Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0753-3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Sustainable sediment management options for reservoirs: a case

study of Chashma Reservoir in Pakistan
Mubashar Ali1   · Abdul Sattar Shakir2

Received: 16 October 2017 / Accepted: 12 June 2018 / Published online: 19 June 2018
© The Author(s) 2018

Abstract
Globally the average annual loss of reservoir capacity is approximately 1%. Pakistan is confronting major issue of sedimen-
tation which is continuously depleting the useful storage of reservoirs. GSTARS3 model was used to determine the rate
of deposition and sediment pattern of Chashma Reservoir since its operation. The model was calibrated and validated for
bathymetric survey of 2008 and 2012. The results of GSTARS3 were incorporated to a GIS software to visualize sediment
accumulation in reservoir. The study reveals that sediment flushing of the Chashma Reservoir can be carried out during flood
season at a pond level of 638.15 ft. (194.51 m). However, its negative impact if any on the hydropower generation needs to
be analysed. Accordingly, modified operation rules would be required.

Keywords  Sedimentation · Bathymetric survey · GSTARS3 · Sediment accumulation · Flushing · Operational rules

Introduction raising of Mangla dam has been reduced to 1% of gross

storage capacity (Pakistan Water and Power Development
Sedimentation in reservoirs is an outcome of construct- Authority 2012). All reservoirs trap a portion of the sedi-
ing an obstruction in a flowing river, which results in an ment load carried by inflows and, therefore, will experience
abatement of the transport capacity of river. The capacity a continuous reduction in storage volume. The sediment
of reservoir diminishes due to silt aggregation and altered deposition has unfavourable impact, for example, increase
sediment balance due to erosion of river downstream. Reser- in back water level, formation of shoals. Due to the increase
voir sedimentation represents a serious threat to the storage in sedimentation flow, regulation diminishes and eventually
available. Globally, the annual loss rates relative to installed the reservoir could not achieve its objectives like irrigation,
capacity are generally estimated to range between 0.5 and flood mitigation and hydropower generation etc. For a sus-
1% (Mahmood 1987; White 2001; Basson 2009; Schleiss tainable use of reservoir, it will be necessary to regulate the
et al. 2010). Pakistan is confronting major issue of sedi- flows and effective sediment management should be carried
mentation which is continuously depleting the useful storage out. Since the last few years number of numerical models
of reservoirs. Indus river system has three reservoirs, i.e. have been developed and utilized to investigate the reservoir
Chahsma, Tarbela and Mangla. As per hydrographic survey sedimentation problems in rivers and natural streams. Zeleke
of 2011–2012, reservoir capacities of Chashma and Ter- et al., (2013) used SRH-1D model to predict the sediment
bella have reduced to 60 and 35% of gross storage capacity. inflow to Angereb dam reservoir. The simulation results
Whereas the reservoir capacity for Mangla Reservoir after were in good agreement with the measured sediment depo-
sition in the reservoir. One-dimensional numerical model
* Mubashar Ali GSTARS-3 developed by Yang and Simoes (2002) based
[email protected] on theory of minimum stream power has some additional
Abdul Sattar Shakir features that it can be applied for determination of channel
[email protected] width while keeping depth as a known parameter for given
hydraulic and sediment routing conditions.
1
Water Resource Management, Flood Risk Assessment Unit, Yang and Simoes (2002) applied GSTARS-3 model for
Punjab Irrigation Department, Lahore, Pakistan
simulation of sedimentation and delta movement in Terb-
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering ela Reservoir in Pakistan. The profile of the bed simulated
and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
103 
Page 2 of 10 Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103

