VITAL ISSUES DURING PHYSICAL MODELING FOR FURTHER OPTIMIZATION OF HYDRAULICALLY DESIGNED DE-SILTING CHAMBERS FOR VPHEP

THDC INDIA LIMITED

(A Joint venture of GOI & Government of UP)

Salient Features of VPHEP

Type of dam Height of dam above deepest Foundation level Top of dam Length of dam Catchment Area at Dam Site Design Flood
SPILLING ARRANGEMENT: Sluices Div. cum Spillway Tunnel Spill Tunnel Ogee spillway POWER INTAKE HEAD RACE TUNNEL

:Concrete gravity dam :65 m :EL 1270 m :89.55 M (NOF 28.65 m, OF 60.9 m) :4672 km2 :SPF 6700m3/sec (For Design) :PMF 10840m3/sec (For Checking) : 4 Nos. :1 no., 10 m dia, Circular :1 no., 12m dia, Circular :1no., 7 m (H) x 6 m (W) :Right bank, 3 nos. 6 m modified Horse shoe type :Length: 1 no., 13.4 km long, 8.8 m dia

General Layout of Project in Dam Area

3N o (390 . DES .0 M ILTI LON NG C HA G) MB ERS

Salient Features De-silting Chamber

De-silting Chamber
Numbers Size Particle size :3 :390 m (L) x 16m (W) x 20.6 m (H) :0.2 mm & above to be removed

Gates
Gate chamber Operation level

:3 nos. 5.24 m x 6 m (H), (Vertical lift fixed wheel) :6 m (W) x 9 m (H) x 155 m (L) :EL 1270 m

Salient Features De-silting Chamber

Silt Flushing Tunnel Size Flushing discharge Length Gates

Gate chamber Operation level

:3.6 m x 4.0 m (D shaped) :45.8 m3/sec :680 m :3 nos. 2.5 m x 2.85 m, (Vertical lift slide Gate) :4.80m x 4.80m x 118 m :EL 1233.5 m

PLAN OF DE-SILTING CHAMBER

TO GATE OPERATION CHAMBER DESILTING CHAMBER - I (390000 x 16000 x 20600mm)

DESILTING CHAMBER - II (390000 x 16000 x 20600mm)

DESILTING CHAMBER - III (390000 x 16000 x 20600mm)

Section of Sedimentation Chamber

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
Physical model study was carried out for the validation of hydraulic parameters of mathematically modeled De-Silting Chambers and further to optimize the shape and size for the removal of 0.20mm and above particle size of the sediments up to a sediment concentration of 5000 ppm.

Scope of Studies

The studies were carried out for sediment handling optimization of de-silting chambers in the following frame work : Length of upstream transition to obtain equal velocity distribution at the entrance chambers Dimensions of the de-silting chamber Shape, size and number of hoppers to be provided Shape and size of flushing ducts along with its carrying capacity Silt deposition in upstream and downstream transitions as well as in the de-silting chambers The proposal of conventional isolated hoppers and single de-silting trough with perforated slab shall be tested on the model.

Description of Model
Model studies shall be carried out on a 1:15 scale geometrical similar model. All the three compartments of de-silting chamber are similar, therefore only one is represented on the model About 50 m length of 6 m dia. intake tunnel followed by 48.7 m long upstream transition, de-silting chamber, full length of downstream transition, the collector troughs and sediment flushing ducts were constructed in the model The ppm and gradation of the sediment was same as adopted by D.H.I. in their mathematical modeling The discharge fed into the model was measured over a sharp crested weir provided in the upstream of the model

Sediment data
Petrography
The overall similarity of the catchment of Vishnuprayag HEP (situated at Lambagarh 16 kms upstream of VPHEP) and VPHEP suggests that the Vishnuprayag petrographic data may be assumed to representative for the Pipalkoti site. The sediment at Vishnuprayag project, as reported , are very hard, angular and injurious to turbines. So the sediment will cause heavy erosion of several tonnes of steel structure in the waterway of the power channel, if not removed. The desilting chambers downstream of the power intake are designed to remove 90% sediments of size 0.2 mm and above.

