See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336676868

Flushing of sediments at hydropower plant dams

Conference Paper · October 2019

CITATION READS
1 2,396

3 authors, including:

Gerrit Basson Eddie Bosman

Stellenbosch University and ASP Technology (Pty) Ltd Stellenbosch University
111 PUBLICATIONS 250 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gerrit Basson on 20 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flushing of sediments at hydropower plant dams

L.R. van der Spuy G.R. Basson D.E. Bosman

Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch University
P/Bag X1 P/Bag X1 P/Bag X1
Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch 7600
South Africa South Africa South Africa

Reservoir sedimentation is an ongoing critical concern worldwide with a recorded global average of 33% of reservoir
storage capacity already been lost therefrom, which is expected to exceed 50% by 2050 (i.e. not considering new
dam projects) (ICOLD, 2009). Drawdown or pressure flushing through low-level dam outlets below hydropower
intakes are common mitigation measures for removing locally deposited sediment from reservoirs (Basson &
Rooseboom, 1999). This is periodically necessary to especially keep the hydropower intakes free of non-cohesive
sediment, as sand fractions will typically damage turbines in hydropower plants. The low-level intake area also needs
to be kept clear of blockage caused by debris and sediment deposition as this could threaten sluice gate operation,
prevent drawdown flushing and ultimately result in the uncontrolled emptying of the reservoir. There are various
international cases of existing dams where little provision has been made for the flushing of coarse, large-diameter
sediments (i.e. gravel and boulders) that occur at the respective dam sites. This lack of provision implies that certain
low-level outlet designs may be deficient for such cases, especially during flood events where high sediment
concentrations is expected. Boulders would quickly become a notable concern in small reservoirs that fill up quickly
with sediment, otherwise they will only really have a significant impact on larger reservoirs after about 50 years of
operation (i.e. end of their design life) once they have filled with sediment (Basson & Rooseboom, 2007). It is
therefore proposed that new optimised, versatile and robust low-level outlet designs need to be implemented in future
dams to ensure suitable dam operation efficiency and sustainability. In order to address these issues, a literature study
of the hydraulic designs of existing low-level outlet conduits and intakes that have resulted in effective pressure and
free-flow flushing (with drawdown) of coarse non-cohesive sediments during flood events was performed as a
background to this investigation. Based on the information obtained from the literature study, a postulated design
was created for further refinement/optimisation by means of numerical and physical model studies. The postulated
design comprised of a semi-circular, ogee spillway-shaped structure (with wing-walls) located around the intake area
of the low-level outlet and inside of the typical sediment scour hole that forms during pressure flushing (Dreyer,
2018). The main aim of the structure was to produce desirable upstream supercritical flow conditions to help
optimise the flushing of sediments during free-surface flow/spilling conditions to prevent sediment deposition and
blockage at/near the sluice gate in the outlet conduit. The submerged weir was however also designed for pressure
flushing where the aim was: (1) local sediment removal/scouring; and (2) preventing main reservoir sediments from
depositing near the outlet gate and hindering gate closure. Based on the results of the numerical and physical models
on the postulated design, design guidelines for such an outlet will be developed. The guidelines will provide for
different and varying conditions, such as site location, upstream water levels, downstream tailwater levels, preferred
flushing techniques, as well as sediment size and type to be flushed.

1 Conceptual design of postulated sediment flushing system

1.1 Layout
The intake of a low-level outlet conduit is normally situated inside of the original main river channel at the dam and
below the hydropower intakes as recommended by Basson & Rooseboom (1999). These intakes should also
preferably be positioned at a location that limits the amount of sedimentation in front of them (e.g. on the outer,
concave bank of the river bend). The conduit inlet invert level should be designed slightly below the original river
bed level in order to allow for: (1) desirable drawdown flushing (emptying) conditions and retrogressive erosion of
locally deposited sediments (Basson & Rooseboom, 1999); (2) faster flow velocities into the conduit to improve free-
flow flushing of sediments (discussed later); and (3) the formation of local sediment scour zones during pressure
flushing that effectively limit sediment entrainment into the hydropower intakes. For the postulated design of this
study (Figures 2 & 3), the low-weir, spillway structure and wing-walls were positioned upstream of the conduit inlet
and inside of the sediment scour hole which forms around the low-level intake area. This location ideally allows for
easier construction (i.e. minimal need for sediment removal) and optimal access to further transported sediment
during flushing, as well as limits the risk of altering the local sediment deposition patterns (e.g. underwater angle of
repose). Dreyer (2018) derived equations to predict the geometrical dimensions of the sediment scour hole that will
typically form during pressure flushing based on different low-level dam outlet conduit shapes, upstream reservoir
heads (H_u) and upstream sediment levels (H_sed-up). The most critical scour cone dimensions are illustrated in
Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Side view of sediment scour cone geometry (adapted from Dreyer, 2018)

