GDMP-FS GD-3 Vol. II Main Report - Final Report

THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA
MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES
Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated

Resources Development Master Plan
Final Report
Feasibility Study
Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose

Hydropower Project
Volume II Main Report
GD-3
Volume # GDMP-FS/GD-3.II
and Addis Ababa

YESHI-BER CONSULT August 2007
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Ministry of Water Resources
Genale-Dawa River Basin

Integrated Resources Development
Master Plan Study
Final Report
Feasibility Study
Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project
Volume II. Main Report
Volume # GDMP-FS/GD-3.II
August 2007
and
YESHI-BER CONSULT
© 2007 The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia / Ministry of Water Resources
P.O. Box 5744
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Telephone +251-11-661 1111
Telefax +251-11-661 0710
Internet www.mowr.gov.et
E-mail water@mowr.gov.et
All rights reserved.
This report has been prepared by Lahmeyer International GmbH (Germany) in association with
Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) for the Ministry of Water Resources of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia.
The work on this report has been funded by the African Development Bank Group and the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
The Ministry of Water Resources does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work.
The boundaries, colours, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do
not imply any judgement on the part of The Ministry of Water Resources concerning the legal status
of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work
without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The Ministry of Water Resources
encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the
work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request
with complete information to The Ministry of Water Resources, Head of Basin Development Studies
and Water Utilization Control Department, P.O. Box 5744, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Overview
Background of the Master Plan Study
This volume is part of the Integrated Resources Development Master Plan for the Genale-
Dawa River Basin in Ethiopia. The entire study has been carried out between 2004 and
2007 (Gregorian calendar) by a joint venture of Lahmeyer International Consulting
Engineers of Germany and Yeshi-Ber Consult of Ethiopia for the Ethiopian Ministry of
Water Resources.
This Master Plan is part of a series of integrated resources development master plan
studies for Ethiopia’s major river basins.
The overall goals of the Master Plan are defined in the Ethiopian Water Resources
Management Policy (WRMP), which sets guidelines for water resources planning,
development and management. This policy aims at enhancing and promoting all national
efforts towards the efficient, equitable and optimum utilisation of the available water
resources of the country for significant socio-economic development on sustainable basis.
The specific objectives of the study are to derive a master plan that will contribute to the
sustainable development and poverty reduction in the Genale-Dawa River Basin and
make optimum use of all natural, physical, human and animal resources with the minimum
possible adverse environmental impact.
Location of the Genale-Dawa River Basin in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa
Location of
R
# Khartoum
Y ERITREA
E
Asmara Y
# Genale-Dawa
D
15
River Basin
S
E
A
N
DE
Blue
F A
White Nile
O
DJIBOUTI LF
GU
Nile
N
Y
# Djibouti
A
ay
D
Ab
10
S U
Addis AbebaY
#
ETHIOPIA
A
AwasaS#
I
L
Ge
A
na
le
Da
N
M
wa
5
A
O
Dolo OdoS#
E
Moyale Lugh
S
S
#
C
S
# Baidao
S
#
O
Marsabit El WakS#
S
# S
# Bardera
N
Wajir S# Y
# Mogadishu
UGANDA
A
Jub
K E N Y A
I
a
IsioloS#
N
0
NyeriS# S
#
I
Lake Chisimayu
Victoria 0 200 400 km
Y
# Nairobi
35 40 45 50
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia)

Feasibility Study – Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project – Main Report
Organisation of the Master Plan Study
The overall Master Plan Study comprised three phases, as follows:
Phase I Review of existing information, establishment of a comprehensive

database, execution of sector studies and analysis resulting in an
Indicative Master Plan;
Phase II Development of a Final Master Plan through consultation with
stakeholders and the preparation of 6 project pre-feasibility studies; and
Phase III Feasibility studies for the three most attractive water resources projects
in the Basin.
The results of Phase I and II are contained in a series of reports which are organised into
four parts (seventeen volumes and one map portfolio).
This feasibility study report has been produced during Phase III of the Master Plan Study
and is presented as a stand-alone document.
Layout of this Feasibility Study Report
This report is sub-divided into five volumes:
Feasibility Study for Genale (GD-3)

Multipurpose Hydropower Project
Volume I – Executive Summary
Volume II – Main Report
Volume III – Environmental Impact Assessment
Volume IV – Annexes
Volume V – Album of Drawings (A3)
The present Volume II contains the Main Report.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Content
Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated

Resources Development Master Plan
Feasibility Study
Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project
II. Main Report
Table of Contents
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
List of Annexes (Vol. IV) ix
List of Drawings (Vol. V) x
Acronyms, Glossary, Units etc. xi
Executive Summary xii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The Ministry of Water Resources and Master Plans 1
1.2 The Genale-Dawa Master Plan Study 1
1.3 Previous Studies on the GD-3 Project 2
1.4 Present Feasibility Study of the GD-3 Project 2
1.5 Structure of the Report 3
1.6 Associated Reports 3
2 The Markets for New Electricity Generating Plant in Ethiopia 4
2.1 General 4
2.2 Electricity Market in Ethiopia 5
2.2.1 Organization of the Power Sector 5
2.2.2 Present Generating Capacity 6
2.2.3 Demand Forecast 6
2.2.4 EEPCo’s Generation Expansion Plan 10
2.2.5 Candidate Electricity Generating Projects/Plants Competing with
GD-3 12
2.3 Electricity Market in Kenya 15
2.3.1 Organization of the Power Sector 15
2.3.2 Present Generation Capacity 15
2.3.3 Demand Forecast 16
2.3.4 Expansion Plan for Kenyan Power System 16
2.3.5 Candidate Electricity Generating Projects/Plants Competing with
GD-3 17
2.4 Conclusions 18
2.4.1 Market Selected for GD-3 18
2.4.2 Further Aspects for Consideration 18
3 Project Physical Setting 20
3.1 General 20
3.2 Topography of the Main Project Sites 20
3.2.1 Dam Site Topography 20
3.2.2 Powerhouse Site Topography 21
3.2.3 Reservoir Topography 22
3.2.4 Impact of the Topographic Setting on Layout and Design 23
3.3 Geology 23
3.3.1 Regional Geology 23
3.3.2 Project Geology 24
3.3.3 Dam Site 26
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) i

3.3.4 Downstream of the Dam Site 26

3.3.5 Upstream of the Dam 27
3.3.6 Impact of the Geological Setting on Layout and Design 27
3.4 Construction Materials 27
3.4.1 Concrete Aggregate 27
3.4.2 Sand 27
3.4.3 Cement 28
3.4.4 Pozzolanic Material 28
3.4.5 Construction Water 28
3.4.6 Rock Fill 28
3.4.7 Impervious Soil 28
3.4.8 Road Construction Materials 29
3.4.9 Impact of the Construction Materials on Layout and Design 29
3.5 Seismicity 29
3.6 Hydrology 30
3.6.1 General 30
3.6.2 Annual Rainfall over the Project Catchment 31
3.6.3 Seasonal Distribution of Rainfall over the Project Catchment 32
3.6.4 River Flows at the Project Site 32
3.6.5 Flood Flows at the Project Site 34
3.6.6 Net Losses from Reservoir Surface at the Project Site 34
3.6.7 Impact of the Hydrological Setting on Layout and Design 35
3.7 Sediment Yield 35
3.8 Conclusions 36
4 Biological Environment 37
4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation 37
4.2 Wildlife and Reptiles 37
4.3 Birds 38
4.4 Fishery 38
4.5 National Parks and Protected Areas 39
5 Socio-Economic Environment 40
5.1 Population and Settlement 40
5.2 Ethnic Composition 40
5.3 Religion 40
5.4 Public Health 41
5.5 Land Use and Land Cover 41
5.6 Agriculture 41
5.7 Livestock 42
5.8 Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeontology Sites 43
5.9 Cultural Heritage and Religious Sites 44
6 Scheme Optimization 45
6.1 Objective and Procedure 45
6.2 Dimensioning, Costing and Evaluation of GD-3 Alternatives 45
6.2.1 The EVALS Computer Program 45
6.2.2 Development of Unit Rates from Principals 48
6.2.3 Overview of Physical Data Used 49
6.2.4 Unit Rates 49
6.2.5 Electro-Mechanical Equipment and Hydraulic Steel Structures 51
6.2.6 Add-Ons 51
6.2.7 Cost and Output of the GD-3 Hydro Project Alternatives 52
6.3 Cost of the HVDC Transmission Line 53
6.4 Cost of the Resettlement Programme 53
6.5 The Benefit Side: Offsetting Thermal Generation 54
6.6 The Optimization Procedure and Results 54
ii Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Content
6.6.1
Results for GD-3 – Dam Type, Dam Height and Installed Capacity
Factor 54
6.6.2 Results for GD-3 – Tunnel Routes 58
6.6.3 Results for GD-3 – Underground Powerhouse 58
6.6.4 Results for GD-3 – Effect of Upstream Regulation by GD-2
Hydropower Plant 58
7 Reservoir - Filling and Operation 59
7.1 Introduction 59
7.2 Reservoir Filling 59
7.3 Reservoir Operation Simulation 60
7.4 Results of Reservoir Operation Simulation 64
7.4.1 Base Case 64
7.4.2 Sensitivity Cases 71
8 Dam 72
8.1 Dam Design – Introduction 72
8.2 Physical Conditions at the Dam Site 72
8.2.1 Geology and Seismicity 72
8.2.2 Hydro-Meteorological Conditions 74
8.3 Basis for Dam Layout and Dam Design 76
8.3.1 Operating Levels 76
8.3.2 River Diversion Concept 76
8.4 Dam Axis and Dam Type 76
8.4.1 Dam Axis 76
8.4.2 Selection of Dam Type 77
8.5 RCC Dam Design 79
8.5.1 Dam Freeboard 79
8.5.2 Excavation and Treatment of the Dam Foundation 80
8.5.3 RCC Dam Structure and Stability Analysis 81
8.5.4 Construction Materials for the RCC Dam 88
8.5.5 RCC Mix and Properties 88
8.6 Preliminary Temperature Control Criteria 90
8.6.1 Heat of Hydration and Thermal Stresses 90
8.6.2 Permissible Temperature Differential and Permissible Peak
Temperature 91
8.6.3 Placement Temperature of Concrete 92
8.6.4 Methods for Temperature Control 93
8.7 Dam Construction Aspects 93
8.7.1 Initial Placement of RCC 93
8.7.2 Transport Equipment 93
8.7.3 Production Rates 94
8.7.4 Differential Height between Blocks 94
8.7.5 Full-Scale Trial 95
8.8 Dam Instrumentation 96
8.8.1 Objectives of Instrumentation 96
8.8.2 Items of Monitoring 96
8.8.3 Arrangement of Measurement Systems 96
8.9 Summary of Principal Dam Features and Dimensions 99
9 Civil Works and Hydraulic Steel Structures 100
9.1 Introduction 100
9.1.1 General 100
9.1.2 Project Summary 100
9.1.3 Genale (GD-3) Hydropower Project – Data Sheet 100
9.1.4 Hydropower Scheme Longitudinal Profile 103
9.2 River Diversion Works and Bottom Outlet 104
9.2.1 River Diversion Works 104
9.2.2 Mid-Level Outlet Works 109
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) iii

9.3 Spillway 111

9.3.1 Introduction 111
9.3.2 Spillway Performance Criteria 111
9.3.3 Spillway Layout 112
9.3.4 Spillway Design 113
9.4 Power Waterways and Associated Structures 117
9.4.1 General 117
9.4.2 Headrace Tunnel 118
9.4.3 Pressure Shaft, Pressure Tunnel and Tailrace Tunnel 121
9.4.4 Power Waterway Surge Facilities 123
9.4.5 Power Intake 126
9.4.6 Emergency Gate and Chamber 128
9.4.7 Tailrace Outfall 129
9.5 Powerhouse, Transformer Hall and Associated Tunnels, Shafts and Adits 130
9.5.1 General Description of the Powerhouse Complex 130
9.5.2 Powerhouse Cavern 131
9.5.3 Main Access Tunnel 132
9.5.4 Transformer Cavern 133
9.5.5 Isolated Phase Bus Duct Tunnels 133
9.5.6 Cable and Ventilation Shaft 134
9.5.7 Construction Adits 134
9.6 Surface Works Associated with the Powerhouse 134
9.6.1 Control Building 135
9.6.2 Switchyard 135
9.6.3 Cable and Ventilation Shaft House 135
9.7 Access Roads and Bridges 135
9.7.1 Design Criteria 135
9.7.2 Design Layout 136
9.7.3 Genale River Road Bridge 136
10 Powerhouse Mechanical Equipment 138
10.1 Lay-out and Sizing of the Generating Units 138
10.1.1 Design Criteria 138
10.1.2 Turbine Sizing and Layout 141
10.2 Turbine Governors, Speed and Pressure Regulation 145
10.2.1 General 145
10.2.2 Speed and Pressure Regulation 146
10.3 Turbine Shut-Off Device 148
10.4 Turbine Outlet Closure Device 149
10.5 Auxiliary Mechanical Equipment 151
10.5.1 Cooling Water System 151
10.5.2 Drainage and Dewatering System 152
10.5.3 Main Hoisting Devices 153
10.5.4 Ventilation and Air Conditioning System 153
10.5.5 Low Pressure Compressed Air System 154
10.5.6 Emergency Diesel Generator 154
10.5.7 Mechanical Workshop 155
10.5.8 Oil Filtration Plant 156
11 Powerhouse Electrical Equipment 157
11.2 General Design Criteria 157
11.3 Single Line Diagram 158
11.4 Generators 158
11.4.1 Generator Output Rating 158
11.4.2 Rated Generator Voltage 159
11.4.3 Rated and Runaway Speed 160
11.4.4 Generator Support Type 160
iv Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Content
11.4.5 Generator Dimensions and Weights 161

11.4.6 Generator Auxiliaries and Excitation Equipment 162
11.4.7 Summary of the Generator Technical Data 162
11.5 Generator Connections 163
11.6 Unit Step-Up Transformers 163
11.6.1 Voltage Regulation and Tap Changer 164
11.6.2 Dimensions and Weights 164
11.7 230kV XLPE Cables 164
11.8 Auxiliary Transformers 164
11.9 AC Station Service System 165
11.10 MV/LV/Control Cabling 165
11.11 Small Power & Lighting Installations 165
11.12 Earthing and Lightning Protection System 165
11.13 Protection Systems 166
11.14 Control & Communication System 166
12 Switchyard and Transmission System 169
12.1 General 169
12.2 Switchyard 169
12.2.1 General Design Criteria 169
12.2.2 General Description 170
12.2.3 Main Characteristics 171
12.2.4 Transformer Feeder 171
12.2.5 Transmission Line Feeders 171
12.2.6 Bus Coupler 171
12.3 Transmission Line 171
12.3.1 Transmission Line Voltage 172
12.3.2 Towers 172
12.3.3 Conductors 172
12.4 Switchgear Control and Emergency Diesel Building 172
13 Construction Schedule and Cost Estimate 173
13.1 General 173
13.2 Construction Schedule 173
13.2.1 General 173
13.2.2 Major Quantities, Construction Methods and Capacities 174
13.2.3 Construction Schedule 178
13.3 Construction Cost Estimate 178
13.3.1 General 178
13.3.2 Civil Construction Costs 179
13.3.3 Hydraulic Steel Structures, Mechanical and Electrical Equipment
Costs 189
13.3.4 Switchyard and Transmission Costs 190
13.3.5 Contingencies 190
13.4 Total Project Cost 190
13.4.1 General 190
13.4.2 Costs of Engineering Services and Administration 190
13.4.3 Resettlement and Environmental Costs 191
13.4.4 Total Project Costs 191
13.4.5 Other Costs 191
14 Economic and Financial Evaluation 193
14.2 Economic Analysis 193
14.2.1 Introduction 193
14.2.2 Economic Parameters 194
14.2.3 Thermal Plant for Comparison 195
14.2.4 Oil Price 195
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) v

14.3 Economic Appraisal of the GD-3 Hydropower Development 196

14.3.1 Result of the Appraisal 196
14.3.2 Economic Sensitivity Analysis 198
14.4 Financial Analysis 199
14.4.1 General 199
14.4.2 Methodology 199
14.4.3 Assumptions 199
14.4.4 Results 202
14.4.5 Sensitivity Analysis 203
14.4.6 Conclusions 204
15 Multipurpose Development 205
15.2 Viability of Hydropower Projects GD-5 and GD-6 205
15.2.1 Water Regulation 205
15.2.2 Sedimentation Reduction 205
15.3 Effects on the Lower Genale Irrigation Project 207
15.4 Effect on Other Irrigation Projects in the Genale-Dawa River Basin 208
15.5 Changes in Salinity Pattern as a Result of the GD-3 Reservoir 208
15.6 Fishery on the GD-3 Reservoir 210
15.7 Impacts on the Juba River 210
15.7.1 Flood Damage along the Juba 212
15.7.2 Increase of Low Flows in the Juba 213
15.7.3 Boat Transport on the Juba River 213
15.7.4 Total Benefits along the Juba River 213
15.8 Avoided Thermal Power Plant Emissions 214
15.9 Avoidance of CO2 Emission 214
15.10 Improved Access 214
15.11 Employment during Construction 214
15.12 Tourism 215
16 International Water Rights 216
16.1 Background 216
16.2 Impacts of GD-3 217
16.3 Conclusions 221
17 Conclusions and Recommendations 222
17.1 Conclusions 222
17.2 Recommendations 223
17.2.1 Topographic Survey 223
17.2.2 Hydrology 224
17.2.3 Geology 224
18 References 226
List of Tables
Table 0.1: Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project - Summary of Project
Characteristics xx
Table 2.1: Power Plans Installed in the ICS (status – mid 2006) 11
Table 2.2: Committed Additions to the ICS (status - mid 2006) 11
Table 2.3: Fuel Prices for Ethiopia 13
Table 2.4: Performance and Operating Data for Candidate Thermal Plant - in
Ethiopia 14
Table 2.5: Unit Generation Costs (USc/kWh) of Oil-Fired Plant – Ethiopia 14
Table 2.6: Power System Demand Forecast 2005-2025 16
Table 2.7: Fuel Prices for Kenya 17
Table 2.8: Performance and Operating Data for Candidate Thermal Plant - in
Kenya 17
vi Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Content
Table 2.9: Specific Generation Costs – Kenya 18

Table 3.1: Monthly River Flows at GD-3 Dam Site 33
Table 3.2: Net Loss (mm) from GD-3 Reservoir Area 34
Table 6.1: Labour Costs 49
Table 6.2: Unit Prices of Materials 50
Table 6.3: List Prices for Construction Equipment 50
Table 6.4: Comparison of Unit Prices 51
Table 6.5: Add-Ons used to compute the Basic Project Cost 51
Table 6.6: Dam Types 52
Table 6.7: Number of households to be resettled as a function of the Full Supply
Level 53
Table 6.8: Resettlement and Associated Costs 54
Table 6.9: Results for GD-3 Dam Type, Dam Height and Installed Capacity Factor 55
Table 6.10: Net Present Value for Various Dam Types 56
Table 7.1: Sedimentation in the Reservoir 63
Table 7.2: Reservoir Monthly Inflows (m³/s) 65
Table 7.3: Reservoir Monthly Turbine Flows (m³/s) 66
Table 7.4: Reservoir Monthly Outflows (Turbine + Spill) (m³/s) 67
Table 7.5: Reservoir Monthly Water Levels (m asl) 68
Table 7.6: Monthly Continuous Power (MW) 69
Table 7.7: Comparison with Simulation for the Period 1985-2004 71
Table 7.8: Effects of Higher Flows and Increased Variability on Reservoir Operation 71
Table 8.1: Stability and Stress Criteria 84
Table 8.2: Loads and Load Combinations 85
Table 8.3: Results of Stability and Stress Analysis for RCC Overflow Section 87
Table 8.4: Results of Stability and Stress Analysis for RCC Non-Overflow Section 87
Table 8.5: Permissible Temperature Differential (°C) for Conventional Concrete
Dams 91
Table 8.6: Permissible Temperature Differential (°C) in Several Large RCC Dams (H =
(0.0 ∼ 0.2) L) 91
Table 8.7: Summary of Instrumentation and Survey System 99
Table 9.1: Summary of GD-3 HPP Civil Works Components 100
Table 9.2: GD-3 Hydropower Project – Data Sheet 101
Table 9.3: Design Criteria for the Stoplogs 109
Table 10.1: Basic Data of the Power Waterways 146
Table 10.2: Heat Loads for Layout of Cooling System 151
Table 10.3: Powerhouse Drainage and Dewatering Sumps 152
Table 10.4: Design and Performance Criteria for Powerhouse Crane 153
Table 10.5: Temperature and Humidity Values for Layout and Sizing of the Air
Conditioning and Ventilation System 154
Table 10.6: Essential and Non-essential Electrical Loads for Unit Operation 155
Table 11.1: The ABB Selection Criteria 160
Table 11.2: US Standards Authority Selection Criteria 161
Table 14.1: GD-3, GD-5 and GD-6 Cascade Development – Principal Characteristics194
Table 14.2: Summary of Economic Appraisal for GD-3 Hydropower Project 196
Table 14.3: Summary of Economic Appraisal for GD-3 Hydropower Cascade 196
Table 14.4: Generation Costs of Hydropower Projects in Ethiopia 197
Table 14.5: Schedule of Costs and Energy Yields for GD Hydropower Cascade 197
Table 14.6: Results of Sensitivity Analysis – Increase in Hydropower Construction
Costs (1) 198
Table 14.7: Results of Sensitivity Analysis – Decrease in Hydropower Energy
Generation (1) 198
Table 14.8: Results of Sensitivity Analysis – Decrease in the Price of Crude Oil (1) 199
Table 14.9: Results of Sensitivity Analysis – Increase in the Price of Crude Oil (1) 199
Table 14.10: Capital Expenditures (2006 prices) 200
Table 14.11: Capital Expenditures (2008 prices) 200
Table 14.12: FX Rates 200
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) vii

Table 14.13: Financing Scenarios 201

Table 14.14: Financial Analysis Results – Scenario 1 & Scenario 2 202
Table 15.15: Average Minimum Monthly Flow at Dolo 207
Table 15.16: TDS at Chenemasa and Kole 210
Table 15.17: Irrigated Crops in Juba Valley (1990): 212
Table 15.18: Flood Damage due to Crop Losses in Juba Valley (1990) 213
Table 15.19: Avoided Thermal Plant Emissions and their Values 214
Table 17.1: Genale (GD-3) Hydropower Project – Summary of Project
Characteristics 225
List of Figures
Figure 0.1: Project Location in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa xiii
Figure 0.2: Schematic Section through the GD-3 Reservoir and Power Scheme xv
Figure 0.3: Genale Hydropower Cascade xv
Figure 2.1: Future HV Transmission Lines to Kenya and Somalia 4
Figure 2.2: Historical Development of Energy Generation and Peak Power Demand in the
ICS 7
Figure 2.3: Typical Daily Load Curves for Weekdays and Sundays 7
Figure 2.4: Seasonal Load Characteristics in the ICS during 2005/06 8
Figure 2.5: EEPCo’s Target Capacity vs Committed Capacity 12
Figure 2.6: Kenya’s Least Cost Generation Expansion Plan, 2006-2026 17
Figure 3.1: Elevation-Area-Storage Curve of GD-3 Reservoir Area 22
Figure 3.2: Logita and Genale River Profiles 30
Figure 3.3: Isohyetal Map for the Genale Project Region - (Annual Rainfall – mm) 31
Figure 3.4: Distribution of Rainfall at Stations in or close to the Genale Catchment 32
Figure 3.5: Mean Monthly Streamflow Profile - Genale River at Chenemasa 33
Figure 6.1: UCOST - Build-up of Compound Rates 48
Figure 6.2: Optimisation of Dam Type 56
Figure 6.3: Optimisation of Full Supply Level 57
Figure 6.4: Optimisation of the Installed Capacity Factor 57
Figure 7.1: Reservoir Filling Time – Probability of Exceedence 60
Figure 7.2: Reservoir Monthly Inflows (m³/s) 65
Figure 7.3: Reservoir Monthly Turbine Flows (m³/s) 66
Figure 7.4: Reservoir Monthly Outflows (Turbine + Spill) (m³/s) 67
Figure 7.5: Reservoir Monthly Water Levels (m asl) 68
Figure 7.6: Monthly Continuous Power (MW) 69
Figure 7.7: Comparison of Reservoir Inflows and Outflows – Time Series 70
Figure 7.8: Comparison of Reservoir Inflows and Outflows – Duration Curves 70
Figure 8.1: Rainfall and River Flows at Dam Site 75
Figure 8.2: Direct Cost of Dam, Spillway and River Diversion 78
Figure 8.3: Initially Recommended Overall Combined Gradation for the RCC 89
Figure 8.4: Estimated Compressive Strength vs. Age 89
Figure 8.5: Estimated Adiabatic Temperature Rise of RCC 90
Figure 9.1: GD-3 Hydropower Scheme Longitudinal Profile 104
Figure 9.2: Rating Curve at Dam Site 106
Figure 10.1: Average Seasonal Water Levels in GD-3 Reservoir 138
Figure 10.2: Typical Turbine Selection Diagram Rated Net Head (HNR) versus (QR)
Rated Flow 141
Figure 10.3: Typical Specific Speed (nS) versus Rated Net Head (HNR) 142
Figure 10.4: Specific Flow (Q13) versus Specific Speed (ns) 144
Figure 10.5: General Layout of Francis Turbine, Spiral Case and Draft Tube 144
Figure 10.6: Turbine Performance at Rated Net Head 145
Figure 10.7: Water Column Starting Time (Tw) versus Machine Starting Time (Tm) 147
Figure 10.8: Typical Installation of Draft Tube Flap Gate 150
Figure 11.1: Power Factor Versus Price, Weight and Losses 159
viii Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Content
Figure 11.2: Optimum Range of Generator Voltage 159

Figure 11.3: Siemens Selection Criteria 160
Figure 11.4: Heat Exchanger for OWDF Transformer and Transformer Cooling Types163
Figure 11.5: Control System Block Diagram for GD-3 Hydropower Project 168
Figure 12.1: Altitude Correction Factor 170
Figure 14.1: Results of Sensitivity Analysis 203
Figure 15.2: Streamflow and Power Production of Projects GD-5 and GD-6, with and
without GD-3 Regulation 206
Figure 15.3: Total Power Output of GD-3, GD-5 and GD-6 206
Figure 15.4: Flow Series of the Genale at Dolo with and without GD-3 Regulation,
and with Lower Genale Irrigation Development Project 207
Figure 15.5: Monthly Flows at Dolo – with and without GD-3 Regulation, with and
without Lower Genale Irrigation Development Project 208
Figure 15.53: Streamflow versus Conductivity at Chenemasa 209
Figure 15.54: TDS at Chenemasa with and without GD-3 Dam 209
Figure 15.8: TDS at Kole with and without GD-3 Dam 209
Figure 15.56: Reconstituted and Regulated Flows of the Juba River at Baardhere 211
Figure 15.57: Reconstituted Flows of the Juba River at Baardhere 211
Figure 15.58: Regulated Flows of the Juba River at Baardhere 211
Figure 15.59: Duration Curves of Reconstituted and Regulated Flows of the Juba
River at Baardhere 212
List of Annexes (Vol. IV)

Annex A: Geology
Annex B: Hydrology
Annex C: Overview of GD-3 Alternatives Considered in the Optimisation Process 1
Annex D: Net Present Values for GD-3 plus HVDC line to Nairobi 15
Annex E: Results of Financial Analysis for Scenarios 1 and 2 25
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) ix

List of Drawings (Vol. V)

1.1 General Project Location in Ethiopia
1.2 Project Area - Longitudinal Plan of Main Components
1.3 Project Area - Longitudinal Section through Hydropower Components
2.1 Hydrology Project Area - Catchment and Hydrological Map
3.1 Geology Project Area - Geological Map by Geological Survey of Ethiopia (1999)
3.2 Project Area - Location of Boreholes
3.3 Project Area - Summary of Borehole Logs (Sheets 1 to 6)
3.4 Hydropower Scheme - Geological Map
3.5 Hydropower Scheme - Geological Section
3.6 RCC Dam - Geological Site Map
3.7 RCC Dam - Geological Section along Axis
4.1 Reservoir Reservoir - Plan and Elevation-Area-Capacity Table
5.1 RCC Dam RCC Dam - Layout Plan

5.2 RCC Dam - Section along Axis
5.3 RCC Dam - Section through Spillway
5.4 RCC Dam - Section through Non-Overflow Block
5.5 RCC Dam - River Diversion and Construction Stages
5.6 Diversion Culvert - Longitudinal Section
5.7 Diversion Culvert - Plan Section at El. 1021.00
6.1 Power Scheme Hydropower Scheme - Longitudinal Section from Power Intake to Tailrace Outfall
6.2 Civil Works Hydropower Scheme - Tunnel Cross-sections
6.3 Hydropower Scheme - Layout from Surge Tank to Tailrace Outfall (1 of 2)
6.4 Hydropower Scheme - Layout from Surge Tank to Tailrace Outfall (2 of 2)
6.5 Hydropower Scheme - Longitudinal Section from Surge Tank to Tailrace Outfall (1 of 2)
6.6 Hydropower Scheme - Longitudinal Section from Surge Tank to Tailrace Outfall (2 of 2)
6.7 Power Intake - Plan and Vertical Section
6.8 Surge Tank - Plan and Sections
6.9 Emergency Gate Chamber - Sections
6.10 Emergency Gate Chamber - Sections
6.11 Headrace and Tailrace Manifolds - Sections
6.12 Tailrace Outfall - Sections
6.13 Underground Powerhouse - Longitudinal Section Through Unit Centerlines (Section A-A)
6.14 Underground Powerhouse - Cross Section through Unit Centerline (Section B-B)
6.15 Underground Powerhouse - Cross Section through Drainage Sump (Section C-C)
6.16 Underground Powerhouse - Plan of Machine Hall - EL. 839.52
6.17 Underground Powerhouse - Plan of Generator Floor - EL. 835.52
6.18 Underground Powerhouse - Plan of Turbine Floor - EL 831.12
6.19 Underground Powerhouse - Plan of Valve Floor - EL. 826.18
6.20 Underground Powerhouse - Plan of Drainage Gallery
6.21 Switchyard - Diesel Generator and Fuel Storage Tank
6.22 Access Roads - Typical Sections and Details
7.1 Power Scheme Hydropower Scheme - Overall Single Line Diagram

Equipment
8.1 Transmission Powerhouse Switchyard (230 kV) - Plan

8.2 Powerhouse Switchyard (230 kV) - Cross Section
8.3 Transmission Line - Route
9.1 Construction Construction Time Schedule

Schedule
x Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Content
Acronyms, Glossary, Units etc.

CD Construction Design Share Company
CPI Consumer Price Index
DSCR Debt Service Coverage Ratio
DSRA Debt Service Reserve Account
E&M Electrical & Mechanical
EBITDA Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation & Amortisation
EEPCo Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FSL Full Supply Level
FX Foreign Currency
GD-3 Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project
GDMP Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Dev’t Master Plan Study
GWh Giga Watt Hour
HSS Hydraulic Steel Structure
IRR Internal Rate of Return
LAA Los Angeles Abrasion
LI Lahmeyer International GmbH
LLCR Loan Life Coverage Ratio
MDE Maximum Credible Earthquake
MOL Minimum Operation Level
MoWR Ministry of Water Resources
MRA Maintenance Reserve Account
O&M Operation & Maintenance
OBE Operating Basis Earthquake
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
PLSI Point Load Strength Index
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
PPI Producer Price Index
RCC Roller Compacted Concrete
ROE Return on Equity
T/L Transmission Line
TCD Transport Construction Design Share Company
TETB Thousand Ethiopian Birr
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
USD US Dollar
WWDSE Water Works Design and Supervision Enterprise
YBC Yeshi-Ber Consult
Units
GWh gigawatt - hour
kV kilovolt
m metre
m/s metre per second
m3/s cubic metres per second
m asl metres above sea level
mm millimetre
MPa megapascal
MVA megavolt - ampere
MW megawatt
Pa pascal
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xi

Executive Summary
Introduction
This Executive Summary complements the Report on the Feasibility Study of the Genale
(GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project. It is aimed at two sets of readers, namely:
! the executive decision makers who require key information without the background
detail, and
! the technical readers who require an overview of the study approach and its results
before entering into the detail.
The summary includes information drawn from the associated report prepared within the
same study framework, namely the Report on the Environmental Impact Assessment of
the Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project.
Background to the Present Study

In April 2003, the Ethiopian Ministry of Water Resources concluded a contract with
Lahmeyer International (LI) of Bad Vilbel, Germany, in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult
(YBC) of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to develop an integrated development Master Plan for the
Genale-Dawa River Basin.
The specific objectives of the study are to derive a Master Plan that will contribute to the
The 3-year study period (2004-2006) was organised into three phases as follows:
1. Phase I - Review of existing information, establishment of a comprehensive database,
execution of sector studies and analysis resulting in an Indicative Master Plan;
2. Phase II - Development of a Final Master Plan through consultation with stakeholders
and the preparation of 6 project pre-feasibility studies; and
3. Phase III - Feasibility studies for the three most attractive water resources projects in
the basin.
The energy sector studies found that the Basin does not possess any fossil fuel reserves.
However, a number of promising hydropower schemes were identified, in particular along
the main stem of the Genale River which is the only perennial stream in the Basin.
Extensive hydropower development studies were undertaken and nine projects proved to
be economically attractive compared to equivalent thermal generation (which would
require the import of fuel).
The best hydropower project by far was the so-called Genale-Dawa 3 project (GD-3). At
least four previous studies had been made of this hydropower project since 1986 – all had
concluded that the scheme was worth developing.
The present study – the Feasibility Study of the Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower
Project - began in early 2006 within the framework of Phase III of the Genale-Dawa
Master Plan (GDMP). It has been carried out by a joint study team comprising staff from LI
and its associate YBC of Ethiopia. The entire study was co-funded by a grant from the
African Development Bank, covering consulting services and equipment procurement, and
by the Government of Ethiopia, covering helicopter flights and field investigation.
xii Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Executive Summary
Project Location
The project area is located some 400km (air distance) south-south-east of Addis Ababa
and some 200km (air distance) north of the border with Kenya. The scheme, including the
reservoir and power waterways, extends over a river corridor some 55km long. The
approximate centroid of the project area lies at latitude 5º 38' North and longitude 39º 43'
East (see Figure 0.1 and Drawing 1.1, Volume V).
Figure 0.1: Project Location in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa
ERITREA
#
Y Khartoum
R
Asmara #
Y
E
D
15
S
E
A
EN
AD
OF
LF
Lake Tana DJIBOUTI GU
Y Djibouti
#
A N
ay
Ab
U D
10
le
Ni
te
hi
S
W
Addis Ababa #
Y
ETHI OPIA
Awasa S# #
S
Goba
Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose
Dila S# Hydropower Project
Genale-Dawa River Basin
W ey
Ú
Ê
Gen
#
S
# Hargele
ale
S
Negele Filtu
A
#
S
5
I
#
S Da
Yabelo
L
w a
A
M
Dolo Odo
O
#
S
#
S
S
Mandera #
S Lugh
Lake Turkana Moyale
#
S
Baidao
#
S
N
El Wak S#
A
E
Marsabit S# #
S Bardera
C
#
Y Mogadishu
O
UGANDA Wajir #
S
Jub
N
a
A
I
K E N Y A
D
N
I
Isiolo S#
0
Nyeri S# #
S Chisimayu
Lake Victoria 0 100 200 300 400 km

#
Y Nairobi
35 40 45 50
Potential Electricity Markets

Given its location in southern Ethiopia, the GD-3 Hydropower Project could supply both
the Ethiopian and the Kenyan electricity markets. Both markets were assessed in terms of
forecast electricity supply and demand and in terms of candidate electricity generating
projects with which GD-3 would compete.
In Ethiopia, according to the current schedule of committed hydropower schemes, there
will be a requirement, and therefore a market, for additional electricity generating capacity
in or soon after 2015 in order to meet the Governments prospective targets. GD-3 could
easily be commissioned by that date and supplying the growing demand. The viable
alternatives (or competitors) to GD-3 are fossil fuel fired power plants and/or other
hydropower schemes in Ethiopia. The viable fossil fuel fired plants would generate
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xiii

electricity at between 8.0 and 11.4 USs/ kWh, depending on crude oil prices. The planned
hydropower schemes would generate electricity at between 3.0 and 4.5 USc/kWh.
In Kenya, the hydropower resources are largely exhausted and according to the current
expansion plan, electricity will have to be imported and/or new thermal plant
commissioned by the year 2010. GD-3 could not be commissioned by that date, but
thereafter the demand in Kenya for imported electricity is forecast to rise rapidly and GD-3
coming on stream in 2014 is well placed to meet this demand. The viable alternatives (or
competitors) to GD-3 in Kenya are fossil fuel fired power plants. The most attractive fossil
fuel fired plants would generate electricity at between 7.7 and 12.2 USc/kWh, depending
on crude oil and coal prices.
From the above it is clear that GD-3 could supply the electricity markets in both Ethiopia
and in Kenya. Although the generation expansion targets set in Ethiopia will require
massive investments in new generating capacity, there are several very attractive
hydropower schemes in the planning pipeline – in other words competition will be stronger
in Ethiopia than in Kenya. In Kenya, hydropower resources have been largely exhausted
(max 270 MW, and expensive) and competitors of GD-3 will be expensive fossil fuel fired
plant. The sale of electricity to Kenya will bring valuable foreign currency into Ethiopia
which could finance much needed infrastructure and/or public service projects in the
energy, transport, health and education sectors.
Based on the above, the present feasibility study has developed GD-3 to feed into the
Kenyan electricity market. This will in no way prevent the scheme from supplying the
domestic Ethiopian market, but by electing to feed into the Kenyan market, the economic
and financial indicators will be significantly more attractive.
Project Description
The GD-3 Hydropower Project comprises a large Roller Compacted Concrete dam and an
underground power scheme. The 110m high dam will create a huge reservoir with a
surface area of some 98km² and a total storage of almost 2,570 million m³. The power
scheme comprises a 12,400 m long TBM driven headrace tunnel, a 120m high surge
shaft, a steeply inclined 216m deep pressure shaft, a 285m long high pressure headrace
tunnel, an underground powerhouse accommodating 3 x 84.7 MW Francis turbine
generator units, a tailrace surge chamber and a 1,480m long tailrace tunnel. A schematic
section through the reservoir and power scheme is shown in Figure 0.2. The location plan
of the main components is shown in Drawing 1.2 (Volume V).
The scheme exploits a total gross head of some 280 m to generate on average 1,640
GWh of energy per year. A 230 kV double circuit transmission line will convey this energy
295 km south-west to the town of Mega close to the border with Kenya. A converter
station at Mega and a 520km long 500 kV DC transmission link will feed the energy into
the Kenyan power grid at at Nairobi or Eldoret, close to Kenya’s border with Uganda. As
such, the project could be a major element of an inter-African power trading arrangement.
The GD-3 Hydropower Project will be the first development in a cascade of schemes on
the main Genale River. Two further hydropower schemes – known as GD-5 and GD-6 –
and an irrigation scheme – the Lower Genale Irrigation Project - are foreseen downstream
on the same Genale River (see Figure 0.3). The huge GD-3 reservoir will provide the
capacity to regulate the seasonal flows of the Genale River and the attractiveness of the
three downstream schemes owes much to this regulation capacity provided by GD-3. As
such, the downstream schemes should not be commissioned before GD-3.
xiv Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Executive Summary
Figure 0.2: Schematic Section through the GD-3 Reservoir and Power Scheme
1,500
1,400
Gr o und Sur f ace
1,300
Elevation (m asl)
1,200
Sur g e T ank
R eser vo i r F SL
1,100
Po wer W at er way
1,000
G enal e R i ver
900
Po wer ho use C aver n

800
35 40 45 50 55 60
Pow er Waterw ay Chainage (km )
Figure 0.3: Genale Hydropower Cascade

39°30'E 40°0'E
Meda Welabu Location of Genale Hydropower Projects
GD-3, GD-5 and GD-6
Genale Donta
0 5 10 20 km
Scale: 1:750,000
Dam # GD-3
Powerhouse
"
5°30'N Ge 5°30'N
n
Bitata
al
eR
iv e
r
Powerhouse
"
Dam
Powerhouse #
"
#
Negele Dam GD-5 GD-6
Siru
39°30'E 40°0'E
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xv

Costs and Benefits

The total cost of the GD-3 scheme is estimated at US$ 536 million. This total includes the
costs of all construction works, equipment, engineering and administration services and
environmental mitigation and compensation measures. Of the total, some US$ 246 million
(or 46%) will be for the transmission of the energy over some 815 km by HVAC and DC
links to either Nairobi or Eldoret in Kenya via the town of Mega in Ethiopia. The remaining
US$ 290 million (54%) will cover the cost of the generation scheme (the dam and
underground power scheme).
The direct benefits of the project will be 254 MW of electrical power and 1,640 GWh of
energy per year. The electrical power will be available at any time of the day or night to
cover both peak and off-peak demand in either the Kenyan or the Ethiopian
interconnected power systems. From the above costs and installed capacity, the so-called
specific unit cost of the GD-3 scheme, based on the generation component (excluding the
transmission component), is some US$ 1,140 per kW installed – indicative of a very
attractive hydropower generation scheme.
The hydropower scheme exploits a renewable energy source. It will not deplete Ethiopia's
reserves of natural resources, it will not produce harmful gases and it will not increase the
nation's dependence on imported fossil fuels. The sale of electrical energy to Kenya will
earn valuable foreign currency for the Government of Ethiopia with which it can finance
other infrastructure projects or public service programmes to reduce poverty and improve
the quality of life of the local population.
Construction and operation of the scheme will provide employment and career
opportunities for over 1,500 local people. Almost 60 km of new roads to the project
components will greatly improve transport links of the project area to the town of Negele
and beyond. This in turn will stimulate local trade and greatly improve the quality of life of
the local communities.
As mentioned above, the huge regulation storage of the GD-3 hydropower scheme will be
exploited by the two proposed downstream hydropower projects – GD-5 and GD-6 (see
Figure 0.3). Thus in terms of economics, it is only logical to assess the multi-stage
hydropower cascade as well as the single stage GD-3 scheme. In purely economic terms,
both the single stage GD-3 and the three stage cascade are very attractive. An analysis
comparing the total costs of the hydropower schemes (including the long transmission link
to Kenya) with the costs of constructing and fueling the least cost equivalent thermal
alternative in Kenya indicated cost-benefit ratios at a discount rate of 10% in favour of the
hydropower schemes of 1.7 and 1.8 for the single stage GD-3 and multi-stage cascade
respectively. The respective Economic Internal Rates of Return of are 16.7% and 17.4%.
These indices are indicative of very attractive hydropower schemes.
In financial terms, the single stage scheme, including the transmission link to Kenya, could
provide its investors a 12.5% Return on Equity by selling energy at a tariff of some USc
5.1 per kWh. This tariff is judged reasonable by comparative standards.
Environmental Issues
A terrestrial vegetation survey - done in the course of the field investigations - confirmed
that there are no designated or protected areas of terrestrial ecological interest that will be
affected by the proposed scheme. However for more than eighty percent of the
surrounding community, the forest serves as source of medicine for curing different types
of human as well as livestock diseases. Some of the medicinal plants include Borassus
aethiopum, Grewea bilosa to cure animal disease; Direbofa (oromifa) for man attacked by
insect; Handada (oromifa)-for stomach ache and evil eye. Honey is also one of the other
forest products in the area.
xvi Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Executive Summary
None of the fish species occurring in the Genale-Dawa River are listed as threatened and
the current exploitation level by the existing riverine fishery is far too low to cause concern
in this respect.
The project area is neither contiguous with nor in close proximity to any of the nationally
protected areas like National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Priority Forest Areas
and Controlled Hunting Areas. According to the Cultural Section Head of the Zones, the
Genale (GD-3) dam site and the reservoir area are not regarded as archeologically and
culturally important.
The Genale (GD-3) project will have a lifetime of more than 1,000 years at current
sedimentation levels. The creation of a ‘natural’ buffer zone between the inundated versus
non-inundated land is recommended for the well-being of wildlife, birds and other animals.
The GD-3 reservoir will flood some 98 km² of land, of which about 3,922 ha are productive
farmland. Realization of the proposed project will also have varying degree of adverse
direct impact on an estimated 727 households in twenty eight villages belonging to three
PAs. The number of households may not necessarily correspond to the number of
households affected by the loss of farmland. These Project Affected households will have
to be resettled but since there is 'unoccupied' land in their respective vicinities that could
accommodate sizeable numbers of affected farmers, the social upheaval should not be a
significant issue. An estimated 61% of the affected households prefer "Land for Land"
compensation and the remaining 39% prefer "Cash" compensation. Appropriate social
mitigation and compensation measures should be studied at the design phase of the
project and included in the Resettlement Action Plan.
There are no ethnic minorities or tribal people in and around the project area whose
traditional lifestyles could become compromised through the development of the proposed
Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project. Therefore, no indigenous development
plan will be required.
Based on the results of the socio-economic survey, the attitudes of the local communities
and their leaders are positive to the proposed project provided that a resettlement plan is
properly and fairly implemented. Therefore, it is crucial to develop and implement an
integrated resettlement scheme in locations as close to the affected vicinities as possible.
In order to reduce the magnitude of impacts associated with land and property
expropriation, it is recommended that the implementing Authority of this project must report
to the Regional and Local authorities about the planned development and request them to
stop all future settlement and construction works within the proposed GD-3 reservoir areas.
Multipurpose Aspects
The chief role of the GD-3 project is the generation of hydro-electric power. Without
hydropower the project would economically not be feasible. However, if GD-3 were built,
this would trigger other benefits (and costs), thereby making GD-3 a multipurpose
scheme. The multipurpose aspects of the Genale (GD-3) Project include:
! water regulation and sedimentation reduction for downstream hydropower projects;
! effects on irrigation;
! changes in salinity patterns;
! fishery on the GD-03 reservoir;
! impacts on the Juba River;
! avoidance of thermal power plant and CO2 emissions;
! improved regional access;
! employment during construction;
! tourism.
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xvii

International Water Rights Issues

The Genale-Dawa river basin drains into the Juba River in Somalia. The physical impacts
of the proposed Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project on the Juba River will
be insignificant in terms of long term inflows – long term average net evaporation loss
from the GD-3 reservoir surface will be a mere 2.3 m³/s, compared to a mean flow into the
Juba River at the Ethio-Somali border of some 209 m³/s. The greatest impact on the Juba
River will be during the initial filling of the GD-3 reservoir when almost 2,570 Mm³. of river
flow will be retained to fill the reservoir. This represents over 90% of the mean annual flow
(2,920 Mm³) at the dam site. The operation of the GD-3 reservoir will have a significant
impact on the seasonal distribution of flows into the Juba River. Flows discharging from
the GD-3 power scheme will be much more evenly distributed throughout the year. It is
not known how a changed seasonal distribution of inflows to the Juba River might affect
the river ecosystem.
Nevertheless, under currently accepted rules and principles of International Law, Ethiopia
has the right to develop the GD-3 Project. However, there is a policy commitment to
fostering "meaningful and mutually fair regional cooperation" with other riparian countries
and it may be considered appropriate to the spirit of such cooperation that the proposals
for GD-3 are formally disclosed to Somalia once a stable central government in that
country is in place.
In the same context, it is recommended that Ethiopia and Somalia consider collaboration
on a study of the impacts of changing the pattern of inflows to the Juba River on the river
environment, fish populations and the potential for commercial fishery development.
Alternatives to GD-3
The increased availability of secure and reasonably priced electricity in Kenya and
Ethiopia is seen as fundamental to improving economic and social conditions in both
these countries. There are a number of energy sources, other than hydropower, that can
be tapped to produce electricity in commercial quantities. Gas, in exploitable quantities,
has been discovered in the south-east of the country close to the border with Somalia.
Unit generation costs will be high (estimated at well over 7 USc/kWh) since this potential
energy source is over 700 km from the country’s main load centres in an area where the
transport infrastructure is not well developed. There is also a competing plan to use the
gas to produce commercial fertilizer. Consequently the Government is not currently
pursuing plans to develop this as an energy source.
Coal has been discovered in Yayu, some 325km west of Addis Ababa. Investigations
have confirmed that there is enough coal of sufficient quality to fuel a power plant with an
installed capacity of some 100MW for some 35 years. This plant could feed base energy
into the ICS over the 8 to 9 month dry season, thus reducing the burden on the
hydropower schemes. The plant would close down during the wet season when hydro-
energy is plentiful. Currently, the area around Yayu has no industrial development and
Addis Ababa is the only load centre that could absorb 100MW of base power. Therefore
the high transmission costs will significantly increase the unit price of this energy. At the
present time, development of a coal fired power plant at Yayu have stalled due to high unit
generation costs and serious concerns about the impacts of mining and burning coal on
the local environment.
Exploitable quantities of oil have not been discovered within the borders of Ethiopia.
Electricity from this fuel source has to rely on foreign imports. The country has no coast
line and currently most of Ethiopia’s demand for refined oil products is transported either
from Djibouti or from the Sudan to Addis Ababa by fleets of road tankers. Both routes
involve transport distances approaching 1,000km. From Djibouti, the road within Ethiopia
is asphalted and all bridges are in reasonable condition. The route is likely to be further
upgraded within the next 10 to 15 years. However, within Djibouti the road is in a bad
condition. From Sudan, the road within Ethiopia is maintained in a good condition, but the
xviii Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Executive Summary
condition of the counterpart road in the Sudan is unknown and beyond the direct control of
Ethiopia.
Despite the supply drawbacks, the Government has invested in almost 80MW of oil
fuelled (diesel) generators in 2004. These plants are foreseen as emergency capacity –
they are not foreseen to participate in daily load coverage. The fuel transport and storage
costs make this a costly option, and it increases the countries dependence on factors
beyond its control (ie fuel price and fuel availability). The current railway from Djibouti has
little spare capacity, but there are plans to rehabilitate and upgrade the entire system.
Railway may reduce the transport costs slightly, but the other drawbacks will remain – no
control over fuel price and availability, and high fuel storage costs.
Wind is a source of renewable energy which is now providing small, but significant,
amounts of electricity to the European and North American national grids. The
Government is embarking on an investigation of wind potential in the country. Installation
costs are still significantly higher than for renewable energy hydropower plants, but these
costs have been dropping over the past decade. Information from 1983 on wind speed
and duration has been published in the National Atlas of Ethiopia (1988). The information
clearly shows that wind will not provide any significant amounts of firm energy – there are
significant periods of calm conditions throughout the country. A further drawback is that
the greatest proportion of wind energy appears to be in the rainy season between June
and September, thus coinciding with the period of greatest hydropower potential.
From the above, it is evident that oil fired electricity generation is a tried and tested
alternative to hydropower, but it is very expensive, it will drain the country’s foreign
currency reserves and it is an insecure source of energy. Other energy sources are
currently not serious competitors to hydropower generation in general and to GD-3 in
particular.
Implementation
The Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project is feasible from the technical,
economic and environmental viewpoints. There are no legal obstacles to its development.
Such a worthwhile scheme, which will bring net benefits to the nation in general and the
local communities in particular, should be implemented at the earliest possible date.
Because its huge reservoir offers regulated flows to downstream projects, it is
recommended that at least the two proposed hydropower developments – GD5 and GD-6
– are included in a cascade development, with GD-5 and GD-6 coming on stream after
GD-3 (see Figure 0.3).
Under a conventional design and construction program, GD-3 could be commissioned by
mid to end of 2014 to sell 1,640 GWh of electrical energy annually into the Kenyan
national grid. The two downstream schemes – GD-5 and GD-6 – could be commissioned
thereafter at two year intervals to meet Kenya’s growing demand.
The foreign currency earnings generated by the sale of electricity will be available to the
Government of Ethiopia for financing new infrastructure, public service programmes and
industrial and commercial development thereby improving both social and economic
conditions in the country.
Table 0.1 presents a summary of the main characteristics of the Genale (GD-3)
Multipurpose Hydropower Project. This summary includes technical information, the cost
breakdown and economic parameters.
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xix

Table 0.1: Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project - Summary of Project Characteristics
Dam and Reservoir

Catchment area 10,445 km2
Mean inflow 92.6 m3/s
Main Dam Type Roller Compacted Concrete Gravity
Height above foundation 110 m
Fill volume 890,000 m3
Reservoir FSL 1,120 m asl
Reservoir storage Total 2,570 million m3
Active 2,310 million m3
Loss of active storage after 50 years 2.1%
Reservoir surface area at FSL 98 km2
Spillway type free overflow, stepped chute, stilling basin
Routed PMF peak discharge 1,294 m3/s
Power Waterways
Stage II Power Waterways
Headrace Length 12,400m tunnel, 216m inclined shaft, 285m tunnel
Lining 10,300 unlined, 2,400m concrete, 200m steel
Finished diameter 8.1m unlined, 7.1/6.1 m concrete, 4.8m steel
Headrace surge tank Height 120 m
Diameter 23 m
Tailrace surge tank Height 30 m
Internal size 323 m2
Tailrace Tunnel Length 1,480 m
Lining Concrete, circular profile
Finished diameter 6.1 m
Powerhouse
Powerhouse type Underground
Turbine number and type 3, Francis
Total installed capacity 254 MW
Rated head 254.5 m
Rated total flow 116 m3/s
Average / Firm energy production 1,640 / 1,600 GWh/year
Switchyard and Transmission Line
Switchyard type and number Conventional outdoor, double busbar
Rated voltage 230 kV AC
Transmission line length 295 km to Mega Town
Number of circuits Double
Transmission link to Kenya DC Converter station at Mega
520km 500kV DC transmission line to Eldoret
Project Costs
Civil Works 184 million US$
Mechanical and Electrical Works 52 million US$
HVAC Transmission GD-3 to Mega 48 million US$
HVDC Transmission Mega to Eldoret (or to Nairobi) 198 million US$
Engineering, supervision and administration 30 million US$
Environment 24 million US$
Total 536 million US$
Economic and Financial Parameters
Unit generation cost (excluding HV AC+DC link) 2.5 USc/kWh
Unit generation cost (including HV AC+DC link) 4.5 USc/kWh
Economic internal rate of return 16.7 %
Financial tariff to achieve 12.5% return on equity 5.1 USc/kWh
Environmental Impacts
Households resettled 727
Productive land submerged 3,922 ha
Endangered animals affected none
Endangered plants affected none
xx Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 The Ministry of Water Resources and Master Plans

The Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) was established in 1995 with the purpose of
undertaking studies related to water and soil which will support the national economic
development plan. The Ministry’s major responsibilities are to study the distribution and
conservation of water resources within the country using modern scientific research tools.
Soon after its establishment, the Ministry was charged with developing Master Plans for
the eleven principal river basins that drain the country. These Master Plans had the
objective of assessing the resources of each river basin and developing plans for
exploiting these resources in an integrated and sustainable fashion. The first Master Plans
focused on those river basins with the greatest potential for development, namely the
Omo-Gibe, the Abay and the Tekeze Basins, followed by the Baro-Akobo and the Wabe
Shabele Basins. The master planning work has been financed from both local and foreign
sources. In 2002, the African Development Bank (AfDB) agreed to finance the work to
develop a Master Plan for the Genale-Dawa River Basin.
1.2 The Genale-Dawa Master Plan Study

In April 2003, the Ethiopian Ministry of Water Resources concluded a contract with
Lahmeyer International (LI) of Bad Vilbel, Germany, in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult
(YBC) of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to develop an integrated development Master Plan for the
Genale-Dawa River Basin.
The overall goals of the Genale-Dawa Master Plan (GDMP) are defined in the Ethiopian
Water Resources Management Policy (WRMP), which sets guidelines for water resources
planning, development and management. This policy is aimed at enhancing and
promoting all national efforts towards the efficient, equitable and sustainable utilisation of
the available water resources of the country for socio-economic development.
The specific objectives of the study are to derive a Master Plan that will contribute to the
The 3-year study period (2004-2006) was organised into three phases as follows:
1. Phase I - Review of existing information, establishment of a comprehensive database,
execution of sector studies and analysis resulting in an Indicative Master Plan;
2. Phase II - Development of a Final Master Plan through consultation with stakeholders
and the preparation of 6 project pre-feasibility studies; and
3. Phase III - Feasibility studies for the three most attractive water resources projects in
the basin.
The sector studies included extensive topographical, hydrological and geological
investigations, which provided the necessary background data for the energy sector
studies. It was found that the Basin does not possess any fossil fuel reserves. However, a
number of promising hydropower schemes were identified, in particular along the main
stem of the Genale River which is the only perennial stream in the Basin.
Extensive hydropower development studies were undertaken. Initially, a catalogue containing
some 40 schemes was compiled. Each of these schemes was evaluated in terms of
construction and implementation costs and energy generation potential. Nine of the projects
proved to be economically attractive compared to equivalent thermal generation (which would
require the import of fuel). Alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power were also
investigated, but none were as economically attractive as the best hydro options.
Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) 1

The total economic hydropower potential in the Basin was estimated to be some 1,200
MW with an annual generation of 5,500 GWh.
The best hydropower project by far was the Genale-Dawa 3 project (GD-3) with estimated
generating costs below USc 3.2 per kWh.
1.3 Previous Studies on the GD-3 Project

Hydropower development on the Genale River in general and at the GD-3 site in particular
had been studied prior to the GDMP studies. In 1986, in a report for the Ministry of Mines
and Energy by the CESEN-ANSALDO-FINMECCANICCA Group, the Genale-Weyb River
Basin was identified as one of the most promising for hydro-energy generation – indeed
this river basin was second only to the Abay Basin in terms of energy density (expressed
in GWh/km2/year).
In 1990, in a report for the Ethiopian Valleys Development Authority by the Water and
Power Consultancy Services of India Ltd (WAPCOS), nine hydropower project sites on
the Genale River were identified, one of which was named GD-3.
In 1997, a reconnaissance report by the Medium Scale Hydropower Plants Study Project
Office of the Ministry of Water Resources, confirmed that GD-3, along with two other
hydropower projects (GD-2 and GD-4) should be considered for further study.
In 1999, a pre-feasibility report on GD-2 and GD-3 HPP’s for the Ministry of Water
Resources by Norplan A.S. and Norconsult A.S., ranked the GD-3 HPP well above GD-2
HPP in terms of Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR), Benefit:Cost Ratio, unit
installed capacity cost and unit energy generation cost. During that study, three alternative
sites for the dam at GD-3 were investigated, namely GD-3 Upstream, GD-3 Middle and
GD-3 Downstream. GD-3 Middle was recommended as the least cost alternative – the
foundation conditions at the GD-3 Upstream site were judged as poor, while the valley
cross section at the GD-3 Downstream site was wider than that at the GD-3 Middle site.
Based on the GD-3 Middle dam site, two alternative power waterway layouts were
investigated – a short waterway layout exploiting a gross head of 128m at a surface
powerhouse and a long waterway layout exploiting a gross head of 192m at an
underground powerhouse. A comparison of costs and energies generated confirmed that
the long waterway layout had the most attractive economic parameters, namely the
highest Net Present Value, EIRR and Benefit:Cost ratio. The study also reported on a
preliminary optimization of major project parameters (including dam height and installed
capacity). The 1999 report makes no explicit recommendation on further studies, but it is
clear that the technical and cost parameters presented in the report are indicative of a
very attractive hydropower scheme.
1.4 Present Feasibility Study of the GD-3 Project

The results of the Master Plan studies confirmed the outcome of the previous studies –
that the Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project appears to be a very attractive
undertaking and merits further investigation to confirm its feasibility. After careful
consideration, the MoWR, in consultation with the Consultant and the stakeholders
involved in the GDMP, decided that the relatively large GD-3 project was to be one of the
three projects to be advanced to feasibility level as part of Phase 3 investigations, thereby
leading to the present study.
Because of the scale and importance of the GD-3 project, the start of the feasibility study
proper was brought forward to late 2005 in order to allow a detailed geotechnical
investigation campaign to be tendered and executed. The entire study has been carried
by a joint study team comprising staff of Lahmeyer International (LI) and its associate
Yeshi-Ber Consult (YBC) of Ethiopia. The study was co-funded by a grant from the African
Development Bank, covering consulting services and equipment procurement, and by the
Government of Ethiopia, covering helicopter flights and field investigation.
2 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ▪ Ministry of Water Resources ▪ Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Introduction
1.5 Structure of the Report

The report is arranged in sixteen chapters. Chapters 1 to 5 set the foundations for the
subsequent optimization and design investigations. Chapters 6 to 12 present the project
optimization, design and performance characteristics of all the major project components.
Chapters 13 to 15 deal with the evaluation of the project. Chapter 16 presents conclusions
and recommendations.
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 assesses the markets available to electricity
generated by GD-3 and identifies the preferred market. Chapters 3 to 5 present the
various environments within which the project will be constructed and operated. Chapter 3
deals with the physical environment and covers topography, hydrology, geology,
construction materials and seismicity, Chapter 4 deals with the plant and animal
environments. Chapter 5 deals with the. human (or social) environment and covers
communities, land-use, communications, religious and archaeological sites.
Following on from the basic foundation studies, the optimization and design studies are
presented in Chapters 6 to 12 as follows:
! scheme optimization,
! reservoir – filling and operation,
! dam design,
! civil works design,
! powerhouse mechanical equipment,
! powerhouse electrical equipment, and
! switchyard and transmission system.
The construction time schedule and construction cost estimate are presented in Chapter
13 and the economic and financial evaluation in Chapter 14. The Genale River Basin
continues into Somalia and is, as such, an “international trans-boundary river basin”. In
Chapter 15, the international legal implications of developing the project are addressed.
The report concludes with Chapter 16 in which recommendations for future work are
presented.
Separate from, but complementary to, this report is the Album of Drawings. This Album
contains hydrological and geological maps and sections, scheme layouts and engineering
drawings of the main structures and equipment.
The entire feasibility investigations are summarized in an Executive Summary placed at
the beginning of the Report. This summary report is aimed at two sets of readers, namely:
! the executive decision makers who require key information without the background
detail, and
! the technical readers who require an overview of the study approach and its results
before entering into the detail.
1.6 Associated Reports

The social and environmental studies are contained in Volume III, Environmental Impact
Assessment Report, prepared in association with YBC of Ethiopia. This report describes
the prevailing social and natural environmental situation in the project area, identifies
potential impacts of the project, proposes mitigation and/or compensation measures and
finally defines environmental management plans.
The studies covering the geology and hydrology of the project area are contained in
Volume IV, Annexes. The report on geology describes the geology of the project area and
focuses on the foundation conditions beneath and/or around each of the main project
structures. The report also assesses the suitability of local construction materials. The
report on hydrology derives the main hydrological design parameters for the project –
reservoir inflows, floods, evaporation and sediment yields.

2 The Markets for New Electricity Generating Plant in Ethiopia
2.1 General
The optimal generating characteristics and the timing of construction of the GD-3
Hydropower Project will depend on the market or markets into which its electricity will be
sold. Given the location of the project relative to the largest concentrations of consumers
in the region, the two most obvious potential markets are the Addis Ababa area via the
Ethiopian ICS and the Kenyan national grid via a new HV transmission link. A third
potential market is Somalia (in particular the towns of Mogadishu, Baidoa and Kismayo).
Figure 2.1 shows the possible routing for the transmission lines connecting GD-3 to the
main grid in Ethiopia, to the Nairobi area in Kenya and to the main towns of Somalia.
Figure 2.1: Future HV Transmission Lines to Kenya and Somalia
Melka Wakena
#
S #Robe
S
#
Awasa S ETHIOPIA
175 km
250
km
$ GD-3 HEP
T
#
Negele S
SUDAN
3
Genale-Dawa 00 km
km
5
River Basin
29
Dolo Odo
#
Mega S # 80 km
S
Lugh SOMALIA
#
S
Moyale
#
S
37
0k
m
165 km
km
0
52
#
Bardera S
MOGADISHU Y
#
UGANDA
300 km
KENYA
N
A
# Eldoret
S
E
#
Isiolo S
C
O
N
26
Chisimayu S
#
0
A
km
I
D
N
I
Y
# NAIROBI 0 100 200 Kilometers
In the present assessment of potential markets, the Somali market has not been
considered - it is currently very small (with a potential of the order of 50 to 100MW) and,
crucially, the political environment is very unstable. However, at some time in the future,
this market will almost certainly become available to electricity generating projects in
south-east Ethiopia. Indeed, the future markets for Ethiopian electricity in general are
likely to expand far beyond the borders of Ethiopia – into the Sudan and westwards to
Uganda and northwards to Egypt. Today, transmission interconnections with the grids of
Djibouti and the Sudan are in the final planning phase. There are firm plans, being
The Markets for New Electricity Generating Plant in Ethiopia
financed by bi-lateral donors, to create a cross-border power trading grid within the Nile
Basin countries. These developments will greatly increase the export market for
competitively priced electrical energy and Ethiopia is ideally placed to exploit these vast
new markets.
With regard to the local market in Ethiopia, the main consumer centre is Addis Ababa
located some 400 air-km (and 600 road-km) from the GD-3 project. This market could be
supplied by reinforcing the existing 230kV network or through the planned 400kV network
The closest node in the 230kV interconnected grid is at the Melka Wakena HPP some 175
air-km (and 250 road-km) from GD-3. With regard to the Kenyan market, preliminary plans
to interconnect the two national grids have already been drawn up by both countries. The
main node in Ethiopia will be at the town of Mega, some 50km north of the Ethiopia-Kenya
border and some 295 road-km from the GD-3 site. A converter station will be erected at
Mega to convert high voltage AC to high voltage DC. From this converter station, energy
will be transmitted some 465 air-km probably to the town of Eldoret in western Kenya
through a 500kV DC link, or else to Nairobi..
This report assesses the above two markets in terms of forecast electricity supply and
demand and in terms of candidate electricity generating projects with which GD-3 would
compete. For both markets, in Ethiopia and in Kenya, the organization of the respective
electricity market is briefly described, followed by the electricity demand forecast and each
country’s generation expansion targets. In Ethiopia, these expansion targets are not
based on the classical models of organic demand growth, rather they are based on the
Federal Government’s goals of promoting social and economic development and reducing
poverty. After the expansion targets, the schedule of committed generation projects to
meet each of the two countries’ ambitions is presented. By comparing the committed
schedule with the targets, the timing of new generating capacity in both markets is
identified.
This assessment confirms the earliest date that the GD-3 Hydropower Project could enter
each of the two markets under consideration and indicates the economic unit generating
costs of candidate plants competing in the same markets.
2.2 Electricity Market in Ethiopia

2.2.1 Organization of the Power Sector
In Ethiopia, two separate electricity power systems are operated - the Interconnected
System (ICS) and the Self Contained System (SCS). The ICS serves the major towns and
industrial centres, while the SCS serves isolated load centres. The ICS is by far the
largest of the power systems, both in terms of area coverage and generating capacity.
The demand for electricity in Ethiopia will be met largely through the ICS and the present
study focuses on capacity additions to that power system.
Ethiopia's electricity supply system is operated by the Ethiopian Electric Power
Corporation (EEPCo), which was previously the Ethiopian Electric Light and Power
Authority (EELPA). EELPA was established in 1956 as a statutory agency wholly owned
by the Ethiopian Government. In 1997, it was converted to a Corporation under the Public
Enterprise Act of 1992. EEPCo is responsible for generation, transmission and distribution
of electricity in Ethiopia. The Government sets the electricity tariffs by which EEPCo may
sell electricity.
With regard to planning new electricity generation projects, the Ministry of Water
Resources (MoWR) is responsible for identifying and assessing new hydropower
resources, while EEPCo takes responsibility for developing new thermal, wind and
hydropower projects. In the area of hydropower planning and design, there has been
some overlap between MoWR and EEPCo with both authorities developing projects from
reconnaissance through to a level sufficient for tendering.

The specific changes that have been made recently are delineation of the operation and
regulatory function and liberalise the sector to promote private investment. Accordingly the
Electricity Proclamation (No. 86/97) was issued in July 1997. This proclamation sets up
the Ethiopian Electric Agency (EEA) as regulatory agency and establishes the Agency’s
major duties and responsibilities as well as licensing provisions for operators in the power
sector.
The power sector reform is part of the general scheme of reforming the economy,
primarily through a shift from what was a command-type economic policy to a market-
oriented policy. This aims to improve the efficiency and financial viability of the public
utility, EEPCo, for sustained growth of the public supply system as well as ensuring
participation by private investors. The following key reform measures have been taken:
! EEPCo was re-established as a public, commercial enterprise by a Ministerial Council
Regulation in 1997.
! The scope of private sector participation in power generation was broadened by
proclamation No. 116/1198.
! Electricity Operations (supply) Regulation was issued as a Ministerial Council
Regulation No. 49/1999 in May 1999.
2.2.2 Present Generating Capacity

As mentioned above, EEPCo currently operates two separate power supply systems,
namely the Interconnected System (ICS) and the Self Contained System (SCS). At the
end of the Ethiopian Fiscal Year (8th July to 7th July) 2005/06, the large ICS had a total
installed capacity of 755MW, while the much smaller SCS had a total installed capacity of
some 20MW. Almost all of the electricity supplied in the ICS is provided by hydropower.
The eight hydropower plants in the ICS have a total installed capacity of 663 MW. Three
new diesel plants with a total installed capacity of 78MW were been commissioned in
early 2004 to serve as emergency stand-by for the interconnected system. The remaining
generating capacity is made up of a number of small diesel generators (totalling some
7MW) of varying age and reliability and a single geothermal plant (7MW) which is
currently out of operation. The complete catalogue of the existing generating plant in the
ICS is presented in Table 2.1.
2.2.3 Demand Forecast

2.2.3.1 Historical Demand for Power and Energy
Figure 2.2 presents the historical development of power and generation demand within the
ICS. Since 1980 electricity demand in the ICS has increased at an average rate of some
7% per year. However, the record is characterized by longer periods of accelerated
growth followed by shorter periods of slow to flat growth. In the late 1980s growth rates
exceeded 10%, but fell back sharply between 1990 and 1992 to almost 0%. Over the five
years from 1992 to 1997, demand again grew at rates above 10% but from 1997 to 2000
the growth rate slowed again to below 4% per year. Since 2000, demand growth has
again accelerated at an annual rate of almost 10%.
Increases in electricity demand have been driven largely by the increase in consumer
numbers (7.1% per year from 1980 to 1990, and 5.7% per year from 1990 to 1997). The
annual connection rate of consumers has varied widely from some 5,000 in 1984 to over
41,000 in 2002, reflecting the transfer of SCS’s of different sizes to the ICS. In recent
years, EEPCo has accelerated the connection rate of new consumers.
In the fiscal year 2005/06, some 2,300 GWh were generated by the plants in the ICS. All
but a tiny fraction was generated by the hydropower plants. Corresponding sales were
some 1,907 GWh. In the same year, the peak power demand reached some 405MW.
However, during that year, EEPCo had to instigate load shedding due to insufficient
capacity, thus the “true” demand was greater than that reported.
2.2.3.2 System Energy Losses

In the early 1980s energy losses on the system level ranged between 10% and 13% of
generation. In the mid-1980s losses increased and have remained at the 16% to 19%
level since.
Figure 2.2: Historical Development of Energy Generation and Peak Power Demand in the ICS
700 3,500,000
600 3,000,000
Power (MW)
Annual Energy (MWh)

500 Energy (MWh) 2,500,000
Peak Power (MW)
400 2,000,000
300 1,500,000
200 1,000,000
100 500,000
0 0
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
2.2.3.3 Demand Patterns

The system load factor has remained constant over the years at between 56% and 58%. Due
to the stable load factor, peak demand has increased in line with generation. Over the last 10
years (1996-2006), demand for electricity has grown at an average rate of 7.4% per year.
Typical daily load curves from the ICS are shown in Figure 2.3 for a weekday and a
weekend day in September 2006.
Figure 2.3: Typical Daily Load Curves for Weekdays and Sundays
700
600
Thursday, 21st September, 2006
Sunday, 24th September, 2006
500
400
Load (MW)
300
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour

It shows two pronounced peaks on a working day - one in the morning and one in the
evening. The evening peak is significantly higher than the morning peak. The peak
demand in the morning is to a large extent caused by the use of electric injera cookers in
private households, and therefore has increased in importance with the expanding use of
these electric cookers. Injera is the local staple food, popular with most Ethiopians. On a
Sunday, there is only a single peak in the evening.
Average monthly electricity demand in the ICS for the year 2005/06 is shown in Figure
2.4. There is no pronounced seasonal pattern. Electricity consumption by the agricultural
sector is marginal, thus seasonal variations in agricultural activity have no impact on
electricity demand. Changes in temperature over the year are moderate, so there is no
seasonal demand for space heating or cooling.
Figure 2.4: Seasonal Load Characteristics in the ICS during 2005/06
400
350
Mean Monthly Power Demand (MW)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2.2.3.4 Future Targets for Electricity Generation in the ICS

In the past, forecasting electricity demand has been the cornerstone on which generation
expansion plans have been developed.
Demand forecasts had been prepared for EELPA’s ICS approximately every two years
since 1978, when the Canadian consulting company Acres carried out a detailed analysis
of power demand. The demand forecast was updated by Acres in 1980 and again in 1982
as part of a Power Planning Study. A joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Assessment Mission
reviewed the Power Planning Study in 1984 and updated the load forecast, which was
again updated by the World Bank in 1986. In 1987, IVO of Finland conducted a study of
an interconnection between Sudan and Ethiopia, and followed the World Bank forecast
with updated data. Acres updated the forecast in 1988 as part of the Interconnection
Study Djibouti-Ethiopia, in 1991 for the Ethiopia National Rural Electrification Project
Study, and again in 1995 as part of the Power System Planning Study Update. Also in
1995 IVO updated the Interconnection Study Ethiopia-Sudan and the load forecast
required for this study, obtaining slightly different results than those of Acres. In May 1996
and April 1997 EEPCo prepared updates of the load forecast; these were reviewed on
behalf of the World Bank by the Applied Energy Group in August 1997 and the updated
forecast was presented in November 1997.
Without exception, the forecasts of the 1980’s and early to mid 1990’s for the ICS had the
tendency to overestimate future growth for a number of reasons, in particular overly
optimistic expectations concerning economic growth, industrial sector development, and
project implementation by EELPA (loss reduction, boiler programme, rural electrification).
The reviews of those load forecasts therefore regularly resulted in downward revisions of
the projected energy sales, since projections considerably exceeded actual sales in the
period between the last forecast and the update.
In 1998, the LEK JV of Germany developed a forecast based on separate projections for
several major tariff categories. Three demand scenarios were established, namely a
Reference (or median) Scenario, a High Scenario and a Low Scenario. The High and Low
Scenarios defined upper and lower bounds within which future demand would be
expected to grow with a high degree of confidence. The projections of the LEK JV forecast
were as follows:
Forecast of Peak Power Demand (MW)
2005 2010 2015 2020
High Scenario 621 890 1,269 1,799
Reference Scenario 543 747 1,013 1,351
Low Scenario 460 617 819 1,068
Forecast of Energy Generation (GWh)
2005 2010 2015 2020
High Scenario 1,951 4,446 6,334 8,983
Reference Scenario 1,860 3,731 5,058 6,748
Low Scenario 1,758 3,081 4,087 5,334
Since 1998, actual demand has developed within a range defined by the Reference and
the Low Scenarios.
In 2002, Acres International of Canada updated the demand forecast. The projections of
Acres International are as follows:
Forecast of Peak Power Demand (MW)
2005 2010 2015 2020
Target Scenario 455 648 926 1,322
Moderate Scenario 455 619 823 1,090
Forecast of Energy Generation (GWh)
2005 2010 2015 2020
Target Scenario 2,292 3,265 4,667 6,663
Moderate Scenario 2,292 3,120 4,149 5,496
These latest projections are in the same range as those of LEK JV in 1998. However,
these forecasts fail to reflect two important factors – firstly, a much improved economic
climate within the country and secondly, the reforms taking place within EEPCo. In 2004,
almost 300MW (184 MW Gilgel Gibe and 89MW emergency diesel) of new generating
capacity has been brought on stream. Construction of another 720MW (300MW at Tekeze
HPP and 420MW at Gilgel Gibe II) is well under way, while the preparatory works (road
and camp construction) for the Gilgel Gibe III HPP (1,800MW) and for the Beles HPP
(460MW) have already begun. Reforms within EEPCo are accelerating the planning of
new generation and transmission capacity and the rate of connections to the ICS.
Despite the foregoing, all the previous projections of electricity demand, even the most
optimistic, have one trait in common - they forecast a rate of social and economic
development which barely keeps pace with population growth. In particular, these
forecasts do not meet the aspirations of modern Ethiopians. Today Ethiopia’s population
stands at between 70 and 75 million and it is growing at a rate of some 2 million every
year. The total installed electricity generating capacity stands at some 755 MW – this
translates to some 10 Watts per head of population or a light bulb for every Ethiopian
family. This is one, if not the lowest per capita installed capacity in the world. This situation
is not the result of an inability or an unwillingness to pay for electricity – in many rural
areas of Ethiopia, the country’s poorest are paying well in excess of 15 USc per kWh to
operators of diesel generators for a few hours of light every evening.
Modern Ethiopians, the rural farmers as well as the urban professionals, want electricity
and they are willing to pay for it. They want to halt the clearing of forests for firewood, they
want to conserve the nation’s soils, they want to stop environmental degradation and they
want to promote educational, commercial and industrial development.

