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

net/publication/308389638

Reservoir sedimentation

Article  in  Journal of Hydraulic Research · September 2016

DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2016.1225320

CITATIONS READS

39 2,053

4 authors:

Anton J. Schleiss Mário J. Franca

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
726 PUBLICATIONS   3,091 CITATIONS    141 PUBLICATIONS   646 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carmelo Juez Giovanni De Cesare

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
35 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS    158 PUBLICATIONS   665 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MOOC online course « Fluvial Hydraulics » (in French) :: https://www.edx.org/course/hydraulique-fluviale-louvainx-louv17x View project

Chopin - Hydraulic characterization of surge tank orifices of high head power plant, parametrization and influence on the surge system
stability (Caractérisation hydraulique des orifices des chambres d'équilibre d'aménagements à haute chute, paramétrage et influence sur la
stabilité du système en charge) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carmelo Juez on 04 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Hydraulic Research

ISSN: 0022-1686 (Print) 1814-2079 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjhr20

Reservoir sedimentation

Anton J. Schleiss, Mário J. Franca, Carmelo Juez & Giovanni De Cesare

To cite this article: Anton J. Schleiss, Mário J. Franca, Carmelo Juez & Giovanni De Cesare
(2016) Reservoir sedimentation, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 54:6, 595-614, DOI:
10.1080/00221686.2016.1225320

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2016.1225320

Published online: 20 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 334

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjhr20

Download by: [195.14.103.32] Date: 18 October 2016, At: 03:57

 Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016), pp. 595–614
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2016.1225320
© 2016 International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research

Vision paper

Reservoir sedimentation
ANTON J. SCHLEISS (IAHR Member), Full Professor, Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions, École Polytechnique Fédérale
de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Email: anton.schleiss@epfl.ch (author for correspondence)

MÁRIO J. FRANCA (IAHR Member), Research and Teaching Associate, Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions, École
Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

CARMELO JUEZ, Research Scientist, Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Lausanne, Switzerland

GIOVANNI DE CESARE , Research and Teaching Associate, Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions, École Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

ABSTRACT
Artificial water storage, originated by the construction of dams, is essential for the sustainable health and welfare of civilizations since it supplies
water for human consumption, irrigation and energy production. Furthermore, dam reservoirs are used for recreation, navigation and they provide
safety in the downstream valleys against extreme flood events and droughts. All reservoirs are subjected to sedimentation which, without adequate
prevention and mitigation counter-measures, threatens their sustainability. As well as the evident loss of storage capacity, the adequate and safe
operation of water intakes and bottom outlets belonging to the vital outlet structures can be affected by the deposition of sediments in the reservoir.
This Vision Paper first addresses the state-of-the-art and the main scientific advances in terms of prevention and mitigation measures against sedi-
mentation in reservoirs. Then, the main research challenges, which result from the assessment of what are the remaining open questions, are pointed
out. The emerging research methodologies to study sedimentation processes are also discussed.

Keywords: Dams; mitigation measures; reservoirs; reservoir sedimentation; sediment production; sediment storage; sediment
transport; sustainability

1 Introduction
A river basin conveys water, sediments, heat, chemical
substances and biological species from the hill slopes to the low
hills and further downstream to lakes, seas and oceans. The con-
struction of an impounding structure across a valley interrupts
these fluxes, causing sediment to deposit upstream and to lack
downstream, resulting in loss of volume to store water in the
reservoir.
Reservoir sedimentation has always been a challenge for dam
owners. The outlet tunnels of the Roman dam of Proserpina,
built around 100–200 AD in Extremadura, Spain, are known
to have been raised in the seventeenth century to clear lay-
ers of accumulated silt (Smith, 1971). Annually 0.5–1 % of
global storage volume is estimated to be lost to sedimentation
(Basson, 2009), figures that have been kept since the 1987 World
Bank report by Mahmood (1987). This means that without fur-
ther action, one quarter of all dams will lose their storage to sedi-
mentation in the next 25 to 50 years (WCD, 2000). Furthermore,
the worldwide annual loss of storage to sedimentation is higher
than the increase of capacity by construction of new reservoirs
(Schleiss & De Cesare, 2010; Sumi & Hirose, 2009), which
means that reservoirs, as vital water infrastructures, are non-
sustainable and thus mitigation measures are urgently needed
to increase the lifetime of existent reservoirs.
The natural sediment cycle is a coherent continuum of
mechanical and chemical processes along a river basin (Burt &
Allison, 2010). Three main general processes can be distin-
guished (Kondolf, 1997): (1) sediment production, comprising
erosion and unchannelled conveyance of sediments in the upper
regions of the river basins due weathering, snow avalanches and
glaciers, rill and gully erosion, stream bank failure, landslides

Received 4 August 2016; accepted 14 August 2016/Open for discussion until 30 June 2017.

ISSN 0022-1686 print/ISSN 1814-2079 online

http://www.tandfonline.com
595
596 A.J. Schleiss et al.
and debris flow; (2) sediment transport, along the channel
network and inside reservoirs and lakes; and (3) sediment
deposition, in the flat lands, lakes and oceans.
Reservoir sedimentation can be seen as the process by
which the reservoirs accumulate sediments until they eventu-
ally become completely filled. The transport and accretion of
sediments within a reservoir depend mostly on the size of the
sediments. The mechanisms contributing to reservoir sedimen-
tation are well known but their physical contents are not yet fully
apprehended theoretically. On the other hand, sustainable and
preventive measures are rarely taken into consideration from
the beginning of the layout of new storage infrastructures. The
sedimentation problems are often dealt with in existing reser-
voirs with mitigation measures applied only some time after
commissioning of the dams. These measures are typically effi-
cient only for a limited time and have to be repeated. The current
design of new reservoirs still often assumes a deliberate loss of
storage in the long term.
Field observations on reservoir sedimentation processes have
started as early as 1936, but the majority (some 80%) of all pub-
lications on this topic have appeared only since the 1980s (De
Cesare & Lafitte, 2007). Surveys were reported only from the
1960s, whereas reservoir sedimentation studies were published
from the 1970s. Papers published before 1950 are exceptional.
Most methods for achieving the sustainable use of reservoirs
were proposed in the late 1980s and in the 1990s.
The economic and societal importance of water storage
makes sedimentation in reservoirs an active and expanding field
of research, as indicated, for instance, by the number of publi-
cations in Schleiss, De Cesare, Franca, & Pfister (2014). Never-
theless, as it will be shown in this paper, besides an increase of
awareness of owners, a significant effort to improve the exper-
tise of researchers and engineers is still necessary to preserve
this important source of water. Future scientific developments
must aim at a better comprehension of the physical processes
involved in the production, transport and fate of sediments,
and at competent prevention and efficient mitigation tools to be
(a)
Figure 1 (a) Sediments deposited upstream the bottom outlet of Mauvoisin dam (Switzerland), when the reservoir was emptied in 1985 (photo by
A.J. Schleiss); (b) complete blockage by sediments and driftwood of the inlet to the power intake of the dam of Ta Niet in the Sap river (North-West
Vietnam), during the construction phase (personal communication and photo courtesy of K. Sloff)
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
applied at all project phases: design, operational management
and decommissioning.
This Vision Paper aims at: presenting the current status of
reservoir sedimentation, providing a state-of-art of the current
knowledge and of the existing mitigation techniques; present-
ing and discussing the recent developments and future trends
for mitigation and management of reservoirs; and discussing
the main research challenges to be addressed in the forthcoming
years.
2 Effects of the deposition of sediments in reservoirs
The accumulation of sediments reduces the water storage
capacity of a reservoir (Alam, 1999; Alemu, 2016; Fan &
Morris, 1992b), and eventually eliminates the capacity for flow
regulation which is crucial for assuring the reservoir functions of
water supply, energy production, navigation, and flood control
(Brandt, 2000; Graf, 1984; ICOLD, 2012; Morris & Fan, 1998).
For instance, if reservoir sedimentation becomes dramatic, the
production of valuable peak energy in hydropower dams is
endangered (Schleiss & De Cesare, 2010).
The excess of sedimentation in a reservoir leads to sedi-
ment entrainment in waterway systems and hydraulic schemes
(Faghihirad, Lin, & Falconer, 2015). Depending on the degree
of sediment accumulation, outlet structures may be clogged.
Blockage or damage of intakes and outlets, not designed for
sediment passage, may generate security problems (Fig. 1).
Abrasion of hydraulic machinery, decreasing their efficiency
and increasing the maintenance costs, is a possible consequence
of excess of sediments in a reservoir. Furthermore, cooling cir-
cuits adjacent to turbines which capture water directly from
the reservoir were observed to be clogged by sediments in
suspension.
The existence of a reservoir has also implications down-
stream of dams (Harrison & Mellema, 1982; Williams &
Wolman, 1984). The dam traps the sediments in the upstream
reservoir, originating negative consequences in terms of river
(b)
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016) Reservoir sedimentation 597

