Output

A
Pre-feasibility Study Report on
Naugarh Gad Small Hydroelectric Project
Darchula, Nepal
17th Ashwin 2070

Tribhuvan University
Institute of Engineering
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
A
Pre-feasibility Study Report On
Darchula, Nepal
Supervisor Prepared By
Prof Dr Hari Prasad Pandit Sailuj Shakya
Department of Civil Engineering Sanchita Neupane
IOE Pulchowk Campus Sonia Barakoti
Sujata Subedi
Sulav Dhakal
Swastik Bhandari
Ashwin 17, 2070

Tribhuvan University
Institute of Engineering
Pulchowk Campus
Department of Civil Engineering
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project work Pre-feasibility Study of Naugarh Gad Small
Hydroelectric Project has been examined and it has been declared successful for the
fulfillment of the academic requirement towards the completion of the Bachelor’s degree in
Civil Engineering.
............................... ................................ ..........................
Prof Dr Hari Prasad Pandit Prof Dr Prem Chandra Jha Er Suraj Lamichhane
Project Supervisor External Internal
Date: 2070/6/17
Pre- Feasibility Study Report on Naugarh Gad SHEP 2070
Team Composition
Supervisor:
Prof Dr Hari Prasad Pandit
Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus
Team Members:
Sailuj Shakya (2066/BCE/103)
Sanchita Neupane (2066/BCE/105)
Sonia Barakoti (2066/BCE/122)
Sujata Subedi (2066/BCE/130)
Sulav Dhakal (2066/BCE/131)
Swastik Bhandari (2066/BCE/139)

Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus
I
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, we would like to thank our supervisor Prof. Dr.Hari Prasad Pandit for his
valuable guidance and advice without which this work would not have been accomplished.
We are thankful to Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus for giving us an

opportunity to undertake this assignment. We would also like to thank Mr. Chandra Lal Gurung,
instructor at Survey Instruction Committee, IOE Pulchowk Campus, for his guidance related to
surveying and use of surveying instruments.
We express our gratitude to South Asia Engineering Pvt. Ltd. for the huge co-operation
extended to us during our study period. We are sincerely thankful to Mr. Guru Neupane for
constantly inspiring and guiding us. We would like to acknowledge Er. Mahendra Neupane,
Project Manager, South Asia Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Sanjeev Neupane, Managing
director, South Asia Engineering Pvt. Ltd. for their tremendous support and help. We would also
like to thank Er. Sudesh Dahal, Ridi Hydropower, and Er. Nischal Rajbhandari, South Asia
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Er. Bhupal Adhikari for providing us with related data and
information.
We would like to acknowledge Prof. Dr. Prem Chandra Jha for his constant support and
conceptual guidance. We are also thankful to Er. Suraj Lamichhanne for his support without
which our work would not have been completed on time. We express our sincere gratitude to
Prof. Dr. Durga Prasad Sangraula for giving us his precious time to show demonstrations at
hydro-lab and providing us with educational materials. We would like to add our gratitude to
our friends who directly and indirectly helped us in the successful completion of the project.
II
ABSTRACT
This work entitled “Pre-feasibility Study of Naugarh Gad SHEP” is done as the final year
project according to the syllabus of final semester of Bachelor’s Degree of Civil Engineering
under IOE, TU. The objective of the final year project is to make the students familiar with the
real civil engineering practice and boost our confidence to tackle the real problems encountered
in civil engineering professional field.
At first, a 15 day tour to the project site was organized for topographical surveying. This trip
helped us visualize real engineering problems and gave us some experience to work in the field.
This particular work is the outcome of the academic workout of civil components in details.
Mostly we have tried to work out the design of dam, intake, spillway, stilling basin, gravel trap,
water conveyance system, penstock optimization, surge tank and powerhouse. We have tried to
incorporate hydrological study in detail whereas sedimentology and geological study in brief.
This report has been prepared for academic purpose and is bound to have many shortcomings in
it. However, our team has put our best effort to this project work. Healthy comments,
suggestions, and corrections are highly appreciated.
III

Salient Features
1.0 General
Source River : Naugarh Gad
Location
- VDC : Dethala VDC
- District : Darchula
- Zone : Mahakali
- Development Region : Far-Western
Type of Scheme : Run-off-River
Gross Head : 136.641m
Net Head : 127.011 m
Design Discharge : 8 m3/s
Installed Capacity : 8990.58 kW
Gross Annual Generation : 47.612 GWh
2.0 Hydrology & Meteorology
Catchment Area : 201 Sq.km
Average Monsoon Precipitation : 2000 mm
Temperature : -2.4oC and 36.4oC (Min.m & Max.m)
Q40% : 8 m3/s
100-yrs Flood at Intake : 791 m3/s
3.0 Diversion Weir & Intake
Diversion Weir
- Type : Overflow (Ogee)
- Length : 26 m
- River Bed Level : 866 amsl
IV
- Crest Level : 870 amsl
- High Flood Level : 875.215 amsl
Intake
- Type : Side intake
- Number of bays : 2 Nos.
- Size of each opening : 2m x 2m (B x H)
- Intake sill level : 867.50 amsl
- Full Supply level : 869.7 amsl
Under sluice
-No of bay : 1 No.
-Size (B x H) : 4m x 4m
-Sill level : 866 amsl
-Gate operation : Manual/electrical
4.0 Approach Canal
Type : Rectangular RCC
Size (B x H) : 2.4 x 2.4 m
Length : 49.409 m
Slope (Longitudinal) : 1 in 795
5.0 Desilting Basin
Type : Dufour (Double-bay)
Size of each bay (L x B x H) : 64 m x 8 m x 5.5m
Length of inlet transition : 35 m
Length of Outlet transition : 14 m
Particle Size to be settled : Greater than 0.2 mm
Flushing type : Continuous / Intermitent
Full Supply level : 869.55 amsl
V
6.0 Headrace Pipe
Material : Steel
Size (D) : 2.3m
Length : 4095.129 m
Thickness : 15 mm
Slope (Longitudinal) : 1 in 67
7.0 Surge Tank
Type : Inclined (Circular)
Size of Surge Pipe (D) : 4m
Length : 75 m
Slope (longitudinal) : 1 in 2
Size of Connecting Pipe : 2.3 m
Length of Connecting Pipe : 111 m
Full Supply level : 870.449 amsl
8.0 Penstock Pipe
Type : Open
Material type : Mild Steel
Size (Dia) : 1.8 m
Thickness : 16mm
Length : 691.117 m
Number of bifurcations : Two
9.0 Powerhouse
Type : Surface
Clear Size : 40.6 m x 9.8 x 18.7m (L x B x H)
VI
Number of Units : 2 Nos.
Turbine axis level : 724.5amsl
Generator Floor level : 729.35amsl
10.0 Turbine
Number of Units : 2 Nos.
Type : Francis with horizontal shaft
Net head : 127.011 m
Design discharge : 4 m3/s
Rated speed : 428 rpm
Rated efficiency : 94 %
11.0 Tailrace Canal
RCC box culvert (Rectangular)
Size (B x H) : 2.5m x 2.6m
Length : 96.886 m
Slope (longitudinal) : 1 in 500
Tail Water Level : 726.6 amsl
12.0 Gates
Under sluice Gate
- Type : Vertical lift Roller type
- Number : 1 No.
- Size (B x H) : 4.2 x 4.5m
- Hoisting : Electrical
Intake Gate
- Type : Vertical lift roller type
- Number : 4 Nos
VII
- Size (B x H) ( 2 Gates) : 2.2 x 2.2m
-Size (B x H) (2 Gates) : 1.2 x 2.5 m
- Hoisting : Electrical
Desander Basin Inlet Gates
-Type : Sliding type
- Number : 2 Nos.
- Size (B x H) : 1.2 x 2.2m
- Hoisting : Manual
Desander Basin Outlet Gates
-Type : Sliding type
- Number : 2 Nos.
- Size (B x H) : 1.05 x 2.3 m
- Hoisting : Manual
13.0 Intake Trashracks
Coarse Trashtrack
- Type : Fixed
- Number : 1 sets
- Size (B x H) : 5.1 x3.48 m
- Spacing of bars : 100 mm
- Size of bars : 20 mm
-Inclination : 600 with Horizontal
14.0 Access Road
Existing : Gokuleswor - Dhuligada Road is passing

through the project site.
VIII
15.0 Power and Energy
Installed Capacity : 8990.58 kW
Wet energy Generation : 43.26 GWh
Dry Energy Generation : 7.18 GWh
Gross Annual Generation : 40.43 GWh
Plant Factor : 67.10 %
16.0 Total Cost of the Project(Civil Works) : NRs. 1153.188million
IX
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements II
Abstract III
Salient Features IV
Table of Contents X
List of drawings XV
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Status of Energy in Nepal 2
1.3 Hydroelectricity in Nepal 3
CHAPTER 2
Description of Project Area
2.1 Location and Physical Features 5
2.2 Accessibility 6
2.3 Population Cast and Region 7
2.4 Ethnic Composition 7
2.5 Economic Development 7
2.6 Tourism 7
2.7 Climate 8
2.8 Source of Lighting 8
2.9 Existing Policy and Regulations 8
CHAPTER 3
Field Investigations and Data Collection
x
3.1 Surveying and Topographical Mapping 10
3.2 Surveying Methodology 10
3.3 Hydrological Investigations 15
3.4 Sediment Investigations 15
3.5 Construction Material Survey 15
3.6 Walkover Survey of Transmission Line 16
CHAPTER 4
Hydrological Study
4.1 General 17
4.1.1 Introduction 17
4.1.2 Objectives 17
4.1.3 Scope and Methodology 17
4.1.4 Review of Past Study, Reviews and Literatures 18
4.2 Hydro-metrological Characteristics & Database
4.2.1 Hydro-metrological Characteristics of Nepal 18
4.3 Long term flow Analysis 20
4.4 High flow Analysis 22
4.5 low flow Analysis 28
CHAPTER 5
Sedimentation Studies
5.1 Physiography of the Naugadh Basin 31
5.2 Available Information and Sedimentation Studies 32
xi
CHAPTER 6
Theory Review and Design Aspects
6.1 Design Consideration of Diversion Weir 37
6.1.1 Elevation of Weir Crest 37
6.1.2 Length of Weir and Under sluice 37
6.1.3 Design of weir 38
6.2 Shape of the spillway
6.2.1 Weir profile and hydraulic jump Profile 38
6.2.2 Spillway Design 40
6.3 Under sluice Design 40
6.4 Design of Stilling basin 41
6.5 Forces Acting on weir 41
6.6 Modes of Failure and Criteria For Stability of Weir 42
6.7 Stability Analysis of Dam 43
6.8 Design Consideration of Intake Structures 45
6.8.1 Design of Intake 47
6.8.2 Trash rack Design 47
6.9 Design of Gravel Trap 48
6.10 Approach Canal Design 50
6.11 Settling Basin 52
6.12 Water Conveyance System 58
6.13 Design of Surge Tank 59
6.14 Penstock 62
6.15 Design of Power House 64
xii
6.16 Electromechanical Units 65
6.16.1 Tubine 66
6.16.2 Turbine Design 68
6.1.6.3 Design of Runner 69
6.16.4 Design of Spiral Casing 69
6.16.5 Calculations of Draft tube Dimensions 69
6.16.6 Head loss in Turbine 70
6.17 Tailrace 71
6.18 Anchor block and slide blocks 74
CHAPTER 7
Geological and engineering Studies
7.1 General Introduction 76
7.2 Methodology 76
7.3 Major Tectonic zones of Nepal 76
7.4 Lesser Himalaya 77
7.5 Regional Geology of Project Area 77
7.6 Major Geological Structures 78
7.7 Geology of the Project Area 79
7.8 Tunnel verses Pipeline 81
CHAPTER 8
Cost Estimate
8.1 Assumption 82
8.2 Methodology 82
8.3 Recommendation 83
xiii
CHAPTER 9
Conclusion and Recommendation
9.1 Conclusion 84
9.2 Recommendation 84
References
Appendix
A. Alternatives Selection
B. Hydrological Calculations
C. Pipeline Optimization
D. Penstock Optimization
E. Bifurcation Design
F. Anchor block Design
G. Detail Cost Estimate
H. Headloss Calculations
I. Energy Calculations
J. Rating Curves
xiv
List of Drawings
Drawing Title Scale

No.
1 Location map of Naugarh Gad
Hydroelectric power
2 Alternative Alignments 1:20000
3 Plan and Profile View 1:14000
4 Headworks and Settling Basin Plan View 1:750
5 Headworks Plan View 1:300
6 Sections at Headworks 1:250
7 Weir L-Section 1:250
8 Settling Basin Plan view 1:500
9 Settling Basin Sections 1:400
xv
10 Plan and Longitudinal view of 1:1100
Surge Tank
11 Power House Plan View 1:150
12 Power House Sectional View 1:300
xvi
Pre-feasibility Study Report on Naugarh Gad SHEP 2070
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Nepal is a tiny land locked sovereign independent country located in South Asia between India
& China. Nepal occupies a total area of 1, 47, 181 sq.km with a population of about 27 million.
Although it occupies a small area of land, it has unique topographical variations. The landscape
of this tiny nation varies from 60m above the mean sea level to the highest point of the earth, Mt.
Everest which is 8848 m above the mean sea level. Geographically the country is divided into
three main geographical regions The Himalayas, the Hills and the Terai.
The Himalayan region: The Himalayan region is the northernmost region of the country. Its
altitude ranges between 4,877 m. to 8,848 m. and the width north-south is 25-50 k. m. It extends
from east to west and accounts for 15% of the total land of Nepal. The northern 16 districts of
Nepal are mostly within this region. The snowline lies between 4000-5000 m.
The hilly region: In between the Himalayas and Terai are the mid-hills of Nepal, mainly made of
the Mahabharat, Siwalik and partly of Chure ranges, which contains 68% of the Nepalese land.
The altitude ranges between 600m to 4877 m. Altogether, 39 of the 75 administrative districts
are within this region.
Terai (The plain land): Terai covers 17% of the area of Nepal. It provides excellent farming land.
Average elevation is 60 to 300 meter above sea-level.
Besides being rich in geographical diversity, water resource is Nepal’s one of the major natural
heritages. Nepal has a mean annual precipitation of 1500mm, comprises of more than 6000
rivers and rivulets and hundreds of lakes and streams.
In Nepal, monsoon rains and snowmelt contribute to river flow. The Hydrology of Nepalese
Rivers is dominated by the Monsoon winds originating at the Bay of Bengal and entering Nepal
around the end of May and lasting until the end of September. About 75 to 80 percent of total
annual rainfall occurs during these four monsoon months. The annual precipitation is 2200-2500
1
mm in the Terai and Siwaliks range, 1500-2500 mm in the Mahabharata range, and less than
1000 mm in the Himalayan range. The months between October and May are mainly dry, though
a winter monsoon which travels eastward from the Mediterranean Sea occasionally brings rain.
Depending on the altitude some catchments are influenced by monsoon and some by snow melt.
On catchments that are entirely below 3000 m, there is no significant contribution from
snowmelt. On catchments that are above 5000 m, snow melting is major source for stream flow.
Catchments lying between 3000 and 5000 m are influenced by both monsoon and snowmelt.
The three main river systems of the country-the Koshi, Narayani and Karnali river systems
originate from glaciers and snow-fed lakes. These rivers run from north to south and ultimately
become major tributaries of the Ganges River in northern India.
Fig. 1.1 Major Rivers Of Nepal
1.2 Status of Energy in Nepal
Of the total energy consumption in Nepal, around 83.7% (FY 2010/2011) is from the traditional
sources among which fuel wood is the main source of energy. Petroleum provides 10.4 % of the
total energy whereas mere 2.3 % is from electricity. 92% of electricity is from hydropower
which is nearly 2 percent total energy consumption in Nepal. Another notable fact is that only
2
40% of the entire population of the country has an access to electricity. Higher dependency of
the country in the fuel wood is inviting deforestation, soil erosion and flood.
Fig. 1.2 Energy Consumption in Nepal (2011/2012)
In Nepal, so far we have not been able to cultivate wind-power successfully. Few installed
projects did not work properly. Similarly, solar pico-plants that have been successfully marketed
by enthusiastic individuals and firms generate insignificant amount of electricity for the country.
Moreover, we lack resources for thermal and nuclear plants. In such a scenario, with more than
6000 rivers flowing down the steep topography of the country’s terrain, hydropower has the
highest potential in solving our everlasting energy crisis.
1.3 Hydro-electricity in Nepal
Hydropower is the power derived from the energy of falling water. The real beauty of
hydropower is that it is a renewable source of energy and produces least amount of green-house
gases compared to other sources of energy like fuel wood or petroleum products. Thermal
powers require coal as fuel whereas the fuel for hydro-power is water. However, the elegance of
water as the fuel is that it is neither consumed nor converted into something else. Water passes
3
through the turbines without decreasing its utility. It can be subsequently used for water supply
and irrigation.
Nepal has the financial-technical potential to generate 42000MW of electricity. Even after 100
years of the first hydropower plant-Pharping Hydroelectric power plant (500KW, 1911 A.D.), we
have been able to generate only 705.69 MW (FY 2011/2012) of electricity. By now we should
have been able to produce enough hydroelectricity to earn revenues to get rid of country’s
poverty. Nevertheless, the challenges in the field of hydropower are immense for a poor country
like Nepal. The investment required for the development of a Hydropower project is quite high
because of lack of road access and adverse socio-political condition. Obstacles are posed by
heavy sediments in river and foreign dependability in hydropower construction technology.
4
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
2.1 Location and Physical Features
The Naugarh Gad Small Hydroelectric Project is located in Dethala VDC of Darchula district in
the Far-Western Development Region of Nepal on the Naugarh Gad River within the Mahakali
River basin. Geographically the site is located between latitude 29 o 41’ 15” to 29o 43’ 08” North
and longitude 80o 36’ 15” to 80o 36’ 38” East.
Physiographically the project area including its whole catchment area belongs to Middle
Mountains. The drainage area of Naugarh Gad lies between the elevations of 800m to 4000m.
Seasonal snow fall occurs in winter season in the upper part of the catchment. The basin is
devoid of glaciers.
Turkmenistan
Afghanistan
China
Iran
Pakistan
Nepal
Bhutan
Bangladesh
India
Oman
Myanmar
Laos
Thailand
Cambodia
0 100 200 400 Kilometers

0 65 130 260 Kilometers
Sri Lanka
Malaysia
5
2.2 Accessibility:
The district is accessible both with air and road transport facilities. This district has an airport at
Gokuleshwor. The Naugarh Gad SHEP is accessible by road from about 16 km from
Gokuleshwor on Mahakali Highway on Gokuleshwor-Dhuligada feeder road.
6
2.3 Population, caste and religion:
About 58.4 percent population falls under below the poverty line. Population composition is
made by different caste such as Chhetri 63.55%, Brahmin 17.15%, Thakuri 4.01%, Dalit and
others contribute 15.39 percent. Hindu followers are high in numbers. Hindu, Buddhists as well
as others do regard nature as a gift of God and they worship nature on their own way.
2.4 Ethnic Composition:
The major caste groups of Darchula District are Brahmin, Chhetries, Dalit, Thakuri, Lohar,
Kaine, Newar, Byansi, Bandhe, Sanyasi etc. Among them 85.19% HHs are
Brahmin/Chheties/Thakuri, 10% Dalits, 0.12% Sauka and others are occupational caste groups.
Sauka are indigenous inhabitant’s caste group. The indigenous caste groups are dominated by
migrants from other villages. The Dalits (7.35%) and Thakuri (7.43%) shares equal proportion
and occupy the second largest group in the total population. Indigenous groups Byansi represent
1.32%, Lohar 1.38% and other minorities’ correspondent to 1.48 percent. Dalits are also defined
as the Special Target Groups (STGs).
2.5 Economic Development:
Darchula is one of the least developed districts of the country. The major socioeconomic
indicator of Darchula district is still very poor. Life expectancy of the people was about 52 in
1996. About 89.90% of the total population depends upon agriculture. Subsistence agriculture,
lack of basic infrastructure, difficult geophysical condition, traditional agricultural practice, low
literacy rate and population growth are the root causes for deep rooted poverty.
2.6 Tourism:
Api Nampa Conservation Area is a famous gateway of Kailash Mansarobar holly region located
in Tibet. Many pilgrims pass through this Conservation Area to get Kailash Pravat. Not only
Nepalese but also foreigners visit Api Nampa Conservation Area to acquire spiritual satisfaction.
Panoramic view of Himalayas created by several peaks like Nampa, Jethi Bahurani etc. attract
tourists.
7
2.7 Climate
The climate of the area is generally characterized by high rainfall and humidity. The climatic
condition varies along with the elevation gradient. Climate of the Darchula District varies widely
from subtropical to alpine. In the north, most of the parts remain under snow having alpine
climate. In the southern part and valleys the climate is subtropical. Mid- hills has temperate type.
The average maximum temperature is 18.6°C and the minimum temperature is 7.7°C and most
precipitation falls between May and September. About eighty percent of the total annual rainfall
occurs during monsoon period (June to September). All areas experience very high rainfall
intensities, ranging between estimates of 125–350 mm for a 24 hour period. A cold, generally
dry climate exists in the high alpine valleys just north of the southern arm of the Himalaya that
cuts across the bottom of Darchula.
2.8 Source of Lighting
Total Electricity Kerosene Bio-gas Solar Others Not stated

