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

net/publication/257774473

A new equation for calculation of reservoir’s area-capacity curves

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · July 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-013-0230-3

CITATIONS READS

11 1,108

3 authors, including:

K. Kaveh h. Hosseinjanzadeh
Technische Universität München Semnan University
8 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Artificial intelligence, Telemac, Sediment transport View project

All content following this page was uploaded by h. Hosseinjanzadeh on 26 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2013) 17(5):1149-1156 Water Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s12205-013-0230-3
www.springer.com/12205

A New Equation for Calculation of Reservoir's Area-Capacity Curves

K. Kaveh*, H. Hosseinjanzadeh**, and K. Hosseini***
Received August 28, 2011/Revised March 23, 2012/Accepted September 27, 2012

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

One of the most valuable physical characteristics of dams and their reservoirs are area-capacity curves. The main objective of this
paper is to substitute the reservoir capacity equation by a more precise dimensionless capacity equation which has fewer unknown
parameters and coefficients. This proposed equation has only one unknown dimensionless parameter named “reservoir coefficient” N
which should be obtained for each reservoir. The reservoir coefficient equation and reservoir area equation are obtained by
differentiating the proposed reservoir capacity equation. The numerical values for N are obtained by using a trial and error procedure
to minimize the Sum of Squared Errors (SSEs) of reservoir area and capacity equations and analytical values of N are obtained by
deriving reservoir coefficient equation. Also, the results of the new proposed equation and the previous equation are evaluated and
compared with each other for 20 reservoirs. In this study, it is concluded that the new proposed equation is more precise and much
easier to solve in comparison with the previous one.
Keywords: dam reservoirs, area-capacity curves, reservoir coefficient, shape factor
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction coefficients can be obtained by using the computer program,

Dams are structural barriers built to control the flow of water in
rivers and streams. They are designed to serve two broad functions.
The first is to store water to compensate for fluctuations in river
discharge. The second is to increase the hydraulic head or the
difference in height between water levels in upstream of the dam
and downstream of river. One of the most valuable physical
characteristics of dams and their reservoirs are area-capacity
curves. Area-capacity curves which are necessary for defining
the storage capacity of reservoirs can be obtained by
planimetering the area enclosed within each contour line in the
reservoir area. As well as this, area-capacity curves can be used
for other purposes such as reservoir operation, reservoir flood
routing, determination of capacity corresponding to each
elevation, reservoir classification (Borland and Miller, 1958),
and reservoir sediment distribution (Borland and Miller, 1958,
1971; Strand and Pemberton 1982; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
1987). According to the analysis of Borland and Miller (1985)
on the data of 30 reservoirs in the United States, the basic types
of reservoirs were classified based on a shape factor M. To obtain
the shape factor, the reservoir depth as the ordinate against
reservoir capacity should be plotted on log-log axes. The
reciprocal of the slope of line is defined as shape factor M
(Borland and Miller, 1958).
The reservoir capacity equation is usually a parabolic function
of depth. Its general form has three coefficients. Although these
ACAP, used by USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1985), this
paper aims to propose a new more accurate equation with fewer
coefficients in a dimensionless form. The proposed equation has
only one dimensionless parameter named “reservoir coefficient”
N which should be obtained for each reservoir. The numerical
values of N are obtained by using the least squared method and
analytical values of N are obtained by using the derived reservoir
coefficient equation. Mohammadzadeh-Habili et al. (2009) derived
a mathematical logarithmic equation for a reservoir's dimensionless
capacity curve (previous equation). Furthermore, in this paper,
the results of the new proposed equation and the previous
equation for 20 reservoirs are evaluated and compared with each
other.
2. Developed Equation
The general form of capacity equation is usually expressed as
follows:
2
Vy = k + my + ny (1)
Where Vy is the reservoir capacity at depth y, and y is the water
depth above the stream bed, and k, m, and n are coefficients,
respectively.
According to the general form of capacity equation (Eq. (1)),
the dimensionless form of capacity equation can be defined as
follows:

*Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Semnan, Semnan 35196-45399, Iran (Corresponding Author, E-mail: keyvan.kaveh85@gmail.com)
**Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Semnan, Semnan 35196-45399, Iran (E-mail: hossein_hj@ymail.com)
***Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Semnan, Semnan 35196-45399, Iran (E-mail: khhosseyni@yahoo.com)

− 1149 −
 K. Kaveh, H. Hosseinjanzadeh, and K. Hosseini

V y 2
-----y- = k′ + m′⎛ -----⎞ + n′⎛ -----⎞
y
(2)
Vm ⎝ ym⎠ ⎝ ym⎠
Where Vm and ym are reservoir capacity at maximum pool level
and maximum water depth, and k', m', and n' are coefficients,
respectively.
It is supposed that the second term of dimensionless capacity
equation is ignored. The influence of the removed term will be
considered by adding a coefficient later. Therefore Eq. (2) is
simplified as follows:
V y 2
-----y- = k′ + n′⎛ -----⎞ (3)
Vm ⎝ ym⎠
y
By considering the relative depth y----- as p and relative volume
Vy m Fig.1. Dimensionless Capacity Curve for Different Values of N as
------ as v, Eq. (3) is simplified as follows:
Vm Defined by Eq. (7)
2
v = k′ + n′p (4)
Simplifying Eq. (4) gives reservoir's dimensionless capacity
Differentiating the equation for Vy respect to y gives the
equation as follows:
reservoir area equation as follows:
p = cv + d (5) 2-
---
1 –k′ 2V y N
Where, c = ---- , and d = ------- . Boundary conditions that should Ay = --------m- ⎛ -----⎞ (10)
n′ n′ Ny ⎝ ym⎠
be satisfied for the reservoir's dimensionless capacity equation
are as follows:
Where Ay is reservoir surface area at depth y. By substituting y
BC1: p = 0 at v = 0 by ym in Eq. (10), the maximum water surface area Am derives as
BC2: p = 1 at v = 1 follows:
Boundary condition 1 is satisfied by d = 0 and boundary 2V
condition 2 is satisfied by c = 1. As a result the following Am = --------m- (11)
Nym
equation can be obtained:
Therefore, the reservoir coefficient N is equal to:
p= v (6)
2Vm
To compensate for the second term which was removed from N = -----------
- (12)
ym Am
Eq. (2) and to match the curve of the Eq. (6) to a reservoir's
dimensionless capacity data, v is raised to the N power, where N By considering the relative reservoir area as a, this parameter
is a positive real number and named “reservoir coefficient”. could be defined as follows:
Therefore, the mathematical equation for reservoir's dimensionless A
capacity curve is proposed as follows: a = -----y- (13)
Am
N
----
2
p=v (7)
The value of N for every reservoir can be obtained by using the
least-squared method. According to Eq. (7), the curvature
decreases with increasing N and it asymptotes a straight line as it
approaches two. This characteristic is obvious from Fig. 1
showing the curves of Eq. (7) for different values of N.
V y
Substituting v by -----y- and p by ----- in Eq. (7) gives:
Vm ym
N
----
V 2
----- = ⎛ -----y-⎞
y
(8)
ym ⎝ Vm⎠
By simplifying Eq. (8), the reservoir capacity equation is
obtained as follows:
2-
---
y N
V y = Vm ⎛ -----⎞ (9) Fig. 2. Dimensionless Area Curve for Different Values of N as
⎝ ym⎠
defined by Eq. (14)

− 1150 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 A New Equation for Calculation of Reservoir's Area-Capacity Curves

