International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 10, Issue 07, July 2019, pp. 22-28, Article ID: IJCIET_10_07_003
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=7
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication

SEDIMENTATION IN SRIRAMSAGAR
PROJECT ON GODAVARI – CONCERNS AND
SOLUTIONS
KBR Prasadreddy, M. Visweswararao
Professors in Civil Engineering Department, Malla Reddy Institute of Technology,
Mysammaguda, Kompalli, Secundrabad, India

ABSTRACT
In this paper an attempt has been made to study the sedimentation aspects of SRSP
reservoir and to evolve the sedimentation rates and trap efficiency of this reservoir.
When a dam is constructed on a river to store water, sediments transported by the
water flow are also stored and reservoir capacity is gradually reduced by sediment
accumulation. Prediction of sediment distribution in reservoirs is an important issue
for dam designers to determine the reservoir active storage capacity, outlet sill
elevation, dam stability, recreational facilities, and back water conditions. In this
study, the sediment deposition in SRSP on Godavari river in Telengana is studied .
The sediment trapped in the reservoir is worked out considering the hydrographic
surveys conducted by State of Erstwhile Andhra Pradesh consisting of Telengana and
the same are compared with the hydrometrical observations conducted by CWC at the
G&D stations in Godavari river. The trap efficiency is also estimated considering the
observations at the gauging stations .It is observed that the hydrographic and
hydrometry observations fairly tally. The trap efficiency worked out as 91.3 % . This
reduction in storage due to sedimentation coupled with reduction of inflows into SRSP is
causing problems in meeting the demands of SRSP. The supplementation from
Kaleswaram to an extent of 60 TMC will help SRSP and improve its performance. The
storage at Yellampalli can also be utilized partly to meet the demands of SRSP.
Key words: Sediment load, trap efficiency, FRL, storage capacity, hydrographic
surveys.
Cite this Article: KBR Prasadreddy, M. Visweswararao, Sedimentation in
Sriramsagar Project on Godavari – Concerns and Solutions. International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology 10(7), 2019, pp. 22-28.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=7

1. INTRODUCTION
Sedimentation processes in reservoirs and lakes have been reported by many authors,
including Mahmood [1], Hotchkiss and Parker [2], Fan and Morris [3], Sloff [4], De Cesare et
al. [5], among others. The sedimentation process in reservoirs, caused by impounding a river,
results in the increase of the cross-sections available for the flow, subsequently decreasing the
flow velocity. Thus, the sediment transport capacity decreases.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 22 editor@iaeme.com

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3450545

 Sedimentation in Sriramsagar Project on Godavari – Concerns and Solutions

This causes the deposition of sediments, the consequences of which depend on the size,
shape and location of the deposits. it is necessary to develop trap efficiency from the observed
data and to adopt the revised empirical relations to suit that particular reservoir or set of
reservoirs situated in India. The actual observed sediment loads and hydrographic survey
throw better light on trap efficiency and often form the basis for easy empirical methods, the
use of which does not require much effort. The results allow for the assessment of the
approximate course of the analyzed phenomenon or process.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY
The Total sediment load can be estimated from hydrometric observations and establishing the
sediment discharge relations.
H.G. hlimemann[6] (1975)has estimated trap efficiency of three reservoirs based on
detention time and particle size. In this theory also in direct variables causing trap efficiency
are used but in the present study actual observed data is used.
G. Venkatesan and Jean poison[7](2000) have estimated the trap efficiency of small
reservoirs bydeveloping theoretical models based on over flow rate and concluded that these
models can be used for estimation of trap efficiency of small reservoirs. As Almatti is a major
reservoir this theory is not applicable to Almatti.
Abol Fazi[8](2006) has estimated the sediment load in to the Karaj Dam using hydrometry
observations of upstream and downstream and compared them with the hydrographical survey
of the reservoir and concluded that the results are compatible with a regression coefficient of
0.97. These observations pertain to a reservoir in IRAn and the conclusions may not be
suitable for Indian conditions. Therefore it is necessary to study the hydrometrical
observations and hydrographic observations of Almatti to arrive at suitable conclusions.
The rate of sedimentation and useful reservoir life have also been estimated by Vaibhav
and others[9] (2008)adopting trap efficiency approach. In this determination also actual
observed data of hydrographic survey is not available.
Vaibhav Garg[10] (2009)and others have developed artificial neural network models for
estimation of sediment load. The observations of hydrometry vary over time and discharge
and differ very signjficantly for different discharges. Therefore this method was developed . It
was stated that Hydrographic observations are costly for small reservoirs and hence it was
suggested that for small reservoirs this method can be used in the absence of hydrographic
surveys. As almatti reservoir is a major reservoir and hydrographic observations are available
this study may not be suitable for Almatti.
Jaypak and Paul ely [11](2010)have estimated the trap efficiency by hydrological
modelling system using HEC-HMS based on storm rain falls and retention periods. These
studies are based on other indirect parameters effecting trap efficiency but not direct
observations.
Trap efficiency was also estimated for reservoirs in tropical settings for Burdekin
reservoir in Australia by Lewis.S. E.[10] (2013)from observed data and compared the same
with the results from Brunes and churcils methods. In this study also the trap efficiency
estimated from observed data and compared with Brunes curves.

