Vol II Main Report - Structural Design Report - DRAFT FINAL April 2019 PDF

Government of Nepal
Ministry of Energy, Water Resource and Irrigation

Department of Electricity Development
Sano Gaucharan, Kathmandu, Nepal
DETAIL ENGINEERING DESIGN OF SIWA KHOLA
SMALL HYDROPOWER PROJECT (26.86 MW),

TAPLEJUNG DISTRICT
STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT, DRAFT FINAL
Volume: II
April 2019
Prepared by:
Joint Venture of
Environment and
Resource
Management
Consultant (P) Ltd.
Address: (ERMC)
Gangadevi Marga, Buddhanagar,
Kathmandu
Report Preparation and Quality Check up
Project Name: Detailed Engineering Design of Siwa Khola Small Hydropower Project
Client: : Ministry of Energy, Water Resource and Irrigation, Department of Electricity Development
(DoED)
Consultant: JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering Limited and ERMC P Ltd.
Types of Report: Detail Project Report (Draft) Report Submitted on:
No. of Copies:
Quality Control Assurance
Report Prepared and Checked by the Key Professionals
Designation Name Signature Date
1. Team Leader Manohar Shrestha
2. Project Manager/ Shyam Prasad Bhusal
Hydraulic Engineer
3. Hydropower Engineer Saroj Lal Shrestha
4. Engineering Geologist Diwakar Khadka
5. Hydrologist Bandhu Dhakal
6. Electrical Engineer Ram Bhakta Karki
7. Environmental Engineer Pranav Acharya
This report has been prepared based on available updated data collected from relevant line agencies
from concerned experts as described above
Authorized Person of the Consultant:
1. Name: Manohar Shrestha
Designation: CEO, Hydro-Consult Engineering Ltd. Seal
(Project Coordinator)
Signature:
2. Name: Uddab Raj Chaulagain
Designation: MD, ERMC P. Ltd. Seal
Signature:
Department of Electricity Development, DoED Detail Design of Siwa Khola Small Hydropower Project
Structural Design Report
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AMSL above Mean Sea Level
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
AR Access Road
B/C Benefit/Cost
BL Base Line
BM Bench Mark
BoQ Bill of Quantities
BPC Butwal Power Company
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DBM Design Base Memorandum
DC Direct Current
DCPT Dynamic Core Penetration Test
DDR Detailed Design Report
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DHM Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
DoED Department of Electricity Development
EDR Eastern Development Region
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return
EPC Engineering, Procurement, Construction
ERMC Environment and Resource Management Consultant
ERT Electric Resistivity Tomography
FAT Factory Acceptance Tests
FDC Flow Duration Curve
FIDIC International Federation of Consulting Engineers
FSR Feasibility Study Report
GLOF Glacial Lake Outburst Floods
GoN Government of Nepal
GPS Global Positioning System
GWh Gigawatt Hour
S Siwa
SA Siwa Adit
HCE Hydro-Consult Engineering
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Centres River Analysis System
HFT Himalayan Frontal Thrust
SI Siwa Intake
SP Siwa Powerhouse
HRT Head Race Tunnel
H/W Headworks
lEC International Electrotechnical Commission
lEE Initial Environment Examination
IEO International Electro Technical Commission
INPS Integrated Nepal Power System
IPP Independent Power Producers
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page i

IRR Internal Rate of Return

ITP Inspection and Test Plan
JV Joint Venture
KV Kilo Volt
SKSHP Siwa Khola Small Hydropower Project
MBT Main Boundary Thrust
MCT Main Central Thrust
MDE Maximum Design Earthquake
MHPP Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning
MW Mega Watt
NBM New Bench Mark
NEA Nepal Electricity Authority
NPV Net Present Value
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OBE Operating Basis Earthquake
ODWFS Oil Directed Air Forced
OFWF Oil Forced Water Forced
ONAF Oil Natural Air Forced
ONAN Oil Natural Air Natural
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PH Powerhouse
PPMO Public Procurement Monitoring Office
PRoR Peaking Run of River
RoR Run of River
SEIA Supplementary Environmental Impact Assessment
SHP Small Hydropower Project
SPT Standard Penetration Test
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
S/S Substation
STDFS South Tibetan Detachment Fault System
ToR Terms of Reference
UNCHS United Nations Commission on Human Settlements
V Volt
VDC Village Development Committee
WECS Water and Energy Commission Secretariat
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page ii

Table of Content
List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................... i
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. ix
List of tables ................................................................................................................. xi
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project information .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Salient Features of the Project .............................................................................................................. 2
2 DIVERSION WEIR AND STILLING BASIN ..................................................... 7
2.1 General description ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Diversion Weir..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Stilling basin ........................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Hydraulic Design....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Stability Analysis and Structural Design .............................................................................................. 8
2.3.1 Approach of Stability Analysis ........................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Seismic consideration.......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.3 Subsoil Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 10
2.3.4 Loads .................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.5 Structural analysis and design ......................................................................................................... 12
2.3.6 Load Cases.......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.7 Results of stability analysis .............................................................................................................. 13
2.3.8 Results of structural design analysis ............................................................................................. 14
2.3.9 Design Codes and Guidelines Referred ...................................................................................... 15
3 FLOOD PROTECTION WALLS ...................................................................... 16
3.1 General Description .............................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Stability and structural analysis ............................................................................................................ 18
3.2.1 Approach of Stability analysis ......................................................................................................... 18
3.2.2 Seismic consideration....................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.4 Loads .................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.5 Load Cases for Counterfort Flood wall ...................................................................................... 20
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page iii

3.2.6 Structural Analysis and Design....................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Stability and structural analysis ............................................................................................................ 26
3.4 Codes and References: ......................................................................................................................... 28
4 UNDERSLUICE AND TRASH PASSAGE ....................................................... 29
4.1 General description ............................................................................................................................... 29
4.1.1 Undersluice......................................................................................................................................... 29
4.1.2 Trash passage ..................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Hydraulic Design..................................................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Stability Analysis and Structural Design ............................................................................................ 30
4.3.1 Approach of Stability Analysis ........................................................................................................ 30
4.3.4 Loads .................................................................................................................................................... 32
4.3.5 Structural analysis and design ......................................................................................................... 33
4.3.6 Load Cases and conditions ............................................................................................................. 35
4.3.7 Load Combination ............................................................................................................................ 37
5 INTAKE & GRAVEL TRAP ............................................................................... 40
5.1.1 Intake ................................................................................................................................................... 40
5.1.2 Gravel Trap ........................................................................................................................................ 40
5.3 Stability Analysis & Structural Design ................................................................................................ 41
5.3.4 Loads .................................................................................................................................................... 42
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page iv

5.3.5 Load Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 43

5.3.7 Load Cases.......................................................................................................................................... 46
5.3.8 Load Combinations .......................................................................................................................... 46
5.3.9 Result of Stability Analysis .............................................................................................................. 47
5.3.10 Results of Structural design ............................................................................................................ 48
5.3.11 Structural Analysis of Gravel Trap Flushing Culvert ................................................................ 49
5.3.12 Structural Analysis of Gravel Trap Flushing Gate operating structure ................................ 51
6 SETTLING BASIN, SETTLING BASIN FLUSHING AND HEADPOND .... 55
6.1 General Description .............................................................................................................................. 55
6.1.1 Settling Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 55
6.1.2 Settling Basin Flushing ...................................................................................................................... 55
6.1.3 Headpond ........................................................................................................................................... 55
6.3 Stability and Structural Analysis of Settling Basin and Headpond ............................................... 56
6.3.1 Approach of stability analysis ......................................................................................................... 56
6.3.4 Loads .................................................................................................................................................... 57
6.3.5 Structural Analysis and Design Basis ............................................................................................ 58
6.4 Stability and Structural analysis of Settling Basin ............................................................................. 59
6.4.1 Load considered ................................................................................................................................ 60
6.4.3 Results of Stability Analysis ............................................................................................................. 62
6.4.4 Results of Structural design of Settling Basin ............................................................................. 65
6.5 Stability and Structural analysis of Headpond .................................................................................. 66
6.5.1 Load Considered ............................................................................................................................... 67
6.5.3 Results of Structural Design ........................................................................................................... 68
6.6 Design Codes and Guidelines Referred ............................................................................................ 69
7 HEADRACE TUNNEL AND PORTALS ......................................................... 70
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page v

7.1.1 Inlet portal .......................................................................................................................................... 70

7.1.2 Headrace tunnel ................................................................................................................................ 70
7.2 Hydraulic Design and Tunnel Optimization ..................................................................................... 71
7.3 Geological conditions ............................................................................................................................ 71
7.3.1 Tunnel alignment and design .......................................................................................................... 71
7.3.2 Rock mass classifications ................................................................................................................. 71
7.3.3 Ground water table and water leakage ....................................................................................... 72
7.3.4 Rock support design......................................................................................................................... 72
8 SURGE SHAFT ................................................................................................... 74
8.1.1 Surge Shaft .......................................................................................................................................... 74
8.3 Stability Analysis & Structural Design ................................................................................................ 76
8.3.2 General Input ..................................................................................................................................... 76
8.3.3 Loads .................................................................................................................................................... 77
8.3.5 Load Cases.......................................................................................................................................... 82
8.3.6 Load Combinations .......................................................................................................................... 82
8.4 Analysis output ........................................................................................................................................ 82
8.4.1 Results of Structural design ............................................................................................................ 83
9 POWERHOUSE, CONTROL BUILDING AND TAILRACE ........................ 85
9.1 Powerhouse ............................................................................................................................................. 85
9.1.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 85
9.1.2 Description of the powerhouse arrangement ........................................................................... 87
9.1.3 Stability, Structural Analysis and Design of Powerhouse ........................................................ 88
9.1.4 INPUTS FOR THE DESIGN OF POWERHOUSE.................................................................... 94
9.1.5 LOADINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 96
9.1.6 SEISMIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 103
9.1.7 FORCES/STRESSES OUTPUT ..................................................................................................... 105
9.1.8 DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS .................................................................................. 106
9.1.9 Summary of Structural Elements Result .................................................................................... 112
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page vi

9.2 Control Building Design..................................................................................................................... 114

9.2.1 General .............................................................................................................................................. 114
9.2.2 Loadings for Structural Analysis .................................................................................................. 115
9.2.3 Load Pattern ..................................................................................................................................... 115
9.2.4 Load cases definition ...................................................................................................................... 116
9.2.5 General loading combinations...................................................................................................... 116
9.2.6 Design of Structural Elements ..................................................................................................... 116
9.2.7 Summary of Structural Elements Result .................................................................................... 119
10 TAILRACE ......................................................................................................... 121
10.1.1 General description ........................................................................................................................ 121
10.1.2 Structural Analysis and Design..................................................................................................... 121
10.1.3 Loads Considered ........................................................................................................................... 122
10.1.4 Load combinations .......................................................................................................................... 122
10.1.5 Structural Analysis Output ........................................................................................................... 123
10.1.6 Design summary of Tailrace ......................................................................................................... 123
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page vii

ANNEXES: STABILITY ANALYSIS AND STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

VOL VI:
ANNEX G: STABILITY ANALYSIS AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF
HEADWORKS
VOL VII:
ANNEX H: STABILITY ANALYSIS AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF
WATERWAY
ANNEX I: STABILITY ANALYSIS AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF
POWERHOUSE
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Weir and stilling basin profile................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 3-1General arrangement of U/S flood wall .............................................................................................. 17
Figure 3-2 Longitudinal section of Upstream Flood wall ................................................................................... 17
Figure 3-3 Typical cross section of Upstream Flood wall ................................................................................. 18
Figure 3-4 General arrangement of flood walls along powerhouse and switchyard ................................. 25
Figure 3-5 Longitudinal section of Flood wall along powerhouse and switchyard ..................................... 25
Figure 3-6 Typical cross section of Flood wall along powerhouse and switchyard ................................... 26
Figure 4-1: Undersluice section ............................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4-2: Trash passage section............................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 4-3:Undersluice SAP model ......................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 5-1 Intake and Gravel Trap sectional view ............................................................................................... 41
Figure 5-2: 3D SAP2000 Model of Intake and Gravel Trap .............................................................................. 45
Figure 5-3: Profile of Gravel trap flushing system ............................................................................................... 49
Figure 5-4: Gravel flushing culvert Section (Separate culvert) and Section (Merged culvert) .................. 49
Figure 5-5: SAP model of flushing culvert.............................................................................................................. 50
Figure 5-6: Profile of Gravel trap flushing gate operating structure ............................................................... 52
Figure 5-7: 3D Shell model of Gravel trap flushing gate operating structure ............................................... 52
Figure 6-1: Typical section of settling basin .......................................................................................................... 59
Figure 6-2: 2D SAP model of settling basin main section .................................................................................. 60
Figure 6-3: 3D SAP2000 Model of Settling Basin main section ........................................................................ 60
Figure 6-4: Typical section of Headpond ............................................................................................................... 66
Figure 6-5: 3D SAP2000 Model of Headpond ...................................................................................................... 67
Figure 7-1: Inlet portal Section ................................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 8-1 Arrangement of Surge Shaft ................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 8-2: 3D SAP2000 Model of Surge Shaft..................................................................................................... 81
Figure 9-1: Powerhouse Machine Floor plan with service bay and control building................................... 85
Figure 9-2: Longitudinal Section of Powerhouse ................................................................................................. 86
Figure 9-3: Cross section of Powerhouse ............................................................................................................. 86
Figure 9-4: AutoCAD 3D model of the proposed powerhouse machine foundation ............................... 89
Figure 9-5: Super structure frame ........................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 9-6: Purlin and sheet dead load in roof truss......................................................................................... 101
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page ix

Figure 9-7: Dead load of roof truss on column ................................................................................................. 101

Figure 9-8: Rail load applied at crane beam ........................................................................................................ 102
Figure 9-9: Wall load applied at beam .................................................................................................................. 102
Figure 9-10: Moving Load Applied at the crane beam ...................................................................................... 103
Figure 9-11: Column Reinforcement at grid X-Z, Y=0 m ............................................................................... 109
Figure 9-12: Column reinforcement at Y=16.5 m ............................................................................................. 109
Figure 9-13: Beam reinforcement at Z=5.45 m ................................................................................................. 110
Figure 9-14: Beam reinforcement at Z=8.9 m.................................................................................................... 110
Figure 9-15: Beam reinforcement at Z=11.6 m ................................................................................................. 111
Figure 9-16: Beam reinforcement at Z=14 m..................................................................................................... 111
Figure 9-17: Crane Beam Reinforcement ............................................................................................................ 112
Figure 9-18: Extrude view of Control Building model prepared in SAP2000 ............................................. 114
Figure 9-19: The live load intensity applied at control building slab ............................................................. 115
Figure 9-20: External wall load applied on control building beams ............................................................... 115
Figure 9-21: Column reinforcement in mm2 at X-Z plane at grid Y=0 ....................................................... 117
Figure 9-22: Column reinforcement in mm2 at X-Z plane at Y=6.4 m ........................................................ 118
Figure 9-23: Beam reinforcement in mm2 of Plinth beam ............................................................................... 118
Figure 9-24: Beam Reinforcement in mm2 at first floor ................................................................................... 118
Figure 9-25: Beam Reinforcement in mm2 at roof ........................................................................................... 119
Figure 10-1: Typical Section of Tailrace Culvert ............................................................................................... 121
Figure 10-2: 2D Model of Tailrace Culvert in SAP2000 .................................................................................. 122
Figure 10-3: Bending Moment diagram of culvert from SAP 2000................................................................ 123
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page x

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Salient features of the project ................................................................................................................. 2
Table 2-1: Criteria for stability analysis for Weir................................................................................................... 8
Table 2-2: Value of basic seismic coefficient for different zones ........................................................................ 9
Table 2-3: Value of Importance Factor, I ............................................................................................................... 10
Table 2-4: Value of β for different soil-Foundation system............................................................................... 10
Table 2-5: Results of Stability analysis of Weir .................................................................................................... 14
Table 2-6: Results of Structural analysis of Weir ................................................................................................ 14
Table 3-1: Retaining wall stability criteria .............................................................................................................. 18
Table 3-2: Load condition ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3-3: Stable flood wall section details of Upstream Flood Wall ............................................................. 22
Table 3-4: Structural analysis output for counterfort, H=9.8 m ...................................................................... 23
Table 3-5: Structural design summary of counterfort, H=9.8 m ..................................................................... 24
Table 3-6: Stable flood wall section details along Switchyard area ................................................................. 26
Table 3-7: Stable flood wall section details along Powerhouse area .............................................................. 27
Table 3-8: Stable flood wall section details of Tailrace area ............................................................................. 27
Table 3-9 : Stability analysis summary for Counterfort wall, H=14.1 m ........................................................ 27
Table 3-10: Structural analysis output for Cantilever Floodwall ..................................................................... 28
Table 3-11 : Structural design summary of Cantilever Floodwall, H=7.0m .................................................. 28
Table 4-1: Criteria for stability analysis for Undersluice ................................................................................... 31
Table 4-2: Load Cases used in SAP 2000 Model ................................................................................................. 37
Table 4-3: Load Combination................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 4-4: Results of stability analysis..................................................................................................................... 38
Table 4-5: Results of structural analysis ................................................................................................................. 38
Table 5-1: Criteria for stability analysis for Intake and Gravel Trap .............................................................. 41
Table 5-2: Stability Analysis Load Conditions for Intake and Gravel Trap.................................................... 43
Table 5-4: Load combinations .................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 5-5: Result of stability analysis ...................................................................................................................... 47
Table 5-6: Results of Structural design .................................................................................................................. 48
Table 5-7: Load cases for Structural analysis of Gravel trap flushing culvert ............................................... 50
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page xi


Table 5-9: Results of structural design ................................................................................................................... 51
Table 5-10: Load cases for Structural analysis of Gravel trap flushing gate operating structure ............. 52
Table 5-11: Load combinations ................................................................................................................................ 53
Table 5-12: Results of structural design................................................................................................................. 53
Table 6-1: Criteria for stability analysis for Settling Basin and Headpond..................................................... 56
Table 6-2: Load considered for stability and structural analysis of Settling Basin ....................................... 60
Table 6-4: Result of Stability analysis of Settling Basin ....................................................................................... 63
Table 6-5: Results of structural design ................................................................................................................... 65
Table 6-6: Load considered for Structural analysis of Headpond ................................................................... 67
Table 6-7: Load combination used for Structural analysis of Headpond ....................................................... 68
Table 6-8: Result of structural design of headpond ............................................................................................ 68
Table 7-1 Rock mass distribution prediction along the headrace tunnel .................................................... 71
Table 7-2 Rock support table of HRT (moreover based on Q-System)..................................................... 73
Table 8-1 : General dimension of Surge Shaft ...................................................................................................... 76
Table 8-2 : Properties of Concrete ........................................................................................................................ 76
Table 8-3 : Reinforcement properties .................................................................................................................... 77
Table 8-5: Load Combinations used in SAP2000 Model.................................................................................... 82
Table 8-6: Results of Structural design .................................................................................................................. 83
Table 8-7 : Crack check ............................................................................................................................................. 84
Table 9-1: Material properties ................................................................................................................................. 95
Table 9-2: Material Density....................................................................................................................................... 95
Table 9-3: Reinforced concrete properties for various grades ........................................................................ 95
Table 9-4: Steel Properties ....................................................................................................................................... 95
Table 9-5: Frame Section Properties ...................................................................................................................... 96
Table 9-6 : Load pattern for Power house frame ............................................................................................... 96
Table 9-7 : Load case definition for power house frame................................................................................... 97
Table 9-9 : Dead load case for super structure ................................................................................................. 100
Table 9-10 : Dead load case for sub structure .................................................................................................. 101
Table 9-11: Mass source .......................................................................................................................................... 104
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page xii

Table 9-12 : Modal load participation ratios ....................................................................................................... 104

