredge

No. of Dredges (Phase I) No. of Dredges (Phase II)
(m3/Dredge)
11 000 000 1 1

Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for dredging and HSRS is given in Table 4.18.

Table 4.18 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Cubuk I Dam

Phase I Phase II

Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) 3.00 3.00

Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) 1.77

After presenting the detailed RESCON results for Cubuk I Dam comments for

these results can be given.

All the strategies have yielded sustainable solution for Cubuk I dam. Dredging is

the method having the highest aggregate net benefit. Long term capacity for

dredging is 5 894 272 m3 (83% of the original capacity) and this capacity is quite

a high capacity. There is no phase I for dredging which means an immediate

dredging operation is required. Partial removal with HSRS is not applicable due

92
to infeasibility. Therefore total removal with HSRS or removal of sediment with

other methods should be considered. For flushing present condition of bottom

outlets should be investigated for applicability of flushing. It can be seen

understood from bottom outlet drawings of Cubuk I dam (Dams in Turkey,

1991) that this bottom outlet can not be used for sediment evacuation. Because,

it was designed for taking water from reservoir not sediment. Since original

capacity is approximately 9% of the annual runoff, which is less than 30%, water

required for flushing is available. Depth of the dam is less than 30 m which is a

limit for dredging calculations of RESCON. Length of the reservoir is also not

quite long for the application of HSRS. Çubuk I Dam is now out of service

because of siltation. Since it is a dam for domestic&industrial water supply its

water can not be used now due to health reasons. However, if required studies

for removing sediment from the reservoir would be done.

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.

4.3.2 Bayındır Dam

Bayındır Dam is located on 12 km southeast of Ankara, on the Bayındır

stream (Figure 4.2). It is an earthfill dam with the purpose of domestic and

industrial water supply. Its initial storage capacity is 7.0 hm3 and annual

discharge of watershed is 3.9 hm3. The construction of the dam was started in

1962 and completed in 1965. Water for domestic use has not being taken from

Bayındır Dam since 2003. Besides this, the area surrounding the reservoir is

used for recreational purposes. It has an elevation of 30 m from river bed. A

93
power plant is not installed in the dam. Green cover around the reservoir is not

enough for preventing large amount of sediment from inflowing to the reservoir.

For user input and RESCON results of Bayındır Dam is given in Appendix E.

4.3.2.1 Evaluation of Bayındır Dam RESCON Results

For Bayındır Dam all the strategies have yielded sustainable results. However,

all the sustainable solutions have negative aggregate net present value. This

means that Bayındır Dam is not an economically feasible dam. Therefore,

removing sediment from this reservoir will not result in beneficial results. As a

result of this, the strategy having the highest aggregate net benefit is doing

nothing. The dam has a long life even if the sediment within the reservoir is not

removed (76 years of half life). Half life of the dam has been calculated by

Yılmaz (2003) as 73 years. Therefore result of this study and that of Yılmaz

(2003) are in good aggreement. Bayındır Dam has a long life because annually

deposited sediment is low (63 500 tonnes/year).

Long term capacities for HSRS, dredging and trucking are 5 124 196 m3 (73.2%),

5 122 034 m3 (73.17%) and 5 717 487 m3 (81.68%), respectively. All of them

are quite high capacities. Frequency of removal for trucking in phase I is 2 years

and for phase II that is 14 years. This frequencies are quite good from physical

application point of view. Dredging also provides a high capacity without

disturbing the service. It has a removal frequency of 2 years for phase I and 1

year for phase II. Sediment removed per cycle in phase I is “N/A” in Table E.11.

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). 2 years of frequency for phase I

94
means 2 years later phase I will be completed and phase II will begin. Trucking

has similar situation with dredging. It has a removal frequency of 2 years for

phase I. In Table E.10. “N/A” is written for sediment removed per trucking

event. This also means 2 years later phase I for trucking will be completed and

phase II will begin.

As for flushing, it has a low long term capacity. For physical application it may

be required to allocate quite an amount of money. Since, a new tunnel should be

drilled or existing derivation tunnel should be opened. All the investment is

useless because flushing operation for Bayındır dam requires that 82% of

capacity loss for economical reasons. All these means that flushing should not be

thought as a sediment removal alternative.

4.3.3 Borcka Dam

Borcka Dam is the dam with highest reservoir capacity in this study. Borcka

Dam is being constructed at the time of this study. It is in Borcka district, Artvin

(Figure 4.3). It is a part of series of dams to be constructed on the Coruh River.

This project is called the Coruh Project and includes construction of 14 dams.

Construction of Borcka dam was started in 1998. It is an eartfill dam with a

reservoir capacity of 419 hm3. 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. Purpose of the dam is energy production and installed

power capacity is 300 MW.

95
 Figure 4.3 Location of Borcka Dam

4.3.3.1 Evaluation of Borcka Dam RESCON Results

All the strategies except HSRS have yielded sustainable solutions with positive

aggregate net present value. Dredging has the highest aggregate net benefit.

However, there is an important point here. Maximum dredging height in

RESCON solution is 30 m. Borcka dam has height of 86 m from river bed. In

market, dredging equipment allowing dredging operation up to 150 m depth is

available (Roovers, 1989). This means net benefit calculated by RESCON

should be revised. However, this requires a proffessional study which is not our

concern. Total removal with HSRS is not possible because maximum sediment

evacuation capacity of HSRS solution (29 404 m3) is very low compared to

96
annual sediment deposition (7 779 020 m3). For trucking reservoir should be

emptied. However, this is an energy dam and could not possibly be emptied for a

long time. Under the light of this conclusions flushing is economically the best

solution. It requires no interruption in service.

Long term capacities for flushing, dredging and trucking are 193 200 773 m3

(46.1%), 366 363 144 m3 (87.4%) and 399 229 929 m3 (95.3%), respectively.

For Phase I, frequency of removal for flushing, dredging and trucking are 3

years, 8 years and 12 years, respectively. In Phase II, flushing and dredging

requires annual removal operation. On the other hand, trucking requires 10 years

of frequency of removal for phase II. Using these comparisons, it can be

concluded that dredging and trucking seems to be best options. From physical

applicability point of view trucking should be investigated more deeply. Since, it

is required to remove 65 733 570 m3 of sediment for one trucking event in phase

II. 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. This amount is quite big for a trucking event. Sediment amount

removed per dredging event is 6 573 357 m3. This amount is logical because a

dredging equipment has an annual sediment removal capacity of 11 000 000 m3

normally.

As a result, sediment removal policy for Borcka Dam should be prepared since it

has a half life of 32 years. This is not an acceptable situation.

97
4.3.4 Ivriz Dam

Ivriz Dam is located on 10km southeast of Ereğli, Konya (Figure 4.4).

Main purpose of the dam is irrigation and flood control. Construction of the dam

was completed in 1993. The dam has a big siltation problem. In the area

surrounding the reservoir has no green cover. A research has been carried out by

Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) presenting possible methods to prevent sediment

inflow and their cost for Ivriz dam. In this work sediment inflow calculations

have been made using GIS (Geographic Information System) technology and

USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation). There is no sediment measurement done

by State Hydraulic Works and other governmental or private institutions. The

capacity of the dam is 80 hm3 and height from river bed is 65 m.

Figure 4.4 Location of Ivriz Dam

98
4.3.4.1 Evaluation of Ivriz Dam RESCON Results

All the strategies except HSRS have yielded sustainable solutions with positive

aggregate net present value. Capacity of HSRS (3 926 m3/year) is less than

annual sediment inflow (252 000 m3/year). “Do nothing” option has the highest

aggregate net benefit. However, this is dam constructed for irrigation purposes

and bottom outlet of the dam is close to river bed elevation. Therefore,

maximum capacity loss is 8% of the total capacity. In order flushing to be

feasible 57% capacity loss is required but this is not acceptable for this dam.

Dredging and trucking are possible solutions for Ivriz dam.

Long term capacities for dredging and trucking are 73 653 030 m3 (92.1%) and

78 535 314 m3 (98.2%), respectively. Approximate number of years until the

dam is sustained at long term capacity for dredging and trucking is 26 years.

Total number of years from construction is 26+(2002-1993)=35 years. 2002 is

the year at which the report of Dönmez and Dinçsoy (2002) was prepared and

1993 is the construction completion year. In report of Dönmez and Dinçsoy

(2002) depletion of 8% capacity was 26 years. The two results are close enough.

Sediment removed in phase I is “N/A” for dredging and trucking since long term

capacity has already been exceeded for dredging and trucking. 26 years of time

also indicates the length of phase I. For phase II dredging requires annual

operation and trucking requires removal operation every 21 years. Sediment

removed per dredging event is 244 114 m3 which is quite a low amount of

sediment for ordinary dredging equipment. As for trucking sediment removed

per trucking event is 5 126 398 m3. This amount of sediment can be trucked if

99
enough number trucks are available. 21 year-of-removal frequency is quite good

from serviceability point of view.

As a conclusion, sediment removal operations can sustain a great amount of

capacity for Ivriz dam. This capacity gain results in economical outcome as well

as continuity of aggriculture.

100
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

The program RESCON has been run for four of the reservoirs of Turkey.

These dams are Çubuk I Dam, Bayındır Dam, İvriz Dam and Borçka Dam. In

section 4. RESCON results for these four dams have been evaluated.

Comparisons between the results of RESCON and previous works have been

made. It is observed that results of RESCON and those of previous works are in

good aggreement. In section 4, while evaluating results applicability of the

sediment removal techniques have also been discussed. In Table 5.1 RESCON

results for the tested reservoirs can be seen. Table 5.1 shows the sustainable

solutions for each reservoir with a descending order of aggregate net present

value. Physically unacceptable solutions are excluded in this table such as

trucking 65 733 570 m3 of sediment from Borcka reservoir.

Table 5.1 RESCON Results for Tested Reservoirs

Reservoir Sustainable? Technologies (in order of Net Present Value)

Cubuk I Sustainable Dredging / HSRS / Trucking

Bayındır Sustainable HSRS / Dredging / Trucking

Borcka Sustainable Dredging / Flushing

Ivriz Sustainable Flushing / Dredging / Trucking

101
It can be concluded that RESCON results are acceptable for the tested reservoir.

When evaluating RESCON results physical applicability should be kept in mind

all the time.

Normally bathymetric surveys should be made by DSI for each reservoir of

Turkey every 5 years in order to monitor sedimentation. As can be seen from

Table 4.1 bathymetric survyes have not been made for every reservoir and the

surveys that have been made have not 5-year intervals. In order to carry out

sediment removal operations these surveys are essential but there are not enough

data taken. If maps given in Appendix H are examined number of sediment

observation stations of EIE are not enough. Therefore, sediment data may not be

available for every reservoir. This situation has economical reasons. Since

sediment sampling is an expensive task and monitoring every creek/river is not

possible.