morphology and ecology (Grant, Schmidt, & Lewis, 2005; Table 1 Average sedimentation rates in the world and dates when
Juracek, 2015; Petts & Gurnell, 2005). These changes in mor- 80% and 70% of the reservoir storage capacity, used for hydropower
production and for other uses, respectively, is lost to sedimentation
phology have negative effects on the riverine ecosystems,
(Basson, 2009)
through the loss of aquatic and riparian habitats with conse-
quences for water quality (Kondolf, 1997; Merz, Pasternackc, & Average
Wheaton, 2006; Power, Dietrich, & Finlay, 1996). sedimentation Hydropower Other uses
Region rate %/year dams: 80% dams: 70%
An impounding structure traps also nutrients, often attached
to the sediments. Due to the high concentration of nutrients, Africa 0.85 2100 2090
especially phosphates and nitrates, the upstream ecosystem Asia 0.79 2035 2025
may be altered by the proliferation of vegetation and other Australia & Oceania 0.94 2070 2080
Central America 0.74 2060 2040
living organisms. An inadequate sediment management can
Europe 0.73 2080a 2060a
greatly accelerate the process of eutrophication and organ- Middle East 1.02 2060 2030
isms dissemination at levels which compromise the functions North America 0.68 2060 2070
of the reservoir. On the other hand, these nutrients may lack South America 0.75 2080 2060
downstream, jeopardizing the ecosystems budget (Sumi & a Including Russia.
Hirose, 2009).
Sediments fix or degrade pollutants, reducing their bio-
availability. However, if toxic substances trapped in the sedi- columns of Table 1 detail for different regions of the world the
ments are stored in a reservoir, they constitute a potential hazard year when 80 and 70% of the useful reservoir volumes will be
to the downstream valley (SedNet, 2004). Contaminated sed- lost to sedimentation, for hydropower production and for other
iments remain a potential source of pollution to surface and uses, respectively (Basson, 2009). In Asia, for instance, 80%
groundwater, and they cannot easily be handled in the case of of the useful storage capacity for hydropower production will
sediment removal or downstream releases. be lost in 2035, whereas 70% of the storage volumes used for
In the far-reach, the retention of sediments in reservoirs irrigation will be lost to sedimentation in 2025. This applies to
may reduce the global sediment delivery to deltas and coastal the Middle East in 2030, and Central America in 2040. These
areas (Syvitski & Milliman, 2007), where accelerated erosion figures underline that reservoir sedimentation endangers sus-
can occur in dune systems due to the lack of sediment supply tainable energy and food production in many regions in the
(Sumi & Hirose, 2009). world.
The sedimentation in a reservoir may bring ecological advan-
tages (Halcrow Water, 2001) such as the generation of wetland
4 Physical processes
habitats, the opportunity to use economically the trapped sed-
iments, and entrapment of fine sediments which are harmful
4.1 Sediments
to the downstream ecosystem services and water quality. How-
ever, these fine sediments, if released downstream, may provoke The routing of sediment contributing to reservoir sedimenta-
downstream riverbed clogging and reduction of the channel tion must be assessed at the river basin scale with adequate
conveyance (Kemp, Sear, Collins, Naden, & Jones, 2011). conceptual models. These have to consider the relevant key
environments and their interrelationships: sources, pathways
3 Trends in sedimentation rate and storage (Owens, 2005). Further, a basin-scale model must
include information on sediment fluxes and dynamics of mobi-
Dam construction creates an extremely efficient sink of sedi- lization of sediment stored throughout the basin. Recent reviews
ments in the valley. Without efficient sediment management, it highlighted the development of empirical and physically based
strongly alters the natural equilibrium between sediment dynam- distributed catchment models in the last decades, for fore-
ics and morphology in a river catchment. Over the years, as the casting sediment production and transport (Merritt, Letcher, &
sediments accumulate, the reservoir loses the storage capacity Jakeman, 2003; Aksoy & Kavvas, 2005).
for which it was initially designed. The installed water stor- The origin of sediments may be in the far-reach and mid-
age capacity of reservoirs worldwide is about 7000 km3 , from reach of the catchment, and in the reservoir. Williams &
which some 4000 km3 are used for energy production, irriga- Smith (2008) proposed a similar spatial classification for the
tion, and water supply (Basson, 2009). The mean age of existing origin of sediments regarding the location in the watershed:
reservoirs is between 30 and 40 years, and it is estimated that in-field, in-stream and in-reservoir.
0.5–1% of the worldwide water storage capacity is lost annually The far-reach includes production on the steep hill slopes
to sedimentation. A detailed collection of sedimentation rates all of the valleys from soil erosion and rock weathering, and
over the world is given in Batuca & Jordaan (2000). The highest unchannelled transport through the slopes by the running water
average sedimentation rate occurs in arid regions, as the Middle and wind (Morgan, 2009). The quantification of rainfall/run-off
East, Australia and Oceania, and Africa (Table 1). The two last and thermodynamic actions within the catchment is essential
598 A.J. Schleiss et al.
for estimating the sediment production. Furthermore, in alpine
catchments, the contribution of glacier retreat and permafrost
disappearance must be considered.
Mid-reach sediment sources include rill, gully and stream
bank erosion and legacy load. The legacy load (Hargrove,
Johnson, Snethen, & Middendorf, 2010), or temporary storage
(Fryirs, 2013), includes sediment stored dispersively throughout
the alluvial environment. In the mid-reach, a cascading process
occurs where sediment size decreases by crashing and abra-
sion of the coarser sediments transported by rivers (Burt &
Allison, 2010). Fox et al. (2016) present a review and research
perspectives on mid-reach sediment production contributing to
reservoir sedimentation, namely about rill, gully and stream
bank erosion. It is known that, in dryland regions, sediment pro-
duction resulting from gully erosion may be more important
than that resulting from soil erosion (Stromquist, Lundén, &
Chakela, 1985). Fox et al. (2016) argues that the non-uniform
dependence of sediment yield in reservoirs of geophysical and
thermodynamic factors of the catchment is due to the contribu-
tion of the production due to streambank and gully erosion.
The sediment yield produced in the reservoir is mainly due
to the direct contribution of subaerial and subaqueous landslides
originating in the reservoir banks and subaquatic slopes (Imran,
Parker, Locat, & Lee, 2001; Mulder & Alexander, 2001),
Fig. 2a.
Depending on the sediment supplied and on flow velocity
and turbulence, rivers usually carry sediment particles with a
wide range of sizes in the form of bed or suspended loads.
In the reservoir, coarser sediments tend to be deposited in
the upstream regions of the reservoir, advancing downstream
steadily but slowly in the form of a delta; whereas fine sedi-
ments reach the reservoir in the form of suspended load (Fan &
Morris, 1992a), by means of homogeneous or stratified dense
flow. Morris & Fan (1998) and Juracek (2015) represent the
geomorphic stages of reservoir life, where the deposition of
sediment within the reservoir is shown to be clearly associated
(a) Weggis
plex
gis com
Weg
Lützelau
rockfall
1 km
Figure 2 (a) Excerpt of bathymetric map (shaded relief, colour indicating depth ranging from 208 m (blue) to 0 m (red)), superimposed to extract
of the topographic map of Switzerland (swisstopo), representing the Vitznau basin of Lake Lucerne where the Lützelau subaerial rockfall and the
Weggis complex of subaqueous slides are shown (modified after Hilbe, Anselmetti, Eilertsen, Hansen, & Wildi, 2011); (b) example of sedimentation
in the reservoir of Turtmann dam, Switzerland (photo courtesy of A. Broccard, Knoblauch, Hartmann, & De Cesare, 2005)
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
with the sediment gradation. Figure 2b shows the example of
sedimentation in the Turtmann dam, Switzerland, where the gra-
dation between coarse sediments, deposited upstream, and fine
sediments, deposited downstream, is visible.
Vegetation is also relevant to the production and transport
of sediment throughout the catchment (Bronstert et al., 2014)
and in the reservoir (Sundborg, 1992). It has a beneficial effect
on the reduction of soil erosion and unchannelled transport
(Morgan, 2009). Fine sediments are adsorbed by the plant
surface, and their root system forms a natural barrier at the
sediment–water interface. Thus the main objective in soil con-
trol practices is to maximize vegetation coverage by imple-
menting grassed waterways and vegetative and riparian buffers
in agricultural crop and grazing land (Chitata, Mugabe, &
Kashaigili, 2014; Hargrove et al., 2010). Vegetation slows down
riverbank erosion and reduces the risk of the formation of rills
and gullies (Fox et al., 2016), and the risk of landslides.
4.2 Delta migration
When a river flows into a reservoir, the flow velocity and trans-
port capacity reduces and, consequently, the coarser sediments
settle gradually, and form a delta in the head water region of
the reservoir, which extends further into the reservoir as deposi-
tion continues (Fan & Morris, 1992a; Graf & Altinakar, 1998).
Delta is one of the most common deposition pattern in reser-
voirs and it can be described to be formed by three regions,
from upstream to downstream: top-set, fore-set and bottom-set
(Kostic & Parker, 2003; Morris & Fan, 1998; Sloff, 1997).
The sediment gradation reduces gradually downstream, with
the coarser grains rapidly deposited in the top-set region and
the finest sediments region transported along the bottom-set
typically by turbidity currents. The top-set region is relatively
flat whereas the fore-set region is characterized by a larger
slope which varies depending on the composition of the sedi-
ment load. The point of slope change is called the pivot point,
(b)
N
Vitznau
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
knickpoint or delta lip, and will move either downstream by
the continuous feed of sediments from the upstream river, or
upstream if flushing operations are performed. The position of
this pivot point is linked to the sediment sizes, to the reservoir
exploitation, reservoir shape and volume of deposited sediments
(Matyas & Rothenburg, 1986).
Delta propagation depends on hydrology, channel morphology
and sediment characteristics, but can show dramatic evolutions
as the example of the Wushe reservoir of the Choushui river
in Central Taiwan (Fig. 3a, Lai & Capart, 2009), where in
two months the delta advanced about 15% of the total length
of the reservoir which is about 4.5 km. In Fig. 3b another
example of a Gilbert-type delta migration into the reservoir of
Wasserfallboden, Austria, is shown.
Alluvial deltas are subjected to fluvial processes such as
gully incision, formation of meandering or braiding chan-
nel networks, levee formation and armouring. In the fore-
set, the most unstable part of the delta, gravity-driven trans-
port processes can occur, contributing to the displacement
of sediments into the reservoir (Nemec, 1990). Ferrer-Boix,
Martín-Vide, & Parker (2015), and references therein, mention
several mechanisms related to grain sorting in the fore-set face
of a Gilbert-type delta (slope failure, grain flows and avalanches,
hydrodynamic sorting, and individual grain falls).
4.3 Turbidity currents
Sediments kept in suspension by the flow turbulence form, with
the water, a two-phase mixture with density higher than the
(a)
Figure 3 (a) Migration of a Gilbert-type delta into the Wushe reservoir, Central Taiwan (photo courtesy of H. Capart, Morphohydraulics research
group, National Taiwan University); (b) migration of a Gilbert-type delta into the reservoir of Wasserfallboden, in Austria (photo courtesy of
S. Haun)
Reservoir sedimentation 599
ambient water, originating a turbidity current (Simpson, 1999).
Turbidity flows have been a matter of theoretical discussion for
some decades (Bell, 1942; Forel, 1892; Kuenen, 1951). Along
with the propagation of fluidized sediments, granular and debris
flow, turbidity currents are known as a main mechanism for
distal sediment transport within lakes and reservoirs. They are
generally unsteady and occur at relatively short time scales.
In narrow reservoirs such as in the Alpine regions, turbidity
currents are the main mechanism of reservoir sedimentation
(Oehy, 2003). Meiburg & Kneller (2010) present a review on
turbidity currents where, among others, modelling approaches,
initiation mechanisms and interaction between the current and
the bed are discussed.
Turbidity currents in reservoirs may be initiated by: fail-
ure of the slopes of the reservoirs and deltas; during floods
with high suspended-sediment concentrations; storms, winds
and waves which mobilize fine sediments from the shallow
banks; construction or dumping of fine material in the banks of
the reservoir; or pumping and turbines operations in reservoirs
(Müller, De Cesare, & Schleiss, 2014).
During floods, the fraction of sediments smaller than sand,
which is typically transported in suspension, may reach 80–90%
of the total sediment carried by the river. These fine parti-
cles flow in suspension over the delta, plunging to form a
downstream density underflow. The phenomenon of plung-