It has been estimated that to provide every Ethiopian family today with just the most basic
electricity needs of some 3 kWh per day (circa 1kW for 2.5 hours to cook two hot meals
and circa 120W for 4 hours of light in the evening) from the ICS would require a total
installed capacity in the ICS of some 3,500MW. Commercial and industrial requirements
to support sustainable development could easily add a further 500MW to this requirement.
Just to keep pace with the growing population, this electricity generating requirement will
grow annually by between 20 and 30MW, so that over the next decade, the total electricity
generating requirement of the ICS could be at the very least some 4,250MW. To reach
this target is a genuine challenge, but the benefits to the environment alone will be
immense with huge knock-on benefits for social and economic development.
Given the above, EEPCo has decided, with good justification, to ignore the previous
demand forecasts and to focus its expansion planning on meeting predefined generation
expansion targets.
2.2.3.5 EEPCo’s Strategic Generation Expansion Target

In November 2004, EEPCo produced it’s 6 year strategic plan. This plan defines targets in
various branches of EEPCo’s business areas. In the area of generating capacity, the
strategic target is to have over 1,850MW installed by the year 2010/2011 as presented in
the following table.
Year 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
Installed Power Capacity (MW) 790 808 808 808 1624 1714 1864
Firm Energy Capacity (GWh/yr) 3380 3460 3460 3460 6263 6853 7329
This translates to an average growth rate in total electricity generating capacity exceeding
15% per year. In the following, the present generating capacity is identified followed by
committed additions in terms of capacity and scheduled commissioning date. A
comparison between the committed expansion plan and the target plan reveals the timing
and the size of the next additions to the generating capacity.
2.2.4 EEPCo’s Generation Expansion Plan

2.2.4.1 Present and Committed Generating Capacity
As presented above and shown in Table 2.1, the present plant has the capacity to
generate some 755MW of power and 3,142 GWh of energy per year. According to the
most recent projections, this will cover demand, with sufficient reserve, until 2007/2008.
Thereafter the first of those plants currently under construction should come on stream.
In the past EEPCo's plans for future additions to its generating capacity have included
rehabilitation and extension as well as new construction. Currently new construction is the
core of EEPCo’s expansion policy. Over the next 3 years, EEPCo has committed itself to
complete construction of new hydropower schemes at Gilgel Gibe II, Tekeze and Beles
with a total installed capacity of some 1,074MW. The principal characteristics of these
schemes are presented in Table 2.2.
Table 2.1: Power Plans Installed in the ICS (status – mid 2006)
Dependable Firm
Installed Capacity (2) (3)
Plant Name Plant Type (1)
Status (MW) Power Energy
Year
(MW) (GWh/year)
Units MW/Unit Total MW
Koka Hydro 1960/2000 Existing 3 14.4 43.2 42.0 171
Tis Abay I Hydro 1964/2000 Existing 3 3.8 11.4 11.0 65
Awash II Hydro 1966/ Existing 2 16.0 32.0 32.0 126
Awash III Hydro 1971/ Existing 2 16.0 32.0 32.0 126
Fincha’a (I-III) Hydro 1973 Existing 3 33.3 99.9 97.0 394
Melka Wakena Hydro 1988 Existing 3 51.0 153.0 148.0 604
Chara Chara Hydro 1996 Existing 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15
Fincha’a IV Hydro 2003 Existing 1 34.0 34.0 34.0 137
Tis Abay II Hydro 2001 Existing 2 36.5 73.0 68.0 279
Gilgel Gibe Hydro 2004 Existing 3 61.3 184.0 183.0 642
Alemaya Diesel 1958 Existing 1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0
Dire Dawa Diesel 1965 Existing 1 4.5 4.5 3.4 30
Adigrat Diesel 1992, 93, 95 Existing 1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0
Axum Diesel 1975, 92 Existing 1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0
Adwa Diesel 1998 Existing 1 3.0 3.0 2.3 20
Mekele Diesel 1984, 91, 93 Existing 1 2.8 0.0 0.0 0
Shire Diesel 1975, 91, 95 Existing 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0
Nekempt Diesel 1984 Existing 1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0
Ghimbi Diesel 1962, 84 Existing 1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0
Jimma Diesel Existing 1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0
Dire Dawa Emergency Diesel 2004 Existing 4 10.0 40.0 31.2 273
Awash Emergency Diesel 2004 Existing 10 2.4 24.0 18.7 164
Kaliti Emergency Diesel 2004 Existing 4 3.5 14.0 10.9 95
Aluto Langano Geothermal 1999 Existing 1 7.3 7.3 0.0 0
Total Hydropower (Installed) 662.5 647.0 2,560

Total Diesel (Installed) 85.5 66.5 583
Total Geothermal (Installed) 7.3 0.0 0
Total (Installed) 755 714 3,142
Table 2.2: Committed Additions to the ICS (status - mid 2006)

Dependable Firm
Installed Capacity
Plant Name Plant Type (1)
Status Power (2) Energy (3)
Year (MW)
(MW) (GWh/year)
Units MW/Unit Total MW
Tekeze Hydro 2008 Construction 4 75.0 300.0 194.0 981
Gilgel Gibe II Hydro 2008 Construction 4 105.0 420.0 420.0 2,024
Beles Hydro 2008 Construction 4 115.0 460.0 460.0 1,612 (4)
Gilgel Gibe III Hydro 2010 Committed 10 180.0 1800.0 1,720.0 (5) 4,300 (5)
Gojeb Hydro ???? Committed 3 51.0 153.0 90.0 413
Total Hydropower (Committed) 3133.0 2884.0 9,330

Total Diesel (Committed) 0.0 0.0 0
Total Geothermal (Committed) 0.0 0.0 0
Total (Committed) 3,133 2,884 9,330
Note: (1) Year of commissioning/rehabilitation.

(2) For hydropower plants, maximum power available when head across the units is at a minimum:
for reservoir plants, usually when reservoir is at or close to Minimum Operating Level,
for run-of-river plants, usually when tailwater is highest.
(3) For hydropower plants, usually the result of reservoir operation studies during feasibility investigations.
(4) For Beles, this is the net firm energy, i.e. the gross firm energy from Beles (1,866 GWh)
minus the loss of firm energy from the Tis Abay Plants (254 GWh).
(5) These data are as yet unconfirmed by the Project Developer.

2.2.4.2 New Generating Capacity

Figure 2.5 presents, in graphic form, the schedule of committed additions to EEPCo’s ICS
plotted against a target generation expansion plan. The first six years of this target
expansion plan up to 2010 are the system installed capacity targets set by EEPCo in their
Strategic Plan (published in November, 2004). Beyond 2010, the target schedule has
been set by the Consultant. The annual growth rates beyond 2010 are very high by
development standards. They begin at 15% but they gradually drop off to 10% by the year
2016 and to 5% by the year 2021. This target schedule will deliver 3,400MW by the year
2015 and just over 5,000MW by the year 2020. While this target schedule is ambitious it
will fall short, albeit by only some 100MW, of the target to provide the basic amount of
electrical energy to the entire predicted population in 2015. Over and above the
requirement for basic electricity for the population, there will be a further, equally
important, requirement for new generating capacity to support economic activities.
Figure 2.5: EEPCo’s Target Capacity vs Committed Capacity
7000
Target capacity
6000
Committed capacity
5000
Power (MW)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
A comparison between the committed schedule and the target schedule shows that the
targets will be met, with only minor shortfalls, until 2010. In, or shortly after, 2010 the first
new addition to the ICS will be required in order to meet the target. By 2015, an additional
1,800MW of new generating capacity, over and above that which is presently committed,
will have to be in operation. Even with the modest goals underlying the target schedule,
the market for new generating capacity to supply the local Ethiopian market is enormous.
2.2.5 Candidate Electricity Generating Projects/Plants Competing with GD-3

The Government of Ethiopia, through its Executing Agencies (the Ministry of Water
Resources, the Ministry of Energy and Mines and EEPCo), has investigated the feasibility
of generating electricity in commercial amounts from the following energy sources:
! indigenous gas and coal,
! oil,
! wind, and
! hydropower, both small and large scale.
2.2.5.1 Gas and Coal

Gas, in exploitable quantities, has been discovered in the south-east of the country close
to the border with Somalia. Unit generation costs will be high (estimated at over 7
USc/kWh) since this potential energy source is over 700 km from the country’s main load
centres in an area where the transport infrastructure is not well developed. There is also a
competing plan to use the gas to produce commercial fertilizer. Consequently the
Government is not currently pursuing plans to develop this as an energy source.
Coal has been discovered in Yayu, some 325km west of Addis Ababa. Investigations
have confirmed that there is enough coal of sufficient quality to fuel a power plant with an
installed capacity of some 100MW for some 35 years. This plant could feed base energy
into the ICS over the 8 to 9 month dry season, thus reducing the burden on the
hydropower schemes. The plant would close down during the wet season when hydro-
energy is plentiful. Currently, the area around Yayu has no industrial development and
Addis Ababa is the only load centre that could absorb 100MW of base power. Therefore
the high transmission costs will significantly increase the unit price of this energy. At the
present time, development of a coal fired power plant at Yayu have stalled due to high unit
generation costs and serious concerns about the impacts of mining and burning coal on
the local environment.
2.2.5.2 Oil
Exploitable quantities of oil have not been discovered within the borders of Ethiopia.
Electricity from this fuel source has to rely on foreign imports. The country has no coast
line and currently most of Ethiopia’s demand for refined oil products is transported either
from Djibouti or from the Sudan to Addis Ababa by fleets of road tankers. Both routes
involve transport distances approaching 1,000km. From Djibouti, the road within Ethiopia
is asphalted and all bridges are in reasonable condition. The route is likely to be further
upgraded within the next 10 to 15 years. However, within Djibouti the road is in a bad
condition. From Sudan, the road within Ethiopia is maintained in a good condition, but the
condition of the counterpart road in the Sudan is unknown and beyond the direct control of
Ethiopia.
Despite the supply drawbacks, EEPCo invested in almost 80MW of oil fuelled (diesel)
generators in 2004. These plants are foreseen as emergency capacity – they are not
foreseen to participate in daily load coverage. The fuel transport and storage costs make
this a costly option, and it increases the countries dependence on factors beyond its
control (ie fuel price and fuel availability). The current railway from Djibouti has little spare
capacity, but there are plans to rehabilitate and upgrade the entire system. Railway may
reduce the transport costs slightly, but the other drawbacks will remain – no control over
fuel price and availability, and high fuel storage costs.
From the above, it is evident that oil fired generation is a viable, albeit expensive and
relatively insecure, competitor to hydropower generation in general and to GD-3 in
particular. For comparative purposes, unit generation costs of two types of oil fired plant
have been estimated - diesel and combined cycle. Both can be operated largely on heavy
fuel oil (HFO), but light diesel oil (LDO) must be used during start-up and shutdown of the
plants.
Two fuel price scenarios were investigated, one for a crude oil price of 30 US$ and one for 60
US$ per bbl. For a mix of 90% HFO and 10% IDO the total costs of purchasing and
transporting the fuel from the Middle East to Dire Dawa via Djibouti are presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Fuel Prices for Ethiopia

Crude Oil Price 30 US$/bbl 60 US$/bbl Calorific Value
Price of Mix of HFO (90%) and IDO (10%) delivered 234 US$/ton 382 US$/ton 40.5 GJ/ton
The key performance and operating data of the two plant types are shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Performance and Operating Data for Candidate Thermal Plant - in Ethiopia
Installed Capital Fixed Variable Scheduled Forced Plant
Plant Capacity Cost OMR OMR Outage Outage Efficiency
(% of
(MW) (US$/kW) (US$/kW/a) (US$/kWh) (days/a) (%)
time)
Combined Cycle 3x80 789 6.3 0.0024 21 4 45.2
Medium Speed Diesel 20 900 10.1 0.0021 21 4 41.7
The resulting unit generation costs for these two plant types are given in Table 2.5 for a
50% load factor.
Table 2.5: Unit Generation Costs (USc/kWh) of Oil-Fired Plant – Ethiopia

Crude Oil Price (US$/bbl)
Plant Type
30 60
Combined Cycle 8.0 11.0
Medium Speed Diesel 8.1 11.4
2.2.5.3 Wind
With regard to wind, EEPCo is embarking on an investigation of its potential. Wind
turbines are now providing small, but significant, amounts of renewable energy to the
European and North American national grids. Installation costs are still significantly higher
than for renewable energy hydropower plants, but these costs have been dropping over
the past decade. Information from 1983 on wind speed and duration has been published
in the National Atlas of Ethiopia (1988). The information clearly shows that wind will not
provide any significant amounts of firm energy – there are significant periods of calm
conditions throughout the country. A further drawback is that the greatest proportion of
wind energy in the Genale-Dawa River Basin appears to be in the rainy season between
June and September, thus coinciding with the period of greatest hydropower potential.
2.2.5.4 Hydropower
Hydropower has been recognized for decades as the single most valuable resource in
Ethiopia. The hydropower potential of the country has been estimated at some 30,000
MW. The existence of large rivers flowing in deeply incised valleys provides very attractive
conditions for medium to large scale hydropower schemes. On the downside, the
country’s climate is such that relatively large reservoirs are required to store the high flows
during the pronounced 3 to 4 month high run-off season for release during the remaining
drier months. This situation militates against the small hydropower scheme which, by
definition, does not have a large dam and reservoir. During the long dry season river flows
drop to very low levels, thus small schemes have very little firm generating capacity and
would have to be complemented by some other firm energy source.
Given the above background, the Government of Ethiopia is currently focusing on
developing the country’s hydropower potential in medium to large scale schemes.
However, in order to make the most effective use of limited financial resources the
expansion of that hydropower potential is being carefully coordinated with the expansion
of other sectors, particularly the transport and industrial sectors. Reliable transport routes
are required to construct and maintain the power generation schemes. Industries are
needed to use the resulting power to produce tradable goods. With this in mind the MoWR
and EEPCo are focusing on identifying and developing key river basins for hydropower
development. This will be a more effective use of financial resources because the
infrastructure (roads and transmission lines) to construct and maintain the new
hydropower schemes and to transmit the generated energy will be concentrated in
corridors between the main load centres and the key river basins. The Government
believes that if this infrastructure is put into place at an early stage, say for a first project in
a key river basin, then subsequent stages of that project and subsequent projects in that
river basin will be much more attractive to private investors because the basin
infrastructure will already be in place.
At the present time, most attention is being focused on new, and as yet uncommitted,
hydropower projects on the following river basins:
! The Gibe River and its tributaries with the Gilgel Gibe (Stages III and IV) and Halele-
Werabesa (Stages I and II) Hydropower Projects.
! The Abay River (Blue Nile) and its tributaries with the Chemoga-Yeda (Stages I and II)
and the main Abay River Hydropower Projects (Karadobi, Mendaia and Border).
! Baro-Akobo River with the Baro (Stages I, II and Genji Diversion) Hydropower Project.
Hydropower projects on other rivers are also being promoted, but the above river basins
are currently yielding hydropower projects with attractively low unit generation costs (ref.
Michael Abebe, Hydropower & Dams, Issue 6, 2005) and these will compete with GD-3 for
implementation. Of the above schemes, those that have been studied to a level sufficient
to define the principal cost and performance parameters are as follows:
Installed Energy Project Unit
Date of
Capacity Generation Cost Generation
Project Name Cost
Cost (3)
Estimate
(MW) (GWh/a) (M US$) (USc/kWh)
Gilgel Gibe III 1,800 6,000 n/a 3.4 2006
Gilgel Gibe IV 2,000 7,500 n/a n/a 2006
Halele-Werabesa (I and II) 422 2,030 474 3.0 2005
Chemoga-Yeda (I and II) 280 1,348 391 3.5 2005
Karadobi (1) 1,600 12,314 (2) 2,232 3.8 2006
(1)
Baro (Stages I, II and Genji) 896 4,636 1,315 4.5 2006
Geba (Stages I and II) 259 1,734 n/a 2.3 2004
(1): scheme recommended by Norplan/Norconsult/Lahmeyer.
(2): including the additional energy generated at downstream schemes (in the Sudan) without additional
investment.
(3): rate for discounting is 10%.
2.3 Electricity Market in Kenya

2.3.1 Organization of the Power Sector
Kenya's power sector falls under the Ministry of Energy, which provides the general
oversight and policy direction. Regulation of the sector is carried out by the Electricity
Regulatory Board (ERB) which is an independent body. The main bulk power supplier is
the Kenya Electricity Generating Company Limited (KenGen), a wholly government-
owned company responsible for almost 80% of the electricity generated in Kenya. The
Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited (KPLC) is responsible for electricity
transmission and distribution to customers. KPLC purchases bulk power under Power
Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with KenGen and Independent Power Producers (IPPs).
Also, KPLC has an energy sales agreement with the Uganda Electricity Transmission
Company (UETCL) for exchange of power on a non-firm basis.
2.3.2 Present Generation Capacity

The interconnected system has an installed capacity of 1,083MW comprising 677MW
hydro, 128MW geothermal, 0.35MW wind, and 277MW thermal. A new short-term
contract was signed in January 2005 between KPLC and UETCL (of Uganda) for 10MW
export to Uganda on a non-firm basis to address power shortages in Uganda. The
effective capacity of the interconnected Kenyan system is 1,037MW while the highest
peak attained to date is 888MW, which includes 16MW export to Uganda. KenGen has an
installed interconnected capacity of 944MW while the IPPs have 143MW. Seven-year
contracts with two Independent Power Producers (IPPs) expired in 2004, but the contract
with one, Iberafrica Power Limited, was re-negotiated and extended by a further 15 years.
There is a possibility of KenGen purchasing the other IPP's 43MW barge mounted gas
turbine power plant. There are seven isolated mini-grids supplied by small thermal power
plants with a total of 9MW.

2.3.3 Demand Forecast

The power system demand for Kenya is given in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Power System Demand Forecast 2005-2025

Net Energy Net System Peak
Year
(GWh) (MW)
2004/05 5,641 920
2005/06 6,561 1,070
2006/07 7,481 1,220
2007/08 8,401 1,370
2008/09 9,321 1,520
2009/10 10,240 1,670
2010/11 11,160 1,820
2011/12 12,080 1,970
2012/13 13,000 2,120
2013/14 13,920 2,270
2014/15 14,839 2,420
2015/16 15,759 2,570
2016/17 16,679 2,720
2017/18 17,599 2,870
2018/19 18,519 3,020
2019/20 19,438 3,170
2020/21 20,358 3,320
2021/22 21,278 3,470
2022/23 22,198 3,620
2023/24 23,118 3,770
2024/25 24,037 3,920
2025/26 24,957 4,070
2.3.4 Expansion Plan for Kenyan Power System

KenGen is carrying out a study to significantly upgrade its hydro power plants in order to
optimize their capacity and energy outputs. Additional capacity will also be obtained after
completion of the Sondu Miriu 60MW hydropower plant in 2007, and installation of a third
35MW unit at the existing Olkaria II 70MW power plant.
Thereafter, the identified hydropower resources of Kenya will be exhausted. Circa 279
MW of hydropower is still available, but can only be developed at a high cost. The country
has good potential to exploit both geothermal and wind energy (although wind will not
contribute more than 10% of the system generating capacity). Solar power is interesting
for isolated areas, but much too expensive for the integrated grid. Kenya’s least cost
expansion plan is shown in Figure 2.6. This plan confirms that, for the foreseeable future,
fossil fuel fired generating plant and electricity imports from neighbours are the only
feasible options to meet Kenya’s growing electricity demand. Imported capacity is
scheduled to rise from around 100MW in 2009 to around 200MW by 2012 and thereafter
to over 500MW by 2018. This growing demand for imported power could be met, not only
by GD-3, but also by the downstream plants of GD-5 and GD-6 provided that the unit
generation cost is lower than those of indigenous fossil fuel fired generation.
Figure 2.6: Kenya’s Least Cost Generation Expansion Plan, 2006-2026
2.3.5 Candidate Electricity Generating Projects/Plants Competing with GD-3

From the above, it is obvious that the GD-3 hydropower scheme will compete with both
imports from other grids (eg from the Ugandan grid) and with fossil fuel fired generating
plant located in Kenya. There is insufficient information available to assess the likely unit
generation costs of electricity imports from other grids, but they have been estimated for a
variety of viable fossil fuel fired plant. Given that Kenya has a well established port at
Mombasa, it is able to import both refined oil and coal.
Two fuel price scenarios were used, one for a crude oil price of 30 US$ per bbl and a coal
price of 40 US$/ton and one for a crude oil price of 60 US$ per bbl and a coal price of 60
US$/ton. For a mix of 90% HFO and 10% IDO the total cost of purchase and transport of
the fuel are as presented in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7: Fuel Prices for Kenya

Crude Oil Price 30 US$/bbl 60 US$/bbl Calorific Value
Price of Mix of HFO (90%) and IDO (10%) delivered 195 US$/ton 350 US$/ton 40.5 GJ/ton
Price of Imported coal (cif) 40 US$/ton 60 US$/ton 25.0 GJ/ton
The key performance and operating data of the various plant types are shown in Table 2.8.
Table 2.8: Performance and Operating Data for Candidate Thermal Plant - in Kenya
Installed Capital Fixed Varibale Scheduled Forced Plant
Plant
Capacity Cost OMR OMR Outage Outage Efficiency
(% of
(MW) (US$/kW) (US$/kW/a) (US$/kWh) (days/a) (%)
time)
Coal Plant 150 1347 15.2 0.0034 35 6 30.6
Gas Turbine 90 488 4.3 0.0016 21 5 31.2
Combined Cycle 3 x 80 789 6.3 0.0024 21 4 45.2
Low Speed Diesel 50 1333 15.0 0.0032 21 4 43.4
Medium Speed Diesel 20 900 10.1 0.0021 21 4 41.7

The resulting unit generation costs for these options are given in Table 2.9 for a 50% load
factor.
Table 2.9: Specific Generation Costs – Kenya

Crude Oil Price (US$/bbl)
Plant Type
30 60
Gas Turbine 11.3 19.2
Combined Cycle 7.7 10.9
Low Speed Diesel 8.9 12.2
Medium Speed Diesel 7.7 11.2
Coal Price (US$/ton)
40 60
Coal Plant 8.0 9.0
2.4 Conclusions
2.4.1 Market Selected for GD-3
In Ethiopia, according to the current schedule of committed hydropower schemes, there
will be a requirement, and therefore a market, for additional electricity generating capacity
in or soon after 2015 in order to meet the Governments prospective targets. GD-3 could
easily be commissioned by that date and supplying the growing demand. The viable
alternatives (or competitors) to GD-3 are fossil fuel fired power plants and/or other
hydropower schemes in Ethiopia. The viable fossil fuel fired plants would generate
electricity at between 8.0 and 11.4 USs/kWh, depending on crude oil prices. The planned
hydropower schemes would generate electricity at between 3.0 and 4.5 USc/kWh.
In Kenya, the hydropower resources are largely exhausted and according to the current
expansion plan, electricity will have to be imported and/or new thermal plant
commissioned by the year 2010. GD-3 could not be commissioned by that date, but
thereafter the demand in Kenya for imported electricity is forecast to rise rapidly and GD-3
coming on stream in 2013/14 is well placed to meet this demand. The viable alternatives
(or competitors) to GD-3 in Kenya are fossil fuel fired power plants. The most attractive
fossil fuel fired plants would generate electricity at between 7.7 and 12.2 USc/kWh,
depending on crude oil and coal prices.
From the above it is clear that GD-3 could supply the electricity markets in both Ethiopia
and in Kenya. Although the generation expansion targets set in Ethiopia will require
massive investments in new generating capacity, there are several very attractive
hydropower schemes in the planning pipeline – in other words competition will be stronger
in Ethiopia than in Kenya. In Kenya, hydropower resources have been largely exhausted
and competitors of GD-3 will be expensive fossil fuel fired plant.
Based on the above, the GD-3 scheme will, for the present feasibility study, be developed
to feed into the Kenyan market. This will in no way prevent the scheme from supplying the
domestic Ethiopian market, but by electing to feed into the Kenyan market, the economic
and financial indicators will be significantly more attractive.
2.4.2 Further Aspects for Consideration

Ethiopia's exploitable hydropower potential, estimated at 30,000 MW, is greatly in excess
of the countries indigenous demand and the most promising sites offer low cost
development. There is therefore a huge potential, not only to export hydro energy during
periods of surplus, but to develop hydropower schemes exclusively for exporting energy.
Ethiopia's neighbours have either mixed hydro-thermal generation systems (like Kenya
and the Sudan) or exclusively thermal generation systems (like Djibouti and Eritrea).
During periods of high river flows in Ethiopia, the surplus hydroelectric energy could be
exported to these systems resulting in savings in fossil fuel purchases. Ethiopia's
generation system would also benefit through imports of thermal energy during periods
when hydro capacity is insufficient to meet indigenous demand. Under power trading
agreements with neighbouring countries hydropower sites within Ethiopia could be
developed at lower costs with smaller reservoirs and less resettlement. In an isolated
predominantly hydro based system like that of EEPCo, non-firm energy has no value. The
result is that existing and planned reservoirs are relatively large in order to guarantee a
high degree of regulation. With power trading agreements through transmission
interconnections with thermal systems, future reservoirs could be smaller. Firm energy
yields would be smaller but this would be compensated by higher non-firm energy yields
which could be sold to neighbouring grids or traded for firm energy during dry periods. The
advantages for Ethiopia are clear - financial profit through energy exports and lower cost
indigenous hydropower schemes requiring less painful resettlement programmes. This
environment of larger markets and lower capital costs will encourage investment and
allow the Government of Ethiopia to set ever more ambitious expansion targets.

3 Project Physical Setting
3.1 General
In the following the principal characteristics of the physical environment within which the
GD-3 project has been developed are presented. These characteristics are grouped under
the following headings:
! Topography,
! Geology,
! Construction materials,
! Seismology,
! Hydrology,
! Sediment yield.
Some of the characteristics have been determined by direct observations in the field,
some have been gathered from published and/or archived information, while others have
been derived from analyses. In the latter case, the method of derivation is presented as
well as the characteristics themselves. In addition to presenting the natural characteristics
themselves, we have, as appropriate, identified (1) the impacts that these characteristics
have had on the process of selecting the preferred project layout and/or designing the
individual project components, or (2) the implications that these characteristics will or
might have on project implementation and operation.
3.2 Topography of the Main Project Sites

The two main sites of surface construction are the dam site and the powerhouse site.
3.2.1 Dam Site Topography

A map of the dam site has been compiled by merging information from the following
sources:
! Maps published by the Ethiopian Mapping Authority at scale 1:50,000 with contours at
20m intervals.
! Ethiopian Mapping Authority maps at scale 1:10,000 with contours at 5m intervals.
! SRTM (Space Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) data downloaded from the Internet
in the form of a DEM (Digital Elevation Model) with elevations averaged over 90m
square cells1.
! Field survey of the dam axis and surrounding area within a 500m radius.
The main topographic features at the dam site are as follows:
! A river channel some 65 m wide (incorporating a deeper dry season channel some
20m wide) with a bed elevation of some 1015 m asl and an average bed gradient of
some 1 (V): 160 (H).
! An almost symmetrical valley section with an average gradient on each abutment of
some 1 (V) : 1.8 (H) over a vertical height of some 280m from the river level:
Beyond 280m above the river bed, the gradients flatten appreciably to follow the crests of
undulating ridges.
1
Data source: Void-filled seamless SRTM data V1, 2004, International Centre for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT), available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.
Project Physical Setting
At the narrowest cross-section, the valley widths at different elevations are as follows:
Elevation Valley Width Width:Height
(m asl) (m) Ratio
1015 0 -
1050 170 4.9
1100 340 4.0
1150 520 3.9
1200 680 3.7
1250 900 3.8
1300 1,190 4.2
1350 >4,000 >12
The ratios of width:height at this cross-section would not suit an arch dam but will suit, in
terms of costs related to topography, an embankment dam or an RCC dam. The
topographic setting will not limit dam height (at least not until crest elevations above
1300m asl). There are no low saddles or narrow ridges in the vicinity of the dam or around
the reservoir rims that would require closing and or sealing at reservoir levels up to 1300m
asl.
3.2.2 Powerhouse Site Topography

A map of the powerhouse site has been compiled by merging information from the
following sources:
20m intervals.
! Ethiopian Mapping Authority maps at scale 1:10,000 with contours at 5m intervals.
square cells (source see above).
The main topographic features at the powerhouse site are as follows:
! A main river channel some 100 m wide with a bed elevation of some 840 m asl and an
average bed gradient of some 1(V) : 600(H).
! Wide and gently sloping banks above flood level.
! A ridge extending, at slightly less than perpendicular to the river flow direction, from
close to the river up to an elevation of over 1,400 m asl. The ridge crest has several
pronounced sections:
− a gentler lower section with an average gradient of 1(V) : 10(H) from near river
level up to 120m above river level,
− a steep middle section with an average gradient of 1(V) : 4.5(H) extending up a
further 200m,
− a very steep upper section with an average gradient of 1(V) : 1.5(H) extending up
a further 180m,
− a gentler uppermost section with an average gradient of 1(V) : 20(H) extending
up to elevation 1,400m asl.
The topography of the area does not impose restrictions on either a surface or an
underground powerhouse. The ridge extending to the river will provide good cover for
underground openings, while the wide river banks above flood level suit the space
requirements of a surface powerhouse or of a tailrace outfall structure. The topography of
the middle and lower sections of the ridge crest would suit the requirements of a surface
steel penstock.

3.2.3 Reservoir Topography

A map of the reservoir area has been compiled by merging information from the following
sources:
20m intervals.
square cells (source see above).
The main topographic features at the reservoir area are as follows:
! A narrow gorge extending from the dam site with a river elevation of 1020m asl in an
upstream direction for some 5km to the station with a river elevation of 1050m asl.
! An up to 5km wide and relatively flat river valley extending from the river section with
elevation 1050m asl some 17km further upstream to the station with a river elevation
of 1100m asl.
The elevation-surface area-capacity relations of the valley upstream of the GD-3 dam site
have been compiled from the SRTM (Space Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) data
downloaded from the Internet in the form of a DEM (Digital Elevation Model) with
elevations averaged over 90m square cells. The resulting relationships are plotted in
Figure 3.1 and presented in tabular form below.
Figure 3.1: Elevation-Area-Storage Curve of GD-3 Reservoir Area

Elevation Surface Area Storage Surface Area (km2)
(m asl) (km2) (Mm3)
150 125 100 75 50 25 0
1,020 0 0
1,140
1,043 1 6 1,130
1,059 3 34 1,120
1,110
1,067 7 76
1,100
Elevation (masl)
1,076 18 192
1,090
1,084 30 385 1,080
Surface
1,092 43 676 1,070 Storage Area
1,100 58 1,079 1,060
1,050
1,109 75 1,675
1,040
1,117 91 2,339
1,030
1,124 106 3,026 1,020
1,130 120 3,704 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Storage (Mm3)
1,137 135 4,595
The valley upstream of the GD-3 dam site offers only minimal storage below elevation
1070m asl. However, above that elevation up to elevation 1130m asl and above, very
large amounts of storage are available. The very limited storage at lower elevations
means that floods during construction will not be greatly attenuated and water levels at the
dam site will rise to relatively high levels during river diversion. A further impact is that
immediately after reservoir impoundment begins, the reservoir water level will rise
relatively quickly. The very large storages available up to 1130m asl and above mean that
very high degrees of flow regulation, firm energy generation and flood attenuation will be
possible.
3.2.4 Impact of the Topographic Setting on Layout and Design

The impact of the topographic setting on layout and design are summarized as follows:
! At the proposed dam site, the width: height ratios of the valley cross-section are
suitable for an embankment or an RCC type of dam, but not an arch dam.
! The topographic setting will not limit dam heights for dams with crest elevations up to
1300m asl.
! The valley upstream of the GD-3 dam site offers only minimal storage below elevation
1070m asl. However, above that elevation, very large amounts of storage are
available.
! The very limited storage at lower elevations means that floods during construction will
not be greatly attenuated and water levels at the dam site will rise to relatively high
levels during river diversion. A further impact is that immediately after reservoir
impoundment begins, the reservoir water level will rise relatively quickly.
! The very large storages available above 1070m asl mean that very high degrees of
flow regulation, firm energy generation and flood attenuation will be possible.
! The topography of the powerhouse site suits the requirements of both an underground
and a surface powerhouse.
! The topography of the ridge crest above the powerhouse site suits the requirements of
a surface steel penstock.
3.3 Geology
A full report on the geological studies is contained in Annex A of Volume IV. In this
chapter 3.3 a summary is given.
3.3.1 Regional Geology

Ethiopia straddles the East African Rift System, which separates the Nubian tectonic plate
in the west from the Somalian plate in the east. The Red Sea separates the Nubian plate
from the Arabian plate. The project area is thus situated on the Somalian plate.
The oldest rocks in Ethiopia, forming the Archean basement complex, are over 600 million
years old and consist of highly folded and faulted gneisses, schists and other
metamorphic rocks. These rocks occur upstream of the dam site in most of the reservoir
basin and in the river valley about 2km downstream of the power house site. These were
overlain by sedimentary and volcanic rocks during the Proterozoic which were in turn
metamorphosed, deformed and intruded by late Proterozoic (Precambrian) pegmatoidal
and biotite granites. The GD-3 dam site and hydropower project are situated in the
pegmatoidal granites. In the area of the power house site there are significant remnants of
the older schists and gneisses within the granites. These Proterozoic rocks were largely
eroded during a long period of uplift.
Approximately 225 million years ago, at the beginning of the Mesozoic era, renewed
crustal activity resulted in regional sinking of the earth’s crust. This caused a
transgression of the sea in which extensive sedimentary strata were laid down on a
relatively planar erosion surface. This massive sequence of sediments is of Jurassic to
Cretaceous age. In the project area they consist mainly of limestones with associated
mudstones and sandstones. The unconformable contact occurs at about 400m above
river level at the dam site and these sedimentary strata cap most of the ridges to the east
of the dam site below the proposed tunnel route. The contact dips to the east in a
downstream direction so that the sedimentary rocks entirely underlie the Genale valley
from about 80km downstream of the powerhouse site.
A reversal of the crustal movement resulting in uplift to the present sea level occurred
towards the end of the Cretaceous and early Tertiary approximately 65 million years ago.
Continuing uplift caused extensive crustal fracturing and faulting, accompanied by
widespread volcanic activity. Most of Ethiopia was buried by lava flows in the form of flood

basalts emanating from these fractures and fissures and interspersed by pyroclastics in
the form of agglomerates and tuffs ejected from volcanoes.
Major displacement accompanied by tilting along regional fault systems such as in the
Ethiopian Rift Valley, started during the middle Tertiary, approximately 37 million years
ago. Subsidence of large crustal blocks along near vertical fault zones created graben-
type depressions along the Rift Valley and elsewhere. These earlier flood basalts known
as the Ashangi Formation in the north and east and the Jimma volcanics in the south and
west were followed by younger flood basalts and shield volcanoes. In the project area the
Ashangi flood basalts overlie the sedimentary rocks about 100km to the northeast. The
nearest basalts form a small remnant of Tertiary basalts overlying basement gneisses
about 10km to the north west of Negele along the road to Awasa, where the road to
Genale Donte and to the dam site turns off. The youngest volcanic rocks are of
Quaternary age and consist of alkaline basalts and trachytes. They form the Bale
Mountains about 60km north of the dam site in the headwaters of the Genale River.
3.3.2 Project Geology

The EIGS geological map show that all the proposed structures for the GD-3 Hydropower
project are located within Late Precambrian post-tectonic pegmatoidal granite. These
pegmatoidal granites have intruded older basement biotite gneisses and granites. The
contact with these older rocks is shown to be about 2km downstream of the power house
and about 5km upstream of the dam site.
Probably because of the proximity to the contact with older rocks, there are remnants of
the older rocks in the younger intrusive granites in the area of the powerhouse. In the
boreholes drilled in that area, both gneisses and feldspathic and biotite schists have been
encountered. In the river channel near the power house there are numerous outcrops of
the pegmatoidal granite containing remnants of biotite schist. Along the access track from
Negele to the dam site only very rare and scattered exposures of gneiss and biotite schist
are encountered while on the access track from Negele to the power house site there are
numerous exposures of gneisses, schists and quartzites. Several dykes of dolerite,
metamorphosed to amphibolite, have also been observed along the track to the power
house.
A study of the aerial photos shows what appears to be a tongue containing both
pegmatoidal granites and older gneisses and schists running up the Genale River for
about 10km to 12km. This tongue includes the flattish terrain on both sides of the river as
well as the lower slopes of the higher terrain to the south and north of the river. However
the upper slopes appear to be mainly in pegmatoidal granites. Smaller tongues of these
mixed rocks occur in the Kurawa Dera and Kurawa Kuru-o tributaries immediately
downstream of the power house and presumably underlie the pegmatoidal granites on the
intervening ridges.
The pegmatoidal granites consist of both pegmatitic granite and granite. The pegmatitic
granites are generally very coarse to coarse grained, while the granites are generally
medium grained but occasionally coarse and very occasionally fine grained. The
pegmatoidal granites contain a significantly greater proportion of feldspar than normal
granite and a relatively high mica content. Petrographic analyses show up to 63% feldspar
in the pegmatoidal granite and 79% feldspar in the pegmatites. Pegmatoidal is the term
used on the EIGS maps but is synonymous with pegmatitic and is the adjectival form of
pegmatite. Pegmatites are igneous rocks of coarse grain usually occurring as dykes
intruded into larger plutonic bodies of finer grain size. These pegmatoidal granites have
intruded the large body of older gneisses and give the impression that the whole body is
pegmatoidal. However there are smaller granitic pegmatites as well as aplites (fine
grained granites normally occurring as dykes) intruded into the body of pegmatoidal
granite along annealed joints or fractures so that the body as a whole is massive and
relatively un-jointed. Some of these smaller pegmatites are mainly feldspathic and some
are mainly quartz. Some contain very large flat crystals of mica.
It is difficult to see much sign of gneissic or schistose texture in the granite outcrops but
the petrographic analyses by EIGS describes all the pegmatoidal granitic rocks as schist
or gneiss or mete-granite, i.e. the pegmatoidal granites have all been metamorphosed to
some extent.
The remnants of schist and gneiss encountered in the pegmatoidal granites are normally
rich in biotite with a well developed foliation or cleavage.
It is difficult to see any indication of structure in the outcrops of the pegmatoidal granites
but on three dimensional stereo images of the aerial photographs, there appear to be
some form of structures. These are possibly related to tectonic folding or to some form of
intrusive structure related to the folded structures in the older basement rocks. The dam
axis appears on the stereo images to be located on an anticlinal structure, approximately
on and parallel to the axis.
In the basement rocks downstream of the power house, the EIGS geological map shows
foliation and fold axes striking about 330° N, or about 30° west of north. The strike varies
between NW and N and the foliation generally dips at about 45°, varying between about
30° and 60° towards the west or south west. In the area of the power house, many similar
orientations of the foliations and contacts between granite and gneisses or schists have
been observed. However there are numerous remnants of the older rocks where the
foliations and contacts are quite different and variable, showing that the structure of the
older rocks has been significantly disturbed during intrusion of the granite.
The stretch of river valley in which the proposed GD-3 dam is situated is a relatively
narrow gorge with a relatively steeper gradient compared to the sections of river in the
older gneisses and schists, both upstream and downstream. The terrain is relatively
complex compared to the more open terrain in the older basement rocks. There are many
cliffs, tor shaped outcrops, small inselbergs and major dome-shaped outcrops of granite
as well as single and piles of large rounded granite boulders. This morphology or scenery
is typical of granitic rocks in tropical parts of Africa.
These large and rounded boulders are typical of core stone weathering that occurs in
massive igneous rocks. The rounded rocks result from the preferential weathering along
joints and especially at the intersection of joints. The weathered rock is washed away
leaving a rounded relatively unweathered core stone. These core stones can be observed
at and around the dam site. They can be completely exposed and piled on top of each
other or they can still be on the ground surface and embedded in the surrounding
weathered rock. Several core stones of less weathered rock embedded in highly to
completely weathered rock were encountered in test pits on the dam axis.
Another geological phenomenon observed in the project area that affects excavations and
foundations in these massive granites is stress relief. These rocks were formed at great
depth and have locked-in high overburden stresses. When these rocks are exposed at
surface due to uplift and erosion, stress relief results in the formation of new joints. This is
especially prevalent in massive igneous rocks where there are relatively few joints for
stress relief to take place. These joints are generally parallel to the ground surface but
other orientations, including joints perpendicular to the stress relief joints, also occur.
Weathering then takes place along these stress relief joints. This explains why there are
often small core stones overlying massive un-jointed rocks. These stress relief joints are
generally open and permeable and those joints parallel to the surface are often hidden at
depth. In general, stress relief features occur only to about 25m below surface with a
gradual decrease in the opening of the joints with depth. In the dam site area it appears
only to occur to about 10m while on the power house ridge it appears to be down to about
40m. Stress relief should occur more readily on an unconfined ridge compared to a
confined valley, but the deeper stress relief may also be due to the presence of schists
and gneisses within the granites.
Two different processes, but resulting in similar features as stress relief, are caused by
thermal expansion and by swelling during surface weathering. These processes result in
thin slabs of rock varying in thickness from millimetres up to about a metre peeling off the

underlying bedrock. The process of thin layers of rock, spalling from the surface due to
thermal expansion and weathering is known as exfoliation.
Weathering in the dam valley is generally less than about 5m. In the 5 boreholes on the
dam axis the maximum was 4.4m. In the two coffer dam boreholes and power intake
borehole it was 8m. However weathering can take place to greater depths along isolated
joints. Weathering generally takes place down to the water table in open joints. In general
the Lugeon tests have shown that the rock mass at the dam site is generally tight below
6m but this could extend to 10 m or possibly more in places. In the power house area
weathering extends to about 15m on the ridge and about 9m in proximity to the river. This
deeper weathering is probably due to the presence of schists within the granites as the
foliated schists with a significant mica content are more prone to weathering. In the quarry
area weathering for some reason extends to at least 8m and up to nearly 30m in places.
This could be due to the presence of vertical jointing allowing preferential weathering.
Future drilling for quarry investigations should make use of angled boreholes to avoid
drilling down vertical fractures.
The limestones that overlie the pegmatoidal granites and older basement rocks on an old
erosion surface do not affect the project structures. The limestones occur at about 1400m
elevation and cap the ridges along the headrace tunnel route. They do not occur within
the reservoir so that there is no danger of leakage through karst formations. A sample of
limestone from the ridge above the tunnel axis was found to contain 75% calcite, 22%
fossils and 3% iron-oxide. The high fossil content results in a relatively weak rock and the
limestones are unlikely to provide a superior concrete aggregate than granite. They
should however be investigated in more detail.
The groundwater depths below ground surface measured in the boreholes are quite
variable. Although the groundwater table rises away from the river it rises irregularly. The
ground water is present primarily in open joints related to stress relief. The rock itself has
a very low primary permeability and the rock mass itself also has a low secondary
permeability as the joints are generally annealed by pegmatites. It is only near surface
that the rock mass has a higher secondary permeability due to open joints resulting from
stress relief.
3.3.3 Dam Site

In summary, the rock formation at the dam site is fairly uniform consisting of post-tectonic
pegmatoidal granite. It is composed mainly of coarse grained feldspar and quartz. The
rock mass is relatively massive with only minor jointing. The major joint directions are
vertical and horizontal. The rock mass is considered strong to very strong and watertight.
In the dam area, weathering depths are generally shallow – of the order of 5m. There are
a number of large boulders and blocks of rock embedded in the dam abutments which will
require excavation. The slopes at and around the dam site are steep but stable – there or
no unfavourable major joint planes. These slopes should remain largely stable during and
after impoundment, although minor surface slides may occur along shallow surface-
parallel exfoliation planes.
The above conditions will support all dam types. The shallow depth of weathering and the
uniformly strong base rock particularly suit the hard, strong and densest of dams – namely
a concrete gravity dam.
3.3.4 Downstream of the Dam Site

In the areas downstream of the dam, through which power waterways would be driven to
the locations of prospective powerhouses, the geology becomes more complex. The rock
formation is less uniform comprising basement gneisses and schists which have been
intruded by pegmatoidal granite. The gneisses and schists are more jointed and, at higher
elevations, joints are more likely to be open and depths of weathering higher. At depth,
the rock mass will be strong and tight. Tunnels for waterways would probably pass
through rock of generally good quality. However, open joints might be encountered in
places and would require special treatment.
Slopes around the powerhouse are gentle and stable with no unfavourable major joint
planes. Slopes along the upper penstock route are steep, but again no unfavourable
major joint planes exist.
3.3.5 Upstream of the Dam

The rock formation upstream of the dam comprises both the older basement gneisses and
schists intruded by the younger granites. Limestone occurs on an old erosion surface at
elevations of between 1400m asl and 1500m asl. There is more jointing within the
gneisses and schists, but at lower elevations these joints are generally tight. The slopes in
the reservoir area are gentle and stable – they will not become unstable after
impoundment. The reservoir will be tight. Leakage through cavities in the limestone will be
impossible since this limestone sits some 300 to 400m above the reservoir.
3.3.6 Impact of the Geological Setting on Layout and Design

There are few constraints on layout and design imposed by the geological setting. The strong
foundations and shallow weathering suit both concrete gravity and embankment dams. The
strong rock mass conditions impose no constraints on excavating underground openings
(either caverns or tunnels). The largely uniform hard rock conditions between the dam and
power outfall areas favour tunnels driven by TBM. The impermeable rock underlying the
reservoir area will impose no restrictions on the reservoir size or top water level.
3.4 Construction Materials

3.4.1 Concrete Aggregate
The most obvious source of coarse concrete aggregate (stone) in the neighbourhood of
the dam is the proposed quarry on the right bank about 2km upstream of the dam axis.
The quarry has steep slopes or cliffs at the toe of the quarry and massive granite
outcrops. Boreholes drilled in the quarry area encountered usuable granitic rock at depths
generally ranging from 4m to 10m.
The results of strength testing proved that aggregate derived from this quarry would be
sufficient for manufacturing concrete of strengths up to at least 25MPa. With regard to
durability and resistance to abrasion, results of tests proved that aggregate from this
source would be satisfactory. The results of the alkali silica reaction (ASR) tests all show
that the granitic aggregates are innocuous and will not react adversely with cement.
The proposed quarry has a potential volume of about 6 million cubic metres, which is well
in excess of the total required aggregate volume which will be of the order of 1 million
cubic metres.
A second source of aggregates will be the rock spoil from the long headrace tunnel. This
material will be mucked out to the surge tank area and will thus be particularly useful for
concrete in the structures in and around the powerhouse (surge tank, pressure shaft,
tailrace tunnel, outfall).
One other option for concrete aggregate that should be considered is the use of
limestone. Limestones are in proximity to the access road from Negele to the power
house and the access road from the power house to the dam will traverse limestones.
3.4.2 Sand
Fine aggregate in the form of river sand or manufactured sand from the coarse aggregate
quarry is also required in large quantities. Sand was sampled and tested from two
tributaries of the Genale River. These are the Kilta River along the access track to the

dam site and the Kurawa-Dera River, about 3km downstream of the proposed power
house.
All the larger streams or rivers within the project area have sand along their courses but
the deposits are generally small and not economically workable for a large dam. The
sands along the tributaries and streams are generally also too coarse as they have not
been transported for sufficiently long distances to break down to smaller grain sizes.
There are significant terraces of sand exposed in the river channel during the low flow
season. These appear to consist of finer grained sands that could be suitable on their own
or blended with coarser river sands or crusher dust. These larger terraces can be
identified on the aerial photographs.
Alternatively sands can be manufactured by milling of suitable granites from a quarry.
3.4.3 Cement
Cement is available in Ethiopia from the Muger cement works in Shoa Province or from
Messobo in Tigray Province. It is understood that there are currently supply problems from
Muger. Both these cement works are quite distant from the site, especially the Messobo
works in Tigray separated by the Rift valley escarpment and in the case of Messobo by
the Abay and Tigray escarpments. Alternative sources in Kenya should be considered as
the local Jurassic limestones also occur in Kenya. Alternatively a new cement works in the
extensive limestone deposits in the Negele area could be justified in the same way that
the Messobo cement works was established for the construction of the Tekeze dam in
Tigray.
It is important that Mortar Bar Tests be carried out with the cement to be used together
with the sand and aggregates to be used for the concrete. This will be the only way to
ensure that there is no danger of alkali-silica reaction. The proposed cement should also
be analysed to assess the alkali content.
3.4.4 Pozzolanic Material

Adding natural pozzolan or materials with similar properties such as fly ash or blast
furnace slag can considerably reduce the amount of cement required and adds favourable
qualities to RCC. The most important are an increase in strength at a late age and a
decrease in the heat of hydration. They can also significantly reduce the alkali content in
the concrete and thus reduce alkali-silica reactions.
It is known that natural pozzolan occurs in the nearby Rift Valley and is already being
exploited for various purposes.
3.4.5 Construction Water

The Genale River will provide suitable water for the manufacture of concrete after the
removal of clay fines.
3.4.6 Rock Fill

All fresh granitic rock from the quarry or from foundation excavations will be suitable as
rock fill.
3.4.7 Impervious Soil

The colluvial and residual soils derived from the weathering of granite will provide suitable
impervious soils for the core of a rockfill dam as well as for sealing temporary cofferdams.
The soils are a clayey silty sand of sufficiently low permeability, high density, moderate
plasticity and suitable shear strength.
There are large quantities (of the order of several million cubic metres) of such material on
the left bank about 2km upstream of the dam site. There are sources closer on the right
bank about 1km upstream of the dam, but this land is likely to be required for construction
yards.
There are similar materials in close proximity to the power house outfall where coffer
dams will be required.
3.4.8 Road Construction Materials

Construction materials for roads in the form of embankment fill, selected sub-grade
material, sub-base course, and gravel wearing course will be required. If the road is to be
surfaced then materials will also be required for base course and surfacing aggregate.
The required materials for road construction are generally available all along the proposed
access roads for construction and operation. These are all derived from the granitic rocks
that underlie the almost the entire proposed roads alignment. There could be short
sections of road overlying limestone near Negele and on the ridges between the power
house and the dam, but granites are always in proximity.
The colluvial and residual clayey sands derived from the highly to completely weathered
granites that underlie most of the roads provide a suitable sub-grade foundation, suitable
as a selected sub-grade layer and suitable for embankment fill.
The moderately to highly weathered granites are suitable as a sub-base course and as a
gravel wearing course for un-surfaced roads. These weathered gravels will also provide a
suitable layer of erosion protection on embankment fills and on shoulders.
Moderately weathered granites stabilised with lime or cement can also provide a suitable
and durable road surface.
Alternatively crushed granite aggregate could be used for base course or surfacing
aggregate.
3.4.9 Impact of the Construction Materials on Layout and Design

Quarrying the coarser grained granites of the area will provide reasonably good rockfill
and rip-rap for an embankment dam and reasonably good coarser aggregates required for
an RCC dam. For conventional concrete aggregates, the stronger fine grained granites
are more suitable than the coarser grained granites, however, to date these finer grained
aggregates have been found only at depth below the project area. Good quality sands for
filters and concrete aggregates occur in localised banks along the main river and in its
tributaries upstream of the dam site. Large quantities of good impermeable core material
are readily available in terraces just upstream of the dam site and in the reservoir area.
Cement (both OPC and Pozzolan) is available from the Muger Cement Factory – some
650 road-km north-north-west of the project site.
The availability of reasonable quality rockfill and aggregate close to the dam site suits
both embankment and RCC dam types. However, the lower volume requirement of an
RCC dam favours this dam type. The long transport distance of cement will raise slightly
the cost of an RCC dam. The pozzolan deposits in the nearby Rift Valley will reduce the
requirement for cement, which will favour an RCC dam.
3.5 Seismicity
Previous studies by international consultants have shown that the GD-3 dam site is
located in an area of low seismic hazard (Hazard Class I). Peak ground accelerations to
be used in the analysis of the structural stability of the major project structures are as
follows:
! Maximum design earthquake (MDE): 0.12 g
! Operating basis earthquake (OBE): 0.06 g
These accelerations are relatively low by world standards and will not significantly
influence the type and layout of project structures.

3.6 Hydrology
A full report on the hydrological studies is contained in Annex B of Volume IV. In this
chapter 3.6 a summary is given.
3.6.1 General
The catchment area draining to the GD-3 hydropower project covers 10,445km2 and
includes the upper and mid-sections of the Genale main river sub-basin. In the upper
section, the main river drainage system is defined by three principal tributaries – the
Upper Genale, Geberticha and Iya. These tributaries originate from the Sidamo Mountains
which form the watershed-divide between Genale and neighbouring Rift Valley and Wabe
Shebelle river basins. The highest point on the northern divide is Mount Korduro with
elevation around 3,750 m asl. Other mountain peaks with elevations exceeding 3,000 m
asl can be found in this area.
The longest river course which defines the Genale River originates as the Logita tributary
with headwaters in the Koro forest. The Logita river flows first westwards then south–west
and meets the major Gelana tributary at around 1,900 m asl. On this course the Logita
descends rapidly until meeting the Bonora tributary at elevation 1,500 m asl. At this point
the combined streams form the Upper Genale and Genale main river, which then flows
generally south-eastwards with a moderate gradient over the remainder of its course up to
the project site. Physiographic characteristics of the other major tributaries Geberticha and
Iya are essentially similar to those of Logita and Bonora.
The principal gauging station at Chenemasa is located in the mid river section at elevation
1,120 m asl and commands an area of 9,190 km² with a total river length of 250 km. From
the station to the GD-3 damsite, only small tributaries enter the main river. The
incremental distance along the river between Chenemasa and the GD-3 damsite is 39 km.
Elevation falls and relative gradients along the Logita tributary and Genale main river
reach up to the GD-3 damsite and beyond are presented in the longitudinal profile in
Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: Logita and Genale River Profiles
3400
Logita-Genale river profile
3200 Major confluences
3000 Gauging stations
2800 Dam sites
2600
2400
Elevation (m a.s.l.)
2200
2000 Logita Station
1800 Gelana confluence
1600 Bonora confluence

1400 Geberticha confluence
Upper Genale Station Chenemasa Station
1200
1000 GD-3 Site
800 GD-6 Site

600
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (km)
3.6.2 Annual Rainfall over the Project Catchment

The distribution of rainfall over the catchment is presented in Error! Not a valid
bookmark self-reference. in the form of an isohyetal map. This isohyetal map shows the
rainfall increasing with elevation from 700mm per year over the lowlands of the south-east
to some 1600mm per year over the mountains of the north-west.
Figure 3.3: Isohyetal Map for the Genale Project Region - (Annual Rainfall – mm)
13
1300 (
!
(
! Goba
Isohyetal Map Dodola 900
900
0 0
10
GD-3 / GD-6 Catchment
0
0
0
110
Mean Annual
12
1200
Rainfall (mm) 1300
1000
14
Isohyet (100 mm) A. Wendo 0 0
(
!
Road 150 0 0
140 0 13 14
River Basin 0 00
Hagereselam
(
!
1400 Delo Mena
Scale: 1:2.000.000 Dila !
( (
!
1300
00 1200
0 15
160
0
80
1400
1100
1400
Gena
le
1000
( Bidire
! Welmel
00
(
!
900
15
Kibremengist 0
60
800
1100
Da
wa
Hagere Maryam !
(
* GD-3
#
90
0
80
0
700
Dawa enale
#G
*
600
Negele
(
!
500
GD-6
600
700
© GDMP 2005

3.6.3 Seasonal Distribution of Rainfall over the Project Catchment

The distribution of rainfall throughout the year at selected raingauge stations is presented
in Figure 3.4. Two peaks of rainfall are evident – the first peak in April and May and the
second in October. These peaks are more pronounced in the records of the drier lowland
stations. The average rainfall at the project site is some 765mm per year. The weighted
average rainfall over the catchment is estimated to be 1160mm per year.
Figure 3.4: Distribution of Rainfall at Stations in or close to the Genale Catchment
HAGERE SELAM (7048) NENSEBO / WERKA (7053)

180 220
Annual Total: 1453 mm
160 200
180
140
Rainfall (mm/month)
160
Rainfall (mm/month)
120
140
100 120
80 100
60
80
60
40
40
20
20
0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
ARBE GONA (7010) YIRBA MUDA (7030)

120 200
180 Annual Total: 1220 mm
100
160
Rainfall (mm/month)
Rainfall (mm/month)
140
80
120
60 100
80
40
60
40
20
20
0 0
KIBREMENGIST (7025) NEGELE BORENA (7002)

200
220 Annual Total: 1055 mm Annual Total: 735 mm
180
200
180 160
Rainfall (mm/month)
Rainfall (mm/month)
160 140
140 120
120 100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20 20
0 0
3.6.4 River Flows at the Project Site

The distribution of flows throughout the year recorded at the Chemenesa gauging station
close to the GD-3 site is presented in Figure 3.5. (Annex B gives details). A pronounced
single peak in October is evident. A five month low flow season lasts from December to
April. The calculated monthly river flows at the GD-3 dam site are presented in Table 3.1.
Figure 3.5: Mean Monthly Streamflow Profile - Genale River at Chenemasa
200
18.1%
180 Annual Average: 89.2 m3/s 15.6%
15.1%
160
Streamflow (m 3/s) 140

11.2%
120
9.1% 9.2%
100 8.1%
80
60 4.5%
3.7%
40 2.3%
1.7% 2.3%
1.6%
20
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
Table 3.1: Monthly River Flows at GD-3 Dam Site

GENALE GD-3 DAMSITE STATION CODE GD-3 ELEVATION 1110 M LATITUDE 05-61-00N LONGITUDE 39-41-00E
GENALE RIVER BASIN : GENALE-DAWA (7) DRAINAGE AREA: 10445 KM2
RESERVOIR INFLOW (m3/s) EXTENDED DATA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEARLY
MEAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1973 15.0 6.2 5.4 25.9 77.9 53.7 134.9 221.2 219.5 182.3 80.2 19.2 87.3
1974 12.6 5.6 16.7 25.9 47.0 59.6 129.4 132.2 193.8 85.8 57.2 13.5 65.2
1975 3.7 2.3 1.6 14.4 50.0 94.9 148.2 222.1 194.6 213.9 48.2 6.6 83.9
1976 3.6 1.0 1.1 12.8 146.7 88.1 149.8 146.8 165.0 128.5 141.4 24.8 84.6
1977 25.0 26.5 22.6 51.2 53.1 59.3 102.2 147.2 174.4 238.2 121.4 42.0 88.9
1978 19.6 12.2 11.7 41.3 61.7 67.9 121.8 163.8 187.4 175.4 92.8 38.7 83.2
1979 22.1 13.6 11.7 37.4 71.4 73.6 89.8 131.2 128.8 122.6 59.9 38.8 67.1
1980 19.0 9.6 8.2 49.0 118.4 106.6 174.5 191.4 170.9 162.7 76.1 18.5 92.6
1981 9.5 6.1 16.1 92.4 78.2 65.2 126.6 171.2 173.1 95.3 50.3 18.1 75.5
1982 8.8 6.4 9.1 32.2 118.3 97.4 129.1 158.0 199.4 173.6 99.0 46.5 90.3
1983 19.0 11.1 8.7 41.1 128.2 106.2 130.8 175.1 257.0 381.0 168.0 49.4 123.6
1984 15.7 4.8 3.1 6.5 32.0 77.6 93.7 156.1 230.5 133.0 54.3 18.5 69.0
1985 4.8 2.7 3.0 60.5 192.3 124.2 147.3 176.4 141.8 149.2 65.9 18.5 91.1
1986 5.3 3.9 2.9 34.1 107.3 142.7 115.0 111.7 223.3 147.4 47.3 23.0 80.6
1987 5.8 4.7 16.6 81.9 215.0 205.9 135.2 112.2 111.6 197.4 110.5 26.4 102.4
1988 11.2 5.5 4.8 23.0 58.4 64.3 167.0 237.4 159.7 307.6 65.3 15.1 94.1
1989 6.6 5.1 5.9 103.1 71.3 92.2 140.4 140.1 280.8 324.7 126.7 144.8 120.7
1990 65.0 46.7 91.2 159.4 107.6 116.4 103.7 195.5 148.7 123.9 55.1 21.0 103.1
1991 3.4 1.3 14.4 52.7 57.7 45.6 101.6 184.4 155.8 84.8 61.3 54.9 68.5
1992 47.2 41.2 32.3 22.5 14.5 46.3 115.3 142.0 190.1 393.3 145.7 78.7 106.3
1993 71.1 136.2 90.0 90.0 255.2 95.1 76.9 139.6 122.4 223.2 130.4 43.9 122.9
1994 27.0 19.4 24.5 47.1 154.0 150.5 213.2 263.1 179.8 183.9 124.6 60.2 121.3
1995 33.3 28.3 47.7 150.8 107.7 63.5 90.7 176.1 235.4 208.4 86.4 22.9 104.5
1996 17.8 12.6 8.3 53.4 147.3 291.0 159.3 207.8 246.8 126.8 38.7 16.4 110.7
1997 10.4 5.1 2.0 45.0 46.5 41.5 126.1 103.9 66.7 278.8 494.1 159.7 115.3
1998 187.1 117.0 50.2 54.4 143.2 70.3 139.6 202.8 193.0 368.8 112.7 27.5 139.4
1999 12.9 4.8 13.1 15.9 37.5 38.7 103.1 134.3 121.5 260.8 86.7 20.2 71.3
2000 4.8 2.1 1.2 5.7 127.2 29.8 65.4 149.7 151.6 277.7 200.1 42.5 88.7
2001 16.1 12.4 18.0 45.9 119.7 163.5 134.3 192.5 178.5 169.7 111.5 44.5 101.0
2002 23.2 9.9 21.7 42.4 59.6 48.0 76.0 114.4 98.8 111.9 47.0 51.8 59.1
2003 36.2 10.7 7.9 54.4 92.8 79.6 85.3 113.3 119.8 118.2 48.0 57.0 69.0
2004 35.7 27.3 11.1 44.7 67.2 55.6 72.5 148.7 184.5 166.9 91.3 40.8 79.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEAN 25.0 18.8 18.2 50.5 98.9 91.1 121.8 164.4 175.2 197.4 103.1 40.8 92.5
MAX 187.1 136.2 91.2 159.4 255.2 291.0 213.2 263.1 280.8 393.3 494.1 159.7 139.4
MIN 3.4 1.0 1.1 5.7 14.5 29.8 65.4 103.9 66.7 84.8 38.7 6.6 59.1
STDV 34.0 30.5 22.4 36.3 55.2 53.9 32.9 39.6 48.1 86.7 81.6 33.7 20.3
SOURCE OF DATA: LI YESHI-BER "-" MISSING DATA

The long term mean flow at the GD-3 site is estimated to be 92.5 m3/s – equivalent to
279mm per year. The driest year on record (2002) had a mean flow of only 59.2 m3/s,
while the wettest year on record (1998) had a mean flow of 139.5m3/s. Prolonged periods
of below average flow have been recorded in the recent past. In the 6-year period from
1999 to 2004, five of the years had below average flow. Similar conditions were calculated
to have occurred during the 1970’s and 80’s.
3.6.5 Flood Flows at the Project Site

Storms over the catchment result in floods passing down the river system. The highest
floods occur during the high flow season from May to November.
The estimated magnitude of the rarer floods, with return intervals from once in 10 years up
to the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), are presented below:
Return Period Flood Peaks

(years) (m3/s)
10 810
20 950
100 1,250
1,000 1,680
10,000 2,100
PMF 3,800
3.6.6 Net Losses from Reservoir Surface at the Project Site

Net reservoir loss is defined as the difference between evaporation loss from the
inundated reservoir area prior to and after construction of a dam. The calculation takes
account of rainfall and run-off before and after inundation.
A summary of monthly average net losses from the Genale GD-3 reservoir is presented in
Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Net Loss (mm) from GD-3 Reservoir Area

Evaporation (mm) Rainfall (mm) Net Loss (mm)
Month Negele GD-3 Genale GD-3 GD-3
Borena Reservoir Donta Reservoir Reservoir
Jan 320 248 8 8 241
Feb 320 248 23 24 228
Mar 280 218 71 73 153
Apr 117 91 226 233 -116
May 83 65 158 163 -81
Jun 110 85 10 11 76
Jul 132 103 10 10 94
Aug 143 111 11 12 101
Sep 159 123 36 37 90
Oct 111 87 137 141 -39
Nov 174 135 44 46 94
Dec 218 169 7 7 163
Annual 2167 1683 742 764 1004
3.6.7 Impact of the Hydrological Setting on Layout and Design

The impacts of the hydrological setting on layout and design are summarized as follows:
! The relatively short (5 months) low flow season clearly favours the RCC type dam
which gains height much faster than an embankment dam and is less vulnerable to
overtopping during the early construction stage.
! An embankment dam, with a construction period spanning several high flow seasons,
will require a high capacity (and expensive) river diversion tunnel to protect the
excavation and embankment placing operations against flooding.
! The rainfall at the dam site would cause interruptions to placement of RCC (in the
case of an RCC dam) and of core material (in the case of a clay core rockfill dam)
during the months of peak rainfall – April/May and October.
! The occurrence of multi-annual periods of below average flow requires a large
regulation storage to generate firm electrical energy.
3.7 Sediment Yield

Sediment yield is a key parameter in planning a dam and hydropower project – this
parameter determines, to a significant extent, the volume of reservoir storage that will be
lost through deposition of sediments. The quantity of sediment that is yielded by the
catchment of the Genale River at GD-3 is a very complex function of erosion from the
upstream catchment, transport through rills, streams and tributaries and deposition in
intermediate storages or “topographic/morphologic sediment traps”.
Erosion from the land surface at a given location and time depends on rainfall intensity,
moisture soil moisture content, thin film overland flow, vegetation cover and land slope.
Transport through the watercourse network depends on flow gradients, depths and
velocities. Areas of steep, bare land and reaches of steep, fast flowing watercourse act as
sediment sources, while areas of flat land and reaches of flat watercourse act as sediment
traps. Sudden, irregular events such as landslides and river bank collapse add further
complexity to the erosion-transport-deposition processes.
Erosion, transport and deposition of soils have been the subjects of research for many
decades. This research has intensified over the past 50 years, however, there is still no
universally accepted method of assessing sediment yield at a river location. “Test
catchments” have been operating around the world for many years and assessment
methods have been proposed – but these methods are all very site specific and cannot be
transferred from catchment to catchment and from region to region and certainly not from
country to country. To date it is still impractical, in all except test catchments, to measure
total sediment transport at a river section – suspended sediment transport can be
measured but bed transport is very difficult and expensive to measure accurately. Current
practice still relies heavily on engineering judgement to assess sediment transport at a
particular site.
Both the MoWR and the Consultant recognise the difficulties of assessing catchment
sediment yield – the most reliable method of assessing total sediment yield is to monitor
the sediment accumulation over decades in existing large reservoirs located in different
climatic, morphologic, geologic and topographic environments. Such a huge exercise is
usually beyond the resources of reservoir owners and operators. The Consultant however
has made particular efforts to improve the data base of sediment yield in an effort to better
assess design parameters for the project.
During the year 2005, the Consultant carried out a program of suspended sediment
measurements at the gauging station of Chenemasa with a 2-week frequency covering a
flow range of 5.1 to 361 m³/s. During the early high-flow period in May the programme
was intensified whereby 10 measurements were taken at consistently high flow rates
approaching and exceeding 200 m³/s. The result represents an accurate measurement of
suspended sediment transport at Chenemasa. However, in terms of sediment yield, a few
months of measurement represents only a very short “snapshot” of the ongoing sediment

yield processes. It is well known that large, even huge, quantities of sediment are yielded
during the very rarest of short and intense storm events.
Despite all the above issues, a long term annual average suspended sediment yield of
221 Ton/km² has been estimated. To account for unmeasured bed load, a surcharge of
20% has been added, resulting in a total annual average sediment yield at the GD-3 site
of 265 Ton/km². This yield converts to an average inflow into the GD-3 reservoir of 2.8
MT/year. Therefore, over a 50 year operating period, some 140 MT of sediment will enter
the reservoir. Most of this sediment (95%) will be trapped and deposited over the reservoir
floor.
This sediment will reduce the active storage of the GD-3 reservoir and encroach on the
power intake and dam. However, given the huge available storage in the reservoir area,
this reduction will not be significant in developing the layout and type of project structures.
3.8 Conclusions
The physical environment in the project area imposes few constraints on the development
of a dam and hydropower scheme. The dam site can accommodate either a concrete
gravity dam or an embankment dam. The powerhouse site can accommodate either an
underground cavern or a surface structure. Between the two sites, the rock mass
conditions will pose relatively few problems for tunnelling.
While the physical environment imposes few constraints, it does favour certain layouts
and construction methods, as follows:
! The occurrence of high river flows during 7 months of the year and the lack of
significant flood storage in the river reach immediately upstream of the dam site
favours an RCC dam. An RCC dam can be raised during the low flow season to a
level above the flood level without costly diversion works. Overall construction time of
an RCC dam will be much shorter than that of an embankment dam, thus the risk of
interruption due to inclement weather is smaller for an RCC dam.
! The long distance between dam and power house sites and the consistent and strong
rock mass between the two sites favours driving a power tunnel with a TBM. The
advantages of using a TBM are:
− smooth tunnel surfaces, allowing section to be left unlined without excessive loss
of hydraulic head.
− less disturbance to the surrounding rock mass thus reducing support measures.
− much shorter construction time (advance rates are about 4 times higher than by
conventional Drill & Blast).
Biological Environment
4 Biological Environment
4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation

The Genale river valley lies in the vegetation zone generally described as Broad Leaved
Deciduous Woodland. The distribution of the natural woody vegetation in the project area
is closely related to available water. Natural vegetation is most developed along the
Genale River and becomes progressively sparser as the ground rises away from the river.
Based on field observations, two major vegetation types have been recognized, namely:
i) shrub grassland/wooded shrub land
ii) river forest
Along both banks of the Genale River there exists a well developed river forest.
The most important and dominant tree species in the project area include: Acacia bussei,
Acacia brevispica, Acacia melifera, Acacia nilotica, Acacia oarfota, Acacia Senegal,
Acacia seyal, Acacia tortolis, Commiphora africana, Commiphora erythraea and
Commiphora serrulata. Barleria hildebrandtii, Borassus aethiopum,Combretum collinum
Fresen, Commelina Africana, Cussonia holstii, Dichrostachys cinerea, Diospyros
abyssinica, Grewea billosa, Haplocoelum foliososum, Lannea schimperi, Ormocarpum
trichocarpum and Phyllanthus sepialis. These species extend over large tracts of the
Genale river system, thus submergence of a limited area by the GD-3 reservoir is not a
threat to the existence of the various species. The proposed dam site and reservoir area
are neither contiguous with, nor in close proximity to, any of Ethiopia’s nationally or
regionally protected forest areas.
The forest serves as habitat for many different types of fauna and flora. The indigenous
agro-pastoralists and pastoralists are highly dependent on the forest. Some have built
their houses in the forest. It also serves as a source of medicine for curing different types
of human as well as livestock diseases. The forest also serves as grazing, browsing and
shading areas for livestock.
No trees were found in the forest area that could be exploited for lumber.
4.2 Wildlife and Reptiles

The project area and its immediate surroundings are broadly speaking classified as the
Somali-Masai Biome. This biome has its own unique flora and fauna assemblages
characterized by its ecological structure and functions. The creation of this Biome in the
region has caused the formation of extensive habitats for a wide range of mammals, birds
reptiles and other lower animal forms that occur in different types of ecosystems.
Human interventions in the area, mainly clearing for expansion of agriculture and grazing
and felling for fire wood and construction, have affected the vegetation cover in the area.
However, it still provides a good habitat supporting a diverse range of wildlife species.
According to local enquiries, a variety of species still survives in local plantations. These
include the greater kudu, klipspringer, leopard, crocodile, lion, several primates, fresh
water turtle, hippopotamus, serval, wildcat, aardavark, aardwolf, hunting dog and striped
hyena.
Observation in the proposed project area confirmed that reptiles such as Nile crocodiles,
monitor lizards, various species of snakes, lizards and tortoise as well as big mammals
such as hippopotamus, (Leopard Tortoise) occupy the project area.
Invertebrates observed in the riparian vegetation include butterflies of the Colotis sp,
Odonata (both damselflies and dragonflies) and Acridid grasshoppers. The sand-
burrowing invertebrates include Noteridae (burrowing water beetles) and Mutiliidae (velvet
ants), which were breeding at the time of sampling. However, none appear to be new to

science or of the endangered and threatened types. A few invertebrates were collected
from drift samples. These included chironomid larvae, nematodes, mosquito larva and
Ephemeroptera (mayflies) larva, chironomids (midges) and Gyrinid beetles (Coleoptera).
4.3 Birds
The Genale River area is rich in bird species. It supports a large population of birds
including some species that are vulnerable and under threat both in Ethiopia in particular
and in East Africa in general. Indeed the Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society
has registered the area as one of the 73 Important Bird Areas (IBA) in Ethiopia. In
particular, the project area supports 23% of Ethiopia's Somali-Masai bird population. The
species officially recorded in the area, and for which the area is best known, include the
Prince Ruspolis Turaco, the White-winged Dove and the Jubaland weaver. During the
field survey of the project area, carried out as part of the present study, the following
species were also observed - the Hooded vuture, the White- backed Vulture, the Lappet-
faced Vulture, the Ovambo Sparrow hawk, several Kestrel Species, the Crested Francolin,
the Red- eyed Dove, the Blue-spotted wood Dove, the Orange-bellied Parrot, the White-
bellied Go-away Bird and the Little Bee-eater.
4.4 Fishery
The major fish species found in the Genale River are Barbus sp., Labeo cylindricus,
Varicorhinus sp., Synodontis sp., Anguilla sp., Mormyrops sp., Bagrus urostigma, Irvinea
orientalis, Clarias gariepinus and Malapetrurus electricus. The Genale-Dawa and Wabi
Shebele basins are the only river basins in Ethiopia where a diadromous fish, the eel
Anguilla sp. occurs, which migrates down stream to the ocean for spawning.
The eel, Anguilla bengalensis labiata (African mottled eel) is known to inhabit various
niches in the river system and penetrate far inland surmounting formidable barriers in its
upstream migration. This is apparently the reason for its widespread appearance in most
of the tributary rivers in the Genale River basin. It has been reported that the eel found in
the Genale River also occurs in the tributary rivers, like the Dawa, Awata, Weyb, Welmel
and Dumal Rivers, all of which join the Genale River below the prospective GD-3 dam
site. In the Genale River, the juvenile eel migrates upstream to feed and mature before
returning to the marine environment of the Indian Ocean to breed. The adult breeding eels
exploit the high river flows of the rainy season for their downstream migration to the
ocean.
None of the fish species occurring in the Genale-Dawa River Basin are listed as
threatened and the current exploitation level by the existing river fish stocks is far too low
to cause concern in this respect. The area is far from any industrial discharge and
irrigation and use of chemical fertilizers or pesticide was not observed or reported in the
area.
With regard to fisheries in the project area, quite a few of the rural communities depend on
river fish to supplement income and also as a cheap protein source in their diet. The most
common river fish available for sale in the local markets included Bagrus urostigma,
Barbus sp., Labeo sp., Clarias gariepinus, Irvinea orientalis and the eel Anguilla sp. The
Bagrus catfish was in highest demand and commanded a good price.
The main fishing areas on the Genale River, in the immediate vicinity of the GD-3 project,
include the river reach from the Donta Bridge to the proposed dam site. The fishing sites
identified by the fishers include such names along the bank as Ebbo, Sharkiftu, Melka
Oda, Dildiye, Tinike, Grisa, Tulu, Miya and Meda. Below the proposed dam site the fishing
sites identified include Buta, Koba Adi, Lugena, Melka Roka, Melka Bala, Melka wata,
Dulota and Meti Dolo, close to the tailrace outfall. The catch from these fishing sites is
taken to the market in Negele town for subsequent sale to local consumers. The fish,
gutted and cleaned, is transported mainly by animals and/or by foot from the lower
Biological Environment
Chachofe/Buta site but also by car from the Donta site. Fish is sold mostly fresh, gutted
and cleaned.
The fishers indicated that their income from fishing represented a significant portion of
their livelihood. This income covers most of their supply needs like tea, sugar and oil etc.
including clothing from their income during the high fishing season.
The riverine fishery in the project area is not yet developed and there is the opportunity to
increase the production in this sector.
4.5 National Parks and Protected Areas

These protected areas within Ethiopia have been divided into four categories according to
their management objectives. The highest ranked are the National Parks, where strict
legislation is applicable. These are followed by Game reserves, Sanctuaries and finally,
controlled hunting areas. However, the GD-3 project area is neither contiguous with nor in
close proximity to any of these nationally protected areas.