Table 9-13 : Auto seismic –IS 1893:2002 ............................................................................................................ 105
Table 9-14 : Maximum shear stress ...................................................................................................................... 105
Table 9-15: Summary of Column Reinforcement of Powerhouse ................................................................ 112
Table 9-16: Summary of Beam Reinforcement of Powerhouse ..................................................................... 113
Table 9-17: Summary of Crane Beam Reinforcement of Powerhouse ........................................................ 113
Table 9-18 : Load pattern........................................................................................................................................ 115
Table 9-19 : Load case ............................................................................................................................................. 116
Table 9-20: Summary of Column Reinforcement of Control Building ......................................................... 119
Table 9-21: Summary of Beam Reinforcement of Control Building ............................................................. 119
Table 10-1 : Loads considered ............................................................................................................................... 122
Table 10-2 : Load combinations............................................................................................................................. 123
Table 10-3 : Design summary of Tailrace ............................................................................................................ 124
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page xiii

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This report has been prepared as a part of agreement signed between Department of Electricity
Development, DoED and JV of Hydro consult Engineering and ERMC for Detail engineering design of
Siwa Khola Small hydropower Project. The report describes the outcome of Structural analysis and
design of various components of the project. The stability analysis, structural analysis, design and
their results have been provided in the report. The hydraulic design, energy calculation, plant
optimization, and project evaluation have been included in Project description report.
1.2 Project information

Siwa Khola Small Hydropower Project (SKSHP) is a run-off river project located in hilly terrain of
Taplejung district between the elevations of 4855 masl to 1022 masl. For the power generation of
project, the river is diverted constructing a free flow sloping glacis weir located around 56m
downstream from the confluence of Yanwa Khola and Siwa Khola. The diverted discharge is guided
to the surface powerhouse through 5855m waterway comprising approach canal, settling basin,
power culvert, headrace tunnel and penstock pipe.
A 27.5 m long concrete diversion weir with an uncontrolled sloping glacis gravity concrete weir
having one bay of under sluice is provided to divert the flow. The intake structure is located at the
right bank of Siwa Khola adjacent to the undersluice. Coarse trash rack is provided to prevent the
trashes and coarse sediment from entering to the intake. The sediment, debris and boulders
accumulated on the river bed before the intake is flushed out from time to time through the
undersluice. The sediment passed through the trashrack will be trapped in the gravel trap structure
provided after the approach canal. A flushing structure is provided to flush the trapped gravel in the
gravel trap. The intake is designed to draw the normal discharge of 6.86m3/s including 25% additional
discharge for flushing at gravel trap and settling basin. The estimated discharge is fed to settling basin
through Approach Canal.
A two chambered settling basin is designed to settle the suspended sediments of size greater than
0.15 mm. Flushing arrangements have been provided at the end of each bay to flush the settled
sediments back in to the river through a flushing culvert.
The design discharge of 5.49 m3/s will be conveyed to the headrace tunnel through a power culvert
from a headpond provided at the outlet of settling basin. The length of headrace tunnel before Surge
Shaft about 4635.31m. Whereas, the tunnel length after Surge shaft is about 85.46m. An underground
Surge Shaft is provided to subside the surge before reaching to the headrace pipe. The invert level of
Surge Shaft is at an elevation of about 1611.94 masl and it is connected to the headrace pipe through
an offset pipe of length about 21 m. The length of penstock pipe is about 1198m which feds the
water to the two sets of horizontal pelton turbines inhoused in the powerhouse located at right bank
of Mewa Khola to produce 26.86 MW of power. The tail water coming out of the powerhouse will
be diverted to the Mewa Khola through a tailrace Culvert of length 72.80 m.
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page 1

1.3 Salient Features of the Project

The Salient features of the project finalized from this detailed engineering design are as follows:
Table 1-1: Salient features of the project
1 Project Location
Development Region Eastern
Zone Mechi
District Taplejung
Meringden Rural Municipality, Ward No.-6

(Nalbu VDC), Mikwakhola Rural
Project area Rural Municipality(VDC) Municipality, Ward No.-5 (Papung VDC)
Project boundary
Latitude 27o27’30” N to 27o30’30” N
Longitude 87o34’00” E to 87o37’30” E
Headworks
Latitude 27 o 30’15” N
Longitude 87 o 34’50” E
Powerhouse
Latitude 27 o 28'30" N
Longitude 87 o 36'42" E
2 General
Name of River Siwa Khola
Nearest Town Taplejung Bazar
Type of Scheme Run-of-river
Gross Head 582.50 m
Rated Net Head 568.08 m
3 Hydrology
Catchment Area 131.56 km2
Catchment Area Below 3000 35.07 km2
Catchment Area above 3000 and below 5000 96.48 km2
Catchment Area above 5000 0.00 km2
Design Discharge (41.9% exceedance flow) 5.49 m3/s
Long term annual average flow 43.03 m3/s
Snow Covered Area Not Seen km2
Possibility of GOLF No threat is seen
Design flood at intake (1 in 100 Years) 326.31 m3/s
Design flood at tailrace (1 in 100 Years) 1133.45 m3/s
Telemetric Station
Location and Rular Municipality Meringden Rural Municipality,
Ward No.-6 (Nalbu VDC),
Pandolun
Transmitter Unit
Latitude 27°29'30.34"N
Longitude 87°35'48.80"E
Receiver Unit
Latitude 27°29'29.04"N
Longitude 87°35'54.35"E
4 Power and Energy

Design discharge 5.49 m3/s
Rated net head 568.08 m
Capacity 26.86 MW
Dry Energy 46.08 GWh
Wet Energy 107.14 GWh
Annual total Energy 153.22 GWh
5 Weir
Broad crested Sloping Glacis
Weir Type Free flow
Weir Crest Length (excluding undersluice) 27.50 m
Weir Height (from U/S river bed) 4.50 m
Weir Crest Elevation 1628.50 masl
Operation Platform Elevation 1634.20 masl
Stilling Basin Length 28.80 m
6 Undersluice
Size of Undersluice Opening (b x h)
Width (b) 3.00 m
Height (h) 3.00 m
No of undersluice gates 1.00 nos.
Invert Level 1624.00 masl
7 Intake
Type of Intake Side Intake
Size of Intake Opening
Width (b) 3.60 m
Height (h) 1.50 m
Number of Openings 2.00 nos.
Invert Level 1626.00 masl
Velocity of flow at intake trashrack 0.76 m/s
8 Gravel Trap
No of Hopper 2.00 nos
Width of Each Hopper at Top 3.60 m
Uniform Length of Gravel Trap at base 4.00 m
Total Length of Gravel Trap 13.85 to 18.90 m
Total Width of Gravel Trap at Top (including
m
the divide wall between both Traps) 8.20
Width of hopper 1.00 m
Width of Flushing Gate 1.00 m
Height of Flushing Gate 1.00 m
Length of Flushing Culvert 32.09 m
9 Approach Canal
No of approach canal 2 nos
Bottom width of canal 3.60 m
Top width of canal 3.60 m
Water height in canal 1.00 m
Provided Bed Slope 1 in 500.0
Length of canal 3.20 m
Normal water level at canal inlet 1628.40 masl
Canal invert level at inlet 1627.40 masl
10 Settling basin
Sediment size to be settled 0.15 mm
Number of bays 2.00
Length of Settling Basin (Main Section) 65.00 m
Width of Settling Basin 9.00 m
Efficiency 90.04%
Water Depth 2.30 m
11 Power Culvert
Length 40.05 m
Width 3.00 m
Height 3.00 m
12 Portals
Inlet Portal 3.00 x 3.00 m
3042914.75 N
557665.15 E

Adit Portal 3.00 x 3.00 m

3041453.07 N
558799.12 E
Outlet Portal 3.00 x 3.00 m
3038779.54 N
559664.74 E
13 Tunnel
Shape D-Shaped
Total length ( inlet to outlet portal) 4720.77 m
Headrace Tunnel 4635.31 m
Penstock Tunnel 85.46 m
Adit Tunnel 577.7 m
Width 3.00 m
Height 3.00 m
14 Surge Shaft
Finished Diameter 5.00 m
Upsurge Level 1637.00 masl
Downsurge level 1618.75 masl
Top Level of Surge Shaft including freeboard 1641.11 masl
Bottom Invert level of Surge Shaft 1611.94 masl
Total height including freeboard and
m
submergence 29.17
15 Penstock Pipe
Diameter 1.40 m
Length (including the embedded penstock and
m
the branch pipes after bifurcation) 1198.22
16 Powerhouse and Control Building

Type Surface Powerhouse
Powerhouse Size ( L x B x H), outer
dimensions 37.30 x 17.50 x 20.50 m
Control Building Size (L x B), outer dimensions 37.30 x 6.80 m
No. of Units 2
Turbine Center Line Level 1046 masl
17 Tailrace Culvert
Tailrace Length 72.80 m
Shape Rectangular Box Culvert

Width 2.00 m
Height 1.60 m
Slope before confluence 1 in 400
Slope after confluence 1 in 200
Chute at outlet 1 in 4
18 Turbine
Type Horizontal Shaft PeltonTurbine
Number of units 2
Efficiency 90.50%
19 Generator
Number of Units 2
Efficiency 97%
Voltage 11 kV
10 Switchyard
Width 24.50 m
Length 50.50 m
21 Transmission Line
Length 17.0 Km
Voltage 132 kV
Financial Indicators (based on dry season

price NRs. 8.40/KWh and wet season
22 price NRs. 4.80/KWh)
Project life 30 year from the day of
operation
B/C ratio 1.47
IRR on Project 14.45%
IRR of Equity 17.37%
B/C ratio on Equity 2.29
21 Economic Indicator
B/C Ratio of the project 1.76
IRR on the project 16.23%
IRR on equity 20.75%

2 DIVERSION WEIR AND STILLING BASIN
2.1 General description
2.1.1 Diversion Weir

A sloping glacis free overflow concrete weir has been proposed as the diversion structure which
stands 4.50m high from river bed level across the Siwa Khola. The diversion weir crest is located at
about 56.0m downstream from the confluence of Yanwa and Siwa Khola. The left bank at weir axis
location bears rock outcrop of bedrock which is found stable for weir construction, while the right
bank consists of alluvial deposit thus needs bank protection works. The sizing of the free overflow
weir and fixation of crest level are very much influenced by physical constraints related to the ability
to pass flood flows, river gradient at the weir site and stability of the section. The weir crest
elevation is at 1628.50 masl and the highest water elevation at 100 year return period design flood
shall be 1632.26 masl. Due to high concentration of boulders, gravels and silt in the river, a sloping
glacis type weir profile is provided with 2m crest width for the ease of releasing it to the
downstream. A slope of 1 in 0.75 is kept at Upstream and 1 in 2 slope is kept at the downstream of
the weir profile. Upstream floor level is at 1624 masl whereas the downstream floor level is fixed at
1616.40 masl. The foundation of upstream cutoff is at 1615.50 masl whereas the downstream cutoff
is at 1610.50 masl. The weir is provided with 1 m thick C25 grade structural concrete all around the
surface and plum concrete in the core. A 0.5m thick C60 concrete has been proposed at the crown
and boulder lining of 40cm at downstream sloping of weir body for protection against abrasion.
A 10m long upstream apron of 1.0 m thickness has been provided just upstream of the diversion
weir. A 4.5 m cutoff has been provided in order to reduce the seepage and uplift. The foundation of
cutoff is at 1615.50 masl. The structural concrete used is C25 grade concrete. Further upstream,
0.5m thick, 5m long clay blanket has been provided to increase the seepage path for the purpose of
reducing seepage from the weir. Boulder rip-rap of 1.5 m dia. has been provided with 0.4m sand and
river gravel filter layer at top of clay blanket for the safety of clay blanket layer from its erosion and
wash-away.
2.1.2 Stilling basin

The energy of flow in the spillway will be dissipated by a stilling basin of length 28.80 m and 31.50 m
width on the downstream side of the weir with its floor level at 1616.40 masl. Since the Froude
number lies between 4.5 and 9.0, the jump is steady jump. The hydraulic design is carried out to pass
the 100 years flood. Since the Froude number is more than 4.5, U.S.B.R stilling basin type II has been
recommended. The stilling basin has been designed as concrete structure with varying thickness as
calculated from Khosla’s theory. The stilling basin has been provided with 1 m thick C25 structural
concrete all around the surface and plum concrete in the core in order to economize. The plum
concrete has not been place at thickness less than 2.8 m.
The proposed weir and stilling basin profile is presented in Figure 2-1. For detail drawings of the weir
and stilling basin plan, profile and sections refer “Detail Project report, Volume VII: Part A: Civil
Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/20C01-C03”.

Figure 2-1: Weir and stilling basin profile
2.2 Hydraulic Design

For detail hydraulic design calculation, refer “Detail Project report: Volume IV – Annex B” and for
detail drawings refer “Detail Project Report: Volume VII: Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing No:
78/04/20C01-C03”
2.3 Stability Analysis and Structural Design

The stability analysis of weir has been considered as a single monolithic structure. The SAP model
analysis of weir and stilling basin has not been performed. The minimum reinforcement as specified in
the IS code has been provided in both the structures.
The design has been done complying with Limit stress design method of IS456:2000 and other
associated literatures whereas detailing has been done according to IS13920:1993 and SP-34. British
code has also been utilized from time to time during the detailing of the structural elements.
2.3.1 Approach of Stability Analysis

The stability analysis of Weir has been done various critical cases. The stability analysis of the
mentioned structure is done using stability criteria from USACE (EM 1110-2-2200). The factors of
safety for Sliding, overturning and bearing are given in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Criteria for stability analysis for Weir
Weir stability criteria
Loading Factor of safety (FOS)

Case
condition Sliding Overturning Floatation Bearing Eccentricity
1 Usual 2 1.7 1.3 <1*Qsafe B/6
2 Unusual 1.7 1.5 1.2 <1*Qsafe B/4
3 Extreme 1.3 1.2 1.1 <1.33*Qsafe B/2

2.3.2 Seismic consideration

The seismic consideration for the stability analysis and structural design of weir has been done by
seismic coefficient method from IS: 1893-1984.
h    I o
Where,
αh= horizontal seismic coefficient
β = a coefficient depending upon soil foundation system = 1 (for boulder mixed soil foundation on
raft footings) (refer Table 2-4)
I = importance factor depending upon type of structure = 3 (as weir is one of the most important
structures in the project) (refer Table 2-3)
αo= basic horizontal seismic coefficient = 0.08 (for zone V) (Refer Table 2-2)
The horizontal seismic coefficient αh =0.24
Table 2-2: Value of basic seismic coefficient for different zones

Table 2-3: Value of Importance Factor, I
Table 2-4: Value of β for different soil-Foundation system
2.3.3 Subsoil Conditions

Allowable Bearing capacity of soil was selected based on the subsoil preliminary investigations taken
as follows:
Allowable Bearing Capacity = 170 KN/m^2.
The bearing pressure of foundation of the structure will depend on type and general classification of
soil. For ordinary soils with no reliable information, the permissible bearing pressure shall not be
taken more than 150 KN/m2. Suitable adjustment for depth of soil and overburden pressure will be
made. For boulder mixed soil, the bearing capacity will be higher and a higher value will be taken
from IS codes and other reliable literatures. However, the bearing pressure shall not exceed 250
KN/m2 at surface. In case of rocks, suitable values will be taken following codes and practices and
depending on the geological investigation data, if any.
Unit weight of dry soil = 13 KN/m3
Unit weight of saturated soil =19 KN/m3
Unit weight of submerged soil = 9 KN/m3
Angle of repose for the soil (f) = 30˚
The above mentioned soil parameters have been used for computation of active and passive pressure
due to soil for Weir components of the head work.
2.3.4 Loads
Following loads were applied for stability analysis and structural analysis.
Dead load
The dead load includes loads that are relatively constant over time, including the weight of the
structure itself. This type of load may also include the weight and invariable loads attached to the
structure. The weight of a structure has been calculated in per meter basis for stability analysis
whereas it is calculated and applied to SAP 2000 by software itself. The plan geometry has been
modeled in SAP whereas thickness and the material weight properties were defined for each
structure. The material properties and dimensions used are as follows:
Concrete specific weight = 25 KN/m3
Dead load taken in Stability analysis and structural analysis (SAP model)
 Dead
 Weight of soil
 Upthrust
 Surcharge load
 Weight of boulder
 Active earth pressure
Live loads
Live loads are the variable load on the structure that adds on to the dead or intrinsic load of the
structure.
Live load used for Stability analysis and structural analysis (SAP model) in this project are:
 Hydrostatic load in normal flow
 Hydrostatic load in average monsoon
 Hydrostatic load in 200 year flood
 Uplift load in normal flow
 Uplift load in average monsoon
 Uplift load in 200 year flood
Seismic loads:
These loads are the loads due to the effect of the earthquake on the structure and the surrounding.
The earthquake load has been calculated on the basis of IS: 1893- 1984 and applied manually as a
uniformly varying load or point load depending on the structure. The horizontal seismic coefficient
has been taken as 0.24 and the base shear thus obtained has been applied as a uniformly varying load
on the member or as point load.
2.3.5 Structural analysis and design

The structural members are designed by using limit state method in which the structure shall
withstand safely all loads liable to act on it throughout its life. It shall also satisfy the serviceability
requirements such as limitations on deflection and cracking.
A Slab of uniform thickness 1 m has been considered as structural concrete around the weir.
Similarly a slab of uniform thickness of 1m has been considered for stilling basin floor. Since, the core
of weir body and stilling basin consist of plum concrete, structural analysis is not required. So,
minimum area of reinforcement as specified by the IS 3370(part 2) has been provided in both the
structures. However the deflection criteria and crack width has been checked for the structures.
Concrete
 Grade: C25
 Clear Concrete cover: 75 mm (For structure’s surface exposed to backfilling and water)
: 50mm (For remaining surface)
Reinforcements
 Grade : Fe 500
 Development length : 50Ф
Deflection criteria
The maximum allowable deflection for all the structural members should comply with the deflection
criteria given in IS 456:2000 (chapter 23.2).
Crack width
The maximum crack width allowed for any structural element is 0.2 mm as per IS 456. The crack
width has been calculated by using ANNEX F of IS 456:2000.
2.3.6 Load Cases

Following are the load condition used for stability analysis.
Usual Loading Conditions
Case 1. Normal Operation

 Dead Load
 Reservoir water surface elevation 1628.50 masl
 Earth Pressure(Active)
 Uplift Pressure

Unusual Loading Condition

Case 2. Annual Flood
 Dead Load
 Uplift Pressure
Case 3. Construction Period

 Dead Load
Extreme Loading Condition

Case 4. Seismic load at Normal Operation
 Dead Load
 Uplift Pressure
 Seismic Load(Horizontal and Vertical)
 Hydrodynamic Force
Case 5. Seismic load during Annual Flood
 Dead Load
 Uplift Pressure
Case 6.High Flood (200 years return period)
 Dead Load
 Uplift Pressure
2.3.7 Results of stability analysis

For detailed Stability Analysis calculation of Weir, refer “Detail Project Report – Volume VI: Annex
G”.
The result of Stability Analysis of weir is given in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5: Results of Stability analysis of Weir
FOS against FOS Minimum Maximum

Overturning against Bearing Bearing
Sliding pressure pressure
S.N. Condition (KN/m2) (KN/m2)
1.72 2.72 26.48 73.93
1 Normal
1.52 1.87 9.51 68.36
2 Monsoon Condition
Normal Condition with Seismic
1.33 5.27 14.87 44.37
3 force( ↓ )
2.01 3.84 38.09 103.50
4 force( ↑ )
1.34 1.47 6.17 94.25
5 force ( → )
1.89 7.15 -21.89 122.31
6 force(←)
Monsoon Condition with
1.30 4.44 -3.14 39.83
7 Seismic force( ↓ )
1.78 3.07 20.08 98.96
8 Seismic force( ↑ )
1.23 1.31 0.96 76.90
9 Seismic force( → )
1.68 6.69 -40.58 118.44
10 Seismic force( ← )
4.13 7.03 70.86 113.47
11 Construction period
1.29 3.86 -0.30 52.07
12 High Flood (200 years)
2.3.8 Results of structural design analysis