(household)
24604 6632 8197 10 8137 1547 82
2.9 Existing Policy and Regulations

The following policies and regulatory framework existing in Nepal are relevant for hydropower
development:
 Hydropower Development Policy, 1992.
 Water Resources Act, 1992.
 Electricity Act, 1992.
 Electricity Regulation, 1993.
 Environment Protection Act, 1997.
 Environment Protection Regulation, 1997.
The Water resources Act, 1992 establishes hydropower development as fourth in the list of
priorities in the exploitation of water resources. The first three priority areas of water resource
utilization are respectively; (i) drinking water and domestic uses, (ii) irrigation, and (iii)
agricultural uses.
8
1. Licensing Requirements
Hydropower Policy, 1992 as well as the electricity Act, 1992 do not allow survey, generation,
transmission or distribution of electricity to be carried out in projects without obtaining a license,
if the capacity of the project is more than 100 kilowatts.
2. Environmental Aspects
In accordance with the Environmental Protection Regulation, 1997, a feasibility study of a
hydropower project with a capacity more than 1MW, involving a transmission line above 66kV
must be supplemented with an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) study.
The environmental provisions were also specified in water and electricity related policies, Acts
and regulations. They are depicted as follows:
Hydropower Development Policy, 1992

The construction or operation of a hydroelectric Project shall be made in such a way that it will
have minimum adverse effect on the environment.
Water Resources Act, 1992
Pollution in water resource must not exceed the prescribed limit.
Electricity Act, 1992
No substantial adverse effect is made on the environment by way of erosion, flood, landslide, air
pollution etc.
Electricity Regulation, 1993
Application for production license should include analysis of environment effect (measures to be
taken to minimize appreciable adverse effects due to project on environment, social and
economic effect of the project on said area, method to be applied for resettlement etc.).
9
CHAPTER 3
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND DATA COLLECTION
This section summarizes the field investigation which were carried out; the field measurements
which were made and the data which were collected in connection with the following aspects of
the feasibility:
 Surveying and topographic Mapping
 Geological and Geotechnical investigation
 Hydrological investigation
 Sedimentation study
3.1 Surveying and Topographical Mapping

The survey works for the proposed project were conducted from second week of Jestha to first
week of Ashadh 2070. Proper survey and leveling works are necessary to design the components,
to prepare drawing and to calculate the quantities of the project components. The survey data
greatly influences the quality of design. Therefore, all the survey works were carried out
precisely and correctly.
The senior surveyor and his group carried out the detailed topographical survey of the selected
schemes. All the data necessary to determine the locations, coordinates and levels were obtained
by direct measurement in the field. To achieve the required accuracy and standards Sokkia 610k
Total Station with least count of 5” were used.
3.2 Surveying Methodology
3.2.1 Scope of Work

The survey works were carried out with the objective of preparing maps of head works area ,
intake site, desander basin area, forebay or area , penstock and powerhouse sites at appropriate
scales to enable structure layouts to be prepared . The following works were performed:
10
 Close traverse survey was carried out to establish required ground control points at
various locations in the project area.
 All the major ground control points were monument with marked on permanent boulders.
 Topographical maps of headworks, desander, forebay, penstock and powerhouse sites
were prepared in appropriate scales.
 Different cross-sections and river profiles were taken at headworks and powerhouse area.
3.2.2 Available Information and Data

The information available for carrying out the topographical survey of the Nau Gad is as follows.
 Topographical maps of the project area from Department of survey; Scale :
1:25000 (Sheet No.2980 07 A-Gokuleshwor)
3.2.3 Methodology
The methodology used for the entire survey works was developed as per the scope of works,
which includes desk study, reconnaissance survey, monumentation of control points, control
traversing, horizontal and vertical control, topographic survey, preparation of plan and profiles
and mapping of the project area.
3.2.3.1 Desk Study

Prior to the field survey, desk study was carried out by using the most recent topographical maps
(scale 1:25,000) and Google Earth. Detailed information about the project area for the survey
work was noted. Finally all the major structures were marked on the topographical map for
survey department.
3.2.3.2 Reconnaissance Survey

After finalizing the desk study, a team of geologist and hydrologist with surveyor were
mobilized for field verification of proposed structures. Before the detailed survey work, a brief
reconnaissance survey was carried out with flagging at necessary points around the entire project
area to be mapped. Survey area was marked by red enamel paint. The first step of the survey was
to fix the control points around the project area.
11
3.2.3.3 Monumentation of Ground control Points

All the major control points were made conspicuous in the field by monumentation of control
point with an iron pin set in rock or boulder or with crosses chiseled on the boulders. They were
also made noticeable in the field by marking with red enamel paint. Altogether 2 permanent
benchmarks were established at the project area. The location and coordinates each of the
Benchmarks are shown below.
Coordinates and elevation of permanent Benchmarks
Point No. Description Easting Northing RL Remarks
462244.490 3289101.480 890.330

1 BM1 Headworks
461959.110 3288997.840 880.210

2 BM2 Headworks
3.2.3.4 Control Traversing

A closed traverse was carried out from headworks site to the powerhouse site. Then several
another required control points were established by conventional traverse survey, covering the
entire area to be mapped from the headworks site to the powerhouse site. All traverses formed by
the conventional survey were closed loops or closed on existing traverse points. The traverse legs
were made as long as possible and a fixed tripod system was used for all reflecting prisms to
achieve better accuracy.
In the traverse survey, the horizontal angles were observed in one complete round (face left and
face right) within a mean of 15”. Distance was measured in the fore and back sights directions
and the mean distance adopted. The closing errors were distributed according the common
survey standards.
Altogether 28 traverse points were established in the main-traverse loop, 5.0 km in length.
Different offset points were established by carrying out the traverse survey from two main
control points whenever necessary. The list of main traverse points and their coordinate data are
given in the following table:
12
Table 3.2.3.4 Main Traverse Station and their Coordinates

Northing (m) Easting (m) Elevation (m) Description
3289101.480 462244.490 890.330 BM2
3288997.840 461959.110 880.210 BM1
3288991.647 461899.934 882.443 N1
3288727.824 461802.226 872.424 N2
3288400.088 461854.471 862.892 N3
3288243.485 461989.960 853.572 N4
3288179.123 462101.191 850.276 N5
3288052.861 462144.556 850.123 N6
3287955.992 462145.504 847.688 N7
3287919.899 462123.538 848.167 N8
3287845.111 462104.563 845.166 N9
3287768.673 461949.427 851.294 N10
3287634.734 461895.477 842.428 N11
3287568.710 461870.016 840.153 N12
3287203.551 461990.956 813.414 N13
3287012.746 462207.878 807.276 N14
3286658.566 462242.767 805.724 N15
3286378.987 462386.727 796.097 N16
3286072.103 462454.683 793.400 N17
3285993.482 462419.100 800.928 N18
3285714.834 462272.717 814.290 N19
3285616.847 462326.245 790.168 N20
3285466.151 462215.012 796.924 N21
3285282.539 462225.023 788.964 N22
3285256.434 462050.131 771.587 N23
3285219.373 461967.894 752.606 N24
3285264.714 461904.096 733.037 N25
3285219.389 461967.869 752.611 STN
3.2.3.5 Horizontal and Vertical Control

The control points were established by traverse method. The traverse was conducted along the
selected the project area and was then closed to the known station covering the necessary area of
the headworks site to the powerhouse site. Sokkia 610K Total Station with least count of 5” was
used for measuring horizontal and vertical angles. One complete set (face right and face left) of
horizontal and vertical angles were observed during the control traversing.
For horizontal control, the following measurements were taken:
13
 Mean angle and distance computation was checked precisely.

 Angular closure was checked for close loops.
 Azimuth was checked between traverse points.
 Angular misclosures were adjusted, and
 ∆X and ∆Y were computed for planimetric closure.
For vertical control the following measurements were taken:

 Computation for ∑ Back sight, ∑ Foresight, and ∑ Difference of height were
checked precisely.
 Computation of ∆h for each loop was checked, and
 All the loops were adjusted by the dell method so as to provide consistent height
for use in spot surveying.
While surveying a traverse line, all angles and distances were measured by applying the force
centering method. Distance measurement was performed using Sokkia 610K Total Station with
standard reflecting prism with an accuracy of 5mm ± 5ppm. Both back sighting and fore sighting
of direct distance were measured.
3.2.4 Data Processing

All the survey data were computed in the field as well as in Kathmandu office. Similarly, some
field data were evaluated and horizontal distance and elevations were calculated reciprocally. All
the coordinates and elevations of each station and survey points were then computed. Finally, the
topographic map was prepared in Civil3D 2012 format.
3.2.5 Detailed Topographical Survey

The features of terrain were surveyed by means of spot surveying. Spot positions were taken by
the tachometric method from different traverse points. Inaccessible points like rock faces, top of
cliff, landslide edge, etc. were sighted from at least two unknown points by reading both the
horizontal and vertical angles. Features such as river banks, high flood level, landslides, cliff,
house, cultivated, lands, roads, canal, embankments, boulders, etc. were recorded.
14
Similarly, some field data were evaluated and horizontal distance and elevations were calculated
reciprocally. All the coordinates and elevations of each station and survey points were then
computed. Finally, the topographic map was prepared in Civil3D 2012 format
3.3 Hydrological Investigations
3.3.1 Collection of Available Hydrological Data

There is a permanent gauging station in Naugarh gad (Index No. 115) at Harsinbagar Gaun
installed by the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) in the year 2000. The station
lies about 2 km downstream of the intake site. The daily and extreme discharges of this station
are obtained from the DHM till 2007. The daily and instantaneous data from 2000to 2006 are
obtained from DHM.
As the daily flow of Naugarh Gad is available for only 7 years, the discharge data of Sinja River
(Hydrologically similar catchmnet) at Diware (Stn no 225) was used to predict the hydrological
characteristics of the Naugarh Gad. The result obtained was impractical. So, the discharge data
of Naugarh Gad at Harsinbagar Gaun for seven years are used for design.
3.4 Sediment Investigations
The sediment concentrations are essential to the design of the desanding basin. However; there is
no data available for the Naugarh Gad. The sediment data in Pancheshwor High Dam
Multipurpose Project in the Mahakali River can be employed for the sediment estimation. Two
other empirical methods can also be employed to estimate the sediment load transported by the
Naugarh Gad - (a) Himalayan Sediment Yield Technique, and (b) Regional Method (Sharma &
Kansakar, 1992).
3.5 Construction Material Survey
The survey was carried out to find the potential availability of the construction materials, both in
quantity and quality, in the project area. As the project requires a huge amount of construction
materials- coarse aggregates, sand and boulders, some borrow areas have been identified.
15
Coarse Aggregate
Coarse aggregate is the major constituent of concrete and also used as filter material behind the
retaining structures. It is obtained naturally due to disintegration of rocks and produced
artificially by crushing of rocks. For construction of the project, the coarse aggregate will be
produced either by erection of crusher plant at site or screening the river bed materials.
Sand
Sand is mostly used in concrete and rubble masonry works. The screening plant will be set up at
an appropriate place to produce sand using river materials. There are sufficient quantities of river
bed materials required to produce/collect construction materials for the project.
Impervious Materials
The impervious materials are generally used to retain water. During construction of headwork
structures, these materials are used to divert the river flow by constructing cofferdam. The
impervious materials are found in excess at the site.
3.6 Walkover Survey of Transmission Line
Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) is constructing Chameliya Hydroelectric Project (30 MW) in
Balanch of Darchula and is also constructing 131 km long 132 kV transmission line from Attaria
to Balanch to evacuate the power. The power generated from Naugarh Gad Small Hydroelectric
Project shall be connected to the under construction 132 kV sub-station at Balanch through 7 km
long 33 kV transmission line from the proposed powerhouse site at Dethala village. The
transmission line route passes along the Gokuleshwore-Balanch road.
16
CHAPTER 4
HYDROLOGICAL STUDY
4.1 General
4.1.1 Introduction
The hydrological characteristics of a river play vital role in the planning, design and successful
operation of a hydropower project. The hydrology of a river influences the nature and size of
hydropower projects, the design of their components and the ability of these components to
fulfill their operational needs with Naugarh gad small hydropower project is a run-of-river
scheme located in Darchula district of Nepal. The hydrological study at proposed intake is
carried out based on regional stream flows nearby Naugarh gad.
At present the study includes hydro-meteorological characteristics of the watershed, regional

database for hydrological analysis and long term flow analysis at intake site of Naugarh gad.
4.1.2 Objectives
The principal objective of the present inception study is to review all the past studies, update
them using additional data wherever possible, use both stochastic and deterministic approaches
as far as data permit and recommend the hydrologic design parameters such as low flows and
mean monthly flows for energy calculations and capacity optimizations.
4.1.3 Scope and Methodology
 Delineation of catchment area at Intake

 Transposition of regional flows to Intake site
 Comparative analysis of monthly flow results obtained by different sources, approaches
and recommendation of appropriate method for design flows
 Development of Flow Duration Curve (FDC) and annual hydrograph from
recommended long term flows \
 Estimation of low flow
17
4.1.4 Review of Past Studies, Reports and Literatures
Following relevant past studies, reports and literatures on regional hydrology have been collected
and reviewed for the study and finalization of key hydrological parameters of the project.
 WECS/DHM, Methodologies for Estimating Hydrological Characteristics of Ungauged

Locations in Nepal, 1990
 DHM, Hydrological Estimations in Nepal, 2004
 DHM, Stream Flow Summary, 2008
 DOED, Guidelines for the Design of Head works for Hydropower Projects in Nepal,
2005
Design Guidelines for Headworks of Hydropower Projects, 2006
4.2 Hydro-Meteorological Characteristics and Database
4.2.1 Hydro-Meteorological Characteristics of Nepal
The Hydrology of Nepalese Rivers is dominated by the Monsoon winds originating at the Bay of
Bengal and entering Nepal around end of May and lasting until the end of September. About 75
to 80 percent of total annual rainfall occurs during these four monsoon months. In Nepal, the
intensity and pattern of monsoon is governed by the topography of the Himalayas. It usually
moves to the north and later on to the west, causing maximum precipitation in the southern Terai
belt, and diminishing gradually while moving towards the north. The annual precipitation is
2200-2500 mm in the Terai and Siwaliks range, 1500-2500 mm in the Mahabharata range, and
less than 1000 mm in the Himalayan range. The monsoon occurs first in the east and
progressively moves along the Himalayan chain, into the west covering the entire stretch of the
country.
The months between October and May are mainly dry, though a winter monsoon which travels
eastward from the Mediterranean Sea occasionally brings rain. The winter monsoon has more
influence in west than east. Precipitation in the form of hail may occur during February and
March.
The steep gradient, young geology, sharp physiographic changes within short distances and the
orographic influence due to high mountain barriers influence the spatial variability of
18
precipitation. On the other hand, depleting forest cover, population pressure and increasing
urbanizations, cultivation on steep slopes have a combined effect on the dynamics of hydrologic
cycle and water induced environmental degradation such as landslides and debris flow
contributing to ever increasing peak floods and sediment concentrations.
Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) maintain a network of rainfall stations

throughout the country, which include more than 400 rain gauge stations. DHM collects and
manage the stream flow data which the department itself publishes. Based on an average annual
rainfall of about 1400 mm in Nepal, 174 billion cubic meters of water per year is assumed to be
surface run-off. The total run-off of Nepal, including run-off from the Tibetan catchments, is
estimated at about 200 billion cubic meters per annum. Due to the high concentration and
intensity of precipitation during the monsoon period, about 72% of the total run-off is
instantaneous, while the rest is conserved as snow and ground water which drain into the rivers
during the dry season.
All major river basins except those of the southern rivers originate in the Himalaya or the
Tibetan Plateau. These river basins are partly snow or glacier fed. During the monsoon, these
rivers receive abundant runoff due to heavy rainfall, which results in floods. The effect of the
snowmelt factor becomes insignificant as they move from north to south. Rivers originating
south of the Mahabharata and flowing towards the Terai belt through the Siwalik Hills are
categorized as southern rivers and they depend entirely on rainfall for their runoff. The
hydrograph of these catchments show no rise in flow until the first monsoon rains.
In Nepal, monsoon rains and snowmelt contribute to river flow. Depending on the altitude some
catchments are influenced by monsoon and some by snow melt. On catchments that are entirely
below 3000 m, there is no significant contribution from snowmelt. On catchments that are above
5000 m, snow melting is major source for stream flow. Catchments lying between 3000 and
5000 m are influenced by both monsoon and snowmelt.
19
4.3 High Flow (Flood) Analysis
Depending on whether a river is gauged or not, the methods available for estimating the flood
discharge of rivers can be broadly classified into two categories – direct methods and indirect
methods. Direct methods are used to estimate design floods for different return periods using the
flow data or precipitation data available at gauged locations. Indirect methods are helpful in
estimating floods for an ungauged basin, where no, or very few, data are available in the vicinity
of the study area.
Naugarh Gad can be classified as a gauged river. Very few flow measurement data are available.
For frequency analysis it is not sufficient. Hence, hydrologic analysis of this river was carried
out by indirect methods consisting of regional prediction methods and empirical methods. The
regional prediction methods used in this study include the WECS/DHM Method. Among several
empirical formulae tried in the study, Fuller’s, Dicken’s, Log-Pearson, Horton’s, Synder’s
formula provided comparable values to those obtained from the above methods. Details of
calculations of above methods are shown in the Appendix B.
20
4.3.1 Regional Regression Method developed by WECS (Water and Energy Commission
Secretariat) and DHM
The WECS/DHM Method was developed by WECS (1989) which estimates the hydrological
characteristics of ungauged sites in Nepal using a frequency distribution parameter technique that
is a variation of the multiple regression technique. In this method, the independent variable that
is most significant in the regression analysis is the area of the basin below the 3,000 m elevation,
i.e. the area of the basin influenced by monsoon precipitation. This method is not applicable to
basins located entirely above 3,000 m, and its results for basins with a very small portion below
the 3,000 m elevation are not particularly reliable. Since the basin of Naugarh Gad lies entirely
below 5,000 m, this method was used for flood flow analysis.
The WECS/DHM Method uses regression equations for 2-year (median flood) and 100-year
floods for both maximum daily and maximum instantaneous flood peaks of the form:
Qaby   ( A3000  1) 
where Qaby is the discharge in m3/s, subscript a is either a daily or an instantaneous flood peak,
subscript b is either a 2 year or a 100 year return period, A3000 is the catchment area below 3,000
m and  and  are coefficients and taken from reference book. Using this equation, floods of
other return periods can be calculated simply by the plotting the 2 year and 100 year floods on
log-normal probability paper, which results in a straight line. Alternatively, algebraic equation
can be used for this purpose.
So Flood flow of 2 years and 100 years return period are predicated using following equations:
Qinst,2  1.876(A3000  1)0.8783

Qinst,100  14.63(A3000  1)0.7343
Where, Q is in m³/sec
As per our calculations for 100 year return period Q= 315.89m3/s. Full calculations shown in
Appendix B.
21
4.3.2 Fuller’s Formula

