Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Ministry of Water and Energy

SHAH-WA-ARUS
MULTIPURPOSE PROJECT

Report on Water Resources Planning

Tablieh – Parhoon Tarh J.V.

December 2010

0
 Table of Contents
1. Introduction

2. Basic data
2.1 Reservoir Inflow
2.2 Requirements of Demand Sites
2.3 Elevation- Volume- Area Relationship
2.4 Sedimentation
2.5 Power plant characteristics

3. Methodology of the Study

4. Simulating results
4.1. Without Project Condition
4.2. Suitable Range for Normal Water Level
4.3. Simulation Results for Different Reservoir Storages
4.4 Hydropower Generation Results

5. Refined Simulating Results

1
1. Introduction
This report contains updated studies on water resources management and
summarized results of economical analyses. In the current studies, the basic
assumptions and methodology of the feasibility studies have been followed.

According to the feasibility studies, main goal of the project is supplying

irrigation and potable demand and hydropower energy production is as a
secondary aim. In feasibility studied, Shah-Wa-Arus dam is proposed by 7.8 mcm
million cubic meter storage volumes in full supply level (normal water level) at
EL. 2145 masl. In this situation, 1500 hectares agriculture areas supposed to be
supplied by dam and also 1.208 mcm for domestic demand is released from dam.

By preparing new topographical map from the dam site and reservoir, it is
understood that the storage volume in the considered normal water level (2145)
is much less than the 7.8 mcm. Furthermore, based on the site observations and
initial expert judgment, it is believed that the considered volume of trapped
sediments in the dam reservoir is under-estimate. Therefore, as an important and
basic prerequisite, the hydrological studies have been revised and updated.
Consequently, water resource management and economical studies are also
revised in order to determine the updated optimum storage capacity for dam and
the optimum normal water level. The objectives of this report are as follows:

 Determining the suitable range for normal water level by considering the
limitations such as sediment, minimum requirement that specified in
feasibility study and the available water in river for regulating,
 Studying the effect of dam in regulation of river flow,
 Determining the agriculture areas that their requirement could be supplied
by dam in different normal water level,
 Calculating hydro power energy generation for different power plant
capacities in each normal water level, and finally
 Presenting the summarized results on economical studies and the optimum
reservoir normal water level.

2. Basic data
2.1 Reservoir Inflow

Monthly time series of Shakardara river inflow at Shah-Wa-Arus dam for a

period of 51 years from 1959-60 to 2009-2010 are presented in tables 2.1 & 2.2.
Figure 2.1 also shows monthly variation of average inflow and figure 2.2
2
represents yearly variation of inflow in the dam site. Based on these data, dam
inflows in March to July are higher than other months and water year 2007/2008
is the driest year.
Table 2.1- Shakardara monthly inflow time series at Shah-Wa-Arus dam site (cms)
Year Oct Nov Dec Jan. Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual
1959-60 0.41 0.50 0.46 0.41 0.78 1.49 2.02 2.77 2.59 2.83 1.03 0.70 1.33
1960-61 0.53 0.58 0.51 0.46 0.69 0.93 1.51 2.58 2.21 1.45 0.64 0.64 1.06
1961-62 0.50 0.57 0.47 0.45 0.72 0.93 1.55 1.74 2.41 1.74 0.64 0.73 1.04
1962-63 0.48 0.50 0.41 0.41 0.66 1.22 1.67 2.17 3.04 1.75 0.52 0.50 1.11
1963-64 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.60 1.21 2.28 2.62 2.00 1.89 0.62 0.47 1.10
1964-65 0.36 0.44 0.49 0.51 0.90 1.40 2.06 2.29 1.71 2.20 0.76 0.59 1.14
1965-66 0.53 0.60 0.56 0.46 0.82 1.33 2.09 2.04 1.94 1.15 0.66 0.53 1.06
1966-67 0.40 0.44 0.42 0.41 1.03 1.34 1.97 2.01 1.92 1.81 0.83 0.66 1.10
1967-68 0.40 0.42 0.50 0.56 0.93 2.12 1.95 1.59 2.05 1.90 0.80 0.54 1.15
1968-69 0.45 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.87 1.70 1.96 2.17 2.11 2.04 1.06 0.73 1.23
1969-70 0.56 0.71 0.64 0.65 0.96 1.17 1.98 2.70 1.33 0.63 0.48 0.51 1.03
1970-71 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.35 0.55 1.02 1.84 3.72 1.11 0.46 0.38 0.36 0.91
1971-72 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.44 0.88 1.31 1.30 2.06 2.64 1.69 0.63 0.60 1.07
1972-73 0.35 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.83 1.61 2.90 3.17 2.04 1.13 0.42 0.40 1.18
1973-74 0.47 0.52 0.48 0.46 0.81 1.22 1.84 2.15 1.34 0.90 0.51 0.39 0.92
1974-75 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.80 1.11 1.90 1.89 1.66 1.28 0.65 0.53 0.96
1975-76 0.39 0.49 0.45 0.49 0.84 1.19 2.07 2.51 1.39 1.31 0.51 0.50 1.01
1976-77 0.43 0.46 0.47 0.55 1.02 1.32 1.20 1.48 1.38 0.90 0.58 0.45 0.85
1977-78 0.37 0.37 0.41 0.40 0.69 1.13 2.16 3.37 1.83 0.96 0.48 0.45 1.05
1978-79 0.38 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.81 1.22 2.83 2.04 1.88 1.65 0.68 0.49 1.10
1979-80 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.57 0.95 1.19 1.95 2.58 1.52 0.75 0.47 0.41 0.99
1980-81 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.42 0.62 1.10 2.34 3.26 1.55 1.53 0.52 0.44 1.08
1981-82 0.44 0.49 0.58 0.56 0.74 1.09 2.29 2.67 1.43 0.84 0.67 0.43 1.02
1982-83 0.42 0.55 0.55 0.59 0.79 1.10 1.83 2.56 1.60 1.37 0.97 0.50 1.07
1983-84 0.47 0.56 0.43 0.44 0.71 1.08 2.08 2.41 2.02 1.52 1.00 0.48 1.10
1984-85 0.42 0.55 0.55 0.46 0.72 1.23 1.95 2.37 1.77 1.66 0.61 0.47 1.06
1985-86 0.53 0.56 0.57 0.67 0.87 1.19 1.21 1.61 1.65 1.38 0.61 0.54 0.95
1986-87 0.37 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.73 1.22 2.90 2.68 1.69 1.35 0.77 0.48 1.12
1987-88 0.50 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.80 1.07 2.74 3.05 1.94 1.73 0.68 0.46 1.23
1988-89 0.59 0.55 0.58 0.47 0.71 1.26 1.21 1.68 1.39 0.88 0.48 0.53 0.86
1989-90 0.39 0.47 0.43 0.45 0.80 1.22 1.41 3.07 2.05 1.12 0.60 0.58 1.05
1990-91 0.52 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.76 1.12 1.80 2.48 1.75 1.18 0.55 0.56 1.03
1991-92 0.43 0.41 0.50 0.51 0.64 1.12 2.43 3.60 1.86 1.87 0.61 0.46 1.20
1992-93 0.44 0.50 0.48 0.37 0.63 1.06 2.45 3.03 1.89 1.73 0.67 0.48 1.14
1993-94 0.45 0.51 0.65 0.75 0.61 1.19 1.89 3.46 1.91 2.23 0.93 0.46 1.25
1994-95 0.44 0.52 0.60 0.63 0.64 1.25 1.74 2.37 1.52 1.46 0.74 0.48 1.03
1995-96 0.40 0.37 0.49 0.55 1.20 1.20 2.12 2.21 1.62 0.92 0.65 0.49 1.02
1996-97 0.47 0.67 0.78 0.93 1.13 1.09 1.69 1.90 1.41 1.02 0.53 0.50 1.01
1997-98 0.41 0.52 0.66 0.75 1.01 1.03 3.23 3.52 1.54 1.70 0.62 0.43 1.28
1998-99 0.49 0.65 0.91 1.01 1.16 1.15 1.71 2.67 1.34 1.05 0.58 0.45 1.10
1999-00 0.45 0.56 0.58 0.39 0.47 1.15 2.08 2.93 1.49 0.99 0.54 0.50 1.01
2000-1 0.41 0.48 0.50 0.49 0.43 1.19 1.94 2.66 1.90 1.20 0.44 0.45 1.01
2001-2 0.35 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.58 1.19 2.85 3.00 1.78 1.49 0.83 0.47 1.15
2002-3 0.50 0.47 0.54 0.52 0.60 1.09 2.77 2.24 1.84 1.61 0.54 0.48 1.10
2003-4 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.54 1.30 2.56 2.88 1.77 1.23 0.52 0.45 1.09
2004-5 0.41 0.47 0.63 0.50 0.43 1.51 2.33 2.59 2.07 1.65 0.57 0.48 1.14
2005-6 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.39 0.73 1.05 2.13 3.47 1.57 1.17 0.79 0.51 1.09
2006-7 0.43 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.77 1.22 2.08 2.56 1.79 1.41 0.63 0.50 1.08
2007-8 0.40 0.49 0.54 0.59 1.01 1.32 1.17 0.91 0.68 0.54 0.49 0.70 0.74
2008-9 0.42 0.34 0.35 0.29 0.53 1.32 2.38 3.19 2.64 2.08 0.78 0.63 1.25
2009-10 0.55 0.63 0.66 0.65 0.99 1.64 2.68 3.25 1.73 1.36 0.64 0.52 1.28
mean 0.44 0.49 0.52 0.51 0.77 1.23 2.06 2.55 1.79 1.41 0.64 0.51 1.08
maximum 0.59 0.71 0.91 1.01 1.20 2.12 3.23 3.72 3.04 2.83 1.06 0.73 1.33
minimum 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.29 0.43 0.93 1.17 0.91 0.68 0.46 0.38 0.36 0.74
STD 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.48 0.61 0.41 0.47 0.16 0.09 0.11
CV. 13 16 20 26 23 17 23 24 23 33 25 17 11