ing density currents has been extensively investigated in the
field (Cao, 1992; De Cesare, Schleiss, & Hermann, 2001;
Hebbert, Imberger, Loh, & Patterson, 1979) and in the labo-
ratory (Akiyama & Stefan, 1984; Hauenstein & Dracos, 1984;
(b)
600 A.J. Schleiss et al.
Oehy & Schleiss, 2007; Singh & Shah, 1971; Xia, Li, Wang,
Zhang, & Deng, 2016) to determine the water depth at which
plunging occurs. The plunge phenomenon can be defined as the
transition from a homogeneous open channel flow to a stratified
underflow.
The plunging flow establishes a weak counter-current in the
overlying clear water upstream of the plunge line. Since the
turbid and the clear flows converge along the plunge line, float-
ing debris including driftwood carried by the flood typically
accumulate in the region of the plunging flow.
Depending on the length to depth ratio of the reservoir, a
significant return flow may occur after the arrival of a turbid-
ity current inside the reservoir. With a supply long enough,
the conditions to originate an oscillatory movement may exist
(Theiler & Franca, 2016). These reflections may be partial and
caused by topographical features lower than the current height
originating reflected bores (Kneller & Buckee, 2000; Oehy &
Schleiss, 2007; Tokyay, Constantinescu, & Meiburg, 2011).
The extent of a turbidity current depends on the shear stress
at the bed and the turbulence intensity, i.e. the capacity to keep
the sediments in suspension. Their life period depends directly
on the discharge and indirectly on the sediment concentration.
Turbidity currents are non-conservative density currents since
the sediments in suspension may deposit forced by gravity,
or be incorporated due to erosion by the current itself. If the
bed shear stress exerted at the bed is sufficient, typically in
steep slopes, more sediments are entrained causing the flow to
increase the concentration and accelerate (Parker, Fukushima, &
Pantin, 1986; Parker, Garcia, Fukushima, & Yu, 1987). This
self-reinforces the current, allowing the development of an
auto-sustaining turbidity current that can reach high propaga-
tion velocities. The unavailability of sediments in the bed for
entrainment, the reservoir geometry or the eventual damping
of turbulence, will limit the growth of such a gravity-driven
flow.
When the turbidity current reaches the dam, its kinetic energy
is converted into potential energy as the current rises up against
the face of the dam and the sediment concentration distribution
becomes homogenized throughout the vertical. The impact of
the turbidity current against the dam may contribute to a return
turbidity current or may promote sediments settling and the for-
mation of a muddy layer near the dam. In De Cesare et al. (2001)
an important return flow after the impact of a turbidity current
against the dam of Luzzone, Switzerland, was observed.
A known example of recorded turbidity current in reser-
voirs is the incident in the Sanmenxia reservoir described
by Jiahua (1986), UNESCO (1985), Jiahua (1986) and
Middleton (1993), where a 2–3 m thick current propagated at
a velocity of around 0.6 m s−1 for about 50 km, over a bed slope
of 0.25‰. In this case, the distribution of the volumetric con-
centration of suspended sediment was fairly uniform of about
6%. Recently Haun & Lizano (2016) reported results from field
measurements performed in the Peñas Blancas reservoir, Costa
Rica, where a turbidity current was observed.
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
Research on mitigation measures against turbidity currents is
not a new subject, and promising results can be found in proto-
types. The old Aswan dam completed in 1902 has 180 sluices
aimed at flushing. Published work exists on venting the tur-
bidity currents through the outlet circuits of a dam (Chamoun
et al., 2016; Lee, Lai, Tan, & Sung, 2014), on the effect
of obstacles and opposing jets on turbidity currents retention
(Oehy, 2003; Oehy, De Cesare, & Schleiss, 2010; Oehy &
Schleiss, 2007) and on solutions to evacuate sediments from
reservoirs (Jenzer-Althaus, De Cesare, & Schleiss, 2014). Nev-
ertheless, historically there is a lack of publications on sediment
removal techniques (Chung, Hipsey, & Imberger, 2009). If tur-
bidity currents can be entirely stopped or influenced in such
a way that the sediments are not deposited in critical loca-
tions, then the sustainability of the reservoir operation may be
increased considerably (Schleiss & De Cesare, 2010).
4.4 Flow circulation
The shape of a reservoir controls the velocity distribution affect-
ing the sedimentation, re-suspension and transport of sediments
(Kantoush, Bollaert, & Schleiss, 2008; Kantoush, De Cesare,
Boillat, & Schleiss, 2008; Tarela & Menéndez, 1999). The
prediction of the preferential sedimentation zones is essen-
tial to improve reservoir management (Camnasio, Orsi, &
Schleiss, 2011). The efficiency of sediment management tech-
niques are strongly dependent on the reservoir geometry
(Olsen, 1999), as in the flushing operations of the Cachí
reservoir in Costa Rica, a known case of excessive reservoir
sedimentation (Fig. 4a, Jansson & Rodríguez, 1992). Opti-
mal geometries of reservoirs, combined with purging devices,
should be sought in the design phase of reservoirs (Kantoush &
Schleiss, 2009; Morris & Fan, 1998).
Empirical methods were developed for characterizing
the sediment distribution along a reservoir (Borland &
Miller, 1958). The principle of minimum stream power may
be applied to predict the equilibrium sedimentation pattern
of fine sediments within the reservoir (Annandale, 1984).
Rahmanian & Banihashemid (2012) analysed data from Iranian
reservoirs and showed that, when accounting for the wet perime-
ter variation and hydraulic radius of the reservoir cross-section,
the quality of predictions of the sediment deposition improves.
The presence of water-retaining structures (groynes, dead
branches and training structures) implies the formation of zones
where flow velocities are very low. These cause the forma-
tion of different sedimentation patterns and they often develop
into biotopes of high ecological importance. In the long term,
these biotopes ought to be protected from detrimental sedi-
mentation or destructive flushing. Depending on the geome-
try, groyne fields and harbours act as sediment traps where
sediments accumulate (Jenzer-Althaus & De Cesare, 2006).
Convective- and diffusive-type water exchange between dead-
water zones and the stream govern suspended sediment delivery
and re-suspension. These are mainly a function of the size of
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
(a)
Figure 4 (a) Example of heavy sedimentation in the Cachí reservoir, Costa Rica, caused by a combination of turbidity currents, delta propagation
and direct sediment production from the reservoir banks; (b) example of a flushing with drawdown of water surface operation in the Angostura
reservoir in Costa Rica (Haun, Kjærås, Løvfall, & Olsen, 2013) (both photos courtesy of S. Haun)
the exchange area, flow velocity, sediment concentration, and
reservoir circulation.
In stagnation zones like shallow margins of reservoirs pop-
ulated with mangrove forests, sediments are trapped, settle
and, furthermore, barely re-rentrained into the flow due to the
lower levels of turbulence. Flushing operations were hindered
in shallow areas of reservoirs due to the presence of water
hyacinths which got stranded and trapped the sediments (Jans-
son & Rodríguez, 1992). In the channel network, vegetation
influences the flow patterns and reduces the resuspension and
entrainment capacity of the flow, decreasing the mobilization
of sediments stored in the river channel and floodplains due to
reduced bed and bank shear stresses (Nepf, 2012; Vargas-Luna,
Crosato, & Uijttewaal, 2015).
Pumped storage operations between an upper reservoir and
a lower reservoir generate turbulence and recirculation which
reduces the settling of suspended sediments, promotes entrain-
ment and induces sediment transfer between reservoirs (Müller
et al., 2014).
Unsteady water-level fluctuations (ship traffic, flood waves,
tide), density flows (mainly in tidal waters) and turbulence-
generated factors (ship propulsion) may increase the delivery
of suspended sediment to dead-water zones and may be respon-
sible for an increase in the water turbidity. Ship traffic whirls
up sediment and keeps it longer in suspension. It also produces
substantial wave-induced cross-currents, which increase the lat-
eral transport of sediment towards the dead-water zones, and
promote bank erosion.
4.5 Climate uncertainty
Reservoirs are key infrastructures to mitigate the effects of cli-
mate change by their capacity to store and regulate water supply
since the expected increase of the hydrologic variability will
demand for more water storage capacity (Annandale, 2013;
Field et al., 2014). This requires the construction of new reser-
voirs and an efficient management of the existing ones to avoid
Reservoir sedimentation 601
(b)
the loss of available storage. Small reservoirs will suffer to a
greater extent with climate change because their small volume
can not cushion significant inflowing changes in the long term
(Annandale, 2014).
It is generally agreed that climate change will impact the spa-
tial and temporal distribution of sediments within a river catch-
ment (Dietrich, Kirchner, Ikeda, & Iseya, 1989). The expected
effects of climate change have a pervasive role in the pro-
cesses related to reservoir sedimentation previously mentioned
since they affect their physical forcing. Climate change is thus
expected to have an impact in reservoir sustainability by increas-
ing sedimentation rates (Halcrow Water, 2001; Juracek, 2015;
Yasarer & Sturm, 2016).
The climate change projections point to an exacerbation of
the extremes of each particular climate, modifying the mag-
nitude and frequency of weather events such as flooding and
droughts (Kwadijk & Middelkoop, 1994). Climate change may
alter sediment delivery: drier basins, different and more extreme
thermodynamic actions, changes in the glacier and snow melt-
ing cycles, all may directly affect the sediment production.
In Alpine regions, with the glacier retreat, more moraines are
exposed which directly influences sediment supply to the reser-
voirs (Beyer & Schleiss, 2000). The impact of climate change
on the frozen soil in high latitudes, i.e. permafrost, may increase
erosion, landslides and ground subsidence (UNEP, 2007). With
more extreme precipitation events, an increase in the soil erosion
and river bank failure is expected (Ojima, Steiner, McNeeley,
Cozzetto, and Childress, 2015). In many temperate hydrocli-
matic regions, the occurrence of landslides and debris-flow
will increase (Rebetez, Lugon, & Baeriswyl, 1997; Stoffel,
Bollschweiler, & Beniston, 2011).
Climate change can have a significant impact on the bio-
diversity of the reservoirs, which is related to sedimentation
processes. Changes in the catchment may alter the incoming
rate of nutrients and provoke the arrival of invasive species, as
new conditions can be more suitable for exotic plants than for
native plants. The increasing temperature and the rainy/drought
602 A.J. Schleiss et al.
periods may alter the vegetation distribution, if present, and may
also accelerate eutrophication processes.
Sediments trap organic carbon removed from the atmosphere
by photosynthesis, thus the burial of sediments in a reser-
voir constitutes a potential sink in the carbon cycle (Dean &
Gorham, 1998; Mendonça et al., 2012). However, carbon stored
in the sediments may be released (in the form of carbon diox-
ide or methane) by diffusive surface emissions, by degassing
through sediment releases into the downstream river, or by bub-
ble flux emissions (Chanudet et al., 2011; Maeck et al., 2013).
Recent studies show that the role of reservoirs in the carbon
cycle may depend on their age (Chanudet et al., 2011; Barros
et al., 2011) and latitude (Barros et al., 2011). At the moment no
definite answer is given whether reservoirs have a sink or source
role in the carbon cycle (Field et al., 2014).
5 Management strategies against reservoir sedimentation
The awareness for a sustainable management of sedimentation
in the planning phases of new reservoirs presumably did not
exist before the 1950s (De Cesare & Lafitte, 2007). Isolated
publications on reservoir sedimentation, and examples of sed-
iment management in hydroelectric plants, date prior to 1950
but the importance of reservoir sedimentation was not yet fully
recognized by the engineering community. Furthermore, even
recent design handbooks on reservoir and dam engineering often
approach the subject lightly, underestimating or simply neglect-
ing its importance. Since the 1980s, studies on sedimentation
processes in reservoirs increased considerably. In the 1990s,
research regarding the influence of sediments on the operation
of outlets and water intakes started, and now it has become
crucial to plan, design, build and operate reservoirs minimiz-
ing the loss of storage capacity. Currently, there is a wide
range of engineering measures to control sedimentation allow-
ing long-term sustainability of reservoirs. Also, now several
solutions exist for non-intrusive survey of sedimentation levels
in reservoirs (Fig. 5a). At the same time, several guideline doc-
uments and comprehensive publications exist on the subject to
(a)
Figure 5 (a) Sonar survey of the bottom outlet of the Punt da Gall dam (Livigno reservoir) for verification of the degree of sedimentation (photo
courtesy of Engadiner Kraftwerke AG); (b) flushing without drawdown of water surface with bottom outlet at Jiroft Dam, Iran (photo courtesy of
S. Emami)