Sediment data
The sediment gradation at the barrage intake of Vishnuprayag HEP during monsoon at different sediment load was collected. The average of the gradation was plotted with the sediment gradation curve used for model studies of desilting chambers of Vishnuprayag HEP. It is observed that both these gradation are almost similar. So, the sediment curve of Vishnuprayag HEP was adopted for the present studies.

Methodology
The de-silting chambers are dimensioned on a simple principle of fall velocity of sediment particles. The fall velocity is dependent on many factors but mainly on size and shape of settling particles. The feeding mixture of sediment is prepared through the following steps. 1. The fall velocity of particular size particle is known from literature, (Hunter Rouse/Rubys curve). 2. The fall velocity is reduced in the model velocity as per scale ratio given below: Geometry : 1/scale of the model. Discharge : 1/(scale)5/2 Time : 1/(scale)1/2 Velocity : 1/(scale)1/2 Sediment : Reduced in terms of PPM depending upon the amount of the water quality flowing in the model

Methodology (cont.)
3. The particle size corresponding to the reduced velocity is known from the same curve. 4. The procedure is repeated to all graded particles provided by the site and according to scaled particle size, the feeding sediment mixture is prepared such that its projection to proto matches with the gradation curve of the site. On running the model, when flow conditions were established the prepared mixture was fed into the model for a definite period of time at a constant rate to maintain the ppm as desired. During the run of the model the water samples from silt feeding point, flushing duct and downstream of the desilting chamber were collected and analyzed for the sediment concentration passing through the flushing conduit and power channel. The silt trapping efficiency of the de-silting chamber in respect to overall sediment concentration was computed using the standard formulae.

View of de-silting chamber

OUTER VIEW OF THE MODEL OF DE SILTING CHAMBER

Inside view of the Desilting Chamber

Perforated Slab Inside the Desilting Chamber

Desilting Chamber Outlet

Model Investigations
Proposal 1: The proposal consists of 81 orifices provided only in the centre of the flushing duct. The size and distances of the orifices were as follows:
Orifice no.
1 2 to 10 11 to 21 22 to 52

Size in (m.)
.38 x .52 .210 .195 .180

Orifice no.
53 to 66 67 to 79 80 81

Size in (m.)
.165 .150 .20 x.20 .30 x .20

Orifice no.
1 2 to 15 16 to 32

Distance (m)
0.30 m from the start @ 3.0 m c/c @ 4.0 m c/c

33 to 50 51 to 78
79 to 81

@ 5.0 m c/c @ 6.0 m c/c

@ 7.0 m c/c

Model Investigations
The model was run at a flow of 91.55 cumec (total design discharge for all the three chambers is 274.65 cumec) out of which 15.26 cumec passed through the flushing duct and 76.29 cumec passed through the power channel. The performance of the proposal was tested for different sediment concentration varying from 2000ppm to 5000ppm. During each test run, the sediment with required concentration was fed in the flow for 1 hour model with constant rate. After about 30 minutes from the start of the sediment feeding, water samples were collected from the out flows of the HRT and flushing conduit.

Model Investigations
It was observed that upto 3500 ppm, desilting chamber had deposits throughout the length. The silt was deposited in a length of 15 m in upstream transition. The thickness of deposits varied from 0.40 m to 1.20 m at different locations on the both sides of transition. About 40% of the orifices were closed and silt was deposited over the perforated slab between the orifices. The analysis of water samples collected during the test run indicated that silt trapping efficiency of the system for +0.2 mm size in proto is of the order of 92% and silt flushing efficiency of the system is of the order of 63% of the trapped sediment.

Model Investigations
When the system was tested for 5000ppm sediment concentration, it was observed that discharge in the flushing ducts decreased slowly from 15.26 cumec to 9.20 cumec in one hour (corresponding to 3.87 hours proto). The silt deposition of the order of 2.0 m thickness was observed at different locations on both sides of upstream transition. 75% of the orifices were found to be choked and silt was deposited over the perforated slab between the orifices.

Model Investigations
Proposal-2:
After inspection of the model, additional orifices (making the total number of orifices 149 ) were provided in sub flushing ducts (on both sides of the central flushing duct) of the de-silting chamber to facilitate flushing of the trapped sediment.