5 Socio-Economic Environment
5.1 Population and Settlement

GD-3 Hydropower Project is located in the woredas of Liben and Medawelabu in the Guji
and Bale Zones of the Oromia National Regional State (ONRS). Implementation of the
proposed GD-3 scheme will have varying degrees of direct and indirect impacts on six
Peasant Associations located in and around the project area.
The project area is sparsely populated and the estimated population density for the Liben
and Medawelabu woredas is only 7.4 and 9.8 persons per km2 respectively. The total
population of the two woredas (Liben and Medawelabo) is 256,436 with an estimated 5.7
person per family which is slightly more than the national and the regional average of 4.8
persons per household. By gender, the population comprises 51% male to 49% female.
In terms of residence, 81.3% of the local population in the project area is by and large
rural (73.1% for Liben and 97.1% for Medawelabu) while the remaining 18.7% reside in
urban centres (26.9% for Liben and 2.9% for Medawelabu).
In terms of age, the family head ranges from 18 to 78 years old. The average age of the
surveyed households is 43. A significant portion (80%) of the surveyed household
members fell within the 18 to 55 age category. This has an important implication from the
demographic perspective. Farmers belonging to this age group are energetic, active and
keen improve their quality of life. They are also better able to face new challenges than
the older age group.
The rural people in both woredas have traditional tukules as dwelling units. Practically all
dwelling units are one-room structures. The houses are scattered and built from local
materials. The roofs are thatched mostly with grass. The walls are of mud and the floors
are of earth. Very few people have houses with corrugated iron-sheet roofs. Most of the
dwelling units have “barns” for sheltering livestock; and a very small hut for storing grain
close to the main house. The pastoralists that move from place to place with their
livestock do not have permanent dwelling units. They use mobile shelters that can be
easily pulled down and put up when desired.
5.2 Ethnic Composition

The main ethnic groups residing in the project area are the Guji and Bale Oromos.
According to information obtained from the Woreda Offices, the overwhelming majority of
the population (81%) in the two woredas belongs to the Oromo ethnic group followed by
the Amhara ethnic group (11%).
The findings of the sample survey in the project area also revealed the homogeneity both
in terms of ethnicity and language. Some 92% of the surveyed household heads are
Oromos while the remaining 8% belong to other ethnic groups like Somali. Perhaps due to
the very low level of urbanization along with the predominantly agro-pastoral nature of the
local economy, social intermingling of the population with other ethnic groups is very
limited in the project area. There are no known ethnic minorities in the project area.
5.3 Religion
Traditionally, religion is an important part of individual and community life in the project
area. The populations of the project area are predominantly followers of the Muslim
religion (97%) and the original settlers in the project area are Muslim-Oromo’s and the
area is dominated by Muslim Oromo traditions. Followers of the Christian religion are
slightly less than 3% of the total population of the project area.
Socio-Economic Environment
5.4 Public Health

Most illnesses are communicable and are related, either directly or indirectly, to
inadequate and unsafe drinking water, ineffective sanitation, low living standards and poor
nutrition. The main infectious diseases prevalent in the project area include malaria,
gastritis, skin disease, ART (Acute Respiratory Infection), URTI (Upper Respiratory
Infection), anaemia, romanism, diarrhoea, common cold, rheumatic pain, pneumonia,
intestinal parasites and the eye disease - heminthasis.
In the project area both water related and water based diseases are also the most
significant public health problems. The principal vector borne water related diseases
currently prevalent in the project area include malaria and schistosomiasis.
Malaria: malaria is endemic within the project area and is one of the greatest health
problems. The malaria epidemiology in the area is dominated by the fatal type of
plasmodium falciparum haemoparasite (PF) which has, in most cases, developed
resistance to treatment with chloroquine.
Schistosomiasis: the intestinal type, schistosoma mansoni, is well established in many
places in the project woredas. Shistosoma infested areas include Afder and Liben in
Somali region; Dollo Mena, Berbere and Goro Weredas in Bale Zone. This disease can
spread with the development of dams and irrigation canals, as well as with the
introduction of infected labourers. The prevalence of Schistosomiasis is also an indicator
of the lack of personal hygiene, improper disposal of faecal materials, and lack of safe
water supply.
HIV/AIDS and STDs

As in other parts of the country, HIV/Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases (STD)
are evident in the project area. Although HIV/AIDS screening activities in the selected
health facilities in the area are inadequate, it is obvious that the disease is gradually
spreading. Tuberculosis is known to be one of the opportunistic infections caught by HIV
carriers and/or AIDS patients. Some 91% of infections occur among adults between 15
and 49 years of age with the highest prevalence in the 15–24 year age-group. This age
range encompasses the most economically productive segment of the population, so the
HIV/AIDS epidemic has a significant negative impact on labour productivity. There are
also social consequences of the epidemic as care-givers and income-generating
members of the family die, leaving behind orphans and other dependants. Sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs) such as gonorrhoea, syphilis, chancroid and
lymphogranuloma venerium are also widespread in the area.
5.5 Land Use and Land Cover

The main resource exploited by the local population is land. Land is used mainly for
cultivation and for grazing livestock. The extensive forested lands are a source of wood
products (firewood, construction material, etc.).
The present land use/land cover within the reservoir area has been mapped. The land use
is distributed between some 40.0% cultivated and 53.8% wooded bush/shrub grassland.
5.6 Agriculture
Ethiopia is a predominantly agrarian country. About 86% of the country’s populations are
engaged in agriculture and create about 42% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and
85% of export revenues. Crops contribute to over 60% of the gross value of the
agricultural production, livestock and forestry having shares of 30% and 7% respectively.
The Ethiopian system of agriculture is characterized by a high fragmentation of land
holdings, low productivity and traditional systems of production.

Mixed agriculture (crop production and livestock rearing) is the main economic activity
practiced in the project area, livestock being dominant. The agricultural system in the
project area falls into the category known as the lowland agro-pastoralist and pastoralist
system. Low productivity and a traditional system of production characterize this
agricultural system in the project area.
Pasture and arable land prevails in the woreda of Liben, while woodland and pasture
prevails in the woreda of Medawelabu. The average cropland holding at woreda level is
1.5ha per household in Liben and 4ha per household in Medawelabu.
Crop Production
The production of crops in the area is carried out in parallel with rearing livestock. The
land use statistics indicate a relatively low population density and less fragmentation of
agricultural land in the area. The major crops grown in the project area are maize,
sorghum, teff, onion, tomato, pepper, sugarcane and banana which are cultivated on main
field and recession farms. With the exception of sorghum and teff, all other crops are
cultivated under irrigation and recession farms. In both rainfed and recession farming, the
maize crop occupies the largest area of the household land holding. Based on information
obtained from the Woreda Agricultural offices, over 93% of the total area under cultivation
is occupied by cereals with the remainder occupied by pulses, vegetables and others. In
addition to this rainfed agriculture, most of the project affected villages produced sugar
cane and various fruits using recession farming and traditional (diverting the river)
irrigation systems. Under this system farmers harvest two to three times a year.
Land preparation is carried out by oxen at the onset of the rainy season. Broadcasting is
the main sowing method in the area. The depth and frequency of ploughing varies
depending on the type of crops to be planted. Oxen are also used in the threshing
process.
Most of the farmers use hand weeding, but some apply herbicides on (2-4D) cereal farms.
The farmers are also using agro-chemicals against insects and plant diseases. The most
common insect pests in the area are armyworm, grasshopper, termite, cutworm, aphids
and stalk borer and the common diseases are rust, head smut, powdery mildew and late
blight.
Agricultural Service, Marketing and Constraints
Extension services provided to the rural community are inadequate, inefficient and
incapable of tackling the fundamental developmental constraints. A poor input supply
system and a shortage of the required quantities are the main problems of the input
delivery activities in the woreda. The Woreda Agricultural Development and Food Security
offices are the main credit providers. Most of the credit resources are given for agriculture-
based activities in kind and in cash especially for livestock fattening. According to woreda
officials, very weak repayment rates due to crop failure, institutional weakness and
reluctance have adversely affected the current credit provision.
Negele town is the major market centre for Liben and the surrounding woredas. Crop
products are easily supplied to the market and they fetch fair prices. With regard to the
woreda of Medawelabu, Bidre and Oberso are the major market centres. There, the
marketing system needs improvement on price information, access, transportation and
storage facilities.
5.7 Livestock
The rearing of livestock is an important component of the traditional peasant agriculture
system in the project area. The livestock resources of the project area comprise cattle,
sheep, goats, donkeys, mules, camels, poultry and bees. Cattle are the dominant
livestock group raised primarily for the production of draft oxen, replacement stock and
milk. Sheep and goats are kept as a source of cash income and sometimes for meat
Socio-Economic Environment
during holidays and festivals. Other products obtained from livestock and of use to the
rural farming communities include dung used for fuel, skin and hides.
Livestock Population
The main livestock populations in the affected area are cattle, camel, sheep, goats,
poultry and equines. The total livestock populations of Liben and Medawelabu woredas
are 59,207 cattle, 4,004 sheep, 36,609 goats, 2,773 equines mainly (donkeys and mules),
17,739 camels and 21,728 poultry. The average livestock holding per household is
estimated to be 4 TLU and 20.6 TLU for the Peasant Association in Liben and Meda
Wolabo Woredas, respectively. In addition, farmers own 39,917 local and improved
beehives. The total livestock resource is therefore, calculated at 73,931.8 TLU.
None of the farmers in the project area possess improved livestock of any kind, except
pullets and cockerels distributed through the extension programme. Even these are in
small numbers. As a result, the livestock are of indigenous origin and the identified breed
types include:
! Cattle: Borena, Guji and Arsi,
! Sheep: Wanke (Black Head),
! Goats: Long-eared Somali,
! Camel: Harki (big size) and Gelebba (small size),
! Poultry.
Among the various cattle breeds, the Borena cattle breed is sub divided into Qorti and
Hayuna. The former are tall, with long, wide and deep body sizes while the latter are short
with smaller body sizes, short and tough necks, short naval flaps and smaller udders.
Although the rearing of indigenous livestock is an integral part of the local farming system,
production and productivity are very low. This is primarily associated with the low genetic
potential, poor nutrition and inadequate health, breeding and marketing services.
Livestock Feed Source and Diseases
The dominant livestock feed source is natural pasture comprising grazing lands, shrubs,
land unsuitable for cultivation including water-logged areas, steep slopes and road sides
in the cultivated areas. Some bush land provides additional feed to the browsing livestock
species.
The other source of livestock feed is obtained from crop residue of various food crops
including cereals, straw, stalks, hauls from pulse crops and oil crops. Crop residues are
stored and fed to animals during the dry months of the year when feed shortage occurs.
An additional feed source is aftermath from crops harvested. However, in terms of
quantity and quality both crop residue and aftermath are inadequate sources.
The livestock diseases common in the project woredas include internal and external
parasites, infectious diseases and blood parasites. Trypanosomiasis is also one of the
diseases affecting livestock in the project area. Tsetse infestation has gradually started to
invade altitudes above 2,000m range. The only institution providing livestock health
services in both woredas is the Wereda Office of Agriculture. The livestock health services
in terms of technical manpower and marketing infrastructure are inadequate and the
disease situation is serious and therefore, requires more attention in terms of better
animal health services.
5.8 Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeontology Sites

No evidence of ancestral man has been observed in the project area. During preliminary
field investigations, quaternary basalts used for stone tools and present around the
important archaeological sites elsewhere in Ethiopia were not found in the project area.

The exposed metamorphic rock (Gneiss) along the Genale River do not contain any
fossils of anthropological and paleontogical importance. The area has no signs of
paleontological relics or archaeological artefacts of such importance as to hinder the
execution of the project.
According to the Cultural Section Head of the Zones, the GD-3 dam site and the reservoir
area are not regarded as archeologically or culturally important. According to the officials
and experts, there are also no plans to conduct archaeological or cultural studies in the
area.
5.9 Cultural Heritage and Religious Sites

The cultural importance of the project area is mainly governed by the Guji and Bale
Oromos – ethnic groups with some cultural differences. The prevailing religious practices
of the area governed by Muslim Oromo tradition. Field investigations have indicated that
the area is sparsely populated and the original settlers were Muslim-Oromos.
The Muslim religion is presumed to have been introduced in to the area by the Egyptians
around the turn of the 17th Century. There are nine small mosques within the reservoir
area and these will be affected by the project.
The Ethiopian Tourism Commission has published a Tourism Master Plan (Tourconsult,
1995) which identified a number of sites of historical, cultural, religious and archaeological
importance in the country - none of these are located in or near the project area. Enquiries
of local residents in and around the project area have indicated that there are no known
sites of historical or cultural significance in the vicinity of the reservoir area.
Scheme Optimization
6 Scheme Optimization
6.1 Objective and Procedure

In Chapter 2 it was concluded that the GD-3 Project would be a candidate for power
export to Kenya. As well as being a very attractive project on its own right GD-3 regulates
the inflow for 2 further downstream hydro projects, called GD-5 and GD-6, which, due to
this regulation, both become projects with attractive generation costs. The idea is to build
GD-3 as soon as possible, followed by GD-5 and GD-6 in two year intervals, and to
bundle their output at the GD-3 switchyard, from where a 230 kV double circuit
transmission line would connect to the grid at Mega substation. From there, a single
HVDC transmission line would then transfer the power to the greater Nairobi Area or
possibly to Eldoret (this was not yet decided at this stage of the study).
The objective of the optimization is to maximize the net present value of the project.
The net present value is found by subtracting the present value (discounted cashflow) of
all costs from the present value of benefits. The costs are all costs associated with the
delivery of power to a certain location, in this case the costs of building, operating and
maintaining the hydropower plant plus the costs for erecting the 500 kV HVDC line to
Nairobi. The benefits are the cost of replaced thermal generation, comprising the money
needed to cover the investment, operation, fuel and maintenance costs.
Moving from one project alternative to another is only leading to a better choice if the
incremental present value of benefits exceed the incremental present cost. Thus, starting
from the lowest cost alternative with a certain benefit, a comparison is made with the next
lowest cost alternative to see if the incremental benefit exceeds the incremental cost. If
yes, this project alternative is better than the previous alternative. Then proceed with
comparing this new (Pareto optimal) alternative with the next lowest cost alternative, etc.,
until the highest cost alternative has been reached. The last project alternative with an
incremental benefit/cost ratio above unity is the optimum solution.
The optimization was done for a 10% discount rate, a 50 year lifetime and fuel prices
based on crude oil prices of 30 and 60US$/bbl.
6.2 Dimensioning, Costing and Evaluation of GD-3 Alternatives

The EVALS computer program, proprietary software of the Consultant, was used for the
dimensioning and costing of the construction elements. EVALS is coupled to program
UCOST which calculates compound unit rates from principles. This program package
prepares cost estimates to feasibility level, provided the input data match that level.
6.2.1 The EVALS Computer Program

6.2.1.1 Overview
EVALS automatically performs the elaborate computations for optimal dimensioning,
costing, reservoir operation and overall project assessment.
The analysis distinguishes between:
! projects, defined by their dam location;
! alternatives, which are alternative project configurations at a particular dam site;
! variants of the alternative’s installed capacity.
Each hydroproject alternative represents a particular combination of individual
construction elements. For each of the currently defined 25 project elements a separate
dimensioning and cost estimate is prepared. A percentage surcharge is added to cover
those miscellaneous and minor civil construction items which have not explicitly been

modelled. The total cost of the project alternative is subsequently computed as the sum of
all element costs included in that particular project alternative plus such add-ons as
indirect civil cost, contingencies or engineering and administration.
For each element a limited number of simple definition parameters (such as type, length,
width, elevation, slope, discharge, permeability etc) are required for the dimensioning and
the subsequent cost estimation.
The maximum operating - or full supply - level is specified by the program user. The
corresponding reservoir surface area is taken as 'inundated' area. EVALS determines the
dam crest elevation by adding a freeboard to the maximum surcharge computed for the
passage of the design flood through the reservoir.
For projects with a gated spillway, the program additionally carries out a flood routing
simulation to determine the maximum surcharge with one of the gates malfunctioning. If
that surcharge plus a reduced freeboard is higher than the normal maximum surcharge
plus freeboard, the dam crest level is raised accordingly.
The estimated level of sediment deposits at the power intake after expiration of a project’s
expected economic lifetime and a minimum required margin to the minimum operating
level are external input. Together they define the constraint for the minimum operating
level due to sedimentation, guaranteeing that sufficient head at the power intake level
during minimum drawdown condition is maintained. A second constraint is defined by the
minimum head at which the selected turbine type can still be operated.
EVALS automatically carries out the required flood routing simulations. Structures that
may be analysed include the dam/spillway and the cofferdam/diversion tunnel(s)
complexes.
For each scheme the reservoir operation model passes a series of monthly inflows
through the reservoir, with the objective to maximise the present worth of the hydroelectric
generation. Parameters in this analysis are the specific values for guaranteed capacity as
well as guaranteed and non-guaranteed energy.
Also the program automatically carries out a simulation of reservoir filling and indicates
how many months would be needed to fill the reservoir, starting impoundment in January,
February, and so forth.
EVALS carries out a simulation of reservoir sedimentation and determines the effect on
the power and energy production.
Program EVALS distinguishes between the civil costs and those for electro-mechanical
equipment and the transmission feeder line.
Civil construction costs (construction plant, fuel, material, labour, etc.) are country-
specific. Civil works costs are determined by multiplying the computed quantities of work
with the respective compound rate. Program EVALS obtains the compound rates for civil
works items from a dedicated data base created by the UCOST computer program
package. The cost of civil works for each element is determined by adding the costs of all
individual construction items involved.
In contrast, hydraulic steel structures, electro-mechanical equipment and the transmission
line are available as more or less 'final' products. Therefore international tender prices
were compiled; statistically analysed and cost functions were developed for major items
such as generators, transformers, turbines, etc. These cost functions were then
programmed and incorporated in EVALS.
For civil works and for equipment, element-specific 'miscellaneous cost' are added to
cover expenditures for all those minor items, which have not separately been considered,
expressed as a percentage of the costed items of the respective element.
The costs computed for all cost classes (civil works, electro-mechanical equipment and
transmission lines) are stored individually during execution of the program. Indirect costs
are added as a proportion of the direct costs. Class-specific allowances for contingencies
Scheme Optimization
are computed as a percentage of the direct plus indirect costs. Summing up the above
cost results in the total construction cost. The basic project cost is the total construction
plus the costs for engineering, administration and supervision as well as client's own
costs.
After each run EVALS carries out a comprehensive project assessment resulting in a one
page summary listing the following key project parameters:
! plant factor,
! degree of regulation of the active storage,
! generated capacity, continuous power and annual energy output,
! present value of all project cost,
! specific cost of capacity,
! average and specific generation cost,
! energy production per million m³ of inflow,
! employment effect.
The economic performance of a project’s alternative with a specified installed capacity can
be quickly assessed by looking at its average generation cost in USc/kWh which are
evaluated by dividing the present value of cost for investment and for operation,
maintenance and repair (OMR) by the present value of the average annual generation
over the project lifetime. The program carries out a probabilistic analysis to study the
effect of starting with dry or wet year sequences on the specific cost of generation.
6.2.1.2 Program Execution

After the definition of a series of fixed and project-specific planning parameters, after the
establishment of files with the required topographic and hydrologic information and after
disaggregation of the basic project layout into individual construction elements, EVALS
carries out the principal operations in the following sequence:
Whenever necessary, the program carries out hydraulic simulations to define the key
dimensions of structures. Thereafter, all relevant quantities are computed and multiplied
with the respective unit costs (called compound rates) retrieved from the unit cost data
base. Cost functions are used to estimate the cost of hydraulic steel structures, electro-
mechanical equipment and the transmission feeder line.
For projects with a diversion tunnel, and only in cases in which the cofferdam is not
included in the main dam, the process begins with the optimisation of the cofferdam /
diversion tunnel complex, the objective being the minimisation of total cost. The decision
variables are the crest level of the cofferdam and the number and diameter of the
tunnel(s). Bounds on tunnel diameters and flow velocity and the effect of the selected type
of lining on the hydraulic behaviour are taken into consideration. If the reservoir volume
warrants it, a full flood routing of the diversion flood through the reservoir is performed.
EVALS proceeds with the optimisation of the dam / spillway complex. Dam crest level (if
not fixed by input) and spillway dimensions are combined in such a way, that the total cost
of the two structures is minimised, while satisfying hydraulic constraints as well as user-
specified maximum conditions on surcharge, spillway discharge, width of ogee and gates,
etc. An hourly flood routing of the design flood hydrograph through the reservoir is
performed, provided adequate reservoir storage is available. Grouting for dam and
spillway is considered whenever geological site conditions render it necessary.
Subsequently the optimisation of the power complex takes place. The number and type of
turbines may either be user-selected or determined by the program. Individual power
conduit diameters are optimised by minimizing the present value of the construction cost
plus the monetary value of reduced capacity and energy generation due to head losses.
The effect of the cost of intake structures, surge tanks and safety valves associated with
the power conduits is considered. The final selection of the number and size of the
individual power components is obtained by searching for the minimum total present worth
of the integrated power complex, considering only numerically meaningful combinations of
elements.

The minimum operating level is fixed according to sediment or turbine constraints. If the
reservoir operation study shows that this level is never or very seldom reached, it should
suitably be raised to reduce the costs of the intake and surge tank and to improve the
overall turbine efficiency.
Further elements of the cost estimate are then processed, including retaining walls,
access roads and bridges, as well as any special cost/benefit items.
Thereafter monthly reservoir operation studies are carried out with the objective to
maximise the present worth of the hydroelectric generation in terms of guaranteed and
secondary energy production and guaranteed capacity, whereby mandatory releases can
be taken into account. At all times the reservoir level is to remain between the full supply
level and the minimum operating level, when necessary accepting spill or restricted
outflows.
The program then carries out the reservoir filling and reservoir sedimentation simulations.
EVALS finally prepares a detailed overview of the entire cost estimation and evaluation
process.
6.2.2 Development of Unit Rates from Principals

As described above, the EVALS program has built-in cost functions for electro-mechanical
equipment and hydraulic steel structures. Rates for civil works are however computed
externally, using program UCOST.
The buildup of compound rates is illustrated in the following figure.
Figure 6.1: UCOST - Build-up of Compound Rates
Compound rates,
Principles Cost at site Unit rates for works
per element
Construction Excavation of all items relevant
equipment Rock to DAM
Tires for Equipment Cost Hauling of all items relevant
INTERFACE TO EVALS
Equipment per Hour Rockfill to SPILLWAY
Fuel and Production of all items relevant

Electricity Concrete to TUNNEL
Construction Materials Cost Formwork with all items relevant

Materials per Unit Slipform to INTAKES
Labour Labour Cost Installation of all items relevant

Wages per Hour Reinforcement to ROADS
basic prices as charged by contractor rates may be volume for all EVALS
dependent element types
The data base for UCOST contains, inter alia, lists of labour, equipment, construction
material and fuel costs and programmed procedures to convert these basic input data into
higher level compound rates, as shown in the above figure. The placing of one unit of
rockfill for instance may for instance require quarrying, loading, hauling, dumping and
compacting. Quarrying involves the use of a typical work crew, particular types of
construction machinery with a typical load factor, fuel consumption and depreciation, etc.
The compound rate for the aggregate work item ‘rockfill placing’ will be stored in the data
base and will later be used by EVALS to compute the costs of construction elements
which use rockfill.
Scheme Optimization
For some works the compound rate depends to a significant extent on the quantity of work
or on certain physical parameters. For item ‘placing rockfill’ for example there are three
rates, namely for small, medium and large quantities and the EVALS would, depending on
the rockfill quantity, interpolate to get the appropriate compound rate. For tunnels the
situation is far more complex, and the compound rate for item ‘tunnel excavation’ depends
on the tunnel diameter, the tunnel length and the rock class.
While construction equipment - consisting of several hundred items in the UCOST list of
principle inputs - is generally imported and its international prices are known, other work
inputs may be locally sourced. This mainly refers to the various labour categories as well
as to cement, steel items, explosives and diesel fuel. Their cost are converted to
equivalent US$ using the current market rate of exchange.
6.2.3 Overview of Physical Data Used

For each project alternative the following physical data have been taken into account:
! project definition: general parameters, such as definition of Full Supply Level and
Minimum Operating Level, and basic parameters to define construction elements,
such as type and function, elevation, length, height, etc.
! project topography: such as X-sections at dam site, reservoir elevation-area-capacity
curve, elevation data, longitudinal and lateral slopes
! project geology: linked to construction elements: parameters such as rock class,
excavation depth, permeability, etc.
! project hydrology: inflow design flood, diversion flood, monthly reservoir inflow
series, reservoir sedimentation rate, reservoir evaporation rate
! project hydraulics: tailwater rating curve at power house location, tailwater rating
curve at downstream cofferdam
6.2.4 Unit Rates

6.2.4.1 Labour
Labour was generally classified into surface and underground works. It was assumed that
the Contractor’s work force, except the management, would be local costs.
Table 6.1: Labour Costs

Unit Rates Wages Contractor
(Birr/day) (equivalent in US$/hr) Rate(US$/hr)
Surface:
Foeman 200.00 2.91 5.81
Operator 100.00 1.45 2.91
Skilled labour 50.00 0.73 1.45
Semi-skilled labour 30.00 0.44 0.87
Unskilled labour 10.00 0.15 0.29
Underground:
Foreman 250.00 3.63 7.27
Operator 125.00 1.82 3.63
Skilled labour 62.50 0.91 1.82
Semi-skilled labour 37.50 0.55 1.09
Unskilled labour 12.50 0.18 0.36
6.2.4.2 Consumables
The price for diesel oil used is 0.80 US$ per litre, which includes delivery to and storage
on site. This is a price compatible with a crude oil price of US$60/bbl plus transport.

6.2.4.3 Construction Materials

Cost of construction materials were based on data received information extracted from
similar studies concurrently being executed in the region. The main items used for
calibration of the UCOST data base were the basic prices for cement, reinforcement steel
and explosives for which the following values were used are given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Unit Prices of Materials
Unit Cost
Material Remark
(US $/ton)
Cement 150 delivered to site
Cementitious Material 60 Ditto
Reinforcement steel 1200 Ditto
High explosives 2500 Ditto
Ammonium Nitrate 538 Ditto
Note: Steel and cement reflect current price levels because of shortages. The effect of lowering those prices to more
market-like conditions would probably bring the price of cement to US$85 per ton and steel to US$900 per ton. This would
lower the total project cost by about 6%.
6.2.4.4 Construction Equipment

Quotations for various construction equipment have been obtained from supplier
representatives. Key equipment selected for cost calibration were bulldozers, excavators,
scrapers, wheel loaders, compactors, trucks and motor graders. The costs obtained were
reduced by 15% to reflect the size of the project.
The actual UCOST data base contains over 280 equipment items which are selected such
that they best suit the given work quantities and prevailing geotechnical conditions. The
following on-site cost used to calibrate the UCOST construction machinery module.
Table 6.3: List Prices for Construction Equipment
Price
Item Characteristics (1000 US$,
CIF Ethiopia)
Bulldozer 1.9 m³ 67 kW 80
3.3 m³ 123 kW 148
11.9 m³ 276 kW 331
Crawl Loader 2.8 m³ 157 kW 209
Wheel Loader 2.0 m³ 90 kW 102
Hydraulic Crawl Excavator 2.3 m³ 155 kW 186
4.6 m³ 335 kW 402
Motor Scraper 8.4 m³ 131 kW 159
23.7 m³ 335 kW 494
Rear Dump Truck 35.0 t 336 kW 260
50.0 t 452 kW 384
85.0 t 649 kW 596
Motor Grader 101 kW 136
149 kW 200
Combined Vibrating Roller 6.5 t 51 kW 47
16.2 t 118 kW 138
Trailer Compressor 2.5 m³ 22 kW 17
5.2 m³ 40 kW 26
10.2 m³ 82 kW 42
Tower Crane (static) 40 m 31 kW 219
70 m 112 kW 506
6.2.4.5 Comparison of Unit Rates

The Consultant has compared the most important unit rates to those used in the GD-3
project feasibility study and the ones presented for the WS-18 Multi-Purpose Project. The
values have been adjusted to be at 2004 contractor level. This includes corrections for the
currency, the base year, the incorporation of miscellaneous costs and the inclusion of the
indirect costs.
Scheme Optimization
Table 6.4: Comparison of Unit Prices

COMPARISON UNIT RATES Quoted Price Multiplier Unit Price 2004
LI PFS GD-03 WS-18 LI PFS GD-03 WS-18 LI PFS GD-03 WS-18
US$ 2004 US$ 1999 Bir 2005 US$ 2004 US$ 1999 Bir 2005 US$ 2004 US$ 1999 Bir 2005
Dam Rockfill LQ m3 11 7 162 1.32 1.32 0.12 15 9 19
RCC LQ m3 35 28 1.32 1.32 0.12 46 37
Tunnel Excavation 50m2 m3 60 36 120 1.50 1.32 0.12 90 48 14

Lining m3 87 125 996 1.50 1.32 0.12 131 165 115
Reinforcement ton 1159 1000 9000 1.50 1.32 0.12 1739 1323 1036
Penstock Steel ton 4420 4000 30100 1.00 1.05 0.12 4420 4200 3465
Access Road km 291500 250000 500000 1.32 1.32 0.12 384780 330750 57558
Notes: Dam Rockfill WS-18 dam has huge volume, over 12 million m3
Tunnel Excavation LI by TBM, others conventional
Tunnel Lining LI price does not include formwork, the others include formwork
Reinforcement LI includes handling and placement, others put this into lining item
The GD-3 prefeasibility and the Consultant’s unit rates are quite compatible, except for
reinforcement and tunnel excavation. Reinforcement, in our case, includes delivery to the
site and bending, cutting placement and waste, which the PFS Consultant perhaps partly
incorporated into the price of concrete.
The WS-18 values seem to be somewhat erratic, with major deviations in tunnel
excavation and access road.
6.2.5 Electro-Mechanical Equipment and Hydraulic Steel Structures

The cost of E&M equipment is computed by cost functions. These cost functions are
incorporated in EVALS and are company know-how. The formula for radial gates, for
example, is:
RCRADG=1900.*WBAY**1.24*(HIRG*HM)**0.62*NRG**0.9*XH
where: RCRADG = Cost of radial gates (US$)
WBAY = Gate width (m)
HIRG = Gate height (m)
HM = Max Pressure on Gates (m)
NRG = Number of Gates
XH = Adjustment Factor
This is an empirical function, last updated in 2002. XH is an adjustment factor to bring the
2002 level estimate to the present cost level and is set to 1.0 in this case.
Note that there are mark-ups for miscellaneous costs (unmeasured items), contingencies,
engineering cost and client’s own cost to arrive at the total costs.
6.2.6 Add-Ons
In the determination of the Basic Project Cost the following cost were added to the direct
project cost:
Table 6.5: Add-Ons used to compute the Basic Project Cost
Main Item Add-Ons
Civil Works Direct Costs 20% Indirect Costs + 20% Contingencies
Equipment Direct + Indirect Costs 10% Contingencies
Total Construction Costs 10% Engineering and Administration
Basic Project Costs
(does NOT include escalation and interest during construction)
Indirect civil cost contain the preparation of the construction sites, camp installation, site
administration as well as bonds, insurances and contractor’s management costs and
profits.
Contingencies cover both the physical and financial components.

6.2.7 Cost and Output of the GD-3 Hydro Project Alternatives

The optimum dam site was found with the project’s GIS model, minimizing the cross-
sectional area of promising dam sites on and within 2,000 meters from the GD-3 location
chosen in the prefeasibility done by NorConsult in 1999. No better site was found and the
dam site was therefore confirmed.
Four locations of the power house were investigated, using the GIS elevation model. The
first location selected would be at, or very near to, the dam site. The others, to gain
additional head, have been situated at suitable locations along the downstream. A
headrace tunnel and an open-air penstock would connect the reservoir to the
powerhouse. For GD-3 a tunnel length of 9,700 m, 11,100 m or 13,400 m at the eastern
side of the river would be good possibilities for development.
Various dam types were investigated, including all concrete dam types as well as rockfill
dams with concrete facing. Earthfill dams and rockfill dams with central earth core were
not accepted as there are virtually no deposits of suitable earthfill in the area. The way
project dimensioning and costing has been carried out is explained the previous sections
conservative assumptions were made for dam excavation depth and rock classes for the
power conduits, based on the outcome of the geological field program.
The specific generation costs were then calculated as the present value of cost
(investment and running cost) divided by the present value of the energy generated. Non-
firm generation was valued at 0.50 x firm generation.
The following dam types were considered:
Table 6.6: Dam Types

Dam Type Code Spillway Remarks
Concrete Arch COAR Incorporated in Dam Width/Height ratio is about 4, on the
boundary of what is feasible.
RCC Arch Gravity RCAG Incorporated in Dam Little experience among contractors.
RCC Gravity RCGR Incorporated in Dam
RCC Gravity with 2 RCGW Incorporated in Dam
Rockfill Wings
Concrete Arch Gravity COAG Incorporated in Dam
Concrete Faced Rockfill RFFR Chute Spillway
Rockfill with Central Core RFCC Chute Spillway No deposits of good soil in dam vicinity.
Concrete Gravity COGR Incorporated in Dam Expensive compared with RCC
alternative.
The possibility of a concrete arch dam was investigated, but the width/height ratio is
slightly above 4, indicating the dam site may not be suitable for the construction of arch
dams.
An RCC arch gravity dam could well be the least-cost solution. However there is not much
experience in building arch gravity dams using RCC. Almost all RCC dams which have
been built are gravity dams.
The range of alternatives investigated was substantial:
! 8 dam types
! 5 full supply levels, ranging from 1100 to 1140 m asl in 10 m steps
! 9 installed capacity factors, from 0.5 to 2.5 in 0.25 steps
! 3 head race tunnel alignments
! 2 power house alternatives, i.e. open-air and underground.
The resulting information with essential planning parameters is shown in Annex C (Vol. IV).
Scheme Optimization
6.3 Cost of the HVDC Transmission Line

In Chapter 2 it was concluded that the GD-3 project should be constructed for power
export to Kenya. It was also argued that the downstream GD-5 and GD-6 hydro projects,
which benefit from the regulation of the Genale flows by GD-3 should also be built. The
combined output of those three cascade projects would require only a single HVDC line to
transmit it to Nairobi.
The cost of the HVDC interconnection is taken as:
HVDC COST (mUS$) = ((PGD3+PGD5+PGD6)/600.)**0.5*464
where PGD stands for the installed capacity in MW for GD-3, GD-5 and GD-6
respectively.
For example for PGD3=250 MW, PGD5=50 MW and PGD6:=200
HVDC COST= (500/600)^0.5*464= 423 Milion US$ per MW installed
The share of cost attributable to GD-3 was then calculated as follows:
SHARE=PGD3/(PGD3+PGD5*1/(1+0.01*dr(1))**2+PGD6*1/(1+0.01*dr(1))**4)
where dr stands for the discount rate used.
For the present value calculations a two year construction time, a 50 year lifetime and a
yearly cost for OMR of 2% of the capital cost has been assumed.
Furthermore HVDC losses of 10% have been considered, accounting for line, corolla and
inverter/converter losses.
For the optimization procedure the installed capacity of GD-5 was taken fixed as 100 MW
while GD-6 was assumed to be 200 MW. These values correspond to the best dam site,
dam type and dam height, and an installed capacity factor of 1.25 (roughly equivalent to a
plant factor of 75%). The installed capacity factor for GD-3 was then varied between 0.50
and 2.50 in steps of 0.25 for all dam and full supply alternatives investigated.
Furthermore HVDC losses of 10% have been considered, accounting for line, corolla and
inverter/converter losses.
6.4 Cost of the Resettlement Programme

The number of households (HH) to be resettled is quite significant, as can be seen in the
following Table 6.7.
Table 6.7: Number of households to be resettled as a function of the Full Supply Level
Reservoir Cost Incremental Incremental
Level Area Volume Resettlement Energy Resettlement HH/Area dHH/dArea Energy/HH dEnergy/dHH
(m asl) (km2) (hm3) (HH total) (GWh/a) mUS$ (HH/km2) (HH/km2) (GWh/HH/a) (GWh/HH/a)
1110 77 1754 492 1541 13.04 6.4 6.4 3.13 3.13
1120 97 2631 696 1627 18.44 7.2 10.2 2.34 0.42
1130 120 3704 1683 1696 44.60 14.0 42.9 1.01 0.07
1140 150 5042 2187 1772 57.96 14.6 16.8 0.81 0.15
The proposed resettlement area is the Welmel Irrigation Project, studied at prefeasibility
level in Phase 2 of the GDMP. It will have a potential of 10,000 ha command area and will
cost about US$9,000 per ha. The distance between the future GD-3 reservoir and the
Welmel area is less than 100 km. Resettling households will receive, free of charge, 2 ha
of irrigated land, a house with water and electricity supply, a year of training, and tools and
seeds for the first three years of cultivation. This will make the farmers better off, they will
voluntarily emigrate to the Welmel Irrigation Scheme.
The irrigated land and the house are charged to the GD-3 Hydropower Project, which will
cover the development cost.
The total cost estimate for resettlement was then estimated as follows:

Table 6.8: Resettlement and Associated Costs

Item US$
move to Welmel 500
2 ha irrigated land 18,000 Paid for Development of the Welmel Scheme
house with running water and electricity 5,000 Paid for Development of the Welmel Scheme
compensate for one year of training and no income 2,400
tools, seeds for first 3 years 600
Sum 26,500 of which 3,500 US$ to farmer HH
The estimates for resettlement cost was then added as a special cost item to the overall
project cost estimates, the sum of the increase according to the FSL of the GD-3 scheme
under investigation.
6.5 The Benefit Side: Offsetting Thermal Generation

On the benefit side the GD-3 project will be operating as a mid-load plant and the
marginal plant in the Kenyan power system could be:
! combined cycle (240 MW),
! coal plant (150 MW), or
! medium speed diesel (20 MW).
As it not certain at this moment predict which will be the marginal plant at the time GD-3
goes into operation, it was decided to optimize GD-3 separately for each of the three
types of power plant and for two fuel price scenarios for crude oil prices of 30 and 60
US$/bbl respectively.
The following adjustments must be made to be able to compare a thermal to a hydroplant:
! assume that non-firm hydro only offsets fuel and variable OMR of the thermal plant,
but not capital cost and fixed OMR
! reduce the thermal capacity for the higher forced and scheduled outages compared
with hydro
! re-invest thermal capacity whenever its life-time is less than the 50 year lifetime of the
hydro-project.
6.6 The Optimization Procedure and Results

Criterion
As stated before the optimization is based on the incremental benefit and incremental cost
comparison:
NPV = PB-PC
where:
PB = Present value of Benefits
PC = Present value of Costs
On the cost side all costs for buying, operating and maintaining the hydropower
alternative, augmented by all costs associated with the HVDC link to Nairobi.
On the benefit side all costs for an equivalent thermal plant are taken into account,
including and excluding emission penalties.
6.6.1 Results for GD-3 – Dam Type, Dam Height and Installed Capacity Factor
The following dam types were permitted:
! RCC Gravity (Alternative A, B, C and D)
! Concrete Gravity (G)
! Central RCC Gravity Section with Rockfill Wing Dams (K)
! Concrete Faced Rockfill (L)
Scheme Optimization
The gravity dams had a downstream slope of 0.70 and an upstream slope of 1.0, whereas
the concrete faced rockfill dam section had an up and downstream slope of 1.40. The
excavation depths were taken as 8 m on the left bank, 5 m on the right bank and 2 m at
the river bed.
The Full Supply Level (FSL) should not exceed 1140 m asl. At this level it can take more
than 3 years to fill the reservoir, which artificially adds at least one year of waiting time to
the period of construction.
From a socio-environmental point of view the maximum FSL should probably not exceed
1120 m asl as the increase the number of households to be resettled jumps from about
700 to 1700 in between of the 1120 and 1130 contour lines. Also the costs for
resettlement rise steeply from 18 to 45 million US$.
The analysis was initially done for a FSL of 1120 m asl and installed capacity factors
ranging form 0.50 to 2.50.
Depending on the characteristics of the equivalent thermal plant, the power and energy
output of the GD-3 alternative, the oil price adopted, the acceptance of environmental cost
in the equation, and the cost of the HVDC transmission line to Nairobi the optimal dam
type and installed capacity factor vary, as seen in Table 6.9.
Table 6.9: Results for GD-3 Dam Type, Dam Height and Installed Capacity Factor
GD-3 Optimisation of Dam Type and Installed Capacity Factor for Various Conditions
Crude Oil Without Environmental Costs attributed to Equivalent Thermal Plant

Price Coal Plant Combined Cycle Medium Speed Diesel Remarks
US$/bbl Alternative ICF Alternative ICF Alternative ICF
A 2.00 A 1.00 A 1.00 Results for Full Supply Level for 1120 m asl
30 A 1.75 B 1.00 B 1.00 except for Alternatives A (110) and C (1030)
A 1.50 B 1.25 B 1.25 A, B and C are RCC Gravity Dams
A 2.00 B 1.25 B 1.25

60 A 1.75 C 1.25 C 1.25
A 1.25 B 1.00 B 1.00
With Environmental Costs attributed to Equivalent Thermal Plant Environmental Costs are Penalties
B 1.25 B 1.25 B 1.25 for the Emission of CO2, SO2, NOx and
30 B 1.50 A 1.00 B 1.00 Dust (PM10) of the Equivalent Thermal Plant.
C 1.25 B 1.00 A 1.00
ICF stands for Installed Capacity Factor.
B 1.25 C 1.25 C 1.25 It is the rated discharge of power conduits
60 C 1.25 B 1.25 B 1.25 and turbines in terms of the average
B 1.50 B 1.00 B 1.00 streamflow at the dam site
By comparison the ICF values for the coal plant equivalent are rather high. This is due to
the high capital cost of the coal plant as opposed to the combined cycle and the MS diesel
plant.
It is not known at this stage what plant the GD-3 project will offset in the Kenyan power
system. It could be a coal plant, combined cycle or a medium speed diesel. It will probably
a mix of the three. The best solution is therefore a compromise. The above Table 6.9
shows for each condition the three best alternatives, which are the ones with the highest
NPV.
It may be concluded that for export of power to Kenya Alternative B which is a RCC
Gravity Dam with an installed capacity factor of about 1.25 is the best compromise. This
translates to a Full Supply Level of 1,120 m asl and an installed capacity of about 255
MW.
The combined NPV of the hydroplant and the HVDC interconnection varies with the
choice of equivalent thermal plant. If replacing a combined cycle unit, the NPV would be in
the order of MUS$ 200 for a crude oil price of 30 US$ per bbl without accounting for
thermal plant emissions and range to nearly MUS$ 1000 with a crude oil price of US$ 60

and full account of the emission penalties for the equivalent thermal plant. The associated
B/C ratios would be 1.3 for case 1 with a crude price US$ 30/bbl, and 2.9 for case 2 with
crude oil at US$60/bbl and accounting for thermal plant emissions.
Keeping the ICF at 1.25 and the FSL fixed, an analysis was made to see the difference in
NPV of the best dam type and the second and third best alternative, as shown in Figure
6.2 for the Combined Cycle case and in more detail in the following Table and Annex D
(Vol. IV).
Table 6.10: Net Present Value for Various Dam Types

NPV in MUS$ Thermal Power Plant with estimates of Crude Oil Prices with and without Emission Penalties
Coal Plant Combined Cycle Diesel
Dam Alternative 30 60 60e 30 60 60e 30 60 60e
RCAG I 177 312 822 296 733 979 328 802 1,075
RCGR B 174 309 818 293 730 976 324 798 1,071
COAR H 173 308 818 292 729 976 324 798 1,071
COAG J 138 273 783 257 694 940 289 763 1,036
RFCF M 128 263 773 247 684 930 279 753 1,026
RFCC L 125 259 769 244 681 927 275 749 1,022
COGR G 115 250 760 235 671 918 266 740 1,013
RCGW K 110 245 755 229 666 913 261 735 1,008
The best dam type is the RCC Arch Gravity Dam (RCAG). The second ranked alternative,
the RCC Gravity Dam (RCGR), causes a reduction by circa three million US$ compared
with the RCGR. Given that world-wide no RCAG has yet been built, it seems all right to
use 3 million US$ to shift to the many times proven RCC Gravity Dam.
The third economically attractive dam would be a Concrete Arch Dam (COAR), at about
the same NPV as that of the RCGR. This is a good option, but the width/height ratio is
close to 4 which is seen as the limit for this type of dam.
All other dam types investigated would have an NPV value which is US$ 30 million less or
more.
Figure 6.2: Optimisation of Dam Type
GD-3 Optimisation of Dam Type

Dam with FSL 1120 m asl versus Combined Cycle
Net Present Value (million US$)

1200
ICF=1.25
1000
Rejected Chosen Rejected
Rejected
800 Credit for Avoided Thermal Plant Emission
600
60US$ Crude Oil Price - ex Arabia

400
200
0
RCAG RCGR COAR COAG RFCF RFCC COGR RCGW
Dam Type
Another test shows the optimality of the chosen FSL of 1120 m asl (Alternative B) asl
compared with 1130 m asl (C) and 1110 m asl (A). In two third of all parameter settings B
was clearly the best choice, followed by A. Alternative C is practically for all parameter
settings on the last spot. Figure 6.3 shows the comparison with Combined Cycle.
Scheme Optimization
Figure 6.3: Optimisation of Full Supply Level
GD-3 Optimisation of Full Supply Level

RCC Dam versus Combined Cycle

1200
ICF=1.25
Chosen
1000
Credit for Avoided Thermal Plant Emission

800
600
400
200
0
1110 1120 1130 1140
Full Supply Level (m asl)
Alternative D with an FSL of 1140 m asl was rejected from the beginning as it may take 30
months to fill the reservoir.
Then, by keeping the FSL at 1120 m asl, the installed capacity factor was examined. It
was found that under all parameter settings with a combined cycle or MS diesel the first
ranked variant had an ICF of 1.00, followed by 1.25 and 1.50. For the coal based case the
best variant was 1.75, followed by 1.50 and 1.25. This confirms that the choice of 1.25 is a
good compromise. Figure 6.4 shows the comparison with Combined Cycle.
For details see Annex D (Vol. IV).
Figure 6.4: Optimisation of the Installed Capacity Factor
GD-3 Optimisation of Installed Capacity Factor

RCC Dam with FSL 1120 m asl versus Combined Cycle

1200
chosen
1000
Credit for Avoided Thermal Plant Emission

800
600
400
200
0
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Installed Capacity Factor

6.6.2 Results for GD-3 – Tunnel Routes

A brief comparison was made to see whether alternative tunnel lengths would be more
attractive in terms of NPV. In addition to the 12.6 km alternative, two cases were
analysed, i.e. 11.1 and 9.6 km. There is little doubt that the 12.6 km long head race tunnel
is superior to the other two alternatives. For the FSL and ICF chosen as 1120 m asl and
1.25, the NPVs for the three alternatives were mUS$ 292, mUS$ 142 and mUS$ 114
respectively for a 30$ crude oil price and no penalties for thermal emissions.
6.6.3 Results for GD-3 – Underground Powerhouse

A comparison was made between Alternative B with an open-air power house and
Alternative N, which features an underground power cavern. The cavern solution is the
better choice.
It is estimated that the NPV would in all cases be lower by about mUS$ 57 million
compared to Alternative B.
6.6.4 Results for GD-3 – Effect of Upstream Regulation by GD-2 Hydropower Plant
GD-2 is an upstream candidate for hydropower generation. The reservoir would regulate
the inflows into the GD-3 Project.
The highest NPV values were obtained by Alternative T, which is the same as B, except
for the inflows. Thus the FSL of 1120 m asl would be unchanged, without and with
upstream regulation.
Reservoir - Filling and Operation
7 Reservoir - Filling and Operation
7.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, the main dimensions of the project components, that would
generate the greatest net benefits, were identified. One of those components was the
reservoir. This reservoir will regulate the natural river flows by storing a portion of the
inflow during periods of high river discharge for release through the power scheme during
periods of low river discharge. In this way, a largely constant pattern of energy will be
generated throughout the year and from year to year. Only in the driest of years will the
reservoir fail to release sufficient water to generate this constant pattern of energy.
Prior to entering operation, the reservoir must fill to a level that can sustain operation. The
duration of the filling period will depend on the time of year when impoundment begins
and on the subsequent river flows. This chapter assesses the filling period and thereafter
presents details of the reservoir’s mode of operation and the resulting energy yield. During
its lifetime, sediment will accumulate in the reservoir with the prospect of reducing its
capacity to regulate the seasonal and multi-annual variations in river flows. This loss of
capacity is also presented.
7.2 Reservoir Filling

The total storage of the GD-3 reservoir is almost 2,600 million m³. This is equivalent to
325 days of mean flow – almost 1 year. In other words, under average river flow
conditions, it would take almost 1 year for the reservoir to reach FSL if no water is drawn
from the reservoir. If during the filling period, water was drawn from the reservoir, then the
average period to reach FSL would be even longer. From the above it is clear that the
GD-3 reservoir is large. In the following, the time to fill the reservoir to a level at which
operation could begin is assessed.
The contractor responsible for the construction of the dam will want to close the diversion
during the period of lowest flows in order that the initial rise in water level is as slow as
possible. In this way, the contractor has the maximum time to complete the critical task of
setting the stoplogs across the entrance to the diversion culvert. The months with the
lowest historical river flows are February and March and it has thus been assumed that
diversion closure will be made and impoundment will begin in one or other of these two
months.
It has further been assumed that operation could begin once the reservoir level in any
month has reached a level corresponding to the average reservoir level (as determined
from the operation studies) in that month.
With the 32 years of reservoir inflows, a series of “filling simulations” were carried out, all
beginning in the month of March (there is no difference in the results whether starting in
February or March). From the 32 “filling simulations”, the longest time to reach the
reservoir level at which operation could begin was 11 months, while the shortest was 3
months. The results of all the simulated filling times have been presented in Figure 7.1 in
the form of a duration curve plotting filling time against probability of exceedence. From
this curve, the filling time with a 50% probability of exceedence (a good approximation of
the average filling time) is some 5 months. A period of 5 months to reach the operating
level should not have an impact on the commissioning schedule – the generating
equipment must anyway be “wet tested” prior to commissioning and this would be done
during the 5 months filling after the water level has reached the power intake and the
power waterways have been filled.

Figure 7.1: Reservoir Filling Time – Probability of Exceedence
12
10
Filling Time (months)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Probability of Exceedence (%)
7.3 Reservoir Operation Simulation

The reservoir operating mode has the objective of maximizing, over the long term, the
present worth of electricity generation in terms of guaranteed and secondary energy
production and guaranteed capacity subject to a reliability criterion.
In order to determine the performance characteristics of the GD-3 reservoir, its operation
was simulated using the record of historical river discharges at the reservoir site
developed during the hydrological studies. This series of historical river discharges is
assumed to be the best estimate of future discharges. The simulation was carried out
using the Consultant’s proprietary software. The core of this software is a program that
solves the storage continuity equation for the reservoir. The computations are carried out
with a monthly time step over the period of reservoir inflow records (1973 - 2004) taking
into account turbine releases, spillages and net reservoir losses.
The amount of water to be released through the power scheme in order to generate a
target amount of energy depends on the reservoir level, the head losses and the
efficiencies of the turbines, generators and transformers. The reservoir level changes with
each month and season and the head losses themselves depend, amongst others, on the
water released through the power scheme - thus the process of determining the mode of
operation that will maximize energy yield is an iterative procedure.
The head losses are computed with the Prandtl-Colebrooke’s equation, which uses the
following equivalent roughnesses, k:
! 4 mm for TBM excavated tunnel
! 0.6 mm for concrete lined tunnel (using steel shuttering)
! 0.1 mm for steel lined tunnel (welded)
The water turbine design capacity is computed as:

TURCAP = TUREFF × HNETT × QT × 9.81 / 100,000
where:
TURCAP = Turbine design capacity (MW)
TUREFF = Turbine efficiency (%)
HNETT = Net head at design discharge (m)
QT = Design discharge (m³/s) = ICF * QMEAN
ICF = Installed capacity factor
QMEAN = Mean discharge at dam site (m³/s)
Francis turbines are selected and at the design head and flow their efficiency is just over
93%. The power output fluctuates with head and flow. To avoid cavitation damage to the
turbine runners, the minimum head is limited to about 50% of the design head. The other
operating limit is that imposed by the generator capacity. At higher heads, turbine flow is
throttled to prevent over-loading of the generators – overloading can only be tolerated for
relatively short durations.
The design capacity of the generator is:
GENCAP = EFFG × EFFT × HNETG × QG / (10000000 × POWFACT)
where:
GENCAP = Generator capacity (MVA)
QG = Maximum turbine flow for the design of the generator
EFFG = Generator efficiency at maximum turbine discharge (%)
HNETG = Net head at maximum turbine discharge (%)
POWFACT = Power factor
For the present study, a value of 0.9 for the power factor was adopted:
It is assumed that the energy generated by the GD-3 power scheme will supply the
Kenyan market. The Kenyan power system has considerable thermal generation capacity
and is not entirely dependent on hydropower. Therefore a reliability criterion of 95% was
adopted for the reservoir operation. This means that the target firm continuous power
must be generated in 95% of the months over the simulation period. The simulation period
covers 32 years (384 months) from 1973 to 2004. Therefore, under the 95% reliability
criterion, the reservoir was allowed to “fail” to deliver sufficient water to generate the target
in only 19 months. This reliability criterion is reasonable for hydropower schemes
operating within a largely thermal system. In reality, during such rare dry periods,
electricity rationing would be introduced and the impact of reservoir failure to deliver the
target energy would be spread over several months. During these months the thermal
plants could make up at least some of the deficit.
A summary of the inputs to the reservoir operation program are as follows:-
! an unbroken series of natural inflows to the reservoir,
! net losses (i.e. net of evaporation from and rainfall on the reservoir surface) from the
reservoir surface,
! the efficiencies of power generating equipment (turbine, generator, transformer,
station use),
! the elevation-area-capacity relationship of the reservoir,
! minimum operating level (MOL) of the reservoir,
! average tailwater elevation of the power scheme,
! target reliability of firm continuous power (selected as that continuous power
guaranteed for 95% of the simulation period).

Reservoir Inflows
The inflows to the GD-3 reservoir comprise the natural river discharges at the dam site.
The series of monthly mean flows is presented in Table 7.3 and, in graphical form, in
Figure 7.2. The derivation of these natural discharges is contained in the Hydrology
Report.
Net Losses from the Reservoir Surface

The derivation of net losses from the reservoir surface is contained in the Hydrology
Report. The magnitude (in terms of water depth) and seasonal distribution of these net
losses are as follows:
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Net Loss
241 228 153 -116 -81 76 94 101 90 -39 94 163 1004
(mm)
In the simulation of reservoir operation, these net losses are converted each month to
volumes according to the reservoir surface area in that month. The average net loss from
the reservoir surface over the 32 year simulation period (1973 – 2004) is equivalent to
some 2.3m³/s. This is a minor loss of water compared to the mean river flow at the GD-3
dam site of some 92.5m³/s.
Reservoir Elevation-Area-Capacity Curve

The reservoir elevation-area-capacity relationships are central to the water balance and
head calculations. These relations have been compiled from the SRTM (Space Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission) data downloaded from the Internet in the form of a DEM
(Digital Elevation Model) with elevations averaged over 90m square cells. The resulting
relations are presented in tabular and graphic form below:
Elevation Surface Area Storage Surface Area (km2)
2 Rem.
(m asl) (km ) (Mm3)
150 125 100 75 50 25 0
1,020 0 0
1,140
1,030 0.15 1 1,130
1,040 0.47 4 1,120
1,110
1,050 1.4 13
1,100
Elevation (masl)
1,060 2.8 34
1,090
1,070 9.5 95
1,080
Surface
1,080 23 260 MOL 1,070 Storage Area
1,090 39 570 1,060
1,100 57 1040 1,050
1,040
1,110 76 1710
1,030
1,120 98 2570 FSL
1,020
1,130 119 3650 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
1,140 142 4950 Storage (Mm3)
MOL = Minimum operating level / FSL = Full supply level

Between FSL and MOL, the active storage for power production is 2,310 million m³,
equivalent to 289 days of mean inflow.
Minimum Operating Level

The MOL of the GD-3 reservoir was selected based on several criteria as follows:
! the MOL should be set high enough that sediment accumulating in the bed of the
reservoir does not reach the level of the power intake during the design life of the
project,
! the MOL should be set sufficiently below the FSL to maximise the generation of firm
and secondary energy,
! the MOL should be set high enough that the height and construction cost of the power
intake is not excessive.
The method known as the Empirical Area Reduction Method (as published in ‘Design of
Small Dams’, US Bureau of Reclamation, 1973, Pages 781 to 787, Appendix H.A) was
used to assess sediment levels in the area of the dam and power intake. The procedures
have been incorporated into a proprietary computer program belonging to the Consultant.
The following basic characteristics of the inflowing sediment were adopted for the
analysis:
! total suspended sediment inflow (S) of 2.19 million t/year,
! 20% sand portion of total suspended sediment inflow,
! 30% silt portion of total suspended sediment inflow,
! 50% clay portion of total suspended sediment inflow,
! bed load sediment inflow of 20% of total suspended sediment inflow.
The results of the calculations of sedimentation in the reservoir after a period of 50 years
are presented for three scenarios (low, normal and high) as follows:
Table 7.1: Sedimentation in the Reservoir

Low Estimate Normal Estimate High Estimate
Total storage loss (deposited sediment) 92 million m³ 94 million m³ 97 million m³
Percent total storage loss 3.6% 3.7% 3.8%
Elevation of sediment deposit at dam 1045.3 m asl 1045.7 m asl 1049.6 m asl
Revised active storage 2264 million m³ 2261 million m³ 2260 million m³
Active storage loss 46 million m³ 49 million m³ 50 million m³
Percent active storage loss 2.0% 2.1% 2.1%
The loss of storage (both total and active) is negligible even after 50 years of operation.
Some 2% of the active storage will be lost and 3.7% of the total storage. Under the “high
estimate” scenario, the level of sediment at the dam will not exceed 1050 m asl. Adopting
a safety buffer of 5m, the elevation of the power intake should not be lower than 1055 m
asl. With an FSL of 1120 m asl, the height of the power intake structure would exceed
70m. Reservoir operation simulations were carried out to assess the impact on energy
generation of raising the elevation of the power intake above the level of 1055 m asl in
order to reduce the height of the power intake. These simulations indicated that for MOL’s
up to 1080 m asl, the energy generation remained largely constant. The reduction in
active storage is offset by maintaining the reservoir level at a higher elevation thereby
creating a higher head over the power scheme. Thus an MOL of 1080 m asl was adopted
– the resulting height of the power intake is some 60m.
Average Tailwater Level

The average tailwater elevation has been set at 840m asl. This corresponds to the
elevation of the river bank in the area of the tailrace tunnel outfall.

Efficiencies
The following efficiencies for each of the main energy generating components were
adopted:
Turbine efficiency - 0.935 to 0.850, dependent on head and discharge
Generator efficiency - 0.98, constant
Transformer efficiency - 0.99, constant
7.4 Results of Reservoir Operation Simulation

7.4.1 Base Case
The results of the reservoir operation studies are monthly time series of flows, reservoir
levels and energy generations over the 32 year simulation period (1973 to 2004). These
time series are presented as follows:
! Turbine flows in Table 7.3 and Figure 7.3,
! Total outflows in Table 7.4 3 and Figure 7.4,
! Reservoir levels in Table 7.5 and Figure 7.5,
! Continuous power in Table 7.6 and Figure 7.6.
From the above the resulting key reservoir performance characteristics are summarized
as follows:
Average reservoir inflow 92.58 m³/s
Average turbine outflow 83.91 m³/s
Average spill 6.39 m³/s
Average reservoir level 1105 m asl
Average energy generated 1,640 GWh/year
Firm energy generated (95%) 1,600 GWh/year
The regulating effect of the reservoir is shown in the comparison of inflow and outflow time
series in Figure 7.7 and in the comparison of inflow and outflow duration curves in Figure
7.8. The reservoir has the effect of dramatically increasing the river flows in the dry
season and reducing the magnitude and variability of flows in the wet season. The river
flow that is guaranteed for 95% of the time has increased from some 5m³/s to over 75m³/s
– a fifteen fold increase. This huge increase in the guaranteed flow will have huge benefits
for downstream hydropower, irrigation and water supply projects. Indeed there are two
hydropower projects and one irrigation project foreseen downstream of the GD-3 reservoir
which will benefit directly from the highly regulated outflows from the GD-3 reservoir. The
two downstream hydropower projects – GD-5 and GD-6 – are planned with only low dams
and small regulation storages of the order of days at mean flow. No dam is planned at the
Lower Genale Irrigation Project - only a low diversion weir. The elimination of high dams
and large reservoirs (with their associated social and environmental costs) from these
downstream projects represents huge costs saving for these projects.
Other benefits will also accrue from the regulated flows downstream of the reservoir,
including:
! Reduced probability of flooding,
! Improved prospects for boat transport along the river,
! Improved prospects for fishing.
The loss of dry season river crossings may be the only adverse impact of the increase in
low flows downstream.
Table 7.2: Reservoir Monthly Inflows (m³/s)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1973 15.0 6.2 5.4 25.9 77.9 53.8 135.0 221.4 219.7 182.5 80.2 19.2 87.42
1974 12.6 5.6 16.7 25.9 47.0 59.7 129.5 132.3 194.0 85.8 57.3 13.5 65.27
1975 3.7 2.3 1.6 14.4 50.0 95.0 148.3 222.3 194.8 214.1 48.3 6.6 84.07
1976 3.6 1.0 1.1 12.8 146.9 88.2 150.0 147.0 165.1 128.6 141.6 24.8 84.49
1977 25.0 26.6 22.6 51.3 53.1 59.4 102.3 147.3 174.6 238.4 121.5 42.0 89.04
1978 19.6 12.2 11.7 41.3 61.8 68.0 122.0 164.0 187.5 175.5 92.9 38.7 83.36
1979 22.1 13.6 11.7 37.5 71.5 73.7 89.9 131.3 128.9 122.7 60.0 38.8 67.16
1980 19.0 9.7 8.2 49.1 118.5 106.7 174.7 191.6 171.0 162.8 76.2 18.5 92.52
1981 9.5 6.1 16.1 92.5 78.3 65.3 126.7 171.4 173.2 95.4 50.3 18.2 75.60
1982 8.8 6.4 9.1 32.2 118.4 97.5 129.2 158.2 199.6 173.7 99.1 46.5 90.39
1983 19.0 11.1 8.7 41.1 128.3 106.3 130.9 175.3 257.2 381.3 168.1 49.4 123.76
1984 15.7 4.8 3.1 6.5 32.1 77.6 93.8 156.2 230.7 133.2 54.4 18.5 68.98
1985 4.8 2.7 3.0 60.5 192.4 124.3 147.4 176.5 141.9 149.4 66.0 18.5 91.26
1986 5.3 3.9 2.9 34.1 107.4 142.8 115.1 111.8 223.5 147.5 47.3 23.0 80.67
1987 5.8 4.7 16.6 82.0 215.2 206.1 135.3 112.3 111.7 197.6 110.6 26.5 102.55
1988 11.2 5.5 4.8 23.0 58.4 64.3 167.1 237.6 159.8 307.8 65.4 15.2 93.99
1989 6.6 5.1 5.9 103.2 71.4 92.3 140.5 140.2 281.1 325.0 126.8 144.9 120.86
1990 65.1 46.7 91.2 159.5 107.7 116.5 103.8 195.6 148.8 124.0 55.1 21.0 103.19
1991 3.4 1.3 14.4 52.7 57.7 45.7 101.7 184.5 155.9 84.9 61.3 54.9 68.63
1992 47.2 41.2 32.4 22.5 14.5 46.3 115.4 142.1 190.2 393.7 145.8 78.8 106.25
1993 71.2 136.3 90.1 90.1 255.4 95.2 77.0 139.7 122.5 223.4 130.5 43.9 122.98
1994 27.0 19.4 24.5 47.1 154.1 150.6 213.4 263.3 180.0 184.0 124.8 60.2 121.48
1995 33.3 28.3 47.7 150.9 107.8 63.5 90.8 176.2 235.6 208.6 86.5 22.9 104.64
1996 17.9 12.7 8.3 53.5 147.4 291.2 159.4 208.0 247.0 126.9 38.7 16.4 110.64
1997 10.4 5.1 2.0 45.0 46.5 41.5 126.2 104.0 66.7 279.1 494.6 159.8 115.47
1998 187.2 117.1 50.2 54.5 143.3 70.4 139.7 203.0 193.2 369.1 112.8 27.5 139.52
1999 12.9 4.8 13.1 15.9 37.6 38.7 103.2 134.4 121.6 261.0 86.8 20.2 71.45
2000 4.8 2.1 1.2 5.7 127.3 29.8 65.5 149.9 151.7 277.9 200.3 42.6 88.61
2001 16.1 12.5 18.1 46.0 119.8 163.7 134.4 192.6 178.6 169.8 111.6 44.5 101.10
2002 23.2 9.9 21.7 42.4 59.7 48.1 76.1 114.5 98.9 112.0 47.0 51.8 59.17
2003 36.2 10.7 7.9 54.5 92.9 79.7 85.4 113.4 119.9 118.3 48.1 57.1 69.08
2004 35.7 27.3 11.1 44.7 67.3 55.6 72.5 148.8 184.6 167.0 91.3 40.8 79.01
Mean 24.97 18.84 18.22 50.57 98.99 91.17 121.94 164.58 175.30 197.53 103.16 40.79 92.58
Max 187.20 136.30 91.20 159.50 255.40 291.20 213.40 263.30 281.10 393.70 494.60 159.80 139.52
Min 3.40 1.00 1.10 5.70 14.50 29.80 65.50 104.00 66.70 84.90 38.70 6.60 59.17
Figure 7.2: Reservoir Monthly Inflows (m³/s)
500
450
400
350
Discharge (m3/s)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

Table 7.3: Reservoir Monthly Turbine Flows (m³/s)
1973 83.4 84.5 85.9 87.9 89.8 75.7 91.2 89.4 85.9 83.7 82.3 82.4 85.22
1974 83.3 84.4 85.8 87.5 89.2 66.4 91.2 89.6 88.2 85.8 85.8 86.4 85.35
1975 76.7 0.0 0.2 15.5 50.7 91.2 91.1 88.9 85.6 83.8 82.0 82.5 62.79
1976 83.5 84.9 86.5 75.2 91.2 89.0 89.0 87.3 85.9 84.5 83.8 83.1 85.36
1977 84.0 85.0 86.1 87.7 88.7 89.1 91.2 90.7 88.6 86.5 83.7 83.2 87.07
1978 83.9 85.0 86.4 88.4 89.9 69.7 91.2 89.9 87.6 85.4 83.9 83.8 85.46
1979 84.6 85.8 87.4 73.1 72.2 73.0 89.1 91.2 89.6 88.3 87.4 88.1 84.17
1980 48.2 7.4 6.8 50.2 91.2 90.0 89.4 86.9 84.8 83.5 82.5 82.6 67.18
1981 83.5 84.7 86.2 88.0 87.8 88.0 88.7 87.6 85.7 84.3 84.1 84.6 86.11
1982 85.9 87.9 23.3 33.3 91.2 90.0 89.7 88.4 86.6 84.5 83.2 83.0 77.21
1983 83.5 84.6 86.0 87.9 89.2 88.0 87.5 86.5 84.8 82.4 79.2 78.5 84.85
1984 78.8 79.4 80.1 81.0 81.7 82.3 82.4 82.3 81.4 80.0 79.5 79.7 80.73
1985 80.4 81.2 82.1 83.2 83.4 82.0 81.5 80.8 79.9 79.4 78.8 78.9 80.97
1986 79.5 80.3 81.0 82.0 82.5 82.2 81.5 81.1 80.9 79.5 78.9 79.2 80.71
1987 79.8 80.6 81.4 82.2 82.1 80.6 79.5 79.0 78.7 85.7 107.0 77.6 82.81
1988 78.0 78.7 79.3 80.0 80.6 80.8 80.9 80.1 78.7 110.7 77.6 77.7 81.97
1989 78.3 78.9 79.6 80.3 80.1 80.2 80.1 79.5 99.8 110.0 110.0 110.0 88.95
1990 77.6 77.8 78.1 110.6 110.0 110.0 100.4 110.0 110.0 110.0 77.6 77.8 95.90
1991 78.3 79.0 79.7 80.4 80.6 80.8 81.2 81.0 80.0 79.3 79.3 79.5 79.92
1992 79.7 80.1 80.5 81.1 81.7 82.5 82.9 82.5 81.8 80.7 102.7 77.6 82.79
1993 77.6 105.0 84.5 94.5 110.0 92.3 77.6 110.1 110.0 110.0 110.0 77.6 96.49
1994 77.9 78.4 78.9 79.4 79.7 79.0 106.5 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 77.6 91.53
1995 77.8 78.2 78.6 78.9 78.3 78.1 78.2 105.2 110.0 110.0 82.9 77.6 86.22
1996 78.1 78.6 79.2 79.9 80.1 79.5 110.3 110.0 110.0 110.0 77.6 77.9 89.36
1997 78.5 79.1 79.8 80.6 80.9 81.3 81.7 81.2 81.0 81.2 112.4 110.0 85.66
1998 110.0 107.9 77.6 77.9 94.7 77.6 110.1 110.0 110.0 110.0 109.2 77.6 97.69
1999 78.0 78.6 79.3 79.9 80.5 80.9 81.4 81.2 80.7 80.3 78.6 78.6 79.85
2000 79.1 79.9 80.6 81.6 82.4 81.8 82.5 82.7 81.9 81.2 79.2 78.3 80.94
2001 78.6 79.2 79.8 80.5 80.8 80.4 79.6 79.1 94.9 110.0 108.0 77.6 85.71
2002 77.9 78.4 79.0 79.6 79.9 80.0 80.4 80.4 80.1 80.0 79.7 80.0 79.61
2003 80.3 80.8 81.6 82.5 82.8 82.7 82.7 82.7 82.4 82.0 81.5 81.9 82.00
2004 82.3 83.0 83.7 85.0 85.7 86.0 86.7 87.1 85.7 84.1 82.9 82.8 84.57
Mean 80.22 78.05 75.16 78.61 84.68 82.84 87.42 89.15 89.42 90.53 88.17 82.30 83.91
Max 110.02 107.86 87.36 110.58 110.02 110.02 110.27 110.07 110.02 110.71 112.37 110.02 97.69
Min 48.18 0.03 0.23 15.48 50.73 66.38 77.60 79.00 78.70 79.33 77.60 77.60 62.79
Figure 7.3: Reservoir Monthly Turbine Flows (m³/s)
500
450
400
350
Discharge (m3/s)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
Table 7.4: Reservoir Monthly Outflows (Turbine + Spill) (m³/s)
1973 83.4 84.5 85.9 87.9 89.8 75.7 91.2 89.4 85.9 83.7 82.3 82.4 85.22
1974 83.3 84.4 85.8 87.5 89.2 66.4 91.2 89.6 88.2 85.8 85.8 86.4 85.35
1975 76.7 0.0 0.2 15.5 50.7 91.2 91.1 88.9 85.6 83.8 82.0 82.5 62.79
1976 83.5 84.9 86.5 75.2 91.2 89.0 89.0 87.3 85.9 84.5 83.8 83.1 85.36
1977 84.0 85.0 86.1 87.7 88.7 89.1 91.2 90.7 88.6 86.5 83.7 83.2 87.07
1978 83.9 85.0 86.4 88.4 89.9 69.7 91.2 89.9 87.6 85.4 83.9 83.8 85.46
1979 84.6 85.8 87.4 73.1 72.2 73.0 89.1 91.2 89.6 88.3 87.4 88.1 84.17
1980 48.2 7.4 6.8 50.2 91.2 90.0 89.4 86.9 84.8 83.5 82.5 82.6 67.18
1981 83.5 84.7 86.2 88.0 87.8 88.0 88.7 87.6 85.7 84.3 84.1 84.6 86.11
1982 85.9 87.9 23.3 33.3 91.2 90.0 89.7 88.4 86.6 84.5 83.2 83.0 77.21
1983 83.5 84.6 86.0 87.9 89.2 88.0 87.5 86.5 84.8 82.4 79.2 78.5 84.85
1984 78.8 79.4 80.1 81.0 81.7 82.3 82.4 82.3 81.4 80.0 79.5 79.7 80.73
1985 80.4 81.2 82.1 83.2 83.4 82.0 81.5 80.8 79.9 79.4 78.8 78.9 80.97
1986 79.5 80.3 81.0 82.0 82.5 82.2 81.5 81.1 80.9 79.5 78.9 79.2 80.71
1987 79.8 80.6 81.4 82.2 82.1 80.6 79.5 79.0 78.7 85.7 107.0 77.6 82.81
1988 78.0 78.7 79.3 80.0 80.6 80.8 80.9 80.1 78.7 247.5 77.6 77.7 93.56
1989 78.3 78.9 79.6 80.3 80.1 80.2 80.1 79.5 99.8 326.4 123.2 138.9 110.87
1990 77.6 77.8 78.1 112.2 110.7 113.6 100.4 191.9 145.4 125.4 77.6 77.8 107.56
1991 78.3 79.0 79.7 80.4 80.6 80.8 81.2 81.0 80.0 79.3 79.3 79.5 79.92
1992 79.7 80.1 80.5 81.1 81.7 82.5 82.9 82.5 81.8 80.7 102.7 77.6 82.79
1993 77.6 105.0 84.5 94.5 258.4 92.3 77.6 132.0 119.1 224.8 126.9 77.6 122.83
1994 77.9 78.4 78.9 79.4 79.7 79.0 106.5 259.6 176.6 185.4 121.2 77.6 117.03
1995 77.8 78.2 78.6 78.9 78.3 78.1 78.2 105.2 232.2 210.0 82.9 77.6 104.75
1996 78.1 78.6 79.2 79.9 80.1 79.5 133.7 204.3 243.6 128.3 77.6 77.9 111.83
1997 78.5 79.1 79.8 80.6 80.9 81.3 81.7 81.2 81.0 81.2 284.3 153.8 103.51
1998 178.4 107.9 77.6 77.9 94.7 77.6 126.5 199.3 189.8 370.5 109.2 77.6 141.15
1999 78.0 78.6 79.3 79.9 80.5 80.9 81.4 81.2 80.7 80.3 78.6 78.6 79.85
2000 79.1 79.9 80.6 81.6 82.4 81.8 82.5 82.7 81.9 81.2 79.2 78.3 80.94
2001 78.6 79.2 79.8 80.5 80.8 80.4 79.6 79.1 94.9 171.2 108.0 77.6 90.90
2002 77.9 78.4 79.0 79.6 79.9 80.0 80.4 80.4 80.1 80.0 79.7 80.0 79.61
2003 80.3 80.8 81.6 82.5 82.8 82.7 82.7 82.7 82.4 82.0 81.5 81.9 82.00
2004 82.3 83.0 83.7 85.0 85.7 86.0 86.7 87.1 85.7 84.1 82.9 82.8 84.57
Mean 82.35 78.05 75.16 78.66 89.34 82.95 88.67 102.81 103.38 121.74 94.83 84.57 90.30
Max 178.38 107.86 87.36 112.22 258.36 113.63 133.73 259.60 243.60 370.53 284.26 153.83 141.15
Min 48.18 0.03 0.23 15.48 50.73 66.38 77.60 79.00 78.70 79.33 77.60 77.60 62.79
Figure 7.4: Reservoir Monthly Outflows (Turbine + Spill) (m³/s)
500
450
400
350
Discharge (m3/s)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

Table 7.5: Reservoir Monthly Water Levels (m asl)
1973 1101.4 1098.1 1094.1 1088.6 1083.6 1082.5 1080.0 1084.6 1094.0 1100.5 1104.6 1104.4 1093.00
1974 1101.7 1098.3 1094.3 1089.7 1085.1 1080.8 1080.0 1084.0 1087.7 1094.4 1094.5 1092.7 1090.23
1975 1087.4 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1080.4 1086.0 1095.1 1100.2 1105.5 1104.2 1088.28
1976 1100.9 1096.9 1092.4 1086.0 1080.0 1085.8 1085.6 1090.3 1094.0 1098.0 1100.1 1102.4 1092.70
1977 1099.7 1096.6 1093.5 1089.1 1086.5 1083.3 1080.0 1081.2 1086.6 1092.5 1100.4 1101.9 1090.90
1978 1100.0 1096.6 1092.7 1087.2 1083.3 1080.3 1080.0 1083.3 1089.5 1095.4 1099.9 1100.2 1090.67
1979 1098.0 1094.4 1090.1 1083.6 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1084.2 1087.5 1090.1 1088.0 1086.27
1980 1083.5 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1083.1 1084.6 1091.2 1097.1 1100.9 1104.2 1103.9 1089.08
1981 1101.1 1097.4 1093.3 1088.5 1088.9 1088.3 1086.4 1089.3 1094.6 1098.8 1099.4 1097.7 1093.63
1982 1094.0 1088.7 1081.8 1080.0 1080.0 1083.1 1083.7 1087.2 1092.1 1098.0 1102.1 1102.6 1089.46
1983 1100.9 1097.7 1093.9 1088.7 1085.1 1088.4 1089.6 1092.4 1097.3 1104.5 1114.5 1116.8 1097.49
1984 1115.9 1113.8 1111.5 1108.8 1106.4 1104.7 1104.4 1104.8 1107.4 1112.1 1113.7 1112.9 1109.68
1985 1110.8 1108.1 1105.3 1102.1 1101.2 1105.6 1107.1 1109.2 1112.2 1114.0 1116.0 1115.6 1108.94
1986 1113.7 1111.1 1108.7 1105.7 1104.1 1105.1 1107.2 1108.3 1109.2 1113.5 1115.5 1114.6 1109.73
1987 1112.7 1110.2 1107.6 1105.1 1105.2 1110.0 1113.7 1115.2 1116.1 1116.9 1120.0 1120.0 1112.75
1988 1118.5 1116.4 1114.2 1111.8 1110.2 1109.5 1108.9 1111.6 1116.2 1118.3 1120.0 1119.6 1114.61
1989 1117.7 1115.5 1113.3 1110.9 1111.7 1111.5 1111.8 1113.5 1115.2 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1115.10
1990 1120.0 1119.4 1118.5 1118.7 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1119.3 1119.66
1991 1117.6 1115.3 1113.0 1110.8 1110.0 1109.3 1108.1 1108.7 1112.0 1114.2 1114.4 1113.7 1112.25
1992 1112.9 1111.6 1110.3 1108.5 1106.7 1104.2 1102.8 1104.0 1106.1 1109.7 1119.0 1120.0 1109.63
1993 1119.9 1119.5 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1119.9 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1119.94
1994 1118.9 1117.3 1115.6 1113.8 1113.0 1115.3 1117.2 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1117.61
1995 1119.4 1117.9 1116.5 1115.4 1117.5 1118.4 1117.9 1118.2 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1118.44
1996 1118.4 1116.5 1114.5 1112.2 1111.6 1113.7 1119.4 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1118.9 1117.11
1997 1117.1 1114.9 1112.7 1110.1 1109.0 1107.9 1106.5 1108.0 1108.7 1108.1 1114.4 1120.0 1111.42
1998 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1119.1 1118.6 1120.0 1119.7 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1119.79
1999 1118.5 1116.5 1114.3 1112.2 1110.3 1109.0 1107.5 1108.2 1109.9 1111.1 1116.5 1116.6 1112.51
2000 1114.8 1112.3 1109.9 1107.0 1104.4 1106.2 1104.2 1103.4 1105.9 1108.2 1114.5 1117.7 1109.04
2001 1116.6 1114.6 1112.5 1110.4 1109.5 1110.8 1113.2 1114.8 1117.9 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1115.03
2002 1119.0 1117.2 1115.2 1113.4 1112.4 1111.9 1110.8 1110.6 1111.6 1112.1 1113.1 1112.0 1113.25
2003 1111.0 1109.3 1106.9 1104.0 1103.1 1103.5 1103.4 1103.4 1104.5 1105.8 1107.1 1105.9 1105.63
2004 1104.8 1102.7 1100.4 1096.7 1094.8 1093.8 1091.9 1090.9 1094.6 1099.4 1103.0 1103.2 1097.99
Mean 1109.6 1107.0 1104.6 1101.8 1100.4 1100.8 1100.8 1102.6 1105.6 1108.6 1111.3 1111.4 1105.4
Max 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1120.0 1119.9
Min 1083.5 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1080.0 1084.2 1087.5 1090.1 1088.0 1086.3
Figure 7.5: Reservoir Monthly Water Levels (m asl)
1130
1120
Water Level ( masl)
1110
1100
1090
1080
1070
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
Table 7.6: Monthly Continuous Power (MW)
1973 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 153.2 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 180.09
1974 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 133.3 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 178.46
1975 158.5 0.1 0.5 31.0 101.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 131.67
1976 182.5 182.5 182.5 154.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 180.21
1977 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 180.8 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.36
1978 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 139.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 178.97
1979 182.5 182.5 182.5 148.7 144.5 146.0 178.2 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 173.13
1980 97.9 14.9 13.7 100.4 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 141.02
1981 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
1982 182.5 182.5 47.1 66.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 161.47
1983 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
1984 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
1985 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
1986 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
1987 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 199.1 251.7 182.5 189.61
1988 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 258.8 182.5 182.5 188.96
1989 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 230.6 258.8 258.8 258.8 205.68
1990 182.5 182.5 182.5 258.8 258.8 258.8 236.0 258.8 258.8 258.8 182.5 182.5 225.28
1991 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
1992 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 240.7 182.5 187.27
1993 182.5 246.5 198.7 222.2 258.8 217.1 182.5 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 182.5 226.87
1994 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 247.9 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 182.5 213.54
1995 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 245.8 258.8 258.8 195.1 182.5 201.65
1996 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 182.5 182.5 208.13
1997 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 258.8 258.8 195.24
1998 258.8 253.7 182.5 182.5 221.7 182.5 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 256.9 182.5 229.58
1999 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
2000 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
2001 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 221.3 258.8 254.1 182.5 198.05
2002 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
2003 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
2004 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.50
Mean 181.5 175.8 167.8 173.3 184.8 181.0 190.8 196.4 199.5 204.5 201.0 187.3 187.0
Max 258.8 253.7 198.7 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 258.8 229.6
Min 97.9 0.1 0.5 31.0 101.5 133.3 178.2 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 131.7
Figure 7.6: Monthly Continuous Power (MW)
300
250
Continuous Power (MW)
200
150
100
50
0
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

Figure 7.7: Comparison of Reservoir Inflows and Outflows – Time Series
500
Inflows
450
Outflows
400
350
Discharge (m3/s)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
Figure 7.8: Comparison of Reservoir Inflows and Outflows – Duration Curves
3
Discharge (m /s)
500
400
300
Inflows
200
Outflows
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Duration (%)
7.4.2 Sensitivity Cases

7.4.2.1 Simulation Periods
The reservoir inflows of the reference case cover the period 1973-2004. This period can
be split into two periods, namely from 1985-2004, which is based on largely complete
water level and discharge measurements at of Chenemasa bridge, near to the GD-3 dam
site, and from 1973-1984 for which about 70% of the flow values used are the result of
multi-station correlations with other rainfall and hydrometric station data. The correlation
data are of a different, less reliable, quality compared to the directly measured series.
The Consultant has therefore, as a sensitivity case, investigated what the results of the
reservoir operation would be if based on the period 1985-2004. A comparison of the
results of the sensitivity case with the base case is presented in Table 7.7.
Table 7.7: Comparison with Simulation for the Period 1985-2004

Period Inflow Peak Power Continuous Power Energy
Average Max Average Min Average Guaranteed Average
(m3/s) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (GWh/a)
1985-2004 97.1 282 265 223 205 199 1,797
1973-2004 92.6 268 249 212 187 183 1,640
% higher 4.7% 5.2% 6.4% 5.2% 9.6% 8.7% 9.6%
The power and energy generated are some 5% to 9% higher than the reference case.
This is comforting to know. Being conservative the Consultant will, however, use the
results of the reference case as the basis for the evaluation of the GD-3 project.
7.4.2.2 Trends due to Climate Change

Historic streamflows are not necessarily representative of future streamflows. As yet,
however, there is no exact forecast as to what hydrological changes global warming may
lead. The Consultant has, however, carried out a sensitivity study based on a scenario
with higher runoff with higher discharge fluctuations, as predicted in the global warming
research:
! 20% higher runoff
! Random variation of monthly flows by up to 30% of their ‘normal’ rate.
A comparison of the results of the sensitivity case with the base case is presented in
Table 7.8.
Table 7.8: Effects of Higher Flows and Increased Variability on Reservoir Operation
Inflow Peak Power Continuous Power Energy
Case Average Max Average Min Average Guaranteed Average
(m3/s) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (GWh/a)
Climatic Change 111.5 282 262 213 227 226 1,988
Historic 92.6 268 249 212 187 183 1,640
% higher 20.3% 5.2% 5.2% 0.5% 21% 23% 21%
Using the same installed capacity as used for the simulation for the historic inflows, the
capacity figures do not change much, although the guaranteed power goes up by about
5%, but the energy output would rise by about 21%.