1.2 Structural design

The cross-sectional side view and top view of the flushing system design is illustrated in Figures 2 & 3, respectively.
The numbered components illustrated in both figures indicate the following: (1) upstream sediment bed; (2) wing-
wall; (3) low-weir; (4) ogee spillway; (5) low-level outlet conduit; (6) inlet structure; (7) gate chamber; (8) air vent;
and (9) dam. The parameters p_1, p_2, p_3 and p_p indicate the chosen hydraulic control points at which flow
velocities and depths were numerically calculated for analysis. The remaining hydraulic parameters are described
and discussed in the following sections.

Fig. 2. Cross-sectional side view of flushing system design (water profile indicated for free-flow scenario)
 Fig. 3. Cross-sectional top view of flushing system design

1.2.1 General conduit structure

The low-level outlet conduit incorporates two sluice gates in series (i.e. upstream emergency gate and downstream
service gate) with the gate chamber being located as far upstream as possible to minimize the length of the
pressurised portion of the conduit. The conduit section downstream of the emergency gate was designed as straight
as possible to minimise the change in flow direction and flow velocity during flushing. The conduit section
downstream of the gate chamber incorporates a raised and horizontal ceiling to ensure free-surface flow under all
possible flow conditions to prevent possible air entrapment and air blowback issues inside of the conduit during
pressure flushing. The ceiling along the pressurised portion of the conduit should be designed parallel to the bed
slope and tangent to the inlet roof curve in order to guide streamlined flow into the conduit during full-flow pressure
flushing (i.e. sluice gates are 100% open).

1.2.2 Conduit shape & dimensions

A wide, flat-rectangular shaped conduit with a height to width ratio of 1:2 was considered for this study. According
to various authors, this specific shape appears to result in the largest volume of sediment being scoured locally
upstream during singular operation for most scenarios. It has also been found that rectangular-shaped conduits are
typically easier to construct (i.e. in terms of entrance, openings, tunnel, etc.) as well as make it easier to install and
operate gates and other hydraulic equipment. The choice of conduit width (B) and inlet height (D) should depend on:
(1) the structural and economic limitations with regards to installing gates (i.e. service and emergency) inside of the
conduit; and (2) the size of sediment and floating debris (e.g. trees, etc.) designed to be flushed through the conduit.
Based on these conditions and the specifications of the study, a width of 6 m and a height of 3 m was chosen.

1.2.3 Conduit bed slope

A conduit bed slope (ɸ) of 1:12 was chosen for this study, with the choice being influenced by the following factors:
(1) SANRAL (2013) recommends ɸ > 1% to avoid typical sediment deposition inside of the conduit; (2) the bed
slope should be steep enough to facilitate the flushing of the largest design sediment (i.e. gravel & boulders) without
deposition; and (3) as the horizontal conduit ceiling downstream of the gate chamber will result in an increase in
conduit cross-sectional area as one moves downstream, a smaller slope choice is desired. Based on the physical
properties of the in-situ sediment that is designed to be flushed (i.e. according to the upstream river bed-load
transport capacity), incipient motion calculations (i.e. Modified Liu Diagram or Shield’s parameter) must be used to
verify that the chosen conduit dimensions and bed slope are suitable for the provisional flushing of the design
sediment inside of the conduit during different critical flushing conditions.
1.2.4 Conduit inlet structure
A bell-mouth shaped roof and side-wall entrance was designed and implemented to maximise flow acceleration (i.e.
as in the case of a flow jet forming from a sharp-edged orifice) into the conduit and to minimise inlet energy losses.
The inlet was also designed to streamline the flow into the conduit to prevent flow separation. Flow separation can
cause cavitation to occur as well as result in the formation of dead zones inside of the conduit in which sediment
could deposit. The design of the roof and side-wall surface profiles are based on that recommended by the Bureau of
Indian Standards (IS 9761, 1995).