By substituting Eqs. (10) and (11) into Eq. (13), and considering Table 2. Analytical and Numerical Values of N for the used Reservoirs
the relative depth p, the reservoir's dimensionless area equation is N N
Reservoir N
obtained as follows: Number (minimization (minimization
name [Eq.(12)]
of SSEv) of SSEa)
2-----------
–N
N 1 Angostura 0.5407 0.5495 0.5403
a=p (14) 2 Altus 0.7471 0.6736 0.7539
3 Box Butte 0.7406 0.7004 0.7398
Figure 2 shows the curve of Eq. (14) for different values 4 Millerton 0.7306 0.6940 0.7302
of N. As seen in the figure, if N reaches 1.0 from both sides 5 Pilot Butte 0.9812 0.9746 0.9775
6 UTE 0.5806 0.6511 0.5718
then the curvature decreases and it tends toward a straight 7 Cascade 0.8689 0.8297 0.8689
line. 8 Lovewell 0.6481 0.5968 0.6478
9 Webster 0.7200 0.7343 0.7217
10 Pishkun 0.7413 0.8360 0.7346
3. Verification of the Proposed Equation 11 Boysen 0.7050 0.7345 0.7077
12 Cedar Bluff 0.6915 0.6988 0.6900
13 Clark Canyon 0.8115 0.6867 0.8175
For verification of the proposed equations, area-capacity data 14 Pueblo 0.6675 0.6970 0.6696
of 20 reservoirs are chosen randomly. Some characteristics of 15 Willow Creek 0.7343 0.6136 0.7407
these reservoirs are shown in Table 1. 16 Nambe Falls 0.5476 0.5038 0.5501
17 Latian 0.6570 0.7145 0.6561
The analytical values of N for each reservoir are obtained by 18 Karaj 0.7865 0.9036 0.7797
using Eq. (12). The numerical values of N are obtained by using 19 Lar 0.5446 0.5461 0.5451
a trial and error procedure to minimize the SSEs of Eqs. (7) and 20 Minab 0.6137 0.5671 0.6144
(14), in order to have the best compatibility with the capacity and
area data of reservoirs. Table 2 presents analytical and numerical
values of N for each reservoir.
In this Table, SSEv defines the sum of squared errors between
the curves of Eq. (7) and the reservoir's dimensionless capacity
data, and SSEa defines the sum of squared errors between the
curve of Eq. (14) and the reservoir's dimensionless area data.
Comparison of analytical and numerical values of N shows the
approximate agreement between the numerical values of N
obtained by SSEa and SSEv with analytical values of N, whereas
numerical values obtained by SSEa are more accurate in
comparison with those obtained by using SSEv.
The curves of Eq. (7) and dimensionless capacity data, in Figs.
3 and 4, and the curves of Eq. (14) and dimensionless area data,
in Figs. 5 and 6 are plotted for some reservoirs to provide Fig. 3. Dimensionless Capacity Data of Angostura, Altus, Cas-
graphical comparison. cade, Pilot Butte Reservoirs and the Curves of Eq. (7)

Table 1. Physical Characteristic of the used Reservoirs (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation)

Reference: U.S. Bureau
Number Reservoir name ym (ft) Am (acres) Vm (ac-ft) Reservoir Type
of Reclamation (year)
1 Angostura 122.2 04841 159919 I (2004)
2 Altus 067 07705 192845 II (2007)
3 Box Butte 061 02116 47797 II (2003)
4 Millerton 297.6 05110 555500 II (2004)
5 Pilot Butte 085 00901 37574 III (1995)
6 UTE 122 11237.1 397996 II (1992)
7 Cascade 074 32967 1059857 III (1995)
8 Lovewell 075.3 07635 186296 II (1995)
9 Webster 099 11270 401636 II (1996)
10 Pishkun 085 01741 54852 II (2002)
11 Boysen 137 30894 1491924 II (1994)
12 Cedar Bluff 128 16510 730636 II (2000)
13 Clark Canyon 122.9 06606.2 329430 III (2000)
14 Pueblo 200 08027 535807 II (1993)
15 Willow Creek 079 01782 51689 II (2002)
16 Nambe Falls 143 00074.4 2913 I (2004)
17 Latian 232.6 31542 2410095 II Shabanlou
18 Karaj 413.4 29168 4741828 II Shabanlou
19 Lar 112.7 20721 635920 I Shabanlou
20 Minab 080 06713 192027 II Shabanlou

