Araştırma Makalesi

Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam

Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1 30 Mart 2018
PDF İndir
EN

Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam

Öz

Reservoirs are designed to provide the balance between the flow brought by the river which is high variable in time and volume of water. The storage required on a river to meet a specific demand depends basically on three factors; the magnitude and the variability of the river, the size of the demand and the degree of reliability of this demand being met.  Several procedures have been proposed to estimate storage requirements. Critical period methods are those in which required reservoir capacity is equated to the difference between the water released from an initially full reservoir and the inflows for periods of low flow. In the presented study reservoir capacity-yield-reliability relationships are investigated for a single reservoir named Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam. For this purpose, six design techniques (Mass Curve, Residual Mass Curve, Moran Probability Matrix Method, Hardison's method and Minimum flow approach) are used in determining reservoir capacity, monthly and annual mean flow data observed for a period between 1962-2013, of EIE-811 Suçatı Flow Gauging Station on Dalaman River in West Mediterranean Basin in Turkey are used as case study. For 0% probability of failure, the highest reservoir capacity resulted for methods Mass Curve, Residual Mass Curve and Minimum flow approach at the range between 814.22 to 852.74*106 m3 for draft equal 60% and at the range between 2043.4 to 2145.74*106 m3 for draft equal 80% by using the monthly data. On the other hand when high value of probability of failure (5% and 10%) are used for estimation, the reservoir capacity values were resulted at the range between 612.36 to 1154.74*106 m3 for draft equal 60% and at the range between 1443.42 to 2165.13*106 m3 for draft equal 80% for Hardison's method. By using Moran Probability Matrix method, the reservoir capacity resulted 1280*106 m3 and the interval was divided to 140*106 m3 for annual data 52 years.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

  1. 1. Ağıralioğlu, N, Baraj Planlama ve Tasarımı, Su Vakfı Yayınları, 2001, Vol. 1, pp 246.
  2. 2. Linsley, R. K, Franzini, J. B, Water Resources Engineering, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1979.
  3. 3. Parks, Y. P, Gustard, A, A reservoir storage yield analysis for arid and semiarid climates, Optimal Allocation of Water Resources, 1982, 135, 49-57. 4. Silva, A. T, Design of the storage capacity of artificial reservoir, (Master thesis), Lisbon: Instituto Superior Técnico, 2010.
  4. 5. Aksoy, H, Storage Capacity for River Reservoirs by Wavelet-Based Generation of Sequent-Peak Algorithm, Water Resources Management, 2001, 15, 423-437.
  5. 6. Oğuz, B, Bayazıt, M, Statistical properties of the critical period, Journal of Hydrology, 1991, 126, 183-194.
  6. 7. Rao, Z, Moore, I. N, O’Connell, P. E, Jamieson, D. G, An Interactive Management System for Operational Control of Kirazdere Reservoir (Turkey), Water Resources Management, 2001, 15, 223-234.
  7. 8. Bayazıt, M, Bulu, A, Generalized probability distribution of reservoir capacity, Journal of Hydrology, 1991, 126, 195-205.
  8. 9. Bayazit , M, Ideal reservoir capacity as a function of yield and risk, Journal of Hydrology, 1982, 58, 1-9.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Mühendislik

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Hesham Alrayess Bu kişi benim
ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ, İNŞAAT MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ
Türkiye

Aslı Ülke
ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ, İNŞAAT MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ
Türkiye

Salem Gharbia Bu kişi benim
Department of Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin
Ireland

Yayımlanma Tarihi

30 Mart 2018

Gönderilme Tarihi

26 Nisan 2017

Kabul Tarihi

28 Aralık 2017

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2018 Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA
Alrayess, H., Ülke, A., & Gharbia, S. (2018). Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science, 14(1), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.18466/cbayarfbe.309272
AMA
1.Alrayess H, Ülke A, Gharbia S. Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science. 2018;14(1):23-29. doi:10.18466/cbayarfbe.309272
Chicago
Alrayess, Hesham, Aslı Ülke, ve Salem Gharbia. 2018. “Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam”. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science 14 (1): 23-29. https://doi.org/10.18466/cbayarfbe.309272.
EndNote
Alrayess H, Ülke A, Gharbia S (01 Mart 2018) Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science 14 1 23–29.
IEEE
[1]H. Alrayess, A. Ülke, ve S. Gharbia, “Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam”, Celal Bayar University Journal of Science, c. 14, sy 1, ss. 23–29, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.18466/cbayarfbe.309272.
ISNAD
Alrayess, Hesham - Ülke, Aslı - Gharbia, Salem. “Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam”. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science 14/1 (01 Mart 2018): 23-29. https://doi.org/10.18466/cbayarfbe.309272.
JAMA
1.Alrayess H, Ülke A, Gharbia S. Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science. 2018;14:23–29.
MLA
Alrayess, Hesham, vd. “Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam”. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science, c. 14, sy 1, Mart 2018, ss. 23-29, doi:10.18466/cbayarfbe.309272.
Vancouver
1.Hesham Alrayess, Aslı Ülke, Salem Gharbia. Comparison of Different Techniques about Reservoir Capacity Calculation at Sami Soydam Sandalcık Dam. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science. 01 Mart 2018;14(1):23-9. doi:10.18466/cbayarfbe.309272