1.2.5 Conduit outlet structure

An energy dissipation structure (e.g. stilling basin) immediately downstream of the conduit outlet would naturally be
required in the case of erosive flows with high velocities that exit the conduit and influence the downstream river
conditions. This study does not explicitly focus on the design and implementation of an energy dissipation structure,
but in the case of a general stilling basin design, the USBR (1987) guidelines should suffice. The conduit outlet in
this study comprises an upright rectangular shape and avoids any mechanism (e.g. a radial gate) that could constrict
the air and water flow at the downstream end of the conduit (especially at the soffit of the conduit). The outlet is also
designed to release the exiting flow in the original direction of the river flow in order to prevent the alteration of the
downstream erosion pattern.

1.2.6 Air vent

An air vent was installed in the region immediately downstream of the gate chamber as this is where air demand is
most critical and can reach a maximum when the gates are being operated under the highest reservoir head at some
partial opening. According to Sharma (1976), a gate opening of 80% can be assumed to result in the maximum air
demand immediately downstream of the gates. For this study, the air vent outlet is located within 2 m away (i.e.
downstream) from the service gate, as recommended by Erbisti (2004), in order to be most effective. The air vent
inlet is located above the maximum reservoir water level in order to avoid interference with air flow. The air vent
shaft is circular in cross-section (as typically used in practise) as well as straight and uniform in order to minimise
the number of bends and sharp corners and to avoid sudden changes in cross-section. The required sizing of the air
vent was provisionally designed by first calculating the maximum airflow rate (Q_a) in the vent using the equation
defined by Kalinske and Robertson (1943). Once the upstream reservoir head (H) and gate opening percentage were
known/chosen, the discharge under the gates (Q_w) under free-surface flow conditions was calculated using the gate
control equation. The equation defined by USACE (1980) was then used to calculate the air demand ratio (β).
Finally, the required radius (r_a) of the air vent was calculated considering the calculated Q_a and limiting the
airflow velocity (v_a) in the vent to less than 45 m/s (limitation by USACE, 1980). For this study, the following
values were conservatively chosen/calculated: H = 34 m (maximum available water level in model); gate opening =
80%; Q_w = 223.2 m³/s; β = 0.196; Q_a = 43.7 m³/s; r = 0.6 m; v_a = 38.7 m/s. According to Bosman & Basson
(2012), the empirical equations that have been defined in literature for calculating air demand in low-level outlets
have however been found to be generally inaccurate. The same authors therefore recommend that physical modelling
of the gated conduits be done in order to accurately determine the air demand ratio (β), the cavitation index and
pressures along the conduit, the gate rating curve, as well as the flow conditions downstream of the gate.

1.2.7 Wing-walls
Wing-walls were constructed tangent to the curved faces of the bell-mouth side-walls to effectively aid in
accelerating and streamlining flow into the conduit during free-flow flushing. Wing-walls were also needed to ensure
that supercritical flow did not approach the conduit inlet at an angle, otherwise a hydraulic jump could form at the
entrance. The wing-wall angle (α) to the conduit longitudinal centreline was chosen through trial and error in order to
meet various requirements. According to the specifications of this study, a range of angles between 30° and 45°
initially appeared suitable to meet the requirements. CFD modelling was subsequently used to compare designs
incorporating α = 30° and α = 45° (Section 2). It was found that α = 30° resulted in the best overall option. The
curved intake face of each wing-wall was designed similar to that of the bell-mouth side-wall recommended by the
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 9761, 1995). The wall thickness was designed as 0.4 m to minimise the volume of
sediment that could deposit and silt up along the wall crest. In order to limit structural costs, the final wall crest level
was designed to match the safety design head (H_e) above the weir crest at which no flow spills over during the
flushing of Q_e (Section 1.3.1). From CFD and physical modelling, a wall crest height of 1.75 m above the weir crest
was found to suffice for this study.
1.2.8 Low-weir & ogee-spillway structure
The initially calculated values of the upstream design parameters (Figures 2 & 3) during the specified free-flow
flushing conditions are indicated in Table 1. These values were used to determine the radii of the ogee spillway
profile according to the USBR (1987) design for general uncontrolled ogee spillways having a vertical upstream
face. The reverse bottom curve at the downstream end of the spillway profile was connected to a linear surface with a
bed slope (m) of 1:10 that extended until it intersected with the conduit bed slope (ɸ) of 1:12. Steeper approach bed
slopes have shown to typically increase the inlet capacity of long conduits with inlet control (SANRAL, 2013).