Fuller’s formula, developed for catchments in the United States of America, is expressed as
QT  C f A0.8 1  0.8 log T 
Where QT is the discharge in m3/s, Cf is Fuller’s coefficient ranging between 0.18 and 1.88, A is
the catchment area in sq. km and T is the return period in years. For Naugarh Gad, the value of
Cf was adopted as 1.88 (for small catchment), and flood values of different return periods were
computed using above formula. It should be noticed that the flood values of different return
periods yielded by Fuller’s formula are very low compared to others.
As per our calculations, for 100 year return period Q=287.39m3/s. Details of calculations shown
in Appendix B.
4.3.3 Plotting Position Method by Correlation
If Hydrological data of the required river is not available or if the available data has low
reliability, we can obtain it by correlation of the flow data from other hydro logically similar
basin. The discharge of the required basin is given by:
A 
Q2 =  2  ×Q1
 A1 
Where, Q1= Known discharge of the basin 1.
Q2= Required discharge of the basin 2.
A1= Area of the basin 1.
A2 = Area of the basin 2.
The peak discharge of all the years are arranged in descending order and the each discharge is
assigned with numbers. The return period for each discharge is calculated by using formula
T
n  1
m
Where, P = Probability of exceedence of any discharge
m = order of the discharge
n = total number of records
22
4.3.4 Gumbel’s Method correlated with Sinja
This extreme value distribution was introduced by Gumbel (1914) and is commonly kown as
Gumbel’s distribution. It is one of the most widely used probability- distribution functions for
extreme values in hydrologic and meteorological studies for prediction of flood peaks, maximum
rainfalls, maximum wind speed, etc.
Gumbel defined a flood as the largest of the 365 daily flows and the annual series of flood flows
constitute a series of largest values of flows. According to his theory of extreme events, the
probability of occurrence of an event equal to or larger than a value of x0
y
P( X  x 0 )  1  e  e
in which y is a dimensionless variable given by
y   x  a 
a  x  0.45005 x
Thus y

1.2825 x  x   0.577
x
Where, x = mean and  x = standard deviation of the variate X. In practice it is the value of X for
a given P that is required and the eqn. is transposed as
Y p   ln ln 1  P 
Noting that return period T=1/P and designating YT= the value of y, commonly called the
reduced variate, for a given T,
 T 
YT   ln ln
 T  1
 T 
YT   0.834  2.303 log log
 T  1
So, the value of variate X with a return period T is
xT  x  K x
 yT 0.577 
where, K 
1.2825
23
From the available flow data of Sinja flood discharge of different return period is calculated as
transposed to Naugarh Gad Catchment. The values obtained from Gumbel’s Method are fitted on
the best fit line obtained from plotting position method.
The values obtained from this method turned out to be impractical. So, instead we used 7 years
of data of the Hasingbagar gauging station for flood prediction.
4.3.5 Modified Dicken’s Method
The Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee, India has done frequency studies on Himalayan River
and suggested the following relationship to compute Dicken’s constant for desired return period
as:
 1185 
CT  2.342 log 0.6T  log   4
 p 
where,
 a  6 
p 100
  A  a 
Where, a is perpetual snow area in sq.km, A is total catchment area in sq.km and T is return
period in yrs.
QT  CT A0.75
Where, Q is T year flood discharge in m³/s.
As per our calculations, for 100 years return period Q= 791m3/s.
4.3.6 Log –Pearson Type III Distribution by Correlation
In this method the variant is first transformed into logarithmic form (base10) and the transformed
data is then analyzed. If X is variant of random hydrologic series, then the series of z variants
Where,
z  log x
For z series, for any recurrence interval T

zT  z  K z  z
Where Kz = a frequency factor is function of recurrence interval T and coefficient of skew Cs
24
 z  Standard deviation of the Z variant sample
 z  z 
2
z 
N  1
Cs= coefficient of skew of variant Z
N  z  z 
Cs 
N  1( N  2) z 3
The variations of Kz =f (Cs, T) is given in table.
The corresponding value of xT=antilog (zT)
As per our calculations for 100 year return period Q= 177.88m3/s.
4.3.7 Synder’s Method
Snyder’s method was used for flood flow estimation by deriving a synthetic unit hydrograph
based on known physical characteristics of the basin. In this method, the peak discharge QPR, in
m3/s, was computed as
Q PR  q PR C A AR
where qPR is the peak discharge per square km of the drainage area due to 1 cm of effective
rainfall for rainfall duration of tr in m3/s/sq. km., CA is an aerial reduction factor that accounts for
the fact that the average rainfall intensity over a large area is smaller than that over a small area,
R is the rainfall in cm for duration tR derived from the 24-hour rainfall with the reduction for
area. For use qPR shall be computed from the relation
CP
q PR  2.78
t PR
Where, CP is a coefficient depending upon basin characteristics and tPR is the lag time in hours
for rainfall duration tR, calculated as
t PR  t pr  .25t R  t r 
In the above equation, tr is the standard duration of effective rainfall in hours given by
25
t pr
tr 
5.5
And tpr is the lag time from the midpoint of effective rainfall of duration tr to the peak of a unit
hydrograph in hours, computed as
t pr  0.75C t LLc 0.3
Where, Ct is a coefficient depending upon basin characteristics, L is the length of stream from
the station to the upstream limit of the drainage area in km and Lc is the distance along the main
stream from the basin outlet to a point on the stream which is nearest to the centroid of the basin
in km.
The coefficients Ct and CP shall be determined from analysis of some known hydrographs in the
region. In the absence of hydrographs, the values of Ct and CP may be adopted as 1.5 and 0.62,
respectively. The flood flows for different return periods were obtained by Snyder’s method is
presented in tabular and graphical form.
For 100 year return period, Q= 516.682 m3/s.
4.3.8 Horton’s Formula
Horton’s Formula may be used to compute the flood qtr in m3/s/km2, equaled or exceeded in a T
year return period using the relation
qtr=71.2T0.25/A0.5
Where, A is the drainage area.
As per our calculations, 100 years return period by Horton’s method is 319.2111m3/s.
4.3.8 Recommended Flood Flows

Comparison between different methods of high flood estimation for different returns periods are
shown in fig. The flood value obtained by Dickens method for hundred years return period is
greater. So, we prefer the value obtained from this method with hundred years return period as
design flood. The hundred years return period flood (791m³/sec) is chosen as design flood value
because it decreases the risk of the project. According to the thumb rule, design flood must be
four times the catchment area. In our case the catchment area is 201m2.
26
Comparison of Flood by different methods:
5000.000
DIscharge, Q
Gumbell
log pearson
wecs
fuller
500.000
M.Dickens
synder
Horton
50.000
1 10 100 1000
Return Period, T
Fig. 4.1, Comparison of flood by different methods
4.4 Low Flow Analysis

Low flow analyses for Naugarh Gad at the intake were conducted using the following methods:
 WECS/DHM Regression Analysis.

 Goroshkov’s Method.
A brief discussion on these techniques and the results obtained from them are presented below.
4.4.1 WECS/DHM Regression Analysis

The WECS/DHM Model for low flow estimation is based on low flow frequency analyses on the
annual series of 1-day, 7-day, 30-day and monthly low flows of gauged stations using the
computer program LOFLOW that uses the type III extreme value distribution. The model also
incorporates results of regional low flow frequency analyses and proposes regression
relationships between the basin area and the low flow characteristics.
27
Estimation of low flow characteristics of ungauged site using the WECS/DHM method requires
homogeneity of the characteristics of the gauged site to the physiographic and/or climatic
characteristics that can be measured in the ungauged basin. The method also recognizes that the
independent variable that is most significant in the analyses is the area of the basin below 5,000
m, i.e. the area of the basin below the approximate elevation of permanent snow. Goroshkov’s
Method (Hydrologic Designs, Leningrad, 1979)
Goroshkov’s Method is empirical but gives good estimates of low flow in the absence of data
and is extensively used in Russia and the former USSR. This method is based on the relation
Qmin(80%)  a A  f 
n
where Qmin(80%) is the minimum monthly flow discharge of 80% reliability in m3/s, A is the
drainage area in sq. km., f is a part of the catchment area feeding the river with additional flow
due to the presence of springs (taken as 5 to 10% of A), a is a drainage area coefficient (= 0.0014
for winter season) and n is a rainfall coefficient (= 1.27 for winter season).
The Qmin for any probability p can be obtained using the equation
Qmin( p %)  Qmin(80%)
Where,  is a transition coefficient for determining minimum flow discharge with probability p.
The value of  is equal to 1.04, 1.0, 0.94, 0.87, 0.80 and 0.75 for values of p equal to 75, 80, 85,
90, 95 and 97 percent, respectively.
For the Naugarh Gad, A = 201.3087 sq. km. and f = 20.23087 sq. km., giving Qmin(80%) = 1.3323
m3/s.
4.4.3 Recommended Values for Low Flow
Indirect methods are used for obtaining low flow. The methods involved are WECS and
Goroshkov’s methods are used for our purpose. The design low flow is taken from WECS
Method for monthly for twenty years return period. Low flow generally depends on the
permanent source; hence low flow variance would not be much higher. The return period was
selected as 20 years so that firm power capacity could be increased in the PPA. It gives high rate
of return in the investment but increase the risk factor. Its value is 1.60m3sec.
28
4.5 Long term flow analysis

Long-term flows are useful for estimating the energy yield of proposed hydroelectric schemes.
For the analysis of long-term flow WECS method is used.
4.5.1 WECS/DHM Method
From WECS method long term flow is calculated by using following equation:
Q mean = C×(Total basin area)A1 ×(Basin area below 5000m +1)A2 ×(Monsoon wetness index)A3
Where, C, A1, A2, A3 are constants derived from the regression analysis.
A is the catchment area in Km2.
Q is discharge in m3/sec
The values of the constants for different months are different. The Monsoon Wetness Index for
the catchment area is taken as 1500mm
4.5.2 Basin Area Method:
If two basins are hydro-meteorologically similar, data extension may accomplished simply by
multiplying the available long-term data at the HSC with the ratio of the basin areas of the base
station (proposed site under study) and the index (HSC) station. In this context, more accurate
results were obtained using Dicken’s flood formula,
3/ 4
A 
Q b  Q i  b 
 Ai 
Where Qb and Qi are the discharges at the base and index stations, respectively, and Ab and Ai are
the corresponding basin areas. The long term mean monthly flow obtained by BAR method is
presented in tabular form. The flow duration curve obtained is also shown.
29
4.5.3 Recommended Value for Long Term Flow
Comparison of Flow Duration Curve

90
80
70
60
Discharge(m3/s )
50
WECS
40 BAR
WECS
30
BAR
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% Exceedence
Fig.4.2. Comparison of Long term flow by different methods
Among the three methods, WECS method is recommended. For 40% exceedence, the design
discharge is 8m3/sec.
Details of hydrological calculations are shown in APPENDIX B.
30
CHAPTER 5
SEDIMENTATION STUDIES
The sediment concentrations are required to design trashrack, the sedimentation tank, gravel trap
and turbine type, The cost of desanding basin is based on the sediment-laden flow. Otherwise,
sediment heavily damages the trashrack, turbine blades, scroll casing, valves and other
mechanical parts.
The main objectives to the sedimentation studies are to:
- confirm reliable long term flow without adverse effects due to sediment accumulation
- estimate the mode of sedimentation and the required flushing facilities.
- obtain sediment loading data required for the design
- evaluate the effects of the project on the river regime
5.1 Physiography of the Naugarh Gad Basin

The physiography of the Naugarh Gad Basin can be divided into the following three sub-
divisions:
 The Midlands
 The fore-Himalaya; and
 The Great Himalayas
The Midlands
The midlands occupy the land in between the fore-Himalayan range in the north and the
Mahabharat range in the south. Its extension is prevalent throughout the length of the country
with average width of 60 km. it shows widely varied relief, ranging from 200 m to 3000 m above
the mean sea level. The midlands exhibit matured landscape in contrast to other physiographic
divisions as a consequence of having undergone rejuvenation at different epoch. The rocks
inherent in this physiographic division belong to the Lesser Himalayan Unit which includes
mainly limestone, dolomite, slates, quartzite, phyllite and schists.
31
The Fore-Himalaya
The fore-Himalaya, an intermediate physiographic division between the midlands and the great
Himalayas has generally an elevation above 3000m. The width of this zone varies from 10 km to
50 km with constituents ranging form limestone, Dolomite, quartzite, phyllite and gneiss to high
grade metamorphic rocks.
The Great Himalayas

The Great Himalayan region is characterized as the land which is distinctly higher than other
physiographic zones. The region has several discontinuous as well as overlapping large numbers
of highest peaks on the worlds including the Mt. Everest.
5.2 Available Information and Sedimentation Study
Naugarh Gad is one of the major tributary of the Chameliya River. It is a perennial river
originating from the Brahma and Korpu Lek of Iyarkot VDC and meets the Chameliya River
about 33.55 km downstream at Dethala village with average gradient of the river is about 1.5%.
The river basin boundary is separated by the Brahma and Korpu Lek in the north, Binayak dada
in west and Siptikhan Dada in east. The basin is elongated from north to south. Naugarh Gad
drains an area of 201 sq km at the proposed head works site and the drainage area of the Naugarh
Gad lies between the elevations of 800m to 4000m. The precipitation data from the stations
Kakerpakha, Darchula, Pipalkot and Patan were used to generate the Isohyetal map within the
catchment of the Naugarh Gad.
There is no sediment data available for the Chameliya River. Thus, indirect methods are utilized
for the sediment estimation at the intake site of the project. The sediment was estimated
indirectly based on the measured data from the Pancheshwor high dam project, Regional Method
and based on the Himalaya Sediment Yield Technique.
The sedimentation data are available from Pancheshwor (Sta. 150) gauging station in Mahakali
River; and from Chisapani (Station no 280) gauging station on Karnali River. The summary of
the sediment estimation of these two rivers are shown in the table 5.1.
32
Table 5-1: The summary of the sediment estimation of Mahakali River and Karnali River
Mahakali River at
Karnali River at Chisapani
Parameters Unit Pancheshwor
(St. No 280)
(St. no. 150)
Drainage area km2 43,679 12,600
Suspended Load million ton/year 123 45
Bed load million ton/year 19 9
Total Load million ton/year 142 54
Specific yield ton/km2/year 3,257 4,290
Specific yield m3/km2/year 2,322 3,060

(Source: Master Plan Study for Water Resources Development of the Upper Karnali River and Mahakali River
Basin, Interim Report, JICA 1992)
5.2.1 Sediment Estimation from Data of Pancheshwor High Dam Project
The sediment concentration data of the Mahakali River at Pancheshwor are available from May
1990 to Oct 1990 and from May 1991 to Oct 1991 respectively and presented. These data will be
used for the sediment estimation for the Naugarh Gad SHEP by establishing the relationship
between stream flow and sediment concentrations.
The sediment load data measured at the Pancheshwor High Dam Project at Mahakali River is
transferred to the Naugarh Gad by applying catchment ratio method. From the generated data;
regression equations were developed by establishing the relation between daily average sediment
load (in KT) and daily discharge that has correlation coefficient of 0.69. The regression equation
is as follows:
Ls = 0.013Q1.8118
Where,
Ls = Sediment Load in ton/day
Q = Discharge in m3/day
33
Sediment yield estimation from the data of Makahali River at Pancheshwor

Sediment load sediment load
Month Discharge
(ton/month) (m3/month)
Jan. 31 3.86 4656.76 3326.26
Feb. 28 3.62 3744.29 2674.49
Mar. 31 3.58 4062.85 2902.03
Apr. 30 3.91 4612.86 3294.90
May 31 4.97 7361.45 5258.18
Jun. 30 9.04 21059.62 15042.59
Jul. 31 32.13 216533.90 154667.07
Aug. 31 43.21 370387.75 264562.68
Sep. 30 30.37 189216.10 135154.36
Oct. 31 15.97 61017.29 43583.78
Nov. 30 5.7 9131.85 6522.75
Dec. 31 4.45 6025.65 4304.03
Total Sediment yield (ton/year) 897810.37
Total Sediment yield (m3/year) 641293.12
Specific Sediment Yield 4676.09 ton/km /year 3340.07 m3/km2/year
2
The sediment load of the Naugarh Gad SHEP at intake site is estimated by using the above
regression analysis. From the analysis; the total annual sediment load is 897810.37 ton/year.
Considering the density of the sediments as 1.4 ton/m3; the total annual sediment load is
641293.12 m3/year.
5.2.2 Sediment Estimation from Himalayan Sediment Yield Technique
Based on sediment data for stations in Nepal, India, and Pakistan, V.J. Galay (Estimating
Sediment Yield in Himalayan Rivers) pointed out that the current sediment production is linked
to geological zones. The Zone Specific Sediment Yield (ZSSY) has divided into five regions.
According to this theory, the five regions are as follows:
Regions Range of yield (t/km2/year)
Tibetan Plateau 500-1000
High Himalayan 300-1000
High Mountain 1000-4000 (project site)
Middle Mountain 3000-8000 (project site)
Siwalik 5000-15000
34
Depending upon the condition of the watershed, the yield is low and high. For the Naugarh Gad
basin, where the catchment area lies at High Mountain and Middle Mountain, the yield estimate
is carried out in the following way.
Regions Average Yields (t/km2/year) Catchment area (km2)
High Mountain 2000 25
Middle Mountain 5000 167
The yield is estimated as (5000*167+2000*25)/201 = 4375 (t/km2/year)

The Himalayan sediment techniques use the properties of Physiography of the Naugarh Gad
Basin. Moreover, this method tends to estimate the sediment in conservative side (higher yield).
5.2.3 Sediment Estimation from Regional Method (Sharma and Kansakar, 1992)
The regional method for estimating sediment yield by rivers; developed by K.P Sharma and S.R.
Kansakar (1992) is used to compute the sediment transport. This method is based on the
sediment data measured from 12 river catchment of Nepal. Based on the regression studies, the
following formula is used:
Asy = -2.20992+0.05439 Arock05+0.0748 A205 + 0.05097 MWI05
Where,
Asy = Total annual suspended sediment yield (million ton/year)
A2 = Catchment Area below 2000 m = 72 km2
Arock = Area covered by Rock = 2 km2
MWI = Monsoon Wetness Index = 1753 mm
The total annual suspended sediment yield (Asy) = 0.635 million ton/year.
Hence the sediment yield by the Regional Method (Sharma and Kanshakar, 1992) is 3311.2 tom
/km2/year.
5.2.4 Conclusion and Recommendation
The sediment yield estimation from regression analysis of data of Mahakali River at
Pancheshwor, Himalayan sediment Yield Technique and the regional method are 3340.07
m3/km2/year, 4375 (t/km2/year) and 3311.2 ton /km2/year respectively. Since all of these values
35
are based on the limited data and empirical relations; field measurement and further analysis is
necessary.
36
CHAPTER 6
THEORY REVIEW AND DESIGN ASPECTS

6.1 Design Consideration of Diversion Weir
The design of weir includes computing the elevation of weir crest, length of weir, computing the
forces acting on the weir and checking the safety of the weir from all aspects like overturning,
sliding, crushing etc. They all are explained in the following articles.
6.1.1 Elevation of Weir Crest
There are various factors that affect the elevation of the crest, but in our case, diversion of water
is the purpose and the height should be sufficient to pond the water at a level that can facilitate
design flow in the intake. The height of the weir is governed by the height of intake sill, depth of
intake orifice and depth of the river at the intake site.
Following four things were considered in the design of the weir.
 The height of the crest affects the discharge coefficient and consequently the water head
above the weir as well as the back water curve.
 The elevation of the weir crest was fixed such that the design flood is safely discharged
to the downstream without severe damage to the downstream.
 The elevation of the weir determined the head of the power production.
 The height of the weir crest affected the discharge that can be diverted into the canal.
6.1.2 Length of Weir and Undersluice
The length of the weir depends upon the width of the waterway at the intake site. Crest length
should be taken as the average wetted width during the flood. The upstream and downstream was
properly examined for the protection consideration.
We have designed the headworks so as to safely pass 80 % and 20 % of the design flood
respectively. The spillway is so designed that it can accommodate total flood design. The
undersluice portion is designed only for sluicing the bed load.
37
6.1.3 Design of weir