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
help engineers (Batuca & Jordaan, 2000; García et al., 2008;
ICOLD, 1989; Jenzer-Althaus & De Cesare, 2006; Lenzi,
Picco, & Moretto, 2015; Morris, 2014; Morris & Fan, 1998;
Sloff, 1991, among others).
Reservoirs may be classified as low or high management con-
cern, depending on several factors including the infrastructure
purpose, the storage lost due to sedimentation, and the sedimen-
tation rate (Juracek, 2015). Mitigation measures can be sought
before or during construction, preventively, or after sedimen-
tation occurred, and they can be one-off or continued actions.
Retroactive measures are mainly used to restore the reservoir
volume by sediment removal through or bypassing the dam. In a
comprehensive description of methods to preserve the reservoir
capacity, Fan Jiahua in UNESCO (1985) classified these into
methods that minimize the deposition of sediments, methods
that maximize the sediment bypass through the flow, methods
that use the bottom outlets, and methods that directly extract the
sediments from the reservoir.
Usually, the measures to mitigate reservoir sedimentation
are classified in three groups depending on their location in
the river basin (Kondolf et al., 2014; Morris & Fan, 1998;
Schleiss & Oehy, 2002; Sumi & Kantoush, 2011): in the river
catchment upstream the reservoir (C), in the reservoir (R) and
at the dam (D), or a combination of the three (Beck, Lutz,
Lais, Vetsch, & Boes, 2016). Considering the physical pro-
cesses in the sediment cycle (Section 4), the techniques for
control of reservoir sedimentation may as well be classified
according to the process upon which they intervene: (far-reach,
mid-reach and in-reservoir) production of sediments; transport
(in the upstream channel network or in the reservoir); and
long-term storage. Both classifications, based on the processes
and on location in the river basin (C, R or D), can thus be
combined:
• Far-reach production of sediments: soil conservation tech-
niques (C) such as forestation, increase of the vegetated cover,
slope stabilization and changes in crops practices to avoid
sediment production.
(b)
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
• Mid-reach production: protection of streambanks against fail-
ure (C); protection of soil against the formation of rills and
gullies (C); decrease of the mobilization of the legacy load
(C) by constructing gravel and sand settling basins, sediment
check dams and transverse sills.
• In-reservoir production: protection of the subaerial banks and
subaquatic slopes of the reservoir with soft (vegetation or eco-
friendly slope stabilization techniques) or hard solutions (R).
• Transport in the channel network: diversions into off-stream
reservoirs (C); bypass channels or tunnels around the reser-
voir (C); upstream sediment retention basins (C) (Fig. 2b).
• Transport in the reservoir: bypass tunnel along the reservoir
(R); flushing with drawdown of water surface (R, Fig. 4b);
avoiding the settling of sediments in suspension (R); control
of turbidity currents (R); turbidity current venting (D); water
jets for keeping fine sediments in suspension (D).
• Long-term storage: admission of a dead storage (R); hydro-
suction or dredging (R); dam heightening (D); increase of
outlet level of bottom outlet and intakes (D); flushing and
sluicing with or without drawdown of the water surface by
outlet structures (D, Fig. 5b).
Key parameters for the choice of sediment control strate-
gies are: geographic location (latitude, altitude, climate and
weather); catchment geometry (area, topography, hypsometry,
river network); land cover and management in the catch-
ment; human activities in the catchment; sediment mineralogy
and grain size distribution; reservoir geometry (area absolute
and relative to the catchment area, volume, shape, orography,
slopes); type of dam (natural or artificial, construction method);
type and number of hydro-mechanical equipment of water
release; age and usage of the infrastructure; level of sedimen-
tation in the reservoir; water management system; quality of the
water and of the sediments; economical value of the water and
sediments; geo-political sensibility; local practices and available
equipment; ecological issues (upstream and downstream of the
dam).
An integrated approach for sediment management is required
in order to balance the sediment budget across reservoirs
(Morris & Fan, 1998) and to chose the most adequate tool
for sediment management. The analysis of the best sediment
management solution must consider, besides the benefit and
technical adequacy, the opportunities and nuisances generated
in the whole river basin.
Climate modification may be determinant in the choice of the
operational mitigation techniques for reservoir sedimentation.
For instance, if water scarcity is a problem, free surface flushing
of the reservoir is not an option. In the feasibility analysis of new
reservoirs and of the application of mitigation measures against
sedimentation, the implications of these in the carbon cycle
should be acknowledged. Moreover, the impact of degassing
carbon stocked in the reservoir when applying methods such as
flushing and dredging, for instance, is still unknown.
Reservoir sedimentation 603
The severity of sedimentation and local conditions may
reduce the efficiency and hinder the utilization of some of the
available measures. For instance in dry lands, water is a scarce
and expensive resource, and the sedimentation rates are high,
thus flushing becomes unrealistic. Flushing operations may also
impact downstream water quality and riverine ecosystems. Con-
taminated sediments probably cannot be extracted and surely
can not be bypassed through the dam to the downstream reach
of the river. Ultimately, conversion of the dam purpose may be
sought when the reservoir is filled: conversion of a hydropower
scheme with flow regularization to a run-off working princi-
ple; creation of a new reservoir; or abstraction of water from
elsewhere towards the intakes.
6 Economic considerations
The still often accepted engineering practice in the design and
operation of reservoirs is to allow them to fill with sediments,
generating benefits from a decreasing storage over a finite period
of time (Palmieri, Shah, & Dinar, 2001). Reservoirs are thus
seen as not amenable to sedimentation management and the
value of such loss, which may occur 70 or 100 years after
the dam commissioning, is often not considered. The loss of
such natural resource, with high costs for future generations
(Annandale, 2014), combined with increasing scarcity of suit-
able locations for the construction of new reservoirs, justifies
the need to revisit the principles of the economical analysis of
future reservoirs.
Traditionally, when analysing the economical viability of a
mitigation sedimentation technique, two key questions are: if
the extra cost of the application of the technique is supported by
the extension of the lifetime of the reservoir; and if it is economi-
cally possible to enhance the life of the reservoir for an indefinite
period of time. Nowadays, the common answer for both ques-
tions tends to be negative, since the scarcity of reservoirs, and
a price associated with the loss of this resource, is not consid-
ered. The economics of exhaustible resources (Solow, 1974),
as described by the Hotelling principle, indicates that the price
for an exhaustible resources increases with the discount rate.
If considered, this has a significant implication for the eco-
nomic analysis of reservoir projects. As recently discussed by
Bathia (2008) and Annandale (2013), the value of reservoir stor-
age must be recognized and a scarcity rent has to be attributed
to the reservoir storage capacity as it is to other limited natural
resources (oil, coal, etc.).
Considering scarcity rents, which will be regionally
dependent, changes completely the paradigm of the economi-
cal analysis of reservoirs. It may well justify the application of
mitigation techniques transforming these infrastructures from an
exhaustible into a renewable resource (Annandale, 2014). Fur-
thermore, the economic analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the
application of sediment control techniques in reservoirs has to
quantify monetarily not only the direct benefits for the reservoir
604 A.J. Schleiss et al.
exploitation, but also to evaluate the benefits to the catchment
of the application of far and mid reach measures (Williams &
Smith, 2008).
7 Research challenges
7.1 Methods
Generally, the main mechanisms contributing to reservoir sedi-
mentation are well identified in the literature. However, reser-
voir sedimentation remains far from properly controlled and
the research and engineering community still faces many
research challenges in what concerns understanding of pro-
cesses, modelling, and mitigation tools. The advent of new
research tools, either measuring techniques to support labora-
tory and field research, or new computational capacity, will
allow a deeper analysis of the thermodynamic and mechanic
processes involved in reservoir sedimentation.
Regarding physical experimentation, high-resolution instru-
mentation can provide a better insight into the hydrodynamic
and morphodynamic mechanisms. Uncertainties related to the
stratigraphic profile of reservoir depositions and to the deter-
mination of the sediment fluxes hamper the understanding
of processes related to reservoir sedimentation. Measurements
with ultrasound or image acquisition systems are now pos-
sible for use in field and/or laboratory studies. They allow
flow velocities, concentration and internal stresses to be char-
acterized in sediment-laded flows. Ultrasound-based instru-
ments include 3D acoustic Doppler velocity profilers with
convergent beams (ADVP), acoustic Doppler current profiles
with divergent beams (ADCP), monostatic ultrasound veloc-
ity profilers (UVP) and 3D or 2D point Doppler velocime-
ters (ADV). Image-based instrumentation includes point laser
Doppler velocimetry (LDV/LDA), particle image velocime-
try (PIV), particle tracking velocimetry (PTV), radiography,
tomography and 3D holographic PIV. For the control of sedi-
ment budgets and to calibrate and validate watershed sediment
management models, a large amount of field instrumentation
for measuring sediment transport and morphology evolution is
now available, including: magnetic tracers; passive and active
radio transmitters; geophones and hydrophones; impact sen-
sors; drone-based or plane-based flighted topography surveys
(through LiDAR or imagimetry); video analysis by (flighted of
laboratory) spectral cameras. Some studies show that satellite
remote sensing may be used to monitor watershed processes
(Birkett, 1998; Pan, Liao, Li, & Guo, 2013) and to directly
assess the degree of sedimentation of reservoirs (Jain, Singh, &
Seth, 2002; Narasayya, 2013).
Laboratory work involving sediment transport, especially
with fine sediments as in turbidity currents, bring similitude
difficulties and scale effects regarding the intervening forces
(Meiburg & Kneller, 2010). To assure similitude, dimensionless
parameters representing the ratio of forces acting in the sedi-
ments must be kept within similar ranges between the laboratory
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
and nature. Since water is usually used in physical modelling,
the choice of the sediment material to use in the laboratory,
which includes choosing the size and density, is a difficult task.
The transport under turbulent regime (high particle Reynolds
number) must be simulated accounting for the cohesion effects
and a proper scale for settling velocity. The use of data collected
in large facilities or in the field limits scale issues.
Regarding numerical models, there are different options,
ranging from 1D to 3D models. Traditionally, 1D models have
been used due to their low computational cost and reduced data
requirement. However, with the presence of complex topog-
raphy and/or of hydraulic structures, the use of 2D/3D mod-
els may be required. 2D shallow water models may provide
accurate predictions for the depth averaged flow velocity and
water depth, requiring though a fine topographic representa-
tion. Nevertheless, shallow water assumptions may fall when
hydrodynamics of reservoirs is concerned. Castillo, Carillo, &
Álvarez (2015), for instance, showed that 2D simulations may
not adequately predict the instabilities of sediment deposits in
front of outlet structures, nor the pressurized flow at the initial
stage of flushing events. For this reason, reliable 3D mod-
els are also required. These may be Euleurian-type solvers of
the Navier–Stokes equations, from computationally expensive
direct numerical simulations, to large-eddy simulation and to
Reynolds-averaged models; or may be based on Lagrangian
techniques, such as smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH;
IAHR, 2015). To reduce computational efforts required for sim-
ulating realistic scenarios, graphics processing units in combina-
tion with non-trivial optimization procedures can be used (Juez,
Lacasta, Murillo, & García-Navarro, 2016). The computational
time gain obtained with the graphic hardware is significantly
superior compared with single-core (sequential) and multi-core
(parallel) CPU implementations.
The experimental methods herein highlighted were devel-
oped for several domains of geophysics but they may be
applied specifically to the study of reservoir sedimentation.
These are may be applied in the laboratory, mainly for the
study of processes, or in the field for the operational and
timely assessment of sediment deposition. New methods have
to be further developed and applied to rapidly assess sedi-