Table 1. Initial calculated design parameter values for free flow flushing

Parameter Equation Value Unit Comments

Upstream initial conduit 𝐻"# = 𝐷 cos(ɸ) 2.990 m Measured relative to the conduit invert level.
submerged water depth
(H_si)
Upstream design water depth 𝐻"# 3.737 m Calculated assuming initial conduit inlet
(H_w) 𝐻, = submergence being 80 %.
0.8
Upstream design approach 1.600 m Chosen to result in large design head over weir crest
flow depth (y_u) for flushing.
Upstream design approach 1.595 m/s Corresponds to y_u on permissible velocities graph
flow velocity (V_u) (SANRAL, 2013) for assumed upstream fine gravel
bed.

Local design sediment depth 𝐻"01 = 𝐻, − 𝑦4 2.137 m Assumed levelled along upstream weir face.
(H_sed)
Upstream channel width 𝑄0 20.828 m Width upstream of weir crest at which approach flow
(b_u) 𝑏4 = conditions occur; Q_e = 53.15 m³/s (Section 1.3.1)
𝑦4 ∗ 𝑉4
Chosen weir crest radius 12.00 m Meets structural requirements.
(R_c)
Weir crest arc length (b_c) 19.400 m Influenced by R_c and wing-wall angle (α =
30°), with b_c < b_u.
Safety design head (H_e) 1.156 m Solved so Q = Q_e.
Design head (H_o) 𝐻9 = 𝐻0 /1.33 0.869 m Recommended design ratio from USBR (1987)

Weir crest height (P) 𝑃 0.574 m Measured above local upstream design sediment
?
𝑉4 level.
= 𝐻, + − 𝐻"01
2𝑔
− 𝐻0

Total weir crest height (H_t) 𝐻B = 𝑃 + 𝐻"01 − 𝑑 2.500 m d = height between local NGL and invert level (IL_1)
= 0.212 m
Safety design discharge (Q) 𝐶0 53.153 m³/s Uncontrolled ogee spillway equation for straight weir
𝑄= 𝐶 𝑏 𝐻 F.G in plan (USBR, 1987)
𝐶9 9 E 0

1.3 Hydraulic design

1.3.1 Design discharge for free-flow flushing
The maximum design discharge (Q_e) for free-flow flushing was initially calculated as 53.15 m³/s using upstream
(inlet) control. This initial value was used to design the weir and ogee spillway structure for subsequent CFD
simulations and physical modelling. It was then later refined in CFD simulations and physical modelling as the
maximum design discharge that could be flushed without causing submergence of the conduit inlet (i.e. not touching
the conduit soffit), with no flow spilling over the wing-walls. The final Q_e value was determined to be 113 m³/s.
1.3.2 Design discharge for pressure flushing
The maximum design discharge (Q_p) during pressure flushing that is relevant to this study was determined
physically as the discharge that was required to maintain the maximum available upstream head (H_u) of 34 m
during pressure flushing. The value was determined to be 350 m³/s.

1.3.3 Minimum submergence of conduit inlet

The equation proposed by Knauss (1987) was used to provisionally estimate the required submergence (h_min) of
the conduit inlet to avoid air-entraining vortex formation during pressure flushing. Knauss’ equation is valid for
median and small size installations (i.e. Fr ≥ 0.33) and for intakes with symmetric approach flow conditions, but
without the use of special devices for vortex suppression. This value was calculated as 27.65 m above the conduit
centreline for this study. Due to the fact this empirical equation has been defined according to general structural and
hydraulic conditions for design purposes, it was necessary to accurately determine the specific submergence
requirement through physical modelling. Physical modelling yielded a value of 22.67 m (i.e. 24.16 m above invert
level) before vortices visibly began to form.

2 CFD modelling & results

Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) simulations in 3D ANSYS Fluent 19.1 were used to ultimately compare two
alternative wing-wall orientations (i.e. α = 30° and α = 45°) within the sediment flushing design illustrated in Figures
2 & 3. The purpose of the CFD simulations was to analyse and compare the influence of the wing-walls on the
critical flow vectors (i.e. looking at the degree of streamlined flow) as well as on the critical flow depths & velocities
(i.e. looking at the degree of supercritical flow), especially around the low-level inlet area, during free-flow flushing
considering Q_e (Section 2.3.2). The finalised conceptual design geometry that was modelled in ANSYS SCDM (i.e.
SpaceClaim) 19.1. and later simulated in ANSYS Fluent 19.1 is illustrated in Figure 4. Figures 5& 7 illustrate the
initial water volume fraction contour results generated by Fluent 19.1 along a created longitudinal vertical mid-plane
for the two designs. Figures 6 & 8 illustrate the initial water velocity magnitude vector results generated by Fluent
19.1 along the geometry floor surface for the two designs.