Water capacity of Turkey is being depleted and new dams are constructed.

Erosion and deforestation in Turkey is very high. Due to deforestation and

uncontrolled tree cut very large amount of sediment deposits in reservoirs and

damage the economy. These means constructing new dams is not enough and

sediment management is crucial.

Using RESCON is the first step for sedimentation mangagement for a reservoir.

After gathering required data for RESCON, program is run and results are

obtained. Program gives sustainable and non-sustainable solutions with their

economical values. Once these results have been obtained user of the program

should evaluate the results. For example, construction of new tunnels for

102
flushing may be required or reservoir may be too long for sediment bypassing.

Trucking may not be possible due to amount of sediment deposited in a reservoir.

Evaluation of downstream conditions, existence of fisheries, local conditions for

successful removal operations, cost of dredging if depth is more than 30m is the

responsibility of the user. Whether existing bottom outlet can be used for

flushing or sediment bypassing or not is another key point. Economical values of

all the strategies require quite economical knowledge. Hydraulics knowledge is

required to evaluate technical results. Therefore, the user should be as

proffessional as possible.

After evaluation of results, the most probable method for a site is selected and

more detailed calculations are made to find out more precise technical results.

When detailed calculations are made, investment expenses and operation

expenses may be decided.

All these calculations are site specific and should be practiced on dam basis.

Gathering required data, using it to find out the possible strategy to be used,

economical calculations take time. However, once a policy for a reservoir has

been prepared it can provide a sustainable solution and efficient use of existing

water resources becomes possible.

As a conclusion, RESCON should be used as a prefeasibility tool for preparing a

sustainable reservoir sedimentation management policy.

103
 REFERENCES

Annandale, G.W., Engineering and Hydrosystems Inc., Personal

Communication, 2005.

Altınbilek, D., The Role of Dams in Development, Water Science and

Technology, Vol.45, No:8, pp.169-180, 2002.

Atkinson, E., The Feasibility of Flushing Sediment from Reservoirs, TDR

Project R5839, Report OD 137, HR Wallingford, 1996.

Chanson, H., James, P., Rapid Reservoir Sedimentation of Four Historic Thin

Arch Dams in Australia, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 1998.

Chitale, S.V., Sinha, S., Mishra, P.K., Estimation of Delta Profile in the

Indravati Reservoir, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Volume 124, Issue 1,

pp.109-113, 1998.

Dams in Turkey, State Hydraulic Works, 1991.

Doyle, M.W., Stanley, E.H., Luebke, M.A., Harbor, J.M., Dam Removal:

Physical, Biological, and Societal Considerations, ASCE Joint Conference on

Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources Planning and Management,

Minneapolis, MN, 2000.

DSI Report, obtained by personal communication, 2005.

104
DSI (State Hydraulic Works), http://www.dsi.gov.tr., last access date January,

2006.

Fan, J., Methods of Preserving Reservoir Capacity, Methods of Computing

Sedimentation in Lakes and Reservoirs, S. Bruk, ed., UNESCO, Paris, France,

pp65-164, 1985.

Hotchkiss, R.H., Huang, X., Hydrosuction Sediment-Removal Systems (HSRS):

Principles and Field Test, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Volume 121, Issue

6, pp479-489, 1995.

Howard, C.D.D., Operations, Monitoring and Decommissioning of Dams,

Thematic Review IV.5 prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams,

Cape Town, 2000.

Kawashima, S., Johndrow, T.B., Annandale, G.W., Shah, F., Reservoir

Conservation, Volume II: RESCON Model and User Manual, The World Bank,

2003.

Kılıç, R., Çubuk I (Ankara) Barajında Siltasyonun İncelenmesi, Doctoral

Theses, Gazi University, 1984.

Kılıç, R., Çubuk I (Ankara) Baraj Gölünde Depolanan Sedimentlerin

Sedimentolojisi ve Minerolojisi, Journal of Faculty of Engineering and

Architecture, Gazi University, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp97-112, 1986.

105
Koyuncu, E., Dolsar Engineering Limited, Personal Communication, 2005.

Krause, P.R., McDonnell, K.A., The Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material for

Upland Disposal, 2000. http://www.glc.org/dredging/benuse/Reusepaper_1.PDF,

last access date January, 2006.

Lee, H.Y., Yu, W.S., Experimental Study of Reservoir Turbidity Current,

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Volume 123, Issue 6, pp520-528, 1997.

Liu, J., Minami, S., Otsuki, H., Liu, B., Ashida, K., Prediction of Concerted

Sediment Flushing, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Volume 130, Issue 11,

pp1089-1096, 2004.

Mahmood, K., Reservoir Sedimentation: Impact, Extend and Mitigation, World

Bank Technical Paper Number 71, Washington, DC, 1987.

Marlin, J.C., Evaluation of Sediment Removal Options and Beneficial Use of

Dredged Material for Illinois River Restoration: Preliminary Report,

Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Twenty-Second Technical

Conference and Thirty-Fourth Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, Denver, pp131-

146, 2002.

Palmieri, A., Shah, F., Dinar, A., Economics of Reservoir Sedimentation and

Sustainable Management of Dams, Journal of Environmental Management,

2001.

106
Palmieri, A., Shah, F., Annandale, G.W., Dinar, A., Reservoir Conservation,

Volume I: The RESCON Approach, The World Bank, 2003.

Roovers, M., Removal, Treatment and Use of Sediment From Reservoirs,

International Water Power and Dam Construction, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp45-48,

1989.

Simonovic, S.P., Sustainable Management of Existing Reservoirs, Proceedings

of the 21st Annual Conference on Water Policy and Management: Solving the

Problems, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp242-245, 1994.

Sloff, C.J., Reservoir Sedimentation: A Literature Survey, Communications on

Hydraulic and Geotechnical Engineering, Report No. 91-2, Faculty of Civil

Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1991.

Sönmez, B, Dinçsoy, Y., Konya-Ereğli İvriz Barajı Erozyon ve Rüsubat

Kontrolu Planlama Raporu, State Hydraulic Works, Ankara, 2002.

Suspended Sediment Data and Sediment Transport Amount for Surface Waters
in Turkey, General Directorate of Electrical Power Resources Survey and

Development Administration, 2000.

White, W.R., Contributing Paper: Flushing of Sediments from Reservoirs,.

prepared for Thematic Review IV.5: Operation, Monitoring and

Decommissioning of Dams, HR Wallingford, UK, 2000.

107
WCD (World Commission on Dams), Dams and Development: A New Frame

Work For Decision-Making, London, Earthscan Publishers, 2000.

Yalçınkaya, F., Reservoir Sedimentation in Turkey, M.Sc. Thesis, Middle East

Technical University, 1991.

Yanmaz, A.M., Applied Water Resources Engineering, METU Press, Ankara,

Turkey, pp117, 1997.

Yılmaz, Ş., Prediction of Reservoir Siltation: Theory and Practice, 34th

International Post-Graduate Course on Hydrology, Hungary, 2003.

Yu, W.S., Lee, H.Y., Hsu, S.M., Experiments on Deposition Behavior of Fine

Sediment in a Reservoir, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Volume 126, Issue

12, pp912-920, 2000.

108
 APPENDIX A

Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
A.KARAÖREN + ANKARA 1977
ADIGÜZEL + + + DENİZLİ 1989
AVŞAR + + MANİSA 1977
AĞCAŞAR + KAYSERİ 1986
AHILI(ÇİPİ) + KIRIKKALE 1980
AHİKÖY I + 1999
AHİKÖY II + 2000
AHMETBEY + KIRKLARELİ 2000
AHMETLER + UŞAK 1998
AKALAN + BURSA 1988
AKBELEN + TOKAT 1994
AKÇAOVA + AYDIN 1995
AKKAYA + NİĞDE 1967
AKKÖY + KAYSERİ 1967
AKÖREN + KONYA 1990
AKSU + ÇORUM 1981
AKYAR + ANKARA 1999
ALACA + ÇORUM 1984
ALAÇATI + İZMİR 1997
ALAKIR + + ANTALYA 1971
ALİBEY + + İSTANBUL 1983
ALİDEMİRCİ + BALIKESİR 1989
ALMUS + + + TOKAT 1966
ALPAGUT + ÇANAKKALE 1990
ALTINAPA + + KONYA 1967
ALTINHİSAR + NİĞDE 1989
ALTINKAYA + SAMSUN 1988
ALTINTAŞ
(MESUDİYE) + UŞAK 1993
ALTINYAZI + + EDİRNE 1967
APA + KONYA 1962

109
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
ARAÇ-TUZAKLI + KASTAMONU 2000
ARBETE + MARDİN 1981
ARIKLIKAŞ + OSMANİYE 1999
ARMAĞAN + KIRKLARELİ 1997
ARMUTALAN + BALIKESİR 2003
ARMUTLU + YALOVA 1999
ARPAÇAY + + KARS 1983
ARTOVA + TOKAT 1986
ASARTEPE + ANKARA 1980
ASLANBEYLİ + ESKİŞEHİR 1988
ASLANTAŞ + + + OSMANİYE 1984
AŞ. DALAMAN-
BEREKET + 2001
ATABEY + ISPARTA 1992
ATAKÖY + TOKAT 1977
ATATÜRK + + ŞANLIURFA 1992
ATİKHİSAR + ÇANAKKALE 1973
AVCIPINAR + SİVAS 1985
AYDOĞMUŞ + KONYA 1989
AYHANLAR + + NEVŞEHİR 2003
AYRANCI + KARAMAN 1958
AYVALI I + ESKİŞEHİR 1994
AYVALI
(AMASYA) + AMASYA 1990
BADEMLİ + BURDUR 1997
BAĞARASI + ISPARTA 1989
BAHÇELİK + + KAYSERİ 2003
BAKACAK + ÇANAKKALE 1998
BALCI + ISPARTA 1998
BALÇOVA + İZMİR 1980
BALIKLI + KİLİS 1996
BARANDA + ANTALYA 1978
BARLA + ISPARTA 2000
BAŞAĞIL + EDİRNE 1978
BATMAN + + BATMAN 1998