Assume height of bed load = 1.5m
Depth of intake orifice =2.4m
Q=cd*(2*g*∆h)1/2*A
Head difference between Upstream and downstream of Orifice (∆h) = .1m
Total height of weir(P) = (1.5+2.4+.1) =4m
R.L. of weir bed level = 866 masl
R.L. of weir crest level = 870 masl
Width of the river at the weir section = 40.6135(topography)
6.2 Shape of the Spillway
The spillway has been designed as free over fall Ogee shaped weir. The discharge capacity of
Ogee shaped spillway is maximum as compared to that of other type of weirs. Ogee shaped weir
increases hydraulic efficiency and prevent cavitations. The profile of the spillway is made similar
to the nappe profile of the free overfall weir to ensure that there is minimum possibility of
negative pressure development along its length.
6.2.1 Weir Profile and Hydraulic Jump profile
-4 1 6 11
0
1
2
3
d/s weir profile
4
1:1 slope
5
d/s weir profile
6
7
8
9
10
Fig 6.1, Weir Profile
38
-3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11
-6 6
-4 4
-2 2
1
d/s weir
0 0
profile
1:1 slope -1
2 d/s weir -2
profile
-3
4 -4
-5
6 -6
-7
8 -8
-9
10 -10
Fig 6.2, Hydraulic Jump Profile
39
6.2.2 Spillway Design
Hydraulic jump calculation [3]
Y1+q2/2gy12=P+Hd
Therefore,
y1=2.12m
V1 = q/ y1 = 12.25m/s
F r1 = q/√( g y13) = v1/ gy1 = 2.69 (2.5< Fr1 < 4.5, Oscillating Jump)
y1
y2 = ( -1 + √( 1 + 8 F12))
2
 y2= 7.07m
F r2 = q/(gy23)1/2=v2/(gy2)1/2=0.441
Headloss=(y2-y3)3/4y1y2= 2.023m
6.3 Undersluice Design
Total width of under sluice =5.5 (including piers)
No of under sluices =1
Width of under sluice=4m
River bed level=866 masl
Under sluice crest level =866 masl i.e. at the river bed level
Assume, a head of 5m above the weir crest during 100 year flood
Therefore discharge through the weir (Qweir) =2.2 × Lw × (4.8)3/2
=2.2× 26 (5.2)3/2 = 678.26m3/s
40
Now, assume an opening of 4 m above the crest of the under sluice
Provide undersluice of width 4m
Height of radial gate=4.5m
Opening of undersluice portion from the crest of undersluice =4m
6.4 Design of stilling basin
Y1+q2/(2gy12)=875.215-866
Y1+ (141/4)2/(2*9.81*y12)=9.215
Therefore, y1=3.26
Critical depth (yc)=(35.252/g)1/3=5.022
Since y1<yc, It is supercritical flow.
Froude number (Fr1)= q/(gy13)1/2=35.25/(9.81*2.673)1/2=1.912
V1=q/y1=10.813m/s
Y2=Y1/2*(-1 + (8Fr12+1)1/2)
Y2=7.33m
Length of stilling basin=5(y2-y1)=21m
6.5 Forces acting on Weir
The main forces which are acting on the weir when it will be operation are: Water Pressure,
Uplift Pressure, Slit Pressure and Weight of the weir.
Water Pressure
It is the major external force acting on the weir. This is called hydrostatic pressure force and acts
perpendicular on the surface of the weir and its magnitude is given by: P  0.5    H2  b Where,
γ = Unit weight of water, H = Depth of water, b = Width of the Weir surface. This pressure force
acts on H/3 from the base.
Uplift Pressure
Water seeping through the pores, cracks and fissures of the foundation material, seeping through
the weir body itself and seepage from the bottom joint between the weir and its foundation exerts
41
an uplift pressure on the base of the weir. The uplift pressure virtually reduces the downward
weight of the weir hence acts against the dam stability.
Silt Pressure
The silt gets deposited on the upstream of the weir and exerts the horizontal and vertical pressure
as exerted by the water. So, flushing of the silt should be done regularly to reduce its effect of
destabilizing the weir. It is done by the use of undersluice gate. The silt pressure is given by the
relation: P silt  0.5   sub  H2  Ka . Where, γsub=Submerged unit weight of silt; H= Depth of silt
deposited and Ka= Coefficient of Active earth pressure and is given by,
Ka 
1  sin  ,   Angle of internal friction of silt .But in our calculation we have taken the
1  sin 
value of ka equal to 1. The silt pressure force also acts at a height of H/3 from the base.
But for practical consideration, Equivalent Liquid = Mix of silt and water
 liquid( v )  1950 kgf / m³

 liduid( H ) 1360 kgf / m³
Weight of Weir
The weight of weir and its foundation is the major stabilizing/ resisting force. While calculating
the weight, the cross section is determined from the drawing (autocad). Also the C.G. is find out
by drawing and from this C.G. the total weight of dam act. the sectional area of each part is
multiplied by unit weight of concrete, weight of that part is obtained.
The weir is designed with ogee profile for spilling over its length. Hence weight is calculated by
knowing its section and multiplying by its unit weight.
6.6 Mode of failure and Criteria for Structural Stability of Weir
Overturning about the toe
If resultant of all the forces acting in the weir passes outside, the weir shall rotate and overturn
about the toe. Practically, this condition will not arise because the weir will fail much earlier by
compression. The ratio of resisting moment to the overturning moment about the toe is the factor
of safety against overturning and it should lie in between 2 & 3 for safety.
42
Compression or Crushing
While designing the weir section it should be so design that the resultant should pass through
middle 3rd part of the section to avoid the possible tension on the weir section. The section
should be totally in compression. So, weir should be checked against the failure by crushing of
its material. If the actual compressive stress may exceed the allowable stress, the dam material
V  e
may get crushed. The vertical combine stress at the base is given by: max/ min  1  6   ,
B  B
B M
where e   x, x  ,e= eccentricity of the resultant force from the centre of the base.
2 V
Sliding
Sliding will occur when the net horizontal force above any plane in the weir or at the base of the
weir exceed the frictional resistance developed at that level. Factor of safety against the sliding is
measured as Shear Stability Factor (SSF) and is given by: SSF 

    V  Bq 
H
Where, μ= Coefficient of friction; q= Average shear strength of the joint.
For safety against sliding, SSF should be greater than 3-5. To increase the value of SSF, attempts
are always made to increase the magnitude of q, which is achieved by providing the stepped
foundation, ensuring the better bond between the dam base and rock foundation etc.
6.7 Stability Analysis Of Dam
Overturning criteria
H
B= = 5.74 m
G 1
Geometric criteria
B =10.8 m
43
Weir stability check
S.N. Name of Force (KN) Distance Moment about toe

Forces from (KNm)
toe(m)
Horizontal vertical Clockwise Anti-
clock
wise
1 Wt. of weir ↓ 5.6 3838.
464
(triangular) 0.5*6.8*8.4*24=
685.44
2 Wt. Of weir 24*2.4*6.8= 9.6 3760
.128
(rectangular) ↓ 391.68
= 7598.
592
3 Uplift ↑ 0.5*9.81*10.8*6.8 7.2 2593.607

=360.22
4 Hydrostatic 0.5*9.81*6.82 2.266 514.09
force→
=226.80
5 Silt pressure → 0.5*16.5*1.5*5.8 0.5 35.8875

=71.775
sum of horizontal forces = 298.5822
sum of vertical forces(V) = 716.8968
sum of resisting moment(MR) = 7598.592
sum of overturning moment(MO) = 3143.591
sum of moment about toe(M) = 4455.001
x=M/V = 6.214285
e=B/2-X = -0.81429
B/6 = 1.8
0.8<1.8
OK
44
Factor of safety against sliding
FS=µV/H = 2.4010031
>1 .5
OK
Factor of safety against overturning
FS=MR/MO = 2.417 >1.5
OK
P(max,min) v/B(1±6e/B)
P at heel = 96.40805 <2500KN/m²
P at toe = 36.350608 <2500KN/m²
Principal stress at toe = Psec²α = 72.201 (safe)

Principal stress at heel = Psec²α = 192.81 (safe)
shear stress at toe= ptanα= 36.3506

shear stress at heel= ptanα=96.4080
6.8 Design Consideration of Intake Structures
We have used 100 years return period from probabilistic analysis of flood. A simple and
moderately priced construction is encouraged to minimize maintenance and repairs. For the
small projects with no automation facilities, hydraulically controlled structures become more
feasible than mechanically controlled units. In hydraulically controlled intake structure, usual
practice is to construct skimmer wall to restrict the flood water entering in the canal, such that
intake structure works as free flow weir at normal condition and as submerged orifice at high
flood conditions. The excess water is allowed to flow in canal up to a suitable point downstream
where it is returned back to river using escape structures.
There must be adequate provision to remove the suspended and bed load deposited upstream
behind the weir. This may be done using intermittent flushing using sluice gates or allowing
some water to flush it continuously.
45
Topography, geology, height of bank, ratio of water diverted to that available, channel width,
routing of diversion canal, ease of diversion of river during construction, stability of river bank
and sides, river protection works governs the selection of the intake location and type. In rocky
banks, winding river, considerable suspended load it is not desirable. The lateral side intake
functions well in such case as in our project site. Intake sill with 1.5 m above the river bed is
used not to allow bed loads to enter the canals. Trash rack is used to prevent the entry of tree
branches, leaves and other coarse materials in the canal.
Fig. 6.3 Photograph of intake site
46
6.8.1 Design of intake
Assume , velocity through the orifice (v) =1.3225m/s
Maximum permissible velocity= 1.5m/s
Qorifice = 1.15x 1.15Qdesign
= 10.58m3
Area of orifice required = Qorifice/Vorifice

= 10.58/1.3225 = 8m2
Q=AC(2g(hr-hh))^0.5
Provide 2 no of orifice
Width of orifice= 2m
Breadth of orifice= 2m
Provide a pier 0.5m width.
Total width = 4.5m
Pond level=869.9m
Canal water level= 869.7
6.8.2 Trashrack Design

Rack velocity (vr) =.75 ~1.5 m/s
Inclination of rack = 100 ~150 with vertical
Spacing of rack = 40 ~100 mm
Thickness (t) > 12 mm
< 12 t
47
Loss in rack = kvr2/2g
Shape Factor (k) = 2.42 for rectangular bar
Discharge = 10.58m3/s
Gross area =3.5 * 5.1/cos30 = 20.511m2
Provide rack @100mm and thickness of rack 20mm
% opening of trash rack = 100 *100/(100 +20)=83.33%
Effective area of trash rack= 83.33%of 20.511=17.09m2
Approach velocity=10.58/ 17.09 = 0.62 < 1.5 ( ok )
Headloss through trash rack = k(t/a)4/3v2sina/2g=
0.01m
6.9 Design of Gravel Trap
It is necessary to check or trap the particles incoming from the canal intake which would,
otherwise, flow in the downstream side and reduce the discharge capacity of canal and ultimately
cause the wearing and chocking of the turbine unit. The trap of coarse particle (>2mm) is
achieved by means of a hydraulic structure known as gravel trap. During the high flood season,
the river carries appreciable amount of gravel hence a gravel trap is provided to trap the design
size of gravel entering through intake.
Design Considerations
Gravel trap is located at a safe place but as close to the intake as possible so that debris is not
carried a long distance into the waterways. Gravel is checked in gravel trap by allowing water to
flow in a wide and deep channel at a slower velocity so as to reduce the capacity of water
thereby causing deposition of particles towards bed. Flow velocity of water and settling velocity
of the particles affect the settling of the particles. The flow velocity is not exceeded the upper
limit so as not to allow suspended again.
The flushing of settled particles is done to ensure proper working. Generally continuous flushing
is adopted for gravel trap as the sediment load is high. Gates are used to control flow at flushing
48
orifice at inlet. Sufficient bed slope and cross slope is required to make the flushing effective.
Standard methods are used to design the gravel trap. The concentration approach, which is
modern and rational approach, is used. Vetter's equation to calculate efficiency is used. Camp's
formula is used to calculate the transit velocity and Newton's formula is used to calculate the
settling velocity.
Continuous flushing system is used in the gravel trap which works continuously in the monsoon
season and can work as intermittent flushing at the time of low flow. 15% water is used for
flushing purpose.
Protection Works
Gates are used to control the flow across the gravel trap. Flushing gates are used to flush the
settled matters. The flushing orifices are controlled using the flushing gates. Flushed water and
the excess water are safely diverted to the river using open channel. The side protection works
fencing etc. are carried out.
Design
Discharge Q = 8m³/s
Design discharge Qd = 1.15*8 = 9.2m³/s
Particle size to be removed = 2mm or large
Flushing: Continuous
1. Design of gravel trap basin
Since d>2mm, fall velocity w= √ (3.33g(S-1)*d) = 0.33m/s
R = w*d/v
V = kinematic viscosity of water = 0.33*0.002/1.31*10^6 = 500m²/s
For R = 0.5 to 1000, Cd = 24/R + 3√R + 0.34 = 0.522
After iteration we get w = 0.283m/s
Transient velocity v = a√d
a = 36 for 2mm particles
v = 36√2 = 0.5m/s
Efficiency η = 1-e-wAs/Q
For η = 90%, As = 64.12
49
Let Height H = 3m
Width B = Q/(v*H) = 6.13 = 6.2m
Length L = As/B = 10.34m
Provided Length = 10.34/0.85 = 12.16 =13m
2. Transition Design
Let inlet angle = 8o and outlet angle = 15o
Inlet length = (3-1.7)/ (2*tan8o) = 5m
Outlet length = 3m
Total length = 5 + 13 +3 = 21m
3. Flushing Canal Design
Flushing discharge = 0.15*Q = 1.38m³/s
Assume 0.5m X 0.5m size flushing canal
Area A = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25m²
Perimeter P = 0.5 + 2*0.5 = 1.5m
Hydraulic radius R =A/P = 0.167m
Assume bed slope = 1:30
V = 1/n * R2/3*S1/2 = 3.69m/s
Tractive shear stress τo = γwRS = 9.81*0.167*1/30 = 54.6N/m²
Critical shear stress τc = 0.056γwd(S-1) = 9.06N/m2
As τo>τc, OK.
6.10 Design of Approach Canal
The approach canal is designed to convey the abstracted flow from the intake to the settling basin
in a hydraulically efficient manner. Likewise, the gravel trap is designed to trap and efficiently
flush out the coarse sediments that manage to enter the approach canal through the intake
Design Criteria
The approach canal connecting the intake structure to the settling basin shall have an optimum
length chosen with due consideration to the topography of site. However, the canal shall be
economically effective and hydraulically efficient for transporting the specified size of sediments
passing through the intake structures.
50
The design of the approach canal shall be performed assuming steady (sub-critical) flow regime in
the canal. Under this assumption, the canal is designed using Manning’s formula.
Hydraulic Design
Regimes of Flow
The regime of flow in approach canal is non-pressure flow. A steady flow regime is maintained,
i.e. the mean flow velocity in the approach canal is considered to be constant, not changing in
time and space along and/or on the canal flow section.
Canal Cross-section
The cross-section of an approach canal is rectangular.
Hydraulic Characteristics
Based on the principle of non-silting and non-scouring velocity with efficient transporting
capacity of flow with regard to sediments, either Manning’s or Chezy’s formula may be applied to
determine the hydraulic characteristic of the approach canal. In our case we have used the
Maning’s Formula.
Manning’s equation shall be given by
1 2 / 3 1/ 2
V R S
n
where V is the mean flow velocity in the canal in m/s, n is Manning’s rugosity coefficient, S is
A
the longitudinal bed slope and R is the hydraulic mean radius in m,given by R  in which A
P
is the flow area of cross-section in m2 and P is the wetted perimeter in m.
Manning's n ( for roughly finished concrete floor) = 0.015
Limiting velocity = 2m/s
Assume, velocity of 2m/s
Cross sectional area of canal = Q/V
51
A = 10.58/2 = 5.29m2
Provide a width of 2.4 m canal
Height of water in canal =A/B
= 5.29/2.4 = 2.2m
Now, bed slope
From manning's equation
V = R2/3s1/2/n
Where R = hydraulic radius
= A/P
= 5.29/(2.4+2*2.2) = 0.77
0.772/3 s1/2 /0.015 = 2
∴ S = 1: 784
Provide a bed slope of 1:795
6.11 Design of Settling Basin
General
The suspended particles entered in a canal, if allowed to flow through penstock pipe and turbine,
cause abrasion of such units and reduce efficiency as well as durability. In addition, problem of
clogging is always present due to such particles in turbine units. There is also the possibility of
siltation in canal. So, the finer particles escaped from gravel trap are to be removed before
entering in to penstock.
The severity of particles depends on effective head of water, hardness of particles, shape of
particles and size of pipe, valves opening and turbine blades and opening. It is very difficult to
trap all the particles. So, a particular size of particles is selected to make a design basis for
Settling Basin. The basin design philosophy is similar to that of gravel trap. Selection of width
and length depend on land available. For more reliable operation, more than one chamber is
employed. It will not interrupt whole system when it is to be stopped for maintenance. To ensure
52
uniform flow, transitions are provided at inlet and outlet. Both height and width vary gradually
inlet transition and width varies in outlet transition.
Flushing of deposited matters is essential for smooth operation of settling basin. The lateral and
longitudinal slope is provided for this purpose. There is control of flow in and from settling tank.
For this purpose gates are used. A continuous flushing system is operated continuously in wet
season when there is sufficient water and excessive sediments. In dry season, when there is clear
water in river and water is scare, it works as intermittent flushing.
Design Consideration
The settling basin is designed following standard practices. Concentration approach is used to
design it. Trap efficiency is selected as 90% removal of 0.2mm sized sedimentary particles.
Vetter's equation is used for efficiency calculation. Camp's equation and various charts are used
to compute the transit velocity and the settling velocity.
Flushing System: Hopper Type Continuous Flushing
Settling basin with continuous flushing is designed to supply sediment free water to the water
conveyance system through simultaneous settling of the suspended sediments and flushing of
deposited sediments. The flushing is achieved by continuously abstracting water from the bottom
of the settling basin during operation.
Water level and water flow is maintained in the basin throughout the flushing period in order to
facilitate continuous power genreration. Removal of sediments while the basin is operational
may be achieved with continuous flushing or intermittent flushing or by use of some kind of
suction or dreding device.
In order to remove the settled particles by flushing it is necessary to generate a current close to
the particles able to erode and carry the particles away with the flushing flow without mixing
them with the main water flow in the basin.
53
Settling Basin Design
Discharge=9.2m3/s (1.15*Design Discharge)
Minimum Size of Particle to be settled= 0.2mm
Fall Velocity (Vf) = 418(S-1)2÷100
Where,
T= Temperautre =100C
S=Specific gravity of Particles
Vf = =27.588 [4]
Re=Reynold's no= ,
Where v=Viscosity, =1.31 centistokes
Re=27.588*0.2/1.31/0.01/10/10=4.2119
Reynold's no lies between 1 and 1000, so flow is transition. So,
Vf =
Where, CD=
So, CD=4.499
Vf = 23.99 mm/sec
This is less than initial assumed value of 27.588mm/sec, so repeat the process.
The iteration is shown as below,
54
S.No Vf(mm/sec) Re CD Vf
1 23.990143 3.6626 8.460255 22.587548
2 22.5875483 3.4484 8.915088 22.003816
3 22.0038168 3.3593 9.121004 21.754018
4 21.7540188 3.3212 9.212411 21.645826
5 21.6458268 3.3047 9.252639 21.598720
6 21.5987207 3.2975 9.270276 21.578164
7 21.5781641 3.2943 9.277997 21.569184
8 21.5691845 3.2930 9.2813 21.565260
9 21.5652602 3.2924 9.282850 21.563545
10 21.563545 3.2921 9.283496 21.562795
11 21.5627958 3.2920 9.283778 21.562467
12 21.5624674 3.2919 9.283901 21.562324
13 21.5623241 3.2919 9.283955 21.562261
14 21.5622614 3.2919 9.283979 21.562234
Vf = 21.562 mm/sec
From Vetter's equation,
Where, =Efficiency of the Basin= 0.9,
55
=Fall Velocity,
Q=discharge m3/sec
Area (AS) = 982.44 m2
Providing two chambers,
Area of each Chamber (AS) = 491.224 m2
Taking L/B = 8
So, B = 8 m, L = 64m
Total Width of Settling Basin = 16.3m
For Settling Basin depth,
Flow Velocity = a = 0.196774 m/sec (By Camp's formula)
Where, a = 0.44 for 0.1mm<d<1mm
Q = B*H*L
Height of settling Basin (H) = 3 m
Sediment Storage Volume,
Sediment concentration = 2.3 kg/m3
Density of Sediment = 2600 kg/m3
Sediment Load = Q*T*C = 1828224 KG
Volume of Storage=456.92 m3
So, Height of Sediment, hs = 1.5 m
Since the above calculation is considered for the case of rectangular base, we recalculate the
area for the base with the angle of inclination of slope = 40o, when the area resembles with
rectangular base.
56
Providing Free board = 1m
Design of Transition,
Inlet profile:
Provide slope 1 in 5
Transition Length (Transit (u/s)) = 35 m
Outlet Profile:
Provide Slope 1 in 2
Transition Length (Transit (d/s)) = 14 m
Total Length of Settling Basin = 112 m
Total Breadth of Settling Basin = 16.3 m
Total Height of Settling Basin = 5.5 m
Flushing Canal
Q = 1.2m3/s
Taking scour velocity = 3m/s
Area = 0.2 m2
Providing 1 Flushing Galleries
B = 0.6m: H = 0.6 m
Area = 0.36 m2
Velocity Check,
R = 0.2 m
V = 3.22> 3 m/sec
Hence, OK.
57
Check for Shear
Tractive shear stress in canal (τo) = γw *R*S
Where,
γw = Specific gravity
R = Hydraulic radius
S = Bed slope
Therefore, τo = 0.03924 KN/m2
= 39.24 N/m2
Critical shear stress for dmm dia Particles (τc) = 0.056* γw *d*(S-1)
Where,
D = diameter of particle
S = 2.65
Therefore,
(τc) = 0.01812888 KN/m2
= 18.12 N/m2
τ0> τc
Hence, OK.
6.12Water Conveyance System
The sediment free water from settling basin is needed to be conveyed to the surge tank. The
choice of conveyance system in our case is the pipe depending upon the topography, geology,
size and suitability of project site. Gentle slope and good geology of the area permitted the
option of pipe conveyance system. Landsides may affect this type of scheme frequently and
evaporation, seepage loss is also high. Steel pipe of 2.3m diameter is proposed in this project.
Pipeline Optimization is shown in Appendix C.