3
 Table 2.2- Shakardara monthly inflow time series at Shah-Wa-Arus dam site (mcm)
Year Oct Nov Dec Jan. Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual
1959-60 1.09 1.31 1.22 1.10 1.89 3.99 5.24 7.43 6.72 7.58 2.76 1.81 42.14
1960-61 1.42 1.51 1.38 1.23 1.67 2.50 3.90 6.92 5.72 3.89 1.73 1.66 33.52
1961-62 1.33 1.49 1.26 1.21 1.75 2.49 4.02 4.66 6.24 4.65 1.71 1.90 32.71
1962-63 1.28 1.29 1.11 1.10 1.61 3.28 4.32 5.81 7.89 4.69 1.39 1.29 35.04
1963-64 1.07 0.97 1.02 1.01 1.45 3.24 5.90 7.03 5.18 5.07 1.67 1.22 34.83
1964-65 0.97 1.14 1.30 1.37 2.18 3.75 5.33 6.12 4.44 5.89 2.02 1.53 36.06
1965-66 1.41 1.55 1.50 1.24 1.98 3.57 5.42 5.47 5.03 3.07 1.78 1.36 33.38
1966-67 1.08 1.14 1.12 1.10 2.49 3.59 5.10 5.39 4.98 4.85 2.21 1.71 34.77
1967-68 1.07 1.08 1.34 1.51 2.24 5.67 5.05 4.26 5.31 5.08 2.14 1.40 36.14
1968-69 1.22 1.38 1.49 1.49 2.10 4.55 5.07 5.80 5.46 5.47 2.84 1.90 38.76
1969-70 1.51 1.83 1.72 1.75 2.33 3.14 5.14 7.24 3.44 1.68 1.28 1.33 32.39
1970-71 1.02 1.01 0.96 0.93 1.34 2.72 4.76 9.95 2.87 1.22 1.02 0.94 28.74
1971-72 1.11 1.17 1.30 1.17 2.14 3.51 3.36 5.51 6.84 4.53 1.69 1.55 33.86
1972-73 0.94 1.13 1.17 1.16 2.02 4.31 7.51 8.50 5.30 3.03 1.13 1.04 37.26
1973-74 1.27 1.34 1.27 1.22 1.95 3.26 4.78 5.76 3.47 2.41 1.37 1.02 29.12
1974-75 1.09 1.10 1.13 1.21 1.94 2.98 4.92 5.06 4.31 3.42 1.74 1.38 30.27
1975-76 1.05 1.26 1.20 1.30 2.03 3.19 5.37 6.71 3.61 3.52 1.37 1.28 31.89
1976-77 1.16 1.18 1.25 1.47 2.47 3.54 3.11 3.96 3.57 2.40 1.55 1.17 26.85
1977-78 1.00 0.97 1.09 1.07 1.68 3.03 5.61 9.04 4.74 2.57 1.28 1.16 33.24
1978-79 1.02 0.98 1.09 1.14 1.95 3.27 7.35 5.46 4.86 4.42 1.81 1.27 34.62
1979-80 1.07 1.30 1.47 1.52 2.30 3.20 5.05 6.92 3.94 2.00 1.25 1.05 31.07
1980-81 1.02 1.08 1.07 1.12 1.50 2.95 6.06 8.73 4.02 4.10 1.38 1.15 34.18
1981-82 1.17 1.26 1.54 1.49 1.80 2.91 5.93 7.15 3.71 2.26 1.79 1.11 32.12
1982-83 1.13 1.42 1.46 1.59 1.91 2.95 4.74 6.85 4.15 3.67 2.59 1.29 33.77
1983-84 1.25 1.44 1.15 1.19 1.73 2.89 5.40 6.47 5.24 4.06 2.68 1.25 34.74
1984-85 1.13 1.43 1.46 1.22 1.74 3.30 5.07 6.34 4.58 4.44 1.63 1.22 33.56
1985-86 1.42 1.45 1.53 1.79 2.10 3.19 3.14 4.32 4.28 3.69 1.63 1.39 29.92
1986-87 1.00 1.02 1.16 1.15 1.77 3.27 7.52 7.17 4.39 3.61 2.06 1.25 35.36
1987-88 1.33 1.47 1.55 1.55 1.95 2.87 7.10 8.17 5.04 4.64 1.83 1.18 38.67
1988-89 1.57 1.43 1.55 1.26 1.72 3.37 3.13 4.51 3.61 2.37 1.28 1.37 27.16
1989-90 1.04 1.23 1.16 1.19 1.93 3.27 3.65 8.23 5.31 3.00 1.62 1.49 33.12
1990-91 1.40 1.47 1.52 1.51 1.84 3.00 4.67 6.63 4.53 3.17 1.48 1.44 32.66
1991-92 1.14 1.06 1.34 1.37 1.55 3.01 6.30 9.63 4.82 5.00 1.63 1.18 38.04
1992-93 1.18 1.30 1.29 0.99 1.53 2.83 6.34 8.11 4.91 4.64 1.78 1.23 36.14
1993-94 1.19 1.33 1.75 2.00 1.47 3.19 4.89 9.27 4.94 5.98 2.50 1.18 39.69
1994-95 1.18 1.35 1.61 1.70 1.54 3.36 4.51 6.34 3.94 3.90 1.97 1.24 32.65
1995-96 1.07 0.96 1.30 1.46 2.90 3.22 5.50 5.92 4.19 2.46 1.75 1.27 32.01
1996-97 1.26 1.72 2.09 2.50 2.73 2.92 4.37 5.08 3.65 2.74 1.42 1.29 31.79
1997-98 1.10 1.34 1.75 2.01 2.44 2.75 8.38 9.42 3.99 4.54 1.66 1.12 40.49
1998-99 1.32 1.67 2.45 2.71 2.80 3.08 4.42 7.15 3.46 2.82 1.56 1.17 34.61
1999-00 1.21 1.44 1.56 1.04 1.14 3.08 5.38 7.85 3.86 2.64 1.44 1.29 31.93
2000-1 1.09 1.24 1.35 1.31 1.05 3.20 5.02 7.14 4.93 3.21 1.18 1.17 31.87
2001-2 0.94 1.10 1.18 1.18 1.40 3.20 7.38 8.04 4.61 3.99 2.22 1.21 36.45
2002-3 1.35 1.23 1.45 1.40 1.45 2.93 7.18 6.01 4.78 4.31 1.45 1.24 34.77
2003-4 1.02 1.17 1.35 1.22 1.30 3.47 6.64 7.70 4.58 3.30 1.39 1.17 34.30
2004-5 1.09 1.23 1.68 1.35 1.04 4.04 6.04 6.94 5.37 4.42 1.52 1.25 35.97
2005-6 1.08 1.15 1.20 1.04 1.76 2.82 5.53 9.28 4.07 3.15 2.11 1.31 34.51
2006-7 1.14 1.28 1.39 1.38 1.86 3.28 5.39 6.85 4.64 3.78 1.69 1.29 33.97
2007-8 1.07 1.27 1.46 1.58 2.43 3.54 3.03 2.44 1.77 1.43 1.30 1.83 23.14
2008-9 1.13 0.89 0.95 0.78 1.29 3.54 6.18 8.56 6.85 5.58 2.08 1.64 39.47
2009-10 1.48 1.64 1.78 1.75 2.40 4.40 6.93 8.70 4.47 3.65 1.71 1.34 40.25
mean 1.17 1.28 1.38 1.37 1.87 3.31 5.34 6.82 4.64 3.76 1.73 1.32 34.00
maximum 1.57 1.83 2.45 2.71 2.90 5.67 8.38 9.95 7.89 7.58 2.84 1.90 42.14
minimum 0.94 0.89 0.95 0.78 1.04 2.49 3.03 2.44 1.77 1.22 1.02 0.94 23.14
STD 0.15 0.21 0.28 0.36 0.44 0.55 1.25 1.64 1.06 1.26 0.42 0.22 3.61
CV. 13 16 20 26 23 17 23 24 23 33 25 17 11