Vol. 17, No. 5 / July 2013 − 1151 −

 K. Kaveh, H. Hosseinjanzadeh, and K. Hosseini
Fig. 4. Dimensionless Capacity Data of Nambe Falls, Pueblo, Boy-
sen, Pishkun Reservoirs and the Curves of Eq. (7)
Fig. 5. Dimensionless area Data of Angostura, Altus, Cascade,
Pilot Butte Reservoirs and the Curves of Eq. (14)
Fig. 6. Dimensionless area Data of Nambe Falls, Pueblo, Boysen,
Pishkun Reservoirs and the Curves of Eq. (14)
4. Previous Proposed Equation
Mohammadzadeh-Habili et al. (2009) used the similarity between
the natural logarithmic function curve and the reservoir capacity
curve to obtain the mathematical equation for reservoir's
− 1152 −
dimensionless capacity curve. They proposed their reservoir's
dimensionless capacity equation as follows (Mohammadzadeh-
Habili et al., 2009):
1 N
p = -------- ln ( v + 1 ) (15)
ln 2
They also obtained the reservoir's dimensionless area equation
and reservoir coefficient equation as follows (Mohammadzadeh-
Habili et al., 2009), respectively:
2-----------
–N
pln2 pln2 N
a = 0.5e (e – 1) (16)
Vm
N = 2 ( ln2 ) -----------
- (17)
Am ym
In this study, the result of the new equation and Habili's equation
(Eq. (16)) are evaluated for the data obtained from 20 reservoirs
in the United States and are compared with each other.
5. Accuracy Analysis between Previous Equa-
tion and New Proposed Equation
Mohammadzadeh-Habili et al. (2009) on their article indicated
that the agreement between numerical values of N (minimization
of SSEa) and analytical values of N is better than the agreement
between numerical values of N (minimization of SSEv) and
analytical values of N. This point is proved in this study,
therefore the numerical values of N (minimization of SSEa) and
analytical values of N for both methods are used to draw a
comparison and numerical values of N (minimization of SSEv)
are ignored. In Table 3 the relative errors are calculated for each
method. As shown in Table 3, for the new proposed equation, the
relative error between two values of N obtained by minimization
of SSEa and Eq. (12) for 20 selected reservoirs varies between
0% and 1.5%. In most cases this value is approximately 0.3%
and the average relative error for 20 reservoirs is 0.41%. The
Habili's equation represents a relative error between two values
of N varying from 0.8% to 1.6%. In most cases it is approximately
0.7% and the average relative error for 20 reservoirs is 0.85%.
As can be seen, the agreement between numerical values of N
(minimization of SSEa) and analytical values of N in new
proposed method is better than those obtained by previous
method.
To analyze the accuracy of each method, the Sum Square
Errors (SSEs) between the exact area data and interpolated
curves are obtained for each reservoir, and the results are
presented in Table 4. It follows from this table (Table 4) that, in
most cases, errors obtained for proposed equation are markedly
less than those obtained for the previous one. Therefore, the
proposed equation (Eq. (14)) fits dimensionless area data of
reservoirs better than previous equation (Eq. (16)) does. This
crucial characteristic can be observed from Figs. 7-9 and 10
which show the curves of Eqs. (14) and (16), and dimensionless
area data of Cascade, Pilot Butte, Box Butte and Lar reservoirs.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 A New Equation for Calculation of Reservoir's Area-Capacity Curves