110
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
BAYAT + AFYON 1991
BAYINDIR + + ANKARA 1965
BAYIRLI + AMASYA 1991
BAYRAKTAR + + İZMİT 1984
BAYRAMİÇ + ÇANAKKALE 1996
BAYRAMŞAH + TEKİRDAĞ 1979
BEDİRKALE + TOKAT 1995
BELENLİ + BURDUR 1989
BELPINAR + TOKAT 1984
BERDAN + + + İÇEL 1984
BEREKET I + 1998
BEREKET II + 1998
BERKE + ADANA 2001
BEYKONAK + EDİRNE 1978
BEYKÖY + 2000
BEYLER + KASTAMONU 1992
BEYLİK + ESKİŞEHİR 1985
BIÇKIDERE + + İZMİT 1978
BIYIKALİ + TEKİRDAĞ 1987
BİRECİK + + ŞANLIURFA 2000
BİRKAPILI + İÇEL 2004
BOĞAZDERE + SİVAS 1984
BORÇAK + BİLECİK 1997
BOSTANCILAR + + KARABÜK 1983
BOZDOĞAN + ÇORUM 1979
BOZKIR + + NİĞDE 1981
BOZTEPE
(EDİRNE) + EDİRNE 1985
BOZTEPE
(TOKAT) + TOKAT 1983
BUCUK + ANKARA 1988
BULCUK + KONYA 1993
BULDAN + + DENİZLİ 1967
BURCUN + BURSA 1985
BÜLBÜLDERE + EDİRNE 1982

111
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
BÜYÜKAKÖZ + TOKAT 1991
BÜYÜKÇEKMECE + + İSTANBUL 1987
BÜYÜKORHAN + BURSA 1992
CANILLI + ANKARA 1991
CEFFAN + BATMAN 1995
CEMALETTİN + SİNOP 1988
CEVİZLİ + ANTALYA 1979
CEYHAN-
MARAŞ + 1958
CİHANBEYLİ + KONYA 1989
CİP + ELAZIĞ 1965
ÇAĞÇAĞ III + 1968
ÇAKMAK + SAMSUN 1988
ÇALI + BURSA 2001
ÇAMALAN + ANKARA 1993
ÇAMBAŞI II + ORDU 1997
ÇAMGAZİ + ADIYAMAN 1999
ÇAMKÖY BALIKESİR 1991
ÇAMLICA I + 1998
ÇAMLIDERE + ANKARA 1985
ÇAMLIGÖZE + SİVAS 1997
ÇAN KÜÇÜKLÜ + ÇANAKKALE 1994
ÇAT + MALATYA 1997
ÇATAK + KASTAMONU 1992
ÇATAK(AYDIN) + AYDIN 1999
ÇATALAN + + + ADANA 1996
ÇATMAPINAR + ESKİŞEHİR 1995
ÇATÖREN + ESKİŞEHİR 1987
ÇAVDARHİSAR + + KÜTAHYA 1990
ÇAVDIR + BURDUR 1996
ÇAVUŞKÖY + EDİRNE 1984
ÇAYBOĞAZI + ANTALYA 2000
ÇAYGELDİ + MUŞ 1999
ÇAYGÖREN + + BALIKESİR 1971
ÇAYHAN + KONYA 1994

112
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
ÇAYKÖY-AKSU + + BOLU 1989
ÇAYKÖY-
GÖNLÜK + BOLU 1997
ÇERTE + KÜTAHYA 1997
ÇEŞTEPE + ANKARA 1984
ÇETİNCE + ISPARTA 2002
ÇILDIR + 1975
ÇİFTEVİ + AKSARAY 1994
ÇİFTLİKKÖY + EDİRNE 2002
ÇİFTLİKÖZÜ + KONYA 2001
ÇİĞDEM + KASTAMONU 1981
ÇİTLİ + AMASYA 1990
ÇOĞUN + KIRŞEHİR 1975
ÇORUM + + ÇORUM 1977
ÇUBUK I + + ANKARA 1936
ÇUBUK II + ANKARA 1964
ÇUKURÇİMEN + KONYA 1981
ÇUKURHİSAR + ESKİŞEHİR 1990
DAMSA + NEVŞEHİR 1971
DANACI + KIRIKKALE 1979
DARLIK + İSTANBUL 1988
DEDEÇAM + ISPARTA 1993
DEĞİRMENCİ + + EDİRNE 1978
DEĞİRMENLİ + BALIKESİR 1991
DELİCE + SİVAS 1996
DELİİLYAS + SİVAS 1993
DEMİRCİÖREN + ÇANKIRI 1979
DEMİRDÖVEN + ERZURUM 1995
DEMİRKÖPRÜ + + + MANİSA 1960
DEMİRTAŞ + BURSA 1983
DERBENT + SAMSUN 1990
DEREKÖY
(BURDUR) + BURDUR 1981
DEREKÖY
(SAMSUN) + SAMSUN 2000

113
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
DEREKÖY
(ZONGULDAK) + ZONGULDAK 1988
DEREYALAK + ESKİŞEHİR 1991
DERİNÖZ + AMASYA 2002
DERME-
KAPULUK + 1951
DESTEK + AMASYA 2000
DEŞTİĞİN + KONYA 1995
DEVEGEÇİDİ + DİYARBAKIR 1972
DİCLE + + DİYARBAKIR 1997
DİKENLİ + + ANTALYA 1989
DİNAR II + 2000
DİRSEKLİ + ŞIRNAK 1968
DİVANBAŞI + SAMSUN 1987
DODURGA + + ESKİŞEHİR 1977
DOĞANCI I + BURSA 1983
DOĞANHİSAR + KONYA 1995
DOĞANKENT I + 1971
DOĞANKENT II + 1971
DOĞANTEPE + AMASYA 1986
DOKUZDERE + + EDİRNE 1978
DOKUZYOL + KARAMAN 1993
DÖRT EYLÜL + + SİVAS 2003
DUMANLI + ÇANKIRI 1977
DUMLUCA + MARDİN 1991
DURAĞAN + + SİNOP 1986
DURUÇAY + SAMSUN 2001
DUTLUCA + TOKAT 1990
EDİL + SİNOP 1991
EĞREKKAYA + ANKARA 1992
EKŞİLİ + + ANTALYA 1990
ELMALI II + İSTANBUL 1955
EMEK + VAN 1989
ENGİL + 1968
ENNE + KÜTAHYA 1972
ERENKÖY I + ESKİŞEHİR 1994

114
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
ERKMEN + AFYON 1991
ERZİNCAN + ERZİNCAN 1997
ESKİKADIN + EDİRNE 1979
ESPİYELİ + SİNOP 1974
EŞEN II-GÖLTAŞ + 2002
EVCİ
YENİKIŞLA + ÇORUM 1969
EVLİYATEKKE + KONYA 1994
EVREN
(KÖPRÜDERE) + ANKARA 1999
EYMİR + BURSA 1990
FEHİMLİ + YOZGAT 1988
FETHİYE + 1999
FETİYE + ESKİŞEHİR 2004
FINDIKLI + ÇANAKKALE 1990
GAYT + BİNGÖL 1991
GAZİBEY + SİVAS 1992
GAZİHALİL + EDİRNE 2004
GAZİLER + 2002
GEBERE + NİĞDE 1941
GEDİKSARAY + AMASYA 1993
GELİNGÜLLÜ + YOZGAT 1993
GERMEÇTEPE + KASTAMONU 1985
GEVEN + ÇORUM 1976
GEYİK + MUĞLA 1988
GEYKOCA + ÇORUM 1981
GEZENDE + İÇEL 1990
GİRLEVİK I + 1963
GİRLEVİK
II+MERCAN + 2001
GÖDET + KARAMAN 1988
GÖKÇE + İSTANBUL 1988
GÖKÇEADA + + ÇANAKKALE 1983
GÖKÇEDOĞAN + ÇORUM 1992
GÖKÇEKAYA + ESKİŞEHİR 1972
GÖKPINAR + DENİZLİ 2001

115
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
GÖKSU + DİYARBAKIR 1991
GÖKSU-
YERKÖPRÜ + + DİYARBAKIR 1959
GÖLBAŞI + + BURSA 1938
GÖLCÜK + BURSA 1995
GÖLKÖY + + BOLU 1970
GÖLOVA + + SİVAS 1988
GÖLYERİ + BURDUR 1997
GÖNEN + + + BALIKESİR 1996
GÖZEBAŞI + ADIYAMAN 1990
GÖZEGÖL + DİYARBAKIR 1964
GÜLDERE + SAMSUN 1993
GÜLDÜREK + ÇANKIRI 1988
GÜLÜÇ + ZONGULDAK 1966
GÜMELEKÖY + KÜTAHYA 1993
GÜMÜŞLER + NİĞDE 1967
GÜNEYKÖY + UŞAK 1996
GÜRGENLİK
(YAPRAKLI) + ÇANKIRI 1981
GÜVEN + + SAMSUN 1989
GÜZELHİSAR + İZMİR 1981
GÜZELOĞLAN + SİVAS 1980
GÜZELYURT
(AKSARAY) + AKSARAY 1994
GÜZELYURT
(MALATYA) + MALATYA 1999
HACIDEDE + + SAMSUN 2000
HACIHIDIR + ŞANLIURFA 1989
HACILAR-
GÖKPINAR + 2003
HAKKIBEYLİ + ADANA 1998
HALHALCA + BURSA 1998
HALİLAN + DİYARBAKIR 1981
HALKAPINAR + BALIKESİR 1983
HANCAĞIZ + GAZİANTEP 1988
HANKÖY + ESKİŞEHİR 1985

116
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
HARMANCIK + SİVAS 1994
HASAN
UĞURLU + SAMSUN 1981
HASANAĞA + BURSA 1984
HASANCIK + ADIYAMAN 1993
HASANLAR + + + BOLU 1972
HATİPLER + ANTALYA 2001
HAZAR I + 1957
HAZAR II + 1967
HELVADERE + AKSARAY 1990
HIDIRBEYLİ + AYDIN 1998
HIDIRLIK + ÇORUM 1995
HİRFANLI + KIRŞEHİR 1959
HİSARARDI + ISPARTA 1989
HÖYÜK + ÇORUM 1979
ILICA + ANKARA 1976
IŞIKTEPE + ELAZIĞ 1996
İBECİK + AMASYA 2000
İBİRLER + BALIKESİR 1988
İĞDİR + ANKARA 1985
İKİZCETEPELER + + + BALIKESİR 1990
İLEYDAĞI + ISPARTA 1984
İMİRLER + AMASYA 1995
İMRANLI + SİVAS 2002
İNANLI + TEKİRDAĞ 1983
KAHRAMAN
İNCECİK + MARAŞ 1984
İNCESİ
(SELKAPANI) + KAYSERİ 2000
İNEGAZİLİ + ÇORUM 1976
İNEGÖL
KURŞUNLU + BURSA 2003
İNGÖLÜ + GİRESUN 1999
İVRİNDİ-
KORUCU + BALIKESİR 2002
İVRİZ + KONYA 1985

