Evaluation Report On HMT Final

Nepal Electricity Authority
Detailed Engineering Study

of
Tanahu (Upper Seti) Hydropower Project
in Nepal
ADB Gr. No. 0215 NEP (SF)

Contract No. USHP 01/2011
Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test
October 2012
Electric Power Development Co., Ltd. (J-Power), Japan

In association with
Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., Japan
OYO International Corporation, Japan
and
Hydro Engineering & Development Co., (P) Ltd., Nepal
Detailed Engineering Study of Tanahu (Upper Seti) Hydropower Project
Table of Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................................. S-1
1. Planning of Hydraulic Model Test

1.1 Basic Plan of the Hydraulic Model Test ................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Model Laws and Scale .............................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 Modeled Area ........................................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 River Bed of the Model ............................................................................................ 1-6
1.5 Project Site Survey ................................................................................................... 1-6
1.6 Schedule.................................................................................................................... 1-7
2. Setting-up Test Conditions and Construction of Physical Model

2.1 Contents of the Hydraulic Model Test ...................................................................... 2-1
2.2 The Basic Conditions of the Hydraulic Model Test ................................................. 2-2
2.3 Model Construction .................................................................................................. 2-6
2.4 Model Layout and Measuring Instruments ............................................................... 2-13
3. Validation of the Model

3.1 Validation of the River Model .................................................................................. 3-1
4. Existing Situation Tests

4.1 Flow Regime of the River before Dam Construction ............................................... 4-1
4.2 Validation of the Sediment Concentration Ratio and the Sediment Movement before
Dam Construction ..................................................................................................... 4-4
5 Hydraulic Model Tests on Spillway

5.1 Results of Tests on the Original Design.................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Modification of the model ........................................................................................ 5-2
5.3 Results of Tests on the Final Design......................................................................... 5-19
6. Hydraulic Model Tests on the Sediment Flushing Facilities

6.1 Results of Tests on the Original Design.................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Modification of the Model ........................................................................................ 6-1
6.3 Results of the Tests on the Final Design ................................................................... 6-5
7. Conclusion and Recommendation

7.1 Spillway .................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Sediment Flushing Facilities .................................................................................... 7-1

-i-
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Scale Ratio.................................................................................................................... 1-2

Table 3-1 Observed Water Levels Compared to the Numerical Model Data (100 m3/s flow) ..... 3-2
Table 3-2 Observed Water Levels Compared to the Numerical Model Data (200 m3/s flow) ..... 3-2
Table 3-3 Observed Water Levels Compared to the Numerical Model Data (500 m3/s flow) .... 3-3
Table 3-4 Observed Water Levels Compared to the Numerical Model Data (1,000 m3/s Flow) . 3-3
Table 5-1 Comparison on Results of Conceptual Test on Spillway Performance ........................ 5-14
Table 5-2 The Results of Velocity before and after the Dam Construction .................................. 5-27
Table 6-1 Inflow Discharge Data at Dam Site from 20th June to 30th July for 45 Years (1) ......... 6-6
Table 6-2 Inflow Discharge Data at Dam Site from 20th June to 30th July for 45 Years (2) ......... 6-6
Table 6-3 Average Occurrence Frequency of Each Inflow Discharge ......................................... 6-7
Table 6-4 Gradient of River Bed .................................................................................................. 6-19
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Modeled Area ............................................................................................................. 1-4

Figure 1-2 General Plan ............................................................................................................... 1-4
Figure 1-3 Dam Section Profile.................................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 1-4 Dam Profile from Upstream ....................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 1-5 Dam Profile from Downstream .................................................................................. 1-5
Figure 2-1 Location of River Bed Materials Sampling ................................................................ 2-4
Figure 2-2 Particle Size Distribution of River Bed Material ........................................................ 2-4
Figure 2-3 Particle Size Distribution for the Inflow Sediment..................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-4 Rating Curve of Suspended Load Concentration (at Station 430.5) ........................... 2-6
Figure 2-5 Model Layout ............................................................................................................. 2-13
Figure 3-1 Deviation Compared to the Numerical Model Data ................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2 Water Levels in Model before and after Tuning at 500 m3/s Flow ............................. 3-4
Figure 4-1 Cross Sections to Measure the Water Level and Velocity (Blue Coloured Number) . 4-1
Figure 4-2 Water Level Profile along Longitudinal River ........................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-3 Velocity Profile along Longitudinal River ................................................................. 4-2
Figure 4-4 Bed Profiles at 1-1 ...................................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-5 Bed Profiles at RX-A10 .............................................................................................. 4-5
Figure 4-6 Bed Profiles at 6-6 ...................................................................................................... 4-6
Figure 4-7 Bed Profiles at RX-A3 ................................................................................................ 4-6
Figure 4-8 Bed Profiles at 10-10 .................................................................................................. 4-6
Figure 4-9 Bed Profiles at Dam .................................................................................................... 4-6

- ii -
Figure 4-10 Bed Profiles at DDX-5.............................................................................................. 4-6

Figure 4-11 Bed Profiles at 16-16 ................................................................................................ 4-6
Figure 4-12 Bed Profiles at DDX-A8-9.2 .................................................................................... 4-6
Figure 4-13 Bed Profiles at DDX-9.............................................................................................. 4-6
Figure 5-1 General Plan (Arrangement D) ................................................................................... 5-4
Figure 5-2 Dam Section Profile (Arrangement D) ....................................................................... 5-5
Figure 5-3 Section of Downstream of Dam (Arrangement D) ..................................................... 5-6
Figure 5-4 Profile Downstream of Dam (Arrangement E) ........................................................... 5-7
Figure 5-5 Section of Downstream of Dam (Arrangement F)...................................................... 5-8
Figure 5-6 Section of Downstream of Dam (Arrangement G) ..................................................... 5-11
Figure 5-7 Dam Plan .................................................................................................................... 5-16
Figure 5-8 Detail of Dam Plan ..................................................................................................... 5-16
Figure 5-9 Dam Section (Sediment Flushing Equipment) ........................................................... 5-17
Figure 5-10 Dam Section (Water Level Lowering Equipment) ................................................... 5-17
Figure 5-11 Development of Upstream ........................................................................................ 5-18
Figure 5-12 Development of Downstream ................................................................................... 5-18
Figure 5-13 Spillway Downstream Protection ............................................................................. 5-19
Figure 5-14 H - Q Curve of Spillway ........................................................................................... 5-20
Figure 5-15 Water Level Measurement Line and Velocity Measurement Points ......................... 5-26
Figure 5-16 Water Profile at the Main Water Course ................................................................... 5-26
Figure 5-17 Sediment Deposition after Test for 93 Minutes (Model Time) .............................. 5-29
Figure 5-18 Approximated Sectional View of the Sediment Deposition ..................................... 5-29
Figure 5-19 Water Flow along the Roller Bucket Type Dissipater .............................................. 5-29
Figure 6-1 Water Profiles along the Flushing Culverts ................................................................ 6-3
Figure 6-2 19 m Straight Extended Inlet with Flow Accelerator ................................................. 6-3
Figure 6-3 Flume Test .................................................................................................................. 6-3
Figure 6-4 Water Profiles along the Flushing Culverts ................................................................ 6-4
Figure 6-5 Final Design of the Flushing Culverts ........................................................................ 6-5
Figure 6-6 Discharge Capacity Curve for the Sediment Flushing Culverts ................................. 6-8
Figure 6-7 River Bed at 230 m3/s Flow and 380 m3/s Flow ......................................................... 6-10
Figure 6-8 Initial River Bed for Sediment Flushing Test ............................................................. 6-10
Figure 6-9 Measurement Sections ................................................................................................ 6-11
Figure 6-10 RX-2 Cross Section .................................................................................................. 6-11
Figure 6-11 RX-1 Cross Section .................................................................................................. 6-11
Figure 6-12 RX-A10 Cross Section ............................................................................................. 6-11
Figure 6-13 RX-A9 Cross Section ............................................................................................... 6-11
Figure 6-15 DDX-1 Cross Section ............................................................................................... 6-12

- iii -
Figure 6-18 Average Water Level................................................................................................. 6-16

Figure 6-19 Area by Flushing at Each Section ............................................................................. 6-16
Figure 6-23 DDX-10 Cross Section ............................................................................................. 6-17
Figure 6-24 Flushed Sediment Volume at Each Sampling Time .................................................. 6-17
Figure 6-25 Accumulated Flushed Sediment Volume .................................................................. 6-18
Figure 6-26 Ratio of Flushed Sediment Concentration to the Feeding Sediment Concentration 6-18
Figure 6-27 Ratio of Flushed Sediment Concentration to the Feeding Sediment Concentration for
100 m3/s................................................................................................................... 6-20
230 m3/s................................................................................................................... 6-20
360 m3/s................................................................................................................... 6-22
450 m3/s................................................................................................................... 6-22
Figure 6-31 Change along the Deepest of the River Bed in Model and by Calculation .............. 6-24
Figure 6-32 Change along the Deepest River Bed Alignment in Model and by Calculation....... 6-25
List of Photo
Photo 1-1 Deposit on Riverbed of the Middle-Stream Zone of the Reservoir ............................. 1-7
Photo 1-2 Deposit on Riverbed Down Stream of Dam Site ......................................................... 1-7
Photo 2-1 Preparation of the River Bed Material and Feeding Material ...................................... 2-4
Photo 2-2 Model Area before Foundation Excavation ................................................................. 2-7
Photo 2-3 Model Boundary Wall .................................................................................................. 2-7
Photo 2-4 Trussed Shed Under Construction ............................................................................... 2-7
Photo 2-5 Model Base Preparation ............................................................................................... 2-7
Photo 2-6 Model Base .................................................................................................................. 2-8
Photo 2-7 Fixing Alignment of Cross Section.............................................................................. 2-8
Photo 2-8 Placing Cross Section Template................................................................................... 2-9
Photo 2-9 Construction of Support Wall ...................................................................................... 2-9
Photo 2-10 Placing Cross Section Template................................................................................. 2-10
Photo 2-11 Placing Cross Section Template ................................................................................. 2-10
Photo 2-12 Placement of Mesh..................................................................................................... 2-10
Photo 2-13 Topography Shaping .................................................................................................. 2-10
Photo 2-14 Construction of Movable Bed Downstream of the Dam ........................................... 2-10
Photo 2-15 River Model (Upstream of Dam Axis) ...................................................................... 2-10

- iv -
Photo 2-16 River Model (Dam Axis) ........................................................................................... 2-11

Photo 2-17 River Model (Downstream of Dam Axis).................................................................. 2-11
Photo 2-18 River Topo Extension Upstream of the Dam ............................................................. 2-11
Photo 2-19 River Topo Shaping Upstream of the Dam ................................................................ 2-11
Photo 2-20 Dam Construction in Progress ................................................................................... 2-12
Photo 2-21 Spillway and Flushing Culvert Construction ............................................................. 2-12
Photo 2-22 Hydraulic Model (Upstream of Dam) ........................................................................ 2-12
Photo 2-23 Hydraulic Model (Just Upstream of Dam)................................................................. 2-12
Photo 2-24 Hydraulic Model (around Dam) ................................................................................ 2-12
Photo 2-25 Hydraulic Model (Downstream of Dam) ................................................................... 2-12
Photo 2-26 Hydraulic Model (Dam)............................................................................................. 2-13
Photo 2-27 Hydraulic Model (Sediment Flushing Tunnel) .......................................................... 2-13
Photo 2-28 Flow measuring Boxes at Upstream end of the Model .............................................. 2-14
Photo 2-29 Flow Measuring Boxes at Downstream end of the Model ........................................ 2-14
Photo 2-30 Sediment Feeder ........................................................................................................ 2-15
Photo 2-31 Flushed Sediment Measurement ................................................................................ 2-15
Photo 2-32 Water Level Measurement ......................................................................................... 2-15
Photo 2-33 River Bed Level Measurement .................................................................................. 2-15
Photo 2-34 Micro Propeller Current Meter .................................................................................. 2-16
Photo 2-35 Flow Velocity Measurement by Using Micro Propeller Current Meter..................... 2-16
Photo 2-36 ADV (Acoustic Doppler Velocity Meter) .................................................................. 2-16
Photo 2-37 Flow Velocity Measurement by Using ADV ............................................................. 2-16
Photo 3-1 River Topography Fine Tuning in Progress near the Dam Axis .................................. 3-4
Photo 3-2 River Flow Conditions near the Dam Axis during the Validation Test ........................ 3-4
Photo 4-1 Water Flow at 500 m3/s ................................................................................................ 4-3
Photo 4-2 Water Flow at 1000 m3/s .............................................................................................. 4-3
Photo 4-3 Flow Pattern at 110 m3/s .............................................................................................. 4-7
Photo 4-4 Flow Pattern at 230m3/s ............................................................................................... 4-7
Photo 4-5 Flow Pattern at 380m3/s ............................................................................................... 4-8
Photo 5-1 Flow Profile Down the Spillway at 2,000 m3/s All Gates Fully Open......................... 5-1
Photo 5-2 Flow Profile Down the Spillway at 2,000 m3/s All Gates Fully Open......................... 5-1
Photo 5-3 Flow Profile Down the Spillway of Arrangement A.................................................... 5-2
Photo 5-4 Flow Profile Down the Spillway of Arrangement A.................................................... 5-2
Photo 5-5 Flow Profile Down the Spillway of Arrangement B.................................................... 5-3
Photo 5-6 Flow Profile Down the Spillway of Arrangement C (25m) ......................................... 5-3

-v-
Photo 5-9 Dam Model .................................................................................................................. 5-5

Photo 5-10 Downstream of Dam .................................................................................................. 5-5
Photo 5-11 Flow of 4,000 m3/s from Spillway ............................................................................. 5-6
Photo 5-12 Downstream Auxiliary Dam and Plunge Pool ........................................................... 5-6
Photo 5-13 Downstream Auxiliary Dam ...................................................................................... 5-6
Photo 5-14 Flow of 4,000 m3/s (Crest of Auxiliary Dam is 315.0 masl) ..................................... 5-7
Photo 5-16 Model modification of the spillway (Arrangement E) ............................................... 5-7
Photo 5-20 Model modification of spillway (Arrangement F) ..................................................... 5-9
Photo 5-21 Flow of 4,000 m3/s (the Crest of Auxiliary Dam is 307.6) ........................................ 5-9
Photo 5-28 Flow of PMF (Crest of Auxiliary Dam is 307.6) ....................................................... 5-11
Photo 5-29 Flow of PMF (Crest of Auxiliary Dam is 316.6) ....................................................... 5-11
Photo 5-30 Model modification of spillway (Arrangement G) .................................................... 5-11
Photo 5-35 Flow of 4,000 m3/s (Crest of Auxiliary Dam is 316.6 amsl) ..................................... 5-12
Photo 5-37 Flow of PMF (Crest of Auxiliary Dam is 307.6 masl) .............................................. 5-13
Photo 5-41 Dam Model of Final Design ...................................................................................... 5-21
Photo 5-42 Flow of 1000 m3/s ...................................................................................................... 5-22
Photo 5-43 Flow of 1000 m3/s ...................................................................................................... 5-22
Photo 5-44 Flow of 2000 m3/s ...................................................................................................... 5-22
Photo 5-45 Flow of 2000 m3/s ...................................................................................................... 5-22
Photo 5-46 Flow of 3000 m3/s ...................................................................................................... 5-23
Photo 5-47 Flow of 3000 m3/s ...................................................................................................... 5-23
Photo 5-48 Flow of 4000 m3/s ...................................................................................................... 5-24

- vi -
Photo 5-49 Flow of 4000 m3/s ...................................................................................................... 5-24

Photo 5-50 Flow of 5,500 m3/s ..................................................................................................... 5-25
Photo 5-51 Flow of 5,500 m3/s ..................................................................................................... 5-25
Photo 5-52 Flow of PMF .............................................................................................................. 5-25
Photo 5-53 Flow of PMF .............................................................................................................. 5-25
Photo 5-54 Stilling Basin Filled with Feeding Sediment Material before test ............................. 5-28
Photo 5-55 Flow in the Stilling Basin just at the Beginning of Test ............................................ 5-28
Photo 5-56 Flow in the Stilling for 60 Minutes (Model Time) .................................................... 5-28
Photo 5-59 Sediment Deposition after Test for 93 Minutes (Model Time) .................................. 5-28
Photo 6-1 Inlet of the Flushing Culvert of the Initial Design ....................................................... 6-1
Photo 6-2 Observing Flow Downstream from the Flushing Culverts .......................................... 6-1
Photo 6-3 Inlet Modification ........................................................................................................ 6-2
Photo 6-4 Extended Inlet .............................................................................................................. 6-2
Photo 6-5 Extended Inlet .............................................................................................................. 6-2
Photo 6-6 Extended Inlet with Flow Accelerator ......................................................................... 6-2
Photo 6-7 Model of Flume Test .................................................................................................... 6-3
Photo 6-8 Flow at Right Side Culvert ate 350 m3/s...................................................................... 6-4
Photo 6-9 Flow at Right Side Culvert at 400 m3/s ....................................................................... 6-4
Photo 6-10 Flow around the Inlet at 400 m3/s ................................................................... 6-5
Photo 6-11 Flow at Left Side Culvert at 450 m3/s ..................................................................... 6-5
Photo 6-12 Flow around the Inlet ................................................................................................. 6-9
Photo 6-13 Flow inside the Flushing Culverts at 450 m3/s .......................................................... 6-9
Photo 6-15 Vortex Formation at the Inlet ..................................................................................... 6-9
Photo 6-16 Water Course Upstream Area of the Model at 100 m3/s ............................................ 6-12
Photo 6-17 Flow around the Inlet at 100 m3/s .............................................................................. 6-12
Photo 6-18 Flow inside the Flushing Culvert at 100 m3/s ............................................................ 6-13
Photo 6-19 River Bed around the Inlet at 100 m3/s after Finishing the Test ................................ 6-13
Photo 6-21 Water Course Upstream of the Dam at 230 m3/s ....................................................... 6-13
Photo 6-22 Flow inside Flushing Culverts at 230 m3/s ................................................................ 6-13
Photo 6-23 River Bed Upstream of Dam at 230 m3/s after Finishing the Test ............................. 6-13
Photo 6-28 Water Course Upstream of the Dam at 450 m3/s .................................................... 6-15

