You are on page 1of 303

Nagdar Hydropower Project

Feasibility Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABBREVIATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SALIENT FEATURES
1

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 2
1.1
PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 2
1.2
SCOPE OF WORK.......................................................................................... 4
1.3
NAGDAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT............................................................ 4
1.3.1
Location .......................................................................................... 4
1.3.2
Salient Features.............................................................................. 5
1.4
ACCESSIBILITY TO THE PROJECT AREA ................................................... 6
1.4.1
Route Distance ............................................................................... 6
1.5
COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................... 7
1.6
ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ......................................................................... 8
1.7
PREVIOUS STUDIES ..................................................................................... 8

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS ..................................................................................... 11


2.1
GENERAL ..................................................................................................... 11
2.2
SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................ 11
2.3
TOPOGRAPHY OF NEELUM RIVER CATCHMENT.................................... 11
2.4
AVAILABLE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS ............................................................ 12
2.5
DETAILED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.......................................................... 12
2.5.1
Reference Grid.............................................................................. 13
2.5.2
Bench Marks and Control Points .................................................. 13
2.5.3
Horizontal Control ......................................................................... 13
2.5.4
Vertical Control ............................................................................. 14
2.6
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF NAGDAR NULLAH ...................................... 14
2.7
TOPOGRAPHY WITH SATELLITE IMAGES ................................................ 14
2.8
PREPARATION OF CONTOUR MAPS ........................................................ 15
2.9
SOFTWARE .................................................................................................. 15

HYDROLOGY AND SEDIMENTATION.................................................................... 19


3.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 19
3.2
DESCRIPTION OF THE CATCHMENT ........................................................ 19
3.3
CLIMATE ....................................................................................................... 21
3.3.1
Temperature ................................................................................. 22
3.3.2
Precipitation .................................................................................. 23
3.4
HYDROLOGICAL STATIONS ....................................................................... 25
3.4.1
Flow Record at Various Gauging Stations .................................... 26
3.4.1.1
Flows of Neelum River at Dudhnial and
Nausehri Stations....................................................... 27
3.5
ESTIMATION OF EXTENDED FLOWS AT KUNDAL SHAHI ....................... 27
3.5.1
Muzaffarabad-Kundal Shahi Correlation....................................... 28
3.5.2
Naran-Kundal Shahi Correlation ................................................... 30
3.5.3
Estimated & Measured Flows of Jagran River at Kundal Shahi ... 34
3.6
ESTIMATION OF FLOWS AT NAGDAR....................................................... 36
3.6.1
Measured Flows at Nagdar Nullah................................................ 36
3.6.2
Comparison of Flows at Nagdar ................................................... 45

FHC Consulting Engineers

ii

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.7
3.8
3.9

3.10

FLOW DURATION CURVE........................................................................... 46


LOW FLOWS AT THE PROJECT ................................................................. 48
ESTIMATION OF FLOODS........................................................................... 49
3.9.1
Estimation of Floods by Gumble Frequency Analysis Method...... 50
3.9.2
Estimation of Floods by Log Pearson Type - III Method ............... 51
3.9.3
Estimation of Floods by Rainfall Runoff Relationship ................... 52
3.9.4
Floods Recommended at the Weir Site ........................................ 53
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDIES ............................................................ 53
3.10.1
Available Sediment Data............................................................... 53
3.10.2
Sediment Load / Yield at Weir Site ............................................... 54
3.10.3
Sediment Bed Load ...................................................................... 55
3.10.4
Particle Size Distribution ............................................................... 55

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES ................................................... 59


4.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 59
4.2
GEOMORPHOLOGY .................................................................................... 60
4.2.1
Topography................................................................................... 60
4.2.2
Hydrology...................................................................................... 60
4.2.3
Drainage Pattern........................................................................... 60
4.2.4
Terraces........................................................................................ 60
4.2.5
Talus Cone / Colluvial Material ..................................................... 60
4.3
REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF NEELUM VALLEY ............................................ 60
4.3.1
Geological Setting......................................................................... 60
4.3.2
Lithostratigraphy ........................................................................... 61
4.3.3
Naril Group.................................................................................... 62
4.3.4
Kundal Shahi Group...................................................................... 62
4.3.5
The Surgun Group ........................................................................ 62
4.3.6
Metamorphic Evolution ................................................................. 63
4.3.7
Tectonic Evolution......................................................................... 63
4.4
SITE GEOLOGY ........................................................................................... 64
4.4.1
Lithological Units........................................................................... 64
4.4.1.1
Soil Units .................................................................... 64
4.4.1.2
ABGM......................................................................... 64
4.4.1.3
RBGM ........................................................................ 64
4.4.1.4
ABG............................................................................ 64
4.4.1.5
RBG ........................................................................... 64
4.4.2
Rock Units..................................................................................... 65
4.4.2.1
Schists........................................................................ 65
4.4.2.2
Gneiss ........................................................................ 65
4.4.2.3
Granite ....................................................................... 65
4.5
GEOLOGICAL, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND
SEISMIC STUDIES ....................................................................................... 66
4.5.1
Surface Geological Mapping......................................................... 66
4.5.2
Drilling ........................................................................................... 72
4.5.3
Test Pits ........................................................................................ 72
4.5.4
Laboratory Testing ........................................................................ 73
4.6
SEISMICTY ................................................................................................... 73
4.6.1
Indus Kohistan Seismic Zone (IKSZ) & Associated Earthquakes . 74
4.6.2
Hazara Lower Seismic Zone (HLSZ) ............................................ 74
4.6.3
Hazara Fault Zone and Associated Earthquakes ......................... 75
4.6.4
Kashmir Balakot Earthquake of October 08, 2005..................... 75
4.7
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 76
4.8
DEAGGREGATION....................................................................................... 79

FHC Consulting Engineers

iii

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.9
4.10

4.11
4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.17

SEISMICITY OF PROJECT AREA................................................................ 79


CATALOGUES .............................................................................................. 79
4.10.1
Number of Events ......................................................................... 79
4.10.2
Working Procedure ....................................................................... 80
4.10.3
Results .......................................................................................... 80
OVERVIEW AND INTERPRETATION OF CATALOGUE DATA .................. 80
4.11.1
Catalogue...................................................................................... 80
4.11.2
Seismogenic Depth....................................................................... 81
SEISMOTECTONIC SETTING...................................................................... 82
4.12.1
Tectonic Subdivisions of the Northwestern Himalayas ................. 82
4.12.1.1
General ...................................................................... 82
4.12.1.2
General features of the Himalayan Tectonic Regions 83
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS (PSHA) ............................ 84
4.13.1
Seismic Source Models ................................................................ 84
4.13.1.1
Procedure................................................................... 84
4.13.1.2
Source Zone Parameters ........................................... 84
4.13.1.3
Seismic Source Zones of Model 1 ............................. 85
4.13.1.4
Source Zone Parameters of Model 1 ......................... 87
4.13.1.5
Seismic Source Zones of Model 2 ............................. 89
INDIVIDUAL RESULTS................................................................................. 91
4.14.1
Results of Model - 1 ...................................................................... 92
4.14.1.1
Total Hazard............................................................... 92
4.14.1.2
Deaggregation of Hazard ........................................... 92
4.14.1.3
Uniform Hazard Spectra............................................. 94
4.14.1.4
Source Contribution to Probabilistic Hazard .............. 96
4.14.1.5
Deterministic Spectra ................................................. 96
4.14.2
Results of Model - 2 ...................................................................... 97
4.14.2.1
Deaggregation of Hazard ........................................... 97
4.14.2.2
Uniform Hazard Spectra............................................. 99
4.14.2.3
Source Contribution to Probabilistic Hazard ............ 101
FINAL EVALUATION OF MCE, DBE AND OBE, ENGINEERING
PARAMETERS............................................................................................ 102
4.15.1
Annual Probability of Exceedance for MCE, DBE and OBE ....... 102
4.15.2
Design Response Spectra Derived from Attenuation Laws for
Different Return Periods ............................................................. 103
4.15.3
Acceleration Response Spectra for Vertical Earthquake
Component ................................................................................. 103
4.15.4
Final Acceleration Response Spectra for Horizontal and
Vertical Earthquake Components ............................................... 103
4.15.5
Acceleration Response Spectra for Return Period of
5000, 2000, 2500 and 1000 Years.............................................. 105
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL..................................................................... 108
4.16.1
Coarse Aggregate....................................................................... 108
4.16.2
Fine Aggregate (Sand)................................................................ 109
4.16.3
Building Stone............................................................................. 109
4.16.4
Fill Material.................................................................................. 109
4.16.5
Cement and Steel ....................................................................... 109
PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION EVALUATION............................................ 109
4.17.1
Weir Site ..................................................................................... 109
4.17.2
Connecting Channel ................................................................... 111
4.17.3
Sandtrap ..................................................................................... 111
4.17.4
Headrace Tunnel ........................................................................ 111
4.17.5
Surge Tank ................................................................................. 111

FHC Consulting Engineers

iv

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.18

4.19
4.20
4.21

4.17.6
Powerhouse Cavern Structure.................................................... 112
4.17.7
Access Tunnel ............................................................................ 113
4.17.8
Tailrace ....................................................................................... 114
ROCK MASS ASSESMENT........................................................................ 114
4.18.1
Rock Structure Rating (RSR)...................................................... 115
4.18.2
Geomechanics Classification or Rock Mass Rating System ...... 118
4.18.3
Rock Tunneling Quality Index, Q ................................................ 125
GLACIAL LAKE OUTBURST FLOOD (GLOF)............................................ 132
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 132
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 134

ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LAYOUT ..................................................................... 137


5.1
GENERAL ................................................................................................... 137
5.2
TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES...................................................................... 137
5.3
PROJECT LAYOUT ALTERNATES............................................................ 138
5.3.1
Alternate Project Layout - I ......................................................... 138
5.3.2
Geological Aspects Alternate - I.................................................. 138
5.3.2.1
Weir Site................................................................... 138
5.3.2.2
Headrace Tunnel...................................................... 139
5.3.2.3
Surge Tank and Pressure Shaft............................... 139
5.3.2.4
Powerhouse and Tailrace ........................................ 139
5.3.2.5
Salient Features of Nagdar Alternative - I ................ 140
5.3.3
Alternate Project Layout - II ........................................................ 140
5.3.4
Geological Aspects of Alternate - II............................................. 141
5.3.4.1
Weir Site................................................................... 141
5.3.4.2
Power Channel......................................................... 141
5.3.4.3
Powerhouse ............................................................. 141
5.3.4.4
Salient Features of Nagdar Alternative - II ............... 142
5.4
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS........................................... 142
5.4.1
Gross Head and Power Potential................................................ 142
5.4.2
Project Layout ............................................................................. 142
5.4.3
Snowfall and Landslides ............................................................. 143
5.4.4
Line of Control............................................................................. 143
5.5
SELECTED LAYOUT .................................................................................. 143

PROJECT SIZING AND POWER POTENTIAL...................................................... 145


6.1
GENERAL ................................................................................................... 145
6.2
HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................. 145
6.3
CAPACITY OPTIMISATION........................................................................ 146
6.3.1
Compensation Flows .................................................................. 147
6.3.2
Head Losses ............................................................................... 147
6.3.2.1
Project Benefits ........................................................ 147
6.3.2.2
Cost Estimation ........................................................ 148
6.4
MARGINAL COST ANALYSIS .................................................................... 150
6.5
SELECTED CAPACITY .............................................................................. 152
6.6
POWER AND ENERGY .............................................................................. 152

CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN .............................................................................. 160


7.1
GENERAL ................................................................................................... 160
7.2
DIVERSION WEIR ...................................................................................... 161
7.2.1
Design Considerations................................................................ 162
7.2.2
Over Flow Section....................................................................... 162
7.2.3
Flushing Channel Section ........................................................... 164

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

7.3
7.4
7.5

7.6

7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
8

7.2.4
Gates and Stop Logs .................................................................. 165
7.2.5
Gravel Scour ............................................................................... 165
POWER INTAKE ......................................................................................... 165
CONNECTING CHANNEL .......................................................................... 166
7.4.1
Reject Weir ................................................................................. 167
DESANDER / SANDTRAP .......................................................................... 167
7.5.1
Hydraulic Steel Structures .......................................................... 168
7.5.1.1
Inlet Gate.................................................................. 168
7.5.1.2
Outlet Gate............................................................... 169
7.5.1.3
Sand Flushing Gates................................................ 169
POWER TUNNEL ....................................................................................... 169
7.6.1
Conventional Heading Method.................................................... 171
7.6.1.1
External Water Pressure .......................................... 171
7.6.1.2
Support..................................................................... 172
SURGE TANK ............................................................................................. 172
7.7.1
Excavation and Support.............................................................. 174
7.7.2
Lining .......................................................................................... 174
PRESSURE SHAFT .................................................................................... 174
ECONOMIC DIAMETER OF PRESSURE SHAFT...................................... 175
ACCESS TUNNEL TO POWERHOUSE ..................................................... 175
7.10.1
Inclined Shaft to Powerhouse ..................................................... 176
POWERHOUSE .......................................................................................... 176
TAILRACE TUNNEL.................................................................................... 177

HYDRO-MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.................................................................... 179


8.1
GENERAL ................................................................................................... 179
8.2
MAIN DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................... 179
8.2.1
Discharge.................................................................................... 179
8.2.2
Head Calculation......................................................................... 180
8.2.2.1
Head Water Level .................................................... 180
8.2.2.2
Tail Water Level ....................................................... 180
8.2.2.3
Gross Head .............................................................. 180
8.2.2.4
Head Losses ............................................................ 180
8.2.2.5
Turbine Net Head..................................................... 180
8.3
PLANT CAPACITY ...................................................................................... 180
8.4
TURBINE SELECTION CRITERIA.............................................................. 181
8.4.1
Net Head..................................................................................... 181
8.4.2
Range of Discharges .................................................................. 182
8.4.3
Merits of Pelton over any other Type of Turbine......................... 182
8.4.4
Number of Units .......................................................................... 182
8.4.4.1
Efficient Water Use .................................................. 182
8.4.4.2
Space Limitation for Civil Structure .......................... 184
8.4.4.3
Maintenance Viewpoint ............................................ 184
8.4.4.4
Transportation .......................................................... 184
8.5
TURBINE PARAMETERS ........................................................................... 185
8.5.1
Calculations ................................................................................ 186
8.5.1.1
Specific Speed ......................................................... 186
8.5.1.2
Velocity and Diameter .............................................. 187
8.5.1.3
Pitch Circle Diameter ............................................... 188
8.5.1.4
Runaway Speed....................................................... 188
8.6
TURBINE COMPONENTS .......................................................................... 188
8.6.1
General ....................................................................................... 188
8.6.2
Turbine Runner ........................................................................... 189

FHC Consulting Engineers

vi

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.7

8.8
8.9
8.10

8.11

8.12

8.6.3
Turbine Shaft .............................................................................. 189
8.6.4
Casing......................................................................................... 190
8.6.5
Nozzles ....................................................................................... 190
8.6.6
Needles....................................................................................... 191
8.6.7
Jet Deflectors .............................................................................. 191
GOVERNOR SYSTEM................................................................................ 191
8.7.1
General ....................................................................................... 191
8.7.2
Governor Head ........................................................................... 192
8.7.3
Oil Pressure System ................................................................... 192
INLET VALVE.............................................................................................. 193
POWERHOUSE CRANE............................................................................. 193
COOLING AND DEWATERING SYSTEM .................................................. 194
8.10.1
Basic Requirements.................................................................... 194
8.10.2
Cooling Water System ................................................................ 194
8.10.3
Power Station Drainage System ................................................. 194
HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM ................ 195
8.11.1
General ....................................................................................... 195
8.11.2
General System Description ....................................................... 196
8.11.2.1
Machine Hall ............................................................ 196
8.11.2.2
Office and Control Room Building............................ 196
8.11.2.3
Design Criteria ......................................................... 197
AUXILIARY SYSTEM .................................................................................. 197
8.12.1
Workshop Equipment.................................................................. 197
8.12.2
Auxiliary Equipment .................................................................... 197
8.12.2.1
Oil Handling Equipment ........................................... 198
8.12.2.2
Fire Fighting System ................................................ 198
8.12.3
Maintenance Tools and Spares .................................................. 198

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 200


9.1
GENERAL ................................................................................................... 200
9.2
GENERATORS ........................................................................................... 200
9.2.1
General ....................................................................................... 200
9.2.2
Generator Protection................................................................... 201
9.2.3
Excitation System ....................................................................... 202
9.2.4
MV Switchgear............................................................................ 202
9.3
STEP - UP TRANSFORMER ...................................................................... 203
9.3.1
General ....................................................................................... 203
9.3.2
Transformer Rating ..................................................................... 204
9.3.3
Transformer Protection ............................................................... 204
9.4
132 kV SWITCHGEAR ................................................................................ 205
9.4.1
General ....................................................................................... 205
9.4.2
Circuit Breakers .......................................................................... 205
9.5
LV INSTALLATION ..................................................................................... 206
9.5.1
11/0.4 kV Switchgear .................................................................. 206
9.5.1.1
Low Voltage Auxiliary Switchgear ............................ 206
9.5.1.2
Motor Control Centers.............................................. 206
9.5.2
Station Auxiliary Transformer...................................................... 206
9.5.3
Emergency Diesel Generating Set.............................................. 207
9.5.4
Battery and Battery Charger ....................................................... 207
9.6
ELECTRICAL AUXILIARIES ....................................................................... 208
9.6.1
Electrical Lighting........................................................................ 208
9.6.2
Fire Detection and Protection System ........................................ 208

FHC Consulting Engineers

vii

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

9.7

10

TRANSMISSION LINE ................................................................................ 208


9.7.1
Dispersal of Power...................................................................... 208
9.7.2
Transmission Line Route ............................................................ 209
9.7.3
Main Specifications of T/L Material ............................................. 209
9.7.3.1
Transmission Line Towers ....................................... 209
9.7.3.2
Conductor................................................................. 209
9.7.3.3
Insulators.................................................................. 209
9.7.3.4
Shield Wire............................................................... 209
9.7.3.5
Construction ............................................................. 209

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION ......................................................... 211


10.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 211
10.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSAL............................ 211
10.2.1
Land Use and Industrialisation.................................................... 212
10.2.2
Regulatory Framework- Industrialisation .................................... 212
10.2.2.1
Deregulation of the Economy................................... 212
10.2.2.2
Infrastructure Facilities ............................................. 212
10.2.2.3
Incentives ................................................................. 212
10.2.3
Environmental Legal Framework ................................................ 213
10.3 PAKISTAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (PEPA) 1997 ............ 213
10.4 GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT............................. 213
10.5 GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION ........................................... 214
10.6 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND EXPECTED CONDITIONS................ 214
10.6.1
Existing (Baseline) Condition of the Biophysical and
Socio-Economic Environment, Trends & Anticipated Future
Environmental Conditions ........................................................... 214
10.6.2
Environmentally Sensitive Areas of Special or Unique Value..... 215
10.6.2.1
Physical Resources.................................................. 215
10.6.2.2
Ecological Resources............................................... 215
10.7 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 216
10.7.1
Overview ..................................................................................... 216
10.7.2
Forests ........................................................................................ 216
10.7.2.1
Moist Deodar Forests............................................... 217
10.7.2.2
Western Mixed Coniferous Forest............................ 217
10.7.2.3
Reserve Forests....................................................... 217
10.7.2.4
Medicinal Plants ....................................................... 217
10.7.2.5
Vegetation in the Weir Area ..................................... 218
10.7.2.6
Vegetation at Powerhouse Area .............................. 218
10.8 NATURAL FAUNA ...................................................................................... 219
10.8.1
Mammals .................................................................................... 219
10.8.2
Reptiles and Amphibians ............................................................ 219
10.8.3
Insects, Butterflies and Vectors .................................................. 219
10.8.4
Birds and Fowl (Avifauna) Communities..................................... 220
10.8.5
Aquatic Ecology .......................................................................... 220
10.9 PROTECTED AREAS ................................................................................. 221
10.9.1
Overview ..................................................................................... 221
10.9.2
National Parks............................................................................. 221
10.9.3
Wildlife Parks .............................................................................. 221
10.9.4
Wildlife Sanctuaries .................................................................... 222
10.9.5
Private Game Reserves.............................................................. 222
10.10 QUALITY OF LIFE ...................................................................................... 222
10.10.1 Socio-Economic Values .............................................................. 222

FHC Consulting Engineers

viii

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.11 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................... 223


10.12 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA / STATUS ....................................... 224
10.12.1 Noise........................................................................................... 224
10.12.2 Ambient Gases ........................................................................... 224
10.12.3 Particulate Matter........................................................................ 224
10.12.4 Water Quality .............................................................................. 224
10.13 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..................................................................... 225
10.13.1 Impacts During Construction....................................................... 225
10.13.1.1 Air Quality................................................................. 225
10.13.1.2 Noise and Vibration.................................................. 225
10.13.1.3 Soils ......................................................................... 226
10.13.1.4 Waste ....................................................................... 226
10.13.1.5 Construction Spoil .................................................... 226
10.13.1.6 Use of Hazardous and Toxic Materials .................... 227
10.13.1.7 Layout of Construction Camps, Workshops and
Labour ...................................................................... 227
10.13.1.8 Water Use / Quality .................................................. 227
10.13.2 Impacts During Operation ........................................................... 228
10.13.2.1 Air............................................................................. 228
10.13.2.2 Greenhouse Gases .................................................. 228
10.13.2.3 Noise ........................................................................ 228
10.13.2.4 Water Quality ........................................................... 229
10.13.2.5 Compensation Water ............................................... 229
10.13.2.6 Impact on Microclimate ............................................ 230
10.14 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS.............................................................................. 230
10.14.1 Biological Impacts During Construction ...................................... 230
10.14.1.1 General Impacts on Flora......................................... 230
10.14.1.2 General Impacts on Fauna....................................... 231
10.14.1.3 Impacts on Aquatic Life............................................ 232
10.14.1.4 Construction Spoil .................................................... 232
10.15 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ................................................................... 232
10.15.1 Involuntary Resettlement of Project Affected People.................. 232
10.15.2 Employment Generation During Construction Phase ................. 232
10.15.3 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology ............................................. 233
10.15.4 Recreation Activities ................................................................... 233
10.16 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE ......................... 233
10.16.1 Electricity Generation.................................................................. 233
10.16.2 Employment Generation During Operational Phase................... 233
10.16.3 Provision of Associated Facilities................................................ 234
10.16.4 Agricultural Impacts .................................................................... 234
10.16.5 Landscape and Visual Amenity................................................... 234
10.17 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
MEASURES, MONITORING PLAN, SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
PROPOSED TRAINING .............................................................................. 235
10.17.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 235
10.17.2 Organisation and Implementation ............................................... 235
10.17.3 Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)................................................. 236
10.17.3.1 Resettlement Principles and Objectives................... 236
10.18 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ........................................................................ 237
10.19 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 237

FHC Consulting Engineers

ix

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

11

COST ESTIMATES................................................................................................. 239


11.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 239
11.2 ESTIMATION OF QUANTITIES .................................................................. 239
11.3 UNIT RATES ............................................................................................... 240
11.4 ESTIMATION OF PROJECT COSTS ......................................................... 241
11.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION COST ...................................... 242
11.6 CIVIL WORKS ............................................................................................. 242
11.7 ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT....................................... 243
11.8 TRANSPORTATION AND SHIPMENT ....................................................... 243
11.9 ERECTION, COMMISSION AND TESTING CHARGES ............................ 243
11.10 ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION ......................................................... 243
11.11 PROJECT DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION ................................................ 244
11.12 IMPORT DUTIES ........................................................................................ 244
11.13 CONTINGENCIES ...................................................................................... 244
11.14 INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION...................................................... 244
11.15 TOTAL PROJECT COST ............................................................................ 244

12

CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ............................................................................... 247


12.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 247
12.2 CONSTRUCTION PLANNING .................................................................... 247
12.3 DESCRIPTION OF WORKS ....................................................................... 248
12.3.1
Preliminary Works....................................................................... 248
12.3.2
Site Installation and Mobilisation................................................. 249
12.3.3
Construction of Camps ............................................................... 249
12.3.4
Diversion Weir............................................................................. 249
12.3.5
Power Intake, Connecting Channel and Sandtrap...................... 250
12.3.6
Headrace Tunnel ........................................................................ 250
12.3.7
Surge Tank ................................................................................. 250
12.3.8
Pressure Shaft ............................................................................ 251
12.3.9
Access Tunnel to Cavern............................................................ 251
12.3.10 Powerhouse and Tailrace Tunnel ............................................... 251
12.3.11 Electro-Mechanical Equipment ................................................... 251

13

FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................ 253


13.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 253
13.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 254
13.2.1
Methodology ............................................................................... 255
13.2.2
Thermal Power Plant Parameters............................................... 255
13.2.3
Fuel Cost..................................................................................... 256
13.2.4
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost.................................... 256
13.2.5
Service Life ................................................................................. 257
13.2.6
Assumptions ............................................................................... 257
13.2.6.1
Discount Rate........................................................... 258
13.2.6.2
Standard Conversion Factor .................................... 259
13.2.6.3
Annual Energy Benefits............................................ 259
13.2.6.4
Project Economic Costs ........................................... 259
13.2.7
Result of the Thermal Equivalent................................................ 260
13.3 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 260
13.3.1
Capital Cost ................................................................................ 260
13.3.2
Capital Structure ......................................................................... 261
13.3.2.1
Local Currency Financing ........................................ 261
13.3.2.2
Foreign Currency Financing..................................... 261
13.3.3
Results of the Financial Analysis ................................................ 261

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

13.4
13.5
13.6
14

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 262


UNIT COSTS............................................................................................... 263
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 263

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 265


14.1 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 265
14.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 266

FHC Consulting Engineers

xi

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure - 1.1:

Location Map Six (6) Hydropower Projects in AJ&K

Figure - 3.1:
Figure - 3.2:
Figure - 3.3:
Figure - 3.4:
Figure - 3.5:
Figure - 3.6:
Figure - 3.7:
Figure - 3.8:
Figure - 3.9:
Figure - 3.10:

Catchment Area of Nagdar Nullah


Mean Monthly Temperature at Muzaffarabad
Mean Annual Temperature at Muzaffarabad
Annual Precipitation at Muzaffarabad
Mean Monthly Precipitation at Muzaffarabad
Yearly Rainfall at Dudhnial
Mean Monthly Rainfall at Dudhnial
Location Map of Hydrological Stations
Mean Annual Flows (m3/s) Neelum River at Muzaffarabad
Specific Flows - Neelum River at Muzaffarabad & Jagran River at Kundal
Shahi and Thunian
Specific Flows Curve Muzaffarabad vs Kundal Shahi
Mean Annual Flow - Kunhar River at Naran 1960-2000
Specific Flows - Kunhar River at Naran and Jagran River at
Kundal Shahi 1982-84
Specific Flows Kunhar River at Naran and Jagran River at
Kundal Shahi 1994-96

Figure - 3.11:
Figure - 3.12:
Figure - 3.13:
Figure - 3.14:
Figure - 3.15:
Figure - 3.16:
Figure - 3.17:
Figure - 3.18:
Figure - 3.19:
Figure - 3.20:
Figure - 3.21:
Figure - 3.22:
Figure - 3.23:
Figure - 3.24:
Figure - 3.25:
Figure - 3.26:
Figure - 3.27:
Figure - 3.28:
Figure - 3.29:
Figure - 4.1:
Figure - 4.2:
Figure - 4.3 a):
Figure - 4.3 b):
Figure - 4.4 a):
Figure - 4.4 b):
Figure - 4.5 a):
Figure - 4.5 b):

Relationship between Specific Flows at Naran andKundal Shahi for


Summer Period
Relationship between Specific Flows at Naran and Kundal Shahi for
Winter Period
Estimated and Measured Flows of Jagran River at
Kundal Shahi -1983
Estimated and Measured Flows of Jagran River at
Kundal Shahi -1995
Mean Monthly Flows Jagran River at Kundal Shahi
Rating Curve - Nagdar Nullah at Gauge Site
Mean Monthly Flows Nagdar Nullah
Mean Annual Flows Nagdar Nullah
Flow Duration Curve for Average Year Nagdar Nullah
Flow Duration Curve for Dry Year Nagdar Nullah
Flow Duration Curve for Wet Year Nagdar Nullah
Gumble Extreme Value Type-I (Method of Moments)
Flood Estimation with Log Pearson Type-III
Flood Hydrograph at proposed Nagdar Weir Site
Sediment Rating Curve
Geological Map of NE Pakistan & AJK showing the Principal Trust,
Tectonic Units, Hazara-Kashmir and Nanga Parbat Santaxes
Geological Map of Neelum Valley and AJ&K
Rose Diagram Showing Stereographic Projection ofJoint Sets in Granitic
Gneiss
Rose Diagram Showing Stereographic Projection of Joint Sets in Schist
Rose Diagram Showing Location of Poles of Joint Sets in Granitic Gneiss
Rose Diagram Showing Stereographic Projection of Joint Sets in Granitic
Gneiss
Composite Pole Plot Showing Location of Joint Sets in Granitic Gneiss
Rose Diagram Showing Stereographic Projection of Joint Sets in Schist

FHC Consulting Engineers

xii

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.6:
Figure - 4.7:
Figure - 4.8:
Figure - 4.9:
Figure - 4.10:
Figure - 4.11:
Figure - 4.12:
Figure - 4.13:
Figure - 4.14:
Figure - 4.15:
Figure - 4.16:
Figure - 4.17:
Figure - 4.18
Figure - 4.18:
Figure - 4.19:
Figure - 4.20:
Figure - 4.21:
Figure - 4.22:
Figure - 4.23:
Figure - 4.24:
Figure - 4.25:
Figure - 4.26:
Figure - 4.27:
Figure - 4.28:
Figure - 4.29:
Figure - 4.30:
Figure - 4.31:
Figure - 4.32:
Figure - 4.33:

Situation (red: investigated area, pink dot: Nagdar Hydropower Project


34.390820 N / 73.54591400E)
Working Catalogue of Investigated area, Time Span: from 25 A.D until
December 2008; White Circle - Site Location
(N: 34.390812 / E: 73.544914); for Data Source
Hypocenter Depths in the Working Catalogue
(Cross-Section from South to North)
Tectonic map of North-Western Himalaya (Greco 1989)
Seismic Source Zones of Model 1
(Approx. 400x400 km Corresponding to Investigated Area);
White Circle: Nagdar Project Site (34.390812 N / 73.545914 E)
Seismic Source Zones of Model 1, Project site
(34.390812 N / 73.545914 E)
Regression for the source zone characteristic of Zone 1 of Model 1
Regression for the Source Zone Characteristic of Zone 2 of Model 1
Overview of activity of seismic source zones of Model 1
Seismic Source Zones of Model 2, project site
(34.390812 N / 73.545914 E)
Overview of activity of seismic source zones of Model 2
PSHA for PGA (at Period of 0.03 s); 5% damping, Model
Presents the Results of Magnitude-Distance Deaggregation for an
Annual Probability of Exceedance of Approximately 1 / 10,000, 1 / 145,
1 / 145 and 1 / 2500.The Magnitude is Truncated at M = 5.
Deaggredation at the Amplitude 1.13 Representing an Annual Probability
of Exceedance of Approximately 1 / 10,000;
Frequency = 100 Hz (at PGA), Model 1
Uniform Hazard Spectra for an Annual Probability of Exceedance of
1 / 10,000; 5% Damping, Model 1
Uniform Hazard Spectra for an Annual Probability of Exceedance of
1 / 2500; 5% Damping, Model 1
Uniform Hazard Spectra for an Annual Probability of Exceedance of
1 / 475; 5% Damping, Model 1
Uniform Hazard Spectra for an Annual Probability of Exceedance of
1 / 145; 5% Damping, Model 1
Hazards by Seismic Source for PGA, Model 1
DSHA for Fractile = 0.5; 5% Damping, Model 1
DSHA for Fractile = 0.84; 5% Damping, Model 1
Deaggredation at the Amplitude 0.692 Representing an Annual
Probability of Exceedance of Approximately 1 / 10,000;
Frequency = 100 Hz
Uniform Hazard Spectra for an Annual Probability of Exceedance of
1 / 10,000; 5% Damping, Model 2
Uniform Hazard Spectra for an Annual Probability of Exceedance of 1 /
475; 5% damping, Model 2
Uniform Hazard Spectra for an Annual Probability of Exceedance of
1 / 2500; 5% Damping, Model 2
Uniform Hazard Spectra for an Annual Probability of Exceedance of
1 / 145; 5% Damping, Model 2
Hazards by Seismic Source for PGA, Model 2
Acceleration Response Spectra for Horizontal and Vertical Components
of MCE, Probability of Exceedance 1 / 10,000 years (5% Damping)
Acceleration Response Spectra for Horizontal and Vertical Components
of DBE, Probability of Exceedance 1 / 475 years (5% Damping).

FHC Consulting Engineers

xiii

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.34:
Figure - 4.35:
Figure - 4.36:
Figure - 4.37:
Figure - 4.38:

Acceleration Response Spectra for Horizontal and Vertical Components


of OBE, Probability of Exceedance 1 / 145 years (5% Damping)
Acceleration Response Spectra for Horizontal and Vertical Components,
Probability of Exceedance 1 / 5000 years (5% Damping)
Acceleration Response Spectra for Horizontal and Vertical Components,
Probability of Exceedance 1 / 2000 years (5% Damping)
Acceleration Response Spectra for Horizontal and Vertical Components,
Probability of Exceedance 1 / 2500 years (5% Damping)
Acceleration Response Spectra for Horizontal and Vertical Components,
Probability of Exceedance 1 / 1000 years (5% Damping)

Figure - 6.1:
Figure - 6.2:
Figure - 6.3:
Figure - 6.4:
Figure - 6.5:
Figure - 6.6:

Mean Monthly Flows at Proposed Nagdar Weir Site


NPV vs Design Run-off-River Base Case
Cost/kWh Run-off-River Base Case
B/C Ratio Run-off-River - Base Case
Estimated Mean Monthly Power
Estimated Mean Monthly Energy

Figure - 8.1:
Figure - 8.2:

Flow Duration Curve


Turbine Selection Chart

FHC Consulting Engineers

xiv

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

LIST OF TABLES
Table - 1.1:

Capacities and Location of Six Hydropower Projects as per TOR

Table - 2.1:
Table - 2.2:

Bench Marks / Control Points


Coordinates of Bench Marks / Control Points

Table - 3.1:
Table - 3.2:
Table - 3.3:
Table - 3.4:
Table - 3.5:
Table - 3.6:
Table - 3.7:
Table - 3.8:
Table - 3.9:
Table - 3.10:
Table - 3.11:
Table - 3.12:
Table - 3.13:
Table - 3.14:

Long Term Climatic Stations in Jhelum River Basin


Hydrological Stations with Long Term Records
Specific Flows of Various Gauging Stations
Low Flows at Nagdar Nullah
Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (May and June 2009)
Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (July and August 2009)
Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (September & October 2009)
Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (November & December 2009)
Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (January and February 2010)
Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (March and April 2010)
Measured and Estimated Flows at Nagdar
Flow Duration Values Nagdar Nullah
Extended Mean Monthly Flows at Nagdar Nullah
Ratio of Specific Discharge (l/s/km2) at Jagran and
Muzaffarabad of High Flow Period
Flood at Nagdar Nullah in Different Return Periods
Estimation of Flood with Log Pearson Method
Comparison of Flood Estimates
Partical Size Distribution Analysis at Nausehri (1991-1996)

Table - 3.15:
Table - 3.16:
Table - 3.17:
Table - 3.18:
Table - 4.1:
Table - 4.2:
Table - 4.3:
Table - 4.4:
Table - 4.5:
Table - 4.6:
Table - 4.7:
Table - 4.8:
Table - 4.9:
Table - 4.10:
Table - 4.11:
Table - 4.12:

Discontinuity Survey Data of Nagdar Hydropower Project


Source zone characteristics of Model 1
Source Zone Parameter of Model 2
Acceleration response spectra for MCE, DBE and OBE
Acceleration Response Spectra for 5000, 2000, 2500 and 1000 Return
Pediods
Rock Structure Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Rock Structure Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Guideline for Excavation in Support of 10m Span Rock Tunnels in
Accordance with the RMR System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Classification of Individual Parameters used in the Tunneling Quality
Index, Q
Classification of Individual Parameters used in the Tunneling Quality
Index, Q

Table - 6.1:
Table - 6.2:
Table - 6.3:
Table - 6.4:

Comparison of Cost
Normal Cost Run-off-River Option
10% Increased Cost Option
Reduced Flows Option

Table - 7.1:
Table - 7.2:
Table - 7.3:
Table - 7.4:
Table - 7.5:

Water Level Profile


Hydraulic Calculation for Overflow Weir
Hydraulic Calculation for Undersluice
Hydraulic Calculation for Sandtrap
Hydraulic Calculation for Surge Tank

FHC Consulting Engineers

xv

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 7.6:

Hydraulic Calculations for Pressure Shaft

Table - 8.1:
Table - 8.2:
Table - 8.3:

Comparison of Basic Data


Comparison of Basic Data
Design Data

Table - 11.1:
Table - 11.2:
Table - 11.3:
Table - 11.4:

Major Quantities of Civil Works


Summary of Cost Estimates
Deatiled Cost Estimates
Cash Flow

Table - 12.1:

Implementation Schedule

Table - 13.1:
Table - 13.2:
Table - 13.3:
Table - 13.4:

Economic Analysis
Financial Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis
Cost per KWh and kW

FHC Consulting Engineers

xvi

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

ABBREVIATIONS

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

ABBREVIATIONS
-

AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR


HYDRO ELECTRIC BOARD
AIR HANDLING UNITS
ALKALI SILICA REACTION
ALTERNATING CURRENT
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, REFRIGERATION
AND AIR CONDITIONING ENGINEERS
AMERICAN STANDARD FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS
AMPERE
ANGULAR BOULDER GRAVEL MATERIAL WITH
APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES
BENCH MARK
BENEFIT-COST RATIO
COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE POUR LE DEVELOPPEMENT
DE LA GEOTHERMIE ET DES ENERGIES NOUVELLES
CONTROL POINT
CROSS LINKED POLYETHYLENE
CUBIC METER PER SECOND
DEGREE CELSIUS
DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL
DIRECT CURRENT
DRAWING
ECONOMIC INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN
ELECTROMAGNETIC DISTANCE MEASUREMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT AND
MONITORING PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EUROPEAN MATERIAL HANDLING FEDERATION
FINANCIAL INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN
FOREIGN COMPONENT
GENERAL TOPOGRAPHIC SHEET
GIGAWATT HOUR
GLACIAL LAKE OUTBURST FLOOD
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
HAZARA KASHMIR ASYNTAXIS
HAZARA LOWER SEISMIC ZONE
HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING
HECTARE
HERTZ (Frequency)

FHC Consulting Engineers

AJ&K
HEB
AHUs
ASR
AC
AASHTO
AISI
ASHRAE
ASTM
A
ABGM
BM
B/C
CFG
CP
XLPE
m3/s or cumec
C
DSHA
DEM
DC
Dwg
EIRR
EDM
ESMMP
EMP
EMU
EPA
FEM
FIRR
FC
GT Sheet
GWh
GLOF
GPS
HKS
HLSZ
HVAC
ha
Hz

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
-

HIMALAYAN FRONTAL THRUST


HYDRO POWER PROJECT
INDUS - KOHISTAN SEISMIC ZONE
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION
INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION
INTERNATIONAL ELECTRO-TECHNICAL COMMISSION
JHELUM FAULT
KARACHI INTER-BANK OFFERED RATE
KILO VOLT
KILOMETER
KILOVOLT AMPERE
KILOWATT HOUR
LINE OF CONTROL
LITERS PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETER
LITERS PER SECOND PER PERSON
LITERS PER SECOND PER SQUARE METER
LOCAL COMPONENT
LONDON INTER-BANK OFFERED RATE
MAIN BOUNDARY THRUST
MAIN CHAKWAL THRUST
MAIN KARAKORRAM THURST
MAIN MANTLE THRUST
MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE
MAXIMUM DESIGN EARTHQUAKE
MEAN SEA LEVEL
MEGAVOLT AMPERE
MEGAWATT
METER ABOVE SEA LEVEL
METER PER SECOND
METER
MILLIMETER
NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS
NET PRESENT VALUE
NET PRESENT WORTH
NITROGEN OXIDES
OIL NATURAL AIR FORCED
OIL NATURAL AIR NATURAL
OPERATING BASIC EARTHQUAKE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PAKISTANI RUPEES
PARTS PER MILLION
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
PEAK GRUOND VELOCITY
PERCENT
PLAIN CEMENT CONCRETE
POLY VINYL CHLORIDE

FHC Consulting Engineers

HFT
HPP
IKSZ
IEE
IDC
IEC
JF
KIBOR
kV
km
kVA
kWh
LoC
l / s / km2
l /s / person
l / s / m2
LC
LIBOR
MBT
MCT
MKT
MMT
MCE
MDE
msl
MVA
MW
m asl
m/s
m
mm
NEPRA
NEQS
NPV
NPW
NOX
ONAF
ONAN
OBE
O&M
Pak. Rs. / PKR
ppm
PGA
PGV
%
PCC
PVC

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
-

POWER LINE CARRIER


PROBABLISTIC SESMIC HAZARD AHALYSIS
PROJECT AFFECTED PEOPLE
REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE
RESIDUAL FURNACE OIL
REVOLUTION PER MINUTE
ROCK MASS RATING
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
ROCK STRUCTURE RATING
ROUNDED BOULDER GRAVEL MATERIAL WITH
APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES
SALT RANGE THRUST
SANDSTONE
SHUTTLE RADAR TOPOGRAPHY MISSION
SILICON CONTROLLED RECTIFIER
SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESMENT
SQUARE KILOMETER
STANDARD BENCH MARK
STANDARD CONVERSION FACTOR
SULFUR HEXAFLOURIDE
SULPHUR OXIDES
SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY PROJECT
SURVEY OF PAKISTAN
TERMS OF REFERENCE
THYRISTOR CONTROLLED RECTIFIER
TRANSMISSION LINE
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
UNITED STATES DOLLAR
UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN COLLABORATION WITH GERMAN AGENCY FOR
TECHNICAL COOPERATION
WORLD GEODETIC SYSTEM
ZANSKAR SHEAR ZONE

FHC Consulting Engineers

PLC
PSHA
PAP
RCC
RFO
rpm
RMR
RQD
RSR
RBGM
SRT
SS
SRTM
SCR
SIA
km2
SBM
SCF
SF6
SOX
SCADA
SWHP
SOP
TOR
TCR
T/L
USGS
US $
UTM
WAPDA
WAPDA-GTZ

WGS
ZSZ

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.

PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Nagdar hydropower project is identified in the lower 6 km stretch of
Nagdar nullah, near Keran village in the Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir in
Pakistan. Nagdar nullah is a right bank tributary of Neelum River located in
Neelum district with its confluence located about 92 km North East of
Muzaffarabad city. The project layout has been planned on the right bank of
Nagdar nullah with diversion weir intake, sandtrap, low pressure headrace tunnel,
surge shaft, pressure shaft and pressure tunnel leading to underground
powerhouse. The tailrace will be free flow tunnel. An access tunnel is provided
for handling of plant and equipment transportation to the powerhouse.
The weir intake is proposed 200 m downstream of Shelyath Nar while the
powerhouse near Danjar village about 4 km downstream of Nagdar nullah
confluence with Neelum River. The coordinates and elevations of weir and
powerhouse are listed below.
Site

Latitude

Longitude

Elevation
(m asl)

Weir

34 41 18

73 54 20

1950

Powerhouse

34 39 09

73 55 00

1480

The project area is accessible from Muzaffarabad via main Neelum road up to
Keran village. The weir site is accessible by jeepable road leading to Neelum
village then following along the Nagdar nullah. Nagdar valley from Keran village
becomes inaccessible during winter months due to snowfall and the road leading
to proposed weir site needs to be widened. Construction of bridge over Danjar
nullah will also be required for an access to the powerhouse area and handling of
plant and equipment.

2.

HYDROLOGY AND SEDIMENTATION


The mean monthly flows measured on Jagran River for short period and
correlated with long term gauging station of Kunhar River at Naran. With four
years data of Jagran River at Kundal Shahi, empirical equations have been
developed and used for estimation of flows at Nagdar. The catchment area at
Naran, Kundal Shahi and Nagdar weir site is 1036 km2, 430 km2 and 82 km2
respectively. A long term gauging station of Neelum River at Muzaffarabad was
also checked but the correlation with smaller catchment like Kundal Shahi was not
as appropriate as with Naran.

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

A gauge has been established at Nagdar nullah on April 26, 2009 and flow
measurements have been carried out by the Consultants. Low flows observation
at Nagdar nullah by SWHP, WAPDA were carried out in past years. The
estimated and observed flows are matching and considered realistic comparing
specific flows at Kundal Shahi and Thunian on Jagran River. The estimated mean
monthly flows are graphically presented in the following Figure.

The mean monthly flows vary from 1.07 to 14.68 m3/s with mean annual value of
5.44 m3/s. The design flood for weir is taken as 204 m3/s for a return period of
1000 year.
Long term data available at nearest hydrological station Nausehri, has been
considered to assess the suspended and bed sediment load at Nagdar
Hydropower Project by developing a relationship between flows and sediment
concentration in ppm as given below.
Y = 1.881X0.841
Where
Y = sediment concentration (PPM)
X = discharge (m3/s)
The particle size distribution at the diversion site has also been estimated as
stated below:

Sand

13%

Silt

64%

Clay

23 %

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Sediment measurements at the proposed site should be arranged in future to


strengthen this estimate and to take necessary measures in designing the scheme
so that the flows to the powerhouse carry the minimum sediments.

3.

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS
With the commencement of studies, control points / bench marks were established
along the stretch of interest of Nagdar nullah. A longitudinal profile survey was
carried out to estimate the head available for power generation. Thus a detailed
topographic survey has been carried out in the area of all important structures of the
scheme. Topographic survey has been carried out for weir area and surge to
powerhouse and tailrace area. A total area of 88 hectares was surveyed by
traversing with EDM. All the data was computerized and maps of appropriate
scales with 2 m contour interval were derived. Topographic maps for tunnel
alignment, covering area of 185 hectares, have been prepared with help of high
resolution satellite images and digital elevation model.

4.

GEOLOGY
Rocks of metamorphic origin are exposed at weir site in Nagdar valley with thin
cover of morainic material comprising of angular boulders and gravel with sand
and appreciable amount of fines. Phyllites and schists are major rock types in the
Nagdar valley. The headrace tunnel alignment shall apparently pass through in
the rocks comprising of schists and granitic gneiss with igneous intrusions at
places.
It is envisaged that no major problem is expected during the process of tunnel
excavation. The surge tank and pressure shaft would be excavated in rocks
comprising mainly of granitic gneiss (metamorphic). The rocks are moderately
weathered and sparsely jointed. The powerhouse proposed as underground
structure near Danjar village will be excavated in sound rock like granodiorites,
phyllites and schists. The downstream portion of initial 150 m portion of tailrace
would be in soft rock while the later portion to powerhouse would be in sound
rock.
A sub-surface investigation plan was recommended by the Consultants which will
be conducted through third party. The investigation plan includes sub-surface
drilling and laboratory testing. The data so obtained will be utilised for detailed
designing of the structures involved in the project.
Construction materials do not pose any problem. Cement and steel are locally
manufactured in the country. The aggregates (sand and gravel) are abundantly
available at site or can be manufactured by processing the required excavations.

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

5.

PROJECT LAYOUT AND POWER POTENTIAL


The power and energy has been optimised considering the project benefits and
cost. The project net benefits are maximum for a design discharge of 9 m3/s. With
design discharge and net head of about 464 m, the installed capacity would be
35 MW and it would generate annual energy of 146.05 GWh with the plant
factor 47.64%.

6.

CIVIL STRUCTURES
The whole project layout would be located on the right bank of Nagdar nullah.
The weir is ungated over flow structure with an undersluice for the sediment
flushing. The weir has been planned with crest elevation at 1956 m asl, about
5.6 km upstream of confluence of Nagdar nullah with Neelum River. A design
discharge of 9 m3/s would be diverted through surface sandtrap and 3840 m low
pressure headrace tunnel would lead towards Danjar village. Headrace tunnel
would be shotcrete lined with diameter of 3.1 m.
The surge shaft would be located at the end of headrace tunnel and before start of
pressure tunnel. A 680 m long pressure shaft including pressure tunnel with
2.1 m diameter would connect with underground powerhouse. The turbine axis is
proposed at 1486 m asl. Tailrace tunnel would be free flow, 537 m long and a
25 m long tailrace channel would discharge outflows into Danjar nuallh. An
access tunnel of about 505 m is provided for handling of plant and equipment.

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

7.

ELECTRO-MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
Four number of Horizontal Pelton turbines, each with a capacity of 8.75 MW have
been proposed with following parameters:

Total Number of Units

Type of Turbine

Pelton, 2 jet

Design Head

464 m

Rated Speed (n)

600 rpm

The powerhouse will be equipped with auxiliary mechanical equipment for smooth
operation as well as maintenance. Four generators, each of 10.30 MVA have
been proposed. Power factor would be 0.85 and generation will be at 11 kV.
Each generator will be feeding to one step up transformer of 10/13 MVA capacity.
The power would be transmitted through 132 kV lines to a new grid station at
Authmuqam and then to Muzaffarabad grid station.

8.

PROJECT COST AND ECONOMIC / FINANCIAL VIABILITY


Based on estimated quantities and updated unit rates that project cost including
transportation, erection, engineering and supervision, project administration,
import charges including interest during construction has been worked as
PKR 5688.959 million with foreign exchange component of PKR 3448.102 million.
The cost for civil works has been estimated as PKR 2383.651 million; whereas,
cost for electro-mechanical equipment is PKR 1176.506 million. The price index
has been taken as of May 2010 with foreign currency exchange rate of
1.00 US$ = Rs. 85.0. The proposed project would require a period of 48 months
for implementation.
The estimated cost of the project would produce cheap energy with tariff of
Rs. 6.496/kWh. This hydropower scheme is an economically viable with EIRR
and FIRR as 27.78% and 14.30% respectively and with B/C of 1.75 to meet the
local area power demand and to connect it with National grid at low rate tariff.

9.

ENVIRONMENT
On the basis of the field findings during the Initial Environmental and Social
Impact Examination study, it can be concluded that the proposed Nagdar
Hydropower Project will not have any significant adverse impacts on the local
population or any segment of the environment provided the mentioned
recommendations and mitigation measures suggested in study are fully
implemented during construction and by the plant management in letter and spirit.

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

SALIENT FEATURES

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

SALIENT FEATURES
NAGDAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT
1

GENERAL

Project Location

HYDROLOGY

Catchment Area at Weir Site

82 km2

Mean Annual Flow

5.44 m3/s

Design Discharge

09 m3/s

Designed Flood (1000 years)

204 m3/sec

TOPOGRAPHY

Gross Head

470 m

Net Head

464 m

CIVIL STRUCTURES

4.1

DIVERSION WEIR

4.2

4.3

About 92 km from Muzaffarabad city, on right


bank of Nagdar nullah which is a right tributary
of Neelum River

Type of Intake

Lateral Intake

Height above River Bed

6m

Length of the Crest

14 m

Crest Elevation

1956.0 m asl

Length of Weir

14 m

Type of Stilling Basin

Roller Bucket

CONNECTING CHANNEL

Cross Section (Internal)

2.5 m x 2.3 m, RCC

Velocity

2.19 m/s

Length of the Channel

40 m

SANDTRAP

Number of Chambers

Clear Width of each Chamber

4m

Length of Chamber

54 m

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

HEADRACE TUNNEL

Cross Section (Internal)

2.8 m x 3.1 m

Type of Section

Horse Shoe

Length of the Tunnel

3840 m

Lining

Partially Lined

SURGE TANK

Diameter

6m

Depth

32 m

PRESSURE SHAFT AND PRESSURE TUNNEL

Diameter

2.1 m

Length

680 m

POWERHOUSE

Type

Cavern

Length

62.6 m

Width

14.6 m

Height

18 m

Access Tunnel

505 m

Tailrace Tunnel

537 m

Tailrace Channel

25 m

ELECTRO-MECHANICAL

Type of Turbine

Pelton with Horizontal Axis, 600 rpm

No. of Units

Four (04)

Installed Capacity

35 MW

Firm Power (95 % of time)

3.4 MW

Annual Energy Generated

146.05 GWh

Plant Factor

47.64 %

Generation Voltage

11 kV

Voltage of Dispatch

132 kV

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

COST AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY

Project Cost (With Trans+IDC)

US$ 66.929 million

Foreign Components

US$ 40.566 million

Project Economical IRR

27.78%

Project Financial IRR

14.30%

Benefit / Cost Ratio

1.75

7.643

Unit Cost (US cent/ kWh)

Unit Cost (Rs./ kWh)

6.496

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
Preliminary Works

One (1) Year

Construction of Civil and


E&M Works

Four (4) Years

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

FHC Consulting Engineers

INTRODUCTION

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

INTRODUCTION

1.1

PROJECT BACKGROUND
Neelum River is a right bank tributary of Jhelum River with its confluence at
Domel in Muzaffarabad. Neelum River is fed by a network of major tributaries on
its right bank along its stretch from Taobut to Muzaffarabad. These tributaries
generally run in North to South direction with catchment areas ranging from 80 to
400 km2. Gagai Nar, Shounter nullah, Janawahi nullah, Surgan nullah, Dowarian
nullah, Luat nullah and Nagdar nullah are major tributaries. High specific
discharge and steep gradient of the main river as well as that of its tributaries
offer promising hydropower sites in the valley. A number of potential hydropower
sites were identified on the lower part of the catchments; whereas, the sites on
the upper catchment are yet to be identified and firmed up.
Hydro Electric Board (HEB) of the Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K) has
signed a Consultancy Agreement in November 2008 with M/s Fida Hussain
Chaudhary FHC Consulting Engineers, Lahore in association with M/s Scott
Wilson Limited of United Kingdom and M/s Electra Consultants, Peshawar. The
scope of services includes the preparation of the feasibility study reports, detailed
technical / engineering designs, tender documents and preparation of the site
investigation documents for the six (6) high head medium sized hydropower sites
namely; Nagdar, Luat, Dowarian, Shounter, Janawahi and Taobut. All of these
sites are located on the right bank of Neelum River in District Neelum.
The three sites; namely Nagdar, Luat and Dowarian were identified earlier by a
French Firm CFG in 1986, while the remaining three sites were identified by
Hydro Electric Board of the Government of Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir as
mentioned in the Terms of Reference (TOR). During the preliminary site
identification studies; the name of the schemes where the sites have been
identified, their approximate locations from Muzaffarabad and the preliminary
estimated installed capacities are given as under:
Table - 1.1: Capacities & Location of Six Hydropower Projects as per TOR
Sr. No.