8 Dam
8.1 Dam Design – Introduction

This chapter deals with the design of the GD-3 dam. Studies have been undertaken to
develop the layout of a dam that will meet internationally recognised safety standards.
These design studies have drawn information from the site topographic surveys, the
hydrological studies, the geological and geotechnical investigations, the seismic studies,
the reservoir operation studies and the cost studies. The design of the dam is presented
under the following headings:
! Physical conditions – in this section the physical site conditions, relevant for dam
design, are summarised. These site conditions include the geology and seismicity, the
available construction materials, the floods and climatic conditions.
! Basis for dam layout and design – in this section the basic boundary conditions, within
which the dam design is developed, are defined.
! Dam axis and dam type – in these sections the rationale for the selection of the dam
axis, the dam type and the geometric layout is presented.
! RCC dam design – in this section the details of dam design are developed. The design
started from the excavation and treatment for dam foundation, descriptions of
construction materials, RCC mix and properties, arrangements of RCC dam structure,
followed by the stability analysis. These details include the results of the stability
analyses.
! Preliminary temperature control criteria – this section deals with the temperature
control for the RCC dam. The permissible temperature differential and placement
temperatures are presented and methods for temperature control are proposed.
! Dam construction aspects – in this section the possible construction methods and
equipment are discussed. The corresponding production rates and construction period
are proposed.
! Dam instrumentation – in this section the arrangement of instruments for monitoring
the dam behaviours are recommended.
! Summary of principal dam features and dimensions – in this section the main features
and dimensions are summarised.
8.2 Physical Conditions at the Dam Site

8.2.1 Geology and Seismicity
Geology
The dam site is located entirely on the late Pre-Cambrian pegmatoidal granites that
outcrop extensively on both flanks and in the river channel. These granites are composed
mainly of coarse grained feldspar and quartz. Drilling has shown that at depth in the dam
foundations, there are only minor remnants of gneiss and schist belonging to the older
basement rocks that were intruded by the pegmatoidal granite. These very minor
inclusions of gneiss or schist will not affect the rock mass which can be assumed to be
homogenous. The granites are massive and strong with little jointing and little weathering.
Drilling has shown that joint spacing is commonly 10m and can be as much as 25m. The
rock mass is also impermeable apart from near surface stress relief joints. The Lugeon
testing has shown that below depths of 10m the rock mass is tight.
Drilling on the dam axis has shown that the maximum depth of weathering to fresh
unweathered rock is 4.4m. Test pitting in soil covered areas on the dam axis, gave a
maximum depth to refusal of 3.5m. Drilling at upstream and downstream sites on the right
bank indicated depths of weathering of 7m and 8m. Seismic surveys on the dam axis and
at the upstream and downstream sites indicate the maximum depth to sound rock with
Dam
velocities of 2500m/sec is 5m on the dam axis and about 10m upstream and downstream.
These maximum depths occur over short sections only and probably correspond to near
vertical joints where weathering penetrates down the joint. In general there are very high
velocities close to surface.
The massive, coarse grained, unweathered, very widely and tightly jointed and strong
granites on which the dam will be founded, have very high rock mass properties with very
high bearing capacities and very low deformation moduli.
Using the Geomechanics Rock Mass Classification (Bieniawski 1989) the granite rock
mass has a total rock mass rating (RMR89) of 88, indicating a very good rock mass. This
RMR value indicates an angle of friction of 45° and cohesion of 400kPa on the rock joints.
This is equivalent to a Geological Strength Index (GSI) of 83 (Hoek and Brown 1997).
The RocLab 1 programme, available from RocScience, predicts rock mass parameters
with a global strength of about 38MPa and a modulus of deformation of about 37GPa
based on a rock mass with a uniaxial strength of 75MPa and a GSI of 83. Even higher
rock mass parameters for rock strength and GSI are predicted for massive granite.
From the above it is clear that the geological conditions at the proposed dam site are very
favourable for a high concrete gravity dam.
Core drilling shows that the maximum depth to sound rock for foundations, taking jointing
into account is 5.2m. In places there may be vertical joints with narrow zones of deeper
weathering and poorer rock that will require removal and backfilling with dental concrete,
but these should not affect the general founding depth. There may also be open stress
relief joints parallel to surface. In theory the dam should not be founded above open joints
but these joints may not daylight and may not be visible so that consolidation grouting of
the open joints will be required.
The dam foundation excavations will require a relatively uniform profile so that in places
the excavations will be deeper than the maximum required. For feasibility design it can be
assumed that the foundations will have an average founding depth of 5m. The present
river channel has a minimum level of 1015m. It is assumed to be in sound rock suitable for
founding. Pre-split drilling and blasting should be used for excavations in the unweathered
granite because of the very wide joint spacing.
Grout takes for a grout curtain are likely to be minimal according to the current
investigations. At the design investigations, the few major vertical joints and other
lineaments observed on the aerial photos need to be drilled and tested. Consolidation
grouting below the dam foundations will be more a question of check testing and grout
takes are only expected where stress relief joints parallel to the ground surface and
therefore not readily visible occur.
The stilling basin located at the toe of the dam will be founded at the same elevation as
the section of dam foundation below the spillway on sound unweathered rock.
There are a number of large boulders and blocks of rock embedded in the dam abutments
which will require excavation. The slopes at and around the dam site are steep but stable
– there or no unfavourable major joint planes. These slopes should remain largely stable
during and after impoundment, although minor surface slides may occur along shallow
surface-parallel exfoliation planes.
Construction Materials
The most obvious source of coarse concrete aggregate (stone) in the neighbourhood of
the dam is the proposed quarry on the right bank about 2km upstream of the dam axis.
The quarry has steep slopes or cliffs at the toe of the quarry and massive granite
outcrops. Boreholes drilled in the quarry area encountered usuable granitic rock at depths
generally ranging from 4m to 10m.
The results of strength testing proved that aggregate derived from this quarry would be
sufficient for manufacturing concrete of strengths up to at least 25MPa. With regard to

durability and resistance to abrasion, results of tests proved that aggregate from this
source would be satisfactory. The results of the alkali silica reaction (ASR) tests all show
that the granitic aggregates are innocuous and will not react adversely with cement.
The proposed quarry has a potential volume of about 6 million cubic metres, which is well
in excess of the total required aggregate volume which will be of the order of 1 million
cubic metres.
A second source of aggregates will be the rock spoil from the long headrace tunnel. This
material will be mucked out to the surge tank area. However, this source suffers from two
major disadvantages – firstly, the material will only become available as tunnel excavation
proceeds over a period of two years and secondly it will have to be transported some 23
road-km from the spoil deposit to the dam site.
One other option for concrete aggregate that should be considered is the use of
limestone. Extensive beds of limestones are located within 5km of the dam soite, close to
the access road running between the power house and the dam.
Good quality sands for filters and concrete aggregates occur in localised banks along the
main river and in its tributaries upstream of the dam site. Cement (both OPC and
Pozzolan) is available from the Muger Cement Factory – some 650 road-km north-north-
west of the project site.
Seismicity
Previous studies by international consultants (NORPLAN A.S. in association with
Norconsult International A.S., 1999) have shown that the GD-3 dam site is located in an
area of low seismic hazard (Hazard Class I). According to their report, the peak ground
accelerations for the design of any water retaining structure should be as follows:
! Maximum design earthquake (MDE): 0.12 g
! Operating basis earthquake (OBE): 0.06 g
These accelerations are relatively low by world standards.
8.2.2 Hydro-Meteorological Conditions

The hydro-meteorological conditions at the dam site are summarized in the following
sections.
Rainfall
The average rainfall at the dam site is some 765mm per year. Its distribution throughout
the year is reflected in the rainfall record of the nearby town of Negele, presented in
Figure 8.1 below.
Two peaks of rainfall are evident – the first peak in April and May and the second in
October.
Seasonal River Flows

The long term average river flow at the dam site is some 92.6m3/s. The seasonal
distribution of flows throughout the year, as recorded at the Chemenesa gauging station,
located a short distance upstream of the dam site, is presented in Figure 8.1 below.
A pronounced single peak in October is evident. A five month low flow season lasts from
December to April.
Dam
Figure 8.1: Rainfall and River Flows at Dam Site

NEGELE BORENA (7002) 200
18.1%
200 Annual Average: 89.2 m3/s
Annual Total: 735 mm 180 15.6%
180 15.1%
160
160
Rainfall (mm/month)
140
Streamflow (m 3/s)
140 11.2%
120
120 9.2%
9.1%
100 8.1%
100
80
80
60 60 4.5%
3.7%
40 40 2.3%
1.7% 2.3%
20 1.6%
20
0 0
Flood Flows
The highest floods occur during the high flow season from May to November. The
estimated magnitude of the rarer floods, with return intervals from once in 10 years up to
the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), are presented below:
Return Period Flood Peaks

(years) (m3/s)
10 810
20 950
100 1,250
1,000 1,680
10,000 2,100
PMF 3,800
Wind
Wind influences dam design insofar as it creates waves on the reservoir surface which
run-up against the dam crest, potentially over-topping the dam. In addition, the heat
release through the surface of the RCC dam depends on the wind velocity. The mean
monthly wind speed varies from 2.0 to 3.4 m/s with an annual mean value of 2.62 m/s.
Temperature
Similar to other parts of the country, the average temperature at the GD-3 dam site varies
little throughout the year. Mean monthly profiles of temperature show only a slight
variation from month to month with values ranging from 18.0° to 21.7°C. The mean annual
temperature is 19.7°C.
Humidity and Evaporation

In dam area the mean monthly relative humidity varies from 53% to 78%. From April to
October the mean monthly relative humidity is generally higher than 70%, although from
June to September there is scarcely rainfall. The annual mean evaporation at the GD-3
dam site is about 1684 mm.

8.3 Basis for Dam Layout and Dam Design

8.3.1 Operating Levels
The reservoir FSL and MOL have been optimized such that the hydropower project will
generate the greatest net economic benefits over its life. The optimization approach has
been described earlier in the report in the chapter on reservoir operation. The adopted
operating levels are as follows:
! FSL 1120.00 m asl,
! MOL 1080.00 m asl.
8.3.2 River Diversion Concept

One of the most important advantages of RCC is that large volumes can be placed and
compacted quickly. This means that RCC dams can be raised in much shorter periods
than other dam types. This advantage influences the river diversion arrangement. There is
no need to protect a large construction pit for several years against flooding.
For GD-3 just prior to the first low flow season lasting 4-5 months, the right flank of the
dam will be cleared and excavated down to founding depth while the river is confined, by
low dykes, to its dry season channel. A D-shaped culvert, 12m high by 6m wide, will be
constructed through the dam foundation. Around and above the culvert, the dam will be
raised on the right flank to an elevation of some 1060m asl. This will be some 40m above
normal river level and well above flood level. At the onset of the second low flow season,
new cofferdams (upstream and downstream of the dam footprint) will divert the river
through the culvert under the right flank of the dam and expose the left side river bed. The
left dam flank will be raised during this second dry season and beyond to the 1060m asl
elevation. Thereafter, the entire dam will be raised to its final crest level.
The schedule of river diversion and the discharge capacity of the culvert will protect the
early construction works against all floods with a return period not exceeding once in 40 to
50 years. Even if the flood protection cofferdams are overtopped and the dam
construction works are flooded, the damage to the already completed RRC fill is unlikely
to be serious and construction should not be seriously delayed.
8.4 Dam Axis and Dam Type

8.4.1 Dam Axis
In their pre-feasibility investigations, reported in April 1999, the consulting group
comprising Norplan A.S and Norconsult A.S. investigated three locations for the GD-3
dam, namely GD-3-U, GD-3-M and GD-3-D. These locations were compared from the
point of view of geology, topography, construction cost and power output for a range of
dam heights. It was concluded that the site known as GD-3-M offered the most favourable
conditions for a dam. The foundation conditions were superior and the valley was
narrower, resulting in less foundation works and a lower dam fill volume.
This location proposed by Norplan/Norconsult served as the starting point for the present
study. A profile of the entire Genale River was produced by the GIS model which
confirmed that the general location of the GD-3 dam offers the best opportunities for both
regulation storage and head exploitation – the two key ingredients of a good hydropower
scheme. The GIS model further confirmed that, according to the site topography, the axis
known as GD-3-M would result in the dam with the lowest fill volume. A surface inspection
of the dam site by the Consultant’s Engineering Geologists indicated no serious
foundation problems with either an embankment dam or a heavier concrete dam (either
conventional or RCC).
Dam
Further investigations, during the present studies, focused on the GD-3-M site. Detailed
ground surveying and core drilling of the site were undertaken under the direction of the
Consultant. The results of the ground survey and the drilling confirmed the suitability of
the selected dam axis.
8.4.2 Selection of Dam Type

In an earlier chapter on project optimization, various dam types were assessed and
evaluated using the Consultant’s proprietary software, EVALS. These types covered both
concrete and embankment dams as follows:
Dam Type Code Spillway River Diversion Remarks

Incorporated in Opening through Width/Height ratio is about 4, on
Concrete Arch COAR
dam base of dam. the boundary of what is feasible.
Cementitious material for the
making of RCC not readily
Incorporated in Opening through
RCC Arch Gravity RCAG available at the site. Curvature
dam base of dam.
of dam adds to construction
complexity.
Cementitious material for the
Incorporated in Opening through
RCC Gravity RCGR making of RCC not readily
dam base of dam.
available at the site.
Concrete Arch Incorporated in Opening through
COAG
Gravity dam base of dam.
Separate chute
Concrete Faced Tunnels through
RFFR spillway on
Rockfill abutment
abutment.
Separate chute
Rockfill with Central Tunnels through
RFCC spillway on
Impermeable Core abutment
abutment.
Incorporated in Opening through Expensive compared with RCC
Concrete Gravity COGR
dam base of dam. alternative.
In the comparative analysis, the following physical characteristics of the dam site were
considered:
! Valley cross-section along the dam axis,
! Depth of weathering for excavation along the dam axis,
! Cross slopes along the long spillway axis.
It is worth noting that the EVALS software bases its evaluation on “standard” designs and
design functions – the software provides the engineering planner with a very good basis
for decision making. However, the software has not yet been developed to consider all the
complex aspects of design specific to any single site. Therefore, the output from EVALS
must be carefully interpreted.
The resulting direct construction costs (that is, costs without the contractor’s overheads,
profit and financing charges) of the various alternatives were estimated by EVALS as
follows:
Direct Costs (M US$)
Dam Type
Dam Body Spillway River Diversion Total
RCC Arch Gravity 37.34 1.17 1.05 39.56
RCC Gravity 39.08 1.17 1.05 41.30
Concrete Arch 39.22 1.23 1.05 41.50
Rockfill with Central
38.56 3.81 12.77 55.14
Impermeable Core
Concrete Faced
36.50 3.75 11.13 51.38
Rockfill
Concrete Arch
57.22 1.17 1.05 59.44
Gravity
Concrete Gravity 68.64 1.17 1.05 70.86

Figure 8.2: Direct Cost of Dam, Spillway and River Diversion
Combined Cost of Dam, Spillway and Diversion (mUS$)

80
60
Rejected Chosen Rejected

40
20
0
RCAG RCGR COAR RFCC CFRF COAG COGR
Note: Blue is dam cost, Red is dam+spillway, and Pink is dam+spillway+diversion costs
The cost advantages of RCC dams are clear from the above comparison. The strong
foundations, the shallow depth of weathering and the availability of suitable aggregates all
suit an RCC dam. The speed with which an RCC can be raised together with the
incorporation of both the river diversion waterway and the spillway into the main dam body
reduce significantly the construction cost and construction time compared to embankment
type dams.
The above comparison also shows that an RCC arch gravity dam would cost less to
construct than an RCC gravity dam. The arch gravity dam exploits the abutments to resist
external loads and thus has less fill volume. However, almost all RCC dams, which have
been built around the world to date, are gravity dams. As a result, there is not much
experience in building arch gravity dams using RCC. Further disadvantages of an RCC
arch dam are:
! The spillway for an RCC arch dam must be gated in order to avoid scouring of the
dam toe during the smaller floods – this requires uninterrupted power at the dam site
and floods will not be attenuated as with a free overflow spillway. The alternative is to
arrange a free overflow spillway on the abutment separate from the main body –
however, this will add significant costs.
! For a high RCC arch dam, the transverse contraction joints must be grouted before
reservoir impounding. This requires expensive temperature control and post cooling of
the dam body. Forming the transverse contraction joints for an RCC arch dam is more
complicated than for a gravity dam. The costs of post cooling, grouting and joint
forming generally exceed the savings from a lower volume RCC arch dam.
! The unit price of RCC in an arch dam is usually higher than that in a gravity dam due
to the higher strength requirement and limited construction area on an arch dam. The
unit price of RCC for an arch dam can reach 1.5-times that for a gravity dam.
From the above, an RCC gravity dam has been adopted as the basis for the present
feasibility design and cost estimate.
Dam
8.5 RCC Dam Design

8.5.1 Dam Freeboard
Freeboard is the vertical height between the crest of the overflow spillway and the crest of
the dam. This additional dam height is necessary to prevent overtopping of the dam
during passage of floods.
For design purposes, the total freeboard is divided into wet freeboard and dry freeboard.
Wet freeboard, as the name suggested, is that portion of the total freeboard which
prevents overtopping by floods and by wind-generated waves. Dry freeboard is that
portion of the total freeboard above the wet freeboard which provides a margin of safety.
In many countries, there are recommendations on the magnitude of this margin of safety.
However, it is recognised that the final selection of the safety margin is better left to the
Engineer. In making that final selection, the Engineer must take into account several
factors. These factors include the dam type, the risk to downstream communities and the
“conservativeness” of the design floods. In the case of the GD-3 dam, very safe (without
being excessive) design requirements have been selected. In making the selection, the
following factors have been taken into account:
! The RCC dam can withstand limited overtopping;
! There are no communities immediately downstream of the dam that would be at risk
from dam failure.
The finally selected design requirements which define the margin of safety are as follows:
! A dry freeboard of at least 0.5 m must be provided during the passage of the flood
having a return period of once in 10,000 years, combined with the run-up from the
significant wave generated by the 100-year wind.
! Some overtopping may occur during the passage of a PMF.
The rise in reservoir water level during passage of a flood is a function of spillway
capacity. A high capacity spillway results in a smaller rise in reservoir water level during
passage of a flood, and vice versa. Consequently, the dam crest elevation and the
spillway capacity are interlinked. As described in Chapter 9, an un-gated ogee overflow
spillweir, 60m long and incorporated in the central crest section of the dam has been
selected to discharge excess flood flow. The surcharges over the selected spillway crest
during passage of the design floods through the reservoir are as follows:
Peak Reservoir Inflow Peak Spillway Discharge Maximum Surcharge
Flood
(m³/s) (m³/s) above FSL (m)
PMF 3,800 1,294 4.80
Q10,000 2,100 660 3.10
With regard to wind-generated waves, the wave run-up on a dam face is a function of the
following:
! the selected wind velocity (= 22.8m/s, the once in 100 year wind speed),
! the fetch over which this wind acts (= 3.000m, the longest effective wind fetch over the
reservoir directed at the dam, from a north-easterly direction),
! the resulting significant wave height, and
! the slope and roughness of the upstream dam face (vertical, smooth concrete).
The significant wave height has been calculated from the wind velocity and fetch using the
empirical formula, known as the Donelan/JONSWAP formula, as follows:
Significant wave height, HS = wind velocity × fetch 0.5 / 1760 (metres, seconds)
= 0.71 m
Run-up on the face of a dam or wall is a function of the slope and roughness of the face.
For the RCC dam, the slope is vertical and the face is smooth. Various empirical formulae
have been developed to predict wave run-up as a factor of the wave height, as follows:

Run-up Factor
Formula
(Hrun-up / Hwave)
Saville (1958, published in ASCE Shore Protection Manual, Figure 7-12)
1.35
corrected for scale
Thomas (1976, The Engineering of Large Dams, John Wiley and Sons) 1.35
Smith (19xx, Hydraulic Structures) 1.50
For the present design, a run-up factor of 1.5 has been adopted. The resulting run-up on
the vertical face of the RCC dam will be:
Run-up, HR = 1.5 × 0.71m
= 1.1m
In order to provide a dry freeboard of 0.5m during passage of the flood with a return
period of once in 10,000 years, the dam crest must be set at 1124.7m asl.
During passage of the PMF, the mean water level would reach an elevation of 1124.8m
asl. To avoid a period of continuous flow over the dam crest during the passage of a PMF,
the crest elevation has been set at 1125.0m asl. In order to reduce intermittent
overtopping by waves, a 1.0m wave wall will be constructed along the crest thereby
raising the effective crest level to 1126.0m asl. This arrangement will prevent overtopping
by the significant wave even during passage of the PMF.
8.5.2 Excavation and Treatment of the Dam Foundation

General
The rock mass over the foundation footprint is very uniform with a relatively high modulus
of deformation. As such, deformations (both absolute and differential) will be relatively
small. The RCC dam will be founded on slightly weathered to sound fresh rock. Over the
foundation footprint, the foundation depth will vary in a narrow range from about 1m to at
most 5m. At these depths the rock mass will be largely impermeable. Excavation to
expose the sound rock will proceed from the upper valley flanks downwards to the river.
During this excavation, vertical joints or discontinuities, with deeper weathering, may be
exposed. These locally weathered zones will be treated by excavating and replacing with
concrete. Care will be taken to avoid exposing exfoliation joints which may exist at depth
parallel to the valley surface and which will be prone to sliding. Foundation excavation in
general will create a “smooth” surface without abrupt changes in topography thereby
preventing the build-up of stress concentrations and subsequent cracking at the boundary
between the dam body and its foundation. The foundation contact in the upstream-to-
downstream direction will be horizontal.
Given the good rock mass conditions, consolidation grouting of the foundation is not foreseen.
Treatment of Geological Joints/Discontinuities

Potholes, minor erosion features and other smaller irregularities in the rock surface will be
filled with concrete. Polished surfaces will be roughened by chipping or light blasting. Any
larger weak zones, such as minor faults or shear zones, will receive “dental treatment”,
whereby the weak materials in the faults will be excavated out to a prescribed depth and
replaced with concrete. The required depth of replacement is determined by the following
empirical formula developed by the US Bureau of Reclamation:
d = 0.0066×B×H+1.5 for dam height H≥45m, and
d ≥ 0.1H for clay gouge.
Where:
d = required depth of excavation of the weak zone below the surface of adjoining
sound rock in m
B = width of the weak zone in m
H = height of the dam above the general foundation level in m
Dam
Contact grouting will be performed at the contact between the back-filled concrete and the
foundation rock to ensure a firm contact.
Curtain Grouting
A grout curtain beneath a dam is generally required when the foundation rock mass is
jointed, porous or otherwise permeable. Grout is injected at high pressure into the
foundation rock mass to fill the joints and voids. The injection is carried out from one or
more parallel lines of holes drilled across the valley thereby creating an almost
impermeable curtain beneath the dam. In the case of GD-3, five holes were drilled across
the valley at the site of the proposed dam. In these holes, water pressure tests were
carried out to assess the permeability of the foundation rock mass. These tests clearly
indicated that the foundation rock mass is largely impermeable below a depth of 5m.
Despite the clear indications of impermeability, it is extremely unlikely that the entire valley
section beneath the dam will be impermeable. There will most likely be fissures and/or
zones of fractured rock that will require grouting. These fissures and zones will be
identified during excavation of the dam footprint and treated from the grouting gallery as
the dam body is being raised. Over the extent of the identified permeable zones, one row
of curtain grouting holes is foreseen. The grouting holes, at 1.5m centres, will be drilled
into the rock in an upstream direction at an inclination of 10° from the vertical down to a
maximum depth of 50 m below the dam base. The depth of the holes will be reduced on
the abutments as the water head decreases.
Foundation Drainage
The distribution and magnitude of uplift forces under a dam are controlled primarily by
drainage. In order to reduce the uplift pressure over the base of the RCC dam, a row of
drain holes will be drilled from the grouting gallery across the valley section immediately
downstream of any grout curtains. The drainage holes will be 100 mm in diameter and
drilled vertically at 3m centres to a depth of 25 m. The drain holes will be drilled only after
any curtain grouting is completed to prevent blocking of the drain holes.
8.5.3 RCC Dam Structure and Stability Analysis

General
The shape and dimensions of the RCC dam are the result of a sequential design process.
The starting point of this process was a “minimum sized standard section”. The ability of
this starting section to withstand the various loads and load combinations specific to the
GD-3 Dam was analysed. If the section failed to withstand a specific load or load
combination, then the section was adjusted and the stability analysis restarted. The end
result was the least cost RCC dam section that will remain stable under the worst
foreseeable combination of loads. In the following, the stability analysis and resulting final
dimensions of the RCC dam section are presented under the following headings:
! Main dimension of RCC dam section and layout of ancillary structural components,
! Parameters taken in the stability analysis,
! Selection of dam blocks for stability analysis,
! Design standards and load cases,
! Forces on blocks,
! Results of the stability analysis.
Main Dimensions of the RCC Dam and Layout of Ancillary Structural Components
The RCC dam will be a gravity structure comprising a geo-membrane seal over the
upstream face and a main body of low cementitious RCC. An ungated free overflow
spillway and a stepped chute will be constructed over the top of the central section of the
dam. The spillway will have a crest length of 62 m including a 2.0 m wide central pier to
support a reinforced concrete bridge. This bridge will carry vehicular traffic across the
dam. The ogee weir crest, the pier, the downstream facing of the spillway and the chute

side walls will be constructed of conventional reinforced concrete. The water levels behind
the dam will be:
FSL 1120.00 m asl
Maximum still water level during passage of the PMF 1124.80 m asl
The RCC dam will be founded on fresh to slightly weathered granite. Beneath the RCC
section of the dam, the granite rock mass is sound, massive and of low permeability. As
mentioned above, a grout curtain and drainage system will be arranged in the vicinity of the
dam heel to reduce uplift pressure on the dam base. A grouting/drainage gallery (2.5m wide
by 3.5m high) will run through the dam heel following the course of the founding line as it
crosses the valley section. A seepage water collection sump will be located at the lowest
section of this gallery. The seepage water will be pumped downstream via a steel pipe.
A flexible polyvinyl chloride (PVC) membrane system, known as the Winchester system,
will be incorporated into the upstream face of the dam to create the watertight seal. With
this system, the upstream face of the dam is covered by thin prefabricated concrete
panels (100 to 150 mm thick) which have geo-membranes cast onto one surface. The
panels are erected with the geo-membrane surface against the to-be-placed RCC/GEV-
RCC core (essentially acting as formwork for the RCC). Geomembrane cap strips are
welded from one panel to the next before concrete placement. The RCC/GEV-RCC is
then placed against the geomembrane with the precast concrete facing being left
exposed. The concrete panels provide physical protection to the geomembrane as well as
shielding from ultraviolet degradation. This technique has been used in many RCC dams
around the worlds.
Various grades of RCC and conventional concrete will be poured as follows:
! Primary RCC of grades M14A51 and M10A51 for the lower and upper interior parts of
the dam body, respectively;
! Grout-Enriched Vibrated RCC (GEV-RCC) of grade M15A38 for the upstream facing
(0.5 m thick), the downstream facing of the non-overflow dam (1.0 m thick), around the
galleries (0.5 m thick) and on the rock surfaces of the exposed abutments (0.5 m
thick);
! Conventional concrete (CC) of grade M40A38 for the spillway crest, the downstream
facing of the spillway (1.0 m thick), the chute steps, the stilling basin facing (1.0 m
thick) and end sill, and concrete panel of the PVC geomembrane system;
! Conventional concrete (CC) of grade M30A38 for the bridge over the spillway and for
the side walls of the spillway and stilling basin;
! CC of grade M15A38 for the foundation base (2.0 m thick) of the stilling basin and for
the non-overflow dam crest.
! Bedding mix M15A19 and sand mortar M15 for the foundation surface (<10 cm) and
treatment of cold lift joints (1.0 to 2.0 cm).
The primary RCC mix will have a low cement content with approximately 65 and 85 kg/m³
of cement (Type II) for the RCC grades of M10A51 and M14A51, respectively, 900 kg/m³
of fine aggregate, 1400 kg/m³ of coarse aggregate and between 70~120 kg/m³ of water,
proper content of aggregate fines and the admixtures. The VeBe time of the RCC will be
of the order of between 5 and 20 seconds. The grout slurry for the GEV-RCC will
comprise cement, water and plasticizer. The concrete strengths refer to an age after 180
days for RCC, GEV-RCC and bedding mix, and after 28 days for conventional concrete.
The RCC dam shall have transverse contraction joints at approximately every 30 m. The
contraction joints will be formed by a backhoe excavator mounted with a vibrating hammer
and blade. A longitudinal joint in the dam blocks is not necessary. To prevent ingress of
spill and rain water from the dam crest and downstream dam face, PVC water stops are
foreseen along the downstream joints between adjacent vertical block joints (both
overflow and non-overflow blocks). These water stops will be embedded in GEV-RCC at a
depth of 30 cm from the downstream dam face. The connection between the water stops
and the upstream geo-membrane is watertight.
Dam
Besides the curtain grouting/drainage gallery, three D-shaped inspection galleries (each
1.5m wide by 2.0m high) are arranged at elevations. 1045.0m, 1070.0m and 1100.0m asl.
Vertical drainage pipes, 20 cm in diameter, will be installed at 3.0 m centres between the
galleries to drain any seepage/leakage water. At the abutments, the inspection galleries
will intersect the grouting gallery. Access to the internal galleries will be from the
downstream slope, close to the dam crest.
Two further hydropower schemes are planned downstream of the GD-3 scheme. Both are
planned to have relatively small storage reservoirs (of the order of 1 to 2 weeks). In order to
guarantee that both these downstream plants will continue to receive water sufficient to
operate even if the GD-3 power plant is out of operation for a prolonged period, an outlet
arrangement will be incorporated into the GD-3 dam. This outlet arrangement will comprise
two steel pipes, each 1.80m in diameter, laid transversely through the dam at an elevation
corresponding to the mid level inspection gallery. Each pipe ends in a Howell-Bunger valve.
Together, the valves will have a capacity to discharge 83.9m³/s at a reservoir level of 1090m
asl. This discharge corresponds to the average discharge of the GD-3 power plant, while
the reservoir level represents a very low level reached only rarely during a severe drought.
At reservoir levels below 1090m als, the discharge capacity drops off to some 58 m³/s at the
MOL of 1080m asl. This reduction in capacity as the reservoir drops towards the MOL would
be in line with rationing during the severest of droughts.
Parameters Taken in the Stability Analysis

According to the geological investigation and assessment completed, the dam will be
founded entirely on the granite rock. The shear parameters may be summarised as
follows:
Shear Parameter
Location
Angle of internal friction (°) Cohesion (MPa)
At dam-foundation interface 47 1.100
Intact rock mass 47 7.500
In foundation joints 42 0.250
In foundation faults 32 0.125
The unit weight and Poisson’s ratio of the rock is assumed to be 26 kN/m³ and 0.20 to
0.30, respectively. The deformation modulus of the granite is assumed to be 40 GPa.
Ultimate bearing capacities of the rock are assumed as 20.3, 30.2 and 62.6 MPa for the
usual, unusual and extreme load cases, respectively.
For the purpose of the stability analysis, the following properties for the RCC of M14A51
grade have been assumed:
Instantaneous elastic modulus 25.0 GPa
Medium-term creep (assumed) 40%
thus: Medium-term sustained elastic modulus 15.0 GPa
Poisson's ratio 0.20
Specific weight 24.5 kN/m³
Coefficient of thermal expansion 0.85 x 10-5
Static compressive strength of RCC 14.0 MPa
Static direct tensile strength of parent RCC 1.40 MPa
Static direct tensile strength at lift joints 0.50 MPa
Dynamic compressive strength 18.2 MPa
Dynamic direct tensile strength of parent RCC 2.10 MPa
Dynamic direct tensile strength at lift joints 0.75 MPa
Angle of internal friction at lift joints 45°
Unit cohesion at lift joints 0.70 MPa

The bearing capacity of the RCC is calculated as 4.2, 7.0 and 12.6 MPa for the usual,
unusual and extreme load cases, respectively.
From the above parameters it can be proved that the shear parameters at the dam-to-
foundation interface and rock bearing capacity are substantially larger than those at the
RCC lift joints. This means that dam stability will be controlled by the RCC lift joints. For
this reason, the stability against sliding along the lowest RCC lift joint (say approximately
at the level of dam-foundation interface el. 1015.0 m) and the stresses in the base
concrete are calculated. The analysis of the internal stability and stresses of the dam body
at higher levels is not necessary. In addition, according to the investigations to date, the
rock mass beneath the dam is intact and there is no evidence of faulting. Hence, the
stability analysis for the foundation rock is not necessary. Large shear tests should be
carried out to confirm these assumptions in next design phase.
Selection of Blocks for Stability Analysis

All the blocks of the overflow portion have a uniform shape and all will be founded at or
very close to 1015.0 m asl. Thus only one block of the overflow section will be analysed.
The height of the non-overflow portions varies from its maximum in the river channel
adjacent to the spillway to its minimum on the flanks in accordance with the geometry of
the foundation rock surface. In this non-overflow portion, the block with the maximum
height is critical for dam stability and will be analysed. Therefore, two blocks were
selected for stability analysis, namely:
! the overflow section; and
! the highest non-overflow block.
Design Standards and Definition of Load Cases

The stability analysis was carried out in accordance with the Engineering Manual (EM
1110-2-2200)[1] of the US Army Corps of Engineers. In total, eight load cases have been
defined, seven are in accordance with the Engineering Manual, the eighth has been
included to analyse the situation of blocked foundation drains. The criteria for block
stability and stresses are listed in Table 8.1. The various loads and load combinations
acting on the blocks are summarised in Table 8.2.
Table 8.1: Stability and Stress Criteria

Resultant Foundation Concrete Stress
Minimum
Load Condition Location at Bearing
Sliding FS
Base Pressure Compressive Tensile
Usual 2.0 Middle 1/3 ≤ allowable 0.3 fc’ 0
Unusual 1.7 Middle 1/2 ≤ allowable 0.5 fc’ 0.6 fc’2/3
Extreme 1.3 Within base ≤ 1.33 allowable 0.9 fc’ 1.5 fc’2/3
Note: fc’ is 180-day unconfined compressive strength of RCC. RCC allowable strengths are for static
loading conditions. For seismic loading conditions the allowable concrete strengths can be increased
by 50% for tensile strength and 30% for compressive strength. Any tensile stresses at the dam heel
and/or toe for the Usual Load Case are not acceptable.
Dam
Table 8.2: Loads and Load Combinations

Seismic
No. of Load Case

Static Load Uplift
Load
Dead Weight
Silt Pressure
Uplift, drains
Designation
Q1000
Q1000
defect
MCE
PMF
PMF
OBE
FSL
FSL
1 US x x x x
2 UN x x
us
3 EX x x x
4 UN x x x x
5 EX x x x x
6 UN x x x x x
7 UN x x x x x ds
8 EX x x x x x
ds
The factors of safety (FS) and stresses at the assumed sliding plane are based on the
“Gravity Method of Stress Analysis”[1,3]. To facilitate understanding of the factors of
safety, the relevant forces, moments and stresses are illustrated in the sketch below.
ΣH
ΣV
ΣM
σzu ΣV O σzd
•
T
The factor of safety against sliding is defined as the ratio of the maximum resisting shear
and the applied shear along the assumed slip path at service conditions as follows:
tgφ ⋅ ∑V + c ⋅ A
FS =
∑H
Stresses at the dam heel and toe are calculated according to the following formula:
σ zu ⎫ ∑ V 6 ∑ M
⎬= ±
σ zd ⎭ BT BT 2
The overturning stability is measured by the resultant location (eccentricity) along the
block base which is calculated according to the formula:
∑M
e=
∑V
Where:
φ— angle of internal friction;
c— cohesion intercept (kN/m²);
B— dam block width (m), here B=1.0 m;
T— base length of calculation section (m);

A— area of dam base in compression considered (m²);

∑V — resultant of forces normal to the assumed sliding plane (kN);
∑H — resultant of forces parallel to the assumed sliding plane (kN);
∑M — resultant moment of forces about the centre of dam base (kN•m)
Forces on the Dam Blocks

The forces acting on the dam blocks are as follows:
1. Gravity force: expressed as dead weight of the dam structure including all types of
concrete.
2. Water pressure on the upstream and downstream faces of the dam/spillway. The
reservoir and tail water levels are taken from the hydrological and hydraulic
calculation.
Reservoir water level Tail water level

Case
(m asl) (m asl)
Normal (FSL) 1120.00 1020.00
Q10000 flood level 1123.10 1022.30
PMF level 1124.80 1023.00
3. Uplift pressure: the uplift pressure distribution is assumed to have an intensity at the
line of the drainage curtain that exceeds the tail water pressure by 35% of the
differential head between reservoir and tail water levels. The pressure gradient is then
extended to the reservoir and tail water levels in straight lines. In the case of drain
failure, a straight line from reservoir to tail water level is assumed. The uplift pressure
is assumed to act over 100% of the block base area.
4. Silt pressure: the horizontal silt pressure is assumed to be equivalent to that of a fluid
weighing 15.3 kN/m³. The vertical silt pressure is determined as if silt were a soil
having a wet density of 2200 kg/m³, the magnitude of pressure varying directly with
depth. These values include the effects of water within the silt.
5. Seismic loads: because the PGA of 0.12g < 0.20g for MCE, the pseudo-static method
of analysis can be used for the dam stability and stress analysis[1]. The horizontal
component of full value and the vertical component of 2/3 the horizontal value is
assumed, to be consistent with standard practice in such cases. When using the
pseudo-static method, the seismic coefficient is usually multiplied by a factor of 1/2 to
2/3 to consider the oscillating nature of the inertia forces. For the present stability
analysis, the factor of 2/3 has been adopted. The force and moment of inertia of the
reservoir water for horizontal earthquake acceleration has been computed by means
of the Westergaard formula:
2
Pew = Ceαγ w BH 2
3
4
M ew = Ceαγ w BH 3
15
Where:
Pew — horizontal hydrodynamic pressure (kN);
H — water depth (m);
α— earthquake acceleration (m/s²);
γw — unit weight of water (kN/m³);
te — period of vibration, approximately te=1.1 s
0.816
Ce =
2
⎛ H ⎞
1 − 7.75⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 1000 t e ⎠
Dam
Results of the Stability Analysis

As mentioned above, the shape and dimensions of the RCC dam were the result of a
sequential design process beginning with a “minimum sized standard section”. The
stability of this section to withstand the loads and load combinations specific to the load
and foundation conditions at GD-3 were tested and the section adjusted. This process
continued until dam sections were developed that would remain stable under all
foreseeable loads and load combinations. The end result is shown in the Album of
Drawings and briefly described below.
The dam will have a vertical upstream face above elevation 1045.00 m asl. Below this
elevation, the face will be battered upstream with a slope of 1V:0.15H thereby creating a
heel for the dam. This heel increases the base length of the dam blocks and thereby
reduces the stresses along the base. It also exploits the weights of water and silt above it
to resist sliding. The downstream face will be inclined uniformly at 1.0V:0.7H at all
sections across the dam.
The results of the block stability and foundation stress analysis are presented in Table 8.3
and Table 8.4 for the finally developed overflow and non-overflow sections, respectively.
The calculated factors of safety, the location of the resultant force through the base and
the stresses (compressive and tensile) at dam heel and toe are all within acceptable
limits. As such the dam is safe against both sliding and overturning failure.
Table 8.3: Results of Stability and Stress Analysis for RCC Overflow Section
Factor of Safety (FS) Resultant Location Stress at Dam Stress at Dam
Designation
Conditions
Comment
against Sliding at Base (m) Heel** (MPa) Toe** (MPa)
Load
Calculated Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable

value I* value L* value value value value value value value
1 US 3.00 2.37 ≥ 2.0 10.8 < 13.6 0.27 > 0.00 1.98 < 4.2 OK
2 UN ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ 10.9 < 27.1 2.33 < 7.0 0.25 > -0.29 OK
3 EX 73.8 59.3 ≥ 1.3 12.2 < 40.7 2.54 < 16.4 0.14 > -0.75 OK
4 UN 2.82 2.22 ≥ 1.7 12.9 < 27.1 0.05 > -0.29 2.11 < 7.0 OK
5 EX 2.81 2.21 ≥ 1.3 13.0 < 40.7 0.04 > -0.50 2.08 < 12.6 OK
6 UN 2.45 1.90 ≥ 1.7 17.9 < 27.1 -0.27 > -0.29 1.90 < 7.0 OK
7 UN 2.68 2.11 ≥ 1.7 15.2 < 27.1 -0.13 > -0.44 2.16 < 9.1 OK
8 EX 2.33 1.84 ≥ 1.3 20.5 < 40.7 -0.48 > -0.75 2.34 < 16.4 OK
Note: *: The calculated value I indicates the value at dam-foundation interface; while the calculated value L
indicates the value at RCC lift joint.
**: Signs: “+” indicates compression; “–“ indicates tension.
Table 8.4: Results of Stability and Stress Analysis for RCC Non-Overflow Section
Factor of Safety (FS) Resultant Location Stress at Dam Stress at Dam
Designation
Conditions
Comment
against Sliding at Base (m) Heel** (MPa) Toe** (MPa)

Load
Calculated Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable

value I* value L* value value value value value value value
1 US 3.02 2.39 ≥ 2.0 10.2 < 13.6 0.28 > 0.00 1.95 < 4.2 OK
2 UN ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ 11.1 < 27.2 2.36 < 7.0 0.24 > -0.29 OK
3 EX 73.6 59.2 ≥ 1.3 12.4 < 40.8 2.58 < 16.4 0.12 > -0.75 OK
4 UN 2.85 2.25 ≥ 1.7 12.3 < 27.2 0.11 > -0.29 2.08 < 7.0 OK
5 EX 2.75 2.16 ≥ 1.3 13.6 < 40.8 0.00 > -0.50 2.14 < 12.6 OK
6 UN 2.50 1.94 ≥ 1.7 16.7 < 27.2 -0.19 > -0.29 1.88 < 7.0 OK
7 UN 2.73 2.15 ≥ 1.7 14.6 < 27.2 -0.07 > -0.44 2.14 < 9.1 OK
8 EX 2.34 1.85 ≥ 1.3 19.7 < 40.8 -0.43 > -0.75 2.32 < 16.4 OK
Note: *: The calculated value I indicates the value at dam-foundation interface; while the calculated value L
indicates the value at RCC lift joint.
**: Signs: “+” indicates compression; “–“ indicates tension.

8.5.4 Construction Materials for the RCC Dam

The roller-compacted concrete (RCC) and the conventional concrete (CC) used in the
dam structure will comprise cementitious material, aggregates, water and admixtures.
The cementitious material will be Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) of an ASTM Type II
(ASTM 150). This type of cement is produced at the Muger Cement Factory, some 650
road km from the GD-3 dam site. There are no sources of fly ash in Ethiopia and, to date,
no deposits of natural pozzolans have been found within any reasonable hauling distance
from the dam site. The present design has assumed that neither pozzolan nor fly ash will
be used as cementitious material.
Water for washing aggregates and for mixing and curing concrete will be pumped from the
Genale River. Desilting facilities will be arranged to ensure that the water is free from fine
material and other contaminants.
Coarse and fine aggregates will be manufactured by crushing quarried granite. Material
tests indicate that this rock is strong and durable, that it crushes to a well shaped particle
and that it does not react with the cement.
Aggregate fines (passing #200 sieve or 75 µm), won from crushing the granite for
aggregate, up to a content of 10% of the cementitious materials may be used in the low
cementitious RCC mix as a filler. The fines and aggregate shall meet the requirements of
ASTM C33.
Two types of chemical admixtures will be used in the RCC – a plasticizer and a retarder.
The plasticizer will improve the workability and increase the final strength of the RCC. The
retarder will lengthen the initial setting time of the RCC, giving more time to compact each
RCC layer and thereby improve the RCC quality. These chemical admixtures shall meet
the requirements of ASTM C494.
8.5.5 RCC Mix and Properties

As mentioned above, the RCC and conventional concrete for GD-3 dam will use crushed
granite aggregate obtained from the site quarry. Granite is a unique rock with a well
documented data base of material properties when used in roller-compacted or
conventional concrete. It is a heavy and dense material that is expected to fracture to a
suitable particle shape and aggregate gradation, and it is expected to make good mass
roller-compacted concrete with high density. The specific gravity of the granite lies
between 2.60 to 2.80. This gives a strong indication of a high density and good quality
aggregate. This is expected to result in RCC with a relatively high density of between
2,450 and 2,500 kg/m³.
The time and load dependant material properties for various potential RCC mixes have
been developed using relationships that have been determined for RCC at many other
projects, and from test results for similar mixes containing higher density aggregates
similar to granite. Of course, these assumptions will be confirmed by test mixes with the
actually proposed materials (cement and aggregates) prior to construction.
Figure 8.3 shows the overall combined gradation that has been assumed in the present
study for the RCC. This gradation has evolved over many years as being an ideal range
for good quality compactable mass RCC with minimal tendency to segregate. Early RCC
projects used less sand and larger maximum size aggregate. Over time this mix proved to
result in slightly higher strengths, but it had a greater tendency to segregate resulting in
lower quality lift joints. The earlier gradations also tended to be very harsh on mixing
equipment.
Material properties for the mixes were then developed using a range of cement contents
of 65.0 and 85.0 kg/m³. The assumption was made that good quality moderate heat
cement similar to a Type II could be provided. As an example, the predicted compressive
strength of the RCC based on experience on other projects is shown in Figure 8.4.
Dam
The predicted time dependant adiabatic temperature rise for the mixes was calculated
based on the chemistry of the typical moderate heat cement. This was then slightly
adjusted based on historical data from tests at other RCC projects with different
cementitious contents in RCC. Figure 8.5 shows the resulting time dependant adiabatic
temperature rise for each mix.
Figure 8.3: Initially Recommended Overall Combined Gradation for the RCC
100
90
Minimum
80
Maxmum
70
Ideal For Middle Cement Content
60
% Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Size (mm)
Figure 8.4: Estimated Compressive Strength vs. Age

20
19
18 Mix 65+00
17
16 Mix 85 + 00
15
Compressive Strength (MPa)
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 10 100 1000
AGE (Days)

Figure 8.5: Estimated Adiabatic Temperature Rise of RCC

20
18
16
14
Strength (MPa)
12
10
8
Mix 65 +00 Mix 85 +00
6
Note:
Assumed Moderate Heat ASTM Type II Cement
4 with 70 cal/gm at 7 days
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Age in Days
The above estimates have been based on experience gained on other RCC dam projects.
As soon as possible, tests should be done for thermal and other properties of the RCC
mixes using the actual cement and granite aggregates to be used in the dam. The tests
require specialised equipment and laboratory facilities, with personnel experienced in this
type of testing for RCC.
8.6 Preliminary Temperature Control Criteria

8.6.1 Heat of Hydration and Thermal Stresses
Heat of hydration is the term used in the context of how much heat the cementitious
materials produce, for example, in calories per gram of cement or gram of cement plus fly
ash. The “adiabatic temperature rise” is the amount of temperature rise that occurs in the
RCC as a result of the heat of hydration, if there is no heat loss or gain. A thermal model
uses these factors to calculate the peak temperature and time-dependant temperature
variations within the dam when considering how fast heat is produced, how fast it can
move through the RCC to any exposed surface, and how fast heat can be removed from
the surface.
Probable values of adiabatic temperature rise for possible RCC mixes are given in the
RCC mix property, as shown in Figure 8.5. These values are based on experience derived
from other projects, as well as on calculations using the probable chemistry for the
cementitious materials that might be used. From a thermal perspective, tests should be
done as soon as they can be organised for specific heat, conductivity, coefficient of
thermal expansion, and adiabatic temperature rise.
The GD-3 dam is considered a large gravity dam and it will probably take 10 to 15 years
for temperatures in the dam to stabilise to the point that the interior remains at a constant
temperature while the exterior shell has temperatures that vary cyclically with season.
This is what happens with a large gravity section.
The galleries will provide some minor cooling, but it must be controlled so that it does not
cool too fast and cause cracking. Gallery cooling will reduce the temperature near the
gallery faces, but it will not have any significant impact on the peak temperature that will
occur at some distance from the gallery.
Dam
Thermal stresses can be superimposed on stresses from dead loads and applied loads. A
conservative approach is to do this by simple addition or subtraction. However, the real
stress situation will be less if the RCC has a non-linear stress strain behaviour with strain
softening as anticipated. In this case, the strains can be added algebraically, and then
used to determine the resulting combined stress. At this early stage in the design process,
a conservative linear elastic approach that allows directly adding stresses without
considerations of strain and non-linear behaviour has been adopted.
A detailed thermal analysis for the RCC dam is not possible because of the lack of basic
data. However, a rough calculation has demonstrated that various amounts of forced pre-
cooling in portions of the dam will be necessary. Post-cooling will not be necessary. The
amount and location of pre-cooling varies for different portions of the dam based primarily
on the time of year that placing actually occurs. In general, pre-cooling will be necessary
in the lower 25% to 50% of the dam. Some isolated places in the upper portions of the
dam may also need to be pre-cooled, especially at the restart of placement after a longer
suspension. Preliminary indications are that RCC placed at the base of the dam will need
to be pre-cooled to about 16°C to 18°C. This temperature rises to about 20°C when the
height has reached about 25% of the final height and to about 22°C when the height has
reached about 40% of the final height. The current thermal assessment indicates that the
weighted average daily placing temperature of the RCC can increase to 24°C or more for
most of the upper half of the dam. These temperature requirements are easily achievable.
8.6.2 Permissible Temperature Differential and Permissible Peak Temperature

Thermal tensile stresses in a mass concrete structure are mainly related to the
dimensions and shape of the construction blocks in the structure, to temperature drop
from the maximum concrete temperature to the ultimate stable temperature and to the
climatic conditions occurring during the construction period as well as foundation
constraints. When the tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength of concrete, cracking in
the concrete structures will occur. Tensile stresses within a block tend to develop between
the time when the block is placed and the time when it cools to its final stable
temperature, and depend on the length of the block and the constraint imposed by the
foundations. In order to control temperature cracking, it is normal practice to control the
maximum temperature differential ∆Tmax between the maximum temperature rise and the
final stable temperature of concrete. For this purpose, the limits of permissible
temperature differential of US Bureau of Reclamation for conventional concrete dams are
listed in Table 8.5. This table has been taken as a reference for the GD-3 RCC dam
design. It should be noted that for RCC dams there is, to date, no international standard
specifying the permissible temperature differential. In addition, from the existing RCC
dams we can seen that the permissible temperature differential is usually 2°C to 3°C lower
than that for the conventional concrete dams, as shown in Table 8.6.
Table 8.5: Permissible Temperature Differential (°C) for Conventional Concrete Dams
Height above Foundation H Block Length (m)
(m) 55 ∼ 70 37 ∼ 55 27 ∼ 37
(0.0 ∼ 0.2) L 16.7 19.5 22.2
(0.2 ∼ 0.4) L 19.5 22.2 25.0
> 0.4 L 22.2 25 no limit
Table 8.6: Permissible Temperature Differential (°C) in Several Large RCC Dams (H = (0.0 ∼ 0.2) L)
Max. Height Max. Block Length Permissible [∆Tmax]
Name of Dam Dam Type
(m) (m) (°C)
Jiangya RCC Gravity 131 >70 13
Longtan RCC Gravity 216 158 14
Gomal Zam RCC Arch-Gravity 133 78 15
Olivenhain RCC Gravity 97 78 16.5
Dworshak CC Gravity 219 152 16.7
Rihand CC Gravity 134 >70 14
Wuqiangxi CC Gravity 84.5 65 15.5

Research and practical experience indicate that, when the block length is less than 50 to
60 m, the thermal stresses will increase as the block length increases. However, when the
block length is greater than 60 m, the thermal stresses will no longer increase as the block
length increases.
The maximum block length of GD-3 RCC dam is about 80 m, longer than 60 m. Based on
the above-mentioned specifications and successful experience in RCC dam projects, and
in consideration of the fact that the strain capacity of the RCC used in GD-3 dam will be of
the order of 70x10-6 or less, the permissible temperature differential [∆T] of RCC for GD-3
RCC dam may be calculated as follows:
[∆Tmax] ≤ 13° ∼ 15°C for H=0 ∼ 0.2L
[∆Tmax] ≤ 15° ∼ 18°C for H=0.2 ∼ 0.4L (1)
[∆Tmax] ≤ 19°C for H ≥ 0.4L
The permissible temperature differential of concrete is equal to the difference between the
peak temperature Tmax and the ultimate stable temperature Tf of concrete, i.e. [∆Tmax] =
Tmax– Tf. Then, the maximum permissible temperature of concrete is
[Tmax] = [∆Tmax] + Tf (2)
The mean annual air temperature at the GD-3 dam site is about 20°C. According to
experience, this temperature can be taken as the ultimate stable temperature Tf of the
RCC dam. On basis of this value, the permissible peak temperature in concrete is thus
determined:
[Tmax] ≤ 33 ∼ 35°C for H=0 ∼ 0.2L
[Tmax] ≤ 35 ∼ 38°C for H=0.2 ∼ 0.4L (3)
[Tmax] ≤ 39°C for H ≥ 0.4L
8.6.3 Placement Temperature of Concrete

In order to control the peak concrete temperature within the required limits, it is necessary
to restrict the placement temperature Tp of RCC, for which the following equation can be
used. Here the placement temperature Tp is defined as the concrete temperature just after
placement and compaction.
Tmax = T p + Tr ≤ [Tmax ] or
T p ≤ [Tmax ] − Tr (4)
where Tr is the peak temperature rise in the concrete. From Figure 8.5, the adiabatic
temperature rise of RCC with a cement content of 85 kg/m³ is about 18°C. Taking into
account the heat dissipated during curing equivalent to a temperature drop of about 1°C,
the peak temperature rise should be Tr = 17°C. Substituting this value into (4) and using
(3) results in:
Tp ≤ 16.0 ∼ 18.0°C for H=0 ∼ 0.2L
Tp ≤ 18.0 ∼ 21.0°C for H=0.2 ∼ 0.4L (5)
Tp ≤ 22.0°C for H ≥ 0.4L
Correspondingly, the temperature of fresh concrete at the batching plant Tb may be
estimated as the placement temperature subtracting the heat gain DT during transporting,
placing and compacting concrete.
Tb ≤ 16.0 ∼ 18.0°C - DT for H=0 ∼ 0.2L
Tb ≤ 18.0 ∼ 21.0°C - DT for H=0.2 ∼ 0.4L (6)
Tb ≤ 22.0°C - DT for H ≥ 0.4L
Dam
In GD-3 dam area, the air temperature varies within a narrow range from 18°C to 21.7°C,
which is advantageous to the temperature control for the RCC. In this case, it is estimated
that the temperature at the batching plants should be of the order at 13° to 15°C. To
achieve this value, measures, such as precooling of aggregate, using ice flakes and
chilling water as mixing water, will have to be adopted.
8.6.4 Methods for Temperature Control

The traditional methods of pre-cooling include ice in the mix and chilled coarse aggregate.
Chilled water for the mix has very little influence in RCC, mostly because there is very little
water, and most of it may be ice anyway. However, having chilled water for the mix and
occasionally for sprinkling aggregate will be advantageous. Chillers will be needed to
provide cold water or chilled air for cooling coarse aggregate. When cooling requirements
are minimal, another potential way to obtain some cooling of the coarse aggregate is to
blow cold night air into reclaim tunnels so that it dissipates upward into the aggregate.
Other standard, “passive“, cooling procedures include shading the mixing plants and
providing covers on conveyor belts. A fog or mist will be required on the lift surface for
both cure and cooling. Post cooling using cooling pipes embedded in the RCC during its
placement is not considered necessary for the GD-3 RCC dam.
8.7 Dam Construction Aspects

8.7.1 Initial Placement of RCC
There are essentially two schools of thought with regard to “initial placement of RCC”.
One uses a lot of conventional “levelling concrete” at the foundation to create a wide flat
starting surface for the RCC. This is the typical case when consolidation grouting should
be performed before RCC placement, in which the mass concrete is taken as a surcharge
and platform for the consolidation grouting. The other approach is to use dental concrete
only as necessary to fill troughs and irregularities that are too small for a small dozer and
a 10 ton roller, but no mass levelling concrete. In the GD-3 RCC dam, no consolidation
grouting is foreseen, and the foundation rock is fairly sound. Therefore, it is recommended
to place RCC immediately on the excavated rock surface.
A thin layer of bedding mix or sand mortar (< 10 cm) may be spread over the rock just in
front of the advancing RCC layer. The bedding mix will squeeze out over the irregular
rock, bond to it, and penetrate into the RCC to become a monolithic mass with the RCC
when it is compacted.
The RCC mix shall be spread into thin layers that will, after compaction, be 300 mm thick.
The thickness of the loose RCC as it is deposited on the joint surface should about 350
mm. The time interval between RCC layers should not exceed 6 hours (the initial setting
time of RCC mix). If a cold joint is formed after a longer time interval, the lift joint should
be thoroughly treated, and a layer of sand mortar of 10 to 15 mm thick shall be uniformly
applied onto the cold lift joint surface immediately before placement of the next lift of RCC.
The bedding mix/sand mortar should be applied not more than 15 minutes ahead of RCC
placement.
8.7.2 Transport Equipment

The latest large RCC dams (Longtan with a height of 216 m and Miel I with a height of 192
m) have demonstrated the success of the “all conveyor system” of construction. It should
be noted that, for a variety of reasons ranging from overall economics to the length of time
it takes to transport the RCC from the mixer to the placement area for spreading and
compacting, the project would be best constructed with an all conveyor system. Another
reason for the “all conveyor system” is its flexibility - construction to proceed across the
entire dam (abutment to abutment), or across a single monolith or across any group of
monoliths to accommodate changing construction and schedule needs as they develop.
This is not feasible with trucks.

There are a two principal ways of arranging an “all conveyor system” – the tower belt
system and the jack-post system. The tower belt system would best suit the conditions at
the GD-3 dam site. The jack-post system, whereby a series of jack-posts supports each
line of conveyor, would require a large number of posts, and multiple lines of conveyor
because the jack posts have to be in a straight line and the conveyor lines cannot span
more than about 30 meters.
The tower belt system comprises includes very large tower cranes with a reach of about
100 meters. These are actually gigantic jack-posts, topped by a large crane. In Miel I the
RCC was placed over the entire width of the dam from abutment to abutment, while in
Longtan the RCC was placed in ‘groups of blocks’ similar to the way in which a
conventional concrete dam would be constructed. In consideration of the dimension of the
GD-3 RCC dam, it is recommended to use one all conveyor system with two towers – one
on the lower flanks of each abutment. The cranes will be capable of moving the belt
segments and belt equipment, as well as dealing with all other lifting work associated with
placing conventional concrete, placing concrete panels with PVC geomembrane, placing
and removing shutters, steel conduits or pipes, and for essentially any other lifting needed
on the dam.
The belt system should have a nominal delivery rate of 400 m³/h, with a peak that will be
more of the order of 700 m³/h. The towers would each feature 100 m long arms, capable
of carrying a maximum weight of 25 t at the arm end.
8.7.3 Production Rates

Taking into account that the RCC placement may be interrupted during the months of
heaviest rain (April and May and again in October), it is expected that the construction of
the GD-3 RCC dam, with a volume of some 0.9 Mm³, should be completed in a period of
approximately 30 months. The RCC placement volume should average approximately
1,500 m³/day (or 750 m³/h) with a peak of up to 3,500 m³/day. The monthly mean
placement rate should be of the order of 38,000 m³/month with a peak of up to
60,000 m³/month. According to the experience gained from the construction of similar
RCC dam projects, this production rate is considered realistic. RCC mixers of this size are
available as standard continuous mix pugmills.
A detailed production schedule to be developed as the design evolves is expected to
show that the above production capacities and equipment are necessary and realistic.
The detailed schedule is needed to develop a lift by lift RCC production schedule, as well
as to accurately establish the peak and average delivery requirements for cement and
admixtures in next design phases. If an all conveyor system is used, the production rate
will permit the RCC to be placed from abutment to abutment with an advancing lift that
extends all the way from upstream to downstream, while compacting the RCC within
about an hour of when it was produced. This allows almost any type of RCC mix to be
used. It also allows placing in groups of blocks at any part of the dam, and it allows blocks
to be constructed to different heights. Depending on the mix being used and its “working
time”, the ambient and mix temperatures, the rate of RCC delivery, the size of the
placement area, and the contractor’s experience, the “sloped layer” method of
construction will undoubtedly be advantageous in some places but not in others. The
sloped layer method essentially assures monolithic RCC between individual layers of
RCC within the height of the combined sloped layer, but it requires special cold joint
treatment and clean-up at the top of each sloped layer height, and it should extend at the
sides from one formed face to another formed face that is required in the design.
8.7.4 Differential Height between Blocks

Experience has shown that RCC does not have to be placed at the same level across the
entire length of a dam. A major advantage of the conveyor system is that RCC can easily
be placed in any monolith, group of monoliths, or across the entire width of the dam, with
the option to switch from one location to the other at any time in any location without
concern for elevation differentials. This is a well established practice that will undoubtedly
Dam
be essential to economy and schedule for the GD-3 RCC dam. Wherever necessary,
monolith joints can be formed by any one of a number of techniques. Form support
requirements are minimal, because the RCC becomes self supporting in a matter of
hours. In addition to helping schedule and productivity, the exposed face also provides
additional cooling.
If the differential monolith height exceeds about 20 meter, it would be appropriate to make
an assessment for the record of the response of the foundation, but it will likely show no
problem. The stresses from the weight of the RCC are very low compared to the bearing
capacity of the foundation rock and resulting deformations will be negligible. In reality, the
biggest differential at a vertical face is at the heel of the dam. If this is acceptable, all
monolith joints on similar foundation should be acceptable.
The issue of moving equipment from one monolith or group of monoliths to the other at a
different location would be a major obstacle if trucks were used for delivery, but it is not a
problem for the “all conveyor” delivery system with its associated large tower cranes. The
conveyor simply swings to the new location, and the tower crane moves whatever
equipment needs to be re-positioned.
8.7.5 Full-Scale Trial

Prior to placing RCC in the dam, a full-scale trial for placement of RCC and GEV-RCC
shall be carried out. The full-scale trial is an essential part of the RCC tests and
construction program. It may be regarded as a transit step between construction
preparation and actual construction of the RCC dam. The full-scale trial should include all
of the various techniques and materials to be used in the RCC/GEV-RCC. The first RCC
that will placed in the dam will be at the lowest point in the valley at river channel and thus
amongst the most critical concrete in the dam. The trial shall consequently be outside the
dam body. The objectives of the trial are as follows:
! to demonstrate and confirm the suitability of the equipment and procedures that the
Contractor intends to use for mixing, handling, placing, compacting and curing RCC
besides the conventional concrete. Before the trial commences, all plant shall be fully
operational;
! to evaluate the RCC mix performance paying special attention to the potential for
segregation, proportions, workability and compactability;
! to review the methods to be used for treatment of fresh, prepared and cold lift joints;
! to check the strengths reached in the field and thus to establish correlation between
tests conducted at the time of concrete placement and the properties of hardened
concrete;
! to determine the acceptable exposure time that should be used for each proposed
joint treatments each month of the year;
! to determine the appropriate methods for placing facing PVC geomembrane and GEV-
RCC;
! to test the methods for forming contraction joints;
! to optimise the methods of raising the form works especially designed for the RCC
dam placement; and
! to train the personnel who will work on the dam; only those that have evolved in the
full-scale trial should be allowed to work on the initial stages of the RCC placement.

8.8 Dam Instrumentation

8.8.1 Objectives of Instrumentation
The objectives of instrumentation are summarised as follows:
! to monitor structural behaviour during construction for the purpose of quality control,
so that proper decisions may be made during construction;
! to monitor the behaviour of the dam during reservoir impounding and during its service
life time. The observed data will form the basis for decisions on the need for any future
rehabilitation or other safety measures;
! to identify critical points and suspected areas of safety concern in the dam, so that
proper measures may be taken if necessary;
! to verify the assumptions and parameters used in the dam design in order to confirm
the safety of the dam.
8.8.2 Items of Monitoring

Instrumentation should consist of thermo-couples to monitor temperature development
and cooling in the dam; seismograph stations in the gallery and at the dam top; joint
meters at monolith joints in the galleries and at the dam top; plumb bobs to monitor the
horizontal displacement; uplift pressure meters over the foundation and at selected lift
joints in the RCC; seepage collection gutters and measuring weirs in the galleries; and
levels to monitor the vertical displacement.
Precise surveys should be established at the top of the dam and through the galleries.
Crack meters (joint meters with extension bars) should be installed across any suspected
area in the RCC mass that might crack. Face drains should have collection and
monitoring locations, with the option to close off the pipes so that pressure can be
measured.
8.8.3 Arrangement of Measurement Systems

Horizontal Deformation
The horizontal movement of the GD-3 RCC dam which occurs between its crest and its
base should be monitored by using plumb line systems. At least two plumb line systems
should be installed: one line in the spillway (overflow) section in the centreline of the pier
and the other in the non-overflow section with the maximum height. Each of the two plumb
line systems will comprise one inverted plumb line and one normal plumb line. The normal
plumb line should be fixed at the dam top with its bob hanging in the grouting gallery. The
inverted plumb line should be anchored in the foundation rock of at least 30 m below the
dam-foundation interface. The bottom reading stations should be arranged in the grouting
gallery at el. 1018.0 m, and three intermediate reading stations for the normal plumb line
should be arranged in the upper galleries at el. 1045.0, 1070.0 and 1110.0 m.
Vertical Deformation
To determine the vertical deformations of the dam structure, precision levelling lines
across the dam top and the galleries should be installed. Stations for measurements are
located on each dam blocks, but the spacing of the adjacent stations should not exceed
about 35 m. The levelling should begin and end at locations sufficiently distant from the
dam (for example, on the fresh and sound rock about 3 km downstream of the dam toe) to
avoid locations which would be materially affected by vertical displacement of the dam.
Deformation of Foundation Rock

The deformation of the dam foundation shall be monitored using multi-point
extensometers and rock extensometers. On excavation surfaces of both abutments, one
set of five-point extensometers shall be installed at el 1040.0 m. In the centreline of
spillway section the same five-point extensometer should be installed at the dam heel.
Dam
The anchorage depths should be 5 m, 10 m, 20 m, 30 m and 40 m, respectively. Four

rock extensometers should be located in the dam heel and dam toe in the riverbed
section. The cables from the instruments should be led to the nearby monitoring stations
in the galleries.
Uplift Pressure
The measurement of uplift pressure at the dam-foundation interface consists of a
longitudinal observation section and three transverse observation sections. In the
longitudinal section, the measuring points should be installed on the immediate
downstream side of the grout curtain which will be observed in the grouting gallery. The
spacing of the measuring points should be about 20 meters. Two of the three transverse
sections are located at the centreline of each of spillway blocks. The other observation
section is arranged in the non-overflow section of the RCC dam where the dam has its
maximum height. In each of the transverse sections, five measuring points shall be
arranged with a distance between two adjacent points of about 20 m. The quantity and
location of the monitoring points may be adjusted after the excavation of dam foundation
rock according to the actual geological conditions. For measurements of the uplift
pressure at the dam foundation, piezometers or pore pressure cells should be installed.
The measurements of seepage pressure inside the dam body are mainly concentrated in
the spillway section. The instruments shall be embedded inside the dam body at a lift joint
at about el. 1017.0 m and el. 1040.0 m. Six piezometers on each of the two lift joints
should be installed in the dam body at distances of 0.2 m, 0.8 m, 1.5 m, 3.0 m, 7.0 m and
15.0 m from the upstream face of the RCC dam. All piezometer cables should be led to
the monitoring station in the grouting gallery.
Observation of Seepage Water

Seepage from selected areas of the dam will be measured using strategically located V-
notch weirs. Water level over these weirs will be measured with point gauges.
Ten V-notch weirs will be arranged in the grouting gallery as follows:
! one at the bottom of each vertical drainage pipe in the two spillway blocks (total 2);
! one at the foot of each abutment for monitoring the total seepage from the abutments
(total 2);
! one at each of the junction points of the grouting gallery and the three observation
galleries for measuring the seepage from higher up the abutments (total 6).
Two V-notch weirs will be arranged in each of the three observation galleries (total 6) to
monitor seepage from the dam body.
To monitor the total amount of seepage water, an automatic water level recorder will be
installed in the bottom sump.
Opening of Transverse Contraction Joints

The opening of transverse contraction joints will be monitored with joint meters which will
be installed on the upstream side of the galleries and at the dam crest across each of the
transverse contraction joints between each two adjacent monolithic dam blocks.
Opening of Contact Joint

The contact joint is the joint between the dam concrete and the foundation rock. The
potential opening of the contact joint will be monitored by joint meters. Four joint meters
will be installed - one at the dam heel and one at the dam toe on the centreline of each
spillway block. A further six joint meters will be arranged on excavation surfaces on both
abutments below el. 1050.0 m below the non-overflow sections.