using GSTARS-3 was in good agreement with the meas- last hydrographic survey in 2011–2012 showed that the
ured profile. In the present study, GSTARS-3 (Generalized gross capacity depleted to 0.348 MAF (0.429 BCM), live
Sediment Transport for Alluvial Ricers) sediment transport capacity to 0.231 MAF (0.285 BCM) and dead storage as
model along with GIS software was used to determine (1) 0.117 MAF (0.144 BCM) (ISRIP-WAPDA). The problem
sediment inflow to Chashma Reservoir, (2) sediment pattern of Chashma Reservoir is that it is indiscriminately being
and rate of deposition in the Chashma Reservoir and (3) to filled up and drawdown several times each year without
explore the ways to enhance the life of reservoir based on respect to its response to this treatment. Sand bars devel-
various operational scenarios for sediment management. oped in front of the barrage in the form of delta. The delta
has spread to the barrage like a braided stream. Analysis of
hydrographic survey shows that process of bela and active
Location of the study area river channels formation has almost stabilized. Growth of
weeds and bushes on belas stabilized the sediment layers.
The Chashma Barrage is situated on the Indus River at a Additionally, during low flow season the gates of the bar-
distance of 56 km from Jinnah Barrage. The barrage sup- rage are closed to provide water to the hydle power station.
plies water to the Chashma Jhelum Link (CJ Link) Canal Because of this, the water upstream of barrage ponded up
on the left bank and Chashma Right Bank Canal (CRBC) and sediments started settling down.
on the right bank. Chashma Barrage has shallow reser-
voir with some storage component, original gross stor-
age capacity of the reservoir was 0.87 MAF (1.073 BCM)
with live and dead storage of 0.72 MAF (0.888 BCM) Methodology
and 0.15 MAF (0.185 BCM), respectively. Five hydro-
graphic surveys of Chashma Reservoir were carried out The processes involved in this study include data col-
since the operation of reservoir started. The hydrographic lection, data analysis and selection of suitable transport
surveys of Chashma Reservoir revealed that capacity of model. Calibration of the model is done before hydrau-
the reservoir is depleting vigorously due to sediment depo- lic and sediment routing computation for Chahsma Res-
sition. Location plan of Chashma Reservoir and reduc- ervoir. GSTRAS-3 is capable of performing hydraulic
tion in reservoir capacity are shown in Fig. 1. The maxi- and sediment routing computations both in longitudinal
mum and minimum designed reservoir levels are 649 ft. and lateral directions. Furthermore, it is also capable
(197.81 m) and 638.15 ft. (194.51 m), respectively. The

Fig. 1  Location plan of Chashma Barrage

13
Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103 Page 3 of 10  103

of computing channel geometry with fixed or movable Sediment data

boundary conditions.
Sediment data comprise of bed gradation data and sedi-
Data collection ment inflow hydrograph. Bed gradation data and suspended
sediment load data for D/S of Jinnah Barrage was collected
Following necessary data were collected and used for from WAPDA and sediment gradation curve for suspended
GSTARS3 sediment transport model: load was plotted. Particle size distribution at D/S of Jinnah
Barrage showed that suspended sediment load comprises
Geometry data of 18% clay, 75% silt and 7% of sand. Sediment inflow to
Chahsma Reservoir is specified in terms of sediment rating
Cross-sectional geometry was defined by X–Y coordinate curve downstream of Jinnah Barrage. The measured sus-
which is a lateral location and bed elevation. Lateral loca- pended sediment load data for the period of 2012–2013 has
tions (X) were given using a reference point for each cross been used for developing the sediment rating curve which is
section, and the coordinate pair was entered in order of used as inflow boundary condition at downstream of Jinnah
increasing X coordinate, i.e. starting from the left-hand side Barrage as shown in Fig. 2.
of the cross section and marching towards the right-hand
side (looking downstream). In this study, 15 cross sections Calibration of model
were used to cover entire reservoir for modelling purposes.
The model was calibrated by simulating the observed sedi-
Hydrological data ment deposition from the year 1971 to 2008. By slightly
adjusting the Manning’s “n” value and using eight-sediment
Hydrological data include water discharges, temperatures transport function, a good agreement between measured and
and water surface elevations. Daily discharge data for simulated values can be found. Figure 3 shows calibration
Chashma Barrage for the year 1971–2012 was collected for the Chashma Reservoir thalweg profile using eight-sedi-
from surface water hydrology project (SWHP), WAPDA. ment transport function. Out of the eight-sediment transport
Mean annual flow for Chashma Reservoir is 117,000 ft3/s function, Yang’s (1973 + 84) sediment transport function
(3313  m 3 /s) whereas the peak annual discharge is gave more closer results to actually observed thalweg pro-
313,627 ft3/s (8881 m3/s). Discharge required for flushing files. Reservoir capacity computed using Yang’s 1973 + 84
of reservoir should be twice of mean annual flow available. sediment transport function is 0.3283 which is 2.28% more
Therefore, flushing of Chahsma Reservoir was performed than the actually observed capacity of reservoir in 2008.
for an available discharge of 2,340,000 ft3/s (6626 m3/s). Figure 4 shows the thalweg profile of reservoir using Yang’s
Flushing discharge is available during flood season for two 1973 + 84 sediment transport function.
months, i.e. July–August.