Fig. 4. Finalised conceptual design during free-flow flushing

 Fig. 5. Initial water profile & velocity magnitude vector results for α = 30° and α = 45°

The numerical CFD simulation results illustrate that the α = 30° wing-wall produces faster flowing supercritical flow
along the spillway, with significant flow acceleration into the conduit around the sides. This is essential for reducing
the risk of sediment deposition at potential dead zones near the sluice gates. This design also appears to result in
significantly less convergence and damming at the centre in comparison to the α = 45° wing-wall. The wide 45°
angle, together with the fast approach velocities, result in very high damming at the centre, poor streamlining of flow
vectors around the sides of the bell-mouth side walls and clear formations of dead zones inside of the conduit. The
α = 30° wing-wall design therefore appears to be the best choice.

3 Physical model
A 1:40 scale physical model of the design evolved from the findings of the CFD model simulations (Figures 2, 3, 4)
was built for further testing and refinement. The model was used to test the robustness, reliability and actual flushing
capability of the design, considering different design sediment sizes and flushing conditions (i.e. pressure flushing &
free-flow flushing with drawdown. The physical model was placed in a 1 x 40 x 1.15 m deep laboratory glass flume
with a smooth and flat bed for hydraulic testing. The three prototype design sediment sizes that were tested for
flushing are indicated in Table 2. For free-flow flushing testing, the intake area was filled with each individual
sediment type until level with the conduit soffit level. This avoided blockage of the inlet during flushing with the toe
of each sediment bed forming near the conduit invert at the angle of repose. The minimum discharge that fully
flushed the intake area, low-level outlet conduit and immediate downstream river area of each sediment bed was
physically determined. These discharges as well as the predetermined maximum design discharge (Q_e), together
with the corresponding physically-measured flow depths at different measuring points along the model longitudinal
centreline, are indicated in Table 2. It must be noted that no free-flow discharge could fully flush the sediment bed of
d_50 = 1.5 m from the intake area as illustrated in Figure 10. The maximum downstream tailwater levels (TWL) at
which the respective sediment beds could still be fully flushed were measured relative to the outlet invert level and
are indicated in Table 2. The measured flow profiles of each discharge along the structural longitudinal centreline are
illustrated in Figure 9. It must be noted that measuring point P_6 is at the conduit outlet and is 48.5 m downstream of
P_5, and P_7 is 180 m downstream of P_6 where tailwater levels were measured and where uniform flow occurred.

Table 2. Free-flow flushing flow depths for critical discharges

Median particle diameter (d_50) (m) 0.528 0.760 1.500 -

Minimum discharge to completely flush sediment (Q_min) (m³/s) 40 72 - 113
Measuring point Flow depths (m)
P_1 1.000 1.440 - 2.000

P_2 0.754 1.118 - 1.507

P_3 0.480 0.720 - 1.400
P_4 0.640 0.920 - 1.400
P_5 1.640 1.920 - 3.000
P_6 0.740 0.900 - 1.540
P_6 (max TWL) 0.820 1.100 - -
P_7 0.180 0.340 - 0.500
P_7 (max TWL) 0.700 1.180 - -

Fig. 6. Free-flow flushing water profiles for critical discharges

Fig. 7. Sediment bed scour (d_50 = 1.5 m) inside intake area after flushing (Q =113 m³/s)

For pressure flushing, the intake area was filled with each individual sediment type in a similar fashion to that for
free-flow flushing. The three prototype design upstream water levels (H_u), measured relative to the conduit invert
level, that were considered for pressure flushing are: H_u1 = 24.16 m (equals h_min); H_u2 = 29.08 m (intermediate
value); H_u3 = 34.00 m (maximum available head in model). The critical results obtained from the pressure flushing
of the sediment bed of d_50 = 0.528 m inside the intake area are indicated in Table 3. It must be noted that during the
timing of flushing of the intake area under the different upstream water levels (H_u), the sluice gate took roughly
190 s to open fully each time in prototype. It was seen that the intake area did not fully scour under the different
pressure flushing scenarios, with the longitudinal profiles of the remaining, non-flushed sediment illustrated in
Figure 8.