The result of Structural Design of weir, U/S apron and stilling basin is given in Table 2-6
Table 2-6: Results of Structural analysis of Weir
S.N Component Main Bar Distribution Bar Remarks

16 mm dia @150 mm c/c 16 mm dia @150 mm
1 Weir Slab
spacing on both faces c/c spacing on both faces

2 U/S apron

3 Stilling Basin

2.3.9 Design Codes and Guidelines Referred

 IS 456-2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete- Code of Practice
 IS 1893-1984, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
 IS 3370 (part 2):2009 Concrete structures for storage of liquid
 Design of Reinforced Concrete (Limit State Design) A.K Jain
 EM 1110-2-2100 Stability analysis of concrete structures, US Army Corps of Engineers
 EM 1110-2-2200, Gravity Dam Design, US Army Corps of Engineers
 DoED Guidelines, Part 2B: Concrete Diversion Structures

3 FLOOD PROTECTION WALLS
3.1 General Description

Downstream of weir beside settling basin
The purpose of flood wall is preventing the overtopping of water for design flood and also to support
the soil mass laterally from heel side. In this project we have dealt with counterfort retaining wall as
per the need of site conditions and for optimization of the section. Total length of Flood wall at the
downstream of Weir along Settling basin at the right bank is 114m. Counterfort Flood Walls been
provided at the Downstream of Weir along the right bank taking the 100 year return period design
flood of corresponding river location . The height of 9.8 m has been provided from the scour depth
calculation and with the starting of Undersluice upstream apron, the height of the Flood wall along it
varies from 12.4 m to 9.8 m with the provision of 40cm thick hard stone lining correspondence to
the design of Undersluice upstream apron. Since, the stilling basin has been designed as concrete
structure with varying thickness, the height of the Flood wall adjoining to the Stilling basin also varies
ranges from 12.4 m to 9.8 m correspondence to the design of stilling basin mentioned in the Table
3-3. The structural concrete used in all the cases is C25 grade concrete.
Basic assumptions considered for flood wall stability analysis:
 Level of backfill height is 1627.35 masl which should be strictly followed in highest
counterfort.
 The back fill soil is assumed to be fully saturated upto the river water level considering the
unit weight 19 KN/m2 and the weight of remaining backfill is calculated considering the unit
weight 15 KN/m2 .
 Provision of perforated pipe is assumed in the backfill.
 Passive earth pressure at the toe from the river side is ignored.
 90% uplift is considered from the river side water.
 Safe bearing capacity is assumed to be 200 kN/m2.
The Downstream Flood wall plan, profile and cross section are presented below. For detail
drawings of the Flood Wall plan, profile and sections refer “Detail Project Report: Volume VII:
Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/22C01-03”

Figure 3-1General arrangement of D/S flood wall
Figure 3-2 Longitudinal section of Downstream Flood wall

Figure 3-3 Typical cross section of Downstream Flood wall
3.2 Stability and structural analysis

For the Stability and Structural analysis of Flood Wall, calculation has been carried out in per meter
basis and designed manually in MS-Excel. The failure of the structural elements is checked against the
permissible limit of tensile, compressive and shear stresses.
associated literatures whereas detailing has been done according to IS13920:1993 and SP-34.
3.2.1 Approach of Stability analysis

The stability analysis of above mentioned walls has been done as counterfort retaining walls. The
stability analysis for intake flood walls are done using stability criteria from USACE (Engineering and
design – Retaining and flood walls EM 1110-2-2502). The factors of safety for sliding, overturning,
Floatation and bearing are given in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Retaining wall stability criteria
Loading Factor of safety

Case
1 Usual 1.5 1.5 1.2 <1*Qsafe B/6
2 Unusual 1.33 1.33 1.2 <1*Qsafe B/4
3 Earthquake 1.1 1.1 1.2 <1.33*Qsafe B/2


The seismic consideration for the structural design of intake flood wall has been done by seismic
coefficient method from IS-1893-1984.
h    I o
Where,
αh = horizontal seismic coefficient
raft footings)
I = importance factor depending upon type of structure = 1.5
αo = basic horizontal seismic coefficient = 0.08 (for zone V)

The permissible bearing pressure is taken less than 170 kN/m2 for boulder mixed soil. Suitable
adjustment for depth of soil and overburden pressure has been made. In case of rocks, suitable
values have been taken following codes and practices and depending on the geological investigation
data, if any.
3.2.4 Loads
Dead load
structure. The weight of a structure has been calculated in per meter basis .The material properties
and dimensions used are as follows:
Dead load taken in Stability analysis and structural analysis
 Self-weight of Structure
 Weight of soil
 Surcharge load (considered only in Switchyard area)
Live loads
structure.
Live load used for Stability analysis and structural analysis in this project are:
 Hydrostatic load in dry condition
 Hydrostatic load in annual monsoon

 Uplift load in dry condition

 Uplift load in annual monsoon
Seismic loads:
The earthquake load has been calculated on the basis of IS: 1893- 1984. The horizontal seismic
coefficient has been taken as 0.12 and the base shear thus obtained has been applied as a point load
acting at the centroid.
3.2.5 Load Cases for Counterfort Flood wall

Following sets of load cases were used for the analysis.
Table 3-2: Load condition
Cases Load condition
Dry condition (without considering Earthquake) Usual
Dry condition (considering Earthquake) Extreme
Annual monsoon(without considering Earthquake) Unusual
Annual monsoon(considering Earthquake) Extreme
100 years flood (without considering Earthquake) Extreme
3.2.6 Structural Analysis and Design

Structural Analysis of counterforts retaining wall is done manually by the use of existing formulas and
philosophy as mentioned below.
3.2.6.1 Fixation of base width (B)

The base width is approximately taken equal to 0.6 H to 0.7H. However in the case of Downstream
Flood Wall adjoining to the stilling Basin, the toe is projected upto the expansion joint provided in
the stilling basin.
3.2.6.2 Design of stem

The vertical stem is designed as continuous slab spanning between the counterforts. The slab deflects
away from the earth face between the counter forts.
Active earth pressure intensity (Pa) =Ka*Ys*H
Ultimate bending moment (-ve) at inner face of counter forts (Mu) =1.5*Pa*L2/12
Ultimate bending moment (+ve) at mid-way between counter forts (Mu) = 1.5*Pa*L2/16
Where L= clear spacing of counterforts.

3.2.6.3 Design of heel slab

The heel slab is also designed as continuous slab spanning over the counter forts.
Ultimate bending moment (-ve) at inner face of counter forts (Mu) =1.5*P*L2/12
Ultimate bending moment (+ve) at mid-way between counter forts (Mu) = 1.5*P*L2/16
Where L= clear spacing of counter forts and P is the net downward force.
3.2.6.4 Design of toe slab

Since the wall is designed without the counter fort above toe slab and neglecting the weight of the
soil above it, the toe slab will bend upwards as a cantilever due to upward soil reaction.
3.2.6.5 Design of counter forts

The counter forts act as T-beam of varying cross-section under the action of lateral earth pressure.
Its design is made for moment and shear due to lateral earth pressure.
3.2.6.6 Design for tension at the interface of counter fort and vertical wall
Tu= 0.87*fy*Ast
Tu=1.5*Ka*Ys*h*c/c spacing of counter forts
Where, Tu ultimate maximum tension in 1m height of wall at critical section.
3.2.6.7 Design for tension at the interface of counter fort and heel slab
Tu =1.5*Net pressure at the end of heel slab*spacing of counter forts
 For base slab, load case which gives maximum bearing pressure is considered into account.
 Structural Analysis is done considering the optimization of use of steel as well as maintaining
the safety of structure being on the pessimistic side.
 Partial factor of safety for concrete is taken as 1.5
 Partial factor of safety for steel is taken as 1.15
 While structural design, being pessimist a slight higher value of area of steel is taken.
requirements such as limitations on cracking.
The moment, shear force in the above cases has been calculated manually, The design of the
structure has been done according to the maximum moment and shear force among all the required
combinations.
The area of steel has been calculated from the relation given below:
100 Ast
Pt 
bd
Where Pt =
And
The designed wall has been also checked for safety in shear forces.

Vu
Shear stress in concrete has been calculated as v 
bd
Where,
 Vu=Maximum shear force
 b = width of the designed member, taken for 1 m width
 d = thickness of the designed member
 Allowable shear stress for the required grade of concrete and above designed main
reinforcement bars were taken from IS 456:2000 – Table 19.
Concrete
 Grade: C25
 Clear Concrete cover: 50 mm
Reinforcements
 Grade : Fe 500
Crack width

The stable flood wall section details of Downstream Flood wall, Downstream Flood wall and
switchyard area are presented below:
Table 3-3: Stable flood wall section details of Downstream Flood Wall
Name Height Base Heel Toe Bottom stem Top stem Backfill Type
Type B 9.8 6.5 3.0 2.5 1 0.4 13.5 Counterfort
Type C 10.8 6.5 3.0 2.5 1 0.4 13.5 Counterfort
Type D 11.8 8.0 4.5 2.5 1 0.4 15.5 Counterfort
Type E 12.4 8.0 4.5 2.5 1 0.4 16.0 Counterfort
Design of Downstream flood wall has been done to acquire optimum output. Here below enlisted
summary tables are for counterfort wall having height 9.8m. For detail calculation, refer “Detail
Project Report – Volume VI: Annex G”.
Table 3-4 : Stability analysis summary for Counterfort wall, H=9.8 m
Load combination cases

Description
Dry condition Annual monsoon 100 years

Flood
Considering Considering
Without EQ EQ Without EQ EQ Without EQ
789.837 789.837 649.551 649.551 639.592
Total Vertical load,
KN
Total Horizontal
load, KN -195.194 -299.223 -165.419 -260.089 -150.676
Resisting Moment,
KNm 3357.058 3357.058 4204.252 4204.252 4780.235
Overturning
Moment, KNm 637.634 954.450 2024.177 2321.806 2572.521
Max. Pressure 143.163 144.855 109.735 132.394 116.724
Min. Pressure 99.863 98.172 90.127 67.468 80.074
Eccentricity (e) -0.193 0.208 -0.106 0.352 -0.202
F.O.S. against Sliding 2.83 1.85 2.75 1.75 2.97
F.O.S. against
Overturning 5.26 3.52 2.08 1.81 1.86
F.O.S against
Floatation - - 2.59 2.59 2.15
 For all cases toe is taken at river side.

 Structure is safe against overturning , sliding , bearing pressure and floatation.
Remaining sections which are mentioned above in Table 3-73 in the downstream of weir are
Counterfort Retaining Wall, which are also safe against sliding, overturning, bearing and floatation.

For the structural analysis output for the Counterfort Flood Wall and their detail calculation, refer
“Detail Project Report – Volume VI: Annex G” and for rebar drawings refer “Detail Project Report:
Volume VIII, Part B: Structural Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/22R01-R03”.
The summary of structural design is provided below:
Table 3-4: Structural analysis output for counterfort, H=9.8 m
Height of stem from Moment, kNm Shear Force, KN

top
Toe Heel stem Counterfort Toe Heel Stem
1.5m from top 4.34 8.69
50% from top ( 4.9 m) 383.772

316.78 31.92 160.27 63.84

100% from top ( 9.8 m) 50.97 3070.174 101.95
Table 3-5: Structural design summary of counterfort, H=9.8 m
Main Bar Distribution Bar

Diameter Spacing Diameter Spacing
mm mm mm mm
Stem 0-50% from top 16.0 150.0 16.0 150.0
Stem 50-100% from top 16.0 150.0 16.0 150.0
Toe slab 25.0 150.0 16.0 150.0
Heel slab 25.0 150.0 16.0 150.0
Counterfort 25.0
Horizontal ties 12.0 200.0
Vertical ties 12.0 200.0
Along Powerhouse
In this portion we have dealt with retaining wall as per the need of site conditions and for
optimization of the section. 153.5m long Flood Wall been provided at the Powerhouse along the
right bank taking the 100 year return period design flood 1041.43 masl . The height of 7.0m has been
provided from the scour depth calculation and with the starting from Switchyard along Powerhouse
to Tailrace. The height of the Flood wall throughout the section is 7.0 m with the provision of 40cm
thick hard stone lining correspondence to the design of downstream of Weir. Total length of Flood
wall at Switchyard and Powerhouse along the right bank is 156.5m. 100 years design flood along the
switchyard is fixed at 1041.43 masl for the design of Flood wall of length 30m and 1040.22 masl for
the designed Floodwall of length 35. Similarly, 100 years design flood along the Powerhouse is fixed
at 1039.71 masl for the design of Flood wall of length 25m and 1038.50 masl for the designed
Floodwall of length 12m. Also, 100 years design flood along the Tailrace is fixed at 1037.66 masl for
the design of Flood wall of length 29.5m. The Floodwall has been designed as concrete structure with
uniform thickness and uniform height. The structural concrete used in all the cases is C25 grade
concrete.
Basic assumptions considered for flood wall stability analysis:
 Level of backfill height is 1046.60 masl which should be strictly followed in highest Floodwall
 The back fill soil is assumed to be fully saturated upto the river water level considering the
unit weight 19 KN/m2 and the weight of remaining backfill is calculated considering the unit
weight 15 KN/m2 .
 Provision of perforated pipe is assumed in the backfill.
 Passive earth pressure at the toe from the river side is ignored.

 Full uplift is considered from the river side water.

 Safe bearing capacity is assumed to be 150 kN/m2.
The upstream Flood wall plan, profile and cross section are presented in Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5
and Figure 3-6 respectively. For etail drawings of the Flood Wall plan, profile and sections refer
“Detail Project Report: Volume VIII: Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/43C01-C06”
Figure 3-4 General arrangement of flood walls along powerhouse and switchyard
Figure 3-5 Longitudinal section of Flood wall along powerhouse and switchyard

Figure 3-6 Typical cross section of Flood wall along powerhouse and switchyard
3.3 Stability and structural analysis

For the Stability and Structural analysis of Flood Wall, calculation has been carried out in per meter
basis and designed manually in MS-Excel. The failure of the structural elements is checked against the
permissible limit of tensile, compressive and shear stresses.
associated literatures whereas detailing has been done according to IS13920:1993 and SP-34.

The stable flood wall section details of Upstream Flood wall, Downstream Flood wall and switchyard
area are presented below:
Table 3-6: Stable flood wall section details along Switchyard area
Height Base Heel Toe Bottom stem Top stem Backfill Type
7.0 5.90 3.2 1.5 1.2 0.3 9.80 Cantilever

Table 3-7: Stable flood wall section details along Powerhouse area
Height Base Heel Toe Bottom Top Backfill Type

stem stem
7.0 5.90 3.2 1.5 1.2 0.3 9.70 Cantilever
Table 3-8: Stable flood wall section details of Tailrace area
Height Base Heel Toe Bottom Top Backfill Type

stem stem
7.0 5.90 3.2 1.5 1.2 0.3 9.60 Cantilever
Design of Switchyard and Powerhouse flood wall has been done to acquire optimum output. Here
below enlisted summary tables are for cantilever floodwalls having height 7.0m. For detail calculation,
refer “Detail Project Report – Volume VI: Annex I”.
Table 3-9 : Stability analysis summary for Counterfort wall, H=14.1 m
Load combination cases

Description Annual monsoon
Dry condition 100 years Flood
Without Considering Without
EQ EQ EQ Considering EQ Without EQ
Total Vertical load, KN 712.325 712.325 574.473 574.473 512.654
Total Horizontal load,
KN -159.265 -257.341 -229.432 -139.337 -118.416
Resisting Moment, KNm 2617.683 2617.683 3070.667 3070.667 3489.825
Overturning Moment,
KNm 392.56 608.460 1290.57 1494.395 1862.894463
Max. Pressure 142.066 136.614 112.088 117.780 106.644
Min. Pressure 99.400 104.852 82.648 76.956 67.137
Eccentricity (e) -0.174 0.129 -0.149 0.206 -0.224
F.O.S. against Sliding 3.13 2.89 2.89 1.753 3.03
F.O.S. against
Overturning 6.668 4.30 2.379 2.055 1.873
F.O.S against Floatation 2.93 2.93 2.11
 For all cases toe is taken at river side.

 Structure is safe against overturning , sliding , bearing pressure and floatation.

Remaining sections which are mentioned above in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 in the Powerhouse and
Tailrace area respectively are Cantilever Retaining Wall, which are also safe against sliding,
overturning, bearing and floatation.

For the structural analysis output for the Cantilever Flood Wall and their detail calculation, refer
“Detail Project Report – Volume VI: Annex I” and for rebar drawings refer “Detail Project Report:
Volume VIII, Part B: Structural Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/43R01-R14.
The summary of structural design is provided below:
Table 3-10: Structural analysis output for Cantilever Floodwall
Moment, kNm Shear Force, KN

Height of
Toe Heel stem Counterfort Toe Heel Stem Counterfort
stem from top
5.8m from top 156.53 444.80 616.90 54.88 259.49 212.72
Table 3-11 : Structural design summary of Cantilever Floodwall, H=7.0m
Main Bar Distribution Bar

Diameter Spacing Diameter Spacing
mm mm mm mm
Stem 0-50% from top 16.0 150.0 16.0 200
Stem 50-100% from top 16.0 150.0 16.0 200
Toe Slab 20.0 150.0 16.0 150.0
Heel Slab 20.0 150.0 16.0 150.0
Horizontal ties 12.0 200
Vertical ties 12.0 200
3.4 Codes and References:

 USACE (Engineering and design – Retaining and flood walls EM 1110-2-2502).
 IS 456-2000
 Is 1893-1984
 IS13920:1993 and SP-34.
 Soil Mechanics ad Foundation Engineering –Dr.K.R.Agor
 Reinforced Concrete Design- S UnniKrishna Pillai /Devdas Menon

4 UNDERSLUICE AND TRASH PASSAGE
4.1.1 Undersluice
The undersluice has been proposed at right bank of Siwa Khola, parallel to the weir axis. It has been
intended for prevention of large amount of sediment entering into the intake and to pass a portion of
high flood discharge through its conduit along with the flushing of large size sediments to the
downstream of the river. It has been provisioned with a single radial gate of opening size 3m x 3m
(W x H). The gate regulation of undersluice will guide the design discharge flow through intake
during the low flow season with least amount of sediment during flood. Considering the size of
boulders available at headworks site, it is assumed that the river will carry the boulders of size above
1.5 m rarely. It should be wide enough to keep the approach velocities sufficiently lower than critical
velocities to ensure maximum settling of suspended sediment load at intake while it remains closed.
Since the floor and the walls of the undersluice are highly susceptible to abrasion, the walls will be
steel lined and the floor will be lined with 50cm hard stone along with alternate concrete beams. The
proposed undersluice profile is shown in Figure 4-1. For detail civil drawing of the undersluice refer
“Detailed Project Report, Volume VII: Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing No: 078/04/21C01 and
21C02”.
4.1.2 Trash passage

There is a provision of trash passage near to the intake to pass the trash coming in front of the
intakes and carry it towards downstream of the weir. The opening of the trash passage is 3m wide by
2.0 m high. The trash passage having a length of about 31m passes through along the side wall of the
undersluice. The proposed profile of trash passage is shown in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-1: Undersluice section

Figure 4-2: Trash passage section

For detail hydraulic design calculation, “Detailed Project Report (DPR): Volume IV– Annex B” and
for detail drawings refer “Detailed Project Report Draft (DPR), Volume VII: Part A: Civil Drawings,
Drawing No: 078/04/21C01 and 21C02”.
4.3 Stability Analysis and Structural Design

The stability and structural analysis of undersluice has been performed considering the whole
structures as one monolithic structure. The undersluice and trash passage is modelled as shell model
in SAP 2000 for analysis and designed manually in MS-Excel. The failure of the structural elements is
checked against the permissible limit of tensile, compressive and shear stresses. Successive iterations
have been done in the sections of structure in order to bring the stresses within these limits.
The undersluice sluice walls are flexure dominant and designed as cantilever wall. It should be
specifically mentioned that the design force or stresses are adopted from the worst combinations
out of whole taken during analysis.
associated literatures whereas detailing has been done according to IS13920:1993 and SP-34. British
code has also been utilized from time to time during the detailing of the structural elements.