117
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
K.DOĞANCA + EDİRNE 2001
K.KALECİK + ELAZIĞ 1974
KABALAR + KASTAMONU 1975
KADIKÖY + EDİRNE 1992
KADIKÖY
(DERBENT) + + EDİRNE 1972
KADIKÖY
(KARABÜK) + KARABÜK 1982
KADINCIK I + 1971
KADINCIK II + 1974
KALECİK + OSMANİYE 1985
KANDIRA
ARIKLAR + KOCAELİ 2003
KANGAL
(BOZARMUT) + SİVAS 2000
KANLIDERE + YOZGAT 1979
KANLIPINAR + ESKİŞEHİR 1978
KAPIKAYA
(ERZURUM) + ERZURUM 1979
KAPULUKAYA + KIRIKKALE 1989
KARAAĞA + KONYA 2000
KARAAĞAÇ + UŞAK 1990
KARAAHMET + ANKARA 1980
KARAAHMETLİ + UŞAK 1991
KARABÜK + SAMSUN 1996
KARACA + SİNOP 2000
KARACAÖREN I + BURDUR 1989
KARACAÖREN
II + BURDUR 1993
KARACAÖREN
(AFYON) + AFYON 2000
KARACAÖREN
(BALIKESİR) + BALIKESİR 1988
KARAÇOMAK + + + KASTAMONU 1974
KARADERE
(ÇANKIRI) + ÇANKIRI 1990
KARAGÜNEY + ANKARA 1983

118
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
KARAHÖYÜK + ADIYAMAN 1996
KARAİDEMİR + + TEKİRDAĞ 1980
KARAKAYA + DİYARBAKIR 1987
KARAKOL + BALIKESİR 1985
KARAMANLI
(BURDUR) + BURDUR 1973
KARAMANLI
(HATAY) + HATAY 2000
KARAOVA + KIRŞEHİR 1997
KARAÖREN
(ÇANKIRI) + ÇANKIRI 1981
KARAÖREN
(ESKİŞEHİR) + ESKİŞEHİR 1971
KARASATI + EDİRNE 1995
KARKAMIŞ + ŞANLIURFA 1999
KAHRAMAN
KARTALKAYA + + + MARAŞ 1972
KAVAKAYAZMA + EDİRNE 1997
KAVAKDERE
(EDİRNE) + EDİRNE 1983
KAVAKLI + BALIKESİR 1996
KAYABELEN + AFYON 1991
KAYABOĞAZI + + KÜTAHYA 1987
KAYAKÖY + 1956
KAYALIKÖY + + KIRKLARELİ 1986
KAYAPA + BURSA 1998
KAYI II + ESKİŞEHİR 1995
KAYI III + + ESKİŞEHİR 1998
KAYMAZ + ESKİŞEHİR 1977
KAZAN + MUĞLA 1995
KEBAN + ELAZIĞ 1975
KELKAYA + ESKİŞEHİR 1986
KEMER + + + AYDIN 1958
KEMERİZ + SİVAS 1991
KEPEKTAŞ + ELAZIĞ 2002
KEPEZ I + 1961

119
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
KEPEZ II + 1986
KERAMETTİN + EDİRNE 1988
KESİKKÖPRÜ + + ANKARA 1966
KESİKSUYU + ADANA 1971
KESKİN + + ESKİŞEHİR 1997
KESTEL + İZMİR 1988
KEŞAN-
ÇAMLICA + EDİRNE 2002
KILDIR + SİVAS 1992
KILIÇKAYA + SİVAS 1989
KINIK + ADIYAMAN 1989
KIRKA + AFYON 1989
KIRKAT + BATMAN 1985
KIRKLAR + AFYON 1997
KIRKLARELİ + + + KIRKLARELİ 1995
KIRKÖY + ANKARA 1982
KISIK + 1993
KIZIK(AKYURT) + ANKARA 1970
KIZIK(TOKAT) + TOKAT 2000
KIZILCAPINAR + + ZONGULDAK 1993
KIZILDAMLAR + BİLECİK 2001
KAHRAMAN
KIZILİNİŞ + MARAŞ 1994
KIZILSU + BURDUR 1965
KIZLARKALESİ + GÜMÜŞHANE 1998
KİRAZDERE + KOCAELİ 1999
KİTİ + 1966
KOCAAVŞAR + BALIKESİR 1994
KOCABEY + BALIKESİR 1989
KOCADERE + EDİRNE 1979
KOCAŞ + ESKİŞEHİR 1990
KOÇKÖPRÜ + VAN 1991
KORKUTELİ + ANTALYA 1975
KORUKLU + EDİRNE 1986
KORULUK + GÜMÜŞHANE 2004
KOVADA I + 1960

120
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
KOVADA II + 1971
KOVALI + KAYSERİ 1988
KOYUNLU + NİĞDE 1995
KOYUNYERİ + ÇANAKKALE 1988
KOZAĞACI
(ANTALYA) + + ANTALYA 1989
KOZAĞACI
(BURDUR) + BURDUR 1985
KOZAN + ADANA 1972
KOZANSIKI + SAMSUN 1990
KOZÇEŞME + ÇANAKKALE 1997
KOZLU + ZONGULDAK 1986
KOZLUÖREN + BURSA 1994
KOZVİRAN + UŞAK 2000
KÖKLÜCE + 1988
KÖMEVİRAN + SİVAS 1971
KÖRKÜLER + ISPARTA 1998
KÖSENÇAYIRI + KASTAMONU 1986
KÖSRELİK + ANKARA 1968
KÖYCEĞİZ + ERZURUM 1985
KRALKIZI + + DİYARBAKIR 1997
KULA + MANİSA 2002
KUMDERE + EDİRNE 1985
KUMTEPE + NEVŞEHİR 1990
KUNDUZLAR + ESKİŞEHİR 1983
KURTBEY + EDİRNE 1974
KURTBOĞAZI + + ANKARA 1967
KURTDERE + İZMİT 1979
KURUCAGÖL + SİVAS 1983
KURUÇAY + KÜTAHYA 1985
KUZAYCA + YOZGAT 1997
KUZGUN + + ERZURUM 1995
KÜÇÜKHÖYÜK + SİVAS 1985
KÜÇÜKLER + UŞAK 2002
KÜLTEPE + KIRŞEHİR 1983
KÜPDERE + EDİRNE 1987

121
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
KÜRTÜN + GÜMÜŞHANE 2002
LADİK + KONYA 1995
MADRA + BALIKESİR 1997
MAHSUTLU + SİVAS 1982
MAMASIN + + AKSARAY 1962
MANAVGAT + ANTALYA 1988
MART + ÇANKIRI 1991
MARUF
(ÇANKIRI) + ÇANKIRI 1999
MARUF(SİNOP) + SİNOP 1990
MAY + KONYA 1987
MAY(PEYNİRLİ) + KONYA 1991
MECİDİYE
(EDİRNE) + EDİRNE 1981
MECİDİYE
(KONYA) + KONYA 1985
MEDİK + MALATYA 1975
KAHRAMAN
MENZELET + + MARAŞ 1989
MERCAN + EDİRNE 1986
MERİÇ MERKEZ + EDİRNE 1974
MERKEZ
PULLAR + KÜTAHYA 2003
MERKEZ
ŞARKÖY + TEKİRDAĞ 1981
MERKEZ
YASSIÇAL + AMASYA 2003
MOLU + 2000
MORÇİÇEK + VAN 1999
MUMCULAR + MUĞLA 1989
MURGUL + 1951
MURSAL + SİVAS 1991
MURTAZA + NİĞDE 1992
MUSAÖZÜ + ESKİŞEHİR 1969
MUZALIDERE + EDİRNE 1983
NERGİZLİK + + ADANA 1995

122
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
NİSİ + SİNOP 1998
OLUR ÜRÜNLÜ + ERZURUM 1996
ONAÇ I + BURDUR 1967
ONDOKUZ
MAYIS + + SAMSUN -
ONDOKUZ
MAYIS II + SAMSUN 1997
ORTAKÇILAR + KARABÜK 1981
ORTAKÖY + AMASYA 1979
OSMANCIK + KONYA 1988
OSMANLI + EDİRNE 1994
OVACIK + BALIKESİR 1993
OYMAPINAR + ANTALYA 1984
ÖMERKÖY + ESKİŞEHİR 1989
ÖMERLİ + İSTANBUL 1972
ÖRENCİK + ANKARA 1993
ÖREN + ISPARTA 1997
ÖRENLER + AFYON 1992
ÖZALP
GÖLEGEN + VAN 2003
ÖZLÜCE + BİNGÖL 1998
PALANDÖKEN
(GEDİKÇAY) + ERZURUM 1989
PALANDÖKEN
(LEZGİ) + + ERZURUM 2001
PAMUK + 2004
PAMUKOVA-
KAREL + 2000
PAŞA + AMASYA 1993
PATNOS + AĞRI 1991
PERŞEMBE
YAYLASI + ORDU 1994
PINARLI
(AFYON) + AFYON 1993
PINARLI
(ÇORUM) + ÇORUM 1980
POLAT + MALATYA 1989

123
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
PORSUK
(ERZURUM) + ERZURUM 1984
PORSUK
(ESKİŞEHİR) + + ESKİŞEHİR 1972
POSTALLI + NİĞDE 2003
SAHLİ + SİVAS 1985
SAKIZ + KASTAMONU 1976
SARAYKÖY + ÇANKIRI 1972
SARAYÖZÜ + AMASYA 1989
SARIBEYLER + BALIKESİR 1985
SARIBUĞDAY + AMASYA 1990
SARICAALİ + KIRKLARELİ 1990
SARIÇAL + SİVAS 1989
SARIMEHMET + VAN 1991
SARIMSAKLI + KAYSERİ 1968
SARIYAHŞİ + AKSARAY 1989
SARIYAR-
H. POLATKAN + ANKARA 1956
SAZLIDERE + İSTANBUL 1996
SEFERİHİSAR + İZMİR 1993
SEKİÖREN + ESKİŞEHİR 2002
SELEVİR + + AFYON 1965
SERBAN + AFYON 1994
SEVİŞLER MANİSA 1981
SEYDİKÖY
(ULUDERE) + ÇANKIRI 1996
SEYDİM I + ÇORUM 1973
SEYDİM II + ÇORUM 1976
SEYHAN I + + + ADANA 1956
SEYHAN II + 1992
SEYİTLER + AFYON 1964
SIDDIKLI + KIRŞEHİR 1998
SIHKE + VAN 1958
KAHRAMAN
SIR + MARAŞ 1991
SIZIR + 1961