3. METHODOLOGY FOR THE PRESENT STUDY

The SRSP dam was completed by 1977.The Sriramsagar project is silting fastly. The salient
features of SRSP dam are presented in Table 1. Two hydrographic surveys were conducted in
SRSP during 1994 and 2006. The original capacity and the results of the surveys are
presented in Table 2.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 23 editor@iaeme.com

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3450545

 KBR Prasadreddy, M. Visweswararao

Table 1 Salient features of SRSP Dam

DESCRIPTION Particulars/details
1. LOCATION
Latitude N 18’’- 58’
Longitude E.78’’- 28’
2. HYDROLOGY
Catchment Area at (35,425 Sq.Miles) (or)
Dam Site 91,750 Sq.Kms.
Flood Discharge 25,740 Cumecs
(observed)
Designed Discharge (45,300 Cumecs)
16 Lakhs Cusecs
3. RESERVOIR
Total Length of Dam (14.59 kms) 47,893.20 Ft
Length of Spill way (765 M) 2,510 Ft
Length of Non Spill way (193 M) 633.20 Ft
(Masonry Dam)
Length of Earth Dam (13.64 km) 44.750 Ft
Max.Ht of Masonry Dam (42.67M) 140.00 Ft
Max. Ht. of Earth Dam (38m) 125.00 Ft
Full Reservoir Level (+332.537 M) + 1091.00 Ft
Max. Water Level (+333.150 M) + 1093.00 Ft
Minimum draw down level (+322.462 M) +1058.00 Ft
TOP of Dam (+337.718 M) + 1108.00 Ft
Crest Level (+322.560 M) + 1058.00 Ft
No.of Crest Gatest 42 Nos. 50x33
(RADIAL)

Table 2 Sedimentation- Hydrographic survey details of SRSP

Capacity of SRSP in different surveys Capacity of SRSP in different surveys in
in TMC Mcum
level in level in
1994 2006
ft. Mts
1994 original in survey in survey in
original survey 2006 survey Mcum Mcum Mcum
1020 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
1025 0.947 0.000 0.000 312.40 26.82 0.00 0.00
1030 2.041 0.000 0.000 313.93 57.80 0.00 0.00
1035 3.638 0.550 0.000 315.45 103.03 15.57 0.00
1040 5.968 1.100 0.560 316.98 169.00 31.15 15.86
1045 9.241 3.310 1.120 318.50 261.67 93.73 31.71
1050 13.152 5.518 2.759 320.02 372.42 156.25 78.13
1055 17.895 7.725 4.966 321.55 506.72 218.75 140.62
1060 24.299 15.450 8.277 323.07 688.08 437.49 234.38
1065 32.581 19.313 13.243 324.60 922.58 546.88 375.00
1070 41.834 29.245 19.313 326.12 1184.60 828.13 546.88
1075 52.189 38.625 27.590 327.64 1477.82 1093.74 781.26
1080 66.501 49.661 41.384 329.17 1883.10 1406.24 1171.86
1085 85.873 60.697 52.420 330.69 2431.66 1718.75 1484.37
1090 107.383 71.251 60.697 332.22 3040.75 2017.60 1718.75
1091 112.016 90.493 77.000 332.52 3171.94 2562.47 2180.40
It could be seen from the above table that by 2006 the reservoir capacity has gone down
to 77 TMC from 112 TMC i.e reduced by 31.25 % . This is likely to go down further. The
original capacity, sedimented capacity in 1994 and in 2006 is shown in Fig 1.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 24 editor@iaeme.com

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3450545

 Sedimentation in Sriramsagar Project on Godavari – Concerns and Solutions

120
100

CAPACITY in TMC
80
60
40
20
0
1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100
LEVEL in FT

Capacity of SRSP in different surveys in TMC

Capacity of SRSP in different surveys in TMC
Capacity of SRSP in different surveys in TMC

Figure 1 Capacity of SRSP at different elevations (original, in 1994 and in 2006)