58
6.13 Design of Surge Tank
Surge tank is provided between the pipe and penstock to protect the pipe and the penstock from
water hammer pressure caused by sudden rejection and exceptance of load.
Design Consideration
The surge chamber design is complied with following considerations:
 The surge chamber is located such that the pressure variations caused by water hammer
are kept within acceptable limits.
 The chamber is stable, i.e. the surge resulting from small partial load changes is naturally
damped and is not sustained or amplified under any circumstances.
 The chamber size is proportioned such that
a. It will contain the maximum possible upsurge.
b. The lowest down-surge will not allow air to be drawn into the pipe.
c. The range of surge is not greater enough to cause undesirably heavy governor movements
or difficulty in picking up load.
59
Surge Tank Design
Calculations:
 Size of Surge Tank
By D. Thoma,
𝐴𝑡 𝐿𝑉𝑜2
Critical Area of Surge Tank, Ast,cric ≥ 2𝑔𝐻
𝑓 (𝐻𝑔 −𝑕 𝑓)
Minimum Area of Surge Tank= 24 m2

So, Diameter of Surge Tank=5.52 m
Adopting Diameter of 6m
Therefore,
Area (Ast) = 28.27 m2
Velocity = 0.283 m2
 Water Level in Surge Tank
Surge Level Z = Zmax*Z*
Zupsurge = Zmax
ZDownsurge = Zmax(-1+2Po)
where,
60
Zmax =
= 15.08066 m2
Po=ht/Zmax
Then,
Upsurge Level = 857.920+12.529 = 870.449m
Downsurge Level = 857.920-7.071 = 850.8489m
Pipe Level = 800m
 Height of Surge Tank

Height of Surge Tank = Submergence Head +Downsurge+ Upsurge+FB
where,
Submergence head(S) = 1.5*V*D = 9m
Free Board = 3 m
Therefore,
Height of S/T (H) = 31.6 m
= 32 m
 Time Period for Oscillation
T=
T = 334.8 sec
 Volume of surge Tank
V = 893.46 m3
61
Since the topography does not allow the construction of vertical surge tank due to cost
considerations, inclined surge pipe is prefered and calculations for changes in the
diameter of the surge pipe are shown as below
Slope of the ground(H:V) = 2:1
Taking the diameter of the water surface equal to the above calculated diameter of
surge shaft,
Diameter of the inclined surge shaft = 4 m
Length of surge pipe = 70.65997 m
Length of connecting pipe = 113.702 m
Diameter of Connectiong Pipe = 2.3 m
6.14 Penstock
General
The potential energy of the flow at the inlet chamber is converted into the kinetic energy at the
turbine of a hydropower plant via the pipe known as penstock. Water flows under pressure in the
penstock. The penstock has to fulfill various serviceability requirements for safe and reliable
operation of the plant. It has to bear a very high pressure caused due water hammer effect at the
sudden closure of the gate by governing mechanism of the turbine. Penstock should be smooth
enough so as to result minimum head loss while flowing water and it corrosion resistance from
durability aspect. The thickness should be sufficient to resist hoop stress developed by water
hammer pressure and normal pressure not exceeding the allowable stress. Penstock alignment
must be straight to avoid head loss at bents and the extra cost of anchor block unless it is
mandatory by site condition. The penstock may be either embedded or exposed as per
topography, location of inlet chamber/ Surge Tank, Powerhouse and construction easiness etc.
Design Criteria for Penstock
For a particular head and discharge, there may be several options for the size of penstock
according to continuity equation (Q=AV). Also head loss increases squarely with increase in
62
flv 2
velocity as per Darcy-Weishbach equation h l  . So, a smaller size penstock saves cost of
2gd
construction material but the loss of energy due to loss of head takes place and vice versa. Due to
this fact, we can deduce as optimum diameter which minimizes the total cost and the same is
adopted for the project. Water hammer pressure in excess of normal water pressure can be
Vo
expressed in equivalent water column height as, hm = Vc × , Where Vo= Velocity of water in
g
Km 1
penstock, Vc = Velocity of wave  ; K m , Where K = Bulk Modulus of
 1 D
  
 K tE 
water, D = Diameter of penstock, ttu = thickness of penstock, E = Young's Modulus of elasticity
Pd
of steel, ρ = density of water. Also, thickness of pipe, t  ; Where, P = total pressure in pipe
2
and σ = Permissible hoop stress of steel in pipe.
If the penstock has to feed more than one turbine, various factors govern whether use
independent pipes in number equal to the equal to the no. of turbine or use one pipe and bifurcate
it at turbine inlet. Length from inlet chamber to powerhouse, construction feasibility, reliability,
transportation and fabrication feasibility are some important factors to be considered for this.
Optimization
Penstock is one of the costly and important structures in hydropower plant. The larger size incurs
more cost of the structure and a smaller size saves the cost of structure but is associated with
increased head loss (which is ultimately the power loss). So, there is always an optimum size of
penstock for which the total cost of loss and the material is minimum. To seek this size,
optimization technique is used. Increase in size tends to increase the thickness, as thickness is
directly proportional to diameter but this relation is no more valid as the water hammer pressure
decreases with increase in size. The optimization is carried out considering these aspects.
Penstock of Diameter 1.8m is selected as per the Optimization process shown in Appendix D.
63
6.15 Design of Powerhouse
Power house is a house constructed to accommodate the electro mechanical equipment such as
turbine, generator, control panels etc. The main function of the building is to protect the
electromechanical equipments from adverse as well as the mishandling by unauthorized person.
The basic requirement of the power house is functional efficiency along with the aesthetic
beauty.
The size of the power house is strictly governed by the size and type of of the turbine and
generator. The arrangements and the number of units also govern the size of power house. The
size of the power house should be sufficient enough to arrange all the equipments with the clear
space for the installation and maintenance of these large equipments. The center to center
distance for one unit is taken as (5D+2.5m) for the vertical arrangement, where D is the diameter
of runner with casing while in case of the horizontal arrangements, the length is determined with
minimum clear spacing of 2m between two units.
Height of the power house is fixed by the dimensions of lower turbine block and its
superstructure. Height of the lower turbine block from the foundation to the floor of the machine
hall is to be determined by the thickness of foundation plate, dimensions of the turbine.
Sufficient clear space is also provided for crane operation.
Machine hall
C/C distance between two turbine = 7.5m
But for the provision of hatch for transporting the equipments provide extra = 5m
Size of hatch =3m X 5m
So, C/C distance between two turbine = 12.5m
Total length of Machine hall = 28.4m
Wall Thickness = 0.3m
Provide extra 1 unit space of 7.5m for loading bay
Width of hall = 7.5m
(C/C distance between two units)
64
But the width of the power house is provided such that the draft tube also
lies within the power house. So considering the length of draft tube, the
width of the power house is obtained to be 9.85m.
Height of super structure = 4.5m
7.5m for the provision of crane
Height of generator floor = 2.5m
Height of Turbine floor = 3.4m
Height of MIV floor = 2.65m
Floor thickness = 0.5m
Total height of the power house above the MIV floor = 16.55m
Loading Bay
Loading bay of dimension 7.5m X 10.5m
Control Bay
The control bay of dimension 7.5m X 5m

The power house is also provided with a shaft for lift of dimension 2.5m X 3m
Also dog legged staircase of width 1.5m is provided for mobilization.
6.16 Electro Mechanical Units
General
A hydropower plant requires a great deal of mechanical and electrical equipment. The major
electrical components are: Generator, Exciters and Voltage regulators, Transformers,
Switchgear, Control room equipment including switch boards. Similarly, mechanical
components are: Shaft, bearing coupling etc for generators, oil circuits and pumps, compressors
and air ducts, braking equipments. The arrangements for lighting, water supply and drainage
should also be provided.
65
6.16.1 Turbine
General
Turbines are machines which convert kinetic energy into mechanical energy and transmit it to
the generator through direct coupling of shaft to it which in turns converts mechanical energy
into electrical energy. In our project, we have used the reactive turbine.
Reactive Turbine
The turbine, in which both kinetic energy and potential energy of water is utilized to rotate the
runner or the turbine is called the reactive turbine. The water flows through the runner under
kinetic and potential energy. The turbine runner is submerged and water enters all around the
periphery of the runner. Water is taken up to the tailrace by means of a closed draft tube and thus
whole passage of water is totally enclosed. The proposed reactive turbine is Francis
Design Philosophy
There are various types of turbines with wide of hydraulic features. Selection of suitable type of
turbine for the project depends upon several factors like head, discharge, power production, load
condition and corresponding efficiency, quality of water, tail water level, size, construction
feasibility etc. Selection of turbine is essential for the layout of the powerhouse, approaching and
discharging pipes, conditions of construction and exploitation and techno economic parameters.
The turbine is selected from the following basic criteria:
i) Head and discharge:
High head (300-2000) and low discharge - Pelton turbine
Medium head (30-500) and medium discharge - Francis turbine
Low head (2-70) and high discharge - Kaplan turbine
ii) Specific speed:
4 to 70 - Pelton
60 to 400 - Francis
300 to 1100 - Kaplan
Source: Water Power Engineering, M M Dandekar, K N Sharma
66
Different literatures had given various charts/graphs for the selection of the turbine.
For medium high to medium and low heads and normal quality of water, Francis turbine is
suitable for our siite. Turbine is designed based on the specific speed (Ns), which is the speed of
the geometrically similar (identical in shape, blade angles, gate opening etc.) turbine that would
develop unit power under a unit head. For specific speed between 60 to 400 rpm, Francis turbine
is suitable. Since, reaction turbine is susceptible to cavitations; setting of turbine is made based
on the cavitations criteria. A draft tube is always provided with the reaction turbine to receive the
pressure head at the outlet of the turbine. Efficiency of the Francis turbine decreases substantially
at part load operation. For runoff river plants, discharge of the river becomes lower than the
design discharge of the plant. So, part load operation is essential. If a Francis turbine is allowed
to run at part load for long time, cavitations become more serious. Thus, these criteria were kept
in mind while designing the turbine.
67
6.16.2Turbine Design
Selection of Turbine
For head between 25-250m, Francis medium head turbine can be chosen.
Diameter of Francis Turbine
Net head (H) = 127m
Design discharge (Qd) = 8m³/s
Efficiency of turbine (η) = 94%
Design discharge for each turbine (Q) = 4m³/s
Number of turbine = 2
Frequency of AC supply = 50 Hz
Power ηγQH = 6299.773702 Hp
Specific speed (Ns) = 2400/H^0.5 = 212.6217
Rotational speed (N) = Ns*H^(5/4)/P^0.5 = 1146.7109
#No. of poles is taken in the difference of 4 for upto 200m & in the difference of 2 for head
>200m
Adopt, number of poles (P) = 8
Corrected synchronous speed (N) = 428
Adopt, Specific speed (Ns) = 150
Speed ratio (Ø) = 0.0197Ns^(2/3)+0.0275 = 0.42313
Diameter of turbine (D) = 84.61ØH^0.5/N = 1m
Power produced by each unit = 8102.4208KW
Setting of Turbine or Height of Installation of Draft Tube
68
Specific speed (Ns) = 150
Thomas cavitation number (σc) = 0.0432(Ns/100)^2 = 0.09
Setting height (Hs) = Hatm – Hvap – σcHd = -2.35m
6.16.3 Design of Runner
Flow ratio = Take 0.2 (0.15-0.3); Speed ratio = Take 0.6 (0.6-0.9)
Velocity at outlet (V) = 9.99 m/s
Velocity at inlet (U) = 29.99 m/s
6.16.4 Design Of Spiral Casing
Spiral inlet diameter (Sd) = 1.45D = 1.45m
Overall diameter along the direction of the inlet = 1.25D+1.85D = 3.1m
Overall diameter along the direction transverse to inlet = 1.6D+2.05D = 3.65m
Centre to centre distance between twDo units = 4.2D = 4.2m
6.16.5 Calculation of Draft tube dimensions
Inlet diameter = 1m
Height of draft tube = 2.4D = 2.4m
Length of draft tube = 5.5D = 5.5m
Outlet dimension:
Height = 1.25D = 1.25m
Width = 3.3D = 3.3m
Elbow radius : R1 = D = 1m; R2 = 0.7D = 0.7m
69
6.16.6 Headloss in Turbine

Number of units = 2
Installed capacity of each unit = 4.45 MW
Power factor = 0.80
Headloss in turbine = 81.54m
70
6.17 Tailrace
General
Tailrace is the final civil structure that conveys the design flow from powerhouse back to the
river where it is disposed off. Open channels are used as tailrace structure.
Design Criteria
Design o the tailrace channel is similar to that of headrace channel. Since head loss does not need
to be minimized a higher velocity can be allowed in tailrace channel. Note that at higher
velocities higher grade of concrete is required to resist erosion. Reinforced concrete becomes
economical for a steep channel. The downstream end of tailrace is protected so that there is no
danger of erosion either by the river or by the flow from the tailrace.
Design of tailrace canal
Before combination of two penstock, starting from draft tube
Discharge (Q) = 4m3/s
Permissible velocity (Vc) = 3m/s
Adopting velocity (V) = 2m/s
Manning’s coefficient = 0.015
Area of the canal section = 2m2
Assuming rectangular type of tailrace canal with pressure flow
Provide width (B) = 2m
Depth of canal (H) = 3m
After combination of two canals,
Design discharge (Qd) = 8m3/s
Area (A) = 4m2
For rectangular canal,
71
Assume, width (b) = 2.5m
Depth (d) = 1.6m
Take depth (d) = 2.6m
Now, Area (A) = 2m2
Velocity (V) = 2m/s < 3m/s
Hence, OK
Wetted Perimeter (P) = 5.7m
Hydraulic radius (R) = 0.7m
Using Manning’s Equation,
𝑛𝑣 2
S = ( 2/3) )
𝑅
Slope (s) = 1 in 694
Hence adopt s = 1 in 500
Check for velocity with the adopted slope,
Again using Manning’s Equation,
V = 2.35m/s
<3m/s
Hence, OK.
Provide concrete thickness of 50cm.
Head loss in tailrace canal
Manning’s coefficient (n) = 0.015
Coefficient of weir (Cd) = 1.7
Velocity (V) = 2.35m/s
72
Length (l) = 96m
Width (b) = 2.5m
Depth (h) = 1.6m
Area (A) = 4m2
Wetted perimeter (P) = 5.7m
Hydraulic depth (R) = 0.7m
Head loss (Hf) = 0.2m
𝑛²𝑣²𝑙
𝐻𝑓 = 𝑅 4/3
Water level for 8 cumecs = 726.6m
Water level for 100 cumecs = 731.1m
(Water levels are obtained from the rating curve at tailrace)
Water level at starting of tailrace canal = 726.6m
Setting height of turbine = -2.35m
RL of turbine = 724.250m
Design discharge = 8m3/s
Slope of tailrace canal = 1 in 500
73
6.18 Anchor Block and Slide Blocks

General
An anchor block is and encasement of penstock designed to restrain the pipe movement and
to fix the pipe in place during installation and operation. Anchor blocks tend to prevent the
movement of the penstocks due to steady or transient forces including expansion and
contraction forces and water hammer pressures. They provide necessary reaction to the
dynamic forces at the bends. To provide the necessary degree of stability to the pipe
assembly, anchor blocks find their significance. Anchor blocks are provided at all horizontal
and vertical bends of the pipe.
Slide blocks are used to support the pipes at intermediate points so as to prevent excessive
bending stresses in the pipe. They resist the weight of the pipe and water and resist the lateral
movement but allow the longitudinal movement of the pipe. So, these blocks are lighter in
weight than anchor blocks and save the overall cost of the support action.
Design Philosophy
Water flowing under pressure when diverted from straight path exerts pressure as the bends.
To resist various forces these blocks are designed. The blocks act as the massive structures
and work as the gravity dams. Sliding, Overturning, tension and crushing are to be checked
for the blocks.
Provision for Slide Blocks (Support Piers)
The support engages less than the full perimeter of the penstock, generally between 90 and
180 degrees of arc, and typically 120°. These are simpler to construct than full perimeter ring
girder supports, but generally are spaced closer together than the ring girders. It is usually
spaced between 6 to 8 m between the anchor blocks. It is constructed of concrete 1:3:6.
Design procedure is same as that of the anchor blocks but only the combination of load is
different.
Provision of Expansion joints

Mechanical joints either expansion joint or bolted sleeve type coupling is used in both
exposed and buried penstocks to accommodate the longitudinal movement caused by the
temperature changes and to facilitate the construction. The joints shall allow for movement
where differential settlement or deflections are anticipated.
74
Expansion joint permit only the longitudinal movements. The joints are used primarily with
aboveground installations and are located between the supports at the points where the
penstock deflections are of equal magnitude and direction. These joints divide the barrel shell
into separate units, which are watertight, but structurally discontinuous. It should be provided
just below the anchor block. Length of the expansion joints  tL
Construction
Anchor blocks are the support of the penstock and are constructed to meet this purpose. As
the penstock is circular, the anchor blocks are made to fit the curve surface. Saddle supports
are used in it and a sufficient cover is provided above the pipe for adequate fixity.
Mode of failure and safety against
Anchor blocks are designed similar to the gravity dam. The blocks are to be designed to resist
overturning, sliding, crushing and tension failure. A firm foundation is required for the
blocks. The blocks should be prevented from gulley erosion due to rain water.
Design of anchor blocks is shown in Appendix F.
75
CHAPTER 7
GEOLOGICAL STUDY
7.1 General Introduction
This report deals with the geology of the Naugarh gad Hydroelectric Project area in Dethala,
VDC of Darchula District, Mahakali Zone, Far-Western Development Region. The study
includes regional geology of the project area, suitability of the different hydraulic structures and
availability of different construction materials in the project area.
The geological and geotechnical explorations were carried out as a part of field investigation.
The main objectives of the exploration were to collect, analyze and summarize geological and
geomorphic information to determine the physical properties of the rock in the project area and
in the major hydraulic structural site of the Project.
7.2 Methodology
The methodology adopted for the study consisted of desk study, field investigation and analysis.
Available literatures, papers and reports, maps, aerial photographs related to the project area
were collected and studied. The field investigation works was carried out last week of Jestha,
2070.
7.3 Major Tectonic Zones of Nepal

The entire Himalaya is divided into five parts from west to east. They are as follows:
a. Punjab Himalaya
b. Kumaon Himalaya
c. Nepal Himalaya
d. Sikkim-Bhutan Himalaya
e. NEFA Himalaya
76
Main structural features of the Himalaya (after Gansser 1964)
7.4 Lesser Himalaya