124
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
SİLLE + + KONYA 1960
SİNCAN + ÇORUM 1989
SOFUHALİL + KIRKLARELİ 1983
SOĞUKSU + BALIKESİR 1994
SORGUN + ISPARTA 2000
SÖĞÜT-
DEREBOYU
(ZEVYE) + BİLECİK 2004
SÖĞÜT
(BURDUR) + BURDUR 1997
SÖĞÜT
(KÜTAHYA) + KÜTAHYA 1983
SÖVE + BALIKESİR 1992
SUAT UĞURLU + SAMSUN 1981
SUÇATI + 2000
SUĞLA
DEPOLAMASI KONYA 2003
SULTANKÖY + EDİRNE 1993
SULTANSUYU + MALATYA 1992
SUSUZ ANKARA 1992
SÜLOĞLU + + EDİRNE 1980
SÜRGÜ + MALATYA 1969
SÜTÇÜLER + 1998
ŞABANÖZÜ-
ÖDEK + ÇANKIRI 2002
ŞAHİNBURGAZ + BALIKESİR 1994
ŞAHİNLER + İZMİT 1991
ŞAMLI + BALIKESİR 1997
ŞEHİTLER + ISPARTA 1998
ŞEREFİYE + SİVAS 1996
ŞERİFBABA + MARDİN 1974
ŞEYHLİ + KAYSERİ 1992
ŞEYTANDERE + İZMİT 1983
TADIM + ELAZIĞ 1993
TAHTAKÖPRÜ + + HATAY 1975
TAHTARLI + İZMİR 1996

125
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
TAKMAK + UŞAK 1984
TAŞÇILAR + KASTAMONU 1983
TAŞMANLI + SİNOP 1975
TAŞOLUK
(AFYON) + AFYON 1998
TATLARİN + NEVŞEHİR 1966
TAVAKLI
(ALEMŞAH) + ÇANAKKALE 2000
TAVAS + DENİZLİ 1997
TAYFUR + ÇANAKKALE 1985
TEFENNİ + BURDUR 1991
TEKİR + KAYSERİ 1990
TELME + GÜMÜŞHANE 1992
TEMREZLİ + TEKİRDAĞ 1994
TERCAN + + ERZİNCAN 1989
TINAZTEPE + AFYON 1991
TOHMA-MEDİK + MALATYA 1998
TOPÇAM
(AYDIN) + + AYDIN 1984
TOPLUKONAK + GİRESUN 1994
TORTUM I + ERZURUM 1960
TÜRKMENLİ + EDİRNE 1997
ULUAĞAÇ + NİĞDE 1998
ULUBORLU + + ISPARTA 1984
ULUDAĞ
UNİ.YOL.ÇAT + BURSA 2003
ULUKÖY
(AMASYA) + AMASYA 1983
ULUKÖY
(ÇANAKKALE) + ÇANAKKALE 1993
ULUÖZ + TOKAT 1991
UNİVERSİTE I + SAMSUN 1980
UŞAKPINAR + BURSA 1999
UZGAÇ + EDİRNE 1997
UZUNLU + + YOZGAT 1989
ÜÇBAŞ + ANKARA 1969

126
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
ÜÇÇAM + ESKİŞEHİR 2002
ÜÇPINAR + KİLİS 2001
ÜÇTEPE + SİVAS 1972
ÜRKMEZ + İZMİR 1989
ÜSKÜP + KIRKLARELİ 1990
Y.KARPUZLU + EDİRNE 1995
Y.MUHACİR + EDİRNE 1993
YAĞLIPINAR + ANKARA 1967
YAĞMURCA + EDİRNE 1991
YAHYASARAY + YOZGAT 1990
YAKACIK + AMASYA 2000
YALINTAŞ + NEVŞEHİR 1994
YALVAÇ + ISPARTA 1973
YAPIALTIN + SİVAS 1977
YAPILDAK + ESKİŞEHİR 1992
YAPRAKLI + BURDUR 1990
YARSELİ + HATAY 1989
YASSIALAN + SAMSUN 2001
YAYLADAĞ + HATAY 1998
YAYLAKAVAK + AYDIN 1996
YEDİKIR + AMASYA 1985
YELTEN + ANTALYA 1993
YENİCE(BURSA) + BURSA 1995
YENİCE
(ESKİŞEHİR) + ESKİŞEHİR 1999
YENİHAYAT + ÇORUM 1997
YENİKÖY + AMASYA 1986
YENİKÖY + KIRŞEHİR 2004
YENİCEKÖY I + KÜTAHYA 1997
YEŞİLBÜK + 1986
YEŞİLÇAT + AFYON 1988
YILDIZ + SİVAS 1998
YUKARIKARTAL + ESKİŞEHİR 1971
YUKARISÖĞÜT + ESKİŞEHİR 1988
YUMURTACI + KASTAMONU 1976

127
Table A.1 Dams In Operation in Turkey (continued)

Domestic
&
Flood In
Name of Dam Indutrial Energy Irrigation Location
Control Operation
Water
Supply
YÜREĞİR + 1972
ZERNEK + + VAN 1988
ZİNCİDERE + KAYSERİ 1991
ZÜLFİKAR + GAZİANTEP 1990

Table A.2 Classification of Dams For Single Purpose

Number of
Reservoirs % of Reservoirs
Total Number of Reservoirs in Operation 603 100,00
# of Reservoirs Functioning For Dom.&Ind. Water Supply 55 9,12
# of Reservoirs Functioning For Flood Control 54 8,96
# of Reservoirs Functioning For Energy 92 15,26
# of Reservoirs Functioning For Irrigation 491 81,43
# of Reservoirs Functioning For Environmental Protection 2 0,33
# of Functioning For Fishering 2 0,33

Table A.3 Classification of Dams For Multi Purpose

Number of
Multipurpose Functions Reservoirs % of Reservoirs
Dom.&Ind. Water Supply+Flood Control 4 0,66
Dom.&Ind. Water Supply+Flood Control+Energy 1 0,17
Dom.&Ind. Water Supply+Flood Control+Irrigation 4 0,66
Flood Control+Energy+Irrigation 8 1,33
Dom.&Ind. Water Supply+Energy+Irrigation 1 0,17
Dom.&Ind. Water Supply+Irrigation 14 2,32
Flood Control+Irrigation 35 5,80
Energy+Irrigation 12 1,99

128
 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:

2 2 2
4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin − Zpr ⋅ sd + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd
Wt = ( )
= W St (B.1)
 Gd 2
4 ⋅  St + ⋅ sd 
 Vin 
 

In order to find until where above equation is valid rearrangement can be made

for easy calculation as follows:

2 2 2
4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin − Zpr ⋅ sd + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd
Wt = ( )
= W St (B.2)
 S t ⋅ Vin Gd ⋅ sd 2 
4 ⋅ + 
 V V 
 in in 
2 2 2 2
4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin − Zpr ⋅ sd ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd ⋅ Vin
Wt = = W St ( ) (B.3)
(
4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + Gd ⋅ sd
2
)
2 2 2 2
4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd ⋅ Vin − Zpr ⋅ sd ⋅ Vin
Wt =
2
= W St ( ) (B.4)
4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd

Wt 2 2
Zpr ⋅ sd
= 1−
2
= W St ( ) (B.5)
Vin 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd

Wt 2 2
Zpr ⋅ sd
Critical St is the value that makes = 1−
2
= 0, 4
Vin 4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd

2 2
Zpr ⋅ sd
2
= 0,6 (B.6)
4 ⋅ S t ⋅ Vin + 4 ⋅ Gd ⋅ sd

129
 Z pr 2 ⋅ sd 2
− [Gd ⋅ sd 2 ] = S t ⋅ Vin (B.7)
2 .4

Zpr 2 ⋅ sd 2 Gd ⋅ sd 2
St = − (B.8)
2.4Vin Vin

Table B.1 Calculation of Critical St for Tested Reservoirs

Dam Zpr sd(m3) Vin Gd St(m3)

Çubuk I 2.33 6 550 000 65 500 000 1.50 499 137

Borçka 2.33 565 500 000 5 655 000 000 1.50 43 093 456

İvriz 2.33 10 400 000 104 000 000 1.50 792 523

Bayındır 2.33 390 000 3 900 000 1.50 29 720

Capacity Ratio For Wt/Vin=0,4
7.03 %

10.29 %

0.99 %

0.42 %
Reservoir Capacities

Çubuk I 7 100 000 m3

Borçka 418 950 000 m3

İvriz 80 000 000 m3

Bayındır 7 000 000 m3

Description of Variables

Zpr Standardized Normal Variate at pr*100%

sd Standard Deviation of Annual Run-off

Vin Mean Annual Run-off (includes all sources to reservoir)

Gd Gould's Correction Factor

130
 APPENDIX C

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR TARBELA DAM MADE BY RESCON

TEAM

Table C.1 Geometric Parameters for Tarbela Dam

Parameter Description Parameter Symbol

Original (initial) capacity of the reservoir S0

Existing storage capacity of the reservoir Se

Reservoir length at the normal pool elevation L

Representative bottom width for the reservoir Wbot

Minimum bed elevation just upstream of dam Elmin

Water surface elevation at flushing gates during flushing Elf

Elevation of top water level in reservoir (normal pool) Elmax

Available head = normal pool elevation minus tail water elevation h

Representative side slope for the reservoir SSres

131
Table C.2 Physical Parameters Varied In Addition To Geometry Changes

Parameter
Parameter Description Range of Values
Symbol
Mean annual sediment inflow mass Min 0.1-3.0% of inflow

180, 300, 650,

Multiplier for reservoir and its sediment (Tsinghua
Y 1600 (depending
University Method)
on site)

Representative discharge passing through reservoir during 10-3 000m3/s

Q
flushing (depending on site)

Frequency of flushing events N 1-15 year intervals

Duration of flushing after complete drawdown Tf 1 day-2 months

Coefficient of Variation of Annual Run-off volume Cv 0.1-2.0

Number of pipes used for hydrosuction sediment removal NP 1-3 pipes

Pipe diameter for hydrosuction D 1-3.5 feet

Table C.3 Constant Parameters In Sensitivity Analysis for Tarbela Dam

Parameter Description Parameter Symbol

Density of in-situ reservoir sediment. rd

Estimated reservoir water temperature. T

Sediment type category to be removed by hydrosuction (medium

Type
sand/smaller or gravel).

Reservoir similar to Chinese reservoirs? “3”: if reservoir sediments

are significantly larger than median grain size (d50)=0,1mm or if the

reservoir has been impounded for more than 10 years without ANS

sediment removal. Use “1”: if otherwise. A value of “3” was used

throughout the analysis.

Is reservoir yield ever used for hydroelectric power? HP

Sediment type for Brune Curve calculations. Brune Curve

132
Table C.4 Assumed Constant Removal Parameters for Tarbela Dam

Parameter
Parameter Description Assumed Value
Symbol
Acceptable probability of failure to provide reservoir yield
pr 0,01
in a given year (as decimal).

Maximum fraction of total yield that is allowed to be used

YA 1
in HSRS operations.