ment deposition in reservoirs. For instance, the use of LiDAR
flights and air transported spectral cameras are faster methods to
assess reservoir bathymetry changes than echo sounder surveys
made from ships. Significant developments are needed regard-
ing the decrease of calculation times of numerical models. These
are typically much longer than the time that the process of reser-
voir sedimentation takes to occur in reality, which has a time
scale of weeks to years. Models should calculate faster than the
process in reality in order to be used operationally.
7.2 Basin-scale estimation of sedimentation rates
Lumped models based on empirical laws are popular because
of their simplicity and comparably low computational cost.
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
However, these tend to have low precision since they do not
describe the complexity of the sediment cycle. Overoptimistic
forecasts of sediment accumulation led in the past to viability
problems of some infrastructures (McCully, 2001). Examples
of this are the reservoirs of Chixoy (Guatemala), which filled
with sediments more rapidly than predicted; Cerro Grande reser-
voir (El Salvador), whose lifetime was reduced by about 10
times compared to the predicted value; Tarbela reservoir (Pak-
istan), where the a reduction of 30% of the storage was observed
between 1974 and 2009; and Dez reservoir (Iran), where a
reduction of 19% was observed in forty years of operation. The
time required for a reservoir to be filled up by sediments is
given by the ratio of the reservoir volume and the mean annual
sediment inflow. This can vary from 60 years (Low Aswan
reservoir Di Silvio, 2001), to some 500 years (Great Ethiopian
Renaissance reservoir, Seleshi, 2015).
Most projects use empirical formulations resulting from
regional inferences or accumulated data, to estimate the bulk
sedimentation rate of reservoirs. Empirically-based lumped
equations of soil denudation such as the universal soil-Loss
equation and its variants (Beyer Portner & Schleiss, 2003;
Wischmeier, 1959), the Fournier equation (Fournier, 1960) or
the erosion potential method of Gavrilović (Gavrilovic, 1962),
among many others, are used to predict soil denudation as a
function of the watershed physical characteristics. This sedi-
ment production is often considered as the sediment yield into
a reservoir. Technological advances now allow more complex
conceptual, and physically-based, distributed sediment deliv-
ery models, where sources and sinks of sediments, connectivity
and storage processes are included. These so-called global
watershed or space distributed models account for the spatial
variability of erosion and deposition processes (e.g. Bronstert
et al., 2014; Ferro & Porto, 2000; Medeiros, Güntner, Francke,
Mamede, & Araújo, 2010; Verstraeten, 2006). Models to eval-
uate the watershed sediment connectivity such as the one pre-
sented by Fryirs (2013) take into account sources and sinks of
sediments, which are mediated in turn by linkages and block-
ages, and may be used to manage reservoir sedimentation. This
type of approach may be used in the future by decision-makers
to: identify spots in the watershed where interventions are ade-
quate to prevent sediments to reach the reservoir (intentional
disruption of the watershed connectivity by insertion of block-
ages, retention basins or establishing bypasses for instance); and
identify the role of the dam disturbance in the sediment cascade
of the valley.
The main drawback of distributed models is the requirement
for extensive data input. Distributed models need more data than
low-dimensional models and this demand notably increases with
the complexity included in the model. Satellite data, increas-
ingly available and with growing quality, are a good source for
information on topography, rainfall, land cover and soil type.
Geographic information systems are an important tool allow-
ing superimposition of several layers of information for use
in either lumped or distributed models. However, optimization
Reservoir sedimentation 605
and interpolation techniques still require advancements to make
them widely usable. The use of an extensive range of real-time
sensors and gauges, measuring thermodynamic conditions, sedi-
ment fluxes, morphological changes and flow rates are crucial to
the understanding of the physical processes underlying reservoir
sedimentation. These data can be combined in real-time with
machine-learning models to the continuous improvement of
conceptual and numerical models, and of the management tools.
The Reservoir Sedimentation Database (Ackerman et al., 2009),
an electronic database set by the US Geological Survey, is an
example of a service to managers, natural resource planners and
researchers, which gathers and disseminates reservoir sedimen-
tation data for more than 1800 reservoirs in USA, from as early
as 1755.
The assessment of the temporal evolution of sedimenta-
tion rates in existing reservoirs is possible today by means of
radioisotopes, as Wren, Rigby, Davidson, & Locke (2016) used
in lake accumulated sediments. This or similar techniques can
be used in existent reservoirs to predict trends in sedimenta-
tion rates and relate them with watershed characteristics and
processes.
Climate change is expected to affect reservoirs by increasing
sedimentation rates (Juracek, 2015). Given the uncertain climate
modification, and the uncertainties inherent to the modelling
of sediment dynamics of river basins (Halcrow Water, 2001),
stochasticity related to the uncertain global warming should
be lumped into global watershed models (Loucks & Van
Beek, 2005).
Global warming and the resulting climate change depend
on societal choices, policies, and technology advancements to
come. Climate change impact depends on both the amplitude of
global warming and the advances in reducing exposure and vul-
nerability. Changes in the land use, induced by socio-economic
adjustments to climate change (FAO, 2015), may also alter
determinant parameters for soil erosion/sediment production
which are considered in global watershed models.
The improvement of basin-scale estimations of processes
related to soil erosion and sediment transport, with conse-
quences to the sedimentation in reservoirs, is possible by the
combination of remote sensing with geographic information
systems. Nowadays, data from remote sensing is extensive and
of good quality, and developments to combine them with com-
putational efficient geographic information systems can give
good results in the improvement of reservoir sedimentation
assessment. Natural stochasticity related to sedimentation pro-
cesses, and stochasticity depending on climate modification,
should be considered.
7.3 Sediment production
Bulk estimates, as mentioned above, may be important for the
assessment of the life span of reservoirs. However, if interven-
tions to reduce the sediment yield to reservoirs are required, the
606 A.J. Schleiss et al.
local causes of sediment production have to be identified and
studied.
Research on the soil erosion is still necessary in order to
reveal the influence of ecosystems types in soil production by
weathering, in unchannelled transport by wind and overland
flow, and in the transport and erosion by landslides, debris flow,
snow avalanches (e.g. Bates, Andreini, & Ancey, 2016) and
glaciers (Syvitski & Milliman, 2007).
The vegetation in general protects the soil from the rain drop
impact, and the roots reinforce and consolidate the soil. The
influence of vegetation in the far-reach sediment production still
requires research efforts (Fox et al., 2016), as well as techniques
for the efficient use of soil protection techniques based on the
introduction of vegetation as sediment buffers. The introduction,
through migration of modification, of fast-growing vegetation
in high altitudes could bring benefits in soil protection against
erosion.
Research on the impact of management practices of soil pro-
tection is still needed as well (Hargrove et al., 2010), namely
regarding agricultural practices, reforestation and protection of
riparian areas. The impact of forest fires in the increase of soil
erosion is also a crucial aspect to be understood (Di Piazza,
Di Stefano, & Ferro, 2007; Sankey, 2015) and with direct
impact on the loss of reservoir storage to sedimentation (McCoy,
Krasko, Santi, Kaffine, and Rebennack, 2016). Finally, as indi-
cated by Hargrove et al. (2010), social aspects of the watershed
inhabitants and valley dwellers have to be taken into account
when implementing new land-use practices.
In their review on upstream sediment sources contributing
to reservoir sedimentation, Fox et al. (2016) list as challenges
the accurate prediction and control of the sediment yield ensu-
ing from stream bank failures as well as rill and gully erosion.
Bank failure is caused by a combination of fluvial erosion
and geotechnical failure (also called geomorphological collapse
according to Murillo & García-Navarro, 2010) and its incor-
poration in river models is still an open research topic (e.g.
Langendoen et al., 2015).
In the reservoir, measures to avoid subaerial and subaqueous
landslides are needed to avoid this source of sediments. A static
and dynamic stability of the delta slopes and of the reservoir
banks needs to be understood to characterize the occurrence of
landslides and their impact on the transport and accumulation of
sediments near the dam.
The forms of mobilization of the legacy load, as defined
by Hargrove et al. (2010), have to be characterized, includ-
ing unstable deposits that may result in landslides and debris
flow, floodplain deposits and bed forms, among others. The
quantification of the probability distribution associated to the
mobilization of the legacy load should be made and included in
watershed models.
Recent research focus on sediment replenishment techniques,
aiming at re-establishing sediment feed into sediment-depleted
river reaches located downstream of dams (Juez, Battisacco,
Schleiss, & Franca, 2016). These aim at restoring sediment
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
transport and river morphology downstream of dams which are
not permeable enough to the passage of sediments by means of
sluicing and flushing. Although important from an ecological
point of view, the impact of these measures promoting sedi-
ment replenishment on downstream reservoir storage needs to
be acknowledged and quantified.
7.4 Delta migration
The propagation of the delta front is strongly governed
by different underwater processes: upward-coarsening sup-
ply, upward-fining supply, turbidity currents, vertical entrain-
ment/depositions sediment fluxes or even more complex mor-
phological patterns. The vertical (stratigraphy) and horizontal
(surface texture) distribution of the grain sizes of the substrate
plays an important role on the resulting sediment fluxes. How-
ever, to unravel the mechanisms underlying the control of the
delta migration more experimental data (field and laboratory
scale) are still needed, besides developments regarding the the-
oretical description of 2D/3D erosion/deposition patterns and
2D/3D numerical tools for the computational prediction.
Unstable submarine deltas pose a risk not only to the envi-
ronment but also to civil structures. The collapse of sections of
the delta may initiate submarine landslides causing significant
modifications in the topography of the reservoir and the gen-
eration of impulse tsunami waves with a sufficient height to
threaten the local shore-dwellers of reservoirs. Aquatic land-
slides in reservoirs require a deeper knowledge about their
triggering mechanisms, pattern of migration and ability for ero-
sion/deposition rates. Furthermore, landslides in the avalanche
face of deltas may initiate turbidity currents by fluidization pro-
cesses, which propagate throughout the reservoir, an initiation
mechanism of turbidity currents which is not completely under-
stood yet (Meiburg & Kneller, 2010). On the other hand, the
shear provoked by the passage of a turbidity current may also
destabilize the avalanche faces of deltas and initiate landslides
and debris flows.
Exogenous causes may induce the destabilization of the
delta and require further investigation. Earthquakes can shift
the material of the delta located at the lower level, provoking
a massive material mobilization and a subsequent wave. Sub-
aerial landslides in the shoreline can cause the fall of rocks
and debris into the reservoir, leading to the collapse of sections
of the delta. Surface and internal waves may drive processes
that destabilize the avalanche faces of deltas. Stream channels
are formed crossing sedimentation deltas which present signa-
tures of such fluvial processes as meandering, levee formation,
channel incision and armouring. Further research is required to
understand their implication for reservoir sedimentation, namely
their importance to the stability of the delta configuration.
Mitigation measures against the negative effects of sediment
deltas which may reach the dam are not adequately understood
yet. Experimental investigation is needed on flushing, to char-
acterize the flushing cone dynamics and to know the influence
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
of operation time as function of local variables (Kantoush &
Schleiss, 2009). Sediment sluicing experiments should provide
an insight on the amount of sediments released downstream
as function of time, and on the material that remains in the
reservoir. The vegetation left from the deforestation in the reser-
voir has harmful effects on the water quality. However, it may
prevent the advancement of sediment deltas and cause extra