4
 8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0
Inflow (mcm)

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
Oct Nov Dec Jan. Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Month

Figure 2.1- Monthly variation of inflow at Shah-Wa- Arus dam site (mcm)

45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0
Inflow (mcm)

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
20 -2
20 -4
19 -62

19 -72

19 -78
19 -80

19 -84
19 -86

19 -94
19 -96
19 -60

19 -64
19 -66
19 -68
19 -70

19 -74
19 -76

19 -82

19 -88
19 -90
19 -92

99 98

20 0

20 -6
20 7-8

0
-1
00
01
03
05
19 97-
59

63
65
67
69

73
75

81

87
89
91

0
09
61

71

77
79

83
85

93
95

-2
19

Water Year

Figure 2.2- Yearly variation of inflow at Shah-Wa-Arus dam site (mcm)

2.2 Requirements of Demand Sites

The main goal of Shah-Wa-Arus project is water supplying for the agricul-
tural requirements and domestic requirements.

5
Agricultural Requirements

Agricultural requirements are taken out from the feasibility study reports.
In that reports, crop pattern is shown for 1500 hectare agriculture areas and de-
scribed that Irrigation efficiency is equal 45%. 0 shows irrigation requirement
that extract from feasibility report, including irrigation demand for unit of area
and demand variation in each period.

Table 2.3– Irrigation requirement for unit of area

Irrigation requirement for Demand Per Hectares Variation in each
Irrigation Period
1500 ha (mcm) (m3/ha) Period (%)
Oct 1 0.19 126.67 1.44
Oct 2 0.21 140.00 1.59
Oct 3 0.24 160.00 1.81
Nov 1 0.14 93.33 1.06
Nov 2 0.19 126.67 1.44
Nov 3 0.24 160.00 1.81
Dec 1 0.35 233.33 2.64
Dec 2 0.35 233.33 2.64
Dec 3 0.38 253.33 2.87
Jan 1 0.13 86.67 0.98
Jan 2 0.12 80.00 0.91
Jan 3 0.12 80.00 0.91
Feb 1 0.23 153.33 1.74
Feb 2 0.22 146.67 1.66
Feb 3 0.14 93.33 1.06
Mar 1 0.17 113.33 1.28
Mar 2 0.07 46.67 0.53
Mar 3 0.04 26.67 0.30
Apr 1 0.32 213.33 2.42
Apr 2 0.29 193.33 2.19
Apr 3 0.30 200.00 2.27
May 1 0.58 386.67 4.38
May 2 0.58 386.67 4.38
May 3 0.62 413.33 4.68
June 1 0.93 620.00 7.02
June 2 0.51 340.00 3.85
June 3 0.54 360.00 4.08
July 1 0.56 373.33 4.23
July 2 0.66 440.00 4.98
July 3 0.77 513.33 5.82
Aug 1 0.67 446.67 5.06
Aug 2 0.67 446.67 5.06
Aug 3 0.73 486.67 5.51
Sep 1 0.44 293.33 3.32
Sep 2 0.34 226.67 2.57
Sep 3 0.20 133.33 1.51
Total 13.24 8826.67 100.00

6
Drinking and Industrial Requirements

Based on the meeting was held in Kabul in 10th October 2010, 5.0 million
cubic meters would be consider as the drinking and industrial requirements
which should be supplying from Shah-Wa-Arus dam. This demand is assumed
uniformly in all season. In feasibility study 1.208 million cubic meters is as-
sumed for domestic demand.

Environmental requirement

According to the feasibility studies, the environmental requirements, as

0.002 million cubic meters in 10 days, should be release from the reservoir.
Therefore, in the current studies, environmental requirement is considered same,
with uniform distribution.

Evaporation

According to the hydroclimatologic studies, the annual evaporation from

reservoir areas is equal to 1464 millimetre. Monthly variation of evaporation at
the proposed dam site is shown in table 2.4 and figure 2.3.

Table 2.4-Monthly variation of evaporation from the reservoir (mm)

Month Oct Nov Dec Jan. Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual
Evapora-
103 57 34 36 48 88 129 180 220 224 200 145 1464
tion (mm)

250

200
Evapor from reservoir (mm)

150

100

50

0
Oct Nov Dec Jan. Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Month

Figure 2.3– Monthly variation of evaporation from reservoir

7
2.3 Elevation- Volume- Area Relationship

Based on the new topography map of the reservoir, the "elevation- volume-
area" relationship of Shah-Wa-Arus reservoir is determined as indicated in table
2.5 and figure 2.4.