Model Investigations
The model was run at sediment concentration of 3000 ppm, with similar operating conditions as in the proposal-1. After running the model for one hour, it was observed that the silt deposition in the chamber and on perforated slab was almost of the same order as observed with earlier proposal. In upstream transition, the silt deposition of the order of 1.0 m thickness was observed. Silt was deposited over the perforated slab in between the orifices in the full length of the chamber. A few of the first hoppers were found open after the run of the model. In all about 50% orifices were found open in the chamber.

Model Investigations
When the system was tested for 5000 ppm under the same conditions, it was observed that the silt deposition in the upstream transition was of the order of 1.50m thickness. No orifice was open in the first 1/3 length of the chamber while orifices in last 1/3 length were mostly open. However there was no silt deposition on the downstream transition. The analysis of water samples collected during the test run indicated that silt trapping efficiency of the system for + 0.20 mm size particles in proto was about 92% and silt flushing efficiency of the system was about 63% of the trapped sediment.

Deposition in upstream transition

Deposition at upstream transition and perforated slab of Desilting Chamber

Deposition at upstream transition and perforated slab of Desilting Chamber

Deposition at upstream transition and perforated slab of Desilting Chamber (Choking of orifices)

Results
1. Since the overall silt trapping efficiency of the system was found of the order of 92% with one hour test run, the size of de-silting chamber is in order to settle the sediment. 2. The silt flushing efficiency of the system was however very poor. About 50% orifices were found choked and silt was deposited over the perforated slab in the de-silting chamber. 3. The proposal needs to be modified with respect to number and size of orifices and size of the flushing duct.

Modified Proposal with original section (20m wide) of de-silting chamber

In order to increase the flushing duct efficiency of the duct a proposal on mathematical modeling was framed. Optimized proposal was tested at the existing physical model to ensure its hydraulic performance. The proposal consists of only one flushing duct of size 0.70m x 0.71m at the start to 1.80m x 2.12m at the end. The section of the flushing duct assures more than 3.0m/s flushing velocity at every point of the duct. The total length of the upstream transition is 48.70 m, out of which 42.384m length of upstream transition was constructed at mild slope and the rest 6.316m with a steep slope, so as to prevent the settling of sediment at the end of upstream transition.

MODEL INVESTIGATIONS
The performance of the proposal was tested for different sediment concentration varying from 2000 ppm to 5000 ppm. During each test run, the sediment with required concentration was fed in the flow for 1 hour (model) with constant rate. The discharge passing through the flushing duct was continuously observed to assure that it did not decrease. After about 30 minutes from the start of sediment feeding, water samples were collected from the out flows of the HRT and flushing conduit. At the end of the test run, the chamber was inspected, by opening the panel.

MODEL INVESTIGATIONS
It was observed that upto 2000 ppm, the thickness of silt deposited in upstream transition varied from 0.075m to 0.10m at different locations on both sides of transition About 10 % of the orifices were closed and the thickness of silt deposited over the perforated slab between the orifices was of the order of 0.15 m in the upstream reach and .04m in the downstream reach in terms of proto type dimensions. The analysis of water samples collected during the test run indicated that silt trapping efficiency of the system for +0.2 mm size in proto is of the order of 93% (Table-1) and silt flushing efficiency of the system is of the order of 90 % of the trapped sediment.

Table-1 OBSERVED SILT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF DE-SILTING BASIN OF VPHEP

Silt Observed Silt Concentration of Overall Silt +0.2mm size particle Details Of Concentrat Concentration (ppm) Trapping IN In ion fed at In Power Flushing Efficiency In Power Flushing proposal Channel Channel Intake in % Duct Duct (ppm) I.R.I. 1000 315 3815 73.81 30 1064 Proposal -do2000 635 7580 73.60 60 2100 -do-do-do3000 4000 5000 1000 1375 1760 11000 14560 17140 72.29 71.42 70.74 90 125 160 3036 4000 4680 Silt Silt Trapping Flushing Efficiency Efficiency in % for in % +0.2mm 93.00 87.15 92.10 92.00 91.40 91.00 86.83 85.53 85.94 81.72 Operating Conditions
Intake Discharge (cumec) Pow er Discharge (cumec) Flushing Discharge (cumec) Res. Level

Sl. No.