Rate of sediment : The rate of sedimentation observed by CWC at Basar and yelli for a
period of about 10 years works out to 408 and 369.6 cum/Sq.Km/year . With bed load of 20
% these figures workout to 490 and 444 cum/Sq.Km/year. The CWC has suggested a silt load
of 1.2 Acft/Sq.mile/year for Godavari projects in Telengana which works out to 576 cum/Sq.
Km/year and the same is adopted to be on conservative side.
Sediment load : The total sediment load into SRSP dam was estimated considering the
existing up stream projects and the future projects that came into operation after SRSP
commenced adopting the above rate of sedimentation.
Sediment load for first 17 years : The sediment load is computed for the period 1977-1994
i.e 17 years from the commencement of SRSP project so as to compare with the results of
1994 hydrographic survey and arrive at the trap efficiency.
a) From paithan(Jayakwadi) project
Catchment area upto jayakwadi= 21746 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 21746 *576*17 = 212.936 Mcum
Flowing down = 212.936*0.02 = 4.26 Mcum(trap efficiency of Paithan dam is 98 %)
b) From siddheswar project
Catchment area upto Siddeswaram= 7767 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 7767 *576*17 = 76.050 Mcum
Flowing down = 76.05*0.05 = 3.8025 Mcum(trap efficiency of Siddeswaram dam is 95 %)
c) From Free catchment
Catchment area upto SRSP= 91711 Sq. Km
Catchment area upto Jayakwadi= 21746 Sq. Km
Catchment area upto siddeshwaram= 7767 Sq. Km
Free Catchment = 91711-21746-7767= 62198 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 62198 *576*17 = 609.042 Mcum
Total to SRSP= 4.26+3.80+609.042=617.102 Mcum.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 25 editor@iaeme.com

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3450545

 KBR Prasadreddy, M. Visweswararao

Sediment load for next 12 years : The sediment load at SRSP Project is computed for the
period 1994-2006 i.e 12 years from 1994 to 2006 so as to compare with the results of 2006
hydrographic survey and arrive at the trap efficiency.
A) for the years 1994 to 2002
a) From paithan(Jayakwadi) project
Catchment area upto jayakwadi= 21746 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 21746 *576*8 = 100.206 Mcum
Flowing down = 100.206*0.02 = 2.00 Mcum
b) From siddheswar project
Catchment area upto Siddeswaram= 7767 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 7767 *576*8 = 35.790 Mcum
Flowing down = 35.790*0.05 = 1.789 Mcum
c) From Free catchment
Catchment area upto SRSP= 91711 Sq. Km
Catchment area upto Jayakwadi= 21746 Sq. Km
Catchment area upto siddeshwaram= 7767 Sq. Km
Free Catchment = 91711-21746-7767= 62198 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 62198 *576*8 = 286.608 Mcum
Total to SRSP= 2.00+1.789+286.606 = 290.395 Mcum.
B) for the years 2002 to 2006
a) From paithan(Jayakwadi) project
Catchment area upto jayakwadi= 21746 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 21746 *576*4 = 50.103 Mcum
Flowing down = 50.103*0.02 = 1.00 Mcum
b) From siddheswar project
Catchment area upto Siddeswaram= 7767 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 7767 *576*4 = 17.895 Mcum
Flowing down = 17.895*0.05 = 0.8945 Mcum
c) From lower Dudhna project
Catchment area upto Lower dudhna= 4065 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 4065 *576*4 = 9.366 Mcum
Flowing down = 9.366*0.05 = 0.4683 Mcum
d) From Majilgaon project
Catchment area upto Majilgaon= 3883 Sq. Km
Total silt load = 3883 *576*4 = 8.946 Mcum
Flowing down = 8.946*0.035 = 0.3131 Mcum
e) From Free catchment
Catchment area upto SRSP= 91711 Sq. Km
Catchment area upto Jayakwadi= 21746 Sq. Km
Catchment area upto siddeshwaram= 7767 Sq. Km
Catchment area upto Lower dudhna= 4065 Sq. Km
Catchment area upto Majilgaon= 3883 Sq. Km

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 26 editor@iaeme.com

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3450545

 Sedimentation in Sriramsagar Project on Godavari – Concerns and Solutions

Free Catchment = 91711-21746-7767-4065-3883= 54250 Sq. Km

Total silt load = 54250 *576*4 = 124.992 Mcum
Total to SRSP= 1.00+0.8945+0.4683+0.3131+124.992 = 127.668 Mcum.
Grand toal for 12 years = 290.395+127.668 = 418.063 Mcum

Trap efficiency in SRSP reservoir:

