7.

Tarbela Reservoir Sediment Flushing Project Feasibility Study

7.1 Introduction

At present some 90% of the total sediment entering Tarbela reservoir is trapped in Tabela Reservoir with only part of the clay and silt fractions and very little sand passing into Ghazi Barrage Headpond. Modelling of Tarbela Reservoir (see Section Error: Reference source not found) has shown that depending on the method of operating Tarbela Reservoir either the storage will continue to decline at a rate of some ??? Mm3 per year or the delta will encroach on the intakes with ?? to ?? years. The Tarbela Dam Sediment Flushing Project (TDSFP) is intended to flush some sediment, potentially up to the average incoming sediment, so as to maintain the existing storage in Tarbela Reservoir.

7.2

Flushing Options

The requirements for flushing are to lower the reservoir level and to use sufficient flow for the flush to mobilise deposited sediments. The flush being more efficient in terms of water requirements the lower the drawdown and it terms of time the greater the flow. At the same time the disruption, and hence negative impact to the irrigation and power generation, needs to be minimised. At the workshop held at TDP Tarbela on 24 September 2011 the options were discussed and it was concluded that the only viable was to flush through tunnels around the right side of the dam and Ghazi Barotha Barrage Headpond potentially in combination with the bypass on Tunnel 4. The results of the Workshop are included in Error: Reference source not found. Investigation of the sedimentation and flushing processes through modelling (see SMST Modelling Report) indicates that flushing discharges needs to be up to 5,000 m 3/s that the drawdown level needs to be at least 10 m below the topset level. A secondary option is considered with a maximum discharge of 3,000 m 3/s. As the flush needs to be carried out when the flow into Tarbela is on average no greater the capacity of the flushing outlets, and as the incoming flow is variable, it needs to be timed so as to commence the flush when the incoming flow is less than the outlet capacity, hence using stored water to facilitate the flush, and then to complete the flush before the water level rises to the point where the flushing becomes ineffective due to the reservoir re-impounding above an effective flushing level. The modelling also looked the potential to flush through Ghazi Barrage Headpond utilising the existing irrigation power tunnels (Option 8 in Error: Reference source not found and requirement 4.3.2.2 of the ToR of SMST) , but this confirmed that the resulting sedimentation in Ghazi Barotha Headpond would be rapid (2 years) and would cause the water levels in Ghazi Barotha Headpond to rise above acceptable levels at the Tarbela Power Stations; The use of Pola Khawar Nullah as part of the TDSFP bypass route (requirement 4.3.2.7 of the ToR of SMST) was also considered and this is discussed in the following sub-sections.

7.3
7.3.1

Alignment of Flushing Facilities

Topography

The topography on the right bank is shown on the satellite image with overlain 10 m contours abstracted from ALOS satellite imagery in Figure 7 -1. The hills that form the right abutment of the dam extend in a south westerly direction for some ? km with elevations up to ??? m . These are skirted by a Pola Khawar Nullah to the west, which joins the Indus some ? km downstream of Ghazi Barotha Barrage and a lowland area to the south. Alignments in the hilly area would require tunnels and aligmnets crossing the nullah and lowland area would require canals. On the most direct route to the Indus downstream of Ghazi Barrage the alignment passes through an area of low hills extending to an elevation of ??? m. ?

Figure 7-1

Tarbela-Ghazi Right Bank Topography

7.3.2

Geology

The geology of the right bank area is illustrated in Figure 7 -2. The hills forming the right abutment consist of ?? A more detailed description based on the available geological mapping and earlier investigations is included in Volume ?. ?

Figure 7-2

Tarbela-Ghazi Right Bank Geology

7.3.3

Environmental Contraints

The principal constraints, which are shown on Figure 7 -3, consist mainly of residential and agricultural areas. ?

Figure 7-3

Tarbela-Ghazi Right bank Environmental Constraints

7.3.4

Selected Alignments

Horizontal alignment - The alignment that both minimises the infrastructure requirements and the interference with the constraint areas is indicated in Figure 7 -4 as Alignment A.1. For the purposes of this study it has been considered that the canal will be taken through a cutting through the southern low hills. A more favourable route exists through a natural passage through the hills (see Figure 7 -1), Alignment A.2, but this has not been adopted due to the residential areas within and at the ends of the passage. Routes incorporating the Pola Khawar Nullah passing between Gandaf and Gadoof Industrial Estate and joining the Indus ? km downstream of Ghazi Barotha Barrage are indicated as alignments, B.1, B.2 and B.3. (Note: adjust as necessary is there are options that clearly do not work) ?

Figure 7-4

TDSFP Horizontal Alignments

Vertical alignment - The vertical alignment is controlled at the upstream end by the drawdown levels required to enable flushing and the reservoir bed levels and at the downstream end by the river levels at the outlet point.