Site

Estimated Capacity
as per TOR

Distance from
Muzaffarabad

1
2
3
4
5
6

Nagdar
Luat
Dowarian
Shounter
Janawahi
Taobut

18 MW
25 MW
35 MW
20 MW
05 MW
05 MW

92 km
95 km
105 km
160 km
175 km
185 km

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The location map of the schemes is shown in the Figure - 1.1.

LOCATION MAP
Luat
Dowarian

Nagdar

Shounter

Janawahi

Taobut

Figure - 1.1: Location Map Six (6) Hydropower Projects in AJ&K


FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Nagdar and Luat sites are in the close vicinity of Line of Control (LOC) between
Pakistan and India, while the other sites are located at quite a distance to it.
Nagdar and Luat are located close to Keran village, which is a historical village
divided by the Line of Control.

1.2

SCOPE OF WORK
As per the Terms of Reference, the Consultants have to accomplish the following
main tasks during the study.

Review of the existing data and reports;

Carry out topographic survey and other fieldwork to investigate the


physical and geological environment of potential site;

Hydrological, sediment and power potential studies;

Develop alternative layout plans of the scheme;

Select the optimal configuration of the components of the scheme;

Power dispersal / transmission system plan;

Undertake environmental and social impact assessment;

Prepare realistic cost estimates and evaluate the economic and


financial performance;

Prepare implementation programme;

Prepare detailed and comprehensive Feasibility Study Reports,


Detailed Designs / Drawings and Tender Documents.

1.3

NAGDAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT

1.3.1

Location
The project area is located on the lower part of Nagdar nullah near Keran village
in Neelum valley approximately 92 km from Muzaffarabad. The project location is
shown in Dwg. No. 1-1 and accessibility to the project area is shown in
Dwg. No. 1-2.
The coordinates of weir and powerhouse site are listed below:

Site

Latitude

Longitude

Elevation
(m asl)

Weir

34 41 18

73 54 20

1950

Powerhouse

34 39 09

73 55 00

1480

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The proposed project site has been identified in the lower 6 km stretch of Nagdar
nullah. The nullah has an estimated catchment area of about 91 km2, located
between elevations 1508 m asl and 4760.9 m asl in the North East of Neelum
village. Nagdar nullah has perennial flows arising out of the snow and glacial
melt.

1.3.2

Salient Features
Nagdar Hydropower Project was identified as run-off-river scheme with design
discharge available in summer months. The project would be connected to
National grid, therefore the project has been planned to its optimum capacity.
The weir intake has been proposed about 200 m downstream the confluence of
Shelyath Nar with Nagdar nullah and powerhouse would be underground near
Danjar village. The project layout has been proposed on the right bank of Nagdar
nullah with surface sandtrap, low pressure tunnel, surge tank, pressure shaft,
underground powerhouse and tailrace tunnel. The water would be discharged
into Danjar nullah, a small right bank tributary of Neelum River, located 3 km
downstream of Keran village.
The salient features of the project area are as under:

Design Capacity

35 MW

Design Discharge

9 m3/sec

Gross Head

470 m

Mean Annual Energy

146.05 GWh

Plant Factor

47.64%

Low Pressure Headrace Tunnel =

3840 m

Headrace tunnel diameter

3.1 m

Pressure Shaft Length

420 m

Pressure Tunnel Length

260 m

Pressure Shaft and Diameter

2.1 m

Tailrace Length

537 m

No. & Type of Units

4 Pelton turbines, 600 rpm

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

1.4

ACCESSIBILITY TO THE PROJECT AREA


The project area is accessible from Muzaffarabad via main road running along
Neelum River. The Line of Control (LoC) is close to the main road at Tithwal,
Authmuqam and Keran village. The project area is accessible from Muzaffarabad
city by metalled Neelum valley road up to Keran village, by a jeepable road to
Neelum village and then to Nagdar nullah. The Nagdar valley road from Keran
village onwards becomes quite inaccessible during winter months due to
snowfall, and it also needs to be widened.
There is no road available along Nagdar nullah, as it has a steep gradient.
However the Nagdar site can be accessed by rough jeepable track using 4 x 4
vehicles from Keran village or on foot along the Nagdar nullah. The road from
Keran village leads to Neelum village and then crosses Nagdar nullah at about
3 km from its confluence with the Neelum River. The powerhouse area is
accessible from Danjar nullah. From main road along Neelum River to the inlet of
access tunnel, about 400 m road needs to be widened.
Transportation between Islamabad and Muzaffarabad city is possible by buses
and trucks throughout the year.
The road distance from Islamabad to
Muzaffarabad via Murree and Kohala is 154 km. The road distance from
Islamabad to Murree is 74 km and the road is wide, metalled and in very good
condition. From Murree to Muzaffarabad, the road distance is about 80 km.
From Islamabad to Muzaffarabad, a good condition car or jeep takes about
3 hours. Buses and trucks also travel at this high elevation road through
Murree city. The road in Murree and Kohala areas has a number of short and
sharp bends.
There is another route from Islamabad to Muzaffarabad via Abbottabad and
Mansehra. The road is metalled and all types of vehicles can operate throughout
the year. This route is relatively longer and passes over low height areas as
compared with that of via Murree and Kohala. In case of snowfall or severe
weather conditions, Abbotabad Mansehra route is used.

1.4.1

Route Distance

Karachi Docks to Rawalpindi


The distance from Karachi to Lahore to Rawalpindi via National
Highway is 1520 km.

Karachi to Islamabad (Motorway Entrance)


The distance from Karachi to Lahore to Islamabad via Motorway up to
junction of GT road with Islamabad road is1625 km.

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The transportation via Motorway, although 105 km longer, is


recommended due to better road conditions as compared to route by
National Highway.

From Rawalpindi / Islamabad to Muzaffarabad Road


There are many sharp turns on this route in mountainous area of
Murree and Kohala.
The distance via this route from Islamabad National Highway road
crossing to Muzaffarabad is 154 km.

From Islamabad to Muzaffarabad via Abbotabad & Mansehra


The distance from Islamabad road to Muzaffarabad is 182 km.
The condition of the road from Garhi Habibullah crossing with Mansehra
Balakot road is not good. There are many sharp turns at entry to
Muzaffarabad, and in Muzaffarabad the road passes through busy trade
centres. These obstacles may be faced by the loaded ten wheelers on
way to Muzaffarabad.

From Muzaffarabad to Keran Village in Neelum Valley


The distance from Muzaffarabad to Keran village is 89 km.
The road condition from Muzaffarabad to Nausehri is generally quite
poor. The road from Muzaffarabad to Authmuqam is being widened
and the construction works are in progress. From Tithwal to Keran, the
road condition is better than the downstream sections but it also
requires improvement for transportation of heavy equipment.

1.5

COMMUNICATION
Muzaffarabad city, being central place of AJ&K has good communication
services. There is postal and telegraph facilities. Telephone services for main
places of AJ&K, main towns / cities of down country and internet services are
available. Pakistan Television (PTV) and other regional channels can be seen
via satellite.
As regards communication services, the district of Neelum with Headquarter at
Authmuqam has postal and telephone services. The city is connected with
international direct dialing system.

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Neelum valley is considered as remote area with respect to level of


communication and accessibility. For transportation of the heavy equipment,
railway broad gauge track from Karachi to Rawalpindi 1500 km can be
considered. The remaining 236 km up to Keran village can be traveled on the
Rawalpindi - Muzaffarabad road and then in Neelum valley to project area on
truckable metalled road.

1.6

ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY


The electric power is supplied from nearby power station at Kundal Shahi and
Jagran - I. There is no existing small power station in Nagdar nullah that can
provide electric power for the Nagdar valley. Considering the population located
on either banks of Nagdar nullah, the area needs to be connected with medium
size power plant or with the National Grid.

1.7

PREVIOUS STUDIES
As stated earlier, Nagdar is one of the hydropower sites identified by a French
firm CFG in 1986. The Consultants received a copy of report from HEB, named
as Neelum valley Hydroelectric Development Program, Feasibility Report
prepared in February 1989.
The report covers four potential sites namely; Nagdar, Luat, Dowarian and Jagran
studied at identification level. Some preliminary site investigations like hydrologic
observations, field survey, geological mapping and laboratory testing were carried
out.
The Consultants reviewed the CFG report and observed the following:

The project location and project layout is not indicated on any map.

The location of weir and powerhouse is not described even in the text.

The field investigations, topographic survey and hydrologic


observations carried out for identified layout has not been appended in
the report.

One general flow duration curve for tributaries of Neelum River was
prepared and included in the report. The basis of design discharge
selection is not mentioned.

The project layout is proposed with headrace tunnel, penstock and


surface powerhouse. Nagdar nullah confluence with Neelum River is
located close to Line of Control where surface structures are not safe.

Headrace tunnel diameter has been proposed as 2.5 m. The execution


of 2.5 m diameter and 2.584 km long tunnel is practically very difficult
and would be costly.

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The project cost was estimated as Rs. 430 million (~US $ 24.0 million)
to generate 10.7 MW. Estimated IRR = 19%.

As the study was carried out before construction of 30.5 MW Jagran-I,


therefore the field information about hydrological and geological data
was limited. Presently, there is need to improve the field information
and optimize the capacity of the scheme.

The Consultants identified the present project layout of Nagdar Hydropower


Project to achieve the following objectives:

The project layout with technically sound weir and powerhouse location;

The project layout should be optimized to transmit surplus power to


main load centres of AJ&K;

The project layout should be economical to develop;

The project layout must be placed at safe location;

All necessary field data has been collected and presented in this report.
For comparison purpose the salient features of Nagdar Hydropower Project are
compared as under:
As per
previous
study (CFG)

As per present
study by the
Consultant

Gross Head

310 m

470 m

Net Head

295 m

464 m

Design Discharge

4.5 m3/s

9 m3/s

Installed Capacity

18 MW

35 MW

Length of Headrace Tunnel

2584 m

3840 m

Inside Diameter

2.5 m

3.1 m

Length of Penstock

528 m

680 m

Average Energy (April September)

71 GWh

127 GWh

Average Energy (October March)

24 GWh

19.05 GWh

Yearly Average Energy

95 GWh

146.05 GWh

Parameter

FHC Consulting Engineers

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

FHC Consulting Engineers

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS

10

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS

2.1

GENERAL
The availability of accurate survey data and maps in digital format is a prerequisite for project studies like planning and design of the scheme. The
Consultants, therefore, carried out the field topographic surveys in the areas of
interest to collect required field survey data in the digital format and then
processed the same with appropriate survey software for producing the computer
aided maps.

2.2

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work comprised of:

2.3

Establishment of survey bench marks and control points network in the


project area by GPS measurements linked with the Survey of Pakistan
(SOP) datum;

Survey of longitudinal profile of nullah / river;

Detailed topographic survey by observing horizontal and vertical survey


data of random spots in the area;

Cross sections of nullah / river at proposed weir and powerhouse site


and at gauge station;

Production of survey maps on different scales to the requirements of


project.

TOPOGRAPHY OF NEELUM RIVER CATCHMENT


Neelum River has a number of small to medium size nullahs joining from either
side. Neelum River rises on the south-west side of Deosai plain with a number of
peaks like Kaobai Gali 5666 m asl, Betagah 4668 m asl, Burzil pass 4199 m asl
and Shalamar 4764 m asl. In the initial portion Minimarg nullah is joined by right
bank tributary Burzil nullah to from it as Kishen Ganga River and Potalwan nullah is
its left bank tributary in Indian held Kashmir. Kishen Ganga River becomes
Neelum River as it enters into Azad Jammu and Kashmir, 5 km upstream of
Taobut.
From Taobut to Kel, the right bank tributaries of Neelum River are Gagai nullah,
Falowai nullah, Janawahi nullah and Baral River and the left bank tributaries are
Hant-i-Naushahra and Mastil nullahs. From Kel to Nausehri, left bank tributaries
are Lashdat nullah, Dudhnial nullah, Keran nullah, Kaiban nullah, and Katha Qazi
Nag and right bank tributaries are Gamot nullah, Changan nullah, Dowarian nullah,
Luat nullah, Nagdar nullah and Jagran River.

FHC Consulting Engineers

11

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

From Nausehri to Muzaffarabad, Pankot nullah is left tributary and Jhing da Katha,
Bheriwala Katha and Ghoriwala Katha are the right bank tributaries.
The main stream of Neelum River from Taobut to Dudhnial flows with average bed
gradient of 6 m / km. From Dudhnial to Nausehri, Neelum River flows with an
average bed gradient of 13 m / km. From Nausehri to Muzaffarabad, the average
bed gradient of Neelum River is 7.5 m / km.

2.4

AVAILABLE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS


The topographic maps from Survey of Pakistan (SOP) are the basis for initiating
the preliminary studies of project layouts. The following Survey of Pakistan
General Topographic (GT) sheets covering areas of the Consultants assignment
were arranged:

2.5

Scale 1:250,000

43-F

Scale 1:50,000

43-F/14

DETAILED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY


Topographic survey of Nagdar Hydropower Project was carried out for the whole
project area. Suitable polygonal traverses were developed individually at
proposed intake and powerhouse site area. The polygon was divided into
triangles and triangulation was carried out starting with the one having baseline
as one of its sides. The detailed topographic survey at the site was carried out
using the Sokkia Total Station.
Leveling was carried out using Auto Level having least count of 0.001 m and the
elevations at all the polygonal traverse points were determined. The topographic
sheets were used for the marking of different alternatives, placement of
component structures and alignments. For geological investigation of power
house and intake area and mainly for rock overburden contact, plain table maps
at scale 1:2,500 and at scale 1:1,000 were developed using the same polygonal
traverse points and results of leveling.
To obtain fine working details and to facilitate placement of diversion weir, intake,
sandtrap, diversion tunnel, cofferdam, each at the proposed dam site including
both options covering about 273 ha has been mapped on scale 1:1,000 with
contour interval of 2 m.
Accurate and up to date spatial information is a pre-requisite for planning and
designing of any project to be implemented on ground. Traditional techniques of
surveying assisted with modern mapping techniques for quick, economical and
up-to-date information has been used.

FHC Consulting Engineers

12

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The density of positional readings in project area satisfied level data


interpolations to 2 m contour interval at scale 1:1,000. The estimated survey area
at weir and powerhouse sites is 21 and 67 hectares.

2.5.1

Reference Grid
In order to start topographic field survey work, the reference grid of Survey of
Pakistan is required to be connected. But there is no standard bench mark
established by Survey of Pakistan in the vicinity of any of the proposed project
areas and other surroundings. Global Positioning System (GPS) has been used
to establish the northing and easting for the Horizontal Control. The ground
survey has been carried out with reference to these control points to prepare the
topographic features of Nagdar Hydropower Project.

2.5.2

Bench Marks and Control Points


Standard Bench Marks (SBMs) have been established along the nullah stretch
where Nagdar hydropower scheme is proposed. These bench marks are located
with precise leveling and traversing. The bench marks are constructed of
concrete with a steel rod fixed in the concrete block and are of standard size.
Horizontal and vertical control of the project network has been achieved through
these bench marks (BMs).
The control points have been established to cover the whole project area from
powerhouse to weir site along the stretch of the nullah on which scheme has
been proposed.
The ground control points have been established in the field with total station
(Sokkia 630-RK, Sokkia 530-RK and Sokkia 510) having the following native
accuracy of the receiver:

Horizontal 2 mm + 2 ppm

Vertical 2 mm + 2 ppm

A list of permanent bench marks / control points is presented in Table - 2.1 and
Table - 2.2.

2.5.3

Horizontal Control
This has been done through a combination of conventional triangulation and
EDM traversing method supported by the use of GPS control points. All survey
work was conducted by having digital display infrared beam total station. The
triangulation network consists of well balanced quadrilaterals or center point
polygons and well balanced triangles.

FHC Consulting Engineers

13

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The EDM traversing was in the closed loop form and all traversing lines were
measured two ways and mean value was used, provided two measurements
agree to 1:10,000. Horizontal angle measurement with maximum spread of
20 seconds has been used in computations.

2.5.4

Vertical Control
The mean sea level (msl) of Survey of Pakistan, cross checked by GPS, has
been taken as reference for the project sites. Standard bench marks were
established in the project area through double check leveling, using precise
leveling instruments. All necessary precautions and standard procedures which
are applicable to this class of survey have been adopted.

2.6

LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF NAGDAR NULLAH


The longitudinal profile survey has been carried out by the Consultants for
potential stretch of Nagdar nullah. Ground control points have been established
near main structure sites. Along with the longitudinal profile, northing and easting
of each observed point has also been taken.

2.7

TOPOGRAPHY WITH SATELLITE IMAGES


For the inaccessible areas of tunnel alignment, it is difficult to carry out the
ground survey and the maps have been developed with the help of satellite
images. Digital elevation model (DEM) generated from the stereo pair of the
ASTER satellite images has been used to prepare the topography of tunnel
alignment area. Terrestrial survey carried out for weir and powerhouse areas
have been used as a basis for improving the precision of DEM. Topography
developed with DEM is very well connected with ground survey for weir and
powerhouse areas. The following satellite data and DEM have been used:

SRTM Digital Elevation Model resolution 90 m x 90 m

SPOT-5 data 2.5 m resolution

Aster Digital Elevation Model resolution 10 m x 10 m, vertical accuracy


5 to 10 m, horizontal accuracy 5 to 15 m

Quick Bird (0.6 m)

Quick bird images have been procured for both weir and powerhouse sites. The
SPOT-5 images have also been collected to cover the whole project area. An
overview map and digital elevation data, low resolution of the project area was
generated and made available for developing the alternative project layouts. The
base data for the overview satellite map are SRTM elevation data (nominal 90 m
pixel spacing) and SPOT-5 satellite images.

FHC Consulting Engineers

14

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

2.8

PREPARATION OF CONTOUR MAPS


Processing of SRTM data has been carried out for the proposed Nagdar
Hydropower Project. It includes selection of SRTM files covering the total area,
filling of data gaps, and generation of elevation contour lines. Contour lines with
25 m intervals were calculated and stored as ESRI Shape files.
A background image was processed based on the SPOT-5 (2.5 meter) resolution
data. The SPOT-5 satellite image provides the multi-spectral data at four (4) spectral
bands in the optical and near infra-red range (0.45 m to 2.35 m) with a resolution of
10 m, and a panchromatic channel with a nominal pixel spacing of 2.5. Further, to
provide the colour images with improved quality, the multi-spectral bands were
merged with the panchromatic band by means of pan-sharpening using the HIS
technique. Two multispectral-pansharpened band combinations were generated
and saved in a common GIS Raster format (GEOTIFF).
The DEM was generated with the stereo pair of the Aster satellite images of
10 m pixel spacing. The DEM was developed in UTM-43, WGS-84 Ellipsoid, and
local datum WGS-84. Elevation contour lines have been calculated and stored as
ESRI Shape files.
The acquisition of ASTER images with 15 m resolution was also made covering
the project area. The specific areas for the weir and powerhouse were defined
for acquisition of medium resolution stereo standard satellite images. The
processing of high resolution satellite images, including ortho-rectification using
DEM and image acquisition parameters has been carried out.
The topographic maps have been developed for headrace tunnel with contour
interval of 2 m. For weir and powerhouse areas, ground survey conducted has
been connected with contours developed with DEM.

2.9

SOFTWARE
The following softwares have been used for image processing and GIS database
development.

Imagine 9.1

ER Mapper 7.1

ArcGIS 9.2

AutoCAD 2009

FHC Consulting Engineers

15

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 2.1: Bench Marks / Control Points


Traversing and Leveling from Powerhouse to Weir Site along Nagdar Nullah

N1

Angle
(deg min sec)
235o-59-27

Distance
(m)
64.913

Easting
(m)
3289262.586

Northing
(m)
1171890.567

Elevation
(m asl)
1540.150

N2

212o-51-53

Station

N3
N4

247.321

3289128.376

1171682.829

1547.223

98.767

3289067.654

1171604.934

1547.223

315.783

3288841.626

1171384.283

1545.918

217 -56-16
225 -41-23

N5

230 -34-40

203.205

3288684.653

1171255.242

1532.994

N6

231o-36-18

167.154

3288553.647

1171151.425

1538.967

215.140

3288369.694

1171039.862

1542.928

186.600

3288199.581

1170963.174

1562.918

663.878

3287625.730

1170629.364

1558.639

N7
N8
N9

238 -45-53
245 -44-03
239 -48-47

N10

165 -35-32

330.424

3287707.948

1170309.333

1551.705

N11

137o-36-54

54.103

3287744.419

1170269.371

1552.705

170.054

3287867.427

1170151.950

1534.823

N12
N13
N14

133 -40-08
o

282 -20-143

86.876

3287782.558

1170170.524

1538.542

193.974

3287605.129

1170248.912

1561.305

293 -50-09

N15

298 -47-29

225.902

3287407.153

1170357.711

1561.044

N16

327o-23-49

82.189

3287362.868

1170426.949

1560.997

42.798

3287320.081

1170427.916

1562.959

210.414

3287117.828

1170485.947

1585.076

N17
N18

271 -17-41
286 -00-34

N19

270 -48-03

118.619

3286999.221

1170487.604

1595.407

N20

283o-02-00

97.443

3286904.288

1170509.579

1612.627

188.024

3286701.480

1170547.170

1635.789

377.310

3286370.732

1170689.763

1636.063

304.430

3286067.480

1170716.513

1680.574

N21
N22
N23

281 -31-57
292 -12-18
275 -02-28
o

N24

305 -46-15

41.195

3286034.056

1170740.593

1686.789

N25

213o-06-29

252.407

3285896.186

1170529.168

1683.138

N26

244o-03-02

N27
N28

141.561

3285768.897

1170467.221

1690.063

181.087

3285588.729

1170485.439

1702.808

315.003

3285359.166

1170701.141

1729.121

275 -46-26
313 -12-58

N29

293 -00-06

338.257

3285047.803

1170833.317

1763.670

N30

308o-07-51

216.100

3284842.420

1170994.535

1783.914

123.052

3284789.535

1171105.643

1793.638

90.222

3284710.376

1171062.348

1799.303

64.959

3284664.715

1171109.518

1804.308

N31
N32
N33

334 -32-48
241 -19-29
316 -33-56

FHC Consulting Engineers

16

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 2.2: Coordinates of Bench Marks / Control Points

N12 to N34

Easting
(m)
3287871.258

Northing
(m)
1170074.383

Elevation
(m asl)
1535.508

N35

3287857.173

1170008.073

1536.046

N36

3287796.022

1169917.419

1534.173

N37

3287684.912

1169844.141

1531.618

N38

3286936.057

1169164.366

1500.023

N39

3287126.183

1168686.923

1500.783

N40

3287124.748

1168594.963

1500.582

N41

3287159.791

1168390.050

1493.986

N42

3287095.375

1168310.758

1499.481

N43

3287033.262

1168242.357

1496.700

N44

3286840.816

1168197.302

1492.138

N45

3286576.904

1168263.940

1492.371

N46

3286384.318

1168263.900

1493.929

N47

3285642.679

1168224.095

1491.648

N48

3285358.645

1167819.789

1481.381

N49

3285306.192

1167489.472

1480.525

N50

3285125.600

1167462.695

1532.596

BM6

3285292.737

1167489.380

1479.145

BM7

3285240.218

1167452.561

1490.317

Station

FHC Consulting Engineers

17

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

HYDROLOGY AND SEDIMENTATION

FHC Consulting Engineers

18

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

HYDROLOGY AND SEDIMENTATION

3.1

INTRODUCTION
The project area is located near Neelum village about 92 km from Muzaffarabad
in the Neelum River valley. The project site is close to the Keran village, which is
a historical village divided on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC).
Nagdar nullah is the right bank tributary of Neelum River. The nullah confluence
with Neelum River is close to Keran village which is about 8 km from Authmuqam
and about 92 km from Muzaffarabad. The approximate travel time from
Muzaffarabad to Nagdar nullah is about 5 hours. The main road runs along the
right bank of Neelum River via Nausehri up to Taobut. The Line of Control is
quite close to the main road at Tithwal, Authmuqam and Keran villages.
The road from Keran village leads to Neelum village and then onwards to Nagdar
nullah. A jeepable road to Nagdar valley is available via Neelum village up to
3 km from the Neelum River confluence. Nagdar nullah is quite steep and a foot
track is available along the nullah upto the weir site.

3.2

DESCRIPTION OF THE CATCHMENT


The nullah descends from the mountain peaks at elevations of 4760.9 and
4376.0 m asl. The nullah along its length has a few tributaries joining the main
stream from either bank. The elevation at its confluence with Neelum River is
1508 m asl. The average gradient of Nagdar nullah in the project area is
about 8 %. Generally, the ground slopes on either bank of nullah are very steep.
Catchment area of the nullah at its confluence with Neelum River is about 91 km2
and up to weir intake, it is 82 km2.
The catchment area of Nagdar nullah is illustrated in Figure - 3.1.
Neelum village is located on the right bank of Nagdar nullah. The valley is
populated on either bank at the higher elevations, where the terraces are
available. Along the nullah, the valley supports clustered and scattered
population on both the banks. Irrigation channels off-take from the perennial
tributaries of Nagdar nullah. The observed discharge downstream of a bridge
about 3 km upstream of Nagdar nullah confluence with Neelum River was
assessed to be about 1.5m3/s during site visit in October 2008.

FHC Consulting Engineers

19

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 3.1: Catchment Area of Nagdar Nullah

FHC Consulting Engineers

20

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The entire right bank of the nullah was viewed from the left bank road and it is
considered that the right bank is more stable for proposing the project layout. As
line of control is very close to Nagdar nullah, powerhouse is proposed near
Danjar village, on the right bank of Neelum River.

3.3

CLIMATE
The climate of the catchment is characterized by very cold snowy winter and
relatively pleasant summer. The high areas of the catchment are permanently
clad with snow and glaciers. Forest cover in the area extends up to an elevation
of about 3700 m (12,000 ft).
The climatic data in Neelum valley is very scarce. One station in Neelum valley
with limited climate record is at Dudhnial. The nearest station to project area with
long term record is located at Muzaffarabad.
The list of Climatological stations in the region is presented in Table - 3.1.
Table - 3.1: Long Term Climatic Stations in Jhelum River Basin
Station

Mean Annual Rainfall (mm)

Palak
Balakot
Garhi Duppata
Dudhnial
Muzaffarabad
Bagh
Sehr Kakota
Rawalakot
Kotli
Palandri
Mangla Dam
Rehman Bridge
Naran
Kallar
Jhangi

1768
1718
1602
1541
1534
1415
1386
1375
1255
1230
1221
1132
1118
945
921

Source : SWHP, WAPDA

The above table provides the mean annual rainfall data at various stations in
Jhelum River catchment. Dudhnial and Muzaffarabad are two stations which
represent the rainfall pattern in lower part of Neelum valley. The snowfall at
higher elevation is not included in the rainfall data.

FHC Consulting Engineers

21

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.3.1

Temperature
The one meteorological station with long record of temperature is located at
Muzaffarabad, at a distance of about 92 km from the project area. The data has
been collected from the Pakistan Meteorological Department in order to get the
maximum and minimum temperatures on monthly and yearly basis.
The mean monthly temperature at Muzaffarabad varies from 9.2 C in January to
28.6 C in June and July, and the average yearly temperature varies from 18 C
to 24 C. Mean monthly temperature is graphically indicated in Figure - 3.2;
whereas, the mean annual temperatures are shown in the following Figure - 3.3.

Figure - 3.2: Mean Monthly Temperature at Muzaffarabad

Figure - 3.3: Mean Annual Temperature at Muzaffarabad

FHC Consulting Engineers

22

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

January is the coldest month at the project site, when the temperature drops to
several degrees below zero. The highest temperatures are experienced in the
month of June.

3.3.2

Precipitation
Precipitation data of Muzaffarabad station was collected from Pakistan
Meteorological Department in order to get maximum, minimum and average
precipitation on monthly and yearly basis. Mean annual precipitation at
Muzaffarabad (1955-2004) is shown in the following Figure - 3.4.

2500

Rainfall (mm)

2000
1500
1000

1681
1734
1595
1476
2018
1317
1763
1094
1505
1718
1406
1720
1520
1455
1344
1384
1330
1271
1374
1198
1366
2078
1967
1753
1338
1218
1665
1459
1312
1331
1376
1844
1559
1306
1707
1830
1599
1815
1771
1804
1446
1546
1814
1370
1498
1427
970
1041
1573
1487

Mean Annual Rainfall at Muzaffarabad

500

2003

2000

1997

1994

1991

1988

1985

1982

1979

1976

1973

1970

1967

1964

1961

1958

1955

Year

Figure - 3.4: Annual Precipitation at Muzaffarabad


Mean Annual rainfall varies from 970 mm in 2001 to 2077 mm in 1976. The
average of mean annual rainfall is 1534 mm over a period from 1955 to 2004.
The monthly rainfall varies from 39.6 mm in November to 327.5 mm in July.
The mean monthly rainfall is presented in Figure - 3.5.
From November to May, during the winter period the precipitation is mainly
brought by the western disturbances. The precipitation during this part of the
year is approximately 690 mm.
During summer period, i.e., from June to October, the precipitation in the
catchment is induced by the monsoon rainfall and averages to about 844 mm.

FHC Consulting Engineers

23

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 3.5: Mean Monthly Precipitation at Muzaffarabad


For some years, rainfall data at Dudhnial is available from Surface Water
Hydrology WAPDA. The annual variation of rainfall is indicated in Figure - 3.6.
The mean monthly rainfall at Dudhnial is shown in Figure - 3.7. The rainfall at
Dudhnial is comparatively lesser than that of at Muzaffarabad, because there is
more snowfall at Dudhnial. The overall precipitation at Dudhnial is more than that
of at Muzaffarabad. As there is no snowfall gauging station in upper part of
Neelum valley, the rainfall data at Dudhnial is not true representation of total
precipitation at Dudhnial.

Figure - 3.6: Yearly Rainfall at Dudhnial

FHC Consulting Engineers

24

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 3.7: Mean Monthly Rainfall at Dudhnial

3.4

HYDROLOGICAL STATIONS
In previous years during 1992 and 1993, a few discharge measurements were
performed on the Nagdar nullah. For the present study, a gauging station has
been installed recently by the Consultants near the weir. The discharge
measurements at this location of Nagdar nullah provide the basis for the
estimation of flows. This data needs to be correlated with long term gauging
station to prepare a flow series for estimation of power and energy. The
discharge data of the nearby hydrological stations having long term record was
collected and the synthetic flows have been derived for the project under study.
The location map of the gauging stations in northern part of Pakistan is presented
in Figure - 3.8. The list of gauging stations with period of record is mentioned in
Table - 3.2.
Table - 3.2: Hydrological Stations with Long Term Records
Location
Latitude

Longitude

Elevation
(m asl)

3422

7328

670

7278

1963-2006

Nausehri

34 23

7343

1030

6809

1990-00

Dudhnial

3442

74 7

1823

4905

1980-92

Naran

3527

7525

2341

1036

1960-2000

Thunian*

353530

751850

2150

219

July 94 to June 96

Kundal Shahi*

352722

751840

1360

430

July 94 to June 96
Sep 82 to Aug 84

Taobut*

353530

75820

2250

275

Jan 92 to June 95

Station / River
Muzaffarabad

Area
(km)

Period of
Record

*Short term Record.


FHC Consulting Engineers

25

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Flow measurements have been recorded by the Surface Water Hydrology Project
on a few stations located on the main Neelum River.
This includes
Muzaffarabad, Dudhnial and Nausehri stations on Neelum River. Naran station is
located on Kunhar River where a long term daily flow data is available. At two
locations on Jagran River, flow measurements have been made for a few years
by the AJ&K Hydro Electric Board in collaboration with French Consultants.
The flows of Jagran River have been taken from the report Jagran-II Feasibility
Study published in March 1999. On Gagai nullah, the flow measurements have
been observed by Surface Water Hydrology Project, WAPDA and the daily flow
record is available for two years.
Jagran River at Kundal Shahi is the nearest station to the proposed project area,
where daily flow record is available for four years. Neelum River at Muzaffarabad
and Kunhar River at Naran stations have the longest period of recorded data.
At Dudhnial climate station, only rainfall data for a few years is available and
there is no record of snow fall near the project area, therefore estimation of flows
in Nagdar nullah can not be replied on limited rainfall data. The daily flow data of
Jagran River at Kundal Shahi or at Thunian is important for flow estimation at
Nagdar nullah in addition to limited data observation in the project area.

3.4.1

Flow Record at Various Gauging Stations


Long term flows are required at a site to design the proposed project. Daily flows
at the proposed weir site have been calculated to estimate the water availability
at the project by using different approaches.
The specific flows of various gauging stations in the region are presented in
Table - 3.3.
Table - 3.3: Specific Flows of Various Gauging Stations
Mean Annual
Flows (m3/s)

Specific Flows
(l/sec/km2)

1963-2006

337.6

46.2

Naran

1960-2000

48.0

46.3

Dudhnial

1980-92

259.2

52.8

Nusehri

1990-2000

306.0

44.9

Kundal Shahi

1982-84 & 1994-96

27.0

62.8

Thunian

1994-96

17.26

78.8

Gagai

1992-95

19.35

70.4

FHC Consulting Engineers

26

Sr. No.

Station

Muzaffarabad

Period of Record

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The above table indicates that two long term stations at Muzaffarabad and Naran
have same specific flows of 46 l/sec/km2. Although Dudhnial and Nausehri
stations on Neelum River have less period of record; however, these stations also
have specific flows in the same range.
Jagran River at Kundal Shahi is the closest gauging station to the project area.
As Jagran River is the adjacent catchment to the Nagdar nullah; therefore, the
flows record at Kundal Shahi is important to be used for estimation of flows at
proposed weir site of Nagdar Hydropower Project.
Kundal Shahi station is preferred over Thunian station as the mean elevation of
the Nagdar catchment is close to that of Kundal Shahi as compared with the
Thunian station. Secondly, the length of data period at Kundal Shahi is more
than that available for Thunian.

3.4.1.1

Flows of Neelum River at Dudhnial and Nausehri Stations


There are three (03) hydrological stations located on the Neelum River at
Muzaffarabad (1963 - 2006), Nausehri (1990 - 2000) and Dhudhnial
(1980 - 1992). The proposed project area lies in between the Nausehri and
Dhudhnial stations.
A study has been made to estimates the flows at Kundal Shahi by using historical
flows of these stations. A comparison was made between the flows at Nausehri
and Dhudnial with the flows at Kundal Shahi by using the discharge data of the
same period. It was observed that the trend of flows is similar in winter period
and specific flows of Kundal Shahi are higher than Dudhnial in summer period.
The flow record at Dudhnial and Nausehri stations is comparatively less as
compared with that at Muzaffarabad station. Therefore, Muzaffarabad station is
preferred over these stations.

3.5

ESTIMATION OF EXTENDED FLOWS AT KUNDAL SHAHI


The methodology for estimation of flows at Nagdar nullah is first to have an
extended series of the flows at a station where some years of flow record is
available. Near to Nagdar nullah, daily flow record of few years is available at
Kundal Shahi and at Thunian on Jagran River.
Kundal Shahi is located at lower elevation with larger catchment as compared
with Thunian station. In comparison to the Thunian station, Kundal Shahi station
has less specific flows and has the similar catchment characteristics to Nagdar
nullah.

FHC Consulting Engineers

27

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

With four year long daily flows record and similar mean elevation of the
catchment, Kundal Shahi station has been selected to be used as a reference
station for estimating the flows at Nagdar nullah. The flows at Kundal Shahi
would be extended by establishing a correlation with the long term gauging
station either Neelum River at Muzaffarabad or Kunhar River at Naran.

3.5.1

Muzaffarabad-Kundal Shahi Correlation


Historic data of daily flows for Neelum River at Muzaffarabad is available from
1963 to 2006. The catchment area of Neelum River at Muzaffarabad is
7278 km2.
For the recorded period, the average annual flow of Neelum River at
Muzaffarabad is 337.6 m3/s.
The mean annual flows for Neelum River at Muzaffarabad are presented in
Figure - 3.9.

Figure - 3.9: Mean Annual Flows (m3/s) Neelum River at Muzaffarabad


Muzaffarabad station has been preferred over Dudhnial and Nausehri stations
due to longer period of record for extension of flows of Jagran River at Kundal
Shahi.

FHC Consulting Engineers

28

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The comparison of specific flows of Neelum and Jagran Rivers is given in the
Figure - 3.10.

Figure - 3.10: Specific Flows - Neelum River at Muzaffarabad and Jagran


River at Kundal Shahi & Thunian
The comparison indicates that Jagran River during summer months has higher
specific flows than Neelum River at Muzaffarabad. Neelum River has some
equal or higher specific flows during the winter months than Jagran River at
Kundal Shahi.
The above graph also indicates that the trend of specific flows is similar and there
is need to establish a correlation from Muzaffarabad to Kundal Shahi.
The specific flows of Muzaffarabad and Kundal Shahi gauging stations have been
plotted and the graph is presented in Figure - 3.11.

FHC Consulting Engineers

29

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Comparison of Specific Flows


Secific Flows at Kundal Shahi

500
450

y = 0.6193x 1.1366
R2 = 0.8282

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Specific Flows at Muzaffarabad

Figure - 3.11: Specific Flows Curve Muzaffarabad vs Kundal Shahi


The regression analysis was carried out which shows R2 value of 0.8282. The
data in the low flow period are closely oriented along the trend line. The equation
from the rating curve thus obtained is:
y=

0.06193X1.1366

Putting the value of Muzaffarabad flows (x) in the above equation will give the
Kundal Shahi flows (y) for the same period. As the R2 is not very close to 1,
therefore, correlation of specific flows data of Kundal Shahi and Naran has been
checked.

3.5.2

Naran-Kundal Shahi Correlation


The catchment area of Kunhar River at Naran is 1036 km2, while Jagran at
Kundal Shahi has catchment area of 430 km2. The catchment ratio of Kundal
Shahi to Naran is higher as compared to Kundal Shahi to Muzaffarabad. With
relatively smaller catchment, the climatic conditions for Naran are uniform as
compared with large catchment of Neelum River at Muzaffarabad.
The flow record of Jagran River at Kundal Shahi is from September 1982 to
August 1984 and from July 1994 to June 1996, which has been used for
establishing the correlation. Naran station has a long record of daily flow data. In
this study, flow data from 1960 to 2000 has been used.
At Naran station, the average annual flow (1960-2000) is 48.0 m3/s. The annual
flow ranges from 32 to 63 m3/s as presented in Figure - 3.12.

FHC Consulting Engineers

30

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 3.12: Mean Annual Flow - Kunhar River at Naran 1960-2000


The specific flows of Naran and Kundal Shahi during the September 1982 to
August 1984 were plotted as shown in Figure - 3.13. The flow trend during low
flow months is similar and it differs during high flow season. Kundal Shahi with
smaller catchment has higher specific flows during summer month as compared
with that of Naran. The specific flows at Kundal Shahi become less during winter
months as compared with Naran.

Figure - 3.13: Specific Flows - Kunhar River at Naran and Jagran River at
Kundal Shahi 1982-84
FHC Consulting Engineers

31

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

For the period, July 1994 to June 1996, specific flows are plotted and the graph is
presented in Figure - 3.14.
During 1994-96, the difference of specific flows in summer months is less as
compared with 1982-84.

Figure - 3.14: Specific Flows Kunhar River at Naran and Jagran River at
Kundal Shahi 1994-96
The above graph indicates the pattern of specific flows which is more similar as
compared to the period 1982-84.
The specific flows of Kunhar River at Naran and Jagran River at Kundal Shahi
gauging stations have been plotted and are presented in Figure - 3.15.

FHC Consulting Engineers

32

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 3.15: Relationship between Specific Flows at Naran and


Kundal Shahi for Summer Period
The regression analysis was carried out which shows R2 value of 0.9315. The
data in the summer months are closely oriented along the trendline. The
equation from the rating curve thus obtained is:
y=

-0.0054X2 + 2.2104X 11.583

Putting the specific flows of Kunhar River at Naran (x) in the above equation will
give the specific flow of the Jagran River at Kundal Shahi (y) for the same
period.
The above relation has been applied to Naran flow data and it was found that the
estimated flow values in summer months have better correlation.
In order to assess the low flows with better accuracy for a smaller catchment, the
same data has been used to have an equation having variable with power. The
relationship is plotted and is indicated in Figure 3.16.
The equation has been used to estimate the flows at Kundal Shahi as well as at
Nagdar during winter months and the estimated flows are found more realistic
with the observed values.

FHC Consulting Engineers

33

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 3.16: Relationship between Specific Flows at Naran and


Kundal Shahi for Winter Period

3.5.3

Estimated and Measured Flows of Jagran River at Kundal Shahi


The ten (10) daily flows have been estimated with the consideration of above
established relation. The comparison of monthly measured and estimated flows
for the year 1983 is shown in Figure - 3.17. The estimated flows in the summer
months are comparatively less than the actual flows. The estimated mean annual
flow during 1983 is 26.3 m3/s against the measured flows of 29.8 m3/s.

Figure - 3.17: Estimated and Measured Flows of Jagran River at


Kundal Shahi -1983
FHC Consulting Engineers

34

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

A bar chart showing the mean monthly flows of Jagran River at Kundal Shahi for
the year 1995 is shown in Figure - 3.18. The estimated mean flow is 27.8 m3/s
versus the observed flow of 28.6 m3/s.

Figure - 3.18: Estimated and Measured Flows of Jagran River at


Kundal Shahi -1995
The estimated mean annual flow series at Kundal Shahi is presented in the
Figure 3.19.

Figure - 3.19: Mean Monthly Flows - Jagran River at Kundal Shahi

FHC Consulting Engineers

35

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.6

ESTIMATION OF FLOWS AT NAGDAR


For transposition of flows from Naran to Nagdar weir site, the relationship of
Naran and Kundal Shahi has been used. The specific flows at Naran have been
used for estimating specific flows at Nagdar. The two relationships developed for
summer and winter have been used for Nagdar flows.
The above relation has been applied to Naran flow data and it was found that the
estimated low flow values and measured values are close to each other which
verify the established relation applied for Nagdar nullah as it can be seen from
comparison of the flows in Table - 3.11.

3.6.1

Measured Flows at Nagdar Nullah


On Nagdar nullah, the low flow measurements have been made for a very short
period as given in Table - 3.4 and no gauging station was previously installed.
Table - 3.4: Low Flows at Nagdar Nullah
Date

Discharge in Nagdar
Nullah (m3/s)

Specific Flows
(l/s/km2)

13-10-1982

1.63

18.0

23-12-1982

1.55

17.1

10-01-1983

2.16

23.7

21-01-1983

1.46

16.0

11-02-1983

1.02

11.2

16-02-1983

1.15

12.6

07-03-1983

1.11

12.2

07-04-1983

2.32

25.5

16-04-1983

2.57

28.3

11-12-1992

1.34

14.7

30-12-1992

1.24

13.6

14-01-1993

1.33

14.6

17-01-1993

1.42

15.6

29-01-1993

1.44

15.8

The Consultants installed a gauge on April 26, 2009 at a suspension bridge on


Nagdar nullah about 3 km upstream of Neelum River confluence. Staff gauge
was observed three times in a day by the Consultants staff deputed at site

FHC Consulting Engineers

36

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Based on measured flows, gauge heights, survey of gauging cross section and
longitudinal profile, a rating curve has been developed which is presented in
Figure - 3.20.

Figure - 3.20: Rating Curve - Nagdar Nullah at Gauge Site


For this study, about 12 months recorded readings have been included in the
hydrological analysis.
With daily gauge readings and the rating curve developed, the daily flows have
been calculted for the months of May 2009 to April 2010 which are presented in
Table - 3.5 to Table - 3.10.
The flows at Nagdar nullah in the observed months varies from 1.74 m3/s to
30.09 m3/s. The maximum flows have been observed in the month of June and
start decreasing in July and August. The flows in summer months are strongly
affected by rainfall.