Silt trapped in SRSP as per 1994 survey = 112-90.493 = 21.507 TMC or 609 Mcum
Total sediment generated up to 1994= 617.102 Mcum
Trap efficiency = 609/617.102 = 98.6 %
Silt trapped in SRSP in the period 1994 to 2006 as per 2006 survey =
Gross capacity as on 1994- gross capacity as on 2006 =90.493-77=13.493 TMC or
Mcum
Total sediment generated from 1994 to 2006 = 418.063 Mcum
Trap efficiency = 382.079/418.063 = 91 %
The trap efficiency reduced from 98 % to 91 % as the reservoir capacity has reduced. The
live storage of the reservoir as on 2006 is 70.05 TMC as against the demand of about 140
TMC under stage 1, 25 TMC under stage2 and 20 TMC under FFC totaling to 185 TMC. The
storage utilization ratio works out to 2.64 . It is not possible to meet these demands with this
limited storage. Further the inflows have reduced to SRSP over the year due to upstream
utilisations and new projects.
In this scenario it is necessary to have alternative sources to meet these demands. It is
therefore proposed to meet part of these demands to an extent of 60 TMc from Kaleswaram
project wherein water is brought by reverse pumping from the down stream at the confluence
of pranahita with Godavari by a series of lifts to the proposed flood flow canal and there from
to SRSP by pumping. This project is under construction with a brisk pace and after
completion the SRSP may flourish to a maximum extent. Storage utilization ratio now works
out to 125/70= 1.78. this can be managed with the help of yellampalli storage a project on
main Godavari down stream of SRSP as part of this storage can be used to meet the demands
of SRSP.

4. CONCLUSIONS&FUTURE SCOPE
From the above calculations it could be seen that the trap efficiency of SRSP is about 91 % as
on 2006. The storage has reduced to 77 TMC from 112 TMC. This will cause problems in
meeting the planned demands of SRSP. The storage may further go down in future bringing
the live storage below 70 TMc and the storage utilization ratio to around 3 making the
operation extremely difficult. The reduction of inflows is also making it very difficult to meet
the planned demands.
The supplementation from Kaleswaram for about 60 TMC and the storage support of
Yellampalli may help in improving the performance of SRSP and to meet the planned
demands of SRSP to a large extent. Hoewever detailed hydrological studies are to be mode to
correctly assess the impact of diversion from Kaleswaram on SRSP without effecting the
planned demands of Kaleswaram and Yellampalli projects.

REFERENCES
[1] Mahmood, K. Reservoir Sedimentation: Impact, Extent and Mitigation; Technical Paper
No. 71; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1987.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 27 editor@iaeme.com

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3450545

 KBR Prasadreddy, M. Visweswararao

[2] Hotchkiss, R.H.; Parker, G. Shock fitting of aggradational profiles due to backwater. J.
Hydraul.Eng.1991, 117, 1129–1144.
[3] Fan, J.; Morris, G. Reservoir sedimentation. I: Delta and density current deposits. J.
Hydraul. Eng.ASCE 1992, 118, 354–369.
[4] Sloff, C.J. Sedimentation in Reservoirs. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Delft,
Delft,The Netherlands, 15 April 1997.
[5] De Cesare, G.; Schleiss, A.; Hermann, F. Impact of Turbidity Currents on Reservoir
Sedimentation.J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE 2001, 127, 6–16.
[6] Ramesh. D. L,Hlinemann. H.G, controlling reservoir trap efficiency,1975, US
Department, ASAE in 9/75(16)
[7] Gert venkatesan,Jean Poeson,estimating trap efficiency of small reservoirs and ponds
methods and implications for assessment of sediment yield, progress in geopraphy, June
2000,vol.24. no.2,p.219-251
[8] Abolfazi, Moseadi, Estination of sediment volume in Karaj Dam Reservoir(iran) by hydro
metry method and a comparision with hydrograph method, Lake and
Management,9/2006,22(3)-233-239(3)
[9] Vaibhav garg and Vinayakan, estimation of useful life of a reservoir using sediment trap
efficiency, Journal of spatial hydrology,01/2008,8(2)-1-14(8)
[10] Vinayakan & Vaibhav garg, Reservoir sediment estimation using artificial neural net
work,Journal of hydrological engineering 9/2009,14(9),1035-40(7)
[11] Jaypak and Paulely, Assesment of reservoir trap efficiency methods using the hydrological
modelling system(HEC-HMS)for the upper north bosque river water shed in
texas,2010,2nd joint federal interagency conference, Lasvegas,june 27-july 1,2010
[12] Lewis.S.E, calculating sediment trap efficiency for reservoirs in tropical settings- a case
study from Burdekin reservoir, Water resources research, 2013,Vol 49, 1017-29-doi
10.1002/Wrc20117
[13] Visweswararao.M, Viswanadh.G.K ,trap efficiency of almatti reservoir in krishna basin –
a case study International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology
Vol.(8)Issue(1), pp.168-176 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21172/1.81.022 e-ISSN:2278-
621X, 5/2017
[14] I S 12182-1987 , Guidelines for determination of effects of sedimentation in planning and
performance of reservoirs , UDC 627.81 , 627.8.034.7
[15] CWC year books on sedimentationobservations for Godavari river
[16] Hydrographic survey reports of SRSP 1994 and 2006 by I&CAD Department of Erstwhile Andhra
pradseh

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 28 editor@iaeme.com

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3450545