Maximum percent of capacity loss allowable at any time in

reservoir. Allowable loss must be greater than the existing cl 75%

loss.

Percent of accumulated sediment dredged per event. ASD 80%

Percent of accumulated sediment trucked per event. AST 80%

Concentration by weight of sediment removed to water

Cw 30%
removed by traditional dredging.

133
Table C.5 Economic Parameter Assumptions for Tarbela Dam

Parameter
Parameter Description Assumed Value
Symbol
If dam being considered is an existing dam enter 0. If the
E 0
dam is a new construction project, enter 1.

Unit Cost of Construction. This cost is estimated using S0

c Default Calculation
specified in Reservoir Geometry.

Cost of Dam Construction. The default cost is estimated as

unit cost of construction times initial reservoir storage C2 Default Calculation

volume (C2 = S0*c*E).

Reservoir (Dam) Operation and Maintenance Coefficient omc 0.01

Dam Salvage Value Coefficient a 0

Discount Rate (decimal) r 0.05

Price of Net Reservoir Yield. P1 $0.01/m3

Unit Value of Water Used released downstream during

actual flushing operations (water lost during drawdown is PF $0.005/m3

internally assigned a value of zero).

Unit value of water released downstream of dam in river

PH $0.005/m3
by hydrosuction operations.

Unit value of water used in dredging operations. PD $0.005/m3

Unit cost for hydrosuction operations expressed as $/m3 of

CH $5/m3
sediment removed.

Unit cost of traditional dredging CD Default Calculation

134
Table C.6 Sensitivity to Value of Unit Reservoir Yield (P1=$0.1/m3 to
P1=$0.2/m3), Tarbela Dam

Change
Change
in NPV
Possible Strategies Technique in NPV
($ 1000
(%)
million)
Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with No Removal N/A 138.4 100

Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with Partial Removal HSRS 138.4 100

Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with No Removal N/A 138.7 100

Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with Partial Removal HSRS 138.7 100

Sustainable Flushing 139.2 100

Sustainable HSRS N/A N/A

Sustainable Dredging 142.3 101

Sustainable Trucking 138.8 115

Change in
Change in LTC(%)
LTC(million m3)
Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing 0 0

Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS N/A N/A

Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging +1.089 31

Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking +405 6

135
Table C.7 Sensitivity to Discount Rate (r reduced from 5% to 3%), Tarbela
Dam

Change
Change
in NPV
Possible Strategies Technique in NPV
($ 1000
(%)
million)
Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with No Removal N/A 70.2 51

Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with Partial Removal HSRS 70.2 51

Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with No Removal N/A 72.2 52

Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with Partial Removal HSRS 72.2 52

Sustainable Flushing 81.7 59

Sustainable HSRS N/A N/A

Sustainable Dredging 89.1 63

Sustainable Trucking 37.9 31

Change in
Change in LTC(%)
LTC(million m3)
Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing 0 0

Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS N/A N/A

Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging 2 025 33

Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 270 056 4

136
Table C.8 Sensitivity to Operation and Maintenance Coefficient (omc=0.01
to omc=0.05), Tarbela Dam

Change
Change
in NPV
Possible Strategies Technique in NPV
($ 1000
(%)
million)
Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with No Removal N/A -1.801 -1.3

Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with Partial Removal HSRS -1.801 -1.3

Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with No Removal N/A -1.830 -1.3

Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with Partial Removal HSRS -1.830 -1.3

Sustainable Flushing -1.830 -1.3

Sustainable HSRS N/A N/A

Sustainable Dredging -1.830 -1.3

Sustainable Trucking -1.830 -1.5

137
Table C.9 Sensitivity to Cost of Removal Parameters (S2, PH, CD, CT)
(S2 increased from 0.5 to 0.75), (PH decreased from $0.005 to
$0.003)
(CD decreased from $2.62 to $2.00/m3), (CT decreased from $50
to $40/m3), Tarbela Dam

Change
Change
in NPV
Possible Strategies Technique in NPV
($ 1000
(%)
million)
Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with No Removal N/A 0 0

Non-sustainable(Decommissioning)-with Partial Removal HSRS 0.2 0

Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with No Removal N/A 0 0

Non-sustainable(Run-off-River)-with Partial Removal HSRS 0.2 0

Sustainable Flushing 1 367.2 1.0

Sustainable HSRS N/A N/A

Sustainable Dredging 264.6 0.2

Sustainable Trucking 3 310.16 2.7

Change in
Change in LTC(%)
LTC(million m3)
Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing 0 0

Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS N/A N/A

Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging 810 13

Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 135 2

138
 APPENDIX D

Table D.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey

RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3)

OPERATIN
G LEVELS
REGION
DSİ

NAME OF DAM MEASUREMENT YEAR

1 2 3 4 5 6

1969 1977
GÖLBAŞI MAX 128,50 11,8 12,7
MIN 119,00 5,3 5,1
I
1983 1987 1992
DOĞANCI MAX 333,00 38,1 36,9 42,5
MIN 312,00 11,1 11,1 14,6
1971 1977
DEMİRKÖPRÜ MAX 475,00 1060,2 1060,2
MIN 460,00 280,5 290,8
1969 1976
MARMARA MAX 79,20 320,5 320,7
MIN 73,60 27,2 28,8
1976 1986
II SEVİŞLER MAX 162,10 126,5 120,5
MIN 126,50 8,1 7,1
1972 1976 1986
BULDAN MAX 500,00 54,6 54,7 44,8
MIN 471,00 5,2 3,6 3,0
1977 1986
AFŞAR MAX 259,25 91,3 83,9
MIN 236,75 6,4 5,2
1970 1976 2001
III PORSUK MAX 892,85 517,4 465,0 454,4
MIN 860,05 17,5 19,0 16,2
1974 1979
ALTINAPA MAX 1250,0 24,0 18,9
MIN 1239,5 2,2 1,2
IV
1962 2000
BEYŞEHİR MAX 1125,40 5263,1 5337,6
MIN 1121,03 2591,4 2411,3

139
Tablo D.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued)

RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3)

OPERATING LEVELS
MEASUREMENT YEAR
DSİ REGION

NAME OF DAM
1 2 3 4 5 6

1969 1974 1979

SİLLE MAX 1267,86 3,0 2,7 2,5
MIN 1253,50 0,4 0,1 0,0
1971 1977 1980
ÇAVUŞÇU MAX 1027,90 178,8 177,5 184,1
MIN 1021,60 19,7 18,2 22,6
1967 1972 1977
APA MAX 1054,04 167,2 166,9 171,6
MIN 1034,34 6,7 6,8 6,5
1967 1978
IV GÜMÜŞLER MAX 1352,00 3,8 4,0
MIN 1335,00 0,1 0,0
1941 1965 1977
GEBERE MAX 1720,30 2,7 2,4
MIN 1707,00 0,5 0,0 2,5
1958 1966 1977 1980
AYRANCI MAX 1193,00 30,1 30,9 31,7 30,9
MIN 1170,00 1,3 1,1 1,6 0,7
1973 1978 1982 1991
MAMASIN MAX 1107,19 165,8 185,8 173,4 154,6
MIN 1084,46 5,7 5,5 6,5 5,0
1969 1972 1977
HİRFANLI MAX 851,00 6218,6 6224,3 5750,0
MIN 842,00 4126,6 4129,1 3705,3
1972 1977 1978
V HASANLAR MAX 255,50 50,9 50,6 50,6
MIN 227,50 4,4 2,8 2,8
1974 1979
KESİKKÖPRÜ MAX 785,55 97,4 88,1
MIN 772,48 37,9 31,1

140
Tablo D.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued)

RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3)

OPERATING LEVELS
MEASUREMENT YEAR
DSİ REGION

NAME OF
DAM
1 2 3 4 5 6

1951 1970
SARIYAR MAX 475,00 1901,2 1698,6
MIN 465,00 859,5 756,6
1967 1975 1980 1985 1998
KURTBOĞAZI MAX 961,00 102,7 95,2 93,9 96,8 92,1
MIN 931,00 8,7 6,4 7,1 8,0 5,8
1936 1943 1967 1973 1983
V ÇUBUK I MAX 907,61 9,6 5,9 6,1 5,9 5,6
MIN 895,71 0,4 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0
1964 1973 1978 1983
ÇUBUK II MAX 1113,0 25,0 22,7 23,8 22,4
MIN 1074,0 1,9 0,6 0,6 0,3
1965 1970 1980
BAYINDIR MAX 986,5 8,1 7,0 6,6
MIN 972,0 1,0 0,7 0,4
1966 1971 1976 1980 1986 1991
SEYHAN MAX 67,50 1238,8 1029,2 924,4 883,5 878,9 865,4
MIN 49,00 300,0 221,2 149,5 138,9 159,5 159,9
1985 1991
KALECİK MAX 535,00 38,8 32,5
MIN 493,00 3,1 1,3
VI
1972 1976
KOZAN MAX 274,00 168,4 148,0
MIN 224,00 4,0 0,4
1975 1986
MEHMETLİ MAX 203,00 54,9 59,2
MIN 170,00 3,6 3,6
1972 1977
VII ALMUS MAX 804,5 1007,2 1006,8
MIN 767,37 151,5 151,5

141
Tablo D.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued)

RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3)

OPERATING LEVELS
MEASUREMENT YEAR
DSİ REGION

NAME OF DAM
1 2 3 4 5 6

1971 1975 2001

SÜRGÜ MAX 1309,60 75,4 67,9 70,1
MIN 1288,50 10,7 8,8 8,7
IX
1968 1971 1976
ÇİP MAX 1004,50 7,1 7,0 6,0
MIN 997,00 1,8 1,5 1,1
1972 1977 1980
X DEVEGEÇİDİ MAX 757,00 202,3 207,5 219,1
MIN 739,50 7,3 7,5 7,2
1973 1978 1997
ALTINYAZI MAX 39,20 38,7 38,9 36,8
MIN 27,50 3,2 2,8 2,1
1966 1975 1997
KADIKÖY MAX 82,00 65,1 65,6 56,5
MIN 63,45 3,2 2,3 1,0
XI
1980 1997
KARAİDEMİR MAX 104,40 122,5 111,6
MIN 91,80 10,5 6,5
1980 1983 1997
SÜLOĞLU MAX 202,80 51,4 50,2 45,3
MIN 177,00 3,2 3,3 2,2
1971 1975
DAMSA MAX 1225,00 7,1
MIN 1212,00 2,9 0,6
1972 1977
XII SARIMSAKLI MAX 1205,00 32,0 34,8
MIN 1183,00 3,4 2,5
1967 1972
BOZKIR MAX 1126,30 6,1 5,9
MIN 1109,30 0,8 0,8

142
Tablo D.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued)

RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3)