Table 3. Comparison of Relative Error between Habili's Equation and New Proposed Equations
New proposed equation Habili's equation
Number Reservoir name N (minimization of N (minimization of
N [Eq.(12)] Relative error N [Eq.(17)] Relative error
SSEv) SSEa)
1 Angostura 0.5407 0.5403 0.07% 0.3748 0.3766 0.48%
2 Altus 0.7471 0.7539 0.91% 0.5179 0.5220 0.78%
3 Box Butte 0.7406 0.7398 0.10% 0.5133 0.5044 1.73%
4 Millerton 0.7306 0.7302 0.05% 0.5064 0.5068 0.08%
5 Pilot Butte 0.9812 0.9775 0.37% 0.6801 0.6690 1.63%
6 UTE 0.5806 0.5718 1.50% 0.4025 0.4009 0.39%
7 Cascade 0.8689 0.8689 0.00% 0.6023 0.5986 0.61%
8 Lovewell 0.6481 0.6478 0.04% 0.4492 0.4480 0.26%
9 Webster 0.7200 0.7217 0.23% 0.4990 0.4962 0.56%
10 Pishkun 0.7413 0.7346 0.90% 0.5138 0.5127 0.21%
11 Boysen 0.7050 0.7077 0.38% 0.4887 0.4927 0.81%
12 Cedar Bluff 0.6915 0.6900 0.21% 0.4793 0.4806 0.27%
13 Clark Canyon 0.8115 0.8175 0.73% 0.5625 0.5644 0.19%
14 Pueblo 0.6675 0.6696 0.31% 0.4627 0.4675 1.02%
15 Willow Creek 0.7343 0.7407 0.86% 0.5090 0.5137 0.91%
16 Nambe Falls 0.5476 0.5501 0.45% 0.3796 0.3832 0.94%
17 Latian 0.6570 0.6561 0.13% 0.4554 0.4567 0.28%
18 Karaj 0.7865 0.7797 0.86% 0.5452 0.5448 0.07%
19 Lar 0.5446 0.5451 0.09% 0.3775 0.3816 1.08%
20 Minab 0.6137 0.6144 0.11% 0.4254 0.4274 0.47%
Average Error 0.41% Average Error 0.85%

Table 4. Comparison of Sum Square Error between Habili's Equation and New Proposed Equation
New proposed equation Habili's equation
Number Reservoirs N (minimization Sum Square N (minimization Sum Square
of SSEa) Errors (SSEs) of SSEa) Errors (SSEs)
1 Angostura 0.5403 0.0029 0.3766 0.0116
2 Altus 0.7539 0.0053 0.5220 0.0176
3 Box Butte 0.7398 0.0050 0.5044 0.0287
4 Millerton 0.7302 0.0050 0.5068 0.0280
5 Pilot Butte 0.9775 0.0041 0.6690 0.3410
6 UTE 0.5718 0.0037 0.4009 0.00049
7 Cascade 0.8689 0.0035 0.5986 0.0292
8 Lovewell 0.6478 0.0053 0.4480 0.0197
9 Webster 0.7217 0.0034 0.4962 0.0039
10 Pishkun 0.7346 0.0146 0.5127 0.0049
11 Boysen 0.7077 0.0157 0.4927 0.0066
12 Cedar Bluff 0.6900 0.0011 0.4806 0.0129
13 Clark Canyon 0.8175 0.0681 0.5644 0.1511
14 Pueblo 0.6696 0.0156 0.4675 0.0060
15 Willow Creek 0.7407 0.0509 0.5137 0.0962
16 Nambe Falls 0.5501 0.0037 0.3832 0.0154
17 Latian 0.6561 0.0044 0.4567 0.0061
18 Karaj 0.7797 0.0082 0.5448 0.0031
19 Lar 0.5451 0.0036 0.3816 0.0113
20 Minab 0.6144 0.0046 0.4274 0.0095