Table 2.5– Shah-Wa-Arus dam Volume- Area- Elevation relationship

EL. (masl) Area (ha) Volume (mcm) EL. (masl) Area (ha) Volume (mcm)
2095 0.000 0.0000 2135 14.572 1.8798
2096 0.007 0.0000 2136 15.350 2.0294
2097 0.036 0.0003 2137 16.217 2.1873
2098 0.122 0.0010 2138 17.174 2.3542
2099 0.222 0.0028 2139 18.247 2.5313
2100 0.323 0.0055 2140 19.297 2.7190
2101 0.439 0.0093 2141 20.483 2.9179
2102 0.565 0.0143 2142 21.818 3.1294
2103 0.681 0.0206 2143 23.254 3.3548
2104 0.815 0.0280 2144 24.508 3.5936
2105 0.988 0.0371 2145 25.789 3.8451
2106 1.198 0.0480 2146 27.239 4.1102
2107 1.358 0.0608 2147 28.648 4.3897
2108 1.516 0.0751 2148 30.056 4.6832
2109 1.730 0.0914 2149 31.498 4.9909
2110 1.936 0.1097 2150 32.925 5.3131
2111 2.134 0.1300 2151 34.323 5.6493
2112 2.345 0.1524 2152 35.899 6.0004
2113 2.578 0.1771 2153 37.545 6.3676
2114 2.870 0.2043 2154 39.031 6.7505
2115 3.184 0.2346 2155 40.662 7.1490
2116 3.549 0.2682 2156 42.331 7.5639
2117 3.957 0.3058 2157 43.826 7.9947
2118 4.411 0.3476 2158 45.410 8.4409
2119 4.937 0.3943 2159 47.052 8.9032
2120 5.448 0.4463 2160 48.802 9.3825
2121 5.920 0.5031 2161 50.556 9.8793
2122 6.413 0.5648 2162 52.170 10.3929
2123 6.907 0.6314 2163 53.807 10.9228
2124 7.413 0.7030 2164 55.484 11.4692
2125 7.902 0.7796 2165 57.153 12.0324
2126 8.454 0.8613 2166 58.679 12.612
2127 9.021 0.9487 2167 60.400 13.207
2128 9.665 1.0422 2168 62.262 13.820
2129 10.227 1.1416 2169 64.187 14.453
2130 10.846 1.2470 2170 66.099 15.104
2131 11.568 1.3591 2171 67.948 15.774
2132 12.284 1.4783 2172 69.719 16.463
2133 12.964 1.6045 2173 71.946 17.171
2134 13.758 1.7382 2174 73.650 17.899
2135 14.572 1.8798 2175 75.637 18.645

8
 Reservoir Area (ha)
80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00
2175

2165

2155
Elevation (masl)

2145

2135

2125

2115

2105

2095
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Reservoir Volume (mcm)

A re a V o lu m e

Figure 2.4– Shah-Wa-Arus Dam Volume- Area- Elevation Relationship

2.4 Sedimentation

Based on the updated hydrologic studies, the 50-year sediment load at

Shah-Wa-Arus reservoir is determined as 2.5 million cubic meters. It should be
mentioned that normal water level is not specified yet, therefore, trap efficiency
is determined for different normal water levels and the results are indicated in
table 2.6. According to the results, the all trap efficiencies are more than 88%,
therefore, regarding the uncertainties in sediment estimation, in a conservative
approach it is assumed that the all sediment loads are trapped in the reservoir.

Table 2.6- Trap efficiencies regarding different reservoir normal water levels
NWL (masl) Storage (mcm) Inflow (mcm) *C/I **Te (%)
2145 3.84 0.1129 88.05
2150 5.31 0.1562 91.11
2155 7.15 0.2103 93.27
2160 9.38 34 0.2759 94.80
2165 12.03 0.3538 95.91
2170 15.10 0.4441 96.72
2175 18.65 0.5485 97.33
*C=storage (mcm),I=Inflow (mcm)
** Te=Trap Efficiency

It’s not usual that sedimentation pattern in reservoir determine for all
normal water level in optimization stage. But in this project by considering the
high amount sediment relative to storage capacity, it is done by using the empiri-

9
cal–area–reduction method. In tables 2.7 to 2.13 the volume-area-elevation rela-
tionships after sedimentation for normal water levels 2145, 2150, 2155, 2160,
2165 and 2175 masl are presented, respectively.

Table 2.7– Volume- Area- Elevation relationship after sedimentation (NWL 2145 masl)
EL. (masl) Area (ha) Volume (mcm)
2130.4 0.00 0.00
2132 1.40 0.01
2133 2.20 0.03
2134 3.20 0.06
2135 4.30 0.09
2136 5.40 0.14
2137 6.60 0.20
2138 7.90 0.28
2139 9.50 0.36
2140 11.00 0.47
2141 12.90 0.58
2142 15.00 0.72
2143 17.40 0.89
2144 20.00 1.07
2145 25.80 1.30

Table 2.8– Volume- Area- Elevation relationship Table 2.9– Volume- Area- Elevation relationship
after sedimentation (NWL 2150 masl) after sedimentation (NWL 2155 masl)
EL. (masl) Area (ha) Volume (mcm) EL. (masl) Area (ha) Volume (mcm)
2125.7 0.00 0.00 2122.6 0.00 0.00
2128 1.30 0.01 2125 1.10 0.01
2129 1.90 0.03 2127 2.10 0.05
2130 2.50 0.05 2128 2.80 0.07
2131 3.30 0.08 2129 3.30 0.10
2132 4.10 0.12 2130 3.90 0.14
2133 4.80 0.16 2131 4.70 0.18
2134 5.70 0.21 2132 5.40 0.23
2135 6.60 0.28 2133 6.10 0.29
2136 7.50 0.35 2134 6.90 0.35
2137 8.50 0.43 2135 7.80 0.43
2138 9.60 0.52 2136 8.60 0.51
2139 10.80 0.62 2137 9.50 0.60
2140 12.10 0.73 2138 10.50 0.70
2141 13.50 0.86 2139 11.70 0.81
2142 15.10 1.00 2140 12.80 0.93
2143 16.80 1.16 2141 14.10 1.07
2144 18.40 1.34 2142 15.60 1.22
2145 20.00 1.53 2143 17.10 1.38
2146 21.90 1.74 2144 18.50 1.56
2147 23.90 1.97 2145 20.00 1.75
2148 26.00 2.22 2146 21.60 1.96
2149 28.40 2.49 2147 23.20 2.18
2150 32.90 2.79 2148 24.90 2.42
2149 26.60 2.68
2150 28.30 2.95
2151 30.10 3.25
2152 32.10 3.56
2153 34.30 3.89
2154 36.50 4.24
2155 40.70 4.63