The Lesser Himalaya is situated to the north of the Sub Himalaya. It is bounded by the MBT to
the south and the MCT to the north. Lesser Himalaya consists of more than 15 km thick, low
grade metasedimentary and sedimentary sequence. Lithology includes shale, sandstone, slate,
phyllite, dolomite, limestone, quartzite, and amphibolite.
It is divided into two parts based upon the age. The lower part identified as the Lower Nawakot
Group is of Late Precambrian to early Mesozoic age while the unconformably resting upper part
known as the Upper Nawakot Group ranges from Permo-Carboniferrous to lower to middle
Eocene. Though the lesser Himalayan rocks are virtually unmetamorphosed, contain scant fossil
evidences thus making it difficult to date.
The Naugarh Gad Hydroelectric Project area is situated in the Lesser Himalaya.
7.5 Regional Geology of the Project Area
The regional geology of the project area is described on the basis of Geological Map of Far-
Western Nepal (Compiled) published by Department of Mines and Geology (DMG, 1987).
77
Geologically, the project area consists of Galyang Formation and Lakharpata formation of
Midland Group (Upper Precambrian to Late-Paleozoic age), Lesser Himalaya.
Galyang Formation
This formation consists of dark grey slates finely intercalated with thin grey calcareous slates and
sandstones giving brown yellow and grey laminations oblique joint planes on weathering.
Frequently dark grey to bluish grey fine grained limestone and dolomitic limestone of various
sizes with in the slates. With in this formation; Baitadi Carbonate Unit also occurred which
consists of grey siliceous dolomite.
Lakharpata formation
This formation consists of fine grained, grey limestone and dolomitic limestone with thin
intercalations of black to grey shale. At places white pink dolomitic limestone purple and green
shale are present at the top. Algal structures and stromatolite are present.
7.6. Major Geological Structures
The project area is located about 35 km south from the surface exposure of Main Central thrust
(MCT) and lies more than 60 km north from Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). The rocks in the
projects are fractured and faulted.
In spite of these major thrust systems, two major faults can be traced in the project area from the
Compiled Geological Map published by DMG (1987). One fault lies in the south of the
powerhouse site along the Chameliya River; the fault contact between the underlying Galyang
Formation and the overlying Lakharphata Formation. Another fault passes along the Hopari
Khola in the pipeline alignment and is about 1 km downstream from the intake area. This fault
separates the underlying dolomite and interbedded dolomite and dolomitic black slate and over
lying slate.
78
7.7. Geology of the Project Area
The project area lies mainly in Galyang Formation and Lakharpata Formation (Devthala
Dolomite of the Darchula Group of Upreti, 1990) in Far Western Nepal Lesser Himalaya. This
formation is predominantly composed of bluish-gray, thick bedded, stromatolitic dolomite with
minor black, purple slates and quartzite intercalations. The major rock type occurred in the
project area are as follows:
 Light blue to Greenish-gray Dolomite
 Dolomite interbedded with calcareous schist
 Dolomite interbedded with Black Slate
 Slate
 Quaternary deposits
Light Grey to Blue Dolomite

Dolomite is the predominant rock type in the project area. Dolomites are exposed in the head
works area and most of the pipeline alignment. The dolomites are thick to very thick bedded,
finely crystalline, moderately weathered (but at some places, the dolomites are highly fractures,
weathered and crushed), jointed and fractured; and light blue to greenish-gray colored. Some
horizons of highly fractured, thin bedded light to dirty blue colored dolomite area exposed on the
road cut section, north of Dethala village. Thin layers of phyllite and slate are also present in the
bedding planes which are highly crushed and sheared. In most of the headrace alignment area,
the dolomite beds are dipping steeply towards north. In the headworks area, the dolomite are
light blue colored, thick to very thickly bedded, fractured and jointed and dipping towards south-
west in general.
Dolomite interbedded with Calcareous Schist

The area between north of Dethala and south of Tallo Manbhan village consist of mainly
intercalation of weathered and fractured, white colored calcareous schist and jointed moderately
weathered, light blue colored dolomite Some quartz veins are also present. At the upper reach
thick sequence of moderately weathered, jointed and fractured light blue to pink siliceous
dolomite area also present. At the bedding plane, thin shared coatings of phyllite are also present.
Attitude measured is 358/53 (Dip direction/dip amount).
79
Black Slate and Dolomite

These rocks are exposed south of the Hopari Khola. Thick sequence of thin to medium bedded
black slate and light blue colored dolomite is present in the southern slope of the Hopari Khola.
In the Hopari Khola at right bank side, black calcareous gritty slate and few bands of quartzite
are exposed which are fresh to moderately weathered and fractured. Some quartz veins are also
present in these rocks.
Gray to Black Slate

This rock is exposed around Ratyada village north of Hopari Khola. Some part of the headrace
alignment lies in these rocks. In the Ratyada village, black and fractured slate are exposed and at
the southern part of the village, before the Hopari Khola, thick sequence of light gray colored,
weathered and fractured slates are present. Some quartz veins are also present in the slate.
Attitude measured is 355/62 (Dip direction/dip amount).
Quaternary Deposits
Most of the basal part of the hill slopes; river valley and river banks are covered by the
quaternary deposits. Following quaternary deposits are distributed in the project area:
a. Colluvial Deposits
The colluvial deposits are distributed along the basal slope of most of the hills on the both bank
of the Naugarh gad and its tributaries. In most of the places, the colluvium consists of mostly
angular to sub-angular fragments of dolomite and few slates and quartzites in silty and clayey
matrix. The thickness of the colluvial deposits varies place to place. Very thick sequences of
colluvium are deposited at the slopes of Suke Khola and Hopari Khola valley. Most of the
colluvial deposits are deposited by the small tributaries coming from the steep hills where mass
movement has been active.
b. Alluvial Deposits
The ancient river terraces and tars are formed by Chameliya River near the confluence of
Chameliya and Naugarh gad at Dethala village. At Dethala village, four levels of terraces are
developed which consist of mostly semi consolidated conglomerate and consists of mainly
80
quartzite, dolomite, slate and amphibolite with sandy and silty materials. The highest terrace
level is more than 70 m from the existing Chameliya River bed. Some narrow terraces are also
formed by the Naugarh gad on its course. Some river terraces are also formed by the Naugarh
gad on its course in the project area. These terraces formed by Naugarh gad are up to 20-25 m
high from the present river bed.
c. Recent Alluvial Deposits

Recent riverbed deposits are seen on the course of the Chameliya River and The Naugarh gad.
Fan deposits are developed at the mouth of the small tributaries. The Naugarh gad river bed
mostly consists of boulders and gravel deposits which are mostly composed of dolomite, slate,
quartzite and few amphibolite. On the meandering part of the Chameliya River consists of sand
gravels deposits are present.
d. Residual Soil
The residual soils are developed along the ridges and upper part of maintains and hill slopes in
the project area. Most part of the terrain in the project area is covered by the residual soil. The
hills and gentle slopes in the north of Dethala village, around Tallo Manbhan, Mallo Manbhan,
Chalakikhal, Ratyada village are covered by the residual soil. These residual soil are red and
brown colored, and consist of few pebbles and boulders of dolomite, slate and quartzites. The
thickness varies place to place and may reach up to 5 m.
7.8 Tunnel vs Pipeline

At first we had proposed the tunnel alignment for water conveyance . But the regional geology
is not suitable for tunnel. During our field survey we visited the nearby Chamelia hydropower
project. There we found out that 200m of tunnel had collapsed. So, on the basis of regional
geology we have proposed the pipeline for water conveyance.
81
CHAPTER 8
COST ESTIMATE
This section of report describes the tentative capital cost estimation of the Naugarh Gad SHEP
and also describes the assumptions made and the methodology used in cost estimate of the
project. The project cost estimate is carried out in parallel with the quantities of various items
taken off from the feasibility level of drawings and quantities derived from empirical relations.
The approximate cost estimate of the alternatives is shown in Appendix A.
The overall cost estimate of the proposed alignment is shown in Appendix G.
The overall cost of the project is Rs 1153.188 million.
8.1 Assumptions
The following criteria and assumptions are the basis of the cost estimate:
 All costs are in January 2009 price level.
 For currency conversion, the following rate $1 = NRs.95.00.
 Electromechanical costs are assumed.
 Administrations costs are taken as 20% of (civil works + electromechanical cost).
8.2 Methodology
An essential first step in the estimating process is a break down done by major cost components.
For the Naugarh Gad SHEP the major component breakdowns for the estimating process are:
 support facilities, access roads and other general items
 main civil construction works
 electromechanical equipment
 adminstration and labour cost
82
8.3 Recommendation:
The Naugarh Gad Small Hydroelectric Project is financially feasible and technically viable with
minimum socio-environmental impact. With the implementation of the proposed project, the
country is expected to get benefit which otherwise is flowing unused and envisaged to play a
critical role in furthering the economic activities of the project area as well as the country with
positive contribution to the national growth and poverty alleviation.
83
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
9.1 Conclusion
Naugarh gad SHEP is a run-off type hydro-power project with an installed capacity of
8.9MW generated through a net head of 127.09m and a design discharge of 8m 3/s. Nepal
is facing daily upto 16 hours of load shedding causing shut down of main industries.
Energy crisis is leading our country to economic crisis. Naugarh gad SHEP could be a
milestone in the history of hydro power development.
Site visit was done in the last week of Jestha and three alternatives were selected
according to cost-energy analysis. Proposed pipeline alignment was selected for pre-
feasibility analysis. The pondage area includes few cultivated and population settlement
area reducing rehabilitation cost. It can be concluded from this study that the proposed
hydropower project is technically viable and economically feasible. Hence, the project
can be subjected to feasibility studies.
9.2 Recommendation
Based on the findings of this pre-feasibility study, implementation of the proposed

Naugarh gad SHEP is recommended. In order to reconfirm and upgrade the assessments
made during this study, following recommendations have been made:
 Detailed geotechnical and geophysical investigations should be carried out at the

proposed head works, pressure shaft system and powerhouse sites.
 Earthquake study must be done precisely and structures, water ways etc. must be desgned
with stand the effects of seismic stresses.
 The multipurpose aspects must be considered enough information about environmental

impacts should be preented in the feasibility study so that the final decision to proceed
can be made.
 The detail economic and financial evaluation should be done considering various
financial resources, repayment policy adopted by government and the ability of the
project to meet the payment obligation.
84
REFERENCES
 [1] Department of Electricity Development, Design Guidelines for

Hydropower
 [2] Garg S.K (2007), Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures
 [3] Subramanya K (2007) Engineering Hydrology
 [4] Sanjeeb Baral(2011), Fundamentals of Hydropower engineering

 [5] Dandekar, Water power engineering
 [6] Novak, Hydraulic Structures
 [7] Bansal R.K.,(2005) Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines
85
APPENDIX- A
(Alternatives Selection)
A. ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
A.1 Energy Calculation

For Alternative 1
Design Discharge 8 m3/s
Gross Head 140
Head loss 7
Net head 133 m
Efficiency 0.85
Avge D/S release Q Available Q used Power Dry Season Wet Rate
Month 3 Days Amount (Rs.)
Discharge (m /s) (m3/s) (m3/s) Generation Energy Season (Rs./Unit)
Jan (m3/s) 2.55 0.196 2.357 2.357 (MW)2.614 31 (GWHr)1.945 Energy 7 13615245.90
Feb 2.17 0.196 1.978 1.978 2.194 28 1.474 7 10321439.97
Mar 1.96 0.196 1.766 1.766 1.959 31 1.457 7 10202230.59
Apr 2.03 0.196 1.833 1.833 2.033 30 1.464 7 10244747.08
May 2.74 0.196 2.548 2.548 2.826 31 2.102 5 10511383.69
Jun 10.84 0.196 10.644 8.000 8.872 30 6.388 5 31939790.40
Jul 33.23 0.196 33.030 8.000 8.872 31 6.601 5 33004450.08
Aug 40.19 0.196 39.994 8.000 8.872 31 6.601 5 33004450.08
Sept 31.28 0.196 31.085 8.000 8.872 30 6.388 5 31939790.40
Oct 13.43 0.196 13.235 8.000 8.872 31 6.601 5 33004450.08
Nov 6.35 0.196 6.150 6.150 6.820 30 4.911 7 34374659.17
Dec 4.06 0.196 3.865 3.865 4.286 31 3.189 7 22321236.77
Total 14.43993707 34.68086 274483874.2
Total Dry season Energy= 14.43994 GWH

Total Energy= 49.12 GWhr
Maximum Annual Energy Generation= 77.72 GWhr
Annual plant factor= 0.63
Installed Capacity = 8.87 MW
For Alternative 2
Gross Head 136.641
Head loss 6.83205
Net head 129.80895 m
Efficiency 0.85
Feb 2.17 0.196 1.978 1.978 2.142 28 1.439 7 10073799.14
Mar 1.96 0.196 1.766 1.766 1.912 31 1.422 7 9957449.93
Apr 2.03 0.196 1.833 1.833 1.984 30 1.428 7 9998946.32
May 2.74 0.196 2.548 2.548 2.758 31 2.052 5 10259185.56
Jun 10.84 0.196 10.644 8.000 8.659 30 6.235 5 31173463.57
Jul 33.23 0.196 33.030 8.000 8.659 31 6.443 5 32212579.02
Aug 40.19 0.196 39.994 8.000 8.659 31 6.443 5 32212579.02
Sept 31.28 0.196 31.085 8.000 8.659 30 6.235 5 31173463.57
Oct 13.43 0.196 13.235 8.000 8.659 31 6.443 5 32212579.02
Nov 6.35 0.196 6.150 6.150 6.657 30 4.793 7 33549912.88
Dec 4.06 0.196 3.865 3.865 4.183 31 3.112 7 21785686.52
Total 14.09348172 33.84877 267898221.8
Total Dry season Energy= 14.09348 GWhr

For Alternative 3
Gross Head 180
Head loss 9
Net head 171 m
Efficiency 0.85
Feb 2.17 0.196 1.978 1.978 2.821 28 1.896 7 13270422.82
Mar 1.96 0.196 1.766 1.766 2.519 31 1.874 7 13117153.61
Apr 2.03 0.196 1.833 1.833 2.613 30 1.882 7 13171817.67
May 2.74 0.196 2.548 2.548 3.633 31 2.703 5 13514636.17
Jun 10.84 0.196 10.644 8.000 11.407 30 8.213 5 41065444.80
Jul 33.23 0.196 33.030 8.000 11.407 31 8.487 5 42434292.96
Aug 40.19 0.196 39.994 8.000 11.407 31 8.487 5 42434292.96
Sept 31.28 0.196 31.085 8.000 11.407 30 8.213 5 41065444.80
Oct 13.43 0.196 13.235 8.000 11.407 31 8.487 5 42434292.96
Nov 6.35 0.196 6.150 6.150 8.769 30 6.314 7 44195990.36
Dec 4.06 0.196 3.865 3.865 5.511 31 4.100 7 28698732.99
Total 18.56563337 44.58968 352907838.3
Total Dry season Energy= 18.56563 GWhr

A.3 Cost Estimate
Cost of headrace The cost of pipe alignment can be assumed as Rs.200/kg

alternative installed discharge capacity(m^3/s)
cross sectional area of h.r.t x-sectional area of headrace unit cost of head race alignment(NRs)
Length of head race alignment(m)
total cost of head race
1(Tunnel) 8 4 dia= 2.25661 2 dia= 1.59567 225661 3125 705191262.5
2(Pipe 1) 8 4 2.25661 2 1.59567 88997.2 4925 438311053.8
3(Pipe 2) 8 4 2.25661 2 1.59567 88997.2 6325 562907089.4
Cost of Penstock
The cost of the penstock can be assumed as NRs 250/kg. The cost of head race pipe line is assumed to be NRS200/kg. The thickeness of pipeline is taken as 8mm and density of pipeline=7850kg/cubic meter.
alternativeavailable head Thickness of penstock pipe(mm)
x-sectional area of pipe material(m^2) length of penstock pipe(m) volume of cast iron used weight of cast iron(kg) total cost of penstock pipe(NRs)
1 140 20 6.04982 700 4234.88 3E+07 7569839296
2 160 20 6.04982 425 2571.17 1.8E+07 4595973859
3 180 20 6.04982 300.04 1815.19 1.3E+07 3244649404
Cost of Electrical Equipment

The cost of the electromechanical equipment may be assumed as U$ 350 for each kw of installation.
alternative power(kw) cost of electromechanical equipment(USD) NRs @ 90per 1 USD

1 8872.16 3105257 2.79E+08
2 8659.30 3030753 2.73E+08
3 11407.07 3992474 3.59E+08
Cost of Sediment
The cost of the sediment exclusion work can be assumed as NRs 15 mln/cumec flow
alternative installed discharge capacity(m^3/s) cost of sediment exclusion(NRs)
1 8 120000000
2 8 120000000
3 8 120000000
Total cost analysis

alternativepower(kw) total cost of headrace cost of sediment exclusion(NRs)electromechanical cost(NRs)
total cost of penstock pipe(NRs)total cost(NRs) cost/KW Yearly revenue
1(Tunnel) 8872.16 7.1E+08 1.2E+08 2.8E+08 7.6E+09 8674503725 977721.3 274483874.2
2(Pipe 1) 8659.30 4.4E+08 1.2E+08 2.7E+08 4.6E+09 5427052719 626731.44 267898221.8
3(Pipe 2) 11407.07 5.6E+08 1.2E+08 3.6E+08 3.2E+09 4286879135 375809.03 352907838.3
The cost per KW for alternative 3 is taken as NRS (4286879135 + X) where X is used to account for the cross drainage structures proposed in the alignment.
Since the geology of the project site is not suitable for tunnel alignment, alternative 1 has been discarded.
Alternative 2 doesn’t have any cross drainages structure; hence the construction cost is saved up. It consists of simple head race pipeline along the road.
So, considering the construction cost, ease in construction procedure and revenue generation; alternative 2 is the best option.
APPENDIX B
(Hydrological Calculations)
B. Hydrology Calculation
B.1 FLOOD PREDICTION BY WECS

Q2 = 1.8767 (A + 1).8783
Q100 = 14.63 (A + 1).7342
The flood flows for other return period R is then

given by
QR = exp (lnQ2 + s*σ)

Where σ = ln (Q100/Q2)/2.326
Area of Basin 201 km^2
Area below 3000m 168 km^2
Q2 daily = .8154 (A below 3000m+ 1).9527 = 108.113

Q2 inst = 1.8767 (A below 3000m+ 1).8783 = 169.882
Q100 daily = 4.144 (A below 3000m+ 1).8448 = 315.892

Q100 inst = 14.63 (A below 3000m+ 1).7343 = 632.676
Table B.1.1 Daily and instantaeous flood for different return periods
Standard σdaily σinst Qdaily Qinst

Recurrence Interval (T) Normal Variant
S
2 0 0.4610 0.5653 108.11 169.88
5 0.842 0.4610 0.5653 159.38 273.44
10 1.282 0.4610 0.5653 195.22 350.65
20 1.645 0.4610 0.5653 230.78 430.52
50 2.054 0.4610 0.5653 278.67 542.51
100 2.326 0.4610 0.5653 315.89 632.68
200 2.576 0.4610 0.5653 354.48 728.71
500 2.878 0.4610 0.5653 407.42 864.37
1000 3.09 0.4610 0.5653 449.25 974.41
1000.00
WECS/DHM Method of flood prediction
100.00
Q
10.00 daily
1.00
1 10 100 1000
Return Period(yrs)
Figure B.1.1 Daily and instantaneous flood by WECS/DHM method

B.2 FULLER'S METHOD
Qmax=Qt{1+2(A/2.59)^(-
Cf A T Qav=Cf*A^0.8 Qt=Qav(1+0.8logT) 0.3)}
1.03 201 2 71.67935202 88.94146004 137.154594
1.03 201 5 71.67935202 111.7607256 172.3436622
1.03 201 10 71.67935202 129.0228336 198.9631646
1.03 201 50 71.67935202 169.1042072 260.7717353
1.03 201 100 71.67935202 186.3663152 287.3912378
1.03 201 500 71.67935202 226.4476888 349.1998085
1.03 201 1000 71.67935202 243.7097969 375.819311
Where,
Qt is the max 24 hour flood with frequency oncein T years in cumecs and A is the basin area in sq.km
Qav is the yearly average 24-hour flood over a number of years in cumecs
Cf is the Fuller's coefficient (0.18-1.88). For Nepal Cf is taken as average i.e, 1.03
Flood prediction by Fuller's Method
400
350
300
250
200
Series1
150
100
50
0
1 10 Recurrence interval(T) 100 1000
Table B.2.1 Flood Prediction by Fulle's Method
B.3 Modified Dicken's Method
Total Basin Area (A) 201 km2
Perpetual Snow
Area (a) 0 km2
2.98507
p 5
T, Years 2 10 33 50 100 300 500 1000
CT 4.48 8.74 11.89 12.99 14.82 17.73 19.08 20.91
QT, m3/s 239 466 635 693 791 946 1018 1116
B.5 FLOOD PREDICTION BY SNYDER'S METHOD
Table B.5.1 Flood flows of different years
Maximum Maximum Rainfall in Recurrence

Year Rank
Rainfall (cm) Descending order cm interval
1975 9.94 20.5 1 36.00
1976 9.88 18.42 2 18.00
1977 7.4 17.89 3 12.00
1978 11 17.4 4 9.00
1979 18.42 15.46 5 7.20
1980 12.47 14.8 6 6.00
1981 14.28 14.28 7 5.14
1982 7.4 13.4 8 4.50
1983 9.11 12.9 9 4.00
1984 20.5 12.47 10 3.60
1985 8.22 12.34 11 3.27
1986 8.42 11.54 12 3.00
1987 12.34 11.44 13 2.77
1988 17.89 11.26 14 2.57
1989 15.46 11 15 2.40
1990 10.22 10.84 16 2.25
1991 11.44 10.7 17 2.12
1992 7.2 10.46 18 2.00
1993 9 10.22 19 1.89
1994 9.6 10.12 20 1.80