resistance to the advancement of turbidity currents.
The modulation of the sediment yield in river basins intro-
duced by climate modifications affects the dynamic evolution
of deltas advancing towards reservoirs. Due to global warm-
ing, there is also an expected increase in the melting rate of
glaciers with a consequent increase of temperature-driven den-
sity currents inflowing into reservoirs. These currents have a
potential for morphological changes (Dallimore, Imberger, &
Ishikawa, 2001) affecting the stability of the delta and reservoir
slopes.
An efficient exploitation of the delta material by dredging, as
a form of mitigating reservoir sedimentation, may be foreseen
and investigated. This however must conform with the stability
of the delta.
7.5 Turbidity currents
Turbidity currents are composed by a wide range of sus-
pended particle sizes. Settling of larger particles reduces the
density difference and the buoyancy which maintains the flow,
thus currents induced by small floods may not reach the dam
(Oehy, 2003). This process also causes a longitudinal reduc-
tion in the grain size of the suspended solids carried by the
current and deposited along the delta and along the reservoir
bed. Furthermore, the group settling velocity of the sediments
in suspension is dependent on the concentration and particle
diameters. The understanding of interactions between particles
inside the current and of the geomorphological impact of the
composition of the current in terms of grain size distribution
is still insufficient and should be improved by high-resolution
numerical simulations (Meiburg & Kneller, 2010).
Available literature reveals gaps in the knowledge regarding
hydrodynamic properties of turbidity currents under the pres-
ence of mass and momentum external sinks, i.e. basal erosion
or deposition processes or outlets such as venting operations.
Meiburg & Kneller (2010) point at the need for further research
on bed erosion by the current and on the coupling between the
evolution of the turbidity current and of the underlying sub-
strate. Research on erosion by turbidity currents should cover
consolidated substrate composed by cohesive and non-cohesive
material.
The following aspects regarding the propagation of turbidity
currents are not completely understood: the initiation and
support mechanisms; the influence of turbidity currents on
reservoir floor topography and plane morphology, and the sub-
sequent interaction between these (Meiburg & Kneller, 2010);
laminar propagation (Yilmaz, Testik, & Chowdhury, 2014); the
Reservoir sedimentation 607
influence of granular roughness (Nogueira, Adduce, Alves, &
Franca, 2013; Sequeiros et al., 2010), macro-roughness (boul-
ders) or roughness induced by vegetation (Nepf, 2012) on the
flow resistance; the influence of the bed shear stress exerted
by the current on sediments with different nature (cohesive
or non-cohesive); the erosion/deposition rates and its conse-
quent sediment concentration evolution; and finally the current
evolution with different grain sizes.
Additional information is required on internal waves propa-
gating in the pycnocline of stratified fluids and on the interaction
of these with gravity currents (Meiburg & Kneller, 2010). The
interaction of turbidity currents with surface waves, namely
their ability to generate these, needs also further assessment.
High resolution measurements of the current hydrodynamics
and sediment dynamics are more and more available and shall be
explored further. ADCPs are increasingly used to characterize,
in the field, the flow velocity distribution and sediment transport
(Haun & Lizano, 2016; Kostaschuk, Best, Villard, Peakall, &
Franklin, 2005).
Mitigation measures against the negative effects of tur-
bidity currents (silting of reservoirs and blocking of intakes)
require further analysis. Research on venting should focus on
the amount of sediment bypassed and the amount of sediment
remaining upstream, as a function of variables such as val-
ley configurations, delta heights, outlet arrangements and initial
densities (Chamoun et al., 2016). Obstacles may be situated in
the upper part of the reservoir aiming at stopping the current and
forcing the sediments to settle down, in order to keep the outlet
structures free of sediments (Oehy & Schleiss, 2007; Schleiss &
De Cesare, 2010; Tokyay et al., 2011). Jet screens (Bühler,
Oehy, & Schleiss, 2012; Oehy et al., 2010) may be used to con-
trol the development of the turbidity currents and whirl them up
near the dam and intakes, keeping the sediments in suspension to
be continuously evacuated through the intakes (Jenzer-Althaus
et al., 2014). Prevention measures may be used against the cur-
rent plunging, and the utilization of macro-roughness on the
reservoir bed may limit the current propagation and erosion
capacity.
The probable, although temporary, positive effect of the
remaining vegetation left in the reservoir bottom against the
propagation of turbidity currents should be explored.
Temperature-driven density currents inflowing into reser-
voirs, the frequency of which may increase due to cli-
mate change, may incorporate fine sediments (García &
Parker, 1993), thus contributing to an increase of the long-range
transport of fine sediments along a reservoir.
The evaluation of the carbon stocking effect of a reservoir
should includes the analysis of the role of the turbidity currents
as distal conveyers of the carbon adsorbed by the sediments.
7.6 Flow circulation
The flow circulation in reservoirs is conditioned by its shape.
The existence of marked concave boundaries typically leads
608 A.J. Schleiss et al.
to the creation of dead-water regions, while the existence of
low-velocity and shallow regions creates preferential areas for
sediment deposition. In addition to the research already con-
ducted (Kantoush et al., 2008; Kantoush et al., 2008; Camnasio
et al., 2011), efforts are needed to clarify effects of more complex
reservoir geometries, which should be characterized by a form
parameter, and on the limitation of some mitigation methods
such as flushing and venting. The main question is the loca-
tion of release structures which provoke a short-circuit between
the sediment inflow and outflow, considering the annual stor-
age cycles. Also, the trapping efficiency of dead-water areas,
possibly under low turbulence conditions, must be a target of
research.
Two-dimensional or 3D numerical simulations are essen-
tial to enhance sedimentation studies, since it is impossible
to perform enough physical experimentation aiming at gen-
eralization of the results regarding possible reservoir geome-
tries. Hybrid physical/numerical experimentation may be a
solution.
Accumulated field data on existing reservoirs, where var-
ious flow circulation patterns exist, should also be foreseen.
Lagrangian tracers with neutral buoyancy can be used to recon-
stitute the flow circulation pattern in reservoirs. Neutrally
buoyant tracers or drifters equipped with technologies such as
active (Habersack, 2001) or passive (Lamarre, MacVicar, &
Roy, 2005) radio transmitter tags, or smart pebbles (Maniatis,
Hoey, & Sventek, 2013), may be used. Tracers with different
buoyancy, corresponding to the range of possible buoyancies in
the reservoir, may be used to follow the stratified flow at differ-
ent depths. Reservoir bathymetry data should complement the
hydrodynamic analysis for cross analysis of the morphological
response of the reservoir to flow patterns.
Research is necessary on the construction of artificial topog-
raphy elements inside the reservoir, such as submerged check
dams and groynes, for the creation of preferential pathways
between the intake and the outtake to modify the flow circu-
lation pathways in order to prevent sedimentation and enhance
the effectiveness of some mitigation tools. The implementa-
tion of sediment diversion techniques, such as the creation of
bypass structures (Boes, Auel, Hagmann, & Albayrak, 2014),
is dependent on the flow circulation in reservoirs. Furthermore,
the use of jet-based techniques to remove sediments from the
reservoir and to keep fine sediments in suspension upstream of
dam intakes (Jenzer-Althaus et al., 2014; Jenzer-Althaus, De
Cesare, & Schleiss, 2016) seems promising.
When bypassing sediment through a dam, ecological restric-
tions should be taken into account. Fast currents originated by
flushing or sluicing operations can cause mechanical damage
to vegetation (broken stems or broken roots) and also increase
the sediment re-suspension in sparsely vegetated and shallow
areas, which further reduces the light available for the sub-
aqueous vegetation and contributes to the formation of turbidity
flows. It is thus important to assess the impact of sedimentation
control operations on the vegetation in the reservoir. In deep
reservoirs there is generally no (or little) vegetation, especially if
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
the reservoirs are subjected to seasonal storage with high yearly
variation of level.
8 Conclusions
The main relevant issues regarding reservoir sedimentation have
been highlighted and discussed. Several key messages were
given which address researchers, practitioners, legislators, pol-
icy makers, funding agencies and outreach and educational
promoters dealing with the problem of reservoir sedimentation.
The design and layout of reservoirs and dams have to con-
sider reservoir sedimentation from the very early planning
phases. A new paradigm of the so-called sediment permeable
dams is needed, with benefits also to the sediment continuity of
valleys downstream, which is important for maintaining river
morphology and ecology. Construction of new reservoirs with-
out the implementation of efficient sediment management strate-
gies to ensure the sustainability of the storage should not be
permitted. This should be reinforced by appropriate regulation
and policies.
Public awareness of the problem of reservoir sedimentation
and its relation to reservoir sustainability should be increased
by more appropriate knowledge transfer from researchers to
entities intervening on the topic and to the general public.
The sustainability of reservoirs, regarding the effects of
reservoir sedimentation, should be considered in the economic
analysis of new dams and reservoirs.
The effect of global warming and climate change on the
sustainability of reservoirs needs assessment as well as the
role of the reservoirs in the carbon cycle. In many regions
reservoirs will become vital infrastructures for climate change
adaptation.
Finally, there is a need for a worldwide database on surface
erosion and soil loss in catchments in general, and reservoir sed-
imentation in particular. Data have been compiled and organized
by many different sources since the 1950s, or even before. A
transnational organization should concentrate this information,
in order to make publicly available this essential resource for
engineers and researchers developing techniques for reducing
reservoir sedimentation.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Vladimir Nikora for the invitation
to write this vision paper. The authors also thank the colleagues
who contributed the photographs included in this paper: Flavio
Anselmetti, Alain Broccard, Hervé Capart, Soleyman Emami,
Stefan Haun and Kees Sloff. The authors are thankful to Michael
Pfister for his revision of the text.
Funding
Carmelo Juez is funded by the ITN-Programme (Marie
Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
Programme FP7-PEOPLE-2013-ITN under REA grant agree-
ment [number 607394-SEDITRANS].
ORCiD
Anton J. Schleiss http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1559-5740
Giovanni De Cesare http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1117-3180
References
Ackerman, K., Mixon, D., Sundquist, E., Stallard, R., Schwarz,
G., & Stewart, D. (2009). RESIS-II: An updated version of the
original reservoir sedimentation survey information system
(resis) database. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.
Akiyama, J., & Stefan, H. (1984). Turbidity current with erosion
and deposition. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 111(12),
1473–1496.
Aksoy, H., & Kavvas, M. L. (2005). A review of hillslope
and watershed scale erosion and sediment transport model.
Catena, 64(2–3), 247–271.
Alam, S. (1999). The influence and management of sediment at
hydro projects. Hydropower and Dams, 3, 54–57.
Alemu, M. M. (2016). Integrated watershed management and
sedimentation. Journal of Environmental Protection, 7(4),
490–494
Annandale, G. (1984). Predicting the distribution of deposited
sediment in Southern African reservoirs. Challenges in
African Hydrology and Water Resources. IAHS Publication,
144, 549–558.
Annandale, G. (2013). Quenching the thirst-sustainable water
supply and climate change. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.
Annandale, G. (2014). Sustainable water supply, climate change
and reservoir sedimentation management: Technical and
economical viability. In A. J. Schleiss, G. De Cesare,
M. J. Franca, & M. Pfister (Eds.), Proceedings of River Flow
2014, Special Session on Reservoir Sedimentation (pp. 3–10).
Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema.
Barros, N., Cole, J. J., Tranvik, L. J., Prairie, Y. T., Bastviken,
D., Huszar, V. L. M., ... Roland, F. (2011). Carbon emis-
sion from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and
latitude. Nature Geoscience, 4(9), 593–596.
Basson, G. R. (2009). Management of siltation in existing and
new reservoirs. General Report Q. 89. Proc. of the 23rd
Congress of the Int. Commission on Large Dams CIGB-
ICOLD (vol. 2).