OPERATING LEVELS
MEASUREMENT YEAR
DSİ REGION

NAME OF DAM
1 2 3 4 5 6

1972 1976
TATLARIN MAX 1151,00 1,5 2,2
MIN 1143,65 1,0 0,9
XII
1973 1978
ÇOĞUN MAX 1106,30 23,4 22,6
MIN 1094,25 2,9 2,3
1967 1979
KORKUTELİ MAX 1065,50 38,9 40,2
MIN 1039,00 3,4 3,3
XIII
1984 1989
OYMAPINAR MAX 184,00 349,6 296,7
MIN 166,00 264,9 220,2
1966 1979
ÖMERLİ MAX 62,00 388,3 357,0
MIN 46,00 120,7 121,7
XIV
1973 1977 1982
DURUSU MAX 4,50 199,8 204,7 186,3
MIN 1,00 102,6 98,6 42,1
1966 1977
XVII SELEVİR MAX 1092,50 74,7 60,7
MIN 1075,50 9,9 4,7
1974 1979
YALVAÇ MAX 1183,85 13,1 12,1
MIN 1168,00 1,6 1,1
XVIII
1962 1974 1979
SEYİTLER MAX 1047,75 38,2 36,7 38,0
MIN 1036,50 5,2 3,9 4,6
1989 1995
XIX KILIÇKAYA MAX 850,00 1400,1 1400,4
MIN 815,00 275,1 267,6

143
Tablo D.1 Dams with Sediment Measurements in Turkey (continued)

RESERVOIR VOLUME (hm3)

OPERATING LEVELS
MEASUREMENT YEAR
DSİ REGION

NAME OF DAM

1 2 3 4 5 6

1967 1974 1980 1985 1989

XX KARTALKAYA MAX 717,70 206,5 193,1 180,8 180,2 169,8
MIN 684,50 5,9 5,6 0,6 0,4 0,0
1975 1982 1990 1998
IŞIKLI MAX 820,60 225,7 197,1 222,3 212,9
MIN 817,50 51,9 33,9 50,4 46,2
1968 1974 1979 1989 1998
KEMER MAX 287,45 457,0 407,1 389,4 372,5 358,5
MIN 248,65 125,0 85,7 79,3 66,8 57,6
XXI
1989 1994
MUMCULAR MAX 60,00 18,2 19,4
MIN 40,00 1,0 1,8
1985 1992
TOPÇAM MAX 110,70 79,5 83,5
MIN 81,70 6,8 9,8
1971 1978 1983
ÇAYGÖREN MAX 271,50 171,8 165,6 159,5
MIN 242,00 17,0 14,8 14,0
1977 1983
XXV ATIKHİSAR MAX 61,00 55,5 52,5
MIN 38,00 1,0 0,9
1985 1990
SARIBEYLER MAX 238,37 19,8 19,9
MIN 216,50 1,1 1,0

144
 APPENDIX E

BAYINDIR DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS

Table E.1 Bayındır Dam Input Data

Parameter Unit Value Source

Reservoir Geometry
S0 m3 7 000 000 (Yılmaz, 2003)
Se m3 5 170 000 (Yılmaz, 2003)
Wbot m 105.0 Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkyey, 1991)
SSres 2.0 Measured from drawings (Dams in Turkyey, 1991)
Elmax m 985.0 Dams in Turkyey (1991)
Elmin m 960.0 Dams in Turkyey (1991)
Elf m 970 Assumed due to not knowing bottom outlet sill

elevation
L m 3 000 Measured from map
Water Characteristics
Vin m3 3 900 000 (Yılmaz, 2003)
Sediment Characteristics
metric
Min 63 500 (Yılmaz, 2003)
tonnes
Removal Parameters
Qf m3/s 5 Bottom outlet capacity, (Dams in Turkyey, 1991)
Economic Parameters
r decimal 0.08 Koyuncu (2005)
Mr decimal 0.03 Koyuncu (2005)
P1 $/m3 0.35 Koyuncu (2005)
omc $/m3 0.085 Koyuncu (2005)
CD $/m3 3.00 Koyuncu (2005)
CT $/m3 2.62 Koyuncu (2005)

145
Table E.2 Economic Results for Bayındır Dam

Possible Strategies Technique Aggregate Net Present Value

Do nothing N/A 0.000

Partial Removal with HSRS is

Nonsustainable (Decommissioning) with
HSRS technically infeasible. See
Partial Removal
Total Removal with HSRS

Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with No

N/A -1 500 402
Removal

Partial Removal with HSRS is

Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with Partial
HSRS technically infeasible. See
Removal
Total Removal with HSRS

Sustainable Flushing -1 499 060

Sustainable HSRS -2 978 471

Sustainable Dredging -4 310 891

Sustainable Trucking -4 932 516

Table E.3 Economic Conclusion for Bayındır Dam

Strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: Do nothing

Technique yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: N/A

The highest aggregate net benefit is: $ 0.000E+00

146
Table E.4 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Bayındır Dam

# of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: Not applicable years

# of years until retirement for Decommission-with no Removal 0 years

Option:

# of years until retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option Not applicable years

with HSRS:

Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission-with 5 170 000 m3

No Removal Option:

Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission: Partial Not applicable m3

Removal Option with HSRS:

Table E.5 Annual Fund Results for Bayındır Dam

Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: 0 $

Decommission

Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Partial Not applicable $

Removal with HSRS

Table E.6 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Bayındır Dam

# of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: Not applicable years

Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with No 114 years

Removal Option:

Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with Not applicable years

Partial Removal Option:

147
Table E.7 Long Term Capacity Values for Bayındır Dam

Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing 1 313 957 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS 5 124 196 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging 5 122 034 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 5 717 487 m3

Table E.8 Phase I Lengths for Bayındır Dam

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 86 years

for Flushing

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 2 years

for HSRS

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 2 years

for Dredging

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 2 years

for Trucking

Table E.9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Bayındır Dam

Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 0 times

148
Table E.10 Frequency of Removal for Bayındır Dam

Frequency of
Strategy Technique Cycle/Phase
Removal (years)
Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable

Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with
HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable
Partial Removal

Sustainable Flushing Phase I No Flushing occurs

Sustainable Flushing Phase II 1

Sustainable HSRS Annual cycle 1

Sustainable Dredging Phase I 2

Sustainable Dredging Phase II 1

Sustainable Trucking Phase I 2

Sustainable Trucking Phase II 14

Table E.11 Sediment Removed per Event for Bayındır Dam

Sediment Removed
Strategy Technique Cycle/Phase
(m3)
Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable

Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with
HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable
Partial Removal

Sustainable Flushing Phase I 0

Sustainable Flushing Phase II 45 804

Sustainable HSRS Annual cycle 45 804

Sustainable Dredging Phase I N/A

Sustainable Dredging Phase II 45 804

Sustainable Trucking Phase I N/A

Sustainable Trucking Phase II 641 257

149
Table E.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Bayındır
Dam

Technique ASD/AST(%) CLF/CLD/CLT

Flushing(Phase I) N/A
82
Flushing(Phase II) 1

HSRS 2 27

Dredging(Phase I) N/A
27
Dredging(Phase II) 2

Trucking(Phase I) N/A
27
Trucking(Phase II) 34

Table E.13 Technical Comments for Bayındır Dam

Average expected concentration of sediment to water flushed per flushing 51 547 ppm

event:

Average expected concentration of sediment to water released downstream 1 412 ppm

of dam per hydrosuction event:

Average expected concentration of sediment to water removed from 300 000 ppm

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)

150
Table E.14 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable
Sediment Trucking Removal Option, Bayındır Dam

Number of Loads Number of Loads

Truck Model Number m3/Truck Load
(Phase I) (Phase II)
769D 16.2 N/A 39 584

771D 18.0 N/A 35 625

773D 26.0 N/A 24 664

775D 31.0 N/A 20 686

777D 42.1 N/A 15 232

785B 57.0 N/A 11 250

789B 73.0 N/A 8 784

793C 96.0 N/A 6 680

Table E.15 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment

Dredging Removal Option, Bayındır Dam

Volume Removed per Dredge

No. of Dredges (Phase I) No. of Dredges (Phase II)
(m3/Dredge)
11 000 000 N/A 1

Table E.16 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Bayındır Dam

Phase I Phase II

Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) N/A 3.00

Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) 1.94

151
 APPENDIX F

BORCKA DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS

Table F.1 Borcka Dam Input Data

Parameter Unit Value Source
Reservoir Geometry
S0 m3 418 950 000 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003)
Se m3 418 950 000 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003)
Wbot m 385.0 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003)
SSres 1.0 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003)
Elmax m 187.0 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003)
Elmin m 103.0 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003)
Elf m 113 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
metric
Min 10 501 677 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003)
tonnes
Removal Parameters
Qf m /s 3
287 Borcka Introductory Booklet (2003)
Economic Parameters
r decimal 0.095 Koyuncu (2005)
Mr decimal 0.03 Koyuncu (2005)
P1 $/m3 0.18 Koyuncu (2005)
omc $/m3 0.1 Koyuncu (2005)
CD $/m3 3.00 Koyuncu (2005)
CT $/m3 2.62 Koyuncu (2005)

152
Table F.2 Economic Results for Borcka Dam

Possible Strategies Technique Aggregate Net Present Value

Do nothing N/A 7 488 543 414

Nonsustainable (Decommissioning) with

HSRS 7 488 918 784
Partial Removal

Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with No

N/A 7 490 195 435
Removal

Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with Partial

HSRS 7 490 570 806
Removal

Sustainable Flushing 7 368 404 656

Total Removal with HSRS is

Sustainable HSRS technically infeasible. See

Partial Removal with HSRS

Sustainable Dredging 7 590 185 391

Sustainable Trucking 7 208 603 765

Table F.3 Economic Conclusion for Borcka Dam

Strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: Sustainable

Technique yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: Dredging

The highest aggregate net benefit is: $ 7.590E+09

153
Table F.4 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Borcka Dam

# of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: 1 years

# of years until retirement for Decommission-with no Removal 63 years

Option:

# of years until retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option 63 years

with HSRS:

Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission-with 4 828 508 m3

No Removal Option:

Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission: Partial 6 499 638 m3

Removal Option with HSRS:

Table F.5 Annual Fund Results for Borcka Dam

Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: 551 682 $

Decommission

Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Partial 551 682 $

Removal with HSRS

Table F.6 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Borcka Dam

# of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: 1 years

Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with No 64 years

Removal Option:

Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with 64 years

Partial Removal Option:

154
Table F.7 Long Term Capacity Values for Borcka Dam

Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing 193 200 773 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Not applicable m3

Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging 366 363 144 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 399 229 929 m3