The stability analysis of Weir has been done various critical cases. The stability analysis of the
mentioned structure is done using stability criteria from USACE (EM 1110-2-2200). The factors of
safety for Sliding, overturning and bearing are given in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Criteria for stability analysis for Undersluice
Undersluice stability criteria

Case
1 Usual 2 1.7 1.3 <1*Qsafe B/6
2 Unusual 1.7 1.5 1.2 <1*Qsafe B/4
3 Extreme 1.3 1.2 1.1 <1.33*Qsafe B/2

The seismic consideration for the stability analysis and structural design of weir has been done by
seismic coefficient method from IS: 1893-1984.
h    I o
Where,
raft footings) (refer Table 2-4)
I = importance factor depending upon type of structure = 3 (as undersluice is one of the most
important structures in the project) (refer Table 2-3)
αo= basic horizontal seismic coefficient = 0.08 (for zone V) (Refer Table 2-2)

Allowable Bearing capacity of soil was selected based on the subsoil preliminary investigations taken
as follows:
Allowable Bearing Capacity = 170KN/m^2.
The bearing pressure of foundation of the structure will depend on type and general classification of
soil. For ordinary soils with no reliable information, the permissible bearing pressure shall not be
taken more than 150 KN/m2. Suitable adjustment for depth of soil and overburden pressure will be
made. For boulder mixed soil, the bearing capacity will be higher and a higher value will be taken
from IS codes and other reliable literatures. However, the bearing pressure shall not exceed 250
KN/m2 at surface. In case of rocks, suitable values will be taken following codes and practices and
depending on the geological investigation data, if any.
due to soil for undersluice components of the head work.

4.3.4 Loads
Dead load
modeled in SAP whereas thickness and the material weight properties were defined for each
 Dead
 Weight of soil
 Upthrust
 Surcharge load
 Weight of boulder
Live loads
structure.
 Hydrostatic load in average monsoon
 Uplift load in average monsoon
Seismic loads:
The earthquake load has been calculated on the basis of IS: 1893-1984 and applied manually as a
uniformly varying load or point load depending on the structure. The horizontal seismic coefficient
has been taken as 0.24 and the base shear thus obtained has been applied as a uniformly varying load
on the member or as point load.

4.3.5 Structural analysis and design

requirements such as limitations on deflection and cracking.
Analysis of the SAP 2000 model has been done for above load cases and analysis data were also
created for all the load cases and also an envelope which contained all the maximum values from
each of the combination. Design has been done by taking the values of moment, Shear force and axial
loads from the analyzed SAP 2000 model.
The design of the structure has been done according to the absolute maximum moment, shear force
and axial force obtained from the envelope of the all the necessary combinations. Both maximum
negative and maximum positive values for these internal forces were taken. To differentiate from
compression member and flexural member, the absolute maximum axial load has been checked with
0.04*fck*Ag.
If F < 0.04*fck*Ag, then the shell has been designed as a flexural member,
Whereas, if F > 0.04*fck*Ag then the shell member has been designed as compression member
Where,
 fck = characteristic strength of concrete 25 MPa
 Ag= Gross concrete area of the cross-section
The flexural member has been designed according to Limit Stress Method with following relations:
Resisting Moment,
  y  Ast 
M lim  0.87   y  Ast  d  1  
  b  d  f ck 
The area of steel has been calculated from the above relation.
Vu
c 
Shear stress in concrete has been calculated as bd
Where,
 Allowable shear stress for the thickness and above designed main reinforcement bars were
taken from IS 456:2000 – Table 23.
Concrete
 Grade: C25
Reinforcements

 Grade : Fe 500

Deflection criteria
Crack width
width has been calculated by using IS ANNEX F of 456:2000.
Figure 4-3:Undersluice SAP model
4.3.6 Load Cases and conditions

Following are the load condition used for stability analysis.
Usual Loading Conditions
Case 1. Normal Operation
 Dead Load
 Uplift Pressure
Unusual Loading Condition

Case 2. Annual Flood
 Dead Load
 Uplift Pressure
Case 3. Construction Period

 Dead Load

Extreme Loading Condition

Case 4. Seismic load at Normal Operation
 Dead Load
 Uplift Pressure
Case 5. Seismic load during Annual Flood
 Dead Load
 Uplift Pressure
Case 6.High Flood (200 years return period)
 Dead Load
 Uplift Pressure

Following are the load cases used in SAP2000 model for structural analysis.
Table 4-2: Load Cases used in SAP 2000 Model
Dead ( DL) Live (LL) Quake (EL)

A Dead load F Hydrostatic load in J Earthquake load in X & Y
B Weight of soil  Normal Flow K Dynamic Earth Pressure
C Upthrust in  Monsoon Flow
 No Flow  200 yr flood Gate Opened
 Normal Flow  200 yr flood Gate Closed
 Monsoon flood G Uplift in
 100 yr flood  Normal Flow
D Active Earth pressure  Monsoon Flow
E Weight of U/S Water in  200 yr flood Gate Opened
 Normal Flow  200 yr flood Gate Closed
 Monsoon Flow H Operational platform Load
 200 yr flood I Radial gate load
4.3.7 Load Combination

Following are the load combinations used in SAP2000 model.
Table 4-3: Load Combination
S.N General Combination Condition Combination

1 1.5(Dead Load) During Construction 1.5*(A+B+C+D)
Normal Operation
water level and gate
closed
1.5(Dead Load + Live Average Monsoon
2 1.5*( A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I)
Load) Water level and gate
closed
High water level and
Gate Closed
Normal Operation
closed during
1.2(Dead Load + Live Earthquake
3 1.2*( A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I±(J+K))
Load± EQ)
Average Monsoon
water level during
Earthquake
Average Monsoon
water level and Gate
1.5(Dead Load + Live Open
6 1.5*( A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I)
Load)
High water level and
Gate Open


For detailed Stability Analysis calculation of undersluice, refer “Detail Project Report – Volume VI:
Annex G.
The result of Stability Analysis of undersluice is given in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: Results of stability analysis
FOS against FOS Minimum Maximum

Overturning against Bearing Bearing
Sliding pressure pressure
S.N, Condition (KN/m2) (KN/m2)
Normal 2.37 12.48 98.13 123.33

1
Annual Monsoon 2.07 9.01 99.60 107.69
2
Seismic( ↓ ) and normal flow condition 2.68 11.23 134.45 145.44
3
Seismic( ← ) and normal flow condition 1.78 9.57 64.52 98.52
4
Seismic( → ) and normal flow condition 1.72 1.81 27.99 193.47
5
Seismic( ↑ ) and normal flow condition 2.34 2.60 5.50 215.96
6
Seismic( ↓ ) and Monsoon condition 2.34 11.30 129.79 135.91
7
Seismic( ← ) and Monsoon condition 1.62 7.43 82.88 194.94
8
Seismic( → ) and Monsoon condition 1.57 1.67 12.35 194.94
9
Seismic( ↑ ) and Monsoon condition 2.38 2.60 6.96 200.32
10
200 years flood condition 1.92 5.36 26.48 144.58
11
Construction period 3 28.08 90.91 107.11
12

For detailed calculation of undersluice and trash passage, refer “Detail Project Report – Volume VI:
Annex G” and for rebar drawings refer “Detail Project Report: Volume VII, Part B: Structural
Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/21R01-R05”
The result of Structural Design of undersluice and trash passage is given in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5: Results of structural analysis
25 mm dia @150 mm c/c 16 mm dia @150

Undersluice divide Refer structural
1 spacing on both faces for mm c/c spacing on
Wall near weir drawings
bottom half both faces

20 mm dia @150 mm c/c

Refer structural
spacing on both faces for
drawings
upper half
25 mm dia @150 mm c/c

Refer structural
drawings
Undersluice Side bottom faces 16 mm dia @150
2 Wall near trash mm c/c spacing on
passage 20 mm dia @150 mm c/c both faces
Refer structural
drawings
upper half
16 mm dia @150
25 mm dia @150 mm c/c Refer structural
3 Breast wall mm c/c spacing on
spacing on both faces drawings
both faces
16 mm dia @150
4 Floor Slab mm c/c spacing on
both faces
12 mm dia @150
5 Operation Platform mm c/c spacing on
both faces
Trunion Block (along 16 mm dia, 1 layer
25 mm dia, 1 Layer @150 Refer structural
6 horizontal @150 mm c/c
mm c/c spacing drawings
Direction) spacing
16 mm dia @150
Trunion Block (along 16 mm dia @150 mm c/c Refer structural
7 mm c/c spacing on
Vertical Direction spacing on both faces drawings
both faces
Note: The lap length shall be maintained at least 50 times the larger size rebar dia.

 IS 3370 (part 2):2009 concrete structures for storage of liquid

5 INTAKE & GRAVEL TRAP
5.1.1 Intake
A submerged orifice type side intake with two openings is designed to draw the discharge of 6.863
m3/s (including 25% additional discharge, required for flushing of gravel trap and settling basin and
canal overrating) at the normal water level 1628.50 masl (water level at weir crest level).The flow
velocity through the intake orifice at normal water level is limited to 0.775 m/s. A coarse trash rack
consisting of 20 mm thick bars spaced at 100mm center to center will be kept at an inclination of 80°
with the horizontal direction. The invert level of intake orifice has been kept 2 m above the invert
level of undersluice, at a level of 1626.00 masl to prevent the entry of bed load into the intake
chamber from the river. The water will enter a small culvert of the intake through two openings of
size 3.6m x 1.5m and then flow to the gravel trap. Top level of the intake gate will be at 1 m below
the weir crest level to prevent the entry of floating debris into the intake. The upper part of the
intake above the trash racks will have a breast wall to control the entrance of flood water into the
water conveyance system. The intake gate is operated to control the entry of excessive discharge
into the intake during high flow in the river. The plant will be operated only up to the 10 year flood.
A trash passage structure is provided at the left side of the intake. For detail Civil drawings, refer
“Detail Project Report, Volume VII: Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/23C01-C06”.
5.1.2 Gravel Trap

In SKSHP the gravel trap is proposed immediately after the intake and is designed to remove bed
loads with particle size greater than 5 mm. It is designed as double hopper (3.60m width each) with
conventional hydraulic flushing at an interval of 2 hour. The entrance of gravel trap is kept at 1626.00
masl. The slope of 1 in 2 is provided before the start of uniform hopper section. The start of uniform
section is fixed at 1624.00 masl with a varying slope due to the curvilinear path from intake to the
end of the gravel trap. The longitudinal slope of 1 in 20 with a length of 15m and 1 in 13 with the
length 9.85m to ease the flushing of settled particles. Flow velocity in gravel trap is calculated as 0.40
m/s. At the downstream end of the gravel trap, a gravel flushing culvert is provided to flush the
trapped particles. Flushing gates are also provided to control the flushing discharge. The invert level
at the end of gravel trap is kept at 1623.85 masl. The vertical gate along with gate operating platform
is proposed before end of flushing culvert with the aim of controlling the flow entrance.
The design discharge for gravel flushing will be taken as 10% of design discharge. Flushing culvert of
1m width and 1m height will be provided at a slope of 1 in 30 for individual and 1.5 m width and 1.5m
height will be provided at a slope of 1 in 30 for merged conduit to flush out particles up to 100 mm
mean diameter. The full flushing of the gravel trap will be carried out during monsoon, withdrawing
additional discharge through the intake orifice. The gravel flushing culvert will pass below the settling
basin will be released at the downstream end of undersluice.

Figure 5-1 Intake and Gravel Trap sectional view

For detail hydraulic design calculation, refer “Detail Project Report: Volume IV – Annex B” and for
78/04/23C01-06”.
5.3 Stability Analysis & Structural Design

The Stability analysis has been performed for intake and gravel trap as a monolithic unit. All the
possible scenario has been incorporated in the stability analysis of the structure fulfilling the stability
criteria from USACE (EM 1110-2-2200, Gravity Dam Design and EM 1110-2-2100 Stability analysis of
concrete structures, US Army Corps of Engineers). The factor of safety for Sliding, overturning,
floatation and bearing is given in Table 5-1
Table 5-1: Criteria for stability analysis for Intake and Gravel Trap
Intake and Gravel Trap stability criteria

Case
1 Usual 2 1.7 1.3 <1*Qsafe B/6
2 Unusual 1.7 1.5 1.2 <1*Qsafe B/4
3 Extreme 1.3 1.2 1.1 <1.33*Qsafe B/2


The seismic consideration for the structural design of intake has been done by seismic coefficient
method from IS: 1893-1984.
h    I o
Where,
raft footings)
I = importance factor depending upon type of structure = 3 (as intake is one of the most important
structures in the project)
αo= basic horizontal seismic coefficient = 0.08 (for zone V)

The permissible bearing pressure of soil was selected based on the subsoil preliminary investigations
and is taken less than 200 KN/m2 for gravel mix soil. For common soil condition with no reliable
information, the permissible bearing pressure shall not be taken more than 150 KN/m2. Suitable
adjustment for depth of soil and overburden pressure has been made. For boulder mixed soil, the
bearing capacity will be higher and a higher value has been taken from IS codes and other reliable
literatures. However, the bearing pressure considered does not exceed 250 KN/m2 at surface. In
case of rocks, suitable values have been taken following codes and practices and depending on the
geological investigation data, if any.
due to soil for Intake and Gravel trap components of the head work.
5.3.4 Loads
Dead load
modeled in SAP whereas thickness and the material weight properties are defined for each structure.
The material properties and dimensions used are as follows:

 Dead
 Weight of soil
 Upthrust
 Surcharge load
Live loads
structure.
 Hydrostatic load in annual monsoon condition
 Hydrostatic load in 200 yr flood
 Uplift load in annual monsoon condition
 Uplift load in 200 yr flood
Seismic loads:
uniformly varying load or as a point load. The horizontal seismic coefficient has been taken as 0.24
and the base shear thus obtained has been applied as a uniformly varying load on the member or as
point load.
5.3.5 Load Conditions

The different load conditions considered for the stability analysis of Intake and Gravel Trap are as
mentioned in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Stability Analysis Load Conditions for Intake and Gravel Trap
S.No CONDITIONS CASES
1 Normal Operation Condition Usual
2 Annual Monsoon Condition Unusual
3 Construction Period Unusual
4 Normal Condition with Upward Vertical Earthquake Extreme
5 Normal Condition with Downward Vertical Earthquake Extreme
6 Normal Condition with Upstream Horizontal Earthquake Extreme
7 Normal Condition with downstream Horizontal Earthquake Extreme
8 Annual Monsoon Condition with Upward Vertical earthquake Extreme
9 Annual Monsoon Condition with downward Vertical earthquake Extreme

10 Annual Monsoon Condition with upstream horizontal earthquake Extreme

Annual Monsoon Condition with downstream stream horizontal
11 earthquake Extreme
12 Flood (200 years ) condition Extreme

The structural members as designed by using limit state method in which the structure shall be
designed to withstand safely all loads liable to act on it throughout its life. It shall also satisfy the
serviceability requirements such as limitations on deflection and cracking.
Analysis of the SAP 2000 model has been done for above load cases and analysis data are also
negative and maximum positive values for these internal forces are taken. To differentiate from
0.04*fck*Ag.
Where,
  y  Ast 
 Resisting Moment, M  0.87   y  Ast  d  1  
 b  d  f ck 
Vu
Shear stress in concrete has been calculated as  c 
bd
Where,
Concrete

 Grade: C25
Reinforcements
 Grade : Fe 500
 Development length: 50Ф
Deflection criteria
The maximum allowable deflection for all the structural members complies with the deflection
Crack width
Figure 5-2: 3D SAP2000 Model of Intake and Gravel Trap

5.3.7 Load Cases

The various load cases considered for Stability and Structural Analysis of Intake gate portion is
presented in Table 5-3.
A Dead load F Hydrostatic load in I Earthquake load in X & Y
B Weight of soil  Normal Flow J Dynamic Earth Pressure
C Upthrust in  Annual Monsoon
 No Flow  200 yr flood Gate Closed
 Normal Flow G Uplift in
 Annual  Normal Flow

Monsoon
 100 yr flood  Annual Monsoon
D Active Earth pressure  200 yr flood Gate Closed
E Weight of U/S Water H Operational platform Load

in
 Normal Flow
 Annual
Monsoon
 200 yr flood
5.3.8 Load Combinations

The load combinations used for Structural Analysis of intake gate portion is given in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Load combinations

1 1.5(Dead Load) During Construction 1.5*(A+B+C+D)
Normal Operation
1.5(Dead Load + Live opened
2 1.5*( A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H)
Load)
Average Monsoon
Water level and gate

opened
High flood water level
and Gate Closed
Normal Operation
closed during
1.2(Dead Load + Live Earthquake
3 1.2*( A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H±(I+J))
Load± EQ)
Average Monsoon
water level during
Earthquake
**The extreme loading case in Intake gate portion is during High flood level at U/S and intake gate is
closed; such that no water at immediate d/s of gate.
5.3.9 Result of Stability Analysis

For detailed Stability Analysis calculation of Intake Gate Portion, refer “Detail Project Report –
Volume VI: Annex G”. The result of Stability Analysis of intake gate portion is given in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5: Result of stability analysis
Minimum Maximum
FOS
FOS against Bearing Bearing
S.No Condition against
Overturning pressure pressure
Sliding
(KN/m2) (KN/m2)
1 Normal Condition 2.71 4.72 105.21 118.28
2 Annual Monsoon Condition 2.46 3.68 106.68 109.59
3 Construction period 9.99 129.51 132.02

27.15
Normal Condition with Upward Vertical
4 3.10 6.14
Earthquake 130.54 144.90
Normal Condition with Downward Vertical
5 1.95 3.82 79.15 92.38
Earthquake
Normal Condition with Upstream Horizontal
6 2.15 1.55 66.31 157.18
Earthquake
Normal Condition with downstream Horizontal
7 2.98 2.55 51.19 172.30
Earthquake
Annual Monsoon Condition with Upward Verical
8 2.82 4.76 133.31 134.92
earthquake
Annual Monsoon Condition with downward
9 1.82 2.92 80.79 83.53
Verical earthquake
Annual Monsoon Condition with upstream
10 1.98 1.39 53.40 162.88
horizontal earthquake
Annual Monsoon Condition with downstream
11 2.71 2.83 55.57 160.70
horizontal earthquake
12 Flood (200 yrs ) condition 1.52 2.24 43.96 62.58

5.3.10 Results of Structural design

For detailed structural design calculation of Intake Gate Portion, refer “Detail Project report –
Volume VI: Annex G” and for rebar drawings refer “Detail Project Report: Volume VII, Part B:
Structural Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/23R01-R05”
The results of Structural Design of Intake are given in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6: Results of Structural design
Foundation (Inlet 20 mm dia @150 mm 20 mm dia @150 mm

1
portion) c/c spacing on both faces c/c spacing on both faces
Foundation (Gravel 20 mm dia @150 mm 20 mm dia @150 mm

2
Trap) c/c spacing on both faces c/c spacing on both faces
Foundation (Outlet 20 mm dia @150 mm 20 mm dia @150 mm

3
portion) c/c spacing on both faces c/c spacing on both faces
16 mm dia @150 mm
Intake & Gravel Trap 16 mm dia @150 mm
4 c/c spacing on both faces
Side Wall c/c spacing on both faces
for bottom half
16 mm dia @150 mm 16 mm dia @150 mm

5 Gravel Trap Divide wall
c/c spacing on both faces c/c spacing on both faces

6 Intake inlet breast Wall

7 End breast Wall
Intake Top Operation 16 mm dia @150 mm 12 mm dia @150 mm

8
Slab c/c spacing on both faces c/c spacing on both faces
Outlet Top Operation 16 mm dia @150 mm 12 mm dia @150 mm

9
Slab c/c spacing on both faces c/c spacing on both faces
20 mm dia @150 mm
16 mm dia @150 mm
10 Middle Pier Inlet c/c spacing on both faces
c/c spacing on both faces
for bottom half
16 mm dia @150 mm
for upper half

11 Edge Pier Inlet
20 mm dia @150 mm
16 mm dia @150 mm
12 Middle pier outlet c/c spacing on both faces
for bottom half

16 mm dia @150 mm
for upper half
5.3.11 Structural Analysis of Gravel Trap Flushing Culvert

The Structural analysis of gravel trap flushing culvert has been performed considering the backfill,
hydrostatic pressure, uplift, water load, overburden pressure, approach canal weight, active soil
pressure, bearing pressure and earthquake. The side walls of flushing culvert are in compression, so
the walls have been designed as compression members. The analysis has been done for different
sections of culvert and reinforcement output from the critical has been adopted.
Figure 5-3: Profile of Gravel trap flushing system
Figure 5-4: Gravel flushing culvert Section

(Separate culvert) and Section (Merged culvert)

Figure 5-5: SAP model of flushing culvert
5.3.11.1 Load Considered

The various loads considered for structural analysis of Gravel Flushing culvert are presented in Table
5-7
Table 5-7: Load cases for Structural analysis of Gravel trap flushing culvert
A Dead load G Hydrostatic load H Earthquake load
B Weight of soil  Culvert Full condition I Dynamic Earth Pressure

(Overburden)
C Uplift
D Water load
 Culvert Empty
 Culvert Full
E Bearing pressure
 Culvert Empty
 Culvert Full
F Active Earth pressure
5.3.11.2 Load Combination

The load combinations used for Structural Analysis of gravel flushing culvert portion is given in Table
5-8.


