OPTIMIZATION OF H Y D R O P O W E R P L A N T

INTEGRATION IN W A T E R
SUPPLY SYSTEM
By Abbas Afshar,1 Fethi Ben Jemaa, 2 and Miguel A. Marino, 3
Member, ASCE <"
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: An optimization model is presented for determining the optimal de-

sign capacities of a water delivery system integrating small hydropower plants. A
discrete distance model of the transmission pipeline is solved by employing dy-
namic programming. The model determines the proper allocation of available pres-
sure head to various potential hydropower sites along the supply main and deter-
mines the optimal pipe diameter. The practical value of the model is demonstrated
in an example for a supply system to serve four towns. The solution of the model
gives the set of turbine capacities, pipe diameters, head allocation resulting in max-
imum net benefit for a given quantity of available water and demand, and the
expected net benefits.

INTRODUCTION

During the past few years many water districts have discovered a source
of energy that was not pursued for a long time because it was not cost-
effective. This source is the electricity generated by installing suitable hy-
droelectric power plants in water supply mains. The recent advances in the
development and installation of mini and micro units, as well as the avail-
ability of a wide range of small turbines, have made the exploitation of this
source of energy possible.
In a gravity water supply system using closed conduits, the excessive pres-
sure head is always considered a major problem. Different means of reducing
this accumulated pressure are widely used, such as pressure relief valve (PRV)
stations. This dissipated energy is often regarded as detrimental to the water
distribution system; however, it could be considered a wasted source of free
generated energy.
When installing hydropower plants in a water supply system, one must
give care to reduce the possible contamination of the treated water as it
passes through a turbine, provide minimum permissible residual pressure at
the delivery end, eliminate potential damages to the pipeline caused by water-
hammer, and ensure the integrity of the water supply system (Bathala 1985).
The availability of adequate head and flow is the primary requirement for
small hydropower plant installation in a water supply system (Bathala 1985).
In general, a hydroelectric turbine operates by the differential head available
between the headrace and the tailrace. Realizing that there must be a min-
'Visiting Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Land, Air and Water Resour., Univ. of California,
Davis, CA 95616.
2
Res. Asst., Dept. of Land, Air and Water Resour., Univ. of California, Davis,
CA.
3
Prof., Dept of Land, Air and Water Resour. and Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of
California, Davis, CA.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 1991. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Oc-
tober 4, 1989. This paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, Vol. 116, No. 5, September/October,' 1990. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9496/90/0005-0665/$ 1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper No. 25060.

665

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 imum prespecified residual pressure head at the delivery end of the water
supply system, a turbine may be installed if this minimum pressure require-
ment is satisfied. In other words, a turbine installation may prove feasible
if the available pressure exceeds the sum of the minimum head requirement
and the head loss in the delivery system.
Water demand or water being transferred may show both diurnal and sea-
sonal fluctuations. These fluctuations must be kept in mind while determin-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing the available turbine flow. Water fluctuations may be more severe for a
hydropower plant installed in a distribution line than for a reservoir-service
tank hydropower plant.
If a transmission pipeline is not designed to withstand the transient pres-
sures caused by water hammer on a load rejection, the turbine installation
may prove infeasible even with sufficient head and flow. This means that
the structural integrity of the pipeline plays an important role in hydropower
plant installation and should be evaluated in the planning stage (Bathala 1985).
Recently, waterworks agencies have started to install small hydropower
plants into their water distribution systems as a source of additional revenue
(Ferman 1986). In fact, small turbines with a capacity of 200-15,000 kW
may operate with heads ranging from 2 to 60 m (Raabe 1985).
Small hydroelectric power stations can be implemented into a water supply
system with several possible options of installation. In general, the hydro-
power plant installation in a water supply system may be either a reservoir-
service tank hydropower plant or a distribution line hydropower plant.
In a reservoir-service tank installation type, the hydropower plants are in-
stalled in the different sections of the transmission pipeline connecting the
supply reservoir to the service tank or re-regulating reservoir. This type of
installation is quite similar to the conventional type of hydroplant installa-
tion. Under some circumstances (e.g., a very long transmission line), it may
be justified to re-regulate inflow to the service reservoir. In this case, turbine
flow distribution will be fairly uniform.
In a distribution line hydropower plant, a powerplant is installed in the
community's service main just before it connects to the distribution system.
This type of installation is subject to very wide diurnal and seasonal fluc-
tuations and is possible only if there is a relatively high differential head
between the service tank and delivery end of the distribution line. Further-
more, any re-regulation of flow may disturb the water supply schedule. A
thorough discussion of the development options is presented by Bathala (1985).