Bates, B. M., Andreini, N., & Ancey, C. (2016). Basal entrain-
ment by Newtonian gravity-driven flows. Physics of Fluids
(1994-present), 28(5), 053101.
Bathia, R. (2008). Indirect economic impacts of dams: Case
studies from India, Egypt and Brazil. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
Batuca, G., & Jordaan, M. J. (2000). Silting and desilting of
reservoirs. Rotterdam, NL: Balkema.
Reservoir sedimentation 609
Beck, C., Lutz, N., Lais, A., Vetsch, D., & Boes, R. (2016).
Patrind Hydropower Project, Pakistan – Physical model
investigations on the optimization of the sediment manage-
ment concept. In Hydro 2016. Montreux.
Bell, H. S. (1942). Studies for students: Density currents as
agents for transporting sediments. The Journal of Geology,
50, 512–547.
Beyer, N., & Schleiss, A. J. (2000). Bodenerosion in alpinen
Einzugsgebieten in der Schweiz (vol. 90, p. 3).
Beyer Portner, N., & Schleiss, A. J. (2003). Discussion of
“Modeling Two-Dimensional Erosion Process over Infiltrat-
ing Surfaces” by Gokmen Tayfur. Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering, 8(1), 41–42.
Birkett, C. M. (1998). Contribution of the TOPEX
NASA radar altimeter to the global monitoring of large
rivers and wetlands. Water Resources Research, 34(5),
1223–1239.
Boes, R., Auel, C., Hagmann, M., & Albayrak, I. (2014). Sed-
iment bypass tunnels to mitigate reservoir sedimentation and
restore sediment continuity. In A. J. Schleiss, G. de Cesare,
M. J. Franca, & M. Pfister (Eds.), Reservoir sedimentation
(pp. 221–228). London: Taylor & Francis.
Borland, W. M., & Miller, C. R. (1958). Distribution of sediment
in large reservoirs. Journal of the Hydraulic Division, 84,
1–18.
Brandt, A. (2000). A review of reservoir desiltation. Interna-
tional Journal of Sediment Research, 15(3), 321–342.
Bronstert, A., de Araújo, J.-C., Batalla, R. J., Costa, A. C.,
Delgado, J. M., Francke, T., ... Vericat, D. (2014). Process-
based modelling of erosion, sediment transport and reservoir
siltation in mesoscale semi-arid catchments. Journal of Soils
and Sediments, 14(12), 2001–2018.
Bühler, J., Oehy, C., & Schleiss, A. J. (2012). Jets opposing tur-
bidity currents and open channel flows. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 139(1), 55–59.
Burt, T., & Allison, R. (2010). Sediment cascades: An integrated
approach. Chichester: John Wiley.
Camnasio, E., Orsi, E., & Schleiss, A. J. (2011). Experimen-
tal study of velocity fields in rectangular shallow reservoirs.
Journal of Hydraulic Research, 49(3), 352–358.
Cao, R. (1992). Experimental study on density current with
hyperconcentration of sediment. International Journal of
Sediment Research, 8(1), 51–67.
Castillo, L. G., Carillo, J. M., & Álvarez, M. A. (2015). Com-
plementary methods for determining the sedimentation and
flushing in a reservoir. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
141(11), 05015004.
Chamoun, S., De Cesare, G., & Schleiss, A. J. (2016). Managing
reservoir sedimentation by venting turbidity currents:
A review. International Journal of Sediment Research,
in press.
Chanudet, V., Descloux, S., Harby, A., Sundt, H., Hansen, B.
H., Brakstad, O., ... Guerin, F. (2011). Gross CO2 and CH4
emissions from the Nam Ngum and Nam Leuk sub-tropical
610 A.J. Schleiss et al.
reservoirs in Lao PDR. Science of the Total Environment,
409(24), 5382–5391.
Chitata, T., Mugabe, F. T., & Kashaigili, J. J. (2014). Estima-
tion of small reservoir sedimentation in semi-arid southern
zimbabwe. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 6,
1017–1028.
Chung, S. W., Hipsey, M. R., & Imberger, J. (2009). Modelling
the propagation of turbid density inflows into a stratified lake:
Daecheong reservoir, korea. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 24(12), 1467–1482.
Dallimore, C. J., Imberger, J., & Ishikawa, T. (2001). Entrain-
ment and turbulence in saline underflow in lake Ogawara.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 127(11), 937–948.
Dean, W. E., & Gorham, E. (1998). Magnitude and significance
of carbon burial in lakes, reservoirs, and peatlands. Geology,
26(6), 535–538.
De Cesare, G., & Lafitte, R. (2007). Outline of the historical
development regarding reservoir sedimentation. 32nd IAHR
Congress, Venice.
De Cesare, G., Schleiss, A., & Hermann, F. (2001). Impact
of turbidity currents on reservoir sedimentation. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 127(1), 6–16.
Dietrich, W. E., Kirchner, J. W., Ikeda, H., & Iseya, F. (1989).
Sediment supply and the development of the coarse surface
layer in gravel-bedded rivers. Nature, 340(6230), 215–217.
Di Piazza, G. V., Di Stefano, C., & Ferro, V. (2007). Mod-
elling the effects of a bushfire on erosion in a Mediterranean
basin/Modélisation des impacts d’un incendie sur l’érosion
dans un bassin Méditerranéen. Hydrological Sciences Jour-
nal/Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques, 52(6), 1253–1270.
Di Silvio, G. (2001). Basic classification of reservoirs accord-
ing to relevant sedimentation processes. Proc., 29th IAHR
Congress, Beijing (vol. 3, pp. 285–293).
Faghihirad, S., Lin, B., & Falconer, R. A. (2015). Application of
a 3D layer integrated numerical model of flow and sediment
transport processes to a reservoir. Water, 7(10), 5239–5257.
Fan, J., & Morris, G. L. (1992a). Reservoir sedimentation I:
Delta and density current deposits. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 118(3), 354–369.
Fan, J., & Morris, G. L. (1992b). Reservoir sedimentation II:
Reservoir desiltation and long-term storage capacity. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 118(3), 370–384.
FAO. (2015). Fact sheet: Soil is a non-renewable resource.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Ferrer-Boix, C., Martín-Vide, J. P., & Parker, G. (2015). Sorting
of a sand–gravel mixture in a Gilbert-type delta. Sedimentol-
ogy, 62(5), 1446–1465.
Ferro, V., & Porto, P. (2000). Sediment delivery distributed
(SEDD) model. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 5(4),
411–422.
Field, C., Barros, V., Dokken, D., Mach, K., Mastrandrea, M.,
Bilir, T., ... White, L. (2014). Ipcc, 2014: Climate change
2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
and sectoral aspects. contribution of working group ii to
the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change.
Forel, F. A. (1892). Le léman: Monographie limnologique (vol.
1). Lausanne: F. Rouge.
Fournier, F. (1960). Climat et érosion: la relation entre l’érosion
du sol par l’eau et les précipitations atmosphériques. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France.
Fox, G. A., Sheshukov, A., Cruse, R., Kolar, R. L., Guer-
tault, L., Gesch, K. R., & Dutnell, R. C. (2016). Reservoir
sedimentation and upstream sediment sources: Perspectives
and future research needs on streambank and gully erosion.
Environmental Management, 57, 1–11.
Fryirs, K. (2013). (Dis) Connectivity in catchment sediment cas-
cades: A fresh look at the sediment delivery problem. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms, 38(1), 30–46.
García, M. H. et al. (2008). Sedimentation engineering. Pro-
cesses, Measurements, Modeling, and Practice. ASCE Man-
uals and Reports on Engineering Practice (vol. 110).
García, M., & Parker, G. (1993). Experiments on the entrain-
ment of sediment into suspension by a dense bottom current.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 98(C3), 4793–
4807.
Gavrilovic, S. (1962). Proracim srednje goclisnje kolicine
nanosa prema potencijalu erozije. Belgrade: Jaroslav Cemi
Institute.
Graf, W. H. (1984). Storage losses in reservoirs. Water Power &
Dam Construction, 35(9), 33–38.
Graf, W. H., & Altinakar, M. S. (1998). Fluvial hydraulics. West
Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Grant, G., Schmidt, J. C., & Lewis, S. (2005). A geological
framework for interpreting downstream effects of dams on
rivers. Water Science and Application, 7, 209–225.
Habersack, H. M. (2001). Radio-tracking gravel particles in
a large braided river in New Zealand: A field test of the
stochastic theory of bed load transport proposed by Einstein.
Hydrological Processes, 15(3), 377–391.
Halcrow Water. (2001). Department of the Environment, Trans-
port and the Regions. Sedimentation in storage reser-
voirs. Final report. Swindon: Halcrow Group Ltd. http://
www.britishdams.org/reservoir_safety/defra-reports/200102
Sedimentation%20in%20storage%20reservoirs.pdf
Hargrove, W. L., Johnson, D., Snethen, D., & Middendorf, J.
(2010). From dust bowl to mud bowl: Sedimentation, conser-
vation measures, and the future of reservoirs. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, 65(1), 14A–17A.
Harrison, A., & Mellema, W. (1982). Sedimentation aspects of
the Missouri River Dams. ICOLD 14th Congress, Rio de
Janeiro.
Hauenstein, W., & Dracos, T. (1984). Investigation of plung-
ing density currents generated by inflows in lakes. Journal of
Hydraulic Research, 22, 157–179.
Haun, S., Kjærås, H., Løvfall, S., & Olsen, N. R. B. (2013).
Three-dimensional measurements and numerical modelling
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
of suspended sediments in a hydropower reservoir. Journal
of Hydrology, 479, 180–188.
Haun, S., & Lizano, L. (2016). Evaluation of a density current
from ADCP backscatter data and LISST measurements. In
River flow 2016, St Louis, USA, July.
Hebbert, B., Imberger, J., Loh, I., & Patterson, J. (1979). Col-
lie River underflow into the Wellington Reservoir. Journal of
Hydraulics Division, 105(5), 533–545.
Hilbe, M., Anselmetti, F. S., Eilertsen, R. S., Hansen, L., &
Wildi, W. (2011). Subaqueous morphology of Lake Lucerne
(Central Switzerland): Implications for mass movements
and glacial history. Swiss Journal of Geosciences, 104(3),
425–443.
IAHR. (2015). Hydrolink: SPH (Smoothed Particle
Hydrodynamics) in hydraulics, 3/2015.
ICOLD. (1989). Sedimentation control of reservoirs - Guide-
lines. International Comittee on Large Dams, Bulletin 67.
ICOLD. (2012). Sedimentation and sustainable use of reservoirs
and river systems. International Comittee on Large Dams,
Bulletin 147.
Imran, J., Parker, G., Locat, J., & Lee, H. (2001). 1D numeri-
cal model of muddy subaqueous and subaerial debris flows.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 127(11), 959–968.
Jain, S. K., Singh, P., & Seth, S. M. (2002). Assessment of
sedimentation in Bhakra Reservoir in the western Himalayan
region using remotely sensed data. Hydrological Sciences
Journal, 47(2), 203–212.
Jansson, M. B., & Rodríguez, A. (1992). Sedimentological stud-
ies in the cachí reservoir, Costa Rica: Sediment inflow, reser-
voir sedimentation, and effects of flushing (vol. 81). Uppsala:
Uppsala University, Dept. of Physical Geography.
Jenzer-Althaus, J., & De Cesare, G. (2006). Alpreserv: Sus-
tainable sediment management in alpine reservoirs consid-
ering ecological and economical aspects. Zurich: Inst. für
Wasserwesen Neubiberg.
Jenzer-Althaus, J. M. I., De Cesare, G., & Schleiss, A. J. (2015).
Sediment evacuation from reservoirs through intakes by jet-
induced flow. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 141(2),
04014078
Jenzer-Althaus, J. M. I., De Cesare, G., & Schleiss, A. J. (2016).
Release of suspension particles from a prismatic tank by mul-
tiple jet arrangements. Chemical Engineering Science, 144,
153–164.
Jiahua, F. (1986). Turbid density currents in reservoirs. Water
International, 11(3), 107–116.
Juez, C., Battisacco, E., Schleiss, A. J., & Franca, M. J. (2016).
Assessment of the performance of numerical modeling in
reproducing a replenishment of sediments in a water-worked
channel. Advances in Water Resources, 92, 10–22.
Juez, C., Lacasta, A., Murillo, J., & García-Navarro, P.
(2016). An efficient GPU implementation for a faster sim-
ulation of unsteady bed-load transport. Journal of Hydraulic
Research, 54(3), 275–288. doi:10.1080/00221686.2016.
1143042
Reservoir sedimentation 611
Juracek, K. E. (2015). The aging of America’s reservoirs: In-
reservoir and downstream physical changes and habitat impli-
cations. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 51(1), 168–184.
Kantoush, S. A., Bollaert, E., & Schleiss, A. J. (2008). Experi-
mental and numerical modelling of sedimentation in a rect-
angular shallow basin. International Journal of Sediment
Research, 23(3), 212–232.
Kantoush, S. A., De Cesare, G., Boillat, J.-L., & Schleiss,
A. J. (2008). Flow field investigation in a rectangu-
lar shallow reservoir using UVP, LSPIV and numerical
modelling. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 19(3),
139–144.
Kantoush, S. A., & Schleiss, A. J. (2009). Channel forma-
tion during flushing of large shallow reservoirs with different
geometries. Environmental Technology, 30(8), 855–863.
Kemp, P., Sear, D., Collins, A., Naden, P., & Jones, I. (2011).
The impacts of fine sediment on riverine fish. Hydrological
Processes, 25(11), 1800–1821.
Kneller, B., & Buckee, C. (2000). The structure and fluid
mechanics of turbidity currents: A review of some recent
studies and their geological implications. Sedimentology,
47(s1), 62–94.
Knoblauch, H., Hartmann, S., & De Cesare, G. (2005). Sedi-
mentmanagement an alpinen Speichern Das EU-INTERREG
IIIB Projekt ALPRESERV. Österreichische Wasser-und
Abfallwirtschaft, 57(11–12), 185–190.
Kondolf, G. M. (1997). PROFILE: Hungry water: Effects of
dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environmental
Management, 21(4), 533–551.
Kondolf, G. M., Gao, Y., Annandale, G. W., Morris, G. L., Jiang,
E., Zhang, J., ... Yang, C. T. (2014). Sustainable sediment
management in reservoirs and regulated rivers: Experiences
from five continents. Earth’s Future, 2(5), 256–280.
Kostaschuk, R., Best, J., Villard, P., Peakall, J., & Franklin, M.
