You are on page 1of 43

1

OPTIMIZATION OF PROPOSED
MARALA HYDROPOWER
PROJECT
Presented by

AZHAR BASHIR KHAN


2008-MS-HYD-07
Advisor
DR. ABDUL SATTAR SHAKIR
Dean, Faculty of Civil Engineering.
2

Introduction
Project Location Map

Project Area

Introduction
Back Ground of Proposed Marala
Hydropower Project
This

project was identified by Wapda in 1985


for the first time.
In 1992, the project was proposed by Wapda
as a potential site in upgraded report
Feasibility Study was conducted by Wapda in
2002 / 2003.
In 2008, I&P Dept. hired services of the
consultants for the detail design, preparation
of bidding documents and construction
supervision of Marala Hydropower Project.
The project is now under construction stage.
4

Introduction
Proposed Marala Hydropower Project

Salient Features
Proposed on Upper Chenab Canal
(Main Line Upper) at RD. 2+850
Powerhouse and Spillway are Proposed
in Bypass Channel.
Designed Discharge for power is
420m3/sec.
Installed Power Potential is 7.64 MW.
Annual Energy Production is 44.05
GWh.
Plant Factor is 64%.
5

Introduction
Marala Barrage
Salient Features
Construction Year = 1968
Location = 25 Km north of Sialkot
Designed Capacity = 33,994 m/sec
Total Width = 1363 m
Max. Pond Level in Summer = 247.50 m (812.0 ft)
Max. Pond Level in Winter = 246.26 m (808.0
ft)
2 No. Canals are offtaking
i.

Upper Chenab Canal (Main Line Upper), UCC


(Perennial) = 477 m/sec
ii. Marala Ravi Link Canal (MR Link)
(Non-Perenial) = 623 m/sec
6

Introduction
Upper Chenab Canal
Salient Features
Existing Designed Data:
Designed Discharge
= 477 m/sec
Designed Longitudinal Slope = 0.00015
Designed Bed Width
= 97.53 m
Full Supply Depth = 3.66 m
Designed on Laceys Regime Theory
At RD. 0+000
Full Supply Level
= 244.79 m
Bed Level
= 241.13 m
At RD. 133+296
Full Supply Level
= 238.70 m
Bed Level
= 235.04 m
7

Objectives of Study
To optimize proposed Marala hydropower
project considering:
The possibility of revising pond level of
Marala barrage for enhancing power
potential.
Any other hydraulic intervention on the
canal which can provide additional power
potential.
2. To evaluate technically feasible solution for
the selection of hydraulic machinery for
achieving maximum power benefits.
1.

Methodology

Possible Options for Enhancing


Power Potential
1.

Enhancing the Capacity of UCC


a. Revision in Canal Operation

2.
3.

Hydraulic Interventions at Marala


Barrage
Hydraulic Interventions on the UCC
(in case of Remodeling)

10

1. Enhancing the Capacity of UCC


Remodeling Proposal is under Consideration of I & P
Dept. Since 90s to restore design discharge of
UCC(MLL).
Existing Designed Discharge = 477 m3/sec
Remodel Designed Discharge = 562 m3/sec

1n 1951, design capacity of UCC was 477 m 3/sec with


BRBDC discharge of 146 m3/sec.
In 1986, BRBDC was remodeled with discharge of 206
m3/sec, thus discharge of BRBDC increased by 60m 3/sec
but no increase of Discharge in UCC at Marala.
Remodeling of UCC(MLU) will be basically to provide
UCC(MLL) its design discharge of 322 m 3/sec out of
which 212 m3/sec is to feed River Ravi.

11

1. Enhancing the Canal Capacity


Sr. No

Channel

Designed
Discharges
(cumec)

(cusec)

Remodeled
Discharges
(cumec)

(cusec)

Channels off taking from RD. 133+296 of UCC


1

BRBDC

206

7260

Nokhar Branch

20

722

UCC (Lower)

239

8145

322

11375

UCC

477

16850

562

19850

12

1. Enhancing the Canal Capacity (Contd.)


Two options of capacity of UCC has been
considered:
i.
UCC is considered with enhanced capacity
i.e. 562 m3/sec with major benefits for
irrigation sector. A part of remodeling cost
will be considered in financial analysis.
ii. UCC
is considered without enhanced
capacity i.e. 477 m3/sec.

13

1.Enhancing the Canal Capacity (Contd.)