Hence, the proposed equation has three advantages in comparison
with Habili's equation; it is easier to solve than the Habili's
equation; the relative errors obtained from the proposed equation,
between two values of N, are more often less than those obtained
from Habili's equation; and it fits dimensionless data of reservoirs
better than previous one.
6. Relationship between N and M
As previously noted, Borland and Miller (1985) classified the
basic types of reservoirs based on a shape factor M. This
classification is shown in Table 5.
In order to obtain the shape factor M, the reservoir depth
should be plotted as the ordinate against the reservoir capacity on
log-log axes. The reciprocal of the slope of obtained line passed
through the points is called shape factor M (Borland and Miller
1958).
In Fig. 11, the obtained dimensionless capacity equation (Eq.
(7)) is plotted on a log-log paper for different values of N. As the
form of the proposed equation (Eq. (7)) shows the curves of this
equation for different values of N, on a log-log paper are exactly
straight. This characteristic is obvious from Fig. 11.
In Fig. 12, Habili's dimensionless capacity equation (Eq. (15))
is plotted on a log-log paper for the same values of N. As seen in
the figure, Habili's dimensionless capacity equation on a log-log
paper has a little curvature. Therefore, in order to obtain the

Vol. 17, No. 5 / July 2013 − 1153 −

 K. Kaveh, H. Hosseinjanzadeh, and K. Hosseini

Fig. 7. Dimensionless area Data of Cascade Reservoir and Curves of Fig. 10. Dimensionless area Data of Lar Reservoir and Curves of
Eqs. (14) and (16) Eqs. (14) and (16)

Table 5. Classification of Reservoirs (Borland and Miller, 1985)

M Reservoir type Standard classification
3.5-4.5 Gorge I
2.5-3.5 Hill II
1.5-2.5 Flood Plain Foothill III
1.0-1.5 Lake IV

Fig. 8. Dimensionless area Data of Box Butte Reservoir and Curves

of Eqs. (14) and (16)

Fig. 11. Log-log Relationship between Relative Volume v and Rel-

ative Depth p as Defined by Eq. (7)

N
----
2
log10 p = log 10 v (18)
By simplifying Eq. (7), the other form of this equation is
obtained as follows:
N
Fig. 9. Dimensionless area Data of Pilot Butte Reservoir and Curves log10 p = ---- log 10 v (19)
of Eqs. (14) and (16) 2
N
Where ---- is the slope of obtained line from plotting Eq. (7) on
2
a log-log paper. Hence, the relation between the shape factor M
shape factor M, a straight line must be fitted to the data. and reservoir coefficient N is defined as follows:
For obtaining a relationship between the reservoir shape factor
2
M and reservoir coefficient N, the curves of Eq. (7) for different N = ----- (20)
M
optional values of N should be plotted on log-log axes. As a
result, the following equation would be obtained: The graphical relationship between N and M is shown in Fig. 13.