10000000
SEDIMENT DISCHARGE

1000000
(TONS/DAY)

100000

QS = 0.001QW1.6176
2
10000 R = 0.6325

1000
10000 100000 1000000
WATER DISCHARGE (CUSECS)

Fig. 2  Sediment rating curve

13
103 
Page 4 of 10 Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103

650

600

550
ELEVATION (FEET)

500
ACKER & WHITE (1973)
YANG 1973+1984
450 YANG 1979+1984
YANG 1996
400 DUBOYS (1879)
ENGELUND & HANSEN(1972)
LAURSEN(1958)
350
MODIFIED LAURSEN (MADDEN, 1993)
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY 2008
300
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
DISTANCE U/S WEIR(FEET)

Fig. 3  Performance of various sediment transport functions in estimating the bed levels

Fig. 4  Calibration of the model 650

using Yang’s 1973 + 84 sedi-
ment transport function for the
600
year 1971–2008

550
ELEVATION(FEET)

500

450 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport

Function for the year 1971-2008
400
Hydrographic Survey of Chashma Reservoir(2008)

350

300
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
DISTANCE U/S WEIR(FEET)

Validation of model Results

The validation of model is done to evaluate its performance After calibration and validation model was applied for future
by using the parameters which were adjusted during cali- application from 2013 to 2054 for five different operational
bration process. The validation of model is performed by scenarios. The adjusted GSTARS3 model was applied for
using the bathymetry data for the year 2008 to 2012 using 10-, 20- and 42-year simulation period. The results of above
Yang’s 1973 + 84 sediment transport function. After simula- five scenarios are as follows:
tion, the reservoir capacity computed is 0.321 MAF which is
7.71% lesser than the capacity computed using hydrographic Scenario‑1
survey in 2012. Figure 5 shows the validation of Chashma
Reservoir. In scenario no. 1, flow and pond level values of the last
42 years were repeated for future prediction of Chashma
Reservoir storage capacity. The storage capacity computed
for 10, 20 and 42 years of simulation was 0.285 MAF (0.352

13
Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103 Page 5 of 10  103

Fig. 5  Validation of the model 650

using Yang’s 1973 + 84 sedi-
ment transport function for the
600
year 1971–2008

550

ELEVATION(FEET)
500

450
GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yang's 1973+84 Sediment Transport
400 Function for the year 2008-2012
Hydrographic Survey of Chashma Reservoir(2012)
350

300
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
DISTANCE U/S WEIR(FEET)

650

600
ELEVATION(FEET)

550

500

450 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2022
400 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2032
350 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2054
300
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
DISTANCE U/S WEIR (FEET)