10
Table 2.10– Volume- Area- Elevation relationship Table 2.11– Volume- Area- Elevation relationship
after sedimentation (NWL 2160 masl) after sedimentation (NWL 2165 masl)
EL. (masl) Area (ha) Volume (mcm) EL. (masl) Area (ha) Volume (mcm)
2120.3 0.00 0.00 2118.7 0.00 0.00
2123 1.20 0.02 2119 0.20 0.00
2125 2.10 0.05 2121 1.00 0.01
2127 3.20 0.11 2123 1.90 0.04
2129 4.30 0.18 2125 2.80 0.09
2131 5.60 0.28 2127 3.80 0.15
2133 7.00 0.41 2129 5.00 0.24
2135 8.60 0.56 2131 6.30 0.35
2137 10.30 0.75 2133 7.60 0.49
2139 12.40 0.98 2135 9.20 0.66
2140 13.50 1.11 2137 10.90 0.86
2141 14.70 1.25 2139 12.90 1.10
2142 16.10 1.40 2141 15.20 1.38
2143 17.60 1.57 2143 18.00 1.71
2144 19.00 1.75 2145 20.60 2.10
2145 20.30 1.95 2147 23.60 2.54
2146 21.90 2.16 2149 26.60 3.04
2147 23.40 2.39 2151 29.60 3.60
2148 24.90 2.63 2152 31.20 3.91
2149 26.50 2.89 2153 33.00 4.23
2150 28.00 3.16 2154 34.60 4.57
2151 29.60 3.45 2155 36.40 4.92
2152 31.30 3.75 2156 38.20 5.29
2153 33.20 4.07 2157 39.80 5.68
2154 34.90 4.41 2158 41.60 6.09
2155 36.80 4.77 2159 43.40 6.52
2156 38.80 5.15 2160 45.40 6.96
2157 40.60 5.55 2161 47.40 7.42
2158 42.70 5.96 2162 49.40 7.91
2159 45.00 6.40 2163 51.40 8.41
2160 48.80 6.87 2164 53.70 8.94
2165 57.20 9.49

11
 Table 2.12– Volume- Area- Elevation relationship Table 2.13– Volume- Area- Elevation relationship
after sedimentation (NWL 2170 masl) after sedimentation (NWL 2175 masl)
EL. (masl) Area (ha) Volume (mcm) EL. (masl) Area (ha) Volume (mcm)
2117.2 0.00 0.00 2116 0.00 0.00
2119 0.70 0.01 2119 1.20 0.02
2121 1.60 0.03 2121 2.10 0.05
2123 2.50 0.07 2123 3.00 0.10
2125 3.40 0.13 2125 3.90 0.17
2127 4.40 0.21 2127 4.90 0.26
2129 5.50 0.31 2129 6.00 0.37
2131 6.80 0.43 2131 7.30 0.50
2133 8.20 0.58 2133 8.70 0.66
2135 9.70 0.76 2135 10.20 0.85
2137 11.40 0.97 2137 11.80 1.07
2139 13.40 1.22 2139 13.90 1.32
2141 15.60 1.51 2141 16.10 1.62
2143 18.40 1.85 2143 18.80 1.97
2145 21.00 2.24 2145 21.40 2.37
2147 23.90 2.69 2147 24.30 2.83
2149 26.90 3.20 2149 27.20 3.35
2151 29.80 3.77 2151 30.00 3.92
2153 33.10 4.39 2153 33.30 4.55
2155 36.40 5.09 2155 36.50 5.25
2157 39.70 5.85 2157 39.80 6.01
2159 43.10 6.68 2159 43.10 6.84
2161 46.90 7.58 2161 46.80 7.74
2162 48.60 8.05 2162 48.50 8.22
2163 50.40 8.55 2163 50.20 8.71
2164 52.30 9.06 2164 52.00 9.22
2165 54.20 9.60 2165 53.80 9.75
2166 55.90 10.15 2166 55.40 10.30
2167 57.90 10.72 2167 57.30 10.86
2168 60.20 11.31 2168 59.30 11.44
2169 62.60 11.92 2169 61.40 12.05
2170 66.10 12.56 2170 63.40 12.67
2171 65.50 13.32
2172 67.50 13.98
2173 70.10 14.67
2174 72.20 15.38
2175 75.60 16.12

2.5 Power plant characteristics

Based on feasibility studies and some new data and general information for
power plant equipment, the characteristics of power plant that assumed in the
current studies are indicated in table 2.14.

12
 Table 2.14- Power plant characteristics
Character Specification Value
Tail water Elevation (masl) 2096.5
Powerplant efficiency 90%
Ratio of powerplant minimum discharge to design discharge 50%
Ratio of powerplant maximum discharge to design discharge 110%
Ratio of powerplant minimum head to design head 65%
Ratio of powerplant maximum head to design head 125%
Overload 7%
Number of units 2
Head loss (m) 2.0

13
3. Methodology of the Study
Methodology of reservoir simulation and energy generation is discussed in
the following steps:

1. For modelling the Shah-Wa-Arus reservoir, WEAP software is used. This

model is developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute in Boston. Due
to weakness of WEAP for simulation of hydropower generation, an especial
simulation model is prepared with VBA and linked to WEAP.

2. Monthly inflows at the dam site have been used for modelling, however,
where needed; daily simulation model is also developed.

3. Allocating downstream requirements such as environmental flow,

domestic and irrigation requirements have been considered based on
following priorities:

3-1- Reservoir should meet domestic at first priority and irrigation

demand as second priority. Environmental flow requirements release
in last priority.
3-2- The domestic and environmental demand has uniform distribution.
3-3- Irrigation area is determined by modelling fulfilling 5% long term
unmet in volume of demand for agriculture area.

4. Providing the required data for determining the optimum storage volume
of the dam reservoir following these steps:

4-1-In each normal water level the dam operation is simulated and de-
velopment agriculture area is determined
4-2-In simulation of dam operation in each normal water level, the "after
sedimentation volume-area-elevation relationship" has been used and
the minimum operation level (MOL) is assumed as 2 or 3 meters
above the new sedimentation level
4-3-The reservoir storage volume is kept the same at the start and end of
simulation period
4-4-For showing the hydropower generation potential, in each normal
water level, energy generation is calculated by considering power
plant capacity from 0.5 mw up to 1.4 mw. Depend on the height of the
dam and the regulating ability, suitable range of power plant
capacity is provided for economic studies.

14
 5. For investigating the rule of the project in development of the region, the
"without project condition" is also modelled by omitting the dam. It pro-
vides the river ability for supplying demand.

Following the described methodology, the results of reservoir simulation is

explained in the following section.

15
4. Simulating results

4.1. Without Project Condition

To representing the existing situation, it is necessary to simulate the

"without project" condition. The difference between this condition and the "with
project" condition provides the differential benefit of the project.

For simulation the "without project conditions" the daily time steps model
have been used and modelling of the reservoir is performed for two scenarios as
follows: In first scenario, it is assumed that only irrigation demand would be sup-
plied from river. So the effect of project will be increase in agriculture area and sup-
plying the domestic demand. Because there is not a clearly defined benefit for do-
mestic demand supplying, in second scenario it is assumed that 5 million cubic me-
ters for domestic and irrigation demand should also supplied by river.

In both scenarios the agriculture area that will be supply by river is deter-
mined fulfilling the 5% long term unmet in volume of the demand. In the other
word, in this area the annual mean of delivered water to agriculture area should be
near the 95% of the annual requirement.

The result in "without project" condition is indicated in table 5.1. Accord-

ing to the results, in first scenario the natural flow in river could supply the irriga-
tion demand for 1650 hectare agriculture area. The annual requirement is 14.56
mcm and the mean annual allocated water is 13.83 mcm. The annual volume of
shortage is 0.73 mcm so the percent of shortage is near 5%. The reliability is
showing that in 86.7% of times, the demand is fully supplied. The volume of wa-
ter that in this condition releases into the river (without use) is 20.17 mcm
which is conservative.