SMALL HYDROPOWER PLANT IN TRANSMISSION PIPELINE

Hydroelectric power is based on the principle of using the kinetic and

pressure energies of water to spin a shaft. The resulting mechanical energy
is then converted into electrical energy by means of an electric generator.
In rural and small residential areas, small hydroelectric power stations might
be a beneficial solution for energy shortages, and thus enable the develop-
ment of small-scale industries. Small hydroelectric turbines installed into the
PRV stations divert a fraction of the potential energy of water that would
have been dissipated to no benefit. Moreover, such turbines help reduce wear
and tear caused by pressure on the PRV (Ferman 1986). Ferman (1986)
described a small hydropower model designed for a variety of piping and
installation arrangements.

666

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 d d d d
n n-l 2 l

qn,HNn , - J ^ q n H - H N n H q 2 ,HN 2 -i—, q,,HNi

q,.HN, , L
n- Ht-
UnAn •
D
n-I-L n -I ' - J - ' D 2 ,L 2 D|,L|

Wn-1 w2 #•
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. DP Diagram

Consider a pipeline conveying water from a storage reservoir to several

users (Fig. 1). Along the transmission line, several pointy with energy de-
mand have been identified. It is desired to maximize the net benefit (i.e.,
benefit minus cost) associated with the system while satisfying the water
demand and the minimum permissible pressure head at each turnout along
the main pipeline.
Clearly, the greater the net head on the turbine, the greater the electricity
output. Thus, to maximize the revenue from the hydropower plants, higher
hydraulic heads are desired. Since the hydraulic head is the static head minus
the friction losses in the conduit, losses are minimized for higher heads. As
the head losses are inversely proportional to the pipe diameter, minimization
of the head losses requires pipes with larger diameters. Consequently, aug-
menting the available hydraulic head for additional energy output by the
hydropower plants results in more expensive conduits. Also, for a given
hydraulic head available along the conduit, one is free to choose either a
large number of small-capacity hydropower plants operating with relatively
low heads, or a small number of larger-capacity hydropower plants operating
with higher heads. In the latter case, higher water pressures are permitted
and as a result stronger and more expensive conduits are needed. Benefits
and costs of each alternative will determine the optimum number of turbines
to be installed and their capacities. Therefore, the problem can be considered
as an optimization model where an optimum combination of the design pa-
rameters will be sought.
As a summary of the previous statement, a dynamic programming (DP)
model will be developed with the objective of determining: (1) The optimum
number of hydropower plants and their locations along the conduit: (2) the
optimum capacities of the turbines to be used; and (3) the optimum conduit
diameters at each section. The objective of the model is to find the optimum
combination of design parameters that maximize the yearly net benefit (i.e.,
the dollar value of the yearly generated energy minus the annual value of
the total costs).