Fig. 6  Simulation results for scenario-1

BCM), 0.264 MAF (0.326 BCM) and 0.233 MAF (0.287 BCM), 0.414 MAF (0.511 BCM) and 0.429 MAF (0.529
BCM). This showed that the capacity of reservoir would BCM). The results of scenario-2 revealed that the capacity
be depleted to 73% of gross storage capacity after 42 years of reservoir would recover to 23% of gross storage capacity
of simulation. The change in bed elevation for 10, 20 and after 42 years of operation while considering 15 days flush-
42 years of simulation is shown in Fig. 6. However, it is rea- ing. The change in bed elevation and sediment trap efficiency
sonable to compare the GSTARS-3 results with HEC-RAS for 10-, 20- and 42-year simulation period is shown in Fig. 7.
results for Chashma Reservoir which shows that the capacity
of reservoir would be depleted to 0.245 (0.302 BCM) MAF Scenario‑3
while operating under existing conditions (Shah 2010).
In scenario no. 3, flow values of the last 42 years were taken
Scenario‑2 for simulation period. Besides this, pond level was kept at
638.15 ft. for 30 days (1st July–30th July) to see the trends
In scenario no. 2, flow values of the last 42 years were taken for sediment flushing. The storage capacity computed after
for simulation period. Besides this, pond level was kept at 10, 20 and 42 years of operation was 0.435 MAF (0.537
638.15 ft. for 15 days (1st July–15th July) to see the trends BCM), 0.440 MAF (0.543 BCM) and 0.476 MAF (0.587
for sediment flushing. The storage capacity computed after BCM). The results of scenario-3 revealed that the capacity
10, 20 and 42 years of operation was 0.393 MAF (0.485 of reservoir would recover to 37% of gross storage capacity

13
103 
Page 6 of 10 Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103

650

600

550
ELEVATION(FEET)
500

450 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2022
400 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2032
350 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2054
300
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
DISTANCE U/S WEIR (FEET)

Fig. 7  Simulation results for scenario-2

650

600
ELEVATION(FEET)

550

500

450 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2022
400 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2032
350 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2054
300
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
DISTANCE U/S WEIR (FEET)

Fig. 8  Simulation results for scenario-3

after 42 years of operation while considering 30-day flush- storage capacity after 42 years of operation while consid-
ing. The change in bed elevation and sediment trap efficiency ering 45-day flushing. The change in bed elevation and
for 10-, 20- and 42-year simulation period is shown in Fig. 8. sediment trap efficiency for 10-, 20- and 42-year simula-
tion period is shown in Fig. 9.
Scenario‑4
Scenario‑5
In scenario no. 4, flow values of the last 42 years were
taken for simulation period. Besides this, pond level In scenario no. 5, flow values of the last 42 years were
was kept at 638.15 ft. for 45-day flushing (1st July–15th taken for simulation period. Besides this, pond level was
August) to see the trends. The storage capacity computed kept at 638.15 ft. for 60 days flushing (July–August) to see
after 10, 20 and 42 years of operation was 0.501 MAF the trends. The storage capacity computed after 10, 20 and
(0.618 BCM), 0.538 MAF (0.664 BCM) and 0.579 MAF 42 years of operation was 0.594 MAF (0.733 BCM), 0.601
(0.714 BCM). The results of scenario-4 revealed that MAF (0.741 BCM) and 0.644 MAF (0.794 BCM) (85%
the capacity of reservoir would recover to 66% of gross Gross storage capacity). The change in bed elevation and

13
Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103 Page 7 of 10  103

650

600

ELEVATION(FEET)
550

500

450
GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2022
400
GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2032
350 GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the
year 2054
300
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
DISTANCE U/S WEIR (FEET)

Fig. 9  Simulation results for scenario-4

650

600
ELEVATION(FEET)

550

500

450
GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the year
400 2022
GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the year
2032
350
GSTARS-3 Simulation using Yangs1973+84 Sediment Transport Function for the year
2054
300
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
DISTANCE U/S WEIR (FEET)