1 2 3 4 5

90.50 90.50 90.50 90.50 90.50

75.24 75.24 75.24 75.24 75.24

15.26 15.26 15.26 15.26 15.26

FRL FRL FRL FRL FRL

MODEL INVESTIGATIONS
The system was tested for higher sediment concentration upto 5000 ppm also. At 5000 ppm, the maximum deposition of silt between the orifices over the slab is of the order of 0.50m only. 62 of the total 77 orifices remain open after the model run. There is practically no deposition over the down stream transition It was observed that over all efficiency of the system for trapping of the silt load is more than 70% and the efficiency for +0.2 mm size particle is more than 91%. The silt flushing efficiency of the system is 82.50%.

Post Run Conditions in the Basin (20.0 m wide) after 2000 ppm

Deposition at upstream transition of Desilting Chamber (20.0m wide) after 2000 ppm

Post Run Conditions in the Basin (20.0 m wide) after 5000 ppm

Deposition at downstream portion of desilting chamber (20.0 m wide) after 5000 ppm

Modified Proposal with revised section The proposal was tested with revised section (width reduced to 16m from 20m) of the de-silting chamber. This proposal was also tested under the same test conditions. The test results are compiled in Table-2. It may be seen that over all efficiency of the system for trapping of the silt load is more than 70% and the efficiency for +0.2 mm size particle is around 92%. The silt flushing efficiency of the system is more or less the same as with earlier proposal. No remarkable deposition of silt is noticed at any sediment load upto 5000 ppm. The model tests indicate that silt deposition of the order of 0.30m to 0.45m is observed on the cover slab in all the experiments. Most of the orifices remain open after the model run. Practically, no deposition over the down stream transition is observed.

Table-2 OBSERVED SILT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF DESILTING BASIN OF VPHEP

Sl. No.

1 2 3 4 5

Silt Observed Silt Concentration of Overall Silt +0.2mm size particle Details Of Concentrat Concentration (ppm) Trapping IN In In Power In Power proposal ion fed at Flushing Efficiency Flushing Channel Channel Intake in % Duct Duct (ppm) I.R.I. 1000 325 3767 72.98 27 1076 Proposal -do2000 670 7450 72.15 57 2058 -do-do-do3000 4000 5000 1050 1400 1800 10840 13992 16997 70.90 70.90 70.07 86 134 172 2990 3836 4700

Silt Silt Trapping Flushing Efficiency Efficiency in % for in % +0.2mm 92.50 87.04 92.00 91.60 91.00 90.80 87.06 85.93 83.19 81.80

Operating Conditions
Intake Discharge (cumec) Pow er Discharge (cumec) Flushing Discharge (cumec) Res. Level

90.50 90.50 90.50 90.50 90.50

75.24 75.24 75.24 75.24 75.24

15.26 15.26 15.26 15.26 15.26

FRL FRL FRL FRL FRL

Layout plan of Intake and de-silting chamber

CHAMBER-I

CHAMBER-II

CHAMBER-III

Section of de-silting chamber

Post Run Conditions in the Basin (16.0 m wide) After 2000 ppm

Deposition at upstream transition of Desilting Chamber (16.0m wide) after 2000 ppm

Post Run Conditions in the Basin (16.0 m wide) After 5000 ppm

Deposition at upstream transition of Desilting Chamber (16.0m wide) after 5000 ppm

Conclusion
The aspects which resulted in the optimized performance of de-silting chamber of VPHEP are as follows: Increase in the slope of the last 6.316m length of the upstream transition resulted in the rolling over action of the sediments which considerably reduced the sediment deposition in the upstream transition. Change in the section of the flushing duct assured more than 3.0m/s flushing velocity at every point of the duct, hence the required flushing efficiency was attained. Change in the size, shape and distribution of orifices resulted in the desired passing of sediments to the flushing duct thereby increasing the silt trapping efficiency of the de-silting chamber.

Conclusion
The over all silt trapping efficiency of the proposal is more than 70%, while silt trapping efficiency of +0.2mm size particle is above 91% even at the sediment concentration of 5000 ppm. Silt flushing efficiency of the system is 90 % at sediment load of 2000 ppm and 82.50% at 5000 ppm.