- vii -
Photo 6-32 Upstream Area of the Model at 820 m3/s ................................................................... 6-16
Photo 6-33 Just Upstream of the Dam at 820 m3/s ....................................................................... 6-16
Photo 6-34 Water Course Upstream Area of the Model for 100 m3/s at 15 Times Basic Sediment
Feeding Rate ........................................................................................................... 6-20
Photo 6-35 Flow around the Inlet for 100 m3/s at 15 Times Basic Sediment Feeding Rate ........ 6-20
Photo 6-36 Flow inside the Flushing Culverts for 100 m3/s at 15 Times Basic Sediment Feeding
Rate ......................................................................................................................... 6-20
Photo 6-37 River Bed around the Inlet after Finishing the Test for 100 m3/s at 15 Times Basic
Sediment Feeding Rate ........................................................................................... 6-20
Feeding Rate ........................................................................................................... 6-21
Photo 6-39 Flow around the Inlet for 230 m3/s at 10 Times Basic Sediment Feeding Rate ........ 6-21
Rate ......................................................................................................................... 6-21
Feeding Rate ........................................................................................................... 6-22
Photo 6-43 Flow around the Inlet for 360 m3/s at 6 Times Basic Sediment Feeding Rate .......... 6-22
Rate ......................................................................................................................... 6-22
Feeding Rate ........................................................................................................... 6-23
Photo 6-47 Flow around the Inlet for 450 m3/s at 2 Times Basic Sediment Feeding Rate .......... 6-23
Rate ......................................................................................................................... 6-23

- viii -
ABBREVIATIONS
Organizations
ADB Asian Development Bank

DHM Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
GON Government of Nepal
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
NEA Nepal Electricity Authority
General and technical terms

ADV Meter Acoustic Doppler Velocity Meter
DES Detailed Engineering Study
F/S Feasibility Study
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
PPTA Project Preparatory Technical Assistance
TOR Terms of Reference
Units
m3/s Cubic meter per second
MCM Million Cubic Meter

- ix -
Summary
This report aims at evaluating hydraulic model test on the sediment flushing facilities. The
report is summarized as below:
1. Hydraulic model test was conducted in the detailed engineering study (DES) of Tanahu
Hydropower project (the project) for the sediment flushing facilities
1) To reveal three dimensional behavior of sediment and water flow in the reservoir;
especially, hydraulic phenomena in the area in the vicinity of the dam and sediment
flushing facility should be focused on, because three dimensional behaviors affect
the performance of sediment flushing facility.
2) To study the sediment flushing operation; Hydraulic performance of the sediment
flushing facility is to be studied for fixing the latest design. The suitable
modification, if necessary, would be proposed and examined.
In addition to the above, through the discussions among members of DES and Project
Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA) teams, one more objective was added as
follows;
3) To evaluate the capacity of spillway and the energy dissipation downstream of

dam.
2. Hydraulic model test was carried out by Hydro Lab Pvt., in Lilatpur in Nepal, under
supervision of DES team with the contract with DES team.
3. The basic plan on the hydraulic model test was prepared as follows;
1) Similarity law - Froude’s model law
2) Length scale ratio - 1:60
3) Coverage of model - around 1,200 m upstream of dam axis and around 1,000 m
downstream
4. In order to clarify the flow regime of the river before dam construction and to compare
with further tests after placing the head works structures, the verification tests were
conducted without introducing sediment. Because of data availability, water levels
calculated with numerical model were compared with measured water level during the
tests. After fine tuning of topography, it was confirmed that deviations had within
allowable values.
5. To make the water flow smooth and to obtain the hydraulic performance of the energy
dissipater, the design of the spillway was decided. The numbers of spillway gates was
three. The spillway gates sizes were 16 m high and 16.5 m wide. The elevation of the
spillway crest was 399.00 masl. The energy dissipation is the roller bucket type dissipater
of radius 13.8 m and release angle of 30 degree and sill height of 6.4 m. The location of
the auxiliary dam is almost 174 m downstream from the end of the roller bucket sill and

S-1
the crest elevation of the auxiliary dam is 307.6 masl.
6. To increase discharge capacity of sediment flushing facilities under the free surface flow
condition, under which sediment deposits in the reservoir are flushed, the original design
of inlet and culvert were revised through the hydraulic model tests.
7. With the above revised sediment flushing design, flushing tests were conducted with at
100, 230, 360, 450, 570 and 820 m3/s flow. The river beds in almost all modeled area
degrade at 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s flow, but inflow sediment was observed to move
very slowly at 820 m3/s flow.
8. The ratios of the flushed sediment concentration to the feeding sediment concentration
were 1 or more at all flows during the tests. Therefore, the 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s
flows could score the initial river bed continuously.
9. The sediment flushing facilities can be flushed 15 times of the basic sediment feeding rate
at 100 m3/s flow, 10 times of the basic sediment feeding rate at 230 m3/s flow, 6 times of
the basic sediment feeding rate at 360 m3/s flow and 2 times of the basic sediment feeding
rate at 450 m3/s flow.
10. It is concluded that the selected sediment flushing facilities is considered to have
desirable performance.

S-2
Chapter 1
Planning of Hydraulic Model Test

1. Planning of Hydraulic Model Test
1.1 Basic Plan of the Hydraulic Model Test
Hydraulic Model Test Expert had technical discussions, after the negotiation of Detailed
Engineering Study (DES) contract with the Client, with engineers and specialist related to
the hydraulic model test such as Civil Design Engineer (head works), Hydro-Mechanical
Engineer in charge of sediment flushing facility design of DES team as well as with
Hydropower Planning Engineer, Hydrological Engineer and Environment Specialist of the
consultant of Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA), in order to determine basic
plan of the hydraulic model test.
They confirmed that the main objectives of this hydraulic model test are as follows,
1) To reveal three dimensional behavior of sediment and water flow in the reservoir;
especially, hydraulic phenomena in the area in the vicinity of the dam, because the
simulation analysis on sediment flushing operation, which PPTA consultant would
carry out, cannot realize three dimensional behaviors.
2) To study the sediment flushing operation; hydraulic performance of the sediment

flushing facility is to be studied for fixing the latest design. The suitable modification,
if necessary, would be proposed and examined.
In addition, through discussion with members of DES and PPTA teams, one more objective
was added as follows;
3) To evaluate the capacity of spillway and the energy dissipation downstream of dam.
After that, Hydraulic Model Test Expert decided modeling described in Sections 1.2
and 1.3 below and the model test phasing which consists of ‘Validation of the
Model’, ’Existing Situation Tests’, ’Hydraulic Model Tests on the Spillway’ and
‘Hydraulic Model Tests on the Sediment Flushing Facilities’ as detailed in Section
2.1.
In April, 2011, immediately after the DES contract became effective, Hydraulic
Model Test Expert had technical discussions, in attendance of engineers of DES and
PPTA related to the hydraulic model test, with Hydro Lab Pvt. whom the consultant
planned to hire as a subcontractor to execute the hydraulic model tests under
supervision by the DES consultant. Finally both agreed to the hydraulic model as
follows;
- The hydraulic model should be scaled according to Froude’s model law and is a
non-distorted scale.

1-1
- The length scale ratio should be 1:60. The hydraulic model area should cover
around 1,200 m upstream of the dam axis and around 1,000 m downstream of it.
Basically, upstream of the dam is to be “fixed river bed model” and downstream of
the dam is to be “movable river bed model”.
- The water supply system should supply 4,000 m3/s in prototype at a maximum
with acceptable accuracy.
- The hydraulic model should have arrangements to observe river bed and flow
patterns along the modeled area and to measure and record inflow discharge, river
bed levels, water level, water velocity along the modeled area.
- The head works structures in hydraulic model consist of the inlet, outlet and
tunnel of diversion tunnel, power intake, dam with sediment flushing facilities,
spillway, its stilling basin and auxiliary dam.
1.2 Model Laws and Scale
The hydraulic model test is to be conducted for both study on sediment flushing facility
and spillway as mentioned in Section 1.1.
Therefore, the hydraulic model test should be kept the similarity on the hydraulic
phenomena and sediment behavior. As the representation flow system in the river is
governed by the gravity, to keep the similarity on the hydraulic phenomena, the model and
the prototype should have the same Froude’s number. To keep the similarity on the
sediment behavior, the sand waves, roughness, particle size of riverbed, critical traction
force, inflow sediment volume, particle size of inflow sediment, sediment movement
pattern, and armoring should be considered. The similarity on the sediment behavior is
discussed in Section 2.2 afterwards.
The hydraulic model scale should be defined in consideration of the area to be modeled,
the accuracy of the measurement, limitation of the space of model construction and
limitation of the capacity of equipment and instruments for model. Hydraulic Model Test
Expert decided that the length scale ratio is 1:60. The other parameter scale ratios
generated according to Froude’s law are shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 Scale Ratio

Relative Scale
Parameter Unit
scale ratio
Length m Lr 1:60
Velocity m/s Lr 1/2 1:7.74
Time sec Lr 1/2 1:7.74
Discharge m3 /s Lr 5/2 1:27,885
Area m2 Lr 2 1:3,600
Volume m3 Lr 3 1:216,000

1-2
1.3 Modeled Area
As the Seti river changes its direction at inlet and outlet of diversion tunnel, the model
should be covered proper distance from the turns to simulate the flow accurately.
Hydraulic Model Test Expert decided that the modeled area covered about 1,200 m at
upstream and 1,000 m downstream from the dam axis, respectively. The modeled area is
the area inside red line shown in Figure 1-1 by surrounding a red line. The data surveyed
by NEA are used in the cross sections described as ‘DDX -’ and ‘RX- ’. The cross
sections described as ‘DDX - A’ and ‘RX-A ’ mean additional cross sections for
constructing the model accurately, and data were obtained from the topographic maps
prepared by Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA).
About 460 meters above sea level at both slopes at upstream portion and about 360 meters
above sea level at both slopes at downstream portion are planned to be accommodated
inside the model boundary in order to provide adequate free boards during simulating
design floods or other extreme situations.
The head works models are composed of dam, spillway, sediment flushing facility, power
intake, and inlet, outlet and tunnel of diversion tunnel. .Both DES and PPTA consultants
had discussions on modeling of the head works. As a result, the head works model were
decided to be fabricated based on the Figures 1-2 to 1-5. The sill elevation of power intake
was decided to be 362.4 meters above sea level. The inlet and outlet of diversion tunnel
and diversion tunnel were decided to be fabricated based on the upgrading feasibility study
report of the Project under assistance of Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA F/S
report (2007)).

1-3
Figure 1-1 Modeled Area
Figure 1-2 General Plan

1-4
Figure 1-3 Dam Section Profile
Figure 1-4 Dam Profile from Upstream
Figure 1-5 Dam Profile from Downstream

1-5
1.4 River Bed of the Model
The river bed of the hydraulic model is determined as fixed river bed model upstream of
dam and as movable river bed model downstream of dam for the reasons given below;
During several years after completion of dam, the inflow sediment will be transported to
the dam. However the almost transported sediment will not go through the sediment
flushing facility, and will be deposited to river bed near the sill of sediment flushing
facility, because elevations of the riverbed are lower than that of the sill. After the river
bed rises up to sill of sediment flushing facility, the sediment can be flushed with the
flushing operation. Since the hydraulic model tests to clarify the efficiency of the sediment
flushing operation are conducted on the river bed made by the sediment deposits on the
present river bed, the river bed of hydraulic model upstream of dam at the model
construction is to be fixed river bed model.
One of the objectives of the hydraulic model test is to clarify the efficiency of dissipation
by ski-jump type dissipater of the spillway. For the purpose, the tests conducted with the
movable river bed are considered to be more exactly simulated than those with the fixed
bed.
1.5 Project Site Survey
Project site survey was conducted jointly by Hydraulic Model Test Expert of DES Team
and Hydrological Engineer of PPTA Team from 20 th to 21 st April, 2011 guided by NEA’s
Project Office (Bhaktapur) and Site Office. Main objective of this site survey was to figure
out present river condition as the natural state in terms of river bed erosion or
accumulation and to figure out present river material. The following are observed:
- Natural state of the river in the reservoir area is in the degradation process rather
than in the aggradation process.
- Natural state of the river in the reservoir area is capable to flush out sediment having
a component as shown in Photo 1-1.

1-6
Photo 1-1 Deposit on Riverbed of the Photo 1-2 Deposit on Riverbed

Middle-Stream Zone of the Reservoir Down Stream of Dam Site
Photo 1-1 shows the river state of middle-upstream zone of the reservoir area located at
around 17 to 18 km upstream from the dam axis. Photo 1-2 shows the river state of just
downstream of the dam axis near the gauging station No. 430.5. From these pictures, the
deposits mainly consist of gravel, sand, and silt in the middle-upstream zone of the
reservoir and downstream of the dam site though they include some large size cobbles
having more than 30 cm diameter. The particle size distribution downstream of dam site
seems not to be so different from that in the middle-upstream zone of the reservoir. This
assumes that the materials behavior is almost same from dam site to the middle-upstream
zone of the reservoir. The boulder over 100 cm had not been found along the river from the
outlet of powerhouse to the upstream zone of the reservoir.
1.6 Schedule
The hydraulic model test was carried out by Nepalese subcontractor; Hydro lab Pvt. Ltd. in
Lalitpur. The hydraulic model test including related tasks was started on 30 th May 2011
and finished on 30th September 2012.
The meetings with DES team and the subcontractor (Hydro lab Pvt. Ltd.) were held in
April, September and December 2011, and February, March and July 2012 to discuss the
description of services, the conditions of the hydraulic model test and the model
modification.

1-7
Chapter 2
Setting-up Test Conditions and

Construction of Physical Model
2. Setting-up Test Conditions and Construction of Physical Model
2.1 Contents of the Hydraulic Model Test
Hydraulic model tests consist of ‘Validation of the Model’, ’Existing Situation Tests’, ’Hydraulic
Model Tests on the Spillway’ and ‘Hydraulic Model Tests on the Sediment Flushing Facilities’.
‘Validation of the Model’ is to examine the hydraulic roughness in the model before head works
installation by measuring and recording flow direction, flow velocity and flow pattern. If it is
observed that the flow surface profile in the model is different from that of the prototype data, the
model shall be modified to adjust flow surface.
‘Existing Situation Tests’ consists of ‘Flow regime of the River before Dam Construction’ and
‘Validation of the Sediment Concentration Ratio and the Sediment Movement before Dam
Construction’. The tests for ‘Flow regime of the River before Dam Construction’ are to clarify the
flow regime of the river before dam construction and to compare with further tests after placing the
head works structures by observing and recording flow direction, flow velocity and flow pattern.
The tests for ‘Validation of the Sediment Concentration Ratio and the Sediment Movement before
Dam Construction’ are to check the sediment feeding rate by observing the sediment movement and
measuring the river bed. If sediment feeding rate does not simulate sediment movement in the actual
river, the consultant shall carry out tests with revised sediment feeding rate and find suitable
sediment feeding rate.
‘Hydraulic Model Tests on the Spillway’ consists of ‘Tests on the Original Design’, ‘Modification of
the model’ and ‘Tests on the Final Design’ At first the consultant conducted the tests on the original
design to check flow conditions of spillway chute and energy dissipation of discharged water. As the
results, the consultant decided that the original design could not be acceptable on the view points of
the flow conditions and energy dissipation. Therefore, the tests were conducted at several modified
models to find the model which was acceptable about the flow conditions and energy dissipation.
Finally, the consultant found the acceptable model as the final design. The consultant examined
discharge capacity of spillway on the final design in order to carry out the main tests with proper
model in terms of discharge capacity. After that, to evaluate flow conditions of spillway chute
energy dissipation of discharged water on the final design, the consultant i) observed and recorded
the flow through spillway and ii) observed, measured and recorded flow patterns, water level,
direction, velocity and river bed pressure in the stilling basin and downstream of the auxiliary dam
for the final design.
‘Hydraulic Model Tests on the Sediment Flushing Facilities’ consists of ‘Tests on the Original
Design’, ‘Modification of the Model’ and ‘Tests on the Final Design’ At first the consultant
conducted the tests on the original design to obtain flow capacity of sediment flushing facilities. As
the results, the consultant decided that the original design could not be acceptable on the view points
of the flow capacity. Therefore, the tests were conducted at several modified models to find the

2-1
model which was acceptable about the flow capacity. Finally, the consultant found the acceptable
model for the final design. The consultant examined discharge capacity of sediment flushing
facilities on the final design to obtain the capacity of the sediment flushing facilities under the free
surface flow. To evaluate sediment flushing capacity of sediment flushing facilities, and to obtain
the sediment movement in the model on the final design, the consultant observed, measured and
recorded flow patterns, water levels, river bed change, bed load transport patterns, and condition of
river bed upstream and downstream of the dam. The inflow conditions on these tests were in the
fixed inflow discharge case. The initial river beds on these tests were obtained from the results of
the tests at several inflow discharges.
2.2 The Basic Conditions of the Hydraulic Model Test
The basic conditions of the hydraulic model test were almost decided through discussions among
engineers of DES and PPTA related to the hydraulic model tests, and with Hydro lab Pvt. Ltd, The
basic ideas of the hydraulic model test were as follows.
i. Inflow discharge
The discharge conditions were selected to meet the objective of each test. The discharge data
were measured three times a day by Department of Meteorology and Hydrology (DHM). The
hydrograph data during the flood were not available, because automatic record system has not
been adopted at gauging stations in the basin.
‘Validation of the Model’ was conducted to secure that the model is performing well according
to the model law. ‘Validation of the Model’ were planned to be conducted at 100, 200, 500,
1,000 m3/s as those inflow discharges occurred frequently.
‘Existing Situation Tests’ consists of ‘Flow Regime of the River before Dam Construction’ and
‘Validation of the Sediment Concentration Ratio and Sediment Movement before Dam
Construction’. As for ‘Flow Regime of the River before Dam Construction, the tests were
planned to be conducted at 110, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 m3/s The mean discharge
for 45 years (from 1964 to 2008) was 110 m3/s. In the JICA’s F/S report (2007), probable flood
analysis was carried out by using the Gumbel, Log-normal and Log-Pearson distributions, and
the probable flood discharge by Gumbel distribution was decided to be used as basis. Following
this report, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 m3/s discharge were selected as the discharge for
return periods of 2, 10, 100 and 500 years. As for ‘Validation of the Sediment Concentration
Ratio and Sediment Movement before Dam Construction’, the tests were planned to be
conducted at 110, 230, 380, 497, 570 and 820 m3/s. Based on the maximum discharge record
during the sediment flushing operation (from 20th June to 30th July), frequency analysis was
carried out by using the Gumbel distribution. The 570 and 820 m3/s discharge were selected as
the flood for return periods of 2 and 5 years. Based on the discharge data during the sediment
flushing operation (from 20th June to 30th July), the 110, 230 and 380 m3/s discharge were

2-2
selected as the lower, the middle and the higher inflow discharge under free surface flow
condition for the original design of sediment flushing conduit. 497 m3/s discharge was selected
as the discharge when the flow in the sediment flushing conduit changes from free surface flow
to pressure flow.
Normally ‘Hydraulic Model Tests on the Spillway’ should be conducted at several discharges
up to the Probable Maximum Flood (7,377 m3/s) in prototype. However the water supply
system could supply 4,000 m3/s in prototype at a maximum with acceptable accuracy. The flow
over 4,000 m3/s in prototype could not supply by this water supply system, with acceptable
accuracy. Therefore, the tests to examine flow condition of spillway chute and stilling basin and
downstream of auxiliary dam were planned to be conducted at 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000
m3/s which were the same conditions of ‘Existing Situation Tests’ for ‘Flow regime of the River
before Dam Construction’ . In addition, the observation of the flow condition of spillway chute
and stilling basin and downstream of auxiliary dam were planned to be conducted at 5,500 m3/s,
PMF by simulating the dam water level at those discharges in prototype. The 5,500 m3/s
discharge was selected as the discharge for return periods of 10,000 years. To obtain the
capacity curve of spillway were conducted at several discharges up to 4,000 m3/s in prototype
‘Hydraulic Model Tests on the Sediment Flushing Facilities’ was planned to be conducted at
100, 230, 360, 450, 570 and 820 m3/s. The inflow discharges of the tests were planned to be
basically the same of ‘Existing Situation Tests’ for ‘test to verify the inflow sediment
concentration rate in the model’ for the final design of sediment flushing facilities.
ii. Particle sizes of the river bed material
The sampling of river bed material was carried out by NEA in May 2011 at the upstream and
down stream of the Bhimad Bridge as shown in Figure 2-1. Therefore, the particle size
distribution by NEA was mainly represented particles upstream of the dam. The particle size
distributions are shown in Figure 2-2.
As the sampling by NEA was carried out upstream of the reservoir end and the middle of the
reservoir, the consultant instructed the subcontractor, Hydro lab Pvt. Ltd. to carry out bed and
surface material survey. The survey was carried out from 20 to 21 November 2011 as also
shown in Figure 2-1. After discussing between the experts of DES/PPTA and the subcontractor,
the particle size distribution sampled by the subcontractor as shown in Figure 2-2 was adopted
as the particle size distribution of the river bed material, because the particle size distribution
by sampled by the subcontractor was more represented particles downstream of dam than the
particle size distribution by NEA.
The selection of bed material for the model was done by hit and trail method by sieving
different size of sediment material at Hydro Lab’s laboratory as shown in Photo 2-1. The mass
of different size of particles were found out by back calculation from the particle size

2-3
distribution curve in the model derived from field data. Such sieved materials were mixed, and
the particle size distribution of the mixed material was prepared. Required sizes of materials
were then added to the mixed material to fit the required particle size distribution curve in the
model. The process was repeated until the average distribution was matching reasonably with
the particle size distribution curve as shown in Figure 2-2. The size below 12 mm (prototype
size) corresponding to below 0.2 mm in model scale were removed due to limitation of
Froude’s model law.
Sampling points by NEA
Sampling points by Hydro
Figure 2-1 Location of River Bed Materials Sampling
Figure 2-2 Particle Size Distribution of River Photo 2-1 Preparation of the River Bed
Bed Material Material and Feeding Material
iii. Particle sizes for the inflow sediment
The inflow sediment consists of wash load, suspended load and bed load. In the JICA F/S
report (2007), there were 23 particle size distributions of bed load and 4 particle size
distributions of suspended load tested by NEA in 2004. The 23 particle size distributions of bed
load were obtained once a day from 13th August to 4th September in 2004. In this period the
discharge converted at dam site were almost 200 m3/s to 600 m3/s. In comparison with 23
particle size distributions of bed load, the particle size distribution of the river bed material

2-4
sampled by NEA in 2011 was coarse. Generally, inflow sediment would have rather larger
particle sizes than that of river bed, because sediment of river bed was actually trapped ones.
There was not described how to survey the bed load in 2004. Because the sampling of bed load
is very difficult, the samples in 2004 might not take all bed loads. Therefore, as conventional
side of the model test, the particle size distribution of river bed material sampled by NEA in
2011 was considered to be the particle size distribution of bed load in this hydraulic model test.
The particle size distribution of riverbed material surveyed by NEA in 2011 is shown with a
blue line in Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-3 Particle Size Distribution for the Inflow Sediment
As the bed load movement mainly controls the performance and effectiveness of flushing
operation, only the bed load was decided to be simulated in the hydraulic model test.
The particle size distribution of bed load scaled down by scale ratio is shown with red dot line
in Figure 2-3. Since particle size below 0.2 mm does not follow Froude’s model law, these
particles were washed out prior to using sediment in the model test. Finally, the particle size
distribution of feeding material as inflow sediment is shown with red line in Figure 2-3. Such
material was also prepared in Hydro Lab’s laboratory by the methodology adopted for
preparing bed material as mentioned in Sub-section 2.2 ii.
iv. Concentration of inflow sediment
According to the JICA F/S report (2007) the suspended load concentration data observed at the
gauging station 430.5 which is located 500 m downstream of the dam axis are shown. PPTA
consultant prepared the regression formula between inflow and concentration of suspended load,
based on those data. Figure 2-4 shows those data, and the formula is indicated below;

2-5
Qs = 0.0369 ⋅ Q 3.0686 Q < 100

Qs = 15.939 ⋅ Q 1.8607 Q > 100
where, Qs ： inflow of suspended load (g/m3/s)
Q ： water inflow (m3/s)
In the simulation model PPTA team assumes the ratio of bed load to suspended load is 0.20. In
the hydraulic model test only the bed load is simulated.
The concentration of inflow sediment (inflow bed load) in the hydraulic model test is defined as
20% of inflow of suspended load with extra suspended load based on the results described in
Sub-section 2.2 iii. 20% extra suspended load is added to the measured suspended load in order
to compensate for the unmeasured suspended load. The concentration of inflow sediment,
therefore, is 0.24 Qs (= 0.2 x ( Qs + 0.2 Qs)).
100,000
Suspended Sediment Concentration (ppm)
10,000
2000
1,000 2001
2004
Q < 100m3/sec
Q > 100m3/sec
100
10
10 100 1,000 10,000
River Discharge (m3/sec)
Figure 2-4 Rating Curve of Suspended Load Concentration (at Station 430.5)
2.3 Model Construction
The hydraulic model was constructed in the subcontractor’s premise. Process of the model
construction is summarized below;
After planning the area and height of model, the supply and return system of water, the supply and
catching system of sediment, the method of observing and measuring the flow and sediment
movement of the hydraulic model, it was decided to construct the model on open plot of land
located on north-eastern part of Hydro Lab’s compound as shown in Photo 2-2. The site was
cleared before carrying out the layout of model boundary for starting the model construction.

2-6
Photo 2-2 Model Area before Foundation Photo 2-3 Model Boundary Wall
Excavation
Grid (reference) lines were established on the floor. At the same time adequate numbers of
permanent bench marks or the control points were also established on the grid (reference) lines from
which all the construction work were controlled by giving exact coordinates and levels.
After establishment of grid lines and bench marks on the floor, layout of the model shed boundary
and foundation excavation of the model shed boundary walls were carried out. The model shed
boundary wall, inlet and outlet tanks and other walls outside the shed had 1.1 m deep foundation as
shown in Photo 2-3.
While testing river/reservoir model there should not be any unaccounted/unmeasured flow entering
to the model. Therefore, the model should be protected from rainfall. The model should also be
protected from direct sunlight. Thus, the model area is covered by Corrugated Galvanized Iron
(CGI) roofing sheets resting on the steel truss supported by steel posts as shown in Photo 2-4.
Photo 2-4 Trussed Shed Under Photo 2-5 Model Base Preparation
Construction
Construction was started from ramming the excavated earth in the foundation. One layer of 8 inch
stone soling and 6 inches thick portland cement concrete precast concrete on top of it were placed as
base for brick masonry foundation as shown in Picture 2-5. The side wall was built up to the
2-7
elevation of about 460 meters above sea level and 360 meters above sea level in prototype at the
upstream and downstream portion of the river model respectively. Sediment trap was built in the
outlet tank in order to prevent entering the sediments into the return canal and underground
reservoir.
In order to feed required discharge to the model, piping from the pump house to the inlet tank was
assembled with the calibrated discharge measuring boxes. These boxes were furnished with the
V-notch which was calibrated having its rating curves.
Photo 2-6 Model Base Photo 2-7 Fixing Alignment of Cross

Section
A reinforced cement concrete floor had been cast for having watertight model within the reservoir
area being modeled as shown in Photo 2-6. The side walls and the floor within the reservoir area
also were made of plaster and cement punning. The seepage control at the downstream portion was
done by using impermeable layers with plastic sheet and precast concrete slabs. The plastic sheet
was laid on top 50 mm thick sand layer. The joint of two plastic sheets was sealed with the adhesive
tape on it. In order to protect the plastic sheet from wear and tear during construction, another layer
of fine sand of about 50 mm thick was added on top of it. Then about 50 mm thick portland cement
concrete slabs were laid on the floor above the sand. Joints of the portland cement concrete slabs
were filled with cement mortar in order to control the seepage.
X and Y coordinates of both banks of the individual river cross sections were plotted on the model
floor with theodolite, measuring tape and plum-bub from the bench marks or the control points as
shown in Photo 2-7.
The river model was constructed in two stages. The construction in the first stage was carried out
before ‘Existing Situation Tests’ and that in the second stage was carried out after completion of
‘Existing Situation Tests’. In the first stage, the river model was constructed up to about 360 masl.
In the second stage, river topography was further constructed up to required of 440 masl in the
upstream.
2-8
A total of 36 numbers of cross sectional views were used to generate the river topography. There
were 20 numbers of cross sectional profiles downstream of the dam and 16 numbers upstream of it.
The processed river cross section data were plotted on 4 mm thick plywood. Reference line for X
and Y coordinates were marked, and the chainages and their corresponding elevation were also
plotted in plywood. Then the cross section templates were cut by using jig saw. A theodolite and a
steel tape were used to place sectional views according to the exact coordinates. A leveling machine
was also used to give proper level of the control points along the cross section templates as shown
in Photo 2-8.
Upstream cross section profiling was done by the construction of brick masonry wall on different
steps along the surveyed alignment as shown in Photo 2-9 and Photo 2-10. After the cross section
templates were erected, filling in between two consecutive sections was carried out up to about 360
masl as the first stage shown in Photo 2-11. This elevation of 360 masl was decided providing
adequate freeboard in the model for simulating the maximum flood. The construction of the river
model conversing elevation up to 360 masl on the both banks during the first stage was made before
taking necessary measurement during ‘Existing Situation Tests’. The river channel portion was
made of cement mortar and fine cement plaster on top after brick fillings in between the cross
section templates up to the required elevation. Cement mortar was applied on top of the filling to
obtain the required channel as shown in Photo 2-12 and Photo 2-13.
Photo 2-8 Placing Cross Section Photo 2-9 Construction of Support Wall
Template

2-9
Photo 2-10 Placing Cross Section Photo 2-11 Placing Cross Section
Template Template
Photo 2-12 Placement of Mesh Photo 2-13 Topography Shaping
The depth of the movable bed downstream of the dam was considered to extend up to scour depth.
The particle size distribution was done by mechanical method and matched with the particle size
distribution from the prototype materials as mentioned in Sub-section 2.2 ii. ‘Particle size of the
riverbed material’. The construction of movable bed in the model was shown in Photo 2-14.
Initially movable river bed was constructed up to the river cross section DDX-A7 (near the end of
the model). Depth of movable bed downstream of the dam was considered to extend up to scour
depth. Therefore, movable bed was constructed up to the elevation of 277.0 masl. The floor level
was extended up to the river cross section DDX-7 (almost 377.5 m downstream of dam) from the
dam. Beyond DDX-7, the floor level of movable bed was maintained at 290.0 masl. This floor was
constructed by compacting earth surface, stone soiling and by placing an impermeable layer
consisting of plastic sheet with sand protection on its bottom and top and precast concrete blocks.
The completed river model is shown in Photo 2-15 to Photo 2-17.
Photo 2-14 Construction of Movable Bed Photo 2-15 River Model (Upstream of
Downstream of the Dam Dam Axis)

2 - 10
Photo 2-16 River Model (Dam Axis) Photo 2-17 River Model (Downstream of
Dam Axis)
Photo 2-18 River Topo Extension Photo 2-19 River Topo Shaping Upstream
Upstream of the Dam of the Dam
After the completion of ‘Existing Situation Tests’, river topography was further constructed up to
required of 440 masl upstream of the dam. The river topography extension in the second stage was
done in parallel to the head works structures placement in the river model as shown in Photo 2-18
and Photo 2-19.
Fabrication of the head works structures (base case) was done based on the head works general
layout drawings as shown in Figure 1-2 to Figure 1-5. Prototype dimensions of the drawings were
converted into the model scale. The structure were fabricated with appropriate materials such as;
plywood, acrylic sheets, metal sheet, plain galvanized iron sheets, wooden logs, iron angles and
channels, screws and other required adhesives etc. depending on the nature and the size of the
structure.

2 - 11
Photo 2-20 Dam Construction in Photo 2-21 Spillway and Flushing

Progress Culvert Construction
Photo 2-22 Hydraulic Model (Upstream Photo 2-23 Hydraulic Model (Just
of Dam) Upstream of Dam)
Photo 2-24 Hydraulic Model (around Photo 2-25 Hydraulic Model

Dam) (Downstream of Dam)

2 - 12
Photo 2-26 Hydraulic Model (Dam) Photo 2-27 Hydraulic Model (Sediment
Flushing Tunnel)
The dam structure of the project was too big and too heavy to fabricate with a single piece and to
carry and place in the model. Hence, it was fabricated with small different pieces and later
assembled directly in the model. Because of this problem, some parts of the structure such as
framework and the upstream and downstream plywood plates were constructed in the model itself
as shown in Photo 2-20 and Photo 2-21. Whereas, the intake structure, diversion tunnel, sediment
flushing conduits, piers, gates and the water way etc. were fabricated in the workshop and
assembled in the model. The completed hydraulic model is shown in Photo 2-22 to Photo 2-27.
2.4 Model Layout and Measuring Instruments
i. Model layout
The model layout is shown in Figure 2-5. Two pumps supply water from the underground tank
to the model through the calibrated V-notch in the flow measuring boxes. Water runs through
Figure 2-5 Model Layout

2 - 13
the calibrated V-notch in the flow measuring boxes settled downstream end of the model and
flows into the underground tank.
ii. Measuring instruments
The inflow discharge volume is calculated by measuring the head above V-notch installed in
the flow measuring boxes. The head above V-notch was measured with vernier scale whose
accuracy was 0.1mm. The flow measuring boxes are settled at the upstream and downstream
ends of the model as shown in Photo 2-28 and Photo 2-29. Each flow measuring box has the
proper calibration curve. The flow in the model is regulated with the sluice valve. By
comparing the discharge volume in the upstream flow measuring box with that in the
downstream flow measuring box, the discharge was judged whether to become stable. The head
above V-notch of downstream flow measuring boxes could be measured within 0.1 mm
accuracy. However, the downstream V-notches do not give accurate discharge due to turbulence
from high flow coming-in. The outlet discharge measuring devices is only suitable for flow up
to 1000 m3/s flow. Over 1000 m3/s flow, the water level in the reservoir was observed to check
that the inflow discharge became stable.
Photo 2-28 Flow measuring Boxes at Photo 2-29 Flow Measuring Boxes at
Upstream end of the Model Downstream end of the Model
Sediment is fed from upstream end of the river model by using a sediment feeder as shown in
Photo 2-30. The flushed sediment volume was caught at each outlet of the sediment flushing
conduit with the bucket every almost 30 minutes as shown in Photo 2-31, and the weight was
measured to obtain the change of its volume.
The dam water level was measured by manometer whose accuracy is 1 mm. The water level
and river bed level were measured with the help of level machine and measuring staff with
pointed pin at bottom within 1 mm accuracy as shown in Photo 2-32 and Photo 2-33.

2 - 14
Photo 2-30 Sediment Feeder Photo 2-31 Flushed Sediment

Measurement
The velocity in the model was measured with a micro-propeller current meter of 0.01 m/s least
count as shown in Photo 2-34 and Photo 2-35. The velocities were recorded at selected locations
(at 60% depth of the total flow depth from the water surface) for the selected flow with the
micro-propeller current meter. Three sets of velocity data were taken at each measurement point
with an average of 10 seconds. Finally average of three measurements was calculated for average
velocity. The velocity in the stilling basin was measured with Acoustic Doppler Velocity (ADV)
meter as shown in Photo 2-36 and Photo 2-37. ADV measures instantaneous velocity in all three
directions every second for one minute. There are altogether 60 instantaneous velocity samples for
each depth data a particular location.
Photo 2-32 Water Level Measurement Photo 2-33 River Bed Level
Measurement

2 - 15
Photo 2-34 Micro Propeller Current Photo 2-35 Flow Velocity Measurement
Meter by Using Micro Propeller Current Meter
Photo 2-36 ADV (Acoustic Doppler Photo 2-37 Flow Velocity Measurement
Velocity Meter) by Using ADV

2 - 16
Chapter 3
Validation of the Model

3. Validation of the Model
3.1 Validation of the River Model
The main objective of the validation test is to ensure that the model is performing well according to
the model law. This checks the flow resistance and the representation of the topography of the
prototype in the model. Usually, the performance of the model is checked by simulating the
historical event where the discharge and water levels in prototype are known. However, since no
such measured water levels with their corresponding discharges are available, the physical hydraulic
model of the project was validated against the numerical modeling data. Some possible errors and
uncertainties introduced with this procedure are:
- Errors in the topographic data will not be discovered through the validation process because
the both models (numerical and physical) will include the same errors, in comparison with
the prototype.
- Neither the numerical model or the physical model will simulate air entrained in the water
masses as it will be in the prototype correctly.
- The physical model includes much more detailed topographical information than the
numerical model with respect to the representation of the prototype in the model in terms of
flow resistance as well as local flow pattern. This is especially valid for areas where the
water surface gradients are relatively steep in the prototype.
Six cross sections, two in the upstream area, three in the downstream area and the dam axis were
taken for the validation purpose. These cross sections were selected based upon the results of
numerical model which showed that these cross sections behaved as a control sections for most of
the flow scenarios. Through a discussion between DES/PPTA consultants and subcontractor, it was
agreed to adopt the water level data obtained by numerical model for the validation purpose and to
conduct the validation tests at 100, 200, 500 and 1,000 m3/s.
The water level at each discharge was obtained by the varied (non-uniform) flow calculation. The
cross section DDX-18 is located near the gauging Station No. 430.5. Therefore, the cross section
DDX-18 was set up as the down stream end section for the calculation. As the discharge and the
water level at cross section DDX-18 were recorded, the varied flow calculation was conducted
under condition that the water level at cross section DDX-18 was normal depth. The varied flow
calculations were conducted for 11 discharges from 50 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s. In all cases the Froude
number became 1 at the cross section DDX-A5. Therefore, upstream of the cross section DDX-A5
the water level at each section was calculated under condition that the water level at cross section
DDX-A5 was critical depth. Downstream of the cross section DDX-A5, the varied flow calculations
were conducted under condition that the water level at cross section DDX-18 was normal depth,
normal depth+0.5m and normal depth+1.0m. The maximum deviation was only 3 cm at the same

3-1
section and same discharge. Therefore, the water level at each discharge obtained by the varied flow
calculation was considered to be valid data as the water level of the prototype.
In open channels the water level is not constant during high flows at any location, as there are
splashes, waves and surges. The highest calculated water level at a particular location may not
correspond to the highest flow as hydraulic jumps and standing waves do occur. In the prototype, air
will be mixed with water and entrained in the water body during high flows. The depth is expected
to increase from 5% to 10% during high flows due to the above reason and thus reduce the density
of water. Froude’s model law does not cover the scaling of mixing and entraining of air from
prototype to model. Based on the discussion above the desired water level tolerance for the
validation process was set to ±0.5 meters in the numerical model data for river flows up to 500 m3/s
and ±1.0 for 1,000 m3/s.
Based on available cross section data, topographical maps and photographs, thalweg and river
model topography were finalized prior to the validation test. After the completion of the river model
construction up to the required level, the validation tests were carried out at 100, 200, 500 and 1,000
m3/s. Two sets of data were taken for various flow scenarios before the fine tuning and after the fine
tuning of the topography and bed roughness. The recorded water levels before and after the fine
tuning were presented below in Tables 3-1 to Tables 3-4, Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2. In Figure 3-2,
the chainage means the accumulated distance from the station 430.5 which is almost same location
of Section DDX-18.
Water levels on the left bank, at the centre and on the right bank were taken for each river cross
section, and the average water level was calculated.
Table 3-1 Observed Water Levels Compared to the Numerical Model Data (100 m3/s flow)

3-2
Table 3-4 Observed Water Levels Compared to the Numerical Model Data (1,000 m3/s Flow)
Figure 3-1 Deviation Compared to the Numerical Model Data

at 100, 200, 500 and 1,000 m3/s Flow

3-3
Figure 3-2 Water Levels in Model before and after Tuning at 500 m3/s Flow
At cross sections DDX-6, DDX-9 and DDX-A5, which are located far downstream reach of the
model, the water level elevations were found to be higher than the numerical model data for all flow
scenarios. Meanwhile, at RX-A10, DAM AXIS, and DDX-A3-4.1, the water level elevations in the
model were observed to be lower than that in the numerical model data. However, at cross section
RX-A6, the water level elevations at the 100 m3/s flow and the 200 m3/s flow were observed to be
higher than in the numerical model data, while at the 500 m3/s flow and the 1,000 m3/s flow, the
water level elevations were observed to be lower than in the numerical model data.
The Deviations became small after tuning the roughness and were within the tolerance except the
water level upstream section of dam at the 500 m3/s flow.. The model is considered to be valid for
the hydraulic model test. The validation process was present in Photo 3-1 and Photo 3-2.
Photo 3-1 River Topography Fine Tuning Photo 3-2 River Flow Conditions near
in Progress near the Dam Axis the Dam Axis during the Validation Test

3-4
Chapter 4
Existing Situation Tests

4. Existing Situation Tests
4.1 Flow Regime of the River before Dam Construction
In order to clarify the flow regime of the river before dam construction and to compare with further
tests after placing the head works structures, the tests were conducted without introducing sediment
feeding.
There were altogether twenty two different (22) sections along with the dam axis selected along the
river model for water level and velocity as indicated in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1 Cross Sections to Measure the Water Level and Velocity (Blue Coloured Number)
The discharge conditions were 110, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 m3/s. The mean inflow
discharge for 45 years (from 1964 to 2008) is 110 m3/s. In accordance with the JICA F/S report
(2007), 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 m3/s are selected as the discharge for return periods of 2, 10,
100 and 500 years.
During the 110 m3/s flow, relatively step pool type of flow pattern was observed. Comparatively
low velocity just upstream of the dam axis was observed due to the pool formation because of the
narrow cross section at the dam axis. A plot of centre line water level along river chainage is
presented in Figure 4-2. A plot of centre line velocity along river chainage is presented in Figure
4-3. Due to the wider cross section downstream of the dam axis, the shooting flow was observed in

4-1
this reach. The average maximum velocity recorded was 5.45 m/s just downstream of the dam axis,
and the average minimum velocity was 0.65 m/s recorded just upstream of the dam axis.
Figure 4-2 Water Level Profile along Longitudinal River
Figure 4-3 Velocity Profile along Longitudinal River
Not so significant changes in the flow pattern in comparison with that of 110 m3/s flow were
observed during the 500 m3/s flow. The average maximum velocity recorded was 5.75 m/s just
downstream of the dam axis and the average minimum velocity was 1.14 m/s recorded just
upstream of the dam axis. A plot of centre line water level along river chainage is presented in

4-2
Figure 4-2. A plot of centre line velocity along river chainage is presented in Figure 4-3. Abrupt
rise of water level at river cross section DDX-A1 (chainage is 1,451.5m) was seen, because of the
standing wave generated at this section downstream of the shooting flow as shown in Photo 4-1.
In the 1,000 m3/s flow, the river was found to be approaching the dam axis with uniform flow from
the upstream reach. After hitting the sharp bend upstream of the dam axis, no considerable changes
were observed in flow pattern due to the bend effect. River was found to flow smoothly even after
this sharp bend. Shooting flow downstream of the dam axis was observed, and a standing wave at
the end of shooting was also observed as shown in Photo 4-2. The flow was then diverted towards
the right bank side due to the river topography. As a result of this, the water level on the left bank
was higher compared to that on the right bank. The average maximum velocity recorded was 6.39
m/s just downstream of the dam axis and the average minimum velocity was 1.39 m/s recorded just
upstream of the dam axis. A plot of thalweg water level along river chainage is presented in Figure
4-2. A plot of thalweg velocity along river chainage is presented in Figure 4-3. The standing wave
generated at the river cross section DDX-A1 at the 500 m3/s flow was moved further downstream at
the 1,000 m3/s flow as seen in Photo 4-2.
DDX-A1
DDX-A1
Photo 4-1 Water Flow at 500 m3/s Photo 4-2 Water Flow at 1000 m3/s
Unlike the flow patterns observed at the 1,000 m3/s flow, the 2,000 m3/s flow showed appreciably
high water level and high velocity just downstream of the dam axis. The flow was dominated by air
entrainment and turbulence downstream of sections DDX-A1 due to shooting flow observed
between sections DDX-4 (chainage is 1,526.2m) and DDX-6 (chainage is 1,284.5m). Mild
hydraulic jump was also observed downstream of the shooting flow. The average maximum velocity
observed was 10.92 m/s just downstream of the dam axis, and the average minimum velocity was
1.49 m/s measured upstream of the sharp bend. A plot of thalweg water level along river chainage is
presented in Figure 4-2. A plot of thalweg velocity along river chainage is presented in Figure 4-3.
At the 3,000 m3/s flow, the flow from the upstream was found to be approaching the dam axis
uniformly. The landscape (between section RX-A9 (chainage is 2,253.9m) and section 8-8

4-3
(chainage is 2,158.3m)) on the left bank just upstream of the sharp bend was covered with the flow
during this flood. Shooting flow was observed downstream of the dam axis and rotational flow on
both side of the shooting at the river banks was also noticed during this flood simulation. Mild
hydraulic jump downstream of the shooting flow was also observed. The flow was dominated with
air entrainment and turbulence downstream of the sections DDX-A1 due to the turbulence caused
by hydraulic jump upstream. The river flow downstream of the dam axis was found to be flowing
along the left bank side and was found to be directing to the right bank side at the river cross section
DDX-9 (chainage is 940.9m). The average maximum velocity measured was 11.39 m/s just
downstream of the dam axis whereas the average minimum velocity measured was 1.75 m/s just
upstream of the sharp bend. A plot of thalweg water level along river chainage is presented in
Figure 4-2. A plot of thalweg velocity along river chainage is presented in Figure 4-3.
At the 4,000 m3/s flow, turbulence was not very high at the upstream of the sharp bend, but the
landscape (between section RX-A9 and 8-8) on the left bank just upstream of the sharp bend was
totally inundated in the flow during this flood. There was no significant effect observed in the river
flow due to the sharp bend. The river in the narrow section in the vicinity of the dam axis was found
to be surging with higher velocity than in other reaches in the model. Therefore, shooting flow was
also observed downstream of the dam axis, and marked rotational flow on both sides of the shooting
at the banks was also spotted during this flood simulation. However, the hydraulic jump was
prominent downstream of the shooting flow. Air entrainment and turbulence downstream of the
sections DDX-A1 was high due to the hydraulic jump. The river flow downstream of the dam axis
was found to be flowing along the left bank side and was found to be directing to the right bank side
at the river cross section DDX-9. The average maximum velocity measured was 13.17 m/s just
downstream of the dam axis whereas average minimum velocity measured was 1.94 m/s just
upstream of the sharp bend. A plot of thalweg water level along river chainage is presented in
Figure 4-2. A plot of thalweg velocity along river chainage is presented in Figure 4-3.
Water level and velocity at different river cross sections were recorded for various discharges. The
flow pattern in the model stretch was dominated with the shooting flow just downstream of the dam
axis. However, fairly low velocity was observed upstream of the dam axis. Secondary current was
predominant at the sharp bend on right bank upstream of the dam axis during lower flows of the
tests. Nevertheless as the flow increased such effects were fading due to development of pool in this
area and upstream.
4.2 Validation of the Sediment Concentration Ratio and the Sediment Movement before Dam
Construction
To verify the inflow sediment concentration ratio in the model, those tests were carried out with a
sediment feeder installed at the upstream end of the model. By measuring the water levels and bed
levels for the selected flows and observing the river bed change, the inflow sediment concentration

4-4
ratio in the model was verified. Therefore, particles of different sizes were introduced in various
locations in the river model. The particles moved or transported by a particular flow were picked
downstream and measured with vernier caliper. The size of moved or transported particles specified
in corresponding flows below is in prototype value.
The bed load feeding rates were adopted based on the formula as shown in Sub-section 2.2 iv, and
20% extra suspended load is added to the measured suspended sediment load in order to compensate
for the unmeasured suspended load.
The discharges of those tests were 110, 230, 380, 497, 570 and 820 m3/s. Based on the maximum
discharge record during the sediment flushing operation (from 20th June to 30th July), frequency
analysis was carried out by using the Gumbel distribution. The 570 and 820 m3/s discharge were
selected as the flood for return periods of 2 and 5 years. Based on the discharge during the sediment
flushing operation (from 20th June to 30th July), the 110, 230 and 380 m3/s discharge were selected
as the lower, the middle and the higher inflow discharge for the original design of sediment flushing
conduit. 497 m3/s discharge was selected as the inflow discharge when the flow in the sediment
flushing conduit changes from free surface flow to pressure flow for the original design of sediment
flushing conduit.
The bed profiles at selected river cross sections are shown in Figure 4-4 to Figure 4-13.
At the 110 m3/s flow, deposition of sediment was observed along the river bed in the model. Some
changes in the flow pattern were also noticed after introducing the sediment in the model. Delta
formed just upstream of the sharp bend caused the flow to bifurcate in two directions as shown in
Photo 4-3. The river reach in between the cross sections dam axis and DDX-4 was void of sediment
deposition because of the shooting flow. Due to the low velocity on the right bank side downstream
of the shooting, sediment deposition in this region was distinct as shown in Figure 4-10. It was
observed that this flow transported particle of size about 18 cm diameter throughout the model reach.
Particle of size 27 cm in diameter was also observed to be moved at the river cross section DDX-6.
Figure 4-4 Bed Profiles at 1-1 Figure 4-5 Bed Profiles at RX-A10

4-5
Figure 4-6 Bed Profiles at 6-6 Figure 4-7 Bed Profiles at RX-A3
Figure 4-8 Bed Profiles at 10-10 Figure 4-9 Bed Profiles at Dam
Figure 4-10 Bed Profiles at DDX-5 Figure 4-11 Bed Profiles at 16-16
Figure 4-12 Bed Profiles at DDX-A8-9.2 Figure 4-13 Bed Profiles at DDX-9

4-6
The 230 m³/s flow was simulated on the bed formed with the 110 m³/s flow. No significant flow
pattern change was observed at the upstream of the sharp bend even after introduction of the
sediment feeding. At the sharp bend location, the river flow bifurcated due to the delta formation as
seen in Photo 4-4. No deposition was observed at the shooting flow location i.e. downstream of the
dam axis. The sediment was found to be deposited on the right bank, pushing the specific discharge
of the river towards the left bank side. Downstream of the river section DDX-A8-9.2 the deposition
was observed to be on the left bank as shown in Figure 4-13. This flow was also able to transport
particle size of about 19 cm in diameter throughout the model reach, however particle of size about
40 cm in diameter was also observed moving at the river cross section DDX-6.
RX-A3
RX-A3
Photo 4-3 Flow Pattern at 110 m3/s Photo 4-4 Flow Pattern at 230m3/s
At the 380 m3/s flow, uniform flow was observed in the upstream reach of the sharp bend. However,
it was rapidly stirring downstream of the river cross section RX-A10. The river flow at the sharp
bend on the right bank corner washed down sediment that was coming from the upstream, but
sediment was observed to be deposited on the left bank side. Shooting flow immediately
downstream of dam axis, which created standing waves downstream of the shooting flow as shown
in Photo 4-5, was observed. River flow was predominantly witnessed to stir along the left bank side
downstream of the shooting (i.e. downstream of DDX-A1), thereby depositing the sediment on the
left bank side as shown in Photo 4-6. Sediment deposition upstream of the sharp bend was observed
at this flow along the river cross section. This flow was also capable to transport particle size of
about 19 cm in diameter throughout the model reach. However, particle of size of about 60 cm in
diameter was also observed moving at the river cross section DDX-4.

4-7
DDX-4 16-16
Photo 4-5 Flow Pattern at 380m3/s Photo 4-6 Flow Pattern at 380 m3/s
At the 497 m3/s flow, the river flow upstream of the dam axis was approaching uniformly towards
the dam axis. Shooting flow and standing waves were particularly visible downstream of the dam
axis. The river flow was seen to be guided extensively along the left bank downstream of the river
cross section DDX-1. Sediment was uniformly deposited in the upstream reach of the sharp bend as
shown in Photo 4-7. This flow was found transporting particle of size about 26 cm in diameter.
However, the flow was found capable of moving particle size of about 60 cm in diameter in the
shooting flow region, downstream of the dam axis.
No significant variation in the river flow pattern at 497 m³/s flow was observed throughout the
model reach at the 570 m3/s flow. The transport capacity was also not found appreciably different
from that at the 497 m3/s flow.
The 820 m3/s flow was relatively calm at the upstream reach of the sharp bend, and turbulence was
not noticeable. The flow hitting the sharp bend created secondary current, and this current was
pushing the sediment towards the left bank as shown in Photo 4-8. Shooting flow downstream of
the river cross section DDX-A3-4.1 was observed, and rotational flows on the left bank corner were
also noted during this flow simulation. Sediment deposition on the right bank side downstream river
cross section DDX-A1 (downstream of the shooting flow) was also observed. This flow was capable
of transporting particle of size of about 36 cm diameters. However, this flow was found moving
particle of size 2.7 m diameter at river cross section DDX-6.

4-8
RX-A3
RX-A10
Photo 4-7 Flow Pattern at 497 m3/s Photo 4-8 Flow Pattern at 820 m3/s
Water level and bed level at different river cross sections were recorded for various discharges.
Aggradations and degradations observed in the river model were analyzed by visual inspection, and
the bed load feeding rates defined as 20% of inflow of suspended load with extra suspended load
was accepted for further testing.

4-9
Chapter 5
Hydraulic Model Tests

on the Spillway
5 Hydraulic Model Tests on Spillway
5.1 Results of Tests on the Original Design
The initial design of dam consisted of six spillway gates of size 12.5 m width and 13 m height each
with crest elevation at 403.00 masl. Detailed drawings of the dam/ head works are presented in
Figure 4.4.1-2 to Figure 4.4.1-5. The test was conducted to evaluate the performance of the
spillway. Performance of the spillway was observed for the inflow discharge volume maintained at
2,000 m3/s flow and filling the reservoir up to 416.0 masl.
When all six gates fully opened it was observed that the water from the left and right side guide
walls was coming to the centre of the ski jump bucket as seen in Photo 5-1, thereby mixing the flow.
The water jump from the bucket was hitting on left bank hill slope at a distance of about 80 m from
the end of ski jump bucket and further downstream. Similarly, the water jet thereby overtopped the
side guide walls as shown in Photo 5-2.
Photo 5-1 Flow Profile Down the Spillway Photo 5-2 Flow Profile Down the Spillway
at 2,000 m3/s All Gates Fully Open at 2,000 m3/s All Gates Fully Open
The following are the main findings of this test.
1) Height of the vertical guide walls was not sufficient to prevent the water flowing along
spillway chute from overtopping.
2) The hydraulics at the ski jump bucket was not found convincing.
3) The flow coming out of the spillway (especially from the left side) was hitting the slope
at the left bank downstream of the ski jump bucket. Some measures, therefore, are
needed to avoid the impact of flow in the left bank.
4) The flow in the ski jump bucket was not satisfactory since skewed flow occurred in the
bucket, which may lead to have cavitations and three-dimensional flow problem.
5) Outlet of the sediment facilities disturbed flow form the gates.

5-1
5.2 Modification of the model
i. Model modification of the spillway (Arrangement A)
The side guide walls were modified as ones perpendicular to the dam face, and the performance
test was conducted. Performance of the spillway was observed for the inflow discharge volume
maintained at 2,000 m3/s flow and filling the reservoir up to 416.0 masl.
When all six gates fully open, it was observed that the flow was overtopping the side guide walls
more than in the case of the vertical side walls (the original design) as shown in Photo 5-3. The
jump water from the ski jump bucket was still hitting the left bank as shown in Photo 5-4. The
flow pattern of the jump was not so different from that in the case on the original design.
Photo 5-3 Flow Profile Down the Photo 5-4 Flow Profile Down the
Spillway of Arrangement A Spillway of Arrangement A
The following are the main findings of this test.
1) It was found that even after constructing the side walls perpendicular to the dam face,
the flow was found to overtop the walls more than that in the original design. Hence, it s
function was not as desired.
2) The hydraulics at the ski jump bucket was not improved.
3) The jump water was found to be directed towards the left bank.
ii. Model modification of the spillway (Arrangement B)
In order to obtain desired flow pattern along the spillway, it was decided to reduce the number
of spillway gates and to make the side walls straight in plan view. The spillway Gate 1, Gate 2
on the left side and Gate 6 on the right side were omitted. The gates sizes were increased to
18.1 m high and 16.5 m wide each in the revised design. However, the gate sizes and the
alignment were not changed in the model because the objective of the test at this stage was just
to refine the spillway design conceptually. The side guide walls on the both banks were made
straight in plan as shown in Photo 5-5. The width of the spillway was maintained 74.5 m but
the height and the crest of spillway was kept as in the base case. Similarly, the ski jump bucket

5-2
was also modified to reduce the reached distance of jumped water from the ski jump bucket.
The ski jump was modified with zero degree of flip angle, and the bucket sill level was raised
to 332.00 masl to separate the outlet of the sediment flushing facilities from the spillway chute.
During the test, the discharge volume was maintained at 2,000 m3/s flow and filling the
reservoir up to 416.0 masl. All three gates of the spillway were completely opened and the
following observations were made:
1) The flow coming out of the spillway gates was not overtopping the side walls.
2) The flow from the ski jump bucket was uniformly distributed downstream as shown in
Photo 5-5.
3) The flow from the ski jump bucket was observed to be hitting the left bunk at about 100
m downstream from the ski jump bucket end.
Spillway of Arrangement B Spillway of Arrangement C (25m)
iii. Model modification of the spillway (Arrangement C)
Flow from left spillway gate was continuously hitting the left bank with serious impact.
Therefore by introducing a skewed wall on the left bank of the ski jump bucket, the flow
coming from the left spillway was diverted towards the right bank. Three different alignments
of the left side guide wall were constructed and tested. The three alignments include: a
deflected wall having plan length of 25 m, 50 m and 75 m starting from the downstream face of
the bucket was tested.
The flow profile down the spillway with deflected wall having length of 25 m, 50m and 75m
are shown in Photo 5-6 to Photo 5-8. It was observed that out of the three alignments, the one
with 50 m length and 13 degree deflection angle gave better performance.

5-3
Spillway of Arrangement C (50m) Spillway of Arrangement C (75m)
iv. Model modification of the spillway (Arrangement D)
After the test on Arrangement C, the model of the spillway dimension, left bank , right bank
and the bottom elevation of movable river bed was modified shown in Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2,
Photo 5-9 and Photo 5-10. The numbers of gates was changed to three. The gates sizes were
increased to 18.1 m high and 16.5 m wide. The elevation of the spillway crest was lowered to
399.00 masl. The elevation of the movable bed was decided based on the information of the
geologist of DES team and decided to raise from 277.0 masl to 285.0 masl. The left bank slope
was cut in steps from 285.0 masl to 340.0 masl.
Figure 5-1 General Plan (Arrangement D)

5-4
Figure 5-2 Dam Section Profile (Arrangement D)
Photo 5-9 Dam Model Photo 5-10 Downstream of Dam
The flow of 4,000 m3/s from spillway is shown in Photo 5-11. The following observations were
made:
1) The water jet from ski jump created high turbulence on the left bank hitting the bank up
to elevation of more than 330.0 masl.
2) It was observed that the flow from the ski jump bucket hit the left bank at about 200 m
downstream of the ski jump bucket end.
3) It was considered that the velocity of water jet coming from the ski jump was too high to
dissipate excess kinetic energy in the plunge pool.
The flow of 4,000 m3/s from spillway did not dissipate enough and the flow with high velocity
hit at the retaining wall. The retaining wall was afraid to be destroyed and huge land slide was
afraid to be occurred.

5-5
Photo 5-11 Flow of 4,000 m3/s from Figure 5-3 Section of Downstream of
Spillway Dam (Arrangement D)
To dissipate the discharge flow from the spillway, the auxiliary dam was to be constructed at
downstream end of the movable bed about 252 m downstream of the end of the ski jump bucket
as shown in Figure 5-3 and Photo 5-12. Downstream movable bed was then modified to
increase the depth of plunge pool for effective dissipation. Floor level was then lowered from
285.0 masl to 277.0 masl as shown in Figure 5-3, Photo 5-12.and Photo 5-13. The crest
elevation of the auxiliary dam was considered in the three cases, 315.0, 320.0 and 325.0 masl,
respectively.
Photo 5-12 Downstream Auxiliary Dam Photo 5-13 Downstream Auxiliary Dam
and Plunge Pool
The flow of 4,000 m3/s from spillway is shown in Photo 5-14 and Photo 5-15. The flow
condition, however, is not satisfactory in terms of energy dissipation. The plunge pool thus
created was not sufficient to dissipate the excess kinetic energy which the flowing water jet
from the ski jump bucket possessed. High turbulent and kinetic energy of water was hitting the
left bank. Boiling of water on both banks was observed. Furthermore, rotational flow and
backwater flow just upstream of the auxiliary dam, which might cause the stability problem of
the auxiliary dam itself, were seen on the right bank.

5-6
Photo 5-14 Flow of 4,000 m3/s (Crest of Photo 5-15 Flow of 4,000 m3/s (Crest of
Auxiliary Dam is 315.0 masl) Auxiliary Dam is 325.0 masl)
v. Model modification of the spillway (Arrangement E)
Considering the results of the test of Arrangement D, it was decided to remove the ski jump and
to move the auxiliary dam upstream from its current location, which was about 165 m from
downstream toe of the dam. A straight chute type dissipater was designed at a floor elevation of
290.0 masl as shown in Figure 5-4 and Photo 5-16. This floor level was then extended at a
fixed gradient to meet the upstream toe of the auxiliary dam at an elevation of 280.0 masl.
Three options of the crest of the auxiliary dam were considered to be at 307.6, 312.6 and 316.6
masl. Piezometers were installed at the bottom floor in order to measure the static pressure head
of the water in the stilling basin.
Figure 5-4 Profile Downstream of Dam Photo 5-16 Model modification of the
(Arrangement E) spillway (Arrangement E)

5-7
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam
The flows of 4,000 m3/s from the spillway are shown in Photo 5-17 to Photo 5-19. It was
observed that the flow condition in terms of energy dissipation was relatively good in
comparison with the ski-jump bucket in the previous designs, and also that only waves hit on
the left bank. Those were in acceptable range for flows less than 4,000 m3/s. As the auxiliary
dam crest was raised at 4,000 m3/s, shooting flow was observed downstream of the auxiliary
dam. The results obtained are summarized in Table 5-1.
The velocity in the stilling basin was measured by using ADV meter and by using piezometer
at 307.6 m of the crest of the auxiliary dam. At 3 depths of 9 points in the stilling basin and on
the surface of just downstream of auxiliary dam, the velocity was measured with ADV. The
maximum velocity in the stilling basin was almost 32 m/s (prototype) on the surface and was
23 m/s (prototype) on the bottom. The very high velocity is one of the factors that cause the
cavitation on the bottom of the stilling basin. The measuring data of velocity in the stilling
basin showed that some measures would be needed against the cavitation on the bottom of the
stilling basin.
Auxiliary Dam
Photo 5-19 Flow of 4,000 m3/s (Crest of Figure 5-5 Section of Downstream of
Auxiliary Dam is 316.6 masl) Dam (Arrangement F)

5-8
vi. Model modification of the spillway (Arrangement F)
The flow from the spillway was dissipated well by Arrangement E. However, the cavitation on
the bottom of the stilling basin should be cared. Therefore, the roller bucket is selected as
Arrangement F. The radius of the roller bucket was 13.8 m and the sill height is 11.04 m with
the flip angle of 45 degree. Three options of the crest elevation of the auxiliary dam were
considered to be 307.6, 312.6 and 316.6 masl. The location of the auxiliary dam was selected at
the same location as that of Arrangement E. The longitudinal section of the dam, the stilling
basin and the auxiliary dam are shown in Figure 5-5 and Photo 5-20. The flows of 4,000 m3/s
from spillway are shown in Photo 5-21 to Photo 5-27.
Photo 5-20 Model modification of Photo 5-21 Flow of 4,000 m3/s (the Crest
spillway (Arrangement F) of Auxiliary Dam is 307.6)
Auxiliary Dam

5-9
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam
The performance of roller bucket type dissipater was found to be reasonably better than that of
straight chute type dissipater (Arrangement E). When the crest of the auxiliary dam is 307.6
and 312.6 masl, the size of roller and the height of waves hitting the left bank was found large.
The size of roller changed periodically. At flows more than 4000 m³/s, energy dissipation and
jump length are reasonably good, provided the crest elevation of the downstream auxiliary dam
to be raised to 316.6 masl. Due to the pool created upstream of the auxiliary dam by raising
crest elevation, a large portion of kinetic energy was dissipated and the jump length was also at
its minimum. However, shooting flow was observed just downstream of the auxiliary dam. The
height of waves hitting the left bank near the dam was higher than that of Arrangement E but
was lower than that of Arrangement E at downstream part of the stilling basin. The velocity on
the surface of just downstream of the auxiliary dam with crest elevation of 307.6 m is 0.3 to 6.1
m/s (prototype).
PMF was simulated for about half a minute by maintaining water level in the reservoir at 416.0
masl with inflow discharge of 4,000 m3/s. Then spillway gates were gradually opened to
visualize the scenario in stilling basin during PMF for that short time period. The length of the
stilling basin should be a little longer at PMF flow shown in Photo 5-28 and Photo 5-29. The
wave hit the left side bank but the flow did not hit the left side bank directly at PMF flow. The

5 - 10
results obtained are summarized in Table 5-1.
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam
Photo 5-28 Flow of PMF (Crest of Photo 5-29 Flow of PMF (Crest of
Auxiliary Dam is 307.6) Auxiliary Dam is 316.6)
vii. Model modification of the spillway (Arrangement G)
To compare the dissipation in the stilling basin with Arrangement F, the flip angle of the roller
bucket was changed to 30 degree. The radius of the roller bucket was 13.8 m and the sill height
was 6.36 m. The crest elevation of the auxiliary dam was 307.6, 312.6 and 316.6 masl. The
auxiliary dam is located at the same place as that of Arrangement E. The longitudinal section of
the dam, the stilling basin and the auxiliary dam is shown in Figure 5-6 and Photo 5-30.
Figure 5-6 Section of Downstream of Photo 5-30 Model modification of

Dam (Arrangement G) spillway (Arrangement G)
Auxiliary Dam

5 - 11
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam is 316.6 amsl) Auxiliary Dam is 316.6 masl)
The flows of 4,000 m3/s from spillway are shown in Photo 5-31 to Photo 5-36, and PMF flows
are shown in Photo 5-37 and Photo 5-38. The size of roller and the size of wave hitting the left
bank were observed almost same in each case. The size of roller changed periodically. It was
observed the velocity of flowing water jet from the bucket was higher compared with the flip
angle of 45 degree, and the jump length of the water jet from the roller bucket was hitting further
downstream than compared to 45 degree bucket. However the size of roller was smaller than that
of 45 degree bucket. The dissipation was observed almost same in each case. However, when the
crest of the auxiliary dam is 316.6 masl, the shooting flow occurred just downstream of the
auxiliary dam. The velocities were measured at same locations in the previous case, to compare
with those of roller with flip angle of 30 degree. The velocity on the surface just downstream of
the auxiliary dam was 3.9 to 6.5 m. The results obtained are summarized in Table 5-1.

5 - 12
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam
Photo 5-37 Flow of PMF (Crest of Photo 5-38 Flow of PMF (Crest of
viii. Model modification of the spillway (Arrangement H)
Based on the results of the tests at Arrangement G, it was considered that the length of the
stilling basin is not enough to dissipate the excess kinetic energy, and high auxiliary dam may
create shooting flow just downstream of it. On the other hand, raising the height of the auxiliary
dam, which might have cost implication and concerns about its structural stability, a different
approach to shift the auxiliary dam further downstream so as to increase the capacity of stilling
basin was decided. Hence, the auxiliary dam was shifted by 20 m on the left bank and by 30 m
on the right bank further downstream in comparison with the location of Arrangement G,
respectively. The model was then tested at 4000 m³/s flow and PMF with 307.6m crest height
of the auxiliary dam. It was observed that this setup came up with all the requirements that
were indispensable to effectively dissipate the excess kinetic energy of water jet and to
minimize the jump length shown in Photo 5-39 and Photo 5-40.
Auxiliary Dam
Auxiliary Dam
Photo 5-39 Flow of 4,000 m3/s (Crest of Photo 5-40 Flow of PMF (Crest of
Meanwhile the right bank just downstream of the dam was also modified to flow smoothly. The
results obtained are summarized in Table 5-1.

5 - 13
Table 5-1 Comparison on Results of Conceptual Test on Spillway Performance

Radius Wave flapping at left Capacity
Top elevation Location of
of Sill Flip Roller bank Effect of of
Type Case No. of auxiliary auxiliary Water flow Evaluation
roller height angle size 3 dissipation stilling
dam dam 4,000 m /s PMF
(m) basin
Weak shooting flow at d/s of auxiliary
S-1 0 0 307.60 m - Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Not enough dam and heavy rotational flow within Dissipation is not enough
stilling basin
Straight
Shooting flow occurred d/s of auxiliary
chute
S-2 20 0 0 312.60 m - Level 2 - Level 3 Not enough dam and heavy rotational flow within Dissipation is not enough
(Arrange stilling basin
ment E)
Weak shooting flow at d/s of auxiliary
S-3 0 0 316.60 m - Level 2 - Level 2 Not enough dam and heavy rotational flow within Dissipation is not enough.
stilling basin
R-45-1 307.60 m Large Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Not enough Not sufficient for PMF Dissipation is not enough.
Roller
Light shooting flow at d/s of auxiliary
bucket R-45-2 11.04 45 312.60 m Original Medium Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Not enough Dissipation is not enough.
dam
(Arrange m degree
Must be care of shooting
ment F) R-45-3 316.60 m Small Level 1 - Level 1 Not enough Shooting flow at d/s of auxiliary dam flow. The construction cost
increase.
Dissipation is just enough.
Boiling within stilling basin propagate
R-30-1 307.60 m Medium Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Not enough Larger stilling basin is
d/s of auxiliary dam
better.
Roller
13.8 Boiling within stilling basin propagate Dissipation does not so
bucket
R-30-2 312.60 m Medium Level 1 - Level 2 Not enough relatively less and shooting flow change in comparisom with
(Arrange observed at d/s of auxiliary dam R-30-1
ment G) Boiling within stilling basin propagate Dissipation is enough, but
6.36 m relatively lesser and heavy shooting the construction cost
R-30-3 316.60 m Medium Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Not enough
30 flow observed at d/s of auxiliary dam increase.
degree Roller size is relative higher at right
Roller Dissipation is enough.
R-30-D 307.60 m Medium Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Enough bank near vertical wall
bucket
(Arrange Left side
Uniform size of roller and better
R-30-DM 307.60 m 20 m d/s and Medium Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Enough hydraulic within the stilling basin Dissipation is enough.
ment H)
right side
Satisfactory performance of energy
Roller 30 m d/s dissipation of all flow condition with
R-30-F 15 6.4 m 307.60 m Medium Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Enough better hydraulic performance within the Dissipation is enough.
bucket
stilling basin
Notes:
The results of each test are evaluated relatively based on the observation except velocity.
Level 1 = Good; Level 2 = Medium; Level 3 = Not good
R-30-D = Roller bucket with flip angle of 30 o and shifting auxiliary dam 20 m downstream on the left bank and 30 m downstream on the right bank
R-30-DM = Roller bucket flip angle and location of auxiliary dam are the same those in the case of R-30-D and modification of right bank just downstream of the dam
R-30-F = Finally adopted roller bucket with above-mentioned modifications

5 - 14
ix. Final design of the spillway
From the results of the tests with Arrangements E, F, G and H, the final design of the
Spillway chute was decided as follows:
1) To consider the probability of the cavitation on the bottom of the stilling basin,
the straight chute type (Arrangement E) was decided not to be the final design.
2) The dissipations by roller bucket with the flip angle of 30 degree (Arrangement
G) are better than the dissipation by roller bucket with the flip angle of 45
degree at the crest of the auxiliary dam of 307.6 masl and 312.60 masl
(Arrangement F).
3) The flow condition was observed satisfactory in terms of energy dissipation by

roller bucket with the flip angle of 45 degree at the crest of the auxiliary dam
of 316.6 (Arrangement F). However, there might have cost implication and
concerns about its structural stability
4) The length of the stilling basin is not enough to dissipate the excess kinetic
energy at every case of Arrangement E, F and G.
The final design of the spillway chute was decided as follows and sown in Figure 5-7
to Figure 5-13.
1) The radius of the roller bucket is 15.0 m.

2) The sill height is 6.4 m.
3) The discharge angle of roller bucket is 30 degree.
4) The top elevation of the auxiliary dam is 307.6 masl.
The location of the auxiliary dam is the same of Arrangement H.

5 - 15
Figure 5-7 Dam Plan
Figure 5-8 Detail of Dam Plan

5 - 16
Figure 5-9 Dam Section (Sediment Flushing Equipment)
Figure 5-10 Dam Section (Water Level Lowering Equipment)

5 - 17
Figure 5-11 Development of Upstream
Figure 5-12 Development of Downstream

5 - 18
Figure 5-13 Spillway Downstream Protection
5.3 Results of Tests on the Final Design
i Conditions of the Tests
The tests on the original design and modified models were conducted at 2,000 m3 /s or
4,000 m3 /s or PMF in prototype. However the water supply system could supply 4,000
m3 /s in prototype at a maximum with acceptable accuracy. The flow over 4,000 m3 /s in
prototype could not supply by this water supply system with acceptable accuracy. PMF
could be simulated for a moment when the dam water level reached the corresponding
water level. Therefore, the tests on the original design and modified models were
basically conducted by the observation of the flow condition of spillway chute, stilling
basin and downstream of auxiliary dam.
As for the tests on the final design, the tests were conducted at 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and
4,000 m3 /s. In the JICA’s F/S report (2007), the probable flood discharge by Gumbel
distribution was decided to be used as basis. Following this report, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000
and 4,000 m3 /s discharge were selected as the discharge for return periods of 2, 10,
100 and 500 years. In addition, the observation of the flow condition of spillway chute
and stilling basin and downstream of auxiliary dam were planned to be conducted at
5,500 m3 /s flow and PMF by simulating the dam water level at those discharges in
prototype. The 5,500 m3 /s discharge was selected as the discharge for return periods of
10,000 years. To obtain the capacity curve of spillway were conducted at several

5 - 19
discharges up to 4,000 m 3 /s in prototype
ii H-Q curve of final design
The relation between the reservoir water level and discharge from spillway (H-Q
curve) for the final design was generated by measuring water level in the reservoir
with the help of Piezometer for a particular flow supplied viz. A3 box in the model.
The inlet of such Piezometer was located on the left bank at the upstream of the dam
face to measure the reservoir water level accurately. The head water level at a
particular flow was measured three times once the water level became stable at an
interval of 5 min (model time). Constant discharge was supplied in the model and its
corresponding stable water level was noted by opening all three spillway gates. The
measured H-Q curve is shown in Figure 5-14.
Figure 5-14 H - Q Curve of Spillway
The discharge over 4,000 m3 /s could not be supplied continuously because of the
limitation of the water supply system. Therefore, the evaluation of the model accuracy
was conducted up to the 4,000 m3 /s flow. From this figure, the model was almost
constructed accurately comparing the H-Q curve of the model with the H-Q curve
obtained by the numerical model data. However, the water level when the discharge
becomes over 4,000 m3 /s could not be estimated correctly from this figure. The
observation of the flow at 5,500 m3/s flow and PMF was conducted when the water
level became the corresponding water level obtained by the numerical model.

5 - 20
iii. Flow condition of spillway chute and stilling basin and downstream of auxiliary
dam
As described in Sub-section 5.2 ix), quite a satisfactory performance of stilling basin

was observed during the tests on roller bucket type of energy dissipater. Therefore, the
spillway was finally designed as shown in Figure 5-7 to Figure 5-13. Based on those
drawings, the model was modified as shown in Photo 5-41 and ‘Tests to Evaluate
Performance of the Final Design’ was conducted.
Photo 5-41 Dam Model of Final Design
The flows of 1,000 m3 /s from spillway are shown in Photo 5-42 and Photo 5-43.
Through simulating 1,000 m³/s flow, all three spillway gates were fully opened. While
simulating this flow, flushing culvert gates were fully closed. The water profile of the
spillway produced a nappe that closely coincided with the spillway profile.
Immediately downstream of the crest of the spillway, the flow remained smooth and
accelerated through a critical section, while the depth decreased. Meanwhile, from that
point onward, the flow was characterized with high velocity in the form of jet with
shooting flow. This jet of flow struck the flip bucket at the toe of dam and flow after
that was modestly turbulent. During the test, a performance of stilling basin was found
satisfactory. The height of roller observed at this flow was about 3.0 m which extended
up to about 42 m downstream of the dam toe along main water course. After formation
of roller, flow in the stilling basin was observed to be turbulent and mixed with air.
The mixing of air caused some boiling which stretched out to very short distance
within the basin.

5 - 21
Photo 5-42 Flow of 1000 m 3 /s Photo 5-43 Flow of 1000 m 3 /s
simulating this flow, flushing culvert gates were fully closed. Similar to flow for 1,000
m³/s, water profile of the spillway produced a nappe that closely coincided with the
spillway profile and immediately downstream of crest of the spillway; the flow
remained smooth and accelerated through a critical section. From that point onward,
the flow was characterized with high velocity in the form of jet with shooting flow.
This jet of flow struck the flip bucket at the toe of dam developing vertical eddies in
the bucket which was higher than for 1,000 m³/s flow. Some air was entrained in the
water released from the bucket. Thereafter, a roller, which dissipated most of the
excess kinetic energy of the flow, was formed. During the test a performance of stilling
basin was also observed to be satisfactory. The height of roller observed at this flow
was about 6.0 m which extended up to about 43 m downstream of the dam toe along
main water course. After formation of the roller, flow in the stilling basin was
observed to be little turbulent and mixed with some air. The mixing of air initiated
boiling within the basin, which died away within very short distance from the end of
the bucket. The water level upstream of the auxiliary dam was observed to flap up to
an elevation of about 316.0 masl on the left bank.

5 - 22
simulating this flow, flushing culvert gates were fully closed. Similar to less flow
cases, water profile of the spillway also produced a nappe that coincided nearly with
the spillway profile. Flow immediately downstream of the crest of the spillway was
smooth and accelerated through a critical section. Meanwhile, from that point onward,
the flow was rapidly varying with high velocity in the form of jet with shooting flow.
This jet of flow struck the flip bucket at the toe of the dam developing vertical eddies
in the bucket which also entrained some air. Thereafter, a roller, which dissipated most
of the excess kinetic energy of the flow, was formed. Performances of stilling basin
were found satisfactory during the test. The height of roller observed for this flow was
about 11.0 m which extended up to about 60 m downstream of the dam toe along main
water course. After formation of roller, flow in the stilling basin was observed to be
turbulent and mixed with air. The mixing of air caused boiling within the basin which
ceased well upstream of the auxiliary dam. The water level upstream of auxiliary dam
was observed to flap up to an elevation of about 318.0 masl on the left bank.
simulating this flow, flushing culvert gates were fully closed. The water profile of the
spillway was similar to that observed for 3,000 m³/s. The flow changed from
subcritical to supercritical flow downstream of the crest of the spillway as it is
followed by steep sloping face. From that point onward, the flow was rapidly varying
characterized with high velocity in the form of jet. This jet of flow struck the flip
bucket at the toe of the dam developing vertical eddies in the bucket and resulting in
lot of air entrained in the water. Thereafter, a roller, which dissipated most of the
excess kinetic energy of the flow, was formed. Performances of stilling basin were also
found satisfactory during the test. The height of roller observed for this flow was about
12.0 m which extended up to about 60 m downstream of the dam toe along main water

5 - 23
course. After formation of roller, flow in the stilling basin was observed turbulent and
mixed with air. The mixing of air caused boiling within the basin which terminated
upstream of the auxiliary dam. The water level upstream of the auxiliary dam was
observed to flap up to an elevation of about 320.0 masl on the left bank.
The water supply system can supply 4,000 m3 /s at maximum with acceptable accuracy.
The flow condition over 4,000 m3 /s cannot be simulated stably by using this water
supply system. However, visual inspection was possible for about only half minute of
5500 m³/s flow and PMF flow simulation. Thereafter, all spillway gates were slowly
opened so that water level upstream of dam dropped off slowly. When water level
upstream of dam reached corresponding water level of 5,500 m³/s flow and PMF, the
spillway chute and stilling basin performance was observed by visual inspection. It
was observed, at both flows, the water profile of the spillway was almost similar and
the water produced a nappe that coincided nearly with the spillway profile. The flow
changed from subcritical to supercritical flow downstream of the spillway crest, as it is
followed by steep sloping face. From that point onward, the flow was rapidly varying
characterized with high velocity in the form of jet. Depth of flow was much higher
than that in the other less flow cases, because bulking of flow due to air entrainment
raised the free surface. This jet of flow struck the flip bucket at the toe of dam
developing vertical eddies in the bucket and resulting in maximum air entrained in the
water. Thereafter, a roller was formed which dissipated most of the excess kinetic
energy of the flow.
The height of roller observed for 5,500 m³/s flow was about 14.0 m which extended up
to about 70 m downstream of the dam toe along the left bank and 80 m along the right
bank. After formation of roller, flow in the stilling basin was observed to be turbulent
and mixed with air. The mixing of air caused boiling within the basin which terminated
upstream of the auxiliary dam.
At PMF, the height of roller observed was about 16.0 m which extended up to about 75

5 - 24
m downstream of the dam toe along the left bank and 90 m along the right bank. After
formation of roller, flow in the stilling basin was observed to be turbulent and mixed
with air. The mixing of air caused boiling within the basin which travelled further
downstream of the auxiliary dam.
The flows of 5,500 m3 /s from the spillway are shown in Photo 5-50 and Photo 5-51.
The flows of PMF from spillway are shown in Photo 5-52 and Photo 5-53. From the
tests it was observed that stilling basin performance even at PMF flood was reasonably
satisfactory.
Photo 5-50 Flow of 5,500 m 3 /s Photo 5-51 Flow of 5,500 m 3 /s
Photo 5-52 Flow of PMF Photo 5-53 Flow of PMF
iv. Water level and flow velocity in the stilling basin and downstream of auxiliary
The water levels in the stilling basin were measured along the main water course as
black line shown in Figure 5-15. This line is located almost along the center line of
the center gate of spillway. The water profiles along the main water course at 1,000,
2,000, 3,000, 4,000 m3 /s flow are shown in Figure 5-16. With the discharge volume
going up, the height of roller become larger and the roller extends to downstream side.

5 - 25
Figure 5-15 Water Level Figure 5-16 Water Profile at the Main
Measurement Line and Velocity Water Course
Measurement Points
The velocity in the stilling basin at different locations along the main water course was
measured at three different levels viz. - 293.0, 305.0, 309.0 masl. The velocity
measurement points are shown as black mark in Figure 5-15. It was difficult to
describe velocity in the stilling basin at a particular location because it is continuously
changing even at the same discharge. The velocity at a particular point depends upon
degree of turbulence, roller formation (size and location) and wave flapping at banks
etc. As the velocity was measured at selected points, the measured velocity represented
only at the measured points. However, at points No.16, near the end of the stilling
basin, the average velocity were measured 0.37 m/s, 0.46 m/s and 0.38 m/s at
elevations 293 masl, 305 masl and 309 masl with 1,000 m3 /s flow, 0.63 m/s, 0.81 m/s
and 0.73 m/s with 2,000 m3 /s flow, 1.08 m/s, 1.04 m/s and 0.95 m/s with 3,000 m3 /s
flow, 1.43 m/s, 1.18 m/s and 1.34 m/s with 4,000 m3 /s flow. The flow velocities
measured show to be reduced sufficiently in the stilling basin.
Velocity downstream of the auxiliary dam in section 16-16 at left; centre and right
bank were also measured to compare the results of velocity before and after the dam
construction. The location of section 16-16 is shown in Figure 4-1. The results of
velocity before and after the dam construction are shown in Table 5-2. The velocity
after dam construction is less than that before dam construction at each flow. Therefore,
the flow downstream of the auxiliary dam was in natural condition as before. Dam
construction is considered not to affect the flow downstream of the dam.

5 - 26
Table 5-2 The Results of Velocity before and after the Dam Construction
v. Flow dissipation in the stilling basin filled with the sediment
This test was carried out to check stilling basin performances as an energy dissipater
with sediment accumulation inside basin after sediment flushing. Accordingly, stilling
basin was filled with sediment from bottom level of flushing culvert outlets in uniform
slope which stretched out till the top of auxiliary dam (313.03 to 307.6 masl) as shown
in Photo 5-54. Physical property of filling sediment was the same as the feeding
material used in the model test described in Chapter 6. For simulation of above
mentioned conditions, 4,000 m³/s flow was chosen which run for 1 hour 33 minutes in
model (equivalent 12 hours in prototype).
From the model test it was observed that jump downstream of the roller bucket was
fully submerged without any air mix during the first five minutes of model run (about
40 minutes in prototype). Sediment in the stilling basin was observed to be
continuously degrading with time. Roller height is slowly increasing with reduction in
sediment volume within the stilling basin. Full strength of the roller was achieved after
simulating for about 80 minutes in model (10 hours 20 minutes in Prototype). The
photograph during test was shown in Photo 5-55 to Photo 5-58. The sediment
deposition pattern in the stilling basin left after simulating the above mentioned flow
and its corresponding approximated longitudinal section are shown in Photo 5-59,
Figure 5-17 and Figure 5-18.
It was observed from the model test that sediment in the stilling basin was
continuously scoured and transported downstream from the auxiliary dam. After about
80 minutes of model run, flow in stilling basin was as natural as flow without sediment
for the same discharge. From this stage onward, it was observed no further sediment
was being transported from the basin. However, there was sediment left just upstream

5 - 27
of the auxiliary dam at a fixed gradient which could not be removed by the flow. From
the above test it was concluded that sediment accumulation within stilling basin play
positive role for energy dissipation.
Photo 5-54 Stilling Basin Filled with Photo 5-55 Flow in the Stilling Basin
Feeding Sediment Material before test just at the Beginning of Test
Photo 5-56 Flow in the Stilling for 60 Photo 5-57 Flow in the Stilling for 75
Minutes (Model Time) Minutes (Model Time)
Auxiliary dam
Photo 5-58 Flow in the Stilling for 80 Photo 5-59 Sediment Deposition after
Minutes (Model Time) Test for 93 Minutes (Model Time)

5 - 28
Figure 5-17 Sediment Deposition Figure 5-18 Approximated Sectional
after Test for 93 Minutes (Model Time) View of the Sediment Deposition
The sediment near the roller bucket sill in the stilling basin was observed to be
remained and the sediment in the middle part of the stilling basin was observed to be
flushed after 4,000 m3 /s flow as shown in Photo 5-59. J-power had conducted the
hydraulic model test on the roller bucket type of Sakuma Dam and obtained the water
flow along the roller bucket type dissipater as shown Figure 5-19.
Figure 5-19 Water Flow along the Roller Bucket Type Dissipater
Water flowed circular in the roller bucket and just downstream of the roller bucket sill
in the upstream part of the stilling basin. Water flowed to the upstream at the bottom
of the upstream part of the stilling basin, and flowed to the downstream at all depth of
the stilling basin. These flows were assumed to occur in this test from the sediment in
the stilling basin after finishing the test. Therefore, some protections against scoring
by water flow at just downstream of the roller bucket sill and the bottom of the stilling
basin should be considered.

5 - 29
Chapter 6
Hydraulic Model Tests on the Sediment Flushing

Facilities
6. Hydraulic Model Tests on the Sediment Flushing Facilities
6.1 Results of Tests on the Original Design
The flushing culverts were constructed with the original design presented in Figure 1-2 to Figure
1-5. During this test, the capacity of the flushing culverts, flow profile at the inlet and sediment
transport were observed as shown in Photo 6-1 and Photo 6-2. From the viewpoint of design of
the sediment flushing facilities, the flushing culverts is to pass almost the 500 m3/s flow having
water depth not more than 5m. The height of the flushing culverts is 5m. However, during these
tests the flushing culverts were unable to draw a discharge of 500 m3/s.
Photo 6-1 Inlet of the Flushing Culvert of Photo 6-2 Observing Flow Downstream
the Initial Design from the Flushing Culverts
6.2 Modification of the Model
i. Model modification of the sediment flushing facilities (Arrangement A)
To increase in the capacity of the flushing culverts, several modifications were carried out.
The first was to make inlets of the flushing culverts smoother. The second was to enlarge the
air vent installed immediate downstream of the inlet culvert. The third was to remove the gate
structures at the inlet. The forth is to modify the inlet of the sediment flushing culverts.
Slight roughness at the inlet mouth was removed, and extra 10 mm diameter air vent in the
model was also installed. The two flushing culverts were only capable of drawing about 270
m3/s discharge. Hence, the third and forth modifications were carried out. After completion
of the forth modifications the inlet of flushing culverts were shown in Photo 6-3. After these
modifications, the flushing culverts were tested to check its capacity again. However, the
flushing culverts were unable to abstract the desirable discharge.

6-1
Photo 6-3 Inlet Modification Photo 6-4 Extended Inlet
ii. Model modification of the sediment flushing facilities (Arrangement B)
To obtain a satisfactory design to pass 500 m3/s flow having water depth not more than 5m in
the culvert, the flushing culvert inlet was modified. The flushing culvert inlet was then
extended at a tapered side wall of 1 in 12 and keeping the bottom flat in Photo 6-4 and Photo
6-5. The overall extension length was 19 m upstream with flow accelerator with crest level at
323.40 masl as shown in Photo 6-6. This arrangement was tested, and the model was
provided the desired flushing capacity and flow profile. The flow profile generated after this
modification is given in Figure 6-1. This design, however, could cause the rise in sediment
deposition level at the far upstream of the reservoir due to the rise in elevation of the crest of
the flow accelerator by 3.4 m compared with the invert level of the inlet of flushing culvert in
the original design.
Dam
Photo 6-5 Extended Inlet Photo 6-6 Extended Inlet with Flow
Accelerator
To resolve those issues, the flushing culverts should lower the invert level of the inlet for
almost 4 m as shown in Figure 6-2. As this modification would cause the rise in water
pressure at the gates of flushing culverts, this modification was not adopted.

6-2
Figure 6-1 Water Profiles along the Figure 6-2 19 m Straight Extended Inlet
Flushing Culverts with Flow Accelerator
iii. Model modification of the sediment flushing facilities (Arrangement C)
The tests to measure the water profiles of flushing culverts at various slopes; namely 1:10,
1:20, 1:30 and 1:40 in a separate flume outside the model as given in Figure 6-3 and Photo
6-7 were carried out. The effect of slope on total discharge capacity was examined by
maintaining as far as possible the similar hydraulic and operational conditions in the flume
set up. The difference of the gradient from 1:20 and 1:30 was not so much to lower the water
depth. However, setting the slope gradient at 1:10 had remarkable effect in lowering the
water depth in the culvert. It was observed that the water depth at the main gate location,
which was 14 m downstream of the dam face, was 5.13 m for 250 m3/s flow of one culvert
when the culvert slope was at 1:10.
Figure 6-3 Flume Test Photo 6-7 Model of Flume Test
Considering these results, the flushing culverts were modified in the model to maintain a
gradient of 1:15. The length of the extended inlet was fixed at 9 m from the upstream face of
the dam and the elevation of the beginning of the extended inlet was maintained at 320.00
masl. Initially, the tests were conducted without placing crown on both of the flushing
culverts. The flow profiles generated after this modification at the 250 m³/s, 300 m³/s, 350
m³/s, 400 m³/s, 450 m³/s, 500 m³/s flow were given in Figure 6-4 and Photo 6-8 to Photo

6-3
6-11. In the Photo 6-9 and Photo 6-11, the gate locations could be seen by marking on the
face of culverts. It is noted that these marking are almost 1 m downstream from the correct
locations. The correct locations of the gates are indicated with arrows. It can be seen in
Figure 6-4 that the water depth at the maintenance gate which was located almost 5 m
downstream of the dam face was about 5.5 m for 450 m³/s while the water depth was found
to be just below 5 m for 400 m³/s. This model was supposed to satisfy almost the desirable
capacity of the original design of the flushing facilities. Finally, this model was decided as
the final design. The crown of the flushing culverts was fabricated as shown in Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-4 Water Profiles along the Flushing Culverts
Photo 6-8 Flow at Right Side Culvert ate Photo 6-9 Flow at Right Side Culvert at
350 m3/s 400 m3/s

6-4
Photo 6-10 Flow around the Inlet Photo 6-11 Flow at Left Side Culvert
at 400 m3/s at 450 m3/s
Figure 6-5 Final Design of the Flushing Culverts
6.3 Results of the Tests on the Final Design
i. Conditions of the Tests
Based on the result of the discharge capacity of the sediment flushing facilities which was
described in Sub-section 6.2 iii, the water flow in the sediment flushing culvert was
supposed to change the pressure flow from free surface flow at almost 450 m3/s. Based on the
discharge under free surface flow during the sediment flushing operation (from 20th June to
30th July), the 100, 230 and 360 m3/s are selected as the lower, the middle and the higher
discharge. The 450 m3/s is selected as the discharge when the flow in the sediment flushing
culvert changes from free surface flow to pressure flow.
According to the inflow discharge data at dam site from 20th June to 30th July for 45 years
which are provided by NEA as shown in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2, the average occurrence
frequency of each inflow discharge are shown in Table 6-3.

6-5
Table 6-1 Inflow Discharge Data at Dam Site from 20th June to 30th July for 45 Years (1)
Table 6-2 Inflow Discharge Data at Dam Site from 20th June to 30th July for 45 Years (2)

6-6
Table 6-3 Average Occurrence Frequency of Each Inflow Discharge

Inflow discharge volume Average occurrence frequency (days)
Over 820 m3/s 0.2
3 3
From 570 m /s to 820 m /s 1.2
3 3
From 450 m /s to 580 m /s 2.4
Sub total (pressure flow) 3.8
3 3
From 360 m /s to 450 m /s 3.4
3 3
From 230 m /s to 360 m /s 14.1
From 100 m3/s to 230 m3/s 16.1
3
Under 100 m /s 3.6
Sub total (free surface flow) 37.2
Total 41.0
According to the inflow discharge data shown in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2, the inflow patterns
are described as follows.
i) Days with discharge less than 450 m3/s during the period of the sediment flushing
operation continue.
ii) During the period of the sediment flushing operation a few days with discharge of more
than 450 m3/s continue. However, after that, days with discharge with less than 450 m3/s
continue.
v) During the period of the sediment flushing operation several days with discharge of
more than 450 m3/s continue. However, after that, days with discharge of less than 450
m3/s continue.
iv) Several days with discharge of more than 450 m3/s at the end of the period of the
sediment flushing operation continue.
In consideration of the above inflow patterns, the river bed will be maintained by the flushing
operation as the following scenarios are performed.
i) The river bed rises up during the large inflow. The sediment, however, is flushed in
several days, and the river bed is scored down quickly.
ii) The river bed changes a little during the flushing operation if the large inflow does not occur.
To simulate the river bed which rises up with the flood, the initial river bed was decided to be
the stable river bed at 570 m3/s flow. On that initial river bed, the tests were conducted at 100,
230, 360, 450, 570, 820 m3/s flows.
ii. Discharge capacity of the sediment flushing facilities
A constant inflow discharge was fed into the model and the outflow discharge was observed

6-7
until the outflow became almost constant. Once the flow became stable, only the reservoir
water level read with a staff gauge installed about 52 m upstream from the dam axis on the
left bank in the reservoir were observed. Discharge capacity curve (H-Q Curve) for the final
modified sediment flushing culverts was generated through the tests, and is given in Figure
6-6.
Figure 6-6 Discharge Capacity Curve for the Sediment Flushing Culverts
During generation of the H-Q curve, it was observed that free surface flow occurred at
around 371 m³/s flow at reservoir water level of 327.0 masl. The transition of flow from
pressurized condition to free surface flow, however, is assumed to be at around 400 to 450
m³/s from the graph above. Similarly, flow at the flushing culvert inlet was wavy with low
water level at the right side compared with the left side along the extended inlet wall as
shown in Photo 6-12. The flow inside the flushing culverts was also flowing down with
oscillating waves at 371m3/s flow. These waves again were not uniform in nature but they
were lagging at the sides of each culvert as shown in Photo 6-13 and Photo 6-14. As a result
of such waves, it was observed that, at the 400 m³/s flow the left side of the left flushing
culvert was having free surface flow but its right side was still under transition flow condition.
This phenomenon was observed on both the flushing culverts. Vortex formation was
observed at the extended inlet under pressurized flow during 550 m3/s flow with water level
of 332.2 masl as shown in Photo 6-15. However after 920 m³/s flow, vortex formation was
not very frequent. Very weak vortex formation for very short time interval was observed at
970 m³/s flow. Meanwhile vortex formation was not observed at 1000 m³/s flow.

6-8
Photo 6-12 Flow around the Inlet Photo 6-13 Flow inside the Flushing
Culverts at 450 m3/s
Photo 6-14 Flow inside the Flushing Photo 6-15 Vortex Formation at the
Culverts at 350 m3/s Inlet
iii. Initial river bed condition of the tests
To decide the initial river bed is very important for the sediment flushing test. There was no
adequate information on the bed formed by different flows in this model. Therefore, to obtain
the information about the river bed formation, the preliminary bed was formed having bed
level on river cross section DDX-3 (77.8m upstream from dam) maintained at 327.00 masl
and retaining the existing river bed gradient upstream of the DDX-3 with the original design
of the sediment flushing facilities. The flows of 380 m³/s and 230 m³/s were successively
introduced over the same preliminary bed formed as mentioned above for 3 days (prototype
time). It was found that the 230 m³/s flow formed steeper bed gradient than 380 m³/s flow did
as shown in Figure 6-7. However, in the upstream area of the model, the gradient formed by
the 230 m³/s flow and that formed by the 380 m³/s flow were almost the same and became a
little gentler than the existing river bed gradient. In the downstream area of the model the
river bed by the flow 230 m³/s fell a few meters from the preliminary bed, and the gradient
formed by the 230 m³/s flow and the 380 m³/s flow are slightly steeper than that of the
preliminary bed.

6-9
Figure 6-7 River Bed at 230 m3/s Flow and Figure 6-8 Initial River Bed for
380 m3/s Flow Sediment Flushing Test
One of the scenarios of the sediment flushing is that the river bed is scored through the
flushing operation even if the river bed rises up. To validate this scenario, the river bed
formed with the 570 m3/s flow was decided to be the initial river bed. The 570 m3/s flow is
the discharge for return periods of 2 years during the flushing operation. Therefore, the river
bed formed with the 570 m3/s flow is regarded as the river bed which occurs quite often.
During this inflow the river bed rises up by the sedimentation. To obtain the initial river bed,
it was decided to run the initial flushing test with 570 m³/s flow on the initial bed formed by
230 m³/s flow. It took about 24 days (prototype time) to obtain a stable bed condition by 570
m³/s flow with the original design of the sediment flushing facilities (gradient of culvert is
1:30). As described in Sub-section 6.2 iii, the original design of the sediment flushing
facilities was revised. Therefore, it was decided to run the initial flushing test by 570 m³/s
flow on the above bed for more 4.5 days (prototype time) to obtain a stable bed for the
modified the sediment flushing facilities. The initial river bed is shown in Figure 6-8. This
bed gradient of the deepest channel formed a basis to construct the bed, which acted as the
initial bed for all other flows to carry out further sediment flushing operation.
iv. Performance of the sediment flushing facilities
The flow of 100 m3/s, 230 m3/s, 360 m3/s, 450 m3/s, 570 m3/s and 820 m3/s were introduced
over the initial river bed described above for several days (prototype time). During the tests,
the flushed sediment was caught by the bucket at the end of both sediment flushing culverts
at an interval of about 30 minutes (model time). After finishing each test, the cross section
data were measured as show in Figure 6-9. The results of the typical cross sections upstream
of dam are shown in Figure 6-10 to Figure 6-17.

6 - 10
Figure 6-9 Measurement Sections
Figure 6-10 RX-2 Cross Section Figure 6-11 RX-1 Cross Section
Figure 6-12 RX-A10 Cross Section Figure 6-13 RX-A9 Cross Section

6 - 11
Figure 6-14 RX-A7 Cross Section Figure 6-15 DDX-1 Cross Section
Figure 6-16 RX-A3 Cross Section Figure 6-17 DDX-3 Cross Section
The flow of 100 m3/s was continued on the initial river bed for 1.6 days (prototype time). The
water course separated at the middle and upstream area of the model as shown in Photo 6-16.
At RX-A3 located near the sharp bend, the water flowed toward the right side and just
upstream of dam the water flowed through the entire width of the river as shown in Photo
6-17. The scoring area was little from RX-2 to RX-A9 as shown in Figure 6-10 to Figure
6-17. The sediment was flushed into the inlet and through the sediment culverts as shown in
Photo 6-18. The river bed around the inlet after finishing the test is shown in Photo 6-19.
The track of the water course is observed toward the left side inlet. The track of the water
course toward the right side inlet is not observed clearly. Some sediment is deposited in the
area enclosed by the track of the water course and the both banks.
Photo 6-16 Water Course Upstream Photo 6-17 Flow around the Inlet at 100 m3/s
Area of the Model at 100 m3/s

6 - 12
Photo 6-18 Flow inside the Flushing Photo 6-19 River Bed around the Inlet at 100
Culvert at 100 m3/s m3/s after Finishing the Test
water flow was separated in two courses from RX-2 to RX-1 as shown in Photo 6-20. From
RX-A1 to DDX-1, the water flowed on the left bank side, but at RX-A3 the water changed to
flow along the right bank side as shown in Photo 6-21. The sediment was flushed into the
inlet and through the sediment culverts as shown in Photo 6-22. The river bed upstream of
the dam after finishing the test is shown in Photo 6-23. In Figure 6-10 to Figure 6-17, it was
found that the river bed was scored deeply downstream of DDX-1 by flushing, and that is
observed in Photo 6-23.
RX-A3
Photo 6-20 Water Course Upstream Photo 6-21 Water Course Upstream of
Area of the Model at 230 m3/s the Dam at 230 m3/s
Sediment movement
Photo 6-22 Flow inside Flushing Photo 6-23 River Bed Upstream of Dam
Culverts at 230 m3/s at 230 m3/s after Finishing the Test

6 - 13
water flow was separated in two courses from RX-2 to RX-1. From RX-A1 to DDX-1, the
water flowed on the left bank side, but at RX-A3 the water changed to flow along the right
bank side as shown in Photo 6-24. The width of the water course was larger than that of the
230 m3/s flow at all sections as shown in Figure 6-10 to Figure 6-17. Downstream of RX-A3
the water flowed through the entire width of the river as shown in Photo 6-25. In Photo 6-25.
The delta shoulder could be observed to formed just upstream of the inlet. The sediment was
flushed into the inlet and through the sediment culverts as shown in Photo 6-26. The river
bed upstream of the dam after finishing the test is shown in Photo 6-27. In Photo 6-27, the
tracks of the sediment movement showed that the sediment moved to spread the entire width
at narrow section of the river, but the sediment flowed into the Inlet.
Photo 6-24 Water Course Upstream Photo 6-25 Flow around the Inlet at 360
Area of the Model at 360 m3/s m3/s
Photo 6-26 Flow inside the Flushing Photo 6-27 River Bed around the Inlet at
Culverts at 360 m3/s 360 m3/s after Finishing the Test
water flowed through the entire width of the river as shown in Photo 6-28. Except
downstream area in the model, the scoring area by flushing was the largest compared with the
scoring area by other flows. The delta shoulder could be observed to be formed just upstream
of the inlet as shown in Photo 6-29 and Photo 6-31. The sediment was flushed into the inlet

6 - 14
and through the sediment culverts as shown in Photo 6-30. The sediment just upstream of the
inlet is observed to spread wider than that that at 360 m3/s flow.
Photo 6-28 Water Course Upstream of Photo 6-29 Flow around the Inlet at 450
the Dam at 450 m3/s m3/s
Photo 6-30 Flow inside the Flushing Photo 6-31 River Bed around the Inlet at
Culverts at 450 m3/s 450 m3/s after Finishing the Test
In order to check the stability of bed, 570 m³/s flow was introduced in the initial bed formed
with 570 m³/s, and the model was run for 15 days (prototype time), till the sediment in the
upstream area was observed to pass from flushing culverts. The bed gradient is not
significantly changed from the initial river bed.
The flow of 820 m3/s was introduced on the initial river bed for 5 days (prototype time). But
sediment introduced at upstream was observed to arrive only up to section RX-2 which is 2.6
m away from the sediment feeding point. As almost modelled area became the pond as
shown in Photo 6-32, Photo 6- 33 and Figure 6-18, the sediment introduced at upstream
moved very slowly. However, this flow was capable to scour the deposited sediment
downstream of the dam.

6 - 15
Photo 6-32 Upstream Area of the Model Photo 6-33 Just Upstream of the Dam at
at 820 m3/s 820 m3/s
According to the cross section measuring data, the difference between the area of the initial
river bed and the river bed after finishing the test at each section i.e., the area of each section
by flushing is calculated and shown in Figure 6-19. As the introduced time of each case is
different, those data can not be compared directly. However, the tendency of the flushed area
can be obtained from those data. In the upstream part of the model, the scoring area by
flushing increased in order of the inflow discharge. On the other hand just upstream part of
dam, this tendency is reversed. As the width of the river is large and the gradient of river bed
is gentle at upstream part of the model, it is assumed that considerable discharge needs to
flush the sediment. As the width of the river is narrow at downstream part of the model, the
traction force increases enough to be flushed the sediment even if the discharge volume is not
so large. The river beds of almost all modelled area degrade at 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s
flows, that is, the sediment deposited on the river bed of modelled area can be certainly
flushed at 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s flows.
Figure 6-18 Average Water Level Figure 6-19 Area by Flushing at Each
Section
The typical cross sections downstream of the dam after testing are shown in Figure 6-20 to
Figure 6-23. At DDX-5 (almost 100m downstream of the outlet of the sediment flushing
culvert), the flushed sediment was deposited on the river bed at 100, 230, 360 m3/s flow. The
6 - 16
river bed is scored too much at 820 m3/s flow. At DDX-7 (almost 270m downstream from the
outlet of the sediment flushing culvert), the flushed sediment is deposited on the river bed at
100, 230, 360, 450 m3/s flows.
Figure 6-20 DDX-5 Cross Section Figure 6-21 DDX-7 Cross Section
Figure 6-22 DDX-9 Cross Section Figure 6-23 DDX-10 Cross Section
The flushed sediment was caught by the bucket at the end of both sediment flushing culvert
every almost 30 minutes (model time). The weight of the flushed sediment was measured,
and total flushed volume were calculated.
Figure 6-24 Flushed Sediment Volume at Each Sampling Time

6 - 17
Figure 6-25 Accumulated Flushed Figure 6-26 Ratio of Flushed Sediment

Sediment Volume Concentration to the Feeding Sediment
Concentration
The flushed sediment volume at each sampling time gave the concentration of the flushed
water and its discharge volume. The results are shown in Figure 6-24. For 12 hours
(prototype time) after the start of the test, the flushed sediment volume at 230 m3/s flow was
almost 5 times as much as that at 450 m3/s flow, and the flushed sediment volume at 100 m3/s
flow and that at 360 m3/s flow were almost 2 times as mush as that at 450 m3/s flow. For 72
hours (prototype time) after the start of the test, the flushed sediment volumes at 100, 230 and
360 m3/s flow was larger than that at 450 m3/s flow. Based on these results, the ability of the
flushing sediment at 230 m3/s flow was the largest of the 4 flows. The ability of the flushing
sediment at 100 m3/s flow and that at 360 m3/s flow are almost the same. The ability of the
flushing sediment at 450 m3/s flow was the smallest of the 4 flows. The accumulated flushed
sediment volume is shown in Figure 6-25. From this figure, we can obtain the same results
described above. The ability of the flushing sediment at 230 m3/s flow was the largest, the
ability of the flushing sediment at 100 m3/s flow and that at 360 m3/s flow were almost the
same and the ability of the flushing sediment at 450 m3/s flow was the smallest of the 4
flows.
The ratios of the flushed sediment concentration to the feeding sediment concentration were
calculated and described in Figure 6-26. The ratios of the flushed sediment concentration to
the feeding sediment concentration are 1 or more at all data. Therefore, the 100, 230, 360 and
450 m3/s flows can score the initial river bed continuously to the end of the test. Hence, the
river bed can be more degraded if the 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s flows are introduced for
longer duration than the conducted duration time.
The gradients between the sections were calculated and shown in Table 6-4. The traction
force depends on the flow velocity, i.e. depends on the gradient of river bed. The figures
shown in Table 6-4 are the gradients between the typical sections.

6 - 18
Table 6-4 Gradient of River Bed

Cross section Original Initial Q=100m3/s Q=230m3/s Q=360m3/s Q=450m3/s
From DDX-3 to DDX-2 1/174 1/106 1/83 1/135 1/93 -1/1,485
From DDX-2 to DDX-1 1/229 1/53 1/60 1/71 1/77 1/61
From DDX-1 to RX-1 1/341 1/3,389 1/130 1/212 1/351 1/598
From RX-1 to RX-2 1/290 1/2,133 -1/212 1/531 1/236 1/224
The gradients of the typical sections at 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s flows are almost the same
or steeper that the gradients of the original river bed. The river bed can recover the same
gradient of the original river bed for a few days (prototype time) at 100, 230, 360 m3/s flows
and for a several days (prototype time) at 450 m3/s flow.
v. Tests with increased sediment feeding rate
Above-mentioned results were obtained with the sediment feeding rate as shown in
Sub-section 2.2 iv ‘Concentration of inflow sediment’. This feeding rate is the basic
sediment feeding rate. To assume the sediment movement during the sediment flushing
operation, there is possibility for the sediment inflow concentration to rise larger than the
sediment feeding rate due to scoring the deposited sediment along the river or some other
events. Hence, to examine whether the sediment in the reservoir is flushed at increased
sediment feeding rate, model was run at predefined flows with different increased sediment
feeding rates.
100 m3/s flow was simulated with increasing the sediment feeding rate by 15 times of the
basic sediment feeding rate. The water flows along the river, near the inlet and through the
flushing culverts and the river bed around the inlet after finishing the test with the above
increased sediment feeding rate are shown in Photo 6-34 to Photo 6-37. The ratios of flushed
sediment volume to feeding sediment volume with basic feeding rate and increased by fifteen
times are shown in Figure 6-27. It was evident that the ratio of flushed sediment volume to
fed sediment volume was almost 3 or 4 when sediment feeding rate was increased by fifteen
times. Therefore it can be concluded that flushing by 100 m³/s flow is voluminously effective
whenever incoming sediment in the reservoir is less than 15 times.

6 - 19
Photo 6-34 Water Course Upstream Area Photo 6-35 Flow around the Inlet for 100
of the Model for 100 m3/s at 15 Times Basic m3/s at 15 Times Basic Sediment Feeding
Sediment Feeding Rate Rate
Photo 6-36 Flow inside the Flushing Photo 6-37 River Bed around the Inlet
Culverts for 100 m3/s at 15 Times Basic after Finishing the Test for 100 m3/s at 15
Sediment Feeding Rate Times Basic Sediment Feeding Rate
Figure 6-27 Ratio of Flushed Sediment Figure 6-28 Ratio of Flushed Sediment
Concentration to the Feeding Sediment Concentration to the Feeding Sediment
Concentration for 100 m3/s Concentration for 230 m3/s
230 m3/s flow was simulated with increasing the sediment feeding rate by fifteen and ten
times of the basic sediment feeding rate. The water flows along the river, near the inlet and
through the flushing culverts and the river bed around the inlet after finishing the test with
sediment feeding rate increased by ten times are shown in Photo 6-38 to Photo 6-41. The
ratios of flushed sediment volume to feeding sediment volume with basic feeding rate and
increased by fifteen and ten times are shown in Figure 6-28. It was evident that the ratio of

6 - 20
flushed sediment volume to fed sediment volume was a little larger than 1 when sediment
feeding rate was increased by ten times. Therefore it can be concluded that flushing by 230
m³/s flow is voluminously effective whenever incoming sediment in the reservoir is less than
ten times.
of the Model for 230 m3/s at 10 Times m3/s at 10 Times Basic Sediment Feeding
Basic Sediment Feeding Rate Rate
360 m3/s flow was simulated with increasing the sediment feeding rate by fifteen, ten, eight
and six times of the basic sediment feeding rate. The water flows along the river, near the
inlet and through the flushing culverts and the river bed around the inlet after finishing the
test with the sediment feeding rate increased by six times are shown in Photo 6-42 to Photo
6-45. The ratios of flushed sediment volume to feeding sediment volume with basic feeding
rate and increased by fifteen, ten, eight and six times are shown in Figure 6-29. It was
evident that the ratio of flushed sediment volume to fed sediment volume was a little larger
than 1 when sediment feeding rate was increased by six times. Therefore it can be concluded
that flushing by 360 m³/s flow is voluminously effective whenever incoming sediment in the
reservoir is less than six times.

6 - 21
Figure 6-29 Ratio of Flushed Sediment Figure 6-30 Ratio of Flushed Sediment
Concentration to the Feeding Sediment Concentration to the Feeding Sediment
Concentration for 360 m3/s Concentration for 450 m3/s
450 m3/s flow was simulated with increasing the sediment feeding rate by fifteen, four and
two times of the basic sediment feeding rate. The water flows along the river, near the inlet
and through the flushing culverts and the river bed around the inlet after finishing the test
with the sediment feeding rate increased by two times are shown in Photo 6-46 to Photo 6-49.
The ratios of flushed sediment volume to feeding sediment volume with basic feeding rate
and increased by fifteen, four, two times are shown in Figure 6-30. It was evident that the

6 - 22
ratio of flushed sediment volume to fed sediment volume was a little larger than 1 when
sediment feeding rate was increased by fourtimes. Therefore it can be concluded that flushing
by 450 m³/s flow is voluminously effective whenever incoming sediment in the reservoir is
less than two times.
vi. Comparison with the results of mathematical simulation
The conditions of the hydraulic model test are different from those of one-dimensional river
bed change calculation which PPTA team had used to the simulation study. In consideration
of the limitation of the similarity and the objects of the hydraulic model test, only bed load
was considered as the sediment and river bed material in the hydraulic model test. On the
other hand, wash load, suspended load and bed load were considered as the sediment and
river bed material in the simulation. The hydraulic model test focuses on the sediment
movement near upstream of the dam but the simulations of the river bed change were covered
the whole reservoir. The inflow discharge in the hydraulic model test was stable and several
discharges for the tests were selected, but the simulation was carried out to estimate the river
bed during 135 years by using daily inflow discharge data. The results of the hydraulic model

6 - 23
test can not be compared directly to the results of the simulation.
Because suspended loads are deposited during the power operation and deposited during the
flushing operation when the water level rises up and the flow velocity becomes zero, the river
bed in fact is to become higher than the river bed in the hydraulic model test. The gradient of
the river bed is calculated by the results of the river bed change at each cross section. And the
river bed change depends on the friction velocity of the river bed and critical shear velocity
of bed load materials. Accordingly, scoping the gradient of river bed, the results of the
hydraulic model test is to be compared with the results of the simulation.
The changes along the deepest river bed alignment in the hydraulic model test at 100, 230,
360 and 450 m3/s flow and that after 75, 100, 103, 108 and 135 years obtained through
simulation are shown in Figure 6-31. The changes along the deepest river bed alignment
through the simulation after 103 and 108 years are the highest river bed in the calculated river
bed during 135 years. The change along the deepest river bed alignment through the
simulation after 103 years is almost 4 m higher than that after 135 years. The degradation and
aggradation of the river bed occur within this range. Except upstream part at 100, 230 and
360 m3/s flows, the deepest river bed alignments in the hydraulic model tests are located
within this range.
Figure 6-31 Change along the Deepest of the River Bed in Model and by Calculation

6 - 24
Figure 6-32 Change along the Deepest River Bed Alignment in Model and by Calculation
As the river bed estimation during 135 years was calculated in the whole reservoir by using
daily inflow discharge data, it is inevitable that the river bed in the hydraulic model is
different from that by calculation. To match the conditions of simulation to those of hydraulic
model test, the river bed estimations were calculated under conditions that i) the area for
calculation is the same area of the hydraulic model test, ii) the inflow discharge is stable at
100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s and iii) initial river bed by calculations is the same initial river
bed in the hydraulic model. The inflow sediment particle size distribution, the river bed
particle size distribution and the concentration of the inflow sediment are the same conditions
that PPTA team had used to the simulation study. The changes along the deepest river bed
alignment through the calculation and those in the hydraulic model tests are shown in Figure
6-32.
The river bed in the hydraulic model changed sharply around 2,000 m from the dam
corresponds to location just upstream of the sharp bend. The river bed level at inlet and just
upstream of the inlet affects the formation of the upstream river bed. In Figure 6-32, the river
bed level near the inlet through the calculation is higher than that in the hydraulic model.
Therefore, the river bed level through the calculation is higher than that in the hydraulic
model for whole modelled area. However, the gradients of the river bed in the model and
those through the calculations are almost the same at 230, 360 and 450 m3/s flows except
certain points.

6 - 25
In the hydraulic model test, the result of the test reflects the influence of the 3 dimensional
sediment movements at river bending point and the actual sediment movement near the inlet.
The calculation can not simulate 3 dimensional sediment movements at the river bending
point and just upstream of the inlet. The change of the gradient of river bed through
calculation and that obtained in the hydraulic model test are almost the same. Therefore,
except the particular phenomena, the results of the calculation are supposed to roughly
correspond to the sediment movement in the hydraulic model test.

6 - 26
Chapter 7
Conclusion and Recommendation

7. Conclusion and Recommendation
7.1 Spillway
The original design of the spillway could not be acceptable. The height of the vertical guide walls
were not sufficient to stop overtopping of the water flowing trough spillway. It was seen that
skewed flow occurred in the ski jump bucket, which might lead to have cavitations and
three-dimensional flow problem. Also, flow coming out of the spillways (especially from the left
bank) was hitting the left bank slope downstream of the ski jump bucket.
Hence, definite measures are subsequently required to avoid the impact of flow through spillway in
the left bank and to improve the hydraulic performance of the energy dissipater. The final design of
the spillway and its energy dissipation are decided as follows;
- The numbers of gates was three. The gates sizes were 16 m high and 16.5 m wide. The
elevation of the spillway crest was 399.00 masl.
- The roller bucket type dissipater with 15.0 in roller bucket radius m and 30 degrees of flip
angle and 6.4 m in sill height was applied to energy dissipater.
- The auxiliary dam was to be located almost 174 m downstream from the end of the roller
bucket sill and the crest elevation of the auxiliary dam was to be 307.6 masl.
During the tests of the spillway, some issues became clear. Those and their countermeasures are as
follows;
- Water was assumed to flow to the upstream at the bottom of the upstream part of the stilling
basin, and flow to the downstream at all depth of the stilling basin during flood. Therefore,
some protections against scoring by water flow at just downstream of the roller bucket sill
and the bottom of the stilling basin should be considered.
- The hydraulic model tests on the spillway with Arrangements E, F, G and H were conducted
under the condition that outlet of the sediment flushing culverts were opened and the
hydraulic model tests on the spillway of final design were conducted under the condition that
outlet of the sediment flushing culverts were closed. Certain measure should be taken to
make the flow on the spillway chute smooth. Hence, the deflectors are to be installed at the
outlet of the sediment flushing equipment and water level lowering equipment as shown in
Figure 5-9 and Figure 5-10. These deflectors will have the effect to make the flow on the
spillway chute smooth.
7.2 Sediment Flushing Facilities
The original design of the sediment flushing culverts could not pass almost the 500 m3/s flow under
free surface flow, having water depth less than 5m. Some alternatives were attempted and finally the
shape of the sediment flushing facilities was decided.

7-1
Results of the tests of the sediment flushing facilities are summarized as follows;
- As the final design of the sediment flushing facilities, it was decided that the flushing culverts
has a gradient of 1:15. The length of the extended inlet was 9 m from the upstream face of
the dam, and the elevation of the beginning of the extended inlet was maintained at 320.00
masl.
- It was observed that a clear free surface flow occurred at around 371 m³/s flow at reservoir
water level of 327.0 masl. The transition of flow from pressurized condition to free surface
flow however is assumed to be at around 400 to 450 m³/s from the discharge capacity curve
for the sediment flushing culverts.
- The river bed formed with the 570 m3/s flow was decided to be the initial river bed. The 570
m3/s flow corresponds to the discharge with return periods of 2 years during the flushing
operation.
- The river beds in almost all modeled area degrade at 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s flows, but
inflow sediment was observed to move very slowly at 820 m3/s flow.
- The ratios of the flushed sediment concentration to the feeding sediment concentration were 1
or more at all flows during the tests. Therefore, the 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s flows could
score the initial river bed continuously. The river bed can be more degraded if the 100, 230,
360 and 450 m3/s flows are introduced for more duration than the tested duration time.
- The ability of the flushing sediment at 230 m3/s flow was the largest of 100, 230, 360 and 450
m3/s flows. The ability of the flushing sediment at 100 m3/s flow and that of 360 m3/s flow
were almost the same. The ability of the flushing sediment at 450 m3/s flow was the smallest
of 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s flows.
- The river bed could recover the same gradient of the original river bed for a few days
(prototype time) at 100, 230, 360 m3/s flows and for a several days (prototype time) at 450
m3/s flow.
- The final design of the sediment flushing facilities can flushed out the increased sediment
with 15 times of the basic sediment feeding rate at 100 m3/s flow, 10 times of the basic
sediment feeding rate at 230 m3/s flow, 6 times of the basic sediment feeding rate at 360 m3/s
flow and 2 times of the basic sediment feeding rate at 450 m3/s flow
- Except the particular phenomena, the results of the calculation are supposed to correspond
roughly the sediment movement in the hydraulic model test.
Based on the results of the sediment flushing tests which were conducted under the inflow sediment
concentration evaluated in the validation test described above, the selected sediment flushing
facilities is considered to have desirable performance. Hence, the sediment flushing facilities
expected to flush the sediment and to degrade the river bed. However, considering some unexpected
phenomena may happen, there need to monitor the sediment movement. If needed, the flushing
operation should be changed and some temporarily countermeasures should be carried out.

7-2
During the tests of the sediment flushing facilities, some issues became clear. Those and their
countermeasures are as follows;
- The flushed sediment volume through the right side culvert was more than that through the
left side culvert at 100, 230, 360 and 450 m3/s flows. This gap was especially large at 230
m3/s flow. The water flew along the right side just upstream narrow area of the river and flew
into the inlet straight. As the direction of the water course and the direction of the inlet are
not the same, the gap of the flushed sediment volume was supposed to occur.
The gap of the flushed sediment volume at each sediment culvert will cause the gap of the
damage of flushing culvert. The repair cost and frequency to repair of right side culvert and
left side culvert will be different.
- Vortex formation was observed at the extended inlet under pressurized flow. In this hydraulic
model vortex formation cannot simulate accurately because the model scale ratio is too small.
But if the vortex formation can be observed in this model, vortex must form in the prototype.
The submergence required to prevent air-entraining vortex formation depends on the Froude
number of the tunnel flow and the tunnel diameter. Vortex is forming until the water level
rise up to the required submergence. But when the water level rises up more, vortex
disappears. Therefore, during the flushing operation and while the water level draw down for
the flushing operation and draw up after the flushing operation, vortex formation will occur
continuously or intermittently for the periods mentioned in the ‘Design Report Volume II:
Head Works’.
- Flow at the flushing culvert inlet was wavy with low water level at the right side compared to
the left side along the extended inlet wall. The flow inside the flushing culverts was also
flowing with oscillating waves downstream. The inlet structure must be designed to consider
the wave affection to the inlet wall.
- The sediment will be deposited gradually in the area enclosed by water course at low inflow
discharge, the bank and dam. The flow circles round in this area at high inflow discharge, the
sediment in this area can hardly move to the inlet, and some of the flushed sediments flows
into this area. The sediment in this area is supposed not to affect the sediment flushing until
its volume is so much. When the water course becomes narrow by the deposited sediment
and those sediments cannot be scored easily as the sediment become solid, these sediment
may affect the sediment flushing volume. To monitor the sediment shape and its properties
and some temporarily countermeasures should be carried out if needed.

7-3

Evaluation Report On HMT Final

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

Evaluation Report On HMT Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nepal Electricity Authority

Detailed Engineering Study

ADB Gr. No. 0215 NEP (SF)

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Electric Power Development Co., Ltd. (J-Power), Japan

Summary ............................................................................................................................. S-1

1. Planning of Hydraulic Model Test

2. Setting-up Test Conditions and Construction of Physical Model

3. Validation of the Model

4. Existing Situation Tests

5 Hydraulic Model Tests on Spillway

6. Hydraulic Model Tests on the Sediment Flushing Facilities

7. Conclusion and Recommendation

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Table 1-1 Scale Ratio.................................................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 1-1 Modeled Area ............................................................................................................. 1-4

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Figure 4-10 Bed Profiles at DDX-5.............................................................................................. 4-6

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Figure 6-18 Average Water Level................................................................................................. 6-16

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Photo 2-16 River Model (Dam Axis) ........................................................................................... 2-11

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Photo 5-9 Dam Model .................................................................................................................. 5-5

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Photo 5-49 Flow of 4000 m3/s ...................................................................................................... 5-24

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

ADB Asian Development Bank

General and technical terms

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

3) To evaluate the capacity of spillway and the energy dissipation downstream of

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

the crest elevation of the auxiliary dam is 307.6 masl.

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Planning of Hydraulic Model Test

1. Planning of Hydraulic Model Test

1.1 Basic Plan of the Hydraulic Model Test

2) To study the sediment flushing operation; hydraulic performance of the sediment

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

1.2 Model Laws and Scale

Table 1-1 Scale Ratio

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

1.3 Modeled Area

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Figure 1-1 Modeled Area

Figure 1-2 General Plan

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Figure 1-3 Dam Section Profile

Figure 1-4 Dam Profile from Upstream

Figure 1-5 Dam Profile from Downstream

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

1.4 River Bed of the Model

1.5 Project Site Survey

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Photo 1-1 Deposit on Riverbed of the Photo 1-2 Deposit on Riverbed

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

Setting-up Test Conditions and

2. Setting-up Test Conditions and Construction of Physical Model

2.1 Contents of the Hydraulic Model Test

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test

2.2 The Basic Conditions of the Hydraulic Model Test

Evaluation Report on Hydraulic Model Test