FHC Consulting Engineers

37

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 3.5: Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (May and June 2009)

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

1/5/2009

1723.62

14.29

1/6/2009

1723.67

16.69

2/5/2009

1723.57

12.36

2/6/2009

1723.70

18.38

3/5/2009

1723.51

10.39

3/6/2009

1723.77

22.30

4/5/2009

1723.55

11.90

4/6/2009

1723.80

24.09

5/5/2009

1723.48

9.71

5/6/2009

1723.84

27.06

6/5/2009

1723.49

9.80

6/6/2009

1723.86

29.23

7/5/2009

1723.51

10.39

7/6/2009

1723.87

30.09

8/5/2009

1723.53

11.22

8/6/2009

1723.58

12.98

9/5/2009

1723.45

8.90

9/6/2009

1723.58

12.98

10/5/2009

1723.48

9.62

10/6/2009

1723.66

16.21

11/5/2009

1723.48

9.52

11/6/2009

1723.67

16.53

12/5/2009

1723.49

9.99

12/6/2009

1723.70

18.20

13/5/2009

1723.51

10.39

13/6/2009

1723.69

17.68

14/5/2009

1723.55

11.67

14/6/2009

1723.67

16.85

15/5/2009

1723.58

12.98

15/6/2009

1723.64

15.30

16/5/2009

1723.59

13.36

16/6/2009

1723.59

13.36

17/5/2009

1723.62

14.29

17/6/2009

1723.56

12.25

18/5/2009

1723.67

16.53

18/62009

1723.50

10.09

19/5/2009

1723.68

17.34

19/6/2009

1723.48

9.71

20/5/2009

1723.65

15.75

20/6/2009

1723.49

9.90

21/5/2009

1723.73

19.67

21/6/2009

1723.47

9.43

22/5/2009

1723.70

18.03

22/6/2009

1723.50

10.09

23/5/2009

1723.75

21.25

23/6/2009

1723.53

11.22

24/5/2009

1723.77

22.09

24/6/2009

1723.49

9.90

25/5/2009

1723.68

17.34

25/6/2009

1723.46

9.16

26/5/2009

1723.69

17.68

26/6/2009

1723.43

8.40

27/5/2009

1723.73

19.67

27/6/2009

1723.42

8.00

28/5/2009

1723.79

23.41

28/6/2009

1723.40

7.55

29/5/2009

1723.81

24.80

29/6/2009

1723.42

8.16

30/5/2009

1723.85

27.85

30/6/2009

1723.44

8.56

31/5/2009

1723.85

28.40

FHC Consulting Engineers

38

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 3.6: Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (July and August 2009)

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

1/7/2009

1723.58

12.98

1/8/2009

1723.42

8.08

2/7/2009

1723.59

13.23

2/8/2009

1723.46

9.16

3/7/2009

1723.59

13.23

3/8/2009

1723.49

9.90

4/7/2009

1723.62

14.57

4/8/2009

1723.43

8.40

5/7/2009

1723.56

12.01

5/8/2009

1723.42

8.00

6/7/2009

1723.53

11.01

6/8/2009

1723.42

8.08

7/7/2009

1723.50

10.29

7/8/1900

1723.41

7.85

8/7/2009

1723.48

9.71

8/8/2009

1723.39

7.33

9/7/2009

1723.49

9.80

9/8/2009

1723.38

7.26

10/7/2009

1723.50

10.09

10/8/2009

1723.37

6.99

11/7/2009

1723.51

10.59

11/8/1900

1723.40

7.62

12/7/2009

1723.49

9.99

12/8/1900

1723.42

8.16

13/7/2009

1723.47

9.34

13/8/2009

1723.46

9.07

14/7/2009

1723.46

9.07

14/8/2009

1723.49

9.99

15/7/2009

1723.45

8.90

15/8/2009

1723.53

11.12

16/7/2009

1723.46

9.16

16/8/2009

1723.51

10.49

17/7/2009

1723.49

9.90

17/8/2009

1723.46

9.16

18/72009

1723.49

9.99

18/8/2009

1723.38

7.26

19/7/2009

1723.44

8.48

19/8/2009

1723.40

7.70

20/7/2009

1723.42

8.00

20/8/2009

1723.31

5.82

21/7/2009

1723.42

8.00

21/8/2009

1723.30

5.70

22/7/2009

1723.42

8.08

22/8/2009

1723.29

5.49

23/7/2009

1723.44

8.56

23/8/2009

1723.28

5.43

24/7/2009

1723.40

7.55

24/8/2009

1723.27

5.28

25/7/2009

1723.42

8.16

25/8/2009

1723.27

5.28

26/7/2009

1723.46

9.07

26/8/2009

1723.27

5.23

27/7/2009

1723.50

10.29

27/8/2009

1723.26

5.13

28/7/2009

1723.53

11.01

28/8/2009

1723.27

5.18

29/7/2009

1723.53

11.12

29/8/2009

1723.26

5.08

30/7/2009

1723.51

10.49

30/8/2009

1723.25

4.98

31/7/2009

1723.46

9.16

31/8/2009

1723.26

5.13

FHC Consulting Engineers

39

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 3.7: Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (September & October 2009)

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

1/9/2009

1723.38

7.26

1/10/2009

1723.11

3.32

2/9/2009

1723.39

7.41

2/10/2009

1723.11

3.29

3/9/2009

1723.41

7.77

3/10/2009

1723.09

3.10

4/9/2009

1723.43

8.32

4/10/2009

1723.08

2.98

5/9/2009

1723.43

8.40

5/10/2009

1723.08

3.01

6/9/2009

1723.43

8.32

6/10/2009

1723.08

2.98

7/9/1900

1723.42

8.16

7/10/1900

1723.05

2.76

8/9/2009

1723.42

8.08

8/10/2009

1723.07

2.95

9/9/2009

1723.42

8.00

9/10/2009

1723.07

2.93

10/9/2009

1723.41

7.92

10/10/2009

1723.05

2.79

11/9/1900

1723.41

7.85

11/10/1900

1723.04

2.66

12/9/1900

1723.40

7.70

12/10/1900

1723.01

2.46

13/9/2009

1723.39

7.48

13/10/2009

1722.99

2.30

14/9/2009

1723.39

7.48

14/10/2009

1722.97

2.19

15/9/2009

1723.38

7.19

15/10/2009

1722.97

2.17

16/9/2009

1723.37

7.06

16/10/2009

1722.97

2.19

17/9/2009

1723.37

6.99

17/10/2009

1722.99

2.30

18/9/2009

1723.36

6.85

18/10/2009

1723.00

2.37

19/9/2009

1723.35

6.59

19/10/2009

1723.00

2.41

20/9/2009

1723.35

6.53

20/10/2009

1723.01

2.46

21/9/2009

1723.33

6.28

21/10/2009

1723.01

2.48

22/9/2009

1723.31

5.93

22/10/2009

1723.03

2.61

23/9/2009

1723.31

5.87

23/10/2009

1723.03

2.63

24/9/2009

1723.30

5.70

24/10/2009

1723.02

2.56

25/9/2009

1723.31

5.82

25/10/2009

1723.00

2.37

26/9/2009

1723.29

5.54

26/10/2009

1723.00

2.37

27/9/2009

1723.28

5.38

27/10/2009

1722.99

2.32

28/9/2009

1723.27

5.28

28/10/2009

1722.99

2.30

29/9/2009

1723.25

4.98

29/10/2009

1723.01

2.44

30/9/2009

1723.24

4.79

30/10/2009

1723.03

2.61

31/10/2009

1723.04

2.68

FHC Consulting Engineers

40

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 3.8: Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (November & December 2009)

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

1/11/2009

1723.04

2.68

1/12/2009

1723.03

2.63

2/11/2009

1723.04

2.66

2/12/2009

1723.03

2.61

3/11/2009

1723.04

2.68

3/12/2009

1723.04

2.66

4/11/2009

1723.05

2.73

4/12/2009

1723.05

2.73

5/11/2009

1723.05

2.73

5/12/2009

1723.05

2.73

6/11/2009

1723.04

2.66

6/12/2009

1723.05

2.76

7/11/2009

1723.04

2.66

7/12/2009

1723.05

2.73

8/11/2009

1723.04

2.68

8/12/2009

1723.04

2.71

9/11/2009

1723.03

2.63

9/12/2009

1723.04

2.68

10/11/2009

1723.05

2.76

10/12/2009

1723.04

2.66

11/11/2009

1723.05

2.73

11/12/2009

1723.03

2.63

12/11/2009

1723.04

2.66

12/12/2009

1723.03

2.61

13/11/2009

1723.04

2.68

13/12/2009

1723.03

2.61

14/11/2009

1723.02

2.56

14/12/2009

1723.03

2.61

15/11/2009

1723.03

2.58

15/12/2009

1723.03

2.58

16/11/2009

1723.03

2.61

16/12/2009

1723.02

2.51

17/11/2009

1723.04

2.66

17/12/2009

1723.01

2.48

18/11/2009

1723.02

2.53

18/12/2009

1723.02

2.51

19/11/2009

1723.03

2.58

19/12/2009

1723.01

2.46

20/11/2009

1723.02

2.53

20/12/2009

1723.01

2.44

21/11/2009

1723.04

2.66

21/12/2009

1723.01

2.44

22/11/2009

1723.02

2.51

22/12/2009

1723.00

2.39

23/11/2009

1723.02

2.51

23/12/2009

1723.00

2.39

24/11/2009

1723.02

2.53

24/12/2009

1723.01

2.46

25/11/2009

1723.03

2.58

25/12/2009

1723.00

2.37

26/11/2009

1723.03

2.58

26/12/2009

1722.99

2.32

27/11/2009

1723.02

2.56

27/12/2009

1722.99

2.30

28/11/2009

1723.02

2.56

28/12/2009

1722.99

2.32

29/11/2009

1723.02

2.56

29/12/2009

1723.00

2.39

30/11/2009

1723.02

2.56

30/12/2009

1723.01

2.46

31/12/2009

1723.01

2.48

FHC Consulting Engineers

41

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 3.9: Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (January and February 2010)

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

1/1/2010

1722.99

2.32

1/2/2010

1723.03

2.58

2/1/2010

1722.99

2.32

2/2/2010

1723.03

2.58

3/1/2010

1722.99

2.30

3/2/2010

1723.02

2.53

4/1/2010

1722.97

2.19

4/2/2010

1723.01

2.46

5/1/2010

1722.97

2.19

5/2/2010

1723.01

2.46

6/1/2010

1722.98

2.23

6/2/2010

1723.01

2.44

7/1/2010

1722.97

2.17

7/2/2010

1723.00

2.39

8/1/2010

1722.97

2.19

8/2/2010

1723.00

2.39

9/1/2010

1722.96

2.11

9/2/2010

1723.00

2.39

10/1/2010

1722.96

2.13

10/2/2010

1723.00

2.37

11/1/2010

1722.97

2.17

11/2/2010

1722.99

2.34

12/1/2010

1722.98

2.23

12/2/2010

1722.99

2.32

13/1/2010

1722.98

2.23

13/2/2010

1722.99

2.30

14/1/2010

1722.98

2.25

14/2/2010

1722.97

2.19

15/1/2010

1722.99

2.30

15/2/2010

1722.96

2.13

16/1/2010

1722.99

2.32

16/2/2010

1722.96

2.13

17/1/2010

1723.00

2.37

17/2/2010

1722.96

2.13

18/1/2010

1723.00

2.37

18/2/2010

1722.95

2.07

19/1/2010

1723.00

2.41

19/2/2010

1722.95

2.07

20/1/2010

1723.00

2.39

20/2/2010

1722.96

2.11

21/1/2010

1723.00

2.39

21/2/2010

1722.96

2.11

22/1/2010

1723.01

2.46

22/2/2010

1722.94

2.01

23/1/2010

1723.02

2.51

23/2/2010

1722.93

1.95

24/1/2010

1723.02

2.56

24/2/2010

1722.92

1.89

25/1/2010

1723.02

2.56

25/2/2010

1722.90

1.77

26/1/2010

1723.01

2.46

26/2/2010

1722.89

1.74

27/1/2010

1723.01

2.46

27/2/2010

1723.21

4.39

28/1/2010

1723.02

2.51

28/2/2010

1723.24

4.79

29/1/2010

1723.02

2.51

30/1/2010

1723.03

2.58

31/1/2010

1723.03

2.58

FHC Consulting Engineers

42

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 3.10: Daily Flow Data at Nagdar Nullah (March and April 2010)

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

Date

Gauge
Height
(m asl)

Flow
m3/sec

1/3/2010

1723.21

4.39

1/4/2010

1723.30

5.70

2/3/2010

1723.21

4.39

2/4/2010

1723.30

5.70

3/3/2010

1723.21

4.39

3/4/2010

1723.30

5.70

4/3/2010

1723.20

4.31

4/4/2010

1723.31

5.87

5/3/2010

1723.20

4.31

5/4/2010

1723.31

5.87

6/3/2010

1722.89

1.74

6/4/2010

1723.31

5.93

7/3/2010

1722.89

1.74

7/4/2010

1723.32

5.99

8/3/2010

1722.90

1.77

8/4/2010

1723.32

6.10

9/3/2010

1722.89

1.75

9/4/2010

1723.33

6.22

10/3/2010

1722.90

1.80

10/4/2010

1723.35

6.59

11/3/2010

1722.91

1.82

11/4/2010

1723.35

6.59

12/3/2010

1722.90

1.79

12/4/2010

1723.35

6.66

13/3/2010

1722.90

1.79

13/4/2010

1723.36

6.72

14/3/2010

1722.90

1.79

14/4/2010

1723.37

6.99

15/3/2010

1722.90

1.79

15/4/2010

1723.37

6.99

16/3/2010

1722.90

1.77

16/4/2010

1723.37

7.06

17/3/2010

1722.89

1.75

17/4/2010

1723.37

7.06

18/3/2010

1722.89

1.75

18/4/2010

1723.39

7.33

19/3/2010

1722.89

1.74

19/4/2010

1723.39

7.41

20/3/2010

1723.22

4.52

20/4/2010

1723.39

7.41

21/3/2010

1723.22

4.52

21/4/2010

1723.40

7.70

22/3/2010

1723.22

4.52

22/4/2010

1723.40

7.62

23/3/2010

1723.22

4.57

23/4/2010

1723.42

8.16

24/3/2010

1723.23

4.61

24/4/2010

1723.43

8.32

25/3/2010

1723.23

4.66

25/4/2010

1723.43

8.40

26/3/2010

1723.23

4.66

26/4/2010

1723.45

8.73

27/3/2010

1723.24

4.75

27/4/2010

1723.46

9.07

28/3/2010

1723.25

4.89

28/4/2010

1723.47

9.34

29/3/2010

1723.27

5.18

29/4/2010

1723.47

9.43

30/3/2010

1723.28

5.33

30/4/2010

1723.48

9.62

31/3/2010

1723.30

5.70

FHC Consulting Engineers

43

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The monthly flows at Nagdar nullah have been estimated from a series of flows at
Naran.
The monthly flows at Nagdar nullah is presented in Figure - 3.21.

Figure - 3.21: Mean Monthly Flows Nagdar Nullah


The mean annual flow at proposed weir site of Nagdar Hydropower Project was
estimated as 5.44 m3/s.
The mean annual flow of Jagran River at Kundal Shahi was estimated as
27.1 m3/s for the period 1960 to 2000. Mean monthly flow varies from 5.35 to
73.31 m3/s from winter to summer months.
The annual flow series at Nagdar is graphically presented in Figure - 3.22.
The annual flows at Nagdar vary from 4.0 to 6.6 m3/s and it has been observed
that the trend of annual series at Kundal Shahi and Nagdar is same.

FHC Consulting Engineers

44

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 3.22: Mean Annual Flows Nagdar Nullah

3.6.2

Comparison of Flows at Nagdar


There have been recent daily flow observations by the Consultants from
May 2009 to April 2010 at Nagdar nullah as presented in Table - 3.5 to
Table - 3.10. Previously low flow measurements were carried out at Nagdar
nullah by SWHP, WAPDA.
The comparison of estimated and measured flows at Nagdar nullah is presented
in Table - 3.11.
Table - 3.11: Measured and Estimated Flows at Nagdar
Month
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
Mean

FHC Consulting Engineers

Estimated
(m3/s)
1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09
5.44

Measured
(m3/s)
2.35
2.39
3.37
7.21
15.50
14.68
10.06
7.27
6.9
2.61
2.62
2.54
6.46

45

Remarks
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data
Observed Data

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.7

FLOW DURATION CURVE


With the estimated series of flows, flow duration curves for average year, dry year
and wet year were drawn and are presented in Figure - 3.23 to Figure - 3.25.
The flow duration values for average year are listed in Table - 3.12.

Figure - 3.23: Flow Duration Curve for Average Year Nagdar Nullah
Table - 3.12: Flow Duration Values Nagdar Nullah

55

Flow
(m3/sec)
1.89

16.13

60

1.64

10

13.90

65

1.45

15

12.23

70

1.29

20

10.42

75

1.20

25

8.77

80

1.12

30

7.49

85

1.03

35

6.28

90

0.93

40

5.15

95

0.79

45

4.00

100

0.29

50

2.59

Mean

5.44

0.1

Flow
(m3/sec)
22.92

Time (%)

FHC Consulting Engineers

46

Time (%)

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
The mean annual flow in average year is 5.44 m3/s and the design discharge of 9
m3/s is available for about 24.2 % time of the year for the proposed project.

Figure - 3.24: Flow Duration Curve for Dry Year Nagdar Nullah

Figure - 3.25: Flow Duration Curve for Wet Year Nagdar Nullah

FHC Consulting Engineers

47

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.8

LOW FLOWS AT THE PROJECT


The availability of flows at the proposed Nagdar hydropower project has been
shown in flow duration curve, as presented in the Figure - 3.23, and the values
are also given in the Table - 3.12.
The flow duration curve reflects that the low flow period, i.e., less than 1 m3/s flow
is available 90% of time, while the designed discharge, i.e., 9 m3/s is available
24.2 % of the time.
The Consultants installed a gauge on April 26, 2009 at a suspension bridge on
Nagdar nullah about 3 km upstream of the Neelum River confluence. Staff gauge
is observed three times a day by the Consultants staff deputed at site. However,
it is recommended that the measurements should be performed regularly in future
to verify the estimated flows.
The estimated mean monthly flows at Nagdar nullah are given in Table - 3.13.
Table - 3.13: Extended Mean Monthly Flows at Nagdar Nullah

Month
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

1.56
1.18
1.33
0.95
0.88
1.03
0.94
0.96
0.76
1.32
1.31
1.13
0.92
1.43
1.11
0.94
1.15
1.29
1.17
1.25
1.43
1.17
0.91
1.11
1.62
0.83

1.71
1.50
1.14
0.98
0.87
1.23
1.00
1.06
1.04
1.54
1.70
1.17
1.29
1.80
1.23
1.13
1.27
1.35
1.13
0.97
1.22
0.85
0.70
1.22
1.62
1.05

2.81
1.70
1.31
1.66
1.70
1.32
1.45
1.78
1.66
3.00
2.12
2.54
2.07
2.47
2.44
1.71
1.64
2.11
1.57
2.58
1.64
1.05
1.61
1.50
2.11
1.67

4.12
3.14
3.83
4.00
4.08
2.56
4.07
3.92
4.27
5.14
5.79
5.86
3.67
7.22
5.03
3.84
3.53
5.07
4.74
5.44
5.65
5.39
3.42
3.12
3.68
4.98

8.50
6.40
7.73
8.02
9.81
8.64
7.98
9.01
8.07
10.17
11.96
10.05
9.19
14.44
8.54
11.59
9.97
8.73
11.05
8.02
11.12
14.75
7.20
6.09
9.28
8.28

12.32
12.74
12.13
13.16
12.83
17.30
18.17
14.73
15.41
16.01
12.99
11.62
19.74
18.33
11.00
13.22
11.96
11.78
15.27
14.31
15.66
13.70
11.83
12.85
14.77
8.79

14.68
14.82
14.59
13.79
18.09
20.95
15.96
17.87
16.18
19.23
10.53
8.90
17.41
14.83
13.24
12.47
14.35
12.69
13.18
17.07
14.10
12.92
13.01
15.08
9.65
9.74

9.01
8.92
9.05
9.04
11.76
11.33
10.68
10.91
10.86
11.31
8.44
7.24
9.78
8.35
7.67
9.01
9.17
7.29
8.10
8.69
8.18
7.91
7.58
11.63
7.04
7.62

5.69
6.19
5.47
5.10
6.54
6.70
6.67
5.93
6.25
5.67
5.80
4.37
6.07
5.82
4.39
5.71
5.82
5.02
4.37
5.20
5.15
3.99
4.24
6.24
4.77
4.28

1.55
1.70
1.45
1.38
1.82
1.97
1.89
1.90
1.83
1.86
1.69
1.02
1.82
1.65
1.32
1.54
1.78
1.53
1.54
1.55
1.90
1.43
1.32
1.60
1.13
1.56

1.07
0.98
0.92
1.04
1.02
1.11
1.04
1.00
1.25
1.49
1.14
0.79
1.31
1.02
0.91
1.13
1.26
1.22
1.30
1.06
1.07
0.88
1.27
1.22
0.76
0.91

1.05
1.06
0.95
1.15
0.95
0.91
0.88
0.77
1.19
1.18
1.03
0.81
1.18
0.96
0.81
1.08
1.30
1.06
1.21
1.50
1.51
1.41
1.42
1.48
0.72
0.75

FHC Consulting Engineers

48

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

3.9

0.82
1.04
0.63
0.89
0.99
0.42
1.18
1.19
1.18
1.74
0.90
1.08
0.44
0.93
0.83

1.03
1.24
0.60
1.12
0.85
0.33
1.18
1.24
1.19
1.34
0.77
1.24
0.55
0.73
1.04

1.24
1.60
0.92
2.04
1.16
0.44
1.71
0.78
1.12
1.33
0.68
1.15
0.33
0.56
1.33

3.65
3.37
6.09
4.07
3.61
4.74
3.14
2.36
5.08
3.78
3.30
2.30
1.38
3.98
6.50

8.53
7.19
11.83
9.31
15.59
9.05
8.87
10.78
9.36
9.09
9.50
6.53
6.91
15.72
15.44

14.36
11.87
14.14
15.83
13.69
16.11
16.91
15.87
10.72
13.30
17.66
11.37
9.51
15.18
11.67

18.59
15.36
14.32
13.63
13.60
18.32
18.90
15.68
17.31
16.68
17.94
11.78
12.82
10.50
11.09

11.06
11.99
7.09
10.02
8.72
13.75
12.07
8.15
8.68
9.73
12.50
6.17
7.62
6.54
8.66

6.16
7.10
4.21
5.67
6.03
7.50
9.23
5.48
6.02
5.80
6.19
4.05
4.52
5.42
5.49

1.82
1.83
1.08
1.95
1.55
2.19
3.29
3.58
2.30
1.93
2.29
1.44
1.35
1.81
2.09

1.09
1.11
0.81
1.22
1.39
1.55
1.70
1.89
2.48
0.88
1.64
1.02
1.04
1.35
1.39

ESTIMATION OF FLOODS
As mentioned earlier the derived flows from three sites, i.e., Nausehri, Dudhnial
and Muzaffarabad show almost same behaviour in low flow period that is 50% to
100% of the time. As far as high flow period is concerned, a study was made by
comparing specific discharges of Jagran River having the same topography as
that of Nagdar with Muzaffarabad flows selecting the same period, i.e.,
(1982-1984) of available data of Jagran River at Kundal Shahi.
It was observed that specific discharges of river have almost double increasing
trend during high flow period, i.e., July and August as reflected from Table - 3.14
given below.
Therefore, floods achieved in different return periods from different methods have
been enhanced in the light of study.
Table - 3.14: Ratio of Specific Discharge (l/s/km2) at Jagran and
Muzaffarabad of High Flow Period
Years

Months

Ratio

1983

Jul

2.4

Aug

Jul

1.9

Aug

1.6

Average

1.975

1984

FHC Consulting Engineers

49

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

0.99
0.78
0.73
0.96
0.61
1.26
1.35
1.27
2.05
1.13
1.36
0.67
0.97
0.93
1.14

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.9.1

Estimation of Floods by Gumble Frequency Analysis Method


As explained above discharge data at the project is not available; therefore, in
order to estimate floods of different return periods at Nagdar nullah,
instantaneous peak discharges of Muzaffarabad Hydrological Station were
obtained and Gumble distribution frequency analysis was applied.
The floods obtained in different return periods at Muzaffarabad were used to
achieve floods at proposed weir site on Nagdar nullah by applying catchment
area relationship are presented in Table - 3.15 and shown in Figure - 3.26.
Table - 3.15: Flood at Nagdar Nullah in Different Return Periods
T-Year Return Period

95% Confidence Interval


Upper Limit

Lower Limit

33.1

23.5

53.3

35.0

10

67.2

42.1

20

80.7

48.7

50

98.2

57.3

100

111.4

63.6

1000

154.9

84.6

Figure - 3.26: Gumble Extreme Value Type-I (Method of Moments)

FHC Consulting Engineers

50

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.9.2

Estimation of Floods by Log Pearson Type - III Method


Log Pearson Type-III Method was also applied to analyse the peak discharges of
Muzaffarabad Hydrological Station to achieve floods for the different return
periods. The floods for different return periods at the Nagdar weir site were
obtained from the calculated floods at Muzaffarabad by applying catchment area
relationship.
The results are given in Table - 3.16 and shown in Figure - 3.27.
Table - 3.16: Estimation of Flood with Log Pearson Method
Return Period, Tr
(Years)
2
5
10
25
50
100
200
1000

T-Year Flood for Nagdar


37
50
61
78
93
111
132
204

Figure - 3.27: Flood Estimation with Log Pearson Type-III Method

FHC Consulting Engineers

51

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.9.3

Estimation of Floods by Rainfall Runoff Relationship


In addition to the snow melt, rainfall is one of the major inputs producing runoff in
the nullah. There is no climatological station in the project area. The available
rainfall record is at Muzaffarabad, Nausehri, Dudhnial and Naran climatological
stations.
Consultants during study of Azad Pattan Hydropower Project in June 2008 have
carried out a comprehensive study of whole Jhelum River Catchment to
determine the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). The Jhelum catchment
was divided into a number of sub-basins and PMP had been worked out for each
of the sub-basins and iso-hytel maps were drawn.
Based on the study, the PMP for the Nagdar nullah catchment worked out to be
80 mm (3.15 inches) for 24 hour storm. PMP value of 80 mm was used for the
derivation of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) with a critical rainfall distribution of
24 hours precipitation as the procedure given in Flood Estimation Manual, by
Halcrow in 1986.
For the direct runoff generated from the PMP calculations, SCS Curve Number
83 was used for the 82 km2 catchment area of Nagdar nullah at proposed weir
site and flood hydrograph was worked out. Utilising the above procedure flood
hydrographs from PMP is shown in Figure - 3.28 and peak flood estimated was
510.3 m3/s.

Figure - 3.28: Flood Hydrograph at proposed Nagdar Weir Site

FHC Consulting Engineers

52

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.9.4

Floods Recommended at the Weir Site


Flood values for different years achieved by applying Gumble distribution method
and log Pearson Type - III method have been considered for recommendation of
floods at the weir site of nullah.
The values of floods are given in the following Table - 3.17 for comparison
purpose. It is recommended that the average values of floods as given in the
table may be considered for further use in project studies.
Table - 3.17: Comparison of Flood Estimates
T-Year
Return
Period
2
5
10
20
50
100
1000
PMF

Floods using
Gumble MOM
(m3/s)
33.1
53.3
67.2
80.7
98.2
111.4
154.9

3.10

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDIES

3.10.1

Available Sediment Data

Floods using Log


Pearson Type-III
Method (m3/s)
37
50
61
93
111
132
204

Average
Floods
(m3/s)
35
52
64
87
105
122
179
510.3

No sediment sampling measurements were carried out at the proposed weir site
of Nagdar nullah. However, the long term data of recorded sediments is available
at Nausehri hydrological station which is located on the main river and is about
fifty (50) km downstream of confluence of Nagdar nullah and Neelum River.
In addition to this, the sediment data is also available at different locations, i.e.,
Dudhnial and Muzaffarabad hydrological stations. As Nausehri station is the
nearest downstream station of the Nagdar nullah, therefore sediment transport
data of this station has been considered to estimate suspended and bed load at
weir site of Nagdar nullah.
The relationship achieved between flows and sediment concentration in ppm from
the above data has been applied to get suspended sediment load at Nagdar
nullah.

FHC Consulting Engineers

53

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3.10.2

Sediment Load / Yield at Weir Site


As explained above sediment data at weir site of Nagdar nullah is not available,
therefore the data of Nausehri Hydrological Station has been considered to
obtained the sediment load being the nearest downstream stations.
A sediment rating curve as shown in Figure - 3.29 has been drawn at Nausehri
with the available sediment data, i.e., (1991-2005).

Figure - 3.29: Sediment Rating Curve


The relationship between discharge and sediment concentration as shown in the
above figure is as under:
Y=1.881X0.841
Where
Y= sediment concentration (ppm)
X=discharge (m3/s)
A sediment sample was collected on 26th April 2009 by using DH-48 sampler and
discharge of the Nagdar nullah was also measured as 7.7m3/s. By applying the
above relationship, the sediment concentration against measured discharge
comes to be 10.6 ppm, which is identical to the analysed result of the collected
sample.

FHC Consulting Engineers

54

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Sediment load at the weir site of nullah was calculated from the available
sediment data and the detail is as under:
Average flow (1991-2005) at Nausehri = 289.2 m3/s
Average ppm (1991-2005) at Nausehri = 436
Suspended Sediment Load (Tons/day at Nausehri = 12017
Suspended Annual Sediment Load at Nausehri = 4.38 MST
Therefore, the Annual Sediment Load at Nagdar = 0.0586 MST

3.10.3

Sediment Bed Load


Sediment bed load is usually taken as 20% of the suspended load. Therefore,
the suspended bed load is 0.01172 MST. In this way the total sediment yield is
0.07 MST. These results can be improved later on in the light of data received in
future from the installed Nagdar nullah gauging station.

3.10.4

Particle Size Distribution


As the Sediment data at weir site of Nagdar nullah is not available; therefore the
data of Nausehri Hydrological Station being the nearest downstream station has
been considered to examine the particle size distribution at the project as
presented in Table - 3.18.
The average percentage values are as hereunder:

Sand

13%

Silt

64%

Clay

23 %

From above it can be assessed that at the project site sand exists in a little
quantity while silt and clay exists comparatively in excess amount.
It is recommended to take sediment measurements at the proposed site regularly
to strengthen this estimate and take precautionary measures by arranging
sandtrap.

FHC Consulting Engineers

55

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 3.18: Partical Size Distribution Analysis at Nausehri (1991-1996)


Year

Date

Sand %

Silt%

Clay%

1992

02.01.92
08.01.92
16.01.92
19.01.92
26.01.92
08.02.92
15.02.92
20.02.92
28.02.92
01.03.92
08.03.92
10.03.92
17.03.92
25.03.92
02.04.92
10.04.92
08.05.92
15.05.92
21.05.92
10.06.92
16.06.92
23.06.92
01.07.92
16.07.92
23.07.92
25.07.92
28.07.92
30.07.92
02.08.92
06.08.92
21.10.92
18.02.93
28.02.93
05.03.93
10.03.93
03.04.93
21.04.93
21.05.93
30.05.93
09.06.93
21.06.93
28.06.93
09.07.93
13.07.93
17.07.93
18.08.93
26.08.93

1
54
9
4
11
2
3
15
3
1
4
6
14
11
12
19
15
10
1
4
6
5
5
9
16
2
4
17
15
8
3
3
4
15
27
3
3
6
20
34
12
10
19
22
5
12
27

59
34
82
43
37
44
79
59
70
60
75
77
41
42
78
30
61
80
62
86
83
84
78
75
40
80
81
65
57
81
79
73
64
68
67
77
83
76
58
43
67
61
63
56
83
78
62

40
12
9
53
52
54
18
26
27
39
21
17
45
47
10
51
24
10
37
10
11
11
17
16
44
18
15
18
28
11
18
24
32
17
6
20
14
18
22
23
21
29
18
22
12
10
11

1993

FHC Consulting Engineers

56

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Year

1994

1995

1996

Date

Sand %

Silt%

Clay%

07.09.93
11.09.93
12.09.93
16.09.93
30.09.93
04.10.93
07.10.93
16.10.93
08.11.93
01.12.93
11.12.93
17.12.93
30.03.94
07.05.94
20.05.94
08.06.94
23.07.94
10.08.94
08.09.94
26.09.94
14.10.94
28.10.94
18.11.94
28.11.94
11.12.94
29.04.95
05.05.95
08.06.95
11.07.95
25.07.95
02.08.95
12.08.95
19.08.95
05.09.95
12.09.95
19.09.95
26.09.95
12.10.95
14.10.95
18.10.95
07.04.96
16.04.96
23.04.96
23.05.96
03.06.96
11.06.96
13.08.96

15
10
20
4
6
5
5
9
26
2
4
4
22
23
15
2
4
7
22
11
9
8
8
28
7
28
11
45
37
12
6
58
21
26
2
9
4
6
7
4
10
52
24
24
25
49
17
13.45
Sand%

61
80
49
86
83
84
78
75
54
80
81
82
44
66
68
88
71
73
64
58
63
74
48
47
66
53
65
40
43
60
72
36
61
61
53
56
62
66
67
47
75
41
61
55
60
40
48
64.11
Silt%

24
10
31
10
11
11
17
16
20
18
15
14
34
11
17
10
25
20
14
31
28
18
44
25
27
19
24
15
20
28
22
6
18
13
45
35
34
28
26
49
15
7
15
21
15
11
35
22.45
Clay%

Average

FHC Consulting Engineers

57

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES

FHC Consulting Engineers

58

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES

4.1

INTRODUCTION
The proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project has been identified on Nagdar nullah
which is a right bank tributary of Neelum River in the Azad State of Jammu
& Kashmir (AJ&K).
On the basis of geological studies, geotechnical and rock mass assessment; the
proposed scheme with headrace tunnel and underground powerhouse has been
finally recommended for further geological and geotechnical studies.
The layout of the selected scheme is given in Dwg. No. 5-2. The weir site has
been proposed about 200 m downstream of the confluence of Nagdar nullah with
Shelyath Nar at an elevation of 1956 m asl, in a narrow gorge where the rocks of
metamorphic origin comprising mainly of the granitic schists are exposed.
A headrace tunnel about 3.84 km long shall be driven through metamorphic rocks
comprising of schists, phyllites and granitic gneiss with the intrusions of granite
and granodiorites.
Powerhouse cavern structure shall be founded on rock comprising of granitic
gneiss. The engineering geological and structural mapping has been carried out
at the weir site, connecting channel, desander / sandtrap, inlet and outlet tunnel
portals to establish the impact of structural discontinuities and the defects (like
jointing, faulting, shear zones, etc.).
For these engineering structural
components, geological mapping has been carried out on the topographic maps
especially prepared for this purpose on scale 1:1,000 and on satellite imageries
with overlying DEM (digital elevation model) obtained from SUPARCO.
This report is based on the surface geological mapping carried out in the
proposed project area, and the laboratory test results available until now, for the
evaluation and calculation of the geotechnical parameters. These will be further
reformed on the availability of drilling and laboratory test data.
The detail geotechnical site investigation programme including the borehole
drilling, test pitting, etc. has been prepared by the Consultants and the contract
has been awarded to the contractor by the Client.
Regional geology has been described in the beginning of the chapter, whereby its
impact on proposed structures of the Nagdar Hydropower Project has also been
discussed.

FHC Consulting Engineers

59

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.2

GEOMORPHOLOGY

4.2.1

Topography
Nagdar nullah passes through a narrow gorge at the proposed weir site. The
nullah descends from the mountainous peak at EI. 4714 m asl. The nullah along
its length has a few tributaries joining in from either bank. The elevation at its
confluence with Neelum River is 1508 m asl. Generally, the ground slopes on
either bank of nullah are very steep.
Further, the slopes are generally covered with thick vegetation and at many
locations have enough places to support the accumulation of angular boulders
and gravel along with the soil cover.

4.2.2

Hydrology
Nagdar nullah has about 91 km2 of catchment area at its confluence with Neelum
River. The mean monthly flow ranges between 1.07 to 14.68 m/sec. The design
discharge for the scheme is considered to be 9 m/sec.

4.2.3

Drainage Pattern
The drainage pattern of the area covered by the proposed Nagdar Hydropower
Project is the combination of dendritic and trellis patterns.

4.2.4

Terraces
The terraces are well stratified and their fragment range from clay, silt and sand
to gravel and cobbles (ABGM). These gravel and cobbles are angular to
sub-rounded, loose to semi compact and hard.

4.2.5

Talus Cone / Colluvial Material


Loose scree along the hill slope is widespread in the project area. These scree
deposits conceal at many places with the geological structural details
underneath.

4.3

REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF NEELUM VALLEY

4.3.1

Geological Setting
The major Himalayan tectonic units are well exposed along the relatively
accessible Neelum valley. These are the result of collision between the
Eurasian (N) and Indian (S) plates.

FHC Consulting Engineers

60

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

In the Northern Pakistan five principal fault zones have been recognised as
indicated in Figure - 4.1; the Northern Suture (NS) or Main Karakoram Thrust
(MKT), the Main Mantle Thrust (MMT) or Indus Suture (IS), the Main Central
Thrust (MCT), the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and the Main Frontal Thrust
(MFT) or Salt Range Thrust (SRT). These fault zones generally trend E-W,
dividing the Himalayan orogenic belt in the five main tectonic zones. The Asian
Plate (AP), the Kohistan Island Arc (KIA), the Higher Himalayan Crystalline Unit
(HHC), the Lesser Himalayan Crystalline Unit (LHC) and the Sub-Himalayan
Unit (SH).
The East - West trend of the fault zones is disturbed locally by the two tectonic
semi-windows, the Nanga Parbat Syntaxis (NPS) and the Hazara Kashmir
Syntaxis (HKS). The area connecting these two syntaxes including Nagdar
Hydropower project area is being affected by an exceptional rate of uplift,
presently reaching 7 mm/year. Many of these tectonic units are encountered in a
SW - NE traverse along the Neelum valley. The MBT which separates the SH
from the LHC lies near the bridge of Nausehri, about 40 km NE of Muzaffarabad.
Near the village of Luat, approximately 100 km from Muzaffarabad on Neelum
valley road, the MCT separates the LHC to the south from the HHC, which
extends north and east to the village of Kel. These tectonic units share the same
stratigraphic features, but differ in their tectono-metamorphic evolution.
Metamorphic grade and ductile deformation increase from the youngest and
lower most unit, i.e., Sub-Himalayas; to the oldest and upper most unit, i.e.,
Higher Himalayas.

4.3.2

Lithostratigraphy
The Crystalline rocks outcropping in the Neelum valley are subdivided into three
main lithostratigraphic units, the Precambrian Naril Group, the Precambrian
Kundal Shahi Group and the Upper Paleozoic to Mesozoic Surgun Group as
presented in Figure - 4.2.
The details are given below:

Naril Group

Pre - Himalayan Basement

Kundal Shahi Group

Pre - Himalayan Cover

Surgun Group

Himalayan Cover

All the above mentioned groups are intruded by meta-dolerites and amphibolites,
collectively called metabasites. All the lithostratigraphic units occur both in the
LHC and HHC - and have undergone variable grade of metamorphism.

FHC Consulting Engineers

61

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.3.3

Naril Group
The granulitic gneisses of the Naril Group mainly outcrop in two separated areas;
one north of the Richmohri Fault (RF) and the other in Chatthewala, Gumot and
Naril areas. These gneisses are acid granulitic whitish banded rocks containing
quartz, feldspar, garnet and biotite. The contact between the Naril and Kundal
Shahi groups is sharp and is interpreted as an old unconformity folded during the
strong Himalayan deformation.
The Naril group has been intruded by dolerites and now metamorphosed to
amphibolites. In certain cases the amphibolites grade into eclogites. The
granulitic gneisses of the Naril Group are intruded by the Mansehra type
leucogranites of Cambrian age.

4.3.4

Kundal Shahi Group


The metasediments of the Kundal Shahi Group outcrop at three locations, i.e.,
south of the MCT, north of the MCT, and in the Chatthewala Naril area.
The schists are fine-grained, and sometimes phyllitic. The mineral assemblage
includes biotite, white mica, quartz, garnet, chlorite and epidote.
Quartzites have preserved numerous sedimentary structures such as ripple
marks, graded bedding, cross bedding, etc. Basic dykes cross cut the
stratification throughout the three units. The mineral assemblage comprises
pyroxene, plagioclase and rarely, the olivine. The basic dykes are converted to
foliated amphibolites.
The Kundal Shahi meta-sedimentary sequence outcropping north of the MCT
shows the same lithostratigraphic features as described south of MCT. However,
only the grade of metamorphic assemblage is higher.
In Chatthewala, Naril and Tarli Domel areas the Kundal Shahi Group shows
higher grades of metamorphism.
Kundal Shahi Group may be correlated with the Pre-Cambrian Salkhala Series
and with the Hazara Formation located on the eastern side of the Hazara
Kashmir Syntaxis.

4.3.5

The Surgun Group


In the Neelum Valley, the Surgun Group outcrops in three separated areas
including Nausehri area, the area between the villages of Luat and Sharda and
north of Dowarian village, and Naril valley.

FHC Consulting Engineers

62

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The geology of the Nausehri area is complicated by the imbrications of several


tectonic slices along the Panjal Thrust and minor related thrusts. The rocks
between the MBT and the Panjal Thrust can be correlated with the Surgun
Group. It is a succession of clastic rocks, pyrite bearing graphitic phyllites,
sericite- chlorite bearing schists and rare metaconglomerates, volcanic rocks and
carbonatic rocks. The area north of Dowarian, the Naril Valley and the Nangi
Mali area represent a very large zone.

4.3.6

Metamorphic Evolution
Rocks forming the Naril Group, the Kundal Shahi Group and Surgun Group were
deformed and metamorphosed during the Tertiary Himalayan events.

The first metamorphic event is marked by the occurrence of chloritoid,


quartz and white mica-bearing assemblages preserved as trails in the
core of zoned garnets in the mica-schists of the Surgun Group.

The second metamorphic event is characterised by eclogite facies in


the medium grade HHC.

The third metamorphic event developed under conditions


decompression associated with a decrease of temperature.

of

The calculated rate of uplift for the period between the Upper Cretaceous and the
lower Miocene is of the order of 1 mm/yr, a value which is in agreement with the
general evolution of the Himalayan Chain.

4.3.7

Tectonic Evolution
The deformation history of the Neelum valley rocks is strongly related to the plate
tectonic model describing the progressive convergence of the Indian and
Eurasian Plates, and with the described metamorphic evolution.
In Pakistan, the first manifestation of the N-S convergence between the two
plates was the southward to south-eastward over thrusting (more than 150 km) of
the Kohistan Island Arc over the northern margin of the Indian continent along the
MMT.
The early thrusting probably occurred between the Cretaceous and the Eocene at
the latest. During the same period, rocks of the Neelum valley suffered
compressive and shearing stress associated with the progressive development of
the Himalayan metamorphism.

FHC Consulting Engineers

63

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.4

SITE GEOLOGY
The intake area includes weir site, desander / sandtrap, diversion tunnel, and
intake power tunnel, coffer dams located upstream and downstream of weir site.
The outlet area includes surge shaft, pressure shaft, cavern powerhouse, and
tailrace channels and switchyards areas. The surface geological mapping
covering all the above mentioned areas has been carried out by the Consultants
on scale 1:1,000; using the satellite imageries of 2.5 m resolution by preparing
working sheets for field work. These imageries facilitated the mapping of each
soil and rock unit exactly to its existence on the ground. Maps and cross-sections
produced in this report are produced on the appropriate scales presented in
Dwg. No. 4-1 to Dwg. No. 4-7.

4.4.1

Lithological Units

4.4.1.1

Soil Units
The recent deposits are the most widespread soil units in the project area,
covering the bedrock, slopes with variables thickness 2 to 20 m. Terrace
deposits include mixtures of clay, silt, sand with gravel and boulders in various
proportions.

4.4.1.2

ABGM
Most of the slopes are covered by material comprising of angular boulders, gravel
with sand and appreciable amount of fines. These material are mostly of glacial
and talus origin.

4.4.1.3

RBGM
It consist of alluvial material having rounded to sub-rounded loose to semi
compact boulders and gravel with sand and appreciable amount of fines. These
are found upstream of the proposed weir site in the form of terraces as well as in
the proposed tailrace area.

4.4.1.4

ABG
Overburden material comprising mainly of large sized boulders and gravel with
minor amount of fines. These are found at the base of slopes.

4.4.1.5

RBG
Alluvial material deposited by streams comprising of rounded to sub-rounded
boulders and gravel with little amount of finer particles.

FHC Consulting Engineers

64

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.4.2

Rock Units
The rocks exposed in the project area are mainly metamorphic in origin,
comprising mainly of schists, phyllites and gneiss. Igneous intrusions of granites
and granodiorites are quite common, particularly in the powerhouse area. The
detail of each rock unit exposed in the proposed project area of Nagdar
Hydropower scheme is given in the following paragraphs.

4.4.2.1

Schists
Schists are exposed at both banks of the Nagdar nullah where weir site is
proposed. The diversion tunnel and, headrace intake portal of the proposed
scheme are also proposed in the Schist. These are light grey in colour, fine to
medium grained, moderately to highly weathered, and moderately to closely
jointed. The mineral assemblage includes biotite, white mica, quartz, garnet,
chlorite and epidote.

4.4.2.2

Gneiss
It is dirty white to whitish grey on the weathered surface. Light coloured bands
alternate with the dark bands which exists on fresh surface. The flaky minerals
represent preferred orientation. The rock is medium to coarse grained and
sparsely jointed. Numerous granitic veins can be seen intruding the adjacent
schistosed rocks. Small pegmatitic dykes are found within the gneissosed
granite.
Its mineralogical formation consists of the granular aggregate quartz, feldspar,
muscovite, biotite, and also accessory tourmaline, garnet, magnetite and apatite.
Gneiss has less mica, more quartz and higher strength.

4.4.2.3

Granite
It is light grey to brownish. The fresh exposures of the rock show whitish grey
colour. However, close examination shows brownish black biotite specks in
whitish grey background. At some places black tourmaline is also found in the
granite.
The thermal effects are best preserved at the contact of Neelum granite with
Tunnel (Kundal Shahi - Nagdar garnet mica schist) at Rampara where a contract
aureaole shows the development of three grades of thermal metamorphism from
schist to the chilled granite margin, biotite hornfels, andalusite hornfels and
silliminite hornfels.

FHC Consulting Engineers

65

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.5

GEOLOGICAL, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND SEISMIC


STUDIES
After desk study and reconnaissance visit a comprehensive geological and
geotechnical investigation programme was formulated. This included the detailed
field topographic survey of the selected sites for various engineering structures of
the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project, surface geological mapping, study of
joints and discontinuities in rocks exposed in the project area, drilling of
boreholes at the selected sites and excavations for trial pits in borrow areas from
where construction material could be procured, followed by the laboratory testing
and interpretation of results.
Since the geotechnical investigations programme is underway, the data obtained
on completion of various activities would be incorporated at later stage. For
confirming the design basis of important Structures, the proposed investigations
need to be completed at an early date.
The important aspects and information obtained at this stage are described and
discussed in the following sections.

4.5.1

Surface Geological Mapping


Surface geological mapping covering all the components of Nagdar Hydropower
Project including weir site, headrace tunnel, surge tank, powerhouse, tailrace and
access tunnel area have been carried out on scale 1:1,000.
The geological cross-sections at various locations have been prepared to
interpret and identify different soil and rock units in the project area presented in
the Dwg. No. 4-4 to Dwg. No. 4-7. General foliation trend with their dip along
with joint sets exposed at different proposed structures have been measured in
the field.
By adding more information on the geomechanical behaviour and properties of
rock and soil, slope stability, bearing capacity and groundwater conditions, these
maps can be updated and converted into Engineering Geological maps.
Data on rock discontinuities and joint sets have been collected during surface
geological mapping. The most important aspect of a discontinuity is its
orientation given by its strike and dip.
The discontinuity survey data of the project site is given in Table - 4.1.

FHC Consulting Engineers

66

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 4.1: Discontinuity Survey Data of Nagdar Hydropower Project

ENW

ESE

WNE

WSW

Dip
Directi
on
(DD)

NE

47

47

40

SE

120

120

75

SE

92

92

N57W

303

60

NE

33

33

N85E

85

38

NW

355

355

N32E

32

42

SE

122

122

N30W

330

71

NE

60

60

N88W

272

72

SW

182

182

N70E

70

77

NW

340

340

10

N44W

316

35

NE

46

46

11

N88W

272

72

SW

182

182

12

N32E

32

42

SE

122

122

13

N42W

318

31

NE

48

48

14

N82E

82

40

NW

352

352

15

N35E

35

45

SE

125

125

16

N30E

30

70

NW

300

300

17

N88W

272

70

SW

182

182

18

N10W

350

80

NE

80

80

19

N65W

295

32

NE

25

25

20

N88W

272

75

SW

182

182

21

N15W

345

80

NE

75

75

22

N25W

335

80

NE

65

65

23

N70E

70

77

NW

340

340

24

N57W

303

60

NE

33

33

Sr.
No.

Strike

Strike
(Azimuth)

Dip

Dip
Sense

N43W

317

32

N30E

30

N2E

FHC Consulting Engineers

Options

67

Remarks

POWER
HOUSE
AREA IN
GRANITIC
GNEISS

ACCESS
TUNNEL
AREA IN
GRANITIC
GNEISS

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

25

N30E

30

40

SE

120

120

26

N88W

272

75

SW

182

182

27

N7W

353

60

NE

83

83

28

N85E

85

38

NW

355

355

29

N32E

32

42

SE

122

122

30

N60E

60

52

SE

150

150

31

N30E

30

54

SE

120

120

32

N35E

35

60

SE

125

125

33

N60E

60

54

SE

150

150

34

N25E

25

60

SE

115

115

35

N25W

335

70

NE

65

65

36

N57E

57

69

SE

147

147

37

N55E

55

66

SE

145

145

38

N68E

68

41

SE

158

158

39

N50E

50

43

SE

140

140

40

N45E

45

45

SE

135

135

41

N52E

52

67

SE

142

142

WEIR SITE
IN SCHIST

Two methods, i.e., strike rose diagram and stereographic projection of poles were
employed for plotting. The Figure - 4.3 to 4.5 shows the Rose Diagrams and
Composite Pole Plots at different areas of the proposed project sites.

FHC Consulting Engineers

68

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

NAGDAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT


ROSE DIAGRAMS FROM DISCONTINUITY DATA

Figure - 4.3 a): Rose Diagram Showing Stereographic Projection of


Joint Sets in Granitic Gneiss

Figure - 4.3 b): Rose Diagram Showing Stereographic Projection of


Joint Sets in Schist

FHC Consulting Engineers

69

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.4 a): Rose Diagram Showing Location of Poles of


Joint Sets in Granitic Gneiss

Figure - 4.4 b) Rose Diagram Showing Stereographic Projection of


Joint Sets in Granitic Gneiss

FHC Consulting Engineers

70

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.5 a) Composite Pole Plot Showing Location of Joint Sets in


Granitic Gneiss

Figure - 4.5 b) Rose Diagram Showing Stereographic Projection of


Joint Sets in Schist

FHC Consulting Engineers

71

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

A careful analysis of the overall results led to the following conclusions:

Almost all discontinuities observed have a high angle dip.

Three major and two minor discontinuity sets can be identified as under:
Strike

Dip

J1 N30o E

40o SE

J2 N 57o W

60o NE

J3 EW

72o S

Minor Sets

4.5.2

J4 N85o E

80o SE

J5 N25o W

80o NE

Drilling
The main objective of borehole drilling is to determine the nature and engineering
characteristic of soil / rock units encountered at each structure of the proposed
Nagdar Hydropower Project and to observe the rock conditions at depth, to find
out the different strata and determine depth of bedrock to perform in - situ
permeability / water pressure test (Lugeon test) and to obtain the disturbed and
undisturbed samples.
The total drilling to be accomplished for the subsurface exploration programme is
215 m in seven (7) boreholes. Out of these two (02) boreholes were proposed at
weir site, one at headrace tunnel inlet portal, one at surge tank, one at
powerhouse site, one at access tunnel and one at tailrace. The results of drilling
will be of prime importance for the detail design of the structures.

4.5.3

Test Pits
A total of four (4) test pits were proposed by the Consultants in the overburden at
locations selected for placing the scheme structures. Test pits shall also be
excavated in the identified borrow areas to collect samples and then testing them
in the laboratory to check their suitability for use as the construction material.
The results of logging of each pit along with the in - situ field density tests in the
pits and various laboratory tests on samples will be the prime importance for the
detail design of the structures.

FHC Consulting Engineers

72

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.5.4

Laboratory Testing
The main objective of rock / material testing is to analyse the samples and use
their results to evaluate the geotechnical engineering design parameters in the
feasibility study.
The laboratory tests to be performed on disturbed and undisturbed samples
obtained from the site exploratory works include:

4.6

Particle Size Distribution (Sieve Analysis / Hydrometer Test)

Atterbergs Limits and Plasticity Index

Modified AASHTO Density

Direct Shear Test

Unconfined Compression

Water Absorption in Fine and Coarse Aggregates

Specific Gravity

Point Load Tests

Los Angeles Abrasion

Elongation and Flakiness Index

Sulphate Content of Soil and Surface Water

pH Value of Surface Water

Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR) / Mortar Bar Test

Porosity / Porosity Coefficient

Modulus of Deformation

Poissons Ratio

Friction Coefficient

Petrographic Analysis

SEISMICTY
The Northern Area of Pakistan including Azad Jammu & Kashmir are extensive
zones of high seismicity and contain several seismo-tectonic features generated
by an integrated network of active faults.

FHC Consulting Engineers

73

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The documented record of seismicity consists of mainly earthquake epicenters


located on the basis of modern instrumental recordings. This seismic activity is
the result of movement along various active faults in the region. Thus it may be
seen that the collision mountain ranges, where active faults are common, are
endowed with high seismicity; whereas, the more stable Indus platform zone is
characterised by relatively low seismicity.
In Northern Pakistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJ&K) including the proposed
project area of Nagdar Hydropower in the Neelum Valley, a telemeter seismic
network operated from 1973 to 1977, has recorded data from approximately
10,000 earthquakes covering the area between longitudes 69 and 75 and
latitudes 30 30 and 35 - 30. This study shows that the northwestern margin of
the Indian Plate north of the MBT comprises a zone of high seismicity; whereas,
the salt range and the Trans-Indus Range reflect moderate seismicity. In the
project area region two main zones of high seismicity have been identified.

Indus Kohistan Seismic Zone (ISKZ)

Hazara Lower Seismic Zone (HLSZ)

These are as described in the following paragraphs.

4.6.1

Indus Kohistan Seismic Zone (IKSZ) & Associated Earthquakes


The Indus Kohistan Seismic Zone has a NW SE orientation and lies between
the MMT and the Hazara Kashmir syntaxis. It overlaps the crystalline nappes
of Swat, Besham and Hazara and part of the Kohistan magmatic are along
the MMT. The tectonic activity in this regions generated in 1974 Pattan
earthquake.
According to Seeber et al (1979) in this region most of the seismicity is
associated with a 10 to 12 km deep, wedge shaped feature. The seismic data
shows that the upper surface conforms to a widespread seismic zone interpreted
as a decollement zone along which the decollement of the sediments and met
sediments is decoupled from the basement. Below the decoupling surface, fault
plane solution indicates northeast and southwest dipping thrust faults.

4.6.2

Hazara Lower Seismic Zone (HLSZ)


The Hazara Lower Seismic Zone is located about 60 km of IKSZ and runs parallel
to it. Here the detachment zone forms a kind of divide, with a distinct overlying
zone of shallow seismicity and a deeper seismic zone beneath it.

FHC Consulting Engineers

74

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.6.3

Hazara Fault Zone and Associated Earthquakes


The actuate thrust and fold belts that form the northern border of the Indian shield
are in general characterised by a strong vengeance in the direction of the
convexity of the arc, towards the shield. Thus the Hazara fault, the structure in
the Hazara arc that corresponds to the Himalayas main boundary fault has been
interpreted as a northward dipping thrust.
Seeber and Jacob (1977) suggested that the Hazara fault is directly connected to
the HLSZ, forming a northward dipping reverse fault continuous from the
surface to the lower crust.
On February 14, 1977 a magnitude 5.2 (USGS) earthquake occurred in the
Rawalpindi / Islamabad area. It was widely felt in the region, and it caused
considerable damage in the epicentral area near Nilore. The geometry of the
rupture plane related to the Rawalpindi earthquake was determined by accurately
locating about 50 aftershocks.
The strike of this rupture plane is similar to the strike of the Hazara fault in the
same area about (N60E) and if extrapolated to the surface, this plane would
outcrop very near to the trace of the Hazara fault.
More geological and earthquake data are necessary to unravel the history and
the present tectonic significance of the Hazara fault. An effort in this direction
seems highly advisable considering the seismic risk associated with major
population, administrative and industrial centers growing in the vicinity of this
fault.

4.6.4

Kashmir Balakot Earthquake of October 08, 2005


A magnitude (Mw) 7.6 earthquake at 8:55 am on 8th October 2005 (USGS, 2005)
caused extensive damage and killed in excess of 87,000 people in the
Kashmir Balakot regions of northern Pakistan. The most severely affected
region was in the epicentral area around Muzaffarabad and, in particular, in a
band about 10 km wide and about 60 km long. To the northeast of the fault zone
are the foothills of the Indus Kohistan. To the southwest of the fault trace are the
Pir Panjal Ranges in the south and the valley of the Jhelum and Kaghan River
adjacent to the Mansehra / Abbottabad Plateau in the west.
The geology of the area consists of several indurate sedimentary and
metamorphic rock types forming the basement rock mass, which in the valley is
overlain by more recent (Quaternary age) coarse fluvio glacial gravels. At
Muzaffarabad a shattered dolomite unit was observed on the up thrown side of
the fault and could be traced for several kilometers from the distinctive white
landslide scars (Cambrain Abbottabad Formation).

FHC Consulting Engineers

75

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

In the Jhelum river valley upstream of Muzafarabad a sequence of meter-bedded


siltstone and sandstone dipping in general southward direction forms the valley
wall (scarp slope) of the Jhelum river valley on the down thrown or south western
side of the fault. In the Kaghan valley between Muzaffarabad and Balakot, Pelitic
schist forms the local basement (Pre-Cambrian Hazara Formation). First hand
observations of fault rupture were made in the Neelum River valley 2-3 km north
of Muzaffarabad. At this site ground rupture striking sub-parallel to the trend of
river valley crossed a high terrace surface (about 20 m above river level).
The terrace surface between the river and the rupture had been uplifted about
1 m relative to the terrace surface between the rupture and the adjacent hill
slopes. The ground rupture could be traced for about 50 m. At a number of
places where linear features traversed the rupture no evidence for lateral offset
could be seen (i.e., the movement on the fault plane was entirely dip slip with no
detectable strike slip component).
At an exposure on a steep terrace river where the ground rupture intersected the
terrace edge at an oblique angle, the stratigraphic contact between shattered
dolomite and the overlying recent coarse alluvial gravels was offset in the plane
of the ground rupture. On the terrace surface the offset from the most recent
event was about 1 m. However, the dolomite / gravel contact was offset in the
order of 2.5 m indicating that this fault has probably ruptured on at least two
surfaces. Also the fact that the dolomite rock unit is present on both side of the
fault rupture indicates that this is probably not the primary fault plane, but a
secondary rupture in the area where the fault zone in more complex.
The seismological and observed ground surface fault rupture data are consistent
with the tectonic setting. The relative offset observed along the fault was up to
the northeast and down to the southeast with no lateral offset. The provisional
epicenter was located about 10 km to the north-east of the fault rupture. This
data is consistent with the earthquake occurring on a reverse or thrust fault. The
observance of fault rupture was surprising given that the earthquake was initially
thought to have occurred on the MBT.