In the second scenario, by allocating the domestic demand from the river
(by high priority and without any shortage), the agriculture area that can be sup-
plied from river is 1155 hectare. The irrigation requirement for this condition is
10.2 mcm that the allocated water is 9.68 mcm.

4.2. Suitable Range for Normal Water Level

The condition which could provides the domestic demand (5.0 mcm) and
the required water for 1500 hectare agricultural area is considered as the mini-
mum storage volume. Based on the simulation results, the corresponding normal
water level is obtained as 2145 masl, which is equal to the phase I defined nor-
mal water level. According to the updated data, the related reservoir volume is
3.8 mcm (the net reservoir volume is just 1.3 mcm).
16
 Table 4.1– the results for without dam condition
Scenarios Without Potable With Potable*
Agriculture Network Area (ha) 1650 1155
Inflow to Reservoir (mcm) 34.00 34.00
Total Release for Demands (mcm) 13.83 14.68
Evaporation (mcm) 0.00 0.00
Spill Reservoir (mcm) 20.17 19.32
Agri Demand
Demand (mcm) 14.56 10.20
Allocate (mcm) 13.83 9.68
Shortage (mcm) 0.73 0.51
Shortage (%) 5.04 5.03
Reliability (%) 86.70 86.67
Potable Demand
Demand (mcm) - 5.00
Allocate (mcm) - 5.00
Shortage (mcm) - 0.00
Shortage (%) - 0.00
Reliability (%) - 100.00

* In order to simulate the similar condition comparing to “with project” conditions

The simulation model with monthly time steps is run to determining the ef-
fect of the project in a wide range of normal water level from 2145 up to 2185
masl. The results are shown in figures 4.1 and 4.2.

According to the results it seems that the regulating ability of dam is grow-
ing by increase in normal water level up to elevation 2175 masl. In higher eleva-
tions, the increase in regulating ability of the dam is very low, therefore, the suit-
able range for economic studies is considered in range of 2145 to 2175. Accord-
ingly, in the continuation of the studies, modelling of the system by daily time
step has been done and the operation results are refined.

17
 3500

3300

3100

2900
Agriculture area (ha)

2700

2500

2300

2100

1900

1700
2145.0 2150.0 2155.0 2160.0 2165.0 2170.0 2175.0 2180.0 2185.0 2190.0

Normal water level (masl)

Figure 4.1- Agriculture area variation against normal water level

34.0

33.0

32.0

31.0

30.0
Total release for demands (mcm)

29.0

28.0

27.0

26.0

25.0

24.0

23.0

22.0

21.0

20.0

19.0
2145.0 2150.0 2155.0 2160.0 2165.0 2170.0 2175.0 2180.0 2185.0 2190.0

Normal water level (masl)

Figure 4.2– Total release for demands variation against normal water level

4.3. Simulation Results for Different Reservoir Storages

In this section reservoir simulation is done by a daily time step model to

obtain more detail regulating water and energy production. The assumptions are

18
considered as described before, the obtained results are indicated in table 4.2 and
figure 4.3. Interpretation of the results and conclusions are as follows:

 MOL (Minimum Operation Level) for agricultural demands is assumed 2 or

3 meter above the new zero elevation after sedimentation.

 MOL for power plant is determined according the allowed head range for
turbines
 Reservoir storage is varied from 1.3 to 16.12 mcm so the agriculture area is
increased from 1775 to 3370 hectare.
 In all storage capacities, domestic demand is fully supplied and agriculture
demand has 5% shortage in annual requirement. The reliability for irriga-
tion is about 87%.

 The reservoir regulating potential is 19.93 mcm in lowest normal water

level which increases to 33.33 mcm in the highest normal water level.
 The evaporation from reservoir is 0.25 mcm in 2145 masl NWL. By increas-
ing the reservoir area it is increased to 0.56 mcm for the highest NWL. Its
volume is not considerable in comparing to river flow and regulating water
from dam.

 In case of reservoir normal level 2145 masl, extra water that spill from res-
ervoir is 13.82 mcm, which equals to about 40% of inflow to the reservoir.
But in the highest reservoir normal level (2175 masl) the spill volume is just
0.11 mcm which is negligible.

 As it is clear in figure 4.3, increasing rate of agriculture area by rising NWL

is very high up to elevation 2165 masl and after this level the increasing in
agriculture area is very slow (almost nothing).

These results are used in economical studies to find out the optimum nor-
mal water level by considering the cost of construction and the benefit of the
regulated water.

19
 Table 4.2– Simulation results for different normal water level
Normal Water Level (masl) 2145 2150 2155 2160 2165 2170 2175
MOL for Demands (masl) 2133 2128 2125 2123 2121 2119 2119
MOL for Powerplant (masl) 2133.0 2128.0 2128.0 2131.0 2133.5 2136.0 2138.5
Storage Capacity after Sed. (mcm) 1.30 2.79 4.63 6.87 9.49 12.56 16.12
Agriculture Network Area (ha) 1775 2205 2635 3020 3265 3345 3370
Inflow to Reservoir (mcm) 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00
Total Release for Demands (mcm) 19.93 23.54 27.14 30.37 32.40 33.05 33.33
Evaporation (mcm) 0.25 0.32 0.40 0.46 0.51 0.54 0.56
Spill Reservoir (mcm) 13.82 10.14 6.46 3.16 1.09 0.42 0.11
Agriculture Demand
Demand (mcm) 15.67 19.46 23.26 26.66 28.82 29.53 29.75
Allocate (mcm) 14.88 18.49 22.09 25.34 27.38 28.03 28.25
Shortage (mcm) 0.79 0.97 1.17 1.32 1.44 1.50 1.50
Shortage (%) 5.04 5.00 5.01 4.95 5.01 5.07 5.05
Reliability (%) 87.96 86.51 86.79 86.94 87.22 87.10 87.62
Potable Demand
Demand (mcm) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Allocate (mcm) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Shortage (mcm) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Shortage (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reliability (%) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Environmental Demand
Demand (mcm) 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Allocate (mcm) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Shortage (mcm) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Shortage (%) 12.05 13.56 13.21 13.07 12.89 12.92 12.41
Reliability (%) 87.95 86.38 86.79 86.93 87.01 87.04 87.56

3500

3300

3100

2900
Agri Area (ha)

2700

2500

2300

2100

1900

1700
2145 2150 2155 2160 2165 2170 2175
Normal Water Level (masl)
Figure 4.3- Agriculture area variation against normal water level for 2145 up to 2175 masl

20
4.4 Hydropower Generation Results

The reservoir operation will govern by requirements for supplying the

demands. Energy production doesn’t have any role to change the release from
reservoir because the energy production is a lateral aim of the project. In the per-
formed analyses, it is assumed that all released water from dam could be used for
energy production if they are in power plant discharge range. Other assumptions
are described in following steps:

 The design head is chosen to covering a wide range of head. The maximum
head on turbines most be 1.25 times the design head and the minimum head
most not be less than 65% of the design head.

 Maximum discharge from power plant is 1.1 times the total design flow and
minimum discharge should not be less than 50% of the one unit design flow.

 Efficiency of energy generation in feasibility studies is considered as 91.6%.

By changing the design head and discharge, the efficiency will slightly
change. In the current studies, the efficiency of energy generation is assumed
as 90% for all conditions. More precise calculations will be performed after
finalizing the NWL and power plant capacity.

 All parameters that used in hydropower energy production are as presented

in chapter 2.