Upstream water levels (𝑯𝒖 ) (m) 24.16 29.08 34.00

Measured discharge to maintain 𝑯𝒖 (𝑸𝒎 ) (m³/s) 281.0 312.3 349.7

Time to flush intake area (s) 222 203 190

Flow depth at 𝑷𝟔 (m) 2.22 2.38 2.50

Flow depth at 𝑷𝟕 (m) 0.99 1.06 1.14

Max TWL at 𝑷𝟔 to fully flush conduit & downstream (m) 7.90 8.14 8.26

Max TWL at 𝑷𝟕 to fully flush conduit & downstream (m) 9.14 9.78 10.04

Horizontal distance of toe of scoured sediment bed along intake from conduit invert level (m) 9.04 10.19 10.41

Fig. 8. Sediment bed scour (d_50 = 1.5 m) inside intake area after flushing (Q =113 m³/s)

References
1. Basson, G. R. and Rooseboom, A. (1999) Dealing with reservoir sedimentation: Guidelines and case studies. ICOLD
bulletin 115.
2. Basson, G. R. and Rooseboom, A. (2007) Mathematical modelling of sediment transport and deposition in reservoirs.
ICOLD.
3. Bosman, E. and Basson, G. R. (2012) Investigation of unsteady flow conditions at dam bottom outlet works due to air
entrainment during gate closure. Volume I: Physical modelling. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.
4. Dreyer, J. S. (2018) Investigating the Shape and Layout of Low-Level Outlets for Pressure Flushing of Sediments in
HPP Reservoirs. University of Stellenbosch.
5. Erbisti, P. (2004) Design of Hydraulic Gates. 1st edn. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B. V.
6. Fan, J. (1985) ‘Methods of preserving reservoir capacity’, in Bruk, S. (ed.) Methods of computing sedimentation in
lakes and reservoirs. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 65–164.
7. ICOLD Bulletin 147 (2009) Sedimentation and Sustainable Use of Reservoirs and River Systems.
8. IS 9761 (1995) Hydropower Intakes - Criteria for Hydraulic Design. 1st edn. Bureau of Indian Standards.
9. Kalinske, A. A. and Robertson, J. M. (1943) ‘Entrainment of Air in Flowing Water: A Symposium: Closed Conduit
Flow’, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 108(1), pp. 1435–1447.
 10. Knauss, J. (1987) ‘Prediction of Critical Submergence’, in Knauss, J. (ed.) Swirling Flow Problems at Intakes. 1st edn.
Rotterdam: IAHR, Balkema.
11. SANRAL (2013) Drainage Manual. 6th edn. Pretoria: The South African National Road Agency.
12. Sharma, H. (1976) ‘Air-Entrainment in High Head Gated Condiuts’, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 102(11), pp.
1629–1646.
13. USACE (1980) Hydraulic Design of Reservoir Outlet Structues (EM 1110-2-1602). Washington, DC: United States
Army Corps of Engineers.
14. USBR (1987) Design of Small Dams. 3rd edn. Water Resources Technical Publication.

The Authors

Mr Liam van der Spuy is a Civil Engineer who is currently doing his Master’s degree in Hydraulic Engineering at Stellenbosch
University, South Africa. His research investigates the hydraulic design of low level flushing outlets at dams to safely deal with
sediments, for pressure and free flow flushing.

Prof Gerrit Basson is a hydraulic engineer in the Civil Engineering Department of Stellenbosch University, South Africa. He
obtained a PhD from Stellenbosch University in 1996 and has more than 30 years’ experience in the fields of river hydraulics,
fluvial morphology and the design of large hydraulic structures. He has worked on projects in 21 countries. He was the
chairperson of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) Sedimentation Committee for many years and is an
honorary Vice President of ICOLD and of the World Association on Sedimentation and Erosion Research (WASER).

Mr Eddie Bosman obtained his BSc and BEng degrees from Stellenbosch University, and a post-graduate Diploma in Hydraulic
Engineering from the International Institute for Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering in Delft, The Netherlands. He has 48
years’ professional experience in research, private consulting and lecturing. At the end of 2009 he retired from the chair in Port &
Coastal Engineering in the Water Division of Stellenbosch University, and is presently practicing on an ad hoc basis.

View publication stats