No flow condition
1 1.5(Dead Load) 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E+F)
(Culvert empty)
1.5(Dead Load + Live
2 Culvert full condition 1.5*( A+B+C+D+E+F+G)
Load)
Culvert empty condition
3 1.5(Dead Load ± EQ) 1.5*( A+B+C+D+E+F±(H+I))
during Earthquake
4 1.2(Dead Load ± EQ) 1.2*( A+B+C+D+E+F±(H+I))
during Earthquake
1.2(Dead Load + Live Culvert full condition
5 1.2*( A+B+C+D+E+F+G±(H+I))
Load± EQ) during Earthquake
0.9(Dead Load)±1.5(EQ) Culvert empty condition
6 0.9*( A+B+C+D+E+F)±1.5*(H+I)
Empty during Earthquake
0.9(Dead Load)±1.5(EQ) Culvert full condition

7 0.9*( A+B+C+D+E+F)±1.5*(H+I)
Full during Earthquake
5.3.11.3 Results of Structural design

Table 5-9: Results of structural design

1 Top Slab (0.6m) 16 mm dia @150 mm c/c 12 mm dia @150 mm
2 Side Wall (0.6m) 16 mm dia @150 mm c/c 12 mm dia @150 mm Both sides
3 Base Slab (0.6m) 20 mm dia @150 mm c/c 12 mm dia @150 mm

Note: The lap length shall be maintained at least 50 times the maximum size rebar dia.
5.3.12 Structural Analysis of Gravel Trap Flushing Gate operating structure

The Structural analysis of gravel trap flushing gate operating structure has been performed
considering the backfill, hydrostatic pressure, uplift, water load, active soil pressure, operation load,
live load, bearing pressure and earthquake. The side walls of structure are in compression, so the
walls have been designed as compression members.

Figure 5-6: Profile of Gravel trap flushing Figure 5-7: 3D Shell model of Gravel trap
gate operating structure flushing gate operating structure
5.3.12.1 Load Considered

The various loads considered for structural analysis of Gravel trap flushing gate operating structure
are presented in Table 5-10.
Table 5-10: Load cases for Structural analysis of Gravel trap flushing gate operating
structure
A Dead load F Hydrostatic load G Earthquake load
B Uplift  Culvert Full condition H Dynamic Earth Pressure
C Bearing pressure
 Culvert Empty
 Culvert Full
D Active Earth pressure
E Operation Load

5.3.12.2 Load Combination

The load combinations used for Structural Analysis of Gravel flushing gate operating structure is
given in Table 5-11.

No flow condition
1 1.5(Dead Load) 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E)
(Culvert empty)
1.5(Dead Load + Live
2 Culvert full condition 1.5*( A+B+C+D+E+F)
Load)
3 1.5(Dead Load ± EQ) 1.5*( A+B+C+D+E±(G+H))
during Earthquake
4 1.2(Dead Load ± EQ) 1.2*( A+B+C+D+E±(G+H))
during Earthquake
1.2(Dead Load + Live Culvert full condition
5 1.2*( A+B+C+D+E+F±(G+H))
Load± EQ) during Earthquake
0.9(Dead Load)±1.5(EQ) Culvert empty condition
6 0.9*( A+B+C+D+E)±1.5*(G+H)
Empty during Earthquake
0.9(Dead Load)±1.5(EQ) Culvert full condition

7 0.9*( A+B+C+D+E)±1.5*(G+H)
Full during Earthquake
5.3.12.3 Results of Structural design

For detailed structural design calculation of Gravel Flushing gate operating structure, refer “Detail
Project Report – Volume VI: Annex G” and for rebar drawings refer “Detail Project Report: Volume
VII, Part B: Structural Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/23R06-R10”
The results of Structural Design of Flushing gate operating structure are given in Table 5-12.

1 Base Slab
2 Side wall 20 mm dia @150 mm c/c 16 mm dia @150 mm


3 Breast Wall(Front)

4 Breast Wall(Back)

5 Top Operation Slab
Note: The lap length shall be maintained at least 50 times the maximum size rebar dia.


6 SETTLING BASIN, SETTLING BASIN FLUSHING AND

HEADPOND
6.1 General Description
6.1.1 Settling Basin

Settling basin for Siwa Khola Hydropower Project is located on the hill slope of left bank of the river.
Settling basin has two chambered transition zone of 31.46m followed by the main settling basin zone
which also has been designed as a two bay each of 65m long and 9m wide and 8.47m deep including
hopper and outlet basin with four gates and two flushing gates. The bottom of the settling basin has
been designed as a hopper type with a bed slope of 1:40 along the length. Considering the medium
head project, the settling basin has been designed for 100% settlement of 0.2mm particle using
Camp’s relation. A conventional flushing system is proposed. A perforated drain pipe has been
provisioned at the level of hopper bottom along the right side basin to drain out the percolated water
so as to reduce the uplift. A 0.5 m thick stone pitching and gabion mattress are provided near the left
wall to prevent scouring of bed due to spilled water. Backfilling at the right side of the bay will be
done only up to the level of 1.5 m below from the top of the basin wall.
Water will flow to the headpond through the four gated outlet orifices with the dimension of 2.5m
width by 1 m height provided at the end of the settling basin.
6.1.2 Settling Basin Flushing

A conventional hydraulic flushing system have been designed for the flushing of deposited sediments
in the settling basins. Two flushing canals of 1m width by 1m height have been provided at the
starting whereas after merging all canals, it is sized to 1.5m width by 1.75m height. The invert level of
the flushing culvert outlet will be above the 2 year return period flood.
Two sets of vertical lift gate of size 1.0 m by 1.0 m is provisioned for the operation of the sediment
flushing.
6.1.3 Headpond
Outlet transition of the settling basins has been used as headpond to maintain tranquil water level at
the start of the power culvert. Headpond is a 10m high wall creating a ponding at outlet of settling
basin in order to guide the water inside penstock pipe. A fine trash rack of size 4m wide and 4m high
with bar spacing of 30 mm has been provided at the end of head pond located at outlet of settling
basin. The inclination of the rack is 80⁰with the horizontal. Below the base slab, starting from settling
basin outlet, flushing culvert has been placed which ends at 45m downstream from the outlet basin.

For detail hydraulic design calculation, refer “Detail Project report: Volume IV – Annex B and for
78/04/24C01-05”.

6.3 Stability and Structural Analysis of Settling Basin and Headpond
6.3.1 Approach of stability analysis

The stability analysis for the structure has been done using the guide lines provided by USACE
(Engineering and design – Retaining and flood walls EM 1110-2-2502). The factor of safety for Sliding,
overturning and bearing is given in Table 6-1.
Since the cohesion intercept value is unknown, the factor of safety in sliding without considering
cohesion intercept value has been considered as shown in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Criteria for stability analysis for Settling Basin and Headpond
Stability Criteria
Loading Factor of safety

Case
1 Usual 2 1.5 1.5 <1*Qsafe B/6
2 Unusual 1.7 1.3 1.3 <1*Qsafe B/4
Earthquake
3 (Extreme) 1.3 1.2 1.2 <1.33*Qsafe B

The seismic consideration for the structural design of settling basin has been done by seismic
coefficient method from IS: 1893-1984.
h    I o
Where,
raft footings)
I = importance factor depending upon type of structure = 1.5 (for water towers and tanks)
αo= basic horizontal seismic coefficient = 0.08(for zone V)

The permissible bearing pressure is taken less than 150 KN/m2 for common soil. Suitable adjustment
for depth of soil has been made. For boulder mixed soil, the bearing capacity will be higher and a
higher value has been taken from IS codes and other reliable literatures. However, the bearing
pressure considered does not exceed 150 KN/m2 at surface. In case of rocks, suitable values have
been taken following codes and practices and depending on the geological investigation data, if any.
due to soil for Settling Basin transition, main and outlet basin.
6.3.4 Loads
Following loads were applied for stability analysis and structural analysis of the structures.
Dead load
modeled in SAP2000whereas thickness and the material weight properties were defined for each
Dead load taken in Stability analysis and structural analysis (SAP2000 model)
 Dead
 Active Earth pressure
 Passive Earth Pressure
 Uplift
 Bearing
Live loads
structure.
Live load used for Stability analysis and structural analysis (SAP2000model) in this project are:
 Weight of water
 Hydrostatic load
 Hydrodynamic load

Seismic loads:
uniformly varying load. The horizontal seismic coefficient has been taken as 0.12 and has been applied
as a uniformly varying load on the member.
6.3.5 Structural Analysis and Design Basis

The structural members as designed by using limit state method in which the structure shall be
designed to withstand safely all loads liable to act on it throughout its life. It shall also satisfy the
serviceability requirements such as limitations on deflection and cracking.
Analysis of the SAP 2000 model has been done for above load cases and analysis data were also
negative and maximum positive values for these internal forces were taken. To differentiate from
0.04*fck*Ag.
Where,
  y  Ast 
 Resisting Moment, M  0.87   y  Ast  d  1  
 b  d  f ck 
Vu
Shear stress in concrete has been calculated as  c 
bd
Where,
Concrete
 Grade: C25

 Clear Concrete cover: 50 mm

Reinforcements
 Grade : Fe 500
Deflection criteria
Crack width
6.4 Stability and Structural analysis of Settling Basin

The stability and structural analysis of settling basin transition zone, main section and outlet basin has
been carried out. The structural analysis for various load cases has been done using SAP2000. The
results of SAP2000 are used for the structural design of these structures.
The typical section of settling basin main section and 2D SAP model of settling basin is shown in
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-1: Typical section of settling basin

Figure 6-2: 2D SAP model of settling basin main section
Figure 6-3: 3D SAP2000 Model of Settling Basin main section
6.4.1 Load considered

The various loads considered for stability and structural analysis for settling basin are shown in Table
6-2.
Table 6-2: Load considered for stability and structural analysis of Settling Basin

A Dead load F Hydrostatic load in left bay L Earthquake

load
Active Earth pressure on
B G Hydrostatic load in right bay
left wall
Passive Earth pressure on Hydrodynamic load in left
C H
flushing culvert walls bay
Hydrodynamic load in right
D Uplift I
bay
E Bearing J Water weight in left bay
K Water weight in right bay

The load combinations used for Structural Analysis of settling basin is given in Table 6-3.

Flow in only one
left bay full case -
1 bay+ earthquake at 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E+J+L)
1.5*(Dead load + EQ)
NWL
Flow in only one
2 1.5*(Dead load + live 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E+F+J)
bay at NWL
load)
Flow in only one
3 1.2*(Dead load + live 1.2*(A+B+C+D+E+F+H+J+L)
bay+ earthquake
load+ EQ))
Flow in only one

left bay full case –
4 bay+ earthquake at 0.9(A+B+C+D+E+J)+1.5L
(0.9Dead load + 1.5EQ)
NWL
Flow in only one

right bay full case -
5 bay+ earthquake at 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E+K+L)
1.5*(Dead load + EQ)
NWL

1.5*(Dead load + live Flow in only one
6 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E+G+K)
load) bay at NWL

1.2*(Dead load + live Flow in only one
7 1.2*(A+B+C+D+E+G+I+K+L)
load+ EQ)) bay+ earthquake
right bay full case – Flow in only one

8 (0.9Dead load + 1.5EQ) bay+ earthquake at 0.9*(A+B+C+D+E+K)+1.5L
NWL

both bay full case - Flow in both bays+

9 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E+J+K+L)
1.5*(Dead load + EQ) earthquake load
both bay full case -

1.5*(Dead load + live Flow in both bays at
10 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I+J+K)
load) NWL
both bay full case -

1.2*(Dead load + live Flow in both bays+
11 1.2*(A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I+J+K+L)
load+ EQ)) earthquake load
both bay full case –

Flow in both bays+
12 (0.9Dead load + 1.5EQ) 0.9*(A+B+C+D+E+J+K)+1.5*L
earthquake load
both bay empty case - No flow condition

13 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E+L)
1.5*(Dead load + EQ) with EQ
both bay empty case -

1.5*(Dead load + live
14 No flow condition 1.5*(A+B+C+D+E)
load)
both bay empty case -

1.2*(Dead load + live No flow condition
15 1.2*(A+B+C+D+E+L)
load+ EQ)) with EQ
both bay empty case –

No flow condition
16 (0.9Dead load + 1.5EQ) 0.9*(A+B+C+D+E)+1.5L
with EQ
6.4.3 Results of Stability Analysis

For detail stability analysis calculation of settling basin, refer “Detailed Project report – Volume VI:
Annex G”.
The result of stability analysis of settling basin main section is given in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4: Result of Stability analysis of Settling Basin
Maximum Minimum
FOS FOS Bearing Bearing
Cases Description pressure pressure
Sliding Overturning
(KN/ m2) (KN/m2)
All Bay Full

I 0 2.23 101.25 49.37
All Bay Full + EQ

II 4.76 2.13 100.92 41.20
All Bay Empty

III 0 1.32 26.11 26.11
All Bay Empty + EQ

IV 1.46 1.26 26.71 17.01
Left Bays Full + Right Bays

V empty 0 1.49 98.90 2.52
Left Bays Full + Right Bays

VI empty + EQ 3.11 1.42 91.30 1.62
Right Bays Full + Left Bays

VI 0 2.07 126.05 24.63
empty
Right Bays Full + Left Bays

VIII empty + EQ 3.11 1.97 126.78 33.86
All bay empty fully submerged

IX soil 0 1.33 26.11 26.11

X soil with EQ 1.46 1.26 26.71 17.01


XI soil with EQ upwards 1.46 1.24 21.86 21.86

Department of Electricity Development, DOED Detail Design of Siwa Khola Small Hydropower Project
6.4.4 Results of Structural design of Settling Basin

For detail calculation of settling basin, refer “Detail Project Report – Volume VI: Annex G” and for rebar drawings refer “Detail Project Report: Volume VII,
Part B: Structural Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/24R01-R5”.The results of structural design of settling basin inlet transition, main section and outlet basin are
given in Table 6-5.
Bar Bar
Structure Component Location Type diameter spacing
(mm) (mm)
Main 20 150
vertical wall
Distribution 16 150
vertical wall
Settling basin inlet transition
Main 16 150
hopper Whole component
Distribution 16 150
Main 16 150
Bottom slab Whole component
Distribution 16 150
Hunch bar Whole component 16
Cap bar Whole component 12
Main 20 150
4.5 m from the starting of vertical wall
Vertical Side walls and Distribution 16 150
divide walls Main 16 150
Remaining height
Distribution 16 150
Main 16 150
Settling basin Main section Hopper Inclined slab Whole structure
Distribution 16 150
Flushing culvert wall and Main 16 150
Whole structure
slab Distribution 16 150
Hunch bars Whole structure 16 150
Cap bars Whole structure 12 150

6.5 Stability and Structural analysis of Headpond

Headpond is located at immediate downstream of Settling Basin outlet. The structure is intact with
backfill from both sides. So the Stability of the structure is considered good in all load possible cases.
However the Structural analysis of the Structure has been carried out for possible load cases.
The typical section of headpond and 3D is shown in Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-4: Typical section of Headpond

Figure 6-5: 3D SAP2000 Model of Headpond
6.5.1 Load Considered

The various loads considered for the analysis in SAP2000 for headpond are shown below in Table 6-6
Table 6-6: Load considered for Structural analysis of Headpond

Earthquake load
A Dead load F Water weight H
in X direction
Earthquake load
B Active Earth pressure G Hydrostatic I
in Y direction
C Uplift
D Bearing empty
E Bearing full


The load combinations used for Structural analysis of headpond is given in Table 6-7.
Table 6-7: Load combination used for Structural analysis of Headpond

1 Empty case - 1.5*(Dead load ) No flow condition 1.5*(A+B+C+D)
Empty case - 1.2*(Dead load
No flow condition with
2 ± Earthquake load in x- 1.2*(A+B+C+D+H)
EQx
direction)
Empty case - 1.2*(Dead load
No flow condition with
3 ± Earthquake load in y- 1.2*(A+B+C+D+I)
EQy
direction)
Normal Flow(Full flow) :
4 NWL Flow without EQ 1.5*(A+B+C+E+F)
1.5*(Dead load + live load)
Normal Flow:1.2*(Dead load

5 + live load+ Earthquake load NWL Flow with EQx 1.2*(A+B+C+E+F+G+H)
in x-direction)
Normal Flow:1.2*(Dead load

6 + live load+ Earthquake load NWL Flow with EQy 1.2*(A+B+C+E+F+G+I)
in y-direction)
6.5.3 Results of Structural Design

For rebar drawings refer “Detail Project Report: Volume VII, Part B: Structural Drawings, Drawing No:
78/04/24R06-R09”.
The results of structural design of Headpond are given in Table 6-8.
Table 6-8: Result of structural design of headpond
Main bar 25 150
Distribution bar 20 150

Side walls
Main bar 25 150

Base Slab
Main bar 16 150

Operation platform
slab and braced walls Whole component
Main bar 20 150

Whole component
Flushing culvert Distribution bar 16 150
Haunch bar 16 150
6.6 Design Codes and Guidelines Referred


7 HEADRACE TUNNEL AND PORTALS
7.1.1 Inlet portal

Tunnel inlet portal is proposed at very steeply dipping rock slope at right bank of the Siwa Khola. The
invert level of the tunnel excavation at inlet portal will be kept at elevation of 1622.60 masl considering
the risk of flooding of tunnel during the construction. Since the tunnel is low pressure, the head over
the tunnel is maintained to ensure the avoidance of negative pressure in the tunnel even during the
down surge condition. The proposed inlet portal is shown in. For detail Civil drawings, refer “Detail
Project report, Volume VII: Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/30C07”.
7.1.2 Headrace tunnel

The headrace tunnel of this project is headed by the inlet portal located on the right bank of Siwa Khola
at 1622.60 masl. An inverted D-shaped tunnel of approximately 4.75 km long tunnel has been proposed
to convey the design discharge of 5.49 m3/s into the penstock pipe.
Due the change in the Headwork’s and Powerhouse location in the detail design phase, the headrace
tunnel alignment differs to that of the Feasibility study. Tunnel inlet portal is proposed at very steeply
dipping rock slope at right bank of the Siwa Khola. An adit tunnel is being studied for the critical case,
near the Pandulum Village, across the Kholsi at Pandulum village.
Figure 7-1: Inlet portal Section