4.7

SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS


The threat to human activities from earthquakes is significant to require their
careful consideration in the design of structures and facilities. The goal of
earthquake resistant design is to produce a structure that can withstand a
certain level of shaking without excessive damage.
The specification of design ground motion parameters is one of the most difficult
and most important problems in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Nagdar
Hydropower Project area lies in the Neelum Valley of AJ&K which is severely
affected by tectonic activities in the past.

FHC Consulting Engineers

76

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

A careful seismic hazard analyses that involves the quantitative estimation of


ground shaking hazards is of great importance even for small Hydropower
schemes proposed in seismically active zones. Seismic hazards may be
analyzed deterministically, as when a particular earthquake scenario is assumed,
or probabilistically in which uncertainties in earthquakes size, location, and time
of occurrence are explicitly considered.
This study assesses the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) as safety level,
the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and the Operating Basis Design Earthquake
(OBE) as serviceability level for the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project site in
AJ&K, Pakistan. The calculated spectra and time histories are valid for a rock
site.
The MCE, DBE and OBE together with the corresponding engineering
parameters, (i.e. peak ground acceleration and design response spectra) needed
for the design of the dam, are derived based on the results of a Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA).
Under the MCE load some damage to the dam is allowed, but an uncontrolled
outflow of the reservoir must be avoided and all safety related equipment has to
remain functional.
Under the DBE and OBE, no structural damage such as tension cracks in
concrete dams is allowed and all equipment has to remain functional.
In the hazard analysis, a number of parameters play an important role, so that
reasonable assumptions on the uncertainties have to be made. Therefore, all
assumptions are clearly presented in the report, and their consequences are
discussed.
In the present hazard analysis, the recommendations of the ICOLD guidelines
(ICOLD 1989) are followed.
Under peak ground acceleration (PGA), the spectral acceleration at 100 Hz is
understood throughout this study.
PGA of older strong motion data is
representative only for an upper bound of 33 Hz due to the instrumental
limitations. New digital recorded data have a frequency range up to 100 Hz.
Most attenuation laws even when containing older data have spectral values up
to 100 Hz.
The selection of frequency for PGA (100 or 33 Hz) is in general not significant for
the dam design due to the relative lower eigen-frequency range of dams.
Furthermore, the resulting values of spectral acceleration are on the conservative
side by taking a value of 100 Hz instead of 33 Hz.

FHC Consulting Engineers

77

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The Nagdar Hydropower Project is located on the Neelum River tributary of the
Neelum River in Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJ&K). Figure - 4.6 shows the
geographical situation of Northern Pakistan. The red rectangle marks the
investigated area and pink circle project site. The dam site is taken as reference
point.

Figure - 4.6: Situation (red: investigated area, pink dot: Nagdar


Hydropower Project 34.390820 N / 73.54591400E)

FHC Consulting Engineers

78

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.8

DEAGGREGATION
The derived spectra from a PSHA are uniform hazard spectra and can be used
directly for design purposes with pseudo-dynamic methods, e.g., the model
response-spectrum methods or lateral force methods. These methods are
suitable in cases where only minor damage is allowed and the structures behave
approximately linear elastically.
In cases where heavy damage is expected or the material properties are
influenced by the earthquake actions (e.g. significant pore-water pressure
increase in soil materials or low - cycle fatigue in structural concrete or steel
elements), non-linear methods in the time domain are needed. In this case,
earthquake acceleration time history (PGA, duration of strong shaking, etc.)
representing the most dominant earthquake for the specific hazard has to be
detined.
The PSHA described so far allows the computation of the mean annual rate of
exceedance at a particular site based on an aggregated risk from potential
earthquakes of many different magnitudes at many different source-to-site
distances. The rate of exceedance is therefore not associated with any particular
earthquake magnitude or source-to-site distance. By means of deaggregation, a
probability density function can be calculated depending on earthquake
magnitude and source-to-site distance that allows identifying a prevalent
earthquake event for the examined site.

4.9

SEISMICITY OF PROJECT AREA


All evaluations are based on the historical and instrumentally recorded seismicity
in the region. To assess the seismicity of the region, the following one
earthquake catalogues has been evaluated:

NCEDC Catalogue (Northern California Earthquake Data Centre, Online


Bulletin,

www.ncedc.org/cgi-bin/catalog-search2pl, Northern California Earthquake Data


Centre 215 McCone Hall UC Berkeley).

4.10

CATALOGUES

4.10.1

Number of Events
The time span that is reliably covered by the above mentioned catalogues is
1964 - 2008, which represents the time span of recorded events. The
parameters of historic events are at least debatable, if not totally uncertain, for the
list of earthquake events.

FHC Consulting Engineers

79

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.10.2

Working Procedure
To get a representative working catalogue, the following steps were carried out:
1. Search in the above catalogues for events between longitudes 71.0E to
75.0E and latitude 33.0 N to 37.0N. For the Nagdar power house
project, the dam with coordinates 34.390812N / 73.545914E is taken as
reference site.
Result: 3266 events
2. Homogenisation of magnitudes in the catalogue to Moment Magnitude
MW. The following correlations are used for conversion of Body Wave
Magnitude Mb, Surface Magnitude MS, and Seismic Moment M0 to Moment
Magnitude MW:
Ms = (1.46) Mb - 2.52
Log (M0) = 19.24 + Ms

for Ms5.3

Log (M0) = 30.20 (92.45 11.40 Ms) 1/2


Log (M0) = 16.14 + 1.5Ms

for 5.3 Ms 6.8

for Ms6.8

MW = 2/3 * Log (M0) 10.7


The above equations are implicit formulations for the calculation of Mw. First, the
magnitudes have to be converted to Surface Ms. Then the Seismic Moment M0
can be calculated. Finally from the Seismic Moment M0, the Moment Magnitude
Mw can be derived.

4.10.3

Results
The result of the above procedure is the working catalogue and depicted in
Figure - 4.7, consisting of 3266 events. In case of missing data (magnitude Mw
and / or depth d), the data has been completed with standard values of Mw = 2.8
and d = 8km, in order not to miss potential earthquake patterns. These values
have no influence on the hazard results, since the magnitude integration is
started at magnitude 4.0.
The earthquake of October 08, 2005 Muzaffarabad is included in the data base.

4.11

OVERVIEW AND INTERPRETATION OF CATALOGUE DATA

4.11.1

Catalogue
The Figure - 4.7shows the spatial distribution of the epicenters of alt earthquakes
present in the final working catalogue database in the time span from 25 A.D.
until December 2008. This catalogue is called the "Working catalogue".

FHC Consulting Engineers

80

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

37

36.5

36

35.5

35

34.5

3.2693333333333 to 4.1453333333333
4.1453333333333 to 4.5346666666667
4.5346666666667 to 4.8
4.8 to 5.1
5.1 to 7.601

34

33.5

71

71.5

72

72.5

73

73.5

74

74.5

Figure - 4.7: Working Catalogue of investigated area, time span: from


25 A.D. until December 2008; White Circle - site location
(N: 34.390812 / E: 73.544914); for data source

4.11.2

Seismogenic Depth
In Figure - 4.8 the hypocenter depth distribution of the earthquakes in the
working catalogue is depicted dependent on the latitude. Two discrete lines are
visible at a depth of 10 and 33 km, which used to be standard values for
earthquakes with shallow or unknown hypocenter depths.
Figure - 4.8 shows, that the majority of earthquakes in the northern part of the
investigated area are deep earthquakes in the range up to 300 km hypocenter
depth corresponding to the Eastern Hindukush Region. This is also visible in
Figure - 4.7 showing blue dots in the North-West of the investigated area. The
other area has fairly shallow earthquakes with hypocenter depth up to 60 km.
This particular depth distribution is considered in the assumption of the
seismogenic depth of the different seismic source zones.
A Benioff Zone could not be identified analysing the spatial earthquake
distribution over depth of the Indus Suture Zone. There is no clear picture of the
fault trace. The potential dimensions of this zone are taken into account by
assigning areas sources in the seismic source zone model comprising the extent
of earthquake activities of the Indus Suture Zone.

FHC Consulting Engineers

81

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.8: Hypocenter Depths in the Working Catalogue


(Cross-Section from South to North)

4.12

SEISMOTECTONIC SETTING
This section is based on documents by Greco (1989), Burg et al. (2005),
Llana-Funez (2006) and Zeilinger (2000). An extensive geological assessment of
the project is performed in PSHC (2008a). In the subsequent paragraphs, only
the geological key features of the project region are stated.)

4.12.1

Tectonic Subdivisions of the Northwestern Himalayas

4.12.1.1 General
The Western Himalayan Syntaxes area is tectonically characterised by four major
tectonic regions (Figure - 4.9):

The Sub-Himalaya

The Lesser Himalaya

The Higher Himalaya

The Kohistan Sequence.

In detail, the rock distribution in the Kaghan Valley and in Azad Kashmir indicates
that each tectonic region is composed of one or more tectonic subunits each
having a particular stratigraphic sequence and a local name. The lateral
continuity of such subunits, which could extend for several hundred of kilometers,
is one of the most impressive features of the Himalayan Range.

FHC Consulting Engineers

82

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.12.1.2 General features of the Himalayan Tectonic Regions


The Higher Himalaya represents the part of the Indian crust which is covered by
sedimentary rocks of the Tethys or Tibetan realm, whereas the Lesser Himalaya
comprises continental-influenced sequences deposited on the northern margin of
the Indian Shield. After the deposition of Late Paleozoic to Middle Paleozoic
detrital sequences, which cover the Cambrian granites and Precambrian
gneisses of the basement, the paleogeographic differentiation of the northern
Indian plate began. The sedimentation in the future Lesser Himalaya continued
to be dominated by continental detritus whereas the Tethys facies developed
fossil-rich, predominantly carbonatic sequences. The Sub-Himalaya consists of
the Northern part of the Indian Shield, which has been covered by Tertiary
molasses derived from the northern eroded arising mountain chain. The
Sub-Himalaya was first overthrust by the Himalayan nappes and then was itself
transported over the actual foreland basin which is formed by the Holocene
sediments of the Gangetic and Indus plains.

Figure - 4.9: Tectonic map of North-Western Himalaya (Greco 1989)

FHC Consulting Engineers

83

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.13

PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS (PSHA)

4.13.1

Seismic Source Models

4.13.1.1 Procedure
Two seismic source zone models are introduced for the PSHA calculation:

Model 1: refined seismic source zone model based on the earthquake


distribution of the whole seismic catalogue and the geologic tectonic
pattern

Model 2: Seismic source zone model for Asia implemented in


EZ-FRISK V. 7.36 (EZ-FRISK 2009), which is a development of RISK
ENGINEERING based on the GSHAP study (Giardini et al. 1999)

For each model, the hazard is calculated individually using the program
EZ-FRISK V. 7.36 (EZ-FRISK 2009). The hazard spectra are combined in a logic
tree algorithm with weighing factors to evaluate the final response spectrum at
the site.

4.13.1.2 Source Zone Parameters


The source parameters are determined for each source zone, based on the data
from the earthquake working catalogue.

Parameters a and b according to the relationship after Gutenberg $


Richter (1941)
Log N (m) = a bm

Where N = cumulative number of earthquakes and M = Magnitude (moment


magnitude = Mw). The recorded earthquake events of the period 1964 to 2008
are used for the calculation of the statistical parameters a and b. Earthquake
event below magnitude 4.5 are not considered in the analysis.

Upper bound magnitude in the source zone Mmax: The upper bound
magnitude for each zone was taken as the maximum historical
magnitude in the catalogue covering the period from 25 A.D. to 2008 for
the corresponding zone plus 0.7 Mw.

FHC Consulting Engineers

84

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.13.1.3 Seismic Source Zones of Model 1


The source zones in the Model 1 have been derived with a more refined
zonation. The seismic model comprises of eight (8) seismic source zones.
The Figure - 4.10 shows these zones, including the seismicity based on the
working catalogue.
The zones can be approximately correlated with the following geological and
tectonic features:

Zone 1: Eastern Hindukush

Zone 2: Karakorma

Zone 3: Western Kohistan

Zone 4: Central Kohistan

Zone 5: Western Kohistan Nanga Parbat, Haramaosh, Ladakh

Zone 6: Panjal and Main Boundary Thrust connected to Indus Suture


Zone

Zone 7: Western Himalaya

Zone 8: Indian Plate

The seismic source zone Model - 1 takes primarily the seismo-tectonic setting
into accounts and is compatible with the observed Measured and historic
seismicity. More sophisticated and more detailed models are possible, but would
not significantly improve the results of the hazard calculation.
The Figure - 4.11 shows the source map with the crosshairs marking the project
site.

FHC Consulting Engineers

85

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.10: Seismic Source Zones of Model 1 (Approx. 400x400 km


Corresponding to Investigated Area); White Circle: Nagdar Project Site
(34.390812 N / 73.545914 E)

FHC Consulting Engineers

86

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.11: Seismic Source Zones of Model - 1, Project Site


(34.390812 N / 73.545914 E)

4.13.1.4 Source Zone Parameters of Model 1


The relevant source zone characteristics of Model 1 are given in Table - 5.1. The
corresponding maximum likelihood or least square regressions are shown in
Figure - 4.12 to Figure - 4.14 present a graphical overview of the source
parameters.

Figure - 4.12: Regression for the source zone characteristic of


Zone 1 of Model - 1

FHC Consulting Engineers

87

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 4.2: Source Zone Characteristics of Model - 1

Source
Zone

a
(log
at
M=4)

3.53

Activity #
/ year (at
Mmin=4)

Beta
ln(10)*b

Period of
completeness

Mw,max
(in
period)

Mmax

Mean
Depth
(km)

Selected
depth
range(km)

0.43

44.386

0.99

1964-2008

7.7

135.80

4.4-383

1.46

0.61

4.159

1.405

1964-2008

6.7

7.4

61.69

10-254.3

2.99

0.37

17.682

0.852

1964-2008

6.5

7.2

59.42

3.7-289.4

1.84

0.16

2.5

0.368

1964-2008

6.7

7.4

43.12

10-150

1.92

0.26

3.045

0.599

1964-2008

6.3

37.52

10-201.2

2.99

0.40

14.386

0.921

1964-2008

7.6

8.3

15.64

3.7-200

1.83

0.21

5.568

0.484

1964-2008

6.4

7.1

18.65

4-106

0.33

0.02

1.205

0.0460

1964-2008

5.5

6.2

36.76

4-126.7

Figure - 4.13: Regression for the Source Zone Characteristic of


Zone 2 of Model - 1

FHC Consulting Engineers

88

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.14: Overview of activity of seismic source zones of Model 1

4.13.1.5 Seismic Source Zones of Model 2


The seismic source zone Model 2 is provided by the programme data base of
EZ-FRISK V 7.36 (EZ-FRISK 2009), which is a development of RISK
ENGINEERING based on the GSHAP study (Giardini et al. 1999).

Figure - 4.15: Seismic Source Zones of Model 2, Project Site


(34.390812 N / 73.545914 E)

FHC Consulting Engineers

89

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The Figure - 4.15 shows the source map with the crosshairs marking the project
site. The source parameters are given in Table - 4.3.
The seismicity within each zone is equally distributed over the area and over the
defined depth range. Within the hazard integration procedure, the seismicity is
generated from rupture sources of finite length oriented towards the site. The
rupture length is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake and is defined
after Wells & Coppersmith (1994). The modeling of rupture sources is a
conservative assumption, which leads to a reduction of earthquake distance
particularly for large earthquakes.
The project site is located in two zones. Zone 8CH 521 is a big zone containing
the whole region of northern Pakistan representing the background seismicity,
showing a high activity value after Gutenberg & Richter (1941) with earthquakes
of maximum Magnitude 7.0.
Around the project site, there is a small zone defined 8CH 284, with a lower avalue and a maximum magnitude of 7.5. The coarse zonation reflects only to a
limited extend the geology and the seismotectonic settings of the region. A
graphical overview of the source parameters is given in Figure - 4.16.

Figure - 4.16: Overview of activity of seismic source zones of Model 2

FHC Consulting Engineers

90

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 4.3: Source Zone Parameter of Model - 2

4.14

Source
Zone

Activity /
year (at
Mmin)

Beta

Mmin

Mmax

Depth
(km)

Al

Bl

8.CH.283

0.136857

2.5409

5.5

10

-2.44

0.59

8.CH.284

0.125571

2.5409

5.5

10

-2.44

0.59

8.CH.285

0.157571

2.5409

5.5

10

-2.44

0.59

8.CH.286

0.084143

2.5409

5.5

6.5

10

-4

8.CH.287

0.065

2.5409

5.5

6.5

10

-4

8.CH.288

0.233571

2.5409

5.5

7.5

10

-2.44

0.59

8.CH.521

175.143

2.5409

10

-2.44

0.59

INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
The analyses were performed with the Computer Program EZ-FRISK Version
7.36 from Risk Engineering (EZ-FRISK 2009).
The results for the total hazard are shown for peak ground acceleration (100 Hz)
and for spectral acceleration values and individual hazard for each zone for peak
ground acceleration (100 Hz).
Based on the assumptions for the seismotectonic models, the following results
are obtained:

Seismic source zone Model 1

Seismic source zone Model 2

The results of deaggregation for Model-1 at various amplitudes representing an


annual probability 1 / 10,000, 1 / 2500, 1 / 475 and 1 / 145 are given in
Figure - 4.18.
The results of the DSHA computations for seismic zone Model - 1 are shown
subsequently in Figure 4.24 to Figure 4.25.

FHC Consulting Engineers

91

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.14.1

Results of Model - 1

4.14.1.1 Total Hazard


The total hazard is illustrated in the Figure - 4.17 as given below.

Figure - 4.17: PSHA for PGA (at Period of 0.03 s); 5% damping, Model

4.14.1.2 Deaggregation of Hazard


Figure - 4.18 presents the results of magnitude-distance Deaggregation for an
annual probability of exceedance of approximately 1 / 10,000, 1 / 145, 1 / 145
and 1 / 2500.
The magnitude is truncated at M = 5.
Figure - 4.18 shows that the site hazard is dominated by near-site earthquakes
up to about 101.25 km at maximum distance.

FHC Consulting Engineers

92

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.18: Deaggredation at the amplitude 1.13 representing an annual


probability of exceedance of approximately 1 / 10,000; Frequency = 100 Hz
(at PGA), Model - 1
According to the graphs in the Figure - 4.18, the major hazard contribution
generates amplitude of 1.13 g stems from earthquakes at a mean distance of
about 87.20 km having magnitudes Mw around 7.7. For a medium amplitude of
0.5724 g, the major hazard contribution stems from earthquakes at a mean
distance of about 79.30 km having magnitudes Mw around 7.53.
The values are only slightly different for lower amplitudes. There is a tendency of
decreasing Magnitude and decreasing distance for lower amplitudes.

FHC Consulting Engineers

93

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.14.1.3 Uniform Hazard Spectra


From the total hazard curves given in this chapter, corresponding spectra of
uniform hazard can be derived. Figure - 4.19 to Figure - 4.22 show exemplarily
the uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of exceedance of 1 / 10,000,
1 / 475, 1 / 145 and 1 / 2500 for Model 1.

Figure - 4.19: Uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of


exceedance of 1 / 10,000; 5% damping, Model 1

Figure - 4.20: Uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of


exceedance of 1 / 2500; 5% damping, Model 1

FHC Consulting Engineers

94

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.21: Uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of


exceedance of 1 / 475; 5% damping, Model - 1

Figure - 4.22: Uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of


exceedance of 1 / 145; 5% damping, Model - 1

FHC Consulting Engineers

95

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.14.1.4 Source Contribution to Probabilistic Hazard

Figure - 4.23: Hazards by Seismic Source for PGA, Model 1


Figure 4.23 shows the contribution of the single seismic source zones to the
total hazards at PGA. The hazard of the site is dominated by source zone 6
representing the Panjal and Main Boundary Thrust.

4.14.1.5 Deterministic Spectra


From the total hazard curves in PSHA given further, corresponding deterministic
spectra can be derived. Figure - 4.24 to Figure - 4.25 show exemplarily the
deterministic hazard spectra for fractile 0.84 and 0.5.

Figure - 4.24: DSHA for Fractile = 0.5; 5% damping, Model - 1

FHC Consulting Engineers

96

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.25: DSHA for Fractile = 0.84; 5% damping, Model - 1

4.14.2

Results of Model - 2

4.14.2.1 Deaggregation of Hazard


Figure 4.26 presents the results of magnitude-distance Deaggregation for an
annual probability of exceedance of approximately 1 / 10,000, 1 / 145, 1 / 145
and 1 / 2500.
The magnitude is truncated at M = 5.

FHC Consulting Engineers

97

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.26: Deaggredation at the amplitude 0.692 representing an annual


probability of exceedance of approximately 1 / 10,000; Frequency = 100 Hz
(at PGA), Model 2
Figure - 4.26 shows that the site hazard is dominated by near-site earthquakes
up to about 101.25 km at maximum distance. According to the graphs in the
above figure, the major hazard contribution generates amplitude of 0.692 g stems
from earthquakes at a mean distance of about 12.82 km having magnitudes Mw
around 5.65.

FHC Consulting Engineers

98

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

For a medium amplitude of 0.3061 g, the major hazard contribution stems from
earthquakes at a mean distance of about 15.43 km having magnitudes Mw
around 5.39. The values are only slightly different for lower amplitudes. There is
a tendency of decreasing Magnitude and decreasing distance for lower
amplitudes.

4.14.2.2 Uniform Hazard Spectra


From the total hazard curves given in this chapter, corresponding spectra of
uniform hazard can be derived. Figure - 4.27 to Figure - 4.30 show exemplarily
the uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of exceedance of 1 / 10,000,
1 / 475, 1 / 145 and 1 / 2500 for Model - 2.

Figure - 4.27: Uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of


exceedance of 1 / 10,000; 5% damping, Model - 2

FHC Consulting Engineers

99

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of exceedance of 1 / 475; 5%


Figure - 4.28: Uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of
exceedance of 1 / 475; 5% damping, Model - 2

Figure - 4.29: Uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of


exceedance of 1 / 2500; 5% damping, Model - 2

FHC Consulting Engineers

100

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.30: Uniform hazard spectra for an annual probability of exceedance


of 1 / 145; 5% damping, Model - 2

4.14.2.3 Source Contribution to Probabilistic Hazard

Figure - 4.31: Hazards by Seismic Source for PGA, Model - 2


Figure - 4.31 shows the contribution of the single seismic source zones to the
total hazards at PGA. The hazard of the site is dominated by source zone 6
representing the Panjal and Main Boundary Thrust. The proposed project site is
located in this zone.

FHC Consulting Engineers

101

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.15

FINAL EVALUATION OF MCE, DBE AND OBE, ENGINEERING


PARAMETERS

4.15.1

Annual Probability of Exceedance for MCE, DBE and OBE


The level for MCE and OBE for the dam site cannot be determined by scientific
criteria only, but rather by socio-political decisions. The higher the selected levels
the lower will be the accepted residual risk.
The recommended annual probability of exceedance for MCE is 1 / 10,000. This
value is compatible with the recommendations of ICOLD and is commonly used
in dam engineering practice. Lower values are only recommended if a risk
assessment for the downstream area shows only marginal risks in case of a dam
failure.
For DBE and OBE, considerably lower values for the annual probability of
exceedance are recommended in the ICOLD Bulletin 72 (ICOLD 1989), above
1 / 145 years.
The selection of an annual probability of exceedance for the OBE level depends
on the residual risk that the client is willing to take. The DBE and OBE level is not
safety-related as it is in the MCE case, but determines the functionality of the
structure after an earthquake event. So the selection of the OBE level is a
management decision which can be taken by the utility.

DBE level corresponding to an annual probability of exceedance of


1 / 475, thus corresponding to the earthquake action on structures of in
modern building codes.

OBE level corresponding to an annual probability of exceedance of


1 / 145, thus accepting a higher residual risk compared to the DBE
level.

The Consultants recommend taking the DBE level as the relevant level. It has to
be pointed out that the earthquake actions on structures in modern building
codes are based on an annual probability of 1 / 475. At this level, substantial
damage is allowed for structures of low importance (e.g. importance class III and
IV in Eurocode 8, Part 1. In contrast, important or hazardous structures have to
remain functional, that means only minor damage is allowed.

FHC Consulting Engineers

102

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.15.2

Design Response Spectra Derived from Attenuation Laws for


Different Return Periods
Given the annual probabilities of exceedance for MCE (1/10,000) and DBE / OBE
(1 / 475 or 1 / 145), the relevant spectral accelerations obtained from this study
are the weighted values corresponding to Figure - 4.32 (for MCE) and
Figure - 4.33 and Figure - 4.34 (for DBE and OBE).

4.15.3

Acceleration Response Spectra for Vertical Earthquake Component


Vertical spectral values are selected as 2/3 of the horizontal values, as is
common international practice if not determined otherwise.

4.15.4

Final Acceleration Response Spectra for Horizontal and Vertical


Earthquake Components
The final spectra for MCE, DBE and OBE are given in Figure - 4.32 to
Figure - 4.34, as well as in Table - 4.4.

Figure - 4.32: Acceleration response spectra for horizontal and vertical


components of MCE, probability of exceedance 1 / 10,000 years
(5% damping)

FHC Consulting Engineers

103

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.33: Acceleration response spectra for horizontal and vertical


components of DBE, probability of exceedance 1 / 475 years (5% damping)

Figure - 4.34: Acceleration response spectra for horizontal and vertical


components of OBE, probability of exceedance 1 / 145 years (5% damping)

FHC Consulting Engineers

104

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 4.4: Acceleration response spectra for MCE, DBE and OBE
MCE Spectrum
(Annual Probability of
Exceedence
1 /10,000)
Period (s)

Horizontal
(g)

Vertical
(g)

DBE Spectrum
(Annual Probability of
Exceedence 1 / 475)
Horizontal
(g)

Vertical
(g)

OBE Spectrum
(Annual Probability of
Exceedence 1 / 145)
Horizontal
(g)

Vertical
(g)

0.03 (PGA)

0.6842

0.456133

0.3483

0.2322

0.2547

0.1698

5.00E-02

1.014

0.676

0.5003

0.333533

0.3593

0.239533

0.1

1.68

1.12

0.8151

0.5434

0.5782

0.385467

0.2

1.994

1.329333

0.9535

0.635667

0.6799

0.453267

0.3

1.51

1.006667

0.7543

0.502867

0.5478

0.3652

0.4

1.268

0.845333

0.636

0.424

0.4645

0.309667

0.5

1.144

0.762667

0.5735

0.382333

0.4199

0.279933

0.75

0.9122

0.608133

0.4549

0.303267

0.3305

0.220333

0.7759

0.517267

0.3821

0.254733

0.2746

0.183067

0.4619

0.307933

0.2193

0.1462

0.1523

0.101533

0.3052

0.203467

0.1414

0.094267

0.1013

0.067533

0.2337

0.1558

0.1096

0.073067

0.07715

0.051433

The resulting weighted values for horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) at
the Nagdar Valley site are 0.6842, 0.3483, and 0.2547 respectively, as is also
shown in Table 7.1 for a period of 0.03 s.

4.15.5

Acceleration Response Spectra for Return Period of 5000, 2000, 2500


and 1000 Years
Additionally, design spectra are given for different return periods in Figure - 4.35
to Figure - 4.38 and in Table - 4.5.

FHC Consulting Engineers

105

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.35: Acceleration response spectra for horizontal and vertical


components, probability of exceedance 1 / 5000 years (5% damping)

Figure - 4.36: Acceleration response spectra for horizontal and vertical


components, probability of exceedance 1 / 2000 years (5% damping)

FHC Consulting Engineers

106

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 4.7: Acceleration response spectra for horizontal and vertical


components, probability of exceedance 1 / 2500 years (5% damping)

Figure - 4.38: Acceleration response spectra for horizontal and vertical


components, probability of exceedance 1 / 1000 years (5% damping)

FHC Consulting Engineers

107

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 4.5: Acceleration Response Spectra for 5000, 2000, 2500 and 1000
Return Pediods

Period
(s)

Annual Probability
of Exceedence
1 /5000)

Annual Probability
of Exceedence
1 / 2000)

Horizontal
(g)

Horizontal
(g)

0.03
0.592900
(PGA)
5.00E0.873300
02
1.437000
0.1

Vertical
(g)

Vertical
(g)

Annual Probability
of Exceedence
1 / 2500)
Vertical
(g)

Annual Probability
of Exceedence
1 / 1000)

Horizontal Horizontal
(g)
(g)

Vertical
(g)

0.395267 0.489600

0.3264

0.513700 0.342467

0.417700

0.278467

0.5822

0.713600

0.475733 0.749500 0.499667

0.602000

0.401333

0.958

1.168000

0.778667 1.228000 0.818667

0.998600

0.665733

1.356000

0.904

0.998600

0.665733

0.2

1.689000

1.126

0.3

1.301000

0.867333 1.069000

0.712667 1.122000 0.748

0.909100

0.606067

0.4

1.102000

0.734667 0.901600

0.601067 0.950400 0.6336

0.765200

0.510133

0.5

0.998700

0.6658

0.810600

0.5404

0.852900 0.5686

0.691400

0.460933

0.75

0.787200

0.5248

0.642600

0.4284

0.677200 0.451467

0.546100

0.364067

0.669600

0.4464

0.543500

0.362333 0.571800 0.3812

0.461200

0.307467

0.396200

0.264133 0.318800

0.212533 0.336100 0.224067

0.267200

0.178133

0.259900

0.173267 0.209700

0.1398

0.221000 0.147333

0.174200

0.116133

0.200900

0.133933 0.158700

0.1058

0.168100 0.112067

0.132800

0.088533

4.16

1.430000 0.953333

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
Construction material required for various structures of the proposed Nagdar
Hydropower Project is available in ample quantity. A detailed investigation
programme has been proposed to determine the engineering characteristics of
the aggregate to be used as concrete.
The locations of borrow area / quarry sites have been shown on geological maps
through Dwg. No. 4-1

4.16.1

Coarse Aggregate

Boulders and cobbles are available in huge quantity at both the


upstream and down stream sides of the Nagdar nullah Weir site. The
coarse aggregate is also found at the terraces. The nullah bed mainly
comprises of sub-rounded to rounded boulders and gravel with sand
and minor amount of fines (ABGM). These boulders and gravel include
granitic gneiss, marble, phyllites, schists and granite. Phyllites and
schists cannot be used as aggregates so these might be separated
before crushing to the desired grading.

FHC Consulting Engineers

108

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.16.2

Maximum size of boulder is up to 7 x 6 x 5 m. These are generally very


hard and may be crushed to the desired size for their use as coarse
aggregate for concrete.

Fine Aggregate (Sand)


Sand may be separated from RBGM and ABGM type of material available at the
proposed weir site and the powerhouse areas. All the necessary tests shall be
carried out on sand and other aggregates to ensure the durability of concrete.

4.16.3

Building Stone
Granitic gneiss rock is available for masonry works within the project area in
sufficient quantity.

4.16.4

Fill Material
For protection measures along slopes and structures, fill material of almost every
size is available from nullah bed and from the adjacent terraces within a close
vicinity of the project.
Boulders or angular stones can be picked up from nullah bed or from hill side
slopes and may be used as per specifications.

4.16.5

Cement and Steel


Cement and steel may not be available in sufficient quantity in Muzaffarabad as
required for the construction of Nagdar Hydropower Project. Therefore, these
items will have to be procured from either Rawalpindi area or Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province. It is proposed that laboratory testing on representative
sample be carried out to determine physical and mechanical characteristic of the
available material.

4.17

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION EVALUATION


On the basis of surface geological mapping, field observation of the foundation
and evaluation of various structures proposed for Nagdar Hydropower Project is
described and discussed below in the following paragraphs.

4.17.1

Weir Site
The rocks exposed at both the abutments of the proposed weir site are
metamorphic in origin, comprise mainly of the garnet mica schists and
occasionally phyllites. These schists are medium grained, foliated highly
compressed and sheared at many locations. Black schists are exposed at the
right bank of Nagdar nullah.
The geological map of weir site is shown in Dwg. No. 4-1.

FHC Consulting Engineers

109

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Nullah bed mainly comprises of sub-rounded to rounded boulders and gravel with
sand and minor amount of fines. These boulders and gravel include granitic
gneiss, marble, phyllites, schists and granite (found as intrusive rock). The
geological cross-section along the proposed weir site is shown in Dwg. No. 4-4.
General foliation trend and sets of joints measured during the surface geological
mapping at weir site are given below:
Station 1:

Station 2:

Station 3:

Station 4:

N 60 E / 52 SE

General foliation trend and dip

N 30 E / 54 SE

Major joint set

N 35 E / 60 SE

Major joint set

N 60 E / 54 SE

General foliation trend and dip

N 25 E / 60 SE

Major joint set

N 25 W / 70 NE

Major joint set

N 57 E / 69 SE

General foliation trend and dip

N 65 E / 56 SE

Major joint set

N 68 E / 41 SE

Minor joint set

N 50 E / 43 SE

General foliation trend

N 45 E / 45 SE

Major joint set

N 52 E / 67 SE

Minor joint set

Geotechnical and Soil investigations at the weir site include drilling of two (02)
boreholes at the right abutment and at left abutment respectively. The main
objectives of executing drilling are to examine the type and nature of rock, to
perform in-situ permeability test (by using Packer) and to perform various
laboratory tests to determine strength parameters for design purposes.
A good quality of construction material is available upstream and downstream
area of the proposed weir site. The material includes large sized boulders, gravel
and sand. Maximum size of boulder being 7 x 5 x 4 m, it is considered that most
of these boulders are of sound rock. These include the granitic gneiss and
granites.
Aggregate for concrete is available in abundant quantity for
construction of a weir. Selected boulders and gravel may be crushed to obtain
the required grading as per ASTM standards and specifications.
One test pit has been proposed in the borrow area for aggregate. Samples of
aggregates shall be collected for testing in the laboratory to determine their
engineering characteristics and proper evaluation in accordance with ASTM
specifications.
FHC Consulting Engineers

110

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.17.2

Connecting Channel
The connecting channel shall be excavated through schists and is located at the
right bank of Nagdar nullah. Surface geological mapping of surge area has been
carried out on scale 1:1,000.

4.17.3

Sandtrap
The sandtrap shall be excavated through schists and is located at the right bank
of Nagdar nullah. Surface geological mapping of surge area has been carried out
on scale 1:1,000. One borehole has been proposed at the downstream end of
sandtrap.

4.17.4

Headrace Tunnel
Headrace tunnel having a length of about 3.84 km shall be excavated through
metamorphic rocks including mainly of schists, phyllites, granitic gneiss with
igneous intrusions at some locations.
Tunnel inlet portal is to be constructed in schists and phyllites; whereas, at outlet
portal the rock conditions are expected to be much better as granitic gneiss is
exposed at the surface which contains less mica, more quartz, and higher
strength.
The overall geological conditions appear to be good to very good for excavation;
however, at places shear zones, fractures and local brittle faults may create
problem during tunneling. Temporary and / or permanent supports shall have to
be designed at critical locations as mentioned above.
Similarly high ingress of water may be prevented by sealing fault zones, shears
zones, joints and other structural defects if encountered in rocks. Rock bolting,
rock pinning, grouting, guniting and shotcreting would be imperative in such
cases.

4.17.5

Surge Tank
Surge tank shall be driven in rocks comprising of granitic schists / gneiss with
some igneous intrusions like granite, diorites and granodiorites. Surface
geological mapping of surge area has been carried out on scale 1:1,000.
One drill borehole has been proposed at the surge to examine the type and
nature of rock. Hand specimens of rock were collected and provided to the Client
for their petrographic analysis. The gneiss in general contains less mica, more
quartz and higher strength.

FHC Consulting Engineers

111

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.17.6

Powerhouse Cavern Structure


A cavern powerhouse shall be excavated through granitic gneiss rock. One
borehole has been proposed at the powerhouse site. Surface geological
mapping of powerhouse area has been carried out on scale 1:1,000 by using
plane table, total station, GPS and Brunton compass.
The geological map of powerhouse is shown in Dwg. No. 4-2 and Dwg. No. 4-3.
The general trend and dip of the foliation planes have been noted at many
locations. Some prominent readings of these along with joint sets exposed in the
powerhouse area are given below:
Station No.
NP-1

NP-2

NP-3

NP-4

NP-5

FHC Consulting Engineers

Strike / Dip Value


Joint Sets

Description

N43 W / 32 NE

Granitic gneiss

N 30 E / 40 SE

Major joint set

EW / 75 S

Minor joint set

N 57 W / 60 NE

General trend and dip of foliation


plane

N 85 E / 38 NW

Major joint

N 32 E / 42 SE

Minor joint

N 30 W / 71 NE

Major joint having concentration of


mica

EW / 72 S

Major joint

N 70 E / 77 NW

Major joint

N 44 W / 35 NE

General trend and dip of foliation


plane

EW / 72 S

Major joint forming wedge failure

N 32 E / 42 SE

Minor joint

N 42 W / 31 NE

General trend and dip of foliation


plane

N 82 E / 40 NW

Major joint

N 35 E / 45 SE

Minor joint

112

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.17.7

Access Tunnel
In the Danjar nullah a good exposure of rock about 50 m thick at the left bank
near the foot bridge is available to drive an access tunnel for underground cavern
structure, surge shaft and headrace tunnel.
The rock conditions apparently are quite similar to powerhouse, surge tank and
allied structures. This access tunnel shall be excavated through granitic gneiss.
The surface geological mapping of access tunnel area has been carried out on
scale 1:1,000. One borehole has been proposed at the access tunnel to examine
the type and nature of rock.
Rock samples were collected for their petrographic analysis and to allocate
proper name and nomenclature of rock depending upon their mineral
constituents.
Joint sets as measured during the surface geological mapping at the access
tunnel area are given below:
Station No.

Strike / Dip Value

Description

AT-1

N 30 E / 70 NW

General trend of foliation plane with its dip

EW / 70 S

Major joint set with high angle dip

N 10 W / 80 NE

Major joint set with high angle dip

N 65 W / 32 NE

General trend of foliation plane with its dip

EW / 75 S

Major joint set, joint open up to 20 mm

N 15 W / 80 NE

Major joint set, joint open up to 20 mm

N 25 W / 80 NE

General trend of foliation with its dip

N 70 E / 77 NW

Major joint extends several meters

N 57 W / 60 NE

General trend of foliation with its dip

N 30 E / 40 SE

Minor joints, tight, rough surface

EW / 75 S

Major joint having plane surface

N 7 W / 62 NE

General trend of foliation with its dip

N 85 E / 38 NW

Minor joint, extend few meters, rough

N 32 E / 42 SE

Minor joints, having rough surface

AT-2

AT-3

AT-4

AT-5

FHC Consulting Engineers

113

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.17.8

Tailrace
The tailrace shall be partly founded in rock and partly in overburden. The rock
conditions are somewhat similar to the underground powerhouse cavern
structure. The overburden material is comprised of angular boulders and gravel
with sand and appreciable amount of fines (ABGM). At places rounded boulders
and gravel are expected.
The granitic gneiss is expected to be hard, compact, and massive at depth. The
geomechanical properties of rock mass are expected to be similar to rock through
which powerhouse cavern structure is to be founded. Tailrace Channel shall be
cut through a mixture zone (ABGM, RBGM and RBG). Surface geological
mapping of this area has been carried out on scale 1:1,000 differentiating
between ABGM and RBGM. One borehole has been proposed at the tailrace.

4.18

ROCK MASS ASSESMENT


At the feasibility stage of Nagdar Hydropower Project, when very little detailed
information is available on the rock mass and its stress and hydrologic
characteristics, the use of a rock mass classification scheme has been of
considerable importance.
At its simplest, this has involved using the classification scheme as a check list to
ensure that all the relevant information has been considered. At the other end,
various other rock mass classification schemes have been used to build up a
picture of the composition and characteristics of a rock mass to provide initial
estimates of support requirements, and to provide estimates of the strength and
deformation properties of the rock mass.
It is important to understand the limitations of rock mass classification schemes
and their use does not replace some of the more elaborate design procedures
however, this use of these design procedure requires access to relatively detailed
information on in-site stresses, rock mass properties and planned excavation
sequence., none of which is available at an early stage of this project. As this
information becomes available, the use of the rock mass classification schemes
would be updated in conjunction with site specific analyses based on the field
information and surface geological mapping.
The following rock mass classification systems have been used for various
components:

Rock Structure Rating (RSR).

Geomechanic classification or Rock Mass Rating (RMR).

Rock Tunneling Quality Index Q system.

FHC Consulting Engineers

114

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.18.1

Rock Structure Rating (RSR)


This system describes a quantitative method for describing the quality of a rock
mass and for selecting appropriate support. Most of the case histories, use in the
development of this system, sere for relatively small tunnels supported by means
of steel sets. In spite of this limitation, it is worth examining the RSR System in
some detail since it demonstrates the logic involved in developing a
quasi-quantitative rock mass classification system.
Basically this classification involves determination of three parameters as given
below.
Parameter A

Parameter B
Parameter C

FHC Consulting Engineers

General
appraisal
of
geological structure on the
basis of
a) Rock type origin
b) Rock hardness
c) Geologic structure
Geometer:
Effect of discontinuity
pattern with respect to the
direction of the tunnel drive
Effect of ground water
inflow and joint conditions

115

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Weir Site & Tunnel Inlet Portal


Rock Mass Classification
Table - 4.6: Rock Structure Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Basic Rock Type
Geological Structures

Hard

Medium

Soft

Decomposed

Igneous

Slightly

Moderately

Intensively

2
2

Metamorphic

Folded or

Folded or

Folded or

Sedimentary

Massive

Faulted

Faulted

Faulted

22

15

Type 2

30
27

20

13

Type 3

24

18

12

Type 4

19

15

10

Type 1

Both
Average Joint Spacing
1. Very closely jointed, < 2 in
2. Closely jointed, 2-6 in
3. Moderately jointed, 6-12 in
4. Moderate to blocky, 1-2 ft
5. Blocky to massive, 2-4 ft
6. Massive, > 4 ft

Flat
9
13
23
30
36
40

Strike 1 to Axis
Direction of Drive
With Dip
Against Dip
Dip of Prominent Joints a
Dipping Vertical
Dipping
Vertical
11
13
10
12
16
19
15
17
24
28
19
22
32
36
25
28
38
40
33
35
43
45
37
40

Strike II to Axis
Direction of Drive
Either Direction
Dip of Prominent Joints
Flat
Dipping
Vertical
9
9
7
14
14
11
23
23
19
30
28
24
24
36
28
40
38
34

Sum of Parameters A + B
13 - 44

45 - 75
Joint Condition b

Anticipated water inflow


pgm/1000 ft of tunnel
None

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

22

18

12

25

22

18

Slight, < 200 gpm

19

15

23

19

14

Moderate, 200-1000 gpm

15

22

21

16

12

18

14

10

Heavy, > 1000 gp


a.
b.

10
o;

Dip: flat: 0-20 ; dipping: 20-50 ; and vertical: 50-90


Joint condition: good=tight or cemented: fair=slightly weathered or altered: poor=severely weathered, altered or
open

A+B+C=27+24+19
RSR = 70

FHC Consulting Engineers

116

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Tunnel Outlet Portal & Powerhouse


Rock Mass Classification
Table - 4.7: Rock Structure Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)

Igneous
Metamorphic
Sedimentary
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4

Hard
1
1
2

Basic Rock Type


Medium
Soft Decomposed
2
3
4
2
3
4
3
4
4

Geological Structures
Slightly
Moderately
Folded or
Folded or
Faulted
Faulted
22
15
20
13
18
12
15
10

Massive
30
27
24
19

Both
Average Joint Spacing
1. Very closely jointed, < 2 in
2. Closely jointed, 2-6 in
3. Moderately jointed, 6-12 in
4. Moderate to blocky, 1-2 ft
5. Blocky to massive, 2-4 ft
6. Massive, > 4 ft

Flat
9
13
23
30
36
40

Strike 1 to Axis
Direction of Drive
With Dip
Against Dip
Dip of Prominent Joints a
Dipping Vertical
Dipping
Vertical
11
13
10
12
16
19
15
17
24
28
19
22
32
36
25
28
38
40
33
35
43
45
37
40

Intensively
Folded or
Faulted
9
8
7
6

Strike II to Axis
Direction of Drive
Either Direction
Dip of Prominent Joints
Flat
Dipping
Vertical
9
9
7
14
14
11
23
23
19
30
28
24
36
24
28
34
40
38

Sum of Parameters A + B
13 - 44

45 - 75
Joint Condition b

Anticipated water inflow


pgm/1000 ft of tunnel
None

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

22

18

12

25

22

18

Slight, < 200 gpm

19

15

23

19

14

Moderate, 200-1000 gpm

15

22

21

16

12

18

14

10

Heavy, > 1000 gp


c.
d.

10
o;

Dip: flat: 0-20 ; dipping: 20-50 ; and vertical: 50-90


Joint condition: good=tight or cemented: fair=slightly weathered or altered: poor=severely weathered, altered or
open

A+B+C=27+34+19
RSR=80

FHC Consulting Engineers

117

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

All the three Parameters have been used to evaluate the rating of each of these parameters
to arrive at the RSR values (maximum RSR = 100).
The results are given below:
Structure
1. Weir site and tunnel inlet portal
2. Tunnel outlet & powerhouse
area

RMR (A+B+C)
70 (27+24+19)
80 (27+34+19)

The predictive support would be 5 cm of shotcrete and 2.5 diameter rock-bolts


spread at 1.5 m centres.
The steel sets may be spaced at more than 2.0 m apart and would not be
considered a practical solution for the support of this tunnel.

4.18.2

Geomechanics Classification or Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System


This system has been successively refined as more case records have been
examined. Bieniawski (1989) has made significant changes in the rating assign to
different parameters.
The following six parameters have been used to classify the rock mass at the
tunnel inlet portal, tunnel outlet and powerhouse areas of the proposed Nagdar
Hydropower Project:

Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material

Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

Spacing of discontinuities

Condition of discontinuities

Groundwater conditions

Orientation of discontinuities.

FHC Consulting Engineers

118

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The detailed description and rating for each of the six parameters are provided
below. These ratings are summed to give a value of RMR. Subsequently, the
RMR values are determined for weir site, headrace tunnel portal (Rock Unit
Schist).
Sr.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Value
Point Load Index
Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
Spacing of Discontinuities
Condition of Discontinuities
Groundwater Conditions
Adjustment for Joint Orientation

8 Mpa
70
300mm
Damp

Rating
12
13
10
22
10
-5
Total=62

Based on these RMR = 62 value, it is suggested that a tunnel could be excavated


by top heading and bench, with a 1.5 to 3 m advance in the top heading. Support
should be installed after each blast and the support should be placed at a
maximum distance of 10 m from the face.
Systematic rock bolting, using 4 m long 20 mm diameter fully grouted bolts
spaced at 1.5 to 2 m in the crown and walls is recommended. Wire mesh with
50 to 100 mm of shotcrete for the crown and 30 mm of shotcrete for walls are
recommended.

FHC Consulting Engineers

119

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Weir Site & Tunnel Inlet portal


Rock Mass Classification
Table - 4.8: Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
A. CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS AND THEIR RATINGS
Parameters

Range of Values

Strength of
intact rock
material

Point load strength


index

> 10 MPa

4 - 10 MPa

2 - 4 MPa

1 - 2 MPa

Uniaxial comp.
strength

> 250 MPa

100 - 250 MPa

50 - 100 MPa

25 - 50 MPa

15

12

90% - 100%

75% - 70%

50% - 75%

25% - 50%

20

17

13

> 2m

0.6 - 2 m

200 - 600 mm

60 - 200 mm

< 60 mm

20

15

10

Rating
2
3

Drill Core Quality RQD


Rating
Spacing of discontinuities
Rating

Condition of discontinuities
(See E)

Groundwater

Slightly rough surfaces


Separation < 1mm
Slightly weathered walls

Slightly rough surfaces


Separation < 1mm
Highly weathered walls

Slickensided surfaces
or Gouge < 5mm thick
or Separation 1-5 mm
Continuous

5 - 25
MPa

1-5
MPa

Soft gouge >5mm thick


or Separation >5 mm
Continuous

25 - 22

20

10

Inflow per 10m


tunnel length (I/m)

None

< 10

10 - 25

25 - 125

> 125

(Joint water press)/


(Major principal )

<0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.5

> 0.5

Completely dry

Damp

Wet

Dripping

Flowing

15

10

General conditions
Rating

FHC Consulting Engineers

120

< 1 MPa

> 25%

30

Rating

Very rough surfaces


Not continuous
No separation
Unweathered wall rock

For this low range - uniaxial


compressive test is preferred

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

B. RATING ADJUSTMENT FOR DISCONTINUITY ORIENTATIONS (See F)


Strike and dip orientations

Very favourable

Favourable

Fair

Unfavourable

Very Unfavourable

Tunnels & mines

-2

-5

-10

-12

Foundations

-2

-7

-15

-25

Slopes

-5

-25

-50

100 81

80 61

00 41

40 21

II

III

IV

Very good rock

Good rock

Fair rock

Poor rock

Very poor rock

Ratings

C. ROCK MASS CLASSES DETERMINED FROM TOTAL RATINGS


Ratings
Class number
Description

< 21

D. MEANING OF ROCK CLASSES


Class number

II

III

IV

20 yrs for 15 m span

1 year for 10 m span

1 week for 5 m span

10 hrs for 2.5 m span

30 min for 1 m span

Cohesion of rock mass (kPa)

> 400

300 400

200 300

100 200

< 100

Friction angle of rock mass (deg)

> 45

35 45

25 35

15 25

< 15

13m
4

3 10 m
2

10 20 m
1

> 20 m
0

None
6

< 0.1 mm
5

0.1 1.0 mm
4

1 5 mm
1

> 5 mm
0

Very rough
6
None
6
Unweathered
6

Rough5
Hard filling < 5mm
4
Slightly weathered
5

Slightly rough
3
Hard filling > 5mm
2
Moderately weathered
3

Smooth
1
Soft filling < 5mm
2
Highly weathered
1

Slickensided
0
Soft filling > 5mm
0
Decomposed
0

Average stand-up time

E. GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF DISCONTINUITY CONDITIONS


Discontinuity length (persistence)
< 1m
Rating
6
Separation (aperture)
Rating
Roughness
Rating
Infilling (gouge)
Rating
Weathering
Rating

F. EFFECT OF DISCONTINUITY STRIKE AND DIP ORIENTATION IN TUNNELING**


Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis
Drive with dip - Dip 45 - 90

Drive with dip - Dip 20 - 45

Very favourable
Drive against dip - Dip 45 - 90

Strike parallel to tunnel axis


o

Dip 45 - 90

Favourable
o

Fair

Drive against dip - Dip 20 - 45

Dip 20 - 45

Very unfavourable
o

Fair
Dip 0 - 20 Irrespective of strike

Unfavourable

Fair

* Some conditions are mutually exclusive. For example, if in filling is present, the roughness of the surface will be overshadowed by the influence of the gouge. In such cases use A.4 directly.
** Modified after Wickham et al (1972).