The RESSASS 1D model of Tarbela Reservoir indicates that with the pivot point being at a level of about 420 m the flushing needs to be carried out with the reservoir level in the range of 400 to 410 m. On the basis of using 10 m diameter tunnels and providing 1 diameter submergence to maintain satisfactory hydraulic conditions at the intakes the maximum level at which the tunnels could be set is between 380 to 390 m to avoid air vortexing at the intakes. The reservoir bed level in the area where the outlet may be sited is currently 376 m although it is expected to rise before the TDSFP is commissioned through progression of the foreset and increase in the bottomset.. The tunnels are therefore set at the maximum practical level of 380 m. With the invert level of Tunnels 3 and 4 being at 354 m (1160ft) and Tunnels 1 and 2 at 373 m (1225 ft). A barrier would need to be placed in the intake sides of the outlets to isolate the Tunnel intakes from the flushing flows and this is discussed in Section ?.? At the discharge point back into the river the outlet needs to be sited sufficiently above the river bed level that deposited sediment is unlikely to cause the flow at the discharge point to be restricted causing the flow to back up in the flushing outlet. For setting the feasibility design bed level of the outlet has been set a minimum of 10 m above the river bed level. Routes incorporating the Pola Khawar Nullah are considered to require a lined canal to both enable the watereway to carry the heavy concentrations, to avoid both degradation and aggradation of the nullah and also to enable the discharge to be elevated above the river bed to prevent a back of aggradation from the river due to the deposited sediments from the bypass outwash as it slows when it meets the more gently sloping Indus river, before being subsequently re-mobilised when flows are released through Ghazi Barotha Barrage. Vertical topographical alignments for Options A and B with outline tunnela and canal alignments obtained from the hydraulic design discussed in the following sub-section and shown in Figure 7 -5 to Figure 7 -9. Alignments B are excluded at this stage as the Tunnel and canal lengths are significantly greater as indicated in Table 7 -1. ?

Figure 7-5
?

Vertical Alignment of Alignment ?

Figure 7-6
?

Vertical Alignment of Alignment ?

Figure 7-7
?

Vertical Alignment of Alignment ?

Figure 7-8
?

Vertical Alignment of Alignment ?

Figure 7-9

Vertical Alignment of Alignment ?

Table 7-1

Comparison of Alignments

Alignment

Tunnel Length (m)

Canal Length (m)

Alignment

Tunnel Length (m)

Canal Length (m)

7.4

Hydraulic Design

The study of the flushing (see SMST Modelling Report) indicates that discharges up to 5,000 m3/s or alternatively 3,000 m3/s will utilised for flushing. Where the maximum discharge is 5,000 m3/s the flow will cary between 3,000 and 5,000 m 3/s. Where the maximum discharge is 3,000 m3/s the flow is unlikely to vary significantly. These flows exclude the discharge that would be routed through Tunnel 4 to clear the pocket in front of Tunnels 1 to 4. The criteria adopted for the feasibility design are indicated in Table 7 -2. The velocities in the concrete lined tunnel of 7 m/s is considered to be the maximum safe velocity with the heavily sedimented flushing water. The velocity has been dropped in the canal to 5 m/s to obtain more stable hydraulic conditions and to reduce risk of erosion damage but not low to risk the sediment carrying capacity being inadequate.

Table 7-2 Section Parameter

TDSFP Feasibility Design Parameters Value/Type

Tunnel Concrete Section Maximum velocity Mannings n Tunnel Steel Lined Section Maximum velocity Mannings n Canal Minimum velocity at 50% discharge Mannings n Maximum water depth Side slopes 5 m/s ? 9m 1 vertical:2 horizontal ? 0.0? 7 m/s 0.013

The Hydraulic profile computed for alignment ?.? using HECRAS ?.? is shown in Figure 7 -10. ?

Figure 7-10

Hydraulic Profile Alignment ?.?

The flow control is at the downstream end of the tunnel with isolating gates being provided in the tunnel in line with the dam axis, so that the grout curtain may be extended around the outlet tunnels. The tunnel is designed to be operated over a reservoir level range of 400 to 410 m and also to enable the tunnels to be used to drawdown the reservoir to the flushing level, should discharge through the hydropower units be insufficient or restricted by sediment concentrations.

At the discharge point from the outlets a structure is provided to control the water level in the canal and to drop the water back into the Indus river.

7.5

Layout of Flushing Facilities

The layout of the proposed flushing facilities is shown in plan and sections in the drawings included in Appendix A. Outline descriptions

7.6

Development Programme

The development programme, should it be decided to investigate the TDSFP further, is shown in Figure 7 -11 is based on the scheme being progressed as soon as is practical with detailed studies and investigations, designs and the full EIA being undertaking in parallel with arranging finance. ?

Figure 7-11

TDSFP Development Programme

7.7

Development, Construction and Operating Costs

The construction costs are based on 2013 rates developed for the Bunji Hydropower Project and Tarbela 4th Extension, with the former including tunnels, major hydraulic structures and the later being associated with Tarbela. The rates and costs are presented in Table 7 -3, Table 7 -4, Table 7 -5, respectively. The costing excludes the cost of the guard bund construction and blockage clearance facilities (see Section ?.?)

Table 7-3

TDSFP Construction Rates

Item

Unit

USD

PKR

Table 7-4

TDSFP Construction Costs 5,000 m3/s Capacity System

Unit

Quantity USD

PKR

(000,000) (000,000)
Tunnel Intake Tunnel excavation Tunnel Support Works Tunnel Concrete Lining Tunnel Steel Lining

Unit

Quantity USD

PKR

(000,000) (000,000)
Structural Concrete Hydromechanical Equipment Canal Earthworks Canal Lining Sub-total Contingencies and Minor Items Sub-total Engineering Total

Table 7-5

TDSFP Construction Costs 3,000 m3/s Capacity System

Unit

Quantity USD

PKR

(000,000) (000,000)
Tunnel Intake Tunnel excavation Tunnel Support Works Tunnel Concrete Lining Tunnel Steel Lining Structural Concrete Hydromechanical Equipment Canal Earthworks Canal Lining Sub-total Contingencies and Minor Items Sub-total Engineering Total