Fig. 10  Simulation results for scenario-5

sediment trap efficiency for 10-, 20- and 42-year simula- Tarbela Reservoir with the bathymetric survey in Pakistan
tion period is shown in Fig. 10. and concluded that the error less than 20% is acceptable
between the measured and simulated results.
GSTARS-3 software is capable to determine the amount
Discussion of sediment accumulated in the reservoir as well as the
amount of sediments that exit the river reach. Amount
Performance of GSTARS3 sediment transport model was of sediments deposited in the Chashma Reservoir dur-
assessed statistically using MAPE, Nash–Sutcliffe effi- ing calibration and validation of model were 9.283 × 108
ciency and R2. Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency is a statistical and 9.437 × 108 Ton, respectively. However, it is reason-
tool which is used to compare the simulated results with able to compare this with Terbela Reservoir in Pakistan
the actually observed bathymetric survey data. NSE values where amount of sediments entered into the reservoir were
for calibration and validation of sediment transport model 1.01 × 1010 Ton from 1976 to 1994. Similarly, the amount
were found as 0.64 and 0.45 with the coefficient of deter- of sediments deposited in Tapu Reservoir in Thailand was
mination 0.67 and 0.70. The difference between measured 2.3 × 106 Ton from 1987 to 1990. Both of these reservoirs
and simulated thalweg for calibration and validation of were also modelled using GSTARS-3 sediment transport
sediment transport model was found as 0.55 and 1.5%. model.
Yang (2008) compared the sediment simulation results of

13
103 
Page 8 of 10 Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103

Table 1  Sediment trap Scenario Sediment trap (187.14–194.77 m), 599–635 ft. (182.57–193.55 m) and
efficiencies efficiency (%) 604–634 ft. (184–193.24 m) for section 19. This showed
that the elevation of Chashma Reservoir increases during
Scenario-1 51–58
42 years of operation under existing conditions for future
Scenario-2 43–11
prediction of reservoir capacity. The results of scenario-1
Scenario-3 47–12
showed that only 27% of gross storage capacity is left. Fig-
Scenario-4 54–15
ure 11d showed the elevation for scenario-II considering
Scenario-5 65–16
15 days of flushing. The bed elevation of Chashma Res-
ervoir after 42 years of operation decreased from 609 to
598 ft. (185.62–182.27 m) for section 1 and 614–604 ft.
Sediment trap efficiency was computed for 10-, 20- and (187.14–184 m) for section 19. Figure 11e showed the eleva-
42-year simulation period for all the five scenarios and then tion of Chashma Reservoir for 30 days flushing considering
compared with Brune curve for normal ponded reservoir as scenario-III. The elevation of points further decreased from
shown in Table 1. Intensive research studies based on field 606 to 588 ft. (184.71–179.22 m) for section 1 and 616–595
data were carried out in India to verify validity of Brune (187.76–181.35  m) for section  19. Figure  11f showed
curve for Matatila, Hirakhud, Bhakra and Gandhi Sagar the elevation for Chashma Reservoir for 45 days flushing
Reservoirs (Batuca and Jordaan 2000). Brune curve overes- decreased from 606 to 594 ft. (184.71–181.05 m) for sec-
timated the trap efficiency for the first two reservoirs. tion 1 and 611–600 ft. (186.23–182.88 m) for section 19.
Similarly, for scenario-V considering 60 days of flushing
Integrating GSTARS3 results to GIS software the elevation of points further decreased and ranges between
607 and 583 ft. (185–177.70 m) for section 1 and 617–604
The results obtained from GSTARS3 simulation were incor- ft. (188–184 m) for section 19 as shown in Fig. 11g. The
porated to GIS software to visualize sediment accumulation figure showed the change in cross section of reservoir as per
in the reservoir. Delta formation was observed just 1.0 km change in reservoir elevation. Furthermore, sediment move-
from main barrage portion. Therefore, two sections had been ment towards the power channel increased which can cause
selected from fifteen sections where most of the sedimenta- negative impacts on long term power generation.
tion took place, i.e. cross section number 1 and cross sec-
tion number 19. Cross section 1 and cross section 19 exist
at a distance of 3 and 8.5 km from main barrage portion.
A digital elevation model (DEM) was generated by com- Conclusions
bining the geometry output from GSTARS-3 model. Fig-
ure 11a, b showed the elevation of Chashma Reservoir dur- Following are the conclusions drawn from this study:
ing calibration and validation of sediment transport model.
Figure 11a showed that the elevations of points at section 1 1. Average sedimentation rate in reservoir till 2012 is esti-
and section  19 in year 2008 range between 620–648  ft. mated as 0.0124 MAF/year (0.015 BCM/year).
(188.97–197.51 m) and 624–644 ft. (190.19–196.29 m). 2. The storage capacity of Chashma Reservoir would
Whereas, for validation elevation of section  1 and sec- deplete to 0.233 MAF (0.287 BCM) (73% loss) in the
tion  19 ranges between 613–645 ft. (186.84–196.59  m) year 2054 for scenario-1 (under existing conditions).
and 617–637 ft. (188.06–194.16 m). The bed elevation of 3. Scenario-2 is more effective as 23% of reservoir capac-
Chashma Reservoir for validation was lowered than the ity was recovered after 15 days of flushing and sediment
calibration results. This is just because of the super flood trapped in the reservoir was lesser than the other flush-
in 2010. After the super flood of 2010, the capacity of the ing scenarios. The trap efficiency for Scenario-2 ranges
Chashma Reservoir was improved. Figure 11c showed that between 43 and 11%.
the elevation of Chashma Reservoir for 10, 20 and 42 years 4. Depositional patterns in Chashma Reservoir showed
of simulation for scenario 1 ranges between 604–634 that sediment movement towards the power channel
ft. (184–193.24  m), 599–625 ft. (182.58–190.5  m) and increases. This would cause the negative effect on the
598–634 ft. (182.27–193.24 m) for section 1 and 614–639 ft. power generation and also wear and tear of turbines.