FHC Consulting Engineers

121

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Tunnel Outlet Portal & Powerhouse


Rock Mass Classification
Table - 4.9: Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
A. CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS AND THEIR RATINGS
Parameters

Range of Values

Strength of
intact rock
material

Point load strength


index

> 10 MPa

4 - 10 MPa

2 - 4 MPa

1 - 2 MPa

Uniaxial comp.
strength

> 250 MPa

100 - 250 MPa

50 - 100 MPa

25 - 50 MPa

15

12

90% - 100%

75% - 90%

50% - 75%

25% - 50%

20

17

13

> 2m

0.6 - 2 m

200 - 600 mm

60 - 200 mm

< 60 mm

20

15

10

Rating
2
3

Drill Core Quality RQD


Rating
Spacing of discontinuities
Rating

Condition of discontinuities
(See E)

Groundwater

Slightly rough surfaces


Separation < 1mm
Slightly weathered walls

Slightly rough surfaces


Separation < 1 mm
Highly weathered walls

Slickensided surfaces
or Gouge < 5mm thick
or Separation 1-5 mm
Continuous

5 - 25
MPa

1-5
MPa

Soft gouge >5mm thick


or Separation >5 mm
Continuous

25

20

10

Inflow per 10m


tunnel length (I/m)

None

< 10

10 - 25

25 - 125

> 125

(Joint water press)/


(Major principal )

<0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.5

> 0.5

Completely dry

Damp

Wet

Dripping

Flowing

15

10

General conditions
Rating

FHC Consulting Engineers

122

< 1 MPa

> 25%

30

Rating

Very rough surfaces


Not continuous
No separation
Unweathered wall rock

For this low range - uniaxial


compressive test is preferred

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

B. RATING ADJUSTMENT FOR DISCONTINUITY ORIENTATIONS (See F)


Strike and dip orientations

Very favourable

Favourable

Fair

Unfavourable

Very Unfavourable

Tunnels & mines

-2

-5

-10

-12

Foundations

-2

-7

-15

-25

Slopes

-5

-25

-50

100 81

80 61

00 41

40 21

II

III

IV

Very good rock

Good rock

Fair rock

Poor rock

Very poor rock

Ratings

C. ROCK MASS CLASSES DETERMINED FROM TOTAL RATINGS


Ratings
Class number
Description

< 21

D. MEANING OF ROCK CLASSES


Class number

II

III

IV

20 yrs for 15 m span

1 year for 10 m span

1 week for 5 m span

10 hrs for 2.5 m span

30 min for 1 m span

Cohesion of rock mass (kPa)

> 400

300 - 400

200 - 300

100 - 200

< 100

Friction angle of rock mass (deg)

> 45

35 - 45

25 - 35

15 - 25

< 15

1-3m
4
< 0.1 mm
5

3 - 10 m
2
0.1 - 1.0 mm
4
Slightly rough
3
Hard filling > 5mm
2
Moderately weathered
3

10 - 20 m
1
1 - 5 mm
1
Smooth
1
Soft filling < 5mm
2
Highly weathered
1

> 20 m
0
> 5 mm
0
Slickensided
0
Soft filling > 5mm
0
Decomposed
0

Average stand-up time

E. GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF DISCONTINUITY CONDITIONS


Discontinuity length (persistence)
< 1m
Rating
6
Separation (aperture)
None
Rating
6
Roughness
Very rough
Rating
6
Infilling (gouge)
None
Rating
6
Weathering
Unweathered
Rating
6

Rough5
Hard filling < 5mm
4
Slightly weathered
5

F. EFFECT OF DISCONTINUITY STRIKE AND DIP ORIENTATION IN TUNNELING**


Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis
Drive with dip - Dip 45 - 90

Drive with dip - Dip 20 - 45

Very favourable
Drive against dip - Dip 45 - 90

Strike parallel to tunnel axis


o

Dip 45 - 90

Favourable
o

Fair

Drive against dip - Dip 20 - 45

Dip 20 - 45

Very unfavourable
o

Fair
Dip 0 - 20 Irrespective of strike

Unfavourable

Fair

* Some conditions are mutually exclusive. For example, if in filling is present, the roughness of the surface will be overshadowed by the influence of the gouge. In such cases use A.4 directly.
** Modified after Wickham et al (1972).

FHC Consulting Engineers

123

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The RMR value determined for the tunnel outlet portal and powerhouse (Rock
Unit Granitic Gneiss).
Sr.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Point Load Index


Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
Spacing of discontinuities
Condition of discontinuities
Groundwater conditions
Adjustment for joint Orientation

Value
10 Mpa
80
(0.6-2.0m)
Damp

Rating
15
17
15
25
10
-5

Rock mass class determined from the total rating (RMR = 77) ~ Class II (Good
Rock).
RMR value of 77 places Granitic Gneiss under the rock mass Class II described
as Good Rock
Based on the RMR value, Table - 4.10 suggests that a tunnel could be excavated
by full face method with a 1 - 1.5 m advance complete support 20 m from face
shall be required. Locally, bolts in crown 3 m long, spaced 2.5 m with occasional
weir mesh. 50 mm shotcrete shall be required in crown.
Table - 4.10: Guideline for Excavation in Support of 10m Span Rock
Tunnels in Accordance with the RMR System (After Bieniawski 1989)
Rock Mass
Class
I - very good
rock RMR
81-100
II - Good
rock RMR
61-80

III - Fair rock


RMR 21-40

IV - Poor
rock RMR
21-40

Excavation

Rock Bolts
(20mm diameter,
fully grouted)

Full face 3m
advance

Generally no support required except spot bolting

Full face
1-1.5m advance
complete support
20m from face

Locally bolts in
crown 3m long,
spaced 2.5m with
occasional wire
mesh

50mm in crown
where required

None

Systematic bolts
4m long spaced
1.5-2m in crown
& walls with weir
mesh in crown

50-100mm in
crown & 100m
in side

None

Systematic bolts
4-5m long,
spaced 1-1.5m in
crown & walls
with weir mesh

100-150mm in
crown & 100m
in side

Light to
medium ribs
spaced 1.5m
where required

Top heading and


bench 1.5-3m
advance in top
heading.
Commence support
after each blast
Complete support
10m from face
Top heading &
bench 1.0-1.5m
advance in top
heading
Install support

FHC Consulting Engineers

124

Shotcrete

Steel Sets

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

concurrently with
excavation, 10m
from face
Multiple drifts 0.51.5m advance in top
heading
Install support
concurrently with
excavation.
Shotcrete as soon as
possible after
blasting

V Very
poor rock
RMR <20

4.18.3

Systematic bolts
5-6m long,
spaced 1-1.5m in
crown & walls
with weir mesh.
Bolt invent

150-200mm in
crown, 150mm
in sides, &
50mm on face

Medium to
heavy ribs
spaced 0.75m
with steel
lagging &
forepoling if
required. Close
invert.

Rock Tunneling Quality Index, Q


On the basis of an evaluation of a large number of case histories of underground
excavations, Barton et al (1974) of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
proposed a Tunneling Quality Index (Q) for the determination of rock mass
characteristics and tunnel support requirements. The numerical value of the
index Q varies on a logarithmic scale from 0.001 and is defined by:
Q = RQD/Jn x Jr/Ja x Jw/SRF
Where

RQD
Jn
Jr
Ja
Jw
SRF

is the Rock Quality Designation


is the joint set number
is the joint roughness number
is the joint alteration number
is the joint water reduction factor
is the stress reduction factor

Table - 4.11 (After Barton et al 1974) gives the classification of individual


parameters used to obtain the tunneling Quality Index Q for a rock mass.
As no core is available for the time being Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values
are not possible by physical measurements, a formula developed by Palmstrom
(1982) has been applied to workout RQD values. On the basis of Discontinuity
traces visible in surface exposures.
According to this relationship RQD = 115 3.3 Jv. Where Jv is the sum of the
number of joints per unit length for all joints (Discontinuity) sets known as the
volumetric joint count.
RQD values rock units exposed at Nagdar Hydropower Project Site, tunnel inlet
portal and powerhouse areas have been work out separately.

FHC Consulting Engineers

125

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Weir Site & Tunnel inlet portal


Rock Mass Classification
Table - 4.11: Classification of Individual Parameters used in the Tunneling Quality Index, Q
DESCRIPTION

VALUE

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

RQD

A.

Very poor

0 - 25

B.

Poor

25 - 50

C.

Fair

50 - 75

D.

Good

75 - 90

E.

Excellent

90 - 100

JOINT SET NUMBER

Jn

A.

Massive, no or few joints

0.5 - 1.0

B.

One joint set

C.

One joint set plus random

D.

Two joint sets

E.

Two Joint sets plus random

F.

Three joint sets

G.

Three joint sets plus random

12

H.

Four or more joint sets, random,


heavily jointed, 'sugar cube', etc.

15

I.

Crushed rock, earthlike

20

JOINT ROUGHNESS NUMBER

Jr

NOTES
1. Where RQD is reported or measured as 10 (including 0),
a nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q.
2. RQD intervals of 5, i.e., 100, 95, 90 etc. are sufficiently
accurate.

1. For intersections use (3.0 x Jn)


2. For portals use (2.0 x Jn)

a. Rock wall contact


b.Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear
A.

Discontinuous joints

B.

Rough and irregular, undulating

C.

Smooth undulating

D.

Slickensided undulating

1.5

E.

Rough or irregular, planar

1.5

F.

Smooth, planar

1.0

FHC Consulting Engineers

1. Add 1.0 if the mean spacing of the relevant joint set is


greater than 3 m.

126

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

G.

Slickensided planar

0.5

c. No rock wall contact when sheared


H.

Zones containing clay minerals thick


enough to prevent rock wall contact

1.0

2. Jr = 0.5 can be used for planar, slickensided joints


having lineations, provided that the lineations are
oriented for minimum strength.

(nominal)

I.

Sandy, gravely or crushed zone thick


enough to prevent rock wall contact

1.0

JOINT ALTERNATION NUMBER

Ja

A.

Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable filling

0.75

B.

Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only

1.0

25 - 35

C.

Slightly altered joint wall, non-softening


mineral coatings, sandy particles, clay-free
disintegrated rock, etc.
Silty, or sandy-clay coatings, small
clay-fraction (non-softening)
Softening or low-friction clay mineral coatings,
i.e., kaolinite, mica. Also chlorite, talc, gypsum
and graphite etc., and small quantities of swelling
clays. (Discontinuous coatings, 1 - 2 mm or less).
b. rock wall contact before 10 cm shear

2.0

25 - 30

3.0

20 - 25

4.0

8 - 16

(nominal)
r degrees (approx.)

a. Rock wall contact

D.
E.

1.

F.

Sandy particles, clay-free, Disintegrating rock etc.

4.0

25 - 30

G.

Strongly over-consolidated, non-softening


clay mineral filling (continuous < 5mm thick)

6.0

16 - 24

H.

Medium or low over-consolidation, softening


clay mineral fillings (continuous < 5 mm thick)

8.0

12 - 16

I.

Swelling clay fillings, i.e. montmorillonite,


(continuous < 5mm thick). Values of Ja
depend on percent of swelling clay-size
particles, and access to water.
c. No rock wall contact when sheared

8.0 - 12.0

6 - 12

J.

Zones of brands of disintegrated or crushed

6.0

K.

rock and clay (see G, H and J for clay

8.0

L.

conditions)

8.0 - 12.0

M.

Zones or bands of silty or sandy-clay, small

5.0

Values of r, the residual friction angle,


are intended as an approximate guide to
the mineralogical properties of the
alteration products, if present.

6 - 24

clay fraction, non-softening


N.

Thick continuous zones or bands of clay

10.0 - 13.0

O.

& R. (see G, H and J for clay conditions)

6.0 - 24.0

FHC Consulting Engineers

127

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

5
A.

JOINT WATER REDUCTION


Dry excavation or minor inflow i.e. < 5 I/m locality

Jw

1.0

approx. water pressure (kgf/cm )


< 1.0

B.

Medium inflow or pressure, occasional


outwash of joint fillings

0.66

1.0 2.5

C.

Large inflow or high pressure in competent rock


with unfilled joints

0.5

2.5 10.0

D.

Large inflow or high pressure

0.33

2.5 10.0

E.

Exceptionally high inflow or pressure at blasting,


decaying with time.

0.2 0.1

> 10

F.

Exceptionally high inflow or pressure

0.1 0.05

> 10

STRESS REDUCTION FACTOR

1.

Factors C to F are crude estimates,


increase Jw if drainage installed.

2.

Special problems caused by ice


formation are not considered.

1.

Reduce these values of SRF by


25 50% but only if the relevant shear
zones influence do not intersect the
excavation.

SRF

a. Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may


cause loosening of rock mass when tunnel is excavated
A.

Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or


chemically disintegrated rock, very loose surrounding rock
any depth.

10.0

B.

Single weakness zones containing clay, or chemically distegrated


rock (excavation depth < 50 m)

5.0

C.

Single weakness zones containing clay, or chemically distegrated


rock (excavation depth > 50 m)

2.5

D.

Multiple shear zones in competent rock (clay free), loose


surrounding rock (any depth)

7.5

E.

Single shear zone in competent rock (clay free).


(depth of excavation < 50 m)

5.0

F.

Single shear zone in competent rock (clay free).


(depth of excavation > 50 m)

2.5

G.

Loose open joints, heavily jointed or sugar cube, (any depth)

5.0

Tunneling Quality

Q
Q

FHC Consulting Engineers

= RQD / Jn x Jr / Ja x Jw / SRF
= 70/1 x 4/0.75 x 1/5
= 74

128

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Headrace Tunnel + Powerhouse


Rock Mass Classification
Table - 4.12: Classification of Individual Parameters used in the Tunneling Quality Index, Q
DESCRIPTION

VALUE

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

RQD

A.

Very poor

0 - 25

B.

Poor

25 - 50

C.

Fair

50 - 75

D.

Good

75 - 90

E.

Excellent

90 - 100

JOINT SET NUMBER

Jn

A.

Massive, no or few points

B.

One joint set

0.5 - 1.0
2

C.

One joint set plus random

D.

Two joint sets

E.

Two Joint sets plus random

F.

Three joint sets

G.

Three joint sets plus random

12

H.

Four or more joint sets, random,


heavily jointed, 'sugar cube', etc.

15

I.

Crushed rock, earthlike

20

JOINT ROUGHNESS NUMBER

Jr

NOTES
1. Where RQD is reported or measured as 10 (including 0),
a nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q.
2. RQD intervals of 5, i.e., 100, 95, 90 etc. are sufficiently
accurate.

1. For intersections use (3.0 x Jn)


2. For portals use (2.0 x Jn)

a. Rock wall contact


b. Rock wall contact before 10 cm shear
A.

Discontinuous joints

B.

Rough and irregular, undulating

C.

Smooth undulating

D.

Slickenside undulating

1.5

E.

Rough or irregular, planar

1.5

F.

Smooth, planar

1.0

FHC Consulting Engineers

1. Add 1.0 if the mean spacing of the relevant joint set is


greater than 3 m.

129

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

G.

Slickenside planar

0.5

c. No rock wall contact when sheared


H.

Zones containing clay minerals thick


enough to prevent rock wall contact

1.0

2. Jr = 0.5 can be used for planar, slickenside joints


having lineation, provided that the lineation are
oriented for minimum strength.

(nominal)

I.

Sandy, gravely or crushed zone thick


enough to prevent rock wall contact

1.0

JOINT ALTERNATION NUMBER

Ja

A.

Tightly healed, hard, non-softening, impermeable filling

0.75

B.

Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only

1.0

25 - 35

C.

Slightly altered joint wall, non-softening


mineral coatings, sandy particles, clay-free
disintegrated rock, etc.

2.0

25 - 30

D.

Silty, or sandy-clay coatings, small


clay-fraction (non-softening)

3.0

20 - 25

E.

Softening or low-friction clay mineral coatings,


i.e., kaolinite, mica. Also chlorite, talc, gypsum
and graphite etc., and small quantities of swelling
clays. (Discontinuous coatings, 1 - 2 mm or less).
b. rock wall contact before 10 cm shear

4.0

8 - 16

F.

Sandy particles, clay-free, Disintegrating rock etc.

4.0

25 - 30

G.

Strongly over-consolidated, non-softening


clay mineral filling (continuous < 5mm thick)

6.0

16 - 24

H.

Medium or low over-consolidation, softening


clay mineral fillings (continuous < 5 mm thick)

8.0

12 - 16

I.

Swelling clay fillings, i.e. montmorillonite,


(continuous < 5mm thick). Values of Ja
depend on percent of swelling clay-size
particles, and access to water.
c. No rock wall contact when sheared

8.0 - 12.0

6 - 12

J.

Zones of brands of disintegrated or crushed

6.0

K.

rock and clay (see G, H and J for clay

8.0

L.

conditions)

8.0 - 12.0

M.

Zones or bands of silty or sandy-clay, small

5.0

(nominal)
r degrees (approx.)

a. Rock wall contact


1.

Values of r, the residual friction angle,


are intended as an approximate guide to
the mineralogical properties of the
alteration products, if present.

6 - 24

clay fraction, non-softening

FHC Consulting Engineers

130

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

N.

Thick continuous zones or bands of clay

10.0 - 13.0

O.

& R. (see G, H and J for clay conditions)

6.0 - 24.0

JOINT WATER REDUCTION

Jw

approx. water pressure (kgf/cm )

A.

Dry excavation or minor inflow i.e. < 5 I/m locality

1.0

< 1.0

B.

Medium inflow or pressure, occasional


outwash of joint fillings

0.66

1.0 - 2.5

C.

Large inflow or high pressure in competent rock


with unfilled joints

0.5

2.5 - 10.0

D.

Large inflow or high pressure

0.33

2.5 - 10.0

E.

Exceptionally high inflow or pressure at blasting,


decaying with time.

0.2 - 0.1

> 10

F.

Exceptionally high inflow or pressure

0.1 - 0.05

> 10

STRESS REDUCTION FACTOR

1.

Factors C to F are crude estimates,


increase Jw if drainage installed.

2.

Special problems caused by ice


formation are not considered.

1.

Reduce these values of SRF by


25 - 50% but only if the relevant shear
zones influence do not intersect the
excavation.

SRF

a. Weakness zones intersecting excavation, which may


cause loosening of rock mass when tunnel is excavated
A.

Multiple occurrences of weakness zones containing clay or


chemically disintegrated rock, very loose surrounding rock
any depth.

10.0

B.

Single weakness zones containing clay, or chemically distegrated


rock (excavation depth < 50 m)

5.0

C.

Single weakness zones containing clay, or chemically distegrated


rock (excavation depth > 50 m)

D.

Multiple shear zones in competent rock (clay free), loose


surrounding rock (any depth)

7.5

E.

Single shear zone in competent rock (clay free).


(depth of excavation < 50 m)

5.0

F.

Single shear zone in competent rock (clay free).


(depth of excavation > 50 m)

2.5

G.

Loose open joints, heavily jointed or 'sugar cube', (any depth)

Tunneling Quality

Q
Q

FHC Consulting Engineers

= RQD / Jn x Jr / Ja x Jw / SRF
= 80/1 x 4/0.75 x 1/5
= 85

131

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Tunneling Quality Index (Q) worked out for the various structures of the proposed
Nagdar Hydropower Project are given below:
Structure
Weir Site + Tunnel Inlet Portal
Headrace Tunnel + Powerhouse

4.19

Tunneling Quality
Index (Q)
74
85

GLACIAL LAKE OUTBURST FLOOD (GLOF)


Glacial lake outburst flood events in the higher Himalayas though rare, can be
catastrophic when they occur. Nagdar nullah has a relatively small catchment
area of 91 Km2 which is mainly fed by snow melt. Only snow melt can create
avalanches which do not normally occur in this area. There are no chances of
GLOF as the catchment has been checked from topographic maps as well as
from the satellite images.

4.20

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the geological and geotechnical studies carried out so far for the
feasibility of Nagdar Hydropower Project, the following conclusions and
recommendations are given:
1. The major Himalayan tectonic units are well exposed along the relatively
accessible Neelum Valley. These are the result of collision between the
Eurasian and Indian plates.
2. The major fault zones in Northern Pakistan generally trend E W disturbed
locally by two tectonic semi windows, the Nanga Parabat Syntaxis and the
Hazara Kashmir Syntaxis. The area connecting these two Syntaxis
including Nagdar Hydropower Project site is being affected by an exceptional
rate of uplift, presently reaching 7mm / year.
3. The rocks exposed in the project area are mainly of metamorphic origin
comprising of granitic gneiss, schists and phyllites with igneous intrusions
(mostly granites and granodiorites) at places.
4. The right abutments of weir shall be founded on schists. The nullah bed
material comprising of rounded boulders and gravel shall have to be
removed.
5. Sandtrap, connecting channel and a part of headrace tunnel shall have to be
excavated through schists. For most parts of the headrace tunnel, surge tank
and powerhouse cavern structure the strata to be encountered during
excavation shall include mainly granitic gneiss with minor amount of schists.

FHC Consulting Engineers

132

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

6. Based on preliminary rock mass assessment made from three classification


systems, i.e., Rock Structure Rating (RSR), Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and
Tunneling Quality Index (Q) it is concluded that the over all rock conditions
appear to be fair to good for excavation.
7. A good quality of construction material is available in abundant quantity in the
vicinity of all the proposed structures of the scheme. Muck material to be
excavated from powerhouse cavern, headrace tunnel and access tunnel
where good quality of granitic gneiss is available may be crushed to the
required grading. There is no natural sand deposit in the project area. Sand
may be extracted from the terraces, produced by crushing granite / granitic
gneiss or procured from Neelum River bed during low flow season.
8. Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) events in the higher Himalayas though
rare, can be catastrophic when they occur. The catchment area of Nagdar
nullah is mainly fed by snow melt. There is no glacier in the catchment or in
the vicinity of project structures. Only snow melt can create avalanches
which do not normally occur in this area. There are no chances of GLOF as
the catchment has been checked from topographic maps as well as from the
satellite images.
9. In this report ground motion parameters for the Maximum Credible
Earthquake (MCE) as safety level, Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and the
Operating Basis Design Earthquake (OBE) as serviceability level are
proposed for the Nagdar Hydropower Project in Pakistan. All earthquake
ground motions are selected according to established international standards,
described in the ICOLD Bulletin 72 "Selecting Seismic Parameters for Large
Dams" (ICOLD 1989).
i.

The recommended annual probability of exceedance for the MCE is


considered as 1 / 10,000.
This value is compatible with the
recommendations of ICOLD and is commonly used in dam engineering,
practice. Lower values are only recommended if a risk assessment for
the downstream area shows only marginal risks in case of a dam
failure.

ii.

For the OBE, considerably lower values for the annual probability of
exceedance are recommended in the ICOLD Bulletin 72 (ICOLD 1989),
at least 1 / 145 years.

FHC Consulting Engineers

133

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

4.21

iii.

The selection of an annual probability of exceedance for the OBE level


depends on the residual risk for damage and business interruption that
the client is willing to take. The OBE level is not safety-related as it is in
the MCE case but determines the functionality of the structure after an
earthquake event. So the selection of the OBE level is a management
decision, which can be taken by the utility. In this report, two
possibilities are shown:

iv.

DBE level corresponding to an annual probability of exceedance of 1 /


475, thus corresponding to the earthquake action on structures in
modern seismic building codes such as Euro Code 8.

v.

OBE level corresponding to an annual probability of exceedance of 1 /


145, thus accepting a higher residual risk compared to the DBE level.

vi.

The resulting value for horizontal peak ground acceleration at the


Nagdar Valley Hydropower Project site is 0.6842 g for MCE. For DBE
and OBE values of 0.3483 g and 0.2547 g for annual probabilities of
exceedance of 1/475 and 1/145 are recommended. The vertical
components are taken as 2/3 of the corresponding horizontal
components.

vii.

The proposed seismic design parameters are judged to be appropriate


conservative for the Nagdar Hydropower Project site. The ground
accelerations are given in terms of a load function with reasonable
assumptions representing the hazard at the project site. The design
parameters are valid for the dam site as well as for other structures like
the power house in the vicinity of a few kilometers around the dam site.
The design parameters are valid for rock sites.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The overall geological conditions appear to be fair to good for excavation;
however at places shear zones, fractures, local brittle faults and other
structural discontinuities and defects may create problems during tunneling.
It is therefore suggested that temporary and / or permanent supports may be
designed for the construction of pressure shaft and other underground
structures.
2. The granitic gneiss could be potentially suitable rock type for concrete
aggregate but its potential reactivity Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) needs to be
confirmed by tests. If granitic gneiss is found reactive then instead of
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), low alkali cement would be recommended
for concrete.

FHC Consulting Engineers

134

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

3. In order to obtain an understanding of the in-situ rock stresses and undertake


measurement of these during site investigation in the powerhouse area one
adit (200 m) has been recommended for detailed design stage.
4. Hydro-geological conditions for the design of all tunnels and power cavern are
strongly recommended for assessment at the detailed design stage.
5. An assessment of surface slope stability in the vicinity of the construction
sites is strongly recommended. If adverse conditions found then potential
impact on the project should be staged.

FHC Consulting Engineers

135

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LAYOUT

FHC Consulting Engineers

136

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LAYOUT

5.1

GENERAL
Nagdar nullah is a right bank tributary of Neelum River, located about 3 km
upstream of Keran village. The lower stretch of Nagdar nullah has attractive
steep gradient and perennial flows; hence, hydroelectric power can economically
be harnessed.
Nagdar scheme was previously studied by the French
Consultants and an identification report was prepared to generate 18 MW in the
lower 4 km stretch of Nagdar nullah.
Nagdar nullah is located on Survey of Pakistan (SOP) GT Sheet No. 43 - F/14.
The lower 6 km stretch of Nagdar nullah was selected by the Consultants to be
investigated in the field for various alternatives considering hydrologic,
topographic and geological conditions.
The access to weir site is partly by jeepable track and partly on foot. Considering
morphology of Nagdar nullah and population within project area, the right bank
was selected to propose alternate layouts for Nagdar Hydropower Project.

5.2

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
The catchment area of Nagdar nullah up to confluence with Neelum River is
estimated as 91 km2. Nagdar nullah joins Neelum River at about El. 1508 m asl.
Due to perennial flows and steep gradient the potential site would provide
sufficient hydroelectric energy to meet future power demand of regional grid of
AJ&K.
The average bed gradient in the selected stretch of Nagdar nullah is about 8 %.
Neelum River flows with average gradient of about 1 % near Keran village.
As the confluence of nullah with Neelum River is located close to the Line of
Control at Keran sector; therefore, two options for powerhouse site were picked
for field check keeping in view the safety and security of the works. The project
layout within Nagdar valley is surface, whereas alternate layout is underground.
A relatively small stretch of lower 6 km of Nagdar nullah provides about 480 m
head. The diversion of Nagdar nullah into Neelum River near Danjar nullah
through 3.84 km headrace tunnel provides a drop of 470 m. The normal head
and tail water for Nagdar Hydropower Project are 1956 m asl and 1480 m asl
respectively.

FHC Consulting Engineers

137

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

5.3

PROJECT LAYOUT ALTERNATES


Two alternate layout options have been conceived. The first option is to utilise the
whole potential of Nagdar nullah and to have a project layout which is safe and
secure from disturbance due to Line of Control.
In the second layout option, the whole layout has been proposed as surface
within the nullah. It comprises of headrace channel, penstock and surface
powerhouse. Both project layouts are shown in Dwg. No. 5-1 and have been
described in the following paragraphs.

5.3.1

Alternate Project Layout - I


The weir has been proposed about 5.6 km from Neelum River confluence and
powerhouse would be located near Danjar village. The project layout would
comprise of 3840 m low pressure tunnel, surge tank, 680 m pressure shaft
including pressure tunnel, underground powerhouse and 537 m long tailrace
tunnel and 25 m long tailrace channel. The flows of Nagdar nullah would be
diverted through a lateral intake towards the right bank and would be discharged
into Neelum River near Danjar village.
The coordinates of weir and powerhouse sites are listed below:
Site

Latitude

Longitude

Weir

34 41 18

73 54 20

Powerhouse

34 39 09

73 55 00

The weir crest has been proposed at El. 1956 m asl and the design discharge
would be dropped into Neelum River at El. 1480 m asl. The design discharge
has been taken as 9 m3/s for estimation of power and energy. The geological
aspects and salient features of Alternative-I are presented below.

5.3.2

Geological Aspects Alternate - I

5.3.2.1

Weir Site
Rocks of metamorphic origin are exposed on the both banks of weir site with thin
cover of morainic material comprising of angular boulders and gravel with sand
and appreciable amount of fines (ABGM). The foundations of a concrete
structure may be laid on rocks. Phyllites and schists are major rock types in the
valley.

FHC Consulting Engineers

138

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

5.3.2.2

Headrace Tunnel
The headrace tunnel alignment shall apparently pass through and be excavated
in the rocks of metamorphic origin comprising mainly of phyllites and schists with
intrusions of igneous rocks at places.
The general trend of rocks exposed along the proposed tunnel alignment is
N 80 W with foliation plane dipping from 55 to 60 NE.
Two sets of joints as measured during reconnaissance visit are given below:

N70E / 84 NW,

N30W / 69 NE

It is envisaged that no major problem is expected during the process of tunnel


excavation; however, keeping in view the general behavior of metamorphic rocks
permanent support shall be required in critical shear zones, fissures, fractures,
local fault zones and other structural discontinuities. Seepage is also expected
through joints (stress relief or tectonic).

5.3.2.3

Surge Tank and Pressure Shaft


Surge Tank and pressure shaft would be constructed in a terrain with slopes 45
to 50 with the horizontal. These slopes are generally stable and covered with
thin cover (1 to 2 m thick) of angular boulders and gravel with sand and
appreciable amount of fines (ABGM).
The surge tank and pressure shaft would be excavated in rocks comprising
mainly of phyllites and schists (metamorphic) and some granodiorites as intrusive
igneous rock. The rocks are moderately weathered and sparsely jointed.

5.3.2.4

Powerhouse and Tailrace


The powerhouse would be placed near the Danjar village. Powerhouse would be
excavated in sound rock like granodiorites, phyllites and schists.
The initial 150 m portion of tailrace would be in soft rock while later portion to
powerhouse would be in sound rock.

FHC Consulting Engineers

139

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

5.3.2.5

5.3.3

Salient Features of Nagdar Alternative - I

Design Discharge

m3/s

Gross Head

470

Design Capacity

35

MW

Mean Annual Energy

146.05 GWh

Plant Factor

47.64 %

Type of Weir

Weir with Lateral Intake

Height of Weir above NSL

Crest Length of Weir

14

Headrace Tunnel Length

3840

Diameter of Tunnel

3.1

Pressure Shaft

420

Pressure Tunnel

260

Pressure Shaft & Tunnel Diameter

2.1

Type of Powerhouse

Cavern Powerhouse

Number of Units

4, Pelton 600 rpm

Tailrace Length

537 m

Alternate Project Layout - II


The weir has been proposed about 4.3 km from Neelum River confluence and
powerhouse would be located about 500 m upstream of confluence of
Neelum River. The project layout would comprise of 2100 m long open channel,
forebay, 1750 m penstock, surface powerhouse and 30 m tailrace channel.
The flows of Nagdar nullah would be diverted into power channel on the right
bank of nullah and would be discharged back into Nagdar nullah.
The coordinates of weir and powerhouse sites are listed below:
Site

Latitude

Longitude

Weir

34-40-24

73-54-40

Powerhouse

34-38-33

73-55-48

FHC Consulting Engineers

140

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The weir has been proposed at El. 1830 m asl and the design discharge would
be dropped into Nagdar nullah at El. 1538 m. The design discharge has been
taken as 9 m3/s for estimation of power and energy. The geological aspects and
salient features of project layout Alternate-II are presented below.

5.3.4

Geological Aspects of Alternate - II

5.3.4.1

Weir Site
The valley is quite narrow having V shaped at the weir site, where rocks of
metamorphic origin are exposed at both banks of nullah with thin cover of
morainic material comprising of angular boulders and gravel with sand and
appreciable amount of fines (ABGM).
The overburden cover can easily be removed / excavated and the foundation of
concrete structure may be laid on rocks. Phyllites and schists are major rock
types in the valley.

5.3.4.2

Power Channel
A 2100 m long channel may be constructed at the right bank of Nagdar nullah
where slopes are covered with thin morainic material, comprising mainly of
angular boulders and gravel with sand and appreciable amount of fines (ABGM).
The thickness of this morainic material is yet to be determined. Below this cover
granitic schists and gneisses are expected to encounter.
For most of the part channel shall be excavated in metamorphic rocks. There are
no chances of any major landslides along the proposed channel alignment.
However, at places, local slides may occur during excavation. Some protective
measures shall have to be made for slope protection. These may include
reshaping of geometry of slopes, grouting and construction of retaining walls.

5.3.4.3

Powerhouse
Powerhouse site has been identified within Nagdar valley on terraces located
500 m upstream of Neelum River confluence. It is envisaged that powerhouse is
suitable for channel scheme located near Nagdar nullah.
It is considered that powerhouse shall be founded on colluvial material
comprising mainly of large size boulders and gravel with little sand and
appreciable amount of fines (ABGM).

FHC Consulting Engineers

141

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

5.3.4.4

Salient Features of Nagdar Alternative - II

Design Discharge

m3/s

Gross Head

292

Design Capacity

21

MW

Mean Annual Energy

88.03 GWh

Plant Factor

48.05 %

Type of Weir

Weir with Lateral Intake

Height of Weir

Crest Length of Weir

16

Headrace Channel Length

2100

Penstock Length

1750

Penstock Diameter

1.8

Type of Powerhouse

Surface Powerhouse

Number of Units

4, Pelton 600 rpm

Tailrace Length

30 m

5.4

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS

5.4.1

Gross Head and Power Potential


The gross head for Alternate - I and Alternate - II is 470 m and 292 m
respectively. Alternate - I has 178 m more head by utilising additional 1.3 km
stretch of Nagdar nullah. The use of higher head for power generation is
preferred, therefore Alternate - I is preferred over Alternate-II. The project layout
of Alternate - II would underutilise the potential of Nagdar nullah as compared
with the Alternative - I.

5.4.2

Project Layout
The Alternate - I has low pressure tunnel, surge tank, pressure shaft,
powerhouse, tailrace tunnel and access tunnel. The power generation with
underground structures is considered expensive as compared with that of surface
structures. Although Alternate - II has surface structures and these are
considered easy to construct, however, the topography for power channel and
penstock is steep which restricts the size of structures. The weir axis proposed
for Alternate - I can also be considered for Alternate - II as the high level open
channel, however, in this case forebay cannot be constructed. It is therefore
concluded that Alternate - II is not suitable to utilise the potential gross head and
discharge that can be proposed for Alternate - I.

FHC Consulting Engineers

142

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

5.4.3

Snowfall and Landslides


The snowfall and landslides may affect the stability of the surface structures as
proposed open channel and penstock for Alternate - II. Considering the weather
conditions in winter, the underground structures are preferable for safe operation
and maintenance of the project.

5.4.4

Line of Control
The Line of Control at Keran village is just opposite to the Neelum River and
some portion of the Alternate - II would be exposed to the Line of Control which
could endanger the safety of the project.

5.4.5

Project Cost
Project cost has been estimated for Alternate - I and Alternate - II as
US$ 52.02 million and US$ 34.54 million respectively. The mean annual energy
for Alternate - I and Alternate - II is 146.05 and 88.03 GWh respectively. The cost
per kWh has been worked out as Pak Rs. 5.02 and Rs. 5.34 respectively.

5.5

SELECTED LAYOUT
Although the cost per kWh for Alternate - II is comparatively more than
Alternate - I, yet Alternate - I even with underground structures is safe and
attractive to be developed as compared with Alternate - II. The difficulties and
stability problems associated with Alternate - II are high as compared with
Alternate I, therefore, Alternate - I is preferred over Alternate - II. Further the
utilisation of increased gross head, safe and secure underground structures
against weather conditions as well as with close proximity to Line of Control,
Alternate - I is adopted and shall be considered for detailed design studies.
Project layout Alternate-I is shown in Dwg. No. 5-2.

FHC Consulting Engineers

143

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

PROJECT SIZING AND POWER POTENTIAL

FHC Consulting Engineers

144

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

PROJECT SIZING AND POWER POTENTIAL

6.1

GENERAL
For the selected project location and project alternative layouts, project sizing has
been carried out by considering various design discharges ranging from 4 m3/s to
13 m3/s with an interval of 1 m3/s. The weir will provide a full supply level of
1956 m asl at intake of headrace tunnel.
About 3840 m long headrace tunnel and 680 m pressure shaft including pressure
tunnel and 537 m long tailrace has been proposed for the selected project layout.
The discharge data near weir site shows that the mean monthly discharge varies
from 1.07 m3/s to 14.68 m3/s. The capacity optimisation has been carried out by
selecting various design discharges.
The benefits and cost have been estimated for various design discharges and the
plant has been optimised on the basis of marginal cost and average cost of
generated unit. Sensitivity analyses concerning hydrology and project cost has
been carried out for the selected plant capacity.
The aim of project optimisation is to have an optimum capacity of the plant by
utilising the full potential of the site. The project would be developed for its
interconnection to National Grid. The project would be operated as run-off-river
plant.

6.2

HYDROLOGY
The estimated mean monthly flows are indicated in Figure 6.1 which show
variation from 1.07 to 14.68 m3/s on average flow year basis. On Nagdar nullah,
flow measurements have been made for a period of about one year.
The estimation of flows has been made by establishing a correlation with the
other gauging stations in the area having similar catchment characteristics. The
estimated annual flow at weir site of Nagdar nullah is 5.44 m3/s.

FHC Consulting Engineers

145

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

16

Discharge (m3 /s)

13.92

14.68

12
9.71

9.25

8
5.62
4.22
4
1.07

1.13

JAN

FEB

1.76

1.60

1.19

1.09

NOV

DEC

0
MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

Month

Figure - 6.1: Mean Monthly Flows at Proposed Nagdar Weir Site

6.3

CAPACITY OPTIMISATION
The optimisation procedure involves first to estimate power and energy benefits
for each design discharge of the hydropower project.
The benefits for
hydropower project are estimated from the cost of alternate source of equivalent
energy production.
In this regard, the marginal cost parameters have been used which are derived
from the tariffs offered to the power utilities. The benefits of the project consider
the energy produced as well as to the firm capacity available. The optimum
installed capacity is the one which maximises the difference between benefits
and costs.
For the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project, the daily discharge data indicates
that a discharge of 4 m3/s, 8 m3/s, and 12 m3/s are available for duration of
45.0 %, 28.2 % and 15.7 % of the time respectively during the year. The
optimum discharge would be the one at which generation cost, that is cost per
kWh, is minimum and the NPV is maximum.
The power and energy has been estimated for each discharge range from 4 to
13 m3/s. The gross head and net head are estimated from difference of head and
tail water levels. The tail water fluctuations have also been considered. The
reservoir level has been considered constant as 1956 m asl and maximum tail
water level is considered as 1480 m in Danjar nullah.

FHC Consulting Engineers

146

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

6.3.1

Compensation Flows
The power and energy are estimated on the basis of mean monthly discharges
for average year. For sediment flushing, it has been assumed that power station
may have to be shut down for a few hours during summer months.
A compensation flows from 0.2 m3/s in winter months and 0.40 m3/s and more in
summer months have been considered to be released from the weir as residual
flows in Nagdar nullah. The compensation flows would be released considering
the downstream ecological and biological use and downstream water uses.

6.3.2

Head Losses
Head losses have been estimated based on the monthly flows through water
ways. The losses from intake to turbine axis vary from 0.65 to 5.95 m. The losses
are more in summer flows and are reduced to minimum in winter months.
The estimated power and energy are estimated for various design discharges
and are presented as Annexure 6-1.

6.3.2.1

Project Benefits
Project benefits have been estimated equivalent to the cost of alternative gas
turbine generation. The cost of not constructing gas power generation is taken
as benefit to hydropower generation.
Capacity and energy benefits for each design discharge have been estimated
and added up to get the total benefits. The difference of benefits to cost of
hydropower scheme for a particular discharge is compared with that of other
discharges.
The Capacity Cost per kW per month in this case is US $ 80 and the
corresponding Energy Costs per kWh peak and off peak in US cents for each
month based on the recent alternate source of power and energy are as follows:
Month
Peak

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

10.98 10.98 10.98 10.98 10.98 10.98 10.98 10.98 10.98 10.98 10.98 10.98

Off-Peak 7.98 7.62 7.25 6.63 6.24 5.95 5.70 5.70 5.95 6.63 6.63 7.26
The aim of the project sizing is to recommend a robust and stable solution for the
so-called optimum installed capacity of the project. For the respective design
discharges, monthly power, peak and off-peak energy have been estimated.

FHC Consulting Engineers

147

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

With the derived capacity and energy cost, total benefits for each design
discharge have been estimated in a spread sheet. For each design discharge,
net benefit and generated unit cost have been compared to get the optimum
design discharge.

6.3.2.2

Cost Estimation
For the selected alternative, cost estimation have been carried out by a computer
programme for various design discharges ranging from 4 to 13 m3/s with interval
of 1 m3/s. The cost estimates include the cost for Civil works, E&M equipment,
transportation, erection and commissioning. Supervision charges, contingencies,
import charges and owner cost have been added to prepare the project base
cost.
Interest during construction and transmission line cost is added to the base cost
for total project cost. The cost estimates have been made for each discharge
scenario. Cost for the transmission line of 132 kV from Nagdar to Authmuqam
has also been considered.
A comparison of cost estimates for various design discharges has been made
and is presented in Table - 6.1.
Table - 6.1: Comparison of Cost

Sr. No.

Discharge
(m3/s)

Cost
(million US$)

45.43

46.34

47.26

48.44

49.90

51.89

10

54.49

11

57.21

12

60.36

10

13

63.98

A comparison of cost estimates for various design discharges and options has
been made and is presented in Table - 6.2, Table - 6.3 and Table - 6.4.

FHC Consulting Engineers

148

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 6.2: Normal Cost Run-off-River Option


Design
Discharge

Power

Annual
Energy

Plant
Factor

Annual
Benefits

Annual
Cost

Cost/kWh

(m /s)

(MW)

(GWh)

(%)

(million Rs.)

(million Rs.)

(Rs.)

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0

15.6
19.4
23.3
27.2
31.1
35.0
38.9
42.8
46.7
50.6

86.77
101.07
112.88
124.36
135.84
146.05
151.75
157.45
163.14
168.83

63.68
59.34
55.23
52.15
49.85
47.64
44.55
42.02
39.91
38.12

543.50
625.57
693.29
759.08
824.87
883.80
916.35
948.68
981.01
1013.33

638.23
651.47
664.99
682.00
702.73
730.84
767.09
805.14
848.96
899.24

7.356
6.446
5.891
5.484
5.173
5.005
5.055
5.114
5.204
5.326

Benefit/
Cost

NPV
(million US$)

0.852
0.960
1.043
1.113
1.174
1.209
1.195
1.178
1.156
1.127

-9.254
-2.530
2.764
7.530
11.933
14.945
14.583
14.024
12.901
11.147

Benefit/
Cost

NPV

Table - 6.3: 10% Increased Cost Option


Design
Discharge

Power

Annual
Energy

Plant
Factor

Annual
Benefits

Annual
Cost

Cost/kWh

(m /s)

(MW)

(GWh)

(%)

(million Rs.)

(million Rs.)

(Rs.)

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0

15.6
19.4
23.3
27.2
31.1
35.0
38.9
42.8
46.7
50.6

86.77
101.07
112.88
124.36
135.84
146.05
151.75
157.45
163.14
168.83

63.68
59.34
55.23
52.15
49.85
47.64
44.55
42.02
39.91
38.12

543.50
625.57
693.29
759.08
824.87
883.80
916.35
948.68
981.01
1013.33

699.67
714.14
728.92
747.52
770.22
801.03
840.79
882.53
930.60
985.78

8.064
7.066
6.457
6.011
5.670
5.486
5.541
5.605
5.704
5.839

(million US$)

0.777
0.876
0.951
1.015
1.071
1.103
1.090
1.075
1.054
1.028

-15.257
-8.653
-3.481
1.129
5.339
8.087
7.383
6.463
4.925
2.692

Benefit/
Cost

NPV

Table - 6.4: Reduced Flows Option


Design
Discharge

Power

Annual
Energy

Plant
Factor

Annual
Benefits

Annual
Cost

Cost/kWh

(m /s)

(MW)

(GWh)

(%)

(million Rs.)

(million Rs.)

(Rs.)

4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0

15.6
19.4
23.3
27.2
31.1
35.0
38.9
42.8
46.7
50.6

86.77
101.07
112.88
124.36
135.84
146.05
151.75
157.45
163.14
168.83

63.68
59.34
55.23
52.15
49.85
47.64
44.55
42.02
39.91
38.12

528.97
599.20
670.49
720.10
769.71
807.44
823.59
839.74
855.89
872.04

638.23
651.47
664.99
682.00
702.73
730.84
767.09
805.14
848.96
899.24

7.464
6.664
6.033
5.740
5.516
5.464
5.618
5.778
5.973
6.204

FHC Consulting Engineers

149

(million US$)

0.829
0.920
1.008
1.056
1.095
1.105
1.074
1.043
1.008
0.970

-10.675
-5.106
0.537
3.722
6.545
7.484
5.520
3.380
0.677
-2.658

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

6.4

MARGINAL COST ANALYSIS


For the selected layout, benefits and costs have been calculated for the selected
range of discharge of 4.0 m3/s to 13.0 m3/s for run-of-river, increased cost and
reduced flows scenarios.
The summary of analysis for three scenarios is presented in Table - 6-2 to
Table - 6-4. Three parameters, i.e., NPV, Cost/kWh and Benefit-Cost ratio have
been checked for various discharges.
NPV vs discharge curves are drawn for the three scenarios and is presented in
Figure - 6.2. It indicates that for all three options, NPV increases for a discharge
upto 9 m3/s and decreases with increase in discharge.
For run-of-river option, increased cost and reduced flows scenarios, NPV is
maximum at discharge of 9 m3/s.

NET PRESENT VALUE (M US$)

20
12
4
Run Of River

-4

Increased Cost
Reduced Flows

-12
-20
4

10

11

12

13

DISCHARGE (m3/s)

Figure - 6.2: NPV vs Design Run-off-River Base Case


Similarly, the unit cost vs discharge curves are drawn for above mentioned three
scenarios and are presented in Figure - 6.3.

FHC Consulting Engineers

150

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

9.0

COST/KWh (Rs.)

8.0
Run of River
Increased Cost

7.0

Reduced Flow s

6.0
5.0
4.0

10

11

12

13

DISCHARGE (m /s)

Figure - 6.3: Cost/kWh Run-off-River Base Case


The graph indicates that unit cost for all three scenarios decreases to minimum
and then it increases again. The analysis for all three options indicates that unit
cost is minimum for the design discharge of 9 m3/s.
Benefit cost ratio has also been checked for various discharges. The B/C ratio
versus discharge curves are drawn for above mentioned three scenarios and is
presented in Figure - 6.4.

1.3

B/C RATIO

1.2
1.1
1.0
Run of River

0.9

Increased Cost
Reduced Flow s

0.8
0.7
4

10

11

12

13

DISCHARGE (m /s)

Figure - 6.4: B/C Ratio Run-off-River - Base Case

FHC Consulting Engineers

151

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The graph indicates that B/C ratio increases to maximum for a discharge of
9 m3/s and then it decreases for higher discharge. All three options indicate that
B/C ratio has similar trend and is maximum at design discharge of 9 m3/s.

6.5

SELECTED CAPACITY
The optimised capacity has been carried out for three scenarios, i.e., run-of-river
option, 10% increased cost and reduced flows. Net present value, cost per kWh,
and B/C ratio have been considered in selecting the optimum capacity of the
plant.
For base case 100% project cost and run-off-river option, NPV and B/C ratio are
maximum and unit cost is minimum at a discharge of 9 m3/s. Therefore, a flow of
9 m3/s has been selected as optimum design discharge to determine the plant
output and to dimension the various components of the project.
The change of mode of operation or increase in cost or change in flow pattern will
naturally affect power and energy output and consequently the project benefit
and unit cost scenario, but will not change the optimum design discharge.

6.6

POWER AND ENERGY


For the selected design discharge and gross head of 470 m, the power and
energy have been estimated on the basis of monthly flows. The project layout
has about 3.84 km long tunnel but storage for daily peaking has not been
considered.
The power station would be operated as run-of-river basis. For the design
discharge of 9 m3/s and gross head of 470 m, the capacity would be 35 MW with
mean annual energy of 146.05 GWh. The plant factor is estimated as 47.64%.
The mean monthly power is presented in Figure - 6.5.
From May to July, installed capacity of 35 MW would be available. The power
would be reduced to 3.4 MW from November to February. In the remaining
months, the power is between 5.5 MW to 33.3 MW.

FHC Consulting Engineers

152

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Figure - 6.5: Estimated Mean Monthly Power


The energy is directly proportional to volume of water available for power
generation. The mean monthly energy has been estimated and is presented in
Figure - 6.6.

30
26.04

25.20

26.04

Energy (GWh)

25

24.77

20
14.44

15
10.51
10
5

2.55

2.45

JAN

FEB

4.57

4.10

2.80

2.59

NOV

DEC

0
MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

Month

Figure - 6.6: Estimated Mean Monthly Energy

FHC Consulting Engineers

153

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
Annexure 6-1
Page 1 of 5

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 4.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
468.3
468.3
468.3
468.3
468.3
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
15.7
15.7
15.7
15.7
15.7
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
11.68
11.30
11.68
11.68
11.30
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

2.53

1.16

87.21
63.42

Plant Factor (%)

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 5.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
467.7
467.7
467.7
467.7
467.7
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
14.58
14.11
14.58
14.58
14.11
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

2.95

1.41
Plant Factor (%)

FHC Consulting Engineers

154

101.53
59.14

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
Annexure 6-1
Page 2 of 5

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 6.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
467.0
467.0
467.0
467.0
467.7
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
20.1
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
17.47
16.91
17.47
17.47
14.44
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.12
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
2.98
2.98
2.98
2.98
2.33
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

3.29

1.66

113.33
55.09

Plant Factor (%)

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 7.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
466.2
466.2
466.2
466.2
467.7
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
27.3
27.3
27.3
27.3
20.1
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
20.34
19.69
20.34
20.34
14.44
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
5.12
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
3.84
3.84
3.84
3.84
2.33
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

3.62

1.94
Plant Factor (%)

FHC Consulting Engineers

155

124.73
52.07

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
Annexure 6-1
Page 3 of 5

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 8.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
465.2
465.2
465.2
465.2
467.7
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
31.2
31.2
31.2
31.2
20.1
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
23.20
22.45
23.20
23.20
14.44
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
5.12
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
4.83
4.83
4.83
4.83
2.33
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

3.96

2.27

136.07
49.81

Plant Factor (%)

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 9.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
464.0
464.0
464.0
464.6
467.7
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
35.0
35.0
35.0
33.3
20.1
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
26.04
25.20
26.04
24.77
14.44
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
9.00
9.00
9.00
8.55
5.12
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.44
2.33
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

4.25

2.61
Plant Factor (%)

FHC Consulting Engineers

156

146.05
47.64

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
Annexure 6-1
Page 4 of 5

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 10.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
464.0
462.8
462.8
464.6
467.7
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
35.0
38.8
38.8
33.3
20.1
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
26.08
27.92
28.85
24.77
14.44
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
9.01
10.00
10.00
8.55
5.12
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
5.97
7.21
7.21
5.44
2.33
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

4.42

2.82

151.63
44.63

Plant Factor (%)

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 11.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
464.0
461.4
461.4
464.6
467.7
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
35.0
42.5
42.5
33.3
20.1
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
26.08
30.62
31.64
24.77
14.44
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
9.01
11.00
11.00
8.55
5.12
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
5.97
8.60
8.60
5.44
2.33
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

4.59

3.05
Plant Factor (%)

FHC Consulting Engineers

157

157.12
42.17

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
Annexure 6-1
Page 5 of 5

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 12.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
464.0
459.9
459.9
464.6
467.7
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
35.0
46.2
46.2
33.3
20.1
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
26.08
33.30
34.41
24.77
14.44
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
9.01
12.00
12.00
8.55
5.12
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
5.97
10.12
10.12
5.44
2.33
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

4.75

3.30

162.56
40.13

Plant Factor (%)

ESTIMATION OF POWER AND ENERGY


Q = 13.0 m3/s
Month

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC

Discharge
(m3/s)
Nullah Power

Head Loss

Net Head

Power

Energy

(m)

(m)

(MW)

(GWh)

469.3
469.3
469.3
468.5
464.0
458.4
458.2
464.6
467.7
469.2
469.3
469.3

3.4
3.6
5.5
14.6
35.0
49.6
49.9
33.3
20.1
6.1
3.9
3.5

2.55
2.45
4.10
10.51
26.08
35.73
37.14
24.77
14.44
4.57
2.80
2.59

1.07
1.13
1.60
4.22
9.71
13.92
14.68
9.25
5.62
1.76
1.19
1.09

0.87
0.93
1.40
3.72
9.01
12.92
13.00
8.55
5.12
1.56
0.99
0.89

0.65
0.66
0.73
1.51
5.97
11.64
11.77
5.44
2.33
0.76
0.66
0.65

5.44

4.91

3.56
Plant Factor (%)

FHC Consulting Engineers

158

167.72
38.36

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN

FHC Consulting Engineers

159

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN

7.1

GENERAL
The layout of Nagdar Hydropower Project has been designed to utilise the
optimum potential for generation of electric power. The mean annual flow of
Nagdar nullah is 5.44 m3/s and the bed gradient in 6 km stretch of Nagdar nullah
is about 8%.
The design discharge has been optimised as 9 m3/s to produce 35 MW by using
a gross head of 470 m. The project would be operated as run-of-river and all
structures have been designed at the optimum discharge of 9 m3/s.
The project layout is shown in Dwg. No. 7-1 and longitudinal profile is presented
in Dwg. No. 7-2 and Dwg. No. 7-3.
The main project components are:

Diversion weir with sediments sluice

Power intake and connecting channel

Surface sandtrap with two (2) chambers

Low pressure headrace tunnel of 3840 m length

Surge tank

Pressure shaft of 420 m and pressure tunnel of 260 m

Underground powerhouse with 4 Pelton turbine of 8.75 MW each

Main access tunnel to cavern

Tailrace tunnel of 537 m length

Most of the structures have been proposed as underground except weir intake,
sandtrap, transformers and switchyards. The project can be developed to its
optimum capacity of 35 MW to meet the regional power demand of AJ&K.
The installed capacity of 35 MW will be available during summer months from
May to July. In winter months, a minimum of 3.4 MW will be available during
December to February.
The proposed unit of 8.75 MW will be capable of generating minimum power of
3.4 MW with one of two (2) jets. The power and energy of the optimum capacity
can fully be utilised when the power station is connected with National Grid.