Strains in the Dam

One transverse section on the centreline of the spillway is selected to measure the strains
in RCC. The measuring points should be arranged at el. 1017.0 m, 1040.0, 1065.0,
1090.0 and 1115.0 m, respectively. At each of the levels, three to five measuring points
will be arranged in the dam body. In each of the measuring points, one set of five-
dimensional strain meters (i.e. 5 Nos in each set) and one no-stress strain meter should
be installed. The instruments should be embedded in the dam body during RCC
placement. The readings should be started just after installation.
Temperature in Dam, Foundation and Reservoir

Temperature measurements include monitoring the temperature development of the dam
body, dam facing, reservoir and bedrock. At each of strain measuring points described in
the above paragraph in the centreline of the spillway section, one thermometer should be
installed adjacent to the strain meters. In order to monitor the temperature of the dam
facing concrete, at the upstream and downstream at el. 1035.0 m, ten thermometers
should be installed in concrete of 0.05 m, 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 2.5 m and 5.0 m distant from the
dam upstream and downstream faces, respectively. The thermometers should be
embedded in the dam body during RCC placement. The readings should be started just
after installation.
For measurement of temperature in the bedrock, five thermometers should be installed at
the dam-foundation interface, at depths of 2.0 m, 5.0 m 8.0 and 15.0 m below the
interface in the middle of the section in which the above thermometers are embedded.
The thermometers should be embedded in the filling concrete of a borehole.
To observe temperature variation of the reservoir water on the dam face, 7 thermometers
should be installed on the upstream face of the dam at el. 1120.0, 1115.0, 1110.0, 1100.0
1090.0, 1080.0 and 1060.0 m asl.
Earthquake Observation
In order to observe the response of the RCC dam to any earthquakes, two strong-motion
seismographs should be installed in the dam. One seismograph should be installed in the
grouting gallery at el. 1018.0 m of the non-overflow dam section with the maximum height
and the other at the dam top in the same section.
Water Levels, Ambient Temperature, Rainfall, Humidity and Wind

Measuring water level in reservoir and tail water should be made with water level gauges
or staffs. The protection tubes of water level gages should be fixed on the upstream and
downstream faces of the dam above the sediment level or river bed.
A meteorological station should be established before or at the beginning of dam
construction. Equipment and instruments should be installed for automatically recording
the ambient temperature, the rainfall, the atmospheric moisture and the wind velocity and
direction.
Geodetic Measurements
A system of triangulation targets on the face of the dam should be established from off-
dam references. The targets should be located on the gauge lines of instruments and on
the locations of the plumb line reading stations projected radially from the plane of the
axis. The system requires a network of instrument piers and a baseline downstream from
the dam. The nature of the terrain and the topography of the area are governing factors in
the size of the network layout.
The instruments are summarised in Table 8.7 below.
Dam
Table 8.7: Summary of Instrumentation and Survey System
Item Instrument Number

Normal plumb line 2
Horizontal Deformation Inverted plumb line 2
Reading station 10
Precision levelling instrument 1
Vertical Deformation
Benchmark 50 (estimate)
Multi-point extensometer 3
Deformation of Foundation Rock
Rock extensometer 4
Uplift Pressure Piezometer (or pore pressure cell) 47
V-Notch (weir) 16
Seepage Water
Automatic water-stage recorder 1
Opening of transverse joints Joint meter 38
Opening of Contact Joint Joint meter 10
Set of five-dimensional strain meter 21
Strains in Dam
No-stress strain meter 21
Temperature in Dam, Foundation and Reservoir Thermometer 43
Earthquake observation Strong motion seismograph 2
Water level gauge/staff 2
Water Levels, Ambient Temperature, Rainfall,
Humidity and Wind
Meteorological station 1
Geodetic Measurements System of triangulation targets 1 (lump sum)
8.9 Summary of Principal Dam Features and Dimensions

Overall Crest Length: 450.0 m
Spillway Crest Length: 60.0 m
Dam Crest Width: 5.0 m
Crest Elevation of Dam: 1,125.0 m asl
Crest Elevation of Spillway: 1,120.0 m asl
Foundation Level: 1,015.0 m asl
Maximum Height above Foundation: 110.0 m
Slope Inclinations RCC Dam: upstream: Vertical
-
downstream: 1:0.7
Dam Fill Volume: 0.9 Mm3
Full Supply Level: 1,120.0 m asl
Minimum Operation Level: 1,080.0 m asl
Max. Flood Level (PMF): 1,124.8 m asl
Flood Level (1:10,000 years flood): 1,123.1 m asl
Spillway Discharge Capacity (PMF): 1,294.0 m3/s
Spillway Discharge (1:10,000 years flood): 660.0 m3/s
Reservoir Volume at PMF: 3,110 mm3
Reservoir Volume at FSL: 2,680 Mm3
Reservoir Volume at MOL: 274 Mm3

9 Civil Works and Hydraulic Steel Structures
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 General
This chapter describes the various functional, design and performance criteria, the layout
development and the dimensions and details incorporated in the various civil works
components of the Genale-Dawa 03 Hydropower Project (also known as the GD-3
Hydropower Project). The GD-3 Dam, its associated design philosophy and provisions are
described separately in the chapter on dam design. The individual civil works components
are shown with their dimensions and details in the Album of Drawings which accompanies
this feasibility study report.
9.1.2 Project Summary

The major components of the GD-3 Hydropower Project are summarised in Table 9.1. For
completeness, the dam is included in this civil works summary and in the Project Data
Sheet which is also tabulated below in Section 9.1.3. Also included in the Project Data
Sheet are the principal data for the mechanical and electrical equipment and for the
transmission line works for the project.
Table 9.1: Summary of GD-3 HPP Civil Works Components
RCC Dam and Associated Civil Works:

River Diversion
Dam and Spillway
Power Tunnels and Associated Works:

Power Intake
Low Pressure Headrace Tunnel
Headrace Tunnel Access Adits
Headrace Surge Tank
Headrace Inclined Pressure Shaft
High Pressure Headrace Tunnel, Steel Liner and Manifold
Tailrace Manifold
Tailrace Surge Tank
Tailrace Tunnel
Tailrace Outfall Structure
Powerhouse and Associated Underground Works:

Powerhouse Cavern
Transformer Cavern
Powerhouse Main Access Tunnel
Cable and Ventilation Shaft
Bus Bar Tunnels
Construction Adits to Powerhouse Roof Heading and Tailrace
Powerhouse Surface Works:

Control Building
Cable and Ventilation Shaft Headworks Building
230 kV Switchyard
Permanent Access Roads, Bridge
9.1.3 Genale (GD-3) Hydropower Project – Data Sheet

The Data Sheet for the Genale (GD-3) Hydropower Project is presented in Table 9.2. This
Data Sheet summarises the key technical parameters of the civil, mechanical and
electrical works.
Civil Works and Hydraulic Steel Structures
Table 9.2: GD-3 Hydropower Project – Data Sheet

GD-3 Hydropower Project – Data Sheet
General:
River slope at dam site 1 in 160
Level of river bed at dam site 1015 m asl
Mean annual flow at the dam site 92.6 m3/s
Dam and Reservoir:
Reservoir area at full supply level 98 km2
Full supply level 1120 m asl
Minimum operating level 1080 m asl
Total storage volume at full supply level 2,570 Million m3
Capacity at minimum operating level 260 Million m3
Loss of ctive storage after 50 years 2.1%
Silt level after 50 years 1050 m asl
Dam type RCC
Dam crest elevation / top of wave wall 1125.0 m asl / 1126.0 m asl
Dam height from foundation to crest 110.0 m
Dam crest length 450 m
Reservoir water level at 1:10,000 year flood 1123.1 m asl
Reservoir water level at PMF 1124.8 m asl
River Diversion:
Diversion scheme type “D” shaped reinforced concrete culvert through base of
dam with rounded inlet
Construction flood (once in 20 years) 950 m3/s
Diversion culvert dimension 6 m (B) by 12 (H) m “D” shape
Diversion culvert length 100 m
Invert level of diversion culvert 1015.0 m asl
Protection cofferdam type RCC and earth / rockfill embankments
Protection cofferdam crest level (Stage 1) 1023.0 m asl
Protection cofferdam crest level (Stage 2) 1030.5 m asl upstr/1023.5 m asl dwnstr
Upstream bulkhead closure gate dimension 6 m by 12 m
Mid-Level Outlet:
Mid-level outlet type 2 no. steel pipes, first section embedded in dam,
second section anchored to downstream dam face on
either side and outside of spillway ending in Howell-
Bunger valves (each with a maintenance valve) on
plinth level with top of stilling basin wall.
Steel pipe dimensions Each 95 m long and 2.0 m diameter
Steel pipe CL inlet elevation 1056.0 m asl
Howell-Bunger valve nominal diameter 1.40 m
Discharge capacity, reservoir level at 1090 m asl 84 m3/s
Discharge capacity, reservoir level at 1080 m asl 77 m3/s
Spillway and Stilling Basin:
Spillway type Free overflow built on the RCC dam with crest ogee,
walled stepped chute, toe deflector and stilling basin.
Ogee crest level, crest length and chute width 1120 m asl, 60 m, 62 m
Design discharge rate at 1:10,000 year flood 660 m3/s
Discharge rate at PMF 1,294 m3/s
Water velocity, toe of spillway chute, 10,000 21.8 m/s
year flood
Stilling basin invert elevation 1018 m asl
Stilling basin water surface elevation, 10,000 1024.7 m asl
year flood
Stilling basin wall elevation 1027 m asl
Stilling basin length 60 m
Power Intake:
Location Left bank of reservoir near dam
Intake type Underground, bellmouth intake, trash rack and raking
machine, vertical stoplog shaft
Operating deck level 1125 m asl
Sill level 1067.4 m asl
Design flow rate 115.7 m3/s
Trash screen size (width by height) 11 m by 16 m
Stoplogs, clear opening size (width by height) 5.5 m by 7.0 m
Stoplogs, design head 57.4m


Headrace Tunnel:
Type Circular (17% D&B / 83% TBM bored)
Length (Sill bellmouth intake to CL surge tank) 12,402 m
Finished diameter / lining of TBM bore 8.1 m, unlined
Finished diameter / lining of D&B bore 7.0 m, concrete lined, 0.55m thick
Tunnel invert levels at intake CL and surge tank 1067.4 m asl and 1027.0 m asl
CL
Headrace Tunnel Adits:

Number of adits 2
Adit tunnel type Unlined
Length of adits Circa 400 m and circa 150m
Size of adits 9 m by 9 m D-shaped and 8.1m diameter
Headrace Surge Tank:

Type Vertical concrete lined circular shaft
Ground level at top of shaft Circa 1158 m asl
Shaft internal diameter 23 m
Extreme up surge water level 1155.1 m asl
Extreme down surge water level 1039.8 m asl
Top of shaft concrete level 1158.0 m asl
Bottom of shaft concrete level 1138.0 m asl
Headrace tunnel-to-surge shaft throttle diameter 4.50 m
Shaft reinforced concrete wall thickness 1.0 m
Headrace Pressure Shaft:

Pressure shaft type Inclined 60º from horizontal, concrete lined, 0.5m thick
Length (true) of shaft 216 m
Finished internal diameter 6.1 m
High Pressure Headrace Tunnel:

Type Reinforced concrete lined and steel lined with 3 branch
manifold
Reinforced concrete lined section 85 m long and 6.1 m diameter
Steel lined section 200 m long, 4.8 m diameter, 48 mm thick steel liner
Tailrace Surge Tank:

Type Tailrace tunnel access adit used as surge tank
Internal dimensions 6m by 6m D-shaped
Tank sill level (junction with Main Access 857.00 m asl
Tunnel)
Extreme up surge water level 853.60 m asl
Extreme down surge water level 828.40 m asl
Tailrace Tunnel:
Tailrace tunnel type Pressure flow, circular, concrete lined
Length and diameter 1,480 m584, 6.1 m
Tailrace Outfall Structure:

Description Reinforced concrete structure at downstream end of
tailrace tunnel. Stoplogs are provided for closing the
tailrace tunnel.
Invert level of tailrace tunnel outlet 831.9 m asl
Stoplogs, clear opening size (width by height) 9.5 m by 6.1 m
Stoplogs, design head 11.1m
Powerhouse Main Access Tunnel:

Description Gives access from the surface to the underground
powerhouse, transformer cavern, surge chamber and
all tunnels and adits. The main access tunnel passes
through the transformer cavern to the powerhouse.
Length and gradient 585 m and 1 in 11
Tunnel size 6.5 m by 6.5 m “D” shaped

Transformer Cavern:
Description “D” shaped underground rock cavern with concrete floor
for housing the three main 3-phase transformers.
Access to surface via main access tunnel and cable
shaft. Access to powerhouse via main access tunnel
and three bus duct tunnels.
Dimensions 41.3 m long, 15.0 m wide, 10.9 m high
Finished floor level 839.52 m asl
Powerhouse:
Location Approximately 90 m below ground
Description Underground rock cavern
Excavation dimensions 60 m long, 20 m wide, 40 m deep
Installed capacity 254 MW in three, Francis turbine-generator units
Unloading and erection bay floor level 839.52 m asl
Generator floor level 835.52 m asl
Turbine floor level 831.12 m asl
Inlet valve floor level 826.18 m asl
Drainage sump floor level 819.92 m asl
Powerhouse Roof Adit:

Description Connects main access tunnel to powerhouse roof for
excavating the powerhouse
Length and size 12 m, 5 m by 5 m “D” shaped with a gradient of 1 in 10
Bus Duct Tunnels:

Description Three tunnels for the isolated phase bus duct
connections between the generators and the
transformers
Length and size 25m, 3.5 m by 4.5 m “D” shaped
Cable and Ventilation Shaft:

Description Inclined shaft, 1:1, concrete lined to carry the high
voltage cables from the transformer cavern to the
surface switchyard. Also ventilation and access stairs
Depth and diameter of shaft 113 m long, 3.7 m finished diameter
Lining concrete 500 mm
Switchyard:
Description 230kV conventional outdoor
Elevation 910 / 915 / 920 m asl (terraces)
Length and width 179m by 112m
Access Roads and Bridges:

Bridge Location Over Genale River upstream of powerhouse
Bridge span 4 x 15m, total 60m
Upgraded road length 28.5 km
New road length 29.8 km
9.1.4 Hydropower Scheme Longitudinal Profile

The longitudinal profile of the GD-3 Hydropower Project is shown in Figure 9.1. This
profile shows the lower part of the reservoir, the dam and the power scheme from power
intake to tailrace outfall, including the headrace surge tank and the powerhouse cavern.
Included in the same figure is the profile of the natural ground along the centreline of the
power scheme.
The profile of the Genale River is projected onto the profiles of the power scheme and of
the natural ground. From the dam to tailrace outfall, the length of the Genale River is over
30 km whereas the horizontal component of the waterway profile is a little more than
14 km. As such, the river profile is distorted.
Despite the distortion, the longitudinal profiles shown on Figure 9.1, confirm that the
general location of the GD-3 scheme offers the best opportunities for both regulation
storage and head exploitation – the two key ingredients of a good hydropower scheme.

Upstream of the dam site, the shallow gradient offers storage, while downstream of the
dam site, the steep gradient offers the head. Both ingredients are exploited by the
hydropower scheme.
Figure 9.1: GD-3 Hydropower Scheme Longitudinal Profile
1,500
1,400
Gr o und Sur f ace
1,300
Elevation (m asl)
1,200
Sur g e T ank
R eser vo ir F SL
1,100
Po wer W at er way
1,000
Genale R iver
900
Po wer ho use C aver n

800
35 40 45 50 55 60
Pow er Waterw ay Chainage (km )
9.2 River Diversion Works and Bottom Outlet

9.2.1 River Diversion Works
9.2.1.1 Function and Layout
The function of the river diversion works is to protect the dam foundation area against
design floods during excavation, treatment and initial construction until the dam elevation
is above the flood level.
The dam will be constructed of RCC and the depth of overburden to be removed over the
foundation footprint is shallow - varying from 1m to 5m. One of the most important
advantages of RCC is that large volumes can be placed and compacted quickly. This
means that RCC dams can be raised in much shorter periods than other dam types. This
advantage influences the river diversion arrangement. There is no need to protect a large
construction pit for several years against flooding.
During the first low flow season and the subsequent flood season, river flows will be
confined to the 15m to 20m wide low flow season river channel. This channel will be
cleared of all obstructions in order to achieve a clear and reasonably smooth flow width of
at least 20m. During this construction phase, the dam foundation footprint on the right
river bank will be protected by a low mass concrete cofferdam. This cofferdam will form a
protective dyke, in plan trapezoidal, around the dam foundation area on the right river
bank. Parallel to the low flow season channel, where space is limited, this dyke will have a
vertical face on the channel side and a 1:1 sloping face on the construction pit side. This
dyke will be incorporated into the main dam and will thus be placed on sound
unweathered rock. The dykes closing the cofferdam “trapezium” will also be of mass
concrete. The dam foundation footprint within this protected “trapezium” will be cleared of
overburden and a low level reinforced concrete culvert will be founded through the base of
the dam. The culvert will be completed and the dam blocks on the right bank raised to an
elevation of at least 1060 m asl (some 45m above river bed elevation) before the end of
the first flood season.
During the second low flow season, the upstream and downstream concrete dykes will be
removed and two new cofferdams will be built across the low flow season channel,
upstream and downstream of the left bank dam foundation footprint. These new
cofferdams will be of rock and impermeable earth material. With this arrangement, the
river will be diverted into the culvert built through the base of the right bank dam blocks.
The left bank dam foundation footprint will be drained and excavated and RCC will be
placed to raise the left bank dam blocks up to the level of the right bank blocks during the
second low flow season and into the subsequent high flow season. During this
construction phase, the culvert will act as a throttle to the river flow. Floods will cause the
water level upstream of the dam to rise with the risk of overtopping the protection works
and flooding the left bank foundation footprint area.
Once the left bank dam blocks have been raised to the level of the right bank blocks,
further raising will be made over the entire surface until the dam reaches its final crest
elevation. Once the spillway is finished, the diversion intake will be closed by stoplogs and
plugged. In order to have sufficient time to properly set the stoplogs and seal the culvert
inlet, this activity will be carried out during the low flow season (preferably in February or
March). The Genale River will be temporarily dammed some 4 km upstream of the dam
site as it enters the narrow gorge. A low dam of earth and rock some 5 to 7m high will
retain almost 10Mm³ of river flow in the huge flat area upstream of the gorge. During the
low flow season, with average river flows of some 30-40 m³/s, this flat area will fill slowly
over 2 to 3 days before the temporary dam is overtopped. This time will be sufficient to set
the stoplogs and seal the inlet to the diversion culvert.
9.2.1.2 Selecting the Design Diversion Floods

Two considerations formed the basis for selecting the floods to design the various stages
of river diversion scheme, namely:
! The excavation, treatment and initial construction of the RCC dam blocks in the river
bed will be carried out well within a low flow season – the right side blocks in the first
low flow season and the left side blocks in the second low flow season. Therefore, in
the critical early construction period, the diversion works must only divert the low flow
season flows. The occurrence of extreme floods during these low flow seasons is rare.
! Neither the river bed nor the main dam are susceptible to serious damage by
overtopping of the protective cofferdams because the main dam is of strong and solid
RCC and the river bed is of rock. Only the low cost cofferdams/dykes around the
foundation pits would be at risk and they could be completely reconstructed in a few
days in the event of damage occurring. Furthermore, when the top of the RCC dam
exceeds the design flood level, there will be no need to rebuild these protection dykes.
Given the above considerations, the following four flood design criteria were adopted for
the design of the sequential stages of river diversion:
! For the first low flow season, the mean annual flood of 503 m³/s was adopted. The
capacity of the low flow season channel capacity must be high enough to prevent the
water level rising above the dyke crest and flooding the right dam foundation footprint.
! For the subsequent high flow season, a flood with an estimated return period of once
in 20 years was adopted. This flood has a peak discharge of some 950 m³/s. By the
onset of the high flow season, the crest of the dam blocks on the right bank must have
reached an elevation well above the design flood level.
! For the second low flow season, again the mean annual flood of 503 m³/s was
adopted. The culvert capacity and cofferdam heights must be high enough to prevent

the water level rising above the cofferdam crests and flooding the left bank dam
foundation footprint.
! For the high flow season following the second low flow season, again a flood with an
estimated return period of once in 20 years was adopted. The culvert capacity must be
high enough to prevent the water level rising above 1060 m asl – the dam construction
level expected to be reached during that high flow season.
9.2.1.3 Hydraulic Design

In order to analyse the hydraulics of both the low flow season channel and the reinforced
concrete diversion culvert during the various stages of river diversion, the tailwater rating
curve immediately downstream of the toe of the dam was required. This curve was
developed using the method described in the “Design of Small Dams”, USBR. The data
were taken from the site survey that was done during the drilling and geophysics
campaign in May and June of 2006, supplemented with information from 1:10,000 scale
maps produced by EMA. The resulting rating curve is shown in Figure 9.2 below.
With the rating curve serving as the downstream hydraulic boundary, standard backwater
calculations were carried out for the various stages of river diversion with the respective
design floods. Since the steep, narrow gorge immediately upstream of the dam site offers
very little storage, attenuation of the design floods was ignored. The back water
calculations along the open channel sections of the diversion works, which include the low
flow season river channel passing through the dam site and the culvert (when flowing with
a free surface) running through the base of the dam have been based on the classic
Manning’s equation. For the river channel and the concrete culvert, roughness coefficients
of 0.025 and 0.010 respectively were adopted. The analysis of flow through the culvert
also used the concepts of “inlet control” and “outlet control”. Inlet control flow occurs when
the flow capacity of the culvert entrance is less than the flow capacity of the culvert barrel.
Outlet control flow occurs when the culvert flow capacity is limited by downstream
conditions such as high tailwater or by the flow carrying capacity of the culvert’s barrel. In
determining the required crest elevations of the various cofferdams, a freeboard
allowance of 1m was added to the estimated water levels.
Figure 9.2: Rating Curve at Dam Site
Rating Curve at Dam Site
1025
1024
1023
1022
Elevation (m asl)
1021
1020
1019
1018
1017
1016
1015
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Discharge (m³/s)
The design exercise involved selecting a combination of culvert capacity and cofferdam
heights which would satisfactorily pass the respective design floods. A classical
optimization exercise is not practical, indeed not necessary, for such a staged diversion
arrangement given the relatively low cost of the scheme - it does not involve the
construction of expensive tunnels through the abutments. Furthermore, over a range of

culvert sizes, there is relatively little change in overall construction cost – the cost of a
bigger culvert is offset by the saving in RCC.
After a number of combinations of culvert size and cofferdam heights were investigated, a
preferred arrangement was selected. This arrangement included a reinforced concrete
culvert, D-shaped, with a height of 12m and a width of 6m. With this arrangement, the
results of the analysis of each of the four stages of river diversion were as follows:
First low flow season

This stage is independent of the culvert capacity and depends only on the capacity of the
low flow season river channel. As mentioned above, it was assumed that this channel
would be widened, cleaned and/or trimmed as necessary to ensure a clear flow width of at
least 20m from the channel bed. Backwater calculations from the downstream boundary
to immediately upstream of the dam site indicated that the protection cofferdam around
the right bank construction pit would require a crest elevation of some 1023m asl to
provide protection against the mean annual flood.
First high flow season

Again, this stage is independent of the culvert capacity and depends only on the capacity
of the low flow season river channel. Backwater calculations from the downstream
boundary to immediately upstream of the dam site indicated that the dam blocks under
construction would have to be raised to at least 1028.5m asl in order to be above the level
of the once in 20 year design flood. This would be easily achievable before the onset of
the first high flow season. Indeed it was estimated that a level of 1060m asl would be
achievable on the RCC blocks on both banks of the river.
Second low flow season

The water levels reached during passage of the design flood in this stage are dependent
on the culvert discharge capacity. Backwater calculations from the downstream boundary
to immediately upstream of the dam site indicated that the upstream protection cofferdam
would require a crest elevation of some 1030.5m asl to protect against the mean annual
flood. The downstream protection cofferdam would require a crest elevation of some
1023.5m asl.
Second high flow season

Again, the water levels reached during passage of the design flood in this stage are
dependent on the culvert discharge capacity. Backwater calculations along the culvert
from the downstream boundary indicated that the culvert inlet would be submerged and
would control the flow into the culvert barrel. The water level at the culvert inlet,
corresponding to a discharge of 950 m³/s, was estimated using the equation developed by
Normann in 1985:
Yh = D × (C4 × (Qp /(A × D½))² + C5 + C3 × Sp)
where:
Yh = upstream water depth above culvert invert (ft)
D = equivalent culvert diameter (ft)
Qp = culvert discharge (ft³/s)
A = culvert cross-section area (ft²)
Sp = culvert floor longitudinal gradient (-)
and:
C3 C4 C5
Type (1) for concrete, square edge inlet with headwall -0.5 0.0398 0.67
Type (2) for concrete, groove end inlet with headwall -0.5 0.0292 0.74
Type (3) for concrete, groove end projecting at inlet -0.5 0.0317 0.69

It was assumed that the inlet surfaces to the culvert inlet would project out of the dam wall
and be grooved or rounded, therefore the Type (3) parameters would be applicable. Using
these parameters in the above equation, the dam blocks under construction would have to
be raised to at least 1042.6m asl in order to be safely above the level of the once in 20
year flood. This would be easily achievable before the onset of the second high flow
season. Indeed, as mentioned above, it was estimated that a level of 1060m asl would be
achievable on the RCC blocks on both banks of the river.
The sequence of river diversion and dam construction are presented in Drawing No. 5.5.
in the Album of Drawings (Vol. V).
9.2.1.4 Culvert Structure

The culvert will be excavated in fresh and strong granite. For estimating purposes the rock
can generally be described as being of good to very good rock mass according to the
Geomechanics classification.
From the hydraulic design, the diversion conduit is “D” shaped, 6 m wide and 12 m high
and has a semi-circular roof. However, the section before and to a point just beyond the
closure gate slot is 6m by 12m rectangular. The structural design assumes that grade
25 N/mm² concrete is used with high tensile reinforcing steel. This design is based on a
simplified analysis where the bending moments and shear forces have been determined
by a hand calculation.
The conduit can be split into two principal sections based on functional requirements as
follows:
Section 1: The rectangular section just downstream of the closure gate slot to a point
some 2 m downstream of the dam face. This will be the most highly stressed part of the
conduit since during impounding it will be empty of water. It must therefore resist the water
pressure from the reservoir. As soon as possible after closure, this section will be plugged
with concrete which will relieve the walls and roof of the water loads. For design purposes
it has been conservatively assumed that the walls and roof should be designed to resist a
reservoir water level of 1080 m asl. The depth of water to be resisted by the reinforced
concrete is therefore approximately 65 m. The floor, walls and roof slab will be 4m thick
and heavily reinforced.
Section 2: The “D” shaped conduit that is under the dam to the downstream end of the
conduit. This part of the conduit must resist the weight of the RCC that will sit on its roof. It
can be assumed that the RCC will arch across the conduit roof and so it has been
assumed that only a triangular shaped load applies. This part of the conduit is not highly
stressed. Internal water loading is small compared to the external loads from either water
pressures or the weight of RCC above. Therefore internal water loading has been ignored.
All of the walls and slabs that form the conduit will 2.0 m thick with nominal reinforcement.
After closure, the entire diversion culvert will be plugged permanently.
9.2.1.5 Closure for Reservoir Impounding

A set of sliding stoplogs will be provided to close the inlet to the diversion culvert after
finishing dam construction. This operation will take place only during the months of lowest
river flow, between December and April. The sliding stoplogs will be set, after the flow has
been largely halted by the temporary upstream dam, by a grappling beam and a mobile
crane. Once closure of the diversion culvert has been achieved, the temporary upstream
dam will be breached and impounding proper will begin. The initial 25 to 30m of
impoundment will occur relatively quickly (in a matter of days). Thereafter the huge
storage capacity of wide valley upstream of the gorge will fill much more slowly. It will take
about one month for the reservoir level to reach 1070 m asl and a further two months to
reach 1080 m asl. Three months will be ample time to construct and grout the plug in the
diversion culvert directly behind the stoplogs. Therefore the stoplogs will be designed to
withstand the water pressure resulting from the reservoir at level 1080m asl.
Table 9.3: Design Criteria for the Stoplogs

No. of stoplog openings 1
No. of stoplog sets 1
No. of elements per stoplog set 3
Clear span of opening 6.00 m
Clear height of opening 12.00 m
Design head (exceptional operation) 65 W.C. m above sill
Sealing downstream
Backfill concreting (plugging) of the culvert will commence as soon as the inlet is
successfully closed. In this regard, the reinforced concrete culvert roof and floor will
narrow gradually downstream of the inlet for some 10 to 15m, thereby creating a wedge
form for the plug. Following completion of plugging, it will be necessary to extend the drain
curtain across the conduit section and connect it to the principal drain curtain. This work
will be executed from the drainage gallery above the culvert. It is noted that it was
necessary to design the culvert to resist the hydrostatic pressure that will apply until the
drains are completed. Some supplementary contact grouting will be required when the
plug concrete has cooled down.
9.2.2 Mid-Level Outlet Works

9.2.2.1 Function and Operation
Mid-level outlet facilities are required to ensure a discharge sufficient to supply
downstream power schemes in the event that the GD-3 powerhouse is out of operation for
a prolonged period and to supply water to any water supply scheme that might be
constructed downstream of the dam. Two hydropower schemes are planned downstream
of GD-3, namely GD-5 and GD-6. Together, these two schemes will have a total installed
capacity of some 300MW, but both will have relatively small reservoirs – of the order of 7
to 14 days. They are thus highly dependent on a largely uninterrupted supply of water
from GD-3. In the event that the GD-3 power plant is unable to operate for a prolonged
period (itself a serious event) it would be unacceptable that the two downstream plants
would also have to close down due to a lack of water from upstream. Therefore it will be of
paramount importance to guarantee discharge from GD-3 even in the event of the GD-3
power plant going off line. This guarantee will be provided by incorporating outlet facilities
through the GD-3 dam.
The discharge capacity of the mid-level outlet has been determined as that necessary to
deliver the long term average power scheme discharge of 84m³/s with the reservoir water
level at 1090 m asl, that is at 10m above the minimum operating level. The long term
average discharge through the power scheme was obtained from reservoir operation
simulations. At reservoir levels below 1090 m asl, the discharge capacity of the outlet
facilities will reduce (as a function of the falling head). However, at such low reservoir
levels, this reduction will be in line with rationing to conserve generating head for as long
as possible.
9.2.2.2 Layout Development and Design Details

The river valley immediately upstream of the GD-3 dam is narrow and the river bed is
steep. This will result in a very fast initial rise (up to 25-30m) of the reservoir water level
after river closure and there would be insufficient time to incorporate the outlet in the
diversion culvert without expensive and complicated gate arrangements. Therefore, the
outlet facilities will be located through the main dam at about one third height, well above
the expected sediment level. In order to guarantee supply to the future downstream power
schemes, the facilities would be arranged as, at least, two independent outlets – each with
the capacity to discharge one half of the design flow. With this arrangement, if one outlet
could not function, then at least 50% of the discharge could be guaranteed to downstream
users (more if the reservoir was at a high level). Each outlet will comprise the following:
! a bellmouth inlet cast into the face of the dam and leading to,

! a steel pipe laid horizontally through, and embedded in, the dam and leading to,
! a butterfly guard valve on the downstream dam face leading to,
! a steel pipe anchored to the downstream dam face on the outside of the spillway
sidewalls, leading to,
! a Howell-Bunger discharge valve located on a plinth, level with the top of the stilling
basin side walls. The valves will be angled to discharge into the stilling basin.
In the very unlikely event that the entire mid-level outlet must be drained, the inlet
bellmouth will be closed by stoplogs. Guide rails are foreseen on the upstream dam face
and the stoplogs would be set using a mobile crane located on the dam crest. The pipes
will be ventilated from a valve located in the inspection gallery.
The pipework and valves will be arranged on both sides of, and outside, the spillway
walls. Both discharge and guard valves will be located outside the dam body on the
downstream dam face under cover. The valves will not operate during spilling. If the GD-3
dam is spilling, then it is almost certain that the two downstream dams will also be spilling
or at least close to spilling and thus they will not be in immediate need of a water supply
from upstream. Once spilling has ceased and the valves are in operation, the aerated
conical jets will discharge into the stilling basin. The Howell-Bunger discharge valves will
be located on a plinth level with the top of the stilling basin sidewall and directed into the
stilling basin.
Mid-Level Outlet Pressure Pipes

The two steel pressure pipes will convey discharge from the bellmouth inlets to the
Howell-Bunger outlet valves. Each pipe will have an inner diameter of 2.00 m and a total
length of some 95 m. These pipes have been designed to withstand an internal water
pressure of 145 bar. The 50m long pipe sections through the dam will be embedded in
concrete. On the downstream face of the dam, a bend and a butterfly guard valve will be
installed. The bend will direct the pipe down the dam face and be firmly strapped to the
downstream dam face to withstand the hydraulic forces on the bend. Each pipe will be
connected to the corresponding Howell-Bunger outlet valve by a welded flange. At the
design discharge of 42 m3/s, the head losses from inlet to discharge valve will be of the
order of 10.0m.
Howell Bunger Outlet Valve

The Howell-Bunger valves will sit on raised plinths and be directed over the side walls of
the stilling basin. A Howell-Bunger valve comprises a steel cone installed in a cylindrical
sleeve and held in place by radial upstream ribs. To open, the sleeve retracts from the
cone and vice versa to close. The sleeve movement is activated by oil pressure
servomotors. The nominal diameter of each valve will be 1.40 m. With this arrangement,
the total discharge capacity of two valves for reservoir levels down to the Minimum
Operating Level will be as follows:
Reservoir Level Discharge Capacity
(m asl) (m3/s)
1090 84
1088 82
1086 81
1084 80
1082 78
1080 77
From the above it is evident that even at Minimum Operating Level, a significant discharge
could be released downstream in the event that the GD-3 power scheme is out of
operation.
9.3 Spillway
9.3.1 Introduction
A spillway is an outlet from a reservoir or section of a dam designed to release surplus
flood water that cannot be stored for generating power, for irrigation, for water supply or
for discharge through some other outlet works. Ordinarily, this surplus water is drawn from
the top of the reservoir and conveyed through a constructed waterway back to the river or
to some natural drainage channel. This waterway must be of sufficient hydraulic capacity
to safely contain the high velocity flows created by the drop from the reservoir surface to
the tail water. The waterway material must be erosion resistant to withstand the high
scouring velocities and arrangements must be made at the foot of the spillway to ensure
that the discharges to not undermine the foundations of the dam.
Investigations presented in the chapter on dam design proved that a dam constructed of
RCC offered the least cost solution at the GD-3 site. A principal benefit of the RCC dam is
that it offers the opportunity of incorporating a simple in-line spillway on top of the dam.
The flood waves arriving at the spillway will have been greatly attenuated by the huge GD-
3 reservoir – that is their peak flows will have been greatly reduced. For such a situation, a
simple overflow spillway built on top of the dam is both a common, as well as a low cost
solution. The overflow spillway should be un-gated for reasons elaborated below.
Un-gated spillways offer the following advantages:
! They provide maximum safety to downstream riparian users since there is no
possibility of the spillway outflow ever exceeding the reservoir inflow. With an
uncontrolled overflow crest of the type proposed for GD-3, the outflow peak can never
be greater than the inflow peak.
! They eliminate the risk of operator mistakes.
! They are much less prone to blocking by floating debris washed into the reservoir
during floods.
! They provide substantial flood mitigation benefits. A substantial part of any flood
discharge goes into temporary storage in the part of the reservoir above the FSL. The
area of the reservoir is significant and so the volume available to temporarily store the
floodwaters is correspondingly significant. This results in a substantial reduction in
flood outflows. The outflow duration thus becomes longer than the duration of the
inflow flood.
Gated spillways, although offering a high discharge capacity, suffer from the following
disadvantages:
! Higher initial cost, including the steel gates and their auxiliaries. Gated spillways
require stoplogs for maintenance often have lifting gantries to both operate and
maintain the gates and stoplogs. Gated spillways generally require electrical power for
their operation and are often controlled by programmable logic computers and
software all of which adds to the cost,
! Higher maintenance costs,
! Prone to failure due to failure of normal and backup power supplies under extreme
flood conditions.
! Prone to mal-operation creating risk of flooding downstream or overtopping of dam.
An un-gated free overflow spillway was selected for the reasons explained above.
9.3.2 Spillway Performance Criteria

Floods of various return periods have been investigated in the design of the dam and the
spillway. Consistent with the dam design, the spillway crest must meet the following
performance criteria:
! A dry freeboard of at least 0.5 m must be provided on the dam face during the
passage of the flood having a return period of once in 10,000 years, combined with the

run-up from the significant wave generated by a wind with an estimated return of once
in 100 years.
! Limited overtopping of the dam crest may occur (that is no dry freeboard is required)
during the passage of a PMF, combined with the run-up from the significant wave
generated by a wind with an estimated return of once in 100 years.
With regard to the sidewalls of the spillway chute, the performance criteria are as follows:
! A freeboard of at least 20% of the maximum air-water mixture depth occurring along
the spillway chute must be provided by the chute sidewalls during passage of the flood
having a return period of once in 10,000 years.
! The sidewalls must be sufficiently high to contain (without considering splash and/or
surface waves) the air-water mixture depths resulting from passage of a PMF.
With regard to the stilling basin, the performance criteria are as follows:
! A freeboard of at least 2.5m must be provided on the stilling basin sidewalls during the
passage of the flood having a return period of once in 10,000 years.
! At the peak discharge occurring during the passage of the PMF, the hydraulic jump
must be fully formed within the stilling basin to ensure that the flow discharging from
the stilling basin is “tranquil” (that is, sub-critical with the Reynolds number of flow less
than unity).
The above performance criteria are on the high side for concrete dams. While there are
no recognised international standards for the design of dams and their overflow works, it
is recognised that concrete dams and their spillways are very resistant to overtopping by
flood waters – several countries have adopted design standards for concrete dams based
on floods with return periods of once in 5,000 years or even once in 1,000 years. In effect,
the above performance criteria define the flood with a return period of once in 10,000
years as the design flood and the PMF as the check flood. The design flood must be
passed with a sufficient margin of safety. The check flood must be passed, but without a
margin of safety. The exception is the stilling basin where the check flood is not
considered for the sidewall height. This is normal practice, since any overtopping of the
stilling basin side walls a flood more extreme that the design flood may cause some
damage but would not have a direct impact on dam safety.
9.3.3 Spillway Layout

The centreline of the spillway is aligned with the axis of the river downstream of the dam
in order to reduce to a minimum potential changes to the river course and to minimise
excavation downstream of the spillway.
The reinforced concrete spillway will consist of an ogee crest, a steep stepped chute with
side walls, a rounded bottom deflector and a stilling basin. The spillway’s ogee crest is
located on the crest of the dam in a large block-out in the top of the RCC.
The spillway crest block consists of a conventional concrete un-gated ogee-shaped
structure constructed on top of the RCC surface. The ogee crest level is set at the
reservoir FSL, that is at 1120 m asl.
The stepped chute is approximately 120 m long from the ogee crest to the rounded
bottom deflector. The steps are 1.20 m high and 0.84 m wide and constructed of
conventional concrete (CC) placed on the downstream face of the dam. This CC layer will
be reinforced and will have a clear thickness of 1.0 m. Anchor bars will be embedded into
the RCC mass. The spillway chute will have parallel side walls of a height sufficient to
contain the design outflow.
The bottom deflector is set as low as practicable to maximise the effectiveness of the
stilling basin. The radius of curvature is 8 m. The thickness of the stilling basin’s
conventional concrete base slab will be at least 3.0 m. Baffle and chute blocks are not
considered for the stilling basin to avoid the risk of cavitation and blockage by floating
debris during floods. At the end of stilling basin, an end sill is arranged to facilitate the
formation of hydraulic jump. The stilling basin will be drained by means of drainage holes
to relieve the uplift pressure beneath the plate.
9.3.4 Spillway Design

9.3.4.1 Spill Weir Crest Length
A spill weir crest length has been selected based on the following considerations:
! The crest length should be as long as possible in order to reduce the flood surcharge
and thereby the dam height.
! The crest length should not exceed the width of the natural river course downstream in
order to avoid excessive excavation and protection works and to avoid changing the
river course and character.
! The crest length should extend over a finite number of complete RCC blocks in order
to facilitate construction.
An effective hydraulic crest length of 60m has been selected. A 2m wide reinforced
concrete bridge pier will be integrated into the spillway crest giving it a total crest length of
62m. With this arrangement, the crest will extend over 2 full RCC blocks. The width of the
Genale River downstream is between 60m and 70m.
9.3.4.2 Spillway Floods

The floods to be discharged safely by the spillway were obtained by simulating the
passage of the inflow design floods through GD-3 reservoir. As described above, the two
relevant inflow design floods were the flood with an estimated return interval of once in
10,000 years and the theoretical PMF. The routing was carried out using the Consultant’s
software package DTENT. The computation method is based on the “level pool” routing
approach, whereby the water balance of the reservoir is calculated during passage of the
incoming flood assuming that the reservoir surface is always level. The discharge over the
spill weir crest (outflow from the reservoir in the water balance calculation) is calculated in
the program as follows:
Q = CLeHe1.5
Where: Q = discharge in m³/s,
C = discharge coefficient, 2.05,
Le = effective crest length in m,
He = energy head on spillway crest in m.
The results of the routing are as follows:
Peak Reservoir Peak Spillway Maximum Surcharge
Flood Inflow Discharge above FSL
(m3/s) (m3/s) (m)
Once in 1,000 year flood (Q1,000) 1,680 516 2.6

Once in 10,000 year flood (Q10,000) 2,100 660 3.1
PMF 3,800 1,294 4.8
9.3.4.3 Reservoir Attenuation

The ungated spillway acts as a discharge throttle during periods of rising inflows. In this
way, a portion of inflowing floods are stored in the reservoir and released, with a lower
peak discharge, over a longer period as the inflowing flood recedes. This effect is shown
below for two floods – the once in 20 year flood and the once in 10,000 year flood.

Once in 20 Year Flood
1000
800 Inflow
Discharge (m3/s)
Outflow
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200
Time (hours)
Once in 10,000 Year Flood
2500
2000 Inflow
Outflow
Discharge (m3/s)
1500
1000
500
0
0 50 100 150 200
Time (hours)
The degree of flood attenuation is considerable. For both the once in 20 year flood and
the once in 10,000 year flood, the peak outflows have been reduced to some 30% of the
peak inflows. This huge reduction in flood peaks will be of considerable benefit to
downstream communities.
9.3.4.4 Spillway Tailwater Rating Curve

The same tail water rating curve developed as the downstream boundary of the diversion
works was adopted as a basis for the design of the stilling basin.
9.3.4.5 Ogee Crest Geometry

To provide a high-efficiency, yet safe low-maintenance spillway structure, the crest shape
must provide a high discharge coefficient and fairly uniform and predictable pressures on
the crest boundary. These constraints can best be met if the shape of the overflow
spillway closely approximates that of a fully ventilated nappe of water flowing over a
sharp-crested weir. The shape of the nappe is affected by the relative head on the weir,
the approach depth and velocity, and the upstream slope of the weir. The ogee crest
structure controls the spillway flows and so its design is critical to the efficient operation of
the whole spillway.
The ogee nappe shape has been designed to the USACE, EM 1110-2-1630, Hydraulic
Design of Spillways [1] using the well known “ogee formula” (also known as the WES
curve):
1
Y= 0.85
⋅ X 1.85 (1)
2H d
where : Y = ordinate of ogee curve
X = abscissa of ogee curve
Hd = design head
The apex of the nappe is the origin of the coordinate system. The design head was
selected as Hd = 3.10 m, corresponding to about 65 per cent of the maximum head of 4.8
m for PMF. A double-circle curve with radii, R1, of 1.55 m (= 0.5Hd) and, R2, of 0.62m (=
0.2Hd) completes the upstream quadrant of the crest profile. The curves are tangentially
connected with each other. The resulting crest profile is presented below:
1120.5
1120.0
1119.5
Elevation (m asl.)
1119.0
1118.5
1118.0
1117.5
1117.0
1116.5
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Distance from Spillway Crest (m)
The stepped chute commences about 3.0 m below the crest.
9.3.4.6 Stepped Chute and Stilling Basin

The water discharging from the spill weir into the stepped chute must be contained within
side walls. These sidewalls must be high enough to prevent overtopping and subsequent
damage to the foundations at the toe of the dam. As the water flows down the stepped
chute, a portion of its energy will be dissipated. The energy remaining in the water at the
foot of the chute must also be dissipated in order to prevent scour damage to the river
reach downstream of the spillway chute and potential undermining of the dam body. This
remaining energy is dissipated in a stilling basin constructed at the toe of the spillway
chute. For a given design discharge, the arrangement and dimensions of the effective
stilling basin depend on the residual energy of the chute flow, which in turn depends on
the characteristics of the stepped chute. As such, the hydraulic dimensioning of the chute
sidewalls and the stilling basin were carried out in a single activity.
Down the stepped chute, nappe flow occurs for small discharges, when the water plunges
from one step to the other. Nappe flow is generally not a critical design case because
most of the energy is dissipated. At higher discharges, skimming flow occurs with less

energy dissipation. The maximum energy dissipation occurs if the stepped chute is long
enough to induce uniform flow, at which point the energy gradient is equal to the slope of
the chute.
For the assessment of the flow conditions along the stepped chute, and for the estimation
of the residual energy at the entrance to the stilling basin for the design and check floods,
empirical design approaches are available. These empirical relations have been derived
mainly from experimental data. For the present design the empirical functions developed
by Boes and Minor [2] have been adopted.
As water spills over the crest and down the stepped chute, it accelerates and its depth of
flow decreases. The increasing flow velocity over the steps increases the turbulence
within the flow profile – this turbulent zone steadily rises from the water-step interface
towards the water surface with increasing distance from the crest. At a particular distance
downstream of the spillweir crest, known as the inception point, the turbulent zone
reaches the flow surface and immediately starts to absorb larger quantities of air into the
flow profile. From the inception point, the flow depth increases as air is drawn into the
flow. If the chute is sufficiently long, as it is at GD-3, a point is reached downstream of
which the depth and velocity of the air-water mixture remain constant or uniform. As
mentioned above, maximum energy dissipation occurs when the flow is uniform.
The flow characteristics down the spillway chute are a function of several characteristic
dimensions of the chute, namely:
! Chute height = 102m
! Chute gradient = 1(V) : 0.7(H)
! Chute slope length = 124.5m
! Chute width = 60m
! Step height = 1.2m
! Discharge at which skimming flow begins = 148m³/s
The results of applying the empirical functions of Boes and Minor to the stepped spillway
at GD-3 for the design and check floods are as follows:
Flood
Parameter
Once in 10,000 years PMF
Discharge, Q 660 m³/s 1,294 m³/s
Unit Discharge, q 11m³/s/m 21.6m³/s/m
Critical flow depth over spillweir, hc 2.31m 3.62m
Slope distance to inception point of air entrainment, Li 20.5m 35.2m
Inception air-water flow depth, hm,i 0.92m 1.38m
Inception air concentration, Ĉi 0.22 0.22
Inception clear water flow depth, hw,i 0.72m 1.07m
Slope distance to reach uniform flow, Hdam,u 59.2m 92.9m
Uniform clear water depth, hw,u 0.53m 0.83m
Clear water depth at toe of spillway, hw,e 0.53m 0.83m
Uniform characteristic mixture depth, h90,u 1.20m 1.85m
Uniform flow depth-average air concentration, Ĉu 0.56 0.55
The residual head at toe of spillway, Hres 27.2m 39.2m
From the above, the height of the chute sidewalls must be at least the greater of the
following:
! 1.2 × 1.20m (= 1.44m) in order to contain the once in 10,000 year flood with a
sufficient margin of safety, or
! 1.85m in order to contain the PMF (with no margin of safety).
For the present feasibility design, a sidewall height of 1.85m has been selected. They will
have a thickness of 1.0 m on each side of the chute down to the bottom deflector.
The jet of water entering the stilling basin must be forced into a hydraulic jump. This is
done by creating a deep enough water column at the end of the basin. This water column
is created by raising a sill at the end of the stilling basin and/or by lowering the basin floor.
Lowering the floor requires extensive excavation, thus the lowest excavation level was
limited to the lowest level of the river bed (1015m asl). Given the high dynamic pressure
fluctuations beneath a hydraulic jump, the floor slab thickness was set at 3m resulting in a
floor level of 1018m asl.
The calculations of stilling basin length and conjugate depths depend on the depth and
velocity of the influent flow. At the toe of the stepped spillway, a high proportion of air is
entrained in the flow. From the dam toe, along the bottom deflector to the hydraulic jump,
a portion of this entrained air is expelled from the flow. It has been found that, for the
estimation of conjugate depth and stilling basin length, the most reliable results are
obtained by using the equivalent clear water depths and velocities. The results of the
calculations are as follows:
Flood
Parameter
Once in 10,000 years PMF
Discharge, Q 660 m³/s 1,294 m³/s
Unit Discharge, q 11m³/s/m 21.6m³/s/m
Clear water flow depth at entrance to stilling basin, d1 0.51m 0.83m
Clear water flow velocity at entrance to stilling basin, v1 21.8m/s 26.1m/s
Influent Froude Number 9.8 9.2
Conjugate depth in stilling basin after hydraulic jump, d2 6.7m 10.3m
Length of stilling basin, Ls = (5 ~ 6) × (d2 –d1) 31m ~ 37m 48m ~ 57m
Water elevation in stilling basin after hydraulic jump 1024.7m asl 1028.3m asl
Water elevation in river channel immediately downstream 1021.6m asl 1023.4m asl
The height of the end sill, required to force the hydraulic jump, is a function of the water
level in the stilling basin, in the river channel downstream of the stilling basin and the
distribution of velocities within the stilling basin. An accurate theoretical solution is not
generally possible, but a good approximation of the required sill height is:
Hsill = 0.85 × (Elevationstilling basin - Elevationriver)
For the present feasibility design, the following dimensions have been adopted for the
stilling basin:
! Overall length = 60m
! Sidewall height above floor level = 9m
! Sill height = 5m
In order to confirm the dimensions of the stilling basin and the subsequent excavation and
concrete volumes, it is strongly recommended to perform hydraulic model tests at a
comparatively large scale (1:20 – 1:25).
9.4 Power Waterways and Associated Structures

9.4.1 General
The power waterway system comprises the following:
! a power intake at the reservoir,
! a long low pressure unlined headrace tunnel (driven by TBM),
! a large headrace surge tank,
! a deep concrete lined inclined pressure shaft,

! a short concrete lined high pressure tunnel,

! a short steel lined high pressure tunnel,
! a steel lined three barrelled manifold that feeds water to the three turbine inlet valves
and the three turbines,
! a concrete lined three barrelled manifold that conveys the discharge from the turbine
draft tubes to the tailrace tunnel,
! a tailrace surge tank,
! a long concrete lined pressure flow tailrace tunnel.
The power waterway system is required to convey the water from the GD-3 reservoir to
the turbines and thereafter to return it to the Genale River efficiently and economically.
The headrace system must also be stable in operation and its surge chambers must damp
out mass oscillations effectively without destabilising the operation of the turbine-
generators. The starting and stopping of the turbine-generators induces water hammer
and surge pressures within the power waterway system. Such water hammer and surge
pressures must be acceptable and not overstress the linings of the waterways or cause
the surge chambers to be overtopped or emptied.
The above components comprise a complete hydraulic system. In terms of hydraulic
performance, the components interact with each other - the hydraulic performance of one
component has an impact on the hydraulic performance of other components. Therefore
the determination of the main dimensions and performance parameters (in other words -
the design) of each of the above components is a process of sequential repetition until a
final layout is defined. The sequence of design was as follows:
! Determination of the most economic diameters of the conveyance waterways, namely
the low pressure headrace tunnel, the inclined headrace shaft, the high pressure
tunnel and the tailrace tunnel.
! Determination of the form and dimensions of the surge chambers.
! Determination of the form and dimensions of the intake and outfall structures.
In the following, the development of the main dimensions of each component of the power
waterway system is presented in the above sequence.
9.4.2 Headrace Tunnel

9.4.2.1 General
The headrace tunnel will convey water, under low pressure, from the power intake
structure to the surge tank and thereafter to the top of the pressure shaft.
The rock mass conditions in the headrace tunnel have been investigated by 3 boreholes,
one in the vicinity of the power intake, a second in the vicinity of the surge tank and the
third in the vicinity of the proposed TBM launch portal.
The hole in the vicinity of the power intake structure encountered only pegmatoidal granite
with a strong rock mass rating (RMR89) of 88. The other two boreholes at the
downstream end of the tunnel encountered alternating sections of pegmatoidal granite
and older feldspathic or biotite schists. However these schists are also relatively un-
jointed and the foliations as well as the joints are tight. There is very little difference in
composition or properties between the feldspathic and biotite schists. The schists have a
moderate to strong rock strength of about 30MPa along the foliation and about 50MPa
across the foliation.
Any gneisses that are encountered would have similar properties to the granites. The high
feldspar contents, coarse grained texture and un-jointed nature of the pegmatoidal
granites, make the rock mass ideally suited to both conventional excavation and
excavation by TBM. Inclusions of gneiss or schist within the pegmatoidal granites are not
expected to have a significant impact on the excavation properties of the rock mass.
Using the Geomechanics Rock Mass Classification (Bieniawski 1989) the schist rock mass
has a total rock mass rating (RMR89) of 62, indicating a good (to fair) rock mass. This RMR
value indicates an angle of friction of 35° and cohesion of 300kPa on the rock joints. This is
equivalent to a Geological Strength Index (GSI) of 57 (Hoek and Brown 1997).
The RocLab 1 programme, available from RocScience, predicts a rock mass global
strength of about 6MPa and a modulus of deformation of about 6GPa for the schists
based on a rock mass with a uniaxial strength of 50MPa and a GSI of 57.
The schists, gneisses, and granites are banded or inter-layered, with the layers varying in
thickness. The borehole cores comprised some 60% feldspathic schists and biotite schists
and 40% pegmatite, pegmatitic granite and granite.
It is likely that the behaviour of the rock mass in the tunnel will be dictated by the weaker
or poorer quality rock, i.e. the schists with an (RMR89) of 62 which also form the greater
proportion of the rock mass. The value of the RMR will also be affected by the orientation
of the tunnel relative to the foliation. The tunnel has a direction from the launch portal of
315° while the foliation in the schists has a near parallel strike orientation of about 330°.
This is generally favourable but where the foliation dip is flatter than 45°, as it occasionally
is, then the RMR would decrease to 57, i.e., a fair rock mass class.
From interpretation of air photographs, the length of headrace tunnel affected by the
schists is not expected to be significant. For feasibility design and estimation of quantities,
it is assumed that 80% of the headrace tunnel will be in pegmatoidal granite with an
(RMR89) of 88 and 15% will be in schist and granites with an (RMR89) of 62 and 5% will
be in low angled schists and granites with an (RMR89) of 57.
The headrace tunnel will be some 12,400m long and be dimensioned to convey a
maximum flow of 116 m³/s. The combination of a long tunnel through a relatively strong
rock mass favours excavation by TBM. A TBM forms a reasonably smooth bore, circular
in profile, which does not justify a lining to reduce hydraulic friction losses. The high
proportion of feldspar in the pegmatoidal granite makes it easier to excavate than
conventional granite which normally has a higher quartz content. Rates of advance are
therefore expected to be higher than for a normal quartzite with less wear and tear on the
TBM. The schists or schists inter-layered with the granites will also be easily excavated.
The TBM will result in a very smooth bore in the very massive relatively un-jointed
pegmatoidal granites so that these rocks will not require a concrete lining. Some shotcrete
protection may be required where more jointed or poorer quality rock mass is encountered
but this is expected to be limited. In the inter-layered granites and schists, a greater
proportion may require shotcrete protection.
The headrace tunnel crosses numerous major lineaments, mostly major joints and
possibly a few faults. The joint conditions observed to date in the field and in the
boreholes are tight and unlikely to have much effect on the tunnel. Information on faulting
to date also indicates these to be of limited width.
The excavation slopes for the TBM launch portal in the schists will need to take into
account the foliation dip for excavating stable slopes. The average foliation dip is about
45° but it varies between 30° and 60°. Safe slopes can be assumed to be about 45° but
where the foliation is flatter; the slopes will require support in the form of bolting to avoid
wedge or planar failures. The amount of support will be dependant on the orientation of
the cut slopes relative to the strike of the foliation which is generally about 330°.
The tunnel alignment will descend at a gradient of some 3‰ from the power intake to the
surge tank and pressure shaft. Excavation will start from the downstream end at a portal
cut into the hillside below the surge tank and proceed in an upstream direction – thus the
tunnel will drain by gravity. After excavating a short (circa 70m) tunnel section including a
TBM starter pipe by conventional drill and blast (D&B) the TBM will be launched. It will
bypass the surge tank and the head of the pressure shaft and excavate almost 10,500m
up to a dismantling chamber some 2,100km from the power intake. From the dismantling
chamber, it will be removed to the surface through an access adit. This access adit will be
about 400m long and start from an incised valley to the west of the tunnel and intersect
the tunnel some 2,000m from the power intake. In this way, the excavation and

construction of the headrace surge tank, the pressure shaft and the power intake will be
carried out independently of the headrace excavation – thereby reducing the overall
construction time. The power intake and first 2,100m of headrace tunnel will be excavated
conventionally from both upstream and downstream via the TBM removal adit. The surge
tank will also be excavated by conventional drill and blast from the top down.
9.4.2.2 Headrace Tunnel Diameter

For a given design discharge, the optimum size of a conveyance waterway is that which
results in the least total cost over the project lifetime. The total cost is the sum of the
waterway construction costs (excavation, support, lining, etc) and the costs of energy lost
through hydraulic friction. A large, but costly waterway results in low energy losses while a
smaller, less costly waterway results in higher energy losses. For lined waterways, reliable
empirical formulae have been published for determining the optimum diameter. However,
because relatively few unlined waterways have been constructed, a reliable empirical
formula does not exist. The most economic diameter is that which minimises the sum of
the value of the energy lost or foregone due to friction. Details of the calculations for
determining the economic optimum diameter of the headrace tunnel are given below.
The comparison of construction costs and energy losses was based on the following
parameters:
Value of electrical energy 5.0 USc/kWh
Assumed plant factor 0.70
Combined turbine, generator, and transformer efficiency 87%
Average hydraulic roughness of tunnel bored surface 4.0 mm
Direct tunnel excavation cost US$ 44/m³
Ratio direct cost of tunnel support : direct cost of excavation 0.1
Discount rate 10%/annum
Contingencies 15%
Preliminary and general 7.5%
Contractor’s overheads and profit 25%
Engineering and supervision 8%
Owner’s administrative and legal costs 2%
The results, in terms of construction costs, costs of foregone energy and total costs, for a
range of diameters, is presented in the graph below:
Headrace Tunnel (Unlined, TBM Driven) - Optimization
7000
6000
5000
Cost (US$/linear m)
4000
Construction Cost
3000
Cost of Foregone Energy
2000 Total Cost
1000
0
7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Tunnel Diameter (m)
The above graph shows that the optimum unlined, TBM driven headrace tunnel diameter
lies between 7.9 m and 8.3 m. For the present feasibility design, a diameter of 8.1 m has
been adopted. However, it is worth noting that the above curve of total cost (construction
+ foregone energy) is very flat in the region of the optimum tunnel diameter. A tunnel
diameter as low as 7.5m or as high as 8.5m would have little influence on the overall
project feasibility. At the time of tendering, it would be worth permitting contractors to offer
within the above diameter range. The availability of a second hand TBM within the above
diameter range in Ethiopia or in a neighbouring country could reduce overall tunnel costs
significantly.
9.4.3 Pressure Shaft, Pressure Tunnel and Tailrace Tunnel

9.4.3.1 General
The pressure shaft will convey the water from the downstream end of the headrace
tunnel, which is also at the bottom of the surge shaft, to the upstream end of the pressure
tunnel. The shaft will be inclined at 60º from the horizontal and have an inclined length of
213 m. At the bottom of the shaft, there will be a 57º bend connecting to the pressure
tunnel. The pressure tunnel will connect the bottom of the inclined pressure shaft to the
steel manifold and hence the turbine inlet valves. This low level tunnel will be some 335m
long. The tailrace tunnel will convey the discharges from the turbine draft tubes back to
the Genale River. This tunnel will be some 1,400m long and will convey flow under
pressure.
The pressure shaft will be excavated through a rock mass consisting of the granite,
pegmatoidal granite and pegmatite intruded into schists - predominantly into feldspathic
schists. Based on the results of the core drilling, the schists will form about 60% of the rock
mass while the granitic rocks form about 40%. The schists vary in thickness from about 1m
to 30m and the granitic rocks between 1m to 12m. The behaviour of the rock mass will
therefore be determined mainly by the schists that have a rock mass rating of between 62
and 57 and a GSI of 57 to 52. Excavations will therefore be in Fair to Good rock mass.
The pressure tunnel will be excavated mainly in feldspathic schists with an RMR of 62 to 57.
The tailrace outfall has been selected at an outside bend in the river where there is a cliff
of about 20m in height. The rocks occurring along the tailrace tunnel consist mainly of
feldspathic schists intruded by pegmatoidal granites. The excavations will be in rock with
an RMR of about 57 to 62 and an expected stand up time for an unsupported excavation
of between one week and one month.
Safe surface slopes can be assumed to be about 45° but where the foliation is flatter; the
slopes may require support in the form of bolting to avoid wedge or planar failures. This
will be dependant on the orientation of the cut slopes relative to the strike of the foliation
which is generally about 330°.
At this stage of the study it is reasonable to assume that the confinement of internal water
pressures within the pressure shaft and pressure tunnel will be adequately satisfied by
both the degree of rock cover and by anticipated rock quality and internal stresses. Steel
lining of the entire pressure waterway from surge tank to powerhouse manifold is not
expected to be required in order to contain the internal pressures. Apart from the final
200m of pressure tunnel leading to the steel manifold, all the remaining waterways will be
lined with concrete and reinforced to prevent excessive cracking and leakage.
Consolidation grouting will be undertaken behind the concrete lining to improve the rock’s
modulus and to limit crack widths in the lining. To guard against potential leakage of high
pressure penstock water into the powerhouse, the final 200 m of tunnel leading to the
manifold will be lined with steel. This distance will need to be reviewed when further
drilling and water pressure testing is carried out at the time of Detailed (ie Tender) Design.
Both the pressure and tailrace tunnels will be excavated by the conventional full-face drill
and blast method. Most of the tailrace tunnel will be excavated from the tailrace outfall – a
short section will be excavated from the lower powerhouse level. Spoil from this short

section will be removed via the downstream construction adit and the main access tunnel.
The pressure tunnel will be excavated from the lower powerhouse level to the foot of the
pressure shaft. The inclined pressure shaft will be excavated from the top down also by
conventional drill and blast. Spoil will be mucked out through the construction adit at the
top of the pressure shaft. Excavation support and stabilisation measures in the tunnels
and shaft are anticipated to be minimal.
The steel lining, immediately upstream of the powerhouse will be installed in 4m long
cans. These cans will be erected on the surface and brought underground for installation.
There are two alternative access routes for these cans – either through the main access
tunnel to the erection bay level in the powerhouse and then through an adit into the
headrace pressure tunnel or secondly from the head of the pressure shaft down to the
pressure tunnel. The first access approach is shorter but traffic from other activities may
make it less attractive. Once installed, the steel lining will be backfilled with concrete.
Grouting nipples will be provided on the inner surface of the steel lining for contact
grouting between the steel liner and its backing concrete.
9.4.3.2 Pressure Shaft, Pressure Tunnel and Tailrace Tunnel Diameter

As mentioned above, the optimum size of a conveyance waterway, for a given design
discharge, is that which results in the least total cost over the project lifetime. The total
cost is the sum of the waterway construction costs (excavation, support, lining, etc) and
the costs of energy lost through hydraulic friction. A large, but costly waterway results in
low energy losses while a smaller, less costly waterway results in higher energy losses.
To determine the optimum diameter it is usual to estimate and compare the above
mentioned costs. However, for several hundred lined tunnels and shafts already in
operation, Fahlbusch (Water Power and Dam Construction, February, 1987) published an
analysis of “optimally designed” diameters. The results of the analysis were two empirical
equations, one for concrete lined and the second for steel lined tunnels and shafts. These
equations are:
DC = 0.62 × QR0.48
DS = 1.12 × HD-0.12 × QR0.45
where: DC = optimum diameter of horizontal concrete lined tunnel (m).
DS = optimum diameter of horizontal and inclined steel lined tunnel (m).
QR = rated discharge (m³/s).
HD = design static head (m).
For the rated discharge of 116 m³/s and a design static head for the steel lined tunnel of
290m, the diameters are as follows:
Concrete lined pressure and tailrace tunnels: DC = 6.1m.
Steel lined pressure tunnel: DS = 4.8m.
For inclined concrete lined pressure shafts, Fahlbusch suggested a reduction in diameter
of some 10% compared with the horizontal tunnel diameter. However, unless both shaft
and tunnel are very long, it is normal practice to adopt a single diameter. This reduces
formwork costs. For the present feasibility study a diameter of 6.1m has been adopted for
the inclined pressure shaft and the pressure and tailrace tunnels.
The adopted concrete lining thickness of 0.5m is sufficient to withstand an external water
pressure equivalent to over 250m of water when the waterways are dewatered. The lining
will be reinforced to limit cracks and prevent excessive leakage, although the permeability
of the rock mass is generally very low.
Both the 200m long section of steel lining, installed immediately upstream of the
powerhouse, and the manifold, connecting to the three turbines, will be fabricated from
steel plate of designation DIN 17102 TstE 355 (or similar). For the present feasibility
design, the internal pressure (35.2 bar) will be born entirely by the steel pipe – the bearing
capacity of the surrounding rock has not been considered. The resulting wall thicknesses
are thus a slight overestimate.
9.4.4 Power Waterway Surge Facilities

9.4.4.1 General
The main functions of a surge tank are as follows:
! to confine the dynamic pressure surges (known as water-hammer) to relatively short
lengths of power waterway and thereby protect the head and tail race tunnels from
excessive internal loads;
! to prevent unstable turbine operation;
! to reduce overall water column starting time and thereby to improve the capability of
the turbine-generators to participate in voltage/frequency regulation of the power
system;
! to provide a water supply to the turbines in the case of start-up or sudden increase in
load demand.
From the above, it is obvious that surge tanks are required at the end of long headrace
tunnels, at the beginning of long tailrace tunnels and as close to the turbines as
practicable, thereby reducing the length of waterway to be protected against water-
hammer.
The present hydropower layout comprises a very long headrace tunnel and a long tailrace
tunnel, thus requiring both an upstream and a downstream surge tank. With regard to the
upstream surge tank, the local topography presents few constraints. The very long
headrace tunnel results in relatively high upsurges, even with a very large tank. The
ground surface rises steeply upstream of the powerhouse to elevations well above the
maximum upsurge water level. This topography offers a range of locations close to the
powerhouse for a conventional, open-top vertical shaft type surge tank to suit the
maximum upsurge water level in the tank.
With regard to the tailrace surge tank, the idea is to exploit the low level construction adit.
This adit will branch from the main access tunnel and loop down to the level of the tailrace
tunnel and lower powerhouse. During construction, it will be used to muck out the lower
levels of the powerhouse cavern, the downstream manifold and the upstream section of
the tailrace tunnel. As such it is ideally placed to serve as the downstream surge tank.
9.4.4.2 Hydraulic Design

The Consultant’s software package was used for the hydraulic design of the power
waterway surge facilities. These surge facilities comprise an upstream surge tank (in the
form of a shaft) located at the top of the pressure shaft and a downstream surge chamber
located immediately downstream of the draft tube tunnels.
The software, which was developed for the hydraulic design and assessment of
hydropower plants, was used to dimension the surge facilities and determine water
hammer pressures. Within this software package, the solution of the hydraulic equations
is based on the method of characteristics. The hydraulic behaviour of the entire power
waterway system was modelled. The model included all the dimensions and geometry of
the power waterway components, friction and sudden loss factors, wave speeds, reservoir
and tailwater levels, and turbine wicket gate characteristics.
The surge facilities were designed to ensure (1) stable turbine operation and (2) that
excessive water hammer pressures did not occur, even under extreme operating load
cases.
The extreme operating load cases were defined as:
! fast start-up of the turbines (100% load acceptance),
! emergency shutdown of the turbines (100% load rejection),
! sequence of fast start-up (100% load acceptance) followed by emergency shutdown
(100% load rejection) at the most critical timing, and

! sequence of emergency shutdown (100% load rejection) followed by fast start-up

(100% load acceptance) at the most critical timing.
For each of the above load cases, the least favourable boundary conditions (that is
reservoir levels and waterway friction) were assumed, such that upper bound estimates of
upsurge, downsurge and water-hammer pressures were obtained. For example, with
regard to the upstream surge shaft, load rejection was assessed when the water level in
reservoir was at its full supply level since this will result in the highest pressures and
upsurges. Load acceptance was assessed with the water level in reservoir at its minimum
operating level since this combination will result in the lowest pressures and down surges.
Under the load rejection case, all turbine wicket gates close within 6 seconds. Under the
load acceptance case, all three machines start-up over 7 seconds.
Through a design development process, the dimensions of the surge facilities were
determined which would ensure both stable operation and water-hammer pressures
remaining within acceptable limits. The design process involved the following steps:
! Determine, for each of the surge tanks, the minimum water surface area in the tank
(with a sufficient factor of safety) to guarantee stable operation,
! Identify, by sequential trials, the combination of tank sizes, throttle sizes, extreme up
and down surges which best suit the local topographic and geometric conditions and
which offer surface areas above the minimum requirements for stable operation.
! Check that the two, hydraulically connected, surge tanks will not resonate with each
other and cause unstable surges in the waterway system.
With regard to the minimum surface area for the upstream surge tank:
1.5 LT AT v2 1.5 ⋅ 12600 ⋅ 51.53 2.2362
AS min = ⋅ = ⋅
min H L (min H o − max H T − min H L ) 2 g 6.7 ⋅ (1080 − 840 − 6.7 ) 2 ⋅ 9.81
= 158.8 m ²
With regard to the minimum surface area for the downstream surge tank:
1.5 LT AT v2 1.5 ⋅ 1400 ⋅ 29.23 3.942 2
AS min = ⋅ = ⋅
min H L (min H o − max H T − min H L ) 2 g 2.5 ⋅ (1080 − 840 − 2.5) 2 ⋅ 9.81
= 81.9 m ²
In the above equations:
LT = length of the waterway driving the mass oscillation (m),
AT = cross-sectional area of the waterway driving the mass oscillation (m²),
HL = head losses along the waterway driving the mass oscillation (m),
HO = minimum water elevation at the head of the waterways (m asl),
HT = minimum water elevation at the tail of the waterways (m asl),
An orderly sequence of trials on varying the dimensions of the surge facilities to best suit
the local conditions was carried out. An important local condition was the existence of a
break on the steep slope above the powerhouse at an elevation of around 1160 m asl.
This break formed a small platform which would serve as the top of the upstream surge
tank.
The dimensions and layout of the power waterway system and its finally selected surge
facilities components are shown in the drawings in the Drawing Album. The surge facilities
comprise:
! a throttled upstream surge tank, in the form of a vertical shaft, with an internal
diameter of 23m. The throttle at the base of the tank has a diameter of 4.50m and,
! a throttled downstream surge tank, in the form of an inclined adit with dimensions
6m × 6m and a D-shaped cross-sectional profile.
The horizontal areas of each tank – 415m² and 323m² for the upstream and downstream
tanks respectively - greatly exceed the respective minimum areas required for stable
operation.
This system would perform under the given load cases as follows:
Reservoir Upstream Surge Tank Downstream Surge Tank
Load Case Description Level Upsurge Downsurge Upsurge Downsurge
(m asl) (m asl) (m asl) (m asl) (m asl)
Full Load
1 100 - 0 1080.00 - 1053.60 851.90 -
Acceptance
Full Load
2 0 - 100 1120.00 1147.70 - - 829.60
Rejection
Acceptance
3 0-100-0-100 1080.00 - 1039.80 853.60 -
+ Rejection
Rejection +
4 100-0-100-0 1120.00 1155.10 - - 828.40
Acceptance
The surge tanks have been dimensioned to accommodate the extreme upsurges and
downsurges with freeboard and submergence margins. The crest of the upsteam surge
shaft has been set to provide over 2m of freeboard. The head of the throttle has been set
to provide over 2m of submergence at minimum downsurge. A 3m high sill will be
constructed across the top of the construction adit that will be used as the downstream
surge chamber. The crest of this sill - that is the level at which water would overflow into
the main access tunnel and down to the powerhouse - has been set at 857m, thereby
providing a freeboard of over 3m during load case 3 – the most extreme load case that is
ever likely to occur.
Having selected two surge tanks that will ensure stable operation and confine water-
hammer to short reaches of waterway, it must be checked that the two hydraulically
connected tanks to not resonate with each other and cause unstable intervening surges.
This check involves ensuring that the fundamental periods of oscillation of each tank
differs by at least 10%.
The fundamental period of oscillations (T) in a tank is expressed as:
L ⋅ AS
T = 2π
g ⋅ AT
where:
L = length of the waterway driving the mass oscillation (m),
AT = cross-sectional area of the waterway driving the mass oscillation (m²),
AS = horizontal area of surge tank (m²),
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s²).
In the following, the upstream and downstream surge tanks are denoted with “u” and “d”,
respectively. The two surge tanks will be out of the resonance zone with respect to each
other, when the following ratio of the fundamental periods of oscillations is satisfied:
Tu
≥ 1.1
Td
Substituting the relevant data into the ratio, we have
Tu Lu ⋅ ASu ⋅ ATd 12600 ⋅ 415.476 ⋅ 6.12

= = = 2.56
Td Ld ⋅ ASd ⋅ ATu 1400 ⋅ 322.975 ⋅ 8.12
The ratio Tu/Td lies well outside the critical value defined above - the two surge tanks will
not resonate with each other.

9.4.4.3 Upstream Surge Tank Structure

The top of the surge shaft will be located on a ridge where the ground level is around
1160 m asl.
The rock, through which the surge tank will be excavated, consists of inter-layered schists
and granites and is weathered to about 15m. The un-weathered inter-layered rock mass
will have RMR ratings varying between 88 for the granites and 62 for the schists.
From cores recovered from a nearby borehole, it is estimated that 40% of the shaft will be
in pegmatoidal granite and 60% in feldspathic and biotite schist. The rock mass behaviour
will therefore be very much controlled by the schists with an (RMR89) of 62.
The surge tank and pressure shaft will be positioned off the line of the headrace tunnel to
allow their excavation and construction without interrupting construction of the headrace
tunnel. The surge tank will be excavated from the top down by conventional drill and blast.
The support and stabilisation measures are anticipated to be minimal. It is likely that the
dipping inter-layered rock mass will require some bolting to prevent wedges of rock sliding
out either on the foliation in the schists or on the contacts between schists and granites.
The surge tank will be lined with concrete to resist external groundwater pressures and to
prevent rocks falling into the power waterway during down surge – the internal water
pressures will be resisted by the surrounding rock mass. A throttled orifice will be provided
at the base of the tank to limit surge amplitudes.
9.4.4.4 Tailrace Surge Tank Structure

Water discharged from the three turbine units will be returned to the Genale River
downstream of the dam via the 1,600 m long tailrace tunnel. The tailrace tunnel has been
designed to operate as a pressure tunnel under all flow conditions. Under these
conditions, unit start-up, shut-down and flow regulation through the turbines will cause
transient surge pressures to develop in the tailrace. To control these transient pressures a
surge chamber will be provided at the start of the tailrace tunnel and adjacent to the
powerhouse.
The adit branching from the main access tunnel down to the lowest level of the
powerhouse cavern will be converted to the downstream surge tank. For mucking out the
lower levels of the powerhouse, the adit need only be 5m × 5m D-shaped, but in order to
serve as the downstream surge tank, this adit must be excavated to 6m × 6m D-shaped.
The surge tank will connect to the very beginning of tailrace tunnel and will be vented
through the main access tunnel. This will allow air to flow in and out of the chamber during
water surges.
For converting the adit to a surge tank, all surfaces will be sprayed with shotcrete and
drains will be installed through the shotcrete into the parent rockmass to reduce
differential water pressures across the shotcrete.
9.4.5 Power Intake

9.4.5.1 Introduction and Description
The water for generating power will be drawn from the GD-3 through an intake structure
that will be located on the left bank of the reservoir, approximately 70 m upstream of GD-3
RCC dam.
From cores drilled from a nearby borehole, weathering was found down to about 7m and
the rock mass was tight below 8m with zero Lugeon values. Below 8.5m there were no
joints down to 30m. The borehole encountered only pegmatoidal granite consisting of
granite, pegmatitic granite and pegmatite.
A rock mass rating (RMR89) of 88, as for the dam foundations, would therefore be
appropriate.
Safe slopes for the open excavation will vary for the weathered and unweathered granite
and a berm should be excavated at the interface. In weathered granite, slopes should be
approximately 1:1 (V:H) protected by shotcrete against erosion and provided with
drainage to avoid pore pressures. In unweathered granite the safe slopes should be 2:1
(V:H). Some spot bolting and shotcrete may be required. Pre-split drilling and blasting
should be used for excavations in the unweathered granite because of the very wide joint
spacing.
The bellmouth intake, the intake barrel, the stoplog opening and the stoplog shaft will be
excavated by drilling and blasting into the steep valley flank and constructed of reinforced
concrete. All excavated surfaces will be lined with reinforced concrete. The level of the
intake’s operating deck will be the same level as the crest of the dam which is
1125.00 m asl. The intake’s operating deck will be accessed via a road from the dam
crest. The intake structure will incorporate trash racks with a raking machine and stoplogs.
For inspecting the headrace tunnel, the emergency gate at the base of the surge shaft will
be closed and the power intake stoplogs will be set by a mobile crane under stationary
flow conditions. Its operating deck shall be provided with handrails apart from at the front
where such handrails would impede the operation of the trash raking machine. The intake
shall be provided with electrical power for operating the raking machine and for supplying
associated small consumers (eg electric lighting).
Power Intake Trash Rack

The trash-rack will prevent the ingress of debris and floating matter into the power conduit,
which could block or damage the turbine units. The clear width between the rack bars will
be 75mm which is smaller than the smallest opening presented to the water flowing
through the turbine runner. The trash rack will have a clear width of 11.0 m and a height of
16.0 m. The trash rack panels will be of the non-withdrawal type, consisting of fixed trash-
rack panels supported on streamlined transverse beams. The trash-rack panels and the
associated supporting structure will be designed to withstand a differential pressure of up
to 0.4 bar. The panels will be fixed to the embedded parts and the transverse beam in
such a way that they will also withstand a differential pressure of 0.1 bar in the reverse
flow direction from the surge tank. For costing purposes, a trash rack monitoring and
alarm system has been included. This system will measure the differential pressure, and
thereby the degree of blockage, across the rack. An alarm will be triggered when the
differential pressure exceeds some preset level. In order to prevent excessive erosion by
the suspended sediments and wear caused by the trash rake, the trash rack and
embedded parts will be made of stainless steel.
Power Intake Trash Rake Machine

For removal of accumulated trash material, a trash rake machine shall be installed on the
power intake platform. It shall be of the swing frame type to facilitate the collection of trash
material in the trash collector pit arranged directly underneath the trash rake machine. For
the removal of floating bulky trash material an additional grab crane will be provided with
the trash rake machine.
Power Intake Maintenance Stoplogs

One stoplog set will be provided for closing the intake to the headrace tunnel during
maintenance or repair. These stoplogs will seldom be used – perhaps only once in 12 to
15 years. Therefore, while in storage, they will be protected against humidity and sun
radiation. Setting and removing the stoplogs will be carried out by a grappling beam and a
mobile crane. This operation will be carried out under balanced upstream and
downstream water pressure. Water pressure balancing will be achieved by a filling valve.
The stoplogs will be of welded construction. The skinplate and seal arrangement will be
on the downstream side. The filling valves will allow filling of the headrace tunnel in a
reasonable time. The rubber seals will be of the music note shape at the sides and of
rectangular shape at the bottom. The upper seal will be of the double stem type. The
embedded parts will include the guide and seal frames, as well as dogging devices for

storage of the stoplogs in the upper part of the gate slot. The stoplogs shall be designed
according to the Standard DIN 19704 or similar. They will be fabricated from weldable,
structural grade steel to ASTM, DIN, British Standards or equivalent. Applicable local
standards may also be used. Under the applied hydraulic loading the deflection of all
structural members shall be limited to the values specified in DIN 19704.
9.4.5.2 Intake Sizing

The designed dimensions of the intake have been determined from the method presented
in the ASCE/EPRI Guides2. The design method is based on the model studies for the
design of the Grand Coulee and Auburn Dam and Hydropower projects in the USA. To
ensure that air is not drawn into the intake due to the formation of a vortex the design
principals developed by Gordon3 were followed to determine the required submergence
and the intake’s invert level. The principal dimensions of the power intake are as tabulated
below:
Power Intake Principal Dimensions and Data
Intake design flow rate 115.7 m3/s
Reservoir full supply level 1120.0 m asl
Reservoir minimum operating level 1080.0 m asl
Intake operating deck level 1125.0 m asl
Intake and headrace tunnel invert level 1067.4 m asl
Headrace tunnel soffit level 1074.4 m asl
Dimensions of intake screens (width × height) * 11 m × 16 m
Number of stoplog segments 3
Clear dimensions of opening (width × height) 7 m × 5.5 m
Dimensions of operating deck (width × length) 16 m × 16 m
Number of raking machines 1
Weight of screens 36 t
Weight of stoplogs including built in parts 47 t
* The trash screens and the front of the intake shall be inclined at 1(V):1(H).
9.4.6 Emergency Gate and Chamber

The headrace waterway is almost 13km long from power intake to turbine inlet valves.
This waterway holds over 700,000m³ of water. If the steel penstock, upstream of the
turbine inlet valves, was to fracture, then the powerhouse drainage pumps could be
overwhelmed and the powerhouse flooded – the resulting damage would be catastrophic.
To reduce this risk, an emergency roller gate will be installed in a chamber immediately
downstream of the headrace surge tank. This gate will isolate the headrace tunnel and
upstream surge shaft from the inclined pressure shaft and high pressure tunnel. The
volume of water contained within the headrace waterways downstream of this emergency
gate will be some 15,000m³. Therefore, the risk of powerhouse flooding is greatly
reduced. In the gate chamber the following equipment will be installed:
Emergency Roller Gate

The roller gate will shut-off the flow to the pressure shaft in an emergency. It will also
allow de-watering of the penstock for inspection and maintenance. The gate will be a
bonneted roller gate. For dewatering the pressure shaft, a 1.20 m diameter
aeration/ventilation pipe will be embedded in the concrete wall of the surge tank. The gate
will be designed to close safely against approximately double the maximum turbine flow.
The gate will have a width of 4.80 m and a height of 6.10 m and will be designed to
withstand a sill pressure of 130 m W.C. The gate will be capable of operating both
hydraulically and manually. To guarantee closure in an emergency, the gate will close
under self weight and be equipped with a rubber seal. The closing rate of the gate will be
2
“Civil Engineering Guidelines for Planning and Design of Hydroelectric Developments”,
ASCE/EPRI, 1989.
3
“Civil Engineering Guidelines for Planning and Design of Hydroelectric Developments”,
ASCE/EPRI, 1989.
restricted so as not to cause excessive pressure rise in the headrace tunnel and pressure
drop in the pressure shaft. The gate will be opened, under balanced pressure only, by a
pressure oil servomotor supplied by a separate oil pressure unit. The operating oil
pressure will be between 120 bar and 180 bar. Pressure balancing will be achieved by
crack opening of the gate by some 40 mm - no additional filling valve will be required. In
the open position, there is a tendency for the water moving in the gate shaft to cause
hanging gates to swing. To prevent this swinging motion, and the subsequent impact
damage to either or both the gate rollers or the roller track, the gate will be braced by
wedges against the roller tracks.
Bridge Crane
For repair and maintenance purposes in the emergency gate chamber, one overhead
bridge crane of 30t lifting capacity will be provided. The bridge, trolley and hook will be
controlled by a cable suspended push bottom panel.
9.4.7 Tailrace Outfall

9.4.7.1 Tailwater Rating Curve
The elevation of the outfall structure was set as low as practicable in order to exploit all
the head available down to the normal river water level. In order to establish the most
appropriate outfall elevation, a tailwater rating curve was derived for the Genale River at
the outfall site. This rating curve was developed using the method described in the
“Design of Small Dams”, USBR. The data was taken from the site survey that was done
during the year 2004 and supported by the digital 5 m contour mapping produced by EMA
from the original air photographs of 1984. The rating curve is presented below.
Rating Curve at Powerhouse Site
843
842
Elevation (m asl)
841
840
839
838
837
0 500 1,000 1,500
Discharge (m³/s)
The water level in the Genale River at the outfall will largely be the result of the rated
discharge (115.7m3/s) from the tailrace tunnel. The GD-3 reservoir will only spill a small
quantity of water. The average spill over the 3 to 4 month wet period will be of the order of
15 – 20 m3/s. There will also be run-off from the circa 1,000 km2 intervening catchment
area between the GD-3 dam and the outfall. This run-off will translate into an average
river discharge of some 6 m3/s distributed as some 1m3/s to 2m3/s during the 4 driest
months between December and March and 10 m3/s to 12 m3/s during the 3 highest flow
months between August and October. Therefore, the Genale River at the tailrace outfall
will discharge on average some 118 m3/s during the dry season and some 130 m3/s
during the wet season. From the rating curve, these average discharges translate to
average river water levels over the year ranging between 839.5 m asl and 840.0 m asl.