 Energy production is calculated by assuming the power plant capacity from

0.5 to 1.4 MW and 2 units. Based on the dam height and the volume of re-
leased water from reservoir, suitable power plant capacity range is different
for each NWL.

The results are provided in table 4.3 and figure 4.4.

In NWLs of 2145 and 2150masl, MOL for demands and power plant are
almost the same, therefore, in all conditions (If discharge is more than the mini-
mum required flow) energy can be produced. But in other NWLs these two MOL
are different and so when reservoir elevation is less than the MOL of demands,
power plant will be out of work.

The energy production is varied from 2.62 to 4.07 GWH/yr. Firm energy is
a reliable energy with 85% probability, therefore, difference between total en-
ergy and firm energy is secondary energy that has lower reliability.

21
 4.30

4.10

3.90

3.70
Energy (GWH)

3.50

3.30

3.10

2.90

2.70

2.50
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Powerplant Capacity (MW)
nwl 2145 nwl 2150 nwl 2155 nwl 2160 nwl 2165 nwl 2170 nwl 2175

Figure 4.4– Energy production versus power plant capacity in different NWLs

Table 4.3–Energy production results for different NWL and Power plant capacity
Normal Power-
MOL for MOL for Design Design Max. Min. Total Firm Second- Plant
Water plant
Demands Powerplant Head Flow Flow Flow Energy Energy ary Factor
Level Capacity
(masl) (masl) (m) (cms) (cms) (cms) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (%)
(masl) (MW)
0.5 1.26 1.38 0.31 2.84 2.67 0.17 64.88
2145 2133 2133 45 0.6 1.51 1.66 0.38 3.01 2.78 0.23 57.19
0.7 1.76 1.94 0.44 3.04 2.74 0.30 49.60
0.5 1.36 1.50 0.34 2.81 2.56 0.25 64.10
0.6 1.64 1.80 0.41 2.94 2.66 0.28 55.99
0.7 1.91 2.10 0.48 3.06 2.69 0.37 49.96
2150 2128 2128 41.5 0.8 2.18 2.40 0.55 3.03 2.72 0.31 43.28
0.9 2.46 2.70 0.61 3.08 2.70 0.37 39.04
1 2.73 3.00 0.68 3.16 2.80 0.36 36.04
1.1 3.00 3.30 0.75 3.15 2.80 0.35 32.67
0.5 1.25 1.38 0.31 2.62 2.20 0.42 59.86
0.6 1.50 1.65 0.38 2.96 2.53 0.43 56.30
0.7 1.75 1.93 0.44 3.17 2.76 0.41 51.64
2155 2125 2128 45.3
0.8 2.00 2.20 0.50 3.33 2.91 0.42 47.57
0.9 2.25 2.48 0.56 3.35 2.96 0.39 42.46
1 2.50 2.75 0.63 3.31 2.96 0.34 37.73
0.5 1.15 1.26 0.29 2.71 2.20 0.51 61.88
0.6 1.38 1.52 0.34 3.00 2.49 0.51 57.07
0.7 1.61 1.77 0.40 3.31 2.79 0.51 53.91
2160 2123 2131 49.3 0.8 1.84 2.02 0.46 3.50 2.99 0.50 49.88
0.9 2.07 2.27 0.52 3.60 3.10 0.50 45.64
1 2.30 2.53 0.57 3.63 3.13 0.50 41.44
1.1 2.53 2.78 0.63 3.59 3.12 0.46 37.21

22
Normal Power-
MOL for MOL for Design Design Max. Min. Total Firm Second- Plant
Water plant
Demands Powerplant Head Flow Flow Flow Energy Energy ary Factor
Level Capacity
(masl) (masl) (m) (cms) (cms) (cms) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (%)
(masl) (MW)
0.5 1.06 1.17 0.27 2.81 2.21 0.59 64.07
0.6 1.28 1.40 0.32 3.13 2.53 0.60 59.53
0.7 1.49 1.64 0.37 3.40 2.82 0.59 55.51
0.8 1.70 1.87 0.43 3.68 3.07 0.61 52.52
2165 2121 2133.5 53.3
0.9 1.91 2.10 0.48 3.81 3.14 0.68 48.36
1 2.13 2.34 0.53 3.86 3.18 0.68 44.06
1.1 2.34 2.57 0.58 3.92 3.20 0.72 40.67
1.2 2.55 2.81 0.64 3.90 3.21 0.69 37.11
0.5 0.99 1.09 0.25 2.85 2.14 0.71 65.15
0.6 1.19 1.30 0.30 3.15 2.42 0.73 59.98
0.7 1.38 1.52 0.35 3.43 2.70 0.73 55.94
0.8 1.58 1.74 0.40 3.72 2.98 0.74 53.06
2170 2119 2136 57.3
0.9 1.78 1.96 0.44 3.90 3.11 0.79 49.52
1 1.98 2.17 0.49 3.99 3.15 0.84 45.55
1.1 2.17 2.39 0.54 3.99 3.17 0.82 41.40
1.2 2.37 2.61 0.59 4.03 3.19 0.83 38.31
0.5 0.92 1.02 0.23 2.81 2.05 0.76 64.24
0.6 1.11 1.22 0.28 3.12 2.34 0.78 59.38
0.7 1.29 1.42 0.32 3.43 2.65 0.78 55.92
0.8 1.48 1.63 0.37 3.69 2.90 0.79 52.72
0.9 1.66 1.83 0.42 3.92 3.07 0.86 49.75
2175 2119 2138.5 61.3
1 1.85 2.03 0.46 4.03 3.14 0.89 46.02
1.1 2.03 2.24 0.51 4.05 3.17 0.88 42.03
1.2 2.22 2.44 0.55 4.05 3.19 0.85 38.51
1.3 2.40 2.64 0.60 4.07 3.21 0.86 35.78
1.4 2.59 2.85 0.65 4.03 3.21 0.82 32.89

23
5. Refined Simulating Results
According to the performed economical analyses, the optimum reservoir
normal water level is around 2165 to 2170. Therefore, the reservoir operation
simulation analyses have been performed for the range of 2165 to 2175 1m by
1m. The results are presented in tables 5.1 & 5.2.

Table 5.1– Refined Simulation results for different normal water level
Normal Water Level (masl) 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174
MOL for Demands (masl) 2121 2121 2121 2119 2119 2119 2119 2119 2119
MOL for Powerplant (masl) 2134.0 2134.5 2134.8 2135.5 2136.0 2136.5 2137.0 2137.5 2138.0
Storage Capacity after sed. (mcm) 10.07 10.67 11.28 11.91 12.56 13.23 13.94 14.65 15.37
Agri Area (ha) 3285 3300 3320 3330 3345 3350 3358 3364 3367
Inflow to Reservoir (mcm) 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00
Total Release for Demands (mcm) 32.57 32.70 32.85 32.94 33.05 33.12 33.20 33.26 33.30
Evaporation (mcm) 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.56
Spill Reservoir (mcm) 0.91 0.78 0.62 0.52 0.42 0.34 0.26 0.19 0.14

Agri Demand
Demand (mcm) 29.00 29.13 29.31 29.39 29.53 29.57 29.64 29.69 29.72
Allocate (mcm) 27.54 27.68 27.83 27.93 28.03 28.09 28.15 28.21 28.23
Shortage (mcm) 1.45 1.45 1.48 1.47 1.50 1.48 1.49 1.49 1.49
Shortage (%) 5.01 4.99 5.04 4.99 5.07 5.00 5.01 5.00 5.01
Reliability (%) 87.35 87.43 87.38 87.48 87.10 87.47 87.66 87.85 87.76