13
Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103 Page 9 of 10  103

Fig. 11  Simulated bed profiles

of Chashma Reservoir using
various scenarios

13
103 
Page 10 of 10 Applied Water Science (2018) 8:103

Acknowledgements  Authors are highly thankful to the SWHP Mahmood K (1987) Reservoir sedimentation, impact, extent, and miti-
(WAPDA) for providing inflows and sediment data and Mangla dam gation. World Bank technical paper no 71, Washington, DC, USA
organization (MDO) for providing hydrographic surveys and reservoir Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (2012) 5th Hydro-
levels. Furthermore, this research was made for partial fulfilment of graphic survey of Chashma Reservoir. International Sedimenta-
M.Sc. thesis requirement. tion Research Institute, Pakistan (ISRIP)
Schleiss A, De Cesare G, Althaus JJ (2010) Verlandung der Stauseen
Open Access  This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- gef€ahrdet die nachhaltige Nutzung der Wasserkraft. Wasser
tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat​iveco​ Energ. Luft 102(1):31–40
mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- Shah MU (2010) Assessment of Chashma Reservoir sedimentation
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate using HEC-RAS. MSc thesis, University of Engineering and
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Technology, Lahore, p 148
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. White R (2001) Evacuation of sediments from reservoirs. Thomas
Telford, London
Yang TC (2008) Applications of GSTARS computer models for solving
river and reservoir sedimentation problems. Trans Tianjin Univ
14(4):235–247
References Yang CT, Simoes FJM (2002) User’s manual for GSTARS3 (General-
ized sediment transport model for alluvial river simulation ver-
Basson GR (2009) Management of siltation in existing and new res- sion 3.0). U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center,
ervoirs. General Report, paper presented at the 23rd congress of Denver, Colorado
the international commission on large dams, Int. Com. on Large Zeleke T, Moussa AM, El-Manadely MS (2013) Prediction of sediment
Dams, Brasilia inflows to Angereb dam reservoir using the SRH-1D sediment
Batuca DG, Jordaan JM Jr (2000) Silting and desilting of reservoirs. transport model. Lakes Reserv Res Manag 18(4):366–371. https​
CRC Press, 1 Jan 2000 ://doi.org/10.1111/lre.12047​

13