FORMULATION OF DP MODEL

Given a gravity water distribution system as described previously (Fig. 1),

let us define Q0 = the total quantity of water available at the head end, dt
= the demand at turnout i (i = 1,2, . . . , n), N, = the number of turnouts
to be served, and Nh = the total number of potential sites for hydropower
plant installation.
To convert the aforementioned multistage problem into a series of single-
stage problems, the pipline is divided into sections, or stages, not necessarily
of equal length. Specifically, the distance between any two successive po-
667

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 tential hydropower plant sites is taken as the length of that section. Each
section will have certain pressures at its upstream and downstream ends,
which are to be determined. A stage is defined as a reach of the pipeline
with a hydropower plant at its downstream end. Let us also define L, = the
length of reach ;, W, = the energy output at stage i, Dt = the conduit di-
ameter at stage ;', and qt = the amount of water available at reach i to be
delivered. We note that W, = 0 if there is no hydropower plant at stage (',
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and di = 0 if there is no turnout at stage i.

The energy produced by each hydroelectric plant is a function of the avail-
able hydraulic head and the quantity of water flowing through the turbine.
The energy produced at each stage will be a function of the net hydraulic
head and the water flow
W, = WiflNi.q,) = 9.?,\HNiqiEi (1)
in which Wt = the power output at stage i (kW); fflV, = the net hydraulic
head (m) at stage ;' = Ht — h,; Ht = the pressure head immediately upstream
of the turbine (m); h, = the pressure head immediately downstream of the
turbine (m); Et = the efficiency of the hydropower plant installed at stage
i; and q, = the water flow at stage i (m 3 /s).
The objective function of the optimization model is to maximize the net
annual benefits associated with the water transmission and hydropower sys-
tem. Yet, some conditions and constraints must be satisfied.
The analysis is started at the downstream end of the pipeline (Fig. 1). The
pressure head at any point along a given section may be anywhere between
the pressure head at the upstream end (i.e., residual head) and the sum of
the residual head and the difference in the natural elevation. We will con-
sider NP possible heads with AP-meter increments. Also, from the wide
range of possible diameters we will consider only ND different diameters
with AD-centimeter increments, given a roughness e, and a unit cost C(D),
where D = the diameter of the pipe. From the wide range of possible net
head on the turbines, only NH possible net heads with AH-meter increments
are considered.
At stage one (i = 1), the pipeline can be chosen from a wide range of
diameters depending on the second decision variable, the net head on the
turbine. Each combination of diameter, starting pressure, and the net head
on the turbine defines the return from that stage and the residual pressure
head at the next turnout. Actually, for any level of residual pressure at the
second stage, the only combination of diameter and net turbine head of in-
terest is the one with the highest benefit. Now the number of paths leaving
the second stage to the first stage does not exceed NP X NH. Therefore, at
stage one, the total optimum net benefit is given by
MquPi) = max {fl.fo.HN,) + Cwqx - [CiD^L, - CdQDltHDxW{r,i)

- OMr} (2)
subject to
?i = di (3)
Hmin £ HN < H mM (4)
Pmia < Px < P max (5)

668

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 Dmin < Dl < £>max (6)
in which f\(q\,P2) = the value of the recursive function at stage 1 (maximum
net benefit), given that q, quantity of water is available and the residual
pressure at the second stage is at a level P2; B^quHN^) = the annual hy-
dropower revenue at stage 1 as a result of using HNi meters of net head,
given that qx quantity of water is available; Cw = the prfce of a unit of water
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

delivered; C(D ( ) = the cost per unit length of conduit of diameter D^, Lt =
the length of the conduit at stage 1; CQ(QDi,HDi) = the cost of a hydro-
power plant and accessories with design flow QD{ and design head HD\,
F(r, t) = the capital recovery factor, where r is the interest rate and t is the
service lifetime of the system; OMt = the operation and maintenance costs
needed at stage 1; Pmm, Pmm = the minimum and maximum permitted pres-
sures; Z5min, Dmax = the minimum and maximum diameters considered; and
#min> Hmax = the minimum and maximum heads considered for hydropower
plants.
Similarly, the recursive net return function for stage 2 can be written as
M<h,P3) = max {B2(q2,HN2) + Cwq2 - [C(D2)L2 - C0(QD2,HD2)]F(r,t)