Advantages of Enhancing Capacity of UCC

Irrigation benefits i.e. restoring full supplies of River


Ravi and capacity of UCC(MLL).

Power benefits from 3 existing and 2 proposed


HPPs.
Disadvantages of Enhancing Capacity of UCC

Huge project involving remodeling of 27 miles long


major canal along with remodeling of more than 20
major structures including bridges and cross
drainage works requiring billions of Rupees.

Difficulty in arranging funds for this major


remodeling due to tight financial conditions.

Negative impact on agriculture due to interruption


in water supply during construction.

Delays in proposed hydropower projects.


14

1a. Suggested Canal Operations


Historically UCC has been operated much
lower than the design capacity of 477 m 3/sec
mainly due to the stability problems.
3 Canal operations are considered in this
study.
i.
Operation of Canal as per historical practices
ii. Operation of Canal under the existing
conditions by ensuring discharge of 477
m3/sec for 140 days of average year.
iii. Operation of Canal under the remodel
conditions by ensuring discharge of 562
m3/sec for 130 days of average year.

15

1a. Historical Practices of Canal Operation (19822008)


600
500
Average Daily Discharges (cumecs)
400
300
200
100
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Days of Year
Historical Average Existing Discharges
Existing Designed Discharge = 477
16

1a. Average Downstream Releases of Marala


Barrage
(1982-2008)
2,500

2,000

1,500
Average Daily Discharges (cumecs)
1,000

500

100

200

300

400

Days of Year
Average Discharges D/S Marala

17

1a. Revised Canal Operation under


Existing
Conditions
Max. Discharge i.e.
477 is available for
40% of time.

600
500
400
300
Average Daily Discharges (cumecs)
200
100
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Days of Year
Average Existing Discharges
Existing Designed Discharge = 477
18

1a. Revised Canal Operation under Remodel


Conditions
Max. Discharge i.e.
562 is available for
35% of time.

600
500
400
300
Average Daily Discharges (cumecs)
200
100
0

50

100

150

200

Average Existing Discharges

250

300

350

400

Days of Year

Average Remodel Discharges (Proposed Regulation of UCC)


19

2. Hydraulic Interventions at Marala Barrage


Max. Pond Level (Summer) = 247.50 m (812.0 ft)
Max. Pond Level (Winter)
= 246.26 m
(808.0 ft)
Historically average pond level of Marala Barrage
remains at its maximum i.e. at 247.50 m (812.0)
for less than hundred (100) days in a year.
The analysis indicated that Barrage will remain
safe under all operational conditions as it was
originally designed against maximum permissible
head across of 7.47m where as the actual head
across based on previous 25 years data with the
pond level at 247.5 m throughout the year is in
the range of 4.68 to 5.48 m.

20

2.

Hydraulic Interventions at Marala Barrage (Contd.) (1982-2008)

Pond Level (m.a.s.l)

Days of Year
Average Daily Pond Levels
Average Daily Water Levels (D/S)

Max. Pond Level

21

2. Hydraulic Interventions at Marala


Barrage (Contd.) (1982-2008)
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
Head Across (m)

4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Days of Year
Historical Head Across
Permissible Head Across

Head Across at Max. Pond Level

22

Advantages and Disadvantages of


Maintaining Maximum Pond Level
Throughout the Year
Advantage:
More power potential
Disadvantage:
More lands of pond area upstream of the barrage
will remain under water for whole year instead for
about hundred (100) days. The people who are
getting at least one crop in a year from these lands
will not get the same crop returns.
The lands in the pond area are normally owned by
the Irrigation & Power Department and these lands
should not be leased out if it is done earlier. There
will be no considerable loss involved except a small
compensation to those farmers who rely on area in
the past.

23

3. Hydraulic Interventions on the UCC (in case of

Remodeling)

3 Longitudinal slopes have been considered for


remodeling i.e.
i. S = 0.00015 (Existing Designed Slope)
ii. S = 0.00014
iii. S = 0.00013

24

3. Hydraulic & Structural Interventions on the UCC


246
244
242

Levels (m)

240
238
236
234
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

RDs of UCC (0+000 to 133+296)


Existing Designed FSL
Remodel FSL (S=0.00015)
Remodel FSL (S=0.00014)
Remodel FSL (S=0.00013)
Existing FSL

Existing Designed BL
Remodel BL (S=0.00015)
Remodel BL (S=0.00014)
Remodel BL (S=0.00013)
Existing BL
25

3. Hydraulic Interventions on the UCC (in case of

Remodeling)

Basis of modifications in slope are

a)

Significant scouring trends in the canal bed levels and


proposed changes in longitudinal slope can arrest the
scouring trend to some extent in future leading towards a
long term sustainability of this canal (detailed analysis
required)

b)

By maintaining maximum pond level throughout the year,


there will less entry of silt into UCC. By adopting milder
slope, velocity will be reduced increasing the chances of
deposition of silt.

c)

This intervention can offer a higher head for power


generation for this project of the order of 0.40 m and 0.80
m for a proposed slopes of 0.00014 and 0.00013
respectively.

26

Development of Various Proposals


Different Options have been discussed up till now which are :
A.

Discharges of UCC

B.

Operations of UCC

C.

Operations of Pond Level

D.

Longitudinal slopes of UCC (in case of Remodeling)

Based on the above options, the Proposals developed are as following:


1.

Without Remodeling and Operation of Both Pond Level and Canal as


per Existing Practices.

2.

Without Remodeling and Operation of Both Pond Level and Canal as


per Revised Practices.

3.

With Remodeling by Keeping Existing Longitudinal Slope (0.00015)


and Operation of Both Pond Level and Canal as per Revised Practices.

4.

With Remodeling by Keeping Longitudinal Slope as 0.00014 and


Operation of Both Pond Level and Canal as per Revised Practices.

5.

With Remodeling by Keeping Longitudinal Slope as 0.00013 and


Operation of Both Pond Level and Canal as per Revised Practices.

27

Basis of Evaluation
For each Proposal

Optimizing the Design Discharge Keeping Turbine Units Constant


(with maximum annual energy production).

Optimizing the Turbine Units at Optimized Design Discharge.

Economic Analysis is carried out for optimized scenario of each


proposal.

Project life is considered as 50 years.

Price per unit (KWh) is taken as Rs. 6.0

Discount rate is taken as 12.0%.

Duration of construction is considered as 3 years with 40% construction


cost
utilization in 1st year and 30% in the remaining each year.

Annual maintenance cost per year is considered as 1% of the total


project cost.

Remodeling cost of UCC was estimated as 1500 million Rs. in 2006.


Present value of the remodeling cost of UCC is considered and analyses are
carried out with and without including a share (10%) of remodeling cost
into cost of Marala
HPP.

Internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV) and benefit cost
ratio
(B/C) are calculated for the resulting scenario of each of the
proposal.

28

Evaluation of Different Proposals


(Proposals 1 and 2 Related to Existing Conditions)
Optimization of Design Discharge at Constant Units
Turbine Size
Sr. No.

Design
Turbine
Rated
Flow
Q Available
Discharge Head
for % of
Time

No. of
Total
Energy
Plant
Turbine Power
Production Factor
Units Potential

cumecs

cumecs

(No.)

MW

GWh

Proposal 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

30.0
35.0
43.0
50.0
55.0

392.52
368.79
330.86
283.17
260.13

98.13
92.20
82.72
70.79
65.03

2.63
2.63
2.63
2.63
2.63

4
4
4
4
4

8.09
7.60
6.82
5.83
5.36

37.57
37.84
38.06
35.87
34.49

53.04
56.87
63.76
70.21
73.48

Proposal 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0

477.00
374.62
295.84
257.09
217.22

119.25
93.65
73.96
64.27
54.30

2.92
2.92
2.92
2.92
2.92

4
4
4
4
4

10.91
8.57
6.77
5.88
4.97

52.80
46.14
40.33
37.24
33.14

55.23
61.46
68.02
72.27
76.13

29

Evaluation of Different Proposals


(Proposals 1 and 2 Related to Existing Conditions)
Optimization of Units at Optimized Design Discharge

Turbine Size

Sr. No.

Q
Available
for % of
Time

Opt.
Deign
Flow

No. of
Total Power Energy
Plant
Turbine
Potential Production Factor
Units

Turbine
Discharge

Rated
Head

cumecs

cumecs

(No.)

MW

GWh

Proposal 1
1.1

43.0

330.86

110.29

2.63

6.82

37.56

62.92

1.2

43.0

330.86

82.72

2.63

6.82

38.06

63.76

1.3

43.0

330.86

66.17

2.63

6.82

38.36

64.25

1.4

43.0

330.86

55.14

2.63

6.82

38.25

64.07

Proposal 2
2.1

40.0

477.00

159.00

2.92

10.91

50.27

52.59

2.2

40.0

477.00

119.25

2.92

10.91

52.80

55.23

2.3

40.0

477.00

95.40

2.92

10.91

53.08

55.52

2.4

40.0

477.00

79.50

2.92

10.91

53.24

55.69
30

Evaluation of Different Proposals


(Proposals 3, 4 and 5 Related to Remodel Conditions)
Optimization of Design Discharge at Constant Units
Turbine Size
Sr. No.

Proposal 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Proposal 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Proposal 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5

Design
Turbine
Rated
Q Available Flow
Discharge Head
for % of
Time
cumecs cumecs
m

No. of
Total
Turbine
Power
Units Potential

Energy
Plant
Production Factor

(No.)

MW

GWh

35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0

562.00
480.59
374.62
295.84
257.09

140.50
120.15
93.65
73.96
64.27

2.92
2.92
2.92
2.92
2.92

4
4
4
4
4

12.86
11.00
8.57
6.77
5.88

44.90
42.85
38.14
33.93
31.54

39.86
44.48
50.80
57.23
61.21

35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0

562.00
480.59
374.62
295.84
257.09

140.50
120.15
93.65
73.96
64.27

3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28

4
4
4
4
4

14.48
12.38
9.65
7.62
6.62

53.37
50.58
44.84
39.68
36.76

42.08
46.63
53.03
59.42
63.35

35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0

562.00
480.59
374.62
295.84
257.09

140.50
120.15
93.65
73.96
64.27

3.57
3.57
3.57
3.57
3.57

4
4
4
4
4

15.74
13.46
10.49
8.28
7.20

57.86
54.85
48.68
43.08
39.90

41.97
46.52
52.97
59.36
63.27

31

Evaluation of Different Proposals


(Proposals 3, 4 and 5 Related to Remodel Conditions)
Optimization of Units at Optimized Design Discharge

Sr. No.

Proposal 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Proposal 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Proposal 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

Turbine Size

Opt.
Deign
Flow

Turbine
Discharge

Rated
Head

cumecs

cumecs

(No.)

MW

GWh

35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0

562.00
562.00
562.00
562.00

187.33
140.50
112.40
93.67

2.92
2.92
2.92
2.92

3
4
5
6

12.86
12.86
12.86
12.86

43.03
44.90
46.49
46.44

38.20
39.86
41.27
41.23

35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0

562.00
562.00
562.00
562.00

187.33
140.50
112.40
93.67

3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28

3
4
5
6

14.48
14.48
14.48
14.48

51.03
53.37
55.15
55.20

40.23
42.08
43.48
43.52

35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0

562.00
562.00
562.00
562.00

187.33
140.50
112.40
93.67

3.57
3.57
3.57
3.57

3
4
5
6

15.74
15.74
15.74
15.74

55.32
57.86
59.77
59.87

40.12
41.97
43.36
43.43

Q
Available
for % of
Time

No. of
Total
Turbine
Power
Units
Potential

Energy
Plant
Production Factor

32

Evaluation of Different Proposals


5 Optimized Scenarios of 5 Different Proposal

Optimized
No. of
Total
Annual
Rated
Plant
Design
Turbine Power
Energy
Proposal Discharge Head Units Potential Production Factor
No.
(cumecs)

(m)

(No.)

(MW)

(GWh)

330.86

2.63

6.82

38.36

64.25

477.00

2.92

10.91

53.24

55.69

562.00

2.92

12.86

46.49

41.27

562.00

3.28

14.48

55.20

43.52

562.00

3.57

15.74

59.87

43.43

33

Evaluation of Different Proposals


Economic Analysis of Different Proposals
without Considering Remodeling Cost of UCC

Economic Analysis

Optimized
Designed
Discharge

Total Power
Potential

(cumecs)

(MW)

(GWH)

330.86

6.82

477.00

Proposal No.

Annual
Energy

Plant
Factor
IRR

B/C

NPV

(%)

(%)

(M Rs.)

38.36

64.25

15.72

1.33

338.75

10.91

53.24

55.69

17.20

1.47

604.69

562.00

12.86

46.49

41.27

14.15

1.19

261.12

562.00

14.48

55.20

43.52

16.01

1.36

517.13

562.00

15.74

59.87

43.43

16.79

1.43

640.49

34

Evaluation of Different Proposals


Economic Analysis of Different Proposals
Considering Remodeling Cost* of UCC

Optimized
Designed
Proposal No. Discharge

Economic Analysis
Total Power
Potential

Annual
Energy

Plant
Factor

(cumecs)

(MW)

(GWH)

330.86

6.82

477.00

IRR

B/C

NPV

(%)

(%)

(M Rs.)

38.36

64.25

15.72

1.33

338.75

10.91

53.24

55.69

17.20

1.47

604.69

562.00

12.86

46.49

41.27

1.00

0.00

562.00

14.48

55.20

43.52

1.15

252.78

562.00

15.74

59.87

43.43

1.22

376.14

* 10% of present value of remodeling cost of UCC has been included in the cost
of proposed Marala HPP.

35

Summary of Economic Analysis


Optimized
Total
Designed Power
Proposal Discharge Potential
No.

Economic Analysis
Annual
Energy

Plant
Factor

IRR

B/C

NPV

Remarks

(cumecs)

(MW)

(GWH)

(%)

(%)

(M Rs.)

477.00

10.91

53.24

55.69

17.20

1.47

604.69

1.43

Without
640.49 Considering
Remodeling Cost

1.22

376.14

562.00

15.74

59.87

43.43

562.00

15.74

59.87

43.43

16.79

No Remodeling
Involves

Considering
Remodeling Cost

36

Selection of Most Suitable Proposal


Proposal

2 is the most suitable proposal.


With considering only 10% of the remodeling
cost of UCC, the economic analysis clearly
shows that the most suitable proposal is no.
2 with IRR, B/C and NPV of 17.20%, 1.47 and
604.69 M Rs. respectively.

37

Optimization of Most Suitable Proposal with


Economic Analysis

Q
Secenari Available
for % of
o No.
Time

No. of
Total
Annual
Design
Plant
Turbine Rated
Turbine Power
Energy
Discharge Discharge Head
Factor
Units Potential Production

(cumecs)

cumecs

(m)

(No.)

(MW)

(GWh)

(%)

2.1

40.0

477.00

79.50

2.92

10.91

53.24

55.69

2.2

45.0

374.62

62.44

2.92

8.57

46.54

61.99

2.3

50.0

295.84

49.31

2.92

6.77

39.80

67.12

2.4

55.0

257.09

42.85

2.92

5.88

36.45

70.73

2.5

60.0

217.22

36.20

2.92

4.97

32.47

74.59
38

Optimization of Most Suitable Proposal with


Economic Analysis

Economic Analysis

Optimized
Total Power
Designed
Potential
Discharge

Annual
Energy

(cumecs)

(MW)

(GWH)

2.1

477.00

10.91

2.2

374.62

2.3

Scenario
No.

Plant
Factor
IRR

B/C

NPV

(%)

(%)

(M Rs.)

53.24

55.69

17.20

1.47

604.69

8.57

46.54

61.99

16.73

1.43

493.23

295.84

6.77

39.80

67.12

16.51

1.41

407.45

2.4

257.09

5.88

36.45

70.73

16.41

1.40

366.68

2.5

217.22

4.97

32.47

74.59

15.87

1.35

296.08

39

Conclusions
1.

2.

3.

The study indicates that the proposed Marala hydropower


project is the most beneficial under the existing conditions
without remodeling of UCC by adopting revised practices of
maintaining pond level at its maximum throughout the year
and operating UCC at its maximum for 140 days.
The operation of UCC can be improved considerably without
compromising d/s Marala requirements, using d/s Marala
additional supplies along with operating UCC at 1 st priority
compared to MR Link to feed River Ravi. This operation of
UCC will not only increase power production of two proposed
HPPs but also of the existing HPPs on UCC.
Remodeling of UCC is not supported on economic basis in this
analysis. If the decision of remodeling is taken entirely on
basis of irrigation benefits, this will also be beneficial for all
existing as well as proposed power plants on UCC.

40

Recommendations

1.

The revised pond level operation will affect the


deposition pattern of silt in pond area and the entry
of silt into UCC. A study should be carried out to
estimate the effects and remedies of these factors.

2.

Irrigation system was never designed for operation


of small hydropower projects (SHPs). Under the
current scenario of development of SHPs on different
barrages and canals, the operational guidelines of
barrages and canals should be revisited.

41

QUESTIONS?

42

THANKS

43

You might also like