(2005). Measuring flow velocity and sediment transport with
an acoustic doppler current profiler. Geomorphology, 68(1),
25–37.
Kostic, S., & Parker, G. (2003). Progradational sand-mud deltas
in lakes and reservoirs. Part 1. Theory and numerical model-
ing. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 41(2), 127–140.
Kuenen, P. (1951). Properties of turbidity currents of high den-
sity. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists
Special Publication, 2, 14–33.
Kwadijk, J., & Middelkoop, H. (1994). Estimation of impact of
climate change on the peak discharge probability of the river
rhine. Climatic Change, 27(2), 199–224.
Lai, S. Y., & Capart, H. (2009). Reservoir infill by hyper-
pycnal deltas over bedrock. Geophysical Research Letters,
36(8).
Lamarre, H., MacVicar, B., & Roy, A. G. (2005). Using passive
integrated transponder (pit) tags to investigate sediment trans-
port in gravel-bed rivers. Journal of Sedimentary Research,
75(4), 736–741.
612 A.J. Schleiss et al.
Langendoen, E. J., Mendoza, A., Abad, J. D., Tassi, P.,
Wang, D., Ata, R., ... Hervouet, J.-M. (2015). Improved
numerical modeling of morphodynamics of rivers with steep
banks. Advances in Water Resources, 93, 4–14.
Lee, F.-Z., Lai, J.-S., Tan, Y.-C., & Sung, C.-C. (2014). Tur-
bid density current venting through reservoir outlets. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(2), 694–705.
Lenzi, M., Picco, L., & Moretto, J. (2015). Sediment manage-
ment (Tech. Rep.). Report of the Work Package 7 of the
SedAlp project: Sediment management in Alpine basins: Inte-
grating sediment continuum, risk mitigation and hydropower
(European Territorial Cooperation Alpine Space 2007–2013).
(185 p.)
Loucks, D., & Van Beek, E. (2005). Water resources sys-
tems planning and management: An introduction to methods,
models and applications. Paris: UNESCO.
Maeck, A., Del Sontro, T., McGinnis, D. F., Fischer, H., Flury,
S., Schmidt, M., ... Lorke, A. (2013). Sediment trapping by
dams creates methane emission hot spots. Environmental
Science & Technology, 47(15), 8130–8137.
Mahmood, K. (1987). Reservoir sedimentation: Impact, extent,
and mitigation (Tech. Rep. No. 5). International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC, USA.
Maniatis, G., Hoey, T., & Sventek, J. (2013). Sensor enclosures:
Example application and implications for data coherence.
Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 2(4), 761–779
Matyas, E. L., & Rothenburg, L. (1986). Characteristics of sed-
iment profiles in reservoirs. Journal of Hydrology, 87(1-2),
33–44.
McCoy, K., Krasko, V., Santi, P., Kaffine, D., & Rebennack, S.
(2016). Minimizing economic impacts from post-fire debris
flows in the western united states. Natural Hazards, 83,
149–176.
McCully, P. (2001). Silenced rivers: The politics and ecology of
large dams. London: Zed Books.
Medeiros, P. H. A., Güntner, A., Francke, T., Mamede, G. L., &
Carlos de Araújo, J. (2010). Modelling spatio-temporal pat-
terns of sediment yield and connectivity in a semi-arid catch-
ment with the WASA-SED model. Hydrological Sciences
Journal, 55(4), 636–648.
Meiburg, E., & Kneller, B. (2010). Turbidity currents and their
deposits. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 42, 135–156.
Mendonça, R., Kosten, S., Sobek, S., Barros, N., Cole, J.
J., Tranvik, L., & Roland, F. (2012). Hydroelectric carbon
sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 5(12), 838–840.
Merritt, W. S., Letcher, R. A., & Jakeman, A. J. (2003). A review
of erosion and sediment transport models. Environmental
Modelling and Software, 18(8), 761–799.
Merz, J. E., Pasternackc, G. B., & Wheaton, J. M. (2006). Sed-
iment budget for salmonid spawning habitat rehabilitation in
a regulated river. Geomorphology, 76(1–2), 207–228.
Middleton, G. V. (1993). Sediment deposition from turbidity
currents. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 21,
89–114.
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
Morgan, R. (2009). Soil erosion and conservation. Oxford: John
Wiley.
Morris, G. L. (2014). Sediment management and sustainable
use of reservoirs. In Modern water resources engineering
(pp. 279–337). Springer.
Morris, G. L., & Fan, J. (1998). Reservoir sedimentation hand-
book. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mulder, T., & Alexander, J. (2001). The physical character
of subaqueous sedimentary density flows and their deposits.
Sedimentology, 48(2), 269–299.
Müller, M., De Cesare, G., & Schleiss, A. J. (2014).
Continuous long-term observation of suspended sediment
transport between two pumped-storage reservoirs. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 140(5), 05014003.
Murillo, J., & García-Navarro, P. (2010). An Exner-based cou-
pled model for two-dimensional transient flow over erodible
bed. Journal of Computational Physics, 229, 8704–8732.
Narasayya, K. (2013). Assessment of reservoir sedimentation
using remote sensing satellite imageries. Asian Journal of
Geoinformatics, 12(4).
Nemec, W. (1990). Aspects of sediment movement on steep
delta slopes. Coarse-grained Deltas, 10, 29–73.
Nepf, H. M. (2012). Hydrodynamics of vegetated channels.
Journal of Hydraulic Research, 50(3), 262–279.
Nogueira, H. I. S., Adduce, C., Alves, E., & Franca, M. J.
(2013). Analysis of lock-exchange gravity currents over
smooth and rough beds. Journal of Hydraulic research, 51(4),
417–431.
Oehy, C. (2003). Effects of obstacles and jets on reservoir
sedimentation due to turbidity currents. Ed. A. J. Schleiss,
EPFL-Lausanne.
Oehy, C. D., De Cesare, G., & Schleiss, A. J. (2010). Effect of
inclined jet screen on turbidity current. Journal of Hydraulic
Research, 48(1), 81–90.
Oehy, C. D., & Schleiss, A. J. (2007). Control of turbidity cur-
rents in reservoirs by solid and permeable obstacles. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 133(6), 637–648.
Ojima, D., Steiner, J., McNeeley, S., Cozzetto, K., & Chil-
dress, A. (2015). Great plains regional technical input report.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Olsen, N. R. B. (1999). Two-dimensional numerical mod-
elling of flushing processes in water reservoirs. Journal of
Hydraulic Research, 37(1), 3–16.
Owens, P. (2005). Conceptual models and budgets for sediment
management at the river basin scale. Journal of Soils and
Sediments, 5, 201–212.
Palmieri, A., Shah, F., & Dinar, A. (2001). Economics of reser-
voir sedimentation and sustainable management of dams.
Journal of Environmental Management, 61, 149–163.
Pan, F., Liao, J., Li, X., & Guo, H. (2013). Application of
the inundation area—lake level rating curves constructed
from the SRTM DEM to retrieving lake levels from satellite
measured inundation areas. Computers & Geosciences, 52,
168–176.
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
Parker, G., Fukushima, Y., & Pantin, H. M. (1986). Self-
accelerating turbidity currents. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
171, 145–181.
Parker, G., Garcia, M., Fukushima, Y., & Yu, W. (1987). Exper-
iments on turbidity currents over an erodible bed. Journal of
Hydraulic Research, 25(1), 123–147.
Petts, G. E., & Gurnell, A. M. (2005). Dams and geomorphol-
ogy: Research progress and future directions. Geomorphol-
ogy, 71(1-2), 27–47.
Power, M. E., Dietrich, W. E., & Finlay, J. C. (1996). Dams
and downstream aquatic biodiversity: Potential food web
consequences of hydrologic and geomorphic change. Envi-
ronmental Management, 20(6), 887–895.
Rahmanian, M. R., & Banihashemi, M. A. (2012). Characteriza-
tion of sedimentation pattern in reservoirs. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, 39(8), 951–956.
Rebetez, M., Lugon, R., & Baeriswyl, P. A. (1997). Climatic
change and debris flows in high mountain regions: The
case study of the Ritigraben torrent (Swiss Alps). Climatic
Change, 36(3–4), 371–389.
Sankey, J. (2015). Predicting future, post-fire erosion and
sedimentation for watersheds of the western usa. In The
geological society of America annual meeting, Baltimore,
USA, November.
Schleiss, A. J., & De Cesare, G. (2010). Physical model
experiments on reservoir sedimentation. IAHR Hydrolink, 4,
54–57.
Schleiss, A. J., De Cesare, G., Franca, M. J., & Pfister, M. (eds.).
(2014). Reservoir sedimentation. London: Taylor & Francis
Group.
Schleiss, A. J., & Oehy, C. (2002). Verlandung von Stauseen
und Nachhaltigkeit. Wasser, Energie Luft – Eau Energie Air,
94(7–8), 227–234.
SedNet (2004). Contaminated sediments in European river
basins. Den Hague: SedNet: European Sediment Research
Network.
Seleshi, Y. (2015). Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and Nile
river management. IAHR Hydrolink 4, 114–115.
Sequeiros, O. E., Spinewine, B., Beaubouef, R. T., Sun, T.,
García, M. H., & Parker, G. (2010). Characteristics of veloc-
ity and excess density profiles of saline underflows and
turbidity currents flowing over a mobile bed. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 136(7), 412–433.
Simpson, J. E. (1999). Gravity currents: In the environ-
ment and the laboratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Singh, B., & Shah, C. R. (1971). Plunging phenomenon of
density currents in reservoirs. La Houille Blanche, 26(1),
59–64.
Sloff, C. (1991). Reservoir sedimentation; A literature survey.
Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Sloff, C. (1997). Sedimentation in reservoirs. Delft University
of Technology.
Smith, N. (1971). A history of dams. Oxford: The Citadel Press.
Reservoir sedimentation 613
Solow, R. M. (1974). The economics of resources or the
resources of economics. In Classic papers in natural resource
economics (pp. 257–276). Springer.
Stoffel, M., Bollschweiler, M., & Beniston, M. (2011). Rain-
fall characteristics for periglacial debris flows in the Swiss
Alps: Past incidences–potential future evolutions. Climatic
Change, 105(1–2), 263–280.
Stromquist, L., Lundén, B., & Chakela, Q. (1985). Sediment
sources, sediment transfer in a small Lesotho catchment—
a pilot study of the spatial distribution of erosion features
and their variation with time and climate. South African
Geographical Journal, 67(1), 3–13.
Sumi, T., & Hirose, T. (2009). Accumulation of sediment in
reservoirs. Water storage, transport and distribution (pp.
224–252). Paris, France: UNESCO-IHE and EOLSS Publish-
ers Co. Ltd.
Sumi, T., & Kantoush, S. (2011). Sediment management strate-
gies for sustainable reservoirs. In Schleiss & Boes (Eds.)
(Ed), Xx icold annual meeting, dams and reservoirs under
changing challenges (pp. 353–362).
Sundborg, Å. (1992). Lake and reservoir sedimentation pre-
diction and interpretation. Geografiska Annaler. Series A.
Physical Geography (pp. 93–100).
Syvitski, J. P., & Milliman, J. D. (2007). Geology, geogra-
phy, and humans battle for dominance over the delivery of
fluvialsediment to the coastal ocean. The Journal of Geology,
115(1), 1–19.
Tarela, P. A., & Menéndez, A. N. (1999). A model to pre-
dict reservoir sedimentation. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research &
Management, 4(3–4), 121–133.
Theiler, Q., & Franca, M. J. (2016). Contained density currents
with high volume of release. Sedimentology.
Tokyay, T., Constantinescu, G., & Meiburg, E. (2011). Lock-
exchange gravity currents with a high volume of release
propagating over a periodic array of obstacles. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, 672, 570–605.
UNEP. (2007). Adaptation to climate change key chal-
lenge for Artic people and Artic economy: Thawing per-
mafrost, melting sea ice and significant changes in natural
resources demand comprehensive sustainable development
plan. United Nations Environment Programme.
UNESCO. (1985). Methods of computing sedimentation in
lakes and reservoirs. Programme hydrologique international,
UNESCO.
Vargas-Luna, A., Crosato, A., & Uijttewaal, W. S. J. (2015,
Feb). Effects of vegetation on flow and sediment transport:
Comparative analyses and validation of predicting models.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 40(2), 157–176.
Verstraeten, G. (2006). Regional scale modelling of hill-
slope sediment delivery with SRTM elevation data.
Geomorphology, 81(1), 128–140.
WCD. (2000). The report of the world commission on dams.
London: World Commission on Dams/Earthscan Publica-
tions.
614 A.J. Schleiss et al.
Williams, G. P., & Wolman, M. G. (1984). Downstream effects
of dams on alluvial rivers. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office.
Williams, J., & Smith, C. (2008). Economic issues of watershed
protection and reservoir rehabilitation. In Sedimentation in
our reservoirs: Causes and solutions, kansas state university
agricultural experiment station and cooperative extension
service (pp. 71–101).
Wischmeier, W. H. (1959). A rainfall erosion index for a uni-
versal soil-loss equation. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 23(3), 246–249.
Wren, D., Rigby, J., Davidson, G., & Locke, M. (2016).
Determination of lake sediment accumulation rates in an
View publication stats
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 54, No. 6 (2016)
agricultural watershed using lead-210 and cesium-137. Jour-
nal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(2), 137–147.
Xia, J., Li, T., Wang, Z., Zhang, J., & Deng, S. (2016).
Improved criterion for plunge of reservoir turbidity currents.
In Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers-water
management (pp. 1–11).
Yasarer, L. M., & Sturm, B. S. (2016). Potential impacts
of climate change on reservoir services and management
approaches. Lake and Reservoir Management, 32(1), 13–26.
Yilmaz, N. A., Testik, F. Y., & Chowdhury, M. R. (2014).
Laminar bottom gravity currents: Friction factor–Reynolds
number relationship. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 52(4),
545–558.