Storms over the intervening catchment will raise the river level slightly in the high flow
season. For the purposes of the present feasibility design, an average normal water level
of 840.0 m asl has been selected. To avoid unnecessary head losses at the tailrace
outfall, the soffit of the tailrace bellmouth outfall has been set at 839.5 m asl – 0.5m below
the normal river water level. The sill separating the river bed from the outfall will have a
crest level of 838.8 m asl and will discharge the rated flow with minimal head loss.
9.4.7.2 Tailrace Outfall Structure

The tailrace outfall structure shall be sited at the downstream end of the tailrace and on
the left bank of the Genale River. At the site there is a short steeply rising slope located in
the lee of a narrow nose of rock intruding into the river. The outfall portal will be located on
the face of this steep slope at a depth of some 12m below the surface. The rock nose will
protect the outfall against severe floods and the sediments transported by these floods.
On the bank opposite the outfall structure, there is evidence of an old filled-in river
channel. This will be exploited to divert the river during construction of the outfall. A low
curved cofferdam around the outfall will complete the diversion scheme. In order to avoid
unnecessary exit head losses, the invert of the tailrace tunnel will be set at 831.9 m asl
which is some 8 m below average river water level. There will be provision at the outfall
for the installation of stoplogs to permit tunnel inspection, maintenance and, if necessary,
repairs - even during floods. It is foreseen that the stoplogs will be installed and removed
under balanced pressure conditions using a mobile crane. For pressure balancing, a by-
pass valve of 200 mm diameter, operated by the grappling beam used for the stoplog
installation, is provided in the stoplog panel. The design criteria for the stoplogs are as
follows:
Design Criteria for the Tailrace Stoplogs
No. of openings 1
No. of stoplog segments 1
Clear span of opening 9.60m
Clear height of opening 6.10m
Design head (exceptional operation) 11.55m WC above sill
Sealing Upstream (ie on tunnel side)
The stoplogs will be stored in a pit adjacent to the outfall and set and lifted by mobile
crane that would be parked on a platform above the outlet. The level of this platform will
be 845.0 m asl – some 2m above the highest flood level. For periodical inspection and
maintenance, the tailrace outlet stoplogs will be set and the tunnel will be pumped empty
by the powerhouse drainage pumps – capacity 3 × 115 l/s. The volume of water held in
the tailrace tunnel is some 47,000m³, thus the time to empty will be of the order of
38 hours. Access to the empty tunnel will be through a shaft upstream of the stoplogs.
9.5 Powerhouse, Transformer Hall and Associated Tunnels, Shafts and

Adits
9.5.1 General Description of the Powerhouse Complex
The powerhouse will be located downstream of the 13 km long headrace waterways (low
pressure headrace tunnel, inclined pressure shaft, and high pressure tunnel and steel
lined penstock) and upstream of the over 1.6 km long tailrace tunnel. The powerhouse will
be on the left bank of the Genale River, located at a depth of some 100m below ground.
The underground powerhouse will be accessed by a tunnel which will have its entrance
portal on a steep face at an elevation of 895 m asl located some 45m above and 500m
south-east of the powerhouse cavern. The access tunnel will be large enough to permit
two-way traffic and allow the passage of the largest items of equipment and penstock
cans that will be brought into the powerhouse and its associated caverns and tunnels.
The powerhouse will accommodate the three spherical type main inlet valves, the three
vertical axis Francis turbine units, and three vertical axis generators which will be located
above the Francis turbines. The Francis turbines and the generators above them will be
connected by a common shaft. Various auxiliary mechanical and electrical plant will also
be located inside the powerhouse. The powerhouse will also include an unloading and
erection bay.
Since the powerhouse cavern is some 100 m underground, the transformers will also be
located underground in order to minimise the length of the expensive low-voltage isolated
phase bus ducts from the generators to the transformers. It would be prohibitively
expensive to take the low-voltage isolated phase bus ducts over 100m to surface
transformers. While locating the transformers close to the generators reduces costs, it
also reduces safety slightly because transformers do present a fire risk, albeit a small risk.
In order that the reduction in safety is kept within manageable limits, the transformers will
be installed in a separate underground transformer cavern. A separate cavern offers the
opportunity of isolating, with fire doors, any fire. This separate transformer cavern will be
located on the downstream side of the powerhouse cavern and will be parallel to the
powerhouse cavern as shown in the Drawing Album. The concrete lined tailrace manifold
will be located beneath the transformer cavern.
The high voltage cables will be taken to the surface switchyard via an inclined cable shaft.
This shaft will also serve as a ventilation duct. At the top of the shaft, ventilation fans will
expel air from the underground complex – forcing air to be drawn in through the main
access tunnel. The main access tunnel will be the principal escape route in an
emergency.
The cable shaft will start from a niche in the southern wall of the transformer cavern and
the high voltage cables from all three main transformers will be located within the single
shaft.
9.5.2 Powerhouse Cavern

The underground powerhouse will accommodate the mechanical and electrical generation
equipment, and provide a suitable environment for their safe operation. The excavated
dimensions of the powerhouse cavern will be some 60m long, 20m wide and some 41m
deep. An erection bay will be located at one end of the machine hall. The main generation
units will be located in the machine hall where a suspended generator floor design has
been included to give maximum working area at all levels. Drainage and de-watering
sumps will be located between units 1 and 2. Three sets of cooling water pumps and
equipment (one for each turbine) will be located adjacent to each turbine main inlet valve.
For maintenance and/or repair, the turbine runners will be removed from above using a
portable hoist, after dismantling the turbine-generator shaft. The machine hall and erection
bay will be serviced by a main station crane and the entire cavern will be provided with a
suspended metal ceiling to prevent any seepage water dripping onto the powerhouse
equipment. The main overhead powerhouse lighting will be incorporated in the suspended
ceiling.
Access to the powerhouse will be from the main access tunnel which will enter the
powerhouse at the unloading bay at level 839.52 m asl. Access by personnel to the lower
levels of the machine hall will be by stairways and floor openings will be provided to permit
the crane hook to reach all floor levels having major electrical and mechanical equipment.
The station crane will be supported by a reinforced concrete crane frame consisting of
columns and beams. The crane rails will be at level 849.52 m asl. The crane will provide
hook coverage over the entire machine hall, and unloading and erection bays.
The powerhouse would accommodate the three turbine-generator sets. The vertical axis
Francis turbines will be embedded in reinforced concrete and the generators will be
located above them and supported on an octagonal reinforced concrete plinth and
enclosed in a reinforced concrete air-housing. The three turbine inlet valves will be located
within the cavern on the upstream side of the turbines. They will be located under the

main station crane and be accessed via hatch openings through the floors above. The
hydraulic forces on the closed inlet valves will be transmitted forwards into the massive
reinforced concrete block surrounding the turbine. The inlet valve dismantling joint will
therefore be located on the upstream side of the valve.
The powerhouse will comprise five main floors, as follows:
! 839.52m asl – machine hall and erection bay floor,
! 835.52m asl – generator floor,
! 831.12m asl – turbine floor,
! 826.18m asl – main inlet valve floor,
! 819.92m asl – drainage floor.
The powerhouse cavern will be excavated mainly in schists with minor intrusions of
granite, pegmatoidal granite and pegmatites, similar to the pressure shaft and tunnel - the
rock mass is assessed to be fair to good.
The cavern has been positioned clear of known faults and its long axis is orientated in an
almost North-South direction, perpendicular to the general direction of the identified photo-
lineaments. The cavern roof is set at a depth of some 100 m below the general ground
level. The rock quality and in-situ stress regime should permit the adoption of vertical
sides for the cavern excavation. To minimise induced stresses in the surrounding rock the
roof vault will be formed as a parabola as shown on the drawings.
An unsupported excavation with a span of 20m would stand up for 3 to 8 days before
collapsing. The excavations will require systematic bolting and shotcrete in the crown and
spot bolting in areas of potential wedge failures in the side walls. The structure will require
more detailed mapping and drilling during design studies.
Excavation will be carried out by first driving a roof heading adit directly from the main
access tunnel, followed by pre-splitting the walls and then benching out the main body of
the cavern by drill and blast. Construction access to the mid-levels of the powerhouse
cavern will be via the main access tunnel as it enters the unloading bay. Construction
access to the lowest level of the powerhouse will be via the tailrace/low level construction
adit which also branches from the main access tunnel and will serve as the tailrace surge
tank.
9.5.3 Main Access Tunnel

The main access tunnel provides vehicular and equipment access from the surface to the
underground powerhouse complex. At this stage of the design it has been assumed that
the cross section of the main access tunnel will be 6.5 m wide by 6.5 m high “D” shaped
with a semi-circular roof. The main access tunnel will be approximately 610 m long and
will have a longitudinal slope of 1 in 11. It will be excavated down the slope by the drill and
blast method through the pegmatoidal granites.
The main access tunnel will connect the entrance portal to the transformer cavern and
then the powerhouse unloading bay. However, the section of the main access tunnel
between the powerhouse and the transformer cavern will be used to move the
transformers from the erection bay to the transformer cavern. The transformers will be
moved on rails that will be built into the floor of this part of the tunnel. This 40 m long part
of the main access tunnel will need to be 7.5 m wide and 7.5 m high because the
transformers will be hauled through it sideways ready for moving into their individual pens
in the transformer cavern.
At this stage it has been assumed that the largest item of electrical and mechanical
equipment that must be transported down the main access tunnel will be the three-phase
main station step-up transformers. The transport dimensions of these transformers will be
approximately 6.6 m long by 2.3 m wide by 3.7 m wide and it will be transported on a
multi-wheeled low loader vehicle.
The main access tunnel has also been sized to allow the passage of the steel lined
penstock’s cans and junctions once the construction ventilation ducts have been removed.
The diameter of the penstock cans will be 4.8 m and these will just fit down the main
access tunnel.
The main access tunnel will also accommodate permanent water pipes, cables, plus it will
form part of the ventilation circuit in that fresh air will be drawn down it.
The main access tunnel will be provided with a 200 mm thick paved concrete invert and it
will have drainage channels, one each side, next to the tunnel walls. Seepage water will
flow down these channels to the powerhouse where it will be piped into the drainage
sump and pumped out.
9.5.4 Transformer Cavern

The transformer cavern will be located on the downstream side of the powerhouse cavern
and the main access tunnel will pass through it on its way to the powerhouse’s unloading
bay. It will accommodate the three, 3-phase main step-up transformers: one for each
turbine-generator unit. The transformers will be arranged in a line at 13.0 m centres, which
is the same spacing as the turbine-generator units. The transformer cavern will be located
above the concrete lined tailrace manifold. The cavern will be 41 m long by 15 m wide by
11 m high.
Four short tunnels will connect the transformer cavern to the powerhouse. These tunnels
will all be 25 m long and they will comprise three tunnels for the isolated phase bus ducts
and one tunnel which is the part of the main access tunnel connecting the transformer
cavern to the powerhouse cavern. The first and largest of these connecting tunnels is the
continuation of the main access tunnel. It will be made wide enough for a main
transformer to pass through it lengthways, i.e. the longest dimension of the transformer
must be less than the width of this tunnel. Steel rails will be provided in the floor of this
connecting tunnel so that the transformers can be moved by rail from the erection bay to
their place in the transformer cavern.
The powerhouse cavern will be excavated in rock similar to that of the powerhouse cavern
- mainly in schists with minor intrusions of granite, pegmatoidal granite and pegmatites,
similar to the pressure shaft and tunnel. The rock mass is assessed to be fair to good with
a stand up time of between one week and one month for an unsupported excavation.
The finished floor level in the transformer cavern will be the same as the finished floor
level of the unloading / erection bay (839.52 m asl). It will have a 200 mm thick concrete
floor slab reinforced with mesh. There will be an oil and water separator sump under the
floor of the transformer cavern that will be large enough to hold the oil from one
transformer plus an equivalent volume of deluge water should any one transformer catch
fire.
Each transformer will be located in its own pen that will be made from reinforced concrete
and concrete bocks. These pens will be designed to prevent the spread of fire from one
transformer to its neighbour. Each transformer pen will be equipped with a high pressure
water deluge system that will activate automatically in the event of a transformer fire.
9.5.5 Isolated Phase Bus Duct Tunnels

Three, 25 m long tunnels will be provided to take the isolated phase bus (IPB) ducts from
the powerhouse to the transformer cavern. Each of these tunnels will serve to take the
IPBs from one generator, i.e. three bus ducts will pass through each tunnel.
The IPB tunnels will be 3.5 m by 4.5 m “D” shaped and they will have a concrete floor slab
with a finished floor level of 839.52 m asl. They will be excavated by the drill and blast
method from the transformer hall end and mucked out through the main access tunnel.

9.5.6 Cable and Ventilation Shaft

A D-shaped, reinforced concrete lined cable and ventilation shaft 3.5 m high × 3.5 m wide
× 115m long and inclined at 45° will connect the underground transformer cavern to the
surface switchyard. The shaft will be formed by drilling and blasting from the surface. It will
contain the XLPE HV cables which will be secured to the concrete walls and a steel
staircase for access to the cables from the powerhouse complex.
Ventilation equipment will be housed at the top of this shaft. This ventilation equipment will
expel air from the underground cavern complex, causing fresh air to be drawn in through
the main access tunnel. In the event of fire in one of the underground caverns, the main
access tunnel serves as an emergency escape as it will always be supplied with fresh air
from outside. Powerhouse operating personnel escaping from a fire will always be running
into a draught of fresh air. The gaseous products of the fire will be expelled through the
cable shaft. A disadvantage of this arrangement is that the exhaust from vehicular traffic
using the main access tunnel will be circulated around the caverns.
9.5.7 Construction Adits

Two principal construction adits will be excavated from the main access tunnel – one to
the roof of the powerhouse cavern and the second to the tailrace tunnel. The roof adit will
have a total length of 123 m and be excavated to a “D” shaped profile having dimensions
of 5 m high by 5 m wide. The adit will climb upwards from the main access tunnel such
that the crown of the adit will intersect and be coincident with the crown of the
powerhouse roof at 859 m asl. A heading will be driven along the length of the
powerhouse roof, the roof area will be slashed out and the lower levels will be excavated
in benches down to the erection bay level.
In the permanent arrangement, the invert of the adit would be partially paved with
concrete and the adit will provide access to the void above the suspended powerhouse
ceiling.
The lowest levels of the powerhouse, including the tailrace manifolds and the high
pressure headrace tunnel and manifold will be constructed from an adit that will be driven
from the main access tunnel in a loop down to the tailrace manifold area. Its purpose is to
excavate the tailrace manifold area, the lowest levels of the powerhouse cavern and the
high pressure headrace tunnel and manifold as far as the bottom of the inclined pressure
shaft.
The steel linings for the high pressure headrace and the steel manifold will be brought in
either from this tailrace adit or from the head of the pressure shaft. For the present design,
transport through the tailrace adit has been assumed and so the adit must be large
enough for the largest steel cans and branch pieces to be transported along it and
installed. The adit dimensions can only be finalised once the dimensions of the largest
branch piece are provided by the contractor. For the purpose of this feasibility design, it is
assumed that this adit will be 6.0 m by 6.0 m “D” shaped – the dimensions required to
serve as the tailrace surge tank.
9.6 Surface Works Associated with the Powerhouse

The surface works associated with the powerhouse complex will comprise:
! A 230 kV switchyard with a control and switchgear building and a diesel generator
building.
! A ventilation intake and cable house at the head of the cable and ventilation shaft.
The switchyard will be located close to the top of the cable and ventilation shaft and is
shown in the drawings in the Drawing Album. The arrangement of the diesel generator
and fuel tank is shown in the drawings.
Civil works for the above are described in the following sections.
9.6.1 Control Building

A control building to accommodate the control equipment and the 11 kV switchgear will be
built inside the switchyard compound. It will be a reinforced concrete framed structure built
to EEPCo’s standard design.
9.6.2 Switchyard
The 230 kV switchyard will be formed on a gently sloping area of ground adjacent to the
top of the cable and ventilation shaft. It will be formed in three terraced platforms by cut
and fill – each platform will be 180 m long by 40m wide with elevations at 910m asl, 915m
asl and 920m asl. The switchyard will be enclosed by high security fencing with a gate,
and will be accessed by the road leading to the control building.
As described in the chapter of this report on the Switchyard and Transmission System, the
switchyard compound will accommodate the equipment for the 230 kV interconnection line
to the town of Mega. In the most recent planning by the Ethiopian and Kenyan authorities,
the switchyard at Mega is foreseen as the node for converting to high voltage DC. The
switchyard will also accommodate a control building, a 11 kV switchgear building and a
diesel generator building with associated fuel storage tank.
9.6.3 Cable and Ventilation Shaft House

The cable and ventilation shaft house will contain ventilation fans to extract air from the
underground caverns and thereby force fresh air to be drawn into the caverns through the
main access tunnel. It will also provide an area for accessing and drawing cables up the
shaft.
The building will be of concrete column, beam and slab construction with block-work infill
panels and doors, windows, and ventilation louvers.
9.7 Access Roads and Bridges

9.7.1 Design Criteria
The access road and its branches shall provide all weather access to the dam and the
power scheme complex including the powerhouse and the switchyard for the safe
transport of personnel, materials and equipment both during construction and operation.
The access road will follow the existing vehicle track from the town of Negele for 28.0km
north-eastwards to the Genale River. A bridge will be constructed across the Genale River
downstream of its confluence with the Chenchefe River. From just beyond the bridge, the
access road will branch – one branch running northwards for 17km to the dam and power
intake, the other branch running eastwards along the bank of the river for some 6km to the
power house main junction. From the main junction, branch roads run to the tailrace
outfall, to the switchyard and up to the emergency gate portal and the surge tank. The
principal characteristics of the project roads are as follows:
Length
Route Terrain New / Upgrade
(km)
Upgrade existing
Negele Town to new bridge over Genale River 28.5 Flat to undulating
track
Undulating to
New bridge to dam and power intake 17.0 New
steep
Branch from new bridge to power station junction 6.5 Flat New
Power station junction to tailrace outfall 1.6 Flat New
Power station junction to portal of main access tunnel 0.3 Flat New
Power station junction to switchyard 0.6 Flat to undulating New
Switchyard to headrace surge tank 3.1 Steep New
Branch to gate chamber access portal / headrace adit 0.7 Steep New

From the table, 28.5km of vehicle track will be upgraded and 29.8km of new road will be
constructed.
9.7.2 Design Layout

The routes of the various access roads are shown on access road drawings in the
Drawing Album. The roads shall generally be 5 m wide with 1m shoulders and shall have
maximum gradients of 10%. The design speed shall generally be 50 km/hr on roads
located on the flatter landscape from Negele to the bridge and onwards to the
powerhouse. The design speed reduces to 30 km/hr for the roads winding up the valley
sides to the dam and surge tank sites.
For the purpose of estimating costs, it has been assumed that the finished roads of
gradient under 5% are all of unsealed graded and compacted gravel construction. Some
15km of road with gradients steeper than 5%will be sealed with asphalt to prevent erosion
by water. In addition to providing access to the power scheme the road will greatly benefit
the local community by making the transport of people and produce safer, easier and
quicker.
9.7.3 Genale River Road Bridge

9.7.3.1 New Road Bridge
The new bridge will be 60m long and made up of 4 equal spans of pre-cast, pre-stressed
concrete AASHTO4 Type III bridge beams (or similar) supported on reinforced concrete
end abutments and intermediate bridge piers. Spans will be 15 m and the bridge deck will
be 6.0 m wide. The bridge will have four pre-cast beams at 1.5 m centres for each span. It
will have safety parapets on both sides and there will be a 1.0 m wide walkway on one
side only.
Standard AASHTO Type III bridge beams are 1143 mm (45-inches) deep and they can
span from 15.2 m to 19.8 m. They have an “I” shaped cross section and the bottom flange
of each beam is 559 mm wide as shown on the following Figure. The AASHTO Type III
bridge beams will carry a reinforced concrete deck made up from 100 mm thick pre-cast
concrete planks that span between the beams plus a 150 mm thick reinforced in-situ
concrete topping. The deck will span between the beams in the transverse direction.
The Type III beams will be supported on elastomeric bearings sized 550 mm by 220 mm
by 30 mm thick: one at each end of each beam. The beams will be pinned in position to
avoid unwanted movement. The beams will be supported laterally by in-situ concrete
intermediate diaphragms spaced at one third of the span of the beam. Transverse support
at the end of the beams will be provided by in-situ copings.
4
American Association of State Highway and Transport Officials, US Federal Highway
Administration, Standard Plans for Highway Bridges, Vol. 1, Concrete Superstructures, US
Department of Transport, Washington DC, 1990.

10 Powerhouse Mechanical Equipment
10.1 Lay-out and Sizing of the Generating Units

10.1.1 Design Criteria
Total Rated (Design) Discharge
Optimization studies, documented in Chapter 6, indicated that the installed capacity factor,
which would generate the greatest net economic benefits, should be around 1.25. This
translates to a rated discharge for the power scheme of 115.7 m3/s (= 1.25 × 92.6).
Rated Reservoir Level

The upper and lower operating levels of the GD-3 reservoir have been established by an
optimization procedure, also documented in Chapter 6. The resulting levels are as follows:
Full supply level (FSL) 1120.00 m a.s.l.
Minimum operating level (MOL) 1080.00 m a.s.l.
Between these levels, the water surface elevation in the reservoir will vary depending on
the seasonal run-off into the reservoir from the upstream Genale catchment and draw-offs
to the power scheme. From reservoir operation studies, the water level in the reservoir will
vary, during an average year, as follows:
Figure 10.1: Average Seasonal Water Levels in GD-3 Reservoir
1120.0
Average Seasonal Water Levels in GD-03 Reservoir (m asl)

3
FSL = 1120m asl, MOL = 1080m asl, Qrated = 116 m /s, Pinst = 257 MW
1110.0
Water Level (m asl)
1100.0
1090.0
1080.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
For setting out the turbines, a rated reservoir level (ROL) of 1107m asl has been selected.
This level corresponds closely to the average reservoir level throughout the year. With this
rated level, the turbines will be able to generate at full installed capacity, on average, for
between 5 and 6 months per year. During an average year, from the end of the dry
season in April until the reservoir level recovers in September, the generating capacity of
the turbines will reduce by some 2-3% at most.
Powerhouse Mechanical Equipment
Tailrace Levels
The water levels at the outfall of the tailrace tunnel under different flow conditions are key
parameters in determining the head across the turbines and thereby the installed capacity
and main dimensions of the turbines. These levels are governed by the flow discharging
from the tailrace tunnel into the Genale River, the flow already in the Genale River from
the catchment upstream of the tailrace tunnel outfall and the hydraulic characteristics of
the Genale River channel at the tailrace outfall. Given the huge regulating capacity of the
GD-3 reservoir, the flows from the catchment upstream of the tailrace will generally be
very low. For setting out the turbines in the present study, it has been assumed that the
water level at the tailrace outfall is governed only by the flow discharging from the tailrace
tunnel into the Genale River and the hydraulic characteristics of the river channel at the
tailrace outfall. A rating curve was developed assuming uniform flow in the Genale River is
confined to a 90m wide rectangular channel with a gradient of 1:1,000. A Manning’s
roughness coefficient of 0.025 was adopted. The above parameters were estimated from
field observations and maps. The resulting rating equation is:
D = (Q × n/(B × i½))0.6
D = 0.058 × Q0.6
where: D = water depth at the tailrace tunnel outfall (m),
Q = discharge in the Genale River at the tailrace tunnel outfall (m³/s),
B = breadth of the river channel (m),
i = gradient of the river channel (-),
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient.
From maps and field observations, the bed elevation of the river channel at the tailrace
tunnel outfall has been estimated at 839 m asl. The resulting water levels at the outfall for
the tailrace tunnel are as follows:
Tailrace tunnel exit level corresponding to 33% of total 839.5 m a.s.l.
plant discharge or 1 unit in operation (TRL 1U)
Tailrace tunnel exit level corresponding to 100% of total 840.0 m a.s.l.
plant discharge or 3 units in operation (TRL 3U)
Gross Heads
The gross heads across the hydropower scheme are defined as the head differences
between the power intake and the tailrace outfall without considering hydraulic losses
along the waterways. The gross heads relevant for design are as follows:
Maximum gross head (HBMAX = FSL - TRL 1U) 280.5 m
Rated gross head (HBR = ROL - TRL 3U) 267.0 m
Minimum gross head (HBMIN = MOL - TRL 3U) 240.0 m
Head Losses
The hydraulic head losses through the various components of the power waterways, at
the rated flow of 115.7 m3/s, are as follows:
Power intake including trashrack 0.1 m

Headrace tunnel (unlined, TBM driven) 6.9 m
Pressure shaft and high pressure tunnel (concrete lined) 1.0 m
High pressure tunnel and manifolds (steel lined) 1.6 m
Tailrace tunnel (concrete lined) 2.9 m
Total 12.5 m
This value of total head loss, HLOSS3U, is that with all three units in operation. With one unit
in operation, the total head loss, HLOSS1U, is reduced to approximately 1.4 m.

Range of net heads

Rated net head (HNR=HBR – HLOSS3U ) 254.5 m
Maximum (HNMAX = HBMAX – HLOSS1U ) 279.1 m
Minimum (HNMIN = HBMIN – HLOSS3U ) 227.5 m
Energy generation
From reservoir operation studies, the GD-3 reservoir will regulate the Genale river flows
sufficient to generate energy at the GD-3 powerhouse as follows:
Average energy generation = 1,640 GWh/ year
Firm energy generation = 1,600 GWh/ year
Installed capacity
The installed capacity of a hydropower scheme is defined as the electrical power available
at the high voltage side of the transformer terminals, produced by the units operating
under rated head and rated flow. It is calculated as follows:
PI = ηTU × ηG × ηTR × ηAC × ρ × g × HNR × QD × 10-6 ≈ 254 MW
where the following values have been assumed:
Acceleration due to gravity at the site g= 9.78 m/s2
Water density ρ= 1,000 kg/m3
Turbine efficiency at rated load and rated head ηTU = 91.2 %
Generator efficiency at rated load ηG = 98.0 %
Transformer efficiency at rated load ηTR = 99.6 %
Auxiliary consumption, expressed as system efficiency ηAC = 99.0 %
Plant factor
The plant factor of the GD-3 Hydropower Plant as defined by the firm energy generation
and the installed capacity, is as follows:
PF = (1,600,000 MWh/year) / (254 MW × 8,760 h/year) ≈ 0.72
Turbine type
For the given head and discharge, both Pelton and Francis turbines would be technically
feasible. Pelton turbines would have a slightly higher efficiency, but in order to remain
within the normal range of applicability for Pelton machines, more (at least two) would
have to be installed in order to reduce the unit discharge and the unit specific speed. More
units would increase costs (both mechanical and civil). Furthermore Pelton units would
have to be set a sufficient distance above the highest tailwater elevation to ensure
uninhibited rotation. This freeboard distance represents a headloss compared with Francis
turbines. A tailwater depression system, using compressed air can be installed to
overcome this problem, but such a system requires very large accumulators, very high
capacity compressors and a very reliable control arrangement. The associated costs
make Pelton turbines less attractive than Francis turbines.
For this reason Francis turbines have been judged as the most suitable turbine type for
the GD-3 Hydropower Plant. The slightly lower efficiency of the Francis units will be offset
by the higher net head and much lower overall investment costs.
For the head range and power output of the GD-3 Hydropower Plant, large numbers of
Francis turbines of similar size have been designed, constructed and commissioned by
various manufacturers world wide.
Number of generating units

To select the most appropriate number of generating units for the given operation
conditions at GD-3 Hydropower Plant, the following considerations have to be made:
! The operational flexibility, the availability of the installed capacity, and the efficiency at
partial loads increases with the number of installed units;
! The cost of equipment and powerhouse civil works increases with the number of units;
! The unit capacity should not exceed that capacity which, due to an unplanned
shutdown, would cause destabilization of the network;
! The unit capacity should not exceed that capacity which, due to an unplanned
shutdown, could easily compensated by one unit within the same network;
! Transport limitations may impose some restrictions on the size of the equipment.
A three (3) unit installation has been selected for the GD-3 Hydropower Plant as the most
appropriate solution from the technical and economic point of view. Installation of only two
(2) units is not considered feasible for reasons of lower operational flexibility (total
capacity loss during down time periods), the risk of network destabilisation in the case of
unplanned shut down and lower efficiency at partial load. Installation of four (4) smaller
units would not notably improve the unit availability, but the equipment and powerhouse
cost would be increased by roughly 15 to 20 %.
Figure 10.2 shows turbine type selection of Francis runner for GD-3 Hydropower Plant in
comparison with Pelton and Kaplan type for the given rated net head of 254.5 m and rated
flow of 38.5 m3/s.
Figure 10.2: Typical Turbine Selection Diagram Rated Net Head (HNR) versus (QR)
Rated Flow
10.1.2 Turbine Sizing and Layout

For each of the three (3) generating units the rated turbine power will be:
PR = QR × ρ × g × HNR × ηTU × 10-6 ≈ 87.4 MW

Specific speed and synchronous speed

In order to select the most suitable synchronous speed for the Francis turbines, and
thereby the most suitable turbine dimensions, investigations with synchronous speeds of
375, 428 and 500 rpm have been carried out with the following results:
Turbine with 375 rpm

For this lowest speed turbine, the runner diameter and associated turbine parts will be
relatively large. Compared with the higher speed machines, the efficiencies are relatively
low and the investment costs would be relatively high.

The efficiencies associated with this turbine speed are well within the acceptable range.
The runner of this turbine and associated turbine parts would be smaller than that of the
slower speed 375 rpm turbine and thus the turbine investment costs would be less costly.
The required setting of the turbine runner to prevent water column separation during full
load rejection corresponds closely with the setting required to prevent cavitation attack.

With regard to efficiencies and manufacturing costs this faster speed machine offers only
very slight advantages over the slower speed 428 rpm machine. However, the specific
speed for the given head is too high and there is a significant risk of fatigue cracks
developing in the runner after a certain period of operation.
Figure 10.3: Typical Specific Speed (nS) versus Rated Net Head (HNR)
From the above, a turbine speed of 428 rpm has been selected as the most suitable
solution. This selection agrees with Figure 10.3, which shows the relationship, based on
typical conditions, between specific speed (nS) and rated net head (HNR).
For a rated head of 254.5 m, the theoretical specific speed is nStheor = 117 and the
theoretical rotational speed is:
ntheor = (nStheor × HNR1.25) / √(PR × 103) = 402.3 rpm

This selection agrees also with Figure 10.1, which shows the rotational speed of typical
turbine types. For a network frequency of 50 Hz, the next higher synchronous speed is
428 rpm. A synchronous speed of n = 428 rpm has therefore been chosen for the GD-3
Hydropower Plant for planning and costing purposes.
n * ( PR × 10 3 )
The unit specific speed will be: n s = 1.25
= 124.48
H NR
Determination of submergence
The turbine setting has been established on the basis of the Thoma coefficient, σ, to
ensure turbine operation without cavitation, as follows:
σ = (Ha – Hv – HS)/HNR
where: HNR = Rated net head
Ha = Atmospheric pressure at the powerhouse altitude
Hv = Vapour pressure at given water temperature
HS = Difference between turbine distributor centreline and tailwater elevation
The minimum required submergence (HS), measured from the tailrace water elevation
corresponding to one unit in operation down to the centre line of the spiral casing, is
determined from an empirical relationship as:
HS = - 8.31 m
In line with modern industry practice, a safety margin of 2.00 m has been added to give a
required submergence of HS= - 10.31 for the GD-3 Hydropower Plant turbines. Thus,
relative to the tailwater elevation of 839.50 m a.s.l. (corresponding to one turbine in
operation), the centreline elevation of the spiral case is 829.19 m a.s.l.
Runaway speed
The runaway speed coefficient has been determined using an empirical formula based on
the unit specific speed and the maximum normal static head of 267 m to be:
runaway speed coefficient: fr =1.80
Thus the runaway speed,
nr = n × fr ≅ 770 rpm
The above calculated maximum runaway speed is an estimate sufficient for planning
purposes. The precise value to be used for the calculation of stresses in the turbine and
generator parts will be defined in the course of the detailed equipment design phase by
the turbine supplier.
Main turbine dimensions

The turbine dimensions were established on the basis of runner diameter approximation
derived from specific flow. The typical relation between the specific flow (Q13) and the
turbine specific speed (nS) is shown in Figure 10.4.
Specific flow (at nS): Q13 = 0.650
Q
D3 = = 1.92m
Q13 * H NR

Figure 10.4: Specific Flow (Q13) versus Specific Speed (ns)
The spiral case and draft tube dimensions have been determined from statistical formulae
relating runner outlet diameter D3 to the other turbine dimensions.
Figure 10.5 indicates the general layout of a Francis turbine spiral case and draft tube, and
shows the overall dimensions required for sizing of the civil works structures. In the final
design, those dimensions may vary slightly depending on the selected supplier. Those
deviations will be insignificant and will not affect the basic lay-out and sizing of the
powerhouse structures. The weight of the turbine runner will be approximately four (4) tons.
Figure 10.5: General Layout of Francis Turbine, Spiral Case and Draft Tube
D3 = 1.92 m A = 2.00 m N= 8.27 m S = 10.85 m

D1 = 2.29 m B = 3.00 m P= 3.80 m V = 3.60 m
B0 = 0.35 m C = 3.35 m Q= 2.37 m W = 4.00 m
HL = 0.89 m D = 3.69 m R= 3.60 m
E = 2.91 m
Turbine Performance
A representative turbine performance curve showing efficiency and power versus turbine
flow at rated net head is presented in Figure 10.6. This performance curve is based on
actual characteristics from different hydraulic models designed for similar specific speed,
tested by various suppliers during the last two decades. The curves closely represent the
“average performance” for the prevailing hydraulic conditions.
Under the maximum net head of approximately 279.10 m (only one unit running) the
turbine will develop around 96 MW with a discharge of 38.5 m3/s.
The design of the turbine generally allows a load of approximately 98 MW at the maximum
net head.
Figure 10.6: Turbine Performance at Rated Net Head
10.2 Turbine Governors, Speed and Pressure Regulation

10.2.1 General
Each turbine will be provided with a digital, microprocessor type PID governor. It shall be
possible to control the turbines remotely from the main Control Room, from the unit control
board (UCB) and manually from the local governor control panel. The turbine governor
pumping units, the pressure accumulators and the control panel for local control have
been arranged on the turbine floor.
The following functions will be included in the governor:
(1) Speed control at no load operation.
(2) Automatic start and stop sequences, including automatic synchronization.
(3) Power output control; operation at output limitation with power feed back.
(4) Frequency regulation.
(5) Water level regulation
(6) Load sharing between the units in "joint control" mode.
(7) Emergency shutdown in two different sequences.
a. Emergency shutdown on electrical failures.
b. Quick shutdown in case of mechanical failures.
Required performance criteria:
Wicket gates servomotor operating time:
a. Opening time adjustable
b. Closing time adjustable

Design criteria:
1) Maximum oil pressure in the governing system will not exceed:
a) for oil/air accumulator 70 bar
b) for nitrogen filled bladder or piston accumulator 120 bar
2) Capacity of oil accumulator:
The governor system will be provided with an oil/air or an oil/nitrogen type accumulator
with a capacity to meet the following requirements:
! The oil pumps are assumed to be disabled.
! The oil in the accumulator tank has dropped to the level where the pumps should
resume operation.
! The minimum normal oil volume in the pressure tank shall suffice to operate the
governor servomotors through one full opening and two full closing strokes without oil
pump assistance.
There is a strong tendency in the current market to utilise high pressure governing
systems because of their cost advantage and reduced space requirements achieved by
miniaturisation of the hydraulic components. The 120 bar system with an oil/nitrogen type
accumulator has been therefore adopted for design and costing purposes.
10.2.2 Speed and Pressure Regulation

For preliminary speed and pressure regulation investigation, only the water column
between the surge chamber and the units needs to be considered. The starting time of the
water column is a function of its dimensions and head. The dimensions (diameters and
lengths) of the pressure waterways downstream of the surge chamber are compiled in
simplified form in Table 10.1 to allow assessment of basic criteria for regulation and to
estimate the maximum possible pressure rise emanating from simultaneous shut down of
all units.
Table 10.1: Basic Data of the Power Waterways

Length Diameter Flow Velocity
Water Passage (L) (D) (V) L×V
(m) (m) (m/s)
Concrete lined pressure tunnel 60 6.1 4.0 240
Concrete lined pressure shaft 226 6.1 4.0 904
Concrete lined pressure tunnel 136 6.1 4.0 544
Steel lined pressure tunnel 200 4.8 6.4 1280
Steel lined manifold branches to turbine 15 3.7 7.2 108
Steel lined manifold branches to turbine 25 2.6 7.3 183
Totals (Σ) 662 3,259
Water column starting time

Starting time of the water column is calculated as follows:
Tw = Σ (L × V) / (g × HNR) = 3259 / (9.78 × 254.5) ≈ 1.31 seconds
Machine starting time
For normal speed sensitive governing of the generating unit, the minimum starting time Tm
for accelerating the rotating mass to the rated speed must be in a certain relationship to
the starting time of the water column Tw. The empirical relationship is shown in Figure
10.7.
Figure 10.7: Water Column Starting Time (Tw) versus Machine Starting Time (Tm)
From this relationship, the machine starting time, Tm, should be as follows:
Tm = f ( Tw ) ≈ 3.4 seconds
Flywheel effect
From the machine starting time, the minimum required flywheel effect for stable governor
operation is determined according to the following formula:
GD2 = Tm × 366000 × PR / n2
GD2 = 3.4 × 366000 × 87400 / 4282 = 593723 kgm² (= 594 tm2)
The flywheel effect is the stabilising influence on the turbine speed and speed change. In
case isolated operation of the power scheme would be required, the flywheel effect would
probably have to be increased. Detailed load and network studies would be necessary to
establish the precise value of the flywheel effect required for isolated operation.
The natural flywheel effect of an optimally (from the electrical point of view) designed
generator can be estimated according to the following empirical formula:
GD2 = (MVA1.25 × 0.7 × 106) / n2 in tm2
GD2 = (1031.25 × 0.7 × 106) / 4282 = 1254 tm2
The corresponding machine starting time, Tm, will be:
Tm = GD2 × n2 / 366000 × PR
Tm = 1254000 × 4282 / 366000 × 87400 = 7.2 s
This value of generator flywheel inertia and the corresponding starting time will be used
below for the calculation of the temporary speed rise at full load rejection.
Penstock pressure rise (water hammer)
Water hammer is a pressure change in a closed pipe caused when flowing water is
decelerated or accelerated by opening or closing of the turbine (in the case of a Francis
turbine by closing or opening of the wicket gates) or of the safety valve in front of the
turbine.

A simplified calculation according to rigid water column theory shows the order of
magnitude of the water hammer for linear closing characteristic of the turbine distributor.
The worst case scenario for deceleration of the water column in the penstock is
simultaneous emergency shut down of all units. Assuming a closing time of the wicket
gate servomotor of TC = 6 sec, the pressure rise due to an emergency shut down of the
units will be:
∆H ⎛K K2 ⎞
∆p = = ⎜ 1 + K 1+ 1 ⎟ × 100 = 20.86%
H S max ⎜⎝ 2 4 ⎟
⎠
where:
⎛ ∑ L ×V ⎞
2
K1 = ⎜⎜ ⎟ = 0.036
⎟
⎝ g × H S max × TC ⎠
HSmax = the maximum static head at the distributor centreline of 829.19 m a.s.l.
= 290.81 mWC
Tc = closing time of valve
= 6 seconds
Maximum dynamic head at the distributor centre line will be:
HDmax = 1.2086 × 290.81 = 351.47 mWC
This value of pressure rise is consistent with design criteria normally adopted for this type
of high head installation.
It should noted that high head Francis turbines (low specific speed turbines), exhibit
strong self-throttling characteristics during the speed increase associated with full load
rejection. This throttling of the discharge overrides, and is independent of, the closing of
the turbine distributor. This self-throttling behaviour depends on the hydraulic design of
the turbine runner and differs among turbine manufacturers. It is thus possible that an
automatic pressure–regulating valve will be required in order not to exceed the admissible
pressure rise in the penstock. Following the load rejection, this valve is opened rapidly as
the turbine distributor gate is closed, such that the velocity in the penstock remains
relatively constant. After that the valve closes slowly by matching the admissible pressure
rise.
Temporary Speed Rise
During a full load rejection, the unit accelerates due to the fact that the wicket gates can
only be closed relatively slowly to limit the pressure rise in the penstock to an acceptable
limit. The estimated temporary speed rise, ∆n, can be estimated from the following
empirical formula:
Tc
∆n = 1 + 0.8 (1 + ∆p ) − 1 = 0.3448 = 34.48%
Tm
where: Tc = wicket gate closing time (6.0 sec.)
Tm = machine starting time (7.2 sec.)
∆p = pressure rise (20.86 %)
This speed rise is quite acceptable, given that speed rises up to 50% are generally
common.
10.3 Turbine Shut-Off Device

Usually there is a shut-off device of butterfly or spherical valve type installed upstream of
the turbines. The inlet valves will allow the turbines to be de-watered and the penstock
flow to be shut-off in case of turbine malfunction, maintenance or in an emergency.
Spherical valves in front of the turbines are the only shut-off devices suitable for operation
at the heads prevailing at the GD-3 Hydropower Plant. The spherical main inlet valves will
normally be designed to close safely against approximately double the maximum turbine
flow.
The valve diameter will be equal to or slightly larger than the spiral case inlet diameter to
avoid discontinuous flow entering the turbine. Considering the turbine dimensions outlined
above the spherical valves will be 2.00 m in diameter yielding a velocity of:
V = 4 × Q /(Π × D2) = 12.25 m/s
The valves will have manual/hydraulic operated upstream maintenance seal and
automatically operated service seal. The service seal, which is located on the downstream
side of the valve body, can be repaired or replaced at closed upstream maintenance seal
without dewatering of the penstock. A downstream dismantling joint sleeve will be
provided to facilitate replacement of the service seal.
The closing rate of the valve will be restricted so as not to cause excessive pressure rise
in the penstock when closing against maximum design flow during an emergency closure.
There are different operating systems in use with spherical valves:
1. opening/closing by oil pressure
2. opening/closing by pressure water taken from the penstock
3. opening by oil pressure/closing by pressure water taken from the penstock
4. opening by oil pressure/closing by closing weight
For security of closure, systems 3 and 4 are considered the most reliable solution since
the closing force (gravity force by closing weight or servomotor force from pressurised
water taken from the penstock) is always available whereas for oil closure, a generously
sized oil pressure system with a pressure accumulator is required. In the current market
there is little difference in price between the two systems but for design purposes system
3 was adopted because it needs slightly less space.
The inlet valves will be able to slide relative to their foundation plates and within the
dismantling sleeve on the downstream side to compensate axial displacements. Axial
forces will be born by the upstream steel lining.
The pressure oil for the spherical valves will be supplied by the governor oil systems with
possible maximum operating pressure between 70 and 120 bar.
The valves will be opened under balanced pressure only. The pressure balance will be
achieved through two (2) by-pass lines each of about 100 mm nominal diameter each,
equipped with a hydraulically controlled by-pass valve.
The time required to open the main valve under balanced conditions and the time for
closure will be adjustable between 60 and 120 seconds.
10.4 Turbine Outlet Closure Device

The turbine outlet closure device will shut-off the draft tube against the tailrace without
emptying the tailrace system. Thus, maintenance or repair of one (or two) turbines will be
possible without interrupting the operation of the other unit or units. Furthermore, the
closure device serves as an emergency shut-off against the tailrace system. Such a shut-
off device is required in the event that one of the pipes, connected to the turbine body or
draft tube downstream of the wicket gates, rapture and risks flooding the powerhouse.
For each turbine one (1) closure device will be installed in the draft tube.
Several different kinds of installations could be used for the turbine outlet closure device
such as sperical valves, butterfly valves, roller gates, sliding gates or flap gates. However,
spherical valves and butterfly valves could only be installed into a circular pipe and the
diameters of these valves are limited. Roller gates and sliding gates create only little head

loss compared to butterfly valves, but require additional civil work and a bonnet type
design for operating the gate under the tailwater pressure.
Due to it’s reduced space requirements, dimensions and negligible the flap gate is be
considered as the most appropriate turbine outlet closure device. The flap gate will be fully
integrated into the draft tube steel liner resting during turbine operation in a recess. Figure
10.8 shows a typical installation of a flap gate in the turbine draft tube in fully closed position.
The final dimensions of the flap gate will be adopted to the draft tube dimensions and
contour. Preliminary the following dimensions of the flap gate can be provided:
! clear gate width 3.60 m
! clear gate height 2.60 m
The flap gate has to be designed for the maximum tailwater pressure plus pressure rise due to
load rejection of other units in the plant. Detailed studies and calculations would be necessary.
For the required turbine submergence depth of - 10.31 m below the minimum tailwater
level of 839.50 m a.s.l. the sill level of the draft tube flap gate will be at 820.92 m a.s.l. and
the maximum hydrostatic pressure on the flap gate will be considered at the maximum
tailwater level with:
HSMAX = 843.00 m a.s.l. - 820.92 m a.s.l.
= 22.08 m
The most convenient solution to open the flap gate will be by servomotor actuated by oil
pressure from the turbine governor oil supply system. Closing will be by gravity when the
oil pressure is released. However, in case of an heavy leakage into the cavern forced
closing of the flap gate would also be required with oil pressure.
Figure 10.8:
Typical Installation of
Draft Tube Flap Gate
During turbine operation or when no maintenance is carried out, the flap gate remains
open, held by the servomotor in position. To ensure the gate leaf is held firmly and in
order to avoid vibrations when the gate is in open position, the upper area of the recess is
vacuumed, pressing the leaf tight against the gate frame.
Relief of the oil pressure in the servomotors will be impossible, when the spherical valve is
not completely closed, that means, the flap gate will be closed only when the spherical
valve is closed. This will prevent the flap gate or parts of the turbine designed for tailwater
pressure from being inadvertently subjected to headwater pressure.
To fill the draft tube from the downstream tailrace tunnel before opening the gate, one (1)
by-pass line with a nominal diameter of about 150 mm should be provided for each gate.
Each by-pass line will be equipped with a manual operated by-pass valve.
10.5 Auxiliary Mechanical Equipment

10.5.1 Cooling Water System
This system has been arranged to supply cooling water to consumers in the powerhouse
complex including the following equipment:
! Generator air coolers.
! Turbine & generator bearing coolers.
! Transformer coolers.
! Governor oil coolers.
! Chiller units for the air conditioning system.
The cooling water system has been arranged for local and remote (Control Room)
automatic operation with the possibility of local manual control of individual components
from the local control board located on the turbine floor near to the cooling water
equipment.
Each generating unit will have a separate dedicated cooling water system.
The capacity of the cooling system is based primarily on the assumption that the total
generator losses including upper combined thrust / guide bearing and lower guide bearing
amount to about 2% of the generator rated power, the turbine guide bearing losses are
about 0.1% of turbine rated power. Other heat loads are approximations. Table 10.2 lists
the major heat loads.
Table 10.2: Heat Loads for Layout of Cooling System

Generator losses (including bearings) 1800 kW
Transformer losses 360 kW
Turbine guide bearing losses 90 kW
Governor hydraulic system losses 10 kW
Air conditioning 80 kW
Total 2340 kW
This means that each unit has to be equipped with a cooling system capable of dissipating
a heat load of 2260 kW.
The permissible temperature rise across the cooling unit is assumed to be ∆t = 5 °C.
With the specific heat of water, cp = 4.187 kJ/ kg °C, the required cooling water flow for
each generating unit will be:
m = Q/(cp × ∆t) = 2260/(4.187 × 5) ≈ 111.78 kg/second = 112 l/s.
A double circuit cooling water system with a closed secondary circuit filled with clean
water and equipped with wide gap plate type heat exchangers for heat transfer between
the primary and secondary circuits is considered the most appropriate solution for the
given conditions. The suitability of a potentially lower cost single open circuit should be
assessed during the tender design phase.
In the open circuit, the cooling water will be drawn from the cooling sump which is fed with
raw water from each of the turbine housings through a 250 mm diameter pipe located at
the bottom of the turbine pit, circulated through the intermediate heat exchanger and
afterward discharged into the draft tube. The wide gap, plate type exchangers do not need
the raw water used in the primary circuit to be fine filtered and a screen at the circulating
pump suction pipe plus automatic self flushing of 1,000 µ mesh size particles are sufficient
to prevent clogging of the heat exchanger. The water circuit for the turbine shaft seals will
be provided with a fine filter.

The closed secondary circuit will be filled with clean water treated with anti-corrosion
additives. This cooling water will be circulated in closed loops through the equipment
coolers (generator air/water heat exchangers, bearing oil/water heat exchangers,
governor oil/water heat exchangers, air conditioning chillers, transformer heat
exchangers) and re-cooled in the intermediate plate type heat exchanger.
Both circuits are equipped with two identical pumps. Both raw water pumps (in the primary
circuits) and also both two secondary water circulation pumps have 100% capacity to
function as duty and stand by.
The primary and secondary circuit water pumps, filters, duplex strainers, cyclone
separators and heat exchangers are arranged on the turbine floor.
10.5.2 Drainage and Dewatering System

The drainage and dewatering system consists of one (1) free surface drainage sump
sized to collect all leakage from the shaft seals and from all the floor drains, and one (1)
dewatering sump for emptying the turbine units and waterways for inspection and/or
maintenance. Furthermore the dewatering system will serve in case of an emergency, if a
pipe fracture in the powerhouse occurs.
Both sumps are located close to each other between the units and are accessible through
manholes from the level of the valve floor. The drainage water will enter the drainage
sump through an oil separator located adjacent to the drainage sump.
The capacity of the drainage pumps is based on the normal anticipated water leakage
from the equipment, the water seepage through the powerhouse excavations plus the
maximum water leakage resulting from complete damage of the turbine shaft seal on one
unit so that:
! one pump can handle the leakage from the seal, the maximum normal leakage from
the underground excavations and from the other equipment,
! one pump is a standby.
The capacity of the dewatering system is such that with all three (3) dewatering pumps
running, to ensure the drainage of water entering the powerhouse due to rapture of
spherical valve high pressure by-pass line. The inlet flow through the of spherical valve
by-pass line with a closed emergency roller gate on the headrace tunnel was calculated
with 310 l/s. In the event of the emergency case the dewatering pumps will also ensure
the removal of all leakage from the shaft seals and from all the floor drains. One (1)
dewatering pump will serve as stand-by unit.
Table 10.3: Powerhouse Drainage and Dewatering Sumps

Drainage Dewatering
Sump Sump
No. of pumps in operation 1 3
No. of stand–by pumps 1 1
Discharge per pump l/s 30 115
Discharge head (approx.) m 30 50
Both sumps are interconnected by a pipe of 250 mm diameter and a shut-off valve to
allow the flow of the drainage water into the dewatering sump during emergency case and
dewatering of the turbine units.
All pumps are of the submersible type suitable for continuous operation, capable of
pumping raw water. The drainage and dewatering pumps will discharge into two (2) pipes
of size 350 mm embedded in concrete and routed along the tailrace tunnel up to the
outfall structure. The outlets of the drainage pipes shall be arranged above the maximum
TWL 843 m a.s.l.
Drainage and dewatering pumps are automatically controlled by level switches installed in
the sumps. Each turbine draft tube will be connected to the dewatering sump by one (1)
pipe of size 150 mm with manually operated valve to allow dewatering of the turbine for
maintenance purposes after closure of the inlet valve and draft tube flap gate.
To be able to operate the drainage and dewatering system even if the external power
supply fails, the pumps should be fed in addition from the fixed installed emergency diesel
generating set.
10.5.3 Main Hoisting Devices

Powerhouse Crane
One overhead bridge crane has been arranged in the powerhouse to facilitate assembly,
installation and overhaul of the two generating units, the spherical inlet valves and all
associated equipment. The crane capacity of 200/15 tons is determined by the heaviest
piece for installation, i.e. by the generator rotor. Design and performance criteria,
applicable for the powerhouse crane installation in the GD-3 Hydropower Plant
powerhouse, are shown in Table 10.4. The combination of movements of the overhead
crane and trolley are such that the hooks sweep as large a surface area of the machine
hall as possible.
Table 10.4: Design and Performance Criteria for Powerhouse Crane

Number 1
Maximum hook height above erection bay 10.00 m
Hoisting capacity main hoist 200 tons
Hoisting speeds main hook normal speed 1.2 m/min
creeping speed 0.3 m/min
Hoisting capacity auxiliary hoist 15 tons
Hoisting speeds auxiliary hook normal speed 4 m/min
Bridge travelling speed normal speed 25 m/min
Trolley cross speed normal speed 15 m/min
Crane control: wireless from cabin on crane bridge frame
An alternative arrangement with two cranes, each of lower lifting capacity, would be
slightly more expensive but would offer enhanced availability and flexibility if work were
being carried out simultaneously on two units. Together the cranes would be capable of
lifting the heaviest part, namely the generator rotor. This alternative arrangement should
be investigated during the tender phase by inviting alternative offers from suppliers.
10.5.4 Ventilation and Air Conditioning System

The heat load generated in the underground powerhouse complex, which has to be
removed by the ventilation system, originates mainly from the heat generated by the
equipment.
For the powerhouse and transformer caverns, including the Control Room, an air
conditioning and ventilation system has been arranged to ensure sufficient flow of fresh air
to all areas so that equipment can operate as reliably as possible and at the same time, a
safe working environment will be provided for people working within those areas.
The air conditioning and ventilation system will function as an integral part of overall fire
protection and evacuation plan for the complex.
The following criteria and assumptions will be adopted for the air conditioning and
ventilation system.

! The major potential fire hazards and sources of smoke and combustion products are
the generators, the transformers, the electrical panels and all equipment containing
hydraulic oil. The ventilation system will minimise the circulation of combustion
products should a fire occur.
! Comfort levels will be particularly important in those areas where staff will be regularly
working during plant operation or routine maintenance. These areas will be the Control
Room, the machine hall floor and service bay as well as the turbine and generator
floors.
! Bus shaft and transformer cavern are normally not classified as working areas, the
principal consideration will be to limit temperatures to meet equipment operating
requirements
The proposed system will draw fresh air through the powerhouse access tunnel, circulate
this fresh air through all the floors of the powerhouse, then through the bus galleries to the
transformer cavern before discharging to the outside through the cable and ventilation
shaft.
The following basic criteria have been adopted for the preliminary layout and sizing of the
air conditioning and ventilation system:
! three air changes per hour minimum,
! the walls of the underground portion of the powerhouse are assumed at constant
temperature of 22°C,
! cooling water design temperature of 25°C maximum,
! outside air design temperature and humidity according to Table 10.5.
Table 10.5: Temperature and Humidity Values for Layout and Sizing of the Air
Conditioning and Ventilation System
Temperature Relative Humidity
Annual mean temperature 18°C 60 %
Absolute maximum 40°C 90 %
Absolute minimum 5°C 25 %
The control room will be air conditioned and the air conditioning unit will be placed in the
control block in the vicinity of the control room.
In the control room the minimum temperature will be not less than 18°C and the maximum
temperature will not exceed 28°C, with a maximum relative humidity of 50%.
10.5.5 Low Pressure Compressed Air System

A centralised low pressure air system comprising two screw type compressors and two
central air receivers with the necessary distribution piping throughout the powerhouse
cavern will supply compressed air to the following:
! generator brake system air receiver at each unit,
! turbine shaft stand-still pneumatic seal at each unit,
! connector taps for pneumatic tools at each unit (for maintenance purposes).
The nominal pressure will be 7-8 bars with an hourly delivery of not less than 80 m³/h of
atmospheric air. The air accumulator is of the standing cylinder type with dished ends with
a net capacity of 1.5 m³.
10.5.6 Emergency Diesel Generator

An emergency 500 kVA diesel generator set will supply all the essential station service
loads in case of failure of the station auxiliary power supply or for any time the
transmission line will be out of service due to maintenance or failure. Because of noise,
exhaust fumes and the need for a fuel storage tank of about 50,000 litres capacity, the
diesel generator will be located above ground in a separate diesel generator building
located in the 230 kV switchyard.
The sizing of the diesel generator set is based on the most severe operational case
represented by the loss of auxiliary power during two units operation. Estimated loads for
the power house are compiled in Table 10.6.
Table 10.6: Essential and Non-essential Electrical Loads for Unit Operation
Item Load (kW) Essential Non-essential
AC/DC rectifiers 10 *
Drainage pumps 30 *
Dewatering pumps 240 *
Lighting system 25 *
Socket system 15 *
Powerhouse crane 55 *
Air conditioning, ventilation 40 *
Service air compressor 10 *
Workshops 45 *
Governor pumping units 45 *
Cooling pumps 90 *
High pressure lub. pumps 10 *
Brake air compressors 3 *
Excitation cooling 3 *
Generator standstill heater 9 *
Total (kW) 630 566 64
With a power factor of 0.8, the minimum required rating of the diesel generator will be:
PDGmin = 566/0.8 = 708 kVA
The minimum safety margin for sizing shall be 15%.
PDGrequired = 708 × 1.15 = 814 kVA
The next available standard size for stand-by diesel generators is 500 kVA.
10.5.7 Mechanical Workshop

The mechanical workshop is located in the transformer cavern. For the size and type of
equipment installed in the GD-3 powerhouse, the following workshop equipment has been
allowed for in the cost estimate:
! One universal lathe capable of handling an item of 500 mm diameter above the lathe
bed and of 1500 mm length between centres
! One eight-speed, swivel-head, sensitive pillar drill of 30 mm capacity
! One four speed, swivel-head, sensitive bench drill of 15 mm capacity
! One base-mounted universal drill grinder for drills and lathe tools
! One 300 mm floor-stand grinder
! One hack sawing machine
! Hand snips (steel R = 40/50 kg/mm²)
! Electric circular saw for timber, mounted on a mobile metal chassis with tyred wheels
! One fully equipped, 7-bar compressed air portable grinding machine
! One fully equipped, trolley-mounted oxyacetylene unit for welding, cutting and brazing
! One mobile d.c. electric welding set of approximately 350 A intensity under maximum
load for electrodes of 1.5 to 6 mm diameter for manual welding of steels
! Three complete sets of tools
! Three steel work benches
! Four tool cabinets
! Two (2) electrical hand drilling machine, rated power 450 W approximately.
! One (1) mobile air compressor unit for workshop and maintenance:
- Inlet volume 10 Nm³/h
- Nominal working pressure 7 bar at continuous operation
- Reservoir volume 300 l

10.5.8 Oil Filtration Plant

The following mobile filtration plants have been included for costing purposes:
Transformer oil purifying system consisting of:
! 1000 l/hr mobile transformer oil filtration plant complete with transformer oil evacuation
pumps, vacuum pumps, rubber hoses and other accessories to complete the system.
! air dryer of suitable capacity for generator transformers.
! trolley mounted transformer oil tank of 15,000 l capacity.
Bearing and governor oil purifying system consisting of:

! 200 l/hr mobile bearing oil filtration plants complete with oil evacuation pumps, vacuum
pumps, rubber hoses and other accessories to complete the system.
! trolley mounted oil tanks of 2000 l capacity.
Powerhouse Electrical Equipment
11 Powerhouse Electrical Equipment
11.1 Introduction
The purpose of the feasibility studies was to identify, dimension and estimate the costs of the
principal components of the electrical equipment required in and around the power cavern for
safe and economic plant operation. The dimensions and layout of the equipment have been
developed and optimized to a detail sufficient to form the basis of a cost estimate.
The main electrical equipment of the power station will comprise the following:
! 3 Generators, 100 MVA, 11 kV, 428 rpm
! 3 Generator busduct connections (IPB)
! 3 Unit step-up transformers 110 MVA ,230/11 kV
! 3 cable system 230kV XLPE
! MV switchgear and installations
! 11 kV transmission line to the intake and other outdoor lcations
! Auxiliary transformers
! Low voltage switchgear
! 500 kVA emergency diesel generator set
! DC and UPS systems
! Cabling
! Lighting system and small power installations
! Earthing and lightning protection systems
! Protection systems for power cavern and 230 kV switchyard
! Control systems
! Communication systems
! Electrical workshop
11.2 General Design Criteria

The dimensioning, design and layout of the various plant components and installations is
to consider the following features and aspects:
! The ambient conditions at the construction site, and the associated de-rating factors
for electrical equipment due to ambient temperatures and altitudes above sea level.
! Ratings to safely cope with all normal and fault conditions, avoiding overstressing of
material and equipment.
! Equipment to be of standard design, providing highest degree of safety, reliability,
availability and ease of operation.
! Equipment arrangements to consider adequate space and access for transport,
installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance.
Under normal operating conditions the plant will be manned and operated in automatic
mode, controlled from the local control room in the power cavern or alternatively from an
annex to the outdoor 11 kV Switchgear and Emergency Generator Building. Future
remote control from a load dispatch centre will be possible by extending the proposed
control system accordingly.
The plant will have full "BLACK-START" capability suitable for operation in an isolated
system. Black start shall mean unit start-up to rated speed solely with DC control power
from the plant battery and AC power from the emergency diesel generator set. All oil
hydraulic units of the turbine governor as well associated water inlet/outlet valves, gates,
and flaps shall be designed to have sufficient inherent spare energy to allow 3 start-up
operations without the normal power supply.
The basic system configuration and equipment arrangements are shown on the plant
layout drawings.

11.3 Single Line Diagram

Each generator is connected with its own step-up transformer (this arrangement is the so
called "Unit-Arrangement") and unit auxiliary transformer as well as one 400 V unit
switchboard. The separate 400 V station switchgear is interconnected with each of the
unit switchgear as well as via step-up/step down transformers and LV/MW switchgear with
the emergency power supply. The DC supply system is connected to the 400V station
switchgear.
The turbine generator power will be transferred from the transformer cavern by means of
three 230kV XLPE cable systems to the 230 kV double busbar outdoor switchyard. This
layout has proven to be an optimum solution with regard to costs, space requirements,
operational flexibility and reliability of the Power Plant. The advantages of this “Unit-
Arrangement” layout are as follows:
! A failure at one Unit does not affect another Unit.
! A separate 230 kV HV feeder to a start-up transformer is not necessary. Each generator
busduct is provided with a link which can be removed if the unit is shut down. During
such shut-down period unit auxiliary power can be taken from the 230 kV network side.
! The system offers high redundancy and operational flexibility even without provision of
a circuit breaker between the generator and the unit step-up transformer which,
however, may be added as an option for greater convenience.
! Unit synchronization will be effected with the HV circuit breaker
The electrical layout of the powerhouse and switchyard is shown on the overall single-line
diagram in the Drawing Album.
The emergency diesel generator set will be installed outdoors in a separate building which
is connected via a step-up transformer, a 11kV switchgear, and two step-down
transformers with the 400 V station service board thus maintaining the power supply to the
unit supply boards in the power cavern.
The power cavern DC supply system will comprise a 220 V installation consisting of one
DC main switchboard, sub-distribution board(s), and duplicated battery chargers for one
lead acid battery. Separate DC/DC converters will be provided in case the equipment will
require a voltage other than 220 V. A similar 110 V DC supply may be required and have
to be installed in the outdoor switchyard building to provide DC power for the 230 kV
switchyard. The entire DC arrangement must be further developed and adjusted pending
the question of the control room location.
One uninterrupted power supply system will be provided for supplying the computerized
control systems and the relevant peripheral installations. The UPS systems will comprise
one inverter with a static by-pass switch and a distribution panel. The inverter will be fed
from the 220V DC system.
11.4 Generators
11.4.1 Generator Output Rating
Dynamic stability in grids can be improved by operation of the synchronous generator in
the “over-excitation” range of the capability diagram. The supply of reactive power
requires however an increase of the MVA rating of the generator resulting in higher initial
investment cost and higher losses in the machines and transmission lines which vary
inversely with the power factor. The curves shown in Figure 11.1 illustrate typical relative
figures of price, weight and losses as a function of the rated power factor.
For the present study a rated power factor of 0.85 has been chosen according to
experience with similar plants. Based on the total installed plant capacity of 254 MW, and
the selected power factor, the generator capacity has been determined as 100 MVA per
unit.
Figure 11.1: Power Factor Versus Price, Weight and Losses
Generator price, weight and losses as a function of

rated power factor
cos ϕ =MW/MVA
0.95 0.9 0.8 0.7
1.6
Price
1.5
Weight
1.4
1.3
Losses
1.2
1.1
0.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
tg ϕ=MVar/MW
11.4.2 Rated Generator Voltage

The optimum voltage of a 100MVA generator is between 9kV to 15kV as indicated in
Figure 11.2. Therefore a generator voltage of 11 kV ±10% was selected which is a quite
common value for generators of this size.
Figure 11.2: Optimum Range of Generator Voltage
R a te d V o l ta g e ( k V )
30
m a x im u m
25
20
m in im u m
15
10
0
20 40 100 300 600
G e n e r a to r R a ti n g (M V A )

11.4.3 Rated and Runaway Speed

The rated and the runaway generator speeds are governed by the turbine, as follows:
! Turbine selected speed is 428 rpm, resulting in a generator with 14 rotor poles.
! The runaway speed of this Francis turbine will be approx. 770rpm.
For the present feasibility design, the generator rotor will be dimensioned and valued
accordingly.
11.4.4 Generator Support Type

There are various standard support arrangements for vertical axis generators differing
basically in the location of the thrust and guide bearings. For medium and high speed
generators the support types IM8425 (formerly called W41 with an upper combined thrust-
guide bearing and a lower guide bearing) and IM8225 (formerly called W42 with an upper
guide bearing and a lower combined thrust-guide bearing) are preferred. For selecting the
type of generator support in the present study, three criteria have been considered,
namely those developed by Siemens, ABB and the US Standards Authority.
Figure 11.3: Siemens Selection Criteria
Application Field of Generator Construction Types IM8425 (W41) & IM8225 (W42)
1000
MVA
100
10
IM8425 (W41)
1 IM8225 (W42)
10 100 n (rpm) 1000
Table 11.1: The ABB Selection Criteria

The ABB Selection Criteria
Design Criteria Support Type Remarks
Rotor diameter Di < 5 m IM8425 (W41) Criteria: accessibility
Rotor diameter Di > 5 m IM8225 (W42)
IM8140 (W6)
Factor c > 0.08 or
IM8205 (W8)
The ABB Selection Criteria

Design Criteria Support Type Remarks
IM8140 (W6) Both types possible, but further
Factor c 0.06 ≤ c < 0.08 or investigations on dynamic behaviour
IM8205 (W8) of the shaft are necessary
Factor c < 0.06 IM8425 (W41) Upper guide bearing will be needed
Di
Where c = For the selected values
Li * n of the formula the factor
c amounts to 0,059
and Di =Rotor diameter (m) which is in line of W41
Li =Core length (m)
n =Nominal speed (rpm)
Table 11.2: US Standards Authority Selection Criteria

US Standards Authority
Design Criteria Speed Range Support Type
Li
≥ 0.35 167 - 1000 rpm IM8425 (W41)
Di
Li
0.35 ≥ ≥ 0.25 36 - 250 rpm
IM8225 (W42)
Di
Li IM8140 (W6) or IM8205
≤ 0.25 85.7 - 200 rpm
(W8)
Di
For the selected values of the
above formula the ratio
amounts to 0,395 which is in
line with W41
According to all the above selection criteria, a generator type IM8425 (W41) is the most
appropriate. The combined thrust and guide bearing will be arranged on the upper
bracket, the lower guide bearing of the generator beneath the rotor. The thrust bearing
design will include an automatic high pressure oil injection system, which will provide an
oil film on the thrust bearing pads and prevent bearing damages during starting and
stopping of the unit.
11.4.5 Generator Dimensions and Weights

Based on available data from other generators of similar ratings and on approximate
calculations, the dimensions and weights were estimated as follows:
! Rotor diameter - 4300 mm
! Outer stator diameter - 5950 mm
! Stator iron length - 1700 mm
! Weight of complete rotor (w.o. lifting beam) - 180 t
! Weight of complete generator - 285 t
The powerhouse crane will be capable of lifting the generator rotor including the upper
bracket and the lifting device. Generator rotors of this size are assembled on site due to
transport restrictions. The generator stator will be stacked and wound at the factory and
then split, depending on the road conditions and on the load carrying capability of the
bridges from the harbour to the construction site, into 2, 3 or 4 segments. The individual
segments will be assembled on site.

11.4.6 Generator Auxiliaries and Excitation Equipment

The generators will be equipped with air-water heat exchangers, connected to a closed-
loop cooling water system. This arrangement reduces considerably the maintenance
requirements of the air-water coolers. For all load conditions maximum air temperature will
be limited to 40°C.
The generator will be equipped with a combined electrical and mechanical braking
system. The electrical braking will be effective from about 50% of the unit speed down to
about 10%, while the mechanical brakes will engage at about 30% of the unit speed until
the unit has been completely stopped. The mechanical brake/lifting jacks will also serve to
jack-up the generator rotor for maintenance purposes.
The generator excitation system will be of the static type comprising a cast resin type
excitation transformer, thyristor converter, field discharge and field flashing equipment,
regulation and control circuitry.
11.4.7 Summary of the Generator Technical Data

The generators will be of the 3-phase, synchronous, vertical axis type directly coupled to
the Francis turbines. The main features of the generator are governed by the
characteristics of the turbines.
The main characteristics of the generators are as follows:
! Number of units - 3
! Type of support - IM8425 (W41)
! Class of protection - IP44
! Rated output (MCR) MVA 100
! Overload % > 6%
! Rated voltage kV 11 ± 10%
! Rated frequency Hz 50
! Power factor 0.85
! Rated speed rpm 428
! Runaway speed, approx. rpm 770
! Rotor and stator insulation - Class F
! Permissible temperature rise -
referred to MCR Class B
! Permissible temperature rise -
referred to overload Class F
! Cold air temperature, max. - 40°C
! Cooling water inlet temperature, max. - 30°C
! Bearing temperatures max.
* Thrust bearing pads - 75°C
* Guide bearing pads - 70°C
! Winding connection star, leads brought out to 6 terminals
! Flywheel effect GD² as required by the turbine
! Cooling Air, closed circuit
Air/water heat exchangers
! Bearing Lower guide bearing, upper combined thrust and guide
bearing, with oil/water heat exchangers.
! Excitation system Fully static, fed from generator terminals via dry type
transformer, digital type AVR
! Braking system Electrical, mechanical combined with jacking system
! Fire fighting system CO2
11.5 Generator Connections

The connections between the generators, excitation and auxiliary transformers and main
transformers will be standard single phase isolated phase bus-ducts (IPB). This design of
bus-duct is current state of the art which provides a high degree of both reliability and
safety.
Within the run of the IPB the required instrument transformers, earthing switches and links
are installed. Branches will be provided from the IPB to the unit auxiliary and to the
excitation transformers, respectively. The generator neutral will be earthed via a dry type
distribution transformer and an associated loading resistor.
The entire equipment and the instrument transformers for protection and measuring
purposes will be installed in a separate compartment located on the generator floor
adjacent to the generator pit.
A generator circuit breaker may optionally be provided in-line with the IPB together with all
the necessary instrument transformers required for synchronizing, measuring and
protection purposes.
11.6 Unit Step-Up Transformers

To raise the generating voltage of 11kV to the grid transmission voltage of 230kV, 3 unit
step-up transformers will be installed in a separate transformer cavern. Within that cavern,
each transformer will be installed in separate transformer cell for fire protection purposes.
The transformers will be of the oil-immersed type provided with a ODWF cooling system,
i.e. with forced and directed oil circulation through core and windings and forced water
circulation through externally mounted oil to water heat exchangers.
The ODWF type transformer has the most advanced and effective cooling system which
allows the highest transformer capacity at the lowest dimensions and weights.
The capacity of the step-up transformers will comply with the rated output of the generator
upon due consideration of the permissible overload and was selected as 110 MVA
The step-up transformers will be equipped with oil-water heat exchangers, connected to
the power cavern closed-loop cooling water system.
Figure 11.4: Heat Exchanger for OWDF Transformer and Transformer Cooling Types
Oil-Outlet Oil-Inlet CW-Outlet
CW-Inlet
Oil/Water Heat Exchanger OFWF/ODWF ONAF/OFAF
Their main advantages of OWDF transformers are as follows:

! very compact design,
! less space requirements, thus saving civil costs,
! the oil reservoir can be mounted separately,
! the ambient temperature has no effect on the transformer rating.

The transformer 11 kV terminals (LV) and the transformer secondary vector group will be
suitable for connecting to the isolated phase bus ducts. The 230 kV terminal box (HV) will
be compatible with the 230kV XLPE cable sealing ends.
The transformers and the associated 230kV cables will be protected against switching and
atmospheric over voltage by means of surge arresters, which will be installed in the 230kV
outdoor switchyard. If required surge arresters may have also to be arranged close to the
230kV XLPE cable sealing ends at the step-up transformer HV side. The necessity of
same is to be revealed by a surge voltage study.
The vector group for the step-up transformer will be YNd11 in accordance with the
Recommendations of IEC Standard No. 60076.
11.6.1 Voltage Regulation and Tap Changer

To provide suitable voltage variation on the transformers primary side (230kV level) a
voltage variation range from +5% to -5% in steps of 2.5% will be sufficient and is a
standard value for step-up transformers.
The maximum and minimum voltages at the transformer bank primary bushings depend
on the generator voltage variation of 11 kV +/- 10% and of the transformer tap changer
range of +5% to -5% voltages as follows:
230kV
U Min =11kV × 0.90 × × 0.95 = 196.5kV
11kV
230kV
U Max = 11kV × 1.10 × × 1.05 = 265.5kV
11kV
11.6.2 Dimensions and Weights

The transformers are the bulkiest and heaviest pieces of equipment which will be
transported from the factory to the construction site. As presented above, ODWF
transformers have been selected for layout and costing purposes.
The following table indicates the size, dimensions and weights of transformers with similar
ratings. It is clearly evident that ODWF transformers are smaller and lighter.
Oil Natural Air Forced ONAF Cooling Oil Directed Water Forced ODWF Cooling
Three-phase transformer 100MVA, ONAF Three-phase transformer 100MVA, ODWF
Length x Width x Height 7000 x 2700 x 4400 mm Length x Width x Height 4900 x 2350 x 3800 mm
Total / Oil / Transport 145 / 40 / 105 t Total / Oil / Transport 80 / 20 / 65 t
11.7 230kV XLPE Cables

The generated power will be transferred from the transformer cavern via single-phase
230kV XLPE cable systems to the 230kV double busbar outdoor switchyard routed
upwards the cable and ventilation shaft to the outdoor switchyard. The outdoor cable
sealing ends will be mounted in the switchyard to their respective supporting structure.
The XLPE cable system is the most common arrangement for transmitting electrical
energy from underground power caverns to surface switchyards. The system has
considerable cost and maintenance advantages over Gas Insulated Busducts or oil filled
cables.
11.8 Auxiliary Transformers

The unit auxiliary transformers will be of the cast resin, indoor, dry type tentatively rated
as shown in the single-line diagram. They will feed into the 400VAC unit auxiliary boards.
Each of the transformers shall be sized to cope with 100% unit plus station load demand.
The station service transformer will be also of the cast resin, indoor, dry type tentatively
rated as shown on the single-line diagram. They will feed into the 11 kV and 400V station
service switchgear and cater also the need for emergency power supply to the turbine
generator units.
11.9 AC Station Service System

The auxiliary power demand of the units will be guaranteed through the 400VAC unit
auxiliary boards, each one fed from their own unit auxiliary transformer.
The station service switchgear will provide power for the general station services
(including drainage system, compressed air system, ventilation system, lighting and
cranes).
One 400 V diesel generator, located above ground in the switchyard building together with
a 400 V distribution board, is connected through a step-up transformer to the 11kV
switchgear located in the same place to provide emergency power.
The consumers located in the power intake, surge tank, dam, and housing compound will
be fed via a 11 kV transmission line from the 11 kV switchgear located in the switchyard
building
11.10 MV/LV/Control Cabling

The cabling will include MV and LV power, communication and control cables with all
termination, fixing and installation materials.
All cables will be designed to cope with:
! the prevalent short-circuit conditions,
! the adopted protective system in respect to cross-section and number of cores,
! a “normal” voltage drop of 3% and an “exceptional” drop of 5%.
According to individual requirements the cables will be routed in ducts, conduits, exposed
or embedded, on cable trays or directly buried in the ground.
11.11 Small Power & Lighting Installations

For valuation purposes, indoor and outdoor lighting systems have been included in the
scheme layout. These lighting systems will provide adequate illumination levels over the
various service areas. The lighting installations will include normal, emergency and
security lighting systems fed by the station power system, emergency diesel and 220 V
DC system, respectively. The small power installation will include 230 V single-phase and
400 V 3-phase socket outlets.
11.12 Earthing and Lightning Protection System

Earthing System
The earthing installations will include complete systems for voltage gradient control and
earthing of all equipment and facilities in the power cavern, transformer cavern and of the
230kV outdoor switchyard.
The scope will comprise copper conductors and earthing rods of individual size,
connecting and fixing materials to form a complete, safe and reliable system. All electrical
equipment will be connected to this network including generators, transformers,
switchboards, control boards, motors, relay and auxiliary relay boards and all other
subsidiary electrical equipment as well as all such metal parts of the civil construction or
the mechanical equipment which can carry currents in case of earth faults.