7.2 Hydraulic Design and Tunnel Optimization

For detail hydraulic design and optimization calculation, refer “Detail Project report: Volume IV –Annex
C” and for detail drawings refer “Detail Project Report: Volume VIII: Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing
No: 78/04/31C01-C06”.
7.3 Geological conditions

The Schist observed in most of places which is slightly to moderately weathered, light green to light
grey, medium to coarse -grained, and gneiss observed is slightly to moderately weathered, thickly
foliated and weak to medium strong with two to three sets of joints. The HRT passes through banded
gneiss towards intake and through Schist towards outlet portal.
The left bank slope upstream from the Intake site is counter dip slope and the right bank slope is dip
slope. The left bank slope is relatively stable and landslides have not been observed along the slope. But
the problems of mass wasting have been observed along the right bank slope and are frequent up to
about 5 km upstream from the intake. Plane rock slides, debris flow and slumps are common. Limited
rock exposure is present along the tunnel alignment due to soil cover and topographical condition.
Rock exposures are mainly observed on the river banks.
7.3.1 Tunnel alignment and design

The headrace tunnel passes along an azimuth of 1760 upto 0+710 and 1500 from 0+710 to 4+931.79.
The tunnel alignment will be oriented 400 upto 0+710 and 700 from 0+710 to 4+931.79 obliquely to the
bedding plane. Thus, tunneling condition will be fair according to orientation to bed rock. Based on the
surface rock mass classification most of the headrace tunnel runs through poor rock. Extremely poor
condition is encountered in contact between amphibolite intrusion and bed rock and as well in highly
seepage area.
7.3.2 Rock mass classifications

According to the surface observation the quality of rock mass distribution at the level of the proposed
tunnel alignment was estimated. The Q value along the tunnel alignment is presented in Table 7-1.
According to the surface observation, the quality of rock mass distribution at the level of the proposed
tunnel alignment was estimated. This estimated quality of rock mass distribution is mainly based on Q
value calculation at different rock exposures and it may vary in situ structural grade.
Table 7-1 Rock mass distribution prediction along the headrace tunnel
Rock class Q- value Percentages Tentative length
I) Good rock >1.0 2% 95

II) Fair rock 1.0 -0.3 6% 285
III) poor rock 0.3 – 0.08 42.48% 2018
IV) Very poor rock 0.08 -– 0.03 35% 1667

V)Extremely poor rock 0.03 – 0.01 9.33% 443

VI) Extremely -Exceptionally poor 242
<0.01
rock 5.09%
7.3.3 Ground water table and water leakage

Tunnel alignment passes through the two major stream at chainage 1+420.00 and 2+647.00 which may
create a problem of seepage during tunnel excavation. Precaution and well drainage system should be
taken on that chainage.
7.3.4 Rock support design

Rock Mass classification and Support
An empirical method known as "Q" system developed at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)
has been used to classify the rock mass along the tunnel. It is a quantitative classification system for
estimate of tunnel support, based on a numerical assessment of the rock mass quality using the following
relation of six parameters,
Where, Q = rock mass quality index

RQD = rock quality designation
Jn = joint set number
Jr = joint roughness number
Ja = joint alteration number
Jw = joint water reduction factor
SRF = stress reduction factor
In field, the RQD shall be estimated by using the following relation
RQD = (115 – 3.3*Jv) %
Where, Jv = total number of discontinuities per m3 (= sum of number of discontinuities per meter
length of all discontinuity sets).
Based on above classification of rock mass, rock support system has been designed. For dimension of
rock support system such as rock bolt length, spacing of rock bolt, and thickness of shotcrete, a built-in-
chart has been used.
In order to relate the Tunneling Quality Index (Q) to the support requirements of an underground
excavation, Barton et. al. (1974), defined an additional parameter, which is denoted as the Equivalent
Dimension (De) of the excavation. This dimension is obtained by dividing the span, diameter or wall
height of the excavation by a parameter called the excavation support ratio ESR. Hence,

De =
The excavation support ratio is related to the use for which the excavation is intended and the extent
to which some degree of risk is acceptable. For hydropower tunnels the ESR is 1.6, and for
underground power stations the ESR is 1.0. According to the handbook published by NGI in 2013, ESR
value is taken as 1when the value of Q is < 0.1.
The Equivalent Dimension, De is plotted against the value of ‘Q’ to define a number of support
categories. Barton’s chart was updated by Grimstad and Barton (2002) and has been reproduced as
shown hereunder in Error! Reference source not found., which is used for rock support estimation.
According to Barton et al. (1974), the length of rockbolt can be estimated from the excavation width B
and the Excavation Support Ratio ESR:
0.15B
L=2+
ESR
The length is also derived from using Palmstrom formula, which is for block diameter (Db) of 0.1m, we
get a required rock bolt length {Lb(roof)} of 1.4+0.16Dt(1+0.1/Db) ≈ 2.5 m. A Db of 0.1m would
correspond to extremely poor rock. Likewise, for Db 0.25 m, Lb is ≈2.2 m which resemble to poor to
fair rock. With a Db of 0.5 m we get a required Lb (roof) of ≈2.1 m which resemble to fair to good
rock. The same rock bolt length for both crown and wall are used for convenience.
Based on all those relevant studies, field observations and the rock mass quality assessment the most
appropriate rock support design has been finally carried and presented in the Table 7-2Error!
Reference source not found..
Table 7-2 Rock support table of HRT (moreover based on Q-System)
Rock Rock Mass Spiling Steel Fully cement Shotcrete Concrete

Support Quality Bolt Ribs grouted rock (thickness in (thickness
Type Based on bolt 20 mm mm) in mm)
(6m long)
Q-System ø, 2.3 m long
S1 _ _ Spot bolting 50 plain srf at 200 mm in

>1.0 crown and wall invert
Rock Support Typical Section
S2 _ _ Spot bolting 75 plain srf at 200 mm in

1.0 -0.3
crown and wall invert
S3 _ _ @ 1.7*1.7 m 75 sfr at crown & 200 mm in

0.3 – 0.08
c/c wall invert
S4 _ _ @ 1.3*1.3 m 100 sfr at crown 200 mm in

0.08 -– 0.03
c/c wall invert
S5 Provisioned _ @ 1.2*1.2 m 150 sfr at crown 200 mm in

0.03 – 0.01
c/c at wall invert

S6 <0.01 Provisioned Provisio @ 1.0*1.0 m 150 sfr at crown 250 mm

ned c/c and wall throughout
the tunnel
ISMB
150x75
at 1.0m
spacing
8 SURGE SHAFT
8.1.1 Surge Shaft

Surge shaft was felt necessary in this project to mitigate the impact of hydraulic transients and to
guarantee the stability of the overall waterway system during the oscillations (water hammering effect)
caused by load acceptance and rejection during operation.
A 5m dia surge shaft exposed at top is proposed near Sorin village. The proposed location has been
selected owing to the sufficient cover, access road and convenient workability. A surge shaft in the
system was felt requisite to reduce the pressure surge developed at the time of load rejection and
acceptance for exempting the headrace tunnel from excessive internal loads. It is decided to go for an
underground cylindrical type surge shaft with a ventilation tunnel. The invert level of surge shaft is at an
elevation of 1611.94 masl. The diameter of the surge shaft has been considered to be 5m which is based
on the calculation from Thomas criteria and consideration of topographical condition at site. A concrete
lined tunnel has been proposed from the Surge shaft to the outlet portal to carry the diverted discharge
such that a 85 m long penstock has been embedded just before the outlet portal. The proposed
arrangements of the Surge shaft and headrace tunnel with respect to penstock is shown in the figure
below.
For detail Civil drawings, refer “Detail Project report, Volume VII: Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing No:
78/04/32C & A”.

Figure 8-1 Arrangement of Surge Shaft

For detail hydraulic design and optimization calculation, refer “Detail Project report: Volume IV – Annex
C” and for detail drawings refer “Detail Project Report: Volume VII: Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing
No: 78/04/32C & A”.

8.3 Stability Analysis & Structural Design

The proposed surge shaft is an underground cylindrical type shaft. The lateral cover for the surge shaft is
provided such that the minimum criteria for rock cover is satisfied. Also as per D. Thoma criteria, the
cross section of the surge shaft has been adopted to exceed a certain critical magnitude in order to
prevent the unstable oscillations due to water hammer effect.
8.3.2 General Input
Table 8-1 : General dimension of Surge Shaft
Total height of surge tank 29.45 m

Top Level of Surge Tank 1641.41 masl
Bottom Level of Surge Tank 1611.94 masl
Maximum Upsurge Elevation 1637.00 masl
Minimum Downsurge Elevation 999.61 masl
Provided thickness at upper wall (t) 0.30 m
Provided thickness at bottom wall (t) 0.45 m
Diameter at top 5.30 m
Diameter at bottom 5.0 m
Table 8-2 : Properties of Concrete
Type C25
Characteristic Strength of Concrete, fck 25 N/mm2
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete (EC) 2.50E+05 kg/cm2
Poisson's Ratio of concrete (νc) 0.2
Permissible Tensile Stress in C25 concrete (Direct
Tension σtd) 13 kg/cm2
Permissible Tensile Stress in C25 concrete (Tension
due to Bending) 18 kg/cm2
Permissible Stress in C25 concrete (Direct
Compression σcc) 60 kg/cm2
Permissible stress in C25 concrete (Bending
Compression σcbc) 85 kg/cm2
Ultimate compressive strength of concrete prism (u)-
for crack width 167.5 kg/cm2

Modular Ratio (m) 11

Permissible crack width in concrete 0.02 cm
Rock Properties
Poisson's Ratio of Rock (νr) 0.27

Modulus of Deformation of Rock (ER) 5000.00 kg/cm2
Rock Support Sharing 35 %
Table 8-3 : Reinforcement properties
Type Fe 500
Yield Strength fy For Fe500 5000.00 kg/cm2
Permissible Tensile Stress (σst) 2750.00 kg/cm2
Modulus of Elasticity (ES) 2.00E+06 kg/cm2
Tension in Steel if the surrounding concrete works is in

tension (σt1)-for crack width 335.00 kg/cm2
coefficient of expansion per oC 1.17E-05 /oC
8.3.3 Loads
 Dead load
The dead load includes weight of the structure only in the case of surge shaft. Since the structure is
underground and constructed in rock no other loads are considered for the dead load
 Live loads
structure. In case of the surge shaft, the hydraulic load and the grouting load are considered as the live
loads.
Live load cases for the structural analysis in SAP2000 are;
a. Internal hydrostatic load and
b. External hydrostatic load
Internal and external hydrostatic load is considered due to water pressure from the water till the
maximum upsurge elevation.
 Seismic loads:

In surge shafts, seismic factors are of no practical importance when lining is in contact with rock.
However, IS: 1893 is considered for the design of surge shaft under seismic condition. Elements not in
contact with rock and those in overburden should be checked against seismic forces.

Structural analysis of surge shaft has been done using working state method. Structural analysis of surge
shaft has been done manually and verified against SAP2000 analysis. The load due to 35% of the internal
pressure is considered to be taken by the surrounding rock. The 3D model of the surge shaft was
prepared in the SAP2000. The model contains 29.45m high surge shaft, a small stretch of offset tunnel
and base slab with a circular area .The hinge support was assigned for the model. The top slab is
modeled as well in the SAP2000 while considering the supports for the slab in the hunched portion only.
Then the model was applied with the below mentioned load cases resembling the real load conditions.
Model has been used to analyze the hoop tension from internal hydrostatic pressure and the
compressive stress from external hydrostatic pressure.
The structure is designed by using working state method in which the permissible stress for concrete
and steel are not exceeded anywhere in the structure when it is subjected to the worst combination of
working loads
Supporting Action of Rock
The reinforced concrete lining provided transmits pressure to the surrounding rock under ideal
condition of no void and infinite elastic rock mass. The load shared by the rock can be determined by
the following formula by equating the displacements of outer circumference of the concrete ring with
the extension of rock boundary;
(1   r )  (1   c )( E R / E C )
K
(1   r )  (1   c )( E R / E C )
pr a 2 (1  k )

pi b 2  a 2 k
Where,
 r = poisson’s ratio of rock
 c = poisson’s ratio of concrete
E R = Modulus of deformation of rock
E C = Modulus of elasticity of concrete
a = internal radius of the shaft
b = external radius of the shaft
pr = load shared by the rock

pi = total internal pressure

Concrete Lining Thickness
The surge shaft is considered as a thick walled pipe, the circumferential stress in the lining can be
determined by the following formula;
b2  a2
Act. ct  P
b2  a2
Where,
Act. ct = actual compressive stress
P = Total external pressure (external water pressure + external grout pressure)
b = external radius of the shaft
The concrete thickness of the lining as provided at any point shall be greater than
 Minimum thickness of 0.3m
 Thickness required to resist maximum external pressure
Reinforcement in the concrete lining
The hoop reinforcement for the circular tank shall be able to withstand the total hoop force due to net
maximum internal water pressure and shall be given by the following formula,
( Pi  Pr )  a
Ast 
 st
Where,
Ast = Area of steel required for internal pressure
pr = load shared by the rock
pi = net internal pressure
 st = permissible tensile stress in steel
The hoop reinforcement to be provided shall be the greater of the following
 0.3 percent of the concrete area of lining
 Hoop reinforcement required for the net normal design head taking permissible tensile stress in
steel
 Depending upon the geology and rock cover, hoop reinforcement worked out for the maximum
design head neglecting the supporting action of the rock, with higher stresses in steel.

Longitudinal reinforcement for the percentage of main reinforcement shall be provided in the
longitudinal direction as specified in IS: 456-2000.
Anchorage
The anchorage shall be done to prevent failure due to local bulging and for safety during construction,
anchors shall be provided along the periphery with suitable horizontal and vertical spacing depending
upon the rock encountered during construction.
Grouting
Contact grouting shall be done first. Consolidation grouting where considered necessary shall follow.
Where grout consumption in contact grouting is heavy, a second contact grouting after a suitable time
interval is beneficial to fill up the gaps caused by shrinkage of grout. Grouting shall be done in
accordance with IS: 5878 (Part VII)-1972.
The grout pressure for contact grouting shall be considered to be at least of 2.5 kgf/cm2 or equal to the
external water pressure whichever is larger.
The grout pressure for consolidation grouting shall be considered to be with the range of 2.5 kgf/cm 2 to
7 kgf/cm2 depending upon the depth of the section.
Deflection criteria
The maximum allowable deflection for all the structural members complies with the deflection criteria
given in IS 456:2000 (chapter 23.2).
Crack width
The maximum crack width allowed for any structural element is 0.2 mm as per IS 456. The crack width
has been calculated by using ANNEX F of IS 456:2000.

Figure 8-2: 3D SAP2000 Model of Surge Shaft

8.3.5 Load Cases

The various load cases considered for Stability and Structural Analysis of Intake gate portion is
presented in Table 8-4.
Dead ( DL) Live (LL)
A Dead load B Hydrostatic load in

 Self-Weight  Internal Water Pressure
 External Water Pressure
8.3.6 Load Combinations

The load combinations used for Structural Analysis of intake gate portion is given in Table 8-5.
Following sets of load combinations were defined for the analysis.
Table 8-5: Load Combinations used in SAP2000 Model
S. No. Load combination

1 Dead load + Internal hydraulic pressure
2 Dead load + External hydraulic pressure
3 Envelope
8.4 Analysis output

Hoop Stress Remarks
From base to 16.85 m

height

From 16.85 m height to

29.45 m height
8.4.1 Results of Structural design

Table 8-6: Results of Structural design
Bar diameter Spacing

Component Location Direction (mm) (mm)
Surge shaft Up-to 16.85m from Hoop bar 20 150
concrete lining base
Longitudinal bar 16 150
From 16.85m to Hoop bar 20 150
29.45 m
Longitudinal bar 20 150
Slab Base slab of Surge Top main bar 25 150
Shaft
Top distribution bar 25 150
Bottom main bar 25 150
Bottom distribution bar 25 150
Inclined bar 16 150
The crack width and tensile stress in surge shaft concrete and steel at different locations are given in
Table 8-7

Table 8-7 : Crack check
Location Method Crack width/ Tensile stress Permissible
Up-to 16.85 m Varshney -0.072 mm 0.2 mm

from base
B.S. 8007 215.98 N/mm2 275 N/mm2
B.S. 8110 214.04 N/mm2
ACI Committee 224 225.93 N/mm2
From 15 m to 30 Varshney -0.183 mm 0.2 mm

m height
B.S. 8007 191.99 N/mm2 275 N/mm2
B.S. 8110 188.77 N/mm2
ACI Committee 224 125.93 N/mm2

 IS 456-2000
 IS 1893-1984
 IS 3370 (Part 2)
 IS 7357-1974 (Code of practice for Structural design of Surge Tanks)
 Hydro-Power Structures, R.S. Varshney

Department of Electricity Development Detail Design of Siwa Khola Small Hydropower Project
Detailed Project Report
9 POWERHOUSE, CONTROL BUILDING AND TAILRACE
9.1 Powerhouse
A Surface powerhouse has been proposed in SKSHP, considering through various alternative
locations. After several investigation it was found that, the surface option near the Sankranti village
will be more feasible. The proposed powerhouse is located on the right bank of the Mewa Khola
with its design ground level, (at about 1046.60 masl) sufficiently high above 1000 year’s flood level.
The general arrangement of the power house is shown in Figure 9-1.
9.1.1 General
Figure 9-1: Powerhouse Machine Floor plan with service bay and control building
Considering the head and flow availability in the site, Pelton turbine with horizontal alignment has
been selected. The longitudinal span of 37.30m, width of 17.50m and height of 20.5m (12.60m for
superstructure plus 7.90m for machine foundation / sump pit) has been proposed which will
accommodate 2 units, set assembly of Pelton turbine with generator, and a service/erection bay. A
6.80m wide control building runs along the length of the powerhouse on the west side.
Retaining structures is provided at the east side of the powerhouse for providing access and flood
protection. Further, the entrance to powerhouse has been provided from the southern direction.
JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC 85

The general arrangement, profile and sections of the powerhouse cavern are shown in: “Detail
Project report, Volume VII: Part A: Civil Drawings, Drawing No: 78/04/40C01-C06”.
Figure 9-2: Longitudinal Section of Powerhouse
Figure 9-3: Cross section of Powerhouse

Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3 shows the longitudinal and cross-section along the designed power house
structure where roof truss covered with CGI sheet is placed at top as a roof structure. In Figure 9-3
we can also see that the powerhouse structure is arranged for the crane movement both in
transverse and longitudinal direction. The crane is supported on the rails so that the crane can move
following the track confined by the rail in the longitudinal direction of the Powerhouse. The rails are
over the crane beam girders which rest on with the corbel. The corbel transfers the loads to the
columns and the columns further transfer loads to the substructure. The substructure portion
transfers loads to the machine foundation and then all the loads finally spreads over the soil mass
beneath the machine foundation.
9.1.2 Description of the powerhouse arrangement

The flat alluvial land on the Sankranti village as shown above, currently barren and empty, is the most
suitable place available for the powerhouse. The powerhouse is 37.30 m long, 24.30 m wide
(including control building) and 12.60 m tall from erection bay comprising concrete and reinforced
block walls and roof truss. The powerhouse is a reinforced concrete structure that houses the
machine floor, turbine floor, control section and all the mechanical and electrical equipment.
The powerhouse will accommodate 2 inlet valves, 2 unit assembly of Pelton turbine and generator,
electromechanical accessories, water cooling system, 1 sump pit, a service bay and the control
building. The size of various components like turbine casing, generator and various other electrical
equipment has been considered from IS 12800:1993(PART 1)-(Guidelines for Selection of Turbines),
IS 12837:1989 and also from similar projects that has been already constructed. However, it should
be noted that the provisions are only conceptual and once reliable information including the loading
pattern of the electromechanical equipment are available from the supplier, detail arrangement
should be finalized. The sectional elevations of powerhouse is shown below:
The powerhouse has been divided into various structural components which are discussed below:
Machine foundation (Elevation below 1044.60 masl)
The machine foundation will be placed on compacted alluvial deposit starting from the elevation of
1044.60 masl which consists of inlet valve, generator, tailrace and sump pit for collecting leakage
water. One sump pit of 3.5m x 2.5m x 5.1m (L x B x H) have been placed near the inlet valve of
penstock pipes for collecting leakage water and will be equipped with automatic sump pump to
pump out the collected water. The RCC machine foundation of various thickness has been adopted
as per the structural requirement. The machine foundation height, pit size of the generator, turbine
casing may vary once the reliable information are made available from the electromechanical
supplier.
Machine Hall/Floor (Elevation at 1044.60 masl)
The machine floor of this proposed powerhouse is 26.30 m long and 15.50m wide. It contains two
horizontal aligned Pelton turbine and generator assembly with the Turbine axis at elevation of
1046masl. The turbine axis level has been fixed to maintain the minimum excavation for
powerhouse. This floor also consists of the penstock pipe, the main inlet valve, turbine, generator
and accessories. At this level, the servo motor to operate the nozzle, lubricating systems as well as
the generating cooling system will be located. Control cables will also run through the under floor
duct. A 40 ton gantry crane will run on two parallel crane beam supported on the corbel beam
attached on series of RCC columns placed at the longitudinal side of the powerhouse.