- OM2 +MquP2)} (7)

subject to
qi = di+ d2 (8)
Hmin < HN2 s Hm (9)
P min < P2 < P m l x (10)
D min < D2 < £)max (11)
The available quantity of water at stage 2, q2, must satisfy the demand d2
as well as the demand dx. Therefore, the conduit diameter D2 should be large
enough to convey this flow.
Finally, any stage k along the water supply conduit, the recursive net re-
turn function will be
A(qk,Pk+i) = max {Bk{qk,HNk) + C„qk - [C(Dk)Lk - C0(QDk,HDk)]F(r,t)
(HNkJ)k)

- OMk +/ t _ 1 (? t _ 1 ,P*)} (12)

subject to
qk = dx + d2 + . . . + dk (13)
Hmi„ < HNk < Hmax (14)
* min — * & — " max V-LjJ

O min £ Dk < Dmax (16)

The amount of water available at each stage (qt) should be enough to
satisfy all the users' demand downstream of that point. However, it cannot
exceed the total amount of water available (<2o)- -The assumption made herein
is that the water demand should be fully satisfied at each stage along the

669

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 water supply system. Therefore, if the price of a unit volume of water de-
livered is Cw, the total income derived from water delivery to users at stage
i will be Cw X q,.
We note that the residual head at the end of each stage is equal to the
static head or gross head at the upstream end plus the difference in elevation
minus the head loss due to friction within the reach and the net head on the
turbine. That is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pk = Pk+l + zk-hfk-HNk (17)

The head loss in reach i is calculated using
fL,V?
hfl^~^ (18)
4gR,
in which
1 (e 9.35\
u
7; ""l'Vj • °*
where V£ = the water velocity in reach i; R, = the hydraulic radius; R =
the Reynolds number; g = the gravitational acceleration; and e = the rough-
ness. To solve the head loss equation (Eq. 18), the Newton-Raphson nu-
merical technique is employed.
Depending on the capacity of the hydroelectric turbine, a given amount
of the water pressure is dissipated. The remaining head downstream of the
turbine (ft,) should be sufficient to discharge water at the required water de-
livery pressure to the users.
APPLICATION OF MODEL

The DP model was implemented as a computer program and used to de-

termine the optimal design parameters of an integrated water delivery system
serving four towns. The water delivery system is 45 km of pressure main
that will transfer 2.00 m 3 /s. Difference in elevation between the storage
reservoir and the end point of the water delivery system is taken to be 290
m. The entire reach is divided into 7 stages with 8 potential sites for hy-
dropower plant installation (Fig. 2). Benefits and costs are compiled from a
variety of sources. The capital costs of hydropower systems for different
values of net head, design discharge, and generator capacity are taken from
Electric Power Research Institute ("Simplified" 1983) and escalated accord-
ing to the current available indices. The unit cost of the pressure main is
taken from Stephenson (1981) and escalated by the same means. For the
example under consideration, the price of the energy in comparison to other
sources is assumed to be $0.06/kW -h (3.6 MJ). A summary of the model
input data is presented in Tables 1 and 2. Realizing the size of the power
houses, the yearly operation and maintenance cost has been assumed to be
2% of the total capital investment.
The DP model was solved by using seven stages, 10 different pipe sizes,
and 13 discrete levels for pressure and net head on the turbines. The results
obtained are summarized in Table 3. Under the assumed conditions, six hy-
dropower plants should be installed at stages 1 to 5 and stage 7. The total
670

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 LEGEND
Natural Ground Surface (m)
Hydraulic Grade Line (m)
Turbine
No Turbine
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20 30
DISTANCE (Km)

FIG. 2. Results of DP Model

optimum installed capacity of the small hydropower plants sums up to ap-

proximately 3,200 kW. Also shown in Table 3 are the optimal pressure at
specific points along the conduit as well as the optimal diameter for each
reach. Fig. 2 shows the graphical presentation of the same results.