Lightning Protection System

All superstructures will be provided with a lightning protection system comprising
conductors sufficiently sized, spaced and connected to the main earthing loop or to
separate earthing electrodes.
11.13 Protection Systems

Protection systems will be provided to isolate faulty systems as quickly as possible, to limit
damage and to maintain healthy systems in stable operating conditions. The systems will
feature a high degree of selectivity and discrimination between faulty and healthy circuits.
The protective relays will be of the high speed, electronic digital type arranged in
protection cubicles including all ancillary devices such as interposing transformers, relays,
test facilities and power supply units. Protection systems will be provided for the following
plant components:
! Mechanical protection of the generating units,
! Generator protection (located in the UCB),
! Step-up transformer protection (located in the UCB),
! 230kV XLPE cable protection,
! Auxiliary transformer protection,
! 400 V AC switch gear protection,
! 230kV switchgear protection (located in the outdoor switchyard building),
! Transmission line protection (located in the outdoor switchyard building).
11.14 Control & Communication System

Control System
The remote control shall employ a fully integrated, digital, state-of-the-art supervisory and
control system (SCS). The SCS shall include all necessary instruments, sensors, adapters
to local sensors, field-bus adapters, transmitters, wires, cabling, bus systems to provide a
fully functioning system for the units and for all other power plant main and auxiliary
systems including those as part of th HV switchgear.
The SCS shall cover the following functions and main objectives:
! To control and monitor the performance of all the major equipment components in the
power scheme and to ensure a high level of automatic control, thereby minimising
operator manning levels, and incorporating ‘one-button’ start-up and synchronising
and ‘one-button’ shut-down;
! To provide safe start-up, synchronising, loading, shut-down and emergency tripping of
each unit with control and monitoring of the water intake and water outlet;
! To acquire data from the power intake, emergency valve chamber and mid-level
outlet;
! To maximise the availability and the efficient use of all plant components;
! To provide facilities for comprehensive monitoring, storage and presentation of
information concerning plant condition and performance with dedicated sequence of
events, plant management and historical archive;
! To meter scheme output and availability and to provide billing data for payment
purposes;
! To integrate the operation of the power plant into the grid system including SCADA
interfaces and communications with a future Load Dispatch Centre.
The SCS shall be characterised by an innovative decentralised system concept and shall
consist of state-of-the art technology and the latest achievements in the process
automation industry.
Simple and safe operation of the power plant and its components shall be enabled by
installing touch-panels as human-machine interfaces (HMI) at the unit control boards and
ergonomically designed graphical user interfaces (GUI). System software self-supervisory

and fault diagnosis functions shall lead to early detection of abnormalities and, therefore,
to a high availability of the power plant.
The primary equipment to be supervised and controlled is briefly described hereunder:
! Turbine,
! Generator and excitation,
! Main inlet valve and ancillaries systems,
! Air conditioning plant,
! Compressed air system,
! Cooling water system,
! De-watering and drainage systems,
! Water intake and surge shaft equipment including water level measurements,
! Medium and main low voltage systems,
! Emergency power supply,
! Step-up transformers,
! HV switchgear.
Control of the Units, including start-up and shut-down, shall be carried out as an automatic
procedure (including synchronisation) from the local unit control boards (UCB) or from the
Control Room. Operator’s workstations with TFT screens, keyboards, printers and
peripheral devices and their associated control desks shall allow monitoring, control and
adjustment of plant operation conditions via high resolution “windows” style graphics
displays.
The SCS shall be designed in a consistent hierarchical and decentralised structure. The
main bus structure will be arranged as a dual fibre optic network, while the individual field
buses will be arranged in a redundant star shaped bus structure.
Communications between the stations located in different plant areas and the operators’
and engineers’ workstations located in the plant control room will be performed by a
redundant high speed serial data highway. The data highway will be designed to perform
at the speed necessary to ensure that all variables are updated and control commands
are issued without loss of system performance. The data highway will include all control
equipment, error detection and correction facilities and cabling.
The SCS shall be designed to ensure maximum availability by the inclusion of built-in
redundancy for both hardware and software. This will include duplicated control
processors, data highway and power supplies with automatic changeover to the standby
unit upon detection of a fault or failure of the operating unit.
The SCS will be connected to the station GPS master clock system. This will allow all
SCS components to be synchronised and correctly time tagged.
Communication System
PLC communication equipment has been included in the design arrangement for speech,
signal transmission, and teleprotection functions from the 230 kV power transfer point in
the outdoor switchyard towards the OHTL to MEGA substation as well as to the GD-5
power plant.
This equipment may be completely replaced in case fibre optic technique will be adopted.
A telephone/facsimile exchange for the powerhouse and for the 230kV switchyard is
included in the design arrangement. The exchange will connect to a future public trunk
telephone system in the area, as well as to the PLC system.
The basic Supervisory and Control System (SCS) configurations is shown on Figure 11.5.

Figure 11.5: Control System Block Diagram for GD-3 Hydropower Project
Gateway to GPS Master & Engineering Operator Station/ Operator Station /
Power Line Carrier Clock System Station Alarm Printer Alarm Printer
O.H.L. LINE 1-3 UNIT 1 UNIT 2
Next page
Data Server
Double Ring Bus System: Industrial Ethernet TCP/IP 100 Mbit/s Portable Service
Station
Ethernet TCP/ IP, Protocol acc. IEC 60870-5-104
Next page
LV
Switchgear
UPS and DC Surge Shaft

System
Digital Unit Digital Unit

Protection HVAC Protection
System
Drainage Power Intake

System Water Level
Excitation Digital Unit Control Board UCB Excitation Digital Unit Control Board UCB
& AVR Turbine with TFT Monitor & AVR Turbine with TFT Monitor
Auxiliaries
Governor Governor
UNIT No. 1 Station Control System UNIT No. 2 Power Intake &
Surge Shaft
Operator Station / Historical Archive,

Alarm Printer Monitoring, Metering
UNIT 3
To previous page I
Data Server 2
To previous page
I
Bay OHL I Bay OHL II
Bay Unit I Bay Unit II
Digital Unit
Bay Unit III Bay OHL III Protection
Coupler Auxiliaries
11kV Switchgear & Unit Control Board UCB Digital Excitation

Auxiliaries Emergency Diesel
with TFT Monitor Turbine & AVR
Governor
230kV Switchyard UNIT No. 3
Control & Protection
Switchyard and Transmission System
12 Switchyard and Transmission System
12.1 General
Switchyard and transmission line equipment are required to safely and reliably feed the
energy generated by the GD-3 hydropower scheme to the proposed new grid node near
the town of Mega. Mega is located some 50km from the border with Kenya on the main
road south from Addis Ababa to Moyale. According to current plans, Mega will become
the first ICS grid node from which electrical energy is to be exported to Kenya. It is
foreseen that transmission lines from at least some of the Gilgel Gibe cascade of
hydropower plants and from all of the Genale cascade of hydropower plants will feed this
node with HVAC energy. At Mega, an AC/DC conversion station will be constructed from
which HVDC transmission lines will transmit energy to Eldorat for sale to consumers in
Kenya. This sale of energy will generate much needed foreign exchange for Ethiopia with
which further electricity generating projects can be financed.
Theoretically, the costs of the interconnection should be shared equitably among all the
projects that will derive benefits from the interconnection, including the Genale cascade of
projects, the Gilgel Gibe cascade of projects and electrification projects in both Ethiopia
and Kenya. However, at the present time, the layout, generating characteristics and costs
of many of these projects are not sufficiently well defined to support a fair cost sharing.
For the present feasibility study of the GD-3 Hydropower Project, the costs of transmitting
its energy over some 295km to Mega have been assigned to the hydropower project. In
this chapter, the principal components of the GD-3 switchyard and the transmission line to
Mega are identified and dimensioned.
The main purpose of the powerhouse switchyard is to transfer the energy generated by
the generating units to the transmission system. The layout of the bus-bars and
connectors must provide redundancy sufficient to guarantee continued operation during
normal and abnormal situations. The switching equipment must be able to isolate
individual generating units or groups of units for maintenance or repair without interrupting
the operation of other units. The switching equipment must also enable supply of the
power station services from the grid.
The GD-3 switchyard will also connect the proposed future hydropower schemes, GD-5
and GD-6, to the ICS via Mega. As such, the GD-3 switchyard will become an important
node in the 230kV transmission grid. Given this importance, a double bus configuration,
laid out in the “classical” arrangement, with a bus coupler to provide reliability and
flexibility under all normal and abnormal conditions.
Two transmission line bays will feed the proposed 295 km long double circuit transmission
line to the Mega substation. Another two transmission line bays are foreseen – one for the
future link to GD-5 and the secons as a spare.
Due to the long length of the transmission lines to Mega, line compensation measures
may become necessary. This should be confirmed by a network study.
12.2 Switchyard
12.2.1 General Design Criteria
The electrical equipment has been selected with due regard to rated current, short-circuit
current level, creepage distances and clearances. The dielectric strength of the installed
electrical equipment is influenced by the prevailing ambient conditions such as moisture
content, altitude, air density and solar radiation. Of particular interest is the altitude, since
the density of air decreases with increasing altitude - this influences the dielectric strength
of the installed equipment. Some 145km of the transmission line will be at elevations

between 1,000m asl and 2,000m asl. The diagram below indicates the de-rating factor to
be applied for electrical equipment if installed at altitudes above 1,000m.a.s.l.
Figure 12.1: Altitude Correction Factor
Altitude Correction Factor

1.1
k 1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
m.a.s.l.
12.2.2 General Description

The 230kV switchyard will be located above ground. Its location has been selected as a
compromise between minimizing the distance from the underground transformer cavern
(and thereby minimizing the length of expensive high voltage XLPE cable) and minimizing
the surface excavation required to form the switchyard. There is only one obvious surface
location immediately south of the transformer cavern where the steep slope breaks from
over 50% to a gentler 12%. Despite this gentler gradient, the switchyard will be constructed
on three different levels -915m asl, 920m asl and 925m asl – in order to reduce excavation.
The direct slope distance between the transformer cavern and the switchyard portal is some
115m. The 230kV XLPE cables will be laid in a cable shaft which will slope up at a gradient
of 1:1 from the southern end of the underground transformer cavern directly to the northern
side of the switchyard. The surface switchyard will comprise three (3) transformer feeder
bays, four (4) transmission line feeder bays, and one bus coupler bay.
The connectors will be laid out in the double busbar, “classical” arrangement. The
switching gear and associated equipment will comprise modern SF6 circuit breakers,
instrument transformers, disconnectors, and surge arresters. With the terraced layout the
busbar disconnectors will be arranged side by side with the feeders. The busbars are
strung above these on the second terrace, and on the third terrace are the branch lines
with ties to the circuit breakers. A great advantage of this layout is the possibility to easily
by-pass the breaker by reconnecting the line to the feeder disconnector.
The layout and the configuration of the switchyard are shown in the Album of Drawings -
on the Overall Single-Line Diagram and on the Switchyard Arrangement and Cross
Section Drawings respectively.
A building will be installed within the switchyard perimeter to accommodate the switchyard
protection equipment, the emergency diesel generator set with auxiliaries, the 11kV
switchgear, and the 400VAC and 110 V DC installations which will feed all switchyard
related consumers.
As an option the building may also be extended to accommodate the power plant control
room.
Switchyard and Transmission System
Weather proof control cubicles will be installed in the vicinity of each switchyard feeder, to
enable local operation of the circuit breakers, disconnectors and earthing switches.
The auxiliary systems will mainly comprise the following:
! AC and DC power supply from the switchgear building.
! Cabling, earthing and lightning protection systems.
! Outdoor lighting system and small power installations.
12.2.3 Main Characteristics

The 230kV outdoor switchyard will have the following main characteristics:
Type and configuration Outdoor conventional, double busbar
Altitude 910 / 915 / 920 m.a.s.l in terraces
Nominal voltage 230 kV
Highest system voltage 245 kV
Type of circuit breakers SF6
Short-circuit level to be determined by network study
Power frequency withstand voltage 460 kV (rms value)
BIL level 1050 kV (peak value)
Rated feeder current 1250 A
Rated busbar current 2000 A
12.2.4 Transformer Feeder

The transformer feeders will connect each unit step-up transformer via 230kV XLPE single-
core cables to the switchyard. Each feeder will be furnished with the following equipment:
! Double busbar disconnectors,
! SF6 circuit breaker,
! Current transformer,
! Combined transformer disconnector / earthing switch,
! Surge arrester,
! Supporting structure for 230kV outdoor XLPE cable sealing end.
12.2.5 Transmission Line Feeders

The transmission line feeders will be furnished with the following equipment:
! Current transformer,
! Combined line disconnector / earthing switch,
! Line trap for power line carrier (PLC) equipment (unless fibre optic technique is employed),
! Capacitive voltage transformer with coupling capacitor,
! Surge arrester.
12.2.6 Bus Coupler

The busbar coupler will be furnished with the following equipment:
! Current transformer
! Potential transformer for busbar measuring
12.3 Transmission Line

One double circuit transmission line, 295km long, will be erected to transmit the generated
energy from the GD-3 switchyard to the Mega substation. During the loss of one circuit or
during scheduled line maintenance, the energy will be transmitted by the second circuit.

However, in this case the line losses will increase considerably and thus reduce the power
transmission capacity.
12.3.1 Transmission Line Voltage

The selection of the transmission line voltage depends on the transmission distance as
well as on the transmitted power. A transmission line voltage of 230 kV is selected as the
standard grid voltage which is also satisfactory for transmitting the prospective power
generated by the cascade of hydro power plants GD-3, GD-5 and GD-6.
12.3.2 Towers
The towers will be of the self supported steel lattice type and will carry two circuits. All the
towers will be designed for long basic spans of 350 to 450 m, thus reducing the costs of
steel and insulators considerably.
12.3.3 Conductors
The Aluminium Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR) type “Cardinal” has been tentatively
selected having 26mm diameter and a voltage gradient of 16.5 kV / cm.
The technical data of the 230kV transmission single-line with “Cardinal” ACSR conductor
are as follows:
Thermal capacity [MVA] 340
Capacitance to ground [nF/km] 4.8
Charging power [kVA/km] 145
Surge impedance [Ω] 356
Surge impedance load [MVA] 135
A steel earth wire of 70 mm2 cross section will complete the transmission line equipment.
This steel earth wire may optionally be provided with a fibre optic cable.
12.4 Switchgear Control and Emergency Diesel Building

A switchgear building will be installed within the perimeter of the 230kV outdoor
switchyard and will accommodate the following installations:
! One (1) set of switchyard protection equipment
! One (1) 500 kVA emergency diesel generator set
! One (1) 2000l fuel storage tank
! One (1) set of control / monitoring /protection / start-up equipment
! One (1)11kV indoor switchgear
! One (1) 110V DC battery with two (2) battery charger and distribution board
! One (1) 0.42/11kV step-up transformer
! One (1) 400VAC main distribution board
The 11kV switchgear will be fed under normal conditions from the power cavern. Outgoing
feeders will be provided to supply the power intake, the surge tank and dam consumers as well
as the housing compound. An 11kV cable will be laid from the switchyard to the power cavern to
feed the power cavern essential consumers for unit start-up or during emergency conditions.
The 110VDC installation will consist of a DC main switchboard, duplicated battery
chargers, one lead acid battery and will feed all switchyard and emergency diesel related
consumers. Separate DC/DC converters will be provided in case equipment will require a
voltage other than 110 V DC.
The 400VAC installation will consist of a 630 kVA step-up cast resin transformer, AC main
switchboard and ancillary installations for all consumers in the switchyard which require
AC power, such as lighting and small power, ventilation, etc.
The above arrangement may be complemented and extended with the power station
control and supervisory equipment pending the final decision of locating the power plant
control room.
Construction Schedule and Cost Estimate
13 Construction Schedule and Cost Estimate
13.1 General
The GD-3 Dam and Hydropower Project will require construction of the following main
works:
! Access roads, some 58.3km long from the town of Negele to the dam and power
station sites.
! An RCC dam, some 110m high and incorporating a free overflow stepped spillway and
a downstream stilling basin.
! A headrace waterway, almost 13km long, comprising a power intake, a long 8.1m
diameter unlined TBM driven headrace tunnel, a concrete lined pressure shaft some
200m deep, a steel lined pressure tunnel some 200m long leading into a three
pronged manifold.
! An underground concrete lined headrace surge tank, 23m finished diameter, 120m
high.
! An underground power cavern, an underground transformer cavern, a power cavern
access and cable tunnel and various construction adits.
! A concrete lined tailrace waterway comprising a three pronged tailrace manifold
converging into a tailrace tunnel, over 1.5km long and with a finished diameter of 6.1m
and ending in an outfall structure.
! An underground tailrace surge tank, converted from the low-level inclined construction
adit.
! A 230kV outdoor switchyard.
! Transmission lines, some 295km long, to a proposed DC converter station at the town
of Mega.
This chapter presents the construction time schedule and the cost estimate for the works.
The construction schedule has been developed by identifying for each major works the
construction method and the corresponding medium production capacity. From this and
the construction quantities estimated for each of the works, the net construction durations
have been calculated. The total construction duration of the main activities is calculated in
a next step by assuming an additional unproductive (idle) period of twenty days in a
hundred. In this way account is taken of weekends, paid holidays and public holidays.
Commonly occurring loss of production due to reduced equipment availability is not
included in the production rates and will have to be considered by the Contractor when
defining his equipment.
The cost estimate covers the costs of civil works, hydraulic steel structures and electrical
and mechanical equipment. Civil works costs have been estimated on the basis of
resources needed for the execution of the respective works and on the basis of the
Consultant’s own data from Tenders and Contracts for works of a similar nature in
Ethiopia and abroad.
The prices for the hydraulic steel structures and the mechanical and electrical equipment
have been estimated from the Consultant’s own data and from recent tenders and
contracts for equipment of similar size and capacity.
13.2 Construction Schedule

13.2.1 General
The construction schedule is based on the logical sequencing of all major works forming
the project.

Individual production capacities have initially been assumed at a medium level and the
critical path has been identified. The production rates of the critical path activities have
then been maximized and their durations shortened to arrive at the shortest total
construction period. In this regard, restrictions and constraints dictated by the site
conditions, for example climate, have been taken into account. The timing, sequencing
and durations of activities not on the critical path have then been adjusted to minimize
resources. These adjustments have been established to meet objectives which include
the following:
! to minimize stockpiling of excavation material,
! to maximize effectiveness and productivity of available plant and labour resources,
! to maximize the effectiveness of management and monitoring resources,
! to improve net cash flow.
13.2.2 Major Quantities, Construction Methods and Capacities

The major quantities are summarized in the following table:
29.8 km new road,
Permanent Access Roads
28.5 km upgrade existing road
Roller Compacted Concrete Dam 83,000m³ open cut excavation,
with Integrated Stepped Spillway 890,000m³ concrete.
16,000 m³ open cut excavation,
Stilling Basin
11,000 m³ concrete
710,000m³ underground excavation,
Headrace Power Waterway
47,000 m³ concrete in underground lining, backfill and plugs
70,000m³ underground excavation, 11,000 m³ concrete in
Headrace Surge Tank
underground lining
59,000 m³ underground excavation,
Power and Transformer Caverns
8,000 m³ concrete in underground structures.
Tailrace Surge Tank
400 m³ concrete in underground lining
Tailrace Power Waterway
16,000 m³ concrete in underground lining
Permanent Roads and Bridge

Access to the various sites will be from the town of Negele. The roads and the new bridge
over the Genale River will have to be in place before camps can be established and
construction proper can begin. This work should be tendered locally at an early stage –
many local contractors are capable of building good quality roads and bridges. The
permanent access road to the dam and powerhouse sites will start from the public road
that leaves Negele in a north-easterly direction. From Negele to the Genale River, the
road will follow the existing vehicle track. The new bridge over the Genale River will be
constructed of simply supported reinforced concrete beams spanning between piers.
From the bridge, all the access roads will be new. Strong all-weather roads are required to
establish construction camps, storage and plant yards and to transport equipment and
plant to the work sites.
River Diversion and Dam Construction

During the first low flow season and the subsequent flood season, river flows will be
confined to the 15m to 20m wide low flow season river channel. This channel will be
cleared of all obstructions in order to achieve a clear and reasonably smooth flow width of
at least 20m. During this construction phase, the dam foundation footprint on the right
river bank will be protected by a low concrete cofferdam. This cofferdam will form a
protective dyke, in plan trapezoidal, around the dam foundation area on the right river
bank. Parallel to the low flow season channel, where space is limited, this dyke will be of
mass concrete placed with a vertical face on the channel side and a 1:1 sloping face on
the construction pit side. This dyke will be incorporated into the main dam and will thus be
placed on sound unweathered rock. The dykes closing the cofferdam “trapezium” will be
of rock and impermeable earth material. The dam foundation footprint within this protected
“trapezium” will be cleared of overburden and a low level reinforced concrete culvert will
be founded through the base of the dam. It is foreseen that sufficient resources are
mobilised to complete construction of the culvert and to raise the dam blocks on the right
bank to an elevation of at least 1060 m asl (some 45m above river bed elevation) before
the end of the first flood season.
During the second low flow season, the rectangular dykes will be removed and two new
cofferdams will be built across the low flow season channel, upstream and downstream of
the left bank dam foundation footprint. These new cofferdams will be of rock and
impermeable earth material. With this arrangement, the river will be diverted into the
culvert built through the base of the right bank dam blocks. The left bank dam foundation
footprint will be drained and excavated and RCC will be placed to raise the left bank dam
blocks up to the level of the right bank blocks during the second low flow season and into
the subsequent high flow season. During this construction phase, the culvert will act as a
throttle to the river flow. Floods will cause the water level upstream of the dam to rise with
the risk of overtopping the protection works and flooding the left bank foundation footprint
area.
Once the left bank dam blocks have been raised to the level of the right bank blocks,
further raising will be made over the entire surface until the dam reaches its final crest
elevation. Then construction of the spillway and crest works will proceed. Spillway
construction will start from the toe deflector, moving upwards towards the crest, casting
the chute sidewalls ahead of the steps. Once the spillway is finished, the diversion intake
is closed by stoplogs and plugged. In order to have sufficient time to properly set the
stoplogs and seal the culvert inlet, this activity will be carried out during the low flow
season. The Genale River will be temporarily dammed some 4 km upstream of the dam
site as it enters the narrow gorge. A low dam of earth and rock some 5 to 7m high will
retain almost 10Mm³ in the huge flat area upstream of the gorge. During the low flow
season, with average river flows of some 30-40 m³/s, this flat area will fill slowly over 2 to
3 days before the temporary dam is overtopped. This time will be sufficient to set the
stoplogs and seal the inlet to the diversion culvert.
It is foreseen that sufficient resources will be mobilised to complete construction of the
dam and spillway works within 30 months.
Stilling Basin
The stilling basin will be constructed during reservoir impoundment after completion of the
dam and stepped spillway. According to the record of historical flow, it will take at least 6
to seven months before the reservoir level reaches the spillway crest. This time will be
more than sufficient to excavate the foundations, pour the floor slab and raise the side
walls of the stilling basin.
It is foreseen that sufficient resources are mobilised to complete construction of the stilling
basin works within 6 months.
Quarry and Concrete Batching Plant

The aggregate for the RCC dam and all the other concrete works will be won from a
granite quarry located some 3km upstream from the dam site on the right valley flank. The
quarry and the RCC batching and placing plant will have to be fully operational by the time
the river is diverted. Quarry overburden will be removed and stockpiled for later re-use as
landscaping material. Once the fresh rock has been exposed, then quarrying will begin in
benches of some 10m in height. In order to support the rates of dam placement, quarrying
of up to 75,000 m³ per month will be required. Quarrying will be by drilling and blasting.
There is plenty of open ground around the quarry for crushing and sorting plant and for
stockpiling the aggregate of various sizes. From the stockpiles, the crushed material will

be loaded on to trucks and hauled the 2km to the batching plant. The batching plant will
be located on open ground, some 20m above river level, about 600m upstream of the
dam site. From the batching plant, the concrete will be conveyed by belt to the right side
of the dam. This route will not require construction of a bridge for the first stage of dam
construction on the right bank. However, for construction of the second stage of the dam
on the left bank, a river crossing will be required.
Headrace Tunnel
The total length of the headrace tunnel, exceeding 12 km, the prevailing hard rock
conditions along the tunnel route and the tunnel diameter of 8.1m all favour excavation by
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). The principal advantages of using a TBM are as follows:
! High advance rates (up to 4 or 5 times higher than the Drill & Blast method)
! A tunnel surface sufficiently smooth to eliminate the need for tunnel lining to reduce
hydraulic friction losses.
! Less disturbance to the surrounding rock mass with the consequential saving in tunnel
support.
The proposed tunnel alignment will have a gradient of about 3‰ descending from the
power intake. The TBM will excavate in an upstream direction from a launch portal near
the headrace surge tank – in this way water seeping into the tunnel will drain out of the
tunnel by gravity.
The TBM launch portal will be accessed by a road suitable to transport heavy TBM parts.
The portal approach cut shall provide a straight platform of 50 m in length in front of the
portal for the assembly of the TBM main beam section followed by another 160 m curved
section for the assembly of the TBM Back Up System (BUS). From the launch portal,
about 70 m of tunnel will be excavated by D&B with a diameter of 8.5 m in order to allow
the assembled TBM to be launched. At the face of this section a TBM starter pipe of about
15 m in length with bottom cradle and circular side walls for gripping will be prepared prior
to launching the TBM. From the starter pipe, the TBM will be launched to excavate about
10,400 m up to a dismantling chamber, some 1,800m from the power intake. Given the
large tunnel diameter, mucking will be by conveyors. The conveyor system will be about
10,400 m in length for the underground section. A further 600 m for the section from the
muck transfer at the portal to the spoil dump should be added giving a total length of 11
km for the conveyor system. The tunnel will be provided with a rail track throughout using
concrete sleeper blocks of suitable height to allow dewatering below the rail top. The
required ventilation will be provided using forced ventilation via suitable fans at the portal
and a 2200 mm diameter high pressure ventilation duct. Supply of the TBM and transport
of personnel will be by trains. It is expected that the TBM will reach the dismantling
chamber within 30 months of launch.
From the dismantling chamber, the TBM it will be removed to the surface through a short
400m access adit. This short adit will be driven from a side valley close to the tunnel route
and used to excavate by full-face D&B, the dismantling chamber, in a downstream
direction, and the short length of headrace tunnel, of some 1,800m, in an upstream
direction to the power intake. In this way, the construction of the power intake and the first
1,800m of headrace tunnel will be separated from the excavation of the long headrace
tunnel.
The access adit will have a diameter of 9 m in order to remove of the TBM. The drive from
the adit portal will ascend very slightly allowing gravity drainage. The adit will meet the
HRT at a chainage of some 1,800m from the power intake. The intersection will be
supported prior to continuing the drive in a downstream direction for circa 100m at which
location an enlargement of about 20 m in length for the later dismantling of the TBM will
be excavated. The D&B excavation will then continue in an upstream direction up to the
breakthrough with the drive coming from the power intake. The adit and HRT excavation
will require dedicated personnel and a full set of equipment.
Power Intake
The approach to the power intake portal will be excavated by benching down from the
platform area. Once the approach level has been reached, the intake barrel will be
excavated by D&B proceeding to meet the drive coming in the upstream direction from the
access adit. The 60m high stoplog shaft will be excavated by D&B from the top down. The
section of headrace tunnel excavated by D&B and the stoplog shaft will be lined with
reinforced concrete from the downstream end in an upstream direction.
Surge Tank
The surge tank has been located off the alignment of the headrace tunnel in order that it
can be excavated independently of the headrace tunnel and its mucking conveyor system.
The 120m high surge tank will be excavated by D&B from the top down. After excavation,
concrete lining will commence using a climbing shutter of 3 m lift height from the bottom
up with reinforcement installation kept about 2 lifts ahead.
Powerhouse and Transformer Caverns

The main access tunnel to the underground caverns will be excavated by full face drill and
blast. Temporary support will be provided as required by the rock conditions in the form of
rock bolts and shotcrete as the excavation proceeds. At a predefined point along the
access tunnel, an adit branching up to the power house roof will be excavated. The
powerhouse roof is excavated and secured with rockbolts and shotcrete in two or three
headings and mucked from this adit. At the base of the roof, the runways for two
temporary bridge cranes (25t capacity each) will be installed. The section of the cable and
ventilation shaft between the power house and the transformer cavern roof will be
excavated to gain access to the transformer cavern roof, which itself will be excavated
and secured like the main cavern roof. The main access tunnel will be excavated down to
the respective loading bays of the powerhouse and transformers caverns. For excavating
the main bodies of the two caverns, shafts will be excavated from the roof openings down
to the respective loading bays and used as “glory holes” for mucking out the main cavern
openings.
A construction adit will be driven from the main access tunnel down to the tailrace tunnel
level. From there, the tailrace manifold and lower power house area will be excavated and
mucked. From this low level of the powerhouse, an access tunnel will be driven upstream
through one of the headrace bifurcations in order to commence the excavation of the
pressure tunnel as early as possible
Once the main powerhouse cavern has been excavated and secured down to the lowest
level in the pit furthest from the erection bay, construction of the foundations for the
generating equipment will begin using the auxiliary cranes (each x 25/5 t capacity). The
same schedule, deferred by several months, will be followed for the construction of each
generating unit as follows:
! Cast 1st stage concrete in draft foundation, erect draft tube and flap gate, embed in 2nd
stage concrete.
! Raise the concrete structures (column/floors framework) on the upstream and
downstream powerhouse walls.
! Erect and embed the draft tube cone.
! Install the upstream manifold steel lining.
! Erect turbine discharge and stay rings.
! Erect and test spiral case and backfill around upstream manifold.
! Erect turbine pit liner and embed spiral case.
! Cast generator pit concrete above turbine up to main machine floor.
! Erect main powerhouse cranes and remove auxiliary cranes.
! Erect stator frame and turbine guide vanes.
! Stack stator.
! Install turbine runner, shaft and auxiliary mechanical equipment and systems.
! Complete stator winding and generator bearings.

! Install generator rotor.

! Erect spherical valve.
! Install auxiliary electrical equipment and systems.
! Test dry and wet.
The excavation, support and lining of the tailrace tunnels and the cable and ventilation
shaft will be done off the powerhouse critical path.
Tailrace Tunnel and Outfall Structure

The tailrace tunnel will be excavated by full-face D&B from the outfall towards the
powerhouse cavern in a descending direction and from the tailrace manifold in an
ascending direction. Seepage water will be pumped. In the later case, mucking will be
through the low level construction adit and the main access tunnel. Prior to starting the
excavation from the outfall, a cofferdam will be raised around the outfall portal area and
the channel of the Genale River will be widened. In this regard, an old river channel on the
right river bank opposite the outfall portal will be excavated to increase the conveyance
capacity of the river and offset the restriction caused by the cofferdam. On completion of
excavation and support, tunnel lining will start from the tailrace manifold and move
towards the outfall portal. After completion of the lining, the outfall portal will be
constructed.
13.2.3 Construction Schedule

The Construction Schedule is presented in the Album of Drawings. The schedule shows
that taking-over of the completed hydropower scheme will be 4 years and 8 months after
the Date of Commencement. The total duration is governed by the critical path which
passes through the access road, the powerhouse excavation and the power house
equipment installation and commissioning. The principal activities of that critical path are:
! Construction of the access roads, including the bridge over the Genale River, to the
power station site.
! Excavation and support of the access tunnel to the powerhouse caverns.
! Excavation and support of the underground caverns and associated openings.
! Erection and embedding the 1st draft tube and turbine.
! Installation of the main powerhouse crane.
! Erection of the 1st generator.
! Erection of the remaining draft tubes, turbines and generators.
! Commissioning and trial operation.
13.3 Construction Cost Estimate

13.3.1 General
A dam and hydropower project like the Genale Dawa 3 Project requires the excavation
and construction of large civil works (like dam, spillway and underground tunnels and
caverns) and the manufacture, delivery and erection of heavy mechanical and electrical
equipment. The approach to estimating the costs of civil works differs from that of
equipment. In the following, the approaches are presented under the headings:
! Civil construction costs.
! Equipment costs.
Prices change with time and are governed by the underlying costs of basic resources and
by the market environment (i.e. supply versus demand). Over the past decade or so, the
dam and hydropower sector has generally been in decline. Supply has exceeded demand
and prices have generally remained stable. Over the past 12 to 18 months, with a tripling
of the oil price, hydropower has become a much cheaper and cleaner source of electrical
energy than oil fired generation. Thus, the demand for hydropower (and thereby dams)
has started to rise thereby putting pressure on supply. At the same time, the higher oil
price is having a knock-on effect on the underlying costs of many basic construction
resources – causing the prices of basic resources to rise. This rise in demand combined
with a rise in underlying costs is pushing construction prices higher at a rate higher than
general inflation. For the present feasibility study, the prices for resources and equipment
prevailing during Q4 of 2006 have formed the basis of the cost estimate.
At the feasibility stage of project planning, the level of structural design is preliminary,
being based on outline knowledge of much of the site physical conditions, in particular the
foundation conditions. In order to account for physical site conditions worse than predicted
which would lead to higher construction quantities and larger equipment dimensions,
contingency amounts are included in the total cost estimate. Contingency amounts have
been added to both civil costs and to equipment costs.
13.3.2 Civil Construction Costs

General
Civil construction costs comprise three components, namely:
! Direct construction costs which cover the costs incurred by a contractor for the basic
resources (manpower, equipment and materials) required to construct a structure
(namely excavating foundations, supporting openings and casting concrete, etc).
! Indirect costs which cover “site overhead” costs incurred by a contractor to establish
and run a construction site but which are not related directly to any specific
construction activity. Indirect costs include the costs of supervisory staff, site transport,
accommodation and various support services and facilities.
! On-costs (or Preliminary and General costs) which cover the costs of insurances,
guarantees, financing, general management and risk and profit.
Direct Civil Construction Costs

Direct civil construction costs for each of the main project structures have been
determined by assessing the quantity of each of the basic resources – manpower,
equipment, materials and consumables – required to construct the respective structure
(namely excavate, support, cast concrete, etc) according to modern and safe working
methods. These quantities, multiplied by the respective unit costs of basic resources at
site and summed over construction task and project structure, result in the total direct
Wages Permanent Material Job Material Depreciation

Local Local Foreign Local Foreign Local Foreign
CEMENT EXPLOSIVES PLANT

STEEL FORMWORK AND
WIRE MESH EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT
ROCK BOLTS CONSUMABLES
etc
LABOUR SPARE PARTS

DRILL TOOLS
SPECIAL
FORMWORK
construction cost. The basic resources are shown schematically below:
“Wages” are the costs of local labour and are thus sourced locally.
! “Permanent Materials” are the costs of materials that remain in the project (cement,
steel, wire mesh, rock bolts, etc)

! “Job Materials” are the costs of materials that are consumed through construction of
the project (explosives, drill tools, formwork, equipment spare parts, tyres, lubricants
and fuel, etc).
! “Depreciation” covers the decline in value of plant and equipment through general
wear and tear and the financing charges to recover investment cost of plant and
equipment.
A major part of the above resources are available in Ethiopia, but some are sourced from
abroad and are thus assigned a foreign cost. Those resources sourced directly from the
Ethiopian market are assigned local costs. The unit costs of the above basic resources in
Ethiopia have been determined by canvassing local suppliers of construction resources.
Where information was not available, costs have been estimated by comparison with
costs in other countries. All cost estimates are made in US Dollar (US$) for both the
foreign currency component and the local currency component. A conversion rate of 8.82
ETB for 1 US $ (USD) has been adopted. As a result of the estimate for the civil works the
local part is approx. 51 % and the foreign part approx. 49 %.
Wages
Wages are the costs of local labour and include all social charges, incentives, insurances
and other allowances. The wages collected from canvassing local employers are as
follows:
Description Wages Permanent Material Job Material Depreciation
Foreman, 1. Class 1.00 hr 2.13
Equ. Operator, 1. Class 1.00 hr 1.06
Highly Skilled, 1. Class 1.00 hr 0.71
Skilled, 1. Class 1.00 hr 0.71
Semiskilled, 1. Class 1.00 hr 0.57
Unskilled 1.00 hr 0.28
Materials
The costs of materials collected from canvassing local suppliers are as follows:
Cement 1.00 to 150.00
Reinforcement 1.00 to 1,000.00
Cutter Cost 1.00 m³ 1.00
El. Power 1.00 kWh 0.25
Rock Bolts, 4m 1.00 m 4.41
Rock Bolts, 6m 1.00 m 4.41
Drill Bits underground 1.00 no 150.00
Rods underground 1.00 no 200.00
Shanks underground 1.00 no 150.00
Drill Bits openair 1.00 no 200.00
Rods open air 1.00 no 250.00
Shanks open air 1.00 no 150.00
Explosive emulsion 1.00 kg 2.34
Anfo 1.00 kg 0.92
Non-el. Detontators 1.00 no 2.71
Det. Cord 11 gr 1.00 m 0.26
Mortar 1.00 m³ 112.04
Plant and Equipment

The costs of construction plant and equipment comprise depreciation and consumables
(including spare parts, fuel and lubricants). These costs are generally governed by the
international market. For the present study, these costs have been derived from
construction equipment price lists published by the Incorporated Association of the
German Construction Industry (Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie e. V.). For the
main plant and equipment foreseen for the construction of the present project, these costs
are as follows:
Concrete Equipment
Truck Mixer, 6 m³ 1.00 hr 7.0673 8.8254 10.9258
Batch Plant, 40 m³ 1.00 hr 3.4685 9.0573 17.9708
Batch Pant, 75 m³ 1.00 hr 8.1734 17.41 33.1696
Batch Plant, 120 m³ 1.00 hr 16.5301 25.6776 48.9097
Aggregate Plant 380 to/hr 1.00 hr 10.8609 51.9832 103.1413
Cement Silo, 51 to 1.00 hr 0.2143 0.7142
Cement Silo, 111 to 1.00 hr 0.2942 0.9806
External Vibrator 1.00 hr 0.0819 0.043 0.0573
Internal Vibrator 1.00 hr 0.0377 0.0818 0.1636
Lifting, Conv. Equipment
Tower Crane, 40m, 3 to 1.00 hr 1.4165 9.2265 13.5683
Tower Crane, 40m, 4.75 to 1.00 hr 2.5904 15.2321 22.4002
Mobile Crane, 3m, 25 to 1.00 hr 4.9778 6.4348 7.8918
Mobile Crane, 3m, 55 to 1.00 hr 8.112 12.1347 13.8548
Mobile Crane, 2.15m, 90 to 1.00 hr 11.492 22.9726 26.6454
Passenger Lift 1.00 hr 1.0672 2.6159 6.9758
Sta. Concrete Pump, 32 m³ 1.00 hr 0.9962 8.2282 8.2282
Sta. Concrete Pump 50 m³ 1.00 hr 1.4823 8.649 8.649
Floor Distribution Boom 1.00 hr 0.4043 22.9964 22.9964
Truck Concrete Pump 1.00 hr 16.1407 35.9659 32.2168
Shotcrete Machine, 6,7 m³ 1.00 hr 0.1401 4.3378 2.1689
Shotcrete Machine, 23 m³ 1.00 hr 0.2372 5.873 2.9365
Shotcrete Robot 1.00 hr 1.5739 39.2301 19.6151
Mortar Mixing Pump 1.00 hr 0.1294 0.7956 0.3978
Grout Pump 1.00 hr 0.1186 2.7337 1.3669
Colloidal Mixer, 5.5 m³ 1.00 hr 0.1186 0.9489 0.4745
Compact Grouting Plant, 5.5m³ 1.00 hr 0.4873 4.7726 2.8363
Lifting Platform 1.00 hr 4.4542 2.1866 2.4909
Rear Dump Truck, 12 m³, 20 to 1.00 hr 21.9288 18.7731 7.9451
Rear Dump Truck, 17m³, 36 to 1.00 hr 20.679 15.0948 14.7626
Rear Dump Truck, 31m³, 36 to 1.00 hr 30.747 32.2604 36.8588
Excavators, Dozers, Loaders, Compactors
Crawler Crane, Dragline 1,00 hr 20.047 61.0196 96.8566
Crawler Excavator, bh 2 m³ 1,00 hr 18.4006 10.6107 15.7195
Crawler Excavator, bh 4,6 m³ 1,00 hr 41.1308 23.1587 34.3091
Tunnel Loader Broydt, 4,8 m³ 1,00 hr 18.7138 33.9005 41.0915
Dozer Cat D6 1,00 hr 11.7529 12.7088 21.1813
Dozer Cat D8 1,00 hr 21.7858 25.115 41.8583
Wheel Loader 966, 3,8 m³ 1,00 hr 18.0763 16.3327 15.5179
Wheel Loader 988, 6 m³ 1,00 hr 35.3811 37.848 37.4434
Hydr. Rock Breaker 1,00 hr 1.7864 2.9774
Tandem Roller, 2,7 to 1,00 hr 2.2504 1.1337 2.3619
Roller, 10 to 1,00 hr 9.1039 3.6804 5.4771
Drilling/Tunnel Equipment
Crawler Drill pneum, ROCK 442 1,00 hr 4.6624 5.6516


Crawler Drill hydr, ROCK F7 1,00 hr 15.6598 21.6352 26.2245
3 Boom Jumbo 1,00 hr 6.8992 78.0165 109.9182
2 Boom Jumbo 1,00 hr 4.657 74.7899 106.9589
Compressed Air
Stat. Compressor, 22 m³ 1,00 hr 5.6918 1.1654 2.5898
Mobile Compressor, 10 m³ 1,00 hr 5.6118 0.9332 2.5922
Schaeff Loader, 150 m³ 1,00 hr 2.3716 22.488 31.2334
Ventilator 1000 mm 1,00 hr 1.1319 0.2444 0.8148
Misc. Equipment
Rebar Cutting Machine 1,00 hr 0.2075 0.1207 0.6034
Rebar Bending Machine 1,00 hr 0.0906 0.1361 0.6807
Special Equipment
Curber 1,00 hr 12 10 15
Slab Paver 1,00 hr 5 8 20
ARAN Mixing Plant 1,00 hr 55 123.529 247.059
Articulated Dump Trucks 1,00 hr 21.929 18.773 7.945
Vakuum Truck 1,00 hr 16.141 35.966 32.217
Cable Crane 1,00 hr 16 187.5 312.5
Batch Plant BHS, 500 m³ 1,00 hr 25.704 49 97.16
TBM 1,00 hr 0 200 600
TBM Backup System 1,00 hr 0 50 250
Construction Quantities
For each of the main project civil structures, quantities of construction have been
estimated for the following 11 construction activities:
! Soil excavation.
! Rock excavation.
! Fill placement.
! Underground excavation.
! Shotcreting.
! Rock bolting.
! Grouting.
! Concreting
! Reinforcement.
! Formwork manufacturing.
! Formwork placing.
The above quantities have been measured from drawings of the major project structures.
At the feasibility stage of project development, only the principal structural dimensions are
defined in these drawings. To take account of miscellaneous quantities that cannot be
measured accurately, an allowance of 10% has been added to all the above quantity
estimates.
On smaller construction jobs or on construction jobs involving only a few prime
construction tasks, unit rates (i.e. cost per unit quantity) are estimated for each of the
relevant tasks and applied to the whole job. However, for larger construction projects like
GD-3 where each individual project structure involves very different construction methods
and resources, construction costs are estimated for the measured construction quantity in
each structure. In this way, the estimated costs better reflect the different construction
approaches and field conditions prevailing at each project structure. For GD-3, the
following construction quantities have been measured from the drawings:
Soil excavation
Reinforcement
Fill placement
Underground
Rock bolting
Shotcreting
Concreting
excavation
excavation
Formwork
Grouting /
Drainage
BOQ Project Component
placing
Rock
m³ m³ m³ m³ m³ m m m³ to m²
B2 River Diversion 0 2,800 16,900 19 150 26,100 1,208 4,285
B3 Dam, Spillway and Stilling 16,500 82,000 551 4,406 2,904 872,37 2,502 9,660
Basin 0
B4 Power Intake 5,260 47,340 9,170 470 3,538 5,140 514 2,820
B5.1 Headrace Tunnel (D & B at 0 1,000 126,600 2,103 13,781 28,040 1,682 39,600
Power Intake end)
B5.2 Headrace Tunnel (TBM 0 1,500 561,100 1,868 13,928 6,400 0 0
driven)
B5.3 Headrace Surge Tank and 1,000 0 69,685 1,034 6,800 10,680 790 8,900
Gate Chamber
B5.4 Headrace Inclined Pressure 0 14,500 8,640 170 1,253 2,270 182 4,150
Shaft
B5.5 Headrace Pressure Tunnel 0 16,840 895 5,910 4,823 55 1,250
B5.6 Headrace Manifold Section 0 985 141 515 447 0

(Steel Lined)
B6 Tailrace - Tunnel, Surge 10,000 14,500 74,380 2,176 10,411 19,670 1,574 31,809
Tank, Outfall
B7 Main Access Tunnel and 2,000 6,260 28,350 1,514 10,056 2,080 125 0
Associated Powerhouse Adits
B8 Powerhouse and Transformer 57,800 8,257 30,222 7,880 640 8,500
Caverns
In summary, the total quantities for each construction activity are as follows:
Excavation Soil m³ 34,760.00
Excavation Rock m³ 169,900.00
Excavation Underground m³ 953,550.00
Fill m³ 16,900.00
Concrete m³ 985,900.00
Reinforcement to 9,270.24
Formwork Placing m² 110,974.00
Shotcrete m³ 19,197.32
Rockbolting m 100,970.65
Grouting and Drainage m 2.904,00

Direct Civil Construction Costs

Direct construction costs have been estimated for the measured quantities of all major
construction activities at all the project structures from the quantities and unit costs of
basic resources. A typical estimating sheet – that for lining the D&B section of the
headrace tunnel with reinforced concrete - is presented below:
GENALE DAWA - GD3 - HYDROPOWER PROJECT

Concrete US$ 1. Drill and Blast Rock,
Concrete lining in tunnel 2. Load, Haul and Process Aggregates
ITEM B5.1.7 28.040,00 m3 1,25 Factor Waste and Losses 3. Batch, Transport and Place Concrete
Ef f ective 35.050,00 m3
Tons required 70.100,00 ton
Rock in bank 26.961,54 m3
Overburden / Unsuitable 5,00 %
Qty Overburden 1.348,08 m3 Wages Permanent Material Job Material Depreciation Total Unit Total Unit
Local Local Foreign Local Foreign Local Foreign Local Foreign Local Foreign
De s cription
Re m ove Overburde n 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Labour 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Dozer Operator 16,18 hrs 17,15 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 17 0 0,00 0,00 17,15 0,00
Helper 16,18 hrs 9,22 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 9 0 0,00 0,00 9,22 0,00
0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Equipm ent 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Dozer, 100 m3/hr 13,48 hrs 0,00 0,00 0,00 293,69 338,57 0,00 564,28 294 903 0,01 0,03 1.196,54 0,04
0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Drilling and Blas ting 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Labour 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Foreman, 1 269,62 hrs 574,28 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 574 0 0,02 0,00 574,28 0,02
Blaster, 1 269,62 hrs 574,28 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 574 0 0,02 0,00 574,28 0,02
Driller 269,62 hrs 285,79 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 286 0 0,01 0,00 285,79 0,01
Helper, 6 1.617,69 hrs 1.148,56 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.149 0 0,04 0,00 1.148,56 0,04
0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Equipm ent 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Hydr. Drillrig, 0,10 m/m3, 15m/h 179,74 hrs 0,00 0,00 0,00 2.814,75 3.888,79 0,00 4.713,69 2.815 8.602 0,10 0,31 11.417,22 0,41
0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Material 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Drill Bits open air, 800 m 3,37 nos 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 674,04 0,00 0,00 0 674 0,00 0,02 674,04 0,02
Rods open air, 1200 m 2,25 nos 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 561,70 0,00 0,00 0 562 0,00 0,02 561,70 0,02
Shanks open air, 1000 m 2,70 nos 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 404,42 0,00 0,00 0 404 0,00 0,01 404,42 0,01
Explosive emulsion, 0,1 kg/m3 2.696,15 kg 0,00 0,00 0,00 6.309,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 6.309 0 0,23 0,00 6.309,00 0,23
Anf o, 0,2 kg/m3 5.392,31 kg 0,00 0,00 0,00 4.959,38 0,00 0,00 0,00 4.959 0 0,18 0,00 4.959,38 0,18
Non-el Detonatos 0,00 nos 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Det. Cord 11 gr 3.235,38 m 0,00 0,00 0,00 836,22 0,00 0,00 0,00 836 0 0,03 0,00 836,22 0,03
0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Subtotal 2.609 0 0 15.213 5.868 0 5.278 17.822 11.145 0,64 0,40 28.967,81 1,03
Contingency 10 % 261 0 0 1.521 587 0 528 1.782 1.115 0,06 0,04 2.896,78 0,10
TOTAL DIRECT COST 2.870 0 0 16.734 6.454 0 5.806 19.605 12.260 0,70 0,44 31.864,59 1,14
INDIRECT COST 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Concrete lining in tunnel 28.040 m3 2.870 0 0 16.734 6.454 0 5.806 19.605 12.260 0,70 0,44 31.864,59 1,14

ITEM B5.1.7 28.040 m3 3. Batch, Transport and Place Concrete
Ef f ective 35.050 m3
Tons required 70.100 ton
Rock in bank 26.962 m3
Overburden / Unsuitable 5 %
Qty Overburden 1.348 m3 Wages Permanent Material Job Material Depreciation Total Unit Total Unit
Des cription
Labour 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00

Loading 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Foreman 841,20 hrs 1.791,76 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.792 0 0,06 0,00 1.792 0,06
Loader Operator 841,20 hrs 891,67 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 892 0 0,03 0,00 892 0,03
Truck Operator 2.804,00 hrs 2.972,24 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2.972 0 0,11 0,00 2.972 0,11
Helper 841,20 hrs 235,54 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 236 0 0,01 0,00 236 0,01
Proces s ing 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Foreman 560,80 1.194,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.195 0 0,04 0,00 1.195 0,04
Mechanic 560,80 hrs 398,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 398 0 0,01 0,00 398 0,01
Electrician 560,80 hrs 398,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 398 0 0,01 0,00 398 0,01
Plant Crew 1.869,33 hrs 5.308,91 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 5.309 0 0,19 0,00 5.309 0,19
Transport to Batch Plant 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Loader Operator 841,20 hrs 891,67 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 892 0 0,03 0,00 892 0,03
Truck Operator 4.206,00 hrs 4.458,36 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4.458 0 0,16 0,00 4.458 0,16
0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Equipm e nt 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Loader, 100 to / hr 701,00 hrs 0,00 0,00 0,00 12.898,82 7.438,10 0,00 11.019,37 12.899 18.457 0,46 0,66 31.356 1,12
Trucks, 30 to / hr 2.336,67 hrs 0,00 0,00 0,00 48.319,93 35.271,52 0,00 34.495,28 48.320 69.767 1,72 2,49 118.087 4,21
0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Aggregate Plant, 150 to 467,33 hrs 0,00 0,00 0,00 5.075,66 24.293,48 0,00 48.201,37 5.076 72.495 0,18 2,59 77.571 2,77
0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Loader, 100 to / hr 701,00 hrs 0,00 0,00 0,00 12.671,49 11.449,22 0,00 10.878,05 12.671 22.327 0,45 0,80 34.999 1,25
Trucks, 20 to /hr 3.505,00 hrs 0,00 0,00 0,00 76.860,44 65.799,72 0,00 27.847,58 76.860 93.647 2,74 3,34 170.508 6,08
0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Subtotal 18.541 0 0 155.826 144.252 0 132.442 174.367 276.694 6,22 9,87 451.061 16,09
Contingency 10 % 1.854 0 0 15.583 14.425 0 13.244 17.437 27.669 0,62 0,99 45.106 1,61
TOTAL DIRECT COST 20.395 0 0 171.409 158.677 0 145.686 191.804 304.363 6,84 10,85 496.167 17,69
INDIRECT COST 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Concrete lining in tunnel 28.040 m3 20.395 0 0 171.409 158.677 0 145.686 191.804 304.363 6,84 10,85 496.167 17,69

ITEM B5.1.7 28.040,00 m3 3. Batch, Transport and Place Concrete
Eff ective 35.050,00 m3
Tons required 70.100,00 ton
Rock in bank 26.961,54 m3
Overburden / Unsuitable 5,00 %
Qty Overburden 1.348,08 m3 Wages Permanent Material Job Material Depreciation Total Unit Total Unit
De s cription
Labour
Batch Plant
Foreman 280,40 hrs 597 0 0 0 0 0 0 597 0 0,02 0,00 597 0,02
Electrician 280,40 hrs 199 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 0 0,01 0,00 199 0,01
Mechanic 280,40 hrs 199 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 0 0,01 0,00 199 0,01
Plant Crew 1.121,60 hrs 3.822 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.822 0 0,14 0,00 3.822 0,14
Trans port and Placing
Foreman 4.673,33 hrs 9.954 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.954 0 0,36 0,00 9.954 0,36
Mixer Driver 2.804,00 hrs 1.991 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.991 0 0,07 0,00 1.991 0,07
Auto Pump 0,00 hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Tow er Crane 0,00 hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Sta. Pump 2.804,00 hrs 0 0 0 0 601 0 2.003 0 2.604 0,00 0,09 2.604 0,09
Curber 0,00 hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Paver 0,00 hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Concrete Crew 28.040,00 hrs 19.908 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.908 0 0,71 0,00 19.908 0,71
Equipm e nt
Batch Plant, 150 m3 233,67 hrs 0 0 0 3.863 6.000 0 11.429 3.863 17.429 0,14 0,62 21.291 0,76
Transit Mixer, 15 m3 2.336,67 hrs 0 0 0 16.514 20.622 0 25.530 16.514 46.152 0,59 1,65 62.666 2,23
Auto Pump, 15 m3 hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Tow er Crane, 10 m3 hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Sta. Pump, 15 m3 2.336,67 hrs 0 0 0 2.328 19.227 0 19.227 2.328 38.453 0,08 1,37 40.781 1,45
Curber hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Paver hrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
Material 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00

Cement, 350 kg / m3 12.267,50 ton 0 1.840.125 0 0 0 0 0 1.840.125 0 65,63 0,00 1.840.125 65,63
Subtotal 36.671 1.840.125 0 22.704 46.449 0 58.188 1.899.501 104.637 67,74 3,73 2.004.138 71,47
Contingency 10 % 3.667 184.013 0 2.270 4.645 0 5.819 189.950 10.464 6,77 0,37 200.414 7,15
TOTAL DIRECT COST 40.338 2.024.138 0 24.975 51.094 0 64.006 2.089.451 115.101 74,52 4,10 2.204.551 78,62
INDIRECT COST 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0 0,00
GRAND TOTAL 28.040 m3 40.338 2.024.138 0 24.975 51.094 0 64.006 2.089.451 115.101 74,52 4,10 2.204.551 78,62
Concrete lining in tunnel 28.040 m3 63.604 2.024.138 0 213.118 216.226 0 215.498 2.300.859 431.724 82,06 15,40 2.732.583 97,45
Estimating for underground excavation is somewhat more complicated, being dependent

on the blasting face area and on the round length. Typical estimating sheets for
underground excavation are presented below:
Section 33.12 m² Section 33.12 m²
Length of Section 2,200.00 m 72,864.00 m³ Length of Section 2,200.00 m
Drilling / Blast Round Explosives

Round Length 3.00 Density Explosives 1.20 kg
Effective Round Length 90.00 Blast Hole Diameter 45.00 mm
Effective Round Length 2.70 Charge Density / m of Bore Hole 1.91 kg/m
Blast Hole Diameter 45.00 Fill Factor 70.00 %
Effective Charge Density 1.34 kg/m
Empty Holes 2.00 nos
Cut off Holes 12.00 nos Charging
Production Holes 51.75 nos Stemming each Blast Hole 0.30 m
Production Hole Pattern 0.80 m Cut Off Holes 43.26 kg
Invert Holes 10.00 nos Production Holes 186.57 kg
Width of Invert 8.00 m Invert Holes 36.05 kg
Invert Hole Spacing 0.80 m Perimeter Holes 50.00 % reduced charge
Perimeter Holes 34.27 nos Perimeter Holes 61.77 kg
Perimeter 20.56 m
Perimeter Holes Spacing 0.60 m Total Explosives / Blast Round 327.66 kg
Total Detonators / Blast Round 98.02 nos
Total Holes / Blast 100.02 nos
Chargable Holes / Blast 98.02 nos Specific Charge 3.66 kg/m³
Drillmeter A9/ Blast Round 300.05 m Specific Detonators 1.10 no/m³
Effective Volume / Blast Round 89.42 m³ bank
Specific Drilling 3.36 m/m³ bank Totals / Section
Explosives 266,981.33 kg
Totals / Section Detonators 79,865.43 nos
Volume 72,864.00 m³
Number of Blasts 814.81 nos
Number of Holes 81,495.06 nos
Total Drillmeter 244,485.19 m

GENALE DAWA - UNDERGROUND EXCAVATION

HEADRACE TUNNEL
Development Cycle Time / Blast Round
Estimated Parameters and Production
Density Rock in Situ 2,6 to / m3 Bank

Production Drilling 1,00 m / Min & Boom
Number of Booms 3 nos
Production Charging 0,2 Min / Kg
Production Mucking 5 to / Min
Working Hours / Day 20 hrs
Working Days / Month 25 days
Resulting Constr. Time 225,47 days 9,02 Months
Production 9,7576 m / day HOURS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Activity Unit Qty Hrs Hrs cum.
Drilling-Blasting-Mucking
Mobilise for Drilling LS 0,50 0,50
Drilling Blast Round m 300 1,67 2,17
Charging Blast Round kg 328 1,09 3,26
Demobilise for Blasting LS 0,50 3,76
Blasting and Ventilation LS 0,50 4,26
Evacuation Blasted Rock m3 89,424 0,78 5,03
Lost Time LS 0,50 5,53
Rock Support
Rock Bolts pcs
Steel Arches pcs
Shotcrete m3
Wire Mesh m2
Wire Mesh to
Forepooling pcs
TOTAL 5,53
GENALE DAWA - UNDERGROUND EXCAVATION

Resulting Resources: 2.200 m Top Heading
815 Blast Rounds
Source Unit Qty Hrs Unit/ m3

Labour
Foreman nos 1 4.509,31 0,062
Blaster nos 1 4.509,31 0,062
Jumbo Operator nos 2 9.018,61 0,124
Miner nos 2 9.018,61 0,124
Helper nos 4 18.037,23 0,248
Loader Operator nos 1 4.509,31 0,062
Truck Operator nos 6 27.055,84 0,371
Mechanik nos 1 4.509,31 0,062
Electrician nos 1 4.509,31 0,062
Total Labour 19 85.676,82 1,176
Equipment
Drill Jumbo no 1 4.509,31 0,062
Loader no 1 4.509,31 0,062
Truck no 6 3.788,93 0,052
Consumables
Drill Rods nos 162,99 0,002
Drill Bits nos 407,48 0,006
Shanks nos 305,61 0,004
Explosives kg 266.981,33 3,664
Detonators nos 79.865,43 1,096
The costs of the individual construction activities are summed to arrive at the total direct
civil construction cost. In the following tables, this total is presented in three forms:
! Broken down by project structure.
! Broken down by construction activity.
! Broken down by basic construction resources.
Item Description Unit Quantity Wages Permanent Material Job Material Depreciation Total Total
Local Local Foreign Local Foreign Local Foreign Local Foreign
DIRECT COST
River Diversion 3,59% 205.861 1.355.169 1.403.822 723.912 318.912 342.090 2.284.942 2.064.825 4.349.767
Dam and Spillway 28,89% 1.797.076 12.101.235 2.209.156 7.578.134 5.527.295 5.799.446 21.476.446 13.535.897 35.012.343
Stilling Basin 1,82% 79.292 694.917 907.012 206.843 154.089 161.841 981.052 1.222.943 2.203.994
Power Intake 1,80% 106.379 381.639 601.857 479.129 362.085 250.904 967.146 1.214.846 2.181.992
Headrace Tunnel (D & B at Power Intake end) 8,60% 402.855 2.293.987 2.013.856 3.148.100 1.414.013 1.149.396 5.844.942 4.577.265 10.422.207
Headrace Tunnel (TBM driven) 32,13% 375.854 572.932 64.837 15.074.098 6.198.946 16.658.168 16.022.884 22.921.952 38.944.835
Headrace Surge Tank and Gate Chamber 4,72% 230.199 704.146 946.081 1.903.236 982.233 952.047 2.837.580 2.880.361 5.717.942
Headrace Inclined Pressure Shaft 1,06% 82.592 136.309 215.624 378.746 256.546 214.611 597.647 686.782 1.284.428
Headrace Pressure Tunnel 1,10% 48.880 377.822 93.253 431.608 203.400 176.596 858.310 473.249 1.331.559
Headrace Manifold Section (Steel Lined) 0,14% 7.274 40.317 4.236 56.239 30.660 31.175 103.830 66.071 169.901
Tailrace - Tunnel, Surge Tank, Outfall 0,66% 53.651 136.908 142.845 200.723 141.569 121.355 391.282 405.768 797.050
Tailrace Surge Tank 0,58% 29.513 66.122 15.618 327.511 135.736 129.035 423.146 280.388 703.534
Tailrace Tunnel (D & B) 4,40% 230.607 936.245 1.483.844 1.394.102 735.213 557.294 2.560.954 2.776.351 5.337.305
Tailrace Outfall 0,63% 48.316 119.367 243.684 210.330 74.176 63.592 378.013 381.453 759.466
Main Access Tunnel and Associated Powerhouse Adits 1,57% 73.017 305.059 195.206 733.303 323.875 276.162 1.111.379 795.243 1.906.622
Powerhouse and Transformer Caverns 4,36% 194.873 1.419.609 987.323 1.295.394 739.492 646.310 2.909.876 2.373.125 5.283.001
Powerhouse Surface Works 0,12% 4.500 34.500 18.000 40.500 21.000 31.500 79.500 70.500 150.000
Permanent Access Roads and Bridges 3,83% 139.266 1.067.706 557.064 1.253.394 649.908 974.862 2.460.366 2.181.834 4.642.200
SUBTOTAL DIRECT COST 4.110.004 22.743.989 12.103.321 35.435.303 18.269.149 28.536.382 62.289.296 58.908.852 121.198.147
DIRECT COST
EXCAVATION SOIL 0,11% 34.760 4.402 47.892 41.005 34.798 52.294 75.803 128.096
EXCAVATION ROCK 1,12% 169.900 68.131 582.034 428.335 279.018 650.165 707.353 1.357.518
EXCAVATION UNDERGROUND 44,91% 953.550 1.019.417 24.091.438 9.581.986 19.738.528 25.110.855 29.320.514 54.431.369
FILL 0,15% 16.900 4.288 58.903 53.638 68.535 63.192 122.174 185.365
CONCRETE 33,54% 985.900 1.899.479 18.815.633 7.695.482 6.027.155 6.217.460 28.410.594 12.244.615 40.655.209
REINFORCEMENT 9,60% 9.270 393.290 10.706.434 152.749 154.989 222.446 546.039 11.083.869 11.629.909
FORMWORK INVESTMENT 1,08% 16 218.470 692.350 400.000 910.820 400.000 1.310.820
FORMWORK PLACING 0,40% 110.974 215.932 40.279 104.912 120.656 256.211 225.568 481.779
SHOTCRETE 3,02% 19.197 73.970 2.184.343 469.954 234.448 396.076 300.490 2.492.761 1.166.520 3.659.281
ROCKBOLTING 0,51% 100.971 7.254 199.110 122.452 23.691 131.595 136.199 230.054 390.247 620.301
GROUTING AND DRAINAGE 0,03% 2.904 4.251 2.983 5.957 10.899 10.411 13.191 21.310 34.501
DEWATERING 0,18% 1 6.600 50.600 26.400 59.400 30.800 46.200 116.600 103.400 220.000
INSTRUMENTATION 0,21% 1 7.500 57.500 30.000 67.500 35.000 52.500 132.500 117.500 250.000
CONCRETE WINCHESTER PANNELS 1,19% 26.700 43.254 331.614 173.016 389.286 201.852 302.778 764.154 677.646 1.441.800
POWERHOUSE SURFACE WORKS 0,12% 1 4.500 34.500 18.000 40.500 21.000 31.500 79.500 70.500 150.000
ROADS AND BRIDGES 1 139.266 1.067.706 557.064 1.253.394 649.908 974.862 2.460.366 2.181.834 4.642.200
COST LABOUR 3.690.414
COST CEMENT 20.999.976
COST REINFORCEMENT 11.298.841
COST EXPLOSIVES 6.266.444
COST DRILL TOOLS 1.029.485
COST JOB MATERIAL EQUIPMENT 11.796.393
COST SPARES EQUIPMENT 15.228.344
COST EQUIPMENT DEPRECIATION 27.128.542
TOTAL DIRECT COST (from estimating Sheets) 97.438.439
OTHER DIRECT COST (not linked with basic cost elements) 23.759.709
GRAND TOTAL DIRECT COST 121.198.147

Indirect Civil Construction Costs

Indirect civil construction costs are generally estimated as percentages of the direct
construction cost. Different contractors will estimate different percentages for different
markets and different project types. For the present cost estimate, percentages have been
assumed that would generally be adopted by an international contractor, experienced in
high dam and underground construction, working in, for him, a well known and established
market. The percentages are as follows:
Component Remarks Percentage
(%)
Supervisory Staff Contractors site management and supervisory staff 3.50
Site Transport Transport within the site 0.30
Travel Expenses Travel to the site 0.05
Staff Accommodation 0.60
Labour Accommodation 0.40
Site Facilities / Buildings Establishment of site roads, offices, yards, workshops, stores, 6.50
laboratory, clinic and electricity, water and sewerage systems
Site Services Running costs of site facilities / buildings 3.00
Labour Services Health and safety measures, training, protective clothing 0.46
External Services Support to site from Home Office or other external agency 1.60
Site Restoration/Hand-Over Restoration of site and camp 0.09
General Plant / Equipment Running costs of plant/equipment not directly allocated to direct construction 3.50
TOTAL 20.00
The resulting amounts of indirect costs are as follows:

Total US $
Item No. Item Description Unit Quantity Local Foreign Total
B2:B10 Sub-Total Direct Cost of Civil W orks 62,433,010 58,924,820 121,357,829
B11 Indirect Costs

Supervisory Staff % 3.50 2,973,267 1,274,257 4,247,524
B11.1 Transport on Site % 0.30 254,851 109,222 364,073
B11.2 Travel Expenses % 0.05 42,475 18,204 60,679
B11.3 Accomodation - Staff % 0.60 509,703 218,444 728,147
B11.4 Accomodation - Labour % 0.40 339,802 145,629 485,431
B11.5 Site Facilities and Buildings % 6.50 5,521,781 2,366,478 7,888,259
B11.6 Services on Site % 3.00 2,548,514 1,092,220 3,640,735
B11.7 Labour Servicing % 0.46 390,772 167,474 558,246
B11.8 Services to the Site % 1.60 1,359,208 582,518 1,941,725
B11.9 Hand-over and Maintenance % 0.09 76,455 32,767 109,222
B11.10 General Plant and Equipment % 3.50 2,973,267 1,274,257 4,247,524
B11 Sub-Total Indirect Cost of Civil W orks 20.00 16,990,096 7,281,470 24,271,566
Contractor’s On-Costs
Contractor’ on-costs cover various fees and charges and a margin for his profit and risk.
These costs are charged at a percentage of direct and indirect civil construction costs. For
the present cost estimate, the percentages and amounts are as follows:
Total US $
B2:B10 Sub-Total Direct Cost of Civil W orks 62,433,010 58,924,820 121,357,829
B11 Sub-Total Indirect Cost of Civil W orks 20.00 16,990,096 7,281,470 24,271,566
B12 Contractor's On-Costs (B2:B11)

B12.1 Various Fees % 0.30 0 436,888 436,888
B12.2 Insurance % 2.00 0 2,912,588 2,912,588
B12.3 Guarantee % 0.70 0 1,019,406 1,019,406
B12.4 Finance % 1.00 0 1,456,294 1,456,294
B12.5 Home Office Management % 3.00 0 4,368,882 4,368,882
B12.6 Risk and Profit % 3.00 0 4,368,882 4,368,882
B12 Sub-Total Contractor's On-Costs (B2:B11) 10.00 0 14,562,939 14,562,939
13.3.3 Hydraulic Steel Structures, Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Costs

The hydraulic steel structural and mechanical equipment and a major portion of the
electrical equipment will be imported from foreign sources. The prices of this equipment
have been estimated from the consultants’ own data, from manufacturers’ quotations and
from recent international bid prices. The prices include profit, overheads and the cost of
designing, purchasing raw materials, manufacturing, painting, testing, packing the
products, delivering to the port of export, ocean freight, insurance, landing cost, inland
transportation in Ethiopia and installation. The cost estimates of the various items of
equipment are presented below:
Total US $

C MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL WORKS
C1 Hydraulic Steel Structures

C1.1 Intake Trash Rack, 16 m x 11 m t 36.00 30,240 347,760 378,000
C1.2 Trash Rack Cleaner ls 1.00 36,000 414,000 450,000
C1.3 Stoplogs for the Intake, 5,5 m x 7,0 m t 47.42 29,590 340,286 369,876
C1.4 Emergency Roller Gate, B = 4.80 m, H = 6.10 m (Bonnet Type) t 75.72 42,403 487,637 530,040
C1.5 Crane for Emergency Gate Chamber, 30 t, 1 set ls 1.00 7,200 82,800 90,000
C1.6 Stoplogs for Tailrace Tunnel Outlet, 6,1 m x 9,5 m t 30.27 18,888 217,218 236,106
C1.7 Steel Lining of Pressure Shaft, 200 m, Dia. 4800 mm t 1,003.05 280,854 3,229,821 3,510,675
C1.8 Pressure Manifold to Turbine Units t 266.49 95,936 1,103,269 1,199,205
C1.9 Butterfly Valve, Dia. 2000 mm, 2 sets, PN10 t 18.00 13,680 157,320 171,000
C1.10 Bottom Outlet Howell Bunger Valve, DN1400, 2 sets, PN25 t 17.00 13,328 153,272 166,600
C1.11 Bottom Outlet Pressure Pipes, 2 x 50 m, Dia. 2000 mm t 59.54 16,671 191,711 208,381
C1.12 Bottom Outlet Pressure Pipes, 2 x 45 m, Dia. 2000 mm ls 53.59 15,005 172,553 187,558
C1.13 Bottom Outlet Intake Stoplogs, 3,7 m x 3,7 m t 16.52 10,308 118,548 128,856
C1.14 Diversion Culvert Intake Stoplogs, 12 m x 6 m t 86.37 53,895 619,791 673,686
C1.15 Miscellaneous items % 10.00 66,400 763,598 829,998
C1.16 Contingencies (7.5%) % 7.50 54,780 629,969 684,749
C1 Sub-total Hydraulic Steel Structures 785,178 9,029,551 9,814,730
C2 Mechanical Equipment
C2.1 Turbines & governors No. 3.00 900,000 8,100,000 9,000,000
C2.2 Spherical inlet valves No. 3.00 198,500 1,786,500 1,985,000
C2.3 Cooling water system No. 3.00 105,900 953,100 1,059,000
C2.4 Drainage and dewatering system No. 1.00 165,000 1,485,000 1,650,000
C2.5 Powerhouse cranes ls 1.00 110,200 991,800 1,102,000
C2.6 Draft tube flap gates No. 3.00 29,250 263,250 292,500
C2.7 Ventilation and air conditioning systems ls 1.00 30,500 274,500 305,000
C2.8 Compressed air system Item 1.00 28,000 252,000 280,000
C2.9 Diesel generator (850 kVA) No. 1.00 31,700 285,300 317,000
C2.10 Mechanical workshop ls 1.00 21,200 190,800 212,000
C2.11 Oil Treatment & Transfer System ls 1.00 21,200 190,800 212,000
C2.12 Contingencies (7.5%) % 7.50 123,109 1,107,979 1,231,088
C2 Sub-total Mechanical Equipment 1,764,559 15,881,029 17,645,588
C3 Electrical Equipment
C3.1 Synchronous generators No. 3.00 1,175,040 11,468,390 12,643,430
C3.2 Generator bus ducts No. 3.00 82,620 733,666 816,286
C3.3 Main transformers No. 3.00 194,310 1,871,205 2,065,515
C3.4 230kV XLPE Cable Item 1.00 109,395 2,078,505 2,187,900
C3.5 Protection system Item 1.00 57,120 536,357 593,477
C3.6 MV switchgear Item 1.00 51,000 475,830 526,830
C3.7 400V AC system & D/G Item 1.00 58,905 527,789 586,694
C3.8 11kV T/L Item 1.00 28,336 253,000 281,336
C3.9 230V UPS system Item 1.00 5,304 44,819 50,123
C3.10 220V/48V DC system Item 1.00 38,760 348,840 387,600
C3.11 Lighting and small power Item 1.00 5,057 40,303 45,360
C3.12 Grounding system Item 1.00 26,928 220,002 246,930
C3.13 MV, LV power and control cables Item 1.00 106,080 842,275 948,355
C3.14 Control systems Item 1.00 122,400 1,059,984 1,182,384
C3.15 Communications systems Item 1.00 9,690 83,237 92,927
C3.16 Fire detection system Item 1.00 9,690 83,237 92,927
C3.17 Electrical workshop Item 1.00 10,967 160,393 171,360
C3.18 Contingency (7.5%) % 7.50 156,870 1,562,087 1,718,958
C3 Sub-total Electrical Equipment 2,248,472 22,389,919 24,638,391

13.3.4 Switchyard and Transmission Costs

The costs of constructing and equipping the switchyard have been estimated from the
consultants’ own data, from manufacturers’ quotations and from recent international bid
prices. As for the above equipment, the prices include profit, overheads and the cost of
designing, purchasing raw materials, manufacturing, painting, testing, packing the
products, delivering to the port of export, ocean freight, insurance, landing cost, inland
transportation in Ethiopia and installation.
The cost of constructing a double circuit transmission line to Mega have been based on
an indicative specific unit cost of USD 128,000 per km, obtained from EEPCo and
confirmed as sufficiently reliable for generation planning purposes. EEPCo has derived
this unit cost from the results of recent tenders and uses it for transmission planning
purposes.
The cost estimates of the various items of equipment are presented below:
Total US $
C4 Switchyards & Transmission System

C4.1 230kV switchyard at powerhouse ls 1.00 574,909 5,174,182 5,749,091
C4.2 230kV double circuit transmission line km 295.00 3,776,000 33,984,000 37,760,000
C4.3 Connection to EEPCO Substation at Mega ls 1.00 72,012 648,108 720,120
C4.4 11kV Switchgear Control building ls 1.00 212,160 53,040 265,200
C4.5 Contingency (7.5%) % 7.50 347,631 2,989,450 3,337,081
C4 Sub-total Switchyards & Transmission System 4,982,712 42,848,780 47,831,492
13.3.5 Contingencies
Contingencies cover the additional costs arising from increases in construction quantities
and/or equipment dimensions due to unforeseen physical conditions at site. These
unforeseen conditions may be discovered during subsequent investigation phases of the
project development or during actual construction as the foundations are excavated.
Unexpected foundation geology is generally the greatest cause of increased construction
quantities. Weaker than expected geology can result in increased excavation, increased
temporary and permanent support and increased concrete. Unforeseen site conditions
have the greatest impact on civil works, but they can also impact, to a lesser extent, on
the dimensions and costs of equipment. For the present cost estimate, the following levels
of contingency have been adopted:
! 15% of the costs of civil construction works.
! 7.5% of the cost of hydraulic steel structures, mechanical and electrical equipment.
13.4 Total Project Cost