Erection Bay/Service Bay (Elevation at 1046.60 masl)

The erection bay has been raised 2.0m above the turbine and generator floor. This area 15.50m long
and 9.65m wide which will also be used for erection and maintenance purpose. The gantry crane
over hanged in the crane beam will travel from the machine floor to this service bay area in both
longitudinal and transverse direction. A staircase for access to the machine floor is also provided at
this level.
Control Room and other utility spaces

The control room, high voltage switchgear room, office facilities are provided at elevation 1046.60,
2.0m above the machine floor. The conceptual size of control building is of 6m wide x 36.50m length
located at western part of the powerhouse. It will be a single storey building having office room,
switchgear room, control panels, toilet facilities. However, the detail arrangement of the control
room may be further modified as per the details provided by supplier of electromechanical
equipment.
The first floor arrangement of control room is shown in Figure 9-1.
Roofing
The roof of the Powerhouse is made up of truss to economize the design as there is very less
possibility of earth and rock masses. Whereas, the control building is made of reinforced concrete.
9.1.3 Stability, Structural Analysis and Design of Powerhouse

The goal of this section of report is to describe the stability, structural analysis and designs of the
power house structure of the Siwa Khola Small Hydropower Project.
9.1.3.1 Objectives and the scope of detail structural design of Powerhouse

The specific objectives of the powerhouse design are:
 To identify structural arrangement plan

 To prepare model of the powerhouse for structural analysis
 To conduct detail Structural analysis using structural analysis program (SAP2000)
 To carry out sectional design of structural elements
 To prepare structural detailing of members and the system
The scopes of the detail structural design of power house are as follows:
 Modeling of the structure and analysis by the finite element method in SAP2000 using two
nodded frame elements to model beams and columns and three to four nodded thin shell
elements to model sub structure (floor slabs walls and shear walls)
 Calculations of the loads to withstand by the structures and determination of the structural
system of the powerhouse to undertake the vertical and horizontal loads
 Identification of load cases and load combinations as per the Code
 Study of the structural response of the proposed systems for different loading patterns
 Development of construction procedure for the proposed structure
 Matching the design with national code compliance issues

 Identification of standard structural design requirements for analysis and design

 Prepare Reinforcement drawing for each members of the structure
9.1.3.2 STRUCTURAL STABILITY

The stability analysis and vibration analysis of the proposed powerhouse has been conducted as per
the existing site conditions and constraints which is Shown in “Detailed Project Report-Vol VI,
Annex I. As mentioned above, the preliminary size of machine block and frame structure has been
adopted as per IS 12800:1993(PART 1), which may vary when the details from the electromechanical
supplier are received. The AutoCAD 3D drawing of the machine block used for the stability and
vibration analysis is shown in Figure 9-4.
Figure 9-4: AutoCAD 3D model of the proposed powerhouse machine foundation
i. Stability Analysis
The stability analysis of the machine block which consists of 2 units (assembly of horizontal axis
Pelton turbine and generator) and a service bay has been carried out considering it as monolithic
block. The expansion joint has been kept at the end of the erection / service bay, which separates
the machine block with the control building. Further assumptions and considerations has been
discussed below.
Major Assumptions:
i) Static equilibrium equations for stability analysis has been used.
ii) The machine block is RCC of concrete grade C25.
iii) Since the machine foundation rests on soil, allowable bearing capacity of 150 KN/m2
has been adopted.
iv) Total head considered for analysis = H gross + H surge (25% of H gross)
v) Uplift force has been considered since the foundation is soil.

vi) The weight of the electromechanical components is assumed from reference of the
similar projects which may vary when the detail information from the supplier is
received.
ii. Loadings
Horizontal Forces
The Horizontal force governed by hydrostatic pressure due to static and surge head has been
considered for the stability analysis. In addition to that, 25% impact load has also been added to total
horizontal force acting at the inlet valve.
Horizontal force due to water head = Apipe x 𝛾water x HTotal =11248.94 KN
Where,
Apipe ( Area of the penstock pipe after bifurcation near to the inlet valve in m2) = 0.785 m2
𝛾water (Specific weight of water in KN/m3)=9.81KN/m3
HTotal (Total head (Static / gross head + surge head) in m=584m+146m=730m
Vertical Forces
The vertical force due to the self-weight of machine block including the electromechanical
components and superstructure has been considered as the resisting force in the stability.
Unbalanced Force
A static unbalance (sometimes called a force unbalance) occurs when the inertial axis of a rotating
mass is displaced from and parallel to the axis of rotation. Balance quality grade for turbo generators
assumed is G2.5 with an eccentricity of 2mm.
Unbalanced Force = m x e x w2=27.87KN
Where, m = mass of rotating machine in kg = 70.42 Kg
e= eccentricity in mm= 0.1mm
w= angular velocity in rad/sec = 62.83 rad/sec
iii. Vibrational Analysis
The machine block is mounted by the various electromechanical components which are subjected to
vibrations caused by rotating unbalanced machine forces as well as the static weight of the machine.
If these vibrations are excessive, they may damage the machine and adversely affect the super
structure unless their frequency and amplitude are controlled. Thus vibration analysis has been
carried out to ensure that frequency and amplitude of the system is under limiting value and no
resonance is occurred during the operation. The detail calculation is presented in Annex:
Major Assumptions:
i) The system is taken to be undergoing purely vertical vibrations and thus considered
to have single degree of freedom.
ii) The “lumped-mass method” has been used to obtain the resonance frequency and
amplitude of vibration of the machine block.
iii) The unbalance force has been calculated considering the eccentricity of 2mm.

iv) The un-damped natural frequency of the foundation system is obtained for the
vertical motion.
fn=
Where, k = spring constant and m =combined mass of machine and foundation
The value of spring constant “k” is taken from Table 20-2, Pg. No. 750,
Foundation Analysis and Design by J.E. Bowels.
The stability and vibration analysis of the powerhouse machine foundation will be presented in the
detail design report along with the structural drawings.

9.1.3.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
9.1.3.4 General (Modeling of Powerhouse Structure in SAP2000)

SAP2000 version 14.1 was used as the basis for analysis and design of this powerhouse structure
considering its widespread popularity and use in construction field.
For the analysis of powerhouse, beam and column elements were modeled with two nodded frame
elements. Crane beams were also modeled along with corbel using suitable insertion points in order to
apply the moving crane load, so that the modeling reflects the real scenario. Since the powerhouse is an
underground structure, few loads such as wind load and uplift are insignificant hence not used in the
Structural Analysis.
The powerhouse structure of Siwa Khola SHP has been divided into two parts for analysis namely:
 Superstructure
The RCC superstructure consists of Column, Longitudinal and Transverse beam, Corbel Beam,
Crane Beam
 Substructure
Substructure/Machine foundation/block is a foundation for turbines, generator and other
electromechanical components. It is also the foundation for the superstructure.
9.1.3.5 Source for Main Model

The main model of the power house was carried out as per the civil drawings of the powerhouse
portion as per the discussion made in interim report; though there were minor modifications were done
in SAP model for the frame (columns, beams) grid spacing and sizes as per the structural requirements.
The descriptions of the design of powerhouse is described below:
Super Structure
The modeling of the power house super structure has been carried out after finalizing the machine
foundation. The superstructure part has been modeled as a monolithic structure mainly as a beam
column structure with corbel at the top which holds the crane beam on which the gantry load is applied.

Figure 9-5: Super structure frame
For two way movement of the crane along the crane beam girder of the power house, maximum axle
wheel load calculations for various probable placements of wheels and crab of the crane was carried out
for input on the SAP2000 model.
The main power house building and control building were modeled separately with the provision of 100
mm joint in-between them. The analysis for RCC superstructure was carried out assuming the existing
columns fixed on the ground and the results were sorted out. The superstructure frame was modeled
with different loadings like dead, live, earthquake, crane load following the IS Codes.
The earthquake load was applied to the superstructure only so that the masses were lumped at the
upper floor level only. The P delta function was not added to the superstructure model as the height of
powerhouse structure was not significantly high and also the columns on the superstructures were
short columns. The final analysis after all the amendments in the property and sections was carried out
in 3D for the design, the design output was also extracted from the SAP2000 with the necessary
overwrites and verified through manual calculations.

9.1.4 INPUTS FOR THE DESIGN OF POWERHOUSE
9.1.4.1 Codes adopted for design

The load patterns, load combinations, methods of load application, determination of maximum and
minimum loads applicable to the particular elements of the structure and the design guidelines were
adopted as stated by the various IS codes. Following were the codes adopted for the design of the
powerhouse;
 IS 800:1984-Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel
 IS 1893:1984-Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
 IS 1893(Part 1):2002-Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures-Part 1-General
Provisions and Buildings
 IS 1893(Part 4):2005-Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures-Part 4-Industrial
Structures Including Stack like Structures
 IS 13920:1993-Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces-
Code of Practice
 IS: 456-1978-Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete (SP 16)
 SP 34: 1987-Handbook on Concrete Reinforcement and Detailing
 IS 456:2000-Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice
 IS: 2974 (Part I) -1982-Foundations for Reciprocating Type Machines
 IS: 2974 (part II)-1980 Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Machine Foundations
 Part II Foundations for Impact Type Machines (Hammer Foundations)
 IS: 2974 (Part 3): 1992-Foundations for Rotary Type Machine (Medium and High Frequency)
 IS: 2974 (Part IV)-1979-Foundations for Rotary Type Machines of Low Frequency
 IS: 875 (Part 1)-1987-Dead Loads-Unit Weights of Building Materials and Stored Materials
 IS: 875 (Part 2)-1987-Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings
and Structures-Part 2 Imposed Loads
 IS 875 (Part 3)-1987-Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings
and Structures-Part 3 Wind Loads
and Structures-Part 4 Snow Loads
and Structures-Part 5 Special Loads and Combinations
 IS: 2950 (Part I)-1981-Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Raft Foundations-Part 1
Design
 IS 12800 (Part 1)-1993-Guidelines for Selection of Turbines, Preliminary Dimensioning and
Layout of Surface Hydro-electric power Houses-Part 1 Medium and Large power Houses
9.1.4.2 Software used for planning and design
 TURBNPro KC4 has also been used to determine the turbine and machine block size which has
been verified with the calculation as per IS 12800:1993 (PART 1)-(Guidelines for Selection of
Turbines) and IS 12837:1989.

9.1.4.3 Material properties
Table 9-1: Material properties
Particulars Concrete Reinforcement
Grade C25 for all frame and shell elements Fe 500 and Fe 415
Unit weight 25 kN/m3 78.56 kN/m3
Modulus of Elasticity 5000x√fck, MPa 200000 N/mm2
Poisson’s ratio 0.2 0.3
Table 9-2: Material Density
Item Density, KN/m3
Dense concrete 25
Plain concrete 24
Steel 78.5
Soil 19
Brick wall 20
Table 9-3: Reinforced concrete properties for various grades
Designation Specified Poisson’s Ratio, Unit weight, γ Modulus of

Concrete m Elasticity
KN/m3
Compressive
(N/mm2)
strength(N/mm2)
C35 35 0.2 25 29580.398
C30 30 0.2 25 27386.128
C25 25 0.2 25 25000
Table 9-4: Steel Properties
Designation Minimum yield Expected Poisson’s Unit weight, γ Modulus of

stress (N/mm2) yield Ratio, m Elasticity
kN/m3
stress
(N/mm2)
TMT steel 500 550 0.3 78.5 200000
TOR steel 415 500 0.3 78.5 200000

Table 9-5: Frame Section Properties
Section Name Material Shape Depth( Width(mm

mm) )
Corner Columns upto Crane beam C25 Rectangular 1000 500
Corner Columns above Crane beam C25 Rectangular 500 500
Interior column C25 Rectangular 500 500
Crane Beam C30 Rectangular 800 600
Corbel C30 Rectangular 1000 500
Longitudinal and Transverse Beam upto
Longitudinal and Transverse Beam above

9.1.5 LOADINGS
9.1.5.1 General
Soil type: III
Seismic importance factor: 1.5
Vertical irregularity type: irregular type
Plan irregularity type: irregular type
Structural system : no height restrictions floor height differs
Seismic zone: V
Response reduction factor: 5
Seismic zone factor: 0.36
9.1.5.2 Load pattern

The following sets of loads pattern were defined for the analysis in SAP2000.
Table 9-6 : Load pattern for Power house frame
Load Pattern Design Type Self-Wt. Multiplier Auto Load

Dead Dead 1
Crane 1 Bridge live 0
Crane 2 Bridge live 0
EQx Quake 0 IS1893 2002
EQy Quake 0 IS1893 2002
Railing load Dead 0

9.1.5.3 Load case definition

The load cases considered for the analysis is shown below.
Table 9-7 : Load case definition for power house frame
Load Case Name Type Design Type

Dead Lin Static Dead
Modal Lin Modal Other
Crane 1 Lin Moving Bridge live
Crane 2 Lin Moving Bridge live
EQx Lin Static Quake
EQy Lin Static Quake
Railing load Lin Static Dead
9.1.5.4 Load Combinations for power house frame

As per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Clause no. 6.3.1.2, the following load cases were considered for analysis:
1.5 DL
1.5 (DL + IL)
1.2 (DL + IL ± EL)
1.5 (DL ± EL)
0.9 DL ± 1.5 EL
Only 25 percentage of Crane Load has been included as a live during Earthquake.
Earthquake load are considered for +X, -X, +Y and –Y directions.
Here, DL stands for dead load, IL stands for imposed load, EL stands for earthquake load and RS for
response spectrum.
The table gives an over view about the load cases that are defined in the SAP model. The load case
‘DEAD’ takes the self-weight of the structure into account.

Combo Name Combo Type Case Type Case Name Scale Factor
1.5DL Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.5
Linear Static wall load 1.5
Linear Static Roof dead 1.5
Linear Static Railing 1.5
Lin Moving Crane Load 1.5
1.5(DL+LL) Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.5
Linear Static Roof live 1.5
1.2(DL+IL+EQx) Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.2
Linear Static EQx 1.2
1.2(DL+IL-EQx) Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.2
Linear Static EQx -1.2
1.2(Dl+IL+EQy) Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.2
Linear Static EQy 1.2
1.2(Dl+IL-EQy) Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.2

Linear Static EQy -1.2

1.5(DL+EQx) Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.5
1.5(DL-EQx) Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.5
1.5(DL+EQy) Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.5
1.5(DL-EQy) Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 1.5
0.9Dl+1.5EQx Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 0.9


0.9Dl-1.5EQx Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 0.9
0.9DL+1.5EQy Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 0.9
0.9DL-1.5EQy Linear Add Linear Static DEAD 0.9
ENV Envelope Response Combo 1.5DL 1
ENV Response Combo 1.5(DL+LL) 1
ENV Response Combo .9Dl+1.5EQx 1
9.1.5.5 Dead load for power house frame

The dead load of the structural members is automatically taken by the SAP2000 software. The additional
dead loads are assigned in the SAP2000 using the calculations and the code referred to IS code. All the
dead loads included in the model are as follows:
Table 9-9 : Dead load case for super structure
Case Type Initial condition Design Type

Dead Linear static Zero DEAD
Rail load Linear static Zero DEAD
Roof Dead Linear static Zero DEAD
Wall Linear static Zero DEAD

Table 9-10 : Dead load case for sub structure
Case Type Initial condition Design Type

Dead Linear static Zero DEAD
Gen+Turbine load Linear static Zero DEAD
Hor machine load Linear static Zero DEAD
Column load Linear static Zero DEAD
The figure enlisted below indicates the type and intensity of loadings applied in superstructure
Figure 9-6: Purlin and sheet dead load in roof truss
Figure 9-7: Dead load of roof truss on column

Figure 9-8: Rail load applied at crane beam
Figure 9-9: Wall load applied at beam
9.1.5.6 Moving Loads

The moving load of 270KN from two wheels of Gantry (with hook capacity of 35 Ton) has been applied
on the crane beam. The calculation of the wheel loads has been presented in the crane beam design.
Please refer the Volume VI: Annex I.

Figure 9-10: Moving Load Applied at the crane beam
9.1.6 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
9.1.6.1 Methodology
The powerhouse is designed and constructed to resist the effects of design lateral force specified in
7.5.3 (IS 1893-Part I). The design lateral force is computed for the building as a whole. This design lateral
force is distributed to the various floor levels. The overall design seismic force thus obtained at each
level is distributed to individual lateral load resisting elements depending upon the floor diaphragm
action especially for control building. For our case the time period and the seismic forces was left to be
determined by SAP2000 itself.
For the power house, dynamic analysis is performed to obtain the design seismic force and is distributed
to different levels along the height of the building and to the various lateral load resisting elements. The
dynamic analysis was performed by the Response Spectrum Method. However, in either method, the
design base shear (VB) is compared with base shear (V’B) calculated using seismic coefficient method.
Where VB is less than V’B, all the response quantities (for example member forces, displacements,
storey forces, storey shears and base shear is multiplied with the factor (V’B/ VB).The value of the
damping for the power house was taken 5 percent of the critical, for the purposes of dynamic analysis of
the powerhouse building.