1995 8.9 9.94 21 1.71
1996 10.12 9.88 22 1.64
1997 11.26 9.7 23 1.57
1998 11.54 9.6 24 1.50
1999 13.4 9.6 25 1.44
2000 10.84 9.16 26 1.38
2001 8.96 9.11 27 1.33
2002 9.6 9.1 28 1.29
2003 14.8 9 29 1.24
2004 12.9 8.96 30 1.20
2005 9.16 8.9 31 1.16
2006 10.7 8.42 32 1.13
2007 9.7 8.22 33 1.09
2008 9.1 7.60 34 1.06
2009 17.4 7.4 35 1.03
2010 10.46 7.4 36 1.00
2011 7.60 7.2 37 0.97
Mean 11.26
Standard Deviation 3.29
For N=
37 Yn = 0.54138 Sn= 1.1326
Table B.5.2 Standard and Normal variate for different return periods
S.No. R. interval Yt Kt Xt
1 2 0.367 -0.154 10.75
2 5 1.500 0.846 14.04
3 10 2.250 1.509 16.22
4 20 2.970 2.144 18.31
5 50 3.902 2.967 21.02
6 100 4.600 3.584 23.05
7 500 6.214 5.008 27.73
8 1000 6.907 5.621 29.75
tpr tr tPR qpr CA
5.73 1.04 11.46597826 0.15032 0.742
QPR=qPR*(CA*A)*R
tPR=tpr+.025(tR-tr)
tr= tpr/5.5
tpr = 0.75Ct(LLc)0.3
CA =1.09352- .6628ln(A)
L = 48.224 km
Lc = 27.145 km
Table B.5.3 Flood Flows for Different Return Period by Snyder's Method
T R QPR
2 10.75 241.060
5 14.04 314.849
10 16.22 363.704
20 18.31 410.567
50 21.02 471.226
100 23.05 516.682
500 27.73 621.722
1000 29.75 666.881

Flood prediction by Snyder's method
800
700
600
500
400
Series1
300
200
100
0
1 10 100 1000
Recurrence interval(T)
B.6 Horton's Method
T qr Q
2 0.597227 120.0426
5 0.750973 150.9456
10 0.893063 179.5056
20 1.062037 213.4693
50 1.33544 268.4235
100 1.588115 319.2111
500 2.374786 477.332
1000 2.824112 567.6466
Table B.6: Horton's Method
B.7 FLOOD PREDICTION BY GUMBEL'S DISTRIBUTION
Table B.7.1
Maximum Maximum Maximum

Discharge at Discharge at Discharge in Recurrence
Year Rank Probability
the guaging site the intake site Descending interval
m3 /s m3 /s order m3 /s
2000 91.8 91.46 134.50 1 0.11 9.00
2001 76 75.72 123.54 2 0.22 4.50
2002 73 72.73 91.46 3 0.33 3.00
2003 85.5 85.18 85.18 4 0.44 2.25
2004 84.3 83.99 84.29 5 0.56 1.80
2005 84.6 84.29 83.99 6 0.67 1.50
2006 77.1 76.81 76.81 7 0.78 1.29
2007 124 123.54 75.72 8 0.89 1.13
2008 135 134.50 72.73 9 1.00 1.00

Mean 92.02
Standard Deviation 21.90
For N= obtained from

Yn = 0.4908 Sn= 0.9316
9 subramanyam
Table B.7.2 Standard and normal variate for different return

periods
S.No. Recurrence interval Yt Kt Xt
1 2 0.367 -0.133 89.101
2 5 1.500 1.083 115.751
3 10 2.250 1.889 133.396
4 20 2.970 2.661 150.321
5 50 3.902 3.662 172.229
6 100 4.600 4.411 188.646
7 500 6.214 6.143 226.583
8 1000 6.907 6.888 242.892

Gumbel's Distribution for High Flood
300
250
200
150
Gumbel
100 plotted
50
0 2.33
1 10 100 1000
Recurrence Interval, T in years
Table B.7.3 Gumbel distribution fo high flood
B.8 Flood estimation LOG-PEARSON TYPE III DISTRIBUTION
Maximum
Maximum Discharge Discharge
Order number
Year at the guaging site at the z=logx Tp(years)
m
m3 /s intake site
m3 /s
2000 91.8 91.46 1.961226197 1 10.00
2001 76 75.72 1.879197108 2 5.00
2002 73 72.73 1.861706376 3 3.33

2003 85.5 85.18 1.930349631 4 2.50
2004 84.3 83.99 1.924211091 5 2.00
2005 84.6 84.29 1.925753879 6 1.67
2006 77.1 76.81 1.885437894 7 1.43
2007 124 123.54 2.091805201 8 1.25
2008 135 134.50 2.128717284 9 1.11
N= 9
mean= 1.954267185
S.D= 0.093959359
Cs(coefficent of
skewness)= 1.221563155
without adjustment to Cs from table 7.6

taking Cs = 1.2
(Kz) xT
(T) Recurrence ZT
frequency Kz*S.D =antilogzT
interval =Zmean+Kz*S.D
factor (m3/s)
50 2.626 0.246737276 2.20100446 158.8563
100 3.149 0.295878021 2.25014521 177.8874
200 3.661 0.343985213 2.2982524 198.725
1000 4.82 0.452884109 2.40715129 255.3591

Chart B.8: Log pearson type III
300
250
200
150 Calculated
plotted
100
50
0
1 10 100 1000
B.9 Comparison of Floods by Different Methods
5000.000
Gumbell
log pearson
wecs
fuller
500.000 M.Dickens
synder
Horton
50.000
1 10 100 1000
Return Period, T
B.10 Long Term Flow Analysis
B.10.1 WECS/DHM METHOD
Area of Basin 201 Km2

Area below
5000m 201 Km2
Moonsoon wetness index 2750 mm
Qmean, monthly
C*(Area of basin)A1*(Area below 5000m +1) A2 * (Moonsoon wetness index)A3
=
Table B.10.1 Mean Monthly Flow by WECS/DHM Method
Powe
r area
Power of Averag
of
Mont mean e Descendin Ran %
Basin
h moonsoo Monthl g order k Exceedenc
Constant below
n ppt y Flow e
Coefficien 5000
t m+1
(C) (A2) (A3) M3/S
0.977
JAN 0.01423 7 0 2.55 40.19 1 8.33
0.976
FEB 0.01219 6 0 2.17 33.23 2 16.67
0.994
MAR 0.009988 8 0 1.96 31.28 3 25.00
1.043
APR 0.007974 5 0 2.03 13.43 4 33.33
1.089
MAY 0.008434 8 0 2.74 10.84 5 41.67
JUN 0.006943 0 0.2610 10.84 6.35 6 50.00
1.009
JUL 0.02123 3 0.2523 33.23 4.06 7 58.33
0.996
AUG 0.02548 3 0.2620 40.19 2.74 8 66.67
0.989
SEP 0.01677 4 0.2878 31.28 2.55 9 75.00
0.988
OCT 0.009724 0 0.2508 13.43 2.17 10 83.33
NOV 0.00176 0 0.3910 6.35 2.03 11 91.67
DEC 0.001485 0 0.3607 4.06 1.96 12 100.00

FLOW DURATION CURVE
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% EXCEEDENCE
Fig B.10.1 Flow Duration Curve
B.10.2 BASIN AREA RATIO METHOD
Catchment area at the Gauging site 202 km2

Catchment area at the intake site 201 km2
Table B.10.2Mean Monthly Flow by Basin Area Ratio Method
Average Discharge at
Average
discharge at intake in Ran
Month discharge at %Exceedence
Gauging station descending k
intake (m3/s)
(m3 /s) order
Jan 4.18 4.16 45.08 1 8.33
Feb 3.77 3.76 31.77 2 16.67
Mar 4.53 4.51 29.73 3 25.00
Apr 5.57 5.55 13.33 4 33.33
May 6.59 6.56 10.68 5 41.67
Jun 10.72 10.68 6.97 6 50.00
Jul 31.89 31.77 6.56 7 58.33
Aug 45.25 45.08 5.55 8 66.67
Sep 29.85 29.73 4.92 9 75.00
Oct 13.38 13.33 4.51 10 83.33
Nov 7.00 6.97 4.16 11 91.67
Dec 4.94 4.92 3.76 12 100.00
Fig B.10.2 Flow Duration Curve Basin Area Method
Flow Duration Curve (BAR method)

120
100
80
60
40 BAR
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% Exceedence
B.10.3 COMPARISION OF FLOW DURATION BY DIFFERENT METHODS
Table B.10.3 comaparison of flow duration curves
Discharge at intake in
S.N. %Exceedence
descending order
WECS BAR
1 40.19 45.08 8.33
2 33.23 31.77 16.67
3 31.28 29.73 25.00
4 13.43 13.33 33.33
5 10.84 10.68 41.67
6 6.35 6.97 50.00
7 4.06 6.56 58.33
8 2.74 5.55 66.67
9 2.55 4.92 75.00
10 2.17 4.51 83.33
11 2.03 4.16 91.67
12 1.96 3.76 100.00

Fig B.10.3 Comparison of Flow Duration Curve
Comparison of Flow Duration Curve

90
80
70
60
50 WECS
40
BAR
30
WECS
20
10 BAR
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% Exceedence
B.11 COMPARISION OF LONG TERM FLOW BY DIFFERENT METHODS
Table B.11 Comparison of long term mean monthly flows by WECS and BAR method
Mean monthly discharge from different

Month methods Average discharge(m/s)
3 3
WECS (m /s) BAR(m /s)
Jan 2.55 4.16 3.36
Feb 2.17 3.76 2.96
Mar 1.96 4.51 3.24
Apr 2.03 5.55 3.79
May 2.74 6.56 4.65
Jun 10.84 10.68 10.76
Jul 33.23 31.77 32.50
Aug 40.19 45.08 42.63

Sep 31.28 29.73 30.51
Oct 13.43 13.33 13.38
Nov 6.35 6.97 6.66
Dec 4.06 4.92 4.49
Figure B.11 Comparision of mean monthly hydrograph by WECS and BAR method
HYDROGRAPH
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 WECS
15 BAR
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time(MONTH)
B.12 Low Flow Analysis
B.12.1 GOROSHKOV'S
METHOD
Qmin(80%)=a(A+f)n
f=5%
a= 0.0014 for winter season
n=1.27 for winter season
Qmin(80%)= 0.0014(201+5%)1.27
= 1.215456
APPENDIX C
(Pipeline Optimization)
C. Pipe optimization
Allowable hoop stress σ 1200 kgf/cm2
Modulus of elasticity of pipe material E= 2.1E+11 N/mm2
Bulk modulus of water K 2060000000 N/m2
Design life= 25 yrs
interest rate=10% 0.12
present worth series factor= 7.843139112
Gross Head(H) 136.641
Gross head H 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641
Internal dia(m) 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
PRESSURE,(Kgf/cm2) 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641
Thickness,(m) 0.00892 0.00956 0.01020 0.01084 0.01147 0.01211 0.01275 0.01339 0.01402 0.01466 0.01530
Adopted Thickness 0.00900 0.01000 0.01100 0.01100 0.01200 0.01300 0.01300 0.01400 0.01500 0.01500 0.01600
Area(m2) 1.5386 1.76625 2.0096 2.26865 2.5434 2.83385 3.14 3.46185 3.7994 4.15265 4.5216
Gross static head (m) 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641
Average discharge(m3/s) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
k/D 7.14286E-05 6.66667E-05 0.0000625 5.88235E-05 5.55556E-05 5.26316E-05 0.00005 4.7619E-05 4.54545E-05 4.34783E-05 4.16667E-05
Reynold's no(VD/U) 5199532.042 4852896.573 4549590.537 4281967.564 4044080.477 3831234.136 3639672.429 3466354.695 3308793.118 3164932.547 3033060.358
Friction factor 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.013
Length(m) 4095.129 4095.129 4095.129 4095.129 4095.129 4095.129 4095.129 4095.129 4095.129 4095.129 4095.129
Velocity (m3/s) 5.199532042 4.529370134 3.98089172 3.526326229 3.145395927 2.823014627 2.547770701 2.31090313 2.10559562 1.926480681 1.769285209
Wall loss(m) 48.36712933 37.11045691 27.5643698 20.86542521 16.06108034 12.5484025 9.935521966 7.96166738 6.449594601 5.276508809 3.539128962
Total head loss (m) 48.36712933 37.11045691 27.5643698 20.86542521 16.06108034 12.5484025 9.935521966 7.96166738 6.449594601 5.276508809 3.539128962
Revenue loss,Rs 45479977.05 33096795.81 24623100.67 18662847.81 14743134.86 11799330.21 9342448.48 7486415.98 6064589.34 4961551.65 4010518.17
present worth energy , Nrs 356705786.8 259582773.7 193122403.9 146375311.6 115632457.6 92543788.28 73274123.04 58717001.95 47565417.82 38914139.77 31455051.89
Density (Kg/m3) 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850
Pipe Area,solid (m2) 0.019677701 0.022589198 0.025701487 0.029014569 0.032528444 0.036243113 0.040158573 0.044274827 0.048591874 0.053109713 0.057828346
Weight (Kg) 632574.383 726169.5724 826219.6023 932724.4729 1045684.184 1165098.736 1290968.129 1423292.362 1562071.436 1707305.35 1858994.105
Cost of pipe/Kg (Rs) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Cost of pipe,Rs 126514876.6 145233914.5 165243920.5 186544894.6 209136836.8 233019747.2 258193625.7 284658472.4 312414287.1 341461070 371798821
Total cost,Rs 483220663.4 404816688.1 358366324.4 332920206.2 324769294.5 325563535.5 331467748.8 343375474.3 359979705 380375209.8 403253872.9
60000000
PIPEOPTIMISZATION
50000000
40000000
30000000
20000000
10000000
0
1 2 (METER)
DIAMETER 3
Final Result
The economical diameter obtained from optimization is 2 m, but this diameter results velocity of 2.54m/s>2m.s
which is not allowable, so adopting diameter of pipe 2.3 m with flow velocity of 1.9m/s <2m/s, so ok.
Optimum Diameter 2.3 m

Velocity of Flow = 1.926 m/s < 2m/s ok
Thickness= 15 mm
APPENDIX- D
(Penstock Optimization)
D. Penstock optimization
Allowable hoop stress σ 1200 kgf/cm2
Modulus of elasticity of pipe material E= 2.1E+11 N/mm2
Bulk modulus of water K 2060000000 N/m2
Design life= 25 yrs
Interest Rate= 0.12
Present Worth Series Factor 7.843139112
Gross Head(H) 136.641
Gross head H 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641
Internal dia(m) 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
PRESSURE,(Kgf/cm2) 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641 13.6641
Thickness,(m) 0.01029 0.01092 0.01156 0.01220 0.01284 0.01347 0.01411 0.01475 0.01539 0.01602 0.01666 0.01730 0.01794
Area(m2) 1.32665 1.5386 1.76625 2.0096 2.26865 2.5434 2.83385 3.14 3.46185 3.7994 4.15265 4.5216 4.90625
Gross static head (m) 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641 136.641
Average discharge(m3/s) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
k/D 7.69231E-05 7.14286E-05 6.66667E-05 0.0000625 5.88235E-05 5.55556E-05 5.26316E-05 0.00005 4.7619E-05 4.5455E-05 4.34783E-05 4.16667E-05 0.00004
Reynold's no(VD/U) 5599496.045 5199532.042 4852896.573 4549590.537 4281967.564 4044080.477 3831234.136 3639672.429 3466354.695 3308793.12 3164932.547 3033060.358 2911737.944
Friction factor 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.013 0.013 0.013
Length(m) 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117 691.117
Velocity (m3/s) 6.03022651 5.199532042 4.529370134 3.98089172 3.526326229 3.145395927 2.823014627 2.547770701 2.31090313 2.10559562 1.926480681 1.769285209 1.630573248
Wall loss(m) 11.8238175 8.842934479 6.423558366 4.768216014 3.607253488 2.775095343 2.166988718 1.714883075 1.373514778 1.11213224 0.738919973 0.597283307 0.487008501
Total head loss (m) 11.8238175 8.842934479 6.423558366 4.768216014 3.607253488 2.775095343 2.166988718 1.714883075 1.373514778 1.11213224 0.738919973 0.597283307 0.487008501
Revenue
Present loss,Rs 11118024.91 8315078.09 6038610.42 4483600.47 3391927.70 2609437.04 2037636.32 1612517.51 1291523.51 1045748.57 837339.36 691236.93 563615.72
worth 87200215.99 65216314.16 47361661.58 35165502.21 26603360.83 20466177.74 15981465.14 12647199.14 10129598.58 8201951.55 6567369.071 5421467.395 4420516.495
Wave velocity,C(m/s) 962.2049706 958.476463 955.1952752 952.2854144 949.6871882 947.3530539 945.2446756 943.3307983 941.5856836 939.987945 938.5196625 937.1657113 935.9132337
Critical time=2L/C (sec) 1.436527603 1.442115747 1.447069553 1.451491306 1.455462406 1.459048445 1.462302868 1.465269662 1.467985361 1.47048056 1.472781078 1.474908848 1.476882632
Time of closure(sec) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
surge head (m) 42.48309944 36.63083574 31.90952802 28.04548362 24.84305815 22.15939446 19.88820999 17.94910951 16.28037144 14.8339748 13.57210549 12.46465938 11.48743009
Total head (m) 179.1240994 173.2718357 168.550528 164.6864836 161.4840582 158.8003945 156.52921 154.5901095 152.9213714 151.474975 150.2131055 149.1056594 148.1284301
Total pressure (Kgf/cm2) 17.91240994 17.32718357 16.8550528 16.46864836 16.14840582 15.88003945 15.652921 15.45901095 15.29213714 15.1474975 15.02131055 14.91056594 14.81284301
Min thickness(m) 0.012888977 0.013339741 0.013815538 0.014311641 0.014824446 0.015351153 0.015889558 0.016437897 0.016994745 0.01755894 0.018129518 0.018705679 0.019286753
Adopted Thickness 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.019 0.019 0.02
Density (Kg/m3) 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850 7850
Pipe Area,solid (m2) 0.026665665 0.024104863 0.027332361 0.030760652 0.034389736 0.038219612 0.042250282 0.046481744 0.050914 0.05554705 0.060380889 0.065415523 0.07065095
Weight (Kg) 144668.391 130775.351 148285.3947 166884.7937 186573.5478 207351.6572 229219.1217 252175.9415 276222.1165 301357.647 327582.5321 354896.7727 383300.3685
Cost of pipe/Kg (Rs) 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
Cost of penstock,Rs 36167097.76 32693837.74 37071348.68 41721198.41 46643386.95 51837914.29 57304780.44 63043985.38 69055529.13 75339411.7 81895633.03 88724193.18 95825092.13
Total cost,Rs 123367313.7 97910151.9 84433010.26 76886700.63 73246747.78 72304092.04 73286245.58 75691184.52 79185127.71 83541363.2 88463002.1 94145660.57 100245608.6
14000000 PENSTOCK
OPTIMISZATION
12000000
10000000
80000000
60000000
40000000
20000000
0
1 2 (METER)
DIAMETER 3
Final Result
The economical diameter obtained from the optimisation is 1.8m

Velocity of flow= 3.14m/s
Internal Diameter= 16mm
APPENDIX-E
(Bifurcation Design)
E. Bifurcation Design
Design of Bifurcations of penstock
Design discharge = 8 m³/s

Discharge in each
pipe after
bifurcation= 4 m³/s
velocity in each
pipe 4 m/s
Area of each pipe 1 m²
Diameter of each 1.12866
branch 5 m
Angle of each pipe 60 degree
Internal pressure of kgf/cm
2
the pipe 16.596
Allowable tensile
stress for pipe kgf/cm
3
material 1200
efficiency 0.9
Internal radius(R,) 0.56 m 56 cm
t=(PR/σ N
-0.6p) + 1.02526
thickness of pipe 0.15cm 1 cm
Diameter of each
bifurcated pipe
Adopt Diameter 1.2 m
Adopt thickness of
pipe 15mm
Length of penstock
after bifurcation 28.5 m
friction (f) 0.016
0.30988
head loss 8 m
0.61977
Total Head Loss 6 m
APPENDIX –F
(Rating curve)
FJ. Rating Curves
FJ.1 Rating curve at weir axis