Potable Demand
Demand (mcm) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Allocate (mcm) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Shortage (mcm) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Shortage (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reliability (%) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Environmental Demand
Demand (mcm) 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Allocate (mcm) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Shortage (mcm) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Shortage (%) 12.75 12.62 12.62 12.52 12.92 12.55 12.40 12.25 12.32
Reliability (%) 87.19 87.38 87.38 87.48 87.04 87.41 87.49 87.68 87.64

Table 5.2–Energy production results for different NWL and Power plant capacity
Normal Power-
MOL for MOL for Design Design Max. Min. Total Firm Second- Plant
Water plant
Demands Powerplant Head Flow Flow Flow Energy Energy ary Factor
Level Capacity
(masl) (masl) (m) (cms) (cms) (cms) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (%)
(masl) (MW)
0.5 1.04 1.15 0.26 2.84 2.22 0.62 64.76
0.6 1.25 1.38 0.31 3.16 2.54 0.62 60.13
0.7 1.46 1.61 0.37 3.44 2.82 0.62 56.02
0.8 1.67 1.84 0.42 3.72 3.07 0.65 53.04
2166 2121 2134 54.3
0.9 1.88 2.07 0.47 3.85 3.17 0.69 48.88
1 2.09 2.29 0.52 3.90 3.20 0.70 44.50
1.1 2.29 2.52 0.57 3.96 3.22 0.73 41.07
1.2 2.50 2.75 0.63 3.94 3.20 0.74 37.44

24
Normal Power-
MOL for MOL for Design Design Max. Min. Total Firm Second- Plant
Water plant
Demands Powerplant Head Flow Flow Flow Energy Energy ary Factor
Level Capacity
(masl) (masl) (m) (cms) (cms) (cms) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (%)
(masl) (MW)
0.5 1.03 1.13 0.26 2.86 2.19 0.67 65.26
0.6 1.24 1.36 0.31 3.18 2.52 0.66 60.57
0.7 1.44 1.59 0.36 3.46 2.81 0.65 56.43
0.8 1.65 1.81 0.41 3.74 3.07 0.67 53.42
2167 2121 2134.5 55
0.9 1.85 2.04 0.46 3.91 3.20 0.71 49.59
1 2.06 2.27 0.51 3.97 3.25 0.72 45.34
1.1 2.27 2.49 0.57 3.99 3.28 0.71 41.43
1.2 2.47 2.72 0.62 3.97 3.27 0.70 37.73
0.5 1.02 1.12 0.25 2.85 2.18 0.67 65.07
0.6 1.22 1.34 0.31 3.18 2.51 0.67 60.45
0.7 1.42 1.57 0.36 3.45 2.80 0.66 56.33
0.8 1.63 1.79 0.41 3.74 3.06 0.68 53.36
2168 2121 2134.8 55.7
0.9 1.83 2.01 0.46 3.91 3.19 0.72 49.63
1 2.03 2.24 0.51 3.97 3.24 0.73 45.37
1.1 2.24 2.46 0.56 3.99 3.25 0.74 41.45
1.2 2.44 2.68 0.61 3.97 3.26 0.71 37.74
0.5 1.00 1.10 0.25 2.87 2.17 0.70 65.62
0.6 1.20 1.32 0.30 3.17 2.47 0.70 60.36
0.7 1.40 1.54 0.35 3.45 2.75 0.70 56.26
0.8 1.60 1.76 0.40 3.74 3.02 0.72 53.32
2169 2119 2135.5 56.5
0.9 1.80 1.98 0.45 3.92 3.14 0.77 49.68
1 2.00 2.21 0.50 3.98 3.18 0.80 45.41
1.1 2.21 2.43 0.55 4.00 3.19 0.81 41.50
1.2 2.41 2.65 0.60 4.00 3.21 0.79 38.05
0.5 0.99 1.09 0.25 2.85 2.14 0.71 65.15
0.6 1.19 1.30 0.30 3.15 2.42 0.73 59.98
0.7 1.38 1.52 0.35 3.43 2.70 0.73 55.94
0.8 1.58 1.74 0.40 3.72 2.98 0.74 53.06
2170 2119 2136 57.3
0.9 1.78 1.96 0.44 3.90 3.11 0.79 49.52
1 1.98 2.17 0.49 3.99 3.15 0.84 45.55
1.1 2.17 2.39 0.54 3.99 3.17 0.82 41.40
1.2 2.37 2.61 0.59 4.03 3.19 0.83 38.31
0.5 0.97 1.07 0.24 2.85 2.16 0.70 65.11
0.6 1.17 1.29 0.29 3.15 2.46 0.69 59.96
0.7 1.36 1.50 0.34 3.46 2.76 0.70 56.43
0.8 1.56 1.72 0.39 3.72 3.02 0.70 53.08
2171 2119 2136.5 58.1
0.9 1.75 1.93 0.44 3.94 3.16 0.78 49.92
1 1.95 2.14 0.49 4.00 3.19 0.81 45.66
1.1 2.14 2.36 0.54 4.00 3.19 0.81 41.51
1.2 2.34 2.57 0.58 4.04 3.22 0.82 38.40
0.5 0.96 1.06 0.24 2.83 2.14 0.70 64.70
0.6 1.15 1.27 0.29 3.13 2.44 0.70 59.65
0.7 1.35 1.48 0.34 3.44 2.75 0.69 56.16
0.8 1.54 1.69 0.38 3.70 3.01 0.70 52.87
2172 2119 2137 58.9
0.9 1.73 1.90 0.43 3.93 3.16 0.77 49.78
1 1.92 2.12 0.48 3.99 3.21 0.79 45.60
1.1 2.12 2.33 0.53 4.00 3.23 0.77 41.48
1.2 2.31 2.54 0.58 4.03 3.26 0.78 38.37

25
Normal Power-
MOL for MOL for Design Design Max. Min. Total Firm Second- Plant
Water plant
Demands Powerplant Head Flow Flow Flow Energy Energy ary Factor
Level Capacity
(masl) (masl) (m) (cms) (cms) (cms) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (%)
(masl) (MW)
0.5 0.95 1.04 0.24 2.83 2.12 0.70 64.51
0.6 1.14 1.25 0.28 3.13 2.42 0.71 59.52
0.7 1.33 1.46 0.33 3.44 2.73 0.71 56.06
0.8 1.52 1.67 0.38 3.70 2.97 0.73 52.81
2173 2119 2137.5 59.7
0.9 1.71 1.88 0.43 3.92 3.13 0.80 49.78
1 1.90 2.09 0.47 4.00 3.19 0.81 45.64
1.1 2.09 2.30 0.52 4.04 3.21 0.83 41.91
1.2 2.28 2.50 0.57 4.04 3.24 0.80 38.40
0.5 0.94 1.03 0.23 2.82 2.08 0.73 64.37
0.6 1.12 1.24 0.28 3.12 2.38 0.74 59.45
0.7 1.31 1.44 0.33 3.43 2.69 0.75 55.99
0.8 1.50 1.65 0.37 3.70 2.94 0.76 52.76
2174 2119 2138 60.5
0.9 1.68 1.85 0.42 3.92 3.10 0.83 49.77
1 1.87 2.06 0.47 4.03 3.17 0.86 45.97
1.1 2.06 2.27 0.51 4.05 3.19 0.86 42.00
1.2 2.25 2.47 0.56 4.04 3.22 0.83 38.48

26