9.1.6.2 Modes to be considered

The number of modes in the power house is considered such as to meet 90 percent of the total seismic
mass. All the functions are automated in SAP2000 using the code IS: 1893-2002 and the mass source
thus defined can be obtained from the table as shown.
For various loading classes as specified in IS:875:1960, the horizontal earthquake force is calculated for
the full dead load and the multiplier of live loads as given below which is specified by the mass source as
shown.
Table 9-11: Mass source
Mass From Load Pattern Multiplier

Text Text Unit less
Loads DEAD 1
Loads Crane1 0.5
Loads Crane2 0.5
Loads Railing Load 1
Loads Wall 1
Loads Roof Dead 1
Loads Roof Live 0.5
 The total damping ratio of 5% of critical is used for the structural load calculations
 The total 20 modes are considered to meet 90 % of the modal mass in the design.
 The earthquake load is applied in both x and y directions with both positive and negative values.
Loads are applied only to the superstructure and the floor slabs below the ground level is given
the rigid diaphragm.
The modal participation ratios and factors are given in Table 9-12 and Table 9-13.
Table 9-12 : Modal load participation ratios
Output Case ItemType Item Static Dynamic

Text Text Text Percent Percent
MODAL Acceleration UX 100 99.74
MODAL Acceleration UY 100 99.79

Table 9-13 : Auto seismic –IS 1893:2002
Load Percen Z Soil Coeff Weight Base

Pat Dir t Ecc Code Type I R T Used Used Used Shear
Unit Unit Unit Unit

Text Text less Text Text less less Sec less KN KN
EQx X 0.05 0.36 III 1.5 5 0.2163 1.25 9182.96 1239.70

EQy Y 0.05 0.36 III 1.5 5 0.3458 1.25 9182.96 1239.70
9.1.7 FORCES/STRESSES OUTPUT
9.1.7.1 Checking for permissible deflection for superstructure frames

The frame elements is checked for permissible deflection and designed for the moments given by the
SAP2000 analysis. The deflection criteria shall meet the two relations. The relations are as given below:
9.1.7.2 L/d ratio

According to this relation,
For vertical deflection, L/d for spans (beam) up to 10 m shall be up to 7, 20, 27 for cantilever, simply
supported and continuous beams respectively, where L stands for span of beam and d stands for
effective depth of beam.
The maximum L/d ratio for superstructure beam elements was found equal to 15 as maximum value
which was less than the value 20. So all superstructure beam elements met these deflection criteria. The
maximum beam length for the superstructure was 6 m.
9.1.7.3 Lateral drift relations

The lateral drift relation is considered for the seismic analysis. According to this relation, the permissible
lateral drift is checked for each storey separately or the building as a whole. The permissible drift for
both X and Y direction of the powerhouse can be given as:
Permissible drift = 0.004 x storey height
For the designed powerhouse superstructure, the maximum height of column was 3.2 m. For this
column, the permissible drift = (0.004 x 3.2) m =12.8 mm. For this the actual drift was found equal to
7.4 mm (in Y direction) 12.5 mm (in X direction) which is within the permissible range.
9.1.7.4 Permissible shear strength of concrete for RCC structure

According to IS 456:2000, the maximum shear stress for different grades of concrete are as below:
Table 9-14 : Maximum shear stress
Concrete grade C15 C20 C25 C30 C35

Tc Max. N/mm2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.5 3.7

If the shear stress in the member for specified grade of concrete exceeds the value given in above table,
the member should be redesigned.
The concrete grade adopted for the powerhouse was C25. So the value for Tc max was taken equal to
3.1 N/mm2 and it was found that the value of Tc max was not crossed the value of 3.1 N/mm2 for the
designed powerhouse.
9.1.8 DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
9.1.8.1 Design of machine foundation

Design of machine foundations require a special consideration because they transmit dynamic loads to
soil in addition to static loads due to weight of foundation, machine and accessories. The dynamic load
due to operation of the machine is generally small compared to the static weight of machine and the
supporting foundation. In a machine foundation the dynamic load is applied repetitively over a very long
period of time but its magnitude is small and therefore the soil behavior is essentially elastic, or else
deformation will increase with each cycle of loading and may become unacceptable. The amplitude of
vibration of a machine at its operating frequency is the most important parameter to be determined in
designing a machine foundation, in addition to the natural frequency of a machine foundation soil system.
There are many types of machines that generate different periodic forces. The most important
categories are:
1. Reciprocating machines: The machines that produce periodic unbalanced forces (such as steam
engines) belong to this category. The operating speeds of such machines are usually less than 600r/min.
For analysis of their foundations, the unbalanced forces can be considered to vary sinusoidally.
2. Impact machines: These machines produce impact loads, for instance, forging hammers. Their speeds
of operation usually vary from 60 to 150 blows per minute. Their dynamic loads attain a peak in a very
short interval and then practically die out.
3. Rotary machines: High-speed machines like turbo-generators or rotary compressors may have speeds
of more than 3,000r/min and up to 12,000r/min.
For this project, the type of machine is Rotary machines having frequency 600 rpm.
A suitable foundation is selected, depending upon the type of machine. A block foundation has a large
mass and, therefore, a smaller natural frequency. The criteria for designing machine foundations shall be
discussed first followed by the methods of analysis.
9.1.8.2 Criteria for design

A machine foundation should meet the following conditions for satisfactory performance.
Static loads
 It should be safe against shear failure, axial compression & tension and all other combined load
actions.
 It should not settle excessively.
Dynamic loads
 There should be no resonance; that is, the natural frequency of the machine-foundation-soil
system should not coincide with the operating frequency of the machine. In fact, a zone of

resonance is generally defined and the natural frequency of the system must lie outside this
zone. The foundation is high tuned when its fundamental frequency is greater than the operating
speed or low tuned when its fundamental frequency is lower than the operating speed.
 The amplitudes of motion at operating frequencies should not exceed the limiting amplitudes,
which are generally specified by machine manufacturers. If the computed amplitude is within
tolerable limits, but the computed natural frequency is close to the operating frequency, it is
important that this situation be avoided.
 The natural frequency of the foundation –soil system should not be whole number multiple of
the operating frequency of the machine to avoid resonance with the higher harmonics.
 The vibrations must not be annoying to the persons working in the shops or damaging to the
other precision machines. The nature of vibrations that are perceptible, annoying, or harmful
depends upon the frequency of the vibrations and the amplitude of the motion.
The detail calculation of vibration analysis and stability is shown in “Detail Project Report – Volume
VI: Annex I”
9.1.8.3 Design of Roof Truss

The roof structure consists of the Howe roof truss carrying the wind load, live load and dead load itself.
The roof truss load was calculated and the calculated load was applied in the SAP2000 modeling of the
roof truss. The load calculation and design of purlin is shown in Detailed Project Report- Volume VI,
Annex I. The model of the roof truss was modeled assigning the steel tube sections referring to IS
800:1998. The design of each members of the roof truss was carried out and the sections were finalized
directly from the SAP2000.
9.1.8.4 Design of column

All the columns were designed as square as well as rectangular reinforced concrete column. The
designed size of corner column is 1000mm X 500mm below corbel and rest of the columns throughout
the superstructure is 500 mm X 500 mm. The columns are fixed at both top and the bottom. Columns
are designed according to their axial and flexural demand as evaluated by the program spread sheet. IS
code allows for a maximum of 6% reinforcement steel in vertically cast columns but the reinforcement
value is limited to 4%. For all columns concrete cube strength of 25 N/mm2 is used.
The column is design from the computations made by SAP2000 and those were used for the detail
design. The program calculates the effective length factors based on IS 456:2000 (Clause 25.2 of Annex
E, Clause 39.7) with the assumption that the frame is a sway frame entirely through analysis.
All the columns for the powerhouse superstructure were found short columns (i.e. slenderness ratio
less than 12). Hence, the value of K was overwritten by 1.2 assuming all the columns as short columns.
Since the columns were not slender columns, P-delta function was not assigned in the SAP2000 model.
9.1.8.5 Design of beam

All beams were designed for major direction flexure, shear and torsion. The beam design procedure
involved the following steps:
 Design of longitudinal reinforcement
 Design of shear reinforcement

 Design of torsion reinforcement
All the details of the beams were taken from the values designed by SAP2000 later verified through
manual calculations. The reinforcement details at top corner, top center, bottom corner and bottom
center part of each beam element were found as per the output given by SAP2000 following
IS13920:1993-Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces-Code of
Practice. According to this Code, the minimum reinforcement at bottom corner of each beam element
was taken 50% of the reinforcement at top corner. The details of remaining parts of the beam elements
were as per the results shown by the SAP2000.
9.1.8.6 Design of corbel

The design of corbel was done under the following assumptions:
 A corbel should be designed for limit state of collapse.
 Truss analogy method should be used: simple strut and tie system.
 The resistance provided to the horizontal force should be greater than 0.5 times the design
vertical load on the corbel.
 The compatibility of strains between the strut and tie should be satisfied at the root of the
corbel.
The calculation for the design of the corbel has been presented in “Detail Project Report – Volume VI:
Annex I”.
9.1.8.7 Design of crane beam

A concrete crane beam is designed following the loads provided by the E/M. Crane beam is analyzed
both manually as well as modeled in SAP2000 with power house frame.
The manual calculation for the design of the crane beam has been presented in “Detail Project Report –
Volume VI: Annex I”.
9.1.8.8 SAP2000 Analysis Output

The output from SAP2000 analysis, i.e. the required reinforcement of provided columns, beams and
corbel are enlisted below in Figure 9-11, Figure 9-12, Figure 9-13, Figure 9-14, Figure 9-15 and Figure
9-17.

Figure 9-11: Column Reinforcement at grid X-Z, Y=0 m
Figure 9-12: Column reinforcement at Y=16.5 m

Figure 9-13: Beam reinforcement at Z=5.45 m

Figure 9-16: Beam reinforcement at Z=14 m

Figure 9-17: Crane Beam Reinforcement
9.1.9 Summary of Structural Elements Result

The result summary of analysis and design of the structural system, i.e. Beam and Column are presented
in the table below.
Table 9-15: Summary of Column Reinforcement of Powerhouse
Location Floor Rebar Ties dia, mm Stirrup legs in Stirrup legs No of Spacing,
longer in Shorter Ties mm
Dia-Nos
direction direction
Corner First 25-22 10 6 4 4 150
Second 25-11, 10 6 4 4 150

20-11
Below 20-22 10 6 4 4 150

Corbel
Above 20-12 10 4 4 3 150

Corbel
Middle Throughout 20-12 10 4 4 3 150

Table 9-16: Summary of Beam Reinforcement of Powerhouse
Beam reinforcement for both longer and shorter span
Floor Top rebar Bottom rebar Stirrups dia, mm Spacing, mm
Left Mid Right Left Mid Right Left Mid Right Left Mid Right
First 20-3 20-3 20-3 20-3 20-3 20-3 10 10 10 100 150 100
floor
16-2 16-2
beam
Second 16-3 16-3 16-3 16-3 16-3 16-3 10 10 10 100 150 100
floor
16-2 16-2
beam
Third 16-3 16-3 16-3 16-3 16-3 16-3 8 8 8 100 150 100
floor
12-2 12-2
beam
Top 12-3 12-3 12-3 12-3 12-3 12-3 8 8 8 100 150 100
Floor
Beam
Table 9-17: Summary of Crane Beam Reinforcement of Powerhouse
Beam reinforcement for Crane Beam
Top rebar Bottom rebar Stirrups dia, mm Spacing, mm
20-4 20-4 20-4 20-4 20-4 20-4 12 12 12 100 150 100

20-4 20-4 20-4

9.2 Control Building Design
9.2.1 General
Analysis and design of control building is same as that of main power house super structure excluding
the moving load in the analysis part. The control building is placed in the powerhouse cavern and
separated from machine foundation with an expansion joint. The control building size is 37.3m X 6.8m.
The RC design has been performed with the help of the software SAP2000. The design is done
according to IS456:2000 and detailing is done according to IS13920:1993. British code has also been
utilized during the rebar detailing. The design calculation according to the algorithm of SAP2000 has
been followed again which follows the IS codes IS-456:2000 and IS13920:1993.
Figure 9-18: Extrude view of Control Building model prepared in SAP2000

9.2.2 Loadings for Structural Analysis

The types of loading with their intensity in KN/m2 has been presented in the figures below:
Figure 9-19: The live load intensity applied at control building slab
Figure 9-20: External wall load applied on control building beams
9.2.3 Load Pattern

Different loadings are applied in the frame model. Slab dead load and live load are calculated and applied
manually in the model. The following sets of loads pattern were defined for the analysis in SAP 2000.
Table 9-18 : Load pattern

Load Pattern Design Type Self Wt Multiplier Auto Load

Dead Dead 1
Live Load Live load 0
Slab dead Dead 0
EQx(in x- direction) Quake 0 IS1893 2002
EQy(in y- direction) Quake 0 IS1893 2002
Wall Load Dead 0
9.2.4 Load cases definition

The load cases considered for the analysis is shown below;
Table 9-19 : Load case
Case Type Design Type Factor

Dead Lin Static DEAD 1
Modal Lin Modal OTHER 1
Live Load Lin Moving LIVE 1
EQx Lin Static QUAKE 1
EQy Lin Static QUAKE 1
Wall Load Lin Static DEAD 1
Slab dead Lin Static DEAD 1
9.2.5 General loading combinations

As per IS 1893(part I):2002 Clause no. 6.3.1.2, the following load combinations are considered for
analysis. The summary of the combination is presented below:
1.5DL
1.5(DL+IL)
1.2(DL+IL+EQ), 1.2(DL+IL-EQ)
1.5(DL+EQ), 1.5(DL-EQ)
.9DL+1.5EQ, .9DL-1.5EQ
Earthquake load are considered for +X, -X, +Y and –Y directions.
The load combination table has been presented in Table 9-8 which is shown above in powerhouse
design chapter.
9.2.6 Design of Structural Elements

A. Design of foundation
Footing has been designed to transfer the column load to the ground. Footing has not been modeled in
the SAP model of building rather it is analyzed manually taking the outputs of SAP such as bending

moment and axial force of columns. The combined footing has been designed since the isolated footing
would encroach the corresponding footing’s area.
Summary of footing design
Bearing pressure : 150 kN/m2
Raft foundation depth : 0.6 m
Combined Footing size : 6.8 m* 2 m
Main reinforcement : 16 mm @ 150 c/c spacing
Distribution bar : 16 mm @ 150 c/c spacing
B. Design of column and Beam

All the columns are designed as rectangular reinforced concrete column. The size of column throughout
the superstructure is 400mm*400mm, the columns are fixed at the top and the bottom. Columns are
designed according to their axial and flexural demand as evaluated by the program spread sheet. IS code
allows for a maximum of 6% reinforcement steel in vertically cast columns but the reinforcement value
is limited to 4%. For all columns concrete cube strength of 25N/mm2 shall be used. The columns are
designed from the computations made by SAP and this is used for the detail design. Similarly all the
beams are designed for major direction flexure, shear and torsion only. The design of beams on SAP is
based on IS 456 and IS 13920. All the details of the beams have been taken from the values designed by
SAP2000. The output value of reinforcement from SAP analysis for different level of column and beam
are listed below in respective diagrams.
Figure 9-21: Column reinforcement in mm2 at X-Z plane at grid Y=0

Figure 9-22: Column reinforcement in mm2 at X-Z plane at Y=6.4 m
Figure 9-23: Beam reinforcement in mm2 of Plinth beam
Figure 9-24: Beam Reinforcement in mm2 at first floor

Figure 9-25: Beam Reinforcement in mm2 at roof
9.2.7 Summary of Structural Elements Result

The result summary of analysis and design of the structural system, i.e. Slab, Beam and Column are
presented in the table below.
Table 9-20: Summary of Column Reinforcement of Control Building
Rebar dia, mm No of Ties dia, mm Stirrup legs No of Ties Spacing, mm

Rebar
20 8 10 2 2 150
Table 9-21: Summary of Beam Reinforcement of Control Building
Beam reinforcement for both longer and shorter span
Floor Top rebar Bottom rebar Stirrups dia, mm Spacing, mm
Plinth 12-6 12-3 12-6 12-3 12-3 12-3 8 8 8 100 150 100
and First
floor
beam
Roof 12-3 12-3 12-3 12-3 12-3 12-3 8 8 8 100 150 100
beam

C. Design of Slab
Slab has been modeled in this building model. The intensity of 5kN/m2 has been applied as a live load to
the slab. The slab dead load and live loads were also calculated manually as a two way slab following the
IS: 456-2000. The calculation detail has been presented in Detailed Project Report: Volume VI- Annex I.
Design summary of slab
Main reinforcement : 10 mm @ 150 c/c spacing

10 TAILRACE
10.1.1 General description

A 72.80m long, 2.0m x 1.60m (B x H) of slope 1 in 400 before confluence, 1 in 200 after confluence and
1 in 4 in chute at outlet. Rectangular box culvert with open chute at the end discharges the water back
into the Mewa Khola. The rectangular shaped concrete conduit will be ‘cut and cover’ type.
Figure 10-1: Typical Section of Tailrace Culvert

Analysis of tailrace culvert has been performed using SAP2000. Tailrace section was analyzed for
different loading conditions including live loads which are discussed below

Figure 10-2: 2D Model of Tailrace Culvert in SAP2000
10.1.3 Loads Considered

Following loadings were used for the analysis of tailrace section
Table 10-1 : Loads considered
S.N. Loadings Loads
1 Soil over burden, kN/m 57
2 Lateral soil pressure at normal condition, kN/m 16.17 at top to 38.20 at bottom
(Trapezoidal)
3 Vechile load Vertical, kN/m 8.33
4 Lateral soil pressure due to Vechile, kN/m 14.87
5 Hydrostatic pressure inside culvert , kN/m 0 at top and 10.79 at bottom
6 Weight of water, kN/m 10.79 at the base slab
7 Bearing Pressure, kN/m 118.06
10.1.4 Load combinations

Following load combinations were used for the analysis of tailrace,

Table 10-2 : Load combinations
S.N. Combination Scale factor
1 Empty 1.5
2 Full 1.5
3 Envelope 1
10.1.5 Structural Analysis Output

The following moment diagrams enlisted below are the analysis output from SAP2000
Figure 10-3: Bending Moment diagram of culvert from SAP 2000
10.1.6 Design summary of Tailrace

For detail calculation, refer “Detail Project Report: Volume VI– Annex I” and for detail drawings refer
Drawings 78 / 04/ 41C01”. The summary of the design is presented in Table 10-3.

Table 10-3 : Design summary of Tailrace
Section Thickness(mm) Main Bar Dia(mm) Distribution Bar

and Spacing Dia and spacing
Base 400 with 300mm 25mm dia at 150mm 16mm dia with
Slab haunch at two side c/c spacing 150mm c/c spacing
wall junction
Side 400 mm thick two 16mm dia at 150mm 12mm dia with
Walls side wall c/c spacing 150mm c/c spacing
Top 400 with 300mm 16mm dia at 150mm 12mm dia with
Slab haunch at two side c/c spacing 150mm c/c spacing
wall junction

Vol II Main Report - Structural Design Report - DRAFT FINAL April 2019 PDF

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

Vol II Main Report - Structural Design Report - DRAFT FINAL April 2019 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Government of Nepal

Ministry of Energy, Water Resource and Irrigation

DETAIL ENGINEERING DESIGN OF SIWA KHOLA

SMALL HYDROPOWER PROJECT (26.86 MW),

STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT, DRAFT FINAL

2. Name: Uddab Raj Chaulagain

Designation: MD, ERMC P. Ltd. Seal

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page i

IRR Internal Rate of Return

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page ii

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page iii

3.2.6 Structural Analysis and Design....................................................................................................... 20

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page iv

5.3.5 Load Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 43

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page v

7.1.1 Inlet portal .......................................................................................................................................... 70

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page vi

9.2 Control Building Design..................................................................................................................... 114

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page vii

ANNEXES: STABILITY ANALYSIS AND STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page viii

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page ix

Figure 9-7: Dead load of roof truss on column ................................................................................................. 101

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page x

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page xi

Table 5-8: Load combinations .................................................................................................................................. 50

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page xii

Table 9-12 : Modal load participation ratios ....................................................................................................... 104

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page xiii

1.2 Project information

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page 1

1.3 Salient Features of the Project

Table 1-1: Salient features of the project

Meringden Rural Municipality, Ward No.-6

4 Power and Energy

Velocity of flow at intake trashrack 0.76 m/s

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page 4

Adit Portal 3.00 x 3.00 m

16 Powerhouse and Control Building

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page 5

Financial Indicators (based on dry season

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page 6

2 DIVERSION WEIR AND STILLING BASIN

2.1 General description

2.1.1 Diversion Weir

2.1.2 Stilling basin

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page 7

Figure 2-1: Weir and stilling basin profile

2.2 Hydraulic Design

2.3 Stability Analysis and Structural Design

2.3.1 Approach of Stability Analysis

Table 2-1: Criteria for stability analysis for Weir

Weir stability criteria

Loading Factor of safety (FOS)

1 Usual 2 1.7 1.3 <1*Qsafe B/6

2 Unusual 1.7 1.5 1.2 <1*Qsafe B/4

3 Extreme 1.3 1.2 1.1 <1.33*Qsafe B/2

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page 8

2.3.2 Seismic consideration

Table 2-2: Value of basic seismic coefficient for different zones

JV of Hydro-Consult Engineering & ERMC Page 9

Table 2-3: Value of Importance Factor, I

Table 2-4: Value of β for different soil-Foundation system