FHC Consulting Engineers

160

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The water level profile at various structures is given in Table - 7.1.


Table - 7.1: Water Level Profile
No.

Location

Elevation (m asl)

Water level at intake

1956.00

Water level at sandtrap intake

1955.92

Water level at sandtrap outlet

1955.80

Water level at surge tank

1954.90

Pressure shaft outlet

1951.40

Turbine shaft axis level

1486.00

Tailrace maximum water level

1480.00

All structures have been designed and their calculations are provided in the
Tables - 7.2 to 7.6.
The description of structure dimensions is provided in the following paragraphs:

7.2

DIVERSION WEIR
The weir is located about 200 m below the confluence of Shelyath Nar and
Nagdar nullah. At the proposed weir axis, the bed level is 1950 m asl and
Nagdar nullah flows with steep gradient of about 8 %. To divert the design
discharge of 9 m3/s into the low pressure tunnel, a concrete weir of 6 m height
above the nullah bed has been proposed. The intake structure has been
designed to take the design discharge and excessive flows will be spilled over the
weir down to nullah.
For the proposed weir axis of the nullah, the slopes on the left bank are morainic
material and on the right bank, sound rock granitic gneiss is available. The nullah
width is about 12 m and the slopes on right and left banks are 50 and 35
respectively. To accommodate a design flood of 204 m3/s, the clear length of
weir including the sluicing portion is 19 m.
During summer months from May to July, the water will flow over 18 m length of
the weir. On the right side of the weir, a flushing section is provided to keep the
intake free of sediment. The bed level of gate is at El. 1949.0 m asl.
According to geological investigation of weir site, the structure will be founded on
alluvial strata. This material has high leakage / seepage rate. To reduce the
leakage / seepage up to desired level and also to control piping effect a cut - off
wall up to 10 m depth along the weir axis has been foreseen.

FHC Consulting Engineers

161

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

7.2.1

Design Considerations
Following major design considerations have been adopted while designing the
weir for the proposed layout on Nagdar nullah:

The diversion weir has been designed for 1000 year return period flood.

The crest elevation of weir has been fixed with the consideration of
power intake channel requirement.

The weir crest has been fixed in a manner so as to minimise the


excavation and concrete work for the weir, and also to pass the flood
over the weir without much raised water level upstream of the weir.

The location of weir has been selected in a way to have smooth and
straight flow conditions at upstream and downstream of the weir
structure.

There would be minimum raise in the water level and whole of the weir
structure has been designed for smooth passage of the flood with full
energy dissipation.

The following design parameters have been adopted while making the
calculations for the weir.

7.2.2

Design Flood of 1000 years return period

204 m3/s

Maximum height to pass 1000 years flood

3.19 m

Weir crest length

14 m

Weir crest elevation

1956.0 m asl

Crest elevation of under sluice

1949.0 m asl

Roller bucket level

1948.0 m asl

Over Flow Section


An over flow weir has been proposed with 6 m height above nullah bed. The
water is retained upstream of weir and the velocity is slow down. The spilling
section of the weir consists of a fixed weir with roller bucket at downstream end.
The weir crest length is 14 m at an elevation 1956 m asl.
The spilling section is designed for a maximum discharge of 204 m3/s, which
corresponds to a high flood with 1000 years return period.

FHC Consulting Engineers

162

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The energy dissipation will be made by providing a roller bucket at the


downstream side. The spill discharge will be ejected up in the air and then fall
downstream into the nullah bed. The total length of weir structure including the
roller bucket will be 14 m. Stone apron has been proposed in about 20 m length
upstream of weir to have smooth flow conditions and to avoid any scouring effect
in downstream area. The abutment level will be 1959.5 m asl on upstream and
1955.0 m asl on downstream side. In the stone apron area, embankment will
also be strengthened with stone pitching. The stone pitching will be of gravel with
sealing foil underneath.
The right bank portion of weir would be excavated first to construct flushing
channel and power intake. The left bank portion would be completed in low flow
season and during that period the nullah would be diverted through right side.
The salient features of weir are as follows:

Bed level at weir site

1950.0 m asl

Top level of weir

1956.0 m asl

Height of weir above nullah bed

6.0 m

Length of weir crest

14.0 m

Foundation depth

4.0 m

Flood discharge

204 m3/s

Structure material

RCC

The design calculations of weir are presented in Table - 7.2. The weir plan and
sections are shown in Dwg. No. 7-4 and Dwg. No. 7-5.
Table - 7.2: Hydraulic Calculation for Overflow Weir

Discharge (estimated design flood)


Crest width (as per site conditions)
Gravity

Q=
B=
g=

m3/s
m
m/s2

153
14
9.81

Water height over weir from formula : Q= 2/3 B (2g)0.5 h1.5


Height of water above crest
h=
Upstream bed level (as per site condition)
Weir crest level (assumed to pass flood)
Water level at flood (crest elev.+h)
Side wall level

FHC Consulting Engineers

163

3.0
1950.0
1956.0
1959.0
1959.5

m
m
m
m
m

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

7.2.3

Flushing Channel Section


On the right side of the weir, one under sluice section is provided to flush down
the sediment into Nagdar nullah. The flushing section varies from 1949.0 to
1947.0 m asl over a length of 14 m. The entire length of flushing channel has a
rectangular shape with clear width of 4.0 m. This arrangement has been made to
increase the efficiency of the flushing section and to make sediment free area in
front of power intake and weir.
The flushing section is equipped with one hydraulically operated radial gate for
flushing of sediments. The gate will be 4.5 m high and 4.0 m wide. The gate
must allow operation with full water pressure at the upstream side. The gate will
be guided between the downstream lateral guide rails and the upstream counter
guide, where the machined seal sliding strips of stainless steel are welded.
Stop log grooves at upstream of vertical flushing gate have been provided to seal
area during repair work of the gate. The stop logs would be designed for lifting
by a mobile crane. One grappling beam shall enable the placing and pick-up of
the stop log.
The design calculations of undersluice are presented in Table - 7.3. The flushing
channel section is shown in Dwg. No. 7-6.
Table - 7.3: Hydraulic Calculation for Undersluice
Maximum upstream water level
Maximum downstream water level
Upstream bed level
Downstream bed level
Design discharge
Width of underslucie
Height of undersluice
CAPACITY OF UNDERSLUICE
X = {1 / (1 + fi + fo + fc + ffr ) }0.5
where
Coefficient for Intake Losses = fi
Coefficient for Outlet Losses = fo
Coefficient for change in Cross Section = fc
Stickler's Coefficient = k
Coefficient for Friction Losses = ffr
X=
V = X (2gh)0.5
Q=

FHC Consulting Engineers

164

1956.0
1951.0
1950.0
1946.0
204
4.0
4.0

m asl
m asl
m asl
m asl
m3/s
m
m

0.06
1
0.04
70
0.21
0.66
6.52

m/s

111

m3/s

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

7.2.4

Gates and Stop Logs


There should be one set of wooden stop logs with a width of 4.2 m and height of
4.5 m with bottom pressure of 1 bar. The stop logs should be designed for lifting
by a mobile crane. The sealing of the panels at the non-pressure side shall be
provided with music-note type seals. All screws and sealing strips shall be of
stainless steel. The stop logs are sub-divided horizontally in parts to reduce the
weight to be lifted. One grappling beam shall enable the placing and pick-up of
the stop logs.
The servomotor, mounted vertically on a support should allow the hoisting of the
gate above the maximum water level. The weight should be increased, if
necessary, by concrete to be filled in the lower part, in order to enable the sure
closing without assistance of oil pressure.

7.2.5

Gravel Scour
On the right side of sediment sluice, a gravel sluice has been proposed to flush
the sediments in front of the power intake. Between the main sediment sluice
and the gravel sluice, there is a divide wall constructed mainly to keep the
sediment free area in front of the power intake. The gravel scour will be equipped
with 1 m x 1 m gate.

7.3

POWER INTAKE
The intake has been designed keeping in view to minimise the head losses at
entrance and to avoid entering bed load and other floating debris in the intake.
The gross area of intake is 12.0 m2. The lower sill level of intake is 4.0 m above
the flushing bed to reduce bed load entry into the power channel.
The other components of the structure include a trashrack and a stop log gate.
The maximum velocity at the entrance of intake is 0.75 m/s at the design
discharge of 9 m3/s. The structure has been designed to divert the flow towards
the connecting channel. The direction of the flow has been set at an angle to the
nullah flow to minimise the inflow of sediments.
The width of stop log is 3.2 m and height is 2.2 m. It will be roller gate with the
bottom pressure of 1 bar. The gate must allow operation with full water pressure
at the upstream side. It should be hydraulically operated by oil pressure and
should be connected to the common oil pressure system. The guide rollers
should be equipped with the self-lubricating bushings. The gate should be
guided between the downstream lateral guide rails and the upstream counter
guide, where the machined seal sliding strips of stainless steel are welded.

FHC Consulting Engineers

165

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The bars of the rack have circular shape with a diameter of 1.0 cm and the
distance between two bars is 1.0 cm. Above the rack, there is a platform at
elevation of 1959.5 m asl, which can be reached by means of iron steps. From
this platform, the rack can be cleaned manually. The rack should be divided into
panels of equal size, which will be connected by stiffening bars. The trash rack
panels should be interchangeable and fixed by bolts made of stainless steel.

7.4

CONNECTING CHANNEL
Connecting channel is a rectangular RCC structure that off - takes from weir and
flows at a slope of 1 in 500 along the right side of the nullah. It has been
designed as open channel. The channel has a maximum capacity of 9 m3/s with
2.5 m width and 1.80 m water depth. The connecting channel has a length of
40 m up to the sandtrap.
The walls are vertical having internal height of 2.3 m and wall thickness is 0.5 m
from top to bottom. The thickness of base is 0.5 m. The bed slope of connecting
channel is 1:500 maintained over entire 40 m length. A 0.15 m thick PCC layer
has been provided under the base of the channel to give the structure smooth
surface and to transfer the load to the ground uniformly.
The salient features of the channel are as hereunder:
m3/s

Discharge

Slope

1:500

Length

40

Bed Width

2.5

Depth of Water

1.80

Velocity

2.19

m/s

Free Board

0.5

The parameters have been adopted to maintain non-silting and non-freezing


velocity in the channel at design discharge as well as at minimum discharge.
Expansion joints will be provided to accommodate the expansion and contraction
of concrete due to temperature variations; whereas, PVC construction joints are
also provided as per requirement of the section.

FHC Consulting Engineers

166

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

7.4.1

Reject Weir
At connecting channel, upstream of the sandtrap, an over flow section is provided
to drop the flows back into the nullah. The reject weir has a width of 6.0 m and it
will spill all the excessive flows from the connecting channel. An undersluice
would allow the excessive flows to be spilled over the reject weir.

7.5

DESANDER / SANDTRAP
Desander / sandtrap is provided to remove the suspended particles with diameter
above 0.22 mm. For a design discharge of 9 m3/s, two chambers have been
provided. Each chamber has a length of 54 m and width of 4.0 m.
The total length is divided into the following reaches:

Upstream transition starting from inlet gate

3m

Chamber length

54 m

No. of chambers

Maximum water depth

5.63 to 7.24 m

The main elevations are as follows:

Top of sandtrap

1956.8 m asl

Bottom level of inlet gates

1954.1 m asl

Bottom level of outlet gates

1953.2 m asl

Upstream elevation of bottom of chamber

1950.3 m asl

Downstream elevation of bottom of chamber :

1948.7 m asl

Upstream elevation of bottom of flushing pipe :

1947.7 m asl

Table - 7.4: Hydraulic Calculation for Sandtrap


Mosonyi / Giesecke Zanke
Q
Chambers
Q / Chamber
d
K (Stickler)
Density
Assume
V
Assume Width (B)
Depth (H)
Vs' = Settling velocity in standing water
Alpha =0.132/H

FHC Consulting Engineers

167

Units
m3/s
Nos.
m3/s
mm

9
2

4.5
0.22
60
2.82

ton/m3

0.20
4.00
5.63
0.0320
0.0557

m/s
m
m
m/s

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Vs = settling velocity in flowing water


Ls
Selected Length
Checks
Ls = 8*b =
H/B
Vcr (Shields)
Vcr (Camp) = 0.44d

0.0208
53.99
54.0

m/s
m
m

32.00
1.41
0.2557
0.2064

B
b = (B-w) / 2
h
w
Slope of sedimentation tank

4.00
1.50
1.50
1.00
3.00

m
m
m
m
%

Depth at the end of slope


Mean area
Mean velocity
Critical velocity
Check: Mean Velocity < Critical Velocity

7.24
25.74
0.1748
0.2557

m
m2
m/s
m/s

m/s
m/s

The width of each chamber is 4.0 m and the water height is varying between
5.63 m at the beginning and 7.24 m at the end of the chamber. The wall
thickness of the outer walls is 0.60 m. The average net cross sectional area of
each chamber is approximately 25.74 m2, excluding the area for flushing. This
corresponds to average velocity of 0.1748 m/s for the discharge of 9 m3/s. A
grain size of 0.22 mm was selected as minimum diameter to be settled in the
sandtrap. The plan and sections of sandtrap are presented in Dwg. No. 7-8.
The flushing channels have a trapezoidal cross section with an area of 3.75 m2.
The slope of these channels, which can be flushed by small vertical lifting gates,
is 3 %. A sand flushing pipe with a diameter of 1.5 m leads from the sandtrap
back to Nagdar nullah.

7.5.1

Hydraulic Steel Structures

7.5.1.1

Inlet Gate
There would be two inlet gates, with 2.0 m width and 2.8 m height. The gate
must allow operation with full water pressure at the upstream side. It should be
hydraulically operated by oil pressure and should be connected to the common
oil-pressure system with gravel flush gate. The guide rollers should be equipped
with self-lubricating bushings.
The gate should be guided between the
downstream lateral guide rails and the upstream counter guide, where the
machined seal sliding strips of stainless steel are welded.

FHC Consulting Engineers

168

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The servomotor, mounted vertically on a support should allow the hoisting of the
gate above the maximum water level. The weight should be increased, if
necessary by concrete to fill in the lower part in order to enable the sure closing
without assistance of oil pressure.

7.5.1.2

Outlet Gate
At the end of flushing chamber, two outlet gates are required. The gate width is
4.2 m and height is 3.6 m. The gate must allow operation with full water pressure
at the upstream side. It should be hydraulically operated by oil pressure and
should be connected to the common oil-pressure system placed in the station
building. The guide rollers should be equipped with self-lubricating bushings.
The gate should be guided between the downstream lateral guide rails and the
upstream counter guide, where the machined seal sliding strips of stainless steel
are welded.
The servomotor, mounted vertically on a support should allow the hoisting of the
gate above the maximum water level. The weight should be increased, if
necessary by concrete to fill in the lower part in order to enable the sure closing
without assistance of oil pressure. Gate position switches must be provided for
remote control.

7.5.1.3

Sand Flushing Gates


Two sand-flushing gates will be required having width of 1.2 m and with a height
of 1.2 m. The flushing gate shall be oil-pressure operated. One servomotor shall
be vertically mounted in the centre of a support welded of plate steel. All parts
coming into contact with sealing elements should be of stainless steel or stainless
steel plated. The servomotor shall be connected to the common oil-pressure
station of the inlet gates. The flushing gates should be locally controlled by hand.
A remote indication of the position of the gate should be provided.

7.6

POWER TUNNEL
At the downstream of sandtrap, there is trapezoidal shape tank in which water is
dropped before it enters into the low pressure tunnel. The excessive flows would
be spilled over through ungated section into Nagdar nullah. The stop log is
placed at intake portal of tunnel.
Tunnel has horse shoe shape having 2.8 m width and 3.1 m height with
approximate length of 3840 m from inlet to surge tank. The bed level of tunnel
intake is 1948.67 m asl and it ends at 1933.31 m at the surge tank. It has design
capacity of 9 m3/s and act as low pressure tunnel.

FHC Consulting Engineers

169

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The tunnel would be unlined with a slope 1:250. The cross sectional area of
headrace tunnel will be 7.84 m2 and velocity for the design discharge would be
about 1.15 m/s. Although the design discharge does not require such large cross
sectional area, it is considered the minimum dimension for such a length of
tunnel.
Headrace tunnels have been designed keeping in view the length of tunnel,
excavated diameter of tunnel, velocity and head losses in the tunnel. The
geological rock formations have been studied.
The salient features of the headrace tunnel are as under:

Discharge

9 m3/s

Slope

1:250

Length

3840 m

Area

7.84 m2

Velocity

1.15 m/s

The tunnel can be made unlined wherever sound rock is available. The tunnel
would be generally shotcreted and wherever, it required, the section would be
concrete lined. The maximum cover is about 800 m.
The longitudinal profile of the low pressure headrace tunnel is presented in the
Dwg. No. 7-2 and cross section is shown in Dwg. No. 7-14.
A new road of approximately 3 km length has to be constructed from Neelum
village to weir site area and road from Keran to Neelum village has to be
upgraded. The maximum gradient should not be more than 10 %.
Excavating the road, steep rock walls, talus cones, screes and blocky material
have to be crossed, resulting in partly difficult excavations, retaining walls and
other protection measures, such as rock bolts, mesh wire, shotcrete and anchors
respectively.
The access tunnel must be constructed early enough to enable the determination
of geological parameters for the final location of the surge tank. The access
tunnel will thus serve as an exploration adit at the same time.

FHC Consulting Engineers

170

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

7.6.1

Conventional Heading Method


The main concept of modern tunnelling is to activate a zone of the rock mass,
surrounding the excavated cavity, by putting it into the position as a "bearing ring"
becoming thereby part of the construction system rock plus lining. In doing so,
four vital principles have to be observed:

Consideration of the geological rock mass behaviour

Evidence of unfavourable status of stress and strain by applying


appropriate support measures in due time

Optimisation of the support resistance in relation to tolerable


deformations

Supervision by measurements concerning deformations.

Headrace pressure tunnels are mostly unlined (shotcrete only) or concrete lined.
Both types are described in the following paragraphs:

7.6.1.1

External Water Pressure


In many cases the external water pressure is the load case for the predimensioning of the lining thickness. However, normally this pre-dimensioning is
done according to a very low safety factor due to the following facts:

It was measured that the external water pressure is a bit lower around
the tunnel than it should be theoretically. The reason for that
phenomenon may be a long term remaining drainage effect around the
consolidated zone of the tunnel.

If this load case is a special load case during emptying the tunnel,
especially for long tunnels with a big water volume, where it takes a
long time to empty the tunnel and consequently the increase in external
water pressure is very slow.

Normally the external water pressure is reduced by the internal water


pressure.

In case of very high external water pressures the installation of vents may be
provided to keep the thickness of lining within limits. The vents equalise the
external pressure to the internal pressure.

FHC Consulting Engineers

171

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The disadvantage of such vent installation is the necessity of its maintenance.


The design of the inner lining shall take account of the measured quantity and
pressure of the groundwater ingress. In order to avoid misleading results caused
by the dewatering influence of the tunnel drivage, the pressure shall be measured
at a distance of about 15 m from the excavation line by using either a standpipe
gauge or an electrical pressure measuring device.

7.6.1.2

Support
The initial lining must maintain the inherent strength of the rock mass, acting as a
thin membrane inseparable from the surrounding material to prevent its loss of
strength which, if permitted to occur, would require additional support installation.
Once installed to a closed ring the initial lining must maintain the stability of the
whole structure without further assistance of supplementary supports. The
detailed quantity of support elements is dictated by the rock class.
Five different characteristics of the ground/lining response to the excavation and
load redistribution must be observed by use of special monitoring devices.
These are:

7.7

Deformation of the initial lining

Deformation of the surrounding rock mass

Axial stresses acting within the initial lining

Radial stresses acting as "ground load" upon the initial lining

Stress acting to the rock bolt system

SURGE TANK
Surge tank has been proposed to accommodate surges and will facilitate to
maintain water level in headrace tunnel. The surge structure has been designed
in connection with the hydraulic analysis as follows:

The surge structure branches at an elevation of 1936.4 m asl from the


headrace tunnel, which is accessed with 32 m long connection tunnel
into the vertical surge shaft.

The surge shaft is of an internal diameter of 6 m and is of 32 m high.

Ventilation of the surge tank is proposed by an opening at the portal at


top.

The proposed layout of the surge tank regarding the necessary surge volume, the
highest and lowest surge levels are based on the most unfavourable conditions.

FHC Consulting Engineers

172

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
The design discharge is 9 m3/s, when all four units are in operating. A sudden
shut down of all the turbines will be generally done by dissipating the jets with the
deflectors, what does not influence the continuous flow through the pressure
tunnel. The time needed for the subsequent closing of the turbine nozzles should
be defined under the assumption, that the pressure rise in the pressure shaft
should never exceed 10 % of the gross head. The oscillation in the surge tank
has to be considered when the time - stroke characteristic of the nozzles will be
established. The final dimensioning of the surge tank structures has to be
optimised in detail at a later stage in cooperation between civil engineer and the
turbine / governor manufacturer. The preliminary data are:

Closing time of the Nozzles: Tclno

21 second

Closing time of the Deflector: Tclde

2 second

Opening time of the Nozzles: Topno

19 second

However, to be on the safe side, a closing time of 13 second and an opening time
of 12 second were used for the surge tank calculation at the present stage.
Table - 7.5: Hydraulic Calculation for Surge Tank
1

Flood level at dam, m

Turbine rated head, m

1956.0
464
3

Design full load flow, m /s

Upstream conduit diameter, m

Conduit velocity m/s

Elevation top of tank, m

3.1
1.19
1965.27

Low supply level at dam, m

1955.0

Elevation at surge tank tee, m

1933.3

Upstream conduit length, m

3840.0

Average Manning friction coefficient


Tank diameter, m

6.00

Elevation bottom of tank, m

1948.87

Tank height, top to bottom, m

16.40

Tank volume, m

Steel weight in tank and legs, tonnes

30.83

Total height of tank, tee to roof, m

9
10
11

Cost of steel tank, millions US$

0.092

0.014

463
31.97

If in rock, total tank/ris. volume, m

581

Rock excavation volume, allowing for a full concrete lining of tank and riser, m
3

Concrete lining volume, m


2

210

Curved formwork area, m


Steel price $/kg Erected

12

Conduit area, m

7.55

13

Acceleration, n

0.016

14

Accel. head loss, m

15

Acceleration, c

2.10

792
2

Deceleration n

461
3
0.0133

Decel. head loss, m

1.44

1.474

Deceleration c

1.015

20.72

Tank H/2 above tee, m

23.77

16

Tank area F, m

17

Acceleration

18

N acc.

20.81

N dec.

14.33

19

K acc.

33.38

K dec.

14.12

20

y acc. = downsurge , m

Y dec. = upsurge = m =

10.22

3.53

Ref: "Estimating weight of steel surge tank" HRW Vol.6, # 4, Sept. 1998, pages 26 - 29.
Ref: Hydroelectric Handbook. 2nd. Ed. 1950. W. P. Creager & J. D. Justin, page 734 - 743.

FHC Consulting Engineers

173

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The comparatively long acceleration time of the water mass in the headrace
tunnel resulting in a corresponding long oscillation period requires the
observance of an intermediate time in the sequence of starting the turbines.
The preliminary calculation considering worst conditions leads to a necessary
interval of about 200 sec before the next unit can be started. Any type of
operation due to regulating conditions or due to timely peak operation with a
change in discharge of less than 2.3 m3/s with the above mentioned related
closing or opening characteristics should be acceptable.
Considering a Thoma safety factor of 8.3 and the maximum and minimum water
level respectively at the intake, the calculated surge levels are:

7.7.1

Maximum Surge Level:

1965.3 m asl

Minimum Surge Level:

1948.9 m asl

Excavation and Support


Construction method for the surge structure is proposed as follows:

Construction of the access road from elevation 2000 m asl to the portal
of the surge tank at elevation 1970 m asl.

Excavation of the surge shaft to the final diameter with mucking into the
headrace tunnel by gravity.

The support requirements depend on the geological conditions and will consist of
reinforced shotcrete and rock bolts with length as required by geological
conditions.

7.7.2

Lining
The internal water pressures in the surge structures is from 0 to 5.5 bars, the
structures are located near the surface, therefore external water pressure will not
occur. In parts of weak rock zones initial consolidation grouting is required. To
avoid seepage in case of cracks in the concrete lining, a plastic seal is proposed
between rock and concrete lining. The lining in surge shaft should be with a
minimum thickness of 15 cm. A 2 to 3 mm polyvinyl chloride or polyethylene
sheeting is fasting to the rock or shotcrete.

7.8

PRESSURE SHAFT
From surge tank to inlet to the turbine, pressure shaft of 2.1 m diameter would be
excavated. First there would be 420 m vertical and then 260 m horizontal
pressure tunnel. The pressure shaft would be first concrete lined and then steel
lined to convey the water from surge bay to powerhouse.

FHC Consulting Engineers

174

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The shaft and pressure tunnel would be concrete lined. The steel lining would be
provided for 50 m upstream of bifurcation portion. The steel would be maximum
up to 25 mm. The thickness of the pipe has been calculated after considering the
water pressure over and above the gross head. A 15% pressure rise has been
taken in the design calculations.
From surge tank to powerhouse, the pressure shaft and pressure tunnel length
would be 680 m and its internal diameter is 2.10 m for the designed discharge of
9 m3/s. The velocity in pressure pipe will be 2.76 m/s and head loss from valve
chamber to powerhouse will be 3.5 m. The longitudinal section and cross section
of the pressure shaft are presented in Dwg. No. 7-3 and Dwg. No. 7-14
respectively.

7.9

ECONOMIC DIAMETER OF PRESSURE SHAFT


The economic diameter pressure shaft is a trade - off between costs and the
acceptable losses. An optimum pressure shaft diameter should minimise the
sum of constructions costs, maintenance costs and the costs due to head losses,
i.e., the power and energy that otherwise cannot be produced due to head
losses. The practical approach is to use the empirical formulae derived on the
basis of experience and practice.
The finally recommended diameter is thus 2.1 m.
pressure shaft is presented in Table - 7.6.

Hydraulic calculation for

Table - 7.6: Hydraulic Calculations for Pressure Shaft


Discharge (Q) (assume)
Stickler Value : (M)
Slope of Energy Line : S
Penstock dia. (d)
Hydraulic Radius (d/4)
Area (d2/4)
Discharge (calculated from Q = M R0.667 S0.5 A
Velocity

7.10

9.00
60.00
0.0050
2.100
0.525
3.464

9.56
2.76

m3/s

m
m
m2

m3/s

m/s

ACCESS TUNNEL TO POWERHOUSE


From Danjar nullah, about 505 m long access tunnel would be excavated to
access the underground powerhouse. The access tunnel would be horse shoe
type, 6.5 m wide and 7.5 m high. The tunnel would generally be shotcrete lined
and may be concrete lined at some portion where weak rock zone is
encountered. The bottom width would be concrete lined or metalled road for
easy transportation of equipment and material. The access tunnel would be
ventilated from outside to the powerhouse cavern.

FHC Consulting Engineers

175

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

7.10.1

Inclined Shaft to Powerhouse


Transformer bay has been proposed at about El. 1650 m as underground and an
inclined shaft would connect underground powerhouse. The low voltage power
cables from generators would be connected to transformer through inclined shaft.
The estimated length of cable shaft is 240 m and it has a diameter of 3.0 m. This
inclined cable shaft would provide air from outside to powerhouse. Transformer
has been placed under the rock cover to protect it from snow and to be safe due
to security reason.

7.11

POWERHOUSE
The powerhouse is placed inside the mountains as cavern type on the right side
of Neelum River about 200 m upstream of confluence of Danjar nullah with
Neelum River. The cavern would be accessed through access tunnel. The
access tunnel would be excavated from Danjar nullah. The building is of RCC
frame structures of size 62.6 m x 14.6 m x 18.0 m over RCC foundation. There
will be provision of 4 units of 8.75 MW each.
The powerhouse will be excavated with drill and blast method. The cavern width
will be about 14.6 m and length will be 62.6 m. The powerhouse will be founded
at 1481.0 m asl and turbine level at 1486.0 m asl. The machine hall floor level
will be at 1485.0 m asl.
Place required for generator panel, auxiliaries etc. have also been considered.
Control room relay protection, office, batter room, store and telecommunication
will be accommodated in powerhouse. An over-head gantry crane of capacity
30 tons has been provided for placing / replacing the heavy parts of machines.
For powerhouse foundation, the required space for powerhouse building has to
be made with foundation level 1481.0 m asl and powerhouse top will be
1499.0 m asl.
The other important features of powerhouse are as under:

Length

62.2

Width

14.6

Height

18.0

Foundation Level

1481.0 m asl

Turbine Axis Level

1486.0 m asl

FHC Consulting Engineers

176

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

7.12

TAILRACE TUNNEL
The outflow from powerhouse will be discharged into Danjar nullah through a
tailrace tunnel. The tailrace tunnel would be free flow with estimated length of
537 m. It has a horse shoe type 3.0 m wide and 3.35 m high. Tailrace would
generally shotcrete lined and it would be lined at geologically weak zone. The
concrete lining thickness would be 0.15 m at the crown. After 537 m long tailrace
tunnel there would be a 25 m long tailrace channel. The tailrace will join Danjar
nullah and then Neelum River with free flow conditions and will end at elevation
1480.0 m asl.

FHC Consulting Engineers

177

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

HYDRO-MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

FHC Consulting Engineers

178

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

HYDRO-MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

8.1

GENERAL
This section describes the hydro-mechanical equipment required for the Nagdar
Hydropower Project. It includes the information about mechanical equipment
directly related to generating units and for general services. It also covers the
characteristics of these equipment and various factors used to establish the size
and configuration of such type of equipment. The weir is proposed about 5.6 km
upstream of Nagdar nullah confluence with the Neelum River and the
powerhouse has been proposed near Danjar nullah downstream of Keran village.
Based on designed discharge of 9 m3/sec and 470 m gross head, 35 MW of
power can be generated with 4 turbo generating units. The mean annual energy
would be 146.05 GWh.

8.2

MAIN DESIGN PARAMETERS

8.2.1

Discharge
A single value of flow has no significance. It is necessary to know the flow
regime, commonly represented by the Flow Duration Curve as shown in
Figure - 8.1 below. In the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project the flow
variation is between 1.07 m3/sec to 14.68 m/sec. Keeping in view the flow
pattern against various months, the plant capacity has been optimised at
discharge of 9 m3/sec, which is available for 24.2 % of the year.

Figure - 8.1: Flow Duration Curve

FHC Consulting Engineers

179

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.2.2

Head Calculation

8.2.2.1

Head Water Level


The max headwater level is 1956 m asl, while minimum head water level will be
about 1955 m asl depending upon the flow pattern.

8.2.2.2

Tail Water Level


Since there is fluctuation of flow, thus tail water level will also be changing
accordingly. Maximum tail water level is 1480 m asl.

8.2.2.3

Gross Head
The turbine runner centre line has been proposed at 1486 m asl. On the basis of
this proposed runner centre line and head water levels, calculated gross head will
be as follows:

8.2.2.4

Maximum Gross Head:

470 meter

Head Losses
Major head losses in the water ways are due to friction. Total length of tunnel is
about 3840 m and proposed diameter of tunnel is 3.1 meter. The pressure tunnel
will be 260 m in length where as pressure shaft will have a length of 420 m both
will have a finished diameter of 2.1 m. Total calculated head losses are
5.96 mWC.

8.2.2.5

Turbine Net Head


Considering the 5.96 m total head losses the net head variation with all the four
turbines in operation is as follows:

Maximum available Net Head: 469.3 meter

Minimum available Net Head: 464.0

meter

8.3 PLANT CAPACITY


On the basis of selected rated discharge of 9 m3/sec and rated net head of
464 m, the Plant output capacity will be 35 MW and annual energy available will
be 146.05 GWh.

FHC Consulting Engineers

180

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.4 TURBINE SELECTION CRITERIA


The type, geometry and dimension of the turbine will be fundamentally
conditioned by various criterian such as:

Net head

Range of discharges through the turbines

Turbine rotational speed

Cavitation problems

Cost

Among the above criterian net head and discharge are the basic ones, while
others support them.

8.4.1

Net Head
As a first criterion for the selection of type of hydro turbine, is the head at which it
is operated. In case of proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project the rated net head
will be 464 m. Only Pelton type turbine is operate-able under this head condition.
The turbine selection criteria is shown in Figure - 8.2 hereunder.

Figure - 8.2: Turbine Selection Chart

FHC Consulting Engineers

181

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.4.2

Range of Discharges
Nagdar Hydropower Project is a low discharge and high head hydropower
project. Discharge varies from 1.07 m/sec to 14.68 m/sec. The selected rated
discharge 9 m/sec is available for about 24.2 % of the year. Since there is lot of
variation of flow, thus keeping in view the flow pattern in various months and
selected rated head, Pelton turbine is more appropriate solution.

8.4.3

Merits of Pelton over any other Type of Turbine


Pelton Turbine has less peak efficiency than Francis, but it has comparatively
better operating performance on variation of flow, thus Pelton turbine gives
smooth operation in the whole range of discharge.
In Pelton turbine each nozzle will be equipped with jet deflector, thus in case of
sudden shutdown deflector prevents the back surge traveling in long pressure
shaft. This factor can also control the diameter of pressure shaft thus reducing
the cost.
In Pelton turbine repair and maintenance of damaged and worn out parts is
relatively easy than other type of turbine. Pelton turbine has insignificant
hydraulic axial thrust.

8.4.4

Number of Units
Normally it is most cost effective to have a minimum number of units at a given
installation; however, multiple units may be necessary due to various reasons.
Thus for selecting number of units following factors have been considered.

8.4.4.1

Efficient water use

Getting maximum energy

Space limitation for civil structure

Transportation problems

Maintenance point of view

Cost effectiveness

Efficient Water Use


Efficient use of available water and getting maximum energy from hydropower
station is necessary to maximize the profitability. Selection of number of units
plays a vital role to achieve this target. Three different alternatives having 3, 4 or
5 units for same installed capacity have been considered.

FHC Consulting Engineers

182

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

One major factor for evaluation of number of units is how the power station will
anticipate in operation. With 4 or more units operational reliability is more as
compared to 2 or 3 units. This operational advantage will also contribute in the
annual energy produced by the project.
With 4 or more units, generation can be continued more efficiently for flows down
to the minimum historic discharge where as with 2 or 3 units this flexibility
reduces.
The following data as presented in Table - 8.1 shows the comparison of basic
data for the three alternatives:
Table - 8.1: Comparison of Basic Data

NAGDAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT


464 m
9 m3/sec

Net Head:
Rated Flow:

Number Of Units

Units

No.

3 Jet

2 Jet

2 Jet

m3/sec

3.00

2.25

1.80

Shaft Axis

Vertical

Horizontal

Horizontal

Rated Turbine Capacity at Shaft

MW

12.29

9.22

7.37

Plant Capacity

MW

35.00

35.00

35.00

Unit Efficiency At Rated Discharge

90

90

90

Generator Efficiency (Assumed)

96

96

96

rpm

600

600

600

20.8

22.1

19.7

Number Of jets
Each Unit Discharge
Unit Orientation

Turbine Speed
Specific Speed
Runaway Speed

rpm

1080

1080

1080

Runner Diameter

1.473

1.473

1.473

Generator Rotor Weight

ton

30.47

24.21

20.25

Crane Capacity
Minimum Turbine Setting (Above
Max. Tail Water Level)

ton

40

30

30

1.8

1.8

1.7

FHC Consulting Engineers

183

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.4.4.2

Space Limitation for Civil Structure


Space limitation for geologic characteristic may dictate larger or smaller units. In
case of Nagdar Hydropower Project for selected alternatives, turbine capacity at
shaft lies between 12.29 MW each to 7.37 MW each.
From the civil structures and geological viewpoint, no major hindrance is found in
the powerhouse side considering any of these alternatives.
However, the civil work cost will vary accordingly with alternatives. Four units
have been selected for the optimum utilisation of space.

8.4.4.3

Maintenance Viewpoint
More the number of units higher the O&M (operation and maintenance) cost,
lesser the number of units will have lesser maintenance cost. But for the system
stability and to avoid the complete shutdown of powerhouse more than one unit is
strongly recommended.

8.4.4.4

Transportation
The transportation of heavy construction and permanent equipment (Turbine
Runner, Generator Rotor, Stator, Transformers) to the site is a matter which
needs careful attention.
In case of the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project transportation of light and
heavy equipment from Karachi to the project area is possible in the following
manner:

By Air

Entirely by Road

By Rail to Rawalpindi and then by Road

Due to geographical location and costing, air transportation is not feasible, while
other two options are considerable and have their merits and demerits.
Entirely by road option requires more time and inconvenience to the other road
users. Thus by rail to Rawalpindi and then by road to the project site is more
convenient, feasible and time saving.

FHC Consulting Engineers

184

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The initial study shows that the equipment weights of considered alternatives are
as presented in Table - 8.2:
Table - 8.2: Comparison of Basic Data
Components
Number of
Units
Generator
Rotor Weight

Units

Alternative 01

No.
Tons

Alternative 02

Alternative 03

30.47

24.21

20.25

Considering all the aspects, four units are the most favorable solution from the
technical and economical point of view. However, great care is necessary due to
the complexity of proposed project area.

8.5

TURBINE PARAMETERS

Type of Turbine

= Horizontal Pelton

No. of Units

=4

No. of Jets

=2

Plant Capacity

P Total = 35 MW

Plant Discharge

Q Total = 9.0 m /s

Unit Discharge

Q Unit

= 2.25 m /s

Minimum Unit Discharge

Q Min

= 0.87 m /s

Rated Net Head

Hn

= 464 m

Rated Turbine Output at Shaft

= 9.22 MW

Rated Turbine Speed

= 600 rpm

Turbine Runaway Speed

Nr

= 1080 rpm

Turbine Efficiency

= 90

Runner Diameter

Dr

= 1.473 m

Turbine Setting

FHC Consulting Engineers

3
3

= 2.0 m

185

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.5.1

Calculations
The type and dimensions of the Pelton turbine can be easily determined from
application guides prepared by manufacturers. The basic turbine calculations for
the specific speed, turbine runner diameter etc, are as under:

8.5.1.1

Specific speed of the turbine

Ns (Metric HP)

Diameter of the runner (wheel)

Dr

Diameter of jet

dj

Diameter of the Inlet pipe

Di

Running speed of the wheel

Specific Speed
As a general rule of thumb, the optimum specific speed for a single jet impulse
turbine lies within the range of 4 30. It must, however, be noted that smaller
specific speed machines are bulkier, and therefore, their transportation to the site
may be problematic.
The physical size of the machine, therefore, is a critically important factor. The
specific speed for optimum efficiency of Pelton turbine shall not exceed 24 rpm
per jet. As an international practice maximum number of jets on a Pelton turbine
may be 6 only.
The specific speed of a turbine is a useful index. At this speed, the unit operates
at best possible efficiency under a unit head generating unit output power. The
specific speed of turbine has been worked on the basis of similarity and is given
by the formula:

Ns (Metric HP) =

N x (P) 0.5 / H 1.25

Ns :

Specific speed of turbine

P:

Turbine shaft output (H.P)

N:

Running speed of turbine = 600 rpm

Q:

Discharge per unit = 2.25 m3/sec

H:

Net design head = 464 m

As already explained, smaller wheel diameter of Pelton turbine would be


preferable for the proposed project as it offers convenience of transportation. For
this purpose a higher rotation speed is recommended. For a synchronous
ten (10) poles, 50 Hz generator, the rotational speed of 600 rpm is
recommended.

FHC Consulting Engineers

186

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The specific speed of the turbine is thus worked out to be:


P

= 1000* Q*H* /75 (HP)


= 12528 HP
P 0.5 = 111.93
H1.25 = 2153.5
Putting the value in the above equation.
Ns(metric HP) = 31.186 rpm

Ns(metric HP) / per jet = 31.186 / 2 = 22.1

8.5.1.2

(for a 2 jet machine)

Velocity and Diameter


Velocity and diameter of the jet can be worked out by the following relationship
that balances the potential energy of water into kinetic energy when it is released
from the jet orifice.
mgH
Vj 2
Vj

1/2 mVj 2
(2 gH)
(2 gH) 0.5

=
=
=

In order to account for the loss of head from inlet to jet exhaust, a co-efficient C
has to be introduced.
Vj = C x (2gH)0.5
The value of C is usually taken as 0.97 for Pelton turbines Now for a discharge of
2.25 m3/s and a net effective head of 464 m.
Vj =

92.551 m/s

The required jet area A = Q / 2Vj

(as there are 2 jets)

A = 0.01216 m
A = (d2) / 4
d j2 = A x 4 /

dj2 = 0.015376 m2
dj = 0.124 m
So a jet diameter of 0.124 m is recommended for the turbine. Recommended
range of diameter by the manufacturers for jet is 0.03 - 0.20 m.

FHC Consulting Engineers

187

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.5.1.3

Pitch Circle Diameter


The runner diameter, which is also known as Pitch Circle Diameter (PCD) is
given by the equation:
D = 60 x V / x N
Here V is the peripheral velocity of the runner. Experience indicates that
tangential speed corresponding to optimum efficiency is the half of the jet
velocity. The peripheral velocity is, therefore, taken as 46.28 m/s. The value of
Dr for proposed turbine operating at 600 rpm comes out to be 1.473 m. The
recommended diameter of runner is therefore 1.473 m.

8.5.1.4

Runaway Speed
The turbine speed remains constant due to regulating action of spear and nozzle
under fluctuations of load. The speed shall, however, rapidly rise when the load
is suddenly rejected and the jet closes. In such an event, the speed of the
turbine shall rise to a maximum value, which is technically specified as runaway
speed.
Under these conditions, the centrifugal forces may be as large as 4 6.75 times
the forces at normal running speed.
The formula for runaway speed of a Pelton turbine has been worked out from
model tests as under:
N Runaway = K x N
Where K is a coefficient whose value varies from 1.8 to 2.0
With K = 1.8, the runaway speed of the turbine is about 1080 rpm. The
recommended values of specific speed, jet diameter, runner diameter, rotational
speed and runaway speed have been worked out from equations.
However, the actual physical sizes have been standardised by manufacturers
and it is possible that some refinement and adjustments are made when the
procurement order is finally placed.

8.6

TURBINE COMPONENTS

8.6.1

General
The type of turbine selected for the Nagdar Hydropower Project is horizontal axis
Pelton Turbine. This selection is based on the operating parameters which
include available head, discharge, flow condition, location and operational
behavior of the plant.

FHC Consulting Engineers

188

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Some other factors such as saving in civil work of machine hall, limited discharge
and especially transportation are decisive factors for the selection of turbines.
The powerhouse will be equipped with four horizontal axis Pelton turbines with
two jets. Rated power producing capacity will be 8.75 MW each with 96%
assumed efficiency of generator and 99% assumed efficiency of transformer.
Each turbine is connected via a spherical valve to a common bifurcation joined
with the pressure tunnel. The turbine casing shall be fully embedded in concrete.
The spherical valves shall be firmly connected to the bifurcation from pressure
tunnel and the manifold of the turbine. Between the valve and the turbine casing
a removable pipe with flange at both ends should be provided which is capable of
bearing small axial movement.
The nozzles as well as the turbine runner should be designed for a dismantling
below the turbine without disassembling of the turbine shaft. Considering the big
fluctuation of the discharge, each unit should be able to work in case of limited
available discharge with a reduced number of nozzles.

8.6.2

Turbine Runner
The turbine runner should be of the impulse type with a number of buckets
around its periphery, buckets manufactured in die cast in one piece of stainless
steel. The turbine runner should be casted of stainless steel. The runner and
buckets will be of modern design and will meet the relevant standards.
The runner should be designed to withstand the loads imposed by any
combination of fully open nozzles in operation at any speed including maximum
runaway speed and maximum head without exceeding the stress limits. The
finished machined runner should be carefully statically balanced.
The connection with the turbine shaft should allow a disassembling downwards
and to place it on a trolley for the transportation on rails. A model of the turbine
with the provided runner should be tested in the laboratory in order to verify the
efficiency guarantees.

8.6.3

Turbine Shaft
The turbine shaft includes the main shaft section from the interface of turbine
runner to the interface of the generator rotor shaft coupling flange.
The turbine shaft should be designed for the maximum output of the turbine and
for the maximum radial forces due to hydraulic loading imposed by the use of one
or two nozzles in operation. In addition the shaft should be designed to operate
without harmful vibration and deformation at any speed up to the maximum
runaway speed including reverse runaway speed.

FHC Consulting Engineers

189

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The turbine shaft with flanges should be made of forged steel. A collar should be
provided to support the runner and the turbine main shaft during removal of the
generator rotor and shaft. The shaft should have a hole bored at the center
throughout the length to permit usual inspection of the metal in the interior of the
shaft.

8.6.4

Casing
Turbine casing has two main functions, one is to support the deflector shafts and
the other is to guide the discharged water from the runner to tailrace effectively
without interference of water flow. The casing will be fully welded fabrication and
split horizontally by a flanged joint. This specific feature will facilitate removal of
the runner and allow access to other internal mechanisms.
Removable covers on the side of the casing enable periodic inspection of the
internal mechanisms and runner buckets with ease. Machined flanges shall be
provided to which the inlet bend assemblies will be bolted and which also allow
positive location of the main bedplate. An extension of the casing skirt below the
mounting flange shall act as the tailrace pit liner.
For transportation reasons the housing should be designed in suitable sections
with flanges. Alternatively a welding at site may be considered. In such case the
necessary equipment for stress relieving and 100% X-Ray test of the welding
seams has to be provided. All parts welded in the workshop must be performed
and tested considering a welding factor one.
The casing is to be embedded in the concrete, so it should be reinforced to
transmit the forces to the foundation structure.

8.6.5

Nozzles
In Pelton turbine, water is directed by the nozzles having an adjustable outlet in a
thin jet which strikes against the buckets arranged around the periphery of the
runner. In the free jet leaving the nozzle, the potential energy is converted into
kinetic energy.
The power nozzles should be designed for an internal water pressure and to
produce a solid uniform jet. Two nozzles with outside lying servomotors should
operate with closing tendency up to the opening of no-load discharge. The
renewable nozzle tips should be of stainless steel. The nozzle tip is attached to
the end of the nozzle. Surface irregularities should be machined carefully to
reduce friction head losses to a minimum.

FHC Consulting Engineers

190

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.6.6

Needles
In the Pelton turbines, the needles are used to regulate the jet of water through
nozzles. It is actuated by the governor servomotor through the regulating shaft,
regulating lever and the linkage.
The needle rod should be chromium plated or of stainless steel and the
renewable needle tips should be made of stainless steel.

8.6.7

Jet Deflectors
To prevent excessive pressure rise in the pressure shaft and to ensure quick
response and proper speed regulation of the unit, each power nozzle should be
provided with a jet deflector. Deflectors should be actuated by a deflector
servomotor and should be coordinated with nozzle needles so that upon rise in
speed each jet will be quickly deflected first, followed by slow closure of the
needles until the jets pass only sufficient water to maintain speed. The deflectors
will enter the jet when the load decrease is faster than can be handled by the
needles.
The deflector should be designed of carbon steel with stainless steel edges. The
deflector should be capable of deflecting the jet completely within the time
required to keep the speed rise within the specified limits during the load
rejection. The deflector should be designed to withstand the maximum discharge
from the nozzles without damage.

8.7

GOVERNOR SYSTEM

8.7.1

General
The governors will be of the electro hydraulic PID (Proportional, Integral, and
Derivative) type. The latest designs incorporate digital technology, which allows
easy adjustment of control parameters with diagnostics capabilities. As such,
PID type electro hydraulic governors with microcomputer control will be specified,
and these will be equipped for joint as well as individual operation of the units. In
this respect, these will be ideally suited for integration with the unit start / stop
control equipment and with the project SCADA system. The control should be
possible, if:

Locally at the governor for the control of individual components and for
maintenance purposes.

From the main control board for starting, synchronizing, loading and
stopping the unit.

From the control room for supervising the function and operating the
unit in connection with the main grid and for the local network.

FHC Consulting Engineers

191

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

For the control of the units the following conditions have to be considered:

8.7.2

Flywheel effect of the Generator.

The maximum pressure rise in the pressure shaft in case of full load
rejection shall not exceed 10% of the gross head.

The maximum speed rise in case of full load rejection should not
exceed 20% of the normal speed.

The critical speed of the unit should be at least 10% higher than the
runaway speed, which is estimated to be 1188 rpm.

Governor Head
Each electronic governor head to be assembled in the main control board of the
power station shall be equipped with:

Start and stop switches

Quick shut down

Speed setting

Speed drop setting

Change-over-switch for one / two nozzle operation

All necessary buttons, indicators, instruments and limit switches and the control
equipment for the automatic start, synchronizing and stopping sequence should
be provided.

8.7.3

Oil Pressure System


Four hydraulic power pack / hydraulic oil system will provide the hydraulic power
for governors independently. The power pack shall have a continuously running
motor coupled to a variable output pump and mounted on an oil reservoir. The
governor accumulator system shall be the nitrogen closed system type capable of
at least two complete full-stroke movements of both governors. A separate hand
pump system will also be required to enable start up without AC power.
Two equal AC-driven screw or roller pumps, each of them sized for normal
operation of the turbine with the pilot valves should be mounted on the sump
tank. The four oil-pressure sets should be interconnected in order to make
possible an operation of each turbine-generator set with any of the four systems
in emergency cases.

FHC Consulting Engineers

192

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.8

INLET VALVE
Each unit will be equipped with a spherical type valve which should be closed
during longer stand-still periods and in emergency cases against the full water
flow. Before the valve is opened, the pressure upstream and downstream should
be equalised via a bypass.
The valve should be firm flanged to the bifurcation at the upstream side. The
foundation should enable a longitudinal displacement of the valve and should
carry no forces in axial direction.
The valves will be hydraulically operated using pressurised oil from respective
governor oil accumulator. The valve together with its bypass valve assembly,
drain and blow-off valves, upstream and down stream connecting pipes will be
designed to fit into the space available with proper regard to accessibility. The
valve will be supported on concrete pedestals and secured by anchor bolts.

8.9

POWERHOUSE CRANE
An overhead motor operated gantry crane shall be provided to assemble and
disassemble the heavy turbo generator components during the installation
process and also during the repair and maintenance of the powerhouse items.
The lifting capacity of the overhead gantry crane is the maximum possible weight
of a single piece of equipment to be lifted / moved by the Crane.
A 30 ton girder type overhead crane has been proposed to be provided in the
powerhouse. The lifting height of the hoists shall be determined either by the
height of the rotor or transformer or any other sub-assembly, which has greater
height than the formers.
The main crane hook shall be capable of lifting the heaviest component and both
the main and auxiliary hooks shall be capable of reaching as far down as
required to serve the inlet valve gallery.
Crane hooks approach distances normally vary from one manufacture to the
other, however, shall be fixed either as per CMAA or FEM standards. Access to
the crane shall be provided through ladder located near the entrance door. The
rail section and size shall be finalised corresponding to the wheel load as per
FEM or CMAA standards.

FHC Consulting Engineers

193

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.10

COOLING AND DEWATERING SYSTEM


The cooling water system is required for the generator surface coolers, governor
oil sump tank, ventilation equipment and the turbine shaft gland or seal. Water
shall be taken from a common sump connected to the tail water channel using
five pumps out of which one will be standby.
Pumps will feed water in a common header through automatic strainers (cyclone
filters), etc. and circulate to the generator surface coolers, thrust and guide
bearing and turbine guide bearing of each unit. Approximately 667 m3/hr of
cooling water quantity has been estimated for this power plant.
Additionally, a standby cooling water system is also proposed to meet the urgent
demand in case of failure of main cooling water system. Provision of closed
cooling water system is also planned to provide cooling water to the generating
units in high sedimentation period or during the time when the water is severely
contaminated. In this regard an elevated cooling water tank is proposed to make
up the leakage through different areas of the cooling water system.
The dewatering system is considered necessary to drain out the pressure shaft,
manifold and branches, and the lowest part of the power station / waterway.

8.10.1

Basic Requirements
All small cooling and drainage water pipes shall be of non-corrosive material as
per AISI standards. These pipes shall be placed in covered trenches or ducts.
Embedded pipes shall pass straight through the concrete without any protection
while pipes in free air on brackets or supports shall be insulated to avoid
condensation.

8.10.2

Cooling Water System


The cooling water system will be designed on the assumption that the water to
the generating units is nearly free of heavy organic matter and is moderately
sediment laden. The major amount of cooling water shall be taken from tail water
channel. The cooling water shall be passed through the cyclone filters before
routing to the coolers of turbine guide bearing, generator thrust bearing,
generator surface coolers and coils of Air Handling Units (AHUs).

8.10.3

Power Station Drainage System


All drainage water from the power station shall be collected in a dewatering and
drainage pit located at the inlet valves gallery floor and pumped out above
maximum tailrace level.