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3 Rating curve
2
1
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Discharge(m3/s)
F.2
J.2 Rating Curve at Tailrace
732
731
730
729
728
727
726
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Discharge m3/s
900
800 F.3
J.3 Rating curve at headworks
700
600
500 Weir Flow
400 Undersluice Flow
300 Total Flow
200
100
0
-100 0 2 4 Height of 6Water (m) 8 10 12
Appendix –G
(Detail cost estimate)
G. Detailed Cost Estimate
G.1 Unit Rate

Rate- No. Description Unit Rate (Nrs.)
1 excavation (boulder mixed soil) m3 496.41

2 excavation (normal soil) m3 115.40
3 excavation (under water) m3 746.50
4 backfill m3 130.21
5 excavation (rock) m3 2351.45
6 cement mortar masonry (1:3) m3 5,594
7 CAB (concrete armour block pcs 106,370
8 gabions m3 5,349
9 mass concete (15P/40) m3 8,526
10 structural concrete (30P/40) m3 10,520
11 reinforcement steel T 150,000
12 formwork m2 0
13 sandbag-dam m3 3,008
14 boulder pitching (with 10% concerte)m3 1,901
15 drilling m' 1,138
16 blasting m3 1,424
17 ventilation hr 6,035
18 mucking m3 (loose) 4,783
19 rock bolts m' 3,569
20 shotcrete m3 27,630
21 steel wire mesh m2 1,241
22 excavation (steep terrain) m3 976
23 backfill (steep terrian) m3 198
24 excavation (steep terrain, rock) m3 3,534
25 backfill (sand) m3 2,100
26 steel incl.shifting T 166,493
27 protection (zinc+epoxitar) m2 3,923
28 protection (polyethylen) m2 3,249
29 welding m' 18,537
30 drainage m' 3,315
31 bio-engineering m2 1,072
M15 Concrete works m3 11288.55
G.2 Headworks Cost Estimate
S. no Description unit no L B H Area Volume Quantity
A Weir to Intake gate
1 Earthwork in Excavation 3937.56
Side Wall of weir 1 143 2 2.18 623.48 623.48
Weir triangular part 1 31.5 8.4 6.8 1799.28 1799.28

Weir rectangular part 1 31.5 2.4 1 75.6 75.6
Divide wall 1 48.56 1.5 2.18 158.791 158.791
Undersluice side wall 1 125 2 2.18 545 545
For mat foundation 1 30.5 10.8 1.98 652.212 652.212
Intake entry rectangular part 1 1.2 5.3 1.37 8.7132 8.7132
Intake curve part 1 8.3 5.3 0.9125 40.1409 40.1409
Intake gate portion 1 3 5.3 2.16 34.344 34.344
2 Concrete works 5857.34

Side wall of weir (footing) 1 143 2.2 1 314.6 314.6
Side wall of weir (vertical) 1 143 2 7.3 2087.8 2087.8
Weir portion (curve part) 1 30.5 2.4 6.28 459.696 459.696
Weir portion ( rectangular base) 1 30.5 8.4 6.28 1608.94 1608.94
Weir portion ( trapezoidal base) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub weir (curve part) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub weir (base part) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pile at end of pitching (section along weir) 1 30.5 1 1.66 50.63 50.63
Divide wall (foundation) 1 48.56 1 1 48.56 48.56
Divide wall (vertical-thin) 1 36 1 4 144 144
Divide wall (vertical-thick) 1 12 0.5 4 24 24
Mat foundation 1 30.5 2.6 0.8 63.44 63.44
Pile (section along undersluice) 4 4 1 1.2 4.8 19.2
Undersluice side wall (foundation) 1 125 2 1.18 295 295
Undersluice side wall (vertical) 1 125 0.74 6.68 617.9 617.9
column (undersluice gate) 4 0.3 0.3 2.5 0.225 0.9
Lower slab 1 5 3.6 0.2 3.6 3.6
upper slab 1 5 2.6 0.2 2.6 2.6
Beam 1 14.76 0.3 0.4 1.7712 1.7712
conc wall 2 4 0.8 5 16 32
gate (section along undersluice) 2 4.2 1 4.5 18.9 37.8
pile(section along intake) 1 2.92 5.4 1 15.768 15.768
Pile to intake gate 1 12.14 4 0.6 29.136 29.136
3 Stone masonary works 1093.8

u/s of weir upto pile 1 15.6 26 1 405.6 405.6
Weir 1 10.8 30.5 1 329.4 329.4
D/s of weir 1 23 26 0.6 358.8 358.8
0 0
4 Metal works 281
Railing(upper- front) 14 4.78 66.92

Railing(upper-side) 14 2.6 36.4
Railing(lower-front) 12 5.54 66.48
Railing(lower-side) 12 2.6 31.2
vertical railing 80 1 80
B Approach Canal(intake to desander entry)

part1 1 15.973 2.6 3.79 157.398 157.398
part2 1 10 2.6 5.7 148.2 148.2
part3 1 23.436 2.6 6.56 399.724 399.724

flood discharge canal base 1 49.409 3 0.28 41.5036 41.5036
side wall of canal 2 49.409 0.28 2.4 33.2028 66.4057
flushing canal base 1 6 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.6
flushing canal side 2 6 0.2 0.5 0.6 1.2
C Desander
Desilting basin transition
part1 1 8.75 3.475 7.523 228.746 228.746
part2 1 8.75 5.475 8.48 406.245 406.245
part3 1 8.75 9 8.29 652.838 652.838
part4 1 8.75 16 9.8 1372 1372
Desilting basin straight part
part1 1 12.8 16.3 18 3755.52 3755.52
part2 1 12.8 16.3 18.3 3818.11 3818.11
part3 1 12.8 16.3 19 3964.16 3964.16
part4 1 12.8 16.3 19.5 4068.48 4068.48
part5 1 12.8 16.3 19.5 4068.48 4068.48

base(transition) 1 35 16 0.3 168 168
side wall(transiction) 2 35.34 0.3 0.3 3.1806 6.3612
Middle wall(transiction) 1 35 0.3 0.3 3.15 3.15
side wall 3 64 0.3 4 76.8 230.4
slope 4 64.1 0.3 4 76.92 307.68
side wall flushing canal 4 64 0.3 1.2 23.04 92.16
base for flushing canal 2 64 0.6 0.6 23.04 46.08
flushing canal side wall 1 51 0.3 0.6 9.18 9.18
flushing canal base 1 51 1.2 0.3 18.36 18.36
Anchor block in headrace pipe
1 Earthwork excavation m3 87 2 0.5 2 2 174

2 Concrete C-25 m3 87 2 0.5 4 4 348
Deduction for Pipe m3 4 4.15476 16.619
Total Concrete work 331.381
3 Reinforcement bars kg 2601.34
4 Formworks plain m2 174 4 4 16 2784
Anchor block in Penstock
1 Earthwork excavation m3 15 6 4 7.3 175.2 2628

2 Concrete C-25 m3 15 5.4 4 4 86.4 1296
Deduction for Pipe m3 4 2.54469 10.1788
Total Concrete work 1285.82
3 Reinforcement bars kg 10173.6
4 Formworks plain m2 30 5 4 20 600
G.3 Summary Of Civil Works
Total Cost in
SN Description of Works unit Quantity Rate Amount(Rs) US$
Headworks and intake site

1 Site clearance m2 500 95.00 47,500
2 Earthwork Excavation m3 3937.56128
2.1 Excavation in normal soil m3 2953 115.40 340,783
2.2 Excavation in boulder mixed soil m3 984 496.41 488,660
2.3 Reiforced Cement Concrete C-30 m3 586 15816.51 9,264,261
3 Reiforced Cement Concrete C-20 m3 5271.60348 12962.22 68,331,675
4 Reiforcement bars kg 137061.69 150.00 20,559,254
5 Formworks(Plain) m2 6853.08452 520.00 3,563,604
6 Backfilling by random materials m3 393.756128 130.21 51,271
7 Stone Masonary works m3 1093.8 1260.00 1,378,188
8 Iron works Hand rails m 281 510.00 143,310
Total 104,168,506 1,096,510.59
Approach Canal
1 Site clearance m2 200 95.00 19000
Excavation in normal soil m3 529 115.40 61043
Excavation in rock m3 176 2351.45 414632
3 Reiforced Cement Concrete C-20 m3 283.709256 12962.22 3677501
4 Reiforcement bars kg 6638.79659 150.00 995819
5 Formworks(Plain) m2 368.822033 520.00 191787
6 Backfilling by random materials m3 70.5322358 130.21 9184
Total 5,368,967 56,515.45
Desander
1 Site clearance m2 2000 95.00 190000
Excavation in boulder mixed soil m3 5584 496.41 2771772
4 Reiforcement bars kg 20624.0861 150.00 3093613
6 Backfilling by random materials m3 2233.45807 130.21 290818
Total 20,299,520 213,679.16
HEADRACE(PIPE)
1 Site Clearance m2 500 95.00 47,500
2 Cost of pipeline kg 1707305 200.00 341,461,000
3 Cost of anchor block
1 Earthwork excavation m3 174 300.00 52,200
2 Concrete C-25 m3 348 -
Deduction for Pipe m3 17 -
Total Concrete work 331 12,962.22 4,295,433
3 Reinforcement bars kg 2601 100.00 260,134
4 Formworks plain m2 2784 0.00 -
Total 346,116,267 3,643,329
SURGETANK
1 Connecting Pipe kg 45450 200.00 9,090,000
2 Main Pipe kg 111336 2.00 222,672
3 Site Clearance m2 1000 95.00 95,000
Total 9,407,672.00 99,028
Penstock and ANCHOR BLOCKS
1 Site Clearance m2 500 95.00 47,500
2 Cost of pipeline kg 207352 200.00 41,470,331
3 Cost of anchor block
1 Earthwork excavation m3 2628 300.00 788,400
2 Concrete C-25 m3 1296 -
Deduction for Pipe m3 10 -
Total Concrete work 1286 12,962.22 16,667,096
3 Reinforcement bars kg 10174 100.00 1,017,360
4 Formworks plain m2 600 520.00
Total 59,990,687 631,481
Powerhouse
1 Site Clearance m2 399.91 95.00 37991.45
2 Earthwork Excavation works m3 2589
Excavation in normal soil m3 1942 115.40 224,056.72
Excavation in rock m3 485 2351.45 1,141,415.09
3 Plain cement concrete m3 53 12962.22 680,865.12
4 Reinforced Cement Concrete C-20 m3 1623 12962.22 21,042,345.91
5 Stone Masonary m3 410 1900.95 779,499.49
7 Plastering (20 mm in 1:4) m2 3937 180.00 708,680.52
9 Woodworks m3 2 46000.00 78,675.46
10 Formworks m2 2110 520.00 1,097,391.32
11 Reinforcement bars kg 191151 150.00 28,672,594.94
12 Enamel Paintings m2 60 300.00 18,000.00
13 Switchyard (Civil works ) L.S. 342,000.00
14 Iron works for Truss m 70 98.00 6,860.00
15 Drainage and Sewage system L.S. 300,000.00
16 Crane bracket L.S. 150,000.00
17 Electrification L.S. 150,000.00
18 Sanitary fittings for control Building L.S. 150,000.00
21 Earthing L.S. 150,000.00
22 Dewatering L.S. 300,000.00
Total 56,030,376 589,793
Tailrace Canal
1 Site Clearance m2 242.215 95 23010.425
Excavation in rock m3 157 2351.45 370211
4 Reiforcement bars kg 390.4667 200 78093
Total 24,608,677 259,038.71
A Total Of Civil Works 625,990,673 6,589,375.50
ELECTROMECHANICAL COST
1 Gates, Valves, trashrack 20,000,000.00
2 Electromechanical equipments 300,000,000.00
3 33 kv transmission line and substation 15,000,000.00
B TOTAL OF ELECTROMECHANICAL COST 335,000,000.00 3,526,315.79
C TOTAL OF ADMINISTRATION COST 192,198,134.51 2,023,138.26
D GRAND TOTAL 1,153,188,807.05 12,138,829.55
Appendix-H
(Head loss Calculations)
H.HEAD LOSS CALCULATION
Installed Capacity 8.99 MW

Diversion Discharge 8 m3/s
Gross Head 136.641 m
Description No D1(m) D2(M) L(M) R(M) n,f k V1(M/S) V2(M/S) HL(m)

Trash Track Loss 0.02 0.1 2.42 0.722765 0.006518
Contraction Loss 0.1 0.722765 0.002663
Gate Loss 0.02
Loss in Approach Canal upto Gravel Trap 25.973 0.001259 0.0327
Loss in Approach Canal(Gt to S/b) 23.436 0.001259 0.029506
Expansion at S/B 2 0.208377 2 0.16667 0.084289
Desander main basin 2 8 3 64 1.714286 0.015 0.16667 0.00039
Contraction at S/B 2 0.1 0.16667 1.6305 0.026817
Head race pipe
Inlet loss 0.5 1.6305 0.067751
Bent loss 2.161 1.6305 0.292818
Friction Loss 2.3 3745.778 0.016 1.926 4.926605
Surge Tank(Entrance) 2.3 0.1 1.926 0.018907
Surge Tank(Exit) 1.8 0.1 3.145 0.050413
Penstock loss
Friction loss 1.8 678.686 0.015 3.145 2.851215
Bend loss
Bifurcation Loss 0.619776
Tailrace canal loss 0.2
Summation ofall Losses 9.230366

% of Total Head Loss 6.755195
Net Head 127.4106
Appendix-I
(Energy Calculation)
I. Energy Calculation
Energy Generated by Naugarh Gad SHP (8990.58 Kw)
Darchula District
Installed Capacity 8990.58 Kw

Minimum Discharge 1.96 m3/s Flow Power
Gross Head 136.641 m Outage Dry energy tariff 7 NRs. Max 8.00 8991
Dia of penstock 1.8 m Dry Season 3.00% Wet energy tariff 4 NRs. Min 1.77 2011
Mannings coeff. 0.0120 Wet Season 5.00% Average tariff 4.45 NRs. Avg 5.04 5685
frictional coeff. 0.014679
Combine efficiency 85.00% Plant Factor 67.10%
Seasonal Generted Energy
Flow (m3/s) Vel of flow Fric Head Bend loss Valve loss Total H Loss Net Head Salable Energy (Kwh)
Days Month Power (Kw) (Kwh)
(m/s) loss (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Monthly Sacrifice discharge Turbine Dry Wet Dry Wet
31 Jan 2.55 0.20 2.36 0.93 0.14 0.01 0.013 0.16 136.48 2682.68 1995913 1936036
28.25 Feb 2.17 0.20 1.98 0.78 0.10 0.01 0.009 0.11 136.53 2252.37 1527106 1481293
31 Mar 1.96 0.20 1.77 0.69 0.08 0.01 0.007 0.09 136.55 2011.24 1496364 1451473
30 Apr 2.03 0.20 1.83 0.72 0.08 0.01 0.008 0.10 136.54 2086.84 751262 751262 728724 713699
31 May 2.74 0.20 2.55 1.00 0.16 0.02 0.015 0.19 136.45 2898.97 2156837 2048995
30 Jun 10.84 2.84 8.00 3.14 1.56 0.15 0.151 1.87 134.78 8990.58 6473218 6149557
31 Jul 33.23 25.23 8.00 3.14 1.56 0.15 0.151 1.87 134.78 8990.58 6688992 6354542
31 Aug 40.19 32.19 8.00 3.14 1.56 0.15 0.151 1.87 134.78 8990.58 6688992 6354542
30 Sep 31.28 23.28 8.00 3.14 1.56 0.15 0.151 1.87 134.78 8990.58 6473218 6149557
31 Oct 13.43 5.43 8.00 3.14 1.56 0.15 0.151 1.87 134.78 8990.58 6688992 6354542
30 Nov 6.35 0.20 6.15 2.42 0.92 0.09 0.089 1.10 135.54 6950.54 5004388 4754168
31 Dec 4.06 0.20 3.86 1.52 0.36 0.04 0.035 0.44 136.21 4389.25 1632802 1632802 1583818 1551162
Total 7403447 42558700 7181343 40430765

80°00' 82°00' 82°30' 83°00' 83°30'
80°30' 81°00' 81°30' 30°30'
30°30'
Hu
mla
hola
K arn
a li
am K
Riv
er
Do z
30°00'
30°00' Simikot
Project Area Darchula
Mugu Karnali
r
ive
aR
liy
am
Ch
Gokuleswore
Mugu Karnali River
Chainpur
Lang
Gamgodhi u Ri 29°30'
r ver
Rive
29°30'
Seti
d
Ga
iya
r
ve
Martadi
rn
Ri
Su
ga
er
an
Sina Riv
Khola
Dadeldhura Jumla
ug
Dipayal
dh
Bu
Tila River
Jugdula
Sophegabar
ad
r Manma
Sulu G
Mangalsen ve
Ri
ali
rn
d
Ka
Ga
uli
Th
29°00'
29°00' Mahendranagar
r
ve
Ri
ri
he
iB
ul
Ataria Dailekh
Th
Jajarkot
Lamki Sani Bheri River
Birendranagar
Musikot
28°30'
28°30' 83°30'
SCALE Ba
bai
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 km Kohalpur River
82°00' 82°30' 83°00'
80°30' 81°00'
Lamahi
Location Map of Naugarh Gad Hydroelectric Project
PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED TO: PROJECT TITLE: SCALE: DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
PREPARED BY:
SUBMITTED TO:
PROJECT TITLE:
SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
SHEET NO.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
w
r Flo
Rive
X
Y
X
PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED TO: PROJECT TITLE: SCALE: DRAWING TITLE:
SHEET NO.
ALL DIMENSIONS
ARE IN METRE
SHEET NO.
1.0000
R1.1511
R0.5514
2.7758
2.4000
R0.6755
1.2500
1.2500 2.4004 R0.6727
SECTION AT Y-Y
1.4500
2.0500
2.3090
Y Y
FULL SPIRAL CASING DRAFT TUBE
20.3000
CONTROL ROOM
7.5 m X 5 m
X
HATCH
TOILET
3mX5m
2mX3m
15.1500
SPIRAL CASING
9.8500
SHAFT FOR LIFT
2.5 m X 3 m
DOWN
1.0000
3.9000
X
POWER HOUSE : PLAN VIEW AT MACHINE FLOOR LEVEL
SHEET NO.
1:150 POWER HOUSE PLAN VIEW 11

Output

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Output

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

Pre-feasibility Study Report on

Naugarh Gad Small Hydroelectric Project

17th Ashwin 2070

Ashwin 17, 2070

............................... ................................ ..........................

Project Supervisor External Internal

Department of Civil Engineering

We are thankful to Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus for giving us an

Naugarh Gad Small Hydroelectric Project

Source River : Naugarh Gad

- VDC : Dethala VDC

- Development Region : Far-Western

Type of Scheme : Run-off-River

Gross Head : 136.641m

Net Head : 127.011 m

Design Discharge : 8 m3/s

Installed Capacity : 8990.58 kW

Gross Annual Generation : 47.612 GWh

2.0 Hydrology & Meteorology

Catchment Area : 201 Sq.km

Average Monsoon Precipitation : 2000 mm

Temperature : -2.4oC and 36.4oC (Min.m & Max.m)

100-yrs Flood at Intake : 791 m3/s

3.0 Diversion Weir & Intake

- Type : Overflow (Ogee)

- River Bed Level : 866 amsl

- Crest Level : 870 amsl

- High Flood Level : 875.215 amsl

- Type : Side intake

- Number of bays : 2 Nos.

- Size of each opening : 2m x 2m (B x H)

- Intake sill level : 867.50 amsl

- Full Supply level : 869.7 amsl

-No of bay : 1 No.

-Sill level : 866 amsl

-Gate operation : Manual/electrical

4.0 Approach Canal

Type : Rectangular RCC

Size (B x H) : 2.4 x 2.4 m

Slope (Longitudinal) : 1 in 795

5.0 Desilting Basin

Type : Dufour (Double-bay)

Size of each bay (L x B x H) : 64 m x 8 m x 5.5m

Length of inlet transition : 35 m

Length of Outlet transition : 14 m

Particle Size to be settled : Greater than 0.2 mm

Flushing type : Continuous / Intermitent

Full Supply level : 869.55 amsl

6.0 Headrace Pipe

Size (D) : 2.3m

7.0 Surge Tank

Type : Inclined (Circular)

Size of Surge Pipe (D) : 4m

Size of Connecting Pipe : 2.3 m

Length of Connecting Pipe : 111 m

Full Supply level : 870.449 amsl

8.0 Penstock Pipe

Material type : Mild Steel

Size (Dia) : 1.8 m

Number of bifurcations : Two

Clear Size : 40.6 m x 9.8 x 18.7m (L x B x H)

Number of Units : 2 Nos.

Turbine axis level : 724.5amsl