TABLE 1. Geometrical and Topographical Data

Stage Length (km) Difference in elevation (m)
(D (2) (3)
1 10 60
2 7 50
3 6 45
4 7 55
5 5 40
6 6 40
7 4 30

TABLE 2. Pipeline Unit Cost

Diameter (mm) Unit cost ($/m)
(1) (2)
600 680
700 790
800 910
900 1,000
1,000 1,130
1,100 1,250
1,200 1,360
1,300 1,470
1,400 1,540
1,500 1,700

671

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 TABLE 3. Results of Model for Data Shown on Tables 1 and 2
Flow Optimal pressure Optimal turbine head Optimal diameter
Stage (L/s) (m) (m) (mm)
0) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 1,100 14.7 55 900

2 1,100 33.1 15 900
3 1,400 14.5 55 1,200
4 1,400 29.7 25 1,000
5 1,600 15.0 55 1,200
a
6 1,600 36.0 1,000
7 2,000 13.1 50 1,200
"No turbine installed.
Note: Optimal return = $69,134.2 x 103.

TABLE 4. Results of Model for 25% Reduction in Pipeline Unit Cost

Flow Optimal pressure Optimal turbine head Optimal diameter
Stage (L/s) (m) (m) (mm)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
l 1,100 15.0 55 1,000
2 1,100 27.4 20 900
3 1,400 13.8 55 1,200
4 1,400 29.0 35 1,200
5 1,600 15.0 55 1,200
a
6 1,600 35.7 1,000
7 2,000 12.8 55 1,500
"No turbine installed.
Note: Optimal return = $69,753.7 x 103.

TABLE 5. Results of Model for 25% Increase in Pipeline Unit Cost

Flow Optimal pressure Optimal turbine head Optimal diameter
Stage (L/s) (m) (m) (mm)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 1,100 15.0 55 900
2 1,100 34.7 15 900
3 1,400 16.1 50 900
a
4 1,400 43.7 900
5 1,600 15.0 55 1,200
a
6 1,600 36.0 1,000
7 2,000 13.1 50 1,200
°No turbine installed.
Note: Optimal return = $68,554.8 x 103.

672

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 TABLE 6. Results of Model for 25% Reduction in Hydropower Plant Cost
Flow Optimal pressure Optimal turbine head Optimal diameter
Stage (L/s) (m) (m) (mm)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 1,100 14.7 55 900
2 1,100 33.1 15 f 900
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 1,400 14.5 55 1,200

4 1,400 29.7 25 1,000
5 1,600 15.0 55 1,200
6 1,600 36.0 —* 1,000
7 2,000 13.1 50 1,200
*No turbine installed.
Note: Optimal return = $69,258.2 X 103.

TABLE 7. Results of Model for 25% Increase in Hydropower Plant Cost

Flow Optimal pressure Optimal turbine head Optimal diameter
Stage (L/s) (m) (m) (mm)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 1,100 15.0 55 900
2 1,100 36.1 —" 800
3 1,400 16.1 50 900
4 1,400 43.7 —a 900
5 1,600 15.0 55 1,200
a
6 1,600 36.0 1,000
7 2,000 13.1 50 1,200
"No turbine installed.
Note: Optimal return = $69,013.0 x 103.