FHC Consulting Engineers

194

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.11

HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM

8.11.1

General
The proposed Nagdar powerhouse is underground type and has no opening for
natural ventilation. Main sources of heating load are electrical and mechanical
equipment that give rise to indoor temperature.
To maintain the indoor temperature at acceptable levels in accordance with the
requirements of the occupants, electrical and mechanical equipment, Heating,
Ventilating and Air Conditioning system has been recommended for Nagdar
Hydropower Project.
The super structure of the plant shall be ventilated all the time and will not be
cooled or heated except in cases where:

Temperatures are required to protect the plant equipment from freezing


or excessive high temperature.

Water condensation or moisture will cause damage to the equipment.

Heat exchangers will use the raw water to cool the air. The water will be pumped
from tail water and cleaned by using twin strainers and filters up to the required
limit. The chillers and pumps shall be installed in modules for economical
operation and to avoid complete failure of the system. The system is to be
equipped with Automatic Controls for better and economical working.
Winter heating is normally not required as the equipment generate sufficient heat.
In certain areas, such as administrative areas, control room and relay room, duct
mounted electric resistance heaters will be used for winter heating.
The current Handbook of Fundamentals from the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) should be used as
reference for designing the HVAC system in the power plant.
The system shall be designed for positive pressure with in the plant to exclude
inverse environmental intrusion. High velocity of air in the valley shall also be
considered for design calculations.
The design conditions for minimum
acceptable performance are established for the purpose of design calculations.

FHC Consulting Engineers

195

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Therefore, an adequate HVAC system shall be designed with the following


design data as presented in Table - 8.3:
Table - 8.3: Design Data
Outdoor design data
Indoor design data, Admin.
offices, computer, control room

Summer

Max. 35 C

Winter

Min. 5 C

Summer

About 24 C
o

All other rooms

Max. 32 C

Indoor design data, Admin.


offices, computer, control room

Winter

About 22 C
o

Workshop, corridors, toilets etc

Min. 15 C in winter and


o

Max. 32 C in summer
o

All other rooms

Min + 5 C

Ventilation Rates

8.11.2

Supply air

Min. 2.5 l/s/m floor area

Outside air

Min. 5 % of supply air


and / or 4.75 l/s/person

General System Description


The HVAC system for the power station shall be designed during the final design
phase; however, the following main outlines have been suggested:

8.11.2.1 Machine Hall


The machine halls of the power station shall have a forced ventilation system
using electrical heating of the circulating air during winter time and water based
cooling during the hottest summer periods. Simple air circulation shall be
ensured through axial flow fans installed at appropriate places at turbine floor.

8.11.2.2 Office and Control Room Building


The power station administrative and control building shall have a forced
ventilation system, with equipment controlling the air temperature and the
humidity. Toilets, kitchen etc. shall have separate exhaust air systems.

FHC Consulting Engineers

196

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.11.2.3 Design Criteria


The HVAC system shall be designed by targeting the following objectives:

To maintain the indoor temperature at a predetermined level.

To provide clean air to air conditioned space by the filtration of recirculated and outside (fresh) air.

To pressurise the building so as to prevent the infiltration of


uncontrolled outside air.

To provide general winter heating in some areas such as control room,


administration areas, workshops etc., by adding heat to the indoor
environment.

To recover heat dissipated by the equipment in winter, and to use it for


space heating where possible.

8.12

AUXILIARY SYSTEM

8.12.1

Workshop Equipment
A central workshop with machinery comprising lathes, drilling machines, milling
machines, grinders, welding machines shall be planned during design phase to
perform dismantling and erections of turbine and generator parts, as well as most
other components related to the power plant and facilitate repair or renewal of
components which do not need specialised skill or experience. This includes
welding, drilling, turning, grinding, etc. and the repair of the power plant's trucks
and other vehicles / cars.
Electrical small tools, air driven tools and a mobile compressor of ample capacity
shall also be proposed for heavy work.
Additionally, different sized hydraulic jacks, mobile dewatering pumps with hoses,
slings etc. as well as consumables shall also be proposed.

8.12.2

Auxiliary Equipment
This equipment includes oil handling and fire fighting equipment.
described in the following paragraphs.

FHC Consulting Engineers

197

These are

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.12.2.1 Oil Handling Equipment


An oil handling system is proposed for the power station comprising of automatic
pumps, filtration plant, dirty and clean oil tanks and all other equipment as
required for safe running of the generating units. Besides equipment for taking oil
samples, mobile pumps with pipes / hoses and filters as well as a mobile oil
purifying unit which can be coupled into all oil systems including the transformers
during operation, shall be proposed during design phase.

8.12.2.2 Fire Fighting System


In general, 6 kg hand held and 25 kg wheel-barrow mounted fire extinguishers
shall be placed at appropriate locations in the power house building and at the
intake area. In addition, the power station shall be provided with several hydrants
with suitably sized fire hoses on each floor. The water for the fire hydrants shall
be taken directly from upstream of inlet valves. A mobile foam unit may also be
proposed.
For indoor and outdoor electrical equipment, an automatic foam based fire
fighting system comprising of foam delivery pipe distribution ring system with
specially designed spray nozzles, ionization detectors, flame & smoke detectors
and integrated processor based control equipment for automatic operation is
proposed. For step-up main transformers, high velocity foam dispensing system
is proposed.
However for generators, Carbon Dioxide gas dispensing fire extinguishing
automatic system may also be considered, if found appropriate in detailed
designing of the generators.

8.12.3

Maintenance Tools and Spares


Considering the remoteness of the project area from main cities, it is advisable to
provide essential maintenance tool and spares to keep the machines in operation
with minimum outage.

FHC Consulting Engineers

198

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

FHC Consulting Engineers

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

199

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

9.1

GENERAL
The general layout of electrical equipment for Nagdar Hydropower Project is
based on four (04) generating units each mechanically coupled with a Pelton
turbine. The rated capacity of the power generating units will be 8.75 MW each.
The turbine speed of 600 rpm has been considered. The runaway speed of
turbine will be 1080 rpm.
It is proposed to connect each generator with an independent 10 / 13 MVA stepup transformer feeding power to a common 132 kV Bus Bar. Thus the Nagdar
HPP will have four Nos. of 132 / 11 kV, 10 / 13 MVA step up transformers. A
single circuit 132 kV transmission line run on double circuit towers will be
interconnected with 132 kV Muzaffarabad Grid Station via a new grid at
Authmuqam. The single line scheme is shown in Dwg. No. 9-1a.
The description and general lay out of the generator, step-up transformer,
transmission arrangement and auxiliary equipment are explained below.

9.2

GENERATORS

9.2.1

General
The generators are essentially three-phase synchronous, water-cooled, brushless
machines mechanically coupled with Pelton turbines and a flywheel for smooth
and stable running. The generators for this project have to be of a special design
because of their high runaway speeds. The turbine speed is controlled by
hydraulic governor regulating the water flow into the turbine.
The excitation system is proposed using independent uninterrupted power supply
(UPS) of appropriate rating for each generator. In case of failure of UPS, a
110 volts d.c. battery bank consisting of 80 x 1.5 volts cells with adequate battery
chargers shall automatically be available as back up.
The stator winding of each generator is star connected with brought out neutral
solidly earthed. The remote temperature detectors are embedded in the stator
winding to read out and record temperature levels at appropriate points.
The generators, excitation equipment and auxiliaries shall be designed,
constructed and tested in accordance with IEC Standards. The generation
terminal voltage will be 11 kV at 50 Hz frequency.

FHC Consulting Engineers

200

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The main data of each generator is as under:

9.2.2

Number of Units

Rated Power

8.75 MW / 10.30 MVA

Rated Voltage

11 kV

Rated Speed

600 rpm

Power Factor

0.85

Rated Frequency

50 Hz

Excitation

Static TCR

Cooling System

Water Cooled

Insulation Class

Stator Connection

Generator Efficiency

96 %

Applicable Standards

IEC 34

Generator Protection
For each generating unit, the following protection relays have been proposed
and shown in the single line scheme Dwg. No. 9-2.

Over - Voltage relay

Under - Voltage relay

Under / Over frequency

Thermal Overload relay for winding

Overall differential relay

Reverse power relay

Negative sequence current relay

Loss of excitation relay

Generator differential current relay

Field over-current relay

Stator earth fault relay

Over current relay, etc.

FHC Consulting Engineers

201

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

9.2.3

Excitation System
Two types of excitation systems have been considered for the generator
excitation namely:

Static Excitation, Thyristor Controlled Rectifier (TCR)

Rotary Excitation

The static TCR excitation type has certain advantages such as quick in operation
and also full reversible excitation voltage is possible and less maintenance is
required. The rotary type has the disadvantage that it involves brushes and slip
rings causing certain losses.
For the Nagdar Hydropower Project, the static TCR excitation is proposed.
Generator excitation system is shown in Dwg. No. 9 - 1b.

9.2.4

MV Switchgear
Each 11 kV generator is electrically coupled with primary of step-up transformer
with hollow aluminium bus bar of appropriate rating and size having a generator
breaker (52GCB) in series between generator and transformer.
Appropriate instrument transformers are installed for protection and measuring
instruments, synchronisation on respective 11 kV bus and 132 kV bus-bar as and
when required.

Installation

Indoor

Nominal System Voltage

11 kV

Mazimum Operating Voltage

15 kV

Rated Frequency

50 Hz

Current Rating

1250* A

Insulation

SF6

* The nominal current rating shall be finalised during the detailed design stage.

FHC Consulting Engineers

202

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

9.3

STEP - UP TRANSFORMER

9.3.1

General
For the Nagdar Hydropower Project, different options of arrangements and
layouts have been considered to step-up the generated voltage to transmission
level.
Mainly the following two options have been discussed in detail:

Each generator bay having its independent step-up 132 / 11 kV


transformer. In this arrangement all generators shall be synchronized
on a 132 kV common bus-bar.

The other arrangement under discussion was to synchronize all


generators on a common 11 kV bus-bar and only one step-up
132 / 11 kV transformer of higher rating, to be used for inter-connection
with national grid by a 132 kV transmission line.

Both of the arrangements have their own advantages and disadvantages and
possess different technical aspects. After detailed comparative study, it is
proposed to use the first of the above arrangements as illustrated in
Dwg. No. 91a.
In this arrangement, each 11 kV generator is electrically coupled with primary of
step-up transformer with hollow aluminium bus bar of appropriate rating and size
having a generator breaker (52GCB) in series between generator and
transformer.
Appropriate instrument transformers are installed for protection and measuring
instruments, synchronization on respective 11 kV bus and 132 kV bus-bar as and
when required.
The 132 kV secondary side of the transformer will be feeding a common 132 kV
bus bar through a circuit breaker and an isolator. The current and voltage
transformers shall be used on high side of the transformer for synchronizing,
protection relays and measuring instruments.
The 132 kV bus bar also consisting of hollow alluminium pipe of correct size and
rating, will have independent set of synchronizing potential transformers.

FHC Consulting Engineers

203

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

9.3.2

Transformer Rating
The step-up transformers shall have the following typical characteristics:

9.3.3

Number of Units

Type

Three-Phase, Step-up

Installation

Outdoor

Duty

Continuous

Dielectric

Mineral Oil

Rated Power

10 / 13 MVA

Nominal Frequency

50 Hz

Rated High Voltage

132 kV

Rated Low Voltage

11 kV

Power Factor

0.85

Voltage Control

On Load, Tap changer (5%)

Impedance

7%

Cooling

ONAF

Connection

Ynd 11

Transformer Protection
In order to ensure reliable operation of the transformer, following protections have
been considered:

Oil level and temperature indicator (alarm & trip)

Differential protection

Over current protection and back up device

Neutral point earth fault current relay

Gas and temperature protections (alarm & trip).

FHC Consulting Engineers

204

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

9.4

132 kV SWITCHGEAR

9.4.1

General
Nagdar Hydropower Project is proposed to be connected to a new grid station at
Authmuqam and then to Muzaffarabad Grid Station with the help of 132 kV
transmission line. The 132 kV switchyard installations required for this purpose
include the SF6 circuit breakers, isolators, voltage / current transformers, power
transformers 132 / 11 kV, lightning arresters, 132 kV bus-bar, SCADA and
telecom system etc.

9.4.2

Circuit Breakers
In the power plant there shall be mainly low voltage, medium voltage and high
voltage circuit breakers installed at various places.
Low voltage breakers are air-break type with thermal and shunt trip
characteristics and are mainly used for supply to motor control centers, station
AC auxiliary supply, battery chargers, heating, internal & external lighting and
other utilities.
The medium voltage 11 kV breakers are vaccum bottle or SF6 gas insulated
breakers. They are used as generator breakers (52GCB) installed on 11 kV side
of the step-up transformer. High voltage breakers, SF6 insulated, are used on
High Voltage side of the step-up transformers and subsequently as 132 kV line
breakers.
The 132 kV circuit breakers shall be of the following characteristics:

Installation

Outdoor

Nominal system voltage

132 kV

Maximum operating voltage

145 kV

Power frequency with stand voltage

275 kV

Lighting Impulse with stand Voltage

650 kV

Rated frequency

50 Hz

Current Rating

100 / 500* A

Insulation

SF6

The circuit breaker shall be provided with a power-driven, stored-energy


mechanism for its operation.
* The nominal current rating shall be finalised during the detailed design stage.

FHC Consulting Engineers

205

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

9.5

LV INSTALLATION

9.5.1

11/0.4 kV Switchgear
It is proposed to use 11 / 0.4 kV switchgear at Nagdar Hydropower Project for
station auxiliary supplies. Two identical auxiliary transformers of 630 kVA rating
have been proposed. One transformer shall be capable to meet the complete
energy requirements of the units and general auxiliaries of the project.
The switchgear shall be equipped with 11 / 0.4 kV circuit breakers; metal clad
draw out type with all ancillary equipment. The arrangement of 11 / 0.4 kV
switchgear is indicated in Dwg. No. 9-3. Disconnecting switches and fuses or
combined fuse-disconnecting switches shall be used for the outgoing feeders.

9.5.1.1

Low Voltage Auxiliary Switchgear

Bus Bars

3 Phases, neutral and ground

Nominal Voltage

11/0.4 kV

Frequency

50 Hz

Nominal Current

1250* A

Rated Short Circuit Withstand

35* kA, rms

Auto Transfer Switch

* The nominal current rating and short circuit with stand current shall be finalised
during detailed design stage.

9.5.1.2

Motor Control Centers


Motor Control Center with low voltage metal clad draw out switchgear with circuit
breaker of appropriate rating feeding respective Direct-on-Line (DOL) or StarDelta motor starters used for respective motor circuits. Each draw out unit will
be provided with on / off push buttons, motor status indication lights (red, green
and amber), circuit labels and measuring instruments like volt and amp meter.
Each unit will be equipped with lock and key arrangement.

9.5.2

Station Auxiliary Transformer


The proposed power plant will be having two independent step-down unit
transformers of 11 / 0.4 kV feeding low voltage common auxiliary bus bar for
station AC supplies as shown in the Dwg. No. 9-1a and Dwg. No. 9-3. Low
voltage bus bar 1 and 2 shall be coupled through a low voltage tie-breaker
operatable manually or on automatic functions of an Auto-transfer switch.

FHC Consulting Engineers

206

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The power plant will be having battery charger to charge station battery bank for
independent DC voltage for controls and protection circuits. However a static
inverter will also be installed to supply station auxiliaries with un-interruptible
auxiliary supplies.
Low voltage switchgear will be in-door.
The main characteristics of the auxiliary transformer are as follows:

9.5.3

Rated Power

630 kVA

Rated Frequency

50 Hz

Cooling

ONAN

Rated Primary Voltage

11 kV

Rated Secondary Voltage

0.4 kV

Connection

Yno

Emergency Diesel Generating Set


A diesel generator of 300 kVA capacity has been proposed for black start
purpose. The generator set will provide emergency supply to power station in
case of any forced or routine shut down. 300 kVA rating is sufficient to meet
essential Black Start operations.
The interconnection of the diesel generating set is shown in Dwg. No. 9-3.

9.5.4

Battery and Battery Charger


DC battery shall be installed in the powerhouse for protection, controls, alarms
tripping and indications. Two (02) banks of 110 V batteries are proposed. Each
bank of rating 500 AH and consisting of 8x1.5 V battery cells with proper
chargers.
In normal conditions DC supply shall be obtained through an AC to DC converter
and in case of failure of AC supply the DC battery shall be automatically brought
in circuit. Lead acid battery shall be used for the above-mentioned installations.
The battery bank will be equipped with its own battery charger.

FHC Consulting Engineers

207

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

9.6

ELECTRICAL AUXILIARIES

9.6.1

Electrical Lighting
The following lighting requirements for station service are foreseen:

9.6.2

Normal lighting for working in normal conditions of comfort.


includes amenity lighting inside and outside the buildings.

Emergency lighting is required and used when the power station is out
of service due to any shut down under emergencies.

Safety lighting to light up exits, entrances and operation / control areas.

This

Fire Detection and Protection System


Proper fire detection and protection system shall be provided at the following
locations of the power plant:

Power plant hall.

Control room, MV switchgear room and auxiliary equipment room of the


power plant.

Electrical gallery.

Power transformers.

LV Switchgear building, etc.

9.7

TRANSMISSION LINE

9.7.1

Dispersal of Power
Dispersal of power from proposed Nagdar power plant is recommended through
132 kV overhead Transmission Line (T/L) up to Muzaffarabad via a new grid at
Authmuqam.
In view of 35 MW output of the proposed Nagdar power plant as well as other
planned hydroelectric stations around the area, it is suggested to use the double
circuit 132 kV towers with only one 132 kV circuit strung.
In order to disperse power from other power plants, second 132 kV circuit could
be strung when such requirement arises. The dispersal of 35 MW from Nagdar
power plant has been considered for allocation of transmission line cost for this
project.

FHC Consulting Engineers

208

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

9.7.2

Transmission Line Route


A tentative transmission line route has been proposed for the interconnection of
the Nagdar power plant with Muzaffarabad grid station via Authmuqam, as
illustrated in the Dwg. No. 9-4. The main criterion for route selection is that the
line traverses as close to the existing access road as possible. It will help the
transportation of material, line construction and its maintenance during operation.

9.7.3

Main Specifications of T/L Material


All material will be in accordance with the standards and specifications of
WAPDA for 132 kV transmission lines.

9.7.3.1

Transmission Line Towers


ZM-1, ZM-30 and ZM-60 type of towers as per WAPDA standard will be used
for the transmission line.

9.7.3.2

Conductor
ACSR Rail conductor will be used.

9.7.3.3

Insulators
Fog type insulator disks will be used having strength of 100 kN on each phase
string.

9.7.3.4

Shield Wire
Shield wire will be in accordance with ASTM - A 363 standard.

9.7.3.5

Construction
The construction of transmission line will be in accordance with the standard
WAPDA specifications for construction of transmission lines.

FHC Consulting Engineers

209

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION

FHC Consulting Engineers

210

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION

10.1

INTRODUCTION
The proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project is a run-off-river project located on
Nagdar nullah. Nagdar nullah is a right bank tributary of Neelum River, having
the confluence with Neelum River near Keran village, about 8 km from the
Authmuqam and 92 km from Muzaffarabad.
The project has been identified on the lower part of Nagdar nullah. The weir site
is located about 6 km from the Neelum River confluence and powerhouse is near
Danjar Village, which is located about 4 km downstream of Keran village. The
need for the project arises from the fast growing demand for electrical energy in
Pakistan together with the increasing attraction of hydropower compared to
thermal generation using fossil fuels.

10.2

DESCRIPTION OF THE OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSAL


Pakistans Northern regions including the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
(AJ&K) are abundantly blessed with hydropower resources.
Presently,
hydropower projects constitute around 6,500 MW of power as installed capacity
which is run and all are owned by WAPDA.
Inspite of the best efforts to develop hydropower projects, utilisation of the
available hydroelectric potential is still on the lower side. According to the
available information, about 11.7 % of the achievable potential has only been
utilised so far.
Optimal utilisation of the countrys hydroelectric potential has also been accorded
priority in the future power development strategy according to which the Hydro
Electric Board (HEB) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has identified a number of
potential sites attractive for their hydropower potential. In the same vein, one
particular site is located on the Nagdar nullah at Keran village, about 92 km from
Muzaffarabad.
The proposed Nagdar hydropower project shall be operated in compliance with
the environmental standards by the World Bank (WB) in line with the Equator
Principles as well as the National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS)
Pakistan.
According to the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA); Section 12, no
project can commence on ground unless No Objection Certificate (NOC) or
Environmental Approval (EA) is obtained from the relevant Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).

FHC Consulting Engineers

211

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

In the present case, it is the EPA Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir,
Muzaffarabad; which has already adopted the Environmental Laws, Rules,
Guidelines, and Regulations etc. of the Government of Pakistan. Therefore, all
the requirements of this Act need to be fulfilled by the Client for the
implementation of the project.

10.2.1

Land Use and Industrialisation


The proposed project site is situated at the Nagdar nullah, a right bank tributary
of Neelum River having the confluence with the Neelum River near Keran village,
about 8 km from the Authmuqam. Agriculture on small pieces of land in the form
of terraces is common. The project area over long stretches has no industry.
However, the government policies for land use encourage industrialisation.
Preparation of feasibility study report of the proposed Janawahi Hydropower
Project is a clear proof of the policy of the Government of Azad Jammu and
Kashmir for industrialisation.

10.2.2

Regulatory Framework- Industrialisation


The Government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir is facilitating investment, both local
and foreign, in industrial sector. Liberalisation and industrialisation in the country
and the Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K), as a policy of the
Government are well reflected from the initiatives as described in the following
sections.

10.2.2.1 Deregulation of the Economy


Deregulation is the priority policy of the Government of the Azad State of Jammu
and Kashmir, like the Government of Pakistan.

10.2.2.2 Infrastructure Facilities


In order to facilitate fast industrialisation, the basic infrastructure facilities like
roads network, water and power supply, means of transportation and
communications, etc. are being improved / developed speedily.

10.2.2.3 Incentives
In order to promote industrialisation, the following incentives are available equally
to the investors:

initial depreciation allowance (IDA),

amortisation, and

normal tax rates.

FHC Consulting Engineers

212

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.2.3

Environmental Legal Framework


The Government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir has been actively pursuing the
cause of environmental protection.
The Government of AJ&K has created , though in infancy, organisational
structures and adopted the rules, regulations, laws, NEQS, etc. of the
Government of Pakistan for the protection of the environment and resource
conservation. In Pakistan several laws exist for the protection of the environment
and most of these are being adopted by the Govt. of AJ&K.
The Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) 1997 provides the legal basis
for the IEE / EIA studies being carried out in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

10.3

PAKISTAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (PEPA) 1997


Amongst many other salient features the Act, PEPA 1997 empowers the EPA,
Azad Jammu and Kashmir to:

carry out the environmental assessment,

identify categories of projects to which the Initial Environmental


Examination (IEE) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
provisions will apply;

develop guidelines for conducting IEE and / or EIA and procedures for
the submission, review and approval of the same;

develop environmental emission standards for parameters such as air,


water and noise and

enforce the provisions of the PEPA through environmental protection


orders and environmental tribunals headed by magistrates with wideranging powers, including the right to fine violators of the Act.

The EPA, Govt. of AJ&K is empowered to manage the environmental concerns


and to implement all the environmental rules, regulations, laws, acts, etc.

10.4

GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT


The Pak - EPA published a set of environmental guidelines for conducting the
environmental assessments and the environmental management of different
types of development projects and these are also adopted by the EPA, AJ&K.
The IEE / EIA reports are to be submitted to EPA for No Objection Certificate
(NOC) and / or Environmental Approvals (EA).

FHC Consulting Engineers

213

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.5

GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION


These guidelines deal with the possible approaches to public consultation and
techniques for designing an effective programme of consultation that reaches out
to all the major stakeholders (also including the poor, women, building
community, NGO, etc) and ensures that their concerns are incorporated in any
impact assessment study.

10.6

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND EXPECTED CONDITIONS

10.6.1

Existing (Baseline) Condition of the Biophysical and Socio-Economic


Environment, Trends & Anticipated Future Environmental Conditions
As described earlier, the proposed project site is situated on the Nagdar nullah, a
right bank tributary of Neelum River having the confluence with the Neelum River
at Keran village, about 8 km from the Authmuqam. The weir site is located about
5.6 km from the Neelum River confluence and powerhouse is near Danjar Village,
which is located about 4 km downstream of Keran village. Agriculture on small
pieces of land in the form of terraces is quite common. The project site over long
stretches has no industry. The hydropower potential of the Nagdar nullah will be
used for power production.
The main road from Nausehri to Taobut runs along the right bank of
Neelum River and the Line of Control (LoC) is close to the main road at Tithwal,
Authmuqam and Keran village. There is no road available up along the Nagdar
nullah, as it has a quite steep gradient. However, the weir site can be accessed
by rough track from Keran village or on foot along the Nagdar nullah. The road
from Keran village leads to Neelum village and then crosses Nagdar nullah at
about 3 km from its confluence with the Neelum River.
The project sites including weir site and the power house sites are surrounded by
mountains which till the recent past were covered with dense forests and a
variety of wildlife. Inspite of rapid deforestation, vegetation in the form of grasses
and shrubs is quite dense. Small scale irrigation on hill slopes is the major
activity and source of livelihood of the people. Water from springs is used for all
purposes including drinking, irrigation, domestic or other uses.
Human
settlements are scattered all along the slopes and even on the top of the hills.
Winding, unpaved, dangerous and unsafe hilly tracks add to the overall difficulty
of the people living especially on hill slopes and on their tops.
By and large, majority of the people living in the area are very poor. They
generally lead marginalised life style. Literacy rate, on the overall is very low due
to poverty and non - availability of the adequate number of educational
institutions. Health facilities are very sparse. People have to travel even up to
Muzaffarabad for getting medical aid.

FHC Consulting Engineers

214

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Electricity is not available in most of the human settlements and those have it, are
victim of long drawn out load shedding like in the rest of A & J and Pakistan. No
industry exists in the area. Private transport in the form of buses, wagons,
pick-ups and motorcycles is available to some extent. Private transport plying is
also a source of income of some people. During very short period from usually
June to September, tourism also becomes a source of earning of the people.
Centuries old traditions, customs and rituals are in practice. Women are
restricted to petty household works. They have no say in the decision making.
The elderly people are well respected and they play major role in decision
making. Marriages are generally arranged and are quite successful. The joint
family system prevails. Print and electronic media are bringing change in the
thinking levels and the same is now reflected in the day to day life of a common
mans life.
With operation of the project, it will provide job opportunities especially to the
people of the area around the project site, Government will get large volumes of
earnings in the form of taxes and duties on recurring basis. Poverty alleviation, to
some extent, will be yet another benefit.
There is a serious shortage of power in the AJ&K This project will help to add
positively to the economy as well as fulfillment of domestic needs. The power
supply from the project operations will help to bridge the crucially widening gap
between power demand and supply.
Obviously, in case the project does not proceed further, there will not be any
change in the existing status of the environment or a status quo will be
maintained with regard to all environmental, social and economic factors.

10.6.2

Environmentally Sensitive Areas of Special or Unique Value

10.6.2.1 Physical Resources


The physical resources of the project area include topography, geology, soils,
climate, water, etc. as described in previous chapters.

10.6.2.2 Ecological Resources


Fisheries and aquatic biology, Biodiversity, Forestry, Wildlife, scientific
institutions, Socio-economic and Cultural and other heritage are the ecological
resources.

FHC Consulting Engineers

215

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.7

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mainly a countrys wilderness areas and scenic landscapes with their associated
flora and fauna form natural capital of a country. Both collectively and within
each level, the range or variety of the resources is referred to as the Biological
Diversity. The contribution of the Natural Capital is recognised at three distinct
levels including genera, species, and community habitat and ecosystem.
The greater the number of genera, species and habitats and ecosystems present
within the area, the greater is the Biodiversity. It is in this background that the
ecology of the area is discussed in the following paragraphs.

10.7.1

Overview
Natural flora of the Neelum district comprises of forests (mainly conifers), shrubs,
herbs, forbs, grasses, ferns, mosses, lichens, medicinal plants, agricultural crops,
vegetables, and cultivated fruit trees. The information below is about the valley
as a whole supplemented by information on areas under weir site and
powerhouse.

10.7.2

Forests
Eight types of forests exist in the area of the two Divisions of Neelum valley
Sharda and Keran. These forests are:

Moist Deodar Forests,

Western Mixed Coniferous Forests,

Kharsu Oak Forests,

Moist Temperate Forests,

Dry Oak Forests,

Sub Alpine Forests,

Sub Alpine Pastures, and

Moist Alpine Pastures.

Keran Division consists of Bandi Ashkot Range, Jagran Range and Keran
Range.
Sharda Division has Sharda Range and Gureze Range.
The proposed Nagdar hydropower project site comes under the Keran Division
and amongst the different types of the Forests in the area exists, the Moist
Deodar Forests and Western Mixed Coniferous Forests.

FHC Consulting Engineers

216

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.7.2.1 Moist Deodar Forests


The local community has the traditional rights in terms of use of forests. It is
revealed that on average about three trees are burnt by one household in a year
for fuel-wood requirements in absence of alternate sources. Similarly, about 25
trees on average are required to construct a house for which the wood roofs have
to be replaced after every 8-10 years.
This type is situated between 1370 m asl and 2440 m asl (4,500 ft and 8,000 ft);
generally, Bluepine grows mixed with Deodar. The proportion of mixture is
variable and irregularly distributed in the type. However, in the Valleys of the
project area, the proportion of the Bluepine in this type is more at certain places.
Deodar predominates on these aspects between 1525 m asl to 2290 m asl
(5,000-7,500 ft) and on higher exposed situations the growth of the Bluepine
becomes stunted and canopy is open where as on lower extremities gains
considerable dimensions.
The under growth generally consist of Vibernum spp. Skimmia Laureol, Spirea
Vaccinifolia, Indigifer Gerardiana, Contoneastrer Bacillaris,and Sarcococa
Saligna.

10.7.2.2 Western Mixed Coniferous Forest


It constitutes the second largest important forest type next to the moist Deodar
Forests type. The type consist of mixed conifer species of silver Fir, Bluepine
and Deodar with varying intermixture of evergreen and Deciduous broad leaved
trees and strips and patches of broad leaved forests. Generally, the forest
presents with over-maturity with marked deficiency of younger age groups and
small amount of regeneration.

10.7.2.3 Reserve Forests


The forest area in the project proposed weir site area is Karka Beat, Nagdar Beat
and Neelum Dubeatan. These are the reserve forests and mainly consist of
Bluepine, Deodar and Kayl.

10.7.2.4 Medicinal Plants


A lot of medicinal plants are present in these forests which are of extreme
importance. Amongst these, with local names, are Goldoof, Rattan Ju, Patrees,
Kuth, Batwava, Chora Jari, Zakhm-e-hayat, Jogi Badshah, etc. An extensive
growth of Mushrooms is also present in these forests at heights. Locally it is
called Gochhi which is a very costly food item; collected and sold in the market
of Islamabad and Rawalpindi.

FHC Consulting Engineers

217

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.7.2.5 Vegetation in the Weir Area


The weir and Power house area falls under dry temperate climate. The reserve
forest covers an area of approximately 392.9 hectares and is locally known as the
Labah Naka Jungle. The nearby Guzara forest is known as the Kuan Guzara
Jungle.
Vegetation in the project area has been studied by delineating the area into upper
slopes and lower slopes (up to the river bank). The Reserve Forest on the upper
slopes is composed of conifers such as Cederus Deodara (Paludar),
Piceae Smithiana (Kachal), Pinus Wallichiana (Kail / Biar) and Abiespindrow
(Fir / Rewar). Dominant shrubs include Alunus Nitida (Sharol), Zanthoxylum
Alatum (Timer), Indigofera Gerardiana (Kainthi), Juniperus Communis (Bhentri)
and Parrotia Jacquemontiana (Pesher).
The cultivated fruit trees in the weir site / powerhouse area include Prunus
Armeniaca (Khobani / Apricot), Juglans Regia (Akhrot / Walnut), Prunus Persica
(Arru / Peach), Pyrus Malus (Apple), Prunus Amydalus (Almond) and Diospyros
Lotus (Amlok).

10.7.2.6 Vegetation at Powerhouse Area


The powerhouse site falls under moist temperate climatic zone and is
characterised by scrub vegetation. The prominent plants species include Accacia
Modesta (Phulai), Olio Cuspidata (Kao), Morus Alba (Toot), Ficus Palmata
(Phagwara), Ailanthus Altissima (Drewa), and Robinia Pseudoacacia (Kikar).
Few plants of Pinus Wallichiana and Populus Nigra (Sufaida) species were also
found to be growing in the area. The shrubs in the powerhouse area include
Indigofera Gerardiana (Kanthi) and Zanthoxylum Alatum (Timer).
Dominant herbs include Polygonum Amplexicaul (Masloon), Solanum
Xanthocarpum (Mahokari). The grasses found at lower slope are Pennisetum
Orientale (Muniara), Themeda Anethra (Lundhar), Setaria Pallude, (Kacoli),
Chrysopogon Echinuelatum (Beran), C. Eclirolatis (Beran), and Dactylus
Glomerata (Karkan).
A limited number of fruit trees also exist in the powerhouse complex area.
Prominent trees are Juglans Regia (Akhrot / Walnet), Prunus Armeniaca
(Khobani / Apricot), Prunus Persica (Aru / Peach), and Diospyros Lotus (Amlok).

FHC Consulting Engineers

218

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.8

NATURAL FAUNA

10.8.1

Mammals
The Keran and Sharda valley of District Neelum is rich in fauna, particularly small
mammals; in particular the rodents, flying squirrels, long-tailed marmot,
porcupines and long-tailed mouse are of note. Himalayan monkeys, mouse dear,
grey langur and black bear represent large mammals. Grey goral and Ibex also
survive (only within the north-western part of the valley adjoining Kohistan). The
presence of Leopards has also been reported by local people. Similarly, the
sightings of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list
critically endangered Snow Leopard have also been reported.
It is generally considered that the wild mammals in the weir site and powerhouse
area are mostly trespassers. The Macaca Mulatta (Monkey), Semnopithecus
Entellus (Gray Langur) Ursus Thibetanus (Black Bear) and Funambuius Pennanti
(Himalayan Squirrel) are the most common mammals found in the vicinity of
villages falling in the project area. These animals sometimes enter the
settlements in search of food and prey.
The Uncia Uncia (Snow Leopard), Panthera Pardus (Common Leopard),
Naemorhedus Goral (Gray Goral), Muschus Muschiferus (Musk Deer) and Ovis
Orientalis (Urial) cross the area in winter when the glaciers are deposited across
the area providing a safe corridor for these animals.

10.8.2

Reptiles and Amphibians


Rana Tigrana (Rain Frog), Trachydosaurus Rugosus (Stripped Lizard) and
Uromastix Hard (Jungli Kirla) and a large variety of snakes (both poisonous and
non-poisonous) have been reported both from the weir and powerhouse areas.

10.8.3

Insects, Butterflies and Vectors


Insect populations in the Keran valley include Caterpillar, Pieris Brassicae and
Leafminer, Chromatomyia Horticola (Agromyzidae: Diptera), Painted Bug,
Bagrada Cruciferarum, (Pentatomidae: Hemiptera), Cabbage Semilooper and
Plusia Orichalcea (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera).
There are many varieties of butterflies in the project area; particularly during the
summer months, in addition to praying mantis, bugs, cicadas, beetles, spiders,
scorpions, glow-worms, centipedes, millipedes, snails, slugs and arrow worms.
Further, the baseline survey indicated the absence of any vector borne diseases
in the area.

FHC Consulting Engineers

219

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Hemorrhagic Septicaemia (HS), Pneumonia, Eczema and Piroplasmosis (red


water) are common diseases of buffalo / cattle. In addition, Enterotoxaemia and
Anthrax infections are found in sheep and goat.

10.8.4

Birds and Fowl (Avifauna) Communities


Of the four most important pheasants, the Kokies Pheasant is found more
commonly then the Monal Pheasant. Chakor (only on lower slopes), Snow
Pigeon and Snow Western Tragopan have also been reported although their
forest habitat areas have significantly declined.
Reported varieties of other birds are also found in the valley such as the Bearded
Vulture (Gypaetus Barbatus), Himalayan Griffon Vulture (Gypaetus Himalayan),
Long-legged Buzzard (Buteo Rufinus), Golden Eagle (Aquila rapax), Eurasian
Woodcock (Scolopax Rusticola), Common Dipper (Cinclu Cinclus), Wren
(Troglodytes Troglodytes), Little Forktail (Enicurus Scouleri), Common Tree
Creeper (Certhia Familiaris), Alpine Yellow-billed Chough (Pyrrhocorax
Graculus), Red Fronted Serin (Serinus Pusillus), Spectacled or Red-browed
Finch (Callacanthis Burtoni) Eurasian Goldfinch, (Carduelis Carduelis),
Himalayan Mountain Finch (Leucosticte Brandti), Common Rosefinch
(Carpodacus Erythrinus), and White Winged Grosbeak (Mycerobas Carnipes).
Similarly, Pied Woodpecker (Picoides Himalayensis), Monal Pheasant
(Lophophorus Impejanus), Common Myna (Acridotheres Tritis), Western Horned
Tragopan (Tragopan Melanocephalus), Kaleej Pheasant (Lophura Leucomelana
Hamiltoni), House Sparrow (Passer Domesticus), Common Crow (Coturnix
Coturnix) are common birds reported / observed in the weir and powerhouse
areas.

10.8.5

Aquatic Ecology
Fish and other aquatic organisms require snags, logs and rocks where they can
shelter from predators and the current and can reproduce, to help them establish
territories and to provide markers that help them navigate.
Aquatic plants are also very important for fish and other creatures in the stream;
apart from providing food, their presence has a direct effect on the available
oxygen in the water, which in turn can affect the type of fish and other animals
living in the stream. Protruding snags provide roosting and preening sites for
birds.
The aquatic life has been observed at Nagdar nullah. The green algae were
noted at all sites colonising on stones and other debris. No macro-invertebrates
were observed at Nagdar weir site, but they were observed downstream at some
other locations near the confluence with Neelum River.

FHC Consulting Engineers

220

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

All the fish farms and hatcheries were damaged during the 2005 earthquake.
Currently, only a few hatcheries are functioning under the AJ&K Fisheries
Department.

10.9

PROTECTED AREAS

10.9.1

Overview
Like Pakistan's current provincial and territorial legislation, only the following
three protected area categories are already established in AJ&K:

10.9.2

National Parks: To protect and conserve areas of exceptional


geological, biological and cultural importance for educational,
recreational and scientific uses.

Wildlife Sanctuaries: To protect the species or groups of species of


flora and fauna for breeding, and to protect them from extinction.

Game Reserves: To protect flora and fauna for sustainable use.

National Parks
A National Park is an area owned by the government and set aside for protection
and preservation of its outstanding scenery, flora and fauna in a natural state. It
is accessible to the public for recreation, education and research activities,
subject to such restrictions, as the Government may impose.
The construction of access roads, tourist facilities and other buildings in the
National Park must not impair the park objectives. Forestry activities must also
be controlled in the same way. AJ&K wildlife department is responsible for
classifying the National Parks.

10.9.3

Wildlife Parks
Wildlife Park is an area owned by the Government and set aside for the
rehabilitation of endangered wildlife species under semi natural conditions as well
as for the education and recreation of the public.
The following acts are prohibited in a wildlife park:

Hunting, killing or capturing of any wild species or firing any gun or any
other fire arms.

Polluting the water.

Damaging or destruction of vegetation.

FHC Consulting Engineers

221

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.9.4

Wildlife Sanctuaries
A Wildlife Sanctuary is an area owned by the Government (set aside by
notification in the official gazette) as an undisturbed breeding ground for the
protection of wildlife. Public access to the sanctuary is prohibited. Exploitation of
forest resources in a wildlife sanctuary is not permitted except for reducing the
fire-hazards, epidemics, insect attacks or other natural calamities.

10.9.5

Private Game Reserves


Private game reserves are areas dedicated by landowners for the purpose of
exclusively hunting wild animals within the reserve. Person other than the owner
of the reserve are not permitted within the private game reserves without the
owners permission. The owner of a private game reserve is empowered to
exercise, within the limits of his private game reserve, the same powers as a
wildlife officer.

10.10

QUALITY OF LIFE

10.10.1

Socio-Economic Values
The average size of a typical rural family comprise of about 10 persons including
the older parents. Traditionally, the society is male dominated where the elders
are placed at a higher level of esteem and authority. A handful of men are skilled
in carpentry / wood, masonry and tailoring works. The growth of population is
high as compared to the other urban areas of the state. This rapid increase in
the population is putting enormous strains on the available natural resources;
particularly, the forests which are shrinking in acreage at a faster rate.
More than a third of the national population lives below the poverty line.
According to Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) the
income level per person in the affected area before the earthquake varied
between about US$ 150 to 200 as compared to US$ 480 in the rest of the
country.
Asian Development Bank (ADB) found that during 2000/01 44% of the rural
population in AJ&K was living under the poverty line of the daily equivalence to
2,550 caloric intakes per adult.
The main source of income is agriculture which is mainly practiced by the male
members. The family income comprises of a number of sources / activities.
Farm size is very usually small where they grow seasonal crops especially the
potato which is main cash crop for the locals. Among other sources of income
include cattle raring, poultry, trade, general menial labour, driving, milk selling,
etc.

FHC Consulting Engineers

222

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.11

EVALUATION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES


Evaluation of the likely adverse impacts of pollution from the project during
construction and regular operation and mitigation measures to be adopted are
detailed in the following paragraphs.
Agriculture on small pieces of land in the form of terraces is common. The
project site over long stretches has no industry. The hydropower potential of the
Nagdar nullah will be used for power production. The project is surrounded by
high mountains which are quite rich in vegetation.
Although due to extensive human interventions most of the worth mentioning
wildlife has migrated to other parts of the valley where adequate habitat is
available for them, yet during some parts of the year they use this site as
passage for moving to other places.
On the overall basis, deforestation on massive scale has occurred in the project
area too and afforestation is lacking behind. The valley is one among the most
beautiful sites of AJ&K and local and foreign tourists visit the area during
summer.
Some people do menial work at Muzaffarabad and some other cities of the
country, while animals, goats and sheep rearing is also done by some ethnic
groups.
Further, some people run their own shops and a few others are engaged in
running transport. Most of the people are poor and they lack facilities of
education, health care and other basic facilities like electricity or piped water.
In view of the strict environmental management measures to be adopted during
construction and operation of the plant, there will not be any adverse impacts on
the population and environment around.
During the construction and operation phases of the project, some pollutants like
effluent, gaseous emissions, particulate matter, solid wastes and noise will be
generated. The can be likely impacts of pollutants, in case the environmental
controls are not put in place. Environmental management practices to be
adopted will help to undo the adverse environmental impacts on all segments of
the environment.

FHC Consulting Engineers

223

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.12

BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA / STATUS


In order to assess the environmental quality status of the project area, on site
environmental monitoring was carried and monitored data is described in the
following sections. The environmental monitoring was carried at important sites
of the project.

10.12.1

Noise
According to the monitored data, noise levels range between 41.6 dB(A) to
48.0 dB(A) as against the maximum limiting value of 85.0 dB(A) set by the
National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) Pakistan. It means that noise
is not a problem in the area.

10.12.2

Ambient Gases
The monitored data for the ambient gases was observed in the proposed project
area. From the monitored data, it is evident that concentration of the SO2, CO
and NOx in the ambient air in the project area ranges below the detection limits of
the instrument to a maximum 0.1 of CO, 0.2 of NOx and 0.04 of SO2. The
presence of these gases is due to the vehicular emissions, which too is much
below the limiting values as set by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

10.12.3

Particulate Matter
The concentrations of particulate matter as measured in the ambient air of the
project site range between 17.2 to 34.3 g/m3. These are far below the WHO set
limiting values.

10.12.4

Water Quality
In order to assess quality of water in the project area, two water samples were
collected from the Nagdar nullah. It is pertinent to note that all water samples are
biologically (due to Coliform) contaminated.
For drinking purposes, most of the water is fetched from natural springs in large
tumbler and stored for daily use. Each cluster of community lays claim on its own
source of the natural spring. These springs are fed from the underground
aquifers, whose source is the snow deposits.

FHC Consulting Engineers

224

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.13

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

10.13.1

Impacts During Construction

10.13.1.1 Air Quality


The main impact on air quality during construction will be from increased airborne
dust levels and vehicular emissions (primarily NOx, SOx and particulate matter)
arising from construction machinery, tunnel construction, rock blasting, foundation
excavation, cement mixing, and road construction. The air quality impacts will
however, be limited and confined to the powerhouse construction site, weir site
and tunnel adits construction sites.
Dust generation from vehicular movement and construction activities in the
project area may affect vegetation / crops and animals and cause nuisance to
local population in terms of lungs and eyes irritation and reduced visibility.
Deposition of dust on plant leaves may impact photosynthetic activity and result
in increased incidence of plant pests and diseases and reduced crop productivity.
Sensitive receptors likely to be susceptible to air emissions are villages adjacent
to the road as well as those near the weir site or powerhouse site.
Impacts associated with air quality during the construction phase are considered
to be of be moderately negative significance, given the extent of the area to be
affected, duration of construction, and presence of sensitive receptors.

10.13.1.2 Noise and Vibration


During the construction phase, the noise will generally be generated from
vehicular movement, sand and aggregate processing, tunnel construction,
concrete mixing, excavation machinery, mucking out of excavated material,
construction noise and blasting. Noise levels in the construction area from
machinery and vehicles should be as specified in the guidelines by the
environmental protection agencies.
Construction activities will begin with the road enhancements to enable access to
the powerhouse and weir sites, followed by other structures and head race
tunnels. Noise will be concentrated at powerhouse and weir sites; however,
increased traffic to and from construction material sources and workers will result
in noise impacts.
Impacts associated with construction noise are considered to be of moderate
negative significance, considering the size and extent of the project area affected
and within a predominately rural setting.

FHC Consulting Engineers

225

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.13.1.3 Soils
Construction activities may have the following impacts on soils if mitigation
measures are not adopted and enforced:

Landscape value degradation.

Erosion.

Soil contamination.

Much of the land cover within the project area consists of steep slopes covered
by shrubs and grasses and is prone to erosion due to medium textured soils
(sandy loam / silt loam). Extensive grazing has exacerbated erosion issues
within the area and additional causes of soil erosion should be avoided.
Potential negative impacts (without mitigation) on soils resulting from erosion,
loss of topsoil and contamination are considered to be of moderate significance.

10.13.1.4 Waste
Large volumes of waste are likely to be generated from the construction activities,
construction camps, workshops and storage areas and include such things as
waste oils, empty fuel tanks, lubricant tins, broken tools, cables, construction
steel cuttings, scaffoldings, other discarded materials such as chemicals and
paints and municipal solid waste. Depending on the nature of the waste there is
a potential for material disposed of in open undesignated areas to be a source of
smell and vector diseases. The drum of fuel and lubricants should be returned to
the companies for its recycling.
Waste streams generated from the project activities would be mainly localised
and if disposed of properly, are unlikely to affect areas other than active project
zone.
Impacts associated with waste generation (solid and liquid) and disposal is
considered to be of minor magnitude considering localised extent and limited
duration.

10.13.1.5 Construction Spoil


The major source of construction spoil is likely to be generated from the
excavation of the intake structure foundations, tunneling and diversion tunnels.
The proposed hydropower project will produce construction waste especially from
the excavation works. Potential negative impacts on landscape and down stream
sedimentation, resulting from inadequate spoil disposal and management, need
to be mitigated.

FHC Consulting Engineers

226

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Negative impacts arising from inappropriate spoil disposal during construction are
considered to be of moderate magnitude. The leftover material like cement mix
concrete should be collected and disposed off into the designated sites.

10.13.1.6 Use of Hazardous and Toxic Materials


Explosives shall have to be inducted into the project area, and without proper
handling and explosive management pose a safety risk to workers and residents
alike is possible. Details of the hazardous and toxic materials to be used on site
are not currently available and should be taken care during construction stage
providing indicative quantities and the impacts arising from their use and
disposal. The different materials need to be managed in different ways according
to their potential environmental impacts.
Mitigation measures including adequate monitoring and standard health and
safety procedures will need to be included to avoid potential impacts.

10.13.1.7 Layout of Construction Camps, Workshops and Labour


Details on construction lay down areas and layout including workshop areas and
number of laborers required is unknown at this stage. The impacts due to siting
of construction camps will mainly include wastewater discharge, solid waste and
traffic congestion (due to the movement of vehicles transporting work force to
construction site and base camps). Such effects are considered to be localised;
however, site specific impacts can only be predicted once siting of the
construction areas is finalised at the construction stage.
The details of layout of construction camps, workshops and labour camps will be
worked out by the contractor at project construction stage and impacts and
mitigation measures will be taken care according to the regulations specified by
the agencies.

10.13.1.8 Water Use / Quality


Water will be required for concreting works and also for washing/material
preparation purposes.
It is proposed that the Nagdar nullah and the
Neelum River will be the main source of water, which will be pumped into
settlement ponds/reservoirs to remove fine suspended particles (particularly
during floods).
It is not known whether any restrictions will be applied to water extraction during
low flow periods (construction activities will be constrained within winter/low flow
periods due to access). Currently data are not available on estimated water use
requirements for construction activities.

FHC Consulting Engineers

227

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Presently, the sewage from all the major settlements along the Neelum River is
being disposed off in septic tanks/soaking pits from downstream of the river. A
small quantity of sewage through seepage might be entering the river.
Agriculture run-off is potential contributing to the river pollution; however, low
inorganic concentrations found due to limited use of inorganic fertilizers for
growing of crops.
Impacts on water quality associated with construction camps during the
construction phase are considered to be of minor significance as long as
adequate mitigation measures are in place to prevent effluents entering the river.

10.13.2

Impacts During Operation

10.13.2.1 Air
During operation, air pollution is expected to be very limited, and the main
sources will be from vehicle emissions / dust from maintenance traffic on
unpaved roads and increased traffic due to movement of workforce. In addition,
there may be some dust from construction quarries and sites before they are fully
rehabilitated.
Impacts on air quality during operation are not considered to be significant.
Few mitigation measures such as proper vehicle tuning and road maintenance
etc. are available to limit influx of traffic movements resulting from improved road
infrastructure.

10.13.2.2 Greenhouse Gases


In comparison to the other power production sources, such as the fossil fuels or
nuclear, the hydropower produces relatively small or negligible amount of
greenhouse gases which could contribute towards global warming.
Impacts on emissions of greenhouse gases are considered to be of a minor
positive significance.

10.13.2.3 Noise
During operation the noise will mainly be generated in the power station only
through the operation of the electrical and mechanical equipment. As the
proposed power station is placed in a cavern within the mountains, therefore, the
noise from underground powerhouse would not be significant for the surrounding
areas.

FHC Consulting Engineers

228

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Further, the increased access as a consequence of the road improvements may


generate some additional traffic; which could also impact on the existing noise
levels in the project area. Therefore, appropriate noise reduction measures will
be taken to reduce the generation of any noise levels.
Noise impacts during operational phase are considered to be of minor
significance.

10.13.2.4 Water Quality


Changes in water quality are likely to occur within and downstream of the project
area due to impoundment. Water quality impacts are likely to be a combination of
physical, biological or chemical changes and the magnitude will depend to a large
degree on the existing water quality, the water quality requirements for
downstream users and the mitigation measures employed.
Key impacts on water quality will relate to existing sedimentation of the Nagdar
nullah and impacts resulting from annual sediment flushing of the weir site. In
addition, the reduced flows within the Nagdar nullah may limit dilution of
contaminants entering the nullah course further decreasing water quality within
the impounded length of the Nagdar nullah.
The potential magnitude (taking into consideration extent, duration, likelihood and
reversibility) of impacts resulting from changes to water quality are considered to
be of moderate magnitude.

10.13.2.5 Compensation Water


According to site survey and interviews with the local people it was revealed that
downstream section of the nullah, below the weir, there is very little human and
aquatic life requiring water for its survival. Therefore, under these circumstances
there is small compulsion to discharge a definite quantity of compensation water
which should be sufficient to sustain any activity and ensure survival of any
aquatic life in the section of the Nagdar nullah under discussion. On the other
hand, there is no hard and fast rule to be followed for the quantity of
compensation water to be released through the section of the Nagdar nullah
except to assess the requirement of water in the section of the nullah.
Compensation flow has been estimated based on the average monthly flows to
maintain the ecology of Nagdar nullah. The weir site has flow values which are
about 90% of flows in Nagdar nullah at its confluence with Neelum River. As the
downstream small streams / tributaries joining Nagdar nullah would provide about
10% of the flows at Nagdar confluence with Neelum River, therefore, the residual
flows are released downstream of the weir which are essentially required.

FHC Consulting Engineers

229

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report
In winter months, i.e., from October to March, 0.30 m3/sec would be released
from weir which is about 24% of the estimated flows at the weir intake. The
compensation flows during summer months, i.e., from April to September, would
be increased to 0.6 m3/s. In the six summer months, about 22% of inflow volume
would be released downstream of the weir. For an average year flows, about
22.1% volume of water would be released downstream of the weir. These flows
are in addition to the flows of streams / tributaries joining Nagdar nullah
downstream of the weir. The monthly estimated flows at the weir site and
diverted to powerhouse are indicated in Section - 6 of the report.