13.4.1 General
Total project costs comprise the costs of:
! Construction.
! Engineering and administration.
! Resettlement, environmental mitigation and management.
13.4.2 Costs of Engineering Services and Administration
The costs of engineering services, to design and supervise the construction of the project,
have been set at 8% of the project costs. The costs of the Owner’s (in this case EEPCo)
administration have been set at 2% of the project costs.
13.4.3 Resettlement and Environmental Costs

The costs, associated with environmental mitigation and management (including
resettlement of affected families/communities), have been taken from the stand-alone
report compiled during the present study (Environmental Impact Assessment, 2006).
13.4.4 Total Project Costs

The total project costs are summarized as follows:
SUMMARY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
US $
Local Foreign Total
B CIVIL WORKS 64.8% 91,336,571 92,884,613 184,221,185
C1 HYDRAULIC STEEL STRUCTURES 3.5% 785,178 9,029,551 9,814,730
C2 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 6.2% 1,764,559 15,881,029 17,645,588
C3 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 8.7% 2,248,472 22,389,919 24,638,391
C4 SWITCHYARDS AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 16.8% 4,982,712 42,848,780 47,831,492
B+C TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 101,117,493 183,033,892 284,151,385
D ENGINEERING & SUPERVISION (8% of B and C) % 8.0 8,089,399 14,642,711 22,732,111
E ADMINISTRATION (2% of B and C) % 2.0 2,022,350 3,660,678 5,683,028
F ENVIRONMENT 25,275,884 0 25,275,884
GRAND TOTAL PROJECT COST 136,505,126 201,337,281 337,842,407
13.4.5 Other Costs

The GD-3 hydropower scheme will be but one generating element, albeit an important
one, within a cascade of schemes generating and transmitting energy to Kenya. As such,
the economic evaluation will assess, not only the GD-3 scheme as a stand-alone
generation scheme, but also the entire Genale-Dawa cascade of schemes with the
associated transmission costs to Kenya.
The arrangements for transmitting electrical energy to Kenya have not yet been finalized.
The current thinking is to create a new system node at the town of Mega, in Ethiopia,
close to the border with Kenya. A converter station will be commissioned at Mega to
convert HVAC current to HVDC current. From the converter station, HVDC lines will run
some 520km to the town of Eldoret well inside Kenya and reasonably close to the border
with Uganda, thereby raising the possibility of including Uganda in the export market.
Indicative plans are to feed power from both the Genale-Dawa cascade and the Gilgel
Gibe cascade to Mega for conversion and transmission to Kenya. An alternative receiving
station would be the greater Nairobi area. In this study however we have opted for the
Eldoret site.
For the present feasibility study, the costs of a converter station at Mega and an HVDC
line of capacity just sufficient to convey the energy from the GD-3, the GD-5 and the GD-6
hydropower schemes have been estimated. If some of the Gilgel Gibe hydropower plants
also feed into this link, then the unit costs of the link will drop considerably. However, for
the present economic analysis, only those costs required to transmit the energy from the
Genale-Dawa cascade of plants will be included in the economic analysis. The costs of a
converter station in Kenya have not been included in the cost estimate. The converter
station in Ethiopia would be built in two equally sized stages. The first stage, with a
conversion capacity of 282MW, would be commissioned concurrently with GD-3 while the
second stage, also with a conversion capacity of 282MW, would be commissioned two

years later concurrently with GD-5. The total capacity of 564MW would be sufficient to
serve the entire three plant cascade. The following specific unit costs of a converter
station have been adopted:
Converter Station US$/MW
Transformers, smoothing reactors 43
Converters 36
Filters 16
Earth electrode 14
Other equipment (*) 41
Total 150
(*): buildings, spare parts, cooling system, special tools and vehicles
A 500kV HVDC transmission link, some 520km long, would come into operation
concurrently with the GD-3 project and the first stage converter station. The transmission
line would have two conductors – one operating as a +pole and the second as a neutral
pole. After commissioning the second stage converter station, one conductor would
operated as a +pole and the second as a –pole.
The costs of the transmission link to Kenya have been estimated based on the following
specific unit costs:
500 kV DC Line US$/km
Material cost 125,000
Erection cost 130,000
Transport cost 12,000
Supervision and planning 27,000
Tower estate area and right-of-way cost 6,000
Total 300,000
Economic and Financial Evaluation
14 Economic and Financial Evaluation
14.1 Introduction
This chapter assesses the economic worth of the project and computes electricity tariffs
that would be required to render the project financially attractive to potential investors.
With regard to economics, the report, up to this point, has dealt exclusively with the GD-3
Hydropower Project. However, GD-3 is foreseen as the first stage in a cascade
development. As such, the economic viability of GD-3 should not be judged only on the
costs and benefits of this first stage development, but rather on the costs and benefits of
the entire cascade development. It is well known that the costs of the first stage in a
cascade are relatively high compared to the generated benefits and this is the case for
GD-3. For example, most of the capital investments in the transmission lines for the entire
cascade will be made during the construction of GD-3 and it would obviously be unfair to
assign these investments only to GD-3, since the same transmission lines will also be
used to transmit the energy generated by later developments on the cascade. Also the
huge reservoir, created by GD-3’s dam, will regulate the seasonal flows not only for the
GD-3 power plant but also for any downstream hydropower, irrigation and/or water supply
projects. In the case of GD-3, according to the current master plan, two further
hydropower developments are foreseen downstream, namely GD-5 and GD-6, and an
irrigation scheme – the Lower Genale Irrigation Project.
The technical characteristics, the construction costs and the implementation schedule of
the GD-3 project have been presented earlier in this report. The complementary
information for the GD-5 and GD-6 hydropower projects has been determined from
separate studies. In the case of GD-3, this was the Pre-feasibility study while in the case
of GD-5, this was the Masterplan study. As such the GD-5 and GD-6 projects are less well
defined than GD-3, in terms of technical characteristics and costs. However, for the
purpose of comparison with other power generation projects, some of which are also not
well defined, this approach is acceptable. The combined construction programme for the
GD-3, GD-5 and GD-6 cascade, and thereby the combined investment schedule, has
been arranged in order that the schemes enter operation at intervals of 2 years. This
schedule of sequential implementation will meet the growing demand for electricity in
Kenya and it should offer savings in total construction costs. If construction of major works
is carried out in sequence, then construction equipment can be depreciated over a longer
period resulting in lower unit construction rates.
With regard to financial viability, only the GD-3 project with its associated transmission
lines and converter station has been considered. The financial viability is assessed on the
basis of the tariff required to service debts, to provide a suitable return to equity investors
and to cover operating and maintenance charges over an assumed project lifetime.
The construction costs of all projects in the cascade were estimated using basic costs
prevailing in the year 2006. The high oil prices, seen over the last 3 years, have
contributed to rises in construction and equipment costs. It is not yet obvious if basic costs
have stabilised or if further increases are still to occur.
14.2 Economic Analysis

14.2.1 Introduction
As mentioned earlier in this report, the hydropower projects can feed all or part of their
energy into the Ethiopian grid or into the Kenyan grid. However, because Ethiopia has
several very attractive candidate hydropower projects in the planning pipeline, the
economic evaluation is based on the premise that the energy from GD-3 and the two

downstream hydropower schemes will be exported to Kenya – specifically to the town of

Eldoret.
The principal characteristics of the hydropower cascade scheme are presented in Table
14.1.
Table 14.1: GD-3, GD-5 and GD-6 Cascade Development – Principal Characteristics
Parameter GD-3 GD-5 GD-6 Total Unit
Installed capacity 254 107 202 563 MW
Average energy 1,640 723 1,340 3,703 GWh/a
Firm energy 1,600 634 1,252 3,486 GWh/a
Civil construction costs 1) 184.2 M US$
E & M / HSS equipment costs 52.1 183 325 M US$
HVAC transmission costs 47.8 M US$
1,086.4
HVDC transmission costs 198.2 42.4 0.0 M US$
Environmental costs 2) 24.2 included included M US$
Engineering & administration cost 29.5 included included M US$
Operating & maintenance cost 2.9 2.3 3.3 8.5 M US$/a
Construction period 5 5 5 9 2) Years
1. in 2006 prices, excluding taxes and duties. A detailed cost break down, as well as a precise construction
schedule have been presented in Chapter 13.
2. the overall construction period of the cascade will be 9 years as the three stages will be built with a 2 year
delay between each stage.
According to Kenya’s generation expansion plan, there are no indigenous hydropower

projects planned in the foreseeable future. Therefore the economic attractiveness of the
Genale hydropower cascade has been determined by comparing the unit generation costs
with those of an equivalent thermal plant also feeding into the Kenyan grid. This plant
would logically be sited on the Kenyan coast close to Mombasa thereby reducing both fuel
transport and transmission costs. The unit generation costs are calculated by discounting
the aggregated sequences of costs and energy generation. Costs are the investment,
operation and maintenance of the power generation project.
In order to assess the attractiveness of the cascade against the “hydropower yardstick”, a
comparison of unit costs is also made with some of the potential schemes in the planning
pipeline in Ethiopia. This comparison, while useful, is not strictly legitimate because some
(indeed most) of the construction costs of those schemes in the planning pipeline have
been based on the prices of basic construction resources prevailing before the recent
sharp rise in oil prices – the last 2 to 3 years has seen significant rises in construction
costs as the impacts of the sharp oil price rises feed through national economies. As such
the unit generation costs of these other schemes planned in Ethiopia are too low by
today’s standards.
Cost estimate is based on cement price of 150 $/ton, and that of ordinary steel $1200 per
ton, which is conservative, but may be too high for conditions in, say, 5 to 10 years
14.2.2 Economic Parameters

Following generally accepted practices, the planning horizon for the present evaluation
has been taken as 50 years. Costs and benefits occurring in periods beyond the 50 year
horizon, because of the discounting method, have no influence on the outcome of the
assessment and can therefore be ignored. Likewise, residual values of assets which have
an economic life that ends beyond the planning horizon, have not been considered. The
first year of the planning horizon, and thus the base year for the present evaluation, is
2008. This is the earliest realistic date that significant investments in construction design
could begin.
For assets, such as mechanical and electrical equipment, whose economic service life
ends within the planning horizon, replacement costs have been included at the
appropriate dates within the planning horizon.
All costs and benefits are expressed in 2006 values – no projection of future prices has
been made. This is justified on the basis that forecasting future prices is a notoriously
uncertain process and taking present prices as being representative also of future prices
at least has the virtue of being based on actual prices which have been applied in
practice. In fact, experience shows that using present prices has often produced more
accurate results than if the World Bank forecasts had been applied. In economic appraisal
all prices are taken free of taxes and duties.
The currency applied in the analysis is US$ and the end 2006 exchange rate of 1.00 US$
to 8.8 ETB has been adopted to convert from local ETB to US$ and vice versa.
Internal prices in Ethiopia are considered to reflect an open market economy and do not
require further correction for distortions created by constraints of supply and demand in
the market
All cash flows of costs and benefits have been discounted at the opportunity cost of
capital of 10 percent. Tests are carried out at discount rates of 8 and 12 percent. These
discount rates cover the rates adopted for the economic assessment of other candidate
hydropower projects in Ethiopia.
14.2.3 Thermal Plant for Comparison

Previous experience, both in Ethiopia and elsewhere, of establishing the least cost
thermal alternative to hydropower generation has confirmed that, for plant factors between
0.3 and 0.8, a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant is generally the least cost thermal
alternative to hydropower generation. These plants can be driven with different fuels. For
the present assessment, a mixture of 90% heavy fuel oil and 10% light fuel oil has been
adopted. These fuels would be imported via the port of Mombassa and stored in tanks at
the combined cycle plant.
The costs of generating electricity from combined cycle thermal plant with installed
capacities of an order of magnitude similar to that of the Genale-Dawa hydropower
cascade have been calculated based on the following:
Capital cost of CCGT plant US$ 600 per kW
Construction period of plant 2 years
Annual fixed O & M costs 1.4% of capital cost
Variable O & M costs USc 0.24 per kWh
Fuel consumption 0.188 litre per kWh
Station consumption 5%
14.2.4 Oil Price

The price of crude oil influences not only the prices of refined petroleum products, but also
the prices of almost all industrially produced goods. As such it has a twofold influence on
the unit costs of generating electricity from thermal plant – it influences the cost of fuel that
burns in a thermal plant and also the cost of the thermal plant itself. Despite its
importance, this price has defied, certainly in the last 35 years, long term prediction. For
some two-and-a-half decades following the end of World War II, it remained stable below
US$ 15 per barrel, indeed steadily dropping until the Arab Oil Embargo of the early
1970’s. From then until the mid 1980’s the price first rose sharply to almost US$ 40 per
barrel before dropping back to just above US$ 30 then rising again to over US$ 60 per
barrel during the Iran-Iraq war before falling to under US$ 20 per barrel in the mid 1980’s.
For the next decade or so, the price fluctuated between a high of over US$ 25 per barrel
during the first Gulf War to a low of almost US$ 10 per barrel in the late 1990’s. Since that
historical low, the price of crude oil has exhibited considerable volatility but with a clearly

rising trend. In April 2006 it reached over US$ 70 per barrel before dropping back to its
current level of around US$ 55 per barrel.
The foregoing clearly demonstrates that accurate long term forecasting of oil prices is
impossible. The recent high prices are a result, firstly, of demand exceeding supply and
secondly, of so-called destabilizing “geo-political” factors. New oil fields are being
exploited and new refinery capacity is being brought on stream to increase supply and this
will tend to lower prices, but demand continues to rise, older fields are drying up and there
appears to be no short term solution to the destabilizing “geo-political” factors. Any
economic downturn, particularly in China and India, will result in a drop in demand and
thereby a drop in price of oil. In other words, strong cases could be built for any oil price
scenario – rising, falling or stable. For the present assessment, a price of US$ 55 per
barrel has been adopted as the reference case price for crude oil. Sensitivity analyses
with prices of US$ 45 per barrel and US$ 75 per barrel will cover a range of price volatility.
14.3 Economic Appraisal of the GD-3 Hydropower Development

14.3.1 Result of the Appraisal
The economic appraisals of the GD-3 hydropower project and of the Genale-Dawa
hydropower cascade have been carried out by comparing the cash flow associated with
constructing and operating the hydropower schemes with the cashflow of generating the
same energy by constructing and operating the equivalent least cost thermal alternative
plant. In the appraisal, the avoided costs of thermal generation are regarded as benefits
attributable to the hydropower projects. The difference between the costs of the
hydropower projects and the benefits of the avoided thermal power and energy has been
determined over a 50 year period. The results of the comparisons of the proposed GD-3
hydropower project and the Genale-Dawa hydropower cascade with equivalent thermal
plant are shown in Table 14.2 and Table 14.3 Details of the schedule of costs and energy
yields over the period are shown in Table 14.5
Table 14.2: Summary of Economic Appraisal for GD-3 Hydropower Project

Discount Rate EIRR
8% 10% 12% (%)
Unit Generation Cost (USc/kWh) 3.6 4.5 5.5
Unit Generation Cost of Equivalent Thermal (USc/kWh) 7.4 7.6 7.7
16.7
Net Benefits (US$ million) 743 488 302
Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.1 1.7 1.4
Table 14.3: Summary of Economic Appraisal for GD-3 Hydropower Cascade

Discount Rate EIRR
8% 10% 12% (%)
Unit Generation Cost (USc/kWh) 3.3 4.2 5.1
Unit Generation Cost of Equivalent Thermal (USc/kWh) 7.1 7.3 7.5
17.4
Net Benefits (US$ million) 1,448 944 589
Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.2 1.8 1.5
The above indicators all support the conclusion that GD-3 and its downstream partner
hydropower projects are very attractive export undertakings. Unit generation costs are a
fraction of those of equivalent thermal plant in Kenya. The analysis includes the costs of
the long transmission lines to Mega, the HVDC convertor station at Mega and the 500kV
DC line on to Eldoret in Kenya. If as proposed, the Gilgel Gibe cascade will also export
electricity to Kenya via Mega, then the converter and transmission costs will be shared
and the above indicators will become even more attractive.
As a stand-alone generation project (excluding transmission costs to Kenya), GD-3 will
generate electricity at a unit cost of some USc 2.5 per kWh. The unit generation costs of
hydropower projects, currently in Ethiopia’s planning pipeline, are as follows:
Table 14.4: Generation Costs of Hydropower Projects in Ethiopia

Installed Energy Project Unit Generation Date of
Project Name Capacity Generation Cost Cost (3) Cost
(MW) (GWh/a) (M US$) (USc/kWh) Estimate
Gilgel Gibe III 1,800 6,000 n/a 3.4 2006
Gilgel Gibe IV 2,000 7,500 n/a n/a 2006
Halele-Werabesa (I and II) 422 2,030 474 3.0 2005
Chemoga-Yeda (I and II) 280 1,348 391 3.5 2005
Karadobi (1) 1,600 12,314 (2) 2,232 3.8 2006
Baro (Stages I, II and Genji) (1) 896 4,636 1,315 4.5 2006
Geba (Stages I and II) 259 1,734 n/a 2.3 2004
1. scheme recommended by Norplan/Norconsult/Lahmeyer.
2. including the additional energy generated at downstream schemes (in the Sudan) without additional
investment.
3. rate for discounting is 10%.
A comparison makes GD-3 one of Ethiopia’s most attractive power generation projects.
Table 14.5: Schedule of Costs and Energy Yields for GD Hydropower Cascade
Schedule of Costs and Energy Yields
Oil price (US$/brl) 55
Discount rate 0.1000
GD-3 GD-5 GD-6

Year # Discount GD-3 GD-5 GD-6 Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy
Factor Costs Costs Costs Produced Received Produced Received Produced Received
(mUS$) (mUS$) (mUS$) (GWh) (GWh) (GWh) (GWh) (GWh) (GWh)
2008 -6 1.7716 4.4
2009 -5 1.6105 4.4
2010 -4 1.4641 99.7 0.0 0.0
2011 -3 1.3310 139.2 0.0 0.0
2012 -2 1.2100 137.4 26.8 0.0 0.0
2013 -1 1.1000 108.9 52.1 0.0 0.0
2014 0 1.0000 42.2 67.6 38.7 546.1 518.8
2015 1 0.9091 2.9 52.1 75.1 1,640.0 1,558.0
2016 2 0.8264 2.9 26.8 97.5 1,640.0 1,558.0
2017 3 0.7513 2.9 2.3 75.1 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9
2018 4 0.6830 2.9 2.3 38.7 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9
2019 5 0.6209 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2020 6 0.5645 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2025 11 0.3505 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2030 16 0.2176 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2035 21 0.1351 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2040 26 0.0839 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2045 31 0.0521 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2050 36 0.0323 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2055 41 0.0201 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2060 46 0.0125 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2061 47 0.0113 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2062 48 0.0103 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
2063 49 0.0094 2.9 2.3 3.3 1,640.0 1,558.0 723.0 686.9 1,340.0 1,273.0
9.9063 718 331 471 79,266 75,303 33,981 32,282 60,300 57,285

Schedule of Discounted Costs and Energy Yields
GD-3 Present Values GD-3+5+6 Present Values Equivalent Thermal Present Values
Total Energy Energy Total Energy Energy CC-1 CC-2 CC-3 Total Year
Investments Produced Received Costs Produced Received Costs Costs Costs Costs
(mUS$) (GWh) (GWh) (mUS$) (GWh) (GWh) (mUS$) (mUS$) (mUS$) (mUS$)
7.8 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2008
7.1 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2009
146.0 0.0 0.0 146.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2010
185.3 0.0 0.0 185.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2011
166.2 0.0 0.0 198.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2012
119.8 0.0 0.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 83.8 0.0 0.0 83.8 2013
42.2 546.1 518.8 148.5 546.1 518.8 109.1 0.0 0.0 109.1 2014
2.7 1,490.9 1,416.4 118.2 1,490.9 1,416.4 91.8 29.2 0.0 121.0 2015
2.4 1,355.4 1,287.6 105.2 1,355.4 1,287.6 83.5 26.5 0.0 110.0 2016
2.2 1,232.2 1,170.5 60.3 1,775.4 1,686.6 75.9 30.6 45.5 152.0 2017
2.0 1,120.1 1,064.1 29.9 1,614.0 1,533.3 69.0 27.8 41.4 138.1 2018
1.8 1,018.3 967.4 5.2 2,299.3 2,184.3 62.7 25.3 46.8 134.8 2019
1.6 925.7 879.5 4.8 2,090.2 1,985.7 57.0 23.0 42.6 122.5 2020
1.0 574.8 546.1 3.0 1,297.9 1,233.0 35.4 14.3 26.4 76.1 2025
0.6 356.9 339.1 1.8 805.9 765.6 22.0 8.9 16.4 47.2 2030
0.4 221.6 210.5 1.1 500.4 475.4 13.6 5.5 10.2 29.3 2035
0.2 137.6 130.7 0.7 310.7 295.2 14.9 3.4 6.3 24.6 2040
0.2 85.4 81.2 0.4 192.9 183.3 5.3 2.1 7.1 14.5 2045
0.1 53.1 50.4 0.3 119.8 113.8 3.3 1.3 2.4 7.0 2050
0.1 32.9 31.3 0.2 74.4 70.7 2.0 0.8 1.5 4.4 2055
0.0 20.5 19.4 0.1 46.2 43.9 1.3 0.5 0.9 2.7 2060
0.0 18.6 17.7 0.1 42.0 39.9 1.1 0.5 0.9 2.5 2061
0.0 16.9 16.1 0.1 38.2 36.3 1.0 0.4 0.8 2.2 2062
0.0 15.4 14.6 0.1 34.7 33.0 0.9 0.4 0.7 2.0 2063
707 15,787 1,245 29,974 1,195 2,189
Unit generation (USc/kWh) 4.5 4.2 7.6 7.3
14.3.2 Economic Sensitivity Analysis

The comparison of the GD-3 hydropower development with the equivalent thermal plant in
Kenya has been submitted to a sensitivity analysis to examine the robustness of the
outcome of the economic evaluation. Circumstances which were tested covered an
increase in capital (construction) costs of the hydropower schemes, a reduction in the
energy generated by the hydropower scheme, and an increase and a decrease in the
price of oil. The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in Tables 14.4 and 14.5.
Table 14.6: Results of Sensitivity Analysis – Increase in Hydropower Construction

Costs (1)
GD-3 Cascade
Unit Generation Cost (USc/kWh) 4.6 4.4
Net Benefits (US$ million) 465 867
Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.6 1.7
Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR %) 16.2 16.5
(1) Civil costs of GD-3 increased by 10%, total costs of GD-5 and GD-6 increased by 10%
Table 14.7: Results of Sensitivity Analysis – Decrease in Hydropower Energy

Generation (1)
GD-3 Cascade
Unit Generation Cost (USc/kWh) 5.0 4.6
(1) Energy yield reduced by 10% at all three hydropower projects
Table 14.8: Results of Sensitivity Analysis – Decrease in the Price of Crude Oil (1)
GD-3 Cascade
(1) Price of crude oil reduced to USD 45 per barrel
Table 14.9: Results of Sensitivity Analysis – Increase in the Price of Crude Oil (1)
GD-3 Cascade
Net Benefits (US$ million) 838 1,294
(1) Price of crude oil increased to USD 75 per barrel
The results clearly prove that the economic viability of the GD-3 hydropower project and
indeed the Genale-Dawa hydropower cascade remains robustly positive even under the
most adverse conditions.
14.4 Financial Analysis

14.4.1 General
The purpose of the financial analysis is to provide a preliminary overview of the financial
attractiveness of the Genale-Dawa 3 project (GD-3).
The analysis was facilitated using a spreadsheet based Model programmed in MS-
EXCEL. Certain extracts from the model can be found in Annex E (Vol. IV). Results are
presented in local currency.
14.4.2 Methodology
The financial analysis was based on an appraisal of the cash inflows and outflows
pertaining to the project during the construction and operational periods. The assumptions
on which the analysis is based are outlined below.
The approach employed to assess project attractiveness was as follows:
! A return on equity (ROE) of 12.5% was entered into the financial model as the target
return which shareholders should earn on their investment (the return excludes
distribution costs);
! The sales tariff to generate that return was derived by iterative process using EXCEL’s
solver function.
This approach is commonly used where the competitiveness of the tariff is used as a key
indicator of financial feasibility to enable a comparison between projects of different scale
to be made.
14.4.3 Assumptions
The assumptions that form the foundation of the financial analysis are listed below.
Variations to various assumptions, such as the investment costs or energy generation,
were analysed within the scope of sensitivity testing, as is described further in
section 14.4.5 below.
Basic Project Data

It was assumed that financial close be reached at the end of 2007 and that construction
work commence at the start of 2008. A design and construction period of 7 years was
assumed and an operational period of 25 years was used.

Capital Expenditures
A summary of the initial capital expenditure estimates is given in the Table below. All
costs are presented in US$ million.
Table 14.10: Capital Expenditures (2006 prices)

Classification Cost (US$ million)
Civil Works 184.2
E&M / HSS 52.1
T/L Costs 47.8
Environmental Costs 24.2
Engineering & Administration 29.5
Capital expenditures were prepared in 2006 prices and were thus updated using the
following procedure:
! Capital expenditures were adjusted via an escalation factor over 12 months (2006-
2007) to reflect current price levels;
! The estimates were converted to local currency using the 1 year forward exchange
rate.
The following escalation rates were used to update the foreign and local components
respectively:
! US PPI (Electric Power Generation)5 5.8%;
! Ethiopia CPI6 6.0%.
The updated capital expenditure estimates are presented in the Table below.
Table 14.11: Capital Expenditures (2008 prices)

Classification Cost (US$ million)
Civil Works 195.0
E&M / HSS 55.1
T/L Costs 50.6
Environmental Costs 25.8
Engineering & Administration 31.2
In addition to the basic project costs presented above, financial contingencies of 5% were
also taken into consideration.
Insurance during the construction period was calculated as 1% of the basic project costs,
i.e. the items listed directly above.
Exchange Rates
The following exchange rates were assumed in the conversion of foreign cost components
to local currency:
Table 14.12: FX Rates

Local Currency ETB
Foreign Currency USD
Spot FX Rate (Jan 2007) 1 USD = 8.40 ETB
1-yr Forward Rate 1 USD = 8.69 ETB
5
Source: US Bureau of Labour Statistics (www.data.bls.gov)
6
Source: African Development Bank “Ethiopia 2006-2009 Country Strategy Paper”, June 2006
The development of the exchange rate was based on purchasing power parity using the
following inflation rates:
! USD CPI7: 2.50% p.a.;
! ETB CPI: 6.00% p.a.;
Capital Structure
On the basis of the experience gained by EEPCo on other investments in the electricity
sector and conditions in the markets, two capital structures, classified as “Scenario 1” and
“Scenario 2”, were assumed.
In Scenario 1, all foreign currency components are financed using a foreign loan
denominated in US Dollars. It was assumed that the local currency components are
financed with equity by EEPCo, with support from the Ethiopian Government. The target
return on equity was set to 12.5%.
In Scenario 2, a debt-to-equity ratio of 4:1 was assumed. It was foreseen that the debt
portion come from two senior loans, one foreign and one local. The target return on equity
was also set to 12.5%.
Both financing scenarios are summarised in the Table below, together with the assumed
terms and conditions relating to the respective debt portion.
Table 14.13: Financing Scenarios
Item Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Debt / Equity 60% 80%
ROE 12.5% 12.5%
FOREIGN Loan Details
Currency USD USD
Term 15 Years 15 Years
Grace 7 Years 7 Years
Base Interest Rate 5.25% 5.25%
Margin 3.0% 3.0%
Commitment Fee 0.25% 0.25%
Up-Front Fee 1.0% 1.0%
Repayment Style Mortgage Style Mortgage Style
Basis for Interest Calculations 360 days 360 days
LOCAL Loan Details
Currency -- ETB
Term -- 15 Years
Grace -- 7 Years
Base Interest Rate -- 10.0%
Margin -- --
Commitment Fee -- 0.25%
Up-Front Fee -- 1.0%
Repayment Style -- Mortgage Style
Basis for Interest Calculations -- 360 days
It was assumed that interest be capitalised during the construction period.
Use of Funds
For Scenario 1, the foreign loan was accordingly used for foreign currency components as
needed, and the equity for local cost components. This mechanism resulted in debt and
equity being drawn simultaneously though not necessarily in proportion.
For Scenario 2, the draw down was programmed such that the equity was drawn first, debt
thereafter. The foreign and local loans were drawn consecutively, foreign first then local.
The draw down schedule in both scenarios is to be interpreted as indicative only and
subject to optimisation.
7
Source: US Bureau of Labour Statistics (www.bls.gov)

Energy Generation
The annual energy generation for the GD-3 project has been estimated at 1,620 GWh at
sent-out level. Taking transmission line losses of 5% into account, the billed amount of
energy corresponds to 1,539 GWh per annum.
Operation & Maintenance

Annual operation and maintenance costs were estimated as 0.5% of the civil works costs
plus 2.0% of the E&M / HSS costs. Annual operation and maintenance costs were inflated
using the Ethiopian CPI.
Duties and Taxation

Import tax on foreign cost components was calculated at 5%. Local cost components were
subjected to Municipality Tax of 1% and Transaction Tax of 12%. Corporate income tax
was not taken into consideration.
Insurance during Operation

An annual insurance premium of USD 1,500,000 was assumed. The insurance program
would include Business Interruption, Third Party Liability, and “All-Risks” insurance
including machinery breakdown.
The scope of the insurance program, including the assumed premium, is to be interpreted
as indicative only.
14.4.4 Results
The financial analysis sought to provide a preliminary overview of the financial
attractiveness of the project from the viewpoint of potential investors and/or project
sponsors.
Based on the assumptions outlined above, the results indicate that the GD-3 project
presents a financially feasible project. An overview of the results is presented in the Table
below.
Table 14.14: Financial Analysis Results – Scenario 1 & Scenario 2
RESULTS - SUMMARY Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Average DSCR 1.83x 1.32x

Minimum DSCR 1.52x 1.09x
Average LLCR 9.19x 3.62x
Minimum LLCR 2.67x 1.90x
Equity Funding TETB 1,639,558 839,522

Debt Funding TETB 2,475,406 3,358,089
Total Funding TETB 4,114,964 4,197,612
Debt / (Debt + Equity) % 60% 80%
Dynamic Unit Costs ETB c / kWh 41.09 40.24

Dynamic Unit Costs USc / kWh 4.73 4.63
IRR (NOMINAL) % 10.72% 10.72%

ROE % 12.50% 12.50%
Payback Period Years 14.0 14.0
Tariff ETB c / kWh 43.6 44.1
US c / kWh 5.01 5.08
Specific Investment Costs ETB / kW 15,073 15,376
USD / kW 1,735 1,769
The internal rate of return for both scenarios is 10.72%, which is greater than the
respective weighted average cost of capital. The debt management ratios indicate that the
derived tariff ensures the project has the ability to meet its debt commitments. The
minimum DSCR for Scenario 2 is below the target value of 1.20x, but this could either be
optimised by using a customised repayment schedule or reducing the debt portion (to
75% or 70%, for example).
The tariffs needed to ensure that the project achieve the desired return on equity of 12.5%
correspond to:
! 43.6 ETB / kWh (5.01 USc / kWh) and
! 44.1 ETB / kWh (5.08 USc / kWh)
for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 respectively.
It should be highlighted that a qualified conclusion regarding the competitiveness of the above
tariffs would need to take into account the business environment in which they are to operate.
In that regard, collaboration and coordination with the utility and regulator during future
steps of project planning is recommended. Furthermore, the financing scenarios should
be reviewed with the aim of identifying potential financiers and assessing the capacity of a
possible participation.
14.4.5 Sensitivity Analysis

The purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to assess the robustness of project results
presented in the previous section. The following parameters were looked at:
! Investment Costs;
! Annual Energy Generation;
! Base Interest Rate;
! Operation & Maintenance Costs.
Each of the above parameters were individually altered and the effect on project results
recorded. Parameters were analysed individually so as to isolate the potential influence of
that parameter. The sensitivity analysis was conducted with respect to Scenario 1 on an
exemplary basis. Results are presented in the Figure below.
Figure 14.1: Results of Sensitivity Analysis
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
6.00
5.50
5.00
TARIFF (USc / kWh)
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
-10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
Investment Costs Annual Energy Generation Base Interest Rate Operation & Maintenance Cost

The Figure shows the variation to the parameter on the x-axis (as a percentage), and the
resulting tariff (to achieve the target return on equity of 12.5%) on the y-axis.
The parameter with the steepest function (irrespective of slope) can thus be interpreted as
having the greatest potential to influence project results. Recall from the Table above that
the tariff for Scenario 1 in the Base Case corresponds to 5.01 USc / kWh.
14.4.6 Conclusions
The financial analysis was facilitated using a spreadsheet based model and implemented
on the basis of a cash flow analysis. The purpose was to provide an indication of the tariff
which would be required to produce a target return on equity of 12.5%. Two possible
capital structures were assumed.
Results show that the project is financially feasible. The internal rate of return exceeds the
weighted average capital costs, and debt management ratios are robust. The sensitivity
analysis proved that the investment costs and energy generation represent key project
parameters.
It should be highlighted that a qualified conclusion regarding the competitiveness of the
tariffs would need to take the business environment in which these are to operate into
account. It is thus recommended that the tariff be discussed in this context with the utility
and responsible authorities. The financing concept should also be reviewed with the aim
of identifying potential financiers and establishing the cost at which the project will be able
to raise capital.
Multipurpose Development
15 Multipurpose Development
15.1 Introduction
The chief role of the GD-3 project is the generation of hydro-electric power. Without
hydropower the project would economically not be feasible. However, if GD-3 were built,
this would trigger other benefits (and costs), thereby making GD-3 a multipurpose
scheme. This section describes the multipurpose aspects of the Genale (GD-3) Project in
terms of:
! water regulation and sedimentation reduction for downstream hydropower projects,
! effects on irrigation,
! changes in salinity patterns,
! fishery on the GD-03 reservoir,
! impacts on the Juba River,
! avoidance of thermal power plant and CO2 emissions,
! improved regional access,
! employment during construction, and
! tourism.
15.2 Viability of Hydropower Projects GD-5 and GD-6

15.2.1 Water Regulation
The Genale flows are at present virtually unused. GD-3 is planned to have a reservoir
which is fairly large and the project would regulate the downstream Genale flow at that
location markedly increasing the low flows and somewhat decreasing the high flows in the
river reaches further downstream.
Two candidate downstream projects, called GD-5 and GD-6, are more or less run-of-river
plants, passing the water as it comes. Without GD-3 those projects will not be viable.
With GD-3 regulation at the top of the cascade, GD-5 and GD-6 will have a firm flow of
over 80m3/s and a correspondingly firm power production, as shown in the following four
graphs (Figure 15.2). This makes GD-5 and GD-6 economically as good as GD-3.
The combined capacity is 565 MW with an average energy generation of 3690 GWh. The
95% guaranteed continuous power is about 382 MW, as shown in Figure 15.3.
Assuming power export to Kenya and a crude oil price of US$ 60/bbl, the Net Present
Value of the two projects is as follows:
! GD-5 US$ 212 million
! GD-6 US$ 359 million.
For details on the calculation of the Net Present Values, see the Chapter on Economic
Analysis.
15.2.2 Sedimentation Reduction

The GD-3 project captures almost all sediments transported and this will consequently
reduce the sediment inflow into GD-5 and GD-6. For example for GD-6 the sediment
inflow will be reduced from 2.8 to 0.9 million tons per year.

Figure 15.2: Streamflow and Power Production of Projects GD-5 and GD-6, with and without GD-3
Regulation
Streamflow of GD-5 – with and without GD-3 Regulation Power Production of GD-5 – considering GD-3 Regulation
Monthly Discharge (m3/s) Monthly Maximum and Continuous Power (MW)
600 300
Natural Flow
500 Regulated Flow

250
400 200
300 150
Maximum Available Capacity is 103 MW
200 100
Continuous Power of 68 MW is exceeded 95% of time

100 50
Average Energy Generation is 686 GWh per annum
0 0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Year Year
EVALS 20061208
Streamflow of GD-6 – with and without GD-3 Regulation Power Production of GD-6 – considering GD-3 Regulation
Monthly Discharge (m3/s) Monthly Maximum and Continuous Power (MW)
600 300
Natural Flow
500 Regulated Flow 250

Maximum Available Capacity is 201 MW
400 200
300 150

200 100

100 50
0 0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Year Year
EVALS 20061208
Figure 15.3: Total Power Output of GD-3, GD-5 and GD-6
600 Maximum Available Capacity is 572 MW
500
400
GD-06
300
GD-05
200
100 GD-03

0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Year
15.3 Effects on the Lower Genale Irrigation Project

The following graphs show how the (monthly) flows react to the implementation of both
the GD-3 Hydroproject and the Lower Genale Irrigation Project.
Table 15.15: Average Minimum Monthly Flow at Dolo

Hydro Irrigation Percent of Exceedance
Scenario GD-3 Lower Genale 5% 10% 25%
0 No No 25 43 76
1 No Yes 8 25 52
2 Yes No 83 105 125
3 Yes Yes 49 80 102
It can be seen that with GD-3 the minimum flows at Dolo are much increased. This is
considered beneficial for people living close to the river.
If GD-3 would not be built, the effect of the Lower Genale on the minimum flows in the dry
season months is considerable, dropping from 76 m³/s (at 25% flow exceedance level) to
52 m³/s. However if GD-3 would be in operation it would rise to 102 m³/s with the irrigation
project, and to even 125 m³/s without it.
The following graphs in Figure 15.4 and Figure 15.5 further illustrate the effect GD-3 on
the streamflow of the Genale for various combinations with the candidate Lower Genale
Irrigation Project.
Figure 15.4: Flow Series of the Genale at Dolo with and without GD-3 Regulation, and with Lower
Genale Irrigation Development Project
Flow Series of the Genale at Dolo Flow Series of the Genale at Dolo with and without GD-3
with and without GD-3 Regulation Regulation – with Lower Genale Irrigation Development Project
Monthly Flows (m3/s) Without Upstream Irrigation Monthly Flows (m3/s) With Upstream Irrigation
1000 1000
Without Regulation with GD-03 Without Regulation with GD-03

800 800
With Regulation With Regulation
by GD-03 by GD-03
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year Year
Monthly Flows at Dolo – with and without GD-3 Regulation, with

Monthly Flows at Dolo – with and without GD-3 Regulation
and without Lower Genale Irrigation Development Project
Mean Monthly Flow (m3/s) Without Upstream Irrigation Mean Monthly Flow (m3/s) With Upstream Irrigation
500 500
Without Regulation with GD-03

400 400
300 300
With Regulation
by GD-03
200 200
With Regulation
by GD-03
100 100
Without Regulation with GD-03
0 0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
End of Month End of Month

Figure 15.5: Monthly Flows at Dolo – with and without GD-3 Regulation, with and
without Lower Genale Irrigation Development Project
Regulation Effect of GD-03 on Genale Flows

Dolo at the Border with Somalia
Mean Monthly Flow (m3/s)
500
Natural Flow minus
Lower Genale
Irrigation Requirements
400 Natural Flow
300
200 With Regulation

by GD-03
100
With Regulation by GD-03 minus
Lower Genale Irrigation Requirements
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
End of Month
15.4 Effect on Other Irrigation Projects in the Genale-Dawa River Basin

As seen above the difference between natural and GD-3 regulated flows at Dolo is about
60m³/s. This is sufficient for about 60,000 ha of irrigated land in addition to the LGIP,
without any reduction to the low season flows available to Somalia.
The area of possibly attractive irrigation projects, in addition to the Lower Genale Irrigation
Development Project, as mentioned in the GDMP Phase 2 report, is 29,000 ha.
This shows that even when the best 10 potential irrigation projects in the GDRB are
realized, there will still be a benefit to Somalia.
15.5 Changes in Salinity Pattern as a Result of the GD-3 Reservoir

The regulation by the GD-3 reservoir will also have an impact on the salinity along the
downstream reaches. As this can be of interest for the planned Lower Genale Irrigation
Project (LGIP) a simulation of the salinity level, expressed in TDS (Total Dissolved Solids
in mg/l) or Conductivity (EC in dS/m), was carried out. To estimate the TDS from the EC
reading multiply with 0.55.
About a year of salinity data was collected at the Chenemasa Bridge hydrometric station
and close to the dam site of GD-3. The results are seen in the following figures.
A few salinity measurements were also available for Kole Bridge, which is close to the intake
of the LGIP. The salinity level was about 120% of the level in Chenemasa (Figure 15.8).
The figures with the dam are steadier than the natural values (see Table 15.16.). For
irrigation the natural and the GD-3 series are of no difficulty.
Figure 15.53: Streamflow versus Conductivity at Chenemasa

Streamflow (m3/s) Conductivity (1000 dS/m)
500 250
400 200
300 150
Read right
200 100
100 50
Read left
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450
Day from 1 Dec 2004
Figure 15.54: TDS at Chenemasa with and without GD-3 Dam

TDS (mg/l)
100
90
80
70
Before Dam
60
50
With Dam
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 15.8: TDS at Kole with and without GD-3 Dam

TDS (mg/l)
100
80 Before Dam
60
With Dam
40
20
0

Table 15.16: TDS at Chenemasa and Kole

Before Dam With Dam
TDS (mg/l) Chenemasa Kole Chenemasa Kole
Jan 68.8 82.5 45.7 52.7
Feb 66.0 718.2 46.3 52.0
Mar 55.0 66.0 46.7 51.2
Apr 44.0 52.8 46.4 51.8
May 41.3 418.5 45.8 52.6
Jun 44.0 52.8 45.8 53.9
Jul 35.8 42.9 44.6 418.6
Aug 27.5 33.0 41.9 42.8
Sep 38.5 46.2 41.5 50.8
Oct 41.8 51.8 42.8 60.0
Nov 57.8 61.8 44.2 60.0
Dec 60.5 72.6 44.9 53.7
15.6 Fishery on the GD-3 Reservoir

Fishery on the GD-3 project could, some years after building the dam, yield 20 kg per
hectare per year. The average area inundated is about 69km2 with a volume of 1586hm³
and an average depth of 23m. According to the Ryer et al formula the sustainable catch,
expressed in kg/hectare, is:
0.3813
Y = 8.7489 (conductivity/average depth)
The average conductivity of the measurements at Chenemasa Bridge hydrometric station
was close to 100 dS/m.
The total fish catch could be in the order of 15 kg/ha/year or about 100,000 kg per year.
This may occupy some 15 families on a long term basis.
During the first 5 years or so after filling, the potential yield is quite a bit higher due to
rotting processes of vegetation inundated by the reservoir, but this is not sustainable.
The value of the fish, based on a market place price of, say, 1 US$/kg of fish would be
US$ 100,000 p.a. Assuming that half of this money is used for fuel, boats, nets and cold
storage, the net present benefit would be US$ 50,000 per annum, or 80 Birr per family
and day.
It may be concluded that fishery on the reservoir, although lucrative for a few fishermen
families, is of no importance for the project economy.
15.7 Impacts on the Juba River

After crossing the border with Somalia the river changes its name from Genale River to
Juba River
A flow series of 1951 to 1982 at Baardhere was available and as in the hydrological study,
the HEC-4 model was used to extend these series to 2002, using catchment rainfall and
flow data (see Figure 15.56 to Figure 15.59).
Figure 15.56: Reconstituted and Regulated Flows of the Juba River at Baardhere
Monthly Discharge (m3/s)

1000
Natural Flow
800 Regulated Flow
600
400
200
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Year
Figure 15.57: Reconstituted Flows of the Juba River at Baardhere

1000
Natural Flow
800
600
400
200
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Year
Figure 15.58: Regulated Flows of the Juba River at Baardhere

1000
800 Regulated Flow
600
400
200
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Year

Figure 15.59: Duration Curves of Reconstituted and Regulated Flows

of the Juba River at Baardhere
Discharge (m3/s)
1000
800
600
Natural Flow
400
200
Regulated Flow
0
0 25 50 75 100
Percent of Exceedance
15.7.1 Flood Damage along the Juba

Flood damage in the Juba valley will be reduced when the GD-3 project will be
implemented. The flood area is almost 100% agricultural. In 1990, prior to the war-like
circumstances in Somalia, the crops grown were:
Table 15.17: Irrigated Crops in Juba Valley (1990):

Land Crop Area Value 1990 2005
(ha) (MUS$) (MUS$)
Cultivated 1075000
Irrigated 165000
Irrigated from Juba (Estimate) 82500 81 101.6
Bananas 4500 48 60.0
Grape Fruit 1945 12 15.5
Sugar Cane 1875 12 15.5
Part irrigated Maize/Cereals 74180 8 10.5
The reduction in flood damages for 1990 conditions were estimated as shown in Table 15.18.
The hydraulic bankfull capacity of the Juba is about 800 m³/s. In the absence of daily or
shorter interval values it was estimated that a monthly flow above 400 m³/s would indicate
moderate flood conditions with 20% crop losses, that flows above 500 m³/s would be a
high flood, drowning 40% of the crops, and that monthly flows above 600 m³/s would lead
to severe floods inundating 80% of the crops.
The above table shows that without GD-3 regulation there will be floods damage in
roughly 37% of all years with an average damage of nearly 15 MUS$. In the case of GD-3
there will be flood damages in 23% of all years, with an average damage of 9 MUS$. The
net present value for flood damage, which is a benefit for GD-3, is about 58 US$ (for a
period of 50 years and a 10% discount rate). This value could be somewhat larger as only
crop losses have been considered and not for example the temporary dislocation of
people from flooded lands or stoppage of road transport along the Juba in times of
flooding.
Table 15.18: Flood Damage due to Crop Losses in Juba Valley (1990)
Year Flow exceeding Bankfull Flood Severity Irrigated CropLoss Flood Damage to Crops
w/o GD-3 with GD-3 w/o GD-3 with GD-3 w/o GD-3 with GD-3 w/o GD-3 with GD-3
(m3/s) (m3/s) (MUS$) (MUS$)
1977 449 414 Severe Severe 80% 80% 81 81
1978 92 0 Moderate None 20% 20 0
1981 221 234 Severe Severe 80% 80% 81 81
1987 53 0 Moderate None 20% 20 0
1989 66 44 Moderate Moderate 20% 30% 20 30
1992 122 0 High None 40% 41 0
1997 310 62 Severe Moderate 80% 20% 81 20
2000 98 0 Moderate None 20% 20 0
2002 114 86 High Moderate 40% 20% 41 20
Crop Loss Severe 80% Average Annual 14.9 9.1

High 40% 2005 US$
Moderate 20% Benefit for GD-3 5.8 MUS$ p.a.
15.7.2 Increase of Low Flows in the Juba

Noteworthy is that the low flows, from 75% exceedence onward, will be significantly
increased by circa 80 m³/s, which has benefits for irrigation and for boat transport to
Kismayo. Especially during the low flows the almost salt-free water from the GD-3
reservoir will mix with the salty water from the lowest parts of the GDRB, thus making the
water more suitable for irrigation.
The Consultant has assumed that Somalia can use, in the long term, some 25% of the low
flow augmentation by GD-3, making it well possible to grow a second crop. The additional
cropped area would be some 20,000 ha for, say, oil-seeds, with a net present value of at
least 800 US$ per ha. Assuming it takes 10 years to develop the whole 20,000 ha, the net
present value is about MUS$93 million.
15.7.3 Boat Transport on the Juba River

This can be only an extremely rough estimate. If road transport costs about 0.08 US$ per
ton and kilometre, and boat transport only half of that, and if the average distance to
Kismayo is about 150 km, and that the crop of half the cultivated land with 2000 kg/ha
would be transported by boat, then the savings due to GD-3 regulation would be in the
order of 500,000 US$ per annum, equal to a net present value of 5 MUS$.
15.7.4 Total Benefits along the Juba River

The total net present value along the Juba River is:
Second crop for 20,000 ha MUS$ 93
Flood Control MUS$ 58
Boat Transport MUS$ 5
Total MUS$ 156
The Consultant has not considered the Baardhere Multipurpose Project in Somalia. This
project was planned and earmarked for construction at the end of the 80-ies.
The purpose of Baardhere was multi-objective, with most benefits coming from electricity
supply, but also with benefits from irrigation, flood control and lower salinity in the low flow
season.
Under the given circumstances nobody can estimate when such a project would become
attractive to donors again.

What is important, however, is that by regulating the streamflow of the downstream river,
GD-3 would provide irrigation, flood control, reduced salinity and boat transport benefits
which otherwise, in the long term, would have to be supplied by Baardhere.
15.8 Avoided Thermal Power Plant Emissions

In Kenya the project output will offset generation of thermal power plants and the
associated emissions. Taking the emission of a combined cycle as an example, Table
15.19 displays the savings of emissions:
Table 15.19: Avoided Thermal Plant Emissions and their Values

Emission CO2 SO2 NOx
tons per year 977,902 6,044 1,436
value per ton 25 300 100
US$ per year 24,447,545 1,813,200 143,600
Total US$ per year 26,404,345
The value for CO2 is an average of reduction costs in the European countries. The vaue
for SO2 is obtained from the US trading market. The price for NOx was taken from a
confidential study for one of the former East-Block countries.
The NPV over 50 years is about MUS$260 for combined cycle type of plants. If coal plant
is to be taken, the figure would more than double.
15.9 Avoidance of CO2 Emission

Hydropower offsets thermal or other types of generation. Besides replacing capacity and
energy, the use of hydropower also leads to a reduction of thermal plant emission (CO2),
which is the most important Green House Gas contributor. The cost of one tone of saved
CO2 to date is about US$ 4 to five according to GEF, but is expected to rise considerably
in the future. Although it is to early now, it may well be that when the project is
commissioned there would be international trading of CO2 certificates, and the project
could become a direct beneficiary.
15.10 Improved Access

Some 60 km of new permanent roads will be constructed in the project area to provide
vehicle access to connect the proposed resettlement sites either to the Weredas
administration centres or to the existing all weathered roads in both project Weredas. This
road will greatly improve transport, and thereby trade links from the project area to Negele
and Bidire town. The overall impact of the new road will be of considerable benefit to the
nation in general and to the local communities in particular.
15.11 Employment during Construction

Comparison with other projects of broadly similar type and magnitude, suggests that the
total workforce on construction contract comprising the overall project is likely to be more
than 3,000 persons at peak time. In view of the nature of the works, much of which will be
plant-intensive rather than labor-intensive, the contractors' requirements are likely to be
mainly for skilled and semi-skilled workers, with around 20-30% of the total manpower
requirement being for unskilled workers.
In common with other construction projects in rural areas in Ethiopia, most, if not all, the
skilled and semi-skilled workforce will probably be recruited from outside the immediate
project area because of the shortage of suitably qualified and experienced construction
workers in what is primarily a subsistence farming area. However, unskilled workers will
be recruited locally, which will result in the creation of the equivalent of 600-900 full-time
jobs on contract for around 4 years.
The creation of regular wage employment in the rural parts of project area is important,
even though it will be on a relatively small scale, at relatively good rates of pay and for a
limited period, since there are currently few other opportunities available.
The presence of the workforce, who is likely to be relatively cash-rich compared with the
majority of the rural population, will undoubtedly encourage individuals to set up stalls to
supply food and other consumables at worksites. Businesses in the local towns will also
benefit financially through supplying goods and services to the workforce when they are
on leave, as well as through the contractors purchasing some of the food requirements of
the base camps.
Although labor recruitment is a matter for the contractor, who has the right to determine
whom they shall and shall not employ, he should be formally encouraged to hire locally
wherever possible, in order to maximize the benefit distribution and social acceptability of
the project. Therefore, the contractor should use his best endeavor to maximize local hire
of labor, in so far as this is compatible with his skill requirements, and to maximize local
procurement of supplies.
15.12 Tourism
The GD-3 project is located close to one of the tourist routes crossing the Genale-Dawa
Basin, from Goba and the Bale Mountains National Park to Negele Borena.
The large artificial lake created by the project will become a major tourist and recreation
attraction in the region. Tourist activities that can be developed include bird watching,
water sports and sport fisheries. Therefore, it is expected that the place will slowly develop
into a tourist and recreation destination, as is the case in other countries.
However access, accommodation, walking paths, boats, restaurants and skillful personnel
is needed to run the place.
Establishing the necessary facilities and services may take a long time and therefore it is
quite unkown what the future benefits can be.

16 International Water Rights
16.1 Background
The implications, with regard to International Water Rights, of developing the water
resources of the Genale-Dawa River Basin were evaluated in general terms during Phase
II of the Masterplan Studies. This evaluation is contained in the Phase 2 Masterplan
Report, Main Report, Report # GDMP-P2D.I-A, May 2006, Part A, Chapter 15. The main
conclusions of that evaluation were as follows:
! The Genale-Dawa River Basin is an international watercourse shared by three
watercourse states, namely Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya. All the rivers in the Basin
originate in Ethiopia and flow to the other watercourse states, mainly Somalia but also
to Kenya where the Dawa River forms the boundary between Ethiopia and Kenya at a
certain section.
! The candidate water resources development projects that have been included in the
Master Plan and may have some impact on the other riparian states, particularly
Somalia, are three hydropower projects on the upper and middle reaches of the
Genale River (i.e. GD-3, GD-6, GD-6 and GD-2) and four large scale irrigation projects
(i.e. Bale Gadula, Welmel, Yadot and Lower Genale) as well as some medium and
small scale irrigation schemes.
! It is difficult, and indeed, premature at this stage to definitively assess the positive and
adverse impacts of these hydropower and irrigation projects on downstream
watercourse states. This is because there also needs to be sufficient information and
data available on existing and planned water resources projects located in the
downstream countries to determine their water resource requirements. The
information would then provide the basis upon which a water resources simulation
model can be used to allocated water among the watercourse states in an equitable
manner.
! In broad terms, it is not difficult to predict the likely positive or negative impacts of the
water resources projects on downstream watercourse states. For example, since the
irrigation projects are consumptive in nature, their development is likely to have
tangible impacts on the flows in the river systems downstream, particularly in Somalia,
by reducing the total amount of water available. The irrigation and hydropower projects
may also affect the quality of water in the Juba River and this will need to be
assessed. On the other hand, the development of hydropower projects are likely to
have a positive impact by way of flood reduction and increased dry season flows. The
hydro-power projects may also minimise the impact of irrigation development on
downstream flows and so may be beneficial to the water regime of the Juba River in
Somalia.
! The issue, however, is determining how much water should be allocated to Ethiopia
and how much to Somalia, based on the general principles and rules of international
water law and the factors that are relevant in the particular context of the Genale-
Dawa River Basin, in accordance with the rights and obligations of the concerned
watercourse states.
! In the absence of an international agreement on water apportionment, as well as the
lack of detailed information of the water requirements of the downstream watercourse
states, particularly Somalia, Ethiopia can initially make efforts to notify relevant
watercourse states of the proposed Master Plan projects and initiate a process of
consultations and negotiations. This would be particularly relevant for projects which
are believed to cause significant positive and negative impacts on the watercourse
states. This may not, however, be possible in the case of Somalia since, as earlier
mentioned, there may be no authority which can be notified of the planned projects.
International Water Rights
! However, in the light of currently accepted international rules and principles, Ethiopia
still has the right to utilise a reasonable and equitable share of the water of the
Genale-Dawa River Basin. The absence of an international agreement should
therefore not be a barrier to the implementation of water resources development in the
Basin as long as it ensures that its interventions are within its equitable and
reasonable share of the waters of the Basin on the basis of available data and
information.
! One issue that will be considered in this context is whether or not such water
resources projects will have “a significant adverse effect” on downstream interests.
This should normally be looked at by balancing the two substantive principles of
international law and determining the rights and obligations of the respective
watercourse states.
! International water law and the policies of international funding agencies, such as the
World Bank, currently places great emphasis on interstate collaboration and
agreement for the optimum utilisation of international watercourses. Ethiopia’s trans-
boundary water resources policy, and its current experience in the Nile, is also in line
with this. Ethiopia has therefore accepted the need to promote the use of its equitable
and reasonable share of trans-boundary water resources in accordance with
internationally accepted norms. It clearly follows that development of the water
resources of the Genale-Dawa River Basin should also be undertaken in co-operation
and agreement with the downstream watercourse states, namely Somalia and Kenya.
! Eventually, the sharing of the waters of the Genale-Dawa River Basin among the
watercourse states should be the subject of an agreement on the utilisation and
management of the waters of the Basin. This might not be possible in the immediate
term since negotiations and agreements among the watercourse can only be
achievable in the long term. This is also the experience of many international
watercourse agreements that have been concluded in many parts of the world.
However, the lack of watercourse agreements among the watercourse states should
not be a hindrance to the development of international watercourses in one or more of
the watercourse states. This also holds true in the Genale-Dawa River Basin where
there is no agreement on the utilisation and management of the international
watercourse
From the above, it is clear that an initial step towards reaching an interstate agreement on
the use of the water resources of an international river basin is an assessment of the likely
impact of individual projects on the river flows, in terms of both quantity and quality, at the
international borders. With this in mind, the following sections address the impact
specifically of the GD-3 Hydropower Project on the river flows of the Genale River at the
border with Somalia.
16.2 Impacts of GD-3

GD-3 is a hydropower project and as such it does not consume water. The scheme diverts
water out of the Genale River at an upstream location and returns the same water to the
same river at a location further downstream. This diversion and subsequent return of river
water occur entirely within Ethiopia over a river reach of some 20km.
The GD-3 hydropower project is a storage scheme with a relatively large reservoir. This
reservoir regulates the seasonal river flows – it stores a portion of the high river flows
during the wet season for release through the power scheme during the subsequent dry
season. In this way an almost constant flow of water is diverted through the power
scheme over the year to generate an almost constant amount of electricity. Two graphic
comparisons of the flows at the GD-3 site before and after construction of the proposed
reservoir are shown below.

Regulation Effect of GD-03 Reservoir on Genale River Flows

Time Series of Inflow and Outflow
Discharge (m3/s)
500
Inflows to GD-03
400
Outflow of GD-03
300
200
100
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Regulation Effect of GD-3 Reservoir on Genale River Flows

3
Discharge (m /s) Duration Curves of Inflow and Outflow
500
400
300
Inflows
200
Outflows
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Duration (%)
These comparisons show the natural historical monthly flows at the GD-3 site since 1973
plotted against the flows that would have occurred over the same period if the reservoir
and power project had been in operation. The first comparison shows the sequencial time
series with and without the GD-3 project, the second comparison shows the duration
curves of river flow with and without the GD-3 project.
It can be seen that the reservoir will greatly reduce the variability of river flows
downstream of the project. Historically, the average monthly river flows varied throughout
the year from some 20m³/s in March to almost 200m³/s in October. After construction of
the reservoir and hydropower plant, the monthly river flows will be largely constant, at
around 85 m³/s, for very long periods, indeed for periods of several years. Only during the
wettest of wet seasons will the reservoir be full and have to spill excess flow in an
unregulated manner to the river downstream. The above comparison is based on mean
monthly flows. Within each month the river flows vary from hour to hour and from day to
day as floods rise and recede – also those hourly and daily variations will be “damped out”
by the reservoir. However, after construction of the reservoir and power scheme, the river
discharges will vary in a regular pattern during each 24 hour period as the power scheme
generates at full, or close to full, power during the daylight hours of peak electricity
demand and runs down during the night hours of low demand.
This regulation of river flows will have the following positive impacts:
! downstream hydropower and /or irrigation projects obtain an almost steady inflow on a
year-round basis
! it provides a considerable level of flood control
! it will allow boat transport to the seaport of Kismayo in Somalia
A possible negative impact of the regulation by the GD-3 reservoir might be that the lack
of a pronounced low flow season will hinder crossing the river during the dry season,
perhaps creating problems for nomads and their animals, as well as for wildlife. Another
possible impact is that the new, largely constant, flow conditions will better suit certain
aquatic species at the expense of others and thereby change the balance of the aquatic
ecosystem downstream of the project.
A further impact of the reservoir is the net loss of water from the reservoir surface. Net
reservoir loss is defined as the difference between evaporation loss from the inundated
reservoir area prior to construction of a dam and evaporation loss from the same
inundated area after construction of a dam. The net losses from the GD-3 reservoir have
been calculated as follows:
Average Net Losses from GD-3 Reservoir (mm)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
241 228 153 -116 -81 76 94 101 90 -39 94 163 1003
This calculation takes account of evaporation from open water, rainfall directly on the
open water surface and the run-off from the reservoir area prior to inundation.
The reservoir surface area varies throughout the year as the reservoir level rises and falls.
From reservoir operation simulations, the average annual net loss from the reservoir
surface area is some 73 million m³, which is equivalent to 2.3 m³/s. This represents less
than 3% of the total flow available at the GD-3 site and is not a significant loss. At the
border with Somalia, where the average river flow is some 209 m³/s, this loss represents
some 1% and is negligible.
Further downstream of the GD-3 project, the regulated flows will be increasingly “diluted”
by the natural run-off from the various tributaries that join the Genale River. These
additions of natural run-off will increase the variability of regulated river flows, while still
retaining the more or less constant regulated flow from GD-3. Between GD-3 and the
border with Somalia at Dolo, these tributaries add unregulated flows which vary between
some 37 m³/s in March to some 214 m³/s in October.
In the same way as shown above for GD-3 site, a comparison at the Ethio-Somali border
(Dolo) of the “before” and “after” situation is shown in the following two graphics:

Regulation Effect of GD-3 on Genale Flows at the Ethio-Somali Border

Monthly Flows (m3/s)
1000
900 Dolo (Regulated by GD-3)

Dolo (Natural Flows)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
Regulation Effect of GD-3 Reservoir on Genale River Flows at the Ethio-Somali Border
3 Duration Curves of "Before" and "After"
Discharge (m /s)
1000
900
800
700
600
Before
500
400
After
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Duration (%)
It can be seen that the GD-3 project reduces the variation of monthly flows at the Ethio-
Somali border – the high monthly flows in the wet season will be reduced, while the low
monthly flows in the dry season will be increased.
With regard to water quantities, probably the most significant impact of GD-3 will be felt
during impoundment of the large reservoir. While this impact will only be temporary
(during the months of impoundment), it will effectively reduce the volume of water
available to downstream users by some 2,600 million m³ during the period of
impoundment. The duration of impoundment will depend on the magnitude of flows
entering the reservoir, but it could last over 6 months and even stretch to 2 years. This
volume of water which would be stored in the reservoir and temporarily removed from
downstream users represents some 41% of the total flow normally available at the Ethio-
Somali border.
With regard to water quality, the large GD-3 reservoir will not change the chemical
composition of the river water; however it may change slightly some of the physical
characteristics. The reservoir will trap large quantities of suspended sediment thereby
improving this aspect of water quality for downstream users. However, downstream of the
dam, the river will again pick up sediments so that at the border with Somalia, there may
be little impact in terms of suspended sediment. With regard to oxygen content and
temperature, it is known that both reduce in deep reservoirs with increasing depth from
the surface. The GD-3 power scheme abstracts water from the reservoir at a fixed
elevation, but the water level in the reservoir varies throughout the year. Thus the
abstraction depth varies from a maximum in November when the reservoir water level is
at its highest to a minimum in May when the water level is at its lowest. On average the
abstraction depth varies from some 40m in the wet season to some 30m in the dry
season. Re-aeration and mixing with river flows from the many tributaries will increase
both the oxygen content and temperature downstream. Again, the impact at the border is
likely to be insignificant.
Dams, by their nature, form barriers to the movement of fish. The upper reaches of the
Genale River are populated by migratory fish. Because of the fast flowing nature of the
river water in these steeper upper reaches, the indigenous fish tend to be small and
strong. As such, they are less important as a food source and any reduction in their
population would not have a significant impact on the local population and none at all on
the population of Somalia. Indeed the reduction in flow variability downstream of the
reservoir should improve conditions for the larger, slower moving fish that are key
components of local diet.
16.3 Conclusions
The Genale River, a main watercourse within the Genale-Dawa River Basin, rises in the
southern highlands of Ethiopia and flows south eastwards into Somalia. As such, it is an
international river.
The GD-3 Hydropower project will have certain impacts (both positive and negative) on
downstream water users, including those in Somalia. According to the currently available
knowledge, none of the negative impacts are of such significance as to prevent
implementation of the hydropower project. The reduction in water quantity as a result of
the project will be negligible as will the reduction in water quality.
According to the currently accepted international rules and principles, Ethiopia has the
right to utilise a reasonable and equitable share of the water of the Genale-Dawa River
Basin. The absence of an international agreement is not a barrier to the implementation of
water resources development in the Basin as long as Ethiopia ensures that its
interventions are within its equitable and reasonable share of the waters of the Basin on
the basis of available data and information
Once the GD-3 hydropower project is included in Ethiopia’s development plans, then it is
recommended that the downstream state be informed in order that a final assessment of
its impact on schemes within Somalia can be made.

17 Conclusions and Recommendations
17.1 Conclusions
The layout of the Genale (GD-3) Hydropower Project has been defined, the main
construction and equipment components have been dimensioned and the overall project
cost has been estimated and compared with alternative electricity generating
opportunities. The layout and design studies have been founded on a range of basic
feasibility studies covering the fields of topography, hydrology, geology, construction
materials and the environment. Based on the results of those studies the scheme is both
technically and economically feasible. An assessment of the impact of the scheme on the
environment is contained in a separate report. Around 730 families will have to be
resettled, but a workable plan for this resettlement, including compensation measures,
has been devised. No known endangered plant or animal species will be adversely
affected by the project. The impact assessment judged the scheme to be environmentally
acceptable. An assessment of the international legal issues has concluded that there are
no legal impediments to developing the scheme.
Construction of the scheme will provide employment and career opportunities for over
1,500 local people. New roads to the project area will greatly improve transport links to the
town of Negele and beyond. This in turn will stimulate local trade.
The GD-3 Hydropower Project will be the first development in a cascade of schemes on
the main Genale River. Two further hydropower schemes – known as GD-5 and GD-6 –
and an irrigation scheme – the Lower Genale Irrigation Project - are foreseen downstream
on the same Genale River. The huge GD-3 reservoir will regulate the seasonal flows of
the Genale River and the attractiveness of the three downstream schemes owes much to
the considerable regulation capacity provided by GD-3. As such, the downstream
schemes should not be commissioned before GD-3.
The total cost of the GD-3 scheme is estimated at US$ 536 million. This total includes the
costs of all construction works, equipment, engineering and administration services and
environmental mitigation and compensation measures. Of the total, some US$ 246 million
(or 46%) will be for the transmission of the energy over some 815 km by HVAC and DC
links to Eldoret in Kenya via the town of Mega in Ethiopia. The remaining US$ 290 million
(54%) will cover the cost of the generation scheme (the dam and underground power
scheme).
The direct benefits of the project will be 254 MW of electrical power and 1,640 GWh of
energy per year. The electrical power will be available at any time of the day or night to
cover both peak and off-peak demand in the Kenyan interconnected power system. From
the above costs and installed capacity, the so-called specific unit cost of the GD-3
scheme, based on the generation component (excluding the transmission component), is
some US$ 1,140 per kW installed – indicative of a very attractive hydropower generation
scheme.
An analysis comparing the total costs of the hydropower schemes (including the long
transmission link to Kenya) with the costs of constructing and fueling the least cost
equivalent thermal alternative in Kenya indicated cost-benefit ratios at a discount rate of
10% in favour of the hydropower schemes of 1.7 and 1.8 for the single stage GD-3 and
multi-stage cascade respectively. The respective Economic Internal Rates of Return of
are 16.7% and 17.4%. These indices are indicative of very attractive power projects.
In financial terms, the single stage scheme, including the transmission link to Kenya, could
provide its investors a 12.5% Return on Equity by selling energy at a tariff of some USc
5.1 per kWh. This tariff is judged reasonable by comparative standards.
The technical and environmental characteristics of the GD-3 scheme are summarized in
Table 17.1. The main components of the scheme are:
Conclusions and Recommendations
! Access roads, some 58.3km long from the town of Negele to the dam and power
station sites.
! An RCC dam, some 110m high and incorporating a free overflow stepped spillway and
a downstream stilling basin.
! A headrace waterway, almost 13km long, comprising a power intake, a long 8.1m
diameter unlined TBM driven headrace tunnel, a concrete lined pressure shaft some
200m deep, a steel lined pressure tunnel some 200m long leading into a three
pronged manifold.
! An underground concrete lined headrace surge tank, 23m finished diameter, 120m high.
! An underground power cavern, an underground transformer cavern, a power cavern
access and cable tunnel and various construction adits.
! A concrete lined tailrace waterway comprising a three pronged tailrace manifold
converging into a tailrace tunnel, over 1.5km long and with a finished diameter of 6.1m
and ending in an outfall structure.
! An underground tailrace surge tank, converted from the low-level inclined construction
adit.
! A 230kV outdoor switchyard.
! Transmission lines, some 295km long, to a proposed DC converter station at the town
of Mega. From Mega, a HVDC link will transmit the energy a distance of some 520km
to the town of Eldoret in Kenya.
The hydropower scheme exploits a renewable energy source. It will not deplete Ethiopia's
reserves of natural resources, it will not produce harmful gases and it will not increase the
nation's dependence on imported fossil fuels. The power and energy generated will be
available for industrial, commercial and domestic consumption thereby greatly improving
both social and economic conditions in the country.
17.2 Recommendations
Such a worthwhile project should be implemented as soon as possible. In the following, a
number of technical recommendations are made to move the project towards
implementation. These recommendations are essentially aimed at expanding the project
data base to provide a much more reliable basis for detailed design. The
recommendations to expand the data base focus on the fields of topographic surveying,
hydrology and geology.
Crucial for a quick delopment of the scheme is that the Ethiopian authorities should decide
whether it will be developed as a public sector or a government project soon,
Subsequently the next phase of the GD-3 development can start, including the detailed
design and the formulation of institutional measures to ensure a smooth implementation of
the scheme.
17.2.1 Topographic Survey

All the sites of the major structures of the GD-3 scheme should be tied in horizontally and
vertically by field survey. The following sites should be surveyed and digital maps with 1m
contours produced of the following sites:
! dam,
! power intake,
! headrace tunnel adit portal,
! headrace surge tank,
! powerhouse access tunnel portal,
! powerhouse switchyard,
! tailrace outfall portal.
The Ethiopian Mapping Agency (EMA) should be commissioned to produce digital maps with
5m contours of a 400m corridor along the headrace and tailrace tunnels from the original air
photographs as a basis for geological mapping and for checking depths of overburden.

17.2.2 Hydrology
The operation of all the river gauging stations on the Genale River and on its tributaries
should be continued. These gauging stations should be of the automatic type in order to
record flood flows. The river reaches upstream and downstream of the stations should be
surveyed, at least, at 6 month intervals (before and after the wet season). River gaugings
should be carried out at regular intervals, indeed intensified, especially during the wet
season in order to continuously assess the rating (or stage-discharge) curves.
At least ten automatic rain gauges should be installed in the GD-3 catchment. These
raingauges should be distributed such that 7 are located in the upper catchment where
greatest precipitation falls
Efforts to correlate storm rainfall with river flood peaks should be intensified and
suspended sediment sampling should be introduced at all river gauging stations. In this
regard, the resources of national universities should be exploited. Projects should be
defined and allocated to universities to be carried out by engineering students under the
guidance and direction of academics. Under this arrangement, students work on real
projects, academics develop new lines of research and the nation improves its database
on which water resources projects are planned and designed – a truly “win-win”
arrangement.
17.2.3 Geology
In general drilling and/or geophysical surveys of the foundations of all the major structures
should be completed prior to tendering. In particular the following investigations should be
carried out for future planning or design studies:
! Detailed geological mapping (including joint survey) of the dam, tunnel, surge shaft,
penstock and new power house position. This will require large scale aerial
photography and photogrammetric mapping to provide suitable scale of topographic
maps and aerial photos for photo-geological mapping. This is especially important to
locate a suitable quarry with fine grained granite and to define the extent of basement
schists intruded by the pegmatoidal granites.
! Drilling of the dam site, diversion culvert and stilling basin. Borehole positions should
be based on detailed geological mapping at the positions of major joints not yet
investigated that could represent possible leakage paths below the dam.
! Drilling of the power intake, headrace tunnel, powerhouse access tunnel portal,
tailrace outlet portal and the underground power house.
! Drilling of quarry areas to access overburden depths and rock mass quality and to
obtain samples of rock core for laboratory testing. This should be followed by surface
test blasts for bulk samples of rock for aggregate and rock fill testing. The main quarry
should be in proximity to the existing one near the dam but a second smaller quarry
may be required for the power house area.
! Specialised in-situ and laboratory testing of the granites and schists to assess
accurate values of Unconfined Compressive Strength, Modulus of Deformation and
Poisson’s Ratio.
! Specialised testing of the concrete aggregates, cement and pozzolanic material as
well as tests on concrete to be used during construction.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Table 17.1: Genale (GD-3) Hydropower Project – Summary of Project Characteristics

Dam and Reservoir
Catchment area 10,445 km2
Mean inflow 92.6 m3/s
Main Dam Type Roller Compacted Concrete Gravity
Height above foundation 110 m
Fill volume 890,000 m3
Reservoir FSL 1,120 m asl
Reservoir storage Total 2,570 million m3
Active 2,310 million m3
Reservoir surface area at FSL 98 km2
Spillway type free overflow, stepped chute, stilling basin
Routed PMF peak discharge 1,294 m3/s
Power Waterways
Stage II Power Waterways
Headrace Length 12,400m tunnel, 216m inclined shaft, 285m tunnel
Lining 10,300 unlined, 2,400m concrete, 200m steel
Finished diameter 8.1m unlined, 7.1/6.1 m concrete, 4.8m steel
Headrace surge tank Height 120 m
Diameter 23 m
Tailrace surge tank Height 30 m
Internal size 323 m2
Tailrace Tunnel Length 1,480 m
Lining Concrete, circular profile
Finished diameter 6.1 m
Powerhouse
Powerhouse type Underground
Turbine number and type 3, Francis
Total installed capacity 254 MW
Rated head 254.5 m
Rated total flow 116 m3/s
Average / Firm energy production 1,640 / 1,600 GWh/year
Switchyard and Transmission Line
Switchyard type and number Conventional outdoor, double busbar
Rated voltage 230 kV AC
Transmission line length 295 km to Mega Town
Number of circuits Double
Transmission link to Kenya DC Converter station at Mega
520km 500kV DC transmission line to Eldoret
Project Costs
Civil Works 184 million US$
Mechanical and Electrical Works 52 million US$
HVAC Transmission GD-3 to Mega 48 million US$
HVDC Transmission Mega to Eldoret 198 million US$
Engineering, supervision and administration 30 million US$
Environment 24 million US$
Total 536 million US$
Economic and Financial Parameters
Unit generation cost (excluding HV AC+DC link) 2.5 USc/kWh
Unit generation cost (including HV AC+DC link) 4.5 USc/kWh
Economic internal rate of return 16.7 %
Financial tariff to achieve 12.5% return on equity 5.1 USc/kWh
Environmental Impacts
Households resettled 727
Productive land submerged 3,922 ha
Endangered animals affected none
Endangered plants affected none

18 References
1. USACE, EM 1110-2-2200, “Gravity Dam Design”.
2. USACE, EM 1110-2-2006, “Roller-Compacted Concrete”.
3. USBR, “Design of Gravity Dams (Design manual for concrete gravity dams)”, United
States Government Printing Office, 1976.
4. ICOLD, “State-of-the-Art of Roller-Compacted Concrete Dams”, 2003.
5. Norplan A.S in association with Norconsult International A.S., “Genale Hydropower
Projects, Pre-feasibility Study”, Main Report, Vol. II, April 1999.
6. Lahmeyer International GmbH in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult, “Genale-Dawa
River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan Study, Sector Report G.
Hydropower”, Addis Ababa, Ministry of Water Resources, September 2005.
River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan Study, Master Plan,
Main Report”, Addis Ababa, Ministry of Water Resources, December 2006.
River Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan Study, Pre-feasibility
Study of GD-6 Hydropower Project”, Addis Ababa, Ministry of Water Resources,
November 2006.

GDMP-FS GD-3 Vol. II Main Report - Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GDMP-FS GD-3 Vol. II Main Report - Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA

MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES

Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated

Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose

Volume II Main Report

and Addis Ababa

Genale-Dawa River Basin

Genale (GD-3) Multipurpose Hydropower Project

Volume II. Main Report

Background of the Master Plan Study

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia)

Organisation of the Master Plan Study

The overall Master Plan Study comprised three phases, as follows:

Phase I Review of existing information, establishment of a comprehensive

Layout of this Feasibility Study Report

This report is sub-divided into five volumes:

Feasibility Study for Genale (GD-3)

Volume I – Executive Summary

Volume II – Main Report

Volume III – Environmental Impact Assessment

Volume V – Album of Drawings (A3)

The present Volume II contains the Main Report.

Genale-Dawa River Basin Integrated

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) i

3.3.4 Downstream of the Dam Site 26

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) iii

9.3 Spillway 111

11.4.5 Generator Dimensions and Weights 161

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) v

14.3 Economic Appraisal of the GD-3 Hydropower Development 196

Table 2.9: Specific Generation Costs – Kenya 18

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) vii

Table 14.13: Financing Scenarios 201

Figure 11.2: Optimum Range of Generator Voltage 159

List of Annexes (Vol. IV)

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) ix

List of Drawings (Vol. V)

2.1 Hydrology Project Area - Catchment and Hydrological Map

4.1 Reservoir Reservoir - Plan and Elevation-Area-Capacity Table

5.1 RCC Dam RCC Dam - Layout Plan

7.1 Power Scheme Hydropower Scheme - Overall Single Line Diagram

8.1 Transmission Powerhouse Switchyard (230 kV) - Plan

9.1 Construction Construction Time Schedule

Acronyms, Glossary, Units etc.

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xi

Background to the Present Study

Figure 0.1: Project Location in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa

Lake Victoria 0 100 200 300 400 km

Potential Electricity Markets

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xiii

Gr o und Sur f ace

Po wer ho use C aver n

Figure 0.3: Genale Hydropower Cascade

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xv

Costs and Benefits

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xvii

International Water Rights Issues

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) xix

Dam and Reservoir

1.1 The Ministry of Water Resources and Master Plans

1.2 The Genale-Dawa Master Plan Study

Lahmeyer International (Germany) in association with Yeshi-Ber Consult (Ethiopia) 1

1.3 Previous Studies on the GD-3 Project