For the problem under consideration, the pressure and turbine head were
discretized by 5-m increments. Smaller subdivisions are possible, but this
will require more computer storage. Solution to the model shows that if the
model is implemented, the annual net benefit associated with integrating small
hydropower plants in the delivery system will be equal to 69.1 X 106 dollars.
To study the effect of any change in the input data on the optimal solution,
different values of the pipeline unit cost and hydropower plant installation
cost are examined. Results of the model for a 25% decrease in the pipeline
unit cost are summarized in Table 4. As a result of this reduction, net turbine
head and pipe diameter in some stages are increased, resulting in an almost
620 X 103 dollar increase in the objective function. Table 5 shows similar
results for a 25% increase in pipeline unit cost, eliminating the installation
of the hydropower plant in stage 4 and resulting in a 580 X 103 dollar re-
duction in the objective function. A sensitivity analysis of hydroelectric plant
cost reveals that a 25% reduction in hydropower plant cost will not change
the value of the design parameters, whereas a 25% increase in the cost of
the hydropower plant will cause a major change in the design parameters
(Tables 6 and 7).

673

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Integrating small-capacity hydropower plants into the water distribution

system can be beneficial in the sense that free generated pressure is exploited
for electricity production. This additional source of income may transform
an infeasible project into a beneficial one. However, the inclusion of hy-
dropower plants must not compromise the integrity of the water distribution
system or interrupt water delivery during maintenance.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A project is considered economically feasible if over the project life the

total benefits exceed the total costs. However, even if the cash flow over
the life of the project is negative, the project may still be profitable when
other benefits are considered (i.e., benefits from industries and irrigation
areas served by the project).
The DP method presented here has demonstrated its ability to model in-
tegrated small hydropower plants in a water transmission pipeline. It is ca-
pable of determining the proper allocation of head to various potential hy-
dropower sites along a transmission line as well as determining the optimal
pipe diameter at each section. To illustrate the method, an example with
four towns and eight potential hydropower sites was examined.
The method is intended for planning the integration of a hydropower plant
in a water transmission line. The solutions obtained give the set of turbine
capacities, pipe diameters, and head allocations resulting in maximum net
benefit for a given quantity of available water and demands.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research leading to this report was conducted at the University of

California, Davis, and was supported by the Agricultural Research Service
under Cooperative Agreement 4116-H.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

Bathala, C. T. (1985). "Power generation from a water supply system." Water Power
& Dam Constr., 37(10), 13-16.
Ferman, R. S. (1986). "A new waterworks turbine." Presented at 4th Int. Symp. on
Hydro Power Fluid Machinery, ASME, Anaheim, Calif., D e c , 19-22.
Raabe, J. (1985). Hydropower: The design, use, and function of hydromechanical,
hydraulic, and electrical equipments. VDI-Verlag, Dusseldorf, F. R. Germany.
"Simplified methodology for economic screening of potential small-capacity hydro-
electric sites." (1983). Research Project No. 1745-8, Electric Power Res. Inst.,
Palo Alto, Calif.
Stephenson, D. (1981). Pipeline design for water engineers. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.

APPENDIX II, NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

B(q,HN) = annual benefit from power output given a flow of water

q and a net hydraulic head HN;
C(D,) = cost per unit length of conduit of diameter £>,;
C0(QD,HD) = cost of turbine and accessories having a design flow QD
and a design head HD\

674

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.

 the price of a unit volume of water delivered;
conduit diameter at reach ;';
maximum permitted diameter;
minimum permitted diameter;
water demand at reach i;
efficiency of hydropower plant ;';
conduit roughness; '
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the capital recovery factor with r rate of interest and t

project life;
friction factor;
the net return function for q quantity of water, given a
pressure P; r
gravitational acceleration;
design head of the turbine installed at stage i;
the net head on turbine installed at stage i;
head loss due to friction;
tailrace head immediately downstream of stage i (at the
upstream end of stage i — 1);
conduit length at stage ;';
number of reaches considered;
number of hydropower sites in the system;
number of turnouts in the system;
annual operation and maintenance costs at stage ;';
pressure relief valve;
maximum permitted pressure in the system;
minimum permitted pressure in the system;
total amount of water available;
design flow of turbine installed in stage i;
amount of water available at stage i;
hydraulic radius;
Reynolds number;
interest rate;
project life;
water velocity at stage i; and
power output at stage ;'.

675

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 1990.116:665-675.