10.13.2.6 Impact on Microclimate


Although the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project will not create large reservoir,
it impact humidity levels and cause a fall in temperature in the vicinity of the
project area.

10.14

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

10.14.1

Biological Impacts During Construction

10.14.1.1 General Impacts on Flora


The extent of weir site to the reserve forest and other trees in powerhouse areas
were estimated during field visit and an initial assessment of trees to be cut
during project construction are very small in number. Overall, about 25 - 30 trees
in the weir site and the powerhouse location will have to be felled.
Steep banks on either side of the river support mainly shrubs and grasses which
in addition to trees identified will also be submerged by the project. The shrub
and grass species affected are abundant in other areas. No endangered,
threatened or vulnerable species in the project area exist. The impacts of
constructing labour camps, offices, borrow pits, quarries and new road will have
to be established during construction stage and mitigation measures incorporate
at proposed sites to limit vegetation clearance where possible. However,
vegetation clearance within the area to be inundated by the reservoir is
recommended as a mitigation measure.
The magnitude of impacts on flora during the construction phase is considered to
be of major significance (potentially reduced to moderate should extensive
replanting strategies be implemented).

FHC Consulting Engineers

230

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.14.1.2 General Impacts on Fauna


Impacts to terrestrial fauna will result from the project activity will be very
negligible. However, physical clearance of the weir site and powerhouse site and
disturbance and degradation of habitats around the main construction sites
resulting from increased worker population and improved access.
Most of the faunal species identified within the baseline study are restricted to the
reserve forest areas. Only a few reptile and amphibian species have been
reported in the proposed project area and do not include any endangered,
threatened or vulnerable species.
The faunal species that are only found within the area to be inundated which
cannot migrate away from area will be lost and result in a moderate negative
impact. Construction activities will disturb the migratory route of faunal species
which use river crossings (i.e., suspension bridges) in the winter when the local
inhabitants vacate their houses and migrate to lower elevations.
However, this will be a minor impact as the construction area of the reservoir is
limited; animals could adopt alternate routes located upstream or downstream of
the weir and power house site. The increased human population in the project
area due to the work force and labour in migration may exert a stress on the
animal population through hunting / poaching, etc.
Construction activities will generate impacts of a moderate magnitude within the
project area, in particular at the powerhouse, weir site, tunnel route and quarry
areas.
Mitigation measures during vegetation clearance, blasting, creation of borrow pits
and lay down areas should include site walkovers by a qualified ecologist to
identify the presence of any vulnerable species before clearance activities are
undertaken.
As a mitigation measure, the special corridors may be provided for easy
movement of wild animals in the project area. Relocation of species should be
considered where possible and viable. Mitigation measures will need to be
enforced through an ESMMP and contractually bind both contractors and their
labourers from undertaking illegal poaching and any other hunting and fishing
activities.

FHC Consulting Engineers

231

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.14.1.3 Impacts on Aquatic Life


During construction activities the water in nullah will be diverted via an
underground tunnel along the nullah bank. Impacts and mitigation measures on
aquatic ecology and terrestrial fauna and flora within this zone to reduce potential
impacts and compensation flow should be need to be considered.
Construction impacts on aquatic life at weir site are considered to be negative
and of moderate magnitude.

10.14.1.4 Construction Spoil


The major source of construction spoil is likely to be generated from the
excavation of the diversion structure, intake foundations, tunneling, etc. It is
estimated that a large quantity of construction spoil will be generated from the
excavation works. Potential negative impacts on the landscape and downstream
sedimentation, resulting from inadequate spoil disposal and management, need
to be mitigated through an ESMMP. The spoil would be dumped on the mild
slopes near to the project site and subsequently these slopes would be covered
with alluvial material so that plantation / greenery could be grown and the spoils
are environmentally acceptable.
Negative impacts arising from the inappropriate spoil disposal during construction
are considered to be of moderate magnitude.

10.15

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

10.15.1

Involuntary Resettlement of Project Affected People


The proposed Nagdar Hydropower project will require a few temporary
resettlements of the people at the weir / intake site and powerhouse area. A
Resettlement Action Plan must be developed and implemented with the objective
of ensuring that Project Affected People (PAP) improve or at least restore their
livelihoods and standard of living.
The resettlement impacts are considered to be minor to moderate magnitude.

10.15.2

Employment Generation During Construction Phase


The construction phase is scheduled to take place over a few years. As most of
the labour will be employed from the project area, the construction of the project
will provide earning to the people of the area.
Employment generation impacts during the construction phase are considered to
be positive impact of moderate magnitude.

FHC Consulting Engineers

232

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.15.3

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology


Although some changes in the social and cultural behaviour are expected due to
the interaction of local population with the project staff from outside; however, the
development of the project site is not likely to cause any adverse social impact at
all. No place of religious or cultural veneration was sited during the field visits to
the project area.
Impacts on cultural heritage and archaeology are considered to be negative and
of moderate magnitude.

10.15.4

Recreation Activities
Neelum Valley is a renowned tourist destination and every year hundreds and
thousands of tourists including foreigners move into the area, particularly during
the summer season.
The development of the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project is likely to attract
more tourists in the area and will increase the commercial and recreational
activities.
Impact relating to recreation activities is considered to be positive and of
moderate magnitude.

10.16

IMPACT IDENTIFICATION FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE

10.16.1

Electricity Generation
The greatest benefit provided by the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project will be
the provision of electricity to population, expanding economic activities and
increasing demand for energy. The Nagdar project is proposed to generate
35 MW installed capacity. Electricity is recognised as a necessary productive
input contributing to a stable economy.
Electricity generation impacts are considered to be positive and of major
magnitude.

10.16.2

Employment Generation During Operational Phase


During the project operations, a small number of people will get benefit from the
employment opportunities thus created. The employees are considered to be a
socio-economic receptor of medium sensitivity because they will have long term
contracts providing fair remuneration on a regular basis.
Employment generation impacts during the operation phase are considered to be
positive and of minor magnitude.

FHC Consulting Engineers

233

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.16.3

Provision of Associated Facilities


The project will require improved access roads access to people, goods and
markets and increased fish spawning in the thereby improving fishery
opportunities. Both of these will contribute positively to the livelihood of people in
the project area.
Local community members will benefit from these facilities. Moreover, education
and health facilities will be enhanced due to project and these facilities will also
be available for the local communities.
The impact of providing associated facilities is considered to be positive and of
moderate magnitude.

10.16.4

Agricultural Impacts
It was noted / observed during the field visits and also through community
consultations that the nullah is not used in the project area for the irrigation of
large tracts of agricultural crops.
The impact of the project on agricultural production is minor although the
operational phase is not expected to significantly adversely impact agricultural.

10.16.5

Landscape and Visual Amenity


The Keran, Sharda and Neelum Valleys are known for their outstanding natural
beauty and landscape and it is a popular destination among tourists from both
Pakistan and abroad. The area offers tourists opportunities generally for outdoor
activities such as hiking and fishing.
During the construction, the related equipment and influx of people will
temporarily affect the visual and landscape values of this relatively untouched
area.
During the operation phase, the existence of the scheme may change the visual
amenity at a particular place, impacting on the surrounding landscape and views.

FHC Consulting Engineers

234

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.17

ENVIRONMENT
MANAGEMENT
PLAN,
ENVIRONMENTAL
MITIGATION
MEASURES,
MONITORING
PLAN,
SOCIAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROPOSED TRAINING

10.17.1

Introduction
For mitigation of the negative environmental impacts a very strong Environmental
Management Unit (EMU) should be created to ensure compliance with the EMP
as legal requirement under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997. The
EMU will be headed by an individual responsible for the entire mitigation
operations during construction phases and thereafter for implementation of the
EMP during operation phase also as regular feature. He will also be responsible
to report on progress and the status of each rehabilitation conducted. Wherever
required, he will be assisted by some expertise of the Forest Department,
fisheries, Wildlife, etc., Government of AJ&K. It will be worthwhile to establish
EMU right at the onset of the project.
The unit should employ suitable people and equip the unit with necessary
equipment commensurate with the requirements of the project effective
environmental management. All the staff of the EMU should be duly trained in
the relevant fields of environment to be managed by them. Necessary budget on
regular basis should be provided to keep the capabilities of this unit to enabling it
to effectively manage its all out responsibilities / activities.
A programme for monitoring of the water quality and aquatic life for preconstruction, construction and operation phases is given in the Environmental
Monitoring Plan. Environmental Protection training and awareness, and capacity
building of institutions are important. This needs to be done at the earlier stages
of the project execution.

10.17.2

Organisation and Implementation


The EMU will ensure implementation of the Environmental Management Plan and
the Environmental Monitoring Plan during construction and Regular operation of
the Project.
The EMU will:

be responsible for the implementation and management of the EMP

coordinate all environmental monitoring activities of the EMP.

ensure that the EMP is updated periodically during the construction


period.

responsible for regular environmental, health and safety rounds in all


construction areas.

FHC Consulting Engineers

235

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

ensure that an independent environmental supervision consultant


supervises and monitor environmental procedures.

submit environmental monitoring reports (including physical data) to the


EPA, Government of AJ&K on quarterly basis during construction and
twice annually during operation.

Capacity Building includes training of EMU personnel and Forestry Department,


Government of AJ&K in forest protection and management. Participation of
representatives of the local communities in training workshop on environmental
protection will be preferable.

10.17.3

Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)


The resettlement Action Plan provides a framework for addressing and reviewing
compliance with the agreed rules, responsibilities and activities related to
resettlement. The underlying assumption for the RAP is that efforts will be made
to improve the livelihoods and standards of living for all projects affected persons
or at least to restore them to pre-project levels.

10.17.3.1 Resettlement Principles and Objectives


The main involuntary resettlement principles and procedures that are applicable
to the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project are summarised below:

Resettlement and land acquisition will be minimised as much as


possible.

Project Affected People (PAP) will be compensated or at least restored


to pre-project levels.

Land for Land is an easier and acceptable option for compensation in


the case of loss of land. In the absence of replacement land, cash
compensation for the property acquired will be paid at its replacement
value in addition to any transaction costs.

Each PAP is entitled to receive assistance to restore income and


livelihood to a pre-project standard, and all vulnerable affected people
are entitled for assistance to improve their income and livelihood.

All PAPs will be informed and consulted on compensation and other


entitlements, relocation programs and income restoration assistance.

Compensation and income restoration programs will be carried out with


equal consideration for women and men.

PAPs social and cultural institution will be protected along with common
property resources.

The resettlement transition period will be minimised.

FHC Consulting Engineers

236

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

10.18

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
Public consultations were held with the people from the project area. They have
welcomed the project and are of the view that the project will open up new
avenues of job opportunities for the people of the project area. This will result in
poverty alleviation to a reasonable extent. The people have clear perception that
the installation of the hydropower project in the area is beneficial for the
community especially and the area in general.
As far as the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is concerned, the positive social
impacts are dominant over hardly conceived any negative social impacts
observed during the study. They correlate their positive attitude towards the plant
with many socio-economic opportunities and benefits.
They also perceive the accelerated economic activity due to the business
opportunities likely to emerge in the area. Directly or indirectly, many local
people will get employment and business, e.g., shopkeepers, traders, suppliers,
contractors, transporters, technicians, etc. They feel that the project and its
related activities will provide a strong base for the social change.

10.19

CONCLUSION
On the basis of findings of this Initial Environmental and Social Impact
Examination study, it is concluded that the proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project
will not have any significant adverse impacts on the local population or any
segment of environment provided the above mentioned recommendations and
mitigation measures are fully implemented by the plant management in letter and
spirit.

FHC Consulting Engineers

237

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

11

FHC Consulting Engineers

COST ESTIMATES

238

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

11

COST ESTIMATES

11.1

INTRODUCTION
The cost estimates used in this report are based on unit and lump sum prices
applied to the quantities of major work items calculated for various components of
Nagdar Hydropower Project. The Consultants have updated all relevant
economic key parameter and have elaborated a detailed project unit cost data
base.
The following estimates have been prepared.

Summary of Costs.

Detailed Estimates of Cost.

These cost estimates provide an estimate based upon the price index of
May 2010. The summary of cost estimate has been used for economic and
financial analysis. This estimate considers the local currency component in
Rupee, the foreign currency component is US Dollars and the total cost in
equivalent Rupees based on May 2010 exchange rate (1 US$ = Rs. 85.00).

11.2

ESTIMATION OF QUANTITIES
The Consultants have estimated the quantities of major civil structures of the
project based on the feasibility design and corresponding design drawings. The
drawings are presented in Volume-II of this report.
Materials and quantities required have been computed using the engineering
design drawings consisting of plans and sections of all the components of the
project on a scale of 1:500 and 1:1000, drawn on exact topographic survey maps
of same scale.
For minor works provisions in terms of the miscellaneous items rates have been
made. In accordance with common practice, the cost estimate is based on the
concept of direct and indirect costs and provisions for unforeseen items and costs
(contingencies).
The cost estimates include the following main plant components and cost
elements:

Land acquisition and environmental mitigation cost;

Preliminary works including mobilisation cost and site infrastructure;

FHC Consulting Engineers

239

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Civil works include weir and flushing outlet, power intake, sandtrap,
headrace tunnel, surge tank, pressure shaft and tunnel, powerhouse
and tailrace system;

Manufacturing of hydro-mechanical and electrical equipment;

Transportation cost;

Erection and commissioning cost;

Import duties;

Project administration;

Engineering and supervision costs;

Contingencies.

The cost estimates for various works including Infrastructure development and
site installations, civil, hydro-mechanical, electrical and transmission lines were
prepared by multiplying unit rates with the relevant quantities of different
structures. The cost estimate for environmental mitigation was prepared after
collection of data during site visit and then estimated after evaluation.
Major portion of civil works cost estimates
calculations. For the major structures such
tunnel, desander / sandtrap, pressure shaft,
tunnel etc. the quantities of concrete and
Table - 11.1.

11.3

include concrete and earthwork


as the diversion weir, headrace
powerhouse cavern and tailrace
earthwork are presented in the

UNIT RATES
The Consultants have estimated the unit rates for several items of civil works.
Basic costs of labour, material and equipment have been updated to estimate
unit costs and these unit rates are compared with that of similar size hydropower
projects presently under development in Pakistan.
The unit and lump sum prices for Civil Works of Nagdar Hydropower Project have
been prepared after consulting and escalating the unit prices of a number of
similar hydropower projects under study or under construction. The similar
projects include Jinnah, Keyal, Lower Spat Gah, Madyan, Golen Gol and
Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Projects.
Since the units rates presented in BOQ of the six (6) above projects refer to
different reference dates, they were escalated to the level of May 2010 applying
an appropriate inflation rate per annum on local and foreign currency rates and
the corresponding currency exchange rate of the Central Bank of Pakistan.

FHC Consulting Engineers

240

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Cost of hydro-mechanical and electrical equipment is based on budgetary prices


from reputed manufactures, both local and foreign.
There are a large number of hydropower project schemes under development in
Pakistan. The cost estimates and unit rates derived from the tender documents
and the Contractor's proposals of other hydropower projects of similar type and
magnitude provide a reasonable orientation for the plausibility of the calculated
unit rates. However, the site, contract and other specific conditions may cause
significant deviation in the unit rates for the same construction activity from one
hydropower project to the other.

11.4

ESTIMATION OF PROJECT COSTS


The estimation of cost has been carried out by preceding the following steps in
accordance with the requirements of a bankable feasibility study. In addition to
the basic cost items of each civil structure in terms of their direct costs, the
Consultants considered certain contingencies. These include both physical and
price contingencies. Physical contingencies result from the fact that the estimated
quantity of certain items might have been underestimated. Additional minor items
or quantities of components will ultimately be required which were based on the
knowledge available at the particular planning level originally not included in the
estimate.
Price contingencies are included to account for variation in prices, i.e. inflationary
tendencies during the implementation period. Price contingencies are included in
the total project cost for implementation.
Costs are presented by their local and foreign cost components for the individual
unit rates and the overall cost of civil works and equipment. The composition of
the local and foreign cost component was derived from hydropower projects
presently under development in Pakistan.
The direct costs of a hydropower project are commonly estimated separated for
the following major components based on the major items / elements.
a)

Civil works including hydraulic steel structures;

b)

Electro-mechanical; and

c)

Electrical equipment.

The cost estimates form the basis of economic and financial evaluation of the
project. It shall be prepared on the basis of representative unit rates for various
construction activities and the respective quantities. In order to comply with the
requirements on accuracy of cost estimates, the Consultant followed the following
approach:

FHC Consulting Engineers

241

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

11.5

Collected basic costs of materials, fuel, consumables, labour,


equipment etc. at factory and at site (cost of transportation);

Calculated unit rates for relevant items of civil works for application to
BOQ;

Collected unit rates used in feasibility studies and tendering of


hydropower projects of similar type and magnitude; escalated these unit
rates to the reference data of the cost estimate;

Compared, analysed and concluded on most appropriate unit rates for


application.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION COST


Major bases of mitigation cost are for the measures taken at pre-construction and
construction stages. The main components covered under this item are
temporary relocation cost and compensation paid to the private land owners,
compensation for the loss to forest trees, water supply provision costs, costs for
disposal of excavated material, channel lining cost and afforestation cost.
The environmental mitigation cost has been estimated as US$ 269,529.

11.6

CIVIL WORKS
Civil works includes road and preliminary works, diversion weir including intake,
headrace tunnel, surge tank, pressure shaft and pressure tunnel, powerhouse
and tailrace tunnel. The quantities for each structure have been estimated from
drawings presented in Volume-II.
Cost of civil works include all the civil engineering structures of proposed project
including headrace tunnel, cofferdam, weir, connecting channel, sandtrap,
flushing outlet, pressure shaft, pressure tunnel, surge shaft, penstock,
powerhouse, switchyard, transformer cavern, tailrace tunnel and outlet, cable
tunnel, etc. Due consideration has been given to the seasonal variation, inflation
over a year and distance from Muzaffarabad etc. assessed to be comparable to
the prices obtained from international contractor / different projects.
The cost of cement and steel is based on the prevailing market rates. Unit prices
of aggregates based on the consideration that all the raw materials will either be
available at site or from the quarry in the vicinity of the project area. The rate
analysis for different items of works has been carried out on the basis of above
consideration.
The cost for all civil works has been estimated as US$ 28.043 million.
detailed cost estimate has been presented in Table - 11.3.

FHC Consulting Engineers

242

The

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

11.7

ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT


The cost of turbines, generators and transformers were obtained from the
budgetary prices from the reputed manufacturers and then comparing them with
in house historical data and experience of the Consultants to establish the costs
of the equipment. The cost of electro-mechanical equipment would comprise of
local and foreign components.
Concerted efforts shall be made to boost up the local manufacturing for some of
the project components. Accordingly, some parts of the electro-mechanical
equipment have been proposed in procurement of local components. The duties
and taxes are also considered in firming up the cost.
The cost for hydro-mechanical equipment is US$ 5.510 million. The cost for
electrical equipment is US$ 6.331 million.
The cost of transmission from Nagdar to Muzaffarabad has been estimated as
US$ 2.0 million. In case, Off - Taker decides to construct its own transmission
line then this cost will be deleted from the total cost because as per Energy Policy
2002 of GOP, which is also be followed by Govt. of AJ&K, transmission line is the
subject of Off - Taker.

11.8

TRANSPORTATION AND SHIPMENT


All of the electro-mechanical equipment including turbines and generators are to
be imported. These materials are to be shipped from the country of its
manufacturer and special arrangements for its inland transportation are to be
made. The cost of freight, shipment and insurance etc. from the country of
manufacturer has been taken as 4% of E&M equipment, which is estimated as
US$ 0.554 million.

11.9

ERECTION, COMMISSION AND TESTING CHARGES


10% of cost of E&M equipment prices has been provided for erection,
commission and testing of such equipment, which is estimated as US$ 1.384
million.

11.10

ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION


This represents the cost of preparation of detailed construction drawings at
tendering stage, pre-qualification of bidders, evaluation of tender / bids, review of
contractor submittals, administration of the construction contract, measuring of
work. The cost for Supervision and Engineering has been taken as 5% on civil,
E&M works and estimated as US$ 2.081 million.

FHC Consulting Engineers

243

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

11.11

PROJECT DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION


5% of the project civil and E&M works cost has also been estimated for this
purpose to meet the administration expenses during project execution, which is
US$ 2.081 million.

11.12

IMPORT DUTIES
Import duties inclusive of custom duties have been calculated, based on
Government of Pakistan import policy for 1993 and also energy policy 2002. This
includes custom duties for each imported equipment and material. The total
duties at a rate of 5% of the imported equipment and material have been added
to the estimates, which is US$ 0.501 million.

11.13

CONTINGENCIES
An effort has been made for realistic project cost estimates. To cover some of
the unforeseen that may occur over the period of construction, provision for
contingencies has been made as 3% of total base cost, which includes local and
foreign capital costs of civil works as well as of E&M equipment, etc. The total
contingencies cost is estimated as US $1.455 million.

11.14

INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION


The interest during construction has been estimated at a rate of 15.65% per
annum for four (4) years of the construction period for local cost component and
4.64% as interest rate and 11% as exchange rate variation on foreign cost
component.
The total estimated interest during construction cost is US$ 16.990 million.
However, this cost is subject to adjustment on Commercial Operation Date (COD)
of the project against the actual interest rates and drawn down amounts.

11.15

TOTAL PROJECT COST


Total project cost is estimated as PKR. 5688.959 million which requires foreign
exchange of PKR 3448.102 million in US$. A brief summary of the cost is given
in Table - 11.2. Detailed project cost estimates have been made and are
provided in Table - 11.3 and cash flow as required during construction period is
presented in Table - 11.4.

FHC Consulting Engineers

244

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Table - 11.1: Major Quantities of Civil Works


Sr. No.
1

MAJOR ITEMS
Excavation (ABGM)

UNIT

QUANTITY

m3

4400

Excavation (Rock A/B)

79113

Excavation (Rock C)

m3

22628

Rock Overbreak

5777

Backfill

m3

1190

Reinforced Concrete

8434

Mass Concrete

m3

140

Hard Concrete

250

Shotcrete

m3

2448

10

Concrete Lining

10602

11

Stone Apron

m3

1320

12

Reinforcement

539

13

Steel Lining - 10 to 25 mm thick

kg

129

FHC Consulting Engineers

245

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

12

CONSTRUCTION PLANNING

FHC Consulting Engineers

246

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

12

CONSTRUCTION PLANNING

12.1

INTRODUCTION
The construction activities would mainly be spread over in Nagdar valley, from
weir site to powerhouse. The distance from weir to powerhouse sites is about
11 km and surface elevation varies from 1950 m asl to 1770 m asl. Presently,
there is not enough infra-structure in the area like roads, residential buildings,
market, hospital, etc.
Further, the working period is from March to November and the accessibility of
project area from Muzaffarabad in winter three months is limited. Materials, such
as cement and steel have to be transported from down country. Aggregates,
gravel and sand will be available within the working area in an economic distance
of transportation.
Two camps will be constructed; one near powerhouse site and other near weir
site. The access to project area is from Muzaffarabad, which is connected with
main Neelum road up to Keran village. The weir site is accessible by jeepable
road leading to Neelum village then a foot track leads along the Nagdar nullah.

12.2

CONSTRUCTION PLANNING
The proposed project implementation schedule spans over a period of
60 months, which includes 48 months for construction activities and 12 months
for pre-construction activities.
This section deals with the critical factors, governing the pace of work. It will also
cover the proposed construction techniques and project budgeting during the
construction period.
The construction planning for Nagdar Hydropower Project has been prepared
keeping in view the following major factors:

Construction of headrace tunnel, surge tank and powerhouse are on the


critical path;

Manpower, equipment and skills available with the contractor;

Flood and low flow periods in Nagdar nullah;

Severe weather conditions in winter months causing stoppage of


concrete works from December to February.

FHC Consulting Engineers

247

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The proposed project area consists of the high mountains of Neelum valley which
are located near Line of Control and remain under snow cover during winter
months. Further, the access to project area is haulted due to landslides in rainy
period. The project area is located near Keran village which is about 89 km from
Muzaffarabad. The weir site is located about 5.6 km from main Neelum valley
road and powerhouse is located near Danjar village.
The characteristic items required for construction process in the project has been
studied in detail and accordingly the construction schedule has been framed, also
keeping in view the construction methods.
The period of each activity has been estimated keeping in view the weather
conditions, because some activities may have to be discontinued in severe
weather such as during heavy snow, surface civil works at the site may not be
possible.
The project layout includes a diversion weir with lateral intake, sandtrap, 3840 m
long low pressure tunnel, surge tank, 680 m long pressure shaft and pressure
tunnel, underground powerhouse, 537 m long tailrace, 25 m long tailrace channel
and access tunnel on the right bank of Neelum River.
The whole construction operation will be spread over a large area in Neelum
valley, where the required camps, workshops, offices, processing plants and
stores can be located near to the construction site.

12.3

DESCRIPTION OF WORKS
The description is outlined for the construction stages, required for the completion
of various parts of the project like; preliminary works, mobilisation, camps and
project structures etc. in the following paragraphs.

12.3.1

Preliminary Works
Before the start of any construction activity, approval of PC-I Proforma by HEB
from concerned authorities of AJ&K is a pre-requisite.
Thereafter, the
construction, improvement and extension of roads and construction of one bridge
on Danjar nullah needs to be completed for executing any work at powerhouse
site.
The road along Nagdar nullah also needs to be constructed. The road to surge
tank area has to be built otherwise surge tank would have access after
completion of headrace tunnel. These activities including land acquisition is to be
completed by HEB.

FHC Consulting Engineers

248

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

12.3.2

Site Installation and Mobilisation


The first important stage in this construction planning is the site installation. It
mainly deals with the mobilisation of all plant and equipment, required for the
various construction items, electric and water supplies to offices and equipment,
erection, repair and maintenance workshops, stores for spare parts and
materials, administration and planning office, concrete mixing and aggregate
processing plants, steel yard, fuel storage stores etc. The area for these items
should be as close as possible to the construction sites and organised in such a
way that no disturbance to the construction program occurs.

12.3.3

Construction of Camps
Since the project consists of three major construction items such as:

Diversion weir, power intake and sandtrap;

Headrace tunnel and surge tank;

Pressure shaft, cavern powerhouse, tailrace and access tunnel.

Since Nagdar Hydropower Project would be spread over 11 km stretch, from weir
intake to powerhouse, so two camps are proposed or there could be one major
camp near Neelum village for the work force.
One camp may be placed on a relatively flat terrace near the Neelum village.
This camp will fulfill all the basic necessities required for diversion weir, sandtrap
and inlet portal of headrace tunnel. After some months, it will be extended to
meet the requirements for construction of other structures.
Another suitable location for site camp may be near Danjar village. The camp
should fulfill the requirements for construction of access tunnel, powerhouse
excavation, building and pressure shaft. The camp has to be equipped and
furnished with all necessary facilities such as workshops, stores, offices, mosque,
accommodations for Contractor's and Consultant's personnel, hospital, recreation
facilities etc.

12.3.4

Diversion Weir
After construction of the first camp, works on diversion weir and intake structures
shall be started. The work on diversion weir and intake will take about two
summer seasons. The construction of the weir should be carried out as follows:
First the Nagdar nullah would be diverted to left bank to start the construction of
sediment flushing channels on the right side of the weir. After completion of this
right portion of weir, the nullah will be diverted to the right side to start the
construction of remaining overflow portion of weir.

FHC Consulting Engineers

249

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

A period of four months is available to carryout excavations and eight months for
placement of concrete which is anticipated to be completed. The work on
construction of weir will be stopped when flows in the nullah are high. Installation
of under sluice gates will also be completed up to August Year-1.
For the second stage of weir construction, the work on the weir will be restarted
by Year -2 when the flows in the nullah drop down substantially. A coffer dam will
be constructed in two months across the nullah and the nullah flows will be
allowed to flow through the constructed under sluice structure. Intakes will be
plugged.

12.3.5

Power Intake, Connecting Channel and Sandtrap


Power intake, connecting channel and sandtrap structures are located at right
side downstream of the weir. It is proposed to initiate the work on these
structures side by side with the works of the Stage-1 of the weir structure. The
excavation work for connecting cahnnel and sandtrap will be completed in four
months. Afterwards these structures to be completed in about seven months, the
installation of gates will also be completed during this period.

12.3.6

Headrace Tunnel
The headrace tunnel will start from downstream end of sandtrap. The tunnel
would be excavated from upstream side and also from surge tank. This is a long
term activity and would take about 24 months. Alongwith excavation, shotcreting
or concrete lining wherever is required would be carried out.
The work on tunnel can be started simultaneously with the construction of weir.
The tunnel passes through terrain which covers up to 800 m. The horseshoe
type tunnel will be excavated with in about 24 months assuming a progress of
160 m per month.
The headrace tunnel would be on critical path, it has to be started as soon as
area for inlet portal near sediment basin is ready for construction. The tunnel is
expected to be completed in October Year - 3.

12.3.7

Surge Tank
The construction of surge tank would be parallel to headrace tunnel as it needs
blasting of rock and a lot of concrete work. The intake for pressure shaft and
surge tank will be made and will be connected with headrace tunnel. The whole
civil and mechanical works can be started independently.

FHC Consulting Engineers

250

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

12.3.8

Pressure Shaft
About 420 m long pressure shaft and 260 m long pressure tunnel have been
proposed to connect surge tank with powerhouse. The excavation would be
made with raise boring method. First pressure tunnel from powerhouse cavern
would be excavated, and then vertical shaft would be started from surge tank
area.
All work for excavation, shotcreting, concrete lining would be made afterward.
The activity will take at least 23 months. The access tunnel and powerhouse
cavern have to be excavated before pressure tunnel is started. All these works
will be completed within 26 months starting from April Year-1 to October
Year-3.

12.3.9

Access Tunnel to Cavern


Before start of powerhouse cavern, access tunnel from Danjar nullah has to be
excavated. The tunnel would be short lined and proper ventilated. With the
completion access tunnel in about 7 months, excavation from powerhouse would
be started.

12.3.10

Powerhouse and Tailrace Tunnel


The powerhouse is located on the right bank of Neelum River and left bank of
Danjar nullah. An access tunnel has to be constructed for the powerhouse
cavern. Tailrace tunnel has to be started in parallel to powerhouse cavern. The
work on the blasting and formation of place for the powerhouse will be a long
term activity. The construction of powerhouse building and tailrace can be
started at any time of a year during the construction period.

12.3.11

Electro-Mechanical Equipment
Manufacturing of electro-mechanical equipment will be started in the beginning of
the first year of construction and will take approximately 20 months.
Transportation from overseas and inland transportation of equipment will require
about 9 months. Installation of the embedded parts will require 6 months for
fixing. The erection of turbines and generators will take about 12 months. The
switchyard will be located near the powerhouse and it will take approximately
6 months for its completion. Testing and commissioning of the plant will take
about 4 months in last year. Transmission line to Nagdar powerhouse to
Kundal Shahi would take about 9 months in the last year of construction. A
tentative implementation schedule for project containing all major activities is
given in Figure - 12.1.

FHC Consulting Engineers

251

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

13

FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

FHC Consulting Engineers

252

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

13

FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

13.1

INTRODUCTION
The identified hydropower potential in AJ&K and rest of country mainly lies in
far flung and remote rural regions which for some reasons, could not be brought
up to the same level of socio economic progress as that of the urban areas.
Due to lack of interest or resources to mitigate the situation, migration of people
from under developed areas towards developed areas is on the rise and this
pace is accelerating with the passage of time. The increasing trend has already
put enormous strains on the resources of urban areas.
Notable socio-economic deficiencies in rural areas that compell the people to
migrate to urban areas are:

Absence of basic infrastructure and facilities, such as access roads,


basic health units, education, electricity and other basic needs.

Lack of sufficient employment opportunities that meet the local needs.

Traditionally the rural culture nurtures, promotes and sustains a large cadre of
skilled workforce including masons, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and
construction and steel workers. However, this work force either is unutilised or
remains underutilised due to the absence of opportunities. One of the main
advantages of setting up the hydropower project in such rural areas is the
creation of opportunities for skilled, semi skilled or unskilled work force during
construction as well as to tap the natural resources.
Since major component of capital cost is to be used for civil work, the local
economy benefits with creation of employment and trading opportunities. The
preparatory work for the project site includes setting up of access roads. This
leads to opening up of the area even for promotion of tourism, if it has major
tourism attraction.
The above described indirect socio-economic benefits due to a hydropower
project are often not quantified in any development plan. The economic cost of
these benefits over many years of plants construction and operation, however,
can significantly contribute towards stopping the migration trend.
In a public sector project development study, the detailed economic and financial
analyses are performed so as to demonstrate that the proposed investment is an
economic and optimal use of national resources. The private developers
objective is financially motivated.

FHC Consulting Engineers

253

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Notwithstanding this observation, it is appropriate to perform an economic


analysis to demonstrate that development of the proposed Nagdar Hydropower
Project would be an economic use of the National Resources if developed as a
conventional public sector project.
This section presents the results of a public-sector style economic and financial
analysis in the form of an economic comparison of Nagdar Hydropower Project
with other alternative of thermal power plants.

13.2

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The purpose of the economic analysis of the project is to bring about a better
allocation of resources, leading to enhanced incomes for investment or
consumption. For a directly productive project where the output is sold in a
relatively competitive environment, choices are made within the economy to
ensure that projects selected for investment meet a minimum standard for
resource generation and to weed out those projects that do not.
Pakistan is facing acute power shortage since 2005, which has gone up to
4,500 MW during peak hours. The main reason is non development of any
mega hydro project in the country after the completion of Ghazi Brotha
Hydropower Project and completion of thermal power plants pursuant to Energy
Policy 1994. Therefore, the country is in dire need of energy especially from
the hydropower generating plants. The thermal and hydro mix has been
reversed considerably over the last two decades.
Economic Analysis has been carried out in the above mentioned perspective
and on the basis of economic benefits to the overall economy as a
consequence of least cost optimal development of hydropower potential in the
country. For this purpose, Hub Narowal thermal power plant, which is in the
process of development, has been selected as the representative project.
The feasibility aspects of project preparation and analysis deal with
determining, whether a project is likely to contribute significantly to the
development of the total economy and whether its contribution will be significant
enough to justify the expenditure of the scare resources it would utilise.
The investment justification for current purposes depends on the returns
generated and meeting the selected criteria of Economic Internal Rate of Return
(EIRR) set by the Government of Pakistan and international funding agencies.

FHC Consulting Engineers

254

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The Hub Narowal power plant is being developed on the reciprocating engine
technology. Its capital cost and tariff as allowed by NEPRA is almost same as
allowed in the case of other Residual Furnace Oil (RFO) power plants on the
Reciprocating Technology. Therefore, the benefits from the proposed Thermal
Power Plant have been evaluated in terms of cost foregone for providing an
equivalent generation.

13.2.1

Methodology
The analysis has been undertaken to establish the feasibility justification of the
construction of the project. The standard methodology used by international
funding agencies for appraising similar projects has been used for basic analysis.
The justification of the project has been assessed within the framework of
efficiency criteria of public investment involved using Discounted Cash Flow
technique.
Project measures like Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C Ratio),
and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) have been worked out to indicate the
profitability of investment.

13.2.2

Thermal Power Plant Parameters


For carrying out a comparative analysis of hydro electric power station, an
equivalent capacity which produces the same quantum of electricity has been
taken. The capacity of hydro-electric plant in this case is 35 MW with annual
energy generation of 146.05 GWh at 47.64 % plant factor. It will be pertinent
to state that the facility which has an equivalent capacity cannot be a
conventional steam power plant.
The alternate facility can either be diesel generating sets or gas turbines. The
two technologies in small capacity range are available. In the present case of
an equivalent thermal generation project, Hubco Narowal Thermal Power
Plant has been chosen to deliver same saleable energy to the grid for
comparison purposes.
The capacity of Hubco Narowal diesel generator set has been proportionately
taken as 35 MW. The diesel generators run usually for peaking hours only.
The economic cost of a diesel generator set has been taken as
Rs. 93.55 million / MW.

FHC Consulting Engineers

255

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The unit cost analysis is given in Table - 13.1.


Table - 13.1: Hubco Narowal Thermal Power Project
Unit Cost Analysis
Description

Amount

Gross Capacity

222

Unit
MW

Project Cost

244.34

million USD

Project Cost

20769

million Rs.

Project Cost

93.55

million Rs./MW

Project Cost for 35 MW

3274.25

million Rs.

Fuel Cost Component

4.7811

Rs./kWh

Var. O&M Charges

0.4454

Rs./kWh

Total Energy Charge

5.2265

Rs./kWh

Furnace Oil Price

23,247.07

M. Ton

Source: NEPRA Tariff Determination No. TRF-92/HUBCO/2008

13.2.3

Fuel Cost
The diesel generators will be run on Residual Furnace Oil (RFO). Fuel cost
per unit is estimated at Rs. 4.7811. This cost has been approved by NEPRA
vide Tariff Determination No. TRF-92/HUBCO/2008.
The Fuel Cost for generation of 146.05 GWh equivalent thermal generation
has been estimated at Rs. 698.28 millions.

13.2.4

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost


The variable O&M cost of such a thermal facility generally has been taken as
Rs. 0.4454 per kWh. This cost is also proved by NEPRA vide its Tariff
Determination in the case of HUBCO mentioned in the above Paragraph. The
annual variable O&M Costs for thermal power generation is Rs. 65.051
million.

FHC Consulting Engineers

256

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

13.2.5

Service Life
As compared with a hydropower station, which has useful economic life of
more than about 50 years, the thermal generation facilities have a
comparatively lesser useful life in the range of 20-30 years with high cost of
maintenance as compared to hydroelectric projects.
In no way it implies that after 20-30 years the machines become redundant.
With timely maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation; the machine is kept
running in order to produce energy.
However, the rehabilitation cost of thermal power plant is considerably more
than the hydropower plant to maintain the constant level of efficiency. Diesel
generators have a lesser service life than conventional steam thermal power
plant. However, 30 years useful life of hydroelectric power station has been
assumed for comparison purposes.

13.2.6

Assumptions
The economic analysis is based on following input parameters and assumptions:

All costs are taken at their estimated actual market prices at May 2010
constant price level. Price adjustments are not made by applying
shadow price factors to correct the distortions in prices of the local
inputs to reflect their true economic value.

Application of shadow pricing would tend to favour the hydroelectric


option, so any justification of the hydroelectric project excluding
consideration of shadow pricing is considered conservative and robust.

Exchange rate as prevailing in May 2010 has been taken as Rs 85.00


per US Dollar. The price of crude oil has been continuously rising in
the international market during the last few years. Presently, the crude
oil is being traded at around US$ 60/BBL after touching the highest ever
price of US$ 82/BBL.

It is anticipated that the prices of crude oil will stay close to the present
price level of US$ 60/BBL. However, for the Economic Analysis of
Nagdar, a conservative furnace oil price of Rs. 23,247.07 per metric ton
has been used (Ref: NEPRA Tariff Determination for Hub Narowal
Project).

The furnace oil is inclusive of cost of fuel, freight, port handling and
inland transportation charges and also a return of the oil marketing
companies.

FHC Consulting Engineers

257

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The value of natural gas is artificially low in Pakistan. As gas is a


depletable scarce resource and it will replace imported fuel in the local
market, it is valued at par with the furnace oil.

All amounts are expressed in real terms and no escalations are applied
to any component including capital costs, O&M, fuel, etc.

The economic value of the hydropower project is the anticipated total


cost of delivering 146.05 GWh per year of electrical energy from an
alternative thermal power plant to the National Grid system.

The capital cost of alternative candidate thermal power plant is based


on typical index US$/kW installed costs, adjusted to account for
consumption in power station auxiliaries so that 35 MW is delivered to
the grid net of auxiliary load.

Thermal power plants generally exhibit lower reliability and higher


forced outage rates and scheduled maintenance requirements
compared to hydroelectric stations. As, forced outages and probability
of outages during periods of peak demand and capacity shortfalls are
difficult to predict, the commonly used adjustment factor of 1.15 applied
to increase the installed capacity of thermal plant to equate it with hydel
plant is not used.

Capital costs are phased to match the implementation schedule of the


project according to which the construction of the project would be
completed by mid of the year 2016.

The annual O&M Cost of the Nagdar Hydro Electric Project is taken as
1.5% of the Total Base Cost on the basis of O&M Cost approved by
NEPRA in similar Hydro Electric Project, i.e., Sukki Kinari HPP, etc.
The O&M Cost will be escalated against changes in Dollar vs Rupees
parity during the term of the Project.

13.2.6.1 Discount Rate


Selection of an appropriate "Discount Rate" or "Cash Flow" analysis is a
matter of considerable importance. In Pakistan, the marginal productivity of
capital is believed to lie somewhere between 10 and 12 %. A discount Rate
of 12% has also been assumed in the Economic Analysis.

FHC Consulting Engineers

258

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

13.2.6.2 Standard Conversion Factor


The Standard Conversion Factor (SCF) represents the ratio of prices of all
goods within the economy with respective international prices. The SCF is
mainly influenced by the trade policies of the Government.
It is approximated by the weighted average of import and export tariffs, with
subsidies excluded. The weights used are based on the magnitude of imports
and exports in the total trade during the recent years.
Rebates of the excise duties and sales tax are allowed on certain domestically
produced goods used in the production of exports. Taxes on exports are
levied on a range of items. Rebates of excise duties and sales tax are allowed
on certain domestically produced goods used in the production of exports.
The value of SCF has been worked out as 0.90. This however, only takes
into account distortions to local prices of traded goods caused by tariffs. It
may be noted that such factors as trade margins and labor input, particularly in
non- tradable goods or services also tend to distort the ratio.

13.2.6.3 Annual Energy Benefits


The annual benefits attributed to the energy generation work out as below:

Annual Energy Generation (GWh)

146.05

Energy Tariff (Rs./kWh)

5.536

Energy Revenue (Rs. million)

1,077.313

The average energy sale price in Wapda project was Rs. 4.10 per kWh in the year
2007 as per 32nd Wapda Annual Statistics Report , which has been escalated @ 8 %
per annum upto the year 2016. 10% annual system losses have also been taken
into account for the working of Energy Revenue.

13.2.6.4 Project Economic Costs


Project financial investment costs are estimated as Rs. 6,769.861 million
including the interest during construction. These have been expressed in
economic prices by applying various conversion factors and work out as
Rs. 4080.540 million and are phased over a period of four (4) years.
The annual recurring costs are estimated as Rs. 698.923 million for 20
years, and thereafter Rs. 63.672 million. The economic value of operation
and maintenance costs has also been assumed as Rs. 61.208 million annually
for comparison purposes.

FHC Consulting Engineers

259

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

13.2.7

Result of the Thermal Equivalent


Based on the above assumptions of an equivalent thermal generation
facility against the proposed hydropower project, the Internal Economic Rate
of Return comes to 27.78% as given in Table - 13.1.
The measures like Net Present value (NPV), Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C Ratio)
and Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) have been calculated to examine
the economic feasibility of implementing the Project and the results are
summarised below:
Values at 12% DR
Present Worth of Benefits (million Rs.)

6,079.61

Present Worth of Costs (million Rs.)

3,468.43

Net Present Value (million Rs.)

2,611.19

B/C Ratio

1.75

EIRR

27.78%

A review of the results of economic analysis indicates that project is


economically viable as it has a B/C ratio of 1.75 and an EIRR of 27.78%.

13.3

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The financial analysis of the proposed Nagdar Hydropower station in AJ&K has
been carried out in order to assess viability of the investment during the useful
life of the project, which is estimated as thirty (30) years. The analysis has
incorporated a tariff, adequate to yield return on equity which is reasonable for
the investors under the current market conditions.
Project installed generation capacity and power potential are computed based
on peak and off peak flow data. A plant design discharge of 9 m 3 /s, and four
turbines with a total plant installed capacity of 35 MW were selected. The
annual energy generation is estimated at 146.05 GWh.

13.3.1

Capital Cost
Following is a brief summary of the total capital cost of the Project. All figures
are shown in million Pak Rupees.
Description

Base Cost
IDC
Total Capital Cost

FHC Consulting Engineers

Local
Component

Foreign
Component

Total
(PKR)

1,642.895

2,601.934

4,244.830

49.939

597.961

846.168

1,444.129

16.990

2,240.857

3,448.102

5,688.959

66.929

260

Total
(US$)

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

13.3.2

Capital Structure
It is assumed that the Project Cost will be financed through Rupees Denominated
Loan to meet the local cost of the Project and US Dollar Denominated Foreign
Currency Loan to meet the foreign currency cost. There is no Equity injected by
the Govt. of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Brief assumption relating to local currency
and foreign currency financing arrangements are given in the following sections.

13.3.2.1 Local Currency Financing

The Interest Rate is 12.65%, which is Six Months KIBOR as on 25th


September 2009.

Spread is 300 bps keeping in view the existing market trend.

Tenure is for 20 years and payments will be made in 40 equal semi


annual installments.

Payment stream is worked out on the Amortisation basis.

13.3.2.2 Foreign Currency Financing

13.3.3

The Interest Rate is 0.63938%, which is Six Months LIBOR as on 25th


September 2009.

Spread is 400 bps keeping in view the existing market trend and current
risks associated to Pakistan.

Tenure is for 20 years and payments will be made in 40 equal semi annual installments.

Payment stream is worked out on Amortisation basis.

Since, the foreign currency loan is for 20 years and dollar denominated;
therefore, 11% Dollar vs Rupees exchange rate deprecation parity has
been assumed to mitigate the impact of currency fluctuation.

Results of the Financial Analysis


The measures like Net Present Worth (NPW), Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C Ratio)
and Project Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) have been calculated to
examine the financial feasibility of implementing the project.

FHC Consulting Engineers

261

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

The streams of project benefits and costs are detailed in Table - 13.2 and the
results are summarised below:
Values at 12% DR
million Rs.
Present Worth of Benefits
Present Worth of Costs
Net Present Worth
B/C Ratio

8,641.99
4,580.04
4,061.95
1.89

FIRR

14.30%

The Financial Analysis indicates that the project has a B/C ratio of 1.89 and an
FIRR of 14.30%; is financially viable.

13.4

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Sensitivity analysis has been carried out for following scenarios.

Income / revenues decreased by 10%

Project cost increase by 20%

Income / revenues reduction by 10% and cost overrun by 20%, both


occurring simultaneously.

The sensitivity analysis is summarised below and detail provided in


Table - 13.3.
Sensitivity Assumptions

IRR%

10 percent decrease in project Income

23.86

20 percent increase in project costs

21.30

Income / Revenues reduction by 10% and cost overrun


by 20% , both occurring simultaneously

18.23

A review of the results indicate that project is not sensitive to the assumptions
made above the investment in the project and remains financially feasible even
under the adverse condition of income / revenues reduction by 10% and
the cost overrun by 20% both occurring simultaneously when the FIRR
approached the discount rate of 12%.

FHC Consulting Engineers

262

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

13.5

UNIT COSTS
Unit cost refers to cost per unit of energy generated or cost per unit of installed
capacity. Being a useful parameter, it indicates project financial efficiency at a
glance. Cost of generation and installation per unit has been worked out for the
proposed Nagdar Hydropower Project as per PC-I practice used by WAPDA
Power Planning Wing (Cost recovery in 20 years and levelised over 30 years).
The project generation cost per kWh inclusive of import charges and IDC for the
useful life of the project and the cost per kW of installed capacity are shown in
Table - 13.4.
As can be seen the project shows the levellised generation cost of Rs. 6.496
(7.643 US cents) at an interest rate of 15.65 % and 4.64 % for local and foreign
currency costs over the useful life of the project. The cost per kW of installed
capacity comes to Rs. 162,542 (US$ 1912).

13.6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The unit cost of generation is attractive for developing the proposed Nagdar
Hydropower Project. EIRR is very high indicating the economic viability of the
project. The Project FIRR is above the interest with an attractive NPV.
Important conclusions drawn from the economic and financial viability analysis
are as follows:

The addition of project from the local indigenous hydro resource shall
replace equivalent thermal generation, whose unit cost of production is
high, fluctuating widely and may rise in near future.

The benefit cost ratio 1.75 and EIRR is 27.78%.

The successful completion of the project will turn into job opportunities
and uplift in the socio economic well being of the adjoining areas. This
will result into economic activities in the locality.

FHC Consulting Engineers

263

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

14

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FHC Consulting Engineers

264

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

14

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Nagdar Hydropower Project has been studied to the feasibility level and the
following conclusions have been drawn and recommendations made:

14.1

CONCLUSIONS
1.

Nagdar nullah is one of the promising potential tributaries of


Neelum River where cheap hydropower can be harnessed by planning
and developing a medium size hydropower project.
The hydrogeological, geological / geotechnical and other conditions are favourable.

2.

The project is considered to be economically viable and financially


feasible. The economic internal rate of return is 27.78% with benefit cost
(B/C) ratio of 1.75. The financial internal rate of return is 14.30%. The
unit cost per kW estimated as Rs. 6.496.

3.

Considering the project area topography, geology, weather conditions


and proximity to the Line of Control (LOC), the project has been planned
on the lower stretch of Nagdar nullah with project layout proposed on the
right bank.

4.

The project layout involves 6 m high diversion weir with an undersluice,


lateral intake, surface sandtrap, 3840 m long low pressure headrace
tunnel, surge tank, 680 m long and 2.1 m diameter pressure shaft
including pressure tunnel, underground powerhouse, 537 m long tailrace
tunnel and 505 m long access tunnel to powerhouse. The structures and
equipment have been planned for a design discharge of 9 m3/s and the
effective head of about 464 m.

5.

The project has been optimised for an installed capacity of 35 MW which


was identified as 18 MW in the previous studies. The mean annual
energy is estimated as 146.05 GWh with a plant factor of 47.64%.

6.

The construction materials, especially the aggregates are abundantly


available near the site. Geotechnical investigations have been proposed
to be conducted through third party contract. These investigations are
considered essential for detailed design / drawings stage of studies.

7.

The powerhouse would be equipped with four horizontal Pelton turbines


each of 8.75 MW, four generators of 10.30 MVA and four transformers.
The switchyard would be cavern excavated and a plain terrace near
Danjar village. The powerhouse would be connected with 132 kV line to
the National Grid.

FHC Consulting Engineers

265

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

8.

The cost estimates have been prepared, considering the latest market
rates and the estimated project quantities. The estimated project cost
including interest during construction is PKR 5688.959 million involving
foreign exchange equivalent of PKR 3448.102 million in US Dollars.

9.

The proposed project is envisaged to be constructed in 4 year period and


one year for land acquisition, relocations, access roads etc. to be
arranged by HEB.

10. On the basis of field findings during the Initial Environment and Social
Impact Examination study, it can be concluded that the proposed
Nagdar Hydropower Project will not have any significant adverse impacts
on the local population or any segment of environment provided the
mentioned recommendations and mitigation measures suggested in
study are fully implemented during construction and by the plant
management in letter and spirit.

14.2

RECOMMENDATIONS
1.

The project is economically viable and financially attractive and is


recommended for its implementation with a transmission line connecting
to the National Grid.

2.

Flow measurements and gauge observations may be continued even


after the studies in order to have essential data of flows, floods and
sediment before project implementation.

3.

The access roads to weir site, headrace tunnels and surge area need to
be improved / constructed.

4.

The geotechnical investigations and laboratory testing is in progress


through third party contract. This data should be arranged as soon as
possible for the timely completion of detailed design and preparation of
tender documents.

FHC Consulting Engineers

266

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

PHOTOGRAPHS

FHC Consulting Engineers

267

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph No. 1: A Panoramic View of Nagdar Nullah

Photograph No. 2: Coordinates Observation at Road Bridge using GPS

FHC Consulting Engineers

268

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Photograph No. 3: Nagdar Nullah Confluence with Neelum River

Photograph No. 4: Nagdar Nullah near Confluence with Neelum River

FHC Consulting Engineers

269

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Photograph No. 5: Gauge at Bypass Bridge on Nagdar Nullah

Photograph No. 6: Bypass Bridge at Nagdar Nullah

FHC Consulting Engineers

270

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Photograph No. 7: Proposed Nagdar Weir Site

Photograph No. 8: Proposed Nagdar Weir Site

FHC Consulting Engineers

271

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Photograph No. 9: Proposed Location of Surge Shaft & Cavern Powerhouse

Photograph No. 10: Danjar Nullah at Proposed Access Tunnel Portal


(Looking Upstream)

FHC Consulting Engineers

272

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants

Nagdar Hydropower Project


Feasibility Report

Photograph No. 11: Proposed Location of Access Tunnel Portal for Powerhouse

Photograph No. 12: Proposed Location of Tailrace Tunnel Outlet (Danjar Nullah)

FHC Consulting Engineers

273

Scott Wilson Ltd


Electra Consultants