− 1154 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 A New Equation for Calculation of Reservoir's Area-Capacity Curves
Fig. 12.Log-log Relationship between Relative Volume v and Rel-
ative Depth p as Defined by Eq. (15) in Habili's Study
Fig. 13. Relationship between N and M
7. Conclusions
The main purpose of this paper was to propose a precise
equation defining the reservoir capacity. Regarding classical
studies, the reservoir capacity is defined by a parabolic equation
with three coefficients. These coefficients could be determined
by fitting a parabola to the surveying data. In this paper, this
equation was substituted by a more precise dimensionless
capacity equation which has fewer unknown parameters and
coefficients. This proposed equation had only one unknown
dimensionless parameter named “reservoir coefficient” N which
should be obtained for each reservoir. The analytical values of N
for each reservoir were obtained by using Eq. (12) and numerical
values of N were obtained by using a trial and error procedure to
minimize the SSE (Eqs. (7) and (14)) in order to having the best
compatibility with the capacity and area data of reservoirs. This
research demonstrated the agreement between numerical values
of N (minimization of SSEa) with Eq. (12) were better than the
agreement between numerical values of N (minimization of
SSEv) with Eq. (12). Also, the result of new proposed equation
and previous equation (Eqs. (15), (16) and (17)) were evaluated
Vol. 17, No. 5 / July 2013 − 1155 −
with data from 20 reservoirs in the United States and were
compared with each other. The results of this comparison
demonstrated that the proposed method had three great
advantages. It was easier to solve than the Habili's equation; the
relative errors obtained from the proposed equation, between two
values of N, were more often less than those obtained from
Habili's equation; and it fitted dimensionless data of reservoirs
better than previous one. Also, obtained results proved that
assumption of removing the second term of Eq. (2) and adding a
new coefficient named “reservoir coefficient” N, was logical.
By plotting the curve of dimensionless capacity equation on
log-log paper for different optional values of N, and by calculating
the reciprocal of the slope of obtained line, the shape factor M
was obtained. In the previous method, this line was not exactly
straight and had a little curvature therefore the best fitted straight
line should be drawn by regression analysis through the points
with the least error. The same way, the lines obtained by new
proposed method were exactly straight. This characteristic
showed that values of M obtained by new proposed equation
(Eq. (7)) in contrast to Habili's method were more precise and
reliable. This study showed that the shape factor M obtained by
the proposed equation was much adjusted to which was defined
by Borland and Miller.
As a result, the main conclusion to be drawn from this paper is
that the proposed equation is more exact and much easier than
previous equations.
Notations
a = Relative area
Am = Reservoir surface area at maximum normal water
surface
Ay = Reservoir surface area at depth y above the streambed
e = Base of Natural logarithm
k = Coefficient
k' = Coefficient
ln = Natural logarithm
m = Coefficient
m' = Coefficient
M = Reservoir shape factor
n = Coefficient
n' = Coefficient
N = Reservoir coefficient
p = Relative depth
SSEa = Sum of the squared errors between the curves of
Eq. (14) and reservoir dimensionless area data
SSEv = Sum of the squared errors between the curves of
Eq. (7) and reservoir dimensionless capacity data
v = Relative volume
Vm = Reservoir capacity at maximum depth
Vy = Reservoir capacity at depth above the streambed
y = Water depth above stream bed
ym = Maximum reservoir depth
 K. Kaveh, H. Hosseinjanzadeh, and K. Hosseini
Subscript
a =Related to reservoir area curve
v= Related to reservoir capacity curve
y= Related to depth above streambed
References
Borland, W. M. and Miller, C. R. (1958). “Distribution of sediment in
large reservoirs.” J. Hydr. Div., Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 1587.1-1587.10.
Borland, W. M. and Miller, C. R. (1971). “Riner mechanics.” Reservoir
Sedimentation, H. W. Shen, Ed., Water Resources, Fort Collins,
Colo.
Mohammadzadeh-Habili, J., Heidarpour, M., Mousavi, S.-F., and
Haghiabi, A. H. (2009). “Derivation of reservoir's area-capacity
equation.” J. Hydrol. Eng., Vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 1017-1023.
Shabanlou, S. (2000). Reservoir sedimentation in some dams of Iran
with different volumes, MSc Thesis, Isfahan Univ. of Technology,
Isfahan, Iran (in Persian with an English abstract).
Strand, R. I. and Pemberton, E. L. (1982). Resevoir sedimentation, Rep.
Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Technical service
center, Bureau of Reclamation's Sedimentation and River Hydraulics
Group, Denver.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1979). Angostura reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1985). ACAP85 user's manual, Technical
Service Center, Surface Water Branch, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1987). Design of small dams, 3rd Ed.,
Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado, pp. 529-563.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1992). UTE reservoir, sedimentation
− 1156 −
View publication stats
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1993). Pueblo reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1994). Boysen reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1995). Cascade reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1995). Lovewell reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1995). Pilot Butte reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1996). Webster reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2000). Cedar Bluff reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2000). Clark Canyon reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2002). Pishkun reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2002). Willow Creek reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2003). Box Butte reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2003). Keyhole reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2004). Millerton reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2004). Nambe Falls reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2007). Altus reservoir, sedimentation
survey, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering