Pre-Feasibility Report

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
KATHMANDU ENGINEERING COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
A
FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT
ON
DARAM KHOLA
(A HYDROPOWER PROJECT)
Prepared By:
Manohar Sedhain (65089)

Shiv Kumar Thapa (65095)
Sunil Shah (65109)
Suraj pant (65110)
Yogesh Subedi (65118)
Ranjeet Thakali (65119)
Kathmandu, Nepal
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
DARAM KHOLA
(A HYDROPOWER PROJECT)
Prepared By:
Manohar Sedhain (65089)

Shiv kumar Thapa (65095)
Sunil Shah (65109)
Suraj Pant (65110)
Yogesh Subedi (65118)
Ranjeet Thakali (65119)
A PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE BACHELOR’S
DEGREE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

KATHMANDU, NEPAL
September 2012
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the Library, Department of Civil Engineering, Kathmandu
Engineering College, Institute of Engineering may make this report freely available for
inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of this project
report for scholarly purpose may be granted by the supervisors who supervised the project work
recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department wherein the project report
was done. It is understood that the recognition will be given to the author of this report and to
the Department of Civil Engineering, Kathmandu Engineering College, Institute of Engineering
in any use of the material of this project report. Copying or publication or the other use of this
report for financial gain without approval of to the Department of Civil Engineering,
Kathmandu Engineering College, Institute of Engineering and author’s written permission is
prohibited. Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material in this report
in whole or in part should be addressed to:
Department of Civil Engineering

Kathmandu Engineering College
Kathmandu
Nepal
(Affiliated to Tribhuvan University)
Kalimati, Kathmandu
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
Certified that this project report entilted “PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY OF DARAM

KHOLA ” is the bonafide work of “Manohar Sedhain, Shiv Kumar Thapa, Sunil Sah,
Suraj Pant, Yogesh Subedi, Ranjeet Thakali ” who carried out the project work under my
supervision.
Er. Er. Ramesh Subedi

External Examiner Dy. HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
Department of Civil Engineering
Kathmandu Engineering College
Kalimati, Katmandu
Er. Rajendra Kumar B.C.

Supervisor
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We, the final year BE students, are highly obliged to Kathmandu Engineering College for
providing us such a great opportunity to research in our related field and build a project of our
own interest. The duration of completing this project has been a great opportunity for us to
explore the possibilities of different ideas in our field.
First of all we would like to thank “Department of civil engineering” and creditable teachers
who were invaluable for our project.
We are genuinely grateful to our project supervisor Er. Rajendra Kumar B.C for his guidance
and co-operation throughout the project and reviewing our project from time to time. We are
indebted to our teachers who helped us with our project by sharing their precious suggestion,
instructions and experiences.
Our strength was the support of the friends who have directly and indirectly encouraged and
assisted us in carrying out this work. Their constructive criticism and motivation is the key to
our success.
Project Group:
Manohar Sedhain (065/BCE/089)
Shiv Kumar Thapa (065/BCE/095)
Sunil Shah (065/BCE/109)
Suraj Pant (065/BCE/110)
Yogesh Subedi (065/BCE/118)
Ranjeet Thakali (065/BCE/119)
PREFACE
To introduce the students with the real civil engineering practice and to give them confidence,
ability to tackle problems related to civil engineering and idea of practical working in
professional field with the application of theoretical knowledge gained during the whole four
years, there is a provision of project work in the syllabus of TU.IOE on the final semester of
bachelor’s degree program. This project entitled “Pre-feasibility study on Daram Khola
hydropower project” is the one prepared by a group of six students in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the bachelor’s degree in civil engineering.
Nepal has high potential in hydropower but the development made so far is only available for
a small portion of the population. In order to contribute in the generation of hydropower energy
for the improvement of GDP, the study for the execution of the project is made.
Hydropower engineering includes great diversified nature of work from meteorological analysis
to geological study, civil engineering structures, electromechanical installation, operation etc. In
order to complete this project, the period of one semester inclusive of the regular classes and
timely assessments is very difficult. However every effort has been made to collect the most
reliable data, past reports and relevant design information.
Two days field visit of the site was also made to determine the suitability of the structure’s
location, geological investigation and topographic features. One-day visit to the similar type
small- hydropower plant (Chaku khola hydropower) was also made to support the project and to
visualize the structure, its proper placement functions and many more unknown factors to be
considered.
From the very beginning of the project, from the hydrological analysis to hydraulic design
and then to turbine design every attempt had been made to cover all the parts of a hydropower
plant. This project group is sure that this report will be beneficial for the detail investigation and
design of the Daram Khola Small Hydropower Project. The group will also be delighted for any
feedback and suggestion to upgrade this report.
SALIENT FEATURES
DARAM KHOLA A- HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Project location
Development Region : Western
Zone : Dhaulagiri
District : Baglung
Headwork site : Saddin village of Harichaur V.D.C
Power house site : Ghusmeli village of Argal V.D.C
Geographical Co-ordinates
Latitude : 28°17’52’’N to 28°16’45"N
Longitude : 83°25’27’’ E to 83°24’30’’E
General
Name of River : Daram khola

Nearest Town : Tamghas
Type of Scheme : Run-Off-River
Gross Head : 91.3 m
Capacity for PPA : 2.5MW
Average Annual Energy : 14.6 GWh
Basin Characteristics and Hydrology
Catchment area at the intake site : 84 km2

Design Discharge : 3.6 m3/s
Probability of Exceedence : 40%
100Years Flow at the intake site : 365.2 m3/s
Weir
Type : Ogee, concrete structure

Length : 21m
Crest Elevation : 1597 masl
Height : 4.4 m from Riverbed
Undersluice
No of openings : One
Channel Slope : 1 in 25
Width : 3m
Intake
Type : Orifice
Size : 2.2 m (W) x 1m (H)
No. of openings : 2
Invert Level of sill : 1595.7 masl
Gravel Trap
Size : 7.2 m x 5m x 7.4 m

Bed load size to trap : 2 mm
Flushing : Box Culvert, 0.5mx0.8m
Normal Operating Level : 1596.7 masl
Approach canal
Type : Rectangular
Length : 23.25 m
Size : 2 m (w) x 2 m (H)
Settling Basin
Type : Surface
No. of Basins : Two
Designed particle size : 0.20 mm
Size : 60mx 7.4m x5.75m
Forebay
Size : 5.6m x7m X 5.5m

Normal Water Level : 1596.5 masl
Penstock Pipe
Material : Steel
Length : 1730m (up to the bifurcation)
Finish Diameter : 1.3 m
Number of Anchor Blocks : 29(up to bifurcation)
Support piers : 76
Turbine
Type : Horizontal Shaft, Francis
No of Unit : 2
Rated Output per Unit : 1250 kW
Rated Discharge per Unit : 1.8 m3/s
Rated Efficiency : 85%
Power and Energy
Net Head : 82.6 m

Design Discharge : 3.6- m3/s
Installed Capacity : 2.5MW
Dry season Energy : 2.5 GWh
Wet season Energy : 12.1 GWh
Annual Energy Generation : 14.6 GWh
Dry/Wet : 4.9
Economy
Total Investment cost : NRs 320 MIllion

Return on Equity : 16.21%
Benefit / Cost Ratio : 1.18
8.10 Impact Mitigation Measures 40
8.11 Conclusion and Recommendation of EIA 41
9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 42-42
9.1 Conclusion 42
9.2 Recommendation 42
ANNEXES:
ANNEX A HYDROLOGY CALCULATION
ANNEX B DESIGN CALCULATION
ANNEX C ENERGY CALCULATION
ANNEX D COST ESTIMATE
ANNEX E FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
ANNEX F DRAWINGS
REFERENCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Titles Pages
1. INTRODUCTION 1-3
1.1 Hydropower Development in Nepal 1
1.2 Hydropower Potential in Nepal 2
1.3 Justification for Small Hydropower Project 3
2. BACKGROUND 4-6
2.1 Background 4
2.2 Location and Accessibility 4
2.3 Drainage and Basin Characteristics 4
2.4 Daram Khola A-Hydropower Project 5
2.5 Objective of the Study 6
2.6 Scope of Works 6
2.7 Methodology of the Study 6
3. GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGICAL STUDIES 7-10
3.1 General 7
3.2 Geology of Nepal 7
3.2.1 Terai Zone 8
3.2.2 Siwalik Zone 8
3.2.3 Lesser Himalaya Zone 9
3.2.4 Higher Himalaya Zone 9
3.2.5 Tibetan Tethys Himalaya Zone 9
3.3 Geology of the Project Site 9
4. HYDROLOGY 11-20
4.1 Objective of Hydrology Investigation 11
4.2 Scope of investigation 11
4.3 Physiographic characteristics of the Daram Khola basin 11
4.3.1 The catchment 11
4.3.2 The climate 12
4.4 Stream flow 13
4.4.1 Basic historic data 13
4.4.2 Long-term stream flow analysis 14
4.4.2.1 Riparian release 15
4.5 Flow duration curve 16
4.6 Flood flow 17
4.6.1 Regional flood frequency analysis 17
4.7 Rating curves 18
5. DESIGN ASPECTS 21-31
5.1 Introduction 21
5.2 Design basis 21
5.2.1 Headworks 21
5.2.2 Penstocks 26
5.2.3 Turbines 28
6. PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION 32-34
6.1 General 32
6.2 Infrastructure Development 33
6.3 Phase of Construction 34
6.4 Schedule of Construction 34
7. ECONOMIC AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 35-36
7.1 Economic Analysis 35
7.2 Sensitivity Analysis 35
8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 37-41
8.1 Introduction 37
8.2 Environment Impact Assessment in Nepal 37
8.3 Objective of EIA 38
8.4 Philosophy and Purpose behind EIA 38
8.5 Identification of Environmental Impacts 39
8.6 Environmental Impact Monitoring 40
8.7 Baseline Monitoring 40
8.8 Impact Monitoring 40
8.9 Compliance Monitoring 40
Pre-feasibility Study of Daram Khola A-Hydropower Project
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Hydropower development in Nepal

Nepal, being a developing country, is facing a lot of challenges to raise its economic status. To
achieve the sustainable and remarkable development of any country, it is necessary to use its
available natural resources. Nepal is endowed with rich hydropower resources which is the major
potential source of renewable energy. Hence the major achievements in the socio-economic
development of Nepal could be possible through power harnessing of the water resources
potentials. First approach in hydropower development in Nepal was the power generation from
the construction of Pharping Hydropower station (500 KW) in 1911. But the progressive
development was gradual only after the Sundarijal (600 KW) and Panauti (2400 KW)
Hydropower Stations came into operation after long interval of 23 and 29 years.
The completion of Dhankuta Hydropower station (240 KW) in 1971 was regarded as the bench
mark of small hydel development of Nepal. The establishment of small hydel development board
in 1975 was another milestone under which several small hydro schemes such as Jhupra (345
KW), Doti (200 KW), Jumla (200 KW) etc. were made during 1975 to 1985. Nepal Electricity
Authority (NEA), established 1985, responsible for generation, transmission and distribution of
electric power brought the revolution in hydropower development. Many potential sites for
hydropower generation had identified by private consultancies and companies in collaboration
with NEA.
Prior to 1960, all the hydropower stations were constructed through grant aid from friendly
countries like the USSR ( Panauti), India (Trishuli, Devighat, Gandak, Surajpura- Koshi) and
China ( Sunkoshi). Since 1970, hydropower development took a new turn with the availability of
bilateral and multilateral funding sources. The major donor countries in the period were Japan,
Germany, Norway, South Korea, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and USA. The financial
lending agencies were the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Japanese Bank for
International Cooperation (JBIC), Saudi Fund for Development, Kuwait Fund and others.
From 1990s, subsequent to the adoption of the policy of economic liberalization, hydropower
development took yet another turn with the private sector entering the arena. After formulating
Hydropower Development Policy – 1992 by government of Nepal, many private sectors are
involving towards power development. In order to encompass projects of various scales intended
~1~
for domestic consumption as well as to export hydropower, the former policy was replaced by
the Hydropower Development Policy 2001 to provide further impetus to active participation of
private sectors.
Development of hydropower in Nepal is a very complex task as it faces numerous challenges and
obstacles. Some of the factors attributed to the low level of hydropower development are lack of
capital, high cost of technology, political instability, and lower load factors due to lower level of
productive end-use of electricity and high technical and non technical losses.
1.2 Hydropower potential of Nepal

The kingdom of Nepal, lying between India and China against the impressive Himalayas,
comprises of the most diverse climatic ranges and physical environment in the world. From the
Ganngetic plains at about 70m altitude, to the Mt. Everest at 8,848 m altitude, there is only the
distance of about 170 km. These slopes are the steepest slopes in the world resulting high
hydropower potential. Because of the existence of snow feed perennial rivers, several tributaries
and countless streams, Nepal, is considered as the World's 2nd richest country in the gross
hydropower potential. The average annual precipitation is about 1700mm (80% of which occurs
during monsoon season from June to September).
Gross hydropower potential of Nepal is 83,000 MW out of which about 42,000 MW is assessed
to be economically feasible and 44,000 is technically feasible. Approximately 6000 big and small
rivers have been identified in Nepal's territory carrying about 174×109m³ of surface run-off
annually (0.5% of total surface run off of the world) and water storage potential of 88 billion m3.
Hydropower Potential of Nepal (in million KW) Source: Water Resources in Nepal,C. K.
Sharma
S.No. River Basins Theoretically feasible Technically feasible Economical feasible
1 Saptakoshi 22.35 11.40 10.48
2 Karnali 34.60 24.36 24.00
3 Gandaki 17.95 6.73 6.27
4 Mahakali 1.58 1.13 1.13
5 Others 3.07 0.98 0.98
Total 83.29 44.60 42.15
~2~
1.3 Justification for Small Hydropower Project

NEA has classified the hydropower projects according to the power output into the followings
groups:
I. Micro Hydro Power Plant : Less than 100 KW
II. Mini Hydro Power Plant : 100 KW – 1MW
III. Small Hydro Power Plant : 1MW – 10 MW
IV. Medium Hydro Power Plant : 10 MW – 300 MW
V. Large Hydro Power Plant : More than 300 MW
A small hydropower plant is found to be most feasible than both the micro hydro and large
hydropower in context of Nepal.
 All hydropower projects can be completed in short period of time so people get its
service in short time.
 It can be carried out by the Nepalese economy and Nepalese resource only.
 Most of the rivers of the country of the country are having the medium discharge and
head required for the small hydropower.
 Nepalese investor and technical manpower are also encouraged in the small power policy.
Chilime small hydropower project is one of the example of such type hydropower project.
 Equipment used in small hydropower is easy to manufacture in local level.
 Repair and maintenance of plants and equipment used will be easy.
 Most of the SHPs of our country have been proved to be economical in case of Nepalese
standard.
Hence, small hydropower plant is better suited and justified to generate electricity in Nepal.
~3~
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Background
Daram khola-A hydroelectric project is a run-of-river (ROR) type located in Baglung District,
Western Development Region of Nepal. The project will have installed capacity of 2.5MW. The
Headwork’s site of the project is located at Saddin village of Harichaur V.D.C and powerhouse
site is at Ghusmeli village of Argal V.D.C.
2.2 Location and Accessibility

Daram khola lies in the frontier of hill VDC and Argal VDC. The project area lies along the
upper reach of Daram khola of Baglung district of Dhaulagiri zone in the Western Development
region of Nepal. Geographically the project area is located in between the longitudes 83°25’27’’
E and latitude 28°17’52’’N (at headwork site) and 83°24’30’’E and 28°16’45;;N (at power house
site). Physio-graphically, the project area belongs to the middle mountains and lies in between
1500m to 1600m above mean sea level. The powerhouse and headwork site is accessible by the
Harichaur to Tara Village Rural Roadway at about 4 km from Harichaur Village.
The Highway (baglung-Burtibang, 60 km) is the main access of the project. The project area is
linked through Harichaur bazaar, which is located at 42 km chainage from Baglung Bazaar on
the way to Burtibang. Tara Village is located 10 km north from Harichaur Bazaar. The project is
located within the roadway from Harichaur to Tara Village at about 4 km from Harichaur Bazaar.
2.3 Drainage Basin and Climate

The Daram Khola is one of the major tributaries of Badigard River lying in the Western Nepal.
The Daram Khola originates from Dade Lake in the west, Niskot Phera and Deurali Dada in the
north and Sulighopte Dada in the east with the highest peak at EL.3533m. The khola is perennial
snow fed, having almost steady flow. The drainage basin of the Daram khola covers elevation
range of 3500m to 1500m. The drainage basin of the Daram Khola lies in the North-south
direction draining towards the North-West side. The area between 2200mm and 3500m is
covered by dense forest. The areas below 2200m are dominated by agriculture lands and
scattered settlements.
~4~
The catchment area of Daram khola at the intake site is about 84 km2 and the catchment area at
the powerhouse site is 94 km2.The length of the river is about 13km and the maximum width of
the catchment is approximately 7 km.
The project is under the influence of southwest monsoon. The climate of the basin is also
influenced by the physiography of the region. The difference between the warm humid summer
and the cold dry winter becomes more marked with the change in the altitude. As the project area
in the high altitude, the catchment area experiences cool temperature to sub –arctic. Like other
parts of Nepal, the region is also influenced by the monsoon climate.
The closet climatologically station to the project site is Tamghas located at Latitude of 2804’ and
Longitude 83015’ at ELev.1530m. According to the records of Tamghas, the minimum extreme
temperature is about 0o C during the winter and the maximum extreme temperature is about
36.50o C during the summer. The relative humidity may be as high as 90% during the wet season
and as low as 40% during the dry season.
Mean annual ppt. in the region is 1000 to 3500mm and mean monsoon ppt. is 1500 to
3500mm.The lowest flow occurs in the month of April, while the highest flow occurs in the
month of august.
2.4 Daram Khola-A Hydroelectric Project

The Daram kola –A Hydroelectric project has decided to harness the water resources of the upper
reaches of Daram khola. We decided to plan the headrace pipe alignment at the left bank of the
Daram khola .Thus the other components such as descander ,forbay, penstock pipe, and
powerhouse are all planned in the left bank of the Daram khola. The findings of the detail
engineering survey has the project layouts and given in the following paragraphs.
The entire project area, from the intake to the powerhouse including the substation, is within the
Hill Village Development committee (VDC) Baglung district, Western development region of
Nepal. This is a run –off –river project.
The powerhouse is located on the left bank of the Daram khola near to Ghusmeli bazaar. The
intake is also located on the bank Daram khola and approximately 2km m u/s of the powerhouse
site at the Argal Village Development committee (VDC).
~5~
2.5 Objective of the study

The principle objective of this study is to carry out Pre-feasibility study of Daram Khola-A
Hydropower Project. Following are the general objectives of the Pre-feasibility study.
 To understand various aspects of hydropower planning and development.
 To know about the major components of the hydropower project.
 To select the feasible project alternative.
 To carry out the engineering design of hydropower components.
 To calculate the power and energy generated from the project.
 To conduct economical and financial evaluation.
2.6 Scope of works

The scope of the study is consistent with the general requirement of a detailed engineering and
construction of the Daram khola –A Hydroelectric Project. Structural design for the purposed
structure has to be carried out as per standards practice prevalent in the country considering the
materials available and relevant codes. For deriving maps than prepared for the Pre-feasibility
study, hence, decided topography survey shall be carried out the designed areas.
2.7 Methodology of the study

Daram khola –A Hydroelectric project has been reviewed in the Class. We decided final location
of headwork’s, desanding basin, and water conveyance system alignment over the crossing,
location of forbay and the powerhouse by observing the Topographic map and other literatures
about the project area .
~6~
3.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGICAL STUDIES
3.1 General
The main objectives of the geological studies are to collect geological geomorphologic
information and to use the findings for the evaluation of the feasibility of the project in the pre-
feasibility stage. Geology of the site define the design type, quality etc of any structure on or
under the surface of earth.
3.2 Geology of Nepal
The Himalaya is said to be the most active and fragile mountain range in the world, it is a live
mountain with active tectonics. The Himalaya is still rising and its rocks are under constant stress
as the northward moving Indian Plate pushes against the stable Tibetan plate. The active nature
of the range is also manifested in frequent earthquakes. Moreover the inherently weak geological
characteristics of the rocks make the Himalaya fundamentally very fragile.
Major Geological Zone of Nepal
Nepal can be divided from south to north into following 5 major tectonics zone separated by
major thrust and faults.
There are a number of other thrust and faults, such as Mahabharata Thrust (MT), but none of that
runs the length of the country. Each geological zone is characterized by its area lithology,
tectonics, and structure and geologic history. These features are summarized in the form of a
generalized geological map.
~7~
Table 3.1 Tactonic Zone of Nepal
S.N. Tectonic Zone
1 Terai Zone
Main Frontal Thrust ( MFT)
2 Siwalik Zone
Main Boundary Thrust ( MBT)
3 Lesser Himalaya Zone Thrust/Fault
Main Central Thrust (MCT)
4 Higher Himalaya Zone
South Tibetan Detachment (STD)
5 Tibetan Tethys Himalayan Zone
3.2.1 Terai Zone
Terai Zone, the southern tectonics division of Nepal, represents the northern edge of Indo-
Gangentic alluvial basin. This plain is made up of alluvium of Pleistocene to recent age ( 1.8
million years to the present with an avg. thickness of about 1500m).
3.2.2 Siwalik Zone
Siwalik zone also called Churia Hills consists of fluvial sedimentary rocks of Neogene to
quaternary age (14 to 1 million years). This zone is bounded to the north by MBT and to south
by MFT. In general, the rocks of siwalik zone dip northward at varying angles and overall strike
is East- West. The width of this zone varies from a few kilometers in eastern Nepal to about 33
km in the western Nepal. Rocks of this zone are divided stratigraphically into 3 parts. The lower
Siwalik consists of fine grained mudstone, siltstone and shale. The middle Siwalik is marked by
thick multistoried stone beds cycle of finding upward sequences is normally observed. The upper
Siwalik is characterized by very coarse grained rocks such as boulder conglomerates.
~8~
3.2.3 Lesser Himalayan Zone
Lesser Himalayan Zone is boarded to the south by MBT and north by MCT. Three physiographic
units- the Mahabharat, Midland and parts of Fore Himalaya belong to this zone. It has an average
width of about 100 km. The zone is characterized by a mountain range of about 3000 m high in
the south and lower hills in the North. The zone consists of mainly of unfossiliferrous
sedimentary and various degree of metamorphism such as shale, sandstone, limestone dolomites,
slates, phylites, schist and quartzite ranging in age from pre-cambrian( as old as 1800 million
years) to Ecoene (about 40 million yrs). The rocks in this zone are highly folded into range
anticlines and synclines and faulted and have developed complicated structure. In the east it is
characterized by development of extensive thrust sheets of crystalline rocks of Higher Himalaya
(Gneisses and Schist) that have traveled southward to cover below the low grade metamorphic
rocks of lesser Himalaya. The low grade metamorphic rocks are called the Nuwakot complex and
high grade rocks are called the Kathmandu Complex.
3.2.4 Higher Himalaya Zone
Higher Himalaya zone includes rocks lying of MCT and below south of the fossiliferous Tethys
Himalayan Zone. The northern limit of this zone is STD. This zone consists of a 10-12 km thick
succession of high grade metamorphic rocks such as Gneiss, Migmatites, Schist, quartzite and
marbles of this zone form the basement of Tethys Himalayan zone some young granite occurs in
the upper part of the unit.
3.2.5 Tibetan Tethys Himalayan Zone
The Tethys Himalayan zone adjoins higher Himalayan zone with a normal fault contact (the
STD) and extends to the north into Tibet. This zone is composed of sedimentary rocks such as
shale, limestone and sandstones ranging in age from Cambrain (570 million yrs) to Cretaceous
(70 million yrs ago).
3.3 Geology of the Project Site
The project area is in the lower siwalik to middle siwalik. Its geology is highly fragile and the
rock types found are mostly low grade metamorphic rocks, and sedimentary rocks such as
phyllite, mudstone, shale, siltstone etc.
~9~
There is no geological study carried out for the project area where the power plant is planned to
be located. A quick study of surface geology during reconnaissance visit revealed that the terrain
consisted essentially of rock bed through which river is following. The geological condition near
to the intake site is quite good than at the near to the power house site. As the river is flowing
through high grade near to the intake site big boulders can be seen. Near the power house the
deposition is mainly shingle rather than boulders as the gradient of river is lower than at the
intake site.
Since the river is in the boulder stage and the subsurface formation cannot be judge through the
surface investigation, it is recommended to carry out the geological study (surface and sub
surface) of the site in the Detailed Feasibility Study.
~ 10 ~
4.0 HYDROLOGY
4.1 Objective of Hydrology Investigations

Hydrological investigations performed for design of headworks of run-of-river hydropower
projects were aimed at achieving the following objectives:
i. Providing input for the selection of return period for inflow design flood, construction
diversion flood and low flows.
ii. Developing flow duration curves mean monthly hydrographs, rating curves and water surface
profiles at the headworks.
4.2 Scope of Investigations

To achieve the above objectives, the following activities enumerated below were performed:
a) Collection of Hydro-meteorological (stream flow and rainfall) from the catchment of
proposed site.
b) Analysis of collected data for computation of design flows, rating curve, and water
surface profile at the headworks.
4.3 Physiographic Characteristics of the Daram Khola Basin

4.3.1 The Catchment
The Daram khola is a tributary of Badigad River, which is a major tributary of the Kali Gandaki
River Basin. The Badigard River basin drains the Western Development Region of Nepal having
a catchment area of 1940 km2 Daram khola lies in Baglung district and the total drainage area at
the confluence with Badigard is about 335 km2
Daram khola is a perennial river. The headwater of Daram khola originate from Dahhe lekh in
west, Niskot Phere and Deurali Dada in the north and Sulighopte Dada in the east with the
highest peak at EI.3533m.
The proposed dam site of Daram-khola A Hydroelectric project lies at latitude 28o17’52’’ N and
Longitude 83o25’27’’ E, at about EI 1594 m. It is about 3.32 km downstream of the Tara-Namila
Khola confluence. The total length of Daram Khola up to the dam site is about 12.33 km. The
drainage area at the proposed dam site is about 84 km2.
~ 11 ~
The proposed powerhouse site of Daram Khola-A Hydroelectric Project lies at Latitude
28o16’45’’ N and Longitude 83o24’30’’ E, at about EI 1508 m and located at about 1.9 km
downstream of the proposed dam site. The total catchment area at proposed powerhouse site is
94 km2.
The average gradient of the river up to the dam site is about 16.25% and in between the dam site
and powerhouse site is about 5.25%.
Based on the topographical maps, there are no lakes within the Daram khola basin. All of the
above mentioned drainage areas have been estimated based on the latest topographical maps
compiled from 1:25000 scale aerial photographs by Survey Dept. The map of the project basin
and adjacent basins are shown in the annex.
4.3.2 The Climate

Hydro-meteorological data from the hydrometric and meteorological stations existing in and
around the river basin were obtained from publications of the Department of Hydrology and
Meteorology (DHM), GoN. These data are presented in the tabular form in table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Hydro-meteorological data of different stations
Index No. Station name Location Altitude(m) Record Precipitation
Length Annual(mm)
615 Bobang 28°24’-83°06' 2273 1978-2000 2555
621 Darbang 28°23’-83°24' 1160 1989-2000 1833
627 Kuhun 28°24’-83°29' 1550 1992-2000 1665
609 Beni Bazar 28°21’-83°34' 835 1971-2000 1660
605 Baglung 28°16’-83°36' 984 1971-2000 1928
614 Kushma 28°13’-83°42' 891 1971-2000 2481
622 Rangkhani 28°09’-83°34' 1740 1989-2000 3412
630 Sirkon 28°08’-83°37' 790 1992-2000 2561
722 Musikot 28°10’-83°16' 1280 1971-2000 2186
725 Tamghas 28°04’-83°15' 1530 1981-2000 1964
701 Ridi 28°57’-83°26' 442 1961-2000 1512
~ 12 ~
Darbang, Kuhun and Beni lie in the north adjacent basin of Myagdi River. Baglung and
Rangkhani lie in the east adjacent basin, Bobang lies in the west in the Badi Gad basin and
Musikot, Tamghas and Ridi lies in the south in the Badigard and Ridi khola basins. But none of
them lie within the Daram khola basin. The closest climatological station to the project site is
Baglung.
The mean annual basin precipitation for the Daram khola- A Hydroelectric a Project at the dam
site is about 2680 mm (from DHM.). The mean annual basin precipitation for the Badigard River
at the confluence with Kali Gandaki River is about 2180mm. The monsoon rains contribute
about 80% of the total annual precipitation. The onset of monsoon starts from June to September.
According to the record of Baglung, the minimum extreme temperature is about 36oc during the
summer. The relative humidity may be as high as 90% during the wet season and as low as 35%
during the dry season.
4.4 Stream flow

4.4.1 Basic Historic data
There are two key stream gauge stations in the vicinity which provide reliable monthly data for
the stream flow analysis. They are:
i. Badigard river at Rudrabeni , station no.417
ii. Ridi khola at Ridi Bazaar, Station no 418
Because of the non-availability of long-term discharge data at the project site, the reference
hydrology for the Daram khola –A Hydroelectric project has been derived from the gauging
station at Rudrabeni. The length of record of Ridi khola, it was not used for the stream flow
analysis.
Looking at the physiographic condition and proximity of the gauging stations, it would be more
appropriate to use the discharge data from Rudrabeni station for deriving the stream flow at the
dam site. The drainage area of Badigard at Rudrabeni is 1940 km2. Mean monthly discharge data
are available from DHM. The period of data available for Rudrabeni station is 1976-2004.
The long-term mean annual flow of Badigard at Rudrabeni is about 109.88 m3/s, which is
equivalent to an annual run–off of 1926 mm over a drainage area of 1940 km2. The mean annual
precipitation over the basin is 2180 mm giving a run-off coefficient of 0.88.
~ 13 ~
4.4.2 Long-term Stream Flow Analysis

A) Basin Area Ratio Method
If two basins are hydro-meteorologically similar, data extension may accomplished simply by
multiplying the available long-term data at the HSC with the ratio of the basin areas of the base
station (proposed site under study) and the index (HSC) station. In this context, more accurate
results were obtained using Dicken’s flood formula,
A 
Qb  Qi  b 
 Ai 
Where Qb and Qi are the discharges at the base and index stations, respectively, and Ab and Ai
are the corresponding basin areas. The long –Term mean monthly stream flow data series at the
proposed Intake site derived from monthly stream flow series of Badigad khola at Rudrabeni is
given in table 4.2:
Table 4.2 Long-term Mean Monthly Flow by Basin Area Ratio Method at Intake site
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annua
l
Badigad 26.3 28.7 18.9 19.6 23.9 64.6 261.2 395.0 284.0 110.3 52.7 32.8 109.8
Daram 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.7 11.3 17.1 12.2 4.7 2.2 1.4 4.7
B) Long-term mean monthly flow by MIP method

The field discharge measurement taken on various dates at the Daram khola intake site were used
in the MIP method for generating long-term mean monthly flow date. The Daram khola lies in
Region 1 according to the MIP manual. The following table 4.3 shows the result from the MIP
method.
Table 4.3 Long-term Mean Monthly Flow by MIP Method at Intake site
Date Jan Feb Mar Arp May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean
Q 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.8 2.2 5.1 12.3 21.2 14.0 6.8 3.4 2.6 6.1
~ 14 ~
C) WECS/DHM Method
From WECS method long term flow was calculated by using following equation:
Q mean = C×(Total basin area)A1 ×(Basin area below 5000m +1)A2 ×(Monsoon wetness index)A3
Where,
C, A1, A2, A3 are constants derived from the regression analysis.
A is the catchment area in Km2.
Q is discharge in m3/sec
The result of this study is used as an alternate approach for estimation of mean monthly
discharges at the intake site. The following table3.4 shows the result from the above method.
Table 4.4 Long-term Mean monthly flow by WECS/DHM Method
Jan Feb Mar Arp May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean
1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 3.8 11.9 14.4 11.1 4.9 2.1 1.4 4.5
Table 4.5 below shows the comparison of the derived long-term mean monthly flow at the
proposed intake site by various methods.
Table 4.5: Comparison of Derived Long-Term Mean Monthly Discharge at
Intake Site
Jan Feb Mar Arp May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg
Ref.STN 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.7 11.3 17.1 12.2 4.7 2.2 1.4 4.7
MIP 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.8 2.2 5.1 12.3 21.2 14.0 6.8 3.4 2.6 6.1
WECS 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 3.8 11.9 14.4 11.1 4.9 2.1 1.4 4.5
Since the reference station data are more reliable than the other regionally derived data, the mean
monthly flow as derived from the reference station data are used for the Pre-feasibility study of
Daram Khola -A Hydropower Project.
4.4.2.1 Riparian Release

The long-term mean monthly flow for the driest month, April, at the intake site is 0.82 m3/ sec.
As a general practice, a flow equivalent to 10% of this month, i.e. 0.08 m3/sec, will be released
downstream as the riparian release for downstream riverine habitat.
~ 15 ~
4.5 Flow Duration Curve

The flow duration curve were prepared by plotting values of stream flow (daily, weekly, or
monthly) in order of magnitude as ordinates and percent of time as abscissas. The flows
depending on given time exceedence are tabulated below in table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Time Exceedance of Daily Discharges at Damsite

Time Exceedence (%) Days per year Daily Discharge Equaled (m3/sec)
10 36.5 16.0
20 73.0 12.1
30 109.5 6.1
40 146.0 3.6
50 182.5 2.2
60 219.0 1.5
65 237.2 1.4
70 255.5 1.4
80 292.0 1.1
90 328.5 0.8
From the above flow duration table, the 40% dependable flow is estimated to be about 3.67 m3/s,
which will be adopted as the design discharge. The flow duration curve is shown in fig 4.1.
~ 16 ~
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Discharge , m3/s
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
y = -6.24ln(x) + 27.33
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Probability of exceedence ( % )
Fig 4.1: Flow duration Curve
4.6 Flood flow

4.6.1 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
The study on ‘Methodologies for Estimating Hydrologic Characteristics of Ungauged Locations
in Nepal’ (july1990), WECS/DHM, uses the approach of Regional Flood Frequency Analyses
for flood studies. The result of this study is used for estimation of flood discharge at the proposed
intake site and powerhouse site.
The study shows the result from the frequency distribution parameter prediction method which is
a variation of the multiple regression method. The independent variable which was found to be
most significant in all of the regression analyses was the area of the basin below EL. 3000M.
This area represents the basin that is influenced by monsoon precipitation. Hydrological studies
of Nepal (WECS, 1982) USED this same parameter.
The study shows that the prediction regression equation for a 2 year instantaneous flood peak is:
Q2inst = 1.8767*(Area of basin below 3000m) 0.8783
And the prediction regression equation for a 1 in 100 year instantaneous flood peak is given by
Q100inst =14.63*(Area of basin below 3000m) 0.7342
Where, the unit of the area of basin below 3000m is in square km.
Flood of any other return period can be calculated using the following formula
~ 17 ~
QF=e(lnQ2+S*σlnQF
Where,
QF=the maximum flood discharge
lnQ2=the natural logarithm of the 2 year flood
S=standardized normal variate for a particular return period
σlnQF= Standerd deviation of the natural logarithms of annual flood given by
σlnQF=ln(Q100/Q2)/2.326
Where,
Q2 and Q100 are the 2 year and 100 year flood events.
The catchment area below EL 3000m at the damsite and powerhouse site are 79 km2 and 86 km2
respectively. The result of the flood estimates for the damsite and powerhouse site from the
above regional frequency analyses are presented in table 2.7
Table 4.7 Estimated Flood for Daram khola–A hydroelectric Project (m3/s)
Result Regional Analysis WECS/DHM Regional Analysis WECS/DHM
Period (yrs) Damsite Powerhouse
2 88.0 94.8
5 147.3 157.9
10 192.8 206.2
20 240.8 257.0
50 309.2 329.3
100 365.1 388.3
4.7 Rating Curves

The cross-section taken form Topographic map is used to develop a rating curve at the respective
sites.The rating curves at the intake and powerhouse site has been developed by using manning’s
formula.As the river reach at the damsite area is very steep with huge boulders in the river and at
the banks’a Manning’s n value of 0.04 has been assumed for the hydraulic analysis. By using the
~ 18 ~
Manning’s coefficient of 0.04 for higher discharges, the estimated water levels for the high
discharges are conservative. At the powerhouse site, a Manning’s n of 0.04 has been used.
The rating curves are shown in below in Fig for the dam site and powerhouse site respectively.
Rating curve at weir axis

2.5
2.0
1.5
Height(m)
Rating curve
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Discharge(m3/s)
Fig 4.2: Rating curve at Weir axis
~ 19 ~
Rating curve at powerhouse axis

4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
Height(m)
2.25
2.00
1.75 Rating curve
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Discharge(m3/s)
Fig 4.3: Rating curve at Power house axis
~ 20 ~
5.0 Design Aspects
5.1 introductions
Daram khola – A hydroelectric project is designed as a run – off river type project that utilizes
river flow in the Daram Khola and the gross head difference between proposed headworks and
power house.
The layout of the project has been selected considering topography , geology and available head
after due verification of the site. The main feature of the project are as follows:
 Heaworks comprising of a concrete diversion weir , side intake , undersluice ,gravel trap,
gravel flushing conduict , approach cannel , surface settling basin, flushing conduit and
 Steel penstock pipe as water way.
 Surface powerhouse with installed capacity of 2.5 MW.
The general arrangement of the project is shown in the Drawing.
5.2 Design Basis

The project layout has been fixed considering existing topography, geological conditions, space
needed and flow pattern in the river and ensuring maximum head the project will obtain.
Besides, the project has been designed in consideration with efficient operation during all normal
situations .The headworks have been designed to deliver net design discharge of 3.67 /sec
which is equivalent to 40 percent probability of excedence of flow in the river in a year.
5.2.1 Headworks
The headworks designed of the project have been based on the following principles:
 The structure will be able to divert necessary flow into the system.
 Bed load entry to the intake is negligible and mostly passes through the undersluice.
 Gravel trap and settling basins will ensure bed load and suspended sediment free
discharge into the system.
 Structure will be safe from any hazardous floods and excess flood in the river will be
safely passed to downstream through ungated and uncontrolled spillway.
 Any floating debris will not choke the intake and will safely pass to downstream.
~ 21 ~
The design basis of each of the structure of the project is discussed below.
a. Diversion Canal
Diversion cannels and coffer dams are necessary to safeguard construction activities in the
headworks in particularly construction of diversion weir, bed load hopper, cut off walls,
undersluice, flood walls, upstreams and downstreams ripraps from any potential dry season flood
during months of November to May. Dry season 1 in 5 years return period flood of 147.38 m3/s
has been selected for sizing the river diversion works. The design has carried out by using
Mannings formula by taking consideration of limiting velocity for stabilizing the particle size
larger than 50 mm.
b. Weir
An uncontrolled concrete overflow weir having length of 21m crest length is designed to pass the
design discharge into the system through side intake and excess discharge including flood flow
to the downstream. The crest level has been fixed at an elevation 1597 masl. The heas over the
crest level has been calculated by using weir formula.
Q=CLH – 0.1Nh
Where,
C : weir discharge coefficient and assumed 2.2
L : weir length in meteres, which is 21m
H : flow depth over crest in meteres
n : number of ends
The diversion weir is designed to passs 1 in 100 years flood, which is estimated to be 365.17
cumec. The flood water level for 100 years flood at the weir area has been determined assuming
that the flushing gates remain closed considering worst of necessary diversion through the side
intake ensuring minimum downstream riparian flow when there is just sufficient flow in the
river.
In principle the undersluice gate shall be fully opened during monsoon and flood period and the
water head above the weir crest will always be less than mentioned above. During the monsoon
period the river transports heavy bed loads, which will erode the concrete surface. Therefore,
hard stone lining has been proposed to prevent concrete erosion on the weir surface.
~ 22 ~
c. Undersluice
A channel of undersluice having width 3m has been designed to prevent bed load entering to the
intake and build up of the intake by flushing incoming boulders and bed load near the intake
through bed load hopper. Fixed wheel gates will regulate discharge downstream through the
undersluice channel ensuring necessary flow velocity to transport bed load.the undersluice has
been designed with the characteristics given below:
 Maintain a guided uniform flow in front of the intake.
 Enable the intake to draw desired discharge during normal flowin the river with no or
insignificant suspended sediments.
 Scour and sluice the sediment deposited in front of the intake.
 Pass the maximum pre – monsoon flood and part of the high flood during monsoon.
Maximum capacity of the undersluice at 100 years return period has been estimated by using
orifice formula and the details are given below:
Invert level of undersluice gate : 1593.7 masl
Top level of opening : 1596.7 masl
Opening width :3m
Opening height : 4.5 m
Opening area (A) : 13.5 m2
Invert slope (1 in S) : 25
Velocity : 13.3 m/sec
Maximum discharge : 112.5 m3/ sec
Largest spherical particle that will be flushed: 400 mm dia
Since the velocity is very high, therefore hard stone lining is provided to prevent erosion in the
channel surface.
d . Intake
An orifice type of side intake has been designed to divert design discharge of 3.6 m 3/sec and
30% additional discharge required to flush the sediment from the gravel flushing and settling
basins. In total the design discharge for the intake is 4.7 m3/sec. To prevent the sediment entry to
the intake the sill elevation has been fixed 4.4 m above the invert level of the undersluice. The
orifice size has been fixed considering low velocity of entry to minimize head loss and entry of
~ 23 ~
floating debris. To prevent entry of large boulders from the intake orifice a net opening with
300*300 mm has been provisioned.
The intake orifice has been designed has submerged as submerged orifice. The minimum
submergence of 0.3 m has been provided for normal flow in the river and preventing floating
trash and wooden logs from entering into the intake. The vertical fixed wheel gates have been
proposed for controlling the discharge during high flood in case of emergency and for
maintainance purpose.
e. Gravel trap
A gravel trap has been provisioned to trap gravel, cobble and coarse sand particles that enter
through intake orifice during monsoon. It is important to continuously the gravel trap gate to
flush the sediment from the gravel trap during monsoon. On the other hand, during medium flow
season the gravel should be operated intermittently depending upon the flow condition in the
river.
The gravel trap consists of a hopper bottom, which is connected with flushing culvert/ channel.
The size of the gravel trap has been designed as such that it is able to trap the particle size 2 mm
and larger during the normal flood period. However, during high floods with return period of up
to 1 in 20 flood the gravel trap will be able to trap the sediment particle with a size 20mm and
above. A trash rack has been provisioned at the end of the gravel trap to prevent entry of such
material to approach cannel.
f. approach cannel
An approach box culvert is provisioned to convey water from gravel trap to the settling basin.
The size of each canal bay is calculated by using mannings formula given below.
Q=A*1/n*R2/3*S1/2
Where,
A = cross section area
Q= design discharge
S = bed slope (h/l)
L= total canal length
n= Mannings coefficient
~ 24 ~
R=hydraulic radius of culvert

The box culvert will be free flow canal during normal condition. The dimension and slope are
fixed for non scouring and non silting conditions. The width has been designed as 2 m but the
depth of flow varies according to flow into through the intake. The normal flow depth will be 1.2
m. In this event the box culvert will be full of flow. The canal slope provisioned is 1 in 750 and
has mean velocity of 1.5m/sec.
g. Spillway
As mentioned above, the box culvert will be full flow during flood conditions and the gates at the
intake are open. Such excessive flow will spilled out from a spillway provisioned at the end of
the box culvert at the beginning of regulating gates near settling basins.
h. Settling Basin
Two settling basin have been provisioned as such that the criteria for settling assigned sizes of
suspended sediment particles are met and there is provision for the flushing of the settled
particles. The settling and flushing performance of the settling basin is directly associated with
turbine wear and the particle size to be settled and flushed is decided based on the plant static
head and turbine type.
The settling basin is sized to trap 90 suspended particles of size 0.2mm or more. Most quartz and
feldspar particles larger than 0.2 mm are designed to settle and flushed from the settling basin to
minimize cost related to turbine wear and generation losses during maintenance of turbines.
Following parameters are used for sizing the settling basins.
Table 5-1 parameters used for the sizing of each chamber of settling basin
No of basins 2.0 nos
Design flow for each basin 2.2 m3/sec
Flushing discharge from each basin 0.7 m3/sec
Total discharge 4.4 m3/sec
Criteria: 90% settling of sediment particles 0.2 mm
Fall velocity of 0.2mm particle 0.02 m/sec
Water temperature 10.0 °C
The settling surface area has been calculated using Vetter's formula.
~ 25 ~
Based on settling surface area the geometry of the basin has been fixed, see table 3.2
Table 5.2: Geometry of settling basin
No of bays (one for each basin) 2.0
Flow per bay, 1.9 m3/sec
Assumed width 3.5m
Required length 60.0 m
Minimum depth 4.9 m
Provided depths 7.0 m
Maximum flow velocity 0.2 m/s
Sediment storage volume has been estimated for 6 hours storage when the river flow has
maximum suspended sediment concentration of up to 8000 ppm that enters the settling basin.
Such high concentration is expected to occur during high monsoon floods. The assumed
sediment concentration of 8000 ppm is high and is in conservative side and is safe. Depths of
sediment storage at the settling basin vary from 1.45 to 2.70 thus the total settling depth has been
designed as 7m.
A conventional hydraulic flushing system has been proposed for flushing deposits sediment. It is
assumed that one bay is closed off at a time and deposited sediment flushed out while sediment
deposition is allowed to other bay. A 1 in 50 slope has been provided for the flushing bed for safe
flushing of deposited sediments. The side of the hopper has been provided a slope of 1 in 1 (V:
H) at the parallel section and the bottom channel has width of 0.6m and the maximum depth at
the end is 1.28m.
i. Forbay
Forbay is provision adjacent to and immediately downstream of the settling basin. The waterway
will be under pressure from this forbay till powerhouse. The forbay is designed to discharge into
waterway even during sudden load acceptance.
5.2.2 Penstock
The total length of the pipe is 1730 m up to the bifurcation. The head loss in the penstock is
computed using Darcy Weisbach formula.
~ 26 ~
Where,
h = head loss in penstock
f = frictional coefficient, 0.015
l= length of waterway
v =velocity of flow
D = hydraulic diameter of tunnel
g = acceleration due to gravity
The diameter lf the penstock is optimized in consideration to the trad off between the cost of
penstock pipe and energy loss due to friction. The details of optimization are presented in the
annex and summary of the results is shown in Fig 4.1
Penstock Diameter Optimisation

40.0
Millions
31.0
22.0
Cost (NRs)
Energy
Loss
13.0 cost
4.0
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

-5.0
Diameter(m)
Fig 5.1: Penstock Optimization

The result of optimization shows that the optimum finish diameter of penstock pipe will be 1.3m.
Since the stretch of the penstock pipe is very short, a uniform diameter of pipe has been
provisioned for the ease of manufacture and procurement. The thickness of shell has been
~ 27 ~
designed for the sum of static and water hammer pressure, the details of which are presented in
the annex.
5.2.3 Turbines
Two (2) number of horizontal shaft Francis turbines are proposed for Daram Khola – A
Hydroelectric Project. Each turbines capable of handling 1.83 m3/s discharge (design) at a rated
net head of 88.561 m, which results in the turbine shaft power of 1250 KW at average efficiency
of 0.85. The size and speed of the turbine is such that the total costs of civil, electric and
mechanical works will be minimized.
Type Selection
The selection of type of turbine primarily depends upon the net lead available and design
discharge. For the rated net head of 88.561 meter and design discharge of 3.67 m 3/s Francis
turbine having horizontal shaft arrangement is the choice of the turbine as presentation in
Figure below:
~ 28 ~
Fig: 5.2: Turbine Selection Diagram.
Unit capacity
The selection of unit capacity is based on the assumption that minimum number of units could be
installed for the more economic development of the project, reliability of generation, and
minimum loss of power during maintenance and operation at difference stage of time. Unit
capacity is generally determined by considering the available discharge throughout the seasons,
load demand, type of operations, efficiency of the machine, etc. Single unit is not preferred due
to the fact that total generation loss will occur in time of the unit breakdown and hence two or
three units will be suitable for the project. Considering the above factors two unit with 1250 kW
~ 29 ~
installed capacity each is the best option for the project. Therefore the study of Daram Khola-A
Hydroelectric Project reveals that the installation of two (2) power units will be more economical
for the following reasons:
 With two (2) turbines, peak power is the same as with three (3) or four (4)
 Increase the reliability for energy generation though initial cost is little higher than the
cost of single unit and this cost will be compensated by extra energy in long run. The part load
efficiency of Francis turbine is in lower side and also operation of such turbine in discharge
below 50% will create vibration. Such kind of problem can be managed by installing two units
with more flexibility of operation in yearly dry season in comparison of single unit.
 The required repair and maintenance works of the power units can be performed in the
yearly dry season in such a way that with exception of a temporary reduction of the plant power,
no energy loss will occur.
Turbine speeds
The calculated specific speed for the given rated head and discharge is 255 rpm(according to
Water power and Dam construction), and the highest corresponding permissible operating
turbine speed is 1624.17 rpm. Therefore the synchronous speed of the unit is 1000 rpm for the
frequency for 50 Hz and corresponding actual specific speed is 157 rpm.
Design Criteria
The general design and performance specification for the mechanical equipment are based on the
standards issued by IEC and other publication such as Water Power and Dam Construction, Unit
States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (USBR), IS-12800 (Part I) etc.
Description of Turbine
Each turbine is capable of handling 1.83 m3/ s discharge (design) at a rated net head of 82.56 m,
which result in the turbine shaft power of 1250 kW at maximum efficiency of 0.85. The size and
speed if the turbine is such that the total costs of civil, electrical and mechanical works will be
minimized.
For the given specific speed (157.02 rpm) of the turbine, a setting of the spiral centerline at an
elevation of 1507 92 masl. will be sufficient to prevent an undue cavitation attack.
~ 30 ~
The Francis runner will be directly to the generator’s shaft. The turbine runner and the guide
vanes will be made of stainless cast or welded steel, and thus resistant to cavitation and sand
erosion. In addition the turbine will be equipped with replaceable wearing plates and labyrinth
rings (rotating type on the runner and fixed on the turbine side cover and side ring), all made of
stainless steel. To specific maintenance, all guide vanes bearing, joints of regulating mechanism
etc. will be self lubricating type. In addition, the link between the guide vanes and the regulating
ring will be equipped with a self-restoring safety system to prevent an overstress of the
regulating mechanism, if one or several guide vanes are blocked by squeezed trash material or
any other reason.
All turbine instrumentation, such as unit control boards, and governor control cabinets will be
located close to the relevant units on the turbine floor. This is advantageous for commissioning,
service and maintenance.
The principle characteristics of the Francis turbines are as follows:
- Number of turbine : two (2)
- Shaft arrangement : horizontal
- Installed capacity for each unit : 1250 kW
- Turbine efficiency : 0.85
- Rated discharge for each unit : 1.83 m3/s
- Rated net head : 88.561 m
- Rated speed : 1000 rpm
- Specific speed : 157 m-kW
- Unit spacing : 3.0 m
- Runner entrance dia. : 0.5 m
- Tailrace water : El 1504.98 masl
- Runner center line : El 1507.92masl
~ 31 ~
6.0 PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION
6.1 General
A better planning ensures efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. The planning of a project
involves specifying the objectives of the project, linking the various activities to be carried out,
determining the gross requirements of the various materials, equipment and manpower, preparing
estimates of the costs of the various activities for satisfactory completion of the project. Planning
is to decide in advance. For the successful run of the project, certain development such as access
road temporary camps, and facilities for drinking water, light should be provided on the project
site before the actual construction started.
The most important feature of large construction works is the necessity of preparatory work for
integrating different types of construction equipment and plants, supply of transportation and
communication facilities and provision for living and working of thousands of workers. Planning
of operation, the organization of labour and water supply are other allied facilities.
The Daram Small Hydropower project is planning to be completed in around two (2) years. The
work of design and tender will be done in about Six months. The construction work should be
started when enough operations are lined up and definite commitments are made for arrival of
materials and equipment. It is not better that labour has come but material is not or materials
arrived but starting facilities are lacking. The detail of the planning is shown in the “construction
schedules” attached herewith.
`
~ 32 ~
Duration in Months/Staring from Baisakh

Activity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Public relations/ Awareness raising
Detail Survey, Design and Tendering
Access Raod Preparation
Housing and Accomodation M
Construction of Headworks O
Fabrication & supply of steel parts
(penstock, trashracks, flush pipes etc.)
N
Construction of Gravael Trap S
Construction of Headrace Canal O
Construction of Settling Basin &
Forebay O
Installation of penstock & construction of
anchor blocks & support piers N
River Crossing of Penstock
Fabrication & supply of turbine, belt drive
and other electro-mechanical equipment
Power House Construction

Installation of transmission line
Electro-Mechanical Installation
Testing & commissioning
Handovering the project to the Client
Table 6.1: Planning and Construction Schedule.
6.2 Infrastructure Development

The infrastructure development should be prepared before starting the construction works, which
includes following:
a) Access Road: A porter road should be constructed form the Harichaur Bazaar to the
site. The most economical and practical system for access road to the site must be worked out.
b) Construction Camp: Temporary camps should be constructed near Headworks site and
power house with the following facilities:
i) Dining hall and kitchen
i) Guest house
ii) Gents/Ladies dormitories
iii) Staff houses/site office
~ 33 ~
iv) Stores/shops
v) Recreations/sanitary facilities
vi) First aid facilities
c) Equipments
 Concrete mixer
 Excavating equipment
 Compaction equipment
 Transporting equipment
6.3 Phase of Construction

a) Access road construction
b) Construction of camp
c) Construction of all civil works
All specified civil works are performed to the satisfaction of the client as per standard norms and
methods within specified time frame with the available resources.
d) Electromechanical work
This is followed by completion of nearly all-civil construction. This includes installation of
turbines, setting up of powerhouse, switchgear building, and other controlling measures.
6.4 Schedule of Construction
The definite plan study should develop a firm schedule for construction of the project. The
schedule should show the planned dates for start of construction and completion of the individual
project parts. Together with the cost estimate, the construction schedule will provide a firm
estimate of the funding requirements and of the required disbursement schedule and will thus
establish the rate at. which construction funds will be needed
.
~ 34 ~
7.0 ECONOMIC AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
7.1 Economic Analysis

Economic analysis relies on three types of tests, all of which employ the cash flow discounting
techniques. The discounting of the costs and benefits flows of the projects is the only way to give
proper recognition to the time value of money. The technique can briefly be summarized as the
calculation of the present value of future costs and benefits at a given discount (interest) rate.
1. The Economic Internal Rate of return (EIRR) i.e. the interest rate which equalizes the
present value of the benefits and cost streams of over the life of project.
2. The benefit cost ration (B/C ratio) is a comparison to the present value of benefits to the
cost based on an assumed test rate of discount.
3. The net present value or the difference in present value of benefits and costs, also based
on an assumed discount rate.
One of the advantages of the EIRR over the other two methods is that it does not require the pre-
selection of a discount rate. The EIRR has the same meaning as the interest rate in a
compound interest table, thus provides a basis of capital.
We have only used IRR and B/C ratio methods for the economic analysis.
Cost Estimates and BOQ

Comprehensive and detailed estimate should be prepared for each structure that identify and
shows the quantities of all work and supply items, such as excavation and fill, concrete linings,
concrete quantities etc. These estimates of quantities, grouped in item (BOQ), will form the basis
for both the construction contractors to prepare their bills of payment. There are some items the
cost of that may be difficult to estimate and hence their values are kept as lumpsum
7.1 Sensitivity Analysis

One way to glean a sense of the possible outcomes if an investment is, to perform a
Sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis determines the effect on the net present value of
variation in the input variables (such as revenues, operating cost, salvage value, useful life
etc) used to estimate after tax cash flows. A Sensitivity analysis reveals how much the net
present value (or some other criteria of merit such as net future value, IRR, BCR etc) will
~ 35 ~
change in response to a given change in an input variable. In a calculation of cash flows,

some items have a greater influence on the final result than others. In some problems, the
most significant item may be easily identified.
Steps for Sensitivity analysis

 It begins with the base case situation, which is developed using the most likely values
for each input.
 Change the specific variables of interest by several specified percentages above and
below the most likely value, while holding other variables constant.
 Calculate a new Present Worth/Future Worth/IRR/BCR for each of these values.
 Present the results of a sensitivity analysis in the sensitivity graph.
 The slope of the line shows how sensitive the Net Present Worth is to changes in each
of the inputs
 The stepper the slope, the more the sensitive the Net Present Worth is to change in a
particular variable.
~ 36 ~
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.1 Introduction
The term environment can be defined as all physical, chemical and biological factors and
conditions that influence the existence and development of an organism or a system of
organism.EIA is defined as the systematic identification, and evaluation of the potentially
significant impact of proposed project, plan programs or legislative action relative to physical,
biological, social-economical and cultural components of the total environment.
EIA is a structured approach for obtaining evaluating environment information before its use in
decision making in the development process. This information consists basically, of prediction,
how the environment is expected to change if certain alternative action are implemented and
achieve on how best to manage environmental change if one alternative is selected and
implemented. Environmental impact assessment is the project planning tool that can be applied
to any development project to reduce potentially negative environmental impacts by specifying
appropriate mitigation measures. Thus this assessment takes into account a sound regulatory and
supervisory mechanism that can minimize biological, cultural, physical and socioeconomic
impacts.
Relatively with few notable exceptions, EIA is focused on proposed physical developments such
as highways, power stations, water resources, projects and large scale industrial facilities.
Slowly, but increasingly, its scope of application is expanding to include policies, plans and other
action which also form part of development process.
8.1 Environment Impact Assessment In "Nepal”

Since the enforcement of EPR54 in Nepal (with the first amendment in 2055), all major project
are now being considered for the application of EIA. Each project under
consideration is screened, and it is determined whether it should undergo an Initial
Environmental Examination (IEE) or the full EIA process. The rules that guide the choice of
IEE or EIA are provided in Schedule-1 and Schedule-2 of EPR54, The IEE is a relatively simple
procedure that does not need to undergo a Scoping process. The format for an IEE is given in
EPR54. If the project has to undergo an EIA there is a series of steps to be taken at different
stages of the project cycle. The EIA process after Screening includes Scoping, public
participation and involvement, impact identification and prediction, analysis of alternatives,
development of a mitigation plan and preparation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
~ 37 ~
that includes environmental monitoring and auditing. Annex 3 provides a logic diagram of the
EIA process in Nepal. There are three major decision steps during the entire period of EIA
preparation and implementation. They are as follows:
i. The Scoping study should be made during the feasibility period. Based on the output of
the Scoping exercise a Terms of Reference (TOR) is prepared. The proponent should prepare the
Scoping and TOR documents. According to EPR54 (amended 2055) both of these documents
should be submitted to the Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE) through the
Department of Electricity Development (DOED) and Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) for
approval. This is the first decision step.
ii. Based on the approved TOR, the developer should complete an EIA study and submit it
to MOPE through DOED and MOWR. Approval of the EIA report invariably provides some
Daram Hydropower Project conditions to comply with during project construction. This is the
second decision step; its successful completion allows developer to go ahead with project
construction.
iii. Implementation of Environmental Management Plan (EMP) takes place during the
project construction phase. Environmental monitoring is a part of the EMP and continues for the
entire project cycle. Environmental auditing is carried out after the project has been in operation
for some time, in order to examine whether everything has gone as predicted. This is a one-time
activity and provides the final decision step. Based on this step, the decision is made if the
project will continue or be discontinued.
8.2 Objective of EIA

The main objective of the E.I.A is to identify direct and indirect environmental impacts as early
as possible. The initial evaluation is intended to elucidate both positive as well as negative
environmental effects. In this way, the expected negative side effects can be avoided, minimized
or the project can be rejected in the planning phase itself. The study will also help planner and
desk officers even in making the project evaluation. Experiences have shown that in long run, it
is economically more favorable to obviate problems than to patch up the damage.
8.3 Philosophy And Purpose Behind EIA

The philosophy behind an environmental evaluation of any project whether small or large is the
understanding of the environment as a dynamic system that changes with time.
The purpose of the EIA system is not to define all expected effects in detail with 100% accuracy,
~ 38 ~
but to describe the most importance ones. E.I.A provides a systematic examination of
environmental implication of proposed actions and alternatives to assist the decision making. The
cost benefit and trade off analyses between the project implementation and associated
environmental costs facilitate the decision makers in making decision which are more likely to
result in sustainable project.
Owing to its scheme for identifying and quantifying assumed environmental effects, the EIA
system can contribute to:
 Identify potential environment impacts regarding the approval of a project.
 Examine the significance of environmental implication.
 Assess whether impacts can be mitigated.
 Recommend preventive and corrective mitigating measures.
 Inform decision makers and concerned parties of environmental implications.
 Advise whether development should development should go ahead.
8.4 Identification of Environmental Impacts

a) Socio-Economic Impacts
By the implementation of the project, a few houses in that locality have to be resettled which
may affect their livelihood and subsidence. The main occupation of the people is agriculture. The
water for crops of downstream field may be low and insufficient for agriculture and cattle
feeding. By the construction of access road, the sale of local production increases and local
market expands. The locals usually get job in the project so that their living standard raises.
Various kinds of crimes may also increase in the locality.
b) Biological and Physiochemical impacts

Due to construction of the access road and the dam, there may occur landslides or erosion of the
slope thus wasting the valuable field. Due to increase in the population, various kinds of
pollution may occur, which thus affect health of local people. Construction of diversion dams
and other hydraulic structure may affects the aquatic life. Provision of the fisher ladder may
solve this problem. The workers may hunt the local wild animals and may pollute the land and
river by defecating or other means.
~ 39 ~
c) Cultural Impacts
Due to the access road and availability of modern commodity and facilities, the life style of the
locals changes. Cultural change may occur due to workers of varying cultures, as well.
8.5 Environmental Impact Monitoring

Environmental impact monitoring is conducted to fulfill the following objectives:
a) Ensure that the impact does not exceed the legal standards.
b) Check the implementation of mitigation measures to see whether it is in conformity with
the EIA report.
c) Provide timely warning of potential environmental damage.
8.6 Baseline Monitoring

Prior to the imitation of the construction activities of the project surveys are conducted of
construction site and basic environmental parameters of the surrounding areas. This is helpful in
monitoring to identify changes in those parameters compared to the baseline.
8.7 Impact Monitoring

The ecological, social and economic, and public health parameters within the project area is
measured during the project construction and operation phases in order to detect environmental
changes which may have occurred as a result of project implementation.
8.8 Compliance Monitoring

This monitoring employs periodic sampling or continues recording of specific environmental
quality indicators or pollution levels to ensure project compliance with environmental projection
standards.
8.9 Impact Mitigation Measures

The following are some of the impact mitigation measures, which are generally adopted for
reducting and removing undesirable impacts and maximizing project benefits:
~ 40 ~
a) The minimum compensating flow should be maintained in the downstream of the

Headworks.
b) While construction the access road, care should be taken for minimum destruction of
forests and farmlands. Aesthetic appearance of the area should be maintained.
c) Alternative jobs should be provided to the fisherman, porters and shopkeepers.
d) Fish ladders should be construction in dams and weirs
e) A forestation should be done around the project area to compensate the deforestation
during the construction. This is also helpful in development of flora and fauna of that area.
f) The displaced settlements should be rehabilitated in a better way. Restoration should be
done for damaged natural resources.
g) Public toilets should be sufficiently constructed.
h) Waste materials should be disposed off properly
i) A health post and dispensary should be constructed near the site.
j) Health and sanitation program should be implemented
k) Public awareness program should be initiated.
l) The water to be used for drinking should be well treated.
m) The workers and technical staffs should maintain firm discipline. They must abide by the
local norms, values and taboos.
8.10 Conclusion And Recommendation of EIA
Since most of the impacts seem less significant in pre-feasibility stage, it is suggested that this
project can be carried out with simple mitigation measures. However, more detailed analysis of
environmental parameters are recommended by environmental experts at feasibility stage with
necessary field investigations.
~ 41 ~
9.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
9.1 Conclusion
The pre-feasibility study of the most feasible alternative as shown by energy mapping and
alternative analysis has been done to analyze the technical, financial and environmental
feasibility. The following conclusion has been drawn from the study.
The installed capacity of the project is 2.5 MW that comprises 2 generating units driven by
Francis turbine operating at gross head 91.34 meters and design discharge 3.67 m3/s. The project
is capable of generating 14.56 Gwh net energy annually among which 2.48 GWh is during the
dry season and 12.08 GWh is during the wet season. The total cost of the project is Rs 320
Million at the price level of 2012.
The project is financially feasible with the weighted average energy selling price of NRS 8.4
/Kwh in Dry season and NRS 4.8/KwH in dry seasom considered in the base year 2012. The
financial internal rate of return of the project is 16.21%, B/C 1.18
9.2 Recommendations
For further analysis of the project at detailed feasibility level, the following studies and
explorations are necessary.
 Detailed topographic mapping of the headworks, penstock alignment and powerhouse area
and strip survey over the headrace culvert and headrace tunnel alignment.
 Surface geological mapping and subsurface geological investigations should be carried out at
the headworks, waterway and powerhouse area.
 A physical hydraulic modeling of the headworks, its performance in all different flow
conditions and study of the river hydrology should be conducted to verify and validate the
design.
 Preliminary prediction of the environmental impacts of the projects has been done at this
level. Detailed Environmental impact assessment has to be carried out.
 Continuous hydrological measurements, both low flow and monsoon floods should be
continued.
 Suspended sediment sampling shall be carried out during the monsoon period.
~ 42 ~
ANNEXES
ANNEX-A
HYDROLOGY
CALCULATION
HYDROLOGY CALCULATION
Discharge data from DHM
Average discharges in m3/s
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
1976 35.9 29.9 23.5 22.0 26.4 57.9 250.0 293.0 226.0 91.3 50.8 33.6
1977 26.5 21.8 16.8 16.2 20.3 65.6 170.0 472.0 212.0 90.4 54.6 37.8
1978 29.5 25.4 22.8 23.8 30.4 160.0 356.0 380.0 207.0 120.0 60.3 41.8
1979 31.9 29.8 22.1 19.8 18.9 70.4 174.0 340.0 119.0 51.7 41.0 26.4
1980 21.2 17.2 20.4 36.4 46.4 82.8 214.0 276.0 460.0 123.0 72.6 49.7
1981 40.1 34.9 28.8 29.8 34.7 52.1 345.0 570.0 455.0 292.0 81.8 53.3
1982 44.9 39.2 37.3 35.6 32.9 72.1 255.0 385.0 346.0 93.7 50.8 35.5
1983 24.2 20.3 16.1 14.3 27.4 21.3 139.0 350.0 565.0 206.0 85.8 33.4
1984 23.3 15.0 11.4 16.2 43.8 75.9 464.0 290.0 364.0 76.8 36.5 21.2
1985 15.1 11.5 15.6 39.6 62.3 73.7 349.0 237.0 281.0 129.0 51.8 24.8
1986 17.6 12.6 9.3 33.6 53.7 89.4 290.0 226.0 433.0 149.0 76.5 36.4
1987 36.4 30.7 28.9 23.2 23.8 86.3 344.0 517.0 266.0 80.9 47.6 31.8
1988 24.2 20.6 19.0 16.9 17.1 33.3 369.0 489.0 279.0 80.6 47.2 35.1
1989 33.1 24.9 22.1 18.3 21.8 36.3 400.0 571.0 284.0 108.0 48.6 30.9
1990 22.0 20.6 19.9 20.0 16.8 56.6 332.0 315.0 159.0 80.1 37.7 25.3
1991 22.7 15.8 14.8 12.1 11.1 54.7 177.0 334.0 352.0 86.0 43.3 31.7
1992 26.0 222.4 18.0 14.1 20.0 15.5 58.7 316.0 151.0 79.8 28.7 19.8
1993 13.8 10.5 9.3 9.4 12.6 15.4 104.0 431.0 378.0 114.0 56.4 37.4
1994 32.5 27.9 22.9 20.1 21.0 95.7 161.0 306.0 166.0 40.6 14.2 15.0
1995 11.5 11.4 10.3 8.9 7.7 156.0 430.0 395.0 253.0 65.2 26.2 16.0
1996 15.7 15.9 11.9 8.7 7.0 17.3 148.2 1260.0 290.0 46.5 60.4 38.1
1997 31.4 25.1 19.1 21.8 18.7 64.6 370.0 266.0 97.9 66.1 38.1 32.9
1998 28.7 22.1 18.7 15.7 21.6 110.0 371.0 595.0 346.0 98.3 52.8 34.4
1999 28.9 23.8 19.2 17.4 23.3 56.2 269.0 368.0 290.2 126.8 39.8 26.6
2000 22.0 19.7 21.0 14.1 11.1 91.0 280.0 332.0 373.0 175.0 58.3 34.0
2001 29.5 20.1 15.0 16.6 15.9 24.0 144.0 245.8 191.0 127.0 59.9 30.3
2002 25.7 25.0 16.0 11.0 11.1 60.0 272.0 289.0 204.0 163.0 88.5 33.9
2003 23.6 16.6 19.5 17.0 17.0 37.7 183.0 168.0 161.0 104.0 68.8 49.7
2004 26.8 21.6 19.8 17.6 20.7 42.3 157.0 440.0 327.0 136.0 50.7 37.2
average 26.4 28.7 18.9 19.7 24.0 64.6 261.2 395.1 284.0 110.4 52.7 32.9
min 11.5 10.5 9.3 8.7 7.0 15.4 58.7 168.0 97.9 40.6 14.2 15.0
max 44.9 222.4 37.3 39.6 62.3 160.0 464.0 1260.0 565.0 292.0 88.5 53.3
st dev 7.8 37.9 6.1 8.3 13.4 36.3 107.1 198.9 112.4 51.9 17.5 9.1
var 60.6 1436.9 37.4 68.2 178.8 1319.5 11461.4 39569.1 12637.2 2690.6 307.2 82.6
~ 43 ~
450.0
400.0
350.0
Discharge (m3/s)
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Months
Fig A.1 Mean Monthly Hydrograph
~ 44 ~
Catchment Correlation Method

Catchment area for gauge station 417 (A1)= 1940 km2
Catchment area for proposed Intake (A)=84 km2
 A1 
Catchment area ratio for Intake C c   
 A 
Cc=0.043
Avg monthly
Discharge of gauge Predicted flow, Intake
Month station m3/sec
Jan 26.4 1.1
Feb 28.7 1.2
Mar 18.9 0.8
Apr 19.7 0.9
May 24.0 1.0
Jun 64.6 2.8
Jul 261.2 11.3
Aug 395.1 17.1
Sep 284.0 12.3
Oct 110.4 4.8
Nov 52.7 2.3
Dec 32.9 1.4
~ 45 ~
Wecs-Hydest Method
Flow duration curve calculation of Daram Khola
At Intake Site
WECS/ Department of Hydrology and metrology (DHM) method
Hydrological region=1
Basin area=84km
Area below 5000 m=84km2
Area below 3000 m=79km2
Monsoon wetness index=1500
Q2=88.08 m3/s
Q100=365.17 m3/s
a) Flood flows
Return Period (Yrs) Instantaneous Floods

Discharge m3/sec
2 88.1
5 147.4
10 192.9
20 240.8
50 309.2
100 365.2
B) Flow duration curve
0% 29.2
5% 16.6
20% 8.5
40% 2.3
60% 1.1
80% 0.7
95% 0.4
100% 0.4
~ 46 ~
Flow Duration Curve of Daram Khola
35.0
30.0
25.0
Flow in m3/sec
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Percentage of exceedence
C) Long term average discharge

(Ref: Civil Works Guidelines for Micro Hydropower in Nepal, ITDG, Pg,156)
Month Constant Power, Area of Power, Area of Power of Long term
coefficient, Basin (km2), Basin below Monsoon average
C A1 5000m +1 (km2), wetness discharge in
A2 index, A3 m3/sec
Jan 0.01423 0 0.9777 0 1.1
Feb 0.01219 0 0.9766 0 0.9
Mar 0.009988 0 0.9948 0 0.8
Apr 0.007974 0 1.0435 0 0.8
May 0.008434 0 1.0898 0 1.0
Jun 0.006943 0.9968 0 0.2610 3.8
Jul 0.02123 0 1.0093 0.2523 11.9
Aug 0.02548 0 0.9963 0.2620 14.4
Sep 0.01677 0 0.9894 0.2878 11.1
Oct 0.009724 0 0.988 0.2508 4.9
Novr 0.00176 0.9605 0 0.3910 2.1
Dec 0.001485 0.9536 0 0.3607 1.4
Annual 4.5
Flow duration curve At Power House Site
~ 47 ~
WECS/ Department of Hydrology and metrology (DHM) method

Hydrological region=1
Basin area=94 km
Area below 5000 m=94 km2
Area below 3000 m=86 km2
Monsoon wetness index=5000
Q2= 94.81 m3/s
Q100= 388.39 m3/s
a) Flood flows
Instantaneous
Floods
Return Period (Yrs) Discharge
m3/sec
2 94.8
5 157.9
10 206.2
20 257.0
50 329.3
100 388.3
B) Flow duration curve
0% 32.4
5% 18.6
20% 9.5
40% 2.6
60% 1.3
80% 0.8
95% 0.5
100% 0.4
~ 48 ~
Flow Duration Curve of Daram Khola at Power House Site
35.0
30.0
25.0
Flow in m3/sec
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Percentage of exceedence
~ 49 ~
MIP
Calculation of the Hydrograph by the MIP method
Non Dimensional regional hydrograph
(Ref: Civil Works Guidelines for Micro Hydropower in Nepal, ITDG, Pg,157)
Region
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Jan 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.0 3.3
Feb 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 2.2
Mar 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4
Apr 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
May 2.6 1.2 1.9 2.2 0.9 2.6 3.5
Jun 6.0 7.3 3.1 3.8 2.7 6.1 6.0
Jul 14.5 18.2 13.5 6.9 11.2 24.3 14.0
Aug 25.0 27.3 25.0 27.3 13.9 33.8 35.0
Sep 16.5 20.9 20.8 20.9 10.0 27.0 24.0
Oct 8.0 9.1 10.4 6.9 6.5 6.1 12.0
Nov 4.1 3.9 5.0 5.0 4.6 3.4 7.5
Dec 3.1 3.0 3.8 3.4 3.3 2.6 5.0
Region=1
Measured Predicted Predicted
flow m3/sec April Hydrograph
flow,
Month m3/sec
Jan 2.4 47.1
Feb 1.8 35.3
Mar 1.3 25.5
Apr 1.0 19.6 19.6 19.6
May 2.6 51.1
Jun 6.0 117.9
~ 50 ~
Jul 14.5 285.0

Aug 25.0 491.5
Sep 16.5 324.4
Oct 8.0 157.2
Nov 4.1 80.6
Dec 3.1 60.9
Catchment Correlation Method

Catchment area for gauge station 417(A1) =1940km2
Catchment area for proposed Intake (A) =84km2
Catchment area ratio for Intake (cc)=0..43
Avg monthly
Discharge of Predicted flow,
Month gauge station Intake m3/sec
Jan 47.1 2.0
Feb 35.3 1.5
Mar 25.5 1.1
Apr 19.6 0.8
May 51.1 2.2
Jun 117.9 5.1
Jul 285.0 12.3
Aug 491.5 21.2
Sep 324.4 14.0
Oct 157.2 6.8
Nov 80.6 3.4
Dec 60.9 2.6
~ 51 ~
AVERAGE
HYDROLOGICAL CALCULATION
HYDEST Catchment Correlation Average of three
S.N. Month 1990 MIP Method Methods(m3/s)
1 Jan 1.1 2.0 1.1 1.4
2 Feb 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.2
3 Mar 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.9
4 Apr 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8
5 May 1.1 2.2 1.0 1.4
6 Jun 3.9 5.1 2.8 3.9
7 Jul 11.9 12.3 11.3 11.9
8 Aug 14.5 21.3 17.1 17.6
9 Sep 11.2 14.0 12.3 12.5
10 Oct 4.9 6.8 4.8 5.5
11 Nov 2.2 3.5 2.3 2.6
12 Dec 1.4 2.6 1.4 1.8
Comparison of monthly flow curve for Proposed Intake, Daram Khola
25.00
Average
mean
monthly flow
Discharge, m3 /sec
20.00
15.00 Catchment
Correlation
10.00
5.00 HYDEST
1990
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
MIP
Month
~ 52 ~
Comparison chart of monthly flow for Intake, Daram Khola
25.00
20.00
Discharge, m3 /sec
MIP
15.00
Catchment Correlation
Average
10.00
HYDEST
5.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
~ 53 ~
FDC AT INTAKE
HYDROLOGICAL CALCULATION
Flow Flow Catc
in in hmen Flow in Flow
desce decen t decendi Aver in
nding ding Area ng age decen
order order Ratio order of ding Probabil
HYDES HYD MIP Meth Catch. three order ity of
Mon T EST od(C Correla Meth Aver Ran Frequ Exceden
Sn th 1990 1990 MIP AR) tion ods age k ency ce in %
1 Jan 1.1 14.4 2.0 21.2 1.1 17.1 1.4 17.6 1 13.0 7.6%
2 Feb 0.9 11.9 1.5 14.0 1.2 12.3 1.2 12.5 2 6.5 15.3%
3 Mar 0.8 11.1 1.1 12.3 0.8 11.3 0.9 11.8 3 4.3 23.0%
4 Apr 0.8 4.9 0.8 6.8 0.8 4.7 0.8 5.5 4 3.2 30.7%
5 May 1.0 3.8 2.2 5.1 1.0 2.8 1.4 3.9 5 2.6 38.4%
6 Jun 3.8 2.1 5.1 3.4 2.8 2.2 3.9 2.6 6 2.1 46.1%
7 Jul 11.9 1.4 12.3 2.6 11.3 1.4 11.8 1.8 7 1.8 53.8%
8 Aug 14.4 1.1 21.2 2.2 17.1 1.2 17.6 1.4 8 1.6 61.5%
9 Sep 11.1 1.0 14.0 2.0 12.3 1.1 12.5 1.4 9 1.4 69.2%
10 Oct 4.9 0.9 6.8 1.5 4.7 1.0 5.5 1.2 10 1.3 76.9%
11 Nov 2.1 0.8 3.4 1.1 2.2 0.8 2.6 0.9 11 1.1 84.6%
12 Dec 1.4 0.8 2.6 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.8 0.8 12 1.0 92.3%
% Q, HYDEST, 1990 Q, MIP Q, Catch corrl Q, Avg

10% 13.7 19.1 15.6 16.0
20% 11.4 13.0 11.7 12.1
30% 5.5 7.3 5.4 6.1
40% 3.5 4.7 2.7 3.6
50% 1.7 3.0 1.8 2.2
60% 1.1 2.3 1.2 1.5
65% 1.0 2.1 1.2 1.4
70% 1.0 1.9 1.1 1.4
80% 0.8 1.3 0.9 1.1
90% 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8
~ 54 ~
Monthly Flow Duration Curves of Dordi Khola at Intake
25.0
20.0
Discharge, m3 /sec
15.0
HYDEST
1990
MIP
10.0
Catch.
Corrlation
5.0 Average
0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exceedance/ Probability, %
~ 55 ~
Flow Duration Curve

Flow Duration Curve Calculation
Catchment area of Badigad station =1940 Km2

Catchment area of Daram Khola Intake =84 Km2
S.N. Discharge at Discharge at Probability of
Badigad station Daram Intake exceedence
1 1260.0 54.5 0.28
2 595.0 25.7 0.57
3 571.0 24.7 0.86
4 570.0 24.6 1.14
5 565.0 24.4 1.43
6 517.0 22.3 1.72
7 489.0 21.1 2.01
8 472.0 20.4 2.29
9 464.0 20.0 2.58
10 460.0 19.9 2.87
11 455.0 19.7 3.16
12 440.0 19.0 3.44
13 433.0 18.7 3.73
14 431.0 18.6 4.02
15 430.0 18.6 4.31
16 400.0 17.3 4.59
17 395.0 17.1 4.88
18 385.0 16.6 5.17
19 380.0 16.4 5.46
20 378.0 16.3 5.74
21 373.0 16.1 6.3
22 371.0 16.0 6.3
23 370.0 16.0 6.6
~ 56 ~

Badigard station Daram Intake exceedence
24 369.0 16 6.8
25 368.0 16 7.1
26 364.0 15.7 7.4
27 356.0 15.4 7.7
28 352.0 15.2 8.0
29 350.0 15.1 8.3
30 349.0 15.1 8.6
31 346.0 14.9 8.9
32 346.0 14.9 9.1
33 345.0 14.9 9.4
34 344.0 14.8 9.7
35 340.0 14.7 10.0
36 334.0 14.4 10.3
37 332.0 14.3 10.6
38 332.0 14.3 10.9
39 327.0 14.1 11.2
40 316.0 13.6 11.4
41 315.0 13.6 11.7
42 306.0 13.2 12.0
43 293.0 12.6 12.3
44 292.0 12.6 12.6
45 290.2 12.5 12.9
46 290.0 12.5 13.2
47 290.0 12.5 13.5
48 290.0 12.5 13.7
49 289.0 12.5 14.0
50 284.0 12.2 14.3
51 281.0 12.1 14.6
~ 57 ~
S.N. Discharge at Discharge at Probabiliy of

52 280.0 12.1 14.9
53 279.0 12.0 15.2
54 276.0 11.9 15.5
55 272.0 11.7 15.8
56 269.0 11.6 16.0
57 266.0 11.5 16.3
58 266.0 11.5 16.6
59 255.0 11.0 16.9
60 253.0 10.9 17.2
61 250.0 10.8 17.5
62 245.8 10.6 17.8
63 237.0 10.2 18.1
64 226.0 9.7 18.3
65 226.0 9.7 18.6
66 222.4 9.6 18.9
67 214.0 9.2 19.2
68 212.0 9.1 19.5
69 207.0 8.9 19.8
70 206.0 8.9 20.1
71 204.0 8.8 20.4
72 191.0 8.2 20.6
73 183.0 7.9 20.9
74 177.0 7.6 21.2
75 175.0 7.5 21.5
76 174.0 7.5 21.8
77 170.0 7.3 22.1
78 168.0 7.2 22.4
79 166.0 7.1 22.7
~ 58 ~

80 163.0 7.0 22.9
81 161.0 6.9 23.2
82 161.0 6.9 23.5
83 160.0 6.9 23.8
84 159.0 6.8 24.1
85 157.0 6.7 24.4
86 156.0 6.7 24.7
87 151.0 6.5 25.0
88 149.0 6.4 25.2
89 148.2 6.4 25.5
90 144.0 6.2 25.8
91 139.0 6.0 26.1
92 136.0 5.8 26.4
93 129.0 5.5 26.7
94 127.0 5.4 27.0
95 126.8 5.4 27.2
96 123.0 5.3 27.5
97 120.0 5.1 27.8
98 119.0 5.1 28.1
99 114.0 4.9 28.4
100 110.0 4.7 28.7
101 108.0 4.6 29.0
102 104.0 4.5 29.3
103 104.0 4.5 29.5
104 98.3 4.2 29.8
105 97.9 4.2 30.1
106 95.7 4.1 30.4
107 93.7 4.0 30.7
~ 59 ~

108 91.3 3.9 31.0
109 91.0 3.9 31.3
110 90.4 3.9 31.6
111 89.0 3.8 31.8

112 88.5 3.8 32.1
113 86.3 3.7 32.4
114 86.0 3.7 32.7
115 85.8 3.7 33.0
116 82.8 3.5 33.3
117 81.8 3.5 33.6
118 80.9 3.5 33.9
119 80.6 3.4 34.1
120 80.1 3.4 34.4
121 79.8 3.4 34.7
122 76.8 3.3 35.0
123 76.5 3.3 35.3
124 75.9 3.2 35.6
125 73.7 3.1 35.9
126 72.6 3.1 36.2
127 72.1 3.1 36.4
128 70.4 3.0 36.7
129 68.8 2.9 37.0
130 66.1 2.8 37.3
131 65.6 2.8 37.6
132 65.2 2.8 37.9
133 64.6 2.7 38.2
134 62.3 2.6 38.5
135 60.4 2.6 38.7
~ 60 ~

136 60.3 2.6 39.0
137 60.0 2.5 39.3
138 59.9 2.5 39.6
139 58.7 2.5 39.9
140 58.3 2.5 40.2
141 57.9 2.5 40.5
142 56.6 2.4 40.8
143 56.4 2.4 41.1
144 56.2 2.4 41.3
145 54.7 2.3 41.6
146 54.6 2.3 41.9
147 53.7 2.3 42.2
148 53.3 2.3 42.5
149 52.8 2.2 42.8
150 52.1 2.2 43.1
151 51.8 2.2 43.3
152 51.7 2.2 43.6
153 50.8 2.2 43.9
154 50.8 2.2 44.2
155 50.7 2.1 44.5
156 49.7 2.1 44.8
157 49.7 2.1 45.1
158 48.6 2.1 45.4
159 47.6 2.0 45.6
160 47.2 2.0 45.9
161 46.5 2.0 46.2
162 46.4 2.0 46.5
163 44.9 1.9 46.8
~ 61 ~

164 43.8 1.8 47.1
165 43.3 1.8 47.4
166 42.3 1.8 47.7
167 41.8 1.8 47.9
168 41.0 1.7 48.2
169 40.6 1.7 48.5
170 40.1 1.7 48.8
171 39.8 1.7 49.1
172 39.6 1.7 49.4
173 39.2 1.6 49.7
174 38.1 1.6 50.0
175 38.1 1.6 50.2
176 37.8 1.6 50.5
177 37.7 1.6 50.8
178 37.7 1.6 51.1
179 37.4 1.6 51.4
180 37.3 1.6 51.7
181 37.2 1.6 52.0
182 36.5 1.5 52.2
183 36.4 1.5 52.5
184 36.4 1.5 52.8
185 36.4 1.5 53.1
186 36.3 1.5 53.4
187 35.9 1.5 53.7
188 35.6 1.5 54.0
189 35.5 1.5 54.3
190 35.1 1.5 54.5
191 34.9 1.5 54.8
~ 62 ~

192 34.7 1.5 55.1
193 34.4 1.4 55.4
194 34.0 1.4 55.7
195 33.9 1.4 56.0
196 33.6 1.4 56.3
197 33.6 1.4 56.6
198 33.4 1.4 56.8
199 33.3 1.4 57.1
200 33.1 1.4 57.4
201 32.9 1.4 57.7
202 32.9 1.4 58.0
203 32.5 1.4 58.3
204 31.9 1.3 58.6
205 31.8 1.3 58.9
206 31.7 1.3 59.1
207 31.4 1.3 59.4
208 30.9 1.3 59.7
209 30.7 1.3 60.0
210 30.4 1.3 60.3
211 30.3 1.3 60.6
212 29.9 1.2 60.9
213 29.8 1.2 61.2
214 29.8 1.2 61.4
215 29.5 1.2 61.7
216 29.5 1.2 62.0
217 28.9 1.2 62.3
218 28.9 1.2 62.6
219 28.8 1.2 62.9
~ 63 ~

220 28.7 1.2 63.2
221 28.7 1.2 63.5
222 27.9 1.2 63.7
223 27.4 1.1 64.0
224 26.8 1.1 64.3
225 26.6 1.1 64.6
226 26.5 1.1 64.9
227 26.4 1.1 65.2
228 26.4 1.1 65.5
229 26.2 1.1 65.8
230 26.0 1.1 66.0
231 25.7 1.1 66.3
232 25.4 1.1 66.6
233 25.3 1.0 66.9
234 25.1 1.0 67.2
235 25.0 1.0 67.5
236 24.9 1.0 67.8
237 24.8 1.0 68.1
238 24.2 1.0 68.3
239 24.2 1.0 68.6
240 24.0 1.0 68.9
241 23.8 1.0 69.2
242 23.8 1.0 69.5
243 23.8 1.0 69.8
244 23.6 1.0 70.1
245 23.5 1.0 70.4
246 23.3 1.0 70.6
247 23.3 1.0 70.9
~ 64 ~

248 23.2 1.0 71.2
249 22.9 0.9 71.5
250 22.8 0.9 71.8
251 22.7 0.9 72.1
252 22.1 0.9 72.4
253 22.1 0.9 72.7
254 22.1 0.9 72.9
255 22.0 0.9 73.2
256 22.0 0.9 73.5
257 22.0 0.9 73.8
258 21.8 0.9 74.1
259 21.8 0.9 74.4
260 21.8 0.9 74.7
261 21.6 0.9 75.0
262 21.6 0.9 75.2
263 21.3 0.9 75.5
264 21.2 0.9 75.8
265 21.2 0.9 76.1
266 21.0 0.9 76.4
267 21. 0.9 76.7
268 20.7 0.8 77.0
269 20.6 0.8 77.2
270 20.6 0.8 77.5
271 20.4 0.8 77.8
272 20.3 0.8 78.1
273 20.3 0.8 78.4
274 20.1 0.8 78.7
275 20.1 0.8 79.0
~ 65 ~

276 20.0 0.8 79.3
277 20.0 0.8 79.5
278 19.9 0.8 79.8
279 19.8 0.8 80.1
280 19.8 0.8 80.4
281 19.8 0.8 80.7
282 19.7 0.8 81.0
283 19.5 0.8 81.3
284 19.2 0.8 81.6
285 19.1 0.8 81.8
286 19.0 0.8 82.1
287 18.9 0.8 82.4
288 18.7 0.8 82.7
289 18.7 0.8 83.0
290 18.3 0.7 83.3
291 18.0 0.7 83.6
292 17.6 0.7 83.9
293 17.6 0.7 84.1
294 17.4 0.7 84.4
295 17.3 0.7 84.7
296 17.2 0.7 85.0
297 17.1 0.7 85.3
298 17.0 0.7 85.6
299 17.0 0.7 85.9
300 16.9 0.7 86.2
301 16.8 0.7 86.4
302 16.8 0.7 86.7
303 16.6 0.7 87.0
~ 66 ~

304 16.6 0.7 87.3
305 16.2 0.7 87.6
306 16.2 0.7 87.9
307 16.1 0.6 88.2
308 16.0 0.6 88.5
309 16.0 0.6 88.7
310 15.9 0.6 89.0
311 15.9 0.6 89.3
312 15.8 0.6 89.6
313 15.7 0.6 89.9
314 15.7 0.6 90.2
315 15.6 0.6 90.5
316 15.5 0.6 90.8
317 15.4 0.6 91.0
318 15.1 0.6 91.3
319 15.0 0.6 91.6
320 15.0 0.6 91.9
321 15.0 0.6 92.2
322 14.8 0.6 92.5
323 14.3 0.6 92.8
324 14.2 0.6 93.1
325 14.1 0.6 93.3
326 14.1 0.6 93.6
327 13.8 0.5 93.9
328 12.6 0.5 94.2
329 12.6 0.5 94.5
330 12.1 0.5 94.8
331 11.9 0.5 95.1
~ 67 ~

Badigad station Daram Intake exceedence
332 11.5 0.4 95.4
333 11.5 0.4 95.6
334 11.4 0.4 95.9
335 11.4 0.4 96.2
336 11.1 0.4 96.5
337 11.1 0.4 96.8
338 11.1 0.4 97.1
339 11.0 0.4 97.4
340 10.5 0.4 97.7
341 10.3 0.4 97.9
342 9.3 0.4 98.2
343 9.3 0.4 98.5
344 9.2 0.4 98.8
345 8.9 0.3 99.1
346 8.7 0.3 99.4
347 7.6 0.3 99.7
348 7.0 0.3 100.0
~ 68 ~
Flow Duration Curve
F-D curve
40
35
30
25
Discharge , m3/s
20
15
10
5
y = -6.243ln(x) + 27.332
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Probability of exceedence ( % )
Fig: Flow duration curve
~ 69 ~
Statistical analysis of the discharge data for frequency analysis
Catchment area of Badigad khola station:= 1940 Km2

Catchment area at Daram intake sit:= 84 Km2
Q at Badi gard
Q at intake site
SN Year station Remarks
Max Min Max Min
1 1976 293 22 12.6 0.9
Mean peak
2 1977 472 16.2 20.4 0.7
discharge
3 1978 380 22.8 16.4 0.9
= Qmean =
4 1979 340 18.9 14.7 0.8
18.7
5 1980 460 17.2 19.9 0.7
6 1981 570 28.8 24.6 1.2
Standard deviation
7 1982 385 32.9 16.6 1.4
(sd) =
8 1983 565 14.3 24.4 0.6
8.2
9 1984 464 11.4 20.0 0.4
10 1985 349 11.5 15.1 0.4
11 1986 433 9.32 18.7 0.4
12 1987 517 23.2 22.3 1.0
13 1988 489 16.9 21.1 0.7
14 1989 571 18.3 24.7 0.7
15 1990 332 16.8 14.3 0.7
16 1991 352 11.1 15.2 0.4
17 1992 316 14.1 13.6 0.6
18 1993 431 9.29 18.6 0.4
19 1994 306 14.2 13.2 0.6
20 1995 430 7.66 18.6 0.3
21 1996 1260 7.04 54.5 0.3
22 1997 370 18.7 16.0 0.8
~ 70 ~
23 1998 595 15.7 25.7 0.6

24 1999 368 17.4 15.9 0.7
25 2000 373 11.1 16.1 0.4
26 2001 245.8 15 10.6 0.6
27 2002 289 11 12.5 0.4
28 2003 183 16.6 7.9 0.7
29 2004 440 17.6 19.0 0.7
~ 71 ~
GUMBEL
Gumbel's Method for Flood frequency Analysis
Return yT = K= QT = Se = For 90% confidence level

b
SN Period -lnln(T/T- (yT-yn)/Sn Qmean + Remarks Probable
T years 1) K sd error f© Max. Min.
1976 to 2004
1 2 0.3 -0.2 , 0.9 1.0 1.645 19.2 15.8
2 5 1.5 0.8 17.5 no of years 1.7 1.9 1.645 29.1 22.6
3 10 2.2 1.5 25.8 is 29 2.3 2.7 1.645 35.8 26.9
4 30 3.3 2.5 31.4 for n = 29 3.4 3.8 1.645 46.1 33.3
4 50 3.9 3.0 39.7 yn = 0.5 3.8 4.4 1.645 50.8 36.2
6 100 4.6 3.6 43.5 Sn = 1.1 4.5 5.1 1.645 57.2 40.1
7 1000 6.9 5.5 64.0 6.4 7.4 1.645 76.2 51.8
~ 72 ~
PLOTTING POSITION
Plotting position method of frequency analysis for flood estimation
SN YEAR DISCHARGE T = ( n+1)/m YT= - lnln(T/T-1)

1 1976 12.6 44.0 3.7
2 1977 20.4 22.0 3.0
3 1978 16.4 14.6 2.6
4 1979 14.7 11.0 2.3
5 1980 19.9 8.8 2.1
6 1981 24.6 7.3 1.9
7 1982 16.6 6.2 1.7
8 1983 24.4 5.5 1.6
9 1984 20.0 4.8 1.4
10 1985 15.1 4.4 1.3
11 1986 18.7 4.0 1.2
12 1987 22.3 3.6 1.1
13 1988 21.1 3.3 1.0
14 1989 24.7 3.1 0.9
15 1990 14.3 2.9 0.8
16 1991 15.2 2.7 0.7
17 1992 13.6 2.5 0.7
18 1993 18.6 2.4 0.6
19 1994 13.2 2.3 0.5
20 1995 18.6 2.2 0.5
21 1996 54.5 2.0 0.4
22 1997 16.0 2.0 0.3
23 1998 25.7 1.9 0.3
24 1999 15.9 1.8 0.2
25 2000 16.1 1.7 0.1
26 2001 10.6 1.6 0.1
27 2002 12.5 1.6 0
28 2003 7.9 1.5 0
29 2004 19.0 1.5 0
GUMBEL CURVE
~ 73 ~
60.000
50.000
40.000
Plotting positions of observed

Discharge ( cumecs)
data
Gumbels theoritical line
30.000
Linear (Plotting positions of

observed data)
Linear (Gumbels theoritical line)
20.000
10.000
0.000
-1.000 1.000 3.000 5.000 7.000
YT = - ln ln ( T/T-1)
Fig:Gumbel curve
~ 74 ~
LPC
Statistical Analysis for Log Pearson III method of flood prediction
N = 29
N - 1 =28
N - 2 =27
Q Z= (Z - mean
SN Year Remarks
Max Log Q Z)3
1 1976 12.6 1.1 0.0
2 1977 20.4 1.3 0.0
3 1978 16.4 1.2 0.0
4 1979 14.7 1.1 0.0
5 1980 19.9 1.2 0.0
6 1981 24.7 1.3 0.0
7 1982 16.7 1.2 0.0
8 1983 24.5 1.3 0.0
9 1984 20.1 1.3 0.0
10 1985 15.1 1.1 0.0
11 1986 18.7 1.2 0.0
12 1987 22.4 1.3 0.0
13 1988 21.2 1.3 0.0
14 1989 24.7 1.3 0.0
15 1990 14.3 1.1 0.0
16 1991 15.2 1.1 0.0
17 1992 13.6 1.1 0.0
Mean z =
18 1993 18.6 1.2 0.0 1.246m
19 1994 13.2 1.1 0.0
20 1995 18.6 1.2 0.0 standard deviation = sd =
21 1996 54.5 1.7 0.1 0.150
22 1997 16.1 1.2 0.0
23 1998 25.7 1.4 0.0 Cs =
24 1999 15.9 1.2 0.0 N∑(Z-meanZ)3/(N-1)(N-2)(sd)3 =
25 2000 16.1 1.2 0.0 0.807
26 2001 10.6 1.1 0.0
27 2002 12.5 1.1 0.0
~ 75 ~
28 2003 7.9 0.9 0.1
29 2004 19.1 1.2 0.0
Average= 1.24 0.7
Flood calculation by Log Pearson III distribution
KZ from ZT =
Mean Z QT =
SN T(year) table function sd of Z mean Z +
(m) Antilog ZT
of cs sd*KZ
1 2 -0.2 1.2 16.8
2 10 1.3 1.4 27.9
3 25 2.0 1.5 35.1
4 50 2.4 1.24 0.15 1.6 41.0
5 100 2.9 1.6 47.7
6 200 3.3 1.7 55.2
7 1000 4.2 1.9 76.3
~ 76 ~
ANNEX-B
DESIGN
CALCULATION
WEIR
Weir including Spillway
Flood Discharge (Q) = 365.17 m3/s
Return Period =100 yrs
From the inspection of topographic map
Width of river where headwork is going to construct =25m
Provide the length of weir portion, Le=21m
Provide 1 m wide divide wall
And, width of under sluice=3m
Here,
River bed level=1592.62masl
Take,
Crest level of weir=1597 masl
Height of the spillway from the river bed (P) = 4.38m
Weir coefficient, Cweir=2.2
We have,
Discharge through the weir,= Q  Cweir  Le  H e
3/ 2
Where,
He =Total head on the crest
Including velocity of approach
Solving above equation we get,
He=3.42m
Trial (I)
Q
Velocity of Approach, = Va 
Le  P  ho 
Va=1.78 m/s
2
Velocity Head = Va m/s
2 g
=0.16m/s
ho =3.25m
~ 77 ~
Trial (II),
Velocity of Approach,
Va =1.82 m/s 2
Va
Velocity Head = 2  g m/s
=0.16
ho=3.25m
Trial (III) Q
Va 
Velocity of Approach, Le  P  ho 
Va=1.82 m/s
2
V
Velocity Head = a
2 g
=0.16m/s
ho =3.25m
Hd =3.25m
So,
Ratio of Dam height to head over weir (P/Hd)=1.35 >1.33 OK
Le  L  2  N  K p  K a  H e
Again,
Effective Length of the Spillway=
Assuming, 90 degree cut water nose piers and rounded abutments shall be provided,
Then,
KP=0.01 and
Ka =0.1
Also, N=1
Le=20.25m
Take 20 m
Downstream Profile,
~ 78 ~
( n 1)
xn  K  H d y
y=x^n/ (k*Hd^ (n-1))
For Vertical face,

k=2
and n=1.85
Here, for point of tangency

Adopt slope of d/s face of crest=1.25 i.e. 1 in 0.8
dy/dx =n*x^(n-1)/(k*Hd^(n-1))
=1.25
Solving this we get
Point of tangency=(x,y)
=4.63, 3.13
Then
X Y
0 0.00
0.5 -0.05
1 -0.18
1.5 -0.38
2 -0.66
2.5 -1.00
3 -1.40
3.5 -1.86
4 -2.38
4.63 -3.13
Beyond the point of tangency profile will be of straight line in slope of d/s
Upstream profile
~ 79 ~
Upstream profile
R1=0.5HD 1.62
R2=0.2HD = 0.65
a=0.175HD = 0.56
b=0.282HD = 0.91
Also, according to latest studies of US Army Corps, the U/S curve of the ogee spillway having a
vertical U/S face should have the following equation:
y  0.724
 x  0.27 H d 
1.85
 0.126  H  0.4315  H d
0.375
x  0.27  H d 0.6250
0.85 d
Hd
The values of the coordinates y are determined below for different values of x upto maximum
value of x/Hd=-0.27 or x=-0.87 and y/Hd=0.12 or y=0.40
X x/Hd y
0.00 0.00 0.00

-0.10 -0.03 -0.00
-0.20 -0.06 -0.01
-0.30 -0.09 -0.02
-0.40 -0.12 -0.0
-0.50 -0.15 -0.08
-0.60 -0.18 -0.13
-0.70 -0.21 -0.19
-0.80 -0.24 -0.27
-0.87 -0.27 -0.41
Energy dissipation
Hydraulic jump
~ 80 ~
Initial depth before jump

EO=7.63m
Ψ=0.95
For elliptical form of crest
We have,
V1=Ψ*√ (2*g(EO-Y1))
Q100/ (b*Y1)=Ψ*√ (2*g(EO-Y1))
Solving this we get,
Y1=1.31 m
Critical depth (Yc')= (q^2/g) ^ (1/3)
=2.70 m
Velocity (V1) = (Q100/ (B*Y1)
=10.57 m/s
Fraud number (F) =V1/ (g*Y1) ^.5
=2.94
Tail water depth in subcritical flow (Y2) = (Y1*((1+8*F^2) ^.5-1))/2
=4.85 m
Tail water depth,
Take,
Manning's coefficient (n)= 0.04
We have,
Q100=1/n*A*R^ (2/3)*s^0.5
Here, A=b*Yd
R=A/P
= (b*Yd)/ (b+2Yd)
Solving above equation we get,
Yd=2.64 m
Since Y2>Yd, elongated jump will occur
As Fraud number is in between 2.5 and 4.5
Type I USBR stilling basin is used
Length of stilling basin (Lw)=5*Y2
~ 81 ~
= 24.28 m
Pondage depth (Hd) =Y1 (9+F)/9
=1.74 m
Iteration due to change in (EO ) =9.37 m
EO Y1 Ψ V1 F Y2 Hd
9.37 1.15 0.96 12.20 3.63 5.37 1.61
9.24 1.14 0.95 12.07 3.59 5.29 1.60
9.23 1.15 0.95 12.06 3.58 5.30 1.61
9.24 1.15 0.95 12.06 3.58 5.30 1.61
9.24 1.15 0.95 12.06 3.58 5.30 1.61
Hence,
Y2=5.30 m
Pondage depth (Hd) = 1.61 m
Length of the sttiling basin (Lw) =5*(Y2-Y1)
=20.75 m
Height of dam from its crest to bed of stilling basin =P+Hd
=6.00 m
~ 82 ~
Weir length and thickness

Calculation of total head loss after formation of hydraulic jump
Total head (H) =Height of weir
=4.38 m
Since the bed soil is sand mixed with boulder and gravel
So, Take Bligh's coefficient (C) =9.00
Total creep length (Lt) =C*H
= 39.42 m
For Length of D/s (L2)
We have,
L2=2.21*C*(H/10) ^0.5 (For weir having no crest shutters)
=13.16 m
According to stilling basin,
Here,
Length of stilling basin=20.75 m
Take, L2=24m
For D/S length (L3)
We have,
L2+L3=18*C*((H/13)*(q/75)) ^ (1/2) (For weir having no crest shutters)
L3=18*C*((H/13)*(q/75)) ^ (1/2)-L2
=16.49m Take 20 m
Now u/s length (L4),
L4=L3/2
= 8.24m Take 10m
Calculation of Thickness
Assuming particle size (d) =3 mm
So, silt factor (f) =1.75*√ (dmm)
= 3.03
Depth of Scour (R)=1.35*(q^2/f) ^ (1/3)
= 5.39 m
~ 83 ~
Discharge intensity (q) =Q/L

= 13.91 m3/s/m
Acceleration due to gravity (g) =9.81 m/sec2
We have,
Total head over weir crest (Hd) = 3.25 m
U/s TEL (TELu)= 1600.25 m
Water level elevation u/s of the weir can be determined using the Bernoulli's equation and
iteration
U/s bed level =1592.62 m
U/s total energy (Eu) =7.63 m
q
yu 
Water depth= 2 g ( Eu  y1 )
[Iteration is done for determining yu]
yu=7.45 m
U/s water elevation HGLu=1600.07 masl
U/s velocity of water =1.86 m/sec
D/s water elevation HGLd =1597.92 masl
Depth of d/s cutoff below the d/s HFL =1.5*R
= 8.09 m
Level of bottom of d/s cut-off =d/s HGL- 1.5*R
=1589.83 masl
Depth of u/s cutoff below the u/s HFL=1.25*R
= 6.74 m
Level of bottom of u/s cut-off considering HGL=u/s HGL - 1.25*R
=1593.32 masl
Provided u/s cutoff of =-0.70 m
U/s depth o f pile =2 m
D/s depth of pile =2.79 Take 3 m
Upstream depth of pile =2 m
Downstream depth of pile =3 m
~ 84 ~
From Autocad drawing:

Base width of weir (b) =7.03 m
Take slab width =0.5 m
Total creep length =b+L2+u/s pile*2+d/s pile*2+ slab width*2
=42.03 m
> Total creep length required
So no balance length is required at U/s
Take, Specific Gravity of Particle (S) =2.65
Thickness of d/s floor length at weir and d/s floor junction (t1)= (h1/(S-1))
Here (h1) =the ordinate of HGL above the floor at the junction of weir and d/s floor
So, (h1) =H˪/total creep length creep length from d/s end to junction
= 2.8 m
Therefore,
(t1) =1.73m Take 1.8 m
The thickness can be curtailed in half of d/s as below as economic point of view
Thickness of d/s floor length (t2) = (h2/(S-1))
Here (h2) =1.92 m
Therefore (t2) =1.16m Take 1.2m
In the base of Weir the thickness can be provided as in second half portion of d/s floor i.e. 1.5m
Stability Analysis
Weight of weir
Unit weight of concrete= 24 KN/m3
From AutoCAD drawing,

Total area of Weir =70.00 m2
Distance of cg from toe =20.91 m
~ 85 ~
Calculation of forces
Unit weight of concrete =24 KN/m3
Unit weight of water =10 KN/m3
Unit weight of silt =18 KN/m3
Assuming depth of silt deposit =0.5
S. Name of Horizont Lever Counter
N. Force Area al Vertical Arm Moment clockwise clockwise
weir with
1 stilling basin 70.0 1463.8 19.0 27861.9 27861.9
hydrostatic
2 pressure
Ph1 142.3 2.1 311.7 311.7
Ph2 95.9 1.46 140.0 140.0
4 uplift 95.9 20.6 1984.5 1984.3
5 silt 2.25 0.1667 0.3 0.3
Sum 240.5 1559.7 27861.9 2436.6
Resultant moment =25425.24KN
Check for sliding:
Fs=µV/H
=4.50>1.5
Check for overturning:
FO =resisting moment /overturning moment
=11.40>1.5 OK
Check for tension at heals:
X =M/V
=16.30m
Width = 31.00m
Eccentricity (e) = B/2-X
=-0.74 m
B/6=5.17m
=e<B/6 OK
~ 86 ~
Principal stress
Minimum Stress =sum (v)/B (1+ (6e/B))
=42.63 KN/m2
< 200KN/m2
Exit Gradient Check:
Maximum seepage Head =4.38 m
Depth of d/s cut off (d) = 3m
Total floor length (b =31.00 m
α =10.34
λ =5.696
Ge =0.19
=1 in 5.58
Since Ge is within 1in5 to 1in7 so OK
~ 87 ~
UNDERSLUICE
Design of Undersluice
Head over crest (Hd) =3.25 m
Discharge through Orifice (QO) =4.77 m3/s
So,
Discharge through undersluice=20% of Q₁₀₀-Qo
=68.26 m3/s
Provide one bay having
Width (b) =3 m
Sluice Height (h) =4.5 m
Now from manning’s formula,
Discharge through Under sluice (Qu) =1/n*A*R^ (2/3)*S^0.5
Take n=0.015
S=1in25
= 0.04
So,
Qu=194.704 m3/s
>68.26 OK
Here, velocity=14.42 m/s
~ 88 ~
INTAKE
Design of Intake Structure

40 percentile discharge (Q40%) =3.67m3/s
Qdesign =4.77 m3/s
Approach velocity (Va) =1.10 m/s
Total Area of Orifice =4.33m2
Assume 2 nos. of orifice
Area of one orifice (A) =2.17m2
Let, height of orifice (h) =1.00m
Breadth (b) =2.17 m
So, two nos of orifice is adopted having size of,
Height (H) =1.00m
Breadth (B) =2.17m
And the Orifices are separated by 0.6m wide wall
The top level of orifice is fixed
at 30cm below the crest level off weir
So top level of orifice =1596.7masl
Design of Trashrack For Intake

Total Area of orifice (A) =4.33 m2
Taking, Spacing between racks (S) =0.15 m
Height of orifice (h) =1m
Breadth of orifice (B) =2.17m
Diameter of bar (d) =0.01m
Now, Width of trash rack =Total width of orifice
B = (n+1)*S+n*d
N =15
So, Adopt 15nos
No. of Trashrack = 2.nos
~ 89 ~
Now,
Head Loss through trash rack (Hf) =Kt *(t/b) ^ (4/3)
*sin α*(v^2/(2*9.81)
=0.01m
Net area (A') =3.95m2
(A'/A) =0.91
Loss coefficient at the gate (Kt) =1.67
Approach velocity (v) =1.1 m/s
Angle (α) =75 degree
T =0.01m
Total width of intake =5.54m
Depth of intake =1m
Velocity of water =1.1m/s
Entry loss at intake (ce) =0.03 m
Total head loss =0.04m
~ 90 ~
GRAVEL TRAP
Design of gravel trap
Design discharge through orifice =4.77m3/s
Size of particle to be settle =2 mm
S =2.65
Efficiency =90%
=0.9
For particle greater than 1mm
Settling velocity (w) = (3.33*g*d*(S-1))^0.5
=0.33m/s
From camps eqn
Critical Velocity (Vc) =0.55*√dmm
=0.77m/s
For settling surface area,
From Vetter's eqn
Efficiency =1-e^ (-wAp/Q)
Falling velocity of particle (w) =0.32m/s
Solving above equation, we get
AP =33.47m2
Adopt width of gravel trap (B) =5 m
Length (L) =Ap/B
=6.69
Increase length by 10%, L =7.23
=7.20m
Q =A*Vcrit
y =1.22 take 1.2m
Let Sludge Depth =0.2m
Freeboard =0.2m
Overall Depth =1.6m
Iteration I
Ap =36 m2
~ 91 ~
For new area efficiency =0.91

=91.59%
Flushing of Gravel Trap

Qd =4.77m3/s
Take the 10% of Discharge to flush
Flushing discharge (Qf) =0.36m3/s
Constant (K) =0.06
Darcy's friction factor (f) =0.03
Spacing of trash rack =Max. size of gravel trap
d =0.05m
For drawing only
1in30to25 slope of gravel trap
From shield formula,
Critical velocity just before flushing (V) = (8*K*(S-1)*d*g/f)^(1/2)
=3.58 m/s
Discharge through flushing cannel (Qf) =A/V
A =0.10m2
Taking rectangular section,
Assume, width (b) =0.5m
Height (h) =0.8m
h/b =1.6
S =0.03 i.e. 1in 35
A =0.40 m2
P =2.1m
R =0.19m
n =0.015
Flushing velocity through gravel trap =3.73m/s
>3.59m/s ok
~ 92 ~
Design of Trash rack behind Gravel Trap

Discharge for approach canal (Q) =4.40m3/s
Equivalent Dimension from conveyance canal
Width (b) =2m
Height (h) =2m
Assume
Spacing of Trash Rack (s) =50 mm
Diameter of bar (d) =10mm
If nis the no of bars then
d*n+s*(n-1)=b*h*10^3
S0, n =67.5
Take n =70 nos
So,
Net width (b') =b-n*d/1000
=1.3mm
Net velocity (V) =Q/(b'*h)

=1.69m/s
Loss in Trash Rack (HLt) =K*V^2/(2*g)
We have,
K =1.45-0.45*R-R^2
Where, R =Anet/Agross
=0.65
So,
K =0.735
Therefore, HLt =0.11m
~ 93 ~
Design of approach canal
The initial part of the canal is box culvert so that excess

discharge during flood do not spill and the
end part is attached with spillway
Discharge in approach canal (Q) =4.40m3/s
Manning's coefficient (n) =0.015
Take width of canal (b) =2 m
Also take Canal slope (S) =1 in 750
=0.001
Now using manning’s eqn
Depth of flow (y) =1.31m
Now,
b/y =1.51 lies between 1.5 to 2
Provide free board =0.68
So total height =2m
Using manning's formula,
And Velocity (V) =1.67m/s
Critical velocity check
Check for critical velocity for settling of particle,
For particle size of = 2mm
From camps eqn,
Critical Velocity (Vc) =0.55*√dmm
=0.77m/s
<1.67m/s so OK
So size of approach culvert is:
Height =2
B/H =1.5 to 2
Width =2
From the topography map length of canal (L) =25m
~ 94 ~
SETTLING BASIN
Design of Settling Basin
Design Discharge (Qdesign) =4.40m3/s

Assume,
Size of particle to settle = 0.2 mm
Specific Gravity (S) = 2.65
Settling Velocity (Vf) = (4/3*g/Cd*(S-1)*d)^0.5
Assume 10°C Temperature,
For 10°C, µ =1.31
We have
Vf after Temperature correction,
Vf =416*(S-1)*d^2*(3*t+70)/100
For, temperature (t) = 10°C

Diameter (d) = 0.2mm
Vf =27.45 mm/sec
Re =(Vf*d)/µ
= 4.19
Cd = (24/Re+3/√(Re)+0.34)
=7.53
Vf = 0.02m/s
=23.94 mm/sec
By iteration between Re,Cd,and

~ 95 ~
Vf Re Cd Vf
23.94 3.65 8.47 22.56
22.56 3.44 8.92 21.99
21.99 3.35 9.12 21.75
21.75 3.32 9.21 21.64
21.64 3.30 9.25 21.59
21.59 3.29 9.27 21.57
21.57 3.29 9.27 21.56
Therefore, Fall velocity (Vf) =0.02 m/sec
Flow Velocity =a*d^0.5

For Particle size 0.1mm<d <1mm a =0.44
So, Flow velocity (Vt) = 0.19m/s
Considering only 65%of Vt as effective therefore, Vt = 0.12 m/sec
Dimension
From design discharge, (Qdesign) =(b*h)*Vt

Assume, width (b) =7m
Therefore, height (h) = 4.92 m
Take, overall height (h) = 5.75 m with 0.8 m free board
Using Velikanov's equation,
Length of Settling Basin (L) = (λ^2*Vt^2*(√(h)
-0.2)^2)/(7.51*Vf^2)
We have, λ =1.5for removal ratio
of 97%, from graph
S0, L =42.92 m
Take L = 60 m
Provide 2 bays of 3.5m width having 0.4m
wide baffle wall
~ 96 ~
Total Width = 7.4 m
Check
L/b =8.10
Which lies in between 6-10 hence safe
Now, velocity of water flow in basin (V) = 0.12m/s
Transition design
Width of approach canal =2
Provide entrance angle =12°
Length of inlet Transition (L) = 9.41 m take 10 m
Storage Volume
Sediment concentration, (c) = 8000ppm
= 8 kg/m3
Sediment density, (Sd) = 2650 kg/m3
Flushing Interval = 6 hrs
Sediment Load =Q*t*c
=761381 kg
Volume of storage, (V) = (Sload/Sden)*Pfactor
= 574.63 m3
Pfactor =2
Depth of storage, Ystorage = (V/area)
= 1.36 m
Free board = 0.8 m
Required depth of basin =Freeboard+height of
settling basing+Ystorage
=7.1 m
Design of Flushing canal
Flushing Discharge i.e. 20% of design Q40 (Qf) = 0.73

~ 97 ~
Velocity of flushing(Vf) = 2m3/s

Flushing canal:
A' =Qf/Vf
2
= 0.36 m
Area required by each flushing canal =0.5*A'
A =0.18m2
Assume B =D
A =D^2
So, D =0.42 m
B = 0.42 take 0.6 m
Scouring velocity (for 0.4 mm particle size) = 1.35 m/sec
Scouring flow,
Qs = 1.2*Qd
= 0.88 m3/s
Scour flow/unit width
qs =Qs/B
=1.46m2/s
Ys =qs/Vsc
= 1.08
Sc =(G*Vsc)^2*(1/Ys)^(4/3)
= 0.0004
= 0.04 %
Required slope =1:250
Adopt 1:50 bed slope

Mannings roghness for concrete lining (n) = 0.015
Design flow =0.73 m3/s
Width (assumed) = 0.6 m
Depth (assumed) = 0.6 m
Longitudinal slope = 1:50
~ 98 ~
Flow capacity,(Q) =1/n*R^2/3*A*s^0.5

R =A/P
= 0.2 m
So,
Q =1.16m
Dia. of sediment which can be transported,

=11*R*S in m
= 0.04 m
=44mm
Velocity = 3.22 m/sec
Assume size of particle To be flush (d) =2 mm
= 0.002
Assume Width (b) = 0.6m
Height (h) = 0.6 m
Assume bed slope 1 in 50 i.e. 0.02
n = 0.015
Velocity (V) = 1/n*R^(2/3)*s^0.5
= 3.22 m/sec
tractive shear stress, (To) =Ƴ*R*S
= 39.24KN/m2
Tractive critical shear force (Tc) = 0.056*Ƴ*d*(S-1)
= 1.81KN/m2
As To>Tc So OK
~ 99 ~
FORBAY
Design of forbay
Discharge passing through forbay (Q) = 3.67m3/s
Assume, mean velocity in forbay (V) = 0.15m/s
Assume storage time (t) = 1 min
= 60 sec
Storage volume required (Vo) = Q*t
=220.31 m3
Assuming width of forebay(b) =7.4 m
Depth of forebay needed (d) = Q/(V*b)
= 3.30 m
Provide depth of 5.5 m
Length of Forbey ( l )
Then,
l*b*d =Vo
l = 5.41 m
Provide length of 5.6 m
Head over the forebay (H)

b =7m
Q =1.805*b*H^(3/2)
H =0.43 m
Provide head of 0.5 m
Design of contraction
Width of headrace canal =2.8 m
Provide entrance angle = 45°
Length of outlet Transition (L) = 2.3 m
~ 100 ~
Design of Trash rack before penstock
Discharge for penstock (Q) =3.67 m3/s

Equivalent Dimension from forebay
Width (b) =2.8 m
Height (h) =1m
Assume
Spacing of Trash Rack (s) = 10 mm
Diameter of bar (d) =10mm
If n is the no of bars then,
d*n+s*(n-1) = b*h*10^3
S0, n =140
Take n =150 nos.
So,
Net width (b') = b-n*d/1000
=1.3 mm
Net velocity (V) = Q/(b'*h)

= 2.82 m/sec
Loss in Trash Rack (Lt) = K*V^2/(2*g)

We have,
K =1.45-0.45*R-R^2
Where, R =Anet/Agross
= 0.45
So,
k = 1.02
Therefore, Lt =0.41 m
~ 101 ~
SUBMERGENCE
Design Discharge = 3.67 m3/s
Pipe Parameters
Internal diameter (D) =1.3 m

C/s area (A) = 1.33 m2
Velocity at intake (V) = 1.77 m/sec
Submergence for horizontal intakes

Gordon (1970)
S  kv d
S= submergence
v= velocity of flow at intake = 1.77 m/sec
d= height of intake (ft.) = 1.3 m
k= coefficient 0.3 for symmetrical approach = 0.3
0.4 for unsymmetrical approach
Submergence (S) = 0.95 m
Prosser (1977)
S  1.5d
ITDG Manual
v2
S  1.5
2g
~ 102 ~
Considered submergence (S) = 1.95 m

Water elevation in the forebay =1596.54 masl
Invert level of the penstock pipe =1590.72 masl

Bottom level of the penstock pipe =1590.07 masl
~ 103 ~
HEAD LOSS CALCULATION
Head loss in intake
Trash rack loss =0.04 m

Head loss in gate,
Q =Cd*A*(2gh)^.5
h = 0.25 m
Total loss in intake =0.28 m
Headloss in gravel trap
Headloss along the length of gravel trap (H˪) =Q^2*L/(A^2*C^2*R)

A =Cross sectional area
2
=6m
P = Wetted perimeter
= 7.4 m
R =Hydraulic radius
=0.81 m
C =(R^(1/6)/n)
= 64.37
n =0.015
So, HL =0.00 m
Headloss in trash rack after gravel trap
Therefore, HLt =0.11 m
Head loss in approach canal
~ 104 ~
Headloss along the length of approach canal (H˪) =Q^2*L/(A^2*C^2*R)

= 2.63 m2
P =Wetted perimeter
=5.27 m
R =Hydraulic radius
=0.5 m
C =(R^(1/6)/n)
= 59.39
n =0.015
So, HL = 0.04 m
Headloss in settling basin
Due to expansion
H˪ =k(v1^2-v2^2)/(2*g)
Where,
V1 =Velocity at outlet of canal
V2 =velocity at the basin
Take k =0.40
so,
HL =0.01 m
Headloss along the length of settling basin
HL =Q^2*L/(A^2*C^2*R)
Where,
=34.45 m2
~ 105 ~
P =Wetted perimeter
=16.84 m
R =Hydraulic radius
=2.04 m
C =(R^(1/6)/n)
=75.11
n =0.015
So,
HL =0.00 m
Headloss along the length of forebay
HL =Q^2*L/(A^2*C^2*R)
Where,
2
=40.7 m
P =Wetted perimeter
=18.4 m
R =Hydraulic radius
= 2.21 m
C =(R^(1/6)/n)
=76.09
n =0.015
So,
HL =0.00 m
Headloss due to contraction
Hcont =k(v^2/(2*g))
~ 106 ~
k =0.50
=0.00 m
=0.00 m
Total loss in settling basin =0.01
Trashrack Loss at pressure pipe
Kirchmer's formula
Htr = Kt*(t/b)4/3 * (Vo2/2g)*sinф
= 0.00
Where,
Htr =headloss through trashrack
Thickness of rack bar, t = 0.01
Spacing between bars, b =0.02
Velocity of flow infront of Trashrack =0.12 m/s
Angle of bars with the horizontal (β) =75°
Kt =factors depending on the
cross section of the bar
=1.67
Headloss in pressure pipe
Design Discharge =3.67 m3/s

Dia. of penstock =1.30 m
Length of penstock =1730 m
Velocity in penstock pipe =2.77 m/s
Friction factor =0.015
Pressure flow headloss along length = flv^2/(2gd)
=7.78 m
Turbulence head loss = (Kent)*v^2/2g
= 0.19 m
~ 107 ~
Hbend =kv^2/2g
= 0.19 m
Total pressure pipe loss = 8.17 m
Net head before surge tank = 82.72 m
Head loss in penstock:
L = 10.97 m
f = 0.016
v = 2.77 m/sec
d =1m
Head loss due to friction (hf) = fLV^2/2gd
= 0.06 m
Total head loss =8.68 m
Head loss due to Bend:

1/k= π^2/(2*Ø*LOGe(r/D+Ø))
for first bend Ø=1⁰ k= 0.005
for second bend Ø=1⁰ k= 0.003
for third bend Ø=0⁰ k= 0.000
for fourth bend Ø=0⁰ k= 0.000
for 5th bend Ø=2⁰ k= 0.009
for 9thbend Ø=15⁰ k= 0.084
for 10th bend Ø=22⁰ k= 0.146
1/k= π^2/(2*Ø*LOGe(r/D+Ø))
~ 108 ~

sum of k= 0.489
Normal water level after deducting headloss

Nwl in masl
Nwl before intake 1597
Nwl after trashrack 1596.71
Nwl at start of gravel trap= 1596.7
Nwl end of graveltrap= 1596.60
NWL at the start of approach canal= 1596.60
NWlL at the end of approach canal= 1596.56
Nwl at entrance of settling basin 1596.56

Nwl at end of settling basin 1596.55
Nwl at start of HP 1596.55
Nwl at pressure pipe 1596.54
Nwl at entrance of pressure pipe 1596.54
~ 109 ~
BIFURCATION
Design Discharge
Q =3.67 m3/s
After bifurcation design in each pipe =1.83 m3/s
Velocity (V) = 2.77 m/s
Velocity in pipe remains same
Area
A =Q/V
=0.66 m2
Internal diameter of pipe (d) =1m
Calculation of thickness
S =1020 kgf/cm2
Efficiency =85%
Head (H) =82.65 m
γ =1000.00 kgf/m3
Total pressure in pipe (P) = γ*H
2
=82652 kgf/m
Internal radius of pipe =0.50 m
=50.00 cm
t =((P*R)/(S*η+0.6*P)+0.15
t =0.19 cm
=19.76 mm
Take
t =20 mm
~ 110 ~
TURBINE
Design of Francis Turbine
Calculation of specific speed(Ns):
Number of turbine =2
Discharge (Q) =1.83m3/s
Net head available (H) =82.65 m
Efficiency =85%
Power (P) =1265.28kw
=1698.36Hp
For Francis turbine,
Ns =2400/(H)^0.5
So,Ns =264rpm
From equation of the specific speed ,(N) =Ns*(H)^(5/4)/P^(0.5)
N =1160rpm
Number of poles, (n) =120f/N
N =3.7
Take Number of poles,(n) =6
Now, corrected runner speed, (N) =1000rpm
So, corrected specific speed, (Ns) =165rpm
Calculation of Diameter of the turbine, (D)
Φ =0.0197Ns^(2/3)+0.0275
Φ = 0.62
Now diameter of the runner, D = 84.6*Φ*(H)^(0.5)/N
D = 0.47m
=0.5m
Ns = 143rpm in S.I.
Calculation of setting height, (Hs)
σc (cavitation coefficient) = 0.08
Hence Hs, =2.72 m
2.5 m is taken
~ 111 ~
POWER HOUSE
Design of Power House

Name of turbine used =francis turbine
No. of turbine =2nos.
Taking clear distance between the units (d) =3m
Diameter of runner, (D) =0.45,
Machine hall
Length of hall =5.5D+3
= 5.47 Adopt5.5m
Width of hall =2d+D
=6.45 Adopt6.5m
Height of hall(assume) =2.5m
Loading bay
Length of bay =6.45m
Width of bay =4m
Control bay
Length of bay =5m
Width of bay =3.5m
Workshop annexes
Length of workshop =4m
Width of workshop =4m
Height of super structure(Hsup) =4.5(D+1)

=6.75 m
Height of crane arrangement(Hcrane) =1.5 m (from general practice)
Height of sub structure =1.5 m
~ 112 ~
Hence total height (Htotal) =9.75 m

Now inside Dimension
L =16 m
B =9.5 m
H =9.75 m
~ 113 ~
TAILRACE
Design of Tailrace Canal
Number of tailrace canal =2

Design discharge,(Qd) = 1.83 m3/s
manning's coefficient ,n = 0.011 for cement plaster

Using manning's equation,
Q =1/n*A*R⅔*S⅟2
Considering rectangular shape of channel
Taking b =2.2 m
Then
y =0.72 m
Adopt y =0.75 m
Where,
b =Width of canal
y =Depth of canal
Provide free board =0.6 m
Wetted perimeter (P) =3.7 m
Hydraulic mean radius, R =0.44
Velocity at canal =1/n*R⅔*S⅟2

=1.18 m/s
After Merging
Number of tailrace canal after merging =1
Design discharge, (Qd) = 3.67 m3/s
~ 114 ~
manning's coefficient ,n = 0.011 for cement plaster

Using manning's equation,
Q =1/n*A*R⅔*S⅟2
Considering rectangular shape of channel
Taking, b =2.2 m
Then ,
y =1.18
Adopt y =1.2 m
Where,
b =Width of canal
y =Depth of canal
Provide free board =0.6m
Wetted perimeter P =4.6m
Hydraulic mean radius, (R ) =0.57
Velocity at canal =1/n*R⅔*S⅟2

=1.40m/s
Width of canal ,b =2.2m

Depth of canal , y =1.8m
~ 115 ~
Penstock Thickness Calculation
Start Elevation of penstock =1590.71m

Turbine Level =1507.92m
Design flow Qd =3.67m3/s
Static head Hg =82.65m
Length of penstock pipe =1730.00m
Youngs' modulus of steel E =200,000n/mm2
Ultimate strength of steel S =410N/mm2
Required Safety Factor SF =3
Steel Density =7850kg/m3
Rate of Steel =177.00Rs/kg
Nos. of turbine units =2

Number of nozzle in turbine =2
Surge Head =33%Static Head
 GrossThk 
teff     2.5
Effective Thickness =  1.1*1.2 
Subtraction of 2.5mm is consideration of corrosion
effect for 25yr life period
(Refer: MH Design Manual ITDG, Pg 95)
200 * teff * S
Factor of Safety = SF 
H tot * d
(Refer: MH Design Manual ITDG, Pg 95)
Surge Head = 0.33 x Static Head
Water Hammer =33 % of static head
~ 116 ~
Forbay to Anchor Block 02
Static head=5.93m
Length of penstock= 14.50m
Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Penstock flow velocity,V m/s 5.77 4.68 3.86 3.25 2.77 2.39 2.08 1.83
Gross thickness, mm 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Effective thickness, teff mm 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05
Surge Head, Hs m 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96
Total Head, Htot m 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.88
Factor of safety 23.6 21.3 19.3 17.7 16.4 15.2 14.2 13.3
Check OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Weight of steel, ton 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4
Anchor Block 02 to Anchor Block 03
Static head= 6.52m

Length of penstock =42.85m
Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15
Total Head, Htot m 8.67 8.67 8.67 8.67 8.67 8.67 8.67 8.67
Factor of safety 21.5 19.3 17.6 16.1 14.9 13.8 12.9 12.1
~ 117 ~
Static head= 6.30m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08
Total Head, Htot m 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38
Factor of safety 22.2 20.0 18.2 16.7 15.4 14.3 13.3 12.5
Static head= 6.11m

Length of penstock=24.40m
Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01
Total Head, Htot m 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12
Factor of safety 22.9 20.7 18.8 17.2 15.9 14.8 13.8 12.9
~ 118 ~
Static head= 6.11m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01
Total Head, Htot m 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12 8.12
Factor of safety 22.9 20.7 18.8 17.2 15.9 14.8 13.8 12.9
Static head= 7.47m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47
Total Head, Htot m 9.94 9.94 9.94 9.94 9.94 9.94 9.94 9.94
Factor of safety 18.8 16.9 15.3 14.1 13.0 12.1 11.3 10.6
~ 119 ~
Static head= 7.40m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44
Total Head, Htot m 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84
Factor of safety 18.9 17.1 15.5 14.2 13.1 12.2 11.4 10.7
Static head= 7.40m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44
Total Head, Htot m 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84
Factor of safety 18.9 17.1 15.5 14.2 13.1 12.2 11.4 10.7
~ 120 ~
Static head= 19.91m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 6.57 6.57 6.57 6.57 6.57 6.57 6.57 6.57
Total Head, Htot m 26.49 26.49 26.49 26.49 26.49 26.49 26.49 26.49
Factor of safety 7.0 6.3 5.8 5.3 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.0
Weight of steel, ton 12.2 14 15 16 18 19 20 22
Static head= 35.65m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 11.77 11.77 11.77 11.77 11.77 11.77 11.77 11.77
Total Head, Htot m 47.42 47.42 47.42 47.42 47.42 47.42 47.42 47.42
Factor of safety 3.9 3.5 3.2 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.8
~ 121 ~
Static head= 36.87m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17
Total Head, Htot m 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04
Factor of safety 3.8 3.4 3.1 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.7
Static head= 36.87m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17
Total Head, Htot m 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04 49.04
Factor of safety 3.8 3.4 3.1 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.7
~ 122 ~
Static head= 39.51m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04
Total Head, Htot m 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55
Factor of safety 3.5 3.2 5.1 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.5
Static head= 39.51m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04 13.04
Total Head, Htot m 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55 52.55
Factor of safety 3.5 3.2 5.1 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.5
~ 123 ~
Static head= 41.50m

Length of penstock =48.62m
Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70
Total Head, Htot m 55.20 55.20 55.20 55.20 55.20 55.20 55.20 55.20
Factor of safety 3.4 3.0 4.8 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.3
Static head= 42.21m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93 13.93
Total Head, Htot m 56.14 56.14 56.14 56.14 56.14 56.14 56.14 56.14
Factor of safety 3.3 5.2 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.3
~ 124 ~
Static head= 44.64m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 14.73 14.73 14.73 14.73 14.73 14.73 14.73 14.73
Total Head, Htot m 59.37 59.37 59.37 59.37 59.37 59.37 59.37 59.37
Factor of safety 3.1 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1
Static head= 50.17m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 16.56 16.56 16.56 16.56 16.56 16.56 16.56 16.56
Total Head, Htot m 66.73 66.73 66.73 66.73 66.73 66.73 66.73 66.73
Factor of safety 4.9 4.4 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.1 4.2 3.9
~ 125 ~
Static head= 54.64m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 18.03 18.03 18.03 18.03 18.03 18.03 18.03 18.03
Total Head, Htot m 72.67 72.67 72.67 72.67 72.67 72.67 72.67 72.67
Factor of safety 4.5 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.1 4.1 3.8 3.6
Static head= 64.64m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 21.33 21.33 21.33 21.33 21.33 21.33 21.33 21.33
Total Head, Htot m 85.97 85.97 85.97 85.97 85.97 85.97 85.97 85.97
Factor of safety 3.8 3.4 3.1 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.0
~ 126 ~
Static head= 69.81m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 23.04 23.04 23.04 23.04 23.04 23.04 23.04 23.04
Total Head, Htot m 92.85 92.85 92.85 92.85 92.85 92.85 92.85 92.85
Factor of safety 3.5 3.1 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.9 3.6
Static head= 71.51m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60
Total Head, Htot m 95.11 95.11 95.11 95.11 95.11 95.11 95.11 95.11
Factor of safety 3.4 3.1 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.8 3.6
~ 127 ~
Static head= 75.71m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Surge Head, Hs m 24.98 24.98 24.98 24.98 24.98 24.98 24.98 24.98
Total Head, Htot m 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7
Factor of safety 3.2 4.1 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.8 3.6 3.4
Static head= 78.66m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 25.96 25.96 25.96 25.96 25.96 25.96 25.96 25.96
Total Head, Htot m 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6
Factor of safety 3.1 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.4 3.2
~ 128 ~
Static head= 80.76m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 26.65 26.65 26.65 26.65 26.65 26.65 26.65 26.65
Total Head, Htot m 107.42 107.42 107.42 107.42 107.42 107.42 107.42 107.42
Factor of safety 3.0 3.9 3.5 3.2 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.1
Static head= 84.64m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 27.93 27.93 27.93 27.93 27.93 27.93 27.93 27.93
Total Head, Htot m 112.57 112.57 112.57 112.57 112.57 112.57 112.57 112.57
Factor of safety 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.0
~ 129 ~
Static head= 86.28m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 28.47 28.47 28.47 28.47 28.47 28.47 28.47 28.47
Total Head, Htot m 114.7 114.7 114.7 114.7 114.7 114.7 114.7 114.7
Factor of safety 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.6
Static head= 90.05m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 29.72 29.72 29.72 29.72 29.72 29.72 29.72 29.72
Total Head, Htot m 119.7 119.7 119.7 119.7 119.7 119.7 119.7 119.7
Factor of safety 3.9 3.5 3.2 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.0 3.5
~ 130 ~
Anchor Block 29 to Turbine
Static head= 90.84m

Diameter, d, mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Surge Head, Hs m 29.98 29.98 29.98 29.98 29.98 29.98 29.98 29.98
Total Head, Htot m 120.8 120.8 120.8 120.8 120.8 120.8 120.8 120.8
Factor of safety 3.8 3.4 3.1 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.4
Total weight of steel 354 416 482 558 622 688 763 829
Cost of steel, in million NRs 62 73 85 98 110 121 135 146
~ 131 ~
Optimization of Pipe
Project life period =25yr
Discount rate =12%
Capital recovery factor =0.127
Dry season energy rate =8.4Nrs/Kwh
Wet season energy rate =4.8Nrs/Kwh
Design discharge, Qd =3.67 m3/s
Roughness value k =0.15mmFor Galvanised
Mild Steel
Length of penstock pipe =1730m
Overall efficiency of the system =85%
Dry season outage =5%
Wet season outage =10%
Headloss in pipe
fLv 2 fLQ 2
From Darcy's equation = HL  
2 gD 12 D5
9.81fL 3
C 5
Q  cons tan t * Q 3
Loss in capacity (kW) = 12D
Darcy's friction factor, f=(1/(2*LOG10(3.7/(k/d)))^2
Diameter ,mm 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
k/d 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Friction factor, f 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.011 0.0112
~ 132 ~
Diameter,m 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Area, m2 0.64 0.79 0.95 1.13 1.33 1.54 1.77 2.01
Perimeter, m 2.83 3.14 3.46 3.77 4.08 4.40 4.71 5.03
Hydraulic Radius,R,m 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.40
Flow velocity, V m/s 5.77 4.68 3.86 3.25 2.77 2.39 2.08 1.83
Constantcorresponding
to Qd 26.94 15.58 9.49 6.04 3.99 2.71 1.90 1.36
MaximumCapacity
loss, Cmax 1333.71 771.22 469.97 299.06 197.34 134.31 93.88 67.16
Diameter,m 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Ope Ope
Mont Desi
Mo rati rati
hly gn
nth ng ng
Flow flow
days hrs Energy Loss (kWh)= (Design flow /Qd)^3* Cmax * Operating hrs
Jan 1.43 31 707 1.34 46087 26650 16240 10334 6819 4641 3244 2321
Feb 1.24 28 638 1.15 26304 15210 9269 5898 3892 2649 1852 1325
Mar 0.92 31 707 0.83 11076 6405 3903 2484 1639 1115 780 558
Apr 0.84 30 684 0.76 8009 4631 2822 1796 1185 807 564 403
May 1.44 31 707 1.36 47468 27448 16727 10644 7024 4780 3341 2390
Jun 3.93 30 684 3.67 912258 527514 321457 204554 134980 91868 64215 45939
Jul 11.85 31 707 3.67 942667 545098 332172 211373 139480 94931 66355 47470
Aug 17.62 31 707 3.67 942667 545098 332172 211373 139480 94931 66355 47470
Sep 12.50 30 684 3.67 912258 527514 321457 204554 134980 91868 64215 45939
Oct 5.50 31 707 3.67 942667 545098 332172 211373 139480 94931 66355 47470
Nov 2.65 30 684 2.56 310104 179318 109273 69534 45884 31229 21828 15616
De 1.83 31 707 1.74 100957 58379 35575 22637 14938 10167 7106 5084
Total energy loss in millions 5.2 3.0 1.8 1.1 7.6 5.2 3.6 2.6
Cost of Pipe, NRs millions 62.6 73.5 85.3 98.7 110.0 121.8 135.1 146.6
1. Total energy loss cost
NRs millions 2.5 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
2. Annual cost of pipe
NRs millions 7.9 9.3 10.8 12.5 14.0 15.5 17.2 18.7
Sum of 1 and 2NRs millions 33.4 24.1 19.8 18.2 17.7 18.0 19.0 19.9
Recommnded
~ 133 ~
SADDLE DESIGN
Materials
Unit weight (γ), angle of friction (ø) and allowable bearing pressure for
different soil types
Soil
Allowabl
Unit Friction e
S.
the
Soil Type Weight, γ Angle, Bearing
No.
(kN/m3) ø° Pressure
Choose
Type
(kN/m2)
Firm clays and firm sandy
1
clays 17 25 100
Stiff clays and stiff sandy
2
clays 20 30 200
3 Very stiff boulder clays 20 32 350
4 Weathered Rock 23 33 350
5 Stiff Rock 25 35 400 2
Physical Characteristics of Common Materials
Material
Ultimat
Coefficien
Young's e Unit
t of
S. Modulu Tensile Weight
Material Linear
No. s (E) Strengt (γ) the
Expansio
N/mm2 h (S) kN/m2
Choose
n (α1) /°C
Type
N/mm2
2.00E+0
1 Steel (ungraded) 5 1.25E-05 320 77
Steel to IS 226/75 or IS 2.00E+0
2 2062/84 5 1.25E-05 410 77
3 PVC 2750 3.00E-05 45.00 14
4 HDPE 1000 1.50E-04 30.00 9.3 1
~ 134 ~
If the steel quality is uncertain it is best to ask for samples and have them independently tested
at laboratories. Properties of PVC and HDPE vary considerably; they should be confirmed from
manufactures' catalogues or by laboratory tests.
Friction Coefficient (f), Depends on the Material against which the
penstock slides
Choos
1 Steel on Concrete 0.6 e Type
2 Steel on Steel, Rusry Plates 0.5
3 Steel on Steel, greased plates or tar paper in between 0.25 1
Design Inputs
Penstock Details
Penstock inclination in Degree, α° 4.00
Internal Diameter of Penstock, d in mm 1,300.00
Penstock pipe thickness, t in mm 8.00
Distance to upstream support pier, (m) 6.00
Distance to downstream support pier, (m) 6.00
Distance to upstream expansion joint, L4u (m) 0.00
Distance to downstream expansion joint, L4d (m) 0.00
Coeff. Of friction between pipe & support piers, f 0.60
Number of Piers at Upstream 0.00
Number of Piers at Downstream 0.00
Uphill ground slope in Degree, i° 5.00
Unit weight of soil, γsoil (kN/m3) 20.00
Friction Angle in Degree, ø° 30.00
Allowable Bearing Pressure, (kN/m2) 200.00
Coefficient of Limiting Friction at Base of Block, µ 0.50
Unit weight of concrete, γconcrete (kN/m3) 22.00
Unit weight of pipe material, γpipe material (kN/m3) 77.00
Unit weight of water, γwater (kN/m3) 9.81
~ 135 ~
Considered Shape of the Support Piers

Upstream height of the anchor block, H1 in m 4.00
Top length of block, B in m 3.00
Bottom length of block, L in m 3.00
Downstream Height of Pier, H2 in m 3.79
Width of block, w in m 4.00
Upstream height of Penstock above ground, z in m 1.36
Buried depth of block at the upstream face, h1 in m 1.99
Buried depth of block at the downstream face, h2 in m 1.78
Penstock bend position from upstream face of block, x in m 2.00
Penstock bend position from base of block, y in m 3.90
Is there cut at the base of the upstream part, (Put Y/N) Y
If Yes, then Length of cut part from upstream face, lc in m 1.20
If Yes, then Height of cut part from the base, hc in m 1.50
Checking for Stability of the Structure
Checking Against Overturning Safe
Checking for Bearing Capacity Safe
Checking Against Sliding Safe
Output for Load Calculation
Block volume excluding volume of the pipe, in m3 62.03
Weight of the Block, WB (kN) 1,364.63
Weight of Pipe, WP (kN/m) 2.53
Weight of Water, WW (kN/m) 13.02
Sum, (WP + WW), (kN/m) 15.55
Calculation of Relevent Forces
F1u
(kN) Component of the weight of pipe and enclosed 46.54
F1d water perpendicular to the pipe alignment.
(kN) 46.54
Frictional force per upstream support pier (kN) 27.93
~ 136 ~
Frictional force per downstream support pier (kN) 27.93

F2u
(kN) 27.93
Frictional force of pipe on support piers.
F2d
(kN) 27.93
Active soil pressure coefficient, Ka 0.337
F10
Force due to earth pressure on upstream face.
(kN) 0.00
Calculation for centre of gravity of the block
From upstream face of the block, in m 1.20
3
Total volume of Support Pier,m 63.83
Centroid Location
X-bar (from left) 1.20
Y-bar (from bottom) 1.25
Forces and Checks

Angles of Inclination
Penstock inclination in degree,α˚ 4.00
Resolution of Forces
Forces (kN) X- Component (kN), → '+' Y- Component (kN), ↓ '+'
F1u 46.54 -3.25 46.43
F1d 46.54 -3.25 46.43
F2u 27.93 27.86 1.95
F2d 27.93 27.86 1.95
F10 0.00 0.00 0.00
WB 1,364.63 0.00 1,364.63
Expansion Case -6.49 1,457.49
SUM
Contraction Case -6.49 1,457.49
Calculation for Acting Forces at the centreline of Penstock
~ 137 ~
Expansion Case -6.49

Horizontal Forces
Contraction Case -6.49
Expansion Case 92.86
Vertical Forces
Contraction Case 92.86
Weight of Block, WB in (KN) 1,364.63
Seismic Coefficient 0.12
Seismic Force, Fs in (KN) 163.76
Checking Against Overturning no seismic seismic

Expansion Case
Moments about U/S bottom face, (kN-m) 1,747.17 1,951.61
Ratio (Sum of M / Sum of V), in m 1.20 1.34
Eccentricity, e in m 0.30 0.16
Allowable Eccentricity, eallowable in m 0.50 0.50
Check for Eccentricity (e < eallowable) Ok Ok
Contraction Case
Checking for Bearing Capacity
Allowable Bearing Pressure, (kN/m2) 200.00 200.00
Expansion Case
Pbase 197.44 160.56
Check for Bearing Capacity (Pbase < Pallowable) Ok Ok
Contraction Case
Pbase 197.44 160.56
Checking Against Sliding
~ 138 ~
Expansion Case
(µ x Σ V)/(ΣH) 112.23 4.63
Allowable FOS for Sliding Stability =1.20 Ok Ok
Contraction Case
(µ x Σ V)/(ΣH) 112.23 4.63
~ 139 ~
ANCHOR BLOCK DESIGN

Materials
Unit weight (γ), angle of friction (ø) and allowable bearing pressure for different
soil types
Allowable
S. Unit Weight, γ Friction Bearing
Soil Type
N. (kN/m3) Angle, ø° Pressure
(kN/m2)
Choose the Soil Type

1 Soft clays and silts 16 22 50
2 Firm clays and firm sandy clays 17 25 100
3 Stiff clays and stiff sandy clays 20 30 200
4 Very stiff boulder clays 20 32 350

5 Stiff Rock Mass 25 32 400 3
Physical Characteristics of Common Materials
Young's Ultimate
Coefficient of
S. Modulus Tensile Unit Weight
Material Linear Expansion
N. (E) Strength (γ) kN/m2
(α1) /°C
Choose the Material Type

N/mm2 (S) N/mm2
1 Steel (ungraded) 2.00E+05 1.25E-05 320 77
Steel to IS 226/75
2 or IS 2062/84 2.00E+05 1.25E-05 410 77
3 PVC 2750 3.00E-05 45.00 14
4 HDPE 1000 1.50E-04 30.00 9.3
If the steel quality is uncertain it is best to ask for samples and have them independently
tested at laboratories. Properties of PVC and HDPE vary considerably; they should be
1
confirmed from manufactures' catalogues or by laboratory tests.
Friction Coefficient, f, Depends on the material against which the penstock slides
~ 140 ~
1 Steel on Concrete 0.6 Choose

2 Steel on steel, rusty plates 0.5 Type
3 Steel on steel, greased plates or tar paper 0.25 3
Design of Anchor Block

Definition Sketch of Different Dimensions of Anchor Block
Input Parameters for Design:
Maximum Temperature, Thot in °C 30
Minimum Temperature, Tcold in °C 10
Young's Modulus (E), in N/mm2 200000
Coefficient of Linear Expansion, α in /°C 0.0000125
Installed Power Capacity in KW 2500
3
Design Discharge, Q in m /sec 3.67
Gross head, hgross, in m 39.51
Surge head, hsurge, in m 13.03
Total Head, htotal, in m 52.54
Penstock Details:
Horizontal bend angle of Penstock in degree, θ˚ 35
Upstream penstock inclination in Degree, α° 8
Downstream penstock inclination in Degree, β° 23
Internal Diameter of Penstock, d in mm 1300
Is there change in Diameter of Penstock, Put 'Y' or 'N' N
If Yes, then Changes Diameter of Penstock is, in mm 0
Change Internal Diameter of Penstock, dchange in mm 1300
Penstock pipe thickness, t in mm 8
Distance to upstream support pier, (m) 6
Distance to downstream support pier, (m) 6
Distance to upstream expansion joint, L4u (m) 37.59
Distance to downstream expansion joint, L4d (m) 0
Coeff. Of friction between pipe & support piers, f 0.25
~ 141 ~
Number of Piers at Upstream 3

Number of Piers at Downstream 5
Materials Properties
Uphill ground slope in Degree, i° 14
3
Unit weight of soil, γsoil (kN/m ) 20
Friction Angle in Degree, ø° 30

Allowable Bearing Pressure, (kN/m2) 200
Coefficient of Limiting Friction at Base of Block, µ 0.5
3
Unit weight of concrete, γconcrete (kN/m ) 24
Unit weight of pipe material, γpipe material (kN/m3) 77
Unit weight of water, γwater (kN/m3) 9.81
Anchor Block Number: 13
Considered Shape of the Anchor Block

Upstream height of block, H1 in m 4.00
Upstream Height from which cut is made at U/S face, h m 2.00
Downstream height of block, H2 in m 3.50
Length of block, L in m 4.00
Width of block, w in m 4.00
Penstock bend position from upstream face of block, x in m 2.00
Penstock bend position from base of block, y in m 2.00
Upstream height of block above Penstock, z in m 2.00
Buried depth of block at the upstream face, h1 in m 1.00
Buried depth of block at the downstream face, h2 in m 0.26
Is there cut at the base of the upstream part, (Put Y/N) N
If Yes, then number of cut segments = 0
Checking for Stability of the Structure

Checking Against Overturning Safe
~ 142 ~
Checking for Bearing Capacity Safe

Checking Against Sliding Safe
Output of for Load Calculation
Combined angle ξ˚ 36.77
Block volume excluding volume of the pipe, in m3 54.30
Weight of the Block, WB (kN) 1303.14
Weight of Pipe, WP (kN/m) 2.53
Weight of Water, WW (kN/m) 13.02
Sum, (WP + WW), (kN/m) 15.55
Calculation of Relevent Forces
F1u (kN) Component of the weight of pipe and enclosed water 46.20
F1d (kN) perpendicular to the pipe alignment. 42.95

Frictional force per upstream support pier (kN) 23.10
Frictional force per downstream support pier (kN) 21.47
F2u (kN) 69.30
Frictional force of pipe on support piers.
F2d (kN) 107.37
F3 (kN) Force due to hydrostatic pressure within a bend. 431.32
F4u (kN) Force due to the component of the weight of pipe 13.24
F4d (kN) parallel to the pipe alignment. 0.00
F5u (kN) Force due to the thermally induced stresses in the 0.00
F5d (kN) absence of an expansion joint. 0.00
F6 (kN) Force due to friction within the expansion joint. 130.00
F7u (kN) Hydrostatic force on exposed ends of pipe in 15.35
F7d (kN) expansion joints. 17.05
F8 (kN) Dynamic force at the pipe bend. i.e. Centrifugal Force 2.60
F9 (kN) Force due to the reduction of pipe diameter. 0.00
Active soil pressure coefficient, Ka 0.378
Calculation for centre of gravity of the block
From upstream face of the block, in m 1.96
~ 143 ~
Data for Cuts made in the anchor block
Length of cut1, (x1) in m 0

Depth of cut1, (y1) in m 0
Angle of U/S cut in
degree,α1 0
Total volume of Anchor
Block,m3 54.30
Centroid Location
X-bar (from left) 1.96
Y-bar (from bottom) 1.88
Angles of Inclination
Upstream Penstock Inclination in Degree, α° 8.00
Downstream Penstock Inclination in Degree, β° 23.00
Uphill ground inclinationin degree, i° 14.00
Resolution of Forces
X- Component Y- Component (kN),
Forces (kN) (kN), → '+' ↓ '+'
F1u 75.97 -10.57 45.75
F1d 70.62 -27.59 39.53
F2u 303.88 300.92 9.65
~ 144 ~
F2d 0.00 0.00 41.95

F3 1,728.13 461.82 -415.63
F4u 26.29 26.04 1.84
F4d 0.00 0.00 0.00
F5u 0.00 0.00 0.00
F5d 0.00 0.00 0.00
F6 170.00 11.86 32.70
F7u 48.78 48.31 2.14
F7d 52.15 -48.01 -6.66
F8 1.52 0.41 -2.51
F9 0.00 0.00 0.00
F10 0.00 0.00 0.00
WB(KN) 4,953.32 0.00 1,303.14
Expansion Case 763.19 968.01
SUM
Contraction Case 137.62 967.22
Calculation for Acting Forces at the Bend of Penstock
Horizontal Forces (ΣPix)
Expansion Case -335.14
Vertical Forces (ΣPiy)
Contraction Case -335.93
Centroid Location from U/S
bottom corner
Total Weight of the Block (W), KN 1303.14 X- Co-ordinate,in m 1.96
Seismic Coeff. 0.12 Y- Co-ordinate, in m 1.88
Seismic Force (F), KN 156.38
Total Horizontal Forces (KN)
Total Vertical Forces (KN)
~ 145 ~
Anchor Block Number: 13

for no
Checking Against Overturning for Seismic Seismic
Expansion Case Case Case
Contraction Case
Moments about U/S bottom face, (kN-m) 12 2,442.14
Checking for Bearing Capacity
Allowable Bearing Pressure, (kN/m2) 200.00 200.00
Expansion Case
Pbase 98.39 70.86
Contraction Case
Pbase 108.05 108.05
Checking Against Sliding
Expansion Case
(µ x Σ V)/(ΣH) 2.01 5.75
Contraction Case
(µ x Σ V)/(ΣH) 1.71 3.82
~ 146 ~
ANNEX-C
ENERGY
CALCULATION
ENERGY CALCULATION
Intake Site at=1597 masl

Powerhouse at=1505.66
Gross Head=91.34 m
Overall Efficiency=85%
Dry Season outage=5%
Wet season outage=10%
D/S Release=0.8 m3/s
Length of Penstock=1730 m
Diameter of Penstock=1.3 m
Velocity of design flow=2.77 m/s
Friction coefficient = 0.013 (for penstock)
Probability of Exceedence=40%
Design flow= 3.67 m3/s
Installed Capacity= 2.5 MW
~ 147 ~
Energy Calculation Table

Ope Desi genera
Availa ratin gn Total tion Dry Wet
ble g flow Head Net Capac Season Season
Month Flow Flow Day (m3 loss Head ity Energy energy
English (m3/s) (m3/s) s /s) (m) (m) (KW) (GWh) (GWh)
Jan 1.43 1.34 31 1.34 0.20 91.14 1056 0.7
Feb 1.24 1.15 28 1.15 0.15 91.19 907 0.5
Mar 0.92 0.83 31 0.83 0.08 91.26 658 0.4
Apr 0.84 0.76 30 0.76 0.06 91.28 597 0.2 0.1
May 1.44 1.36 31 1.36 0.20 91.14 1067 0.7
Jun 3.93 3.84 30 3.84 1.49 89.85 2848 0.1
Jul 11.85 11.77 31 4.16 1.49 89.85 2848 0.2
Aug 17.62 17.54 31 4.16 1.49 89.85 2848 0.2
Sep 12.50 12.42 30 4.16 1.49 89.85 2848 0.2
Oct 5.50 5.41 31 4.16 1.49 89.85 2848 0.2
Nov 2.65 2.56 30 2.56 0.73 90.61 2005 0.1
Dec 1.83 1.74 31 1.74 0.34 91.00 1370 0.4 0.4
2.4 12.1
Annual generation,
GWh 2.4 12.1
Total,GWh 14.5
Wet to Dry Ratio 4.87
~ 148 ~
ANNEX-D
COST
ESTIMATE
Rate Analysis (Unit Rate Analysis)

S. Un Quantit Rate Amount
Description Remarks
N. it y (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
Item no.1: Soft rock excavation including 1.5m lift and disposal including Unit: 1
lead up to 10m. m3
A Manpower
. md
Unskilled md 1.00 350.00 350.00
Sub Total 350.00

B Materials
Sub Total
C Tools and Plants
3% of A 10.50
Sub Total 10.50
D Sub Total of (A+B+C) 360.50
E Overhead and Profit (15% of D) 54.08
F Sub Total of (D+E) 414.58
Rate per Unit 414.58
Item no.2: Medium rock excavation including 1.5m lift and disposal Unit: 1
including lead up to 10 m. m3
A Manpower
Skilled md
Unskilled md 2.50 350.00 875.00
Sub Total 875.00
~ 149 ~
S. Un Quantit Rate Amount

Description Remarks
N. it y (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
B Materials
Sub Total
C Tools and Plants
3% of A 26.25
Sub Total 26.25

E Overhead and Profit (15% of D) 135.19
F Sub Total of (D+E) 1,036.44
Rate per Unit 1,036.44
Item no.3: Hard rock excavation including 1.5m lift and disposal including Unit: 1
lead up to 10 m. m3
A Manpower
Skilled md
Unskilled md 4.20 350.00 1,470.00
Sub Total 1,470.00

B Materials
Sub Total
C Tools and Plants
3% of A 44.10
Sub Total 44.10

D Sub Total of (A+B+C) 1,514.10
~ 150 ~
S. Rate Amount
Description Unit Quantity Remarks
N. (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
Overhead and Profit (15% of
E D) 227.12
Item no.4: Earth filling with compaction in 15 cm thick layer with ordinary Unit: 1
excavated soil With sprinkling water including lead up to 10m. m3
A Manpower
Skilled md
Unskilled md 0.50 350.00 175.00
Sub Total 175.00

B Materials
Sub Total
C Tools and Plants
3% of A 5.25
Sub Total 5.25

E D) 27.04
F Sub Total of (D+E) 207.29
Rate per Unit 207.29
~ 151 ~
S. Rate Amount
N. (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
Item no.5: Boulder lining with 1.5m size river boulders Unit: 1 m3
A Manpower
Skilled md 1 450.00 450.00
Unskilled md 4.40 350.00 1,540.00
Sub Total 1,990.00

B Materials
Stone m3 1.1 700.00 770.00 10% Extra
Sub Total 770.00

C Tools and Plants
3% of A 59.70
Sub Total 59.70

E D) 422.96
Item no.6: Blinding Concrete (C15,1:2:4) Unit: 1 m3

A Manpower
Skilled md 1.5 450.00 675.00
Unskilled md 6.50 350.00 2,275.00
Sub Total 2,950.00
~ 152 ~
S. Rate Amount
N. (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
B Materials
Cement bags 6.643 845.00 5613.21
Add 55% for
Sand m3 0.443 1500.00 664.29
dry volume
Aggregates m3 0.886 1500.00 1328.57
Sub Total 7606.07
C Tools and Plants
3% of A 88.50
Sub Total 88.50

E D) 1,596.69
Item no.7: Cement Concrete work (C25,1:1.5:3) Unit: 1 m3
S. Rate Amount
N. (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
A Manpower
Skilled md 1.5 450.00 675.00
Unskilled md 6.50 350.00 2,275.00
Sub Total 2,950.00
B Materials
Cement bags 8.455 845.00 7144.48
Add 55% for
Sand m3 0.423 1500.00 634.50
dry volume
Aggregates m3 0.845 1500.00 1267.50
Sub Total 9046.48
~ 153 ~
S. Rate Amount
N. (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
C Tools and Plants

3% of A 88.50
Sub Total 88.50

E D) 1,812.75
Item no.8: 40% Plum Concrete work in(C15,1:2:4) mix Unit: 1 m3

A Manpower
Skilled md 0.5 450.00 225.00
Unskilled md 4.50 350.00 1,575.00
Sub Total 1,800.00

B Materials
Cement bags 2.657 845.00 2245.17
Add 55% for
Sand m3 0.177 1500.00 265.50
dry volume
Aggregates m3 0.354 1500.00 531.00
Stone m3 0.930 700.00 651.00
Sub Total 3692.67

C Tools and Plants
3% of A 54.00
Sub Total 54.00
~ 154 ~
S. Rate Amount
N. (NRs/Unit) (NRs)

E D) 832.00
Item no.9: Reinforcement Works including laying,cutting and bending Unit: 1 Ton
A Manpower
Skilled md 12 450.00 5400.00
Unskilled md 12 350.00 4,200.00
Sub Total 9,600.00

B Materials
Re-bar Ton 1.05 85000 89250.00
Binding Wire Kg 10 100.00 1000.00 5% wastage
Sub Total 90250.00
C Tools and Plants
3% of A 288.00
Sub Total 288.00

E D) 15,020.70
~ 155 ~
S. Rate Amount
N. (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
Item no.10: Hard stone armouring(Lining) in 1:2 cement sand mortar

(40cm) Unit:10 m3
A Manpower
Skilled md 10.00 450.00 4500.00
Unskilled md 12.00 350.00 4200.00
Sub Total 8,700.00

B Materials
Stone m3 11 700.00 7700.00 10% extra
Cement Bags 32 845.00 27040.00 Assuming
50% of
cement +
Sand m3 3.2 1500.00 4800.00 sand
Sub Total 39540.00
C Tools and Plants
3% of A 261.00
Sub Total 261.00

E D) 7,275.15
Rate per unit 5,577.62
~ 156 ~
S. Rate Amount
N. (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
Item no.11: Hard stone armouring(Lining) in 1:2 cement sand mortar

(30cm) Unit:10 m3
A Manpower
Skilled md 10.00 450.00 4500.00
Unskilled md 12.00 350.00 4200.00
Sub Total 8,700.00

B Materials
Stone m3 11 700.00 7700.00 10% extra
Cement Bags 30 845.00 25350.00
Sand m3 3.1 1500.00 4650.00
Sub Total 37700.00
C Tools and Plants
3% of A 261.00
Sub Total 261.00

E D) 6,999.15
Rate per unit 5,366.02
Item no.12: Random rubble masonry with 1:4 cement sand mortar Unit: 1 m3
A Manpower
Skilled md 1.2 450.00 540.00
Unskilled md 4.00 350.00 1400.00
Sub Total 1,940.00
~ 157 ~
S. Rate Amount
N. (NRs/Unit) (NRs)
B Materials
Cement Bags 2.5 845.00 2112.50
Sand m3 0.44 1500.00 660.00
Block Stone m3 1 700.00 700.00
Bond Stone m3 0.1 700.00 70.00
Sub Total 3542.50
C Tools and Plants
3% of A 58.20
Sub Total 58.20

E D) 831.11
~ 158 ~
Basic Rates
S. N. Type Unit Rate(Rs/Unit) Remarks

A Labour Rate
man-
Skilled Labour 450.00 8 Hrs/Day
1 day
man-
Unskilled Labour 350.00 8 Hrs/Day
2 day
B Material Rate
1 Cement Bag 845.00
Free from all kinds of
2 Sand m3 1500.00 impurities mentioned
in Specification
3
3 Graded filter material m 1200.00
4 Aggregates m3 1500.00
5 Stone m3 700.00
6 Reinforcement bars kg 85.00 10-20 mm ToR Steel
Reinforcement-
7 kg 100.00
Binding Wire
~ 159 ~
Measurement Sheet
Avg.
S.N. Description Unit No L B H A Area Quantity Remarks
Weir And Stilling
1 Basin
Earth work in
1.1 excavation Cu.m 1 21.0 165.24 3470.10
1.2 PCC (C25) Cu.m 1 21.0 55.45 1164.41
1.3 plumb concrete Cu.m 1 21.0 5.54 116.42
Boulder (launching
1.4 appron) Cu.m 1
1.4.1 U/s Cu.m 1 21.0 11.00 231.00
1.4.2 D/s Cu.m 1 21.0 21.00 441.00
2 undersluice
Earth work in
2.1 excavation Cu.m. 1 5.5 165.24 908.84
2.2 PCC (C25) Cu.m 1 3.0 18.18 54.54
2.3 Boulder Cu.m
2.3.1 U/s Cu.m 1 3.0 10.00 30.00
2.3.2 D/s Cu.m 1 3.0 24.00 72.00
hard stone lining
2.4 (40cm) Cu.m. 1 3.0 7.02 21.07
2.5 Steel gate kg 1 1400.0 1400.00
3 Intake
Earth work in
3.1 excavation Cu.m. 1 4.2 6.73 28.20
~ 160 ~
Avg.
3.2 PCC (C25) Cu.m 1 14.23
3.3 Steel gate kg 2 300.00 600.00
3.4 Trash rack kg 2 40.00 80.00
Gravel trap with

4 flushing
Earth work in
4.1 excavation 6.73
Cu.m 1 7.2 4.10 5.42 38.99
4.2 PCC (C25) Cu.m. 1 21.23
hard stone lining
4.3 (30cm) Cu.m. 1 0.6 20.99 12.59
Avg.
4.3 Steel gate
4.3.1 For approach canal kg 1 400.00 400.00
4.3.2 For flushing canal kg 1 200.00 200.00
4.4 Trash rack kg 1 60.00 60.00
5 Approach canal
Earth work in
5.1 excavation 30.19
Cu.m. 1 23.3 26.49 28.34 658.91
~ 161 ~
Avg.
5.2 PCC(C25)
5.2.1 box culvert Cu.m. 1 13.3 2.76 36.57
open channel with
5.2.2 spillway Cu.m. 1 10.0 6.46 64.64
C10 binding
5.3 concrete Cu.m. 1 23.3 0.20 4.53
6 Settling Basin
Earth work in
6.1 excavation 18.75
Cu.m. 1 60.0 22.22 20.48 1228.92
6.2 PCC(C25) 18.75
Cu.m. 1 60.0 22.22 20.48 1228.92
6.3 Stone masonry Cu.m. 1 60.0 4.98 298.80
C10 binding
concrete Cu.m. 1 60.0 0.68 40.80
6.4 Steel gate
6.4.1 At starting kg 2 500.00 1000.00
6.4.2 At Flushing canal kg 1 200.00 200.00
7 Forebay
Earth work in
7.1 excavation Cu.m. 1 5.6 51.84 290.30
7.2 PCC(C25) Cu.m. 1 5.6 16.57 92.81
7.3 Steel gate
7.3.1 For penstock kg 1 300.00 300.00
7.3.2 For flushing canal kg 1 200.00 200.00
7.4 Trash rack kg 1 50.00 50.00
~ 162 ~
Avg.
8 Penstock
8.1 E/W in excavation
Ch 0+ 33.7494 0.00
Ch 0+ 40 Cu.m. 1 6.3 57.34 28.67 179.21
Ch 0+ 49.6179 Cu.m. 1 9.6 0.00 28.67 275.75
Ch 0+ 71.5862 0.00
Ch 0+ 80 Cu.m. 1 8.4 13.10 6.55 55.11
Ch 0+ 100 Cu.m. 1 20.0 3.35 8.23 164.52
Ch 0+ 109.11 Cu.m. 1 9.1 0.00 1.68 15.27
Ch 0+ 132.3963 0.00
Ch 0+ 140 Cu.m. 1 7.6 58.34 29.17 221.82
Ch 0+ 160 Cu.m. 1 20.0 56.19 57.27 1145.34
Ch 0+ 180 Cu.m. 1 20.0 48.35 52.27 1045.40
Ch 0+ 200 Cu.m. 1 20.0 8.26 28.30 566.09
Ch 0+ 220 Cu.m. 1 20.0 3.66 5.96 119.15
Ch 0+ 240 Cu.m. 1 20.0 10.11 6.88 137.67
Ch 0+ 260 Cu.m. 1 20.0 17.84 13.98 279.51
Ch 0+ 280 Cu.m. 1 20.0 47.21 32.53 650.51
Ch 0+ 300 Cu.m. 1 20.0 40.87 44.04 880.78
Ch 0+ 320 Cu.m. 1 20.0 0.31 20.59 411.77
Ch 0+ 340 Cu.m. 1 20.0 0.76 0.53 10.68
Ch 0 360 Cu.m. 1 20.0 6.30 3.53 70.54
Ch 0+ 380 Cu.m. 1 20.0 18.30 12.30 245.98
Ch 0+ 400 Cu.m. 1 20.0 365.59 191.94 3838.89
Ch 0+ 420 Cu.m. 1 20.0 11.48 188.53 3770.66
Ch 0+ 440 Cu.m. 1 20.0 6.17 8.83 176.51
Ch 0+ 443.2523 Cu.m. 1 3.3 0.00 3.09 10.03
Ch 0+ 473.25 0.00
~ 163 ~
Avg.
Ch 0+ 480 Cu.m. 1 6.8 24.57 12.28 82.92
Ch 0+ 489.22 Cu.m. 1 9.2 0.00 12.28 113.26
Ch 0+ 508.364 0.00
Ch 0+ 520 Cu.m. 1 11.6 10.06 5.03 58.52
Ch 0+ 540 Cu.m. 1 20.0 17.24 13.65 273.01
Ch 0+ 560 Cu.m. 1 20.0 6.70 11.97 239.40
Ch 0+ 580 Cu.m. 1 20.0 12.41 9.55 191.04
Ch 0+ 600 Cu.m. 1 20.0 35.62 24.01 480.26
Ch 0+ 609.7696 Cu.m. 1 9.8 0.00 17.81 174.00
Ch 0+ 755.68 0.00
Ch 0+ 760 Cu.m. 1 4.3 1.12 0.56 2.42
Ch 0+ 764.234 Cu.m. 1 4.2 0.00 0.56 2.37
Ch 0+ 796.24 Cu.m. 0.00
Ch 0+ 800 Cu.m. 1 3.8 1.63 0.82 3.07
Ch 0+ 802.24 Cu.m. 1 2.2 0.00 0.82 1.83
Ch 0 919.24 0.00
Ch 0 920 Cu.m. 1 0.8 0.20 0.10 0.08
Ch 1+ 40 Cu.m. 1 20.0 0.73 0.47 9.36
Ch 1+ 60 Cu.m. 1 20.0 3.25 1.99 39.79
Ch 1+ 80 Cu.m. 1 20.0 38.54 20.89 417.83
Ch 1+ 100 Cu.m. 1 20.0 81.13 59.83 1196.63
Ch 1+ 120 Cu.m. 1 20.0 18.84 49.99 999.71
Ch 1+ 140 Cu.m. 1 20.0 15.40 17.12 342.44
Ch 1+ 160 Cu.m. 1 20.0 19.35 17.37 347.48
Ch 1+ 180 Cu.m. 1 20.0 36.48 27.92 558.31
Ch 1+ 200 Cu.m. 1 20.0 9.43 22.96 459.19
Ch 1+ 220 Cu.m. 1 20.0 12.24 10.84 216.79
Ch 1+ 240 Cu.m. 1 20.0 14.55 13.40 267.93
~ 164 ~
S.N. Description Unit No L B H A Avg. A Quantity Remarks

Ch 1+ 260 Cu.m. 1 20.0 13.23 13.89 277.79
Ch 1+ 280 Cu.m. 1 20.0 14.03 13.63 272.58
Ch 1+ 300 Cu.m. 1 20.0 22.23 18.13 362.54
Ch 1+ 320 Cu.m. 1 20.0 7.60 14.91 298.25
Ch 1+ 340 Cu.m. 1 20.0 9.76 8.68 173.59
Ch 1+ 360 Cu.m. 1 20.0 14.25 12.00 240.08
Ch 1+ 380 Cu.m. 1 20.0 25.40 19.82 396.44
Ch 1+ 400 Cu.m. 1 20.0 23.17 24.28 485.68
Ch 1+ 420 Cu.m. 1 20.0 19.48 21.32 426.47
Ch 1+ 440 Cu.m. 1 20.0 8.42 13.95 278.92
Ch1+ 460 Cu.m. 1 20.0 44.87 26.64 532.82
Ch 1 480 Cu.m. 1 20.0 13.22 29.04 580.90
Ch 1+ 500 Cu.m. 1 20.0 4.16 8.69 173.79
Ch 1+ 520 Cu.m. 1 20.0 8.42 6.29 125.76
Ch 1+ 540 Cu.m. 1 20.0 13.96 11.19 223.83
Ch 1+ 560 Cu.m. 1 20.0 31.15 22.56 451.12
Ch 1+ 580 Cu.m. 1 20.0 46.36 38.75 775.07
Ch 1+ 600 Cu.m. 1 20.0 27.00 36.68 733.59
Ch 1+ 620 Cu.m. 1 20.0 19.57 23.29 465.75
Ch 1+ 640 Cu.m. 1 20.0 35.56 27.57 551.35
Ch 1+ 660 Cu.m. 1 20.0 7.21 21.38 427.68
Ch 1+ 680 Cu.m. 1 20.0 29.91 18.56 371.21
Ch 1+ 700 Cu.m. 1 20.0 29.62 29.77 595.37
Ch 1+ 720 Cu.m. 1 20.0 23.48 26.55 531.01
Ch 1+ 729 Cu.m. 1 20.0 20.84 22.16 443.13
sub total= 30943.52
Earth Work in
8.2 filling Cu.m. 1 28127.94
8.3 Penstock pipe ton 1 5.60
~ 165 ~
ESTIMATION OF COST
S.n. Description of Work Quantity Unit Rate(NRs.) Total Cost(NRs.)
Weir and stilling pool
1 Site Clearance Lump Sum 1000000 1000000
2 Excavation
Soft rock 2949.58 m3 414.58 1222825.25
Medium rock 347.01 m3 1,036.44 359654.48
Hard rock 173.50 m3 1,741.22 302109.76
3 P.C.C 1164.41 m3 13,897.72 16182617.81
4 Reinforcement (1%of PCC) 91.41 Ton 115,158.70 10526199.36
5 Plumb concrete 116.42 6,378.66 742576.08
6 Boulder lining(launching appron) 672.00 m3 3,242.66 2179064.16

Sub Total 32515046.92

Under sluice
1 Excavation
Soft rock 772.51 m3 414.58 320263.75
Medium rock 90.88 m3 1,036.44 94195.22
Hard rock 45.44 m3 1,741.22 79123.98
2 P.C.C 54.54 m3 265.50 14481.40
4 Boulder lining 102.00 m3 3,242.66 330750.81
5 Hard stone lining (0.4m) 21.07 m3 557.76 11750.807
7 Gate 1400.00 kg 100.00 140000
Sub Total 1483640.55
~ 166 ~

Intake
1 Excavation
Soft rock 23.96 m3 414.58 9936.90
Medium rock 2.81 m3 1,036.44 2922.61
Hard rock 1.40 m3 1,741.22 2454.99
2 P.C.C 14.23 m3 13,897.72 197736.77
4 Gate 600.00 kg 100.00 60000
5 Trash rack 80.00 kg 100.00 8000
Sub Total 409671.82
S.n Description of Work Quantity Unit Rate(NRs.) Total Cost(NRs.)

Gravel Trap With flushing
tank
1 Excavation
Soft rock 33.13 m3 414.58 13738.93
Medium rock 3.89 m3 1,036.44 4040.86
Hard rock 1.94 m3 1,741.22 3394.32
2 P.C.C 21.23 m3 13,897.72 295048.62
4 Hard stone lining (0.3m) 12.59 m3 536.60 6757.95
5 gate for approach canal 400.00 kg 100 40000
6 gate for flushing canal 200.00 kg 100 20000
7 Trash rack 60.00 kg 100 6000
Sub Total 580899.01
~ 167 ~

Approach Canal including
spillway upto settling basin
1 Excavation
Soft rock 560.06 m3 414.58 232190.70
Medium rock 65.89 m3 1,036.44 68291.38
Hard rock 32.94 m3 1,741.22 57364.76
2 Blinding concrete 4.53 m3 12,241.26 55498.79
3 P.C.C 101.21 m3 13,897.72 1406620.68
S.n Uni Total

. Description of Work Quantity t Rate(NRs.) Cost(NRs.)
Settling Basin
1 Excavation
Soft rock 1044.58 m3 414.58 433058.63
Medium rock 122.89 m3 1,036.44 127370.18
3
Hard rock 61.44 m 1,741.22 106990.95
2 Blinding concrete 40.80 m3 12,241.26 499443.29
3 P.C.C 1228.92 m3 13,897.72 17079229.29
5 Stone Masonry 298.80 m3 6,371.81 1903895.34
6 Gate at starting 1000.00 kg 100.00 100000
7 Gate at flushing canal 200.00 kg 100.00 20000
Sub Total 31379399.95
~ 168 ~

Forebay
1 Excavation
Soft rock 246.7584 m3 1,036.44 255749.65
Medium rock 29.0304 m3 1,741.22 50548.16
3
Hard rock 14.5152 m 265.50 3853.78
2 P.C.C 92.81 m3 651.00 60419.25
4 Gate for penstock 300.00 kg 100.00 30000
5 Gate for flushing canal 200.00 kg 100.00 20000
6 Trash rack 50.00 kg 100.00 5000
Description of Work Quantity Unit Rate(NRs.) Total Cost(NRs.)

Penstock
1 Excavation
Soft rock 26301.99 m3 414.58 10904149
Medium rock 3094.35 m3 1,036.44 3207102.64
Hard rock 1547.17 m3 1,741.22 2693966.22
2 Filling 28127.94 m3 207.29 5830571.07
3 Penstock pipe(1730 m) 5.60 ton 145000 812674.80
Sub Total 23448463.74
~ 169 ~
Rate Total
Description of Work Quantity Unit (NRs.) Cost(NRs.)
Power House
Door,Windows,Ventilation,Painting,
Large shutter, Lumpsum 500000
Plaster and Floor
Finishing,excavation and soling
P.C.C
Diversion Work Lumpsum 700000
River Training Works Lumpsum 1200000
Electromechanical cost 2500 per kw 27300 68250000

Anchor block 29 nos. 300000 8700000
Support pier 76 nos. 90000 6840000
Tailrace canal Lumpsum 150000 150000

Machine foundation Lumpsum 30000000 30000000
Transmission Upto National Grid 4 2000000 8000000
Land Acquisition Lumpsum 100000 100000
Sub total 124440000
Grand Total 218256612
Social Work 4% of Project Cost 8730264
Miscellaneous cost@10% of total 21825661
Preliminary Expenses and Project management(15% of Project Cost) 32738491
13% Vat and 5% tax 39286190
Grand Total 320837220
~ 170 ~
ANNEX-E
FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Project benefit has been calculated using the following data
Project cost =NRs 320837220

Total annual energy generated from power plant =14.56 GWh
Total dry season energy =2.48 GWh
Total wet season energy =12.08 GWh
Rate of sell of energy is taken as NRS 8.4/Kwh
for dry season and NRS 4.8/KwH for wet season energy
Annual Operation and maintenance =8%
Economic Life of Project =25yrs
Prevailing interest rate (MARR) =12%
A) Benefit cost ratio method
Capital recovery,Cr =i(A/P,i%,n)

= P(1+i)^n*i/((i+1)^n-1)
=NRs 40906735
Benefit Per year,B =Energy Price*Total

Energy Generated
=NRs 78791892
Annual O&M cost =NRs 25666977
Total annual cost =NRs 66573713
B/C ratio =Annual Benefit of the
project / Annual cost of the
project
=1.18>1
Hence marginally economical
~ 171 ~
B) IRR method
We have,
(B-O&M)*(P/A,I%,n)-I =0
(B-O&M)*((1+i)n-1)/(i(i+1)n)-P =0
Hence, by Iteration we determine the value of IRR =16.21%
Hence this project is economically feasible.
~ 172 ~
ANNEX F
DRAWINGS

Pre-Feasibility Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pre-Feasibility Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

Manohar Sedhain (65089)

Manohar Sedhain (65089)

A PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Department of Civil Engineering

Certified that this project report entilted “PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY OF DARAM

Er. Er. Ramesh Subedi

Er. Rajendra Kumar B.C.

DARAM KHOLA A- HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Name of River : Daram khola

Basin Characteristics and Hydrology

Catchment area at the intake site : 84 km2

Type : Ogee, concrete structure

Size : 7.2 m x 5m x 7.4 m

Size : 5.6m x7m X 5.5m

Type : Horizontal Shaft, Francis

Rated Output per Unit : 1250 kW

Rated Discharge per Unit : 1.8 m3/s

Rated Efficiency : 85%

Power and Energy

Net Head : 82.6 m

Total Investment cost : NRs 320 MIllion

1.1 Hydropower development in Nepal

1.2 Hydropower potential of Nepal

1.3 Justification for Small Hydropower Project

2.2 Location and Accessibility

2.3 Drainage Basin and Climate

2.4 Daram Khola-A Hydroelectric Project

2.5 Objective of the study

2.6 Scope of works

2.7 Methodology of the study

3.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGICAL STUDIES

3.2 Geology of Nepal

Major Geological Zone of Nepal

Table 3.1 Tactonic Zone of Nepal

S.N. Tectonic Zone

Main Frontal Thrust ( MFT)

Main Boundary Thrust ( MBT)

3 Lesser Himalaya Zone Thrust/Fault

Main Central Thrust (MCT)

4 Higher Himalaya Zone

South Tibetan Detachment (STD)

5 Tibetan Tethys Himalayan Zone

3.2.1 Terai Zone

3.2.2 Siwalik Zone

3.2.3 Lesser Himalayan Zone

3.2.4 Higher Himalaya Zone

3.2.5 Tibetan Tethys Himalayan Zone

3.3 Geology of the Project Site

4.1 Objective of Hydrology Investigations

4.2 Scope of Investigations

4.3 Physiographic Characteristics of the Daram Khola Basin

4.3.2 The Climate

4.4 Stream flow

4.4.2 Long-term Stream Flow Analysis

B) Long-term mean monthly flow by MIP method

4.4.2.1 Riparian Release

4.5 Flow Duration Curve

Table 4.6: Time Exceedance of Daily Discharges at Damsite

4.6 Flood flow

4.7 Rating Curves

Rating curve at weir axis