Table F.8 Phase I Lengths for Borcka Dam

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 56 years

for Flushing

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity Not applicable years

for HSRS

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 8 years

for Dredging

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 12 years

for Trucking

Table F.9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Borcka Dam

Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 14 times

155
Table F.10 Frequency of Removal for Borcka Dam

Frequency of
Strategy Technique Cycle/Phase
Removal (years)
Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal HSRS Annual cycle 1

Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with
HSRS Annual cycle 1
Partial Removal

Sustainable Flushing Phase I 3

Sustainable Flushing Phase II 1

Sustainable HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable

Sustainable Dredging Phase I 8

Sustainable Dredging Phase II 1

Sustainable Trucking Phase I 12

Sustainable Trucking Phase II 10

Table F.11 Sediment Removed per Event for Borcka Dam

Sediment Removed
Strategy Technique Cycle/Phase
(m3)
Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal HSRS Annual cycle 26 954

Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with
HSRS Annual cycle 26 954
Partial Removal

Sustainable Flushing Phase I 10 165 604

Sustainable Flushing Phase II 6 573 357

Sustainable HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable

Sustainable Dredging Phase I N/A

Sustainable Dredging Phase II 6 573 357

Sustainable Trucking Phase I N/A

Sustainable Trucking Phase II 65 733 570

156
Table F.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Borcka Dam

Technique ASD/AST(%) CLF/CLD/CLT

Flushing(Phase I) Varies
55
Flushing(Phase II) 3

HSRS N/A N/A

Dredging(Phase I) N/A
13
Dredging(Phase II) 13

Trucking(Phase I) N/A
19
Trucking(Phase II) 83

Table F.13 Technical Comments for Borcka Dam

Average expected concentration of sediment to water flushed per flushing 86 091 ppm

event:

Average expected concentration of sediment to water released downstream 199 ppm

of dam per hydrosuction event:

Average expected concentration of sediment to water removed from 300 000 ppm

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)

The physical maximum limit for removal of sediment with trucking, MT,

specified in the User Input page, is being exceeded. Decrease AST or increase

MT.

157
Table F.14 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable
Sediment Trucking Removal Option, Borcka Dam

Number of Loads Number of Loads

Truck Model Number m3/Truck Load
(Phase I) (Phase II)
769D 16.2 N/A 4 057 628

771D 18.0 N/A 3 651 865

773D 26.0 N/A 2 528 214

775D 31.0 N/A 2 120 438

777D 42.1 N/A 1 561 367

785B 57.0 N/A 1 153 221

789B 73.0 N/A 900 460

793C 96.0 N/A 684 725

Table F.15 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable Sediment

Dredging Removal Option, Borcka Dam

Volume Removed per Dredge

No. of Dredges (Phase I) No. of Dredges (Phase II)
(m3/Dredge)
11.000.000 N/A 1

Table F.16 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Borcka Dam

Phase I Phase II

Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) N/A 3.00

Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) 6.18

158
 APPENDIX G

IVRIZ DAM USER INPUTS AND RESCON RESULTS

Table G.1 Ivriz Dam Input Data

Parameter Unit Value Source
Reservoir Geometry
S0 m3 80 000 000 DSI Web Page (2005)
Se m3 75 122 000 Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002)
Wbot m 75.0 Measured from Drawings (Dams in Turkey, 1991)
SSres 2.0 Measured from Drawings (Dams in Turkey, 1991)
Elmax m 1155.0 DSI Web Page (2005)
Elmin m 1114.8 DSI Web Page (2005)
Elf m 1121 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
metric
Min 340 200 Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002)
tonnes
Removal Parameters
Qf 3
m /s 55 Sönmez and Dinçsoy (2002)
Economic Parameters
r decimal 0.08 Koyuncu (2005)
Mr decimal 0.03 Koyuncu (2005)
P1 $/m3 0.35 Koyuncu (2005)
omc $/m3 0.10 Koyuncu (2005)
CD $/m3 3.00 Koyuncu (2005)
CT $/m3 2.62 Koyuncu (2005)

159
Table G.2 Economic Results for Ivriz Dam

Possible Strategies Technique Aggregate Net Present Value

Do nothing N/A 43 347 725

Nonsustainable (Decommissioning) with

HSRS 43 333 978
Partial Removal

Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with No

N/A 43 347 725
Removal

Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) with Partial

HSRS 43 333 978
Removal

Sustainable Flushing 43 347 011

Total Removal with HSRS is

Sustainable HSRS technically infeasible, See

Partial Removal with HSRS

Sustainable Dredging 41 485 803

Sustainable Trucking 38 115 009

Table G.3 Economic Conclusion for Ivriz Dam

Strategy yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: Do nothing

Technique yielding the highest aggregate net benefit: N/A

The highest aggregate net benefit is: $ 4.335E+07

160
Table G.4 Nonsustainable (Decommission) for Ivriz Dam

# of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: 322 years

# of years until retirement for Decommission-with no Removal 324 years

Option:

# of years until retirement for Decommission: Partial Removal Option 323 years

with HSRS:

Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission-with 907 001 m3

No Removal Option:

Remaining reservoir capacity at retirement for Decommission: Partial 910 600 m3

Removal Option with HSRS:

Table G.5 Annual Fund Results for Ivriz Dam

Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: 0 $

Decommission

Annual Retirement Fund Payment for nonsustainable options: Partial 0 $

Removal with HSRS

Table G.6 Nonsustainable (Run-of-River) for Ivriz Dam

# of years until Partial Removal Option with HSRS is practiced: 326 years

Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with No 328 years

Removal Option:

Approximate # of years until dam is silted for Run-of-River-with 327 years

Partial Removal Option:

161
Table G.7 Long Term Capacity Values for Ivriz Dam

Long term reservoir capacity for Flushing 47 065 739 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for HSRS Not applicable m3

Long term reservoir capacity for Dredging 73 653 030 m3

Long term reservoir capacity for Trucking 78 535 314 m3

Table G.8 Phase I Lengths for Ivriz Dam

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 137 years

for Flushing

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity Not applicable years

for HSRS

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 26 years

for Dredging

Approximate # of years until dam is sustained at long term capacity 26 years

for Trucking

Table G.9 # of Flushing Events in Phase I, Ivriz Dam

Approximate # of Flushing events until dam is sustained at long term capacity 0 times

162
Table G.10 Frequency of Removal for Ivriz Dam

Frequency of
Strategy Technique Cycle/Phase
Removal (years)
Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal HSRS Annual cycle 1

Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with
HSRS Annual cycle 1
Partial Removal

Sustainable Flushing Phase I No Flushing occurs

Sustainable Flushing Phase II 1

Sustainable HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable

Sustainable Dredging Phase I 26

Sustainable Dredging Phase II 1

Sustainable Trucking Phase I 26

Sustainable Trucking Phase II 21

Table G.11 Sediment Removed per Event for Ivriz Dam

Sediment Removed
Strategy Technique Cycle/Phase
(m3)
Nonsustainable-with Partial Removal HSRS Annual cycle 3 599

Run-of-River (Nonsustainable)-with
HSRS Annual cycle 3 599
Partial Removal

Sustainable Flushing Phase I 0

Sustainable Flushing Phase II 244 114

Sustainable HSRS Annual cycle Not applicable

Sustainable Dredging Phase I N/A

Sustainable Dredging Phase II 244 114

Sustainable Trucking Phase I N/A

Sustainable Trucking Phase II 5 126 398

163
Table G.12 Optimal Values of ASD/AST and CLF/CLD/CLT, Ivriz Dam

Technique ASD/AST(%) CLF/CLD/CLT

Flushing(Phase I) N/A
41
Flushing(Phase II) 1

HSRS 1 N/A

Dredging(Phase I) 68
8
Dredging(Phase II) 4

Trucking(Phase I) N/A
8
Trucking(Phase II) 89

Table G.13 Technical Comments for Ivriz Dam

Average expected concentration of sediment to water flushed per flushing 19 471 ppm

event:

Average expected concentration of sediment to water released downstream 40 ppm

of dam per hydrosuction event:

Average expected concentration of sediment to water removed from 300 000 ppm

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)

164
Table G.14 Number of Truck Loads Required to Complete Sustainable
Sediment Trucking Removal Option, Ivriz Dam

Number of Loads Number of Loads

Truck Model Number m3/Truck Load
(Phase I) (Phase II)
769D 16.2 N/A 316 444

771D 18.0 N/A 284 800

773D 26.0 N/A 197 169

775D 31.0 N/A 165 368

777D 42.1 N/A 121 767

785B 57.0 N/A 89 937

789B 73.0 N/A 70 225

793C 96.0 N/A 53 400

Table G.15 Number of Dredges Required to Complete Sustainable

Sediment Dredging Removal Option, Ivriz Dam

Volume Removed per Dredge

No. of Dredges (Phase I) No. of Dredges (Phase II)
(m3/Dredge)
11.000.000 N/A 1

Table G.16 Unit Cost of Sediment Removal for Ivriz Dam

Phase I Phase II

Unit Cost of Dredging($/m3) N/A 3.00

Unit Cost of HSRS($/m3) 46.31

165
 APPENDIX H

MAPS OF BASINS IN TURKEY

There are 26 catchment areas in Turkey. These are given in Figure H.1 ~ Figure
H.32.

Figure H.1 Layout of Basins of Tureky

166
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.6 Gediz Basin (Basin #5)

Figure H.7 Small Meander Basin (Basin #6)

170
 Figure H.8 Great Meander Basin (Basin #7)

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

171
Figure H.10 Middle Mediterranean Basin (Basin #9)

172
Figure H.11 Burdur Lake Basin (Basin #10)

173
Figure H.12 Afyon Basin (Basin #11)

Figure H.13 Sakarya Basin (Basin #12)

174
Figure H.14 West Black Sea Basin – Anatolian Part (Basin #13)

Figure H.15 West Yesilirmak Basin (Basin #14)

175
Figure H.16 East Yesilirmak Basin (Basin #14)

Figure H.17 South Kizilirmak Basin (Basin #15)

176
Figure H.18 North Kizilirmak Basin (Basin #15)

177
Figure H.19 Middle Anatolian Basin (Basin #16)

Figure H.20 East Mediterranean Basin (Basin #17)

178
Figure H.21 Seyhan Basin (Basin #18)

179
Figure H.22 Hatay Basin (Basin #19)

180
Figure H.23 Ceyhan Basin (Basin #20)

181
Figure H.24 Lower Euphrates River Basin (Basin #21)

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

182
Figure H.26 Upper Euphrates River Basin (Basin #21)

Figure H.27 East Black Sea Basin (Basin #22)

183
Figure H.28 Coruh Basin (Basin #23)

Figure H.29 Aras Basin (Basin #24)

184
Figure H.30 Van Lake Basin (Basin #25)

185
 Figure H.31 Tigris River Basin (Basin #26)

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

186